Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - 2012-01-10 - Heritage Impact Assessment- 2009 Ottawa St2009 Ottawa Street South Heritage Impact Assessment City of Kitchener 2010 Google Street View December, 2011 Prepared by: Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect a Division of MHBC Planning 540 Bingemans Centre Drive. Suite 200 Kitchener ON N2B 3X9 519 - 576 -3650 In association with: George Robb Architect 4800 Dundas St. W, Suite 201, Toronto, Ontario M9A 1131 416- 596 -8301 1 -1 December 19t ", 2011 Ms Michelle Drake, BES Heritage Planner, Community Services Department City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118, 200 King Street West Kitchener Ontario N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Drake, KITCHENER WOODBRIDGE LONDON KINGSTON BARRIE RE: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment - 2009 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener. MHBC File: Y76 7 Sw Thank you for your correspondence of October 3rd, 2011 relaying comments respecting the draft of the Heritage Impact Assessment for 2009 Ottawa Street South. We thought that it would be best to respond to your comments by letter organising the points and headings as per your letter. We have attempted to indicate where we can make changes and accommodate inclusion of other material, and also where we are unable to amend the text of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). We enclose 15 hard copies (2 in colour with this letter and all attachments and 13 hard copies in black and white with no attachments) as requested as well as a CD. The most recent text changes have been highlighted in the body of the main report in addition to the notes contained in this correspondence You will recall at our meeting of September 21 st, 2011 City heritage planning staff indicated that all log structures were considered to be of significance to the City. It is our understanding, however, that the City has not undertaken any inventory work or historical research to identify the number of log structures that were built, when they were constructed, how many now remain, what their condition may be and what specific joinery and building techniques were used in their construction. In the absence of such analysis the consultant team has relied on historical research, the expertise and experience of Peter Stewart, (a licensed architect in Ontario and a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals who has considerable expertise and first -hand experience in log building conservation) and the experience of the consultant team to draw conclusions about the value of the property and derive an appropriate conservation plan. Further, City staff also advised that the focus of the City's interest was the log structure rather than the cultural heritage landscape and the component barn and outbuildings. 200 -540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE / KITCHENER /ONTARIO / N26 3X9 / T 519 576 3650 / F 519 576 0121 / WWW.MHBCPLl171.00M The consultant team is of the opinion that while the property may have cultural heritage value or interest and satisfy one or more of the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9106 it does not satisfy the criteria sufficiently well enough to for us to agree that the property should be designated. In addition to the Ontario Regulation 9106 criteria the consultant team also used the City's Official Plan criteria for designation. These appear to set a higher standard for designation under the Act as they include qualifiers such as "good example ", "significant contribution" and "an important period ". None of the criteria were adequately satisfied to soundly convince the consultant team to advise either our client or the City that designation was supportable. As the HIA is being prepared as part of a required planning approval under the Planning Act, reference to the Official Plan as an applicable policy with respect to criteria and designation appears appropriate and justifiable. These higher standards cannot be summarily dismissed or ignored. We have concluded that the property does have associative value with the theme of early Euro- Canadian settlement and land transactions of the Haldimand Tract, Richard Beasley and the German Company Tract. These associations are, however, intangible and are not sufficiently represented in physical form that would argue for designation and then management of the property's values though a heritage permit process. We have also amended our evaluation to indicate that the former farmhouse is "a representative example of a building type" notably: a side gable, one - and -a -half storey, farmhouse with a tail addition. Again, we remain of the opinion that this is insufficient to argue for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. These changes can be found on pages 24 and 26 of the HIA. In order to reply to your correspondence, as noted previously, we have prepared responses to the questions or matters that you raised organising the points and headings as per your letter. These are contained in the following pages: 1.0 Introduction Page 1 of the HIA indicates that a cultural landscape approach has been used, Heritage Planning stiff note that Ontario Regulation 9/06 only requires a property to meet one of the following criteria. Design/Physical Value,-, Historical /Associative Value; or*, Contextual Value (see. O. Reg. 9/00 and Ontario Heritage Too[ Kit- Heritage Property Evaluation). r lthioug h the cultural landscape approach may provide information on oo text, the HIA must evaluate and justify whether or not the property warrants designation based on the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06. In addition, the HIA rust confirm if the individual buildings are significant built heritage resources and if elements of the property form a significant cultural heritage landscape as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. Please provide a detailed justification. Response: We have noted in our report that designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act is a discretionary activity on the part of a municipality. Where a municipality chooses to exercise its authority to designate a property under Part IV, the Act clearly states that the property must meet z 1 -3 one or more criteria as prescribed in the regulation. As there are multiple criteria it is our opinion that for a property to merit designation it should meet several criteria and satisfy them in a meaningful way. We do not believe the property adequately meets the criteria in a satisfactory manner. Our report clearly identifies the consultant opinion and conclusion that the property does not constitute a significant cultural heritage landscape under the PPS, that is, it is a defined geographical area of heritage significance which is valued by a community. We would note that the City of Kitchener has not carried out a comprehensive inventory of cultural heritage landscapes within the City. Such an inventory would typically: identify the physiography of the landscape; describe the historical themes of human activity that have accounted for the evolution and development of cultural heritage landscapes; include a field survey of all potential cultural heritage landscapes; evaluate the cultural heritage landscapes in a traceable manner; and, assess the integrity of cultural heritage landscapes. It would also be expected that the City would consult with the public to identify those that are "valued by a community" and those that are "valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people" as defined in the PPS. In the absence of such work the consultant team has undertaken historical research and field survey of the property and concluded that the property does not make an important contribution to the understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest or conclude that the property is valued by the community. 3.0 Background Page 5 of the HIA provides information about land registry records. Please include copies of the land registry records in n appendix. Page a of the HIA dated February 14, 2011 referenced Bloomfield 2006 (pg. 40 & 41). Heritage Planning staff noted that Bloomfield 2006 (pg. 4) indicates that Sam Bricker owned Lot 129 in 1805 (not Lot 130) and that Other German Co, shareholders owned. Lot 130. Heritage Planning staff requested clarification of the historic ownership. Page 5 of the HIA dated April 26, 2011 has removed this reference. Please explain. Page 5 of the HIA indicates that "When the subject ,property included two separate lots, Bloomfield 2000 pg. 405) provides a map including GCT 120 and GCT 130, and notes acres. Please clarify. company divided the land in 1805, the each comprising 83 acres." However, of the original survey blocks and lots, that ACT 129-160 ro small lots of Response: This revised HIA includes copies of the land registry records as an addition to Appendix G, renamed "Chronology of Ownership and Land Registry Records" together with text changes on page 5 of the HIA indicating as such. The removal of the reference, as previously explained at a meeting, has been made as it was incorrect. 3 1 -4 The reference to the 83 acre lot on page 5 will be revised as follows: "When the company divided the land in 1805, the subject property comprised 83 acres. By the 1860s, the lot comprised one farm property,..." 4.0 Description of Lnda e Features and Existing Features Page 8 of the H IA indicates the farmstead contains three buildings sot in the remnants of traditional farm Jandscape setting. Page g -11 of the IA identify the landscape features of the p ro ert Some of the descriptions o�f the landscape features indicate that features are 4go er rown" a "unnia rita n ' and ``o re" buildings and views. It is not clear whether or how current conditions discount the cultural heritage value or interest of the landscaper particularly given the challenge that landscape features are constantly changing and that there is inevitable maturing and daring of vegetation. In this regard, the H 1A should provide detailed information regarding the species, age and condition of the landscape features, including opportunities to enhance and maintain the existing lands-cape features through appropriate practices such as pruning by an arbori t or new pe nt ng , Are the landscape features in poor condition and beyond repair? Can the landscape features be maintained and /or enhanced? The H IA should also provide detailed Information regarding the significance and value of the properly maintained landscape features. Response: The consultants have made objective observations in the field: recording and describing the state and condition of what was found on the property. This is standard field work methodology and procedure. The landscape inventory identified a variety of landscape materials on the property. Many were overgrown, unmaintained, invasive, non - native species such as Manitoba maple and Norway maples. Other overgrown shrubs and ground covers were found on the property which are part of a plant collection traditionally found on farm properties. These include tiger lilies, lily -of- the - valley, forsythia, apple and pear trees, lilac, rhubarb, and privet. None of these plant types are rare or unavailable in the horticulture industry. Late twentieth century plant varieties were also found on -site including blue spruce, dogwood, false spiraea and ornamental cedars and three Norway spruce. Norway spruce trees were historically planted along farm laneways in the late nineteenth century. No trees or shrubs dating from this early period were identified on the property. Opportunities to enhance and maintain landscape features, however, rightly belong in a conservation strategy if one was pursued and the consultants are not recommending this course of action. The suggestion that the HIA should also contain information regarding the significance and value of properly maintained landscape features is also suspect as noted above as the features "are constantly changing" and inevitably mature and die. This kind of information would typically be found in a heritage conservation strategy if the property were proposed to be conserved in situ. This is not the case here. 4 1 -5 Pages 11 -15 of the HIA describe the interior and exterior of the farmhouse. Page I indicates that "T o farmhouse is typical in plan and profile of many mid - nineteenth century farmhouses." Heritage Planning staff are only familiar with a small number of properties that share a similar plan and profile within the City of Kitchener. As a result, It, the HIA rust justify the statement that the farmhouse is typical in relation to the City of Kitchener. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/0 6, the HIA should indicate whether or not the farmhouse has design or physical value in relation to the City of Kitchener. Response: As indicated at the outset without the City of Kitchener having a comprehensive inventory of log buildings and structures and in keeping with the Ontario Regulation, together with the consultant's experience and variety of expertise in Ontario the HIA will be amended on pages 24 and 26 to indicate that the structure is "a representative example of a building type" notably: a side gable, one - and -a -half storey, farmhouse, rectangular in plan with a tail addition. The note that City staff is familiar with a small number of properties that share a similar plan argues for the notion that the property is therefore neither unique nor rare and tends to be a representative example. 5 1 -6 Page 11 of the HIA indicates that the earliest portion of the farmhouse is of log construction; however, Page 17 of the III A concludes that the structure represents poor workmanship (see also H-5 to H10) and therefore the materials have less value than expected. Heritage Planning staff note that in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 the farmhouse has design or physical value because the log construction is a rare and early example of a material and method of construction. O. Reg. 9/06 does not require a property to display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, but rather, craftsmanship is only one of three potential design/physical value criteria that may be satisfied. Further, OF Reg. 9/06 does not require all criteria to be met, but rather, identifies that a property may be designated if it meets one or more of the criteria (e.g. Design/Physical Value and/or Historical/Associative Value and/or Context Value ; rare, unique, representative or early example and/or 'high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit and/or high degree of technical or scientific achievement, etc.) (See Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation), Despite the conclusions of the HIA and our discussions on September 21:31., Heritage Planning staff continue to be of the opinion that the farmhouse has designIphysical value as it represents a rare and early example of a type, material and method of construction that are unique to Kitchener. In addition, Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that the farmhouse has been subject to a limited degree of alteration and that the log house is in fact relatively intact (regardless of quality). The HI A must outline the alterations that have impacted the value and interest of the farmhouse, Heritage Planning staff have experience with other log structures in the City of Kitchener. Our experience suggests that this log structure may have been the subject of few alterations. The log construction, door and window openings, and roofline all appear to be original. The addition is characteristic of the evolution of @ farm with a su-mmer kitchen and later @ privy. Heritage Planning staff understand that exterior cladding was often applied to log construction in order to preserve the integrity of the logs and therefore, the exterior cladding is likely chararteristic of the evolution of the farmhouse. As per the Ministry of Culture, "a cultural heritage property does not need to be in original conditioil. Few survive without alterations on the long journey between their to of orlgO and today. Integrity is a question of whether the survivi'ny physical features (heritage attributes) continue to represent or support the cultural heritage value :or interest of the property" (see Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation). Typical evolution of the farmhouse suggests that the building maintains its integrity. Further, information provided in the HI A indicates that the presence of handsplit lath could equate to a construction date between 1800 and 1:825, which would make the house one of the oldest buildings in Kitchener. A building constructed during this time period would contribute to Kitchener's understanding of the pioneers and their history. In order to consider the conclusions of the HIA, a detailed justification will be required. Response: We have indicated at the outset of this correspondence that the City has not undertaken any inventory work or historical research to identify the number of log structures that were built, when they were constructed, how many now remain, what their condition may be and what specific joinery and building techniques were used in their construction. The consultant team is very familiar with the application of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and have based our comments on field observations, 6 1 -7 past experience and review of the technical literature. It is readily apparent that the log construction here comprises "lap joints" which have been described in the technical literature as "most unsatisfactory" as it provides no structural stability allowing for free movement of logs and does not allow for adequate drainage of joints. Squared logs were often used in second generation construction and often clad both as protection and also for aesthetic or cosmetic reasons. It should also be noted that at no time did the consultant team advise that the presence of hand split lath "equate to a construction date between 1800 and 1825 ". It was noted in the consultant report that "In the brief time available inside the house, an area of plaster damage at the south east window revealed hand -split lath under the plaster. According to John Remple, in his book Building with Wood, "The handsplit lath would date (a) house at somewhere between 1800 and 1825" (1). He goes on to admit that there would be exceptions to this rule. Recent experience has exposed the writer to two houses with handsplit lath; one dated c 1828 and the other c 1830." In order to address Staff's misinterpretation and provide clarity here we have now further amended this observation to delete the text noted below on page H -4: "Recent experience has exposed the writer to two houses with handsplit lath; one dated c 1828 and the other c 1830. Prior to that, our last experience with this material was at the Duff Baby House in Sandwich, dated c 1796." And now include the note on page H -4 underlined below: "He goes on to admit that there would be exceptions to this rule and cites an example where handsplit accordion type lath was being sold as late as 1879 in Kettleby, Ontario. The availability of machine sawn lath did not replace the market for split lath. Accordingly, we continue to conclude that the log building is a poor example of construction and a poor example of workmanship. Given these conditions it is difficult to support or condone a conservation strategy that seeks to protect or preserve such poor keying techniques, questionable materials and the inherent problems and liabilities that would survive or be perpetuated into the future. Moreover, the addition of new cladding as a cosmetic device to conceal poor construction practice and maintain the "as found" condition and cumulative history now seems particularly flawed especially as the City requested removal of the cladding. Given the disassembly activities to date that have revealed construction techniques the consultant team would propose a conservation strategy more appropriate to the quality of the resource. In keeping with the staff notion that "a building constructed during this period would contribute to Kitchener's understanding of the pioneers and their history ", a detailed and systematic recording of the structural log components and the creation of a paper or electronic record of the construction techniques would constitute an appropriate and acceptable mitigation measure to address this understanding of history. This is now proposed in the HIA on page 27. 7 1 -8 Pages 11 -1 b of the H IA describe the evolution of the farmhouse i n terms of construction, additions, alterations, demolitions, etc. Reference to the privy in HIA dated February Jr4l 2011 (page 12 & 15) was removed from HIA dated August 29,, 2011, Please explain. Response: At the time of report preparation in February 2011 the identification of a potential privy was conjectured in the absence of detailed field review or "ground truthing". Another site visit by the consultants while the building was occupied was also unable to confirm the existence of a privy and thus the reference was removed. A later site visit in November, when the building was no longer occupied, has confirmed the existence of the remnant privy behind a closet partition. Page 11 of the HIA report has been amended to include these findings. Page 15 of the HIA describes the condition of the farmhouse and indicates that "On the exterior, there appears to be a lack of maintenance for some time." The HIA should consider the condition of the farmhouse in relation to the age of the structure and the previous maintenance regime. Are certa-in features of the farmhouse in poor condition due to a lack of maintenance? Are features that are in poor condition beyond repair? Can the features be repaired or replicated? The HIA also indicates: the farmhouse has had a V patfial collapse of the north or Jr , the drive sheds i;mow and roof have collapsed P , the exterior wood stair of the barn dVS poorly built, non-original and should be considered unsafe IF , the attached outbuilding Mhos suffered a partial collapse of the west side'} and "its foundation at the north end is loose and near collapse'}, and "the house and drive shed are in a state of partial coliapse," Are all of these features considered to be heritage attributes? If yes, what is the impact on the cultural heritage value or interest of the entire resource? If no, the loss of these features should not negatively impact the cultural heritage value or interest. Heritage Planning staff note that during the site visit last year the property was still occupied by a tenant, The tenant indicated that the house was generally in good condition but required maintenance. With regard to the farmhouse, the HIA must provide justification for the above-noted statements, including photographs with detailed descriptions. In addition, a structural assessment prepared by a qualified engineer with experience with historic log construction, in conjunction with a qualified heritage consultant with experience with historic log construction, may be required. Comments on the structural condition of the farmhouse and its heritage attributes need to be answered ir relation to the significance of the built heritage resource as a whole. Response: The occupation of a building by a tenant is of little to no importance in carrying out an HIA. Further, reliance upon the views and opinions of a tenant regarding condition and maintenance is also of no consequence. The owner has retained a professional engineering firm to examine the structural condition of the house. The HIA has been undertaken by a consultant team that includes Peter Stewart of George Robb Architect who has considerable experience and expertise in the conservation of log structures. (Attached to this correspondence is a brief description of his recent 8 1 -9 projects.) Many site visits have now been made to the property with subsequent appropriate modifications to observations and conclusions. The consultant team remains of the opinion that the log structure employs poor construction techniques and methods. An engineering consultant has been retained to comment further on the building's structural condition and two copies of their report is attached for your information. 5.0.Summary of Site Assessment Page 16 of the HIA provides a summary of the site assessment and indicates that the property "does not contain any remnants from these early years when the land was first cleared." Heritage Planning staff note that the date of construction for the farmhouse was originally estimated circ@ 1850 and the HIA dated August 29, 2011 suggests a possible construction date between 1796 and 1830. As a result, the farmhouse dates to the early years and was perhaps the first building on the property and therefore one of the oldest buildings still standing in Kitchener. These early dates are consistent with pioneer settlement in the area and may contribute to our understanding of the history of the pioneer people and their history within Kitchener.. Page 16 of the HIA indicates that "none of these plant species or landscape features found on the property are significant in value or interest and can be better represented elsewhere in the Region," The HIA must explain why the plant species and landscape features are not significant in value or interest in relation to the City of Kitchener. The HIA must consider the followIng- Are the plant species and landscape features significant in value or interest in the City of Kitchener? Are the plant species and landscape features characteristic of an evolving farm landscape? What is the significance of the orchard (e.g. age, use, relationship to typical farm layout)? What is the significance of the planned plantings (e.g. value and interest relating to space definition, provision of shade, and amenity are asp Response: The construction date of the structure is uncertain given the removal of building cladding and inspection of the joinery techniques and we have commented previously on this aspect. With respect to plant species and landscape features we have noted previously that the landscape inventory identified a variety of landscape materials on the property. Many were overgrown, unmaintained, invasive, non-native species such as Manitoba maple and Norway maples. Other overgrown shrubs and ground covers were found on the property which are part of a plant collection traditionally found on farm properties. These include tiger lilies, lily-of-the-valley, forsythia, apple and pear trees, lilac, rhubarb, and privet. None of these plant types are rare or unavailable in the horticulture industry. Late twentieth century plants were also found on-site including blue spruce, dogwood, false spiraea and ornamental cedars and three Norway spruce. 9 1 10 6. Outline of Proposed Development Pages 17-18 of the HIA outline three development ent options. None lof the options consider proposed site plan whereali or some of the buildings and landscape features would he retained and integrated into the development. Rather the options depict the existing buildings with the applicant's proposed site plan. The applicant's proposed site plan does not integrate the buildings into the development. Should the subject property or specific features of the subject proper-ty be worthy of conservation, the HIA must evaluate the proposed development and recommend options to establish an appropriate and justified level of conservation for the built heritage resource(s) and /or cultural heritage landscape, and associated heritage attributes. Response: The consultant team does not consider the buildings of sufficient value and interest or of significance to warrant their retention. As noted earlier the consultant team is of the opinion that while the property may satisfy criteria under Ontario Regulation 9106 it does not satisfy them sufficiently well enough for us to agree that the property should be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Moreover, the consultant team is of the opinion that the value of the built heritage resource is insufficient to warrant its integration into the proposed form of development. Review of other examples of locations where this has been undertaken in the City of Kitchener has indicated some of the challenges of integrating old and new. We are of the opinion that such a conservation strategy would be inappropriate at this location given the reasons noted above as well the poor condition of the building described by the engineering consultant. Further, Option 1 and 2 suggest that the context will be lost; however, no options consider the retention of some or all of the buildings within a newly designed context that is ym patheti . to the cultural heritage resource(s). Heritage Planning staff have shared previous local examples where historic context had been lost over time but new design was able to integrate the cultural heritage resource into the new development. Response: The consultant team remains of the opinion that a new urban form and landscape (permitted and clearly anticipated as a result of Official Plan land use designations), however well- designed, are unable to provide a sympathetically designed context for a former farmhouse that once sat on actively farmed land in a larger rural landscape. io 1 -11 Page 22 of the HIA indicates that no specific criteria was provided for evaluating properties for 11sting on the Municipal Heritage Register and as such the HIA references policies in the Official Plan. Heritage Planning staff note that the original MA Terms of Reference, follow-up meetings, and correspondence direct the consultant to use 0, Reg. 9/06. In addition, Kitchener City Council has approved a 4-Step Process for Listing Property of Guttural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. A brochure outlining this process is attached along with an example evaluation form, Response: These observations are noted. The legislative test or requirement in the Act for considering the inclusion of non-designated properties (Subsection 27(1.2)) is simply one where the municipality "believes" the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest. Inclusion of non-designated property in the register does not protect such property but simply requires notice of demolition or removal of buildings or structures to be served on municipal council. No demolition or removals may occur until a 60 day waiting period has passed. The schedule of report preparation, site visits and structural assessments have now occupied a length of time that far exceeds the 60 day demolition delay allowed under the Ontario Heritage Act. The process of including this property in the register appears to be moot. Page 22 of the HIA indicates that better examples of the remnant rural farmstead can be found elsewhere. Please provide examples located in Kitchener. Response: The report will be amended to include the Joseph Schneider Haus, the Steckle Farm, three farmhouses and barns at Doon Heritage Village and the Woolner Farmstead (Pages 22-23). Page 23 of the HIA indicates that the site is debilitated (also see Page 26 and 27) and a poor representation of this type of cultural heritage resource. As noted earlier, please elaborate on the condition of the buildings and their design/physical value recognizing that O. Reg. 9106 does not require buildings to be a representative example. Further, note that the Ministry of Culture training sessions offered to Municipal Heritage Committees outline that cultural heritage value and interest is not a weighted process, but rather, a process whereby a property either has value or does not have value (also see Page 27). As a result, a property need only meet one criteria in order to be worthy of designation. 1n this regard, the Ministry of Culture has shared the City's Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form (attached) with other municipalities noting it is a good example of evaluation criteria for cultural heritage resources. Response: The consultant team, as noted elsewhere, is very familiar with the use and application of Ontario Regulation 9106. It is clear that City heritage staff and the consultants appear to differ in their 1 -12 professional opinions of the issues in this matter. The consultant team has explained clearly that although the property may exhibit values that are contained in Ontario Regulation 9106 the values must represent the criterion or criteria in some meaningful way and not in some perfunctory manner. Page 24 of the H IA indicates that the property was evaluated against the three criteria of 0. reg. 9/06 as well as nearly fifty criteria sub -sets. Please list all criteria that were used in the evaluations and describe how the criteria were applied in accordance with 0. Reg /. Response: The criteria contained in Ontario Regulation 9106 have been included at the end of this correspondence as Attachment 1 for information purposes. Appendix H-4 indicates that "Buildings were erected expediently with the skills the settlers brought with them out of the inaterials closest at ,hand. Differing construction methods and technologies were in use at the same time in various parts of the province o ver the first half of the nineteenth century. " As pe r the M i n i stry of C u Itu re , knowi n g the characteristics and evolution of local construction techniques is important when evaluating cultural heritage value and interest associated with e particular resource (see Ontario Heritage Too[ Kit: heritage Property Evaluation). The [CIA indicates that the building was not erected with the same level of craftsmanship usually associated with early log structures and 'later indentifies three examples of log structures (none of which are located within Kitchener). The H I A concludes that "The log house is not a notable example of either local tradition in Waterloo County nor craftsmanship in early pioneer construction." This statement is not substantiated. The HIA does not consider the craftsmanship in relation to the local context, particularly given the fact that other log houses appear to demonstrate similar joinery as well as similar use of i of ill logs (perhaps this craftsmanship was unique to Kitchener). Response: The consultant team, as noted earlier are unaware of any City research and inventory of log construction techniques, the number of log buildings known to have been constructed and the number of those that now survive. Staff and consultants have discussed at length that there are very few examples of log construction within the City that are actually open to view. Given the lack of City authority based upon empirical research which can provide an unequivocal and definitive account of the local context and thus refute the consultant team's opinions, the consultant team has relied on its experience, expertise and review of the technical literature to support its conclusions. iz 1 -13 8.0.Mandatory Recommendation The mandatory r ommend tion rust be reconsidered in response to the above comments. In addition, the mandatory r m nd tion rust be thoroughly explained and justified. Response: We have reviewed the matters respecting designation and listing and reconsidered these matters and can confirm that the building has the following values: • is a representative example of a type (a farmhouse) • has direct associations with a theme that is significant to a community (agricultural and Euro- Canadian settlement) These criteria are considered to be met in a perfunctory manner. Many resource types would manage to universally fulfill the criteria. The property does not satisfy the higher standard established in the City's Official Plan policies 5.3.4 which include qualifiers such as "good example ", "significant contribution" and "an important period ". None of the criteria were adequately satisfied to soundly and convincingly support designation. We trust that the revised HIA will be placed on Heritage Kitchener's agenda for January, 2011. Please feel free to contact me at 519 576 3650 (Ex 750) or email (dcuming @mhbcplan.com) if you have any questions. Thank you. Yours truly, MHBC David Cuming, MCIP, MRTPI, RPP Wendy Shearer, OALA, FCSLA, ASLA, CAHP Managing Coordinator, Managing Director Cultural Heritage Planning Cultural Heritage DC:wc cc: Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Carlos da Silva, Deerfield Homes Limited Lisa Thompson, City of Kitchener Leon Bensason, City of Kitchener 13 1 -14 Attachment 1 Ontario Heritage Act ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST Consolidation Period: From January 25, 2006 to the e -Laws currency date. No amendments. This is the English version of a bilingual regulation. Criteria 1. 1 The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 29 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (1). Q A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). Transition 2. This Regulation does not apply in respect of a property if notice of intention to designate it was given under subsection 29 (1.1) of the Act on or before January 24, 2006. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 2. Fran ais Back to top 14 1 -15 1.The property has design value or physical value because it: Li .is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method 1. is a rare example of a style No 2. is a rare example of a type No 3. is a rare example of an expression No 4. is a rare example of a material No 5. is a rare example of a construction method No 6. is a unique example of a style No 7. is a unique example of a type No 8. is a unique example of an expression No 9. is a unique example of a material No 10. is a unique example of a construction method No 11. is a representative example of a style No 12. is a representative example of a type Yes 13. is a representative example of an expression No 14. is a representative example of a material No 15. is a representative example of a construction method No 16. is an early example of a style No 17. is an early example of a type No 18. is an early example of an expression No 19. is an early example of a material No 20. is an early example of a construction method No 1. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or 21. displays a high degree of craftsmanship No 22. displays a high degree of artistic merit No 1. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement 23. demonstrates a high degree of technical achievement No 24. demonstrates a high degree of scientific achievement No 15 1 -16 2.The property has historical value or associative value because it: 2.i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, 25. has direct associations with a theme that is significant to a community Yes 26. has direct associations with an event that is significant to a community No 27. has direct associations with a belief that is significant to a community No 28. has direct associations with a person that is significant to a community No 29. has direct associations with an activity that is significant to a community No 30. has direct associations with an organization that is significant to a community No 31. has direct associations with an institution that is significant to a community No 2.ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or 32. yields information that contributes to an understanding of a community No 33. has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community No 34. yields information that contributes to an understanding of a culture No 35. has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a culture No 2.iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 36. demonstratees the work of an architect who is significant to a community No 37. demonstratees the work of an artist who is significant to a community No 38. demonstratees the work of a builder who is significant to a community No 39. demonstratees the work of a designer who is significant to a community No 40. demonstratees the work of a theorist who is significant to a community No 41. demonstratees the ideas of an architect who is significant to a community No 42. demonstratees the ideas of an artist who is significant to a community No 43. demonstratees the ideas of a builder who is significant to a community No 44. demonstratees the ideas of a designer who is significant to a community No 45. demonstratees the ideas of a theorist who is significant to a community No 46. reflects the work of an architect who is significant to a community No 47. reflects the work of an artist who is significant to a community No 48. reflects the work of a builder who is significant to a community No 49. reflects the work of a designer who is significant to a community No 50. reflects the work of a theorist who is significant to a community No 16 1 -17 51. reflects the ideas of an architect who is significant to a community. No 52. reflects the ideas of an artist who is significant to a community. No 53. reflects the ideas of a builder who is significant to a community. No 54. reflects the ideas of a designer who is significant to a community. No 55. reflects the ideas of a theorist who is significant to a community. No 3.The property has contextual value because it: 3.i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, 56. is important in defining the character of an area No 57. is important in maintaining the character of an area No 58. is important in supporting the character of an area No 3. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or 59. is physically linked to its surroundings No 60. is functionally linked to its surroundings No 61. is visually linked to its surroundings No 62. is historically linked to its surroundings No 13. iii. is a landmark. 63. is a landmark No O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). 17 y 1 � 1� Attachment 2: Loa Construction Experience 2010-11, George Robb Architect 18 1 -19 U U �O O U N .4� Q O CO can 0 E + G u Ul V i 4� .� 0 O 'L +�-' can = WD -0 W CL X LLJ 0 N V ,— m =0 � U O O L- o E r E ro b-0 C ago G. v M ._ Q V W Co O O ca cn V 4 3 O 4 O`— +, 4— Co O ca ca C 4-J ._ +, >. > 3: p O cn J 5° N p � 1 A } �6 °5 1 � 20 FM 1 -21 U w _0 Ln m O V-1 ca buo •' _ to =3 c (Ij O O = :3 ago CA +, .� ° o O m c: � V DC Q n •� ca v� ca O OD LO = ' U U ca ._ aA C ai ate--+ a.. O a-+ 0 p O OU O +� 0 rl O rl O �� O CL cc U UD aj -0 O � C O cn . x W W cn � O � O O (' L-( aj ++ bj0 LL V O 0 Q) Ln ca = +-a `� O Q W � ,� Q u Ln E Q O O U IA u O U� W O O O ._ can }' O (, (U u a) p �, `� �' C: OTC ca __C O 4-J U O E m Q) O ca b�A cn _ W • v U cn �_ v t�0 +, JO s N c� a--+ ca O Ln � O o E • ca O O . E .� O ate-+ — E U V =3 cn 4 — � p O � aj O E O U O U E c� O U J E O rn 00 U CL i O � Q) , ` O U O i Ci ID c oC m a- O LL Q ca FM 1 -21 l--I rl U LEI O `--I O N U V Q i m •C m aj 0 CL w X W W � .o 0 V W O V txo 0 J mm 0 m I O m O m O qt � qz:j- d' m 00 O a) I� rl r-I 00 a) N O rl 01 N N m qt m Ln rl N -Ln- q* -Ln if qj - V - -Ln- in- V11- 41* i 0 0 Ln Ln 0 0 m }, ui w m O O �mo��w0a» e4k N M shk rl lD Ln N 6% M q::i- r.-i qt m r--, m v-j- in- -Ln- 41* U 'L6 4� 4� E V) Ln Ln bm E Ln U E 4� O Q .� 0 > Ln 0 = c co ca ca Ln u a— u a— u 0 �j O � taA O U 0 to 6 a--+ 4) a- . — `~ � �_ U U }, 4J a-J ' 0 � Q) V cn O U U 0C L.L_ W Q U AL O � cn N Q c6 00 fo a- r," U � 0) to -C _0 3: C 0 cc J 1 n cn � U — 0 � � 4-J O • - � � cn � O .— ) 0- Ul 4-j =3 0- U x CO 0 O E L4n E O U _0 (L) C: V) U -0 ate-J cn Ln O U) - 7r V W •— -0 - N cai i � U_ }' 0 +� U — cn C6 cn -0 - co cu U bD U p cn � U _ Q) O O w }, � O � 1 —ii !-I rl U w O t--I - O = N U 4� Cv, V Q � m •� m L 0 CL w X W W � ,20 V W a O U aA O Ln a� a� � o 'i � U •— ._ O Oj O � CZ -0 fu O 4-j i cn 4J O }' O — +� Q, w = U Q =3 O a,o � O O � O aj a� E +� a--� i CU Q cn cn }, U cri U O E ai O°0 bD a) M O 0- > rl ' > C E — C s 4-j Q O W '- to ; a-J fo cn a--+ • � -0 0 . _ +, ca t w �- M i +, .0 Q +j ' � m 02s E > O r� Q O i O aj 2 +2J a a) o�� � _ •— ca -0 ai m C Q 4-a aj ' _ >. aj ' _ O ai o ° ° z p ca aj aj E -0 _C Ln E �, oc o h r _ q iA M r f� t x v 1 O TC* 9 a� O o E U •— +, O O cn t�ID .� O � CZ -0 fu O 4-j '� to O Q un U ca cn •U O Ln E O Q i .O 4-j C: O O =3 c: m U fa x O — +� Q, w = U Q =3 O a,o � O � O aj cn > }, cri U O E ai O°0 a) M > rl ' 0 E O C s 4-j O W '- ._ a-J fo cn a--+ •� 0 4-J M ' � U 02s E > Q� r� Q O >' a a) o�� 0 v 1 O TC* 9 v 1 TO cn n 1 -23 a� o E U •— +, O O cn t�ID .� O � CZ -0 fu O 4-j '� to O Q un U ca cn •U O Ln E O Q i .O 4-j C: O O =3 c: m U aj U O — +� O w = U Q =3 O a,o v 1 TO cn n 1 -23 a.) co 4-j 4— Co 0 Ln cA O 4-J ai W E ai 0 > u 0 (1) -0 = < 4-J tlW i. iY C 1. 1 -24 1--1 F w O `--1 - O = N U V a i m •C m C 0 aj CL w X W W � .o 0 V W O V txo O J 0 M rl O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O�c�OM0M00000a��0 4� ca to W Jc: bn ' 0 .- -0 Ln�r n -I0m0 Q � m00m0mQ0m E 0 — N%k N ukh rl M rl N� w N W M N rl rl rl l.n rl M W M l0 W -Cll- Ln rl N q:Zj- r-1 Q0 rl rl rl V)- Ln qj)- qj)- -cn- O rl V)- 4j)- qj)- rl qj)- rl -(./l- -cl- c0 U q ll- O �' W }' ca 4i l- -c.l} 0 qjl- qV*p O Ln N r-I � N M 01 M *4 � M qqr N M Ln Vl- 1 -25 - U � _0 � i 0 4� ca to W Jc: bn ' 0 .- -0 n 0) Q � E 0 — LM E IrA buo ca w 0 Ov V m 4J E +� u x (1) 0 u O 0 i U — cn to -0 co 4� cn CL) 4-j O 0 O -0 4� a U 0 a-J cn O .� c0 U a- J O �' W }' ca Ul c0 -c.l} 0 }' Ln L Ln - • - rn m ca — U 4� to ra 0 � U C •- � L ca — L ca � - _ C CU 00 �j Ln i � u) • — C — Ln 0 .— .— U U 0 — 4-J cn 0 � 4-J ul O 0 cn 0 � fa 4) -0 •— c6 � O Ul 0 U � _0 _ �j �V -OC: 0 E U 0 V) a-J 4i � `� � un U U c� C: :3 Ln 4J aj +_� 00 a . � U U C C: W ' — bD m ago W � U a 0 _ Co M �_ (D � ca • — bD U 2 2 U •- 4� M 0 a -C u �, V) 1 -25 - U � _0 � i 0 4� ca W Jc: bn ' 0 .- -0 n 0) E 0 — LM E IrA ca w 0 Ov 0 0 (1) +� u x (1) 0 u O 0 in cn cn CL) 4-j O 0 Cu0 -0 4� 0 U 0 a-J cn c0 U a- J O �' W }' ca Ul c0 -c.l} Q }' Ln r LM 0 - • - rn m ca — U to ra C 0 c0 U C •- � L ca — L ca � M ilk - _ C CU 00 �j a-J i � u) • — C — M 0 U >, _0 — 4-J cn 0 � 4-J rj O 0 cn a--� 0 � cn +-J 4) -0 0 +, ca � O Ul 0 U � _0 _ M o� o c� :3 Ln 00 0 . � U U C C: W }, ca bD m ago W � M �_ 4) m ca U • — bD E 4� w •- i 4� M O 0 .�}. -0 �, V) cc c0 O LL � - m c c0 > 0 0 U V ca > ca V 4� s .� ca � 0 F�- _0 E — a_ O 0 4- 1 -25 V-1 rl U O w V-1 - O = N U 4� Cv, V Q i m •� m � O CL w X W W � ,20 V W (f a O V aA O J �i I 1 , f � s `" • , O fb "' `. CL N E u 1 -26 1 ate-+ ca O 4-J +-j `. a) a) a) }, a--� to 4 -C Ln cn Q t xD � ca O cn i O = V ca -c: Co 4> > buo p � ® ; = > � O O �O O E fo U 3: 0 ai — Q — . _ ai C i cn s i 0-_o •- +� � a) � E � � E CO O ._ � .- ate-+ V � ca a) � a--+ � t�A O � W W � M � � .- � +-+ ._ V V E u > 4 a� i � � .� ca � � O � .O CU p cn C O Q 0 C C N O — O 00 +� ca — . _ v L a a� O a� - ai f � � >� •• _ D- 0-0 1 }' Q O� —� v Ln O � M UO a,o — Q +� v N o C a, c ._ O cu o J a, w w 0) �i I 1 , f � s `" • , O fb "' `. CL N E u 1 -26 1 -27 �--I U o +�.+ O can Q Z O 4-j a � O � l"I — 4- � -0 U to 4-j aj =3 o hl U or- E _� 0 O un M }' ca ca 00 � — E bn c: +� N O •� m O O U O c .� — N '— p V-0 O O +� n C u •— � (U ca 4j . co ca � U W W .`� a �C + '� p � c co ~ >' 0 � m }' c a 0 � O > Ln + I -uri - • Q O a C: E E aj Ln 0 .C: o c=3 a V W '� E s •– O (o � cu O +-� 00 ca -0 ai = +1 O 4-j O U ca > 'co ca > W ca +� a cn � . — buo ® V aj �O 0 aj " >- co _o � •- O tw Q u C O 0- `�— Ln b = can — U O 'Ln aj +� = Ln .— J U Ln - O � O � C O � E U >- O .— O ca — C:_ ca Ul O aj cn N ca O O b-0 � a.. O ' b.0 '— O O V N .— — b.0 ai •— O0 � CL W }' - O 00 � O v U E 0 O E Ou E ca +� O •un E ca O C O— bn ca a ' can cn � = O a 0 O i > Ln 4-J -cn •— Ou -0 =3 up) L O > 2. CL 0 O ca up) ca 1 -27 Attachment 3: Tertiary Structural Evaluation of Existing Loa Constructed Home Report — 2009 Ottawa Street, Kitchenere, ON, December 12, 2011, Stantec 19 1 -28 V� Stantec Tertiary Structural Evaluation of Existing Log Constructed Home Report - 2009 Ottawa Street, Kitchener ON Prepared for: Mr. Carlos Da Silva, Project Developer Eastforest Homes Ltd. 139 Washburn Drive Kitchener, ON N2R 1S1 Prepared by: Herbert P. Roerig, M.Eng., P. Eng. Senior Structural Engineer, Associate Stantec Consulting Ltd. 49 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2H 61VI7 1603 -11188 December 12, 2011 rpt_ 11188_ 1603EastForest- loghouse_2009ottawaSt_dec12_11. docx 29 • TERTIARY STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF EXISTING LOG CONSTRUCTED HOME REPORT - 2009 OTTAWA STREET, KITCHENER ON Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... ............................1.1 2.0 OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................... ............................2.1 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... ............................3.1 APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Imt rpt_ 11188_ 1603EastForest- loghouse _2009ottawaSt_dec12_11.docx 1- 30 Stantec TERTIARY STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF EXISTING LOG CONSTRUCTED HOME REPORT - 2009 OTTAWA STREET, KITCHENER ON 1.0 Introduction Eastforest Homes Ltd. (Eastforest) retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to conduct a tertiary visual structural evaluation of an existing home that was partially constructed as a log house that appears to have been built perhaps 100 plus years ago. The purpose of the investigation is to determine the feasibility of retaining and restoring the structure as a heritage building (possibly converted to a different usage), or whether it should simply be demolished. It is our understanding that a conventionally framed addition to the south of the log portion is of no historical value and is scheduled for demolition regardless of the findings of this report, and is therefore not part of this investigation. The ground floor plan, prepared by the architect undertaking the architectural study of this assignment and a photo showing the west elevation of the house (Figures 1 and 2 respectively, Appendix A), illustrates the configuration of the original log house and subsequent addition. Stantec conducted a site visit on Wednesday, November 23, 2011, and was met by Mr. Carlos Da Silva of Eastforest Homes. Also present were representatives from the architect and the heritage consultants. The weather at the time of the visit was clear, +12 °C. rpt_ 11188_ 1603EastForest- loghouse _2009ottawaSt_dec12_11.docx 1 . 1 1 -31 Stantec TERTIARY STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF EXISTING LOG CONSTRUCTED HOME REPORT - 2009 OTTAWA STREET, KITCHENER ON 2.0 Observations The log house portion of the building under study is a two - storey structure, plus a basement. At the time of Stantec's visit, the siding had been removed from the east and west walls (Figures 3 and 4, Appendix A), as well as the partial south wall (see Figure 5, Appendix A). The log wall construction extends from the foundation to the eaves of the house. Above that level, the two open ends below the roof peak was filled in with loose stone and mortar. The construction quality of the log walls appears to be "crude" at best. Much of the timbers exposed on the east face of the house are quite moist and exhibit severe signs of rotting, (Figures 6, 7 and 8, Appendix A), while the timbers on the west side appear to be more dried; however they are still rotted and "powdery" to the touch (refer to Figure 9, Appendix A). The wooden logs themselves were fitted together very poorly (Figure 10, Appendix A), and the corners of the logs had not been dove - tailed in any manner, simply laid one over the other without any means of connecting them visibly (refer to Figure 11, Appendix A). There are also many discontinuities and gaps between what should be a sill of the basement foundation wall and the first layer of wall log timbers, (refer to Figure 12, Appendix A). At the time of the visit, the ceilings between the main ground floor and the second floor were not removed to expose the second floor framing, and neither was the ceiling of the second floor rooms removed to expose the roof framing. Therefore, we are unable to comment on the condition of the second floor and roof structures, although visually from the exterior, there does not appear to be any discernible roof "sagging" and the second floor felt reasonably solid under foot. Access to the basement was possible. It was noted that the foundation wall consisted of a loose stone rubble wall with mortared joints, again with very poor fit and workmanship. It was noted that an attempt had been made to repair or parge the foundation wall from the inside in the vicinity of the north porch. The main floor structure consisted of a combination of round wood logs and some rough -hewn "dressed" timbers (see Figure 13, Appendix A). Most of the members examined were dry- rotted to a certain extent and again, felt "powdery" and somewhat hollow to the touch. rpt_ 11188_ 1603EastForest- loghouse _2009ottawaSt_dec12_11.docx 2.1 1 -32 TERTIARY STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF EXISTING LOG CONSTRUCTED HOME REPORT - 2009 OTTAWA STREET, KITCHENER ON 3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our observations regarding strictly the structural aspects of the viability of restoring and retaining this log- constructed house as a heritage building, it is Stantec's professional opinion that in this case to do so would be cost prohibitive and not warranted. While the structure is not in imminent danger of collapse, the exposed exterior timbers which comprise the wall's structure are for the most part quite rotted and would need to be replaced. It would be difficult to source the appropriate replacement materials and devise a methodology that would not require the structure to be rebuilt from the ground up, or severely shored and needled. As well, the building itself was initially poorly constructed. There are also questions of what the future usage of the house could be. Conversion to a commercial enterprise would require the floors to be reinforced /replaced for higher live loads than it can currently sustain. Should it be decided to seriously consider retaining the log structure for other than structural reasons, a more detailed structural study of the building must be undertaken, where all of the structure can be examined, measured and analyzed. Costing studies should also be undertaken, once some possible uses for the building have been determined. These items are well beyond the limited scope of this tertiary visual examination. We trust we have undertaken this examination within the mandate requested. Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. vtth v Herbert P. Roerig, M.Eng., P.Eng. Associate, Senior Structural Engineer Ph: (519) 579 -4410 Ext. 7122 Fx: (519) 579 -8896 Cell: (519) 501 -9270 herbert.roerig@stantec.com rpt_ 11188_ 1603EastForest- loghouse _2009ottawaSt_dec12_11.docx 3.1 1 -33 TERTIARY STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF EXISTING LOG CONSTRUCTED HOME REPORT - 2009 OTTAWA STREET, KITCHENER ON Stantec APPENDIX A Site Photographs rpt_ 11188_ 1603EastForest- loghouse_2009ottawaSt_dec12_11. docx 1- 4 Stantec APPENDIX A Page 1 of 7 IpOA r/0,0, Oc VAJ I-) Oro MOIL 1��AJOD PORCH UP BA7HROOM LIVING D41 Arl�� -,Vol - --A KITCHEN PORCH MUDROOM N1 F'. DINING FAMILY ir/ fcloelg / *;1009 Ottawa Street South Ground Floor Plan Figure 2: West elevation of house Imt/img_appA-sitephotos_dec1 211. docx 1 � 35 Stantec APPENDIX A Page 2 of 7 Figure 3: West elevation of log house portion Figure 4: East elevation of log house Imt/ img _appA- sitephotos_dec12_11.docx 1 � 36 Stantec APPENDIX A Page 3of7 Figure 5: South -east corner of log house D Figure 6: Close -up of east wall showing wet rot of timbers Imt/ img _appA- sitephotos_dec12_11.docx 1 7 Stantec APPENDIX A Page 4 of 7 Figure 7: Close -up of east wall showing wet rot of timbers Figure 8: Close -up of east wall showing more deteriorated timbers Imt/ img _appA- sitephotos_dec12_11.docx 1 � 38 Stantec APPENDIX A Page 5of7 06 MW Figure 9: Close -up of east wall showing dry- rotted timbers y A • Figure 10: Close -up of west wall showing poor fit of timbers and some rotted members Imt/ img _appA- sitephotos_dec12_11.docx 1 � 39 Stantec APPENDIX A Page 6of7 �4 Mll .I OT y L! vj} TkJ { 1 � H � s � _.. _ •Y t� Figure 11: Typical corner detail (note that timbers are not dovetailed) WILL Jt ke f a ;.' 44iw r - i i B P d 1: Figure 12: Foundation / sill detail (note poor fit and gaps) Imt/ img _appA- sitephotos_dec12_11.docx 1 -40 Stantec APPENDIX A Page 7of7 Figure 13: Ground floor structure from basement Imt/ img _appA- sitephotos_dec12_11.docx 1 41 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Present Owner Contact Information 3 3.0 Background 3 3.1 Regional History 3 3.2 Land Patterns 5 3.3 Spatial Organization 6 3.4 Urban Development Period 7 4.0 Description of Existing Landscape Features and Structures 8 4.1 Landscape Features 8 4.2 Structures 11 4.2.1 Farmhouse 11 4.2.2 Condition Assessment 14 5.0 Summary of Site Assessment 16 6.0 Outline of Proposed Development 17 7.0 Summary Statement 19 8.0 Mandatory Recommendation 19 Appendices A: References B: Definitions C: Curriculum Vitaes D: Development Options E: Wendy Shearer Site Photos F: George Robb Site Photos G: Chronology of Ownership (to 1969) and Land Registry Records H: Phases Two and Three: Results of detailed investigation of building fabric and Phase Four: Results of detailed investigation of building fabric (Addendum December 12, 2011) 1 -42 Heritage Impact Assessment December, 2011 Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario 1.0 Introduction Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect a division of MHBC Planning, in association with George Robb Architect, has undertaken the task of completing a Heritage Impact Assessment of 2009 Ottawa Street South, Part Lot 130 G.C.T. in Kitchener. This assessment is required by the Corporation of the City of Kitchener as part of its review of development plans for the property. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the heritage attributes and values of the property and the potential impact of proposed development on any significant resources. Both consultants have extensive experience in the inventory, documentation, evaluation and conservation planning of built heritage and cultural landscapes. Peter Stewart is a restoration architect and a long standing CAHP member. Wendy Shearer has been a member of CAHP since 1989 and in addition to private practice, teaches courses on cultural landscape management at the University of Victoria in the Cultural Resources Management Program. Please see the appendix for complete curriculum vitaes. To identify a system of heritage features to better understand the social and functional context for individual buildings, the cultural landscape approach has been developed and is considered best practice. The philosophy behind this broader approach to heritage resource assessment is based on past experience with preservation work which in many cases, has resulted in the restoration of a single building without the important context of its time and place. The cultural landscape approach allows for a comprehensive view of the history of a site where the individual details may not be as significant as the overall features. 1 1 -43 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario In order to complete this assessment, the team has carried out a site visit and analysis, undertaken historical research, and prepared an evaluation of the property. These steps were completed according to the guidelines set out by the Corporation of the City of Kitchener and considered provincial planning policies including the Provincial Policy Statement of 2005 and the new Ontario Heritage Act passed in 2006. This Heritage Impact Assessment includes the following sections: Background This section includes a detailed site history, including the regional history, land patterns, spatial organization, the period of urban development, a description of the existing landscape features and existing structures. This section also includes a conditions assessment of the existing structures. Outline of Proposed Development This section outlines the proposed development and how it will impact 2009 Ottawa Street South. Three options are reviewed and an explanation of the proposed development is outlined. Summary Statement This section summarizes the assessments findings and the impact of the proposed development. Mandatory Recommendation This section outlines whether the subject property is or is not, worthy of heritage designation in accordance with the heritage designation criteria as per Regulation 9/06, Ontario Heritage Act. The following questions are answered in the final recommendation of this report: 1. Does the property merit being listed as a non - designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register? 2. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06, Ontario Heritage Act? 3. If the subject property does not meet the criteria for heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why it does not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, does the property warrant conservation as per the definition of "conserve" in the Provincial Policy Statement? z 1 -44 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario 2.0 Present Owner Contact Information Lyall Woolner 1521 Bleams Road Kitchener Ontario p phone: 519- 634 -8449 _•.. F Gland Rosemount �r y y ,0' 5t'� ^4 *rig•. ;tacocy Park Try. A r4�e61 = Area i'v yea l.' Idie ='n QaaM,' { tee uF/d4al , Park, K �a�k m 4 P r-rtY�a, llg 6Py 4 f0;P i r ur,i1 � t K Kitchener ,yam' - - h4wngsd�l� 'r�, Forest HMIs r r=,v - F a�� Pa-k' al rLf jr -!Ia -� H Ight �� I I IrTt Park Mail Alpine qA �. • a g go' a,rr� 9rrts � I ,p v Pailk �ark Y °�ra Ar of , ,o I,- r.sr�. rr Lausenban a a �� � IvP4t`r19�7!tw" 6 6,IY 3V Hills Wk:.! -t s�yt�e`,� 4e.� Deer Ridge VVock�y Golf Course Lar�rkier� -t N ttsw r ,r's�illiamsr urg r?sx�r+ � ,k Watson P ri Hh�, r � w rdr9rEh IrAwyl w ltd x Q Location of 2009 Ottawa Street South Google Maps 2010 3.0 Background 3.1 Regional History While acknowledging that the area surrounding the site may have accommodated aboriginal activities, this report begins with the written record of Waterloo Township's pioneer settlement in the late eighteenth century. This is when the unique lottery pattern that created the property began. In 1792, General Haldimand, then Governor of Canada, acquired six miles of land on each side of the Grand River. The land was divided into four blocks; Block 2 later became Waterloo Township. On November 2, 1796, all four blocks were granted to the Six Nations and Chief Joseph Brant as a compensation for their loyalty to the Crown during the American Revolutionary War (Eby 1978:N -1). 3 1 -45 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario Brant and the Six Nations drew up a deed for sale of Block 2 on February 5, 1798. The buyer was Colonel Richard Beasley, a Loyalist from New York, who had arrived in Canada in 1777 on the site of Dundurn National Historic Site, Hamilton. Beasley bought the 94,012 acres of land along with his business partners, James Wilson and Jean - Baptiste Rousseaux (Moyer 1971:11). The land was then surveyed by Richard Cockrell who divided the township into upper and lower blocks (Hayes 1997:3). At this time, German speaking Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting farmland in the area. Several of them went back to Pennsylvania and returned with their families the following year to buy and settle the land (Hayes 1997:5). In order to raise the £10,000 needed to purchase the land, the Pennsylvanian farmers established the German Company in 1803. Approximately 60,000 acres, later known as the German Company Tract (G.C.T.) were secured by Samuel Brick and Daniel Erb of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in 1803 (Hayes 1997:5). The deed for the land was finally granted to the German Company and its shareholders on July 24, 1805 (Eby 1978:N -3). The G.C.T. was divided into 128 farms of 448 acres each and 32 farms of 83 acres each (Moyer 1971:12). To avoid granting special privileges to owners and prospectors, shareholders of the German Company divided the land by chance back in Pennsylvania (Bloomfield 2006:24). Two farms were granted for each share held by the company's shareholders (Bloomfield 2006:23). 1805 German Company Tract outlined in red. 4 1 -46 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario The German Company's settlement of the land was distinct for several reasons. The Company's manner of dividing the land differed from the more standard process employed on lands owned by the Crown (Bloomfield 2006:25). The typical grid pattern of concession lines and side roads was not applied to the company's land. Outside of the G.C.T., farms were laid out along 66 foot public road allowances. Within the G.C.T. no road allowances were incorporated into the survey. The eventual development of a road network was an organic process that resulted in many confusing lot divisions (Hayes 1997:5) as the original property boundaries were often altered to accommodate new roads (Bloomfield 2006:25). Trussler Road, the western boundary of Waterloo Township, remained unaltered as it was also the eastern boundary of Wilmot Township, which followed a typical grid pattern. While farms in surrounding townships and counties were divided into the traditional size of 100 or 200 acres, the G.C.T. plots remained unusual in size and shape. Lot 130 According to land registry records, after Beasley's sale of the property to the German Company Tract in 1805, Lot 130 was granted to John Yund, a German Company shareholder. The lot was first sold outside the company when Martin Weidman purchased all 83 acres in 1845. The land registry records reveal numerous sales of small portions of Lot 130. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the property's ownership was listed under many German family names such as Weidman, Knechtel, and Schneller. Corporate ownership of the property took place in 1969 when Community Expansion Limited purchased the subject Part Lot 130. For a complete list of property owners and land registry records for Part Lot 1301 refer to Appendix G. 3.2 Land Patterns The boundaries of this property reveal the unique settlement pattern and division of lands developed by the German Company. When the company divided the land in 1805, the subject property comprised 83 acres. By the 1860s, the lot comprised one farm property, excluding a small piece of land in the northwest corner where an additional farmstead, was developed. The farm boundaries continued to change, most 5 1 -47 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario significantly when alterations were made to Ottawa Street South. This road originally met Trussler Road farther to the south; the size and geometry of the subject property was thus diminished when the road was relocated to the north and subsequently as the road was widened. On the western side of Trussler Road a subdivision has recently been developed and to the south, the Manheim Reservoir and Pumping Station, further altering the rural contextual landscape settlement pattern. 3.3 Spatial Organization The orientation of buildings and landscape features on this property reveals the nineteenth century rural life. The buildings are aligned in ordered geometry and oriented towards each other with active workspaces between the buildings. This is representative of early Ontario farms. The traditional farm layout is a recognizable pattern with the farm lane leading to the centre of the farmstead and the surrounding fields accessed by a back lane. The typical 2 storey bank barn has a farmyard, outbuildings, and orchards and the farm house had a domestic yard and kitchen garden. The idealized layout is illustrated below. The property at 2009 Ottawa Street South has remnants of the traditional layout pattern including the farm lane and back lane, domestic side yard, orchards, a farmhouse, bank barn with attached shed (approximately 5m by 15m) and drive shed. Av- A rip 1,.. as � - , INV.. _ fps Typical farmstead layout in Waterloo Twp. Source: Waterloo County Atlas, 1881 However, there are several areas which differ from the pattern. Compared to the house, the barn is located closest to an arterial road which carries a great deal of traffic. The bank barn access is from the road rather than the lane, and the farm and 6 1 -48 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario outbuilding used formally for hens and pigs are smaller than the typical size. 3.4 Urban Development Period The City of Kitchener developed the Laurentian West Community Plan to regulate residential development in the west end of the City. This plan comprises 440 hectares and includes the subject property. Since this time, incremental development has been changing the former agricultural lands into urban fabric. As such, Ottawa Street South has been improved to meet urban standards and is designated by the City of Kitchener as a primary arterial road. There are three phases in the Laurentian West Community Plan, with the subject property located in the final Phase 3 area. The objectives outlined in the 1993 Community Plan have already been implemented in the Phase 1 and 2 areas, but the land use of the Phase 3 area has not been fully determined or implemented. In September 2003, the Region of Waterloo updated their policies regarding the west side of the City of Kitchener and the City Urban Area Boundary. The Regional Official Policies Plan was amended (ROPPA No. 16) extending the City Urban Area Boundary west to Trussler Road. The subject property is within the City Urban Area and designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan. The Region also holds an easement across the property allowing access for water transmission. The Region has requested that any new access into the proposed development be situated across from the existing driveway of the Region's Mannheim Water Treatment Plant Pumping Station, located opposite Ottawa Street South. 1 -49 Heritage Impact Assessment December, 2011 _ 09- Ae r r�" mm- Ae Ui4 l r i; ji �+ r rF Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario Google Earth 2010 Aerial NTS Subject property noted with surrounding urbanized context. 4.0 Description of Existing Landscape Features and Structures 4.1 Landscape Features The existing farmstead consists of three buildings set in the remnants of a traditional farm landscape setting. The bank barn with its attached shed and drive shed are no longer in use. Surrounding them are the overgrown remnants of the domestic and the working farm landscape. With past road widening, the distance from Ottawa Street South and the barn and house has been significantly reduced. The overall size of the property has also been reduced as a result of severances over the years. 8 1 -50 Heritage Impact Assessment December, 2011 Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario 2010 Google Earth Aerial of 2009 Ottawa Street South The following describes the landscape setting of the property which contains several areas that previously supported farming. a. The front field — This is a small piece of land between Ottawa Street South and the vegetation line that separates the side and front yard. The vegetation along this border consists of overgrown privet (formerly a hedge), tiger lilies, forsythia, several maples and spruce. The area was historically the location of the kitchen garden. b. The farm lane — The farm lane leads past the bank barn and directly to the farm core with the drive shed located prominently at the end of the lane. The lane opens into a central space which leads to the side yard of the house. The lane has overgrown trees both planted and naturalized. The central space is fenced to separate it from the back lane and the small barn yard. A large Manitoba maple by the barn shades the area. 9 1 -51 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario C. The back lane — This was the functional link between the distant fields and the barn. Today the route is overgrown and leads to a prominent view of the telecommunications tower on the adjacent property. d. The west side yard — An area bordered on the south by vegetation primarily comprised of Norway maples, Manitoba maples and lilacs, separates the yard from the paddock further south. The north boundary is a collection of mature and recent trees. Some such as the Blue spruce have been planted while others have naturalized with close spacing. The side yard is linked to the farm core by a narrow concrete walk from the side door. The foundation of the house is obscured by overgrown weeds. e. The front yard — The front yard consists of a narrow lawn which leads around the house between the former hedge and the overgrown shrub border and foundation plantings which obscure the front porch. f. The east side yard and orchard — The east side yard is comprised of overgrown weeds and mature fruit trees dividing the space from the remnant orchard east of the house. The unmaintained orchard consists of apple, plum, cherry and pear trees, many in poor condition. g. The paddock — The paddock or small field is located south of the drive shed and house on a raised elevation. The view of the buildings from the paddock is obscured by weedy vegetation. Views east across the field are to the nearby subdivision and residential lot. The power lines are visible to the north and a telecommunications tower to the southwest. h. The south, east, and west fields — The lands surrounding the paddock provide open views that terminate at the vegetation at the fence line along the boundary. There are several mature and unmaintained apple trees located south of the paddock. i. The bank to upper floor of barn — The access to the upper floor of the barn is by means of a grassed bank leading directly off Ottawa Street South. The barn is much closer to Ottawa Street South than the traditional farmstead layout would recommend since the bank was 10 1 -52 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario a place where thrashing and haying equipment were placed during harvest season. The proximity to the busy road prevents these activities from occurring. 4.2 Structures 4.2.1 Farmhouse The farmhouse is typical in plan and profile of many mid- nineteenth century farmhouses. The building is one and one half storeys in height with a central gable on the principal facade (north) of Gothic inspiration. Of interest is the asymmetrical main entrance in the otherwise symmetrical north elevation. The plan is a 'T' shape with the earliest portion being the north facing block. This block is of log construction. Ground floor framing consists of log cants bearing on rubble stone foundation walls (Fig. 15, 16 and 17 see appendix). A covered porch extends along the central two - thirds of the north elevation and a second floor door would have provided access to a balcony above the porch ( Fig. 8 - 10). A summer kitchen extends south from the earlier block and is conventionally framed with sawn lumber. It is likely that this south wing was built in at least two stages since the basement beneath does not extend to the most southerly portion that contains the bathroom and the mud room. (Site visits in November, 2011 have confirmed previous speculation that a small structure attached to the mud room on the south east corner is a remnant privy. Access to the privy was gained through an interior door, now blocked with a closet). A buff brick chimney rises from the centre of the south wing, likely demarking the original south wall of the summer kitchen. The exterior is clad with horizontal tongue and grove v -joint wood siding painted white with dark green trim and corner boards over most of the building (Fig. 4 - 8). The west facing porch is clad with wide cement asbestos siding (Fig. 14). The roof is clad with pre - finished metal roofing, green in colour. Of note on the exterior are the details of the north porch (Fig. 9). Round columns with turned decorative bases and capitals support a dentil frieze. The low balustrade is clad with shingles in an undulating pattern. There is evidence of an upper railing on the balcony but all but the posts fixed to the wall are gone. Windows consist of 1/1 vertical sliding sash and are likely replacements for the original. Most are fitted with wood storm 11 1 -53 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario sash. The west porch has two sets of double windows in a 3/1 pattern. There are several brackets at the eaves on the southerly corners of the summer kitchen which may be the remnant of some more typical bracketed style or they may be a decorative addition contemporary with the current siding and interior alterations (Fig. 12). Interior Finishes The interior of the original block has been significantly altered. The ground floor has been divided into east and west rooms (Fig. 22, 23). These alterations date from approximately the mid - twentieth century. Most of the original detail has been lost and replaced with softly curved arches between the various spaces. The kitchen wing contains, at its south end, a mid - twentieth century bathroom (Fig. 18) and a second room, which the attached plans call mud room (Fig. 19). The floor of this room is raised two steps above the kitchen floor, probably to allow for plumbing for the freestanding shower in the south west corner. These two rooms likely represent an addition to the earlier kitchen wing. The second floor plan contains three bedrooms with various interventions to provide closets. There is no evidence of there having been a bathroom on the second floor as stated in an earlier "Architectural Analysis ", dated June 25, 1991 by Don Ryan, Heritage Researcher. Of interest is the truncated access doorway to the attic (Fig. 28) over the kitchen wing located in the south end of the upper hall. Inside the attic is the only view of the original log construction where the logs were cut through to provide access. Logs, wood filler and chinking is all visible in section as are the extended roof rafters and 1" roof sheathing boards of the original eaves (Fig. 29 -32). 12 1 -54 Heritage Impact Assessment December, 2011 UP Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario 2009 Ottawa Street South Basement Plan PORCH -j- Lij L KITCHEF PORCH MUDROOM I JT DINING 2009 Ottawa Street South Ground Floor Plan FAMILY 13 1 -55 1 ly 2009 Ottawa Street South Basement Plan PORCH -j- Lij L KITCHEF PORCH MUDROOM I JT DINING 2009 Ottawa Street South Ground Floor Plan FAMILY 13 1 -55 Heritage Impact Assessment December, 2011 Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario f i i BEDROOM � N L. 11� - I Tel - .IDN BEDROOM � L. BEDROOM i L. r SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2009 Ottawa Street South Second Floor Plan 4.2.2 Condition Assessment Farmhouse Examination of the exterior of the building was significantly impeded by the overgrown vegetation. The farmhouse sits on a rubble foundation wall. There is evidence of relatively recent re- pointing of this wall across the north elevation. This may have been either the cause of, or caused by, the partial collapse of the north porch. The outer foundations of the porch have allowed it to deflect significantly (Fig. 10). The ground floor structure consists of log cants bearing on a perimeter timber sill plate which, in turn, bears on the rubble foundation walls (Fig. 15 -17). While no distress was noted here, experience has shown that the lower log sill and the let -in cant connections may well be deteriorated. Of note in Fig. 15 is the diagonal pattern of the subflooring and painted pattern, both of which suggest that this subfloor may have been installed as part of the mid - twentieth century alterations as described above. Roof lines of the kitchen wing are straight and level, but the ridge of the original block is concave showing signs of stress (Fig. 8). 14 1 -56 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario On the exterior, there appears to have been a lack of maintenance for some time. Fascias and gutters are in poor condition in many locations and water damage to finishes adjacent these areas is obvious (Fig. 11). Windows are in relatively poor condition; all require painting, several have broken sash (Fig. 13, 14). The horizontal sliding aluminum window in the mud room is further evidence of its later date and the suggestion of a mid - twentieth century overhaul. On the interior, the altered condition of the ground floor has been described above. At the second floor there is evidence of some drywall repairs to former plaster walls, as in the north west room (Fig. 25). Elsewhere there is evidence of plaster damage from significant and long term roof leaks, as in the south east room (Fig. 33). Drive shed The two bay drive shed is of conventional timber construction sitting on a rubble stone foundation wall. It appears sound from the north but its mow and roof have collapsed in the south west corner. Earlier repairs include attempts to stabilize the corners of the rubble wall with brick masonry and the introduction of a concrete pier under the north post of the centre bent. Barn Of the three buildings, the barn is in the best condition. Foundations, while requiring some repair, are sound. The upper structure, like many Ontario barns, is well ventilated and has remained sound. An exterior wood stair provides access to the barn loft. This structure is poorly built, non - original and should be considered unsafe. Attached Outbuilding This outbuilding has been divided into two sections by an interior wall. There are two small interior rooms. The room to the south housed the hens and the room to the north housed the pigs. This outbuilding, like the drive shed, has suffered a partial collapse of the west side. Its foundation at the north end is loose and near collapse. 15 1 -57 Heritage Impact Assessment December, 2011 Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario 5.0 Summary of Site Assessment The farmstead is representative of a pattern found historically in the former Waterloo County. However, changes in the context have resulted in a significant loss of integrity of the heritage resources. The buildings, lanes, fields and vegetation follow a traditional form of mixed agriculture dating from the last half of the 19th century. While the property's associative value lies with the German Company and historic German ownership, it does not contain any remnants from these early years when the land was first cleared. The current buildings date from a later period of farming where there was a diversity of production — pasture, grain, pigs, chickens, horses, orchards and a kitchen garden. The landscape is a mixture of mature ornamental shrubs and trees with recent invasive naturalizing on the site. The vegetation found on site is for food production, such as the orchard or for defining spaces or for shade and amenity. None of these plant species or landscape features found on the property are significant in value or interest and can be better represented elsewhere in the Region. While the collection of buildings represent a remnant of an early nineteenth century rural Ontario farmstead, its context has been lost as a result of the expansion and proximity of Ottawa Street South and surrounding late twentieth century development. This significant impact on the property's context includes views of the nearby communications tower dominating the site, the Manheim Reservoir and Pumping Station directly across of the property and the encroaching development throughout the immediate area. Of the three buildings on the site, the house and the drive shed are in a state of partial collapse. While any early pioneer log structure is of heritage value or interest, the farmhouse is significantly altered with, perhaps, only the intrinsic value of the logs remaining. It should be noted that at the request of City staff further investigative work was undertaken by the consultant team to examine log components of the farmhouse (August, 2011). The results of this work can be found in Appendix H. Examination of the log construction revealed that the logs were probably re- used from another structure. The log joints appeared to be ill fitting with a variety of shims used to ensure the joints were tight. Logs were of varying width and quality with some areas 16 1 -58 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario rotting out near the exposed chimney stack. A cementitious rendering had been used to cover over remnants of original chinking but this has deteriorated. In some areas gaps in chinking were covered over with a variety of linear timber inserts. This confirmed the consultant team's views that the structure represented poor workmanship and that there was even less value in the base building materials than had been expected. Due to their condition, the drive shed and outbuilding should be removed. Further, the encroachment of large infrastructure projects, residential development and the barn's proximity to Ottawa Street South limits its operations as a farm or similar adaptive reuse. 6.0 Outline of Proposed Development The following options have been considered for this site. Please note at the request of the Region of Waterloo, access from Ottawa Street South into the proposed development has been situated opposite from the existing driveway entering to the Mannheim Reservoir and Pumping Station. Option 1 Retain the house and barn on the lot within the residential development. See Concept Plan 1A. This proposal retains the bank barn and house on a lot with the development of townhouse units in the area to the east, south, and west. An emergency access lane is proposed to provide access to Ottawa Street South on the north frontage of the house. The attached outbuilding and drive shed, have been removed. This option retains the farmhouse and barn but removes the remnant farmstead landscape, including the back lane, orchard, paddock and fields. As well, the historic lane access is removed with a new access into the development, proposed further south. This option is not consistent with the neighbouring context. Its impact on the streetscape of Ottawa Street South would be incomplete. The structures would be retained in isolation, which would diminish their ability to inform the community of their agricultural past. Due to the overall condition of the farmstead complex, the encroaching residential development, proximity to 17 1 -59 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario Ottawa Street South and adjacent public works, the value of conserving these structures as cultural heritage resources is minimal and not recommended. Option 2 Retain the house on its own lot within the subdivision. See Concept Plan 1B. This proposal retains the house on a lot with the development of townhouse units in the area to the east, south, and west. This option retains the farmhouse, removes the barn and its attached outbuildings, and the drive shed. The original lane has been closed and access to the house is from through the development. This option has retained the proposed farmhouse, but with the complete loss of the working cultural landscape that created it. The end result of this option is an orphan farmhouse, surrounded by new development. This option is not recommended because retaining the structure independently in isolation diminishes the integrity of the farmstead. The neighbouring agricultural landscape has been irrevocably altered by residential development, public works and road upgrades. The valuable contextual setting that supports the understanding of the farm as a working complex is absent. The value of conserving this structure as a cultural heritage resource is minimal and not recommended. Option 3 Demolish all buildings. See Concept Plan 1C. This option removes all buildings onsite with the development of townhouse units to the east, south and west. It is recommended to dismantle and salvage sound materials from the house and barn for a new purpose and demolish the outbuildings. This option is consistent with the urban context in the area and provides an opportunity for creating a new residential development to complete the urban streetscape for Ottawa Street South and fulfill the long term vision of the City for residential development. This option is recommended. This report serves as a documentation of the existing building and site. 18 1 -60 Heritage Impact Assessment December, 2011 Y325W 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario 7.0 Summary Statement This property was originally part of the German Company Tract. Its associative value lies with being purchased in 1805 from Richard Beasley, Joseph Brant and the Crown. The collection of existing buildings represents a remnant mid - nineteenth century rural Ontario farmstead. Its context has been severed due to the expansion of Ottawa Street South and the surrounding late twentieth century development. Of the three buildings on the site, two are in a state of partial collapse. While any early pioneer log structure is of heritage value or interest, this farmhouse is significantly altered with, possibly, only the intrinsic value of the logs remaining. The proposed options that retain the farmhouse and /or barn impact the farms contextual setting in such a way that the farm as a working complex can no longer be understood. The proposed option of demolition allows for an opportunity to create a new a coherent residential infill development that completes the urban streetscape for Ottawa Street South and long term vision of the City and the Region for the area to become urban. 8.0 Mandatory Recommendation Background The City of Kitchener HIA guidelines require that any submitted HIA prepared by a heritage consultant for a proponent address questions respecting registering and /or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act and conservation under the Provincial Policy Statement. Typically an HIA, although required by the City, is prepared for a proponent seeking approvals under the Planning Act and addresses anticipated effects upon cultural heritage features. It is typically provided as professional advice to the proponent. Since being proclaimed in 1975, the Ontario Heritage Act has enabled municipalities to designate properties either individually under Part IV or collectively as heritage conservation districts under Part V of the Act. The Act required that a municipality maintain a publicly accessible register of those properties designated under Part IV. The register was originally required to contain a list of all these designated properties together with a legal description of the property, the name and address of the owner and a 19 1 -61 Heritage Impact Assessment Y325W 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario short statement of the reason for designation of the property. (This was amended in 2005 to a "statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and a description of the heritage attributes of the property "). There is no other direction in the Act as to the form or content of the register. In 2005, the Act was amended to make provision for the inclusion of designated heritage conservation districts under Part V of the Act, as well as any properties designated by the Minister of Culture. As part of several changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, municipalities can also include non - designated properties in the register where the municipal Council "believes" such property is of cultural heritage value or interest. There are no criteria stipulated in any regulation to the Ontario Heritage Act which addresses evaluating resources for registering only and the test for inclusion is one of tentative speculation about value or interest rather than absolute certainty which is anticipated in the inclusion of designated property in the register. The Act also prescribes that council must consult with its municipal heritage committee prior to the inclusion of non - designated properties in the register or their removal. Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, Conservation of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, clearly describes the function of the register in Section 27 as follows: "27(1) The Clerk of a municipality shall keep a register of property situated in the municipality that is of cultural heritage value or interest. 2005, c.6, s.15. (1.1) The register kept by the Clerk shall list all property situated in the municipality that has been designated by the municipality or by the Minister under this Part and shall contain, with respect to each property, (a) a legal description of the property; (b) the name and address of the owner; and, (c) a statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and a description of the heritage attributes of the property. 2005, c.6, s.15. (1.2) In addition to the property listed in the register under Subsection (1.1), the register may include property that has not been designated under this Part but that the Council of the municipality believes to be of cultural heritage value or zo 1 -62 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario interest and shall contain, with respect to such property, a description of the property that is sufficient to readily ascertain the property. 2005, c. 6, s. 15. (1.3) Where the Council of a municipality has appointed a Municipal Heritage Committee, the Council shall, before including a property that has not been designated under this Part in the register under Subsection (1.2) or removing the reference to such a property from the register, consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee. 2005, c.6, s.15." With these amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, non - designated properties included in the City "Register" are afforded protection from demolition for a period of up to 60 days. Section 27 provides as follows: "(3) If property included in the register under Subsection (1.2) has not been designated under Section 29, the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives the Council of the municipality at least 60 days notice, in writing, of the owner's intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or to permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. 2006, c.11, Sched.8, s.11(2). (4) Subsection (3) applies only if the property is included in the register under Subsection (1.2) before any application is made for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to demolish or remove a building or structure located on the property. 2006, c.11, Sched.8, s.11(2). (5) The notice required by Subsection (3) shall be accompanied by such plans and shall set out such information as the Council may require. 2006, c.11, Sched. 8, s.11(2)." The potential 60 day delay period allowable under the Ontario Heritage Act for non - designated properties included in the register was anticipated by the Province as permitting the municipality time to pursue conservation options, most notably to begin the designation process. Within this legislative context the City's Manadatory requirements as part of Heritage Impact Assessment is discussed in the following. u 1 -63 Heritage Impact Assessment Y325W 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario 1. Does the property merit being listed as a non - designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register? In the absence of specific criteria for evaluating properties for prospective inclusion in the register as non designated properties the consultant team used the criteria contained in the City's Official Plan. Subsection 5.3.4 contains criteria to be used in assessing or "judging" properties for designation as follows: "4. Properties (including all buildings and structures thereon) which are of historic or architectural value may be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. In judging the significance of a heritage property in illustrating or interpreting the history of Kitchener, regard shall be had to, but not be limited to, the following criteria of architectural merit or historical association, generally as follows: i) It is a good, representative or rare example of the work of an outstanding local, national or international architect, builder, designer, landscape architect, interior designer or sculptor; ii) It is associated with a person or an event recognized as having made a significant contribution to the City's social, cultural, political, economic, technological or physical development, or as having influenced the course of local, regional, provincial, national or international history; iii) It is a good and representative example of a method of construction now rarely used or of a particular architectural style or period of building, or an example of outstanding interior design; iv) It dates from an important period in the development of the community; V) It is generally recognized as an important City landmark; or vi) It makes an important contribution to the urban /rural composition or streetscape given its unique aesthetic or picturesque qualities."" While the collection of buildings represents a remnant of an early nineteenth century rural Waterloo County farmstead, better examples can be found throughout the County. Within zz 1 -64 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario the City of Kitchener examples are found at Joseph Schneider Haus, the Steckle Farm, three farmhouses and barns at Doon Heritage Village and the Woolner Farmstead. Additionally, the loss of building and landscape setting integrity together with the disturbance of its immediate context and the site's overall debilitated condition results in this being a poor representation of this type of cultural heritage resource. Accordingly, the cultural resource does not reasonably satisfy any of the previously identified criteria. None of the six criteria are satisfied and hence it is the consultant team's opinion that the property does not warrant inclusion in the municipal register of property of cultural heritage value or interest. 2. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9106, Ontario Heritage Act? The Ontario Heritage Act enables municipal councils to designate heritage property by by -law. Designation is considered to be a discretionary activity on the part of a municipality and the province does not compel or otherwise require municipalities to take any action. The provincial statute does require, however, that where a municipality chooses to designate a property by by -law the property to be designated must meet a minimum standard with respect to its demonstrated heritage values and interests. Subsection 29(1) of the Act states as follows: "The council of a municipality may, by by -law, designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest if, (a) where criteria for determining whether property is of cultural heritage value or interest have been prescribed by regulation, the property meets the prescribed criteria;" Ontario Regulation 9106, Ontario Heritage Act provides the following standards or tests for values and interests: 1. (1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 29 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 9106, s. 1 (1). (2) A property maybe designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: 23 1 -65 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it L is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9106, s. 1 (2). The subject property has been evaluated against the three main criteria (and over sixty criteria sub - sets). The results are described below and two are considered to be met: Design value or physical value While the property may once have possessed physical value as a traditional farm complex this value has been considerably diminished with the loss of integrity through encroachment of the original farm lot and attrition of heritage fabric in the component landscape features, buildings and structures. The property is in a state of partial collapse. While any early pioneer log structure is of heritage value or interest, this farmhouse is significantly altered with, perhaps, only the intrinsic value of the logs remaining. Notwithstanding these observations one sub - criterion is considered to have been met, namely that the former farmhouse is a representative example of a building type za 1 -66 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario notably a side gable, one - and -a -half story farmhouse, rectangular in plan with a tail addition. Historical value or associative value One sub - criterion is considered to have been met: • The property has associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, The property is associated with the theme of early Euro- Canadian settlement and land transactions of the Haldimand Tract, Richard Beasley and the German Company Tract. This value is unaltered with redevelopment of the property. Moreover, these associations are unremarkable in that they are not unique to this property and are considered to be insufficient to support designation of the property under Section 29 of the Act. Contextual value As with considerations under design or physical value the property has undergone considerable change both within the lot (substantial loss in original lot area and component landscape features, buildings and structures) as well as loss of contextual integrity through suburban encroachment and attrition of the former fabric of the rural landscape. Accordingly, none of the contextual values are satisfied. City of Kitchener Official Plan Criteria In addition to the Ontario Regulation 9106 criteria the consultant team also assessed the property with respect to the City's Official Plan criteria described previously. These appear to set a higher standard for designation under the Act as they include qualifiers such as "good example ", "significant contribution" and "an important period ". None of the criteria were adequately satisfied to soundly and convincingly support designation. The consultant team does not believe that this property meets the Act's and City's criteria for heritage designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 25 1 -67 Heritage Impact Assessment Y325W 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario I If the subject property does not meet the criteria for heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why it does not. The standards set in Ontario Regulation 9106 establish a minimum standard for the discretionary activity of municipal designation. A robust, sound and defensible case for designation typically rests on a number of criteria being satisfied and not merely satisfied in a perfunctory manner: criteria must be satisfied in a demonstrative way, illustrating all those identified values with clarity and precision. The consultant team is of the opinion that the property does have associative value with the theme of early Euro- Canadian settlement and land transactions of the Haldimand Tract, Richard Beasley and the German Company Tract. These associations are, however, intangible and are not sufficiently represented in physical form that would argue for designation and then management of the property's values though a heritage permit process. One other sub - criterion is also considered to have been met, namely that the former farmhouse is a representative example of a building type notably a side gable, one - and -a -half story farmhouse, rectangular in plan with a tail addition. The consultant team is of the opinion that because the whole property has been so substantially altered and the individual components, both landscape features and building fabric, so greatly compromised that there are insufficient cultural heritage values to support designation. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation does the property warrant conservation as per the definition "conserved" in the Provincial Policy Statement? The Provincial Policy Statement provides that: "2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." Accordingly, the term "conserved" must be read in conjunction with "significant built heritage resources" and "significant cultural heritage landscapes ", as well as their specific meanings within the context of the PPS. 26 1 -68 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario The terms "conserved ", "built heritage resources ", "cultural heritage landscape" and "significant" are defined as follows: Conserved: means the identification, protection, use and /or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. Built heritage resources: means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to a community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, provincial or federal jurisdictions. Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value. Significant: means... g) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. As previously demonstrated in evaluating the property according to both Provincial and City criteria the property is considered to have insufficient value to be considered either as a suitable candidate for inclusion in the register or for designation. The existing surrounding context of this site has irrevocably undermined the integrity of this remnant farmstead. Conserving only the farmhouse, which itself requires major remedial work, will not adequately demonstrate to future generations the traditional pattern, layout, and operation of a working farmstead and its accompanying fields. The circulation, n 1 -69 Heritage Impact Assessment Y32SW 2009 Ottawa Street South December, 2011 Kitchener, Ontario access, and views from the farm have been significantly altered by the condition of new facilities adjacent to the property. The valuable contextual setting that supports the understanding of the farm as a working complex is absent. The value of conserving this structure as a cultural heritage resource is minimal and not recommended. Accordingly, it is considered that the property is neither a significant cultural heritage landscape nor does it contain significant built heritage resources and the PPS provision respecting "conserved" does not apply. In keeping with the intent of the policy, however, the preparation of this heritage impact assessment and the record of findings constitute accordance with the policy provision. In keeping with the City of Kitchener staff's concern expressed in correspondence (October 3rd, 2011) that "a building constructed during this period would contribute to Kitchener's understanding of the pioneers and their history" it is recommended that systematic recording of the structural log components be undertaken. This conservation action, similar to recording of archaeological artefacts, will result in the creation of a consultable paper or electronic record of log construction techniques at this site. Such a record constitutes an appropriate and acceptable mitigation measure to address the meaningful and long -term conservation of historical information and data. The record can be deposited in appropriate City and Regional institutions. zs 1 -70 APPENDIX A References 1 -71 REFERENCES Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo County to 1972: An Annotated Bibliography of Regional History. Waterloo, ON: Waterloo Regional Heritage Foundation, 1993. Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo Township through Two Centuries. Kitchener, ON: Waterloo Historical Society, 2006. Bricker, I.C. "The History of Waterloo Township up to 1825." Waterloo Historical Society 22 (1934): 91. Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Waterloo, ON: Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. Maps: Bricker, I.C. "Block Number Two (Waterloo Townships)," 1805. Waterloo Historical Society 53 (1965): 44 -45. "Map of Waterloo," Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto, ON: H. Parsell & Company, 1881. 1 -72 Definitions 1 -73 Provincial Policy Statement Definitions: Built heritage resource: means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to a community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage At, or listed by local, provincial or federal jurisdictions. Conserved: means the identification, protection, use and /or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. Significant: means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Integrity: is a question of whether the surviving physical features continue to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. 1 -74 APPENDIX C Curriculum Vitaes 1 -75 I� WENDY SHEARERLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT a division of M H B C Planning 540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE e SUITE 200 9 KITCHENER e ONTARIO e N213 3X9 9 (519) 576 -3650 tel • (519) 576- 0121fax e www.mhbcplan.com Wendy Shearer Education: 1981 B.L.A. with honours, University of Guelph 1970 Toronto Teachers' College 1969 B.A., Glendon College, York University, major: History Professional Affiliation: Professional Experience: 2008 — Present: Managing Director, Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect, a Division of MHBC Planning 1984-2008 Principal, Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited Memberships: • Architectural Conservancy of Ontario • Seeds of Diversity Canada • The Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation • The National Trust, UK • Heritage Canada • Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada • National Association of Olmsted Parks • Green Roofs for Healthy Cities 1 1 -76 • Full Member, Ontario Association of Landscape Architects • Full Member, Canadian Society of Landscape Architects • Full Member, American Society of Landscape Architects • Full Member since 1989, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (formerly Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants) Professional Service: 20011 2009 -2010 • University of Victoria Cultural Landscape Course in Cultural Landscape Management 2008 - Present Faculty, Willowbank School of Restoration Arts, Cultural Landscape Course 2000-2001 • Chair, American Society of Landscape Architects, Historic Preservation Professional Interest Group 1998-2010 • Executive Member, Board of Directors, The Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation, Vice - President 2001 -20041 Secretary, Canadian Treasurer 2004 - 2010 1995-1999 • Adjunct Professor, School of Landscape Architecture, University of Guelph Professional Experience: 2008 — Present: Managing Director, Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect, a Division of MHBC Planning 1984-2008 Principal, Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited Memberships: • Architectural Conservancy of Ontario • Seeds of Diversity Canada • The Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation • The National Trust, UK • Heritage Canada • Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada • National Association of Olmsted Parks • Green Roofs for Healthy Cities 1 1 -76 Professional Activities: Speaker, The Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation. "Accessibility for Historic Sites ". Albuquerque, Mexico 2010. Speaker, Oil Heritage District, Industrial Archaeology Conference, Hamilton September 2009. Invited Expert, Review of National Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Think Tank, Ottawa, January 2008. Invited Expert, Review of National Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Think Tank, Ottawa, February, 2007. 2009. 2010. OMB Expert Witness Testimony, Town of Oakville, July 2006, Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment, Bronte Quadrangle. OMB Expert Witness Testimony, Town of Oakville, May 2006, Trafalgar Road Heritage Conservation District interpretation. Speaker, The Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation. "Integration of the 19th Century Agricultural Cultural Landscape in 21St Century Urban Planning ". Halifax, June 2006. Speaker, The Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation. "Olmsteds in Canada: Restoration of Fulford Place, Brockville ". Sonoma, California, 2004. Co- author and Co- presenter, On Line Seminar for Continuing Education for Professionals for the American Society of Landscape Architects "Historic Landscape Preservation: A Look at Canada and the United States; Philadelphia, March 2003. Invited Expert to advise International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, Rome on Curriculum for Pilot Course on Cultural Landscape Conservation, Sante Fe, April 2002. Invited Participant representing the American Society of Landscape Architects, at a landmark symposium developing documentation standards for the Historic America Landscape Survey (HALS) with the United States National Parks Service, the ASLA and the Library of Congress, New Orleans, March 2002. Speaker, The Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation. "The Use of Resistivity Probe as a Tool in Historic Landscape Conservation ". Milford, Pennsylvania, June 1998. 0) 1 -77 National Historic Sites Town of East Gwi I I i m bu ry Sharon Temple National Historic Site Ontario Heritage Trust: Fulford Place Italianate Garden Restoration, Brockville, Garden Maintenance Manual Region of Waterloo: Joseph Schneider Haus, Kitchener, Restoration Master Plan Town of Aurora: Hillary House, the Koffler Museum of Medicine City of Hamilton: Du nd u rn Castle Period Landscape Survey/ Restoration Master Plan, 1856 Kitchen Garden Restoration, Park Maintenance Manual. Former Custom House Site Restoration Wh itehern, NHS Auchmar Estate Heritage Conservation District Projects Lambton County Oil Heritage District Study City of Brampton: Feasibility analysis for 8 core area districts 2006 Village of Churchville Heritage Conservation District 1993 /Update 2006* City of Mississauga: Village of Bayfield: Village of Queenston: City of Kitchener: City of Hamilton: City of London: Town of Flam borough : City of Oakville: Town of Pickering: City of St. Catharines: Port Credit Heritage Conservation District* Heritage Conservation District Streetscape and Open Space Master Plan Heritage Conservation District Assessment, Niagara on the Lake St. Mary's "Wartime Housing" Neighbourhood* Du rand /Markland Neighbourhood* Hamilton Beach Strip* East Woodfield Neighbourhood* Village of Waterdown* Trafalgar Road Neighbourhood* Hamlet of Whitevale* Queen Street Neighbourhood* Port Dalhousie* Township of Pittsburgh: Village of Barriefield* City of Cambridge: Cambridge Mills, Preston Assessment City of Toronto: Metcalfe Street, Cabbage Town* * Bylaw enacted by municipality 3 1 78 Battlefield Park NHS, Master Plan Township of Wilmot: 1878 "Castle Kilbride" City of Guelph: Church of Our Lady Site Master Plan Wellington County: Wellington County Museum Site Design City of St. Thomas: St. Thomas City Hall Site Design Lower Grand River Land Trust: Ruthven Park National Historic Site, Cayuga Historic Cobalt Mining 1910 Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Station/ Camp: Welcome Centre Development Heritage Conservation District Projects Lambton County Oil Heritage District Study City of Brampton: Feasibility analysis for 8 core area districts 2006 Village of Churchville Heritage Conservation District 1993 /Update 2006* City of Mississauga: Village of Bayfield: Village of Queenston: City of Kitchener: City of Hamilton: City of London: Town of Flam borough : City of Oakville: Town of Pickering: City of St. Catharines: Port Credit Heritage Conservation District* Heritage Conservation District Streetscape and Open Space Master Plan Heritage Conservation District Assessment, Niagara on the Lake St. Mary's "Wartime Housing" Neighbourhood* Du rand /Markland Neighbourhood* Hamilton Beach Strip* East Woodfield Neighbourhood* Village of Waterdown* Trafalgar Road Neighbourhood* Hamlet of Whitevale* Queen Street Neighbourhood* Port Dalhousie* Township of Pittsburgh: Village of Barriefield* City of Cambridge: Cambridge Mills, Preston Assessment City of Toronto: Metcalfe Street, Cabbage Town* * Bylaw enacted by municipality 3 1 78 Other Heritage Projects David Dunlap Observatory, Town of Richmond Hill Stoney Creek Cenotaph Site Improvement Plan Former Bank of Montreal, Parliamentary Precinct, Ottawa Owen Sound Cenotaph Restoration Master Plan Region of Waterloo: Former Governor's House and Gaol Garden Montebello Park, St. Catharines Conservation Master Plan Update 2004 St. James 19th Century Garden Rehabilitation, City of Toronto Fanshawe Pioneer Village, Landscape and Site Interpretation Master Plan, London. 2004. Underground Railroad Commemorative and former BME Church Site Park Master Plan, Chatham Waterfront Park and First Nation Commemorative, Blue Water Bridge Authority Edison Museum, Vienna, Bayham Township Oakville Museum at Erchless Estate, Oakville Nash Jackson House, Battlefield Park, City of Hamilton Cayuga Court House, SNC - Lavalin Tod morden Mills Site Improvements, City of Toronto Auch mar Estate, Vegetation Assessment, Hamilton Hamilton City Hall, 1960 Designated Landscape, Restoration Former Loretto Convent, Guelph Civic Museum Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessments 2009 -10 Lafarge Quarry, Caledon 2009-10 Former London Psychiatric Hospital, ORC 2009 Former Drummond Wall, Midland 2009 Belvedere Heights, Parry Sound 2008 -09 Rockfort Quarry, Caledon 2007 Chedoke "Browlands" Development Site, Hamilton 2006 Bronte Quadrangle Cultural Landscape Assessment and Expert Witness Testimony, OMB Hearing for Town of Oakville 2005 Central Pickering Seaton Lands for the Ontario Realty Corporation Inventory and assessment of 9000 acres of rural countryside as part of new community plan. 2005 Provincial Agricultural Research and College Facilities Evaluation of Kemptville, Ridgetown and Alfred Colleges/ Winchester, Simcoe, Vineland, New Liskeard, Woodstock, Cambridge, Arkell, Alma, Elora, Ponsonby, Guelph, Bradford and Emo for the Ontario Realty Corporation. 2005 The Guelph Reformatory for Ontario Realty Corporation 2005 Research and Evaluation of the Cultural Heritage Landscape of former Haldimand County Court House, Cayuga for SNC Lavalin. Profac. 2004 Provincial Mental Health Facilities Evaluation of the sites of 12 facilities for the Ontario Realty Corporation including Smiths Falls, Brockville, St. Thomas, Kingston, Edgar, Penetangu ishene, Ori I I ia, Gravenhurst, Hamilton, Cedar Springs, London, CPRI London. 2004 "Chicopee" Harvey Sims Estate, Kitchener, Designed by Carver and Borgsrom 11 1 -79 6L & -M dA Peter D. Stewart EDUCATION 1974 Obtained Professional Registration 1971 Bachelor of Architecture University of Toronto 1965 Honours Graduation Diploma Etobicoke Collegiate Institute PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS • Member of the Ontario Association of Architects • Member of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada • Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (Board member 2003 -2007) • Associate Member of the Ontario Professional Planners I nstitute • Member of the Executive of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario • Member of Association for Preservation Technology • Member Heritage Canada Foundation PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY EXPERIENCE 1991- Present George Robb, Architect, Toronto, Ontario Partner Involved in all aspects of a wide range of conservation, commercial, residential and institutional projects throughout Southern Ontario. 1991 -1994 Partner -in- Charge of Windsor Office 1984 -1988 Robb /Stewart Design Inc., Toronto, Ontario Partner Involved in a wide range of interior design and renovation projects throughout the North Eastern United States for a multi - national recreational client based in Long Island, NY. 1980 -1991 George Robb Architect, Toronto, Ontario Associate Involved in design, supervision of document production, tendering and field review of major hotel projects in Thunder Bay, Kitchener, and Markham, Ontario; a private rural high school in King City, Ontario; and numerous smaller commercial, residential and institutional projects. 1974 -1979 George Robb Architect, Toronto, Ontario Junior Architect Involved in design, production and field review of major hotel projects in Cambridge and Etobicoke; a variety of housing projects for the Ministry of Housing; and numerous smaller commercial, residential and institutional projects. • Guest Speaker, Windsor Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee - 1995 • Guest Speaker, Algonquin Club, 1971 -1974 George Robb Architect, Toronto, Ontario Windsor /Detroit Chapter - 1994 Architectural Assistant • Guest Speaker Amherstburg Historic Sites Association - 1994 Involved in construction document production for a • Member, Advisory Panel major hotel project (unexecuted) and numerous Architectural Handbook for the residential projects in southern Ontario. Canadian Wood Council - 1990 • Guest Lecturer Bowling Proprietor's Association of Canada - 1988 1970 Toronto Board of Education • Facilitator, RAIC Conference "Energy in the Design Process" - 1980 Conducted survey of pattern of use for all auditoria in Toronto's junior and secondary schools. COMMUNITY ACTIVITY • Member of the Belfountain Heritage Society (Ontario Heritage Trust Community Achievement Award, 2006) • Former Board Member, Ontario Combined Driving Association • Former Board Member, Central Ontario Pleasure Driving Association • Facilities Advisor & Founding Member Toronto Gymnastics International 4800 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 201 TORONTO, ONTARIO M9A 1131 P: 416- 5968301 F:416- 596 -1508 1- 80 peter D. Stewart 91r4 J� AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII& GEORGE ROBB Al Selected Projects A. Heritage Conservation Client (location) Guild Inn Architectural remnants City of Toronto, Culture current Interior Re- restoration, Spadina House Museum City of Toronto, Culture current Forest Hill War Memorial City of Toronto, Culture 2009 Alexander Farmhouse, Halton Museum Region of Halton 1010 Inner Range Lighthouse, Port Dalhousie City of St. Catharines current Mather -Walls House, Kenora Ontario Heritage Trust current Cumberland House City of Toronto 2008 Assembly Hall City of Toronto, culture 2008 Carillon Tower, Simcoe, Norfolk County AECOM 2009 Hollingshead House Town of Newmarket 2008 Todmorden Mills, Toronto City of Toronto, Culture current Eyer Homestead (1828) Town of Richmond Hill current Lime Kilns, Limehouse Conservation Area Credit Valley Conservation current Entrance Gates, Old Fort York City of Toronto 2006 Coach House, Colborne Lodge City of Toronto 2006 George Brown House, Toronto Ontario Heritage Trust 2005 -08 Forester House & Barns (1830) Town of Richmond Hill current Garden Wall reconstruction, Spadina House City of Toronto 2005 Montebello Park Pavilion (1880) City of St. Catharines 2005 Varley Gallery / McKay House, Unionville Town of Markham 2005 Reconstruction of the Shaw House Town of Richmond Hill 2004 Lincoln County Courthouse (1849) City of St. Catharines 2000 -04 Ebenezer Primitive Methodist Church (1858) (Brampton) 2002 -05 Merritton Town Hall (1879) City of St. Catharines 2001 -03 President's House, Guelph (1882) University of Guelph 2001 Morningstar Mill, Decew Falls (1872) City of St. Catharines 2001 & 2007 Belfountain Conservation Area (1914), Caledon Credit Valley Conservation 2000 -03 Melville Church (1837) ( Caledon) 1999 -04 Coach House, Oakville Museum (1896) Town of Oakville 1997 La Maison Francois Baby House Museum (1812) City of Windsor 1997 -98 Our Lady of the Rosary Porch (1924), Windsor Diocese of London 1997 Knox Presbyterian Church Restoration (1907) (Toronto) 1995 -01 Duff Baby House Restoration (1798), Sandwich Ontario Heritage Trust 1995 B. Conditions Assessments /Studies Montgomery's Inn City of Toronto current Todmorden Mills Museum, 5 historic buildings City of Toronto current Chedoke House, Hamilton City of Hamilton 2009 Arts & Letters Club Toronto 2010 Mather -Walls House, Kenora Ontario Heritage Trust 2009 7420 Ninth Line, Milton (mitigation of partial collapse) City of Mississauga 2009 Woolner Farmstead (Kitchener) 2008 Trussler Rd. /Ottawa Street Farmsteds (Kitchener) 2008 11185 Airport Road (Brampton) 2008 345 Steeles Ave. (Harrop Restaurant) (Milton) 2008 4800 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 201 TORONTO, ONTARIO M9A 1131 P:416 - 5968301 F:416- 596 -1508 1 -81 C. Q Morningstar Mill, Millers House & outbuildings City of St. Catharines 2007 Stratford City Hall, Entrance Steps City of Stratford 2007 5600 Tremaine Road, HIA (Milton) current 8675 Creditview Road, HIA (City of Brampton) 2007 551 Harrop Drive, HIA (Milton) 2007 JR Park Homestead, Harrow ERCA, Essex 2007 3361 Mississauga Road, HIA (Mississauga) 2007 Pinchin Riviere Farm City of Mississauga 2006 Gairdner Estate City of Mississauga 2006 7420 Ninth Line, Milton City of Mississauga 2006 St. Joachim & Annunciation Churches, HIA Town of Lakeshore 2005 -07 Workmen's Compensation Board Building ORC, Toronto 2005 Crown Inn City of Windsor 2004 John Campbell School, HIA City of Windsor 2004 Salmoni Building, HIA (Amherstburg) 2004 Nodwell Farmhouse, HIA (Hillsburgh) 2004 St. John's Anglican Church (Feasibility & Concept Design) (Cookstown) 2003 City Owned Heritage Building Stock Windsor 2003 Willistead Manor House, Coach House & Gate House Windsor 2003 Mackenzie Hall Windsor 2003 Richardson Library Windsor 2003 Sandwich Fire Hall Windsor 2003 351 Mill Street Windsor 2003 West Park Secondary School (Swimming Pool Assessment) City of St. Catharines 2002 Centennial Library Building Envelope Assessment City of St. Catharines 2002 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (1885) (Trenton) 2002 Lloyd Centre (1903) Richmond Hill 2001 Montebello Park City of St. Catharines 2000 Morningstar Mill City of St. Catharines 2000 Robertson School City of St. Catharines 2000 Merriton Town Hall City of St. Catharines 2000 Dalhousie House (1850) City of St. Catharines 2000 Knox Presbyterian Church - Stone Masonry Report (Toronto) 1995 Knox Presbyterian Church Building Review (Toronto) 1993 Planning Oil Springs Heritage Conservation District Study & Plan (WSLA) County of Lambton current Heritage Conservation District Plan, Main Street, Newmarket Town of Newmarket current Fagade Improvement Guidelines, Main Street, Picton County of Prince Edward 2007 Feasibility Study, Heritage Conservation Districts in Brampton City of Brampton 2009 Review of Churchville Heritage Conservation District City of Brampton 2007 Improvement Guidelines, Main Streets of Alliston, Tottenham, Beeton Town of New Tecumseth 2004 -05 Fagade Improvement Guidelines for Main St. Newmarket Town of Newmarket 2004 -07 Heritage Conservation District Plan, Old Port Credit Village City of Mississauga 2003 -04 Awards CAPHC Award for Preservation of a Heritage Building St. Catharines 2005 Ontario Heritage Trust Community Achievement Award Ontario Heritage Trust 2006 4800 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 201 TORONTO, ONTARIO M9A 1131 P:416 - 5968301 F:416- 596 -1508 1 - 82 APPENDIX D Development Options Option 1A Site Plan Option 16 Site Plan Option 1C Site Plan 1 -83 �Z.� g k � � � d � � D N CL � � ■ � ± _ 2 S S ° 2 2 2 cq | ) E| ° § / \ / q .\ \ ) 2 / § \ 2 - § _ \ ) e 00 / , ° Oz � \ / ƒ # # a o n« ` - : - ; ' \ § 6 } j ƒ CU ƒ / < ° 2 ' z o } 3 ca - | J | < C/) c) § _j a) / 0 �j J° < 2Luƒ F- EE t L2 O | 6$O C))2 ƒ2 q R => - Or . # W �.� \/� = 2 LL. �� , :§« ; « U o o . �. _LL / Fu 00 _ < w zz 0 � . C �ƒ\} = LU $ \ << ƒ :77 z II 2 � ]2 2 - !. . 3 2 J �Z.� g k � � � d � � D N CL � � ■ � O E � U w co z r- a- a °z M O 00 W O -i T- z W Q Z W J ° U) > °zOf Q ^ O Qw� w z 0— r LU U W z L- uj Z JYJ LLI O LL z N Q m OL H U U A 6g a W W (� fr a H t Ln co I 74 A N la E • � O 0 G N north m Cn Ln N Q £ G Y N I� L O a r- O O C7 ` v m m� v n0� O z N N N u) N o x z U O O m m m a s s 3 U) o i5 r Q LU L • • Z > Q a ��y 0- .6 S O C7 O � o >- c>� <1 Q Q J L: 1P fs 5'z V) Q Q E v Z Q �O N F- LJ..I L.I..I Q N J 9 Q w a Z T `z LL-6 cu V LZ i..) i'" C.i Q O a y Q a cl U (A OHS _ Q O LLJ (D J Y J U Q C) 0 Q_% �Yani Z W LL Q Q LLI Z_ Z_ � u LL E OOZ Cn m Lu O a Y Y z a O a a H F- LLJ D Q Q o £ m U Y U) U) o o Q w u K z N d i N I v I I I � I I N N� / 1 U . � C 1 ♦ os Y 3 Z ♦ /' U) / U o / L- N ' O Ea / Q / N / N � O / N / r ♦ / / N / ° rn f \ f aC: Ln 7.30 ♦ E m o N C� O ;o a z (0 . 0 \� ZSZ'69 L M,,9 Z,22. L L �L �n � 1 77� r-------- - - - - -- r----- ------ - - - - -� I I 10 I - - -� 11.68 ' co c I j @Ir- I CV) I - E -a 6.00 7.50 I o I . E �o� 00 0 N r CD o CL o M A z I l L O I E O I � I O O 35.19 I O I � I � O I O N I co 0 o N I © I I 5. It LO _ I CD LO Ln Ln Ln Cfl 7.30 I I I I I O I I I I I I I Ln I � I I I I I I r I r- I r- I I O , c I I I I Ln I a 6.00 I 11.68 I I I r Ch I o N I I� ti CO CO Co n - -� N I N CD I I I I I I I ' O I CD I 1 O I � � I r I Cp 7.50 ! o 0000 ONO 00 000 � I 1 N ' I ' I I I I I O I I I I I I Ln I I i ------ - - - - -I I I 0 7.30 / / N //J I \\ Q Q 750 CD \ N / / 1 Q 'E M 2 07 (0 / / / / / / / 1 O 'r 1 / Lf) (.0 / LL') / , 1 APPENDIX E Wendy Shearer Site Photos 1 -87 Heritage Impact Assessment November 1, 2010 Wendy Shearer Site Photos June 2010 The barn and detail of dated foundation. y Y325W 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario Naturalize trees close the barn's foundation. View across former Kitchen Garden are to View looking west to pumping station. suburban to east. Heritage Impact Assessment November 1, 2010 View north across the paddock. View north from paddock to farm core' hL '4� Blue spruce and maples line side yard. Y325W 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario View of the paddock. Existing fruit trees east of the house. View east across front the lawn. 1 -89 Heritage Impact Assessment November 1, 2010 Overgrown foundation planting. Y325W 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario F Narrow walk towards farm yard from house. View along back lane to communications tower. View west to farm yard and View north of house. outbuildings. 1 -90 APPENDIX F George Robb Site Photos 1 -91 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 1— Proximity of Barn to Ottawa Street South MMMM: 6Z d! Fig. 2 — North elevation of Barn r-POR"GE ROBB ARCHITECT 1- 92 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 3 — View looking west with Barn on right, Driveshed to the left and Hen House /Pigger in centre. Fig. 4 — West Elevation GEORGE ROBB ARCHITECT 1 -93 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario 4;pntpmbpr 17, ?n,10 Fig. 5 — East Elevation Fig. 6 — South Elevation r-PORIGE ROBB ARCHITECT 1 -94 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 7 — Detail of cedar shingle roof over the attached Privy on south elevation Fig. 8 — North Elevation ! -1:0RGE ROBB ARCHITECT 1 -95 Fig. 9 — north Veranda 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 10 - north Veranda Fig. 11— Detail of broken eaves, gutter and related water damage � ,GE ROBB ARCHITEC-' 1- 96 PHOTO RECORD Fig. 12 — Detail of eave bracket 1009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 13 — Typical Window; note condition of paint, broken sash, secondary storm ;Pr)Rr P POBB ARCHITECT 1 -97 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 14 — 3/1 configuration on west Porch. Note 1" x 6" siding at left, cement asbestos siding on Porch L W- -91:W ._ Fig. 15 — Log cants supporting Ground Floor; note diagonal subfloor with earlier paint finish GEORGE ROBB ARCHITECT 1- 98 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, Inn F. Ar7 Fig. 16 — North foundation wall looking east; note 'gray' mortar repair. i V V+ i ..! , 1 E Fig. 18 — Bathroom in south west corner of Kitchen wing. w 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 19 — Shower enclosure in Mud Room ® ' 4 or Fig. 20 - Kitchen `EORGE ROBB ARCHITECT 1- 100 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 21— Kitchen looking north toward Living Room Fig. 22 — Living Room looking north to four paneled glazed entrance door rI:0Rr.F PORK A R(W ITF, '`r 1 - 101 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 23 — North east room on Ground Floor; note drywall arch in foreground, hardwood floor imm Fig. 24 - Detail of window with patterned glass 9 )Rr.F PORK A R(W ITP( --r 1 -102 PHOTO RECORD 10 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 g.", &'N- "lillj�i III ............. ............... --7 Fig. 25 — Second Floor north west room; note shallow reveal on window frame indicating drywall finish Fig. 26 — D000r to Balcony from north east Bedroom IFOR(IF PORP APrWITI:(--r 1 -103 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 27 - North east Bedroom Fig. 28 — Truncated door to Attic over Kitchen rl:f)Rr.F PORK A R(W ITF, '`r 1 -104 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ont, - Fig. 29 — Attic looking south Fig. 30 — Original log construction im IFORGF RORR APr'WITI:r-r 1 1 05 MW7 WW 60 Fig. 31— Log construction; note rafter projection and roof boards k it Fig. 32 — Sectional view of logs where access doorway cut through 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 AL 4 P012r= POOP Al?r'WITI:r'-[ 1- 106 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 e� I 4 � 8 4 1a. f ju i i J� �tl i� Fig. 33 — Water damage on south wall of south east Bedroom a Fig. 34 — South east Bedroom with added closet at left POPr= PORP A l?r'W ITI:r -r 1- 107 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ont Fig. 35 — Plaster damage in north east Bedroom at gable Fig. 36 — four paneled glazed door to Balcony .q PVOF Fig. 37 — View down stair from Second Floor GEORGE ROBB ARCHITECT 1 -108 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 38 — South Elevation of Barn with Driveshed at right and Hen House /Piggery on left Fig. 39 —East elevation of Hen House /Pigery 5EORGE ROBB ARCHITECT 1 -109 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig. 40 — Drive shed Fig. 41— Driveshed Interior ROBB ARCHITECT 1 - 110 Fig. 42 — Interior of Farmhouse west Porch 4 41. �6 r �V1 'r j ry Fig. 44 — Detail of Barn foundation; note tooled mortar joints 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 Fig 43 — Collapsing post on concrete pier in Driveshed Fig. 45 — Large window in south elevation of Barn; an earlier window with finer detail and of smaller proportions was found in the loft B ®BB ARCHITECT 1 - 111 PHOTO RECORD 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17 7010 Fig. 46 -loft of Barn Fig. 47 — Detail of Barn foundation; note re- pointing GEORGE ROBE ARCHITECT 1 - 112 PHOTO RECORD F �j Oil w j 4 i i y 1 Fig. 48 — Earlier window found in Loft 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 �I d Fig. 49 — Mow in Barn r-FnRGE ROBE ARCHITECT 1 - 113 a 1 Fig. 48 — Earlier window found in Loft 2009 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario September 17, 2010 �I d Fig. 49 — Mow in Barn r-FnRGE ROBE ARCHITECT 1 - 113 APPENDIX G Chronology of Ownership (to 1969) and Land Registry Records H -1 1 - 114 Partial Chronology of Ownership Lot 130 (Subject Lands are from a part of Lot 130) DATE OWNER SOURCE NATURE OF INSTRUMENT 1805 John Yund Bricker map 1835 John Yund 1835 Waterloo Twp. map 1845 Martin Weidman (83 acres) LR Bought &Sold (6 &S) 1846 Martin Weidman, per Nancy Eby, N -20 (Yund)Kapp(130) Martin Weidman (83 acres) LR 6 &S 1856 Emanuel Graver (1875 LR B &S acres ? ?) 1861 Peter Knechtel Tremaine map Peter Knechtel Klotz map P. Weis (NW corner) 1862 John G. Bricker (1621 LR B &S acres ? ?) Martin Weidman and Jacob Bricker (1621 acres ? ?) John Schneller (9 acres) Joseph Heist (22 acres) Simon Heist (9 acres) 1865 Ernst Brauder (10 acres) LR B &S 1866 John Huidl- Weidman ( ? ?) (29 LR B &S acres) John Gerbig (10 acres) LR B &S Bernhardt Stratsburger (10 acres) Jacob Doering (.75 acres) George Schneller (33 acres) 1869 Peter Weis (6 acres) LR B &S 1875 John D. Knechtel (11 acres) LR B &S 1876 John D. Knechtel (12 acres) LR B &S 1880 John Meirowski (6 acres) LR B &S John Rickert (12 acres) LR 6 &S 1884 Franz Lubrinski (6 acres) LR 6 &S 1885 -86 John Rutherford C. D. Mrs. Strasberger 1886 John Scholtzke (6 acres) LR 6 &S 1889 Henry Girbig (10 acres) LR 6 &S 1891 S. B. Heist C. D. 1 - 115 1899 Joseph Mattell (10 acres) LR 6 &S 1900 George Schneller (9 acres) LR 6 &S 1901 Charles Wanklin (74 acres) LR 6 &S 1902 Louis Kufori (10 acres) LR 6 &S 1905 George Schneller (10 acres) LR 6 &S Abraham Schneller (9 acres) 1907 E.W. Brighton (21 acres) LR B &S Benjamin B. Hallman (10 acres) 1910 Charles Wanklin (3 acres) LR 6 &S Aaron Rillinger (10 acres) 1911 Gottlieb and Louis Doehn LR B &S (.75 acres) 1914 John L. Humpel and Emma LR B &S Humpel (22 acres) Louis Doehn and Samuel Schmidt (3 acres) Joseph B. Hallman (9 acres) 1916 George J. Bartholomew (9 LR B &S acres) 1918 John Rutherford (11 acres) LR B &S Henry Lavirgood (11 acres) 1922 Joseph and Mary Luront (6 LR Grant acres) Horace Hallman (9 acres) 1923 Ernie Hass (50 acres) LR Grant 1925 Isaiah Eby (10 acres) LR Grant 1926 Catharine and James Bergy LR Grant (50 acres) 1927 Lononda Livirgood (11 acres) LR Grant 1932 Jacob Brox (11 acres) LR Grant 1933 Clayton H. Bowman (50 LR Grant acres) 1936 Mark and Edna Jones (joint LR Grant tenants) (6 acres) 1937 Reuben Shantz (9 acres) LR Grant 1956 Warren and Ruth Snider LR Agreement for Sale 1969 Community Expansion Ltd. j LR Agreement for Sale 1 - 116 it ; & . �- 5 y F •` � Y �' Y +" 1� • `� 4„1":� �` ■ � ^•'• ?.. a '�� e• may. +' �' . ; t • ` t� f .. . i # - _ .w S AL VV Ak i IP _ • F Iy , e ■ , ' r ` - s ■ �' •� �■ so • ' • i 4 +. I iE s . ; • wg -� ■ t , r r I 4p UL r # ■ r .� rt IT ti I I + ME ok Ilk 1p dio � w k .�■ f ■ '� w 1 �a3 • .rr 7 ■ ^a� o r :„ • T a 117 L 1 Ilk l k i Y• �. 1 a if f fh 411 •r . r .+. + � � � * ti �r a ■ ' ILI imp ■ y r fill ! Go ir 4P w Ali zr It fir Jill Jill 0 11 Jill 0 IL It fil Y �' �i * , • i . A f •yam _- a �.. � i � r� � ■ti i ��: .•J'1T 0 lip Jill 4. All Im Jilt N _ • f • '�V .. ! •. •. Jill Iiii Jill 'I 0 Ems . ■� � ■� F R,^ 4i r If .. '€ bit it f � ■ * R Yr i • .�. Jk _ Jill Mill p Ilk b .0 ck Iiiinim- M-1 �', � � fir► �• �' `• ' . r � ■ .• + _ 3 , ■� it r ' +rM •■■r+�.rr�■• rr■Ir�■.,r. • •■ , r r . ir�.■! w� � ■ w ■� • . ■ i .. ra• ■1i ■ rY r�iWA1�l �) r ■ M ono - s N--- ■�frlti�_ ... � 1 - 118 r'y 6!C 6a, ,� 4W gift 119 e •` t r rr '� z�%'i - - - u w r ti� � rrry r �• ,r � 4 � F S 7 r � 1 L 1 �1 h ^r' S r k r a ar T • • t�} ".F 120 w Ir i Y r Ll r ■ e a lift ■ si u w r ti� � rrry r �• ,r � 4 � F S 7 r � 1 L 1 �1 h ^r' S r k r a ar T • • t�} ".F 120 w Ir .4 lit, q S�.. L- Lqlm r I • .,f SAM - p r �� tom. r - ...a. ^. ....•. L - f� . T4. �� LLB. <.. o m .Y ro� .• ,r� .. . �e� a „� . - All TL 41 _ • d r� e n d y x *. WL • _ � � • ■ � •'* � '. 'rte :• -� - • � �• fir. � � � � � � F �� i ' �ey , ! J lob i,. T • " . " ; :� • ok ■ a 4W a ' — 0 IN� . ib JL lb T + 5' ■ u -N • •rq. r ap d ' S • • 51 a _ y ■ '■ I �' � F k � 4 s ■ • Ike t IP + 'o, / a ■ ., ■' + ' • ; A ` InL k �' . • 9 , ■ oll w hill.Irs r ! • JL 12 3 ���+ 1 �'.� ash �® I 1 .• _ _ y _ i ri.° " _ .� y Ip i� •F ; °I f ` h ` A a "� y Y ` �e , Y N_ a ica. r 1 • �'- � , £ �.-� a `�'�- r f NN IL 06 r ■ M ■ i a i r RF `x r AL ry " 4p `^ + AA i I I . u 1, 4 - All a IN "�i • ■ �a ■rte .. .. • S '+ - .aF i U rS4 i . • � e ■ e - I I�x . t., y IV4 IN ON ON lb qm AV, IN IN cm jr 26 AA I IN was 411111N 911IIIIIIN ■ i ay _. ee■ d r d a I' ° $i r �' •R e � , •. r ,r a +� • -ask - ■.' �► .. l � eft L c;�, � • w s r J 4NNI na 4k •w� "tea -- ` ■ � T + t _. of •� � � k y ' r 0. lei Lit kx a 124 gL OIL X- jo. 125 J: ■ ► IA%W to bw ty fro bw LN4v 1p 40 dl doft dO 06 ON. NNE ON 04 VAb6 PIP 06 Nj ttt -Ilk 04 a LI, rh ft ei 14A oc IP • • • • • •:• • 26 - -mss F 'F - _ • i - _ 9 T•.Y • . • ' tj g NA q. ZN Ox .. IP dc 4j 4p '• t IL All a 4 ' • S ■ NN hlL J V i r - =�;� ion 4 Tog-!- , ' .4 qr 127 cl } - : �� cv, 4r 044 CP Mon LO Co 44 ro =b% • %Ak I Vn der IL 4r, alud% 4P. L. dr co f Af%j iol p -on* mm low me V4 Ova LA IT 9 Ltoto o*#040 **Oslo 0 3. 128 �w 1 "Pill 29 �'Vpl-v 77 EME 129 46 gm ago% OF 19 ell- r, 4j 1 4w- r-w lrk i-W c C. dip 4r3 rR 16: IMP *04' rip a PA. 414 • 4& 467 4Y CC LLI dw - C-4 IIA cm cm: Va ca 06 cm's 4 I CFS Ln aii EME 129 r • F r: . 1 a ' u7 • •w d' F"� _ lz '° 7 W fOL. l C � to i•i G 1 r+ � is ' � • a = r ib ps1 c+ a .. Cy M @4 cm w M IL PA %No Q L; LO 4r s � ,. • rte- = • H '� s d.. • OL �' is 4D r SO to M6' La RP 46P in r . . ' • '4' As 0. 0 0. at C13 • . C2 cm i or- V I f • 1 � U + ¢ r r r . oo r W . �. dt .as E + H; A• h`' ul 4.3. r c 3r, e w 1 9; : r _. _ OC. 3 •r Ci I : Cc _ � to IQ a. rare C4. Ilk y.: do via r � ■ a : 40 N P. LIN a: air: Idl r a r 1p• i 1 1 CK pt to. Oc as Ch wn i 4 1- 130 ELI Ilk a A LL 0 b64 )i4 FLI M c fr4 Ai M. 106: I 40 1 Ik 1 1 q6 !M. U m -- a+ a a 0 L 46), cr. qp LD qV Va w{ M U9 I d6 IPL cr, is qr i ut in O ob 14 it m Ur V4 F-U oa tq: owl M '43 4J -APE 4034 , Ip 0: 4C* of -P I g.4 in C4 45 Ail J6A L) 4h M. z � • z c ppq ime Im Ic 0 a3 LL 0 01 b64 )i4 FLI c fr4 Ai M. 106: o • !M. IMF eq 46), C) Va d6 cr, 0: J•4 m Ur F-U IF4 ZD 4W bw Ip 41 4C* of I C4 45 Ail L) 4h M. � • z c ime Im Ic a3 dc 01 UN o • IMF eq C) Va 40: 0: J•4 IF4 ZD 4W Ip 41 4C* I C4 45 ch7 : 4h • ime 131 I1: bk- U A: IN ILO P. OD tf 16 z Llip Q. 9 LU '}"'N L -3 Mt NP 5 J Z Z: N2 Ic No MII LIN 14 IN AL Oki .7 7 • VIIN 6 47 ri w NL l 17 L 74 P- p RL Ol IL 1 132 TV 4* -a da IlAi (4 C; C % IC113 AK CID co M 0 Lim cc till -Ai C 1%, IN Ln Lpl! I sip 4L in as cr • do M 06 WIP in a, Ub Ln cr or PIN IN, is: PS raa PW VON Ln cm wl em tLs IA r T7 ■ I- Lq c AJ ■ 06 V— Jc 4; CL CD LU '}"'N L -3 Mt NP 5 J Z Z: N2 Ic No MII LIN 14 IN AL Oki .7 7 • VIIN 6 47 ri w NL l 17 L 74 P- p RL Ol IL 1 132 IlAi (4 C; C % IC113 CID co M 0 Lim cc till -Ai C 1%, IN Ln Lpl! I sip 4L or ac I& xn M3 N' JO r— 41 IA LU '}"'N L -3 Mt NP 5 J Z Z: N2 Ic No MII LIN 14 IN AL Oki .7 7 • VIIN 6 47 ri w NL l 17 L 74 P- p RL Ol IL 1 132 PO Jill S2 I us If N6 if ®r 4k Aw to 4p7 C4 1 -133 To rq It Ok ta ......... !!� cc rl lk isen .. 1- 1 34 ;k --v (L 16— Ctd m L I tlf tt 't7 ri dpil fn C6 qp- ft Iff CM a, ef 40' 1 ao lz C2, 44 �i a: a. . Illo Lb LM PON -pp, rpm &Wb di XX tO P-4 In 4ps $ 9. U9 0-4 I d Al • li di ON" fibs 00 sw -ap UJ vs UJ 6 44 we tt 't7 ri dpil fn C6 qp- ft Iff CM 40' 1 ao lz C2, 44 �i a: a. . Illo Lb 4"d di dC, I d Al • Pic: fibs tt 't7 ri dpil fn 14% 135 CM 40' 1 ao C2, 14% 135 L16L cc CL N Ch .49 go A ot U2 r 40 Ow I IV Am 42 4-T Upo in '41 ag 04 41 low im ca 41 Ix Mc 1;4 44 tol in < Ch '40 en AS 4A m Ch won MAL, Lio t4fl lie 4-P air, Ul) cu i6D C4 CO IL LO 17 S13R I 1 136 .Jo 4:� 1 wo wl- An IE. 0 b co 0 1 LA rl 4 j r- Il cn 44 13 7 ma Cif �� � H r IrR P% -V rn is r_2 fl %C cc 4d to 0 4-% W-4 .Jo 4:� 1 wo wl- An IE. 0 b co 0 1 LA rl 4 j r- Il cn 44 13 7 ma IrR P% -V rn is %C cc 4d to 0 4-% W-4 0 ■ V4 P* *a I Ln rr 74 C4 .Jo 4:� 1 wo wl- An IE. 0 b co 0 1 LA rl 4 j r- Il cn 44 13 7 oG 53 led x um Li mop^ 9F.P Ll ■ rq .Jo 4:� 1 wo wl- An IE. 0 b co 0 1 LA rl 4 j r- Il cn 44 13 7 ~ ; ■ - r 4'1 JPI V6 so Vi Ch '- M en CL �i Cpl to 7 1 •Q P Cl r 1 4 * k CID a 0 >�i % Z CO A en rte• + r. - ri 1.4 + as r`' •, lk a sr I m r 0 99 • L ,M r' - - co • R r . rr Tir g Ulf OD a1 9 ' c 1 0 1 r4 P-1 W) 4J CO 1'"w i ky + 1 a% , 4' 96 in ir in 41 4-1 ok € F w a ERR! '• r r.� s � i � 1 ba sm 0 14 I r w �- I 1 1 0 E 3 '1 ..yy to I f r i w ' dr- r 1 41 Em �--. ' FI ~'� E-4 U •. d co A ' If iK7 r4 Q ch L 4-J.y i iL AL Y CL 144 Lq L14 L4 r. I f . rw r r-• Ln 1 138 APPENDIX H Phases Two and Three: Results of detailed investigation of building fabric and Phase Four: Results of detailed investigation of building fabric (Addendum December 12, 2011) George Robb Architect H -1 1 - 139 Phase Two and Three: Results of detailed investigation of building fabric. Phase Two Investigation On May 11, 2011, the consultants revisited the site with the intent to undertake further investigations regarding the log structure. At the request of staff at the City of Kitchener, more invasive investigation was believed to be necessary. Time on the site was limited due to the current tenant's schedule and access was provided only to the log structure on the interior briefly. The following describes the additional detail of the structure that was uncovered by this investigation. At the second floor level the Attic of the southerly addition is accessible and the original structure is visible. The top three courses of log have been sawn through to allow for the access doorway, which we assume was installed when the current Kitchen addition was built. Rafters on the log house are 3" x 4" (full size) sawn members and are notched over the top log and shimmed on a 1" x 2" (fs) plate. Roof Sheathing boards are 1" (fs) and of random width (fig. 31 & 32). Attic roof rafters are sawn members 17/8" x 5 7/8" (actual) over the Kitchen. There are studs at the quarter points that may have been intended to form a knee wall but the space has no interior finishes. Two of these posts in fig. 29, have markings on one face each that would imply a previous use somewhere else. The ceiling over the mud room appears to have been raised, likely when the ground floor was raised for the shower installation. That ceiling was framed with 1 %2" contemporary sawn lumber of unknown depth. Also visible here are wood shingles on wood strapping. This roofing is concealed by contemporary pre- finished steel roofing on the exterior. Two openings were made on the exterior to view the condition of the logs; one at the mid -point of the east elevation in an area that had been patched previously, and at the north west corner. The patch on the east side had been applied to repair some deteriorated siding since the original strapping to which the siding was attached had disintegrated locally with rot. The logs are hewn square and of various sizes. The bottom three log courses in this location measured 10 %2 ", 5" and 11" respectively from top to bottom. Lower logs displayed significant deterioration in this area (fig. 50 & 51). The v- joint, tongue and groove siding measures 3/4 "thick with 4 1/2" exposed to weather. Replacement boards were %" by 5 5/8' plain sawn lumber. Additional strapping had replaced the original, with a thickness of 1 %2" in nominal 4" and 6" widths. There were two different chinking materials exposed in this area; one hard likely Portland cement based mortar, gray in colour, and another slightly softer and buff in colour with small lime inclusions. At the north west corner the intention was to be able to record the joinery at the log intersections. When the corner boards were pried loose, a second set of corner boards was discovered underneath. The siding was pulled back exposing a simple squared lap key at the log intersections. More sophisticated corner detail would have provided a key or dovetail to lock the logs in position. Where logs are of inconsistent height, as in this example, an infill log makes up the difference and simply butts George Robb Architect H -2 1 - 140 up against the perpendicular log (see below). The log with its butt end exposed in this figure is 7" high x 10" wide. The lowest log is 5" high and the one above is 8 ". A third chinking mortar was found in this area; softer than the previous two samples and with large lime inclusions. Examples of more sophisticated corner joinery are shown in fig. 55 & 56 in the Photo Record. 4 z . N�4% �� �� •' �. � P West side of north west corner; note lowest log butts Pale blue render beneath siding on north wall perpendicular log Of interest on the north side at this corner was an apparent render that extended from a wood ground on the second log up under the siding, the extent of which could not be determined. This cementitious render was tinted blue as were the second set of corner boards described earlier. This may suggest that the first improvements made to the original log cabin were to provide a plaster appearance over the north facade, possibly under the cover of a full width Porch. Several of the photos (fig. 51,52,53,55) show the collected rubble stone foundation wall. Note that the joints are generally devoid of mortar. While perhaps not obvious in fig. 52, stone was actually missing under the lowest log. It was also noted that the corner block in the north /west corner was squared granite. w' I. %, -: Siding as found Render & second set corner boards Log structure beneath George Robb Architect H -3 1 - 141 The existing Porch was re- examined as well. The support along the north edge has deteriorated sufficiently to allow the roof to deflect 6" — 8 ". The west fascia was removed (by hand given its deteriorated condition) and the floor structure below was exposed. Five joists were found running east /west parallel to the house. Staring at the south side, the first 3 were round log cants, all significantly deteriorated. The fourth had been another log, but had been replaced with a 2" x 6" (fs). The last northerly leading edge was supported by a contemporary 4" x 4" (3 %2:" x 3 %2 ") pressure treated joist. l North Porch floor structure All of these joists appear to bear on a stone foundation wall of unknown depth. Of interest is that the inner most two logs have been sawn in the same manner as those that provide access to the Attic mentioned earlier. This might suggest that a larger Porch once existed that had deteriorated and was replaced with the current smaller Porch. During all of this investigation only twentieth century common wire nails were found, although several had asymmetrical heads of the type to be early. r Chronology Dating buildings from the early years of nineteenth century settlement is difficult in the absence of primary source material. Buildings were erected expediently with the skills the settlers brought with them out of the materials closest at hand. Differing construction methods and technologies were in use at the same time in various parts of the province over the first half of the nineteenth century. What follows is an attempt to provide a chronology, admittedly a bit speculative, of this building. In the brief time available inside the house, an area of plaster damage at the south east window revealed hand -split lath under the plaster. According to John Remple, in his book Building with Wood, "The handsplit lath would date (a) house at somewhere between 1800 and 1825" (1). He goes on to admit that there would be exceptions to this rule and cites an example where handsplit accordion type lath was being sold as late as 1879 in Kettleby, Ontario. The availability of machine sawn lath did not replace the market for split lath. While early lumber sizing was based on empirical knowledge for structural elements such as joists, studs, rafters etc., it varied locally. By 1900 most mills were selling lumber in actual Imperial sizes (ie. 1" = 11118 2" = 211). Beginning in 1921, the forest products industry evolved guidelines throughout the twentieth century to standardize yard lumber sizes. (2) This history, while not definitive, gives us a sense of when certain sized materials should have been available. The Kitchen addition to the south had appeared to have been built in two stages, given the fact that the Basement only extends under the northerly 2/3 and the chimney is located on the centre line of what would have been the south wall of a smaller addition. The roof rafters, however, are consistent in their sizing at 17/8" x 5 7/8" throughout the Attic, suggesting it was all built at one time. This lumber sizing would suggest an early twentieth century date, likely in the first quarter. This Kitchen extension may have been a replacement for an earlier smaller version that fit on the foundation walls. { George Robb Architect H -4 1 - 142 The interior Ground Floor alterations appear to date from the mid - twentieth century based on the design with wide open arches in interior partitions with radiused corners. The subfloor, when seen from the Basement, has clearly been salvaged from some other use. It is laid diagonally and shows paint ghosts from a past life. On the exterior, lumber sizes were checked on the Porch. The fascia board, although deteriorated, measured 7/8" x 9 W. Similarly, the square Porch posts are made up from 7/8" thick lumber. The capital of the turned columns is 17/8" thick and the tongue & grooved deck boards measure 11/8" x 3 %2 ". These sizes are consistent with the standards introduced by the National Lumber Manufacturers Association in 1922. As with the one storey Kitchen addition, this Porch may be a replacement for an earlier version. The siding measures W thick with 4 %2" to weather. This material is a bit more difficult. Given that it appears to have only 2 -3 coats of paint and is, in its profile, not unlike contemporary v -joint T &G siding, it may date from the mid - twentieth century. The W "scant" standard (ie 1" lumber could dress down to W) became more or less universal in 1958. The siding on the west Porch consists of cement asbestos shingles. The use of this product was most common in the 1940's -`50's and more or less disappeared from the market after the EPA was established in 1973. (3) The v -joint siding passes behind the intersection with the wall of this Porch as if the wood siding was there first. Taking into account all of the above, a chronology might look like this: • ? Original log house erected, • ? Kitchen addition added, • ? Porch erected, • 1895 Barn erected, • 1920's Current Kitchen addition; likely replaces earlier addition, • 1920's Porch rebuilt in current form, • 1950's V -joint siding installed, • 1950's Ground Floor interior alterations, • 1950's West Porch added, • 1970's Mud Room modified to add shower stall. Phase Three Investigation On July 27,2011, Wendy Shearer and David Cuming of MHBC Planning and Peter Stewart of George Robb Architect visited the site. In advance of this visit, the siding had been removed from the east wall to reveal the entire log facade. The lowest boards were not removed entirely because the residential television and telephone service connections were fixed to the siding. What follows are our observations from this visit. Our earlier observations had noted a "...simple squared lap key at the log intersections..." and suggested the construction lacked sophistication. This recent visit confirmed that the construction not only lacks sophistication, but was not erected with the level of craftsmanship usually associated with early log structures for the following reasons: George Robb Architect H -5 1 - 143 East wall: key findings 1. The first whole log above the lower white painted siding is a small diameter round tree trunk without having been squared or prepared in any way. 2. The first whole log below the second floor windows shows small short adze marks, unlike any other component, as if had been trimmed in situ to match other logs or salvaged from another use (perhaps an earlier building on site). 3. Many corner details are simple laps and, where it may appear to have been shaped to make a half lap, the rebates do not match the logs below, as if these logs were salvaged from some previous use. 4. The interstitial spaces between the logs are filled with numerous transverse sawn wood shims and /or longitudinal small log sections, all covered with wide width of cementitious chinking. 5. The current wide chinking is dense and likely Portland cement based; remnants of earlier lime based samples were found deeper in the wall. Tool marks, which appear to have been made with kitchen spoons, are visible where the chinking was forced into the corners. 6. A number of logs were found to be discontinuous in locations where continuity would be important to the stability of the structure. The first log above the white painted siding is in three sections along the length of the wall. 7. Collected stone infill of gable end. 8. Removal of siding revealed concealed buff brick chimney. 9. Iron diagonal braces at corners. Exposed east wall George Robb Architect H -6 1 - 144 mmmi',q Iron bracing bar and cementitious rendering in gable. Cobble infill in gable end and cementitious chinking. George Robb Architect H -7 1 - 145 Imp I JJ _ I i .y r y Squared and round timber members, longitudinal wood shim with cementitious chinking. The interstitial spaces between the logs are filled with numerous transverse sawn wood shims. George Robb Architect H -8 1 - 146 The current wide chinking is dense and likely Portland cement based; remnants of earlier lime based samples were found deeper in the wall joints. East wall: other details of interest Removal of the siding revealed several other details of interest. An abandoned buff brick chimney was exposed in the gable end above the logs. Several bricks of similar appearance were found in the tall grass adjacent to the building. These were found to be hand moulded, 2 3/8" x 8 3/8" x 4" in size (Ontario or British Standard size). The gable end, above the uppermost log, is infilled with collected stone cobbles set in mortar. The mortar shows vertical lines suggesting it may have been installed against the inside face of the original vertical gable siding. Lastly, there are small iron brackets holding the upper longitudinal logs to the lower transverse logs of the gable end. George Robb Architect H -9 1 - 147 Conclusion At right is a sketch of what John Remple describes as Pennsylvania dutch keying where ...the logs h h� eVIOO. lot,, � are keyed with a type of wed 5`� � Y Yp e- g T shaped saddle notch... . (1) -- -. We do not find any of the sophistication of this type of - joinery at the subject site. -= Three examples of joinery and chinking from the writer's recent experience demonstrate higher level of craftsmanship from their builders. The log house is not a notable example of either local tradition in Waterloo County nor craftsmanship in early pioneer construction. ENL� Leslie Log House (c 1830), City of Mississauga, adapted for use as museum and archival storage, 2011 End Notes: s F, c � r: r' Vii, d- � - � ♦ i� � - Centennial Lodge at YMCA's Pinecrest Camp, Muskoka, restored 2011 Dalziel Log Barn (c 1808) at Upper Canada Village North (1) J. I. Rempel, Building with Wood and other aspects of nineteenth - century building in central Canada, (University of Toronto Press, 1980). (2) "History of Yard Lumber Size Standards ", Forest Products Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture, 1964. (3) "Asbestos Cement Building Materials ", Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, Aug. 2000. (4) Ramsey /Sleeper, Architectural Graphic Standards, John Wiley & Sons Inc., June 1948. George Robb Architect H -10 1 - 148 Phase Four: Results of detailed investigation of building fabric. Phase Four Investigation On November 23, 2011, David Cuming of MHBC Planning and Peter Stewart of George Robb Architect visited the site. Also in attendance was Carlos DaSilva of Eastforest Homes Limited. In advance of this visit, the siding had been removed from the west wall and a portion of the north wall to reveal these log facades. Some boards were not removed entirely because the residential service connections were fixed to the siding. A second visit was arranged for November 30/11 to review these additional exposed areas of the structure with Leon Bensason and Michelle Drake of the City of Kitchener. What follows are our observations from these visits. Our earlier observations had noted a "...simple squared lap key at the log intersections..." and suggested the construction lacked sophistication. This suspicion was confirmed by our July visit and reaffirmed in this most recent trip (fig. 1). While the west elevation appears more regular in its joinery than the east, it still displays simple lapped joints at the intersection of the squared logs at the corners. Some logs are discontinuous along their length. Considerable rot is evident in the sill log, which curiously appears to be a round cant like the floor joists exposed in the Basement. Our concern with regard the method by which this building has been erected has to do with the long history of log building technology. The US National Parks Service Preservation Brief #26 on the subject of log building restricts itself to "...horizontally -laid, corner - notched log construction..." and, although it admits other forms of log construction exist, the importance historically rests with these corner - notched buildings. A Brief History of Log Construction In the first century BC, Vitruvius described, that in north eastern Turkey, "dwellings were constructed by laying logs horizontally overtop of each other and filling the gaps with chips and mud." It is widely held that log construction technology came from central Europe to North America and was unknown to the native americans (1)(2). Several sources suggest the first log dwellings recorded in North America were built along the Delaware Bay in 1638 by Swedish settlers (3). The oldest surviving log house in North America is believed to be the C.A. Nothnagle House in Gibbstown, New Jersey. Built between 1638 and 1643, the logs used in construction were squared by hand, and interlocked at the ends, without pegs or nails. The interlocking notches were of the dovetail type (4). George Robb Architect H -11 1 - 149 r The corner notching of the horizontal 7. members in log construction was the key P element in the stability and longevity of log •M buildings. As the notching 8 g became more b m sophisticated, it also allowed the logs to be laid up with smaller gaps between them F and this not only reduced the amount of chinking but provided a substantially more weather-tight structure. Rem el s describes a number of different corner --_ notching systems used in Ontario from the simple half lap key and squared lap key to Fumm .. ,. , ,,�® ..._w the more elaborate dovetail corners in the ,1&4 Lrt'k atch' i iw11VvMA7d. P11oo a fir 11-1 firr 1115LLmh hit pmi a i mr 11 -t' CH °j -11 1 LiFuu�� 14tankaltgvNit S Jhd military style. Of particular interest is the wedge - shaped saddle -notch of Pennsylvania Dutch origin found in the first Waterloo County Schoolhouse dated 1820 (5). The 1880's photo above is reproduced from The Record, Feb. 11, 2011 and shows an ex- slave, Levi Carroll, and his family in front of their home, once the first Waterloo County School. The school has since been moved to Waterloo Park. It is odd that, given several centuries of development of log construction in north America, and the strong Pennsylvania Dutch tradition that traveled north and east from the US east coast to settle in south central Ontario, and particularly Waterloo County, that the farmhouse at 2009 Ottawa Street in Kitchener could be seen as somehow part of the evolution of log construction technology. Its simple lap corner joinery on the west elevation and its agglomeration of ill- fitting materials on the east elevation would suggest a builder unaware of the history that had preceded his efforts. Waterloo County School, c 1820 In addition to the west wall, the west corner of the north wall was exposed from the sill log to just above the upper Porch floor line (fig. 3). The north wall, as suspected during earlier visits, was indeed plastered and tinted blue below the upper Porch. This would suggest an earlier Porch that was continuous across this elevation. At these November visits, we also removed more interior plaster to examine the lath beneath. We found positive evidence of machine made lath in the ceiling (fig. 4) and, as well, re- visited areas where split lath was suspected (fig. 5). In this regard, we have revised our earlier statement from Phase 1 following further review of Rempel's (s) text (see above). The exact date of construction for the house at 2009 Ottawa Street may be lost to history. The same may be true of the fact of its apparent lack of adherence to long established log construction principles. Perhaps it was the expedient re- erection of some earlier farm building. Perhaps it is the result of George Robb Architect H -12 1 - 150 inexperience on the part of the builder. Regardless of the reason, we contend that it is not sufficiently representative of early settlement buildings to teach us much about our past. End Notes: (1) H.R. Shurtleff, The Log Cabin Myth, 1939 (2) C.A. Weslager, The Log Cabin in America, 1969 (3) B.D. Bomberger, The Preservation and Repair of Historic Log Buildings, Preservation Brief #26, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service (4) Gloucester County Times, September 27, 2011 (5) J.I. Rempel, Building with Wood and other aspects of nineteenth century building in Central Canada, 1967 Fig. 1— West elevation George Robb Architect H -13 1 - 151 Fig. 2 — Corner joinery Y. lYNY Fig. 3 — Plaster render George Robb Architect H-14 1 - 152 Aor Fig. 4 — Lath impression on ceiling plaster Fig. 5 — Detail wood lath The photo at left shows plaster removed from the ceiling of the stair to the second floor. The impression left on the reverse indicates it had been installed on machine made lath. The photo above is taken from the interior at the head of the south east window. Note the irregular edges of the pieces suggesting it is split lath. George Robb Architect H -15 1 - 153