HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-018-25Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: April 14, 2025 Report Number: PDS-018-25
Authored By: Jane Wang, Senior Planner, Community Planning
Submitted By:Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed By:Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number:Resolution Number:
File Number: PLN 34.5.2.93
Report Subject: Intent to Pursue Heritage Designation for the Property at 2774 Concession
Road 6, Darlington
Recommendations:
1.That Report PDS-018-25 and any related communication items, be received;
2.That the Clerk issue a Notice of Intention to Designate 2774 Concession Road 6,
Darlington, as a cultural heritage resource under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario
Heritage Act;
3.That the Clerk prepare the necessary by-law if no objection(s) are received within 30
days after the date of publication of the Notice of Intention or report back to Council
regarding objection(s); and
4.That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-018-25, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-018-25
Report Overview
The Municipality is responsible for conserving significant heritage resources. 2774
Concession Road 6, Darlington, is a rare example of the vernacular Georgian farmhouse
with Regency/Picturesque features in Clarington and is identified as Primary resource on the
Clarington Cultural Heritage Resources List.
The Clarington Heritage Committee and staff recommend the designation of the property
under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act to ensure the future of the significant
cultural resources is appropriately conserved and that it continues to be an integral part of
Clarington’s history. The owner agrees with the designation.
1. Background
1.1 Cultural heritage is important to a community because it reflects its history, traditions,
and values. It also contributes to a sense of place that fosters a community's identity
and cohesion.
1.2 The conservation of significant architectural, cultural, historical, and archaeological
resources is a matter of provincial interest and is regulated through legislation and
policies.
1.3 The Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington have policies in their Official Plans
that promote the protection and conservation of significant cultural heritage resources.
These policies align with the goals of enhancing community health and safety and
improving the quality of life for residents.
1.4 Council holds the responsibility to designate a property under Part IV, Section 29 of the
Ontario Heritage Act (the OHA) when it concludes that the property meets the criteria
outlined in Ontario Regulation (O. Reg) 9/06 under the OHA, indicating Cultural Heritage
Value or Interest (CHVI). These criteria are based on three overarching principles
related to physical and design attributes, historical and associative connections, as well
as contextual significance. A property is required to meet two or more criteria prescribed
in O.Reg 9/06 to be designated.
1.5 The subject property is identified as Primary resource in the Clarington Cultural Heritage
Resource List. This property was subject to a Planning Act Application (severance) in
2024, and a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was required to support the severance
application in accordance with the Official Plan. The HIA concluded that the property
met four of the nine criteria to be considered for designation (see Attachment 1). The
proposed severance did not negatively impact the property’s cultural heritage value.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-018-25
1.6 The Clarington Heritage Committee reviewed the HIA, and passed Motion 24.36 at its
meeting on September 17, 2024, recommending designation of the subject property
because it had sufficient cultural heritage value or interest to merit designation. The
property owner attended the Heritage Committee meeting and provided information on
the current conditions of the house and other st ructures on the property
1.7 Staff also communicated with the property owner regarding the heritage designation
process and heritage attributes. With the property owner’s concurrence, the designation
process was planned to be initiated after the severance was complete.
1.8 The property is shown on the location Map (Figure 1).
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-018-25
Figure 1 Location Map: 2774 Concession Road 6, Darlington
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-018-25
2. 2774 Concession Road 6, Darlington
2.1 2774 Concession Road 6 (known as the Roy House Farmstead) is located on the north
side of Concession Road 6, east of Clemens Road, south of the Village of Tyrone in the
Municipality of Clarington. It is considered a rare example of a vernacular Georgian 1 ½
storey farmhouse with Regency/Picturesque features, constructed circa 1852.
Figure 2: The front view of 2774 Concession Road 6 (known as the Roy House Farmstead)
2.2 The farmhouse’s 1 ½ storey massing and form is generally representative of the
Georgian style popular through the late 1800s in Ontario, however, fea tures such as the
large tripartite windows, high ground floor ceilings, “Chinoiserie” patterning on the
transom and sidelights of the central entrance, and its siting at the top of a gentle slope
are distinctly Regency/Picturesque in their character.
2.3 The farmhouse and associated farmstead were developed by the Roy family. The Roy
family emigrated from Scotland in the 1840s. William Roy purchased the property in
1845 and constructed the fieldstone farmhouse by 1852. Wiliam Roy was an active
member of the local community, and the Roy family inhabited and actively farmed the
property for over 130 years.
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-018-25
2.4 The complete description of the cultural heritage attributes of this property is included in
Attachment 2.
3. Legislation
Provincial Policy Statement
3.1 The conservation of significant architectural, cultural, historical and archaeological
resources is a matter of provincial interest identified in the Provincial Planning
Statement (PPS) 2024. PPS includes cultural heritage policies indicating that significant
built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved .
It also encourages the identification of significant heritage resources under the OHA.
Ontario Heritage Act
3.2 The OHA empowers a municipality to pass a by-law to designate a property that is of
cultural heritage significance in consultation with the Heritage Committee. Designation
under the OHA provides a mechanism to achieve the necessary protection of heritage
property from demolition and inappropriate alterations.
3.3 O. Regulation. 9/06 under the OHA prescribes criteria for determining a property’s
cultural heritage value or interest for the purpose of designation . The prescribed criteria
help ensure the effective, comprehensive and consistent determination of CHVI. The
property may be designated if it meets two of nine criteria. The property was evaluated
against the prescribed criteria, and it was concluded that the property’s cultural heritage
significance warranted designation.
3.4 The OHA outlines the process for designation. The Clarington Heritage Committee has
been consulted and recommended designation. Upon Council’s approval, the next step
is to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate on the Municipality’s website. A summary
description of the heritage designation process is attached to this report as Attachment
3.
3.5 Once a property is designated by a by-law under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA, the
property owner is required to obtain consent for any propose d significant alterations to
the building’s heritage features that are listed in the designation by-law, or for demolition
of all or part of the structure, or its significant attributes.
Clarington Official Plan
3.6 Promoting cultural heritage conservation is identified as a goal to foster civic pride and a
sense of place, strengthen the local economy and enhance the quality of life for
Clarington residents. Section 8 of the Clarington Official Plan, 2018 directs the
designation of significant cultural heritage resources under Part IV of the OHA, with
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-018-25
assistance from the Clarington Heritage Committee, in support of achieving the
Municipality’s cultural heritage objectives.
4. Financial Considerations
External heritage consultants may be required to provide evidence at the Ontario Land
Tribunal (OLT) in support of designation if an appeal is made. External legal services
may also be required in the event of any appeals to the OLT. This constitutes a potential
future financial cost.
5. Strategic Plan
The Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-27 outlines the objectives to cultivate a strong,
thriving, and connected community where everyone is welcome. The community’s
unique history and characteristics contribute to the community identification. Actively
identifying and designating significant cultural heritage properties contribute to achieving
one of the priorities (Connect 4.1) that promotes and supports local arts, culture, and
heritage sectors.
6. Climate Change
Not Applicable.
7. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
8. Conclusion
8.1 The Clarington Heritage Committee and staff are in support of the designation of 2774
Concession Road 6, Darlington as an individual designation under Part IV, Section 29 of
the OHA.
8.2 Should no objections be received by the Municipal Clerk within 30 days of publishing the
Notice of Intention to designate, the proposed by-law designating the property will be
forwarded to Council for approval. Alternatively, if an objection(s) is received the Clerk
will provide a report to Council.
8.3 Upon designation, the owner of the property will be presented with a bronze plaque
signifying the importance of the property to the community and the Municipality as a
whole. Following designation, the property will be eligible for a Heritage Incentive Grant
to maintain the heritage property.
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-018-25
8.4 It is respectfully requested that the Recommendations be adopted.
Staff Contact: Jane Wang, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2411or jwang@clarington.net
or Lisa Backus, Manager, Community Planning ext. 2413 or lbackus@clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – 2774 Concession Road 6, Darlington, Heritage Impact Assessment
Attachment 2 – 2774 Concession Road 6, Darlington, Statement of cultural value and heritage
attributes
Attachment 3 – Heritage designation process
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
ROY HOUSE FARM STEAD
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
2774 Concession Road 6, Clarington, Ontari o
Prepared For:
Mary Ann and Stan Found
Bethesda Ridge Farm
6229 Bethesda Road
Bowmanville, ON, L1C 0Z4
stanandmaryannfound@gmail.com
Prepared By:
Andrea Gummo & Alex Rowse-Thompson
Heritage Studio
613-305-4877
Alex@heritagestudio.ca
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Report Issuance:
Draft: May 28, 2024
Final: June 7, 2024
1 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Address and Owner/Contact Information ................................................................. 3
1.3 Property Location, Description & Heritage Status .................................................... 3
2. Background Research & Analysis ..................................................................................... 5
2.1 Property History ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Farmstead and Landscape ........................................................................................ 10
3. Cultural Heritage Evaluation ........................................................................................... 18
3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation ......................................................................... 18
3.2 Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest .......................................... 19
3.3 Existing Condition ...................................................................................................... 21
5. Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................... 23
6. Conservation Approach ................................................................................................... 26
7. Conclusion & Recommendations ................................................................................... 26
8. Sources .............................................................................................................................. 27
.................................................................................. 28
2 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of Work
Mary Ann Found (Owner) retained Heritage Studio, to prepare this Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) for the property known municipally as 2774 Concession Road 6
(subject property). The subject property comprises approximately 53.8 hectares (133
acres) and includes a farmhouse, two barns and a garage. The owner proposes the
severance of the farmhouse from the surrounding agricultural lands. To facilitate the
severance, the subject property is subject to a surplus farm dwelling severance,
consolidation, and associated zoning bylaw amendment. As required by the Provincial
Policy Statement (2020), the severance must maximize the retention of agricultural
lands to be consolidated with the main parcel and minimize lands retained by the future
rural residential property.
The proposed severance includes most of the farmstead, including the traditional
driveway, landscaped lawn area, and farmhouse dwelling. It does not include the
northernmost barn, which is proposed to stay with the consolidated farm parcel to
support the ongoing agricultural operation. The proposed severed residential parcel
measures 0.926 hectares (2.3 acres).
The project team consists of Heritage Studio (heritage consultant) and Clark Consulting
Services (planner). A site visit was undertaken by Andrea Gummo, subconsultant to
Heritage Studio, on May 2, 2024, and included an interior and exterior tour of the
farmhouse and barns and walking the surrounding property. All current photographs
of the property were taken by Andrea Gummo on the site visit.
The following documents were reviewed in the preparation of this report and form the
cultural heritage policy framework: Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (the Standards and Guidelines); Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Heritage Tool Kit; Ontario Heritage Act; 2020 Provincial
Policy Statement; 2020 Consolidation; and Municipality
of Clarington , 2018 Consolidation.
3 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
1.2 Address and Owner/Contact Information
The current owners of the subject property are Stan and Mary Ann Found, Bethesda
consolidation.
Address: 2774 Concession Road 6
Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 5V3
Owner/Contact: Stan and Mary Ann Found
Bethesda Ridge Farms
6229 Bethesda Road
Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 0Z4
stanandmaryannfound@gmail.com
1.3 Property Location, Description & Heritage Status
The subject property is located at 2774 Concession Road 6, immediately east of
Clemens Road and is 53.8 hectares in size. The traditional farm parcel included lands
Figure 1: Site map showing proposed severance (Clark Consulting
Services, 2023)
4 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
north of Concession Road 6, where the farmhouse is located, as well as lands south of
the roadway.
The property is not currently designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), but it
the Municipality of Clarington’s municipal register of heritage
properties as a Primary Property, which means one that illustrates a best example of a
particular style of architecture. There are no adjacent properties that have been
there are several in the general vicinity of the subject
property.
subject property containing the dwelling and outbuildings as well as a small portion of
surrounding does not extend the full length of the frontage or include all of
the current property.
The cultural heritage value of the farmhouse a LACAC publication in
1993. The farmhouse is constructed of
but rare provincially. Two large tripartite windows on either side of a centrally located
door with rectangular transom and sidelights illustrate Regency characteristics in their
scale and design. The side gable roof appears to have retained its original wide cornice
and return, features that are more associated with Georgian vernacular architecture.
A unique and interesting feature of the farmhouse is the use of red brick arches with
skewbacks over openings.
Since the LACAC publication in 1993, there have been few alterations to the property.
However, a renovation in 1961 (building permit records) and, according to the current
owners, a substantial renovation/rebuild that was carried out in the 1980s, have
of the remaining heritage fabric and attributes
of the interior of the farmhouse, and most of the north
wall of the original structure. Additionally, it appears that the renovation caused the
failure and subsequent rebuilding of a large portion of the west wall. Around this time
the original farmlands south of Concession Road 6 were severed and converted to
estate residential uses.
Although the size of the farm parcel has changed over time, the picturesque setting of
the farmhouse within the north portion of the original parcel contributes to the heritage
value of the property and has been maintained to the present day.
5 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
2. BACKGROUND RESEARCH & ANALYSIS
2.1 Property History
The Crown grant for Lot 8, Concession 6, Darlington Township was assigned to
Susannah Tuttle et al on 24 February 1836. This is a relatively late date and suggests
these lands were originally held by the Crown in reserve. Around that time, many
reserve lands were released for settlement due to political pressure that culminated in
the Upper Canadian Rebellion of 1837.
The original 200 acre (80.9 ha) lot was almost immediately subdivided. At the north
end a number of town lots were created, forming the southeastern extent of the Village
of Tyrone. A few large farm lots were created to the south, some intended to
consolidate with more established farms.
It is likely that a log or frame house existed on the property when William Roy purchased
50 acres (20.2 ha) from Peter Perry in late 1845. Shortly afterwards he purchased
concession from Fleetwood Cubitt, the original grantee.
By 1852, it appears that
had been erected and the Roy household
included William, his wife Jean or Jane
Swan, and their two sons Ebenezer and
William John. Based on the quality of
construction and materials, as well as the
picturesque design choices, it is clear the
when they came to Canada and settled in
Darlington.
William Sr., Jean, and Ebenezer were born in
Alloa, Scotland. The 1840s were a time of
mass migration from Scotland to various
colonies, and William J. was born in
Darlington in 1848, 12 years after his older
brother. William and his heirs would
continue to farm on the property until the
late 1970s.
Figure 2: Tremaine's Map of 1861 showing approximate
boundary of the Roy’s lot.
6 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
The Agricultural Census of 1861 shows a typical family farm of the time: The Roy farm
was average in terms of size and production for the area, and it produced a huge range
of agricultural products including various grain crops, livestock as evidenced by 30
acres of pasture, root crops, and 5 acres of orchards and gardens.
Tremaine’s map of the same year shows the farm as “W. Roy” but does not include a
building marker – this was a paid feature of the map and not indicative of a lack of
buildings.
The County Atlas of 1878 shows “W. Roy” and indicates
the general location of buildings with a marker.
The 1881 Canadian Census illustrates the
multigenerational composition of the household.
William Sr and wife Jane are 72, while William J. and
his wife Robina are 33. Their children are David, 2, and
William, 7 months. By 1901 William J and Robina are
52. David is 21 and the youngest sibling, Robert, is 6.
This clipping from the Bowmanville Canadian
Statesman, November 15, 1899, shows William
J. Roy’s community and religious involvement:
“Mr. W. J. Roy’s address on Sabbath evening
was replete with pointed remarks on the duties
of parents, teachers, and all instructors of the
young.”
At the time he had several children at home that
attended the nearby Bethesda School House.
Figure 3: Durham County Atlas 1878 showing
approximate boundary of the Roy’s lot.
Figure 4: Social notes for Tyrone from the Bowmanville
Canadian Statesman, November 15, 1899
7 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
Sometime prior to 1927, a large barn was
constructed immediately north of the existing,
smaller barn on the property. This large barn is no
longer extant.
By at least 1927 based on aerial photography and
the DND Topographic map for Oshawa, it appears
that the farm had converted a large acreage to
apple orchards on both sides of Concession Road
6. This was a common crop locally throughout the
1900s. The 1931 Census indicates Robert is 37 and
the head of the household. Charlotte, 33, is his wife,
and his mother Robina, 81, and brother David, 53,
also live on the farm.
By the 1950s a large barn was built to the rear of the
farmstead to support dairy operation. The second
large barn or implement shed is visible in the aerial
photograph from September 1960 but is no longer
standing (Figure 7).
With Robert Roy’s death in
1976, the traditional farm
parcel experienced a series of
changes, including severance
of the south half of the farm for
estate residential uses (lands
south of Concession Road 6),
and the end of the Roy family
ownership.
Figure 5: Aerial photograph 1927
showing large apple orchards.
Figure 6: DND Topographic Map for Oshawa, 1930
8 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
The DND Topographic map for 1976 must have been drafted too early to capture the
changes in property ownership.
Figure 8: DND Topographic map for Bowmanville, 1976
Figure 7: Aerial photograph 1960 showing apple orchards and an additional barn, no
longer extant.
9 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
Today, the farmhouse and three outbuildings exist (i.e., two barns and a garage). The
farmhouse are still in agricultural production (crops).
Figure 9: Fieldstone farmhouse on approach from driveway. (May 2024)
10 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
2.2 Farmstead and Landscape
“Roy House”
to a height
of 1 ½ storeys, a popular choice at the time
to avoid the higher taxes levied on multi-
storey buildings.
The farmhouse is constructed of a dressed
dressed rubble stone side walls (and
presumably the rear/north wall, of which
only a portion appears to remain).
The geology of the area is characterized
by drumlins, creating rolling hills of
varying aggregate materials south of the
Oak Ridges Moraine but north of the
plains adjacent to Lake Ontario.
stone material appears identical to other
buildings in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property, and it is
likely that the materials were gathered on
site or nearby. Most of the stones appear
to be granite in various colours.
Figure 10: Fieldstone detail. (May 2024)
11 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
coursed approximately every 18”, with larger
boulders used near the foundation and corners. These could be considered “boulder
quoins”.
Original windows and doors appear to have been wooden. Windows were wooden,
including frames and sills . No evidence of
original exterior doors is available, but the original wooden door surround is extant
(see Figure 13).
side and rear elevations are vertically sliding sash windows, with panes arranged in a
12 over 12 pattern. These windows are found on the west, east and north elevations of
the farmhouse.
The other two original windows exist on , discussed in detail below (see
Figure 12).
Upper storey windows as well as the rear western window appear to have been
replaced in vinyl.
Figure 11: Southwest corner
showing "boulder quoins". (May
2024)
12 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
These large, tripartite windows
show variations in the glass
panes indicative of their age
and are arranged in a 9 over 9
pattern on the central sash and
3 over 3 on the side sashes. All
three windows appear to have
been operable vertically
sliding sash windows, although
they are currently inoperable
and protected by an
immovable exterior storm
window.
The centrally located front door has a
rectangular transom light and sidelights
with “Chinoiserie” pattern; both of which
appear to be original.
Figure 12: Detail of original tripartite window. (May 2024)
Figure 13: Centrally located front door
with original transom and sidelights.
(May 2024)
Figure 14: Interior view of original
transom detail. (May 2024)
13 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
The side gable roof appears to have retained its original wide eave, including frieze
and cornice with return, characteristic of its vernacular Georgian form.
The east elevation has only one window on the second story, but the west elevation
features two. This may be related to the view of the property from Clemens Road, where
the west elevation is visible. The east elevation is not visible from the public realm.
The use of brick voussoirs for openings is an unusual choice. The bricks are red in
colour and appear to be “colonial size” rather than standard (50 mm thick versus 60
mm thick). The voussoirs form Also rarely seen are the panels of
brickwork on either side of the arches, called skewbacks, which help to support the
outside of the arch; an easier method than
Typically, skewbacks are constructed with different proportions: the brickwork is taller
than it is wide. These brickwork skewbacks extend two stretchers and a header beyond
the window opening, making them unusual.
brick arches and skewbacks is found nearby at
2767 Concession Road 4, but this building has much smaller window openings on its
n architectural twin.
Some of the original function and use of the farmhouse has been obscured by modern
interventions, but enough clues remain to suggest the following:
Although the farmhouse is 1 ½ storeys with a modest rear extension when it was
constructed, it appears to have had a full basement. The front door opens onto a
staircase to the upper storey with the basement stairs located underneath. At least four
(south) and
one on each side wall, toward the rear of the farmhouse. Substantial reconstruction of
Figure 15: West elevation, left, has two windows on the upper storey;
and east elevation, right, has one. (May 2024)
14 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
the basement has meant that the evidence of window openings is the only clue to its
former use, which was likely a winter kitchen, scullery and laundry, along with food and
heating fuel storage.
It is likely that a frame summer kitchen was at one time located to the rear of the
farmhouse . Locally, it was typical for the rear of a farmhouse
to extend in a “tail” and sometimes included an attached driveshed and stable. It
appears that the original tail has been replaced by two modern garages, attached to
the farmhouse.
There was no evidence of a former porch or verandah, which were common for the
time. The location of the basement windows makes it somewhat unlikely that there
with Regency styles. It is possible that a verandah extended along a side wall of the rear
extension.
There are no obvious signs of original heating sources, but the location of windows and
located towards the rear of the farmhouse. Wood and coal burning stoves were also in
common use at the time and could even be located in the centre of a room for better
heat distribution, with chimney pipes extending upwards to heat the room above. It is
possible that chimney pipes came together at the centre over the stairs and joined a
centrally located chimney.
Barns
Three barns currently exist on the
property: a small garage at the head of
the driveway that is partially collapsed
and appears to be post WWII
construction, a 1950s gambrel roof dairy
barn with silo, and a third barn clad in
aluminum and located close to the
farmhouse.
the barn clad in aluminum
appears to be post WWII construction,
but on further examination it may be the
farm’s original barn. It is an appropriate scale and orientation for a pre-1860 barn,
Figure 16: 1950s gambrel roof dairy barn.
(May 2024)
15 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
although possibly slightly taller today due to renovations. The structural stability of the
barn is unknown, and interior access was not possible, but there is evidence of full logs
used in the construction of its frame.
Many of the larger (and likely later construction) barns of the area are constructed of
foundation on this barn, and it appears to be a typical English barn of the mid-1800s
constructed of frame and log.
Landscape
The location of the farmhouse within the farm parcel is a key aspect of its
Regency/Picturesque features. The farmhouse faces south, toward the Concession
Road, at the end of a long driveway. From the roadway the farmhouse appears low and
horizontal, a Regency characteristic.
Figure 17: Possibly original barn now clad in aluminum. (May 2024)
16 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
However, the impressive scale of the farmhouse becomes apparent on approach, as it
features higher ceilings and larger windows than were common for the time.
The farmhouse is sited to maximize views to and from the dwelling.
The topography of the property shows a gentle slope from north to south, towards the
southern concessions of the former Township and eventually Lake Ontario. It is likely
that before the southern farm parcel was severed and converted to estate residential
area to the extreme south of the original property.
Figure 18: Dwelling from the public realm/Concession Road 6. (May
2024)
17 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
The landscaping of the property through the 1800s
likely featured fewer mature trees, and more of the
current lawn area in agricultural production. It is likely
that the front of the farmhouse featured a fenced
It is likely that any barn yard for livestock was located to
the north of the aluminum clad barn, away from the
farmhouse.
Figure 19: Interior view from
southwest, likely original,
window. (May 2024)
Figure 20: View south from southwest window. (May
2024)
18 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
3. CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION
3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation
Ontario Regulation 9/06 sets out the criteria for determining whether a property is of
cultural heritage value or interest. In accordance with Section 2. (3) the subject property
must meet two or more of the criteria in order to be designated under Section 29 of
the OHA.
The 1993 LACAC description for the property provides a description of the property’s
architectural value as well as some historical background. Using the property research
in Section 2 of this report as well as the LACAC description, the following table
evaluates the property at 2774 Concession Road 6 using Ontario Regulation 9/06.
Criteria Description Assessment Explanation
Design or
Physical
Value
1. it is a rare, unique,
representative or
early example of a
style, type,
expression, material
or construction
method.
The farmhouse has design
value as a rare example of a
vernacular Georgian
farmhouse with
Regency/Picturesque
features.
2. it displays a high
degree of
craftsmanship or
artistic merit.
N/A
3. it demonstrates a
high degree of
technical or scientific
achievement.
N/A
Historical or
Associative
Value
4. it has direct
associations with a
theme, event, belief,
person, activity,
organization or
institution that is
significant to a
community.
The farmhouse and
associated farmstead were
developed by the Roy family
who emigrated from Scotland
and inhabited and actively
farmed the property for over
130 years.
19 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
5. it yields, or has the
potential to yield,
information that
contributes to an
understanding of a
community or
culture.
N/A
6. it demonstrates or
reflects the work or
ideas of an architect,
artist, builder,
designer or theorist
who is significant to a
community.
N/A
Contextual
Value
7. it is important in
defining, maintaining
or supporting the
character of an area.
The property is representative
of a 19th century Ontario rural
agricultural landscape that
remains relatively unchanged
and contributes to the local
rural character.
8. it is physically,
functionally, visually
or historically linked
to its surroundings.
The farmstead is sited to
support its Regency-
Picturesque features.
9. it is a landmark. N/A
3.2 Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
Introduction and Description of Property:
The Roy House Farmstead at 2774 Concession Road 6 is located on the north side of
Concession Road 6, east of Clemens Road, south of the Village of Tyrone in the
Municipality of Clarington. The 53.8 hectare property comprises two
barns, a garage and a 1 ½ storey , constructed circa 1852.
20 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
Cultural Heritage Values
The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique,
representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction
method.
The farmhouse has design value as a rare example of a vernacular Georgian farmhouse
with Regency/Picturesque features. The farmhouse’s 1 ½ storey massing and form is
generally representative of the Georgian style popular through the late 1800s in
Ontario, however, features such as the large tripartite windows
ceilings, “Chinoiserie” patterning on the transom and sidelights of the central entrance,
and its siting at the top of a gentle slope are distinctly Regency/Picturesque in their
character. Another rare design choice is the use of
wide skewbacks. The farmhouse
local material, less common in other jurisdictions, and is dressed with courses every 18”
or so with “boulder coins” elevating the farmhous e’s design.
The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations
to a community.
The farmhouse and associated farmstead were developed by the Roy family. The Roy
family emigrated from Scotland in the 1840s. William Roy purchased the property in
member of the local community and the Roy family inhabited and actively farmed the
property for over 130 years.
supporting the character of an area.
character of the surrounding area. The farmstead contributes to an agricultural parcel
fabric throughout the rural areas of the former Darlington Township that is
and 1 ½ - 2 storey farmhouses built of stone or frame.
The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or
historically linked to its surroundings.
The farmstead is located to maximize views to and from the property, supporting its
Regency/Picturesque attributes. It has a large setback from the roadway and a long,
21 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
straight drive to a cluster of buildings, with the farmhouse sitting proud in the forefront.
From the roadway, the farmhouse appears low and rectangular in a park-like setting.
Key exterior elements that contribute to the property’s cultural heritage value include
its:
1 ½ storey massing;
Side gable roof with original wooden eaves with returns;
with centrally located front door;
Dressed broken coursed with “boulder quoins”;
Minimally dressed rubblestone side and rear walls;
Original window openings with red brick arches with
skewbacks;
Three original wooden vertically sliding sash windows on with 12 over 12
Original large wooden tripartite windows with vertically sliding sash with 9 over
9 patterning on the central sashes and 3 over 3 on the side sashes on the
;
Original door opening with red brick arch and skewbacks and transom and
sidelights with “Chinoiserie” patterning;
Original basement window openings and red brick arches and
skewbacks ;
Picturesque landscape with farmhouse set back from the road via a long
straight driveway, and ; and
Farmstead with associated outbuildings/barns whose number and
arrangement continue to evolve through time.
The following features of the property do not contribute to its cultural heritage value:
Gable dormer window on (south elevation), which is a modern addition;
Modern aluminum shutters;
Rear addition(s) including the second storey rear dormer; and
Northernmost 1950s dairy barn with silo.
3.3 Existing Condition
farmhouse appears to be good. There is no
evidence of structural issues, or the farmhouse appears to be well maintained. There is
evidence of inappropriate mort
does not appear to be any resulting damage to masonry units. The asphalt shingle roof
22 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
appears to be in fair condition with raingear (i.e., troughs and downspouts) in working
order. The Owner has advised that the shingles will need replacing in the short-term
and that there is some evidence of rust on the raingear. The grade immediately
surrounding the farmhouse appears to have risen over time.
The small garage is in poor condition and partially collapsed. The small barn’s condition
is unknown, as it is obscured by aluminum cladding on the exterior and stored items
within. If the barn has been appropriately maintained, it is likely to continue to stand for
a long time, based on the strength of the suspected construction materials (i.e., full log
beams). The 1950s dairy barn appears to be in sound condition and well maintained.
4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
adjustment of parcels of property as “development”.
In this case, the owners propose severing the farmstead from the surrounding
agricultural lands, which will be consolidated with farmlands to the immediate east,
across Bethesda Road, per the image below.
The proposed severance of the traditional farmstead will maximize the retention of
agricultural lands to be consolidated with the main parcel and minimize lands retained
Figure 17: Farmland consolidation. (Clark Consulting Services, 2023)
23 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
by the future rural residential property, as required by the PPS 2020. The proposed
severed residential parcel measures 0.926 hectares (2.3 acres).
The proposed residential parcel includes most of the farmstead, including the
traditional driveway, landscaped lawn area, and farmhouse. It does not include the
northernmost barn, which is proposed to stay with the consolidated farm parcel to
support the ongoing agricultural operation.
5 . IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Given that the subject property meets multiple criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06,
an assessment of the potential impact(s) of the proposed severance and zoning bylaw
amendment is required. The following table assesses the proposed severance of the
farmhouse from the agricultural lands in relation to potential negative impacts
Figure 18: Proposed severed parcel. (Clark Consulting
Services, 2023)
24 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
Potential Negative Impact Assessment
Destruction of any, or any part
of, significant heritage
attributes or features
None. There are no demolition or physical changes
proposed to any of the identified heritage attributes
of the property.
Alteration that is not
sympathetic, or is
incompatible, with the historic
fabric and appearance
None. Despite being a legally separate lot, the
continued agricultural use of the surrounding
retained lot maintains the rural agricultural setting of
the Roy House Farmstead.
Shadows created that alter the
appearance of a heritage
attribute, or change the viability
of a natural feature or
plantings, such as a garden
None.
Isolation of a heritage attribute
from its surrounding
environment, context or a
significant relationship
None. Although the 1950s dairy barn is proposed to
be legally separated from the farmstead, visually it will
still form part of the cluster of outbuildings. The barn
itself has not been identified as a heritage attribute of
the property.
Direct or indirect obstruction of
significant views or vistas
within, from, or of built and
natural features
None. The proposed severance maintains views to
and from the property, including the Picturesque
landscape, which is identified as a heritage attribute.
A change in land use such as a
battlefield from open space to
residential use, allowing new
development or site alteration
in the formerly open space.
None.
Land disturbance such as a
change in grade that alters
soils, and drainage patterns
that adversely impact
archaeological resources.
None.
25 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
No physical changes are currently proposed to the property. Although the 1950s dairy
adds to the overall
agricultural character of the property. Separating it from the traditional farmstead
cluster presents a negligible impact on its historic agricultural character given that the
barn’s agricultural use will continue in its current location, and maintaining the barn
with the consolidated parcel will help to ensure its continued agricultural use.
Similarly,
proposed new parcel presents a negligible impact on its agricultural character;
(i.e., not developed into residential
use) and thus the visual and contextual setting of the farmhouse will be conserved, and
this impact will be imperceptible.
The proposed residential parcel, while slightly larger than is typically permitted for a
surplus farm dwelling, represents the minimum possible lot size that will maintain the
heritage character of the farmstead.
While the property boundaries are changing and a new residential lot is being created,
the land uses on the property are not proposed to change and no impacts to the
heritage attributes list for the property
In summary, there are no recommended mitigation strategies, given the absence of
The Ontario Heritage Toolkit does not address potential positive impact(s) which in this
case includes:
The continued use of retained lot for agricultural use
immediate east and west of the severed parcel.
The continued use of the 1950s dairy barn for agriculture. This will ensure its
ongoing maintenance and stability.
farmhouse for residential uses, which will be
26 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
6 . CONSERVATION APPROACH
The primary conservation treatment for this project is rehabilitation 1 to allow the
continued residential use of the farmhouse, whi
cultural heritage value, while enabling the ongoing historic agricultural use of the
retained lot. To support the continued conservation of the farmhouse, it is
recommended to ensure that any masonry repairs are carried out by a skilled heritage
mason using appropriate mortar and techniques. It would be prudent to remove any
inappropriate cement-based .
The original windows, which are in relatively good condition for their 170+ year age
are not currently operable and are reported to be draughty in winter. It is
recommended to retain a skilled heritage carpenter to carry out any necessary repairs
and/or adjustments and therefore have improved
thermal performance and are functional. The replacement of the modern inoperable
storm windows with period-appropriate functional storms is also recommended to
both improve thermal performance and to allow the normal operation of the original
sash windows.
7 . CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, the proposed changes to the property boundaries do not negatively
impact the cultural heritage value or attributes of the Roy House farmstead. No changes
to land use are proposed, and at this time, no associated construction or other physical
changes are proposed. The implementation of the requested Planning Act applications
and change in lot boundaries will be visually imperceptible and will conserve the
cultural heritage value of the property by ensuring its continued use.
The proposal broadly:
Complies with Policy 2.6.1 of the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement
o
landscapes shall be conserved.
encourage the conservation, protection, enhancement and adaptive re-use of
1 The sensitive adaptation of an historic place or individual component for a continuing or compatible
contemporary use, while protecting its heritage value. (Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for
the Conservation of Historic Places).
27 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
landscapes.”
Complies with Policy 8.3.7
o on
the Municipal Register may be permitted where the proposed
development has been evaluated through a Heritage Impact Assessment
and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected
heritage property will be conserved.
Achieves Standards 1 and 5 of Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada:
o Standard 1 – Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do not
remove, replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable character-
location is a character-
o Standard 5 - Find a use for a historic place that requires minimal or no
change to its character-
No other studies are recommended at this time; however, moving forward it is
recommended that the portion of the subject property subject to severance and
farmhouse be considered for designation under the Ontario
Heritage Act, given its cultural heritage value. The draft Statement of Cultural
Heritage Value, which includes a list of heritage attributes, should inform the future
designation bylaw.
8 . SOURCES
Arthur & Witney. The Barn: A Vanishing Landmark in North America. Arrowood Press.
New York: 1988.
Bagnato et al. Footpaths to freeways: The Story of Ontario’s Roads. Ministry of
Transportation and Communications. Toronto: 1984.
Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to
the present. Leaside: 1989.
Cruickshank & Stokes. The Settler’s Dream. Friesens Corp. Altona: 2009. [reprint]
28 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
Department of National Defence Topographic Maps, Oshawa and Bowmanville Sheets,
1930, 1969, 1976.
Illustrated Historical Atlas of Northumberland and Durham Counties. Toronto: H.
Belden & Co., 1878.
Leetooze, S.B. The First 200 Years: A Brief History of Darlington Township. Lynn Michael-
John Associates, Bowmanville: 1994.
McBurney & Byers. Homesteads: Early buildings and families from Kingston to Toronto.
University of Toronto Press. Toronto: 1979.
MacRae & Adamson. The Ancestral Roof: Domestic Architecture of Upper Canada.
Clarke, Irwin & Co. Toronto: 1963.
MacRae & Adamson. Hallowed Walls: church architecture of Upper Canada. Clarke,
Irwin & Co. Toronto: 1975.
Mikel, Robert. Ontario House Styles. James Lorimer & Co. Toronto: 2004.
Minhinnik, Jeanne. At Home in Upper Canada. Stoddart. Toronto: 1970.
National Air Photo Library. Natural Resources Canada Aerial Photography 1927, 1960.
Squair, John. The Townships of Darlington and Clarke. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1927.
Tremaine, George R., Tremaine’s Map of the County of Durham, Upper Canada. George
C. Tremaine, Toronto: 1861.
Webber & Morwick. Soil Survey of Durham County. Ontario Agricultural College and
N. R. Richards Experimental Farm Service. Guelph: 1946.
Wright, Janet. Architecture of the Picturesque in Canada. Parks Canada. Ottawa: 2011.
9 . PROJECT PERSONNEL & QUALIFICATIONS
Heritage Studio
cultural heritage planning. We believe that all planning and design work should be
rooted in an understanding of the heritage of a place, whether physical, cultural,
environmental, or intangible. Accordingly, we advocate for an integrated approach to
heritage conservation and land use planning, an approach that we believe is
29 2774 Con Rd 6 | Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGEstudio
fundamental to creating, enhancing, and sustaining quality places. To this end, we
promote communication and collaboration between our clients and stakeholders with
the goal of bringing a pragmatic values-based approach to complex planning
challenges. Heritage Studio offers the following core services: cultural heritage
evaluations, heritage impact assessments, cultural heritage policy development, and
heritage planning support and advice.
Alex Rowse-Thompson, MEDes, RPP, CIP, CAHP
As principal and founder of Heritage Studio, Alex has more than 14 years of heritage
conservation and planning experience that includes both private sector and municipal
planning roles. Her experience is rich and varied, from her involvement in large-scale
regeneration sites in the UK, to the development of heritage conservation district
studies and plans in Ontario municipalities and working with architects to ensure
heritage-informed restoration and new construction. Alex is a member of the Canadian
Association of Heritage Professionals, the Canadian Institute of Planners, and the
Ontario Professional Planners Institute.
Alex has produced and reviewed numerous Heritage Impact Studies (HIS) throughout
her career, giving her a balanced and broad perspective. She is well versed in the
application of Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, which together form the policy
framework for developing HIS reports in Ontario. Alex has worked on both small and
large-scale projects, ranging from the adaptive reuse of an historic broom factory to
the redevelopment of a former industrial site adjacent to the Rideau Canal in Kingston.
Her collaborative approach with municipalities, architects, developers, and property
thereby allowing appropriate and practical mitigation strategies to be developed. Alex
sees the development of Heritage Impact Studies as an iterative process, whereby the
goal is to leverage the value of cultural heritage resource(s) to improve overall project
outcomes.
Andrea Gummo, MCIP, RPP
Andrea is a land use planner with specializations in policy development and application
and ethical heritage conservation. With over 15 years’ experience in government at the
provincial, municipal and conservation authority levels, Andrea is a freelance land use
planner based in Kingston Ontario. She volunteers her time as a member of the board
of the Frontenac Heritage Foundation.
Attachment to PDS-018-25
2774 Concession Road 6, Darlington: The Roy House Farmstead
Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features
Description
The Roy House Farmstead at 2774 Concession Road 6 is located on the north side of
Concession Road 6, east of Clemens Road, south of the Village of Tyrone in the
Municipality of Clarington. The original 53.8 hectare property comprises agricultural
fields, two barns, a garage and a 1 ½ storey fieldstone farmhouse . The fieldstone
house, severed from farmland, was constructed circa 1852.
Physical/Design Value
The farmhouse has design value as a rare example of a vernacular Georgian
farmhouse with Regency/Picturesque features. The farmhouse’s 1 ½ storey massing
and form is generally representative of the Georgian style popular through the late
1800s in Ontario, however, features such as the large tripartite windows, high ground
floor ceilings, “Chinoiserie” patterning on the transom and sidelights of the central
entrance, and its siting at the top of a gentle slope are distinctly Regency/Picturesque in
their character. Another rare design choice is the use of flat brick arches over openings
with wide skewbacks. The farmhouse’s field stone material is representative of a
common local material, less common in other jurisdictions, and is dressed with courses
every 18” or so on the façade with “boulder coins” elevating the farmhouse’s design.
Historical/Associative Value
The farmhouse and associated farmstead were developed by the Roy family. The Roy
family emigrated from Scotland in the 1840s. William Roy purchased the property in
1845 and constructed the fieldstone farmhouse by 1852. Wiliam Roy was an active
member of the local community and the Roy family inhabited and actively farmed the
property for over 130 years.
Contextual Value
The farmstead and surrounding agricultural fields maintain and support the rural
character of the surrounding area. The farmstead contributes to an agricultural parcel
fabric throughout the rural areas of the former Darlington Township that is characterize d
by rolling hills, farm fields and pastures, barns and other outbuildings, and 1 ½ - 2
storey farmhouses built of stone or frame.
The farmstead is located to maximize views to and from the property, supporting its
Regency/Picturesque attributes. It has a large setback from the roadway and a long
straight drive to a cluster of buildings, with the farmhouse sitting proudly in the forefront.
From the roadway, the farmhouse appears low and rectangular in a park-like setting.
Attachment 1 to
Report PDS-018-25
Description of Heritage Attributes
Key exterior elements that contribute to the property’s cultural heritage value include its:
• 1 ½ storey massing;
• Side gable roof with original wooden eaves with returns;
• Symmetrical three bay façade with centrally located front door;
• Dressed broken coursed fieldstone façade with “boulder quoins”;
• Minimally dressed rubblestone side and rear walls;
• Original window openings with wooden sills and flat red brick arches with
skewbacks;
• Three original wooden vertically sliding sash windows on with 12 over 12
pattering on the ground floor of the west, north and east elevations;
• Original large wooden tripartite windows with vertically sliding sash with 9 over 9
patterning on the central sashes and 3 over 3 on the side sashes on the façade;
• Original door opening with flat red brick arch and skewbacks and transom and
sidelights with “Chinoiserie” patterning;
• Original basement window openings and with flat red brick arches and
skewbacks (two in front façade, one on each side wall towards the rear); and
• Picturesque landscape with farmhouse set back from the road via a long straight
driveway, and surrounded by agricultural fields;
Designation Proposed
Council consults with the
Heritage Committee
Council
Decision:
Proceed with
Designation?
Notice of Intention to Designate:
Designation by-law passed
Notice of Designation:
•Served on property owner
•Served on the Ontario Heritage Trust
•Right to objection
•Published in accordance with the
Ontario Heritage Act
•Served on property owner
•Served on the Ontario Heritage Trust
•Served any person who objected
•Right to appeal
•Published in accordance with the
Ontario Heritage Act
NO
YES
If NO objection within 30 days
NO
IF
Property not designated
If objection
within 30 days
Council to Reconsider
Designation of Property
Notice of Withdrawal
Appeal to Ontario Land
Tribunal (OLT) within 30
days after publishing the
Notice of Designation
OLT Hearing and Decision
Designation Process by Municipal By-Law
Council
Decision:
Designate
property
YES
If NO appeal the Designation
By-Law comes into effect
Attachment 3 to PDS-018-25