Heritage Assessment Report

Transcription

Downtown Meaford
Heritage Conservation District Study
(Preliminary Draft for public review and comment)
Prepared for:
The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford
July 2013
Downtown Meaford
Heritage Conservation District Study
(Preliminary Draft for public review and comment)
Prepared for:
The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford
July 2013
Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study
Heritage Assessment Report (PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT)
Page 1
Contents
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................4
Background ...............................................................................................................................................4
Provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act and provincial guidance ..........................................5
Purpose of this heritage district study ...........................................................................................7
Sources ........................................................................................................................................................8
CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE STUDY AREA .................................................................9
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................9
The physiographic context..................................................................................................................9
Historical settlement and context ................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.4
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.2
2.4.4.3
2.4.4.4
2.4.4.5
2.4.5
Harbour and railway development ...................................................................................... 15
Development of residential neighbourhoods ................................................................. 17
1900-1960s: The automobile age.......................................................................................... 18
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 18
Commercial built form............................................................................................................... 20
Public and Institutional built form ....................................................................................... 22
Residential built form ................................................................................................................ 23
Building stock and integrity .................................................................................................... 24
Three centuries of building design and construction .............................................. 25
Overall maintenance condition ......................................................................................... 27
Alterations-major .................................................................................................................... 27
Alterations-minor .................................................................................................................... 29
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 30
Heritage Conservation district plan and guidelines...................................................... 30
Landscape context and character ................................................................................................. 31
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
MHBC
Commercial core development ............................................................................................. 13
Built Heritage Character .................................................................................................................... 19
2.4.1
2.5
Settlement Origins ...................................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 31
Landscape character of the study area ............................................................................... 31
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 33
Heritage conservation district plan guidance ................................................................. 33
July 2013
2.6
Land use character and policy review.......................................................................................... 33
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.6.3.1
2.6.3.2
2.6.3.3
2.6.3.4
2.6.3.5
2.6.3.6
2.6.3.7
2.6.3.8
2.6.3.9
2.7
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.7.5
2.8.2
2.8.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
Grey County Official Plan ..................................................................................................... 35
Municipality of Meaford Official Plan ............................................................................. 36
Municipality of Meaford Zoning By-law......................................................................... 38
Site Plan Control ...................................................................................................................... 39
Property Standards By-law.................................................................................................. 40
Tree Preservation .................................................................................................................... 40
Sign By-law ................................................................................................................................ 40
Potential development issues............................................................................................ 40
Heritage conservation district plan guidance ............................................................. 41
Municipal tax incentives ........................................................................................................... 42
Loans................................................................................................................................................. 43
Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 43
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 44
Heritage conservation district plan guidance ................................................................. 44
Primary sources ............................................................................................................................ 44
(Maps and Plans) .......................................................................................................................... 45
Secondary sources ...................................................................................................................... 45
Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 46
Summary of the Meaford study area character ....................................................................... 46
District boundary delineation ......................................................................................................... 47
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
Framework of structuring elements .................................................................................... 47
Concentration of heritage resources ................................................................................... 47
Visual coherence of the study area ...................................................................................... 48
Distinctive character .................................................................................................................. 48
District boundary definition ............................................................................................................ 48
3.4.1
MHBC
Study area policy review........................................................................................................... 34
HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DELINEATION: A RECOMMENDED BOUNDARY. 46
3.3.1
3.4
Study area land uses................................................................................................................... 34
Sources Consulted ............................................................................................................................... 44
2.8.1
3.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 33
Heritage conservation and financial incentives ...................................................................... 41
2.7.1
2.8
Page 2
Public consultation and district boundary re-definition ............................................. 49
July 2013
3.5
4.0
4.1
4.2
Conclusions............................................................................................................................................. 50
RECOMMENDED OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND PLAN CONTENT
51
Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 51
Statement of intent ............................................................................................................................. 52
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
4.3
4.4
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Page 3
Heritage interests, property owner interests and community interests .............. 52
Meaford heritage character..................................................................................................... 52
Meaford conservation management approach .............................................................. 53
Custodial responsibility ............................................................................................................ 53
Alteration of properties ............................................................................................................ 53
Restoration of heritage properties ....................................................................................... 53
Fair and equitable consideration .......................................................................................... 53
Objectives of the proposed designation for the Meaford Conservation District....... 54
Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan content .......................................................... 55
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO MUNICIPAL PLANNING MECHANISMS AND BY-LAWS 56
Background ............................................................................................................................................ 56
Zoning by-law ........................................................................................................................................ 56
Heritage property standards ........................................................................................................... 56
Sign By-law.............................................................................................................................................. 57
Delegated approval authority for alterations .......................................................................... 57
Heritage permit application form and approvals ................................................................... 57
5.7 Ontario Heritage Act Part IV designations, heritage conservation easement
agreements and other measures ................................................................................................................ 58
5.8
The need and timing for and Interim Control By-law under the Ontario Heritage Act
59
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Map of Study Area..................................................................................................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Excerpt from County of Grey Official Plan, Schedule A, Map 1n...............................................................................35
Figure 3: Excerpt from Municipality of Meaford Official Plan, Schedule A-1..........................................................................36
Figure 4: Excerpts from Meaford Zoning By-law (maps 8 & 9)........................................................................................................38
Figure 5: Meaford Character areas...........................................................................................................................................Following 48
Figure 6: Meaford HCD Proposed Boundary.....................................................................................................................Following 48
Figure 7: Meaford HCD Potential Areas for Future Study..........................................................................................Following 58
MHBC
July 2013
Page 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
The Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study originated as part of the 2005 Official Plan and the 2008
Community Improvement Plan (CIP). The Community Improvement Plan identified a vision for the
community core and identified an objective to “create a mechanism to promote investment in a very important
historical and commercial area of the Municipality of Meaford, thereby generating economic development and
increased assessment”. This formed the focus of a key action, notably that “In Meaford where a large percentage
of the built environment contains cultural heritage properties, Part V, OHA, can be an effective tool for community
renewal, economic stability and heritage conservation”.
The direction provided in the CIP (approved by Council in February 2009) served as the basis for pursuing the
designation of a heritage conservation district under the Ontario Heritage Act. In December 2012,
Municipality of Meaford staff initiated the Request for Proposals process to retain a consulting team to
undertake the preparation of both a heritage conservation district study and an accompanying district plan
and guidelines. The decision to move forward with the plan and guidelines portion would only be
considered after Council had received and approved the findings and recommendations in the heritage
conservation district study.
The Council-approved study area being examined for the purpose of undertaking a heritage assessment is
derived from the Community Improvement Plan study area and is generally defined by Albert Street to the
north, the waterfront in the northeast, Cook Street to the west, Boucher Street and Bridge Streets to the
south, and Denmark and Fuller Streets to the east (outlined in red on Figure 1).
The Municipality of Meaford’s study area comprises all or part of the following streets:
North-South
East-West
Cook Street
Bayfield Street
Denmark Street
Fuller Street
St. Vincent Street
Sykes Street
Albert Street
Berry Street
Bridge Street
Boucher Street
Collingwood Street
Lombard Street
Nelson Street
Parker Street
Trowbridge Street
MHBC
July 2013
Page 5
Figure 1: Map of Study Area
1.2
Provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act and provincial guidance
The Ontario Heritage Act is the key provincial legislation that enables municipalities to conserve, protect and
manage heritage properties and areas. There are two parts to the Act that concern cultural heritage:
•
MHBC
Part IV enables a municipality to designate individual properties that are of cultural heritage value or
interest and Part V enables a municipality to designate groups or areas of properties that
demonstrate cultural heritage value. The Municipality of Meaford has designated three (3) properties
under Part IV, two (2) of which are within the current study area (Meaford Hall and former Fire Hall at
12 and 26 Nelson Street East respectively). Currently there are no heritage conservation districts
designated under Part V in the municipality.
July 2013
•
Page 6
Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act enables a municipality to designate by by-law all or any part of a
municipality as a heritage conservation district. Prior to designating a district it has become
conventional practice to study an area in order to identify the cultural heritage values and character
of a prospective district. Sometimes this is formally undertaken by defining an area by by-law.
Guidance on what constitutes a heritage conservation district is provided by a number of sources. The
Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in its published guidelines (Heritage Conservation Districts, A
Guide to District Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act) note that a heritage conservation district:
“...may comprise an area with a group or complex of buildings, or a larger area with many buildings and
properties. It may also comprise an entire municipality with a concentration of heritage resources with
special character or historical association that distinguishes it from its surroundings.”
Designating a heritage conservation district is concerned with identifying groups of heritage properties that
together with other distinguishing features or attributes form a distinctive place worthy of informed
protection and management. The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has also noted in its
published guidelines “Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designation under the Ontario
Heritage Act” that a heritage conservation district typically displays a number of characteristics including:
“A concentration of heritage buildings, sites, structures; designed landscapes, natural landscapes that are
linked by aesthetic, historical and socio-cultural contexts or use.
A framework of structured elements including major natural features such as topography, land form,
landscapes, water courses and built form such as pathways and street patterns, landmarks, nodes or
intersections, approaches and edges.
A sense of visual coherence through the use of such elements as building scale, mass, height, material,
proportion, colour, etc. that convey a distinct sense of time or place.
A distinctiveness which enables districts to be recognised and distinguishable from their surroundings or
from neighbouring areas.”
The Municipality of Meaford’s current Official Plan contains the following guidance with regards to heritage
conservation districts:
Where merited by the concentration and significance of cultural heritage Resources in accordance with
Section D3.2.2 of this Plan, Council may consider the establishment of a Heritage Conservation District to
conserve an area's heritage character.
Prior to designating a Heritage Conservation District pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, Council will:
a) pass a by-law to define an area to be examined for future designation;
b) prepare and adopt a Heritage Conservation District Plan; and,
c) establish a District Committee to advise Council on matters pertaining to the designated
district.
Within designated Heritage Conservation Districts, property owners, in consultation with the appropriate
District Committee, will be encouraged to maintain and repair heritage buildings and seek government
grants and loans for eligible conservation work”.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 7
D3.2.3.1 Contents of Heritage Conservation District Plan
The general principles pertaining to Heritage Conservation Districts will be outlined in a Heritage
Conservation District Plan. The Heritage Conservation District Plan will:
a) delineate boundaries of the designated area and reasons for the designation;
b) inventory cultural heritage resources;
c) prescribe policies, conservation and design guidelines, and other pertinent material relating
to the sound and prudent management of the district's unique character;
d) be adopted by Council after consultation with affected property owners and other interested
agencies as considered appropriate; and,
e) be implemented by municipal review of heritage permit applications for changes and
alterations to individual buildings and structures within the designated district.
In reviewing proposals for the construction, demolition or removal of buildings or structures, or the
alteration of buildings within a Heritage Conservation District, Council shall be guided by the applicable
Heritage Conservation District Plan.
The specific purpose of the heritage conservation district study assessment is discussed further in Section
1.3.
1.3
Purpose of this heritage district study
This study is the first part of a two-part process that comprises the Meaford Heritage Conservation District
Study. This first part includes the heritage assessment component that describes and evaluates the cultural
heritage value of the Meaford study area. The area includes approximately 282 properties occupied by
approximately 240 built features (i.e., those that have street addresses) and is shown in Figure 1.2.
The scope of the heritage conservation district study was guided both by the Municipality of Meaford’s
terms of reference for this study as well as the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act, notably subsection
40(2) which prescribes that a study shall:
(a) examine the character and appearance of the area that is the subject of the study, including buildings,
structures and other property features of the area, to determine if the area should be preserved as a heritage
conservation district;
(b) examine and make recommendations as to the geographic boundaries of the area to be designated;
(c) consider and make recommendations as to the objectives of the designation and the content of the
heritage conservation district plan required under section 41.1;
(d) make recommendations as to any changes that will be required to the municipality’s official plan and to
any municipal by-laws, including any zoning by-laws.
Accordingly, the heritage study report specifically examines the following aspects of the prospective district:
•
historical growth and development of downtown Meaford (Section 2),
•
the built and architectural character of the study area (Section 2),
MHBC
July 2013
Page 8
•
streetscape and landscape attributes (Section 2),
•
land use character (Section 2),
•
geographic boundaries of the area to be potentially designated (Section 3),
•
objectives of the designation and the content of the heritage conservation district plan (Section 4),
and
•
potential changes that will be required to the Municipality of Meaford’s Official Plan and to any
municipal by-laws (Section 5).
If, as a result of the heritage assessment report, the Municipality determines that it is feasible to proceed with
potential designation, then the second phase of work would begin. The second part of the Meaford Heritage
Conservation District process will be the Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan and Guidelines which
provide the basis for the management and protection of the area’s heritage character including its buildings,
spaces and landscape features.
1.4
Sources
Municipality of Meaford. Official Plan 2005.
Ontario. Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990, c O. 18
Ontario. Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Heritage Conservation Districts, A Guide to District Designation under
the Ontario Heritage Act, (Published as part of the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit), 2006.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 9
2.0 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE STUDY AREA
2.1
Introduction
This section of the Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study examines the character and appearance of
the study area as required under the Ontario Heritage Act. The various report sections that follow contain
summaries and conclusions from more detailed survey work or analysis, including the heritage building
inventory (See Appendix A) and landscape and open space inventory (See Appendix B). Together the
findings and conclusions of this section provide the rationale for the boundary delineation that is found in
Section 3. Historical background research is conducted to gain a thorough understanding of the study area
and its place within the development of the municipality and wider area. Historical research identifies the
themes, forces and events that shaped the history of Meaford and helps to understand the land patterns,
appearance and character of the study area.
The research has focused on four main components: historical settlement and context; built heritage
character; streetscape and landscape survey; and policy review. The research was performed through a
combination of site visits and research, which varied depending on the specific tasks being undertaken.
Related to the historic settlement and built heritage character, information from the Municipality of Meaford,
Heritage Meaford and the Meaford Museum and Archives were reviewed, as well as various historic maps,
historic background, photos, and architectural information. Various Regional and Municipal policies were
consulted when completing the policy review exercise. All project team members conducted various site
visits to examine portions of the study area applicable to the various reviews undertaken.
2.2
The physiographic context
The historic town of Meaford is located on the southern shore of Georgian Bay, in the physiographic region
known as the Bighead Valley. The valley is an indentation in the Niagara Escarpment at the town of Meaford.
The valley spans approximately eight miles in width and is 10-12 miles deep. The Bighead River sits in the
centre of the valley, draining to Georgian Bay (Chapman and Putnam 125-126, 1984).
The Bighead Valley was primarily shaped prior to the glacial period, however glacial ice deposits created
more than 300 drumlins within an area only 80 square miles in size. Within the town of Meaford, there is a
“bouldery terrace” and a 25 foot bluff that mark the highest water level of the Nipissing Great Lakes, and at
this point the Bighead River Valley is more than 50 feet deep (Chapman and Putnam 125-126, 1984).
The soil of the region is generally well-drained stoney clay loam. It is slightly acidic due to the presence of
shale and rocks. Where subsoil has been exposed on the steeper slopes, free lime carbonate exists in the
surface soil. Sandy soils are more common in the lake plain near Meaford, and these soils are well suited to
apples if there is regular fertilization of the soil. The settlement grid for St. Vincent Township in Grey County
matches the grain of the landforms in the county, and allows farmers to cultivate along the contours of the
land, rather than diagonally up and down slopes of the drumlins (Chapman and Putnam 125-126, 1984).
Meaford’s harbour is located at the mouth of the Bighead River. The river drains an area of 120 square miles,
including a part of the Niagara Escarpment and wooded upland. It features a winding course as it travels
around the many drumlins in the area. The river continues to wind slightly through the sandy-clay soils at
Meaford before reaching Georgian Bay, where the mouth of the river serves as a harbour for small boats,
protected by a concrete pier (Chapman and Putnam 87-88, 1984).
MHBC
July 2013
Page 10
Excerpt from map of Georgian Bay shoreline, showing location of Meaford (denoted by arrow). Source: National Atlas of
Canada, Toporama: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html
2.3
Historical settlement and context
The underlying topography, drainage system, ameliorating climate and proximity to the Georgian Bay
shoreline made this area ideal for human settlement, both in the pre-contact period prior to Euro-Canadian
settlement and in later years as the area transformed and evolved from wilderness on the shore of Georgian
Bay to a thriving settlement. The following section briefly summarizes those key themes of historical activity
that have accounted for the changing landscape and its appearance today. Some of the historical
background references buildings and locations outside the study area, and while these properties will not
form part of the proposed district, they form an important part of the development of Meaford and
contribute to the understanding of properties within the study area boundary.
MHBC
July 2013
2.3.1
Page 11
Settlement Origins
The site of Meaford and the surrounding area has a high potential for aboriginal activity sites, due to the
generally well-drained soil, potable water sources and navigation routes along the shoreline of Georgian Bay
and the Bighead River. The area was traveled by “Petun” natives (Algonquin and Hurons) who likely fished,
hunted and camped in the area. A reportedly well-used aboriginal trail along the river suggested the area
was used for transportation and hunting grounds (Stanley Knight Collection & Contributors, 14).
Archaeological sites in the Meaford area have uncovered chert, projectile points and stone pipes.
Reportedly, early settlers found a large skull at a point jutting out near the mouth of the river, which they
presumed to be the burial site of an aboriginal chief. The Bighead River was named for this discovery (St
Vincent Heritage Association, 83).
The municipality now known as Meaford was part of the 1818 treaty called the Lake Simcoe-Nottawasaga
purchase. It included 1,592,000 acres from north of Toronto to south shores of Georgian Bay, east to Lake
Simcoe, and west to the line between Home and London districts (the boundary between Sydenham and St.
Vincent Townships) (St. Vincent Heritage Association, 20).
The 1864 map of Meaford records an “Indian Camp” southeast of the harbour. The authors presume use of
this camp was rare, citing diary entry of Peter Fuller in 1853: “two canoe loads of indians arrived today from
the lower end of the Bay and established themselves in a couple of Wigwams on the beach at the mouth of
the river” (St. Vincent Heritage Association, 16). It is not known how frequently or infrequently the site was
actually used, and when use of it stopped or was stopped by settlement and development.
St. Vincent Township was surveyed between 1833 and 1835 by Charles Rankin (and others including A.
Rankin, J. Bulmer, J. Thine, Jas. McCarten, Cuthbert Amiotte, C. Solomon, Martin Ploof, L. Thibeau, Pierre
Gervais) commencing 1833 (finishing 1835). A 200 acre town reserve was set aside at mouth of Bighead
River, containing lot 16 on Concessions 4 and 5 (Stanley Knight Collection, 14).
St. Vincent Township was isolated in the initial years after its survey, with long distances between major
communities of trade and commerce. Rankin’s survey and provision of town reserve at the Bay shore
identified Meaford as a significant location. Although the harbour was not large enough for big ships, as it
was difficult to navigate the mouth due to a burden of silt (the product of many floods), the river was a good
source of waterpower for future mill and industrial sites, provided the river could be ‘tamed’. The site had
been noted as a meeting point for voyageurs and small trading post with the natives (St. Vincent Heritage
Association, 283).
The originally surveyed lots to become Meaford include:
“two broken front lots, 15 and 16 in Concession 4, along the shore to the east of the river and in concession 5 , four
lots – 14, 15, 16, 17 – the first three measuring 200 acres each, and the northernmost a broken front lot. The lots
were immediately made available for sale except for Lots 16, concession 4 and 5, which had been set aside from the
very beginning as a clergy reserve and then as Crown Land being reserved for a town site” (St. Vincent Heritage
Association, 283).
Lots 14, 15 and 17 in concession 5 were crown grants already patented in 1836. John R. Morden was given
Lot 17, Abraham Fraser was granted half of Lot 15 and Daniel Fraser the other half. Within three years the lots
were all sold as a single parcel to James Becket/Bicket (spelling varies), a speculator (St. Vincent Heritage
MHBC
July 2013
Page 12
Association 284). Lot 15 Con. 4 was part of the Thomas Workman Estate, who added his property to the town
reserve in 1835.
Settlement in the Meaford area began c. 1840, with the arrival of David Miller, who built a log cabin on the
south bank of the Bighead River (near present-day Boucher Street between Henry and Denmark Streets, just
outside of the study area). Miller had emigrated from Ireland with his family, and named the site Peggy’s
Landing after his wife. David Miller selected an additional mill site downstream from the Owen Street Bridge
and began constructing a mill but ran out of money or means to complete project. Moses Chantler assisted
in the construction of the mill and began operation in 1844. The mill was located just outside boundary of
town reserve (St. Vincent Historical Association, 285)
William Stephenson, of England, acquired land north of the town reserve in the 1840s and built an inn, the
Meaford Arms, at present-day Bayfield Street (between Parker and Lombard). This area became known as
Stephenson’s Landing. He was appointed first postmaster for St. Vincent, carrying mail between Meaford and
Barrie. The trail he used known as the “Old Mail Road” (Stanley Knight Collection, 14).
In 1845 William Gibbard subdivided the town reserve, named the area Meaford, after Meaford Hall in
Stafordshire England, the seat of the Earl of St. Vincent, for whom the township was named. St. Vincent was
the name used for the post office until 1867. Many of Gibbard’s streets were named after British naval officers
(Nelson, Trowbridge, Collingwood, Owen, Bayfield, Parker, Pearson, Cook, Noble, Berry, Sykes and Boucher).
Gibbard’s plan envisioned Nelson Street as the primary commerce area, and the street was given a wider
allowance than others for military defence reasons. It was supposed that any attacks on Meaford would
come from the water, and the wide street allowance of Nelson Street would allow troops to rally from
Winthuysan Square (located between Owen Street and Nobel Street, presently the hospital). The first lots in
the official townsite of Meaford were sold in 1846 to Joseph Hamilton, a blacksmith (Stanley Knight
Collection, 14-15).
The subdivision of the town reserve created a dispute amongst the mill operators at the time. In completing
his survey, Gibbard realized that Lot 16 was not wide enough for a road allowance at Boucher Street. He
removed the original survey posts, and relocated the lot line approximately 50 feet onto David Miller’s
property, threatening Miller with jail if he resisted the adjustment. Miller did go to jail, and found himself in a
dispute with Chanter, who wanted to buy the property but requested a lower payment due to the reduced
size of the land. Miller’s land was sold to Jesse Purdy in 1846.
By the 1850s, the Purdy’s had established a saw mill, a grist mill and a woolen factory. Chantler appears to
have constructed a new mill as well. The mills were located along the Bighead River between present-day
Owen Street and Sykes Street, south of Boucher Street. Purdy’s arrival in the Meaford area resulted in more
than just mills; he hired a surveyor to subdivide Lot 15 Concession 5, south of the river and town reserve and
laid out streets named after his children: Seymour, William Henry, Edwin, Edwin, Marshall, Adelbert and
Harriet. The subdivision was named Purdytown, and housed a number of Purdy’s relatives and mill workers.
Purdy also opened the first school in the area, with his daughter Harriet as the teacher, and was involved in
local politics, serving as the director of the Northern Railway when it came through Collingwood and Barrie
(1855) and became member of Parliament in 1858. He served as reeve of township in 1852, 1860 and 1861
(St. Vincent Historical Association, 291).
The 1846 text from Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer contains the following description of the settlement, at that
time called St. Vincent:
MHBC
July 2013
Page 13
ST. VINCENT.
A Township in the Simcoe District; is bounded on the north by the Nottawasaga Bay; on the west by the
township of Sydenham; on the south by Euphrasia; and on the east by Nottawasaga Bay and the
township of Collingwood. In St. Vincent 17, 028 acres are taken up, 1592 of which are under cultivation.
This township is beginning to settle up fast: it contains good land, and some thriving farms. The principal
settlements are a short distance from the bay. There is an Indian village on the bay, near the town line
between St. Vincent and Sydenham, the inhabitants of which possess a fine tract of land in the
neighbourhood. St. Vincent was added to the Simcoe District in 1844, previous to which time, it formed a
portion of the Home District. One thousand five hundred acres of Crown lands are open for sale in the
township, at 8s. currency per acre. There are two grist and two saw mills in the township. There has as yet
been no return of the population from St. Vincent. Ratable property in the township, £6758.
2.3.2
Commercial core development
In the mid-19th century the area surrounding present-day Owen Street (outside of the study area) was
reportedly the industrial heart of Meaford, with mills and collection of trades including blacksmiths,
shoemakers, coopers, carpenters and masons (St. Vincent Historical Association, 292). By the 1860s, Nelson
Street between Bayfield and Sykes Street (within the study area) had become the main commercial area of
the community, as imagined by Surveyor Gibbard in laying the village plan. The street contained shops,
trades, residences, a Wesleyan Church and parsonage, a hotel and, at the southeast corner of Sykes and
Nelson, the drill hall at Market Square. During this time, commercial development along Sykes Street had
begun but was still relatively scattered.
In 1867, the following commercial blocks and individual commercial buildings were constructed: Sing’s Block
at 28 Sykes Street North, Pilgrem’s Block at 30 Sykes Street North, Milne’s White Block at 48 Sykes Street
North, Stewart’s at 25 Sykes Street North, Stovel-Sing Building at 32 Sykes Street North, the Ryan Hotel at
Nelson and Sykes Street and the Farmer’s Home Temperance House on the west side of Sykes Street.
The following year, additional commercial properties along Sykes Street had appeared, including the Lang
Block on the east side of Sykes Street, the Brown Block on the East side of Sykes Street, the Plunkett Block at
38 Sykes Street. The Wharf warehouse by the waterfront had also been restored.
In 1869, development began extending further in the village core, to include Tyson’s Steam Flour Mill at
Denmark Street and St. Vincent Street, the Victoria Planing Mill at Boucher and Sykes Street, the Roman
Catholic Church at the Northwest corner of Cook and Collingwood Streets. On Sykes Street, the Victoria
Hotel (later the Blue Water Hotel) was constructed at Sykes and Collingwood Streets.
In the early 1870s came the construction of more commercial blocks, hotels and banks, including the Cooper
Block at Sykes and Trowbridge Streets (1870), the Chisholm Block at the southwest corner of Nelson Street
and Sykes Street (1871), the Hill’s Livery Stable at Sykes and Parker Streets (1871), the Sewell Block at 6 Sykes
Street north (1871) and the railway station, freight shed and water tank at station hill (outside the study area),
and the Molson’s Bank at Sykes Nelson Streets (1873). During this time, plank sidewalks were constructed
along Sykes Street.
A series of fires in the 1880s damaged much of Sykes Street and prompted re-construction of many of the
original buildings. The following buildings survived the 1880s fires: 25-27 Sykes Street (Stewarts Brothers’
Block), 28-30 Sykes Street (Sing Block), 32-34 Sykes Street (Sing-Agnew building), 50,52,54 Sykes Street
(Chisholm Block). The following buildings were constructed after the 1881 fire: 36-44 Sykes Street, 46-48
Sykes Street. The following were constructed after the 1883 fire: 29 Sykes Street, 35 Sykes Street (Cleland
Hardware), 43 Sykes Street, 45-47 Sykes Street. The Molson’s Bank at 68 Sykes Street (formerly the Meaford
MHBC
July 2013
Page 14
Express) was constructed after the 1892 fire, and the Merchant’s Bank at 26 Sykes Street (now BMO) was
constructed after the 1903 fire. The town hall was destroyed by fire in 1907, and was replaced in 1909 with
the existing Edwardian style structure. Although the numerous fires devastated many businesses, the
resulting construction between the two decades created a downtown core with a number of structures of
similar character, particularly red brick façades with Italianate influence in design.
Excerpt from 1864 Plan of Town Lots Adjoining Meaford produced by Cyrus R. Sing, showing study area (land north of
Parker Street not included on the map).
MHBC
July 2013
Page 15
Meaford commercial core on “Band Day”, looking north along Sykes Street, early 20th century. From Pictorial Meaford
2.3.3
Harbour and railway development
Historical documentation of the Meaford harbour is rather scarce. The local history compiled by the St.
Vincent Historical Association notes that by the mid 1850s, some improvements were being made to the
Harbour in the community of Meaford. The 1864 map of Meaford shows some development along the
waterfront, including a pier, storehouse and wharf to handle the Township’s export of wheat, a steam factory,
hotels and stores. The arrival of steam power allowed industry to increase. A planing Mill run by J.R. Mitchell
and Co, D. Sinclair’s foundry and the Charles Carney steam tannery were located along the waterfront or
nearby. Commercial and civic growth during this time was clustered along Nelson Street, near the harbour,
indicating the importance of that location for shipping or transportation. By the mid 1860s, Meaford also
featured steam ships which provided access to other communities on Georgian Bay. Around 1870, a fishery
that had been established at Cape Rich was beginning to relocate to Meaford. Boat builder William Pillgrem
built a steam tug and began collecting catches from fishermen around the Bay, packed them on ice in
barrels made by local coopers and shipped to several destinations, including the United States (St. Vincent
Historical Association 300). A grain elevator, replacing the one at Station Hill, was constructed at the harbour
around the turn of the century (Stanley Knight Collection, 81). Images from the Stanley Knight Collection in
Pictorial Meaford depict the harbour used for shipping and receiving goods like coal and lumber, for
passenger steamers, a small commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing and boating.
Left, Meaford Harbour in 1896, showing sailboat and steam passenger boats. Right: Meaford Harbour and the grain
elevator. Date of photo unknown. Pictorial Meaford
MHBC
July 2013
Page 16
Unloading lumber at the harbour, looking towards the intersection of Bayfield and Nelson Streets. Image date
unknown, Pictorial Meaford.
The North Grey Railway arrived in Meaford in 1872, nearly two decades after it had reached Collingwood.
Local history sources note that the process was a controversial one, with debates about where the station
should be located. It was constructed at a location known as “Station Hill” bordered by present-day Highway
26, Paul Street, Union Street, Farrar Street and Burton Street. Many had lobbied for the construction of the
station below the hill. Local builder Frank Law of the Victoria Planing mills constructed the station, as well as
freight sheds, a roundhouse turntable, water tank and cattle sheds. Between 1884 and 1885 a grain elevator
was constructed.
The railway accessed Meaford through Station Hill until 1899, when new tracks were laid to connect the
railway to the Harbour. A Grand Trunk Railway Station was reportedly relocated to the harbour (it is not
known where the station was relocated from). The relocation of the railway coincided with harbour
improvements, with the goal of making Meaford competitive with other waterfront-railway ports. A new
grain storage elevator was constructed, along with sheds and sidings, a roundhouse, turntable and water
tank. The relocation of the railway faced a challenge in engineering grades that the railway could safely travel
on from the high hill at its previous location to the new, much lower location at the waterfront. A 1913 fire
destroyed the grain elevator.
The relocated railway operated for about 60 years. It was enjoyed by local residents and visitors who
embarked on railway excursions to nearby towns. The station was particularly well used during the Second
World War, when local members of the armed forces arrived and departed from it. By the 1960s, freight
service declined with only one train arriving in Meaford a day, and passenger service was discontinued due
to the increase in automobile traffic. Although some citizens wished to see the station preserved, relocated
and used as a museum, it was demolished in 1965 (Stanley Knight Collection, 73).
MHBC
July 2013
Page 17
Left, Meaford Railway station at the harbour, date of image not known. Right: aerial view of railway area at harbour, date
of image unknown. Both from Pictorial Meaford.
2.3.4
Development of residential neighbourhoods
Detailed information relating to the development of Meaford’s residential neighbourhoods is relatively
scattered. These areas as a whole are generally not described in detail in local historical sources, though
some mention is made of particular individual residences associated with key persons and events in the
town’s history. This section has been compiled using the limited information contained in the local histories,
historic maps, census data and newspaper clippings.
Up to 1850, Meaford contained only approximately ten dwellings. Population growth began to increase after
this date, likely due to increased immigration to Ontario and improved transportation networks. Many lots in
Purdytown were held in speculation, with settlement scattered in the subdivision (St. Vincent Historical
Association, 292). The 1861 C.R. Sing plan for Meaford shows a handful of buildings south of the river in
Purdytown that may have been residences, or a combination of residence/store/trade. Within the study area,
another scattering of buildings east of Sykes Street on Parker Street, Collingwood Street and Trowbridge
Street may also have been residences or a combination of profession/living quarters. Approximately a dozen
structures are depicted west of Sykes Street that may also have been residences. Growth of the residential
neighbourhoods would have increased steadily in the following decades.
In 1974, recognition was paid to over 120 Century homes in Meaford. The following houses in the study area
have been identified as having been constructed by 1874: 186 Bayfield Street, 106 Bridge Street, 116 Bridge
Street, 43 Collingwood Street East, 34 Collingwood Street West, 37 Cook Street, 133 Cook Street, 30 Lombard
Street, 35 Lombard Street, 46-48 Lombard Street, 53 Lombard Street, 53 Nelson Street East, 21 Nelson Street
West, 46 Nelson Street West, 36 Parker Street West, 43 Parker Street West, 44 Parker Street West, 33
Trowbridge Street and 40 Trowbridge Street. By the present date, there are several more century home than
were recognized in the 1970s.
Fire insurance plans from 1925 show that by this date houses or businesses had been constructed on many
of the lots in the residential (or mixed use) neighbourhoods within the study area. More contemporary
buildings have replaced earlier structures or occupied the few vacant lots that were available in the 20th
century.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 18
Excerpts from 1925 Fire Insurance Plans showing residential development within much of the study area.
2.3.5
1900-1960s: The automobile age
By the 1920s, increased use of automobiles prompted highway improvements for Highway 26, the road
joining Meaford with Collingwood and Owen Sound. The Highway was widened, and the previous entrance
to Meaford from the south was altered to avoid the steep hill and dangerous crossing at Edwin Street. These
changes primarily affected roadways and crossings outside of the study area, however Nelson Street, once
the widest street in the town, was reduced to a standard road allowance in 1921 by increasing the size of the
boulevards. The town roads that had once been dirt and gravel increasingly became paved, with curbs
delineating separate areas for pedestrians and vehicles. The concentration of commercial development
along Sykes Street directed traffic down this thoroughfare, and gradually, away from the waterfront. Garages,
carports and driveways, previously not part of residential properties, became frequent features on newly
constructed infill or replacement properties, and in some cases, additions to existing dwellings.
The biggest change brought on by the automobile era came in the 1960s. The increase of motor vehicle and
transport truck traffic reduced the use of railways across the country. By the 1960s in Meaford, only one train
a day was arriving at the station.
2.3.6
Conclusions
The growth and transformation of Meaford from wilderness to settled community over two centuries is
accounted for by a variety of historical themes of human activity that when woven together provide a richly
patterned cultural heritage resource and several key historical themes. Early milling activity, together with
the development the harbour, railway and other industries established initial settlement within the town
reserve grid, as well as outside of it.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 19
Commercial enterprises began to concentrate along Sykes Street in the latter half of the 19th century,
forming a downtown corridor in the village. Numerous fires in the latter 19th century and early 20th century
resulted in two decades of building and re-building and created a downtown corridor with a relatively
uniform character and materials palette. Fires and development changes between Sykes Street and the
Waterfront resulted in a more mixed appearance, with structures of varying dates, styles and alterations. In
recent years, several buildings in this area have been demolished, with new infill taking their place, or have
become vacant lots available for re-development.
The remaining residential areas developed throughout the last two centuries, with houses spanning a wide
range of construction dates and styles. The mixed character of the residential neighbourhoods reflects
typical changes of southern Ontario village life over time.
2.4
Built Heritage Character
The overall character of the area is an eclectic mix that includes commercial and residential buildings that
range in date from the 1860s to the present. While Sykes Street is almost entirely commercial, other streets
exhibit a mix of residential and commercial buildings.
The greatest concentration of heritage structures occurs along the Sykes Street commercial core. Many
buildings on Sykes Street were damaged in fires in the late 19th century. Buildings of brick construction
replaced those that had burnt, establishing a durable and relatively consistent streetscape of red brick
façades. Some wealthy merchants erected substantial and architecturally-impressive brick commercial
buildings on Sykes Street. Remaining examples from this period are two to three storeys tall and typically
Italianate in style. The similar heights of the buildings and the uniform setback from the street form a wall
along Sykes Street and establish the look and feel of the commercial core character.
Residential neighbourhoods within the study area contain houses in a variety of styles. There are many
examples of vernacular construction with modifications such as alterations, window and entrance
replacements and synthetic cladding. Even with the alterations, some buildings still demonstrate historic
form and proportions. There are also a number of good examples of particular architectural styles, including
Gothic Revival, Italianate, Second Empire, Queen Anne and Edwardian. More contemporary buildings
demonstrate influence of post-war victory housing, mid-century modern design, and ranch style houses.
Many houses are clad in red brick or synthetic siding, though a handful still feature clapboard cladding or
stone.
Many buildings associated with early settlement have been destroyed by fire, demolished or are located
outside of the study area. Some, including properties on the southwest side of Collingwood Street, a
property at 46 Bayfield Street and at 156 Sykes Street and a have been modified with contemporary
cladding, but their historic form is still recognizable.
Few of the buildings associated with the railway and harbour remain, with the exception of a small frame
building once used to hold luggage for the railway, and the former pump house, now part of the Meaford
Museum. There are also very few remnants of the former commercial area on Nelson Street from the 1860s.
The street is now lined with residential properties of varying ages and vacant lots. The former drill hall of
market square has been converted to a commercial establishment, but its historic form is still evident and
there is some remaining brick corbelling.
The northeast corner of Nelson and Sykes street now contains two landmark structures from the late 19th and
early 20th centuries: the former town hall and fire station. The town hall was constructed in 1909 to replace
MHBC
July 2013
Page 20
the 1864 town hall that was destroyed in a 1907 fire. The fire hall was constructed in 1887, with the tower
added in 1908. These two buildings are the only buildings in the former Town of Meaford designated under
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Four churches are contained within the study area; two stone (English and Gospel Workers) and two brick
(Baptist) and the former Knox Presbyterian. An early frame Baptist church at the corner of Cook Street and
Collingwood has been extensively modified and converted to a residence.
Three historic purpose-built banks are located along Sykes Street: the former Molson’s Bank at 68 Sykes
Street North, constructed in 1893; the former Merchant’s Bank at 26 Sykes Street North, constructed in 1904;
and the Toronto Dominion Bank at 53 Sykes Street, constructed in 1921. The Merchant’s bank is now the
Bank of Montreal and the Toronto Dominion Bank is still a TD bank.
Early twentieth century infill is fairly unobtrusive, since the materials, scale and historically derived-styles
generally fit well with the earlier buildings. In contrast, mid-twentieth century buildings generally stand out
because of their scale and form, use of modern materials and rejection of historical styles. Buildings built
since 1970 have been identified in the building inventory (See Appendix A) as contemporary in style.
2.4.1
Commercial built form
Commercial buildings are primarily concentrated along Sykes Street, with some located along the side
streets, located amongst or within residential structures. The majority of the 19th and early 20th century
commercial buildings on Sykes Street are two to three storeys, and there are a number of commercial blocks
of two or more units that retain a unified appearance.
The typical nineteenth-century commercial building found in the study area is the “two-part” commercial
block, typically two or three storeys tall. The two-part division reflects differences in use inside and is
characterized by a horizontal division between commercial uses at street level and other uses above.
Surviving examples are of brick construction and Italianate in style with ornate cornices and decorative
treatments around upper floor windows. The lower street level is configured for commercial use, with large
windows to display merchandise. Shop-fronts have a recessed central door flanked by large display
windows. A separate entrance to the upper floor(s) is located to one side of the shop-front. The commercial
buildings are almost entirely constructed of or clad with red brick, many with buff brick detailing. Several of
the storefronts on the first storey have synthetic cladding applied on top of the historic fabric.
Examples of commercial blocks on Sykes Street
MHBC
July 2013
Page 21
Two storey bank buildings became popular in the late 19th and early 20th century. The earliest of these (the
Merchant’s Bank at 68 Sykes Street) was influenced by Italianate of architecture, then was modified in the
early 20th century to include classical details found in the emerging Beaux Arts Style (though this example
features far less decorative elements than high-style Beaux Arts example). The Molson’s Bank at 26
Trowbridge Street was built in 1904 with the classical detailing influenced Beaux Arts design, as was the 1921
Toronto Dominion Bank at 53 Sykes Street. This architectural style was popular for early 20th century banks,
and public buildings, and featured an eclectic mix of classical features while straying from the traditional
classical proportions (see appendix B for detailed description of architectural style).
Examples of late 19th and early 20th century bank buildings on Sykes Street
In many places, 19th century commercial buildings were built with residential quarters above. There are some
surviving examples of early frame buildings, which are typically two-storeys with a gable end facing the
street. These buildings sometimes had fenced yards and a more domestic character than the commercial
block counterparts. The commercial area was located at the front, with residential quarters located in the
back and on the upper floors. Surviving examples in the study area have been significantly altered over the
years. They are typically vernacular in design.
Left, 20 Trowbridge Street, listed on 1864 map as C. Burns boot maker. Right, example of commercial building
with residential quarters above, formerly at the northwest corner of Sykes and Nelson Street, date of image
unknown. From Pictorial Meaford.
Outside of Sykes Street, some of the commercial properties are located in former residences. These include
dental offices along the south side of Collingwood Street East and a doctor’s office on Cook Street. The
MHBC
July 2013
Page 22
residential character of these buildings is still apparent, as traditional front yard spaces have been
maintained. While it was not uncommon for 19th century commercial buildings to be built with residential
quarters above and for the buildings to have a completely domestic character, these particular structures,
influenced by the Queen Anne architectural style, were purpose-built residences that became businesses in
the latter 20th century.
2.4.2
Public and Institutional built form
The study area contains several (existing and former) public and institutional buildings from the late 19th
century to the mid 20th century. These are located in small clusters at Nelson and Sykes Streets and on
Trowbridge Street West. The former armoury (now the Home Hardware store) was built in 1912 at Market
Square set back from Sykes Street between Collingwood Street and Nelson Street. Although it has been
modified to convert it to a commercial use, brick corbelling is still visible on the north side. South of the
former armoury, at the corner and on Nelson Street are the Town Hall (completed 1909 to replace the 1864
structure destroyed by fire) and the former fire hall, built in 1887. The fire hall demonstrates an influence of
Italianate architecture while the Town Hall is an example of Edwardian Classicism. The open space off Sykes
Street served as the main public square in the town, and featured three buildings important to the identify
and functions of a small town during the late 19th and early 20th century.
Examples of public and institutional built form, the town hall and former fire hall on Nelson Street
During the 20th century, municipal public and institutional buildings began shifting to Trowbridge Street. The
new post office was constructed there in 1935. By the mid century, a new post office was constructed just
two doors down from the 1935 post office. Later, municipal offices were constructed between the two post
office buildings, and in 1967 the 1935 post office was transformed to the public library as a centennial
project. Recently, the Meaford Chamber of commerce has occupied a commercial building across the street
from the library. This cluster of public, municipal and institutional buildings reflects the 20th century changes
in Meaford and varied architectural styles, and together with the two churches on the street provides a small
hub of public and community services that have developed over the past 100 years.
A number of churches exist within the study area. These include the Christ Church Anglican at 34 Boucher
Street, the Bethany Church of the Nazarene at 40 Trowbridge Street, the First Baptist Church at 35
Trowbridge Street and the former Knox Presbyterian Church at 52 Nelson Street. The churches were
constructed between the 1870s and 1930s, but generally all contain interpretations of traditional ecclesiastic
architecture based on Gothic Revival design, including rose window and lancet windows.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 23
Christ Church Anglican on Boucher Street (left) and First Baptist Church on Trowbridge (right)
2.4.3
Residential built form
The study area features a variety of residential built form. A few vernacular examples depicted on the 1864
map of the town still exist within the study area, these frame structures have since been clad in synthetic
siding or brick, but still demonstrate the form and proportions of mid 19th century vernacular residential
design.
Many of the residential properties in the study area are variations of a one to one and one half storey
‘cottage’ design. Some of these show influence of the popular “Ontario Gothic Cottage” style, which typically
featured a small one to one and one half storey residence with a cross gable roof and central gable in a
symmetrical façade. These types of buildings were common in rural areas and also in towns and villages
where they often housed for workers, merchants and families.
As the town grew and became more prosperous with a growing commercial core in the latter decades of
the 19th century and early 20th century, larger detached brick residences were constructed of brick (and a few
of stone) in more elaborate Gothic Revival design, Italianate, Second Empire, Queen Anne and Edwardian.
Many of the residential properties in Meaford are large, two to two and one half storey buildings. Several of
these buildings have been converted into apartment units, with modifications to add separate side or rear
entrances, balconies or fire escapes.
In the 20th century, residential building forms in Meaford began to return to lower profile, one to one and
one half storey dwellings in cottage, mid-century or ranch style designs.
The majority of residential buildings in the study area are detached dwellings, although there are some
duplex and triplex row-houses. These dwellings were typically workers housing. The surviving examples can
be found at 53-55 Collingwood Street West, 179-181 Cook Street, 46-48 Lombard Street and 88-92 Bayfield
Street.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 24
A range of residential building styles within the study area
2.4.4
Building stock and integrity
As part of the heritage study report, an overview of the building stock condition contained within the study
area was undertaken to ascertain any patterns of alterations, deterioration or maintenance issues related to
both building type and component construction materials. This review will assist in providing conservation
and design guidelines anticipated to be prepared as part of the heritage conservation district plan and
guidelines.
MHBC
July 2013
2.4.4.1
Page 25
Three centuries of building design and construction
Most nineteenth century village commercial cores have a building stock that represents a narrow window
of time. In Meaford, the commercial core is generally reflective of the 1880s and 1890s, with some
buildings from the first two decades of the 20th century and some contemporary infill.
Some of the older buildings in the study area, dating to the mid 19th century such as 53-55 Collingwood
Street West, 21 Collingwood Street, 156 Sykes Street and 46 Nelson Street are vernacular side gable or front
gable structures with minimal decorative detailing. These frame buildings have been clad in synthetic
siding.
156 Sykes Street and 53-55 Collingwood street are examples of vernacular mid-19th century dwellings where the
historic form is still evident even though the buildings have been modified.
The late nineteenth century also brought some notable examples of Italianate inspired decorative
commercial buildings on Sykes Street. Other buildings demonstrate influence of the renaissance revival type
of the Italianate style, such as 29 and 45-47 Sykes Street, as noted in the decorative dichromatic brickwork
arches above the windows.
Elaborate brickwork at 29 and 45-47 Sykes Street
MHBC
July 2013
Page 26
Nineteenth century commercial buildings were characterized by:
•
A narrow rhythm of storefront openings which were primarily glazed to the largest extent possible
given the structural limitations of the wood or iron beams that supported upper floors (typically 85%
glazed on the ground floor). Two storey glazed storefronts were not possible.
•
Second (and third) floor openings were “punched” openings limited in width by the brick arches or
stone lintels that created those openings. Glazing was usually in the order of 25% to 50% of wall
area.
•
Storefronts were generally defined by decorative surrounds which incorporated their own
decorative cornice, pilasters and sign panels.
As twentieth century steel framing techniques and materials improved, larger spans were possible.
Storefronts could span full width of the shop front without intermediate support. Second storey window
openings could be wider with steel lintels that did not rely on arching masonry. Many storefronts have been
modified using contemporary construction techniques and materials. Some of these are still reflective of the
original commercial window form, but use steel supports and larger single panes of glass rather than the
historical use of wood supports (often decorative) and multiple glass panes.
Early storefront glazing (Pictorial Meaford) and later adaptations on Sykes Street
Most of the nineteenth century buildings of potential heritage value or interest are found along Sykes Street
from Collingwood Street to Trowbridge Street, though there are also some between Trowbridge and Bridge
Streets. They are all purpose-built commercial buildings, and are a mixture of buildings that survived fires or
were constructed after earlier buildings were destroyed by fire. The infill that has occurred to complete these
blocks contains, in general, red brick buildings that are one to two storeys, and while they are different in
shape and massing than the 19th century buildings, do not overwhelm the streetscape.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 27
The early 20th century building (left) and late 20th century building (right) are notably different than the 1880s
commercial blocks, but still fit in to the streetscape.
2.4.4.2
Overall maintenance condition
Some buildings display a lack of maintenance; peeling paint, shingles in need of replacement, broken
shutters, etc. Other building show signs of past masonry repairs or appear to be in need of re-pointing. From
the pedestrian realm, a small number of buildings appear to have structural damage due to a lack of
maintenance.
Generally, windows, doors, shingles and gutters have been replaced throughout the study area. Often, the
only evidence of the heritage character of an altered or much changed building is an older window still
remaining or an original brick chimney still visible above a roof line. These original building features are
generally still in good repair.
There was no evidence of serious efflorescence (i.e. mineral deposits left by evaporated water) on brick
buildings visible from the public realm. Spalling of brick (i.e. loss of brick surface) was limited as well. The
major challenge for maintaining the integrity of the building stock will be, in future years, if changes need to
be made to remaining original windows and entrances, or if masonry repairs need to be made.
2.4.4.3
Alterations-major
Major alterations have been made to a number of buildings within the study area. One of the most involved
has been a renovation of Meaford Hall, completed in 2006. This involved extensive interior modifications,
restoration of the façade, and a contemporary addition to the east to allow for a new entrance staircase and
elevator. The addition uses rusticated stone block on the foundation and red brick, and features a pediment
and cornice at the roofline. These features are in keeping with the character and design intent of the original
structure, but are still distinguishable as contemporary additions. The addition is successful in that it does not
overwhelm the original appearance of the original building and also creates the necessary space and
amenities for the building to function.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 28
Meaford hall c. Early 29th century and Meaford Hall today
Another successful major alteration can be found at 78 Bridge Street. The rear garage addition is very visible
because the house is located on a corner lot at Bridge Street and St. Vincent Street. While the proportions of
the garage addition do not completely reflect the original design of the house, the addition features red
brick, a steeply pitched hip roof and a dormer gable that features round arched windows similar to those in
the original structure. The contemporary addition uses design elements to reflect the original building and is
kept to the rear, allowing the remaining façades to be preserved.
A third example of a major alteration is the Meaford Museum, at 111 Bayfield Street. This addition features
side and front gabled additions to the south and west to allow for more exhibition, administration and
research/archive space. The gables of the addition are smaller in scale than the original building as not to
overshadow the original feature, and feature a contemporary version of the brick corbelling at the roofline.
The successful additional allows for an improved used of the space while still preserving much of the original
building fabric.
The former pump house, now the Meaford Museum
Other major alterations are less sympathetic to the original design of the structure, adding several eclectic
and mismatched layers to the buildings including front extensions, or porch enclosures, replacing historically
proportioned windows with much larger or smaller sizes, changes to rooflines.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 29
The conversion of the former Baptist church at 58 Collingwood Street into residential units is another
example of major alterations. The building, constructed in 1884, served as a church until 1904. It is not known
at what date the building was modified to create residential units. All the original windows were removed or
replaced, the roofline was modified and gable dormers were added. These changes are not considered
reversible.
Meaford Baptist Church c. 1901, and the building today, altered to residential units
2.4.4.4
Alterations-minor
Most of the buildings within the study area have been altered in some way over the years. Change of
occupancy in commercial buildings will have, at a minimum, required changes to signage. What follows
describes the common types of alterations, although minor by comparison to those major interventions
noted above, that have the potential to diminish the appreciation of the heritage value of older buildings
and damage the exterior fabric of any building.
The application of synthetic finishes has been a common solution, in most urban
areas with nineteenth century buildings, to either freshen the appearance or
create a new visual image for an aging building stock. Paint, cementitious
coatings, prefinished metal or vinyl siding or exterior insulation and finish systems
(EIFS) may provide an economical ‘face lift’, but most come with a cost, not the
least of which is that they conceal historic original material and detail.
Paint, particularly oil-based paints, reduces the ability of a masonry wall to dry and
consequently increase the likelihood of spalling during winter freeze thaw cycles.
While some would argue that a painted surface provides a level of protection from
saturation during a rain, water may enter the structure in a number of other ways.
Dampness in the ground adjacent to a masonry foundation can wick its way up
through the masonry. Moisture can enter a wall from flashing leaks at roof level,
old or improperly caulked joints around window and door opening and even high
Typical wall section showing
interior humidity’s where no vapour barrier exists in older construction. This
points of entry for moisture
moisture needs to be allowed to escape from the masonry in the drying cycle
through the inherent porosity of the masonry and its mortar joints. There are
‘breathable’ coatings and stains for masonry but these are relatively expensive products. Painting should be
avoided and further guidance will be provided as part of the District Plan and Guidelines if a decision is made
to proceed with their preparation.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 30
Prefinished metal and vinyl sidings can have negative effects as well. It is inevitable that fastenings for these
products, whether applied directly or over strapping, will damage original finishes where they exist
underneath. If these products are installed to cover up deteriorating conditions, this is often done without
correcting the original problem. Deterioration can continue out of sight.
While there is not a high usage of this in the study area, exterior insulation and finish systems have become
popular in recent years. These systems generally consist of foam insulation mechanically or adhesively
applied to a building wall. This substrate is then coated with a thin layer of acrylic based stucco like material.
The finish acrylic coat can be reinforced with fibreglass in varying weights to suit the loads that might be
placed on the surface.
Paint can be removed from masonry with chemical strippers or a combination of chemical strippers and
non-abrasive cleaning, such as the Joss System. More aggressive ‘sand blasting’ is not recommended and
will damage a masonry substrate. This process is not inexpensive. Prefinished sidings can usually be quite
simply removed. Damage to wood or masonry substrates will require repair but that should be minor in
nature. EIFS can be removed as well. The success of EIFS removal depends on the method of attachment;
the residue of adhesive applications may be difficult or impossible to remove and the mechanical
attachment will require repair of fastener holes and flashing attachments.
It should be noted, with the removal of any of these products that if they were originally applied to conceal
other forms of deterioration or overdue maintenance, those conditions will need to be addressed once
exposed. Guidance on these conservation, maintenance and repair issues will be provided as part of the
District Plan and Guidelines if a decision is made to proceed with their preparation.
2.4.4.5
Conclusion
As noted, the built heritage character of the study area consists of a range of building types and ages. These
buildings provide a context for the historical development and construction of the building stock within the
study area. Many buildings have undergone modifications over the years in order to increase space,
accommodate new uses or simply to update the look, but there are a number of historic buildings remaining
in the area. In general, the building stock is in good condition, which is a reflection of the level of
maintenance undertaken as well as the vitality of the study area. Many of the historical buildings have been
maintained at their current height, maintaining the overall historic scale of the study area.
2.4.5
Heritage Conservation district plan and guidelines
The heritage conservation district plan will provide detailed guidelines related to the maintenance and repair
of existing buildings, as well as guidance related to new construction and sympathetic additions to
buildings.
MHBC
July 2013
2.5
Landscape context and character
2.5.1
Introduction
Page 31
Human intervention that began in the early 19th Century combined with elements such as topography, soils,
and microclimate have created a new cultural environment with a landscape context and visual character
that is distinct and separate from the natural environment. This section examines the context and character
of the study area through an inventory and assessment of the landscape.
The inventory and assessment aids in determining the contribution of open spaces, vegetation, and hard
landscaping to the overall heritage character of the study area. The combination of elements found within
the vehicular and pedestrian realms such as building heights, materials, and setbacks, roads, sidewalks,
boulevards, utilities, street trees, soft landscaping, and views create a distinctive context and character within
the study area. Three distinct landscape forms are found within the study area:
•
Urban streetscapes;
•
Urban open spaces such as parkland;
•
Natural landscapes such as Georgian Bay, the surrounding vegetated hillsides, and the river corridor.
2.5.2
Landscape character of the study area
The designed urban streetscapes of the blocks within the study area consist of commercial, residential, and
institutional properties that have been developed in various ways over the past 150 years.
The streetscape of the commercial core includes narrow concrete sidewalks with no boulevards in front of
buildings located at the property line. Recent improvements consist of new asphalt paving within the
roadway, new concrete sidewalks with decorative impressed coloured concrete banding, some street trees
in grates and wells, and decorative luminaires and waste receptacles. Historical photographs indicate a
streetscape design that accommodated pedestrians on wooden boards or later narrow concrete sidewalks.
In most cases the boulevards and road ways consisted of bare soil, and amenities such as street trees and
decorative furniture were not present. Within the private realm, enhancements to the streetscape have
historically included colourful signage and storefront awnings that added visual interest and shade at a
pedestrian scale.
Historically the Commercial core had less
emphasis on pedestrian amenities
MHBC
Character of the Commercial core historically
included colourful signage and storefront awnings
July 2013
Page 32
Within the outlying mixed use and residential areas, building setbacks vary with most properties having
open front yards that include mature specimen trees, decorative plantings foundation plantings, and front
walkways leading from the sidewalk to the building entrance. Streets have been paved with asphalt in
recent years, and most streetscapes include concrete sidewalks on one or both sides of the street usually
with sodded boulevards and wood utility poles with overhead wires.
Along Sykes Street between Collingwood Street and Nelson Street there is a large open space area that
presently provides parking space for Meaford Hall and the nearby commercial buildings. This open space
was previously a public square in front of the armories, containing bleacher seating for military drill events in
the early 20th century. This open space provides a break in the continuous wall of Sykes Street commercial
properties and has been a key part of the streetscape for over a century. The Cenotaph is located outside of
Meaford Hall at the corner of Sykes Street and Nelson Street and was constructed after the First Word War
commemorating those in Meaford and St. Vincent Township who lost their lives.
Bird’s eye view of public square in front of the armories (left of image), beside town hall. Source: Pictorial Meaford, date
of image unknown.
Urban open spaces such as parkland have a positive impact of the visual character of the study area. The
largest of the urban open spaces are located adjacent to the Bay shore. A large linear park and medium
sized community park is located on the east side of Bayfield Street along the water’s edge. Parking spaces
line Bayfield Street along the waterfront. The unit paved sidewalk on the east side of the street provides
pedestrian access to the various amenities located throughout the park. As well, this pedestrian route allows
for views of Georgian Bay and the surrounding vegetated hillsides, which are important visual components
of the study area. Also located on the water at the mouth of Bighead River is the Meaford Harbour, which
provides access to Georgian Bay for a variety of recreational activities. The waterfront portion of the study
area has been transformed over the last century and a half from a working waterfront to a recreational
waterfront.
A medium sized community park (McCarroll Park) located at Bayfield and Parker Streets provides residents
and visitors with a heavily shaded space to enjoy views of the waterfront activities and various family
oriented activities located at the park. This park is a rare example of public green space within the study
area. A portion of the Georgian Trail is located along the Bay shore, which provides a naturalized pedestrian
access to the Harbour Area. An informal trail located within residual space at the south end of Bayfield Street
provides access along the river between the commercial core and the harbour areas.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 33
Natural landscapes viewed within the study area consist of Georgian Bay, the surrounding vegetated
hillsides, and the river corridor. The lakeshore and river corridor formed the eastern and southern limits of
settlement as indicated in early plans, and today serve as primary geographical features that define the
character of the study area. The surrounding vegetated hillsides are part of the physiographic region known
as Bighead Valley, and provide a scenic backdrop to the study area. While the uses and development have
evolved over time, the visual relationships between the urban areas and the natural landscapes located in
and around the study area have remained unchanged.
2.5.3
Conclusion
The landscape context and visual character of the study area are significant contributing factors to the
cultural heritage of Meaford. The harbour and development within the commercial core and along the river
provide important historical context for the study area. Recent streetscape and open space improvements
throughout the study area are modifications to the original form and do not have historic value. Few historic
elements of the streetscape exist, but the principles remain. These include:
• Pedestrian environment
• Views to the water
• Linkages and access to the water
• Off-street parking behind/beside buildings
• Central square (former parade grounds) between Collingwood and Nelson Street
2.5.4
Heritage conservation district plan guidance
Recommendations for guidelines in the Plan portion of work should focus on enhancements to the
commercial streetscape, the integration of appropriate infill development on vacant parcels of land, and the
improvement of the pedestrian environment along parking lots. The heritage conservation district plan will
provide guidance for conservation and enhancement of these identified landscapes, their character, and
contributing features. It is anticipated that the guidelines will provide advice to private property owners and
public authorities, most notably the Municipality of Meaford. Within the public realm, guidance will be
provided on street tree removal and replanting, boulevard maintenance and other streetscape initiatives.
2.6
Land use character and policy review
2.6.1
Introduction
The character of a heritage conservation district derives largely from the heritage attributes of the physical
environment: buildings, structures, surrounding spaces, and distinctive plantings such as tree lines and tree
canopies. The designation of the heritage conservation district is intended to assist in the protection and
conservation of these features and their attributes by maintaining heritage elements free from any adverse
physical changes, and ensuring that new development complements the existing heritage resources within
the area.
The control of physical change to properties, buildings and structures within a heritage conservation district
falls under the purview of the Ontario Heritage Act. The use of lands and property, the configuration and
placement of buildings on lots, and a variety of other provisions relating to physical development generally,
is governed by a number of provisions under the Planning Act, such as Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, and Site
Plan Control.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 34
Policies and procedures affecting the use of lands and the siting of buildings and structures have direct and
indirect bearing on the appearance and character of a heritage conservation district. For instance, planning
initiatives encouraging new development either in or around a prospective heritage conservation district
may well be in conflict with desired objectives for conserving and maintaining the special character of the
district. Policies that permit or encourage offices, restaurants, or other commercial used in an area of
distinctive residences will have repercussions on the physical fabric of these structures and their
surroundings.
Fire escapes, signage, required parking, HVAC systems, and increased commercial traffic all have the capacity
to impinge upon and detract from the special qualities of heritage buildings and the spaces around them.
Accordingly, a number of planning policies and control mechanisms are examined in this section, including
the County of Grey Official Plan, Municipality of Meaford Official Plan, Municipality of Meaford Zoning By-law,
site plan control, Property Standards By-laws, and Sign By-laws. The purpose of this review is to ensure that
there is no conflict with conservation initiatives, as well as to identify opportunities to encourage sound
heritage conservation district planning by advocating complementary changes to planning policies and
guidelines.
2.6.2 Study area land uses
The study area primarily consists of the commercial core of Meaford, which developed to a large degree in
the latter half of the nineteenth century. This area also contains some of the early residential areas that
developed in the town. Land uses within this area have a varying building form, including commercial
buildings, institutional buildings (e.g. places of worship), single detached dwellings, and recreation and open
space uses. A detailed building inventory is included in Appendix A of the report, and a detailed streetscape
/ open space inventory is included as Appendix C. The building condition within the study area is generally
good and well-maintained.
The main commercial area within the study area is located along Sykes Street, however given the downtown
location there are a number of commercial uses interspersed around the study area. Residential uses within
the study area are either located above commercial areas in buildings, or in residential buildings located
outside the commercial core.
The study area abuts Georgian Bay generally to the east and north, and there are a number of recreational
uses present in this area. These include marinas, parks, trails, seating, and playgrounds.
2.6.3
Study area policy review
Municipal planning policies typically set the context for the broader pattern of development in any
community, and are usually implemented by an array of more specific policy initiatives under the Planning
Act and the Municipal Act, such as zoning by-laws, site plan control by-laws, and property standards by-laws.
The following subsections identify some key policies and tools, and examine either potential for conflict with
heritage conservation management, or opportunities for change. Other municipal policies and guidelines,
such as management and master plan documents relating to capital and other physical improvements will
be more specifically reviewed as part of the heritage conservation district plan if it proceeds.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 35
2.6.3.1 Grey County Official Plan
The Grey County Official Plan guides development and land use change in the County to the year 2026,
implements Provincial legislation, and provides a broad policy framework for local Official Plans and By-laws.
Grey County was restructured in 2001, and the Official Plan was updated in order to recognize the new
structure. The County recently completed an Official Plan review process, and the implementing Official Plan
Amendment was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in June 2012.
The built-up area of Meaford (including the study area) is designated as Primary Settlement Area on
Schedule A of the Official Plan, with river valley lands designated as Hazard Lands. The Primary Settlement
Area designation applies to larger settlements which are intended to be the primary target for residential
and non-residential growth. The Hazard Lands designation identifies lands that have inherent
environmental hazards that pose a risk for the occupant, property damage or social disruption if developed.
Figure 2: Excerpt from County of Grey Official Plan, Schedule A, Map 1n.
Schedule A (excerpt above) also identifies road classifications, and notes that Sykes Street is a Provincial
Highway, and Nelson Street (west of Sykes) is a County Road. All other streets within the study area are
identified as Local Roads.
Policies relating to cultural heritage resources are found in Section 3 of the Official Plan. Overall policy
guidance and direction to local municipalities is included within this section, as well as policies related to
designating heritage resources. Municipalities are required to develop policies which encourage the
conservation of heritage resources related to development decisions, and local municipalities are also
required to establish and maintain a register of heritage properties.
Section 3 of the Official Plan also addresses properties adjacent to protected heritage properties, and notes
that adjacent lands means “...those lands, contiguous to a specific protected heritage property, where it is likely
that development or site alteration would have a negative impact on protected heritage property.” The section
goes on to note that adjacent lands are considered to be within 50 metres of a protected heritage property,
unless different values are established by amendment to the County Official Plan, local Official Plan, or
supported through a technical study prepared by a qualified professional knowledgeable on cultural
MHBC
July 2013
Page 36
heritage resources. The policies note that mitigation measures or alternative development approaches may
be required.
2.6.3.2
Municipality of Meaford Official Plan
The preparation of the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan began in 2002, and the final document was
approved by the County of Grey in December 2005. The Official Plan is meant to guide land use planning
decisions until 2025.
A large portion of the study area is designated either Downtown Core Commercial or Downtown Core
Transition, as identified below. The northwestern and southeastern portions of the study area are
designated as Urban Living Area, and the shoreline areas are designated as either Harbour Open Space or
Major Open Space. Lands associated with the river system are designated Environmental Protection.
Figure 3: Excerpt from Municipality of Meaford Official Plan, Schedule A-1
Policies related to the Downtown Core Commercial and Downtown Core Transitional areas are found in
Sections B1.3 and B1.4 of the Official Plan, respectively. The Downtown Core Commercial designation
generally encourages development of a mix of uses within the core area of Meaford in order to maintain and
promote the area as the focal point for commerce and hospitality in the Municipality. The Commercial core
designation permits a broad range of retail and business uses, banks, hotels, bed and breakfast
establishments, fitness centres, restaurants, residential uses (except single-detached, semi-detached, and
duplex dwellings), and funeral homes. Section B1.3.6.2 provides direction for new development and
redevelopment, and encourages land assembly, enhanced pedestrian linkages, and restoration of building
façades. A maximum height of 3 storeys is noted for buildings along Sykes Street, with greater heights able
to be considered for the rear portions of buildings. Residential uses are directed to the upper floors along
Sykes Street, and can be considered at street level on side streets.
The Downtown Core Transitional designation is meant to provide a complementary area for transitional
commercial growth and development related to downtown, while also protecting the residential character
MHBC
July 2013
Page 37
of the area. Permitted uses within this designation include residential uses, offices and health clinics, bed
and breakfast establishments, studios and home occupations, and small scale restaurants, retail uses and
personal service shops. Section B1.4.5 provides policies related to development, and notes that street-level
residential uses are permitted in this designation. Reuse of existing buildings for commercial uses is
encouraged, and new buildings are encouraged to be at a similar scale, setback, and architectural style as
existing buildings within the area.
Policies related to the Urban Living Area designation are found in Section B1.1 of the Official Plan. The
section notes that the intent of the designation is to maintain compatibility and enhance the character and
identity of existing residential areas, encourage a full range of housing opportunities, promote efficient use
of infrastructure, and permit a variety of compatible and complementary land uses. Permitted uses include a
variety of residential land uses, home occupations, bed and breakfast establishments, and uses such as day
care facilities and small-scale institutional and commercial uses.
Section B1.5 of the Official Plan contains policies related to the Harbour Open Space designation, and notes
that the intent of the Plan is to establish the harbour lands as a prominent focus point and public open
space area in the Municipality, to develop a mix of public and recreational uses, and create a pedestrian
environment and linkages. Permitted uses include parkland and picnic facilities, tourist information centres,
festivals, libraries, boat storage and rental, tourist-related retail uses, parking areas, museums and art galleries,
seasonal food vendors, and marinas.
The Major Open Space designation is meant to ensure that the use and development of open space is
consistent with the ‘environment-first’ philosophy of the Official Plan, ensure impacts on adjacent land uses
are minimized, and ensure that residents have access to a planned and accessible park system. Permitted
uses are limited to passive and active recreational uses, conservation, forestry, and accessory uses.
The Environmental Protection designation includes components of the Municipality’s natural heritage
system, including wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, floodplains, hazardous slopes, and
significant wildlife habitat. Permitted uses are limited to conservation and passive recreational uses.
Official Plan review process
The Municipality of Meaford has been proceeding through an Official Plan review process, which is nearly
complete. The review began in 2010, and Municipal Council adopted the revised policies in June 2013. The
new Official Plan policies are currently awaiting approval from Grey County.
The designations within the study area closely reflect those that are in place with the current Official Plan.
Minor proposed changes include: the re-designation of the parking area adjacent to Meaford Hall from Major
Open Space to Downtown Core Commercial; the designation of additional lands along the harbour as
Environmental Protection; and the addition of a Two-Zone Policy Area related to the flood plain of the
Bighead River.
In terms of policy changes related to the study area, there is a greater emphasis being placed on
connections within the downtown area. There is also additional wording proposed to be added related to
building height for redevelopment within the Downtown Core Commercial designation. This is proposed
through revisions to Section B1.3.5.2 indicating that the preferred height of new infill buildings is 2-3 storeys,
with a maximum of 4 storeys with the fourth storey stepped back from the exterior or through the use of
dormers. There is also a greater emphasis placed on the development of streetscapes that are safe,
convenient and attractive, as well as the promotion of pedestrian connections and multi-use pathways.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 38
Related to heritage conservation, Section D3.2.1.1 is proposed to be amended to require the preparation of a
Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) for development within 50 metres of a protected heritage
property. Details are also proposed to be added to the section that would provide guidance related to
mitigation of potential impacts on cultural heritage resources.
2.6.3.3
Municipality of Meaford Zoning By-law
The comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Municipality of Meaford Zoning By-law was approved in 2009 (Bylaw #60-2009), and replaced the Zoning By-laws for the former Townships and Town of Meaford. The most
recent consolidation of the By-law is dated January 2013.
The majority of the commercial area within the study area is zoned for commercial purposes and is zoned C1
– Downtown Commercial. Areas north of the downtown area are zoned RT – Residential Transitional, and
areas in the northwest and southeast of the study area are generally zoned R3 – Residential Three. Lands
associated with the river and shoreline areas are zoned a combination of EP – Environmental Protection, OS
– Open Space, and HAR – Harbour. Other zones, such as I – Institutional, and RM – Multiple Residential are
also scattered throughout the study area. The zoning for the study area is shown below.
Figure 4: Excerpts from Meaford Zoning By-law (maps 8 & 9)
Permitted uses within the C1 zone include a very broad range of commercial uses that one would expect to
find within a downtown setting, as well as limited types of residential uses (apartment dwellings). The
maximum building height permitted is 11.0 m.
The R3 zone permits a range of residential dwelling types, as well as bed and breakfast establishments,
offices, workshops, accessory apartments, home occupations, and home daycare facilities. The maximum
building height is listed at 11.0 m, with a maximum lot coverage of 40% for main buildings.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 39
The EP and OS zones permit a limited range of recreational and institutional uses, including community
centres, conservation uses, forestry uses, and parks. The HAR zone permits conservation uses and existing
uses.
2.6.3.4
Site Plan Control
In some heritage conservation districts, it has become a standard practice to use Site Plan Control provisions
authorized under the Planning Act to complement the development review mechanisms of the Ontario
Heritage Act.
In some municipalities, any property designated under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act is subject to
Site Plan Control pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act. Development which involves new construction,
or making alterations or additions to an existing building or structure to allow a substantial increase in size or
usability requires the approval of municipal Council (unless authority has been delegated).
Site Plan Control allows the municipality to require facilities or improvements to the subject site, and in
particular address matters such as landscaping and some architectural details (such as elevations) in the
review of the proposed development of a property.
Whereas the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act are concerned primarily with the details of changes to
properties as a means to conserve the character of the property, site plan control seeks to ensure that an
acceptable standard of site amenity and maintenance is achieved. Site Plan Control and heritage
conservation district permits have considerable potential to complement each other, although procedures
and differing time spans for processing applications may be considered cumbersome.
Site plan control within the Municipality of Meaford is governed through the Site Plan Control By-law (By-law
26-2009). The whole of the Municipality subject to zoning control is designated as a Site Plan Control Area
pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act. The following classes of development require site plan approval:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
All residential buildings containing 25 or more units, and all retrofit apartments added to such
development;
All non‐residential development in residential zones;
All development in commercial zones;
All development in employment or industrial zones;
All bed and breakfast uses established in any residential, rural or agricultural zone.
All non‐municipal development in an Institutional zone.
Council is also permitted to require site plan control for the following types of uses by the Municipality of
Meaford Official Plan, as amended:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
MHBC
A residential care facility established in any residential zone;
A home industry established in any rural or agricultural zone;
Small scale commercial development in any rural or agricultural zone;
Residential development of less than 25 units where such development occurs in the Urban Area, as
established by Section E1.4 (o) of the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan, as amended.
July 2013
Page 40
Accordingly, properties and buildings within the study area that contain commercial uses, institutional uses,
or residential uses that are not single-detached dwellings are already subject to Site Plan Control. It should
also be noted that the site plan control process within the CIP area (study area) currently has control related
to architectural details. The heritage conservation district plan (if prepared) will describe appropriate
procedures for ensuring that approval procedures under Site Plan Control and the Ontario Heritage Act
proceed expeditiously.
2.6.3.5
Property Standards By-law
The Municipality of Meaford currently has a Property Standards By-law (108-2008), which provides for
general direction related to the maintenance of property. The By-law covers various matters related to the
interior and exterior of buildings, such as outdoor maintenance, structural, electrical, plumbing, heating, and
elements such as porches, windows, egress, and chimneys.
Some municipalities have specific property standards related to heritage buildings, and it may be
appropriate to further investigate this as part of the Heritage Conservation District Plan (if one is prepared).
2.6.3.6
Tree Preservation
District designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act now extends potential protection to trees and
treescapes as part of the definition of ‘property’ contained in the Act. They are often significant features
within the landscape, and as worthy of conservation and management as the built environment.
The Municipal Act enables Councils to pass by-laws for the preservation of trees, and the Municipality of
Meaford recently passed a Tree-Cutting By-law in December 2012. The By-law provides for the protection of
trees on properties that are less than 1 ha (2.5 ac) in size, and requires a permit be applied for to remove trees
greater than 10 cm DBH. The By-law applies to trees that are identified for preservation on a tree
preservation plan, public trees, trees within an area subject to an application under the planning act, and
land owned by Grey County. Exemptions are provided for circumstances such as the removal of diseased or
dying trees, agricultural practices and good arboriculture practice. It should be noted that for properties
greater than 1 ha in size, the Grey County Tree By-law takes priority.
2.6.3.7
Sign By-law
The Municipality of Meaford has a Sign By-law (By-law 57-2004), which contains information and regulations
related to the installation of signs. The Sign By-law addresses various types of signs, and describes what
signs are permitted to be installed within the various zones within the Municipality. There are a number of
sign types permitted within the various zones within the study area, some of which may or may not be
appropriate within a potential heritage conservation district. The preparation of an updated Sign By-law is
currently being undertaken by the Municipality, and references to conformity with Heritage Conservation
District guidelines (if applicable) have been added. Should Council authorize the preparation of a Heritage
Conservation District Plan, signage may be one area that is examined in more detail.
2.6.3.8
Potential development issues
The study area is characterized by a variety of commercial, residential and institutional land uses. There have
been some recent development projects constructed within the study area, which have resulted in
additional people living and working in the core area. It is conceivable that there will continue to be some
MHBC
July 2013
Page 41
development pressure within the area, with new construction occurring on currently vacant lots or through
demolition of existing structures and their redevelopment.
Vacant lots and infill development can present challenges within established areas, as there is the potential
for new building forms to be out of character with the existing development. There are a number of vacant
and underused lots within the study area, and it is therefore expected that there will continue to be
development opportunities within the area. Although the designation of all or a portion of the study area as
a heritage conservation district may regulate demolition, the district guidelines (if prepared) will provide
guidance on matters such as building height, setbacks, construction materials, and roofing to help ensure
that any proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area.
Development adjacent to a heritage conservation district can be as important as development within a
district. Adjacent lands may be of interest for future heritage designation, and unsympathetic development
of lands adjacent to a district could affect the character of the district itself. Height, building type, use, and
the protection of public views and vistas are important potential considerations. It is important for
development adjacent to heritage conservation districts to be sympathetic to the district itself, and one way
to ensure this is to prepare an impact assessment that describes the development, area potentially
impacted, description of effects, and any necessary mitigation. This can be thought of as similar to the way in
which environmental features are assessed as part of development proposals. As noted earlier in this section,
the Municipality of Meaford provides guidance in this respect in the Official Plan. The heritage conservation
district plan (if prepared) will examine this aspect further and may make appropriate recommendations to
refine existing policies that guide the preparation of impact statements as well the requirements of the
Provincial Policy Statement 2005.
2.6.3.9
In order to ensure that there is no conflict between planning and development objectives and the pursuit of
sound heritage conservation and management, the heritage conservation district plan (if prepared) will
identify appropriate changes to Municipal policies and by-laws, as well as outline any new measures to be
pursued. These potential policy revisions are outlined in further detail in Section 5 of this study.
2.7
Heritage conservation and financial incentives
Currently the Municipality of Meaford has no regular funding initiatives in place that can assist in the
implementation of its heritage conservation programs for properties designated under Parts IV and V of the
Ontario Heritage Act.
Municipal heritage conservation activities typically comprise two fundamental components: firstly, a system
for regulating changes to the cultural heritage resource usually through a formal process of designation and
subsequent permit approval and secondly, a complementary program of financial assistance to assist in
conserving heritage resources and their component features and materials. Balancing the “carrot and stick”
approach to conservation is usually an uneven process with municipal regulation remaining relatively
consistent while financial incentives varying depending on sometimes irregular municipal or provincial
budget commitments that may change from year to year.
The authority to provide financial incentives to heritage resource conservation is established under both the
Ontario Heritage Act and the Municipal Act. Sections 39 and 45 of the Ontario Heritage Act provide that
municipalities may establish by-laws to make grants or loans to owners of designated heritage properties
MHBC
July 2013
Page 42
and Section 365.2 of the Municipal Act makes provisions for enabling municipal tax rebates to such
properties.
2.7.1
Municipal tax incentives
In 2001, the Province enacted legislation allowing municipalities the ability to provide property tax relief to
heritage buildings. The program is discretionary (i.e., municipalities are not required to offer this type of
property tax relief), however if established, the tax relief (which can be either in the form of a property tax
reduction or refund) must be between 10 and 40 percent of the taxes levied on the property. The Province
funds the education portion of the tax relief. The definition of an “eligible heritage property” as per section
365.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001 is:
A property or portion of a property,
a.
that is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act or is part of a heritage conservation
district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act,
b.
that is subject to,
i.
an easement agreement with the local municipality in which it is located, under section
37 of the Ontario Heritage Act,
ii.
an easement agreement with the Ontario Heritage Foundation, under section 22 of the
Ontario Heritage Act, or
iii
an agreement with the local municipality in which it is located respecting the
preservation and maintenance of the property, and
c.
that complies with any additional criteria set out in the by-law passed under this section by the
local municipality in which it is located.
The additional criteria as stated in (c.) could potentially include such matters as: the property being in a
sound and habitable condition (therefore excluding vacant/derelict properties), not subject to any municipal
or provincial contraventions, work orders, outstanding municipal fines or tax arrears. The municipality may
also apply different percentages of tax relief to different property classes or types of properties and may
specify a minimum or maximum relief amount.
As the tax rebate or refund is only applicable to the portion of the property that is designated and has an
easement, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) would be required to determine the
portion of the property’s assessment that would be eligible.
In isolation, a heritage tax rebate program appears to be a useful tool to provide tax relief to owners of
heritage properties, in recognition of the popularly perceived added cost of conserving these valuable
properties. Several municipalities have established this rebate program (e.g., Kingston, Toronto, Markham,
Thunder Bay, Kitchener and Cornwall), however, with the exception of Toronto, the amount of relief is not
very significant. Unless specifically included in the program criteria that the applicant must provide details on
the anticipated work and a method by which to confirm this, there is no measurable way of ensuring that
the tax rebate would be used to preserve the heritage features of the property.
Added costs in administering a heritage tax rebate program include negotiating individual heritage
conservation easement agreements on a property by property basis, registering these on title, establishing a
base year of building condition (usually by photographic and documentary recording) and subsequent
yearly monitoring of conditions to ensure compliance with the easement agreement and consequent
release of funds.
MHBC
July 2013
2.7.2
Page 43
Loans
Heritage loans may be organized and administered in a similar manner and under the same circumstances
as grants. The fundamental difference is determining an appropriate interest rate (from interest free to a rate
below that of current commercial interest rates) and establishing administration fees. The most notable
disadvantage of a loans program is the internal administration costs of managing such a municipal initiative,
often involving staff time of the legal and financial departments.
2.7.3
Grants
Heritage grants are usually the most manageable of all financial incentives. Capital budget allocations are
typically made in a municipality’s budgeting process. Ideally a program commitment of at least three to five
years is beneficial so that the local community and property owners can plan within a known framework. The
start-up year is usually a slow year with the final year of the program typically witnessing a rush of
applications and demand on funds. Municipal heritage grants can be focused either on particular building
types (residential, commercial industrial and so on), building features (roofs, foundations, or windows) or
specific areas within a municipality such as brownfields or heritage conservation districts.
Total program commitments and grant amounts may vary depending on municipal priorities but they must
be of a sufficient amount to make applying worthwhile and be of benefit to the property owner in
addressing substantial conservation efforts such as a re-roofing project. Grants may be organized on a first
come-first served basis or by way of an annual or semi-annual competition ideally synchronized with the
relevant construction season.
Recently, the Municipality of Meaford has decided to launch a Façade Improvement Grant Program as part of
a recommendation from the 2008 Community Improvement Plan. The grant program allows commercial or
mixed-use property owners within the Community Improvement Area to apply for a grant from the
municipality to improve the condition and/or appearance of their property’s façade. Applicants to the grant
program can receive up to $15,000.00 and can apply every five years. The grant program encourages the
restoration of original features of the buildings, and can be used for the following repairs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MHBC
Structural/safety replacement and repair for exterior façade;
Repair/replacement of windows, doors, storefronts, awnings, canopies, cornices, eaves, parapets and
other architectural features;
Installation or repair of exterior lighting;
Cleaning/painting of façades visible from adjacent streets and public walkways;
Entrance modifications, including the installation of ramps for accessibility purposes;
Repair of façades visible from adjacent streets and public walkways;
“Hard” landscaping such as walkways and planters, but not including driveways or parking areas;
Landscaping including plant materials/pavers;
Exterior fire safety upgrades to code;
Water/flood/weather proofing;
Structural repairs to walls, floors and foundations; and,
Other capital improvements which the Municipality, in its sole discretion, determines are important
to incorporate as an integral part of the total façade improvement design.
July 2013
Page 44
The Façade Improvement Grant program also provides a set of general principles applicants should follow
when undertaking façade improvement work, including the following.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sensitivity to existing streetscape with respect to proportions, materials, colour, signage and
architectural detail;
Meet the Design Guidelines of the CIP
Restoration to the original façade (i.e. Glazing, storefronts, doorways);
Restoration or replacement of windows to original style;
Use of original materials and historic colours where feasible;
Use of metal cladding, vinyl and aluminum siding and other similar materials is discouraged;
Cleaning, repainting of painted surfaces and replacement of original brick as required;
Preservation, restoration of architectural details; and,
Well-designed signage in proportion to building, sensitive to the appearance of the entire
streetscape.
This program has the potential to be very beneficial to the maintenance of heritage properties and to the
compliance with guidelines associated with a heritage conservation district.
2.7.4
Conclusions
In comparing the benefits of tax incentives with those of grants or loans it is believed that heritage grants or
loan programs that actually target conservation efforts are more effective at achieving the goal of protecting
heritage properties. Moreover, for ease of municipal administration a grants program is measurably easier to
manage and monitor than a loans program. Financial incentive programs provided in the form of a grant
gives the municipality control in what type of work is “eligible” and that the actual work is completed (to the
municipality’s approval) and fully paid. Requiring the property owner to match (or be responsible for a
percentage of the costs) also ensures the property owner’s commitment. This measurable return on
investment and control of the use of municipal funds is not present in a tax rebate program.
Heritage grants or loans specifically target restoration and conservation efforts and are not intended to
provide financial assistance for routine maintenance of these properties or for costs incurred that are not
directly tied to the heritage features. It should not be the intent of the municipality to provide financial
assistance to property owners for generally maintaining their property – as all properties, heritage or not,
should be maintained in accordance with property standards.
2.7.5
The heritage conservation district plan (if prepared) will provide clearer direction on a successful strategy of
financial incentives through a system of heritage grants.
2.8
Sources Consulted
2.8.1
Primary sources
Toronto Mail, Tuesday October 14, 1873. “Meaford Aground”. Accessed from Maritime History of the Great
Lakes, 2013 http://images.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/52844/data
MHBC
July 2013
Page 45
W.M.H. Smith. Smith’s Canadian Gazeteer comprising statistical and general information respecting all parts of the
Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H. And W. Roswell, 1846.
2.8.2
(Maps and Plans)
Illustrated Atlas of the County of Grey. 1880. Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co.
Underwriters Survey Bureau. Fire Insurance Plan for the Town of Meaford. Toronto: 1925.
“Plan of Town Lots Adjoining Meaford, being the subdivision of Lot XV Con. IV, Township of St. Vincent.” C.R.
Sing, Land Agent. 1864. Lithographed by J. Ellis, Toronto.
2.8.3
Secondary sources
Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture; A Guide to Styles and Building Terms, 1784 to the Present. (New York:
Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990).
Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, 1984.
Dougherty, Frank. The History of Meaford and St. Vincent Township, 1834 - 1999. 2004. Owen
Sound, ON: Ken MacIntosh Bookbinder.
Harding, Frank. Meaford and Area: A Century of History. 1974.
Harding, Frank. Miscellaneous Historical Articles on file at the Meaford Museum and Archives, 1943-1949.
Heritage Meaford. North Walking Tour of Historic Meaford. Accessed 2013, http://visitmeaford.ca/meafordmuseum/721-walking-tours-central-page.html
Heritage Meaford. South Walking Tour of Historic Meaford. Accessed 2013, http://visitmeaford.ca/meafordmuseum/721-walking-tours-central-page.html
Heritage Meaford. The Western Tour. Accessed 2013, http://visitmeaford.ca/meaford-museum/721-walkingtours-central-page.html
Heritage Meaford. The Eastern Tour. Accessed 2013, http://visitmeaford.ca/meaford-museum/721-walkingtours-central-page.html
Heritage Meaford. “Canadian Register of Historic Places Nomination” for properties on Sykes Street North.
Municipality of Meaford. “About Meaford Hall”. Accessed 2013 http://visitmeaford.ca/about-the-hall.html
Stanley Knight Collection & contributors. Pictorial Meaford: A pictorial history of the Town of Meaford 1818-1991.
Owen Sound: Stan Brown Printers Ltd. 1991.
Stewart, Bill. Meaford Century Homes 1874-1974. Courtesy of Municipality of Meaford and Meaford Library.
St. Vincent Heritage Association. St. Vincent: A beautiful land. Thornbury: Conestoga Press, 1994.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 46
3.0 HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DELINEATION: A RECOMMENDED BOUNDARY
3.1
Introduction
The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has noted in its published guidelines “Heritage
Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act” that a heritage
conservation district typically displays a number of characteristics:
“A concentration of heritage buildings, sites, structures; designed landscapes, natural landscapes that are
linked by aesthetic, historical and socio-cultural contexts or use.
A framework of structured elements including major natural features such as topography, land form,
landscapes, water courses and built form such as pathways and street patterns, landmarks, nodes or
intersections, approaches and edges.
A sense of visual coherence through the use of such elements as building scale, mass, height, material,
proportion, colour, etc. that convey a distinct sense of time or place.
A distinctiveness which enables districts to be recognised and distinguishable from their surroundings or
from neighbouring areas.”
The Municipality of Meaford’s Official Plan contains the following criteria to be met when preparing a
heritage conservation district plan. The Plan must:
a) delineate boundaries of the designated area and reasons for the designation;
b) inventory cultural heritage resources;
c) prescribe policies, conservation and design guidelines, and other pertinent material relating to the sound
and prudent management of the district's unique character;
d) be adopted by Council after consultation with affected property owners and other interested agencies
as considered appropriate; and,
e) be implemented by municipal review of heritage permit applications for changes and alterations to
individual buildings and structures within the designated district. In reviewing proposals for the
construction, demolition or removal of buildings or structures, or the alteration of buildings within a
Heritage Conservation District, Council shall be guided by the applicable Heritage Conservation District
Plan.
The following section summarizes the key characteristics of the study area based on the inventory undertake,
and provides a discussion of boundary delineation and rationale.
3.2
Summary of the Meaford study area character
As described in Section 2, the study area contains a number of distinctive features and attributes. The study
area is located at the mouth of the Bighead River and on the shore of Georgian Bay, and contains a harbour
and marina, downtown core with a collection of late 19th and early 20th century red brick commercial and
public buildings, and surrounding residential neighbourhoods with a variety of building types and styles
MHBC
July 2013
Page 47
including mid 19th century vernacular buildings, well-maintained examples of gothic revival, second empire,
Italianate, Queen Anne and Edwardian architectural styles, as well as more contemporary construction. The
area along the Bay Shore and harbour area were once bustling with commercial and industrial activity,
including, shops and trades, factories, foundries, steamships, fishing and the railway. As industry declined, the
harbour front and Bay Shore area transformed to an area for recreational and residential use, and few
remnants from the industrial past remain.
The town has a rich history that extends beyond the boundaries of the study area, where mills and a
separate, competitive town site were once located. These areas, along the river where mills were once
located, and the former Purdytown area, as well as residential neighbourhoods south of the harbour and
west of Cook Street, may merit study as an additional heritage conservation district candidates in the future.
3.3
District boundary delineation
3.3.1
Framework of structuring elements
Since the 1850s, the settlement of Meaford was planned around a town reserve comprised of a grid network
of streets and roads that established the overall pattern of settlement. This form of settlement was typical to
Ontario cities, towns and villages, and matched the already established survey grid laid out in St. Vincent
Township. At the time of the survey, Bayfield Street and Nelson Street were the two primary arteries of the
town reserve. Bayfield Street, positioned along the lakeshore, featured shops, trades, industry, hotels and the
post office by the mid-1860s. Nelson Street was planned with a wider allowance for military defence
purposes and had a concentration of early commercial properties. Settlement throughout the remainder of
the study area and commercial activity along Sykes Street was scattered at this point in time, but both
increased steadily in the following decades with a collection of brick commercial blocks on Sykes Street and
a number of residences west of Cook Street. Despite a number of fires between the 1880s and early 1900s,
Sykes Street became the primary commercial core and main artery of the town. Although fires destroyed
buildings, new structures were built to replace the damaged one. In some cases, lots were left vacant for a
number of years, but were generally filled by the early 20th century, resulting in the streetscape visible today.
3.3.2
Concentration of heritage resources
The presence of the grid framework, however, is not enough upon which to solely and firmly establish a
heritage conservation district. The provincial guidance clearly points to the obvious notion of the
“framework”, in this case the grid plan and river/harbour presence, being complemented by a concentration
of heritage buildings, sites, structures, and designed and natural landscapes.
The highest concentration of heritage buildings is along Sykes Street, from just north of Collingwood Street
to Trowbridge Street. There are still a number of heritage properties along Sykes Street north and south of
this area, but the blocks in between contain buildings nearly all constructed between the 1870s and 1925
(one property, 51 Sykes Street, was constructed sometime after 1925, while another, 90 Sykes Street, was
relocated from Trowbridge Street after 1925). This extremely high proportion of heritage buildings,
particularly ones that are of a similar character with red brick façades and primarily Italianate influenced
design, is a remarkable feature of the study area.
The remainder of the study area contains a large number of heritage buildings, though they are mixed with a
number of non-heritage buildings or heritage buildings that have been substantially altered.
MHBC
July 2013
3.3.3
Page 48
Visual coherence of the study area
The framework of structuring elements and concentration of heritage buildings also provide a considerable
degree of visual coherence through the layering of human activities and associated built form upon the
landscape.
The visual coherence of the study area is highest along the Sykes Street commercial core, particularly the
section described above containing primarily two to three storey red brick commercial blocks. Outside the
main commercial district, the visual coherence of the area is less uniform but still relatively coherent. There is
a wider variety of building types and styles, but these generally range from one to two and one half storey
detached residences with front gable, side gable or hip roof styles and brick or synthetic cladding. Buildings
on one street may vary from a one and one half storey vernacular cottage to a stately two and one half
storey Queen Anne revival house, but the overall mix of building types and styles is common to most streets
in the residential neighbourhoods and lends its own type of visual coherence that demonstrates the
evolution of the town over time.
Another important aspect of the visual coherence of the study area is the views from the study area to the
surrounding landscape. These include the views towards the Bighead River, Berry Street, and view to
Georgian Bay from Bayfield Street, St. Vincent Street, Fuller Street.
3.3.4
Distinctive character
Together, all of the forgoing attributes combine to create an environment and landscape of distinctive
character. The open space along the Bay Shore, harbour and at mouth of the river is separate and distinct
from the surrounding environment. The pervasive commercial “hustle and bustle” of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic along Sykes Street is also a singular characteristic that separates it from the nearby residential
areas to the west and across the bridge.
During the fieldwork and inventory process, the project team identified several character areas (see Figure 5
on the following page) based on visual coherence, property type, building size and style and landscape or
streetscape features. The character areas can be found below. These character areas are intended to identify
areas with similar characteristics, and will be useful during the Plan and Guidelines phase, to create specific
policies that fit with the elements of each character area. The character areas included in the proposed
boundary are the North Sykes Mixed Use, the Commercial core, a small portion of the West Residential, the
Bayfield Mixed Use, the Waterfront Open Space and the Harbour.
3.4
District boundary definition
The proposed heritage conservation district boundary is shown in Figure 6 on the following page and, as
discussed previously, follows part of the established mid-nineteenth century gridwork of streets.
Commencing at the north end of the district the boundary contains the road-right-of-way and intersection
of Sykes Street and Albert Street, including a small portion of the landscaped area beside the Bay shore. It is
anticipated that this will form the basis of the area as an enhanced gateway to be addressed as part of the
Conservation District Plan and Guidelines.
The boundary on the west follows the rear lot line of the properties fronting on Sykes Street. The boundary
extends slightly further westward at Nelson Street, to encompass some additional commercial buildings
closely linked to those in the commercial core. At Trowbridge Street, the boundary extends westward to
Cook Street, encompassing two churches, the library, post office, municipal building and historic residences.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 49
The southern end of the district boundary is defined by the south bank of the Bighead River. East of the
bridge, the southward boundary is defined by the property limits of the harbour to Fuller Street, at its most
eastern point. The remainder of the boundary follows the edge of the harbour, breakwaters and shoreline of
Georgian Bay until reaching the end of the parkland adjacent to Albert Street. It includes the east sides of
Parker Street, Collingwood Street, Nelson Street and Berry Street, as well as Bayfield Street. The potential
district includes a variety of building types including vernacular buildings associated with the harbour or
worker’s housing, a number of Italianate commercial buildings, the former fire hall, the Edwardian Style
Meaford Hall, an early 20th century theatre, 19th century hotel, and various types of residential buildings from
vernacular cottage types to more elaborate examples of second Empire, Edwardian and Queen Anne design.
The area between Sykes Street and the Bay shore has been included in the district because of its association
with early development in Meaford, including that of early Settler William Stephenson, and the development
of commercial and industrial properties along Bayfield and Nelson Street by the 1860s. Furthermore, this area
contains numerous parcels of vacant land. Municipal staff and residents may wish to develop particular
policies for infill in this area within a conservation district plan that would allow future development to
conform with the existing character of the area. The proposed boundary also includes the former railway
lands that are now occupied by the harbour.
3.4.1
Public consultation and district boundary re-definition
A focus group workshop was held in Meaford on June 17th, 2013, at the fire station. The meeting provided an
opportunity for specific interest groups (business, residential and heritage interests) to meet with project
team members in small groups to discuss their thoughts on the merits of a heritage conservation district, the
proposed boundary, and to voice any questions or concerns about the project. Attendees had the
opportunity to sign up for the focus group workshop at the preliminary public meeting on April 23, 2013.
Attendees were also invited to sign up through notification published online on the Municipality’s website
and in the newspaper.
The majority of the attendees at the focus group meeting generally agreed with the proposed boundary and
the rationale. Some attendees requested that the boundary be extended to include more residential
properties, particularly along Trowbridge Street, Nelson Street, Cook Street and Berry Street. These attendees
also suggested that additional properties outside the study area be included in the proposed boundary.
They were concerned that there may not be additional opportunities in the near future to perform further
studies.
The project team revised the boundary to include the west section of Trowbridge Street, encompassing two
churches, a vernacular residence, a Queen Anne residence, a Second Empire residence and an additional
residence of undetermined style. The additional section of Trowbridge has developed to become a mini-hub
for community over the 20th century, with the construction of two churches in the early 20th century, the
residence at 55 Trowbridge Street which is associated with Dr. John Gardner Clark, mayor of Meaford
between 1910-1912, the 1935 post office (which became the public library in 1967), the later mid-century
post office, the municipal offices, and a contemporary strip commercial development. Though come of
these buildings are of contemporary construction, the collection of the buildings reflects the changes in
Meaford over the last century and is still closely connected to the main commercial core of the town.
The project team is not recommending that additional properties outside the study area be included within
the boundary expansion. As these properties were not part of the original study area and not part of the
scope of work, they were not inventoried, and the project team cannot justify including non-inventoried
buildings within the proposed boundary.
MHBC
July 2013
3.5
Page 50
Conclusions
The proposed boundary appropriately contains a majority of properties of cultural heritage value, whether
buildings, structures and streetscapes, that together, provide a rationale for the designation of this area as a
heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Within the proposed district there are
282 inventoried properties or parcels of land containing 221 buildings or structures with street addresses
(See Appendix A).
Inevitably the proposed district contains a number of properties and features that do not readily fall into the
category of “cultural heritage” and are of more recent origins. Most, if not all designated heritage
conservation districts in Ontario, contain contemporary buildings and spaces and it is not unusual to find
these features co-existing with cultural heritage resources. Appropriate guidelines in the heritage
conservation district plan will address the management of these more recent changes in the landscape,
especially with respect to matters of urban design and potential streetscape master plans.
It is concluded that there is merit in proceeding to the second phase of the heritage conservation district
study, namely the preparation of a heritage conservation district plan containing guidance on the
management of the district’s character and attributes.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 51
4.0 RECOMMENDED OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND PLAN CONTENT
4.1 Introduction
Section 1 of this report noted that the scope of the heritage conservation district assessment study was
guided both by the Municipality of Meaford’s terms of reference for this study as well as the requirements of
the Ontario Heritage Act, notably subsection 40(2) which prescribes that a study will contain a number of
components and shall :
(c) consider and make recommendations as to the objectives of the designation and the content of the heritage
conservation district plan required under section 41.1;
As prescribed in the Ontario Heritage Act the planning and management of a heritage conservation district
involves two stages: the preparation of a study followed by preparation of a plan. The key aim of the heritage
assessment study is to detail the heritage character and attributes of an area and provide a rationale for
designating the place as a heritage conservation district.
While proceeding with, and preparing, the district plan can only be directed by Municipal Council, it is
important that in keeping with the requirement noted above that some idea of what the district plan may
contain be explored here. The district plan is intended to provide the basis for the sensitive conservation,
management and protection of the district’s identified heritage features, notably area’s nineteenth century
and twentieth century buildings, streetscapes, trees, and distinctive harbour landscape, related parks and
open space. The plan will provide a series of tailored guidelines for change within both the public and
private realms of the proposed heritage conservation district.
The district plan is also intended to provide guidance on a variety of other matters including changes to
planning, development and policy matters as well as other municipal activities such as financial incentives,
public works, and streetscape improvements.
At the core of designating any district is the implicit assumption that much of the conservation
implementation related to managing physical change within the area will be undertaken in reviewing and
making decisions about heritage permit applications under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. It is important
that all potential participants in the decision-making process be aware of all those who will be using the
heritage conservation district plan. The conservation district plan should be used and consulted by the
following people, agencies and authorities:
•
•
•
•
•
Property owners;
Municipal Council;
Heritage Meaford;
Municipal staff; and
Local utilities.
Given the various diverse interests and values that may exist within the heritage conservation district plan
area, it is important to recognize in a formal statement of intent the assumptions and objectives that are to
be sought in conserving, protecting and managing the heritage conservation district. These are contained in
the following sections and will form the part of the heritage conservation district plan if a decision is made to
proceed with that phase of the district designation process.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 52
4.2 Statement of intent
Within the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District, it is the intent of Council to guide and
manage physical change and development within the District by:
•
Adopting the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan and Design Guidelines;
•
Making decisions about heritage permit applications for alterations, demolitions and new
construction under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act according to the Downtown Meaford Heritage
Conservation District Plan and Guidelines;
•
Initiating appropriate public works, improvements and financial incentives to conserve and enhance
the character of the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District within the financial
capabilities of the Municipality of Meaford; and
•
Complementing these actions by making appropriate amendments to Official Plan policies, the
Municipality’s Zoning By-law and other relevant Municipal By-laws.
4.2.1
Heritage interests, property owner interests and community interests
Council recognizes that within the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District, there may be a
number of diverse interests. In certain instances these interests may be complementary to each other;
inevitably others may be in direct conflict.
Accordingly, Council:
•
4.2.2
Seeks to ensure that any conflict amongst the community and individual interests is at best avoided
or minimized at every opportunity.
Meaford heritage character
Council recognizes that:
•
The Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District comprises a distinctive ensemble of heritage
buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, riverscapes, and shorelines that have resulted from over a
century and a half of many natural, social, economic and physical changes;
•
The unique heritage character and its diverse streetscapes are to be conserved and protected in the
process of future change;
•
Change in the future is expected within the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District, yet
it must be carefully managed in a manner that does not adversely affect the distinctive heritage
character of the District; and,
•
Any proposed change within the District shall be considered within a number of Council approved
conservation, design, landscaping and planning guidelines and with consideration of the individual
merits of the proposed change.
MHBC
July 2013
4.2.3
Page 53
Meaford conservation management approach
•
District designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, does not seek the prohibition of change
or restoration of the district to a former past historical state, but simply establishes a mechanism for
the municipal review and determination of heritage permit applications for changes to properties,
both public and private within the district.
•
District designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act cannot compel, nor does it seek to
compel, the restoration of heritage properties within the District.
4.2.4
Custodial responsibility
•
4.2.5
Owners of heritage property are considered to be the prime custodians of the Downtown Meaford
Heritage Conservation District.
Alteration of properties
•
4.2.6
Property owners may wish to add on to buildings and structures, alter buildings and landscapes, or
otherwise change their property to accommodate required working or living space and new
facilities, and Council may permit such work provided it is in conformity with the applicable
guidelines contained in the District Plan.
Restoration of heritage properties
•
4.2.7
Property owners may wish to restore heritage properties and Council may encourage such work by
making financial assistance available for eligible work and ensuring conformity with the applicable
guidelines in the District Plan.
Fair and equitable consideration
Council will undertake to ensure that:
•
MHBC
All residents and property owners within the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District
shall be afforded fair and equitable consideration in the determination of heritage permit
applications within the District.
July 2013
Page 54
4.3 Objectives of the proposed designation for the Meaford Conservation District
In designating the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District, a number of key objectives are
sought as follows:
•
To maintain and conserve the heritage character of Sykes Street, adjacent streets, the Bighead
Riverscape, and the Georgian Bay shoreline / harbour area.
•
To protect and enhance heritage property in both the public and private realm including existing
heritage commercial and residential buildings, institutional structures, road bridges, parks and open
spaces, river corridors and associated trees and vegetation, and shoreline areas.
•
To avoid the loss or removal of heritage buildings, structures and landscape fabric and encourage
only those changes that are undertaken in a manner that if such alterations were removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the heritage property, materials and fabric would remain
unimpaired.
•
To encourage property owners to make continuing repairs and undertake maintenance of property
in order to conserve the overall character and appearance of the District.
•
To support the continuing care, conservation and maintenance of heritage properties wherever
appropriate by providing guidance on sound conservation practice and encouraging applications to
funding sources for eligible work.
•
To encourage the maintenance and protection of the public realm of the District, as well as avoiding
or minimizing adverse effects of public undertakings.
•
To manage trees, treelines and grass boulevards that contribute to the cultural heritage value of the
District.
•
To protect, maintain and enhance parkland and open space by encouraging changes that respect
the open space and the vegetative character of the public realm.
•
To encourage the maintenance of a low profile residential environment within portions of the
District.
•
To support existing uses and adaptive re-uses wherever feasible within the existing building stock.
•
To prevent the establishment of those land uses and associated built forms and features which
would be out of keeping with or have detrimental effects upon the character of the District.
•
To avoid the demolition of existing heritage buildings or structures and their replacement with
incompatible new development
•
To permit new development only when it respects or otherwise complements the prevailing
character of the existing heritage buildings and landscapes within the District.
MHBC
July 2013
Page 55
•
To encourage public realm improvements that respect the historical associations and attributes of
the area as well as promote a pedestrian friendly environment that links Downtown Meaford to
adjacent areas.
•
To promote an appropriate gateway feature, such as a landscaped open space, public art or other
devices at the northern entrance to the district that respects the heritage character of this important
entranceway into the district.
•
To examine funding sources and adopt appropriate funding programs within the Municipality of
Meaford’s capability to provide ongoing support to District property owners.
4.4
Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan content
It is expected that the Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan and Guidelines will contain a
number of provisions that satisfy the requirements of Subsection 41.1(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act including
the following:
•
A statement of the objectives to be achieved in designating the area as a heritage conservation
district.
•
A statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the heritage conservation district.
•
A description of the heritage attributes of the heritage conservation district and of properties in the
district.
•
Design guideline s for alterations and additions to heritage buildings and structures, including
façades and signage.
•
Design guidelines for alterations and additions to contemporary buildings and structures.
•
Guidelines on new construction as infill development.
•
Guidelines on demolition and removal of buildings and structures.
•
Landscape conservation guidelines for both public and private property.
•
Funding initiatives.
•
Changes to municipal planning and administrative procedures.
•
Descriptions of alterations or classes of alterations that can be carried out without obtaining a
heritage permit under section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
MHBC
July 2013
5.0
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO MUNICIPAL PLANNING MECHANISMS AND BY-LAWS
5.1
Background
Page 56
The successful maintenance and protection of a designated heritage conservation district relies in part on
ensuring that local planning policies, by-laws and initiatives complement, support or provide an appropriate
framework for realistic and achievable conservation measures anticipated by the Heritage Conservation
District Plan.
The Official Plan and Zoning by-law, reviewed earlier in this study are generally supportive of the protection
and conservation of the overall character of the proposed district and its heritage attributes. Accordingly no
major land use changes or new directions are being sought as a result of this study.
In order to refine and direct conservation, change and potential new development within the boundaries of
the proposed heritage conservation district, a number of matters were identified which require minor
changes or modifications to existing zoning provisions. Additionally, there are a number of other matters
that assist in ensuring ease of administration and help in reducing potential delays in processing of heritage
permit applications, most notably a heritage permit application form for consistent and traceable record
keeping as well as provisions for delegated approval of permits to municipal staff.
5.2
Zoning by-law
The current zoning provisions recognize existing uses of buildings and lands and no changes are
recommended. The permitted maximum building height in the residential zones do however permit three
story buildings to be built. The permitted building height could permit the construction of an 11.0-metre
flat-roofed building which may be out of keeping with existing buildings. .
It is recommended that given the character of the residential area that consideration be given to amending
the provisions of the Zoning By-law within the District to accommodate appropriate building heights or
potentially step-backs within portions of the Downtown Meaford area.
5.3
Heritage property standards
It was noted in Section 2 of this study that the Municipality of Meaford had adopted a Property Standards Bylaw to regulate the maintenance of property. Section 45.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act provides that the
municipality may by by-law make additional provisions for the maintenance of the heritage attributes of
property in a designated heritage conservation district. Where a property does not comply with the
standard, the Municipality can require the property to be repaired and maintained to meet the standard.
Given the sound condition and generally good repair of properties within the study area and potential
district, the requirement to process such a by-law is not pressing. However, it is good practice for any
municipality to provide itself with appropriate tools to manage the sensitive attributes of heritage properties.
It is recommended that the Municipality of Meaford consider enacting such a by-law pursuant to the
provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act.
MHBC
July 2013
5.4
Page 57
Sign By-law
It was noted in Section 2 of this study that the Municipality of Meaford had adopted a Sign By-law to
regulate the installation of signs on property. Signage is typically a matter dealt with through the guidelines
prepared as part of a Heritage Conservation District Plan.
It is recommended that the Heritage Conservation District Plan (if one is prepared) investigate the possibility
of streamlining the sign permit application process to avoid potential duplication with the Heritage Permit
process.
5.5
Delegated approval authority for alterations
Section 42 (16) of the Ontario Heritage Act provides for the delegation of Council’s authority to grant permits
for the alteration of property in a designated heritage conservation district to an employee or official of the
municipality. The Municipality of Meaford has not enacted such a by-law.
The granting of permit approvals for alterations by Municipal staff is considered to be a means of
expeditiously processing permits and substantially reducing staff reports to Council for decision-making. It
must be noted that delegation of approvals does not extend to the construction of new buildings or
structures or the demolition of buildings and structures.
It is recommended that the Municipality of Meaford enact a delegation by-law under the Ontario Heritage
Act. This matter will be investigated further as part of a Heritage Conservation District Plan, if one is prepared.
5.6
Heritage permit application form and approvals
The efficient administration of a heritage conservation district relies on both clear guidelines as well as a
complementary system of processing Heritage Permit applications for alterations to property, the erection of
buildings and structures and the demolition or removals of buildings and structures. Section 42 (1) of the
Ontario Heritage Act requires that none of the foregoing may be undertaken “unless the owner obtains a permit
from the municipality to do so”.
Section 42(3) also requires that where Council receives such an application a notice of receipt shall be served
on the applicant. Notice of receipt essentially starts the formal maximum 90 day review process during
which a decision must be made by Council. Only with the adoption of a heritage permit application form
can a permit be appropriately tracked and processed from submission to decision.
Additionally, section 8 (2) (a) of the Ontario Building Code Act provides that the chief building official of a
municipality shall issue a building permit under the Act unless
“the proposed building, construction or demolition will contravene this Act, the building code or any other
applicable law”
Ontario Regulation 350/06 under the Building Code Act contains a series of provisions respecting the
definition of applicable law and subsection 1.4.1.3(1)(xix) states that for the purposes of section 8 of the Act,
applicable law means,
“Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act with respect to the permit given by the council of a municipality for
the erection, alteration or demolition of a building,”
MHBC
July 2013
Page 58
This reinforces the concept of a Heritage Permit under the Ontario Heritage Act being distinct and separate
from that of a building permit under the Building Code Act.
Accordingly, it is recommended that a heritage permit application form be prepared for use by the
Municipality of Meaford under both Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act to allow for traceable
processing and determination of permits. Further guidance on heritage permit administration will be
provided in the District Plan together with advice on co-ordinating permit processing with other municipal
processes.
5.7
Ontario Heritage Act Part IV designations, heritage conservation easement agreements and
other measures
Sections 2 and 3 of this study have provided a sound rationale for district designation under Part V of the
Ontario Heritage Act. It is recognized that this is a reduced area from the original study area. As noted in
Section 3, the most cohesive grouping of cultural heritage resources falls within the area identified within
the potential Heritage Conservation District boundary. It has been concluded that the heritage character of
the area is best protected and managed through Part V district designation. No additional protective
heritage mechanisms or regulations are warranted or recommended for this specific area at this time
It is recognised that there are additional properties within the study area that, although not linked directly to
the development of the downtown area, may be candidates for re-examination using evaluation criteria
under Ontario Regulation 9/06 pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. These are as follows:
Aside from potential individual designations under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, heritage conservation
easement agreements may also be negotiated on these properties on a case-by-case basis with individual
property owners.
The study team also identified potential areas within and beyond the study area that may be candidates for
additional studies related to heritage conservation districts in the future (as outlined on Figure 7 the
following page)
The above areas were either distinctive and separate from the downtown area of Meaford, and / or were
linked to a much larger area that should be evaluated comprehensively in the future.
The proposed district boundary excludes a number of roads, streets and areas that were originally part of the
study area outlined by the Community Improvement Plan. The areas excluded from the proposed boundary
include most the residential neighbourhood between Skykes Street and Cook Street, including Albert Street,
Parker Street West, Collingwood Street West, and the west side of Berry Street. The proposed boundary also
excludes the southernmost portion of Skyes Street with a handful of commercial properties and a
condominium unit, as well as residential and commercial properties and a church on Boucher Street, and the
residential neighbourhood south of the harbour containing Denmark Street, St. Vincent Street, Bridge Street
and Fuller Street.
The areas excluded from the proposed boundary still contain a wealth of heritage properties. The residential
neighbourhoods contain a mixture of building types and styles, and have been modified to varying degrees.
Some of the excluded area includes well-maintained older residential properties, older commercial
properties and the Anglican Church. Excluding these areas from the proposed boundary does not mean that
they have little heritage value. These areas were excluded from the study area because they in fact have
greater connection with additional properties outside of the study area. The residential neighbourhood
MHBC
July 2013
Page 59
south of the harbour is closer in character to the adjacent residential streets to the south than it is to the
harbour or commercial core, and there are several well maintained older properties west of the study area
that are similar in character to residential properties that have been excluded from the proposed boundary.
These areas lying outside the study area may be considered as candidates for future Heritage Conservation
District Studies, and may include some of the properties and streets excluded from the boundary proposed
for this particular study. The residential properties west of Sykes Street could form part of a larger residential
based conservation district in the future, with additional study of areas outside of the CIP boundary.
A number of residences are particularly good examples of architectural styles with a high degree of integrity.
If additional heritage conservation district studies are not desired or feasible, individual designation under
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act is recommended to conserve these properties. Several have already been
identified by Heritage Meaford. A number of properties within the study area but outside the proposed
boundaries are also good candidates for individual designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act,
including:
• 78 Bridge Street
• 34 Boucher Street (Christ Church Anglican)
• 60 Boucher Street
• 44 Collingwood Street West
• 35 Collingwood Street West
• 53-55 Collingwood Street West
• 43 Cook Street
• 43 Berry Street
5.8
The need and timing for and Interim Control By-law under the Ontario Heritage Act
The Ontario Heritage Act provides that where a municipality undertakes a study it can implement a
complementary by-law that provides for temporary regulation of the alteration of property or demolition of
buildings or structures while the study is being undertaken, as follows;
40.1 (1) If the council of a municipality undertakes a study under section 40, the council may by by-law
designate the area specified in the by-law as a heritage conservation study area for a period of up to one
year. 2005, c. 6. s. 29.
Same
(2) A by-law made under subsection (1) may prohibit or set limitations with respect to,
(a) the alteration of property situated in the heritage conservation study area; and
(b) the erection, demolition or removal of buildings or structures, or classes of buildings or structures,
in the heritage conservation study area. 2005, c. 6. s. 29.
At the time of preparing this report, representing the first phase of the Heritage Conservation District process
and given the progress of the overall study process, the benefits of a one year term of protection must be
weighed against continuing to advance the study project. The Act also provides for an appeal process of the
interim control by-law which has the potential to slow the process if the by-law is appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
Accordingly, pursuing an interim control by-law under the Act is not recommended at this time. This is
based on the current cooperation of property owners within the study area.
MHBC
July 2013
200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE / KITCHENER / ONTARIO / N2B 3X9 / T: 519-576-3650 / F: 519-576-0121 /
WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM

Heritage Assessment Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Xero House

Carry On, Sargeant! With Live Music by the Hilotrons Ski Movie

enREDo International Design Network

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

QuarterlyFall09.qxp:Quarterlywtr05 final layout

From: Lee Sexsmith [mailto:hecubuspg@telus

family matters summer 2016 - Heritage Family Credit Union

Flyer

Slides

OAESA Brochure 2016