HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-094 - Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 234 and 240 Frederick StStaffeeport
IST` � Ni,R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: March 1, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319
PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: February 14, 2022
REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-094
SUBJECT: 234 and 240 Frederick Street — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
REPORT:
The Planning Division is in receipt of a Heritage Impact Assessment Report (HIA) dated February 8,
2022 prepared by WSP regarding a proposed development to construct a four storey freestanding
apartment building in the rear of a lot municipally addressed as 240 Frederick Street. The subject
property is listed on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register as a non -designated property
of cultural heritage value or interest. The subject property is also adjacent to 234 Frederick Street, a
Part IV designated property. In addition, these properties are also located within the Central
Frederick Neighborhood Cultural Heritage Landscape.
The applicant's heritage consultant will attend the March 1, 2022, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to
present the HIA and answer any questions. Heritage Planning staff will be seeking the committee's
input and comments which will be taken into consideration as part of staff's review of the HIA and
processing of related Planning Act applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be
required at the March meeting.
A copy of the HIA is attached to this memo.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 95 of 224
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter.
• Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER 0.18
• Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Draft HIA
Page 96 of 224
A
on
oNOW
I�II�1wlfir�iiri1 )
xpK xp� � M^R
F
HERITAGE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
234 & 240 FREDERICK
STREET, KITCHENER
ROME TRANSPORTATION INC.
REVISED DRAFT
CONFIDENTIAL
PROJECT NO.: 201-11372-00
DATE: FEBRUARY 08, 2022
F WSP
582 LANCASTER STREET WEST
KITCHENER, ON N2K 1 M3
F
T: +1 519 743 8777
WSP.COM
Page 98 of 224
SIGNATURES
PREPARED BY
DRAFT
Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Date
Cultural Heritage Specialist
APPROVED" B';
DRAFT
Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Date
Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario
WSP Canada Inc. ("WSP") prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, Rome Transportation Inc. and the City of Kitchener, in accordance with
the professional services agreement between the parties. In the event a contract has not been executed, the parties agree that the WSP General Terms for
Consultant shall govern their business relationship which was provided to you prior to the preparation of this report.
The report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the assessment
The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable
interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed.
The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using
investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordinarily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners
working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project.
WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, after the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report,
however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence.
WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings.
The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions
in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any,
suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report.
WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with
that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of
a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied,
of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation
or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report.
In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information
provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information.
The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under
the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to
the intended recipient.
This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report.
Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical
content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit -for -purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable
review process has occurred prior to signing the document.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
WSP
February 2022
Page iii
Page 99 of 224
CONTRIBUTORS
CLIENT
Contact Erik Olsen, President
Rome Transportation Inc.
c/o Dave Galbraith, Senior Planner
IBI Group
\/\/S S
Cultural Heritage Specialist Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, RPP, MCIP, CAHP
Cultural Heritage Specialist
Archival Research Chelsey Tyers, BES, RPP, MCIP
Cultural Heritage Specialist
Mapping/GIS Andrew Turner, HBA
GIS Specialist
Report Review Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP
Cultural Heritage Lead, Ontario
Cultural Heritage Specialist
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page int
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 100 of 224
EXE UTIVI SUMMARY
WSP was retained by Rome Transportation Inc. to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the
properties located at 234 and 240 Frederick Street in the City of Kitchener. The report was undertaken to
accompany the submission of a Site Plan and Minor Variance application being prepared by IBI Group for
the subject properties, which will see the retention of both buildings on the subject properties and the
construction of a new four -storey freestanding condominium building in the rear of the lot at 240 Frederick
Street.
Concurrent with this HIA, WSP is preparing a Cultural Heritage Conservation Protection Plan (CHCPP)
for 240 Frederick Street that will provide detailed technical recommendations to mitigate indirect impacts
anticipated to result from the proposed development.
234 Frederick Street is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) and 240 Frederick
Street is included on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register (2017) as a listed, non-
designated property of cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI), under section 27 (1.2) of the OHA.
Given that the property at 234 Frederick Street was designated in 1990, prior to amendments made to
the OHA in 2005 detailing the requirements of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and
List of Heritage Attributes, an updated statement and attributes list has been prepared. 240 Frederick
Street was determined to possess CHVI when evaluated by the City of Kitchener using Ontario
Regulation 9/06, as such a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage
Attributes has been drafted. Both properties are located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood
Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), however the landscape has not yet been formally protected
through an Official Plan Amendment.
Evaluating the proposed development plan for the subject properties against both Statements of
Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, it was determined that the new residential development would have
primarily indirect impacts to the contextual value of 234 and 240 Frederick Street, as well as to the
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The following alternatives were considered to avoid or reduce
these adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the subject properties and the surrounding CHL:
1) Preserve and maintain the properties at 234 and 240 Frederick Street as is with no further
development.
2) Develop 234 and 240 Frederick Street as proposed.
3) Develop 234 and 240 Frederick Street as proposed but explore increasing the separation
distance by moving the development further north on the lot.
Following submission of the March 4, 2021 draft of this HIA to the City of Kitchener, the proponent
adopted Option 3 and refined the previous site plan, increasing the separation distance between the
extant residence at 240 Frederick Street and the proposed development from 1.5 m to 3 m. This
increased separation distance will further mitigate potential indirect impacts to the extant structure such
as land disturbance, construction vibrations, and damage from construction activities and machinery.
As Option 3 was adopted, only Options 1 and 2 were explored in this revised report. Based on the
options analysis, Option 2 was the preferred alternative from a cultural heritage perspective, followed
by Option 1. As such, the following recommendations are provided:
That the detailed technical recommendations provided to address indirect impacts in the CHCPP
prepared for 240 Frederick Street be considered to protect the heritage attributes of the subject
residence before, during and after development -related activity.
That indirect vibration impacts also be monitored for the property at 234 Frederick Street in
accordance with the mitigation measures presented in the CHCPP.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 101 of 224
That the foundations of the new building should be kept independent from those of the extant
structure at 240 Frederick Street unless part of a purposeful underpinning of the historic foundation.
Care should be taken not to compromise the existing foundation during excavations for the new
building.
That any portions of the wrought iron fence removed along the south half of the property's periphery
should be relocated post -construction. As per the landscape plan, portions of the fence that cannot be
relocated post -construction should be conserved and repurposed in the Victorian garden proposed
between the subject properties.
That should the development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA,
additional cultural heritage investigations may be required.
That as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms of
Reference, this HIA should be submitted for review and comment to the City's Heritage Planner and
Heritage Kitchener.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page vi
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 102 of 224
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
1
INTRODUCTION .............................................1
N 2
POLICY FRAMEWORK..................................4
2.1
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples......................................................4
2.2
Provincial Policy Context.............................................5
2.2.1
Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement.......................................5
2.2.2
Ontario Heritage Act................................................................................6
2.2.3
Ontario Regulation 9/06..........................................................................6
2.2.4
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Heritage
Resources in Land Use Planning...........................................................7
2.2.5
Region of Waterloo Official Plan............................................................7
2.2.6
City of Kitchener Official Plan.................................................................9
2.2.7
Federal and Provincial Heritage Guidelines........................................10
13
PROJECT METHODOLOGY ........................11
4
HISTORICAL CONTEXT...............................12
4.1
Pre -Contact Period......................................................12
4.1.1
Paleo Period..........................................................................................12
4.1.2
Archaic Period.......................................................................................12
4.1.3
Early and Middle Woodland Periods....................................................13
4.1.4
Late Woodland Period..........................................................................14
4.2
Post -Contact Period....................................................15
4.2.1
Pre -Confederation Treaties..................................................................15
4.2.2
Waterloo County....................................................................................15
4.2.3
Waterloo Township...............................................................................16
4.2.4
City of Kitchener (Formerly Berlin).......................................................17
4.3
Site Specific History....................................................18
4.3.1
234 Frederick Street..............................................................................19
4.3.2
240 Frederick Street..............................................................................21
WSP
February 2022
Page vii
Page 103 of 224
TABLE OF 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................. 24
CONTENTS5.1 234 Frederick Street....................................................24
7.1 Updated Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or
5.1.1
Landscape Conditions..........................................................................24
7.1.1
Description of Historic Place.................................................................69
5.1.2
Building..................................................................................................25
Heritage Value.......................................................................................69
5.1.3
Building Exterior....................................................................................26
7.2
5.2
240 Frederick Street....................................................32
5.2.1
Landscape Conditions..........................................................................32
7.3
5.2.2
Building..................................................................................................34
5.2.3
Building Exterior....................................................................................35
5.2.4
Building Interior.....................................................................................42
5.2.5
Detached Garage..................................................................................60
5.3
Chronological History of the Development of 240
Frederick Street...........................................................61
5.4
Study Area Context.....................................................61
5.5
Architectural Style.......................................................63
5.5.1
Queen Anne..........................................................................................63
5.6
Comparative Analysis.................................................64
6
CONSULTATION ..........................................
68
6.1
City of Kitchener..........................................................68
6.2
Federal and Provincial Review...................................68
7
CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ........69
7.1 Updated Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page viii
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 104 of 224
Interest for 234 Frederick Street................................69
7.1.1
Description of Historic Place.................................................................69
7.1.2
Heritage Value.......................................................................................69
7.1.3
List of Heritage Attributes.....................................................................70
7.2
Evaluation of 240 Frederick Street Using Ontario
Regulation 9/06............................................................71
7.3
Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation .............73
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page viii
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 104 of 224
TABLE OF 7.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for
CONTENTS 7.4.1
240 Frederick Street....................................................73
Description Historic Place
of .................................................................73
7.4.2
Heritage Value.......................................................................................73
7.4.3
List of Heritage Attributes.....................................................................74
7.5
Central Frederick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage
Landscape....................................................................75
7.5.1
Description.............................................................................................75
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
$ PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS
...................................................................... 77
8.1 Description of Proposed Development .....................77
8.2 Potential Impacts.........................................................78
8.3 Evaluation of Impacts.................................................78
8.4 Results of Impact Assessment..................................83
ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND
CONSERVATION OPTIONS .........................84
9.1 Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options
Analysis........................................................................84
9.2 Results of Options Analysis and Conservation
Recommendations......................................................86
10 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...88
10.1 Significance of Subject Properties and Central
Frederick Neighbourhood CHL..................................88
10.2 Identification of Impacts.............................................90
10.3 Conservation Recommendations..............................91
Page 105 of 224
TABLE OF 11 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION ............ 92
CONTENTS BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................93
TABLES
TABLE 1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HERITAGE
FIGURES
FIGURE 1:
PROPERTIES OF SIMILAR AGE,
FIGURE 2:
STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY TO 240
FREDERICK STREET.......................65
PLAN 425 ...................................................99
TABLE 2:
EVALUATION OF 240 FREDERICK STREET
HISTORICAL MAPPING (1877) ...............100
AS PER O. REG. 9/06 CRITERIA .....71
FIGURE 5:1916
TABLE 3:
IMPACT GRADING.......................................78
FIGURE 6:1929
TABLE 4:
EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO SUBJECT
FIGURE 7:1938
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .....................103
PROPERTY AT 240 FREDRICK
FIGURE 8:1954
AERIAL IMAGERY ..........................104
STREET.............................................78
TABLE 5:
EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO 234 AND
239-241 FREDERICK STREET AND
CENTRAL FREDERICK
NEIGHBOURHOOD CHL..................80
TABLE 6:
ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND
CONSERVATION OPTIONS .............84
FIGURES
FIGURE 1:
SUBJECT PROPERTIES MAP ....................3
FIGURE 2:
HISTORICAL MAPPING (1861) .................98
FIGURE 3:
PLAN 425 ...................................................99
FIGURE 4:
HISTORICAL MAPPING (1877) ...............100
FIGURE 5:1916
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .....................101
FIGURE 6:1929
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .....................102
FIGURE 7:1938
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .....................103
FIGURE 8:1954
AERIAL IMAGERY ..........................104
APPENDICES
A FIGURES 2-8
B SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS
C TREE PRESERVATION PLAN &
LANDSCAPE PLAN
D QUALIFICATIONS OF AUTHOR
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 106 of 224
1 INTRODUCTION
WSP was retained by Rome Transportation Inc. in November 2020 to conduct a Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) for the properties at 234 and 240 Frederick Street in the City of Kitchener, Ontario (Figure
1). 240 Frederick Street is included on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register (2017) as a listed,
non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI), under section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario
Heritage Act (OHA), and 234 Frederick Street is designated under Part IV of the OHA through By -Law 90-
162. Both properties are located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape
(CHL). The approximately 0.18 -acre property at 234 Frederick Street includes a two-storey Queen Anne
style structure surrounded by a landscaped front lawn, paved driveway and parking lot. The approximately
0.47 -acre property at 240 Frederick Street includes a two -and -a -half storey Queen Anne structure and a
vernacular, single -storey detached garage surrounded by a landscaped lawn (see Figure 1). Both properties
are zoned Commercial Residential One (CR -1), Special Provisions 114R and 128U and designated as Low -
Density Commercial Residential in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan.
The property owner's contact information is as follows:
Rome Transportation Inc.
Eric Olsen
100 Campbell Avenue, Unit #2
Kitchener, ON N2H 4X8
Tel: (519) 572-0980
Email: eolsen@romesales.com
The property owner intends to retain both buildings on the subject properties and construct a new four -storey
freestanding residential condominium building in the rear of the lot at 240 Frederick Street. An HIA is
required to assess the impact of the proposed development on the potential and known CHVI of the subject
properties to accompany a Site Plan and Minor Variance application.
This HIA has been structured to adhere to the guidelines of the City of Kitchener's Scoped Heritage Impact
Assessment— Terms of Reference (April 2020), and guidance provided in the OHA; Section 2(d) of the
Planning Act (1990); Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020); the Ministry of Heritage, Sport,
Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Heritage Resources in Land Use
Planning Process (2006); and Section 12.C.1.23-28 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014). This
document will provide:
• Project background and an introduction to the development site;
• A description of the methodology used to investigate and evaluate the subject properties;
• A summary of background research and analysis related to the subject properties;
• An assessment of existing conditions;
• A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes for the property at
234 Frederick Street to update the City of Kitchener prepared Reasons for Designation included in
Designation By -Law 90-162;
• A CHVI evaluation of the property at 240 Frederick Street to confirm and update the City of Kitchener
prepared Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes (2013);
• A description of the proposed development and a summary of potentially adverse impacts;
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 107 of 224
• If necessary, an assessment of alternative options, mitigation measures and conservation methods
to be considered to avoid or limit negative impacts to the CHVI of the subject properties;
• A summary statement and conservation recommendations; and
• A recommendation as to whether the subject property at 240 Frederick Street is eligible for heritage
designation under the OHA.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 2
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 108 of 224
M� -�
Ol
A
QQ
T T
a a
Y Y
U U
Q N N
Z W W
W ,^^ V
, O
V N N
LU 11.01 0
,
000
oop
LANCASTER STREET EAST
w z
O
w o
¢
H
a
0
z
O
z
o
�
O
1
Q
zQ
w
z
U
H
Z
O
H Y
W H
C W
W
U
K
w �
O
cn O
H
Q U
H K
U w
a
E
O
a
�
� �
w "
_
�
W
N
QQ
T T
a a
Y Y
U U
Q N N
Z W W
W ,^^ V
, O
V N N
LU 11.01 0
,
000
oop
LANCASTER STREET EAST
2 POLICY FRAMEWORK
2.1 UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
On June 21, 2021, the Canadian federal government enacted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples Act and confirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (Declaration - 2007) "must be implemented in Canada." As a result, Indigenous peoples in Canada
are recognized as having unique rights, including those that pertain to the conservation of Indigenous
heritage. As per Articles 11 and 31 of the Declaration:
11. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This
includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their
cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and
visual and performing arts and literature.
31. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage,
traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences,
technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the
properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual
and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual
property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
2) In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect
the exercise of these rights.
These rights to historical sites, ceremonies, cultural traditions, etc. (collectively understood as Indigenous
heritage) are pertinent to the planning process through Articles 25 and 26 of the Declaration, which state:
25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with
their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and
other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.
26. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally
owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources
that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as
those which they have otherwise acquired.
3) States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such
recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the
Indigenous peoples concerned.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 4
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 110 of 224
2.2 PROVINCIAL POLICY CONTEXT
2.2.1 PLANNING ACT AND PROVINCIAL POLICY STA TEMEW
The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing (MMAH), 2020) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario -wide policy direction on
land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning "shall be consistent with" the PPS, which
identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical,
archaeological, technical or scientific interest are of provincial interest and should be conserved.
The importance of identifying, evaluating and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage
landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020:
— Section 2.6.1 — "Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be
conserved"; and,
— Section 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."
The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of
cultural heritage resources in Ontario:
Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as "a building, structure, monument, installation or any
manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or
interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are
located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be
included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers."
Conserved is defined as "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. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set
out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been
approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision -maker. Mitigative
measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments."
Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) "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
Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views,
archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or
association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural
heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act or have been included on federal and/or
international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning
mechanisms."
Heritage attributes "means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage
property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, constructed, or
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 111 of 224
manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g.
significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property)."
Significant means "in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to
have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or
interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act."
2.2.2 ONTARIO HERITAGE AOT
The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with
a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to
municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide
standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage
conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources.
Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties,
known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). Designation offers protection for the
properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from
altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the
council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal.
In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to
have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60 -day
delay in issuing a demolition permit. Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of
properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be
kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the
Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to
possess CHVI. Listed properties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA
against demolition or unsympathetic alteration as are designated properties but are acknowledged under
Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020).
2.2.3 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06
The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg 9/06), which
provides three principal criteria with nine sub -criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set out in the
regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the OHA. Best practices
in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI.
These criteria include: design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value.
1. The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or
construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is
significant to a community,
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 112 of 224
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a
community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who
is significant to a community.
3. The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).
If a potential cultural heritage resource is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered
an identified resource.
2.2.4 M NISI RY OF HERITAGE, SPORT, TOURISM AND CULTURE INDUSTRIES
HERITAGE RESOURCES IN LAND USE PLANNING
The MHSTCI's Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process (2006) identifies HIAs as an important
tool to evaluate cultural heritage resources and to determine appropriate conservation options. The
document identifies what an HIA should contain and any specific municipal requirements.
To determine the effect that a proposed development or site alteration may have on a significant cultural
heritage resource, the Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process outlines seven potential negative
or indirect impacts:
• Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features;
• Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance;
• Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural
feature or plantings, such as a garden;
• Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant
relationship;
• Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural
features;
• A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing
new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces;
• Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely
affect an archaeological resource.
REGION OF WATERLOO OFFICIAL PLAN
The Region of Waterloo's Regional Official Plan was approved, with modifications, by the Ontario Municipal
Board on June 18, 2015. Chapter 3, Liveability in Waterloo Region, addresses heritage resource
conservation. Relevant policies include those that detail Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment:
3.G.6 Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans and
establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is to
conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage
significance than their constituent elements or parts.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 113 of 224
3.G.13 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or
is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non -designated resource of cultural
heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register.
3.G.14 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.13 relates to a
cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy
of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the
satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality.
3.G.15 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of
Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant
will be required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the
Region.
3.G.16 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the
affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to
planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural
heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies
in this Plan.
3.G.17 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following:
(a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation;
(b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource;
(c) description of the proposed development or site alteration;
(d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts;
(e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods;
(f) schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and
(g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations.
3.G.18 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural
heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever
feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by:
(a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the
proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage
resource;
(b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or
vacant; and
(c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable
from, the heritage resource.
3.G.19 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with
Policy 3.G.18, the conservation recommendations will:
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 8
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 114 of 224
(a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to
preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans; and
(b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history,
photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its
surrounding context.
3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area
Municipality as applicable.
2, ?.
6 CITY OF KI TCHFNF_R OFFICIAL PIAN
The City of Kitchener Official Plan was approved, with modifications, by the Region of Waterloo on
November 19, 2014. Section 12, Cultural Heritage Resources, addresses heritage resource conservation.
Relevant policies include those that detail Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plans:
12.C.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage
Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential
to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed:
a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property;
b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.C.4.6 through
13.C.4.18 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.C.1.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 12.C.1.23 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.C.1.25. 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.C.1.26. 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;
f) implementation and monitoring; and,
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 115 of 224
g) summary statement and conservation recommendations.
12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage
Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or
conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the
requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act.
12.C.1.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be
scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate.
2.2.7 FEDERAL_ AND PRnklINCIAL HERITAGE GUIDELINES
In accordance with the City of Kitchener Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference,
additional guidelines were considered including Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Second Edition, 2010), hereafter referred to as the Standards
and Guidelines; the former Ministry of Culture's Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic
Properties (1997) and Heritage Conservation Principle's for Land Use Planning (2007); and Well-Preserved.-
the
ell-Preserved:the Ontario Heritage Foundation's Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation, hereafter
referred to as Well -Preserved (1988).
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 10
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 116 of 224
3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY
An HIA evaluates the proposed impact of development on the heritage attributes of a property of potential or
known CHVI. This HIA is guided by the City of Kitchener Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms of
Reference and the MHSTCI's Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process.
To address the requirements of an HIA, this report provides the following information:
• A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and
historical maps;
• Photographic documentation of the subject properties and context;
• A written description of the existing conditions and context of the subject properties;
• An evaluation of the subject properties using O. Reg. 9/06;
• Preparation of an updated Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage
Attributes for the properties;
• A review of the proposed development;
• Identification of impacts;
• The identification and analysis of mitigation opportunities, as required;
• The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the CHVI and heritage attributes
of the cultural heritage resources;
• Recommendation of whether 240 Frederick Street is eligible for heritage designation under the OHA;
and
• A summary statement and conservation recommendations.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 117 of 224
4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
4.1 PRE -CONTACT PERIOD
The pre -contact period in Ontario has been reconstructed, primarily, from the archaeological record and
interpretations made by archaeologists through an examination of material culture and site settlement
patterns. Technological and temporal divisions of the pre -contact period have been defined by
archaeologists based on changes to natural, cultural, and political environments that are observable in the
archaeological record. It is pertinent to state that although these divisions provide a generalized framework
for understanding the broader events of the pre -contact period, they are not an accurate reflection of the
fluidity and intricacies of cultural practices that spanned thousands of years. The following presents a
sequence of Indigenous land -use from the earliest human occupation following deglaciation to the more
recent past based on the following periods as defined by archaeologists as the:
• Paleo Period;
• Archaic Period;
• Woodland Period; and
• Post -Contact Period.
4. 1.1 PALEO PERIOD
Paleo period populations were the first to occupy what is now southern Ontario, moving into the region
following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 11,000 years before present (BP). The first
Paleo period populations to occupy southern Ontario are referred to by archaeologists as Early Paleo (Ellis
and Deller, 1990).
Early Paleo period groups are identified by their distinctive projectile point types, exhibiting long grooves, or
"flutes," that likely functioned as a hafting mechanism (method of attaching the point to a wooden stick).
These Early Paleo group tool types include Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700), and Crowfield
(c.10,500) (Ellis and Deller, 1990). By approximately 10,400 BP, Paleo projectile points transitioned to
various unfluted varieties such as Holcombe (c.10,300 BP), Hi Lo (c.10,100 BP), and Unstemmed and
Stemmed Lanceolate (c.10,400 to 9,500 BP). These types were used by Late Paleo period groups (Ellis and
Deller, 1990). Both Early and Late Paleo period populations were highly mobile, participating in the hunting
of large game animals. Paleo period sites often functioned as small campsites where stone tool production
and maintenance occurred (Ellis and Deller, 1990).
4.1.2 Ai-<Gri'Ai i`L:i- 0L)
By approximately 8,000 BP, climatic warming supported the growth of deciduous forests in southern Ontario.
These forests introduced new flora and faunal resources, which resulted in subsistence shifts and a number
of cultural adaptations. This change is reflected in the archaeological record by new tool -kits that are
reflective of a shift in subsistence strategies and has been categorized as the Archaic period.
The Archaic period in southern Ontario is sub -divided into the Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), Middle
Archaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP), and the Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) periods. Generally, in North
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 118 of 224
America, the Archaic period represents a transition from big game hunting to broader, more generalized
subsistence strategies based on local resource availability. This period is characterized by the following
traits:
• An increase in stone tool variation and reliance on local stone sources;
• The emergence of notched and stemmed projectile point types;
• A reduction in extensively flaked tools;
• The use of native copper;
• The use of bone tools for hooks, gorges, and harpoons;
• An increase in extensive trade networks; and
• The production of ground stone tools and an increase in larger, less portable tools.
The Archaic period is also marked by population growth with archaeological evidence suggesting that, by the
end of the Middle Archaic period (c.4,500 BP), populations had steadily increased in size (Ellis, et al., 1990).
Over the course of the Archaic period, populations began to rely on more localized hunting and gathering
territories and were shifting to more seasonal encampments. From the spring into the fall, settlements were
focused in lakeshore/riverine locations where a variety of different resources could be exploited. Settlement
in the late fall and winter months moved to interior sites where the focus shifted to deer hunting and the
foraging of wild plants (Ellis et al., 1990, p. 114). The steady increase in population size and the adoption of
a more localized seasonal subsistence strategy led to the transition into the Woodland period.
4.1.:� LAI-�LY AI'Vb JVIIL)L>Lt VV00L)LAIVL) &L:-0UL.J6
The beginning of the Woodland period is defined by the emergence of ceramic technology. Similar to the
Archaic period, the Woodland period is separated into three timeframes: the Early Woodland (c.2,800 to
2,000 BP), the Middle Woodland (c.2,000 to 1,200 BP), and the Late Woodland (c.1,200 to 350 BP) (Spence
et al., 1990; Fox, 1990).
The Early Woodland period is represented in southern Ontario by two cultural complexes: the Meadowood
Complex (c.2,900 to 2,500 BP), and the Middlesex Complex (c.2,500 to 2,000 BP). During this period, the life
ways of Early Woodland populations differed little from that of the Late Archaic with hunting and gathering
representing the primary subsistence strategies. The pottery of this period is thick walled, friable, and, as
such, likely did not have a long use life. These early ceramics are typically undecorated but exhibit cord
impressions, which are likely the result of the techniques used during manufacture rather than decoration
(Spence et al., 1990). Meadowood complex sites are found across Southern Ontario and is characterised by
Meadowood cache blades, Meadowood side notched points, trapezoidal gorgets and a marked preference
for Onondaga chert (Fox, 1990).
The Middle Woodland period has been differentiated from the Early Woodland period by changes in lithic tool
forms (i.e., projectile points, expedient tools), and the increased decorative elaboration of ceramic vessels
(Spence et al., 1990). Additionally, archaeological evidence suggests the rudimentary use of maize (corn)
horticulture by the end of the Middle Woodland Period (Warrick, 2000).
In southern Ontario, the Middle Woodland is observed in three different cultural complexes: the Point
Peninsula Complex to the north and northeast of Lake Ontario, the Couture Complex near Lake St. Clair,
and the Saugeen Complex throughout the remainder of southern Ontario. These groups can be identified by
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 119 of 224
their use of either dentate or pseudo scalloped ceramic decorations. The study area lies within a region that
was occupied by both the Saugeen Complex (Spence et al., 1990).
The Saugeen Complex is found generally in south-central Ontario and along the eastern shores of Lake
Huron. The Saugeen Complex ceramics are similar in style to Point Peninsula Complex; however, the
vessels tended to be cruder than their Point Peninsula counterparts. They were characterized by coil
construction with thick walls, wide necks, and poorly defined shoulders. Usually, the majority of the vessel
was decorated with pseudo -scallop stamps or dentate impressions, with the latter occurring more frequently
at later dates (Spence et al., 1990).
4. °I.4 LATL WOODLAND PERIOD
There is much debate as to whether a transitional phase between the Middle and Late Woodland Periods is
present in Ontario, but it is generally agreed that the Late Woodland period of occupation begins around
1,100 BP. The Late Woodland period in southern Ontario can be divided into three cultural sub -phases: The
early, middle, and late Late Woodland periods. The early Late Woodland is characterized by the Glen Meyer
and Pickering cultures and the middle Late Woodland is characterized by the Uren and Middleport cultures.
These groups are ancestral to the Iroquoian -speaking Neutral -Erie (Neutral), the Huron-Wendat (Huron), and
Petun Nations that inhabited southern Ontario during the late Late Woodland period (Smith, 1990, p. 285).
The Pickering and Glen Meyer cultures co -existed within southern Ontario during the early Late Woodland
period (c.1250-700 BP). Pickering territory is understood to encompass the area north of Lake Ontario to
Georgian Bay and Lake Nipissing (Williamson, 1990). Glen Meyer is centred around Oxford and Norfolk
counties, but also includes the southeastern Huron basin and the western extent is demarcated by the Ekfrid
Clay Plain southwest of London, Ontario (Noble, 1975). Villages of either tradition were generally smaller in
size (-1 ha) and composed of smaller oval structures, which were later replaced by larger structures in the
Late Woodland period. Archaeological evidence suggested a mixed economy where hunting and gathering
played an important role, but small-scale horticulture was present, indicating a gradual shift from hunting -
gathering to a horticultural economy (Williamson, 1990).
The first half of the middle Late Woodland period is represented by the Uren culture (700-650 BP) and the
second half by the Middleport (650-600 BP). Uren and Middleport sites of the middle Late Woodland share a
similar distribution pattern across much of southwestern and south-central Ontario. (Dodd et al., 1990).
Significant changes in material culture and settlement -subsistence patterns are noted during this short time.
Iroquois Linear, Ontario Horizontal, and Ontario Oblique pottery types are the most well -represented ceramic
assemblages of the middle Late Woodland period (Dodd et al., 1990). At Middleport sites, material culture
changes included an increase in the manufacture and use of clay pipes as well as bone tools and
adornments (Dodd et al., 1990; Ferris & Spence, 1995).
The appearance of evidence of small year-round villages, secondary ossuary burials, and what are thought
to be semi -subterranean sweat lodges suggest a marked increase in sedentism in southern Ontario during
the Uren and Middleport cultures (Ferris & Spence, 1995). The increasing permanency of settlements
resulted in the development of small-scale cultivation and a subsequent increased reliance on staple crops
such as maize, beans, and squash (Dodd et al., 1990; Warrick, 2000; Ferris & Spence, 1995).
Archaeological evidence from the middle Late Woodland sites also documents increases in population size,
community organization and village fissioning, and the expansion of trade networks. The development of
trade networks with northern Algonquian peoples has also been inferred from findings at Middleport sites
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 120 of 224
along the northern parts of southwestern and south-central Ontario. These changes resulted in the more
organized and complex social structures observed in the late Late Woodland period.
During the late Late Woodland period, village size significantly increased as did the complexity of community
and political systems. Villages were often fortified with palisade walls and ranged in size from a few
longhouses to over 100 longhouses observed in large villages. Larger longhouses oriented differently than
others in the village have been associated with primary familial groups and it has been suggested that
longhouses that were located outside of palisade walls may have been for visiting groups for the purposes of
trade or social gatherings (Ramsden, 1990). More recent research has indicated that smaller, temporary
camp or cabin sites were often used seasonally for the tending of agricultural fields or as fishing camps
(Ramsden, 1990). By this time, large-scale agriculture had taken hold, making year-round villages even more
practical as a result of the ability to store large crop yields over winter.
Early contact with European settlers at the end of the Late Woodland period resulted in extensive changes to
the traditional lifestyles of most populations inhabiting Ontario including settlement size, population
distribution, and material culture. The introduction of European -borne diseases significantly increased
mortality rates, resulting in a drastic drop in population size (Warrick, 2000).
4.2 POST -CONTACT PERIOD
4.2.1 PRE -CONFEDERATION TREATIES
The study area, located in the City of Cambridge, is situated on the lands of the Between the Lakes Treaty,
No. 3, negotiated in 1784, and confirmed in 1792, by the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and the
British Crown. Part of the goal of the Between the Lakes Treaty for the Mississaugas was to help and assist
Joseph Brant and the Haudenosaunee who had fought for the British in the American Revolution (1775-
1783) and provide them with suitable land to settle (Shanahan, 2019). Sir Frederick Haldimand, the
Governor of Quebec, subsequently signed the Haldimand Proclamation that granted the tract of
approximately 3,500 acres of land, or 10 km on either side of the Grand River, to the Haudenosaunee in
compensation for their assistance in the American Revolution (1765-1783) (CIRNAC, 2013). The land is
commonly known today as the Haldimand Tract. The Simcoe Patent (Treaty 4) was issued in 1793, and
further clarified a number of matters, including the extent of the land grant made to the Haudenosaunee
(Ministry of Indigenous Affairs, 2020).
4 2.2 WATERLOO COUNTY
In 1788, the Province of Quebec created the first districts to serve administrative needs at the local level —
Hesse, Nassau, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg. The study area was in the Nassau District that included as far
south as the current Fort Erie and Thunder Bay to the north. After the creation of Upper Canada in 1791, The
Nassau District was renamed the Home District. By way of an Act of Parliament in 1798 the Home and
Western Districts were realigned with a portion of these districts becoming London and Niagara Districts. The
study area remained part of the Home District.
At the turn of the nineteenth century, Crown Land was granted to arriving settlers on conditions, such as the
requirement to clear at least 2.02 ha of their lot and the adjacent road allowance as well as to build a house
and shingle it within 18 months.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 121 of 224
In 1816, the Home District was divided and the majority of what would become Waterloo County was
reorganized into the Gore District (Pope, 1877:76). The first settlers of the Gore District were almost
exclusively United Empire Loyalists (Pope, 1877:76). Initially Halton County included the Townships of
Beverley, Dumfries, Esquesing, Flamboro West, Flamboro East, Nassagaweya, Nelson and Trafalgar (Pope,
1877:76) and was expanded to include the townships of Guelph, Puslinch, Nassagaweya, Esquesing,
Eramosa, Erin and Garafraxa in 1822 (Cumming, 1971:2).
The District of Wellington was created in 1837-1838 and included the counties of Wellington, Waterloo, Grey
and parts of Dufferin County (Wellington County, 2020.). The United Counties of Waterloo, Wellington and
Grey were formed in 1852, but only two years later Wellington County became its own entity and consisted
of the Townships and Towns of Amarantha, Arthur, Eramosa, Erin, Guelph, Garafraxa, Maryborough, Nichol,
Peel, Pilkington and Puslinch (Wellington County, 2020).
In February 1841, Wellington District became part of Canada West in the new United Province of Ontario.
Only eight years later in 1849, the District system was eliminated. Wellington District was divided into Grey,
Wellington, Perth and Waterloo Counties. Waterloo County included the Townships of Waterloo, Woolwich,
Wilmot, Wellesley and North Dumfries. Waterloo County was dissolved in 1973 and replaced with the Region
of Waterloo.
4.2.3 WATERLOO TOWNSHIP
The Township of Waterloo was historically bound to the north by the Township of Woolwich, to the east by
the Townships of Guelph and Puslinch, to the south by the Township of Dumfries and to the west by the
Township of Wilmot. The Township of Waterloo was part of Block 2 of the Halidmand Tract. The Halidmand
Tract was land granted by Sir Frederick Halidmand on October 25, 1784 to the Six Nations in recognition of
their support of the British during the American Revolution. Mohawk leader Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant),
representing the Six Nations, arranged for the sale of Block 2 of the tract to United Empire Loyalists, Richard
Beasley and his partners James Wilson and Jean -Baptiste Rousseaux in 1796. When the transaction
finalized in 1798, Beasley became solely responsible for the mortgage payments.
Due to the terms of the sale of the tract from the Six Nations to Beasley, the final deed was not transferred to
Beasley until payment was made in full. As such, Block 2 could not be legally subdivided and sold to make
payments for the initial land transfer (English and McLaughlin, 1983). Beasley did begin to sell lots, however,
despite his inability to grant clear title. In 1800, Beasley sold almost 5,571 ha to predominantly German
Mennonites who did not realize that the mortgage prevented them from getting clear title to their lands
(Bloomfield, 1995:21). This led to the almost complete halt of settlement in 1803 and 1804 (Bloomfield,
1995:21). Beasley and Brant realized the only solution was a bulk sale of the remaining portions of Block 2 to
pay off the mortgage (Bloomfield, 1995:22). Samuel Bricker who had immigrated to Block 2 in 1802
successfully convinced other German Mennonites in Pennsylvania to form the `German Company' to
purchase the remaining Block 2 lands. Lots were then drawn and distributed to families that contributed to
the German Company according to the number of shares owned (Bloomfield, 1995:22). Due to the tract
being sold as a block, the area was not addressed in the typical manner by the local of administration of
Upper Canada, with surveys and basic services. As such, roads were informally laid out by the new settlers
and lots were often oddly shaped.
The area's reputation for fertile and cheap lands within a predominantly German speaking community
attracted non -Mennonite Germans during the early nineteenth century. Additionally, large numbers of
Scottish, German and other European immigrants also came to Waterloo (Bloomfield, 1995:45-50). The
earliest settlement clusters were not necessarily the areas with the best soil due to the lack of formally laid
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 122 of 224
roads, rather the earliest settlement clusters were around the forks of the Grand and Speed Rivers in the
south and in the north along the road connecting John Erb's mills and Abraham Erb's mills, which are now
the urban cores of the cities of Cambridge and Waterloo, respectively (Bloomfield, 1995:61).
By 1846, the Township of Waterloo had a population of 4,424, and included 20 sawmills and eight gristmills
(Smith 1846:205). Early residential structures tended to be one to two-storey log structures. Prior to 1850,
log houses and shanties were exempt from taxes if they only had one fireplace and, as such, many were
built in the Township. During the second half of the nineteenth century, large, often two-storey stone
dwellings became popular.
The creation of the Grand Trunk Railway, Galt & Guelph Railway and the Preston & Berlin Railway in the
1850s brought additional prosperity. Wheat and barley were the primary exports, both becoming especially
lucrative when the Crimean War (1853-1856) raised British demand for Canadian Wheat (Hayes 1997:40).
4,2,4 CITY OF KITCHEVER (FORMERLY BERLIN)
Originally known as Sand Hills and later as Mount Pleasant, the area was first settled in 1807 by German
Mennonites Benjamin Eby and Joseph Snider. It later became known as Berlin due to its significant German
immigrant population. In 1823, key founders of Kitchener's furniture industry, John Hoffman and Samuel
Bowers, partnered together to create the first Canadian furniture business (Uttley, 1932). Bowers later
withdrew from the partnership and Hoffman's brother purchased his interest (Uttley, 1932). The Hoffman
brothers later went on to introduce the steam engine to local manufacturing, commencing Kitchener's strong
industrial background.
Hoffman is credited with the creation of over 50 homes in Berlin (Uttley, 1932). David Miller opened the first
mercantile business c.1825 and Henry B. Bowman opened the second in 1837. The 1830s brought further
immigration of settlers direct from Germany, and the name was changed to Berlin
With a population of over 1,000 in late 1853, Berlin was incorporated as a village. It was also during this
decade that economic growth began to flourish with the introduction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856.
With a population of 5,000 in the 1880s, Parsell described Berlin as "among the most substantial and
progressive towns in Ontario" (H. Parsell & Co. 1881:7).
Furniture making continued to be a predominant source of industry. Hartman Krug and Dan Hibner received
permission from Council in 1887 to erect a factory called the H. Krug Furniture Co. Ltd. Now known simply as
Krug, the furniture company is one of the few surviving furniture companies in Kitchener and has garnered
international recognition. Other early industrial endeavors in the area included tanning hides, shoemaking,
button manufacturing and rubber manufacturing (Uttley, 1932).
Berlin was proclaimed a City on June 10, 1912 with a population of 15,195. After becoming a City, Council
set about to encourage further industrial businesses to settle in Berlin. The beginning of World War I (WW1)
in 1914 put a pause on this growth. WWI brought significant changes to a City with so many German
descendants. German instruction in school was no longer allowed, and those with German sounding names
often suffered discrimination. The biggest change brought about by WWI was the change in the City's name.
In an effort to choose something "less Germanic," the name Kitchener was decided upon (Moyer, 1979:53-
56).
Kitchener is one of Canada's most carefully planned communities thanks to W.H. Breithaupt. In 1920,
Breithaupt's advocacy for a planning board and a city plan paid off. In 1923, the planning board engaged
noted town planner T.A. Adams and his associate H. 1. Seymour. Their contract was completed in 1925, and
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 123 of 224
a comprehensive plan was the result. The plan included a complete layout and recommendations for areas
of growth within Kitchener, including recommendations for development controls like zoning by-laws (Moyer,
1979:64).
Following World War II (WWII), there was significant growth and progress in Kitchener. Until about 1960,
taxable assessment had risen on an aggressive curve (Moyer, 1979: 83). As with most urban centres,
Kitchener's downtown suffered in the 1960s through to the 1990s from the insurgence of suburban sprawl
despite ongoing renewal efforts. More recent urban revitalization efforts, such as the implementation of the
Streetscape Master Plan published in 2007, appear to be garnering success.
4. ;Si I t bHtUiriG m6TORI
The Township of Waterloo, in which the City of Kitchener is situated, was originally part of the lands granted
by the British Crown to the Iroquois or `Six Nation Indians', properly named Haudenosaunee, following the
American Revolution (Young, 1880). After the Revolution (1775-1783), the Haudenosaunee lost much of
their ancestral homeland in upper New York, an area now formally recognized as American territory.
Mohawk leader Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant), and representatives of the Six Nations Confederacy,
pressured the Crown to provide them with a land grant in Canada to replace the territory that they had lost as
a result of the war. Brant selected the valley of the Grand in 1784, and the governor of Quebec, Frederick
Haldimand, agreed to Brant's request and planned for the land grant (Filice, 2016). Land around the Grand
River was granted to these loyalists through the Haldimand Treaty of 1784.
From the start, the Haudenosaunee and the British Crown disagreed over the meaning of the Haldimand
Proclamation and who held title to the Haldimand Tract (Filice, 2016). The Crown understood the Haldimand
Proclamation as prohibiting the Haudenosaunee from leasing or selling the land to anyone but the Crown. In
1791, surveyor Augustus Jones completed a survey of the Haldimand Tract.
By 1796, the Haudenosaunee began selling and leasing land to settlers, despite the Crown's initial
objections. Brant reached a compromise agreement with Simcoe's successor, Peter Russell, whereby the
Haudenosaunee could sell and lease the land, so long as they offered it to the Crown first (Filice, 2016).
Brant sold approximately 350,000 acres of land to the Crown, who then distributed it to private owners,
according to the arrangements he had made. On February 5, 1798, this land was parcelled out in six large
blocks to specific purchasers.
Block 2 of the reserve, comprising of 94,012 acres, was sold by Joseph Brant on behalf of the Six Nations in
1797. He also acted as the legal attorney for John Baptise Rousseau, James Wilson and Richard Beasley. In
1800 and 1804, Wilson and Rousseau deeded their portions of the block to Beasley (WLRO Instruments 31
and 100). In 1804, Beasley became the sole owner of Block 2 having obtained a quit claim deed from Brant
for the remaining 13,430 acres (WLRO 101).
On June 29, 1802 Richard Bealsey sold 60,000 acres of Block 2 to Daniel and Jacob Erb, which became the
German Company Tract (GCT) (WLRO Instrument 123). Lot 3, which consisted of 448 acres of the GCT,
was sold to Jacob Hershey on July 20, 1805 (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 4, No. of Memorial: 127). Two -
hundred -and -twenty-four acres were sold to Samuel Eby on April 5, 1809 (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 17, No.
of Memorial: 298). Benjamin Eby purchased the other 224 acres of Lot 3, GCT on March 5, 1833 (WLRO
Folio of Abstract: 240, No. of Memorial: 235). Later that year, on May 27, David Weber purchased 219 acres
from Benjamin Eby (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 262, No. of Memorial: 534).
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 124 of 224
In two separate transactions on May 8 and September 3, 1841, David Weber sold 50 acres and
approximately 12 acres to Frederick Gaukel (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 58, No. of Memorial: 197 & Folio of
Abstract: 89, No. of Memorial 290). Frederick Gaukel also bought over 6 acres of Lot 3, GCT from Samuel
Eby on October 9, 1841 (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 98, No. of Memorial: 324).
In transactions ranging from 1841 to 1854, John Eby acquired just over 312 acres of Lot 3, GCT from
Frederick Gaukel, Samuel Eby, Elizabeth Eby and Samuel Eby's widow (WLRO, Folio of Abstract: 99, No of
Memorial: 325; Folio of Abstract: 87, No of Memorial: 77; Folio of Abstract: 88, No. of Memorial: 78 and
Instrument 76). The 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County confirms John Eby owned most of Lot 3, GCT
and identified a dwelling footprint around the southeast corner of the lot (outside of the subject properties and
not representative of either structures on the subject properties) (Figure 2, Appendix A). John Eby was the
second son of Samuel and Elizabeth Eby and was married to Rebecca Bricker and farmed the land (Utley,
1937).
John Eby sold 68.55 acres of Lot 3, GCT to Waterloo County on January 11, 1869 (recorded as Corporation
of Co Waterloo) (WLRO Instrument 4262). This was purchased by Waterloo County to erect the Waterloo
County House of Industry and Refuge (hereafter referred to as the House of Refuge) as required by the
Municipal Act that came into effect in 1869. The property included both a 50 -room house and an associated
farm (see Section 4.3.2 for more details on the House of Refuge). On April 20, 1888, Peter Itter acquired 4.2
acres of Lot 3, GCT from Waterloo County, which contained the House of Refuge house (WLRO Instrument
7835). An earlier transaction identifies that Peter Itter also purchased 100 acres of Lot 3, GCT from Veronica
Brubacher on April 30, 1881. It is unclear from the land registry records how Veronica acquired part of Lot 3,
GCT, but there is a transaction identifying John Brubacher owning a portion of the Lot in 1876. The 1877
Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo does not identify an owner for Lot 3, GCT, but does
demonstrate that most of Lot 3 has been largely developed and includes residential areas, the Grand Trunk
Railway, and a Tannery (Figure 4, Appendix A). At that time, no development was identified on the subject
properties.
On May 21, 1888, Plan 425 was registered under Peter Itter's name, creating a small subdivision from the
100 acres Peter acquired within Lot 3, GCT (Figure 3, Appendix A). Both 234 and 240 Frederick Street are
part of the Plan 425 created by Peter Itter.
+.3.1 234 i-REDERICK STRLr-
Peter Itter sold Lot 3 of Plan 425 to Reuben Bowman on November 23, 1888 (WLRO Instrument 8179). The
1891 Census of Canada identified Reuben as a 37 -year-old Mennonite carpenter married to Louisa living
with their children, Beatrice (9), Clayton (7), Dora (5), Edith (3) and Fredie (1) (Schedule 1, District 122, Sub-
district A: 39). The census records identify the family living in a two-storey brick dwelling with 12 rooms,
which does not refer to the current dwelling on the subject property. Bowman sold the property to husband
and wife, Menno and Lydia Bricker on June 29, 1891 (WRLO Instrument 9550). The dwelling was likely
constructed for Menno and Lydia Bricker c.1891. The 1891 Census of Canada records were recorded in April
1891, prior to the Bricker family acquiring the property, but the records indicate Menno was 50 years old and
worked as a Baggageman. Their children living with them in 1891 included Hannah (22; laundress), Harry
(17; dry goods) and Lindy (10; student). On June 5, 1896, Reuben and Lydia Bricker sold the property to
Louisa Lehman (WLRO Instrument 12648). On May 1, 1897, the property was sold to Sarah W. Lang
(WLRO Instrument 13175) and on May 11, 1906 it was sold to William A. Clarke (WLRO Instrument 20148).
On August 24, 1912, the abstract records indicate that the property was sold to Elizabeth Forsyth for $4,200
(WLRO Instrument 28641). Elizabeth's husband John Forsyth had a button business. His son John David (or
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 125 of 224
Derby) Claude Forsyth, who often went by Claude Forsyth, was 18 when he joined his father in the button
business and then started his own business, the John Forsyth Shirt Company, making shirts. The Company
occupied the corner of Duke and Young Streets across from the current location of Kitchener City Hall. The
1911 Census of Canada records John Forsyth as 60 years old and his wife Elizabeth as 59 -years -old living
with their son Claude (26) at 11 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener and his occupation is listed as "Buttons" and
John D.C.'s as "Shirts," and both are identified as employers (Schedule 1, District 130, Sub -district 7: 3). The
Department of Militia and Defence's 1916 Topographic Map identifies the subject property within a built-up
area (Figure 5, Appendix A).
Following Elizabeth's death, the property was deeded to John D.C. Forsyth on May 21, 1915 (WLRO
Instrument 34208). The 1921 Census of Canada confirms John D.C. and Georgina were living at 234
Frederick Street with their daughters June (4) and Joy (1) (Schedule 1, District 136, Sub -district 28: 14). The
1921 Census of Canada identifies their dwelling was of brick construction with seven rooms. The Department
of National Defence's 1929 Topographic Map identifies dwelling footprints on the subject property and on the
adjacent properties along Frederick Street and the neighbouring streets (Figure 6, Appendix A). In 1917, the
John Forsyth Shirt Company took over the former Star White War Factory building at 31 Young Street in
Kitchener and additional factories were located in Waterloo and St. Mary's Ontario. The Forsyth Company
produced dress shirts, shirts with detachable collars, pajamas, underwear, scarves and ties. Under Forsyth's
management, branch offices were opened across Canada and in Manchester, England. In the mid -1940s it
reportedly had the longest sewing room in Canada (KPL Collection, 2019). By 1956, the company employed
600 employees within the Region of Waterloo and by the mid-1960s that had increased to 800 employees
(Image 1). John D.C. Forsyth died on June 23, 1948. In 1973, the company was sold to Dylex Ltd. of Toronto
and after several subsequent owners the Kitchener plant was closed in 1992 and was demolished in 2006
(KPL Collection, 2019).
On April 5, 1966, the property was passed through executors of Forsyth's will to Jane Lovell (WLRO
321094). It was sold on October 30, 1998 to Akeela Elizabeth Carberry (WLRO Instrument 1399670), and to
the current owner on July 31, 2015 (WLRO Instrument WR897436).
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 20
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 126 of 224
Image 1: John Forsyth Shirt Company Sewing Room (KPL Collection)
4.3.2 240 FREDERICK STREFT
240 Frederick Street consists of Lots 4 and 5 and Parts of Lots 6 and 7, Plan 425. Peter Itter was the first
owner of the residence on this property. Itter and his first wife Susannah married on February 6, 1861 and
lived in Galt. They responded to a call for a new Keeper and Matron for the House of Refuge in 1880. Peter
and Susannah were appointed the position as the new managers by the end of 1880 (SIRG, 2020). The
1881 Census of Canada records Peter and Susannah as Keepers of the House of Refuge and lists all their
employees and the residents of the House of Refuge at the time (Schedule 1, District 168, Sub -district C:
55). The House of Refuge was built by the County of Waterloo in 1867 to adhere to the 1867 Municipal Act
that required all municipalities to provide support to residents requiring assistance (SIRG, 2020).
When Peter and Susannah became the keepers of the House of Refuge, they tried to make changes to the
daily routines of the House. One such change included Peter removing religious services held on weekends
without consulting the Standing Committee. He was reprimanded for such actions by the Warden and
required to allow religious services to resume pending consultation with the Standing Committee (SIRG,
2020). Susannah died on October 27, 1886 from dropsy (an historic term used to refer to swelling, often
caused by edema due to congestive heart failure) (Archives of Ontario, 1886). Peter married Alvina Klem
(b.1868) 11 months after Susannah's death (SIRG, 2020). Alvina took over the position of Matron of the
House, and it was at this point that physical abuse accusations emerged (SIRG, 2020).
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 127 of 224
CHARGED WITH CRUELTY.
Paupers 44 Waterloo County at+(1 Tlselr
t} vwporf.
Bltlua!r, July 11 --Rumors having Vwets
curreut against M. P. Itter, tiro kerper -•f
tits ouatity poor house here. the matter was
resolved into a complaint laid by A. l3. Me -
Wide, a W aterino lawyer, anif taken, up
toy a council eommittee. In part it
was charged that Itter had cruelly
lleatetl, ill treate-1 said ab d several
inmates, arnnrsgit others hit A1c�.r
tbr, t+cLmulc slit! Usner; (2) that tis& feeble
and sick lunirtes were urglecsrd and swot
lrrolierly tre ,teal or atteuded t I flat the
inmates not aitpvlied with suitable food an,1
lrrnlser cloehing; that Itter has wrongfully
awl unlawfully prevented aeyeral inlesatat4,
who lied hecntne r:ry strong and healthy,
and erre able to rams their ovis living
from leaving, besides wher charges. After
hroring tits charges rr•. i the cnrnmiltee
visite4i the ,poor house mud then adijcluined
uutd July LL
Image 2: Newspaper Clip (Berlin News July 14,1893; Source: Kitchener Public Library Archives)
The 1891 Census of Canada records identify Peter Itter as the House of Refuge Manager living with his
second wife Alvina and their daughter May (2), as well as many domestic servants and the residents of the
House of Refuge. The Census records identify the family living in a two-storey building with 50 rooms, which
indicates that they lived at the House of Refuge (Schedule 1, District 122, Sub -district A: 34). Additional
accusations of cruelty and abuse arose and accumulated in what became known as the `Scandal of 1893'
(Image 2) (SIRG, 2020). After months of investigation into the allegations, Peter and Alvina were cleared of
charges but they were asked to resign as Keeper and Matron of the House effective September 1, 1893.
Following their resignation, Peter and Alvina moved out of the House of Industry and Peter began working as
a carpenter again. The dwelling on 240 Frederick Street was likely constructed c.1893. The 1897-1899 and
1901-1903 Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Directories identify Peter Itter residing on Frederick Street between
Lancaster Street and Gordon Avenue.
On June 6, 1911, Peter Itter sold the subject property to William J. Schmidt (WLRO Instrument 26632). The
1921 Census of Canada recorded on June 16 records William Schmidt as a 49 -year-old dentist living at 240
Frederick Street with his wife Mabel (43) and two children, Morton (12) and Deana (3) (Schedule 1, District
130, Sub -district 4: 3). The Department of Militia and Defence's 1916 Topographic Map identifies the subject
property within a built-up area and depicts the footprint of the House of Refuge further east on the south side
of Frederick Street (Figure 5, Appendix A). The 1929 and 1938 Topographic Maps identify dwelling footprints
on the subject property as well as on the adjacent properties along Frederick Street and the neighbouring
streets (Figures 6 and 7, Appendix A). The 1922-1923 City Directory indicates that William Schmidt's dentist
office was located at 43 King Street East. The 1954 air photographs of Southern Ontario confirm that the
subject properties are occupied by dwellings and the adjacent residential areas are built-up (Figure 8,
Appendix A). Following William Schmidt's death in 1969, the property was granted to his son Morton G.
Schmidt on July 3, 1973 (WLRO Instrument 501813). Morton G. Schmidt is recorded as a Clerk/Clerical and
living with his wife Pauline at 240 Frederick Street in the Canada Voter's lists from 1935 through to 1974.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 128 of 224
On January 11, 1993, the property was sold to Eleanor Elizabeth Wein and Kathryn Laurie Macintosh
(WLRO Instrument 1191316). It was then sold to Scott Graham Kibbler and Marilyn Anne Williamson on May
4, 1995 (WLRO Instrument 1253255). It was sold to the current owner on December 16, 2019 (WLRO
Instrument WR1232054).
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 23
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 129 of 224
5 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject properties are located at 234 and 240 Frederick Street, on the north side of Frederick Street,
immediately west of Gordon Avenue in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood in the City of Kitchener. The
Central Frederick Neighbourhood was identified as a CHL (L-NBR-11) in the 2014 study, City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Landscapes prepared by the City of Kitchener and Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
The subject properties are surrounded by residential properties, most of which were constructed in the late -
nineteenth century, apart from a late -twentieth century 17 -storey residential apartment building, the Acadian
Apartments, located on the northeast corner of Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue and a three-storey
multi -unit apartment building located directly north of the tower. The houses in the neighbourhood are
generally closely spaced and massed in a manner that creates a uniform streetwall, however an orderly
sense of individuality is also apparent given the unique detailing of each structure (City of Kitchener, 2014).
239-241 Frederick Street, a heritage property designated under Part IV of the OHA, is situated directly
adjacent from the subject property at 240 Frederick Street.
The following descriptions of the subject properties are based on a site visit conducted on December 22,
2020, by Lindsay Benjamin, Cultural Heritage Specialist. Access to the entire property, including the interior
of the dwelling at 240 Frederick Street was granted, and access to the property and exterior of 234 Frederick
Street was provided. Based on discussions with the City of Kitchener's Heritage Planner, this HIA was
scoped to only focus on the exterior of 234 Frederick Street as the property is not anticipated to be directly
impacted by the proposed development.
5.1 234 FREDERICK STREET
The subject property is an approximately 0.18 -acre rectangular property containing a Queen Anne residence
that has been converted to office space. The building's fagade is oriented towards Frederick Street and
includes a minimal setback. Frederick Street is considered a west -east road, and orientation descriptions will
be based on this understanding. An asphalt driveway is located on the west side of the property and extends
beyond the west side of the dwelling to a large, paved parking lot that comprises the rear of the lot.
:x.1.1 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS
The front yard of the subject property consists of a grass boulevard and lawn, one tree and a landscaped
garden that surrounds the fagade of the building (Image 3). A concrete walkway leads from the sidewalk
north to the front steps and west to the driveway. An additional concrete pathway leads from the sidewalk
along the east property line to the entrance in the rear addition. An asphalt driveway is accessed from
Frederick Street and travels along the west side of the building to the back of the lot (Image 4). The rear of
the property is fenced and consists of a paved parking area with two large trees along the west property
boundary (Image 5). A portion of the north side of the fence between 240 and 234 Frederick Street has been
removed, providing an opening between the two lots.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 130 of 224
Image 3: View of fagade (south elevation) and front
yard landscape features from sidewalk looking north
Image 5: View of the rear parking area looking east to
240 Frederick Street
5.1.2 9UILDING
Image 4: View of the driveway looking south
Oriented towards Frederick Street, the building on the subject property is a two-storey structure with a two -
and -a -half storey front gable projection featuring elements reflective of the Queen Anne style (Image 3). The
building has a hipped and irregular roofline clad in asphalt shingles with a front facing gable peak including
fish scale shingles and lattice work over paired rectangular windows. The wide overhanging eaves include
wood soffit and fascia. The structure is built of brick and clad in stucco painted cream and features half-
timbering painted white on the upper storey. The foundation course is clad in plaster made to resemble cut -
stone blocks. The property is accessed from an enclosed porch addition on the fagade.
It appears that the building was originally constructed to a T-shaped plan. A sympathetic two-storey addition
with a flat and sloped roof is located on the rear of the dwelling and projects two bays from the north side of
the east elevation. The addition is clad in stucco and board and batten. The front porch also appears to have
been altered in the past and a portion is enclosed.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 131 of 224
5.1.3 BUILDING EXTERIOR
The fagade (south elevation) is three -bays wide, asymmetrically arranged and features a variety of textures
and detailing (Image 3). A set of concrete steps with stepped rusticated stone railings lead to the offset front
entrance (Images 6 and 7). The rectangular, contemporary, double front doors include a transom and are
flanked by a large plate glass window (Image 6). A City of Kitchener Heritage Landmark plaque is affixed to
the west of the entrance (Image 8). The entrance is set within an enclosed porch (likely a later alteration) that
reflects the Arts and Crafts style with heavy stucco pillars with a top cap supporting overhanging eaves with
simple paired brackets (Image 3). The decorative multi -paned windows in the east bay on the main floor
reflect the playful configuration of Queen Anne windows (Image 13). Other typical examples are visible in the
upper storey, grouped in three within each bay. The windows in the centre and east bay on the main level
feature painted rusticated stone sills, and the remainder of the building's windows appear to be wood sills.
The west side of the fagade features a projecting bay with rectangular, multi -paned windows topped with
four -paned transoms located on each of the three sides on the lower storey (Images 11 and 12). The upper
storey of the projecting bay includes simple one -over -one windows topped with paired decorative wood
brackets exhibiting a sunburst motif in the corners (Images 9 and 10). Above the bay is a front facing gable
peak clad with fish scale shingles and lattice work over paired rectangular windows (Image 9). Another gable
with lattice work projects over the hipped roof of the centre bay (Image 3). The roof line features overhanging
eaves (Image 10) and the upper storey of the fagade is clad in board and batten.
The west elevation (Image 16) includes the two-storey and rear one -and -a -half storey portion of the building.
The two-storey section is three bays and includes a varied fenestration with a group of three decorative
multipaned windows and transom (Image 17), like the fagade, flanking each side of a projecting, stucco -clad
chimney on the lower storey (Image 18). These window openings are segmentally arched. A smaller window
is located to the north and also includes a multipaned transom (Image 19). The upper storey features board
and batten detailing and one narrow, rectangular multipaned window on the north side of the elevation
(Image 18). The yellow brick chimney projects from the roofline in the centre of the elevation. The one -and -a -
half storey portion of the west elevation (Image 21) is two bays and includes one narrow, rectangular
multipaned window on the main level (Image 20) and a single -pane square window on the upper level
(Image 19).
The north elevation consists of the one -and -a -half storey portion of the building with a gable peak and return
eaves as well as the two-storey rear addition to the east (Image 22). The original portion of the building is
bisected by a projecting brick chimney clad in stucco (Image 23). On the upper storey, a rectangular
multipaned window flanks the east side of the chimney and a smaller two paned window flanks the west side.
It appears that the bottom of this window has been filled in. The main level includes one rectangular
multipaned window on the east side of the chimney. The lower portion of this window also appears to have
been enclosed. One boarded square window opening is located in the foundation. A small, enclosed
basement entrance containing one contemporary door set within a small structure with a gable roof is located
on the west side of the elevation (Image 24). The addition has a flat and sloped roof as it connects with the
original structure (Image 25) and includes a painted white brick chimney (Image 26). The upper storey
features one multipaned window on the east side and a row of six multipaned windows to the west. The main
level includes an entrance accessed by a set of wood steps and a grouping of three sets of three multipaned
windows. An overhanging eave begins on the west side of the addition at the top of the main level and
continues around the east side of the building (Image 30). Vinyl paneling is located beneath the row of
windows on the main level. It appears that a crawl space is located below a portion of the addition, which is
concealed by a wood planked wall above the foundation.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 26
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 132 of 224
The east elevation (Image 28) includes the original portion of the building and the rear addition (Image 29),
which projects one bay to the east, just enough to accommodate a single entrance. The original portion
includes three bays, the first of which includes the Arts & Crafts inspired one -room projection with heavy
stucco pillars with a top cap supporting overhanging eaves with brackets (Image 28). This bay includes a set
of four decorative multi -paned windows with a rusticated stone sill. The north two bays are symmetrical and
include two groups of three decorative multipaned windows topped with transoms on both storeys. The lower
level window openings are segmentally arched (Image 32). The addition is accessed by a wood panel door
with one large pane behind a storm door reached by a set of wood stairs with a simple wood railing (Image
31). The area below the entrance is clad with wood panels. The addition features board and batten on both
storeys and a varied fenestration. One simple, rectangular multipaned window is located in the north side of
the lower storey and two multipaned windows of differing orientation are located on each side of the upper
storey.
4
" mIRE
d ■
Image 6: Detail of front (south) entrance
Image 8: Detail of City of Kitchener Heritage
Landmark plaque
Image 7: Detail of concrete front stairs
Image �vDetail of projecting bay on fagade (south
elevation)
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener ;ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 27
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 133 of 224
Image 10: Detail of brackets and window in projecting
bay on fagade (south elevation)
000
�f 1
Image 12: Detail of main floor multipaned window
with transom in projecting bay (south elevation)
PV_
Image 14: Detail of plaster foundation course
Image 11: Detail of main floor windows in projecting
bay (south elevation)
Image 13: Detail of entrance and east bay of fagade
(south elevation)
Image 15: Southwest corner of 234 Frederick Street
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 28
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 134 of 224
Image 16: West elevation of 234 Frederick Street
Image 18: Detail of projecting chimney on west
elevation
v
Ii■
Image 20: Detail of multipaned rectangular window on
west elevation
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 17: Detail of group of three multipaned
windows with transom on west elevation
1
Image 19: Detail of varied fenestration and transition
from two-storey to two -and -a -half storey west
elevation
Image 21: Northwest corner of 234 Frederick Street
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 29
Page 135 of 224
01Tin YUI T111'i1,111" L,
Image 22: North elevation of 234 Frederick Street
PW
1,�
11j: s
Image 24: Detail of basement access enclosure on
north elevation.
Image 26: Detail of brick chimney painted white
projecting from roof of addition
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 23: Detail of gable peak and projecting
chimney in north elevation.
Image 25: Detail of addition on north elevation
Image 27: Southeast corner of 234 Frederick Street
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 30
Page 136 of 224
Image 28: East elevation of 234 Frederick Street
Image 30: Detail of wide overhanging eaves with
wood soffit and fascia on east elevation
�- OEMMIM
LIM
mug
U.
Image 32: Detail of grouped, decorative multipaned
windows with transom on east elevation
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
f`s
Image 29: Detail of east elevation of add;*i^^
Image 31: Detail of entrance to rear addition on east
elevation
Image 33: Detail of south bay featuring Arts & Crafts
influences on east elevation
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 31
Page 137 of 224
Image 34: Southeast corner of 234 Frederick Street
5.2 240 FREDERICK STREET
The subject property is an approximately 0.47 -acre rectangular property containing a Queen Anne style
structure on the south half of the lot and a detached garage and open space on the north half. The building
has been converted to office space and is currently vacant. The dwelling is oriented towards, and moderately
setback from, Frederick Street on a large lot for the neighbourhood. Located on the northwest corner of
Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue, the side yard is also set back from Gordon Avenue. Frederick Street is
considered a west -east road, and orientation descriptions will be based on this understanding. An asphalt
driveway is located on the east side of the property, accessed from Gordon Avenue, and extends beyond the
north side of the dwelling to the detached garage.
J. --. I LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS
The front (south) and east yard of the subject property consist of a grass boulevard (Image 35) lined with a
short, decorative, painted wrought iron fence with quad spear finials and gates (Image 36 and 37). The fence
terminates just beyond the north side of the driveway accessed from Gordon Avenue. Beyond the fence a
large open manicured lawn surrounds the building in all directions. Coniferous and deciduous trees are
spread out along the east (Images 38 and 39) and west sides of the lot (Image 40), and a flag pole is located
in the southeast corner (Image 35). A narrow stone walkway leads from the sidewalk on the north side of
Frederick Street to the dwelling's front porch (Image 36). An additional walkway leads from the driveway,
south to the two-storey veranda on the east elevation. Simple flower beds were observed along the front half
of the building's foundation. An asphalt driveway travels east -west behind the building in the rear of the
property, leading to a detached two -car garage (Image 41). The rear of the lot has been cleared and
graveled save for three mature coniferous trees in the southeast corner and one in the northwest corner
(Image 42). A row of cedar hedges lines the north property boundary.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 138 of 224
Image 35: View of the front (south) and east yard
from Frederick Street looking north
Image 37: Detail of decorative metal fence on east
side of the property looking south
Image 39: Detail of driveway and coniferous trees
looking northwest
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 36: Detail of decorative metal fence gate and
stone walkway leading to front entrance
Image 38: View of east side yard looking north to rear
yard
Image 40: View of west side yard looking south to
Frederick Street, note deciduous tree
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 33
Page 139 of 224
0
Image 41: Detail of driveway looking west to
detached two -car garage
ti ,9 ? BUILDING
Image 42: View of rear yard looking north, note cedar
hedges at north property line
Oriented towards Frederick Street, the dwelling on the subject property is a two -and -a -half storey structure
designed in the Queen Anne style with identical bays projecting from the south, west and east elevations
(Image 43). The building has a steeply pitched, irregular roof clad in asphalt shingles with overhanging eaves
and a decorative cornice line (Image 44), a front facing gable peak including fish scale shingles and lattice
work above paired rectangular windows. The structure is clad in yellow brick painted cream laid in a stretcher
bond configuration (Image 45) and includes many decorative wood elements painted brown and white,
notably the details of the two verandas. The fenestration of the building is varied and all the windows include
painted rusticated stone headers and sills and many include wood or metal storm windows. The dwelling
features a foundation of even -coursed, cut -stone blocks with raised mortar joints (Image 46). The primary
access is via the covered wraparound veranda on the south elevation.
Image 43: View of fagade (south elevation)
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 44: Detail of overhanding eaves and decorative
cornice line
WSP
;ebruary 2022
Page 34
Page 140 of 224
Image 45: Detail of painted brick cladding, note
yellow brick beneath
5.2.3 BUILDING EXTERIOR
f �t
sem- �,� � - � .. --� ,� • _ -
.. a
J
Image 46: Detail of foundation with even -coursed,
cut -stone blocks with raised mortar joints
The fagade (south elevation) is three -bays wide, asymmetrically arranged and features a variety of textures
and detailing (Image 43). A set of wood steps with painted wood newel posts with a round newel cap and
wood railings lead to the offset front entrance (Images 47 to 49). The front door includes a wood storm door
in front of a wood panel door (Image 50) containing an intricately hand painted stained-glass window and
decorative hardware (Image 51). The entrance is set within a covered wraparound veranda characteristic of
the Queen Anne style. The veranda wraps around the southeast side of the building and is supported by
turned wood posts (Image 52). It features many decorative elements such as spindlework, brackets and
railings painted white and brown (Image 53). The lower level of the porch is clad in wood lattice. Although not
accessible from the interior, the upper level of the veranda includes a railing system of turned posts and a
decorative frieze (Image 47). The west side of the fagade features a two-storey projecting bay with a large
square picture window with a multipaned transom of coloured glass flanked by two rectangular windows with
coloured glass transoms on the lower storey (Image 54). The upper storey of the projecting bay includes
simple one -over -one windows, with a pair of windows located in the centre of the bay. The corners of the
projecting bay are topped with paired decorative wood brackets with a sunburst motif. Above the bay is a
prominent, front facing gable peak clad with fish scale shingles and lattice work over paired rectangular
windows (Image 55). A small gable window is located on the hipped roof. A large rectangular multipaned
window is located to the east of the entrance on the lower storey (Image 50) and a smaller set of paired
rectangular windows are located on the upper storey. A paired rectangular window opening is located in the
foundation of the projecting bay (Image 56). All the windows include painted rusticated stone headers and
sills.
The west elevation includes a projecting bay in the centre of the elevation that reflects the decorative
detailing and fenestration of the bay on the fagade and east elevation (Image 58). A painted brick chimney
extends from the elevation, south of the projecting bay, and is left unpainted, revealing the brown brick
construction above the roof line (Image 59). A single -pane rectangular window is located in the foundation
between the projecting bay and chimney (Image 62), and two single -pane windows are located in the
foundation of the projecting bay. A one -storey, one -room addition projects from the west elevation, north of
the projecting bay and includes one small multipaned window on the main level and a door leading to a small
porch on the upper level (Image 63). The porch appears to have been recently rebuilt. One main level
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 141 of 224
multipaned window is located north of the small projecting addition, with a foundation window located directly
below it. The foundation of the addition appears to be concrete that has been molded to reflect the cut -stone
foundation of the rest of the building (Image 65).
The north elevation exhibits the least amount of architectural detail as it does not include a projecting bay.
This elevation features a gable peak bisected by a projecting painted chimney that is unpainted above the
roof line, revealing its brown brick construction (Image 67). Two one -over -one rectangular sash windows
flank the chimney on the upper storey and a similar window is located on the east side of the main level. A
small brick structure with a flat roof projects from the northeast corner of the elevation and encloses access
to the basement via a set of stairs (Images 68 and 69). A square opening with a rusticated stone header and
sill in the northwest side of the foundation has been enclosed (Image 70). The two-storey porch extending
from the east elevation is visible on the east side of this elevation.
The east elevation includes a projecting bay in the centre of the elevation that closely reflects the decorative
detailing and fenestration of the bay on the fagade and west elevation (Image 72). A two-storey veranda is
located north of the projecting bay (Image 76) and is accessed by a set of wood steps that lead to a porch
and wood storm door (Image 79) in front of a painted wood panel door (Image 80). This veranda features
decorative elements like those observed on the one -storey wraparound veranda, such as turned wood posts,
spindlework, brackets and railings painted white and brown (Image 78). The lower level of the porch is clad
in wood lattice and the upper level is enclosed. Eight single -pane windows comprise the east elevation of the
veranda, and two make up the north side (Image 77). The upper storey features lattice brackets, spindlework
and a decorative frieze. One upper storey, rectangular, multipaned window is located south of the projecting
bay (Image 81).
Image 47: Detail of front entrance on fagade (south
elevation)
Image 48: Detail of wraparound verandah on
southeast corner of building
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 36
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 142 of 224
Image 49: Detail of decorative, wood front porch
steps
Image 51: Detail of hand -painted stained glass in
front door
f.i! � W - 1
Image 53: Detail of painted, wood decorative
elements of wraparound verandah
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
i 0
-OW,, -W_ . .-- . _ .
Image 50: Detail of wood storm door and wood -panel
front door with decorative stained glass
Image 52: Detail of wraparound front verandah
looking south
Image 54: Detail of main floor window in south
projecting bay, note multipaned transom with
coloured glass
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 37
Page 143 of 224
Yk .
Image 55: Detail of gable peak of south projecting bay Image 56: Detail of foundation window in south
elevation
Image 57: Southwest corner of 240 Frederick Street
Image 59: Detail of gable peak and chimney in west
projecting bay
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 58: West elevation of 240 Frederick Street
1 - --'
ff -MM
,... Vt-r
Image 60: Detail of main floor large picture window in
west projecting bay
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 38
Page 144 of 224
f
Ali
or
a
Image 61: Detail of main floor rectangular window in
west projecting bay
Image 63: Detail of window in one -storey addition,
note recently rebuilt porch above
Image 65: Detail of molded concrete foundation of
one -storey addition
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
1 .
Image 62: Detail of foundation window in west
elevation
Image 64: Detail of brackets in west projecting bay
Image 66: Northwest corner of 240 Frederick Street
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 39
Page 145 of 224
Image 67: North elevation of 240 Frederick Street
kY-
Image 69: Northeast corner of brick structure
providing access to basement
73
6--
Image 71: Northeast corner of 240 Frederick Street
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 68: Northwest corner of brick structure
providing access to basement
Image 70: Detail of square opening in foundation of
north elevation
Image 72: East elevation of 240 Frederick Street
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 40
Page 146 of 224
Image 73: Detail of gable peak in east projecting bay
Image 75: Detail of main floor large picture window in
east projecting bay
Image 77: Detail of enclosed upper level of verandah,
note eight single -pane windows
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
�► . - - -' iI �2=1
Image 74: Detail of decorative wood brackets in east
projecting bay
Image 76: Detail of two-storey verandah on the east
elevation
r �J - —
Image 78: Detail of turned wood posts, spindle work
and brackets on veranda
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 41
Page 147 of 224
ISI
*i
Image 79: Detail of east entrance, note wood storm
door
Image 81: Southeast corner of 240 Frederick Street
5.2.4 BUILDING INTERIOR
Image 80: Detail of east entrance, note wood panel -
door
Between 2019 and 2020, improvements have been made to the interior of the building to repair and restore
the failing condition of the utilities, walls, ceilings and hardwood floors as well as the kitchens and bathrooms.
Missing or severely damaged decorative elements, such as baseboards and the fire place mantel, have been
sympathetically recreated.
Main Floor
The building is accessed through the formal entrance in the east side of the fagade (south elevation). The
entrance is composed of a wood panel door containing decorative hardware and an intricately hand painted
stained-glass window featuring an image of a young Victorian woman (Image 82). The painted side of the
glass has been oriented toward the interior of the house. All the rooms on the main floor feature tall ceilings,
lathe and plaster walls, moulded baseboards (Image 83) and window and door casings with decorative
circles carved in the corner and base blocks. Portions of the baseboards were replaced with materials
modeled after the original material. All the doors are solid wood panel doors.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 148 of 224
The front hallway provides access to a parlour to the west (Image 84), the basement to the north and the
enclosed staircase to the upper floor to the east. The main floor is composed of four rooms, a bathroom and
a kitchen. The parlour is a large room located in the south projecting bay (Image 85). It features a
contemporary fire place added over the original fire box opening (the original fire place mantel was removed
by the previous owner) (Image 89), and a large picture window (Image 86) flanked by two sash windows with
multipaned transoms of coloured glass on the south wall (Image 87). A metal hot water radiator is located
below the picture window (Image 88). The flooring is composed of thin planked hardwood laid following the
angles of the room on the edges and horizontally at the centre (Image 90). The wood window and door
casings and baseboards in the parlour are not painted. A large opening in the north wall leads to another
room located in the west projecting bay (Image 91). The layout of this room is very similar to the parlour
aside from the fireplace (Images 92 to 95). The east wall was repaired and replaced with drywall (Image 94).
A doorway in the west side of the north wall leads to a small galley kitchen (Images 96 and 97), and a door
on the east side leads to another room, as does a door on the east wall. The kitchen has been replaced with
contemporary material (Image 98) and features a square multipaned window over the sink on the west wall
(Image 99). The southernmost room on the main floor is large and carpeted (Images 100 and 102) with
access to a recently renovated bathroom in the northwest corner (Image 101). Portions of the baseboards in
this room have been replaced with new material reflective of the building's original baseboards (Image 103).
The window and door casings are much simpler and do not include decorative corner or base blocks. An
exterior solid wood panel door (Image 104) with brass hardware (Image 105) is located in the east wall and
provides access to the main level of the two-storey porch. A tall, built-in wood cabinet is located in the
southeast corner of this room beside the exterior entrance. The room located in the east projecting bay is
similar to the rooms in the other bays, however this room is carpeted and includes doorways in the northwest
corner of the room (Images 106 and 107).
Image 82: View of front hall entrance, with staircase
to upper floor (L) and parlour (R)
Image 83: Detail of moulded baseboards and door
casings in front hallway
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 43
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 149 of 224
Image 84: View to front entrance from parlour
Image 86: Detail of picture window with multipaned
transom with coloured glass
Image 88: Detail of hot water radiator below picture
window
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 85: View to projecting bay in parlour, looking
south
Image 87: Detail of sash window with multipaned
transom with coloured glass
Image 89: Detail of contemporary fireplace, note it
was being installed during site visit
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 44
Page 150 of 224
Image 90: Detail of pattern of thin planked hardwood
floor in parlor
Image 92: View to west projecting bay, looking west
Image 94: View to large room in west projecting bay,
looking east
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 91: View to large room in west projecting bay
from parlour
Image 93: Detail of picture window with multipaned
transom with coloured glass in west projecting bay
Image 95: Detail of pattern of thin planked hardwood
floor in parlor
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 45
Page 151 of 224
Image 96: Detail of wood panel door that leads to
kitchen
Image 98: View to contemporary kitchen, looking
north
Image 97: View of room in west projecting bay and
entrance to kitchen
Image 99: Detail of multipaned sash window in
kitchen, looking west
Image 100: View to rooms in east and west projecting
bays from rear room
Image 101: View of contemporary bathroom, looking
northeast
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 46
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 152 of 224
Image 102: View of rear room, looking northeast
Image 104: View of rear doorway, built-in storage
cabinet and doorway to large room in east projecting
bay
Image 106: View of large room in east projecting bay,
looking southeast
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 103: Detail of replacement moulded wood
baseboards in rear room
Image 105: Detail of rear door hardware
Image 107: View of large room in east projecting bay,
looking northwest
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 47
Page 153 of 224
Second Floor
The second floor is accessed via a narrow, enclosed staircase with one window on the main floor (Image
109) and another at the second floor (Image 110), and tall ceilings that curve 90 degrees at the half -landing
(Image 108). It features a simple wood railing affixed to the wall and wood wall stringers that curve with the
rise and arch of the staircase. The stairs lead to a central hallway that provides access to three rooms and a
closet (Images 111 and 112).
Like the main floor, the second floor features tall ceilings and lathe and plaster walls. The solid wood panel
doors, wide wood baseboards (Image 113) and window and door casings with decorative circles carved in
the corner and base blocks have not been painted (Image 114).
The first room accessed from the central hallway is a recently renovated contemporary galley kitchen located
in the southeast corner of the second floor (Images 115 and 116). One casement window is located in the
south wall of the kitchen and features lites organized in a diamond pattern (Image 117). The room to the
west is in the south projecting bay and includes a pair of sash windows flanked by two similar windows on
the south wall (Images 118 and 119). This room is carpeted with a decorative hot water heater beneath the
window (Image 120). A small hallway located beyond an arched doorway contains built-in wood cabinets on
both sides and provides access to the large room in the west projecting bay (Images 121 and 122). The
room in the west projecting bay includes thin planked hardwood and a simple hot water heater located below
the windows, which resemble those in the south projecting bay (Images 123 to 126).
The north side of the second floor includes a carpeted hallway (Images 127 and 129) that provides access to
a contemporary bathroom (Image 130), a closet, a smaller room with a window on the north wall (Images
131 and 132), and a larger room in the east projecting bay (Images 134 to 136), the attic access (Image
133), and a doorway to the enclosed porch on the east side of the building (Image 137). An additional narrow
hallway on the west side of the floor leads to an exterior door and small balcony that has been recently
repaired with contemporary material, as well as a closet (Image 128). All the rooms on the north side of the
floor are carpeted and contain sash windows. The enclosed porch is accessed via an interior wood panel
door with a large pane of glass (Image 137) and decorative metal hardware (Image 138), and an exterior
decorative wood storm door with wood detailing. A rusticated stone lintel is located above the door on the
exterior (Image 141) and the yellow brick cladding is exposed on the walls of the porch (Images 139 and
140). The ceiling is of thin wood boards that have been painted, and the east and north walls are composed
of casement windows.
k
Image 108: Detail of staircase leading to second floor Image 109: Detail of sash window with multipaned
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 48
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 154 of 224
Image 110: Detail of sash window with multipaned
coloured glass above half landing in staircase
Image 112: Detail of second floor hallway, looking
northwest
Image 114: Detail of wood door casing with
decorative circle carved in corner block
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
coloured glass on main floor of staircase
Image 111: View from staircase half -landing to
second floor hallway
Image 113: Detail of moulded wood baseboards and
door casings, note they are unpainted
Image 115: View of contemporary kitchen, looking
east
WSP
February 2022
Page 49
Page 155 of 224
Image 116: View of contemporary kitchen, looking
west
Image 118: View of room in south projecting bay,
looking northeast to kitchen
Image 120: Detail of decorative hot water heater
below window in south projecting bay
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 117: Detail of casement window in kitchen
Image 119: View of south projecting bay, looking
south
Image 121: View to arched hallway between rooms in
south and west projecting bays
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 50
Page 156 of 224
Image 122: Detail of built-in cabinets in hallway
between south and west projecting bays
Image 124: View room in west projecting bay, looking
west
Image 126: View of room in west projecting bay,
looking east
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 123: View to hallway from room in west
projecting bay, looking south
Image 125: Detail of hot water heater below windows
in west projecting bay
Image 127: View of rear, second floor hallway,
looking west
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 51
Page 157 of 224
Image 128: Detail of wood panel exterior door to
balcony on west elevation
Image 129: View to closet, bathroom and rear room
from hallway, looking north
Image 130: View of contemporary bathroom, looking
north
Image 131: View of rear room, looking northeast
Image 132: View of rear room, looking southwest
Image 133: View of rear hallway, looking southeast
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 52
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 158 of 224
Image 134: View of room in east projecting bay,
looking southeast
Image 136: View of room in east projecting bay,
looking northwest
rt�
Image 138: Detail of decorative hardware on screen
door to enclosed porch
Image 135: Detail of decorative hot water heater
below windows in east projecting bay
Image 137: View of exterior doors to enclosed porch,
looking east
r
Image 139: View of enclosed porch, looking south
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 53
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 159 of 224
Image 140: View of enclosed porch, looking north
Image 141: Detail of rusticated stone lintel above
door in enclosed porch
Attic
The attic, composed of four rooms, is accessed from the hallway on the second floor via a steep, enclosed,
carpeted staircase (Image 142). The baseboards and window and door casings are simpler in the attic than
in the rest of the house (Image 150). All the ceilings are vaulted and the floors carpeted. The staircase leads
to a large open room (Image 143), which features a gable window in the south wall (Image 146), and
doorways to the other three rooms (Image 144). A metal hot water heater is located along the west wall
between two doorways (Image 145) and a recessed wood shelf is located on the east wall. The other three
rooms are located at the top of the south (Images 147 and 149), west (Images 151 and 152), and east
projecting bays and include windows with wood sills in the three -sided walls. Each room also contains a
closet. A crawlspace access is located in the north wall of the room in the west projecting bay (Image 153).
The machine cut wood roof trusses and brick of the north wall's gable peak are visible within the unfinished
crawlspace (Images 154 and 155).
Image 142: View of attic staircase, looking down to
second floor access
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 143: View of large open attic room accessed
from staircase
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 54
Page 160 of 224
Image 144: View of doorways to rooms on west side
of attic
Image 146: Detail of gable window in south wall of
central attic room
r
Image 145: Detail of hot water heater in attic
Image 147: View of room in southwest corner of attic,
looking northeast
Image 148: View of room in southwest corner of attic, Image 149: Detail of paired windows in vaulted ceiling
looking southwest of southwest attic room
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
WSP
=ebruary 2022
Page 55
Page 161 of 224
i
Image 150: Detail of simple wood baseboard and
door casing in attic
Image 151: View of room in northwest corner of attic,
looking east
Image 152: View of room in northwest corner of attic, Image 153: Detail of crawl space access in northwest
looking west room of attic
Image 154: View of north portion of attic, looking
north
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 155: Detail of wood roof trusses in attic,
looking northeast
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 56
Page 162 of 224
Basement
The basement is accessed via a set of wood stairs with a half -landing immediately opposite the front door
(Images 156 and 157). The thick masonry walls in the basement have been plastered and lime washed and
portions reveal a fieldstone foundation beneath (Image 158). The subfloor and machine cut floorjoists are
visible above (Image 159), and the interior walls appear to be constructed of brick (Image 160). The floor is
of poured concrete.
The basement is composed of four rooms, the first of which, located in the south projecting bay, includes two
single -pane windows in the foundation and houses the building's updated utilities (Images 162 and 163). The
room immediately to the north is located in the west projecting bay and also includes two single -pane
windows in the foundation (Image 164). This room features built-in wood shelves and wood plank doors on
the doorways leading to the rooms to the north and south (Image 165). The room in the northwest corner of
the basement appears to have once housed the furnace and oil tank (Images 166 to 168). There is evidence
that a coal chute was located in the west side of the north wall. A single -pane window is located in the west
wall (Image 167). A doorway in the east side of the north wall provides access to a set of wood stairs that
lead to the exterior via a wood plank door (Images 169 and 170). The ceiling in this enclosure is of wood
boards and the walls are concrete (Image 171). The room on the east side of the basement is located in the
east projecting bay and includes two single -pane windows in the foundation (Images 172 and 173).
Doorways are located on the north and south walls with a built-in wood cabinet located on the west wall
between them.
Image 156: View of basement stairs from main floor
Image 158: Detail of masonry walls in basement
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 157: View of stairs from basement
Image 159: Detail of subfloor and machine cut floor
joists
WSP
February 2022
Page 57
Page 163 of 224
Image 160: Detail of open section of interior
basement wall, note brick construction
Image 162: View of basement room below south
projecting bay, looking south
s-4
Image 164: View of room in middle of west side of
basement, looking northeast
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 161: View from staircase access, looking north
across east side of basement
Image 163: View of basement room below south
projecting bay, looking north
4.
h
f,
Image 165: Detail of basement door constructed of
wood boards
WSP
February 2022
Page 58
Page 164 of 224
Image 166: View of room in northwest corner of
basement, looking southwest
Image 168: View of room in northwest corner of
basement, looking north
Image 170: Detail of exterior door used to access
basement from north elevation, looking north
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 167: Detail of single -pane window in northwest
corner of basement, looking west
Image 169: Detail of enclosed staircase access to
rear of building, looking north
Image 171: Detail of wood board ceiling in enclosed
rear staircase access
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 59
Page 165 of 224
Image 172: View of basement room below east
projecting bay, looking west
5.2.5 r)ETACHED GARAGE
Image 173: View of basement room below east
projecting bay, looking northeast
A detached two -car garage is located in the centre of the west side of the subject property, accessed via an
asphalt driveway from Gordon Avenue (Image 174). It is a single storey, hip roofed structure with asphalt
shingles and overhanging eaves clad in pebbledash and wood board and batten painted brown. The garage
is set upon a concrete pad with concrete footings. The front (east) elevation includes two garage doors
composed of three wood panels, each with three -over -three windows (Image 175). The south elevation
includes a wood panel door on the east side of the wall (Image 176). The north and east elevations are blank
and a stainless-steel stove pipe projects from the northwest corner of the roof (Image 177). The interior of
the garage was not accessible during the site visit, and thus, was not documented.
Image 174: View to garage and driveway looking west
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Image 175: View of east elevation of garage
WSP
ebruary 2022
Page 60
Page 166 of 224
Image 176: View of south elevation of garage
Image 177: View of north elevation of garage
5.3 CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF
240 FREDERICK STREET
The original dwelling on the subject property was constructed c.1893 and it appears that its exterior has been
little altered, aside from a small, bricked, one -room addition projecting from the north side of the west
elevation. No other significant additions or interventions were observed. Given the design and construction
material of the garage, it does not appear to be original to the property or date to the same era as the original
dwelling. A building permit was not located to confirm the construction date of the garage or addition, and the
1908 Fire Insurance Plans for Kitchener do not extend to the subject properties. Given the design of the
garage, it is estimated to have been constructed around the mid -nineteenth century.
5 a STUDY AREA CONTEXT
Located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL along Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue, the
subject properties are surrounded by low-density residential properties to the south, west and north, most of
which were constructed in the late -nineteenth century.
The dwellings along Frederick Street generally consist of two-storey houses converted to commercial uses
constructed using a variety of materials including brick (yellow and brown) and stucco (Images 178 to 180).
They reflect styles typical of the late nineteenth century, with notable examples of finely detailed Queen Anne
and Arts and Crafts architecture. One Part IV designated property, 239-241 Frederick Street (Pequegnat
House), is located directly across the street from 240 Frederick Street (Image 181). The heritage attributes
identified to contribute to the CHVI of the property as per Designation By -Law 90-126 include all building
elevations, the roofline and interior elements (City of Kitchener, 1990). A high-density, 17 -storey apartment
building, the Acadian Apartments, is located immediately east of the subject properties at the corner of
Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue (Image 182). The dwellings along Gordon Avenue generally consist of
two-storey houses constructed of brick (yellow and red) and reflect styles typical of the late nineteenth
century, primarily Berlin Vernacular architecture (Images 183 to 185). To the north of the subject property,
two-storey brick (yellow and red) residences reflective of the Queen Anne style are observed fronting
Clarence Place (Images 186 and 187).
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 167 of 224
Image 178: View of Frederick Avenue streetscape,
looking west toward subject properties
Image 180: View of Frederick Avenue streetscape,
looking west toward Pequegnat Avenue
Image 182: View of 17 -storey apartment building
located immediately east of subject properties
EM
Image 179: View of Frederick Avenue streetscape,
looking west beyond subject properties
Image 181: View of 239-241 Frederick Street, located
directly across from subject properties
Image 183: View down Gordon Avenue streetscape
from Frederick Street, looking north
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 62
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 168 of 224
Image 184: View down Gordon Avenue streetscape
from Frederick Street, looking south toward subject
properties
Image 186: View of Clarence Place streetscape,
looking west from Gordon Avenue
5.5 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
5.5.1 QUEEN ANNE
Image 185: Detailed view to subject property from
Gordon Avenue, looking south
Image 187: Detailed view to subject properties from
Clarence Place
The structures on both subject properties were constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style. The style
is believed to have been created by R.N. Shaw in England and spread across Canada via American
architectural magazines (Fram, 2003:27). Largely based on rural, rustic Elizabethan and Jacobean forms,
the style included some Classical motifs in vogue during Queen Anne's reign from 1702-14 (Fram, 2003:27).
This style is also tied to the Arts & Crafts movement, reflecting similar design inspiration, which was "to build
according to medieval building principles to return to neighbourhoods and towns that had craftsmanship and
community at their hearts" (Kyles, 2016).
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 63
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 169 of 224
The Queen Anne style dates to the late Victorian era, first being constructed in the 1870s and becoming
most popular between 1890 and 1914 (Parks Canada, n.d.; Kyles, 2016). Like many of the larger residential
styles prominent during the final decades of the nineteenth century, the Queen Anne style was fueled by the
wealthy upper -middle classes in Canada (Kyles, 2016). The generally large homes were designed to
impress, including many rooms and ornate living areas (Kyles, 2016).
Primarily a residential style, builders of Queen Anne style structures generally focused on asymmetrical
facades, steeply -pitched and irregular rooflines, front -facing gables, overhanging eaves, circular or square
towers with turrets in corners, unusual windows, wraparound verandas, highly ornamented spindles, fish
scale siding, detailed textures and bright colours (Parks Canada, n.d.; Fram, 2003:27).
The style can be challenging to define due to its eccentricities and has been described as "...exuberant and
excessive, fanciful and flamboyant..." (Parks Canada, n.d.). The Queen Anne style represented a movement
away from the sober classical decoration of earlier eras, introducing more flexible natural designs like
sunbursts and flower patterns (Parks Canada, n.d.). Houses in this style were often painted vibrant colours
or included richly hued brickwork to emphasize the ornate details and textures (Parks Canada, n.d.).
Fittingly, the style has been referred to as "painted ladies" due to their use of colour and "lacy details" (Kyles,
2016).
The Queen Anne style is seen in Ontario's large -lot suburban and small-town settings, notably in wood -clad
versions. However, large numbers of narrow -lot versions in terra cotta, masonry and wood were built in
Toronto, London and other cities (Fram, 2003:27). Queen Anne style houses are commonly found in the City
of Kitchener, with a concentration observed in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood, notably on Frederick
Street, Clarence Place and Ahrens Street West. A comparative analysis of examples of the style are found in
Section 5.6 that follows.
5.6 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized heritage
properties in the City of Kitchener, and to determine if the subject property at 240 Frederick Street "is a rare,
unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method" as
described in O. Reg. 9/06.
Comparative examples were drawn from Part IV designated properties within the City of Kitchener.
Residential dwellings were selected from this data set, with a preference for buildings of similar age, style,
typology and material. Five comparable designated properties were identified within the City of Kitchener
(see Table 1 below). This analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended
to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies.
A comparative analysis was not completed for 234 Frederick Street as the property's CHVI has been
confirmed through its designation under Part IV of the OHA.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 170 of 224
Table 1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of similar age, style and/or typology to 240
Frederick Street
Address Recognition Picture
Age Material Style
234
Part IV
1891
Stucco
Queen Anne influences; irregular -
Frederick
Designated
plan; asymmetrical fagade; two -
Street
storey; two storey bay projection;
14"1
half-timbering of upper storey;
multi -pitched roof with front -facing
gable peak with decorative lattice
- =
detail and paired window,
overhanging eaves; ornate wood
-
brackets; tall rectangular window
openings; windows with small -
paned decorative ornamentation;
front door with transom.
239-241
Part IV
c.1890
Stucco
Queen Anne; irregular -plan;
Frederick
Designated
over
asymmetrical fagade; two -and -a -
Street
yellow
half -storeys; two storey bay
brick
projection; hip roof with front -
facing gable peak with sunburst
and paired window; overhanging
eaves; wood brackets; tall
rectangular window openings.
Part IV
s.
1889-90
Yellow
Queen Anne; irregular -plan;
37 Ahrens
Street
Designated;
brick
asymmetrical fagade; two -and -a -
West
Part V
half -storeys; two storey bay
Designated
projection; hip roof with front -
(Civic Centre
r_
facing gable peak with fish scale
Neighbourhood
shingles and paired window;
Heritage
overhanging eaves; decorative
Conservation
cornice line; wood brackets; tall
District)
rectangular window openings;
decorative brick work; two storey
wraparound verandah with
spindlework.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
WSP
February 2022
Page 65
Page 171 of 224
41 Ahrens
Part IV
c.1890
Stucco
Queen Anne; irregular -plan;
Street
Designated;
asymmetrical fagade; two -and -a -
West
Part V
half -storeys; two storey bay
Designated
projection; hip roof with front -
(Civic Centre
facing gable peak with fish scale
Neighbourhood
shingles, lattice detail and paired
Heritage
window; overhanging eaves;
Conservation
wood brackets; tall rectangular
District)
"
window openings; large -paned
windows with smaller decorative
panes; two-storey verandah with
spindlework.
176
Part IV
c.1890
Yellow
Queen Anne; irregular -plan -
Victoria
Designated
brick
asymmetrical fagade; two -
Street
storeys; two storey bay
North
projection; hip roof with steep
front -facing gable peak with round
-
headed windows and brick drop
.�
moulds; overhanging eaves;
wood brackets; tall rectangular
window openings.
Of these examples, the following architectural elements characteristic of the Queen Anne style were
observed:
• Type: All five are residential examples of the Queen Anne style.
• Plan: All five examples are built to an irregular plan.
• Height: Each example is two or two -and -a -half storeys.
• Roof: All examples have multi -pitched and hipped roof lines with multiple gables, including a large
front facing gable with decorative detailing. Four of the examples include paired rectangular windows
in the front -facing gable peak. All include overhanging eaves.
• Cladding: Three examples are constructed of yellow -brick, and two have a stucco exterior. As is the
case of one example, it is likely that brick (yellow or red) exists beneath the stucco cladding.
• Facade: All examples have asymmetrical facades.
• Verandas: Two examples include verandas with decorative spindlework, one of which wraps around
the house.
• Decorative Elements: Each example exhibits decorative elements such as brackets, wood lattice
work, fish scale shingles, sunbursts, brickwork and/or wood spindlework.
• Windows: All examples include a variety of window types and sizes, three of which include large
panes with smaller panes organized in decorative patterns. Four include rectangular window
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 172 of 224
openings, one features segmentally arched window openings, and one includes round headed
window openings.
Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public right-of-way, it appears
that all fives examples have undergone alterations. Four have seen their verandas enclosed, four
examples have a rear addition and one has a side addition.
This comparative analysis suggests that the residence at 240 Frederick Street demonstrates representative
elements of the Queen Anne style including: the two -and -a -half storey height, irregular plan; asymmetrical
fagade; two-storey bay projection; hip roof with front -facing gable peak with fish scale shingles and lattice
detail above the paired window; overhanging eaves; wood brackets; tall rectangular window openings and
windows with small -paned detail; two-storey, wraparound verandah with decorative spindlework. Constructed
c.1893, the house is not an early example of the Queen Anne style of architecture, which can date from the
1870s. Lastly, as there are at least five examples of Queen Anne dwellings designated under Part IV and/or
Part V of the OHA and numerous properties included on the Municipal Register, this is not considered to be
a rare or unique example.
It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could
be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each structure from the
public right-of-way. As such, the O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation (see Section 7) has not only considered the results
of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 67
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 173 of 224
6 CONSULTATION
6.1 CITY OF KITCHENER
The City of Kitchener's Heritage Planner, Victoria Grohn, was contacted via teleconference on November 24,
2020 to inquire about heritage interests related to the subject properties and to confirm the scope of the HIA.
Ms. Grohn confirmed the scope of the HIA as outlined in the Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms
of Reference included within the Record of Consultation for the Pre -Submission Consultation Meeting held
on April 7, 2020. She indicated that 240 Frederick Street is currently included on the City of Kitchener's
Municipal Heritage Register as a listed, non -designated property of CHVI and 234 Frederick Street is
designated under Part IV of the OHA. She also noted that 239-241 Frederick Street, a heritage property
designated under Part IV of the OHA, is situated adjacent to the subject property at 240 Frederick Street. Ms.
Grohn indicated that the subject properties are contained within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL
(L-NBR-11), which was identified in the 2014 study, City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes.
Within the Record of Consultation, Ms. Grohn included the Statement of Significance prepared for 240
Frederick Street in support of its listing on the Municipal Heritage Register, as well as Designation By -Law
90-162 for 234 Frederick Street.
Following Ms. Grohn's review of the March 4, 2021 draft of this HIA submitted to the City of Kitchener, a
follow-up teleconference was held on October 19, 2021 to discuss her comments on the draft report.
Notably, the preferred approach for incorporating the revised plans for the development into the report were
discussed as the proponent had proactively adopted the draft HIAs recommendation to explore increasing
the separation distance between 240 Frederick Street and the development by moving the proposed
structure further north on the lot. It was determined that this proactive refinement to the site plan would be
best described through revisions to Section 9 of this HIA.
6.2 rEDEfLAND PROVINCIAL REVIEW
The MHSTCI's list of Heritage Conservation Districts was reviewed and the study area was not found to be
located within a designated district (MHSTCI, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database was
searched, as was the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. The subject properties are not commemorated
with an OHT plaque nor recognized with a federal heritage designation. It also does not appear that the
subject properties are subject to an OHT conservation easement.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 174 of 224
7 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION
The property at 234 Frederick Street has been designated under Part IV of the OHA, as such a cultural
heritage evaluation according to O. Reg. 9/06 is not necessary. However, as the property was designated in
1990, prior to amendments to the OHA in 2005 detailing the requirements of a Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, an updated statement and heritage attributes list is included
in the following section. As documentation of the interior of the building was not included in the scope of this
HIA, no interior heritage attributes are noted.
The property at 240 Frederick Street is not municipally designated under the OHA; however, it is listed on the
City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register as a non -designated property of CHVI. As such, an
evaluation will be completed to confirm and update its CHVI in Section 7.2.
The description of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL, evaluated significance, and heritage attributes
extracted from the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes study are included in Section 7.5.
7.1 UPDATED STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE
OR INTEREST FOR 234 FREDERICK STREET
7.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE
234 Frederick Street is a two-storey brick structure clad in stucco built c.1891 in the Queen Anne
architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.18 -acre parcel of land located on the north side of
Frederick Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region
of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the building.
7.1.2 HERITAGE VALUL
234 Frederick Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values.
The design value relates to the architecture of the structure, which reflects the Queen Anne style with Arts
and Crafts elements. The building is typical of the middle-class houses erected on Frederick Street, east of
Lancaster Street East, during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Characteristic of the Queen
Anne style, the building is two -storeys in height and features an asymmetrical fagade, steeply pitched
irregular roof with overhanging eaves, a prominent gable facing Frederick Street, varied fenestration and
detailed textures and decorative elements like wood brackets and fish scale shingles. The Arts and Crafts
style is tied to the Queen Anne architectural tradition, reflecting similar design inspiration exemplified in the
structure through the heavy stucco porch pillars, rusticated stone window sills and board and batten cladding
of the upper storey and rear addition.
The residence at 234 Frederick Street was built c.1891 for Menno Bricker and was later purchased by
Elizabeth and John Forsyth as a family home in 1912. John Forsyth was in the button business and his son,
John D.C. Forsyth, after learning the business from his father, became the founder of the Forsyth Shirt
Company. The Forsyth Company produced dress shirts, shirts with detachable collars, pajamas, underwear,
scarves and ties. Under Forsyth's management, branch offices were opened locally, across Canada and in
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 175 of 224
Manchester, England. In the mid -1940s the company reportedly had the longest sewing room in Canada.
John D.C. Forsyth made a significant contribution to the social and economic development of Berlin (now
Kitchener) through his business and work with various local boards and associations. After the death of his
mother Elizabeth, the property was deeded to John D.C. where he resided until his death in 1948. The
Forsyth family continued to reside on the property until 1966.
The property's contextual value relates to the contribution the structure makes to the continuity and character
of the Frederick Street streetscape, as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage
Landscape, which are comprised largely of architectural styles typical of the late nineteenth century, with
notable examples of finely detailed Queen Anne and Arts and Crafts residences. The development of 234
Frederick Street corresponds to the development of Kitchener during the explosive growth of industry in the
late -nineteenth and early -twentieth centuries.
7.1.3 LIST OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES
The cultural heritage attributes that reflect the CHVI of 234 Frederick Street include:
- All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including:
o Two-storey height and massing, including two-storey projecting bay on west side of
fagade (south elevation);
o Asymmetrical fagade;
o Steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves and gable facing Frederick
Street featuring fish scale shingles and lattice detail over paired rectangular
windows opening;
o Brick chimney on the west and north elevations of the original portion of the
structure;
o Wood brackets with sunburst motif;
o Windows and window openings, including multipaned windows with transoms and
other multipaned windows;
o Rusticated stone sills;
o Door openings; and
o Faux rusticated stone foundation.
- All elements related to the Arts and Crafts architectural style of the house, including:
o One -storey enclosed front porch on the fagade (south elevation) featuring heavy
stucco pillars with top cap, overhanging eaves, simple paired brackets and
multipaned windows; and
o Board and batten cladding on the upper storey.
- All elements related to the contextual value, including:
o Location of the building on the property and its contribution to the continuity and
character of the Frederick Street streetscape.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 176 of 224
7.2 EVALUATION OF 240 FREDERICK STREET USING ONTARIO
REGULATION 9/06
O. Reg. 9/06 provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets one or more
of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, a property is eligible for designation under the OHA. This evaluation was
informed by the Statement of Significance prepared for the property by the City of Kitchener in 2013.
Table 2: Evaluation of 240 Frederick Street as ►ger O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria
CRITERIA
O. REG. 9/06 CRITERIA MET (Y/N) JUSTIFICATION
1. The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or
Y
240 Frederick Street contains a representative example of a
early example of a style, type,
Queen Anne residence built c.1893. Although not an early
expression, material, or construction
structure continues to display a high -degree of craftsmanship.
example of the style, the subject property was built in the first
method,
technical or scientific achievement.
decades of the application of the Queen Anne style to home
techniques common to its time.
design in Ontario. In accordance with the findings of the
i. has direct associations with a I
Y 1240 Frederick Street is associated with Peter and Alvina Itter,
comparative analysis in Section 5.6, the building demonstrates
elements of the Queen Anne style in its asymmetrical fagade with
detailed textures and intricate painting, two -and -a -half storey
height, steeply pitched irregular roofline, front facing gable with
fish scale shingles, highly decorated wraparound veranda and
varied fenestration. As such, 240 Frederick Street is considered
a representative example of Queen Anne architecture in the City
of Kitchener.
ii. displays a high degree of
Y The structure at 240 Frederick Street has been well -conserved
craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
and little altered since it was first constructed c.1893. It appears
that most decorative elements, such as the woodwork, veranda
and windows, remain intact. The maintained integrity of the
structure continues to display a high -degree of craftsmanship.
iii. demonstrates a high degree of
N The structure does not display a high -degree of technical or
technical or scientific achievement.
scientific achievement. The building displays construction
techniques common to its time.
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a I
Y 1240 Frederick Street is associated with Peter and Alvina Itter,
theme, event, belief, person, activity, who built the dwelling c.1893 on approximately 4.2 acres of land
organization or institution that is purchased from the Waterloo County House of Industry and
significant to a community, Refuge. Between 1880 and 1893, Peter, joined by Alvina in
1887, managed the House of Refuge, one of the first institutions
built, financed and governed by Waterloo County and one of the
first municipally funded poorhouses in Ontario to admit an
inmate. Shortly after Alvina joined Peter in managing the House,
physical abuse allegations began to be reported, ultimately
resulting in a scandal in 1893 in which Peter and Alvina were
investigated by the Standing Committee of the House for charges
against them made by inmates, staff members and locals.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Pane 71
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 177 of 224
Allegations included neglect and abuse in some cases resulting
in the death of inmates. Peter and Alvina were asked to resign as
the Keeper and Matron of the House on September 1, 1893.
Following their resignation, Peter returned to work as a
carpenter, his previous occupation. By 1911, he began to build
houses on Frederick Street, Gordon Avenue, Irvin Street and
Clarence Place. Peter had two streets in the Central Frederick
Neighbourhood named after his sons, Gordon (Avenue) and Irvin
(Street), both of whom passed away as children.
Although 240 Frederick Street is directly associated with the
House of Refuge, an institution significant to the community, and
Peter and Alvina Itter, individuals that impacted the community,
the association is negative and reflects historic harms committed
against the well-being and lives of individuals under the care of
the County of Waterloo in the late -nineteenth century.
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield N
The subject property does not yield information that contributes
information that contributes to an
to the understanding of a community orculture.
understanding of a community or
culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work N
It is likely that that dwelling on the subject property was
or ideas of an architect, artist,
constructed by Peter Itter, however this was could not be
builder, designer or theorist who is
confirmed through the historic research compiled. As such, the
significant to a community.
property cannot be confirmed to be attributed to any architect,
artist, builder, designer or theorist significant to the community.
3. The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining,
Y
240 Frederick Street is important in defining, maintaining and
maintaining or supporting the
supporting the character of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood,
character of an area,
which is largely comprised of late -nineteenth century low-density
residences. The property contributes to the continuity and
character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue
streetscapes, which are characterized by architectural styles
typical of the late -nineteenth century, with notable examples of
finely detailed Queen Anne and Arts and Crafts architecture as
well as Berlin Vernacular residences. The development of 240
Frederick Street corresponds to the development of Kitchener
during the explosive growth of industry in the late -nineteenth and
early -twentieth centuries. The setting is noteworthy as the house
is located on an open corner lot uniquely large for the
neighbourhood.
ii. is physically, functionally, visually Y The subject property is physically, visually and historically linked
or historically linked to its to its surroundings as it has undergone little alteration and
surroundings, or continues to contribute visually to the historic streetscape along
Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue.
iii. is a landmark. N The subject property has not been identified as a local landmark,
nor is it known to be a destination or used as a navigation point
such that it might be considered a landmark.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 178 of 224
7.3 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION
Based on the evaluation of the property at 240 Frederick Street against the criteria outlined in O. Reg.
9/06, the subject property has been confirmed to possess CHVI. As such, a Statement of Cultural
Heritage Value or Interest has been provided that updates the Statement of Significance prepared for
the property by the City of Kitchener in 2013. Following this evaluation and a review of the interior of the
building, no interior heritage attributes were noted.
7.4 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR
INTEREST FOR 240 FREDERICK STREET
7.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE
240 Frederick Street is a two -and -a -half storey brick house built c.1893 in the Queen Anne architectural
style. The house is situated on a 0.47 -acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Gordon
Avenue and Frederick Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within
the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house.
7,4.2 HERITAGE VALUE
240 Frederick Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values
The design value relates to the architecture of the house as a representative example of the Queen Anne
style. The building is typical of the middle-class brick houses erected on Frederick Street, east of Lancaster
Street East, during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Characteristic of the Queen Anne style,
the building is two -and -a -half storeys in height and features an asymmetrical fagade, steeply pitched irregular
roof with overhanging eaves, a prominent gable facing Frederick Street, an elaborately decorated single -
storey wraparound veranda as well as a two-storey veranda, varied fenestration and decorative elements like
wood brackets, fish scale shingles, spindlework, frieze and multicoloured glass. To emphasize the ornate
detailed textures of the residence, as is common of the style, all decorative elements have been intricately
painted.
240 Frederick Street is associated with Peter and Alvina Itter, who built the dwelling c.1893 on land
purchased from the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge. Between 1880 and 1893, Peter, joined
by Alvina in 1887, managed the House of Refuge, one of the first institutions built, financed and governed by
Waterloo County and one of the first municipally funded poorhouses in Ontario to admit an inmate. Shortly
after Alvina joined Peter in managing the House, physical abuse allegations were reported, ultimately
resulting in a scandal in 1893 in which Peter and Alvina were investigated by the Standing Committee of the
House for charges against them made by inmates, staff members and locals. Allegations included neglect
and abuse in some cases resulting in the death of inmates. Peter and Alvina were asked to resign as the
Keeper and Matron of the House on September 1, 1893. Following their resignation, Peter returned to work
as a carpenter, his previous occupation. By 1911, he began to build houses on Frederick Street, Gordon
Avenue, Irvin Street and Clarence Place. Peter had two streets in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood
named after his sons, Gordon (Avenue) and Irvin (Street), both of whom passed away as children. Although
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 179 of 224
240 Frederick Street is directly associated with the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge, an
institution significant to the community, and Peter and Alvina Itter, individuals that impacted the community,
the association is negative and reflects historic harms committed against the well-being and lives of
individuals under the care of the County of Waterloo in the late -nineteenth century.
The property's contextual value relates to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and
character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes, as well as the Central Frederick
Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, which are comprised largely of architectural styles typical of
the late -nineteenth century, with notable examples of finely detailed Queen Anne and Arts and Crafts
architecture, as well as Berlin Vernacular residences. The development of 240 Frederick Street corresponds
to the development of Kitchener during the explosive growth of industry in the late -nineteenth and early -
twentieth centuries. The setting is noteworthy as the house is located on an open corner lot uniquely large for
the neighbourhood.
7.4.3 LIST OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES
The cultural heritage attributes that reflect the CHVI of 240 Frederick Street include:
- All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including:
o Two -and -a -half storey height and massing including two -and -a -half storey projecting
bays on the east, south and west elevations;
o Asymmetrical south fagade;
o Painted brick cladding;
o Steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves and gables facing east, south,
and west featuring fish scale shingles and lattice detail over paired rectangular
window openings;
o Wood brackets with sunburst motif;
o One -storey front porch that extends around the east corner of the building featuring
spindlework porch supports, ornamentation, and frieze;
o Two-storey rear porch (east and north elevation) featuring spindlework porch
supports, ornamentation, and frieze;
o Windows and window openings, including:
■ One -over -one windows with rusticated stone headers and sills;
■ Large square picture windows and multipaned windows with transoms and
multicoloured glass; and
■ Storm windows.
o Doors and door openings in south, east and west elevations, including:
■ Wood panel door with hand painted stained-glass window and decorative
hardware on the fagade (south elevation); and
■ Storm doors.
o Foundation of even -coursed, cut -stone blocks with raised mortar joints; and
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 180 of 224
o Decorative wrought iron fence with quad spear finials and gates around the south
and east sides of the property.
All elements related to the contextual value, including:
o Location of the building on the property and its contribution to the continuity and
character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes; and
o Lot size.
7.5 CENTRAL FREDERICK NEIGHBOURHOOD CULTURAL
HERITAGE LANDSCAPE
The description of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL (L-NBR-11) included below was extracted
from the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes study, and details its evaluated significance and
heritage attributes. The landscape has not yet been formally protected through an Official Plan
Amendment.
/'.j. DESCRIPTION
Location: Located east of the downtown core bound by Frederick Street, Lancaster Street East, Stirling
Avenue North and East Avenue.
Historic Themes: Early/Significant Residential Neighbourhood
Description:
Adjacent to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, the Central Frederick Neighbourhood's heritage attributes are
of a similar period. Features found within its residential architecture, its streetscapes, and historical
associations correspond to the development of Kitchener during the explosive growth of industry in the late -
nineteenth and early -twentieth centuries. Unlike Queen Street to the north, the area along Frederick Street
near the core is of a somewhat later date and includes only a few buildings of an earlier period. Although
Frederick Street was the artery which connected east bound travelers to the bridge in Breslau, which would
suggest that there should be a preponderance of earlier buildings along that street, there is a remarkably
consistent time period for the development of most of this area including a wealth of well maintained, finely
detailed homes from the second and third decade of the twentieth century. There is a limited range of
architectural styles but features include attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, porches and
other details, associated with the era in which they were developed. There are remarkably few houses that
have been replaced with more modern examples which speaks to the quality of the construction of these
dwellings and to the quality of the environment which they create by their scale, materials, features, massing
and surrounding landscapes. The houses are generally closely spaced and, on any given street, massed in a
manner that creates both a uniform and domestic environment yet, because of the features unique to each
dwelling, allows for an orderly sense of individuality. The presence of an attractive and consistent
streetscape linked by mature trees and grassed boulevards contributes significantly to the overall character.
The Edwardian period, during which these houses were constructed, was one in which the Arts and Crafts
movement had a strong influence. The movement carefully considered the most appropriate features of quiet
domesticity for the middle class which arose as a result of the Industrial Revolution and this flavour
permeates the dwellings in this community in a manner that has appealed to a succession of generations
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 181 of 224
who have lived here. Many communities in North America are altering their planning requirements to
encourage more communities similar to the Central Frederick Neighbourhood. What is different here is that
this community is genuine, not a copy, and an exemplar on how to live in an urban and urbane environment.
Historical Integrity: The majority of early houses, dating to first decades of the twentieth century, remain in
place in this neighbourhood as do the street patterns.
Cultural Value: This community represents one of the last areas to be infilled and completed according to an
early street pattern prior to the layout and design of new subdivisions in the 1920s but this area already
incorporated grassed boulevards which contribute to the overall character of the community.
Community Value: Remarkably few of the houses in this area have been replaced or significantly altered
which suggest that a high value is placed by the community on the quality of the original concept and
housing designs.
Character Defining Features:
- The houses which are notable for the consistency of their scale, materials, features, massing and
surrounding landscapes;
- An orderly sense of individuality of the houses; and
- The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees and grassed
boulevards.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 76
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 182 of 224
8 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND
IMPACTS
8.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development concept for 234 and 240 Frederick Street consists of the full retention of both
existing buildings on site and construction of a new four -storey, freestanding residential condominium
building in the existing rear yard of 240 Frederick Street containing 32 residential units, a ground floor area of
645 m sq. and a typical floor plan (Floors 2-4) of 1,935 m sq. (see Appendix B for Site and Development
Plans current as of May 2021). A consolidated parking layout will contain six surface parking spaces and 36
car stacker parking spaces.
The development is proposed 3 m from the rear (north) elevation of the extant building at 240 Frederick
Street. This increased separation distance represents a refinement from the previous site plan, which
included a narrower 1.5 m setback, and was adopted as a recommendation of the March 4, 2021 draft of this
HIA.
The existing drive aisle off Frederick Street (to 234 Frederick Street) and the existing surface parking spaces
(six spaces) at the rear of this lot are proposed to be retained. The existing driveway access off Gordon
Avenue will be removed, with vehicular access to the new development only provided via the drive aisle from
Frederick Street.
IBI Group has worked with the City of Kitchener to revise the concept plans to propose a new structure with a
reduced height (reduced from five to four -storeys) that is sympathetic to and distinguishable from the built
heritage resources on the subject properties. Building materials, such as yellow and brown brick, have been
incorporated to reflect the construction material of the house at 240 Frederick Street as well as the
surrounding Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. Glass has also been incorporated to include a
contemporary, neutral background to the built heritage resource. The proposed neutral colour scheme uses
yellow brick for the upper storeys, brown brick for the main storey, and grey window walls with precast
spandrels.
The future use of the extant structure at 240 Frederick Street is anticipated to be a residential duplex or
triplex. The interior of the building has recently been sensitively restored and updated to accommodate the
anticipated future residential use.
The development proposes to remove five large coniferous trees from the north half of the lot at 240
Frederick Street. A landscape plan prepared by IBI Group (2021) for the development proposes to maintain
the hedgerow along the north boundary of the property and some of the mature trees in the northeast corner
of the lot to provide a visual buffer for the low-density residential properties to the north. A Victorian -inspired
garden with seating is proposed between the extant structures at 234 and 240 Frederick Street. Portions of
the extant wrought iron fence at 240 Frederick are planned to be conserved and repurposed in the garden
area. The landscape plan proposes additional large caliper trees around the periphery of the property, and
coniferous shrubs are planned along the east side of the new development to screen views from the east.
See Appendix C for the landscape plan and tree preservation plan.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 183 of 224
8.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The MHSTCI's Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Resources in Land Use Planning Process identifies seven
potential impacts that an undertaking may have on a cultural heritage resource (see Section 2.2.4 for the
full list).
As neither MHSTCI nor any other Canadian agency provides guidance on evaluating the magnitude of
impact, this report uses guides published by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) from the World Heritage
Convention of January of 2011. The grading of impact is based on the "Guide to Assessing Magnitude of
Impact" summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Impact Grading
IMPACT GRADING
DESCRIPTION
Major Change to heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI such that the resource is totally
altered.
Comprehensive changes to the setting.
Moderate Change to many heritage attributes, such that the resource is significantly modified.
Changes to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is significantly modified.
Minor Change to heritage attributes, such that the asset is slightly different.
Change to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is noticeably changed.
Negligible/Potential I Slight changes to heritage attributes or the setting that hardly affects it.
None 'No change to heritage attributes or setting.
8.3 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
Below, Table 4 will evaluate impacts to 240 Frederick Street, and Table 5 will evaluate impacts to 234
Frederick Street, 239-241 Frederick Street, and the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL.
Table 4: Evaluation of Impacts to subject property at 240 Fredrick Street
CRITERIA EVALUATION
Destruction of any, or part of any, Impact: None
significant heritage attributes or
features, Rationale: The proposed development concept does not involve the
destruction of the heritage attributes of the structure, its location on the
property or its lot size, which relate to its physical value.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 184 of 224
Alteration that is not sympathetic, oris
incompatible, with the historic fabric
and appearance,
Impact: Moderate
Rationale: The introduction of the proposed four -storey residential
condominium building on the subject property will result in a contemporary
alteration to the current low-density character of the historic lot. The use of
buff and brown brick and simple grey window walls aid in providing a transition
to the modern building as well as a neutral background that does not compete
with the architectural detail of the subject house. The proposed four -storey
height of the development does not dominate the extant house and the use of
sympathetic building materials and the reduced heigh further aids in the
transition between both buildings.
The proposed development concept will result in the alteration of a portion of
the decorative wrought iron fence along the north half of the east property line.
Shadows created that alter the I Impact: Negligible
appearance of a heritage attribute or
change the viability of a natural feature Rationale: The new residential development will result in additional shadows
or plantings, such as a garden, cast on the structure by 6:00 p.m. throughout the year. However, these
shadows will not alter the appearance of the dwelling or property or impact
its ability to provide active use.
Isolation of a heritage attribute from its Impact: Minor
surrounding environment, context or a
significant relationship, Rationale: The house at 240 Frederick Street will not be isolated from its
contribution to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street
streetscape as the development will be located behind the structure. The
south elevation has been designed as a simple grey window wall to provide a
neutral background to the subject house that does not compete with its
architectural detailing.
The development will isolate the subject building from its contribution to the
continuity and character of Gordon Avenue in a minor way as the house will
be screened by the new residential development when looking south down
Gordon Avenue. The view looking south to the subject house is not significant
as it is primarily focused on the north elevation, which exhibits the least
heritage attributes of the building's elevations and is also obscured by mature
trees. Views of the streetscape looking north and west will not be impacted.
The incorporation of neutral building materials into the design of the new
development as well as those observed in the surrounding Central Frederick
Neighbourhood CHL aid in providing a transition to the modern building from
the surrounding historic low-density streetscapes.
Director indirect obstruction of Impact: None
significant views or vistas within, from,
or to built and natural features; Rationale: No significant views or vistas within, from or to the subject
property were identified through this study.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 185 of 224
A change in land use such as Impact: Minor
rezoning a battlefield from open space
to residential use, allowing new Rationale: A minor variance is being sought for height, rear yard setback, and
development or site alteration to fill in parking relief. The change in land use will have a minor impact on the contextual
the formerly open spaces, value of the property as it relates to its current low-density contribution to the
Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes.
Land disturbances such as a change Impact: Unknown/Potential
in grade that alters soils, and drainage
patterns that adversely affect an Rationale: If directed by the Region of Waterloo, an Archaeological
archaeological resource. Assessment should be completed for this property.
Vibration impacts from the construction of the proposed development 3
m from the subject structure may present indirect impacts.
Table 5: Evaluation of Impacts to 234 and 239-241 Frederick Street and Central Frederick
Neighbourhood CHL
CRITERIA
Destruction of any, or part of any,
significant heritage attributes or
features,-
Alteration
eatures,
Alteration that is not sympathetic, oris
incompatible, with the historic fabric
and appearance,-
Heritage
ppearance,
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
EVALUATION
234 Frederick Street
Impact: None
Rationale: The proposed development will not result in the destruction of any
heritage attributes of the property as interventions will be limited to the rear
parking lot.
239-241 Frederick Street
Impact: None
Rationale: The proposed development will be limited to the subject properties
and will not result in the destruction of any heritage attributes (see Section 5.4
for list of heritage attributes) of this adjacent property.
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL
Impact: None
Rationale: The proposed development will not result in the destruction of any
heritage attributes of the CHL.
234 Frederick Street
Impact: Negligible
Rationale: The proposed development will result in a slight alteration to the
property through the introduction of a drive aisle connection between the rear
of the lots at 234 and 240 Frederick Street. This intervention will not impact
any heritage attributes of the property and will negligibly impact its
appearance.
Page 186 of 224
239-241 Frederick Street
Impact: None
Rationale: The proposed development will be limited to the subject properties
and will not result in the destruction of any heritage attributes of this adjacent
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL
Impact: Moderate
Rationale: The introduction of the proposed four -storey residential
condominium building into the CHL will result in a contemporary alteration to
the landscape's predominantly low-density housing stock noted for consistency
in scale, features, materials, massing and surrounding landscapes. The use of
buff and brown brick and simple grey window walls aid in providing a transition
to the modern building within the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue
streetscape in a manner that does not compete with the architectural detail of
the surrounding houses. The reduced four -storey height proposed for the
development and the use of sympathetic building materials further aids in
providing a height transition.
The immediately adjacent 17 -storey residential apartment building, the Acadian
Apartments located at 250 Frederick Street, further provides a transition in
height within the CHL to the new four -storey development and surrounding low-
density land uses along Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue.
Shadows created that alter the 234 Frederick Street
appearance of a heritage attribute or
change the viability of a natural feature Impact: None
or plantings, such as a garden;
Rationale: The new development will not result in additional shadows cast
on the property at 234 Frederick Street.
239-241 Frederick Street
Impact: None
Rationale: The new development will not result in additional shadows cast on
this adjacent property.
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL
Impact: Negligible
Rationale: The new development will result in additional shadows cast on the
landscape, primarily properties immediately to the north and east. However,
these shadows will not alter the appearance of the streetscapes or buildings or
impact their ability to provide active use.
Isolation of a heritage attribute from its 234 Frederick Street
surrounding environment, context or a
significant relationship, Impact: None
Rationale: The proposed development will be located in the north half of the
lot at 240 Frederick Street and will not isolate 234 Fredrick Street from its
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 81
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 187 of 224
surrounding environment, context or significant relationship as it will be
located behind and adjacent to the property.
239-241 Frederick Street
Impact: None
Rationale: The proposed development will be limited to the subject properties
and will not isolate 239-241 Fredrick Street from its surrounding environment,
context or significant relationship.
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL
Impact: None
Rationale: The proposed development will not isolate the heritage attributes of
the CHL from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship.
Director indirect obstructionof 234 Frederick Street
significant views or vistas within, from,
or to built and natural features, Impact: None
Rationale: No significant views or vistas within, from or to the subject
property were identified through this study.
239-241 Frederick Street
Impact: None
Rationale: No significant views or vistas within, from or to this adjacent property
were identified through this study.
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL
Impact: None
Rationale: No significant views or vistas within, from or to the CHL were
identified as heritage attributes of the landscape.
A change in land use such as 234 Frederick Street
rezoning a battlefield from open space
to residential use, allowing new Impact: None
development or site alteration to fill in Rationale: The land use of this property will not change as a result of the
the formerly open spaces;
proposed development.
239-241 Frederick Street
Impact: None
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Rationale: The land use of this property will not change as a result of the
proposed development.
Page 188 of 224
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL
Impact: Minor
Rationale: A minor variance is being sought for height, rear yard setback, and
parking relief at 240 Frederick Street. The change in land use represents a
minor impact to the consistency of house scales, materials, features, massing
and surrounding landscapes that comprise the Frederick Street and Gordon
Avenue streetscapes in the CHL. J
Land disturbances such as a change 234 Frederick Street
in grade that alters soils, and drainage
patterns that adversely affect an Impact: None/Potential
archaeological resource.
Rationale: Minimal land disturbance is proposed for this property,
consisting only of resurfacing. Impacts to archaeological resources are
not anticipated.
Vibration impacts from the construction of the proposed development on
the adjacent property at 240 Frederick Street may present indirect
impacts to the structure at 234 Frederick Street.
239-241 Frederick Street
Impact: None
Rationale: Land disturbance will be limited to the subject properties and will not
impact 239-241 Frederick Street.
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL
Impact: None
Rationale: Land disturbance will not impact the heritage attributes of the CHL.
� a RES1„11 TS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The preceding impact assessments have determined that without conservation or mitigation measures,
the construction of the proposed development will result in:
- Moderate and minor impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 240 Frederick Street;
- Potential vibration impacts to the structure at 234 Frederick Street;
- No impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 239-241 Frederick Street; and
- Moderate and minor impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the Central Frederick
Neighbourhood CHL.
An options analysis of potential alternatives, mitigation and conservation options is provided in Section 9.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 189 of 224
9 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND
CONSERVATION OPTIONS
The City of Kitchener's Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms of Reference requires that options be
provided that explain how cultural heritage resources may be conserved. As such, the following alternatives
were considered to avoid or reduce adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the properties at 234, 240
and 239-241 Frederick Street as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL:
1) Preserve and maintain the properties at 234 and 240 Frederick Street as is with no further
development.
2) Develop 234 and 240 Frederick Street as proposed.
3) Develop 234 and 240 Frederick Street as proposed but explore increasing the separation
distance by moving the development further north on the lot.
Following submission of the March 4, 2021 draft of this HIA to the City of Kitchener, the proponent adopted
Option 3 and refined the previous site plan, increasing the separation distance between the extant residence
at 240 Frederick Street and the proposed development from 1.5 m to 3 m. This increased separation
distance will further mitigate potential indirect impacts to the extant structure such as land disturbance,
construction vibrations, and damage from construction activities and machinery. Now that Option 3 has been
adopted, only Options 1 and 2 will be further explored in this section.
As IBI Group has worked closely with the City of Kitchener through an iterative process to refine a concept
design for the proposed development that is sympathetic to the character of the subject properties and the
Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL, an option exploring detailed design refinements was not found to be
necessary.
9.1 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION
OPTIONS ANALYSIS
Table 6: Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options
OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/
CONSERVATION NOTES
1) Preserve and
maintain the
properties at 234
and 240 Frederick
Street as is with no
This option would maintain Preservation would require None.
the general heritage principle ongoing repair and
that prefers minimal maintenance to ensure
intervention to a heritage
resource. It would ensure
further development. that the subject properties
retain all identified heritage
attributes and that there
conservation of the heritage
attributes of 240 Frederick
Street. Continued vacancy
without an active use could
result in detrimental physical
would be no contextual impacts to the structure if
impacts to the character of required repairs and security
the Central Frederick measures are not undertaken.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
WSP
February 2022
Page 84
Page 190 of 224
Develop 234 and
D Frederick Street
proposed.
Neighbourhood CHL.
This option would involve no
direct impacts to the heritage
attributes of the property at
240 Frederick Street aside
from the removal of a portion
of the wrought iron fence. In
addition, it will not result in
direct impacts to the heritage
attributes of 234 or 239-241
Frederick Street or the
Central Frederick
Neighbourhood CHL. As
such, it is ensured that the
properties will retain all
identified heritage attributes.
This option is consistent with
Standard 3 of the Standards
and Guidelines, which direct
to "Conserve heritage value
by adopting an approach
calling for minimal
intervention;" Standard 5,
"Find a use for an historic
place that requires minimal or
no change to its character -
defining elements;" and
Standard 11, "Conserve the
heritage value and character -
defining elements when
creating any new additions to
an historic place or any
related new construction.
Make the new work
physically and visually
compatible with, subordinate
to and distinguishable from
the historic place."
Many indirect impacts have
been further mitigated
through the development's
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Redevelopment of the
property ensures a viable and
stable new use that will
improve the probability that
the site will be utilized and
conserved in the long-term.
The limited indirect impacts of
the proposed development are
not cause to deny the
development proposal.
A portion of the wrought iron
fence adjacent to the new
development on the north side
of the east property line will be
removed to accommodate
construction activity and the
proposed site plan.
The development is planned
with a 3 m separation from the
north elevation of the building
at 240 Frederick Street. This
proximity increases the
likelihood of the subject
property experiencing indirect
impacts due to land
disturbance, construction
ibrations, and damage from
construction activities and
machinery.
The introduction of the new
residential development will
screen the building at 240
Frederick Street from the
Gordon Avenue streetscape
when looking south. This view
is not significant as it is
primarily focused on the north
elevation, which exhibits the
least heritage attributes of the
building's elevations and is
also obscured by mature
trees.
A Cultural Heritage
Conservation Protection Plan
(CHCPP) is being prepared
concurrently with this HIA to
mitigate any indirect impacts
related to land disturbance at
240 Frederick Street (WSP,
2021).
As recommended by Mark
Fram in Well -Preserved (2003:
189), the foundations of the
new building should be kept
independent from those of the
extant structure at 240
Frederick Street unless part of a
purposeful underpinning of the
historic foundation. Care should
be taken not to compromise the
existing foundation during
excavations for the new
building.
Any portions of the wrought iron
fence removed along the south
half of the property's periphery
should be relocated post -
construction. The landscape
plan has recommended that
portions of the fence be
conserved and repurposed in
the Victorian garden proposed
between the subject properties
(see Appendix C). Cutting the
fence should be avoided. It
should be removed in complete
sections. The fence should be
safely stored, preferably onsite,
during construction.
Indirect impacts to the Frederick
Street and Gordon Avenue
streetscapes and the character
WSP
February 2022
Page 85
Page 191 of 224
sympathetic design concept
arrived at through iterative
consultation with the City of
Kitchener, and the site plan
refinement resulting in an
increased separation
distance between the extant
building and the new
development.
Landscape areas have been
integrated around all edges
of the development,
maintaining the attractive
and consistent streetscape
of the Central Frederick
Neighbourhood CHL linked
by mature trees and grassed
boulevards.
of the Central Frederick
Neighbourhood CHL have been
mitigated in part through the
development's sympathetic
design concept incorporating
simple elevations and massing
providing a transition in height
to the neighbouring buildings,
and the incorporation of building
materials reflective of the
surrounding building stock.
9.2 RESULTS OF OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND CONSERVATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the review of alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis presented in Table 6,
Option 2, develop 234-240 Frederick Street as proposed, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage
perspective, followed by Option 1.
Option 2 would involve no direct impacts to the heritage attributes of the property at 240 Frederick Street
aside from the removal of a portion of the wrought iron fence, and will not result in direct impacts to the
heritage attributes of 234 or 239-241 Frederick Street or the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The
increased separation distance proposed between the structure at 240 Frederick Street and the new
development has also aided in further mitigating anticipated indirect impacts.
Indirect impacts to the contextual value of 240 Frederick Street and the Central Frederick Neighbourhood
CHL have been largely mitigated through the sympathetic design concept for the new development. The
elevations and massing have been simplified with fewer, more sophisticated architectural features. The use
of building materials and colours, such as yellow and brown brick, compatible with the subject properties and
houses in the CHL, notably those included along the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue, have been
incorporated into the development's cladding. As directed by the City of Kitchener, lighter materials, such as
glass and grey pre -cast concrete spandrels, were integrated into the south, east and west elevations closest
to the heritage buildings on the subject properties to minimize perceived mass, provide contrast and create a
contemporary separation to clearly distinguish the old from new. A simple grey window wall on the south
elevation was introduced to aid in providing a transition to the modern building as well as a neutral
background that does not compete with the architectural detail of the heritage house.
The proposed building has been designed in a manner sympathetic to the neighbouring building stock in
scale, setbacks and proportions. The building footprint follows the setback of the existing houses on the west
side of Gordon Avenue and maintains the grass boulevard noted as a heritage attribute of the Central
Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The reduced height of the proposed structure from five -storeys to four -
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 192 of 224
storeys assists with transitions between the buildings with lower heights on the subject properties and
Gordon Avenue. The reduced height also helps to mitigate potential shadow impacts, which will only
negligibly impact the extant house at 240 Frederick Street after 6:00 p.m. throughout the year (IBI Group,
2022). These design considerations aid in mitigating impacts to the continuity and character that the subject
properties contribute to the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes.
Landscape areas have been integrated around all edges of the development, maintaining the attractive and
consistent streetscape of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL linked by mature trees and grassed
boulevards. Parking areas have been screened from Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue and surface
parking spaces relocated to maintain uninterrupted views to the open landscaped portions of 240 Frederick
Street as much as possible.
A CHCPP is being prepared concurrently with this HIA to mitigate any indirect impacts related to land
disturbance, construction vibrations and damage from construction activities and machinery at 240 Frederick
Street.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 87
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 193 of 224
10 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND CENTRAL
FREDERICK NEIGHBOURHOOD CHL
Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the identified
built heritage resource at 240 Frederick Street against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg.
9/06 of the OHA, the property was confirmed to possess CHVI for its design value as a representative
example of a Queen Anne style residence, its associative value for its ties to the Waterloo County House of
Industry and Refuge and Peter and Alvina Itter, and for its contextual value as it relates to the contribution
that the structure makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue
streetscapes in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. Its List of Heritage Attributes was updated to
include:
- All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including:
o Two -and -a -half storey height and massing including two -and -a -half storey projecting
bays on the east, south and west elevations;
o Asymmetrical south fagade;
o Painted brick cladding;
o Steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves and gables facing east, south,
and west featuring fish scale shingles and lattice detail over paired rectangular
window openings;
o Wood brackets with sunburst motif;
o One -storey front porch that extends around the east corner of the building featuring
spindlework porch supports, ornamentation, and frieze;
o Two-storey rear porch (east and north elevation) featuring spindlework porch
supports, ornamentation, and frieze;
o Windows and window openings, including:
■ One -over -one windows with rusticated stone headers and sills;
■ Large square picture windows and multipaned windows with transoms and
multicoloured glass; and
■ Storm windows.
o Doors and door openings in south, east and west elevations, including:
■ Wood panel door with hand painted stained-glass window and decorative
hardware on the fagade (south elevation); and
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 194 of 224
■ Storm doors.
o Foundation of even -coursed, cut -stone blocks with raised mortar joints; and
o Decorative wrought iron fence with quad spear finials and gates around the south
and east sides of the property.
All elements related to the contextual value, including:
o Location of the building on the property and its contribution to the continuity and
character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes; and
o Lot size.
The property at 234 Frederick Street was designated under Part IV of the OHA, as such a cultural heritage
evaluation according to O. Reg. 9/06 was not necessary. However, as the property was designated in 1990,
prior to amendments to the OHA in 2005 detailing the requirements of a Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, an updated statement and attributes list was prepared. The
property was confirmed to possess CHVI for its design value, which reflects the Queen Anne style with Arts
and Crafts elements, and for its contextual value as it relates to the contribution that the structure makes to
the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes in the Central
Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. Its List of Heritage Attributes was updated to include:
- All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including:
o Two-storey height and massing, including two-storey projecting bay on west side of
fagade (south elevation);
o Asymmetrical fagade;
o Steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves and gable facing Frederick
Street featuring fish scale shingles and lattice detail over paired rectangular
windows opening;
o Brick chimney on the west and north elevations of the original portion of the
structure;
o Wood brackets with sunburst motif;
o Windows and window openings, including multipaned windows with transoms and
other multipaned windows;
o Rusticated stone sills;
o Door openings; and
o Faux rusticated stone foundation.
- All elements related to the Arts and Crafts architectural style of the house, including:
o One -storey enclosed front porch on the fagade (south elevation) featuring heavy
stucco pillars with top cap, overhanging eaves, simple paired brackets and
multipaned windows; and
o Board and batten cladding on the upper storey.
- All elements related to the contextual value, including:
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 195 of 224
o Location of the building on the property and its contribution to the continuity and
character of the Frederick Street streetscape.
The heritage attributes of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL identified in the City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Landscapes study include:
- The houses which are notable for the consistency of their scale, materials, features, massing and
surrounding landscapes;
- An orderly sense of individuality of the houses; and
- The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees and grassed
boulevards.
10.2 IDEM -1 IFICATION OF li\ lP/ CTS
Based on the impact assessments completed in Section 8.3, it was determined that without conservation
or mitigation measures, the construction of the proposed development will result in:
- Moderate and minor impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 240 Frederick Street;
o A contemporary moderate alteration to the current low-density character of the historic
lot;
o Moderate alteration to a portion of the decorative wrought iron fence along the north half
of the east property line;
o Isolation of the subject house from its contribution to the continuity and character of
Gordon Avenue in a minor way as the house will be screened by the new development
when looking south down Gordon Avenue, however this has been demonstrated not to
be a significant view;
o A minor variance will have a minor impact on the contextual value of the property as it
relates to its current low-density contribution to the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue
streetscapes; and
o Potential vibration impacts.
- Potential vibration impacts to the structure at 234 Frederick Street;
- No impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 239-241 Frederick Street; and
- Moderate and minor impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the Central Frederick
Neighbourhood CHL:
o Contemporary moderate alteration to the landscape's predominantly low-density housing
stock noted for consistency in scale, features, materials, massing and surrounding
landscapes; and
o A minor variance represents a minor impact to the consistency of house scales,
materials, features, massing and surrounding landscapes that comprise the Frederick
Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes in the CHL.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 196 of 224
1 Q.3 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Various conservation and mitigation measures were evaluated for 234 and 240 Frederick Street, the
adjacent property at 239-241 Frederick Street, as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL.
Based on the options analysis presented in Section 9, Option 2 was the preferred alternative from a cultural
heritage perspective as the development's sympathetic design concept has mitigated many indirect impacts
to the surrounding cultural heritage resources. This option would see the property developed as proposed,
with an increased separation distance between the old and new structures. This may further mitigate
potential indirect impacts from land disturbance, vibration, and damage from construction activities and
machinery. Although the "do nothing" approach presented in Option 1 would maintain the general heritage
principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource, it may result in the continued vacancy of
the structure and a missed opportunity to secure a viable and stable new use that will improve the
probability that the property will be utilized and conserved in the long-term.
The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended:
That the detailed technical recommendations provided to address indirect impacts in the CHCPP
prepared for 240 Frederick Street be considered to protect the heritage attributes of the subject
residence before, during and after development -related activity.
That indirect vibration impacts also be monitored for the property at 234 Frederick Street in accordance
with the mitigation measures presented in the CHCPP.
That the foundations of the new building should be kept independent from those of the extant structure at
240 Frederick Street unless part of a purposeful underpinning of the historic foundation. Care should be
taken not to compromise the existing foundation during excavations for the new building.
That any portions of the wrought iron fence removed along the south half of the property's periphery
should be relocated post -construction. As per the landscape plan, portions of the fence that cannot be
relocated post -construction should be conserved and repurposed in the Victorian garden proposed
between the subject properties.
That should the development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA,
additional cultural heritage investigations may be required.
That as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference,
this HIA should be submitted for review and comment to the City's Heritage Planner and Heritage
Kitchener.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 197 of 224
11 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION
Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the identified
built heritage resource at 240 Frederick Street against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg.
9/06 of the OHA, the property was confirmed to possess CHVI for its design value as a representative
example of a Queen Anne style residence, its associative value for its ties to the Waterloo County House of
Industry and Refuge and Peter and Alvina Itter, and for its contextual value as it relates to the contribution
that the dwelling makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue
streetscapes, as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL.
As the property has been confirmed to possess CHVI, it can be considered a significant property eligible for
designation under Part IV of the OHA. Consistent with Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS (see Section 2.2.1 for full
policy), which requires "that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes
shall be conserved," the subject property warrants conservation. It is understood that development projects
pose the potential to impact local built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. As the PPS
notes that CHVI is identified by the community, local municipalities are tasked with weighing the benefits of
a project against the impacts. The impact assessment provided in this report has been prepared in an effort
to facilitate this municipal decision making.
Heritage Impact Assessment WSP
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022
Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 92
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 198 of 224
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archives of Ontario. (1886).
Registrations of Deaths, 1869-1948 (MS 935, reels 1-694), Archives of Ontario, Toronto, ON.
Bloomfield, E. (1995).
Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society.
Canadian Association for Conservation of Cultural Property and Canadian Association of Professional
Conservators. (2009).
Code of Ethics and Guidance for Practice. CAC and CAPC, Ottawa.
City of Kitchener. (April 2020).
City of Kitchener, Development Services Department — Planning Division, 234-240 Frederick Street, Site
Plan/Minor Variance, Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference.
City of Kitchener. (2017).
Municipal Heritage Register. Index of Non -Designated Properties. Retrieved from:
www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/COR LEG Index of Non -
Designated Properties.pdf
Municipal Heritage Register. Part IV Designated Properties Index. Retrieved from:
www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/COR LEG Part IV Designated Property Index.pdf
City of Kitchener. (2014).
City of Kitchener Official Plan. Retrieved from:
www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN City-of-Kitchener-Official-Plan-2014.pdf
City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Retrieved from: www.kitchener.ca/en/city-
services/cultural-heritage-landscapes.aspx? mid =12074#Award-winning-study
City of Kitchener. (2013).
Statement of Significance, 240 Frederick Street. Provided by the City of Kitchener.
City of Kitchener. (1990).
Designation By -Law 90-162, 234 Frederick Street. Provided by the City of Kitchener.
Designation By -Law 90-126, 239-241 Frederick Street. Retrieved from:
www.heritagetrust.on.ca/fr/oha/details/file?id=5105
Crown -Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC). (2013).
Upper Canada Land Surrenders and the Williams Treaties (1764-1862/1923). Retrieved from:
www.rcaanc-cirnac.qc.ca/eng/l 360941656761 /1544619778887#uc
Cumming, R. (1971).
Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Halton, Ontario. Port Elgin: Ross Cumming
& Sons.
Dodd, C.F., Poulton, D.R., Lennox, P.A., Smith, D.G., & Warrick, G.A. (1990)
The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In C. J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario
to A.D. 1650 (pp. 321-360). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society.
Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller. (1990).
Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-
74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 199 of 224
Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990).
The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-
124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
English, J. & McLaughlin, K. (1983).
Kitchener. An Illustrated History. Waterloo: Wilfrid University Press.
Ferris, N. & Spence, M.W. (1995)
The Woodland Traditions in Southern Ontario. Revista de Arquologia Americana 9: 83-138.
Filice, M. (2016).
Haldimand Proclamation. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from:
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/haldimand-proclamation
Fox, W. (1990).
The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D.
1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 171-188. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No.
5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
Fram, M. (2003).
Well -Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundations Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural
Conservation, 3rd ed. Erin, Ontario: The Boston Mills Press.
Hayes, G. (1997).
Waterloo County. An Illustrated History. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society.
Heritage Resources Centre (HRC). (2009).
Ontario Architectural Style Guide. Retrieved from: www.therealtvdeal.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Heritage-Resource-Centre-Achitectural-Styles-Guide.pdf
H. Parsell & Co. (1881).
Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell & Co.
IBI Group. (2021).
234-240 Frederick Street Shadow Study. Provided by IBI Group.
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2011).
Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Retrieved from:
www.icomos.org/world heritage/HIA 20110201.pdf
Kitchener Public Library (KPL) Collection. (2019).
ION Kitchener City Hall. Stitch by Stich. Grace Schmidt Room, KPL. Retrieved from:
https://h istoricallyspeakingkitchener.word press.com/tag/john-forsyth-shirt-co/
Kyles, S. (2016).
"Queen Anne Revival Style (1870-1910)." Ontario Architecture. Retrieved from:
www.ontarioarchitecture.com/QueenAnne.htm
Library and Archives Canada
1881 Census of Canada. District: 168 Waterloo North. Sub -district: C Town of Berlin.
1891 Census of Canada. District: 122 North Waterloo. Sub -district: A Berlin.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 200 of 224
1911 Census of Canada. District: 130 North Waterloo. Sub -district: 7 Berlin
1921 Census of Canada. District: 136 North Waterloo. Sub -district: 28 Berlin
Mikel, R. (2004).
Ontario House Styles: The Distinctive Architecture of the Province's 18th and 19th Century Homes.
Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd.
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2019).
List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from:
www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage conserving list.shtml
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2007).
Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from:
www. heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools-for-conservation/eig ht -q uiding-principles
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2020).
Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020
Moyer, B. (1979).
Kitchener Yesterday Revisited: An Illustrated History. Kitchener: Kitchener Chamber of Commerce.
Noble, W.C. (1975)
Van Besien: A Study in Glen Meyer Development. Ontario Archaeology 24: pp. 3-83.
Parks Canada. (2010).
The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Retrieved
from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf
Parks Canada. (n.d.)
"The Queen Anne Revival Style." Canada's Historic Places. Retrieved from:
www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/32 queen anne.aspx
Pope, J. H. (1877).
Illustrated Historical Atlas of Halton County. Walker & Miles, Toronto.
Ramsden, P.G. (1990).
The Hurons: Archaeology and Culture History. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed
C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 361-384. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5.
London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
Region of Waterloo. (2015).
Regional Official Plan. Retrieved from: www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Regional-Official-
Plan/Chapter 3 consolidated rop 2015-access.pdf
Shanahan, D. (2019).
Between the Lakes Treaty. Retrieved from: https:Hanishinabeknews.ca/2019/12/07/ between -the -lakes -
treaty/
Smith, D.G. (1990)
Iroquoian Societies in Southern Ontario: Introduction and Historic Overview. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris
(Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 279-290). London, Ontario: London
Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 201 of 224
Smith, W.H. (1846).
Smith's Canadian Gazetteer — Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper
Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H.W. Rowsell.
Social Innovation Research Group (SIRG). (2020).
Waterloo County House of Industry & Refuge. Retrieved from: https://waterloohouseofrefuge.ca/
Peter and Alvina Itter. Retrieved from: http://waterloohouseofrefuge.ca/people/peter-and-alvina-itter/
Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy. (1990).
Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario
to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter,
OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
Tremaine (1861).
Tremaine Map of the Waterloo County, Canada West. Toronto, ON.
Uttley, W.V. (1932).
Berlin, Now Kitchener in the Beginning. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 20: Kitchener, ON.
Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Directory. (1897-1899).
Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Years
1897 to 1899. Retrieved from: www.kpl.org/sites/default/files/directories/Vernons-BerlinWaterloo-1897-
1899.pdf
Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Directory. (1901-1903).
Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Years
1901 to 1903. Retrieved from: www.kpl.org/sites/default/files/directories/Vernons-BerlinWaterloo-1901-
1903.pdf
Warrick, G. (2000).
The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory
14(4):415-456.
Waterloo Historical Society (V\/HS). (1948).
"Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge." Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 35: Kitchener,
ON.
Wellington County. (2020).
Local History. Retrieved from: www.wellington.ca/en/discover/localhistory.asp)4
Williamson, R.F. (1990)
The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of
Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 291-320). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological
Society.
WSP. (2021).
Cultural Heritage Conservation Protection Plan, 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener. Prepared for Rome
Transportation Inc.
Heritage Impact Assessment
234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Project No: 201-10290-00
Rome Transportation Inc.
Page 202 of 224
APPENDIX
A FIGURES 2-8
Page 203 of 224
a
-otZI r
s� �y
Av
•" \ ea m
0
R
0
N N
o
z LLLL
N N
LU
of
I
i
�
*�
00% )
)
� }
oop }
3
)
2
\/
m
`
\
\\
00% )
)
� }
oop }
3
)
2
s
0
o
0
E_�
u
a
w
00 U
1
'
a
N
w O w
H ,
�NO0U
S H
y
r
= U
3�
0 J a
0 J S
Q
s
o
w
�
�
w
S
d
N w
41
*OIOW
e
U
K
O
Q U
¢
a 0
'C
v
w c
�
�
�
H °2J
LL
w S c.i
O
as
N
N
O
00
0
N
N
(6
a
3
\
2
r
Jp
z LLLL
N N
LU
s
APPENDIX
SITE AND
DEVELOPMENT
PLANS
Page 211 of 224
_ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _
---------------- - - - - -- - --
d"
W
z ""mra 3xn u�eaoea
W
Q Ls��ia3a3a�osz
------------------
i°.
1
zo
i
qua€d
- r o
I�
I�
88ry_,Z—S
9 58
�
_n x
Z -
Q
(G—
_
lool
__
D�
m
I.
I
wow
a N
I
Z
Z
0
Id ,
a
0
X =
wll
o
I o3
m l
1Y
d
`m a la
6) G-- d1S 2JVJ
g H�8g8- _
I
b1N0
I m 1
a o v
H
3ar�saxm
w
(n
_ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _
---------------- - - - - -- - --
d"
W
z ""mra 3xn u�eaoea
W
Q Ls��ia3a3a�osz
------------------
i°.
1
zo
i
- r o
I�
I�
88ry_,Z—S
9 58
�
_n x
Z -
Q
(G—
_
lool
__
D�
m
I.
I
I I
I
_ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _
---------------- - - - - -- - --
d"
W
z ""mra 3xn u�eaoea
W
Q Ls��ia3a3a�osz
------------------
i°.
1
i
lx
I
I�
I�
W
_
I
L iS3�dd 8J S2J3;1 d1S 2JVJ
saet
(G—
_
lool
l
I, `
-----------
D�
m
I.
I
I I
I
Z
I
0
Id ,
a
0
X =
wll
o
I o3
m l
----------
`m a la
6) G-- d1S 2JVJ
zEe5
(—dd e)S2J31 VI -3
I
�'
I I•
3ar�saxm
I �
J
"
Lu
Z
z
-
~ a
�
fn LL
X
W
I
F
_ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _
---------------- - - - - -- - --
d"
W
z ""mra 3xn u�eaoea
W
Q Ls��ia3a3a�osz
% Hid--
\
/� \
(:
:
IN.
( (
\ \ (\
❑❑❑
o _-n_ge
(n
�EVfty Q M
L J w
w
00
O O Q w
cl c
w clw
w w F
IQ
Elp ❑ ❑ EIEIEI
N Z -
- - E
ro E
a }E�
00 0o U`n
66
ZmQU
Uw�Z
"ro�J uKaU
DOQw
® _E 0�uaim
®® _ EEEEEEEEEEE
❑ i °olio° i �❑
s= o
w
IM
LF
o.I IFa
=v o�
- ° n
0 1.
■'N' -u .Ii �1, ■■ .
2! I
No
6
n"Timm!
■h
®om■
r
moE
000EI.,
•
p f
■I�i�II
III■
�I�
�9 EMB
VII 11I
W
■■I .—��►
�i�■IIN■i■I■.I■■aim
Mani
■I.I■■
�I■I!'m!IN�!v'�I■I■■
h
--
m m
iil l
■
■ ■
MEIN
MEIN MEIN_
il.■��. �� f I; � I��
���� iii
N®NN�NN�® I
■'N' -u .Ii �1, ■■ .
2! I
No
6
n"Timm!
■h
moE
000EI.,
000E
p f
■'N' -u .Ii �1, ■■ .
2! I
No
6
n"Timm!
■h
tRJ F
Efti Ah
rte' Milli
r -
��I i
A,:I'
�' _� �.■ tom' r4 -Jwf
REVEAL
-<� �Ilwi %��-----
:�
�i■i��■�i�■ice
I Ir��
APPENDIX
TREE
PRESERVATION
PLAN &
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
Page 217 of 224
APPENDIX
D
QUALIFICATIONS
OF AUTHOR
Page 220 of 224
Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
CULTURAL HERITAGE SPECIALIST
YEARS WITH FIRM — 1.5
Profile
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE - 12
Ms. Benjamin is a Cultural Heritage Specialist at WSP. She has 12 years of experience in
cultural heritage conservation gained through work in private, academic and government
AREAS OF PRACTICE
organizations. She is practiced at providing professional heritage planning
Cultural Heritage Planning
recommendations and expertise on complex studies and cultural heritage assessments.
Cultural Heritage Assessments
Through her work as a Regional Cultural Heritage Planner, Ms. Benjamin researched,
Heritage Evaluations
drafted and implemented policies for the Regional Official Plan and other planning
Environmental Assessments
documents regarding the recognition, review and conservation of cultural heritage
Heritage Conservation Districts
resources, including archaeological resources, heritage bridges, scenic roads and cultural
Cultural Heritage Landscape
heritage landscapes.
Inventories
Ms. Benjamin became skillful in the evaluation and analysis of cultural heritage
Bridge Inventories / Evaluations
resources by serving as a Team Lead on the former Ministry of Tourism, Cultural and
EDUCATION
Sport's Historic Places Initiative that drafted over 850 Statements of Significance. She
MAES Planning, University of
was also the Primary Author of Arch, Truss and Beam: The Grand River Watershed
Waterloo, ON, 2013
Heritage Bridge Inventory and Series Editor for Phase 2 of Heritage Districts Work!, a
study of 32 heritage conservation districts across Ontario.
BES, Honours Planning Co-op,
Ms. Benjamin's experience as a consultant project manager has focused on large-scale
University of Waterloo, 2007
landscape studies such as Heritage Conservation District Studies and Cultural Heritage
CAREER
Landscape Inventories and implementation. She is also practiced at completing
Cultural Heritage Specialist,
assessments for a variety of private and public -sector clients under the Planning Act or
Environment, WSP, 2020 -Present
through the Environmental Assessment process including CHRAs, CHERs, HIAs,
Documentation and Salvage Reports, Designation Reports and Peer Reviews.
Project Manager — Heritage, ARA
Ltd., 2017-2020
Select Relevant Experience
Cultural Heritage Planner, Region
Heritage Planning
of Waterloo, 2013-2017
— Bond Head Heritage Conservation District Study, Town of Bradford West
Heritage Planner, Heritage
Gwillimbury (2020). Project Manager completing a two-phase study including a
Resources Centre, University of
Background & Issues Identification Report, land use planning review, program
Waterloo, 2009-2013
of public consultation, report writing, recommendations and heritage committee
and council presentations. Client: Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.
Team Lead, Heritage Resources
Centre, University of Waterloo,
— Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory, City of Waterloo (2019). Project
2006-2007
Manager completing the identification and evaluation of 27 significant cultural
PROFESSIONAL
heritage landscapes, program of public consultation, report writing and
ASSOCIATIONS
recommendations to Council. Client: City of Waterloo.
Canadian Association of Heritage
— Cultural Heritage Landscape Implementation for Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Professionals (CARP)
within the KW Hospital Secondary Plan, City of Kitchener (2019). Technical
lead completing field review, Statements of Significance and boundaries for six
Member of the Canadian Institute
landscapes, recommended conservation measures and report drafting. Client:
of Planners (MCIP)
City of Kitchener.
Registered Professional Planner
— Regional Implementation Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Landscape
(RPP)
Conservation and the Conservation of Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage
Resources (2017). Cultural Heritage Planner completing policy review and
policy drafting, stakeholder consultation and staff report preparation.
Cultural Heritage Assessments
Selected Cultural Heritage Resource Assessments
— Highway 401 Planning & Preliminary Design EA Study Cultural Heritage
Resource Assessment Report, Town of Colborne to Municipality of Brighton
(2021). Cultural Heritage Specialist conducting a large-scale field review of
Page 221 of 224
Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
CULTURAL HERITAGE SPECIALIST
hundreds of properties in a 17 km study area identifying potential cultural
heritage resources. Completed report preparation, stakeholder engagement, and
preliminary impact assessment. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Eastern
Region.
— Highway 7A & County Road 10 Intersection Improvements EA Cultural
Heritage Assessment Report, Township of Cavan Monaghan (2020). Cultural
Heritage Specialist conducting a field review of existing conditions of the study
area, composed of a nineteenth century crossroads community. Identified
recognized and potential cultural heritage resources, completed stakeholder
consultation, report writing, and preliminary impact assessment. Client: Ministry
of Transportation, Eastern Region.
— Ottawa Street EA Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment,
City of Kitchener (2019). Project Manager conducting field review identifying
potential cultural heritage resources and report preparation with preliminary
impact assessment. Client: MTE.
Selected Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports
— 8 Lviv Boulevard & 627 Albert Street Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports,
City of Oshawa (2021). Cultural Heritage Specialist conducting thorough
historical research of the study areas, field review, photographic documentation,
stakeholder consultation, evaluation of both properties according to Ontario
Regulation (O. Reg.) 9/06 and 10/06 and recommendation of cultural heritage
value or interest. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Central Region.
— McDuff's Corner Presbyterian Cemetery Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,
Municipality of Brockton (2019). Project Manager conducting thorough
historical research for study area, field review, photographic documentation,
stakeholder consultation, evaluation of cemetery according to Ontario
Regulation 9/06 and 10/06 and recommendation of cultural heritage value or
interest. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Ontario.
— Abitibi Canyon Generating Station and Little Long Main Dam Cultural Heritage
Evaluation Reports, Pinard and Harmon Townships (2018). Project Manager
conducting historical research for study area in northern Ontario, remote field
review, photographic documentation, Indigenous consultation, evaluation of
properties according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 and 10/06 and recommendation
of cultural heritage value or interest. HIA completed for Abitibi Canyon GS
former Staff House. Client: Ontario Power Generation.
Selected Heritage Impact Assessments
— 49 Queenston Road, Town of Niagara -on -the -Lake Heritage Impact Assessment
(In progress). Cultural Heritage Specialist conducting field review and interior
and exterior photographic documentation of existing conditions, stakeholder
consultation, assessment of potential impacts to heritage attributes, and
recommended appropriate mitigation and conservation options considering
retention, relocation and documentation and salvage of the property and its
heritage attributes. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Central Region.
— Bosworth Bridge Heritage Impact Assessment, Municipality of Mapleton
(2021). Cultural Heritage Specialist completing assessment of impacts and
Page 222 of 224
Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
CULTURAL HERITAGE SPECIALIST
recommendation of mitigation measures for the replacement of the circa 1949
Warren Camelback steel pony truss. Client: County of Wellington.
— Old Deny Road Bridge Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Mississauga
(2020). Project Manager conducting field review, stakeholder consultation,
assessment of impacts and recommendation of mitigation measures for
designated bridge in the Meadowvale Village HCD. Client: McIntosh Perry.
— 5383-5385 Robinson Street Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Niagara Falls
(2019). Project Manager evaluating impacts from proposed multi -tower hotel
development adjacent to Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape, a
provincially significant provincial heritage property. Completed detailed impact
mitigation for each attribute of the adjacent landscape. Client: Canadian Niagara
Hotels.
— 120 King Street North Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo (2019).
Project Manager overseeing historical research for study area, conducting field
review and photographic documentation, evaluation of dwelling according to
Ontario Regulation 9/06, assessed impact to heritage attributes, recommended
appropriate mitigation measures. Client: JPGH Bains Property Inc.
Selected Documentation/Strategic Conservation Plans
— Garden City Skyway Strategic Conservation Plan, City of St. Catharines (In
progress). Cultural Heritage Specialist completing the documentation that will
set the long-term vision and framework for decision-making to guide the
management of the provincial heritage property of provincial significance.
Client: Ministry of Transportation, Central Region.
— Kingston Psychiatric Hospital Strategic Conservation Plan, City of Kingston
(2018). Technical lead conducting through documentation of a multi -building
provincially -significant complex. Contributed to the drafting of conservation
strategies and recommendations for future use. Client: Infrastructure Ontario.
— 264 Governors Road Documentation and Salvage Report, City of Hamilton
(2017). Project Manager completing a documentation and salvage report in
accordance with the City of Hamilton's guidelines. Included archival research,
field review, thorough photographic documentation, recommendations for
curation and reuse of building elements. Client: Intero Development Group Inc.
Heritage Designation
Union Hotel (425 Huron Street) and 417 Church Street, Town of Newmarket
(2018). Conducted thorough historical research, field review, evaluated
properties according to Ontario Regulation 9/06, recommended designation
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
— Westdale Theatre, 1014 King Street West, City of Hamilton (2017). Evaluated
property according to Ontario Regulation 9/06, recommended designation under
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, presented recommendations to Hamilton
Municipal Heritage Committee.
Page 223 of 224