6261 guelph line, - burlington

Featherston Homestead, 6261 Guelph Line, Burlington Heritage Evaluation Study

_________________________________________________________________ D.R. Chalykoff 1 14 September 2010

Heritage Evaluation Study:

6261 Guelph Line, Burlington, Ontario

Prepared for:

Mr. Doug Pattison C/o Silver Creek Commercial Interiors Inc.,

66 Mill Street, Georgetown, Ontario

Prepared by

D.R. Chalykoff, C.A.H.P.

384 Reynolds Street, Oakville, Ontario. 905 844 6503 [email protected]

14 September 2010



Table of Contents

1. Summary Statement with Recommendation 3

2. Introduction to Heritage Evaluation Study 5

3. Contextual Value 6

1. Lowville…………………………………………9

4. Historical / Associative Value 13

5. Design/Physical Value 24 1. Agricultural Enclave/Homestead…………….24 2. Outbuildings & Land………………………….31 3. House……………………………………………37

6. A Cultural Heritage Landscape……………………………………59

1. Provincial Policy Statement, 2005……………59 2. Draft Cultural Heritage Landscape Criteria...61 3. Types of Cultural Heritage Landscapes…….64

7. Appendices:

A: Last Will and Testament, Joseph Featherston 65 B: Recollections of [Al]Fred Dolbel………………………68

8. Qualifications of Heritage Consultant 73

9. Bibliography / Sources Consulted 75



1.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT with RECOMMENDATION

Two questions are typically asked when a Heritage Evaluation Study is commissioned:

1. Is the subject property of cultural heritage value? and, if so, 2. Why?

After researching, analyzing, and reviewing the contextual, historical/associative, and design/physical values embodied in the subject property the answer to the first question is, yes, the subject property is of cultural heritage value. The reasons why the Featherston Homestead is of cultural heritage value comprise the remainder of this Study. In short, this homestead provides still living evidence of settlement-era, Victorian, and even late twentieth-century agricultural ways of life. The lands, barn, and drive shed are presently rented for farming and when occupied, the house has recently been an independent rental unit. Viewed and experienced as a whole, this homestead speaks to and for generations of extraordinarily hard-working people who together played a role in the development of Upper Canada, Halton, Burlington, and Lowville. The conservation and protection of this homestead, under the Ontario Heritage Act will allow that communication to continue, hopefully for generations of Canadians still not even conceived. A failure to conserve and protect this property would be a failure to recognize what the great statesman, Edmund Burke, so poignantly observed, that “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” In the terms set out under the Ontario Heritage Act and the criteria for designation, Ontario Regulation 9/06, the subject property, at 6261 Guelph Line, Burlington, the Featherston Homestead, is contextually significant within the meaning of the Ontario Heritage Act because:

i. it is important in defining, maintaining and supporting the historical residential village character of the Village of Lowville, and;

ii. because the subject property is visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The same property is historically/associatively significant within the meaning of the Ontario Heritage Act because it:

i. has direct associations with persons significant to the community; and, ii. has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the

historical agricultural community of Lowville from the settlement period through to the end of the twentieth century.



The same property has design and physical value because it,

i. Is an increasingly rare and representative example of a southern Ontario agricultural enclave or homestead dating back to the settlement period of the 1830’s complete with a house rich in gothic revival detailing, a working hill-barn, drive shed, and other outbuildings including an ice house, a garage, and a paddock, all of which together with the driveway, hedge, and trees reinforce distant viewscapes north and eastward including views of the escarpment, and;

ii. Displays a high degree of Victorian-gothic era craftsmanship.

In Section 6 of this Study, after the documentation, description, and analysis of this property are complete, the heritage attributes of the property are tested for the suitability of the property to be designated as a cultural heritage landscape. The Featherston Homestead easily exceeds the criteria required to be so classified. Given that, by and large, Part IV of the Act is typically applied to single building properties, and Part V is suited to heritage districts, this property is neither and requires more appropriate categorization to work within Part IV. Consequently, the recommendation of this Study is that the Featherston Homestead is worthy of designation as an Evolved-Vernacular and Continuing Cultural Heritage Landscape under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for contextual, historical/associative, and design/physical cultural heritage values.



2.0 INTRODUCTION to HERITAGE EVALUATION STUDY In early June 2010 this consultant was asked, by Mr. Doug Pattison of Silver Creek Commercial Interiors Inc., to provide a preliminary opinion on the heritage value of the property municipally addressed as 6261 Guelph Line, Burlington. On the 29th of June 2009 Mr. Pattison retained this consultant to undertake further research and provide a formal opinion on the cultural heritage value of this property. It is the custom of this consultant to provide opinion based exclusively on his own judgment and the information available at the time the research is undertaken, regardless of the commissioning process. This was agreed by both parties. Access to the subject property was kindly made available by the current owner. All photography and field-based observations were permitted. The only limitation was physical: the basement of the barn, and thus the portions of the framing and foundations typically available for review and analysis, was not accessible because it was occupied with cows, creatures all but foreign to the experience of this consultant. Site visits were made during the spring/summer of 2010, on 4 June and 13 August.



3.0 CONTEXTUAL VALUE

3.0.1, Map, The Golden Horseshoe 1

3.0.2, Map, Wards, Burlington2 1 www.mapquest.com

City of Burlington which includes the Village of Lowville

Location within Ward 3, Burlington



3.0.3, Key Map, Overview of Burlington3

3.0.4, Aerial Image- Lowville Area4

2 City of Burlington, http://cms.burlington.ca/Page110.aspx 3 Google Maps Canada, July 2010 4 Google Maps Canada, July 2010

Guelph Line 6261 Guelph Line (Subject Site) Note broad expanses of forested and agricultural land.

Highway 401at Kelso Subject Area, Lowville Highway 407 Guelph Line Q.E.W. / Highway 403 Lake Ontario



3.0.5, Local Map, Lowville with Subject Property Marked “A.” The earliest settlers to the Trafalgar area were United Empire Loyalists (UELs) who left the United States after the American Revolutionary War of 1775-1783. These settlers came via Niagara and were of English, Scottish, and Irish backgrounds.5 Halton County remained officially unsettled until after the transfer of the Mississauga Lands in 1806. At that time the lands were divided into counties having concessions and lots in an orthogonal grid of 200-acre units. Throughout the UK, for social, natural, and industrial reasons the agricultural way of life was fast failing and those coming to America were in search of a new start. As seen in Figs. 3.0.1 – 3.0.5, the subject site is located in the extreme north-eastern quadrant of municipal Ward 3, Burlington, Ontario. The broader contextual environment for understanding the subject houses is the settlement of Upper Canada from 1806 forward. The narrower context, Lowville, dates from the issuance of the land patent in 1831 to the present day.

5 People of Halton, p. 1.

Derry Road West Guelph Line Entrance to 6261 Guelph Line (subject property) Lowville Park (Contiguous with subject property along southern boundary) Britannia Road



3.1 Lowville The village of Lowville was so named for being the settlement area on Guelph Line situated at the lowest elevation between Guelph and Lake Ontario.6 Lowville was founded by a few farming families who donated land, built churches and built schools around which their communal life could function. Although now fully integrated with the city of Burlington, Lowville still has a distinct and recognized rural identity. The earliest recorded settler is Daniel Pickett, a Methodist Circuit Rider (a travelling preacher) born at New Milford, Connecticut in 1774, who settled at Lowville in 1822. Turcotte states that “…Lowville grew up on the corner of Thomas Pickett’s farm, as well as on land owned by Squire James Cleaver and Joseph Featherstone.”7 (The name “Featherston(e)” is variously spelled with and without a final “e”. As the family chose to commemorate their ancestor, Joseph, sans “e”, that spelling shall prevail where possible.) The locally famous Octagonal House was built by Daniel Pickett’s son, Daniel in the 1850s.

3.1.1 Octagonal House, Courtesy, Alana Mullaly, April 2009.8 The Lowville General Store, Fig. 3.1.2, was built by Andrew Pickett, the Rev. Daniel’s grandson in the 1850s.

6 Machan, From Pathway to Skyway, p. 109. 7 Turcotte, Memories of Pioneer Days, pp. 113, 4. 8 http://www.octagon.bobanna.com/CANADA.html



3.1.2 Lowville General Store, Undated.9

3.1.3 Halton County, 187710 9 Turcotte, Memories of Pioneer Days, p. 117.

Lowville and Lot 7, Concession IV within Halton County, 1877.



In 1877 Pope drafted the following description of the village:

“Lowville is situated on Twelve-mile Creek, about 8 miles from Milton, and contains about 150 inhabitants. It has two churches, a school and a temperance lodge. Mr. John Johnson carries on a foundry, and manufactures a large quantity of agricultural implements. The grist mill of Mr. J. S. Kemp has three run of stones, and does a large custom and shipping business. He has established a good market for grain at this mill. Mrs. Rumple carries on a furniture manufactory, run by water power, and Messrs. Burkholder & Smith are engaged in the manufacture of carriages, wagons, plows, etc. Mr. A. B. Culloden does business as a general merchant. There are also an hotel, harness shop, post and telegraph office, etc.”11

The list of Magistrates for Halton includes the following five names from Lowville: Colling, F., Featherstone, Jos., Hardbottle, Geo. Jr., McGregor, John, and Tassie, Jas.12 Messrs Featherstone, et al were also named as Patrons of the Historical Atlas.13 The map below, Figs. 3.1.4a, b shows Lowville as it appeared in Pope’s work. (Two orientations are provided for ease of reading; the second, to the right, is the orientation typically used in this study with north upward.)

3.1.4a Halton County, 1877 3.1.4b Halton County, 1877 Featherstone is also cited in both Machan and Turcotte for the donation of the lands on which Lowville Park sits. 10 http://www.halinet.on.ca/localhistory/Page.asp?PageID=28 11 Pope, Historical Atlas of Halton County, p. 60. 12 Pope, Historical Atlas, pp. 54, 5. 13 Pope, Historical Atlas, pp. 71, 2.

Guelph Line



3.1.5 Plaque Commemorating J. Featherston14 The subject property, at 6261 Guelph Line, Burlington, the Featherston Homestead, is contextually significant within the meaning of the Ontario Heritage Act because:

i. it is important in defining, maintaining and supporting the historical residential village character of the Village of Lowville, and;

ii. because the subject property is visually and historically linked to its surroundings. As such the Featherston Homestead is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Act for contextual reasons.

14 http://images.burlington.halinet.on.ca/8401/data

Inscribed on the plaque:

In Memory of JOSEPTH FEATHERSTON

1803 – 1883

Who was born in County Durham, England, emigrated to Canada as a young man. Established the farm where this park is located and provided this acre of land for the first

school in the community. ETHEL FEATHERSTON HILLIKER

(Granddaughter Kamloops, B.C.) HELEN FEATHERSTON COLE

(Great-Granddaughter) Toronto 1969.



4.0 HISTORICAL / ASSOCIATIVE VALUE

In broad terms the subject lands have passed through the following phases:

1. Dundas Street or the Governor’s Road established, 1790’s 2. North American native habitation until the Wilmot Survey, 1806 3. Settlement from 1820’s onward 4. Grist and saw mills established, 1820’s, using Twelve Mile Creek 5. Bronte harbour created and dredged, 1840’s; Port Nelson opened earlier 6. “Teaming”(transportation) of grain and lumber promotes building of hotels 7. Foundry and tannery and carpenter’s shop opened, 1840’s 8. Rural single-family dwellings constructed 9. Agricultural village largely stable through 20th century 10. Niagara Escarpment Planning & Development Act, 1990; founded 1973.

The subject property, Part Lot 7, Concession 4, North of Dundas Street (NDS), is known municipally as 6261 Guelph Line, Burlington. The history of title changes and ownership is shown on the chart below.

4.0.1 Chain of Title, 6261 Guelph Line at 3 August 2010.

Date Action 6261 Guelph Line, PIN 07214-0139 Instrument No.

1 11 Nov 1831 Crown Grant John Miller Coyle Patent2 28 Feb 1832 Mortgage Joseph Featherston (discharged) 8543 8 Mar 1832 Bargain & Sale John Miller Coyle to Joseph Featherston 896

4 2 Jan 1885 MortgageWm. Smith Featherstone to Mary Annette Husband (discharged) 3606

5 2 Jan 1885 Probate Josepth Featherstone to Isaac Newton Featherstone 36046 3 Mar 1890 Bargain & Sale Estate of Joseph Featherston to Isaac Newton Featherston 46117 2 Sept 1925 Grant Isaac Newton Featherston to Josepth William Featherston 12967

8 27 May 1947 GrantFeatherston to Paul Allen Fisher, Geoffrey Wilson Bowcock and Allan S. Nicholson 30510

9 3 Nov 1947 Grant…Fisher, …Bowcock and …Nicholson to The Director, The Veterans' Land Act 30814

10 29 Mar 1949 GrantThe Director, The Veterans' Land Act to …Fisher, …Bowcock and …Nicholson 31880

11 29 Mar 1949 Grant…Fisher, …Bowcock and …Nicholson to The Director, The Veterans' Land Act 31886

12 2 Apr 1968 GrantThe Director, The Veterans' Land Act to Nancy Drusilla Dolbel 244528

13 21 Feb 1994 Transfer …Dolbel to Alfred Dumaresq Dolbel in trust 818220

14 10 Feb 2009 Transfer…Dolbel to Douglas Harvie Pattison and Rosanne Cheryl Pattison HR733303

N.B. Bargain & Sale, Grant, Transfer, and Deed are all synonymous terms.



From the results of the title search, above, the granting of the initial patent was from the Crown to John Miller Coyle in November of 1831. Typically, the conditions on which the patent was issued were as follows:

1) Clear and fence 5 acres of land; 2) Build a 16’ x 20’ cabin; 3) Clear the roadway in front of the homestead; and, 4) Have a certificate regarding the first three conditions signed by a witness.15

Presumably, by November of 1831 John Miller Coyle had met these conditions. Doubts about the veracity of this transaction arise from the date of sale to Featherston within four months of Coyle taking possession. There is also a discharged mortgage, mentioned on title, though no documentation of that transaction exists. From the dates on the plaque, in Fig. 3.1.5, Joseph Featherston would have been twenty-nine years of age on taking possession. Although possible, it is unlikely he was able to pay cash. Thus the mortgage shown, with only Joseph Featherston’s name, was probably money loaned to him by Coyle and later discharged (repaid).

However, is it possible that Featherston loaned money to Coyle to buy the property, sever the full concession lot, and then sell the western half back to Featherston? No further trace of John Miller Coyle could be found at the time of writing. The earliest graphical record of the property is shown, below, in Fig. 4.0.2., from 1877 at which time Featherston would have been seventy-four years of age. What is positively known is that the patent was issued to Coyle and the land was sold to Featherston within four months – all of these transactions happening in post-harvest months.

15 Hicks, Cooksville: Country to City, p. 4.



4.0.2 Featherston Lots, Partial Map, Township of Nelson, 1877.16

The Crown Land Records of Upper Canada date back to the eighteenth century. Then, due to the American Revolution, a flood of immigrants from the American colonies wanted to settle on British territory. The land that was to become known, under the Constitutional Act of 1791, as Upper Canada was to be distributed under the control of, and according to regulations that the Crown or its representatives made. By 1795, there was a complex system of land titles and ownership under the direction of the Surveyor General. Throughout the pre-Confederation period (before 1867), land policy and distribution was a central activity of the Crown Lands Department.

The Crown’s system for granting land changed frequently over the years. In very general terms, this was how people obtained Crown land:

A person wanting to apply for a land grant from the Crown submitted a petition (application)

to the Crown. If the petition was successful, the Crown would issue a land grant to the petitioner who then

became a settler. Receiving a land grant was a complex process. Many offices were involved.

Each office (Executive Council Office, Receiver General's Office, Attorney General's Office, Surveyor General's Office, Provincial Secretary's Office, etc.) had its own numbering system for the land grant documents it created or received.

16 Pope, Historical Atlas, pp. 38, 9.

Full-concession width Half-concession width Joseph Featherston, Lot 7, Concession 4 Featherston, Lot 5, Concession 3 Colling Lands



If the settler took up residence on the land and fulfilled certain settlement duties, he or she would have ended up owning the land. Then, the Crown issued a patent to the settler,

indicating that the ownership of the land had passed from the Crown to a private individual. If there were any later transactions relating to that property (e.g., sale to another individual,

taking out a mortgage on the property, etc.), this was documented in the records of the county Land Registry Offices (LROs). 17

The title search commissioned for this study clearly states that a patent was issued to Coyle. However, the foregoing entry, from the Province of Ontario, offers some latitude in interpretation. This consultant’s experience, gathered primarily in the present counties of Halton and Peel, is that in some cases land patents were issued to grantees of remarkably short tenure. Given the number of offices cited above, to which a settler would need to apply, one hypothesis is that there were expert speculators who acted as early real estate agents, obtaining grants and quickly selling them off, perhaps even offering mortgages to new buyer/settler/farmers. However, this is an hypothesis and like most reasonable hypotheses it sheds some light on the present transaction: Coyle may have acquired the patent in November 1831 and sold the western half to Featherston in 1832, also providing him a mortgage to make the transaction possible, without Coyle ever having cleared five acres, building a cabin, or creating a roadway. Or he may have met all four conditions, changed his mind, and sold up. The Featherston’s are recorded as having come to Canada from Weardale, County Durham, England, in the 1830’s.18 This is an area on the north-east coast of England, just south of Newcastle. Within Turcotte there is an early Featherston(e) arrival, Jane, wife of Joseph Colling, also of Weardale, Durham, who arrived in 1821.19

“One hundred and fifty years ago, one of the most important people in the community was the Overseer of Highways, or Pathmaster, as he was usually called. It was his duty to organize work parties to keep the roads usable and to build bridges. Roads were often best in winter, when frozen. In spring they were frequently impassable, and many tons of gravel had to be shoveled and spread to allow farm traffic through. Each year, depending on his property assessment, each male between the ages of 21 and 60 was expected to perform 2 to 12 eight-hour days of work on the roads. Those who could not or who did not wish to do this hard physical labour could pay 75 cents for each day instead. “One of the first Pathmasters in Nelson was Joseph Colling. As a younger son of landed English gentry, he emigrated from Weardale in Durham, England, in 1819. He found 128 acres of fertile land with a fine view on the Guelph Line near Lowville. Two years later he returned with his wife, Jane Featherstone (John’s sister), and their seven children. As the children grew up and married, Joseph Colling bought more land between the Guelph Line

17 http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/guides/rg_215_grant-to-patent.aspx#understanding 18 Turcotte, Memories of Pioneer Days, p. 88. 19 Ibid, p. 121.



and Blind Line, so that this square eventually became known as the Colling Block. On his death, he left 150 acres to each of his sons, John, Joseph, Emerson, and Thomas.

Jane Colling had two brothers, Ralph and John. John and his wife, also Jane, arrived in the early 1830’s and stayed their first winter with John’s sister’s family, the Collings. John and Jane then settled in Trafalgar Township, on Twelve Mile Creek.20 In 1832 Jane Colling’s second brother, Ralph also emigrated with his wife and two sons. Ralph’s family settled in East Flamborough, north of Waterdown. In 1846, one of Ralph’s sons, Jackson Featherstone, bought 260 acres at Brant and Dundas Streets. The Lowville Featherston’s, are similarly identified as coming from Weardale, Durham in the early 1830’s and as being a branch of the same Featherstone family. They were clearly one of the most widespread of the settlement-era Burlington families. Another look at Fig. 4.0.2, above, reveals the extent to which the Colling and Featherston families were involved. On the lands south of Lowville, two large acreages are owned by the Featherstons and four by the Collings as of 1877. From Fig. 4.0.1, the Chain of Title, the years of Joseph Featherston’s ownership of the subject lands were 1832 – 1885, fifty-three years. In 1885 Wm. Smith Featherstone, using the subject property as collateral, obtained a mortgage from Mary Annette Husband. The mortgage was shown on title as discharged. In the same year, and on the same date, 2 January, the property is granted, upon Joseph’s death, to Isaac Newton Featherstone from Joseph. The contents of Joseph Featherston’s will provide some clarity (Cf. Appendix A). In this document, obtained as part of the title search, Joseph’s surviving family members are enumerated as: wife, Matilda; daughters Rhoda Floretta, Ann (or Hannah), and Elizabeth; sons Thomas, William Smith, and Isaac Newton. All of the children were variously left rights, annuities, access to cord wood and water… A few points came to light as a result of reviewing Joseph Featherston’s will. First the house and property were left jointly to two sons and, secondly, Joseph wrote, in the third article of the will,

“I give and decree unto my said wife and daughter the use and occupation so long as my said wife remains my widow of that portion of my dwelling house now occupied by me and the Plot of ground in front of the said dwelling house and Garden also now used and occupied by me.”

This implies that the dwelling was jointly occupied and that the joint occupancy would continue with at least one of the inheriting sons in one part and the mother and young daughter in another. This also helps clarify the mortgage, taken out by the inheriting brothers from Mary Annette Husband on the same date, 2 January 1885, that the will was probated: it was likely

20 Ibid, p. 88.



necessary that the house be added to in order to accommodate the families then working the farm. In the Indenture, stating the terms of the mortgage, William Smith Featherstone is described as a wagon maker and his brother Isaac Newton is described as a miller. William then resided in Waterdown, and Isaac in Stoney Creek. The respective wives of Wm. and Isaac are also named as Letitia and Ann. The mortgagee (or lender) was Mary Annetta Husband of the Village of Kilbride in the County of Halton, Spinster. The amount of the mortgage was $550 loaned at seven percent per annum, the interest of which was to be paid on the 11th of July each year until the mortgage was paid in full in July 1889. In 1890 another Indenture appears, dated 27th February 1890, formalizing the sale of ownership of the land willed by their father from William to Isaac for $1,500. This is borne out by the next transaction which occurs thirty-five years later, in September of 1925 when the land is transferred from Isaac Newton to Joseph William Featherston. At that time Isaac is listed as a gentleman and Joseph William as a farmer. The cost to Joseph William was listed as one dollar; an amount typically used in non-cash based family transactions. Joseph William’s wife was a party of the transaction and is named as Ann Jane Featherston. Twenty-two years later, in 1947, two years after the end of WWII, Joseph William and his wife, then named as Flora Featherston, sold the land, still listed as 100 acres more or less, for $9,000 to “Paul Allen Fisher, Farmer; Geoffrey Wilson Bowcock, Farmer, both of the Township of Nelson, in the County of Halton, and Allan S. Nicholson, of the Town of Burlington, in the said County of Halton, Lumberman…”21 Within two years it appears that the land was being severed into smaller blocks and sold to The Director, Veteran’s Land Act.

Veterans' Land Act, passed 20 July 1942, following a Canadian tradition dating from the 17th century of settling ex-soldiers on the land. In 1919 a Soldier Settlement Act had provided returned WWI veterans who wished to farm with loans to purchase land, stock and equipment. Over 25 000 took advantage of the scheme, although many had to abandon their farms between the wars because of heavy debts and adverse farming conditions. The VLA, designed to overcome some of the problems inherent in the 1919 plan, gave WWII veterans choices. With only a small down payment, ex-servicemen could purchase land with the help of a government loan; additional funds were available for livestock and equipment. Repayment terms allowed settlers time to re-establish themselves without incurring heavy financial obligations. Veterans were also encouraged to settle small rural or suburban holdings as part-time farmers or to substitute commercial fishing for full-time farming. In 1950 the VLA began to provide loans to veterans who wished to construct their own homes. Under the Veterans' Land Administration, a branch

21 Indenture, 7 May 1947.



of the Department of VETERANS AFFAIRS, over 140 000 ex-servicemen had sought assistance before new loans were terminated in 1977.22

In the transaction of 3 November 1947 Fisher et al sold a parcel to The Director, Veterans’ Land Act for $7,500. The next transaction saw land coming to Fisher & co. with nil funds exchanged and the final transaction, on the same day as the one directly above, $5,500 were paid by The Director… to Fisher & co. If this is an accurate reading of the documents, Fisher et al profited by ($7,500 + $5,500) - $9,000 = $3,000 or 25% in two years of buying from the Featherstons. One-hundred fifteen years of family ownership dismantled in two years. Finally, in 1968, nine years prior to the termination of the loans to veterans, the 27.6 acres were transferred to Nancy Drusilla Dolbel, Widow, of Burlington for $1.00. Twenty-six years hence, in 1994 the land was transferred, as a gift, in trust, from Nancy Drusilla Dolbel to her eldest son, Alfred Dumaresq Dolbel of Sussex, New Brunswick. In February 2009 the property was sold to the present owners Mr. Douglas Harvie Pattison and Mrs. Rosanne Cheryl Pattison of Georgetown.

4.0.3 Lot Configuration at Sale, 200923

22 http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008349 23 Property Index Map, Block 07214, City of Burlington, Regional Municipality of Halton, Office 20.

Dark polygon represents area and outline of 27.6 acre lot remaining of the Featherston Homestead i.e., the subject property, 6261 Guelph Line. Approximate area of original 100 acre lot. Diagonal (red) severance line parallels river as shown in Fig. 4.0.2, 1877.



Of the names on title since the last Featherston, two, Paul Fisher and Allan S. Nicholson are noteworthy figures in the history of Burlington. Paul Fisher was a popular, well-liked man in Burlington. He was one of two sons who inherited the Fisher farm which stood where Burlington Mall now stands. He worked this farm with his father and his brother after graduating, in 1911, from Ontario Agricultural College in Guelph. One of his relatives, Peter Fisher donated the land at Fisher’s Corners for the first Port Nelson/Wellington Square school in 1835. The school was located at Guelph Line and Upper Middle Road, now the Q.E.W.24 The Fisher family were charter members of the Burlington Horticultural society struck in 1889.25 Of Paul Fisher Turcotte wrote, “He loved to stroll down Brant Street in his kangaroo skin hat, and his Norfolk jacket, puffing on a corncob pipe. He knew everyone, and always enjoyed a friendly chat.”26 Turcotte reserves her highest praise for Fisher’s work as the chairman of the board of the hospital responsible for raising the funds for Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital. This board was another point of intersection for Mr. Fisher and Mr. Nicholson. “Election of the first Board of Governors [of the hospital] swiftly followed town amalgamation in January, 1958, and the members who served under chairman A.S. Nicholson were…and Paul Fisher, vice-chairman.”27 Nicholson was born in 1882 at his family farm in Waterdown. In 1907, after considerable farming experience, he tried his hand at the lumber business with this father’s assistance. He built an extraordinarily successful commercial career within the lumber and construction supply business. Of particular interest to this Study is his role around the time he co-owned the subject property.

“During the Second World War, Mr. Nicholson was called to Ottawa to work with the Timber Control Board which was established to mobilize the nation’s timber resources. Mr. Nicholson served first as deputy timber controller, then as timber controller, before returning to Burlington and his own business interests. “In 1945, he ran as federal Progressive Conservative candidate in the Halton riding, but was defeated in the election by his good friend, Hughes Cleaver. For many years, he was a member of the Public School Board.”28

Further mention of Mr. Nicholson’s association with land development is made in Machan.

“It was after WWII when Burlington began to mushroom. W. Frank Utter had, just prior to the war, developed the Glenwood survey, west of the Guelph Line. After the war, parcels of Veterans’ Land Act property were sold farther west on the Clarence Wood farm, and the Queensway survey was opened. More V.L.A. lots were sold to veterans on

24 Machan, From Pathway to Skyway, p. 153. 25 Ibid, p. 172. 26 Turcotte, Burlington: The Growing Years, p. 219. 27 Machan, p. 290. 28 Turcotte, p. 92.



Pomona Ave., north of Roseland, and in other sections in Nelson Township and Aldershot.

“In the centre of town, A.S. Nicholson sold land to C.F. Hewitt who developed, after the war…”29

Thus the link between V.L.A. lands and the land development activities of A.S. Nicholson are reinforced. Finally, late in the preparation of this Study, information on the third partner, Geoffrey Wilson Bowcock, was made available by the second last owner of the subject lands, Mr. Fred Dolbel. (The full e-mail trail is included, below, in Appendix B.) Mr. Dolbel relates that the purchase/transfer of the property from the V.L.A. to Mr. Dolbel’s father was made possible through a long acquaintance between the Dolbels and the Bowcocks. Mr. Bowcock is described as a “...wealthy Bay St. Stock Broker and Promoter. The Bowcocks owned a large (150 acres) fruit orchard farm on the East side of Brant Street, called Beaufort Farm – probably its eastern terrain is where Brant Hills Park is now? -this was a working farm with a magnificent 2 storey house (I would call it a mansion).”30 More of Mr. Dolbel’s recollections follow.

“My parents both came from the village of Perce on the Gaspe coast, QC. The Bowcocks would spend summer vacations there and as we were one of the few English families in the area a close acquaintance grew. It seems every Gaspe coast person dreamed of ‘owning a farm in Ontario’. -when my parents acted on this impetus Bowcock knew of the intended formation of the Lowville Park and the consequent parceling off the un-needed 27 acres above the park’s North ridge area. -I know Mr. Bowcock was instrumental in getting my parents close to the ‘front of the line’ and no doubt in vouching for their honesty, integrity, hard working outlook -there was no money or financing assistance from Bowcock, but definitely vital support -my understanding from father was that the sale of the land to the park and our 27 acres to us through the VLA was organized/structured to allow father to use his VLA privilege. Our family actively farmed the farm continuously from its original purchase * until several years after father died in 1967 and our neighbour Gary Hoard began to farm it as mother and my youngest brother couldn’t keep it going on their own (about 1970+ I would guess). -as the oldest son I saw the most of it until about 1956 – and then did the most of it ;-)

29 Machan, p. 306. 30 Dolbel, E-mail of 9 September 2010, Appendix B.



-father always had a full time job as manager of a major hardware store in Burlington or Hamilton -in the first 5-6 years my parents tried everything from pigs & chickens to planting most of the farm in vegetable and berry crops along with fruit (& grape) orchards. They always seemed to end up one step behind the curve – either for high labour content or markets changing. -we ended up staying with a cow veal calf operation from about 1954 onward. Early veg. & berry crops: 2-3 acres each of strawberries, cucumbers, tomatoes, muskmelons, raspberries -pigs didn’t last too long, but we had up to 3,000 laying chickens for 5-8 years Then came fruit orchards: Bartlett pears, Northern Spy, Pippins, crab apples, Concord grapes -in there was probably a few other varieties of apple I don’t recall. Young orchards covered about 70% of the farm at one point. We always had 1-2 cows + calves for the house and a grain field.”31

* In an e-mail of 9 September 2010, 12:48 p.m., Mr. Dolbel stated, “I was born in 1944, but we came on the farm in 1947.” This is historically interesting because the situation lived and described by Mr. Dolbel isn’t reflected in the chain of title which would suggest the land wasn’t actually transferred from the V.L.A. to the Dolbels until 2 April 1968. In light of Mr. Dolbel’s reference to his father’s death in 1967 (paragraph above), the April 1968 transfer was almost certainly a formality based on the senior Mr. Dolbel’s death. In short this means the Dolbel’s owned the property from 1947 until 2009, over half a century.

Two primary insights result from this additional research: farming that land must have been a passion as well as source of income for to work as a store manager, full time, while tending to twenty-seven active acres and numerous livestock, would have been taxing in the extreme. One wonders if this was a microcosm of the fate of small farmers in the last half of the twentieth century in Canada. The second perspective offered by Mr. Dolbel’s recollections concerns the transactions of Messrs. Fisher, Nicholson, and Bowcock. Given the fact that the Dolbels occupied and worked the twenty-seven acres from 1947 onward and given the title history showing the involvement of Fisher et al, it is equally possible that the involvement of these three gentlemen was for the purpose of severing the land for Lowville Park and to secure the farming rights for the Dolbels. Despite the apparently profitable transactions cited above, on page 19, these might have been in aid of a much more civically-minded scheme than land development. While both Nicholson and Fisher were significant historical figures and from deeply-rooted Burlington families, and while Bowcock was clearly instrumental in the retention of the current twenty-seven acres as farmland, their ties to the subject property are secondary and short. The

31 Dolbel, E-mail of 9 September 2010, Appendix B.



primary relationship with the subject property resides in the one-hundred fifteen year tenure of the Featherstons and, secondarily, in the labour-intensive sixty-two year history of the Dolbels. As such the subject property, 6261 Guelph Line, the Featherston Homestead, is historically/associatively significant within the meaning of the Ontario Heritage Act because it:

i. has direct associations with persons significant to the community; and,

ii. has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the historical agricultural community of Lowville from the settlement period through to the end of the twentieth century.

Consequently, the Featherston Homestead is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Act for historical/associative cultural heritage value.



5.0 DESIGN/PHYSICAL VALUE

5.1 Agricultural Enclave/Homestead

The primary name for this property, used in the Heritage Resource Inventory, compiled by the City of Burlington, is the Featherstone Homestead. A homestead is defined as, “A house, especially a farmhouse, with adjoining buildings and land.”32 Experientially i.e., when the property is approached and walked, one encounters a cluster or enclave of related agricultural parts. There is a sown-in-ness about the parts of the Featherston Homestead that establish its age, rootedness, and relationships, almost immediately.

5.1.1 Drive, Hedge, Trees, Barn, Featherston Homestead, August 2010.

The survey drawing, kindly furnished by the client, Fig. 5.1.2, gives a basic graphic representation of the parts of the enclave:

a. Driveway and Principal View Axis b. House c. Trees at Front Garden d. Hedge Separating Drive and House e. Ice House f. Deciduous trees at end of Hedge, West Side of Barn g. Conifers, West Side of Garage h. Garage i. Drive Shed j. Barn with Paddock

32 Morris, The Heritage Illustrated Dictionary, p. 630.



5.1.2 Partial Plan of Survey, Featherston Homestead.33

An unscaled sketch of the property, Fig. 5.1.3, was prepared for illustration purposes and to provide a sense of the major vegetal elements and their relationship with the built heritage resources.

5.1.3 Partial Sketch, Roof Plans, Featherston Homestead, August, 2010.

33 Dolliver Surveying Inc., Surveyor’s Real Property Report, 9 March 2009.

Fence line Ice House Drive Shed Garage House Barn Paddock

Side Porch Fence line

Tree at front garden Hedge at Driveway

Principal View Axis and Centre Line of Driveway

Deciduous Tree Paddock

Location of garage, demolished 1963 Barn

Location of pighouse, demolished 1964

Masonry Terrace First Addition Garage Front Porch Second Addition Drive Shed Original Mass Ice House Conifers



The photographs below, illustrate the related parts.

5.1.4 View North across Driveway: Ice House, Garage, Drive Shed, August 2010.

5.1.5 View East to Fields, North Face of Barn, August 2010.



5.1.6 View East at Gates, Cows in Middle Distance, below Horizon, August 2010.

5.1.7 Cows, North-East Field, August 2010.

5.1.8 View of Escarpment from Fields, Featherston Homestead, August, 2010.



5.1.9 Sense of Space, Looking North-East across Fields, Featherston Homestead, August 2010.

5.1.10 Partial East Elevation of Barn, August 2010.



5.1.11 Perspective of North-East Elevations: Barn, Drive Shed & House, August 2010.

5.1.12 North Elevations, Barn, Drive Shed & Garage, August 2010.

5.1.13 North Elevations, Barn, Drive Shed, Garage & House, August 2010.



5.1.14 North-West Perspective: Barn, Drive Shed, Garage & House, August 2010.

5.1.15 View toward Guelph Line and Neighbour in North-West Field, August 2010. Overwhelmingly, what emerges from the images above is a sense of space, stillness in time, and abandonment. This homestead, with the house empty, is too quiet and still. Occupancy, as anyone concerned with buildings knows, is a key to longevity and vitality.



5.2 Outbuildings & Land

Again images more concisely describe the still extant and functioning outbuildings at the subject property.

5.2.1 View into Paddock from Hill Entrance of Barn, August, 2010.

5.2.2 Barn Board, Board & Batten Cladding, North Elevation: Barn. August, 2010.



5.2.3 Barn Board, Stone work, On-the-flat Header, Doorway, Window at Barn, August, 2010.

5.2.4 Heavy Timber Framing, Barn Board with Light, North Face, Barn, August, 2010.



5.2.5 Heavy Timber Framing, Purlins & Rafters, Barn Board with Light, East Face, Barn, August, 2010.

5.2.6 Interior Stairway & Hatch, Barn, August, 2010.



5.2.7 Lower Quarters with Two Residents, Barn, August, 2010.

5.2.8 East Elevation, Barn, August, 2010.

5.2.9 Interior looking North, Drive Shed, August, 2010.



5.2.10 Clustered Outbuildings: Drive Shed, Barn, Garage, August, 2010.

5.2.11 Partial West Elevations, Drive Shed & Garage, August, 2010.



5.2.12 South-West Perspective, Ice House, June, 2010. While none of the outbuildings are architecturally distinguished in themselves, the fact that they still exist, and largely function, in the contemporary Blackberry-bound, commuter-mad Burlington of 2010 is almost astonishing. An agricultural homestead in this city at this time, with the cluster of outbuildings intact and operational, will become increasingly valuable, not only for agricultural production, but for the representation of a way of life that, less than one-hundred years ago, extended across most of the Greater Toronto Area. The siting, the geometry, the space between each, and the materials and forms of the ice house, the garage, the drive shed, and the barn lend a distinctive and cumulative value much greater than that possessed by any one of these outbuildings in isolation. Other sensory attributes that will be increasingly rare in the city of Burlington are the smells, the sounds, and the underfoot changes that occur within each of these buildings. The light, smells, and sounds in the different areas of the barn alone are fascinating. The clear volume and echo of the drive shed and the weighted density of the ice house walls are no longer typical of buildings experienced by contemporary Burlingtonians. The quality of the ground underfoot in the barn versus the driveway versus the fields is distinctly different. While some of these experiences may not be entirely desirable they constitute an integral part of an authentic rural agricultural experience – an experience that is now unknown to the vast majority of Canadians.



5.3 House

5.3.1 North Elevation, House, August 2010.

5.3.2 East Elevation, House, August 2010.

Bracketed Eaves on Original Mass Front Porch Brick First Addition Sided Second Addition Driftwood Fence Line North Field Eaves of Original Mass Gothic Gable Shed Dormer Siding on East Elevation, First Addition Second Addition



5.3.3 South-West Perspective, House, June, 2010.

5.3.4 South-East Perspective, House, August, 2010.

Ice House Hedge along Driveway Deciduous tree terminating hedge Gothic window in Dormer Pairs of aligned double-hung windows in original solid-brick mass Three-over-one windows at South Porch South porch door with matching side window

Mansard Roof on Elaborate Victorian Porch Gothic Dormer on One-and-one-half-storey House Bracketed Eaves on Original Mass Final Addition with Siding Second Gothic Dormer



5.3.5 Gothic Dormer and Window, South Elevation, August, 2010.

5.3.6 Front or West Elevation with Victorian Porch and Garden, June, 2010.



5.3.7 South-West Perspective, June, 2010.

5.3.8 Brick Detailing, Original Mass, August, 2010.

Typical detail at original mass: exposed (replacement?) brick sills Painted original brickwork of at least double-wythe thickness (Note header course every sixth course) One-and-one-half brick jack arches over windows



5.3.9 Stone Detailing, Original Mass, August, 2010.

5.3.10 Foundation Detailing at Intersection, August, 2010.

Three foundation conditions:

1. Ruled mortar joints at stone work of original mass

2. Less ordered stone rubble at original mass near south porch

3. Parged-over block work(?) beneath south porch

(The foundation of the final addition is of concrete block.)



5.3.11 Detailing: Gothic Dormer, Original Mass, August, 2010.

5.3.12 Gothic Dormer and Lower Porch Bracketing, August, 2010.

Gothically inspired gable ornament with three wood rosettes Wood soffit & fascia Wood trim board at brick Soldier-coursed elliptical brick arch over elliptical wood tympanum with radial relief work Asphalt shingle mansard roof where original would have been of painted or unpainted galvanized steel or lead





Note three-part division of porch frieze with bracketing and spindle work “Eared” trim surrounding pilasters at front door (hood mould) Corner bracketing Elaborate porch columns Stone Terrace Stone treads with brick risers Walkway centred on axis between front door and conifer Conifer is axial focus of the walkway from the front door Front garden of house organized around conifer Cf. Third article of Will, Appendix A

1 2 3



5.3.15 Hedge at Front Lawn, Aug. 2010

5.3.16 Porch Ceiling, Columns, Trim looking North, August, 2010.

Inside face of hedge that differentiates the semi-public drive from the semi-private front lawn Cf., Figs. 5.1.1, 5.1.3, and 5.3.3.

V-jointed board ceiling Articulated entablature above pilasters surrounding front door and signalling the importance of arrival Planar fascia Decorative spindle work Floral corner brackets Highly sculpted columns Wood screen door Overgrown front step



5.3.17 Detail: Brackets & Spindles, South-West Corner, August, 2010.

5.3.18 Detail: Floral Corner Brackets on Spiked Drum, August, 2010.

Radial, floral brackets soften transition from horizontal picket panel to vertical column Stepped-down, turned bands Mace-like drum with spikes



5.3.19 Detail: Mid-Column, Fluted Shaft below Spiked Drum, August, 2010.

5.3.20 Detail: Mid-Pilaster, August, 2010.

As above in Fig. 5.3.19, note detailing at porch millwork:

Semi-circular banding Smooth sculpted cove Mace-like drum with spikes Fluted drum Drum with spikes Cove Turning fillets Embossed medallions



In Fig. 5.3.20, above, thirty inches of a porch pilaster warrant a necessarily economical description of a set of five repeated architectural and sculptural features. Although such detailed articulacy was not unusual for the Victorians, the set of details above is more interesting for its gothic/medieval associations than for its Victorianism. The mace-like drum with a central array of war-like spikes is unquestionably medieval in origin as are the rosettes in the gable ornament illustrated in Figs. 5.3.11, 12, above. The fact that there are three rosettes is ecclesiastically important: they represent the Christian trinity of the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost; imagery and semiology were taken much more seriously by the average citizen in the 1800’s than today. Victorian porches, though astonishingly rich in detail, were not typically hand-carved. They were available as kits-of-parts through building suppliers and could be ordered in individual pieces or as whole porches. Examples of two porch sets somewhat similar to the Featherston porch are illustrated below.

5.3.21 Catalogued Porch Components, 1903.34 It’s interesting to realize that such a melding of industrialized production and craft-based traditions was the Victorian response that set the appalled Arts and Crafts Movement into motion. While William Morris and John Ruskin would have railed vociferously against such mindless, repetitive design and production, today, more than a century after Morris and Ruskin were buried, examples of such work appear astonishingly rich, detailed, and laden with symbolism. Such is a very sad comment on the paucity of craft, production based or individual, present in contemporary residential construction. While the subject work is of obvious cultural heritage value, part of its message is about contrast: from which traditions did such work arise and where did it go from there. It is essential that this work be conserved and protected.

34 Lambton Co., The Victorian Design Book, p. 200.



5.3.22 Detail: Concrete Block Work at Basement Stairway, Second (Eastern-most) Addition, August, 2010.

5.3.23 Detail: Formerly Exterior Brick Work from East Wall of Original House; Presently West Wall, Dining Room, August, 2010.

Note red-orange coloured brick with header courses Partially covered archway with rowlock course N.B. Presence of header courses is indicative of solid-brick walls View westward onto front door at Living Room



5.3.24 View of South-West Corner, Living Room, August, 2010.

5.3.25 Partial View of South Wall, Living Room, August, 2010.

Tall double-hung windows typical of Victorian design Unpainted pine or fir:

Baseboards, Panelling, Casing,

Doors and Plank flooring

Floor diffusers Stone hearth



5.3.26 Detail: Inside Face, Four-Panel Front Door, August, 2010.

5.3.27 Head & Jamb Panel Work, Front Wall at Doorway, August, 2010.

Floor diffuser Note approximate 14” depth of paneled jambs and head between interior and exterior faces of west wall, original house



5.3.28 Doors and Jambs, Wall at Doorway, August, 2010.

5.3.29 Detail: Door & Jambs, Aug `10.

Spindle work, West Porch Removable six-pane glass sash for insertion of warm-weather screen at exterior door Wrought Iron Latch Set with Five-point escutcheons Note alignment of door panelling with all jamb panels



5.3.30 Detail: Casing, Living Room, August, 2010. As evidenced in Fig. 5.3.30, above, the casing used in the oldest portion of the Featherston House is 8 1/2” across the face. As with the gothic dormer and ornamentation, the casing is most typical of work of the 1860’s and 1870’s in Ontario.35 What’s interesting is that the baseboards in the Living Room are not typical of the same period, but of the Edwardian era, circa 1915. The step-down at the upper floor level, Figs. 5.3.33 and 5.3.36 indicate a high likelihood of the rooms to the east being added after the initial mass. The exposed brickwork at the west wall of the current Dining Room, Fig. 5.3.23, and the different foundation conditions, Fig. 5.3.10, make it certain. The significance of establishing that the second mass, Fig. 5.1.3, was an addition is that it, too, has gothic detailing. It is not unknown that houses being styled one way, through an addition, then have the older portions retrofitted to establish a consistency of design language and image. It is equally stylistically possible that the original house was built between 1855-1870 and the addition built soon after. But none of these architecturally based hypotheses match the title dates. Much more likely, and still stylistically possible, is that the original house was built by Coyle or Joseph Featherston, circa 1832, and that the original mass and the first addition, Fig. 5.1.3, were re-bricked, re-trimmed, and finished to work as a piece. One suspects the front porch and both gothic gables were added at that time in 1885 when the Featherston sons, William and Isaac borrowed $550 from Miss Husband of Kilbride. This also works with the three-mass hypothesis as the three-over-one windows at the south side porch are from the Craftsman era of the first decades of the 20th century.

35 Duncan, York County Mouldings, pp. 31-33.



One further hypothesis may shed light on the baseboards at the living room. From Figs. 5.3.24-26 it is obvious from the presence of floor diffusers that the house is centrally heated. Given the appearance of the diffusers, living room baseboards, and the three-over-one windows at the side porch, it is possible the central heating was installed during the construction of the second (final and eastern-most) addition. It would have been convenient to add updated flooring at the turn of the century which could have required the removal of original baseboards. Hence the plank flooring, diffusers, and baseboards would then date from circa 1910.

5.3.31 Detail: Panel Work, West Wall, Living Room, August, 2010.

Casings from 1860’s, `70’s Original panel work Baseboard circa 1910 Note notch between outer back band of casing and top bead and bevelled plane of baseboard – possibly indicative of a retrofitted baseboard Plank flooring Floor diffuser (central heat)



5.3.32 View East from Living Room, August, 2010.

5.3.33 View West at Upper Floor, Aug. 2010 5.3.34 View West End of Upper Floor, Aug. 2010

Note broad casing at east archway of living room Wide plank flooring Step up to eastward mass Wide plank flooring, painted baseboard not as high as on ground floor Non-original newel post and balusters, head of stairway, upper floor Probably newer wall (window casing and sill truncated)



5.3.35 View from Top of Stairway, Upper Hall, Aug. 2010.

5.3.36 Change in Flooring between Eastern (wider) and Western (narrower) Rooms, Upper Hall, August, 2010.

Non-original newel and balustrade at head of stair, upper floor Non-original balustrade Narrower gauge flooring 20th-century baseboards Older, wider plank flooring



The drawings below provide documentary evidence of Ontario buildings having similar proportions to the subject house, particularly its front or east elevation.

Dissimilar to subject house; top half-storey not present Different vertical proportion, similar orientation to street: front elevation of illustrated house resembles front elevation of Featherston House Vertical dimension still too small for half-storey and fenestration as at the Featherston House Different style and proportions with similarity in orientation to street and three-bay facade



5.3.37, Historical Precedent Elevations36 From physical evidence provided by visible materials as well as from the precedent elevations shown in Fig. 5.3.37, above, it is apparent that the house was built at different times and with differing materials. Given the symmetrical façade of the oldest, western-most mass of the house, it is probable that the gothic detailing was added at a later (1885?) time, likely at the time the first addition, with its gothic dormer and window were also added. Regardless of the sequence or aspirations, what remains is a rich, layered, design/physical history likely able to yield more than any other single building in the Featherston Homestead. Taken together with the barn, ice house,

36 Macrae & Adamson, The Ancestral Roof, p.252.

Proportions don’t match, detailing much more classical Almost no similarity to subject house Form of mass similar but fenestration and plan very dissimilar to subject house One-and-one-half storey Gothic Revival – quite similar in vertical proportions and detailing to Featherston House, though classical three-bay front façade of subject house is very dissimilar to Gothic precedents shown here One-and-one-half storey is similar, as is bracketing and gothic fenestration in two last precedents



drive shed and other elements annotated above, this is an interesting, attractive, and valuable cultural heritage resource with roots deep into this Canadian soil. The property known as the Featherston Homestead, at 6261Guelph Line, Burlington has design and physical value because it,

i. Is an increasingly rare and representative example of a southern Ontario agricultural enclave or homestead dating back to the settlement period of the 1830’s complete with a house rich in gothic revival detailing, a working hill barn, drive shed, and other outbuildings including an ice house, a garage, and a paddock, all of which together with the driveway, hedge, and trees reinforce distant viewscapes north and eastward including views of the escarpment, and;

ii. Displays a high degree of Victorian era craftsmanship.



6.0 A CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE

After reviewing the contextual, historical/associative, and design/physical values of the cultural heritage of the Featherston Homestead, its treatment as an enclave or landscape inevitably arises. Expressed in terms of cultural heritage, does this multifaceted property comprise a Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) or is it best treated as a single Part IV designation?

6.1 Provincial Policy Statement, 2005

The question can be addressed a number of ways. In terms of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005), a Cultural Heritage Landscape is:

1. a defined geographical area, 2. of heritage significance, 3. which has been modified by human activities. Such an area is: 4. valued by a community, and, 5. is of significance to the understanding of a people or a place.37

Tests of each of the five criteria follow.

1. The defined geographical area of the subject site is illustrated in Fig. 6.1.1, below.

6.1.1, Hypothetical Footprint of CHL 2. Whether the property is of heritage significance was determined by the City of Burlington’s inclusion of the homestead on its Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value. As well, since 37 Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, p. 29.

Solid red footprint indicates hypothetical area of Cultural Heritage Landscape comprising the drive, the house, the outbuildings, vegetation, view corridors, river bank and fields.



1973, the homestead has been under the purview of the Niagara Escarpment Commission: “Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment is a working countryside and a cornerstone of Ontario’s Greenbelt. […] The Niagara Escarpment is a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve, designated for its unique landform characteristics and the presence of a provincial land use plan to guide development in its area.”38 The objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Plan are stated as follows: “To maintain the most natural Escarpment features, stream valleys, wetlands and related significant natural areas and associated cultural heritage features.”39 So the first criterion can be answered, yes; the Featherston Homestead does have heritage significance.

6.1.2, Subject Area within Niagara Escarpment Plan40 3. Has the property been modified by human activity? Yes, the property has been modified by human activity some of which is detailed in sections 3, 4, and 5, above. 4. Is the proposed area valued by the community? The protection offered by Burlington and the Niagara Escarpment Commission speak directly to an actively affirmative answer to this question. 5. Is the proposed CHL of significance to the understanding of early residents and to understanding Lowville, Burlington and the formation of Halton County? Yes. Thus, by the standards of the definition of cultural heritage landscapes, included in the PPS (2005), the answer is yes, the Featherston Homestead comprises a Cultural Heritage Landscape. 38 Overview, http://www.escarpment.org/about/overview/index.php 39 http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=fileosQMTlpDVx&filename=file_NEP_Part_1.pdf 40 Courtesy, Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Derry Road Rural area in yellow Natural area in green following creek bed Minor urban area in red hatched area Subject area Britannia Road



6.2 Draft Cultural Heritage Landscape Criteria

6.2.1, Draft Criteria for Cultural Heritage Landscapes41 41 Heritage Resource Centre, University of Waterloo

1.1 A geographically definable landscape;1.2 Authentic or has restorative potential (i.e., not irreversibly transformed by recent concentrated

human settlement in a way that effects its cultural heritage significance);1.3 Contains features that are contiguous or in relatively close proximity to one another;1.4 Is an area of sufficient size to conserve its cultural heritage significance if surrounding areas

are developed1.5 Has serviceable amounts of information gathered on the landscape or provided by the landscape.

Comprise at least two of the following COMPOSITIONAL features:

2.1 Element(s) recognized on a municipal, regional, provincial, or national heritage list;2.2 Element(s) dating from a prehistoric or early historical period in the development of the

municipality, region, province, or nation;2.3 Good representative example(s) of the work of an outstanding local, regional, national, or interational

architect, engineer, builder, designer, landscape architect, interior designer, or sculptor, or a goodexample of vernacular architecture;

2.4 Element(s) associated with a person(s) who is recognized as having made a significant contributionto the social, cultural, political, economic, technological, or physical development or as havingmaterially influenced the course of municipal, regional, provincial, national or international events;

2.5 Element(s) depicted in artwork created by an outstanding and recognized literary, musical, or visual artist;

2.6 Area(s) directly associated with an historic event which is recognized as having municipal, regional,provincial, national, or international importance;

2.7 Significant example(s) and illustration(s) of the municipality's prehistoric or historic social, cultural,political, economic, or technological development;

2.8 Element(s) that are part of a group of similar structures which contribute to the particular "look" ofthe area or region (i.e., bridges, stone cottages);

2.9 Element(s) that are rare or unique.

Fulfill at least two of the following FUNCTIONAL criteria:

3.1 Contributes to the continuity and character of the urban or rural community of which it may form a part;

3.2 Is particularly appealing or attractive because of its excellence, artistic merit, views, or perpetualquality or uniqueness of its design, composition, or details;

3.3 Creates a paticularly important visual landmark;3.4 Provides the observer with a strong and definite sense of position or place;3.5 Provides an opportunity for the general public to enjoy the landscape;3.6 Effectively illustrates a broad pattern of socio-cultural history;3.7 Provides an opportunity to recognize a significant part of the municipality's pre-historic or historic

social, cultural, political, economic, or technological development;3.8 Provides for the continuation of cultural traditions;3.9 Has potential for contributing to commercial tourist or other development that is based on heritage

and/or culture.

A Cultural Heritage Landscape must:

Fulfill all of the following STRUCTURAL criteria:



Of the criteria listed under Structural, all must be met. Structural:

1. (1.1) Discussed above: proposed area is geographically definable. 2. (2.1) Authentic or restorable – yes to both. Full occupancy of the house and lands is

required for full use. Responsible use of the land and outbuildings as agricultural elements, and the house as a residence, is the best insurance of authenticity.

3. (3.1) The contiguity of the various natural and built elements is best encapsulated in Fig. 5.1.3, above, and in Fig. 6.2.2, below.

4. (4.1) Potential surrounding development is effectively precluded by the Niagara Escarpment Plan however, should any occur, the most imminent threats are to view corridors across the fields of the Featherston Homestead, notably in an arc beginning westward and moving through to south-southeast. That noted, the property is of twenty-seven acres most of which is used as unbuilt grazing land, so, yes, the area is of sufficient size to conserve the cultural heritage significance of the site should surrounding development occur.

5. (5.1) Yes, the proposed landscape provides and has the potential to provide cultural heritage information concerning Lowville, Burlington, Halton, the former Upper Canada, and Ontario.

6.2.2, Part of Lot 7 Concession 4 New Survey, Dolliver Surveying Inc., 2009.

Outline of subject property – compare this figure with solid red shape in Fig. 6.1.1, above.



Of the criteria listed under Compositional, two must be met. Compositional:

1. (2.1) The Homestead is recognized on Burlington’s Register of properties of cultural heritage value or interest and it is included with the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

2. (2.2) The site retains elements dating from the settlement/agricultural period in the development of the village of Lowville and is an example of homesteading with possible settlement era built remnants.

3. (2.3) This site has a good representative example of vernacular Victorian-gothic architecture (house) and of functioning agricultural outbuildings such as the barn and the ice house. The space between the north wall of the barn and the south wall of the drive shed is of particular interest as are the elements cited above, in Fig. 5.1.3. None were “designed” but as a group they function with much more significance than any one element, or any functionally unrelated cluster of elements, would.

4. (2.4) The Featherston Homestead is associated with Joseph Featherston and his relatives and descendants who played a significant role in the settlement of Burlington’s agricultural lands. Joseph Featherston has been recognized as a person who made significant economic, social and/or cultural contributions to the Lowville area, Fig. 3.1.5.

5. (2.8) This site remains an agricultural enclave, as described above. In simpler terms it is a functionally and visibly obvious farm in an agricultural area and, as such, maintains and reinforces the “look” of the Lowville area.

Of the criteria listed under Functional, two must be met. Functional:

1. (3.1) This property contributes to the continuity and character of the rural/village community of Lowville of which it remains an integral part by continuing to function as a farm.

2. (3.2) The Featherston Homestead is particularly appealing and attractive for its strong Victorian-gothic and agricultural identity.

3. (3.4) The Featherston Homestead provides the observer with a sense of agricultural life and a sense of the passage of time. This is achieved through the sum total of the parts itemized in Section 5, above. The views outward, of the escarpment, firmly root an observer with a distinctive sense of place.

4. (3.6) This property effectively illustrates an agricultural way of life extant from the early to mid 1800s onward; it is a functional, vernacular socio-cultural history.

5. (3.7) Functional conservation of the Featherston Homestead provides a very good opportunity to recognize the significance of the agricultural contribution to the evolution of southern Ontario and of Halton/Burlington in particular. As the development of lands north of Dundas Street proceeds agricultural enclaves, such as this, will continue to be ploughed into oblivion far beyond recognition.



6. (3.8) This property provides an opportunity for the continuation of agricultural traditions held to be of high value to the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

By the standards of these draft criteria, the subject landscape again meets (or exceeds) the requirements of a cultural heritage landscape. 6.3 Types of Cultural Heritage Landscapes

1. Intentionally designed landscapes (parks, campuses, estates, gardens); creative. 2. Evolved (or vernacular) landscapes:

a. Relic: evolutionary process ended in the past; b. Continuing: material evidence extant, process still on-going, retains an active

social role in a society. 3. Associative landscapes from powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the

natural element, rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or absent. Spiritual.42

The subject property, as a CHL, is an evolved, vernacular, and continuing landscape. From the exploratory testing of the Featherston Homestead as a Cultural Heritage Landscape this is clearly an appropriate categorization. The subject property, the Featherston Homestead at 6261 Guelph Line, Burlington is worthy of designation as a Cultural Heritage Landscape under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as defined within PPS (2005).

42 UNESCO, 1992.



7.0 APPENDIX A: Last Will and Testament of Joseph Featherston, 1879 This is the last Will and Testament of me Joseph Featherstone of the Township of Nelson in the County of Halton, and the Province of Ontario, Esquire. First. I hereby revoke all Wills and Testamentary dispositions [unclear word] whatsoever by me at any time heretofore made. Second. I give and bequeath unto my beloved wife Matilda Featherstone and my daughter Roda Floretta Featherstone an annuity of one hundred and eighty dollars until my said daughter arrives at the age of twenty-one years should they both so long live. In case my said wife should die before my said daughter arrives at the age of twenty one years my said daughter is to have an annuity of one hundred and twenty dollars from and after the death of my said wife until she arrives at the said age: and in case my said daughter should die before she arrives at the age of twenty one years my said wife is to have an annuity of one hundred dollars from and after the death of my said daughter or her arrival at the age of twenty one years so long as she remains my widow. Third. I give and decree unto my said wife and daughter the use and occupation so long as my said wife remains my widow of that portion of my dwelling house now occupied by me and the Plot of ground in front of the said dwelling house and Garden also now used and occupied by me. Also the privilege of getting water from the Cistern and Well at the said dwelling house, and six cords of good hardwood cut and split and delivered ready for use convenient to the said dwelling house [unclear word] and every year during the same term. I declare that the provisions hereby made for my said wife shall be accepted by her in full satisfaction of all claims to Come out of any real Estate of which I have been or now am or shall be again. Fourth. I give and bequeath unto my said daughter Rhoda [sic] Floretta all my household furniture and organ and the sum of six hundred dollars to be paid to her on her attaining the age of twenty one years. Fifth. I give and bequeath to my son Thomas Featherstone the sum on one hundred and fifty dollars to be paid to him at the expiration of one year after my decease. Sixth. I give and bequeath unto my daughter Ann the sum of three hundred dollars to be paid to her on the expiration of one year after my decease. Seventh. I give and bequeath unto my daughter Elizabeth a sum sufficient to make together with the promissory notes for one hundred dollars and for sixty dollars respectively which I now hold and the interest accrued thereon the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars the said difference between the agreed sum of three hundred and fifty dollars and the amount of the said notes and interest to be paid within one year after my decease.



Eighth. I give and decree unto my sons William Smith Featherstone and Isaac Newton Featherstone all and singular that certain parcel or tract of land and preserves situate lying and being in the Township of Nelson aforesaid containing by ad measurement or a hundred acres more of less being composed of the South West half of Lot number Seven within Fourth Concession New Survey in the said Township of Nelson. To have and to hold the same unto and to the use of my said sons their heirs and assigns for ever Subject however to the above bequests and legacies to my said wife son and daughters which I declare shall be and form a lien and encumbrance upon the said land and preserves. Ninth. I give decree licit and apparent unto John Turnbull, William Smith Featherstone and Isaac Newton Featherstone my Executors hereinafter caused their heirs and assigns all and Singular that certain parcel or tract of land and preserves situate lying and being in the Village of Lowville in the said Township of Nelson aforesaid. Containing by admeasurement our tenth part of an acre be the acre more or less being composed of part of the East half of Lot number Seven in the Third Concession New Survey of the said Township of Nelson and is butted and bounded or may be otherwise known and described as follows that is to say: Commencing one hundred and fifty eight feet from where a post has been planted at the Northerly angle of the aforesaid East half Lot. Thence south forty five degrees East forty feet along the allowance [unclear word] in front of said half Lot. Thence South forty five degrees West one hundred and twenty feet. Thence North forty five degrees West forty feet. Thence North forty five degrees East one hundred and twenty feet more or less to the place of beginning with the appurtenances. To have and to hold onto and to the use of the said John Turnbull William Smith Featherstone and Isaac Newton Featherstone their heirs and assigns forever. Upon trust that the said John Turnbull William Smith Featherstone and Isaac Newton Featherstone or the or the Survivors or Survivors of them or the Executors of such Survivors shall as soon after my decease as to them may seem advisable sell the same either by Public Auction or [unclear word] Contract and may buy in and [unclear word] any contract of Sale and resell without being responsible for any [unclear word] accessories. Hereby and upon Trust in the meantime before such sale is affected to lease the [unclear word, “parcel”?]. And also upon Trust from time to time to make do and Execute all [two unclear words] contracts deeds and assurances for conveying such sale or sales lease or leases into complete effect as they or he shall hold fit. And I do hereby declare that the said John Turnbull, William Smith Featherstone and Isaac Newton Featherstone (hereinafter call the Trustees or [unclear word]) and the Survivors of them of the Executors of such Survivors shall stand possessed of the moneys which shall arise from the leas and sale hereinbefore directed to be made of the said lands and preserves upon Trust in the first place to deduct and reclaim al costs charges and expenses which they or he shall have disbursed or incurred in the performance of the aforesaid business or in relation thereto: And upon trust in the Second place to divide the remainder of the said moneys equally between my son Thomas and my daughters Ann Elizabeth Rhoda Floretta and Hannah. [This is the first mention of Hannah and may be a mis-reading on the part of this consultant.]



Tenth. I give and bequeath unto my said son William Smith Beusous Commentaries on the Bible and New Testament. Eleventh. I give and bequeath unto my said son Isaac Newton Clarkes Commentaries on the New Testament. Twelfth. I will and direct that the residue of the books in my library be equally divided among all my sons and daughters living at the time of my decease by my said Executors. Thirteenth. I give and bequeath unto my said sons William Smith and Isaac Newton at the residue of my goods chattels money and securities for money and personal Estate [unclear word] hereinafter specifically bequeathed. I appoint my son-in-law John Turnbull and my said sons William Smith and Isaac Newton Executors of this my Will.

A1.0.1, Signature of Joseph Featherston, From Last Will & Testament, 1879



7.1 APPENDIX B: Recollections of [Al]Fred Dolbel In September of 2010, following the issuance of a draft version of this Study to Doug Pattison, the current owner of the subject property, Mr. Pattison forwarded an e-mail from Alfred Dumaresq Dolbel, the second last owner on title, providing some invaluable history and description of the property, its evolution, and the Lowville area. With Mr. Dolbel’s permission those e-mails are included below. From: Fred Dolbel Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:46:53 -0700 (PDT) To: Doug Pattison Subject: Doug: 6261 Guelph Line Heritage report Doug Thanks for the copy of the 6261 Guelph Line Heritage report ! I don't know how much more recent historical detail (of mixed value) you are interested in recapturing about the 6261 Guelph Line property? eg. in my first 14 years there I remember well our car & tractor garage was a wood frame 1 1/2 storey building with stuccoed exterior and a proper lathe & plaster interior. It had been a general store for a number/many? years befoe and there was a fair amount of writing on the white plastered walls - some of it accounts, etc. This building was in the corner of the "paddock" at the southwest corner of the barn with its front facing toward the present 2 car garage. The catalpa tree with the swing would be about 20 ft. North of the North face of that store/garage. This "garage" would have been torn down about 1963. The main stairs in the house used to run down into the middle of the living room where the brick wall is now -> entering the D/R where Chalykoff noted the "partially covered archway" on page 45. The top of the stairs exited thru' what is now the closet door in the Northwest B/R. (I was the one who bricked in the doorway into the D/R West wall - when I was about 18) If you have any interest in verifying certain info in this report that is since 1950 onward I can probably help you. eg. the flagstone front patio was added in about 1960. The mansard face was decorated metal sheeting on the decorative front porch. - if you are interested in perusing the report with me around our visit at Christmas we could sit with a tape recorder on and just talk our way thru' it? Fred From: Fred Dolbel To: Doug Pattison Sent: Thu, September 9, 2010 1:00:58 PM Subject: Doug: PS: front porch before

Doug I remember the front porch before we put the flagstone surface down as being a smaller expanse, say just a few ft. bigger than the perimeter of the canopy? - might have been 2" thick cement or cement squares before we tore it up - definitely all broken up/deteriorated when we replaced with the larger flagstone surface



FYI: where the cedar hedge runs now had been a cement slab sidewalk that ran the whole length of the present hedge. These cement slabs would have been about 24" x 30" and 2" thick. I remember them "fondly" ;-( as it was my personal job to break one up each afternoon after coming home from school, load the pieces into my little red wagon, and dump these over the edge of the south lawn into the park boundary border before I could run off and play. I attended the one room schoolhouse in the park, "Nelson SS #9" from 1950 thru' 1955. Fred From: Fred Dolbel To: Doug Pattison Sent: Thu, September 9, 2010 12:48:10 PM Subject: Doug: Aerial Pic of farm - General store foundations? [ + 2 .jpg's ]

Doug, I don't think you will find any foundations for the garage/general store as they were mortared rubblestone and would have been removed to allow new fenceposts etc. - see B&W pic attached for exact appearance and location of general store/garage - we also had a sizeable pig house behind the barn and it was made of a similar stuccoed surface, but this was over rubblestone walls rather than over wood frame - also a circa 1964 pic of the pighouse in its last days (I remember us tending pigs in it when I was about 6 years old; I was born in 1944, but we came on the farm in 1947) [ I got my first good camera about 1962 and would have taken a number of pictures around the farm, and inside the house, from then onward.) I remembered my copy of an aerial photo taken of the house & barn area. - this aerial pic is 1952 +/- 1 year as my sister born in Dec. 1950 is the white blotch bending over just behind the utility trailer in the mid left side of this pic - someone, maybe me?, still has the B&W photo that I scanned this e-pic from Fred



B-1, Aerial Image, circa 1952, Courtesy, Fred Dolbel. (Note windmill-water pump in mid-ground and Demolished garage/general store at upper right.)

B-2, Pig House, circa 1964, Courtesy, Fred Dolbel.



E-mail below was sent 7:00 p.m. Thursday 9 September, 2010. Dan Here's the info on 6261 Guelph Line 1947 purchase that I can recollect. (Unfortunately Mom is in a Nursing Home and doesn't know things any more) I heard my father speak several times of the Fishers, the ones who lived in a brick (?) house located just East of the Guelph Line on the South Side of the QEW - about where the South Service Rd. interchange is located now I did not know the possible relationship of Fishers to our farm property until I read your report. I remember going with father to the Fisher house. (Father's mood of the relationship was positive.) I do however, know a fair bit about the Bowcock's involvement as my parents considered them instrumental in helping them secure the 6261 property. At that time Mr. Bowcock was a wealthy Bay St. Stock Broker and Promoter. The Bowcocks owned a large (150 acres) fruit orchard farm on the East side of Brant Street, called Beaufort Farm - probably it's eastern terrain is where Brant HIlls Park is now? - this was a working farm with a magnificent 2 storey house (I would call it a mansion) Our families including the children on both sides would visit back and forth. We remain in close touch with the Bowcock's, daughter, Jean Howard and her daughter Marion Howard. My parents both came from the village of Perce on the Gaspe coast, QC. The Bowcocks would spend summer vacations there and as we were one of the few English families in the area a close acquaintance grew. It seems every Gaspe coast person dreamed of "owning a farm in Ontario". - when my parents acted on this impetus Bowcock knew of the intended formation of the Lowville Park and the consequent parcelling off of the un-needed 27 acres above the park's North ridge area. - I know Mr. Bowcock was instrumental in getting my parents close to the "front of the line" and no doubt in vouching for their honesty, integrity, hard working outlook - there was no money or financing assistance from Bowcock, but definitely vital support - my understanding from father was that the sale of the land to the park and our 27 acres to us through the VLA was organized/structured to allow father to use his VLA privilege. Our family actively farmed the farm continuously from its original purchase until several years after father died in 1967 and our neighbour Gary Hoard began to farm it as mother and my youngest brother couldn't keep it going on their own (about 1970+ I would guess). - as the oldest son I saw the most of it until about 1956 - and then did the most of it ;-) - father always had a full time job as manager of a major hardware store in Burington or Hamilton - in the first 5-6 years my parents tried everything from pigs & chickens to planting most of the farm in vegetable and berry crops along with fruit (& grape) orchards. They always seemed to end up one step behind the curve - either for high labour content or markets changing. - we ended up stayng with a cow veal calf operation from about 1954 onward. Early veg. & berry crops: 2-3 acres each of strawberries, cucumbers, tomatoes, muskmelons, raspberries - pigs didn't last too long, but we had up to 3,000 laying chickens for 5-8 years Then came fruit orchards: Bartlett pears, Northern Spy, Pippins, crab apples, Concord grapes - in there was probably a few other varieties of apple I don't recall. Young orchards covered about 70% of the farm at one point. We always had 1-2 cows + calves for the house and a grain field. Gary Hoard ran a few race horses with good commercial success at times and ran feeder beef for at least 30 years from 1970+ onward to about 2007 when he retired. ----------------- The only other buildings on the property were the general store/garage & pig house (back of barn). Shortly after the Park was started in the late 40's the big ball diamond with tall lights was constructed - for about 5 years after this the only road access to the ball diamond and north side of the river



was by driving past our barn and following the ridgeline down to the ball diamond. There were several hotly contested mens ball teams from surrounding villages, Palermo, Acton, Carlisle, Kilbride, Lowville, Milton, etc. several nights a week in summer. I can remember father always having to go check that the gate was closed after the last carload left. I have no Featherstone history I can pass along. I do remember the front lawn was a wreck when we bought the place ie. the front lawn was totally overgrown and old couch springs etc. stewn around it. Note: I'll be away in New Brunswick all of next week - so will be not able to provide info that week All our best in your project - ask any questions you like ... Fred Dolbel E-mail below sent 7:06 a.m. Friday 10 September 2010. Dan The view of the pighouse was taken from NNW looking just east of South ie. looking directly across the river valley toward the Octagonal House on page 8 of your report BTW: I grew up with the Johnson brothers who lived in that house for many years Their father, Arthur, claimed that all the interior wide pine trim in that house (wider than in our 6261 house) came from one pine tree cut down on that property. He was sure of that claim. The pighouse was located to the right/West (ie. just inside) of the existing fence that surrounds the barnyard and aligned with the fence roughly NNW - SSE. I believe the original barnyard gate location is still the same the ie. facing East into the large field - the pighouse North side & entry door was just below the South side of the South gate post You can use my emails as you like ... Good luck! Fred



8.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF HERITAGE CONSULTANT

curriculum vitae

D. R. Chalykoff

Mr. Chalykoff is a practicing member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. He has been engaged in the design, construction, and analysis of buildings since 1979. Since 1993 Mr. Chalykoff has provided specialized services identifying and evaluating the historical, contextual, and design attributes of built heritage. He is also experienced in repairing and restoring heritage buildings and structures. He is regularly consulted to provide research, opinions, peer reviews, reports, and testimony concerning built heritage resources. Mr. Chalykoff has been qualified as an expert witness in heritage matters before the Conservation Review Board (CRB) and the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

memberships

2007 – Present Architectural Conservancy of Ontario 2006 – Present The Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada 2006, 7 Present Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 2006 – Present Society of Architectural Historians (U.S.A.) 1997 – Present Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (formerly C.A.P.H.C.) history

2004 – Present D.R. Chalykoff, Oakville, Principal 2002 - 2004 E.R.A. Architects Inc., Toronto, Senior Project Architect 1994 - 2002 Chalykoff Master Builders, Oakville, Principal 1991 - 1993 Eric Connolly Architect, Georgetown, Project Architect 1984 - 1990 Chalykoff Construction & Design, Oakville, Owner 1983 Gibson & Pokorny Architects, Toronto, Draftsman 1979 - 1983 Apprentice Carpenter

activities

2000 – 2003 V.P., Board of Directors, Canadian As’n of Professional Heritage Consultants 1997 – 2001 Co-Chair, Oakville Heritage Trust 1994 – 1999 Chair, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, Oakville 1997 – Present Free-lance Writing on Architecture and Urbanity education

2009 Cultural Heritage Landscapes Workshop, Heritage Resource Centre, U.W. 2000 – 2001 Thesis Program, Bachelor of Architecture, University of Toronto 1986 – 2001 Independent Studies, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, Syllabus Program 1978 – 1980 Humanities Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston



curriculum vitae

Daniel R. Chalykoff selected heritage work Hancock Woodlands H.E.S., H.I.A. for City of Mississauga* 140 -158 Bronte Rd., Oakville H.E.S.,Peer Review, O.M.B. for ASB Design 5421 Dundas St. W., Burlington Peer Review, Regional of Halton Woodhill Estate, Flamborough H.E.S., City of Burlington 174 King Street East, Mississauga H.E.S. for City of Mississauga, C.R.B. 299, 313 Plains Rd. W., Burlington Peer Reviews for City of Burlington 3083 Lakeshore Road, Burlington H.I.S for the City of Burlington, C.R.B. 863 Sangster Avenue, Mississauga H.I.S. for private client 24 Front St. S., Mississauga H.I.S. for private client Church-Shuter Development, Toronto Historic Façade Conservation (ERA) Stone Distillery, Gooderham & Worts, Toronto Adaptive Re-use (ERA) Parkwood Estate, Oshawa Conservation & HVAC Retrofit (ERA) Elihu Pease House Relocation & Alterations Change of Use (ERA) Chum City TV Building, Queen St.Toronto Conservation Plan & Implementation(ERA) Massey Mansion, Jarvis St. Toronto Feasibility Study, School (ERA) Halfway House (c. 1830 Ggn) Oakville Addition & alterations Silver Creek Farmhouse (c.1860 Ggn) Bronte Creek Masterplanning: conversion of house to school Havill Residence (c.1910 Q. Anne) Oakville Masterplanning, approvals, construction Orillia Opera House, Orillia Alterations to Theatre (PGCA) Zion Schoolhouse New Administrative Building (PGCA) Revitalization of private estate, Oakville Initial Approvals, Schematic Design First Anglican Parsonage, Oakville Feasibility Study 1101 Dupont Street, Toronto Study for Adaptive Reuse of 1910 Factory Old Mill & Shaft Machine Factory, Lindsay Study for Adaptive Reuse of Factories Ruthven Park National Historic Site Change of Use, Stables (ERA) Woodside Library, Oakville Feasibility Study (ECA) In addition to the heritage work above, Mr. Chalykoff has worked on numerous institutional, residential, and other heritage projects and buildings. _______________________________________________________________________

ECA Eric Connolly Architect CRB Conservation Review Board ERA E.R.A. Architects Inc. HES Heritage Evaluation Study PGCA Philip Goldsmith & Company, Architects HIA Heritage Impact Assessment * Partnered with Owen Scott, Landplan HIS Heritage Impact Study OMB Ontario Municipal Board _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Chalykoff can be contacted at: 384 Reynolds Street,

Oakville, ON. L6J 3M2 T: 905 844 6503 E: [email protected]



9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES CONSULTED 9.1 Primary Texts Duncan, George W.J. York County Mouldings From Historic Interiors, The Architectural

Conservancy of Ontario Inc., 2001. Lee Valley Tools The Victorian Design Book: A Complete Guide to Victorian House Trim,

Lee Valley Tools, Ottawa, 1984. This is a reproduction of an older book: Universal Design Book: Official Price List Adopted by the Wholesale Sash, Door and Blind Manufacturers’ Association of the Northwest, October 15th, 1903, Lambton Co., Ltd., St. John, N.B.

Machan, Claire Emery From Pathway to Skyway Revisited: The Story of Burlington, The Burlington Historical Society, Ampersand Printing, Guelph,

Ontario, 1997. Macrae, Marion Adamson, Anthony The Ancestral Roof: Domestic Architecture of Upper Canada Clarke, Irwin & Company Limited, Toronto, 1963. Pope, J. H. Esq. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Halton Ontario,

Walker & Miles, Toronto, 1877. Reproduced by Cumming Atlas Reprints, Stratford, 1976.

Turcotte, Dorothy, Burlington: Memories of Pioneer Days, The Burlington Historical

Society, Ampersand Printing, Guelph, Ontario, 1989. 9.2 Secondary Texts Hicks, Kathleen A. Cooksville: Country to City, The Friends of the Mississauga Library System, Mississauga, 2005. McAlester, Virginia & Lee A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1988. Morris, William, Ed. The Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language,

International Edition, McGraw-Hill International Book Company, New York, 1975.



9.3 Government Documents Government of Ontario Ontario Heritage Act at:

www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/act.htm Provincial Policy Statement 2005

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1485.aspx Niagara Escarpment Plan http://www.escarpment.org/home/index.php 9.4 City of Burlington Documents Staff Burlington Heritage Resource Inventory, Undated The Featherstone Homestead, 6261 Guelph Line.