Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study - Preliminary Draft for Public Review and Comment_report Body Version 2

8/18/2019 Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study - Preliminary Draft for Public Review and Comment_report Body Ver…

1/65

Downtown Meaford

Heritage Conservation District Study

Heritage Assessment Report

(Preliminary Draft for public review and comment)

Prepared for

The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford

July 2013


2/65

Downtown Meaford

Heritage Conservation District Study

Heritage Assessment Report(Preliminary Draft for public review and comment)

Prepared for:

The Corporation of the Municipality of MeafordJuly 2013


3/65

Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study Page 1

Heritage Assessment Report (PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT)

MHBC July 2013

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act and provincial guidance .......................................... 5

1.3 Purpose of this heritage district study ........................................................................................... 7

1.4 Sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.0 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................. 9

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 The physiographic context .................................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Historical settlement and context ................................................................................................. 10

2.3.1 Settlement Origins ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.3.2 Commercial core development ............................................................................................. 13

2.3.3 Harbour and railway development ...................................................................................... 15

2.3.4 Development of residential neighbourhoods ................................................................. 17

2.3.5 1900-1960s: The automobile age .......................................................................................... 18

2.3.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 18

2.4 Built Heritage Character .................................................................................................................... 19

2.4.1 Commercial built form............................................................................................................... 20

2.4.2

Public and Institutional built form....................................................................................... 22

2.4.3 Residential built form ................................................................................................................ 23

2.4.4 Building stock and integrity .................................................................................................... 24

2.4.4.1 Three centuries of building design and construction .............................................. 25

2.4.4.2 Overall maintenance condition ......................................................................................... 27

2.4.4.3 Alterations-major .................................................................................................................... 27

2.4.4.4 Alterations-minor .................................................................................................................... 29

2.4.4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 30

2.4.5 Heritage Conservation district plan and guidelines ...................................................... 30

2.5 Landscape context and character ................................................................................................. 31

2.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 31

2.5.2 Landscape character of the study area ............................................................................... 31

2.5.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 33

2.5.4 Heritage conservation district plan guidance ................................................................. 33


4/65



MHBC July 2013

2.6 Land use character and policy review .......................................................................................... 33

2.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 33

2.6.2 Study area land uses................................................................................................................... 34

2.6.3 Study area policy review ........................................................................................................... 34

2.6.3.1 Grey County Official Plan ..................................................................................................... 35

2.6.3.2 Municipality of Meaford Official Plan ............................................................................. 36

2.6.3.3 Municipality of Meaford Zoning By-law......................................................................... 38

2.6.3.4 Site Plan Control ...................................................................................................................... 39

2.6.3.5 Property Standards By-law .................................................................................................. 40

2.6.3.6 Tree Preservation .................................................................................................................... 40

2.6.3.7 Sign By-law ................................................................................................................................ 40

2.6.3.8 Potential development issues ............................................................................................ 40

2.6.3.9 Heritage conservation district plan guidance ............................................................. 41

2.7 Heritage conservation and financial incentives ...................................................................... 41

2.7.1 Municipal tax incentives ........................................................................................................... 42

2.7.2 Loans ................................................................................................................................................. 43

2.7.3 Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 43

2.7.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 44

2.7.5 Heritage conservation district plan guidance ................................................................. 44

2.8

Sources Consulted............................................................................................................................... 44

2.8.1 Primary sources ............................................................................................................................ 44

2.8.2 (Maps and Plans) .......................................................................................................................... 45

2.8.3 Secondary sources ...................................................................................................................... 45

3.0 HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DELINEATION: A RECOMMENDED BOUNDARY . 46

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 46

3.2 Summary of the Meaford study area character ....................................................................... 46

3.3 District boundary delineation ......................................................................................................... 47

3.3.1 Framework of structuring elements .................................................................................... 47

3.3.2 Concentration of heritage resources ................................................................................... 47

3.3.3 Visual coherence of the study area ...................................................................................... 48

3.3.4 Distinctive character .................................................................................................................. 48

3.4 District boundary definition ............................................................................................................ 48

3.4.1 Public consultation and district boundary re-definition ............................................. 49


5/65



MHBC July 2013

3.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 50

4.0 RECOMMENDED OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND PLAN CONTENT

51

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 51

4.2 Statement of intent ............................................................................................................................. 52

4.2.1 Heritage interests, property owner interests and community interests ........ ...... 52

4.2.2 Meaford heritage character ..................................................................................................... 52

4.2.3 Meaford conservation management approach .............................................................. 53

4.2.4 Custodial responsibility ............................................................................................................ 53

4.2.5 Alteration of properties ............................................................................................................ 53

4.2.6 Restoration of heritage properties ....................................................................................... 53

4.2.7 Fair and equitable consideration .......................................................................................... 53

4.3 Objectives of the proposed designation for the Meaford Conservation District ....... 54

4.4 Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan content .......................................................... 55

5.0 RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO MUNICIPAL PLANNING MECHANISMS AND BY-LAWS 56

5.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 56

5.2 Zoning by-law ........................................................................................................................................ 56

5.3 Heritage property standards ........................................................................................................... 56

5.4 Sign By-law.............................................................................................................................................. 57

5.5 Delegated approval authority for alterations .......................................................................... 57

5.6 Heritage permit application form and approvals ................................................................... 57

5.7 Ontario Heritage Act Part IV designations, heritage conservation easement

agreements and other measures ................................................................................................................ 58

5.8 The need and timing for and Interim Control By-law under the Ontario Heritage Act

59

List of Figures:

Figure 1: Map of Study Area..................................................................................................................................................................................2Figure 2: Excerpt from County of Grey Official Plan, Schedule A, Map 1n........................................ .......................................35

Figure 3: Excerpt from Municipality of Meaford Official Plan, Schedule A-1........................................... ...............................36

Figure 4: Excerpts from Meaford Zoning By-law (maps 8 & 9)....................................... ....................................................... ..........38

Figure 5: Meaford Character areas...........................................................................................................................................Following 48

Figure 6: Meaford HCD Proposed Boundary............................................... ....................................................... ...............Following 48

Figure 7: Meaford HCD Potential Areas for Future Study............................................ ..............................................Following 58


6/65



MHBC July 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study originated as part of the 2005 Official Plan and the 2008Community Improvement Plan (CIP). The Community Improvement Plan identified a vision for thecommunity core and identified an objective to “create a mechanism to promote investment in a very importanthistorical and commercial area of the Municipality of Meaford, thereby generating economic development andincreased assessment” . This formed the focus of a key action, notably that “In Meaford where a large percentageof the built environment contains cultural heritage properties, Part V, OHA, can be an effective tool for communityrenewal, economic stability and heritage conservation” .

The direction provided in the CIP (approved by Council in February 2009) served as the basis for pursuing thedesignation of a heritage conservation district under the Ontario Heritage Act . In December 2012,Municipality of Meaford staff initiated the Request for Proposals process to retain a consulting team toundertake the preparation of both a heritage conservation district study and an accompanying district planand guidelines. The decision to move forward with the plan and guidelines portion would only be

considered after Council had received and approved the findings and recommendations in the heritageconservation district study.

The Council-approved study area being examined for the purpose of undertaking a heritage assessment isderived from the Community Improvement Plan study area and is generally defined by Albert Street to thenorth, the waterfront in the northeast, Cook Street to the west, Boucher Street and Bridge Streets to thesouth, and Denmark and Fuller Streets to the east (outlined in red on Figure 1).

The Municipality of Meaford’s study area comprises all or part of the following streets:

North-South East-West

Cook Street Albert StreetBayfield Street Berry StreetDenmark Street Bridge StreetFuller Street Boucher StreetSt. Vincent Street Collingwood StreetSykes Street Lombard Street

Nelson StreetParker Street

Trowbridge Street


7/65



MHBC July 2013

Figure 1: Map of Study Area

1.2

Provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act and provincial guidance

The Ontario Heritage Act is the key provincial legislation that enables municipalities to conserve, protect andmanage heritage properties and areas. There are two parts to the Act that concern cultural heritage:

• Part IV enables a municipality to designate individual properties that are of cultural heritage value orinterest and Part V enables a municipality to designate groups or areas of properties thatdemonstrate cultural heritage value. The Municipality of Meaford has designated three (3) propertiesunder Part IV, two (2) of which are within the current study area (Meaford Hall and former Fire Hall at12 and 26 Nelson Street East respectively). Currently there are no heritage conservation districtsdesignated under Part V in the municipality.


8/65



MHBC July 2013

• Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act enables a municipality to designate by by-law all or any part of amunicipality as a heritage conservation district. Prior to designating a district it has becomeconventional practice to study an area in order to identify the cultural heritage values and characterof a prospective district. Sometimes this is formally undertaken by defining an area by by-law.

Guidance on what constitutes a heritage conservation district is provided by a number of sources. TheOntario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in its published guidelines (Heritage Conservation Districts, AGuide to District Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act ) note that a heritage conservation district:

“...may comprise an area with a group or complex of buildings, or a larger area with many buildings and properties. It may also comprise an entire municipality with a concentration of heritage resources withspecial character or historical association that distinguishes it from its surroundings.”

Designating a heritage conservation district is concerned with identifying groups of heritage properties thattogether with other distinguishing features or attributes form a distinctive place worthy of informedprotection and management. The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has also noted in itspublished guidelines “Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designation under the Ontario

Heritage Act ” that a heritage conservation district typically displays a number of characteristics including:

“A concentration of heritage buildings, sites, structures; designed landscapes, natural landscapes that arelinked by aesthetic, historical and socio-cultural contexts or use.

A framework of structured elements including major natural features such as topography, land form,landscapes, water courses and built form such as pathways and street patterns, landmarks, nodes orintersections, approaches and edges.

A sense of visual coherence through the use of such elements as building scale, mass, height, material, proportion, colour, etc. that convey a distinct sense of time or place.

A distinctiveness which enables districts to be recognised and distinguishable from their surroundings orfrom neighbouring areas.”

The Municipality of Meaford’s current Official Plan contains the following guidance with regards to heritageconservation districts:

Where merited by the concentration and significance of cultural heritage Resources in accordance withSection D3.2.2 of this Plan, Council may consider the establishment of a Heritage Conservation District toconserve an area's heritage character.

Prior to designating a Heritage Conservation District pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, Council will:

a) pass a by-law to define an area to be examined for future designation;b) prepare and adopt a Heritage Conservation District Plan; and,

c) establish a District Committee to advise Council on matters pertaining to the designateddistrict.

Within designated Heritage Conservation Districts, property owners, in consultation with the appropriateDistrict Committee, will be encouraged to maintain and repair heritage buildings and seek governmentgrants and loans for eligible conservation work”.


9/65



MHBC July 2013

D3.2.3.1 Contents of Heritage Conservation District Plan

The general principles pertaining to Heritage Conservation Districts will be outlined in a HeritageConservation District Plan. The Heritage Conservation District Plan will:

a) delineate boundaries of the designated area and reasons for the designation;

b) inventory cultural heritage resources;

c) prescribe policies, conservation and design guidelines, and other pertinent material relatingto the sound and prudent management of the district's unique character;

d) be adopted by Council after consultation with affected property owners and other interestedagencies as considered appropriate; and,

e) be implemented by municipal review of heritage permit applications for changes and

alterations to individual buildings and structures within the designated district.

In reviewing proposals for the construction, demolition or removal of buildings or structures, or the

alteration of buildings within a Heritage Conservation District, Council shall be guided by the applicable

Heritage Conservation District Plan.

The specific purpose of the heritage conservation district study assessment is discussed further in Section1.3.

1.3 Purpose of this heritage district study

This study is the first part of a two-part process that comprises the Meaford Heritage Conservation DistrictStudy. This first part includes the heritage assessment component that describes and evaluates the culturalheritage value of the Meaford study area. The area includes approximately 282 properties occupied byapproximately 240 built features (i.e., those that have street addresses) and is shown in Figure 1.2.

The scope of the heritage conservation district study was guided both by the Municipality of Meaford’sterms of reference for this study as well as the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act , notably subsection40(2) which prescribes that a study shall:

(a) examine the character and appearance of the area that is the subject of the study, including buildings,

structures and other property features of the area, to determine if the area should be preserved as a heritageconservation district;

(b) examine and make recommendations as to the geographic boundaries of the area to be designated;

(c) consider and make recommendations as to the objectives of the designation and the content of theheritage conservation district plan required under section 41.1;

(d) make recommendations as to any changes that will be required to the municipality’s official plan and toany municipal by-laws, including any zoning by-laws.

Accordingly, the heritage study report specifically examines the following aspects of the prospective district:

• historical growth and development of downtown Meaford (Section 2),

• the built and architectural character of the study area (Section 2),


10/65



MHBC July 2013

• streetscape and landscape attributes (Section 2),

• land use character (Section 2),

• geographic boundaries of the area to be potentially designated (Section 3),

•

objectives of the designation and the content of the heritage conservation district plan (Section 4),and

• potential changes that will be required to the Municipality of Meaford’s Official Plan and to anymunicipal by-laws (Section 5).

If, as a result of the heritage assessment report, the Municipality determines that it is feasible to proceed withpotential designation, then the second phase of work would begin. The second part of the Meaford HeritageConservation District process will be the Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan and Guidelines whichprovide the basis for the management and protection of the area’s heritage character including its buildings,spaces and landscape features.

1.4

Sources

Municipality of Meaford. Official Plan 2005.

Ontario. Ontario Heritage Act , RSO 1990, c O. 18

Ontario. Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Heritage Conservation Districts, A Guide to District Designation underthe Ontario Heritage Act , (Published as part of the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit), 2006.


11/65



MHBC July 2013

2.0 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE STUDY AREA

2.1 Introduction

This section of the Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study examines the character and appearance ofthe study area as required under the Ontario Heritage Act . The various report sections that follow containsummaries and conclusions from more detailed survey work or analysis, including the heritage buildinginventory (See Appendix A) and landscape and open space inventory (See Appendix B). Together thefindings and conclusions of this section provide the rationale for the boundary delineation that is found inSection 3. Historical background research is conducted to gain a thorough understanding of the study areaand its place within the development of the municipality and wider area. Historical research identifies thethemes, forces and events that shaped the history of Meaford and helps to understand the land patterns,appearance and character of the study area.

The research has focused on four main components: historical settlement and context; built heritagecharacter; streetscape and landscape survey; and policy review. The research was performed through acombination of site visits and research, which varied depending on the specific tasks being undertaken.

Related to the historic settlement and built heritage character, information from the Municipality of Meaford,Heritage Meaford and the Meaford Museum and Archives were reviewed, as well as various historic maps,historic background, photos, and architectural information. Various Regional and Municipal policies wereconsulted when completing the policy review exercise. All project team members conducted various sitevisits to examine portions of the study area applicable to the various reviews undertaken.

2.2 The physiographic context

The historic town of Meaford is located on the southern shore of Georgian Bay, in the physiographic regionknown as the Bighead Valley. The valley is an indentation in the Niagara Escarpment at the town of Meaford.

The valley spans approximately eight miles in width and is 10-12 miles deep. The Bighead River sits in thecentre of the valley, draining to Georgian Bay (Chapman and Putnam 125-126, 1984).

The Bighead Valley was primarily shaped prior to the glacial period, however glacial ice deposits createdmore than 300 drumlins within an area only 80 square miles in size. Within the town of Meaford, there is a“bouldery terrace” and a 25 foot bluff that mark the highest water level of the Nipissing Great Lakes, and atthis point the Bighead River Valley is more than 50 feet deep (Chapman and Putnam 125-126, 1984).

The soil of the region is generally well-drained stoney clay loam. It is slightly acidic due to the presence ofshale and rocks. Where subsoil has been exposed on the steeper slopes, free lime carbonate exists in thesurface soil. Sandy soils are more common in the lake plain near Meaford, and these soils are well suited toapples if there is regular fertilization of the soil. The settlement grid for St. Vincent Township in Grey Countymatches the grain of the landforms in the county, and allows farmers to cultivate along the contours of theland, rather than diagonally up and down slopes of the drumlins (Chapman and Putnam 125-126, 1984).

Meaford’s harbour is located at the mouth of the Bighead River. The river drains an area of 120 square miles,including a part of the Niagara Escarpment and wooded upland. It features a winding course as it travelsaround the many drumlins in the area. The river continues to wind slightly through the sandy-clay soils atMeaford before reaching Georgian Bay, where the mouth of the river serves as a harbour for small boats,protected by a concrete pier (Chapman and Putnam 87-88, 1984).


12/65



MHBC July 2013

Excerpt from map of Georgian Bay shoreline, showing location of Meaford (denoted by arrow). Source: National Atlas ofCanada, Toporama: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html

2.3 Historical settlement and context

The underlying topography, drainage system, ameliorating climate and proximity to the Georgian Bay

shoreline made this area ideal for human settlement, both in the pre-contact period prior to Euro-Canadiansettlement and in later years as the area transformed and evolved from wilderness on the shore of GeorgianBay to a thriving settlement. The following section briefly summarizes those key themes of historical activitythat have accounted for the changing landscape and its appearance today. Some of the historicalbackground references buildings and locations outside the study area, and while these properties will notform part of the proposed district, they form an important part of the development of Meaford andcontribute to the understanding of properties within the study area boundary.

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.htmlhttp://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.htmlhttp://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.htmlhttp://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html


13/65



MHBC July 2013

2.3.1 Settlement Origins

The site of Meaford and the surrounding area has a high potential for aboriginal activity sites, due to thegenerally well-drained soil, potable water sources and navigation routes along the shoreline of Georgian Bayand the Bighead River. The area was traveled by “Petun” natives (Algonquin and Hurons) who likely fished,hunted and camped in the area. A reportedly well-used aboriginal trail along the river suggested the areawas used for transportation and hunting grounds (Stanley Knight Collection & Contributors, 14).

Archaeological sites in the Meaford area have uncovered chert, projectile points and stone pipes.Reportedly, early settlers found a large skull at a point jutting out near the mouth of the river, which theypresumed to be the burial site of an aboriginal chief. The Bighead River was named for this discovery (StVincent Heritage Association, 83).

The municipality now known as Meaford was part of the 1818 treaty called the Lake Simcoe-Nottawasagapurchase. It included 1,592,000 acres from north of Toronto to south shores of Georgian Bay, east to LakeSimcoe, and west to the line between Home and London districts (the boundary between Sydenham and St.Vincent Townships) (St. Vincent Heritage Association, 20).

The 1864 map of Meaford records an “Indian Camp” southeast of the harbour. The authors presume use ofthis camp was rare, citing diary entry of Peter Fuller in 1853: “two canoe loads of indians arrived today fromthe lower end of the Bay and established themselves in a couple of Wigwams on the beach at the mouth ofthe river” (St. Vincent Heritage Association, 16). It is not known how frequently or infrequently the site wasactually used, and when use of it stopped or was stopped by settlement and development.

St. Vincent Township was surveyed between 1833 and 1835 by Charles Rankin (and others including A.Rankin, J. Bulmer, J. Thine, Jas. McCarten, Cuthbert Amiotte, C. Solomon, Martin Ploof, L. Thibeau, PierreGervais) commencing 1833 (finishing 1835). A 200 acre town reserve was set aside at mouth of BigheadRiver, containing lot 16 on Concessions 4 and 5 (Stanley Knight Collection, 14).

St. Vincent Township was isolated in the initial years after its survey, with long distances between majorcommunities of trade and commerce. Rankin’s survey and provision of town reserve at the Bay shoreidentified Meaford as a significant location. Although the harbour was not large enough for big ships, as itwas difficult to navigate the mouth due to a burden of silt (the product of many floods), the river was a goodsource of waterpower for future mill and industrial sites, provided the river could be ‘tamed’. The site hadbeen noted as a meeting point for voyageurs and small trading post with the natives (St. Vincent HeritageAssociation, 283).

The originally surveyed lots to become Meaford include:

“two broken front lots, 15 and 16 in Concession 4, along the shore to the east of the river and in concession 5 , fourlots – 14, 15, 16, 17 – the first three measuring 200 acres each, and the northernmost a broken front lot. The lots

were immediately made available for sale except for Lots 16, concession 4 and 5, which had been set aside from thevery beginning as a clergy reserve and then as Crown Land being reserved for a town site” (St. Vincent HeritageAssociation, 283).

Lots 14, 15 and 17 in concession 5 were crown grants already patented in 1836. John R. Morden was givenLot 17, Abraham Fraser was granted half of Lot 15 and Daniel Fraser the other half. Within three years the lotswere all sold as a single parcel to James Becket/Bicket (spelling varies), a speculator (St. Vincent Heritage


14/65



MHBC July 2013

Association 284). Lot 15 Con. 4 was part of the Thomas Workman Estate, who added his property to the townreserve in 1835.

Settlement in the Meaford area began c. 1840, with the arrival of David Miller, who built a log cabin on thesouth bank of the Bighead River (near present-day Boucher Street between Henry and Denmark Streets, justoutside of the study area). Miller had emigrated from Ireland with his family, and named the site Peggy’s

Landing after his wife. David Miller selected an additional mill site downstream from the Owen Street Bridgeand began constructing a mill but ran out of money or means to complete project. Moses Chantler assistedin the construction of the mill and began operation in 1844. The mill was located just outside boundary oftown reserve (St. Vincent Historical Association, 285)

William Stephenson, of England, acquired land north of the town reserve in the 1840s and built an inn, theMeaford Arms, at present-day Bayfield Street (between Parker and Lombard). This area became known asStephenson’s Landing. He was appointed first postmaster for St. Vincent, carrying mail between Meaford andBarrie. The trail he used known as the “Old Mail Road” (Stanley Knight Collection, 14).

In 1845 William Gibbard subdivided the town reserve, named the area Meaford, after Meaford Hall in

Stafordshire England, the seat of the Earl of St. Vincent, for whom the township was named. St. Vincent wasthe name used for the post office until 1867. Many of Gibbard’s streets were named after British naval officers(Nelson, Trowbridge, Collingwood, Owen, Bayfield, Parker, Pearson, Cook, Noble, Berry, Sykes and Boucher).Gibbard’s plan envisioned Nelson Street as the primary commerce area, and the street was given a widerallowance than others for military defence reasons. It was supposed that any attacks on Meaford wouldcome from the water, and the wide street allowance of Nelson Street would allow troops to rally fromWinthuysan Square (located between Owen Street and Nobel Street, presently the hospital). The first lots inthe official townsite of Meaford were sold in 1846 to Joseph Hamilton, a blacksmith (Stanley KnightCollection, 14-15).

The subdivision of the town reserve created a dispute amongst the mill operators at the time. In completinghis survey, Gibbard realized that Lot 16 was not wide enough for a road allowance at Boucher Street. He

removed the original survey posts, and relocated the lot line approximately 50 feet onto David Miller’sproperty, threatening Miller with jail if he resisted the adjustment. Miller did go to jail, and found himself in adispute with Chanter, who wanted to buy the property but requested a lower payment due to the reducedsize of the land. Miller’s land was sold to Jesse Purdy in 1846.

By the 1850s, the Purdy’s had established a saw mill, a grist mill and a woolen factory. Chantler appears tohave constructed a new mill as well. The mills were located along the Bighead River between present-dayOwen Street and Sykes Street, south of Boucher Street. Purdy’s arrival in the Meaford area resulted in morethan just mills; he hired a surveyor to subdivide Lot 15 Concession 5, south of the river and town reserve andlaid out streets named after his children: Seymour, William Henry, Edwin, Edwin, Marshall, Adelbert andHarriet. The subdivision was named Purdytown, and housed a number of Purdy’s relatives and mill workers.Purdy also opened the first school in the area, with his daughter Harriet as the teacher, and was involved in

local politics, serving as the director of the Northern Railway when it came through Collingwood and Barrie(1855) and became member of Parliament in 1858. He served as reeve of township in 1852, 1860 and 1861(St. Vincent Historical Association, 291).

The 1846 text from Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer contains the following description of the settlement, at thattime called St. Vincent:


15/65



MHBC July 2013

ST. VINCENT. A Township in the Simcoe District; is bounded on the north by the Nottawasaga Bay; on the west by the

township of Sydenham; on the south by Euphrasia; and on the east by Nottawasaga Bay and thetownship of Collingwood. In St. Vincent 17, 028 acres are taken up, 1592 of which are under cultivation.This township is beginning to settle up fast: it contains good land, and some thriving farms. The principalsettlements are a short distance from the bay. There is an Indian village on the bay, near the town line

between St. Vincent and Sydenham, the inhabitants of which possess a fine tract of land in theneighbourhood. St. Vincent was added to the Simcoe District in 1844, previous to which time, it formed a

portion of the Home District. One thousand five hundred acres of Crown lands are open for sale in thetownship, at 8s. currency per acre. There are two grist and two saw mills in the township. There has as yetbeen no return of the population from St. Vincent. Ratable property in the township, £6758.

2.3.2 Commercial core development

In the mid-19th century the area surrounding present-day Owen Street (outside of the study area) wasreportedly the industrial heart of Meaford, with mills and collection of trades including blacksmiths,shoemakers, coopers, carpenters and masons (St. Vincent Historical Association, 292). By the 1860s, Nelson

Street between Bayfield and Sykes Street (within the study area) had become the main commercial area ofthe community, as imagined by Surveyor Gibbard in laying the village plan. The street contained shops,trades, residences, a Wesleyan Church and parsonage, a hotel and, at the southeast corner of Sykes andNelson, the drill hall at Market Square. During this time, commercial development along Sykes Street hadbegun but was still relatively scattered.

In 1867, the following commercial blocks and individual commercial buildings were constructed: Sing’s Blockat 28 Sykes Street North, Pilgrem’s Block at 30 Sykes Street North, Milne’s White Block at 48 Sykes StreetNorth, Stewart’s at 25 Sykes Street North, Stovel-Sing Building at 32 Sykes Street North, the Ryan Hotel atNelson and Sykes Street and the Farmer’s Home Temperance House on the west side of Sykes Street.

The following year, additional commercial properties along Sykes Street had appeared, including the LangBlock on the east side of Sykes Street, the Brown Block on the East side of Sykes Street, the Plunkett Block at

38 Sykes Street. The Wharf warehouse by the waterfront had also been restored.

In 1869, development began extending further in the village core, to include Tyson’s Steam Flour Mill atDenmark Street and St. Vincent Street, the Victoria Planing Mill at Boucher and Sykes Street, the RomanCatholic Church at the Northwest corner of Cook and Collingwood Streets. On Sykes Street, the VictoriaHotel (later the Blue Water Hotel) was constructed at Sykes and Collingwood Streets.

In the early 1870s came the construction of more commercial blocks, hotels and banks, including the CooperBlock at Sykes and Trowbridge Streets (1870), the Chisholm Block at the southwest corner of Nelson Streetand Sykes Street (1871), the Hill’s Livery Stable at Sykes and Parker Streets (1871), the Sewell Block at 6 SykesStreet north (1871) and the railway station, freight shed and water tank at station hill (outside the study area),and the Molson’s Bank at Sykes Nelson Streets (1873). During this time, plank sidewalks were constructed

along Sykes Street.

A series of fires in the 1880s damaged much of Sykes Street and prompted re-construction of many of theoriginal buildings. The following buildings survived the 1880s fires: 25-27 Sykes Street (Stewarts Brothers’Block), 28-30 Sykes Street (Sing Block), 32-34 Sykes Street (Sing-Agnew building), 50,52,54 Sykes Street(Chisholm Block). The following buildings were constructed after the 1881 fire: 36-44 Sykes Street, 46-48Sykes Street. The following were constructed after the 1883 fire: 29 Sykes Street, 35 Sykes Street (ClelandHardware), 43 Sykes Street, 45-47 Sykes Street. The Molson’s Bank at 68 Sykes Street (formerly the Meaford


16/65



MHBC July 2013

Express) was constructed after the 1892 fire, and the Merchant’s Bank at 26 Sykes Street (now BMO) wasconstructed after the 1903 fire. The town hall was destroyed by fire in 1907, and was replaced in 1909 withthe existing Edwardian style structure. Although the numerous fires devastated many businesses, theresulting construction between the two decades created a downtown core with a number of structures ofsimilar character, particularly red brick façades with Italianate influence in design.

Excerpt from 1864 Plan of Town Lots Adjoining Meaford produced by Cyrus R. Sing, showing study area (land north ofParker Street not included on the map).


17/65



MHBC July 2013

Meaford commercial core on “Band Day”, looking north along Sykes Street, early 20th century. From Pictorial Meaford

2.3.3 Harbour and railway development

Historical documentation of the Meaford harbour is rather scarce. The local history compiled by the St.Vincent Historical Association notes that by the mid 1850s, some improvements were being made to theHarbour in the community of Meaford. The 1864 map of Meaford shows some development along thewaterfront, including a pier, storehouse and wharf to handle the Township’s export of wheat, a steam factory,hotels and stores. The arrival of steam power allowed industry to increase. A planing Mill run by J.R. Mitchelland Co, D. Sinclair’s foundry and the Charles Carney steam tannery were located along the waterfront ornearby. Commercial and civic growth during this time was clustered along Nelson Street, near the harbour,indicating the importance of that location for shipping or transportation. By the mid 1860s, Meaford alsofeatured steam ships which provided access to other communities on Georgian Bay. Around 1870, a fisherythat had been established at Cape Rich was beginning to relocate to Meaford. Boat builder William Pillgrem

built a steam tug and began collecting catches from fishermen around the Bay, packed them on ice inbarrels made by local coopers and shipped to several destinations, including the United States (St. VincentHistorical Association 300). A grain elevator, replacing the one at Station Hill, was constructed at the harbouraround the turn of the century (Stanley Knight Collection, 81). Images from the Stanley Knight Collection inPictorial Meaford depict the harbour used for shipping and receiving goods like coal and lumber, forpassenger steamers, a small commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing and boating.

Left, Meaford Harbour in 1896, showing sailboat and steam passenger boats. Right: Meaford Harbour and the grainelevator. Date of photo unknown. Pictorial Meaford


18/65



MHBC July 2013

Unloading lumber at the harbour, looking towards the intersection of Bayfield and Nelson Streets. Image dateunknown, Pictorial Meaford.

The North Grey Railway arrived in Meaford in 1872, nearly two decades after it had reached Collingwood.Local history sources note that the process was a controversial one, with debates about where the stationshould be located. It was constructed at a location known as “Station Hill” bordered by present-day Highway26, Paul Street, Union Street, Farrar Street and Burton Street. Many had lobbied for the construction of thestation below the hill. Local builder Frank Law of the Victoria Planing mills constructed the station, as well asfreight sheds, a roundhouse turntable, water tank and cattle sheds. Between 1884 and 1885 a grain elevatorwas constructed.

The railway accessed Meaford through Station Hill until 1899, when new tracks were laid to connect therailway to the Harbour. A Grand Trunk Railway Station was reportedly relocated to the harbour (it is notknown where the station was relocated from). The relocation of the railway coincided with harbourimprovements, with the goal of making Meaford competitive with other waterfront-railway ports. A new

grain storage elevator was constructed, along with sheds and sidings, a roundhouse, turntable and watertank. The relocation of the railway faced a challenge in engineering grades that the railway could safely travelon from the high hill at its previous location to the new, much lower location at the waterfront. A 1913 firedestroyed the grain elevator.

The relocated railway operated for about 60 years. It was enjoyed by local residents and visitors whoembarked on railway excursions to nearby towns. The station was particularly well used during the SecondWorld War, when local members of the armed forces arrived and departed from it. By the 1960s, freightservice declined with only one train arriving in Meaford a day, and passenger service was discontinued dueto the increase in automobile traffic. Although some citizens wished to see the station preserved, relocatedand used as a museum, it was demolished in 1965 (Stanley Knight Collection, 73).


19/65



MHBC July 2013

Left, Meaford Railway station at the harbour, date of image not known. Right: aerial view of railway area at harbour, dateof image unknown. Both from Pictorial Meaford.

2.3.4

Development of residential neighbourhoods

Detailed information relating to the development of Meaford’s residential neighbourhoods is relativelyscattered. These areas as a whole are generally not described in detail in local historical sources, thoughsome mention is made of particular individual residences associated with key persons and events in thetown’s history. This section has been compiled using the limited information contained in the local histories,historic maps, census data and newspaper clippings.

Up to 1850, Meaford contained only approximately ten dwellings. Population growth began to increase afterthis date, likely due to increased immigration to Ontario and improved transportation networks. Many lots inPurdytown were held in speculation, with settlement scattered in the subdivision (St. Vincent HistoricalAssociation, 292). The 1861 C.R. Sing plan for Meaford shows a handful of buildings south of the river inPurdytown that may have been residences, or a combination of residence/store/trade. Within the study area,

another scattering of buildings east of Sykes Street on Parker Street, Collingwood Street and TrowbridgeStreet may also have been residences or a combination of profession/living quarters. Approximately a dozenstructures are depicted west of Sykes Street that may also have been residences. Growth of the residentialneighbourhoods would have increased steadily in the following decades.

In 1974, recognition was paid to over 120 Century homes in Meaford. The following houses in the study areahave been identified as having been constructed by 1874: 186 Bayfield Street, 106 Bridge Street, 116 BridgeStreet, 43 Collingwood Street East, 34 Collingwood Street West, 37 Cook Street, 133 Cook Street, 30 LombardStreet, 35 Lombard Street, 46-48 Lombard Street, 53 Lombard Street, 53 Nelson Street East, 21 Nelson StreetWest, 46 Nelson Street West, 36 Parker Street West, 43 Parker Street West, 44 Parker Street West, 33

Trowbridge Street and 40 Trowbridge Street. By the present date, there are several more century home thanwere recognized in the 1970s.

Fire insurance plans from 1925 show that by this date houses or businesses had been constructed on manyof the lots in the residential (or mixed use) neighbourhoods within the study area. More contemporarybuildings have replaced earlier structures or occupied the few vacant lots that were available in the 20th century.


20/65



MHBC July 2013

Excerpts from 1925 Fire Insurance Plans showing residential development within much of the study area.

2.3.5 1900-1960s: The automobile age

By the 1920s, increased use of automobiles prompted highway improvements for Highway 26, the road joining Meaford with Collingwood and Owen Sound. The Highway was widened, and the previous entrance

to Meaford from the south was altered to avoid the steep hill and dangerous crossing at Edwin Street. Thesechanges primarily affected roadways and crossings outside of the study area, however Nelson Street, oncethe widest street in the town, was reduced to a standard road allowance in 1921 by increasing the size of theboulevards. The town roads that had once been dirt and gravel increasingly became paved, with curbsdelineating separate areas for pedestrians and vehicles. The concentration of commercial developmentalong Sykes Street directed traffic down this thoroughfare, and gradually, away from the waterfront. Garages,carports and driveways, previously not part of residential properties, became frequent features on newlyconstructed infill or replacement properties, and in some cases, additions to existing dwellings.

The biggest change brought on by the automobile era came in the 1960s. The increase of motor vehicle andtransport truck traffic reduced the use of railways across the country. By the 1960s in Meaford, only one train

a day was arriving at the station.

2.3.6

Conclusions

The growth and transformation of Meaford from wilderness to settled community over two centuries isaccounted for by a variety of historical themes of human activity that when woven together provide a richlypatterned cultural heritage resource and several key historical themes. Early milling activity, together withthe development the harbour, railway and other industries established initial settlement within the townreserve grid, as well as outside of it.


21/65



MHBC July 2013

Commercial enterprises began to concentrate along Sykes Street in the latter half of the 19th century,forming a downtown corridor in the village. Numerous fires in the latter 19th century and early 20th centuryresulted in two decades of building and re-building and created a downtown corridor with a relativelyuniform character and materials palette. Fires and development changes between Sykes Street and theWaterfront resulted in a more mixed appearance, with structures of varying dates, styles and alterations. Inrecent years, several buildings in this area have been demolished, with new infill taking their place, or have

become vacant lots available for re-development.

The remaining residential areas developed throughout the last two centuries, with houses spanning a widerange of construction dates and styles. The mixed character of the residential neighbourhoods reflectstypical changes of southern Ontario village life over time.

2.4 Built Heritage Character

The overall character of the area is an eclectic mix that includes commercial and residential buildings thatrange in date from the 1860s to the present. While Sykes Street is almost entirely commercial, other streetsexhibit a mix of residential and commercial buildings.

The greatest concentration of heritage structures occurs along the Sykes Street commercial core. Manybuildings on Sykes Street were damaged in fires in the late 19th century. Buildings of brick constructionreplaced those that had burnt, establishing a durable and relatively consistent streetscape of red brickfaçades. Some wealthy merchants erected substantial and architecturally-impressive brick commercialbuildings on Sykes Street. Remaining examples from this period are two to three storeys tall and typicallyItalianate in style. The similar heights of the buildings and the uniform setback from the street form a wallalong Sykes Street and establish the look and feel of the commercial core character.

Residential neighbourhoods within the study area contain houses in a variety of styles. There are manyexamples of vernacular construction with modifications such as alterations, window and entrancereplacements and synthetic cladding. Even with the alterations, some buildings still demonstrate historic

form and proportions. There are also a number of good examples of particular architectural styles, includingGothic Revival, Italianate, Second Empire, Queen Anne and Edwardian. More contemporary buildingsdemonstrate influence of post-war victory housing, mid-century modern design, and ranch style houses.Many houses are clad in red brick or synthetic siding, though a handful still feature clapboard cladding orstone.

Many buildings associated with early settlement have been destroyed by fire, demolished or are locatedoutside of the study area. Some, including properties on the southwest side of Collingwood Street, aproperty at 46 Bayfield Street and at 156 Sykes Street and a have been modified with contemporarycladding, but their historic form is still recognizable.

Few of the buildings associated with the railway and harbour remain, with the exception of a small framebuilding once used to hold luggage for the railway, and the former pump house, now part of the MeafordMuseum. There are also very few remnants of the former commercial area on Nelson Street from the 1860s.

The street is now lined with residential properties of varying ages and vacant lots. The former drill hall ofmarket square has been converted to a commercial establishment, but its historic form is still evident andthere is some remaining brick corbelling.

The northeast corner of Nelson and Sykes street now contains two landmark structures from the late 19th andearly 20th centuries: the former town hall and fire station. The town hall was constructed in 1909 to replace


22/65



MHBC July 2013

the 1864 town hall that was destroyed in a 1907 fire. The fire hall was constructed in 1887, with the toweradded in 1908. These two buildings are the only buildings in the former Town of Meaford designated underPart IV of the Ontario Heritage Act .

Four churches are contained within the study area; two stone (English and Gospel Workers) and two brick(Baptist) and the former Knox Presbyterian. An early frame Baptist church at the corner of Cook Street andCollingwood has been extensively modified and converted to a residence.

Three historic purpose-built banks are located along Sykes Street: the former Molson’s Bank at 68 SykesStreet North, constructed in 1893; the former Merchant’s Bank at 26 Sykes Street North, constructed in 1904;and the Toronto Dominion Bank at 53 Sykes Street, constructed in 1921. The Merchant’s bank is now theBank of Montreal and the Toronto Dominion Bank is still a TD bank.

Early twentieth century infill is fairly unobtrusive, since the materials, scale and historically derived-stylesgenerally fit well with the earlier buildings. In contrast, mid-twentieth century buildings generally stand outbecause of their scale and form, use of modern materials and rejection of historical styles. Buildings builtsince 1970 have been identified in the building inventory (See Appendix A) as contemporary in style.

2.4.1 Commercial built form

Commercial buildings are primarily concentrated along Sykes Street, with some located along the sidestreets, located amongst or within residential structures. The majority of the 19 th and early 20th centurycommercial buildings on Sykes Street are two to three storeys, and there are a number of commercial blocksof two or more units that retain a unified appearance.

The typical nineteenth-century commercial building found in the study area is the “two-part” commercialblock, typically two or three storeys tall. The two-part division reflects differences in use inside and ischaracterized by a horizontal division between commercial uses at street level and other uses above.Surviving examples are of brick construction and Italianate in style with ornate cornices and decorativetreatments around upper floor windows. The lower street level is configured for commercial use, with largewindows to display merchandise. Shop-fronts have a recessed central door flanked by large displaywindows. A separate entrance to the upper floor(s) is located to one side of the shop-front. The commercialbuildings are almost entirely constructed of or clad with red brick, many with buff brick detailing. Several ofthe storefronts on the first storey have synthetic cladding applied on top of the historic fabric.

Examples of commercial blocks on Sykes Street


23/65



MHBC July 2013

Two storey bank buildings became popular in the late 19th and early 20th century. The earliest of these (theMerchant’s Bank at 68 Sykes Street) was influenced by Italianate of architecture, then was modified in theearly 20th century to include classical details found in the emerging Beaux Arts Style (though this examplefeatures far less decorative elements than high-style Beaux Arts example). The Molson’s Bank at 26

Trowbridge Street was built in 1904 with the classical detailing influenced Beaux Arts design, as was the 1921 Toronto Dominion Bank at 53 Sykes Street. This architectural style was popular for early 20 th century banks,

and public buildings, and featured an eclectic mix of classical features while straying from the traditionalclassical proportions (see appendix B for detailed description of architectural style).

Examples of late 19th and early 20th century bank buildings on Sykes Street

In many places, 19th century commercial buildings were built with residential quarters above. There are somesurviving examples of early frame buildings, which are typically two-storeys with a gable end facing thestreet. These buildings sometimes had fenced yards and a more domestic character than the commercialblock counterparts. The commercial area was located at the front, with residential quarters located in theback and on the upper floors. Surviving examples in the study area have been significantly altered over the

years. They are typically vernacular in design.

Left, 20 Trowbridge Street, listed on 1864 map as C. Burns boot maker. Right, example of commercial buildingwith residential quarters above, formerly at the northwest corner of Sykes and Nelson Street, date of imageunknown. From Pictorial Meaford.

Outside of Sykes Street, some of the commercial properties are located in former residences. These includedental offices along the south side of Collingwood Street East and a doctor’s office on Cook Street. The


24/65



MHBC July 2013

residential character of these buildings is still apparent, as traditional front yard spaces have beenmaintained. While it was not uncommon for 19th century commercial buildings to be built with residentialquarters above and for the buildings to have a completely domestic character, these particular structures,influenced by the Queen Anne architectural style, were purpose-built residences that became businesses inthe latter 20th century.

2.4.2

Public and Institutional built form

The study area contains several (existing and former) public and institutional buildings from the late 19th century to the mid 20th century. These are located in small clusters at Nelson and Sykes Streets and on

Trowbridge Street West. The former armoury (now the Home Hardware store) was built in 1912 at MarketSquare set back from Sykes Street between Collingwood Street and Nelson Street. Although it has beenmodified to convert it to a commercial use, brick corbelling is still visible on the north side. South of theformer armoury, at the corner and on Nelson Street are the Town Hall (completed 1909 to replace the 1864structure destroyed by fire) and the former fire hall, built in 1887. The fire hall demonstrates an influence ofItalianate architecture while the Town Hall is an example of Edwardian Classicism. The open space off SykesStreet served as the main public square in the town, and featured three buildings important to the identify

and functions of a small town during the late 19th

and early 20th

century.

Examples of public and institutional built form, the town hall and former fire hall on Nelson Street

During the 20th century, municipal public and institutional buildings began shifting to Trowbridge Street. Thenew post office was constructed there in 1935. By the mid century, a new post office was constructed justtwo doors down from the 1935 post office. Later, municipal offices were constructed between the two postoffice buildings, and in 1967 the 1935 post office was transformed to the public library as a centennialproject. Recently, the Meaford Chamber of commerce has occupied a commercial building across the streetfrom the library. This cluster of public, municipal and institutional buildings reflects the 20th century changesin Meaford and varied architectural styles, and together with the two churches on the street provides a smallhub of public and community services that have developed over the past 100 years.

A number of churches exist within the study area. These include the Christ Church Anglican at 34 BoucherStreet, the Bethany Church of the Nazarene at 40 Trowbridge Street, the First Baptist Church at 35

Trowbridge Street and the former Knox Presbyterian Church at 52 Nelson Street. The churches wereconstructed between the 1870s and 1930s, but generally all contain interpretations of traditional ecclesiasticarchitecture based on Gothic Revival design, including rose window and lancet windows.


25/65



MHBC July 2013

Christ Church Anglican on Boucher Street (left) and First Baptist Church on Trowbridge (right)

2.4.3 Residential built form

The study area features a variety of residential built form. A few vernacular examples depicted on the 1864map of the town still exist within the study area, these frame structures have since been clad in syntheticsiding or brick, but still demonstrate the form and proportions of mid 19 th century vernacular residentialdesign.

Many of the residential properties in the study area are variations of a one to one and one half storey‘cottage’ design. Some of these show influence of the popular “Ontario Gothic Cottage” style, which typicallyfeatured a small one to one and one half storey residence with a cross gable roof and central gable in asymmetrical façade. These types of buildings were common in rural areas and also in towns and villageswhere they often housed for workers, merchants and families.

As the town grew and became more prosperous with a growing commercial core in the latter decades of

the 19th century and early 20th century, larger detached brick residences were constructed of brick (and a fewof stone) in more elaborate Gothic Revival design, Italianate, Second Empire, Queen Anne and Edwardian.Many of the residential properties in Meaford are large, two to two and one half storey buildings. Several ofthese buildings have been converted into apartment units, with modifications to add separate side or rearentrances, balconies or fire escapes.In the 20th century, residential building forms in Meaford began to return to lower profile, one to one andone half storey dwellings in cottage, mid-century or ranch style designs.

The majority of residential buildings in the study area are detached dwellings, although there are someduplex and triplex row-houses. These dwellings were typically workers housing. The surviving examples canbe found at 53-55 Collingwood Street West, 179-181 Cook Street, 46-48 Lombard Street and 88-92 BayfieldStreet.


26/65



MHBC July 2013

A range of residential building styles within the study area

2.4.4 Building stock and integrity

As part of the heritage study report, an overview of the building stock condition contained within the studyarea was undertaken to ascertain any patterns of alterations, deterioration or maintenance issues related toboth building type and component construction materials. This review will assist in providing conservationand design guidelines anticipated to be prepared as part of the heritage conservation district plan andguidelines.


27/65



MHBC July 2013

2.4.4.1 Three centuries of building design and construction

Most nineteenth century village commercial cores have a building stock that represents a narrow windowof time. In Meaford, the commercial core is generally reflective of the 1880s and 1890s, with somebuildings from the first two decades of the 20th century and some contemporary infill.

Some of the older buildings in the study area, dating to the mid 19 th century such as 53-55 CollingwoodStreet West, 21 Collingwood Street, 156 Sykes Street and 46 Nelson Street are vernacular side gable or frontgable structures with minimal decorative detailing. These frame buildings have been clad in syntheticsiding.

156 Sykes Street and 53-55 Collingwood street are examples of vernacular mid-19th century dwellings where thehistoric form is still evident even though the buildings have been modified.

The late nineteenth century also brought some notable examples of Italianate inspired decorativecommercial buildings on Sykes Street. Other buildings demonstrate influence of the renaissance revival type

of the Italianate style, such as 29 and 45-47 Sykes Street, as noted in the decorative dichromatic brickworkarches above the windows.

Elaborate brickwork at 29 and 45-47 Sykes Street


28/65



MHBC July 2013

Nineteenth century commercial buildings were characterized by:

• A narrow rhythm of storefront openings which were primarily glazed to the largest extent possiblegiven the structural limitations of the wood or iron beams that supported upper floors (typically 85%glazed on the ground floor). Two storey glazed storefronts were not possible.

•

Second (and third) floor openings were “punched” openings limited in width by the brick arches orstone lintels that created those openings. Glazing was usually in the order of 25% to 50% of wallarea.

• Storefronts were generally defined by decorative surrounds which incorporated their owndecorative cornice, pilasters and sign panels.

As twentieth century steel framing techniques and materials improved, larger spans were possible.Storefronts could span full width of the shop front without intermediate support. Second storey windowopenings could be wider with steel lintels that did not rely on arching masonry. Many storefronts have beenmodified using contemporary construction techniques and materials. Some of these are still reflective of the

original commercial window form, but use steel supports and larger single panes of glass rather than thehistorical use of wood supports (often decorative) and multiple glass panes.

Early storefront glazing (Pictorial Meaford) and later adaptations on Sykes Street

Most of the nineteenth century buildings of potential heritage value or interest are found along Sykes Streetfrom Collingwood Street to Trowbridge Street, though there are also some between Trowbridge and BridgeStreets. They are all purpose-built commercial buildings, and are a mixture of buildings that survived fires orwere constructed after earlier buildings were destroyed by fire. The infill that has occurred to complete theseblocks contains, in general, red brick buildings that are one to two storeys, and while they are different inshape and massing than the 19th century buildings, do not overwhelm the streetscape.


29/65



MHBC July 2013

The early 20th century building (left) and late 20 th century building (right) are notably different than the 1880scommercial blocks, but still fit in to the streetscape.

2.4.4.2

Overall maintenance condition

Some buildings display a lack of maintenance; peeling paint, shingles in need of replacement, brokenshutters, etc. Other building show signs of past masonry repairs or appear to be in need of re-pointing. Fromthe pedestrian realm, a small number of buildings appear to have structural damage due to a lack ofmaintenance.

Generally, windows, doors, shingles and gutters have been replaced throughout the study area. Often, theonly evidence of the heritage character of an altered or much changed building is an older window stillremaining or an original brick chimney still visible above a roof line. These original building features aregenerally still in good repair.

There was no evidence of serious efflorescence (i.e. mineral deposits left by evaporated water) on brick

buildings visible from the public realm. Spalling of brick (i.e. loss of brick surface) was limited as well. Themajor challenge for maintaining the integrity of the building stock will be, in future years, if changes need tobe made to remaining original windows and entrances, or if masonry repairs need to be made.

2.4.4.3 Alterations-major

Major alterations have been made to a number of buildings within the study area. One of the most involvedhas been a renovation of Meaford Hall, completed in 2006. This involved extensive interior modifications,restoration of the façade, and a contemporary addition to the east to allow for a new entrance staircase andelevator. The addition uses rusticated stone block on the foundation and red brick, and features a pedimentand cornice at the roofline. These features are in keeping with the character and design intent of the originalstructure, but are still distinguishable as contemporary additions. The addition is successful in that it does not

overwhelm the original appearance of the original building and also creates the necessary space andamenities for the building to function.


30/65



MHBC July 2013

Meaford hall c. Early 29th century and Meaford Hall today

Another successful major alteration can be found at 78 Bridge Street. The rear garage addition is very visiblebecause the house is located on a corner lot at Bridge Street and St. Vincent Street. While the proportions ofthe garage addition do not completely reflect the original design of the house, the addition features redbrick, a steeply pitched hip roof and a dormer gable that features round arched windows similar to those inthe original structure. The contemporary addition uses design elements to reflect the original building and iskept to the rear, allowing the remaining façades to be preserved.

A third example of a major alteration is the Meaford Museum, at 111 Bayfield Street. This addition featuresside and front gabled additions to the south and west to allow for more exhibition, administration andresearch/archive space. The gables of the addition are smaller in scale than the original building as not toovershadow the original feature, and feature a contemporary version of the brick corbelling at the roofline.

The successful additional allows for an improved used of the space while still preserving much of the originalbuilding fabric.

The former pump house, now the Meaford Museum

Other major alterations are less sympathetic to the original design of the structure, adding several eclecticand mismatched layers to the buildings including front extensions, or porch enclosures, replacing historicallyproportioned windows with much larger or smaller sizes, changes to rooflines.


31/65



MHBC July 2013

Typical wall section showingpoints of entry for moisture

The conversion of the former Baptist church at 58 Collingwood Street into residential units is anotherexample of major alterations. The building, constructed in 1884, served as a church until 1904. It is not knownat what date the building was modified to create residential units. All the original windows were removed orreplaced, the roofline was modified and gable dormers were added. These changes are not consideredreversible.

Meaford Baptist Church c. 1901, and the building today, altered to residential units

2.4.4.4 Alterations-minor

Most of the buildings within the study area have been altered in some way over the years. Change ofoccupancy in commercial buildings will have, at a minimum, required changes to signage. What followsdescribes the common types of alterations, although minor by comparison to those major interventionsnoted above, that have the potential to diminish the appreciation of the heritage value of older buildingsand damage the exterior fabric of any building.

The application of synthetic finishes has been a common solution, in most urbanareas with nineteenth century buildings, to either freshen the appearance orcreate a new visual image for an aging building stock. Paint, cementitiouscoatings, prefinished metal or vinyl siding or exterior insulation and finish systems(EIFS) may provide an economical ‘face lift’, but most come with a cost, not theleast of which is that they conceal historic original material and detail.

Paint, particularly oil-based paints, reduces the ability of a masonry wall to dry andconsequently increase the likelihood of spalling during winter freeze thaw cycles.While some would argue that a painted surface provides a level of protection fromsaturation during a rain, water may enter the structure in a number of other ways.

Dampness in the ground adjacent to a masonry foundation can wick its way upthrough the masonry. Moisture can enter a wall from flashing leaks at roof level,old or improperly caulked joints around window and door opening and even highinterior humidity’s where no vapour barrier exists in older construction. Thismoisture needs to be allowed to escape from the masonry in the drying cyclethrough the inherent porosity of the masonry and its mortar joints. There are‘breathable’ coatings and stains for masonry but these are relatively expensive products. Painting should beavoided and further guidance will be provided as part of the District Plan and Guidelines if a decision is madeto proceed with their preparation.


32/65



MHBC July 2013

Prefinished metal and vinyl sidings can have negative effects as well. It is inevitable that fastenings for theseproducts, whether applied directly or over strapping, will damage original finishes where they existunderneath. If these products are installed to cover up deteriorating conditions, this is often done withoutcorrecting the original problem. Deterioration can continue out of sight.

While there is not a high usage of this in the study area, exterior insulation and finish systems have become

popular in recent years. These systems generally consist of foam insulation mechanically or adhesivelyapplied to a building wall. This substrate is then coated with a thin layer of acrylic based stucco like material.

The finish acrylic coat can be reinforced with fibreglass in varying weights to suit the loads that might beplaced on the surface.

Paint can be removed from masonry with chemical strippers or a combination of chemical strippers andnon-abrasive cleaning, such as the Joss System. More aggressive ‘sand blasting’ is not recommended andwill damage a masonry substrate. This process is not inexpensive. Prefinished sidings can usually be quitesimply removed. Damage to wood or masonry substrates will require repair but that should be minor innature. EIFS can be removed as well. The success of EIFS removal depends on the method of attachment;the residue of adhesive applications may be difficult or impossible to remove and the mechanical

attachment will require repair of fastener holes and flashing attachments.

It should be noted, with the removal of any of these products that if they were originally applied to concealother forms of deterioration or overdue maintenance, those conditions will need to be addressed onceexposed. Guidance on these conservation, maintenance and repair issues will be provided as part of theDistrict Plan and Guidelines if a decision is made to proceed with their preparation.

2.4.4.5 Conclusion

As noted, the built heritage character of the study area consists of a range of building types and ages. Thesebuildings provide a context for the historical development and construction of the building stock within thestudy area. Many buildings have undergone modifications over the years in order to increase space,

accommodate new uses or simply to update the look, but there are a number of historic buildings remainingin the area. In general, the building stock is in good condition, which is a reflection of the level ofmaintenance undertaken as well as the vitality of the study area. Many of the historical buildings have beenmaintained at their current height, maintaining the overall historic scale of the study area.

2.4.5 Heritage Conservation district plan and guidelines

The heritage conservation district plan will provide detailed guidelines related to the maintenance and repairof existing buildings, as well as guidance related to new construction and sympathetic additions tobuildings.


33/65



MHBC July 2013

2.5 Landscape context and character

2.5.1 Introduction

Human intervention that began in the early 19th Century combined with elements such as topography, soils,and microclimate have created a new cultural environment with a landscape context and visual characterthat is distinct and separate from the natural environment. This section examines the context and characterof the study area through an inventory and assessment of the landscape.

The inventory and assessment aids in determining the contribution of open spaces, vegetation, and hardlandscap

Documents

Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study - Preliminary Draft for Public Review and Comment_report Body Version 2