HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-268 - Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 130-142 Victoria St S
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: June 7, 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 9
DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2022
REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-268
SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
130-142 Victoria Street South
RECOMMENDATION:
For Information.
REPORT:
The Planning Division is in receipt of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated December
2021, prepared by Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. regarding a proposal to develop the
subject properties municipally addressed as 130-142 Victoria Street South.
One of the subject properties, 142 Victoria Street South, is listed as a non-designated
Another property, 130 Victoria Street South, was proposed for listing by staff; however, at
Victoria Street South is located adjacent to a listed property at 131 Victoria Street South.
Additionally, all of the subject properties are located within the Warehouse District Cultural
dated 2014 and approved by Council in 2015. The Warehouse District CHL has been
identified as possessing historical integrity, cultural value and community value with heritage
The proposed development comprises a twenty-five (25) storey residential building with two
(2) storeys of underground parking. There will be retail on the ground floor, live/work units,
and shared offices on the second floor. The proposed building will front onto Victoria Street
six
(6) storeys and 20.6 metres in height with a façade divided generally into five bays. The
proposed development includes the demolition of all the three subject properties. The HIA
determined that only 142 Victoria Street South meets the criteria for designation under
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Ontario Reg. 9/06. As such, the HIA mainly focuses on the potential impacts of the proposed
development on 142 Victoria Street South.
Heritage Planning staff are currently in the process of reviewing the HIA and will be providing
detailed comments to the applicant to address any areas that require further assessment
and discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning staff are seeking the co
the draft HIA and these comments will be taken into consideration as staff continues to
review the HIA and associated planning applications. A motion or recommendation to
Council will not be required at the June meeting.
A copy of the HIA is attached to this report.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Planning Act
Ontario Heritage Act
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 130-142 Victoria Street
South
F INAL R EPORT:
Heritage Impact Assessment
130 – 142 Victoria Street South,
Kitchener, Ontario
LHC | Heritage
Planning and
Archaeology
837 Princess Street, Suite 400
Kingston, ON
K7L 1G8
Phone: 613-507-7817
Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817
E-mail: info@lhcheritage.com
December 2021
Project # LHC0247
Project # LHC0247
This page has been left blank deliberately
ii
Project # LHC0247
Report prepared for: Nusrat Govindji (Owner)
1232119 Ontario Inc.
564 Strathmere Crescent
Waterloo ON
N2T 2K2
Report prepared by: Hayley Devitt Nabuurs, MPl
Lisa Coles, BA (Hons)
Colin Yu, MA
Jordan Greene, BA
Reviewed by: Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP
iii
Project # LHC0247
RIGHT OF USE
The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of
Nusrat Govindji (the “Owner”). Any other use of this report by others without permission is
prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other
documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work
product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only the Owners and
approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies as well as any appeal bodies) to
make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of
the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and
opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Owners and approved users.
REPORT LIMITATIONS
The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A:
Project Personnel. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements
of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. All comments regarding the
condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not
a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering
report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues
associated with any buildings on the property or the condition of any heritage attributes.
The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural
heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes,
cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report.
Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, access to archives were limited.
Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this HIA.
iv
Project # LHC0247
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the
complete report including background, results as well as limitations.
LHC was retained 11 February 2021 by Nusrat Govindji (the “Property Owner”) to undertake a
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 130, 138, and 142 Victoria Street South (the “Properties”)
in the City of Kitchener (the “City”), in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the “Region”).
The Property Owner is proposing to build a 25-storey residential building with two-storeys of
underground parking, retail on the ground floor, and live/work units and shared offices on the
second floor.
This HIA is being prepared to evaluate the cultural heritage value of the Properties, outline heritage
planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage
attributes of the properties and surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives
to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended
methodology outlined within the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries’
(MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener’s Heritage Impact Assessment Terms
of Reference.
The HIA resulted in the following findings and recommendations:
In LHC’s professional opinion, the property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street South
meets criteria 1.i. of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical value, the property municipally
known as 138 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06, and the
property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South meets criteria 1.i. of O. Reg. 9/06
for its design and physical value.
Potential project-related adverse impacts were identified for all heritage attributes of 130
and 142 Victoria Street South if the buildings are removed for the proposed development.
Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts were
explored and found to not be feasible within the context of the project.
A combination of Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed
Development (Option 4) and Panelization (Option 5) is the preferred option. This alternative
helps partially mitigate the loss of the Properties’ heritage attributes. The reuse of salvaged
materials and retention of key elements as architectural inspiration in a distinctive corner
component of the podium, reflects the heritage attributes within the new development. This
option also sees the extensive reuse of salvaged buff bricks from both 130 and 142 Victoria
Street South and the incorporation of heritage attributes from both properties as design
features in communal spaces. This includes use of the drive-thru canopy in an exterior
amenity space above the podium.
It is recommended that as design progresses and is refined, additional elements from the
Properties, such as the Victoria Apartments front entrance and the date stone, be
incorporated to the fullest extent possible. Should the date stone be incorporated into the
development, it is recommended that it be accompanied by interpretive plaquing or signage
to avoid the creation of “fake heritage”.
v
Project # LHC0247
Table of Contents
RIGHT OF USE ........................................................................................................................ IV
REPORT LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................... IV
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTIES ........................................................................... 1
1.1 Properties Owner ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Properties Location .............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Properties Description .......................................................................................... 1
1.4 Properties Heritage Status ................................................................................... 1
STUDY APPROACH ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2018) ......... 6
2.2 Legislative/Policy Review ..................................................................................... 9
2.3 Historic Research ................................................................................................. 9
2.4 Site Visit ............................................................................................................. 10
2.5 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................ 10
POLICY FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Provincial Planning Context................................................................................ 12
3.1.1 The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 ............................................................. 12
3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) ..................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18 ......................................................... 13
3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005 ................................................................. 14
3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) .......... 15
3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 ................................................................. 16
3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary ............................................................... 16
3.2 Regional Planning Context ................................................................................. 16
3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) ....................................... 16
3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) ................... 20
3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary ................................................................. 21
3.3 Local Planning Context ...................................................................................... 21
3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) .................................................................. 21
3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019)................................ 26
3.3.3 Local Planning Context Summary ...................................................................... 28
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 30
vi
Project # LHC0247
4.1 Early Indigenous History .................................................................................... 30
4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE) .......................................................................... 30
4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE) ....................................................................... 30
4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE – CE 1650)........................................................... 30
4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Historic Context ...................................... 31
4.3 Region of Waterloo ............................................................................................ 34
4.4 City of Kitchener ................................................................................................. 34
4.5 Property History ................................................................................................. 35
4.5.1 130 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 35
4.5.2 138 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 37
4.5.3 142 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 38
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................... 46
5.1 130 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 46
5.2 138 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 53
5.3 142 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 58
5.4 Surrounding Context .......................................................................................... 65
5.5 Adjacent Heritage Properties .............................................................................. 68
EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 72
6.1 130 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 72
6.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation .................................................................... 72
6.1.2 Summary ............................................................................................................ 74
6.2 138 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 74
6.2.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation .................................................................... 74
6.2.2 Summary ............................................................................................................ 76
6.3 142 Victoria Street South ................................................................................... 76
6.3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation .................................................................... 76
6.3.2 Summary ............................................................................................................ 79
6.3.3 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ................................ 79
6.3.4 Heritage Attributes ............................................................................................. 79
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................... 81
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES .......................................... 87
8.1 Potential Impacts to 142 Victoria Street South ................................................... 87
vii
Project # LHC0247
8.2 Summary of Potential Impacts ............................................................................ 89
CONSIDERED MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES ............................... 90
9.1 Considered Options ........................................................................................... 90
9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use ........................................................ 90
9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use ...................................................... 90
9.1.3 Option 3: Relocation Within the Parcel ............................................................... 90
9.1.4 Option 4: Retention of 142 Victoria Street South and Integration into Proposed
Development ...................................................................................................... 90
9.1.5 Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into
Proposed Development ...................................................................................... 91
9.1.6 Option 6: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop ....................................... 91
9.2 Preferred Option ................................................................................................. 91
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 93
SIGNATURES .......................................................................................................................... 94
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 95
11.1 Policy and Legislation Resources ....................................................................... 95
11.2 Mapping Resources ........................................................................................... 97
11.3 Archival Resources ............................................................................................ 98
11.4 Additional Resources ......................................................................................... 99
APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL ................................................................................ 102
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY .................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX C: CITY DIRECTORY RECORDS FOR THE PROPERTIES ............................... 109
APPENDIX D: LAND REGISTRY RECORDS FOR THE PROPERTIES ................................ 113
130 Victoria Street South Lot 10 .......................................................................................... 113
138 Victoria Street South Lot 9 ............................................................................................ 116
142 Victoria Street South Lot 8 ............................................................................................ 119
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location Plan ................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Surveyor Thomas Ridout’s map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 1821 ....................... 32
Figure 4: Haldimand Tract ............................................................................................................. 33
Figure 5: Advertisement for MacIntosh Cleaners Ltd. in the 1940 city directory ............................ 36
Figure 6: MacIntosh Cleaners in 2016 after closing ....................................................................... 37
viii
Project # LHC0247
Figure 7: 1931 city directory entry listing new house and new apartments .................................... 37
Figure 8: 1815, 1861, and 1881 historic maps showing the Properties .......................................... 40
Figure 9: 1875 Birds-Eye View showing approximate location of the Properties ........................... 41
Figure 10: 1925 and 1947 Fire Insurance Plans showing the Properties ....................................... 42
Figure 11: 1927, 1933, 1969, and 1976 topographic maps showing the Properties....................... 43
Figure 12: 1930, 1945, 1955, and 1963 aerial photos showing the Properties .............................. 44
Figure 13: 1975, 1990, and 2003 aerial photos showing the Properties ........................................ 45
Figure 14: View northwest of southeast façade ............................................................................. 47
Figure 15: View southwest of parking lot ....................................................................................... 48
Figure 16: View of interior entrance from main door ...................................................................... 48
Figure 17: View northwest of northeast elevation .......................................................................... 49
Figure 18: View southeast of northeast elevation .......................................................................... 49
Figure 19: View of rusted metal brackets on northeast elevation ................................................... 50
Figure 20: View of rusted metal grate on northeast elevation ........................................................ 50
Figure 21: View southeast of northwest and southwest elevations ................................................ 51
Figure 22: Panoramic view northeast of southwest elevation ........................................................ 51
Figure 23: View northeast of southwest and southeast elevation .................................................. 52
Figure 24: View southwest of façade............................................................................................. 54
Figure 25: Panoramic view of northeast elevation ......................................................................... 54
Figure 26: View southwest of northwest elevation ......................................................................... 55
Figure 27: View northwest of northwest elevation and southwest elevations ................................. 55
Figure 28: View northwest of southwest elevation ......................................................................... 56
Figure 29: View of northeast basement window ............................................................................ 56
Figure 30: View southwest of porch .............................................................................................. 57
Figure 31: View northeast of porch brackets and opening ............................................................. 57
Figure 32: View southwest of southeast façade ............................................................................ 59
Figure 33: View northwest of southwest corner ............................................................................. 59
Figure 34: View of main entrance .................................................................................................. 60
Figure 35: View southwest of northeast elevation ......................................................................... 60
Figure 36: View southwest of northwest elevation ......................................................................... 61
Figure 37: View southeast of southwest elevation ......................................................................... 61
Figure 38: Interior of first floor unit, general conditions .................................................................. 62
Figure 39: Interior, front stairs ....................................................................................................... 62
Figure 40: Laundry room ............................................................................................................... 63
Figure 41: First floor hallway ......................................................................................................... 63
Figure 42: Rear stairs ................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 43: Window in rear stair well .............................................................................................. 64
Figure 44: View southwest along Victoria Street South ................................................................. 66
Figure 45: View northeast along Victoria Street South .................................................................. 66
Figure 46: View of adjacent development ..................................................................................... 67
Figure 47: View north of parking lots behind Properties ................................................................ 67
Figure 48: View northwest of residential land use ......................................................................... 68
Figure 49: Listed property at 131 Victoria Street South looking southeast across from Properties 69
Figure 50: View northeast of the northwest and southwest elevations of 120 Victoria Street ......... 71
Figure 51: Perspective view .......................................................................................................... 82
ix
Project # LHC0247
Figure 52: North view .................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 53: East view ..................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 54: West view .................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 55: South view ................................................................................................................... 86
List of Tables
Table 1: City of Kitchener’s Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements ........ 6
Table 2: Regional Municipality of Waterloo Relevant Official Plan Policies.................................... 17
Table 3: City of Kitchener Relevant Official Plan Policies .............................................................. 22
Table 4: Zoning By-law 2019-051 MU-1 Permitted Uses ............................................................... 27
Table 5: Zoning By-law 2019-051 MU-1 Regulations .................................................................... 27
Table 6: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 130 Victoria Street South .................................... 72
Table 7: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 138 Victoria Street South .................................... 74
Table 8: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 142 Victoria Street South .................................... 76
Table 9: Impact assessment of the heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South ...................... 87
Table 10: City Directory Records for the Properties .................................................................... 109
Table 11: 130 Victoria Street South Lot 10 Ownership ................................................................ 113
Table 12: 138 Victoria Street South Lot 9 Ownership .................................................................. 116
Table 13: 142 Victoria Street South Lot 8 Ownership .................................................................. 119
x
Project # LHC0247
This page has been left blank deliberately
xi
Project # LHC0247
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTIES
LHC was retained 11 February 2021 by Nusrat Govindji (the “Property Owner”) to undertake a
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the three properties located at 130, 138, and 142 Victoria
Street South (the “Properties”) in the City of Kitchener (the “City”), in the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo (the “Region”).
The Property Owner is proposing to build a 25-storey residential tower with two storeys of
underground parking, retail on the ground floor, and live/work units and shared offices on the
second floor. This HIA is being prepared to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the
Properties and to outline heritage planning constraints affected by the proposed development.
This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries’ (MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Toolkit
and the City of Kitchener’s 2018 Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (HIA ToR).
1.1PropertiesOwner
The Property is owned by Nusrat Govindji (1232119 Ontario Inc.) of 564 Strathmere Crescent,
Waterloo, Ontario.
1.2 Properties Location
The Properties are located on the north side of Victoria Street South at the corner of Bramm
Street and Michael Street in the Victoria Park area of the City of Kitchener, Ontario (Figure 1).
1.3 Properties Description
The lot is rectangular, measuring approximately 55 m long by 35 m wide (Figure 2). There are
three buildings each associated with a municipal address: a one-and-a-half-storey pharmacy at
130 Victoria Street South, a two-and-a-half-storey house at 138 Victoria Street South, and a
three-storey apartment building at 142 Victoria Street South. A parking lot extends along the
north end of the lots.
1.4 Properties Heritage Status
The property located at 130 Victoria Street South was considered for listing on the City of
Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register in 2010 but was not pursued due to opposition from the
1
A Statement of Significance was prepared by the City for the property and
owner at the time.
reads:
Heritage Value
130 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historical
and associative values.
The design and physical values relate to the Art Deco architectural style that is in
good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: brick
1
City of Kitchener Council, “City of Kitchener Council Minutes February 1, 2010,” Laserfiche Web Link,
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/5u4na5nyecp0ospgkl4gljlm/14/Council%20-%202010-02-01.pdf,
27.
1
Project # LHC0247
construction;yellow, black and green vitrolite; and triangular metal drive-in
overhang.
The contextual value relates to the building’s location and design. The building is
located at the corner of Victoria Street South and Bramm Street. The building was
designed for the corner location so that clients could drive in off of one street and
exit on to the opposite street.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 130 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage
attributes:
All elements related to the construction and Art Deco architectural style of the
building, including:
o brick construction;
o yellow, black and green vitrolite; and,
2
o triangular metal drive-in overhang
The property located at 132 Victoria Street South does not have heritage recognition and has
not previously been considered for listing on the Municipal Register.
The property located at 142 Victoria Street South was listed on the City of Kitchener Municipal
3
Heritage Register by Council resolution on 1 February 2010. A Statement of Significance was
prepared by the City for the property and reads:
Heritage Value
142 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design, physical, values.
The design and physical values relate to the Art Deco architectural style that is in
good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: yellow
rugged and smooth brick construction; decorative stone details, including door
surround, lintels, sills and date stone that reads "1931 "; and hung windows.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 142 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage
attributes:
All elements related to the construction and Art Deco architectural style of
the building, including:
o yellow rugged and smooth brick construction;
2
Michelle Wade, “DTS- 00510 Listing of Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value of Interest
on the Municipal Heritage Register, “Heritage Kitchener Committee, December 16, 2009, Laserfiche Web
Link, https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/5u4na5nyecp0ospgkl4gljlm/15/DTS-10-005%20-
%20Listing%20of%20Non-Designated%20Property%20of%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Value%20.pdf.
3
City of Kitchener Council, “City of Kitchener Council Minutes February 1, 2010,” 27.
2
Project # LHC0247
o roof and roofline;
o decorative stone details, including door surround, lintels, sills and
date stone that reads "1931 "; and,
4
o window openings with hung windows
4
Wade, “DTS- 00510 Listing of Non-Designated Property,” December 16, 2009.
3
KEY MAP
SCALE1:3,000,000
00.512Kilometers
TITLE
Legend
Location Plan
CLIENT
Properties
Nusrat Govindji
PROJECTPROJECT NO. LHC0247
Heritage Impact Assessment
130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo
CONSULTANT
NOTE(S)
YYYY-MM-DD2021-05-10
1. All locations are approximate.
REFERENCE(S)PREPAREDLHC
1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO,
NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),
DESIGNEDJG
(c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license.
Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
FIGURE #
1
02.5510Meters
TITLE
Legend
Site Plan
CLIENT
Properties
Nusrat Govindji
PROJECTPROJECT NO. LHC0247
Heritage Impact Assessment
130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo
CONSULTANT
NOTE(S)
YYYY-MM-DD2021-05-10
1. All locations are approximate.
REFERENCE(S)PREPAREDLHC
1. Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
DESIGNEDJG
Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license.
Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
FIGURE #
2
Project # LHC0247
STUDY APPROACH
LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage
resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada’s
Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and
5
Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves:
MHSTCI Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.
1) Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential)
through research, consultation, and evaluation–when necessary.
2) Understanding the setting, context, and condition of the cultural heritage resource through
research, site visit and analysis.
3) Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage
resource.
The impact assessment is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Resources in the
Land Use Planning Process, Information Sheet #5, Heritage Impact Assessments and
Conservation Plans. A description of the proposed development or site alteration, measurement
of development or site impact and consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation
6
methods are included as part of planning for the cultural heritage resource. The HIA includes
recommendations for design and heritage conservation to guide interventions to the Properties.
2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2018)
The City’s HIA ToR require an assessment to determine potential impacts to cultural heritage
resources by proposed development. An HIA prepared for the City:
…shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning
application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural
heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes
recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative
impacts to those resources.
Requirements of an HIA submitted to the City include the following:
Table 1: City of Kitchener’s Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements
Requirement Location
Present owner contact information for properties proposed
Found in Section 1.1 of this HIA.
for development and/or site alteration.
A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from Found in Section 4.0 of this HIA.
the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s).
A written description of the buildings, structures and Found in Section 5.0 of this HIA.
landscape features on the subject properties including:
5
Canada’s Historic Places, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada”, 2010, 3; MHSTCI, “Heritage Property Evaluation” Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18.
6
MHSTCI, “Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process” Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006
6
Project # LHC0247
Requirement Location
building elements, building materials, architectural and
interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and
landscaping. The description will also include a
chronological history of the buildings’ development, such
as additions and demolitions.
The report shall include a clear statement of the
Found in Section 6.0 of this HIA
conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and
interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list
of heritage attributes. If applicable, the statement shall
also address the value and significance of adjacent
protected heritage property.
Documentation of the subject properties to include: current Found in Section 5.0 of this HIA.
photographs of each elevation of the buildings,
photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan
drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of
the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also
include where available, current floor plans, and historical
photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival
material.
An outline of the proposed development, its context, and Found in Section 7.0 of this HIA.
how it will impact the properties (subject property and if
applicable adjacent protected heritage properties)
including buildings, structures, and site details including
landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical
impact of the proposed development on the identified
heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed.
The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential
negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport’s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative
impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that
are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural
heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural
heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the
influence and potential impact of the development on the
setting and character of the subject properties and
adjacent protected heritage property.
Options shall be provided that explain how the significant Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA.
cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of
mitigation may include, but are not limited to,
preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re-use,
integration of all or part of the heritage resource,
7
Project # LHC0247
Requirement Location
relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a
sympathetic context for the heritage resource.
A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles
Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA.
and how they will be used must be included. Conservation
principles may be found in online publications such as: the
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding
Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties
(Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the
Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport).
Proposedrepairs, alterations and demolitions must be Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA.
justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage
value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood
context.
Recommendations shall be as specific as possible,
Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA.
describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials,
landscaping, etc.
The qualifications and background of the person(s)
Found in Appendix A of this HIA.
completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be
included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a
level of professional understanding and competence in the
heritage conservation field of study.
The report will also include a reference for any literature Found in Section 11.0 of this
cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and HIA
referenced in the report.
The summary statement should provide a full description Found in Section 10.0 of this
of:HIA.
The significance and heritage attributes of the
subject properties.
The identification of any impact the proposed
development will have on the heritage attributes of
the subject properties, including adjacent protected
heritage property.
An explanation of what conservation or mitigative
measures, or alternative development, or site
alteration approaches are recommended.
8
Project # LHC0247
Requirement Location
Clarification as to why specific conservation or
mitigative measures, or alternative development or
site alteration approaches are not appropriate.
The consultant must write a recommendation as to Found in Section 6.0 of this HIA.
whether the subject properties are worthyof listing or
designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the
consultant not support heritage designation then it must be
clearly stated as to why the subject property does not
meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06.
The following questions must be answered in the
mandatory recommendation of the report:
1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the
Municipal Heritage Register as a Non-Designated
Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest?
2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage
designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the
Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not?
3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for
heritage listing or designation then it must be
clearly stated as to why they do not.
4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for
heritage listing or designation, do the properties
warrant conservation as per the definition in the
Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not?
2.2 Legislative/Policy Review
The HIA includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and
relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and
policy framework that applies to the Property. The impact assessment considers the proposed
project against this framework.
2.3 Historic Research
Historical research was undertaken to outline the history and development of the Property and
its broader community context. Primary historic material, including air photos and mapping,
were obtained from:
Library and Archives Canada;
Department of National Defence;
9
Project # LHC0247
Ancestry;
Waterloo Open Data;
University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection;
University of Toronto; and,
Kitchener Public Library.
Secondary research was compiled from sources such as: historical atlases, local histories,
architectural reference texts, available online sources, and previous assessments. All sources
and persons contacted in the preparation of this report are listed as footnotes and in the report's
reference list.
2.4Site Visit
A site visit was undertaken by Colin Yu on 26 April 2021. The primary objective of the site visit
was to document and gain an understanding of the Properties and their surrounding context.
The site visit included a documentation of the surrounding area, and exterior views of the
structures. Interiors were not accessed due to health and safety considerations related to
COVID restrictions at the time. A second site visit was undertaken on 11 November 2021 by
Christienne Uchiyama. The second site visit included documentation of the surrounding area
and exteriors of the three properties. Portions of the interior of 142 Victoria Street South were
accessed during the November site visit.
2.5 Impact Assessment
7
The MHSTCI’s Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans
outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or
property alteration. The impacts include, but are not limited to:
1) Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features;
2) Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and
appearance;
3) Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the
viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden;
4) Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a
significant relationship;
5) Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and
natural features;
6) A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential
use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces;
and
7
MHSCTI “Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Info Sheet #5” in Heritage Resources
in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial
Policy Statement, 2005 (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006)
10
Project # LHC0247
7)Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns
that adversely affect an archaeological resource.
The HIA includes a consideration of direct and indirect adverse impacts on adjacent properties
with known or potential cultural heritage value or interest in Section 8.0.
11
Project # LHC0247
POLICY FRAMEWORK
3.1 Provincial Planning Context
In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage
resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural
heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the Planning
Act, the OHA, and the PPS. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or
in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support
for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. They also provide a legal framework
through which minimum standards for heritage evaluation are established. What follows is an
analysis of the applicable legislation and policy regarding the identification and evaluation of
cultural heritage.
The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in
Ontario. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d):
The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and
the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall
have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as…the
conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical,
8
archaeological or scientific interest.
Under Section 1 of The Planning Act:
A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a
minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the
government, including the Tribunal, in respect of the exercise of any authority
9
that affects a planning matter...shall be consistent with \[the PPS\].
Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the
province are outlined in the PPS which makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all
other considerations concerning planning and development within the province.
The PPS provides further direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements and sets
the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land in Ontario. Land use
planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or
agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The Province deems cultural
heritage and archaeological resources to provide important environmental, economic, and social
benefits, and PPS directly addresses cultural heritage in Section 1.7.1e and Section 2.6.
8
Province of Ontario, “Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13,” December 8, 2020,
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13, Part I (2, d).
9
Province of Ontario, “Planning Act,” Part I S.5.
12
Project # LHC0247
Section 1.7 of the PPS regards long-term economic prosperity and promotes cultural heritage
as a tool for economic prosperity. The relevant subsection states that long-term economic
prosperity should be supported by:
1.7.1e encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and
cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including
built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.
Section 2.6 of the PPS articulates provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology.
Subsection’s state:
2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage
landscapes shall be conserved.
2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands
containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless
significant archaeological resources have been conserved.
2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on
adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed
development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will
be conserved.
2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological
management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and
archaeological resources.
2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and
consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural
10
heritage and archaeological resources.
The definition of significance in the PPS states that criteria for determining significance for
11
cultural heritage resources are determined by the Province under the authority of the OHA.
The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations and
recognizes that there are complex interrelationships among environmental, economic and social
factors in land use planning. It is intended to be read in its entirety and relevant policies applied
in each situation.
A HIA may be required by a municipality in response to Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 to conserve built
heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and the heritage attributes of a protected
heritage property.
The OHA and associated regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a
key consideration in the land-use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of
10
Province of Ontario, “Provincial Policy Statement,” 2020, 29.
11
Province of Ontario, “Provincial Policy Statement,” 2020, 51.
13
Project # LHC0247
heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve
12
individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest.
Part I (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the
conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. The OHA and associated
regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the
land-use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in
the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties,
13
districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest. O. Reg. 9/06 and Ontario
Regulation 10/06 (O. Reg. 10/06) outline criteria for determining cultural heritage value or
interest and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance.
Individual heritage properties are designated by municipalities under Section 29, Part IV of the
OHA. A municipality may list a property on a municipal heritage register under Section 27, Part
IV of the OHA. A municipality may designate heritage conservation districts under Section 41,
Part V of the OHA. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual
structures.
Amendments to the OHA were announced by the Province under Bill 108: More Homes, More
Choices Act and came into effect on July 1, 2021. Previously, municipal council’s decision to
protect a property determined to be significant under the OHA was final with appeals being
taken to the Conservation Review Board, who played an advisory role. With Bill 108 proclaimed,
decisions are appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal for adjudication.
Sections 33 and 34 Part IV and Section 42 Part V of the OHA require owners of designated
heritage properties to obtain a permit or approval in writing from a municipality/municipal council
to alter, demolish or remove a structure from a designated heritage property. These sections
also enable a municipality to require an applicant to provide information or material that council
considers it may need to decide which may include a CHIA.
Under Section 27(3), a property owner must not demolish or remove a building or structure
unless they give council at least 60 days notice in writing. Under Section 27(5) council may
require plans and other information to be submitted with this notice which may include a CHIA.
The Places to Grow Act guides growth in the province and was consolidated 1 June 2021. It is
intended:
a) to enable decisions about growth to be made in ways that sustain a robust
economy, build strong communities and promote a healthy environment and
a culture of conservation;
12
Province of Ontario, “Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18,” last modified April 19, 2021,
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18
13
Province of Ontario, “Ontario Heritage Act,” 2021
14
Project # LHC0247
b)to promote a rational and balanced approach to decisions about growth that
builds on community priorities, strengths and opportunities and makes
efficient use of infrastructure;
c) to enable planning for growth in a manner that reflects a broad geographical
perspective and is integrated across natural and municipal boundaries;
d) to ensure that a long-term vision and long-term goals guide decision-making
about growth and provide for the co-ordination of growth policies among all
14
levels of government.
This act is administered by the Ministry of Infrastructure and enables decision making across
municipal and regional boundaries for more efficient governance in the Greater Golden
Horseshoe area.
The Properties are located within the area regulated by A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan) which came into effect on 16 May 2019 and was
consolidated on 28 August 2020.
In Section 1.2.1, the Growth Plan states that its policies are based on key principles, which
includes:
Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic,
and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Métis
15
communities.
Section 4.1 Context, in the Growth Plan describes the area it covers as containing:
…a broad array of important hydrologic and natural heritage features and areas,
a vibrant and diverse agricultural land base, irreplaceable cultural heritage
16
resources, and valuable renewable and non-renewable resources.
It describes cultural heritage resources as:
The GGH also contains important cultural heritage resources that contribute to a
sense of identity, support a vibrant tourism industry, and attract investment based on
cultural amenities. Accommodating growth can put pressure on these resources
through development and site alteration. It is necessary to plan in a way that
protects and maximizes the benefits of these resources that make our communities
17
unique and attractive places to live.
Policies specific to cultural heritage resources are outlined in Section 4.2.7, as follows:
14
Province of Ontario, “Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13,” last modified April 19, 2021,
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05p13, 1.
15
Province of Ontario, “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” last modified
2020, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf, 6.
16
Province of Ontario, “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” 2020, 39.
17
Province of Ontario, “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” 2020, 39.
15
Project # LHC0247
1.Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and
benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas;
2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Métis
communities, in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the
identification, wise use and management of cultural heritage resources; and,
3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and
18
municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making.
Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow aligns the definitions of A Place to Grow with PPS 2020.
The Municipal Act was consolidated on 19 April 2021 and enables municipalities to be
19
The Municipal Act authorizes
responsible and accountable governments with their jurisdiction.
powers and duties for providing good government and is administered by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Amongst the many powers enabled by the Municipal Act is the power to create By-laws within
20
the municipalities sphere of jurisdiction. Under Section 11 (3) lower and upper tier
21
municipalities are given the power to pass by-laws on matters including culture and heritage.
Enabling municipalities to adopt a by-law or a resolution by Council to protect heritage, which
may include requirements for an HIA.
In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use
planning process with their own unique considerations. As the province, these policies and
guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires
significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved.
Multiple layers of municipal legislation enable a municipality to require a CHIA for alterations,
demolition or removal of a building or structure from a listed or designated heritage property.
These requirements support the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario following
provincial policy direction.
3.2RegionalPlanning Context
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP) was approved with modifications by
22
The ROP sets out
the Ontario Municipal Board on 18 June 2015 and is currently under review.
policies to guide growth and land use within the Region in keeping with provincial policy.
18
Province of Ontario, “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” 2020, 47.
19
Province of Ontario, “Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25,” last modified April 19, 2021,
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25.
20
Province of Ontario, “Municipal Act,” 2021, 11.
21
Province of Ontario, “Municipal Act,” 2021, 11(3).
22
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, “Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan,” last modified June
18, 2015, https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/land-use-planning.aspx cover.
16
Project # LHC0247
Chapter 3 addresses cultural heritage policies, writing that:
These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a
regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social
development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to
the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the
Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government
23
agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community.
Policies related to the Identification of Cultural Heritage Resources, Cultural Heritage
Landscapes, Archaeology, Heritage Planning Advisory Committees, Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment, Conservation, Promotion and Research, and Scenic Roads are outlined by the
ROP. Policies most relevant to the Properties and proposed development have been included
below in Table 2.
Table 2: Regional Municipality of Waterloo Relevant Official Plan Policies
Policy Policy Text
Identification of Cultural Heritage Resources
3.G.1 The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are
conserved using the provisions of the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the
Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act.
3.G.3 Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and
maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest.
Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV,
V or VI of the Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be
limited to, the following additional cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage
value or interest:
a) properties that have heritage conservation easements or covenants registered
against title;
b) cultural heritage resources of Regional interest; and
c)cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand River ConservationAuthority
and the Federal or Provincial governments.
Cultural Heritage Landscapes
3.G.5 The Region will prepare and updatea Regional Implementation Guideline for
Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation. This guideline will outline the framework
for identifying Cultural Heritage Landscapes, including Cultural Heritage Landscapes
of Regional interest, and for documenting each individual landscape through a
Cultural Heritage Conservation Landscape Plan that includes:
23
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, “Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan,” 2015, 48.
17
Project # LHC0247
Policy Policy Text
(a) a statement of significance;
(b) a listing of the cultural heritage resources and attributes being conserved within
the Cultural Heritage Landscape through the use of existing planning tools, such
as Heritage Act designations, listings on the Municipal Register, official plan
policies, secondary plans and zoning bylaws; and
(c) recommendations for additional conservation measures.
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.
3.G.7 The Region will assist Area Municipalities with the preparation of Cultural Heritage
Landscape Conservation Plans for Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional
interest.
Archaeology
3.G.8 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Archaeological Master Plan, an
associated Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline, and maps identifying
archaeological resources and areas of archaeological potential. The Master Plan will
provide detailed information on the variables used to determine areas of
archaeological potential and define the archaeological review process.
3.G.9 During the review of development applications and/or site plans, the Region and/or
Area Municipalities will require the owner/applicant to submit an archaeological
assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with the
provisions of the Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline following the
Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the
Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential
have been identified in the Archaeological Master Plan.
3.G.10 Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological
resource, the Region or Area Municipality will require the owner/applicant to
conserve the significant archaeological resource by:
a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated
as open space by the Area Municipality; or
b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed
archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction.
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
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-
18
Project # LHC0247
Policy Policy Text
designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal
Heritage Register.
Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.13 relates
3.G.14
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.
19
Project # LHC0247
Policy Policy Text
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:
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.
The Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (Master Plan) includes
recommendations and implementation strategies for identification, protection, promotion, and
investment cultural resources in the region. The Master Plan was created as:
Arts, culture, and heritage initiatives make a significant contribution to the well-
being and quality of life of the residents of Waterloo Region. They reflect and
enhance the community’s unique identity and diversity, contribute to economic
vitality, and shape future growth. Accordingly, the Region of Waterloo, alone or in
partnership, will identify, protect, promote, and invest in existing resources;
implement strategies to support existing and additional arts, culture, and heritage
24
initiatives; and ensure their long-term prosperity and sustainability.
25
The goals of the Master Plan are to achieve the following:
1. Community Identity and Character
Develop a stronger cultural heritage identity for the region, one that celebrates its
diversity, the character of its multiple towns and cities and the differing traditions
of their founders; its natural features; and the richness of its arts, culture and
heritage assets.
2. Education and Awareness
Build a stronger foundation for arts, culture, and heritage within the community.
3. Coordination and Partnership Formation
Encourage a greater degree of collaboration across all sectors and disciplines.
4. Resources
24
Region of Waterloo, “Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan,” last modified October 2002,
https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/resources/Documents/artsmasterplan.pdf, I.
25
Region of Waterloo, “Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan,” last modified October 2002, IV.
20
Project # LHC0247
Support opportunities for the development and sustainability of existing arts,
culture, and heritage organizations.
5. Accessibility
Maximize accessibility to arts, culture, and heritage opportunities and
information.
The Master Plan provides guidance and direction for the region for protecting, identifying, and
enhancing cultural heritage aspects for communities, and in serving as a primary document to
help develop new policies and implementation strategies.
The Region has acknowledged the identification and conservation of cultural heritage resources
is an important element of the land use planning process. Cultural heritage resources are
viewed as important drivers for the Region’s cultural and economic growth. The Region requires
the completion of an HIA for proposed work on a listed property and assessment of
archaeological potential. If the property is of Regional interest, a copy of the HIA must be
submitted to the Region for review.
3.3 Local Planning Context
The City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) was approved with modifications by the Region on 19
26
November 2014 and was consolidated to 2019. The OP guides growth, land use, and
27
environmental protection for the City to 2031.
Section 12 addresses cultural heritage policies which are of historical, cultural, social, economic,
28
environmental, and educational value to the City. Policies relevant to the Property and
proposed development have been included below in Table 3.
26
City of Kitchener, “City of Kitchener Official Plan,” last modified October 29, 2019,
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_City_of_Kitchener_Official_Plan_
2014.pdf, cover.
27
City of Kitchener, “City of Kitchener Official Plan,” 2019, 1-1.
28
City of Kitchener, “City of Kitchener Official Plan,” 2019, 12-1.
21
Project # LHC0247
Table 3: City of Kitchener Relevant Official Plan Policies
Policy Policy Text
Objectives
12.1.1.
To conserve the city’s cultural heritage resources through their identification,
protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values,
attributes and integrity are retained.
12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive
to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources
are conserved.
12.1.3.
To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources
through educational, promotional and incentive programs.
12.1.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protection, use and/or
management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City.
Policies
12.C.1.1. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the
provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental
Assessment Act, the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act and the
Municipal Act.
The City will develop, prioritize and maintain a list of cultural heritage resources
12.C.1.3.
which will include the following:
a) properties listed as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or
interest on the Municipal Heritage Register;
b) properties designated under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act;
c) cultural heritage landscapes; and,
d) heritage corridors.
The list may also include cultural heritage resources identified in Federal,
Provincial and Regional inventories and properties listed on the Heritage
Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings until such time as these properties are
re-evaluated and considered for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register.
12.C.1.4. The City acknowledges that not all of the city’s cultural heritage resources have
been identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 12.C.1.3. Accordingly,
a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having
cultural heritage value or interest.
12.C.1.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act,
resources of potential cultural heritage value or interest will be identified,
evaluated and considered for listing as a non-designated property of cultural
22
Project # LHC0247
heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation
under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest will be considered for
12.C.1.7.
designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The cultural heritage value or
interest associated with the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated based on
the regulation in the Ontario Heritage Act which provides criteria for determining
cultural heritage value or interest.
Archaeology
12.C.1.17.During the review of development applications or applications for site alteration,
The City and/or the Region will require an owner/applicant to submit an
archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance
with any applicable Regional or Provincial Standards and Guidelines, to the
satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of
archaeological potential have been identified in the Regional Archaeological
Master Plan.
12.C.1.18. Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological
resource, the City and/or the Region and the Province will require the
owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource in
accordance with Ministry approvals by:
a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate,
designated as open space by the City; or,
b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed
archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction.
Conservation Measures
12.C.1.19. In addition to listing and designating properties under the Ontario Heritage Act,
the City may use and adopt further measures to encourage the protection,
maintenance and conservation of the city’s cultural heritage resources including
built heritage and significant cultural heritage landscapes and implement Cultural
Heritage Resource Conservation Measures Policies in this Plan. These may
include, but are not limited to covenants and easements pursuant to the Ontario
Heritage Act; by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Planning Act (Zoning By-
law, demolition control, site plan control, community improvement provisions,
provisions in a subdivision agreement); and by-laws and agreements pursuant to
the Municipal Act (Property Standards By-law, tree by-law, sign by-law).
12.C.1.20. The City will make decisions with respect to cultural heritage resources that are
consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, which require the
conservation of significant cultural heritage resources. In addition, such decisions
will be consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
23
Project # LHC0247
12.C.1.21. All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use
designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener’s significant
cultural heritage resources. The conservation of significant cultural heritage
resources will be a requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval
of applications submitted under the Planning Act.
The City may require financial securities from the owner/applicant of an
12.C.1.22.
application submitted under the Planning Act, including applications for consent,
site plan, draft plan of vacant land condominium and draft plan of subdivision, to
ensure the conservation of the city’s cultural heritage resources both during and
after the development process.
Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans
12.C.1.23.The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a
Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration
that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed:
a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property;
b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.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.
Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 12.C.1.23 relates to
12.C.1.24.
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 Assessment s 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;
24
Project # LHC0247
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,
g) summary statement and conservation recommendations.
Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and
12.C.1.27.
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 Assessment s and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the
City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate.
Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources
Where a cultural heritage resourc e is proposed to be demolished, the City may
12.C.1.32.
require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to
the City for re-use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to
the City.
12.C.1.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable
damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the
owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival
documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval
and/or permit.
12.C.1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage,
dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage
resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must
include the following:
a) architectural measured drawings;
b) a land use history; and,
c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage
resource in its surrounding context.
Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed
appropriate.
12.C.1.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non-designated property of cultural
heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, the
owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent
to demolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of
the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated and Council may use the 60 days
25
Project # LHC0247
to pursue designation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario
Heritage Act.
The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act
12.C.1.36.
any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition,
significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts.
Design/Integration
12.C.1.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address
the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the
importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located.
12.C.1.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development,
redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to
properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage
resources.
Signage on protected heritage properties will be compatible and complementary
12.C.1.48.
to the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property and in accordance
with and consistent with good conservation practice.
The City currently reviewing its zoning and has two zoning by-laws Zoning By-law 85-1 and
Zoning By-law 2019-051. Zoning By-law 85-1 is consolidated to 29 March 2004 and applies to
29
all properties in the City.Zoning By-law 2019-051 was approved by City Council on 29 April
30
It is stage 1 of the City’s zoning review and includes the
2019 and is currently under appeal.
…framework of the document, definitions, general regulations, parking
requirements and every zoning section with the exception of residential and
31
urban growth centre (downtown).
The Properties are not yet subject to Zoning By-law 2019-051 and are currently subject to
Zoning By-law 85-1. They are currently zoned MU-1 Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone
32
This
which supports the following uses and regulations as shown in Table 4 and Table 5.
zoning does not have accompanying cultural heritage regulations.
29
City of Kitchener, “City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1,” last modified March 29, 2004,
https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%201%20-
%20General%20Scope.pdf, 1.
30
City of Kitchener, “City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051,” last modified April 29, 2019,
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CROZBY_Consolidated_Zoning_
Bylaw_Council_Approved.pdf.
31
City of Kitchener, “Zoning bylaw,” Development and construction, last modified 2021, accessed May 4,
2021, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning-bylaw.aspx.
32
City of Kitchener, “Schedule 73,” Zoning By-law 85-1, last modified August 27, 2018,
https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20A%20-
%20Zoning%20Grid%20Schedules//SCHEDULE_73.pdf.
26
Project # LHC0247
33
Table 4: Zoning By-law 2019-051 MU-1 Permitted Uses
Permitted Use Permitted Use Permitted Use
Artisan’s EstablishmentCanine or Feline Grooming Commercial Recreation
Community Centre Craftsman Shop Day Care Facility
Duplex Dwelling Dwelling UnitEducational Establishment
Financial Establishment Health ClinicHealth Office
Home Business Hospice Lodging House
Medical Laboratory Multiple Dwelling Museum
Office Personal Services Printing Establishment
Private Club or LodgeReligious InstitutionRepair Service
Residential Care Facility Restaurant Retail
Security or Janitorial Services Scientific Establishment Technological Establishment
Communications Single Detached Dwelling Street Townhouse Dwelling
Establishment
Studio Tourist Home Veterinary Services
34
Table 5: Zoning By-law 2019-051 MU-1 Regulations
Regulation Requirements
Minimum Lot Width 15 metres
Minimum Front Yard Abutting a Street1.5 meters
Minimum Side Yard Abutting a Street 4.5 metres
Maximum Front Yard and Maximum Side 7.5 metres
Yard Abutting a Street
Minimum Width of Primary Ground Floor
50% of the length of abutting street lines
Façade for Buildings constructed after the
date that the MU-1 Zone was applied to
the land
Minimum Rear Yard 7.5 metres
33
City of Kitchener, “Section 53,” Zoning By-law 85-1, last modified October 7, 2013,
https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%2053%20-
%20Low%20Intensity%20Mixed%20Use%20Corridor%20Zone%20(MU-1).pdf, 1-2.
34
City of Kitchener, “Section 53,” Zoning By-law 85-1, last modified October 7, 2013, 2-3.
27
Project # LHC0247
Regulation Requirements
Minimum yard abutting any Residentially 7.5 metres
zoned property
Minimum Façade Height for Buildings
6.0 metres
constructed after the date that the MU-1
Zone was applied to the land
Maximum Building Height 13.5 metres
Minimum Floor Space Ratio for Buildings 0.6
constructed after the date that the MU-1
Zone was applied to the land
Maximum Floor Space Ratio for Buildings
2.0
constructed after the date that the MU-1
Zone was applied to the land.
Minimum Landscaped Area 10% of the lot area.
Location of Dwelling Unit Shall not be located on the ground floor unless
located within a building used only as a multiple
dwelling
Façade Openings for Buildings For non-residential uses, not less than 40
constructed after the date that the MU-1 percent of the area of a primary ground floor
Zone was applied to the land. façade shall MU-1 Zone was applied to the land
be devoted to display windows or entrances to
the building; the horizontal distance between
display windows or entrances shall not exceed
4.0 metres.
No outdoor storage of goods, materials or
Outdoor Storage
equipment shall be permitted in any front yard or
in a side yard abutting a street. This shall not,
however, prevent the display of goods or
materials for retail purposes.
Off-street Parking In accordance with Section 6.1 of this By-law,
including 6.1.2 d).
Off-street Loading In accordance with Section 6.2 of this By-law.
The City considers cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and values them
in the land use planning process. Through its OP policies, the City has committed to identifying
and conserving cultural heritage resources including archaeological resources. An HIA is
required when a proposed development is on or adjacent to a recognized heritage property. The
28
Project # LHC0247
City has adopted Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
and will reference them when assessing proposed developments.
29
Project # LHC0247
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Early Indigenous History
The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of
35
the Wisconsin glacier. During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500-
8000 BCE), the climate was like the present-day sub-arctic and vegetation was dominated by
36
The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They
spruce and pine forests.
were nomadic big-game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small
groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single
37
year.
During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE), the occupants of southern Ontario
continued their migratory lifestyles, although living in larger groups and transitioning towards a
preference for smaller territories of land – possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People
refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool
technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the
Middle and Later Archaic times including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine
38
shells from the Gulf of Mexico.
The Woodland period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE – CE 1650) represents a marked change
in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of
pottery making. The Woodland period is sub-divided into the Early Woodland (1000–400 BCE),
39
Middle Woodland (400 BCE – CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650). The Early
Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier
40
During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a
cooking.
band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting.
Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference
for agricultural village-based communities around during the Late Woodland. During this period
people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into
three distinct stages: Early (CE 1000–1300); Middle (CE 1300–1400); and Late (CE 1400–
41
The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation
1650).
35
Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, “Paleo-Indians,” in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D.
1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris (London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London
Chapter, 1990), 37.
36
EMCWTF, “Chapter 3: The First Nations,” in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for
Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf.
37
EMCWFT, “Chapter 3: The First Nations,” (Toronto: TRCA, 2002).
38
EMCWFT, “Chapter 3: The First Nations,” (Toronto: TRCA, 2002).
39
EMCWFT, “Chapter 3: The First Nations,” (Toronto: TRCA, 2002).
40
EMCWFT, “Chapter 3: The First Nations,” (Toronto: TRCA, 2002).
41
EMCWFT, “Chapter 3: The First Nations,” (Toronto: TRCA, 2002).
30
Project # LHC0247
of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded
village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities
in southern Ontario – and more widely across northeastern North America –organized
themselves politically into tribal confederacies. Communities south of Lake Ontario at this time
included the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, made up of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas,
Senecas, Onondagas, and Tuscarora, and groups including the Anishinaabe and Neutral
42
(Attiwandaron).
4.2 Seventeenth-and Eighteenth-Century Historic Context
French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the
17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity.
Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron,
was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between
1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged military warfare on the Huron, Petun,
43
and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.
As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario,
they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Anishinaabe. The
Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in military conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy
over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early
1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Patawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of
offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the
44
south of Lake Ontario.
Most of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy allied with the British during the American Revolution
45
(1765 – 1783) with the promise that their land would be protected. This promise was not kept,
and Haudenosaunee Confederacy territory was ceded to the United States through the Treaty
46
of Paris in 1783. In compensation, Captain General Fedrick Haldimand granted the
Haudenosaunee Confederacy 950,000 acres through the Haldimand Proclamation dated 25
47
The land grant has been in debate ever since and has
October 1784 (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
48
been steadily reduced to 46,000 acres today.
42
Six Nations Elected Council, “Community Profile,” Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013,
accessed May 7, 2021, http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm; University of Waterloo, “Land
acknowledgment,” Faculty Association, accessed May 7, 2021, https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-
association/about/land-acknowledgement; Six Nations Tourism, “History,” accessed May 7, 2021,
https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/.
43
Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First
Nation,” Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, last modified 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf.
44
Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4.
45
Cody Groat, “Six Nations of the Grand River,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed May 7, 2021,
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of-the-grand-river.
46
Cody Groat, “Six Nations of the Grand River,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed May 7, 2021.
47
Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, “History of Six Nations,” accessed May 7,
2021, https://sndevcorp.ca/history-of-six-nations/.
48
Six Nations Elected Council, “Community Profile,” Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013.
31
Project # LHC0247
49
Figure 3: Surveyor Thomas Ridout’s map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 1821
49
Library and Archives Canada, “Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on
each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos.
Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. \[cartographic material\],” 1821,
Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa, Ontario.
32
Project # LHC0247
50
Figure 4: Haldimand Tract
50
Six Nations, “The Haldimand Treaty of 1784,” Lands and Resources, last modified 2008, accessed May
7, 2021, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaldProc.htm.
33
Project # LHC0247
4.3Region of Waterloo
The Haldimand Proclamation was divided into six blocks by the Government of Upper Canada
51
Block Two was sold to land speculator
and sold to fund an annuity to the Six Nations people.
52
Colonel Richard Beasley in 1796 covering an area of 94,012 acres.Beasley began to
subdivide the land and sell plots to Pennsylvania Mennonites fleeing after the American
53
The
Revolution, this portion numbering 63,000 acres and called the German Company Tract.
54
German Company Tract was surveyed by government surveyor Augustus Jones in 1805.The
survey resulted in a closed Pennsylvania Mennonite community that did not include clergy,
Crown, or Loyalist reserves and which was divided into equal 448-acre lots without lot and
55
concession numbers.
The German Company Tract was incorporated into Wellington District in 1816 and renamed
56
Waterloo Township.The Township grew quickly as it began a centre of German settlement in
57
Upper Canada.Boundaries were redrawn following the Baldwin Municipal Act of 1849 and the
58
Hinks Act of 1852 creating the United Counties of Wellington, Waterloo, and Grey in 1849.
59
Waterloo County became independent in 1853 with Berlin as its seat. The Region of Waterloo
60
was established in 1973.
4.4 City of Kitchener
A community began to form in the German Company Tract at what would become Kitchener,
then known as Berlin, beginning with the settlement of a group of Pennsylvania Mennonites in
61
The Village of Berlin was
1807 including early families like the Schneiders and Ebys.
62
established in the 1850s with most of its population of 700 working in agriculture. A station on
the Grand Trunk Railway was established at Berlin in 1856, linking the village to the rest of
63
This coupled with access to inexpensive power from Niagara Falls lead to
North America.
Berlin’s industrial growth and nickname of “Busy Berlin” with a population of nearly 4,000 by
51
Kenneth McLaughlin, “Kitchener-Waterloo,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24,
2017, accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener-waterloo.
52
Waterloo Region Museum, “History of Waterloo Township,” accessed May 7, 2021,
https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo-township.aspx#note1.
53
Ezra Elby, A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county, Volume 1,
(Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895), 1 and 26.
54
John English and Kenneth McLaughlin, Kitchener: An Illustrated History, (Toronto: Robin Bross
Studio,1996), 19-20.
55
English and McLaughlin, 19.
56
McLaughlin, “Kitchener-Waterloo,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017.
57
McLaughlin, “Kitchener-Waterloo,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017.
58
McLaughlin, “Kitchener-Waterloo,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017.
59
McLaughlin, “Kitchener-Waterloo,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017.
60
McLaughlin, “Kitchener-Waterloo,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017.
61
Bill Moyer, Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History, (Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications
Canada Ltd., 1979), 1.
62
McLaughlin, “Kitchener-Waterloo,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Rych
Mills, Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 – 1960, (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002), 7.
63
Mills, 7.
34
Project # LHC0247
64
1890.Berlin received city status in 1912and operated as a multi-lingual city, mixingGerman
65
and English.
World War One brought change to Berlin with the city facing prejudice as Canada fought
6667
Germany.Berlin voted to change its name to Kitchener in 1916 in response.Despite slowed
growth during the war years, Kitchener grew from 20,000 in 1920 to 30,000 in 1930 leading to a
68
The city continued to grow
housing and industry boom following the Great Depression.
69
through the 1900s, becoming Canada’s fastest growing city in 1965.Kitchener experienced
economic turmoil in the 1990s as the recession closed many long standing industries and lead
70
Into the 2000s, the City has pushed for
to a restricting of the city’s economy and workforce.
the reconstruction of Kitchener with increased post-secondary education and reuse of heritage
71
properties.
4.5 Property History
Land records and city directory records from 1931to 1940 for the Properties were transcribed
and can be found in their entirety in Appendix C and D. The following history presents this
information in a narrative form.
Maps from the 1800s do not show development on the lots with the surrounding area largely
composed of fields with some houses (Figure 8 and Figure 9). All three lots (Lot 8, 9, and 10)
first appear in the Ontario Land Registry in March 1922 when they were sold by John Jr.,
72
George, and Caroline Bramm to Alford Boehmer for $2,100.00.Brothers John Jr. and George
Bramm operated a brickyard on the Properties and ran a mill on Queen Street South with their
73
father John Bramm Sr., Kitchener’s first brickmaker.
Boehmer then sold the three lots to different owners in the 1930s with no development on the lot
at this time (Figure 10 to Figure 12). The street would be called Wilmont Avenue until it was
74
renamed Victoria Street South in 1939.
The property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street South was used as a municipal yard until
75
1937 when it was sold by Boehmer to MacIntosh Cleaners Ltd. MacIntosh Cleaners Ltd. was
64
McLaughlin “Kitchener-Waterloo” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017;Mills, 7
65
McLaughlin “Kitchener-Waterloo” The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Mills, 7
66
Mills, 7.
67
Moyer, 56.
68
Mills, 8.
69
Moyer, 83.
70
City of Kitchener, Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city, (Kitchener, ON: City of
Kitchener, 2012), 97.
71
City of Kitchener, Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city, 108-109
72
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Historical Books,
https://www.onland.ca/ui/58/books/82987/viewer/445262592?page=1, Instrument 46200.
73
Waterloo Region Museum, “John Bramm 1817-1893,” List of Hall of Fame Inductees,
https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/exhibits/past-and-present-inductees.aspx#.
74
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1939,
(Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1939).
75
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instrument 74529.
35
Project # LHC0247
76
opened at this location in 1939by the MacIntosh family(Figure 5).The triangular canopy
acted as a drive-thru overhang. It is unclear if this canopy was original to the building – as it is
not clearly visible on aerial imagery or the 1945 Fire Insurance Plan – however, a drive-thru
canopy would be in keeping with the style and time of construction.
MacIntosh Cleaners Ltd. continued to be operated by the family until it was sold in 2015 (Figure
77
It was purchased by Nusrat Govindji and is currently a pharmacy called Victoria Wellness
6).
78
& Pharmacy.
79
Figure 5: Advertisement for MacIntosh Cleaners Ltd. in the 1940 city directory
76
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1939, 446.
77
L. D’Amato, “An owner bids farewell to his business: ‘All my life has been here’,” Waterloo Region
Record, March 20, 2015, https://www.toronto.com/opinion-story/5516487-d-amato-an-owner-bids-
farewell-to-his-business-all-my-life-has-been-here-/.
78
Terry Pender, “Former dry cleaning building in Kitchener has high-tech future,” The Record, March 29,
2016, https://www.therecord.com/business/2016/03/29/former-dry-cleaning-building-in-kitchener-has-
high-tech-future.html.
79
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1940,
(Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1940), 290.
36
Project # LHC0247
80
Figure 6: MacIntosh Cleaners in 2016 after closing
The property municipally known as 138 Victoria Street South was sold by Boehmer to Louis
81
Paleczny for $850.00 in 1931. Paleczny then built the house currently found on the property
82
with the 1931 city directory listing “New house” (Figure 7).
83
Figure 7: 1931 city directory entry listing new house and new apartments
John and Frances Swiech and Frances’ uncle, Frank Targos, are listed as residents in the 1932
84
The Sweich’s were Polish immigrants: Frances Elzbieciak arrived in 1922 and
city directory.
80
Google, “130 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,” Google Maps, June 2016,
accessed May 12, 2021.
81
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instrument 66458.
82
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1931,
(Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1931), 374.
83
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1931,374.
84
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1932,
(Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1932), 356.
37
Project # LHC0247
8586
John Sweich arrived in 1924.They met in Kitchener and married on 5 January 1925.John
87
Sweich worked as a labourer at the Lang Tannery Company. Paleczny sold the property to the
88
The Swiechs lived at the property until they sold it to Caroline
Swiechs for $40,000.00 in 1935.
89
Cheng for $68,000.00 in 1987.Cheng sold the property to 100 Park Street Development Inc.
90
for $108,000.00 in 1988.It has since passed through various corporations and been rented
out to tenants. It is currently owned by Nusrat Govindji.
The property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South was sold by Boehmer to August
91
and Wilhelmina Hoffman (sometimes spelt Hofman of Hoffmann) for $770.00 in 1929.The
Hoffman’s were leather goods dealers who immigrated from Germany and first appeared in the
92
1929 city directory living at 163 Joseph Street.
The Hoffman’s hired the Ott Brick and Tile Manufacturing Company, owned by prominent
93
Kitchener contractor Casper Braun, and a B. Neumann to build the apartments. Victoria
Apartments were competed in 1931 with “New Apartments” listed in the 1931 city directory
94
(Figure 7). Residents begin to appear in the 1932 city directory with the Hoffmans living in one
of the twelve units. A complete list of residents until 1940 has been included in Appendix C and
is defined by short term rentals.
The early 1930s were a time of apartment building in Kitchener with Casper Braun’s company
95
By 1932,
simultaneously working on the luxury York Apartments at 214 Queen Street South.
85
New York, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis Island), 1820-
1957 \[database on-line\]. Year: 1922; Arrival: New York, New York, USA; Microfilm: T715, 1897-1957;
Line: 2; Page Number: 158, Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010; UK and Ireland,
Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 \[database on-line\], Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.,
2012. Board of Trade: Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger
Lists. BT27. Records of the Commercial, Companies, Labour, Railways and Statistics Departments.
Records of the Board of Trade and of successor and related bodies. The National Archives, Kew,
Richmond, Surrey, England.
86
Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1826-1938 \[database on-line\]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations,
Inc., 2010 and Genealogical Research Library (Brampton, Ontario, Canada); Registrations of Marriages,
1869-1928; Microfilm: 734, Archives of Ontario: Toronto
87
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1935,
(Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1935), 273.
88
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instrument 70872.
89
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instrument 904069.
90
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instrument 941146.
91
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instrument 66452.
92
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1929,
(Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1929), 111.
93
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instrument 66922 and 66950.
94
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instruments 66922, 66930, 66950,
66955, 66958, 67056, 69319, 67482. Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of
Waterloo Directory 1931, 374.
95
City of Kitchener, “By-law 2021-084 Designate the property municipally known as 214 Queen Street
South,” Ontario Heritage Trust, last modified June 11, 2012, accessed May 12, 2021,
https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/fr/oha/details/file?id=5012.
38
Project # LHC0247
96
Kitchener and Waterloo hadforty-one apartment buildings including the Victoria Apartments.
The 1947 Fire Insurance shows a rectangular structure behind the apartments (Figure 10).
97
The property passed to the Hoffman’s son, Albert J. Hoffman, in 1965 who then sold it to
98
Joseph and Ruth Szewczyk in 1966.It passed through various owners including Lucien Potirn
99100101
in 1974, Wesley S. and Brynhild R. Johnson in 1975, Melinda Knipfel in 1975, Sue H.
102103
, and Gordon Royce Koziol in 1989. It continued to be operated as the
Cheng in 1987
Victoria Apartments and is currently owned by Nusrat Govindji.
96
Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1932, 445.
97
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instruments 312987.
98
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instruments 324842.
99
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instruments 537095.
100
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instruments 543870.
101
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instruments 543871.
102
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instruments 883865.
103
Ontario Land Registry, “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143,” Instruments 1020213.
39
18151861
¯¯
00.512Kilometers0200400800Meters
Legend
1881
¯
Properties
TITLE
1815, 1861, and 1881 historic maps showing the Properties
CLIENT
Nusrat Govindji
PROJECTPROJECT NO. LHC0247
Heritage Impact Assessment
130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo
NOTE(S)
1. All locations are approximate.
REFERENCE(S)
1. Author Unknown. Map of the Township of Waterloo and Woolwich. University of Waterloo's Geospatial
Centre's Historical
Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021.
2. Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine. Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West. Scale 1:39,600.
Toronto: Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine, 1861.
3. Author Unknown. Map of Waterloo Township. Scale 1:63,360. In: H. Parsell and Co. Illustrated Atlas of the
County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell and Co., 1881.
Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license.
Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
CONSULTANT
YYYY-MM-DD2021-05-11
PREPAREDLHC
DESIGNEDJG
0200400800Meters
FIGURE #
0153060Meters
TITLE
Legend
1875 Birds-Eye View showing approximate location of the Properties
CLIENT
Properties
Nusrat Govindji
PROJECTPROJECT NO. LHC0247
Heritage Impact Assessment
130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo
NOTE(S)
CONSULTANT
YYYY-MM-DD2021-05-11
1. All locations are approximate.
PREPAREDLHC
REFERENCE(S)
1. Herman Brosius. Berlin, Province, Ontario, Canada. University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical
Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021.
DESIGNEDJG
Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license.
Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
FIGURE #
1925
¯
02550100Meters
1947
¯
02550100Meters
TITLE
Legend
1925 and 1947 Fire Insurance Plans showing the Properties
CLIENT
Properties
Nusrat Govindji
PROJECTPROJECT NO. LHC0247
Heritage Impact Assessment
130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo
CONSULTANT
NOTE(S)
YYYY-MM-DD2021-05-10
1. All locations are approximate.
REFERENCE(S)PREPAREDLHC
1. Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. Insurance Plan of the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Scale 1:1,200. Toronto:
Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd., 1908 rev. 1925.
DESIGNEDJG
2.Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. Insurance Plan of the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Scale 1,200. Toronto:
Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd., 1908 rev. 1947
Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license.
FIGURE #
Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
19271933
¯¯
050100200Meters050100200Meters
19691976
¯¯
070140280Meters
050100200Meters050100200Meters
TITLE
Legend
1927, 1933, 1969, and 1976 topographic maps showing the Properties
CLIENT
Properties
Nusrat Govindji
NOTE(S)
PROJECTPROJECT NO. LHC0247
1. All locations are approximate.
Heritage Impact Assessment
REFERENCE(S)
130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo
1. Geographical Section, General Staff. Topographic Map, Ontario, Stratford Sheet. Scale 1:63,360. Stratford
Sheet No. 97. n.p.: Department of National Defence, 1927.
CONSULTANT
2.Geographical Section, General Staff. Topographic Map, Ontario, Stratford Sheet. Scale 1:63,360. Sheet
YYYY-MM-DD2021-05-10
No. 40 P/7. n.p.: Department of National Defence, 1927 rev. 1933.
3. Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy Mines and Resources. Waterloo-Kitchener West,
PREPAREDLHC
Waterloo County, Ontario. Scale 1:25,000. Edition 1. Sheet 40 P/7h. Ottawa: Map Distribution Office,
Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1965 rev. 1969.
4. Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy Mines and Resources. Waterloo-Kitchener, Waterloo
DESIGNEDJG
Regional Municipality, Ontario. Scale 1:25,000. Edition 2. Sheet 40 P/7h. Ottawa: CanadaMap Office,
Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1976.
Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license.
FIGURE #
Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
19301945
¯¯
02550100Meters02550100Meters
Legend
1954
¯
Properties
TITLE
1930, 1945, and 1954 aerial photos showing the Properties
CLIENT
Nusrat Govindji
PROJECTPROJECT NO. LHC0247
Heritage Impact Assessment
130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo
NOTE(S)
1. All locations are approximate.
REFERENCE(S)
1.University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener-Waterloo. Photo IM30.
1930. Accessed May 26, 2021 at https://lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html
2. University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener-Waterloo. Photo IM30.
1945. Accessed May 26, 2021 at https://lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html
3. University of Toronto. 1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario. Photo 434.803. Accessed May 10,2021 at
https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index.
Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license.
Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
CONSULTANT
YYYY-MM-DD2021-05-28
PREPAREDLHC
DESIGNEDJG
02550100Meters
FIGURE #
19751990
¯¯
02550100Meters02550100Meters
Legend
2003
¯
Properties
TITLE
1975, 1990, and 2003 aerial photos showing the Properties
CLIENT
Nusrat Govindji
PROJECTPROJECT NO. LHC0247
Heritage Impact Assessment
130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo
NOTE(S)
1. All locations are approximate.
REFERENCE(S)
1. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. Photo No. 752.
Scale 1:4,800. Kitchener: Kitchener Public Library, April 1975.
2. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. 1990 Aerial
Photography. Photo No 11N. Scale 1:5,000. Waterloo: Kitchener Public Library, 1990.
3. Waterloo Open Data. Aerial Imagery (2003). Accessed May 13, 2021 at
https://data.waterloo.ca/search?q=2003.
Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license.
Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.
CONSULTANT
YYYY-MM-DD2021-05-28
PREPAREDLHC
DESIGNEDJG
02550100Meters
FIGURE #
Project # LHC0247
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
5.1 130 Victoria Street South
The property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street is a one-storey rectangular medical
building on a concrete foundation with three two-storey sections extending at the front left,
middle left, and along the rear of the building (Figure 14). The building is approximately 46 m
long from the tip of the canopy to the rear and 11 m wide. Interiors were not accessed in
consideration of COVID-19 restrictions; however, photos were taken from the exterior and show
interior renovations (Figure 16). The property is accessed from Victoria Street South on its
southwest side with parking along the side and rear of the building and at the southeast façade
(Figure 15).
The building has a flat roof and is constructed of stretcher bond brick of varying colours with red
brick on the northeast elevation and one-storey rear section (Figure 17 and Figure 18), yellow
bricks on the northwest and southwest elevations with grey bricks on the one-storey rear section
(Figure 22), and reclad burgundy and grey bricks on the southeast façade. Red dichromatic
brick is found on the rear northeast corner (Figure 21) and two patches of white paint have been
applied to the southwest elevation (Figure 23). Grey metal siding and glass half-walls have been
installed along the roof of the main building. The front left one-storey section has been
constructed of yellow, green, and clear glass windows (Figure 14). An Art Deco inspired
triangular sign and entrance canopy extends from the southeast façade supported by triangular
metal poles. A metal grate and four brackets are found on the northeast elevation (Figure 19
and Figure 20).
The building is accessed through a main glass door on the southeast façade, a staff glass door
on the northeast elevation, and a metal service door on the northwest elevation. Windows are
found on all elevations.
The southeast façade has rectangular glass windows along its front trimmed in black metal with
green and yellow glass sections. The northeast elevation has eight windows along the first floor
and two windows in the rear second floor. Five of the first-floor windows and the two second
floor windows have six panes, trimmed in black metal, with a concrete sill. Three of the first-floor
windows are two paned with a rectangular section along the top trimmed in black metal and an
11 by 5 block section with a concrete sill. The northwest elevation has two first floor windows on
the left side in an 11 by 8 block pattern with a concrete sill. The southwest elevation has nine
windows, four in an 11 by 11 block pattern, two in a 12 by 8 block pattern, one in an 11 by 4
block pattern, and two in an 11 by 8 block pattern.
The Property has undergone extensive renovations affecting the façade, wall materials,
windows, entrance, and triangular canopy. The Property retains few features common of Art
Deco commercial architecture, popular from 1920 to 1940 such as its distinctive yellow, black
46
Project # LHC0247
104
and green vitrolite.However, thetriangular canopy, although itself altered with an external
105
cladding, is reflective of the style and remains a distinctive streetscape component.
Figure 14: View northwest of southeast façade
104
Ontario Architecture, “Art Deco,” accessed May 12, 2021,
http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/artdeco.htm; Sarah Parks, “From Arches to Turrets:
architectural styles in Kitchener,” ACO North Waterloo Region, June 6, 2018,
https://www.aconwr.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/From-Arches-to-Turrets-Jun-6-18-2.pdf, 74.
105
Ontario Architecture, “Art Deco,” accessed May 12, 2021.
47
Project # LHC0247
Figure 15: View southwest of parking lot
Figure 16: View of interior entrance from main door
48
Project # LHC0247
Figure 17: View northwest of northeast elevation
Figure 18: View southeast of northeast elevation
49
Project # LHC0247
Figure 19: View of rusted metal brackets on northeast elevation
Figure 20: View of rusted metal grate on northeast elevation
50
Project # LHC0247
Figure 21: View southeast of northwest and southwest elevations
Figure 22: Panoramic view northeast of southwest elevation
51
Project # LHC0247
Figure 23: View northeast of southwest and southeast elevation
52
Project # LHC0247
5.2138 Victoria Street South
The property known municipally as 138 Victoria Street South is a two-and-a-half-storey
rectangular red brick house on a rusticated stone foundation with a one-storey rear red brick
addition (Figure 24). The building is approximately 14 m long and 7 m wide. Interiors were not
accessed due to COVID-19 restrictions. The property is accessed from Victoria Street South on
its northwest side with parking along the side and rear of the building. A grass covered yard
extends from the building façade to the sidewalk.
The building is constructed of stretcher bond red brick. It is topped with a gabled roof of black
asphalt with moulded wooden eaves and white painted verges and red painted eavestroughs. A
gabled pediment style dormer is found on the northeast elevation and a single chimney extends
from the centre rear.
The building’s main entrance is through a moulded wooden door with moulded wooden trim and
a concrete lintel at the southeast façade. A mail slot marked “Letters” is to the right of the door.
Two doorways are found on the northeast elevation: one at ground level and one accessed by
concrete steps at the one-storey rear addition (Figure 25). Both doors are moulded wooden
doors with moulded wooden canopies (one triangular and one flat) with decorative brackets. A
small doored opening, possibly for milk delivery, is to the right of the door. A wooden door with
peeling white paint is found on the northwest elevation leads from the second floor to the roof of
the one-storey rear addition.
Windows are found on each elevation. The windows on the first two floors are all constructed of
wood with concrete lintels and sills and upper storey windows with wooden trims.
The southeast façade has five windows including one rectangular and one square 2/2 pane
windows with storm shutters on the ground floor, matching 2/2 pane windows on the second
floor, and a three-pane window set into the roof. The northeast elevation has three windows
including a rectangular 2/2 pane window with storm shutters on the ground floor, a one pane
pivoted window on the second floor, and a three-pane window set into the dormer. Three
basement windows with concrete lintels are found along the foundation (Figure 29). The
northwest elevation has two windows: one 2/2 vinyl window with a concrete sill on the one-
storey rear addition, and one vinyl 4/4 window with a concrete lintel and sill (Figure 26). The
southwest elevation has two windows: one rectangular and one square 2/2 pane windows with
storm shutters constructed of wood with concrete lintels and sills on the ground floor (Figure 27
and Figure 28). Three basement windows with concrete lintels are below these.
A porch on the southeast façade has a gabled roof with black asphalt shingles and is supported
by brick colours with concrete lintels. The porch is accessed by concrete steps and is built of red
brick with wooden floors and ceiling, and a concrete lintel across its length (Figure 30). Two
concrete brackets and an opening with concrete lintel and sill is found on the centre front of the
porch (Figure 31).
53
Project # LHC0247
Figure 24: View southwest of façade
Figure 25: Panoramic view of northeast elevation
54
Project # LHC0247
Figure 26: View southwest of northwest elevation
Figure 27: View northwest of northwest elevation and southwest elevations
55
Project # LHC0247
Figure 28: View northwest of southwest elevation
Figure 29: View of northeast basement window
56
Project # LHC0247
Figure 30: View southwest of porch
Figure 31: View northeast of porch brackets and opening
57
Project # LHC0247
5.3142 Victoria Street South
The property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South is a three-storey rectangular
yellow brick apartment building on a rusticated stone foundation (Figure 32 and Figure 33). The
building is approximately 20 m long and 9 m wide. Interiors were not accessed due to COVID-
19 restrictions. The property is accessed from Victoria Street South on its northwest side with
parking along the side and rear of the building.
The building is constructed of stretcher bond yellow brick with the rear first floor painted white. It
is topped by a low gabled roof with thin green eaves. A symmetrical stepped parapet roofline
design with projecting lintels, and brick quoins at either side of the façade with sandstone inlays
at the centre of their flared capital columns at the corners and centre define the building’s
façade roofline. The building is accessed from the southeast façade by concrete steps with
metal railings through a metal door in a carved stone frame with a brick and concrete lintel
topped surround in a stepped parapet design matching the roofline (Figure 34).
Lantern style sidelights are on either side of the door and “Victoria Apts” is carved above the
entrance. A date stone reading “1931” is placed above the main entrance. A metal access door
accessed from a concrete step is found at the rear of the building and is topped with a green
fabric canopy. A former door painted green is found on the southeast corner but no longer has
stairs.
All windows on the building are rectangular 2/2 pane with concrete sills. The windows on the
southeast façade also have concrete lintels. Windows are either alone or in groups of two or
three depending on their location on the building. One narrow window is found on the façade
and two on the rear. The southeast façade has seven windows, the northeast elevation has
thirty-one windows (Figure 35), the northwest elevation has two windows (Figure 36), and the
southwest elevation has thirty windows (Figure 37).
106
The Property is a vernacular example of Art Deco style popular from 1920 to 1940. Elements
including its symmetry, stepped roofline, geometric shape, and brick construction reflect this
107
Victoria Apartments is one of the oldest surviving apartment buildings in Kitchener with
style.
108
the oldest, York Apartments at 214 Queen Street South, built in 1928 and opened in 1931.
Due to the ongoing Covid pandemic, only limited areas of the interior of the residential
apartment building were accessed on 11 November, 2021. This includes common areas such
as the front and rear stair cases, first floor hallway and laundry room, and one of the first-floor
units understood to be representative of the level of intervention throughout the building. In
general, although the interior of the building does not appear to have been subject to extensive
alteration over time, upgrades to meet security, fire and safety requirements were noted
throughout. No notable, representative, or distinctive features of note were documented which
might contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property or which might be
identified as heritage attributes. Exterior casings and the front and rear balustrades appear
106
Ontario Architecture, “Art Deco,” accessed May 12, 2021; Sarah Parks, “From Arches to Turrets:
architectural styles in Kitchener,” ACO North Waterloo Region, June 6, 2018, 74.
107
Ontario Architecture, “Art Deco,” accessed May 12, 2021.
108
City of Kitchener, “By-law 2021-084 214 Queen Street South,” 2012.
58
Project # LHC0247
contemporary to the construction of the building, as do some of the radiator units. See Figure
#####.
Figure 32: View southwest of southeast façade
Figure 33: View northwest of southwest corner
59
Project # LHC0247
Figure 34: View of main entrance
Figure 35: View southwest of northeast elevation
60
Project # LHC0247
Figure 36: View southwest of northwest elevation
Figure 37: View southeast of southwest elevation
61
Project # LHC0247
Figure 38: Interior of first floor unit, general conditions
Figure 39: Interior, front stairs
62
Project # LHC0247
Figure 40: Laundry room
Figure 41: First floor hallway
63
Project # LHC0247
Figure 42: Rear stairs
Figure 43: Window in rear stair well
64
Project # LHC0247
5.4Surrounding Context
The Properties are located within the boundaries of Downtown Kitchener, the Properties are
approximately 800 metres (m) from the CN Rail tracks and 400 metres from Victoria Park.
The topography of the surrounding area is relatively flat with a slight slope towards Victoria
Park. Vegetation in the area is sparse with few trees lining Victoria Street South and small
landscaped grass yards fronting nearby residential and commercial properties.
Observed land use in the surrounding area is a mixture of residential, industrial, and commercial
properties. Victoria Street South is an area of development, with a combination of building
heights, ranging from one to twenty storeys. Victoria Street South is a two-way street with four-
lanes of traffic, sidewalks, and streetlights on the south side of the street (Figure 44 and Figure
45). Brahm Street is a two-way street with no sidewalks. Multi-storey apartment development is
currently occurring on the northwest side of Brahm Street adjacent to the Properties (Figure 46).
The development immediately adjacent to the Properties is being constructed around a heritage
building at 120 Victoria Street South (Figure 47). Surface parking lots extend northwest of the
Properties (Figure 47).
Recognized as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource, the Warehouse District
Cultural Heritage Landscape (L-COM-1) extends along the CN Rail line and is bounded by
109110
The Properties are
Glasgow, Dominion, Breithaupt, Francis, Victoria, and Belmont Streets.
located within the Warehouse District including the north side of Victoria Street South. The
Warehouse District is contextually important to the development history of Kitchener as an
thth
and early 20 centuries. Supporting facilities
industrial manufacturing centre during the late 19
including factories, warehouses for department stores, commercial enterprises, and residences
for workers were established. Within the Warehouse District, factory complexes, including the
Kaufman Rubber Company building designed in 1908 by Albert Kahn (1869-1942), still stand.
Residential neighbourhoods, constructed of mostly brick, in the immediate vicinity housed the
workers of this industrial and commercial area. Within the Warehouse District, five properties
are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act while 16 have been listed on the
111
Municipal Heritage Register.
The Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District extends south one block approximately 40 m
from the Properties along with Victoria Park and residential land use to the north, west, and
south (Figure 48).
109
Region of Waterloo. “Regional Implementation Guideline Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural
Heritage Resources”. 2018, 4. Accessed 17 September 2021.
110
City of Kitchener. “Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets”. 2014 December, 24. Accessed 17
September 2021.
111
City of Kitchener. “Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets”. Accessed 17 September 2021.
65
Project # LHC0247
Figure 44: View southwest along Victoria Street South
Figure 45: View northeast along Victoria Street South
66
Project # LHC0247
Figure 46: View of adjacent development
Figure 47: View north of parking lots behind Properties
67
Project # LHC0247
Figure 48: View northwest of residential land use
5.5 Adjacent Heritage Properties
The City defines adjacent as:
…lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly
opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway,
municipal road or other right-of-way.
Using this definition, the Properties are adjacent to a listed property at 131 Victoria Street South
112
This property was listed for its design, physical, historical, and associative values
(Figure 49).
including:
Heritage Value
The design and physical values relate to the vernacular building with influences
from the Ukrainian Baroque architectural style. The building is in good condition
with many intact original elements. The building features: hipped gable roof; red
brick construction; date stone that reads "1926"; large semi-circular windows with
brick voussoirs; round window with stained glass; semi-circular door with
concrete surround; and, pear-shaped dome.
112
City of Kitchener, “Index of Non-Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest,” 2017.
68
Project # LHC0247
The historic and associative values relate to the building’sassociation with the
Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 131 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage
attributes:
All elements related tothe construction and Vernacular/Ukrainian Baroque
architectural style of the building, including:
roof and roofline;
doors and door openings, including:
- semi-circular door with concrete surround;
windows and window openings, including:
- large semi-circular windows with brick voussoirs;
- round window with stained glass;
hipped gable roof;
red brick construction;
date stone that reads "1926"; and,
113
pear-shaped dome steeple.
Figure 49: Listed property at 131 Victoria Street South looking southeast across from Properties
113
Wade, “DTS- 00510 Listing of Non-Designated Property,” December 16, 2009.
69
Project # LHC0247
Using the above definition, the Properties are also adjacent to the property located at 120 Victoria
Street South, which will be designated as part of the development approvals for the site (Figure
50). According to the property’s HIA:
Heritage Value
120 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design, physical, historical and
associative values.
The design and physical values relate to the Industrial Vernacular architectural
style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building
features: rectangular plan; yellow brick construction; four bays on the Victoria
Street elevation separated by shallow buttressing; segmentally arched window
openings with brick voussoirs; and stone sills. Until 2009, the front and side
elevation of the building featured sign banding that read “The Huck Glove Co.
Ltd.”
The historic and associative value relate to the original owner, the Hagen Shirt
and Collar Co.; a previous owner, the Lang Shirt Co.; and, the present owner,
The Huck Glove Co. Ltd. The building was built by Henry A. Hagen who was the
founder of the Hagen Shirt and Collar Co. The company was incorporated in
1906 and manufactured the Hagen brand of shirts, collars, and cuffs. The 1924-
25 Fire Insurance Map indicates that the building was owned by the Lang Shirt
Co. Limited and the building was used as follows: basement – washing and
storage; first floor – office and laundry; second floor – shipping and warehousing;
and, third floor – cutting and operating. The Huck Glove Company traces its
origins to 1880, when Menno Erb went into partnership with C.F. Brown. They
operated a tannery and manufactured mattresses. In 1889, they built a factory on
King Street to make buckskin, calf and kid gloves and fur mitts. In 1906, after Mr.
Erb’s death, a forman \[sic\], Joseph Huck bought the glove business and
established the Huck Glove Co. Ltd. The company moved to the building at 120
Victoria Street South around 1937. Today the company is known as Huck Glove
Groopco Ltd. And two third generation family members are involved with the
business: Robert Huck, President and Bob Huck, Controller. The company
continues to operate out of the building at 120 Victoria Street South.
Description of Recommended Heritage Attributes – Exterior
The heritage value of 120 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage
attributes:
All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural
style of the building, including:
1. Roofline;
2. Rectangular Plan;
3. Yellow Brick Construction;
70
Project # LHC0247
4.Bays separated by shallow buttressing;
5. Segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; and,
114
6. Stone sills.
Figure 50: View northeast of the northwest and southwest elevations of 120 Victoria Street
114
mcCallumSather, “Heritage Impact Assessment: 17069 | 114-120 Victoria Street S,” last updated
October 2017, accessed 20 October 2021 from
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1555748&page=24&cr=1.
71
Project # LHC0247
EVALUATION
6.1 130 Victoria Street South
The property at 130 Victoria Street South was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA
using research and analysis presented in Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this HIA.
Table 6: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 130 Victoria Street South
Criteria
CriteriaJustification
Met
1. The property has design value
or physical value becauseit,
i. is a rare, unique, representative,
No The Property is nota unique, representative,
or early example of a style, type,
and early example of a commercial
expression, material, or
establishment with Art Deco influences.
construction method,
The Property has undergone extensive
renovations affecting the façade, wall
materials, windows, and triangular canopy.
ii. displays a high degree of
No The Property does not display a high degree
craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
of craftmanship or artistic merit. Despite
showing influences of the Art Deco style, the
building exhibits vernacular and simple
building methods common at the time of
construction.
iii.demonstrates a high degree of
No The Property does not demonstrate a high
technical or scientific
degree of technical or scientific
achievement.
achievement. It was constructed using
common building methods at the time of
construction.
2.The property has historical or
associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a
No The Property does not have direct
theme, event, belief, person,
associations with a theme, event, belief,
activity, organization, or
person, activity, organization, or institution
that is significant to a community.
institution that is significant to a
community,
MacIntosh Cleaners Ltd. operated a drive
through dry cleaners out of the building from
1939 to 2015 and the building maintains a
triangular canopy reflective of this former
72
Project # LHC0247
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
use. However, MacIntosh Cleaners does not
satisfy this criterion.
ii. yields, or has the potential to
No The Property does not yield, or havethe
yield, information that
potential to yield, information that
contributes to an understanding
contributes to an understanding of a
of a community or culture, or community or culture.
iii.demonstrates or reflects the
No The Property does not demonstrate or
work or ideas of an architect,
reflect the work or ideas of an architect,
artist, builder, designer or
artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is
significant to a community. The building
theorist who is significant to a
was built using common materials and
community.
methods at the time of construction. It is
unknown who constructed the building.
3. The property has contextual
value because it,
i. is important in defining,
No The Property is not important in defining,
maintaining, or supporting the
maintaining, or supporting the character of
character of an area,
an area.
The area is in a point of transition with a
mixture of land uses with high-rise
development to the north and residential
land use to the south and west. The
Property’s location on Victoria Street South
is defined by high-rise development and
surface parking lots.
ii. is physical, functionally, visually,
No The Property is not physically, functionally,
or historically linked to its
visually, or historically linked to its
surroundings, or
surroundings.
The area is in a point of transition with a
mixture of land uses with high-rise
development to the north and residential
land use to the south and west. The
Property’s location on Victoria Street South
is defined by high-rise development and
surface parking lots.
iii.is a landmark.
No The Property is not a landmark. The
MHSTCI defines landmark
73
Project # LHC0247
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
…as a recognizable natural or
human-made feature used for a point
of reference that helps orienting in a
familiar or unfamiliar environment; it
may mark an event or development;
115
it may be conspicuous…
The building does not meet this criterion.
In LHC’s professional opinion, the property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street South does
not meet O. Reg. 9/06 criteria.
6.2 138 Victoria Street South
The property at 138 Victoria Street South was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA
using research and analysis presented in Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this HIA.
Table 7: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 138 Victoria Street South
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
1. The property has design value
or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative,
No The Property is not a rare, unique,
or early example of a style, type,
representative, or early example of a style,
expression, material, or
type, expression, material, or construction
construction method, method. The two-and-a-half-storey house is
a common residential structure.
ii. displays a high degree of
No The Property does not display a high degree
craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
of craftmanship or artistic merit. The building
exhibits vernacular and simple building
methods common at the time of
construction.
115
MHSTCI, Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage
Identification & Evaluation Process, 2014,
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MTCS_Heritage_IE_Process.pdf, 17.
74
Project # LHC0247
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
iii.demonstrates a high degree of
The Property does not demonstrate a high
No
technical or scientific
degree of technical or scientific
achievement.
achievement. The building exhibits
vernacular and simple building methods
common at the time of construction.
2. The property has historical or
associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a
No The Property does not have direct
theme, event, belief, person,
associations with a theme, event, belief,
activity, organization, or
person, activity, organization, or institution
institution that is significant to a that is significant to a community.
community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to
No The Property does not yield, or havethe
yield, information that
potential to yield, information that
contributes to an understanding
contributes to an understanding of a
of a community or culture, or community or culture.
iii.demonstrates or reflects the
No The Property does not demonstrate or
work or ideas of an architect,
reflect the work or ideas of an architect,
artist, builder, designer, or
artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is
significant to a community. The house was
theorist who is significant to a
built using common materials and methods
community.
at the time of construction. It is unknown
who built the house.
3. The property has contextual
value because it,
i.is important in defining,
NoThe Property is not important in defining,
maintaining, or supporting the
maintaining, or supporting the character of
character of an area,
an area.
The area is in a point of transition with a
mixture of land uses with high-rise
development to the north and residential
land use to the south and west. The
Property’s location on Victoria Street South
is defined by high-rise development and
surface parking lots.
75
Project # LHC0247
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
ii. is physical, functionally, visually,
The Property is not physically, functionally,
No
or historically linked to its
visually, or historically linked to its
surroundings, or
surroundings.
The area is in a point of transition with a
mixture of land uses with high-rise
development to the north and residential
land use to the south and west. The
Property’s location on Victoria Street South
is defined by high-rise development and
surface parking lots.
iii.is a landmark.
No The Property is not a landmark. The
MHSTCI defines landmark
…as a recognizable natural or
human-made feature used for a point
of reference that helps orienting in a
familiar or unfamiliar environment; it
may mark an event or development;
116
it may be conspicuous…
The house does not meet this criterion.
In LHC’s professional opinion, the property municipally known as 138 Victoria Street South does
not meet the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06.
6.3 142 Victoria Street South
The property at 142 Victoria Street South was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA
using research and analysis presented in Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this HIA.
Table 8: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 142 Victoria Street South
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
1. The property has design value
or physical value because it,
116
MHSTCI, Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage
Identification & Evaluation Process, 17.
76
Project # LHC0247
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
i. is a rare, unique, representative,
The Property is a unique, representative,
Yes
or early example of a style, type,
and early example of an apartment building
expression, material, or
with Art Deco influence.
construction method,
Victoria Apartments was built in 1931 and
has continued to operate as an apartment
building for 90 years. Victoria Apartments is
one of the oldest surviving apartment
buildings in Kitchener, with the oldest, York
Apartments at 214 Queen Street South, built
in 1928 and opened in 1931.
The Property is a vernacular example of Art
Deco style popular from 1920 – 1940.
Elements including its symmetry, stepped
roofline with a parapet wall, brick quoins at
either side of the façade with sandstone
inlays at the centre of their flared capital
columns, geometric shape, and brick
construction reflect this style. However, the
Art Deco influences are limited to the
building’s façade and are not present on its
other elevations.
ii. displays a high degree of
NoThe Propertydoes not display a high degree
craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
of craftmanship or artistic merit. Despite
showing influences of the Art Deco style, the
building exhibits vernacular and simple
building methods common at the time of
construction.
iii.demonstrates a high degree of
NoThe Propertydoes not demonstrate a high
technical or scientific
degree of technical or scientific
achievement.
achievement. It was constructed using
common building methods at the time of
construction.
2. The property has historical or
associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a
NoThe Property does not have direct
theme, event, belief, person,
associations with a theme, event, belief,
activity, organization, or
person, activity, organization, or institution
that is significant to a community. Victoria
77
Project # LHC0247
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
institution that is significant to a
Apartment’s tenancy is defined by short term
community,
rentals.
ii. yields, or has the potential to
NoThe Property does notyield, or havethe
yield, information that
potential to yield, information that contributes
contributes to an understanding
to an understanding of a community or
culture.
of a community or culture, or
iii.demonstrates or reflects the
NoThe Property does not demonstrate or
work or ideas of an architect,
reflect the work or ideas of an architect,
artist, builder, designer or
artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is
theorist who is significant to a significant to a community. The vernacular
apartments were built using common
community.
materials and methods at the time of
construction. It is unknown who built the
apartments.
3. The property has contextual
value because it,
i. is important in defining,
NoThe Property is not important in defining,
maintaining, or supporting the
maintaining, or supporting the character of
character of an area,
an area.
The area is in a point of transition with a
mixture of land uses with high-rise
development to the north and residential
land use to the south and west. The
Property’s location on Victoria Street South
is defined by high-rise development and
surface parking lots.
ii. is physical, functionally, visually,
No The Property is not physically, functionally,
or historically linked to its
visually, or historically linked to its
surroundings, or
surroundings.
The area is in a point of transition with a
mixture of land uses with high-rise
development to the north and residential
land use to the south and west. The
Property’s location on Victoria Street South
is defined by high-rise development and
surface parking lots.
78
Project # LHC0247
CriteriaCriteria Justification
Met
iii.is a landmark.
The Property is not a landmark. The
No
MHSTCI defines landmark
…as a recognizable natural or
human-made feature used for a point
of reference that helps orienting in a
familiar or unfamiliar environment; it
may mark an event or development;
117
it may be conspicuous…
Victoria Apartments does not meet this
criterion.
In LHC’s professional opinion, the property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South
meets criteria 1.i. of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical value.
142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Plan 143 Lot 8 Part Lot 11
The property municipality known as 142 Victoria Street South has design and physical value
because it is a unique, representative, and early example of an apartment building with Art Deco
influence.
Victoria Apartments was built in 1931 and has continued to operate as an apartment building for
90 years. Victoria Apartments is one of the oldest surviving apartment buildings in Kitchener.
The Property is a vernacular example of Art Deco style popular from 1920 – 1940. Elements
including its symmetry, stepped roofline with a parapet wall, brick corner pilasters at either side
of the façade with flared tops and sandstone inlays at their centres, geometric shape, and brick
construction reflect this style. However, the Art Deco influences are limited to the building’s
façade and are not present on its other elevations.
The Property’s heritage value resides in attributes of the Victoria Apartments including its:
Stepped roofline with a parapet wall on the façade;
Engaged brick pilasters at either side of the façade that flare out at the top with
sandstone inlays at their centres;
Entrance façade door case with stepped brick surround;
117
MHSTCI, Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage
Identification & Evaluation Process, 17.
79
Project # LHC0247
Date stone reading “1931”;
Symmetrical façade windows; and,
Brick construction.
80
Project # LHC0247
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed new building comprises a twenty-five-storey residential building with two-storeys
of underground parking, retail on the ground floor, and live/work units and shared offices on the
second floor (Figure 51). The proposed building will front onto Victoria Street South and parking
will be accessed off Victoria Street South. It is proposed to be approximately 85 m above grade
with an estimated ground floor area of 247,230 square feet. The building’s podium is six-storeys
and 20.6 m tall with a façade of five bays with a two-storey parking entrance running across the
left side of the building.
The ground floor will include the entrance foyer and retail use and will be 5 m tall. Cladding will
be an orange brick running up between the three right bays with grey material along the base.
Each ground floor bay will have 3 to 4 full-length windows divided into panes on all elevations.
The left two bays will be inspired by 142 Victoria Street South in light yellow brick with a central
entrance door and the parking entrance on the far-left bay (Figure 55).
The second to sixth floors will be clad in orange brick running between each bay and continue
around the building’s podium (Figure 53 and Figure 54). Full-length windows divided into
multiple panes continue these bays for the length of the podium and will be topped with a wide
corbelled cornice with squared cornices. The two left bays will continue for two-storeys in light
yellow brick with a stepped parapet roofline and columns topped by a wide, squared, corbelled
cornices. Full length windows continue from the two left bays to the end of the podium.
Floor seven has an outdoor amenity space on the southwest elevation that integrates the design
of the existing Art Deco canopy found at 130 Victoria Street South (Figure 52 and Figure 54).
Floors seven to 21 are residential and stepped back from the podium that will be constructed of
glass and metal. They will include full-length windows at each elevation and a balcony at each
unit running across the windows.
Floors 22 to 25 are further stepped back and will be built of glass and metal. They will include
full-length windows at each elevation and a balcony at each unit running across windows.
The building will be topped by a stepped back glass and metal mechanical penthouse clad in
full-length windows.
81
Project # LHC0247
Perspective view
82
Project # LHC0247
83
Project # LHC0247
84
Project # LHC0247
85
Project # LHC0247
86
Project # LHC0247
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES
The MHSTCI’s Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans outlines
seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or site
alteration. The impacts include:
1. Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features;
2. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and
appearance;
3. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability
of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden;
4. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a
significant relationship;
5. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and
natural features;
6. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use,
allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and
7. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that
adversely affect an archaeological resource.
As 130 and 138 Victoria Street South were not found to meet O. Reg. 9/06, they will not be
assessed for potential impacts. The property located at 142 Victoria Street South was found to
meet O. Reg. 9/06 and a list of heritage attributes was prepared for this property. The following
table will consider potential negative impacts identified by the MHSTCI in relation to the
identified heritage attributes.
8.1 Potential Impacts to 142Victoria Street South
Table 9: Impact assessment of the heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South
Heritage Attributes Potential Type of Discussion
Impact Impact
Stepped roofline Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes
with a parapet wall alteration, and the removal of the building which will
change in land
on the façade lead to the loss of this attribute.
use.
However, the proposed development
draws design inspiration for the
proposed bay where 142 Victoria
Street South currently exists. A
stepped roofline with a parapet wall is
proposed for this bay and will be
constructed from the original
building’s salvaged materials.
87
Project # LHC0247
Heritage Attributes Potential Type of Discussion
Impact Impact
Engaged brick Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes
pilasters at either alteration, and the removal of the building which will
side of the façade change in land lead to the loss of this attribute.
that flare out at the use.
However, the proposed development
top with sandstone
draws design inspiration for the
inlays at their
proposed bay where 142 Victoria
centres;
Street South currently exists.
Columns on either side of the façade
with stone tops are proposed and will
be constructed from the original
building’s salvaged materials.
Entrance façade Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes
door case with alteration, and the removal of the building which will
stepped brick change in land lead to the loss of this attribute.
surround use.
Date stone reading Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes
alteration, and the removal of the building which will
“1931”
change in land lead to the loss of this attribute.
use.
Symmetrical façade Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes
alteration, and the removal of the building which will
windows
change in land lead to the loss of this attribute.
use.
However, the proposed development
draws design inspiration for the
proposed bay where 142 Victoria
Street South currently exists.
Symmetrical windows are proposed
for both floors of this bay.
Brick construction Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes
alteration, and the removal of the building which will
change in land lead to the loss of this attribute.
use.
However, the proposed development
draws design inspiration for the
proposed bay where 142 Victoria
Street South currently exists. The bay
is to be constructed of buff brick
salvaged from the original structure.
88
Project # LHC0247
8.2Summary of Potential Impacts
Potential impacts related to the proposed development were explored in Table 9. Potential
adverse impacts were identified for all heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South. If the
building is removed, all heritage attributes will be lost. Alternatives and mitigation measures to
lessen or avoid these potential impacts are outlined in the following sections.
89
Project # LHC0247
CONSIDERED MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES
9.1 Considered Options
The following range of possible development alternatives was explored. All options have been
considered in relation to the applicable planning framework outlined in Section 3.0. As noted in
Section 6.0, LHC found 142 Victoria Street South to meet O. Reg. 9/06 and have heritage
attributes but did not find 130 and 138 Victoria Street South to meet the criteria outlined in O.
Reg. 9/06. The options have considered existing conditions. The preferred option is identified.
This option would leave the Propertiesas is and the existing buildingswould remain i n situ. As
the Properties are currently being used for commercial and residential purposes, another
commercial or residential enterprise would retain the current use of the buildings.
The ‘do nothing’ option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the
Properties or adjacent heritage properties as there would be no changes to the Properties.
However, in the context of proposed redevelopment of this site, retention in situ is not a viable
option.
This option would leave the existing buildings in situ; however, the buildings would be used in a
different way. Based on the observed existing conditions, the condition of the buildings would
support a variety of uses. This option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage
attributes of the Properties or adjacent heritage properties as there would be no changes to the
Properties.
An alternate use could result in direct impacts to the Properties as renovations are undertaken
to allow for the reuse. The property located at 130 Victoria Street South has already undergone
renovations related to a change in use. The heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South
could be impacted depending on the reuse, but this is unlikely as its attributes are limited to the
façade.
In the context of proposed redevelopment of this site, retention in situ is not a viable option.
This option would see the relocation of the existing buildings within the parcel. This option would
result in an alteration of the building’s context but would otherwise mitigate any direct impacts
on the heritage attributes of the Properties. However, in the context of the proposed
development which will comprise the entirety of the parcel, relocation is not a viable option.
This option would see the removal of the structures at 130 and 138 Victoria Street South and the
integration of the building at 142 Victoria Street South into the proposed new 25-storey tower.
Although preferred from a strictly heritage perspective, this alternative is not feasible within the
90
Project # LHC0247
context of the overall project due to site constraints which include requirements forthe entrance
to the parking garage to be constructed at the location of 142 Victoria Street South.
This option would see the deconstruction of the structures on the Properties with careful salvage
or panelization of heritage attributes to allow for full demolition and removal of non-contributing
elements. Salvaged materials would be integrated into the proposed development. Based on
LHC’s O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation, heritage attributes were identified for 142 Victoria Street South.
This is limited to the facade, which have been partially integrated into the design of the
distinctive corner element of the podium through the reuse of buff bricks from 142 Victoria Street
and the incorporation of heritage attributes and distinctive features from the properties as
architectural elements across the building’s façade and internal elements of communal spaces.
This includes the use of the drive-thru canopy in an exterior amenity space above the podium. It
is recommended that, as design progresses and is refined, additional elements from the
Properties, such as the Victoria Apartments front entrance and the date stone, be incorporated
to the fullest extent possible.
This option would remove the Properties from their context but would partially conserve heritage
attributes while allowing for redevelopment.
The adjacent development at 120 Victoria Street South has designed the development around
the existing heritage building at the corner of the lot.
This option would remove the Properties from their context but would partially conserve heritage
attributes while allowing for redevelopment.
This option would seek to demolish the existing buildings while being designed to avoid impacts
on the adjacent heritage properties.
Based on the foregoing research and analysis, 142 Victoria Street South meets O. Reg. 9/06
criteria. Its removal would result in an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value or interest
or heritage attributes of the Properties.
Removal of the structure is not expected to result in direct adverse impacts on adjacent heritage
properties.
9.2 Preferred Option
Given that Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not viable within the context of redevelopment, Option 5:
Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development is the
preferred option because it partially conserves the Properties’ heritage attributes and avoids the
potential for negative impacts on the Property and adjacent heritage properties. Some heritage
attributes will require selective deconstruction while others, like the stepped parapet, may be
integrated into the development more effectively through panelization.
This option is consistent with current redevelopment along Victoria Street South and would
allow for reuse of salvaged materials integrated into a design of the podium of the new structure
91
Project # LHC0247
thatdraws architectural inspiration from Victoria Apartmentsfor itsdistinctive corner element. In
addition to the distinctive corner element, the podium incorporates a more industrial design that
is consistent with the surrounding area as well as key features such as the grey stone inlays at
the tops of pilasters.
This option also sees the extensive reuse of salvaged buff bricks from both 130 and 142 Victoria
Street South and the incorporation of heritage attributes from the properties as design features
in communal spaces. This includes use of the drive-thru canopy in an exterior amenity space
above the podium.
It is recommended that as design progresses and is refined, additional elements from the
Properties, such as the Victoria Apartments front entrance and the date stone, be incorporated
to the fullest extent possible. In the case of the date stone, it is important to pair its incorporation
with interpretive signage or plaquing to avoid misinterpretation of the new building.
92
Project # LHC0247
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LHC was retained 11 February 2021 by Nusrat Govindji to undertake an HIA for 130, 138, and
142 Victoria Street South in the City of Kitchener.
The Property Owner is proposing to build a 25-storey residential building with two-storeys of
underground parking, retail on the ground floor, and live/work units and shared offices on the
second floor. This HIA is being prepared to evaluate the Properties and to outline heritage
planning constraints affected by the proposed development. This HIA was undertaken in
accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the MHSTCI’s Ontario Heritage
Toolkit and the City of Kitchener’s Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference.
In LHC’s professional opinion:
the property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria
of O. Reg. 9/06;
the property municipally known as 138 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria
of O. Reg. 9/06; and,
the property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria
of O. Reg. 9/06.
Potential adverse impacts were identified for all heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South if
the building is removed for the proposed development. Alternatives and mitigation measures to
lessen or avoid these potential impacts were explored.
Given that Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not viable in the context of the project, Option 5: Partial
Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development is the
preferred option as it partially conserves the heritage attributes of the Properties through careful
salvage or panelization of brick and stone materials and heritage attributes for reuse in the
podium. The Victoria Apartments building provides architectural inspiration for the design of the
new development in the form of the distinctive buff brick corner element that serves as the
entrance to the underground parking and carries through characteristic features of the Victoria
Apartments building.
Incorporation of heritage attributes, such as the drive-thru canopy, are also proposed for
communal spaces. It is recommended that, as design progresses and is refined, additional
elements from the Properties, such as the Victoria Apartments front entrance and the date
stone, be incorporated to the fullest extent possible. Should the date stone be incorporated into
the development, it is recommended that it be accompanied by interpretive plaquing or signage
to avoid misinterpretation of the new structure.
93
Project # LHC0247
SIGNATURES
Please contact the undersigned should you require any clarification or if additional information is
identified that might have an influence on the findings of this report.
Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP
Principal, Manager Heritage Consulting Services
LHC
94
Project # LHC0247
REFERENCES
11.1 Policy and Legislation Resources
City of Kitchener. “By-law 2021-084 Designate the property municipally known as 214 Queen
Street South.” Ontario Heritage Trust. Last modified June 11, 2012. Accessed May 12,
2021. https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/fr/oha/details/file?id=5012.
City of Kitchener Council. “City of Kitchener Council Minutes February 1, 2010.” Laserfiche Web
Link. https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/5u4na5nyecp0ospgkl4gljlm/14/Council%20-
%202010-02-01.pdf.
City of Kitchener. “City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051.” Last modified April 29, 2019.
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CROZBY_Cons
olidated_Zoning_Bylaw_Council_Approved.pdf.
City of Kitchener. “Index of Non-Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest.” Last
modified 2017.
City of Kitchener. “City of Kitchener Official Plan.” Last modified November 19, 2014.
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_City_of_Kitchen
er_Official_Plan_2014.pdf.
City of Kitchener. “City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1.” Last modified March 29, 2004.
https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%
201%20-%20General%20Scope.pdf.
City of Kitchener. “Schedule 73.” Zoning By-law 85-1. Last modified August 27, 2018.
https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20A%20
-%20Zoning%20Grid%20Schedules//SCHEDULE_73.pdf.
City of Kitchener, “Section 53,” Zoning By-law 85-1, Last modified October 7, 2013,
https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%
2053%20-%20Low%20Intensity%20Mixed%20Use%20Corridor%20Zone%20(MU-1).pdf
City of Kitchener. “Zoning bylaw.” Development and construction. Last modified 2021. Accessed
May 4, 2021. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning-
bylaw.aspx.
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. “Heritage Conservation Principles
for Landuse Planning.” Last modified 2007. Accessed March 11, 2021,
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/InfoSheet_Principles_LandUse_Planning.pdf
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. “Heritage Property Evaluation: A
Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario
Communities.” The Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006. Accessed February 3, 2021.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HPE_Eng.pdf.
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. “PPS Info Sheet: Heritage
Resources in the Land Use Planning Process.” The Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006.
95
Project # LHC0247
Accessed January 11, 2021.http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/
Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. “Standards and Guidelines for
Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.” Last modified April 28, 2010. Accessed
February 3, 2021.http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf.
Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial
Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. Last modified 2014.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MTCS_Heritage_IE_Process.pdf.
Parks Canada. “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada,
nd
2Edition.” Canada’s Historic Places. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010.
Accessed March 11, 2021, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-
eng-web2.pdf.
Province of Ontario. “Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25.” April 19, 2021.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25.
Province of Ontario. “Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.” Last modified July 1, 2019.
Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18
Province of Ontario. “O. Reg. 10/06:Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
of Provincial Significance - Under Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.” Last
modified January 25, 2006. Accessed February 3, 2021.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010.
Province of Ontario. “Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13.” April 19, 2021.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05p13.
Province of Ontario. “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.” Last
modified August 2020. Accessed February 5, 2021. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-
to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf.
Province of Ontario. “Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.” Last modified December 8, 2020.
Accessed February 3, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13.
Province of Ontario. “Provincial Policy Statement 2020 – Under the Planning Act.” Last modified
May 1, 2020. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-
statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. “Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan.” Last
modified June 18, 2015. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/land-
use-planning.aspx.
Region of Waterloo. “Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan.” Last modified October 2002.
https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/resources/Documents/
artsmasterplan.pdf.
ICOMOS. “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites
(The Venice Charter 1964). Accessed March 11, 2021.
https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf.
96
Project # LHC0247
ICOMOS Canada. Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built
Environment. Last modified August 1983. Accessed March 11, 2021,
https://www.icomos.org/charters/appleton.pdf.
Wade, Michelle. “DTS- 00510 Listing of Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value of
Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register.” Heritage Kitchener Committee. Last
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/
modified December 16, 2009. Laserfiche Web Link.
PDF/5u4na5nyecp0ospgkl4gljlm/15/DTS-10-005%20-%20Listing%20of%20Non-
Designated%20Property%20of%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Value%20.pdf.
11.2 Mapping Resources
Author Unknown. Map of Waterloo Township. Scale 1:63,360. In: H. Parsell and Co. Illustrated
Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell and Co., 1881.
Author Unknown. Map of the Township of Waterloo and Woolwich. University of Waterloo's
Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021.
Geographical Section, General Staff. Topographic Map, Ontario, Stratford Sheet. Scale
1:63,360. Stratford Sheet No. 97. n.p.: Department of National Defence, 1927.
Geographical Section, General Staff. Topographic Map, Ontario, Stratford Sheet. Scale
1:63,360. Sheet No. 40 P/7. n.p.: Department of National Defence, 1927 rev. 1933.
Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine. Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West. Scale
1:39,600.Toronto: Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine, 1861.
Herman Brosius. Berlin, Province, Ontario, Canada. University of Waterloo's Geospatial
Centre's Historical Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021.
Library and Archives Canada. “Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians,
situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie,
containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office
York 2nd February 1821. \[cartographic material\]” 1821. Item ID Number 4129506.
Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa.
University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener-Waterloo.
Photo IM30. 1930. Accessed May 26, 2021 at
https://lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html
University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener-Waterloo.
Photo IM30. 1945. Accessed May 26, 2021 at
https://lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html
University of Toronto. 1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario. Photo 434.803. Accessed May
10,2021 athttps://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-
ontario/index.
Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. Insurance Plan of the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Scale
1:1,200. Toronto: Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd., 1908 rev. 1925.
97
Project # LHC0247
Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. Insurance Plan of the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Scale 1,200.
Toronto: Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd., 1908 rev. 1947.
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
Community.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy Mines and Resources. Waterloo-Kitchener
West, Waterloo County, Ontario. Scale 1:25,000. Edition 1. Sheet 40 P/7h. Ottawa: Map
Distribution Office, Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1965 rev. 1969.
Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy Mines and Resources. Waterloo-
Kitchener, Waterloo Regional Municipality, Ontario. Scale 1:25,000. Edition 2. Sheet 40
P/7h. Ottawa: CanadaMap Office, Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1976.
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. Photo No.
752. Scale 1:4,800. Kitchener: Kitchener Public Library, April 1975.
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. 1990 Aerial
Photography. Photo No 11N. Scale 1:5,000. Waterloo: Kitchener Public Library, 1990.
Waterloo Open Data. Aerial Imagery (2003). Accessed May 13, 2021.
https://data.waterloo.ca/search?q=2003.
11.3 Archival Resources
New York, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis Island),
1820-1957 \[database on-line\]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.: Provo, UT, USA, 2010.
Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1826-1938 \[database on-line\]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.:
Provo, UT, USA, 2010. Ancestry.com and Genealogical Research Library (Brampton,
Ontario, Canada).
Ontario Land Registry. “WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143.” Historical Books.
https://www.onland.ca/ui/58/books/82987/viewer/445262592?page=1.
Registrations of Marriages, 1869-1928; Microfilm: 734. Archives of Ontario: Toronto.
UK and Ireland, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 \[database on-line\]. Board of Trade:
Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger Lists.
BT27. Records of the Commercial, Companies, Labour, Railways and Statistics
Departments. Records of the Board of Trade and of successor and related bodies. The
National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.:
Provo, UT, USA. 2012.
Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1929.
Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1929.
98
Project # LHC0247
Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1931.
Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1931.
Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1932.
Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1932.
Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1935.
Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1935.
Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1939.
Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1939.
Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon’s City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1940.
Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1940.
11.4 Additional Resources
CORE Architects Inc. “130-142 Victoria St. S.” Last modified May 21, 2021.
City of Kitchener. Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city. Kitchener, ON:
City of Kitchener, 2012.
Clermont, Norman. “The Archaic Occupation of the Ottawa Valley.” In La préhistoire de
l’Outaouais/Ottawa Valley Prehistory. Editor Pilon. Outaouais Historical Society, 1999.
Crispino, M. and M. D’Apuzzo. “Measurement and Prediction of Traffic-induced Vibrations in a
Heritage Building.” Journal of Sound and Vibration 246, no. 2 (2001): 319-335.
D’Amato, L. “An owner bids farewell to his business: ‘All my life has been here’.” Waterloo
Region Record. March 20, 2015. https://www.toronto.com/opinion-story/5516487-d-
amato-an-owner-bids-farewell-to-his-business-all-my-life-has-been-here-/.
Elby, Ezra. A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county.
Volume 1. Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895.
Ellis, Chris, Ian Kenyon, and Michael Spence. “The Archaic,” In The Archaeology of Southern
Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5,
edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 65-124. London: Ontario Archaeological
Society, 1990.
Ellis, Chris, and D. Brian Deller. “Paleo-Indians.” In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to
A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited
by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 37-63. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990.
Ellis, Patricia. “Effects of Traffic Vibration on Historic Buildings.” The Science of the Total
Environment 59 (1987): 37-45.
English, John and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kitchener: An Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Bross
Studio, 1996.
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force. “Chapter 3: The First Nations.” In
Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks.
99
Project # LHC0247
Toronto: Toronto Regional Conservation Authority, 2002,
http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf
Fram, Mark. Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and
rd
Practice for Architectural Conservation, 3Edition. Erin ON: Boston Mills Press, 2003.
Accessed March 18, 2021, https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/publications/well-
preserved
Fox, William. “The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition.” In The Archaeology of
Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS
Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 171-188. London: Ontario
Archaeological Society, 1990.
Google. “130 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.” Google Maps. Last
modified June 2016. Accessed May 12, 2021.
Groat, Cody. “Six Nations of the Grand River.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified
February 18, 20202. Accessed May 7, 2021.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of-the-grand-river.
Kalman, Harold. A History of Canadian Architecture. Volume 2. Toronto: Oxford University
Press. 1994.
McCallumSather. “Heritage Impact Assessment: 17069 | 114-120 Victoria Street S.” Last
updated October 2017. Accessed 20 October 2021 from
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1555748&page=24&cr=1.
McLaughlin, Kenneth. “Kitchener-Waterloo.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified
February 24, 2017. Accessed May 7, 2021.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener-waterloo.
Mills, Rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 – 1960. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002.
Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First
Nation.” Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. Last modified 2018.
http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf.
Moyer, Bill. Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History. Burlington, ON: Windsor
Publications Canada Ltd., 1979.
Ontario Architecture. “Art Deco.” Accessed May 12, 2021,
http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/artdeco.htm.
Parks, Sarah. “From Arches to Turrets: Architectural Styles in Kitchener.” ACO North Waterloo
Region. Presented June 6, 2018. https://www.aconwr.ca/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/From-Arches-to-Turrets-Jun-6-18-2.pdf
Pender, Terry. “Former dry cleaning building in Kitchener has high-tech future.” The Record.
March 29, 2016. https://www.therecord.com/business/2016/03/29/former-dry-cleaning-
building-in-kitchener-has-high-tech-future.html.
100
Project # LHC0247
Rainer, J.H. “Effect of Vibrations on Historic Buildings.” The Association for Preservation
Technology Bulletin. XIV, no. 1 (1982): 2-10.
Randl, Chad. “Temporary Protection Number 3: Protecting a Protecting a Historic Structure
during Adjacent Construction.” Preservation Tech Notes. US Department of the Interior
National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Last modified July 2001. Accessed March
11, 2021, https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech-notes/Tech-Notes-
Six Nations. “The Haldimand Treaty of 1784.” Lands and Resources. Last modified 2008,
Accessed May 7, 2021. http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaldProc.htm.
Six Nations Elected Council. “Community Profile.” Six Nations of the Grand River. Last modified
2013. Accessed May 7, 2021. http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm.
Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation. “History of Six Nations.” Accessed
May 7, 2021. https://sndevcorp.ca/history-of-six-nations/.
Six Nations Tourism. “History.” Accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/
Spence, Michael, Robert Pihl, and Carl Murphy. “Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle
Woodland Periods.” In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650,
Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis
and Neil Ferris, 125-169. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990.
Protection03.pdf
Toronto Region Conservation Authority. “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of
Indigenous Peoples in the GTA.” News. Last modified 2018.
https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta/.
University of Waterloo. “Land acknowledgment.” Faculty Association. Accessed May 7, 2021.
https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/land-acknowledgement.
Waterloo Region Museum. “History of Waterloo Township.” Accessed May 7, 2021.
https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo-
township.aspx#note1.
Waterloo Region Museum. “John Bramm 1817-1893.” List of Hall of Fame Inductees.
https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/exhibits/past-and-present-inductees.aspx#.
Wiss, J.F. “Construction Vibrations; State-of-the-Art.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division 107 (1981): 167-181.
101
Project # LHC0247
APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL
Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP – Principal, LHC
Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with
LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of
experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently
President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and
received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies.
Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources
in the context of Environmental Assessment.
Since 2003 Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support, and
expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario
and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment
at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural
gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She
has completed more than 100 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all
levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments,
and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage
Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments.
Colin Yu, MA – Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist
Colin Yu is a Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist with LHC. He holds a BSc with a
specialist in Anthropology from the University of Toronto and a M.A. in Heritage and Archaeology
from the University of Leicester. He has a special interest in identifying socioeconomic factors of
19th century Euro-Canadian settlers through quantitative and qualitative ceramic analysis.
Colin has worked in the heritage industry for over eight years, starting out as an archaeological
field technician in 2013. He currently holds an active research license (R1104) with the Ministry
of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI). He is an intern member of the
Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP).
At LHC Colin has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural
heritage. He has completed over thirty cultural heritage technical reports for development
proposals and include Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Statements,
Environmental Assessments, and Archaeological Assessments. Colin has worked on a wide
range of cultural heritage resources including; cultural landscapes, institutions, commercial and
residential sites as well as infrastructure such as bridges, dams, and highways.
He specializes in built heritage, historic research, and identifying cultural heritage value and/or
interest though O. Reg. 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Lisa Coles, B.A. – Junior Heritage Planner
Lisa Coles is a Junior Heritage Planner with LHC. She holds a B.A. (Hons) in History and French
from the University of Windsor and a Graduate Certificate in Museum Management & Curatorship
from Fleming College. Lisa is currently a Master of Arts in Planning candidate at the University of
Waterloo and has over five years of heritage sector experience through various positions in
102
Project # LHC0247
museums and public sector heritage planning. She is excited to have the opportunity to work in
all aspects of the heritage field and to build on her previous experience as part of the LHC team.
Hayley Devitt Nabuurs, MPl – Heritage Planner *no longer with LHC
Hayley Devitt Nabuurs holds a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from Trent University and a
Master’s of Urban and Regional Planning from Queen’s University. Hayley’s master’s report
research concerned the reconciliation of heritage and accessibility in community centres.
Hayley has over a decade of experience in the heritage field through her work in both the public
and private planning sector and the museum sector. She has previously worked as a Heritage
Planning Research Assistant with the City of Guelph. Hayley is currently a committee member
with the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and the Ontario Business Improvement
Area Association. She is a Candidate Member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, a
Candidate Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and an Intern Member of the Canadian
Association of Heritage Professionals.
Hayley has worked on over fifty cultural heritage reports at LHC for a wide range of clients across
Ontario. These include official plan policy creation for a regional municipality, cultural heritage
evaluation reports for property owners, planning strategy reports for hearing preparation, heritage
impact assessments for new developments, and peer reviews for municipalities. These reports
required the analysis of a wide range of policies along with heritage best practice guidelines,
resulting in creative and effective solutions for clients.
Jordan Greene, BA – Mapping Technician
Jordan Greene is a mapping technician with LHC. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geography
with a Certificate in Geographic Information Science and a Certificate in Urban Planning Studies
from Queen’s University. The experience gained through the completion of the Certificate in
Geographic Information Science allowed Jordan to volunteer as a research assistant contributing
to the study of the extent of the suburban population in America with Dr. David Gordon. Prior to
her work at LHC, Jordan spent the final two years of her undergraduate degree working in
managerial positions at the student-run Printing and Copy Centre as an Assistant and Head
Manager. Jordan has had an interest in heritage throughout her life and is excited to build on her
existing professional and GIS experience as a part of the LHC team.
103
Project # LHC0247
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY
Definitions are based on the Ontario Heritage Act, (OHA), the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS),
Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP), and the City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP).
Adjacent Lands means those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise
defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS).
Adjacent means lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly
opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road
or other right-of-way. (OP).
Alter means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, or disturb and
“alteration” has a corresponding meaning (“transformer”, “transformation”) (OHA).
Archaeological assessment means the combined background research and field study of a
property evaluated as moderate to high on Archaeological Potential Maps approved by the
Province that identify the presence of and interpretation of the archaeological resources on the
property, and make recommendations for the mitigation of the impacts on the resources.
Archaeological assessments must be undertaken by a Provincially–licensed archaeologist, in
accordance with reporting guidelines established by the Provincial Government, and must
address the entire area of the development application. (ROP).
Archaeological potential means the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Criteria for
determining archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches
which achieve the same objectives may also be used. Archaeological potential is confirmed
through archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP).
Archaeological resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological
sites. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork
undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP).
Archaeological Resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological
sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such
resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario
Heritage Act. (OP).
Built heritage resources means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments,
installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military
history and identified as being important to the community. These resources may be identified
through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed
by local, regional, provincial or federal jurisdictions. (ROP).
Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any
manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as
identified by a community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has
been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by included on local,
Regional, Provincial and/or Federal registers. (OP).
104
Project # LHC0247
Community Character refers to identifiable pockets of the urban fabric with distinctive physical
attributes. These attributes include but are not limited to development patterns, scale of the built
environment, architectural vernacular of existing buildings and structures, cultural heritage
resources and community infrastructure. Community character is a reflection of community image,
identity and sense of place and may also reflect cultural and social values. Cultivating community
character is intended to foster community pride. (OP).
Conserve/conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural
heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and
integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact
assessment. (ROP).
Conserve/Conserved/Conservation means the identification, protection, management and use
of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a
manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under Ontario Heritage
Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a heritage
conservation plan, archeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative
measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and
assessments. (OP).
Compatibility/Compatible means land uses and building forms that are mutually tolerant and
capable of existing together in harmony within an area without causing unacceptable adverse
effects, adverse environmental impacts or adverse impacts. Compatibility or compatible should
not be narrowly interpreted to mean “the same as” or even as “being similar to”. (OP).
Contiguous means lands that are situated in sufficiently close proximity such that development
or site alteration could reasonably be expected to produce one or more of the following impacts:
alterations to existing hydrological or hydrogeological regimes; clearing of existing vegetation;
erosion and sedimentation; or producing a substantial disruption of existing natural linkages or
the habitat of a significant species. (ROP).
Culture/Cultural is the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional
features that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only arts and letters, but also
modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs.
(OP).
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment means a study to determine if cultural heritage resources
will be negatively impacted by a proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate
how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site
alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development approaches may also be
recommended. (ROP).
Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area of heritage significance which
has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of
individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements,
which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent
elements or parts. (ROP).
105
Project # LHC0247
Cultural Heritage Landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified
by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community.
The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural
elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples
may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario
Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries,
trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas
recognized by federal or international designation authorities. (OP).
Cultural heritage resources are the physical remains and the intangible cultural traditions of
past human activities. These include, but are not limited to:
buildings (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and agricultural);
cultural heritage landscapes (designed, organic/evolved);
structures (water tower; bridge, fence and dam);
monuments (cenotaph, statue and cairn);
archaeological resources;
cemeteries;
scenic roads;
vistas/viewsheds;
culturally significant natural features (tree and landform);
movable objects (archival records and artifacts); and
cultural traditions (language, stories, music, dance, food, celebrations, art and crafts).
(ROP).
Cultural Heritage Resources means includes buildings, structures and properties designated
under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, properties on the
Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, built heritage resources and cultural heritage
landscapes as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. (OP).
Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of
buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act. (ROP).
Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, the construction of buildings
and structures or an addition or alteration to a building or structure that substantially increases
the size or usability of the site, requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include:
a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental
assessment process; and,
b) works subject to the Drainage Act. (OP).
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,
106
Project # LHC0247
constructed, or 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).
(PPS).
Heritage Corridors means streets or multi-use pathways which because of their unique
structural, topographic and visual characteristics, as well as abutting vegetation, built environment
and cultural landscape, historical significance or location within a Heritage Conservation District
are recognized as a cultural heritage resource and are intended to be conserved. (OP).
Heritage Attributes means the principle features or elements that contribute to a cultural heritage
resource’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured
elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including
significant views or vistas to or from a cultural heritage resource. (OP).
Heritage Conservation District means a geographic area primarily made up of a group of
buildings, streets and open spaces which collectively contribute to the cultural heritage value or
interest of the area. (OP).
Heritage Conservation District Plan means a document that provides policies and guidelines
to assist in the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage values of the district. The
document includes a statement of objectives, a statement of the district’s cultural heritage value
or interest, a description of the district’s heritage attributes, policies, guidelines and procedures
for achieving stated objectives and managing future change, and a description of external
alterations or classes of external alterations that are of minor nature that an owner can carry out
without obtaining a permit. (OP).
Heritage Conservation Plan means a document that details how a cultural heritage resource
can be conserved. The conservation plan may be supplemental to a heritage impact assessment,
but is typically a separate document. The recommendations of the plan should include
descriptions of repairs, stabilization and preservation activities as well as long term conservation,
monitoring and maintenance measures. (OP).
Heritage Impact Assessment means a document comprising text and graphic material including
plans, drawings, photographs that contains the results of historical research, field work, survey,
analysis, and description(s) of cultural heritage resources together with a description of the
process and procedures in deriving potential effects and mitigation measures as required by
official plan policies and any other applicable or pertinent guidelines. A heritage impact
assessment may include an archaeological assessment where appropriate. (OP).
Identify/Identified (in regard to cultural heritage landscapes) means designate for the
purposes of the Regional Official Plan. (OP).
Municipal Heritage Register means a register maintained by the City of Kitchener, in
accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, which includes protected heritage properties and
properties listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. (OP).
Property means real property and includes all buildings and structures thereon. (OHA).
Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario
Heritage Act; heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;.
107
Project # LHC0247
property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property
under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property
protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (OP).
Qualified Person for the purposes of cultural heritage resources, means an individual including
a professional engineer, architect, archaeologist, etc., having relevant, recent experience in the
conservation of cultural heritage resources. (OP).
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. (PPS).
108
Project # LHC0247
APPENDIX C: CITY DIRECTORY RECORDS FOR THE PROPERTIES
Table 10: City Directory Records for the Properties
AddressPeople
1931 City Directory
Between 122 and 146 Wilmont Avenue New house
New Apartments
1932 City Directory
138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech
Frank Targos
142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts.1. Mary Harvey
1.A. DA Buchanan
2. BB Buchholtz
2.A. August Hoffman
3. Bert Thornton
4. AM Acton
5. Vacant
6. HG Ocstreich
7. Robert Eisenbach
8. Frank Gofton
9. EH Miller
10. IA Oswald
1933 City Directory
N/A Municipal yard
138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech
142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts.1. Elvin Underwood
1.A. Hector Lacroix
2. LE Wynowsky
2.A. August Hoffman
3. Vacant
4. Burton Llyod
5. LA Winter
6. RN Eisenbach
7. Richard Schoone
109
Project # LHC0247
Address People
8. Vacant
9. PE Wilson
10. S Cawker
1934 City Directory
N/A Municipal yard
138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech
142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts.1. Vacant
1.A. August Hoffman
2. RN Eisenbach
2.A. Richard Schoone
3. JM Levene
4. Adolph Sell
5. LA Winter
6. AW Miller
7. Vacant
8. Vacant
9. Emily P Smith
10. Vacant
1935 City Directory
N/A Municipal yard
138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech
142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts.1. Frances Cumming
1.A. August Hoffman
2. Adam Kummer
2.A. Marjorie Gordanier
3. Muriel MacMillan
4. Adolph G Sell
5. George H Box
6. WE Schilling
7. HH Naidus
8. Vacant
9. Ethel M Saife
10. George Waysluk
110
Project # LHC0247
Address People
1936 City Directory
Municipal yard
138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech
Mrs. F McGruther
142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts.1. FJ Leinweber
1.A. August Hoffman
2. Adam Kummer
2.A. RV Lawrence
3. Vacant
4. Adolph G Sell
5. George H Box
6. Joseph Brown
7. Harold C Plantz
8. Leon J Corbeau
9. Ethel M Saife
10. George Waysluk
1938 City Directory
N/A Municipal yard
138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech
142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts.1. John A White
1.A. August Hoffman
2. Adam Kummer, junk
2.A. GE Dowdle
3. Thomas Conaway
4. Jack Zuber
5. George H Box
6. Joseph Brown
7. Walter Strouse
8. HW Main
9. Leonard Hopkins
10. George Waysluk
1939 City Directory
130 Victoria Street SouthMacIntosh Cleaners Ltd.
111
Project # LHC0247
Address People
Burtol Cleaners
138 Victoria Street SouthJohn Swiech
142 Victoria Street South Victoria Apts. 1. John A White
1.A. August Hoffman
2. Adam Kummer, junk
2.A. Pearl Russell
3. AC Dowsett
4. Jack H Zuber
5. Peter Baechler
6. Alex Kasman
7. Vacant
8. HW Main
9. Leonard Hopkins
10. George Waysluk
1940 City Directory
130 Victoria Street SouthMacIntosh Cleaners Ltd.
Burtol Cleaners
138 Victoria Street SouthJohn Swiech
142 Victoria Street South Victoria Apts. 1. Edna Esbaugh
1.A. WH Wrighton
2. George H Deorksen
2.A. Peter Russell
3. AC Dowsett
4. Jack H Zuber
5. Edith Hahn
6. Alex Kasman
7. GL Baker
8. Jason D Bishop
9. Sydney Ives
10. George Waysluk
112
Project # LHC0247
APPENDIX D: LAND REGISTRY RECORDS FOR THE PROPERTIES
130 Victoria Street South Lot 10
Table 11: 130 Victoria Street South Lot 10 Ownership
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
46200 Grant 13 March 29 March 1922 John Bramm Jr. Ex. Alford Boehmer 2100.00
1922 John Bramm,
George Bramm Sr.,
Caroline Bramm
74529 Grant 16 Nov 9 Dec 1937 Alford Boehmer MacIntosh 100
1937 Cleaners Ltd.
75096 Mech Lien 26 May 28 May 1938 D Ltd. MacIntosh 8560.00
1938 Cleaners Ltd.
75115 6 June 7 June 1938 John N. H MacIntosh 2850.24
1938 Cleaners Ltd.
75363 Mortgage 1 July 9 Aug 1938 MacIntosh Cleaners D Ltd. 19,900.00
1938 Ltd.
75371 D of Lien 12 Aug 12 Aug 1938 D Ltd. MacIntosh Discharge 75076
1938 Cleaners Ltd.
78643 Discharge 7 Jan 17 Oct 1940 Canadian Ltd. See no 75115
1940
82978 D of M 30 Jan 9 Mar 1943 D Ltd. MacIntosh See no 95363
1943 Cleaners Ltd.
100614 Mortgage 22 Sep 28 Sep 1949 MacIntosh Cleaners The Waterloo Trust 10,000.00 Lot et al.
1949 Ltd., Kenneth L., and Savings Corp.
Kenneth E., Harold,
Gerald A., C.
Bertram MacIntosh
guarantor
113
Project # LHC0247
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
113824 Mortgage 30 Jan 25 Feb 1953 MacIntosh Cleaners The Waterloo Trust 15,000.00 Lots etc.
1953 Ltd., Kenneth L., and Savings Corp.
Kenneth E., Harold,
Gerald A., C.
Bertram MacIntosh
guarantor
113829 D of M 2 Feb 25 Feb 1953 The Waterloo Trust MacIntosh See 100614
1953 and Savings Corp. Cleaners Ltd.
122300 Mortgage 25 Mar 26 Mar 1957 MacIntosh Cleaners The Waterloo Trust 11,000.00 Lot etc.
1957 Ltd., Kenneth L., and Savings Corp.
Kenneth E., Harold,
Gerald A., C.
Bertram MacIntosh
guarantor
152388 D of M 26 Mar 29 Mar 1957 The Waterloo Trust MacIntosh See 113824
1957 and Savings Corp. Cleaners Ltd.
155025 Grant 4 June 19 Nov 1959 MacIntosh Cleaners MacIntosh 100 Lot etc.
1959 Ltd. Cleaners Ltd.
XXXX13 D of M 2 Feb 5 Feb 1961 The Waterloo Trust MacIntosh See 152300
1921 and Savings Corp. Cleaners Ltd.
317276 Mortgage 26 Jan 10 Mar 1961 MacIntosh Cleaners Industrial 89,000.00 Lot etc. covenant
1961 Ltd., Kenneth L., Development Bank
Kenneth E., Harold,
Gerald A., C.
Bertram MacIntosh
guarantor
346775 D of M 8 May 16 May 1967 Industrial MacIntosh Dry See 117276
1967 Development Bank Cleaners Ltd.
114
Project # LHC0247
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
787864 Mortgage 30 July 1984 MacIntosh Dry G. Raymond 96,000.00 Lot 10 and pt. lot 11
Cleaners Ltd. MacIntosh, C.
Bertram
MacIntosh, Gerald
A. MacIntosh, and
Estate of Harold
W. MacIntosh
870266 Agreement 2 October 1986 MacIntosh Dry G. Raymond Amends mortgage #
Cleaners Ltd. MacIntosh, C. 787864
Bertram
MacIntosh, Gerald
A. MacIntosh, and
Estate of Harold
W. MacIntosh
1028920 Charge 21 Feb 1990 MacIntosh Dry The Royal Bank of Lot 10 and pt. lot 11
Cleaners Ltd. Canada
1039111 Agreement 17 May 1990 MacIntosh Dry The Royal Bank of Amends charge
amends Cleaners Ltd. Canada #1028920
charge
115
Project # LHC0247
138 Victoria Street South Lot 9
Table 12: 138 Victoria Street South Lot 9 Ownership
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
46200 Grant 13 Mar 29 Mar 1922 John Bramm Jr. Ex. Alford Boehmer 2100.00
1922 John Bramm,
George Bramm Sr.,
Caroline Bramm
66458 Grant 21 Apr 21 Apr 1931 Alford Boehmer Louis Paleczny 850.00
1931
70872 1 Mar 2 Mar 1935 Louis Paleczny John with Frances 40,000.00
1935 Swiech joint
tenants
70893 Mortgage 1 Mar 2 Mar 1935 John and Frances Louis Paleczny 1700.00
1935 Swiech
77498 D of M 28 Feb 28 Feb 1940 Louis Paleczny John and Frances See no. 70893
1940 Swiech
90842 Mortgage 12 June 14 June 1946 John and Frances Edward Schafer 4000.00 Lot et al.
1946 Swiech
106924 D of M 5 June 7 June 1951 Edward Schafer John and Frances See 90842
1951 Swiech
114891 Mortgage 5 May 7 May 1953 XX The Waterless 5000.00 Lot et al.
1953 Trust Sailing Co.
135710 Mortgage 15 Jan 20 Jan 1956 John and Frances The Faterlos Lot et al.
1956 Swiech Trust Co.
135711 D of M 18 Jan 20 Jan 1956 The Faterlos Trust John and Frances See 114891
1956 Co. Swiech
275896 D of M 6 Feb 9 Feb 1961 The Waterless Trust John and Frances See 135710
1961 Sailing Co. Swiech
116
Project # LHC0247
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
465500 Ontario 21 Mar 23 Mar 1922 Minister of Revenue Jordan Swiech Lot and pt. lot 11 on
consent 1922 70872
904069 Grant 2 July 1987 Frances Swiech by Caroline Cheng, 68,000.00 Lot 9 and pt. lot 11,
her attorney Louis in trust Plan 143, recital
Swiech
904070 Mortgage 2 July 1987 Caroline Cheng, in Scotia Mortgage 51,000.00 Lot 9 and pt. lot 11
trust Corp.
941146 Grant 29 April 1988 Caroline Cheng, in 100 Park Street 108,000.00 Lot 9 and pt. lot 11
trust Development Inc.
nd
997023 Charge 26 June 1989 100 Park Street Guardian Trust 500,000.00 2 lot etc. see lot 3
Development Inc. Co. see #1130570
nd
997024 Assgnt Rents 26 June 1989 100 Park Street Guardian Trust 2 lot etc. see lot 3
Development Inc. Co.
nd
1130569 Deposit 31 July 1992 2 lot etc. see lot 3
nd
1130570 Transfer 31 July 1992 Guardian Trust Co. Audley End I Inc. 2 lot etc. see lot 3
(power of
sale)
nd
1130571 Charge 31 July 1992 Audley End I Inc. Laurentian Bank 2 lot etc. see lot 3
of Canada see # 1254244
1254243 Deposit 16 May 1995 (1) Lots 4,5 & 6 & Pt.
Lots 3 & 11, Plan 143
& Pt. Lot 1, Plan 143,
being Pts. 1 & 2 on 58-
R-1020. (2) Lot 9 & Pt.
Lot 11, Plan 423. Re:
Charge # 1130571.
1254243 Transfer 16 May 1995 Laurentian Bank of 1123778 Ontario 490,000.00 (1) & (2) Land as in
(under Canada Limited Inst. # 1254243.
Power of sale, Re:
117
Project # LHC0247
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
power of Charge # 1130571.
sale) Recitals.
1254245 Charge 16 May 1995 1123778 Ontario Laurentian Bank 416, 250.00 (1) & (2) Land as in
Limited of Canada Inst. # 1254243.
1254246 Assignment 16 May 1995 1123778 Ontario Laurentian Bank (1) & (2) Land as in
of rents Limited of Canada Inst. # 1254243.
Power of sale, Re:
Charge # 1254245.
1271928 Charge 18 October 1123778 Ontario Giuseppe 55,000.00 2ndly: lot etc. see lot 4
1995 Limited Sierchio
1289283 Charge 17 April 1996 1123778 Ontario Giuseppe 20,000.00 2ndly: lot 9 & pt. lot 11
Limited Sierchio Plan 143 re: 1130570.
118
Project # LHC0247
142 Victoria Street South Lot 8
Table 13: 142 Victoria Street South Lot 8 Ownership
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
46200 Grant 13 Mar 29 Mar 1922 John Bramm Jr. Ex. Alford Boehmer 2100.00
1922 John Bramm,
George Bramm Sr.,
Caroline Bramm
66452 Grant 11 April 20 April 192X Alford Boehmer Wilhelmina and 770.00
192X August Hoffman
66922 Mech Lein 15 July 15 July 1931 The Ott Brick and Wilhelmina and 1122.74
1931 Tile Manufacturing August Hoffman
Company
66930 Mortgage 18 July 21 July 1931 August and North American 10,500.00 Not reed in full
1931 Wilhelmina Hoffman Life Assurance
66950 Mech Lein 25 July 25 July 1931 B. Newmarket Wilhelmina 6600 Lot
1931 Hoffman
66955 D. of Lien 28 July 29 July 1931 The Ott Brick and August Hoffman See A7 in 66905
1931 Tile Manufacturing
Company
66958 D. of Lien 29 July 29 July 1931 Bruno Newmarket Rudolph Schezly See A74 No. 66954
1931
67056 Deed Lien 28 Aug 28 Aug 1931 Rudolph and Erin August and #2810 Lot et. Al.
1931 Schezly Wilhelmina
Hoffman
69319 Mortgage 22 Oct 23 Oct 1931 August and Alvin K. Creuman 2500.00 Subject to mortgage
1931 Wilhelmina Hoffman – not reed in full
67482 D. of Lien 20 Nov 20 Nov 1931 Rudolph and Erin August and See A7 in 66905
1931 Schezly Wilhelmina
Hoffman
119
Project # LHC0247
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
69610 Mech Lein 5 Jan 6 Jan 1932 David Barstocn August and 180.25 Lot et al.
1932 Wilhelmina
Hoffman
73000 D of M 10 Nov 10 Nov 1936 Alvin K. Creuman August and SEE a74 – No 67377
1936 Wilhelmina
Hoffman
73001 Mortgage 10 Nov 10 Nov 1936 Wilhelmina and Sun Life 9500.00 Lot et al. Not no. XX
1936 August Hoffman Assurance Co. of
a Canada
73002 Mortgage 10 Nov 10 Nov 1936 Wilhelmina and Alvin K Creuman 2091.63
1936 August Hoffman
73011 D of M 10 Nov 13 Nov 1936 North American Life August and See A74 No 66930
1936 Assurance Wilhelmina
Hoffman
91608 Mortgage 16 Aug 24 Sep 1946 August and Amalia Lffert 4000.00 Lot et al.
1946 Wilhelmina Hoffman
92334 D of M 28 Nov 18 Dec 1946 Alvin K Creuman August Hoffman See 73002
1946 trustee
97330 Mortgage 16 Sep 18 Sep 1948 August Hoffman Sun Life 7000.00 Lot et al
1948 Assurance Co. of
a Canada
97583 Postpone 20 Sep 16 Oct 1948 Amalia Lffert Sun Life 100 Postpone
mortgage 1948 Assurance Co. of
a Canada
97659 D of M 21 Oct 29 Oct 1948 Sun Life Assurance Wilhelmina and See 73001
1948 Co. of a Canada August Hoffman
196124 Treasure 9 Dec 14 Dec 1959 Treasurer of Ontario Amalia K. Lot etc 91608
consent 1959 Hoffmann
120
Project # LHC0247
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
198528 D of M 30 Jun 11 Feb 1960 David Wibon and August Hoffman See 91608
1960 Albert J. Hoffman
Exp of Amalia K
Hoffman
202292 D of M 31 Jun 22 July 1960 Sun Life Assurance August Hoffman See 97330
1960 Co. of a Canada (Hofman)
294925 Treasurer 2 Mar 4 Mar 1965 Treasurer of Ontario August Hofmann Lot etc re 66452
consent 1965 (Hofman)
312987 Grant 22 Nov 29 Nov 1965 Margaret Wilson mw. Albert J. 100 Lot etc Treasurer
1965 and Albert J. Hoffmann to uses consent
Hoffman Ex. Of Recitals
August Hofmann
(August Hofman) and
Margaret Wilson mw.
312988 Mortgage 22 Nov 29 Nov 1965 Albert J. Hofmann Elizabeth M. 19000.00 Lot etc/ Recitals
1965 Dreger mw
324842 Grant treas 19 Apr 1 June 1966 Albert J. Hofmann Joseph and Ruth Lot etc Subject to
1966 M. Szewczyk joint Mortgage
tenants
326618 Consent 10 June 28 June 1966 Treasurer of Ontario Wilhelmina Lot etc re 66452
1966 Hofman
(Hoffman)
522073 Grant 3 June 6 June 1974 Joseph and Ruth Lucien Potirn to 2.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11
1974 Szewczyk uses subject to mortgage
522074 Mortgage 5 June 6 June 1974 Lucian Potirn Joseph and Ruth 16,008 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11
1974 Szewczyk joint wit limit and appoint
rt of survivorship
536891 D of M 1 Feb 10 Feb 1975 Elizabeth M. Dreger Albert J. Re: 312988
1975 Hoffmann
121
Project # LHC0247
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
537095 D of M 14 Feb 14 Feb 1975 Joseph and Ruth Lucien Potoria Mortgage 522074
1975 Szewczyk
537096 Mortgage 14 Feb 14 Feb 1975 Lucien Potirn Victoria and Greg 15,000.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11
1975 Trust Co. limit and appoint
543870 Grant 6 May 6 June 1975 Lucien Potirn Wesley S and Lot and pt. lot 11
2.00
1975 Brynhild R. (41.1’ Wilmont St
Johnson (Jt. Ten.) Wlly lein of Victoria
St x 155’). Limit and
appointment subject
to last mortgage
543871 Mortgage 27 May 6 June 1975 Wesley S and Melinda Knipfel 22,000.00 Lot and as in 543870
1975 Brynhild R. Johnson
557897 Mortgage 27 Nov 1 Dec 1975 Wesley S and Melinda Knipfel 7,000 Lot 8 and pt. lot
1975 Brynhild R. Johnson
661673 CFOF 19 July 23 July 1979 Wesley S and Melinda Knipfel - Debarro and
1979 Brynhild R. Johnson Plaintiff Foredossa 557897
– Defendants
780542 QC 10 May 1984 Wesley S and Melinda Knipfel Pt lot 8 and 11
Brynhild R. (formally
Brynhild R. Johnson)
780543 Mortgage 10 May 1984 Melinda Knipfel Canada 72,000.00 Pt lot 8 and 11
Permanent Trust
Company
799224 Notice of 17 Dec 1984 Melinda Knipfel Corirametic Lot 9 and pt. lot 11
lease Canada Inc. Plan 143 Re #
661673
883865 Grant 30 Jan 1987 Melinda Knipfel Sue H. Cheng 140,000.00 PT LOT 8 AND PT
LOT 11 Re # 661673
122
Project # LHC0247
No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks
Registry
904067 Mortgage 2 Sep 1987 Sue H. Cheng The Toronto 92,950.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re
Dominion Bank # 883865
904068 A of 2 July 1987 Sue H. Cheng The Toronto Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re
Mortgage Dominion Bank #883865
1006679 Charge 31 August 1989 Sue H. Cheng The Toronto 100,000.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re
Dominion Bank #883865
1020213 Transfer 7 December Sue H. Cheng Gordon Royce 340,000.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re
1989 Koziol #883865 and 780542
1020214 Charge 7 December Gordon Royce Koziol The Toronto 190,000.00 Land as in 1020213
1989 Dominion Bank
102025 Charge 7 December Gordon Royce Koziol The Toronto 155,000.00 Land as in 1020213
1989 Dominion Bank
1040791 Transfer 31 May 1990 Gordon Royce Koziol Kitchener 351,000.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re
Metropolitan # 1020213
Development Inc.
123