The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHK - 2017-03-07 - Item 4 - Heritage Impact Assessement - 1664 Huron Rd Heritage Impact Assessment 1664 Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Impact Assessment 1664 Huron Road 1664 Huron Road 1664 Huron Road City of Kitchener, City of Kitchener, City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo, OntarioRegion of Waterloo, OntarioRegion of Waterloo, Ontario Prepared for:Prepared for:Prepared for: City of KitchenerCity of Kitchener 200 King Street West 200 King Street West Kitchener, ONN2G 4G7 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 100-300 Hagey Boulevard Waterloo ON N2L 0A4 File No. 161413191 February 17, 2017 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... I PROJECT PERSONNEL............................................................................................................... V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. V 1.0STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS.................................................................................1.1 2.0SITE HISTORY................................................................................................................2.1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2.1 2.2PHYSIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................................................................................................................................................. 2.1 2.3HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................2.2 2.3.1Settlement........................................................................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................2.2 2.3.2Williamsburg...................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................... 2.3 2.3.3New Aberdeen...................................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................2.3 2.3.41664 Huron Road Ownership1664 Huron Road Ownership................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................2.4 2.3.5Local Architecture................................................................................................................................................................................ .....................................................................................2.5 3.0SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................3.1 3.1LANDSCAPE SETTING .................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................3.1 3.2RESIDENCE EXTERIOR.................................................................................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................................... 3.11 4.0EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERILTURAL HERILTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTERETAGE VALUE OR INTERETAGE VALUE OR INTEREST.......................................4.1 4.1ONTARIO REGULATIONTARIO REGULATION 9/06ON 9/06ON 9/06............................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................4.1 4.2DESIGN OR PHYSCIDESIGN OR PHYSCIDESIGN OR PHYSCIAL VALUEAL VALUEAL VALUE............................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................4.2 4.3HISTORICAL OR ASHISTORICAL OR ASHISTORICAL OR ASSOCIASOCIASOCIATIVE VALUETIVE VALUETIVE VALUE..........................................................................4.2 4.4CONTEXTUAL VALUECONTEXTUAL VALUECONTEXTUAL VALUE.................................................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................................................4.3 4.5SUMMARY STATEMENSUMMARY STATEMENSUMMARY STATEMENT T ................................................................................................................................................ .........................................................................................................................................................4.4 4.6DESIGNATION AND DESIGNATION AND DESIGNATION AND CONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONCONSERVATION...........................................................................4.4 5.0IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................5.1 5.1APPROACH.....................................................................................................................5.1 5.2PROPOSED UNDERTAKING............................................................................................5.2 5.2.1South Kitchener District Park Description..................................................5.2 5.2.2Site Constraints.............................................................................................5.3 5.3ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS.............................................................................................5.4 6.0MITIGATION MEASURES..............................................................................................6.1 6.1OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................6.1 6.2RESTORATION AND RETENTION IN SITU........................................................................6.1 6.3RETENTION IN SITU AS RUIN............................................................................................6.2 6.4RELOCATION..................................................................................................................6.2 6.5DOCUMENTATION, SALVAGE, AND COMMEMORATION.........................................6.3 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD 7.0RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................7.1 8.0CLOSURE........................................................................................................................ 1 9.0REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: 1664 Huron Road Ownership................................................................................2.5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Study Area Location Map.....................................................................................1.3 Figure 2: Study Area................................................................................................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................................................................1.5 Figure 3: Historic Maps................................................................................................................................................................................ .................................................................................................................................................2.7 Figure 4: Stone Residences............................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................2.9 Figure 5: Study Area High Scale........................................................................................................................................................................ .........................................................................................................3.9 Figure 6: Site Plan................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................5.5 LIST OF PLATES Plate 1: East view, cultivated fields.................................................................................................................................................................. ..........................................................................................3.2 Plate 2: East view, cultivated fieldsiew, cultivated fields............................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................3.2 Plate 3: North view, east laneway and north landscapeNorth view, east laneway and north landscapeNorth view, east laneway and north landscape..............................................3.3 Plate 4: West view, west landscapeWest view, west landscapeWest view, west landscape................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................3.3 Plate 5: South view, south landscapeSouth view, south landscapeSouth view, south landscape............................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................3.4 Plate 6: South view of east laneway, house at rightew of east laneway, house at rightew of east laneway, house at right.......................................................3.4 Plate 7: North view, showing landscape in front of houseNorth view, showing landscape in front of houseNorth view, showing landscape in front of house.............................................3.5 Plate 8: South view, showing west lanewaySouth view, showing west lanewaySouth view, showing west laneway.....................................................................3.5 Plate 9: North view, community garden and two outbuildings at the rear of North view, community garden and two outbuildings at the rear of North view, community garden and two outbuildings at the rear of the housethe housethe house............................................................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................................................3.6 Plate 10: Southwest view, orange outbuilding and rear of houseSouthwest view, orange outbuilding and rear of houseSouthwest view, orange outbuilding and rear of house................................. .3.6 Plate 11: North view, concrete slab at the rear of houseNorth view, concrete slab at the rear of houseNorth view, concrete slab at the rear of house................................................3.7 Plate 12: Southwest view, showing pointed gable on front sideSouthwest view, showing pointed gable on front sideSouthwest view, showing pointed gable on front sideof house.................. 3.12 Plate 13: North view, showing pointed gable on rear side of house............................ 3.12 Plate 14: Southeast view, showing front side of house................................................... 3.13 Plate 15: Southwest view, showing front side of house................................................... 3.13 Plate 16: View of east wall, showing overhanging eaves and dentils......................... 3.14 Plate 17: View of north wall, showing overhanging eaves and dentils........................ 3.14 Plate 18: View of north side, showing close up of eaves and dentil detailing............ 3.15 Plate 19: View of east wall, showing two window openings and modern concrete chimney; alteration can be seen in the north window................ 3.15 Plate 20: View of rear façade, showing window opening and porch openings....... 3.16 Plate 21: View of side (west) façade, showing two window openings........................ 3.16 Plate 22: View of north wall, showing stone voussoirs and white stone sills................. 3.17 Plate 23: Northeast view, showing south addition to house.......................................... 3.17 Plate 24: Northwest view, showing south addition of house.......................................... 3.18 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Plate 25: Northwest view, showing south addition, porch and upper level deck with remnants of the wood railing attached to the lower east side of the gable dormer................................................................................................. 3.18 Plate 26: View of addition east wall, showing entry way............................................... 3.19 Plate 27: View of addition south side, showing two window openings........................ 3.19 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: CITY OF KITCHENER TERMS OF REFERENCE FUTURE SOUTH WEST PARK (1664 HURON ROAD) APPENDIX B: CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS APPENDIX C: WATERLOO TOWNSHIP LAND REGISTRY APPENDIX D: RYAN HISTORY APPENDIX E: SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VERICT PARK GENERAL VERICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEWGETATION OVERVIEWGETATION OVERVIEW APPENDIX F: 1664 HURON ROAD, KITCHENER, ONTARIO, CONCHENER, ONTARIO, CONCHENER, ONTARIO, CONDITION ASSESDITION ASSESSMENT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Executive Summary Purposeand Methods The City of Kitchener (the “City”) retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) tocomplete a site plan for the South Kitchener District Park(SKPD) situated at 1664 Huron Road, located within the City of Kitchener,Region of Waterloo (Figure 1). The property is listed on the City’s Heritage Registeras a non-designated property of heritage value or interest. As such,the City determined that a HIA was required prior to site development. As part of the site plan, the City identified a series of environmental and engineering studies required to inform the planning stage of series of environmental and engineering studies required to inform the planning stage of series of environmental and engineering studies required to inform the planning stage of development. One such study requested by the City was a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). development. One such study requested by the City was a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). development. One such study requested by the City was a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The City provided a site specific Terms of Reference(ToR) for this HIA, upon which the study (ToR) for this HIA, upon which the study (ToR) for this HIA, upon which the study methodology is based. In addition, guidelines prepared by Parks Canada and the Ministry of methodology is based. In addition, guidelines prepared by Parks Canada and the Ministry of methodology is based. In addition, guidelines prepared by Parks Canada and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) were also consulted, including Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) were also consulted, including Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) were also consulted, including The Standards and Guidelines The Standards and Guidelines The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada ric Places in Canada ((Historic Places CanadaHistoric Places CanadaHistoric Places Canada 2010) and InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans#5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans#5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plansfrom the from the from the Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Land Use Planning Process Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Land Use Planning Process Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 ( Government of Ontario 2006), respectively. ( Government of Ontario 2006), respectively. ( Government of Ontario 2006), respectively. Property Description The study area is comprised entirely of the 1664 Huron Road property parcel and is located at The study area is comprised entirely of the 1664 Huron Road property parcel and is located at The study area is comprised entirely of the 1664 Huron Road property parcel and is located at the southwest corner of Huron and Fischerthe southwest corner of Huron and Fischerthe southwest corner of Huron and Fischer---Hallman Roads in the City of Kitchener, Ontario. Hallman Roads in the City of Kitchener, Ontario. Hallman Roads in the City of Kitchener, Ontario. The study area consists of 41.56 acres (16.8 hectares) study area consists of 41.56 acres (16.8 hectares) study area consists of 41.56 acres (16.8 hectares) containing a one-and-one-half storey residence, two outbuildingsresidence, two outbuildingsresidence, two outbuildings,,a community gardena community gardena community gardenand agricultural land. Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Following evaluation according to Ontario Regulation 9/06, the stone residence was determined to be a representative example of a regional vernacular interpretation of the Regency cottage style popular during the time period in which the residence was constructedand characteristic th century. A of the predominantly Scottish and Irish character of the area in the mid-19 statement of significance was prepared and is as follows: The stone residence situated at 1664 Huron Road, Kitchener, Ontario, is a representative example of a vernacular interpretation of the Regency cottage th design popular during the early to mid-19century. It is an example of a once common, but increasingly rare, combination of style and construction material which is unique within the City of Kitchener and was heavily influencedby the primarily Scottish and Irish settlement of the area. The residence is set back from the road in between a large equipment storage lot and a community garden. i HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD The residence remains largely intact although use of the property parcel has been extensively altered since the land was last actively farmed, in its entirety, in the 1960s. The residence was constructed in c1860 by Richard Sheard. It is one of seven stone residences constructed between 1850 and 1870 that survive in the southwest corner of the municipality. The Regency cottage influence is represented in the proportions and scale of the residence as well as design elements including the hipped roof, symmetrical five bay front façade, and large former centre doorway. Based on the evaluation ofcultural heritage value or interest, the following cultural heritage value or interest, the following cultural heritage value or interest, the following heritage attributes have been identified: One and one half storey residential structure;One and one half storey residential structure;One and one half storey residential structure; Symmetrical five bay front façade; Large field stone front façade and smaller field stone stone use throughout Large field stone front façade and smaller field stone stone use throughout Large field stone front façade and smaller field stone stone use throughout remaining façades; Medium pitched hipped roof with front and rear gable dormers clad in Medium pitched hipped roof with front and rear gable dormers clad in Medium pitched hipped roof with front and rear gable dormers clad in painted tin; Wide eaves with dentils; andWide eaves with dentils; andWide eaves with dentils; and Association with the primarily Scottish settlement in the southwest corner of Association with the primarily Scottish settlement in the southwest corner of Association with the primarily Scottish settlement in the southwest corner of the former Township of Waterloo a characteristic unique within the City of the former Township of Waterloo a characteristic unique within the City of the former Township of Waterloo a characteristic unique within the City of Kitchener. Impact Assessmentand Mitigation Optionsand Mitigation Optionsand Mitigation Options The property at 1664 Huron Road is proposed to be modified from its current roperty at 1664 Huron Road is proposed to be modified from its current roperty at 1664 Huron Road is proposed to be modified from its current use to a municipal park. The park is proposed to include a mix of active and passive outdoor recreational amenities he park is proposed to include a mix of active and passive outdoor recreational amenities he park is proposed to include a mix of active and passive outdoor recreational amenities as well as indoor athletic facilities. It has been planned to maximize recreational space and as well as indoor athletic facilities. It has been planned to maximize recreational space and as well as indoor athletic facilities. It has been planned to maximize recreational space and address site constraints including grading and stormwater management (SWM) requirementsaddress site constraints including grading and stormwater management (SWM) requirementsaddress site constraints including grading and stormwater management (SWM) requirements. The park plan currently requires removal of the existing stone residence on the property in order to achieve maximum site plan efficiency. Specifically, the residence is located where one of the two soccer fields are proposed which would result in destruction of all heritage attributes associated with the heritage resource. In order to mitigate these impacts, a series of mitigation options were prepared ranging from retention in situto documentation and salvage.These options are as follows: Restoration and retention in situ Restoration and retention in situ considers addressing structural concerns as including, but not limited to, repointing, repair to exterior walls, repair to the cistern wall and stabilization of all interior walls, removal of all rotting wood frame elements (approximately 50% of the existing internal framing), and replacement of the roof. This would allow for complete retention which would completely mitigate the impact of the ii mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD proposed undertaking on heritage attributes. This option would require removal of the east soccer field. Retention in situ as a ruin Retention in situ as a ruin considers retention of the original residence only. This requires addressing structural concerns including, but not limited to, removal of the roof and all organic material from the interior, backfilling of the interior of to match the exterior grade, localized repointing, reinforcement or demolition of some stone walls, and installation of a cap or flashing atop the stone walls. This would allow for partial retention which would lessen but not eliminate completely the impact of the proposed undertaking on heritage attributes.The attributes removed would be the hipped roof and wide eaves with dentils. This option would require removal of the east soccer field. Relocation Relocation considers retention of the original residence only and assumes relocation considers retention of the original residence only and assumes relocation considers retention of the original residence only and assumes relocation within the current site. This involves addressing structural concernsctural concernsctural concernsincluding, but not including, but not limited to, identification of a suitable new location, construction of a new concrete limited to, identification of a suitable new location, construction of a new concrete limited to, identification of a suitable new location, construction of a new concrete foundation, controlled demolition of existing stone walls above the foundations, foundation, controlled demolition of existing stone walls above the foundations, foundation, controlled demolition of existing stone walls above the foundations, rebuilding ofthe exterior masonry and interior framing, and replacement of the existing the exterior masonry and interior framing, and replacement of the existing the exterior masonry and interior framing, and replacement of the existing roof with a new waterproof system. Based on the heritage attributes identified relocation Based on the heritage attributes identified relocation Based on the heritage attributes identified relocation would retain all heritage attributes. This option allows for retention of all features of the would retain all heritage attributes. This option allows for retention of all features of the would retain all heritage attributes. This option allows for retention of all features of the park proposed. Documentation, Salvage, and CommemorationDocumentation, Salvage, and CommemorationDocumentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Detailed documentation and salvage is often the preferred mitigation strategy where Detailed documentation and salvage is often the preferred mitigation strategy where Detailed documentation and salvage is often the preferred mitigation strategy where retention or relocation is neitherretention or relocation is neitherretention or relocation is neitherfeasible feasible feasible nnor warranted. Documentation creates a public or warranted. Documentation creates a public or warranted. Documentation creates a public record of the structure, or strucrecord of the structure, or strucrecord of the structure, or structures, which provides researchers and the general public tures, which provides researchers and the general public tures, which provides researchers and the general public with a land use history, construction details, and photographic record of the resource.with a land use history, construction details, and photographic record of the resource.with a land use history, construction details, and photographic record of the resource. Through the selective salvage of identified heritage attributes, the cultural heritage value Through the selective salvage of identified heritage attributes, the cultural heritage value Through the selective salvage of identified heritage attributes, the cultural heritage value or interest of the property can be retained, if in a different context.of the property can be retained, if in a different context.of the property can be retained, if in a different context.Salvaged materials should be incorporated onshould be incorporated onshould be incorporated on--site in some form suited to park use, such as entry gates, site in some form suited to park use, such as entry gates, site in some form suited to park use, such as entry gates, benches, landscaped features or planters, or pavilions/shade structures as discussed benches, landscaped features or planters, or pavilions/shade structures as discussed benches, landscaped features or planters, or pavilions/shade structures as discussed below.This option allows for retention of all features of the park proposed.This option allows for retention of all features of the park proposed.This option allows for retention of all features of the park proposed. Recommendation Relocation of the house within the property was determined to be the preferred mitigation option as it retained all heritage attributes while also maintaining the number of amenities of the SKDP Master Site Plan. Movement of the residence maintains the physical and design attributes and does not disconnect the residence from its history. It is recommended that relocation within the site should consider locations that facilitate adaptive re-use of the structure for park purposes, such as a washroom or change room facilities, concession, or equipment storage and maintenance. To accompany the relocation, a conservation plan should be developed and address repairs, restoration, and implementation. To address immediate concerns, mothballing the house should beundertaken until a conservation or commemoration plan is prepared and in consultation with City Heritage Planning Staff.The goal of mothballing is to preserve the house until rehabilitation activities can iii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD be carried out, not to board up the house indefinitely. Mothballing should be used in concert with an appropriate mitigation strategy to facilitatethe long-term viability of this resource. In order to promote the retention of historic information, copies of this report should be deposited with a local repository of historic material. Therefore, it is recommended that this report be deposited at the Kitchener Public Library. The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, the reader should examinethe complete report. iv mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Project Personnel Project Manager: Steve Bendo, OALA, CSLA, ISA Task Manager: Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP Heritage Consultant: Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP Report Writer: James Sebele, BA,Lashia Jones, MA, CAHP Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP GISSpecialist: Jeff Jaskolka Office Assistants: Carol Meermann QualityReview: Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP IndependentReview: Colin Varley, Colin Varley, MA, RPAMA, RPAMA, RPA, Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed., Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed., Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed. Acknowledgements Proponent Contact:Sandra Parks, City ofSandra Parks, City ofSandra Parks, City ofKitchener Leon Bensason, City of KitchenerLeon Bensason, City of KitchenerLeon Bensason, City of Kitchener Kitchener Public Library:Kitchener Public Library:Kitchener Public Library: Grace Schmidt Room of Local HistoryGrace Schmidt Room of Local HistoryGrace Schmidt Room of Local History v HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Study Purpose and Methods February 17, 2017 1.0STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS The City of Kitchener (the “City”) retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) tocomplete a site plan for the South Kitchener District Park (SKPD) situated at 1664 Huron Road, located within the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo (Figure 1). The study area is comprised entirely of the 1664 Huron Road property parcel and is located at the southwest corner of Huron and Fischer- Hallman Roads. The study area consists of 41.56 acres containing a one-and-one-half storey residence, two outbuildingsand a community garden (Figure 2). As part of the site plan, the City identified a series of environmental and engineering studies required to inform the planning stage of development. One such study requested by the City was a Heritage Impact stage of development. One such study requested by the City was a Heritage Impact stage of development. One such study requested by the City was a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The property islisted on the City’s Heritage Registeras a nonas a nonas a non--designated property of heritage designated property of heritage designated property of heritage value or interest. As such,the City determined that a HIA was required prior to e City determined that a HIA was required prior to e City determined that a HIA was required prior to site development. The City provided a site specific Terms of Reference (Terms of Reference (ToRToRToR) ) ) for this HIA, upon which the study for this HIA, upon which the study for this HIA, upon which the study methodology is based(see Appendix A).In addition,In addition,guidelines prepared by Parks Canada and guidelines prepared by Parks Canada and guidelines prepared by Parks Canada and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) were also consulted, including he Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) were also consulted, including he Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) were also consulted, including The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Historic Places Canada 2010)and InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation PlansInfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation PlansInfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plansfrom the Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Resources in the Land Use Planning Process Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Resources in the Land Use Planning Process Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (Government of Ontario 2006), respectively. (Government of Ontario 2006), respectively. (Government of Ontario 2006), respectively. A site assessment was undertaken on November 16, 2015A site assessment was undertaken on November 16, 2015A site assessment was undertaken on November 16, 2015. Present onsite wereSandra Parks, Heritage Planner at the City of Kitchener, Meaghan Rivard, Heritage Consultant Heritage Planner at the City of Kitchener, Meaghan Rivard, Heritage Consultant Heritage Planner at the City of Kitchener, Meaghan Rivard, Heritage Consultant withStantec, James Sebele, Cultural Heritage Assistant James Sebele, Cultural Heritage Assistant James Sebele, Cultural Heritage Assistant withwithwithStantec, and Steve Bendo, Sport Group Leader also withStantec (see Appendix B for Stantec (see Appendix B for Stantec (see Appendix B for appropriate qualifications). The weather conditions were appropriate qualifications). The weather conditions were appropriate qualifications). The weather conditions were overcast, rainy and cold. overcast, rainy and cold. overcast, rainy and cold. Interior access to the residence was not permitted given the poor Interior access to the residence was not permitted given the poor Interior access to the residence was not permitted given the poor visual state of the building. Access to the building in future will require a comprehensive health visual state of the building. Access to the building in future will require a comprehensive health visual state of the building. Access to the building in future will require a comprehensive health and safety plan to account for the possible disrepair of the interior. Hty plan to account for the possible disrepair of the interior. Hty plan to account for the possible disrepair of the interior. Historical research was conducted primarily at the Grace Schmidt Room of Local History in the Kitchener Public Library and based on files provided by the City. Stantec prepared a draft HIA over the course of late 2015 and 2016 to inform the site plan process. It was submitted to the City in September 2016. The report was revised to address staff comments and, in December 2016, Stantec met with City staff to discuss the final draft. Based on this discussion, additional information was requested in the form of a Scoped HIA. The purpose of the Scoped HIA was to consider impacts associated with the SKDP plan for the property and include an evaluation of alternatives informed by structural feasibility. The Scoped HIA has been integrated into the draft final HIA and concludes with identification of a preferred path forward for the property. 1.1 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site History February 17, 2017 2.0SITE HISTORY 2.1INTRODUCTION The study areais located at 1664 Huron Road, formerly part of lot 152, Waterloo Township, Waterloo County, now the City of Kitchener in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. The property is positioned immediately south ofHuron Roadand west ofFischer-Hallman Road. South of Huron Road the land is largely agricultural with the exception of industrial uses immediately west of the study area. North of Huron Road is primarily modern residential development which has been recentlyconstructed, or is currently under construction. In order to , or is currently under construction. In order to , or is currently under construction. In order to understand the historical context of the study area, the following sections outline the historical understand the historical context of the study area, the following sections outline the historical understand the historical context of the study area, the following sections outline the historical thth development of the land from the time of settlement to the 20development of the land from the time of settlement to the 20development of the land from the time of settlement to the 20century. century. century. 2.2PHYSIOGRAPHY The study area is situated within the Waterloo HHills physiographic region of southern Ontario. The ills physiographic region of southern Ontario. The ills physiographic region of southern Ontario. The physiographic region is surrounded to the east by the Guelph Drumlin field, to the south by physiographic region is surrounded to the east by the Guelph Drumlin field, to the south by physiographic region is surrounded to the east by the Guelph Drumlin field, to the south by Oxford till plain, to the west by the Stratford till plain and to the north by the Dundalk till plain Oxford till plain, to the west by the Stratford till plain and to the north by the Dundalk till plain Oxford till plain, to the west by the Stratford till plain and to the north by the Dundalk till plain (Chapman and Putnam 1984:113). The (Chapman and Putnam 1984:113). The (Chapman and Putnam 1984:113). The region of the Waterloo Hregion of the Waterloo Hregion of the Waterloo Hills containsapproximately 192,000 acres, situated mainly within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extending westward 192,000 acres, situated mainly within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extending westward 192,000 acres, situated mainly within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extending westward to the Township of Blandford-Blenheim within Oxford County and North Easthope within Perth Blenheim within Oxford County and North Easthope within Perth Blenheim within Oxford County and North Easthope within Perth County (Chapman and Putnam 1984:136). County (Chapman and Putnam 1984:136). County (Chapman and Putnam 1984:136). The physiography of the study areathe study areathe study areaand the surrounding area is primarily sandy hills, some of and the surrounding area is primarily sandy hills, some of and the surrounding area is primarily sandy hills, some of which areridges of sandy till while others are kames or kame moraines with outwash sands in ridges of sandy till while others are kames or kame moraines with outwash sands in ridges of sandy till while others are kames or kame moraines with outwash sands in between (Chapman and Putnam 1984:136). The soil of the sandy hills are well drained Grey between (Chapman and Putnam 1984:136). The soil of the sandy hills are well drained Grey between (Chapman and Putnam 1984:136). The soil of the sandy hills are well drained Grey Brown Luvisolic with the Waterloo sandy loam found on most of the rounded sandy hills of the Brown Luvisolic with the Waterloo sandy loam found on most of the rounded sandy hills of the Brown Luvisolic with the Waterloo sandy loam found on most of the rounded sandy hills of the area. General elevation of the region is from 1,000 area. General elevation of the region is from 1,000 area. General elevation of the region is from 1,000 to 1,400 feet above sea level (Chapman and Putnam 1984:136). The area of land that the study area occupies, including the surrounding area, is encircled by spillways. The spillways to the east of the study area drain into the Grand River system allowing the tillplains to be well drained (Chapman and Putman 1984: 13). Given the good soil and drainage of the area, the physiography and land formation are well suited for agriculture. This is reinforced by more than two centuries of agricultural activities in the region(Chapman and Putnam 1984: 137). thth century was agriculture. By the late 19 The primary industry of Waterloo Township in the 19 century the local economy moved away from cash crops towards mixed farming, which combined livestock and crop cultivation (Drummond 1987:29).In total, by 1880, 66.5% of the land in Waterloo County was deemed rolling and cultivable, making the land suitable for agricultural purposes, especially for the growing of wheat and barley (Ontario Agricultural 2.1 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site History February 17, 2017 Commission (OAC) 1881: 587). The high quality of agricultural land is reflected in the modern landscape, south of the study area,which remains largely under agricultural cultivation (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 137). 2.3HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 2.3.1Settlement In 1796, Richard Beasley and his two associates, John Baptiste Rousseaux and James Wilson, purchased 94,012 acres of land from Joseph Brant (Hayes 1997:3). The land, known as Block 2, was subdivided by Beasley into three parts – the Lower, Middle and Upper Blocks. The studyarea is located in the western portion of the Lower Block. In 1800, surveyor Richard Cockerell surveyed In 1800, surveyor Richard Cockerell surveyed In 1800, surveyor Richard Cockerell surveyed the central and eastern portions of the Lower Blockwhich totaled which totaled which totaled 14,000 acres.14,000 acres.This land was primarily bought by German Mennonites from Pennsylvania (Bloomfield primarily bought by German Mennonites from Pennsylvania (Bloomfield primarily bought by German Mennonites from Pennsylvania (Bloomfield 2006:20). 2006:20). In 1805, Beasley sold 60,000 acres ofland to the Germany Company of Pennsylvania, a group of land to the Germany Company of Pennsylvania, a group of land to the Germany Company of Pennsylvania, a group of Mennonite shareholders led by Daniel Erb and Samuel Bricker. The purchase comprised Mennonite shareholders led by Daniel Erb and Samuel Bricker. The purchase comprised Mennonite shareholders led by Daniel Erb and Samuel Bricker. The purchase comprised much of the land in the Upper and Middle Blocks. The land which had not previously been surveyed was the land in the Upper and Middle Blocks. The land which had not previously been surveyed was the land in the Upper and Middle Blocks. The land which had not previously been surveyed was then surveyed byAugustusJones in the same year of purchasethe same year of purchasethe same year of purchase...JonesJonesdivided the land into 128 numbered lots containing448 acres each. The 1805 purchase also included land in the western 448 acres each. The 1805 purchase also included land in the western 448 acres each. The 1805 purchase also included land in the western portion of the Lower Block where the land was divided into 32 ck where the land was divided into 32 ck where the land was divided into 32 lots, continuing from 128 in numeric labeling, with 83 acres each (Bloomfield 1997:24). By the 1830s, Beasley with 83 acres each (Bloomfield 1997:24). By the 1830s, Beasley with 83 acres each (Bloomfield 1997:24). By the 1830s, Beasley hadsoldthe remaining lots of Block 2 (Bloomfield 1997:23). remaining lots of Block 2 (Bloomfield 1997:23). remaining lots of Block 2 (Bloomfield 1997:23). Shortly after the 1805 survey, German Mennonites from Pennsylvania began to migrate to Block survey, German Mennonites from Pennsylvania began to migrate to Block survey, German Mennonites from Pennsylvania began to migrate to Block 2 (Figure 3). By July of 1805, nearly 35 families or single men owned land in Block 2 (Dahms ). By July of 1805, nearly 35 families or single men owned land in Block 2 (Dahms ). By July of 1805, nearly 35 families or single men owned land in Block 2 (Dahms 1991:38). In 1816, Block 2 1991:38). In 1816, Block 2 1991:38). In 1816, Block 2 waswasrenamed Waterloo Township. Mennonite settlement of the area renamed Waterloo Township. Mennonite settlement of the area renamed Waterloo Township. Mennonite settlement of the area continued steadily andandandacacaccounted for 70% of the township population and 87% of the land counted for 70% of the township population and 87% of the land counted for 70% of the township population and 87% of the land ownership by 1831 (Bloomfield 1997:34). by 1831 (Bloomfield 1997:34). by 1831 (Bloomfield 1997:34). After the initial wave of Pennsylvania settlement, other groups entered Waterloo Township. The After the initial wave of Pennsylvania settlement, other groups entered Waterloo Township. The After the initial wave of Pennsylvania settlement, other groups entered Waterloo Township. The area attracted German-speaking Catholics who emigrated from European townsbetween the late 1820s and the early 1850s, such as Alsace in France and Baden in Germany. This group settledprimarilyin the northeast of the township, an area that was referred to as “Rotenburg” or “Little Germany” by the 1830s (Bloomfield 2006:35). In 1851, Waterloo Township had a population of 8,871, making it the most populous township in th Waterloo County (Hayes 1997:16). The population continued to grow inthe latter half of the 19 centurylargely due to the introduction of multiple railways in the township. In 1856, the Grand Trunk Railway built the first railway in the township to providea route to Toronto. Other railways included the Grand Trunk branch between Preston and Berlin(the predecessor to the City of Kitchener) in 1857, a Great Western Line between Galt, Preston and Guelph in 1857, a Grand Trunk branch between Waterloo, Berlin and Galt in 1882 and a Grand Trunk branch between Waterloo and Elmira in 1891 (ESRI Canada Education Team 2014:online). The presence of the 2.2 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site History February 17, 2017 railways accelerated industrial development throughout the township, especially at the Town of Berlin, located northeast of the study area, which became the industrial centre of the township andlater thecounty. 2.3.2Williamsburg The hamlet of Williamsburg was founded in 1846 by Anton Wilhelm and Philip Fischer on the corner of Bleams Road and Roseville Road (now Fischer-Hallman Road) located two concessions northof the study area. Williamsburg was a farming community that provided social and educational needs tothe residents in the area. By 1845, Williamsburg had a blacksmith, two sawmills and a schoolhouse. The hamlet continued to grow and by 1861 it contained a shoemaker, a turner, two carpenters, two tailors and a millwright and sawyer at the local mill shoemaker, a turner, two carpenters, two tailors and a millwright and sawyer at the local mill shoemaker, a turner, two carpenters, two tailors and a millwright and sawyer at the local mill ownedby Abram Clemens on Strasburg Creek, located northeast of the study area (Bloomfield by Abram Clemens on Strasburg Creek, located northeast of the study area (Bloomfield by Abram Clemens on Strasburg Creek, located northeast of the study area (Bloomfield 2006:50, 206). thth century. With the continual growth century. With the continual growth century. With the continual growth Williamsburg remained agricultural in nature until the late 20Williamsburg remained agricultural in nature until the late 20Williamsburg remained agricultural in nature until the late 20 in population of the cities of KitchenerandWaterlooWaterloo, , the urban boundaries grew outward the urban boundaries grew outward the urban boundaries grew outward encompassing many of the small hamlets and villages of the former Waterloo Township. One encompassing many of the small hamlets and villages of the former Waterloo Township. One encompassing many of the small hamlets and villages of the former Waterloo Township. One such community to experience urban development was Williamsburg. such community to experience urban development was Williamsburg. such community to experience urban development was Williamsburg. The study area is positioned on the edge of this urban development,positioned on the edge of this urban development,positioned on the edge of this urban development,most of which is residential. most of which is residential. most of which is residential. 2.3.3New Aberdeen George Davidson founded the hamlet of New Aberdeen George Davidson founded the hamlet of New Aberdeen George Davidson founded the hamlet of New Aberdeen in the 1840s at the intersection of Huron Road and Strasburg Creek Strasburg Creek where a sawmill had been established in 1836 (Waterloo where a sawmill had been established in 1836 (Waterloo where a sawmill had been established in 1836 (Waterloo Museum). The community was positionedMuseum). The community was positionedMuseum). The community was positionedon Huron Road approximately three lots northeast of on Huron Road approximately three lots northeast of on Huron Road approximately three lots northeast of the study area on Lots 11 and 12 of theLots 11 and 12 of theLots 11 and 12 of theBiehns Tract (Figure 3). Within 10 years of construction of Biehns Tract (Figure 3). Within 10 years of construction of Biehns Tract (Figure 3). Within 10 years of construction of the saw mill, Davidson had established New Aberdeen, named for his Scottish hometown, which the saw mill, Davidson had established New Aberdeen, named for his Scottish hometown, which the saw mill, Davidson had established New Aberdeen, named for his Scottish hometown, which included astore and flour millstore and flour millstore and flour millin addition to the previously established sawmill (Bloomfieldin addition to the previously established sawmill (Bloomfieldin addition to the previously established sawmill (Bloomfield 2006, 87-88). Modest growth characterized the 18487-88). Modest growth characterized the 18487-88). Modest growth characterized the 1840s in New Aberdeen and by 1851 the population had reached approximately 120 (Bloomfield 2006, 88). had reached approximately 120 (Bloomfield 2006, 88). had reached approximately 120 (Bloomfield 2006, 88). Standard mid-century industries were present in the community at this time including a blacksmith and numerous mills. In 1856, Davidson had a town plot for New Aberdeen surveyed. His timing was unfortunate though, as the first railway entered the region at the same time and by-passed the hamlet. Much like Williamsburg,and many other small communities across the region specifically and province more generally, the growth of New Aberdeen haltedwith the arrival of the railways. th Although the community continued to be indicated on late 19century mapping, the railway redirected the concentration of industry, including agriculture services, to the larger urban centre of Berlin. As no social services such as churches or schools were established in New Aberdeen, this transition likely happened quite quickly. th New Aberdeen deviated somewhat from the typicalcharacterization of a 19century hamlet in Waterloo Township. Although it followed similar development patterns such as growth in the th early to mid-19century and subsequent declinewith the construction of the railway, it differs in 2.3 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site History February 17, 2017 the diversity of the community.A study of families and communities of Waterloo Township in 1861, informed by Tremaine’s Map of Waterloo County, census data, and township assessment rolls, shows a concentration of British settlement, in the southwest corner of Waterloo Township (Bloomfield and Foster: 1995, x). This included primarily Scottish and Irish origins with English and Welsh origins as secondary. The concentration was also not limited to the southwest portion of the township as evidence of a similar pattern was identifiedthroughout the southern boundary of the township as well asin the southeast portion of the township (Bloomfield and Foster: 1995, x). This is confirmed when reviewing the names and origins, where available, of the residentsof New Aberdeen (Bloomfield and Foster: 1995, 1-12 and 17-18). New Aberdeenwas established by a Scottish settler and according to the Bloomfield and Foster study included a large proportion of Scottish Presbyterian settlers alongside German Lutherans. included a large proportion of Scottish Presbyterian settlers alongside German Lutherans. included a large proportion of Scottish Presbyterian settlers alongside German Lutherans. These settlers would have influenced not only settlement patterns but also architectural design These settlers would have influenced not only settlement patterns but also architectural design These settlers would have influenced not only settlement patterns but also architectural design and materials. While the use of stone was not exclusively a Scottish and materials. While the use of stone was not exclusively a Scottish and materials. While the use of stone was not exclusively a Scottish approachapproachapproachas many Mennonite settlers from Pennsylvania and elsewhere used stone throughout Waterloo County Mennonite settlers from Pennsylvania and elsewhere used stone throughout Waterloo County Mennonite settlers from Pennsylvania and elsewhere used stone throughout Waterloo County more broadly, it appears the study area was more likely influenced by the presence of large more broadly, it appears the study area was more likely influenced by the presence of large more broadly, it appears the study area was more likely influenced by the presence of large th century activities numbers of Scottish and Irish settlers in the area of New Aberdeen in the area of New Aberdeen in the area of New Aberdeen than than 191919 Mennonite. This is further understood when looking more closely at land ownership of the study This is further understood when looking more closely at land ownership of the study This is further understood when looking more closely at land ownership of the study th area in the 19century. 2.3.41664 Huron Road Ownership 1664 Huron Road Ownership The study area is legally described as: The study area is legally described as: The study area is legally described as: G.C.T G.C.T G.C.T \[German Company Tract\] \[German Company Tract\] \[German Company Tract\] Part Lots 152, 153, and 160.The 83 acre lot wasoriginally a part of Block 2 that was purchased by Richard Beasley from originally a part of Block 2 that was purchased by Richard Beasley from originally a part of Block 2 that was purchased by Richard Beasley from Joseph Brant in 1798. As part of the German Company purchase, the lot was first sold to Daniel Joseph Brant in 1798. As part of the German Company purchase, the lot was first sold to Daniel Joseph Brant in 1798. As part of the German Company purchase, the lot was first sold to Daniel and Jacob Erb in 1805. On June 30, 1836, the property was bought by William Scollick forOn June 30, 1836, the property was bought by William Scollick forOn June 30, 1836, the property was bought by William Scollick foran undisclosed amount. In November, 1850, Richard Sheard (1807-1882)November, 1850, Richard Sheard (1807-1882)November, 1850, Richard Sheard (1807-1882), a British immigrant farmer, bought the lot for $2,165.Sheard (age 44) was born in Yorkshire, England and is listed on the 1851 Census of Sheard (age 44) was born in Yorkshire, England and is listed on the 1851 Census of Sheard (age 44) was born in Yorkshire, England and is listed on the 1851 Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and NoCanada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and NoCanada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, in the Township of Waterloo as a farmer, along with his wife Elizabeth (age 48), and their daughter Mary (age 15). Sheard is listed as a free holder on the property in the 1864 Waterloo County Directory and Gazetteer (Mitchell & Co.,1864: 36). Sheard died on May 7, 1882 (Ancestry 1882: 295). Land records indicate that a mortgage was taken out in the early 1860s, which suggests the subject house was constructed around the same time (Land records: Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot 152). Richard Sheard ownedthe house until his death when the property was transferred to his widow. In 1883, John Wallace, who owned the neighboring lot (Lot 151) purchased 79 acres of lot 152, including the subject house (Land records: Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot 152). Wallace (age 31) is listed on the 1851 Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, as a farmer of Scottish descent along with his wife Helen (age 25), and their children William (age 6), Elizabeth (age 5), Janet (age 3), and Margaret (age 1). As indicated in Figure 3, he is associated with Lot 151 in 1861 at which time a house is mapped. He is listed on Lot 151, as 2.4 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site History February 17, 2017 a farmer, in the 1884-1885 directory for the County of Waterloo (Evans 1884: 53). He is also listed as a freeholder on Lot 151, in the 1887 directory for the County of Waterloo (Union Publishing Co. 1887:104). In 1903, Simon Cober purchased the property from Alexander Wallace, son of John Wallace, for $5,000 (Land records: Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot 152). Members of the Cober family owned the house until 1968. During their ownership the Cober family undertooktwo significant alterations to the residence. In 1918 the upper storey was added (Ryan 1991, see Appendix C). The addition of the upper floor significantly expanded the size of the residence and resulted in interior alterations. In 1952, the hot water tank exploded in the basement of the residence. As a result, the interior of the residence was renovated and dramatically reconfigured including the conversion of the central entryway into a living room and replacement of the doorway with a nversion of the central entryway into a living room and replacement of the doorway with a nversion of the central entryway into a living room and replacement of the doorway with a large window. In 1968, E.E. Seegmiller Ltd., a gravel excavation and construction company, purchased the E.E. Seegmiller Ltd., a gravel excavation and construction company, purchased the E.E. Seegmiller Ltd., a gravel excavation and construction company, purchased the property (Land records: Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot property (Land records: Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot property (Land records: Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot 152)152)152)..The City purchased the The City purchased the The City purchased the property, including the residence,in 1983. The City of Kitchener has leased the east portion of The City of Kitchener has leased the east portion of The City of Kitchener has leased the east portion of the property, approximately 18 acres, as farmland and the rear portion of the property as a the property, approximately 18 acres, as farmland and the rear portion of the property as a the property, approximately 18 acres, as farmland and the rear portion of the property as a community garden(approximately 4 acres). s). A list of owners and the year of ownership of 1664 A list of owners and the year of ownership of 1664 A list of owners and the year of ownership of 1664 Huron Road can be found in Table 1 below. Additional land registry information is provided in Huron Road can be found in Table 1 below. Additional land registry information is provided in Huron Road can be found in Table 1 below. Additional land registry information is provided in Appendix D. Table 1:1664 Huron Road Ownership1664 Huron Road Ownership1664 Huron Road Ownership OwnerOwnerYears of Ownership Richard Beasley1798 – 1805 Daniel and Jacob Erb1805 – 1836 William Scollick1836 – 1850 Richard Sheard1850 – 1882 ElizabethSheard 1882 – 1883 John Wallace 1883 – 1903 Simon Cober1903 – 1966 Kathleen Cober1966 Irvine and Olivia Cober1966 – 1968 E.E. Seegmiller Ltd. 1968 – 1983 The Corporation of the City of Kitchener 1983 – present 2.3.5Local Architecture The early Mennonite settlers brought their knowledge of stonemasonry to the area, and as a th century (Plaxton result, many stone farmhouses were built in Waterloo County during the mid-19 1984:19). This trend is also reflected in areas where a high concentration of Scottish settlement 2.5 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site History February 17, 2017 occurred, such as the southwest corner of Waterloo Townshipgenerally, and the hamlet of New Aberdeen more specifically (see Section 2.3.2). When constructing what was often the second residence on the property, following the originallog residence, early settlers were influenced not th centurylifebut also designesthetics. only by the practicalities of 19 Although often interpreted in the vernacular, emigrants from Europe were often inspired by Georgian, Neoclassical, and Regency designs.Later, althoughEuropean architecture continued to be a strong influence,a more local interpretation of these styles emerged in the Gothic Revival and Italianate designs. Evidence of the prevalence of stone architecture was identified in close proximity to the study area. As identified by the Cityas well as the Stantec project team during a vehicular survey of the surrounding area,eightproperties within three kilometres of the study area contain stone residencesincluding, but not limited to: including, but not limited to: including, but not limited to: 710 Huron Road, stone farmhouse (1855); 1878 New Dundee Road, stone farmhouse (1860); 1844 Trussler Road, brick farmhouse (1860); 2232 Trussler Road, stone farmhouse (1850); 596 Plains Road, stone farmhouse (1870); 596 Plains Road, stone farmhouse (1870); 836 Plains Road, stone cottage (1860); 836 Plains Road, stone cottage (1860); 1940 Fischer Hallman Road, stone farmhouse (no date); and1940 Fischer Hallman Road, stone farmhouse (no date); and1940 Fischer Hallman Road, stone farmhouse (no date); and 432 Plains Road, stone cottage (no date).432 Plains Road, stone cottage (no date).432 Plains Road, stone cottage (no date). These properties are all situated These properties are all situated soutsoutsouth h h of Huron Road, north of Huron Road, north of Huron Road, north of NewDundee Road, and in between Trussler and Cameron Roadssler and Cameron Roadssler and Cameron Roadss. In addition, two properties were identified by City staff to . In addition, two properties were identified by City staff to . In addition, two properties were identified by City staff to have contained stone residences whichhave contained stone residences whichhave contained stone residences which have have have since been demolished;163 Plains Road and 1201 Fischer Hallman Road, the latter of which was positioned north of Huron Road. Figure 4 depicts Fischer Hallman Road, the latter of which was positioned north of Huron Road. Figure 4 depicts Fischer Hallman Road, the latter of which was positioned north of Huron Road. Figure 4 depicts the location of the remaining stone residences within the immediate vicinity the location of the remaining stone residences within the immediate vicinity the location of the remaining stone residences within the immediate vicinity of the study areaas well as thesinglebrick farmhousebrick farmhousebrick farmhouse. . . The seven stone residences represent a varietThe seven stone residences represent a varietThe seven stone residences represent a variety of architectural influences ranging from Georgian to architectural influences ranging from Georgian to architectural influences ranging from Georgian to Italianatealthough not all were visible from publiclyaccessible roadways. This variety isreflective of the original owners’ needs, preferences, and socio-economic class. The variety of styles using stone embodies a relatively unique approach to residential construction within the City of Kitchenercharacteristic of the origins of the mid-century population responsible for the construction of these residences. Discussions with City staff have indicated this concentration of stone residences as a rarity within municipal boundaries. As discussedpreviously, stone residential construction is not unique to this part of the former Waterloo County and is characteristic of building trends popular during the th century in the areaandisnot considered by this report to be unique within the mid-19 surrounding area. However, when considered against municipal boundaries the concentration of stone residences associated with Scottish and Irish settlers is notable asa local architectural trend. 2.6 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx 480500048040004803000480200048010004800000 480500048040004803000480200048010004800000 \\\\Cd1220-f02\\01609\\active\\_Other_PCs_Active\\614 - London\\161413191\\drawing\\161413191_HIA_Fig01_SiteLocation_20160819.mxd Revised: 2016-08-19 By: awhite HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 3.0SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1LANDSCAPE SETTING 1664 Huron Road is located within the City of Kitchener. Modern residential development forms the northern boundary of the property. Immediately adjacent to the property, on separate land parcels situated on the north east corner of the property, is a modern municipal fire station and three residential buildings. Agricultural lands under cultivation comprise the eastportion of the study areaand form the south boundaries, while industrial lands form the westboundary.These western lands are owned and operated by a gravel excavation and construction company. western lands are owned and operated by a gravel excavation and construction company. western lands are owned and operated by a gravel excavation and construction company. The study area is near the HuronRoad and Fischer-Hallman Road roundabout, which is a main Hallman Road roundabout, which is a main Hallman Road roundabout, which is a main throughway connectingthe surrounding area with Kitchener to the north and access to the surrounding area with Kitchener to the north and access to the surrounding area with Kitchener to the north and access to Highway 401 to the south (Figure 1). The study areato the east (Plate 1,Plate 2), north (), north (Plate Plate Plate 333) and west () and west () and west (Plate Plate 4) is generally flat with a slight increase in elevation to the south ( ( (Plate Plate 55). The property contains three structures). The property contains three structures). The property contains three structures;a one-and-one-half storey residence and two modern outbuildings (Figure half storey residence and two modern outbuildings (Figure half storey residence and two modern outbuildings (Figure 5). The buildings are setback approximately 170 metres (m) from Huron Road and are accessed via two packedsetback approximately 170 metres (m) from Huron Road and are accessed via two packedsetback approximately 170 metres (m) from Huron Road and are accessed via two packed gravel laneways. The east laneway is lined by mature trees and approaches The east laneway is lined by mature trees and approaches The east laneway is lined by mature trees and approaches on the east side of the residence (Plate 6). This lanewaywraps around the rear of the residence and travels north wraps around the rear of the residence and travels north wraps around the rear of the residence and travels north back to Huron Road, forming the west laneway (Road, forming the west laneway (Road, forming the west laneway (Plate Plate Plate 888).).).The east laneway represents the oriThe east laneway represents the oriThe east laneway represents the original access route from the road to the residence. from the road to the residence. from the road to the residence. The trees lining this laneway,The trees lining this laneway,The trees lining this laneway,in a remnant allée, are visual representations of the original lot fabricrepresentations of the original lot fabricrepresentations of the original lot fabricand in a variety of conditionand in a variety of conditionand in a variety of condition. However, as is often found th with 19century laneways, what remains iry laneways, what remains iry laneways, what remains is a landscape that has undergone many changes including the loss off mature trees, the addition of new trees, and the natural regeneration which off mature trees, the addition of new trees, and the natural regeneration which off mature trees, the addition of new trees, and the natural regeneration which began as residential use of the property residential use of the property residential use of the property ended in the 1960s. Additional information regarding the trees situated within the study area, including their health and recommendations for d within the study area, including their health and recommendations for d within the study area, including their health and recommendations for integration into the proposed site plan,can be found in the South Kitchener District Park General Vegetation Overviewcompleted byStantec in 2015 (see Appendix E). In front of the residenceon the northportion of the propertyis a temporary storage facility used by the adjacent construction company. At the time of the site visit, there were six trailers on the property. The east portion of the property is comprised of agricultural fields under cultivation. At the rear of the residence are two outbuildings and a community garden (Plate 9,Plate 10). Two slabs of concrete, which likely served as floors/foundationsfor mixed use buildings, were identified at the rear of the residence (Plate 11). 3.1 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 1: East view, cultivated fields Plate 2: East view, cultivated fields 3.2 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 3: North view, east laneway and north landscaperth view, east laneway and north landscaperth view, east laneway and north landscape Plate 4: West view, west landscape 3.3 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 5: South view, south landscapeSouth view, south landscape Plate 6: South view of east laneway, house at right 3.4 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 7: North view, showing landscape in front of houseNorth view, showing landscape in front of houseNorth view, showing landscape in front of house Plate 8: Southview, showing west laneway 3.5 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 9: North view, community garden and two outbuildings at the rear of the houseNorth view, community garden and two outbuildings at the rear of the houseNorth view, community garden and two outbuildings at the rear of the house Plate 10: Southwest view, orange outbuilding and rear of house 3.6 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 11: North view, concrete slab at the rear of houseNorth view, concrete slab at the rear of houseNorth view, concrete slab at the rear of house 3.7 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 3.2RESIDENCE EXTERIOR The residence is a one andonehalf storeycoursed field stonestructurewith five bays. The front façade is distinguished from the rest of the residence by use of larger stones to create a more formal look. The side and rear façades are constructed with smaller field stones. The residenceis symmetrical in design, with a medium pitched hipped roof and gable dormers on the front and rear façades (Plate 12,Plate 13,Plate 14,Plate 15). Bothgable dormers areclad in white painted tin sheets. The residence has wide eaves with a roofline that is followed by a course of dentils (Plate 16,Plate 17,Plate 18). The concrete chimney stack, which pierces through the east slope of the roof, is constructed with modern concrete blocks (Plate 19). All windows and doors have been coveredin plywoodalthough the sills and lintels are visiblealthough the sills and lintels are visiblealthough the sills and lintels are visible. On the front façadeof the residence there are five windows. The centre window replaced the . The centre window replaced the . The centre window replaced the original front door of the residence. There are two windows on the side (east) façade (. There are two windows on the side (east) façade (. There are two windows on the side (east) façade (Plate 19), one window and porch opening on the rear façade (Plate Plate Plate 2020) and two windows on the side ) and two windows on the side ) and two windows on the side (west) façade (Plate 21). Above the windows and doors are simple decorative stone voussoirs ). Above the windows and doors are simple decorative stone voussoirs ). Above the windows and doors are simple decorative stone voussoirs with white stone sills (Plate 22).The only exception is the centre front façade window where a The only exception is the centre front façade window where a The only exception is the centre front façade window where a stone lintel has been inserted above the window. Replacement stone, which appears to be stone lintel has been inserted above the window. Replacement stone, which appears to be stone lintel has been inserted above the window. Replacement stone, which appears to be rusticated concrete stone, is evident where window modifications have occurred. Specificallyrusticated concrete stone, is evident where window modifications have occurred. Specificallyrusticated concrete stone, is evident where window modifications have occurred. Specifically, this is apparent on the front centre window and the front east façade window.this is apparent on the front centre window and the front east façade window.this is apparent on the front centre window and the front east façade window. The residence has undergone many alterations. There is a single storey rectangularThe residence has undergone many alterations. There is a single storey rectangularThe residence has undergone many alterations. There is a single storey rectangularaddition attached to the rear (or south) of the original residence (of the original residence (of the original residence (Plate 23,Plate 24). Although there is some ambiguity as to the consome ambiguity as to the construction date of the struction date of the struction date of the rear rear rear addition, the layout and the different shade of fieldstone used suggests that the addition was built shade of fieldstone used suggests that the addition was built shade of fieldstone used suggests that the addition was built later than the original residence, ththth but likely dates to the 19but likely dates to the 19but likely dates to the 19century. century. century. The concrete foundation, detailing, and bonding of the The concrete foundation, detailing, and bonding of the The concrete foundation, detailing, and bonding of the fieldstone are indicators that the construction of the addition was close in time fieldstone are indicators that the construction of the addition was close in time fieldstone are indicators that the construction of the addition was close in time to that of the original house. The addition, although constructed at a later datoriginal house. The addition, although constructed at a later datoriginal house. The addition, although constructed at a later date, appears to be part of the main house. The south addition functioned as a combined summer kitchen and woodshop main house. The south addition functioned as a combined summer kitchen and woodshop main house. The south addition functioned as a combined summer kitchen and woodshop (Ryan, 1991). The roof of the addition, though in great disrepair as portions of it have (Ryan, 1991). The roof of the addition, though in great disrepair as portions of it have (Ryan, 1991). The roof of the addition, though in great disrepair as portions of it have deteriorated, has red shingling. The addition has an deteriorated, has red shingling. The addition has an deteriorated, has red shingling. The addition has an entryway on its east side (Plate 26), two windows on its south side (Plate 27) and one entryway on its west side. A built in open porch, now boarded, is located in between theoriginal house and south addition (Plate 25). On top of the porch, was a deck that was accessed by the second storey window from the gable dormer. Originally one storey in height, a second floor was added to the residence when the owner built the gable dormer window in 1918 (Ryan, 1991). 3.11 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 12: Southwest view, showing pointed gable on front side of houseSouthwest view, showing pointed gable on front side of houseSouthwest view, showing pointed gable on front side of house Plate 13: North view, showing pointed gable on rear side of house 3.12 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 14: Southeast view, showing front side of houseSoutheast view, showing front side of houseSoutheast view, showing front side of house Plate 15: Southwest view, showing front side of house 3.13 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 16: View of east wall, showing overhanging eaves and dentilsView of east wall, showing overhanging eaves and dentilsView of east wall, showing overhanging eaves and dentils Plate 17: View of north wall, showing overhanging eaves and dentils 3.14 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 18: View of north side, showing close up of eaves and dentil detailingView of north side, showing close up of eaves and dentil detailingView of north side, showing close up of eaves and dentil detailing Plate 19: View of east wall, showingtwo window openings and modern concrete chimney; alteration can be seen in the north window 3.15 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 20: View of rear façade, showing window opening and porch openingsView of rear façade, showing window opening and porch openingsView of rear façade, showing window opening and porch openings Plate 21: View of side (west) façade,showing two window openings 3.16 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 22: View of north wall, showing stone voussoirs and white stone sillsView of north wall, showing stone voussoirs and white stone sillsView of north wall, showing stone voussoirs and white stone sills Plate 23: Northeast view, showing south addition to house 3.17 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 24: Northwest view, showing south addition of house hwest view, showing south addition of house hwest view, showing south addition of house Plate 25: Northwest view, showing south addition, porch and upper level deckwith remnants of the wood railing attached to the lower east side of the gable dormer 3.18 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Site Description February 17, 2017 Plate 26: View of addition east wall, showing entry wayiew of addition east wall, showing entry wayiew of addition east wall, showing entry way Plate 27: View of addition south side, showing two window openings 3.19 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest February 17, 2017 4.0EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 4.1ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The criteria for determiningcultural heritage value or interestare defined byOntario Regulation 9/06. The residence isconsidered an individual structure as well asthe entire property parcel as a potential cultural heritage landscape. In order to identify cultural heritage value or interest, and satisfy requirements for designation,at least one of the following criteria must be met: 1.The property has design value or physical value because itThe property has design value or physical value because itThe property has design value or physical value because it: i.is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,l or construction method,l or construction method, ii.displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, ordisplays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, ordisplays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii.demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2.The property has historical value or associative value because itThe property has historical value or associative value because itThe property has historical value or associative value because it: i.has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,organization or institution that is significant to a community,organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii.yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, orunderstanding of a community or culture, orunderstanding of a community or culture, or iii.demonstrates or reflects the work or demonstrates or reflects the work or demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.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. 4.1 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest February 17, 2017 4.2DESIGN OR PHYSCIAL VALUE The stone residence is a representative example of a regional vernacular interpretation of the Regency cottagestyle popular during the time period in which the residence was constructed. This is reflected in the scale, massing, and proportions of the residence. The original single storey with five bays and symmetrical façade are consistent with Regency design principles. In addition, the use of stone is considered representative of the time period within which the residence was constructed as shown by the prevalence of stone construction identified within close vicinity to the property. The representative nature of the design of the residence is further reinforced with the use of larger stones for the front façade and smaller fieldstone for the remaining façades. stone for the remaining façades. stone for the remaining façades. This was an approach typical for the time period, where an emphasis was placed on the front façadewhere an emphasis was placed on the front façadewhere an emphasis was placed on the front façade. A similar approach is seen in the immediate vicinity of the study areathe study areathe study area, , , including 1940 Fischerincluding 1940 Fischerincluding 1940 Fischer- Hallman Road and 710 Huron Road, both visible from publicly accessible roadways.Hallman Road and 710 Huron Road, both visible from publicly accessible roadways.Hallman Road and 710 Huron Road, both visible from publicly accessible roadways.It is anticipated other stone residences would exhibit similar characteristics but were not visible from other stone residences would exhibit similar characteristics but were not visible from other stone residences would exhibit similar characteristics but were not visible from publicly accessible roadways. Furthermore, experience throughout the former Waterloo County urthermore, experience throughout the former Waterloo County urthermore, experience throughout the former Waterloo County and adjacent counties suggest that this was typical of midand adjacent counties suggest that this was typical of midand adjacent counties suggest that this was typical of mid--century stone design.century stone design.century stone design. Following discussion with City staff, the residence was determined to be a unique example of Following discussion with City staff, the residence was determined to be a unique example of Following discussion with City staff, the residence was determined to be a unique example of th century stone construction in the City of Kitchener. While the use of stone is considered e construction in the City of Kitchener. While the use of stone is considered e construction in the City of Kitchener. While the use of stone is considered mid-19 representative of the time period within which the residence was constructed as shown by the representative of the time period within which the residence was constructed as shown by the representative of the time period within which the residence was constructed as shown by the prevalence of stone construction identified within close vicinity to the property, itprevalence of stone construction identified within close vicinity to the property, itprevalence of stone construction identified within close vicinity to the property, itis an increasingly rare example of this once prevalent construction material. The vernacular style is increasingly rare example of this once prevalent construction material. The vernacular style is increasingly rare example of this once prevalent construction material. The vernacular style is very much in keeping with the surrounding area as described above, but the increasingly small very much in keeping with the surrounding area as described above, but the increasingly small very much in keeping with the surrounding area as described above, but the increasingly small number of stone residences remaining in the City of Kitchener results in the determination thatnumber of stone residences remaining in the City of Kitchener results in the determination thatnumber of stone residences remaining in the City of Kitchener results in the determination that the combination of vernacular the combination of vernacular the combination of vernacular RegencyRegencyRegencycottcottcottage and stone materials is unique. Based on a review of local and regional construction techniques, tBased on a review of local and regional construction techniques, tBased on a review of local and regional construction techniques, the residence wasnot determined to display a high degree of craftsmanship ordetermined to display a high degree of craftsmanship ordetermined to display a high degree of craftsmanship orartistic merit, nor was it determined to demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievementdemonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievementdemonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievementas a representative example of this type of design.Extensive modifications to the property parcel have removed the potential for design or physical value associated with the landscapealthough the remnants of the treed allée are noted. Therefore, the residence was determined to satisfy Ontario Regulation 9/061.iand 1.ii. 4.3HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE Historically, the property is associated with the German Company of Pennsylvania and Richard Sheard, a local farmer who built the residence in c1860. A review of historical records has not identified Sheard to be significant to the community, nor were any prior or subsequent property owners.Sheard was an English settler who had the residence built in a part of Waterloo Township where settlers were predominately of Scottish and Irish decent. This could be characterized as a 4.2 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest February 17, 2017 settlement pattern that is unique to what would become the City of Kitchener, although it was prevalent in other areas of the former Waterloo County. In discussions with City staff, the presence of a concentration of Scottish settlers was identified as rare within municipal th century settlement boundaries. Therefore, this represents an important historical theme in the 19 of the areaand yields information that contributes to an understanding of the settlement of the area. Thus, criteria 2.i and 2.ii aresatisfied. The current use of the property, including some agricultural activities, a community garden, modern fire station and junkyard, when considered in a historical context, does not reflect historical or associative value of significance to the community.By contrast to neighbouring st century was not identified as the use has been properties, the link to agricultural use into the 21 continually diminishedsince the sale of the property in the 1960s. The property does not since the sale of the property in the 1960s. The property does not since the sale of the property in the 1960s. The property does not represent a visible or tangible reminder of the rural history of Kitchener as the views from Huron represent a visible or tangible reminder of the rural history of Kitchener as the views from Huron represent a visible or tangible reminder of the rural history of Kitchener as the views from Huron th century berm behind which is a junk yard. Furthermore, the century berm behind which is a junk yard. Furthermore, the century berm behind which is a junk yard. Furthermore, the Road are blocked largely by a 20 construction of modern buildings along the west portion of the property further diminish the construction of modern buildings along the west portion of the property further diminish the construction of modern buildings along the west portion of the property further diminish the agricultural relationship. While agricultural fields are experienced along Fischagricultural relationship. While agricultural fields are experienced along Fischagricultural relationship. While agricultural fields are experienced along Fischer Hallman Road, at the east side of the property, this is not a historic transportationthe east side of the property, this is not a historic transportationthe east side of the property, this is not a historic transportationrouteroutenor is it associated with the nor is it associated with the nor is it associated with the th 19century land use defined as an important theme in the City of Kitchener by City staff.century land use defined as an important theme in the City of Kitchener by City staff.century land use defined as an important theme in the City of Kitchener by City staff. Therefore, the residence was determinedto satisfy to satisfy to satisfy Ontario Regulation 9/06Ontario Regulation 9/06Ontario Regulation 9/062.i. and 2.ii. 4.4CONTEXTUAL VALUECONTEXTUAL VALUECONTEXTUAL VALUE Following the sale of the property to the neighbouring construction company, agricultural Following the sale of the property to the neighbouring construction company, agricultural Following the sale of the property to the neighbouring construction company, agricultural activity waslimited to the east portion of the propertylimited to the east portion of the propertylimited to the east portion of the property. The south portion of the property, directly in front of the residence has been used in front of the residence has been used in front of the residence has been used as a storage facility for large machineryas a storage facility for large machineryas a storage facility for large machinerysince the sale of the property in the 1960s. in the 1960s. in the 1960s. While approximatelyWhile approximatelyWhile approximatelyhalf of the property, including the east farmland and the community garden at the rear of the residence, and the community garden at the rear of the residence, and the community garden at the rear of the residence, harkens back to historicalagricult ural uses, it was not determined to be important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character uses, it was not determined to be important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character uses, it was not determined to be important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area. Furthermore, the remnant treed allée, while reflective of the historical organization Furthermore, the remnant treed allée, while reflective of the historical organization Furthermore, the remnant treed allée, while reflective of the historical organization of the property, was not determined to be in a condition such that a visual connection to the of the property, was not determined to be in a condition such that a visual connection to the of the property, was not determined to be in a condition such that a visual connection to the residence was established. Given the land use changes surrounding the property, it is no longer linked, physically, functionally, visually or historically, to its surroundings. As the stone construction is a relatively common design, the property was not determined to represent a landmark. With regard to the association of the property with surrounding stone construction, as discussed in Section 2.3.4, the residence represents one of eight remaining stone residences within a two kilometre radius. The stone construction then would be supportive of the general character of surrounding area. However, in order to be considered important in this support, it is the opinion of this report that more than justthe residence should remain. As described above, very little association with agricultural activities remains,which compromises this link to surrounding properties. 4.3 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest February 17, 2017 Therefore, the residence and property are not determined to have contextual value and so do not satisfy Ontario Regulation 9/063.i, ii, and iii. 4.5SUMMARY STATEMENT The stone residence situated at 1664 Huron Road, Kitchener, Ontario, is a representative example of a vernacular interpretation of the Regency cottagedesign popular during the early th century. It is an example of a once common, but increasingly rare, combination of to mid-19 style and construction material which is unique within the City of Kitchenerand was heavily influenced by the primarily Scottish and Irish settlement of the area.The residence is set back from the road in between a large equipment storage lotand a community garden. The residence remains largely intact althoughuse of the property parcel has been property parcel has been property parcel has been extensively altered since the land was last actively farmed,in its entirety, ininin the 1960s. the 1960s. the 1960s. The residence was constructed in c1860 by Richard Sheard. It is one of seven stone residences The residence was constructed in c1860 by Richard Sheard. It is one of seven stone residences The residence was constructed in c1860 by Richard Sheard. It is one of seven stone residences constructed between 1850 and 1870 thatsurvive in the southwest corner of the municipality. survive in the southwest corner of the municipality. survive in the southwest corner of the municipality. The Regency cottageinfluence is represented in the proportioninfluence is represented in the proportioninfluence is represented in the proportions s s and scale of the residence as well and scale of the residence as well and scale of the residence as well as design elements including the hipped roof, symmetrical five bay front façade, andas design elements including the hipped roof, symmetrical five bay front façade, andas design elements including the hipped roof, symmetrical five bay front façade, and large former centre doorway. Based on the evaluation of cultural heritage value or interest, the following heritage attributes Based on the evaluation of cultural heritage value or interest, the following heritage attributes Based on the evaluation of cultural heritage value or interest, the following heritage attributes have been identified: One and one half storey residential structure;One and one half storey residential structure;One and one half storey residential structure; Symmetrical five bay front façade;Symmetrical five bay front façade;Symmetrical five bay front façade; Large field stone front façade and smaller field stone use throughout remaining façades;Large field stone front façade and smaller field stone use throughout remaining façades;Large field stone front façade and smaller field stone use throughout remaining façades; Medium pitched hipped roof with front and rear gable dormers clad in painted tin; Medium pitched hipped roof with front and rear gable dormers clad in painted tin; Medium pitched hipped roof with front and rear gable dormers clad in painted tin; Wide eaves with dentils; andWide eaves with dentils; andWide eaves with dentils; and Association with the primarily Scottish settlement in the southwest corner of the former Association with the primarily Scottish settlement in the southwest corner of the former Association with the primarily Scottish settlement in the southwest corner of the former Township of Waterloo a characteristic unique within the City of Kitchener. Township of Waterloo a characteristic unique within the City of Kitchener. Township of Waterloo a characteristic unique within the City of Kitchener. 4.6DESIGNATION AND CONSERVATION Included in the City’s ToR were two questions regarding future actions related to the property. These questions are provided below along with responses based on the identification of cultural heritage value or interest. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? The property meets the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The residence wasdetermined tobe a representative example of a 4.4 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest February 17, 2017 regional vernacular interpretation of the Regency cottage style popular during the time period in which it was constructed.This satisfies criterion 1.i of the regulation. The combination of this representative design style and use of stone materials was determined to be unique within the municipality. This satisfies criterion 1.ii of the regulation. As described in Section 4.1, if one or more of the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest, a property may be considered for designation. Does the property warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? The Provincial Policy Statement states that, “Significant built heritage resourcesand significant cultural heritage landscapesshall be conserved”, whereas significance is defined as, “resources ”, whereas significance is defined as, “resources ”, whereas significance is defined as, “resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, event, or a people” (PPS contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, event, or a people” (PPS contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, event, or a people” (PPS 2014). As the residence was determined to have cultural heritage value or interest, the property 2014). As the residence was determined to have cultural heritage value or interest, the property 2014). As the residence was determined to have cultural heritage value or interest, the property warrants conservation. 4.5 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Impact Assessment February 17, 2017 5.0IMPACT ASSESSMENT 5.1APPROACH Where changes are anticipated at a property that demonstrates cultural heritage value or interest, an assessment of potential impacts is required. Typically, an assessment of impacts uses criteria outlined in InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plans, from the MTCS document Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. This document provides sevennegative impacts which should be considered in an impact assessment. These include: Destructionof any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features;of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features;of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and,allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and,allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and, Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource.adversely affect an archaeological resource.adversely affect an archaeological resource. If adverse impacts are anticipated, If adverse impacts are anticipated, If adverse impacts are anticipated, MTCS MTCS MTCS suggestsuggestsuggests methods of minimizing or avoiding negative direct or indirect effectseffectseffectsincluding, but not limited to:including, but not limited to:including, but not limited to: Alternative development approacheslternative development approacheslternative development approaches; Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and solating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and solating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas; Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials; Limiting height and density; Allowing only compatible infill and additions; Reversible alterations; and Buffer zones, site plan control, and other planning mechanisms. As discussed in Section 1.0,City of Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff requested the impact assessment consideration of the removal of the house in accordance with the current site plan (See Figure 6). The assessment which followshas been included to address that request and 5.1 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Impact Assessment February 17, 2017 inform the recommendations of an appropriate strategy to mitigate impacts identified, if any. The following alternatives are considered: Retention and restoration of all or part of the building insitu Retention of all or part of the building insituas ruins Relocation of all or part of the building Relocation of the building as ruin Documentation and salvage, demolition of the whole building and commemoration on site Given the heritage attributes identified,the assessment is focused on the built features of the property exclusively, specifically, the residence. No landscape features were determined to property exclusively, specifically, the residence. No landscape features were determined to property exclusively, specifically, the residence. No landscape features were determined to be heritage attributes, nor were landscape features identified as heritage attributes. Therefore, the heritage attributes, nor were landscape features identified as heritage attributes. Therefore, the heritage attributes, nor were landscape features identified as heritage attributes. Therefore, the assessment of impacts addresses the built form only. The assessment of impacts used Infosheet. It was also informed by a structurawas also informed by a structurawas also informed by a structural assessment completed The assessment of impacts has also been informed by a structural assessment of the residence The assessment of impacts has also been informed by a structural assessment of the residence The assessment of impacts has also been informed by a structural assessment of the residence prepared by Tacoma Engineers (see Appendix F)see Appendix F)see Appendix F)...While the original ToR included a provision for While the original ToR included a provision for While the original ToR included a provision for this assessment, given the poor visual condition of the structure at the outset of the study, nt, given the poor visual condition of the structure at the outset of the study, nt, given the poor visual condition of the structure at the outset of the study, discussions with the City included revisionsdiscussions with the City included revisionsdiscussions with the City included revisionsto the scope of the structural assessment. In addition to the scope of the structural assessment. In addition to the scope of the structural assessment. In addition to therequested comments regarding requested comments regarding requested comments regarding possible strategies for repair and conservation including possible strategies for repair and conservation including possible strategies for repair and conservation including the structural feasibility of restoration/rehabilitation in situ, relocation, and commemoration by the structural feasibility of restoration/rehabilitation in situ, relocation, and commemoration by the structural feasibility of restoration/rehabilitation in situ, relocation, and commemoration by replication, the City also requested consideration of retention of the residence as ruins. The July , the City also requested consideration of retention of the residence as ruins. The July , the City also requested consideration of retention of the residence as ruins. The July 2016 structural assessment was updated 2016 structural assessment was updated 2016 structural assessment was updated to include this request and is provided in Appendix F. to include this request and is provided in Appendix F. to include this request and is provided in Appendix F. The structural assessment facilitated an understanding of feasibility when considering various The structural assessment facilitated an understanding of feasibility when considering various The structural assessment facilitated an understanding of feasibility when considering various options available for the residence. Alongside feasibility, order of magnitude costing is also options available for the residence. Alongside feasibility, order of magnitude costing is also options available for the residence. Alongside feasibility, order of magnitude costing is also included in the structural assessment. These costs in the structural assessment. These costs in the structural assessment. These costs maybe considered by the City when selecting their preferred optionand are helpful in the larger decision making processand are helpful in the larger decision making processand are helpful in the larger decision making process. However, costs are not considered here as the purpose of the HIA is to consider the proposed change to the not considered here as the purpose of the HIA is to consider the proposed change to the not considered here as the purpose of the HIA is to consider the proposed change to the property in light of the cultural heritage value and interest identified and identify preferred mitigationmeasures. 5.2PROPOSED UNDERTAKING 5.2.1South Kitchener District Park Description The property at 1664 Huron Road is proposed to be modified from its current agricultural and storage use to a municipal park. According to documents available on the City’s website, the 1990Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the 2005 Leisure Facilities Master Plan and the 2010 Parks Strategic Planeach identified the need to develop district park sports fields and recreational facilities (pool/arena) to serve the needs of the communities that are now emerging in the South West Kitchener area (City of Kitchener, 2017). 5.2 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Impact Assessment February 17, 2017 The park is proposed to include a mix of activeand passive outdoor recreational amenities as well as indoor athletic facilities(see Figure 6).It has been planned to maximize recreational space and address site constraints including grading and stormwater management (SWM) requirements(see Section 5.2.2). Two separate parking areas are proposed on siteto service the various amenities. To address the lack of a natural stormwater outlet, the site includes a SWM system that is internal to the site.The major programmingelements for the site include: Two lit artificial turf soccer fields; One natural turf cricket pitch/open lawn; One natural turf football field; An amenity area including: Washroom; Two tennis courts; One fullsized basketball court; Two half-court basketball courts; One volleyball court Skate park; Playground; and Splash pad. A 45,000 square foot recreationt recreationt recreationalalalcomplex and 629 parking spacescomplex and 629 parking spacescomplex and 629 parking spaces; and SWM and infiltration facilityand infiltration facilityand infiltration facility... 5.2.2Site Constraints Site Constraints Site Constraints The City retainedStantec to develop a Master Site Plan which builds on the 2013 masterplan Stantec to develop a Master Site Plan which builds on the 2013 masterplan Stantec to develop a Master Site Plan which builds on the 2013 masterplan prepared for the site.The following description of the proposed undertaking is based on The following description of the proposed undertaking is based on The following description of the proposed undertaking is based on information contained within the Stantec Master Site Plan. The 2013 masterplan had four projinformation contained within the Stantec Master Site Plan. The 2013 masterplan had four projinformation contained within the Stantec Master Site Plan. The 2013 masterplan had four project priorities, which included: Site preparation and servicing; Park amenities and recreation area; Multi-purpose fields; and Indoor recreation centre. There are limitations at the site as to where recreational facilities can be located due to constraints from grading and SWMrequirements. SWM facilities are required to be located in the northern part of the site in order to accommodate existing infrastructure from the existing fire stationlocated north of the property fronting on Huron Road. These facilitiesmust be located at an elevation lower than the existing fire station because of the existing catchbasin/pipe and swayle systems currently in place at the site. 5.3 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Impact Assessment February 17, 2017 The lowest grade of the site where the SWM facilities are proposedlocated is fivemetres below Fischer Hallman Road. In order to meet the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requirements, the area between the SWM facility and Fischer Hallman Road must be used by one of the site program elements that can be graded down from the road. As such, the cricket pitch and open lawn area is proposed in this location as it can accommodate the grading requirement, whereas other recreational facilities (larger sports fields and courts) are less suited changes in grading. The Region of Waterloohas recently completed an Environmental Assessment for the widening of Fischer Hallman Road. The EA process has determined the location of the roundabout that will serve as one of the two entrances to the SKDP lands. The second entrance to the site from Huron Road must be aligned with the centerline of Ludolph Street which is located just north of Huron Road must be aligned with the centerline of Ludolph Street which is located just north of Huron Road must be aligned with the centerline of Ludolph Street which is located just north of the SKDP lands. These two entrances have a strong influencethe SKDP lands. These two entrances have a strong influencethe SKDP lands. These two entrances have a strong influenceon the development of the park’s on the development of the park’s on the development of the park’s internal road alignment, and provide limited opportunities for reinternal road alignment, and provide limited opportunities for reinternal road alignment, and provide limited opportunities for reconfiguration of park features configuration of park features configuration of park features and internal road systems. In addition to internal constraints, the alignment of the internal road is also strongly influenced by In addition to internal constraints, the alignment of the internal road is also strongly influenced by In addition to internal constraints, the alignment of the internal road is also strongly influenced by theCity’sUrban Design Manual – Part B: Design Briefs – Part B: Design Briefs(Section 4.8, Fischer Hallman Road (Section 4.8, Fischer Hallman Road (Section 4.8, Fischer Hallman Road Corridor). This brief requires that the future recreational complex front on Fischer Hallman Road. . This brief requires that the future recreational complex front on Fischer Hallman Road. . This brief requires that the future recreational complex front on Fischer Hallman Road. The placement of the recreational complex fronting on Fischer Hallman results in the majority of The placement of the recreational complex fronting on Fischer Hallman results in the majority of The placement of the recreational complex fronting on Fischer Hallman results in the majority of the parking being placed between the recreation complex and the football field facility to the parking being placed between the recreation complex and the football field facility to the parking being placed between the recreation complex and the football field facility to capitalize on shared parking opportunities. The placement of the recreation complex and capitalize on shared parking opportunities. The placement of the recreation complex and capitalize on shared parking opportunities. The placement of the recreation complex and parking also results in the alignment of the internal road, which bisects the site. The remainder of parking also results in the alignment of the internal road, which bisects the site. The remainder of parking also results in the alignment of the internal road, which bisects the site. The remainder of the property created by the constraints present on the site has been utilized for the placement the property created by the constraints present on the site has been utilized for the placement the property created by the constraints present on the site has been utilized for the placement of the artificial turf fields. 5.3ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTASSESSMENT OF IMPACTASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS S S The park plan currently requires removal of the existing stone residence on the property in order The park plan currently requires removal of the existing stone residence on the property in order The park plan currently requires removal of the existing stone residence on the property in order to achieve maximum site plan efficiency. Specifically, the residence is located where one of the to achieve maximum site plan efficiency. Specifically, the residence is located where one of the to achieve maximum site plan efficiency. Specifically, the residence is located where one of the two soccer fields are proposed which would resulttwo soccer fields are proposed which would resulttwo soccer fields are proposed which would resultin destruction of all heritage attributes associated with the heritage resource. In order to mitigate these impacts, a series of mitigation options have been prepared ranging from retention in situto documentation and salvage. 5.4 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx SITE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Mitigation Measures February 17, 2017 6.0MITIGATION MEASURES 6.1OVERVIEW Where negative impacts are identified, mitigation options have been prepared to address these impacts.Given the proposed undertaking, there is a range of mitigation options available from retention in situ to complete removal. Each option is discussed below and the ability to lessen impacts on the heritage resource is described. These options are based, in part, on those assessed in the structural assessment to ensure that each option addresses is fully feasible given the condition of the residence. Information regarding magnitude of costs can be found in the structural assessment (see Appendix F). The preferred mitigation measure is provided in Section structural assessment (see Appendix F). The preferred mitigation measure is provided in Section structural assessment (see Appendix F). The preferred mitigation measure is provided in Section 7.0. Based on discussionwith the Master Site Plan project team it is understood thawith the Master Site Plan project team it is understood thawith the Master Site Plan project team it is understood that the only modification to the site plan available is removal of features, not redesign. More specifically, modification to the site plan available is removal of features, not redesign. More specifically, modification to the site plan available is removal of features, not redesign. More specifically, there is no alternative location for the features proposedo alternative location for the features proposedo alternative location for the features proposedgiven site constraints discussed in given site constraints discussed in given site constraints discussed in Section 5.2. As such, it is noted below where a mitigation measure will result in a site plan As such, it is noted below where a mitigation measure will result in a site plan As such, it is noted below where a mitigation measure will result in a site plan change. 6.2RESTORATION AND RETENTION IN RETENTION IN RETENTION IN SITUSITUSITU Restoration and retention of the residence in situ considersRestoration and retention of the residence in situ considersRestoration and retention of the residence in situ considersaddressing structural concerns as outlined in the structural assessment including, but not limitedoutlined in the structural assessment including, but not limitedoutlined in the structural assessment including, but not limitedto, repointing, repair to exterior walls, repair to the cistern wall and stabilization of all interior walls, removal of all rottinwalls, repair to the cistern wall and stabilization of all interior walls, removal of all rottinwalls, repair to the cistern wall and stabilization of all interior walls, removal of all rotting wood frame elements (approximately 50% of the existing internal framing), and replacement of the frame elements (approximately 50% of the existing internal framing), and replacement of the frame elements (approximately 50% of the existing internal framing), and replacement of the roof. This would allow for complete retention which would completely mitigate the impact This would allow for complete retention which would completely mitigate the impact This would allow for complete retention which would completely mitigate the impact of the proposed undertaking on heritage attributes. proposed undertaking on heritage attributes. proposed undertaking on heritage attributes. Further described in the structural assessment, restoration may take one of two formsrestoration may take one of two formsrestoration may take one of two forms: either restoration of the entire residence, or removal of the south addition and restoration of the original residence. Based on the heritage attributes the south addition and restoration of the original residence. Based on the heritage attributes the south addition and restoration of the original residence. Based on the heritage attributes identified, restoration of the original residence would retain all heritage attributes identified. identified, restoration of the original residence would retain all heritage attributes identified. identified, restoration of the original residence would retain all heritage attributes identified. However, it would also require removal of the east soccer field. An important consideration when considering full restoration and retention of a heritage resource is the future use of that resource. In order to be considered a viable option, it must be clearly established what the resource will be used for and a schedule for that use. This can be achieved through preparation of a conservation plan. Aconservation plan will address the repairs, restoration, and implementation and monitoring of restoration activities in the future to conserve the heritage value of the structure in the long term. While not ideal, should consideration be given to mothballing prior to restoration, the conservationplan will address the appropriate approach to conserve the building for future uses. 6.1 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Mitigation Measures February 17, 2017 6.3RETENTION IN SITU AS RUIN Retention of the residence in situ as a ruin considers retention of the original residence only. This will require addressing structural concerns as outlined in the structural assessment including, but not limited to, removal of the roofand all organic material from the interior, backfilling of the interior of to match the exterior grade, localized repointing, reinforcement or demolition of some stone walls, and installation of a cap or flashing atop the stone walls. This would allow for partial retentionwhich would lessen but not eliminate completelythe impact of the proposed undertaking on heritage attributes. Based on the heritage attributes identified, retention in situas a ruinwould retain the majority of heritage attributes including association with the primarily Scottish settlement in this part of the City. The attributes removed would be thehipped roof and wide eaves with dentils. This option wouldrequire removal of the east soccer field. require removal of the east soccer field. require removal of the east soccer field. As discussed in section 6.2, it is important to consider the future use of a resource when looking As discussed in section 6.2, it is important to consider the future use of a resource when looking As discussed in section 6.2, it is important to consider the future use of a resource when looking to retain it, even if in ruin. The purpose of the ruin would be largely commemoratory and would to retain it, even if in ruin. The purpose of the ruin would be largely commemoratory and would to retain it, even if in ruin. The purpose of the ruin would be largely commemoratory and would require some form of interpretation in order for the public to understand its purpose and equire some form of interpretation in order for the public to understand its purpose and equire some form of interpretation in order for the public to understand its purpose and connection to the site. As such, aconservation plan should accompany the ruin andconservation plan should accompany the ruin andconservation plan should accompany the ruin andinclude discussion of the purpose of the ruin as well as the approach todiscussion of the purpose of the ruin as well as the approach todiscussion of the purpose of the ruin as well as the approach to repairs, re repairs, restoration, and monitoring ofruin condition. It is anticipated that long term maintenance would be required asruin condition. It is anticipated that long term maintenance would be required asruin condition. It is anticipated that long term maintenance would be required as the interior mortar would be expected to falter to falter over time when exposed to the elements.over time when exposed to the elements.over time when exposed to the elements.As with restoration, should consideration be given to mothballing prior to restoration, the conservation restoration, should consideration be given to mothballing prior to restoration, the conservation restoration, should consideration be given to mothballing prior to restoration, the conservation plan will address the appropriate approach to conserve the building for future uses. plan will address the appropriate approach to conserve the building for future uses. plan will address the appropriate approach to conserve the building for future uses. 6.4RELOCATION Relocation of the residencecation of the residencecation of the residenceconsidersconsidersconsidersretention of the original residence onlyretention of the original residence onlyretention of the original residence onlyand assumes relocation within the current site. Thisrelocation within the current site. Thisrelocation within the current site. Thisinvolves addressing structural concerns as outlined in the involves addressing structural concerns as outlined in the involves addressing structural concerns as outlined in the structural assessment including, but not limitedstructural assessment including, but not limitedstructural assessment including, but not limitedto, identification of a suitable new location, construction of a new concrete foundation, controlled demolition of existing stone walls above a new concrete foundation, controlled demolition of existing stone walls above a new concrete foundation, controlled demolition of existing stone walls above the foundations, rebuilding of the the foundations, rebuilding of the the foundations, rebuilding of the exterior masonry exterior masonry exterior masonry andinterior framing, and replacement ofthe existing roof with a new waterproof system.existing roof with a new waterproof system.existing roof with a new waterproof system.The structural assessment also suggests the possibility of restoration of the original residence prior to lifting the structure and relocating it. Based on the heritage attributes identified both options for relocation would retain all heritage attributes. This option allows for retention of all features of the park proposed. The preferred option, when considering rebuilding or relocation of intactwallswould be completing the restoration work in advance of relocation. This would maintain the historic integrity of the residence and is generally the preferred strategy when considering historic structures. Nonetheless, careful recording and reconstruction of historic structures has successfully executed on significant buildings across the country and would maintain the cultural heritage value or interest of the resources, if in a different context. It also poses a unique opportunity for interpretation in a place that might be more public such as the splash pad and playground space adjacent to the sports courts. As with previous options, consideration must be given to a use for the building. 6.2 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Mitigation Measures February 17, 2017 Inorder to determine the feasibility of restoration prior to relocation, as well astoprepare a plan for relocation, a conservation plan should be prepared. The plan should address the repairs, restoration, and implementation and monitoring of restoration and relocation activities in the future to conserve the heritage value of the structure in the long term. While not ideal, should consideration be given to mothballing prior to restoration, the conservation plan will address the appropriate approach to conserve the building for future uses. Within the plan, a preferred use for the structure would be one integrated with the site plan and park use of the property. 6.5DOCUMENTATION, SALVAGE, AND COMMEMORATION Detailed documentation and salvage is often the preferred mitigation strategy where retention or relocation is neitherfeasible nor warranted. Documentation creates a public record of the or warranted. Documentation creates a public record of the or warranted. Documentation creates a public record of the structure, or structures, which provides researchers and the general public with a land use structure, or structures, which provides researchers and the general public with a land use structure, or structures, which provides researchers and the general public with a land use history, construction details, and photographic record of the resource.history, construction details, and photographic record of the resource.history, construction details, and photographic record of the resource.More recent More recent developments in LiDAR scanning have resulted in the generation of fully integrated 3D models developments in LiDAR scanning have resulted in the generation of fully integrated 3D models developments in LiDAR scanning have resulted in the generation of fully integrated 3D models that record minute details in high precision digital formats. Through the selective salvage of that record minute details in high precision digital formats. Through the selective salvage of that record minute details in high precision digital formats. Through the selective salvage of identified heritage attributes, the cultural heritage value or interestcultural heritage value or interestcultural heritage value or interestof the property can be of the property can be retained, if in a different context. Documentation retained, if in a different context. Documentation acknowledgesacknowledgesacknowledgesthe heritage attributes in their the heritage attributes in their current context and, where feasible, salvage allows for salvage allows for salvage allows for reuse.reuse.This option alThis option alThis option allows for retention of all features of the park proposed. The salvage of materials from the property should reflect its cultural heritage value or interestThe salvage of materials from the property should reflect its cultural heritage value or interestThe salvage of materials from the property should reflect its cultural heritage value or interest. For the property at 1664 Huron Road, this includes the stone from the house and dentil trim, if in the property at 1664 Huron Road, this includes the stone from the house and dentil trim, if in the property at 1664 Huron Road, this includes the stone from the house and dentil trim, if in salvageable condition. Salvaged materials should be incorporated onalvageable condition. Salvaged materials should be incorporated onalvageable condition. Salvaged materials should be incorporated on-site in some form suited to park use, such as entry gates, benches, landscaped features or planters, or pavilions/shade to park use, such as entry gates, benches, landscaped features or planters, or pavilions/shade to park use, such as entry gates, benches, landscaped features or planters, or pavilions/shade structures as discussed below.structures as discussed below.structures as discussed below. The use of material generated during tThe use of material generated during tThe use of material generated during the documentation and salvage phase of a project can he documentation and salvage phase of a project can be considered in a commemoration plan. In the case of the SKDP, it is anticipated that be considered in a commemoration plan. In the case of the SKDP, it is anticipated that be considered in a commemoration plan. In the case of the SKDP, it is anticipated that commemorative pieces could be integrated into the site. Beyond naming spaces for families commemorative pieces could be integrated into the site. Beyond naming spaces for families commemorative pieces could be integrated into the site. Beyond naming spaces for families associated with the property, this could include interactive signage and interpretive pieces. associated with the property, this could include interactive signage and interpretive pieces. associated with the property, this could include interactive signage and interpretive pieces. Components of the residence, stones for example, could be incorporated into the design either of the park or the future building proposed for the southeast side of the property. Given the proposed use of the site, there are ample opportunities for commemoration. In order to determine commemorative approaches to the site, a commemoration plan should be prepared. This plan should identify opportunities on site where commemoration is feasible and maximizes public exposure. A documentation and salvage report will identify materials for potential use. 6.3 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Recommendations February 17, 2017 7.0RECOMMENDATIONS The residenceat 1664 Huron Road was determined to containcultural heritage value or interest. The SKDP Master Site Plan currently requires removal of the existing stone residence on the property in order to achieve maximum site plan efficiency. Specifically, the residence is located where one of two soccer fields is proposed which would result in destruction of all heritage attributes associated with the heritage resource. In order to mitigate these impacts, a series of mitigation options were considered ranging from retention in situto documentation and salvage. The recommendations that follow strive to conserve the cultural heThe recommendations that follow strive to conserve the cultural heThe recommendations that follow strive to conserve the cultural heritage value or interest ritage value or interest identified on the property. While influence on the proposed design and objectives of the SKDP identified on the property. While influence on the proposed design and objectives of the SKDP identified on the property. While influence on the proposed design and objectives of the SKDP design has been noted, it was not the primary concernfor the purpose of this assessmentfor the purpose of this assessmentfor the purpose of this assessment. It was, however, recognized that recommendations should be feasible and finding a space where s should be feasible and finding a space where s should be feasible and finding a space where both cultural heritage objectives and park planning objectives can be met was considered both cultural heritage objectives and park planning objectives can be met was considered both cultural heritage objectives and park planning objectives can be met was considered beneficial. As such, where all else remained equal, consideration was given to the SKDP Master beneficial. As such, where all else remained equal, consideration was given to the SKDP Master beneficial. As such, where all else remained equal, consideration was given to the SKDP Master Site Plan. Mitigation options recommended for the residence at 1664 Huron Road recommended for the residence at 1664 Huron Road recommended for the residence at 1664 Huron Road, as described in Section 6.0, are provided below in order of preference: 6.0, are provided below in order of preference: Relocation (within 1644 Huron Road); (within 1644 Huron Road); (within 1644 Huron Road); Restoration and retention in situRestoration and retention in situRestoration and retention in situ; ; ; Retention in situ as a ruinRetention in situ as a ruinRetention in situ as a ruin; and ; and ; and Documentation, salvageDocumentation, salvageDocumentation, salvage, and commemoration, and commemoration, and commemoration. Relocation of the house within the property was determined to be the preferred mitigation Relocation of the house within the property was determined to be the preferred mitigation Relocation of the house within the property was determined to be the preferred mitigation option as it retained all heritage attributes while also maintaining the number of amenities of the option as it retained all heritage attributes while also maintaining the number of amenities of the option as it retained all heritage attributes while also maintaining the number of amenities of the SKDP Master Site Plan. This was due in part to the lack of contextual value identified. Movement SKDP Master Site Plan. This was due in part to the lack of contextual value identified. Movement SKDP Master Site Plan. This was due in part to the lack of contextual value identified. Movement of the residence maintains the physical and design attributes and does not disconnect the of the residence maintains the physical and design attributes and does not disconnect the of the residence maintains the physical and design attributes and does not disconnect the residence from its history. It is recommended that relocation within the site should consider locations that facilitate adaptive re-use of the structure for park purposes, such as a washroom or change room facilities, concession, or equipment storage and maintenance. To accompany the relocation, a conservation plan should be developed and address repairs, restoration, and implementation. This should be based on the structural assessment contained in Appendix F and provide conservation guidance for the house over the short and long term. The conservation plan should be prepared by a member of the Canadian Associationof Heritage Professionals with experience in preparing similar reportsand should follow the City’sTerms of Reference for Conservation Plans. Should the preferred mitigation strategy not be selected, the next option available should be considered. Each mitigation optionshould be accompanied by the appropriate plan. For 7.1 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Recommendations February 17, 2017 restoration or retention, a conservation plan should be developed and address repairs, restoration, and implementation.This should be basedon the structural assessment contained in Appendix Fand provide conservation guidance for the house over the short and long term.The conservation plan should be prepared by a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals with experience in preparing similar reportsand should follow the City’sTerms of Reference for Conservation Plans. Should documentation, salvage, and commemoration be selected, a commemoration plan should be prepared to guide the documentation and salvage as well as integration of attributes of the residence into the wider site plan. To address immediate concerns, mothballing the house should be undertaken until a conservation or commemoration plan is prepared and in consultation with City Heritage Planning Staff.The goal of mothballing is to preserve the house untilThe goal of mothballing is to preserve the house untilThe goal of mothballing is to preserve the house untilrehabilitation activities can be carried out, not to board up the house indefinitely. Mothballing should be used in concert be carried out, not to board up the house indefinitely. Mothballing should be used in concert be carried out, not to board up the house indefinitely. Mothballing should be used in concert with an appropriate mitigation strategy to facilitatethe longthe longthe long---term viability of this resource. term viability of this resource. term viability of this resource. In order to promote the retention of historic information, copies of this report should be In order to promote the retention of historic information, copies of this report should be In order to promote the retention of historic information, copies of this report should be deposited with a local repository of historic material. Therefore, it is recommended that this deposited with a local repository of historic material. Therefore, it is recommended that this deposited with a local repository of historic material. Therefore, it is recommended that this report be deposited at the Kitchener Public LibraryKitchener Public Library.. 7.2 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Closure February 17, 2017 8.0CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of the City of Kitchener, and may not be used by any third party without the express written consent of Stantec Consulting Ltd. Any use which a third party makes of this report is the responsibility of such third party. We trust this report meets your current requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information or have additional questions about any facet of this report. Yours truly, STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHPTracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed.Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed.Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed. Senior Heritage ConsultantSenior Associate, Environmental ServicesSenior Associate, Environmental ServicesSenior Associate, Environmental Services Tel: (519) 575-4114 Tel: Tel: Tel: (519) 675-6603 (519) 675-6603 (519) 675-6603 Fax: (519) 579-6733 Fax: Fax: Fax: (519) 645-6575 (519) 645-6575 Meaghan.Rivard@Stantec.com Tracie.CarmichTracie.Carmichael@stantec.com 1 mr\\\\cd1004-f01\\01609\\active\\161413191\\work_program\\report\\rpt_scopedhia_161413191_20171131_mr.docx HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD 9.0REFERENCES Ancestry. Ontario, Canada, Deaths, 1869-1938, 1943-44, and Deaths Overseas, 1939-1947. Bloomfield, Elizabeth. 2006. Waterloo through Two Centuries. Revised edition. Waterloo Historical Society: St. Jacobs Printery. Bloomfield,Elizabeth and Linda Foster. 1995. Families and Communities of Waterloo Township in 1861. Guelph: Caribu Imprints. Chapman, L.J. and Putnam D.F. 1984.The Physiography of Southern Ontario Third EditionThe Physiography of Southern Ontario Third EditionThe Physiography of Southern Ontario Third Edition, Ontario Geological Survey. Special Volume 2. Ontario:Ontario Geological Survey. Special Volume 2. Ontario:Ontario Geological Survey. Special Volume 2. Ontario:Ministry of Natural Resources.Ministry of Natural Resources.Ministry of Natural Resources. City of Kitchener. 2012. Municipal Heritage Register. Electronic document. Last accessed Electronic document. Last accessed Electronic document. Last accessed December 10, 2015. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/resources/2012https://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/resources/2012https://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/resources/2012 -06-26- HeritageRegisterNon-DesignatedIndex.pdf City of Kitchener, 2017. South Kitchener District ParkSouth Kitchener District ParkSouth Kitchener District Park. Electronic document. Last accessed . Electronic document. Last accessed . Electronic document. Last accessed February 7, 2017. http://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/SouthKitchenerDistrictPark1.asphttp://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/SouthKitchenerDistrictPark1.asphttp://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/So uthKitchenerDistrictPark1.asp Dahms, Fred. 1991. “Change and Stability Within an Urban Hierarchy: Waterloo County 1864 to Dahms, Fred. 1991. “Change and Stability Within an Urban Hierarchy: Waterloo County 1864 to Dahms, Fred. 1991. “Change and Stability Within an Urban Hierarchy: Waterloo County 1864 to 1971. Urban History Review. Periodical Archives Online. 1971. Urban History Review. Periodical Archives Online. 1971. Urban History Review. Periodical Archives Online. Drummond, Ian. 1987. Progress without Planning: The Economic HProgress without Planning: The Economic HProgress without Planning: The Economic History of Ontario from Confederation to the Second World War. Confederation to the Second World War. Confederation to the Second World War. Canada: Her Majesty the Queen in the right of the Province of Ontario. the Province of Ontario. the Province of Ontario. Esri Canada Education Team. 2014. Esri Canada Education Team. 2014. Esri Canada Education Team. 2014. Canada’s Historical RailwaysCanada’s Historical RailwaysCanada’s Historical Railways. Electronic document. Last accessed November 27, 2015. accessed November 27, 2015. accessed November 27, 2015. http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1 Evans, William W. 1884. Waterloo County Gazetteer and Directory for 1884-1885. Toronto: William W. Evans. Government of Ontario. 2006. InfoSheet #5 in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (formerly Ministry of Tourism and Culture). Government of Ontario. 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Electronic document. Last accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10463 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD Hayes, Geoffrey. 1997. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History.Waterloo Historical Society. Waterloo: St Jacobs Printery. Heritage Resources Centre. 2009. Ontario Architectural Style Guide. University of Waterloo. Waterloo, Ontario. Historic Places Canada. 2010. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Government of Canada. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada. Mitchell & Co. 1864. County of Waterloo Gazetteer and General Business Directory for 1864. Toronto: Mitchell & Co. Ontario Agricultural Commission. 1881. Appendix B. Vol. II. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson.Ontario Agricultural Commission. 1881. Appendix B. Vol. II. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson.Ontario Agricultural Commission. 1881. Appendix B. Vol. II. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson. Parsell & Co, H. 1881. Historical Atlas of Waterloo & Wellington Counties, Ontario, Illustrated. Historical Atlas of Waterloo & Wellington Counties, Ontario, Illustrated. Historical Atlas of Waterloo & Wellington Counties, Ontario, Illustrated. Toronto: H. Parsell & Co. Plaxton, Beverely. 1984. Stone Houses; Stepping Stones From The PastStone Houses; Stepping Stones From The PastStone Houses; Stepping Stones From The Past.Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press. Ryan. 2011. Title Pending. Union Publishing Co. 1887. The Union Publishing Co.’s Farmers’ and Business Directory for the The Union Publishing Co.’s Farmers’ and Business Directory for the The Union Publishing Co.’s Farmers’ and Business Directory for the Counties of Waterloo and Wellington 1887rloo and Wellington 1887rloo and Wellington 1887. St. Thomas: Union Publishing Company.. St. Thomas: Union Publishing Company.. St. Thomas: Union Publishing Company. Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot 152. Retrieved from the Waterloo Land Registry (No. 58) Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot 152. Retrieved from the Waterloo Land Registry (No. 58) Waterloo Township Land Registry Lot 152. Retrieved from the Waterloo Land Registry (No. 58) Land Registry Office. Kitchener, OntarioLand Registry Office. Kitchener, OntarioLand Registry Office. Kitchener, Ontario HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD APPENDIX A: APPENDIX A: CITY OF KITCHENER TERMS OF CITY OF KITCHENER TERMS OF CITY OF KITCHENER TERMS OF REFERENCE FUTURE SOUTH WEST PARK REFERENCE FUTURE SOUTH WEST PARK REFERENCE FUTURE SOUTH WEST PARK (1664 HURON ROAD) (1664 HURON ROAD) (1664 HURON ROAD) HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD APPENDIX B: APPENDIX B: CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS Meaghan Rivard MA, CAHP Heritage Consultant Meaghan Rivard is a member Stantec’s Environmental Services Team with experience inthe identification, evaluation, and documentation of heritage resources as well asexpertise in the assessment of proposed change and preparation of options to mitigate negative impacts on heritage resources. Ms. Rivard is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and works across disciplines in a variety of settings from municipal conservation planning to transportation infrastructureand environmental assessments. Ms. Rivard has experience managing and executing all aspects of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Assessments, Photographic Documentations, and Heritage Conservation Plans.She has assessed more than 1,500properties as part of windshield surveysand worked under various classed environmental assessments. In addition to EA related work, Meaghan continues to be actively involved in the In addition to EA related work, Meaghan continues to be actively involved in the In addition to EA related work, Meaghan continues to be actively involved in the assessment of individual properties. Here she utilizes knowledge in the identification, evaluation, and ssessment of individual properties. Here she utilizes knowledge in the identification, evaluation, and ssessment of individual properties. Here she utilizes knowledge in the identification, evaluation, and documentation of heritage resources alongside expertise in the assessment of proposed change and documentation of heritage resources alongside expertise in the assessment of proposed change and documentation of heritage resources alongside expertise in the assessment of proposed change and preparation of options to mitigate negative impacts on heritage resources.eritage resources.eritage resources.Meaghan isMeaghan isMeaghan isfocused on regulatory satisfaction balanced with an admiration for the heritage of our provincesatisfaction balanced with an admiration for the heritage of our provincesatisfaction balanced with an admiration for the heritage of our province. . CPR StationCPR StationCPR StationHeritage Conservation Plan, Heritage Conservation Plan, Heritage Conservation Plan, EDUCATION Owen Sound, OntarioOwen Sound, OntarioOwen Sound, Ontario M.A. Public History, University of Western Ontario, (Project Manager, Heritage Consultant)(Project Manager, Heritage Consultant)(Project Manager, Heritage Consultant) London, Ontario The CPR Station in Owen Sound was previously designated a The CPR Station in Owen Sound was previously designated a The CPR Station in Owen Sound was previously designated a B.A. History - Honourswith Distinction, Brock heritage railway station under federal legislation, it was later heritage railway station under federal legislation, it was later heritage railway station under federal legislation, it was later University, St. Catharines, Ontario designated under the OHA and an OHT easemendesignated under the OHA and an OHT easemendesignated under the OHA and an OHT easement was placed on the property. Given the various levels of protection, the on the property. Given the various levels of protection, the MEMBERSHIPS City retained Stantec to produce a Heritage Conservation Plan City retained Stantec to produce a Heritage Conservation Plan Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Member, Canadian Association of Heritage which established guidelines for the future use and which established guidelines for the future use and Professionals preservation of heritage attributes associated with the CPR Station. The report was completed according to provincial and federal guidelines for conservation. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Municipal Development PlansMunicipal Development PlansMunicipal Development Plans Erindale Village Dam, Mississauga, Ontario Clarence Street TowerProposed DevelopmentProposed DevelopmentProposed Development, (Project Manager and Heritage Consultant) London, Ontario (Heritage Consultant)Consultant)Consultant) Multi-disciplinary study to determine the cultural heritage Heritage Impact Statement for proposed 31 storey mixed use Heritage Impact Statement for proposed 31 storey mixed use Heritage Impact Statement for proposed 31 storey mixed use value of the Erindale Village Dam as well as the structural commercial and residential tower within the City of London’s commercial and residential tower within the City of London’s commercial and residential tower within the City of London’s condition and appropriate treatment within the Erindale park Downtown Heritage Conservation District StudyHeritage Conservation District StudyHeritage Conservation District Study. Statement space. The team experts in geotechnical engineering, included review of pertinent planning policies, design geomatics, and landscape architecture working guidelines, and an evaluation of the appropriateness of the collaboratively to develop a strategy for the park. While development to the district and an assessment of anticipated cultural heritage is the leading discipline, the park requires an impact identified. Mitigation recommendations were made to innovative solution as the dam forms a central component of lessen impacts associated with construction activities. the landscape. Reporting is underway. Talbot Street Tower, London, Ontario Filsinger Park Improvement Project, Kitchener, (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) Ontario (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) Heritage Impact Statement for proposed mixed use Heritage Impact Assessment of timber frame railway bridges. commercial and residential tower within the City of London’s An HIA was undertaken to determine the value or interest of Downtown HCD. The development is situated overlooking the the structure as well as the potential impacts of its removal. Thames River, two city blocks from the historic Forks of the Mitigation options were prepared, including photographic Thames. Recommendations were made to mitigate the documentation during its removal and a commemorative impacts identified and included façade retention and program undertook development of mitigation options and incorporation into the proposed development. recommendations and oversaw report production. * denotes projects completed with other firmsDesign with community in mind Meaghan Rivard MA, CAHP Heritage Consultant Elora Mill Site, Elora OntarioLily Lake Heritage Impact Assessment (Heritage Reviewer)(Project Manager and Heritage Consultant) th Working with municipal staff and municipal heritage H of multiple 19century residences and agricultural committee to facilitate review of Heritage Impact Assessments buildings.Prepared under single cover, the HIA determined associated with the development of the Elora Mill and the cultural heritage value or interest of individual properties surrounding area. Tasks concluded to date include review and prior to site development. Mitigation recommendations facilitation of committee review of the heritage building ranged from retention to detailed photographic permits for five buildings with various levels of protection. documentation prior to demolition. Field assessment Presentation to the heritage committee regarding updates and undertaken and oversaw background research as well as modification to site plan and building elevations based on report production.report production.report production. input from the committee. Highbury Avenue CN Overpass, London, Ontario bury Avenue CN Overpass, London, Ontario bury Avenue CN Overpass, London, Ontario Heritage Building Energy Audits, Multiple Locations, (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant)(Task Manager and Heritage Consultant)(Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) Region of Waterloo, Ontario (Heritage Reviewer) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 1960s bridge crossing Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 1960s bridge crossing Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 1960s bridge crossing Energy audits completed for three properties designated historic railway to deterhistoric railway to deterhistoric railway to determine level of Environmental mine level of Environmental mine level of Environmental under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act including the Assessment required prior to road improvements. Site Assessment required prior to road improvements. Site Assessment required prior to road improvements. Site Region’s Historic Gaol, Governor’s House, and the Joseph assessment and background research determined that the assessment and background research determined that the assessment and background research determined that the Schneider Haus. The goal of each energy audit was to identify identify bridge used what was considered sophisticated technology at bridge used what was considered sophisticated technology at bridge used what was considered sophisticated technology at areas where each resource could be made more energy the time of construction resulting in what was once the lonthe time of construction resulting in what was once the lonthe time of construction resulting in what was once the longest efficient. The Heritage Review was completed to confirm efficient. The Heritage Review was completed to confirm bridge of its kind. Undertook field assessment and oversaw bridge of its kind. Undertook field assessment and oversaw bridge of its kind. Undertook field assessment and oversaw compliance with applicable policies and conservation best compliance with applicable policies and conservation best background research as well as report production.background research as well as report production.background research as well as report production. practices, each report was reviewed. HorstHorst House, Town of Elmira, Waterloo, Ontario Heritage Building Condition Assessments, Ntage Building Condition Assessments, Ntage Building Condition Assessments, North orth orth (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant)(Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) Pickering, Ontario (Heritage Reviewer)Pickering, Ontario (Heritage Reviewer)Pickering, Ontario (Heritage Reviewer) Heritage Impact Assessment in advance of site development. Three properties owned by Transport Canada identified for Three properties owned by Transport Canada identified for Three properties owned by Transport Canada identified for Prior to development, the Township and Region request the 85 Building Condition Assessments (BCA). Each was protected Building Condition Assessments (BCA). Each was protected Building Condition Assessments (BCA). Each was protected acre property be assessed for potential cultural heritage value through federal designation and under the purview of the through federal designation and under the purview of the through federal designation and under the purview of the or interest. The property contained a residence with various Federal Heritage Building Review Federal Heritage Building Review Federal Heritage Building Review Office. As part of each BCA, Office. As part of each BCA, Office. As part of each BCA, additions and two barns. Mitigation options to address the a review of the recommendations on heritage attributes was a review of the recommendations on heritage attributes was a review of the recommendations on heritage attributes was loss of the limited CHVI identified included professional undertaken in order to satisfy Parks Canada Standards and undertaken in order to satisfy Parks Canada Standards and undertaken in order to satisfy Parks Canada Standards and salvage prior to demolition as the HIA represented Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. appropriate documentation given the CHVI identified. Supervised site visit and report production, prepared Bridge Master Plan, Hamilton, Ontario Bridge Master Plan, Hamilton, Ontario Bridge Master Plan, Hamilton, Ontario evaluation of CHVI and mitigation options. (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) Development of a Bridge Master Plan to address changes to Environmental Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment requirements. The West London Dyke EA, City of London, Ontario project involves review of more than 400 bridges to determine (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) future cultural heritage reporting needs. Screening tools were CHERcompletedas part of a Municipal Class EA. The CHER developed, site assessments undertaken and background identified potential built heritage resources and cultural research completed. Various research files and findings heritage landscapes and evaluatedthe CHVI of each resource integrated into the municipal planning process and the to determine the presence of heritage resources within the identification of infrastructure needs. study area. Undertook site assessment and prepared report recommendations while supervising the development of the Alberton Road House, Hamilton, Ontario land use history and evaluation of CHVI. (Heritage Consultant, Project Manager) Document and Salvage Report. Residence was determined to Beaver Creek EA, City of Waterloo, Ontario have minimal CHVI but fall under the purview of the heritage (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) planning staff. Prepared report provided a detailed Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to identify and description and photographic documentation. evaluate potential heritage resources as part of a Class C *denotes projects completed with other firms Meaghan Rivard MA, CAHP Heritage Consultant Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. The CHER Little Long Lac Mining District, Greenstone, Ontario identified potential built heritage resources and cultural (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) heritage landscapes and evaluated the CHVI of each resource Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) completed as to determine the presence of heritage resources within the part of Environmental Baseline Work Program prior to the study area. Undertook site assessment and prepared report initiation of an Environmental Assessment. The CHER recommendations while supervising the development of the screened for resources of potential cultural heritage value or land use history and evaluation of CHVI. interest (CHVI) where project impacts were anticipated. A preliminary property inspection and review of available Innovation Drive, City of Ottawa, Ontario resources determined the presence of potential heritage (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) resources within the study area. Each potential resource was resources within the study area. Each potential resource was resources within the study area. Each potential resource was CHERcompletedas part of a Class C Municipal Class EA. The evaluated to determine the presence ofevaluated to determine the presence ofevaluated to determine the presence ofCHVI. CHER identified potential built heritage resources and Recommendations for future work included completion of a Recommendations for future work included completion of a Recommendations for future work included completion of a cultural heritage landscapes and evaluated the CHVI of each Heritage Impact Assessment and predictive modeling.Heritage Impact Assessment and predictive modeling.Heritage Impact Assessment and predictive modeling. resource to determine the presence of heritage resources within the study area. Undertook site assessment and prepared report recommendations while supervising the Deloro Mine Site*, Deloro, Ontario Deloro Mine Site*, Deloro, Ontario Deloro Mine Site*, Deloro, Ontario development of the land use history and evaluation of CHVI. (Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Cultural Heritage Specialist) Assessment of 19th century mining and smelting technology at Assessment of 19th century mining and smelting technology at Assessment of 19th century mining and smelting technology at Courtnepark Drive EA, City of Mississauga, Ontario Deloro goldDeloro goldDeloro goldmine. Report and inventory prepared for the mine. Report and inventory prepared for the (Heritage Consultant) Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Undertook field work, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Undertook field work, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Undertook field work, inventory preparation and assisted with report production inventory preparation and assisted with report production inventory preparation and assisted with report production Completion of a Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage and coordination.and coordination.and coordination. Screening Checklist in advance of road widening activities as Screening Checklist in advance of road widening activities as requested by MTCS. The Checklist determines the need for requested by MTCS. The Checklist determines the need for requested by MTCS. The Checklist determines the need for additional assessment based on the identificationidentificationidentificationof heritage of heritage of heritage Old Orchard Sewage Facility*, Grimsby, Ontario Old Orchard Sewage Facility*, Grimsby, Ontario resources. A designated property was identified, however, resources. A designated property was identified, however, resources. A designated property was identified, however, (Project Manager, Cultural(Project Manager, CulturalHeritage Specialist) given the scope of the proposed undertaking, impacts on given the scope of the proposed undertaking, impacts on given the scope of the proposed undertaking, impacts on the the the Cultural Heritage Assessment as part of a Municipal Class designated property were not anticipated therefore no further designated property were not anticipated therefore no further designated property were not anticipated therefore no further Environmental Assessment of a former sewage storage facility study was necessary. adjacent to historic War of 1812 battle site. Undertook field work, background research, site analysis, report production. Simpson Lake Quarry, Township of Addington Simpson Lake Quarry, Township of Addington Simpson Lake Quarry, Township of Addington Highlands, County of Lennox and Addington, Highlands, County of Lennox and Addington, Highlands, County of Lennox and Addington, Green Energy Ontario (Heritage Consultant)Ontario (Heritage Consultant)Ontario (Heritage Consultant) Windsor Solar Project, City of Windsor, Ontario Proposed quarry project required completion of theProposed quarry project required completion of theProposed quarry project required completion of theChecklist (Project Manager, Heritage Consultant) for Determining High/Low Potential for Cultural Heritage for Determining High/Low Potential for Cultural Heritage for Determining High/Low Potential for Cultural Heritage Completion of a Heritage Assessment Report. Activities Resources and the Municipal Class EA Checklist. Consultation Resources and the Municipal Class EA Checklist. Consultation Resources and the Municipal Class EA Checklist. Consultation included preparing background history, field assessment, with various provincial, regional, and local agencies and preparation of detailed inventory of heritage resource (built interested parties as well as background research and a and landscape) including evaluation according to O. Reg. review of historical mapping was undertaken. 9/06. Minimal impacts were anticipated. Options were prepared to mitigate impacts and recommendations made. Weber Street Widening, Waterloo, Ontario (Heritage Consultant) Southgate Solar SP, Grey County, Ontario As part of a multidisciplinary team managing a the Weber (Project Manager, Heritage Consultant) Street widening, Stantec undertook the identification, Completion of a Heritage Assessment Report. Activities assessment, and documentation prior to demolition. included preparing background history, field assessment, Documentation of 36 properties took place between 2011 and preparation of detailed inventory of heritage resource (built 2013. The results were compiled into a comprehensive and landscape) including evaluation according to O. Reg. document including photographic record, detailed research 9/06. Minimal impacts were anticipated. Options were and site drawings, submitted in August 2013. Led the team prepared to mitigate these impacts and recommendations who undertook the Final Documentation. made regarding future activities. * denotes projects completed with other firms Meaghan Rivard MA, CAHP Heritage Consultant Amherst Island Wind Project, Prince Edward CountyHighway and Transportation Highbury Avenue CN Overpass, London, Ontario (Cultural Heritage Specialist) Reviewed completed Heritage Assessment Report and (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) provided technical support to the proponent throughout public Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 1960s bridge crossing comment period and Ministry of Environment review period. historic railway to determine level of A required prior to road improvements. Site assessment and background research determined that the bridge used what was considered Fairview Wind Project, Clearview Township, Simcoe sophisticated technology at the time of construction resulting County, Ontario (Heritage Consultant) in what was once the longest bridge of its kind. Completion of the Revised Heritage Assessment Report for the Recommendations were made for construction monitoring Recommendations were made for construction monitoring Recommendations were made for construction monitoring Fairview Wind Project as required by O. Reg. 359/09. where the once innwhere the once innwhere the once innovated construction techniques may be ovated construction techniques may be Activities included updating background history, field exposed. Undertook field assessment and oversaw background exposed. Undertook field assessment and oversaw background exposed. Undertook field assessment and oversaw background assessment, preparation of detailed inventory of heritage research as well as report production.research as well as report production.research as well as report production. resource including evaluation according to O. Reg. 9/06. Minimal impacts were anticipated as a result of construction Joshua Creek Culvert, Oakville, Ontario Joshua Creek Culvert, Oakville, Ontario Joshua Creek Culvert, Oakville, Ontario activities. Options were prepared to mitigatethese impacts (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) and recommendations made regarding future activities. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for a c1935 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for a c1935 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for a c1935 culvert prepared as part of the Detailed Design and EA for culvert prepared as part of the Detailed Design and EA for culvert prepared as part of the Detailed Design and EA for Sol-luce Kingston Solar PV Energy Project, Kingston, luce Kingston Solar PV Energy Project, Kingston, rehabilitation and/or replacement of a series of bridge and rehabilitation and/or replacement of a series of bridge and rehabilitation and/or replacement of a series of bridge and Ontario (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant)Ontario (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) culver structures on the QEW. Undertook site assessment, culver structures on the QEW. Undertook site assessment, culver structures on the QEW. Undertook site assessment, Review of a previously completed Heritage Assessment Report Review of a previously completed Heritage Assessment Report background research, evaluation of CHVI, and mitigation background research, evaluation of CHVI, and mitigation background research, evaluation of CHVI, and mitigation in response to Project changes. Following review, a letter was nges. Following review, a letter was nges. Following review, a letter was prepared summarizing the changes, the heritage resources prepared summarizing the changes, the heritage resources prepared summarizing the changes, the heritage resources Bridge OBridge Over Valley Inn Road, Hamilton, Ontario identified, and the potential impact. Work involved site identified, and the potential impact. Work involved site identified, and the potential impact. Work involved site (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) (Task Manager, Heritage Consultant) analysis, preparation of detailed mapping showing analysis, preparation of detailed mapping showing analysis, preparation of detailed mapping showing Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for a 19Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for a 19 th century modifications, and liaison with the MTCS. Ultimatelymodifications, and liaison with the MTCS. Ultimatelymodifications, and liaison with the MTCS. Ultimately, it was , it was , it was railway bridge as part of proposed track expansion and concluded that the proposed changes would not alter the concluded that the proposed changes would not alter the concluded that the proposed changes would not alter the addition of maintenance facilities. Undertook site assessment, findings of the original report. Therefore, no further work findings of the original report. Therefore, no further work findings of the original report. Therefore, no further work background research, evaluation of CHVI and impacts, was recommended. mitigation recommendations as part of report production. Cedar Point WindPower Project, Lambton CountyPower Project, Lambton CountyPower Project, Lambton County Ottawa OLRT*, Ottawa, Ontario (Task Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Task Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Task Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist) (Cultural Heritage Specialist) Heritage Assessment Report for a project containing up to 46 Assessment Report for a project containing up to 46 Assessment Report for a project containing up to 46 Development and collection of an inventory of built heritage turbines. Report completed as required by O. Reg. 359/09 turbines. Report completed as required by O. Reg. 359/09 turbines. Report completed as required by O. Reg. 359/09 features as part of the installation of light rail transit in the included detailed background history of the Project Study downtown core. Assisted with field work, inventory Area, consultation with local historical societies and other development, and prepared historical background material. knowledgeable individuals, collection an inventory of potential heritage resources evaluation of cultural heritage Woodbine Residence*, Toronto, Ontario value or interest of each potential resource, and development (Cultural Heritage Specialist) of strategies to address negative impacts, if any, on the Documentation and salvage reportof a 19th century identified heritage resources. farmstead and three timber frame barns. The report was prepared according to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation guidelines in order to mitigate negative impacts associated with demolition of the residence prior to planned highway expansions. Assisted with site assessment, inventory, and drawing coordination. * denotes projects completed with other firms Meaghan Rivard MA, CAHP Heritage Consultant Queensville Residence*, Queensville, Ontario Londesboro Bridge*, Huron County, Ontario (Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Cultural Heritage Specialist) Documentation and salvage report of a 19th century railway Heritage Impact Assessment of proposed reconstruction of the station converted into a residence in the20th century.Assisted Londesboro Bridge. Undertook site assessment, background with site assessment, inventory, and drawing coordination.research and report production. Bridge Master Plan*, Bruce County, Ontario Schomberg Bridge*, York County, Ontario (Cultural Heritage Specialist) (Cultural Heritage Specialist) Heritage evaluation of eight bridges selected for inclusion in CHERundertaken to determine potential significance of the undertaken to determine potential significance of the undertaken to determine potential significance of the county-wide planning exercise. Undertook field work, site Schomberg Bridge. Undertook field work, site assessment, Schomberg Bridge. Undertook field work, site assessment, Schomberg Bridge. Undertook field work, site assessment, assessment, and report writing. background research and report production.background research and report production.background research and report production. Intersection Rehabilitation*, MTO Central Region, Pipeline Installation and ReplacementPipeline Installation and ReplacementPipeline Installation and Replacement Ontario (Cultural Heritage Specialist) Lakeshore Panhandle Replacement Project, Town Lakeshore Panhandle Replacement Project, Town Lakeshore Panhandle Replacement Project, Town Heritage Impact Assessment of three intersections in Simcoe of Lakeshore, Essex County, Ontario of Lakeshore, Essex County, Ontario of Lakeshore, Essex County, Ontario and Peel Counties where road improvements are proposed. (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant)(Task Manager and Heritage Consultant)(Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) Undertook field work, site assessment, background research A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to meet A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to meet A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to meet and oversaw report production. OEBOEBOEBGuidelines which require evaluation of potential heritage Guidelines which require evaluation of potential heritage Guidelines which require evaluation of potential heritage resources inresources inresources inadvance of pipeline project construction. The advance of pipeline project construction. The advance of pipeline project construction. The Smith Creek Bridge*, Perth County, Ontario Heritage Overview was composed of a program of agency Heritage Overview was composed of a program of agency Heritage Overview was composed of a program of agency (Project Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Project Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Project Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist) consultation, review of mapping, and a visual assessment of consultation, review of mapping, and a visual assessment of Heritage Impact Assessment of proposed railing Heritage Impact Assessment of proposed railing Heritage Impact Assessment of proposed railing the Study Area. During the site visitthe Study Area. During the site visit, potential heritage reconstruction to determine heritage significance and impacts o determine heritage significance and impacts o determine heritage significance and impacts resources resources were photographed and theirlocations recorded. of proposed undertaking. Undertook site assessment, of proposed undertaking. Undertook site assessment, of proposed undertaking. Undertook site assessment, Undertook field assessment, background history, and report background research and oversaw report production.background research and oversaw report production.background research and oversaw report production. production. Markham GO Station*, Markham, Ontario Markham GO Station*, Markham, Ontario Markham GO Station*, Markham, Ontario Energy East Pipeline – New Build, (Project Manager and Culturual Heritage Specialist)(Project Manager and Culturual Heritage Specialist)(Project Manager and Culturual Heritage Specialist) Eastern Ontario, Various Locations, Ontario Heritage Impact Assessment of proposed track realignment Heritage Impact Assessment of proposed track realignment Heritage Impact Assessment of proposed track realignment (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) and station platform construction. Undertook field work, site and station platform construction. Undertook field work, site and station platform construction. Undertook field work, site A Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) was prepared assessment, background research andreport production.assessment, background research andreport production.assessment, background research andreport production. to meet the National Energy Board Filing Manual and Ontario Energy Board Guidelines. The CHAR included extensive site Wawanosh Drain Bridge*, Sarnia, Ontario Wawanosh Drain Bridge*, Sarnia, Ontario Wawanosh Drain Bridge*, Sarnia, Ontario assessment, development of a background history, analysis of (Project Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist) the impacts of the proposed project and development of Heritage Impact Assessment of proposed road maintenance mitigation recommendations. Reporting is ongoing. prior to the Wawanosh Drain Bridge. Undertook field work, site assessment, background research and report production. Brantford-Kirkwall Replacement Project, Waterloo and Wentworth Counties, Ontario Highway 23 Bridges*, Perth County, Ontario (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) A Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) was prepared (Cultural Heritage Specialist) to meet OEB Guidelines which require evaluation of potential Cultural Heritage Evaluation reports for two bridges in Perth heritage resources in advance of pipeline project construction. County for the Ministry of Transportation where bridge The CHAR was composed of a program of agency improvements were proposed. Undertook field work, site consultation, review of historic mapping and preparation of assessment and report production. historical background material, visual assessment of the Study Area, identification of potential impacts and preparation of mitigation strategies to minimize the impacts of the proposed Project. * denotes projects completed with other firms Meaghan Rivard MA, CAHP Heritage Consultant Guelph Line Tie-In Project Power Transmission & Distribution City of Hamilton, Ontario, (Task Manager and Pine Street Distribution Station, Timmins, Ontario Heritage Consultant) (Task Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist) A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for a former power identify potential heritage resources within the Project Study distribution station. Activities included detailed background Area to meet Ontario Energy Board Guidelines. Two protected history and site evaluation, prior to proposed removal of the propertieswere identified and thus the need for a CHAR was station area office. Undertook field work, site analysis, and identified. Reporting is underway. report production. Hamilton-Milton Pipeline Project, Strathroy Transformer Station Area Office*, Strathroy Transformer Station Area Office*, Strathroy Transformer Station Area Office*, Cities of Hamilton, Burlington, and Milton, Ontario Strathroy, Ontario Strathroy, Ontario Strathroy, Ontario (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) (Project Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Project Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Project Manager and Cultural Heritage Specialist) A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to Heritage Impact Assessment, including detailed background Heritage Impact Assessment, including detailed background Heritage Impact Assessment, including detailed background identify potential heritage resources within the Project Study history and site evaluation, prior to proposed removal of the history and site evaluation, prior to proposed removal of the history and site evaluation, prior to proposed removal of the Area to meet OEB. Following review a Cultural Heritage station area station area station area office. Undertook field work, site analysis, and office. Undertook field work, site analysis, and office. Undertook field work, site analysis, and Assessment Report (CHAR)was required. CHAR was oversaw report production.oversaw report production.oversaw report production. completed including site visit, background history, evaluation of significanceand mitigation recommendations. Toronto Transformer Station*, Niagara Falls, Ontario Toronto Transformer Station*, Niagara Falls, Ontario Toronto Transformer Station*, Niagara Falls, Ontario Burlington-Oakville Pipeline Project, (Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Cultural Heritage Specialist)(Cultural Heritage Specialist) Cities of Hamilton, Burlington, and Milton, Ontario Cities of Hamilton, Burlington, and Milton, Ontario Heritage Impact Assessment of the Toronto Power Heritage Impact Assessment of the Toronto Power Heritage Impact Assessment of the Toronto Power Transformer Station. Assisted with field workTransformer Station. Assisted with field work, site inventory (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) and photographic documentation.and photographic documentation. A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to identify potential heritage resources within the Project Study identify potential heritage resources within the Project Study identify potential heritage resources within the Project Study Area to meet OEB. Following review a Cultural Heritage Area to meet OEB. Following review a Cultural Heritage Area to meet OEB. Following review a Cultural Heritage Goderich Transformer Station*, Goderich, Ontario Assessment Report (CHAR) was required. CHAR was Assessment Report (CHAR) was required. CHAR was Assessment Report (CHAR) was required. CHAR was (Cultural Heritage Specialist) completed including site visit, background history, evaluation kground history, evaluation kground history, evaluation Heritage Impact Assessment, including detailed background of significance and mitigation recommendations. of significance and mitigation recommendations. of significance and mitigation recommendations. history and site evaluation, prior to proposed removal of the control building onsite. Undertook field work, historical Lobo Compressor Station, Middlesex CountyLobo Compressor Station, Middlesex CountyLobo Compressor Station, Middlesex County background, site analysis and report production. (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant)(Task Manager and Heritage Consultant)(Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) was completed Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) was completed Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) was completed Kirkland Lake Operations Centre*, Kirkland Lake, in response to the expansion of a comprin response to the expansion of a comprin response to the expansion of a compressor station adjacent essor station adjacent essor station adjacent (Cultural Heritage Specialist, Project Manager) to potential heritage resources. Activities included site visit, to potential heritage resources. Activities included site visit, to potential heritage resources. Activities included site visit, Heritage Impact Assessment, including detailed background background history, evaluation of significance and mitigation history and site evaluation, prior to proposed removal of the recommendations. operations centre onsite. Undertook field work, site analysis, and report production. Sarnia Payne Pipeline Project, Sarnia, Ontario (Task Manager and Heritage Consultant) A Built and Cultural Heritage Overview was prepared to identify potential heritage resources within the Project Study Area to meet OEB. Following review a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) was required. CHAR was completed including site visit, background history, evaluation of significance and mitigation recommendations. * denotes projects completed with other firms HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD APPENDIX C: APPENDIX C: WATERLOO TOWNSHIP LAND WATERLOO TOWNSHIP LAND WATERLOO TOWNSHIP LAND REGISTRY HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD APPENDIX D: APPENDIX D: RYAN HISTORY RYAN HISTORY RYAN HISTORY HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD APPENDIX E: APPENDIX E: SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW South Kitchener District Park General Vegetation Overview Prepared for: Prepared for: Prepared for: City of Kitchener City of Kitchener Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 49 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2H 6M7 Tel: (519) 579-4410 Fax: (519) 579-6733 1614-13191 December 2015 Sign-off Sheet This document entitled South Kitchener District Park General Vegetation Overview, was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the City of Kitchener light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Prepared by (signature) Jennifer Koskinen, HBESfcon ISA Certified Arborist ON-1234A Phone: (519) 585-7442 Fax: (519) 579-8664 Jennifer.koskinen@stantec.com Reviewed by (signature) (signature) (signature) Steve Bendo, OALA, CSLA Landscape Architect Sport Project Team Lead Canada East ISA Certified Arborist ON-1245A Phone: (519) 585-7420 Fax: (519) 579-8664 steve.bendo@stantec.com SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW Table of Contents 1.0INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1 1.1REPORT CONTENT .......................................................................................................... 1.1 2.0METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................2.1 2.1SITE INSPECTION .............................................................................................................. 2.1 2.1.1Species at Risk Review ................................................................................ 2.1 2.1.2Tree Condition Rating ................................................................................. 2.1 2.2REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 2.2 3.0OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................3.1OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................3.1 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................3.1 3.1OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................... 3.1OBSERVATIONS ....................................................... ........................................................ 3.1OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................... 3.1 3.1.1Butternut Hybrids .......................................................................................... 3.1Butternut Hybrids ................................................................ .......................... 3.1Butternut Hybrids .......................................................................................... 3.1 3.1.2Eastern Cottonwoods, Populus deltoidsPopulus deltoidsPopulus deltoids ................................................... 3.2 ................................................... 3.2 ................................................... 3.2 3.2RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 3.2RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ ........................................ 3.2RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 3.2 3.3DETAILED VEGETION PLAN ............................................................................................ 3.3DETAILED VEGETION PLAN ...................................................... ...................................... 3.3DETAILED VEGETION PLAN ............................................................................................ 3.3 4.0DISCLAIMER .................................................................................................................4.1DISCLAIMER .......................................................... .......................................................4.1DISCLAIMER .................................................................................................................4.1 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Butternut Health Assessment APPENDIX A: Butternut Health Assessment APPENDIX A: Butternut Health Assessment DNA Results Ministry of Natural Resources, Email Ministry of Natural Resources, Email Ministry of Natural Resources, Email APPENDIX B: General Vegetation Overview, Drawings TM- 1 to TM-4 APPENDIX B: General Vegetation Overview, Drawings TM- 1 to TM-4 APPENDIX B: General Vegetation Overview, Drawings TM- 1 to TM-4 ls v:\\01614\\active\\161413191\\design\\report\\tree management\\finalrpt_l17-15_jk_gvo_.docx i SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW Introduction December 2015 1.0INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting Ltd. has been retained by the City of Kitchener to complete a General Vegetation Overview in support of the project design stage for the South Kitchener District Park project. The future park is located at 1664 Huron Road on the southwest corner of Huron Road and Fischer-Hallman Road in Kitchener, ON. The South Kitchener District Park project will feature athletic fields and recreation facilities. SITE DESCRIPTION The property a portion of the site in the south west corner. Approximately half of the site is active agricultural lands. There the site in the south west corner. Approximately half of the site is active agricultural lands. There the site in the south west corner. Approximately half of the site is active agricultural lands. There is a vacant heritage farmhouse, and City maintenance sheds and trailers located in the central is a vacant heritage farmhouse, and City maintenance sheds and trailers located in the central is a vacant heritage farmhouse, and City maintenance sheds and trailers located in the central area of the site. The western portion of the site has been leased to Seegmiller Ltd. and is used as area of the site. The western portion of the site has been leased to Seegmiller Ltd. and is used as area of the site. The western portion of the site has been leased to Seegmiller Ltd. and is used as a general parking area. The site includes multiple trees along the existing farmhouse laneway, sporadic trees along the The site includes multiple trees along the existing farmhouse laneway, sporadic trees along the The site includes multiple trees along the existing farmhouse laneway, sporadic trees along the east property boundary, a vegetated hedgerow that runs adjacent to the south property east property boundary, a vegetated hedgerow that runs adjacent to the south property east property boundary, a vegetated hedgerow that runs adjacent to the south property boundary, and a naturalized clump of trees and shrubs in the north. Private properties, including boundary, and a naturalized clump of trees and shrubs in the north. Private properties, including boundary, and a naturalized clump of trees and shrubs in the north. Private properties, including a fire station and residential homes, abut the property to the north east. These properties a fire station and residential homes, abut the property to the north east. These properties a fire station and residential homes, abut the property to the north east. These properties include trees along the property boundary. Huron Road borders the property to the north, include trees along the property boundary. Huron Road borders the property to the north, include trees along the property boundary. Huron Road borders the property to the north, agricultural lands border to the south, and a gravel pit borders the project site to the west. agricultural lands border to the south, and a gravel pit borders the project site to the west. agricultural lands border to the south, and a gravel pit borders the project site to the west. 1.1REPORT CONTENT REPORT CONTENT This report identifies the existing trees located within the property limits and trees located This report identifies the existing trees located within the property limits and trees located This report identifies the existing trees located within the property limits and trees located adjacent to the property that may require protection or management. The following is adjacent to the property that may require protection or management. The following is adjacent to the property that may require protection or management. The following is addressed in this report: addressed in this report: addressed in this report: Tree inventory data for trees 10 cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and greater includes Tree inventory data for trees 10 cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and greater includes Tree inventory data for trees 10 cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and greater includes species identification, DBH, dripline radius, and general health condition; species identification, DBH, dripline radius, and general health condition; species identification, DBH, dripline radius, and general health condition; Tree preservation priority will be identified and recommendations for tree preservation areas to be considered during detail design stage; Drawings include existing vegetation units and tree locations. ls v:\\01614\\active\\161413191\\design\\report\\tree management\\finalrpt_l17-15_jk_gvo_.docx 1.1 SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW Methodology December 2015 2.0METHODOLOGY 2.1SITE INSPECTION Ms. Jennifer Koskinen, HBESfcon, ISA Certified Arborist, OMNR Certified Butternut Assessor, completed a visual assessment of the trees located on the property and adjacent to the th property October 15, 2015. Trees of interest and isolated trees were tagged with a numbered steel tree tag and detailed inventory data was recorded. Trees that were tagged were surveyed by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS). Trees and shrubs located in vegetated clumps or hedgerows were identified as vegetation units, and general tree data was collected. The driplines of these units or trees were vegetation units, and general tree data was collected. The driplines of these units or trees were vegetation units, and general tree data was collected. The driplines of these units or trees were surveyed by OLS. Tree inventory data collected for the trees includes: species, general health condition, diameter Tree inventory data collected for the trees includes: species, general health condition, diameter Tree inventory data collected for the trees includes: species, general health condition, diameter at breast height (DBH) in cm, or diameter class for vegetation units, and dripline radius for all at breast height (DBH) in cm, or diameter class for vegetation units, and dripline radius for all at breast height (DBH) in cm, or diameter class for vegetation units, and dripline radius for all tagged trees. 2.1.1Species at Risk Review th Species at Risk (SAR) assessment was completed during the October 15Species at Risk (SAR) assessment was completed during the October 15Species at Risk (SAR) assessment was completed during the October 15, 2015 site review. There were no species at risk observed onsite. Butternut Hybrid trees were identified onsite. There were no species at risk observed onsite. Butternut Hybrid trees were identified onsite. There were no species at risk observed onsite. Butternut Hybrid trees were identified onsite. Refer to section 3.1.1 for further information on the review of the Butternut Hybrids. Refer to section 3.1.1 for further information on the review of the Butternut Hybrids. Refer to section 3.1.1 for further information on the review of the Butternut Hybrids. 2.1.2Tree Condition Rating Tree Condition Rating Tree Condition Rating Outlined below are the detailed guidelines utilized for the condition classification: Outlined below are the detailed guidelines utilized for the condition classification: Outlined below are the detailed guidelines utilized for the condition classification: Excellent: (Vigour Class 6: Healthy)Excellent: (Vigour Class 6: Healthy)Excellent: (Vigour Class 6: Healthy) No major branch mortality: crown is reasonably normal with less than 10% branch or twig No major branch mortality: crown is reasonably normal with less than 10% branch or twig No major branch mortality: crown is reasonably normal with less than 10% branch or twig mortality; no signs of decay. Good: (Vigour Class 5: Light Decline) Branch mortality, twig dieback in 11-25% of the crown: broken branches or crown missing based on presence of old snags is less than 26%; minor evidence of decay. Fair: (Vigour Class 4: Moderate Decline) Branch mortality, twig dieback in 26-50% of the crown: broken branches or crown area missing based on presence of old snags is 50% or less; decay evident. Poor: (Vigour Class 3: Severe Decline) Branch mortality, twig dieback in more than 50% of the crown: broken branches or crown area missing based on presence of old snags in more than 50%; decay resulting in high hazard assessment. ls v:\\01614\\active\\161413191\\design\\report\\tree management\\finalrpt_l17-15_jk_gvo_.docx 2.2 SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW Methodology December 2015 Dead: (Vigour Class 2: Dead due to Natural Causes) Tree is dead, either standing or down: phloem under bark has brown streaks: few epicormic shoots may be present. Dead: (Vigour Class 1: Dead due to Human Causes) Tree removed: Has been sawed or girdled by human activity. 2.2REPORT The tree inventory data has been compiled into Table 1, located at the end of Section 3.0. Butternut Hybrid review and correspondence with the Ministry of Natural Resources has been included in Section 3.1.1. Drawings of the site have been prepared that identify tree and included in Section 3.1.1. Drawings of the site have been prepared that identify tree and included in Section 3.1.1. Drawings of the site have been prepared that identify tree and vegetation unit locations. The drawings are located in Appe ls v:\\01614\\active\\161413191\\design\\report\\tree management\\finalrpt_l17-15_jk_gvo_.docx 2.2 SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW Observations and Recommendations December 2015 3.0OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1OBSERVATIONS The trees onsite includes predominantly mature trees located in the hedgerow close to the south property edge, and lining the east driveway. Mature trees include Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Butternut hybrid orBuartnuts (J. x bixbyi), Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), and Red Oak (Quercus rubra). Other trees located onsite include: Norway Maple (Acer platanoides), Hawthorn sp. (Crataegus sp.), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Red Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermisGleditsia triacanthos var. inermisGleditsia triacanthos var. inermis), Black Walnut (Juglans nigra), Apple sp. (Malus sp.), Norway Spruce (), Norway Spruce (), Norway Spruce (Picea abiesPicea abies), White Pine (Pinus strobus), Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Cherry sp. (), Cherry sp. (), Cherry sp. (Prunus sp.Prunus sp.), Buckthorn sp. (Rhamnus sp.), and Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina). Trees located adjacent to the property have been identified as Unit #5. These tress include Trees located adjacent to the property have been identified as Unit #5. These tress include Trees located adjacent to the property have been identified as Unit #5. These tress include spruce and maple trees <10 cm dbh in good condition within the fire hall property. Trees spruce and maple trees <10 cm dbh in good condition within the fire hall property. Trees spruce and maple trees <10 cm dbh in good condition within the fire hall property. Trees surrounding the fence of the regulatory station include White Spruce (surrounding the fence of the regulatory station include White Spruce (surrounding the fence of the regulatory station include White Spruce (Picea glauca) <10 cm dbh in good condition. Trees located within the residential properties include Colorado Spruce in good condition. Trees located within the residential properties include Colorado Spruce in good condition. Trees located within the residential properties include Colorado Spruce (Picea ) <10 cm, Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalisThuja occidentalisThuja occidentalis) 10 to 20 cm, and 20 to 30 cm dbh, in ) 10 to 20 cm, and 20 to 30 cm dbh, in ) 10 to 20 cm, and 20 to 30 cm dbh, in good condition, Norway Maple 30 to 40 cm dbh, in good condition, Sugar maple 10 to 20 cm good condition, Norway Maple 30 to 40 cm dbh, in good condition, Sugar maple 10 to 20 cm good condition, Norway Maple 30 to 40 cm dbh, in good condition, Sugar maple 10 to 20 cm dbh in good condition, 2 dead trees and 1 tree in fair condition. The remaining trees were dbh in good condition, 2 dead trees and 1 tree in fair condition. The remaining trees were dbh in good condition, 2 dead trees and 1 tree in fair condition. The remaining trees were generally in good condition. Driplines of larger diameter trees extend into the subject property. generally in good condition. Driplines of larger diameter trees extend into the subject property. generally in good condition. Driplines of larger diameter trees extend into the subject property. Driplines were surveyed by an OLS and are illustrated Driplines were surveyed by an OLS and are illustrated Driplines were surveyed by an OLS and are illustrated . The information on the above noted species has been included in Table 1. The information on the above noted species has been included in Table 1. The information on the above noted species has been included in Table 1. 3.1.1Butternut Hybrids Butternut Hybrids Butternut Hybrids ththth The site review on October 15The site review on October 15The site review on October 15, 2015, observed 22 Butternut hybrid trees. Hybrid butternuts look , 2015, observed 22 Butternut hybrid trees. Hybrid butternuts look , 2015, observed 22 Butternut hybrid trees. Hybrid butternuts look similar to the endangered Butternut (similar to the endangered Butternut (similar to the endangered Butternut (Juglans cinerea) tree. The trees were reviewed by a MNR certified Butternut Health Assessor who was able to identify the hybrid characteristics. Hybrid trees were observed to have the following characteristics that differentiate them from true butternuts. The leaves were still on the tree and green in October, where true butternut leaves turn and fall off August to September. The leaf scar of the hybrids were notched at the top, and true butternuts do not have this. The lenticels of hybrids are elongated parallel to the branch, and true trees they are small round lenticels perpendicular to the branch. Lastly the pith of the second year growth is a light tan colour with larger pith chambers, and true trees are dark brown with pith chambers tighter together. ls v:\\01614\\active\\161413191\\design\\report\\tree management\\finalrpt_l17-15_jk_gvo_.docx 3.1 SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW Observations and Recommendations December 2015 The trees were consistent with the above noted hybrid characteristics, however due to the number of trees onsite it was requested by the project team to have a DNA test confirm hybridity should tree removal be required to facilitate project construction. Samples were collected on th November 4, 2015, from trees #1502, #1508, #1513, #1533, #1542, along with the information required to complete the MNR required Butternut Health Assessment. Samples were submitted to the Ontario Forest Research Institute (OFRI) for genetic testing. The DNA test results identified the trees as butternut x Japanese Walnut hybrids . The test results submitted to the MNR has also been Butternut Health Assessment Report and has approved the results of the report. As such, the trees located onsite are all hybrid butternut trees and not protected under the Endangered trees located onsite are all hybrid butternut trees and not protected under the Endangered trees located onsite are all hybrid butternut trees and not protected under the Endangered Species Act. 3.1.2Eastern Cottonwoods, Eastern Cottonwood is a native species and is considered Regionally Rare in the Region of Eastern Cottonwood is a native species and is considered Regionally Rare in the Region of Eastern Cottonwood is a native species and is considered Regionally Rare in the Region of Waterloo. The cottonwoods were identified in Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 4. The region does permit Waterloo. The cottonwoods were identified in Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 4. The region does permit Waterloo. The cottonwoods were identified in Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 4. The region does permit removal of these trees however there should be an effort to retain these trees. The Region will removal of these trees however there should be an effort to retain these trees. The Region will removal of these trees however there should be an effort to retain these trees. The Region will need to permit the removal of these trees if removal will need to occur in order to facilitate need to permit the removal of these trees if removal will need to occur in order to facilitate need to permit the removal of these trees if removal will need to occur in order to facilitate project construction. 3.2RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Unit #1 This unit contains approximately eight Eastern Cottonwoods, in fair to good condition. One tree This unit contains approximately eight Eastern Cottonwoods, in fair to good condition. One tree This unit contains approximately eight Eastern Cottonwoods, in fair to good condition. One tree is approximately 40 cm in poor condition. Also included is a 10 to 20 cm cherry sp. This unit is is approximately 40 cm in poor condition. Also included is a 10 to 20 cm cherry sp. This unit is is approximately 40 cm in poor condition. Also included is a 10 to 20 cm cherry sp. This unit is located in the portion of the subject property that is located adjacent to the gravel pit. An located in the portion of the subject property that is located adjacent to the gravel pit. An located in the portion of the subject property that is located adjacent to the gravel pit. An effort should be made to retain this unit and preserve the Eastern Cottonwood trees. Refer to effort should be made to retain this unit and preserve the Eastern Cottonwood trees. Refer to effort should be made to retain this unit and preserve the Eastern Cottonwood trees. Refer to section 3.1.2. Unit #2 The trees in this unit are located outside the property line on the gravel pit property. The trees observed in this unit were approximately seven Eastern Cottonwood trees 10 to 20 cm dbh, in good condition. This unit is located adjacent to the property line as such will be retained and protected. Unit #3 This unit is a naturalized area and includes tree and shrub species; Staghorn sumac, Balsam Poplar, buckthorn, and Willow sp. Due to the location of this unit it will likely be impacted by project works. If this unit is retained it should be retained as a naturalized area. It is not recommended to retain isolated trees in this unit due to weak wooded species. ls v:\\01614\\active\\161413191\\design\\report\\tree management\\finalrpt_l17-15_jk_gvo_.docx 3.2 SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW Observations and Recommendations December 2015 Trees #1501 to #1545 These trees are located along the existing farmhouse laneway. There are multiple trees in good condition, and some trees in poor condition. This area forms an aesthetically pleasing value to the landscape and could add value as mature trees to the future park. It is recommended to integrate the healthy trees into the design if possible. Trees 1511, #1519, #1520, #1523, #1529, #1534, #1536, #1537, #1538, #1540, #1545 are in poor condition and should be removed. Trees , are butternut hybrid saplings located directly adjacent to the farmhouse should be removed if the building is to remain. Unit #5 The trees located on private property shall be retained and protected. During the design stage grading should match existing approximately 5 m from the property line in order to mitigate grading should match existing approximately 5 m from the property line in order to mitigate grading should match existing approximately 5 m from the property line in order to mitigate damage to roots of adjacent trees. Trees #1546 to #1550 east property line These are predominantly in good condition and growing under hydro lines. Trees #1546 to These are predominantly in good condition and growing under hydro lines. Trees #1546 to These are predominantly in good condition and growing under hydro lines. Trees #1546 to #1548 are located in the Regional Right of Way and should be retained. As such grading should #1548 are located in the Regional Right of Way and should be retained. As such grading should #1548 are located in the Regional Right of Way and should be retained. As such grading should match existing 4 m from property line. Trees #1549 and #1550 are located on the subject match existing 4 m from property line. Trees #1549 and #1550 are located on the subject match existing 4 m from property line. Trees #1549 and #1550 are located on the subject property. Tree #1550 is an ash and was observed to be declining in health. This tree could be property. Tree #1550 is an ash and was observed to be declining in health. This tree could be property. Tree #1550 is an ash and was observed to be declining in health. This tree could be removed. Unit #4, Trees #1551 to #1578 Trees #1551 to #1571 are located in a hedgerow. The hedgerow is predominantly dense Trees #1551 to #1571 are located in a hedgerow. The hedgerow is predominantly dense Trees #1551 to #1571 are located in a hedgerow. The hedgerow is predominantly dense buckthorn and hawthorn species with few ash species. Tree #1569 located in the hedgerow is buckthorn and hawthorn species with few ash species. Tree #1569 located in the hedgerow is buckthorn and hawthorn species with few ash species. Tree #1569 located in the hedgerow is an Eastern Cottonwood, refer to section 3.1.2. an Eastern Cottonwood, refer to section 3.1.2. an Eastern Cottonwood, refer to section 3.1.2. Trees #1572 to #1578 are large mature trees. Trees #1574 was observed to be in decline, Trees #1572 to #1578 are large mature trees. Trees #1574 was observed to be in decline, Trees #1572 to #1578 are large mature trees. Trees #1574 was observed to be in decline, tree#1577 had a wound with rot at the base of the trunk, and tree #1578 was in poor condition. tree#1577 had a wound with rot at the base of the trunk, and tree #1578 was in poor condition. tree#1577 had a wound with rot at the base of the trunk, and tree #1578 was in poor condition. The remaining trees #1572, #1573, #1575 and #1576 were in good condition and would be The remaining trees #1572, #1573, #1575 and #1576 were in good condition and would be The remaining trees #1572, #1573, #1575 and #1576 were in good condition and would be aesthetically pleasing and add value to future park. aesthetically pleasing and add value to future park. aesthetically pleasing and add value to future park. 3.3DETAILED VEGETION PLAN The City of Kitchener requires a Detailed Vegetation Plan (DVP) for construction projects that identifies existing site information and proposed project design information such as grading. The DVP also identifies trees to be removed to facilitate construction and trees that will be retained and protected with Tree Protection Fencing. The information included in the GVO will aid in identifying tree retention areas during the design stage and as such will formulate the final DVP. ls v:\\01614\\active\\161413191\\design\\report\\tree management\\finalrpt_l17-15_jk_gvo_.docx 3.3 SOUTH KITCHENER DISTRICT PARK GENERAL VEGETATION OVERVIEW Disclaimer December 2015 4.0Disclaimer The assessment of the trees presented within this report has been made using accepted arboricultural techniques. These include a visual examination of the above-ground parts of each tree for structural defects, scars, external indications of decay, evidence of insect presence, discoloured foliage, the general condition of the trees and the surrounding site, as well as the proximity of property and people. None of the trees examined were dissected, cored, probed, or climbed, and detailed root crown examinations involving excavation were not undertaken. Notwithstanding the recommendations and conclusions made in this report, it must be realized that trees are living organisms and their health and vigour is constantly changing. They are not that trees are living organisms and their health and vigour is constantly changing. They are not that trees are living organisms and their health and vigour is constantly changing. They are not immune to changes in site conditions or seasonal variations in the weather. immune to changes in site conditions or seasonal variations in the weather. immune to changes in site conditions or seasonal variations in the weather. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the trees recommended for retention are While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the trees recommended for retention are While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the trees recommended for retention are healthy, no guarantees are offered or implied, that these trees or any part of them will remain healthy, no guarantees are offered or implied, that these trees or any part of them will remain healthy, no guarantees are offered or implied, that these trees or any part of them will remain standing. It is both professionally and practically impossible to predict with absolute certainty standing. It is both professionally and practically impossible to predict with absolute certainty standing. It is both professionally and practically impossible to predict with absolute certainty the behavior of any single tree or group of trees in all circumstances. Inevitably a standing tree the behavior of any single tree or group of trees in all circumstances. Inevitably a standing tree the behavior of any single tree or group of trees in all circumstances. Inevitably a standing tree will always pose some risk. Most trees have the potential for failure if provided with the necessary will always pose some risk. Most trees have the potential for failure if provided with the necessary will always pose some risk. Most trees have the potential for failure if provided with the necessary combinations of stresses and elements. This risk can only be eliminated if the tree is removed. combinations of stresses and elements. This risk can only be eliminated if the tree is removed. combinations of stresses and elements. This risk can only be eliminated if the tree is removed. Although every effort has been made to ensure that this assessment is reasonably accurate the Although every effort has been made to ensure that this assessment is reasonably accurate the Although every effort has been made to ensure that this assessment is reasonably accurate the trees should be re-assessed periodically. The assessment presented in this report is valid at the trees should be re-assessed periodically. The assessment presented in this report is valid at the trees should be re-assessed periodically. The assessment presented in this report is valid at the time of inspection. ls v:\\01614\\active\\161413191\\design\\report\\tree management\\finalrpt_l17-15_jk_gvo_.docx 4.1 APPENDIX A Butternut Health Assessment DNA Results Ministry of Natural Resources, Email Jennifer Koskinen, BHA #234 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 49 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2H 6M7 519-585-7442 Jennifer.koskinen@stantec.com City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2600 ext. 4348 dan.ritz@kitchener.ca December 2, 2015 RE: South Kitchener District Park, 1664 Huron Road, Kitchener, ON South Kitchener District Park, 1664 Huron Road, Kitchener, ON South Kitchener District Park, 1664 Huron Road, Kitchener, ON BHA Report Number: 1 thth Date(s) of Butternut health assessment: October 15 October 15, 2015 , 2015 , 2015 Dear Dan Ritz, This letter is in regard to my assessment of the Butternut trees on your property. Please read this This letter is in regard to my assessment of the Butternut trees on your property. Please read this This letter is in regard to my assessment of the Butternut trees on your property. Please read this letter carefully as it contains important information about the Endangered Species Act, 2007 letter carefully as it contains important information about the Endangered Species Act, 2007 letter carefully as it contains important information about the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Butternut is listed as an endangered species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, and as such, Butternut is listed as an endangered species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, and as such, Butternut is listed as an endangered species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, and as such, it is protected under the ESA from being killed, harmed, or removed. If you are planning to it is protected under the ESA from being killed, harmed, or removed. If you are planning to it is protected under the ESA from being killed, harmed, or removed. If you are planning to undertake an activity that may affect Butternut, you may be eligible to follow the requirements set undertake an activity that may affect Butternut, you may be eligible to follow the requirements set undertake an activity that may affect Butternut, you may be eligible to follow the requirements set out in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA, or you may need to seek an out in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA, or you may need to seek an out in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA, or you may need to seek an authorization under the ESA (e.g., a permit). authorization under the ESA (e.g., a permit). authorization under the ESA (e.g., a permit). Please visit e-laws at the link provided below for the legal requirements of eligible activities under Please visit e-laws at the link provided below for the legal requirements of eligible activities under Please visit e-laws at the link provided below for the legal requirements of eligible activities under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled. Information about section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled. Information about section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled. Information about Butternut is also available at: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/butternut-trees-your- property. Links: If you are eligible to kill, harm or take Endangered Species Act, 2007: http://www.e- Butternut under section 23.7 of the laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm regulation, your first step is to submit the BHA Report and the original data Ontario Regulation 242/08 (refer to section 23.7): forms enclosed in this package to the http://www.e- laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm local MNR District Manager. Note that the MNR will not accept Summary of changes related to Butternut: photocopies. The BHA Report must http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/butternut-trees- be submitted at least 30 days prior to your-property registering to kill, harm, or remove a MNR office locations: Butternut tree. During this 30 day http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/2ColumnSubPage/STEL0 period, no Butternut trees (of any 2_179002.html Page 1 of 6, BHA Report Number: 1 category) may be killed, harmed, or removed, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. If MNR chooses to examine the trees, a representative of the MNR will contact you using the information you supplied when you submitted the BHA Report. After the examination has been completed, MNR will notify you if the examination results change whether you are eligible for the regulation. If you are eligible to follow the rules in regulation under section 23.7, you may register your Notice of Butternut ImpactMNR Registryafter the 30 day period has elapsed. If you are not eligible to follow the rules in regulation under section 23.7, please contact the local Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) office to determine whether you will need to seek a permit. A link to the directory of MNR offices is provided in the text box on the previous page. A link to the directory of MNR offices is provided in the text box on the previous page. A link to the directory of MNR offices is provided in the text box on the previous page. As a designated Butternut Health Assessor (BHA), I am providing the following Butternut Health As a designated Butternut Health Assessor (BHA), I am providing the following Butternut Health As a designated Butternut Health Assessor (BHA), I am providing the following Butternut Health , for which I completed an , for which I completed an , for which I completed an assessment during the site visit on the above noted date. If there are other Butternut trees at the assessment during the site visit on the above noted date. If there are other Butternut trees at the assessment during the site visit on the above noted date. If there are other Butternut trees at the site that may be affected by the activity and they are not identified in this report, they too must be site that may be affected by the activity and they are not identified in this report, they too must be site that may be affected by the activity and they are not identified in this report, they too must be assessed by a BHA. Note that municipal by-laws and legislation other than the ESA may also be applicable to the Note that municipal by-laws and legislation other than the ESA may also be applicable to the Note that municipal by-laws and legislation other than the ESA may also be applicable to the removal or harming of trees. Please retain this letter and a copy of the BHA Report for your records, along with any other Please retain this letter and a copy of the BHA Report for your records, along with any other Please retain this letter and a copy of the BHA Report for your records, along with any other documentation you may receive from the MNR should an examination of the trees occur. If you documentation you may receive from the MNR should an examination of the trees occur. If you documentation you may receive from the MNR should an examination of the trees occur. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or your have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or your have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or your local MNR district office. Sincerely, Jennifer Koskinen, HBESfcon Jennifer Koskinen, HBESfcon Jennifer Koskinen, HBESfcon ISA Certified Arborist, BHA Enclosures: 1. BReport 2. Original data forms 3. Photo page, butternut hybrid photos Page 2 of 6, BHA Report Number: 1 Butternut Health Assess Report Jennifer Koskinen, BHA #234 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 49 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2H 6M7 519-585-7442 Jennifer.koskinen@stantec.com City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2600 ext. 4348 dan.ritz@kitchener.ca Property description: South Kitchener District Park, 1664 Huron Road, Kitchener, ONSouth Kitchener District Park, 1664 Huron Road, Kitchener, ONSouth Kitchener District Park, 1664 Huron Road, Kitchener, ON BHA Report Number: 1 thth Date(s) of Butternut health assessment: October 15, 2015. , 2015. , 2015. Date BHA Report prepared: December 2, 2015. Map datum used: NAD83 WGS84 Total number of trees assessed in this BHA Report:Total number of trees assessed in this BHA Report:Total number of trees assessed in this BHA Report: 22 22 22 The assessed trees were numbered on site using The assessed trees were numbered on site using The assessed trees were numbered on site using numbered steel tree tag. numbered steel tree tag. numbered steel tree tag. The numbers at the site correspond to the tree numbers used in this report. The numbers at the site correspond to the tree numbers used in this report. The numbers at the site correspond to the tree numbers used in this report. This BHA Report includes the following tables: This BHA Report includes the following tables: This BHA Report includes the following tables: Table 1: Butternut trees proposed to be killed, harmed, or taken Table 1: Butternut trees proposed to be killed, harmed, or taken Table 1: Butternut trees proposed to be killed, harmed, or taken Table 2: Butternut trees that are Table 2: Butternut trees that are Table 2: Butternut trees that are notnotnot proposed to be killed, harmed or taken Table 3: Trees determined to be hybrid Butternuts Table 3: Trees determined to be hybrid Butternuts Table 3: Trees determined to be hybrid Butternuts Table 4: Summary of Assessment Results Table 4: Summary of Assessment Results Table 4: Summary of Assessment Results Table 1: Butternut trees proposed to be killed, harmed, or taken Tree Reason tree is proposed to be killed, UTM coordinates #harmed or taken: 1 The extent to which the tree is affected by Butternut C that accompanies this BHA Report. 2 The rules in regulation under section 23.7 of O. Reg. 242/08 are not applicable to Category 3 trees. 3 dbh: diameter at breast height, rounded to nearest cm (if tree is shorter than breast height, enter zero) Page 3 of 6, BHA Report Number: 1 Table 2: Butternut treesthat are notproposed to be killed, harmed or taken Tree #UTM coordinates Table 3: Trees determined to be hybrid Butternuts Tree # UTM coordinates 1: tag #1502 175411734803116 2: tag #1503 175411774803117 3: tag #1504 175411774803117 4: tag #1505 175411794803117 5: tag #1506 175411734803119 6: tag #1507 175411754803121 7: tag #1508 175411774803122 8: tag #1509 175411774803122 9: tag #1510 175411794803127 9: tag #1510 175411794803127 9: tag #1510 175411794803127 10: tag #1511 175411804803127 10: tag #1511 175411804803127 10: tag #1511 175411804803127 11: tag #1512 175411804803127 11: tag #1512 175411804803127 11: tag #1512 175411804803127 12: tag #1513 175411834803134 12: tag #1513 175411834803134 12: tag #1513 175411834803134 13: tag #1514 175411784803133 13: tag #1514 175411784803133 13: tag #1514 175411784803133 14: tag #1515 175411834803129 15: tag #1516 175411774803141 16: tag #1517 175411784803152 17: tag #1523 175411544803258 18: tag #1533 175411484803238 19: tag #1542 175411544803145 4 dbh: diameter at breast height, rounded to nearest cm (if tree is shorter than breast height, enter zero) Page 4 of 6, BHA Report Number: 1 Tree # UTM coordinates 20 tag #1545 175411584803135 21 ID# A 175411454803123 22 ID# B 175411454803123 Table 4: Summary of Assessment Results Total Result: Important information for persons planning activities that may affect Butternut: #: A Category 1 tree is one that is affected by butternut canker to such an advanced degree that Category 0 retaining the tree would not support the protection or recovery of butternut in the area in which 1 the tree is located; and is - During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. Category 1 trees may be killed, harmed or taken Category 1 trees may be killed, harmed or taken Category 1 trees may be killed, harmed or taken afterafterafterafter the 30 day period that follows submission the 30 day period that follows submission the 30 day period that follows submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, unless the results of an MNR examination of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, unless the results of an MNR examination of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, unless the results of an MNR examination indicate that the assessment has not been conducted in accordance with the document entitled indicate that the assessment has not been conducted in accordance with the document entitled indicate that the assessment has not been conducted in accordance with the document entitled Butternut Assessment Guidelines: Assessment of Butternut Tree Health for the Purposes of the Butternut Assessment Guidelines: Assessment of Butternut Tree Health for the Purposes of the Butternut Assessment Guidelines: Assessment of Butternut Tree Health for the Purposes of the Endangered Species Act, 2007Endangered Species Act, 2007... 0 A Category 2 tree is one that is not affected by Butternut Canker, or is affected by Butternut A Category 2 tree is one that is not affected by Butternut Canker, or is affected by Butternut A Category 2 tree is one that is not affected by Butternut Canker, or is affected by Butternut Category Canker but the degree to which it is affected is not too advanced and retaining the tree could Canker but the degree to which it is affected is not too advanced and retaining the tree could Canker but the degree to which it is affected is not too advanced and retaining the tree could 2 support the protection or recovery of butternut in the area in which the tree is located, and is support the protection or recovery of butternut in the area in which the tree is located, and is support the protection or recovery of butternut in the area in which the tree is located, and is During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. Activities that may kill, harm or take up to a maximum of ten (10) Category 2 trees may be Activities that may kill, harm or take up to a maximum of ten (10) Category 2 trees may be Activities that may kill, harm or take up to a maximum of ten (10) Category 2 trees may be eligible to follow the rules in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08, in accordance with the eligible to follow the rules in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08, in accordance with the eligible to follow the rules in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08, in accordance with the conditions and requirements set out in the regulation. conditions and requirements set out in the regulation. conditions and requirements set out in the regulation. Refer to e-Laws for the legal requirements of eligible activities under section 23.7 of Ontario Refer to e-Laws for the legal requirements of eligible activities under section 23.7 of Ontario Refer to e-Laws for the legal requirements of eligible activities under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled: Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled: Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled: http://www.e- laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htmlaws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htmlaws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm 0 A Category 3 tree is one that may be useful in determining sources of resistance to Butternut A Category 3 tree is one that may be useful in determining sources of resistance to Butternut A Category 3 tree is one that may be useful in determining sources of resistance to Butternut Category Canker, 3 Category 3 trees are not eligible to be killed, harmed or taken under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08. Visit the MNR website using the link below for information on how to seek an ESA authorization, or consider an alternative that will avoid killing, harming or taking any Category 3 trees: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/MNR_SAR_HOW_DO_GET_ PER_EN.html 0 An activity that involves killing, harming, or taking a cultivated Butternut tree that was not Cultivated required to be planted to fulfill a condition of an ESA permit or a condition of a regulation, may be eligible for the exemption provided by subsection 23.7 (11) of O. Reg. 242/08. Prior to undertaking the activity, the owner or occupier of the land on which the Butternut is located (or person acting on their behalf) will need to determine whether the exemption for cultivated trees is applicable by determining whether or not the tree was cultivated as a result of the requirements for an exemption under O. Reg. 242/08 or a condition of a permit issued under the ESA. This information can be accessed by contacting the local MNR district office: Page 5 of 6, BHA Report Number: 1 Total Result: Important information for persons planning activities that may affect Butternut: #: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_179002.html The owner or occupier of the land on which the Butternut is located (or person acting on their behalf) is encouraged to append the details regarding whether the tree was planted to satisfy a requirement (e.g., the permit number or registration number) to this BHA Report for their records. 22 Hybrid Butternut trees are not protected under the ESA, but their removal may be subject to Hybrid municipal by-laws and other legislation. NOTE: This concludes the summary of the BHA Report. A complete BHA Report must include the original (hard copy) data forms (i.e., all completed sets of Form 1 and Form 2), an electronic copy of the Excel data analysis spreadsheet, and one printed copy of the Excel data analysis spreadsheet. Page 6 of 6, BHA Report Number: 1 TREE #1502 TREE #1503 #1504 #1505 #1506 #1507 #1508 #1509 #1510 #1511 #1512 #1513 #1514 #1515 #1516 #1517 #1523 #1533 #1542 #1545 #A #B Bendo, Steve Tuesday, December 15, 2015 9:00 AM Koskinen, Jennifer FW: Request for review of Butternut Report Koskinen, Jennifer Friday, December 04, 2015 11:00 AM Bendo, Steve Fw: Request for review of Butternut Report Buck, Graham (MNRF) <Graham.Buck@ontario.ca> Friday, December 4, 2015 7:17 AM Koskinen, Jennifer RE: Request for review of Butternut Report Hi Jennifer, I agree that the trees are likely all hybrids; since they exhibit similar characteristics and the genetic I agree that the trees are likely all hybrids; since they exhibit similar characteristics and the genetic I agree that the trees are likely all hybrids; since they exhibit similar characteristics and the genetic tests concluded hybridity was detected in all 5 samples. tests concluded hybridity was detected in all 5 samples. tests concluded hybridity was detected in all 5 samples. Graham Koskinen, Jennifer \[mailto:Jennifer.Koskinen@stantec.com\] December-02-15 2:50 PM Buck, Graham (MNRF) Bendo, Steve Request for review of Butternut Report Hi Graham, I contacted you last month about butternut hybrids that were observed on one of our clients project sites. You indicated that although they were hybrids a formal butternut report is still required. The project manager requested we complete DNA testing on some of the trees to provide further evidence that the trees are hybrids. As such we completed DNA testing on 5 trees. The test results identified the trees as hybrids. 1 The butternut report and DNA lab results are enclosed in the FTP link below (as the file is large for emailing) for your review. The report includes photos of all the trees. The photos identify similar hybrid characteristics for all trees. The characteristics include: a notched leaf scar, light pith on second year growth, and lenticels that are th elongated parallel to the twig. Also during the assessment on October 15, 2015, the trees had most of their leaves, with the leaves being green (also a hybrid trait). The photos were taken in November during sample collection for the DNA testing. We appreciate your review on this also a hard copy will follow in the mail. If you have any questions please contact me. Regards, -jk Jennifer Koskinen , HBESfcon, ISA Arborist Stantec 49 Frederick Street Kitchener ON N2H 6M7 Phone: (519) 585-7442 Jennifer.Koskinen@stantec.com The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. CORPFTP@temp.stantec.com \[mailto:CORPFTP@temp.stantec.commailto:CORPFTP@temp.stantec.commailto:CORPFTP@temp.stantec.com\] Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:28 PM Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:28 PM Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:28 PM Koskinen, Jennifer Stantec FTP Confirmation - MY PROJECT Stantec FTP Confirmation - MY PROJECT Stantec FTP Confirmation - MY PROJECT Your request has been successfully created.Your request has been successfully created.Your request has been successfully created. Please use the automatic login link below to access your site. You have also been provided a manual link, username and Please use the automatic login link below to access your site. You have also been provided a manual link, username and Please use the automatic login link below to access your site. You have also been provided a manual link, username and password in case your computer disables the automatic login link. password in case your computer disables the automatic login link. password in case your computer disables the automatic login link. NOTE: FTP Sites are not included in Stantec daily backups and are only intended to be used as a means of NOTE: FTP Sites are not included in Stantec daily backups and are only intended to be used as a means of NOTE: FTP Sites are not included in Stantec daily backups and are only intended to be used as a means of transferring large files between offices, clients, etc.transferring large files between offices, clients, etc.transferring large files between offices, clients, etc. Automatic Login FTP site link: ftp://s1216122808:4261396@ftptmp.stantec.com By clicking on the link above (or pasting the link into Windows Explorer) you will be automatically logged into your FTP site. Manual Login FTP link: ftp://ftptmp.stantec.com Login name: s1216122808 Password: 4261396 Disk Quota: 2GB Expiry Date: 12/16/2015 If your site has not expired and you require a onetime 2 week extension, please contact the IT Service Center. If you require more than 2 weeks, please request an FTP Project Directory. Information on the FTP Project Directory request procedure is posted in the StanNet Help Center. 2 DISCLAIMER: All files uploaded and downloaded on Stantec FTP sites are intended for business purposes only. Stantec maintains the right to monitor all activities on its FTP sites. The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately. 3 APPENDIX B HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1664 HURON ROAD APPENDIX F: APPENDIX F: 1664 HURON ROAD, KITCHENER, 1664 HURON ROAD, KITCHENER, 1664 HURON ROAD, KITCHENER, ONTARIO, CONDITION ASSESSMENT ONTARIO, CONDITION ASSESSMENT ONTARIO, CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1664 Huron Road Kitchener, Ontario Condition Assessment Project TE-27958-16 February 16, 2017 Prepared by: 176 Speedvale Ave., West Guelph, Ontario 519-763-2000 ww.tacomaengineers.com Table of Contents G ENERAL B UILDING S TRUCTURE -C ONDITIONS Figure 1: North-East Corner of Original Residence Figure 2: Basement Entrance on South Wall of Original ResidenceFigure 2: Basement Entrance on South Wall of Original ResidenceFigure 2: Basement Entrance on South Wall of Original Residence Figure 3: Crack at Intersection of South and West WallFigure 3: Crack at Intersection of South and West WallFigure 3: Crack at Intersection of South and West Wall Figure 4: Failure of Timber Sill Due to Rot Figure 5: Failure of Stone Lintel Above Door Opening: Failure of Stone Lintel Above Door Opening: Failure of Stone Lintel Above Door Opening Figure 6: Additional Timber Support for Main Floor Joists Due to End Rot: Additional Timber Support for Main Floor Joists Due to End Rot: Additional Timber Support for Main Floor Joists Due to End Rot Figure 7: Blocked in Opening in West Foundation Wall Figure 8: Failure of Cistern Wall Figure 9: Rotted Floor Boards Below Northeast Corner of Roof CONSERVATION OPTIONSAND ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES C ONCLUSION R W.W.G.TEON 16-FEB-201716-FEB-201716-FEB-2017 TE-27958-16TE-27958-16TE-27958-16 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ O