HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2023-316 - HIA - 1254 Union Street - Construction of a Maintenance FacilityStaff Report
r
NJ :R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: August 1, 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: July 3, 2023
REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-316
SUBJECT: Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street
Construction of a Maintenance Facility
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
REPORT:
The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
dated May 2023, prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd., regarding a proposal to construct a one -
storey maintenance/warehouse facility on the subject property municipally known as 1254
Union Street.
The subject property is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage
interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The subject property is also
located adjacent to the Union Street Cultural Heritage Landscape. The cultural heritage
value of the property lies in the existing two-storey building built in the Industrial Vernacular
architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The landscaping of the property has also
been identified for its contextual value.
The applicant is proposing to construct a one -storey maintenance/warehouse facility located
towards the rear of the property, with no alterations being proposed the existing two-storey
building (Fig. 1). The submission of a Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made
a requirement of a Site Plan Application to construct the warehouse facility.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 3 of 182
Figure 1: Proposed Concept Plan.
Source: Draft HIA
The draft scoped HIA has concluded that the subject property meets only one (1) out of the
nine (9) criteria for designation and could remain on the City's Municipal Heritage Register.
Due to the timelines associated with processing planning application due to Bill 109, the Site
Plan Application has received conditional approval, subject to several heritage conditions,
including the approval of the scoped HIA.
Heritage Planning staff are currently in the process of reviewing the HIA and will be providing
detailed comments to the application to address any areas that require further assessment
and discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning staff are seeking the committee's input on
the draft HIA and these comments will be taken into consideration as staff continues to
review the HIA and the associated planning application. A motion or recommendation to
Council will not be required at the August meeting.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Page 4 of 182
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.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Ontario Heritage Act, 2022
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 1254 Union
Street
Page 5 of 182
HERITAGE
IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
REPORT
(DRAFT FOR SUBMISSION)
1254 Union Street
Kitchener, ON
Date:
May 2023
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
MlacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson
Planning Limited (MIHBC)
200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive
Kitchener, ON N213 3X9
T: 519 576 3650
F: 519 576 0121
Our Fife:l5183C'
c L;
410
' rlray�� r'
l Irt.
pop
MHBC
P L A N N I N G
URBAN DESIGN
& LANDSCAPE
A.RCNiTECT,;PE
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Table of Contents
ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................................................................................3
PropertyOwner............................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities...................................................................................................................................3
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................................................................................4
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................................6
1.1 Description of the Subject Lands...............................................................................................................................................6
1.2 Heritage Status......................................................................................................................................................................................7
2.0 Policy Context..........................................................................................................................................................................................11
2.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement.......................................................................................................11
2.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe............................................................................................................12
2.3 Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06.......................................................................................................13
2.4 Region of Waterloo Official Plan..............................................................................................................................................14
2.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan.....................................................................................................................................................15
2.6 City of Kitchener CHL Study........................................................................................................................................................19
2.7 Terms of Reference..........................................................................................................................................................................19
3.0 Historical Overview................................................................................................................................................................................21
3.1 History of Indigenous Peoples..................................................................................................................................................21
3.2 County &Township of Waterloo.............................................................................................................................................21
3.3 Subject Lands......................................................................................................................................................................................23
4.0 Description of Subject Lands.........................................................................................................................................................35
4.1 Description of Buildings................................................................................................................................................................35
4.1.1 Building 1: Former Warehouse......................................................................................................................................36
4.1.2 Building 2: Former Machine Shop...............................................................................................................................41
4.1.3 Building 3: Utility Building................................................................................................................................................42
4.1.4 Temporary Structure............................................................................................................................................................43
4.2 Description of Landscaping........................................................................................................................................................44
4.3 Description of Union Street/Union Boulevard CHL.....................................................................................................47
5.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources..............................................................................................................................49
May 2023 MHBC I i
Page 7 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
5.1 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest..........................................................................................................49
5.2 Statement of CHVI............................................................................................................................................................................52
6.0 Description of Proposed Development....................................................................................................................................54
7.0 Impacts of Proposed Development...........................................................................................................................................55
7.1 Classifications of Impacts.............................................................................................................................................................55
7.2 Impacts of the Proposed Development on 1254 Union Street............................................................................56
7.3 Impact Analysis of Proposed Development on Adjacent Lands.........................................................................57
8.0 Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Recommendations
..........................................................58
8.1 1254 Union Street.............................................................................................................................................................................58
8.1.1 "Do nothing...............................................................................................................................................................................58
8.1.2 Alternative Location.............................................................................................................................................................58
8.1.3 Design...........................................................................................................................................................................................58
8.2 Alternative Development Approaches Regarding Adjacent Lands..................................................................59
8.3 Mitigation and Conservation Recommendations.........................................................................................................59
9.0 Recommendations and Conclusions........................................................................................................................................60
10.0 Sources....................................................................................................................................................................................................61
AppendixA — Location Plan..............................................................................................................................................................................63
Appendix B — City of Kitchener's Statement of Significance.........................................................................................................64
AppendixC — Heritage Context Plan...........................................................................................................................................................65
Appendix D — City of Kitchener CHL Study Map..................................................................................................................................66
Appendix E — City of Kitchener CHL Study Data Sheet.....................................................................................................................67
AppendixF —Terms of Reference..................................................................................................................................................................68
AppendixG — Site Plan.........................................................................................................................................................................................69
AppendixH — Curriculum Vitae.......................................................................................................................................................................70
May 2023 MHBC I ii
Page 8 of 182
Scoped Heritoge impactAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Project Personnel
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP,
CAHP
Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAH P
Rachel Neiser, MSc
Lucy Chen
Paul Jae Woong Lee
Property Owner
Managing Director of Cultural
Heritage
Associate/Heritage Planner
Heritage Planner
Technician
Technician
Acknowledgements
Project Manager, Senior
Review
Field Analyst
Author, Research
Site Plan
Mapping
This report acknowledges that assistance provided by the City of Kitchener Public Library, Grace
Schmidt Room of Local History.
It should be noted that the copying of images and Fire Insurance Plans for commercial purposes which
are intended far publication is restricted. Therefore, this report provides a written review of Fire Insurance
Plans, but does not provide images of such in this report.
Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities
This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) acknowledges that the subject lands are located on the
traditional territoryof the Haudenosaunee, Mississaugas, Anishinaabe and the Neutrals.The subject
lands are associated with the HaIdimand Treaty (1784) and the Simcoe Patent (Treaty 4, 1793)
(Native -Land, n.d. accessed February 2023).
May 2023
MHBC 13
Page 9 of 182
Scoped Heritoge impactAssessment
7254 Union Street; City of Kitchener
Executive Summary
MHBC was retained by to undertake a Scoped Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development on the subject lands addressed as 1254 Union
Street, City of Kitchener. The proposed development of the subject lands includes the construction
of a 650 square metre warehouse/maintenance facility to the rear (north) of the existing two storey
building on the subject lands. The subject lands are listed (non -designated) on the City of
Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register (the "Register„) and are adjacent to the inventoried Cultural
Heritage Landscape (CHL) of Union Street/Union Boulevard, as provided in the City of Kitchener
CHL Study (2014).
The property located at 1254 Union Street includes buildings associated with the Ontario Sugar
Company, later the Dominion Sugar Company, including: the warehouse building (1902), wings of
the warehouse building (1904-1925) and the former machine shop (1902). The Ontario Sugar
Company was a major contributor to employment and development in Waterloo Region. The
factory represented the greatest investment in development in Kitchener between 1873 and 1903
and was the first sugar beet factory in Canada that refined Canadian sugar beets. Further, the
establishment and operation of the sugar -beet refinery is partially accredited to and associated with
the Briethaupt family whose local political, social and business contributions were significant to the
development of the City of Kitchener. Furthermore, the design and construction of the buildings
established in 1902 on the property is associated with Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) who
was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America.
The original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storeyformer
machine shop located on the property have some attributes that are reflective of their original
industrial vernacular architectural style; however, these buildings are no longer representative and
no longer express their intended industrial vernacular style as a result of the later Spanish Eclectic
Inspired alterations to the buildings. Although the property is associated with Dyer, the property
has been altered to the extent that it no longer reflects the design by E.H. Dyer Co. The property
meets one of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 pertaining to its associative values which
renders it a candidate to be listed (non -designated) on the Register as per the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Statement of Significance is included in Section 5.2 of this report.
The development of an independent maintenance/warehouse building on the property will not
result in impacts to heritage resources on the subject lands or on adjacent lands. As a result of the
absence of impacts, alternative development approaches are not warranted. Provided normal
construction practices are employed for the development of the proposed
maintenance/warehouse building, including protective construction fencing around the existing
buildings, no mitigation or conservation measures will be required. A Conservation Plan and
Mcy2023 MHBC 14
Page 10 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
summary of applicable heritage conservation principles is not required for the proposed
development given the absence of impacts.
May 2023
fi
MHBC 15
Page 11 of 182
Scoped Heritoge impactAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
1.O Introduction
MHBC was retained by Moser Landscape Group Inc. to undertake a Scoped Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development located at 1254 Union Street, Kitchener (subject
lands). is proposing to construct a 650 square metre, 7.3 metre high
detached maintenancelwarehouse facilityto the north (rear) of the existing two storey building on
the subject lands. The purpose of this HIA is to evaluate the proposed development in terms of
potential impacts to cultural heritage resources located on-site and adjacent and provide
mitigation measures, as necessary.
This report has been prepared as input to the Site Plan Application pertaining to the subject lands.
This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the City's policy framework and Provincial
policy.
1 .1 Description of the Subject Lands
The subject lands have frontage on the northeast side of Union Street where Union Street and
Sereda Road merge. The subject lands contain 2.29 hectares (5.55 acres) and have a two storey
renovated warehouse building, two single storey buildings to the east, a temporary structure to the
southeast and various landscape components. A descriptive review of the buildings and setting of
the subject lands is provided in Section 4 of this report.
The subject lands are legally described as follows:
TRACT GERMAN COMPANY SUB LOT 59 PT LOTS 1 & 10 RP 58R1977 PTS 1 2 & 8.
The lands back onto the Conestoga Parkway (Highway 7185) to the north which includes a
vegetation buffer along the northerly property line of the subject lands. The subject lands are
located in a primarily industrial area with various warehouse, automotive and outdoor storage uses
In Its vicinity.
Figure T, below, illustrates the context of the subject lands.
May 2023 M H QC 16
Page 12 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 1: Aerial image (2022) with subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of Region of Waterloo, GIS
Locator).
The Location Plan is attached as Appendix'A'.
.2 Heritage Status
The subject lands are listed (non -designated) on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register
(Index of Non -Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest). The lands were listed on June 1,
2015. The City's Statement of Significance for 1254 Union Street provides the following description
of the subject lands' heritage value:
1254 Union Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values.
The design value relates to the architecture of the warehouse building. The building is a
notable, rare and unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with
Spanish Eclectic influences. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in
height and features: main hip roof, flat and shed rooflines on additions; yellow and red brick
May 2023 MHBC 17
Page 13 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
including decorative details; brick pilasters between bays; segmentally arched window
openings with brick voussoirs; various multi -pane windows; two-storey front entrance
portico with parapet, segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs; flat headed
door openings with timber lintels; and, exterior archways.
The contextual value relates to the setting. The factory was situated in close proximity to both
the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand River. The railway was used to bring beets from
farms to the refinery and the river was used to power the refinery and discharge effluent. The
factory was built on a slight rise oflond providing it prominence in the landscape. Today, the
property features buildings, ponds, patios, fountains and 20,000 square feet of gardening
beds, including the Hacienda Sarria Market Garden operated by The Working Centre. The
Hacienda Sarria Market Garden is a volunteer -driven initiative to develop on inclusive,
hands-on learning environment to demonstrate, promote, and share knowledge about
sustainable local food production and environmental stewardship.
The historic and associative values relate to the original use of the building. The building was
a warehouse to the former sprawling three-storey sugar beet factory (Kolaritsch & Horne,
1984-85). The warehouse supported the factory that was built in 1902 as a result of a
government movement to encourage the creation of new industry in Ontario. The
movement provided bonuses to certain industries willing to enter Ontario, including the
sugar beet industry. Berlin (now Kitchener) encouraged the construction of the sugar beet
factory as a new form of industry for the community, making great investments into the
project in hopes of becoming the home of Canada's first sugar beet mill. Although its life was
short-lived, the factory did indeed become Canada's first sugar beet factory (Bloomfield,
2006). The factory was opened in 1902 in Berlin and operated for 6 years between 1902 and
1908 under the ownership of the Ontario Sugar Company (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory
was moved from Benton Harbour, Michigan and erected by E.H. Dyer and Co. of Cleveland
in 1902 (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory stimulated new residential construction in the area
(Bloomfield, 1987). Upon the Ontario Sugar Company becoming bankrupt the factory was
sold to the Erie Coal company who quicklysold the factory to the Dominion Sugar Company
(Bloomfield, 1987). The Dominion Sugar Company operated the factory for another 7Oyears
until it closed in 1923 and sold the factory to Guggenheim Distilleries of Canada Ltd. in 1927
(Bloomfield, 1987). The factory was never used for sugar production again and its
unsuccessful history mirrors that ofjust under 30% of the enterprises which received bonuses
from Berlin, and either failed or were closed within 10 years of operation (Bloomfield, 1987).
The following heritage attributes are provided:
• All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular with Spanish Eclectic influences,
including:
May 2023 MHBC 18
Page 14 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpactAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
o Main hip roof,
o Flat and shed rooflines on additions;
o Yellow and red brick including decorative details;
o Brick pilasters between bays;
o Segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs;
o Various multi -pane windows;
o Two-storey front entrance portico with parapet,
o Segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs;
o Flat headed door openings with timber lintels; and.
o Exterior archways.
• All elements related to contextual value, including:
o Buildings;
o Ponds;
o Patios;
o Fountains; and,
o Gardening beds.
The City's Statement of Significance is attached as Appendix'B'.
Further, the subject lands are not adjacent to any listed or designated heritage resources and are
not within a heritage conservation district, as illustrated in Figure 2, below.
Heritage register
1
• Intend to Designate
CATEGORY
Listed Properties
JPart IVDesignation
Part V (District) Designation
EJPart IV and V Designation
Z Heritage district
Figure 2: Excerpt of City of Kitchener On -Point Map (Heritage Layer) with the subject lands outlined in
red.
The Heritage Context Plan is attached as Appendix'C'.
May 2023
MHBC 19
Page 15 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
The subject lands have frontage on Union Street which is recognized as an inventoried cultural
heritage landscape (CHL) (transportation corridor) in the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage
Landscape Study (2014). The Study identifies the following character defining features for Union
Street and Union Boulevard:
Features include: the part of the street that is centred on King Street with its 19th and early
20th Century homes and institutions; its passage through Breithoupt Park; the alignment of
Union which reflects the curvilinear street pattern characteristic of Waterloo Township; the
vertical rise and fall with the gently rolling topography; the curvilinear alignment through
Westmount as part of the neighbourhood design; the Grand River Hospital and Sun Life
institutional campus; and, the divided lanes through the Westmount neighbourhood.
Figure 3, below, identifies the location of the subject lands in relation to the inventoried CHL of
Union Street and Union Boulevard (L -RD -14).
Figure 3: Map of the Central Neighbourhoods CHLs noting approximate location of subject lands in red
(City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes Study, 2014).
The CHL Context Plan is attached to this report as Appendix 'D' and the Data Sheet for the
inventoried CHL of Union Street and Union Boulevard (L -RD -14) is attached as Appendix'E'.
May 2023 MHBC 110
Page 16 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
2.O Policy Context
This section provides an overview of the provincial and municipal policy framework which has
guided the assessment contained herein.
2.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement
The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 provides a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage
and land development, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or through Section 3 respecting policy
statements and provincial plans. The Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that
relevant authorities in the planning process must consider. Regarding cultural heritage, Section 2
of the Planning Act provides that:
The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the
Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to,
among other matters, matters ofprovincial interest such as ...
(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical,
archaeological orscientific interest.
The Planning Act provides the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through
the land use planning process.
In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as
provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and
development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS provides for the
following for cultural heritage planning:
2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall
be conserved.
2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent
lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site
alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of
the protected heritage property will be conserved.
The PPS provides definitions of the following relevant terms:
May 2023 MHBC I I I
Page 17 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Built Heritage Resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any
manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural
heritage value orinterest as identified by community, including an Indigenous community.
Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V
of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or
international registers.
Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage
resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that
ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the
implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological
assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or
adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision -maker. Mitigative measures
and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and
assessments.
Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been
determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining
cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the
Ontario Heritage Act.
Protected Heritage Property: means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the
Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or
IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public
bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation
of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO
World Heritage Sites.
2.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
The Grown Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 ("Growth Plan"), was approved under the
Places to Grow Act, 2005 by the Lieutenant Governor in Council through Order in Council No.
641/2019. The Growth Plan came into effect on May 16, 2019. Amendment 1 (2020) to the Growth
Plan was approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council through Order in Council No. 1244/2020
and took effect on August 28, 2020.
As per Schedule 2 of the Growth Plan, the subject lands are within the Conceptual Built-up Area.
Section 2.2.1 of the Growth Plan generally provides that growth will be directed to settlement areas
that have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater services and that can support the
achievement of complete communities.
May 2023 MHBC 112
Page 18 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Section 4.2.7 of the Growth Plan provides the following policies for cultural heritage resources:
1. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit
communities, particularly in strategic growth areas.
2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Metis communities,
in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the identification,
wise use and management of cultural heritage resources.
3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and
municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making.
2.3 Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06
The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 (OHA) remains the guiding legislation for the
conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. Part IV of the OHA provides that a
municipality shall maintain a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest
(CHVI) which may include designated and non -designated properties. Part V of the OHA provides
that a municipality shall maintain a register of all heritage conservation districts (HCDs) that are
designated under the Part.
As per Section 29 (1) of the OHA, the municipal council may, by by-law, designate a property that is
of CHVI provided the property meets the prescribed criteria contained within Ontario Regulation
9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides
that a property may be designated under Section 29 of the Act if it meets two or more of the
following criteria for demining whether it is of CHVI:
1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative
or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method.
2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of
craftsmanship or artistic merit.
3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of
technical or scientific achievement.
4. The property has 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.
5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential
to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture.
May 2023 MHBC 113
Page 19 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects
the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a
community.
7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or
supporting the character of an area.
8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or
historically linked to its surroundings.
9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.
Ontario Regulation 9/06 further provides that a property may be listed on the Register if it meets
one or more of the above criteria.
2A Region of Waterloo Official Plan
The Region of Waterloo Official Plan Amendment No. 6, applying to all lands within Waterloo, was
adopted by Council through By-law 22-018 and approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing on April 11, 2023 (ERO 019-5952). As a guiding principle, Section 1.5 provides that cultural
heritage resources will be conserved and promoted to support the social, economic, and cultural
well-being of all communities, including Indigenous peoples.
Section 3.G of the Official Plan provides policies explicitly related to cultural heritage, including:
3.G.7 The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are
conserved using the provisions of the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental
Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act.
3.G.3 Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and
maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area
Municipalities will include on their register properties designated Part IV, V or VI of the
Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be limited to, the following additional
cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage value or interest: (a) properties that have
heritage conservation easements or covenants registered against title; (b) cultural heritage
resources of Regional interest; and (c) cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand
River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincial governments.
3.G.6 Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans
and establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is
May 2023 MHBC 114
Page 20 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage
significance than their constituent elements or parts.
3.G.73 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the
submission of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of proposed development
that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non -designated resource
of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register.
3.G. 7 7 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following:
(a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation;
(b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage
resource;
(c) description of the proposed development or site alteration;
(d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts;
(e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods;
(0 schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and
(g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations
These policies have guided the preparation of this report and the analysis contained herein.
2.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan
The City of Kitchener Official Plan was approved by the Region of Waterloo in 2014. Map 9 (Cultural
Heritage Resources) identifies the HCDs, Heritage Corridors, the Canadian Heritage River, and
significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the City. The subject lands are not within or adjacent to
any HCDs, Heritage Corridors, the Canadian Heritage River or recognized Cultural Heritage
Landscapes (see Figure 4, below).
May 2023 MHBC 115
Page 21 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpactAssessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 4: Excerpt of Map 9 (Cultural Heritage Resources) of the City of Kitchener Official Plan with the
approximate location of the subject lands outlined in red.
Section 12 of the Official Plan provides the policies that are specific to cultural heritage resources.
Relevant to the objectives of this HIA, the following is provided:
12.C.1.1. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the
provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act,
the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act and the Municipal Act.
12.C.1.3. The City will develop, prioritize and maintain a list of cultural heritage resources
which will include the following:
a) properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on
the Municipal Heritage Register;
b) properties designated under Part Wand V of the Ontario Heritage Act;
c) cultural heritage landscapes, and, heritage corridors.
The list may also include cultural heritage resources identified in Federal, Provincial and
Regional inventories and properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic
May 2023 MHBC 116
Page 22 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Buildings until such time as these properties are re-evaluated and considered for listing on
the Municipal Heritage Register.
12.0.1.4. The City acknowledges that notall of the city's cultural heritage resources have been
identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 12.C.1.3. Accordingly, a property does
not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or
interest.
12.01.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act,
resources of potential cultural heritage value or interest will be identified, evaluated and
considered for listing as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on
the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
12.01.7. Properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest will be considered for
designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The cultural heritage value or interest
associated with the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated based on the regulation in
the Ontario Heritage Act which provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or
interest.
12.C.1.8. The City, in cooperation with the Region and the Municipal Heritage Committee
(MHC), will identify, inventory and list on the Municipal Heritage Register, cultural heritage
landscapes in the city.
12.01.9. Significant cultural heritage landscapes will be identified on Map 9 in accordance
with the Regional Official Plan and this Plan...
12.01.10. The City will require the conservation of significant cultural heritage landscapes
within the city.
12.01.20. The City will make decisions with respect to cultural heritage resources that are
consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, which require the
conservation of significant cultural heritage resources. In addition, such decisions will be
consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada.
12.01.21. All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use
designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener's significant cultural
heritage resources. The conservation of significant cultural heritage resources will be a
requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval of applications submitted
under the Planning Act.
May 2023 MHBC 117
Page 23 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
12.0.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a
Heritage Conservation Plan fordevelopment, redevelopment and site alteration thothos the
potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed.
a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property;
b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.04.6 through
13.C.4.18 inclusive;
c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest
on the Municipal Heritage Register;
d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or,
e) on or adjacent to on identified cultural heritage landscape.
12.01.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of
Reference. In general, the contents of Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be
limited to, the following:
a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation;
b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage
resource;
c) description of the proposed development or site alteration;
d) assessment of development or site alteration impact orpotentiol adverse impacts;
e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods;
0 implementation and monitoring; and,
g) summary statement and conservation recommendations.
12.C. 7.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and
Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or
conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the
requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning
Act.
12.01.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable
damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the
owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival
documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or
permit.
May 2023 MHBC 118
Page 24 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
12.C.1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act
any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant
alterations or other potentially adverse impacts.
12.C.1.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development,
redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources.
These policies have guided the preparation of this report and the analysis contained herein.
2.6 City of Kitchener CHL Study
The City of Kitchener CHL Study provides an inventory of 55 sites that have the potential to be
cultural heritage landscapes. The Study has identified nine types of landscapes, including:
residential neighbourhoods; parks, natural areas and other public/private open space;
transportation corridors and streetscapes; institutional landscapes; commercial, industrial and retail
landscapes; agricultural landscapes; large lot residential/estate landscapes; cemeteries; and, Grand
River valley landscapes. As per Appendix 4 of the Study and Figure 3 of this report, the subject
lands are adjacent to the inventoried transportation corridor of Union Street and Union Boulevard
(L -RD -14). The excerpt of Appendix 4 (Maps) and Data Sheet from the City of Kitchener CHL Study
for the Union Street and Union Boulevard (L -RD -14) inventoried CHL are attached as Appendix'D'
and'E', respectively.
2.7 Terms of Reference
This HIA has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Scoped Terms of Reference provided
with the Record of Consultation, dated January 19, 2023. Generally, the following have been
required for this HIA:
• Present owner contact information;
• Summary of site history;
• Description of buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject lands, including
history of development;
• Statement on the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) and heritage attributes for
subject lands;
• Documentation of the subject lands, including historical photographs;
• Overview of proposed development;
• Assessment of potential negative impacts as a result of the development;
• Consideration for alternative development approaches;
May 2023 MHBC 119
Page 25 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
• A summary of heritage conservation principles;
• Mitigation recommendations; and
• Qualifications of persons completing HIA.
The Scoped Terms of Reference have been attached to this report as Appendix'F'.
May 2023 MHBC 120
Page 26 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
3.o Historical Overview
This section contains a description of the broad historical development of the subject lands and
their context.
3.1 History of Indigenous Peoples
The pre -contact period of history in Ontario specifically refers to the period of time prior to the
arrival of Europeans in North America. The pre -history of Ontario spans approximately 11,000 years
from the time the first inhabitants arrived in the Paleo-lithic period to the late Woodland period,
just before the arrival of Europeans and the "contact" period, in the 1611 and 17th centuries. The
periods (and sub -periods) of Indigenous history in Ontario include the Paleo period (beginning
approximately 11,500 B.P.), the Archaic Period (9,500 B.P. to 2,900 B.P.), and the Woodland period
(900 B.C. to approximately the 16th century).
The Attawandaron (Neutral) people were one of the earliest known Indigenous communities to live
in Waterloo Region. The Attawandaron peoples lived in villages that would migrate every 10 to 30
years dependent on the land's ability to support agriculture and hunting. The population of
Attawandaron peoples greatly diminished towards the end of the 1600s as a result of famine and
disease brought by the Europeans and causalities during conflict. Thereafter, remaining
Attawandaron peoples assimilated with various nations, including the Haudenosaunee (Waterloo
Public Library, 2016).
The Haudenosaunee, also known as the Six Nations and Iroquois, lived in the valley of the Great
Lakes in parts of Ontario and New York. At the turn of the 16th century, the Haudenosaunee faced
conflict with the Mississauga peoples which resulted in their migration south. The Mississaugas, an
Anishinaabe nation, inhabited land in the valley of the Great Lakes into the 18th century when land
was lost to European settlement (Waterloo Public Library, 2016).
3.2 County &Township of Waterloo
The County of Waterloo formerly contained six townships: North Dumfries, North and South
Waterloo, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich. The subject lands are located within the former
Township of North Waterloo, within the historical County of Waterloo. The County was formed in
1863 by an Act of Parliament which served to disunite the United Counties of Waterloo and Brant.
May 2023 MHBC 121
Page 27 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Previous to their incorporation in the United Counties, the lands of the County were part of the
Wellington District forjudicial and electoral purposes (Sutherland, 1864).
Wr
51,
t
t
a
J JC.WWI
ti
Figure 5: Image of Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, 1861, with the approximate location of
the subject lands indicated by the arrow (Courtesy of University of Toronto).
The County was serviced by various rivers and tributaries of the Grand River which were utilized to
supply hydraulic power for industries in the area into the latter half of the 19th century. The Grand
Trunk, as well and the Guelph and Galt Branch of the Great Western Railway intersected the County
to support transportation related to industry (Sutherland, 1864). In 1973, the County of Waterloo
became the Region of Waterloo.
May 2023 MHBC 122
Page 28 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
3.3 Subject Lands
The subject lands form part of Lot 59 on the German Company Tract and are legally described as
follows:
Firstly: Part Lot 10, Subdivision Of Lot 59 German Company Tract Kitchener, As In 1581227
(firstly); Secondly: Part Lot 202, Streets And Lanes And Part Lots 1 And 10, Subdivision Of Lot
59 German Company Tract Kitchener; Designated As Parts 1, 2 And 8 On 58r-1977 ; City Of
Kitchener.
In 1798, Lot 59 in the Township of Waterloo was patented by the Crown to Richard Beasley, James
Wilson and John B. Rosseau (Patent B-46291; LRO 58; (Figure 6, below)) and was sold in various
configurations thereafter.
TOWNSHIP OF WATERLOO Lot No. 6-?__
instr+�r+.R �sev Date a?�7:P GR.L':'FR Qnan_
ctcy inilrahl;s
AFL �� -..• �� �is.k7FJ �'f-�.:s� ��F,T.e+6 '
�ilf�, rp 71r � q
., T L O /i�!'rf..�...Gr.d""/ v.a'c'Y�e. �:G7j_.�:.:�Y�,=/..m..•.a�,;..e.G •Yx+.�. C`=�,s'_.�..: +-w,..�G
Figure 6: Excerpt of abstract index for the Registry Division of Waterloo North (LRO 58) with Patent of
Lot 59 highlighted in red.
The 1861 Tremaine Map of the County of Waterloo (Geo. R. & G. M. Tremaine) (Figure 7, below)
does not depict any development on the subject lands and further provides that the subject lands
represented a portion of the lands occupied by E. and J. B. Eby.
+a
� l
- { {f? ot
' AY;��
Figure 7: Excerpt of Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, 1861, with the approximate location of
the subject lands indicated in red (Courtesy of University of Toronto).
May 2023 MHBC 123
Page 29 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
In 1901, there was consideration by local businessmen forth eestablishment of a sugar -beet factory
in Berlin. In that same year, there were various experiments to assess the cultivation of sugar -beets
in Waterloo by Professor Shuttleworth of the Ontario Agricultural College who determined that
sugar -beets grow well in the County (Berliner Journal, 1902a). To attract the investors of the Ontario
Sugar Company to Berlin, there was a by-law to provide a $20,000 bonus, tax exemptions, a grant
of $5,000 to purchase farmland and there were investments from townspeople to incentivise the
Company's local establishment (Mills, 2017a). Thereafter, the president of the Berlin Board of Trade,
Samuel Williams, announced on Boxing Day of 1901 that the Ontario Sugar Company elected to
build its new half -million dollar sugar beet factory in Berlin and that the Company wanted to be
refining sugar by the fall of 1902. In support of this effort, the Ontario Agricultural College assisted
with signing up local farmers to ensure that 5,000 acres of sugar beets would be planted in the
spring of 1902 for processing that fall (Mills, 2017b).
In March of 1902, the Ontario Sugar Company finalized its purchase of 69 acres of farmland on Lot
59 in the Township of Waterloo with 49 acres being from Daniel Fries and 20 acres being from the
Breithaupt family. This land was used to establish the sugar beet factory (Mills, 2017b). The
establishment of the factory at this location was supported by the Grand River which was able to
be used to deliver 5,000,000 gallons of water daily to the factory and by the nearby Grand Trunk
Railway which was accessible via the establishment of six branch lines on the property (Berliner
Journal,1902a).This location also allowed forthe discharge of effluent containing vegetable residue
and lime to flow back to the Grand River (Mills, 2020).
The Breithaupt family whose land formed part of the original factory site was involved in
establishing the Company in Berlin (Berliner Journal, 1902a). Namely, Louis J. Breithaupt, Member
of Provincial Parliament (MPP), assisted with having Berlin included in the beet cultivation tests
conducted by the Ontario Agricultural College and with establishing the factory in this location
through the use of his political influence (Mills, 2017a). Furthermore, in advance of the closure of
the Ontario Sugar Company at this location, J.C. Briethaupt was a director of the Company and W.H.
Briethaupt was its president (Mills, 2017b). The Briethaupt family were well known in the
community and the family's local political, social and business contributions were highly significant
to the development of the City of Kitchener (Canada's Historic Places, 1986).
As per "Progress in Berlin" (Berliner Journal, 1902b), the total investment in new buildings and
improvements in Berlin for the year 1902 was $792,655 with $600,000 of that value being from the
construction of 10 buildings to establish the sugar beet factory owned by the Ontario Sugar
Company, as follows: "main building, store -houses, boiler -house, machine and copper workshops,
seed -house, 2 beet sheds, weight -house and pump -house." As a result of the investment in the
factory, the total investments in buildings in Berlin in 1902 was three times higher than previous
year recordings, with the one exception of 1899 where investment totalled $265,450 (Berliner
Journal, 1902b). The plant had a daily capacity of processing 600 tons (Mills, 2017b).
May 2023 MHBC 124
Page 30 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
The design and construction of the aforementioned plant buildings was contracted to E.H. Dyer
Co. of Cleveland (Berliner Journal, 1902b). The E.H. Dyer Co. was founded by Ebenezer Herrick Dyer
who established the first successful sugar beet plant in the United States in the latter half of the 19th
century and was responsible for the design and construction of over 50 sugar refining factories
globally thereafter. Dyer was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America (Swenson,
2015). The Ontario Sugar Company's sugar -beet factory in Berlin was partially constructed using the
steel framework and machinery from a failed beet plant in Benton Harbor, Michigan (Mills, 2017b).
As confirmed by "Scope of the Sugar Beet Industry in the United States" (Utah Rail), the re -used
materials and machinery were moved from the Wolverine Sugar Company in Benton Harbor,
Michigan, which was constructed by Dyer and operated from 1899 to 1900 with a 350 ton -capacity.
Figure 8: Picture of main factory building (centrally located), office building (central foreground),
warehouse (left) and portion of beet bins (right) in 1903, facing east (Reesor).
On October 6,1902, the factory opened and the Town of Berlin began to refer to itself as the "Sugar -
Beet Capital of Canada". Weekly updates were provided on the success of the factory via the Record
(local newspaper) (Koch, 1983). The opening and processing within this factory represented the
first sugar produced in Canada from Canadian sugar beets. The operation of the plant at this time
required 225 workers to keep the plant running at full capacity (Berliner Journal, 1902a). The plant
also created hundreds of seasonal jobs to meet the harvesting needs (Rych, n.d.).
The processing factory on the subject lands was one-third of a mile long (Rych, n.d.). The 1894,
revised 1904 Fire Insurance Plans for Berlin, Ontario (Goad) provides that the subject lands were
operated by the Ontario Sugar Company and that the following buildings were located on the site
(as labelled on the Fire Insurance Plan)':
' Image not included due to copyright permissions.
May 2023 MHBC 125
Page 31 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
• No. 1: A two to three storey brick building located centrally on site which includes various
rooms, crystalizing and pan floors, a battery floor, a cutter floor, various tanks and an 80
horsepower steam engine. This building is connected to Building No. 2 to the north and
has a rail spur to the east.
• No. 2: A two storey brick warehouse building with a rectangular form to the north of
Building No. 1. This building is connected to Building No. 1 and is separated by a brick wall
with one fire proof door between. A rail spur is located to the east.
• No. 3: A single storey brick building to the east of Building No. 1 with a room to the south
that contains two lime kilns, a centrally located room that contains three pumps, and a room
to the north that contains 19 boilers set in brick and a 135 foot tall brick chimney. This
building has a limestone bin to the south and a covered spur line attached to the east
followed by an open coal bin.
• No. 4: A single storey building located to the east of the warehouse building (No. 2). This
building has a cooperage room to the south constructed of brick and a storage room to the
north with stone veneer. There are spur lines located on either side (east and west) of the
building.
• No. 5: A single storey rectangular building constructed of brick with wooden cornice,
located to the east of Building No. 4. This building was used as a machine shop and is noted
to have concrete floors.
• No. 6: A single storey building with one room, constructed of brick with wooden cornice,
located to the north of Building No. 5 and to the east of Building No. 4. This building was
used for seed storage.
• No. 7: A single storey rectangular building with three beet bin bays, each with a driveway
passage on either side. This building is located to the south of Building No. 1 and has a rail
spur to the east, followed by Building No. 8.
• No 8: A single storey rectangular building with two beet bin bays with a driveway passage
between each bay. The building is located to the south of Building No. 3 and has rail spurs
on either side (east and west).
• No. 9: A two storey building with a square form, constructed of brick with a porch to the
west, located to the west of Building No. 1. This building is used as an office.
• No. 10: A single storey building constructed of brick located approximately 1.3 miles to the
east of the factory site, adjacentto the Grand River. This building functions as a pump house
with two broilers and a well.
• No 11: A single storey brick building with single storey scales on either side (east and west),
located along the frontage to the south, adjacent to the Grand Trunk Railway (G.T.R) Elmira
Branch line.
The three-storey main plant on the property (Building No. 1, as referred to in Fire Insurance Plans)
was seen as a landmark in Kitchener and was locally referred to as the "white elephant" (Koch, 1983).
May 2023 MHBC 126
Page 32 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpactAssessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
follow ttry......
11,01, 1 d
Figure 9: Postcard without date, facing northeast towards the main building (Building No. 1) with the
office (Building No. 9) in the foreground and the two storey warehouse (Building No. 2) in the
background to the left (provided by owner).
In 1909, the Ontario Sugar Company was declared bankrupt and the operations on the subject
lands were taken over by a Wallaceburg company which operated the production under the prefix:
Dominion Sugar Company. This company operated on the subject lands until 1923 when cheaper
product became available from the Caribbean which forced its closure (Rych, n.d.).
The 1925 Fire Insurance Plan (Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited) provides the following changes
on the factory site, in comparison to the 1904 Fire Insurance Plan (Goad):
• A single storey brick wing has been constructed on either side (east and west) of the
warehouse building (Building No. 2).
• A single storey brick addition was constructed to the north of Building No. 3 which contains
three boilers. Furthermore, a one to two storey brick building was constructed to the east,
on the opposite side of the G.T.R. rail spurs which functions as a dryer building.
• A single storey brick addition was constructed to the north of Building No. 5 which contains
a fire hydrant.
• Two single storey wood additions were constructed to the south of Building No. 6 which
functions as a seed storage building.
May 2023 MHBC 127
Page 33 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
• A single storey addition has been constructed to the west of Building No. 7 to provide an
additional beet bin bay.
The 1925 Fire Insurance Plan also notes that the roofs of Buildings No. 1 and 2 were constructed on
steel trusses and that Buildings No. 7 and 8 do not have a roof. This Plan provides that the site was
"silent" in March of 1925.
The 1930 aerial (Figure 10, below) shows two entrances to the subject lands from Lancaster Street.
The aerial confirms that the structures shown in the 1925 Fire Insurance Plan were still located on
the lands in 1930.
Figure 10: Excerpt of 1930 aerial photograph with approximate outline of the subject lands represented
by the polygon and approximate extent of development on the former factory site represented by the
circle (courtesy of University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre).
In 1941, Brown Steel purchased the former factory site and operated their business from the former
warehouse building (Building No. 2 in Fire Insurance Plans). Brown Steel also sold some of the land
to developers and had some of the land expropriated by the City for the extension of Union Street
(Koch, 1983).
May 2023 MHBC 128
Page 34 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 11: Image of warehouse building during or after the use of the warehouse building by Brown
Steel (provided by owner).
The 1945 aerial (Figure 12, below) shows that the majority of buildings associated with the former
sugar beet operations on the broader factory site were removed. Based on the location, scale and
form of structures, the warehouse, including the single storey wings on either side, and the
buildings to the east were existing at this time.
Figure 12: Aerial image dated 1945 with the approximate location of the subject lands outlined in red
(courtesy of University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre).
May 2023 MHBC 129
Page 35 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
The 1955 aerial (Figure 13, below) shows that Union Street and residential development to the
east of the site were established.
�■
Figure 13: Image of 1955 aerial photograph with approximate location of subject lands outlined in red
(courtesy of University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre).
The 2003 aerial (Figure 14, below) shows that the subject lands largely remained unchanged from
the former 1955 aerial image.
May 2023
MHBC 130
Page 36 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpactAssessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
I'
L
S
A#
4 y
r
Figure 14: Image of 2003 aerial with the approximate location of the subject lands outlined in red
(courtesy of Region of Waterloo, GIS Locator).
In 2005, the warehouse building on the site was renovated by the owner at the time, Ron Doyle, to
serve as a private residence that was inspired by the "Road to Santiago de Compostela", a century -
old walk in Northern Spain. Shortly thereafter, the property was used as an event space under the
prefix of "Hacienda Sarria" (Doyle, 2017).
May 2023
MHBC 131
Page 37 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 15: Image of building prior to 2005 alterations, facing southwest (provided by owner).
Figures 16 and 17: Image of west portico addition under construction (left); Image of southwest corner
of building during renovations (right) (provided by owner).
Figures 18 and 19: Images of interior of warehouse building during renovations (provided by owner).
In 2011, Ron Doyle, the owner of the property at that time, partnered with The Working Centre to
establish a market garden at the Hacienda Sarria. The garden included 8000 square feet of
interlocking brick pathways, a water tower and an irrigation system (Mancini, 2015). The 2014 aerial
May 2023 MHBC 132
Page 38 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
image (Figure 20, below) shows the 2111 century alterations to the subject lands which includes
the additions to the main warehouse building, the landscape items (fountains, ponds, pathways)
and the market gardens.
Figure 20: Image of 2014 aerial with subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of Region of Waterloo, GIS
Locator).
The most recent aerial image available of the subject lands, being the 2022 aerial (Figure 21,
below), provides that the single storey utility building to the northeast of the existing warehouse
was constructed by this time and that the addition to the south of the single storey building to the
east was constructed by this time.
May 2023 MHBC 133
Page 39 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 21: Image of 2022 aerial with subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of Region of Waterloo, GIS
Locator).
The subject lands are currently owned by Moser Landscape Group Inc. The market gardens on the
eastern and southern portion of the subject lands have been removed. The main warehouse
building on the property is used as office space by the owner and as a venue to host corporate
events, films and cooking classes. The two secondary buildings to the east are used for residential
purposes (south building) and utility purposes (north building).
May 2023 MHBC 134
Page 40 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
400
Description of Subject Lands
The subject lands are located to the east of the intersection where Union Street converges with
Sereda Road. The subject lands contain three permanent structures: the large former warehouse
with a two storey mass, a single storey converted residential building and a single storey utility
building, as described in this section. The lands also contain various landscape items and a
temporary structure.
4. 1 Description of Buildings
The former warehouse building (referred to as Building 1, herein) is located on the western portion
of the developed area on the subject lands. There are two single storey buildings located to the
east of this main building (Buildings 2 and 3, herein). The evolution of the buildings and their titles,
as referred to in this report, are depicted in Figure 22, below.
Figure 22: Aerial image with overlay of construction dates and building titles, as referred to in this
report (courtesy of City of Kitchener OnPoint Map).
May 2023 MHBC 135
Page 41 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
4.1.1 Building 1: Former Warehouse
Building 1 is partially visible from Union Street and Sereda Road to the southeast. The south
elevation of Building 1 includes a series of additions onto the partially visible original building
(hipped roof), including a centered two storey portico and the flat -roofed two storey structure
behind the portico.
Figure 23: South elevation of warehouse building (Building 1) (MHBC, 2023).
The portico addition includes an arched double door main floor entry, a second floor balcony and
curved parapet with draped shoulders. The portico was constructed with a tan brick that has
varying colours and rounded edges that differentiate the addition from the rest of the building. The
brickwork includes voussoirs and horizontal banding. Cement caps are provided along the top of
the parapetand columns.The addition includes various metal details, including railings and fixtures.
The doors on either floor are constructed of wood and the upper storey opening has a wood lintel.
The portico addition was constructed between 2003 and 2006 as a part of the building renovation
and remodelling by Ron Doyle.
Immediately to the north of the portico is a two storey addition constructed of tan brick with a
concrete foundation that covers the majority of the south elevation of the main hipped building,
leaving one bay visible on either side of the original building. This addition has imitated some of
the features from the original building, including the colour of the brick, pattern of large ground
level windows and smaller upper storey windows, arched window openings, brick voussoirs, sills,
horizontal banding, and pilasters. The elevation of the addition furthermore incorporates a flat roof
May 2023 MHBC 136
Page 42 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
with parapet and protruding columns on either corner. This addition was likewise constructed
between 2003 and 2006 as a part of the building alterations undertaken by Ron Doyle.
Figure 24: Image of additions on south elevation of Building 1 (MHBC, 2023).
The original warehouse building has a two storey mass with a hipped roof. There is one bay on
either side of the addition which is visible on the south elevation. Each bay contains pilasters on
either side, horizontal banding in the brickwork, a smaller upper storey window and a larger lower
storey window. The original warehouse building was constructed in 1902; however, the south
elevation appears to have been re -constructed as a part of the 2005 site alterations undertaken by
Ron Doyle, as visible in the differentiation of brick on the remaining segments of the original
building.
The wing on the west side of the building has a single storey mass with two bays separated by brick
pilasters.The wing contains arched window openings in each baythat have been filled with murals.
The east wing has a single storey mass with a single door opening which has been provided off -
May 2023 MHBC 137
Page 43 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
centered. This wing has various patches of brick that have been replaced with darker coloured brick
and the wing includes horizontal banding and pilasters. These wings were constructed between
1904 and 1925.
Figures 25 & 26: Images of either side of visible south elevation of original building and wing additions
on either side (west on left; east on right) (MHBC, 2023).
The east elevation of the original hipped -roof building is visible above the single storey wing
addition which spans the length of the building. There is a two storey addition that was
constructed between 2010 and 2012 which is located in the middle of this elevation with a flat roof
and protruding columns. The east elevation, including the original building and wing, is
constructed of tan brick with arched window and door openings, brick voussoirs, brick pilasters
between pilasters, and horizontal banding. There are various patches of replaced brick (apparent in
colour differentiation) which are primarily located along the lower half of the first storey. There are
skylights on the eastern facing hipped roof structure which were added between 2006 and 2009.
Figure 27: Image of east elevation of Building 1 (MHBC, 2023).
May 2023 MHBC 138
Page 44 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
The north elevation of the original hipped roof building has four bays which contain brick pilasters
between bays, horizontal banding between pilasters, arched window openings and is intersected
by an external chimney which was added between 2010 and 2012. The east wing has one baywhile
the west wing has two bays constructed with tan brick with pilasters and horizontal banding
between pilasters.
Figure 28: Image of north elevation of main building (MHBC, 2023).
The storage containers to the north of the building are not attached to the structure. There is an
external freezer that is clad with wood that is attached to this elevation as a lean-to structure. There
are various patches of replaced brick on the corners of the original building and the wings, as visible
in the colour differentiation of the brick.
Figure 29: Image of northwest corner of building and external storage structures (MHBC, 2023).
May 2023 MHBC 139
Page 45 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
The west elevation of the building is intersected by a portico and two storey bump -out from the
west wing that was constructed between 2003 and 2006. The original portion of the building has
a two storey mass with a hipped roof, arched window openings with brick voussoirs, brick pilasters
and horizontal banding between pilasters. The single storey wing to the west that spans the length
of the original building is a lean-to structure from the original two storey warehouse that is
constructed of tan brick with arched window openings with brick voussoirs, brick pilasters and
horizontal banding between pilasters.
Figure 30: Image of west elevation of main building (MHBC, 2023).
The interior of the building has been altered to accommodate the former use by the Hacienda
Sarria. The front of the building was altered to serve as a two storey residence with high ceilings,
stone finishes, and a grand centred staircase and fireplace. Beyond the residence area, the building
was altered to accommodate events with a main hall, secondary hall and kitchen and bar rooms in
the wings. The building includes stone work and rounded arches throughout.
Figures 31 and 32: Image of interior of front of building (left); Image of main hall (right) (MHBC, 2023).
May 2023
MHBC 140
Page 46 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
4.1.2 Building 2: Former Machine Shop
The main hipped -roof portion of Building 2 was constructed in 1902 and an addition to the south
was constructed between 2017 and 2018. The building has a single storey mass, tan brick
construction, a hipped roof, arched window and door openings and it has various patches of brick
that were replaced with an orange -hued brick. The addition to the south was constructed with a
light tan brick and has a lean-to structure against Building 2. This addition includes a brick wall to
the south that is enclosed against the lean-to structure to provide a gated outdoor court.
Figure 33: Image of southwest corner of Building 2, showing west elevation (left) and south addition
(right) (MHBC, 2023).
Figures 34 & 35: Image of north elevation (left) and south elevation (right) of Building 2 (MHBC, 2023).
May 2023
AN M
Page 47 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 36: Image of east elevation of Building 2 (MHBC, 2023).
The interior of this building has been renovated to provide residential apartments.
4.1.3 Building 3: Utility Building
Building 3 was constructed between 2016 and 2017 to serve as a utility building. This building has
a stone veneer with a brick wall to the south, has a single storey mass and has a hipped roof. The
elevation to the west includes various small window openings in an irregular arrangement. There
is a courtyard between this building and the building to the south (Building 2).
Figure 37: Image of west elevation of Building 3 (MHBC, 2023).
May 2023 MHBC j 42
Page 48 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figures 38 & 39: Image of north (left) and south (right) elevations of Building 3 (MHBC, 2023).
Figure 40: Image of west elevation of Building 3 (MHBC, 2023).
4.1.4 Temporary Structure
There is a single storey temporary structure to the east of the parking lot that appears to be
constructed of storage bins and/or mobile trailers. This building has an elongated rectangularform
and formerly was used for washrooms as per the signage. This structure was added to the property
between 2010 and 2012, likely as a part of the garden market alterations by Ron Doyle.
Figures 41 & 42: Image of west elevation (left) and east elevation (right) of temporary structure (MHBC,
2023).
May 2023 MHBC 143
Page 49 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
4.2 Description of Landscaping
The property includes various landscape features that were added to the property between 2006
and 2016. The southwest corner of the property includes a retaining wall and gated entrance from
Union Street that was constructed between 2006 and 2009. The frontage along Union
Street/Sereda Road is landscaped with a row of shrubs and trees. A second main entrance is
provided to the east from Sereda Road which provides access to both the west and east surface
parking lots.
Figure 43: Image of west gated entry from Union Street (MHBC, 2023).
Figure 44: Panoramic image of south entry from Sereda Road (MHBC, 2023).
The landscaped area to the west of the main building, across the surface parking area, includes a
fountain and a row of shrubs that were added to the property between 2006 and 2009.
May 2023 MHBC 144
Page 50 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 45: Image of west fountain located across the drive -aisle from the west portico addition on main
building (MHBC, 2023).
The subject lands include a courtyard space to the south of the main building, including a fountain,
gardens and pathways.
Figure 46: Image of south courtyard space, facing south (MHBC, 2023).
The area directly to the east of the main building includes two ponds that generally reflect the
foundation outline of the former cooperage rooms. These ponds were constructed between 2006
and 2009 and have a walkway around the pair which includes columns that protrude from the
curbs around the walkway.
May 2023 MHBC 145
Page 51 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 47: Image of ponds to the east of the main building (MHBC, 2023).
Further east beyond the buildings on the site, the land is vacant. The former gardens that were
added to the property between 2012 and 2014 have been removed.
Figure 48: Image of eastern portion of property (MHBC, 2023).
The northern portion of the property is developed with a paved parking field.
May 2023 MHBC 146
Page 52 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Figure 49: Image of northern portion of property, facing west (MHBC, 2023).
4.3 Description of Union Street/Union Boulevard CHL
The Union Street/Union Boulevard CHL, as identified in the City of Kitchener CHL Study (2014), is
located adjacent to the subject lands to the southwest. The subject lands have frontage this
identified CHL. The CHL Study provides the following description of this identified CHL:
"The various parts of Union Street are historically important because they were and remain,
in part, the boundary between the Cities of Waterloo and Kitchener. Currently the combined
street traverses the City in an east/west alignment terminating in the west at the Westmount
Golf and Country Club and in the east just beyond Lancaster Street. The oldest part of the
street centres on King Street where late 19th and early 20th Century homes and institutions
straddle the streetscape. It is from this portion of the street that it derives its name, Union
Street, because it is here, that the two cities were first joined in the latter part of the 19th
Century. The western portion, Union Boulevard travels through the Westmount
neighbourhood. The Westmount Improvement Company extended the street incrementally
through the neighbourhood between 1912 and 1945. The eastern part of the street was
agricultural land until after World War II. The street was part of farms that fronted onto
Bridgeport Road. As Union Street East passes through Breithaupt Park, it cuts through a
forested area that was a former farm woodlot which was at the rear of a farm whose house
and barn were located on Bridgeport Road. The middle portion of Union is in the City of
Waterloo and was developed in the 40s, 50s and 60s. The alignment of Union again reflects
the same curvilinear street pattern characteristic of Waterloo Township. The vertical
alignment rises and falls with the gently rolling topography of north east Kitchener. The
exception to this is the alignment through Westmount which is curvilinear but done
deliberately as part of the design of the neigbourhood to add character to the planned
community. Highlights along the street include: an interesting section through Breithaupt
May 2023 MHBC 147
Page 53 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Park where it traverses the former farm woodlot; the high point of land west of Erb Street; the
Grand River Hospital and Sun Life institutional campus; and, the divided lanes through the
Westmount neighbourhood terminating in the Westmount Golf and Country Club."
The character defining features are listed as follows in the CHL Study:
"Features include: the part of the street that is centred on King Street with its 19th and early
20th Century homes and institutions; its passage through Breithaupt Park; the alignment of
Union which reflects the curvilinear street pattern characteristic of Waterloo Township; the
vertical rise and fall with the gently rolling topography; the curvilinear alignment through
Westmount as part of the neighbourhood design; the Grand River Hospital and Sun Life
institutional campus; and, the divided lanes through the Westmount neighbourhood."
The Data Sheetfor the Union Street/Union Boulevard CHL is attached as Appendix'E'to this report.
May 2023 MHBC 148
Page 54 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
5.O Evaluation of Cultural Heritage
Resources
The following provides an evaluation of the listed property of 1254 Union Street as per the
legislated criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 (as amended) for determining cultural heritage value
or interest (CHVI).
5.1 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
The property of 1254 Union Street has associative value pertaining to the use of the property by
the Ontario Sugar Company, the involvement of the Briethaupt family in its operations, and the
involvement of Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) in the design of the original factory buildings.
Physical/Design Value
The original warehouse building (1902), its lean-to wings (1904-1925) to the east and west, and the
single storey former machine shop (1902) located on the property addressed as 1254 Union Street
have some attributes that are reflective of their original industrial vernacular architectural style.
These attributes include their massing, hipped roofs (warehouse and machine shop), original
arched window and door openings, and Victorian -influenced brickwork (brick voussoirs above
arched openings, pilasters (warehouse and wings), and horizontal banding between pilasters
(warehouse and wings). All other buildings and landscape components of the sugar beet factory
have been demolished or removed.
The original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storeyformer
machine shop have been altered and no longer express their intended industrial vernacular style
as a result of the later Spanish Eclectic inspired alterations to the buildings that occurred in the early
2000s. The 21St century alterations include the construction of porticos on the south and west
elevations, flat roof additions and bump -outs, the interior arrangements of the buildings, and
various replaced patches of brick and window and door openings. The Spanish Eclectic alterations
are not authentic and were not designed to respect the historic fabric and expression of the
buildings on the property. The alterations have diminished the integrity of the original industrial
vernacular buildings. Likewise, the landscape features, including the fountains, ponds and
walkways, were constructed in the 2000s and are not authentic components of the design of the
May 2023 MHBC 149
Page 55 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
property. It is not clear if the alterations to the building are reversible; a more detailed and invasive
investigation would be required in order to determine this.
The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, technical or scientific
achievement.
Historic/Associative Value
The property is directly associated with the Ontario Sugar Company (later the Dominion Sugar
Company) which was a major contributor to the development of Waterloo Region. The sugar -beet
factory employed over 200 people year round and hundreds more seasonally for the harvesting of
beets. The establishment of the factory in 1902 represented the largest recorded investment in
development in Kitchener between 1873 and 1903. This was the first sugar beet factory in Canada
that refined Canadian sugar beets and the Town of Berlin began to refer to itself as the "Sugar Beet
Capital of Canada" as a result of its development.
The establishment and operation of the sugar beet refinery on the subject lands is partially
accredited to and associated with the Briethaupt family whose local political, social and business
contributions were highly significant to the development of the City of Kitchener. Namely, Louis J.
Breithaupt, Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP), assisted with having Berlin included in the beet
cultivation tests conducted by the Ontario Agricultural College and with establishing the factory in
this location through the use of his political influence. The original factory site included lands from
the Briethaupt family farm. Furthermore, in advance of the closure of the Ontario Sugar Company
at this location, J.C. Briethaupt was a director of the Company and W.H. Briethaupt was its president.
In addition, the warehouse building and former machine shop that were established in 1902 are
associated with Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) who was contracted to design and construct
the buildings. Dyer was responsible for the establishment of the first successful sugar beet
processing factory in the United States and the design of over 50 factories in the late 19th and early
20th century globally thereafter. Dyer was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America.
Although the property is associated with Dyer, the property has been altered to the extent that it
no longer reflects the design by E.H. Dyer Co.
The recent uses of the property, including for the Hacienda Sarria event space and the Market
Gardens operated by The Working Centre, do not contribute to the CHVI of the property due to
their more recent development. The property does not have potential to yield information that
contributes to an understanding of a community or culture and the property has been altered to
the extent that it no longer reflects the design by E.H. Dyer Co.
Contextual Value
May 2023 MHBC 150
Page 56 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
The property is no longer physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings in
a significant way. While the location near the Grand River remains, the property no longer relies on
the Grand River and later development in the area, including the Conestoga Parkway, have altered
any physical relationship. Similarly, the railway tracks have been removed and those linkages have
been lost. Within the site, aside from the two remaining buildings, all other buildings and
components of the site associated with the original industrial use of the property have been
removed. The current landscape features are recent developments.
The property is outside of the identified cultural heritage landscape (Union Street/Union
Boulevard), as per the City of Kitchener CHL Study, and does not contribute to its character. The
property is not a landmark in relation to its original industrial use.
Table 1, below, provides an overview of the evaluation conducted under Ontario Regulation 9/06.
Table 1: Evaluation of CHVI of 1254 Union Street
• •-. 0. Criteria
1254 Union Street
1. The property has design value or physical
No. As noted above, it is not clear whether the
value because it is a rare, unique,
alterations to the buildings are reversible; if
representative or early example of a style,
through more investigation it is determined
type, expression, material or construction
that they are reversible, it may be that the
method.
buildings could be considered to have design
value.
2. The property has design value or physical
No.
value because it displays a high degree of
craftsmanship or artistic merit.
3. The property has design value or physical
No.
value because it demonstrates a high degree
of technical or scientific achievement.
4. The property has historical value or
Yes.
associative value because it has direct
associations with a theme, event, belief,
person, activity, organization or institution that
is significant to a community.
5. The property has historical value or
No.
associative value because it yields, or has the
potential to yield, information that contributes
to an understanding of a community or
culture.
May 2023 MHBC 151
Page 57 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
6. The property has historical value or
No.
associative value because it demonstrates or
reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist,
builder, designer or theorist who is significant
to a community.
7. The property has contextual value because
No.
it is important in defining, maintaining or
supporting the character of an area.
8. The property has contextual value because
No.
it is physically, functionally, visually or
historically linked to its surroundings.
9. The property has contextual value because
No.
it is a landmark. O. Reg. 569/22, s. 1.
Based on the above evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06, as amended, we conclude that the
property addressed as 1254 Union Street has CHVI pertaining to its associative value.
5.2 Statement of CHVI
The property located at 1254 Union Street is associated with the former Ontario Sugar Company,
later the Dominion Sugar Company, and includes two former industrial buildings from that time:
the warehouse building (1902), wings of the warehouse building (1904-1925) and the former
machine shop (1902).
The original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storeyformer
machine shop located on the property have some attributes that are reflective of their original
industrial vernacular architectural style. These attributes include their massing, hipped roofs
(warehouse and machine shop), original arched window and door openings, and Victorian -
influenced brickwork (brick voussoirs above arched openings, pilasters (warehouse and wings), and
horizontal banding between pilasters (warehouse and wings). Nonetheless, the original warehouse
building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storey former machine shop have
been altered and no longer express their intended industrial vernacular style as a result of the later
Spanish Eclectic alterations to the buildings.
The property is directly associated with the Ontario Sugar Company (later the Dominion Sugar
Company) which was a major contributor to the development of Waterloo Region. The sugar -beet
factory employed over 200 people year round and hundreds more seasonally for the harvesting of
beets. The establishment of the factory in 1902 represented the largest recorded investment in
May 2023 MHBC 152
Page 58 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
development in Kitchener between 1873 and 1903. This was the first sugar beet factory in Canada
that refined Canadian sugar beets and the Town of Berlin began to refer to itself as the "Sugar Beet
Capital of Canada" as a result of its development.
The establishment and operation of the sugar -beet refinery on the subject lands is partially
accredited to and associated with the Briethaupt family whose local political, social and business
contributions were highly significant to the development of the City of Kitchener. Namely, Louis J.
Breithaupt, Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP), assisted with having Berlin included in the beet
cultivation tests conducted by the Ontario Agricultural College and with establishing the factory in
this location through the use of his political influence. The original factory site included lands from
the Briethaupt family farm. Furthermore, in advance of the closure of the Ontario Sugar Company
at this location, J.C. Briethaupt was a director of the Company and W.H. Briethaupt was its president.
In addition, the warehouse building and former machine shop that were established in 1902 are
associated with Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) who was contracted to design and construct
the buildings. Dyer was responsible for the establishment of the first successful sugar beet
processing factory in the United States and the design of over 50 factories in the late 19th and early
20th century globally thereafter. Dyer was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America.
May 2023
MHBC J 53
Page 59 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact A ssess men t
1254 Union Street City of Kitchener
6.o Description of Proposed Development
Is proposing to construct a 650 square metre, 7.3 metre high
maintenancelwarehouse facility to the north (rear) of the existing two storey building on the
property addressed as 1254 Union Street, Kitchener. The land that the building is intended to be
constructed on is currently paved as a part of the surface parking lot. The proposal does not involve
the demolition or alteration of any buildings on the subject lands.
Figure 50: Excerpt of Concept Plan with proposed building outlined in red (MH BC, 2022).
The Site Plan is attached as Appendix'G'.
May2023 MHBC 154
Page 60 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
7.0 Impacts of Proposed Development
7.1 Classifications of Impacts
The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may occur over
a short or long term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase
or post -construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or
widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact.
Asper the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (OHTK), the following constitutes negative impacts which may
result of a proposed development:
• Destruction: of any, or part of any significant heritage attributes or features;
• Alteration: that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and
appearance;
• Shadows: created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of
a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;
• Isolation: of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant
relationship;
• Direct or Indirect Obstruction: of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and
natural features;
• A change in land use: such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use,
allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces;
• Land disturbances: such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that
adversely affect an archaeological resource.
The above noted adverse impacts will be considered as it relates to the scope of this HIA.
Furthermore, this report utilizes guides published by the International Council on Monuments and
Site (ICOMOS), Council of UNESCO, from the World Heritage Convention of January of 2011. The
grading of impact is based on "Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact" as a framework for this
report:
• Major: Change to key historic building elements that contributes to the cultural heritage
value or interest (CHVI) such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to
the setting.
May 2023 MHBC 155
Page 61 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
• Moderate: Change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is
significantly modified. Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is
significantly modified.
• Minor: Change to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different.
Change to setting of an historic building, such that is it noticeably changed.
• Negligible/Potential: Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly
affect it.
• No Change: No change to fabric or setting.
7.2 Impacts of the Proposed Development on 1254 Union Street
The cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) of the property of 1254 Union Street pertains to the
associative value related to the use of the property by the Ontario Sugar Company, the involvement
of the Briethaupt family in its operations, and the involvement of Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer
Co.) in the design of the original factory buildings. The property has been altered to the extent that
the remaining original factory buildings are no longer representative of their industrial vernacular
architectural style and no longer reflect the design by E.H. Dyer Co.
The addition of a new building on the property will not have any impacts on the CHVI of the
subject lands. The proposal does not generate any physical or relative impacts to the CHVI of the
subject lands. Even if the Spanish Eclectic inspired alterations to the buildings were determined to
be reversible and the buildings considered to have design value, the proposed development would
have no significant impact given that it does not involve any alteration to the existing buildings
and does not isolate or obstruct views of those buildings.
Table 2 provides an analysis of the adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the subject lands,
as identified in Section 5 of this report. This impact assessment is solely for the proposed
development of the 650 square metre maintenance/warehouse building to the north of the
existing two storey building on the subject lands.
TableImpacts
Potential ImpactsImpact
No Change.
Destruction
No Change.
Alteration
No Change.
Shadows
No Change.
Isolation
Obstruction
No Change.
May 2023 MHBC 156
Page 62 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Change in Land Use
No Change.
Land Disturbances
No Change.
There are no further impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed development.
7.3 Impact Analysis of Proposed Development on Adjacent Lands
There are no impacts anticipated to occur to the adjacent inventoried cultural heritage landscape
of Union Street/Union Boulevard as a result of the proposal. The subject lands do not contribute to
the character defining features of Union Street/Union Boulevard (L -RD -14) as per the description
and features identified in the CHL Study. The construction of a new building on the subject lands
will not impact the features of the CHL.
May 2023
MHBC 157
Page 63 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
8.o Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and
Conservation Recommendations
The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives and mitigation
measures that may be considered as part of the heritage planning process. These options have
been assessed in terms of impacts to cultural heritage resources as well as balancing other planning
policies within the policy framework.
8.1 1254 Union Street
8.1.1 "Do nothing"
The "Do Nothing" option would preclude the development of the proposed
maintenance/warehouse building on the subject lands. This option would limit the ability of the
property owner to operate their business on the subject lands. This option is not recommended
due to the absence of impacts to cultural heritage resources on the subject lands as a result of the
proposed development.
8.1.2 Alternative Location
This alternative involves selecting a different location for the proposed building on the subject
lands. The proposed building location is to the rear (north) of the existing two storey building on
the subject lands and has been situated to respect the required Ministry of Transportation setback
along the rear property line. The existing buildings on the subject lands are not visible from the
north due to the vegetation screening along the rear property line. The east and west elevations of
the proposed building are generally geographically aligned with those of the existing two storey
building which contributes to the screening of new development from the south entrances to the
property. An alternative location would generally have a greater visibility from Union Street and
Sereda Road and is not warranted given the absence of impacts.
8.1.3 Design
This alternative would involve altering the form, style and/or materials of the proposed building.
The proposed building location is generally screened from the public right-of-way (Union Street
and Sereda Road) and does not impact the cultural heritage resources on the subject lands or
adjacent lands. This alternative is not warranted due to the absence of impacts.
May 2023 MHBC 158
Page 64 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
8.2 Alternative Development Approaches Regarding Adjacent Lands
The proposed development will not result in impacts to the adjacent inventoried CHL of Union
Street/Union Boulevard; therefore, no alternatives are proposed for the potential adjacent
resources.
8.3 Mitigation and Conservation Recommendations
Provided normal construction practices are employed for the development of the proposed
maintenance/warehouse building, including the use of construction fencing around existing
buildings, no mitigation or conservation measures will be required given the absence of impacts
to cultural heritage resources on the subject lands. A Conservation Plan and summary of applicable
heritage conservation principles is not required for the proposed development given the absence
of impacts.
Moy2023 MHBC 159
Page 65 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
9.o Recommendations and Conclusions
The property located at 1254 Union Street includes buildings associated with the Ontario Sugar
Company, later the Dominion Sugar Company, including: the warehouse building (1902), wings of
the warehouse building (1904-1925) and the former machine shop (1902). The Ontario Sugar
Company was a major contributor to employment and development in Waterloo Region. The
factory represented the greatest investment in development in Kitchener between 1873 and 1903
and was the first sugar beet factory in Canada that refined Canadian sugar beets. Further, the
establishment and operation of the sugar beet refinery is partially accredited to and associated with
the Briethaupt family whose local political, social and business contributions were highly significant
to the development of the City of Kitchener. Additionally, the design and construction of the
buildings established in 1902 on the property is associated with Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer
Co.) who was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America.
The original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storeyformer
machine shop located on the property have some attributes that are reflective of their original
industrial vernacular architectural style; however, these buildings are no longer representative and
no longer express their intended industrial vernacular style as a result of the later Spanish Eclectic
alterations to the buildings. Although the property is associated with Dyer, the property has been
altered to the extent that it no longer reflects the design by E.H. Dyer Co. The property meets one
of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 pertaining to its associative values which renders it a
candidate to be listed (non -designated) on the municipal heritage register as per the Ontario
Heritage Act. The Statement of Significance is included in Section 5.2 of this report.
The development of an independent maintenance/warehouse building on the property will not
result in impacts to heritage resources on the subject lands or on adjacent lands. As a result of the
absence of impacts, alternative development approaches are not warranted. Provided normal
construction practices are employed for the development of the proposed
maintenance/warehouse building, including the use of construction fencing around existing
buildings, no mitigation or conservation measures will be required. A Conservation Plan and
summary of applicable heritage conservation principles is not required for the proposed
development given the absence of impacts.
May 2023 MHBC 160
Page 66 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
10.0 Sources
Canada's Historic Places. (1986). Sonneck House.
Berliner Journal. (1902a). The Sugar Factory: Berlin's Newest and Largest Industry. History of the
Undertaking. Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library.
Berliner Journal. (1902b). Progress in Berlin, 1873-1903. Translated and transcribed by the Kitchener
Public Library staff.
Dodsworth, E. (2013). Digital Historical Air Photos ofKitchener- Waterloo - Photo: IM6. University of
Waterloo: Geospatial Centre.
Doyle, J. (2017). Historyofthe Hacienda Sarria. Courtesy of Linkedin.
Goad C.E. (1904). Kitchener. Berlin, Ont. (Fire Insurance Plan). Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library.
Irwin & Burnham. (1867). Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: Henry Roswell.
Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library.
Koch, H. (1983). Steelfirm born, sugar plant died in 1923. The Record. Courtesy of Kitchener Public
Library.
Land Registry Office 58. (n.d.). German Company Tract; Lot59 (Abstract Index). Courtesy of On Land.
Mancini, J. & S. (2015). Transition to Common Work: Building Community at The Working Centre. Wilfred
Laurier University Press.
Mills, R. (2020). Historical bits and pieces along the Grand River. Toronto Star.
Mills, R. (2017a). Sugaring Waterloo's Economyin 1901. Inside Ottawa Valley.
Mills, R. (2017b). Sugar was sweet while it lasted. Waterloo Region Record, Etcetera, E8.
Mills, R. (n.d). A Rych History. Victoria Commoner: Vol. 1, Issue 2. Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library.
May 2023 MHBC 161
Page 67 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. (2006). InfoSheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and
Conservation Plans.
Parks Canada. (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
Reesor. (1903). Sugar Beet Factory in Belin (Image). Reesor Collection, St. Mary's Museum.
Surveys and Mapping Branch. (1968). Kitchener East. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and
Resources. Courtesy of Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project.
Surveys and Mapping Branch. (1976). Kitchener -Breslau. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and
Resources. Courtesy of Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project.
Sutherland, J. (1864). Countyof Waterloo Gazetteer and General Business Directoryfor 1864. Mitchell &
Co.: Toronto.
Swenson, T. (2015). Alvarado Sugar Beet Factory and the Dyer Family. Courtesy of Museum of Local
History.
Tremaine, G. R. and G. M. (1861). Tremaine'sMap of the Countyof Waterloo. Courtesy of County Maps
University of Toronto.
Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited. (1925). Kitchener, Ont. (Fire Insurance Plan). Courtesy of
Kitchener Public Library.
UtahRails.net. (2019). Scope of the Sugar Beet Industry in the United States.
Waterloo Public Library. (2016). A Brief History of the Land in Waterloo Region.
May 2023 MHBC 162
Page 68 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Appendix A - Location Plan
May 2023 MHBC 163
Page 69 of 182
P L A N N I N G
URBAN DESIGN
MH B C ARCHI� CTURE
200-5406iNGF„Awa5C;:•mQj,-)R l rr H4*R.1714.N. -53x9
P;519.576.3650 F:5191-576.0121 I www.AAHBCPIftN.COM
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Appendix B - City of Kitchener's Statement of
Significance
U
Moy2023 MHBC 164
Page 71 of 182
1214
464
Statement of Significance
1254 Union Street
1254
'1'13'1212
1.,,
Municipal Address: 1254 Union Street
Legal Description: GCT Lot 59 Part Lot 1 &10; 58R-1977 Part Lot 1, 2 & 8
Year Built: 1902
Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular with Spanish Eclectic influences
Original Owner: Ontario Sugar Company
Original Use: Beet Sugar Factory (Warehouse)
Condition: Good
Description of Historic Place
1254 Union Street is a two story early 201h century yellow and red brick former warehouse built in the
Industrial Vernacular architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The building is situated on a 5.63
acre parcel of land located on the north side of Union Street just before Union turns into Sereda Road in
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
33
Page 72 of 182
the Northward Planning Community in the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal
resource that contributes to the heritage value is the former warehouse building.
Heritage Value
1254 Union Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values.
The design value relates to the architecture of the warehouse building. The building is a notable, rare and
unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The
building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: main hip roof; flat and
shed rooflines on additions; yellow and red brick including decorative details; brick pilasters between
bays; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; various multi -pane windows; two-storey
front entrance portico with parapet; segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs; flat headed
door openings with timber lintels; and, exterior archways.
The contextual value relates to the setting. The factory was situated in close proximity to both the Grand
Trunk Railway and the Grand River. The railway was used to bring beets from farms to the refinery and
the river was used to power the refinery and discharge effluent. The factory was built on a slight rise of
land providing it prominence in the landscape. Today, the property features buildings, ponds, patios,
fountains and 20,000 square feet of gardening beds, including the Hacienda Sarria Market Garden
operated by The Working Centre. The Hacienda Sarria Market Garden is a volunteer -driven initiative to
develop an inclusive, hands-on learning environment to demonstrate, promote, and share knowledge
about sustainable local food production and environmental stewardship.
The historic and associative values relate to the original use of the building. The building was a warehouse
to the former sprawling three-storey sugar beet factory (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-85). The warehouse
supported the factory that was built in 1902 as a result of a government movement to encourage the
creation of new industry in Ontario. The movement provided bonuses to certain industries willing to enter
Ontario, including the sugar beet industry. Berlin (now Kitchener) encouraged the construction of the
sugar beet factory as a new form of industry for the community, making great investments into the project
in hopes of becoming the home of Canada's first sugar beet mill. Although its life was short-lived, the
factory did indeed become Canada's first sugar beet factory (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory was opened
in 1902 in Berlin and operated for 6 years between 1902 and 1908 under the ownership of the Ontario
Sugar Company (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory was moved from Benton Harbour, Michigan and erected
by E.H. Dyer and Co. of Cleveland in 1902 (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory stimulated new residential
construction in the area (Bloomfield, 1987). Upon the Ontario Sugar Company becoming bankrupt the
factory was sold to the Erie Coal company who quickly sold the factory to the Dominion Sugar Company
(Bloomfield, 1987). The Dominion Sugar Company operated the factory for another 10 years until it closed
in 1923 and sold the factory to Guggenheim Distilleries of Canada Ltd. in 1927 (Bloomfield, 1987). The
factory was never used for sugar production again and its unsuccessful history mirrors that of just under
30% of the enterprises which received bonuses from Berlin, and either failed or were closed within 10
years of operation (Bloomfield, 1987).
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 1254 Union Street resides in the following heritage attributes:
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
34
Page 73 of 182
• All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular with Spanish Eclectic influences, including:
o main hip roof,
o flat and shed rooflines on additions;
o yellow and red brick including decorative details;
o brick pilasters between bays;
o segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs;
o various multi -pane windows;
o two-storey front entrance portico with parapet;
o segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs;
o flat headed door openings with timber lintels; and,
o exterior archways.
• All elements related to the contextual value, including:
o Buildings;
o Ponds;
o Patios;
o Fountains; and,
o Gardening beds.
References
Bloomfield, E. (2006). Waterloo Township through two centuries. St. Jacobs Printery Ltd.: St. Jacobs,
Ontario.
Bloomfiled, E. (1987). Manufacturing in Kitchener -Waterloo: a long-term perspective. University of
Waterloo: Waterloo, Ontario.
Kolaritsch, D. & M. Horne. (1984-85). Historic Property Report: 1254 Union Street. LACAC: Kitchener,
Ontario.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
35
Page 74 of 182
Photos
1254 Union Street
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
36
Page 75 of 182
City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form
Address: 1254 Union Street Period: Field Team Initials: LB/MD
Description: former sugar beet factory
Date: July 11, 2014
DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE
FIELD TEAM
EVALUATION
SUBCOMMITTEE
Style
Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular
architectural style?
Yes
Yes
Construction
Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular
material or method of construction?
No
No
Design
Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the
No
No
merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details?
Yes
Yes
Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or
No
No
scientific achievement?
No
No
Interior
Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or detail
noteworthy?
Yes
Yes
Notes: Field Team — industrial with villa influences
CONTEXTUAL VALUE
FIELD TEAM
EVALUATION
SUBCOMMITTEE
Continuity
Does this structure contribute to the community or character of
the street, neighbourhood or area?
No
No
Setting
Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping
noteworthy?
Yes
Yes
Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to
its surroundings?
No
No
Landmark
Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the
No
No
region, city or neighbourhood?
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
37
Page 76 of 182
CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION
SUBCOMMITTEE
Completeness
Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable
Yes Yes
landscaping or external features that complete the site?
INTEGRITY
FIELD TEAM
EVALUATION
SUBCOMMITTEE
Site
Does the structure occupy its original site?
Yes
Yes
Alterations
Yes
Yes
Does this building retain most of its original materials and
Is the original, previous or existing use significant?
Yes
Yes
design features?
Condition
Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that
A property or structure valued for the important contribution
Yes
Yes
have taken place over time?
Is this building in good condition?
Yes
Yes
HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & SIGNIFICANCE
FIELD TEAM
EVALUATION
SUBCOMMITTEE
Does this property or structure have strong associations with
and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person,
activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique
Yes
Yes
within the City?
Is the original, previous or existing use significant?
Yes
Yes
Does this property meet the definition of a significant built
heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in
the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act?
A property or structure valued for the important contribution
Yes
Yes
it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an
event or a people.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
38
Page 77 of 182
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Appendix C - Heritage Context Plan
U
Moy2023 MHBC 165
Page 78 of 182
r•.
� y�;� � � '. -� . -r��°'PJB � • ' .�\,�ti�R �A
' GENERAL! R
BR PGG G ST L
E
MCI
GF
INGE"�'�,
4
8R\D ,x m!
A
_ ��CpNESTOGA PgRK
L ca
ON
q�
•-. Off. - ;_,. .Z ,�" � � ��•',- I* •
� FQ
W,. T.� y,
i,. O O O y
Zi
. 3 �4
,rsa
cn
y
ELIZABETH ST,'�
CP
P # ♦ • , . 1 �Q Lµ.,.v,` GVH ,O \`,• S�p -
FQIRFIELD.IAVEXN
AA
f r
110-1
`s N ILL s�O.W " - t4 -
P L A N N I N G
URBAN DESIGN
MH B C ARCHI� CTURE
200-540 B1NGCMAP 5 C;:,Trij_ ,]R, Kf,ic ;H4*R, 014. NQS 3x9
P;519.576.3650 F:5191-576.0121 I www.AAHBCPLAN.COM
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Appendix D - City of Kitchener CHL Study Map
U
Moy2023 MHBC 166
Page 80 of 182
� f
►- - E � ` 'fir � '�
w t
6JEC
LL-
�¢R,
W
Kr
_ 1-1 $
lop
RE
LRS 3'Lb►'',,'
NBR-1200
." y
ift
,� '• .26
--1
�,W
sts 41
L -NBR-2
-3 rn
cy4 L-NBR-1 1
LF8"rip1L-COM-2
L-N3R-7
,-
Figure LEGEND
Kitchener Cultural O Subject Lands
Heritage Landscapes
Study: Central
Neighbourhoods
1254 Union Street
City of Kitchener
Region of Waterloo
L-NBR7410
Date: April 12 2023
Map Code
Name
L -COM -2
Downtown
L -INS -2
Civic District
L -INS -3
Catholic Block
L-NBR-2
Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD
L-NBR-4
Pandora Neighbourhood
L-NBR-7
Victoria Park Neighbourhood
L-NBR-11
Central Frederic Neighbourhood
L-NBR-12 Mt Ho a/Breithau t Gildner & Gruhn Neighbourhood
L -RES -3
Woodside Homestead
L -RD -6
L -RD -14
Jubilee Dr
Union Street and Union Boulevard
L -RR -15
Canadian National Railway Line
Scale. 1.15,000
r -
File: 15183C
Drawn: PL
K:YI5183C - 1254 Union Street, Kitchener\GIS\Report Figures.ggz
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Appendix E - City of Kitchener CHL Study Data Sheet
May 2023
MHBC 167
Page 82 of 182
N 3 a CA U
U0�°''G..
RL UL
N V •� T.�L
v v c v v c c
d a
rocm
v .v`. °' c
v
E w w L— R O .c v
bA'29
v
i C 3 c° C .- v .- ICL
4.✓'e ..
C L>-
.° Oto T r v
T u U in a v o `v L `° Y u vun E 3 °' to
•0 3 L @ O V E =
L L
R L L C u c
N N"] E d
EC
CL
v w N bA ti R
_0v 7�
v N Y
a c v v au
1
E L 3 Y u° U c u° to u L O° y cn
p m V o v m v v 3 Q E .°°'w
O v"can rc c vvi w` £
r° 3 v m y 3 —0-0 ' y r o v
i
>C�Y CTL f,�vEy N3L
F.
R H c—
. -L -i Y U d C
E E .v+ C b l 2
to a
Z r
Yr
0
0-3 m� v cL £� o mm` �� m 2L_°
c O O
CL
J�
O L c
U
cn
onv
v Tc E v E v m 3 c O -o
O "°° c
Ia O "-
v V c V C l v m 3 m V
u o
72
U4
1
•i
.�I,EZ des°"' d'+�� � 4 G��$`A}, 'PV -3,}g�c �d���a
ami i ¢
leS31$uasE1�'"" (!-j)•C�UL',Q$ yS
j m 'r
,
Ma 3 H-37 ' i'NAI
CL u
a4 •' eE 'ygo S rJ'�y'�S �„`"R� do N•��-r ��"
N.-
= c w O
CL
< cS
t
�
�J
a !• CS-\ ?' d�o� . PAZ. F I _
Y
Cl -
-. a "9^�
•
�O � �� �ggxy _
any pry"
c
cc
d M
C
&
V N N
w
}
Occ U L @ ICyoc
- L U
O>
v M@ '� v@` L O
'Q. o
`
UtC
H
>
O
L
Y
v
11 11 4
Z
O L
v v d it O v v
.0 .3 Y c>
„ b E r E
L
N
1�
Z
d .-. '._, UA w U bA v'i tC
U E
p
3
C v
•;,
t
N ly .` L bA bA -O .�
-O � c. v
ce
w
c
0
p
j
G It
Q
ce
CL
.c C O L H TL L C
O a .., L
O c
W m
m
�- c -O
N
O v
E E
v m
�. v
U
LL U V
i
Id Y,
•.j11
_
�
_-
!
VVVd, �
_
ILI
¢ N H Z
z
N N H V
z
Q
W 1 Q
z Z cn O
H O_ U '~
p%
W
Z Z ¢} Z O
O O >¢ D
Z LL O W W
W
M LUA" N C
W z
Z¢ n U p
O z
W
N p is O
'~
¢ In
Z z Y
c U
P
cc
< Z W} O m
�� �w
~N
J
m
O IyNj O W <
¢cc¢ J�O ceU
z'-'-'
I-ce n?Z
�plz¢O
dZ �v
vd
�
�x� }v z
vd
V
u ° o
wOw
V
O
O Yp 0
¢
v
w �¢Z �~
2 m
v�Q
> v_o
O
p" z
p
W Z
C V O Z «CL
i t c¢ c Q
V] to < O <
w
U
< O }
~ J= V J Y
J U Z U Z
J O V] W Z Z
o
'� O Y !a c
D
mdw wvOd
» pZU ipw
and
J J ¢vvcc<cW V z Y
pO Z V Z Z
L V 4 O
OV H d N O OLn
V Y f1 CC
O O J m O V
C
V V V V O< J OJ OV OJ
> d U d d H d
N 3 O C v O
N
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ o o
_
L ICE o �
w
w O O cc
Z
V O
w vl
U z
o v v m@
R O_
cn H Q
Y
z ¢ yl ❑
v
16 Oi
Q
>
¢ Y U J _ �`
Y =¢ W ' O
p¢ 1 O W
' Y
W
J W
W Z W W N> 7
J W Y J>- Y
t6 N ,-
U
Vl , , V IY W U
_~
W O W U O
Q J
Q p Q Q d
Q
Z W S~ J p
Z
J 'r J¢ Y
O
J>
J Z O J} J D
N
a'Y ICq v bA
N L
I"'
J w J N J U
> Z
> V V
> O w > W
¢ Y
¢ H K ¢ J¢
O
O
,n L L L
J
> > U N
a H W
ZZ z'-'-' Zwf- IYIY
U Q w U Q w W
IY �IU„z
H Q
w�
H Q H H V O
w�Q w0-'�p
v pL 3v
U
Up U= UccZ Ow
W W N pZ
W
V L
O Op=U
O= U W
�p
r �O V w
O
`"
v v
N Y
fY W W U
pOOQ ppN =D
N N Q
=Q� =JQ0VJ
O Q
O c = O
LL Z
U VS J
U tC L
0 0 ❑ o
o ❑
o
o N
L'CCOXa0
�•� m u vN
} w
N
N Z
v °A
Q.
U
"-'
D
U Z N W z
Zv~-i
z
cn
HUQ p ¢<
-
Z U
dp
cn¢
�=
z
O
QCL
2 ¢
wly2
v v v
Z
-
Z
U d N D W O
~
, w D~
p
H H
� vUiO
W W¢ V p N
zz
C ..Q N v -O
L
J
O~ ,
0
H Z
d
¢ Q
z W
N W= -w,
J
C
v` u
U
K
W U V Z
V] NZ �w"QON �-
= U W
QzF: ww
Y=
wW
W W O < w
Z In =z pw¢¢
C @p Y O L
Q
pw wzvl ¢ly
IYQCCZ �ZIY
���
=¢
HU= Z=~
�
Ia pc Ern
L m.- v
❑p z -Up w�
z U
3
JQOw =gyp
w d w O Q
p=W
Q
O� Z Uf-lyZj
- 3 Z 0 n¢
v v o o @
L o a v
v
2
¢ Y z W Q
w 0 0 0 m 0¢ > d
W J¢ Y W
V z W Z d W
¢ W
Z W
W ¢ Y W w= O
O > w W z Y p d
v
v L
m m
~a3osu
IN ❑ ❑ IN
❑ ❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Appendix F -Terms of Reference
Moy2023 MHBC 168
Page 85 of 182
City of Kitchener
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference
1254 Union Street
1.0 Background
A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural
heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future repair, alteration or development. The study
shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study
results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the
resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative
impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed
on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register;
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected
heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources
which are discovered during the development application stage or construction.
2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements
It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of
development, alteration or proposed repair. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their
representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan
application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre -
application meeting, followed by written notification. The notice will inform the property owner of any
known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the
Heritage Impact Assessment.
The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment:
2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site
alteration.
A summary of the site history.
2.3 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject properties
including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural
heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of
the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions.
The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value
and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. if applieable,
y.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
29
Page 86 of 182
2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the
buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate
scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include
where available, ^ r^^+ F'^^F plaRs ap.4 historical photos, dFa gS eF A-ther available and
relevant archival material.
2.5 An outline of the proposed repair, alteration or development, its context, and how it will impact
the properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties)
including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential
visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the
properties, shall be assessed.
The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may
include but are not limited to: repair/alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the
cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline
should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and
character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property.
In particular, the HIA should also assess any potential impacts to the contextual heritage value of
the property as outlined in the Statement of Significance provided by the City and suggest
mitigation measures.
2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources may be
conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservation/conservation
in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each
mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource.
2.7 A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be
included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and
Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding
Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport).
2.8 Omitted.
2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations,
materials, landscaping, etc.
2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment
shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional
understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also
include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and
referenced in the report.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
30
Page 87 of 182
3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations
The summary statement should provide a full description of:
■ The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties.
■ The identification of any impact the proposed repair, alteration or development will have
on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage
property.
■ An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development,
or site alteration approaches are recommended.
■ Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative
development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate.
4.0 Mandatory Recommendation
The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject properties are worthy of
listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage
designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the
criteria as stated in Regulation 569/22.
The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report:
1. __ the r._r_._.__ ...___ _.._ _..__.._ ._. listing..._n the ..._..._.r_. .._..__o_ .._o.___. as _ .__..
2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 569/22
of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not?
3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it
must be clearly stated as to why they do not.
4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties
warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why
not?
5.0 Approval Process
One digital pdf copy shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. The digital copy shall be marked
with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City
staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s).
Following the review and approval of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, one digital
copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The
copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note
that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee
for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until
the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide
feedback to City staff.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
31
Page 88 of 182
Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified
heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's
comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment
will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of
the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage
Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the
City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community
32
Page 89 of 182
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Appendix G - Site Plan
May 2023 MHBC 169
Page 90 of 182
N
02
O
O)
N
01
(6
00
II II II II II II II F W J
� M � N 0
O d
N z z U
a E co o K 0
N �
E E ow
U) m mG `gym E o ro KZ Q
G 0
co E b M4! y E
H - m °' v m `=y Q `o N 0
v i.� LL <a
W�o CD
H 'c ao a -g 'tmm D'° o 00 LO
�
(� NU �m �Q dn. mO U a 2ro UU Z Zo O '�++
z V wo
O C46 *0 w
>
Q 0 cc
U O n
J �
aw
w�
TV,"- Q
o Z rn �>
LC) o
rn� A, J
0 J
0
H U
h^� C� Cn C7
y F
s�
egg d w
00 �Q
/ C°w
LU
F s cc
o Al�P
0�
0 h Q0.2� Rb
d
LU
(n
^ o stOR� � m ahN
=o
G
LU
s. `z �pw Pei 0- W
Q o o C)
H
p W H
0- W
ui
SHR-'l9T
PART 3, O
�z�To3 0 , ol ART 4, 1-1177 U)
0 CA
o z Z
Q O
C)f z
W
U
0 Lo
Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment
7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener
Appendix H - Curriculum Vitae
May 2023 MHBC 170
Page 92 of 182
EDUCATION
2006
Masters of Arts (Planning)
University of Waterloo
1998
Bachelor of Environmental
Studies
University of Waterloo
1998
Bachelor of Arts (Art History)
University of Saskatchewan
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre
Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 744
F 519 576 0121
dcurrie@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBC's Cultural Heritage
Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various
positions in the public sector since 1997. Dan provides a variety of planning
services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of cultural
heritage policy and planning work including strategic planning, heritage policy,
heritage conservation district studies and plans, heritage master plans, cultural
heritage evaluations, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage
landscape studies.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners
Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute
Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Heritage Conservation District Studies and Plans
Stouffville Heritage Conservation District Study (2022)
Alton Heritage Conservation District Study, Caledon (underway)
Port Stanley Heritage Conservation District Plan (2021)
Port Credit Heritage Conservation District Plan, Mississauga (2018)
Town of Cobourg Heritage Conservation District Plan updates (2016)
Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Chatham Kent
(2016)
Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update, Kingston (2015)
Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study, Markham (2015)
Bala Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Township of Muskoka
Lakes (2015)
Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan (2013)
Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan, Guelph (2014)
Garden District Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Toronto (2014)
Heritage Master Plans and Management Plans
City of Guelph Cultural Heritage Action Plan (2020)
Town of Cobourg Heritage Master Plan (2016)
Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan (2016)
City of London Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan (2014)
Page 93 of 182
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre
Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 744
F 519 576 0121
dcurrie@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Cultural Heritage Evaluations
MacDonald Mowatt House, University of Toronto (2020)
City of Kitchener Heritage Property Inventory Update (2016)
Niagara Parks Commission Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Evaluation
(2016)
Designation of Main Street Presbyterian Church, Town of Erin (2019)
Designation of St. Johns Anglican Church, Norwich (2019)
Cultural Heritage Landscape evaluation, former Burlingham Farmstead,
Prince Edward County (2018)
Heritage Impact Assessments
Heritage Impact Assessment for Pier 8, Hamilton (2015)
Homer Watson House Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener (2016)
Expansion of Schneider Haus National Historic Site, Kitchener (2016)
Redevelopment of former industrial facility, 57 Lakeport Road, Port Dalhousie
(2018)
Redevelopment of former amusement park, Boblo Island (ongoing)
Redevelopment of historic Waterloo Post Office (2019)
Redevelopment of former Brick Brewery, Waterloo (2016)
Redevelopment of former American Standard factory, Cambridge (2014)
Redevelopment of former Goldie and McCullough factory, Cambridge (2019)
Mount Pleasant Islamic Centre, Brampton (2020)
Demolition of former farmhouse at 10536 McCowan Road, Markham (2020)
Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental
Assessments
Heritage Assessment of 10 Bridges within Rockcliffe Special Policy Area,
Toronto (2019)
Blenheim Road Realignment Collector Road EA, Cambridge (2014)
Badley Bridge EA, Elora (2014)
Black Bridge Road EA, Cambridge (2013)
Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of Twenty Mile Creek
Arch Bridge, Town of Lincoln (2021)
Heritage Evaluation of Deer River, Burnt Dam and Macintosh Bridges,
Peterborough County (2021)
Conservation Plans
Black Bridge Strategic Conservation Plan, Cambridge (2013)
Conservation Plan for Log house, Burgetz Ave., Kitchener (2020)
Conservation and Construction Protection Plan - 54 Margaret Avenue,
Kitchener (2019)
Page 94 of 182
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre
Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 744
F 519 576 0121
dcurrie@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Tribunal Hearings:
Redevelopment 217 King Street S, Waterloo (OLT)(2022)
Redevelopment 147 Main Street, Grimsby (OLT) (2022)
Redevelopment of 12 Pearl Street, Burlington (OLT) (2021)
Designation of 30 Ontario Street, St. Catharines (CRB) (2021)
Designation of 27 Prideaux Street, Niagara on the Lake (CRB) (2021)
Redevelopment of Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays (LPAT) (2021)
Port Credit Heritage Conservation District (LPAT) (2018)
Demolition 174 St. Paul Street (Collingwood Heritage District) (LPAT) (2019)
Brooklyn and College Hill HCD Plan (OMB) (2015)
Rondeau HCD Plan (LPAT) (2015)
Designation of 108 Moore Street, Bradford (CRB) (2015)
Redevelopment of property at 64 Grand Ave., Cambridge (LPAT) (2019)
Youngblood subdivision, Elora (LPAT) (2019)
Downtown Meaford HCD Plan (OMB) (2014)
Designation of St. Johns Church, Norwich (CRB - underway)
Master Plans, Growth Management Strategies and Policy Studies
Township of West Lincoln East Smithville Secondary Plan (2022)
Town of Frontenac Islands Maryville Secondary Plan (2021)
Niagara -on -the -Lake Corridor Design Guidelines (2016)
Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan (2013)
Ministry of Infrastructure Review of Performance Indicators for the
Growth Plan (2011)
Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study (2012)
Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review (2012)
Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study and Employment
Land Strategy (2011)
Ministry of the Environment Review of the D -Series Land Use
Guidelines (2012)
Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan (2013)
City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy (2010)
Development Planning
Provide consulting services for municipal and private sector clients for:
• Secondary Plans
• Draft plans of subdivision
• Consent
Page 95 of 182
CURRICULUMVITAE
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
• Official Plan Amendment
• Zoning By-law Amendment
• Minor Variance
• Site Plan
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre
Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 744
F 519 576 0121
dcurrie@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com 4
Page 96 of 182
EDUCATION
2022
Certificate of Completion: Heritage
Planning for Practitioners
Algonquin College
2021
Master of Science in Rural Planning
and Development, specializing in
Indigenous Community Planning
University of Guelph,
School of Environmental Design
and Rural Development
2019
Bachelor of Arts (Honours Double
Major) in Sociology and Geography
McMaster University
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x???
F 519 5760121
rneiser@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Rachel Neiser, m sc.
Rachel Neiser is a Planner with MHBC. Rachel joined the firm after having gained
experience as a researcher in the public realm where she was responsible for
working with various non-profit organizations and community groups to produce
policy reports and social studies. Rachel graduated from the University of Guelph
with a Master of Science in Planning degree, specializing in Indigenous
Community Planning. Rachel provides a variety of development and heritage
planning application, research, and report writing services for public and private
sector clients.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Candidate Member, Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP)
Candidate Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI)
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
2021 - Present Planner,
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited
2019-2021 Research Assistant,
University of Guelph
2019 Employment Surveyor, Planning Student
City of Hamilton
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
RESIDENTIAL / MIXED USE
Bronte Village Mall Redevelopment, Oakville
Mixed Use Redevelopment, 477 Queen Street West, Toronto
Villages of Clair Hills Community, Waterloo
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (HIAs)
1020-1042 Sixth Line, Oakville, impacts to cultural heritage landscape
4452 Wellington Road South, London, impacts to adjacent cemetery
18 Portland Street, Toronto, potential CHVI of Toronto Hydro -Electric Substation,
impacts to adjacent properties and proposed HCD
Page 97 of 182
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x???
F 519 5760121
rneiser@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Rachel Neiser, m sc.
CONSERVATION PLANS
Partial Demolition — Westclox, Peterborough
Relocation — 18 Portland Street, Toronto
PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORTS
Special Policy Area (Floodplain), Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment — 85
Bridgeport Avenue, Waterloo
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment — 95-101 Cedar Street, Kitchener
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment - 81323 Westmount Line, Huron
URBAN DESIGN REPORTS
High -Rise Mixed -Use (52 Storeys) — 50 King Street, London
High -Rise Mixed -Use — 85 Bridgeport Avenue, Waterloo
Industrial Complex — 250 Allendale Road, Cambridge
FINAL PROPOSAL REPORTS
Draft Plan of Subdivision — 1160 Wharncliffe Road, London
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Provide consulting services and prepare planning applications for private sector
clients for:
• Heritage Permits
• Draft Plans of Subdivision/Condominium
• Site Plans
• Consents
• Minor Variances
• Official Plan Amendments
• Zoning By-law Amendments
RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS (UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH)
Canadian Urban Indigenous Planning Involvement — Jurisdictional Scan
Rural Response to COVID-19 — First -Hand Data, Policy Report for United Way
Multi -Level Governance Responses to COVID-19 — United Nations Database
Urban Indigenous Engagement in Wellington County — Practical Framework
Page 98 of 182
200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM
III
MHBC
PLANNING
URBAN DESIGN
& LANDSCAPE
ARCH!TECTl"E