r Dated: April 13, 2012 - wpdcanada.wpd.de/uploads/tx_projectdownloads/NAP_9... · 4/13/2012 ·...

sfriedl

Typewritten Text

sfriedl

Typewritten Text

Heritage Assessment Report Dated: April 13, 2012

sfriedl

Typewritten Text

sfriedl

Typewritten Text

sfriedl

Typewritten Text

sfriedl

Typewritten Text

sfriedl

Typewritten Text

sfriedl

Typewritten Text

trhughes

Typewritten Text

trhughes

Typewritten Text

NAPIER WIND PROJECT Errata Sheet

ERRATA

It is of note that since the Project commenced the Study Area has been revised. The Feeder Line was originally proposed along Kerwood Road with the connection point at the Corner of Munn St. & Kerwood Rd. The Feeder Line has since been removed from the Project (the Project will connect directly into the Grid at the switching station). The Study Area specified in the Natural Heritage Assessment Report/EIS and the Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Reports has not been updated as these reports were completed under the original study area scenario.

Prepared for wpd Canada Corporation

2233 Argentia Road, Suite 102 Mississauga, ON L5N 2X7

Tel: (905) 813-8400 Fax: (905) 813-7487 &

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

By Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

154 Otonabee Drive Kitchener, ON N2C 1L7

Tel: (519) 804-2291 Fax: (519) 954-4797

Heritage Assessment by P.J. Racher, M.A., CAHP

Project #HR-019-2011

13/04/2012

Original Report

Heritage Assessment Report

Napier Wind Project FIT F-002194-WIN-130-601

Parts of Lots 8 and 10, Concession 4 SER Geographic Township of Adelaide

Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Middlesex County, Ontario

Heritage Assessment Report, Napier Wind Project, Township of Adelaide Metcalfe _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ April 2012 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-019-2012

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS IIIPERSONNEL III

1.0 INTRODUCTION 12.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 43.0 METHODOLOGY 4

3.1 Key Concepts 43.2 Approach 6

4.0 NATURAL CONTEXT 95.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 11

5.1 European Contact 115.2 British Colonialism 155.3 Middlesex County 185.4 Township of Adelaide 225.5 Lots 8 and 10, Concession 4 SER 27

6.0 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 326.1 Identification of Protected Properties 326.2 Inventory of Potential BH Resources 366.3 Evaluation of Potential BH Resources 386.4 Inventory of Potential CHLs 446.5 Evaluation of Potential CHLs 44

7.0 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 477.1 Impact Evaluation of the Protected Property 487.2 Impact Evaluation of Identified BH Resources 497.3 Impact Evaluation of Identified CHL 52

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 549.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 56

LIST OF IMAGES

Image 1: Aerial Photograph of the Village of Kerwood (1957) 26Image 2: Historical Photographs of the Original Woods’ General Store from 1938 (left)

and the Rebuilding of the Store in 1949 (right) 34Image 3: View of the Woods’ General Store, Kerwood, Southwest Elevation 34



ii

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: General View of the Project Location in the Province of Ontario 2Map 2: General View of the Project Location, Participating Properties and Abutting

Properties in the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe 3Map 3: Detail from S. de Champlain’s Carte de la Nouvelle France (1632) 12Map 4: Detail from H. Popple’s A Map of the British Empire in America (1733) 13Map 5: Detail from D. and G. Robert de Vaugondy’s Nouvelle France ou le Canada (1755) 13Map 6: Detail from R. Sayer and J. Bennett’s General Map of the Middle British Colonies

in America (1776) 15Map 7: Detail from D.W. Smyth’s A Map of the Province of Upper Canada (1800) 17Map 8: Detail from J. Purdy’s A Map of Cabotia (1814) 17Map 9: Detail from J. Arrowsmith’s Upper Canada (1837) 20Map 10: Detail from J. Bouchette’s Map of the Provinces of Canada (1846) 20Map 11: Detail from G.W. Colton’s Canada West (1856) 21Map 12: Map of Middlesex County from W.J. Gage and Co.’s County Atlas (1886) 22Map 13: Map of the Township of Adelaide from H.R. Page & Co.’s Illustrated Historical

Atlas of Middlesex County, Ontario (1878) 23Map 14: Plan of the Village of Strathroy from G.R. and G.M. Tremaines’ Map of Middlesex

County, Canada West (1862) 25Map 15: Detail of the Township of Adelaide from H.R. Page & Co.’s Illustrated Historical

Atlas of Middlesex County, Ontario (1878), Showing the Project Location and Participating Properties 28

Map 16: Location of the Woods’ General Store in the Community of Kerwood 35Map 17: Locations of Potential Heritage Resources in the Study Area 37Map 18: Locations of Identified Heritage Resources in the Study Area 41Map 19: Location of the Potential CHL in the Vicinity of the Study Area 45

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Amiens, Crathie, Mullifarry and Napperton from 1905–1914 27Table 2: Land Transaction Summary for the West Half of Lot 8, Concession 4 SER 29Table 3: Land Transaction Summary for the West Half of Lot 10, Concession 4 SER 31Table 4: Identifying Protected Properties within the Study Area 32Table 5: Potential Heritage Resource Inventory and CHVI Evaluation Results 39Table 6: Summary of the Heritage Attributes of the Identified Heritage Resources 42Table 7: Evaluation of Kerwood as a CHL 46Table 8: Summary of Heritage Attributes of the Identified CHL 47Table 9: Impact Evaluation of the Protected Property 48Table 10: Minimum Distances between Proposed Project Infrastructure and Identified

Heritage Resources 49



iii

Table 11: Impact Evaluation of the Identified Heritage Resources 51Table 12: Impact Evaluation of the Identified CHL 53

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Project Layout for the Napier Wind Project (February 7, 2012) 61Appendix B: Potential BH Resource Inventory and CHVI Evaluation Results 62

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

ARA – Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. BH – Built Heritage CHL – Cultural Heritage Landscape CHVI – Cultural Heritage Value or Interest FIT – Feed-in Tariff MTCS – Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport O. Reg. – Ontario Regulation REA – Renewable Energy Approval ROW – Right-of-Way SER – South of Egremont Road

PERSONNEL

Project Director: P.J. Racher, M.A., CAHP Project Manager: C.E. Gohm, B.A. Assistant Project Manager: P. Hoskins, M.A. Heritage Assessment: P.J. Racher Photography: L. Akida, H. Brown, S. Bolstridge, A. Wong Background Research: C.J. Gohm, M.A., A. Wong Graphics: K. Brightwell, P.G. (GIS) Report Preparation: C.J. Gohm



1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Under a contract awarded by wpd Canada Corporation in October 2011, ARA conducted a heritage assessment of lands with the potential to be impacted by the proposed Napier Wind Project in the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe, Middlesex County, Ontario. The proponent has secured a 5.4 MW contract to sell power to the Ontario Power Authority under the FIT program (F-002194-WIN-130-601), and is preparing their REA application in accordance with the requirements set out in O. Reg. 359/09 made under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. This report documents the background research, on-site inspection, potential resource identification and evaluations involved in the heritage assessment of the proposed project location and its immediate surroundings, and presents conclusions and recommendations concerning potential impacts. The study was conducted in order to fulfill the requirements of a cultural heritage assessment report, as discussed in Section 20 (Consideration of Archaeological and Heritage Resources) and Section 23 (Heritage Assessment) of O. Reg. 359/09. The study area for this heritage assessment consists of the proposed project location, the participating properties, and all abutting/adjacent properties (see Map 1–Map 2). The proposed project location comprises two wind turbines and associated project infrastructure in the vicinity of Kerwood (see Section 2.0). This infrastructure falls primarily on two participating properties of privately-owned agricultural lands located northeast of the Kerwood Road/Napperton Drive intersection and northeast of the Napperton Drive/Brown Road intersection. In legal terms, these properties are located on parts of Lots 8 and 10, Concession 4 SER in the Geographic Township of Adelaide. Additional project electrical lines are planned within a 7.74 ha corridor extending along the ROWs of Brown Road, Napperton Drive and Kerwood Road. This corridor falls within three historic road allowances laid out between Lots 7–10, Concessions 4–5 SER and Lots 6–7, Concessions 5–6 SER in the Geographic Township of Adelaide. This assessment was conducted for the purpose of identifying heritage resources within the study area that may be subject to project impacts. The approach consisted of the following:

• Background research concerning the project context, natural context, and historical context of the study area;

• The identification of any Protected Properties within the limits of the study area; • The creation of an inventory of all potential BH resources or CHLs within the study area; • A description of the location and nature of these potential heritage resources; • An evaluation of each potential heritage resource against the criteria set out in

O. Reg. 9/06 for determining CHVI; • An evaluation of potential direct and indirect project impacts on all Protected Properties

and newly-recognized BH resources and CHLs within the study area (if identified); and • The provision of suggested strategies for the conservation of identified heritage

resources. The project was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 and O. Reg. 359/09 made under the Environmental Protection Act. All



2

notes, photographs and other records pertaining to the heritage assessment are currently housed in ARA’s processing facility located at 154 Otonabee Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Subsequent long-term storage will occur at ARA’s head office, located at 97 Gatewood Road, Kitchener, Ontario. Documentation and project plans provided by Hatch Ltd. are used with permission. The MTCS is asked to review the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report and provide written comments to the proponent as required by Subsection 23 (3) (a) of O. Reg. 359/09.

Map 1: General View of the Project Location in the Province of Ontario

(NRC 2004)



3

Map 2: General View of the Project Location, Participating Properties and Abutting

Properties in the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe (NRC 2010b)



4

2.0 PROJECT CONTEXT

The proponent has secured a 5.4 MW contract to sell power to the Ontario Power Authority under the FIT program (F-002194-WIN-130-601). The project proposes to establish a Class 4 wind facility consisting of two Repower MM92–2.05 MW wind turbines on participating properties north of Napperton Drive. These turbines will have a hub height of 100 m above grade, a blade length of 45.2 m, and a sweep area of 6,720 m2

In addition to the two MM92 turbines (Turbines r1 and r2), proposed project infrastructure comprises two temporary crane pads/laydown areas, two access roads/crane paths, one switching station, two underground collector lines and one feeder line (see

. A step-up transformer will be installed next to each turbine, and will transform the electricity generated in the nacelle to a common collection system line voltage (Stantec 2011:Section 2.0).

Appendix A). The switching station will contain metering and isolating equipment as well as grounding and control systems, and will be built on a fenced gravel pad measuring roughly 30 x 40 m. The proposed feeder line will be carried by electrical poles within the ROWs of Brown Road, Napperton Drive and Kerwood Drive, and will tie into the Hydro One distribution network at Katesville Drive (Stantec 2011:Section 2.0). Since the land is currently used for agricultural purposes, all of the temporary work and staging areas will be restored to pre-impact conditions once the construction of the wind facility is completed. Construction is anticipated to begin in Fall 2012, and the Contract Date for Commercial Operation is Summer 2014. Decommissioning will occur approximately 20.5 years after Contract Date (Stantec 2011:Section 2.0). 3.0 METHODOLOGY

This study was designed to examine the heritage resources of the project location and the surrounding area in accordance with the REA requirements of O. Reg. 359/09. Specifically, Section 20 requires that applicable projects must consider whether the project may have an impact on local heritage resources, and Section 23 stipulates that a cultural heritage assessment be undertaken if there is potential for such impacts. The following is a discussion of the key concepts essential to any heritage assessment (Section 3.1), and a detailed overview of the methods used in the heritage assessment of the Napier Wind Project (Section 3.2). 3.1 Key Concepts

Heritage assessments are methodologically rooted in the proper identification of Built Heritage (BH) resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHLs), and in the evaluation of their Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). These pivotal terms play a significant role in all types of heritage assessments, and therefore require clear definition and consistent usage:

• Cultural Heritage Value or Interest: “the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present and future generations. The heritage value of an historic place is embodied in its character-defining materials, forms, location,



5

spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings” (Parks Canada 2010:5).

• Built Heritage Resource: “one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to a community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, provincial or federal jurisdictions” (MMAH 2005:29).

• Cultural Heritage Landscape: “a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. A landscape involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. Examples may include but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value” (MMAH 2005:29).

The term “cultural landscape” was first coined in 1908 by noted German geographer Otto Schluter in his formulation of the distinction between natural and cultural landscapes (James and Martin 1981:177). The concept was expanded and further developed by American geographer Carl Sauer in his 1925 paper The Morphology of Landscape, in which he declared:

The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural landscape is the result … The natural landscape is of course of fundamental importance for it supplies the materials out of which the cultural landscape is formed. The shaping force, however, lies in the culture itself (citation from Mitchell 2003:27).

The method and theory of cultural landscape studies were further debated and refined in academic circles in a process which culminated in UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention of 1992. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention defines several types of cultural landscapes (e.g. designed landscapes, evolved landscapes and associative landscapes), lists the criteria for determining their significance, and suggests methods for their conservation (UNESCO 2008). While any landscapes that have been altered by humans constitute a cultural landscape, those with demonstrable heritage value, or cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs), have been marked for special consideration. Whereas the identification of a BH resource is fairly straightforward, CHLs manifest in a much wider variety of forms and styles. As a consequence, CHLs often possess heritage values which arise from a number of different criteria. Accordingly, the identification, evaluation and conservation of cultural landscapes can be extremely complex. CHLs can stretch across multiple properties or even multiple municipalities. Defining their extents requires careful consideration of the components of the landscape and an understanding of the historical processes that led to its creation. In many cases, input from community heritage organizations is crucial to the process.



6

It has been recognized that the heritage value of a CHL is often derived from its association with historical themes that characterize the development of human settlement in an area (MNR 1975; Scheinman 2006). In Ontario, typical themes which may carry heritage value within the community include (but are not limited to) Pre-Contact habitation; early European exploration; early European and First Nations contacts; pioneer settlement; the development of transportation networks; agriculture and rural life; early industry and commerce; and/or urban development. Individual CHLs may touch on a number of these themes simultaneously. The heritage value of a CHL can also originate from non-historical and non-associative values. Just like BH resources, CHLs can be defined by physical values, design values, and/or contextual values. Although significant measures of design or physical value are relatively rare in the case of CHLs (i.e. few have a high degree of craftsmanship, few display scientific merit, etc.), contextual value is quite common due to their frequent links to the surroundings and importance in defining the character of any given area. 3.2 Approach

Typically, a heritage assessment consists of the following principal components: 1) historical research, site analysis (i.e. a field survey) and evaluation of CHVI; 2) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the heritage resource; 3) description of the proposed development or site alteration; 4) measurement of development of site alteration impact; 5) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 6) implementation and monitoring of recommended methods; and 7) a summary statement and conservation recommendations (MCL 2006:2–3). A similar method can be adopted for heritage assessments concerned with renewable energy projects, albeit slightly modified to accommodate the specific requirements of O. Reg. 359/09. As mentioned in Section 1.0, the study area for this heritage assessment consists of the proposed project location, the participating properties, and all abutting/adjacent properties. Section 1 of O. Reg. 359/09 defines the ‘project location’ as “a part of land and all or part of any building or structure in, on or over which a person is engaging in or proposes to engage in the project and any air space in which a person is engaging in or proposes to engage in the project”. According to Section 20 of O. Reg. 359/09, the participating properties can be understood to comprise the parcels of land “on which the project location is situated”, and the abutting properties encompass all lands that abut “the parcel of land on which the project location is situated”. Adherence to these definitions is essential for any successful heritage assessment. The boundaries of the study area were decided upon through the careful consideration of the requirements set out in Sections 19, 20 and 23 of O. Reg. 359/09, coupled with ARA’s preferred business practices. For Protected Properties, Sections 19 and 20 require that a study area comprising the project location, participating properties and abutting properties be considered. For heritage resources located on non-Protected Properties, however, a literal reading of Sections 20 and 23 would limit the scope of such an assessment to only the project location. As part of its business practice, however, ARA considers a larger study area to ensure that all potential project impacts are identified. Accordingly, the study area for this heritage assessment consists of the project location, all participating properties, and all abutting properties, thereby exceeding the heritage assessment requirements set out in O. Reg. 359/09.



7

In order to effectively evaluate potential BH resources and CHLs within this study area in a meaningful and objective format, a combination of background research and a field survey is essential. Background information is obtained from aerial photographs, historical maps (e.g. illustrated atlases), archival sources (e.g. historical publications and records), published secondary sources (online and print), and local historical organizations. Where possible, further information should be sought from the MTCS. The field survey component involves the collection of primary data through systematic photographic documentation of potential heritage resources within the study area (i.e. a windshield survey). Photographs capturing all potential BH resources and CHLs are taken, as are general views of the surrounding landscape. Given that such surveys are limited to areas of public access (e.g. roadways, intersections, non-private lands, etc.), the documentation of properties obscured by trees or distance is often problematic. As such, there is always the possibility that obscured heritage features may be missed. In order to objectively identify heritage resources, O. Reg. 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act sets out three principal criteria for determining CHVI. These criteria include Design/Physical Value, Historical/Associative Value and Contextual Value:

• Design or Physical Value manifests when a feature is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; when it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic value; or when it displays a high degree of technical or scientific achievement;

• Historical or Associative Value appears when a resource has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to the community; yields or has the potential to yield information that contributes to the understanding of a community or culture; or demonstrates or reflects work or ideas of an architect, builder, artist, designer or theorist who is significant to the community;

• Contextual Value is implied when a feature is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area; is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or is a landmark.

All potential BH resources and CHLs within the study area must be evaluated against these criteria. If a potential resource is found to possess one or more heritage attributes that meet of any of the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06, it can then be considered an identified heritage resource. Once a heritage resource has been determined to have CHVI in this manner, whether an isolated BH resource or an expansive CHL spanning multiple properties, Subsection 20 (1) (a) (ii) of O. Reg. 359/09 requires that an evaluation of “any impact” of the project be carried out, and “measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate the impact” be proposed. Project impacts may include direct and/or indirect impacts. The former MCL’s InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (2006:3) provides an overview of several major types of negative impacts, including but not limited to:

• Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes; • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and

appearance;



8

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

• Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or 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 grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource.

Of these negative impacts, 1) the destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, 2) alterations that are not sympathetic, or are incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance, and 3) the direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features are among the most common that can occur as a result of the construction, operation and decommissioning of renewable energy projects. According to Subsections 23 (1) (a) (ii) and 23 (2) (a) of O. Reg. 359/09, all potential impacts to identified heritage resources at the project location, as well as Protected Properties that abut the parcel of land on which the project location is situated, must be evaluated. As mentioned above, ARA also evaluates impacts to identified heritage resources located on non-Protected abutting properties. A key factor in this evaluation process is the distance between the proposed project infrastructure (e.g. wind turbines, access roads, etc.) and the identified heritage resources. Unfortunately, no Standards and Guidelines have yet been provided by the MTCS to aid in the determination of minimal separation distances between design elements and heritage resources. Accordingly, all methodological attempts to make use of these quantitative data must rely primarily on subjective criteria and the opinion of qualified heritage professionals. Through an analysis of the proximity (or lack therefore) of heritage resources to project infrastructure, the presence or absence of the major types of negative impacts outlined in InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MCL 2006:3) can be determined. For identified CHLs, a similar approach can also be adopted. All types of CHLs must be considered, including small CHLs located within the study area (e.g. a small historic community) and larger CHLs which traverse the study area (e.g. a broad CHL made up of numerous communities or even townships). If potential impacts on identified heritage resources with CHVI are recognized, then measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate the impact must be proposed, as required by Subsection 20 (1) (a) (ii) of O. Reg. 359/09. InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans lists several methods of minimizing or avoiding a negative impact on an identified heritage resource (MCL 2006:4), including but not limited to:

• Alternative development approaches; • Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and

vistas; • Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials;



9

• Limiting height and density; • Allowing only compatible infill and additions; • Reversible alterations; • Buffer zones, site plan control, and other planning mechanisms.

In response to the above-mentioned requirements, this heritage assessment was designed with seven component parts: 1) a discussion of the local natural environment; 2) a summary of historical background research pertaining to the Township of Adelaide; 3) the identification of any Protected Properties within the study area; 4) the identification of potential BH resources and evaluation of each resource against the criteria set out in O. Reg. 9/06 to determine CHVI; 5) the identification of potential CHLs and evaluation of each resource against the criteria set out in O. Reg. 9/06 to determine CHVI; 6) an evaluation of potential project impacts on Protected Properties, BH resources and CHLs within the study area, if such resources are identified; and 7) a proposal of measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate project impacts, if such impacts are identified. This approach is supported by the guidelines and policies provided by the following:

• Ontario Regulation 359/09 made under the Environmental Protection Act; • Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act; • the Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments

(MCL 1980); • The Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of

Environmental Assessments (MCL 1992); and • The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit series (MCL 2006).

4.0 NATURAL CONTEXT

Although a given potential heritage resource’s ‘natural’ setting does not directly factor into the evaluation of its CHVI, it is widely accepted that local environmental factors played an important role in shaping all early land-use processes. In essence, these factors set out the initial conditions from which all cultural landscapes form and develop, across the entire historical and cultural spectrum of Ontario. Since the relationship between a potential heritage resource and its role in the cultural landscape figures prominently in the evaluation process, particularly with respect to gauging contextual value, a brief consideration of such ‘natural’ factors is warranted. In order to fully comprehend the heritage context of the vicinity of the study area, the following five features of the local natural environment must be considered: 1) forests; 2) drainage systems; 3) climatic conditions; 4) physiography; and 5) soil types. The study area lies within the deciduous forest region, an ecological zone described as having the most diverse forest life in Ontario. The region is characterized by a wide range of tree and shrub species, including eastern white pine, red pine, eastern hemlock, white cedar, yellow birch, sugar and red maple, basswood, red oak, black walnut, butternut, tulip, magnolia, black gum, and many types of oaks and hickories. A number of rare species of mammals, birds, plants and insects reside in the deciduous forest, including sassafras and tulip trees, southern flying squirrels, and



10

red-bellied woodpeckers. Today, over 90% of Ontario’s population lives in this small region. Relatively little of the original forest cover remains standing today, however, as early Euro-Canadian agriculturalists conducted large-scale clearing operations to prepare the land for cultivation—only scattered woodlots remain in areas that are otherwise too poor for agriculture (MNR 2012). In terms of local drainage systems, the western part of the study area falls within the Brown Creek watershed, while the eastern part falls within the Upper Sydenham watershed. The Brown Creek watershed covers roughly 15,500 ha and consists of Brown Creek, Hardy Creek and Hair Creek. The Upper Sydenham watershed encompasses an area of 22,900 ha and includes Campbell Creek, Spring Creek, Dortmans Creek and part of the Sydenham River (SCRCA 2012). A minor tributary of the Sydenham River traverses the southeastern part of the eastern participating property, and a grassed waterway draining into Hardy Creek traverses the northern part of the western participating property. The Sydenham River is located roughly 5.0 km to the southeast, and Hardy Creek flows approximately 3.0 km to the west. The local climatic region is that of the Lake Erie Counties, which is located southwest of the South Slopes region and north of the Lake Erie shoreline. In general, this area experiences average daily minimum temperatures of between -8 °C and -9 °C in January and average daily maximum temperatures of between 27 °C and 28 °C in July. The frost-free period ranges from 150 to 155 days in length, with the latest spring frost occurring between May 8 and May 12. The mean annual precipitation level for the region varies between 840 and 910 mm, with anywhere from 360 to 400 mm falling during the growing season (Hagerty and Kingston 1992:16). On the whole, this climate would have been ideal for the common grain and forage crops grown during the Euro-Canadian period. Physiographically, the study area lies in the region known as the Ekfrid Clay Plain, which is located southwest of the Caradoc Sand Plain and northeast of the Bothwell Sand Plain. The plain comprises stratified clays, and the surface is nearly level save for those areas cut by the Thames and Sydenham Rivers. Knolls or low ridges of sand and gravel are superimposed on the clay in several areas, and the clay beds are thinnest between the Thames River and St. Thomas (Chapman and Putnam 1984:146–147). These physiographic elements have accumulated over grey shale and limestone bedrock belonging to the Middle Devonian Hamilton Group formation (Davidson 1989:42). The study area consists primarily of Brantford soils, although Huron soils are present in the northernmost parts of the two participating properties. Eroded channels cut by small streams also traverse the southeastern corner of the easternmost participating property. Brantford soils occur throughout the ROW corridors along Napperton Drive and Kerwood Road, although Brant soils can be found south of Kerwood. Brantford soils are moderately well-drained and consist of silty clay loam and silty clay glaciolacustrine material. Huron soils, which are likewise moderately well-drained, comprise silty clay loam, silty clay, and occasionally clay loam glacial till. Brant soils are well- to imperfectly drained, and consist of silt loam, very sandy loam and loam glaciolacustrine material (Hagerty and Kingston 1992:Sheets 1–2). Such soils would have been well-suited to the mixed agriculture practised by Euro-Canadian populations, and formed the foundation upon which the local cultural landscape developed.



11

In summary, the study area possesses a number of characteristics which would have made it particularly attractive to early Euro-Canadian populations. The minor tributaries of the Sydenham River and Hardy Creek would have provided an adequate water supply, the deciduous forest would have attracted early industry, and the climate and topography would have allowed for the production of a range of general and specialized agricultural crops. Taken collectively, these factors would have positively influenced the development of local BH resources and CHLs. 5.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Although many CHLs have strong associations with Aboriginal communities, all of the heritage resources considered in this report can be associated with Post-Contact (rather than Pre-Contact) cultural developments. Accordingly, the history of the initial settlement and growth of Euro-Canadian communities in Middlesex County is of direct relevance to the present study, as opposed to that of the lengthy Pre-Contact period. What follows is a historical summary of the region from the time of European contact through to the ‘modern era’ of the 20th

5.1 European Contact

century. This overview is not intended to be exhaustive, but is rather meant to effectively place the study area in its appropriate historical context and to better inform the heritage evaluation process.

The first European to venture into what would become southern Ontario was Étienne Brûlé, who was sent by Samuel de Champlain in the summer of 1610 to accomplish three goals: 1) to consolidate an emerging friendship between the French and the First Nations, 2) to learn their languages, and 3) to better understand their unfamiliar customs. Other Europeans would subsequently be sent by the French to train as interpreters. These men became coureurs de bois, “living Indian-style ... on the margins of French society” (Gervais 2004:182). Such ‘woodsmen’ played an essential role in all later communications with the First Nations. Champlain himself made two trips to Ontario: in 1613, he journeyed up the Ottawa River searching for the North Sea, and in 1615, he travelled up the Mattawa River and descended to Lake Nipissing and Lake Huron to explore Huronia (Gervais 2004:182–185). He learned about many First Nations groups during his travels, including prominent Iroquoian-speaking peoples such as the Wendat (Huron), Petun (Tobacco) and ‘la nation neutre’ (the Neutrals), and many groups of the Algonkian-speaking Anishinabeg. Champlain’s map of Nouvelle France from 1632 encapsulates his accumulated knowledge of the area (see Map 3). Although the distribution of the Great Lakes is clearly an abstraction, prolific Neutral village sites can be seen ‘west’ of Lac St. Louis (Lake Ontario).



12

Map 3: Detail from S. de Champlain’s Carte de la Nouvelle France (1632)

(Gentilcore and Head 1984:Map 1.2) Less than four decades after Champlain, a series of major events dramatically altered the cultural landscape of southwestern Ontario. These include the Five Nations invasion ca. 1650, the demise of the Neutral Nation, and the establishment of a vast Iroquoian hunting territory in the second half of the 17th

Historical maps from the first half of the 18

century (Hunt 1940). Further change would take place ca. 1800, when northern Anishinabeg groups such as the Ojibway, Odawa and Potawatomi pressed into southern Ontario in an attempt to trade directly with the French and the English (Smith 1987:19). These groups took advantage of the competition between the English and French over the fur trade, and were consequently well-supplied with European goods. The Mississaugas, members of the Ojibway Nation who settled north and west of Lake Ontario, traded primarily with the French and received “everything from buttons, shirts, ribbons to combs, knives, looking glasses, and axes” (Smith 1987:22).

th

Map 4

century shed valuable light on the contemporary cultural landscape. H. Popple’s A Map of the British Empire in America (1733), for example, does not show any prominent settlements in the vicinity of the study area, which is a result of the ephemeral environmental impact of the mobile Ojibway (see ). Interestingly, this map demonstrates that the area of the Thames River was poorly documented at that time, especially in comparison to the Lake St. Clair and Detroit River areas. D. and G. Robert de Vaugondy’s Nouvelle France ou le Canada (1755) depicts the Thames River with more accuracy, indicating that European understanding of the interior had increased substantially in the interim (see Map 5).



13

Map 4: Detail from H. Popple’s A Map of the British Empire in America (1733)

(Cartography Associates 2009)

Map 5: Detail from D. and G. Robert de Vaugondy’s Nouvelle France ou le Canada

(1755) (Cartography Associates 2009)



14

The late 17th and early 18th

R. Sayer and J. Bennett’s General Map of the Middle British Colonies in America from 1776 provides an excellent view of the ethnic landscape of southern Ontario prior to the widespread arrival of European settlers. This map clearly depicts the Thames River (‘the Long River without Falls’), the settlements of Mississaugas, Potawatomis and Ottawas near Lake St. Clair, and the virtually untouched lands of southern Ontario (see

centuries bore witness to the continued growth and spread of the fur trade across all of what would become the Province of Ontario. The French, for example, established and maintained trading posts along the Upper Great Lakes, offering enticements to attract fur traders from the First Nations. Even further north, Britain’s Hudson Bay Company dominated the fur trade. Violence was common between the two parties, and peace was only achieved with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (Ray 2012). Developments such as these resulted in an ever-increasing level of contact between European traders and local Aboriginal communities. As the number of European men living in Ontario increased, so too did the frequency of their relations with Aboriginal women. Male employees and former employees of French and British companies began to establish families with these women, a process which resulted in the ethnogenesis of a distinct Aboriginal people: the Métis. Comprised of the descendants of those born from such relations (and subsequent intermarriage), the Métis emerged as a distinct Aboriginal people during the 1700s (MNO 2011). Métis settlements developed along freighting waterways and watersheds, and were tightly linked to the spread and growth of the fur trade. These settlements were part of larger regional communities, connected by “the highly mobile lifestyle of the Métis, the fur trade network, seasonal rounds, extensive kinship connections and a shared collective history and identity” (MNO 2011). In 1754, hostilities over trade and the territorial ambitions of the French and the British led to the Seven Years’ War (often called the French and Indian War in North America), in which many Anishinabeg bands fought on behalf of the French. After the French surrender in 1760, these bands adapted their trading relationships accordingly, and formed a new alliance with the British (Smith 1987:22). In addition to cementing British control over the Province of Quebec, the Crown’s victory over the French also proved pivotal in catalyzing the Euro-Canadian settlement process. The resulting population influx caused the demographics of many areas to change considerably.

Map 6).



15

Map 6: Detail from R. Sayer and J. Bennett’s General Map of the Middle British

Colonies in America (1776) (Cartography Associates 2009)

5.2 British Colonialism

With the establishment of absolute British control came a new era of land acquisition and organized settlement. In the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which followed the Treaty of Paris, the British government recognized the title of the First Nations to the land they occupied. In essence, the ‘right of soil’ had to be purchased by the Crown prior to European settlement (Lajeunesse 1960:cix). Numerous treaties and land surrenders were accordingly arranged by the Crown, and great swaths of territory were acquired from the Ojibway and other First Nations. These first purchases established a pattern “for the subsequent extinction of Indian title” (Gentilcore and Head 1984:78). The first land purchases in Ontario took place along the shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, as well as in the immediate ‘back country’. Such acquisitions began in August 1764, when a strip of land along the Niagara River was surrendered by Six Nations, Chippewa and Mississauga chiefs (NRC 2010a). Although many similar territories were purchased by the Crown in subsequent years, it was only with the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) that the British began to feel a pressing need for additional land. In the aftermath of the conflict, waves of United Empire Loyalists came to settle in the Province of Quebec, driving the Crown to seek out property for those who had been displaced. This influx had the devastating side effect of sparking the slow death of the fur trade, which was a primary source of income for many First Nations groups.



16

By the mid-1780s, the British recognized the need to 1) secure a military communication route from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron other than the vulnerable passage through Niagara, Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair; 2) acquire additional land for the United Empire Loyalists; and 3) modify the administrative structure of the Province of Quebec to accommodate future growth. The first two concerns were addressed through the negotiation of numerous ‘land surrenders’ with Anishinabeg groups north and west of Lake Ontario, and the third concern was mitigated by the establishment of the first administrative districts in the Province of Quebec. On July 24, 1788, Sir Guy Carleton, Baron of Dorchester and Governor-General of British North America, divided the Province of Quebec into the administrative districts of Hesse, Nassau, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg (Archives of Ontario 2009). The vicinity of the study area fell within the district of Hesse at this time, which consisted of a massive tract of land encompassing all of the western and inland parts of the province extending due north from the tip of Long Point on Lake Erie in the east. According to early historians, “this division was purely conventional and nominal, as the country was sparsely inhabited … the necessity for minute and accurate boundary lines had not become pressing” (Mulvany et al. 1885:13). Further change came in December 1791, when the Parliament of Great Britain’s Constitutional Act created the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada from the former Province of Quebec. Colonel John Graves Simcoe was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, and he became responsible for governing the new province, directing its settlement and establishing a constitutional government modelled after that of Britain (Coyne 1895:33). Simcoe initiated several schemes to populate and protect the newly-created province, employing a settlement strategy that relied on the creation of shoreline communities with effective transportation links between them. These communities, inevitably, would be composed of lands obtained from the First Nations, and many more purchases were subsequently arranged. In July 1792, Simcoe divided the province into 19 counties consisting of previously-settled lands, new lands open for settlement and lands not yet acquired by the Crown. These new counties stretched from Essex in the west to Glengarry in the east. Three months later, in October 1792, an Act of Parliament was passed whereby the four districts established by Lord Dorchester were renamed as the Western, Home, Midland and Eastern Districts (Archives of Ontario 2009). The vicinity of the study area nominally fell within the boundaries of Kent County at this time, which comprised all of the territory of Upper Canada that was not included in the other 18 counties (Archives of Ontario 2009). In essence, Kent was the largest county ever created, stretching from Lake Erie to Hudson’s Bay (McGeorge 1939:36). This arrangement would not last, however, and the ‘northern’ parts of Kent County would soon be sectioned off to form separate counties. D.W. Smyth’s A Map of the Province of Upper Canada (1800) clearly shows the layout of the earliest townships north of Lake Ontario, and demonstrates that the vicinity of the study area remained largely untouched by early British colonialism (see Map 7).



17

Map 7: Detail from D.W. Smyth’s A Map of the Province of Upper Canada (1800)


Map 8: Detail from J. Purdy’s A Map of Cabotia (1814)




18

5.3 Middlesex County

Shortly after the creation of Upper Canada, the original arrangement of the province’s districts and counties was deemed inadequate. As population levels increased, smaller administrative bodies became desirable, resulting in the division of the largest units into more ‘manageable’ component parts. The first major changes in the southwest took place in 1798, when an Act of Parliament called for the realignment of the Home and Western Districts and the formation of the London and Niagara Districts. Many new counties and townships were subsequently created (Archives of Ontario 2009). The vicinity of the study area nominally became part of the London District at this time, but the bulk of settlement occurred in the previously-surveyed townships to the south and southeast. In these areas substantial communities had already developed, as well as preliminary infrastructure. Dundas Street connected London and York, for example, and the Talbot Road linked the inland townships to those along the shore of Lake Erie (ATHG 2001:1). J. Purdy’s A Map of Cabotia (1814) provides an excellent view of Middlesex, Oxford and Norfolk Counties during these early years (see Map 8). Middlesex County initially comprised the Townships of Aldborough, Dunwich, Southwold, Yarmouth, Malahide, Bayham, Delaware, Westminster, Dorchester and London. This arrangement lasted for the majority of the early 19th century, and the county was unaffected by the creation of the Gore District from parts of the Home and Niagara Districts in 1816 (Archives of Ontario 2009). Between 1815 and 1824, heavy immigration from the Old World resulted in the doubling of the non-Aboriginal population of Upper Canada from 75,000 to 150,000. This dramatic increase was a result of the outcome of the War of 1812 and the Crown’s efforts to populate the province’s interior. A total of six major land-cession agreements were then pursued, which would yield nearly 3,000,000 ha of lands for Euro-Canadian settlement (Surtees 1994:112). In October 1818, John Askin, Superintendent of Indian Affairs at Amherstburg, was sent to the Thames River area between London and Chatham in order to arrange for the purchase of a large tract of land to the north. Askin met with the chiefs of the Ojibway bands of the Chenal Ecarté, the St. Clair River, Bear Creek, the Sable River and the Thames River, and began negotiations for lands on the Thames River and on Lake Huron just north of the Sable River, extending inland as far as the Grand River Tract. The Ojibway leaders agreed to sell the land, and stipulated that 1) six reserves be set aside for them and that 2) a blacksmith and farm instructor be stationed near the reserves (Surtees 1994:117). Based on Askin’s report, the government decided to purchase the subject tract through two agreements: the ‘Long Woods Purchase’ and the ‘Huron Tract Purchase’. The Long Woods area interested the Crown the most, as it was immediately north of the Thames River and was the next logical destination for Euro-Canadian settlers. Askin met with the Ojibway in 1819, and a provisional agreement was created which involved the surrender of 210,000 ha in exchange for an annuity of 600 pounds in currency and goods. The Huron Tract provisional agreement was also negotiated that same year, in which over 1,000,000 ha were to be sold for an annuity of 1,375 pounds in currency and goods (Surtees 1994:117–118).



19

Neither agreement was executed, however, as objections over the nature of the cash payments led to the revision of both proposals. The Long Woods Purchase was finally completed on November 28, 1822, and almost 552,190 ha were exchanged for 600 pounds in currency (NRC 2010a). Specifically, a per capita payment of 2 pounds 10 shillings was agreed upon, to a maximum of 240 persons (Surtees 1994:118). The Huron Tract Purchase took longer to settle, and it was not pursued in earnest until John Galt’s Canada Company began to materialize. This purchase was completed on July 10, 1827 for 1,375 pounds in currency (NRC 2010a). In 1821, prior to the formal completion of the Long Woods Purchase, the London District was enlarged through the addition of new townships in the northwest (Lobo, Caradoc, Ekfrid and Mosa) and northeast (Nissouri and Zorra). In 1826, the district was slightly reduced when the easternmost Townships of Walpole and Rainham were transferred to the Haldimand District (Archives of Ontario 2009). The Village of London was formally laid out at this time (Smith 1846:99), but the area that would be the Township of Adelaide remained unincorporated. In the late 1820s, the government realized that new roads were needed in the southwestern part of the province in order to accommodate increasing immigration from Great Britain and to supplement Dundas Street, the Talbot Road, the Huron Road and Yonge Street (ATHG 2001:3). In response to this need, the future Egremont Road was planned, running from east to west through the unsurveyed and unnamed Townships of Adelaide, Warwick and beyond. Peter Robinson, Commissioner of Crown Lands and Surveyor General of Woods, was dispatched to open up and sell these new lands, and Roswell Mount of Delaware was assigned as his agent for immigrants (ATHG 2001:3). Following the completion of surveys in October 1832, the Townships of Adelaide and Warwick were opened for settlement (see Map 9). In 1834, the Township of Adelaide was formally annexed to Middlesex County (Archives of Ontario 2009). In 1837 and 1838, the layout of what would become southwestern Ontario was significantly altered through the creation of the Huron, Brock, Wellington, Talbot and Simcoe Districts (Archives of Ontario 2009). The London District came to consist solely of Middlesex County at this time, as Oxford County became part of the Brock District and Norfolk County became part of the Talbot District. In February 1841, all of these districts became part of Canada West in the new United Province of Canada. By 1842, the population of Middlesex County had reached 31,350. The area developed at a great pace, and over the next two years roughly 7,290 ha (18,000 acres) were brought under cultivation. By 1844, the county’s agricultural lands amounted to 52,783 ha (130,329 acres), and there were 35 grist mills and 93 saw mills in operation (Smith 1846:99). Middlesex County was known for its many good roads at this time, including those to Brantford and Hamilton, Galt and Guelph, Goderich, Chatham, Port Sarnia and Port Stanley, the latter of which was planked and passed through St. Thomas (Smith 1846:99). In 1845, Middlesex County was slightly enlarged by the addition of the Township of Williams in the northeast.



20

Map 9: Detail from J. Arrowsmith’s Upper Canada (1837)


Map 10: Detail from J. Bouchette’s Map of the Provinces of Canada (1846)




21

Between 1846 and 1849, Middlesex County comprised the Townships of Adelaide, Aldborough, Bayham, Caradoc, Delaware, Dorchester, Dunwich, Ekfrid, Lobo, London, Metcalfe, Mosa, Malahide, Southwold, Westminster, Williams, Yarmouth and the Town of London (see Map 10). The Townships of Yarmouth, London, Westminster, Southwold and Malahide were the best settled, and on the whole the county contained many good farms with large clearings and expansive orchards (Smith 1846:99). Following the abolishment of the district system in 1849, the counties of Canada West were reconfigured once again. The southern part of Middlesex County was reduced by the creation of Elgin County, but the Township of West Nissouri was added in the northeast (see Map 11). By the late 19th

Map 12

century, Middlesex County consisted of the Townships of Mosa, Ekfrid, Caradoc, Delaware, Westminster, North Dorchester, Metcalfe, Adelaide, Lobo, London, West Nissouri, West Williams, East Williams, McGillivray and Biddulph (see ).

Map 11: Detail from G.W. Colton’s Canada West (1856)




22

Map 12: Map of Middlesex County from W.J. Gage and Co.’s County Atlas (1886)

(W.J. Gage and Co. 1886) 5.4 Township of Adelaide

In historic times, the Township of Adelaide was bounded by the Township of Williams to the north, the Township of Warwick to the west, the Townships of Metcalfe and Caradoc to the south and east, and the Township of Lobo to the northeast. Numerous waterways traversed this area, including tributaries of Hardy Creek in the southwest; tributaries of the Sydenham River in the southeast; tributaries of the Ausable River in the northwest; Adelaide Creek and its tributaries in the centre and north; and Mud Creek and its tributaries in the northeast (see Map 13). On the whole, the township was known for its excellent land and good farms (Smith 1846:1). Unlike the remainder of Middlesex County, the Township of Adelaide was settled relatively late in the Euro-Canadian period. Peter Robinson, who was given the task of opening up the northern parts of the Western and London Districts after the completion of the Long Woods Purchase, was instrumental in this settlement process. The principal artery for settlement was to be the Egremont Road, and after much planning and the occasional discussion with Colonel Talbot, Robinson sent Peter Carroll to survey the area (ATHG 2001:4).



23

Map 13: Map of the Township of Adelaide from H.R. Page & Co.’s Illustrated

Historical Atlas of Middlesex County, Ontario (1878) (McGill University 2001)

Carroll first explored the area in June 1831, and was accompanied by militia captain James Nevilles. The men started at Marvel White’s tavern on the Lobo-Caradoc townline and set out westerly into the forest. After several days of exploration, they identified the best route to Lake Huron. The survey began in July 1831, and Carroll followed a routine in which he blazed the line for the road across six to eight lots on one day, and then established the road line between Concessions 2 and 3 to the south on the next day. On the third day, the group repeated the procedure on the north side of the main road. Following this method, the roads through the Townships of AA (later Adelaide) and AB (later Warrick) were surveyed by the end of August, with three ties of lots on either side of the main road (ATHG 2001:5–6). In the spring of 1832, Robinson sent Carroll back to the Townships of Adelaide, Warwick and Plympton to finalize the surveys and prepare the individual 100 acre lots for the coming population influx. Carroll finished the Township of Adelaide in July 1832, and completed the remaining surveys in October 1832. Interestingly, even while he was conducting the surveys, settlers began to converge on the new lots (ATHG 2001:6–7).



24

The first settlers in the Township of Adelaide included 1) a small group of wealthy gentlemen from Ireland who purchased several hundred acres of property; 2) roughly 400 settlers from southern England sent out by the Petworth Emigration Society; 3) discharged soldiers from Great Britain who commuted their pensions for cash to purchase land; and 4) sons and daughters of United Empire Loyalists who received free grants of land (ATHG 2001:7). The ‘Irish Gentlemen’ included William and Thomas Radcliff, who arrived with their wives and each purchased 400 acres along the Main Road adjacent to the Town Plot of Adelaide, and Dr. Thomas Phillips, who was granted a lot within the Town Plot. Dr. Phillip’s house was the first to be built in the township, and it consisted of a main floor, a room downstairs and a room upstairs (ATHG 2001:8). These wealthy landowners formed a stark contrast to the poor settlers that arrived from southern England around the same time. The travel expenses for these newcomers were supplemented by the Petworth Emigration Society and by George Wyndham, Third Earl of Egremont, as part of an emigration scheme designed to relieve population pressure, unemployment and poverty in England. The new arrivals included the Bakers, Carvers, Coopers, Downers, Goatchers, Hasletts, Hasted, Hiltons, Hoares, Humphries, Joiners, Knights, Manns, Nappers, Pannells, Parkers, Pays, Philipses, Pulboroughs, Pullens, Randalls, Rapleys, Thomases, Vineys and Whites (ATHG 2001:8–12). The two remaining groups comprised army pensioners and Loyalist descendants. Settling the pensioners was very problematic for Roswell Mount, particularly when nearly 1,000 of them arrived at Port Stanley in August in the midst of a cholera outbreak. He could not find anyone to shelter the new arrivals, and had to pay to transport them to their destinations by renting wagons. Over 130 ‘military land grants’ were made for properties in the Township of Adelaide (ATHG 2001:12–13). The Loyalist descendants who received grants between 1831 and 1838 included the Barkleys, Barnums, Connors, Cunninghams, Dells, Grens, Hicks, Hills, McLeans, Millers, Ryersons, Stovers, Van Everys, Willsons and Youngs (ATHG 2001:20). The new population set about clearing the dense forest, and Roswell Mount assigned surveyors to direct them and experienced woodsmen to train them. Mount also assisted in erecting houses prior to the onset of winter, and 250 log homes were built in the Townships of Adelaide and Warwick at a government expense of nearly 1,000 pounds (to be repaid by each settler once established). In October 1832, he settled accounts with 386 people who had been employed to open the roads, but still had to issue free rations to many families to sustain them over the winter (ATHG 2001:15). Following the harsh winter, the Town Plot of Adelaide was surveyed and sales were held in March 1833. The lots were purchased by the Wilsons, Dillons, Hoares, Westlakes, Durands, Marrills, Robertsons, Neilsons, Clarks, Dickinsons, Harls and Wellwoods (ATHG 2001:15–17). In Mount’s report to Sir John Colborne in August 1833, he states that the population of Adelaide had reached 1,138 persons, but notes that hundreds had temporarily left to find paid employment in adjoining settlements. A total of 1,630 acres had been cleared by that time. Mount died in January 1834 (ATHG 2001:17–18).



25

By 1846, there were two saw mills and one grist mill in the township, roughly 32,272 acres had been taken up, and approximately 4,025 acres were under cultivation (Smith 1846:1). In 1851 the population of the township was 1,979 (ATHG 2001:27), and in 1888 it reached 2,963 (Goodspeed 1889:443). The principal settlements included Adelaide, Strathroy, Kerwood and Keyser, and smaller communities were located at Amiens, Crathie, Mullifarry and Napperton. The central Village of Adelaide was the first to develop, and by 1851 it had a population of roughly 150. In 1856, the Grand Trunk Railway Line from London to Sarnia was built through Strathroy instead of Adelaide, as the rail company experienced difficulties in acquiring a right-of-way through the village. As a result, Adelaide began to decline, and a population shift ensued (ATHG 2001:505). Strathroy, which had a population of 14 in 1840, grew to 3,000 by 1870 (see Map 14). Despite its decline, Adelaide still comprised several general stores, a saw mill, a hotel, several shoemakers, a blacksmith, a carpenter and a post office in the late 19th century (Goodspeed 1889:448).

Map 14: Plan of the Village of Strathroy from G.R. and G.M. Tremaines’ Map of

Middlesex County, Canada West (1862) (Strathroy Museum 2010)

Kerwood was founded during the construction of the railway in the late 1850s. William Kerr, a woodcutter, came to the area to cut timber to make ties for the line, and the settlement was accordingly named ‘Kerrwood’ (eventually becoming Kerwood). The land initially belonged to John McKenzie of Hamilton, who laid out the streets and lots of the settlement. By 1862, Kerwood was a thriving village of 50 persons, and plans were made for the construction of a railway station house. At that time, Kerwood consisted of a dozen houses, a post office, a general store, two hotels, a blacksmith shop, a boot and shoe store, and a carpenter shop



26

(ATHG 2001:511). By 1888, the village contained approximately 300 people, and had gained additional general stores, a saw mill, a brick- and tile-yard, a carriage and wagon shop, and a cheese factory (Goodspeed 1889:453). In 1925, the population of Kerwood was 250, and for the remainder of the 20th Image 1 century the community continued to prosper (see ).

Image 1: Aerial Photograph of the Village of Kerwood (1957)

(ATGH 2001:516) Historic Keyser, located in the northwestern part of the township, was a small hamlet that never reached the status of an incorporated village. Named after several different Keyser families who settled in the area in the 1830s, Keyser (or Keyser’s Corner) gained a post office in August 1864 (ATHG 2001:514). During the 1870s, Keyser was noted for its cheese factory and a brick- and tile-yard (Goodspeed 1889:454; ATHG 2001:515). The settlement’s population peaked at 200 in 1871, and subsequently declined to 60 in 1880 and 45 in 1891. The post office was closed in October 1913 (ATHG 2001:514). The small communities of Amiens, Crathie, Mullifarry and Napperton were also of historical note in the Township of Adelaide. A summary of these settlements and their most prominent services, compiled from business directories of the towns and villages of Middlesex County by the Adelaide Township Heritage Group, appears in Table 1.



27

Table 1: Summary of Amiens, Crathie, Mullifarry and Napperton from 1905–1914 (ATHG 2001:517–518)

Settlement Proximity to Project Location

1905 1910 1914

Pop. Notable Services Pop. Notable Services Pop. Notable

Services

Amiens 13.8 km northeast 40

Apiarist (beekeeper), 3 builders and contractors,

postmaster and general agent,

auctioneer, cattle dealer

40 Post office and general store

No Record

No Record

Crathie 9.9 km northeast 50

Postmaster, blacksmith, carpenter

and builder, magistrate, saw mill

50

Magistrate, butcher, 2 carpenters, postmaster,

saw mill

No Record

No Record

Mullifarry 3.7 km northeast 40 Post office 40 Post office No

Record No

Record

Napperton 1.8 km east 50

Justice and government agent,

piano and organ dealer, insurance

agent and township treasurer, grain

thresher

50

Farmers’ agent, drover, post master,

pianos, health officer,

insurance agent and treasurer

1910 entry

repeated

1910 entry

repeated

The modern Township of Adelaide Metcalfe was formed on January 1, 2001 through the amalgamation of the former Townships of Adelaide and Metcalfe. The 2011 census profile for Adelaide Metcalfe shows a population of 3,028 and a total of 1,064 private dwellings (Statistics Canada 2012). 5.5 Lots 8 and 10, Concession 4 SER

As discussed in Section 1.0, the participating properties are located on parts of Lots 8 and 10, Concession 4 SER in the Geographic Township of Adelaide. The remainder of the project location falls within three historic road allowances laid out between Lots 7–10, Concessions 4–5 SER and Lots 6–7, Concessions 5–6 SER. The layouts of these lots were established during the initial survey of the townships in the early 1830s, and the area was very well-settled for the majority of the Euro-Canadian era. In their current condition, the participating properties comprise agricultural lands with no associated farmsteads. Given that the participating properties encompass the majority of the proposed project location, as defined in Section 1 of O. Reg. 359/09, a more in-depth discussion of their historical context is warranted.



28

Map 15: Detail of the Township of Adelaide from H.R. Page & Co.’s Illustrated

Historical Atlas of Middlesex County, Ontario (1878), Showing the Project Location and Participating Properties

(McGill University 2001)



29

In an attempt to reconstruct the historic land use of this participating properties, ARA examined a historical map that documented past residents, structures (e.g. homes, businesses and public buildings) and features during the late 19th

Map 15

century. This map, published in Page & Co.’s Illustrated Atlas of the County of Middlesex, Ontario (1878), was of the most detailed scale available (60 chains to 1 inch). A georeferenced version of this historical map, showing the project location and the participating properties, appears in (McGill University 2001). This map indicates that every lot and concession in the vicinity of the study area was settled by 1878. The western 96 acres of Lot 8, Concession 4 SER was occupied by Robert Galbraith’s heirs, and the Galbraith homestead is depicted in the southern part of the parcel near Napperton Drive. The western 100 acres of Lot 10, Concession 4 SER was owned by William H. Earley (Early), and the Early homestead appears in the southeastern part of the parcel off of Napperton Drive (see Map 15). Few biographical details were included in the Illustrated Atlas for these individuals, although both appear to have had their mail delivered to the Kerwood post office (McGill University 2001). In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the historic land use of the two participating properties in the 19th century and the early 20th

Table 2

centuries, ARA consulted the land registry records for Lots 8 and 10, Concession 4 SER. These records indicate that both lots were consistently dealt with in two halves, and that each half was typically owned by a separate individual. The principal transactions associated with the western parts of Lots 8 and 10, Concession 4 SER appear in and Table 3

Table 2: Land Transaction Summary for the West Half of Lot 8, Concession 4 SER

, respectively.

Date Transaction Grantor Grantee Amount

March 13, 1837 Patent The Crown Adam West 200 Acres

October 8, 1839 B & S Adam West Samuel Munn 200 Acres

April 9, 1857 B & S Samuel Munn Robert Munn 96 Acres (W 1/2)

September 21, 1857 Mortgage Robert Munn William Johnston 96 Acres (W 1/2)

October 17, 1857 A of M William Johnston Thomas Irving 96 Acres (W 1/2)

January 7, 1861 Final Order

of Foreclosure

Court of Chancery Thomas Irving 96 Acres (W 1/2)

October 8, 1862 B & S Samuel Munn Matilda Munn 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

January 29, 1864 B & S Thomas Irving Robert Galbraith 96 Acres (W 1/2)

August 22, 1889 B & S Matilda Munn John Munn 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

March 22, 1902 B & S Mary Jane Patterson

(Widow of R. Galbraith)

William Armstrong 96 Acres (W 1/2)



30

Date Transaction Grantor Grantee Amount

April 10, 1905 B & S William Armstrong Albert Early 96 Acres (W 1/2)

August 5, 1911 B & S John Munn Robert Wilkinson 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

January 13, 1919 Grant Robert Wilkinson William Gimblett 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

December 22, 1919 Grant William Gimblett Charles and Annie Murby

4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

November 3, 1925 Grant Charles and Annie Murby Pat Walsh 4 Acres

(SW Part of W 1/2)

November 7, 1929 Grant Daisy Maher (for Pat Walsh) Daisy Maher 4 Acres

(SW Part of W 1/2)

April 23, 1930 Grant Daisy Maher Elmer Morgan 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

August 3, 1946 Grant Elmer Morgan Harold Jordan 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

September 14, 1946 Quit Claim Annie Murby Elmer Morgan 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

March 15, 1948 Grant Albert Early Clarence Patterson 96 Acres (W 1/2)

November 15, 1954 Quit Claim Harold Jordan Canadian Oil Co. Ltd.


May 24, 1955 Grant Canadian Oil Co. Ltd. Clarence Patterson 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

April 6, 1962 Grant Clarence Patterson Dana Rutledge 4 Acres (SW Part of W 1/2)

June 24, 1969 Grant Dana Rutledge Vernice and Eileen Paff


July 28, 1978 Grant Clarence Patterson Robert Patterson 96 Acres (W 1/2)

The full extent of Lot 8, Concession 4 SER (200 acres) was first patented to Adam West in 1837. In 1839, West sold the land to Samuel Munn, and Samuel Munn parted the property in 1857 and sold the western half to Robert Munn. Robert Munn mortgaged part of the property to William Johnston five months later, and the following month Thomas Irving received the mortgage through alienation. After a final order of foreclosure in 1861, Irving received the title to the 96 acre parcel. In 1862, Samuel Munn sold his small 4 acre parcel in the southwest to Matilda Munn, and this property changed hands numerous times after 1889. In 1864, the remaining 96 acres of the parcel were sold to Robert Galbraith, and in 1902 Galbraith’s widow (Mary Jane Patterson) sold the land to William Armstrong. In 1905, Armstrong sold the parcel to Albert Early, who retained possession until 1948 when the land was granted to Clarence Patterson. In 1978, Patterson granted the 96 acre parcel to Robert Patterson.



31

Table 3: Land Transaction Summary for the West Half of Lot 10, Concession 4 SER Date Transaction Grantor Grantee Amount

November 30, 1835 Patent The Crown George Hamilton 200 Acres

July 11, 1845 B & S George Hamilton Ronald McKinnon 200 Acres

September 26, 1847 B & S Ronald McKinnon James Early 100 Acres (W 1/2)

August 29, 1874 Conveyance James Early Fawcett Early 50 Acres (W 1/2 of W 1/2)

July 26, 1875 Deed Fawcett Early William Early 50 Acres (W 1/2 of W 1/2)

December 3, 1875 Conveyance James Early William Early 50 Acres (E 1/2 of W 1/2)

December 5, 1878 Deed William Early James Early 50 Acres (E 1/2 of W 1/2)

March 6, 1879 Will James Early William Early 50 Acres (E 1/2 of W 1/2)

September 6, 1880 Deed William Early John Morgan 50 Acres (E 1/2 of W 1/2)

December 14, 1895 Deed John Morgan Clara Morgan 50 Acres (E 1/2 of W 1/2)

November, 1906 B & S Clara Morgan Caroline Alexander 50 Acres (E 1/2 of W 1/2)

December 3, 1906 B & S Caroline Alexander Ernest Early 50 Acres (E 1/2 of W 1/2)

April 12, 1924 Grant William Early Ernest Early 50 Acres (W 1/2 of W 1/2)

May 19, 1951 Grant Catherine Early (Widow of E. Early) Robert Patterson 50 Acres

(E 1/2 of W 1/2)

May 22, 1951 Grant Catherine Early (Widow of E. Early) Clarence Patterson 50 Acres

(W 1/2 of W 1/2)

December 3, 1955 Grant Clarence Patterson Robert Patterson 50 Acres (W 1/2 of W 1/2)

February 17, 1960 Grant Robert Patterson Clarence Patterson 50 Acres (E 1/2 of W 1/2)

January 6, 1964 Grant Robert Patterson Robert & Anne Cox

50 Acres (W 1/2 of W 1/2)

George Hamilton received the patent for Lot 10, Concession 4 SER (200 acres) in 1835. In 1845, Hamilton sold the parcel to Ronald McKinnon, and in 1847, McKinnon parted the lot and sold the western half (100 acres) to James Early. Early retained the full parcel until 1874, at which time the ‘western half of the western half’ (50 acres) was conveyed to Fawcett Early. In 1875, William Early acquired both the western and eastern 50 acre parcels, but in 1878 he deeded the eastern parcel to James Early. James Early willed this part back to William Early in 1879, and William deeded the land to John Morgan the following year. The ‘eastern half of the western half’ passed to Clara Morgan in 1895, Caroline Alexander in November 1906 and Ernest Early in December 1906. Ernest Early gained the western parcel in 1924, and became the owner of the



32

entire western half of Lot 10, Concession 4 SER (100 acres). In 1951, after Ernest Early’s death, his widow Catherine Early granted the eastern half to Robert Patterson and the western half to Clarence Patterson. In 1955, the western half passed to Robert Patterson as well, but in 1960 he granted the eastern half back to Clarence Patterson. In 1964, Robert Patterson granted the western half to Robert and Anne Cox. 6.0 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Identification of Protected Properties

In order to determine whether any of the property types listed in Section 19 of O. Reg. 359/09 were located within the limits of the study area (i.e. Protected Properties), ARA and Stantec Consulting Ltd. (lead consultant for the preparation of the REA application) engaged a number of heritage groups and investigated several online heritage resources. The former MTC’s Protected Properties, Archaeological and Heritage Resources: An Information Bulletin for Applicants Addressing the Cultural Heritage Component of Projects Subject to Ontario Regulation 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals (2011) was consulted for guidance on this process. What follows is a summary of the results of these inquiries, all of which were factored into the subject heritage assessment. The Table to Section 19 of O. Reg. 359/09 sets out eight possible types of Protected Properties, and REA applications must consider whether any such heritage resources will be impacted by the project. Appendices B and E in Protected Properties, Archaeological and Heritage Resources: An Information Bulletin for Applicants Addressing the Cultural Heritage Component of Projects Subject to Ontario Regulation 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals (MTC 2011) provide checklists based on this Table, which can be effectively adapted into criteria for determining whether any Protected Properties are located within the study area (see Table 4).

Table 4: Identifying Protected Properties within the Study Area (Adapted from MTC 2011:Appendices B and E)

Inquiry Heritage Source(s) Consulted Result of Inquiry

Are any of the participating or abutting properties subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust easement agreement?

Ontario Heritage Trust

None of the participating or abutting properties are subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust easement agreement, according to a letter dated November 29, 2011.

Has a notice of intention to designate been issued by a municipality for any of the participating or abutting properties?

Township of Adelaide Metcalfe; Middlesex County

A notice of intention to designate has not been issued for any of the participating or abutting properties.



33

Inquiry Heritage Source(s) Consulted Result of Inquiry

Are any of the participating or abutting properties municipally designated?

Township of Adelaide Metcalfe; Middlesex County; Middlesex Tourism 2012

The Woods’ General Store is located on one of the properties abutting the proposed feeder line corridor. This heritage resource forms part of the Middlesex Heritage Trail, created by the CFDC of Middlesex County in partnership with Middlesex County and eight municipalities. This trail comprises a series of signs detailing historic events, locations, buildings and geographic features in the county (Middlesex Tourism 2012).

Are any of the participating or abutting properties provincially designated?

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Currently there are no properties designated by the MTCS under Section 34.5 of the Ontario Heritage Act (MTC 2011:Appendix G, Item 4).

Has a notice of intention to designate been issued by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for any of the participating or abutting properties?


A notice of intention to designate has not been issued been issued by the MTCS for any of the participating or abutting properties (MTC 2011:Appendix G, Item 5).

Are any of the participating or abutting properties subject to a municipal easement agreement?

Township of Adelaide Metcalfe; Middlesex County

None of the participating or abutting properties are subject to a municipal easement agreement.

Are any of the participating or abutting properties located within a designated Heritage Conservation District?

Ontario Heritage Trust; MTCS 2012

None of the participating or abutting properties are located within a designated Heritage Conservation District.

Are any of the participating or abutting properties designated as a historic site under Regulation 880?


None of the participating or abutting properties are designated as a historic site under Regulation 880 of the Revised Regulations of Ontario (MTC 2011: Appendix G, Item 8).

In summary, only one Protected Property was identified within the study area: 27736 Kerwood Road (the Woods’ General Store). The original wooden structure that would become the Woods’ General Store was first built by one Mr. McKenzie in 1867. In 1907, Arthur and Anna Woods opened the business, and when Arthur died in 1937 it was taken over by his son, Fred. At this time, the business became known as Fred Woods’ Store, and some remodelling of the storefront took place. In 1949, the wooden structure was torn town and a more modern structure was erected in the Boomtown Front architectural style (see Image 2–Image 3). Fred’s widow Eileen became the owner of the store after Fred’s death in 1979, and their son Joe took over as manager. As of 2007, mother and son still work in the store (Middlesex Tourism 2012).



34

Image 2: Historical Photographs of the Original Woods’ General Store from 1938

(left) and the Rebuilding of the Store in 1949 (right) (Middlesex Tourism 2012)

Image 3: View of the Woods’ General Store, Kerwood, Southwest Elevation

(Photo taken December 2, 2011) The Woods’ General Store boasts a variety of heritage attributes: it is one of the few remaining historic commercial buildings in Kerwood (Design or Physical Value); it is directly associated with the Woods’ family business (Historical or Associative Value); and it is referential to a time was Kerwood was a bustling community (Contextual Value). Designated as Protected Property No. 1 for the purpose of this assessment, the Woods’ General Store is located on an abutting property (see Map 16), and therefore requires an evaluation of potential project impacts in accordance with Section 23 (Heritage Assessment) of O. Reg. 359/09 (see Section 7.1).



35

Map 16: Location of the Woods’ General Store in the Community of Kerwood

(Google Earth 2012)



36

6.2 Inventory of Potential BH Resources

Over the course of ARA’s engagement with local heritage groups, inquiries were also made as to whether any properties of potential heritage value had been previously-identified in the vicinity of the study area. Middlesex County could only provide information pertaining to properties listed in the Middlesex Heritage Trail and other online sources (Middlesex Tourism 2012), and the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe indicated that Crathie Hall was the only structure of note in the area (also listed in the Middlesex Heritage Trail). A preliminary inventory of properties with potential BH resources was then compiled, which incorporated the results of ARA’s background research as well as modern satellite imagery. A list of candidate properties was generated for the field survey, including several properties containing buildings potentially depicted in Page & Co.’s Illustrated Atlas of the County of Middlesex, Ontario (1878). The field survey was conducted on December 2, 2011 and January 18, 2012 in order to photograph and document these properties with potential BH resources as well any additional candidate properties that were previously unrecognized. As a result, a total of 36 properties with potential BH resources were recognized, comprising residential homes, churches and farmsteads. Each of these properties was assigned a unique identification number (Potential Heritage Resource Nos. 1–36), beginning with the dense concentration of structures in the unincorporated community of Kerwood and radiating outwards to the limits of the study area (see Map 17). In accordance with the methodology set out in Section 3.2, all of these potential resources were then evaluated for CHVI.



37

Map 17: Locations of Potential Heritage Resources in the Study Area

(Google Earth 2012)



38

6.3 Evaluation of Potential BH Resources

All of the 36 properties with potential BH resources documented during the assessment are located on abutting properties. These potential heritage resources were then evaluated against the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06. A standardized checklist based on these criteria was created to aid in the evaluation process and was used to judge whether a given resource possessed Design or Physical Value, Historical or Associative Value, or Contextual Value. Although previously discussed in Section 3.2, these pivotal terms can be summarized as follows:

• Design or Physical Value manifests when a feature is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; when it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic value; or when it displays a high degree of technical or scientific achievement;

• Historical or Associative Value appears when a resource has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to the community; yields or has the potential to yield information that contributes to the understanding of a community or culture; or demonstrates or reflects work or ideas of an architect, builder, artist, designer or theorist who is significant to the community;

• Contextual Value is implied when a feature is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area; is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or is a landmark.

The results of the evaluation of Potential Heritage Resource Nos. 1–36 against the standardized checklist are presented in Appendix B, and a synthesis of these results appears in Table 5. The individual forms comprising Appendix B also include the location, description and photographic documentation of each candidate potential heritage resource. The assessment determined that 27 of the 36 resources with the potential for CHVI met one or more of the established criteria. Accordingly, these can now be classified as properties with identified BH resources (Heritage Resource Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8–18, 20–21, 23–30 and 32–34). Potential Heritage Resource Nos. 2–4, 7, 19, 22, 31 and 35–36 did not meet any of the criteria set out in O. Reg. 9/06, and therefore have no CHVI. The locations of the identified heritage resources appear in Map 18. According to the results of the CHVI evaluation, Heritage Resource Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8–18, 20–21, 23–30 and 32–34 each possess one or more heritage attributes. In general, heritage attributes can be understood as the “principal features, characteristics, context and appearance that contribute to the cultural heritage significance” of a given heritage resource (MMAH 2005:31). These heritage attributes are the essential elements of each heritage resource, and accordingly must be articulated prior to the evaluation of potential project impacts. A summary of the heritage attributes of the properties with identified BH resources appears in Table 6.



39

Table 5: Potential Heritage Resource Inventory and CHVI Evaluation Results Potential Heritage

Resource No.

Address (Name, if applicable)

Type of Property

Possesses CHVI?

Criteria Met for Positive Identification of CHVI

1 27841 Kerwood Road Abutting Yes Design/Physical Value and Contextual Value

2 27835 Kerwood Road Abutting No None



5 27775 Kerwood Road (St. Paul’s Church) Abutting Yes

Design/Physical Value, Historical/Associative Value

and Contextual Value

6 27767 Kerwood Road (St. Paul’s Parish Hall) Abutting Yes

Design/Physical Value, Historical/Associative Value

and Contextual Value




10 27741 Kerwood Road Abutting Yes Design/Physical Value





15 27748 Kerwood Road Abutting Yes Design/Physical Value





20 1841 Napperton Drive Abutting Yes Design/Physical Value and Contextual Value


22 2005 Napperton Drive Abutting No None



40

Potential Heritage

Resource No.


Type of Property

Possesses CHVI?

Criteria Met for Positive Identification of CHVI

23 27984 Brown Road Abutting Yes Design/Physical Value and Contextual Value





28 1857 Mullifarry Drive Abutting Yes Design/Physical Value

29 1933 Mullifarry Drive Abutting Yes Design/Physical Value and Contextual Value


31 2120 Napperton Drive Abutting No None




35 28520 Brown Road Abutting No None

36 1835 Mullifarry Drive Abutting No None



41

Map 18: Locations of Identified Heritage Resources in the Study Area

(Google Earth 2012)



42

Table 6: Summary of the Heritage Attributes of the Identified Heritage Resources Heritage Resource

No.


Type of Property Heritage Attribute(s)

1 27841 Kerwood Road Abutting

Gothic Revival Cottage residences such as this are a rare and early type for this area; a good touchstone for the early settlement period in the area.

5 27775 Kerwood Road (St. Paul’s Church) Abutting

A good example of Gothic Revival in a rural ecclesiastical building; churches were an important focus in 19th

6

century rural life; rural churches such as this remain important to a community.

27767 Kerwood Road (St. Paul’s Parish Hall) Abutting

A good example of Edwardian Classicism; simple but well-constructed; associated with St. Paul's Church; an important community meeting place.

8 27757 Kerwood Road Abutting A fair quality example of a Gothic Revival residence, well-hidden beneath renovations; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

9 27747 Kerwood Road Abutting A fair example of a Gothic Revival residence, hidden behind poor renovations; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

10 27741 Kerwood Road Abutting Prairie residences are locally rare; although extensively renovated, this structure retains its heritage value.


This type of Vernacular commercial building is locally rare; most examples have long since burned or been demolished; referential to a time when Kerwood was a bustling community.

12 27597 Kerwood Road Abutting An excellent example of an Italianate residence; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

13 27726 Kerwood Road Abutting A good local example of an Italianate residence, despite a later addition; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

14 27738 Kerwood Road Abutting A good local example of a Gothic Revival residence; Vergeboard is intact; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

15 27748 Kerwood Road Abutting Craftsmen/Bungalow residences are somewhat rare locally.


Greek Revival Cottage residences are locally-rare and early; although renovated, this structure retains its heritage value; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

17 27766 Kerwood Road Abutting A good local example of an Italianate residence; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

18 27778 Kerwood Road Abutting An excellent local example of an Italianate residence; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

20 1841 Napperton Drive Abutting A good local example of an Italianate farmhouse; contributes to the heritage character of the area.



43

Heritage Resource

No.


Type of Property Heritage Attribute(s)

21 2007 Napperton Drive Abutting An excellent local example of an Ontario Gothic Cottage farmhouse; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

23 27984 Brown Road Abutting A fair example of a Gothic Revival residence despite renovations; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

24 2002 Napperton Drive Abutting A good example of an Ontario Gothic Cottage; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

25 1970 Napperton Drive Abutting

Appears to be an early local example of a Greek Revival farmhouse; doesn’t face the road and may pre-date it; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

26 1806 Napperton Drive Abutting An excellent local example of an Ontario Gothic Cottage; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

27 27403 Kerwood Road Abutting A fair example of a Gothic Revival residence despite many renovations; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

28 1857 Mullifarry Drive Abutting An excellent example of a modest Minimal Traditional residence.

29 1933 Mullifarry Drive Abutting A fair example of an Italianate residence despite later modifications; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

30 27904 Brown Road Abutting A good example of a Vernacular Cottage residence; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

32 28409 Brown Road Abutting

A good example of an Italianate residence, with significant heritage values such as roof brackets still intact; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

33 2173 Mullifarry Drive Abutting A fair example of an Italianate residence despite a poorly integrated addition; contributes to the heritage character of the area.

34 2017 Mullifarry Drive Abutting A good rural example of an Italianate residence with its principal heritage values largely intact; contributes to the heritage character of the area.



44

6.4 Inventory of Potential CHLs

Using a method similar to that employed in the identification of properties with potential BH resources in the vicinity of the project location (see Section 6.2), ARA also generated an inventory of potential CHLs prior to the field survey. This inventory was informed by the results of the background research, including the late 19th

One potential CHL was identified in the vicinity of the study area, centered on the unincorporated community of Kerwood (see

century landscape depicted in Page & Co.’s Illustrated Atlas of the County of Middlesex, Ontario (1878), although modern satellite imagery was also consulted.

Map 19). As noted in Section 5.4, the occupation of Kerwood began in the mid-19th

6.5 Evaluation of Potential CHLs

century, and the settlement was one of the principal communities in the historic Township of Adelaide. This locality was documented during the field survey, and the remainder of the study area was inspected for additional candidate CHLs. No other potential CHLs were identified during the field survey.

The standardized checklist employed in Section 6.3 for evaluating properties with potential BH resources was implemented to aid in the evaluation of Kerwood as a CHL, as were additional guiding perspectives provided in the evaluation process developed for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Scheinman 2006). This method is based on current practice standards and is similar to the procedure used by Infrastructure Ontario, the MTCS, the City of London and the Town of Caledon. These, in turn, rely on CHL identification methods that are essentially modifications of the seminal model developed and adopted by the U.S. National Parks Service (Scheinman 2006:10). The US National Parks Service model can be found in its entirety in National Register Bulletin #30 ‘Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes’ (McClelland, Keller, Keller and Melnick 1999). These additional guiding perspectives allow for greater specificity and accuracy in studying potential CHLs. The results of the evaluation of Kerwood against the criteria set out in O. Reg. 9/06 can be found Table 7. Based on the results of this evaluation, this location can be classified as an identified CHL. The heritage attributes of Kerwood are summarized in Table 8. As an identified CHL, Kerwood warrants an evaluation of impacts as described in Subsection 23 (1) (a) (ii) of O. Reg. 359/09.



45

Map 19: Location of the Potential CHL in the Vicinity of the Study Area

(Google Earth 2012)



46

Table 7: Evaluation of Kerwood as a CHL (Adapted from McClelland, Keller, Keller and Melnick 1999; MCL 2006:3; Scheinman 2006)

Criteria Description

Applicable to this

Potential CHL?

Comments

A. Design or Physical

Value

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

Yes

Kerwood comprises an eclectic mixture of domestic and commercial architecture from both historic and modern times. Rare elements include the Woods’ General Store and St. Paul’s Church, both of which remain integral to the settlement. The railway to the south further contributes to this unique expression of a 19th

2. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic value

century railway town.

Yes Kerwood contains several notable architectural styles, including Gothic Revival, Italianate and Greek Revival, to name a few.

3. Displays a high degree of technical or scientific achievement

No Kerwood does not display a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

B. Historical

or Associative

Value

1. Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community

Yes

The modern settlement of Kerwood is directly associated with the historic community that developed in the second half of the 19th

2. Yields or has the potential to yield information that contributes to the understanding of a community or culture

century. The floruit of the settlement and the prominent individuals who settled here are still significant to the community.

Yes Kerwood represents an excellent example of a railway town that began in the mid-19th

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

century.

No Kerwood does not reflect the work or ideas of any significant member of the community.

C. Contextual

Value

1. Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area

Yes Kerwood dominates the local area and plays an important role in defining the character of this part of the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe.

2. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings

Yes

Kerwood continues to celebrate its history and maintains strong and visible ties to its rich heritage, featuring one resource on the Middlesex Heritage Trail.

3. Is a landmark Yes Kerwood is a landmark along Kerwood Road (County Road 6), which is largely defined by vistas of agricultural land.



47

Table 8: Summary of Heritage Attributes of the Identified CHL

Identified CHL Heritage Attributes

Kerwood

Kerwood comprises an eclectic mixture of domestic and commercial architecture from both historic and modern times; rare elements include the Woods’ General Store and St. Paul’s Church; the railway to the south further contributes to this unique expression of a 19th century railway town; contains several notable architectural styles, including Gothic Revival, Italianate and Greek Revival; is directly associated with the historic 19th

century community; Kerwood’s place in local history is still significant to the community; an excellent example of an early railway town; dominates the local area and plays an important role in defining the character of this part of the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe; features one resource on the Middlesex Heritage Trail; and is a landmark along Kerwood Road (County Road 6).

7.0 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

According to Section 23 (Heritage Assessment) of O. Reg. 359/09, an impact evaluation must be applied to any identified heritage resources that are identified at the project location and to any Protected Properties that abut the parcel of land on which the project is located. As mentioned in Section 3.2, ARA considers a larger study area as part of its business practice, and evaluates identified heritage resources located on the participating property/properties and on all abutting properties. The evaluation of impacts to the Protected Property, the identified properties with BH resources and the identified CHL appear in Sections 7.1–7.3. As discussed in Section 3.2, impacts can be classified as either direct or indirect impacts. Direct impacts include, but are not limited to, those that physically affect the heritage resources themselves. These can be caused by initial project staging, excavation/levelling operations, construction of access roads, preparation of turbine pads, installation of underground lines, maintenance and repairs over the life of the project, and the final decommissioning of the facility. Indirect impacts include, but are not limited to, alterations that are not compatible with the historic fabric and appearance of the area, the creation of shadows that alter the appearance of an identified heritage attribute, the isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, the obstruction of significant views and vistas, and other less-tangible impacts. A key factor in this evaluation process is the distance between the project location (specifically the proposed project infrastructure) and the heritage resources with CHVI. As stated previously, however, no Standards and Guidelines have yet been provided by the MTCS to aid in the determination of minimal separation distances between design elements and heritage resources. Accordingly, all methodological attempts to make use of this quantitative data must rely primarily on subjective criteria and the opinion of qualified heritage professionals.



48

Through an analysis of the proximity (or lack therefore) of Protected Properties and identified heritage resources to proposed project infrastructure, the presence or absence of the types of impacts outlined in InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (2006:3) can be determined. Should impacts be identified, recommendations to avoid, eliminate or mitigate each impact are required by Subsection 23 (1) (a) (ii) of O. Reg. 359/09. 7.1 Impact Evaluation of the Protected Property

As mentioned in Section 6.1, one Protected Property was identified on an abutting property within the study area: 27736 Kerwood Road (the Woods’ General Store). This Protected Property is at least 1,978 m away from the proposed turbines, at least 28 m away from the proposed feeder line, at least 1,404 m away from the proposed collector lines, and at least 1,368 m away from the proposed access roads. These data are essential for the accurate identification of direct and indirect impacts. As discussed in Section 3.2, the definitions of negative impacts presented in InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MCL 2006:3) can be effectively adapted into criteria for identifying both direct and indirect of impacts. The results of this evaluation of impacts to the Protected Property identified within the study area are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9: Impact Evaluation of the Protected Property (Adapted from MCL 2006:3)

Type of Negative Impact Applicable to

the Woods’ General Store?

Comments

Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes

No

There will be no destructive impacts whatsoever to any of the heritage attributes of the Woods’ General Store, as the project location is between 28 and 1,978 m away.

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

No

The proposed infrastructure involves alterations that are compatible with the historic fabric and appearance of the Woods’ General Store. Although the addition of turbine towers, blades and nacelles will modify the appearance of the landscape in the immediate area, the lands surrounding the Woods’ General Store will not be altered. The addition of turbines, on an interim basis, will by no means negatively impact the heritage attributes of this resource.

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

No

No shadows will be cast near the Woods’ General Store. The proposed turbines are at least 1,978 m away, and access roads cast no shadows. The proposed feeder line is at least 28 m away, and this line will join the network of electrical wiring that already defines the local area. The heritage attributes of the Woods’ General Store will therefore be unaffected.



49

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

No

None of the Woods’ General Store’s heritage attributes (discussed in Section 6.1) will be isolated from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship.

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

No

The proposed project infrastructure will not result in the direct or indirect obstruction of any significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features associated with the Protected Property. Significant views and vistas are not heritage attributes of the Woods’ General Store; rather, its heritage attributes are defined by intrinsic values (i.e. those rooted in its historical value, context, etc.). These values will continue to exist with or without the addition of the proposed infrastructure.

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

No No rezoning will occur on the Protected Property.

Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource.

No No land disturbances will occur on the Protected Property, as it is not located on a participating property (see Appendix A).

As Table 9 summarizes, the Protected Property identified on the abutting lands will not be negatively impacted by the Napier Wind Project. 7.2 Impact Evaluation of Identified BH Resources

The evaluation of the 36 properties with potential BH resources determined that 27 of said properties possess CHVI (Heritage Resource Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8–18, 20–21, 23–30 and 32–34). All of the identified BH resources are located on abutting properties. The proximity of proposed project infrastructure to each of these identified heritage resources appears in Table 10.

Table 10: Minimum Distances between Proposed Project Infrastructure and Identified Heritage Resources

Heritage Resource No.

Type of Property

Minimum Distance to Proposed Turbine

(m)

Minimum Distance to Proposed

Feeder Line (m)


Collector Line (m)


Access Road (m)

1 Abutting 1,514 32 1,027 977

5 Abutting 1,812 20 1,266 1,224



50

Heritage Resource No.

Type of Property

Minimum Distance to Proposed Turbine

(m)


Feeder Line (m)


Collector Line (m)


Access Road (m)

6 Abutting 1,845 20 1,295 1,258

8 Abutting 1,881 17 1,325 1,286

9 Abutting 1,937 10 1,374 1,336

10 Abutting 1,955 16 1,391 1,355

11 Abutting 1,971 10 1,404 1,368

12 Abutting 2,673 52 2,071 2,043

13 Abutting 2,011 27 1,434 1,405

14 Abutting 1,963 29 1,389 1,354

15 Abutting 1,902 32 1,333 1,298

16 Abutting 1,887 24 1,321 1,286

17 Abutting 1,822 39 1,260 1,225

18 Abutting 1,790 29 1,234 1,194

20 Abutting 721 63 155 100

21 Abutting 1,032 582 185 410

23 Abutting 638 971 12 23

24 Abutting 844 544 94 397

25 Abutting 752 390 117 530

26 Abutting 635 85 316 288

27 Abutting 3,576 176 2,951 2,933

28 Abutting 1,953 2,599 1,953 1,963

29 Abutting 1,864 2,500 1,861 1,875

30 Abutting 1,051 409 1,062 415

32 Abutting 1,535 1,537 2,251 1,454

33 Abutting 2,049 2,965 2,049 2,035

34 Abutting 1,717 2,253 1,717 1,596



51

As Table 10 demonstrates, these resources are at least 635 m away from the proposed turbines (Heritage Resource No. 26), at least 10 m away from the proposed feeder line (Heritage Resource Nos. 9 and 11), at least 12 m away from the proposed collector lines (Heritage Resource No. 23), and at least 23 m away from the proposed access roads (Heritage Resource No. 23). These data are essential for the accurate identification of direct and indirect impacts. As discussed in Section 3.2, the definitions of negative impacts presented in InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MCL 2006:3) can be effectively adapted into criteria for identifying both of types of impacts. The results of this evaluation of impacts to the 27 properties with identified BH resources are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11: Impact Evaluation of the Identified Heritage Resources (Adapted from MCL 2006:3)

Type of Negative Impact

Applicable to Heritage

Resource Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8–18, 20–21, 23–30 and 32–34?

Comments

Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes

No

There will be no destructive impacts whatsoever to any of the heritage attributes of these resources, as all proposed project infrastructural elements are between 10 and 635 m away (see Table 10).


No

The proposed infrastructure involves alterations that are compatible with the historic fabric and appearance of the BH resources. Although the addition of turbine towers, blades and nacelles will modify the appearance of the landscape in the immediate area, the lands surrounding the identified BH resources will not be altered. The addition of turbines, on an interim basis, will by no means negatively impact the heritage attributes of said resources.


No

No shadows will be cast near any of the identified heritage resources. Access roads and underground cabling cast no shadows, and the turbines themselves are at least 635 m away (see Table 10). The proposed feeder line will join the network of electrical wiring that already defines the local area. The heritage attributes of the identified BH resources will therefore be unaffected.


No None of the heritage attributes outlined in Table 6 will be isolated from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship.



52


No

The proposed project infrastructure will not result in the direct or indirect obstruction of any significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features associated with the BH resources. As Table 6 demonstrates, significant views and vistas are not heritage attributes of any of the subject properties; rather, all are defined by intrinsic values (i.e. those rooted in their design, age, integrity, context, etc.). These values will continue to exist with or without the addition of the proposed infrastructure.


No

No rezoning will occur; open space/agricultural lands remain. All lands to be used as temporary staging and work areas will be restored to their pre-construction condition.


No These potential impacts have been addressed in separate environmental and archaeological reports (e.g. ARA 2012).

As Table 11 summarizes, the identified heritage resources located on abutting properties will not be negatively impacted by the Napier Wind Project. 7.3 Impact Evaluation of Identified CHL

As mentioned in Section 6.5, the unincorporated community of Kerwood was identified as a CHL. This community is located at least 1,757 m southwest of the proposed turbines, at least 1,163 m southwest of the proposed collector lines, and at least 1,102 m southwest of the proposed access roads. The corridor for the feeder line, however, extends along the ROW for Kerwood Drive and traverses the full extent of the CHL. As discussed in Section 3.2, the definitions of negative impacts presented in InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MCL 2006:3) can be effectively adapted into criteria for identifying both direct and indirect impacts. The evaluation of impacts to the identified CHL is summarized in Table 12.



53

Table 12: Impact Evaluation of the Identified CHL (Adapted from MCL 2006:3)

Type of Negative Impact Applicable

to Kerwood?

Comments

Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes No

There will be no destructive impacts whatsoever to any of the heritage attributes of this CHL (see Table 8).


No

The proposed infrastructure involves alterations that are compatible with the historic fabric and appearance of this CHL. Although the addition of turbine towers, blades and nacelles will modify the appearance of the landscape in the immediate area, the lands surrounding Kerwood will not be altered. The addition of turbines at least 1,757 m to the northeast will by no means negatively impact the heritage attributes of this CHL.


No

No such shadows will be cast near any of the heritage attributes of this CHL. The proposed turbines, collector lines and access roads are at least 1,102 m away from Kerwood, and the proposed feeder line will join the network of electrical wiring that already defines this area.


No None of the heritage attributes outlined in Table 8 will be isolated from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship.


No

The proposed project infrastructure will not result in the direct or indirect obstruction of any significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features associated with this CHL. The visual link between Kerwood and the landscape will not be disrupted by the proposed project, and all of the other heritage attributes will continue to exist with or without the addition of proposed infrastructure.


No The proposed project will not result in any change in land use for this CHL.


No These potential impacts have been addressed in separate environmental and archaeological reports (e.g. ARA 2012)

As Table 12 summarizes, the CHL of Kerwood will not be negatively impacted by the Napier Wind Project.



54

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The heritage assessment for the Napier Wind Project encompassed a study area consisting of the proposed project location, the participating properties, and all abutting/adjacent properties. One Protected Property was identified on an abutting property (the Woods’ General Store, Protected Property No. 1), 36 properties with potential BH resources were recognized (Potential Heritage Resource Nos. 1–36), and one potential CHL was found within the study area (the unincorporated community of Kerwood). All of the potential heritage resources were tested against the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06. The results of the evaluation demonstrated that 27 of the 36 properties with potential BH resources have CHVI, including Heritage Resource Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8–18, 20–21, 23–30 and 32–34. The potential CHL of Kerwood was also found to have CHVI, meeting several of the criteria established in O. Reg. 9/06. All of the identified heritage resources and the Protected Property were then evaluated for potential project impacts. The results of the evaluation of impacts to the Protected Property, the 27 properties with identified BH resources, and the identified CHL can be summarized as follows:

• The Protected Property (27736 Kerwood Road, the Woods’ General Store) is located at least 1,978 m away from the proposed turbines, at least 28 m away from the proposed feeder line, at least 1,404 m away from the proposed collector lines, and at least 1,368 m away from the proposed access roads. After the project impact analysis, no direct or indirect impacts were identified that would negatively affect any of the heritage attributes of this Protected Property.

• All 27 of the properties with identified BH resources are abutting properties (Heritage Resource Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8–18, 20–21, 23–30 and 32–34). These resources are at least 635 m away from the proposed turbines, at least 10 m away from the proposed feeder line, at least 12 m away from the proposed collector lines, and at least 23 m away from the proposed access roads. After the project impact analysis, no direct or indirect impacts were identified that would negatively affect any of the heritage attributes of these resources.

• The CHL of Kerwood is located at least 1,757 m southwest of the proposed turbines, at least 1,163 m southwest of the proposed collector lines, and at least 1,102 m southwest of the proposed access roads. The corridor for the feeder line, however, extends along the ROW for Kerwood Drive and traverses the full extent of the CHL. After the project impact analysis, no direct or indirect impacts were identified that would negatively affect any of the heritage attributes of Kerwood. The proposed feeder line will join the network of electrical wiring that already defines this area.

Given that this study has 1) identified one Protected Property within the study area; 2) documented all potential BH resources and CHLs on the participating and abutting properties; 3) identified multiple heritage resources with CHVI based on the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06; 4) evaluated all potential direct and indirect impacts to the Protected Property and all of the identified heritage resources; and 5) found that the project will not negatively impact any of these resources, ARA recommends that the Napier Wind Project be released from further heritage



55

concerns. It is the considered opinion of ARA that the previously-unrecognized heritage resources with CHVI discussed in this assessment may be worthy of inclusion on a municipal heritage register.



56

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Adelaide Township Heritage Group (ATHG) 2001 Adelaide Township … A History. Strathroy: Adelaide Township Heritage Group. Archaeological Associates Ltd. (ARA) 2012 Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments, Napier Wind Project, FIT F-002194-

WIN-130-601, Parts of Lots 8 and 10, Concession 4 SER, Geographic Township of Adelaide, Township of Adelaide Metcalfe, Middlesex County, Ontario. PIF #P007-381-2011 and #P007-385-2011. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd., Kitchener.

Archives of Ontario 2009 Early Districts and Counties, 1788-1899. Accessed online at:

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/maps/ontario-districts.aspx. Cartography Associates 2009 David Rumsey Map Collection. Accessed online at: http://www.davidrumsey.com/. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Toronto: Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Coyne, J. H. 1895 The Country of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From

Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print. Davidson, R.J. 1989 Foundations of the Land Bedrock Geology. In The Natural History of Ontario, edited

by J.B. Theberge, pp. 36-47. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Inc. Gentilcore, R.L. and C.G. Head 1984 Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gervais, G. 2004 Champlain and Ontario (1603-35). In Champlain: The Birth of French America,

edited by R. Litalien and D. Vaugeois, pp. 180-190. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press. Goodspeed 1889 History of the County of Middlesex, Canada. London: W.A. & C.L. Goodspeed. Google Earth 2012 Google Earth Version 6.1.0.5001. Accessed online at: http://www.google.com/

earth/index.html.

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/maps/ontario-districts.aspx�

http://www.davidrumsey.com/�

http://www.google.com/%20earth/index.html�





57

Hagerty, T.P. and M.S. Kingston 1992 The Soils of Middlesex County, Volume 1. Report No. 56 of the Ontario Centre for Soil

Evaluation. Guelph: Resources Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hunt, G.T. 1940 The Wars of the Iroquois: A Study in Intertribal Trade Relations. Madison,

Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. James P.E. and G. Martin 1981 All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical Ideas. Berkley: University of

California Press. Lajeunesse, E.J. 1960 The Windsor Border Region: Canada’s Southernmost Frontier. Toronto: The

Champlain Society. McClelland, L.F., J.T. Keller, G.P. Keller, and R.Z. Melnick 1999 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. US

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. McGeorge, W.G. 1939 Early Settlement and Surveys along the River Thames in Kent County. In Kentiana:

The Story of the Settlement and Development of the County of Kent, pp. 25–36. Chatham: The Kent Historical Society.

McGill University 2001 The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Accessed online at:

http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/default.htm. Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) 2011 Culture & Heritage: Who are the Métis. Accessed online at: http://www.metisnation.org/culture--heritage/who-are-the-metis.aspx. Middlesex Tourism 2012 Middlesex Heritage Trail. Accessed online at: http://www.middlesextourism.ca/

MiddlesexHeritageTrail.pdf. Ministry of Culture (MCL) 1980 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments.

Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 1992 Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of

Environmental Assessments. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2005 Ontario Heritage Properties Database. Accessed online at:

http://www.hpd.mcl.gov.on.ca/scripts/hpdsearch/english/default.asp.

http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/default.htm�

http://www.metisnation.org/culture--heritage/who-are-the-metis.aspx�

http://www.middlesextourism.ca/%20MiddlesexHeritageTrail.pdf�

http://www.middlesextourism.ca/%20MiddlesexHeritageTrail.pdf�

http://www.hpd.mcl.gov.on.ca/scripts/hpdsearch/english/default.asp�



58

2006 InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) 1975 A Topical Organization of Ontario History. Toronto: Historical Sites Branch, Ministry

of Natural Resources. 2012 About Ontario’s Forests. Accessed online at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/

Forests/%202ColumnSubPage/STEL02_163390.html. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) 2012 List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Accessed online at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/

en/heritage/heritage_conserving_list.shtml. Mitchell, D. 2003 Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Mulvany, C.P., G.M. Adam and C.B. Robinson 1885 History of Toronto and the County of York, Ontario, Volume 1. Toronto: C. Blackett

Robinson. Natural Resources Canada (NRC) 2004 The Atlas of Canada: Ontario Relief. Accessed online at: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/

english/maps/reference/provincesterritoriesrelief/ontario_relief. 2010a The Atlas of Canada: Historical Indian Treaties Time Line. Accessed online at:

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/8. 2010b The Atlas of Canada: Toporama – Topographic Maps. Accessed online at:

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map. Page & Co. 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex, Ontario. Toronto: H.R. Page

& Co. Parks Canada 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second

Edition. Toronto: Parks Canada. Ray, A.J. 2012 Hudson’s Bay Company. Accessed online at: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/

articles/hudsons-bay-company. Scheinman, A. 2006 Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Waterloo Region. Draft manuscript commissioned by the Region of Waterloo.

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/%20Forests/%202ColumnSubPage/STEL02_163390.html�



http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/%20en/heritage/heritage_conserving_list.shtml�



http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/%20english/maps/reference/provincesterritoriesrelief/ontario_relief�



http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties/8�

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map�

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/%20articles/hudsons-bay-company�





59

Smith, D.B. 1987 Sacred Feathers: The Reverend Peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby) and the

Mississauga Indians. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information

Respecting all Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell.

St. Clair Conservation Authority (SCRCA) 2012 Watershed Report Cards. Accessed online at: http://www.scrca.on.ca/Reportcards.htm. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) 2011 Napier Wind Project: Project Description Report (Draft). Stantec Consulting Ltd.,

Guelph. Statistics Canada 2012 2011 Census Profile. Accessed online at: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-

recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Strathroy Museum 2010 Historic Maps & Photos. Strathroy Museum. Accessed online at:

http://strathroymuseum.ca/mapsandphotos.htm. Surtees, R.J. 1994 Land Cessions, 1763–1830. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the

First Nations, edited by E.S. Rogers and D.B. Smith, pp. 92–121. Toronto: Dundurn Press.

UNESCO

2008 Guidelines on the Inscription of Specific Types of Properties on the World Heritage List. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Annex 3. Accessed online at: http://whc.unesco.org/ archive/opguide08-en.pdf#annex3. W.J. Gage and Co. 1886 Gage’s County Atlas. Toronto: W.J. Gage and Co.

http://www.scrca.on.ca/Reportcards.htm�

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E�

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E�

http://strathroymuseum.ca/mapsandphotos.htm�

http://whc.unesco.org/%20archive/opguide08-en.pdf#annex3�



60

APPENDICES



61

Appendix A: Project Layout for the Napier Wind Project (February 7, 2012) (Provided by wpd Canada Corporation)



62

Appendix B: Potential BH Resource Inventory and CHVI Evaluation Results



63

POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE NO. 1

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27841 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1820–1860 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Greek Revival Cottage CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo

(Photo taken on December 2, 2011)

EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST

Criteria No. Description √ Heritage Attributes


Value

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

√ A rare and early type for this area.

2 Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic value

3 Displays a high degree of technical or scientific achievement

B. Historical

or Associative

Value

1 Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community

2 Yields or has the potential to yield information that contributes to the understanding of a community or culture

3 Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, builder, artist, designer or theorist who is significant to a community

C. Contextual

Value

1 Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area √ A good touchstone for the early

settlement period in the area.

2 Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings

3 Is a landmark



64


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27835 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date Post-1955 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Side-Split (Split Level) CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – Type is recent and common Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value

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


3 Is a landmark



65


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27799 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1930–1950 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Minimal Traditional CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – Style is unremarkable Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



66


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27787 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date Post-1950 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Ranch CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – type is recent and common Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



67


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name St. Paul's Church Street Address 27775 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date 1881 Building Type Church/Ecclesiastical Architectural Style Gothic Revival CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ Good example of Gothic Revival in a rural ecclesiastical building.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value


√ Churches were an important focus in 19th

2

century rural life.

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


C. Contextual

Value

1 Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area √ Rural churches such as this remain

important to a community.


3 Is a landmark



68


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name St. Paul's Parish Hall Street Address 27767 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1900–1920 Building Type Parish Hall Architectural Style Edwardian Classicism CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A good example of its type. Simple but well-constructed.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value


√ Associated with St. Paul's Church.



C. Contextual

Value

1 Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area √ An important community meeting

place.


3 Is a landmark



69


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27765 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1930–1950 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Minimal traditional CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – Type is common, rather recent and stylistically unremarkable Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



70


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27757 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Gothic Revival CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A fair quality example of its type, well-hidden beneath renovations.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value

1 Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area √ Contributes to the heritage

character of the area.


3 Is a landmark



71



Photo





Value


√ A fair example of its type, hidden behind poor renovations.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



72


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27741 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date 1900–1940 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Prairie CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ This type is locally rare. Although renovated, this structure retains its heritage value.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



73


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27739 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date Post-1870 Building Type Commercial Architectural Style Vernacular CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ Type is locally rare. Most examples have long since burned or been demolished.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value

1 Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area √

Referential to a time when Kerwood was a bustling community.


3 Is a landmark



74


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27597 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Italianate CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ An excellent example of its type.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



75


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27726 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Italianate CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A good local example of its type, despite a later addition.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



76



Photo





Value


√ A good local example of its type. Vergeboard is intact.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



77


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27748 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1900–1945 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Craftsmen/Bungalow CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ Style is somewhat rare locally.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



78


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27754 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1820–1860 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Greek Revival Cottage CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A locally-rare and early type. Although renovated, this structure retains its heritage value.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



79



Photo





Value


√ A good local example of its type.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



80



Photo





Value


√ An excellent local example of its type.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



81


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27912 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community Kerwood Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date Post-1955 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Split Level CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – Structure is recent, common and unremarkable Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



82


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 1841 Napperton Drive Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Farmhouse Architectural Style Italianate CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A good local example of its type.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



83


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address Napperton Drive, between Brown Road and Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Farmhouse Architectural Style Ontario Gothic Cottage CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value





B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



84


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 2005 Napperton Drive Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date Post-1990 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Ranch CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – Structure is less than 40 years old Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



85


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27984 Brown Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Gothic Revival CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A fair example of its type despite renovations.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



86


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 2002 Napperton Drive Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Farmhouse Architectural Style Ontario Gothic Cottage CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A good example of its type.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



87


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 1970 Napperton Drive Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1820–1860 Building Type Farmhouse Architectural Style Potential Greek Revival CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ Appears to be an early local example of its type. Doesn’t face the road and may pre-date it.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



88


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 1806 Napperton Drive Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Ontario Gothic Cottage CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value





B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



89


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27403 Kerwood Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Gothic Revival CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo

(Photo taken January 18, 2012)




Value


√ A fair example of its type. Many renovations.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



90


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 1857 Mullifarry Drive Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1935–1950 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Minimal traditional CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ An excellent example of this modest type.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



91


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 1933 Mullifarry Drive Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Italianate CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A fair example of its type despite later modifications.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



92


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 27904 Brown Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Vernacular cottage CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A good example of its type.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



93


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 2120 Napperton Drive Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date Post-1950 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Ranch CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – Type is recent and common Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



94


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 28409 Brown Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Italianate CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A good example of its type, with significant heritage values such as roof brackets still intact.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



95


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 2173 Mullifarry Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Italianate CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A fair example of its type despite poorly integrated addition.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



96


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 2017 Mullifarry Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date ca. 1865–1900 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Italianate CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale Yes – See below Impact Evaluation Result No project impacts

Photo





Value


√ A good rural example of its type with principal heritage values largely intact.



B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value




3 Is a landmark



97


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 28520 Brown Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date Post-1950 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Ranch CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – Style is common and recent Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark



98


DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCE Property Name N/A Street Address 1835 Mullifarry Road Heritage Recognition None Community None recognized Lower Tier Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe Upper Tier Municipality Middlesex County Construction Date Post-1990 Building Type Residence Architectural Style Neo-Eclectic CHVI (Y/N) - Rationale No – Property is less than 40 years old Impact Evaluation Result No CHVI – Evaluation not required

Photo





Value




B. Historical

or Associative

Value




C. Contextual

Value



3 Is a landmark

r Dated: April 13, 2012 - wpdcanada.wpd.de/uploads/tx_projectdownloads/NAP_9... · 4/13/2012 ·...

Documents

Transcript of r Dated: April 13, 2012 - wpdcanada.wpd.de/uploads/tx_projectdownloads/NAP_9... · 4/13/2012 ·...