The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHK - 2018-01-09 - Item 2 - Heritage Impact Assessment - 883 Doon Village RoadHERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPO 883 Doon Village Road City of Kitchener Date: December, 2017 Prepared for: Bob and Alison LaFrance M E3 r Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N213 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Our File:'] 796 A' Heritage Impact Assessment 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Glossaryof Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.0 Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................................................2 2.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Location...............................................................................................................................................................................................................4 2.2 Adjacent Heritage Properties.................................................................................................................................................................5 3.0 Policy Context................................................................................................................................................................................................6 3.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement 2014.........................................................................................6 3.2 The Ontario Heritage Act........................................................................ ......................................................................................7 AOF 3.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan.....................................................::.....................................I........................................................8 3.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan.................................................................................................................................................................9 3.5 Terms of Reference....................................................................................................................................................................................12 4.0 Historical Overview.........................................................................................................................................................................................13 4.1 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township....................................................................................................................................13 4.2 Doon, Township of Waterloo..............................................................................................................................................................14 4.3 Lot 2, Biehn's Tract (883 Doon Village Road).............................................................................................................................15 5.0 Description of Site and Surrounding Features...............................................................................................................................29 5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................29 5.2 Description of Setting and Context................................................................................................................................................29 5.3 Views..................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 5.3.1 Public Realm........................................................................................................................................................................................30 5.3.2 Private Realm.......................................................................................................................................................................................32 5.4 Description of Built Features...............................................................................................................................................................32 5.4.1 Coach House........................................................................................................................................................................................33 5.4.2 Dwelling..................................................................................................................................................................................................38 5.4.3 Garage......................................................................................................................................................................................................40 6.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources.......................................................................................................................................41 6.1 Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................................................................................................................41 6.2 Evaluation of 883 Doon Village Road.............................................................................................................................................41 December, 2077 Heritage Impact Assessment 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 6.2.1 Design/Physical Value....................................................................................................................................................................41 6.2.2 Historical/Associative Value........................................................................................................................................................42 6.2.3 Contextual Value...............................................................................................................................................................................42 6.2.5 List of Identified Heritage Attributes.....................................................................................................................................43 6.3 Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation......................................................................................................................................44 6.3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................................44 6.3.2 Evaluation..............................................................................................................................................................................................45 6.4 Summary of Evaluation...........................................................................................................................................................................46 7.0 Description of Proposed Development.............................................................................................................................................47 8.0 Impacts of Proposed Development.....................................................................................................................................................49 8.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................49 8.2 Analysis of Impacts....................................................................................................................................................................................49 8.2.1 Concept of Subdivision.................................................................................................................................................................49 8.2.2 Re -Locate Coach House to Retained Lot...........................................................................................................................51 9.0 Mitigation/Conservation Recommendations and Alternative Development Approaches ......................53 9.1 Mitigation Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................................53 9.1.1 Mitigation Recommendations for the Concept of Subdivision...........................................................................53 9.1.2 Mitigation Recommendations for Re -Location of the Coach House................................................................53 9.2 Consideration for Alternative Development Approaches................................................................................................54 9.2.1 'Do Nothing' Alternative...............................................................................................................................................................54 9.2.2 Retain Coach House and In-Situ..............................................................................................................................................54 9.2.3 Demolition of Coach House.......................................................................................................................................................56 9.3 Long Term Conservation Considerations....................................................................................................................................56 10.0 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................................................57 11.0 Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................................................................58 AppendixA — Terms of Reference (next page).....................................................................................................................................59 Appendix B — Proposed Plan of Severance (next page)..................................................................................................................60 Appendix C — Designation By-law (next page).....................................................................................................................................61 AppendixD — Curriculum Vitae (next page)...........................................................................................................................................62 December, 2017 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Heritage Planner Glossary of Abbreviations HA MHBC MTCS OHA OHTK PPS 2014 is i Project Manager Research, Author Heritage Impact Assessment MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Toolkit Provincial Policy Statement (2014) December, 2077 M H BC 11 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 1.O Executive Summary In April 2017, Alison Lafrance retained MHBC to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener. The subject property is situated at the south-east corner of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is to provide an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the subject lands. This report also provides an analysis of anticipated impacts to heritage attributes of the property which may result of the proposed development and provide mitigation recommendations, where necessary. This report has demonstrated that the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Here, designation by-law no. 84-52 identifies that the dwelling is the only heritage attribute of the subject property (See Appendix Q. This HIA has evaluated the property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 and demonstrates that existing dwelling is the primary heritage attribute of the subject lands. This report identifies that the 'coach house' (formerly a hog and hen house) is a secondary attribute of the property and is accessory to the dwelling. While the coach house is not the main feature of the property, it has modest design/physical value and has a historical relationship with the dwelling. The proposed development is related to a plan of severance, creating four (4) new lots and one (1) retained lot. The retained lot includes the existing dwelling and detached garage which is not of cultural heritage value or interest. The proposed new severed lots would have frontage on Bechtel Drive. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are proposed to have 18.2 metres of frontage along Bechtel Drive, with Lot 4 having 18.6 metres of frontage along Bechtel Drive. Ma The proposed development includes a) alterations to the site as it relates to the application for consent to sever the lands, and b) alterations to the existing coach house. This Heritage Impact Assessment provides a review of anticipated impacts as a result of both of these alterations to the subject property. There are two main options related to the conservation of the coach house being either, a) retain the coach -house in-situ and b) re -locate the coach -house to the retained lot. The preferred option includes the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot. The coach house is currently located on part of proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the plan of severance. The coach house is proposed to be re -located a short distance to the retained lot, maintaining its orientation to Doon Village Road so that it may be used in its existing capacity as a detached garage/shed. The proposed development would require that the existing driveway be re -located to the east, maintaining its north -south orientation and relationship with Doon Village Road and connected to the December, 2077 M H BC 12 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener existing garage (which is not of cultural heritage value or interest) while accommodating the coach house in its proposed new location. This report has provided a detailed review of the proposed severance as well as the proposed re -location of the coach house on the retained lot. The re -location of the coach house provides a beneficial impact, as the historical relationship between the coach house and the dwelling on the subject lands would be maintained. Neutral impacts are related to the re -location of the building a short distance on the retained lot, provided that it is demonstrated that the structure can be moved safely. The proposed plan of severance is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts as this report has demonstrated that the site is not a significant cultural heritage landscape. Potential negative impacts associated with the proposed development include the future construction of buildings on the lots proposed for severance, which can be mitigated by ensuring that new buildings on the severed lots are compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the dwelling and coach house on the retained lot. The following provides a summary of mitigation recommendations relat to the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot: • That the structural integrity of the coach house and its re-locatNtoe proposed new location on the retained lot be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer to confirm that it may be re- located safely while maintain its existing orientation; • That the coach house be moved by a qualified building mover to ensure that no damage occurs prior, during, or after the re -location; • That the proposed re -location of the coach house be subject to a scoped Conservation Plan in order to ensure that the structure is appropriately conserved. Note to the Reader: The purpose of this executive summary is to highlight key aspects of this report and therefore does not elaborate on other components. Please note that this report is intended to be read in its entirety in order to gain a full understanding of its contents. December, 2077 MHBC 13 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 2.0 Introduction In April 2017, Alison Lafrance retained MHBC to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener. The subject property is located at the intersection of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as per by-law no. 84-52. (See Appendix Q. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is to provide an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the subject lands. This report also provides an analysis of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources which may result of the proposed severance and provide mitigation recommendations, where necessary. 2.1 Location The subject property is located within the 'Pioneer Park' community, south of the Grand River within the City of Kitchener, west of the community of Doon. The subject property is located east of Bechtel Drive, south of Doon Village Road (formerly known as Manitou Drive). Low density single detached housing is located to the east and south. Figure 1: Topographic Map noting approximate Location of Subject Lands (Source: National Resources Canada, 2017). December, 2077 MHBC 14 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 2: Aerial Image noting approximate location of subject lands (Source: Google Maps, 2017). 2.2 Adjacent Heritage Properties The subject property is not located adjacent to identified cultural heritage resources as per the City of Kitchener Heritage Register (See Figure 3). The property is located west of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District. Figure 3: Map noting approximate location of subject lands and heritage status, located roughly west of the Upper Doon HCD (Source: Kitchener Interactive Map, 2017). December, 2077 MHBC 15 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 3.OPolicy Context 3.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement 2014 The Planning Act makes a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. One of the intentions of The Planning Act is to "en urage the co-operation and co- ordination among the various interests". Regarding cultural heritag section 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning bo nd the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS). The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Significant e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources 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, an event, or a people. Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Aboriginal community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers. December, 2077 M H BC 16 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act• villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance, and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site). Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. Protected Heritage Property: means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act• property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act• property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The subject property located at 883 Doon Village Road is considered to be a protected heritage property under the consideration of the PPS as it is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 3.2 The Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The regulation sets forth categories of criteria and several sub -criteria. December, 2077 M H BC 17 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 3.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.G of the Regional Official Plan provides policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources which are related to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: 3.G Cultural Heritage Cultural heritage resources are the inheritance of natural and cultural assets that give people a sense of place, community and personal identity. Continuity with the past promotes creativity and cultural diversity. The region has a rich and diverse heritage, including distinctive cultures, traditions, festivals, artisans and craftspeople, landmarks, landscapes, properties, structures, burial sites, cemeteries, natural features and archaeological resources. These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 3.G.73 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non- designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3.G. 74 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.73 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G.75 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G. 76 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. December, 2077 MHBC 18 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 3.G.77 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: (a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; (b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource, (c) description of the proposed development orsite alteration; (d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts; (e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; (0 schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and (g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations. 3.G.78 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by. (a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource; (b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and (c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 3.G.79 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with Policy 3.G.18, the conservation recommendations will: (a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans, and (b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 3.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan Section 12 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: Objectives 12.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and December, 2017 M H BC 19 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. 12.1.3. To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 12.1.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City. Policies 12.C.1.1. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act. 12.C.7.2. The City will establish and consult with a Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) on matters relating to cultural heritage resources in accordance with provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 12.C.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property - b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.04.6 through 13.04.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.01.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 72.C. 7.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 12.01.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans, 12.01.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; December, 2077 M H BC 110 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 0 implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 72.C. 7.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 72.C. 7.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 72.C.7.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 72.C.7.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or permit. 72.C.7.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: a) architectural measured drawings, b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. 72.C.7.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, the December, 2077 MHBC I I I Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent to demolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated and Council may use the 60 days to pursue designation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act, 12.C.1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. Design/Integration 12.C.1.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located. 12.C.1.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources. 3.5 Terms of Reference 1qF This Heritage Impact Assessment has been guided by the Terms of Reference for the subject property prepared by the City of Kitchener (See Appendix A). The preparation of this report has also been guided by the Ontario Ministry of Culture (now the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, part of the 2006 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process document. A site visit of the property was undertaken on August 1, 2017. The site visit included a visual assessment and photographic record of the subject lands and surrounding context. December, 2077 M H BC 112 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 4.o Historical Overview This section of the report focuses on historical development and the arrival of Euro -Canadian settlers, and does not discuss pre -contact aboriginal history or archaeology, as this report is primarily concerned with the impacts of the proposed development on the existing built cultural heritage resources of the 19th and 20th centuries. 4.1 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township The subject lands were originally located in Waterloo Township where pioneer settlement commenced in the late eighteenth century. In 1784, General Haldimand, then Governor of Quebec, acquired six miles of land on each side of the Grand River from the Mississauga Indians (Bloomfield 19, 2006). A tract of land 12 miles wide along the course of the Grand River were granted to the Six Nations Indians by the British in recognition of their support during the American Revolution. The land was later divided into four blocks; Block 2 later became Waterloo Township. Brant and the Six Nations drew up a deed for sale of Block 2 in November 1796. The deed was recorded at Newark (Niagara on the Lake) and in February 1798 the title was registered and a Crown Grant was drawn for this block (McLaughlin, 21 2007). The buyer was Colonel Richard Beasley, a Loyalist from New York, who had arrived in Canada in 1777. Beasley bought the 93160 acres of land along with his business partners, James Wilson and Jean -Baptiste Rousseaux (Bloomfield 20, 2006). The land was then surveyed by Richard Cockrell who divided the township into upper and lower blocks (Hayes 3, 1997). At this time, German Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting out farmland in the area. Several of them went back to Pennsylvania and returned with their families the following year to buy and settle the land (Hayes 5, 1997). Block 2 was divided into an 'upper', 'middle', and 'lower' parts which were surveyed by Richard Cockerell. Beasley began selling lots in the lower block, part of which became Biehn's Tract (6,750 acres) purchased by a group of Pennsylvania Mennonite families in the mid. 19th century. The first settlers came from several Pennsylvania counties, including Lancaster County. The Biehns and Bechtels were the first settlers to register title to land. Biehn's Tract (BT) was settled by John Biehn one mile west of the Grand River, and sold portions to his family. Settlement increased when 'the communication road' was constructed across southern Waterloo Township to connect Guelph with the Huron Tract in the 1850s (Bloomfield, 2006). December, 2077 M H BC 113 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 4: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. Source: Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow. 4.2 Doon, Township of Waterloo The Village of Doon was established after a mill was constructed in the 1830s by Adam Ferrie, where Schneider's Creek meets the Grand River. Adam Ferrie named the settlement after a river in Scotland (Waterloo Historical Society, 1964). The coming of the railroad in 1870 established Doon as a large, unincorporated village. Doon's industry increased after the construction of the twine factory in the 1870s and the Doon Linen Mills in the 1880s. By the end of the 19' century, the Village of Doon had a hotel, grocer, tailors, a cooperage, blacksmith, and other industries (Bloomfield, 2006) DWN. A past village end station of the Berliu and Preston branch of the Grand Trunk Railway, in the To nmhip of Waterl-xh six miles from Berlin,three from Hamilton, and pixt_v-five front T"wwita. It is aituated� confluence of the Brand and 1)oun liivem, :sud ro~m -, excellent manufacturing fteiUtica. Tice Doon Mills, built of stone, employs ftven bands, and is xn ex tensive establishment; the flax works of Periue Brim , employs about sixty hands. There is one church, Canada Presbyterian, built in I S-56, At a coat of $5,000, Rev. Malmltn McKenzie, pastor. The !writ "ffict- was established in 1843, Robert F. Ferrie, fimt P. M. Ihtily mnik- Population. 230. Figure 5: County of Waterloo Gazeteer and Directory, 1867 (Source: National Archives Canada, 2017) December, 2077 M H BC 114 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 4.3 Lot 2, Biehn's Tract (883 Doon Village Road) The property located at 883 Doon Village Road is located west of the historic Doon Village settlement. The property was formerly accessed by Old Huron Road, and subsequently Manitou Drive (now Doon Village Road) (Bloomfield, 2006). According to the 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County, the subject property was located on land owned by the Hamaker family (See Figure 7). Benjamin and Peter Hamacher are listed in the 1864 County of Waterloo Directory and Gazeteer as residing on Biehn's Tract, part of Lot 2 (See Figure 6). According to records retrieved from the land registry office (instrument no. 5647), the lands were sold from the Hamacher family to Benjamin Burkholder in 1867. It is unknown whether or not Benjamin Burkholder constructed the house prior to 1867, when the lands were sold to him as local histories commonly refer to the date of construction of the house as 1863. I Figure 6: County of Waterloo 1864 Directory and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) `►. `• Benjamin Burkholder purchased land on Lot 2 of Biehn's Tract from the Hamacher family and constructed the house located on the subject lands in the 1860s. Benjamin Burkholder was born in 1814 in Lancaster County. He came to settle with his parents on a small farm on German Company Tract (lot 13), north of Waterloo. He attended Abraham Erb's schoolhouse constructed in 1820. Benjamin Burkholder published a weekly newspaper at Waterloo (Der Morgenstern), from]839 to 1841 (Bloomfield, 2006). He became a teacher at the Waterloo School, and taught in 11 different schools in Waterloo Township. According to the Waterloo Historical Society, Benjamin Burkholder taught school in the home of Tobias Wanner in 1863 (Waterloo Historical Society, 1928). In the mid 1870s, Burkholder applied to the Ontario Superannuated Public School Teachers' Fund as he was unable to teach any longer due to him being 'disabled' (Waterloo Historical Society, 1928). According to the 1851 census for Waterloo County, Township of Waterloo, Benjamin Burkholder (of the United States) is listed as a teacher at the age of 37. Benjamin Burkholder is listed twice in the Waterloo Township census for 1861, in enumeration District No. 4, and enumeration District no. 10. December, 2077 M H BC 115 f Mahe. I.odw►g g e t 1•I f h Hahn. Henry get 14h f 11 Iter. Ale:ander 4 t ei f f halter, Edward h L 8, f f >flsmakrr, BMV. maker. Peter boa t 2 r f H&DWIlu, .fame's h t 74 f f ,jjsnime 6amieel b f IS f I Figure 6: County of Waterloo 1864 Directory and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) `►. `• Benjamin Burkholder purchased land on Lot 2 of Biehn's Tract from the Hamacher family and constructed the house located on the subject lands in the 1860s. Benjamin Burkholder was born in 1814 in Lancaster County. He came to settle with his parents on a small farm on German Company Tract (lot 13), north of Waterloo. He attended Abraham Erb's schoolhouse constructed in 1820. Benjamin Burkholder published a weekly newspaper at Waterloo (Der Morgenstern), from]839 to 1841 (Bloomfield, 2006). He became a teacher at the Waterloo School, and taught in 11 different schools in Waterloo Township. According to the Waterloo Historical Society, Benjamin Burkholder taught school in the home of Tobias Wanner in 1863 (Waterloo Historical Society, 1928). In the mid 1870s, Burkholder applied to the Ontario Superannuated Public School Teachers' Fund as he was unable to teach any longer due to him being 'disabled' (Waterloo Historical Society, 1928). According to the 1851 census for Waterloo County, Township of Waterloo, Benjamin Burkholder (of the United States) is listed as a teacher at the age of 37. Benjamin Burkholder is listed twice in the Waterloo Township census for 1861, in enumeration District No. 4, and enumeration District no. 10. December, 2077 M H BC 115 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener According to the 1861 census for enumeration district no. 4, he is described as a teacher residing in a 1 1/2 storey frame house. Benjamin Burkholder is listed in two different census records for the year 1861. According to the 1861 census for Waterloo Township, B. Burkholder is listed as a teacher, and is listed as residing 'out of limits' of enumeration District no. 10, at 'S.S. No. 10, W.T.', likely referring to School Section No.10, of Waterloo Township. According to Bloomfield (2006), School Section No. 10 was located in the present day City of Waterloo. Therefore, it is likely that Benjamin Burkholder was teaching in Waterloo in 1861, while living in enumeration District no. 4. The 1861 census also lists Benjamin Burkholder as residing in a'frame house'. Benjamin Burkholder is not listed in the 1871 census for Waterloo Township, but is listed in the County of Waterloo 1870-1871 Directory and Gazeteer as residing at a farm on Bienh's Tract, Lot 2 (on the subject lands). The 1884-1885 Directory and Gazeteer for Waterloo Township also lists Benjamin Burkholder as residing on Biehn's Tract, Lot 2. II,, Benjamin Burkholder married Barbara Kinzie Burkholder on A s 13, 1860 and had two children, Asa and Sarah. Barbara died in 1866. Benjamin Burkholder died on ary 5, 1898 at the age of 83 and is buried at the First Mennonite Cemetery in Kitchener. lk #* Figure 7: Excerpt of 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. December, 2077 M H BC 116 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 8: 1867 Map of the Village of Doon. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red (Source: Waterloo Historical Society, 1964). Bomb—mober bea t f iurkh Daniel u b 66f BurklWder. ChrWian u b 123h 1 Beholder, Niosem u b 72 f; 1 Bis , Gottfn'ed u b 43h ` I as" if r t 157 f : 1 u b 1 1 Pl�triak b f ;l'.' f I Figure 9: County of Waterloo 1864Direc. and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) Bucher lisp [ Erbs�illa U. lot' tsarmer 40 Bucher Jacob I Berlin U & lot El, laborer, own a •1 Bullock pep. (Donn) I T. lot 2, farmer 12 Burgaezy August f8erlin) l'. R. lot 118, laborpr, owns 1 BurkIjj) er Benj. (Dison) A. T. 1 t2, farmer 18 Burnett John CH au) lot 114, miller, owns 17 Lamp lNary (Prestm) B. F, lot "l5, owns 1 U&ITy Wm. (ilrsalau) U. B. lot K carpenter LIIrn■B!R I.,■.a 1{i f raL�.rriL h n A!I i,a a !u� __ si. Figure 10: County of Waterloo 1884-1885 Directory and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) December, 2077 M H BC 117 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener "" •" �4r+.fii�t, ii �'j L+ �N.1 r +7, 4 �4rn � .s •- G . t • .7 ��h < �� w { 4 �1-.: _ �R Figure 11: Waterloo County Census, Waterloo Township, 1851 (Source: Ancestry.ca) VA1144 ;tot J. I Tn'ra tilt, r Figure 12: Waterloo County Census, Waterloo Township, 1861 (Source: Ancestry.ca) No. 7 ....................... 21 f Bucholtz, Hy......,...... 3 6 f Buck, Jahn . ...... 3 6 h .., Burkholder, Benin.—Pic. l f in cr, am ..,. . part 125 h .Burkholder, 1"ad ......... U$ 72 f Burkholder, Mages...... , UB 79 f Bur-et.z. Jnhn------ 71R 1,.L Figure 13: County of Waterloo 1870-1871 Directory and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) J r�•e6f f r� P►f� r., -`.-,-.SCh--._.. � ..v{�'✓�.`r ``"� f Figure 14: 1877 Illustrated Atlas of Waterloo County, Township of Waterloo. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. December, 2077 M H BC 118 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener B6AID6A V 6. r •+'�a NAKM of 93014MM ta. Dar or Duxt I AM . — if/RtQdD t}g ©ir1. (r. w t.J da w j co«cwaoR a. Hranr. MMXA-M rum) Figure 15: Death certificate of Benjamin Burkholder, 1898. (Source: Ancestry.ca) A review of photographs of the subject property dating to 20th century confirms that the landscape has changed considerably since it was first settled in the 1860s. These photographs confirm that the subject property has evolved from a working agricultural landscape to a residen ' I lot which does not support the use of the landscape as a working agricultural farmstead. The typical pattern and main components of a mid. 19th century farm are well documented for Waterloo County. This pattern is repeated in early maps, such as the 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County. It should be noted that while every farm lot has a set of individual characteristics, these farm lots also share a set of distinct similarities. Typical agricultural farmsteads of the mid. 19th century include a dwelling, barn (and accessory structures), cultivated fields, hedgerows, orchards, gardens, and a circulation system (laneways and paths). Typically, the main laneway of an agricultural farmstead in Ontario is a straight line, perpendicular to the main road along an intersecting lot or concession. This Janeway provides access to the farmhouse (which is often oriented towards the main street) and continues past the house to provide access to the barn and outbuildings to the rear. Orchards, fruit trees, and gardens were commonly located to the sides and rear of the dwelling, surrounded by ploughed agricultural fields. Built features associated with early agricultural settlement were placed intentionally and strategically in order to make use of natural resources (such as the availability of water, soil) as well as topography. Therefore, this pattern of settlement was based primarily on the function of the landscape for agricultural purposes. Early agricultural landscapes were not intended to be cultivated primarily for aesthetic purposes and therefore were not dominated by built and natural features which did not have a demonstrated purpose. According to photographs of the subject property dated to the first half of the 20th century, the property still functioned as a working agricultural farmstead (See Figures 16-19). These photographs clearly depict that the landscape included ploughed agricultural fields, fruit trees or an orchard surrounding the dwelling. The property also included a barn (now demolished) and displays little evidence of having ornamental plantings. The photographs also confirm that the coach house located on the subject lands has undergone alterations to the west elevation to include a new cobblestone entranceway (See Figure 22). December, 2077 M H BC 119 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener YO „ -,lip rMO i.7iP l Noe 6 4 of :1.-.+� �,wf-.+-�'y�'�--e' '�+ 1� ' �_ • y k.Lt'�,,� - >,f ,� - ,• •' mss► ►' 1�w r Figure 16: Early 2W' century photo of subject lands, looking west towards what is now Bechtel Drive. Note location of coach house in the background. (Source: private collection) Figures 17 & 18: (left) Early 20" century photo of subject property, looking west towards what is now Bechtel Drive. Note location of coach house in the background, (right) Present-day view of the subject property looking west towards Bechtel Drive and coach house. Note coach house is not visible due to 20" century plantings. (Source: private collection and MHBC, 2017) December, 2077 MHBC 120 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 19: View of west elevation of dwelling, looking east. Note location of ploughed agricultural fields and fruit trees. (Source: private collection) Figure 20: Early 2011 century photo of subject lands, looking south towards north elevation of dwelling (Source: Client personal collection) December, 2077 M H BC 121 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 21: Early 20" century photo of barn (now demolished), looking north *note location of coach house in the background (Source: privatecollection) Figure 22: Early 20" century photo of coach house, looking north-west towards Doon Village Road. Note the condition of the west elevation which confirms that the existing stones/entrance at the west elevation is not original to the structure (Source: private collection) December, 2077 MHBC 122 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener The change of character of the landscape at what is now 883 Doon Village Road is also confirmed as per a review of 20th century aerial photos (See Figures 23-27). According to the 1945 aerial photograph, the property included a large lot with cultivated fields. The house is clearly distinguished from surrounding features, and is located south of Doon Village Road, east of the coach house. The coach house is located west of a laneway. A barn is depicted just south of the coach house. These features of the site also appear in the 1954 and 1963 aerial photographs. It is important to note that the 1945 and 1954 aerial photographs demonstrate that the majority of ornamental plantings on the subject property did not exist at this time. The 1963 aerial photograph clearly indicates the former the barn on the property. The photograph also provides evidence that an orchard was located south of the house. This aerial photograph indicates that more ornamental plantings were part of the landscape, including linear plantings along the laneway accessed by Doon Village Road. According to the 1980 aerial photograph, the barn has been demolished and the existing garage located south of the dwelling has been constructed. At this time, the driveway on the property has been altered so that it extends east toward the house, and then south towards the existing garage. At this time, the subject property has been subdivided to facilitate the construction of single -detached houses and new roadways and cul-de-sacs. The 1980 aerial photograph clearly indicates numerous ornamental plantings which were not visible in the early 20th century photographs or the 1945 aerial photograph of the property. The 1997 aerial photograph demonstrates that the subject property had been further subdivided at the east property line to facilitate the construction of the single -detached dwellings located at 895, 901, and 907 Doon Village Road. o� December, 2077 MHBC 123 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 23: 1945 Aerial Photograph (Source: University of Waterloo Map Library) a Drilway acciss, linear Dlantinas h - 1 use 4"Cultivated Figure 24: 1954 Aerial Photograph (Source: University of Toronto Map Library) December, 2077 MHBC 124 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener r Drive "ay 39s, w linear plantingsch, !VrHous a _ se atL_ OrChard b r'Ilk h J Figure 25: 1963 Aerial Photograph (Source: University of Waterloo Map Library) - .,__-1.5 According to an article in the Kitchener -Waterloo Record (dated Saturday, September 22, 1984), when the property was owned by the Keller family, the barn was determined to extend three feet over a municipal boundary and was subsequently demolished (at some point between 1968 and 1980) . The barn was located south of the existing coach house, west of what is now Bechtel Drive. This is confirmed by a sketch of the lot as part of a sale agreement dated 1968 (See Figure 19). The news article adds that the barn boards were used to clad the existing contemporary garage on the subject lands. The 'coach house' is described in the article as a smaller'second garage', which was once used as a barn for hens and hogs. December, 2077 M H BC 125 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener s. 00" v -ell } t + r X F¢ I ✓�q. + 9 ti,r. t ► t L •; r n t Err { � . r ; •. i� • lantingIs HOY.IS� tr qtr• 1. �� r ��rf i J r �• I t - + ach Heise t �xr- ... � °• Fi `�d rf r r, i t r✓ f!: t F � 4 ! dr , ,ti. ,1C t I r ♦ l r I � � � � `+ r {�t ♦! I � � j � f � 4�; � '' . , 7777 Figure 26: Sketch of subject lands attached to agreement of purchase and sale for subject lands (Part of Lot 2, Biehn's Tract) consisting of 18 acres (dated September 20,1968) (Source: Client personal collection) December, 2077 M H BC 126 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 28: 199/ Heriai rnotograpn k�)our(,e: uty of r.itcnener interactive iviaps) December, 2077 MHBC 128 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 5.0 Description of Site and Surrounding Features 5.1 Introduction This section of the report will identify and describe the significant heritage features and attributes of the subject property. 5.2 Description of Setting and Context The subject property is situated at the south-east corner of the intersection of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive. The subject property is comprised of a large roughly square-shaped lot approximately 1.32 acres in size. The property is located west and north of low density single detached housing which was developed in the second half of the 20' century. The property consists of generous landscaped open space and mature trees. The property is accessed via a driveway at Doon Village Road. The driveway is located east of the coach house, which pivots east towards the house, and then south to the existing contemporary garage, which is clad in wood from the former barn on the property (now demolished). The property includes a historic dwelling, coach house, and modern garage. Linear plantings of spruce trees are located east of the existing driveway. Figures 29 & 30: (left) View of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road intersection looking north from the east side of Bechtel Drive (right) View of Bechtel Drive looking south from east side of Bechtel Drive (Source: MHBC, 2017) December, 2077 MHBC 129 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 31 & 32: (left) View of subject property looking south from north side of Doon Village Road *note location of Coach House and dwelling (right) View of Doon Village Road looking east from south side of Doon Village Road (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figures 33 & 34: (left) View of intersection of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive looking west from the south side of Doon Village Road (right) View of intersection of Doon Villlage Road and Bechtel Drive looking east from south side of Doon Village Road (Source: MHBC, 2017) 5.3 Views 5.3.1 Public Realm Views of the subject property are available from the public realm along Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive. Views of the property looking south from Doon Village Road are partially obstructed by the existing contemporary landscape features along the front lot line. These plantings are ornamental and include large landscaping stones, shrubs, and other plantings. These plantings block pedestrian views of the dwelling looking south from the south side of Doon Village Road. The dwelling is partially visible from the pedestrian realm along the north side of Doon Village Road (See Figures 35 & 36). December, 2077 MHBC 130 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener The west elevation of the coach house and the west elevation of the existing dwelling are visible from the public realm looking east from Bechtel Drive (See Figures 37 & 38). This view is not considered a significant attribute of the property as a) it does not offer a view of the primary edifice of the primary feature of the property, b) due to the nature of the coach house as an accessory structure, the coach house does not have a primary edifice and therefore the view of the coach house from the public realm along Bechtel drive is not considered significant. Figures 35 & 36: (left) Corner view of garage looking south-east (right) View of west elevation of delling, with garage located to the south accessed by the paved driveway (Source: MHBC, 2017) UM Figures 37 & 38: (left) Corner view of garage looking south-east (right) View of west elevation of delling, with garage located to the south accessed by the paved driveway (Source: MHBC, 2017) December, 2077 MHBC 131 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 5.3.2 Private Realm Views of the primary heritage feature on the subject property are available from the private realm (i.e. on the subject lands) as opposed to the public realm (along Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive). As the north (front) elevation of the dwelling is considered the primary edifice, primary view of the property is therefore located on-site, looking south towards the front elevation of the dwelling (See Figures 39 & 40). There is no primary edifice of the coach house due to its use as an accessory structure. Therefore, while the coach house is considered a secondary heritage attribute, there is no one significant view of the structure from either the public or the private realm. Figures 39 & 40: (left) View of dwelling looking south towards north (front) elevation (right) View of east elevation of the coach house looking south-west (Source: MHBC, 2017) 5A Description of Built Features The subject property includes three structures; a dwelling, a contemporary rear garage, and a 'coach house' (former hen and hog h 1. ouse). December, 2077 MHBC 132 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 41: Aerial Image noting approximate boundary of subject lands (red) dwelling (green), garage (blue), and coach house (yellow) (Source: Google Maps, 2017). 5.4.1 Coach House The coach house is located towards the north-west corner of the property and is situated west of the existing driveway. The coach house is 1.5 storeys of stone construction with a side -gabled roof. The construction methods and materials of the coach house indicate that it was likely constructed in the early to mid. 19th century. The 'coach house' was formerly used as a hog and hen barn, according to an interview with former residents in a 1968 article in the Kitchener -Waterloo Record. North Elevation .* The north elevation is constructed in field stone with yellow brick quoins. A 3x3 rectangular -shaped window is located under the gable peak. This window opening displays a wood lintel above which extends a few inches past the window at either side. Yellow brick quoins are located at either side of the window. The first storey includes what is likely three former livestock entrances close to ground level. These openings may also have served as a manure chute. These openings are filled-in with field stone similar to that of the remainder of the building. However, this filled-in portion includes mortar of a slightly different colour and quality, confirming that it was originally open and filled-in later at an unknown date. December, 2077 MHBC 133 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 42 & 43: (left) View of north elevation, looking south (right) Detail view of north elevation, noting construction materials at ground level (Source: MHBC, 2017) East Elevation The east elevation displays a 3x3 window towards the south having modern decorative shutters. The east elevation also includes a projecting stone addition which is not original to the building as confirmed by a review of early 20th century photos of the coach house (See Figure 22). This portion of the building is constructed of field stone similar to that of the rest of the building, but displays a different colour and quality of mortar. The east elevation person door includes an etching in the cement that indicates the floor was paved in 1975. Figures 44 & 45: (left) View of east elevation looking south-west (right) Detail view of east elevation noting difference in materials between main part of building and door projection (Source: MHBC, 2017) December, 2077 MHBC 134 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener jo � wr w Figure 46: (left) View of date etched into the stone foundation at the west elevation door (Source: MHBC, 2017) South Elevation A loft door is located at the upper level of the building under th ak. The south elevation displays no evidence of having window openings at the first storey. Figures 47 &48: (left) View of south elevation looking north (right) Corner view of west and south elevation, looking north-east (Source: MHBC, 2017) West Elevation The west elevation includes three window openings. These window openings include 3x3 window panes with modern decorative (un -operational) shutters. The dimensions of these windows are similar to that of the north elevation. December, 2077 MHBC 135 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 49 & 50 (left) Corner view of north and west elevations looking south-east (right) Detail view of windows at west elevation (Source: MHBC, 2017) Interior The interior of the building has been covered with spray foa hand hewn beams remain visible at the interior. The interiad brick wall. isulation at the first storey. As a result, few the building has been divided in half with a Figures 51 & 52: (left) View of interior ceiling beams looking west (right) Detail view of hand hewn beam at the interior, looking east (Source: MHBC, 2017) December, 2077 MHBC 136 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 53 & 54: (left) Detail view of interior brick wall (right) Detail view of wood beam, first storey (ceiling) (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figures 55 & 56: (left) View of loft area, looking south towards loft door (right) View of interior of loft area, looking north (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figures 57 & 58: (left) Detail view of roof construction (right) Detail view of rough cut cedar log roof joist (Source: MHBC, 2017) December, 2077 MHBC 137 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 59 & 60: (left) Detail view of roof construction with cut nails (right) Detail view of dimensions of roof board (approx 1 ft. wide) (Source: MHBC, 2017) 5.4.2 Dwelling The dwelling located on the subject property was constructed by Benjamin BIWolder in the 1860s, in the Waterloo County Georgian architectural style. The building was constructed in a yellow/buff brick and displays 3 bays at the north elevation with a front entrance covered verandah, side -gabled roofline and paired chimneys. V*ftlhl. North Elevation The north elevation includes a covered verandah supported by 8 wood columns. The building consist of 3 bays, having two 6x6 rectangular -shaped wood frame windows at the first storey and a central door with wood frame transom and sidelights. The second storey includes three 6x6 wood frame windows similar to that of the first storey. All existing shutters are un -operational and are not original to the structure. Wi East Elevation The east elevation displays two rectangular -shaped 6x6 wood frame windows at the first storey, and two similar windows at the second storey. Two small square-shaped casement windows are located beneath the gable, which has returning eaves. December, 2077 MHBC 138 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 61 & 62: (left) View of north elevation, looking south (right) Corner view of north and east elevations, looking south-west (Source: MHBC, 2017) South Elevation G The south elevation includes a single storey board and batten addition at the first storey, which extend into a covered verandah towards the east. The board -and batten addition at the rear was reportedly used as a wood shed, according to a former resident. A double panel rectangular -shaped window having 8 window panes each is located at the first storey, west of the board and batten addition. A set of French - style doors is located at the first storey under the covered verandah. This door opening is likely not original to the structure. The second storey displays a central door (with balcony over the board and batten addition) which appears to have been converted from a window. A 6x6 wood frame window is located to the east. The window original window opening to the west displays evidence of being altered to include a smaller casement window. West Elevation 'e N The west elevation displays a small single storey board and batten addition at the first storey providing an entrance at the west elevation. This board and batten feature is likely not original to the structure. The structure appears in early 19th century photographs and was likely a mud room, pantry, or storage shed. The first storey of the original portion of the building displays a 6x6 wood frame window, with 6x6 wood frame similar windows above at the second storey. Two small square casement windows are located within the roof gable, which includes returning eaves. December, 2077 MHBC 139 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 63 & 64: (left) View of south elevation, looking north *note location of former wood shed/addition in board and batten (right) View of west elevation, looking east Source: MHBC, 2017) 5.4.3 Garage The property includes a garage located south of the dwelling which was constructed at some point between 1968 and 1980. The garage includes a front-end gable and is clad in wood siding which was salvaged from the barn formerly located on the property. This structure is not of significant cultural heritage value or interest. Figures 65 & 66: (left) Corner view of garage looking south-east (right) View of west elevation of delling, with garage located to the south accessed by the paved driveway (Source: MHBC, 2017) December, 2077 MHBC 140 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 6.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources This section of the report evaluates the significance of the heritage resources of the subject property. This report has identified that the property located at 883 Doon Village Road is of significant cultural heritage value as per Ontario Regulation 9/06. This section of the report includes a list of significant heritage attributes. 6.1 Evaluation Criteria The following sub -sections of this report will provide an analysis of the significance of the subject property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06, being related to design/physical, contextual, and associative values. 6.2 Evaluation of 883 Doon Village Road The following provides an overview of the cultural heritage value of the subject property. This will include a list of identified heritage attributes. 6.2.1 Design/Physical Value The property located at 883 Doon Village Road is significant for its design/physical value as it includes a dwelling constructed in the Waterloo County Georgian architectural style in the 1860s. The building can be described as a 2 storey brick house with three bay facade and side -gabled roofline with returning eaves. The north elevation displays a verandah supported by wood posts. The building was constructed as part of an operational farm, having a barn, smaller hen and hog barn (now referred to as the 'coach house'), cultivated fields, and likely an orchard. The barn was formerly located south of the existing coach house and has since been demolished. The only remaining features of the property related to its former agricultural use includes the coach house and a portion of the existing laneway (east of the coach house) which formerly provided access to the barn. The coach house has modest design/physical value. The coach house displays evidence of being constructed in the mid. 19th century, similar to that of the construction date of the house. Based on a review of the materials and construction materials of the coach house, it is likely that the coach house was constructed shortly after the dwelling, in approximately the late 1860s or early 1870s. The coach house can be described as a single storey building of wood frame construction with field stones, having a gabled roof. The building displays a loft style door at the south elevation and window at the north elevation. Three window openings are located at the west elevation. The east elevation has been altered to include a field stone entrance which is not original to the structure. The coach house has design/physical value as it is an early and original feature of the farm complex. The coach house is representative of an early agricultural December, 2077 M H BC 141 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener accessory structure and does not demonstrate a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, or scientific achievement. Therefore, it can be concluded that the existing dwelling is the primary and feature heritage attribute of the property, and the coach house (being accessory to the dwelling), is considered a secondary heritage attribute. 6.2.2 Historical/Associative Value The property located at 883 Doon Village Road is significant for its historical/associative value as it is related to the theme of early agricultural settlement of Doon (now part of the City of Kitchener). The property includes a dwelling and former hog and hen house constructed c. 1863 by Benjamin Burkholder. Benjamin Burkholder was born in 1814 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and settled on a farm with his family on the German Company Tract lands. Benjamin Burkholder became a teacher in Waterloo Township, teaching in 11 different schools. Benjamin Burkholder retired from teaching in the mid. 1870s and resided on the subject lands. Benjamin Burkholder published a weekly newspaper at Waterloo (Der Morgenstern), from 1839 to 1841 (Bloomfield, 2006). 6.2.3 Contextual Value The property located at 883 Doon Village Road has lost the majority of its significant contextual value. This report has demonstrated that the only remaining built features associated with its historic agricultural use include the existing dwelling and coach house. The two buildings remain in-situ and retain their contextual and historical relationship to each other. Photographs provided in this report demonstrate that the barn, cultivated fields, and orchard formerly located on the subject property in the first half of the 20th century have been removed. The barn was demolished at some point between 1968 and 1980. The barn boards were salvaged and used to clad the existing garage located south of the dwelling. The 1954 aerial photographs demonstrate that the property began to include ornamental plantings at this time. The presence of ornamental plantings increased on the subject property through the second half of the 20th century. The subject property no longer retains its agricultural setting. The aerial photographs provided in this report demonstrate that the property was subdivided after 1963 to facilitate the development of single - detached houses in the surrounding context. At this point, the property was no longer related to agricultural use. The 1980 aerial photograph demonstrates that the barn was demolished by this time, and that the existing garage located south of the dwelling on the subject property was constructed. The existing driveway located east of the coach house may be in its original location as it appears to have provided access to the barn (prior to its demolition) and the dwelling. The linear plantings located along the existing driveway include Norway Spruce; a planting which is commonly associated with the turn -of -the -century and is likely not an original heritage attribute of the landscape. This is confirmed by the photographs provided in this report dating to the early 20th century December, 2077 M H BC 142 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener which demonstrate that the landscape was dominated by plantings and features indicative of a working agricultural farm such as fruit trees and ploughed agricultural fields rather than plantings for aesthetic purposes. The property is no longer functionally linked to its surroundings due to the surrounding subdivision development. The presence of the existing dwelling on the subject property set amongst contemporary structures is a visual reminder of the history of the area but does not define, support, or maintain the character of the area. 6.2.5 List of Identified Heritage Attributes By-law no. 84-52 identifies the following heritage attributes of the property: • Three bay front facade; • Two side facades; • All windows with 6x6 panes; • Front door complete with transom and sidelights; • One -storey verandah with turned posts which extends across the front of the house; • Gable roof with return eaves; • Small square attic windows; and • Two chimneys at either end of the gable roof. As the property was designated in 1984 as per By-law no. 84-52, the by-law was drafted prior to the 2005 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act which requires that the by-law include a statement of significance and a list of heritage attributes. The existing by-law does not identify that the existing coach house is a significant heritage attribute of the property. The following provides a revised list of heritage attributes for the property located at 883 Doon Village Road: Primary Heritage Attribute: Benjamin Burkholder Dwelling • Overall 2 storey massing constructed in buff/yellow brick with side -gabled roof, • Three bay front facade; • Front entrance with sidelights and transom; • Two side facades with returning eaves at the roofline and small square-shaped window openings and wood frame windows; • All window openings and wood windows with 6x6 panes; • One -storey verandah with turned posts which extends across the front of the house; • Paired brick chimneys at either end of the gable roof, • Location in-situ and orientation towards Doon Village Road. December, 2077 M H BC 143 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Secondary Heritage Attribute: 'Coach House' (former Hen & Hog Barn) • Single storey Coach House with wood frame and field stone construction, gabled roof, and original loft door and windows openings with wood frame windows; and • Historical and associative relationship to the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling. As previously stated in this report, the existing coach house has been identified as a secondary heritage attribute as the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling is the primary feature of the site. The cultural heritage value of the coach house is primarily related to its relationship to the dwelling as an accessory feature. Views • View of the north elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling looking south from the private realm (on the subject lands); As previously stated in this report, the existing coach house has been identified as a secondary heritage attribute as the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling is the primary feature of the site. The cultural heritage value of the coach house is primarily related to its relationship to the dwelling as an accessory feature. 6.3 Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation 6.3.1 Introduction A cultural heritage landscape is defined by Provincial Policy Statement 2014 as follows: Cultural Heritage Landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act,- villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance, and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site). The Ontario Heritage Toolkit identifies that a cultural heritage landscape or Heritage Conservation District may be classified as either designed (purposely planned), evolved (grown over a period of time), static/relict (evolutionary process has ended), or dynamic (continuing to evolve). Cultural Heritage Landscapes are identified and evaluated based on their associative/historical value, such as with themes or events, the identification of a grouping of heritage resources within a defined area, and its value as determined by a community based on local histories and public consultations, for example. December, 2077 M H BC 144 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 6.3.2 Evaluation The subject property is technically considered a cultural heritage landscape as it meets the criteria as defined by PPS 2014 as a) the property has been modified by human activity, b) the property is defined by finite geographical boundaries and legally described as part of Lot 2, Biehn's Tract and c) is identified as being valued by the community as it is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. While this is true, designation By-law no. 84-52 does not identify any landscape features or built features other than the existing 2 storey dwelling as being significant heritage attributes of the property. Cultural heritage landscapes may be evaluated for cultural heritage significance as per Ontario Regulation 9/06. This evaluation, as provided in Section 7.2 of this report demonstrates that property located at 883 Doon Village Road has been significantly altered since it was first settled in the 1860s. These alterations have resulted in the loss of the majority of landscape features typical of a mid. 19th century agricultural settlement. Therefore, while the subject property meets the criteria as a cultural heritage landscape, it is not considered a significant cultural heritage landscape. Typical agricultural farmsteads include a dwelling, barn (and accessory structures), cultivated fields, hedgerows, orchards, gardens, and a circulation system (laneways and paths). These buildings and features were placed intentionally and systematically in order to make use of the natural resources of the landscape and topography to support the function of the landscape for agricultural purposes. Alterations to the subject property include the significant reduction in lot size which formerly supported a working agricultural farm with cultivated fields. It also includes the demolition of the original barn at some point between 1968 and 1980 and the removal of other landscape features, such as fruit trees and orchards, and hedge rows. Therefore, subject property has been altered to the extent that it is not representative of the typical pattern of a mid. 19th century agricultural landscape. The only remaining features of the landscape are a) the dwelling (which is the primary heritage attribute of the subject lands), b) the former hog and hen barn (referred to as the 'coach house) and is a secondary attribute of the subject lands, and c) a portion of the laneway located east of the coach house, parallel to Bechtel Drive. This laneway retains its perpendicular orientation to Doon Village Road and continues to provide access to the coach house. However, the laneway has been altered and reduced in length. The laneway no longer provides access to cultivated fields (removed), and the barn (now demolished). The property currently includes landscaped open space and a variety of plantings for aesthetic purposes. As demonstrated through an analysis of early 20' century photos of the subject lands, the vast majority of the plantings on the subject lands related to the function of the property as a farm and included agricultural fields and fruit trees. Therefore, the majority of existing plantings on the subject property are not original heritage attributes as they are not part of a mid. 19th century working agricultural landscape. Instead, they are ornamental plantings which appear to have been added to the property after the 1940s. Other plantings on the subject property which are not heritage attributes include linear plantings of Norway Spruce which were added at an unknown date, likely c. 1900s. December, 2077 M H BC 145 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 6.4 Summary of Evaluation Ontario Regulation 9/06 833 Doon Village Road 1. Design/Physical Value YES L Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method ii. Displays high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit Demonstrates high degree of technical or scientific achievement 2. Historical/associative value YES L Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, institution that is significant ii. Yields, or has potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the y community. 3. Contextual value NO L Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area ii. Physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings Is a landmark December, 2017 MHBC 146 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 7.0 Description of Proposed Development The proposed development of the site includes the subdivision of the subject property, creating 4 new lots and one retained lot. The retained lot includes the existing dwelling and detached garage which is not of cultural heritage value or interest. The retained lot consists of 3,517 metres square, having a frontage of 48.1 metres at the north property line along Doon Village Road and will retain the existing 73.0 metres at the east and west property line. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have frontage along Bechtel Drive. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are proposed to have 18.2 metres of frontage along Bechtel Drive, with Lot 4 having 18.6 metres of frontage along Bechtel Drive. All of the lots proposed for severance have 25.0 metres along the east and west property lines. The proposed development includes the re -location of the coach house, which is partially located on proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the plan of severance. The coach house is proposed to be re -located a short distance to the retained lot, maintaining its orientation to Doon Village Road so that it may be used in its existing capacity as a garage/shed. The coach house will be re -located to the retained lot in a location which satisfies both cultural heritage issues as well as the zoning By-law. The proposed development would also require that the existing driveway parallel to Bechtel Drive be re- located to the east, maintaining its north -south orientation and relationship to Doon Village Road (See Figure 67). This re -located driveway would be required to connect to the existing garage (which is not of cultural heritage value or interest), requiring that the driveway be sited around the south elevation of the coach house in its proposed new location. December, 2077 M H BC 147 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 11 =oil M BECHTELDR k. Lot 4 I Lnt 3 I Lv Lot 7 (454m') I (454rw) {454mf} (454-') II I I Re$>'eate Existing nv ~way 0040 u LU F.x Ui i Retained Lands. er (S,S77m'1 � Proposed Consent LEGEND Plan f _ _ _1 PYCMSES L:G Imo,.;a 983 Dloon Village Road Crty & K.mt ener Regal^ ui Wac4 'ac Figure 67: Proposed Plan of Severance (Source: MHBC, 2017) DATE: Dec. 19, 2017 SCALE: 1:750 FILE: 1722A DRAWN: CSC. December, 2017 MHBC 148 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 8.01mpacts of Proposed Development 8.1 Introduction There are three classifications of impacts a proposed development may have on an identified cultural heritage resource: beneficial, neutral or adverse. Beneficial effects may include such actions as retaining a property of cultural heritage value, protecting it from loss or removal, maintaining restoring or repairing heritage attributes, or making sympathetic additions or alterations that allow for a continued long-term use and retain heritage building fabric. Neutral effects have neither a markedly positive or negative impact on a cultural heritage resource. Adverse effects may include the loss or removal of a cultural heritage resource, unsympathetic alterations or additions that remove or obstruct heritage attributes, the isolation of a cultural heritage resource from its setting or context, or the addition of other elements that are unsympathetic to the character or heritage attributes of a cultural heritage resource. Adverse effects may require strategies to mitigate their impact on cultural heritage resources. The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may be direct or indirect. They may occur over a short term or long term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase or post -construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. U Analysis of Impacts The proposed re -development of the site includes the re -location of the existing coach house to the retained lot to be used in its existing capacity as a garage/shed. The following provides an analysis of the anticipated impacts as a result of the proposed development. 8.2.1 Concept of Subdivision The proposed development includes the severance of four rectangular -shaped lots having frontage on Bechtel Drive. Each lot proposes a minimum frontage of 18.2 metres. The approximate average frontage of properties located on the west side of Bechtel Drive, opposite the subject property is between 15 and 16 metres. The average and approximate frontage of properties located east of the subject lands along Doon Village Road is between 15 and 16 metres. The average lot frontage of properties to the south fronting Cobblestone Street is between 12 and 14 metres, with one property having approximately 20.1 metres of frontage. December, 2077 M H BC 149 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Beneficial Impacts The proposed development will not result in the demolition or any alterations to the existing single - detached dwelling of cultural heritage value or interest. The existing by-law specifies that the only heritage attribute of the property is the existing dwelling. The dwelling will be retained and continue to be maintained and conserved by the current owners. The proposed development does not include the demolition of the coach house, which is considered a secondary heritage attribute of the subject property. The coach house will be retained and conserved over the long-term, which is considered a beneficial impact. Neutral Impacts The proposed severance will result in neutral impacts. The property is not a significant cultural heritage landscape, and therefore the proposed reduction in lot size of the retained lot is considered a neutral impact. The creation of four new lots having frontage along Bechtel drive is will not result in adverse impacts as a) the dwelling of historical significance will be retained and conserved in-situ, b) the dwelling will retain its relationship and orientation to Doon Village Road, and c) the dwelling will retain its complementary setting with generous landscaped open space. In addition to this, the frontage of the lots proposed for severance is greater than those existing within the immediate context of the subject property on Bechtel Drive, Doon Village Road, and Cobblestone Street. Therefore, the proposed size and orientation of the lots proposed for severance are not anticipated to result in a markedly beneficial or adverse impact. The existing trees on the property, including linear plantings of Norway Spruce are not original heritage attributes of the property. The property was originally a working agricultural farm and the original trees as part of an orchard have been removed. The existing trees on-site are not attributes of the former agricultural use of the property, but are ornamental in nature and complement the open landscaped space. Therefore, the proposed removal of trees is considered a neutral impact. However, as trees are complementary to, and enhance the site, trees should be retained wherever possible. The proposed re -location of the laneway to the east, closer to the dwelling is considered a neutral impact. Provided that the laneway maintains its orientation parallel to Bechtel drive and access to Doon Village Road, the slight re -location of the laneway is not anticipated to cause any adverse impacts to the site as the laneway is not identified as a significant attribute of the property as it has been demonstrated that the property is not a significant cultural heritage landscape. The laneway is proposed to retain its existing orientation and relationship with the east elevation of the coach house to facilitate access to the person and garage -style doors. Adverse Impacts As the proposed development includes the severance of four lots having frontage on Bechtel Drive, the concept of subdivision poses potential adverse impacts where the future design, scale, and massing of the houses on the new proposed lots may have an impact on the character of the retained lot . Mitigation recommendations are provided in the following section of this report in order to minimize this potential December, 2077 MHBC 150 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener impact. It should be noted that provided that future buildings on the lots proposed for severance are subordinate to, distinguishable from, and complementary to the heritage site and the surrounding context, impacts can be avoided or minimized. The existing coach house currently sits between an interior lot line of proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2. Therefore, the coach house will be impacted by the proposed severance. A range of options have been considered as it relates to proposed alterations to the coach house. The remainder of impacts of the proposed development are specifically related to alterations to the existing coach house, which has been identified in this Heritage Impact Assessment as a secondary heritage attribute as it is considered accessory to the main feature of the site, which is the Benjamin Burkholder house. The following provides a review of the beneficial, neutral, and adverse impacts associated with the proposed alterations of the coach house. 8.2.2 Re -Locate Coach House to Retained Lot The proposed development includes the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot. The proponent intends to re -locate the coach house a short distance towards the dwelling to the east while retaining the existing orientation of the coach house to Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road. The proposal includes the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot so that it may be used in its existing capacity as a garage/shed. Beneficial Impacts The proposed re -location of the coach house to the retained lot would maintain the historical and associative relationship of the coach house to the dwelling. This is considered a beneficial impact as the cultural heritage value of the coach house is directly correlated to its association with the dwelling on the retained lot. .,qw Neutral Impacts The proposed re -location of the coach house would result in neutral impacts to the property. This includes the re -location of the coach house from its existing location a short distance to the east, closer to the west elevation of the dwelling. The re -location of the coach house is considered a neutral impact provided that it maintains its existing orientation and maintains a physical and historical relationship to the dwelling. The re -location will likely require the removal of the existing stone feature surrounding the east elevation entrance of the coach house. This stone feature includes a person door and a garage -style door which are not heritage attributes, but alterations to the structure that occurred at an unknown date in the 20th century. The removal of this stone entrance feature is considered a neutral impact. Mitigation recommendations may be required in order to ensure that the east elevation of the coach house is conserved subsequent to the removal of the contemporary stones. The proposed development includes the re -location of the coach house to the east, closer to the existing dwelling. This will result in a change to the aesthetic of the site when viewed from the north. This is considered a neutral impact as the coach house is proposed to be re -located an acceptable distance away December, 2077 M H BC 151 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener from the dwelling in order to maintain their historical relationship to each -other. In addition to this, the coach house is considerably smaller than the dwelling in terms of scale and massing and will not dominate the aesthetic of the site. The proposed development will not result in adverse impacts to identified views of the site as the north elevation of the dwelling will not be obstructed by the re -location of the coach house. The coach house will be located closer to the west elevation of the dwelling and will not overshadow the primary feature of the subject property. Adverse Impacts It is recommended that the existing stone entranceway at the east elevation of the coach house be removed. This is considered a neutral impact as it is not an original attribute of the structure. The removal of the existing stones at the east elevation of the coach house may result in potential adverse impacts to the original stones of the coach house and require conservation/repairs and remedial actions to ensure that the original material of the coach house is not adversely impacted. December, 2077 MHBC 152 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 9. 0 Mitigation/Conservation Recommendations and Alternative Development Approaches 9. ] Mitigation Recommendations The following provides a review of the mitigation recommendations in order to address the adverse impacts (and potential adverse impacts) identified in Section 9.0 of this r ort. 9.1.1 Mitigation Recommendations for the Concept of Subdivision As previously noted in this report, the design, scale, massing, orientation, and materials of any future buildings (and accessory structures) on the lots proposed for severance may pose a potential adverse impact on the primary and secondary heritage attributes of the subject property (those being the dwelling and the coach house). Therefore, any future buildings on the lots proposed for severance should be designed in such a way that they are subordinate to, distinguishable from, and complementary to the heritage site and the surrounding context. The proposed lots and any future buildings thereon will be required to comply with the current Zoning by-law, which limits height in an R-4 zone to 10.5 metres. Any variances to allow greater heights should consider the impact on the adjacent heritage resources located at 883 Doon Village Road. In addition, the design and materials of any future proposed houses on the proposed lots for severance should be contemporary. This will provide assurance that any proposed new houses are subordinate to, distinguishable from, and complementary to the heritage property. It is recommended that subsequent to the approval of the application for consent, that the existing By-law for the subject property be amended so that it applies only to the retained lot. It is recommended that while the 'coach house' is referred to as such in this report, that it be specifically referred to as the 'former hog and hen house' or 'former hog and hen barn' should it be included as a heritage attribute in an amended heritage designation by-law for the retained lot. The purpose of this distinction is to avoid any confusion as to the historic use of the structure. 9.1.2 Mitigation Recommendations for Re -Location of the Coach House The adverse impacts as a result of the proposed development may be avoided or minimized. This includes the impacts related to the removal of stone addition at the east elevation of the coach house and the physical re -location of the coach house. December, 2077 MHBC 153 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener In order to minimize or avoid these impacts, this report recommends the following: • The structural integrity of the coach house and its re -location to the proposed new location on the retained lot be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer to confirm that it may be re -located safely while maintain its existing orientation; • That the coach house be moved by a qualified building mover to ensure that no damage occurs prior, during, or after the re -location; • That the proposed plans for the adaptive re -use of the coach house require a scoped Conservation Plan in order to ensure that the alterations to the coach house prior to, during, and subsequent to its re -location will conserve the structure in its new location over the long-term. 9.2 Consideration for Alternative Development Approaches The following sub -sections of this report provide recommendations regarding alternative development approaches as it relates to the proposed development. 9.2.1 'Do Nothing' Alternative The 'do nothing' alternative would prohibit the redevelopment of the subject property and would prevent the proposed subdivision. This option would result in maintaining the existing lot size, and the existing location of the coach house. This alternative would create no opportunity for the proposed creation of four new lots and one retained lot. This alternative would prohibit the owners from undertaking their plans for the future of their property. 9.2.2 Retain Coach House and In -Situ This option would require an alternative plan for subdivision to allow for the retention of the coach house in-situ. A variety of lot configurations have been considered as follows: a) Retain the Coach House In -Situ with the Retained Lot This option would result in altering the proposed application for consent to include the coach house with the retained lot. This could include a) the retention of lot 2 (only) which would be expanded slightly to include the entirety of the coach house, or b) the retention of proposed lots 1 and 2. The retention of both proposed Lots 1 and 2 would allow for partial retention of the existing laneway in- situ. The retention of only Lot 2 would result in the creation of a roughly T-shaped retained lot. This option would require the re -location of the existing laneway and may result in grading issues related to the construction of new dwellings on proposed lots 1, 3, and 4. This option would limit the ability of the proponent to create four (4) severed lots. December, 2077 MHBC 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener b) Retain the Coach House In -Situ as part of a Severed Lot Alternatively, retaining the coach house in-situ may include the combination of proposed Lots 1 and 2. This option would result in an alternative plan for subdivision, creating three severed lots (Lot 4 and Lot 3, as proposed), and one (larger) lot as a result of combing proposed Lots 1 and 2. This would result in retaining the coach house so that it may be part of a new severed lot. The coach house could remain in-situ to be either a) used in its existing capacity as a shed/garage for a new dwelling, or b) adaptively re -used so that it may become an addition to a new dwelling. This option would require that the existing Janeway be re -located to the east on the retained lot. The retention of the coach house in-situ as part of a severed lot would result in the loss of the historical relationship of the structure to the dwelling and is considered a minor adverse impact. The impact is considered minor as a) the coach house would be retained and conserved in the long-term, and b) it would retain its physical relationship with the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling in terms of distance and orientation. The retention of the coach house for adaptive re -use as an addition to a new dwelling on a severed lot may result in adverse impacts. As the coach house would remain in-situ, it would likely require alterations to attach it to a dwelling at north, east, or south elevations. Should this option be considered as the preferred option, a conservation plan is recommended in order to ensure that the building is altered in such a way which would minimize adverse impacts. The preferred option to re -locate the coach house to the retained lot is contingent on the feasibility of physical re -location. Should the coach house be determined that it cannot be re -located due to either structural stability or feasibility, it is recommended that the building remain in-situ. The plan of severance could be altered to retain the coach house in-situ as either a) part of the retained lot, or b) part of a new severed lot. While the retention of the coach house on the retained lot would result in less adverse impacts, the retention of the coach house on a severed lot is considered an acceptable alteration as it a) results in the retention of the coach house, b) would maintain a physical relationship with the dwelling, and c) would result in opportunities to either retain the coach house in-situ in its existing capacity or as an addition to a new structure. Should the coach house require conservation in-situ, it is recommended that a conservation plan be required in order to minimize any potential adverse impacts. While re -locating the coach house to the retained lot is the preferred option due to the fact that it would enable the two structures to continue their historical and associative relationship to each -other, this report has demonstrated that is also acceptable that the coach house be retained in-situ. As the coach house is considered a secondary feature of the subject property, its retention in-situ as part of a new severed lot will not result in changes which will diminish the cultural heritage value of the site. Should this option be determined to be the primary option, it is recommended that a conservation plan be required in order to mitigate impacts to the coach house. December, 2077 MHBC 155 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 9.2.3 Demolition of Coach House This option would result in the demolition of a secondary heritage attribute of the property, described in this report as the existing coach house. This option would not result in significant adverse impacts to the overall property as it has been identified that the coach house is a secondary heritage attribute as it is accessory to the dwelling, which is the main feature of the property and the primary heritage attribute of the site. However, as the coach house has modest design/physical value and complements the property, mitigation recommendations would be required in order to minimize impacts. Should demolition of the coach house be proposed, it would be considered an adverse impact as it results in the permanent removal of heritage fabric and would require mitigation recommendations including (but not limited to), documentation and salvage. Should the building be demolished, it is recommended that the proponent consider salvaging the majority, if not all of the materials of the coach house and re -use them on-site. 9.3 Long Term Conservation Considerations It should be noted that the proposed development includes the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot so that it may be used in its existing capacity. While this is true, the owners of the subject property are contemplating the benefits of re -locating the coach house for a second time over the long- term so that it may be adaptively re -used as an addition to the west elevation of the dwelling. Should this option be considered over the long-term, it is recommended that this work be related to a second Heritage Impact Assessment. A Heritage Permit Application and Conservation Plan would likely be required for this work. December, 2077 MHBC 156 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 10.0 Conclusions This Heritage Impact Assessment concludes that the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The existing by-law identifies that the only significant feature of the property is the existing dwelling. This Heritage Impact Assessment has evaluated the property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 and demonstrated that while the existing dwelling is the primary attribute of the property, that the coach house should be considered a secondary attribute due to its nature as an accessory structure. This report has provided a detailed review of the proposed severance as well as the proposed re -location and of the coach house on the retained lot. The re -location of the coach house to the retained lot would result in retaining the historical and associative relationship of the coach house with the dwelling, which is considered a beneficial impact. Neutral impacts are related to the re -location of the building a short distance on the retained lot, provided that it is demonstrated that the structure can be removed safely. Potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed development include the future construction of buildings on the lots proposed for severance. The following mitigation recommendations should be implemented as part of the proposed development to re -locate the coach house to the retained lot to be used in its existing capacity as a garage/shed: • That the structural integrity of the coach house and its re -location to the proposed new location on the retained lot be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer to confirm that it may be re- located safely while maintain its existing orientation; • That the coach house be moved by a qualified building mover to ensure that no damage occurs prior, during, or after the re -location; • That the proposed re -location of the coach house be subject to a scoped Conservation Plan in order to ensure that the structure is appropriately conserved. Respectfully submitted, Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Heritage Planner Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Partner December, 2077 MHBC 157 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 11.0 Bibliography Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo Township through two Centuries. Region of Waterloo: St Jacobs Printery, 2006. Butterfield, David. Anglo -Ontario Farm Buildings: An Architectural History Theme Study, n.d. City of Kitchener. Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, Schedule 'B I ', Homer Watson House & Gallery. n.d. Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. English, John and McLaughlin, Kenneth. Kitchener an Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Brass Studio, 1996. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Waterloo, ON: Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. McLaughlin, Kenneth and Sharon Jaeger. Waterloo: An Illustrated History, 1857-2007. City of Waterloo, 2007. Ontario Ministry of Culture (Now the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Infosheet # 5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Queem's Printer for Ontario, Winter 2006. Page, Frank E. Homer Watson, Artist and Man. 1939. Sephenson, Louisa. Guide to Homer Watson House and the Village of Lowerpoon. 2006 Van Every, Jane. With Faith, Ignorance and Delight: Homer Watson. 1967. Waterloo Historical Society, Fifty Second Annual Volume of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1964. Watson, Jennifer. Homer Watson in the Kitchener -Waterloo Art Gallery. 1987. December, 2077 MHBC 158 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix A — Terms of Reference (next page) A i. Heritage Impact Assessment A ii. Conservation Plan December, 2077 MHBC 159 City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division 883 Doon Village Road Proposed Consent to Create 4 New Lots Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment —Terms of Reference 1.0 Background A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. These terms of reference have been scoped, based on the existing status of the property and the nature of the proposal. Sections not required are noted by strikethrough. Requirements specific to the subject property are noted in italics. Subject property should be read to include both the lot to be retained and the new lots that are proposed. IONU 2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre -submission consultation meeting, followed by written notification to include specific terms of reference. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site alteration. 24 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject properties including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The los^r•;^+;^^ will also ;nvi6idea G n^1()iGaI h.ste ` ^forme-buIIdings'' development, suGh "s The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. The statement should evaluate all buildings/structures and landscape features based on O. Reg. 9/06. The statement should clearly identify significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes. The statement should include, at minimum, the heritage attributes identified in the Part IV designation by-law as well as any additional resources and their heritage attributes that meet O. Reg. 9/06. 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include, where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact the property (buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping). In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage attributes of the property shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject property, including any impact on views or site lines. The impact of the proposed severance on the existing context of the subject property, including impacts to the cultural heritage landscape and the relationship between the house, coach house, topography, natural heritage features and lanscaping. Potential impacts may include those that are visual/contextual, as well as physical/structural. Views from the east and west along Doon Village Road should be described and analysed. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the cultural heritage resources may be conserved, relating to their level of importance. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, relocation, commemoration and/or documentation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. The potential impacts of both the relocation of the Coach House and the creation of 4 new lots should be examined. Lot configuration and building design options that mitigate the impact of the proposed severances on the heritage attributes of the subject property and surrounding protected properties should be fully explained. For example, conserving buildings in situ is always the preferred conservation option. The HIA should explore at least one option where the Coach House is conserved in situ, perhaps by retaining the Coach House in situ on its own lot (e.g. combine Lot 9 and Lot 2), or perhaps by retaining the Coach House in situ on the retained lands. Staff would be willing to explore alterations to the Coach House that would enable it to function as a separate single detached dwelling on its own lot, or a secondary dwelling unit on the retained lands. 2.7 A summary of the conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. The conservation principles may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada — Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport; and, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). 2.8 The proposed severance and the potential construction of new dwelling units alterations and dem, 'mss must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. 2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: ■ The significance and heritage attributes of the subject property, including at minimum, the heritage attributes in the designating by-law. ■ The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject property. ■ An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are recommended. ■ Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. In particular, if the conclusion continues to favour moving the coach house, the HIA should explain why conserving the coach house in situ is not possible. 4.0 Mandatory Recommendation The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject property is worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why not. The following questions must be answered in the final recommendation of the report: 1. Do thepropeFties meet the Cityof KitGhener�GriteFia or Listing on the MR+Eipal—Heritage'peg+steF as--z,--Nen DesigRateaPFeperty of Cultural heritage Value nr Interest? Why eF why net? 2. Do additional resources on the property, beyond those already identified in the existing designating by-law, meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, does the property warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? It is acknowledged that both the lot to be retained and the 4 new lots that are proposed to be created are currently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (By-law # 1984-52). The consultant shall examine and provide a recommendation on the revisions and amendments that should be made to the designating by-law to reflect O. Reg. 9/06 and the PPS. The following question must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Should the current Part IV designation of the subject property under the Ontario Heritage Act continue to apply to the 4 new lots to be created? Why or why not? It must be clearly stated as to why the 4 new lots do or don't merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (i.e. meets or does not meet the criteria for designation in Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06). 5.0 Approval Process Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf format burned on CD shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. Staff may recommend deferral of the consent applications by the committee of adjustment until such time as Heritage Kitchener has provided comment and the Director of Planning has approved the HIA. Heritage Impact Assessments, may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division Conservation Plan - Terms of Reference Introduction The following Terms of Reference shall be used to fulfill the condition regarding completion and approval of a Conservation Plan prior to the consideration of an application made under the Planning Act. The Conservation Plan shall address how the cultural heritage resources and attributes as identified and described in an approved Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), will be conserved. A Conservation Plan is a document which identifies the conservation principles appropriate for the type of cultural heritage resource/attributes being conserved; provides detailed documentation of the resource and its heritage attributes; includes an assessment of current conditions and deficiencies; and recommends conservation measures and interventions in the short, medium and long term to ensure preservation of the property's cultural heritage significance. Policy Context Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Council shall have regard to matters of Provincial interest such as the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. In addition, Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Policy 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The Provincial Policy Statement defines a built heritage resource as including resources listed by local jurisdictions. Significant is defined as resources that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. Conserved is defined as meaning the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. Conservation Plan Requirements Present owner contact information for property proposed for development and/or alteration. Identification of all cultural heritage resource(s) and a clear statement of their cultural heritage value and interest, including a bullet point list of their heritage attributes. • identification of the conservation principles and guidelines to be applied for the type of heritage resource/attributes being conserved and the specific conservation work to be undertaken in order to repair, maintain and protect the heritage resources and attributes. These conservation principles and guidelines may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada — Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Building Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Culture; and, the Ontario Ministry of Culture's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). An assessment of the current condition of the cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. The Conservation Plan must identify the physical condition and integrity of the cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes, with a view toward making recommendations regarding appropriate repair and maintenance, in keeping with good conservation practice. Identification of the short, medium and long term vision for the conservation of the heritage resources, and of the specific conservation measures to be undertaken in the short, medium, and long-term. Such measures shall describe the documentation, stabilization, repair, monitoring and maintenance strategies required to be undertaken for each phase, and shall referen the qualifications for anyone responsible for undertaking such work. This section may include, but is not be limited to, the following: Short -Term Conservation Work • Documentation (through detailed description and photographs) of heritage attributes proposed to be demolished, removed, salvaged or otherwise irreversibly damaged. • Description and specifications for work required to be undertaken to conserve heritage attributes in need of immediate repair and stabilization to prevent further deterioration, damage and the potential loss of such attributes. monitoring strategy to protect the property from vandalism or fire (e.g. methodology for monitoring; frequency of monitoring; and process to address issues that arise through monitoring). Medium -Term Conservation Work Description and specifications for work required to be undertaken to heritage attributes as part of the proposed development and/or rehabilitation (to include demolition, removal and salvage of heritage attributes; the stabilization, repair and cleaning of heritage attributes; and the reconstruction or replacement of heritage attributes). Such work may be divided into phases. Long -Term Conservation Work Identification of a monitoring program addressing appropriate measures for the ongoing maintenance of the heritage resources and attributes, post develop ment/rehabilitation. Provide a recommended schedule for conservation work, inspections, monitoring, maintenances and phases (short, medium, and long-term). The Conservation Plan must include a cost estimate of the conservation work to be undertaken in the short-term to heritage attributes in need of immediate repair and stabilization to prevent further damage and deterioration. Such cost estimate must be prepared by a qualified individual or consultant. In order to ensure implementation of the Conservation Plan, the City may require the owner to post a Letter of Credit equal to the value of the short-term conservation work as a condition of the approval of the subject application. The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Conservation Plan shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the field of heritage conservation. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. Approval Process Five hard copies of the Conservation Plan and one electronic pdf format burned on disk shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies will be marked with a DRAFT watermark. The Conservation Plan will be reviewed by Heritage Planning staff and a recommendation will be made to the Director of Planning. Approval of the Conservation Plan by the Director of Planning is required prior to issuance of approval of the application. Approval of the Conservation Plan may result in the establishment of development related legal agreements or conditions of development approval. Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix B — Proposed Plan of Severance (next page) December, 2077 MHBC 160 Proposed Consent Plan 883 Doon Village Road City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo LEGEND Subject Lands J I J Proposed Lots ___ BECHTEL DR DATE: R = I Relocate Existing Driveway is dL Region of Wa Dec. 19. 2017 SCALE: 1:750 rr c° FILE: 1796A DRAWN: GC Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix C — Designation By-law (next page) December, 2077 MHBC 161 (Poeinq a by-law to designate part of the property municipally known as 883 T*,%oon Village Road in the City of Kitchener as being of historic and architectural value) WHEREAS Section 29 of the Ontario 'Heritage Act, P.S.O. Chapter 337, authorizes the Council oZ a Municipality to enact to designate real property, including all buildings and structiarei,.i be of architectural or historical value or interest; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the ri.tv Kitchener has caused to be nerved on the owner of the lands and known municipally as 883 Doon village Road in the City of Yitcren:_-, ancl upon the Ontario Heritage Foundation, a Notice of Intention to as being of historic and architectural value that part of the afcresr%:.7_C. property more particuarly hereinafter described, and has Caused of intention to be published in a newspaper having general circ-6_JA'.at_-_-,F,.' In the municipality once for each of three consecutive weeks; AND WHEREAS no Notice of objection to the proposed cE .c t lits been served upon the Clerk of the Mu icipality; NOW THEREFORE the Counc The Corporation of the c2,t, nf- Kitchener enacts as followsi 1. There is designated as being of historic arts arc ct, value that part of the aforesaid real property, know.s Doon Village Road being comprised of the three had: facade, the two aide facades ull having windows -write. over six panes, the front door complete with tram= -.i rm lights, the one -storey verandah with turned posts extends across the front of the houses, the gable- roo,' return eaves, the small square attic windows 4n6 t!'. chimneys at either end of the gable roof, 2. The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a D -F this By-law to be registered against the whole o4 ;:ne . :Per described in Schedule "A" hereto (of which the sa�,,-I area forms a part) in the proper land registry office. 1"10 Vxllw*L.Lu -..- - "-- --, passing of this By-law to be published in the same. having general circulation in the community once for three consecutive weeks. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Yj,tcken(.-.,r this day of PAP DUAL Arw birk3u.Uar, r-na-F, Uerx;1Mjn parQe.L UX: T;X-aUL. U1 LCL1'M-1' premises, situate, lying and being In the Ci" -y of Kitchener, in Municipality of Waterloo (formerly the County of Waterloo) ane Ontario, having an area of 1.322 acres and being composed of Paxn o.rl- 7,c,t Number 2, in Biahn's Tract, in the said City of Zitchener, more r!art�.c',a-!ar-i'v described as follows BEARINGS herein are astronomic and are referred to the meridian the southwesterly angle of Lot 53, German Company Tract; COMMENCING at a point where a standard iron bar is planted on the southwesterly limit of Doon Village Road, at the distance of 161812 fket, measured South 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds Fust therealonc-7 most northerly angle of Part 1 as shown on Waterloo Description Plan Number 127; THENCE South 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds EawL cortinui-nc, aio--7 t: ,e southwesterly limit of Doon Village Road, a distance of 240.00 feet cz; an iron bar; THENCE South 35 degrees 43 minutes 0%s:00' de West, 240.00 feet to an iron bars THENCE North 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds West, 240.00 feet rc) -z-r, Iron bars THENCE North 35 degrees 43 minutes and 30 seconds East, 240-00 feet to the Point of Commencemen4v The designation described herein is recommended on hisboric _nft architectural grounds. This house was built in 1863 I -,.y. Burkholder, a well-known and respected teacher. in to -,f architecture, the house is a fine example of the Vlater`oo cc',uaty Georgian style. H �r (1) 02 m (d > '5 en a 44 o w t ocar H r; 4.) O i1 4a U O > U y0-' W n U U rel a .N r-i QJ 1-1 +ti 0 SLO m � 4.3t� U vl p O ( u 0 41 r h U 4-) Q Pi A F O 4 H E-t (d >J 4-4 i-) O O tp Ui F14 Qi O .-{ -ri O Qa CD ii a 00 G7 un 2 a 42 f,e C o C.3 cC , O Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix D — Curriculum Vitae (next page) K3 December, 2077 MHBC 162 EDUCATION 2006 Masters of Arts (Planning) University of Waterloo 1998 Bachelor of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo 1998 Bachelor of Arts (Art History) University of Saskatchewan CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CU RRICU LUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBC's Cultural Heritage Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various positions in the public sector since 1997 including the Director of Policy Planning for the City of Cambridge and Senior Policy Planner for the City of Waterloo. Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including strategic planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and plans, heritage master plans, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage landscape studies. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE MASTER PLANS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND POLICY STUDIES Niagara -on -the -Lake, Corridor Design Guidelines Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan Township of West Lincoln Settlement Area Expansion Analysis Ministry of Infrastructure Review of Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review City of Cambridge Green Building Policy Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study & Employment Land Strategy Ministry of the Environment Review of the D -Series Land Use Guidelines Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan City of Cambridge Trails Master Plan City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy City of Cambridge Growth Management Strategy City of Waterloo Height and Density Policy City of Waterloo Student Accommodation Study City of Waterloo Land Supply Study City of Kitchener Inner City Housing Study CONTACT CU RRICU LUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP HERITAGE PLANNING Town of Cobourg, Heritage Master Plan Municipality of Chatham Kent, Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Kingston, Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan City of Markham, Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study City of Kitchener, Heritage Inventory Property Update Township of Muskoka Lakes, Bala Heritage Conservation District Plan Municipality of Meaford, Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Guelph, Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Toronto, Garden District Heritage Conservation District Plan City of London, Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan City of Cambridge, Heritage Master Plan City of Waterloo, Mary -Allen Neighbourhood Heritage District Plan Study City of Waterloo Rummelhardt School Heritage Designation Other heritage consulting services including: • Preparation of Heritage Impact Assessments for both private and public sector clients • Requests for Designations • Alterations or new developments within Heritage Conservation Districts • Cultural Heritage Evaluations for Environmental Assessments DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Provide consulting services and prepare planning applications for private sector clients for: 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com 2 • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan 140111[4 �_i Col 2016 Master of Arts in Planning, specializing in Heritage Planning University of Waterloo, School of Planning 2010 Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Historical/Industrial Archaeology Wilfrid Laurier University CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 576 0121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Vanessa Hicks,M.A.,C.A.H.P. Vanessa Hicks is a Heritage Planner with MHBC and joined the firm after graduating from the University of Waterloo with a Masters Degree in Planning, specializing in heritage planning and conservation. Prior to Joining MHBC, Vanessa gained practical experience working as the Program Manager, Heritage Planning for the Town of Aurora, where she was responsible for working with Heritage Advisory Committees in managing heritage resources, Heritage Conservation Districts, designations, special events (such as the annual Doors Open Ontario event), and heritage projects (such as the Architectural Salvage Program). Vanessa provides a variety of research and report writing services for public and private sector clients. She has experience in historical research, inventory work, evaluation and analysis on a variety of projects, including heritage conservation districts (HCDs), heritage impact assessments (HIAs), cultural heritage evaluation reports (CHERs), conservation plans, as well as Stages 1-4 archaeological assessments. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE June 2016 - Cultural Heritage Specialist/ Heritage Planner Present MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd. 2012- Program Manager, Heritage Planning 2016 Town of Aurora May 2012 - Heritage Planning Assistant October 2012 Town of Grimsby 2007- Archaeologist 2010 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 576 0121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CU RRICU LU MVITAE Vanessa Hicks, M.A., C.A.H.P. SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORTS (CHERs) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - Dunlop Street West and Bradford Street, Barrie - Prince of Wales School and Barrie Central Collegiate Institute Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report- Lakeshore Drive, Town of Oakville Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - 317 Mill Street, 28/30 Elizabeth Street South, 16 Elizabeth Street South, Town of Richmond Hill Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (HCDs) Heritage Conservation District Study — Southeast Old Aurora (Town of Aurora) CONSERVATION PLANS Strategic Conservation Plan — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape SPECIAL PROJECTS Artifact Display Case - Three Brewers Restaurant(275 Yonge St., Toronto) FA HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (HIAs) Heritage Impact Assessment -'Southworks', 64 Grand Avenue South, City of Cambridge .� Heritage Impact Assessment - 47 Spring Street Waterloo, Albert/MacGregor Neighbourhood HCD Heritage Impact Assessment - 107 Concession Street, City of Cambridge Heritage Impact Assessment — 33 Laird Drive, City of Toronto Heritage Impact Assessment — Badley Bridge, part of a Municipal EA Class Assessment, Township of Centre Wellington Heritage Impact Assessment — 362 Dodge Drive, City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment — 255 Ruhl Drive, Town of Milton Heritage Impact Assessment — 34 Erb Street East, City of Waterloo CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORTS (CHERs) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - Dunlop Street West and Bradford Street, Barrie - Prince of Wales School and Barrie Central Collegiate Institute Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report- Lakeshore Drive, Town of Oakville Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - 317 Mill Street, 28/30 Elizabeth Street South, 16 Elizabeth Street South, Town of Richmond Hill Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (HCDs) Heritage Conservation District Study — Southeast Old Aurora (Town of Aurora) CONSERVATION PLANS Strategic Conservation Plan — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape SPECIAL PROJECTS Artifact Display Case - Three Brewers Restaurant(275 Yonge St., Toronto) FA 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE