Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - Draft HIA-324 Old Huron Rd - Proposed Plan of SubdivisionHeritage Impact Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, Kitchener, ON prepared b~- The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. landscape architects, e~viro~mental planners, heritage Manners 319 Wool«ich Street, Guelph, ON N1H 3W4 (~ 19) 824-8664 fai (519) 824-6776 em1i1 landplan~n',thelandplan.com Website ~~w~ti.thelandplan.com March 16, 2011 - ~ e~~~ ~.~ T,~. Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitchener Table of Contents LO BACKGROUND ............................................................. 1 2.0 SITE HISTORY .............................................................. 2 3.0 THE CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE(S) ..................................... ~ 4.0 THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ............................................... 12 ~.0 SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES OF THE RESOURCE(S) .................. 14 6.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT on ADJACENT LANDS ............................. 1~ 7.0 PROPOSED SITE ALTERATIONS ............................................. 1 K.0 HERITAGE IMPACTS ....................................................... 17 9.0 OPTIONS, MITIGATION ..................................................... 17 10.0 SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 19 REFERENCES ..................................................................... 20 Appendix 1 -comments in response to the revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared b~- The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated Ma~-14, 2009 ~~ ith the last addendum date of June 30, 2009 (HIA Tei7ns of Reference) Appendix 2 -comments in response to the Heritage linpact Assessment (HIA) prepared b~- The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated September 08, 2010 Appendix 3 -from Heritage Kitchener files Appendix 4 -Selected Descendants of Johannes Woolfang, Jen-~~ Longstrom Appendix ~ -Tree Inventory Appendix 6 - ~S'tructural Report, Store Farmhouse, 32=1 Olcl Hurorr Road, Tacoma Engineers Appendix 7 - `Wildfong' family name, Wilc~fang Fau~ily Tree, Brenda Ways olc Kinsella Horton Appendix 8 -Qualifications of the Consultant The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1G. 2U11 Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, Kitchener 1.0 BACKGROUND 1 A `Heritage Assessment' was prepared b5~ The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. on Mai- 14, 2009, with an addendum issued June 30, 2009. The June 30ti' addendum to the oiigina12009 assessment was to address queries b~- the City- of kitchener' . Neither the assessment, nor the addendum ~~ as i<itended to be a formal Heritage hnpact Assessment (HIA), but ~~-as prepared for the benefit of the o«mer to assess the heritage significance, or lack thereof, of the property. The Cite of Kitchener revie~~ ed the assessment in the conteit of an HIA and provided comments ~, most of ~yhich ~yere related to the need to update the report as a formal HIA. On September 8, 2010, a formal HIA was submitted to the City-. Comments on that submission were provided by the City ~ and are addressed in this Heritage hnpact Assessment. Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that City of Kitchener Council shall have regard to matters of Provincial interest such as the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, histoi7cal, archaeological or scientific interest. In addition, Section 3 of the Pla~rning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS defines "built heritage resource" as one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political economic or militan- history and identified as being important to a comrmmit~-. These resources mad-~ be identified through designation or herit<ge conservation easement under the Ov~tario Her°itage Act, or listed by local provincial or federal jurisdictions. The term "significant" means resources valued for the important contribution they- make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event. or a people. "Conserved" means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a ~ya~- that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. The property- lalo~yn municipally as 324 Old Huron Road is not listed on the Cit<- of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register. This HIA has been prepared and is being submitted in the conteit of a development proposal for the property to assess the significance of the heritage resource(s) and identifi-,assess, and address the possible impacts to the heritage resource(s). i Email from Ian Rawlings, IBI Uroup. May 27, 2009 -comments from Michelle Wade. Cite of Kitchener "Would the loss of some trees to the west of the house and perhaps one or ttvo in front of the house prejudice the heritage yahie of the house on the rest of the lot?" and "Is the bane in and of itself a heritage strncture and would its loss prejudice the heritage ~ralue of the house on the retained lot'?" - City of Kitchener, internal memo: "Cultural Heritage Planning Comments, 324 Old Huron Road, Pre- submission Consultation Meeting" from Yvonne Westeiveld Cardoso. Heritage Planning Technician to Brian Bateman, .Tuly 28, 2009. (Appendil 1) ~ City of Kitchener, intenial memo: "324 Old Huron Road. Pre-submission Meeting Request for Zone Change and Subdivision" from Michelle Wade, Heritage Planner to Brian Bateman, 7anuary 11. 2011. (Appendix 2) The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1G. 2011 Heritage Assessment 2 324 Old Huron Road, Kitchener 2.0 SITE HISTORY °7-- -~._ 4 ~{-3 -.~ Y j~~ 5 .? ~ --~ ~ ~,., ~i'~_ ~. ~~_ f 6 ".. 1 'y r'F I, f,Ts A t f' -. g~~ ~" F n< ~~ `' _ ~ 9 ~ eJ Imo, '~Ni'!J: Jl, l e~c~rpt frr~m~'"~"u'afe Tav~rnship Map"' ~ ~' ~~`'~, ~ ~ ~>` -~'~ Ni~~orie~f ,4fl~s of Water~a~c~ ~ Welfrng~or~ ~ca~~~ies, C~nt~na ~~~,~~~;~ ~.~ t ~ k~~. ~~ t . ~~~, F i u,r~ '1 f~ru~rr-~~ed ?'~s~ - X877 , ~ , , . f ,.:... r .. 324 Huron Road can be found in the Historical Atlas of Waterloo & Wellington Counties, Ontario 1881 - 1877 ~ on the Map of Waterloo Township (page 23). The propert~~ is in the Bier's Tract and a portion of the Hamlet of Strasburg appears to be witlun the property-, according to the map (Figl~re 1). Historiccrl.~tlas of it crterloo & i~ ellingtot~ Counties, Oj~tario, I]]zistrated, 1881 - 1877. The Landplan Collaborati~Te Ltd. March 16. 2011 Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener Of interest are notations in the 1881 Atlas on the hamlet, namely: • A post village in the Township of Waterloo, on the Huron Roaa; near New Aberdeen, distant from Berlin five miles. It contains a good hotel, a general store, carriage and waggon shop, &c. Mails daily. Population ~0. (page 44); and • Strasburg is the name ofa rzrral village toward the south-west corner of the township, which has seen more~t°osperous days, if ~resenta~pearances are reliable as evidence ofapastconditiorr. The status of the dace is not inviting. It is situated beneath a ridge of considerable height, on a sandy area, ana' contains probably 100 inhabitants, with the usual concomitants. (page 8) The first statement flatters the place much snore than the second. Whatever the status of Strasburg in 1881 ~yhen the above notes ~~-ere apparently «ritten, there is little evidence of the hamlet today. From the Region of Waterloo's ~yeb site: A saw mill built by David Weber in 183 on a tt~ibutary of ,Schneider Creek (today called Strasburg Creek, and earlier known as Williamsburg and Aberdeen Creek) was the genesis of Strasburg. Although the hamlet's name re Elected German settlement, this was also an area of~earlyMennonite settlement. The post offrce in nearby New Aberdeen was relocated to Strasburg in 1877; it was closed in 191-~. A school (Waterloo Township .S' S. No. 2) was active from 18-12 to 196=1. The present- day Location is in the vicinity c~fHzrt°on Road and Strasburg Road in Kitchener. ~ 324 Old Huron Road ~~- as settled by Joseph Wildfong ~yhen he purchased 171 acres from John Bean in 1823. In 1853 at age fifty-seven, he held 162 acres valued at £750. His personal property- ~~ as valued at £74 and the total value of his taiable belongings amounted to £824. His son Daniel, age t~yentV-one, «orlced on his father's farm. He also had a son Amos, born Februaw 22, 1847 ~yho later inherited his father's land, inchiding the house, and syho sold the farm out of the family ni 1887.E A title search conducted in July 1980 by Cameron Shantz reveals the o~tinership of the property from 1823. It is interesting to note the various spellings of the family name, Woolfang, Wildfong, Wilfong, Wildfang, Wiltfong. Althoughthe Shantz title search sho~ys the spelling ofthe son Amos as `Wilfong', the `Eby Book'8 and the `Wildfong family histoi-~-'' sho«- the spelling as `Wildfong'. From research conducted by the author, the Wilfong f~unily of Doon does not appear to be closely related to the settler of 324 Old Huron Road. Sometime bet~yeen 1823 and the 1850s, a log house ryas built for/by Joseph Wildfong on the farm. In the http://«~~~~~~.region.~~aterloo.on.ca/~~eb/region.nsf/c56e308f~9bfe6788~2~6abc0071ec9a/711c8b908923 a3a88~2~6e1b00~c238e!OpenDocument accessed August 20, 2008 ~ Heritage Kitchener files (see Appendil 3 ), also see Appendil 4 for Wildfong famih~ histor~~ & Appendil 7 for name ~-ariations ibid ~ Ebv, Ezra E., Biographical Histor7~ of Waterloo Township (and other Townships of the C'onnh~ being a histo»~ of the ecri°h~ settlers crud then° dea~cendcrnts mostl>> crll of Penn,rvlvcrnia Dzrtch o~°igin crr also mzrch other° rn~prrblished histor°ical infor°nration chief7v of a local char°acter). Berlin. Ontario Canada, 189. http://members.col.net/drlon~strom/nesti• t~a~e 2.htm. Jenti~ Longstrom The Landplan Collaborati~Te Ltd. March 16. 2011 Heritage Assessment ~ R A ~ ~ 324 Old Huron Road, hitchener 18~Os, this log house «%as replaced «~ith the fieldstone cottage ~shich remains on the propert~~.10 ltl2~ is ~~ ~ }~ ~~u~} ~~~h:~ rt,=r~ ~~ ~r~s~ph ~il~~fr~n~ 171 €~~. 1~~-~ ~ of ~ 1O5~;L ~~snc~s lrll~carq t,o [~~-~z}~' ~w~.~~~~~ ' 8 ~--1'~? 7~c: _~:x~ I3 ~~ ~ ~~r;a;k~ }[~n_~ 1~a1:3~z fir, & i~.ma~ t.~ ta'~it~r. T. S~~{+3~n 16~~ o~ S I3Q1~ :?l~~n ~~an ~ S~'ui=:''=i ~, try .TQIt]`a ~ e~,+~g~' l'=~~st 1~CIf] ~ ~~ s J.w ~s ~ ce~r[]'B ~. ~~~.,~ L~ J~1ir~ [}rant ~i-0-1~9 A~. _- ?'1~1 ~ ~7~i~~7 F'x~c~t~~x~ ~f john ~~'~r~t t~s L~u*_`~ ~'atlt f. F~ ~ ~Y'.,.~ . y ! F V J l.d 1~3k ~^ 294~~ '.~,~uYa ~. Grant to ~3rJ:r Get=n~: ~~I`~.} ~~~ ~~. SG~+~O 1g4€~ ~R 3'~31.~ ,TCShn ?;rant t[s El,.~n F~tti~ 243 Vic. ~f,Q[~O ?t ~t ~uk~j . t~ L~a~~ lsl~ 3 G[~$7Ca~1 r~ltirr,~~++yyf~l~TtiCt t~s F~q~r H¢a.~~ 1~5~ Gf4 1~5t; ~1 ~,~c~~.r Jl~is~ ter ~l~crt & Pia: ~ T~awr~tir~'~ 1~7~ ~~ 46~~u~ ~I.az~t & Pearl "~o~ar:~"r~~ ~~ sill Fs~~kt~kc Ltd ;~~~, f0C 15"].5+ Ac, Qg' , d~ ~r E~ir~t gut :.1 ~C X55' .`T~ on ~. L.irn. ~a~r~l, ~~74'.8~ in r~ar~ com.°n'g fi~'.~1 Figure 2 title search July 1980. Cameron Shantz The property- ~~~as last purchased b~T Bill Boehnlce Ltd. in 1972, in ~s~hose o~~mership it remains." Overla~-ing the historic atlas map on a current airphoto illustrates the enormous change in the landscape from 1881 (Figure 3). The Huron Road still exists, and the subject property- retains frontage on it. The history- of the Huron Road and its significance is well kno~~m in the area. Doors Heritage Crossroads, a fe~~- kilometres a~~-a~-, is set on the Old Huron Road. At the histor7c village a Provincial plaque states: In 1827Dr. William "Tiger "Duvrlop of the Canada Company opened the line of the HZIrOYl Road some 1 ~3 km ft°om Goderich to Guelph whose towhsites were established that year. Imps°oved i~ 1828 to promote the sale of Company lands in the -10,000 ha Huron TF°act, comprising parts of modern Huron, Perth, Middlesex and Lambton Counties, the route is now followed by provincial Highway 8 from Goderich to Waterloo County. Passing through Wilmotand Waterloo Townships to theHespele~° area, via Haysville and Strasburg, it them approximated the present course of'provincial Highway 2-1 to Guelph. Townships were surveyed and ~,90~ persons, mostly immigrants, had by 18-10 settled is the Huron Tract. Another sign at Homer Watson Park in hitchener at the corner of Huron Road and Mill Parlc Drive states: The Huron Road was part of one of the largest land development strategies in Upper Canada and 10 Kitchener Heritage files indicate: a constrnction date of circa 1840 for the fieldstone cottage (Don Rvan architectural analysis): and an 18~Os constnzction date (Ward 8. 324 Huron Road file) ii Current o~~°ner: Bill Boehnlce Ltd., Mr. Heinz Boehnhe. 1261 Huron Road. R.R. #2, Petersburg, ON NOB 2H0. (~ 19) 696-3418 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 16. 2011 Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitchener became a vital communication lurk. In 1826 nearly orre million acres of land called the H11r01? Tract was purchased by the Canada C'orn~arry which hoped to attract thousands of settlers to Upper C'anada's westerr7 territory. In 1827, under the leadership gfJohn Ualt, Dr. William Dunlop and C'o1. Avrthony Tla>7 Egmona; a massive road clearing operation began from Guelph through the,firture counties of Waterloo, Perth and Huron to Goderich, the deepestharbour on the Canadian side ofLake Huron. ~~d' ~. -.~?~,, .~' ti~ '~ ~ . ~.r ~~ 3.0 THE CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE(S) ~~:° `~w., __ ~._ - -~-, ~~ The property ~~-as vie«ed by the report author on August 18, 2008, on June 23, 2009, again on August 23, ?010, and again on Februai~- 14, 2011. Photographs, except ~shere noted, are by the author. Shl~ctures on the property include: • the aforementioned stone cottage c. 18>Os; ~;-:; . . ~, ~~ ~~~~ -~~ ~~. +~`~ The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1G. 2U11 The purchase, and presumabhT settling ofthe subject property, pre-dates the constn~ction of the Huron Road through Strasburg by some five sears; the settlement lilcels-has little to do ~tiith the road. As is noted above, any obvious physical evidence of the hamlet of Strasburg has been erased over time (the Google map labels Strasburg in a slightly different location). Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener • agambrel-roofed timber frame, ~~~ood-sided barn c. 1955; • a stone spring house n~in remnant; • a ~~~ood fi-ame, wood-sided shed; • a block shed «ith attached kennels. "~. •, ~ ~,~_: r- ~ • ~ *~ ~ ~ • i.Y~•~rr ~' ~ R t 1. ~s CAF ]C f ~~~ ~ { 6 4 T R ~~L~y®~' ~~ ~~-5 ~^ ^ ~~ (~ •. ~+y'I ~~~ ~'a~ r .Y ry ~ ~l~ 4fl t~ k ~.` L s Figure 4 9 ~ '.R~~t~~~r':°. _° € ~' ~ ~ ~ e ~ _. ~ 7 .. Y{ _ ~ ~~' ~ f! ~ '~ ,~~ fi a ~ ~ '~ Wccc~~~+.. 5 ~ ~ 1 _ n y ~ ~ a , ~ ~ y~ E~ ~, . ~~ ~ ~~ ' ~ 4 ~ ~ lYC'.: ~ ~ ~ N * ~.. ~ 4~ ~~ ~ .. Wl .~ y i 'y kc. 0 y ~ ' 3~ L `# _y The stone cottage is an each, 19ri' centui~r (c.1850s), single store-, gable-roofed, fieldstone residence, approiimatel~- 13.5 m z 8 m. Abasement enU~ance is provided at the east end of the house. Some modifications to the opening arch to this entrance are evident and a former roof or enclosure has been removed. A small front porch is a later addition (c. 1950s). Originall~T, there ~~~as a porch across the rear of the house. The underside stone wall was whitewashed in t~-pical Mennonite fashion. The porch is no longer eitant; vestiges of the ~~-hite~~-ash remain. A number of other alterations have occurred over time, includilig the replacement of the chilnnevs, «-hich in all likelihood ~~-ere stone, with brick chimtie~-s; replacement of all the ~~ indo~~- sash ~~-ith ne~~-er units; replacement of a rear «indow ~~ ith a door; and installation of a dormer at the rear. As is noted above, the «~indow openings are eztremel~- small, more like a log building than a stone one, giving the impression that the house was originalh log and later covered by stone, or the log house was replaced b5- this stone cottage and the original window fi-a~nes were re-used.'' The 1851 census lists i, Author's obseraations and opinions from Heritage Kitchener files (see Appendil 3) The Landplan Collaborati~Te Ltd. March 16. 2011 The property -Region of Waterloo mapping 2009 Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener Joseph Wildfong, the first settler, as living in a log house and the 1861 census lists the house as fieldstone.' A structural condition report b~- Tacoma Engineers (Appendix 6) indicates that the house was constructed ... in two sections -one with a basement and a latef~ addition with a crawl s~ace.l`` The author, upon fiu~ther investigation could find no evidence of a log structure within the current stone cottage. The «estern end is founded on squared log sleepers' ~, whereas the eastern end has a full stone basement. It is possible, perhaps probable, that the western part was origiiiall~-log, includi<ig the small window openings, and was replaced on the same foundation ~~ ith a stone building. Front (north) ele~-ation East elevation (IBI photo) The exterior of the house appears to be iii relativeh, good condition. The mortar is mostly intact (some re- pointing isneeded). with little evidence of cracking eicept for a large vertical crack at both the front and rear, coincident with the part basement wall " C '' This is noted in the structural report as the joint between the original house and the later addition. The roof has a similar joint.' As is noted, windows (at least the sash) have been replaced, although in a not very- complementarS~ manner (see Febn~an- 2011 photos below). l ..rl :i lli r __ . ~~ - _ --- fa:irtil6tl tilt^a°! r.l.i[9tYiiv.!. i ~~ ~# ~~~ ~~` ~ tea- C~~4F ~, ~" ~ ~~ i ~..' ~.....i l ~ Heritage Kitchener files (see Appendil 3) la "Stone Farmhouse, 324 Old Huron Road Shl~ctural ReporP'. Tacoma Engineers, October 30, 2008, p. l i' Pers. com. Ms. Boehnke. August 23/10 l~ ibid. Tune 23/09 l "Stone Farmhouse. 324 Old Huron Road Stnictural ReporY'. Tacoma Engineers. October 30, 2008, p2 is ibid The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 16. 2011 Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener Aluminum filed storms have been scre«~ed to the «~indow frames al~d sealed to the exterior stone «-ails. Aluminum or steel cladding has been applied to some sills. Other sills are no longer extant, ~~-bile others are rottuig wood. The 1 / 1 glazing is not t5rpical of an 18~Os ~~-indow. Eave reh~rn The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 16. 2011 Rear (south) elevation -vestiges of porch & white~~-ash Rear elevation-window converted to door Aug~ist 2008 Corner detail West elevation Front porch -later addition August 2008 Heritage Assessment 9 324 Old Huron Road, hitchener The interior of the house has been much modified over tune, including the addition of a second floor ~~~ith a dormer at the rear. There is cui7entl~- no insulation in the «alls or ceilingh~oof. The basement, as has been noted, is only under a portion of the cottage, an addition to the original. It is surmised that the kitchen ~~%as in this basement. Evidence of a former oven at the base ofthe chiinnev lends credence to this. The ~~~ell is also found in the basement. '~' 1 ~~ ' ~ N .~ #~¢ ~ ~ ±`. k 4,: • f .,~ ~;fir ~ ,~`, w. :~ ~r_ q ~ , y ,~•; ~' ~. ~.. ""~ '~ ~~~ _~~ . ~" ~: _~ . ~- - '-'--0a. 4 _.---~ w+~. ~V ~ 3 ~. '1 t, ~~ Partial basement August 2010 ~"R f ~~,_ -~~ ; - ;. ~~ . ~-~-.~ ~1 _~ ~ s 1 -~ ~4 ~' ~ ~~ '` :: The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1G. 2011 Basement entrance Basement oven Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitchener The 15 m z 9.5 m barn is an asphalt shingled, gainbrel- roofed, wood frame, horizontal ~~ood-sided structure that post dates the stone cottage bV a significant number of rears. Its precise date of construction is unknown; ho~~~ever, aerial photographs provided by Chung and Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. shoe- an earlier barn located slightly to the west of the current stn~cture iii 1945 (figure 5), between the house and road, and do~~-n~~,ind of the house during prevailing suininer winds. The 1955 photograph (figure 6) shows a structure iii the current barn location and it appears from the surrounding visible bare earth that it is ne~tily constructed. hi the 1971 photo (figure 7), the current barn can be clearly seen. It appears that the cui7ent building ~~ as constn~cted circa 1955. '~~ ~, , ~~ ~.~ ;~ ~ . , }; ~ qtr f~/ ^# t~. § ~i r1' y;~s ~ ,. F ~~ ~ 1y; V ~ ~` r .Ft. `' ~~, ;.• ~.. ~.~ Figure ~ Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd.. ,Tune 2008 10 f -^ Figure 6 Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd., ,Tune 2008 ,Tune 2008 Figure 7 Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. The Landplan Collaborati~Te Ltd. March 16. 2011 Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener 11 Photographs of the interior taken byr the author on June 23, 2009 confirm that the current structure is conshl~cted from salvaged timbers, probably- from the earlier structure thatwas located just to the ~~-est. The bam is situated some fe~~ meU~es tower in elevation and to the north of the house on the slope of the creek valley. _~ ~ ~ ~ - .„ ~; .~ ~, _f r~ 1 .. ~, ~,, _ _ . ~ ~ ~ , v_~ -. - a 'I ~ ~ 9 ,Tune 2009 The barn -interior. sho~i~in~ recycled timbers ~~ k°<. rY E ,Tune 2009 The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 The barn -north elevation from lane~~ ae The barn -north side Tune 2009 LEFT -the barn -west elevation earlier barn located in foreground RIUHT -the bane -east elevation Heritage Assessment ~ R A ~ 12 324 Old Huron Road, Kitchener The remnants of a ruined spring house can be seen behind the house. It has been surmised that this «as a smoke house; it was more likely a spring house on the edge of the valley- slope. Photographs of the spring house provided bar the City prior to its demolition (see Appendix 2) show a clean, white interior «hich ~z ould have been considerably- blackened had this been a smoke house. T~~,o sheds Ire located to the rear (south) of the house. One is an 8.~ m ~ ~.~ m «-ood frame. horizontally- wood-sided storage shed that appears to have been at least partially- constructed of rec~Tcled materials. The other is a 32 m i 8.7 m block construction building with attached chain link fence kennels. Both are of indeterminate age. The outbuildings are constructed from cobbled together scrap lumber, phwood, particle board, concrete block, and other materials. The potential significance of the barn «as questioned by the City in 2009 (Is the barv~ i~ and of itself a heritage sty°2rcttrre arrd would its lass~rejz~dice the heritage valve of the house on the retained lot?) and «as ans~tiered bar the September 2010 HIA (the barn is circa 195 and made up of materials from a previous building and new materials). The outbuildings and bai~ have no heritage value. The follo~~ing photos taken August 2008 and Februan- 2011 illustrate this point. Shed Shed Februan- 2011 The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 ;,. Remnant Spring House n~in Close-ups -Spring House remnant August 2010 Kennel August 2008 Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener 4.0 THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE 13 The stone cottage is situated in a picturesque landscape setting ofmature trees and flowerilig shn~bs. Though the trees are mature and complement the house. they are not contempora~-~- ~~ ith the cottage, nor are they of particular significance. The complex of buildings on the site might ha~re been a significant heritage feature had they- been contemporary with the house or portrayed a relevant, evolutionai~- story-. Such is not the case and the relationship bears no heritage value. The setting is enhanced by the adjacent creels valley landscape. The natural and cultural landscape, although much modified over time, is visually- complementary to the cottage and the valley edge setting is particularly- appealing. Advantage ~z-as tal~en of the slope to provide kitchen cellar access from the outside. The cottage's location next to the valley landscape is considered to be significant. The house takes advantage ofthe valley edge setting and is set ~~-e11 back from the road. As ~~-as noted earlier in this report. the road may have been constructed after the house Like most properties settled bar Pennsylvania Dutch, the house is not set at light angles to the road, and typical of Waterloo To«nship, the road is not part of a gridiron pattern like most of rural Southern Ontario. Topography, «oodlands, soils, and aspect ~~~ere the detei7nining factors in siting farmsteads in this part of the ~~~orld in the 19ri' centuiy.~' Prior to the 1950s, the vie«- from the Huron Road «<a of a barn (see Figure ~), the house originally hidden behind i' Scott. O~~~en K., Utilizing histoi~~ to establish culhiral and physical identin~ in the landscape. Landscape Planf~if~g, G: 179-203. 1979 The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 Vie«~s from the cottage to the ~~alley Heritage Assessment ~ R A ~ 14 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener it. Even today-. from the lane at the Old Huron Road, onl~r a portion of the roof of the house can be seen, the remainder being hidden b~- virh~e of the topography and the vegetation. Distant vie~~-s across the field to the ~~-est are afforded, although somewhat obscured by trees. From the Old Huron Road Currently, the property is the only remnant agricultural landscape in the immediate area, the remainder having been developed as housing. The landscape plantings are not considered to be signficant from historical or conteitual poilits of view. ,0 Some are modern h~-brids and cultivars that didn't even exist in the 19t'' century-, let alone the 1850s. Should the plantings have been arranged as they ~~-ould have been circa 1850, and should they- have been t~-pical species that might have been planted in this area at that time, they might have been considered significant. Such is not the case. Conte~tuall~-, they- constihrte a pleasant landscape. but not a significant one. They could be replaced «ith more historically- and ecologicalhr appropriate species and in a more lustoricallyT appropriate st~-1e. The large poplar Dees have few remaining ti-ears: the one at the rear of the house is ni poor condition. The other trees are in relatively good condition. A tree inventor- can be found ni Appendix ~. 5.0 SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES OF THE RESO ~0 The term "significant' means resources valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the histoi-~~ of a place, an event, or a people. PPS', 200 The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 February 2011 View from cottage towards Old Huron Road Vied- from Old Huron Road Heritage Assessment ~ R A ~ 1~ 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener The stone cottage is considered to be historically- significant as it is one of the on1~- e~-tant structures remaining from the former hamlet of Strasburg; it is an early farnhouse c. 1850s) in the area: and its origins could date from c. 1823='. Its setting is picturesque, on the edge and overlooking the Strasburg Creels valley. Its heritage character-defining elements include: • random-coursed fieldstone ~yalls; • vestiges of a ~~-hite~yashed under rear porch ~~, all• tv_ pical of the era, and of Mennonite practice: • unusually small window openings; • early Georgian form front door with straight transom and no sidelights; • the roof pitch (eicluding the rear shed dormer); • cave returns; • outdoor cellar entrance with kitchen originalh ili the basement; • brick oven in former basement hitches; • the valley landscape and vie~~-s from the cottage to it. The front porch is a later addition (probably- 55 to 60 years old) and has no heritage significance. The roof line was altered many rears ago with the addition of a shed doi7ner to provide light to an upstairs room. Neither of these features is acharacter-defining element and could be replaced or modified in a sensitive fashion. The barn and sheds/kennel are not significant her7tage structures. The remnants of a spring house ruin are an interesting artifact, but there is so little remaining that any significance has been lost. ki our opinion the stone cottage is both historically- and architecturally significant and is ~yorthv of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. 6.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT on ADJACENT LANDS The lands adjacent to the e~istilig dwelling are proposed for a residential development comprised of 411ots, 3 street fronting to~~7ihouse blocks, and a 0249 ha pack block. An existing subdivision file for the lands, inchidnig the lands ~yhich are currently proposed to be retained ~yith the existing d~yelling ryas opened in 1979 as 30T-79004 and that file remains open pending submission of a revised Draft Plan which responds to the environmentally sensitive and Provincially Significant natural features contained within the property-. The current subdivision proposal contemplates a connection ofthe presenttenninus ofTemple~yood Drive, ~yhich dead-ends at the south limit of the property-, to Old Huron Road through the proposed development. An additional road is proposed to connect from Old Huron Road immediately- to the ~yest of the Strasburg Creek culvert under that road, through the proposed development and connect to the extension of Templewood Drive. Full municipal services would be installed within the proposed subdivision and provide services to the existing dwelling as well as access to the ne~y public road. The proposed development conforms to the Region's Official Policy Plan as it is designated `Urban Area'; conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and ultimately the Brigac~oon C'omma~niry Plan. The proposed development represents an ni-fill subdivision as it is essentially surrounded by suburban development and is the means to complete this portion ofthe community- and provide connection ofthe proposed road system. The proposed residential subdivision ~i The propert~~ ~~~as settled in 1823: presumably- the first log house was built at about that time. perhaps founded on the same place as the current stone house The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener is sho«n on Figure 8. 16 RItNVfD R-6'~ ' Y~ 51~Q~ ~~~~ O~ V LyV ~1 ,i " 42 2w ~ ~" -0, *y ~Y., ftESeoENrwt ~ ~~ ~ - -- ~-- -: ~w ~'. ~y ipy It ~ ~~ •s+'` $2r v,~ C7~ ~ 5 '+. +, T 28 ti °~ .-~.~„ i pia ~,, y~ '•..,' '7 .~ r 4 ,5 1fl r J .~. ( •, t '"" ~ i :lam ~~ .. k5~. p ~~"~^ 9 4 i ..- C7FdAPT PLAhF UP Sl1RC11VISlt~h1 324 Ol P H~1RO~N RpAp PARI Qf 0 1 Krr ~rv a. cwr~aP~o ~r ~ '' w ~ ~. f z r ,y, .z 30 ~j 32 ~ , p~ tb LA~ ~.. ~~ a'; - ,S ~ ~ p ~' -J' - a. FS ,., .~ O a4 t. - - Yr /r~~rw ,~ ~ ~ nES;p6~Nrw[ ~ ftESr~ENrwt TONFiJ R-E ZLWED ft-3 1 i r ~!4 12 ~ yy~~~f +f .a ~ * ~d ~ ~ f v ~/ IJ ~ .aw OPENSPAC[ -' + cTdN€[7 P-3 - 1~ ~,.___ _~..~ ~~~~ 1 PWW OF SUBDlVISIDM e-a IBI 4:R17C I' ,.r. Gity of Kitchener Figure 8 7.0 PROPOSED SITE ALTERATIONS Proposed Development Plan As part of the larger proposed residential subdivision, a lot is proposed to be created to be retained with the existing dwelling as sho«7i on Figure 9. This +/- 0.18 ha (''/z acre) lot would have street frontage and access to the proposed internal public road and municipal services are proposed to be connected to the d«-elling, thereby creating the opportunity- to remove the existing septic s~-stem and private well. The Draft Plan of Subdivision (Figure 8) shows the proposed lot for the house and its setting in the existing landscape as well as the proposed development. A ven~ generous lot, a park block across the street, and a large open space at the rear and side offer the heritage propert~T an eicellent position in the landscape. The barn is to be demolished and the cottage retained. With the proposed development scheme, the house is situated 14.2 metres from the proposed road allo~~-ance. The house would be oriented to the road with the front door facing at an oblique angle. It is cun~enth~° situated on the edge of the creek valley and there is a one metre change in grade from the west to the east ends of the cottage, affording the walkout basement entrance on the east. The land to the west slopes upwards about four metres to the westerly property- line, al~d about three metres from the northerhr property boundaiS~, placing the cottage at a low elevation in relation to the ~yestern half of the overall property. Although detailed engineei7ng design has not been initiated for the proposed subdivision development, preliminai~- anal~-sis indicates that the grades of the proposed road across the frontage of the lot would generalhr match the existing grades. This would indicate that no bulls filling of the proposed lot would be The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 Heritage Assessment ~ R A ~ 17 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener required so that the landscape immediately surrounding the eiistiiig house can be maint<lined. There maybe some minor grading required so that the ne« lots proposed to abut the retained propert`- can snatch grades with those that currently exist, but again it is anticipated that and- such blending of grades can be accomplished ~yithout significantly- impacting the existing landscape of the lot to be retained with the d~yelling. Once the Draft Plan for the larger subdivision is moved into process and circulation for Draft Plan Approval, detailed engineering design can commence and the det<lils ofgrading and servicing can be provided to the City- for revie~y and approval. .~ ~ ,' ~ :' ~~ a' a ~ ~; .~ t,. ~ ~: ,K ~~ ~ f~ ~ , , ,, ~ ~~ ~~,~ _~ r. ~~ ~ ,. r i I r~ _ r ~ ~ I~~ ~ iY, ~~ R ~~ u ~~'' _ I j4µ ~ ~~I~ .~ 9 ?"TYe~ 11 . 11 f ` t~ ~ ~ . ,„ +--~ ' [~~ M f ~ C ~V ~3 v~_~_ r~rf ~.. 1° ~„ ~°~ A 9 _~ i_ lu ~~ a ~`'~`' Proposed Lot 8.0 HERITAGE IMPACTS The character-defining elements are related to the fieldstone cottage and its setting. The cultural heritage value of the property- and its heritage attributes ~yill not be impacted by' the proposed development and site alteration if appropriate measures are taken in the design of the grading scheme for the development. The retained lands provide an appropriate contest for the cultural heritage significance of the propertST and its ~t~- `.~'~--~ The Landplan Collaborati~Te Ltd. March 16. 2011 Heritage Assessment ~ R A ~ 18 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener heritage attributes through size aiid shape of the lot as «%ell as the setback of the existing building from the front and side lot line. The cottage is being preserved in the development of the adjacent lands; it is being provided ~~-ith a one-half acre lot; and its setting at the edge of the creek valley is being preserved. The creek valley is being set aside as open space and is to be protected from development, retailiing the historical setting of the cottage. Apart from the proposed development, and uiu-elated to it, should and- of the character-defining elements of the heritage resource (the cottage) be altered, negative heritage impacts could result -the character-defining elements being: the random-coursed fieldstone ~~-alls, unusually small ~yindow openings, early Georgian form front door, roof pitch, eave returns, outdoor cellar entrance and brick oven in the former basement kitchen, vestiges of whitewashed under porch wall, and the valley l~uidscape and views from the cottage to it. 9.0 OPTIONS, MITIGATION As is noted above, the development proposal does not appear to create negative impacts to the heritage resource(s). Careful attention should be paid to the grading scheme forthe development to ensure that surface water is directed away from the cottage; that existing trees are not affected b}-grade changes; and that gentle grade transitions occur at the ne~y property boundaries. Although not related to the development proposal, potential impacts could result from insensitive alteration to the heritage character-defining features. Therefore, the following mitigating measures are suggested. • Offer protection of the heritage resource(s) through a designation by-law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.; • Craft the by-law to provide for protection of the heritage character-defining elements while offering opportunity for sensitive modifications and up-grades to the cottage such as: - the house is rather small by contemporai~- standards and an opportunity to constrict an addition would likely mare it much more useful and marketable in the future - an addition ~yould be most appropriate on the south side (rear) of the house ~yith the setback fi-om the top of the bank determining the location to some eitent; the roofline is not the original, a to«-, shed dormer haying been installed some years ago to provide light to a second floor room and the roof is in need of replacement (not just the fabric, but the structure as we1P') -anew, larger, gable-roofed dormer(s) in period style could be constricted on the rear roof gable iii place of the existing; should a garage be constructed, it should be afree-standing structure of complementary design and placed in the rear or side yard. Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places ili Canada provides "General Standards" for all projects. Follo~~-ing are the conservation principles and applicable responses. L Conserve the heritage value ofa histof°ic place. Do not remove, replace, or sa~bsta~tially alter its intact or repairable character-defining elements. Do not move a part of ~a historic place i f its czrrrent location is a character-defining element. The development proposal does not remove, replace or substantially alter the historic place or its character-defining elements. -- "Stone Farmhouse. 324 Old Huron Road Stnictural ReporY'. Tacoma Engineers. October 30. 2008. p. l The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 Heritage Assessment 19 324 Old Huron Road, hitchener 2. Conserve changes to a historic place which, over° time, have become char°acter-defining elements in their own right. No changes have become character-defining elements -not applicable. 3. Conserve hef°itage vahte by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. No interventions that might compromise the heritage resource are contemplated. 4. Recognize each historic place as a physical r°ecor°c~ of its time, place anc~ arse. Do not create a, false sense of historical development by adding elements f om other historic places or other properties or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. Not applicable. ~. Find a use,for a historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character-defining elements. The heritage resource ~~;ill continue to be occupied as a residence, requiring no change to its character- defnung elements. 6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize a historic place until any sarbsequent intervention is undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbance of archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and lass of information. Not applicable. The historic resource is occupied and maintained and ~~=ill continue to be. 7. Evaluate the existing condition ofcharacter-defining elements to deter°mine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. The character-defusing elements are not affected b~- the proposed development. Should interventions be contemplated in the future, it is recommended that these be undertaken in the contest of a Heritage Designation by-law. 8. Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character-defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively detea°iorated or missing parts ~f character-defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. See point 7. 9. Make any intervention needed to preser°vecharacter°-defining elementsphysically and visually compatible with the historic place, and identifiable argon close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. See point 7. 10.0 SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS In our opinion the stone cottage is worth- of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The heritage character-defining elements are noted in this HTA. The cottage meets the definition of a significant built heritage resource as identified in the PPS under the Ontario Planning Act It is an ear1~- farmhouse c. 1850s), in a Georgian stele, perhaps founded on an even earlier log house c. 1823?); is likely the only remaining stn~cture from that time period adjacent to the former hamlet of Strasburg; and is a component in the stoi-~- of Penns~~lvania Dutch settlement in Waterloo Township. Heritage designation can provide the long-term protection that is required for tlus significant property . The HIA listed heritage character attributes and wording to protect the heritage integrity of the house could be written into adesignation by-law, leavilig scope to make the house viable as a residence. It is imperative that this scope be provided, or the house will not have a future. The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 Heritage Assessment ~ R ~ ~ 20 324 Old Huron Road, hitehener It is our opiliion that development of the adjacent lands «~ill not provide a negative impact on the heritage resource if careful attention is paid to the grading scheme for the development to ensure that surface water is directed awa~r from the cottage; that e~istilig trees are not affected by grade changes; and that gentle grade transitions occur at the ne~~ propertST boundaries. lii addition, «%e have the follo~~;ing suggestions /recommendations. • The stone cottage eiterior ~~~ould be a good subject for restoration, e. g. the windo~~ s could be replaced with frame and sashthat is complementai~- to the period: the chimneys could be re-built in stone; the front porch could be reconstructed to be of the period. Y "i4 • ~ More appropriate stale «indo« sash • Re-pointing of the stone with the appropriate mortar mii should be undertaken. • Drainage is currently ali issue, with «-ater entering the basement at the side entrance. Eavestroughs and do«nspouts should be modified to move roof ~~ ater a~a%ay from the building and some minor re-grading of the flo«~er beds at the front would keep surface «-ater from the basement wall. Removal of the large Noiwa~- Maple cultivar at the front of the house ~~~ould also aid in reaching this objectitire. This Heritage linpact Assessment is respectfully submitted bv: THE L~NDPLAN COLLABORATIVE LTD. I~~-~~ per: O~~-en R. Scott, GALA, FCSLA, CAHP The Landplan Collaborati~Te Ltd. March 16. 2011 Elisting 1/1 ~jindo~~ sash Heritage Assessment 324 Old Huron Road, hitchener REFERENCES 21 area lustories: http://~~~~~~~ .reQion.~eaterloo.on.ca/~~=eb/region.nsf/c~6e308f~49bfeb78852~6abc0071ec9a/711c8b908923a3 x8852>6e1b005c238e!OpenDocument City- of hitchener Municipal Heritage Register. City of Kitchener, internal memo: ``Cultural Heritage Planning Comments, 324 Old Huron Road, Pre- submission Consultation Meeting'. from Ytironne Westeiveld Cardoso, Heritage Planning Technician, to Brian Bateman, Ju1~- 28, 2009. City of hitchener, internal memo: "324 Old Huron Road, Pre-submission Meeting Request for Zone Change and Subdivision" from Michelle Wade, Heritage Planner to Br7an Bateman, Januaiv 11, 2011. Eby, Ezra E., Biographical History of Water°loo Township (aid other° Townships of the Cowry being a history of the eaF°ly settlers anc~ their descenc~a~ts mostly all ofPennsylva~ia Dz~tch origin as also much other unpublished historical information chiefly ofa local character). Berlin, Ontario Canada, 1895. Heritage Kitchener files - 324 Old Huron Road. historic aerial photographs: Chung and Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. Historical Atlas of Water°loo & Wellington Counties, Ontar°io, Illustrated, 1881 - 1877. H. Parsell & Co., Waller & Miles, Toronto -reprint edition, 1972 edited b~- Ross Cumming, Port Elgili, Ont. printed by Richardson, Bond & Wright Ltd., O~~en Sound, Ont. Scott. O«~en R., Utilizing histoi-~- to establish cultural and ph~-sical identity- in the landscape. Landscape Planing, 6: 179-203. 1979 Wildfong famil~Thistoi~-: http:/hnembers.eoi.net/drlonastromhiel~-~aQe 2.htln, Jei7~rLongsh-om, Peoria. AZ http://«~~~z .ancestn-.chezhorton.com/PDFs/The%20Ston~df, Wildfang Family Tree, Brenda Wawok Kinsella Horton The Landplan Collaborati~-°e Ltd. March 16, 2011 Appendix 1 comments in response to the revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated May 14, 2009 with the last addendum date of June 30, 2009 (HIA Terms of Reference) I I~.I1~'CHEl~R f?evelopmen r 8r Technical Services City of Kitchener City Hall, 200 King St. West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Date: July 28, 2009 To: Brian Bateman From: Yvonne Westerveld Cardoso, Heritage Planning Technician (519) 741-3400 ext. 3176 Yvonne.WesterveldCardoso@kitchener.ca cc: Subject: Cultural Heritage Planning Comments 324 Old Huron Road Pre-submission Consultation Meeting The following comments are in response to the revised Heritage ImpactAssessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. and dated May 14, 2009 with the last addendum date of June 30, 2009, and submitted insupport of aPre-submission Consultation Meeting and future severance application for 324 Old Huron Road. Heritage Planning Staff have undertaken a review of the revised HIA and a response to the City's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference remains outstanding. Essentially, we require that the report: - identify the cultural heritage resources; - address significant heritage attributes of the resource(s); - identify the impacts of the proposed development and site alteration on these resources; - evaluate and provide alternative options for mitigation of these impacts; - provide a summary statement and make specific recommendations for conservation; and - provide a recommendation in support of, or in opposition to, designation as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement. General Comments Please provide the contact information of the current property owner. Please also title this document as a Heritage Impact Assessment. Comments Pertaining to HIA Sections as Submitted As an introduction to the HIA, Heritage Planning Staff request that background be provided regarding the purpose of the HIA and that policy considerations be identified. legislation and policies of particular relevance for the conservation of built heritage and cultural heritage Appendix 1 comments in response to the revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated May 14, 2009 with the last addendum date of June 30, 2009 (HIA Terms of Reference) landscapes in the Provincial Policy Statement and the Ontario Heritage Act which guide this report, as well as any definitions that have specific meanings for use in a policy context accompany the policy statement are to be included. 1.0 Heritage Context A) Additional background on the property is needed. We have attached some earlier reports that we have to supplement additional research, but please do not be limited to including only this information. 2.0 Structures on the Property A) This summary should clearly articulate the cultural heritage value or interest by listing and describing the heritage attributes that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the cultural heritage resource. Specific mention of all significant character defining elements of the structures (such as the building construction, materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, size of window openings, cellar door, etc.) to be listed and descriptions and explanations of each to be provided. B) While visiting the site, Heritage Planning Staff observed the remnants of an additional structure, believed to be the former smoke house. This structure has not been identified in the HIA. We request that the location of this structure be identified on the plan and evaluated as to its potential significance, and that it be determined if the ruins warrant conservation. If it is concluded that the significance has been lost, Heritage Planning Staff request that an explanation be provided. C) There has been some inference that the stone cottage was constructed on or around a previous log structure. We would ask that further research be undertaken to confirm or refute this. This may require an examination and assessment of the attic and basement. 3.0 Assessment A) In this section we are looking for a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the significance of the heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource. 4.0 Relationship to Natural and Built Heritage Features A) A comprehensive cultural landscape assessment that studies the site in its broader context, and a visual assessment to accurately define the impacts on the landscape are required. In Section 4.0, the following reference was made with respect to the setting; the setting is enhanced by the adjacent creek. We require that the significance of this setting in addition to the specific views into and from the site also be assessed. The following are just some questions to consider with regard to the assessment of the cultural heritage landscape: - Does the view of the cottage located adjacent to a natural undisturbed landscape have Appendix 1 comments in response to the revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated May 14, 2009 with the last addendum date of June 30, 2009 (HIA Terms of Reference) significance? - What about the laneway approach to the cottage from the main road? - Is this property contextually significant as a remnant of the agricultural landscape of this area? - Is the cottage's orientation to the road a reminder of its former role within the larger farm complex and of its rural relationship to the road and the surrounding farm properties? - is there value in the topography? B) This section appears to deal mostly with the cultural heritage landscape and we require more specific detail with regard to the vegetation. All existing trees in the developable area which are 10cm DBH or greater which are to be retained, relocated, and removed must be accurately located on a plan. Hedgerows must also be shown and identified. This plan must identify trees by number and show the trunk location and actual canopy spread as well as provide details of the following: 1. genus and species of each tree; 2. health and amenity value of each tree; and 3. impact of the proposed development on each tree or grouping. 5.0 Appropriate Lot Size, Configuration and Setbacks, Grading and Drainage Issues and Landscape Attributes A) The outline of proposed development and site alteration on the property requires clarification and additional information. We would prefer that a description of the proposed development on the adjacent lands and a description of the proposed site alterations be detailed separately. For example: Proposed development on adjacent lands - description, details and rationale for the development - proposed works and graphic layout - description of how the development fits with the objectives of the City - identification and measurement of the impacts of the proposed development - consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation (this could be provided in conjunction with the proposed site alterations) Proposed site alterations - description, details and rationale for the site alterations - proposed works and graphic layout (including dimensions) - description of how the site alterations fit with the objectives of the City - identification and measurement of the impacts of the proposed site alteration - consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation (this could be provided in conjunction with the proposed development on the adjacent lands) B) Heritage Planning Staff does not feel that this report adequately reflects the impacts on the existing structure and setting resulting from the proposed development on the adjacent lands as well as the proposed site alterations. The positive and negative impacts should be Appendix 1 comments in response to the revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated May 14, 2009 with the last addendum date of June 30, 2009 (HIA Terms of Reference) identified, such as impacts on significant views, physical impacts such as land disturbances possibly resulting in deterioration due to vibration during construction, or from debris deposited through snow removal etc. C) Various options for mitigation and then the subsequent recommendation ofthe preferred option for mitigation are required. Essentially, this HIA needs to determine if the cultural heritage value of the property and its heritage attributes will be impacted by the proposed development and site alteration, and if so, what measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate the impact. If not, please explain. Also, do the retained lands provide an appropriate context for the cultural heritage significance of the property and its heritage attributes through size and shape of the lot as well as the setback of the existing building from the front and side lot line? If yes, please explain. If no, what measure can be taken to provide an appropriate context? D) Clarification is required with regard to the building setback from the front lot line. In the report it states that this distance is 4m, however on the concept plan it is indicated as 7.5m. If the distance has been altered since the report was drafted, this figure should be updated. E) Figure 8 shows the proposed addition within the Provincially Significant Wetland setback. Construction within the setback would need to comply with other provisions in the Provincial Policy Statement and especially those regarding Provincially Significant Wetlands. 6.0 Summary and Recommendations A) The report will include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource. With regard to its significance, does it meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the Ontario Planning Act, which reads: A property orstructure valued forthe important contribution it makes to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. The report indicates that the stone cottage is worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act and should strongly be considered for retention. We would like you to additionally reference whether it meets the definition of a significant built heritage resource as identified in the PPS and it so, please state this clearly and reference the terms "significant" and "conserved" as defined by the PPS if this was not already provided above. B) Conservation principles intended to insure the preservation of the cultural heritage resource's character defining heritage attributes should be addressed and a summary of recommendations explaining how the proposed development and site alterations respond to the conservations (sic) principles. Appendix 1 comments in response to the revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated May 14, 2009 with the last addendum date of June 30, 2009 (HIA Terms of Reference) Additional notes: - if it is determined that the house was originally of log construction (significance -mode of construction), what might you recommend in terms of conservation? - should Impacts to the cottage also to be taken into account when grading plan is prepared? Other A) Five hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic copy in PDF format to be burned on CD shall be provided to the City's Heritage Planner. Appendix 2 comments in response to the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated September 08, 2010 !~ lerr~r~~ ~~1~ I~[~~~~ ~: C~vm~a~rrarf~yServirir~ ~epdrtme~ Qa~te: January 11, 2411 To; Brian Bateman, Senior Planner From; lNichelle Wade, Heri#age Planner cc: 'Leon ~ensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning Subjeet: 324 Q~ Huron Road Pre-submission lV~leeting Request for Zone Change ~ Subdiuisc+rt Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the Heritage Impact Assessment HIA) for 324 Oki I-turvn Read prepared by The Landplan Gollabvrative Ltd. dated 5ept+ember 8. 2t~1 U. Heritage Planning staff understand that this HIA has heart submitted in suppcart of the pre submission meeting request fvr zone chartc~e and subsiivi~sion. Date that Heritage Planning staff previously provided comments nn an HIA prepar~:d by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated June 3D, 2f7t]9 (..See attached Pppendix A}. The fc~llo+~ng comments are provided based can theproposed zone change and subdivision, including supporting HIA prepared by The Landplan Gollabvrative Ltd. dated September 8, 2~1 t7. T'he subject property is listed on the Heritage Kitchener lnventcary of Historic Buildings. In add~itivn, Step 1 of the Council approved 4-Step Process fc~r listing non designated property cat cultural heritage value and interest on the IVluncipal Heritage Register is complete. It is anticipated that the Heritage Kip#~chener Committee and Council wil! consider the recommendation iv list the property as a non-designated property of cultural heflage value and interest vn the Municipal Heritage Register in 2[D11. Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Cc+uncil shall have regard tt~ matters of Prc+vincial interest such as the conservation of features... of significant architectural, cultural, hista~rucal, archaevlvgicai or scientAfic interest. in addition, Sectican 3 of the Planning Act re~qu~ires that decisions of Council shall lye consistent with t'~he Provincial Pvl~y Statement. Policy 2.5.1 of the Presvinciial F'©licy Statement requires that sign cant built heritage resources and significant cultural herrtage landscapes shall tie conserved. The Provincial Policy Statement Mines signrfcar~t as resvu~rces that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an errant, or a people and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the signifrcence of others can only be determin~:d after evaluation. Regional and municipal policies and guidelines also apdr~ress this ccanservatiorr of cultural heritage resources. The Regional Official Plan contains policies that require the c4ns.ervation of cultural heritage resources. The City's Gfficial Plan contains txrlicies that require develvprner~t t~o have regard for and incorporate cultural heritage resources into development. These policies also estatalish the requirement fvr the submissivn of studies as part of complete applications. In addition, floe City's Design Brief fvr Suburlaan Clevelapment and IVeighbvurhood Mixed Wse Centres requires cultuural heritage resources to be conserved and integrated as prominent neighbourhood features and focal points. Typicagy hteritage Planning staff prepared a site specific Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference based on the proposed Planning Act application. In this case, the applicant originally. prepared a HIA. in support of preliminary diiscussiarrs regarding a proposed consent application Appendix 2 comments in response to the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated September 08, 2010 and has since amended such HIA to support the pre-submission meeting rectuest fvr zone change and subdivision, As a result, Heritage Planning staff will nvt prepare a site specific HlA berms of Reference; however, Heritage Planning staff will require that the Hip prepare;~d by The l_and;plan Collaborative Ltrf, dated ~epterrabar 8, 2Q'1D be amended as part of the complete Planning Ac# application far zone change and subd'lvisuan to address the follov`cng: • Page 3 of the H1A indicates that °:3~4 f]id f-futon Rand anus seh~led by Joseph 1~ldfong..." grad that ~Scme~#me between 1823 acrd the t85(?s, a tog house was ttui{t far/by Joseph Wiidfang on Lire farm," Please elaborate on the3 potential relationship betwee~rt ~loseph Wildfor~ ~rrrd the t-"Vilfor~g family of ^~oon. * Paige 4 of the HIA indicates that 'They Nuron Rued still exists, and lhr3 subject property retains frvrrtage on il." Please elaborate on the relationship anrt imp©rtarrce of the Muron Road. • Page 6 of the HIA indicates that `A number at other alterations have I7CCUrre?d r,~ver lime, .. re',plar;ement raf ail the windaanr framers and sash with modern units; ..." Heritage Planning staff have visited the site on three separate occasions, [luring these site visits it was noted that the magcarlty of window openings contained aevr3od windows (possibly original) v~rth aluminum storm windows. Please confirm "rf the existing wood windows may be origiraaf • Page 12 cat the HIA indicates that °The rramnants rat a ruined spring pause can 6$ staen behind the pause. It has been surmised brat this was a smoke house; it was mare likely a spring pause vn the edge caf tha vaiiey slaps.' (See attached Appendix B, vrhich provides photcagraphs cif the structure prior tca demolition.) A review ref the photo~grapl~as may confirm tl~e arigiraal apse. Please amend the HIA, as necessary, • Page 12 of the HIA discusses the cultural landscape. Please elaborate and clarify the following statements: "Thaugir the trees are mature anti complement the pause, they are not conterrrparary with the eottage, rear are thrry of particular significance,"; anrj, " J~lrry cr~rraplex caf buildings on the site aright have becyrr ry significant hr~rrtage feature3 had they beaesn contemporary with fire pause or partrayryd a refevanl, evcaluflcrnary story. Such is not thr3 case and fire relationship bears ne] heritage valu+s," • 'Page 13 of the HIA indicates that "Even today, floe pause r;anneaf 6ea seem tram Uld Duran Road, being hidden by virtue of the topography anr~ the vegetatcan." Heritage Planning staff have visited' the site on three separate occasions. During these site visits it uvas noted that the house is ~isikale train C)ki Huron Road. Please arr're;rad the F•IIA. i Page 14 of the I-I'IA indicates that "The other tre?cas are in relatively gad canditran; aril al#hatrgir warthy+ of pres+~n~atian, da naf confrrb~r#e to the pert#ege signifrriance^ of ?he cottage." Please elaborate tVUhy don't they corntrit~ute the heritage value and interest of the prol~-tY~) • Page 14 of the HIA provides a list of heritage attributes. Her9tage Planning staff dote that the list of heritage attributes does not include the following: all elevations of the building, roofline of the building; and, exteriar wood work, such. as fascia. and soffits. It is the C~piniorr of Heritage Planning staff that these items shcauld ~ inclaaded in the Ust of heritage attributes, • Page 14 ref the HIA indicates that "The bam ar°ed sheds~keynnel are not significant heritages structures in ouroprnicrn." Please elabc,rai and prcavide justification.. • Page 14 of the HIA indicates that "7'he remnants cif a spring irause ruin are an interesting arlifaCt, but there is sa lithe rerrraining that any significance has been las#.° Please el~b4rate ~rxi provide ~ustifis~tirin. ^ Figures 8 cars Page 15 ident~es an approximate setback of 9.2 metres from the prcaposed property line to the N€~rth "VV'est corner of the pause. Please evaluate the potential physical impact of corastr°uctiort (grading, servicing, construction, etc.) an tl~ae integrity of Appendix 2 comments in response to the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated September 08, 2010 the house. For example, what impact may vibrations have on the house? ~hnd haw wail such impact be rr~pr~itored before and after canstrucftivn? Rend haw witl such impact be rr~~itigated andlar repaired? PaEge 17 of the HIA indicates that "The culfural heritage val~re of the pr~#rerty and i#s harr`tage atcrrbr~tes will n~at be #mpacter~ by the ,pr+~pased! deve#oprr~ent arTd ~#te alter~tiorr if appropriate -neas~rres acre fakery #rr the deg#gn of the grading scheme far the +develr~pment.~ Please elabcrrat~e era the details of the appropriate measures that must be talKer~ in the design of the grading scheme. In addition to the arr~endeci HIA, Heritage Planning staff wii~l require the submission of a G~nservatian Plan as part of a complete application. A copy of the site specific Cons~ervatian Plan Terms of Reference will be circulated to the applicant by January 14, 2D11. In surnrraary, Heritage Planning staff will require the fallowing in~farmation to be submitted as part of a complete application: 1 } Fifteen ~1 g~ hard copies and one {t } electronic copy ~pdf burned an GI:7} of the Heritage Impact Assessment responding to the comrnentS in this memo Note that both the hard and el'actronic copies shall be marked with a "dRAFT" watermark. background}; 2} Five ~5} hard copies and one ~1} electronic copy ~pdf burped on G~} of the Cansenration Plan responding to the site speck Ganservativn Plan Terms of Reference far 324 f3Ed Huron Road +;ta be circulated to applicant by Janeaary 14, 2011j; and, 3} A Priority Lot Plan,.. irrclualing the loco#ion of proposed heritage area lots. Appendix 2 comments in response to the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. dated September 08, 2010 Appendix 3 from Heritage Kitchener files Fii~hna~ Tr;~~l I~:~rt Lcx[ 1 ~. ~~ rr~~I~C ~+~~n~ir: $i11 ~ h ~~:~ Licl. ~c~~r~ ~~~~Erj Jurly ~~~ 14~~ ~I~'i'E~.t~~'~i"I~7~ `This '~~°[~[~'rd ~~~r~;i;=4~ ~~tt~~~ ~:~~ ~a~il[ ~r~ 12~~° l~y+ fir. ,Jeas~~l`r ~~~il~f~7rE,~, ~ i'~€~n~r +~~h~ ~p~~~~:e ~~ a larLC~c~+~n~r ,~n tla ~~~61 Tt~'~~tain~ :~~~~~. '~-`hc h{~u~~ i~ c~r7~Ja:nd=a-half ~tcrr~}°~ a~tt1 [ hr~~ h~ ~u~~ ~wa~~~ i n ~ i rn~n~c~:n., tt is a ~wtt~rr~~tri~ r~~[.'w r~~1 i I ar ~I~G~ ~rrith~r~st ~rmitieac~~. Tlh~ h~us `~, pEe~~nt.ly ~~tafiatt~ri~~,l~+ GarM~l~~~p~e~e t~4~t ~I;~i~'tti5 ~ ~~[~a1 [i;] l~r beau Ci ful s i C ~~n rrff she- ~r~u ~h ~i ~~ ~~ I ~~r~i ~~~~k. Iq i.~ ~~~r~' ~n~~htru~i~~~ C~3 its ~~cttin~. Thy ~r~~l~~rt~ irtr:lti~~~ t_~5 a+:,r, ~rp~ a_~ ~e~c~ ~;~1I~'[ ~t a lar~~r ~~i~~c farm ~°har~ n~~pl~ ~;~ru~.~ wr~:iS h~-~il~d, ~cai~t pr~.~il~~t~ milk~t~, ;~n~l k~~~f ~ta~41~ a.a~l pi~~,~a-~r~c r;~.~~ci. T11~ l~n3 t~~~ rr~t t~~~rt uS~e~ ~yri~~. 1~~. 7'1~~ s~l~ ~,r~['~uil~ing ~~i~Ciw~~ t~ia}~ i~ a ~matl i-i~ll~l~tc~ri~ ~rnc~k~l G~~n~tr I~~.at~d Ica ~1 [h i~rt []t~ h ~aa ~ ~l ~~ i n ;~c~~rJ ~~rt~i ti~a. °~9~3'Es~C[r1~~~ This h~~a~~ is f'i~lcl~[~aG:~ .~~~t3ctr~~t~~ using .~t~n~~ ~f ~.F~r~in~. ~i ~n~l r~a~7~l~~rTti~y ~c~~r:r~. `I`Il~ ref i~ ~Q~d ~°iih ~sphbtfit y~iitig.1~~F ~r<~ rn~st ~ ~ tl~~ trim is °~-~~~~r~e]tn. T`h~ F~~ti~~scEat i ~r~ i~ a~ Ci.e I ~;;~[~r~~y ~~ it t'h i~tC~ri~r is ~];~scerc;~ clir~ctl}~ ~~=~r the ~t~~n~ t~;tll~_ E:'f`F:~[~R '~'Iti~ frr~nt ~r~~~rsh~ ~ac-~ h~.~ :~ ~~s,[r~]fw i~rc:~t~~ ~.~i~K3~i~'.n. ~3~~r „~~}~%~h ma}~ ~c ~Fri~iri~l, a.ltho~ah Rlt~ ~~n~r~l ~ar~~~~ F~~~'~ h~~n glad in. :~. fig°~-p~,r~~ lran~c~rr~ h~er~ ah~~°~ tY~i-~ er~tran anal kl~~ c~~ ]~~~is u~at ~t~tic-r;;ingl~•li~~ lxr~~j~Cting ~cc~arrar5~e~ fr~ntis~i~:~~e9 Thy smell p~~~r~h ~~~+ iz4~t ~~' ~rigiin~L, 1~ut it i~ ~'~~w ~I~I a«+~ in .~;~~~d -~r~igi~r~. Thy ~,~~ts ~a~hi~h ~u~~a-~rt the r~r~f ~r~ turr~~9 tiwrytla crlr~ar~r~ ~n.~s. '!°~~~~ ~~7tt;~9l 1,~1 cl~~u~~~l~ hrcn,g s~,s]t~c~ ~r~ Ck~~ s~~usit~~ ~ri~~rl i~ tc~ ~ r i lye r ~i+rd~ ~f [lo i ~ ~rdt rarac~.. Thy ~~le ~n~l~ l~s~;t.~~ r~tuen ~:~~~~.~ un~l the r~vfli®ti~ itr~~lf ~ ~mph,~si~~ d by ~ ~I~ r~ +~~1•ii t~ ~;,~n ~ri~ ~~ ~t.~~i ~~l~~w ~t~~ ~ ~lu~ ~ii~ru~t~ t9t~ ~~re~m~try oaf il~ ~'~sl ~.~b~~ E'~~e, and e~n+~ ~~ the ~ir~[ flc.~r a°rte.9c~rt~a~s h~~ 1~:~~~ ~~~'~r~d ~~°~r. ~1~~ gas[ f~,~ r~~ain i[s s~r~r~~trar anal suyall ~,{1 avnr~ci+P Thar i~ ~1~~ a~rr ~:xt~~rit5f c~e~l:~r ~rttr~~7~` ~~g ~~[ inil~ the ~ar[h t~~s~~l~ the ]x~+i~:~~, r~~:+~1~~~] hw :~ ~~t ~f st~tti~e ~tep~_ ~~~ d~r~r le~~ldng. i«ic~ [Its I,~~;~~c~7c~otS lia.~.:~n s~~l~ ~ ~i~~c~ir~, ~°31~i3~p~ i[. 7~~rc is ~at~ r~~l hric~ ir~t~t'i~Sr ~nrJ ~hirrtr7~;~ ~I ~~eh cif al~a~ ~a~i un~l ~,~~~w.t g6`lr[~ ~n~l~~ ~n~ the Kn,~r~ ~f the l1~us~e art ~m~l~~.si~~~ thrr~a~,~;ll [h;~ ~~ ref q~r~inir«, Appendix 3 from Heritage Kitchener files f~~~c ~ -~ ~lF~{ :!~ i'E'~~L"r4 l~.~ f ~ ~k~~1_l~'~~ I `~ - 3:~# l~a~art IZr~~d ,~4, ~httl ~itarm~r lai~r~~~ tk[r?[augh [hc se~,lh ~Ic~ u~ ~ht scat}fF Intl ~~~ [~~ spa@1 ~litlin~ ~m•r[~1is~~ i~ l~ I# i~ cc~~irall~ 9r~4.~[~d Ih~ r~~rr ~ata1~~ ~:r[kr~rc~~ which is ;~tt ~![~titi r~[rm ~ ;cu rr~un~cd L~ ~ tC~[c~il~cll fr,~me_ Tl~erc i~ ~aG~ lx ! ~•in~.l~rwr• 1~ c;n~ ~~J~ {~f tly%5 ~~ ~n~i arri»p ~ I;~~~ tf~ h~1~rrLi~~ Nri~td,7a~~ h;Lc lre~~ el~s~~i Gn_ Jti"T~I~II~?~ fnseile {~~C fruit ~t~rti]e or~~r~k }a~~t:llc~ [lu~~r~ Mn~~t-t, iurx~utl~~{~ I?3` rsrinirn~l r~r~~ulcfn~r~_ ~rc ~r~ ~i~1~1 f~~ al[r~~,[if-~[, ~~~1 [~c tl~~ arc. link~.ef I~ ~ ~'~st~~p~~ ~ntt~n~l ~.[air~~ rixisr~ Frr~rri e~ r~~r eaf [h~ h~a4c ~ ~f [h~. uri~iati~l ~~.}r~ ~r~ cx~u~~d, and tF~rc i5 ~ e+~r~~r~t~e s1:~l ua~~l~r ~~~ ~~ GFt~ hr~u 7~.~ in~cri€~~ i~ ire ~;~~~ ~nn~l_[t~n_ ~I~.~:V~~~R*~ k~'vi~,4i.~1;~' nc~n~ .~:f [I~~ '~.in~l~a~~ ar< ~~ri~inal, near :arc. the ~hirr4rr~,p~- ~"hc rc~.C l~a~ ra:ccnal~• I~cc[~ r~~l~~c~a aril the ~~rmcr i~ r'~~t ,7~a~;i~~,b, P~ firrplat=c his I~c~a pnt~!!~t! irw~a~~, ~'11'~~~C~~I. 'Clti~ klt~h~n ~a:~~ ~~. ~n~ lamp ifi [h~ cal I,ar, t~cr~u~c i ~ i ~ '~°~r~ F F~:~~f L"~.~~ I~~c~[erJ ~tirl [h~ mei n ilr, i t ~r~[11~ h~ut u~ [lt~ 1ti~u~c ~xccir-clw ~AMEIn~; ~h~ ~umr~~e n~~nlh~. '>i`tic s,r~uk~lat~u ~~ ~v~r~}r n~c~ri~~r[r~~ ~~crt. ~!~L'~1~~~'I'~ _I~es h~~u.:i~ ill ~+?~~~ tr~pndi[~~~~5, but ~~t'ri~~r:r["srl~ dtl~ t[~ 9~c~ ~~ ~7~~~riR~nan~~, ads it s~~;n~G~. [~ti~~ ~[ ~~ qtr!! ~ n~r~ly ~r~s~rtiAc~ fie9cl~[~r,c pc~i~~ ~,~d slti~u.l~ b~ ,~~atl;erc~l drat ~c~y~~~tr~r~. ~a~,t~t 1. ~~1~ fr~ran Rc~,i~~r~rl .~';se~~Ar;~~°ilr; ~[,I',x~~1i~r1 l~1P'~'~a~'i~r~n Sl~:~t[[2 ~~~tkrt ~?. h'~~r] °I'~au•itckrarkti~, ~~{53~ Ji<~k~•;tri ~. ~1r. ~~°~illiini 1~~:~tr rarilr i%ar~ F~~;rn Hurl t~~ ~~ sfiai R'~ hoer Appendix 3 from Heritage Kitchener files two ~ ?-r?: s~ ,.3c~se~ak~ '.V,ilciLC.~.?~-a, i:h:_^ L~~~ilc]c~ of t}aia fi~14~~t~~t~'- hraus~r Baas h,c7x'?~ ns~ E~+ee~rr}~~er ~, 4:7~, 39'i~~ e3iec? on ~;z?use 23, 1830_ 3~e ~~ttlaci ire I3E?c~rl'S 't"ract nca>L ~tT-~s~~9~trrcz w.t}Z iris f~7'~t wife- Chr..st'.inw~ t'rah ~~n~ ~=.kt<Gr }??r cleakhp ~~~ :i~rri;?~t hx.s secranu~ +~°ifc~ Fli~:~YrE~t.'r .eta"'kar.l Ir, ~~2~ ,~~s~sph ~~uc;}~t1,°1t~~~r~~ fr~nl Jc~l~n ~sc~ct~ ;7r." ?'r 153 at c~r~~ ~..~t'~7-SL'VCri,~ j3L 3'i~?}.C '~1±~7 {'3r4^lf- s G~~3'~L3~C'[~ fyt I~~. ~#1~ ,WE-`J=5l+t3r'1 }, g3ro~ert~• wad ~~lr~c:i ate ~'~, ~~ t}~~ total v,~~rse ~# t~is taxable t~~=lasaai.ngs amc~snte°3 to ;"~%4d li:a ~;on Daniel, acre tt~+~nty-ane., wr~bke~3 c~r7 !?is f~,t}',~~`s farrtr.~ ]]{° ~J~.r.~ Yta~ ~ ;~t"srr r,rm~s, ~~,rn ~rbc,~tt 1€t9?`} sahCS ~.dtGY inhe°'iCt'tl his f;~t}tei"s 1~.tZe3, a.s'?c7,r?ain~ tha, };ou~G, anr~ whir solrt tl~e f4ex:~r ~srgt ~f they famil~~r ?~ l~$~.~ Thy cue ~r? ca.-re~-hale st~3rC]' Erx.el~3stc~ne }~~~~~ a~,~ea±•a in tl~~ T86:1, ~en~rs but tie 1~~1 c~nsu~ lists J~se~s}? 4•di lr3fc?nc} ~s~ resic~_r.~ in e3 ene an: ~~s,~-}-,alf stc~r~}°° Lcct ~tt`~s~tur~ ~.~a.t.tt hip wife s'~lzaL,eth~, the~'efc~rc: t}:~ stc,sa~e ~ler?ent wras c~t~st?-,:~:tec3 i.t~ the 185+~':s, }~+~r-l~a}s cca~erinx~ the ~riL~inal l~s~ h+~m~=stea~~. This rrTl=cifonc~ hc~rtre ~;~s c~c?t4~tru~ted in the }dateri.tti~ County t7Cltglt'ifl st,:lc~ cs,`. u-re^nursekt iel.lstc~nor~, tY~,e sta>YCS t~utl.:isiecl :,~i~,h m~~'tar i.r~ ~n r°sttc?m~t t~, ~r°eatc Batt zmr.},rsiV., c•~ rc~';~1aT~it:y, Tl~o roof }7as s~ eft?et1}r s~.n~i?-sr~ c~al~le v~it}t r•e:turs~ eaves arse c±r. i~a~.r3a].1~, them mere 4r?i1+ ~L':~ll.`.~:b~L. i'~~-, r3 ".:~ ~''l. ~~1~~ ~"+: {~ ~J'~ ~}'i ~F? iC:o L"•~ . 'i ~~' ~~+'~:": t: isf. G.3~E' 1S lri r'1'~.",~" Lt vs wic'e. The winri~~~xs ce, t?O~: d,~Fear t~ he c?t:-i~3i:~af. }~rtt the r3oarway~ is t:~ thr? ~a~lv eec>rsraan ~c~~r~t with a atra~ht ts:aslsam anr_.~ n~ ~ir~c±lic}hts. ~'h f.r~rtt porcrl~ ~c3~s ~ ni~~ tough ~~*itS, six srnnle s~}~aare ~a~.laxs ~rc~l{3ir~c~I uis ~ ~~e~is~r+~a~tal r~caf. Tire ~i~use ~~as 3~uiZt ~~it~a a cellar as indicated h,~° t:~e :~ic}e entrance of ~tor?e leadr.q to h}?~ cel~.a,r 1~~~,~r ~., `~'k~~ cellars housed tre d~s~r~stic area~r the kitchen firea G~'c.=tiny toc+ ntua~h h~ni Xth t?-,c-' _ snr°:i~~- if r~la~_t~r.3 a~n th!* f' :.i: n,e};in~i the t'r~,t'n~ is a sna?l ~,ny~+}:~~F;~~.>s a7.sc~ 'ail.t ~f Piclt~str?ne. *~c~~ ~.ite ~h~int z lfi.sLcaric ?:~i]~~ir~t~. Ira~.ae3lc~o'}+, l~~f~. !; - Appendix 3 from Heritage Kitchener files I~1 I`r~n t ~,~ ~ t.}~~ h~~.~.a~ ± r5 ,, 'tc~~ ~:~~+ ~ ~~ _~sn,~ ~ L two-~t~~r`~~~ ~~~a3 11~3a-~~ ~^i'L h ~ c~~nmbrc~l ~~:- "1~,~ rn-sia:,~):" r~~~a~.E. ~.r, ~Yc~ v.+~fi~ ~n.~l~~ f~n~~ :~~at-x~aa'~~ls ~h~ ~.~a:~~~rt~' ti~']°~_~lt i~ X11 ~l~v~t~s~ ~n a hill ~=~c3 ~ s iryrt ,~ tS ~'~ 4r~ai~te ~.~ot"~ t~f1L~x°rt~ F.~g~~~ ~ tat;~?ts r~~~'77 ~~ i~ is g~ i~~ tl~~ mia~~~t.~~nk~i ~~at~tur~y'. TCsi,~: f~a'I'+'o ~~ 1~~,ta'a~;~,~' ~ '~~Yt~2lk~~~ ~~~:: if '~~~s .:~a~tLlt~~i ar~~ ~.~ta~ x'~~ra~~ii~s ~n ir~t~e°re~sta.^~ f'~=rigid ~~ ~'~.~t~rl~~d C~~ntxr's ~~ricallt~t~l h~ar~~~g~~ flat ~~}~tt.~ft~t4~~'A'r ~~~E i7 r~~~~~.a~i~m~n~ ~~ ~n~cr~a~~chin~ Uri s~~ ~;uickl~r r~~l~a.~na ~~ ~~'~hit~~t;ar~~al 4~~d ~~~.r~ri~'~1 ~rti.E~~t, t7~c} ~xe11~~x~r~~ f~~r~,h,~ai.~~. Note: the date of Joseph Wildfong's birth is December 23, 1796~~. The date shown in this dociunent is lilcel~- a t~-pographical error. .~,+~'- 1. T`~I`~:~ rt~$, ;~ Aar{~~`b~5~~:"a4{-r~l ~~t`~'~~~~" ~f t'~.atf_rl~e~ ~`~'~ ~11a ~~. d~~ ~it~C't1. ~',' 7f~~l~:l ~,Y3d:L~~ HL~aLi'Y'1~ t~?dl_~ X9t+~i T~~y~'~rr,~.~Cra``~k'~' ~l:C: ~'I1~r :~'. Lanai Ft~~istr3~ ~]ffi~~~ l~rr. ~B~ ~~ ~'it~d L~~' t~5~ ~h~nt~ ~a7;e~nt,~rir. 3, ']'sx .~~s~~~sln~nt~, 1~}3~~ ~°at.~el~~.~ ^'~~w¢r~s~^,i;~, ':~~_~: P~~. ~#. ~'i~n=.~s.cri~~~ ~C~.n.~usr :1,~~5i„ '~a.t~rl~+~ T~a:~n~T,~p ~~aath, I~~s.tri~t i~. ~. Ta~~~~ Rt~q~~ti"} ~}ffe~, i~a~t. LL~~~'ld ~s ri[~ci ~~' the SFaant~ n~~n~~Y: ~~.. 4. ~~T7'.tCC:~'~G~ t`~i5:~1;1;~~ 3,21.~~ ~ R-?~i.a?i'~.Qitl '~C±~rP~7~17iF). Iii tY~,~`~ ~~~ ,~ry~ ~~;~~ Gla~t~~r1~' '3°~u~r~sh~ ~c~~th~, 17i~t'~i~ fi~a Thy 5h.~.~,~a Ir,~~~nt~ryr ~it~~ t:Ytii ~ F~cr~a~~ ~~ h~fnR ~~an=t~~~~^t~d ~. 18~~ °~~~h is too earl;{. {~ ~~ http://members.col.net/drlon~strom/ne~ti• t~a~e 2.htm, and Biogrnphicnl History of TT aterloo Township, Ezra E. Ebe. 189, p. 644. Appendix 3 from Heritage Kitchener files ~TF t`IF ~'.Y7~v"STN~C'1`ilkN ~•.1~~~ EL~Zn Ili~hn~ 1^?" 1! ~t -~-- r ~a~t:~tti ~xrn .X~~c~m~~er[ F~~ ~0-~-~kS ~~~r~in~ 1 h+^ dY+k ~ 15. 7 ~ .9kc ° jai-ir+~~s~rr ~~~r~E°+.~u~n ,~~i3~~~A ~ef1dF~+~ly: t.^,s~.:'- S~B 4~a*11 tl~. a~5k ..sF. r : r ~sr ^. a3T5 ~'ti~a~ 7t ~~ - .-,~~ ~v?m1o~r-#~=~_`.! ~ ~.''..6~1:: ?:,r ]931 ~wtinl~F~'~~R~1r [~~~Rlp°fI~W wk;c*1 ~ xee t^~r~l S t3~ !ds Gc rl~a ~~°urt~ ~~~ ~~rl 1 ~'° °~ . ~ ~~ .. s-~._....-m Y~Li L'Y!G $L~ C9P lg+ ~'Ci~.l~~ t3 i 13tC1 1~'~J ~v~~IC i "•CsfR {~~:1 Flv+~ra:ga ~US?f_tx° 6° ~ _d?~r~^~~ 1 ~L'11 ~ Psr Ilr•:9~r Chef JI Ea~t~r°~~Te~ 1 Er"sll F$rt li~~tis~r.?w~ P,~ ~ ~. i "i:;'7,~1~~a33t Ca~caa1~ -'~~ir CKF~~fI fielJ~t4il~ ]yid ~-C CS +3~~~ ~41g~~~Gln~ b~ _ ~~rl~r ~at~ ~f ~.re~t~leei~r 3Lt~~$b~~~ fault .~Ir s °. Iw:-', ~~p,°~Y?F.~nl>~ ;~Ga?C~1_ ~x~s:~]r ~v: ~+tsslti° fiel,~~ts~r_~ ac-~tl~llr:~~ Appendix 3 from Heritage Kitchener files 17.L hC~ ii$~9 ® rsf ~ 1~15~1 ~g #dil~~t$ t~ g{~nrp~ ~sl~~ar ' ~7-ti=-1~'} !5~ - 1~~~7 P§ r,~ ,t~]59.2 it~en:y ~!5~1~~K ~~- ~ d~~3 a~ W.~ita~e T.. er:,~~ien ~~-~-1~9 .",~~ ~i ~ck~rr, ^-- 9~ ~ B o ~ ~ 13~ 1 ~ ~.1~ ~ r° [yt'ssn d ~a+riao~ r k~a d~ahn ~ ~Y~~ ~, ~F-O-X29 3~c_ 19~~['~ ~. ~m ~ 1~~'~~ orcpe ~.. ~it~T~#, k:~ J[~hrt ~x'~€~t ~#-d-i~4 ht. 1~~~ `;~ ~~4~x Eatt~~~i~~e~ ~~ ,7+~h~~ ~rai~k t~ L.~~ra ~rertt .- :~~~ h~~ ~1~r4~G~ ~$31 ~R ~'4~~P I_ac~ri ~_ ~r3P,t t~ ;T~hPS ~G7C~a` t,T: , ~ 19~Q a,;R 3911 ~.rv ~+t'J~SIS to ~~~ I~.atrtbn ,dal A6~, §~5~~4~ P~ I+3k Su~~. k~ ~a,t 151 '~a~ .~~~~1 Flum Martin t~ E~~~ F~i~~ g,~.z$a ~.r. ~~~~5t~ 1~5~ ~~ =°~~~~1 E~3gar f{el~-~ t•~ ;~Y_~t ~ P~sL~. ~'~r,~C° il_.~~` ~~: ~A95~ ~it~e. 1~ ~~ G~ a ~6~4~ ~~ ~l lse r ~t ~ P,a:~ ~owrdgcxa t~ mill ~x`~r~k a Lk ~. ~~~r ~~~ 157, ~# ~+;.. ~~~' - ~~ nom E1irrs~~t 11 7S 955' . ~'~ 4r. 5. -,ir~. F~:~•~l ~5;~~":~~ in r~sr~ t~'q ~64a.3f:. s"1~ Ez r~ p~~t 1 1J.C_ R_ .170 C esaln' ~ ~ ° i~ Frl~~'T+~f~3~~~.[~ YfV.FC?a~l".~~'[~]V -~r~~ph ~+i 1~f~7~ w~~ b~sn pcc. ~~, Y7~~ s~rr1~ ~k~ ~Ha a~~~1~0~ ~n th.~~ fsrar near ~~s~s~~~ar~ ~it~ h:~ ~-fY°~S' ~+~~ ~ns:~.~tirsa arch aad ~cvr~~: ~rid~ Cli~ath~ S~.ry*~ik~~ -:°'i~~: tFa~ ~a=€r way tak~"n 4WC*i° ~eF I~L@ ~~,"1 33P RF(Y]M~~:'~ De'+.To ~~ -~~;i ~g.Q~ Y ~~F dr~itjna ~ i•~n b~.s i c.~ 11~ .fir its a rrh i tie°Ck a r~a 1 P-1~Yi.±' s-~ 'tii~- th°e ~l~n-.in~ ~t~r ~'~v?~l~,~axrtit w ',: .~n_,:~a°]~ th i ~ h~kda . 31!+i?'~1R°~"J3.i'~i'}N ~€aUP.t .~gi~tr}~ L3e~'~dY~d• rzh~~v Jt•oak r, ~ F,~F,l~E {~}` r~k:kFa~R ' I*}: F+. C;ameres~ ui5ry~~v Appendix 4 Selected Descendants of Johannes W Note: subscript numbers refer to the generations, i.e. a is the fourth generation after Johannes Woolfang. Highlighted mines are those ~~ ho resided at 324 Old Huron Road (however briefly- for some) from c. 1823, the rear that Joseph Wildfong purchased the property from John Bean Jr.,`` Wildfongs o~~~ied and/or occupied the property from 1823 to 1887. '' Generation No. 1 Johannes Woolfang «-as bom Abt. 1695 in Bohemia, al~d died Abt. 1769 in Pennsylvania. He married Elizabeth (Woolfang). She ~~%as born Abt. 1700 in Gennanv, and died in America. Source: "The Histoi-~r ofthe Pennsylvania German Pioneers" by Star ssburger and Hinke cited b~-Gail Breitbard of Miami, Florida in research notes dated 1967. More About Johannes Woolfang: Emigration 1734, Sailed from Rotterdam to Philadelphia on the English ship St. Andre«, Religion: Moravian Generation No. ~ Josephs Wildfong (Jacob, Georg Michaeh Wildfalig, Johaimes, Woolfang) «-as bom Dec23. 1796 in Lancaster Co., Pemisylvania, and died Jun. 23, 1870 in Strasburg, Ontario, Canada. He married (1) Christina Groh. She was born Abt. 1800, and died Abt. 1843 in Canada. He man-ied (2) Elizabeth Strycker. She was bom Apr.14.1808, and died Feb.03.1877 in Strasburg, Ontario, Canada. Children of Joseph Wildfong and Christina Groh are: I. Elis Wildfong, bom Mar.15.1819 in Ontario, Canada. ii. Anna Wildfong, born Jun.17.1820 in Ontario, Canada. iii. Abraham Wildfong, bom Jan.22.1822 in Ontario, Canada; died 1822 in Ontario, Canada. iv. Joseph Wildfong, born Jan.16.1823 in Ontario, Canada; died in Montpelier, Wisconsin. He married Rebecca Lutz; born Abt. 1825; died in Montpelier, Wisconsin. v. John; Wildfong, bom Aug.08.1825. vi. George Wildfong, born Ju124.1826 in Ontario, Canada; died 1826 in Ontario, Canada. vii. Rev. Levi Wildfong, born Aug.11.1827 in Ontario, Canada; died Aft. 1895. viii. Daiuel Wildfong, born Jan27.1832. ii. Elizabeth S. Wildfong, bom Aug29.1843. Children of Joseph Wildfong and Elizabeth Sh~Tclcer are: I. Gabriel S.; Wildfong, bom Aug21.1845 iii Strasburg, Ontario, Canada; died 1845 in Strasburg, Ontario, Canada. ii. Amos S. Wildfong, born Feb22.1847 in Strasburg, Ontario, Canada. Generation No. 5 Eli; Wildfong (Joseph, Jacob, Georg Michaeh Wildfang, Johannes, Woolfang) was born Mar.15.1819 in Ontario, Canada. He married Nancy Mosser. She ~~~as bom Abt. 1820. Children of Eli Wildfong and Nana- Mosser are: I. Johns Wildfong, bom Abt. 1840 in Hespeler, Ontario, Canada. ii. Joseph Wildfong, born Aft. 1840. iii. Amos Wildfong, bona Aft. 1841. iv. Elizabeth Wildfong, bom Aft. 1842. v. Sarah Wildfong, born Aft. 1843. ~`~ Land Registry Office records ~' ibid Appendix 4 Selected Descendants of Johannes W vi. Daniel Wildfong, born Aft. 1844. vii. Leah Wildfong, born Aft. 1845. viii. Eli Wildfong, born Aft. 1846. iz. Simon Wildfong, bona Aft. 1847. i. Peter Wildfong, born Abt. 1849 in Hespeler, Ontario, Canada. Rev. Levi; Wildfong (Joseph,,, Jacob, Georg Michaeh Wildfang, Johannes, Woolfang) «as born Aug.l 1.1827 in Ontario, Canada, and died Aft. 1895. He mai7ied Maiy Weber. She «~as boin Feb.03.1825, and died Aft. 1895. Children of Levi Wildfong and Mai-- Weber are: I. L~rdia~ Wildfong, born Abt. 1845. ii. Marv Ann Wildfong, born Aft. 1845. iii. Noah Wildfong, born Aft. 1846. iv. Moses Wildfong, bom Aft. 1847. v. Louisa Wildfong, born Abt. 1848. Amos S.; Wildfong (Joseph, Jacob, Georg Michaeh Wildfang, Johaimes, Woolfang) was born Feb.22.1847 in Strasburg. Ontario, Canada. He man-ied (1) Sarah Guyer Dec28.1866. She was born Jan.09.1845, and died Apr20.1874 in Strasburg, Ontario, Canada. He married (2) Sarah Witmer Sep.13.1874. She «as born Feb21.1843, and died Dec.01.1884 iii Strasburg, Ontario, Canada. He man-ied (3) Wilhelmine Radke Feb.12.1885. She was born Dec.10.1857. Children of Amos Wildfong and Sarah Guver are L Joseph C~ Wildfong, born Abt. 1867. ii. David Wildfong, born Aft. 1867. iii. Elizabeth Wildfong, born Aft. 1868. Children of Amos Wildfong and Sarah Witmer are: I. Oliver Wildfong, born Abt. 1875 ili Strasburg, Ontar7o, Canada: died Bef. 1895 in Strasburg, Ontario, Canada. ii. Norman Wildfong, born Aft. 1875. iii. Lorne Wildfong, born Aft. 1876. iv. Ii-~vin Wildfong, born Bef. 1884. Children of Amos Wildfong and Wilhelmine Radke are: I. Almina Bertina~ Wildfong, born Abt. 1885. ii. Eliza Mai- Wildfong, born Aft. 1885. iii. Amos Aleiander Wildfong, born Aft. 1886. iv. August Gordon Wildfong. born Aft. 1887. v. Alton Sidne~T Wildfong, born Abt. 1890. '~' ~~ http://members.col.net/drlon~sh-om/ne~3~ pale 2.hhn. Jere- Longstrom. ielaz'ci-col.net Appendix 4 Selected Descendants of Johannes W ~~.~1~dr~x, ~t~~i~ ; T~' 1~~~i~l, ~~~ ~.~c~r~, I ~t~~u~l, ~'~~ ~' ~~~b, ITT ~'i ~{M ~si~l ~, ~ ~~ ~T ~r~~i~~.~ ~.n~1 I ^~ ~~.~r; ~lt~~. l ~1T ~'4g.[~,I~~.'~ ~'~~7~ ~i~ ~~~fl'~~. ~~a~ la~r~ Il~~~m~~~1r ;?fir, 1°i~. #~~~ art;: ~iz•~t~ ~rittt•t•[t~. ~~~ ~:i~ri~~ir.~a ~-rl~~Y~ ~.~d ~f i°~r ly ~r ~i~ ~r9~~~~;~ ~ ~~~ I~~ ] i ~~~~~~ tit ~# 1~~;~~k~r ~ l ~ ~~.3r~ a~'~ r~r 1 1 e~ ttt, 1 ~w ~~ t ~~ ~~ ~~ ~l [~~. I+~~~1~~•~~ ~-r~ ~~~•~~, 1.77. °I~t~ ~y ~ 1`~~i ~i~~l €~r~ ~~. f ~i~•tt1 ~~ ~t:~~~ka ~~ ~`~ ~~ l t ~1~~~~ tk~l~ incl. I3~ ~l i Sri ~" ~~ ~t~ ~=~r~~•~l, 1 ~ r ~~a. i~ i~ ~ae~il~~ ~~~~t~i~t~~~i ~~#` t~~l~°~ ~.~i~il~~r~>~iq ~ain~ +~~ ~l~ic~~r ~~r~ kit}i~ti ~~a~#.~~ iris .t ~t i~, ~.ra; Y~1 ~"~'` ~'ZT~ ~.~~'~~ ~::~, :l{~ f.i.. ~~~ ~~r~rit 1~[~-r~~l:~ ~ ~kTl~ a 1 ~~. n~~r. ~3~:~~~~r ~iz~t`~ llt~ ~~~ ~r~~°st~ i~~ f~rtt~u. 1~ 7 I ~ l ~ ~~'~~ ~ ~, .T ~ ~Y~T ~ , ~. T~ r~l~~~~r, i~ t~t~ ~~ri~el ~~~ at~~{i~ 1T~,1~~~. `1'lit~~• ~~t~~i~.. ~~~~~r ~T~~~lt+.t•, #~Y~t~.ri ~d~~i~ ~ ~i t~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ l ~~, ~~~ ~Y`~'l ai y.~t~~~ ~ trt i trx i~r ~T ~~-~ ~T~t~Y~)~i~rl) T~i~R~~r l~rr~t~~~i~~:~t ~~~`11~~:J~t~illf~- ti~. ~~r~~t. ~'1ti~~;~ r~~i~1~ iii l~tdter~g~~ ~tl~tti~l ~~+l~~~r~~ ~~~ i er~~~.~~ i~ ~~.~°r~~t~~. ~"'lu~n F~~t~~ r~~~ici~ irr ~~rlit~ ~~~~~r~~:g lip i~ t'Iy}~~t¢~t'~i ~at,~~~n ter ~n ~, ~_t i I~i~l•° ~1~~ ~ `~'~'I1sl~N~+~i~.7, FT~Ir~l~~~fi'~I, t77t°~r°ri~~~cl ~~~ ~~'r~~~r~:i~ IIi:~~r, ~ ~~~r:~~rY. 'TI~~~T r~~l~i~y r~~~.~~ ~ll~~~e- H~l~r~• ~~f~tr~~i~`. r['l-~~~ r~~i~~ ~t ~~ltl$~~g~a1, ~.}~~t~°~lr~ ~~ ItE,°.~°. ~l~`l,l~ ~' ~°r~:l~Xt~1t'93 ~r"t1~.t]t~~. f FJ~lt~r Irs I~~~rfl .s~GU, µ°a, c;iy;a};~:1' fur a~ti~rr;iJ }-zsr, a~•jtih Tfk~ ~t~~1414 ~'y"~Ijahr~~ ° ~trlan~ {~il~ci,~. Appendix 4 Selected Descendants of Johannes W .,I .~ ~~~~~ TIT~[.f~rkk'1.!!~.'_k!. IIl~7'(~~} ~(]N' '4°5'.~'T'~+'~~.T.#~~~. a. ~1~,~ I~' ~~~llfl ~l+'~ ~, ,T~ ~~1 ~~ ~~~ 1'~~~t'li ~~~~4.~~~ ~~~'t~ 1~:.~~. l ~a:} ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ Ir~.~rl4i~f~ tr-~ ].~~~tt,~~A I.i ~-t6~~~*~~ ~~Y ~~~~~}i• }e~~~' ~~t!~w:~~'~:~~: ~~~, ~~~~.~ t~,~R~~ilr Tlt~~°r•i~yrl ~~~~t T~~~rr`~~ ~i' ~t`gr:~~.~~eti ~~-~f~; ~'~~~ t~~~t: l•t~t'a~i~-~~~1. f-1~~ ~ :~. ~-~r~:~~~z~~~~t' ~-ttr.i ~~i~iE~.l~~• {~tl~~l r~-~ii~~-~~ ~t~ I ~~iu~lr:•r~~ ~~°'~~l~t~l~~~~~ ~1~:~tii~~,~~, ~~ ~.4.r1•~. i1 ~'~` x`11.1 ~~~'~ pt.~~, ~ ~ ~•:~ ~Iti~~r1~~, ~~~t~ 1~~aT•r~ ,aill~ ~~-~t}, I~,~~~k ~a~~ci cl ik'~'~ i Iti Ml1t~XtYc,:°}`. 1 r I ~' ~,~' ~ l~l~~ ~~'~ ~' ~.s. 1~~ }~ ~'. ~}'~'~, ~ l~c~~~ti ~t~~ «t 1 I t~}I, i r~®~~~. ~ ~r~ '~T~ r~°~a. r5#l~, ~~„i~:p, ~Y~ ~~'tt~ Tr~~.~r•i•i~p~l f.~ 1~~~~.A$~', c~~z ~~,~ 111v~arY ~~t` }~~ ~~~ ~-it11 ~Y~7.r. }t.~~}l7 ~rlrrt°~- ~ r~~'~sr~; ~~T~°~s'~~ll~. +Il~~ }'r-i4~ ~~~r_}1. ~J ~°~~ 1,.}~~L1~0.1. ~, lL•{~, ~~I~~,, ~.. ~~11~' ~'~1f.~1' I I1 ~I~dl'~°!~,#~a,kl~, ~(_.~l~t;.l.d`t[kp ti"~~11~1yT't' .ll~' 1~ t'Tl~~:l,~e'.t~ ilk xTM 11t1~1~'TTI+lTi1 ~~t?i~~. ~~~ 1.~ ~ Tc~~;{~1 IIl1[Y1r~1~ayT' c~~ ~}4 W~~-bI7~R~l~~~~1 .~~.r~:~~~°irl~+}I~. ~li~ l`crtr~il~ ~°~~ii~l~~~ ~;Ff fig- ~~I~ltil~~T~, 1t~iTilt~~~-; ~' 1.~°cl.itt, '~~ ~l~r~~ f~ir~rr.F '~~ _~r~~.~ty ~l l?~ T ~~. ~~~ I l,.l ~ l{~~~ [~ti 1.x:1 l li:I~, ~~~~~~ ~~~~~°~~ Ja-7~u~r~~• ~~t.17, 1~~~:.}. H~ i~ t~~~~l•ri~~rl ~~~ ~ °{apt}~~I'Zl~ ~t.~Tt1}~~~~sf{~r. `l'ie~~° T`i'~lc~~ lil .~~.{~~t~' '1'~3'.°~~!l~~1.9IM, ~ ~ar1~~~•I~, ~~F}i~~r~~ ll{~' Y~~, ~~~~~,~t~cl z~ 1~~~ttllli~a i'~'c~ iif~,rz~~,#~~~t~- lla ~c•~t~i•c1 #~~ ~tt11] ~ I~~. X1~~M l~r ~1sIt~1.~~~`I~~~r, ~i~F~Yr~~~`I~.r"~~t ~~F~~~ ~~r-~~ JuT,~ ~~~~.li, ~~~~.~° ~11k', +~:1~' IljitT."t'lt.t~l t+~ ~41~t~~,~.5:~ ~~°'a'I.pt'T', f~2•a:sif~r~'.~ Fl'~,a~~~ r~~ir~~~~1 in ~4~'d7~~a~5'~ir.°~~ `t`~~~~cb~li ~~~1~~-~r~r~ ~1~ r~i~..o.~l. ~]ry~l t:l~~~~r~ ~~~~~~•~~ ~~rat'I~ ~i~1 ~r r°lil~l r~i~~ ~~~~l~~~l~°: ~F }'c~]1~', '~~ 1~~~-~1i, Vie` .~~{'~~.~~, °~T I~~~•i~l, ~" .1~F~~5~~11, ~' I~~~xli~l7 ~' l~t~r~- ~~ ~~~:~, ~` ~1~~~~~tl~r ~~~~1 1:~ Y ~' 1~ ~ 1 ~:~ ~.~1~'~ ~ [~-~, ~~ 1~ I ~:.~~ 1-i I~:'}' l-~ ~ t~~~r~ ,~- ~t.~:~t `~~ M~~.1, 1~:, ~ji~~~ ~r~i~~~l its irl'2it~~.°~~. l?1 I~" ~~`It.l~l~~~~~;, [x'~}~I~~l~~i~ ~.. ~~-~t~ ~~~~r~ .~~~.~~~ `~1~I~ ~c~~ ~r~~~ ~i~~~l rr~ iz~~~t~rJ. Appendix 4 Selected Descendants of Johannes W ]t~~t~~ F~,~ 1~F1 r+: ~ ~ III~•I'+~1~' t~~ ~r ~•~ ~~. ~~L,t~+[], ~ i ~1 ~~? ~ ' ~'~' ~. I.I ~ ~~'~ ~ {:t, ~ ~t ~ ~ ., ~ I~~~r~~ }+'kkl~:ri~~~r~T zznd, t~~. ~~rr I t~:c~~r7l~~~r Atka. r~faj k5~ ~°<~!; ,rta*.ri~cl t~-~ ~*.lT:ikl lv~~r 3~°}tca r~°as ~rr7 3~r~ar~r~~ ~~I~, i~.~~, .~,~1~~- hip n7~rri~+~ Cie r~ t~~'~~ ~ ra I~ i ~ i:~ r]~~ r'~ ~~~1 kkl.~r~e: a~ ~~ra~~~t~r u~~k3 ~r ~ I~~. ~ ~~C~rik eot~it i~+:~, ~~~ ~~~tcr~~h~r r~tl~, r.~~-6. ~~~ ~a~ aaar3 n~arri~cl t~ ~~rah ~'4'irrt~er u~~ktir~ ~:~~ kacarr~ ]~.ck;~-~b°rr}~ ~i~t, r.~~, a~cfl r ~ir~~~ ~~~:c:~'.eatk5~r ~~1, ~~~^'~_ [fin L•"~r~ru~r~ z~th~ ~0~, 1~~ +~+~~ ~~;r~i.p~ tY]~.~C'i~tf # ~~ IEk3E`kil5fk]~ l~acll~~ ~t~hr~ +n~~~ f~~rrs Dee~tinb~er i~~ha ~.,~~ f, I~~i~ l'.~res~l~• ~~~-,r~sr3ts Kid' ia~-~•~ti•+~ E-]~ik~rea~A rtiarr~~]~~; g ~~~c.}~1~ ~~..5 '~` ~~,~~-i~, .~nc.~ ]~-l;a~]~~th +~ith t7r~t v~Fif~, '~°° ~.~i~a~c~r ~~.ki~~r3~, err ~?orniar~, ~.~ La~er3~e ti~`.a ~rnr~ ~' Ir~~in ~~~ia1~ ~c'~.a~rsd t~~i~~, ar~d ~r _'41r~3iitia: Iisrrtir~W~, ~~ ~:~i~st ~uti~, '~'' ~'~.r~~~~ :~1~~aiti~der, ~T ~~.r~c_~~t CF:,,r~3a~n, ~ry~ ~` ~`~lt[~n :~idr~~~_w, ~°i91~ tkiire:I ~ i~~. ~~.~}~ III. 1~FILL~~'~~~ t7, ~~~~~~~ ~~, ~ ri,9t.r~•~~~~ ~. J~~~ r~ 1~~~t~-tr~~~,m,}~~~'. f.['}~~~. ~~~:~~ tj~~t` '~'~°a~r~~c~t ~_"~~~ilr~. ~l~n ~~~t'al~ ~*~:~ ~~~r~~ ~ #'t~m~I~! ~~~ ~I~=~•~`~~ ~Fl~~~lr~~t~, z~~~~~1~~: I'~" ~f~l• 1~~ l~li~ixl:~~~t~~, I~$ 1'~~~~t~l, I'~' I~~;~~tit, I'~' ,~~~~.~~~d~, I~• l.J~~°t I~' ~T~~~~~I;r1~12~{~~ I~r 1~I~tri~, ITT 1 i:~~rsi~~t~ e, I'~' ~ t~~~~ iz~Ir~, ~~tic~ ~ ~~ ,~,•zrr~~. t~~~ l~~i I~~, ~ ~~ D~~~r~°~~i ~~,~ tf~¢l~r~ lei ~ll„*ldyr, ~ ~"~~,rr~~. '~'~l~~r ~t~~lrt:~~t~ ~1~`il.l° P'~I:~r~~l~~a~~~, ~ ~r,~`tr~~~. ~~ Jc~I~~~ Iiz~I~r~~ f~~~l~, - Biogrcr~hiccr] Hza~tor°y of T~'aterloo To~nj~ship. Ezra E. Ebb-, 1895. pp. 644. 646, 647. Appendix ~ TreeInven "~ Q1 ~ ~~ 324 ~I~J Huron Rn~ti Appendix ~ Tree Inven size key tree species common name (cm dbh) condition remarks 1 11lalzrs sp. Apple 2~ fair 2 11lalrrs sp. Apple ~ ~ 20 fair 3 11lalrrs sp. Apple 30, 20.20 fair 4 11lalzrs sp. Apple 30 fair j Popzdzrs ~ canadensia Carolina Poplar 4 ~ 75 poor 6 Acer r°rrbrrrn~ Red Maple 8~ fair 7 Salix alba tristis Weeping Willow 17~ poor $ Jirglans nigr°a Black Walnut 25 fair g Popzdzrs ~ canadensia Carolina Poplar 8~ fair 10 Rharnnrrs frangrda Buckthorn 23 good 11 Pir~rrs nigra Austrian Pine ~ 1 good 12 P. s>>lvestr°is Scot's Pine 43 good 13 ~cer platanozdes cultivar Norss ay Maple cultic°ar C8 good 14 11lalxs sp. Apple 25 fair lj 1llalns sp. Apple 25 fair 16 11lahrs sp. Apple 25 fair olunteer ~-olunteer (4 stems) ~-olunteer (3 stems) olunteer needs pnuling (4 stems) suckering stump near proposed road r.o.w. near proposed road r.o.w. invasive species near proposed road r.o.w. mvasive species invasive species on adjacent proposed lot on adjacent proposed lot on adjacent proposed lot Three of the existing trees on the property fall within near the proposed road right-of-wad- and may need to be removed due to grading, although this is yet to be determined. None is considered significant. One is Dui invasive species and should be removed in any event Two other invasive species are located iirtheproper- and will not be affected by the development. Both are in good condition: however, consideration should be given to their replacement with non-invasive species. Three apple trees fall on a proposed adjacent lot. These will likely be lost to constn~ction. They are not signficant trees. The Carolina Poplar behind the house is in need of substantial pruning. It eihibits a number of dead limbs which are in danger of falling. Numerous trees are located in the valley lands. These were not inventoried and are not affected by development, being sih~ated within protected lards. Appendix 6 Structural Renort T ~ STRU+CTU I~A~~L ~'~ 1"1 F~EPC)RT - ~NGdNlER5 Stare Farmhouse, 3~4 ~31d H`uran Read Date: C)ctober 3fl, 2(lp$ No. df Pages: 2 Project: 324 {71d Iiurot7 iZoad Project No.: TE-16251-fl$ Client: Lull Bclehnke I,td. 1261 IIuran Rs~ad, K. 1~. #2 Petersburg, aN IVOB 2H0 background. Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Bill $aehnlce Ltd. to carry oufi a visual structural review of tlne stone farmh€ause located a1 324 Old I-duran F~aad in Kitchener. ~'he undersigned attended at the site an [7ctaber 3[l, 2{11113. The fi~llt~wing comments summarize the content of the structural apinic~ns given an site. It is reported by the purchaser that the 1% storey stave farmhouse was cr~nstructed around 185i}. It has a partial basement. There is evidence of a farmer rear porch or verandah. It is clear that the building was built in two sections -one with a basement, and a later addition with a crawl. space. R~}QF The roof is constructed of conventional (for the #ime) wood framing to provide a '/z storey second flay. The ceiling is quite Ic>w and Slopes down towards the two bearing, walls. There is no insulation.. Ito order to achieve adequate ceiling height we recommend that: - The ceiling joists be removed along with the plaster. - Anew ridge beam be jatstalled end to end with two intermediate pUSts - Existing rafters be sintered with new 2x ] 0 rafters to allow room for insulation and ventilation. - New insulation, vapour barrier attd ceiling finish be installed. - In addition, the rear shod dormer shay he extended (widened}. STfl:VE WALLS ABOVE GRADE The stone masonry is in reasonably goad condition above grade, Some re-painting is required all around to preserve the walls. 176 Speedvale Avenue west ~ TEL: 519 763-2000 ext.ll 2 Guelph, Ontario nrvfrxs'unsJ Eagynccrs rAx: 519 824-20100 Canada ;I1H 103 jackt[;~ta~atnaengsneers.caa~ Appendix 6 Structural Report S"I'C)NE WALLS BELQW GRADE The stone nzasocary below grade is in need. of re-pointing. The mortar has deteriorated and is in need of replacement on the exterior face. This can be done in small sections with regular mortar. It is recommended that drainage membrane lae installed along with weeping file when this work is parried cut. This is significant work and is required to maintain the structural integrity of the building. .~QIN`I' It is clear that the building has been constructed in two sectinns. This is not a problem; however there is a visible "ridge" in the roof where the two sections abut. There is also a joint in the stone masonry. These are pat indicative of a structural problem. The "ridge" in the ravf can be eliminated when the roof is re-built. The joint in the stone masonry will always exist since it controls thermal movements. W©QD FLQ(]R The centre wood beam supporting the main floor contains same rot. The posts at both ends are also rotted where they laser an the concrete. These should be replaced with a new beam, new posts and concrete footings to suit. WIND{)WS The existing windows are small and can be enlarged. Tltis will require experienced masons and steel lintels fpr the wider openings, ~otnments: All work is to he dvrte in ac:c:ardance with the Ontario Building Code,. local regulations and in a workmanlike manner. Provided that the alcove structural work is carries out atad the building envelope is well-maintained, the structural portion o£ the building should continue to provide good service. ~~~_~~ ' ~,' '~',.~. ~,l a ~ 9 Per; ~n~h~ ~, °:.; . 7a `Tacoma, l~.Trng. acorn Engineers Inc. ~.t~"°' ~~ ,~'~ t~. ,a Appendix 7 `Wildfon6' family name The German fasnih- name Wiltfong is classified as being of niclcna~ne origin. Surnames which are derived from a nickname are said to constitute one of the ~z idest and most varied class of family names. This particular categoi-~- encompasses many different types of origin. The most obvious are those names which are based on a physical characteristic or personal attribute of the initial bearer. In this particular instance, the suin~une Wiltfong denotes a ``person ~~-ho lived in the undeveloped area" or "someone «%ho comes from a foreign land', from the Germanic, "wild", the Old High German "~~ ildi", meaning "~~ ild, wilderness'" and "fang', from the Gennani "fangen". meaning "to capture, control". In some instances the name may also indicate ``a wild and hot tempered individual". The name may also be ofhabitation origin denoting ``someone who lived near a wildlife preserve" or, ``enclosed hunting area". Variants of the surname Wiltfong include Wildfanc and Wildfanlc.. Notable bearers of the surname include Richard Wildfang, a preacher «-ho died in 1663. This name was introduced to America as early as 1734 in which year we find a record of the emigration of Johannes Wildfang who settled in Pennsylvania. The name could of course have been first introduced to that counti~- at an earlier date. Name variations: Woolfang, Wildfang, Wildfong, Wilfong, Willfong, Wiltfong, and Wiltfatig, even Woolgang and Wolfgang(er). Basically-, it's simple, the family could neither read nor write, at least the majority couldn't in the first 150 rears or so in North America. This accounts for all the spellings. (It is possible that the opposite is also tn~e; someone was well-educated, and English educated, and he didn't want the name to ``sound' Germ~ui, so the spelling ~~-as changed to Wilfong to match the pronunciation. -this isn't an eiact science!) When ~~-e see a "ne«~" spelling come along «~e can generally trace it to a geographical area, isolated from others in their family. For example, the Wildfong spelling was created in Waterloo County. Ontario, Canada in 1802. Evei-~-bodv in North America «~ith the Wildfong spelling can trace their ancestry to Waterloo County. It's not to say that all the families from Waterloo County ~yould take this spelling, though. Remember, it ryas "created" in 1802, and the families ~~-ere still not literate at this poi<it. So we still see the sir known spellings evolving out of Waterloo County at a later date. Willfang in the Neustadt area of Ontario, and Wiltfong in Indiana, for eiample. Once these families were isolated from the families they left behind, and a subsequent generation ryas educated, a spelling ~~%as settled on. Possibly the spelling that they «~ould eventually use came about because of mandatoi-~T birth registration. In many cases this is not tn~e though, as my grandfather Walter, born in 1886, used the spelling Wildfong, but his name was registered on his birth certificate as Walter Wildfang. For the most past, the Canadian family is to ``blame" for all these spellings. As far as I can tell if George had never left his southern family to move to Canada, there probably «-~ould be only three spellings; Wildfang, Willfong, and the most popular, Wilfong, instead of six. The Wildfang spelling was used by the fey families that stayed in Pennsylvania, and never headed south; Willfong by an Indiana famihr, and Wilfong was used by the West Virginian, Virginian, and North Carolina families, families that were veil- closely knit for more than a few generations. ,~ ,~ httu://~~~~~~«.ancestn.chezhorton.com/PDFs/The%20Stoi-~.pdfWildfangFaimilti~Tree. BrendaWa~~-olcKinsella Horton Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Consultant OWEN R. SCOTT, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP Education: Master of Landscape Architecture (M.L.A.) Ulll~°ersity of Michigan, 1967 Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Landscape Horticulh~re). (B.S.A.) Uniyersity of Guelph. 1965 Professional Experience: 1977 -present President. The Landplan Collaborati~-e Ltd.. Guelph. Ontario 1965 -present President. Canadian Horticultural Consulting Company- Limited, Guelph. Ontario 1977 - 1985 Director, The Pacific Landplan Collaboratiee Ltd., Vancouver and Nanaimo. BC 1975 - 1981 Editor and Publisher, Laf~dsccr~e.li°chztect~n°e C'ancrda, Ariss. Ontario 1969 - 1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architech~re. University of Guelph 1975 - 1979 Director and Founding Principal. Ecological Sen%ices for Planning Limited, Uuelph. Ontario 1964 - 1969 Landscape Architect, Project Planning Associates Limited, Toronto. Ontario Historical Research, Heritage Landscape Planning and Restoration Experience and Expertise Current Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations: Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation Member. Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (formerly CAPHC) Member: Association for Preser~~°ation Technology Communit~~ and Professional Society Ser~~ice (Heritage): Director Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). 2002 - 2003 Member: Advisory- Board, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. 1980 - 2002 Member Citti~ of Guelph Local Architectural Consei-~-ation Advisory Coimnittee (LACAC). 1987 - 2000 (Chairman 1988 - 1990) Member: Adyisoiy Council, Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985 - 1988 Personal and Professional Honours and A~i•ards (Heritage): National A~~ and 2009 Heritage Canada Foundation National Achie~~ement, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Award of Merit 2009 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals A~yards, Alton Mill, Alton. ON Award 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement Award 1998 Pro~-ince of Ontario, Volunteer Award (10 year a~~ ard) Award 1994 Province of Ontario. Volunteer Award (5 year a«-•ard) Regional Merit 1990 Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA). Britamlia School Farm Master Plan National Honour 1990 CSLA Awards. Confederation Boulevard, Ottawa Citation 1989 City of Mississauga Urban Design A~yards. Britannia School Farm Master Plan Honour Award 1987 Canadian Ar°chztect, Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration, Cambridge, ON Citation 198G Pc°ogressive Architectz~re. The Ceremonial Routes (Confederation Boulevard). Ottawa. National Citatio n 1985 CSLA Awards. Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK National Merit 1984 CSLA A~yards. St ,Tames Park Victorian Garden. Toronto.. ON A~yard 1982 Ontario Minishti~ of Municipal Affairs Ontario Rene~ys Awards, Millside. Guelph. ON Selected Heritage Publications: Scott, Owen R., The Southern Ontario "Grid", ACOR'~~"Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The.Iournal of the Ar chitectural Conser~~ancy of Ontario. Scott Owen K. 19th Centrrr~~ Gardens for the 20 '~' and 21 '~ C:entzu°ies. Proceedings of "Conserving Ontario's Landscapes" conference of the ACO. (April 1997). Architech~ral Conservanc~~ of Ontario Inc., Toronto. 1998. Scott Owen R. Landscapes oflllemo~°ies, _4 Gzride forConseivingHi.rtoric Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters) compiled and edited by Tamara Anson-Cartright. Ontario Minish-~~ of Citizenship. Culture and Recreation. 1997. Scott. Owen R. Cemeteries: AHistoricalPerspecti~e. ~-e~~~sletter, The lllemorial,Societ7~ofGz~el~h. September 1993. Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Consultant Scott O~yen R. The Sound of the Double-bladed Ale, Gz~elph and its ,S~r°ing Festn~czl. edited bti- Uloria Dent and Leonard Conolly-, The Ed~~ and Johnson Music Foundation, Guelph, 1992. 2 pp. Scott. O~yen R. Woolwich Street Corridor. Guelph, ACORN" Vol XVI-2, Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural Conservanc~~ of Ontario Inc. Scott O~yen R Quest editor, ACOILI'. Vol. XIV-2. Summer 1989. Culhtral Landscape Issue, Ne«-sletter of the Architectural Consen%anc~-~ of Ontario Inc. Scott O~yen R. Cultic-ars, pavers and the historic landscape, Historic Sites ,S'~rpplies Handbook:. Ontario Museum Association, Toronto, 1989. 9 pp. Scott O~yen R. Landscape preservation - What is iY? ~ a~-nsletter°, American Societ_~- of Landscape Architects -Ontario Chapter, vol. 4 no.3. 1987. Scott. Owen R. Tipperan~ Creek Consen ation Area, Wam~skewin Heritage Park. Landscape Architectzral Revie~-r. Mai' 198G. pp. ~-9. Scott O~yen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference. McMaster University-, 1984. Scott.OwenR. Canada WestLandscapes. FifthAnn~ralProceedings ~'iagaraPenins~rlaHistot7~C'onferenee (1983). 1983. 22 pp. Scott O~yen R. Utilizing Histon- to Establish Cultural and Physical Identitt~ in the Rural Landscape. Landscape Planning, Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam. 1979. Vol. 6. No. 2. pp. 179-203. Scott. Owen R Chan~in~ Rural Landscape in Southern Ontario. Thin°dAnnzral Proceedings~gr°iczrltzrrnl Histor~~ of Onta~°io S`emina~° (1978). ,Tune 1979. 20 pp. Scott, O~~°en R.. P. Grimwood, M. Watson. George Laing -Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West 1808-1871. B~~Iletin, The Association for Presen~ation Technology. Vol. IX. No. 3, 1977. 13 pp. (also published in Landscape Architect~~re Canada, Vol. 4. No. 1. 1978). Scott Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper CanadianLandscape. DepartmentofLandscape Architechtre. Universit~~ of Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape). Follo~ying is a representati~~e listing of some of the mangy heritage projects undertal.en b~ O~i en R. Scott in his capacit~~ as principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. o Britannia School Farm Master Plan. Peel Board of Education/Mississauga, ON o Confederation Boulevard (Susses Drive) Urban Design, Site Plans. NCC/Otta~ya. ON o Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener, ON o Do~~~ntown Gzrelph Private Realm Improvements 11lanual, Citti~ of Guelph. ON o Do~t~ntown Gz~elph P~rblic Realm Plan. City of Guelph. ON o Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibilit~~ Study, CitvT of Hamilton, ON o Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan. City of Waterloo, ON o EZhibition Park Master Plan, Cite of Guelph. ON o George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto, ON o Govet7nnent of Untario Light Rail Transit Route Selection. Culharal and Nahtral Resources Inventotti~ for Environmental Assessment Hamilton/Burlington. ON o Urbad River Corridor Conser~~ation Plan. GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo. ON o Hespeler West Secondary Plan -Heritage Resources Assessment. Citti~ of Cambridge. ON o John Ualt Park, Cite of Guelph. ON o Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan. NCC/Ottawa. ON o Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment Tecumseh, ON o Landfill Site Selection, Cultural Heritage Inventon~ for Environmental Assessment Region of Halton, ON o Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans. Cambridge. ON o MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Shady and Plan. Cin~ of Waterloo. ON o Museum of Natural Science/Magnet School ~9/Landscape Restoration and Site Plans. Citti- of Buffalo, NY o Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan, MNIZ/Huntsville, ON o Peel Heritage Centre Adaptive Re-use, Landscape Design, Brampton. ON o Phyllis Ra~~,•linson Park Master Plan (winning design competitionj, Town of Richmond Hi1L ON o Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan. NCC/Ottawa, ON o Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans, Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Consultant o Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Stud~~ and Site Selection, Region of Waterloo, ON o Rock~vay Dardens Master Plan, KHS/Kitchener. ON ~ South Kitchener Transportation Sh~d~-, Heritage Resources Assessment, Region of Waterloo, ON ~ St. George's Square, Cin~ of Guelph. ON o St ,Tames Park Victorian Darden. Cite of Toronto. ON o Tipperary Creek (Wanuskewin) Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, MVA/Saskatoon. SK o Universitti~ of Toronto Heritage Consei~~ation District Study, City of Toronto, ON o Waterloo Valleylands Shid~%, Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies, Region of Waterloo o Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration. Parks Canada/Kitchener. ON Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Impact Statements: o Acton Quam- Cultural Heritage Landscape & Built Heritage Study & Assessment Peer Review, Acton. ON o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment Kitchener, ON o Cambridge Retirement Complel on the former Tiger Brand Lands, Heritage Impact Assessment Cambridge, ON o Drev Silo Rolf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo, ON o DRCA Lands, 748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, Kitchener. ON o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment and Heritage Impact Statement Cih- of Mississauga, ON o Rock-wav Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairwaj- Road Eltension Heritage Impact Assessment Kitchener. ON o Thorn--Brae Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON o Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment Cambridge. ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment Kitchener. ON 0 307 Cawthra Road Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON 0 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment Guelph. ON 0 2~ 7oseph Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener. ON 0 117 Li~~erpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph. ON 0 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment Kitchener, ON 0 927 Victoria Road South Heritage hnpact Assessment, Guelph. ON Expert Witness Experience (Heritage): Owen R. Scott has been called as an elpert witness at a number of hearings and trials. These include Ontario Municipal Board Hearings, Conser~~ation Re~-ie« Board Hearings, En~-ironmental Assessment Board and En~~ironmental Protection Act Board Hearings. and civil and criminal trials. The heritage evidence he has presented has been related to cultural heritage issues where historical and landscape resources were evaluated.