HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - 2014-04-04 - HIA - Williamsburg South Community HENHOEFFER FARM HOUSE
WILLIAMSBURG SCHOOL HOUSE
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
WILLIAMSBURG SOUTH COMMUNITY
FISCHER HALLMAN ROAD AND BLEAMS ROAD
KITCHENER ONTARIO
FOR
RBJ SCHLEGEL HOLDINGS LIMITED
CARSON WOODS ARCHITECTS LIMITED
12 Cumberland Street
Suite 302
Toronto,Ontario
M4W 1J5
Tel: (416) 923-2775
Fax: (416) 923-8643
Email: cwal@cwal.ca
Project No.0906
March 2009
Revised November 2013
Henhoeffer Farm House
Williamsburg School House
Heritage Impact Assessment
Williamsburg South Community—Bleams Road and Fischer Hallman Road City of Kitchener
March 2009
Revised November 2013
Introduction - Terms of Reference
The Provincial Policy Statement 2005, issued under the authority of the Planning Act, provides
planning policies regarding the conservation and protection of cultural heritage resources under
section 2.6, for the purpose of ensuring the practice of good planning related to the `wise use and
management of resources'. In accordance to those policies, The City of Kitchener has provided
under section 5.3 of its Official Plan further policies to ensure the conservation of cultural
heritage resources within the municipality, and has required that Heritage Impact Assessments be
prepared for the purpose of guiding municipal planning authorities in the decision-making-
approval, modification, or denial regarding a proposed development that affects cultural heritage
resources.
As such, this Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared, as required by the City of
Kitchener, Heritage Planning Division, to guide the planning of the proposed plan of subdivision
and development for the approximately 60.53 ha parcel, located south-west of the intersection of
Bleams Road and Fischer Hallman Road, in the City of Kitchener, so as to ensure careful
analysis in determining the impacts on cultural heritage resources by the subject proposed
development. This report also makes assessments and recommendations regarding alternatives
and measures for the conservation of the cultural heritage resources of interest.
1.0 Historical Research, Site Analysis and Evaluation
The historical information presented in this report is taken from an archive of materials,
held privately that includes, amongst other useful artifacts, excerpt from the diary of
William Henhoeffer dated 1902-1946 and an unpublished history of Williamsburg
written by Mrs. Morley Battler dated 1956, along with many early photographs that
benefit the interpretation of Heritage Value. The heritage documentation, site analysis
and evaluation were undertaken jointly by, Robert Anderson OAA of Carson Woods
Architects Limited and Heritage Consultant, Bruce Corley C.A.P.H.C.
See: Appendix H Curriculum Vitae - Consultants
1.1 Henhoeffer Farm House - 1255-1291 Fischer Hallman Road
The 59.65 hectare (147 acre) Henhoeffer farm abuts the west side of Fischer Hallman
Road and the south side of Bleams Road. The house sits well back from both roads with
a long lane connecting to Fischer Hallman Road. Abram Clemens built the Italianate
style, buff brick house in 1887 for a sum of$4000. A Mr. Boehmer, the mortgage holder,
sold it to Anthony Henhoeffer in 1890. The farm was part of the Histand Tract. It is
reported that the early barn foundations are older than the house c. 1854. The Henhoeffer
family added the strawshed to the barn by in 1897. Both the barn and strawshed were
rebuilt in 1922. The brick masonry kitchen and wood shed addition was constructed on
the south side of the house in 1919 and the wooden porch decks were replaced with
concrete, also in that year. The present freestanding garage was erected in 1929 and the
swimming pool in 1970.
Currently, the original brick structure remains intact though much of the old exterior
wood detail in the windows, doors and porches has been replaced over the years. The
original soffit is covered by prefinished aluminum sheet goods using a contemporary
technique that is nevertheless sensitive to the earlier form. When this work was done, the
original wooden brackets were taken down, restored and replaced.
The front (east) porch is not original. The foundation and concrete deck are reported to
date from 1919. This certainly includes the posts and roof structure as well. The upper
balcony railing and lower balustrade are more recent additions. Generally, the
reconstructed porch is a mixture of styles that do not enhance the original elements of the
Italianate structure. The direction of approach to the front doors changed from the east to
the north in the 1919 renovation. The original double hung sash windows, evident in the
early photographs, contained single glass panes in each sash. The contemporary
windows on the east side are replacements but they do retain the look of the one over one
sash form.
Similarly, the north porch (now enclosed) is not original. The foundation, concrete deck
and brick piers look contemporary with the east porch; however, the balance of the porch
structure is covered with horizontal siding. The enclosure of this element adds a
vestibule utility, but reduces the light entering the dining room and darkens the interior.
From the exterior, the material appearance of the enclosed porch detracts from the more
original elements of the fagade. Also on the north fagade, the basement windows have
been covered. The bay windows are single pane replacements that do not resemble the
original sash form, however the upper storey windows do. The north yard includes a
concrete platform once used to facilitate mounting and dismounting carriages and
wagons. The early photographs indicate the concrete pad replaced an earlier wooden
structure use for the same purpose.
The west fagade of the original building has a less formal composition compared to the
east and north elevations; its windows retain the original sash form, but are irregularly
spaced between floors. Its plain appearance, including a shed over the basement access
door, implies that this was the rear of the house. There is evidence of water leaking from
the roof into the brick just below the gable. The measured drawings reveal that this
location once supported a chimney. The damage may be related to the old flue. There
2
are pale shadows in the brick patina that hint at an earlier shed over the basement access.
It was reported by the current residents, John and Patricia Henhoeffer that a second
darker diagonal shadow in the brick was caused by a water downspout, now long gone.
A few of the support brackets for this rainwater leader remain embedded in the brick.
The single storey kitchen/woodshed addition, dated 1919, was undertaken with some
aesthetic consideration. The brick materials are a close match to the earlier structure and
blend well with it. The block patterned concrete foundation matches the porch structures
of the same era and appears to match foundations of the older house. However, closer
inspection of the older house foundation reveals that the patterned concrete is an applied
parging, approximately 11/z" thick. It was added as a decorative treatment over the
original fieldstones to match the later concrete foundations of the kitchen wing and
porches. The location and low height of the kitchen wing are subordinate to the original
structure and are not visible from the principal northeast address.
The south elevation includes two masonry filled windows, on the east side of the
chimney, that appear original. The technique was used to mimic the glazed window
fenestration on the west side of the chimney. It lends symmetry and formality to the
fagade composition without the necessity of more elaborate Italianate detail found on the
original east and north walls.
The interior layout of rooms in the 1887 house remains fundamentally unchanged. The
original wood trim, mouldings and wainscoting are present, as are the pine panel doors,
all two-over-two pattern. More recent decorative elements overlay some of the original
detail. During our investigation, we found a note, signed by William Henhoeffer. It was
attached to the underside of the main staircase. The note indicates that the Front Hall
stair was rebuilt in 1928. It also states that the back stair, in the old kitchen, was added in
1919. According to the document, the construction of the second exit was prompted by
fear of fire trapping those on the upper floor. Originally, the second floor west wing
contained a bedroom where the staircase and washroom are now located.
In the Dining Room, a decorative plaster boss in the form of a basket of fruits and
vegetables supports the central lighting fixture. Similarly, a geometric plaster casting
supports the light fixture in the Front Hall. The doors upstairs are painted. Those on the
main level are varnished. However, the main floor level bedroom closet door is faux
finished to appear as burled hardwood, as is the closet door under the Front Hall stairs.
This finish is very old and may have been applied on all the original main floor doors.
The door hardware is original throughout. According to John Henhoeffer, the 1919 south
addition was originally a kitchen at the north end and an unfinished wood shed in the
south. It has subsequently been renovated to accommodate contemporary cupboards,
counters, dining area, family room and laundry. The second floor retains much of it
original detail and character.
See: Appendix A Photographs - Henhoeffer Farm House
Appendix B Measured Drawings - Henhoeffer Farm House
3
1.2 Williamsburg School—Bleams Road west of Fischer Hallman Road
The present building has been a private home since 1967, a year after the school closed.
The original stone structure was erected between 1862 and 1865 and took over as the
home of the Williamsburg School from an earlier building that was located on the north-
west corner of Beams Road and Fischer Hallman Road (in her notes from 1956, Mrs.
Battler refers to the intersection as the Kitchener Roseville Highway and Williamsburg
Road).
The structure was also used for church services between 1875 and 1890. A new floor
was laid and a porch was added in 1889. The schoolroom was lathed and plastered in
1906. In 1910, a new furnace replaced two large box stoves and the School Bell,
weighing 400 lbs., was purchased and mounted in a belfry.
In 1922, a basement was constructed under the school and the brick masonry cloak room
was added. The whole building was wired for electricity in 1935. Boys and Girls
washrooms and pressurized water system were added in 1954. The building continued to
operate as a school and community meeting place until February 1966. At the time of
decommissioning, the school was two classrooms and a large cloakroom entrance. The
freestanding garage was built in 1973.
See Appendix C Photographs - Williamsburg School House
1.3 Barn— 1198 Fischer Hallman Road
The small barn and its .955 hectare property were added to the Williamsburg South
Subdivision lands in 2012. In form, it appears to date from the mid nineteenth century
and indeed, there are older wooden structural and cladding elements, though closer
inspection of the interior reveals that later materials have been used to restructure the
building. The current house on the site dates from the later 20th century, making is
difficult to place the barn in an authentic historic context. The condition is generally poor
and does not warrant preservation measures.
See Appendix I Photographs—Barn at 1198 Fischer Hallman Road
2.0 Identification of the Significance, and Heritage Attributes, of the Cultural Heritage
Resources
Following is a summary of heritage attributes, historic interest and heritage value for the
onsite and offsite assets.
4
2.1 Henhoeffer Farm House
The Henhoeffer house is a substantial, though incomplete example of the Italianate style.
The east and north facades are formal with well composed fenestration, high brick walls,
soffit brackets and shallow pitched roof. The presence of these style elements and the
likelihood that they can be reasonably preserved within the context of the proposed
development renders the exterior of the heritage asset noteworthy as a local cultural
resource.
The high Italianate style can be heavily decorated in both masonry and wood trim detail.
Even simple examples are characterized by decorative treatment of entranceways and
windows often with chromatic or contrasting tones between the decorative and base
building materials. The Henhoeffer House is in keeping with a more modest expression
of the style. The original completeness and coherence of the style has been degraded by
the replacement of the porches and some windows and doors with materials, forms and
colours, which are unsympathetic to the original. Nevertheless, the remaining elements
noted above are authentic and worthy of preservation.
The chimney on the north side of the house is missing, as is the former kitchen chimney
on the west side of the house. The south chimney remains, but appears to have been
rebuilt with the loss of original decorative brick detail.
The interior contains no singular elements of unique heritage value; however preservation
of the room layout and respect for the remaining wood doors, trim and moulding details
is an appropriate adjunct to the heritage value of the exterior. The two faux-hardwood
finished doors and decorative hardware, previously mentioned, are worth specific note.
The original front doors and second floor porch door, found in the attic, should remain in
the building, preferably restored to their former location.
The outbuildings include a garage next to the house, two drive sheds, a modern barn and
the main old barn with silos. Of these, only the main barn foundation is reported to be of
significant age. The present superstructure was rebuilt in 1922 according to William
Henhoeffer's diary record, but on the site of a structure that was set out in 1854. The
historic photographs c. 1890 show a straight gable roof on the barn. The present structure
is gambrel roofed. The original farmstead is said to have been located north-west of the
barn. The present barn and out buildings offer a rural context for the Henhoeffer House,
but are unlikely to find a sustainable economic reuse in the proposed subdivision and so
are not viable beyond their current agricultural value. The form and construction of the
barn added very little to the cultural heritage value of the Italianate house. Nevertheless,
the westerly foundations of the barn likely date c.1854 and have interest due to their age
and association with the original farmstead. The foundation stone could be reused in
retaining walls within the heritage precinct and as gates at main access roads into the
subdivision. The barn superstructure should be offered for relocation to find ongoing
agricultural use in the rural countryside of Waterloo County.
5
2.2 Williamsburg School House
The Williamsburg School House falls outside the boundary of the proposed subdivision
and is not subject to material alteration or repair as a result of the development of the
adjoining lands. It will continue to be a single family dwelling until its owners decide to
alter this status. Consequently, we offer an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of
the school structure in this report in relation to the impact of activities next door.
The simple stone walls, brick addition and gable roof of the school, including the belfry,
are not architecturally significant features on their own. The pragmatic construction
merits little or no formal aesthetic consideration. However, the value represented by
these authentic vernacular elements relates directly to the social history of Williamsburg
and to all the local families that have ties to the history and activities of the school. As a
cornerstone of the rural Williamsburg community from its early days through most of the
20th century, it has a very significant local heritage value that should be preserved and
respected by future development. Accordingly, Municipal By-law 87-309 designated the
Schoolhouse and included the rubble stone facades, the belfry, the fence and the
woodshed as heritage elements.
The heritage value of the asset is associated with these building and former schoolyard
features. If these elements are unaffected by the development on the neighbouring lands,
the heritage value will be sustained.
2.2 Barn at 1198 Fischer Hallman Road
The older elements of the barn that may be of some interest are nevertheless in generally
poor condition, with substantial restructuring. The original home on the site is long gone
replaced by a newer one leaving the structure without a local historic context. It is
remote from the Henhoeffer House and we are unable to establish a provenance that links
the two buildings. These circumstances do not warrant conservation and preservation
measures. The photographic record is adequate documentation.
3.0 Description of the Proposed Development
The Williamsburg South residential subdivision development is an extension of the
current Williamsburg urban development north of Bleams Road and is intended to fulfill
the following government policy objectives: (Details are available in the Williamsburg
South Community Master Plan prepared for the developers by GSP Group.)
o Provincial Policy Statement
o Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe
o Waterloo Regional Official Policy Plan
o Alder Creek Watershed Study and Upper Strasburg Creek Subwatershed Plan
Update
o Kitchener Municipal Plan
o City of Kitchener Design Brief
6
o Rosenberg Secondary Plan / Southwest Urban Area Studies Community Master
Plan
Generally, Provincial, Regional and Municipal growth management policy directs
development to achieve density targets for greenfield areas. They promote connection to,
and coordination with, surrounding developments, natural & cultural features while
setting urban design standards for neigbourhoods. The Master Plan Concept is illustrated
in the attached materials.
See Appendix D Master Plan—Williamsburg South Community
The specific urban development pattern proposed is a mix of residential density and
buildings intended to provide a variety of housing in a range of prices from high density
condominiums to town houses and single family dwellings. The south boundary abuts
the Williamsburg Cemetery. The current Master Plan is based on the collector road grid
system with centrally located community facilities. Large open areas are located in the
south-west, at the Williamsburg Woods natural area and in the north-east corner with a
storm water management pond between the Williamsburg School and the Henhoeffer
Farm House. Higher densities are oriented to the arterial roads and near the perimeter of
the development. Medium densities up to 24m in height are proposed for the area around
the Henhoeffer Farm House.
See: Appendix E—Master Plan Detail—North—East Quadrant
3.0 Measurement of Development Impact
The owner has prepared a development concept plan as part of its planning application
submissions. This plan will be altered and refined as the project gets closer to
construction; however, the general arrangement of land uses and scale of development
will remain similar. As such, the concept plan will be used as the basis to consider the
possible impacts of proposed development on the heritage resources.
The large passive recreational area associated with the stormwater retention pond in the
northeast quadrant represents a positive opportunity for mitigating the impact of
development on both the Williamsburg School and the Henhoeffer House. Plans for
medium density development to the south are remote from the Heritage Assets and have
little or no significant impact. The size and location of proposed high-rise buildings on
Fischer Hallman Road east of the Williamsburg School have been altered from two
buildings of 15-storeys in the original scheme to three buildings at 10-storeys. This
change reduces the shadow impact on the old school site and is acceptable. Those
buildings to the west of the old school are far removed from the heritage asset.
The land between the Henhoeffer House and the old school site is geographically the
lowest lying land in the development. The developers propose a large 5-hectare (12.35
acre) Storm Water Management area, which includes a wet and a dry pond component.
The pond and it surrounding open area preclude the development of any structure
7
immediately south of the old school. Avoidance is the primary heritage preservation
policy. It is achieved insofar as the old school and yard will be left alone and the open
fields behind them will remain open as a passive recreation area after the development is
completed.
Both the east and north principal elevations of the Henhoeffer House face the open
stormwater retention area. The open space provides long views towards the house;
consequently, the house will remain visible from Bleams Road and Fischer Hallman
Road. These two facades are the asset's foremost heritage value. The possibility of
maintaining a visual link between the old house and old school is an added benefit. By
locating the large open area next to the heritage assets, there is an opportunity for
interpretive signage, on trails within the passive recreation area.
In the February 2009 concept scheme, the developer demonstrated an understanding of
the value of cultural heritage features in layering the patterns of development. The more
recent addition of 1198 Fischer Hallman Road to the subdivision lands and the current
revisions to the concept plan, particularly related to southeast extension of the storm
water management area, obscure this positive heritage planning by removing any
reference to the old farm lane that connects the Henhoeffer House to Fischer Hallman
Road. Nevertheless, the latest scheme maintains the line of sight, and though modified in
grade elevation to satisfy the storm water needs of the subdivision, the lane can be
reintroduced as a mid-block pedestrian pathway south of the pond. This addition to the
plan would restore the earlier intent to maintain a connection between the house and the
road.
The Master Plan calls for medium density, residential buildings around the Henhoeffer
House. Abram Clemens Street, the proposed main public thoroughfare of the
subdivision, is southwest of the house leaving the backside of the heritage building
exposed to address the new urban context. The more formal north and east facades
address the open lands around the retention pond with Bleams Road and Fisher Hallman
Road beyond, much as they do today. These open spaces help to mitigate the impact of
the development by maintaining this exposure. However, the residential densities
proposed in the precinct adjacent to the heritage asset warrants some consideration of the
massing and shadow effects of these new structures.
On the immediate south exposure of the house, currently the rear yard, there is an
opportunity for an addition to the Henhoeffer house, which would enlarge the space
available for adaptive reuse. A new structure on this side would also provide a front
entrance address for the facility onto the new public boulevard. We suggest that the
height of any addition in this area be limited to the bottom of the frieze board below the
soffit of the house. This will ensure that the heritage asset remains a visually dominant
element within the composition. The proposed height is approximately 8m from the
current grade, which is nevertheless a practical envelope for a small scale structure.
The area between the west fagade of the house and the proposed Abram Clemens Street,
including the old farm lane alignment, should be developed as an open space. This will
connect the old lane pedestrian pathway to the street and will provide a window of view
from the new public avenue to the heritage asset.
8
A long-term use for the heritage dwelling has not been determined; however, its character
and location adjacent to the pond and medium density residential occupancy supports a
Community Centre amenity or perhaps medical offices application. Both would be
appropriate ongoing uses.
For a logical way to mitigate the impact of residential buildings located immediately
northwest of the farmhouse, we look to the old lane leading to Fischer Hallman Road.
Both the Henhoeffer House and the main barn (now demolished) were oriented to the
geometry of this driveway. For more than 130 years, the large barn and its predecessor
were the built form context of the farmhouse. It should be possible to respect this
original address relationship by maintaining the lane geometry and by placing the new
buildings on the north side of the former lane. In doing so, the pattern of the old farm
settlement expresses itself within the pattern otherwise generated by new subdivision
planning considerations. The interplay between the earlier farm settlement geometry and
the new subdivision enrich the planning layout and inform it with the underlay of the
lands history.
In this scenario, the medium density residential structure replaces the large barn.
Massing studies suggest that this block can support an 18m height limit without adverse
impact on the heritage asset. Shadow impacts are minimal due to the location north and
west of the farmhouse. To express the pattern of the old farm within the new built form
further, we suggest that the height limit increase from 18m to the standard R-8 zoning
expectation of 24m along a line that corresponds to the former north wall of the old barn.
In this way, the zoning envelope steps down in height towards heritage asset.
To maintain clear views to and from the principal north facades of the Henhoeffer House
we suggest that the adjacent buildings to the northwest respect a setback line that is
parallel to the west wall of the original two-storey house. This setback area can be used
effectively for parking and landscaping. No setback is required from the line running
parallel to the north side of the lane, as this is where the earlier barn structures were
located. Otherwise, conventional yard setbacks on this parcel are appropriate
For the proposed medium density residential structures east of the farmhouse no similar
underlying farmland pattern is available to assist with setback; however, the proposed
subdivision road pattern is helpful. The proposed roundabout south of the farmhouse
provides for a private driveway access on its east side. Good engineering practice in
transportation planning suggest that access to the roundabout from the east side should
include a straight staging lane leading to the intersection, which is uninterrupted by
driveways coming from the adjacent residential parking lot areas. This traffic safety
concern leads to a logical westerly limit for residential buildings in the lot abutting the
farmhouse. This line is set back from the house by approximately 40 metres. Massing
studies and shadow impact studies suggest that the zone just east of the Henhoeffer
House should be limited to 18m similar to the buildings to the northwest, but may
increase in height to 24m farther east of this block.
To maintain clear views to and from the principal east facades of the Henhoeffer House
we suggest that the adjacent buildings to the east respect a setback line that is parallel to
9
the south wall of the original two-storey house. This setback area can be used effectively
for parking and landscaping. No setback is required from the side lot line that separates
the 8m height limit from the 18m height limit as this line is already well removed from
the heritage asset. Otherwise, conventional front yard and rear yard setbacks on this
parcel are appropriate
To create the pond and the dry lower stormwater management area, the proposed grades
between Fischer Hallman Road and the Henhoeffer house are significantly lower than the
existing grade. This excavation will remove the current lane and adjacent trees leading
from Fischer Hallman. Though it would be desirable to maintain the lane, the natural
heritage value of this feature is not sufficient to override these major alterations.
However, in the immediate vicinity of the Henhoeffer House on the north and east sides,
where proposed finish grades are near enough to the existing for the preservation of
existing lawns and mature planting. Tree preservation measures should be incorporated
to retain as much of this material as possible in their current contextual relationship to the
house. An arbourist's report on the condition of the vegetation in this area would help
determine those trees healthy enough to preserve.
East of this lawn area the current lane and its trees will disappear, but the opportunity is
available to recreate a pedestrian pathway and tree planting in the same location over the
newly grade lands. The lane/pathway through the passive recreational area will recall the
original traveled pattern of settlement and extend this geometry over a significant fraction
of its current length. Ideally, this path would connect through to the sidewalk on Fischer
Hallman Road so that pedestrian access to the passive recreational area is available from
the east. Together with the measures to maintain the lane geometry west of the
farmhouse these interventions facilitate the memory of earlier habitation. They influence
the new urban pattern in an effort to preserve the context and maintain the original
address of the Henhoeffer house.
See: Appendix F Heritage Precinct - Henhoeffer Farm House
Appendix J Recommended Height Limit Heritage Precinct
Appendix G illustrates the shadow impact, on the Williamsburg School House, of a high
density (10 storey) structure located at the northeast corner on the development site as
contemplated in the Master Plan. The study shows that the extent of setback provided by
the storm water retention area largely mitigates against the impact of high rise
development at the corner. By limiting the height to 30m with conventional 6m side and
7.5m rear yard setbacks, these buildings will have little, if any, impact directly on the
heritage value of the schoolhouse.
See: Appendix G Shadow Study -Williamsburg School House
The impact of groundwater is generally an issue to consider. We understand that
regulation prevents the placement of building footings within 0.6m of the ground water
table. According to Stantec, who are the civil engineers for the project, and who have
discussed the matter with the geotechnical consultants at LMV Inc., ground water on this
site is approximately 4.3 m below the current grade in the heritage precinct. If the
proposed new building basements keep to one storey below grade, it is unlikely that
10
foundations of the new structures will encounter the water table. The foundations of the
heritage structures are certainly well above this level. The engineers expect that ground
water will have no adverse impact on the heritage assets.
5.0 Consideration of Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Methods
Despite the wholesale change of use, from farmland to residential development, the
impact on the heritage assets is minimal provided their relationship to the large open
space areas remains sensitively designed and similar to that proposed in the conceptual
layout. In this way, avoidance of impact is the primary and most desirable conservation
method employed. This is certainly the case with the Williamsburg School House, where
the proposed buildings are well setback from the designated structure and the physical
construction of buildings on the neighbouring lands is very unlikely to affect the heritage
elements structure.
On the other hand, ground vibration is certain during the early subdivision grading and
servicing stage; likely to be caused by the heavy equipment used in the roadwork, site
servicing and for earthworks needed to form the wet and dry pond storm water
management area south of the Schoolhouse. A ground vibration assessment provided by
a qualified geotechnical engineer, is appropriate to determine the soils properties with
respect to this activity and to set reasonable vibration limits that protect the heritage
assets. In accordance with the assessment report, construction activity monitoring may
be necessary to ensure that timely notification is available to the construction managers.
Mitigation may include reduction of the intensity of activity or the substitution of large
equipment with smaller devices. The School House is not located on the development
site, but is in close proximity. The vibration assessment report should include comment
on any additional fencing deemed appropriate to keep construction vehicles away from
the school. Conventional dust control measures and erosion control fencing should be
coordinated with these works.
A long-term use for the Henhoeffer Farm House is not determined, though the proposed
medium residential density in the heritage precinct precluded the continuation of single-
family use. Some form of common element facility, such as a community center or a
medical office or similar use is more likely and is perhaps more appropriate in the future
context. When this information comes forward, it is appropriate to evaluate specific
mitigative measures necessary to preserve or enhance the architectural attributes through
the proposed rehabilitation activity. In the meantime, the ongoing occupancy of the
house, currently by members of the Henhoeffer family, ensures the short-term
conservation of the home.
The effects of a future addition to the structure to enhance the usability, such as a large
multipurpose room, offices or meeting rooms can be controlled by limiting the height and
general location of new construction in the zoning bylaw. However, this is a preventative
measure meant to preserve a base level of respect for the heritage asset. When a specific
proposal for a long-term use comes forward, the Municipality should evaluate it for its
own merits. It may be desirable for some variance from the recommended height limit
regulations to permit development that may exceed the zoning restrictions provide they
11
are respectful of the scale of the House and are appropriate. This is the way to mitigate
the future impact of development, immediately adjacent to the house, without stifling the
potential of creative solutions for adaptive reuse.
During the site servicing and grading stages of the development, the Henhoeffer House
will also be subject to potentially damaging ground vibration. The Ground Vibration
Assessment report should include study of the soils conditions in this area and should
establish a maximum vibration threshold, monitoring perimeter and construction fence
location around the House. Monitoring should provide the same real-time data alerts to
the construction managers similar to the protocol for the Williamsburg School House.
Implementation and Monitoring
Once the proposed Plan of Subdivision is modified to balance the interests of all
stakeholders, including Heritage Kitchener, the conditions of approval should record the
heritage asset and include agreement that its attributes and heritage value are to be
preserved. The proposed zoning schedules for the subdivision should record the height
limit and setbacks detailed in this report in the heritage precinct to control future
development effectively and to preserve the cultural heritage value of the farm and
schoolhouse buildings.
Further consideration of a specific Site Plan Approval for the Henhoeffer House lot
should include Heritage Design Guidelines to inform a Heritage Easement Agreement, if
one is deemed appropriate, and to guide consideration of any related building permit
submissions. Through the Cultural Heritage Background Study prepared by Nancy Z.
Tausky in 2010 for the Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Studies (now the Rosenberg
Secondary Plan), the City has solidified its interest in these cultural assets, though the
Henhoeffer House is not designated.
The Henhoeffer House is a noteworthy, but incomplete example of the Italianate style,
which the developer is willing to retain for its heritage value as part of the proposed
subdivision. The Municipality may advertize their intent to designate the structure to
preserve additional control, or having preserved the asset through the subdivision
conditions, simply work with the developer toward the specific details of long-term use
and rehabilitation. The Municipality and the Developer should negotiate the appropriate
value of security monies, if any, and the terms for its return to recognize the stages of
approval and to allow for an ongoing process directed towards a mutually satisfactory
outcome at the completion of the heritage project. Once the work is complete, it is
appropriate to record the heritage attributes and supporting planning and architectural
alterations that enhance the heritage value.
12
7.0 Summary and Conservation Recommendations
1 The Henhoeffer Farm House is a locally significant example of Italianate style
architecture. Though main porch elements are no longer exemplar, the tall brick walls,
soffit brackets, shallow pitched roof and formal composition of the fenestration remain
authentic. The house and near-by carriage platform are a poignant illustration of
prosperous farm lifestyle in the late 191' and early 201' centuries.
.2 The medium density housing proposed for the precinct around the Henhoeffer House is
unlikely to produce any adverse urban design or shadow impact on the heritage asset if
consideration is given for reasonable setback and height limitations in accordance with
the attached zoning recommendation and if the east and north facades remain visible
from the open passive recreational areas. The west and south elevations are available for
incorporation in a possible low-rise addition that would enhance the potential
rehabilitation uses as a common element facility in the community.
.3 The developer has not determined a long-term use for the Henhoeffer Farm House. It
may continue used as a dwelling or may become a general amenity space for the
neighbourhood. Any additions to the structure for those purposes should be located on
the south side and should be lower than the main house. We suggest the frieze board
elevation as a limit to this height. If restoration or significant maintenance programs are
considered in the future for the north and east facades, the work should be guided by the
heritage photograph in Appendix A. However, the heritage value resides solely in the
authentic artifacts. The attributes essential for the preservation of heritage value are:
Exterior:
I. The roof and overall silhouette form of the house.
2. Soffit brackets.
3. Brickwork on the east and north sides.
4. The one original sash window in the old dining room
5. The original front doors and second level porch door (reinstalled or stored
inside)
6. The carriage platform.
Interior:
7. The decorative plaster moulding
8. The burled hardwood faux painted doors (2)
9. Original window surrounds
10. Contrasting striped wood floors
11. Original baseboards and wainscoting.
12. Original hardware.
.4 Unless a long-term and viable funding model is found for the maintenance and upkeep of
the farm out-buildings and barn, it is not appropriate to conserve these features. (At the
time of writing the revised HIA, the barn and outbuildings are now demolished) The
reuse of stone masonry from the barn in gates or retaining walls near the Henhoeffer
House and at the main entrances to the subdivision is appropriate and preferable to the
loss of the stone material.
13
.5 The Williamsburg School is a valuable local cultural heritage asset. It is located off-site
of the development adjacent to a proposed open landscaped area. This relationship will
substantially preserve its current rural setting. Restricting the height of the proposed
high-rise development at the northeast corner of the Williamsburg South Community site
to 30 metres ensure that potential shadow impacts are minimized.
.6 The small barn at 1198 Fischer Hallman Road does not warrant preservation.
Appendix A - Photographs - Henhoeffer Farm House
Appendix B - Measured Drawings - Henhoeffer Farm House
Appendix C - Photographs - Williamsburg School House
Appendix D - Master Plan - Williamsburg South Community
Appendix E - Master Plan Detail - North-East Quadrant
Appendix F - Heritage Precinct - Henhoeffer Farm House
Appendix G - Shadow Study - Williamsburg School House—Henhoeffer House
Appendix H - Curriculum Vitae— Consultants
Appendix I - Photographs—Barn at 1198 Fischer Hallman Road
Appendix J - Recommended Height Limit—Heritage Precinct
References:
i) Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
ii) Ontario Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies 2.6
iii) Province of Ontario Policy Statement(PPS) 2005 for the Conservation of Significant
#1 Built Heritage Resources
#2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes
#3 Archaeological Resources and Areas of Archaeological Potential
#4 Adjacent Lands and Protected Heritage Property
#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans
iv) Municipal By-law 87-309
v) Rosenberg Secondary Plan/ Southwest Urban Area Studies Community Master Plan
14
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS - HENHOEFFER FARM HOUSE
CC)
0)
NO
ITT-
c�
Y
+ a F
L
O
Nor,
� r
r
irrr
iiti
eN�o
1� tzz qt
iNi1 �r /�� rir
rG
yy
ry M �I ■ NY Y
...............
i I f
!I Q
i l
ST.
' 1 k
� N
N Q
0 d
L L �
\�J
. N
LO
i/ i�/ %%/%/j/iiii/iii///%i• 0
affIr
w
,
r m
r
M
/i N,P,. O
c
✓ �� "' pp
m
io
tw
w /y
ro
)// lyj+m�✓A r r �
f
r,
A�
� w7
�rs:4
Mvi
od N
I.II
-:2 m
Z z
o �
o y
x
D m
r
= m
m C
n �
N y
r rr
�s z
u utl ��4
n3
>µ f
! �I
ii
r
ar.
N� �s
r-�
1 a,
1
ITI
T
Hut
i
D
r
C
N
n
D ❑�
0
z
O
O
N
D
n ❑�
2
m �A O r
I p '71 �p
r
m
o rj
x
CA
N,3 C/l
3
� Np
ae
u�
f
a�
MM rp l Cori 91 i
f I )14@ iV,IVOIaWryIIII��4,Wj1�YIIIIIiiV�Y1�1D1?1
O� r
1f
ITI
l
r
fi
I
{� I
I
ry
b
x
d
a
N
N
O
t0
Y l
l
U)
/
hh vi
0
v k c
%E
f p%
.. II
r' r II�III
a
�Y 9
Rim 2
o�
L L E
C2
(��(
\�J
O
N
N_
L
.a
rW
R
O
q ca
>C
a
r
� w
a � w
w Z
W
x
1
i
a-'-
r/�/
1/%'/ � n ✓/ Ji/�l% Jl%r% ���,YJ'�� f ( U` ��� ;,����/ l�J r � r f � �s
Q
� owe
z
0
0 0 N
a
CD
U
f
/ W
lff1 ,
ff ff
f/iil�fr r;
I
fff ii ,1,
/
l
mu
/
f , i
7 �
o/
i f f�l% fir
f�f f I
f
I
� k
¢ /'51
ffi ff
Iri>
qry Jy f/j/
I
o, T
IN
C.3
All a a
i
r �
d�
o
!
IF
f /R
�Gn/I�l
E,,
i
r
V�Ul
,
,
i
,
��l mmW
l
I
L L
lli t i'
C.3 a
APPENDIX B
MEASURED DRAWINGS - HENHOEFFER FARM HOUSE
O
N
N_
L
0
cn
NA
W
I--I
Q
U
0
TT�^^
Vl
uIO
C 1�
z
x
Em
�V
W
J
y^, W N
� � W
U r-I F
2
U
a
0
0
0
3
z
O
N
a
U
O
N
N_
L
0
cnW
I--I
Q
U
�i
(_ W
IZ£
TTT �
rP=1=7 IZ I
o N U N oa q E O = W
0 o w w
wB ) UO QL W
N
W z
V
_t
o
z
� V o
00
Ee
119-19 ,L Z„9-,SZ
�e
,6b
Em
7V
W
f
J
F
W
f
2
K
a
0
0
0
3
z
O
N
a
U
� � §
/ &
loz
J�
2175 \
\
� z
� ƒ (
a /
\ \ED f IS d a
�
cuj
° t
� \ \
119-19 ,mc zl \
.y \
6Q )
k
� � /
O
N
N_
L
o
W
I--I
Q
U
N
N
N
i+G
y
v
CV
,6Z
w
w �
z Ox
w w w
w
6 w
z
- � w
x
m
r °o
�n
Ee
to
,£S
Em
�V
W
f
J
F
W
f
2
K
a
0
0
0
3
z
O
13 -j N
a
U
O
N
N_
L
A
O r�
^^ U
I�
zQ
w
QzJ
oQ �
� o
H �-
Q
W
� F o 0
4T
W
w = w
W
¢ w
Q O
x
z
D 0 x
z
0 o
w=
aW
w6
� a
Ee
Em
OL
f
J
N
F
U
W
H
2
U
K
a
N
O
O
z
❑ ❑ O
N
a
U
O
N
N_
L
A
I�
q m
zW
x "
q
a
0
w x
W
w
w
w
� o
x
Kill] a z
o w
o x
0 0
0
Ee
z �LL
�z
� o
O � v
z
a
N
O
O
z
O
N
a
U
O
N
N
U
Q U
z �^
L LU C�l [[EEEEE:
Q
Z -H
o �
W
W
w
=� W
xO
Cz u
0
H
o z
N=Q
0
oaoo
o �
Q W z � �
-4 E u
o ao
P4 o,o a
0 E
o 0
� W
o
N
W
Q. U
� a
N
O
O
z
❑ ❑ O
N
a
U
APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHS - WILLIAMSBURG SCHOOL HOUSE
,Bry CC) O
err�r � cn L
� rrr
t
v rr
+
4
�J�� � � ✓�rkm�`ir%'%f� �
r
i
NMI�"r�
�ME
O i /AN
>J /i/0 9w
V
I
i
a =
qq n
VQ a
.n„
Co
m
�� ✓
� ✓ � r�;` ✓sir% ��� r � 1 u
l/
r al
�>r �
r� i
Y
u�
r�'r�li��»�iirou�or✓rri�r���a1 �
/I1ii r W 'a
r
�p 1,
r�
°pl
r
r
rlr
9
9 �
r�'�
k
1
f �1J P f y a7 v
0.. m
L L
> r.
Q a
APPENDIX D
MASTER PLAN - WILLIAMSBURG SOUTH COMMUNITY
z
ZO
0) O
Q `°
�> N�d� U
co Q Jd �a O
/My� O E Y._
LLW 0v8 ,
0 a13
0 O
0 0 p� ID U)LL
Q O 21
L
00 w U)
Q U-
ui
_ A
z
i
ii
I �
I
p ,
..
IF J
I`
( - 1
I 2e
_JI L—_-,
fr
�m
_.
i
i I r soe cos m oc u.oiry
it I I i i
i
r
� N
3m `
N Q
0 d
L L �
\�J
APPENDIX E
MASTER PLAN DETAIL - NORTH-EAST QUADRANT
r
r
PC/
w�
1'" L�
i
W-4
O c:
on
�r
r "„ r
C c:
-0 O
O
Q r �"
b /
M�II uuli i
n <
�s
i��' � Illllllllllllllllllli'iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'i'illllllllllllllllllli r� �;,,,,, j%%%i
�i r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� �„ 'i� ,���������
� 000000ip00000000000000000000ip0000000000i I����d
u, � � uuuuuulllluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulq�uuuuuuuuuul�uul�l
11��
Pr� ° ,
LU
� e 1
X
^ IIl(�fI111C11Ct � ri �
L L �
(C3�(3
\�J
r
r y} I�i 1 jfi`1a r ,y v/f rd
O Q-
0 C:
�� � � I l a i a F✓` r "�
4
r
n jr
6 w r y
' � O
y
y
J
air r, r
M
Cn
CO
O i
o �
o
r
Q
J
J¢' d
N +
yy =V
e
LL
I�j5ff1 �
r rr"
r
LLJ
it i; r
Z)
LL
Q c�
W
O
i/iii///aiiiiiiiiii/ m
LL
w (rrrrrrr� .
Orrrrr� 0 �
r L
Z
LLI
�irrrrrrr � O
r�
��� ��jr00000000rioo; C- Q)
c
0) c
�r O
r (B
—0
�,atti
�II u'u
�rrrrr��
ow
wQi�rrrrr
LLI Q � .III
� X
Y LLI
Qz
Z lo)
U O �1 � iiiniltmimntiuti i.�, g „u
LU
IJ
/Q�a
APPENDIX F
HERITAGE PRECINCT - HENHOEFFER FARM HOUSE
N
U)
I
O
2
COM
`T
/
e �
N
U
1
V
VIII 111111111111
�//j/ 000000
YYYYYY
�'' 71111111111q� G ' �I %/ m
/ A--'
I
,i//aaaai�aaaoi
N Q
O m
L L �
\�J
N
U)
O
2
L_
T
N
O
N
l
I
W
w
w
0
U)
o
>2
o
i uuuluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu � �>, "y. a��+��+��+ `�� %„' P ^� I� �
i iiiiiiuiiViiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiViiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiViiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiViiiii ✓/� �// �
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III � l ��� ,'V /����������, II�rai
i
i'
� I .• � Yilili 4 I
ti s
r
� N
N Q
_5 +
0 d
L L �
(C3�(3
\�J
N
yI, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII O
u.
„i%%%OODDDDDDD/
W
Q
IIII II�VVVVy viii
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� %/////
yr
000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of
Iij;IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIjjIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiji o� >�!
Illiiillllllllllllllllll
Iii00000000000000000000iii000000000000000 000liiii000000liil}' /���i/%�
III II
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum u
"iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IO �����/ `
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � / ��������' � y
r
IIII/i�;r, i
od
L L �
(C3�(3
\�J
W U)
v/
Y
Q O
a
U
m L
a
W �
W
d
W
d
w
w
w
i
l
l
f
l
o ,;u
f
y � llrrr
«� V Q a
N
O
...;�r °°9i m VIIIIIVu m mVuuPu u u uuuu i ryj Gi TW
%o
uo uuuuuulu''�� �"'
��J I �I� u � °uuu��uuuu��u���uuu�u�uu���uuuuuuuuuuuuuu°u�uuuuu IuuVIV VI
mi m i I�II�I
//,� �VVI��VVVVVVVVVVV�V VVVVVVVV�VVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVV Vy V�
.��w its iiiiilllllll�u�lllllllllllll "'(�j�� ��'I Iluuiiuui�uu uu uuuu uY uu
i
W
a
a
LL
LL
LL
,
luau
l
w
i� O
u
2
I ,
I
z
v ,
h
D
w
✓„�,
r
2
r
r,
� Q
od
L L �
\�J
APPENDIX G
SHADOW STUDIES - WILLIAMSBURG SCHOOL HOUSE
- HENHOEFFER FARM HOUSE
Jl �
j�l I f1
` ,%�% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� ill'�i �
N
MR W
Eli O
Q
l
O l E a�
00D
7C3 0
E
00
O
Vmupr,,
oryin cV 2
O
00 +�
Z 70
(B
W
w z ; w
U) o
I v
Q I I ��IC � �,r�1➢I1H11Pllllillfllill 1`.1 i
N
CID-C
r _
U R�
7f11 U1
tli
�iitlYi iii
(D
U)
O
III �
o
oo
0 �
70 D
7
All 0
� ca
O
W
O N
Q D N
00 1111111
O
7C3 N
-J111111 1r'idlllllllllllll�����
�
z w
U)
02)
� o uuuluiuuuiu�uuuuuuui uuuuuuuuuu�uuuuuuuuuuu ���s
®V w L-o✓ ry Z
CN
o o a
..I
V a
emu/ i. a
i,
i
APPENDIX H
CURRICULUM VITAE - CONSULTANTS
ROBERT J. ANDERSON B.E.S.,B.Arch.,O.A.A.,LEED AP.
Vice President, Carson Woods Architects Limited
Experience
Robert Anderson has 29 years experience in architectural design, construction contract administration
and urban planning. Before completing his professional degree at the University of Waterloo, in 1984,
Mr. Anderson spent a year working for Toronto area architects and two years with Dyer Brown
Architects working on plans for a renovation of the Commonwealth Pier in Boston. The Commonwealth
Pier was one of the most important entry points for immigrants to America in the 19th and early 20th
Century second only to Ellis Island. Following graduation, he joined Andrew Bruce Architects, in
Oakville. Projects there include schools, medical/dental offices, custom residences and head offices for
Tim Horton Ltd. Mr. Anderson joined Carson Woods Architects in 1987 and became Vice President of
the corporation in 1993. He has been responsible for planning, design,contract documentation and field
administration on many projects.A sample of heritage related projects list is given below:
1. College Street United Church-452 College Street:1987-1990
This redevelopment preserved and restored the century old brick masonry church tower at
Collage and Bathurst Street in Downtown Toronto c.1885, and incorporated it into a 9 storey
condominium with a new church facility over two floors of underground parking.
2. Markham Old Town Hall-Markham Road:1996-1997
We restored the front entrance of the c. 1881 facade while discreetly incorporating a barrier free
access elevator. The Work involved presentations to the Markham Historic Board for review and
approval of the design. The new use is a mixture of restaurant&commercial offices.
3. Olde Town Of York-Downtown Nissan,Parliament And Adelaide:2003-2005
We successfully developed an automotive showroom and repair garage on a corner site while
meeting the Old Town of York guidelines for maintaining the historic character of the
neighbourhood. The project was chosen by the City of Toronto urban design department as a
model of pedestrian friendly dealership design.
4. The Village Of Humber Heights -Lawrence Avenue West,Etobicoke:2001-2007
The Village of Humber Heights Etobicoke Phase 2&3 is a 200,000 sq.ft. 236 suite Retirement
Community located on the site of the former Humber Heights Consolidated School, a single
storey Georgian style brick and stone structure built in 1921. The City of Toronto Heritage
Preservation Service identified the school as a heritage asset at the outset of the project. We
worked closely with Heritage Architects, Spencer Higgins, during the design phase and Ian
McGillivray during implementation.
5. Toronto Honda-Danforth Avenue:2005-2007
Our additions and renovations to this dealership include restoring the interior of the original
1940's industrial building to expose its historic long-span wooden, 'Bow-string arch," roof
structure.
CARSON WOODS ARCHITECTS LIMITED
Robert J. Anderson (Continued)
6. Donnenwerth House-Kitchener:2006-2007
Rehabilitation of a stone farm house c.1850, the work involved relocating the structure
approximately 200 metres. The 75 acre farm had been used as a gravel pit for fifty years. The
engineering implications for restoration and servicing of the land had severe impact on the
original house site, which was many kilometres from town in the mid 1800's, but overlooked the
city from one of the highest points in Waterloo County. Care was taken to orient the house
exactly as originally laid out by the Mennonite builders. Their values of independence and
community are maintained with the original long views from the kitchen and porch substantially
preserved. Work involved complete documentation of the house prior to the move and included a
Heritage Design Guideline. The program was developed closely with staff and the committee at
Heritage Kitchener. We also participated in development of guidelines for the design and
construction of new buildings in the precinct around the heritage asset.
7. Becker Estates -Plains Road-Kitchener:2007-2008
Heritage Impact Assessment of four heritage assets identified by Heritage Kitchener on a 168 acre
commercial/residential redevelopment site. The work included three farm houses with barns and
out-buildings as well as a section of the connecting Plains Road. The road predates the survey of
1828 and later formed part of the original Huron Road connecting Guelph to Goderich. The work
is ongoing. We are acting as Heritage Consultant to the developer and have contributed to the
development of a proposed park system for interpreting the history of Plains Road. We have
provided zoning and urban design guidelines for the areas adjoining the Becker House and are
authors of the preservation guidelines for the decade long pre-construction and construction
phases.
8. Two Victorian Era Farmhouses.
Academic Qualifications Bachelor of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo,1982
Bachelor of Architecture University of Waterloo,1984
While Robert was a student at U of W he studied heritage preservation
under the eminent lecturer,Peter John Stokes,Restoration Architect.
Professional Associations Member Ontario Association of Architects since 1993
Community Affiliations Carson Woods Architects Limited has been a regular sponsor of the annual
Heritage Toronto Awards and the William Kilbourn Memorial Lecture.
Awards Mike Wagner Heritage Award-2011
Donnenworth Farmhouse 397 Gravel Ridge Trail Kitchener.
CARSON WOODS ARCHITECTS LIMITED Page 2 of 2
BRUCE J. F. CORLEY
2 Harcroft Road, Toronto, Ontario M6S 2V9
Phone: 416 524 9560 • Fax: 416 767 0475 • Residence: 416 767 1956
Email: brucecorley @sympatico.ca
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
IVEY BUSINESS SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO 2001
Masters in Business Administration
HURON COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO 1987
Honours Bachelors of Arts and Science in History
BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS INSTITUTE 2002
Real Property Administrator
RYERSON POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY 2004
Certificate in Architecture
ONTARIO REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION 1995
Registered Member with Toronto Real Estate Board
ONTARIO BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION 2005
Small Buildings, Plumbing All Buildings BCIN: 32536
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF HERITAGE PROFFESIONALS 2007
Professional Member
THE VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURAL GROUP 2011
Registered Member
HERITAGE EXPERIENCE
Canadian History
Historica Council member for two terms until 2007
Heritage Building Accessibility
Kingsway Lambton United Church, Toronto
Advised United Church on all aspects of development process
Project involved working closely with church committee and consultants on design,
contractual relationships, cost savings, management of construction, scheduling, labour
relations, budget and quality control.
Heritage Aircraft Preservation
Board member of Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum since 2002 to 2010
Heritage Preservation
Heritage Impact Assessments for residential properties
Black Creek Pioneer Village
Building Documentation and Stabilization
Lost Heritage Property Recovered
Examples include a lost mantel piece was found, purchased and donated to Montgomery's
Inn. Etobicoke 1997
Collected and commissioned naval architectural drawings of 15 early 201h century
Canadian motor and sailing yachts. Drawing collection digitized and archived with several
actual examples in storage.
Preserved and archived entire art collection of Harold Richardson O.C.A., who amongst
other mediums and subjects, painted scenes of Toronto and Ontario in the 1930's.
Heritage Sensitive Development
Worked with building owners, architects and developers to respect, preserve and readapt
heritage buildings.
Prescott Ontario
Prescott Harbour and Surrounding Area
401 King Street Toronto
Office Building Restoration
Niagara on the Lake
The Old Fire Hall King Street
65 The Kingsway Toronto
Kingsway Lambton United Church restoration
Baby Point Toronto
1910 Retail Restoration
Bloor West Village Toronto
1912 Retail re adaptive use of building
Wright Avenue Toronto
Emmanuel Howard Park United Church Restoration
Oak Ridge's Moraine Natural Heritage Report
Heritage Impact Assessments and Documentation
Photographed, researched and measured over forty five buildings using all available
information to a standard that could enable potential recreation. Measured and
documented components of another thirty structures creating an archive of over 750
pages of architectural drawings and companion computer files. A partial list of projects is
attached.
Measured Drawing, HIA and Photographic Projects
1 . Measured drawings of 1920's House in Toronto
Storey and half stone house occupied: 1997
2. Measured drawing of Royal Canadian Yacht Club, Toronto
1918 Two storey stucco club house occupied: 1997
3. Measured drawing of Heritage House in Milton
Storey and half brick house demolished: 1998
4. Measured drawing Studies of Montgomery Inn in Etobicoke
Two storey stone inn preserved historic site: 1997
5. Measured drawing Studies of Heritage House in Oakville
Two storey brick house preserved historic site: 1998
6. Measured drawing of Laidlaw House on Winston Churchill, Georgetown
Storey and half brick house occupied: 1999
7. Measured drawing of Heritage House in Churchville
Storey and half brick house moved for 407: 1999
8. Measured drawing and photographic documentation of Heritage House in near
Chruchville
Storey and half brick house moved for 407: 2000
9. Measured drawing and HIA of Heritage House on Winston Churchill, Mississauga
Two storey brick house preserved: 2001
10. Measured drawings and HIA of Hunter House Highway Seven, Brampton
Two storey Georgian Revival house demolished: 2000
11 . Measured drawings and HIA of Arnott House on Mississauga Road, Brampton
Storey and half house with interior dating from 1820's on future Loblaws' Head
Office Site demolished: 2002
12. Measured drawings and HIA of William Thompson House on Steeles Avenue,
Brampton
1850's storey and half brick house demolished: 2004
13. Measured drawings and HIA of LeFlar House on Mississauga Road, Brampton
1840's plank house collapsed: 2004
14. Measured drawings and HIA of Harrison House on Gore Road, Brampton
1840's storey and half brick house disassembled and moved: 2004
15. Measured drawings and HIA of Abrm. Lougheed House Bramalea Road,
Brampton
1907 two storey house on 1840's foundation with 1840 summer kitchen
demolished: 2005
16. Measured drawing study and photographic documentation of Heritage House in
Milton
Two storey stone house moved: 2005
17. Measured drawings of Cottage, Pointe au Baril
1912 Storey and half cottage restored: 2005
18. Measured drawings and HIA of William Brown House on Queen Street, Brampton
Storey and half post and beam house including barn and outbuildings demolished
except frame: 2006
19. Measured drawings of Home Smith House 70 The Kingsway, Toronto
1930's storey and half stone house occupied: 200
20. Drawings digitization and transcription into Auto CAD, King Street Toronto.
1832 John Howard two storey house design: 200
21 . Measured drawings of Tudor Revival House St George Road, Toronto
1949 three storey stone and stucco house occupied: 200
22. Measured drawing and architectural details T. P. Loblaws House Alliston
1833 frame house restored: 2008
23. Measured drawings of Home Smith House at 79 Varley Lane The Kingsway ,
Toronto
Storey and half stone and stucco house occupied: 2008
24. Measured drawings of Tudor Revival House 67 The Kingsway, Toronto
Three storey stone and stucco house occupied: 2008
25. Measured drawings for restoration of gutter, downspout and conductor boxes for
restoration of various house and church's including Timothy Eaton United Church
Toronto 2008
26. Measured drawings and HIA of Hall House on Hallstone Road, Brampton
Storey and half brick house restored: 2007
27. Measured drawings and HIA documentation of Heritage House on Plains Road,
Kitchener
1830's storey and half house of rubble set in mortar demolished: 200
28. Measured drawings and HIA documentation of Heritage Huron Road, Kitchener
1800 two storey log inn demolished: 200
29. Measured drawings and HIA documentation of the Becker House on Fisher
Hallman Road, Kitchener
Storey and half 1850's stone house preserved: 2007
30. Measured drawings, structural analysis and restoration supervision of John Grieg
Marshall Cottage, A 96-91 Marshall Point Champlain Monument Island, Pointe au
Baril
Two storey 1909 cottage restored and expanded: 2007
31 . Measured drawing of Regency Porch, King City
Storey and half stone house demolished: 2007
32. Measured drawings, photographs and facade condition analysis, King Street
Toronto
Six storey office building restored: 2008
33. Measured drawings, structural analysis and restoration supervision of A 142-1
Jergans Island Cottage, Pointe au Baril
1910 two storey cottage restored and expanded: 200
34. Measured drawings, structural analysis and restoration supervision of Bonnie Brae
Cottage on A137-1 Bonnie Island, Pointe au Baril
Two storey 1911 cottage structurally reinforced: 2009
35. Measured drawings, HIA and restoration supervision of Dalziel Log Barn, Black
Creek Pioneer Village Toronto Structurally reinforced: 2010
200 year old log Pennsylvania bank barn was the original location of Black Creek
Pioneer Village and is a provincial heritage site. Research, documentation and
education provided formed the basis of a unique web site presentation.
httr)://www.dalzieIbarn.com/r)acies/TheBarn/FloorPlans.htm1
36. Measured drawing of Regency Porch, Black Creek Pioneer Village
1850's storey and half stone house porch restored: 2010
37. Measured drawings and HIA of Williamsburg Villa, Kitchener
1850's two storey Italianate Villa preserved and restored: 2010
38. Measured drawings and HIA of Louis Nichols House, Markham
1936 two storey 1936 house preserved: 2010
39. Measured drawings, structural analysis and restoration management Fydel House
6 Olympus Avenue Toronto. Two storey brick and stucco house restored: 2010
40. Measured drawings, structural analysis and restoration management Cuthbertson
House 4 Olympus Avenue Toronto. Three storey brick and stucco house masonry
garage restored: 201
41 . Measured drawing and HIA Nichols Farmhouse Markham
Two and a half storey 1915 farmhouse built on top of a preserved 1840 Regency
cottage preserved: 2011
42. Measured drawings of dining room, Royal Canadian Yacht Club
The Cedric Gyles 8 Metre Dining Room in the two storey island club house
preserved: 2010
43. Measured drawings, structural analysis and restoration supervision of John A.
Sinclair Cottage, A 298-1 Pongay Island Pointe au Baril
1909 storey and a half cottage restored: 2011
44. Architectural drawing preservation and digitization, Condition Report with structural
analysis and recommendations, appropriate trade sourcing, costing and
restoration management of Emmanuel Howard Park Church, High Park Toronto
United Church of Canada 850 seat capacity church built in 1928 restoration
commenced: 2011
45. Measure drawing and HIA of the 1911 Ojibway Club Boat House (now the grocery
store) in Pointe au Baril Ontario 2011
46. Various Georgian Bay Heritage structures documented. The drawings donated to
the Georgian Bay Land Trust
47. Palermo Blacksmith Shop in Oakville Ontario. Measured drawings and HIA of an
1840's English barn used as blacksmith shop during the twentieth century. 2012
48. Measured Drawings of Montgomery Inn Toronto 2013
49. Heritage Plaque design Brampton 2013
50. Measured drawings, trim profiles, fireplaces and other details from numerous other
heritage buildings
51 . Photographic Documentation of Old Oakville's Heritage Houses
52. Photographic Documentation of Niagara Region's Heritage Houses
53. Photographic Documentation of Dundas' Heritage Houses
54. Photographic Documentation of Peel County's Heritage Houses
55. Photographic Documentation of London Ontario's Heritage House
56. Photographic Study of pre 1850 Buildings across Ontario
HIA = Heritage Impact Assessment
measure endangered heritage structures to an ever higher degree of accuracy and
completeness, mindful that I am the last person to see and record the buildings.
review the information against published works, civil records and oral history to ascertain
when, how and by whom the buildings were constructed.
assist developers and municipalities in determining what buildings can and should be
preserved and how they could be readapted.
Sponsor
Jim Leonard: Heritage Planner
City of Brampton 905 874 2050
References
Carson Woods: Architect
Toronto 416 923 2775
Don Moffat: Architect
Toronto 416 231 3460
Don Maclnnes: Kingsway Lambton United Church Open Access and Restoration Project
Toronto 416 239 6260
APPENDIX I
PHOTOGRAPHS - BARN AT 1198 FISCHER HALLMAN
ROAD
C�
�0
/f✓r" rra
E
cn
1. �t 00
m
M
% r
r r! r ol�ti���E�C oIi IVil4 I��,; w
f i
Vii' io r o �
Pf ,I r"a.OQy Ivw Y' t y
0. d
/r 0 1= L
w `
3� a
i
Oil --
L L �
\�J
C�
O
f /
r /
LL
IP
m
1
r+
w f �
r �.f. � �' ffi f a / ✓r r,.. r�. r i w Y9"yi h //
/tl
��f�9�rr'r G �ttLflli �,r�x ✓) ��r
1�)p,�I ff
�
"//%�
IY!
� r
� �fgk
�z
�F
fir r
i o-V
i
0. d
od
L L �
\�J
C�
O
ry yy /
r
I� I
cn
/! MM
W
cj 71i2 +�
z- r �i /iia/iiU v r MrINr /i ul�i �
r,a�y,� � �� rrrr /✓�roiit��i�i/ ,���yl o ^I r
r 46hy e/��� r f�L'rl,{�7�1fi xh W
til
AN
1
u r I
I
l �/rr it i
"fl
u
III !f
f
fI�I;r J Q
Illlllll�ff �I�.. rn +
0 d
L L �
(C3�(3
\�J
APPENDIX J
RECOMMENDED HEIGHT LIMIT DIAGRAM
U
U
N
i
n
N
I / ¢
I __� Z N
U I /' o =
> I
wa) I Iz
� � w J
�---------- ------- --- - - - - - - -
peoH uewlleH aau0si--]
o az
I'I o
U.
CO
'I o \
w a,
''■ N
U
Of U
w \ w
Ii W \ a E
\\ Y
2
w \
CO E
• C� /
� / °°
II CKSE TBP O t _...._
E 00
m / REPR YARD
i
` -------- -� to ,
J y ,7"' in
�>
r
� k
-------------- ............Li
lv `" Oki dJ'&"l 107
,
PART 1
�« m
3- `
N Q
0 d
L L E
C.2
( -C a
\�J