final report heritage assessment, springwood wind project...

FINAL REPORT

Heritage Assessment, Springwood

Wind Project, Wellington County,

ON

Heritage Assessment, Springwood Wind Project, Wellington County, ON

Prepared for: wpd Canada Corporation

405 Britannia Road East, Suite 214 Mississauga, ON L4Z 3E6

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd

2791 Lancaster Rd., Suite 200 Ottawa, ON K1B 1A7

August 2011

Project No.: 160960606

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT, SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT, WELLINGTON COUNTY, ON

Project No.: 160960606 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Specific sections of the Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 Of The Environmental Protection Act pertain to Heritage Resources, specifically heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. In order to meet the conditions of the regulation, Stantec Consulting Ltd was retained by wpd Canada Corporation to conduct a Heritage Assessment of the location of a proposed wind project near Belwood, in the Township of Centre Wellington in Wellington County, Ontario.

The assessment included a review of historic period maps, aerial imagery and Census data as well as records and inventories held by the Township of Centre Wellington, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and the Ontario Heritage Trust.

Using locations of known buildings and the locations of buildings from historic period maps, a visual survey of the Study Area was completed on June 10, 2010 to determine the existence of any potentially significant built heritage resources within the Study Area. During the site visit the Study Area was also assessed for any groupings of resources that might constitute a cultural heritage landscape.

A total of two resources were identified as potentially significant built heritage resources. Both resources were evaluated using the criteria outlined under O.Reg 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. One resource, 6880 Third Line Road, was evaluated as being significant. The property meets criteria 1(i) and 2(i) as outlined in O.Reg 9/06 and, as a result, was assessed for potential Project-related negative impacts as per InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTC, 2006a). Potential negative impacts assessed included: destruction, alteration, shadows, isolation, direct or indirect obstruction and changes in land-use. No potential negative impacts of significant magnitude were identified for 6880 Third Line Road. No further mitigation is recommended.

No cultural heritage landscapes were identified in, or adjacent to, the Study Area and no further mitigation has been recommended with respect to cultural heritage landscapes.

The following report details the findings of the Heritage Assessment as completed under Section 23 of O.Reg 359/09.


Project No.: 160960606 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. I

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 O.Reg. 359/09 Requirements, Heritage Assessment ....................................... 3

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................ 4

1.3 Project Methodology ......................................................................................... 4

2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 6

3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................ 9

3.1 Township Survey and Early Settlement ........................................................... 9

3.2 Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Domestic Built Heritage Resources ................................................................ 10

3.4 Commercial and Industrial .............................................................................. 10

3.5 Educational, Religious and Public Buildings ................................................. 10

3.6 Transportation ................................................................................................. 10

4 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES ................................................................................. 15

4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Existing Heritage Designations, Easements and Conservation Districts .... 15

4.3 Agricultural Resources .................................................................................... 19

4.4 Domestic Built Heritage Resources ................................................................ 19

4.5 Commercial and Industrial Built Heritage Resources ................................... 22

4.6 Educational, Religious and Public Buildings ................................................. 22

4.7 Transportation Related Built Heritage Resources ......................................... 22

5 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES ...................................................................... 23

5.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 23

5.2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes ......................................................................... 23

6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ........................................................................................ 24

6.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 24

6.2 Identification of Impacts .................................................................................. 24

7 STUDY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 28


Project No.: 160960606 2

8 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................... 28

9 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 29

9.1 Literature Cited ................................................................................................ 29

9.2 Literature Reviewed ......................................................................................... 30

9.3 Personal Communications .............................................................................. 30

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1- 6920 Wellington Road 16 .............................................................................................................. 20

Plate 2 - 6880 Third Line Road (BHR 1) ..................................................................................................... 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1 Designated Buildings in Vicinity of Study Area ........................................................................... 15

Table 4-2 Evaluation of Potential Built Heritage Resources ....................................................................... 19

Table 6-1 Potential Negative Impacts and Recommended Mitigation ........................................................ 24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Location of Study Area ................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 1-2 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3-1 Study Area As Shown Over Detail From 1861 Leslie and Wheelcock Map of Wellington County ............................................................................................................. 12

Figure 3-2 Study Area As Shown On Detail From 1877 Walker and Miles Wellington County Atlas .................................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 3-3 Study Area As Shown Over Detail From 1879 Miles and Co. Map of Wellington County ............................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 4-1 Location of Built Heritage Resources ........................................................................................ 17

Figure 4-2 Location of Protected Properties ............................................................................................... 18

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Built Heritage Resource Forms


Project No.: 160960606 3

1 INTRODUCTION

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by wpd Canada Corporation to prepare a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Application, as required under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (O.Reg. 359/09). According to subsection 6.(3) of O.Reg. 359/09, the Project is classified as a Class 4 Wind Facility and will follow the requirements identified in O.Reg.359/09 for such a facility.

The Project consists of four turbines with a 9.2 MW nameplate capacity. The Project will be entirely located within Wellington County in southwestern Ontario. The Study Area is generally bounded by Sideroad 20 to the northwest, Wellington Road 16 to the northeast, Second Line to the Southwest and Sideroad 15 to the southeast (Figure 1-1).

This Heritage Assessment Report is one component of the REA Application for the Project, and has been prepared in accordance with O.Reg. 359/09. The study was conducted by Stephen Jarrett, B.A., Archaeological Technician with Stantec and Christienne Uchiyama, B.A., Archaeologist and Heritage Planning Consultant with Stantec. A visual survey was conducted on June 10, 2010 by Stephen Jarrett, B.A. Archaeological Technician and Colin Varley, M.A., Senior Archaeologist and Heritage Planning Consultant. Colin Varley acted as Team Leader and Senior Reviewer.

1.1 O.Reg. 359/09 Requirements, Heritage Assessment

This Heritage Assessment Report has been conducted in accordance with O.Reg. 359/09, s.23 (1) and (3). O. Reg.359/09 s.23 (1) states that:

23. (1) If, as a result of the consideration mentioned in subsection 20 (1), a person concludes that engaging in the renewable energy project may have an impact on a heritage resource described in paragraph 2 of subsection 20 (1), the person shall,

(a) conduct a heritage assessment consisting of,

(i) an evaluation of whether there are any heritage resources at the project location, applying the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) made under the Ontario Heritage Act

Section 4 of this report satisfies the requirements of O.Reg.359/09, s.23(1)(a)(i).

The Regulation further states that:

(ii) if any heritage resources are identified as a result of the evaluation under subclause (i), an evaluation of any impact of the renewable energy project on the heritage resources and proposed measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate the impact, which may include a heritage conservation plan.


Project No.: 160960606 4

In order to satisfy O.Reg.359/09, s.23(1)(a)(ii), an assessment of potential Project-related negative impacts was carried out for each significant built heritage resource within the Study Area. This assessment, conducted as per InfoSheet #5 in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (MTC, 2006a), is presented in Section 6.

1.2 Project Description

The Project, known as the Springwood Wind Project, consists of four (4) turbines with a 9.2 MW nameplate capacity. Turbine schematics are included in Appendix B. The Project will be located entirely within Wellington County in southwestern Ontario. The Study Area is generally bounded by Sideroad 20 to the northwest, Wellington Road 16 to the northeast, 2nd Line to the southwest and Sideroad 15 to the southeast (Figure 1-1). According to subsection 6.(3) of O.Reg. 359/09, the Project is classified as a Class 4 Wind Facility.

Existing provincial and municipal roads will be used to transport project-related components, equipment and personnel to the Study Area. Turbines will be installed on private lands and access to these lands will be required for installation and operation of the wind turbines (Figure 1-2). See Appendix B for turbine specifications. Permanent access roads will be approximately 4 metres wide.

Locations of Project components are shown in Figure 1-2.

1.3 Project Methodology

The Heritage Assessment study was composed of a program of archival research and visual assessment of potential built heritage resources and potential components of cultural heritage landscapes within the vicinity of the Study Area. To familiarise the study team with the Study Area, local historical societies were consulted, archival documents were reviewed and a summary historical background of the local area was prepared. Listings of provincially and locally designated built heritage sites, districts and easements and buildings of architectural or historical interest for each municipality were reviewed in order to compile a catalogue of existing identified heritage resources.

A visual survey was conducted on June 10th, 2010. The Study Area was surveyed for extant buildings, outbuildings or other built heritage remains. During the site visit built heritage resources which might satisfy criteria outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, Under the Ontario Heritage Act, 2006 and components of potential cultural heritage landscapes were photographed and their locations recorded. Where municipal addresses were not available locations were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS).

In general, buildings and structures of more than forty years of age were evaluated during the survey for their potential to satisfy O.Reg.9/06 criteria. The use of the forty year threshold is


Project No.: 160960606 5

generally accepted by both the federal and provincial authorities as a preliminary screening measure for heritage interest or value. This practice does not imply that all buildings and structures more than forty years of age are inherently of significant heritage value, nor does it exclude exceptional examples constructed within the past forty years of being of significant cultural heritage value.

The Study Area was assessed for groupings of resources and environs that might potentially constitute cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the Ministry of Culture‟s InfoSheet #2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (MTC, 2006b).


Project No.: 160960606 6

2 STUDY AREA

The Study Area is composed of approximately 780 hectares (1,930 acres) of land near Belwood, Ontario being part of Lots 17 through 21, Concession 3; part of Lots 17 and 21, Concession 4; Lots 18 through 20, Concession 4; and part of Lots 17 through 21, Concession 5, Township of Centre Wellington, Wellington County (Figure 1-2). The Study Area for this assessment included optioned parcels of land encompassing approximately 315 hectares (127.5 acres). Land use in the Study Area is primarily agricultural with some areas of undeveloped, forested land (Figure 1-2).

The Study Area is located within the Guelph Drumlin Field on the southern edge of the Dundalk till plain physiographic region. The drumlin field is composed of approximately 300 drumlins created by the ice thrust which radiated from the western end of the Lake Ontario basin as a result of glacial recession (Chapman and Putnam, 1984).

The topography in the Study Area is complex; being characterized by a number of eskers, ridges and small watercourses. The local hydrography has changed as a result of the 1942 construction of the Shand Dam. Most notably the Shand Dam created the 12km long Belwood Lake, located approximately 3.2km southeast of the Study Area (GRCA, 2011). Belwood Lake conservation area is a component of the Grand River, a Canadian Heritage River.

The Grand River was nominated in 1990 and accepted by the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board in 1994 following completion of The Grand Strategy (GRCA, 2011). The river was nominated for both its recreational value and its wealth of human heritage resources. Grand River Valley is an area of continuous occupation dating from the Palaeo-Indian archaeological period (11,000-10,000 Before Present (BP)) through to present day. A wealth of Palaeo-Indian, Archaic and Woodland sites can be traced along the river valley. Six Nation and United Empire Loyalist migration can also be traced from the lower basin into more central areas of the province (Nelson, 1989). Around the central basin, in the vicinity of the current Study Area, the migration of Mennonite populations from Pennsylvania is evidenced by unique variations to prevalent architectural styles and a continuous presence. The Grand River was a medium for 19th and early 20th century transportation as well as a centre for industrial development in the province of Ontario. In recent years, the Grand River valley has evolved to offer primarily recreation and tourism opportunities. This is especially true in the Belwood Lake Conservation Area, south of the Study Area.

Figure 1-1 Location of Study Area

(Source: National Topographic Series 40-P-16)

Study Area

1000 m

3rd 20

2nd15

Wellington 16

5th547000

547000

548000

548000

549000

549000

4847

000

4847

000

4848

000

4848

000

4849

000

4849

000

4850

000

4850

000

Legend Notes

March 2011Project No.160960606

Client/Projectwpd CANADA CORPORATIONSPRINGWOOD WIND FARM

Figure No.1-2

TitleSITE PLAN

1.2.3.

Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17 NAD 83.Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources© Queens Printer Ontario, 2009.Image Source: © First Base Solutions, 2010 - Imagery Date: Spring, 2006. Provided by: Grand River Conservation Authority

Underground Collector SystemAccess RoadSwitching StationTurbine Blade TipStudy Area

!

!

USA

Ottawa

Toronto

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

_̂Project Area

Lake Ontario

Lake Erie

Georgian Bay

1:18,000

0 250 500m


Project No.: 160960606 9

3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.1 Township Survey and Early Settlement

Wellington County was first surveyed in 1792 when John Graves Simcoe ordered the survey of the Base Line from which all adjoining Townships, including Garafraxa, would be surveyed. Augustus Jones was appointed Surveyor and commenced his survey in the middle of Burlington Bay (Hutchinson, 1997).

The Township of Garafraxa was surveyed in 1821 by Deputy Surveyor Samuel Ryckman and opened for settlement in 1825. The pioneers of the area were immigrants from the United Kingdom and United Empire Loyalists having fled from the United States following the American Revolution. Most of the lots were filled quickly; however, the area remained largely rural. By the 1850s and into the 1860s this began to change with the further expansion of the Village of Fergus and the establishment of the Hamlet of Douglas, which became the police Village of Belwood in 1858.

In 1854 Wellington County was separated from Grey and Waterloo Counties to form what was then known as the Wellington District. It took its present shape in 1883 when the neighbouring County of Dufferin was created.

The earliest available map with significant details regarding the Study Area is the 1861 Leslie and Wheelcock Map of Wellington County (Figure 3-1). The map shows the names of all landowners in the Study Area. Property owners not occupying their land are shown as „Non Res‟ on the 1861 map, indicating that the majority of the Study Area was occupied and there were likely buildings present. Related families, such as the McDermots, Vromans and Healys, neighbor each other. Although no residences or other private buildings are shown on the map a schoolhouse is indicated in Lot 16, Concession 3, near the crossroads of Second Line and Sideroad 15 (Figure 3-1).

The 1877 map of Wellington County published by Walker and Miles shows more details, including the locations of primary residences (noted as farmhouses in the original map key) for each landowner (Figure 3-2). For the most part homes were located in very close proximity to the road frontages. One residence, that of John Ellis, is located near the back of a property in the east half of Lot 18, Concession 3 (Figure 3-2). The schoolhouse formerly noted has been replaced by a new school kitty-corner to its old location, being in Lot 15, Concession 4. Also of note area mill and a church; the former being in Lot 18, Concession 3, west of the schoolhouse and the latter being in Lot 21, Concession 5 at the northeast corner of the Study Area (Figure 3-2). Both the church and schoolhouse are shown on a Miles and Co. map published in 1879 (Figure 3-3).

3.2 Agriculture

Census records from the late 19th century indicate that the majority of land owners in the Study Area were farmers and that much of the area was not yet cleared or under cultivation. Although not indicated on any of the historic maps (Figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3), there would have been agricultural


Project No.: 160960606 10

outbuildings located throughout the Study Area, both directly associated with farmhouses and isolated buildings providing storage and support for farming activities farther from residential buildings.

3.3 Domestic Built Heritage Resources

A total of eleven (11) residential structures are shown within the Study Area in the 1877 map (Figure 3-2). The map‟s key identifies these structures simply as farmhouses.

3.4 Commercial and Industrial

There is no evidence to suggest that commercial or industrial activities have ever been prevalent within the Study Area. Archival information indicates that land-use within the Study Area has traditionally been limited to agricultural activities while commercial and industrial activities took place in the nearby Hamlet of Metz and in the Villages of Fergus and Belwood.

A mill, shown in Lot 15, Concession 2 is the only recorded example of industrial activity within the Study Area (Figure 3-2).

3.5 Educational, Religious and Public Buildings

The earliest map of the Study Area showing a public building is the 1861 Leslie and Wheelcock map of Wellington County. A schoolhouse is depicted on the 1861 map in the Lot 16, Concession 3 near the intersection of present day Second Line and Sideroad 15 (Figure 3-1).

A schoolhouse is shown in the same general vicinity on the 1877 Walker and Miles Illustrated Atlas in Lot 14, Concession 4 and the 1879 Miles and Co. map of Wellington County (Figures 3-2 and 3-3).

One religious building is shown on both the 1877 and 1879 maps of the Study Area in Lot 21, Concession 5 (Figures 3-2 and 3-3). No church is shown in its location on the 1861 map of Wellington County (Figure 3-1).

3.6 Transportation

Transportation in the Study Area is entirely by road. Road corridors shown on all of the 19th century maps follow the present day road corridors.

The Credit Valley Railway was located approximately 3 km south of the Study Area travelling between the Villages of Fergus and Belwood (Figure 3-3). At no time does the railway line cross the Study Area.

No navigable watercourses are located within the Study Area; however, the Grand River, an historic transportation route, is located approximately 4 km to the south. The nearby Villages of Fergus and


Project No.: 160960606 11

Belwood are both located along the Grand River which once served as an important shipping waterway.

Both the railway and Grand River have changed significantly since 1879. Farming near the headwaters of the Grand River reduced its flow and required the construction of the Shand Dam in 1942 to secure the water supply for settlements downriver and to prevent flooding in certain areas. This resulted in the flooding of the railway and the creation of Belwood Lake approximately 3.5 km south of the Study Area (Figure 1-1).

500m

Figure 3-1 Study Area As Shown Over Detail From 1861 Leslie and Wheelcock Map of Wellington County

Study Area

Weli

gto

nR

ad

16l

n

oW

eli

gto

nR

ad

16l

n

o

Th

ird L

ine

Th

ird L

ine

Seco

nd

Lin

eS

eco

nd

Lin

e

Figure 3-2 Study Area as Shown on Detail From 1877 Walker and Miles Wellington County Atlas

1000m

ChurchChurch

SchoolSchoolMillMill

Study Area

Figure 3-3 Study Area As Shown Over Detail from 1879 Miles and Co. Map of Wellington County

1000m

Study Area

lt

Welin

go

n R

oad

16

lt

Welin

go

n R

oad

16


Project No.: 160960606 15

4 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES

During the June, 2011 site visit two built heritage resources which might potentially satisfy the criteria outlined under O.Reg 9/06 were documented. One of those resources was determined to be of significant cultural heritage value following evaluation. In general, a threshold of forty years of age was used as a preliminary screening measure.

Built heritage resources are defined as “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” (MTC, 2006a).

4.1 Methodology

Evaluation of potentially significant built heritage resources in the Study Area was performed using criteria set out under O.Reg 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). A property meeting one or more of the following criteria is considered significant under the OHA.

1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,

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

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

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

of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or

theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it,

i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).

4.2 Existing Heritage Designations, Easements and Conservation Districts

There are three buildings in the vicinity of the Study Area designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (see Table 4-1). No other properties are located within or adjacent to the Study Area which are protected as per the table from Section 19, O.Reg. 359/09 (Township of Centre Wellington, 2010; pers.comm. Fraser, 2010). Table 4-1 Designated Buildings in Vicinity of Study Area

Name/Address Site Type Designation

6377 Second Line, West Garafraxa Schoolhouse

Designated in 2003 under Part IV, Section 18 of the Ontario Heritage Act, By-law 03-025

6666 Second Line, West Garafraxa Residential



Project No.: 160960606 16

6778 Second Line, West Garafraxa Schoolhouse


")

")

3rd 20

2nd

15

Wellington 16

5th

6880 Third Line (BHR 1)

6920 Wellington Road 16

547000

547000

548000

548000

549000

549000

4847

000

4847

000

4848

000

4848

000

4849

000

4849

000

4850

000

4850

000

Legend Notes

March 2011Project No.160960606

Client/Projectwpd CANADA CORPORATIONSPRINGWOOD WIND FARM

Figure No.4-1

Title

LOCATION OF BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES

1.2.3.

Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17 NAD 83.Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources© Queens Printer Ontario, 2009.Image Source: © First Base Solutions, 2010 - Imagery Date: Spring, 2006. Provided by: Grand River Conservation Authority

") Significant Built Heritage Resource") Not Significant Built Heritage Resource

Underground Collector SystemAccess RoadSwitching StationTurbine Blade TipStudy Area

!

!

USA

Ottawa

Toronto

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

_̂Project Area

Lake Ontario

Lake Erie

Georgian Bay

1:19,000

0 250 500m


Project No.: 160960606 19

4.3 Agricultural Resources

Built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscape features one might expect as a result of agricultural activities include; fencing surrounding or separating fields and pastures, windmills and outbuildings such as sheds, barns and silos. The evaluation of possible agriculture resources which fall within the requirements outlined under the OHA involved a detailed examination of aerial imagery prior to conducting a visual survey of the area. No significant agricultural resources were identified in this process.

4.4 Domestic Built Heritage Resources

Two potentially significant domestic built heritage resources were identified during the June, 2010 site visit; 6920 Wellington Road 16 and 6880 Third Line Road (Figure 4-1). One of the properties, 6880 Third Line Road, was found to be significant (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2 Evaluation of Potential Built Heritage Resources

Built Heritage Resource (BHR)

Number Property

Criteria Met

Justification Rating

BHR 1 6880 3rd Line 1 (i), 2(i)

Design Value or Physical Value – the use of stone for the construction of the rear building is rare in the vicinity. Historical Value or Associative Value – the building is associated with the Pennsylvannia German migration along the Grand River during the first half of the 20

th century.

Contextual Value – Although the farmhouse and associated outbuildings and fields are well-suited to the rural character of its surroundings, the property cannot be said to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting that character, nor is it physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. The property is not a landmark.

Significant

6920 Wellington Road 16 None

Design Value or Physical Value – the farmhouse is a vernacular construction and is not considered by this study to demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement, nor does it display an unusually high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. Historical Value or Associative Value – no associations were identified to any person, event, theme, activity, organization or institution that is

Not Significant


Project No.: 160960606 20

significant to the community. The property is not likely to yield information that contributes to the understanding of the community, nor does it reflect the ideas or work of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to the community. Contextual Value – Although the farmhouse and associated outbuildings and fields are well-suited to the rural character of its surroundings, the property cannot be said to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting that character, nor is it physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. The property is not a landmark.

6920 Wellington Road

The vernacular farmhouse at 6920 Wellington Rd 16 with a pyramid roof and dormer dates from the late 19th century to early 20th century. A building is shown on the 1877 map of the area in the property owned by W. Smeltzer (Figure 3-2). A total of six outbuildings are associated with the residence but none are considered to be of exceptional design or construction.

6920 Wellington Road does not meet the criteria outlined under O.Reg 9/06 (Table 4-2).

Plate 1- 6920 Wellington Road 16


Project No.: 160960606 21

6880 Third Line

A building in the location of 6880 Third Line is first shown on the 1877 map of the area in the property owned by John Ellis (Figure 3-2). The current building is a large fieldstone structure of considerable size. The Pennsylvannia Georgian style farmhouse is large scale for a rural residential structure. An addition, also of cut fieldstone and of nearly equal in size to the original farmhouse, appears to have been built not long after the construction of the original farmhouse.

The date of construction for the building is difficult to determine. John Ellis was born in Germany around 1820-24 and immigrated to Upper Canada with his father Elum Ellis in the 1830s. John took possession of this plot sometime before the 1851 Census which listed his home as a log structure. His wife, Jane Ellis, was born in 1824 in Upper Canada and was the daughter of A.D. and Mary Vrooman, also of German origin. The Vroomans and Ellises were some of the earliest settlers to the area and among the only Germans (Hutchinson 1997, LAC 1851, Walker and Miles 1877). The 1861 lists the Ellis home as being of log construction, indicating a date of construction for the current stone structure after the 1861 Census.

Six outbuildings are associated with the residence. Four are of modern construction while two appear to be of an earlier construction. Both of the earlier outbuildings have painted green steel roofs and painted grey steel cladding. The larger of the two has a cut stone base painted white and a gambrel roof. The smaller structure has a medium gable roof and an unknown foundation.

Based on the criteria outlined under O.Reg. 9/06, the building at 6880 Third Line is considered to be a significant built heritage resource. The farmhouse meets criterion 1(i) as it is a rare example of largescale fieldstone construction in the area. The construction is similar to other Pennsylvania Georgian cottage style farmhouses in Wellington and Waterloo Counties. The property meets criterion 2(i) as a result of historical associations with the Ellis family, early settlers in the area (Table 4-2).

Plate 2 - 6880 Third Line Road (BHR 1)


Project No.: 160960606 22

4.5 Commercial and Industrial Built Heritage Resources

There are no commercial built heritage resources in or adjacent to the Study Area.

4.6 Educational, Religious and Public Buildings

There are no educational, religious or public built heritage resources in or adjacent to the Study Area.

4.7 Transportation Related Built Heritage Resources

Background research into the transportation methods of the Study Area identified all the roads within the Study Area as possible heritage resources. A visual survey of the roads on June 10, 2010 determined all the roads had undergone extensive repair and modification to modernize them for current use including raising the level, reducing the grade and paving the surface. As a result all roads within the Study Area maintain the plan of the original road but lack the integrity required to be considered heritage resources.


Project No.: 160960606 23

5 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES

5.1 Methodology

In determining the potential for cultural heritage landscapes, it is important to identify the underlying historical themes for both Wellington County and the Study Area. Important themes were noted during the process of historical research and are taken from local histories of the area.

Prevalent themes in the history of Wellington County include;

First Nations land use;

The Grand River;

United Empire Loyalist settlement;

The Canada Company;

The migration and settlement of Pennsylvannia German families along the Grand River in the first half of the 19th century; and

Agriculture.

During the site visit in June, 2010 the Study Area was assessed for groupings of resources and environs that might potential constitute cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the Ministry of Culture. Cultural Heritage Landscapes for the purposes of this study are: “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” (MTC, 2006b).

Prior to the site visit, aerial imagery and historical maps were studied to assess the possibility of encountering components of cultural heritage landscapes. Features considered in this assessment included; built heritage features, cultivated fields, tree-lines surrounding cultivated and fallow fields, fencing surrounding or separating fields and pastures. The site visit also allowed the opportunity to note other themes in the area that might be manifested in cultural heritage landscapes.

5.2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes

During the June, 2010 site visit, no significant cultural heritage landscapes were recorded within the Study Area.


Project No.: 160960606 24

6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 Methodology

Assessment of potential direct or indirect impacts of the project on identified built heritage resources in the Study Area considered Ministry of Tourism and Culture guidelines concerning Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTC, 2006a).

The Ministry of Tourism and Culture outlines seven potential negative impacts on heritage resources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land disturbances are being assessed in a separate Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and have not been included in the current evaluation.

Identification of potential impacts considered the proposed site plan for the layout of turbines and optioned parcels in relation to identified cultural heritage resources (Figure 4-1).

6.2 Identification of Impacts

See Table 6-1 for a summary of potential direct and indirect impacts of the project on identified BHRs and CHLs.

Destruction

BHR-1, 6880 Third Line will not be destroyed by the Project. The potential for negative impacts resulting from Project-related traffic was considered, however, the stone farmhouse is situated approximately 300 m from the road and the setback was considered sufficient to ensure the integrity of the farmhouse.


Project No.: 160960606 25

Table 6-1 Potential Negative Impacts and Recommended Mitigation

Resource Number

Potential Negative Impact

Recommended Mitigation

De

stru

ctio

n

Alt

era

tio

n

Shad

ow

s

Iso

lati

on

Ob

stru

ctio

n o

f V

iew

s

Ch

ange

in L

and

Use

BHR 1 – 6880 Third Line NE NE NE NE NE NE No further mitigation is recommended.

BHR - Built Heritage Resource, CHL - Cultural Heritage Landscape

Potential Impacts: R - Reversible, I - Irreversible, NE - Not Expected

Alteration

BHR-1 will not be altered by the Project.

Shadows

The turbines will be sited approximately 625m, 750m, 875m and 1250m from BHR-1 and as such are not expected to cast shadows on the property (Figure 4-1).

Isolation

The Project will not isolate BHR-1.

Obstruction of Views

Turbines are the only Project components expected to interact with views of BHR-1. When viewing 6880 Third Line from the southeast, facing northwest along Third Line, all four turbines may be visible. This will not be the case when viewing the property from the northwest, facing southeast, as the turbines will be to the viewers back (Figure 4-1).

Visual Aid 1 illustrates the visual impact of turbines similar to those proposed for the Project at a distance of 550 m and 1,000 m from a two storey residential building. Visual Aid 2 shows the same model with simulated mature tree plantings around the residence. As shown in Plate 2, the stone residence at 6880 Third Line is surrounded by mature trees. The visual impact of the turbines on direct views of 6880 Third Line is further lessened as a result of their positioning in relation to the residence. As previously stated, three of the turbines are on the opposite side of Third Line and will be at the viewers back when viewing 6880 Third Line. The turbine positioned approximately 750 m northwest of the subject property will likely be visible in the periphery when viewing 6880 Third Line facing west, but will not obstruct views of the property (Figure 4-1).

Change in Land Use

There will be no change in land use as a result of the Project.

VISUAL AID 1WIND TURBINE SCALE SCHEMATIC, MARCH 2011

Notes:Camera: 1.8m height, 50mm lensTurbine: 95m to tower hub, 44m blade length Distance from Camera Turbine 1 = 550m Turbine 2 = 1,000mHouse: standard two storey, 50m from camera

Turbine 1

Turbine 2

VISUAL AID 2WIND TURBINE SCALE SCHEMATIC, MARCH 2011

Notes:Camera: 1.8m height, 50mm lensTurbine: 95m to tower hub, 44m blade length Distance from Camera Turbine 1 = 550m Turbine 2 = 1,000mHouse: standard two storey, 50m from cameraTrees: 13-15m (40-50’) height, forest 300m from camera

Turbine 1

Turbine 2


Project No.: 160960606 29

9 REFERENCES

9.1 Literature Cited

Chapman, L.J., and D.F. Putnam, 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario (3rd Edition). Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Hutchinson, Jean F., 1997. The History of Wellington County. Grand Valley, Ontario:Landsborough Printing Limited.

LAC (Library and Archives Canada)

1851 Nominal Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia 1851, Microfilm C-11756

1861 Agricultural Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 1861, Microfilm C-1084

1871 Federal Census of 1871 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C-9947-8

1879 Map of the County of Wellington. Miles and Co. Microfiche # 3338

1881 Federal Census of 1881 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C-13259

Ministry of Culture (MTC), 2006a. Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Toronto: Queen‟s Printer for Ontario.

---, 2006b. Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Sheet No. 5,

Information Sheet Series from Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process:

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Statement, 2005. http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/Toolkit/Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf. Accessed June, 2010.

---, 2005. Ontario Heritage Properties Database. http://www.hpd.mcl.gov.on.ca/scripts/hpdsearch/english/default.asp. Accessed June, 2010.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MAH). Provincial Policy Statement. Accessed online at, http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Asset1421.aspx. June, 2010.

Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, Under the Ontario Heritage Act, 2006.

Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 Of The Environmental Protection Act, 2009.

Township of Centre Wellington. Heritage Properties List. Electronic Resource, http://www.centrewellington.ca/rapidblue/Departments/Heritage/Designated+Properties/. Accessed June 22, 2010.

Walker and Miles, 1877. Illustrated Atlas of the County of Wellington. Reprint Edition published in 1972. Ross Cumming, Port Elgin.

http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/Toolkit/Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf

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

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Asset1421.aspx

http://www.centrewellington.ca/rapidblue/Departments/Heritage/Designated+Properties/


Project No.: 160960606 30

9.2 Literature Reviewed

Cruikshank, Tom and John de Visser, 2000. Old Ontario Houses: Traditions in Local

Architecture. Willowdale, ON: Firefly Books.

Fram, Mark, 2003. Well-Preserved: the Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles

and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Third ed.. Erin, ON: The Boston Mills Press.

Gentilcore, Louis R. and C. Grant Head, 1984. Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stantec Consulting Ltd, 2010. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Springwood Wind Farm,

Wellington County, ON. Report prepared for wpd Corporation.

Township of Centre Wellington, 2005. Municipal Official Plan. Electronic Resource, http://www.centrewellington.ca/NR/rdonlyres/51EE317C-BD51-4063-B4C4-F5D0375E8690 /425/TextFinalOfficialPlan.pdf. Accessed June, 2010.

Mikel, Robert, 2004. Ontario House Styles: The distinctive architecture of the province’s 18th

and 19th century homes. James Lorimer & Company Ltd., Publishers: Toronto.

Ontario Architecture, 2010 http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com Accessed June, 2010.

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

Canada.

9.3 Personal Communications

Fraser, Sean. Manager, Acquisitions and Conservation Services, Ontario Heritage Trust. Letter dated September 29, 2010.

Lonsdale, Linda. Secretary, Heritage Centre Wellington. Email June 30, 2010, March and April, 2011. Serafini, Nancy. Customer Services Clerk, Building and Development Department, Township of Centre Wellington. June, 2010.

http://www.centrewellington.ca/NR/rdonlyres/51EE317C-BD51-4063-B4C4-F5D0375E8690

http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/


Project No.: 160960606 31

APPENDIX A

Built Heritage Record Forms

Built Heritage Resource Record Form

Lot: Concession:

19 4

Landmark (Y/N?)

N

Current Use:

Residential

Outbuildings:

6

Cladding:

Vinyl

Roof Material:

Asphalt shingles

Completed by (name): SJ-CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number:

Date Completed: June 10 / July 18, 2010

2

Resource Type:

Farmhouse

Built Heritage Resource Name:

Structural Material:

Architecture/Engineering:

Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) :

a building is shown in this location on the 1877 map of the area.

Description of Resource:

Vernacular farmhouse likely dating from the end of the 19th century to the early to mid 20th century. The building has a

hipped roof with a dormer window and front porch which may be original.

Storeys:

Municipal Address:

6920 Wellington Road 16

Municipality:

County/RM:

Wellington

Township of Centre Wellington

vernacular

Roof Type:

pyramidal

Group Value/CHL Association:

Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations):

Notable Features:

Built Heritage Resource Record Form

Lot: Concession:

18 3

Landmark (Y/N?)

N

Current Use:

Residence

Outbuildings:

6

Cladding:

Cut Stone

Roof Material:

metal

Completed by (name): SJ-CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number:

Date Completed: June 10 / July 18, 2010 BHR 1

Roof Type:

Gable

Stone

Group Value/CHL Association:

Farm Complex

Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations):

Constructed by an Early pioneer of the area, John Ellis

Notable Features:

Cut stone addition on rear of residence

The Georgian-style stone house was likely built by a John Ellis. The farmstead is setback from the road allowance. The stone

house has a large cut stone addition at the rear. The wooden barn associated with the residence has a cut stone base with

steel coverings and a gambrel roof.

Storeys:

Municipal Address:

6880 Third Line

Municipality:

County/RM:

Wellington

Township of Centre Wellington

Georgian

1.5

Resource Type:

Residence

Built Heritage Resource Name:

Structural Material:

Architecture/Engineering:

Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) :

c. 1861-1877

Description of Resource:

final report heritage assessment, springwood wind project...

Documents