HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2023-221 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-007 - 369 Frederick StStaff Report
r
NJ :R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023
SUBMITTED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291
PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext.
7070
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: May 8, 2023
REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-221
SUBJECT: H PA -2023 -IV -007
369 Frederick Street
Proposed Alterations and Addition to the A.R. Goudie
Eventide Home
RECOMMENDATION:
The pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2023-IV-007 be approved to permit the alterations of and a four -storey addition
to the property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street, in accordance with the
supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the
following condition:
1. That final building permit drawings be reviewed, and heritage clearance be
provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to present the proposed alterations and addition to the A.R.
Goudie Eventide Home.
• The key finding of this report is that the proposed work will not have an adverse negative
impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and is in keeping with the
provincial standards and guidelines.
• There are no financial implications associated with this report.
• Community engagement included posting this report and associated agenda in advance
of the meeting and consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-007 proposes alterations to the existing A.R.
Goudie Eventide Home at 369 Frederick Street as well as a four -storey addition to the
existing building. The existing building is in the process of being designated under Part IV
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 191 of 507
of the Ontario Heritage Act. The alterations include shortening of the entrance canopy of the
existing building, retention of the northern curtain wall and relocating a portion of that wall
as an interior feature, as well as the modification of the stair tower curtain wall on the west
side of the building. These alterations are necessary in to order to facilitate the construction
of the addition so that this site can continue to function as a long-term care home. In
reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff note that the proposed
alterations will not have an adverse negative impact on the heritage attributes of the building
and that the addition will be compatible but distinguishable from the existing building.
BACKGROUND:
The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-
2023-IV-007 (Attachment A) seeking permission for the alterations of and a four -storey
addition to the subject property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street (Fig. 1)
'
i4
T•
Figure 1: Location Map of 369 Frederick Street.
The submission and approval of a Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made a
requirement of a proposed Site Plan, Severance of Land, and Minor Variance applications
that were submitted to the City in 2017. The scoped HIA dated March 16, 2017, and updated
May 8, 2017, was submitted to the City in support of these application and was presented
to the Heritage Kitchener Committee at its May 2, 2017, meeting. These applications related
to the construction of a five (5) — storey Retirement Home and a three (3) -storey addition to
the existing building. The scoped HIA did receive approval from the Director of Planning on
October 11, 2017.
In March 2021, the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care awarded an additional eighty
(80) long-term care beds to Peoplecare Inc. As a result, the maximum building height
needed to be increased, prompting the need for a Stamp Plan `A' application and the request
for a revised HIA. An updated HIA dated May 3, 2022, was submitted to the City. Since the
updated HIA included minor changes, and with time constraints associated with processing
Stamp Plan `A' applications, the revised HIA could not be circulated to Heritage Kitchener
again. The proposed changes also included modifying the entrance canopy by decreasing
its current size, as well as removing a section of the curtain wall on the northern elevation
Page 192 of 507
to facilitate the installation of a service elevator. The updated HIA has not received approval
from the Director of Planning yet. Since the existing building is in the process of being
designated, these changes are subject to a heritage permit application.
A Conservation Plan (CP) dated March 1, 2023, and revised April 27, 2023, prepared by
Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc. has also been submitted to the City. The CP includes
short-term, medium-term and long-term conservation measures for the existing building at
369 Frederick Street. The CP is currently being reviewed by heritage planning staff and has
not yet been approved by the Director of Planning.
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the south side of Frederick Street near the intersection of
Frederick Street and East Avenue. It was built in 1993 in the International Modern style of
architecture and is in the process of being designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act. The subject property was previously included on Kitchener's Inventory of Historic
Buildings.
A motion to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 369 Frederick Street under Part IV of
the Ontario Heritage Act was passed by Council at its April 17, 2023. Meeting. Council
resolved:
"That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to
publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 369
Frederick Street a being of cultural heritage value or interest, as outlined in
Development Services Department report DSD -2023-116".
The Notice of Intention to Designate was published on April 28, 2023. The building, also
known as the A.R. Goudie Eventide Home, is recognized for its design/physical,
historical/associative, and contextual value.
The existing building was designed by Montgomery and Sisam Architects for the Salvation
Army in 1991 and was constructed in 1993. It has been featured in the Images of Progress.-
Modem
rogress:Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996 and described as having "a crisp stucco
and glass exterior (that) pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many
Salvation Army projects in Canada since the 1950s. The plan is irregular, to preserve the
existing mature trees, but also in the modern tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and
functional needs. The residential wing is set furthest from Frederick Street. In front, a suite
of public rooms looks toward the entry court through glass walls. A free-standing entrance
canopy in concrete, steel and timber provides a sheltered verandah at the entry."
According to the HIA, the existing building is made of curtain walls with a fairly smooth acrylic
rendering in a medium grey colour. There are yellow panels and red -painted shed roofs with
pre -finished, red metal flashing and downspouts which contrasts nicely with the grey. The
glazing is comprised of punched windows, with curtain wall section that incorporate the
yellow panels (Fig. 2). Furthermore, from a design perspective, the building has `pure, simple
geometric, clean lines' and is in impeccable condition even after 24 years with little to no
alterations to the original structure.
Page 193 of 507
Figure 2: View of the entry canopy with the yellow panels.
Even though the International Style of modernist architecture is usually considered from the
1940s to the 1960s, the existing building exhibits many of the design features of that style.
For a modern building to be considered of heritage significance, it must satisfy many criteria,
including but not limited to whether it is representative of the modern aesthetic, does it
contribute to the historical development of Kitchener and whether it contributes to
community identity. This building satisfies all of these criteria through its historical and
contextual value.
The heritage attributes of this building include:
- The scale and irregular massing of the one and three-storey building;
- The entry canopy;
- The acrylic stucco non -load bearing walls;
- The glazed and solid panel curtain wall sections;
- The pre -finished metal shed roofs of the administration wing and entry canopy; and
- The clerestory form and glazing in the administration wing, filling the space with light
and marrying the indoors with the outdoors.
Proposed Alterations to the Existing Building
There are a number of alterations being proposed to the existing building, which include:
1. Removing a portion of the Entry canopy, thereby reducing its current size:
2. Retention of front -facing curtain wall as an interior feature; and
Page 194 of 507
3. modification of the west elevation stair tower curtain wall.
Removinq a portion of the Entry Canopy
The canopy is being shortened to accommodate the new driveway and addition. However,
it will remain as the visual and main entry to the long -term care home. The loss of the ends
of the canopy is partially going to be offset by retaining most of its symmetry on the existing
doorway, as well as maintaining the overhangs at each end as well.
r
2 V Q : -
.. CAMMY SHORTENED AT BOTH EMOS BY •r.- &R
TO ACCOGNMATE ONVE s ADDITION -
OVERHANGS REMAIN THE SAME
s
Figure 3: Proposed shortening of the Entry Canopy.
0
�,
1
.l
Retention of North-facina Curtain Wall as an Interior Feature and Modification of the Stair
Tower Curtain Wall.
The removal of a portion of the existing glazed and solid panel curtain wall was triggered to
facilitate the addition to the building. This portion is located in the residential wing area, on
the western side of the building. The large glazed and solid curtain wall will be relocated to
the interior of the building (Fig 4 & Fig 7). The curtain wall stair on the west elevation of the
building will also be modified by moving the wall slightly northward and adding a new piece
of the wall in order to accommodate a new elevation (Fig. 5 and 6). Even with the proposed
alterations, the portion of the original curtain wall will remain visible.
W EST ELEVATION
Figure 4: Rendering showing the main fagade with the new addition.
Page 195 of 507
section of curtain
wr�ll eaennuarl
Figure 5: Stair Tower Curtain wall modification.
Figure 6: Rendering showing the approximate location of the modified stair curtain tower to
accommodate the new elevator (highlighted in red).
Page 196 of 507
Proposed Four -storey Addition to the Existing Building
The applicant is proposing a four (4)- storey addition to the existing building. As mentioned
above, the proposal was originally for three (3) storeys, however, with the extra allotment of
the beds, the total height of the addition had to be increased. The proposed addition will
wrap around the western side of the existing building (Fig. 7 and 8). The proposed addition
will be clad in stucco (EIFS), like the existing. However, to distinguish the existing from the
new construction, the stucco will be of a warmer and lighter tone, integrating with the existing
building but also differentiating from it. The height of the proposed addition is generally
consistent with the existing building.
Figure 7: Site Plan of 369 Frederick Street along with the new addition.
Page 197 of 507
Figure 8. Rendering of the new addition looking east.
All the proposed alterations and the addition are important to facilitate so that the building
can continue to operate as a long-term care home. Since the proposed alterations do modify
the heritage attributes of the building, commemoration in the form of interpretive panels with
texts and images of the original 1993 building is being proposed to be placed in the reception
area or some other public room. The commemoration of this building has also been made a
condition of final site plan approval, and staff continue to work with the applicant to finalize
the contents of the panels.
The proposed alterations and addition meet the "Eight Guiding Principles in the
Conservation of Built Heritage Properties", especially:
• Respect for original location — do not move buildings unless there is no other means
to save them. Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site
diminishes cultural heritage value considerably.
• Respect for historical material — repair/conserve rather than replace building
materials and finishes except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention
maintains the heritage content of the built heritage resource.
• Legibility — new work should be distinguished from old. Buildings should be
recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the
distinction between old and new.
• Maintenance — with continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With
regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided.
The proposed alterations and addition meet Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines
for the Conservation of Historical Places in Canada, especially:
• Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention.
Page 198 of 507
Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically
and visually compatible with the historic place identifiable on close inspection.
Document any intervention for future reference.
Heritage Planninq Comments
In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff note the following:
• The subject property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street will be
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;
• Certain modifications are needed for existing building as well a four(4)-storey addition
so that the building can continue to function as a long-term care home providing
assistance to the residents of Kitchener;
• The modifications proposed include shortening of the canopy, removal of a portion of
the existing glazed and solid panel curtain wall, and the retention of the curtain wall
as an interior feature.
• The entry canopy will continue to remain as the main visual feature to the entrance
of the building.
• The four -storey addition will be clad in stucco but will be distinguishable in design
from the existing building.
• The proposed modifications will not result in an adverse negative impact on the
character defining elements of the building.
• The proposed alterations and additional are generally consistent with Parks Canada's
The Standards and Guidelines for Historical Places in Canada, with respect to the
interventions and addition proposed.
• These alterations and addition will not adversely impact the reasons for designation
of the property nor the Frederick Street streetscape.
In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application
under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law
of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including but not limited to, the requirements of the
Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law. In this regard, staff confirm that a Building Permit
will be needed for the proposed alterations and addition.
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 — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of
the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting.
Page 199 of 507
CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit
Application.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Notice of Intention Designate 369 Frederick Street under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act — DSD -2023-116
• Ontario Heritage Act, 2022
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-007
Attachment B — Scoped HIA for 369 Frederick Street
Page 200 of 507
2023
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION &
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6th Floor
.h P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
MNER 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca
STAFF USE ONLY
Page 7 of 10
Date Received:
Accepted By:
Application Number:
H PA -
PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
1. NATURE OF APPLICATION
® Exterior ® Interior ❑ Signage
❑ Demolition ® New Construction ® Alteration ❑ Relocation
2. SUBJECT PROPERTY
Municipal Address: 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener ON N2H 2P1
KITCHENER GERMAN COMPANY TRACT SUB LOT 3 PT LOT 9 PLAN 414 PT PARK LOT X RP
Legal Description (If know): 58R20004 PTS 5 6
Building/Structure Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ® Institutional
Heritage Designation: ® Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District)
Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ® No
3. PROPERTY OWNER
Name: peopeCare Not -For -Profit
Address
City/Province/Postal Code: Waterloo, ON N2V 21-11
Phone:
Email:
4. AGENT (if applicable)
Name:
Company:
Address:
City/Province/Postal Code:
Phone:
Email:
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2023
5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
Page 8 of 10
Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail
as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric
is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener
Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction.
Refer to page 5 (last page) for written description.
6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work:
The proposed addition and alterations are designed to provide a substantial number of new
long-term care and seniors' residences, fulfilling an important need in the community.
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage
Conservation District Plan:
The Long -Term Care Home has design value or physical value. It is a representative example of a style, type, expression, material and
construction method (the International Style of Modernism); it displays a high degree of style, craftsmanship and artistic merit. The
property has historical value or associative value as it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, persons, activity, organization
and institution that is significant to the community. With the alterations being made the LTCH retains its form, mass, outline, and
materials, and is considered to have contextualize value as it is the fourth building in a succession of care homes on this site since 1869.
Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx):
Please refer to the Heritage Conservation Plan dated March 1 st, 2023 for description of how
the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
7. PROPOSED WORKS
a) Expected start date: June 2023 Expected completion date: March 2025
b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ® Yes ❑ No
- If yes, who did you speak to? Deeksha Choudhry
c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ® Yes ❑ No
- If yes, who did you speak to? Christine Wagner
d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ® Yes ❑ No
e) Other related Building or Planning applications:
Application number SP22/126/F/ES
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2023
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Page 9 of 10
The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this
application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this
application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application.
The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the
information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and
the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or
issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application
will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and
Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter
upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are
necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has
been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and
this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The
undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and
understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any
of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the
requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event
this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener
or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could
result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Signature of Owner/Agent: —005— Date: 04 / 04 / 2023
Signature of Owner/Agent: Date:
9. AUTHORIZATION
If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must
be completed:
/ We, , owner of the land that is subject of this application,
hereby authorize
Signature of Owner/Agent: Date:
Signature of Owner/Agent: Date:
to act on my / our behalf in this regard.
The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2),
and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of
administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under
Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection
of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division,
City of Kitchener (519-741-2769).
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2023 Page 10 of 10
Application Number:
Application Received:
Application Complete:
Notice of Receipt:
Notice of Decision:
90 -Day Expiry Date:
PROCESS:
❑ Heritage Planning Staff:
❑ Heritage Kitchener:
❑ Council:
STAFF USE ONLY
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
The proposed work consists of a 4 -storey Long -Term Care Home (LTCH) addition to the
existing 3 -storey LTCH. The built heritage features being modified are indicated below:
1. Removing A Portion Of The Entry Canopy
The loss of the ends of the entry canopy is partially offset by retaining most of the canopy and
retaining its symmetry on the doorway as well as the overhangs at each end.
2. Removal of A Portion Of Existing Glazed and Solid Panel Curtain Wall, and Retention of
North -facing Curtain Wall As Interior Feature
Portions of the glazed and solid curtain wall not salvageable. New curtain wall sections at points of
internal communal and circulation spaces will retain the dimensions and form of the originals, but the
solid panels constructed in natural aluminum rather than the yellow of the original, again to not be a
copy, but pay homage.
The visible glazed and solid administration wing curtain wall at the main entrance is retained.
3. Distinction Between New and Existing
Proposed cladding should be stucco (EIFS) carried to the foundation without a distinct base like the
original and differentiated from the 1993 building with a warmer and lighter tone to be established at
Site Plan Approval stage.
As some of the heritage attributes are to be modified, commemoration in the form of
interpretive panels with text and images outlining the history of the property and photographs
showing the 1993 building before the addition be placed in the reception area or some other
public room.
Page 205 of 507
IS.
1
r
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Table of Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND - REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) ........ 1
1.1 Current owner contact information ............................................. 2
1.2 Site history................................................................ 3
1.3 Description of surrounding context and landscape features ......................... 12
1.4 Documentation of the heritage resource ........................................ 19
1.5 Proposed development and impacts ............................................ 29
1.6 Conservation - principles and mitigating measures ................................ 38
1.7 Proposed alterations justified and explained ..................................... 39
1.8 Recommendations......................................................... 40
1.9 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Assessment .............. 40
2.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 40
3.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION .............................................. 41
REFERENCES......................................................................... 43
Appendix 1- Internal Memo - Pre -submission Consultation -Heritage, January 13, 2017 and November 25, 2021
Appendix 2 - Qualifications of the author
All photographs taken by the author March 1, 2017 unless otherwise noted.
CHC Limited Page �T607
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
1.0 BACKGROUND - REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment in support of proposed Site Plan, Severance of Land, and Minor Variances
for 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener ON (HIA), dated May 8, 2017 was submitted to the City of Kitchener. In
February 2019, Site Plan Approval was issued for a 148 -bed, 5 storey Retirement Home and a 192 -bed, 3 -storey
addition to the Long -Term Care facility. In March 2021, the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care awarded
Peoplecare an additional 80 long-term care beds. To accommodate the additional beds, the approved building
addition to the Long-term Care facility needs to be modified. As a result, site-specific zoning considerations
including increasing the maximum building height; thus, the need for this update to the original HIA. A Pre -
Submission Consultation meeting on November 25,2021 (Appendix 1) determined that a revised Heritage Impact
Assessment will be required to address the proposed site plan modifications as well as assess the proposed changes
to the window spandrels.
The property at 369 Frederick Street is of cultural heritage interest, having been placed on the Heritage Kitchener
Inventory of Historic Buildings. Information in the City's file shows this 1993 modern building, designed by
Montgomery Sisam Architects, was featured in Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region
1946-1996.' The listing states, "The Salvation Army has been a consistent patron of modern architecture. Here
the `crisp stucco and glass exterior pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many Salvation Army
projects built in Canada since the 1950s'. The plan is irregular, to preserve the existing mature trees, but also in
the modern tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and functional needs. The residential wing is set furthest
from Frederick Street. In front, a suite of public rooms look toward the entry court through glass walls. A free-
Figure 1 subject property location (yellow rectangle) - GRCA mapping (2015)
' Images ofProgress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996. Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery, 1996
CHC Limited PageHT607
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
standing entrance canopy in concrete, steel and timber provides a sheltered verandah at the entry." The subject
property is also located adjacent to a protected heritage property - 362 Frederick Street is designated under Part
IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Further consultation with heritage staff scoped the HIA requirements to exclude
the need for a Land Registry search and the need to address the adjacent protected heritage property.2
The subjectproperty is 1.7 ha (4.2 acres) in area and is located on the south side of Frederick Street, between Edna
Street and East Avenue (Figures 1 & 2).
Figure 2 369 Frederick Street environs - GRCA mapping (2015)
2 emails from, and telephone conversation with Sandra Parks, January 30, 2017
CHC Limited Page 27607
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
1.1 Current Owner Contact Information
peopleCare Inc
735 Bridge Street West
Waterloo, ON N2V 2H1
attention: Wade Stever, wsteverkpeoplecare.ca 519 998-2394
1.2 Site
3
369 Frederick Street became the site of the "House of Industry and Refuge" in 1869. The House of Industry and
Refuge was built based on the requirements of the 1867 Municipal Act which stated that all municipalities were
to provide support for residents requiring assistance. In 1867, the County purchased a 141 -acre farm from John
Eby for $9,024 ($64 per acre ), then advertised for a contractor to plan and construct the House from plans by
Joseph Hobson, County Engineer. The contract was awarded to Lewis Kribs in 1868 for $8,908 when
construction began. All of the work and resources to build the main building was done by members of the local
community, many of whom were from or family members of the County Council.3
The House was in operation from 1869 when poor homeless children and unwed mothers were first admitted June
15, 1869. The original building housed 100.4
P figure 3 County Poor House, Berlin, Canadian Illustrated News, 23 March 1872.
3 historical case study of the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge (1869-1950), Social Innovation
Research Group, Wilfrid Laurier University, http://waterloohouscofrefuge.ca/house/
4 Region of Waterloo Archives
CHC Limited Pag�'Yib �T607
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Figure 4 House of Refuge and Industry, undated, c. 1890 -, http://waterloohouscofrefu2c.ca/house/
Figure 5 House of Refuge, Berlin, 1908 postcard - Kitchener Public Library
CHC Limited Pag�'Yl� �T607
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Figure 6 House of Refuge, Kitchener - undated postcard (after 1916) - htti)://waterloohouscofrefuge.ca/house/
The institution was originally intended to be self sufficient by means of operating a farm. Residents were
expected to contribute to farm and household tasks. The sale of farm goods was intended to cover the costs of
the institution.' The practicality of a self-sufficient farm in the growing town of Berlin/Kitchener became
increasingly problematic. Three other farms were purchased to replace the lost farmland from the Frederick Street
location, including the Shuh and Weber farms. The Frederick Street facility looked after the chronically ill, while
the destitute worked and lived on the farms.6 Farming continued at the House until 1956.
The House began a transition in 1919 from "poor house" to an "old aged home" by 1947. In 1947 the Ontario
Home for the AgedAct mandated services for seniors. The home's name was changed to "Waterloo County Home
for the Aged".' The term "Industry" had been dropped from the title of the House at the beginning of the 20th
century.
' Ibid
County of Waterloo: House of Industry and Refuge Now the site of the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home,
Self -guided walking tour: Made in Berlin. Matured in Kitchener. Posted by James Howe on May 8, 2014 in Arts
& Culture, Heritage, Kitchener
https://kingandottawa.wordi)ress. com/2014/05/08/self-guided-walking-tour-made-in-berlin-matured-in-kitchener/
7 Auxiliary celebrates 50 years, Waterloo Region Record • 14 Oct 2014 • Valerie Hill, Record staff
CHC Limited Pag�'Yl� 27607
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
xj
L v D�� -%�-
v --moi �} � � � ��' �` � ''+� a" . • �
t f 4
r
- r
6,-t- ya KE LIFY h'
6
Figure 7 map of House of Refuge properties, 1924 - http://waterloohouscofrefu2c.ca/house/
CHC Limited Pag�'Y'1b 27607
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Figure 8 Waterloo County Poor House, hospital & graveyard, 1932 - Mennonite Archives of Ontario
Ernest Denton -1932 -CA MAO 1994-110
Figure 9 Waterloo County Home for the Aged, September 2, 1949 - Doris Lewis Rare Book Room, Waterloo Library
The building was expanded over the course of its existence (Figures 6 & 9) until a new home for the aged building
CHC Limited Pag�ly,34 �' 07
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
8
was built on Franklin Street in 1956, the current site of Sunnyside Home. In 1957, people residing at the House
either stayed there, or depending on their reason for being at the House, were sent to an insane asylum in the area,
such as the Orillia Insane Asylum.
The following airphotos8 (Figures 10 - 12) show the evolution of the Home and its surroundings from 1945 to
1963.
v
I House of Iefug ,
1945
Figure 10 University of Waterloo
Figure 11 University of Waterloo
s Digital Historical Air Photos of KW and Surrounding Area, University of Waterloo
http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/lMd/project/
CHC Limited Pag�'M �T607
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 9
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
�66!�14XN 0 -1" -
Frederick
Pima
S
` Home for theA N
a _ `4
The House property was sold to the Salvation Army for the
construction of the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home in 1962 on the
site of the 19t' century House of Industry and Refuge/Waterloo
County Home for the Aged at 369 Frederick Street. The evolution
of the property is portrayed in Figure 13, showing the various
buildings from 1869 to the present.
A Site Plan from the City of Kitchener files, dated 1991 (Figure
14), shows the location of the 1962 Waterloo County Home for
the Aged (also seen in Figure 12) and the A. R. Goudie Eventide
Home built for the Salvation Army in 1993. Both buildings
occupied the property for a time until the 1962 Home was
demolished in the 1990s.
Figure 12
University of Waterloo
rigure 13 Evolution of 369 rreclenck Street property: 1x69-19206, 1920s -19J"/, 1962-1993 & 1993 -present
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
6=
a
tI13
SITE STATISTICS:
TOTAL SITE AREA— 17,023 mz
GROUND FLOOR AREA: EXIST ING—:904 ml
Ito be demolished after proposed building Is completed)
GROUND FLOOR AREA; 80 BED HOME -2336 m=
GROSS FLOOR AREA- 5666 mz(also to include a basement)
Lem ni C ...
SECURM IEE
10
BUILDING HEIGHT -10.48 m LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PART OF LOT 9
PARKING -3S Spaces OF G. C.T. LOT 3
EXkSTING ASPHALT -308 m; 11P'RT
OF PARK
NEW ASPHALT— 2364 mz LOT 10 OF G. C_ T.
_— 0.15 m high CONCRETE CURBING O— EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN LOT 2
NOTE: DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METFIES AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY .3048
SITE PLAN o m za so sa REVISED: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL NO. - 90/109/ PMC
Ic�o.o oeo.e nummuk
GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY OF CAN. METPoC SCALE: 1: 'COO DATE: 51 at 13 CITY OF KITCHENER °�1Q'�1Y•Xj'BY
371 FREDERICK STREET PLANNING AND OEVELOPM€NT DEPT. 17 "•r c
Figure 14 Site Plan, Governing Council of the Salvation Army of Canada, 371 Frederick Street, 91-02-13
City of Kitchener files
The current building at 369 Frederick Street was designed by architects Montgomery and Sisam of Toronto and
built in 1993 for the Salvation Army (Figures 15 & 16). It was named the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home for Arthur
R. Goudie, a department store founder who made a significant donation towards the construction costs.
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
_ ar -^
11
-A - ------
`_ - f
Sl7E Fi�,u
;A.FL GOVDIE EVENTIDE HORfE FOB THE AGED
'VNE sALVATtOK AnMY KITCH?NaA 0WTARIO
ane raw' buNi^gc ha^ee bean posi:ionetl 4 86 b"d far fhb -We and a8 the mlvanae -h vuirlpr P.'QV F. is earl
inec! the pro. a:iy ir.. OA!ar that tae asxao 'a I.—ti— N If a4:Fafenl A --d verandah F aIX ON %. %.W3
.6
0n8 f -a4 ran rvnahi. operxio 1 qurarng U",2} a gurgle slur -Y Wldmg m and 9,M s' er ro deffi a W g atm. Aa
&-1-9 wm'aeClid tit u pwpased Nil a foonax in, 1ho r—iona bt 11. andv_ed SpadW Gala 9-dn is P.Mdad
p f,ian aS- 96 xisting bu Iding be Oevuw- . ;.::atibn a.^C 0-o1ay bnV nd A'. ffil.-I—Y b.W'V. Stall
d YCned 31h th. lose o: apprardmz[vy Pr9Q am;. 11® bueltlmgs Imee"_ ahead m Izrking ie' 16 cars s Lldi..d adl_. m
l ll _bds _dU:lrrp {ansVlw".ion.) Tha pmgl P.W.— as many Pr 'hn 4af4p lrbea a8 1bb ma Brpra:Y.a aMF W h- -114. lid. d
tldd gs 0 a lutea s YnT 9aui n bo-nds gaatlan c ,.r Its it culcr d"i .
aCrf ti4 bbCr.7i ;''-i.: �., and GMttinC 1M Mads :a cs�awd Orop-alt 811116 Main
Figure 15 Site Plan, A. R. Goudie Eventide Home for the Aged, c. 1991 - Montgomery and Sisam Architects
City of Kitchener files
l A.R. Goodie Eventicle Home
1993
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Architect: Montgomery & Sisam
The Salvation Army has been a consistent
patron of modern architecture. Were the "crisp
stucco and glass exterior pays homage to the
modern architectural expression of many
Salvation Army projects built in Canada since
the 1950s.- The plan is irregular, to preserve the
existing mature trees, but also in the modern
tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and
functional needs.The residential wing is set
furthest from Frederick Street. In front, a suite of
public rooms look toward the entry court
through glass walls. A free-standing entrance
canopy in concrete, steel, and timber, provides
a sheltered verandah at the entry. LP
Figure 16 from: Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996, p 3
Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery
It became a part of the peopleCare family in January 2013 when the Salvation Army, after much consideration
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
and deliberation, withdrew from its operations at the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home, citing resource issues.9
1.3 Description of surrounding context and landscape features
12
Surrounding Context
Bordering the property on the east and south is the Frederick Street Plaza/Frederick Mall, opened August 24,1955,
the City's first self-contained shopping centre, a $2 million project (Figures 17 & 18). The plaza was enclosed
circa 1980.
Figure 17 Frederick Mall looking west on Frederick Street
Figure 18 Frederick Mall looking east from subject property
9 htti)://www.salvationarmv.ca/blog/2011/04/07/salvation-army-to-withdraw-from-operations-at-a-r-goudie-ev
entide-home/ April 7, 2011
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 13
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
The subject property is across Frederick Street from 362 Frederick Street (Figure 19), a property designated under
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Ado. Known as Eby House, it was built in 1837. It is the oldest residential house
in Berlin/Kitchener occupied by a single family. Built for John and Rebecca Eby, the farm house was occupied
by them shortly after their marriage. Rebecca was the daughter of Samuel Bricker who was famous for getting
a loan from friends and relatives in Pennsylvania to pay the mortgage on the Beasley Tract, which is now the lands
occupied by Waterloo. He sold all of the farmland in 1869 when the House of Industry and Refuge was built
across the street. John's daughter Magedeline became owner in 1887 and moved from Harriston with her husband
Martin Dunham. Dr. Mabel Dunham was their daughter, the first professionally trained librarian in Ontario. One
of Canada's most noted authors, B. Mabel Dunham, was always conscious of the value of history and enriched
Canadian literature with her books: The Trail of the Conestoga; Toward Sodom; The Trail of the King's Men;
Grand River and Kristh's Trees. Dunham was librarian of the Kitchener Public Library from 1908 until her
retirement in 1944, the first trained librarian to be in charge of a public library in Ontario. She developed one of
the first children's library departments in Ontario at the Kitchener Library."
Figure 19 Eby House, 362 Frederick Street
10 It is the opinion ofHeritage Planning staff that the proposed planning applications will not negatively impact
the adjacent protected heritage property, 362 Frederick Street, and so will not require the HIA to assess
potential impacts on it. Internal Memo, Sandra Parks, Heritage Planner to Andrew Pinnell, Planner re: Pre -
Submission Consultation - Committee of Adjustment & Site Plan, 369 Frederick St. January 13, 2017
Self -guided walking tour: Made in Berlin. Matured in Kitchener. Posted on May 8, 2014 by James Howe, A walk
though the heritage of Kitchener's Central Frederick neighbourhood
http: //www.fredandlanc. ca/2014/05/self-guided-walking-tour-made-in-berlin-matured-in-kitchener/
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
14
Other properties adjacent include two six-plexes, now office -residential use, at the corner of East Avenue and
Frederick Street (Figure 20) and single family residences on the north side of Frederick (Figure 21) and on East
Avenue (Figure 22).
Figure 20 office -residential six-plexes on Frederick Street, west side of subject property
Figure 21 single family homes, north side of Frederick at Dunham Avenue (formerly East Avenue)
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Ell`
L I
A,4
............
rk
6:
1w
lK
2N,
k
ImA Oey,
p e 0
AFS Goud a Kitchen
NO MATTER HAW LANG WINTER
SPRING IS SURE TA FOLLOW -
IT,FA
It
I; {� a� r' !
•�� -�
TT q
n l�
ij -�•
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
17
Figure 26
central walkway bordered by mature trees which screen the building at 369 Frederick Street -Google Streetview
The building is placed at the rear of the property, not for aesthetic or contextual reasons, but because the 1962
building occupied the grass and trees area and was retained until the 1993 building was constructed (Figures 13
& 14) . Until 1962 there was a building in the foreground occupying the street view.
Figure 27 looking northeast from entry court
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Ilk
w yy
ms's-. d•. ��. • 'r .
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 19
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
1.4 Documentation of the heritage resource
The existing building (Figures 30 - 41), as noted earlier, was designed by Montgomery and Sisam Architects for
the Salvation Army in 1991 and constructed in 1993. It has been described as having a .... crisp stucco and glass
exterior (that) pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many Salvation Army projects built in
Canada since the 1950s. The plan is irregular, to preserve the existing mature trees, but also in the modern
tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and functional needs. The residential wing is set furthest from
Frederick Street. In front, a suite of public rooms look toward the entry court through glass walls. A free-
standing entrance canopy in concrete, steel and timber provides a sheltered verandah at the entry.'
Figure 30 north (Frederick Street) facade
Figure 31 south (rear) facade from Frederick Mall parking lot
12 Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996, Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery, p
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
20
Figure 32 west facade, residential wing
Figure 33 east facade, service & residential
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
21
Figure 34 entrance canopy to reception and games room
Figure 35 glazed common rooms wall, residential wing
Figure 36 glazed stair tower
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 22
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
CL
min.
recd
common
r f
P
i � f
� tr� I'de j al. w i ng
3 story l�
44
OL oe"A
Figure 37 plan view - GRCA mapping
The building is comprised of three elements (Figure 37), a free-standing canopy leading to the reception,
administration and games room wing which is at a right angle to the 3 -storey residential wing.
The canopy (Figure 38) is supported by massive concrete posts and a combination of steel I -beams, round and
square tubular steel columns and beams. The pre -finished metal batten shed roof contrasts the grey, rendered
walls of the building like the shed roof of the administration wing. The underside is tongue and groove wood.
CHC Limited — May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 23
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Figure 38 entry canopy
The 1 -storey administration wing has a clerestory (Figure 40) with large windows placed at the upper level on the
east side to provide light and glazing throughout the lower walls on the west and part of the north side, providing
views of the landscape (Figures 39 & 41). The ceiling exposes the metal batten roof and is supported by large
concrete columns (Figure 40).
Figure 39 view through canopy to entry court Figure 40 clerestory administration wing
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 24
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Figure 41 view from administration to front landscape & Frederick Street
The building is of curtain wall construction with a fairly smooth acrylic rendering in a medium grey colour.
Yellow panels and red -painted shed roofs with pre -finished, red metal flashing and downspouts contrasts nicely
with the grey. Glazing is comprised of punched windows, with curtain wall sections (Figures 34 & 35) that
incorporate the yellow panels. A similar treatment is used for the stair tower (Figure 36). The east, west and
south walls are plain (Figures 31 - 33) with simple punched windows.
Issued for tender drawings of the building elevations (Figures 42, 43 & 44) are found on the next pages.
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
N
o- .
i
V
o--
o-
o—
o-
a
ti
RE
I
N
R
s�
g
i i 9 1 N
i
—
I
F16
®
c
s 8 s
T
�
I
�I
I
a�
I
I
F,)q
I
IN
I
51
pp
i g BB{
o -o
r
'
its
it
S_
it
J
I
k
Y€
4
s
o -
CIO
R
N
R
pg'rg5�
P
•
D•
K
8
�
g ®
_
®
7
J
0
C�
i
e
-
s�# Al
a
1
N
Is
—
1
R
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 28
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Although the `International Style' of modernist architecture in Canada is usually considered to be from the 1940s
through the 1960s, 369 Frederick Street exhibits many of the design features of that style, including:
• uninterrupted surface volumes,
• non -load bearing walls and internalized structure,
• flat and angled roof lines,
• sense of visual weightlessness with the use of pilotis and extensive glazing,
• single unobstructed clear spans with unitary volumes,
• volumes wrapped in textureless, unarticulated skin.
For a modern building to be considered of heritage significance, it must satisfy several of the following
conditions.13
Philosophy Does the project represent the philosophy of the modern movement?
Design Does the design of the project reflect the most salient characteristics of the Modern
aesthetic?
Materials Is the material palette treated in a distinctively modern way?
Construction Is the structure of the project particularly innovative or representative of Modern
technology of construction?
Alterations Does the project retain its most salient design features, or have alterations been sensitive
to the original intentions of the design?
Architect Was the project designed by an important and influential architect who made a significant
contribution to the Modern Movement?
Historic Significance Has the project contributed to the historical development of Kitchener?
Influence Has the project influenced the development of architecture locally, nationally, or
internationally?
Awards Has the project received recognition through publication or awards?
Context Does the project contribute to community identity?
Application of Criteria
Philosophically, the building provides an aesthetic that enhances the arts, architecture, and lifestyles of the
machine age; it provides modern space filled with light and fresh air to promote health and vitality.
From a design perspective, the building has pure, simple geometries, clean lines. It appears fresh and immaculate
(even 24 years after its construction). Its interior volumes have a sense of visual weightlessness through
suspension on pilotis and the use of extensive glazing. It sports flat roofs, unadorned finishes, and elegantly
machined details. It is devoid of decoration. The interior and exterior of the administration wing become
ambiguous with the opening up of the ground plan and the extensive use of glazing. The emphasis is on volume
rather than mass and symmetry has been avoided, relieving static composition. The form of the building
somewhat reflects and reveals its function.
Materials used are synthetic, including acrylics, aluminum, concrete, glass, and steel.
The building's structure expresses the elements that are structurally necessary with exterior walls being merely
a skin to clad the envelope of the building rather than being load bearing.
13 North York's ModernistArchitecture, Areprintof the 1997 CityofNorth York publication, PresentedbyE.R.A.
Architects 2009, Prepared for the North York Modernist Architecture Forum held at North York Civic Centre
on October 27, 2009
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 29
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
Little or no alterations have been made to the original structure.
Founded in 1978, Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. is a mid-sized architectural firm based in Toronto with a
specialty in healthcare, education and sustainable design. Their numerous awards include a number of senior and
long-term care homes. The body of work produced by the firm over nearly four decades is a comprehensive cross-
section of Modern design.
Historically, the building is the latest in a series of structures on this property specifically designed and built for
the care of people in the City, starting with the 1869 House of Industry and Refuge. It is a symbol of a continuum
of a pattern of cultural, social, political and economic status of the community, contributing to the identity of the
municipality and its landscape. Its association with the major donor, A. R. Goudie14, and the Salvation Army is
important to the City's history.
The building has received recognition through the publication of Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in
Waterloo Region 1946-1996.
The property's architectural features, massing, landscaping, and siting enhances the character of the surrounding
neighbourhood.
Heritage Attributes
The cultural heritage attributes of the property are:
• the scale and irregular massing of the one and three-storey building, including the entry canopy;
• the entry canopy in its entirety;
• the acrylic stucco non -load bearing walls;
the glazed and solid panel curtain wall sections;
the pre -finished metal shed roofs of the administration wing and entry canopy;
the clerestory form and glazing in the administration wing, filling the space with light and marrying the
indoors with the outdoors.
1.5 Proposed development and impacts
The subject lands are approximately 1.70 hectares (4.21 acres) in area with approximately 98 metres of frontage
along Frederick Street to the north. The proposal is to sever part of the Frederick Street frontage from the area
of the existing facility to facilitate the construction of a retirement home on the severed portion. Access to the
A. R. Goudie Eventide Home and its proposed addition will be from Frederick on the new P -shaped lot.
14 ARTHUR RUSSEL GOUDIE, 1884-1960 was founder of one of western Ontario's largest family-owned
department stores, Goudies, Ltd. He was among the firstin Canada to encourage employees to be shareholders.
A charter member ofthe Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation, he donated the Dry Goods and Grocery Store
to Doon Pioneer Village. A native ofHespeler, he began his career as an apprentice to the Forbes woollen
mills. He later travelled for the Ontario Button Company. In 1909, he became manager and vice-president of
Weseloh-Goudies, Ltd. When the store was destroyed by fire in 1918, Mr. Goudie rebuilt it as Goudies, Ltd.
He served as Ontario and national president of the Ontario Retail Merchants Association. An active supporter
ofmany community organizations, Goudie'sgenerosity made possible the building oftheA. R. Goudie Eventide
Home in Kitchener. Waterloo Region Museum, Region Hall of Fame
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
0
M
�'4
bA
w
ti
N
x
M
ti
0
N
N
■
N
a4�
N
ccO
M
U
'S3
a
n
U
�.
ILL '_._JWP
a+
Q
a`
LU
-
c
o
c
O
ca
7
a
A
a
-
■
W
a
LU
a
�1
■
a
a
\
FS a
LL
� LL
a�
N
-6
cn
U
O
�
0
1
ti
0
N
N
O
N
N
ccO
M
U
El
bA
O
.y
N
-6
cn
U
O
0
�
O
�
o
�
U
U
N
"d
cl
O
'C
U
to
U
U
0
cn
0
O
U
U
cl
2
O
O
U
'C
c
N
to
U
U
U
U
a
�n
o
w
Z
�
N
M
■
F"
ti
R
M
M
w
ti
R
I'M J� Iiii
- m i j�4glkl)
I
Lly
d m
7 C
O �
d v
m �
n �
_a o
y C�
M
I
M
r
c
N�
N 4
O �
N
.11
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
37
The proposed addition wraps around the west side of the existing building, enclosing the current entry turning
circle to create an internal courtyard. The canopied entrance, shortened on either end to accommodate the new
drive and addition (Figure 54), remains the visual and main entry to the long-term care home. Materials are stucco
(EIFS), like the existing. To differentiate it from the original, the colour will be a warmer and lighter tone. It is
also differentiated by picking up the existing and proposed curtain wall vertical and horizontal lines as V -grooves
in the EIFS. The building outline follows the contoured shape of the existing building and the topography of the
site. The large glazed and solid curtain wall on the north side of the building will be relocated to the interior to
facilitate the addition to the building and the curtain wall stair tower is modified by moving the wall slightly
northward and adding a new piece to accommodate a new elevator (Figure 55). The northerly portion of the
curtain wall remains visible. (Figure 46) as does the administration wing Blazed and solid curtain wall.
TP W — A -M— m v
szao Oso. sand soon CANOPY SHORTENED AT BOTH NDS_BY +I- s -won
7 TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVE 8',ADDi 'ION -
�_> OVERHANGS REMAIN THE SAME
Figure 54 existing canopy modified - Robert Dyck Architect
curtain wall—
IBM new curtain wall M xN moves
to match _ 1
existingti-S. t— II
— loss
2720
on of curtainwall removed
3320
��l■ i
f �I
1STIY r
PROPOSEDI A202 A601 ELE OR
I I , i. ELEVATOR 4El
Figure 55 stair tower curtain wall modification - Robert Dyck Architect
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 38
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
The new building, a retirement home, is located on the site of the 1962 retirement home (Figures 14 & 45) with
its main entrance on the same axis as the 1869 and 1962 buildings. The proposed building is almost a mirror
image in form and in the same location as the 1962 building. The new building is also in red brick with a cultured
stone base. This building will effectively screen the existing building and its proposed addition from Frederick
Street. Visitors to the long-term care home will pass by the new retirement home to the original entrance to the
1993 building.
The following assessment of potential impact the proposed redevelopment or site alteration may have on the
cultural heritage resource(s) is based on the possible negative impacts as stated in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.
Potential Negative Impact
Assessment
Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage
approximately 1/3 of the entry canopy is removed
attributes or features
- the glazed and solid stair tower curtain wall is
modified
Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible,
the alteration to the existing building is an
with the historic fabric and appearance
addition relates to, but differentiated from the
historic fabric and is compatible with it
Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage
shadows created do not alter the appearance of
attribute or change the viability of an associated natural
heritage attributes, nor change the viability of
feature or plantings, such as a garden
plantings
Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding
the heritage resource, (the 1993 building), is not
environment, context or a significant relationship
isolated from its environment
Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or
views from the public realm of the building are
vistas within, from, or of built and natural features
screened by the proposed residential building
and become private realm vs. public realm views
A change in land use (such as rezoning a church to a
no change in land use
multi -unit residence) where the change in use negates
the property's cultural heritage value
Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters
no alteration of drainage patterns
soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a
cultural heritage resource, including archaeological
resources
There is a moderate, but acceptable negative impact on the cultural heritage resource, and no impact to the
adjacent cultural heritage resource from the proposed addition and new residential building.
1.6 Conservation - principles and mitigating measures
The 1993 building is preserved in situ; its use remains as a residence for seniors. Methods of minimizing or
avoiding negative impact on cultural heritage resources, noted by the Ministry of Culture, include but are not
limited to the following:
Alternative development approaches
Four alternative development approaches were formulated and assessed (Figures 56 - 59).
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
39
on!!
i
■■ !Y YY It
Figure 56 Option 1 -Robert Dyck Architect Figure 57 Option -Robert Dyck Architect
so
ME
H
f
on
�ti
i!
!O
Figure 58 Option -Robert Dyck Architect Figure 59 Option -Robert Dyck Architect
From these alternatives and through discussion with City staff, a preferred option that met the criteria for both
functionality and heritage conservation was selected (Figure 46).
Isolating development and site alteration from the significant built and natural heritage features and vistas
The built heritage features, with the exception of retaining the north -facing curtain wall as an interior feature,
removing portions of the entry canopy, and a modification to the stair tower curtain wall, remain intact; views
are changed from the public realm (in the winter months only) to the private realm (see Figure 26).
Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials
Massing, setting and materials are harmonized with the existing building.
Limiting height and density
Height of the addition is consistent with the existing building. Density is substantially increased by making
use of the open space,
Allowing only compatible infill and additions
Infill and the addition are compatible.
Reversible alterations
Not applicable.
1.7 Proposed alterations justified and explained
The alterations are designed to provide a substantial number of new long-term care and seniors' residences,
fulfilling an important need in the community.
The loss of the ends of the entry canopy is partially offset by retaining most of the canopy and retaining its
symmetry on the doorway as well as the overhangs at each end. Retention of the more visible portion of the stair
tower curtain wall, albeit moved slightly north, somewhat compensates for the loss of a slightly smaller portion
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 40
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
of the wall. The visible glazed and solid administration wing curtain wall at the main entrance is retained.
1.8 Recommendations
The addition and new building, their locations on the site, and their landscape shall conform to the plans in this
impact assessment. More specifically:
• originally it was recommended that as much of the existing large glazed and solid panel curtain wall as
possible should be salvaged to be used as an interior feature as a dividing wall between interior spaces -
however, according to the project architect, it is not salvageable;
• to ensure that the addition is a product of its own time, without a blurred distinction between old and new, and
is physically and visually compatible with the 1993 building, the proposed cladding should be stucco (EIFS)
carried to the foundation without a distinct base like the original and differentiated from the 1993 building
with a warmer and lighter tone to be established at Site Plan Approval stage;
• differentiation may also be accomplished by picking up the existing and proposed curtain wall vertical and
horizontal lines as V -grooves in the EIFS, lending a more residential feel to the building;
• new curtain wall sections at points of internal communal and circulation spaces should retain the dimensions
and form of the originals, but the solid panels constructed in natural aluminum rather than the yellow of the
original, again to not be a copy, but pay homage;
• to suit the needs of the residents there is no air conditioning in the units, only in the hallways and common
areas; therefore, windows must be operable with a restricted opening - details of the type and style of window
on the north elevation should be deferred to the approval of the building elevations at Site Plan Approval;
As some of the heritage attributes are to be modified, commemoration in the form of interpretive panels with text
and images outlining the history of the property and photographs showing the 1993 building before the addition
be placed in the reception area or some other public room.
In order to promote the retention of historic information, copies of this report should be deposited with a local
repository of historic material. Therefore, it is recommended that this report be deposited at the Kitchener Public
Library, Grace Schmidt Room.
1.9 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Assessment
See Appendix 2.
2.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
With respect to "the significance and heritage attributes of the subject property", the significance is limited
to the existing building and the history of the property and its former occupants. Some of the heritage
attributes are affected as is noted. None of the history is lost by the proposed development; rather, another
chapter in the property's history of care -giving opens.
Regarding "impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes ofthe subject properties and
on the attributes of surrounding protected heritage property", although the site is proposed to house
significantly more density, moderate negative impact on the heritage attributes of the heritage resource is
expected.
• As far as "what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 41
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
are recommended", if the conservation principles espoused in the recommendations above are adhered to, no
other mitigating measures, additional alternative developments, or site alterations are recommended.
• Respecting "clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development
or site alteration approaches are not appropriate", the proposal generally meets the existing zoning by-laws
and it conforms to the Conservation Principles in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Recommended mitigating
measures are limited to deposit of this report at the Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room and
implementation of the architectural and landscape architectural designs as found in this report. Additional
alternative development or site alteration approaches are not necessary as the proposal meets policies and by-
laws and has a moderate negative impact on the heritage resource, most of which can be successfully
mitigated.
3.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION
Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Council shall have regard to matters of Provincial interest such as the
conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. hl
addition, Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement 2014 (PRS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS requires that significant built heritage resources and
significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.15
The PPS defines "built heritage resource" as 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 a community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage
conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local provincial or federal jurisdictions. The
term "significant" means resources valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding
of the history of a place, an event, or a people.
"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.
Ontario Regulation 9/06 `Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest' 16 states for a property to
be considered of cultural heritage value or interest, it must meet one or more of the following criteria:
have design value or physical value because it,
• is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction
method,
• displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
• demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
2. have historical value or associative value because it,
has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is
significant to a community,
15 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies 2.6, InfoSheet#5, Heritage
Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Winter 2006
16 Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9106 `Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest'
January 25, 2006
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 42
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
• yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or
culture, or
• demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is
significant to a community.
3. have contextual value because it,
• is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
• is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
• is a landmark.
The potential built heritage resource and potentially significant heritage resource on this property is the 1993 A.
R. Goudie Eventide Home. The home is of cultural heritage interest, having been placed on the Heritage
Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. The house has design value or physical value. It is a representative
example of a style, type, expression, material and construction method (the International Style of Modernism);
it displays a high degree of style, craftsmanship and artistic merit (see paragraph 1.4, page 28). The property has
historical value or associative value as it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, persons, activity,
organization and institution that is significant to the community. It has the potential to yield information that
would contribute to an understanding of the community or culture, and it demonstrates and reflects the work of
an architectural firm and a former owner who are significant to the community. The Home retains its form, mass,
outline, and materials, and is considered to have contextual value as it is the fourth building in a succession of
care homes on this site since 1869.
It is the opinion of this author that the building meets the criteria for designation under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act. This opinion is not compromised by the proposed modifications to the building if the
recommendations of this report are carried out.
This updated scoped heritage impact assessment is respectfully submitted by:
CHC Limited
910, 411��_
per: Owen R. Scott, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 43
369 Frederick Street, Kitchener
A. R. Goudie Eventide Home - sections/elevations, Montgomery and Sisam, March 21, 1991, issued for tender
Auxiliary celebrates 50 years, Waterloo Region Record - 14 Oct 2014 - Valerie Hill, Record staff
County of Waterloo: House of Industry and Refuge Now the site of the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home, Self -guided
walking tour: Made in Berlin. Matured in Kitchener. Posted by James Howe on May 8, 2014 in Arts &
Culture, Heritage, Kitchener
https: Hkingandottawa.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/self-guided-walking-tour-made-in-berlin-matured-in-kit
chener/
Digital Historical Air Photos of KW and Surrounding Area, University of Waterloo
http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/
Doris Lewis Rare Book Room, Waterloo Library
historical case study of the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge (1869-1950), Social Innovation
Research Group, Wilfrid Laurier University, http://waterloohouseofrefuge.ca/house/
Images ofProgress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996. Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery, 1996
Internal Memo, Sandra Parks, Heritage Planner to Andrew Pinnell, Planner re: Pre -Submission Consultation -
Committee of Adjustment & Site Plan, 369 Frederick St. January 13, 2017
Mennonite Archives of Ontario
North York's Modernist Architecture, A reprint of the 1997 City of North York publication, Presented by E.R.A.
Architects 2009, Prepared for the North York Modernist Architecture Forum held at North York Civic Centre
on October 27, 2009
Parks Canada, Standard & Guidelines for the Conservation ofHistoric Places in Canada, www.pc.gc.ca 2003.
Region of Waterloo Archives
Salvation Army blog, Apri17, 2011
http://www.salvationanny.ca/blog/2011/04/07/salvation-anny-to-w thdraw-from-operations-at-a-r-goudie-
eventide-home/
Self -guided walking tour: Made in Berlin. Matured in Kitchener. Posted on May 8, 2014 by James Howe, A walk
though the heritage of Kitchener's Central Frederick neighbourhood
http: //www. fredandlanc. ca/2014/05/self-guided-walking-tour-made-in-berlin-matured-in-kitchener/
Waterloo Region Museum, Region Hall of Fame
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Appendix 1
Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage
InternalMemo
R (Community Services Department www.kitchenerca
Date: January 13, 2017
To: Andrew Pinnell, Planner
From: Sandra Parks, Heritage Planner
cc: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
Subject: Pre -Submission Consultation - Committee of Adjustment & Site Plan
369 Frederick St
Heritage Planning staff provide the following comments in relation to the proposed addition to the existing Long
Term Care Facility and new Retirement Home building at 369 Frederick Street, to be discussed at a Pre -
Submission Consultation meeting on January 19, 2017.
The property at 369 Frederick Street is of cultural heritage interest, having been placed on the Heritage Kitchener
Inventory of Historic Buildings. Correspondence with the owner in January 2015 requested permission to access
the property to take exterior photographs of the building and evaluate the property for possible listing on the City's
Municipal Heritage Register. A response was not received at that time.
Information on file shows this 1993 modern building, designed by Montgomery Sisam Architects, was featured in
Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996, by the Kitchener Waterloo Art
Gallery. The listing states, "The Salvation Army has been a consistent patron of modern architecture. Here
the "crisp stucco and glass exterior pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many
Salvation Army projects built in Canada since the 1950s." The plan is irregular, to preserve the existing
mature trees, but also in the modern tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and functional needs. The
residential wing is set furthest from Frederick Street. In front, a suite of public rooms look toward the entry
court through glass walls. A free-standing entrance canopy in concrete, steel and timber provides a
sheltered verandah at the entry."
The subject property is also located adjacent to a protected heritage property - 362 Frederick Street is designated
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest, which includes the conservation of significant
features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. Section 3 of the Planning Act
requires that decisions of Council be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy2.6.1 of the PPS
states that signiticantbuiltheritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Policy
2.6.3 states that authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage
property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. The PPS defines
significant as resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important
contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people, and notes that while
some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others
can only be determined after evaluation.
Regional and municipal policies and guidelines also address the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The
Regional Official Plan contains policies that require the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The City's
Official Plan contains policies that require development to have regard for and incorporate cultural heritage
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Appendix 1
Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage 2
resources into development. These policies establish the requirement for the submission of studies, such as
Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) and Conservation Plans (CP), as part of complete planning applications. The
Official Plan also acknowledges that not all cultural heritage resources have been identified; a property does not
have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest.
In considering the above, the City will require the submission of an HIA and a CP as part of complete planning
applications. The HIA will need to assess the potential impact of the subject applications (CofA and SP) and the
proposed development on the existing cultural heritage resources on the subject property. If an impact is identified,
the HIA must recommend mitigative measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. These measures should be
reflected in the planning applications and the design of the development proposal submitted to the City for
consideration.
It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the proposed planning applications will not negatively impact the
adjacent protected heritage property, 362 Frederick Street, and so will not require the HIA to assess potential
impacts on it. Heritage Planning staff will avail themselves to review building elevations and provide input and
comment to Urban Design and Development Review staff, as required, to ensure the design of the future
Retirement Home building complements the adjacent protected heritage property, 362 Frederick Street.
In keeping with Ministry and City guidelines on the preparation of HIAs, the following key components will need to
be addressed:
a) historic research, site analysis and evaluation;
b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of all cultural heritage resources;
c) description of the proposed development;
d) measurement of development impact to the existing cultural heritage resources on the subject property;
e) identification of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods;
f) identification of preferred and recommended conservation, mitigation or avoidance measure(s), together
with appropriate implementation and monitoring strategies; and
g) concluding value and summary statements.
Note that HIAs may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site
Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until Heritage Kitchener has been provided an opportunity
to review and provide feedback to City staff. Approval of the HIA by the Director of Planning will be required prior
to Site Plan Approval in Principle.
A CP is required where a cultural heritage resource worthy of retention is identified and recommended in the HIA.
In keeping with Ministryand Cityguidelines on the preparation of Conservation Plans, the following keycomponents
will need to be addressed:
1. analysis of the cultural heritage resource, including documentation, identification of cultural heritage attributes,
assessment of resource conditions and deficiencies;
2. short-, medium- and long-term maintenance and conservation measures including appropriate conservation
principles and practices, qualifications of contractors and trades people that should be applied, and an
implementation strategy;
3. security requirements, including measures to protect the resource during phases of construction or related
development; and
4. cost estimates for short-term maintenance and mitigation measures to be used to determine sufficient
monetary amounts for letters of credit or other securities as may be required.
The submission of a CP may be waived by City staff in instances where an HIA does not recommend Listing or
Designation of a cultural heritage resource, has been reviewed by City staff and is deemed acceptable.
In summary, the Citywill require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and a Conservation Plan as part
of complete planning applications. The terms of reference will be consistent with the City's generic terms of
reference for HIAs and CPs. Contact Heritage Planning staff for copies.
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Appendix 1
Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage
City of Kitchener
PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION COMMENT FORM
Project Address: 369 & 375 Frederick Street
Date of Meeting: November 25, 2021
Application Type: Minor Variance
Comments of: Heritage Planning
Commenter's Name: Victoria Grohn
Email: victoria.arohn(a)kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7041
Date of Comments: November 18, 2021
® I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion)
❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
1. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
Heritage Planning staff provide the following comments based on the pre -submission consultation application form
signed September 23, 2021 and supporting documents including: cover letter prepared by Polocorp Inc. dated
September 23, 2021; revised site plan prepared by SRM Architects dated September 15, 2021; elevations and
angular plane prepared by SRM Architects; and shadow study prepared by SRM Architects.
The proposal contemplates modifications to an approved Site Plan, including increasing the maximum building
height from 15.3 metres to 18.5 metres; reducing the interior side yard setback from 9.91 metres to 6.1 metres;
reducing the minimum required parking from 78 spaces to 70 spaces; and increasing the maximum Floor Space
Ratio from 1.0 to 1.25 to accommodate an additional 80 long-term care beds. In addition, the applicant is
contemplating changing the colour of the existing yellow spandrels to a new colour.
The property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street is of cultural heritage value or interest, having been
placed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared
by CHC Limited dated March 16, 2017 and updated May 8, 2017 was submitted in support of the previous Site Plan
applications. The HIA identified the following heritage attributes of the property:
• Scale and irregular massing of the one and three storey building, including the entry canopy;
• Entry canopy in its entirety;
• Acrylic stucco non -load bearing walls;
• Glazed and solid panel curtain wall sections;
• Pre -finished metal shed roof of the administration wing and entry canopy; and
• Clerestory form and glazing in the administration wing filling the space with light and marrying the indoors with
the outdoors.
The HIA identified the previous development proposal had moderate, but acceptable, negative impacts on the
cultural heritage resource, and recommended the following mitigating measures:
• As much of the existing large glazed and solid panel curtain wall as possible should be salvaged to be used as
an interior feature;
• Proposed cladding should be stucco (EIFS) carried to the foundation with a warmer, lighter tone;
and
• New curtain wall sections at points of internal communal and circulation spaces should retain the dimensions and
form of the originals, but the solid panels constructed in aluminum rather than the yellow of the original.
Pana 7.5,'3 of .r,
CHC Limited May 3, 2022
Appendix 1
Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage
4
In addition, the HIA goes on to recommend that commemoration in the form of interpretive panels with text and
images outlining the history of the property and photographs showing the 1993 building before the addition be
placed in the reception area or other public room.
A revised Heritage Impact Assessment will be required to address the proposed site plan modifications as well as assess
the proposed changes to the window spandrels.
Heritage Planning staff will review and approve elevations in conjunction with Urban Design staff.
2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Minor Variance Application:
• Revised Heritage Impact Assessment addressing the changes to the development proposal
• Elevation drawings
• 3D massing model
3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval:
N/A
4. Policies. Standards and Resources:
N/A
5. Anticipated Fees:
N/
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
CHC Limited —May 3, 2022
Appendix 2
Qualifications of the Author
OWEN R. SCOTT, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP
Education:
Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA) University of Michigan, 1967
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Landscape Horticulture), (BSA) University of Guelph, 1965
Professional Experience:
1965
- present
President, CHC Limited, Guelph, ON
1977
- present
President, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Guelph, ON
1977-
1985
Director, The Pacific Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Vancouver and Nanaimo, BC
1975-
1981
Editor and Publisher, Landscape Architecture Canada, Ariss, ON
1969-
1981
Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture, University of Guelph
1975-
1979
Director and Founding Principal, Ecological Services for Planning Limited, Guelph, ON
1964-
1969
Landscape Architect, Project Planning Associates Limited, Toronto, ON
Historical Research, Heritage Planning and Conservation Experience and Expertise
Current Professional and Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations:
Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation (AHLP) - 1978 -
Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CARP) - 1987 -
Member: Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA) - 1968 - (Emeritus 2016)
Member: Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (FCSLA) - 1969 - (Fellow 1977, Life Member 2016)
Community and Professional Society Service (Heritage):
Director: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CARP), 2002 - 2003
Member: Advisory Board, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, 1980 - 2002
Member: City of Guelph Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), 1987 - 2000 (Chair 1988 - 1990)
Member: Advisory Council, Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985 - 1988
Professional Honours and Awards (Heritage):
Merit Award 2016 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards, City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage
National Award 2016
Mike Wagner Award 2013
People's Choice Award 2012
Award of Excellence 2012
National Award
Award of Merit
Award
Award
Award
Award
Regional Merit
National Honour
Citation
Honour Award
Citation
National Citation
National Merit
Award
2009
2009
2007
2001
1998
1994
1990
Landscapes
Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage
Landscapes
Heritage Award - Breithaupt Block, Kitchener, ON
Brampton Urban Design Awards, Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives, Brampton, ON
Brampton Urban Design Awards, Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives, Brampton, ON
Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement, Alton Mill, Alton, ON
Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards, Alton Mill, Alton, ON
Excellence in Urban Design Awards, Heritage, Old Quebec Street, City of Guelph, ON
Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement
Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (10 year award)
Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (5 year award)
CSLA Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan
1990 CSLA Awards, Confederation Boulevard, Ottawa
1989 City of Mississauga Urban Design Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan
1987 Canadian Architect, Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration, Cambridge, ON
1986 Progressive Architecture, The Ceremonial Routes (Confederation Boulevard), Ottawa,
1985 CSLA Awards, Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK
1984 CSLA Awards, St. James Park Victorian Garden, Toronto, ON
1982 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews Awards, Millside, Guelph, ON
Selected Heritage Publications:
CHC Limited age 07
Appendix 2
Qualifications of the Author 2
Scott, Owen R., The Southern Ontario "Grid", ACORN Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The Journal of the Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario.
Scott, Owen R. 19th Century Gardens for the 20 ' and 21 " Centuries. Proceedings of "Conserving Ontario's Landscapes"
conference of the ACO, (April 1997). Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc., Toronto, 1998.
Scott, Owen R. Landscapes of Memories, A Guide for Conserving Historic Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters) compiled and edited
by Tamara Anson-Cartright, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, 1997.
Scott, Owen R. Cemeteries: A Historical Perspective, Newsletter, The Memorial Society of Guelph, September 1993.
Scott, Owen R. The Sound of the Double -bladed Axe, Guelph and its Spring Festival. edited by Gloria Dent and Leonard
Conolly, The Edward Johnson Music Foundation, Guelph, 1992. 2 pp.
Scott, Owen R. Woolwich Street Corridor, Guelph, ACORN Vol XVI -2, Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario Inc. (ACO)
Scott, Owen R. guest editor, ACORN, Vol. XIV -2, Summer 1989. Cultural Landscape Issue, Newsletter of the ACO.
Scott, Owen R. Heritage Conservation Education, Heritage Landscape Conservation, Momentum 1989, Icomos Canada, Ottawa,
p.31.
Scott, Owen R. Cultivars, pavers and the historic landscape, Historic Sites Supplies Handbook. Ontario Museum Association,
Toronto, 1989. 9 pp.
Scott, Owen R. Landscape preservation - What is it? Newsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects - Ontario Chapter,
vol. 4 no.3, 1987.
Scott, Owen R. Tipperary Creek Conservation Area, Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Landscape Architectural Review, May 1986.
pp. 5-9.
Scott, Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference, McMaster University, 1984.
Scott, Owen R. Canada West Landscapes. Fifth Annual Proceedings Niagara Peninsula History Conference (1983). 1983. 22
PP.
Scott, Owen R. Utilizing History to Establish Cultural and Physical Identity in the Rural Landscape. Landscape Planning,
Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 179-203.
Scott, Owen R. Changing Rural Landscape in Southern Ontario. Third Annual Proceedings Agricultural History of Ontario
Seminar (1978). June 1979. 20 pp.
Scott, Owen R., P. Grimwood, M. Watson. George Laing- Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West 1808-1871. Bulletin,
The Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. IX, No. 3, 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape Architecture
Canada, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1978).
Scott, Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of
Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape).
Following is a representative listing of some of the heritage consultations undertaken by Owen R. Scott in his capacity as a
principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., and principal of CHC Limited.
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports & Heritage Impact Assessments - Bridges
• Adams Bridge (Structure S20) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Southgate Township, ON
• Belanger Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Casey Township, ON
• Bridge 49 -WG Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Township of Centre Wellington, ON
• Bridge 420 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Blandford -Blenheim Township, ON
• Bridge 425 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Blandford -Blenheim Township, ON
• Bridge Street Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Wilmot Township, ON
• Holland Mills Road Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Wilmot Township, ON
• Irvine Street (Watt) Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Township of Centre
Wellington, ON
• Oxford -Waterloo Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Wilmot Township, ON
• Uno Park Road Bridge, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Harley Township, ON
Heritage Master Plans and Landscape Plans
• Alton Mill Landscape, Caledon, ON
• Black Creek Pioneer Village Master Plan, Toronto, ON
• Britannia School Farm Master Plan, Peel Board of Education/Mississauga, ON
• Confederation Boulevard (Sussex Drive) Urban Design, Site Plans, NCC/Ottawa, ON
• Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener, ON
CHC Limited age 07
Appendix 2
Qualifications of the Author
• Downtown Guelph Private Realm Improvements Manual, City of Guelph, ON
• Downtown Guelph Public Realm Plan, City of Guelph, ON
• Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibility Study, City of Hamilton, ON
• Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan, City of Waterloo, ON
• Exhibition Park Master Plan, City of Guelph, ON
• George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto, ON
• Grand River Corridor Conservation Plan, GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo, ON
• Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan, Owen Sound, ON
• Hamilton Unified Family Courthouse Landscape Restoration Plan, Hamilton, ON
• John Galt Park, City of Guelph, ON
• Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON
• Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans, Cambridge, ON
• London Psychiatric Hospital Cultural Heritage Stewardship Plan, London, ON
• McKay / Varey House Landscape Restoration Plan, Markham (Unionville), ON
• Museum of Natural Science/Magnet School 59/ Landscape Restoration and Site Plans, City of Buffalo, NY
• Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan, MNR/lIuntsville, ON
• Peel Heritage Centre Adaptive Re -use, Landscape Design, Brampton, ON
• Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan (winning design competition), Town of Richmond Hill, ON
• Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON
• Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans, Town of Niagara -on -the -Lake, ON
• Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Study and Site Selection, Region of Waterloo, ON
• Rockway Gardens Master Plan, Kitchener Horticultural Society/City of Kitchener, ON
• St. George's Square, City of Guelph, ON
• St. James Cemetery Master Plan, Toronto, ON
• St. James Park Victorian Garden, City of Toronto, ON
• Tipperary Creek (Wanuskewin) Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Meewasin Valley Authority, Saskatoon, SK
• Whitehern Landscape Restoration Plan, Hamilton, ON
• Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration, Parks Canada/Kitchener, ON
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHER), Cultural Heritage Inventories and Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluations
o Belfountain Area Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Peel Region, ON
o Chappell Estate / Riverside / Mississauga Public Garden Heritage Inventory, Mississauga, ON
0 8895 County Road 124 Cultural Heritage Opinion Report, Erin (Ospringe), ON
o County of Waterloo Courthouse Building Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Kitchener, ON
o Cruickston Park Farm & Cruickston Hall - Cultural Heritage Resources Study, Cambridge, ON
o Doon Valley Golf Course - Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources Inventory, Kitchener/Cambridge, ON
o Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit (GO-ALRT) Route Selection, Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for
Environmental Assessment, Hamilton/Burlington, ON
o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment, City of Mississauga, ON
o Hespeler West Secondary Plan - Heritage Resources Assessment, City of Cambridge, ON
o Highway 400 to 404 Link Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Bradford, ON
o Highway 401 to 407 Links Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Pickering/Ajax/Whitby/ Bowmanville,
ON
o Homer Watson House Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Kitchener, ON
o Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment, Tecumseh, ON
o Landfill Site Selection, Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Region of Halton, ON
o Niska Road Cultural Heritage Landscape Addendum, City of Guelph, ON
0 154 Ontario Street, Historical - Associative Evaluation, Guelph, ON
0 35 Sheldon Avenue North, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Kitchener, ON
o 43 Sheldon Avenue North, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Kitchener, ON
0 Silvercreek (LaFarge Lands) Cultural Landscape Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 South Kitchener Transportation Study, Heritage Resources Assessment, Region of Waterloo, ON
0 53 Surrey Street East and 41, 43, 45 Wyndham Street South Cultural Heritage Evaluation Guelph, ON
0 Swift Current CPR Station Gardens condition report and feasibility study for rehabilitation/reuse, Swift Current, SK
o University of Guelph, McNaughton Farm House, Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment, Puslinch Township, ON
CHC Linn ted rag
Appendix 2
Qualifications of the Author 4
University of Guelph, Trent Institute Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment, Guelph, ON
University of Guelph, 1 and 10 Trent Lane Cultural Heritage Resource Assessments, Guelph, ON
2007 Victoria Road South Heritage Evaluation, Guelph, ON
Waterloo Valleylands Study, Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies, Region of Waterloo
69 Woolwich Street (with references to 59, 63-67, 75 Woolwich Street) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Guelph, ON
Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessments (CHRIA/CHIA/HIS/HIA) and Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statements
0 33 Arkell Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 86 Arthur Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
o William Barber House, 5155 Mississauga Road, Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON
o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 72 Beaumont Crescent Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
o Biltmore Hat Factory Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
o 25 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 215 Broadway Street Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
o Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
o Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands, Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, Cambridge, ON
o 27-31 Cambridge Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
0 3075 Cawthra Road Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
0 58 Church Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Churchville Heritage Conservation District, Brampton, ON
o City Centre Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
0 175 Cityview Drive Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 12724 Coleraine Drive Cultural Heritage Impact Statement, Caledon (Bolton), ON
0 12880 Coleraine Drive Cultural Heritage Impact Statement, Caledon (Bolton), ON
o Cordingly House Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
o 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment (farmstead, house & barn), Guelph, ON
0 31-43 David Street (25 Joseph Street) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
0 35 David Street (Phase II) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 75 Dublin Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
o 24, 26, 28 and 32 Dundas Street East Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, (Cookeville), ON
0 1261 Dundas Street South Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
0 172 - 178 Elizabeth Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 19 Esandar Drive, Heritage Impact Assessment, Toronto, ON
o 70 Fountain Street Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 14 Forbes Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 369 Frederick Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 42 Front Street South Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON
o Grey Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo, ON
o GRCA Lands, 748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, Kitchener, ON
o Hancock Woodlands Heritage Impact Statement, City of Mississauga, ON
0 132 Hart's Lane, Hart Farm Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 9675, 9687, 9697 Keele Street Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Vaughan (Maple) ON
0 13165 Keele Street Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment, King Township (King City), ON
0 151 King Street North Heritage Impact Assessment, Waterloo, ON
o Kip Co. Lands Developments Ltd. Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment - Woodbridge Heritage Conservation
District, City of Vaughan (Woodbridge) ON
o 20415 Leslie Street Heritage Impact Assessment, East Gwillimbury, ON
0 117 Liverpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 36-46 Main Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON
0 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
0 19 - 37 Mill Street Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 2610, 2620 and 2630 Mississauga Road, Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
o 4067 Mississauga Road, Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
CHC Limited Pagaj4bti 102507
Appendix 2
Qualifications of the Author
0 1142 Mona Road, Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON
0 1245 Mona Road, Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
0 15 Mont Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
o Proposed Region of Waterloo Multimodal Hub at 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510
King Street West, Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 6671 Ninth Line Heritage Impact Statement, Cordingley House Restoration & Renovation, Mississauga, ON
o 266-280 Northumberland Street (The Gore) Heritage Impact Assessment, North Dumfries (Ayr), ON
0 324 Old Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 40 Queen Street South Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, (Streetsville), ON
o Rockway Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairway Road Extension Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 259 St. Andrew Street East Cultural Heritage Assessment, Fergus, ON
0 35 Sheldon Avenue, Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 43 Sheldon Avenue, Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o 2300 Speakman Drive Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON
0 10431 The Gore Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Brampton, ON
o Thorny -Brae Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
o 7 Town Crier Lane, Heritage Impact Assessment, Markham, ON
o University of Guelph, 3 - 7 Gordon Street Houses, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
o University of Guelph, Harrison House, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
o Victoria Park Proposed Washroom Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
0 927 Victoria Road South (barn) Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
o 272-274 Victoria Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON
o 26 - 32 Water Street North Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge (Galt), ON
o Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
o 248-260 Woodbridge Avenue Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation District Conformity
Report, Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District, City of Vaughan (Woodbridge)
0 35 Wright Street Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment, Richmond Hill, ON
0 1123 York Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 14288 Yonge Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Aurora, ON
Heritage Conservation Plans
o William Barber House, 5155 Mississauga Road, Heritage Conservation Plan, Mississauga, ON
0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Kitchener, ON
o Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital Conservation Plan, for Infrastructure Ontario, Hamilton, ON
o Harrop Barn Heritage Conservation Plan, Milton, ON
0 120 Huron Street Conservation Plan, Guelph, ON
0 324 Old Huron Road Conservation Plan, Kitchener, ON
0 Sixth Line Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan, Oakville, ON
o 264 Woolwich Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Guelph, ON
0 14288 Yonge Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Aurora, ON
0 1123 York Road Heritage Conservation Plan, Guelph, ON
Heritage Conservation District Studies and Plans
• Downtown Whitby Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Town of Whitby, ON
• MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, City of Waterloo, ON
• Queen Street East Heritage Conservation District Study, Toronto, ON
• University of Toronto & Queen's Park Heritage Conservation District Study, City of Toronto, ON
Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventories/Studies
• Cultural Heritage Landscape Study, City of Kitchener, ON
• Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory, City of Mississauga, ON
• Cultural Heritage Resources Scoping Study, Township of Centre Wellington, ON
CHC Limited age 07
Appendix 2
Qualifications of the Author
Peer Review,
0
o Acton Quarry Cultural Heritage Landscape & Built Heritage Study & Assessment Peer Review, Acton, ON
o Belvedere Terrace - Peer Review, Assessment of Proposals for Heritage Property, Parry Sound, ON
o Forbes Estate Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review, Cambridge (Hespeler), ON
o Heritage Square Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review for Township of Centre Wellington (Fergus), ON
o Little Folks Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review for Township of Centre Wellington (Elora), ON
o Potter Foundry and the Elora South Condos Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review for Township of Centre Wellington
(Elora), ON
0 558 Welbanks Road, Quinte's Isle, miscellaneous heritage assessment documents, Prince Edward County, ON
Expert Witness Experience
• Oelbaum Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Eramosa Township, ON, 1988
• Roselawn Centre Conservation Review Board Hearing, Port Colborne, ON, 1993
• Halton Landfill, Joint Environmental Assessment Act and Environmental Protection Act Board Hearing, 1994
• OPA 129 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Richmond Hill, ON, 1996
• Diamond Property Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Aurora, ON, 1998
• Harbour View Investments Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Town of Caledon, ON, 1998
o Aurora South Landowners Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Aurora, ON, 2000
o Ballycroy Golf Course Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Palgrave, ON, 2002
o Doon Valley Golf Course Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Cambridge, ON, 2002
o Maple Grove Community Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, North York, ON, 2002
o Maryvale Crescent Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Richmond Hill, ON, 2003
o LaFarge Lands Ontario Municipal Board Mediation, Guelph, ON, 2007
o 255 Geddes Street, Elora, ON, heritage opinion evidence - Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2010
o Downey Trail Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Guelph, ON, 2010
o Wilson Farmhouse Conservation Review Board Hearing, Guelph, ON, 2014
0 85 Victoria Street, Churchville Heritage Conservation District, Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Brampton, ON, 2016
o Haylock / Youngblood Development OMB Mediation Hearing, Centre Wellington, ON, 2018
o Riverbank Drive LPAT Mediation Hearing, Cambridge, ON, 2019
0 50 Brookside Drive Ontario Land Tribunal Hearing, Kitchener, ON, 2021
o 70 Fountain Street Skydeveo Ontario Land Tribunal Hearing, Guelph, ON, 2022
cHc
CHC Limited aga 07