HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - 2018-11-06 - Item 3a - Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 28 Burgetz AvenueHERITAGE IMPAC
ASSESSMENT
28 Burgetz Avenue
City of Kitchener
Date:
March, 2018
Prepared for:
MB Future Homes Inc.
Prepared by:
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC)
200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T: 519 576 3650
F: 519 576 0121
Our File:'17343 A'
AM
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Table of Contents
ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................................................................4
Glossaryof Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................................4
1.0 Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................5
2.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................9
2.1 Location..........................................................................................................................................................................................9
2.2 Heritage Status........................................................................................................................................................................1 1
2.3 Adjacent Heritage Properties........................................................................................................................................1 1
3.0 Policy Context....................................................................................................................................................................................12
35
3.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2014........................................................................................................................................12
3.2 The Ontario Heritage Act.......................................................................................................................................................13
3.3 City of Kitchener Official Plan..............................................................................................................................................14
4.0 Historical Overview.........................................................................................................................................................................18
39
5.1 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township...................................................................................................................18
5.2 Lot 54, German Company Tract........................................................................................................................................19
5.5 28 Burgetz (formerly 279 Thaler Avenue, 62 Thaler Avenue, and 62 Bugetz Avenue)................23
6.0 Description of Site and Surrounding Context..............................................................................................................33
6.1 Landscape and Surrounding Context..........................................................................................................................33
6.2 Built Features.................................................................................................................................................................................35
6.2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................
35
6.3 Description of Built Features - Exterior.........................................................................................................................36
6.3.1 East (Front) Elevation......................................................................................................................................................36
6.3.2 South Elevation...................................................................................................................................................................38
6.3.3 West (Rear) Elevation......................................................................................................................................................
39
6.3.4 North Elevation...................................................................................................................................................................40
6.4 Description of Built Features - Interior..........................................................................................................................41
6.4.1 Section 'A' (Log House)..................................................................................................................................................41
6.4.2 Shed/Garage (Section 'B')............................................................................................................................................50
March, 2078 MHBCI i
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
6.4.3 Section 'C'— Addition (Kitchen)............................................................................................................................... 52
6.4.4 Garage (Section'D')..........................................................................................................................................................53
6.4.5 Sun Porch (Section'E')....................................................................................................................................................55
7.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources......................................................................................................................56
7.1 Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................................................................................................56
7.2 28 Burgetz Avenue....................................................................................................................................................................57
7.2.1 Evaluation of Design/Physical Value.....................................................................................................................57
7.2.2 Evaluation of Historical or Associative Value...................................................................................................57
7.2.3 Evaluation of Contextual Value................................................................................................................................58
7.2.4 Heritage Attributes...........................................................................................................................................................58
7.3 Chart Summary of Cultural Heritage Evaluation....................................................................................................60
8.0 Condition Assessment..................................................................................................................................................................61
8.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................61
8.2 Condition Assessment............................................................................................................................................................61
8.2.1 Basement................................................................................................................................................................................61
8.2.2 Perimeter Walls (log house).......................................................................................................................................61
8.2.3 Roof.............................................................................................................................................................................................62
8.3 Summary..........................................................................................................................................................................................62
9.0 Description of Proposed Development............................................................................................................................63
9.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................63
9.2 Review of City of Kitchener Zoning By-law...............................................................................................................63
10.0 Impacts of Proposed Development.................................................................................................................................67
9.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................67
9.2 Classifications of Impacts......................................................................................................................................................67
9.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................67
9.2.1 Beneficial, Neutral, and Adverse Impacts..........................................................................................................68
11.0 Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation
Recommendations..................................................................................................................................................................................69
10.1 Alternative Development Approaches.....................................................................................................................69
10.2 Mitigation Recommendations........................................................................................................................................72
March, 2078 MHBC/ ii
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
10.2.1 Develop the Site and Demolish All Structures............................................................................................72
12.0 Conclusion and Recommendations.................................................................................................................................75
12.0 Sources.................................................................................................................................................................................................77
AppendixA..................................................................................................................................................................................................78
PhotoMap (next page)........................................................................................................................................................................78
AppendixB...................................................................................................................................................................................................79
Structural Condition Report (next page)..................................................................................................................................79
AppendixC...................................................................................................................................................................................................80
Termsof Reference (next page).....................................................................................................................................................80
AppendixD..................................................................................................................................................................................................81
CurriculumVitae (next page)...........................................................................................................................................................81
March, 2078 MHBC iii
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Project Personnel
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP,
CAHP
Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP
Rachel Martin
Managing Director of Cultural Senior Review
Heritage
Heritage Planner Research, Author
Planner Research and Field Assistant
Glossary of Abbreviations
HIA
MHBC
MTCS
OHA
OHTK
O -REG 9/06
PPS 2014
Heritage Impact Assessment
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson
Planning Limited
Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport
Ontario Heritage Act
Ontario Heritage Toolkit
Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining
cultural heritage significance
Provincial Policy Statement (2014)
March, 2078 MHBC 4
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
1.0 Executive Summary
MHBC was retained by MB Future Homes Ltd. in November, 2017 to undertake a Heritage Impact
Assessment for the proposed development of the subject lands located at 28 Burgetz Avenue,
City of Kitchener.
The subject lands are not 'listed' or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as per the City of
Kitchener Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.
The subject lands include a single detached residential dwelling comprised of several different
components. These components are described in this report as follows:
t
%LL AVA&AW
Figure 1: 2016 Aerial photo of the subject lands. Approximate boundary of subject lands noted in red.
(Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 5
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Section: Description: Date/period:
Original 2 storey log house. Constructed with squared Early 19th century.
Im hand-hewn logs and dove keyed corners (living space,
bedrooms above, access to basement). Field stone
foundation.
Wood frame outbuilding. Constructed with large sawn Likely mid to late 19th century.
B wood boards (well worn barn boards approx 15 inches
wide).
Wood frame addition connecting Section'A'to Section Early to mid 20th century.
® B' (kitchen and hallway).
Wood frame 2 car garage with concrete block and Mid to late 20th century.
poured concrete foundation (with storage loft above), (demolished 2017)
clad in gray brick. Use of modern building materials and
construction techniques such as sawn lumber and
plywood sheathing.
Contemporary Plexiglass/metal frame greenhouse (east Mid to late 20th century.
® halo and wood frame sunroom (west halo (demolished 2017)
This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has determined that the subject property has significant
cultural heritage value as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 as it includes an early 19th century log
house (referred to in this report as Section 'A'). The remaining portions of the existing dwelling
located on the subject lands (Sections 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E') are not of significant cultural heritage
value. It is important to note that Sections 'D' (contemporary two -car garage) and 'E'
(contemporary sun room/greenhouse) of the structure were removed in the winter season of
2017.
The log house on the subject property is significant primarily for its design/physical and
historical/associative values. The early 19th century log house represents an early and rare form of
residential construction associated with the first wave of Euro -Canadian settlement of Waterloo
Township, Waterloo County. The log house is associated with the theme of early agricultural
settlement of Waterloo Township, and is also associated with the Burgetz family, who held
ownership of property described as Part of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract for over 100
consecutive years.
This HIA has demonstrated that while the subject property remains historically associated with its
surroundings, it has not retained its contextual value as components of the original farmstead
have been lost with the development of the community in the later half of the 20th century. This
has resulted in the removal of all other landscape components including (but not limited to),
March, 2018 MHBC1 6
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
ploughed agricultural fields, original circulation systems, open landscaped space, gardens, and
barns and accessory structures.
This report acknowledges that the proposed development of the subject lands includes the
subdivision of the subject property to facilitate residential intensification. The proposed
development includes the demolition of all structures on the subject lands which includes the
original log house. This HIA has determined that this is considered a permanent adverse impact as
it results in the demolition of an early and rare form of residential construction in Ontario and is
considered a significant heritage resource. Should the demolition of the log structure be
supported, the following mitigation recommendations are provided:
• That the log house be uncovered and subject to further invasive analysis in order to
uncover all heritage features so that they be documented prior to demolition;
• That prior to demolition, reasonable efforts be made to advertise the log house in the
local newspaper so that those who wish to re -locate the structure (at their own cost) to an
alternative location which is complementary to its cultural heritage value and conserved
appropriately;
• That a Cultural Heritage Documentation and Salvage Report be prepared which includes
a) a photographic documentation of the house as well as measured architectural
drawings of the exterior and floor plans, b) recommendations regarding materials to be
salvaged for commemoration purposes, and c) recommendations regarding appropriate
commemoration of the site which may include options for commemoration on-site or at
an alternative location.
As this option has been identified as a significant adverse impact, a range of alternative
development measures have been evaluated. The preferred alternative is the retention of the log
house in-situ on the subject lands for residential adaptive re -use while facilitating the residential
intensification of the remainder of the lot. Should this development alternative be selected, the
following mitigation recommendations are provided:
• Submission of a Conservation Plan detailing how the log house will be conserved
appropriately while facilitating adaptive re -use including the construction of a new
addition in order to accommodate modern amenities (i.e. plumbing, heating, cooling,
etc.);
• That the Conservation Plan include a section documenting the heritage log structure
subsequent to the removal of existing 201h century finishes in order to support the historic
record;
• That the demolition of the existing additions of no cultural heritage value are carried out
by a licensed demolition contractor with demonstrated experience in heritage properties
(as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers) ; and
March, 2078 MHBC1 7
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
• That the roof framing should be removed by hand where it interacts with the log wall
framing of the house (as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers).
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.
March, 2078 MHBC1 8
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
2.01ntroduction
MHBC was retained by MB Future Homes Inc. in November, 2017 to undertake a Heritage Impact
Assessment for the proposed development of the subject property located at28 Burgetz Avenue,
City of Kitchener.
2.1 Location
The subject property located at 28 Burgetz Avenue is situated south of River Road East, west of
Burgetz Avenue, and north of Thaler Avenue. The property is located on part of Lot 54 of the
German Company Tract in the former Township of Waterloo, County of Waterloo (now the
Regional of Waterloo). The subject lands are legally described as Part Lot 2 Easterly Range, Plan
589, Township of Waterloo Parts 2 & 3 58R15112, City of Kitchener. The property is approximately
0.31 acres (0.12 hectares) with approximately 42 metres of frontage at the front lot line, parallel to
Burgetz Avenue.
Figure 2: Topographic Map, approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: Natural
Resources Canada, 2017)
March, 2018 MHBC1 9
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 3: 2016 Aerial Photo, approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: City of Kitchener
Interactive Maps, 2017)
Figure 4: 2016 Aerial photo of the subject lands. Approximate boundary of subject lands noted
(Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2017)
in red.
March, 2018 MHBC1 10
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
2.2 Heritage Status
The subject lands are not 'listed' or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as per the City of
Kitchener Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The subject lands are
located adjacent to lands zoned 'Institutional' (noted in light blue on Figure 5), formerly a school
yard.
U\s.
E AP n . ,
Heritage register 7M PON[ , . FF
s
ElIntend to Designate
CATEGORY SW POW s "V,
O� Gp'G
Listed Properties
�SY'� z�FFER PL
�PartIVDesignation /0 �%
F�Part V (District) Designation
L I a`O� R,s T} n L
Part IV and V Designation sO� Pyw
Heritage district O
Cn SWF `
A SGT rp C,P 5 7.1 PONN 1
F �� ieliit-k CENT EVILLE CHI C1?PEE ("
' rr-
Figure 5: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, noting the location of listed properties (blue dashed lines), and
designated properties (pink dashed lines). The approximate boundary of the subject lands is noted in red.
(Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2017)
2.3 Adjacent Heritage Properties
The subject lands are not located adjacent (contiguous) to any properties identified by the City of
Kitchener as being of cultural heritage value or interest as per a review of the City of Kitchener
Municipal Heritage Register regarding properties 'listed' (non -designated) as well as those which
are designated under Part IV and/or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
March, 2018 MHBC1 11
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
3.OPolicy Context
3.1 The Planning Act and PPS 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
"encourage the co-operation and co-ordination among the various interests. Regarding Cultural
Heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that:
The Minister, the council of municipality, a local board, a planning board and 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;
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.
2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on
adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed
development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will
be conserved.
Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that
have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest
March, 2078 MHBC 12
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
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.
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.
The subject lands are not considered to be a protected heritage property under the consideration
of the PPS.
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 Heritage Impact Assessment 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.
March, 2018 MHBC1 13
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
3.3 City of Kitchener Official Plan
Section 12 of the Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the
conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this CHER as follows:
Objectives
72.7.7. 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. 72.7.2. To ensure that all
development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects
cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved.
72.7.3. To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage
resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 72.7.4. 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
72.C.7.7. 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. 72.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.
72.C.7.4. The City acknowledges that not all of the city's cultural heritage resources
have been identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 72.C.7.3.
Accordingly, a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered
as having cultural heritage value or interest. 72.C.7.5. Through the processing of
applications submitted under the Planning Act, resources of potential cultural
heritage value or interest will be identified, evaluated and considered for listing as
a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal
Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans
72.C.7.23. 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:
March, 2078 MHBCI 14
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
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 12.01.23
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.
12.0 7.26. 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;
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.
12.07.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact
Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be
March, 2078 MHBC 15
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
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
72.07.32. 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.
72.07.34. 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.
72.07.35. 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
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.
72.07.36. 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.
March, 2078 MHBC 16
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Design/Integration
72.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.
72.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.
March, 2078 MHBC 117
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
4.0 Historical Overview
5.1 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, 2006). A tract of land 12 miles wide along the course of the Grand River was 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, 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,
2006). The land was then surveyed by Richard Cockrell who divided the township into upper and
lower blocks (Hayes, 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, 1997).
In order to raise the £10,000 needed to purchase their prospective land holdings, the
Pennsylvanian farmers, led by Sam Bricker and Daniel Erb, established an association to acquire
the approximately 60,000 acres, later known as the German Company Tract (GCT). The deed for
the land was finally granted to the German Company and its shareholders on 24 July 1805 (Eby,
1978).
After the arrival of the GCT shareholders, settlement in the GCT slowed. Many immigrants were
unable to leave Europe during the Napoleonic War, and the War of 1812 in North America also
prevented many settlers from relocating to join their relatives. By 1815 both conflicts had ended,
and settlement to the GCT began to increase, with additional Pennsylvania Mennonite settlers,
German -based settlers, and later English, Irish and Scottish settlers. A number of settlers from
England, Scotland and Ireland came to Waterloo Township by assisted immigration and
colonization schemes (Bloomfield, 2006). In 1816 the GCT lands and Beasley's lower block were
incorporated into Waterloo Township, and in 1853 became part of Waterloo County.
March, 2018 MHBC1 18
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 6: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. Source: Waterloo
Township Through Two Centuries. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow.
The GCT was a unique survey that was done in equal sized farmsteads in contrast to the
surrounding lots and concessions. This survey pattern had a lasting influence on the township
that resulted in an irregular network of roads which followed the contours of the land and
avoided high quality agricultural land.
The subject lands would have been part of the historic community of Centreville. The community
formerly known as Centreville would have been located at the present-day intersection of King
Street East and Fairway Road. Centreville held meetings of Waterloo Township Council until 1954
(See Figure 12). Centreville included a school and businesses which served the surrounding
farmlands. In the 1950s, the community was annexed by the City of Kitchener (Bloomfield, 2006).
5.2 Lot 54, German Company Tract
The subject lands are located on part of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract, known as the
'upper block' (abbreviated as u.b.) of Waterloo Township. All 448 acres of Lot 54 of the German
Company Tract (within Block 2) were purchased by Daniel and Jacob Erb in 1805. Part of Lot 54 of
the GCT was subsequently purchased by Joseph Erb, who subdivided the lands as part of
Registered Plan 589 (also known as'Joseph Erb's Block) in 1858.
March, 2018 MHBC1 19
���
r1 �
t
Figure 6: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. Source: Waterloo
Township Through Two Centuries. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow.
The GCT was a unique survey that was done in equal sized farmsteads in contrast to the
surrounding lots and concessions. This survey pattern had a lasting influence on the township
that resulted in an irregular network of roads which followed the contours of the land and
avoided high quality agricultural land.
The subject lands would have been part of the historic community of Centreville. The community
formerly known as Centreville would have been located at the present-day intersection of King
Street East and Fairway Road. Centreville held meetings of Waterloo Township Council until 1954
(See Figure 12). Centreville included a school and businesses which served the surrounding
farmlands. In the 1950s, the community was annexed by the City of Kitchener (Bloomfield, 2006).
5.2 Lot 54, German Company Tract
The subject lands are located on part of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract, known as the
'upper block' (abbreviated as u.b.) of Waterloo Township. All 448 acres of Lot 54 of the German
Company Tract (within Block 2) were purchased by Daniel and Jacob Erb in 1805. Part of Lot 54 of
the GCT was subsequently purchased by Joseph Erb, who subdivided the lands as part of
Registered Plan 589 (also known as'Joseph Erb's Block) in 1858.
March, 2018 MHBC1 19
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
According to Registered Plan 589, the lands were divided into a 'farm lot' with the remainder
being divided into Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, each having an easterly and westerly range. The
subject lands are located on Part of Lot 4, Easterly Range (See Figure 7).
Figure 7: Map of Registered Plan 598 (Joseph Erb's Block) 1858
According to the 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo, lands which were part of Registered Plan 598
were further subdivided and owned by T. Bowman, Poat Alis., H.S., F.S., Anthon Haubner,
Schneider, and David S. Wismer. No owners of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract are noted on
the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Waterloo County (See Figure 8).
While the 1861 Tremaine Map indicates that the subject lands (part of Lot 4 of Registered Plan
598) of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract was owned by Anthony Haubner, he is not listed in
the abstracts for Lot 54 of the German Company Tract. Further, Anthony Haubner is listed in the
1861 Census for Waterloo Township as a farmer (age 34), married (in 1854) to Margaret Haubner
(See Figure 10). They are listed as Baptists residing in a 2 storey log house. The document notes
that neighbours of the Haubner family include the Wismers, which are also clearly indicated in
both the early maps of Waterloo Township and the abstracts of the Land Registry as residing on
Lot 54 of the German Company Tract.
March, 2018 MHBC1 20
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Anton Haubner is also listed in the 1864 directory of Waterloo Township as residing on a farm on
Lot 54 Upper Block, German Company Tract (See Figure 11).
Therefore, as it appears that the records held at the Land Registry are incomplete (representing a
break in the chain of title), it cannot be conclusively determined who may have owned the land
prior to A. Haubner, and when the log house on the subject property was constructed.
Figure 8: Tremaine Map of Waterloo Township, 1861
by arrow.
Axr1Aa P9 ell—
Approximate
Y
Approximate location of subject property denoted
Figure 9: 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Waterloo & Wellington Counties. Approximate location of
subject property denoted by arrow.
March, 2078 MHBC 21
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 10 Excerpt oft he 1861 Census of Waterloo Township noting A. Haub ner as a farmer residing in a 2
storey log house (Source: Ancestry.ca)
Haiet>tPfley; George
-bee t b
Haamt, Geo
Hatibaer, Aritun,
u b. 54f
ff ane ,'A"M
Hauch, M ousel
b F75
h
I
t f
I
(
Haech,';Audreae I n
(99
h t 99 f
F
Hauch, Philip
h t 79 f
3E
Haug: Matthmn . _ .
n h sq.r
x
Figure 11: Excerpt of the 1864 directory of Waterloo Township
noting A. Haubner as resident of upper
block, Lot 54 of the German Company Tract (Source: Ancestry.ca)
IF
urn -In
WMA
Figure 12: Excerpt of Map of Waterloo Township, 1884-1885 (Source: Ancestry.ca)
March, 2018 MHBC1 22
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
5.528 Burgetz (formerly 279 Thaler Avenue, 62 Thaler Avenue, and 62 Bugetz
Avenue)
What can be determined from the available records is that the Burgetz family became the owners
of the subject property, likely beginning in the late 19th century. Allen Burgetz first purchased 10
acres of land on part of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract (as well as other lands on Lot 118 of
the German Company Tract) in 1899 from Aaron S. Shoemaker for $4,500.00 The high price of the
land may indicate that a farmhouse was located on the property. It should be noted that the
abstract and deed for this transaction (Instrument no. 14689) does not indicate which part of Lot
54 the property was located on (i.e. as per Joseph Erb's Plan,1858). Therefore, it is not clear
whether or not this purchase in 1899 included the subject lands.
After 1899, Allen Burgetz began expanding his lands within (and adjacent to) Lot 54 of the
German Company Tract. He purchased an additional 22 acres from E. Boss in 1907 for $1,540.00.
The deed for this transaction indicates that Allen Burgetz purchased a portion of the 'Buck Farm',
which was partially located on Part of Lot 54 and Part of Lot 118 of the German Company Tract.
Allen Burgetz continued to sell and purchase land during the 20th century. The Burgetz family
continued to sever off parts of their lands, retaining the portion of the property with the log
house as a dwelling.
The 1911 Census of Waterloo Township lists Allan Burgetz as a farmer with his wife Julia, and
children John, Laura, Harry, Lillian, Irene, Lloyd, Violet, and Alta. The 1921 census lists Allan Burgetz
as residing in a wood dwelling (having 6 rooms) with wife Julia and children Laura, Lilian, Lloyd,
Violet, Alta, Edna, Gordon, and Roy (See Figure 19).
The family farm was granted to the eldest son of Allen Burgetz (John Burgetz), beginning in the
20th century. In 1931, John Burgetz purchased 3.81 acres of land from Henry Thaler for $380.00.
Allen Burgetz (father of John Burgetz) granted 17.1 acres of land to John Burgetz in 1944, and
another 11.55 acres to John Burgetz in that same year. John Burgetz granted Part of Lot 54 of the
German Company Tract to Harold G. and Alice L. Burgetz in 1969.
The 1958 Voters List for the City of Kitchener lists John Burgetz as residing with Harold, Alice,
Margaret, and Lucina Burgetz at 279 Thaler Avenue (prior to the construction of Burgetz Avenue)
(See Figure 16). Harold continued to be employed as a stone cutter and lived with his sister Alice
until her death in 2005. The property remained in the Burgetz family until 2009.
According to the obituary of Harold Burgetz in the Waterloo Region Record (dated December 12,
2016), Harold Burgetz is noted as being born in the house on the subject property in 1933. The
article notes that the house made of hewn logs dating to the 1820s. The article describes Harolds
mother and father (John and Lucinda) as moving into the house as newlyweds on a 'small piece
March, 2078 MHBC1 23
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
of property' making a living as 'market gardeners'. The article confirms that they resided on a lot of
121/2 acres, and that their barn burnt down (date unknown). The article notes that in the mid. 201h
century, John Burgetz sold portions of his farmland off to pay for medical bills for his wife, who
was gravely ill and died in 1958.
Harold Burgetz worked at Superior Memorials on Victoria Street in Kitchener as a stone cutter. The
business is still in operation today. Harold and Alice kept busy by taking boarders into the house
and running a day care.
By 2005, the property was subdivided into Part of Lot 4, Easterly Range, Registered Plan no. 589
(dated 2005), having three parts. The subject lands are located on Parts 2 and 3 of Registered Plan
589 (See Figure 19).
The property remained in the Burgetz family until 2009. Harold Burgetz died in 2016.
Figure 13: Early 201h century photo of Burgetz house and outbuilding, no date (Source:Region of Waterloo
Record December 12, 2006)
March, 2018 MHBC1 24
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
er
_ „
- ar llrfr/ �i 1 aV'6�Q Ly
..-. ..�. tL-+�.! � .... ....... ---- �!-A+��c -_. of ✓/i7[{i i . .C:t ' �Tdc-�.,..:- .d., e.a
�tm.tes-
i-," g Y
Figure 14: Excerpt of the 1911 census of North Waterloo (Source: Ancestry.ca)
Figure 15: Excerpt of the 1921 census of North Waterloo (Source: Ancestry.ca)
i
Figure 16: Excerpt of the 1
Tl1ALYR AVE.
1.3 flareham. Lawrence, metal worker..._...._
111111
162 Hari -ham. Melviaa, hwfe. ».».».. ..
187
Il.2 N iegelherlr, Irvin, surveyor
188
1114 ['aims. Wilbert J. shipper ..
.--, 189
1114 Vahna, Gertrude. 6fe.
190
.• _• �
191
S l4r1/
182
961 Gillow, Anna, hwfe_ .._...__. . ».»...._.
183
#151 4;illow, Nelson. lalhiurer
194
Sbi Nahlr, Edward, lahourer
196
.1,.r, �. S G .�• u�k.-�-
1� -
-
197
� � aLr S _3 (i?z/• �d syr
198
279 Crane, Joyce, hwfe.
Dickens. Roy, 1'UC employee »..» -.
199
_ 200
e s Iran, wip...................................»....•-_•••
201
Figure 15: Excerpt of the 1921 census of North Waterloo (Source: Ancestry.ca)
i
Figure 16: Excerpt of the 1
Tl1ALYR AVE.
1.3 flareham. Lawrence, metal worker..._...._
111111
162 Hari -ham. Melviaa, hwfe. ».».».. ..
187
Il.2 N iegelherlr, Irvin, surveyor
188
1114 ['aims. Wilbert J. shipper ..
.--, 189
1114 Vahna, Gertrude. 6fe.
190
120 SrhMid,t, Albert, finisher ._ »» M .»••»--•.- --_
191
120 tirhmidt, Adolfine, hwfe.
182
961 Gillow, Anna, hwfe_ .._...__. . ».»...._.
183
#151 4;illow, Nelson. lalhiurer
194
Sbi Nahlr, Edward, lahourer
196
2819 W rwht, Joseph, technician ...._.»....... �
196
7819 Thaler, `.'lira. Jos.. hwfe.
197
279 Crone, Holter, lshnurer
198
279 Crane, Joyce, hwfe.
Dickens. Roy, 1'UC employee »..» -.
199
_ 200
e s Iran, wip...................................»....•-_•••
201
flurjreti, llarohl, stonecutter »..«.«.,w...•.•••»-•••
Rurlrett. Alice, hwfe. ..................... » ..- w.. -»M--
— 208
Clir
llurVeta, %laraaret. randy wkr. _
204
lur¢et:, Lucinda, hwfe.
206
uurtr,•ta, John, hardener
206
tl"p1• . Mary, spinster
liahermehl, John, retina! ___ - ----
-- 208
llshermehl. Salome, hwfe. - ,--
209
958 Voters List of the City of Kitchener (Source: Ancestry.ca)
March, 2018 MHBC1 25
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 17: Excerpt of the 1965 Voters List (Source: Ancestry.ca)
BUHGETZ AVENUE
62 Burgetz, Hdr:'W , driver ....................... 1
42 BurAetr. Hfay Alice, housekeeper ............. 2
ynL, KDDC:E. a ee can...........,....... 3
62 Stephen, Ann, factory worker .................. 4
Figure 18: Excerpt of the 1972 Voters List (Source: Ancestry.ca)
March, 2018 MHBC1 26
MIA? ER AULDIUL,
62 Rurgetz, John, farmer ...,........ .......................
367
62 Burgetz, Mrs. Alice, house keeper ....................
368
62 Burgetz, Harold. stone cutter ..........................
369
62 Burgetz, Margaret, candy placer _......................
370
04 Unnox. Wert. counter11
104 Lennox. Mrs, Grace, assembler ........................
372
1Q4 Hughes, Lillian —.........................................
373
120 Frank. Otto, foreman
374
120 Frank. Mrs. Caroline —............................,.....
373
152 Adams, Albert, rubber worker ..........................
376
152 Adams, Mrs. Doris _....................................
377
I63 Habermehl, Saloma, spinster ............................
378
175 Seglupp, Peter, rubber worker ...........................379
175 Scglupp, Elizabeth —.....................................
380
I85 Gillon. Nelson, retired ..................................
381
185 alillon. Mrs. Anna .......................................
382
185 Nehls. Edward. retired ..................................
383
203 Dipple, Mary —............................................,
384
216 May. John. welder .........................................
385
216 Pagett, Leonard, mechanic .............................
386
216 Pagett, Mrd. Sharon — ....................................
919 f ilA..W.."— --I a. Al.r --La.
387
—
Figure 17: Excerpt of the 1965 Voters List (Source: Ancestry.ca)
BUHGETZ AVENUE
62 Burgetz, Hdr:'W , driver ....................... 1
42 BurAetr. Hfay Alice, housekeeper ............. 2
ynL, KDDC:E. a ee can...........,....... 3
62 Stephen, Ann, factory worker .................. 4
Figure 18: Excerpt of the 1972 Voters List (Source: Ancestry.ca)
March, 2018 MHBC1 26
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
'� �• �„ �.,;.w vsss-usv ll fvs+_ 3+s]'w. cn or Rnc+cvG) n�..�
?URGETZ AVENUE
.. L595- I ^ (MEUC., n Br-- ,650. W. N6 .......
ALAN OF .9-W&y
REG�NG FPAT OF LOT 4, �S'IMy
WY OF iQ GNEND? seg
eEccw:.u�N�a+r_^., � ftLRx
wu ,
aci
NATES
LEGEaV b
9�RV €YORS C€R?�GiC4T£
L M Wrtv N C.f.vfl9 b Y,® D. ■b
Figure 19: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. Source: Waterloo
Township Through Two Centuries. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow.
According to a review of aerial photographs of the subject lands, the property has changed
considerably between 1945 (when the first aerial photograph is available) and present day.
According to the 1945 aerial photograph, the subject property was part of a large farm lot on Part
of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract (easterly range as part of Joseph Erb's Block). The
property appears to be accessed by what is now Thaler Avenue. Thaler Avenue divides the
easterly and westerly portions of Joseph Erb's Block. The farm appears to extend to the north into
part of Lot 118 of the German Company Tract. The subject lands (at this time) were rural in
character and included gardens, orchards, a dwelling and outbuildings, as well as extensive
agricultural fields (See Figure 20).
March, 2018 MHBC1 27
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 20: 1945 Aerial Photo. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow (Source: University
of Waterloo Map Library)
The 1954 aerial photograph shows the Burgetz farm remained largely unchanged. However, lands
on the opposite side of Thaler Avenue were being developed (See Figure 21).
Details of the Burgetz farm appear much clearer in the 1963 aerial photograph (See Figures 22 &
23). The aerial image clearly identifies the presence of a circulation system, agricultural fields,
gardens and orchards. The existing log dwelling on the property is clearly indicated, located south
of what appears to be an addition. The barn (now demolished) is located to the west.
The 1997 aerial photograph demonstrates that the property changed considerably between 1963
and 1997. The lot has been reduced in size considerably and no longer supports agricultural use.
The property no longer contains the vast majority of its early 201h century (and 19th century)
features including agricultural fields, circulation system, barn, orchards, and gardens. The
surrounding context has also changed considerably with residential development. The property is
now accessed via Burgetz Avenue. The 1997 aerial photograph also confirms with further detail
that the log house was subject to an addition to the north (See Figure 24).
March, 2018 MHBC1 28
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
r -l"
600a
r - _!W Alk - PV -I-
-* 0 1
Figure 21: 1954 Aerial Photo. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow (Source: University
of Toronto Map Library)
The earliest photograph of the log dwelling on the subject property is dated to the early 20th
century and features members of the Burgetz family (See Figure 13). The photograph only shows
a small portion of the dwelling with returning eaves. This is likely the west elevation of the house.
A small portion of a front-end gabled detached outbuilding can be seen in the background of this
photograph (See Figure 13). This structure is likely an existing portion of the dwelling which has
been attached to the log house via additions.
March, 2018 MHBC1 29
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 22: 1963 Aerial Photo. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow (Source: University
of Waterloo Map Library)
March, 2018 MHBC1 30
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 23: 1963 Aerial Photo. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow (Source: University
of Waterloo Map Library)
March, 2018 MHBC1 31
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 24: 1997 Aerial Photo. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow (Source: City of
Kitchener Interactive Maps)
Figure 25: 2017 Aerial Photo. Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow (Source: City of
Kitchener Interactive Maps)
March, 2018 MHBC1 32
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
6.0 Description of Site and Surrounding
Context
6.1 Landscape and Surrounding Context
The subject property is located west of Burgetz Avenue, north of Thaler Avenue within an
established residential neighbourhood. The subject property is located west of Burgetz Avenue,
north of Thaler Avenue. The subject lands are located adjacent to a former school yard. The
school building was demolished recently (at some point within the last two years). The subject
lands are located north of two contemporary single -detached dwellings fronting Burgetz Avenue.
As per a review of aerial photographs, the surrounding residential subdivision was developed at
some point between 1963 and 1997.
The subject lands include a three -tiered wood retaining wall along the front property line at
Burgetz Avenue. Access to the two car garage is provided off Burgetz Avenue via an asphalt
paved driveway. A narrow walkway is provided along the frontage of Section 'C' of the dwelling to
provide access to two person doors. The northerly door provides access to an entrance room
(likely used as a mud room or laundry room), and the southerly person door provides access to
the kitchen.
The three tiered wood retaining wall includes a set of wooden steps (with metal railing) providing
access to the entrance to the kitchen. The retaining wall is unkempt and overgrown but appears
to have included several varieties of perennials and functioned as a garden.
A generously sized rear yard is provided west of the dwelling. This area is also overgrown and
appears to have included a vegetable garden at some point in time. Species of fruit trees (likely
apple or cherry) are also located in the rear yard. A large Norway spruce tree is located north of
the dwelling
March, 2078 MHBC1 33
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 26 & 27: (left) View of subject property looking south from west side of Burgetz Avenue
Figures 28 & 29: (left) View of subject property looking east towards west (rear) elevation from
former school yard, (right) View of former school yard looking north from open landscaped area
north of Thaler Avenue (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 30 & 31: (left) View of former school yard looking north-west from subject lands, (right)
View of subject lands looking south-east towards north and east elevations from former school
yard (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 34
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
6.2 Built Features
6.2.1 Introduction
The subject lands include a single -detached dwelling consisting of several different components.
The dwelling is slightly off -set to Burgetz Avenue, where the north elevation is turned slightly to
the west. The various components of the house includes the original log house (Section 'A'), a
former outbuilding (likely a small barn or shed) (Section 'B'). Sections Wand 'B' were subsequently
connected by an addition (Section 'C'). At some point in the later half of the 2011 century, a
modern 2 car garage (Section 'D), and a sun room (Section 'E') were added (See Figure 32).
The following provides a summary of the different components of the dwelling located on the
subject lands:
Allow
J z:
Figure 32: 2016 Aerial photo of the subject lands. Approximate boundary of subject (lands noted in red.
(Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 35
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Section: Description: Date/period:
rOriginal 2 storey log hous. Constructed with squared Early 19th century.
A
hand-hewn logs and dove keyed corners (living space,
bedrooms above, access to basement). Field stone
foundation.
Wood frame outbuilding. Constructed with large sawn Likely mid to late 19th century.
B wood boards (well worn barn boards approx 15 inches
wide).
Wood frame addition connecting Section 'A' to Section Early to mid 20th century.
C 'B' (kitchen and hallway).
Wood frame 2 car garage with concrete block and Mid to late 20th century.
D poured concrete foundation (with storage loft above), (demolished 2017)
clad in gray brick. Use of modern building materials
and construction techniques such as sawn lumber and
plywood sheathing.
Contemporary Plexiglass/metal frame greenhouse Mid to late 20th century.
®E (east half) and wood frame sunroom (west half) (demolished 2017)
6.3 Description of Built Features - Exterior
6.3.1 East (Front) Elevation
Sections A, C, D, and E are visible from the east (front) elevation looking west from Burgetz
Avenue. The east elevation of section 'A' displays a side gable with return eaves and two small
squared attic windows. Two rectangular -shaped modern vinyl windows are located at both the
first and second storey. The northerly attic window is partially obscured by the presence of an
exterior red brick chimney. The red brick chimney is not original to the structure and was likely
added at an unknown date in the 201h century.
The exterior of the structure has been re -clad in white vinyl siding (including the soffits and
fascia). The roof includes modern composite shingles. The foundation at the east elevation has
been clad with stone (See Figure 36).
The east elevation of Section 'C' is clad with horizontal vinyl siding (similar to that of Section 'A).
The east elevation displays two person doors. The northerly person door provides access to an
entrance mud room or laundry room. The southerly door includes a small metal frame covered
concrete patio and provides access to the kitchen. This entrance is flanked by two rectangular -
shaped aluminum windows. A small aluminum frame rectangular window is located north of the
March, 2078 MHBC 36
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
kitchen door. A buff/brown coloured brick chimney is visible from the east elevation of Section 'C'.
The date of construction of this chimney is unknown.
The east elevation of Section 'D' is clad in gray bricks and provides two modern style metal car
garage doors. Section 'D' is also clad in a green asphalt shingles (as with the rest of the dwelling).
Figures 33 & 34: (left) View of east elevation of dwelling, looking west from east side of Burgetz
Avenue (right) Detail view of east elevation of Section 'A' (log house), looking west (Source: MHBC,
2017)
Figures 35 & 36: (left) Detail view of roofline and red brick chimney at east elevation of Section'A'
(log house), looking west (right) Detail view of stone cladding at the foundation of the east
elevation of Section 'A' (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 37
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 37 & 38: (left) View of the east elevation of Section 'C', looking west, (right) View of the
east elevation of Section 'D', looking west (Source: MHBC, 2017)
6.3.2 South Elevation
The south elevation provides views of Sections 'A' and 'E'. It is important to note that while
Section 'E' has been demolished in 2017, it is described in this report in order to supplement the
historic record and provide a detailed analysis of the site at the time of the site visit conducted in
November, 2017.
The south elevation of'Section A' includes two rectangular shaped vinyl windows (of similar sizes)
below the roofline. The south elevation of Section 'E' includes a wood frame sun room with four
rectangular -shaped aluminum windows (towards the west), and a plexiglass/aluminum
greenhouse towards the east. Section 'E' was likely added in the later half of the 20th century.
Figures 39 & 40: (left) View of south elevation looking north-west from west side of Burgetz
Avenue, (right) View of south elevation looking west from Burgetz Avenue (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 38
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
6.3.3 West (Rear) Elevation
Sections 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E' are visible from the west (rear) elevation. The west elevation of
Section 'E' (sunroom) includes wood steps providing access to a person door, flanked by two
aluminum frame rectangular shaped windows.
The west elevation of Section 'A' (log house), provides a side gabled view similar to that of the
east elevation, having two squared windows within the gable above returned eaves. Two wood
frame rectangular shaped window openings are provided at the second storey, each having 2/2
lights. Two similar sized rectangular shaped window openings are provided at the first storey.
These windows are modern vinyl windows.
A small lean-to structure is located directly adjacent (north) of Section 'A' and provides an
enclosed access to the basement under the log house.
The west elevation of Section 'Cincludes a person door providing access to an enclosed entrance
room. Two aluminum square-shaped windows are located on either side of the person door.
The west elevation of Section 'D' provides a side -gabled frame. No window openings are
provided at the west elevation. The west elevation of Section 'E' is clad in gray brick and includes
one square-shaped wood frame window.
Figures 41 & 42: (left) View of north and west elevations looking south-east from former school
yard (right) View of west elevation of sunroom, looking east (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC1 39
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 43 & 44: (left) View of west elevation of Section 'A' looking east, (right) View of west
elevation of Section 'C', looking east Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 45 & 46: (left) View of west elevation of Section 'B', looking east, (right) View of west
elevations of Sections'D', and '13', looking south-east (Source: MHBC, 2017)
6.3.4 North Elevation
Views of the dwelling from the north provide views of the north elevation of Section 'E'. Section 'E'
includes a wood frame person door to the west, and a rectangular shaped window towards the
east. The exterior is clad in gray brick.
A portion of the north elevation of Section 'A' (log house), is only visible from the west. This
provides a partial view of one rectangular shaped wood frame window with 2/2 lights (See Figure
48).
March, 2078 MHBC 40
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
4
Figures 47 & 48: (left) View of north elevation of Section 'D', looking south (right) Partial view of
north elevation of Section 'A', looking south-east (Source: MHBC, 2017)
6.4 Description of Built Features - Interior
The following sub -sections will be organized in order to describe the various sections of the
house as presented above (Sections' A','B','C','D','E', and 'F').
6.4.1 Section 'A' (Log House)
Section 'A' Interior — Basement
The basement is provided only underneath Section 'A' of the dwelling. The basement foundation
is constructed with field stone and mortar. The floor has been laid with poured concrete at an
unknown date. The basement provides views of hand hewn log floor joists running north -south.
These logs are mortised directly into the foundation (See Figure 51). A main cross -beam runs east -
west roughly in the centre of the log house.
Figures 49 & 50: (left) View of basement and stairs looking east, (right) Detail view of foundation
stones (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 47
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 51 & 52: (left) Detail view of log floor joists (running north -south), (right) Detail view of
typical log floorjoist (approximately 7.5 inches wide) (Source: MHBC, 2017)
y
Figures 53 & 54: (left) View of cellar entrance, looking west, (right) View of basement storage
room, looking south (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Section 'A' Interior —Ground Floor
Test areas were used throughout Section 'A' in order to determine a) the original materials and
construction methods of the structure, and b) the extent of the original log house. The following
provides a review of these findings.
A diagram of these test areas are provided below. The numbers indicated correspond to the
figures (photographs), provided in this report.
March, 2078 MHBC 42
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
A
Figure 55: 2016 Aerial photo of the subject lands. Location of test areas noted in red indicating figure
photos corresponding to each test area. (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2017)
The test areas confirm that all four (4) walls of the log house remain largely intact. It is likely that
the house was originally oriented either north or south due to the placement and arrangement of
windows and doors.
The squared logs measured approximately 7.5 inches wide and display evidence of being hand
hewn (See Figure 56). The logs are separated between chinking which includes horse hair (See
Figure 57).
March, 2018 MHBC1 43
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 56 & 57 (left) Detail view of typical log (approximately 7.5 inches wide) (right) Detail view
of chinking between logs (mortar with horse hair) (Source: MHBC, 2017)
The test areas confirm that the logs are intact at the north, east, and south elevation walls. A
portion of the corner was also tested in order to determine the construction method at the
corners. The south-west corner of the house was difficult to see due to the addition of sawn
lumber to withstand the addition of modern drywall. Here, it was confirmed that the corners of
the logs were lapped (logs laid on top of each other), but it could not be determined which
method was used (i.e. keyed lay, dove tailed, etc.).
A test area of the north wall of Section 'A' at the interior of the log house revealed 1 -inch wide,
regularly spaced lathe and plaster (See Figure 61). This area may have been an original window
opening and later filled-in with lathe and plaster.
The partition portion of the wall (running east -west) at the western end of the house also
revealed lathe and plaster, which were spaced apart less regularly and appear to be irregularly
shaped (See Figure 61). The material of these lathe and plaster walls are likely older than those
found on the north wall.
A test area placed at the bottom of the stairs (providing access to the second floor) revealed that
hand hewn logs are present along the northerly wall (See Figure 62). A test area placed at the
north elevation at the exterior of the log house (within Section 'C') also revealed hand hewn logs
(covered with lathe and plaster) (See Figure 63).
March, 2078 MHBC1 44
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 58 & 59: (left )View of test area looking towards east wall , (right) View of test area looking
towards south wall (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 60 & 61: (left) View of test area looking towards west wall, (right) View of test area looking
towards northerly wall (west of basement stairs) (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 62 & 63: (left) Detail view of corner test area at south-west corner of Section 'A , (right)
View of test area in partition wall, looking north (at west end of Section 'A') (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 45
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 64 & 65: (left) View of test area looking north (at bottom of stairs providing access to the
second floor), (right) View of test area looking south (exterior of north wall of log house as viewed
from interior of Section 'C') (Source: MHBC, 2017)
The interior of the ground floor of Section 'A' did not reveal any other original heritage attributes.
As the structure dates to the early 19th century, it is unlikely that any would remain as the house
has been considerably upgraded in order to accommodate modern necessities of living (such as
plumbing, heating, etc.). The interior includes wood paneling above the floor, below the window
sills and was likely added at some point in the mid to late 19th century (See figures 64 & 65).
Figures 64 & 65: (left) View of living room area, looking north from interior of Section 'A', (right)
View of east wall, looking east towards Burgetz Avenue, (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Section 'A' Interior — Second Floor
Four bedrooms are located at the second floor of Section 'A', this includes bedrooms at the four
corners of the house (north-east, north-west, south-east, and south-west).
Test areas were also conducted at the second floor of'Section A'. A diagram of these test areas are
provided below. The numbers indicated correspond to the figures (photographs), provided in this
report.
March, 2078 MHBC 46
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
A
Figure 66: 2016 Aerial photo of the subject lands. Location of test areas noted in red indicating figure
photos corresponding to each test area. (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2017)
Test areas concluded that all four log walls remain at the second storey, which have been covered
with an early form of lathe and plaster (See figure 69). Logs are visible beneath the lathe and
plaster (See Figure 71). No original features of the log structure remain at the second storey, with
the exception of the original log walls and chinking.
The second storey includes four bedrooms at the north-east, south-east, north-west and north-
east corners as well as a small central hallway providing stairs to the first floor and narrow wood
ladder -like stairs providing access to the attic. Each bedroom includes a window.
The bedrooms do not include any original heritage attributes with the exception of underlying
wooden structural materials beneath the modern drywall and plaster. Finishes include wood trim
and moulding which is not original to the structure (See Figures 67-74).
March, 2018 MHBC1 47
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
� 1. W- r- -1
Figures 67 & 68: (left) View of stairs providing access to second storey, (right) View of stairs
providing access to first storey, and stairs providing access to attic (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 69 & 70: (left) Detail view of test area of west wall, (right) Detail view of test area in
partition wall, looking south (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 71 & 72: (left) Detail view of test area of west wall, (right) Detail view of test area in
partition wall, looking south (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 48
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 73 & 74: (left) View of south-east bedroom, looking west (right) View of north-west
bedroom, looking north (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Section 'A' Interior - Attic
Views of the attic provide evidence of the use of trimmed timber log roof rafters, laid with
regularly spaced sawn wood boards. The end -gables appear to include sawn timber boards as
opposed to rough -cut logs or timbers (See figures 75 - 80).
Figures 75 & 76: (left) View of roof structure in attic, looking west, (right) View of roof structure in
attic, looking east, (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 49
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 77 & 78: (left) Detail view of roof rafters and boards, (right) Detail view of sawn tongue
and groove attic flooring material (Source: MHBC, 2017)
6.4.2 Shed/Garage (Section 'B')
Section 'B' includes evidence of being previously used as a detached accessory structure, likely a
small barn or garage. The construction techniques and materials are indicative of a late 201h
century outbuilding, and includes large horizontal barn boards approximately 14 inches wide. The
floor has been laid with large square shaped patio stones and was likely a dirt floor previously.
Section 'B' includes access to a loft storage space, which provides views of the roof rafters where
Section 'B', connects to 'Section C. It should be noted that the entire roof structure of Section 'B',
remains, which has been partially encapsulated by Sections'C', and 'U.
Figures 79 & 80: (left) View of Section 'B', looking west noting patio stone flooring (right) Detail
view of construction techniques and materials of Section 'B', (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 50
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 81 & 82: (left) Detail view of typical vertical wood board width, approximately 14 inches
(right) View of roof structure in attic, looking east, (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 83 & 84: (left) View of roof structure of Section 'B', connecting with Section 'C", (right)
View of Section 'B', looking north towards Section 'D' (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figure 85: (left) Detail view of materials separating Section 'B' and Section 'D' (horizontal wood
boards with Section 'B', and poured concrete and concrete masonry with Section 'D') (Source:
MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 57
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
6.4.3 Section 'C' - Addition (Kitchen)
Section 'C'can be described as an addition constructed directly adjacent to the north elevation of
the log house. This addition was constructed for use as a kitchen and bathroom, with a front
entrance providing access to Burgetz Avenue. Section 'C' includes access to the rear yard, and
provides access to Sections 'B', and 'D'. Due to the vintage of the fixtures and cabinetry, the
structure is likely dated to the first half of the 20th century (likely the 1920s -1940s era). Red brick
(likely a chimney) was located north of the kitchen entrance door (adjacent to the bathroom) (See
Figures 88 & 89). The colour of this red brick does not match the chimney visible above Section
'C' when viewed from the exterior. This buff brick chimney is likely located between the walls
separating the kitchen from the entrance hallway to the north.
Figures 86 & 87: (left) View of Section 'C', looking south towards Section 'A', (right) View of
bathroom, looking north within Section 'C', adjacent to front entrance door (left) (Source: MHBC,
2017)
Figures 88 & 89: (left) View of Section 'C' front entrance door, noting location of red brick found
under drywall, (right) , (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 52
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 90 & 91: (left) View of door entrance to Section 'B', looking north, (right) View of rear
entrance to Section 'C', looking east from rear vestibule (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 92 & 93: (left) View of hallway of Section 'C', connecting kitchen portion of addition to
Sections 'B', and 'D', looking north, (right) View of front entrance room of Section C, adjacent to
front entrance door (right) (Source: MHBC, 2017)
6.4.4 Garage (Section 'D')
Section 'D' can be described as a late 2011 century two -car garage. The structure includes a poured
concrete and concrete block foundation, with modern sawn lumber construction materials and
techniques. This structure encapsulates the roof of part of Section 'B', (See Figure 98), and includes
a mezzanine above used as storage space (See Figure 99). The structure also includes an earlier
201h century wood frame door (See Figure 96), which was likely salvaged from a previous structure
on the property.
March, 2078 MHBC 53
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 94 & 95: (left) View of Section 'B', looking south from Section 'D' (right) View of Section
'D', looking north towards garage door (right), (Source: MHBC, 2017)
Figures 96 & 97: (left) View of wood frame door, looking north, (right) View of Section 'D", looking
east towards garage door (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 54
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figures 98 & 99: (left) View of roof structure of Section 'B' (green shingles), encapsulated within
roof of Section 'D', (right) View of storage space/mezzanine above ground floor of Section 'D",
(Source: MHBC, 2017)
6.4.5 Sun Porch (Section 'E')
Section 'E' can be described as a mid. to late 20th century sunroom/greenhouse. Section 'E',
appears to have been constructed in two different sections. The easterly half is constructed using
plexiglass (or similar composite material) and aluminum framing. The western half is of wood
frame construction and includes a person door providing access to the rear yard, and 6 aluminum
frame windows. Section 'E' is not of cultural heritage value or interest and was removed in 2017.
Figures 100 & 101: (left) View of Section 'E', looking east towards Burgetz Avenue, (right) View of
Section "E', looking west towards rear yard, (Source: MHBC, 2017)
March, 2078 MHBC 55
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
7.o Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources
The following sub -sections of this report provide an evaluation of the subject lands as per Regulation 9/06
of the Ontario Heritage Act. These criteria have been adopted as standard practice in determining
significant cultural heritage value or interest.
7.1 Evaluation Criteria
Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribes that that:
A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more or the following criteria
for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest:
The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or
construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution
that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a
community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist
who is significant to a community.
3. The property has contextual value because it
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark.
March, 2078 MHBC1 56
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
7.228 Burgetz Avenue
The following provides a description subject lands in terms of significant cultural heritage value or
interest as per Ontario Regulation 9/06.
7.2.1 Evaluation of Design/Physical Value
The property located at 28 Burgetz Avenue has significant design/physical value as it includes an
early 19th century log house, referred to in this report as Section W. No other portions of the
House, namely Sections 'B', 'C', 'D', or 'E' are of significant cultural heritage value or interest in
terms of design/physical value.
While Section 'B' has been identified in this report as being a former accessory
structure/outbuilding (possibly a small barn later enclosed within subsequent additions to the
original log structure), Section 'B' is not an early, rare, or unique form of construction material or
method and therefore is not considered a significant attribute of the property.
Log house construction in Ontario is considered both early and rare. Due to the significant
development of southern Ontario during the 19th and 20th centuries, many of the original log
houses indicative of the first wave of Euro -Canadian settlement have been removed from the
landscape. The building is not considered unique, as it demonstrates typical building methods
and construction methods of this early form of construction.
Test areas of Section 'A' confirm that the original log house (Section 'A') was constructed using
hand hewn squared logs laid on top of each other horizontally with mortar and horse hair
chinking. In most test areas, logs measured approximately 7 — 10 inches wide and include some
bark (likely left on at the exterior of the building). The logs, in some places, included 'cut' type
nails. Hand hewn marks were clearly visible. Additional details regarding construction methods
(including the types of keyed corners) may be noted when further 20th century materials can be
moved to reveal more of the 1911 century materials and construction methods.
7.2.2 Evaluation of Historical or Associative Value
The subject lands have significant historica/associative value related to the theme of early
agricultural settlement of Waterloo Township. The subject lands are associated with members of
the Burgetz family, having held ownership of part of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract for 119
years (since land was first purchased by Allen Burgetz in 1899). While members of the Burgetz
family were upstanding citizens, productive members of the community, and held the property in
ownership for a considerable period in time, they are not identified in the historic record as being
significant in the development of the local community. The subject property includes an early 19th
century log house which may aid in understanding the early history of the community.
March, 2078 MHBC 57
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
As the log house dates to the very early 19th century, land records are incomplete and
inconsistent and therefore, it cannot definitively be concluded when the log house was
constructed, or for whom.
7.2.3 Evaluation of Contextual Value
The subject property has lost the majority of its contextual value. While the existing log house
remains on the subject lands, it is no longer associated with a working agricultural landscape. All
aspects of the landscape related to agriculture have been removed with exception of the log
house (Section 'A'), and a former detached accessory structure which became part of an addition
to the log house (Section 'B').
Aerial photographs of the subject lands dating to the mid. 2011 century demonstrate that the
property previously included typical aspects of a working rural/agricultural farm including
ploughed fields, a circulation system providing access from what is now Thaler Avenue, a barn
and accessory structures, a nursery or garden (as the historic record has stated that the Burgetz
family were employed as 'market gardeners'), and open landscaped space. The subject property
has been subdivided, beginning in the later half of the 20th century to facilitate the construction of
a residential subdivision. As such, the contextual value of the property related to the original
agricultural farm surrounding the log structure has not been retained. While the log house
remains on the subject property, it is not important in maintaining the 'heritage character' of the
area, as the context has changed dramatically to reflect an established residential subdivision.
The log house and property remain historically linked to its surroundings, but no longer retains its
functional or physical relationships to the surrounding properties which once made-up the
Burgetz farmstead. The log house is not recognized as a 'landmark' within the local community,
but this is likely due to the fact that it has been altered and clad in 201h century materials and does
not give the impression of an early 19th century log house when viewed from the street.
7.2.4 Heritage Attributes
The only structure on the subject property that has heritage value is the original log house
(described in this report as Section 'A').
As per the inspections of the log house conducted to -date, the following provides a list of known
attributes of the log house:
• Overall 2 storey massing;
• Squared -log construction with horse hair and mortar chinking;
• Original door and window openings (specific locations to be determined);
It should be noted that the relationship of the building to Burgetz Drive is not considered a
significant attribute of the property. The building was originally oriented either north or south as
March, 2078 MHBC1 58
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
opposed to east towards Burgetz Avenue, which was constructed at some point after 1963 (See
Figure 23). Therefore, the buildings context has changed significantly; to the extent where its
original orientation and setbacks to the street (most likely what is now Thaler Avenue) have not
been retained. As per a review of historic aerial photos, the building was setback a considerable
distance from Thaler Avenue, typical of the 191h century pattern of agricultural settlement.
March, 2078 MHBC1 59
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
7.3 Chart Summary of Cultural Heritage Evaluation
Ontario Regulation 9/06
(context has changed significantly and the
28 Burgetz Avenue (log house)
1. Design/Physical Value
supporting the
does not define, maintain, or support the
i. Rare, unique,
character of the area)
ii. Physically, functionally,
representative or early
visually, or historically
Rare, representative, and early example of
example of a style,
farmstead, but is no longer a significant
to
early 19 century log construction in Waterloo
type, expression,
alteration of the surrounding landscape.
material or
(not identified as a local landmark/exterior
County.
construction method
period of time)
ii. Displays high degree of
Is constructed with typical/representative
craftsmanship or
construction methods of the early 19th
artistic merit
century.
iii. Demonstrates high
Is constructed with typical/representative
degree of technical or
construction methods of the early 19th
scientific achievement
century.
2. Historical/associative value
L Direct associations
with a theme, event,
Directly associated with the theme of early
belief, person, activity,
19th century settlement of Waterloo Township
organization,
institution that is
and Waterloo County.
significant
ii. Yields, or has potential
to yield information
Contributes to the understanding of the early
that contributes to an
settlement of Lot 54 of the German Company
understanding of a
Tract.
community or culture
iii. Demonstrates or
reflects the work or
ideas of an architect,
(architect/builder cannot be conclusively
artist, builder,
X
determined)
designer, or theorist
who is significant to
the community.
3. Contextual value
i. Important in defining,
(context has changed significantly and the
maintaining or
building has been altered in such a way that it
supporting the
does not define, maintain, or support the
character of an area
character of the area)
ii. Physically, functionally,
The building is historically linked to its
visually, or historically
surroundings as part of the former Burgetz
linked to its
farmstead, but is no longer a significant
surroundings
attribute of the building due to the significant
alteration of the surrounding landscape.
iii. Is a landmark
(not identified as a local landmark/exterior
attributes have been covered for an extended
period of time)
March, 2078 MHBC 60
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
8.00ondition Assessment
8.1 Introduction
The following review of the condition of the building located at 28 Burgetz Avenue is
supplemented with photographs and the Structural Report provided by Tacoma Engineers dated
February 27, 2018. This report is provided in Appendix B of this Heritage Impact Assessment. The
condition assessment provides comments on the condition of the log structure as well as the
surrounding addition in order to ascertain whether or not the additions could be removed
without adversely impacting the log house.
8.2 Condition Assessment
8.2.1 Basement
The structural report indicates that the log house sites on a rubble foundation 24" to 30" thick. The
structural report confirms that the existing cellar walkout is likely not original to the log structure
as evidenced by the presence of alterations to the stone foundation to provide a doorway leading
to the exterior.
Views of the structural floor beams and joists from the basement indicate that the house was
constructed with hand hewn beams and central bearing line on timber posts. Joists continued
over the central support resting on top of the support beam. This provides further confirmation
of the early 19th century construction date of the house. The framing of the house as visible from
the basement was likely constructed of hemlock.
8.2.2 Perimeter Walls (log house)
The structural report confirms that the log house is constructed with horizontally laid hand hewn
logs with notched corners. Walls were finished with horse hair and lime plaster with split -
accordion lathe (an early form of lathe and plaster).
March, 2078 MHBC1 67
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
The condition assessment confirms that the individual portions of the house (i.e. the log structure
and its subsequent additions to the east) were constructed as distinct separate structures and do
not rely on each other for structural integrity. Therefore, the two remaining modern additions
described in this report as'B' and 'C' could be removed without compromising the log house.
8.2.3 Roof
The structural condition report indicates that the log house portion roof is constructed with
round cedar logs with no collar ties. The roof structure of the additions are constructed with
conventional rafters and collar ties. The report notes that it is unlikely that the roof of the addition
provides any structural support to the roof of the log house.
U Summary
The structural report confirms that the log house portion of the structure was constructed in the
early 19th century using construction materials and methods indicative of that era. Also, that the
easterly additions (Sections'B' and'C' can be removed without posing any risks to the log portion
of the structure. The report provides recommendations to ensure that the additions are
demolished appropriately.
March, 2078 MHBC1 62
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
9.0 Description of Proposed Development
9.1 Introduction
The proposed development of the subject lands includes the subdivision of the existing lot
(1253.81 square metres or 0.31 acres) into three lots for residential intensification (including a
combination of semi-detached houses and duplex units).
The existing building located on the subject lands takes up roughly half of the lot as the
contemporary attached garage (Section 'D' has been demolished in 2017). The proposed
development would require the demolition of all buildings and structures to facilitate the
subdivision of the existing lot into three lots for the purpose of constructing new dwellings.
However, this report has identified that the existing log house described in this report as Section
'A' has significant cultural heritage value. This includes significant design/physical value as it is an
early and rare example of early 19th century built form. Therefore, this report provides a review of
alternative development options ranging from demolition of all buildings and structures on the
subject lands, and the retention of the existing log house in-situ.
9.2 Review of City of Kitchener Zoning By-law
According to the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law, the subject property is designated Residential
Four (R-4 (See Figure 102). It is important to note that the regulations for properties located within
an R-4 Zone would be met with the proposed development. The following provides a review of
these regulations for a Residential Four Zone.
March, 2078 MHBC 63
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 102: Excerpt of Schedule No. 238 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law designating the subject
lands are R-4 (Residential Four). Approximate boundary of subject lands noted in red. (Source: City of
Kitchener Zoning By-law)
As per Section 38 of Zoning By-law 94-1, permitted uses within a Residential Four Zone (R-4)
include the following:
• Coach House Dwelling Unit;
• Duplex Dwelling;
• Home Business;
• Private Home Day Care;
• Residential Care Facility;
• Semi -Detached Duplex Dwelling legally existing prior to July 31, 2014;
• Semi -Detached Dwelling; and
• Single Detached Dwelling.
March, 2078 MHBC1 64
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
The City of Kitchener Zoning By-law includes (but is not limited to) the following regulations
related to the properties located within the R-4 Zone.
For Single Detached Dwellings and Duplexes:
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Corner Lot Width
Minimum Front Yard and Minimum Side Yard
Abutting a Street
Minimum Side Yard
Minimum Rear Yard
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Lot Coverage
Off -Street Parking
235.0 square metres
9.0 metres
15.0 metres
4.5 metres, except no part of any building used
to accommodate off-street parking shall be
located closer than 6.0 metres to the street line.
a) 1.2 metres, or
b) 0 metres to a maximum of 0.2 metres on one
side, and a minimum of 1.5 metres on the other
side for a dwelling with a building height not
exceeding 9.0 metres and subject to Section
5.20 of this by-law. Amended: (By-law 2009-105,
5.14)
c) 0 metres to a maximum of 0.2 metres on one
side, and a minimum of 2.5 metres on the other
side for a dwelling with a building height
exceeding 9.0 metresand subject to Section
5.20 of this by-law. Amended: (By-law 2009-105,
5.14)
d) 3.0 metres on one side where the driveway
leading to a required parking space is situated
between the dwelling and the lot line.
7.5 metres
10.5 metres
A total of 55 percent, of which the habitable
portion of the dwelling shall not exceed 45
percent and the accessory buildings or
structures, whether attached or detached, shall
not exceed 15 percent. (By-law 2003-163, 5.38)
In accordance with Section 6.1 of this Bylaw.
March, 2078 MHBC1 65
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
For Semi -Detached Dwellings:
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Corner Lot Width
Minimum Front Yard and Minimum Side Yard
Abutting a Street
Minimum Side Yard
Minimum Rear Yard
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Lot Coverage
Off -Street Parking
235.0 square metres for each semidetached
house.
7.5 metres for each semi-detached house.
a) 20 metres for each dwelling; and
b) 12.5 metres for each dwelling unit.
4.5 metres except no part of any building used
to accommodate off-street parking shall be
located closer than 6.0 metres to the street line.
1.2 metres, except in the case of a driveway
leading to a required parking space situated
between the main building and the side lot
line, in which case the minimum side yard shall
be 3.0 metres.
7.5 metres
10.5 metres
A total of 55 percent, of which the habitable
portion of the dwelling shall not exceed 45
percent and the accessory buildings or
structures, whether attached or detached, shall
not exceed 15 percent. (By-law 2003-163, 5.38)
In accordance with Section 6.1 of this Bylaw.
As the subject property is approximately 0.31 acres (1253.81 square metres) in size with
approximately 42.8 metres of frontage, the subject property can accommodate three lots each
having a frontage of 14.27 metres, which is more than what is required.
March, 2078 MHBC 66
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
10.0 Impacts of Proposed Development
This section of the report will review impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed
development on the identified cultural heritage resources located on the subject lands.
9.1 Introduction
The following sub -sections of this report will provide an analysis of impacts which are anticipated
as a result of the proposed redevelopment of the subject lands as they relate to the identified
cultural heritage resources. This will include a description of the classification of the impact as
beneficial, neutral, or adverse.
9.2 Classifications of Impacts
There are three classifications of impacts that the effects of a proposed development may have
on an identified cultural heritage resource: beneficial, neutral or adverse. Beneficial impacts may
include retaining a resource of cultural heritage value, protecting it from loss or removal,
restoring/repairing heritage attributes, or making sympathetic additions or alterations that allow
for the continued long-term use of a heritage resource. 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 which remove
or obstruct heritage attributes. The isolation of a cultural heritage resource from its setting or
context, or the addition of other elements which are unsympathetic to the character or heritage
attributes of a cultural heritage resource are also considered adverse impacts. These adverse
impacts 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 occur
over a short 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.
9.2 Impact Analysis
The following analysis of impacts provides a review of the proposed development, which
includes the demolition of all buildings and structures located on the subject property.
March, 2078 MHBC1 67
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
9.2.1 Beneficial, Neutral, and Adverse Impacts
The proposed development is not anticipated to result in any beneficial impacts as it includes the
demolition of Section 'A' of the dwelling, which has been identified as having significant cultural
heritage value or interest.
While Sections 'D' (a contemporary attached garage) and 'E' (a contemporary
sun room/greenhouse) have already been removed, Sections 'A', 'B', and 'C' remain. This Heritage
Impact Assessment has concluded that only Section 'A' is of significant cultural heritage value or
interest. Therefore, the removal of Sections 'B' (early to mid 201h century addition) and Section 'C'
(late 1911 century accessory structure) is considered a neutral impact. As the proposed
development is a) permitted by the existing zoning by-laws b) is not subject to any policies
related to a Cultural Heritage Landscape or Heritage Conservation District, and c) is not located
adjacent to any properties of cultural heritage value or interest no adverse impacts are anticipated
as a result of the proposed severance of the lot or the construction of three new residential
dwellings.
The proposed development is anticipated to result in adverse impacts as it includes the
demolition of the original early 19th century log house, described in this report as Section 'A' of the
dwelling. This Heritage Impact Assessment has identified that this portion of the structure has
design/physical and historical/associative value as per Ontario Regulation 9/06. This would result
in the permanent removal of heritage fabric and requires mitigation recommendations.
March, 2078 MHBC1 68
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
11.0 Consideration of Development
Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation
Recommendations
10. 1 Alternative Development Approaches
The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives that may be
considered as part of the heritage planning process. They have been listed in order from least to
greatest impact on cultural heritage resources.
10.1.1 Do nothing
This option would preclude the demolition of all buildings and structures located on the subject
property described in this report as 'A', 'B', and 'C'. This option would prohibit the owner from
developing the subject property for the purpose of residential intensification and would result in
the continued vacancy of the existing buildings. This would likely result in the continued
deterioration of the structure over time resulting in damages to the log house portion of the
structure described in this report as Structure W. This alternative development option is not
recommended.
10.1.2 Develop the Site while Retaining the Log House (Section 'A') In -Situ
This option results in the retention of Section 'A' in-situ while subdividing the subject property
into three lots, where the log house would be retained on its own lot at the southern end of the
subject property. This option would allow for the conservation of the log house on the southerly
lot while providing for the construction of semi-detached, duplex, or semi-detached dwellings (as
permitted in the City of Kitchener Zoning by-law for an R-4 zone). This would result in the creation
of three lots having 4.26 metres of frontage, which is more than the required frontage as per a
review of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law for properties located within the R-4 zone.
Should the building be retained in-situ on a subdivided lot, mitigation recommendations would
be required in order to ensure that the heritage attributes of the log house were conserved and
that the building would be adaptively re -used in a manner which is sensitive to its cultural
heritage value.
March, 2078 MHBC 69
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
This is considered the preferred option as it results in the retention and adaptive re -use of the log
house portion of the dwelling while facilitating the residential intensification of the remaining
portions of the lot.
10.1.3 Develop the Site while Retaining and Re -locating the Log House (Section 'A') to an
Alternative Location on the Subject Lands
This option would result in the result in the retention of Section 'A' and re -locating it to an
alternative location on the subject lands. This option would allow the building to be retained on
its own lot while and maximizing the required space for two additional subdivided lots.
This Heritage Impact Assessment has demonstrated through a review of the structure and historic
aerial photos, that the building was likely oriented to the south and previously accessed by what
is now Thaler Avenue. The existing relationship and orientation of the building to Burgetz Avenue
is not considered a significant heritage attribute. Therefore, there is opportunity to re -locate the
building on the subject property without having an adverse impact on its cultural heritage value.
However, Section 'A' is already located to the southern end of the subject property and therefore
provides additional lands to the north for the purpose of subdivision. Therefore, its re -location
would provide minimal to no benefits. As the re -location of any heritage structures results in a)
risks to the structure related to its physical and structural condition and b) substantial financial
costs to the proponent, the re -location of the building in this particular instance would not
provide substantial benefits justifying its relocation.
Should the building be retained in an alternative location on the subject lands, mitigation
recommendations would be required in order to a) ensure that the heritage attributes of the log
house were conserved and that the building would be adaptively re -used in a manner which is
sensitive to its cultural heritage value.
March, 2078 MHBC 170
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Figure 103: 2016 Aerial photo of the subject lands. Approximate boundary of subject lands noted in red
dashed like. Limits of Section 'A' of the dwelling outlined in red solid line. (Source: City of Kitchener
Interactive Maps, 2017)
10.1.4 Develop the Site while Retaining and Re -locating the Log House (Section 'A') To an
Alternative Location
This option would result in the retaining the log house so that it may be re -located to an alternate
and appropriate setting not on the subject lands. This includes the re -location of the log structure
to a more appropriate setting, such as the Doon Heritage Village, or a similar park or museum
setting which would provide a landscape which is more in -keeping with its heritage character.
This would require the voluntary efforts of a third party to take responsibility for the re -location
and conservation of the building.
While retaining the building in-situ is most often the preferred method of conservation, this
report as demonstrated that the context of the property at what is now 28 Burgetz Avenue has
changed dramatically since the early 19' and the early 20th centuries. While the log house was
formerly located on a large lot supporting agricultural use in a rural area, the property has been
considerably reduced in size and is surrounded by contemporary dwellings constructed in the
later half of the 20th century.
March, 2018 MHBC1 77
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Provided that the building could be re -located safely and conserved appropriately in a new
location which would enhance its heritage character, this alternative development
recommendation would be supported.
It is important to note that while this alternative is supported, the undertaking of a project of this
scale is typically rare due to feasibility and ability to retain a willing and suitable third party.
1 0.2 Mitigation Recommendations
The following provides a review of mitigation recommendations as it relates to the
10.2.1 Develop the Site and Demolish All Structures
This Heritage Impact Assessment has demonstrated that the proposed demolition of sections '13'
and 'C' of the existing dwelling on-site is considered a neutral impact as they are not of cultural
heritage value or interest. While this is true, the demolition of section 'A', being the early 19th
century log house is considered an adverse impact as it results in the permanent removal of
heritage fabric. Should the log house be approved for demolition, the following mitigation
measures should be considered:
• That the log house be uncovered and subject to further invasive analysis in order to
uncover all heritage features so that they be documented prior to demolition;
• That prior to demolition, reasonable efforts be made to advertise the log house in the
local newspaper so that those who wish to re -locate the structure (at their own cost) to an
alternative location which is complementary to its cultural heritage value and conserved
appropriately;
• That a Cultural Heritage Documentation and Salvage Report be prepared which includes
a) a photographic documentation of the house as well as measured architectural
drawings of the exterior and floor plans, b) recommendations regarding materials to be
salvaged for commemoration purposes, and c) recommendations regarding appropriate
commemoration of the site which may include options for commemoration on-site or at
an alternative location.
10.2.2 Develop the Site while Retaining the Log House (Section 'A') In -Situ
March, 2078 MHBC1 72
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
This option would result in subdividing the existing lot into 3 lots where the two easterly lots
could be re -developed for residential purposes as per the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law for
properties located within the R-4 zone.
This option would result in demolishing Sections 'B' and 'C' of the dwelling which is a neutral
impact, and retaining Section 'A' which is the log house of significant cultural heritage value.
Should this option be selected, the following mitigation recommendations are provided:
• Submission of a Conservation Plan detailing how the log house will be conserved
appropriately while facilitating adaptive re -use including the construction of a new
addition in order to accommodate modern amenities (i.e. plumbing, heating, cooling,
etc.);
• That the Conservation Plan include a section documenting the heritage log structure
subsequent to the removal of existing 201h century finishes in order to support the historic
record;
• That the demolition of the existing additions of no cultural heritage value are carried out
by a licensed demolition contractor with demonstrated experience in heritage properties
(as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers) ; and
• That the roof framing should be removed by hand where it interacts with the log wall
framing of the house (as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers).
10.2.3 Develop the Site while Retaining and Re -locating the Log House (Section 'A') to an
Alternative Location on the Subject Lands
This Heritage Impact Assessment has demonstrated that there seems to be no considerable
benefit to re -locating the log structure to an alternative location on the subject lands in lieu of the
proposed development. However, if the building is to be re -located on-site for the purpose of
residential adaptive re -use, the following mitigation recommendations should be considered:
• Submission of a Conservation Plan detailing how the log house will be conserved
appropriately while facilitating adaptive re -use including the construction of a new
addition in order to accommodate modern amenities (i.e. plumbing, heating, cooling,
etc.);
• That the Conservation Plan include a section documenting the heritage log structure
subsequent to the removal of existing 201h century finishes in order to support the historic
record;
March, 2078 MHBC1 73
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
• That the demolition of the existing additions of no cultural heritage value are carried out
by a licensed demolition contractor with demonstrated experience in heritage properties
(as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers) ; and
• That the roof framing should be removed by hand where it interacts with the log wall
framing of the house (as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers).
10.2.4 Develop the Site while Retaining and Re -locating the Log House (Section W) To an
Alternative Location
This Heritage Impact Assessment has demonstrated that the context of the site has changed
dramatically and as such, does not make an important contribution to the cultural heritage value
of the log house. Therefore, the building may be removed from its location in-situ on the subject
lands provided that it is relocated to a new site which complements its heritage character. Should
this alternative be selected, the following mitigation recommendations should be considered:
• That the demolition of the existing additions of no cultural heritage value are carried out
by a licensed demolition contractor with demonstrated experience in heritage properties
(as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers) ; and
• That the roof framing should be removed by hand where it interacts with the log wall
framing of the house (as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers).
• That the log house be confirmed by a structural engineer with experience with heritage
properties that it can be re -located safely to an alternative location;
• That a Conservation Plan be submitted detailing how the log house will be conserved in
its new location appropriately while facilitating either adaptive re -use or another
appropriate use, such as commemoration (such as serving a museum or related purpose);
and
• That the Conservation Plan include a section documenting the heritage log structure
subsequent to the removal of existing 201h century finishes in order to support the historic
record.
March, 2078 MHBC1 74
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
12,OConclusion and Recommendations
This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has determined that the subject property has significant
cultural heritage value as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 as it includes an early 19th century log
house (referred to in this report as Section 'A'). The remaining portions of the existing dwelling
located on the subject lands (Sections 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E') are not of significant cultural heritage
value.
The log house on the subject property is significant primarily for its design/physical and
historical/associative values. The early 19th century log house represents an early and rare form of
residential construction associated with the first wave of Euro -Canadian settlement of Waterloo
Township, Waterloo County. The log house is associated with the theme of early agricultural
settlement of Waterloo Township, and is also associated with the Burgetz family, who held
ownership of property described as Part of Lot 54 of the German Company Tract for over 100
consecutive years.
This HIA has demonstrated that while the subject property remains historically associated with its
surroundings, it has not retained its contextual value as components of the original farmstead
have been lost with the development of the community in the later half of the 2011 century. This
has resulted in the removal of all other landscape components including (but not limited to),
ploughed agricultural fields, original circulation systems, open landscaped space, gardens, and
barns and accessory structures.
This report acknowledges that the proposed development of the subject lands includes the
subdivision of the subject property to facilitate residential intensification. The proposed
development includes the demolition of all structures on the subject lands which includes the
original log house. This HIA has determined that this is considered a permanent adverse impact as
it results in the demolition of an early and rare form of residential construction in Ontario and is
considered a significant heritage resource. Should the demolition of the log structure be
supported, the following mitigation recommendations are provided:
• That the log house be uncovered and subject to further invasive analysis in order to
uncover all heritage features so that they be documented prior to demolition;
• That prior to demolition, reasonable efforts be made to advertise the log house in the
local newspaper so that those who wish to re -locate the structure (at their own cost) to an
alternative location which is complementary to its cultural heritage value and conserved
appropriately;
March, 2078 MHBC1 75
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
• That a Cultural Heritage Documentation and Salvage Report be prepared which includes
a) a photographic documentation of the house as well as measured architectural
drawings of the exterior and floor plans, b) recommendations regarding materials to be
salvaged for commemoration purposes, and c) recommendations regarding appropriate
commemoration of the site which may include options for commemoration on-site or at
an alternative location.
As this option has been identified as a significant adverse impact, a range of alternative
development measures have been evaluated. The preferred alternative is the retention of the log
house in-situ on the subject lands for residential adaptive re -use while facilitating the residential
intensification of the remainder of the lot. Should this development alternative be selected, the
following mitigation recommendations are provided:
• Submission of a Conservation Plan detailing how the log house will be conserved
appropriately while facilitating adaptive re -use including the construction of a new
addition in order to accommodate modern amenities (i.e. plumbing, heating, cooling,
etc.);
• That the Conservation Plan include a section documenting the heritage log structure
subsequent to the removal of existing 201h century finishes in order to support the historic
record;
• That the demolition of the existing additions of no cultural heritage value are carried out
by a licensed demolition contractor with demonstrated experience in heritage properties
(as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers) ; and
• That the roof framing should be removed by hand where it interacts with the log wall
framing of the house (as per the recommendations provided by Tacoma Engineers).
March, 2078 MHBC1 76
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
12.o Sources
Bloomfield, Elizabeth and Linda Foster. Waterloo County Councillors: A Collective Biography.
Caribout Imprints, 1995.
Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 7874 to the Present.
Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.
Breithaupt, William Henry and Herbert Clark. Sketch of the Life of Catherine Breithaupt, Her Family
and Times. Berlin, 1911.
Chronicle -Telegraph Newspaper. 100 Years of Progress in Waterloo County, Canada - Semi -
Centennial Souvenir 1856-1906, 1906.
Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township.
Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971.
Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada. 2010.
Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County. An Illustrated History. Waterloo Historical Society, 1997.
Heritage Resources Centre. Ontario Architectural Style Guide. University of Waterloo, 2009.
Mills, Rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 7880-7960. Arcadia Publishing, 2002.
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. InfoSheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and
Conservation Plans, 2006
Uttley, W.V. (Ben), A History of Kitchener, Ontario. The Chronicle Press: Kitchener, 1937.
Waterloo Historical Society. Waterloo Historical Society Annual Volumes, Vol. 57,1963.
March, 2078 MHBC 77
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Appendix A
Photo Map (next page)
March, 2078 MHBC 178
N
F
-1
5
O
N
V
m
v
O
i-
N
(6
4-
O
V)
CD
c
O
O
O
N
N
O
v
4-
O
V)
CD
O
O
O
_v
C)
O
W
LA
_ZY _ 1
m
-s
,ry
f �LI
M
1
M
0
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Appendix B
Structural Condition Report (next page)
March, 2078 MHBC 179
TAC(,,,,MA
STRUCTURAL REPORT
ENGINEERS
Demolition of Additions
Date: February 27, 2018
No. of Pages: 5 + Encl.
Project: 28 Burgetz Avenue, Kitchener, ON
Project No.: TE-31486-18
Address: 28 Burgetz Avenue, Kitchener, ON
Permit No.: N/A
Client: MB Future Homes
Dist.: Mush Prebeza MB Future Homes
c/o vhicks(a mhbcplan.com
Vanessa Hicks MHBC
vhicks(i�mhbcplan.com
Dan Currie MHBC
dcurrie(i�mhbcplan.com
Background
Tacoma Engineers has been retained by MB Future Homes to provide structural engineering
comment for the proposed redevelopment located at 28 Burgetz Avenue, Kitchener, ON.
The following letter does not constitute a demolition permit report, as outlined in the Ontario
Building Code, Division C, Cl. 1.3.1.1 or Ontario Regulation 260.08. However, a Demolition
Permit / Plan Report can be provided upon request.
Tacoma Engineers has been asked to provide comment on the feasibility in removing the
building additions surrounding the original two storey log home located at the above address.
The dwelling in question can be split into five areas, listed from the west to the east of the
property (assuming Burgetz Ave runs west to east, and the home faces south). The west portion
is a modern sunroom addition, which has been demolished. The next portion is the original
two storey log home. The third portion is an early 20th Century kitchen addition. The fourth
portion is a former out building that has been converted to a residence. The firth portion is a
garage that has since been demolished.
In order to facilitate redevelopment of the property, the modern building additions are proposed
to be demolished, leaving only the early 1800s log home remaining. Likely, a modern rear
addition will be added to the log home to allow for modern amenities within the redeveloped
property. It is understood that several modern residential buildings will be constructed on the
east portion of the property.
Comments
Observations within the home have indicated that the separate portions of the home have been
constructed as three separate district structures, and do not rely on each other for structural
integrity. As such, it is possible that the two modern additions can be demolished without
compromising the structural integrity of the original log house.
Basement / Foundations
The log house sits on rubble stone foundation walls, of 24" to 30" thickness. The extent of
these foundations is indicated on the plans found in the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared
by MHBC. The modern additions include no basements, and likely contain crawl spaces, or
slab on grade foundations. The basement contains a walkout stair to the rear of the property.
Given the material construction, it is likely that the walkout is not original to the log home,
however is older than 80 years.
176 Speedvale Ave. West T: 519-763-2000 x264
Guelph, Ontario Professional Engineers F: 519-824-2000
Canada NIH 1C3 Onmrio n.lawler(i�tacomaengineers.com
Tacoma Engineers Page 2 of 5
28 Burgetz Avenue, Kitchener, ON Structural Report
February 27, 2018 Demolition of Additions
Perimeter Walls — expected to hg ouse portion
Destructive testing of the interior finishes found that as expected, the two-storey portion of the
building is a log home. The logs were found to be hand hewn and laid horizontally. The joinery
style at the corner could not be confirmed without further demolition of the finishes. However,
it was noted that the corners appear to be notched in some manner, as opposed to a "butt and
pass" method. Wall finishes were found to be lime plaster reinforced with horse hair, on split -
accordion lathe. This wall construction dates the log portion of the home to be very old,
certainly in the early 1800s.
[A
Figure 1 - Log Structure at Perimeter Walls
Figure 2 - Split -Accordion Lathe and Plaster Finishes
Tacoma Engineers Page 3 of 5
28 Burgetz Avenue, Kitchener, ON Structural Report
February 27, 2018 Demolition of Additions
Floor Framing — Lou Home
The log home floor was mostly covered with finishes, however the basement allowed
observation of the floor structure of the main level. It was found that the floor framing consisted
of hand hewn logs, supported by a central bearing line. The bearing line was also a hand-hewn
timber beam, on timber posts. Of note, the joists were found to be continuous over the central
support, with a bottom notch allowing the joists to bear on the central beam. This is a rare form
of construction, as it requires very large straight tress. This indicates that the home was
constructed at a very early stage in the settlement of this area by European settlers when the
forest was still very dense and old growth.
Roof Framing — Log Home
The log house roof is constructed with round cedar logs, typical at the suspected time of
construction of the home. There are no collar ties, as the roof system relies on the attic floor to
resist outward thrust of the sloping rafters. Gabel ends of the home are framed with vertical
studs, clad with horizonal board siding.
Figure 3 - Roof Framing
Roof Framing — Adjacent Addition
The eastern addition roof appears to be constructed with conventional rafters and collar ties.
The ridge of the roof is lower than the two-storey log home eave, and as such it is unlikely that
the addition roof provides any structural support to the log home roof structure. The east
addition, including its roof structure may be removed without any impact on the long term
structural stability of the 1800s log home.
Tacoma Engineers Page 4 of 5
28 Burgetz Avenue, Kitchener, ON Structural Report
February 27, 2018 Demolition of Additions
Figure 4 - Roof at Addition
Recommendations
The building additions may be successfully demolished while keeping the original log house
in tact, without compromising the structural integrity of the original building. Our
recommendations follow:
• Roof framing should be removed by hand where it interacts with the log wall framing
of the house. This will ensure that the log house framing will not be compromised
during the demolition of the addition roof framing.
• Due to the steep grade change to the west of the log home, consideration should be
made to grading and appropriate retaining walls be put in place if required, to ensure
the stability of the log home and its foundations.
• The rear basement walkout may be demolished, provided it is done with care in a
manner as not to damage the original stone foundation walls.
• If the proposed rear addition is to contain a basement, care should be made while
excavating as not to damage the rubble stone foundation walls of the log home. Similar,
underpinning and necessary foundation stabilization may be required during
construction of the addition, which should be done under the supervision of a structural
engineering experienced with heritage structures.
• Demolition should be carried out by a licensed demolition contractor, with experience
in the demolition of heritage properties.
Tacoma Engineers Page 5 of 5
28 Burgetz Avenue, Kitchener, ON Structural Report
February 27, 2018 Demolition of Additions
Should you have any comments on the above report, or require general review during the
demolition process, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Per
Nick Lawler, M.A. Sc., CARP, PE, P.Eng
Structural Engineer, Senior Associate
Tacoma Engineers Inc.
Encl. Nil.
TE -31486-18
EB -27- ��®
®`7NCE OF 00411
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Appendix C
Terms of Reference (next page)
March, 2078 MHBC 80
City of Kitchener
Community Services Department - Planning Division
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.
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 -application 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.
2.2 A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office,
and a history of the site use(s).
2.3 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 description
will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as
additions and demolitions.
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.
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
properties (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 properties, shall be assessed.
The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as
identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and 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 properties.
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.
2.7 A summary of the heritage conservation principles and how they will be used
must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications
such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built
Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the
Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport).
2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions 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
4.0
Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations
The summary statement should provide a full description of:
■ The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties.
■ The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on
the heritage attributes of the subject properties.
■ 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.
Mandatory Recommendation
The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject
properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly
stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in
Regulation 9/06.
The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of
the report:
1. Do the properties meet the City of Kitchener's criteria for listing on the
Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural
Heritage Value or Interest?
2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not?
3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or
designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not.
4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do
the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial
Policy Statement? Why or why not?
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. A Site Plan Review Committee
meeting may not be scheduled until the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has
been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff.
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.
Heritage Impact Assessment Report
28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Appendix D
Curriculum Vitae (next page)
March, 2078 MHBC 87
CU RRICU LUMVITAE
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
EDUCATION 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
2006 public sector since 1997 including the Director of Policy Planning for the City of
Masters of Arts (Planning) Cambridge and Senior Policy Planner for the City of Waterloo.
University of Waterloo
Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients
1998 including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including
Bachelor of Environmental Studies strategic planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and
University of Waterloo plans, heritage master plans, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage
landscape studies.
1998
Bachelor of Arts (Art History)
University of Saskatchewan 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
CONTACT
City of Cambridge Growth Management Strategy
City of Waterloo Height and Density Policy
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
City of Waterloo Student Accommodation Study
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
City of Waterloo Land Supply Study
T5195763650x 744
City of Kitchener Inner City Housing Study
F 519 576 0121
dcurrie@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
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
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:
• 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
CURRICULUMVITAE
Vanessa Hicks, M.A., C.A.H.P.
SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
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)
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