HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-147 - Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 2091 Bleams Road
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: May 7, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals,
519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: March 20, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD-2024-147
SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
2091 Bleams Road
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
BACKGROUND:
The Development and Housing Approvals Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) prepared by McNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited
(MHBC). The draft HIA was submitted to the City on February 23, 2024 and relates to a
demolition control application for the property municipally addressed as 2091 Bleams Road,
to demolish two structures on the site. The demolition control application has not yet been
deemed complete or circulated. The demolition is proposed in anticipation of a future Plan
of Subdivision.
The subject property has no status under the Ontario Heritage Act, being neither designated
nor listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. It is identified
within the Rosenberg Community Secondary Plan as being a potential cultural heritage
resource. The site was identified initially in the Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Community
Master Plan, Cultural Heritage Background Study dated August 2010 and prepared by
heritage consultant Nancy Z. Tausky. It was one of 16 sites of potential heritage value within
or around the study area during initial general surveys conducted. Further examination
confirmed that the site merited listing in the Municipal Heritage Register and designation
under the Ontario Heritage Act with further assessment of the interior. Council adopted the
Southwest Urban Area Studies: Community Master Plan, including supporting studies such
as the Cultural Heritage Background Study, on August 15, 2011. On October 3, 2011
Council elected not to list 2091 Bleams Road on the Municipal Heritage Register as a non-
designated property of cultural heritage value or interest due to protest raised by the then-
property owner.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
As of the date of this report, 2091 Bleams Road contains a single-detached residential
dwelling and an accessory barn. The property has not been in use for a number of years
and the structures are in poor condition.
Figure 1: Contextual Map of Subject Property and Surrounding Lands
Figure 2: Aerial View of Subject Property
Figure 3: Single Detached Dwelling on Subject Property
Figure 4: Front and Rear Façades of Barn on Subject Property
REPORT:
Evaluation Against Ontario Regulation 9/06
The draft HIA completed an evaluation of the subject property against the criteria for
designation determined by Ontario Regulation 9/06. It concludes that only one criterion is
met, that being that the subject lands contain an early and rare example of a log house and
barn. A summary of the evaluation as concluded by the draft HIA is provided below.
Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No)
1. The property has design value or Yes. 2091 Bleams Road contains an early
physical value because it is a rare, and rare example of a log-house,
unique, representative or early example constructed c. 1858 pre-confederation,
of a style, type, material, or construction and barn.
method.
2. The property has design value or No. Both structures are simple
physical value because it displays a representations of their architectural style.
high degree of craftsmanship or artistic
merit.
3. The property has design or physical No. Neither structure exhibits a
value because it demonstrates a high construction method or materials beyond
degree of technical or scientific their utilitarian function.
achievement.
4. The property has historical value or No. The property was not inhabited by an
associative value because it has direct individual significance to the community
associations with a theme, event, belief, and were not used by or associated with a
person, activity, organization or significant theme, even, or organization.
institution that is significant to a
community.
5. The property has historical or No. The information related to the property
associative value because it yields, or has been realized and does not contribute
has the potential to yield, information to an understanding of a community or
that contributes to an understanding of a culture.
community or culture.
6. The property has historical value or No. Information related to the architect
associative value because it and builder are unknown.
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 No. The surrounding area has evolved
because it is important in defining, from its original agricultural context, with
maintaining or supporting the character the surrounding area being used for
of an area. aggregate activities and currently
residential purposes.
8. The property has contextual value No. The property does not have a
because it is physically, functionally, physical, functional, visual, or historical
visually, or historically linked to its association to the surrounding area.
surroundings.
9. The property has contextual value No. The subject lands are not considered
because it is a landmark. a landmark.
Staff are of the opinion that the property may also meet Criteria 4, having historical or
associative value to a theme of significance to the community. The property was historically
used as a barn and is associated with mid-nineteenth century agricultural practices and early
settlement in the area. The theme of agriculture is identified as being of importance to the
connection to this historic use is maintained through the presence of the original barn, which
is a feature representative of a farmsteads during this period of time.
Impact Assessment
The Ontario Heritage Toolkit identifies potential negative impacts to heritage properties and
associated heritage attributes as a result of proposed development or alteration. These
impacts are as follows:
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;
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;
Change in land use where the use relates to the cultural heritage significance of a
site, such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use so that new
development fills in the formerly open space;
Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils and drainage patterns
which than adversely affect an archaeological resource;
There are different classifications for the levels of impact that may be experienced. The draft
HIA has concluded that the proposed removal of the structures on the subject property will
result in a minor impact relating to the destruction of heritage attributes, as both buildings
have been identified as potential heritage resources due to their early and rare construction.
However, both have been assessed for their structural stability and it has been determined
that they are in poor condition with many damaged and missing components. As such there
has been a loss of heritage integrity, and neither would be a good candidate for
conservation.
Structural Assessment
A Structural Condition Assessment dated October 31, 2023 has been completed by MTE
Consultants Inc on behalf of the property owner. This report concluded that the structural
condition of the barn was poor and presented an immediate risk to trespassers or others
entering the building, and the potential for partial collapse in significant weather events was
also determined. There are additional concerns with the risk posed by the barn due to its
proximity to Bleams Road as well.
The condition of the farmhouse was generally fair to poor with some components including
logs within the walls and the stone foundation being weathered or deteriorated, though there
was no indication of immediate threat of collapse.
Conclusions and Recommendations of the HIA
Alternative development options were explored within the HIA, including the retention and
integration of the buildings. However, this option was determined to not be feasible due to
the substantial cost of completing the necessary repairs and upgrades in order to return the
structures to stable and usable conditions. Relocation was also not recommended as there
is no receiving location identified and the structures would not be good candidates for
moving. As such, and due to the impact being deemed to be minor, demolition of the
structures was identified as being the preferred approach.
The HIA recommends that if demolition is to proceed, a documentation and salvage report
be prepared. The purpose of this plan is twofold: the first intent is to record and document
the known history, buildings, and structures identified as having cultural heritage value or
interest on the subject property. The second intent is to identify historic materials that may
be salvaged, reused, and/or interpreted in the proposed new development. The HIA
identifies that the salvage and documentation report would also provide recommendations
on the re-use of salvaged material as part of a commemorative feature within the planned
community.
The applicant will be attending the May 7, 2024 meeting of the Heritage Kitchener
Committee to answer any questions or concerns. Heritage Planning Staff have reviewed the
HIA and provided detailed comments to the application to address areas that require further
assessment or discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning Staff are also seeking the
A copy of the HIA has been included as Attachment A in this report.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
the council / committee meeting.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 2091 Bleams Road
HERITAGE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Prepared For:
Ms. Amanda Knox
539 Riverbend Drive
Kitchener, ON
Prepared By:
MHBC Planning Ltd
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Kitchener ON
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Report Overview ............................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Structural Condition Assessment.................................................................................5
1.3 Subject Property Overview ............................................................................................ 6
1.4 Heritage Status ................................................................................................................. 6
2.0 Proposed Development......................................................................................................8
3.0 Policy Context ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020 ................................................................................... 9
3.2 Ontario Heritage Act ..................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Waterloo Region Official Plan.....................................................................................10
3.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan ....................................................................................... 11
3.5 Rosenberg Secondary Plan ......................................................................................... 12
4.0 Historical Background........................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Pre Contact ...................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Post Contact .................................................................................................................... 14
4.3 2091 Bleams Road .......................................................................................................... 15
5.0 Description of Subject Property ................................................................................. 20
5.1 General Overview .......................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Barn ................................................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Log House ....................................................................................................................... 22
6.0 Evaluation of Heritage Value .......................................................................................... 26
6.1 Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................... 26
6.2 O.Reg 9/60 Evaluation ................................................................................................. 26
6.3 Summary of Heritage Value ....................................................................................... 28
7.0 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................. 30
7.1 Assessment Criteria ...................................................................................................... 30
February 2024
1
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
7.2 Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 31
7.3 Summary of Impact Assessment ............................................................................... 32
8.0Alternative Development Options and Mitigation Measures..........................33
8.1 Alternative Development Options ............................................................................33
8.1.1 Do-nothing ................................................................................................................. 33
8.1.2 Adaptive Re-use and Integration ......................................................................... 33
8.1.3 Re-locate Buildings .................................................................................................. 33
8.1.4 Demolition (proposed development) .................................................................. 33
9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 34
10.0 Sources ................................................................................................................................. 35
Appendix A – MTE Structural Condition Report ..................................................................... 36
Appendix B – Chain of Title ...........................................................................................................37
February 2024
2
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Project Personnel
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, Managing Director of Cultural Senior Review
CAHP Heritage
Gillian Smith, MSc, RPP Heritage Planner Research and
Author
February 2024
3
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Executive Summary
MHBC Planning Ltd., was retained to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for
the property addressed as 2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener.Thepropertycontains a two
storey log house as well as a one storey frame barn, both of which are proposed to be
removed in order to accommodate a plan of subdivision and road widening. The
property is not listed or designated on the Municipal Heritage Register, however, it is
recognized in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan as a cultural heritage resource. The
policies of the Rosenberg Secondary Plan require the completion of a HIA for
development on or adjacent to a cultural heritage resource.
This HIA includes a heritage evaluation of the subject property and assesses whether
the proposed demolition will result in impacts to identified heritage attributes. This
report has also considered alternative development options.
This report concludes that the property meets one criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06.
Specifically, the log house isconsidered early for its construction date of 1858, and the
log house and barn are considered rare since few barn and log houses remain within
the City of Kitchener.
The impact assessment concludes that the proposed demolition will result in a
negligeable impact to the property. While the property meets one criterion associated
with physical value, the condition of both the barn and house has been assessed by a
structural engineer. Conclusions of the Structural Engineering Report (MTE, 2023)
conclude that both buildings are in poor condition. Given the poor condition of the
buildings, they have lost their heritage integrity and are not representative of their
original forms. Their removal is therefore negligible.
Alternative development options have been explored. The recommended development
option is to proceed as proposed. Proceeding without development will result in the
worsening of the condition of the buildings and continued safety hazards. Retaining the
buildings is not recommended as the required repairs and reconstruction necessary to
restore the buildings would likely far surpass their value. Relocating the buildings is not
feasible given that no receiving location has been identified, and the structures are not
likely to withstand relocation given their poor condition. Therefore, proceeding as
proposed is the most feasible option. Prior to removal of the structures, a
documentation report is recommended to support the historic record of the property
and provide a comprehensive overview of the property.
February 2024
4
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Report Overview
MHBC Planning Limited has been retained to undertake a heritage impact assessment
for the property located at 2091 Bleams Road, City of Kitchener. Theproperty contains
a house and accessory barn. Both buildings are proposed for demolition in order to
accommodate a plan of subdivision. Thepropertyis recognized by the City as a heritage
resource as it is identified in the Southwest Community Master Plan: Cultural Heritage
Background Study (2010) and subsequently identified on Map 22b Rosenberg
Secondary Plan Cultural Heritage Resources. The City requires an HIA for any
development proposed either on a heritage property or adjacent. This HIA has been
prepared in accordance with the Kitchener Official Plan heritage policies.
The purpose of this HIA is to determine if the property is of heritage value or interest
and assess whether the proposed removal of the buildings will cause adverse impacts
to identified heritage attributes. This report also considers alternative development
options and provides mitigation measures, as necessary.
The property has not been in use and the existing buildings have been vacant for a
number of years. Despite efforts to keep vandals out of the buildings, they have been
degraded by vandalism.
1.2 Structural Condition Assessment
MTE prepared a Structural Condition Assessment, included as Appendix A. The report
concludes that the barn has some significant structural deficiencies. The roof of the barn
is currently supported by exterior cladding only. The floor is missing in several locations,
which poses a safety hazard for falling through openings. The foundation is parging
and poorly connected at corners with missing bracing at the top. While the frame of
the barn is level, there is insufficient support, and the wood is deteriorated. Due to
missing cladding, the barn is exposed to weathered elements and trespassing.
The Structural Condition Assessment concludesthat the dwelling is constructed of wood
logs, some of which are rotting. Several doors and windows are missing which expose
the wood and interior of the dwelling to weather and trespassing. There is mortar
deterioration and there are gaps between the foundation and windows and doors,
which leads tofurther exposure to weather and trespassing.Some of the logs are
unbraced and are unsupported.
February 2024
5
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Given the observations of the report, the structural engineer identifies the barn as an
immediate hazard and the potential for collapse in a severe wind event. Similarly, while
the dwelling does not pose an immediate danger to individuals and remains in fair
structural condition, the condition of the stone foundation and weathered wood is of
concern. The cost to repair and return both the barn and the dwelling to a usable
condition would far exceed the value of the buildings. The structural engineer therefore
recommends that both structures be removed.
1.3 Subject Property Overview
The subject propertyis addressed as 2091 Bleams Road, legally described as Part Lot
133 German Company Tract. It has a lot area of 2.88 acres with approximately 145
metres of frontage on Bleams Road.
The property isnear themunicipal boundary of theCity of Kitchener and Wilmot
Township, east of Trussler Road, west of Gehl Place, and south of Bleams Road. The
subject property is within the Rosenberg community area, within the urban area of
Kitchener. The Official Plan designates the subject property as‘Neighbourhood Area’
and ‘Low Density Residential one’ in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan. The property is
surrounded by the former gravel pit on the east, west, and south sides. North of the
property is low density residential development.
Figure 1:Aerial image of subject property a 2091 Bleams Road (Google Earth, 2023)
1.4 Heritage Status
To confirm the presence of cultural heritage resources which have been previously
identified, several databases were consulted. These databases include the City of
February 2024
6
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register, the Ontario Heritage Act Register (Ontario
Heritage Trust), and the Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP). The property is
not included in any of these databases and is therefore not considered a Protected
Heritage Property under the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”).
The subject property has been identified as a cultural heritage resource in the Southwest
Community Master Plan: Cultural Heritage Background Study (2010) and identified on
Map 22b Rosenberg Secondary Plan Cultural Heritage Resources. The property has
been identified by the City as a potential heritage resource.
When the Southwest Community Cultural Heritage Background Study was prepared in
2010 the subject property was one of several properties that were being considered for
listing on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register, and a Statement of
Significance was prepared for the subject property. It was ultimately determined by City
Council that the property would not be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register.
Figure 2: (property 1) 2091 Bleams Rd identified as a heritage resource in the Official Plan
(excerpt of Map 22b Rosenberg Secondary Plan, City of Kitchener)
February 2024
7
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
2.0 ProposedDevelopment
The subject property is identified in the Kitchener Official Plan as within the Rosenberg
Community Secondary Plan. Rosenberg is a complete community designed to be a five
minute walking community connected to surrounding neighbourhoods. Rosenberg is
bounded by Trussler Road to the west, Bleams Road to the north, extending south to
Huron Road, and east towards Fisher Hallman Road. The overall land use plan for the
Secondary Plan includes a range of densities and uses.
The subject property is designated in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan Land Use Plan as
‘Low Density Residential One’. Permitted land uses include low density residential such
as single detached, semi-detached, duplex, and townhouse dwellings, with a net density
of 10 to 25 units per hectare. There isno current development plan for the property,
however, it is expected that future development will be consistent with the applicable
land use policies of ‘Low Density Residential One’ forming part of the broader
community development. The Rosenberg community is actively undergoing significant
growth and development.
Additionally, the Region of Waterloo is planning to reconstruct Bleams Road between
Trussler Road and Fischer Hallman Road. The road improvements include widening
Bleams Road, extending raised medians, adding roundabouts, left-turn and right-turn
lanes, multi-use trails and new curbs along with street lighting. The road widening will
apply to the subject property as the Region looks to extend the road right-of-way onto
a portion of the subject property. Given the location of the barn adjacent to Bleams
Road, it will be need to be removed in order to accommodate the road widening. The
road improvements are required as part of the planned development of the Rosenberg
community. Construction is expected to start in 2024.
February 2024
8
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
3.0 PolicyContext
3.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020
The Planning Act is provincial legislation that guides land use planning in Ontario. It
makes a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage. In Section 2, The Act outlines
18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in
the planning process. One of the intentions of the Planning Act is to “encourage the
co-operation and co-ordination among the various interests”. Regarding cultural
heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the 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 of provincial interest such as, ...”
(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical,
archaeological or scientific interest;
The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural
heritage resources through the land use planning process.
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act
and came into effect May 1, 2020. The PPS is “intended to be read in its entirety and
the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation”. When addressing cultural
heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following:
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.
2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider
their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and
archaeological resources.
The following definitions are provided in Section 6.0 of the PPS and outline key terms
that are valuable in the overall evaluation of cultural heritage resources:
In regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have
been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria
February 2024
9
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province
under the Ontario Heritage Act.
means the principal features or elements that contribute to a
protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include
the 45 | Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 property’s built, constructed, or
manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features,
and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage
property).
means a building, structure, monument, installation or
any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s
cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an
Indigenous community. Built heritage resources that are located on a 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.
means a property designated under Parts IV, V or
VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; a property subject to a heritage conservation
easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; a property identified by
the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under
the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties;
a property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
3.2 Ontario Heritage Act
The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the
conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. The cultural heritage
evaluation contained in this report has been guided by the criteria provided with
Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act thatoutlines the mechanism for
determining cultural heritage value or interest.
3.3 Waterloo Region Official Plan
Chapter 3 of the Regional Official Plan provides policies on Cultural Heritage. The
Region in tandem with the Area Municipalities will conserve and identify cultural
heritage resources. Relevant policies applicable to this proposal include:
• The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources
are conserved.
• Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and
maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest.
Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part
February 2024
10
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
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.
• Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the
submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed
development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a
non-designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the
Municipal Heritage Register.
• Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or
the Area Municipality as applicable.
3.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan
Part C, Section 12 provides policies on Cultural Heritage Resources. It is the objective of
the City to conserve cultural heritage resources and their heritage values, attributes and
integrity, to ensure that all development is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage
resources, and to increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage
resources.
The Official Plan sets out a number of policies surrounding the identification and
conservation of heritage resources and the function of the Municipal Heritage
Committee. Section 12 of the Official Plan provides the policies that are specific to
cultural heritage resources. Relevant policies to this HIA include:
12.C.13 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 IV and 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 Buildings until such time as these properties are re-evaluated and considered
for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register.
February 2024
11
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
12.C.1.21. All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use
designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener’s significant cultural
heritage resources. The conservation of significant cultural heritage resources will be a
requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval of applications submitted
under the Planning Act.
12.C.1.23 The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or
Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that
has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed:
a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property
b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor
c) on properties listed as non-designated of cultural heritage value or interest
on the Municipal Heritage Register
d) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape.
12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment
and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative
and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and
into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under
the Planning Act.
3.5 Rosenberg Secondary Plan
Under the City of Kitchener Official Plan are a number of Secondary Plans that apply to
area communities. The subject property is located within the Rosenberg Secondary
Plan, which is a planned community on former aggregate lands. The Secondary Plan
outlines heritage resources on Map 22b (refer to figure 2), and provides cultural
heritage policies in section 13.10.2.7 of Part 3 Section 13.
Objectives of cultural heritage is to appropriately conserve cultural heritage resources
and ensure that all development is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources.
Applicable policies include:
1. Cultural heritage resources identified in the Southwest Community Master Plan:
Cultural Heritage Background Study and shown n Map 22b will be conserved.
2. Development on or adjacent to a cultural heritage resource will require a HIA to
be completed in accordance with the City of Kitchener HIA Terms of Reference
and will recommend an appropriate conservation strategy for cultural heritage
resources.
3. Development on or adjacent to a cultural heritage resource will require a
Conservation Plan (CP).
February 2024
12
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
4. The City may require a conservation easement to ensure long term conservation
of a cultural heritage resource.
5.The City will ensure that new neighbourhoods are designed and planned to
ensure that views and vistas of Kitchener’s significant cultural heritage resources
are created, maintained and enhanced where appropriate.
February 2024
13
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
4.0 HistoricalBackground
4.1 Pre Contact
The Pre-Contact settlement of the province can be divided into 4 main time periods
including Paleolithic, Archaic, Woodland, and Historic. The first Paleo-Indians residing
in the province were found between 13,000 and 9,000 years ago. The Paleo period was
characterized by a hunter-gatherer society following big game. Archaic Peoplescould
be found approximately 3,000 to 9,000 years before present (Hamilton AMP, 2016).
Their cultures were primarily based by stone, bone, shell, and copper tools. By the
Woodland period (3,000 to 400 B.P.), pottery, horticulture and more sedentary lifestyles
(such as villages) were common (Hamilton AMP, 2016).
The Historic Euro-Canadian period did not begin until the late 1700s. During the
American Revolution (1775-1783), the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) allied with the
British. To compensate the Haudenosaunee for their alliance, the governor of Quebec
granted them a tract of land on either side of the Grand River, known as the Haldimand
Tract. The City of Kitchener is situated on the Haldimand Tract.
4.2 Post Contact
Following the American Revolution United Empire Loyalists began migrating north to
Ontario(Mackenzie, 2008). The Loyalists, in search of lands to settle, started to displace
many of the Indigenous Peoples who livedalong the shorelines of Lake Ontario and
along the Grand River (Filice, 2020).
The subject property is located in the former Township of Waterloo, which was Block 2
of the German Company Tract. In 1798 the Crown sold Block 2 to Richard Beasley, a
Loyalist from New York who had arrived in Canada in 1777 (Fraser). Block 2 was then
surveyed and further subdivided.
At this time, German Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting farmland in
the area. Several of them went back to Pennsylvania and returned with their families the
following year to buy and settle the land (Hayes 5, 1997). As a result, the surrounding
area was heavily populated by Mennonite farmers.
February 2024
14
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Figure 3: German Tract Company Block 2 c. 1805 (University of Waterloo)
4.3 2091 Bleams Road
The subject property is in the former Township of Waterloo, described as lot 133 of the
German Company Tract (block 2). The property formed part of the Crown grant of block
2 that was sold to Richard Beasly in 1798. In 1805 Beasley sold 60,000 acres of Block 2
to Daniel and Jacob Erb, who sold 83 acres to Christian Eby, a Mennonite farmer from
Pennsylvania. Christian Eby’s son, Benjamin Eby inherited the property in 1829, and sold
it to John Eby and Jacob Brubacher. In 1841, John and Jacob sold the 83 acres back to
Benjamin. Eight years later in 1849, Benjamin sold the 83 acres to William Woods.
Woods subdivided the 83 acres in 1855, selling 30 acres to Jacob Woelfle, who sold to
George Gross, who then sold to Conrad Siebert in 1858. The 1861 Tremaine Map shows
the lot as occupied by Conrad Siebert.
February 2024
15
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Figure 4:1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County (City of Waterloo Open Data Content,
arcgis.com)
It is likely that the log house was constructed by Conrad in 1858. An earlier date of
construction is possible, however, given the ownership history, it likely that the property
was cultivated farmland used by the Eby family. When the property was sold and
divided, Conrad likely constructed the dwelling for his family. Conrad Siebert (1814-
1872) was a German immigrant. He is listed on the 1851 and 1871 census as a farmer
living in Wilmot Township. His wife is listed as Florina Siebert.
Conrad died in 1872, and his wife Florina inherited the property. She remainedthe
owner until 1876 when she sold it to the Schneller family. In 1905 Abraham Schneller
sold to Jacob Heimpel, who owned the property until 1948. The current 288 acres was
a result of a severance in 1986.
The original use of the property was asagricultural. The 1946 aerial photograph of the
subject property shows the farm complex. The agricultural use of the property
th
continued until the late 20 century when aggregate extraction of the area began.
February 2024
16
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Figure5:Aerialof subject property c.1946(University of Waterloo)
The surrounding area became a center for gravel pit and aggregate extraction starting
in the 1970’s. The subject property was excluded from the aggregate extraction, which
surrounded the subject property.Topographic maps, illustrated in figures 6 and 8, show
the growth of surrounding aggregate operations.
Figure 6: Topographic map c. 1938 (Department of National Defence)
February 2024
17
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Figure 7:Topographic Map c. 1969 showing development of gravel pits (Department of
Energy, Mines and Resources)
Figure 8: Topographic Map c. 1976 showing development of gravel pits (Department of
Energy, Mines and Resources)
February 2024
18
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
The subject property was never included in aggregate use and was severed from the
remainder of the lot in 1986. Thebalance of lot 133 was used as a sand and gravel pit
owned by Kieswetter Holdings. Figure 9is an aerial image from 2005 which shows the
abutting lands as an active sand and gravel pit. By this time the subject property was
no longer in agricultural use and remained as residential.
Figure 9: Aerial photograph of property in 1997 showing residential use. The property also
contains significant outdoor storage (City of Kitchener Open Data)
Figure 10: aerial image of lot 133 in 2005, showing abutting gravel pit (Google, 2023)
February 2024
19
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
5.0 Description of Subject Property
5.1 General Overview
The property located at 2091 Bleams Road is occupied with two structures, a barn with
silo and a farmhouse. The barn is located immediately adjacent to Bleams Road, with
the house setback and to the rear of the barn. The landscape of the property consists
of vegetation in the form of shrubs and trees. There is a slight tree line along the
property boundary creating a distinction between the aggregate use and the property.
Access to the property is provided via a grassed over driveway from Bleams Road.
barn
house
Figure 11: current condition of subject property (Google, 2023)
5.2 Barn
The barn located on the property is oriented to Bleams road with minimal setback from
the roadway. The barn has a gable roof and stone foundation. Attached to the barn is
a silo, as well as a rear addition.The barn has not been in use for some time and has
been noted in the Structural Condition Assessment (MTE, 2023) as being in poor
condition, posing an immediate safety hazard. The date of construction of the barn is
unknown. Considering the location of the barn adjacent to the roadway, the fieldstone
February 2024
20
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
foundation, and early agricultural cultivation of the property it is estimated that the
original barn was built in the Mid to late 1800’s. It may be that the earliest section of the
barn was constructed in the mid 1800’s at the same time as the house. The silo is
th
century.
constructed of concrete and likely dates from the early 20
Figure 12:
Aerial photo, green dashed line
indicates original gabled barn, blue
dashed line indicates rear addition
(Google, 2023)
Figure 13:
North elevation (front façade), view is
taken from Bleam Road (Google, 2023)
Figure 14:
South elevation (rear façade), view is
taken from rear of barn on subject
property. South wall is missing on rear
addition portion (MTE, 2023)
February 2024
21
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Figure 15:
West elevation (side façade), view is
taken from west side of property. West
wall boards on missing on original barn
portion (MTE, 2023)
Figure 16:
Fieldstone foundation along the west
elevation (MHBC, 2023)
5.3 Log House
The house is located to the rear of the barn with a setback of approximately 36 metres
to the road frontage. The house is of log construction, and two storeys in height with a
side gable roofline. The house was built in three phases. The original log component
was constructed around 1858 and is comprised of the west half. The original log home
was built using hand-hewn logs which are joined together using the dovetail joinery
technique. Between the logs is the original mortar.
An addition was constructed also of log construction, comprising the east half, however,
a specific date of the addition is unknown. The logs used for the addition are milled,
th
suggesting that the addition was constructed closer to the 20century. The house was
th
clad in white aluminum siding in the late 20 century, which was removed in 2010. In
the 1990’s, a second storey was added to the one storey addition, constructed of
woodframe.
February 2024
22
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Figure 17:
Aerial view of the house. Green dashed
line indicates original log house, blue
dashed line indicates later additions
(Google, 2023)
Figure 18:
View of north elevation (front façade)
with exterior aluminum cladding (Tausky,
2010). Original dwelling is noted in green,
addition is noted in blue. The date of the
photo is unknown, however, it predates
the 1990 second storey addition.
Figure 19:
View of north elevation (front façade) in
2010 showing removal of aluminum
cladding and second storey addition
added (Tausky, 2010). Original dwelling
noted in green, additions are noted in
blue.
Figure 20:
North elevation (front façade), view is
taken from Bleams Road (Google, 2023).
Original dwelling is noted in green, later
additions are noted in blue.
February 2024
23
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Figure 21:
South elevation (rear façade), view is
taken from the back of the house (MTE,
2023). Original dwelling noted in green,
later additions noted in blue.
Figure 22:
North elevation (front façade), view is
close up of the later additions.
Construction materials include logs at
first storey and wood framing at second
storey (MTE, 2023)
Figure 23:
Original log house (west elevation)
showing original logs and mortar
(MHBC).
February 2024
24
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Figure 24:
Close-up of the original logs and mortar
comprising the original portion of the log
house (MHBC).
Figure 25:
Interior photograph of the original hand-
hewn timber (MHBC).
Figure 26:
Interior photograph of the original logs
and mortar (MHBC).
February 2024
25
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
6.0 EvaluationofHeritageValue
6.1 Evaluation Criteria
The following section of this report will provide an analysis of the cultural heritage value
of the subject property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06, which is the legislated criteria
for determining cultural heritage value or interest. This criterionis related to
design/physical, historical/associative and historical values as follows:
1.Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,
material or construction method,
2.Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
3. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
4. Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization
or institution that is significant to a community,
5. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an
understanding of a community or culture, or
6. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer
or theorist who is significant to a community.
7. Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
8. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
9. Is a landmark.
6.2 O.Reg 9/60 Evaluation
The property, including all structures andits landscape have been evaluated for heritage
value consistent with the prescribed criteria. The evaluation chart is included in at the
end of this section, with an analysis contained below.
The property contains a log house constructed in 1858. The log house is considered
early given that it pre-dates confederation. Thelog house and barn are also both
considered rare examples of their respective forms and building constructions.
There are few remaining barns found within the City of Kitchener, and given the
context of the surrounding urban environment, the subject barn is considered rare.
Similarly, there are few known log houses within the City of Kitchener. The
February 2024
26
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
uncommon log construction of the house is considered rare for the surrounding
area. Theproperty therefore meets this criteria.
The buildings are not considered unique, as it demonstrates typical building
methods and construction methods of this early form of construction.The dwelling
and barn are simple representations of the log house and bank barn styles and do
not display a high degree of artistic merit or design beyond that which could be
expected for their simple styles. The property does not meet this criteria.
3. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement
The structures do not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific
achievement. Both structures are constructed in typical/representative construction
methods. The property does not meet this criteria.
The property does not have a significant association. The structures were not
inhabited by an individual significant to the community and were not used by or
associated with a significant theme, event or organization. The property does not
meet this criteria.
Information related to the property has been realized and does not contribute to
the understanding of a community or culture. The property does not have the
potential to yield further information that would be significant to the community.
The property does not meet this criteria.
Information related to the architect and builder are unknown, but should be added
to the historic record should this information be made available. Notwithstanding
that it is unlikely that the property contains the work of significant individuals. The
property does not meet this criteria.
The surrounding area has evolved from its original agricultural context. The mid to
th
late 20 century saw the evolution of the area as a hub of aggregate activity. The
aggregate uses of the surrounding area have mostly ceased, with existing and
planned community development. The historic agricultural context has not been
February 2024
27
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
maintained, and the property is no longer capable of or representative of an
agricultural use. Given the evolution of the context and lack of a cohesive historical
context, there is nocharacter area for the property to support. The property does
not define, maintain,or support the surrounding context. The property does not
meet this criteria.
The property does not have a physical, functional, visual or historical association to
the surrounding area. The remaining structures consisting of the barn and house
are not linked to the property or broader surroundings. The property does not meet
this criteria.
The property is not considered a landmarkand does not meet this criteria.
6.3 Summary of Heritage Value
The subject property meets one of the heritage evaluation criteria, being that the
property contains early and rare structures. The log house is estimated to have been
constructed in 1856, which is considered early for the context of Ontario as this pre-
dates confederation (1867). Additionally, both the barn and log house are rare. There
are few remaining barns within the context of the City of Kitchener, and there are scarce
known remaining log houses. Therefore, the log house and barn are also considered
rare.
Due to the loss of integrity and poor condition of the structures, lack of significant
associative value, and evolving context of the area, the property does not meet the
remaining criteria.
February 2024
28
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
1. Rare, unique, representative or early example of a
Yes.
style, type, expression, material or construction
method
2. Displays high degree of craftsmanship or artistic
No.
merit
3.Demonstrates high degree of technical or scientific
No.
achievement
4. Direct associations with a theme, event, belief,
No.
person, activity, organization, institution that is
significant
5.Yields, or has potential to yield information that
No.
contributes to an understanding of a community
or culture
6.Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an
architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is No.
significant to the community.
7.Important in defining, maintaining or supporting
No.
the character of an area
8. Physically, functionally, visually, or historically
No.
linked to its surroundings
9.Is a landmark No.
February 2024
29
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
7.0 Impact Analysis
7.1 Assessment Criteria
The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may
be direct or indirect. They may occur over a short term 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.
The Ontario Heritage Toolkit Infosheet #5 outlines criteria for assessing impacts on
heritage attributes. This criteria considers the following:
- Destructionor alteration: of any, or part of any significant heritage attributes or
features 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 a cultural heritage resource.
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. The level of impact is classified as one of the following:
-Potential/negligeable: slight changes to historic building elements or setting that
hardly affect it.
-None: no change
- Minor: change to key historic elements such that the asset is slightly different
-Moderate:Change to many key historic building elements, such that the
resource is significantly modified.
February 2024
30
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
- Major: Change to key historic building elements that contribute to the cultural
heritage value or interest (CHVI) such that the resource is totally altered.
Comprehensive changes to the setting.
7.2 Impact Assessment
The heritage evaluation contained in section 6.0 of this report concludes that the subject
property is of cultural heritage value. The heritage valueis related to criterion 1as the
property contains early and rare examples of construction in the context of the
surrounding area. Therefore, impacts to this heritage value are required to be assessed.
The following chart assesses the proposed removal of these buildings on the identified
heritage value of the property.
CriteriaImpactAnalysis
Destruction / alteration of Minor The proposal includes the removal of the
heritage attributes buildings, which have been identified as
heritage resources given their early and rare
construction. However, both structures have
been assessed for their structural stability. It
has been concluded that both structures are
in poor condition with many altered,
damaged and missing components. The poor
condition of both structures has led to a loss
of heritage integrity. Neither structure is a
good candidate for conservation given their
poor condition and lack of heritage integrity.
The removal of the structures is therefore
minor.
ShadowsNA This is not applicable as the buildingswill be
removed. No abutting heritage resources have
been identified.
Isolation NA This is not applicable as the buildings will be
removed. No abutting heritage resources have
been identified.
Direct or Indirect NA No significant views have been identified of
Obstruction of Views the subject property.
A Change in Land Use NA The residential use of the property does not
have a relationship to the surrounding area.
The surrounding area is evolving to
accommodate a variety of use, densities, and
February 2024
31
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
styles. Developing the landsas a subdivision
will not result in adverse impacts related to a
change in land use.
Land Disturbance NA This is not applicable as the buildingswill be
removed. No abutting heritage resources have
been identified.
7.3 Summary of Impact Assessment
The onset of this report provided an overview of the Structural Condition Assessment
completed by MTE.The MTE report concluded thatthe condition ofboth the barn and
house has been compromised. Due to the level of deterioration, the specialists do not
recommend retention of the structures. The two buildings are in poor condition, which
has led to a loss of heritage integrity. Neither the barn nor the house is reflective of
their original form. The property meets one of the evaluation criteria on a technicality,
being that the remnant structures are early and rare. However, the structures do not
accurately represent their original forms and have suffered such that the heritage
integrity has been lost. Therefore, the impact of removal is negligible as the property
does not have heritage integrity.
February 2024
32
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
8.0 Alternative Development Options
and Mitigation Measures
8.1 Alternative Development Options
8.1.1 Do-nothing
The do nothing alternative would result in leavingthe remaining buildings on site in
their current condition. As identified in the MTE technical report, both buildings are in
poor condition. Leaving the property as is would lead to continued deterioration and
pose safety hazards. This is not a preferred option and is not recommended.
8.1.2 Adaptive Re-use and Integration
This option would result in the rehabilitation of the buildings. This option would result
in the restoration, and ongoing maintenance over the long-term, which complies with
the conservation goals for heritage properties. However, as described in section 1.1,the
MTE study has concluded that retention and repair is not recommended for either
building. The repairs and upgrades needed are substantial. The cost to upgrade the
buildings would far exceed the value of the buildings. Therefore, while this option would
result in retention, it is not a feasible option.
8.1.3 Re-locate Buildings
This option involves moving the buildings to a new suitable location. This option is only
suitable when there is an appropriate location available to receive the buildings. There
areno known receiving sitesthat are suitable for the buildings. Further, the structural
condition of the buildings precludes relocation. Therefore, this option is not
recommended.
8.1.4 Demolition (proposed development)
The demolition option would result in the removal of the buildings and future
development proceeding. As noted in the impact assessment, removal of the buildings
would result in a minor impact considering the poor condition and lack of heritage
integrity.
February 2024
33
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
9.0 Conclusionsand
Recommendations
The report has evaluated the subject property for heritage value, consistent with Ontario
Regulation 9/06, and assessed for impacts on heritage value as a result of the proposed
removal of the buildings. The heritage evaluation has determined that the property has
heritage value, vested in the early and rare log house and barn that remain on-site.
However, it has been concluded by MTE structural engineers that both the barn and
log house are in poor condition and are not viable candidates for retention given their
current condition.
The heritage impact assessment has concluded that the impact of removal will be minor.
The property’s heritage value is vested in the physical presence of the buildings,
however, the poor condition of the buildings demonstrates a loss of heritage integrity.
The buildingsdo not effectively represent their original form and are not good
candidates for retention given the level of alteration and damage. Therefore, removal
of the buildingsis minor given that the heritage value has been compromised.
Alternative development options have been explored. No redevelopment of the
property would result in the structures remaining and their condition worsening, posing
significant safety hazards to the public. Therefore,this option is not recommended. The
option of retention and re-use was assessed in the Structural Condition Assessment
(MTE, 2023), however, it was concluded that the cost to upgrade the budlingsto a safe
condition would surpass the value of the structures. This option is therefore not
recommended. The option of re-location has similar conclusions, as no receiving site is
known and the structures would not withstand relocation. The option of proceeding as
planned is the most feasible option.
It is recommended that if demolition proceeds, that a documentation and salvage
report be prepared. The intent of which is to comprehensively document the property,
including interior and exterior photographs, as built drawings, and elevation drawings.
The report would also provide recommendations on the salvaging of building materials,
such as the original logs,and their re-use as part of a commemorative feature within
the planned community.
February 2024
34
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
10.0 Sources
Canada. Department of Agriculture, 1851 Census of Wilmot Township, Waterloo,
Ontario (1851, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Library and Archives Canada, n.d.)
City of Waterloo Open Data. Web Mapping Application, Arcgis.com.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4ef3e6a00eec46709e14face9c4390
69
Department of National Defence. Stratford, Ontario Map Sheet, 1938. Government of
Canada.
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Waterloo-Kitchener, Ontario Map 1969.
Government of Canada.
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Waterloo-Kitchener, Ontario Map 1976.
Government of Canada.
Fraser, R. Richard Beasley General Bibliography. Dictionary of Canadian Bibliography,
vol 7. University of Toronto/University of Lval. 1988.
Filice, M. Haldimand Proclamation. The Canadian Encyclopedia. 10 Nov 2020.
Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Wilmot Township. Photo: IMB15.
Aerial Photographs, satellite and orthoimagery, University of Waterloo.
Google. 2091 Bleams Road, City of Kitchener. Online web mapping.
Mackenzie, A. A short History of the United Empire Loyalists.United Empire Loyalists
Association of Canada.2008.
Ontario Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage
Act 2005, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 . Retrieved from the Government of Ontario
website:https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18.
Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage
Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact
Assessments and Conservation Plans Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006.
Ontario Ministry of Affairs and Housing. Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 2020. S.3
the Ontario Planning Act R.S.O 1996. Retrieved from the Government of Ontario
website: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx
Structural Condition Assessment. MTE. November 2023.
Tausky, N. Appendix A: Statement of Significance. City of Kitchener. August 2010.
Waterloo Region Generations. 2091 Bleams Road. Retrieved from
https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personID=I56&tree=Pr
operties1
Wilson, B. Loyalists in Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. 12 Aug 2021.
February 2024
35
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Appendix A – MTE Structural Condition
Report
February 2024
36
October 31, 2023
MTE File No.: C54246-100
Ms. Amanda Knox
c/o
Paul E. Grespan B.A., LL.B., LL.M. (L.S.E.)
Lawyer/Director
McCarter Grespan Beynon Weir Professional Corporation
539 Riverbend Drive
Kitchener, ON N2K 3S3
Sent by Email: pgrespan@mgbwlaw.com
Dear Ms. Knox:
RE: Barn and Farmhouse – Structural Condition Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener, Ontario
At your request Paul Slater, P.Eng. of MTE Consultants Inc. conducted a visual structural
condition assessment of the barn and farmhouse on September 27, 2023 at the above noted
address. This letter report presents our observations related to the structure of the buildings such
as damaged structural members and connections, loose floorboards or open floor conditions,
deteriorated foundation elements, and missing cladding. Given the nature of the findings, theredeteriorated foundation elements, and missing cladding. Given the nature of the findings,
theredeteriorated foundation elements, and missing cladding. Given the nature of the findings, there
are safety concerns for those entering the buildings whether legitimate occupants, visitors orare safety concerns for those entering the buildings whether legitimate occupants, visitors
orare safety concerns for those entering the buildings whether legitimate occupants, visitors or
trespassers. Photographs are appended to this letter report that illustrate the structural condition.trespassers. Photographs are appended to this letter report that illustrate the
structural condition.trespassers. Photographs are appended to this letter report that illustrate the structural condition.
Observations
Barn
The structural condition of the barn varies throughout with some deficiencies that are of aThe structural condition of the barn varies throughout with some deficiencies that are of aThe
structural condition of the barn varies throughout with some deficiencies that are of a
significant nature. The structural frame of the barn, comprised of posts and beams with kneesignificant nature. The structural frame of the barn, comprised of posts and beams with kneesignificant
nature. The structural frame of the barn, comprised of posts and beams with knee
braces, is generally plumb and level in most of the front section adjacent to Bleams Roadbraces, is generally plumb and level in most of the front section adjacent to Bleams Roadbraces,
is generally plumb and level in most of the front section adjacent to Bleams Road
(Photograph 1). However, there are several members of the frame elsewhere that are missing
or have compromised connections (see Photographs 2 & 3). The knee brace in Photograph 2
for example is poorly connected to the beam and the roof support post is altogether missing in
Photograph 4. The roof is relying presently on support from the exterior cladding.
The floor is unguarded in many locations and as such there is a danger of occupants falling at
the edge or through openings in the floor (Photographs 2,3,5,8,9,10).
The concrete foundation wall shown in Photographs 3, 4 and 5 is badly deteriorated, cracked,
poorly connected at corners, and lacks lateral bracing at the top.
Ms. Amanda Knox
October 30, 2023
The barn framing shown in Photograph 7 shows worn, deteriorated wood conditions with
several open or loose connections. Exterior cladding is missing or damaged; also shown in
Photograph 10.
The sagging of the west wall of the barn (Photograph 11) indicates structural distress and
insufficient structural support.
Exterior wall cladding is missing to varying degrees throughout the barn, leading to rain and
snow infiltration accelerating the deterioration of interior structural elements (Photograph 12).
Many of these areas provide easy access points for trespassers. The stone foundation wall
pictured in Photograph 12 is generally true and plumb but has several cracks and stones
missing (Photograph 13).
Exterior barn boards are cracked or missing in many areas and present a risk of peopleExterior barn boards are cracked or missing in many areas and present a risk of peopleExterior barn
boards are cracked or missing in many areas and present a risk of people
falling out (~8’ drop) to grade below (Photographs 6 and 10).
Farmhouse
The farmhouse structure is generally in fair to poor condition with walls and floors typicallyThe farmhouse structure is generally in fair to poor condition with walls and floors typicallyThe
farmhouse structure is generally in fair to poor condition with walls and floors typically
plumb and level, respectively (Photograph 14). The exterior cladding and log structure is (Photograph 14). The exterior cladding and log structure is (Photograph 14). The exterior cladding
and log structure is
exposed, weathered and has some instances of wood rot (Photograph 15). The bottom log of the
wall shown in Photographs 17 and 18 is completely rotted through the center.
Debris and loose materials are scattered throughout and around the exterior. Windows and doors
are missing allowing snow and rain to enter the interior. Vines growing on the roof will contribute
to moisture infiltration and damage to roofing (Photograph 14).
The stone foundation wall supports the exterior perimeter walls as well as the single interior wall.
Mortar deterioration was observed on the interior around the stone (Photograph 19). The stone
foundation wall has several window wells as well as a full height door opening (boarded up).
These openings are not completely sealed and permit water infiltration and rodents into the
building.
The support post at the bottom of the stair to the basement is loose without connection to the floor
beam (Photograph 21).
The upper story wall logs shown in Photograph 22 are unbraced at an interior doorway
(abandoned). These logs should be supported by stud framing to prevent lateral dislodgement.
The building appears to have been built in two sections: west and east portions. Without historical
knowledge, it is speculated that the west half was constructed first with larger rough hewn logs,
mortar, and dovetail joinery at corners; while the east portion constructed second with smaller
dressed lumber, and simpler corner joinery.
Discussion
The structural condition of the barn is poor and presents an immediate danger and risk to
trespassers or those entering the building, due primarily to the fall hazard. Furthermore, there is
potential for partial collapse given a significant wind event. Addressing the structural
deficiencies noted above related to the framing, connections, foundation walls, cladding and
MTE Consultants| C54246-100 |2091 Bleams Road Barn and Farmhouse Structural Condition Assessment2
Ms. Amanda Knox
October 30, 2023
floorboards will take significant effort and expense. It is the opinion of the author that the cost
associated to upgrade the building to a usable and safe standard is not commensurate with the
value of the building.
The farmhouse does not have indications or symptoms of structural distress and there is no
immediate threat of collapse. However, considering the condition of the stone foundation walls
and weathered wood structure, the undersigned does not recommend any significant financial
investment in the restoration of the building using the existing structure. Rather, it is
recommended to demolish the building.
Recommendations
We recommend that, at a minimum, all doors, windows and other openings that could provide
potential access be boarded up to prevent anyone accessing the buildings until the future of the
barn or farmhouse are decided.
If the farmhouse building is to remain, all vegetation and soil contact with the roof or woodIf the farmhouse building is to remain, all vegetation and soil contact with the roof or
woodIf the farmhouse building is to remain, all vegetation and soil contact with the roof or wood
portions should be removed from the building.
Ultimately, it is recommended that both the barn and the farmhouse be demolished.Ultimately, it is recommended that both the barn and the farmhouse be demolished.Ultimately, it is recommended
that both the barn and the farmhouse be demolished.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
MTE Consultants Inc.
DRAFT
Paul Slater, P.Eng.
Division Manager, Building Structures
519-743-6500 Ext. 1240
pslater@mte85.com
PAS: jmm
Attach
M:\\54246\\100\\54246-100_Ltr Rpt_2091 Bleams Barn Assessment_2023-10-31.docx
MTE Consultants| C54246-100 |2091 Bleams Road Barn and Farmhouse Structural Condition Assessment3
Ms. Amanda Knox
October 30, 2023
Limitations
This report has been prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) at the request of McCarter
Grespan Beynon Weir Professional Corporation.The material in it reflects the best judgment of
MTE in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party
makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of
such third parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third
party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
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 design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions
existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can
perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. Only the specific information
identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or
insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of
the information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its
services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof.
Responsibility for detection of or advice about pollutants, contaminants or hazardous materials
is not included in our mandate. In the event the Consultant or any other party encounters any
hazardous or toxic materials, or should it become known to the Consultant that such materials
may be present on or about the jobsite or any adjacent areas that may affect the performance of
the Consultant’s services, the Consultant may, at its option and without liability for consequential
or any other damages, suspend performance of its services under this Agreement until the
Client retains appropriates consultants to identify and abate or remove the hazardous or toxic
materials and warrants that the jobsite is in full compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations.
Budget figures are our opinion of a probable current dollar value of the work and are provided
for approximate budget purposes only. Accurate figures can only be obtained by establishing a
scope of work and receiving quotes from suitable contractors. Any time frame given for
undertaking work represents an educated guess based on apparent conditions existing at the
time of our report. Failure of the item, or the optimum repair/replacement process, may vary
from our estimate. We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a
result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which
case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time. Any user of this report specifically
denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub-Consultants, their Officers, Agents and
Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services.
MTE Consultants| C54246-100 |2091 Bleams Road Barn and Farmhouse Structural Condition Assessment4
Barn Photos
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 1 – Missing Wall Cladding, Interior Framing Exposure to Elements – Missing Wall Cladding, Interior Framing Exposure to Elements – Missing Wall Cladding, Interior Framing
Exposure to Elements
Photograph No. 2– Compromised Brace Connection, Unsafe Open Floor
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20231
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 3– Unguarded Edge of Floor, Deteriorated Concrete Foundation Wall
Photograph No. 4– Post Missing, Unsupported Roof Beam
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20232
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 5 – Unsafe Condition, Compromised and Deficient Bracing and Connection of
Wall and Floor Framing
Photograph No. 6– Unguarded Area, Missing and Deteriorated Wall Boards
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20233
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 7 – Deteriorated Framing and Connections
Photograph No. 8 – Unsafe and Unsecured Flooring
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20234
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 9– Unsafe Floor; Unsecured Flooring
Photograph No. 10 – South Elevation Wall Boards Missing
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20235
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 11– West Elevation; Building Sagging from Insufficient Support
Photograph No. 12 – West Elevation; Wall Boards Missing
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20236
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 13– Stone Foundation Wall Deterioration
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20237
Farm House Photos
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 14– Overall Photo Of House
Photograph No. 15 – Soil Pile Causing Rot of Wood Framing
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20238
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 16– Unprotected Exposed Wall – Deterioration
Photograph No. 17 – Stair to Basement - Rot of Bottom Wall Log
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 20239
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 18– Stair to Basement; rot of log (right)
Photograph No. 19 – Basement Foundation Wall Mortar Deterioration
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 202310
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 20– Foundation Wall Deterioration Open Window Well
Photograph No. 21 – Loose Disconnected Support Post
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 202311
Photographic Log
Photograph No. 22– Upper Story Wall End Logs Unbraced (No Framing)
Photograph No. 23 – Wall Joinery Indicates Staged Construction
MTE Consultants| 54246-100 | 2091 Bleams Road Barn Assessment | September 202312
Heritage Impact Assessment
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Appendix B – Chain of Title
February 2024
37
–
comprising the
590 Acres
64,26,860 Acres
––
012 Acres
Waterloo
Part Block 2
94,
83 Acres83 Acres
–
––
& other lands
Value / Land / Remarks
Part Lot 133Part Lot 133 & other lands
--
G.C.T.
Part Block No. 2 Part Block No. 2
Block No. 2 on The Grand River
Acres
60,000 Acres
German Company Tract of the Township of
Lot 133 Lot 133 G.C.T“Halton Records”Lot 133 G.C.T. “Wellington Records” 83 30 Acres
T EBY
I
To
0031
-
CHR
JACOB
4
22728
LFLE,
of
E
1
BEASLEY, RICHARDWILSON, JAMESROSSEAU, JOHN BAPTISTE BEASLEY, RICHARD ROSSEAU, JOHN BAPTIST ERB, DANIELERB, JACOBEBY, CHRISTIANEBY, JOHNBRUBACHER, JACOBADMT. OF EBY, BENJAMIN WOODS, WILLIAM
WO
Page
Parcel Register
–
T EBY
I
From
Crown
CHRISTIAN EBY
58 Waterloo
#
LRO WILSON, JAMESROSSEAU, JOHN BAPTIST BEASLEY, RICHARDWILSON, JAMES BEASLEY, RICHARD & wifeERB, DANIELERB, JACOBEBY, BENJ. Eldest son & Heir at law of EBY, JOHNBRUBACHER, JACOBADMT.
OF CHR EBY, BENJAMIN WOODS, WILLIAM
-
Date
4 Jul 1952
5 Feb 1798
24 Jul 180529 Jul 180510 Jul 1855
Registration
19 Feb 180119 Feb 180116 Sep 182919 Feb 184121 Feb 1849
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
SaleSaleSaleSaleSaleSale
Type
-
Patent
8887.00
Deed of Deed of
PartitionPartition
£
Bargain & Bargain & Bargain & Bargain & Bargain & Bargain &
31338085
123150962801
46291
-
B
Instr. No.
Chain OF TITLEPart Lot 133 Germany Company Tract
134
& other lands & other lands
Part Lot 133Part Lot 133Part Lot 133Part Lot 133 Part Lot 133 GCT
----
–
.00
00.00 00.00 00.00
5
2031
$$$4$4800.00
Part Lot 133 Part Lot 133 & Part Lot 133 Part Lot 133$6300
Part Lot 133 German Company Tract
----––––-
-
Acres Acres
0 Acres 892,500
30 Acres 40 Acres 3 40 28 Acres 28 Acres 28 Acres 28 Acres 2 $ $141,962
Part Lot 133 GCT as in 869869
–
INA
0031
-
ELTON L.
4
22728
ELLER, HENRYELLER, ABRAHAM S
RT, FLOR
of
E
NN
2
BERT, COURODB
UU
GROSS, GEORGES S SCH SCH HEIMPEL, JACOB K.HOUSE, ALLAN J.HOUSE, AGNES E.WAGNER, DHANER, JAMES W.HANER, MARGARET NELSON, BEVERLY LETABENNETT, JOHN WILLIAM VOS, BARTHOLOMEW HENRY
Page
Parcel Register
–
WILLIAM
WATERLOO
.
AGNES E.
LLER, ABRAHAM S., a
HANER, MARGARET)
58 Waterloo
ELLER, GEORGE, a E
#LFLE, JACOB
NN
E
Parcel Created based on information contained in 869869
–
LRO WOGROSS, GEORGEREAL REP COY SUBERT, FLORINA SCHwidower SCHBachelorHEIMPEL, JACOB K.HOUSE, ALLAN J.HOUSE, WAGNER, DELTON L. HANER, JAMES W.HANER, MARJORIA (a.k.a. FINNEGAN, BEVERLY
LETABENNETT, JOHN
-
1876
1997/04/28
Apr 1948
–
20 Jul 1876
1986/10/011999/03/26
17 Jun 194822 Jun 1951
28 Oct
14
22 Dec 1855
17 Nov 1905
12 Mar 185813 Mar 1899
0072 (R)
-
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
SaleSaleSaleSale
-Deed
GrantGrantGrantGrant
TransferTransfer
Bargain & Bargain & Bargain & Bargain &
935
174665936643
1453516923395013981644876
869869
1413160
Parcelized as 22728
Chain OF TITLEPart Lot 133 Germany Company Tract
-
Line Microfilmed
-
Complete Accuracy cannot be
-
155,000.00
$
compile this Chain of Title
Information has been gathered from On
Deeds have not been printed or descriptions plotted
to
0031–
-
–
Part Lot 133 GCT, as in 869869
4
–
22728
of
X, RICHARD JAMES
3
0031
-
Please note
KNO
–
Page
–
are difficult to read
Parcel Register
–
January 2024
4
2
58 Waterloo
#
LRO VOS, BARTHOLOMEW HENRY Estate
-
& Registration Numbers
Created 2003/07/21 Reusing Pin 22728
Due to the difficulty of analysing the information
–
–
0031
-
1999/11/19
Names & Dates
-
2091 Bleams Road, Kitchener
-
Completed by P.L.P. Titles Ltd. on the
Transfer
–
relied upon
E. & O. E.
copies of the Old Index Books
1440799
Current Parcel Register 22728
Chain OF TITLEPart Lot 133 Germany Company Tract