HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-243 - Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) Demlition of Building Additions c.1860 Log house with c.1920-1930 Addition & c. 1960 Additions 236 Gehl PlaceStaff Report
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals,
519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: May 22, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-243
SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial)
Demolition of Building Additions
c. 1860 Log House with c. 1920-1930 Addition & c. 1960 Additions
236 Gehl Place
RECOMMENDATION:
That, in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Notice of
Intention to Demolish (Partial) received on April 26, 2024, regarding the circa 1920-
1930 addition and the two circa 1960 additions located on the property municipally
addressed as 236 Gehl Place, be received for information and that the notice period
run its course.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to present the proposed demolition of three additions
attached to the original circa 1860 log house municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place
(subject property).
The key finding of this report is that the three additions to the log house on the subject
property do not meet Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural
Heritage Value or Interest) under the Ontario Heritage Act. As a result, Heritage
Planning staff recommend that the Notice of Intention to Designate (Partial) the three
additions to the log house on the subject property be received and that the notice
period run its course.
There are no financial implications associated with this report.
Community engagement included consultation with Heritage Kitchener.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) along with a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
have been submitted for three additions attached to the original circa 1860 log house
municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place (subject property). The subject property is listed
as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 67 of 294
Heritage Register. A Site Alteration Permit has been submitted to facilitate the movement
of fill from the subject property to 1873 Bleams Road. The log house and its additions are
in an area of high topography where the fill will be cut and removed. As a result, the
applicant is proposing to demolish three additions to the log house and, as part of future
processes, relocate the log house. The HIA concluded that all three additions do not meet
Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) under
the Ontario Heritage Act. However, prior to demolition of the building additions, the HIA
indicates that a Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a
structural assessment, risk management plan, a hoarding and construction plan, and a
vibration monitoring plan, will be submitted to the City. Heritage Planning staff recommend
that the Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) the three additions be received for
information and that the notice period run its course.
BACKGROUND:
The Development Services Department is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Demolish
(Partial) the one (1) circa 1920-1930 addition and the two (2) circa 1960 additions to a log
house (Attachment A) municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place (Figure 1.0) (subject
property). The Notice was received along with a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
(HIA) on April 26, 2024. A revised scoped HIA was received on May 14, 2024 (Attachment
B). The purpose of the Notice and revised scoped HIA is to facilitate the proposed
demolition of three building additions to the log house on the subject property in order to
thoroughly document, evaluate and provide conservation recommendations for the original
log house in a future HIA.
iaLEAMS ROAD
Figure 1.0: Location Map of 236 Gehl Place
The subject property was evaluated as part of the City's Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas
Study Community Master Planning process. As part of this process, a heritage consultant
was retained to identify, evaluate, and provide recommendations for cultural heritage
resources within the study area. "The Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage
and Cultural Landscapes" prepared by Nancy Z. Tausky, Heritage Consultant, and dated
August 2010 concluded that the subject property is worthy of designation under Part IV of
Page 68 of 294
the Ontario Heritage Act, and conservation as it is defined in the Provincial Policy
Statement. The study provided a preliminary list of heritage attributes. This list did not
include the building additions.
Council formally "listed" the subject property on the Municipal Heritage Register, as a non-
designated property of cultural heritage value or interest, on August 29, 2011, based on
the City's 4 -Step Listing Process and the evaluation conducted by Nancy Tausky. The
listing included a Statement of Significance (SOS) describing the preliminary cultural
heritage value or interest and a preliminary list of heritage attributes (Attachment C). The
SOS did not include the building additions.
The applicant submitted a Site Alteration Permit (SAP) on April 11, 2024. The purpose of
the SAP is to facilitate the movement of approximately 300,000 m3 of native fill from the
subject property to the lands to the north located at 1873 Bleams Road to raise previously
extracted gravel pit lands to improve grading in a new residential subdivision. The log
house and its additions are in an area of high topography, whereby the topography is
proposed to be cut and moved to the lands to the north. The applicant is proposing to
relocate the log house (to be addressed in a future HIA) to allow the fill to be moved.
Ontario Heritage Act
Part IV, Section 27(3), of the Ontario Heritage Act provides a minimum level of
conservation to properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or
interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register:
Restriction on demolition, etc.
(9) If a property that has not been designated under this Part has been included in the
register under subsection (3), the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a
building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building
or structure unless the owner gives the council of the municipality at least 60 days notice
in writing of the owner's intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or to
permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 11, s. 6.
(11) The notice required by subsection (9) shall be accompanied by such plans and shall
set out such information as the council may require. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 11, s. 6.
In accordance with the Act, Council has 60 days as of and including April 26, 2024 (date of
receipt of the plans and information required for Heritage Planning staff to make a
recommendation to Heritage Kitchener and Council), to act, if it so chooses, on the Notice
of Intention to Demolish. The 60 days provides Council with the time it requires to issue a
Notice of Intention to Designate as a means of preventing the demolition. As noted earlier
in this report, the Notice of Intention to Demolish was received along with a scoped
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The revised scoped HIA is a draft and has not been
approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals; however, the Notice
combined with the revised scoped HIA is sufficient for Heritage Planning staff to make a
recommendation to Heritage Kitchener and Council.
Page 69 of 294
REPORT:
The property municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place (Figure 1.0) is located on the south
side of Bleams Road between Fischer Hallman Road and Trussler Road and contains a
circa 1860 log house (Figure 2.0) with three (3) additions. It is recognized for
design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values as identified in the Statement
of Significance (SOS) associated with it's listing as a non -designated property of cultural
heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). The preliminary
list of heritage attributes identified in the SOS include: "All elements related to the
construction and Georgian architectural style of the house, including: log construction, side
gable roof and roofline, fieldstone foundation, symmetrical window placement; window
openings; off-centre front door placement; original exterior door and door opening; original
interior doors, original baseboards; original door and window surrounds, original floor
joists; and, original floor boards. " Additions to the building were not identified as heritage
attributes. The focus of this report is the proposed demolition of the circa 1920-1930
addition and the circa 1960s additions, the potential negative impact of these demolitions
on the original log house, and the recommended measures to mitigate negative impacts to
the log house (Figure 3.0).
Figure 2.0: Front Elevation of Log House (South Elevation) with one -storey building
addition on the left
Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) enables municipalities to pass designating
by-laws for individual properties that have cultural heritage value or interest. Heritage
designation is one tool to conserve cultural heritage resources as it provides a mechanism
to manage change, such as alterations and demolitions, to ensure that the cultural
heritage value and interest along with the heritage attributes of a property are not
negatively impacted by proposed changes. Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario
Heritage Act, now amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22, prescribes the criteria for
determining cultural heritage value or interest. Designation requires a property to meet two
(2) or more of nine (9) criteria relating to design/physical, historical/associative, and/or
contextual values.
Heritage Impact Assessment
A scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) entitled "236 Gehl Place — Scoped HIA For
Demolition of Additions to the Original Log Home" was prepared by Anderson Wellsman
Architects Incorporated dated April 25, 2024. A revised scoped HIA was received on May
Page 70 of 294
14, 2024. The revised scoped HIA was submitted as supporting information with the
Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) the three building additions to the log house on the
subject property. The purpose of the HIA was to evaluate the three building additions to
the log house on the subject property under Ontario Regulation 9/06 to determine (1) if the
three building additions have cultural heritage value or interest, and (2) mitigate any
potential negative impacts resulting from the proposed demolition of the additions.
Figure 3.0: Building Additions (North Elevation) with 2 -storey and two 1 -storey
buildings additions
The revised scoped HIA evaluated the cultural heritage value or interest of the additions to
the log house (not the log house itself) on the subject property using Ontario Regulation
9/06. A summary of the evaluation is provided in Table 1.0.
Ontario Regulation 9/06
236 Gehl Place (Additions Only)
(Comments copied from Revised Scoped HIA)
The property has design value or physical
Criteria not met. After the 1960 renovation
value because it is a rare, unique,
by Edward Henhoeffer and his son William
representative or early example of a style,
(Bill), the additions, including the first
type, material, or construction method.
addition, are of common construction
materials and style. The first addition was
once completely clad in stucco on tar
paper. This detail helped the author to date
the first addition to 1920-1930. As such, it
may have been an early example of the
use of stucco cladding material; however,
the remnant of stucco is a small area in
one corner of the east addition. It does not
warrant conservation of the complete 1'/2
storey addition. A representative sample of
the stucco wall assembly can be carefully
removed and kept if a suitable heritage
material archive is available to store it and
make it available to the public.
Page 71 of 294
The property has design value or physical
Criteria not met. The additions are of
value because it displays a high degree of
competent craftsmanship, though the roof
craftsmanship or artistic merit.
of the 2 -storey addition sags and is not.
There are no details or materials of
inherent value or artistic merit.
The property has design or physical value
Criteria are not met. The additions framing
because it demonstrates a high degree of
and finish are technically vernacular and
technical or scientific achievement.
have no scientific intent.
The property has historical value or
Criteria not met. The additions were not
associative value because it has direct
the site of a unique cultural heritage
associations with a theme, event, belief,
activity. The Log structure and the land will
person, activity, organization, or institution
be evaluated separately in the full HIA.
that is significant to a community.
The property has historical or associative
Criteria not met. The generic form,
value because it yields, or has the potential
technique and use of the additions
to yield, information that contributes to an
contributes nothing new or unique to this
understanding of a community or culture.
understanding. The Log structure and the
land will be evaluated separately in the full
HIA.
The property has historical value or
Criteria not met. The 2 -storey addition
associative value because it demonstrates
builder is anonymous, and the recent past
or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,
owner and his father built the 1 -storey
artist, builder, designer or theorist who is
addition. There is no significant individual's
significant to a community.
body of work involved.
The property has contextual value because
Criteria not met. The additions are isolated
it is important in defining, maintaining or
from any other built context and the
supporting the character of an area.
original surrounding farmland forms are
changing to suit the proposed new
residential use. The Log structure and the
land will be evaluated separately in the full
HIA.
The property has contextual value because
Criteria not met. The additions have a
it is physically, functionally, visually, or
historic link to their surroundings; However,
historically linked to its surroundings.
the surroundings lands are proposed to
change from a farm to a residential
subdivision. The context is expected to
change substantially. The log structure and
the land contextual value will be evaluated
separately in the full HIA.
The property has contextual value because
Criteria not met.
it is a landmark.
Table 1.0: Evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Building Additions to the
Log House at 236 Gehl Drive
Page 72 of 294
In summary, the revised scoped HIA concludes that the building additions to the log house
on the subject property do not meet the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and
therefore do not warrant designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Although the building additions do not meet the criteria for designation, their proposed
demolition may negatively impact the structural integrity and/or the heritage attributes of
the original log house on the subject property. The revised scoped HIA provides a basic
overview of the measures that should be undertaken to protect the original log house while
the building additions are being demolished. These measures include:
• temporarily fill openings in the north wall of the log structure with wood frame and
sheathing to provide protection to the log structure and to the adjacent cut logs;
• retaining a demolition team with a minimum of 5 years of experience with work that
involves partial demolition that allows the original structure to remain intact;
• demolition by hand of any elements directly in contact with the log structure and its
roof to ensure that the forces generated by the removal of these elements do not
harm the original structure;
• once the additions are detached from the original structure, the removal of the bulk
material may continue aided by backhoe machines suited for the purpose;
• ground vibration will be monitored during demolition and any vibrations exceeding
the maximum permitted vibration will stop the work to notify the owner and heritage
consultant;
• allow the portion of the gable roof that extends over the log structure to remain in
place; and,
• enclose the exposed gable with sheathing materials to block the elements and to
discourage animal access.
Once the building additions have been demolished, the revised scoped HIA provides an
overview of basic measures that should be undertaken to protect the original log house on
the subject property until such time as the final approved conservation option is
implemented. These measures include temporarily blocking all exterior openings and
wrapping the house in a vapour permeable membrane, such as Tyvek, to seal the house
from rain and snow without trapping humidity in the logs and interior of the house.
Prior to demolition of the building additions, the scoped HIA indicates that additional
studies will be submitted to the City. These additional studies include: a Demolition,
Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a structural assessment, risk
management plan, a hoarding and construction plan, and a vibration monitoring plan.
Heritage Planning staff will provide a Terms of Reference for these studies and strongly
encourage the applicant to submit these studies for review by Heritage Planning staff by
Monday, June 3, 2024. This will allow Heritage Planning staff to provide a verbal update to
Heritage Kitchener and Council that addresses any outstanding concerns regarding the
potential negative impacts of the demolition of the additions to the structural integrity
and/or heritage attributes of the original log house.
The proposed demolition of the building additions will help facilitate a detailed evaluation
of the entire log house to provide conservation options (to be addressed in a future HIA)
for the Site Alteration Permit process and any future Planning Act applications. A future
HIA will be required to identify conservation options and recommend a preferred
Page 73 of 294
conservation option based on Federal, Provincial, and Municipal policies, guidelines, and
best practices.
Site Alteration Permit
As noted earlier in this report, a Site Alteration Permit (SAP) was submitted on April 11,
2024, to facilitate the movement of fill from the 236 Gehl Place to the lands to the north
located at 1873 Bleams Road. The need to move fill is required to raise previously
extracted gravel pit lands to improve grading in a new residential subdivision. As part of
the SAP process, Heritage Planning staff have requested the following:
1. A Stage 1-4 Archaeological Assessment (AA) approved by the Ministry;
2. A full Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) related to the conservation of the original
log house;
3. A Conservation Plan (CP) to:
a. To address the demolition of the building additions;
b. To address the short-, medium-, and long-term conservation of the original
log house;
c. To provide a relocation plan with a footings and foundations plan;
4. Additional studies, including:
a. Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan, including:
i. A Structural Assessment;
ii. A Hoarding and Construction Plan;
iii. A Vibration Monitoring Plan;
iv. A Risk Management Plan;
b. Documentation Plan, including:
i. Building Elevations;
ii. Photographs;
c. Cost Estimate(s) and a Letter of Credit for all work identified in the approved
HIA, approved CP and approved additional studies; and,
5. That the applicant enters into a Heritage Covenant Agreement under the Ontario
Heritage Act to address all matters relating to the approved HIA, the approved CP,
the approved Heritage Permit Application (HPA) (if required), and the approved
additional studies. These matters may include, but are not limited to,
implementation of recommendations, receipt of cost estimate(s) and a letter of
credit, certifications from relevant consultants, etc.
Council's Options
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council does not have the authority to approve or refuse
an owner's Notice of Intention to Demolish. Rather, Council's options include -
1 .
nclude:1. Receive the Notice of Intention to Demolish, allowing the notice period to run its
course, at the end of which the Building Division may issue a demolition permit.
And/Or,
2. Council may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would
have the authority to deny demolition; however, the owner could appeal Council's
decision.
Heritage Planning Staff Comments
A scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) entitled "236 Gehl Place — Scoped HIA For
Demolition of Additions to the Original Log Home" was prepared by Anderson Wellsman
Architects Incorporated dated April 25, 2024. A revised scoped HIA was received on May
14, 2024.
Page 74 of 294
Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the revised scoped HIA entitled "236 Gehl Place —
Scoped HIA For Demolition of Additions to the Original Log Home" prepared by Anderson
Wellsman Architects Incorporated dated May 14, 2024, and, generally, agree with its
conclusions and recommendations. Heritage Planning staff agree that the additions to the
log house do not meet Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage
Value or Interest) under the Ontario Heritage Act. As such, Heritage Planning staff support
the demolition of these additions subject to confirmation, via additional studies, that the
demolition/removal of these additions will not negatively impact the structural integrity
and/or heritage attributes of the original log house. In this regard, Heritage Planning staff
agree with the recommendations in the revised scoped HIA that prior to the demolition of
the additions to the log house, a "Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan
including a structural assessment, risk management plan, a hoarding and construction
plan, and a vibration monitoring plan" is required.
With respect to Council's options, Heritage Planning staff offer the following comments:
1. Receive the Notice of Intention to Demolish, allowing the notice period to run its
course, at the end of which the Building Division may issue a demolition permit:
Heritage Planning staff are concerned that allowing the notice period to run its
course without an approved "Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection
Plan including a structural assessment, risk management plan, a hoarding and
construction plan, and a vibration monitoring plan" may result in negative impacts to
the structural integrity and/or the heritage attributes of the original log house on the
subject property. In this regard, Heritage Planning staff will provide a Terms of
Reference for the above -noted study and strongly encourage the applicant to
submit the study for review by Heritage Planning staff by Monday, June 3, 2024 at
8:00 am. This will allow Heritage Planning staff to provide a verbal update to
Heritage Kitchener and Council that addresses any outstanding concerns regarding
the potential negative impacts of the demolition of the additions to the structural
integrity and/or heritage attributes of the original log house. Assuming Heritage
Planning staff have no outstanding concerns upon review of the above -noted study,
Heritage Planning staff recommend that the Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial)
the additions to the original log house on the subject property be received for
information and that the notice period run its course.
2. Council may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would
have the authority to deny demolition; however, the owner could appeal Council's
decision:
Heritage Planning staff outlined concerns in item 1 above. Heritage Planning staff
are of the opinion that demolition of the three additions to the log house may
proceed prior to designation of 236 Gehl Place subject to the submission and
approval of the study noted in item 1 above. However, Heritage Planning staff
understand that the applicant will need to relocate the original log house to another
location on the subject property to facilitate the Site Alteration Permit (SAP), and
address the short-, medium- and long-term conservation as part of the SAP and
future applications made under the Ontario Planning Act. A recommendation for
Council to proceed with a Notice of Intention to Designate under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act will be addressed in a separate report to Heritage Kitchener
and Council.
Page 75 of 294
Lastly, Heritage Planning staff believe it is important for Heritage Kitchener and Council to
understand where there is a difference of opinion between Heritage Planning staff and the
revised scoped HIA.
Revised Scoped HIA
Indicates that the subject property is
part of the expanded urban boundary
Indicates that a full HIA for the original
log house is underway.
Indicates that the first addition was clad
in stucco and may have been an early
example of the use of stucco; however,
the remanent stucco is a small area in
one corner of the east addition.
Heritage Planning Comments/Opinions
The lands are not currently within the City
Urban Area (CUA). A Bill is under
consideration by the Province to bring these
lands into the CUA but this decision is not
confirmed at this time.
Heritage Planning staff have not yet provided
the Terms of Reference for the full HIA.
Heritage Planning staff recommend that the
building floor plans and elevations along with
photographs document this early use of
stucco.
Indicates that the additions are isolated I The contextual value of 236 Gehl Place was
from any other built context and the
original surrounding farmland forms are
changing to suit the proposed new
residential use, and that the
surrounding lands are proposed to
change from a farm to a residential
subdivision, and that the context is
expected to change substantially.
Indicates that the demolition team will
have a minimum of 5 years of
experience in work where demolition
involves parts of the original structure to
remain intact and undamaged, and that
preference will be given to experience
with log structures.
Indicates that relocation is necessary to
save the heritage building.
evaluated and described in The Built Heritage
and Cultural Landscape Background Study
prepared as part of the Southwest Kitchener
Urban Areas Study. Further, the scoped HIA
is required to evaluate the current cultural
heritage resources (both built and landscape),
not the post development cultural heritage
resources. This rural property is not isolated
from other rural and active farming properties
(e.g., lands to the south that are outside of the
urban area boundary).
Heritage Planning staff are concerned that a
minimum of 5 years of experience is not
sufficient given the type of construction (rare)
and, potentially, the lack of experience that
individuals completing the partial demolitions
may have with log structures. Heritage
Planning staff recommend that the demolition
team must have experience with partial
demolitions (where additions are removed
and a main building is conserved), and that
the demolition team must have at least one
member with experience with log structures.
Heritage Planning staff are familiar with other
examples in the City where a built heritage
Page 76 of 294
Page 77 of 294
resource was relocated on the same property
as part of a draft plan of subdivision. Heritage
Planning staff are also familiar with other
examples in the Province where a built
heritage resource was temporarily relocated
to permit site grading and then moved back to
its original location post site grading. Heritage
Planning staff support relocating the building
either temporarily or permanently on the
subject property to facilitate site grading.
Indicates that the Owner's conservation
Heritage Planning staff note that the HIA
plan to save the log house by relocating
should address a conservation approach
it away from the proposed site grading
based on policies, guidelines, and best
activities to a safe permanent location.
practices.
Indicates that the author is not a
The City's standard Terms of Reference for a
member of the Canadian Association of
HIA requires that the assessment be
Heritage Professionals (CAHP).
completed by, or in conjunction with, a
member of the CARP. Heritage Planning staff
would strongly prefer to see the revised
scoped HIA prepared by, or in conjunction
with, a member of CAHP. For the purposes of
the partial demolition only, Heritage Planning
staff will accept the qualifications of the
revised scoped RIAs author. Heritage
Planning staff note that the full HIA to assess
the property and log house must be
completed by, or in conjunction with, a
member of CAHP.
Indicates that the log structure is in fair
Heritage Planning staff have experience with
condition but then further describes the
5 log houses in Kitchener. Based on our
condition in a way that suggests the log
experience, the log house on the subject
structure is in good condition.
property is in good condition. Comments in
the Appendix D (Structural Assessment)
appear to align with the log house being in
good condition. For example, the structural
assessment indicates that:
• The end grain at corners show minimal
signs of rotting or checking.
• The chinking around the entire perimeter
with few locations showing minor
cracking.
• Minor re -chinking being the only remedial
action required.
• The heavy timber elements (beam and
column) show no major signs of
deterioration or checking.
Page 77 of 294
• Minor repairs to the ground floor are
required.
• No major concerns or comments with the
second -floor framing.
• The exterior timber walls have been well
preserved over time.
• Etc.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance
of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting.
CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Notice of Intention
of Demolish.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Ontario Heritage Act
• Ontario Planning Act
• CSD -11-080 Listing of Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or
Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A — Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial)
• Attachment B —Revised Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
• Attachment C — 236 Gehl Place Statement of Significance (2011)
Page 78 of 294
_ b
SCHLEGEL URBAN DEVELOPMENTS
325 Max Becker Drive, Suite 201
Kitchener, ON
April 26, 2024
Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner
City of Kitchener, Planning Department
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON
N2G 4G7
Ms. Drake,
P: 519-571-1873
F: 519-571-0947
RE: Notice of Intention to Demolish Building Additions on a Listed Property under Part IV,
Section 27 (9) of the Ontario Heritage Act — 236 Gehl Place, Kitchener ON
The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Kitchener with Notice in writing of the intent to
demolish / remove building additions on the listed property located at236 Gehl Place, Kitchener.
Part IV, section 27 (9) of the Ontario Heritage Act provides the following as it relates to the removal of
buildings on listed properties:
Restriction on demolition, etc.
9) If a property that has not been designated under this Part has been included in the register under
subsection (3), the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a building or structure on the
property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives the
council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of the owner's intention to demolish or
remove the building or structure or to permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure.
2019, c. 9, Sched. 11, s. 6.
The purpose of removing the additions is related to on-going work to assess the original log structure
that forms part of the house. Through discussions with City of Kitchener heritage staff, we have been
granted permission to remove the interior and exterior finishes. This has now been complete and the
majority of the logs have been exposed. The non -original additions form the north facade of the
structure and still remain. Removing these would allow the remaining logs to be exposed and assessed.
A scoped Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by Anderson Wellsman Architects in support
of this notice and has been included with this submission.
Page 79 of 294
I thank you for your assistance and expedience in reviewing this submission, please do reach out
immediately if there is anything further you require.
Sincerely,
Alex Robinson
Technician — Planning and Urban Design
Schlegel Urban Developments
Cc: Vaughn Bender, Schlegel Urban Developments
Garett Stevenson, City of Kitchener
Rob Anderson, Anderson Wellsman Architects Inc.
Page 80 of 294
236 Gehl Place - Scoped HIA
For Demolition of Additions to the Original Log Home
April 25, 2024
1.0 Background
The home at 236 Gehl Place is of heritage interest to the City of Kitchener
due to the presence of an original 11/2 storey log structure in part of the
home c. 1860.
The home sits on land that is part of the expanded urban boundary and it is
ultimately subject to development as a residential subdivision. Currently
there is urgency to review the heritage attributes and complete an HIA
because the 236 Gehl Place site can contribute a significant amount of
structural soil material to be used in the adjoining Mattamy residential
subdivision currently under construction to the north. The Mattamy
subdivision was formerly an aggregate extraction site, so the use of
neighbouring soils that are excess to the future 236 Gehl Place subdivision, is
good engineering practice both economically and environmentally. The grade
in the vicinity of the log structure will be lowered approximately 3.5 metres
according to analysis prepared by Matt Ninomiya P.Eng of Walterfedy.
The first step to facilitate the HIA for the log structure, is to determine if the
additions to the log home contribute to its heritage value or not. The Scoped
HIA is for this purpose.
2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements
Discussion between the owner and Kitchener Planning and Heritage Planning
staff confirms municipal interest in the Log Home at 236 Gehl Place. To
further investigate the heritage attributes, and to prepare the way for
relocation of the heritage asset, terms of reference for this scoped HIA were
provided by Michelle Drake. A full HIA for the original Log Home is underway
and will follow this report as more information on the building and its history
becomes available.
2.1 Present Owner
Schlegel Urban Developments
325 Max Becker Drive, Suite 201
Kitchener, Ontario
N2E 4H5
Page 81 of 294
E
2.2 Reserved
2.3 Description of Additions & Statement of Heritage Value
The original Log Home c.1860 appears to have had two separate renovations.
The first addition is a 11/2 -storey extension to the north side. It is about 2/3
the width of the original building and is aligned with it on the west side. This
addition has a basement level. The foundations are cast -in-place concrete
using small pea gravel as the primary aggregate. The structure above is a full
dimension 2x4 wood frame with wood plank sheathing and evidence of tar
paper, sawn lath, and stucco as the exterior finish, though much of the
exterior finish appears to have been removed at the second renovation. The
floorboards are 5 1/2" x 3/4" tongue & groove planks on 93/4" x 2" joist at 20"
on centre at the ground floor. The roof is pitched at approximately 7 in 12
and is shingled. The interior painted drywall finishes are contemporary with
the second renovation, as is the exterior aluminum siding. The main floor is
used as a kitchen. The second level is a bedroom space. This addition
includes the only stairs in the home today. This suggests that the stairway in
the original Log Home was removed, and some remodeling of the original Log
Home interior occurred at this time. The nature of the concrete with rounded
aggregate and remnant stucco suggests a c. 1920-1930 construction. We
note a significant swayback at the ridgeline of the addition, suggesting an
inadequate roof structure.
The second addition is in two parts. Both are 1 -storey and are found to the
east and west sides of the first addition. Both are north of the original Log
Home. These extensions have no basements. The exterior walls are
insulated, nominal 2x4 wood stud framing. The roofs are flat. Interior finishes
are painted drywall. The exterior is clad in aluminum siding.
To the west the addition was purpose built for a garage and utility
room/laundry. This addition replaced a woodshed and outhouse in this area,
according to William (Bill) Henhoeffer. To the east the addition served as a
family room with a large window facing east and a door to the exterior on the
north side. The construction of this addition is confirmed by the past owners,
Bill and Marlene Henhoeffer, as c. 1960 shortly after the property was
purchased by Bill's father Edward in 1959.
Using the 9 criteria listed below, taken from the Ontario Heritage Act
Regulation 9/06, we find that the additions to the Log Home (not the Log
Home itself) do not meet the test for heritage value or interest and may
Page 82 of 294
3
therefore be considered for careful demolition without the loss of heritage
attributes.
Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06
Criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
1. The property has design value or physical value because it is rare,
unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,
material or construction method.
Criteria not met. After the 1960 renovation by Edward Henhoeffer and
his son William (Bill), the additions, including the first addition, are of
common construction materials and style. The first addition was once
completely clad in stucco on tar paper. This detail helped the author to
date the first addition to 1920-1930. As such, it may have been an early
example of the use of stucco cladding material; however, the remnant of
stucco is a small area in one corner of the east addition. It does not
warrant conservation of the complete 11/2 storey addition. A
representative sample of the stucco wall assembly can be carefully
removed and kept if a suitable heritage material archive is available to
store it and make it available to the public.
2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a
high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit.
Criteria not met. The additions are of competent craftsmanship, though
the roof of the 2 -storey addition sags and is not. There are no details or
materials of inherent value or artistic intent.
3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates
a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
Criteria not met. The additions framing and finish are technically
vernacular and have no scientific intent.
4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has
direct associations with theme, event, belief, person, activity,
organization, or institution that is significant to a community.
Criteria not met. The additions were not the site of a unique cultural
heritage activity. The Log structure and the land will be evaluated
separately in the full HIA.
Page 83 of 294
4
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.
Criteria not met. The generic form, technique and use of the additions
contributes nothing new or unique to this understanding. The Log
structure and the land will be evaluated separately in the full HIA.
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.
Criteria not met. The 2 -storey addition builder is anonymous, and the
recent past owner and his father built the 1 -storey addition. There is no
significant individual's body of work involved.
7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining,
maintaining or supporting the character of an area.
Criteria not met. The additions are isolated from any other built context
and the original surrounding farmland forms are changing to suit the
proposed new residential use. The Log structure and the land will be
evaluated separately in the full HIA.
S. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally,
visually or historically linked to its surroundings.
Criteria not met. The additions have a historic link to their surroundings;
However, the surroundings lands are proposed to change from a farm to
a residential subdivision. The context is expected to change substantially.
The log structure and the land contextual value will be evaluated
separately in the full HIA.
9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.
O Reg 569/22, s. 1.
Criteria not met.
2.4 Documentation
See Appendix A for Excerpt from Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study.
Page 84 of 294
5
See Appendix B for Photographs
See Appendix C for Measured Drawings
See Appendix D for Structural Assessment
2.5 Proposed Demolition
The current application proposes demolition of the c. 1920-1930 addition,
and the c. 1960 additions above the ground level to reveal the original Log
Home for full heritage assessment.
Structural Engineer David Witzel P.Eng has reviewed the log structure and
the additions from this perspective. His full report is found in Appendix D
While he concludes that the additions do not provide structural support to the
original log building, he states that it is prudent to temporarily fill openings in
the north wall of the log structure with wood frame and sheathing to provide
protection to the log structure and to the adjacent cut logs.
The demolition team will have a minimum of 5 years of experience in work
where demolition involves parts of the original structure to remain intact and
undamaged. Preference given to experience with heritage log structures. The
demolition of any elements directly in contact with the log structure and its
roof should be undertaken by hand to ensure that the forces generated by
the removal of these elements do not harm the original structure. Once the
additions are detached from the original structure, the removal of the bulk
material may continue aided by backhoe machines suited for the purpose.
This work will be subject to ground vibration limitation and monitoring.
A vibration analysis, to establish the maximum permitted vibration in the
vicinity of the log structure, will be prepared by a qualified geotechnical
engineer in collaboration with the structural consultant. The ground will be
monitored during the demolition of the additions. Any exceedance of the
permitted maximum vibration will stop the work with immediate notification
of the owner and heritage consultant.
At this stage it is not necessary to excavate and remove the concrete
foundation of the additions. They may remain in place. This will substantially
reduce the vibration of the ground around the Log Home.
To further reduce the impact of the proposed demolition, the part of the
gable roof that extends over the log structure shall remain in place. It will be
necessary to enclose the exposed gable with sheathing materials to block the
elements and to discourage animal access to the original roof area. With this
Page 85 of 294
C
temporary conservation construction in place, there will be time to plan for
the restoration of the roof over the log structure in the full HIA.
2.6 Conservation of the Log House
While this Scoped HIA does not deal with the Log House directly, the
demolition of the additions for purposes of fully revealing the Log House to
facilitate its own HIA does beg the question of interim conservation of the Log
House during transition to a final use and location. Once the documentation of
the Log House is complete, any exterior opening will be temporarily blocked,
and the house will be wrapped in a vapor permeable membrane such as
Tyvek. This will seal the exterior from rain and snow without trapping
humidity in the wood structure and interior. This installation will not harm the
logs and can be maintained periodically by the owner until a permanent
exterior cladding is approved and installed. A thorough installation of this
barrier will also discourage bats from roosting in the attic through the interim
transition.
A demolition Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a structural
assessment, risk management, hoarding construction plan, and the vibration
assessment & monitoring report will be submitted to the City prior to the
demolition of the additions.
2.7 Summary of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles for the
Scoped Work
From: Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize a historic place until any subsequent
intervention is undertaken.
This applies to the remaining Log Home during a multistage rehabilitation
process.
From: Eight Guiding Principles in Conservation of Built Heritage Properties
1. Respect for documentary evidence
Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be
based on historic documentation such as historic photographs, drawings
and physical evidence.
Page 86 of 294
7
The physical evidence investigation applies to the careful documentation of
the Log Home and justifies removing the additions.
2. Respect for the original location.
Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site
is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site
diminishes cultural heritage value considerably.
This applies to the predicament of the site grade alteration to facilitate
development of the lands under the Log Home. Relocation is necessary to
save the heritage building. The full HIA will address the loss of heritage value
and the alternatives for conservation and future context of the heritage
asset.
2.8 Proposed Demolition Justification
The additions to the Log Home do represent changes to the life of the Log
Home over time, which some principles of conservation suggest should not
be removed to restore the log structure to a specific single time period.
However, the additions themselves are of no heritage value and the owner's
conservation plan for the Log Home is not to restore it to an earlier time.
Rather it is to save the surviving log structure, it's roof silhouette and
patterns of fenestration by relocating them away from the proposed site
grading alterations to a safe permanent location and then conserving them
within a new exterior envelope. This will protect the heritage attributes in the
coming decades and will provide a practical new use that can sustain regular
maintenance of the heritage attributes for the long term.
The task will best be conducted once the additions are carefully removed and
the entire log structure is exposed and available for evaluation, interim
preservation and ultimately for transport preparation.
2.9 Recommendations
The additions to the log structure do not contribute to heritage interest,
consequently:
1. Reinforce the log structure in preparation for demolition of additions per
WitzelDyce Engineering Inc. instructions.
See Appendix D.
Page 87 of 294
N
2. Engage the services of a vibration monitoring company to set maximum
vibration tolerance around the log structure and to monitor the demolition
activity to ensure the work remains within acceptable limits.
3. Stop work at once and notify the owner and heritage consultant if
vibration exceeds tolerance or if any change to the log structure and
stone foundation is seen.
4. By hand and without damage to the original log structure, detach all
elements of the additions that connect to, or abut the log structure,
including the gable roof outside the footprint of the log structure. Be sure
to leave intact all the gable roof addition that is within the roof area of the
log structure.
5. Similarly, leave intact all remnants of the original roof structure including
eaves and facia currently obscured by the addition
6. Once detached, remove the bulk material of the additions to the top of
foundations using the smallest machine equipment suitable for the work to
limit vibration of the ground.
7. Complete Log Home HIA analysis and documentation
2.10 Qualifications of the Author
The author is an architect who has been registered with the Ontario
Association of Architects for more than 40 years. From 2018 he is the
President of Anderson Wellsman Architects Incorporated and was formerly
the Vice President of Carson Woods Architects Limited. In these roles he has
provided Consulting on Kitchener area heritage projects including:
1. The Donnenworth House HIA , including relocation of the stone structure.
The project team received the Mike Wagner Heritage Award.
2. The Becker House HIA. In situ rehabilitation at the Wallaceton Estates,
including evaluation of two other older homes and barns in the HIA and an
assessment of Plains Road leading to memorializing the remnant geometric
pattern of Plains Road the Wallaceton Estates subdivision plan.
3. The Henhoeffer House HIA at the Williamsburg Green Subdivision. Ongoing
consultation on the heritage precinct and continued conservation of the
Heritage Building.
also.
4. Humber Heights Consolidated School. Work with heritage colleagues Ian
McGillivray and Spencer Higgins preserving and integrating the heritage
attributes into a new retirement community.
5. Unionville Town Hall renovations.
Page 88 of 294
E
6. Robert studied architectural conservation in the Ontario context, at the U
of W, under Peter John Stokes, architect of Niagara on the Lake and Upper
Canada Village.
7. Robert is a professional architect with decades of experience in new
construction and heritage conservation. He is not a member of CAHP.
The structural engineer David Witzel P. Eng is President of WitzelDyce
Engineering Inc. with over 15 years of structural engineering experience,
including analysis, modelling and design of new structures and renovations to
existing structures for municipal, residential, commercial, and heavy
industrial clients. He has completed large projects in both Canada and the
United States providing him with a thorough knowledge of the key North
American design and construction standards. He is adept in using specialized
problem -solving techniques such as finite element modeling to solve more
difficult problems. Mr. Witzel is a registered Engineer in 9 Canadian provinces
plus the Yukon Territory as well as 4 states in the United States
Relevant Projects include:
1. The Imperial Renovation and Restoration I Residential Design I New
Hamburg, ON
A renovation and addition to an existing three storey masonry and wood
framed building originally constructed over 120 years ago. The scope
involved a full demolition of the interior finishes to accommodate the
extensive structural restoration and reinforcing. New vaulted ceilings and
floor toppings were added to create modern residential units. The three-
storey addition accommodated a ground floor commercial space with two
storeys of residential suites above. Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. was
retained to provide structural design services.
2. Hanson Heritage Barn Restoration I Residential Design I Kitchener, ON
A renovation and addition to an existing bank barn which is on a heritage
property in Kitchener, Ontario. The existing bank barn was in poor shape
prior to the restoration. Extensive structural rehabilitation and repair was
required to preserve and change the use of the barn to a residential unit.
3. Bauer Residence - Law Office I Structural Review and Building Renovation
Waterloo, ON
This project included the structural review and upgrade of a 604 mz (6,500
sq. ft.) century home that was renovated for a new law office. The work was
required as a result of a change in occupancy from residential to commercial.
The existing wood structure was analyzed and retrofitted to ensure that it
complied with the current building code.
Page 89 of 294
10
4. David is a professional engineer with many years of experience in new
construction and renovation of heritage buildings. He is not a member of
CARP.
The following references were consulted:
1. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
2. Eight Guiding Principles in Conservation of Built Heritage Properties
3. The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit
4. The Tweedsmuir Archive
5. Former property owners Bill and Marleen Henhoeffer (1966-2019)
3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendation
A draft of the Heritage Attributes of 236 Gehl Place are:
1. The original Log Structure
2. The fieldstone foundation
3. The footprint and silhouette of the original log house
4. The existing fenestration pattern of the log home on the east, west, and
south sides and the position of the south door
5. Original interior doors, casing, hardware
6. Original split plank lath and interior partition framing
Full list of heritage attributes will be provided in the log structure HIA
All are associated with the log structure. None are associated with the additions
proposed for removal.
The later additions to the house do not contribute to the heritage value and
are an obstacle to the full HIA. They should be carefully removed to help the
HIA evaluation and to enable the municipally approved next steps in
conservation of the heritage asset.
Prepared by:
ANDERSON-WgLLSMAN ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED
l
Robert Anderson, O.A.A., B.E.S., B.Arch.
President
Page 90 of 294
APPENDIX A
ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS
EXCERPT FROM SOUTHWEST KITCHENER URBAN
AREA STUDY
Page 91 of 294
orito
0
t4-
GO _.
�.�� 3x�
a
a y „ N
0
O
UC,
3 E w o
G
C O= y
as 0.g;;;;
P.•� �
'bo
O
00
eC T 0
U
^,bb.c
� v � eta F � .ctl. - o .0
"d �
Ej
� V � �
C4
CU
2443 o 0 t
n'
;o N cC w b
p
N
3m�3��' «'°y'E�o°'�
s o
aC7 ro v 3 E _ .E o EL:i
O
81x
tp
_;rq
o o
0.5
• � °'
a
3
.O
4,,
o 2 b o g
`m
v
0
t4-
a
4
2
b
M
tl
C
'a7
3
0
O
UC,
G
pNp
R .� •Q o
P.•� �
E
O
api iC o id
"r V.m
� N .li
P •.{
"d �
Ej
� V � �
�O O
O
O
o o
�a. E
• � °'
a
-�,0yt8
O N •y
b o
`17
.E
,� � o
N• g.a
•�
W o5 � �
•
fi
O
ti
O O i6
C3
a
4
2
b
M
tl
C
BENIN m
an
v
a
a
F
m
U U
O
t b b
xepaeaJd�,
1 3
b
� O
Y
G
cd
a
a
p�
O
y en o W v o o
m
�
A
5
o 'o,
U .5 � rn
C
O
ob
bA q
b'5-q�2o��
xO
�
�
� � � � °' ❑ a'T o m � w cau �
�
u,
�
a �
� • .meq
K
PA
•C
.Z5
'49 b
y
y
ti b ti
°
moo°°°
x j Q. 37 w
0 m
O_°.>
mow.
onw G ° o_o °
° _w o•C
5 a�i
ta.ano
r -i
o etl O .5 bd0.: O O O
5 5 A
'zi
b
Q b
r 3
U �ybb' o
J oww° ani
A
ji
b0 a 5 o b b
o
0 � 5
on
w k
0� a, 0 5
3 w n o> 3 A
n
d°
U
^y ai
O o ,q d R poo •`� P4
p o w
�
� �
o .5 'n❑
rn °'
� � p � C �, eu v � ° � � � ° o
,'J p
�
16h
Q
Q
BENIN m
an
v
a
a
F
m
U U
O
t b b
1 3
b
O
G
a
ro
O
m
�
A
5
°
5 0
> a�
O 0
.o
'++ o0
O y bre.'
K
PA
•C
.Z5
'49 b
y
y
ti b ti
°
O_°.>
mow.
onw G ° o_o °
° _w o•C
5 a�i
ta.ano
-0-6 0'
°
o etl O .5 bd0.: O O O
5 5 A
'zi
b
Q b
r 3
U �ybb' o
J oww° ani
ji
e
6L
_
t
d
e
a
PHOTOGRAPHS:
- 236 GEHL PLACE
Page 94 of 294
LL
rn
N
4-
0
LO
N
O1
0
0
LU
y
W
Y
Y
W
•�
V
N
�
LL
Y
m
�
O
...
O
t6
V
O
V
O
i
�
a
�
O
-
s
a�
�
as
�
�
O
M
N
i
N
O
a Road _
Ha�1m n ,+4 ' �_ >,
oher- 1 -.
s
Gehk place
'f' • �.
1 s
G
co
N V lcmu
$ It,l.- r_
�' ■ (D LL
CO
� 3
1
>
as - -
Y
eh� p1a�e lunPavedl
G
Iir i'EI'� tl :J
Ll
rn
N
O
ti
,
rn
N
4-
0
co
N
O1
ZE
rn
N
4-
0
N
O1
(6
4-1
4+
O
�
W
41
R
V
R
LL
ZE
rn
N
4-
0
N
O1
(6
j
R:,,yt
9 s
All ti
lll.,
Psic��ft N//ml�
Q4
.. - - �"..
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
LOG STRUCTURE
Page 102 of 294
WEST ELEVATION
GARAGE
Page 103 of 294
EAST SIDE
JUNCTION OF LOG
STRUCTURE TO 1 -
STOREY ADDITION
UTILITY ROOM
Page 104 of 294
UTILITY ROOM
GARAGE
PARTITION
UTILITY ROOM 2 -
STOREY WALL
Page 105 of 294
GARAGE
KITCHEN LOOKING
NORTHEAST
Page 106 of 294
l�
0
KITCHEN LOOKING
SOUTHEAST
FAMILY ROOM
Page 107 of 294
FAMILY ROOM
SECOND FLOOR
BEDROOM
Page 108 of 294
CUT OUT FOR
WASHROOM
DOOR OPENING
LOOKING NORTH
CUT OUT FOR
WASHROOM
DOOR OPENING
LOOKING SOUTH
Page 109 of 294
REMNANT
OF STUCCO
SIDING AT
FAMILY
ROOM
SOUTHWEST
DETAIL OF
STUCCO
SIDING AT
FAMILY
ROOM
SOUTHWEST
Page 110 of 294
APPENDIX C
MEASURES DRAWINGS:
236 GEHL PLACE
Page 111 of 294
9LLZ-M (9Lb 9af OM OuoLuo 0110101 091V'd0dM00N1 S10911H021V ^ O��
01-0101 ZL9 311ns avoa sniw noa 0e0L NVWS113M NOSb3aNV 9 ON Sof asina
P b
13V�d �HHH HHH
5 Lto tzoz:a}o4 �� Pa�oa4o
:}oafoid I , L «g/L :aIoos :}ndul
NV�d dd��113 I � ONf
allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON IG9HS
9LLZ-M (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091VIdOdMO0N1 S10911H021V
oWo,al ZL9 311ns avoN SIIIW Noa afial NVWS113M NOSb3aNV
13V�d CHH HHH
:}oafojd
90tZ ON Qof I :pasinab
5 Lt0 tZOZ:a}oa I V( Pa�oa4o
:Indu
Nb'jo I zov
2�00�J aNN02�
allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS
9LLZ-M (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091VIdOdMO0N1 S10911H021V
oWo,al ZL9 311ns avoN SIIIW Noa afial NVWS113M NOSb3aNV
13V�d CHH HHH
:}oafojd
90tZ ON Qof I :pasinab
5 Lt0 tZOZ:a}oa I V( Pa�oa4o
:Indu
Nb1S I 4ov
�001J aN00�
allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS
9LLZ-f 6 (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091VIdOdMO0N1 S10911H021V 90�Z
owo,al z�9 mins avoa sniw noa offal NVWS113M NOSb3aNV ON asina qof
P b
13V�d �HHH HHH
5 LtO tZOZ:"Joa I d( Pa�oago
:}oafoid I , L =,, :a ooS :Indu
NV�d A0021 I 'PONf
allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS
LO
O
o a
L
Cc
-�Qo
N
O
N
N
o
0
Z
a
EEI
U
U)
Q
4
°
Q
3
d
�
Y
U
W
L
U
N
>
N
�
z
�
0
Q
w
Li
O
r
a,
3
Occ
`a
Uc
<c
o
_
U
AIL
W
CD
Zo
W
�o
/1
ALJ
J d
J �
W O
�j U
N
ON
H
� LU
W=
v
a
0U
Z�
¢a
to
O
CD
z a
s
U
L
Ln
a
-�Qo
_0N
N
O
N
N
o
o
z
a
NN<5
L�L
r
d
c
a
Y
L
U
a
�
N
K
El] ==HH
z
o
w
J
W
=E
EEI
I--
cn
Q
W
m
rn
c
3
a
Wo
Q
_
L
� U
r
W
CD
Zo
W
�o
C/1
ALJ
J d
J o
WO
�j U
N
� N
wLu
W
W=
v
a
� U
Z
¢a
M
O
O
z a
L
CY
-�Qo
N
O
N
o
N
6
z
U
Q
a
4
L�L
3
d
�
a
U
W
L
-o
>
N
-
U
�
z
0
ED
Q
w
w
FEFIIz
O
a
O i11
W O
O N
O I
u L
M
N p�
ILIL
Q
o M
Nm
J p
Z
O
O
O a
m
CD
ZW
Ja
J
W M
Z
u
Vl
N
Z -
O�
CS
v
LU
W=
Z�
2
¢a
APPENDIX D
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT & RECOMENDATIONS
- 236 GEHL PLACE
Page 120 of 294
WitzelDyce
ENGINEERING INC.
May 14, 2024
WDE File No.: 16516-100
Robert Anderson
Anderson Wellsman Architects Inc.
1090 Don Mills Road, Suite 612
Toronto, Ontario, M3C 3R6
RE: Structural Heritage Impact Assessment
236 Gehl Place, Kitchener, Ontario
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc has been retained to assess the structural condition of the
existing heritage house located at 236 Gehl Place, Kitchener, Ontario. The log house was
constructed c. 1860 and had two subsequent additions since then. The first of which was
a two-storey addition completed c. 1920-1930s, and a second one -storey addition
completed in 1960. Additionally, the basement floor slab was lowered, and the original
rubble foundations were underpinned. The exact date of the foundation underpinning is
unknown; however, it is estimated to be 1980 by former resident William (Bill) Henhoeffer
who dug the basement by hand with the help of his son.
As per the schematic architectural drawings as provided by Anderson Wellsman
Architects, the basement cellar below the heritage structure is approximately 520 sq.ft,
the total ground floor is ±1450 sq.ft (excluding garage) and the total second floor area is
approximately 1000 sq.ft. The ground floor area is approximately 530 sq.ft and currently
contains a living, dining, bedroom and washroom. The existing structure is stick framed
with heavy timber log walls atop rubble foundations.
1.0 Site Reviews and Structural Assessment
Site Reviews were conducted by David Witzel, P.Eng on March 5, 12, 25 and April 19,
2024, to review and visually assess the existing structure. Photos of the site review can
be found in Appendix A. The goal of the site review was to ascertain the condition of the
Page 121 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
heritage log structure. The additions that were constructed later were also reviewed and
recommendations for demolition shall be discussed below.
At the time of the initial review, the exterior of the log structure was concealed behind
aluminum siding, and the interior was concealed behind lathe and plaster. The decision
was made to remove the lower four to six feet of siding and cut holes in the lathe and
plaster on the interior of the structure to expose the logs.
Following the initial review of the exposed log structure, it was determined that that the
structure was in fair condition, and it would be worthwhile to expose the entire structure,
both externally and internally for a follow up review.
Our findings are provided in the following sections:
Exterior Log Walls
The exterior walls of the log structure were constructed of rectangular logs 12 to 18 inches
deep, and approximately 8" wide. The log walls were chinked along the horizontal joints
which is typical for log structures of this era. Corners are finished with a finger joint lap
with minimal cracking or shrinkage present (Photos 1, 2, 3, 4). The end grain at corners
appeared to be in fair condition showing minimal signs of rotting or checking (Photo 9).
Minor deterioration was observed specifically around windows which is relatively
common, as these areas are typical prone to moisture accumulation, typically as a result
of poor sealant around the window frames. The deterioration was less than was expected
following the removal of the siding. The chinking appeared to be in fair condition around
the entire perimeter with few locations showing minor cracking, in other locations chinking
had fallen out completely (Photo 6). This is not uncommon for chinking as the timber logs
will expand and contract over time due to expansion and shrinkage caused by changes
in moisture content in the timber. It is recommended that chinking be repaired as required
to maintain the integrity of the log structure.
The logs were covered by aluminum siding which has done an excellent service to the
structure by protecting the timber logs from direct weather. The siding was supported by
1x2 vertical strapping which provided good ventilation between the siding and the logs
(Photos 5, 6, 7, 8). From the assembly, it appears that the logs have been relatively well
protected from excessive weathering but allowed to ventilate and get rid of any excessive
moisture. This is consistent with the log condition as observed on site.
2
Page 122 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Overall, the existing exterior face of the log wall appeared to be in generally fair condition
with minor re -chinking being the only remediation required. The condition is as expected
for the age and type of construction considering it has been well protected and
maintained. We would recommend that the log structure be covered in a similar manner
to its existing condition to ascertain long-term preservation of the log structure.
Rubble Foundations
The heritage structure sits on a stone -rubble foundation that is exposed around both the
interior and exterior. From the exterior, one corner had parging present, however, in most
locations there was no parging visible — it is unclear whether this was a result of the
exterior finish demolition, or if the rubble wall has been left unparged (Photos 7, 8). In
some locations, it appeared that the mortar which binds the large stones in the foundation
together has severely deteriorated such that it appears there are large gaps between
individual stones (Photo 11). The condition may be consistent if the exterior rubble wall
was left unprotected and allowed to weather over the years. This is not uncommon if
vegetation was present in front of the wall which likely accelerated weathering on the
rubble wall. From the interior however, this did not appear to be the case. Stones were
well embedded into a mortar which appeared to be well maintained showing only minor
signs of cracking (Photo 14).
From the interior, it is also evident that underpinning was completed at some point to
lower the basement slab. The ledge of underpinning is approximately 24" tall with the
width unknown, however it is likely that the ledge extends underneath the existing rubble.
There are no signs of major disturbances as a result of the underpinning such as slab or
rubble wall cracking indicating no structural issues (Photo 13).
Overall, the rubble foundation walls appeared to be in fair condition with no further
remediations required at this time.
Basement Structure and Ground Floor Framing
A simplified mark-up of the structural framing for the ground floor, including second and
roof framing, are shown in Appendix B. All sizing and dimensions are to be verified.
The ground floor framing as viewed from the basement, appeared to be framed with 8"x3"
joists at roughly 28" on center (varying ±2-3"). The joists spanned from the exterior walls
3
Page 123 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
to a central 8.5"x11" (depth x width) wood beam. The joist spans either side of the beam
are approximately 12'-6". Atop joists appeared to be plank decking in lieu of plywood.
Additionally, there is a wood column located at midspan of the center beam and supported
by a large pad footing at the base (Photos 13, 14).
It was noted that there was a section of infill floor framing near the center of the main floor
which was likely where the original stair into the cellar was located. This section of floor
infill was poorly constructed, and there is sagging in the floor as a result. We strongly
recommend that this section of floor is reinforced as it is currently considered an unsafe
condition on the main floor. There was also a modification to the floor framing to
accommodate the furnace and duct work on the east side of the structure.
Overall, the ground floor framing appeared to be in fair condition other than locations
requiring reinforcing. The heavy timber elements (beam and column) appeared to be in
fair condition showing no major signs of deterioration or checking. It is recommended that
a full structural analysis be conducted to review the overall scope of reinforcing which
may be required to certify the floor structure. Reinforcing works may include sistering
existing joists, replacing floor sheathing or the removal and replacement of joists in poor
condition. This work has not yet been completed, but it is recommended if the building is
to be re -occupied.
Second Floor Framing and Roof
The second -floor framing is similar to the ground floor framing. Spans, beams, joist sizing,
and spacings are almost identical with minor differences as shown in the markup in
Appendix B. There are no major concerns or comments with the second -floor framing at
this time.
The roof framing is conventional stick framed rafters with ceiling joists spanning from
exterior wall-to-wall. The rafters were found to be approximately 5.5" x 2.5" at what
appears to be 30-36" on centers. The size and spacing of the rafters should be confirmed
on-site. Collar ties fasten the rafters at approximately midspan of both rafters. (Photos 17,
18) The roof ridge over the additions appears to be sagging significantly more than the
roof over the timber log structure.
Without removing finishes and conducting a more extensive review of the roof structure,
it is not immediately clear what the cause of the sagging is. However, it is not uncommon
for older roofs to show large deflections such as those observed here. The cause can
vary from general deterioration to extensive shrink and swell cycles experienced over
M
Page 124 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
many years. It is recommended to monitor the roof to ensure the sagging does not
continue to worsen. Ultimately, the roof over the original log structure is in fair condition.
Reinforcing the roof sag may require shoring and jacking the existing roof up followed by
sistering of existing rafters and/or collar ties. At the time of writing this report, it is difficult
to ascertain the overall reinforcing required. A full analysis should be completed to
conclude the adequacy of the existing roof and any reinforcing which may be required in
due course. It is not recommended to try and remove the permanent deformation of the
roof as it is likely the result of wood shrinkage and long duration loading. It may be
advisable to sister the roof members if the building is to be re -occupied. Additional rafter
thickness would also provide the opportunity for better roof ventilation and insulation.
Additions
The two additions that have been added over the lifespan of the home. The additions
adjacent to the log structure did not appear to affect the original structure. There did not
appear to be any major structural elements, such as beams or columns, bearing on the
heritage structure which would require conservation. It is likely that the demolition of the
additions would not impact the log house structure besides the work required to close in
the openings that were added between the log structure and the additions. Reframing
and sealing of the roof and second floor walls will be required to close in the portion of
roof over the heritage structure where it joins the additions and stairs. Additionally, a new
internal stairwell will likely be required to access the second floor from the main floor of
the heritage log structure.
It is highly recommended that structures be temporarily protected during demolition of the
additions to ensure that no damage occurs to the existing heritage structure. The extent
of the protection requirements shall be determined upon the removal of finishes and
verification of the addition to log structure interface. Potential temporary protection may
include sheathing, tarping, or use of ram board to protect vulnerable areas near the
demolition from spills, impacts, abrasions, or excessive dust build up. This work is
considered to be relatively minor in nature as the additions to be removed are not
supporting the heritage log structure. We would expect that the openings would be
framed, temporarily or permanently, with infill wood stud framing and sheathing, and then
treated with insulation, air barriers, vapour barriers and rain screens as required.
5
Page 125 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
2.0 Required Reinforcing
Minor repairs to the ground floor are required as a result of joists damages. We would
recommend sistering damaged floor joists with new 2x8 sawn lumber.
The roof will need to be framed, sheathed, and closed in when the additions are removed.
Temporary shoring is not anticipated to support the existing structure during removal of
the additions. Reinforcing and closure plans will be provided in due course following
removal of finishes. It is anticipated that the work will be minor in nature and will not
negatively impact the heritage log structure.
Additionally, work may be required to create a new opening into the cellar and second
floor of the structure. The original stair openings, if re -used, will require minor reinforcing
as they do not meet current standards.
The cut door opening (Photo #19), as well as other openings, on the North wall of the
home shall be blocked and closed in with wood framing prior to the removal of the
additions. It is not anticipated that the openings would require additional reinforcing to
support gravity loads due to the removal of the additions. Additional plans and details will
be provided in due course. This work is expected to be minimal and not affect the heritage
log structure.
A vibration monitoring program is to be conducted during demolition in order to limit any
damages that may occur. A standard range for historic structures based on various
standards falls between 0.1 — 0.5 in/sec peak particle velocity for frequencies under 10
Hz. The range above is perceptible but is not likely to cause any damage to the structure.
Although it is not anticipated, vibrational mitigation may be required dependent on the
results of the vibration monitoring such as restricting machinery use or implementing
vibrational damping pads. The basis for the vibration monitoring program shall be
determined by a qualified expert with experience in heritage type structures.
3.0 Conclusion
The heritage structure at 236 Gehl Place appears to generally be in fair condition. The
exterior timber log walls have been well preserved over time, almost certainly as a result
of the decision to clad the structure in aluminum siding. The main floor framing required
some minor reinforcing to better support the section of floor where the original stairs were
likely located. This reinforcing will require the sistering of joists and shall be completed
prior to the demolition of the additions.
Page 126 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
The second floor and roof appeared to be in fair condition. Minor infill framing shall be
completed to the opening in the roof and walls of the heritage structure as required once
the demolition of the additions is completed.
Sagging of the roof and minor cracking of chinking shall be monitored to ensure the
condition is not worsening at an accelerated rate. It is not uncommon that brittle materials
such as chinking, gypsum, plaster or any masonry -based materials experience cracking
over time. It is difficult to ascertain at this time whether or not the roof must be reinforced
however it is expected that any reinforcing or sistering of roof rafters may be completed
following the demolition of the additions.
The removal of the additions should be completed carefully to ensure the log structure is
not damaged during demolition. Temporary protection such as sheathing, tarping, ram
board etc. should be used to mitigate any of damages which may occur. The extent of
protection shall be finalized upon removal of finishes and verification of the interface
between the additions and the heritage structure. The additions near the log structure
shall be manually hand demolished with the use of heavy machinery limited to reduce
vibrations.
Lastly, a vibration monitoring program is to be conducted during demolition. The final
range for the monitoring program should be determined by a qualified expert taking into
consideration the type of construction, age of the structure, type of tools used, and
structure importance. The final vibration criteria should be coordinated and agreed upon
with the demolition engineer and contractor to ensure feasibility with continual reviews to
ensure that program compliance is achieved.
We trust this meets your current requirements. Should you have any questions or
comments please feel free to contact our office.
Hasan Basic
Designer
David Witzel, P.Eng., P.E.
Principal
7
Page 127 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Qualifications of the Author
David Witzel, P. Eng has over 15 years of structural engineering experience including the
analysis and design of new structures and renovations to existing structures for heritage,
residential, commercial, and industrial clients. David has obtained specific heritage
experience at local projects including, but not limited to:
- The Imperial Renovation & Demolition: a three-storey masonry and wood framed
building constructed c. 1890 requiring extensive structural rehabilitation.
- St. Jacobs Market - The Mennonite Story: one and a half storey log cabin
conversion requiring structural assessment and reinforcing details for exterior
rehabilitation.
- Hanson Heritage Barn Restoration: stick framed wood barn renovation and
extensive structural rehabilitation to preserve and amend the use of the barn.
- 19 Regina Building Restoration and Office Conversion: 3 -storey wood and
masonry structure with basement preserved and converted from residential to office
space, basement lowering, and additional floor added.
- B -W Feed Mill: Structural Assessment of a heritage mill constructed of heavy timber
and masonry.
- 9 Queen Street: A renovation and addition to a historic building in downtown
Kitchener, converting the space into Class A office.
Additionally, David has completed hundreds of projects on buildings over a century old,
many of which do not have heritage designations, but have very similar construction. He
has also designed numerous projects with heavy timber construction for various purposes
including residential, commercial, institutional, and agricultural.
0
Page 128 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Limitations
This report has been prepared by Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. (WDE) at the request of
Schlegel Urban Development. The material in it reflects the best judgment of WDE based
on the information which was available at the time of its preparation. Any use of this report
by a third party or any reliance or decisions made based on this report are the
responsibility of that third party. WDE accepts no responsibilities for damages, if any are
incurred, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions or actions made based upon
this report.
WDE accepts no responsibility for any decisions and or actions taken as a result of this
report unless WDE is specifically advised of and participates in such actions, in which
case WDE's responsibility will be agreed to at that time. Any user of this report denies
any right to claim against the Consultant, Sub -consultants, the Officers, Agents and
Employee in excess of the fee paid for the professional services.
This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing
or future costs, hazards or losses in connection with a property. No physical or destructive
testing and no engineering calculations have been performed unless specifically
mentioned in the report. Existing conditions which have not been recorded may not have
been apparent given the level of study undertaken. Further investigation on any items of
concerns can be undertaken if required. Only specific information that has been identified
has been review. The consultant is not obligated to identify any mistakes or insufficiencies
in the information obtain from various sources, nor is it obligated to verify the accuracy of
such information. The consultant is permitted to use the information provided by various
sources in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and
completeness thereof. It is not WDE's responsibility to detect or advice on any pollutants,
contaminates or hazardous materials.
0
Page 129 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Appendix A — Site Review Photos
Photo #1: North elevation (exterior finishes removed)
Photo #2: East elevation (exterior finishes removed)
10
Page 130 of 294
a
p. �rAaYy SL
14 LT "Al/moi
MEMO
a.
MASi m+2 s
A i
�a
osw
xS
6 A
:,-•.d°' ��. ba' � �"' � x .,, � .. _ o �xLi �{.i'.F�,..'... ^k_' � . �ld.,.....m -F..S. �' ...a
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #5: Exterior log wall and dutchman / finger joint corner from east elevation
12
Page 132 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment
U",
Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #6: South elevation, crumbling chinking, exposed rubble wall
Photo #7: South elevation, partial parging at corner
13
Page 133 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment
Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #8: West elevation, partially parged foundation, exposed wall with chinking
14
Page 134 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #9: Corner log measurement
Photo #10: Wall log depth measurement
15
Page 135 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment
Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #11: East elevation, exposed rubble foundation, crumbling mortar and chinking
16
Page 136 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #12- Exposed portion of wall from interior
17
Page 137 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #13: Basement, underpinning, rubble foundation wall
Photo #14: Basement, joists cracking and notching. Plank decking spanning over joists.
`E,
Page 138 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #15: Central column on pad footing
19
Page 139 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #16: End bearing condition over rubble wall.
20
Page 140 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #17: Roof framing finishes removed.
Photo #18: Roof framing finishes removed.
21
Page 141 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Photo #19: Northwest corner washroom door opening.
22
Page 142 of 294
236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc.
Appendix B — Architectural Plans with Structural Markups
23
Page 143 of 294
9LLZ-M (9Lb 9af OCH ouoluo o}uaol 091V'd0dM00N1 S10911H021V 90tz
01-0101 ZL9 311ns avoa SIIIW Noa offal NVWS113M NOSb3aNV ON Sof asina
P b
13V� d HIS 9 � Z5 to tzoz:a,oa d(� :Pa�oaHo
:}oafojd I L 41W :aIooS :Indus
NV�d dd��113 I � ONf
allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON IG9HS
9LLZ-M (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091V'd0dM00N1 S10911H021V
oWo,al ZL9 311ns avoN SIIIW Noa afial NVWS113M NOSb3aNV
13V�d CHH HHH
:}oafojd
90tZ ON Qof I :pasinab
5 Lt0 tZOZ:a}oa I V( Pa�oa4o
:Indu
Nb'jo I zov
2�00�J aNN02�
allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS
9LLZ-f 6 (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091V'd0dM00N1 S10911H021V 9��Z
0110,011 Zl9 311ns avoa SIIIW Noa offal NVWS113M NOSN3aNV 'ON qofasina
p a
bbd d H I S 9 b b 9 l �O/�zoz.a,oa d� :Pa�oago
:}oafojd «g/l :a ops :1ndu
Nb1S I 4ov
�001J aN00�
allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS
c
c
21
APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Statement of Significance
236 Gehl Place
Municipal Address:
236 Gehl Place, Kitchener
Legal Description:
GCT Part Lot 142 & 144
Year Built: c. 1860
Architectural Style: Georgian
Original Owner: William Gehl
Original Use: Farm
Condition:
Description of Historic Place
_..�. eLEAM51Z� f
1� �A
Ward 5
236
236 Gehl Place is a mid 19th century building built in the Georgian architectural style.
The building is situated on a 142.57 acre parcel of land located on the south side of
Bleams Road between Trussler Road and Fischer Hallman Road in the Trussler
Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The
principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the farmhouse and barn.
Heritage Value
236 Gehl Road is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historical and
associative values.
The design and physical values relate to the Georgian architectural style of the building.
The building is an early and representative example of a substantial log building. The
building has undergone relatively few changes. The original log building exists under
layers of cladding, including stucco and aluminum siding. The building features: log
construction; side gable roof; fieldstone foundation; symmetrical window placements;
off-centre front door placement; original exterior door; original interior floor plan; plaster
walls; original interior doors; original baseboards; original door and window surrounds;
original floor joists; and, original floor boards.
The contextual value relates to the location of the house and barn at the end of the lane
looking south over the farm fields.
The historic and associative values relate to the original and existing owners of the
farm. Preliminary research suggests that the farm was established by William Gehl
around 1860. The lane from Bleams Road leading to the farm is named Gehl Place. The
1851 Census reports identify Edward Henhoeffer as the owner of the farm. The farm is
still owned by the Henhoeffer family.
Page 147 of 294
APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 236 Gehl Place resides in the following heritage attributes:
■ All elements related to the construction and Georgian architectural style of the
house, including:
o Log construction;
o Side gable roof and roofline;
o Fieldstone foundation;
o Symmetrical window placements;
o Window openings;
o Off-centre front door placement;
o Original exterior door and door opening;
o Original interior doors;
o Original baseboards;
o Original door and window surrounds;
o Original floor joists; and,
o Original floor boards.
Photos
Page 148 of 294
APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Excerpt from "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Landscapes:
Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study" prepared by Nancy Z. Tausky dated August 2010
6,21.2 136 Gehl Place
Legal descripffo?; G.C.T. Pali Lot 142. Part Lot 144
Types ofHenrage Resonire: Faynihouse and barn
BUILT HERITAGE AND CUL TUF- L LAJVDSC.4PF BACKGROLND STUDY 55
Son thwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study
Historic/Associative Value;
The farmstead at 236 Gehl Place was probably established by William Gehl, who
acquired G.C.T. Lot 142 after the death of the previous owner William Meyer. in 1860..
and gave his name to the lane leading from Bleams Road to his farm. (Meyer had
purchased G.S.T. Lot 142 in 1847, when he already owned G.S.T. Lot 141). Gehl must
have died soon after, however. because both the Tremaine map of 1861 shows his wife
Margaret as the owner of the property mid the 1861 Census report does not list William
among the seven family members. the children ranging in age from 10 to 26. His mill
suggests that William placed a great deal of faith in his wife's abilities: he leaves her 166
acres on G.S.T. Lots 141 and 142. "to youse [sic] and manage as she thinks proper and
also all the stock and fanning materials [?] and house fhniiture." In 1861 Margaret and
her family were living in what was described as a two-storey log house (figure 41).
Margaret retained the property for only a brief period.however. In 1868, it was sold to
George Israel. and it remained in the Israel family until 1866. In recent decades it has
been owned by Edward Heiihoeffer (Land records, 1841 and 1861 Census reports).
Figure 42: The house at 236 Gehl Place, 2410
Figure 41: historical photograph of log house at
336 Gehl Place. (From the architectural analysis
by Don Ryan, where the photograph was included
courtesy of Mrs. Genevieve Henhoeffer)
Page 149 of 294
APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE BACKGROUND STUDY 56
Southwest atiitcheng?r Urban Areas Studd
DesignlPiatsical Value:
The horse has value as an enduring pioneer dwelling that has undergone relatively few
changes to its physical structure. The original log house still exists under layers of later
cladding: it was covered in stucco, then insul-brick, and then. in 1966, aluminum siding
which was added after the insul-brick was removed, Additions have been added to the
west and north, but the original fenestration pattern remains on the south facade and on
the east and west sides. In the Georgian tradition. the windows are all placed
symmetrically, but the front door is off-centre in order to allose entry directly into the
maim living area. Inside, much of the original floor plan remains, and the 'walls have a
plaster finish as did the original log Fps
house. A verandah that once stretched
along all of the south facade has been
replaced by a one bay porch l(Ryan
1991). The front shed -roofed dormer is
a later addition.
t i-
Figui'e 43: The barn at 336 Gehl Place
C'ontectriallc-tltural Landscaape Value:
The house still sits at the end of the
long road that traditionally led from
Bleams Road. and It looks south os er
acres of tilled fields as it has throughout its hist
42), though its roof has naturally had to be
farmstead are relatively intact.
ory. The original barn still stands (figure
replaced, so the spaces defined for the
Prehnnp aiyListofHeritageAtP,butes:
The original log structure
The fieldstone foundation
The footprint and silhouette of the original house
The existing fenestration pattern on the east, west, and south sides, and the
position of the front door
Original interior and exterior doors
Original baseboards and door and window surrounds
Original floor joists
Original floor boards
Evaluation.
This site merits listing in the Alunicipal Hentage Register,. Designation under the Ontcano
Hentage Act, and conservation as it is defined in the Provincial Policy Statement.
Reasons for Evaluation:
The property has design and physical value as a early, representative example of a
substantial log dwelling. It has historical value because of its associations with a pioneer
family, with an important family in the community. and with the development and
Nancy Z. Tausky
Heritage Consultant
Page 150 of 294
APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
B UILT ERITA GE A!M CULYURAL L.,LND 't .-1PE B.3 C1L'G�R 0 U.VD STUDY 57
Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study
practice of agriculture in the area. It therefore also has contextual value in defini4
maintaining, and supporting the character of the area. and in its physical. finnctional.
visual, and historic links to its surromdings.j
Page 151 of 294