HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2024-09-04Heritage Kitchener Committee
Agenda
Tuesday, September 3, 2024, 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Conestoga Room
City of Kitchener
200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 407
People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration
form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation(a)kitchener.ca. Written comments
received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record.
*Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require
assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.*
Chair - J. Haalboom
Vice -Chair - P. Ciuciura
Pages
1. Commencement
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are
required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a
conflict is declared, please visit www. kitchener. ca/conflict to submit your written
form.
3. Delegations
Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address
the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes.
3.1 item 4.1 - Evan Sugde, The Biglieri Group
3.2 Item 4.2 - Owen Scott - CHC Limited
4. Discussion Items
4.1 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 39-51 10m 3
Church Street and 69-73 Benton Street, DSD -
2024 -369
5.
4.2 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
Addendum, 1385 Bleams Road, DSD -2024-359
4.3 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-017,
307 (Queen Street South, Repair of the
Foundation, DSD -2024-360
4.4 Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review -
September 2024 Update, DSD 2024-361
Information Items
5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet
Adjournment
Mariah Blake
Committee Coordinator
10 m 230
10 m 253
15 m 271
316
Page 2 of 316
Staff Report
r
NJ :R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: September 3, 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 9
DATE OF REPORT: August 12, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-369
SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 39 & 51 Church Street
and 69 & 73 Benton Street
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
BACKGROUND:
The Development and Housing Approvals Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) prepared by Biglieri Group on behalf of Church and Benton Limited, the
Owners of the properties municipally addressed as 39 & 51 Church Street and 69 & 73
Benton Street.
The subject properties have no status under the Ontario Heritage Act, being neither
designated nor listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest.
They were also not identified on the Kitchener Inventory for Historic Buildings. However
the subject properties are adjacent to a number of heritage resources, including:
• 90 Benton St — designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and located
within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District. District Significance A.
• 64 Benton Street — designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and located
within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District.
• 51 Benton Street - listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or
interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register
• 79 Benton Street - listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or
interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register
• 83 Benton Street - listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or
interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register
• 53 Church Street - listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or
interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 3 of 316
The subject properties are also located within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural
Heritage Landscape (CHL), as defined in the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study
approved by Council in 2015. It should be noted that the first phase of Growing Together,
approved by Kitchener City Council on March 18th, 2024, includes Official Plan
Amendments which identify the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood CHL boundaries and provides
area -specific policies which relate to new development or redevelopment. In particular the
policies identify properties at notable intersections, including that of Benton Street and
Church Street, as being a Property of Specific Cultural Heritage Landscape Interest, and
state that in such locations consideration must be given to transition in built forms to
protect and enhance views and local streetscape characteristics of the neighbourhood.
of U11e14 ,e Puy- : d r var�a'I3'
Of Many Mural '�9 K -W -1.1.
/J \ Ofliclal Retail
110
queens Place /!
ts��y Apartments
HAn 1 Luth lin-_-h-m-h
Lrnteran airrrch
�r
CAI,
COMMERCIAL "ONt
<
i
i� Pali sites Kitchener � r' `SS'
Retirement Residence
I Iri .rI n I � r �,or hi 63fdrsi f
it
Llartin
1 buret
C "
i
Luther.
esto e
fore
J LEGEND
`a
#
l
arnati anal �Uospzl
tit
Listed
Part IV
Part V
HCD
Part IV&V
CHL
Reviewed
Figure 1: Map of Subject Properties and Surrounding Heritage Resources
Figure 2: Arial View of Subject Properties
Page 4 of 316
As of the date of this report, the subject properties are developed with three single -
detached residential houses and a large surface gravel parking lot. All three structures
have been converted into rental housing, and currently provide a total of eight units.
The subject properties are part of an active Site Plan Application (SP24/050/C/AP) that
has been submitted to the City. Due to the presence of the surrounding heritage
resources, the draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was identified as a required
component for a complete application. The Site Plan Application proposes the construction
of a new mixed development 40 -storeys in height with a 4 -storey podium and three levels
of underground parking. The ground floor will have commercial and townhome units, while
the tower will contain 499 1 -to -3 -bedroom dwelling units. This provides a total of 505
dwelling units within the proposed development.
X11
a
�OEM=
PROPOSED:
s " 40 STOREY: li
h
BUILDING
I
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan
Page 5 of 316
Figure 4: Renderings of Proposed Mixed -Use Development
REPORT:
Impact Assessment
The draft HIA assessed the potential impact of the proposed development on applicable
adjacent heritage properties, the interface with the Victoria Park Area Heritage
Conservation District (VPAHCD) along Benton Street, and the Cedar Hill CHL using the
subsections established by the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. A summary of the impact
assessment is provided below.
Impact
Analysis
Alteration that is not
No alteration is proposed to adjacent designated heritage
sympathetic or is
properties or listed properties. Therefore, there are no impacts
incompatible with the
associated with alterations.
historic fabric and
appearance
Page 6 of 316
Shadows created
A shadow study has been prepared to assess anticipated
that alter the
shadow impacts of the proposed development on surrounding
appearance of a
heritage resources. The impacts are minor and not expected to
heritage attribute
adversely affect heritage attributes, with no new shadows cast
on 79 Benton Street and minimal shadows cast on 53 Church
and 51 and 64 Benton. Minimal shadows will be cast on 90
Benton as well, which contains stained-glass windows which are
a shadow -sensitive attribute. New shadows that result from the
proposed development are confined to a maximum one-hour
time period during the spring equinox and as such are
anticipated to have a negligible effect.
Isolation of a
There will be minimal to no isolation impact on the VPAHCD as
heritage attribute
the development is located across the street and respects the
from its surrounding
historical character of the area through complementary and
environment, context,
compatible design. There may be minor to moderate isolation of
or a significant
79 Benton Street when viewed in a northernly direction due to
relationship
differences in massing and setbacks. There may be similar
minor isolation -related impacts to 53 Church Street, primarily
related to the visibility of the church on the property along the
street.
Direct or indirect
The proposed development will have a minor to moderate
obstruction of
impact on the entrance view looking southeast down Church
significant views or
Street from the intersection of Benton and Church. Design
vistas within, from, or
considerations have been implemented to reduce anticipated
of built and natural
impacts and improve a broken frontage that is the result of
features
vacancies in the subject properties.
Change in land use
There is no significant land use typology impacts anticipated as
where the use relates
a result of the proposed development. While the area historically
to the cultural
featured residential and institutional uses, various commercial
heritage significance
businesses have been introduced over time, particularly at
of a site, such as
corner locations where Benton approaches Charles and King
rezoning a battlefield
Street East. Therefore, the mixed-use nature of the proposed
from open space to
building aligns well with the mixed-use character of the
residential use so
neighbourhood.
that new
development fills in
the formerly open
space
Land disturbances
The proposed development is not anticipated to result in any
such as a change in
land disturbance impacts beyond what would have already
grade that alters soils
occurred over the 140 -year period which the site has been
and drainage
developed and disturbed. Notwithstanding, given the historic
patterns which than
cemetery located on the subject lands (exhumed in 1876), there
adversely affect an
is still the possibility that human remains may be found during
archaeological
construction. As such the HIA recommends a Ground -
resource
Penetrating Radar scan be complete prior to excavation.
Page 7of316
Destruction of any No demolition is proposed to adjacent designated heritage
or part of any properties or listed properties. Therefore, there are no impacts
significant heritage associated with demolition.
attributes or features
Summary of Implemented Considerations to Reduce Impacts
While the draft HIA makes several recommendations to be implemented to mitigate
impacts, other considerations have already been included in the proposal to mitigate
measures. This includes but is not limited to the following:
• Tower treatments were applied to reduce shadow impacts as much as feasible,
including stepbacks from the podium.
• Isolation impacts on the adjacent listed property at 79 Benton Street and 53 Church
Street were mitigated through site configuration, setbacks that reflect the setbacks
of adjacent heritage resources, interface enhancements, and the implementation of
design principles which consider the surrounding heritage character such as
adopting a horizontal banding at the historical roofline datum. The HIA also
identifies additional considerations that were made during the design of the podium
of the building such as the slopped roof element of the townhome units, which pays
homage to the typical peaked roofs of the surrounding residential buildings and
churches. Through these design considerations the characteristics of the
surrounding area are respected, and visual compatibility can be achieved.
• The entrance view looking southeast along Church Street at the intersection of
Church and Benton will be protected through the incorporation of setbacks as well
as a corner cut-out, which helps ensure that views are not pinched and that sight
lines are maintained from a wider variety of angles.
d
Figure 5: Representation of Historical Height in Horizontal Datum Line
Page 8 of 316
�F
I
III
w
Recommendations and Conclusions of the HIA
Alternative development options were explored within the draft HIA, including
accommodating the existing architecture either through stilting or enveloping, adaptive re-
use, relocation of the existing buildings, or development via low-rise infill. These
alternative options were not recommended given that the subject properties have no
status under the Ontario Heritage Act and would not allow for maximum land use
efficiency or a development that supports long-term planning considerations.
The draft HIA recommended the following mitigation measures:
• Potential commemoration to acknowledge historical existence of a potential
cemetery on 39 Church St as well as the association of Charles Boehmer Dunke
with 73 Benton Street.
• Potential salvage of materials from 51 Church Street.
• Scanning for human remains prior to or during excavation. Should remains be
discovered all work would cease and the relevant authorities should be notified
immediately.
• Documenting and archiving the structures on the subject lands before, during, and
after construction.
• Developing a Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) to project adjacent heritage
resources.
• Maintaining proposed setbacks, tower step back, podium elements, residential
component at grade, and enhanced landscaping treatments as depicted in the
architectural drawings to integrate the new development with the surrounding
heritage context.
• Maintain proposed tower floor plate, vertical breaks, softening, twisting, and
articulation of tower edges to minimize shadowing on adjacent and nearby heritage
resources.
The applicant will be in attendance at the September 3rd, 2024 meeting of the Heritage
Kitchener Committee to answer any questions or concerns. It should be noted that this
HIA is still in its draft stage. Heritage Planning Staff have reviewed the draft HIA to provide
detailed comments to the application to address areas that require further assessment or
discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning Staff are also seeking the Committee's input
and comments.
A copy of the draft HIA has been included as Attachment A in this report.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Page 10 of 316
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 council / committee meeting.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990
APPROVED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 39&51 Church Street and 69 &
73 Benton Street
Page 11 of 316
BI LIERI
GROUP.:'
Heritage Impact
Assessment
39 and 51 Church Street, and
69 and 73 Benton Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Prepared For: Church and Benton Limited
"�14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed redevelopment of the subject lands involves the construction of a 40 -storey mixed-
use high-rise building with residential and commercial units, aimed at revitalizing underutilized land
and providing additional housing.
The subject lands and their structures at 39 and 51 Church Street and 69 and 73 Benton Street,
are located within the Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage
Landscape ("CHSC-CHL") but are not designated or listed on the City of Kitchener Heritage
Register and are adjacent to heritage properties and the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation
District ("VPA-HCD").
The redevelopment plans include demolishing the existing structures on the subject lands and
incorporating design elements that respect the historic character of the area.
The Heritage Impact Assessment ("HIA") evaluated potential impacts on adjacent heritage
properties, the VPA-HCD, and the CHSC-CHL. The assessment concluded that there will be
minimal to moderate impact on heritage resources, with proposed mitigation measures that are
capable of addressing potential issues related to shadow impacts, isolation, and the visual
character of the area including identified view corridors.
The report also explored alternative development options, recommending the proposed
redevelopment plan as the most suitable approach considering heritage conservation and efficient
land use.
The introduction of a new mixed-use 40 -storey building will bring noticeable changes to the subject
lands and neighbourhood in terms of height and massing. However, this aligns with the existing
and emerging planning framework for the neighbourhood which does not set maximum building
heights. By adopting the recommended mitigation measures in this HIA, we believe the proposed
redevelopment can proceed while safeguarding heritage resources, respecting the heritage
context, and incorporating commemorative elements to mitigate identified impacts effectively. In a
changing area where visual diversity accommodates large apartment blocks without visual decline,
the proposal represents another step in the neighbourhood's evolution.
Page 13 of 316
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Land Acknowledgement
As descendants of settlers to Canada, one of our goals is to inspire others to take action to
support Indigenous communities. One of the ways we can help achieve this is through creating a
meaningful and intentional land acknowledgement. Therefore, we respectfully acknowledge that
the City of Kitchener is in the traditional territories / ancestral lands of the Haudenosaunee,
Anishnaabe, and Neutral peoples. It is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Metis
people and we are grateful to work on this land.
This territory is governed by two treaties. The first is the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant
of 1701, made between the Anishinaabe and the Haudenosaunee. The second is Treaty 4 also known
as the Simcoe Patent or Haldimand Treaty. An agreement promising land to the Haudenosaunee
following their loyalty to the British during the American Revolution. This promised land included
approximately 10 kilometres on either side of the Grand River.
We are all treaty people. Many of us have come here as settlers, immigrants, and newcomers in
this generation or our generations past. We would also like to acknowledge and honour those who
came here involuntarily, particularly those who are descended from those brought here through
enslavement.
Research Assistance
We would like to thank the research assistance and support that was provided from members of
the local Kitchener community who provided information relating to the history of the property,
specifically, the Kitchener Public Library (the Grace Schmidt Room and staff), the University of
Waterloo Geospatial Centre, the City of Kitchener archives, and the City of Kitchener heritage
planning staff.
Page 14 of 316
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Owner Information
The City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference requires the provision of
information on the present owner, including their contact information for the lands and buildings
proposed for development and/or site alteration.
The lands and buildings proposed for development are municipally addressed as 39 and 51
Church Street and 69 and 73 Benton Street, Kitchener ("subject lands"), and are presently owned
by Church and Benton Limited. The development is being proposed care of the owner through JD
Development Group. Contact information is provided below:
Church and Benton Limited
131 McNabb Street, Suite 201,
Markham, ON, L3R 5V7
Telephone #: 905-479-9898
E-mail: info(aD-jddevelopment.ca
Author
The City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference requires the provision of
information on the qualified heritage conservation professional completing the Heritage Impact
Assessment ("HIA"), including their name, qualifications, and background.
This HIA was prepared by The Biglieri Group Ltd. ("TBG"). TBG is full-service planning, urban /
community design, and heritage consulting firm based out of Toronto and Hamilton. TBG recently
merged with Bright Past Heritage Consulting Inc. a boutique cultural heritage consulting firm
based virtually out of Kitchener that specializes in the conservation and stewardship of cultural
heritage resources across Ontario.
Evan Sugden, HBASc, MA, CAHP, RPP, MCIP is the primary author of this HIA, was the President
and co-founder of Bright Past and now an Associate and the Heritage Lead with TBG. Mr. Sugden
is a registered Heritage Professional with the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and
a Registered Professional Planner. He holds an Honours Bachelor of Arts and Sciences degree in
Geography from Lakehead University and a Master of Arts degree in Planning specializing in
heritage conservation from the University of Waterloo. A detailed curriculum vitae is appended to
this report as Appendix A— Author's CV.
Page 15 of 316
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................................................
II
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE.......................................................................................................................................
II
BACKGROUND INFORMATION....................................................................................................................
III
OWNER INFORMATION.........................................................................................................................................III
AUTHOR.............................................................................................................................................................
III
LISTOF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................................
VI
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................................
VIII
1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE & SURROUNDINGS.........................................................................................................................
4
2.1 SUBJECT LANDS............................................................................................................................................4
51 Church Street..........................................................................................................................................
5
69 Benton Street........................................................................................................................................11
73 Benton Street........................................................................................................................................
16
2.2 ADJACENT & SURROUNDING CONTEXT.........................................................................................................
23
Heightsin the Neighbourhood..................................................................................................................
33
2.3 HERITAGE CONTEXT....................................................................................................................................34
3.0 PROPOSAL............................................................................................................................................
37
Podiumand Tower.....................................................................................................................................37
4.0 POLICY & REGULATORY CONTEXT......................................................................................................
44
4.1 PLANNING ACT............................................................................................................................................44
4.2 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT...................................................................................................................44
4.3 PROPOSED PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT.............................................................................................44
4.4 HERITAGE ACT............................................................................................................................................
45
OntarioHeritage Tool Kit............................................................................................................................
46
4.5 A PLACE TO GROW: GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE.................................................47
4.6 REGION OF WATERLOO OFFICIAL PLAN.........................................................................................................
48
4.7 CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN He GROWING TOGETHER FRAMEWORK......................................................
50
4.8 CITY OF KITCHENER CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE STUDY........................................................................56
4.9 VICTORIA PARK AREA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.............................................................................
57
4.10 CITY OF KITCHENER URBAN DESIGN MANUAL..............................................................................................58
5.0 HISTORY & EVOLUTION........................................................................................................................
59
5.1 TOWNSHIP OF WATERLOO /WATERLOO COUNTY / REGION OF WATERLOO.......................................................
59
5.2 CITY OF KITCHENER (BERLIN).......................................................................................................................66
5.3 HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT LANDS.................................................................................................................
71
Developmentand Uses.............................................................................................................................
89
Chainof Title............................................................................................................................................
100
39 Church Street......................................................................................................................................101
51 Church Street......................................................................................................................................102
iv
Page 16 of 316
69 Benton Street......................................................................................................................................
103
73 Benton Street......................................................................................................................................
104
5.4 CHARLES BOEHMER DUNKE.......................................................................................................................
105
5.5 BRIEF HISTORY OF ADJACENT HERITAGE PROPERTIES..................................................................................108
53 Church Street......................................................................................................................................108
51 Benton Street......................................................................................................................................
110
64 Benton Street......................................................................................................................................
112
79 Benton Street......................................................................................................................................
113
90 Benton Street......................................................................................................................................
115
6.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT......................................................................................................117
6.1 PRIMER.....................................................................................................................................................117
6.2 ALTERATION..............................................................................................................................................1
17
6.3 SHADOWS.................................................................................................................................................117
6.4 ISOLATION.................................................................................................................................................119
6.5 DIRECTOR INDIRECT OBSTRUCTION OF VIEWS.............................................................................................128
6.6 CHANGE IN LAND USE...............................................................................................................................
133
6.7 LAND DISTURBANCE..................................................................................................................................
134
6.8 DESTRUCTION...........................................................................................................................................135
7.0 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION & CONSERVATION ............................................136
7.1 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS........................................................................................................136
Alternative Development Option 1: Do Nothing / Leave Lands As Is ......................................................
136
Alternative Development Option 2: Accommodating Architecture (Stilting or Enveloping) .....................
136
Alternative Development Option 3: Adaptive Reuse................................................................................138
Alternative Development Option 4: Relocation........................................................................................
139
7.2 MITIGATION & CONSERVATION OPTIONS......................................................................................................140
7.3 IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING...............................................................................................................
142
6.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................145
9.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................151
Appendices
Appendix A — Author's CV
Appendix B — Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference
Appendix C — Chains of Title for Subject Lands
Appendix D — Shadow Study
V
Page 17 of 316
List of Figures
Figure1 - Location Map...........................................................................................................
Figure 2 — Broader Aerial Context Map....................................................................................
Figure 3 - Immediate Aerial Context Map.................................................................................
Figure 4 - Map of Mid- to High -Rise Buildings within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood ...............
Figure 5 - Heritage Context Map..............................................................................................
Figure 6 — Massing View from Northeast.................................................................................
Figure 7 - Massing View from Southeast..................................................................................
Figure 8 - Massing View from Northwest..................................................................................
Figure 9 - Proposed Site Plan..................................................................................................
Figure 10 - Ground Level Floor Plan........................................................................................
Figure 11 - Rendering looking Northeast.................................................................................
Figure 12 - Rendering looking Southeast (Intersection of Church & Benton St) .......................
Figure 13 — Rendering along Benton St to North.....................................................................
Figure 14 - Rendering of Corner..............................................................................................
Figure 15 - Rendering of Western Interface..............................................................................
Figure 16 - Rendering of Southwest Corner.............................................................................
Figure 17 - Rendering South along Benton St..........................................................................
Figure 18 - Rendering of Southern Interface............................................................................
Figure19 - 3D Context View.....................................................................................................
Figure 20 - Figure 6c, ROPA 6.................................................................................................
Figure 21 - Official Plan Amendment to Map 2 Urban Structure (Schedule A) .........................
Figure 22 - Official Plan Amendment to Map 3 Land Use (Schedule B) ...................................
Figure 23 - Official Plan Amendment to Map 4 Protected MTSAs And UGC (Schedule C) ......
Figure 24 - Official Plan Amendment To Map 9 Cultural Heritage Resources (Schedule E) .....
Figure 25 - Growing Together Supporting Documents March 2024 - Enabling Homes for
Generations.............................................................................................................................
Figure 26 - Growing Together Zoning Appendix A (Zoning Grid Schedule 120) ......................
Figure 27 - Haldimand Tract, Ridout Survey 1821....................................................................
Figure 28 - Haldimand Tract Block Divisions...........................................................................
Figure 29 - Beasley Tract (Block 2) Divisional Blocks..............................................................
Figure 30 - German Company Tract, 1805...............................................................................
Figure 31 - 1815 Map of Waterloo Township, German Company Tract Lots and Landowners
Figure 32 - County of Waterloo, 1880......................................................................................
Figure 33 - Township of Waterloo, 1881, Town of Berlin Highlighted .......................................
Figure 34 - Township of Waterloo, 1881, Zoomed in on Town of Berlin ...................................
Figure 35 - Town of Berlin, 1877 (Approximate Location of Subject Lands within Black Circle)
Figure 36 - Town of Berlin, 1879..............................................................................................
Figure 37 - Town of Berlin, 1881..............................................................................................
Figure 38 - Town of Berlin, 1908..............................................................................................
Figure 39 - City of Berlin, 1912.................................................................................................
Figure 40 - City of Kitchener, 1923...........................................................................................
Figure 41 - Joseph Schneider's 448 -Acre Farm on Lot 17, GCT ..............................................
Figure 42 - Town of Berlin, 1853..............................................................................................
Figure 43 - Plan 393 and 394 circa 1857-1858........................................................................
.1
24
24
34
36
38
38
39
40
41
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
43
49
51
52
52
53
.... 53
.... 55
.... 60
.... 61
.... 62
.... 63
.... 64
.... 65
.... 67
.... 67
.... 68
.... 68
.... 69
.... 69
.... 70
.... 70
.... 72
.... 73
.... 74
vi
Page 18 of 316
Figure 44 -
Subject Lands on Plan 393 and 394 circa 1857-1858 ..................................................
74
Figure 45 -
Tremaine's Map of Waterloo County, 1861..................................................................
75
Figure 46 -
1875 Bird's Eye View of Berlin (Artist's Rendering).......................................................
75
Figure 47 -
Map of the Town of Berlin, 1879 (Version A)................................................................
76
Figure 48 -
Map of the Town of Berlin, 1879 (Version B)................................................................
76
Figure 49 -
Map of Town of Berlin, 1881 (Showing United Brethren Church) .................................
77
Figure 50 -
Bird's Eye View of the Town of Berlin (Artist's Rendering), 1892 ..................................
78
Figure 51 -
Fire Insurance Plan, 1894-1904...................................................................................
79
Figure 52 -
City of Berlin, 1919.......................................................................................................
81
Figure 53 -
1923 Engineer's Map of Kitchener...............................................................................
82
Figure 54 -
Fire Insurance Plan, 1925............................................................................................
83
Figure 55 -
Comparison of Fire Insurance Plans 1894-1904 to 1925 .............................................
84
Figure 56 -
1968 Topographic Map................................................................................................
85
Figure 57 -
1976 Topographic Map................................................................................................
85
Figure58 -
1930 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
85
Figure59 -
1945 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
85
Figure60 -
1955 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
86
Figure 61 -
1960 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
86
Figure62 -
1975 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
86
Figure 63 -
Air Photo Prior to 1980.................................................................................................
86
Figure64 -
1980 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
87
Figure65 -
1985 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
87
Figure66 -
1990 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
87
Figure67 -
1995 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
87
Figure 68 -
2000 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
88
Figure 69 -
2003 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
88
Figure70 -
2006 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
88
Figure71 -
2009 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
88
Figure72 -
2012 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
89
Figure73 -
2014 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
89
Figure74 -
2016 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
89
Figure75 -
2020 Air Photo.............................................................................................................
89
Figure 76 -
House Comparison of 73 Benton Street between 1906 - 2022 ...................................104
Figure 77 -
City of Berlin First Aldermanic Council, 1912 (C. B. Dunke Circled in Red).................107
Figure 78 -
Visual of Exterior Attributes, 53 Church Street.............................................................110
Figure 79 -
Visual of Exterior Attributes, 79 Benton Street.............................................................114
Figure 80 -
Homage to Residential Component (grey) in Proposal (South Interface)....................121
Figure 81 -
Communal Component (yellow) of Proposal (Northeast Interface) .............................122
Figure 82 -
Commercial Component of Proposal and Homage to Building Datum (West Interface)
......................................................................................................................................................122
Figure 83 -
Homage to the Vernacular Block................................................................................123
Figure 84 -
Representation of Existing Building Height in Horizontal Datum (looking Southwest).
123
Figure 85 -
Representation of Existing Building Height in Horizontal Datum (looking Northeast)..124
Figure 86 -
Commercial Component of Proposal and Homage to Building Datum ......................124
Figure 87 -
Existing vs. Proposed Interface Scenario with 79 Benton Street .................................125
Figure 88 -
Landscaped and Residential Interface with 79 Benton Street.....................................125
Figure 89 -
Rendering of Residential Component at Grade Interface with 79 Benton Street .........
126
Figure 90 -
Existing vs. Proposed Interface Scenario with 53 Church Street.................................126
vii
Page 19 of 316
List of Tables
Table 1
- 39 Church Street
(City Directory).....................................................................................
90
Table 2
- 45 Church Street
(City Directory).....................................................................................
91
Table 3
- 47 Church Street
(City Directory).....................................................................................
92
Table 4
- 51 Church Street
(City Directory).....................................................................................
92
Table 5
- 69 Benton Street
(City Directory).....................................................................................
93
Table 6
- 73 Benton Street
(City Directory).....................................................................................
95
viii
Page 20 of 316
`C
M
a
QUEEN S TR
NO
.,� 40
116
%`✓ y
ie✓� if � k � rh 6wf,�. f r t '�[
4*(' a `(�'
d
"XIFI'!�� t a:y � ��✓`'1. t \
1 / r"j'%"�i,G(�f/if/P/�rrfrjllrr/ref BENTON 1Z E C- •F
JKL,�,� w
*01
vt
1 .0 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Biglieri Group Ltd. ("TBG") was retained by Church and Benton Limited (the "Owners") to
prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment ("HIA") with respect to the properties municipally
addressed as 39 and 51 Church Street and 69 and 73 Benton Street, in the City of Kitchener,
Ontario ("subject lands"). See Figure 1 - Location Map.
Figure > - Location Map
..
F��x w '�rr� �� n•1 racy �G` � � q�y c'�.a ;IPA
r "tr l� .•nll. ry:Ka -'•qi� •y r� 4 p sir
"�4yfS "l 'Nls -reb '��uh,,!•. r � �s« � e ��,�.1P
•t•., iLL'�`b•..y. '•"trr4#n ~'h,s..#,,' "e,q� 1 �w4 qy � s
S.Y. , Adel subj
o,� r Lands
Irl
r. a�
The subject lands are not listed, or designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on
the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register (the "Register"), nor are they located within a
Heritage Conservation District ("HCD").
However, the lands are located within the Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural
Heritage Landscape. According to City heritage staff, two of the parcels forming the subject lands
(i.e., 51 Church Street and 73 Benton Street) are identified as properties of specific interest within
the CHSC-CHL for their adjacency to properties listed on the Register.
In addition, the subject lands are located adjacent to 4 listed (non -designated) properties of
cultural heritage value or interest and 2 designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest
which are across the street within the eastern boarder of the Victoria Park Area Heritage
Conservation District ("VPA-HCD"). The 2 designated properties are protected under a Part V
designation, through the VPA-HCD.
1
Page 22 of 316
This HIA is being submitted as a part of a site plan application ("SPA") required to facilitate the
redevelopment of the subject lands at the southern corner of the intersection of Church and
Benton Streets.
On November 30, 2021, and then again on June 20, 2023, the Owners attended a pre -application
consultation ("PAC") meeting with the City of Kitchener (the "City") and agency staff to discuss the
redevelopment proposal.
The redevelopment proposal intends to intensify underutilized lands for a compact mixed-use,
pedestrian oriented development which will accommodate over 505 residential units, with below
grade parking, while adding over 640 square metres of commercial space to the lands.
One of the Province's primary directives right now is to provide more homes for everyone. A
component of the redevelopment proposal is the demolition of the structures on the lands, which
currently contains eight rental housing units between the three structures. The resulting
development will significantly increase the housing stock on the lands. The intent of the
demolitions is to create a building envelope that will maximize the building opportunities within the
subject lands.
On August 8, 2022, and July 5, 2023, Bright Past (now TBG) contacted the City to scope the
requirements of the HIA. Through discussions with City heritage staff, it was confirmed that the
focus of the HIA was on the assessment of potential impacts to the adjacent listed and designated
properties at 51, 64, 79, and 90 Benton Street and 53 Church Street and their identified attributes.
It was also confirmed that the HIA did not need to address potential impacts on any nearby listed
or designated properties such as 54 Benton Street or 43 Benton Street (designated), or 83 Benton
Street (listed) which is technically adjacent (due to the irregularity of the lot's "L -shape" touching
the subject lands) but separated by the parcel and structure at 79 Benton Street.
Following recent changes to the City of Kitchener's planning framework through the "Growing
Together" project, TBG again met with staff on April 22, 2024 to discuss the heritage aspects of
the complete submission along with the content of the HIA.
This HIA also identifies how the proposed development will impact the proposed CHSC-CHL. In
this regard, the focus is on the potential impacts as it relates to the edge of the CHSC-CHL
boundary, the view looking southeast down Church Street from the intersection of Church and
Benton Street, and the impact the proposal may have on any of the identified features or attributes
of the CHSC-CHL. Particular focus is given to the adjacent listed properties at 51 and 79 Benton
Street and 53 Church Street.
Lastly, this HIA also addresses the influence and potential impact of the development on the
setting and character of the subject lands in relation to the interface with the VPA-HCD across the
street along Benton Street, specifically in relation to the adjacent protected heritage properties at
64 and 90 Benton Street.
The purpose of this report is to assess the impacts of the proposed development and recommend
mitigative measures, as necessary or alternative development approaches to conserve any
potential heritage attributes of the adjacent properties, ensure an appropriate fit within the CHSC-
CHL and at the interface with the VPA-HCD, as applicable. The HIA provides conclusions and
Page 23 of 316
recommendations on applicable heritage mitigation, and is based on the City of Kitchener's
Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, which is appended to this report as Appendix B.
Note that since the subject lands themselves are not listed or designated heritage properties of
cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Register, there are no legal protections in place
under the Ontario Heritage Act. Furthermore, through discussion with City staff, and based on the
requirements set out in the Ontario Heritage Act, it was determined that evaluations of the
properties forming the subject lands and their structures were not required to be evaluated under
O. Reg 9/06.
The focus of this HIA, is the impacts to the adjacent heritage resources, the proposed CHSC-CHL,
and the eastern interface with the VPA-HCD.
Page 24 of 316
|
SITE
.[] R R C)I I N 17
� \
\��`y
!7■
SITE
.[] R R C)I I N 17
2.0 SITE & SURROUNDINGS
2.1 Subject Lands
The subject lands are municipally addressed as 39 and 51 Church Street and 69 and 73 Benton
Street and are located within the Cedar Hill neighbourhood of the City, just east of the easternmost
boundary of Downtown Kitchener ("DTK"). The neighbourhood where the lands are located
includes a variety of densities, building heights, and land uses. Along the edges of the
neighbourhood there are several former residential buildings which have been converted into
commercial or mixed-use buildings, and multi -unit rentals. Though the neighbourhood is primarily
low-rise and residential in nature, it is unique for its blend of institutional uses (e.g., churches),
commercial businesses especially along the periphery of the neighbourhood, and several mid -
and high-rise multi -unit residential buildings (e.g., 86 Cedar Street South, 73, 74, and 81 Church
Street, and 50 Eby Street South).
Geographically, the subject lands are located on the periphery of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood at
the southern corner of Benton and Church Street, north of St. George Street, on the east side of
Benton Street and the south side of Church Street, and west of Peter Street. The subject lands
make up an area of approximately 0.459 hectares (1.134 acres), with frontages along both Benton
Street (approximately 63 metres) and Church Street (64 metres). The depth of the subject lands
varies as the four separate parcels lend to an irregular lot shape. Overall, the subject lands
represent a large land assembly for the neighbourhood, and are legally described as:
Part of Lot 17, German Company Tract; Part of Lot 3, Plan 205; Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-5235;
Part of Lot 19, East Side of Benton Street, Plan 393; and Part of Lot 41, Plan 394; Kitchener;
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
The subject lands are currently developed with three low-rise residential houses and a large
surface gravel parking lot. Originally built as single -detached residential homes, the structures on
the subject lands have since been converted for into rental housing buildings, with two of the
structures each having three rental units and the other containing two rental units. Access to 51
Church Street and 69 Benton Street is provided from both Church and Benton Street. Parking for
these two parcels is provided privately to the rear of and beside each of the buildings on a surface
parking lot. Access to 73 Benton Street is provided only off Benton Street, with private parking
located on a surface parking lot to the rear. There are private garages to the rear of 51 Church
Street and 73 Benton Street, which appear to be used for storage rather than vehicles.
The lots themselves are generally flat but are situated on a high point in the City of Kitchener. The
lands contain some vegetation in terms of trees, which are mostly located along the property lines
internal to and towards the southern limits of the lands. Currently, the subject lands are mostly
used for surface parking finished with a mix of gravel and asphalt.
The subject lands contain three single -detached houses converted into residential rental buildings
with two to three units a piece. It is apparent that several alterations have been made to the
buildings over the years, which are noticeable from outside the buildings, including the closing of
S
Page 26 of 316
old openings (i.e., windows and doors) and the introduction of new entrances to accommodate
the conversion of the buildings for multiple apartment units, and the unitization of the homes for
rental purposes, among others. The properties at 51 Church Street and 73 Benton Street both
contain outbuildings (detached garages) located to the rear of the main houses; both of which, are
in poor condition. All photos are original.
Subject Lands looking North
Lands looking North along Benton St
Lands looking Southeast along Church St
51 Church Street
The building at 51 Church Street is a 2 -storey yellow brick building with a large attic space,
creating a half level at the top. The structure has been subjected to several alterations over the
years, which in our opinion, has altered the original format of the building, particularly the interior
layout.
Page 27 of 316
Exterior - 51 Church Street
The house at 51 Church Street is a 2 -storey uniformly yellow brick building with large attic space.
The house has been converted into 2 apartment units with a glass- and wood -enclosed shared
verandah that creates a covered entryway for two individual main doors, one for each unit.
On the outside, the house has had its primary entrance removed and replaced with two separate
doors. It appears the chimney has been replaced with a more modern brick version and is no
longer functioning to accommodate a working wood -burning fireplace, and another chimney has
been removed to the rear. Also, the verandah has been enclosed with glass, and two small
unsympathetic additions have been made to the rear clad in vertically oriented vinyl siding. The
current colours of the house are yellow / cream for the brick, light blue / grey for the trim elements
including the eaves, brown for the stoop steps and roof which is shingled, and white for the doors
and door trim. The house features an asymmetrical footprint, with the entrance oriented towards
the northeast corner of the house, and the roof is cross -gabled.
The irregular outline or silhouette of the house consists of: tall gables with tall and symmetrically
spaced and slightly -arched 1/1 windows on the first and second levels; a paired 1/1 window at the
attic level near the peaks of the gables; a front glass- and wood -enclosed shared verandah with
recessed balcony above; multi -sloped cross -gabled roof; exaggerated and paired cornice
brackets at the ends and centres of the eaves and peaks, respectively; newer wood addition
(entrance / mud room) on the southwest fagade; remnants of a chimney on the south (rear)
fagade); a rear dormer / bump -up (addition) on the roof of the rear portion of the structure, which
includes a triplet 1:1 window array; and a second covered, but not enclosed, verandah at the
southeast (rear) corner of the building, which appears to function as a secondary entrance for the
lower unit. There is evidence of some damage to the exterior of the building in the form of mortar
cracks and erosion, but generally, the exterior of the building appears to be in fair to good
condition.
51 Church St North (Front) Facade
51 Church St West (Side) Facade
M
I
Page 28 of 316
51 Church St South (Rear) Facade
51 Church St East (Side) Facade
Interior — 51 Church Street
The interior of the house is where the greatest changes to the structure have occurred. According
to the City Directories, the house may have been converted into apartments as early as 1945,
transforming the original structure from a single-family home into a duplex dwelling.
The unitization has been designed to accommodate two rental units, one upper and one lower.
Entry was gained to the upper unit during the site visits but not the lower. The condition of the
upper unit was in generally good condition, except for the attic which has some signs of weather
and animal damage. The main alteration comes in the form of the work required to separate the
house into two individual units. This included separating the main stairwell from the balance of the
house with new walls, which has been re -configured to function as the exterior entrance and steps
up to the upper-level unit.
The entrance into the upper unit appears to have utilized the original or part of the original
staircase within the house. However, a partition wall has been added alongside the stairwell
creating the division between upper and lower units. The original opening for the house is no
longer intact, as the upper and lower units are situated side by side within the verandah and utilize
newer doors.
Within the upper unit there are wooden elements which appear to be original to the house
including: built-in cabinetry; radiators; chandelier; newel post; wood trim and ceiling features;
handrail; and some decorative floor and ceiling trim. As well, there is large, tall double wooden
door in the upper unit which currently functions as a closet door. This wood door is, according to
the current tenant, the original exterior door to the house, which was moved upstairs during the
conversion of the original house into apartments. The double wood door features a dark wood
finish or patina, cut-outs for rounded arched windows or stained-glass, round decorative knobs
and mail slot, and a working mechanical doorbell. The cut-outs for rounded arched windows or
stained-glass are filled in with plastic inserts that are intended to look like old darkened stained -
7
Page 29 of 316
glass. It is likely that the original glass or stained-glass inserts into these door windows was broken
during the apartment conversion process or similar intervention.
The attic is tall, and access is provided via a steep and narrow staircase. The attic is unfinished,
non -insulated, and appears to have been utilized as a living space for some time, as there is
evidence of wallpaper and hooks. Electricity was once available in the attic via knob and tube
wiring, which appears to have been disconnected. The attic is not well sealed from the outside,
and there are signs or animal access and damage.
51 Church St (Upper Unit) Livina Area
Page 30 of 316
51 Church St (Upper Unit) Staircase
51 Church St (Upper Unit) 51 Exterior Door
Portico
51 Church St (Upper Unit) Attic & Old
7
Page 31 of 316
10
Page 32 of 316
51 Church St (Upper Unit) Decorative 51 Church St (Upper Unit) Original Front
Woodwork Entrance Door
69 Benton Street
IT
The building at 69 Benton Street is a 2 -storey red / brown brick building featuring a side gable
saltbox roof'. The saltbox roof line may have been used to cover an extension onto the back of the
house. The house has been divided into at least 3 units, with separate entrances from the raised
parlour floor. The upper unit has undergone various alterations and additions, including a rear
extension and attic conversion. The basement contains mechanical rooms and has a separate
entrance. The interior condition is generally poor to fair, with the upper unit being in better shape.
Exterior — 69 Benton Street
The exterior of the structure at 69 Benton Street is comprised of a mix of brick, stone and / or
concrete, and vinyl siding. The current colours of the house at 69 Benton Street are red / brown for
the brick, navy blue for the upper portion of the front bump -out, white / cream-coloured trim and
windows, and grey foundation.
The structure at 69 Benton Street has been converted into multiple rental housing units, evident in
features such as the saltbox roof covering a rear extension, randomly placed and sized windows,
symmetrical brick chimneys on both sides, a mix of brick and vinyl siding, large stone lintels,
multiple entrances and openings accommodating unitization, boarded or covered window
openings, wide overhanging eaves with evenly spaced brackets, and a primary entrance through
the side of the portico into a front 2 -storey rectilinear bump -out facing Benton Street.
Overall, the house at 69 Benton Street exhibits a more utilitarian or functional design, prioritizing
practicality over adherence to specific aesthetic principles.
The saltbox roof is an asymmetrical roof design that contains one side that slopes all the way down to the
height of the first floor and is generally used to cover a single -story extension onto the back of the house.
11
Page 33 of 316
Based on historical research below, the building may have been converted into multiple rental
housing units (at least 3) within 10 years of it being constructed, and there are several features
which illustrate this conversion: a saltbox roof, likely covering an extension onto the back of the
house; randomly placed and sized windows; generally symmetrical brick chimneys on either side;
blended brick construction with newer alterations that now include vinyl siding; large stone lintels;
multiple entrances and openings placed randomly to accommodate unitization; boarded or covered
window openings; wide over -hanging eaves with multiple evenly spaced brackets; and a primary
entrance through the side of the portico into a front 2 -storey rectilinear bump -out towards Benton
Street.
69 Benton St West (Front) Facade
69 Benton St North (Side) Facade
69 Benton St East (Rear) Facade 69 Benton St South (Side) Facade
12
Page 34 of 316
Interior — 69 Benton Street
According to the City Directories, the original house may have been converted into a multiple unit
apartment building after only 10 years as a single-family home. The records appear to show the
conversion into apartments as early as 1928. The conversions are evident in the interior of the
house at 69 Benton Street.
In this regard, the interior has been converted into at least 3 units. All the units have a primary
entrance from grade through a slightly raised parlour floor, which functions only as a landing for
the 3 units. Access was granted to the upper and the lower units during the site visit.
The upper unit is in the best condition, but has been retrofit through a series of remodels,
additions, and alterations. The main floor of the upper unit is not level and there are several
different levels to the floors depending on the room. The finishes are newer, including the floors,
and it does appear as though some of the original windows are intact. Some of the interior doors
and openings on the upper floor appear to be original but are built into an asymmetrical floor plan
ostensibly a result of trying to fit an independent unit into the upper level. To the rear of the upper
unit, is where the saltbox roof line appears to show a rear addition attached to what would have
likely been the original main wall of the building. The attic has also been converted into a living
space with modern doors custom fit with corner cut-outs to accommodate the sloping roofline.
Oddly, the privacy for the upper unit is limited as the stairwell to reach the unit is open to both the
unit itself and the landing area / parlour floor, which is shared by the other tenants in the building.
There is a glass door at the upper level to help create a separation internally for the upper-level
tenant.
The basement of the house contains both the mechanical rooms for the apartment, which have
been retrofit to accommodate multiple units, including an old furnace, and washing machines. The
electrical panel has been updated into a breaker panel.
In the basement, you can see some of the supporting beams for the upper levels, which consist, or
large 8 -inch cut wood beams.
The basement unit, which was vacant at the time, features a low ceiling height, and a variety of
irregularly shaped rooms and closets. The basement is dark, and likely not up to code, with much
of the floorplan appearing as an afterthought in a manner ostensibly designed to fit another rental
unit. There is one other entrance / exit to the basement unit which is accessed via stairwell to the
outside. The stairwell was steep, irregular, and cold.
No access was granted to the ground -level unit, but when looking at its main door from the parlour
floor, it appears as a business rather than a residential unit.
The interior of 69 Benton Street is obviously not original but may feature some remnant original
components such as doors and door hardware, the upper-level stair railing and newel posts, and
the radiators. It was unclear if the chimneys were attached to fireplaces, as the ground floor unit
was not accessed. Overall, the interior condition 69 Benton is poor to fair, with the best conditions
demonstrated in the upper unit.
13
Page 35 of 316
14
Page 36 of 316
69 Benton St (Upper Unit) Floor Height
Difference
69 Benton St Staircase between Upper Unit
and Ground Floor
69 Benton St (Basement) Boiler System
15
Page 37 of 316
69 Benton St (Basement) Landing 69 Benton St (Basement Unit) Living Area &
Kitchen
69 Benton St (Basement Unit) Bedroom
69 Benton St (Basement Unit) Separate
Staircase & Entrance
73 Benton Street
The building at 73 Benton Street is a 1.5 -storey brick building featuring unsympathetic alterations
to the fagade to accommodate its conversion into 3 or more units.
IRS
Page 38 of 316
Exterior — 73 Benton Street
The house at 73 Benton Street is a 1.5 -storey vernacular brick building. The house has been
converted into 3 -unit apartment building and shows multiple indications of unitization. Out of all the
buildings on the subject lands, the structure at 73 Benton Street is in the worst condition, both
externally and internally.
The current colours of the house at 73 Benton Street are light blue / grey for brick, which is painted,
cream -colour for some of the trim elements including the eaves, dark blue or grey for some of the
decorative work around the front bay window eaves and cornice brackets, and a bright blue metal
roof. The foundation if grey and the front porch was painted a dark blue, but the paint is mostly
peeled off. It is noted that the original brick colour was yellow, which is exposed in some locations
along the fagades.
The house features an asymmetrical footprint, with the primary entrance oriented towards the
northwest corner, and a cross -gabled roof. All windows on the house are contemporary
rectangular windows that have been fit into original arched openings.
The house at 73 Benton Street shows signs of deterioration and unsympathetic alterations to the
exterior.
Based on historical photos of the house, several original features, such as finials, vergeboarding,
window shutters, and certain window and door openings, have been removed or bricked over,
respectively (shown in history below). Additionally, new openings have been created in the
brickwork to accommodate the conversion of the house into multiple units, and various external
fixtures have been added to support individual gas lines, electrical systems, and HVAC
installations.
The irregular outline or silhouette of the house consists of elements of both original structure and
apartment conversion including: a large bay window to the front along Benton Street with
exaggerated eaves and decorative, paired cornice brackets; modern rectangular 1:1 windows that
have been fit into original arched window openings; exhaust inserts that have been cut into and
retrofit directly into the front fagade of the structure, likely as part of a contemporary HVAC system;
a side covered porch with balcony above in the northwest corner; some newer and randomly
placed windows along the sides; original window openings that are often paired , but which are
now retrofit with inserts to accommodate rectangular windows, venting, and HVAC components;
bricked over entrances and openings; multiple hydro meters and related gas lines; and newer
upper level deck and stairs added to provide independent access to the upper-level unit, which
also includes a cut opening not original to the house.
There is evidence of some damage to the exterior of the building in the form of mortar cracks and
erosion, brick cracks, and holes or openings around doors/windows, and generally, the exterior of
the building appears to be in poor to fair condition.
17
Page 39 of 316
73 Benton St West (Front) Facade
f
73 Benton St North (Side) Facade
73 Benton St South (Side) Facade
Interior - 73 Benton Street
The interior of the house is where the greatest changes to the structure have occurred. According
to the City Directories, the house may have been converted into apartments as early as 1943,
transforming the original structure from a single-family home into multi -unit apartment building,
with at least 3 units. It is noted that there may have been 4 units at one point, due to the presence
of 4 separate hydro meters.
W
Page 40 of 316
Access to the main floor unit and the basement and the upper-level units was granted during the
site visit. The house has been extensively altered and converted to accommodate multiple rental
units, and very little evidence of the original interior exists.
Generally, all the units were in poor condition, with the basement showing severe signs of mold,
mildew, and rot. The upper unit showed several symptoms of damage, both tenant and landlord
caused. It also appeared as though there was a fire on the main floor near the retrofit gas fireplace
that has been inserted into the upper level. There are signs of burning and soot around the vent. All
the kitchens, ceilings, and doors are contemporary. In the basement, there was some evidence of
early machine -cut nails.
73 Benton St
73 Be)
�.7
73 Benton St (Upper Unit) Balcony Access
L_ ,A
A
19
Page 41 of 316
73 Benton St
73 Benton St (Upper Unit) Exposed Eaves
Deck
Benton St (Upper Unit) Exposed Brick & Lath &
Plaster
L7
20
Page 42 of 316
73 Benton St (Upper Unit) Fire Damage
*�
may-
Y -
6........ ...I _
73 Benton St (Ground Floor Unit) Living &
Bedroom Areas
73 Benton St (Ground Floor Unit) Retrofit Gas
73 Benton St (Ground Floor Unit) Kitchen
—mom A
�9
6z-
21
Page 43 of 316
73 Benton St (Ground Floor Unit) Bathroom
73 Benton St (Basement) Laundry Area
73 Benton St (Ground Floor Unit) Staircase to
Basement Unit
73 Benton St (Basement) Breaker Panels &
Work Area
22
Page 44 of 316
73 Benton St (Basement) Floor & Baseboard
73 Benton St (Basement) Bedroom & Damage
73 Benton St (Basement) Mould
!S : 4
2.2 Adjacent & Surrounding Context
The subject lands are located within and at the western periphery of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood
of the City, at the northern corner of a block that is bounded by Church Street to the north, Peter
Street to the east, St. George Street to the south, and Benton Street to the west. The area
encompassing the "Cedar Hill neighbourhood" differs between sources (e.g., Google, Kitchener's
Interactive Mapping Application, and the Neighbourhood Association Maps), but is generally
bounded by Benton Street, Courtland Avenue East, Charles Street East, and Stirling Avenue South.
23
Page 45 of 316
Some maps show the neighbourhood extending as far west as Queen Street South along St.
George Street, just north of Courtland Avenue East (see Figure 2 and 3 below).
Figure 2 — BroaderAeria/ Context Map
Figure 3 - Immediate Aerial Context Map
Source: VuMap, 2024
24
Page 46 of 316
This is an area located just south of Downtown Kitchener on a raised area, with an eclectic range
and mix of uses from low- to high-rise residential, institutional uses (many churches), some
commercial uses, and a wide variety of both surface and higher order transit options.
The area contains several heritage properties, and just west of the subject lands is the eastern
border of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District. Several streets internal to the Cedar Hill
neighbourhood are quite narrow, but Church Street where it abuts the subject lands and Benton
Streets are wider. The following section provides an overview of the lands immediately adjacent to
the subject lands and nearby.
To the immediate north is the right-of-way ("ROW") for Church Street, which is a local street with an
ultimate planned ROW width of 18 metres between Benton Street and Cedar Street. Today, the
ROW along the section of Church Street that runs adjacent to the subject lands is just over 15 -
metres -wide. Across the street, on the north side of Church Street, is 51 Benton Street. This
property is the location of the Benton Medical Centre, a listed, non -designated property of potential
cultural heritage value or interest. The structure at 51 Benton Street is a 2 -storey brick building and
was previously the Schreiter Sandrock Funeral Home. Generally, buildings along Church Street,
north of the subject lands, are comprised of a range and mix of uses from service commercial to
institutional to single-family and apartment residential. Building heights range from 2 to 8 storeys in
height.
Further to the north, on the other side of 51 Benton Street, is 43 Benton Street. The property at 43
Benton Street, is 2 -storey red brick designated heritage property, and was the birthplace of former
Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King. Further to the north is the intersection of Charles
Street E and Benton Street, which contains tracks for the 301 "ION" Light Rail Transit ("LRT') line.
Approximately 225 metres from the subject lands is the intersection of Benton Street and King
Street East.
It is at this intersection where Benton Street ends and Frederick Street begins. As well, this is the
location of the Frederick LRT Station Stop and Downtown Kitchener, which serves as a major
employment centre and a focal area for region -wide public services as well as commercial,
recreational, arts and cultural and entertainment uses.
Furthermore, the Queen LRT Station Stop is located approximately 125 metres to the northwest
from the subject lands, placing the lands within a 5 -minute walk of LRT stations. See below site
visit photos.
25
Page 47 of 316
Benton Medical Centre at 51 Benton St North of
and Adjacent to Subject Lands
View looking North Down Benton St from
Church St
View North Down Benton St at Intersection with
Church West Side
rAI
51 Benton St Italianate Structure
Page 48 of 316
St. Matthews Lutheran Church Northwest of
Lands at 54 Benton St
43 Benton St (MacKenzie King Manor) North of
Subject Lands
Intersection of Benton St & Charles St E
with LRT Tracks
To the immediate east of the subject lands is 53 Church Street, and the current location of a place
of worship called the Martin Luther Church, a listed, non -designated property of potential cultural
heritage value or interest. Buildings and uses east of the subject lands are generally comprised of
institutional, single-family residential, and apartment residential buildings. Heights of buildings on
the south side of Church Street between Benton Street and Peter Street vary, ranging from 2 to 19 -
storeys in height, with the tallest buildings being "Wellington Place" a 19 -storey multi -unit
residential building, and 74 Church Street, an 8 -storey multi -unit residential building. Buildings east
27
Page 49 of 316
of the subject lands are clad in a mix of materials from brick in different colours, to stone and
concrete, to stucco. Generally, the lands east of the subject lands are representative of a more
established residential neighbourhood, albeit, with a unique range of building heights atypical to
an established low-rise residential neighbourhood. Other than Church Street, the exceptions in
taller building heights are generally located along existing major streets like Benton Street and
Cedar Street South. For example, 86 Cedar Street South contains a 14 -storey multi -unit residential
tower and 87-94 Cedar Street South contains a 3 -storey (4 -storey street appearance) mid -rise
stacked townhouse development. Other tall buildings are proposed at 95-101 Cedar Street South.
Internally, but still oriented towards the edge or periphery of the neighbourhood to the east is 50
Eby Street South, a 9 to 10 -storey multi -unit residential building.
View looking Southeast down Church St
Church East of Subject Lands at 53 Church St
View Northeast from back of Subject Lands with
Existing Tower in View
W
Page 50 of 316
Low and Mid -Rise Building along Church St
Mid -Rise Building (Cedar Hill Court) at 73
Church St
AM
Tall Building (Wellington Place) at 81 Church St
29
Page 51 of 316
To the immediate south of the subject lands are a range and mix of uses and building heights,
making up the southern edge of the block described above. To the immediate south is the location
of Robert J Dyck Architect & Engineering Inc., a professional services office established in a 2.5 -
storey vernacular brick house built between 1926 — 1927 at 79 Benton Street. This property is a
listed, non -designated properly on the City's Register. Just south of 79 Benton Street is 83 Benton
Street, another listed, non -designated property on the City's Register.
The building at 83 Benton Street is a 2 -storey late 19th century brick house. The house at 83 Benton
Street is technically located adjacent to the subject lands due to the irregularity of the lot shape,
but the building is separated along the street by 79 Benton Street. As such, it was agreed that 83
Benton Street need not be assessed as part of this HIA.
Further south still is the ROW of St. George Street, which provides frontage for a variety of low-rise
residential houses and a 4 -storey mid -rise multi -unit residential building.
Adjacent Property at 79 Benton St South of
Subject Lands
Buildings South of Subject Lands along Benton
St
30
Page 52 of 316
Six -unit Apartment Building at 87 Benton St
Destroyed by Fire (Now Demolished)
Colourful Townhouses South of Subject Lands
along Benton St (Site of Proposed High -Rise)
Houses Along St. George St South of Subject Lands
To the immediate west of the subject lands is greatest variation in building typology and uses.
Adjacent to the subject lands is the Benton Street ROW, which is a regional road with an ultimate
planned ROW width of over 26 metres between Frederick Street and Courtland Avenue. Today, the
ROW along the section of Benton Street that runs adjacent to the subject lands is just over 20 -
metres -wide. This section of Benton Street is also the eastern limits of the Victoria Park Heritage
31
Page 53 of 316
Conservation District, meaning that most of the properties along the west side of Benton Street are
designated properties on the City's Register under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
To the northwest of the subject lands on the north corner of the intersection of Church and Benton
Streets is the St. Matthews Lutheran Church at 54 Benton Street. This designated church building
was constructed in 1914 of light brown brick. The building is a single storey but has a street
appearance of at least 4 storeys, and features a prominent rose window, and other large stained-
glass windows.
Directly across the street from the subject lands to the west is 64 Benton Street. This property
contains a 15 -storey high-rise, multi -unit residential condominium building built sometime between
1975 and 1980, known as the "Benton Condos".
To the southwest of the subject lands on the north corner of the intersection of Benton and St.
George Streets is the Benton Street Baptist Church. The current church was constructed in 1965,
with the cornerstone being laid on April 3, 1966. Further to the southwest is the Arrow Lofts
building, an 8 -9 -storey, multi -unit residential condominium building that was adapted from the
former Arrow Shirt factory. Further to the southwest is the site of "The Bow", a 16 -storey multi -unit,
high-rise apartment building at 120 Benton Street.
Further to the west of the subject lands, a diverse range of building uses and heights can be
observed. This includes a mix of low and high-rise residential buildings, commercial
establishments, and even institutional structures like the Historic St. Paul's Lutheran Church at 137
Queen Street South. If one continues even further to the west, towards the southwest from the
subject lands and near the intersection of David and Joseph Streets, they will encounter the
beginning of Victoria Park, also known as "Willow River Park," along with the Charles Street bus
terminal.
View West along Church St from Subject Lands View West from Parking Lot on Subject Lands
32
Page 54 of 316
Arrow Lofts at 112 Benton St & The Bow at 120
Benton St
v �
ridall
- r_. _..
Benton St Baptist Church & Arrow Lofts
Interface
Benton St Baptist Church & 64 Benton
Condominiums
Interface between Benton St Baptist Church &
64 Benton Condominiums
Continuation of Church St Uses looking West
Uses Southwest from Subject Lands along
Benton St
�V
Heights in the Neighbourhood
Building heights in the Cedar Hill neighbourhood include a mix of low-rise, mid -rise, and high-rise
built forms. Although the predominate build heights are low-rise, there are several mid -rise and tall
buildings scattered throughout the Cedar Hill neighbourhood, predominantly along major streets,
including Regional roads such as Benton Street, Charles Street East, and Courtland Avenue East,
as well as City Arterials like Queen Street East, and Major Community Collectors like Cedar Street
South and Stirling Avenue South.
33
Page 55 of 316
Church Street, on the other hand, boasts the most unique configuration of building heights,
featuring the tallest building in the neighbourhood just down the road from the subject lands along
an existing local road. Figure 4 provides a visual representation of this distinctive arrangement.
Figure 4 - A4ap of Mid- to High Rise Buildings within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood
Source: Google Maps, 2023
Beyond the Cedar Hill neighbourhood, as you move closer to the Downtown area, particularly to
the north and northwest, there is a noticeable increase in the presence of tall buildings. The
subject lands are located within the northwest corner of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood and are
therefore situated at the edge of this transition.
2.3 Heritage Context
The subject lands are not listed or designated properties cultural heritage value or interest on the
City of Kitchener Heritage Register, nor are they located within a Heritage Conservation District or
within a Heritage Corridor as set out on Map 11 Integrated Transportation System of the City's
Official Plan. The area showcases a mix of construction dates, building typologies, and heights,
blending early and late housing styles, high-rise structures, and institutional buildings.
The lands are located within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape study
area as described in Kitchener's 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (approved by Council in
2015) and are now part of the combined Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural
Heritage Landscape ("CHSC-CHL") on the Official Plan Amendment to Map 9 Cultural Heritage
Resources (Schedule E) via the Growing Together framework.
The CHSC-CHL is not a designated (protected) Heritage Conservation District, but is, to our
understanding, now subject Policies 12.C.1.50 to 12.C.1.53 in the new Growing Together
framework recently approved by Council. According to these policies, the Cedar Hill and Schneider
Creek Neighbourhood features priority locations at gateways that highlight the area's unique
topography and local streetscapes.
34
Page 56 of 316
Notably, the intersection of Benton Street at Church Street looking to the southeast is identified in
Policy 12.C.1.51 (g). Corner properties at these intersections (such as the subject lands) are of
specific cultural heritage interest. Future development should consider transitions in a way that
preserves and enhances these views and the characteristic streetscape, particularly where
heritage buildings are located. Notwithstanding, Growing Together Policy 12.C.1.51, our
understanding is that there are no specific attributes identified or associated with the view at the
intersection of Benton Street at Church Street looking to the southeast.
Generally, most of the lands within and immediately around Downtown Kitchener are associated
with a potential Cultural Heritage Landscape, and any development generally triggers a review of
the potential cultural heritage value or interest. Reportedly, the structure at 157-159 Benton Street
approximately 395 metres to the south at the northeast corner of Benton Street and Martin Street,
is the oldest house in the Benton, Cedar, Courtland, and Mill Street area, built around 1879.
According to City heritage staff, two of the parcels forming the subject lands (i.e., 51 Church Street
and 79 Benton Street) were identified as properties of specific interest within the Cedar Hill
Neighbourhood CHL (original Cultural Heritage Landscape Study) for their adjacency to properties
listed on the Register.
The subject lands are located adjacent to 4 listed (non -designated) properties of potential cultural
heritage value or interest and are across the street from 2 designated properties of cultural
heritage value or interest and the eastern boarder of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation
District ("VPA-HCD"). The 2 designated properties are protected under the Part V Designation By-
law 96-91, through the VPA-HCD.
Through discussions with City heritage staff, it was confirmed that the focus of the HIA was on the
assessment of potential impacts to the adjacent listed properties at 51 and 79 Benton Street and
53 Church Street, and the adjacent designated properties at 64 and 90 Benton.
It was also confirmed that the HIA did not need to address potential impacts on any nearby listed
or designated properties such as 54 Benton Street or 43 Benton Street (designated), or 83 Benton
Street (listed). The property at 83 Benton Street is technically adjacent (due to the irregularity of the
lot's "L -shape" touching the subject lands) but separated by the parcel and structure at 79 Benton
Street (see Figure 5: Heritage Context Map).
Note that the figure below is intended to illustrate the adjacent designated and listed heritage
properties near the subject lands. It does not show a comprehensive list of all listed or designated
properties on the map extents. It also shows the approximate boundaries of the VPA-HCD and the
Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, noting that these
boundaries may be imprecise due to scaling.
Additionally, the figure does not indicate areas excluded from the Part V designation for the VPA-
HCD, which includes 112 Benton Street; 24, 26, 30, 34 Courtland Avenue East; 22, 35 Courtland
Avenue West; 82 Heins Avenue; 25, 163 Joseph Street; 13-15 Oak Street; 202, 214, 307, 560
Queen Street South; 23 Roland Avenue; 17, 43, 76 Schneider Avenue; 100 Water Street South; 150
Water Street South; and 73 Heins Avenue.
35
Page 57 of 316
Figure 5 - Heritage Context Map
,k q
"11,12 subject
�, fin► Lands
Approximate Area of Cedar
HM & Schreiber Creek CK
EGIND
Adjacent Listed Properties:
f� 9 I 51 Be*tOh St
''� 2- 53 Chur h a
'i�3�79 Raton $t
' )
�) 83 Benton 5t
Adixe+x Mtflated
Properties=
(/s 3 64 Benton R
s+._i}' 40 Benton St
Page 58 of 316
■ 3.O ' Proposal
Page 59 of 316
3.0 PROPOSAL
The owners are proposing a redevelopment of the subject lands to construct a new high-rise
building with mixed residential and commercial uses. The building is proposed to be 40 storeys tall
featuring a 4 -storey podium. Along the western and northwest edges of the podium, there will be
commercial units at street level, while the southern edge will have six townhouse units. The
redevelopment plan includes three levels of underground parking and no above -ground parking.
In total, the project will provide 505 new residential units, and over 618 square metres of
commercial space on the ground floor. Vehicular access will be available from Church Street,
situated between the existing church at 53 Church Street and the podium.
The main objective of the redevelopment is to revitalize an underutilized and partially vacant land
assembly in the urban area of the City within a Protected Major Transit Station Area. The aim is to
create additional housing for the neighbourhood with densities that support public transit, all within
walking distance of an existing transit station.
To achieve the most efficient building envelope and form, the existing structures on the subject
lands will be demolished. A site plan control application is necessary to facilitate the
redevelopment proposal and bring the mixed-use high-rise building to fruition on the subject lands.
Since the subject lands are located adjacent and near to heritage properties and fall within the
CHSC-CHL, the development applications must be accompanied by a Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA).
Podium and Tower
The podium of a tall building can help anchor the tower and defines the pedestrian experience at
the street. Its location and height can also help to frame and create a positive relationship to the
street. The podium of the proposed building has been carefully designed to include a mix of
horizontal and vertical elements, to reinforce a human scale.
With respect to heritage, one of the elements adopted in the podium design has been a horizontal
banding at the theoretical datum line representative of the historic building heights along the east
side Benton Street and the south side of Church Street. This banding is introduced into the podium
using articulation, materiality, and colour, and provides an homage to the roof lines of the building
still existing along these sections of the street and the ones that are proposed to be removed as
part of the redevelopment.
To the north (interface with Church Street), the building is proposed to be set back from Church
Street by between 1.6 and 2.1 metres (post widening) from the property line to the main outer wall
of the podium. Pre -road widening, the podium would be set back about 5 metres from the existing
edge of the street. The tower is proposed to be stepped back between 4 and 5 metres from the
Church Street frontage (post widening) and more than 3.0 metres from the podium along Church
Street.
37
Page 60 of 316
To the east (interface with 53 Church Street), the tower will be stepped back more than 7.5 metres
from the podium to create separation from the church at 53 Church Street, and the distance
between the property line to the nearest main building wall will be at least 20 metres and more than
27 metres between properly line and the tower. The closest distance between the edge of the
church at 53 Church Street and the tower component will be more than 27.5 metres. Furthermore,
the northwest corner of the podium has been cut to create enhanced sight lines for pedestrians
and traffic at the corner of Benton and Church Street and to reduce the pinch at this intersection.
To the south (79 Benton Street interface), the building is proposed to be set back between about 6
to just over 8 metres from the main outer wall of the podium to the property line. The tower will be
stepped back an additional 20 + metres from the southern edge of the podium. The nearest
distance between the main outer walls of the existing structure at 79 Benton Street and the podium
of the proposed building is more than 14.5 metres. When coupled with the tower step back, this
distance will be nearly 35 metres.
To the west (interface with Benton Street), the building is proposed to be set back between 0 and
0.5 metres from the property line to the main outer wall of the podium (post road widening). Pre -
road widening, the podium would be set back more than 3.5 metres. The tower is proposed to be
stepped back by about 6.5 metres from the Benton Street frontage nearest to the intersection with
Church Street and about 6.4 metres nearest to the southwest corner (post widening), and more
than 5.7 metres from the edge of the podium along Benton Street.
The site plan, elevation drawings, and renderings below help visualize the proposal in greater
detail (see Figures 6 - 9).
Figure 6- Massing 14ewfrom Northeast Figure 7- Massing 146wfrom Southeast
m
Page 61 of 316
Figure 8 - Massing lriew from Northwest
PQ$W
48 SUMEY HUMMING
39
Page 62 of 316
Figure 9 - Proposed Site Plan
i
CHURCH SYRE6i I ._.-
ArL
[. M f
e � —
lRROPOSCO: tha s
I '
21416016M
16M t v
Y
vf
x A31L'KL{
ri
II I M1'A=..I.L
I I I to
Source: Kirkor Architects and Planners, 2024
40
Page 63 of 316
Figure 10 - Ground Level Floor Plan
+fie^w:rxua+
R rl �IJ•YlJ]Y,1�
- •IIS IsawFnuµ I M I 7'F.17
• C .. _
I 31
r-�
� I is '. .. pkv• iaMu I wp .. p -T .
hYj� ` 61�IYK+}1
JI
r
q �sx:iYa; •
Source: Kirkor Architects and Planners, 2024
The following figures provide renderings of the proposed building. It is noted that the corner cut-
out at the intersection of Church and Benton Streets is not shown as the renderings are slightly
older than the current site plan.
41
Page 64 of 316
Figure » - Rendering looking Northeast
Figure 12 - Rendering looking Southeast
(intersection of Church & Benton St)
Figure 13 - Rendering along Benton St to North
Figure 14 - Rendering of Corner
42
Page 65 of 316
Figure 15 - Rendering of Westem Interface
Figure 16 - Rendering of Southwest Comer
Figure 17 - Rendering South along Benton St
I
Figure 19 - 3D Context l4ew
Figure 18 - Rendering of Southem Interface
pit, ,
rF-e ®7-7 l - le ,ILPL- — �
A 46
4
43
Page 66 of 316
�'' II j•�_ �r� '�.a Jfr#.til + r � ■ i — __
-�-----rrr{{{�.., "�, " . � � ; ■ ,r qp -amu
ROD f✓ r + -- - - MtiN f! y .s.r. .... i a i ■ �
� ar • -ref r•i if i t i e r y ji f
�a ? �,:� -sem • �. J ! r • . ' f!
• _ \\ a ��. + r' ► � ` _ - r r. �. i rr -.
__-,Lty�.A `, f ! air•.
i • 4 '� �.! �* ti 4wR1 , t ."9 it ■,• fa`!•rrirf �"
� �' � � tilt_ ■ - i.... � _ ■ t s'■ - • .!. ■
04,
r ` y R y \_ ■ as ■ u w iii
S `° .'�y �' ■�, ref■trF !■ * ♦ y 'uwt ■■■'
�y ♦, ;,s..,, -411
♦ i♦♦� .• i�r�fr Wit'!! Ns. ��
■ \. ,Ari i1. _7 r e • i ���.r's='-�
�� y tar • _ Ort � ,.- � ` a �l trw'� .�,, '� .fir �L�* .. � I is � -
iir�, ,.t- `r4 ,r%i ••� :a40
�y�s* • } rr, j �� O:Fy t
..�R�as l r r ri af.- ♦
■
�, ■ 4r ,.� R«� i, Vii," • �;p�\" far Ry e�, +�` "'�ra= `�1 � • �_.sia+ �* • a
1 t Rr
�t� ��`` ^f � +� �� � � •a' �r=~ A �•~ sr rf.'1�r i w � -
♦
• a
r
��1w�■Liy ryas..: ` » }.� • _ _ _ _
t + l4� • ' it illi F� R ` '■ r � _ � � - �
r rr.sr. P wr}*_ � � � i� t r �,��■, +I : �„ - _� � ar. , Rf
�. ' � tya •rr i�.l,ta �a � r+, ! r� a a a{.. r• h � FS s.,,rr r+ � _ •a=�, ' _,.
Ilk
4.
� ! � r • �. �rr ` • r � t�r �ra•�. iv.s•} . '� � . � ��,4 ��a � '!p A. •. ,_ • _
NO
ire,
a
f m •
r �
4.0
Policy &
Regulatory CpiA��ct
4.0 POLICY & REGULATORY
CONTEXT
4.1 Planning Act
The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (the "Planning Act") is provincial legislation that sets out the
ground rules for land use planning in Ontario. It describes how land uses may be controlled, and
who may control them. The Planning Act includes several sections that speak to matters relating to
cultural heritage, including those matters of provincial interest in Section 2, which among other
matters, states that:
The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, and the Tribunal, 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; [... ].
In order to refine the matters of provincial interest described in Section 2 of the Planning Act, policy
statements are issued on matters relating to municipal planning that are of provincial interest. In
this regard, the in -force 2020 Provincial Policy Statement was prepared, which sets the rules for
land use planning in Ontario.
4.2 Provincial Policy Statement
The 2020 Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS") covers policies about managing growth, using, and
managing natural resources, protecting the environment, and public health and safety. The PPS
provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest including the wise use and management
of cultural heritage resources.
Section 2.6 of the PPS provides specific policy direction with respect to cultural heritage and
archaeology. Specifically, Policy 2.6.1 provides that significant built heritage resources and
significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.
4.3 Proposed Provincial Planning Statement
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing ("MMAH") is currently consulting on an updated
proposed Provincial Planning Statement (ERO # 019-8462) that incorporates feedback received
through the previous consultation on the earlier proposed Provincial Planning Statement (ERO
#019-6813). The 2024 Proposed Provincial Planning Statement (dated April 10, 2024) includes
policies for an integrated province -wide land use planning policy document, that would replace the
existing Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Page 68 of 316
Horseshoe combining certain aspects of those two policy documents into new policy document
proposed as the "Provincial Planning Statement".
Through the updated proposed Provincial Planning Statement, the government is proposing
policies grouped under five pillars: generate an appropriate housing supply, make land available
for development, provide infrastructure to support development, balance housing with resources,
and implementation.
Under the theme of "balancing housing with resources", the updated proposed Provincial Planning
Statement proposes updates to the cultural heritage policies to align with Ontario Heritage Act
amendments introduced through recent Bills (e.g., Bill 108 and Bill 23). In this regard, Section 4.6
(Cultural Heritage and Archaeology) of the updated proposed Provincial Planning Statement, the
focus is now on conserving protected heritage properties, which is a defined term. Accordingly,
under the updated proposed Provincial Planning Statement, protected heritage properties are
those:
• designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act;
• property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of
the Ontario Heritage Act;
• property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act;
• property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having
cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation
of Provincial Heritage Properties;
• property with known archaeological resources in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario
Heritage Act;
• properly protected under federal heritage legislation;
• and UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
Under the updated proposed Provincial Planning Statement, the subject site would not meet the
definition of a protected heritage property.
The updated proposed Provincial Planning Statement is not yet in force and effect, and this section
was provided for reference only to the emerging new planning framework.
Generally, in our opinion, the updated proposed Provincial Planning Statement removes the
language around conserving properties "listed" on a municipal register, in favour of conserving
properties that already have some form of legal protection.
4.4 Heritage Act
The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 (the "Heritage Act"), is provincial legislation that
sets out the ground rules specifically for the protection of heritage properties and archaeological
sites in Ontario. The Heritage Act came into force in 1975, and has been amended several times,
including in 2005 to strengthen and improve heritage protections in Ontario, amended again in
recent years through Bill 108 in July 2021, in November 2022 through Bill 23, and in December
2023 through Bill 139.
45
Page 69 of 316
Under the Heritage Act, O. Reg. 9/06 sets out the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or
interest for properties that may be designated under Section 29 of the Heritage Act, which were
amended following Bill 23 through O. Reg. 569/22.
Bill 23 received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022, and has now been enacted as Chapter 21 of
the Statutes of Ontario, 2022.
The Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) enables the protection of properties and districts under Part IV and
Part V designations and provides the legislative bases for applying heritage easements to real
property.
Ontario Heritage Tool Kit
The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit ("OHTK") is a series of guides designed to help understand the
heritage conservation process in Ontario. The OHTK guides explain the steps to undertake the
identification and conservation of heritage properties using the Ontario Heritage Act. They also
describe roles community members can play in municipal heritage conservation, as participants
on municipal heritage committees, or through local research conducted by groups with an
understanding of heritage.
Following recent amendments to the Heritage Act, the OHTK was updated to assist users
understand the changes. Some changes to the Heritage Act came into effect as O. Reg. 385/21 on
July 1, 2021, but the OHTK drafts dated May 2021 were never finalized. Notwithstanding, the May
2021 draft of the OHTK are still posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO # 019-
2770), and as such, are helpful in understanding the revisions being considered by the Province.
The original OHTK consist of five documents. The document entitled "Heritage Resources In The
Land Use Planning Process" and specifically Info Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and
Conservation Plans are the most applicable to this HIA and set out the high-level types of negative
impacts to be considered. These negative impacts include, but are not limited to:
1. Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features;
2. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and
appearance;
3. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of
a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;
4. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant
relationship;
5. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and
natural features;
6. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use,
allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and
7. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that
adversely affect an archaeological resource.
The May 2018 draft OHTK document entitled, "Designating Heritage Properties" is also relevant to
this HIA as it describes what designation is and how it works to protect cultural heritage properties,
Page 70 of 316
and how designation can work to conserve the heritage value of a property by managing
alterations and supporting ongoing maintenance and conservation, among other matters.
4.5 A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe
A Place to Grow: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the "Growth Plan")
came into effect as of May 16, 2019, replacing the previous 2017 Growth Plan. All decisions made
on or after May 16, 2019 in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter
must conform with the Growth Plan, subject to any legislative or regulatory provisions providing
otherwise.
Subsequently, on August 28, 2020, the Growth Plan was amended by Growth Plan Amendment
No. 1. The Growth Plan provides a framework for implementing the Province's vision for managing
growth across the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) to the year 2051 and supports the
achievement of complete communities.
The subject lands are located within the GGH, and therefore, the policies of the Growth Plan apply.
The Guiding Principles, which are important for the successful realization of the Growth Plan, are
set out in Section 1.2.1. Key principles relevant to the proposal include:
supporting a range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable
housing, to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households; and
conserving and promoting cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and
cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Metis communities.
In this regard, Section 4.2.7 of the Growth Plan sets out the policy framework for cultural heritage
resources within the GGH. Specifically, Policy 4.2.7.1 states that cultural heritage resources will be
conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic
growth areas.
In the GGH, the focus for growth and development is generally directed to settlement areas with a
priority on intensification, focused within strategic growth areas, including urban growth centres
and major transit station areas, as well as brownfield sites and greyfields.
Settlement areas are urban areas and rural settlements within municipalities (such as cities, towns,
villages, and hamlets) that are: a) built up areas where development is concentrated, and which
have a mix of land uses; and b) lands which have been designated in an official plan for
development in accordance with the policies of this Plan.
The subject site is located within the City of Kitchener, which is a settlement area, and is within a
Strategic Growth Area. Strategic Growth Areas are areas within settlement areas, nodes, corridors,
and other areas that have been identified by municipalities or the Province to be the focus for
accommodating intensification and higher -density mixed uses in a more compact built form.
Strategic growth areas include urban growth centres, major transit station areas, and other major
opportunities that may include infill, redevelopment, brownfield sites, the expansion or conversion
of existing buildings, or greyfields. Lands along major roads, arterials, or other areas with existing
47
Page 71 of 316
or planned frequent transit service or higher order transit corridors may also be identified as
strategic growth areas.
Considering these factors, the subject lands are intended for growth and intensification but given
their adjacency to listed properties of potential cultural heritage value or interest must consider, a
balanced approach between the growth and heritage conservation directives set out in the Growth
Plan.
4.6 Region of Waterloo Official Plan
The Region of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP) is the guiding document for the Region's growth until
2031, currently being reviewed for planning until 2051.
The subject lands are in the City of Kitchener, and the ROP policies apply to the proposed
redevelopment, requiring conformance.
Waterloo Region aims to create a livable community with diverse employment opportunities and
easy access to services. Cultural heritage elements contribute to the region's character, and the
ROP implements a planned community structure based on nodes, corridors, and development
areas connected by transportation networks.
The subject lands are within the Urban, Built -Up Area of the ROP's Map 3a.
The ROP emphasizes growth in urban areas, particularly through reurbanization in existing built-up
areas. Reurbanization includes infill, intensification, adaptive reuse, and redevelopment.
The subject lands are within a Major Transit Station Area, making them a focal point for
intensification and redevelopment, both forms of reurbanization.
The ROP's general development policies prioritize the conservation of cultural heritage resources
and support the adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
Policy 3.G.13 in Section 3.G of the ROP requires Heritage Impact Assessments for proposed
developments involving designated or non -designated heritage resources listed on the Municipal
Heritage Register.
Region of Waterloo Official Plan Review
The Region of Waterloo recently reviewed the Regional Official Plan (ROP) to guide long-term
growth until 2051.
ROP Amendment 6 (ROPA 6) was adopted on August 18, 2022, and approved with modifications
by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) on April 11, 2023. ROPA 6 includes
policies for growth and development until 2051, with twelve modifications made by the MMAH.
Two objectives of ROPA 6 are to accommodate new residents, jobs, and housing units while
developing 15 -minute neighbourhoods.
Page 72 of 316
ROPA 6 is the first phase of a two-phase process to update the ROP, including policies regarding
cultural heritage resources in the second phase.
Conserving and promoting cultural heritage resources, supporting Indigenous communities, and
adaptive reuse of built heritage resources are guiding principles in ROPA 6.
Changes in ROPA 6 include delineating Urban Growth Centre (UGC) boundaries and identifying
Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) aligned with ION LRT stations. The subject lands are within
the Queen and Frederick Station MTSAs according to Figure 6c of ROPA 6 (see Figure 20).
Figure 20 - Figure 6c, ROPA 6
Queen and Frederick Station - 6c
Considering these factors, the subject lands are intended for reurbanization, but given their
adjacency to other heritage properties and their location within the CHSC-CHL, this assessment
must balance heritage conservation with regional land use planning and growth directives.
Bill 150, the Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, passed on December 5, 2023, enacted
the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 ("Bill 150"). This Act reversed the Ministerial changes to the
ROP for 12 municipalities, including Waterloo Region, except in specific circumstances like
we
Page 73 of 316
ongoing construction or contravention of existing provincial laws and regulations. The intent was to
ensure Ministerial decisions align with the Province's goal of building 1.5 million homes while
maintaining public trust.
Regional and local planning staff discussed the Provincial modifications to the ROP, submitting
feedback to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing by December 7, 2023. On February 20,
2024, Bill 162, the Get It Done Act, 2024 ("Bill 162") was introduced in the Ontario legislature. Now
in its Third Reading, Bill 162 is intended to accelerate the construction of transit, housing, and
infrastructure projects to support Ontario's growing population while making life more affordable
for families and businesses across the province. Bill 162 proposes amendments to a number of
different statutes, including the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 to modify a number of official
plans and official plan amendments and to retroactively re-enact these changes.
Whereas Bill 150 reversed certain provincial decisions on official plans affecting 12 municipalities,
including Waterloo Region through the Table to section 1 of Bill 150, Bill 162 aims to replace this
table with a new one.
As of now, our understanding is that ROPA 6 is not yet in force and effect but remains an adopted
document. Notwithstanding the status of Bill 162, the subject lands should be considered under
the emerging framework set out in ROPA 6, as it was adopted by Regional Council through By-law
No. 22-038.
4.7 City of Kitchener Official Plan & Growing Together
Framework
The City of Kitchener Official Plan ("OP") establishes goals, policies, and frameworks for managing
land use and its impacts on the city's environment. It plays a crucial role in decision-making and
future planning.
The current OP was approved in November 2014, with subsequent amendments and updates, and
its appeals withdrawn from the Ontario Land Tribunal ("OLT"). However, certain parts of the OP are
deferred for further consideration, and generally the OP must be updated to plan for the new 2051
planning horizon.
On March 19, 2024, Kitchener City Council unanimously approved the "Growing Together"
framework, aiming to address the housing crisis and accommodate the City's growth, particularly
around the ION LRT system. The plan aligns with Ontario's planning framework, emphasizing
intensification around transit, and focuses on certain Major Transit Station Areas ("MTSAs")
identified by the Region of Waterloo.
The Growing Together framework is intended to assist in the creation of over 100,000 new homes,
including at least 20,000 "missing middle" homes, and incorporates an inclusionary zoning policy
to ensure affordable housing in new developments, potentially providing 4,500 affordable units.
The Growing Together project is the continuation of the City's ongoing planning review process
that began with Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) and advanced through the
Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) project. This includes the Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek
neighbourhood planning review, which to our understanding, has been wrapped up with the
Growing Together project.
50
Page 74 of 316
The plan introduces new zoning rules allowing various housing types without density maximums or
parking minimums and promotes a mix of uses and flexible built form regulations. The project's
extensive community engagement received international recognition, with over 1,400 people
engaged through various channels.
Our understanding is that the Growing Together framework consolidates several planning
documents, such as the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and PARTS, into a City -initiated Official Plan
Amendment (OPA23/016/K/JZ). This amendment aims to implement a land use planning
framework for seven of the City's Protected Major Transit Station Areas. It includes amendments to
the Urban Structure, Land Use, Specific Policy Areas, and Cultural Heritage Resources mapping
and text. The proposed amendment is detailed in the Official Plan Amendment, as outlined in
Report DSD -2024-128, Attachment'A'.
Under the new Growing Together framework, the subject lands are identified within a Protected
Major Transit Station Area ("PMTSA") and are found along an Existing Transit Corridor on Official
Plan Amendment to Map 2 Urban Structure (Schedule A). Furthermore, the subject lands are
designated as Strategic Growth Area C on Official Plan Amendment to Map 3 Land Use (Schedule
B) and are located within the Queen and Frederick MTSA on Official Plan Amendment to Map 4
Protected MTSAs And UGC (Schedule C). Lastly, the subject lands are included within the Official
Plan Amendment to Map 9 Cultural Heritage Resources (Schedule E) and are located within the
Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape on that amended
Schedule. See below figures for visual reference.
Figure 21 - Ofiicia/P/an Amendment to Map 2 Urban Structure (Schedule A)
MTSAs are intended as areas set out to support transit and rapid transit by providing an area
within which to focus growth; providing connectivity to the transit system; achieving a mix of
51
Page 75 of 316
Intensification Areas
4W Urban Growth Centre (Damtown)
ProtWad M9,12r Transh Station Area
city Kode
;��mmunily Nvda''
Neighbourhood Node
Urban Corridor
Arlerial Corridor
5W4Kt
Other A rocs
Lands
C ommu nity Areas
Industrial EmployFinant Areas
Gf en Areas
Tra ns It
Existin Trinsd Cmid4r
k,I
Af%Plf PlannedTransit Corridor
^f Llght Rail Transli Corridor
f
40% Adapted Bus Rap id Traasil Corrldgr
• Rapid Transil Slab on
Area ofAmendmanl
Lards subbed to this amendment
MTSAs are intended as areas set out to support transit and rapid transit by providing an area
within which to focus growth; providing connectivity to the transit system; achieving a mix of
51
Page 75 of 316
residential, office, institutional, and commercial development, wherever appropriate; and having
streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit oriented. PMTSAs are a subset
of IVITSAs where the Council -approved inclusionary zoning policy framework can be implemented.
Figure 22 - Officlal Plan Amendment to Map 3 Land Use (Schedule B)
Low Kmu Rewdenhal
YI
Modimm Ri5a RoudaT41W N
13'r
H@Ih Rjue ReGidential
Mixed Use
Strategic Grawth Area A
Strategic Growth Atea B
3t" r 13rcrmh Area C
k3
U
I movaum Dmitiel
Markel INstrIct
Commercial Campus
CpmmrGial
Subject
All
HeaW Industrial Emoftyment
Lands
General lindu"t Erni24oymorA
tA
BLivness Park Employment
0)
Institutional
Prime Agrinuftu re
Ru rat
Naloral Heritage Consery-ation
Open space
Nl.km Infrastructure and Ulflitiog
Refer to Semndary Plan For petal
.3.
Area of Amendment
Lands suoject is thij amendment r]
Figure 23 - Officlal Plan Amendment to Map 4 Protected MTSAs And UGC (Schedule Q
J 4
_PP
VIEr" Park
wird KItphener
City P411
all,
OAMMA41r] k
and Pre a c
Central
Lind,,
wr
it
14
Kftchenerr
Market
52
Page 76 of 316
Figure 24 - Officia/P/an Amendment To Map 9 Cu/tura/Heritage Resources (Schedule E?
HPriSaqe Crin5erwation DISIrIr.Y
+
{.
'I r° /
ssoblect
H eritago Curridar
h _
1
U
Lands
Caradian Heritage River
'VICTORS
PARK HC
Area of Amendment
Lands io he ,dd A subject to this
ai eri-:lrn.r#rrj
r 10
1
Cultural 1 efdage landscape
�
2. 4 FI�Kal €crescent {Ry*way
GBrr}sn,)
S. GiAner Chen IYtIgFbaurrc-Dd
12
T. Gruhn Neighbourtic-M
7
a. Moura r�E Cemecefv
•�
9 t.lnu+nElcwrev'ord
14 Iron Horse Tial
I
11. Canadren National Railway Luse
12 Viclacia Parr Nerghbcurhocd
13 Vlctnna Pork
14 3ublrae Onve
15 Cedar HN and Srhneidai Qg4.
Nolohbounccatl
T
19 QrmdtdAvenue Nii—;I ourn,a. d
MARYS S
17 FuR1 I kvnrl'Jn1tFi Ceme[Hry
Figure 25 - Growing Together Supporting Documents March 2024 - Enabling Homes for Generations
The Growing Together framework amends Part C, Section 3.C.2 of the OP by adding new policy
3.C.2.18, which among other PMTSAs, states that the Queen and Frederick Protected Major
53
Page 77 of 316
Transit Station Areas shall be planned to achieve a minimum density of 160 residents and jobs
combined per hectare. According, Strategic Growth Area C (which the subject lands are
designated) is subject to new policies stemming from the Queen and Frederick PMTSA.
The Strategic Growth Area C land use designation is intended to accommodate significant
intensification at high density. Lands designated Strategic Growth Area C are generally centrally
located within Intensification Areas and/or represent redevelopment opportunities at higher
density.
It is anticipated that some areas within the Strategic Growth Area C land use designation will
require the assembly of lands for development, something that the ownership group has achieved
with the subject lands.
Specifically, Growing Together Policies 15.D.2.74 to 15.D.2.77 state that permitted uses within the
area may align with those allowed in the Strategic Growth Area B designation. Accordingly, the land
use permissions include residential uses and compatible commercial uses such as retail,
commercial entertainment, restaurants, financial establishments, hotels, and light repair
operations. Other allowed uses include personal services, offices, exhibition and conference
facilities, health-related uses such as health offices and clinics, institutional uses like hospitals,
daycare facilities, religious institutions, community facilities, educational establishments, social
service establishments, and studio and artisan -related uses.
Additionally, for lands designated as Strategic Growth Area C, there is no specified maximum
building height, although the implementing zoning regulations could impose limitations on building
heights. In cases where the implementing zoning sets a maximum building height in accordance
with specific policies, the City reserves the right to consider site-specific increases to the permitted
building height as outlined in Policy 15.D.2.5.
Furthermore, all development and redevelopment within these areas will be subject to a minimum
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.0. The implementing zoning may include transition regulations aimed
at facilitating and permitting lands to eventually meet this minimum FSR requirement. These
regulations are designed to guide and manage urban growth within the designated areas
effectively, ensuring alignment with broader planning objectives and goals.
In this regard, the subject lands have been rezoned Strategic Growth Area Four Zone "SGA -4
(19H)" through the Growing Together framework care of the Growing Together Zoning By-law
Amendment for lands within PMTSAs via Appendix A (Zoning Grid Schedule 120) — see below.
54
Page 78 of 316
Figure 26 - Growing TcgetherZoning ApoendixA (Zoning Grid Schedule 120)
Appendix A - Zoning Grid Schedule 12C
4( I 9 W } Lands SkCiA�-3
SCA -3
,,SGA -2
-2
,'.br�q &Y4rr' Wo hEimRw']- vrla5�a �.o�, Cahl• tv 419-0 1 @4 lei 94t
Lando jai l Io 7hre - - "Fltlotling E0o gms �3i9svot&titlrt
11 N Ry [IMW stnrapr w.+ne, #a 7u lQ
•� rd ! a6 ia li]
DomUamh 11,1-021 S fiA
Zomna SvdawArn N
HUM i + ene Land#dmas
The SGA -4 Zone is also referred to as the High -Rise Growth Zone. The purpose of this zone is to
create opportunities for high-density growth in both mid and high-rise forms. The SGA -4 zone
permits a wide mix of residential and non-residential uses. This zone applies to lands designated
Strategic Growth Area C in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Multiple dwelling buildings are
permitted in the SGA -4 zone as -of -right along with a wide variety of commercial uses. Accordingly,
the proposed mixed-use commercial / residential building is permitted on the lands as -of -right.
Table 6-5 sets out the regulations for multiple dwellings, mixed use buildings, and non-residential
buildings. Zoning regulations stipulate a minimum building base height of 3 storeys and a
maximum of 6 storeys, with a minimum floor space ratio of 2.0. Additionally, buildings must have a
minimum ground floor height of 4.5 meters along the street line. There is no maximum building
height.
Holding Provision 19H in By-law 2019-51 imposes height restrictions on buildings and structures in
specific zones (SGA -4), based on altitude specifications from a land use assessment report. These
restrictions remain until either a detailed NAV Canada assessment is completed and incorporated
into a development agreement, or the Region completes an airport master plan update, leading to
the removal of the restriction. Holding Provision 19H is not necessarily applicable to this HIA.
Based on the foregoing, the subject lands are located within a Strategic Growth Area, forming part
of the Queen and Frederick MTSA, which permits the proposed mixed-use development with no
height or density limits, but with certain design standards that must be adopted for tower
separation. Furthermore, as part of the Growing Together framework staff supporting documents
from March 2024, a tower has been conceptualized on site, demonstrating how the Strategic
Growth Area C and SGA -4 zone on the subject lands could be buildout, and reaffirming the intent
for the lands in the fullness of time.
55
Page 79 of 316
Policy 11.C.1.35 states that new development or redevelopment within Cultural Heritage
Landscapes must support, maintain, and enhance their major characteristics as defined in the
City's 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscapes document. Additionally, they should promote the
adaptive reuse of existing buildings, ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood,
including the streetscape and built form, and respond appropriately to the design, massing, and
materials of adjacent and surrounding buildings.
4.8 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study
In 2014, the City of Kitchener initiated a phased project to identify and protect Cultural Heritage
Landscapes ("CHLs"). The first phase involved creating an inventory and approving the Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Landscape Study ("KCHLS"), which identified 55 significant CHLs, including
residential neighbourhoods. The second phase focused on identifying the specific attributes that
make these CHLs significant and engaging with property owners for preservation measures.
CHLs in Kitchener represent the historical relationship between people and the surrounding
landscape, including built heritage, natural features, and archaeological sites. These landscapes,
such as parks, main streets, and neighbourhoods, have buildings, structures, and landscape
elements that collectively hold historical value.
The subject lands are part of the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood CHL ("L-NBR-10"), which stands out
for its adaptation to topography and elevation. This neighbourhood has a range of residential and
institutional structures from the mid -19th to late -20th centuries, with unique features such as
terraced residential buildings, retaining walls, multiple stairs to front entrances, steep driveways,
and framed long views.
The Cedar Hill Neighbourhood CHL has no legal protections under the Ontario Heritage Act
("OHA"), but it encompasses a distinct and historically rooted neighbourhood and is now part of
the City's broader policy framework through the Growing Together Official Plan Amendment.
Its location on a height of land attracted higher -quality homes, and over time, larger lots were
divided, leading to the filling of properties with later housing types. The neighbourhood
incorporates institutional uses, such as churches and schools, as well as some apartment
buildings, contributing to its diverse character.
The Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape ("CHSC-CHL")
have both been included as one large formalized CHL on Map 9 of the Official Plan, as shown on
Schedule 'E' through the new Growing Together framework. Though not a designated Heritage
Conservation District under the OHA, the inclusion of the CHSC-CHL, is now subject to Official
Plan Policies 11.C.1.35 (Design in Cultural Heritage Landscapes) and Policies 12.C.1.50 to
12.C.1.53 pertaining to the CHSC-CHL on Map 9, also discussed previously.
The data sheet for the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood CHL highlights how the distinctive array of
building types, land uses, and building heights generates a significant visual variety in the
surroundings. This variety contribute to the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood's diverse character. The
description goes on to state how, the "visual variety is strong enough to permit the presence of
massive mid -twentieth century apartment blocks without undue visual deterioration."
Page 80 of 316
The topography, including steep slopes, adds further interest to the area. Buildings are terraced
into the slopes, requiring retaining walls, stairs, and steep driveways. The neighbourhood's narrow
streets and lack of boulevards place major trees within yards, emphasizing the front fagades of
houses. Long views are possible, particularly to the west, showcasing the visual variety and the
renovation and modification of earlier buildings.
In the KCHLS the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood CHL is categorized as a cultural heritage landscape
of considerable value and significance (Level 2). This determination is based on the City's
evaluation, which identified significance that relates to its historic themes, cultural heritage value,
historical integrity, community value, and opportunity for regional significance. It generally
contributes to the historical understanding of Kitchener, defines the character of the area, and has
a distinctive sense of space.
The HIA will assess the potential impacts of the proposal on the identified attributes of the Cedar
Hill Neighbourhood CHL, with a specific focus on the identified gateway view at the intersection of
Benton and Church Street looking southeast.
4.9 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District
The Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan ("VPA-HCD") was created to preserve
and enhance the historical buildings, landscapes, and character of the Victoria Park Area in
Kitchener. The plan was initiated in response to recommendations made in the Victoria Park
Neighbourhood Secondary Plan adopted in 1981. It was approved by City Council as designating
By-law No. 96-91 in 1996.
The VPA-HCD focuses on education rather than strict regulations, aiming to assist property owners
in preserving the area's historic character. It encourages the maintenance and care of historic
residences and Victoria Park, with small-scale building work being common. However, larger
projects within the district require approval from Kitchener City Council.
The subject lands are not located within the VPA-HCD but are across the street from it.
The goals of the VPA-HCD plan are to conserve and maintain the historic buildings, landscapes,
and streetscapes of the area while enhancing its visual appeal. The plan also aims to embrace
community diversity, involve the community in decision-making processes, and preserve the
heritage character of the residential areas while promoting the economic potential of Queen Street
South.
The VPA-HCD identifies several building typologies, including Queen Anne and Berlin Vernacular
architectural styles, row houses, and churches. The area's streetscapes, which include tree -lined
streets, park vistas, entrance gates, and small landscape areas, contribute to its unique character.
The plan provides guidelines for conserving and enhancing the streetscapes, emphasizing the
importance of street trees, street signs, and streetlights.
While the subject lands are outside the VPA-HCD, the assessment will focus on potential impacts
at the interface along Benton Street, particularly with respect to designated properties within the
district and adjacent to the subject lands. The assessment will consider impacts to the streetscape
57
Page 81 of 316
and potential interface -related impacts to properties to 64 and 90 Benton Street, which are
adjacent to the subject lands, along the Benton Street interface. Other general impacts assessed
include shadowing, isolation, and changes in land use.
4.10 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual
Kitchener's Urban Design Manual ("UDM") is a guiding document that promotes responsible and
sustainable city building practices. It emphasizes diversity, creativity, and design excellence to
enhance both private development and public spaces. The manual is divided into three parts:
objectives and guidelines for land use (Part A), supplementary guidelines (Part B), and detailed
design standards (Part C). It serves as a valuable resource for developers, City staff, the public,
and political leaders, providing guidance and accountability for community changes.
In Kitchener, design integration encompasses an understanding and respect for the City's history.
This involves acknowledging and appreciating cultural heritage assets and recognizing how new
developments contribute to the City's ongoing evolution. The manual acknowledges how it is
important to embrace innovative approaches that may deviate from traditional methods.
The UDM places significant emphasis on conserving cultural heritage in new construction. It
provides guidelines for street design, suggesting creative alignments to enhance focal points and
heritage assets. Access and location considerations prioritize parks, open spaces, and natural and
cultural heritage. The manual offers strategies for conserving cultural heritage resources through
preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration.
New developments should seamlessly integrate with existing heritage resources, utilizing
contrasting materials that honor the integrity of the heritage site. Development near cultural
heritage resources must be compatible and demonstrate high-quality urban design, particularly in
terms of views, streetscape character, and material selection. Lighting, streets, signage, parking,
public works facilities, grading, and other features should be designed to respect the integrity and
character of cultural heritage resources.
Signage and public art should be mindful of building scale, heritage context, and neighbourhood
character. Conserving and celebrating cultural and natural heritage resources is crucial to
promoting diversity, reflecting the city's history, and enhancing urban exploration. The manual also
emphasizes the importance of preserving established neighbourhood fabric and contributing to
the continuity of cultural heritage landscapes.
The heritage impact assessment and the mitigation and conservation options section of this report
consider the applicable design guidelines outlined in the UDM.
IN
Page 82 of 316
'71
History &
Evolution
Page 83 of 316
5.0 HISTORY & EVOLUTION
5.1 Township of Waterloo / Waterloo County / Region of
Waterloo
The subject lands are located within the City of Kitchener, which is one of seven municipalities
forming the upper tier Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the "Region"). Until 1973, the Region was
formerly called Waterloo County.
According to the Region of Waterloo (2022), the mapping and sale of lands in the area forming the
Region began in the late 1700s, shortly after the American War of Independence. The land which
would become Waterloo Township was first defined within a ribbon -shaped tract that formed part
of a large purchase in 1784. An Indigenous military and political leader named Joseph Brant or
"Thayendanegea", a Loyalist2 from present-day New York (USA), was one of the earliest settlers to
the area. As a Loyalist, Joseph Brant was closely associated with the British during the American
Revolution, and his loyalty persisted following the revolution in the latter half of the century (Allen
and Conn, 2019).
In an act of appreciation and in recognition of their war efforts during the American Revolution,
Joseph Brant, and members of the Six Nations Confederacy, were granted a land treaty by the
Governor -in -Chief of the former Province of Quebec, Sir Frederick Haldimand (McLaughlin &
Jaeger, 2007). The intent of the land treaty was to reward the loyalty of Joseph Brant and the Six
Nations Confederacy, and to replace the hunting grounds that they had lost in New York following
the American War of Independence. The treaty was granted in 1784 and became known as the
"Haldimand Tract", generally comprising about 10 kilometres on each side the Grand River from its
source to its mouth at Lake Erie.
According to the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs (2018), the British had purchased land from the
Mississauga peoples and then issued the Haldimand Proclamation. The Proclamation granted the
Haldimand Tract to Joseph Brant and the Six Nations in recognition of their support of the Crown
during the American Revolution. In 1793, the Simcoe Patent, or Treaty 4, was later issued to clarify
several matters, including the extent of the land grant made to the Six Nations (Ministry of
Indigenous Affairs, 2018).
The Haldimand Tract was first surveyed by Augustus Jones in 1791. By 1821 a formal survey of the
Haldimand Tract was prepared by Thomas Ridout, who at the time, was the Surveyor -General of
Upper Canada. The Ridout Survey depicts the lands granted to the Six Nations, under the
Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 (see Figure 27: Haldimand Tract, Ridout Survey 1821).
2 Loyalists were American colonists who supported the British during the American Revolutionary War (1775-
1783) .
59
Page 84 of 316
Figure 27 - Haidimand Tract, Ridout Survey 1821
Source: University of Waterloo (n.d.[b])
60
Page 85 of 316
r.e a• r
Gomm
r
a
Source: University of Waterloo (n.d.[b])
60
Page 85 of 316
The Haldimand Tract was originally intended to remain with the Six Nations as a perpetual reserve
(Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society, 2006). However, according to McLaughlin & Jaeger
(2007), the permanency of the Haldimand Tract became an almost immediate controversy, as
Joseph Brant began to work on the division and disposition of the land. Brant claimed that white
settlement had adversely impacted the Indigenous' ability to hunt, and an agrarian society would
be the only course moving forward. "In the end, it was finally determined that the land would be
surveyed and sold by the government on behalf of the Six Nations (McLaughlin & Jaeger, 2007 p.
21).
In the last decade of the 18th century, the Haldimand Tract was divided into four smaller Blocks of
land, with Block 2 eventually becoming Waterloo Township. On November 25, 1796, Joseph Brant
drew a deed for 37,701 hectares (93,160 acres) on Block 2 of the Six Nations lands in favour of
three prominent Upper Canada businessmen: Richard Beasley; John Baptiste Rousseau; and
James Wilson (McLaughlin & Jaeger, 2007 p. 21). Richard Beasley (ostensibly) purchased Block 2
through a mortgage in the amount of £8,887 (provincial currency at the time) and assumed the
interest of his partners John Baptiste Rousseau; and James Wilson (McLaughlin & Jaeger, 2007).
The divisional blocks can be found on Figure 28 below, which illustrates the lands granted to the
Six Nations for the Haldimand Tract on each side of the Grand River, based off the original 1792
survey (Beasley Tract / Block 2 highlighted in Pink). Block 2 would become what is sometimes
referred to as the "Beasley Tract".
Figure 28 - Haldimand Tract Block Divisions
Source: Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society, 2006 p. 20
Due to the policies in Upper Canada at the
time, the sale was halted by the government.
Then in 1798, a Crown grant was drawn for
Block 2 and the title was registered,
transferring the land from Joseph Brant and
the Six Nations to Richard Beasley and
partners.
According to Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical
Society (2006 p. 20), "the Blocks were referred
to by their numbers until 1816, when Block 1
became Dumfries Township (later divided into
North and South), Block 2 became Waterloo
Township, and Blocks 3 and 4 became
Woolwich and Nichol Townships".
The transfer of Block 2 from Joseph Brant and
the Six Nations to Richard Beasley and
partners was not smooth. The entire purchase
price for Block 2 had not been paid upfront by
Beasley leaving Joseph Brant and the Six
Nations with an encumbrance on the land
(Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society,
2006 p. 20).
61
Page 86 of 316
To clear the encumbrance, Beasley tried to prorate the payment due for smaller portions of the
tract. In doing so, the land was divided into three smaller parts: Lower; Middle; and Upper Blocks.
These smaller Blocks were surveyed by Richard Cockrell (Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society,
2006 and Hayes, 1997); see Figure 29: Beasley Tract (Block 2) Divisional Blocks.
Figure 29 - Beasley Tract (Block2) Dvisional Blocks
e
.1 AIME 1Aurt Tr;I;1 OW 1'k
M14
I IArh n Trey 11-.16?p
61WILarn Mkkju pua;k omh
Hae1W.aq Tm.-tbET
HaLaift Tract IHT?
�.
BMSTrE {BTI
ME
0r201Y % lid �d ft% I( 5
68.-1 yt DkOu W riC+d 4EBrl
DOAOFA Leftf BkCk tKU'I
Did a4tu�� ¢I!#4�1
Bmk dirt
!jp.ni:r',f,lrzk
l,ftwar EWX.N
Source: Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society, 2006 p. 21
The current City of Kitchener would eventually develop in the Middle Block of the former Beasley
Tract, as shown in Figure 20.
One of the solutions agreed upon to relive the land of all encumbrances was the bulk sale of land
to a group of German Mennonites mainly from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. This group would
form what would become "The German Company." It was calculated that a sum of £10,000 would
be needed to pay off the interest and principal amount owed (Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical
Society, 2006). During this time, the German Mennonite farmers were scouting farmland in the
62
Page 87 of 316
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).
To raise the £10,000 needed to purchase the land, the Pennsylvanian farmers, led by Sam Bricker
and Daniel Erb, established an association to acquire the land (i.e., The German Company). In
November 1803, a formal agreement was made between Beasley, Sam Bricker and Daniel Erb,
and payment of £10,000 was made transferring 24,281 hectares (60,000 acres) to the
Pennsylvania Mennonites.
The tract of land purchased by the German Company would become known as the German
Company Tract ("GCT"), with the deed for the land granted to the German Company and its
shareholders in July 1805 (Eby, 1978) (see Figure 30: German Company Tract, 1805).
Figure 30 - German Company Tract, 1805
1F'�,.''VI-Ij.s- l com.yy.ni.
Numbered GCT lots
Source: Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society, 2006 p. 24
Due to a variety of factors, the settlement of the German Company Tract lands was slow. This
stagnation was exacerbated by the War of 1812 in North America and the Napoleonic Wars in
63
Page 88 of 316
Europe, which prevented many settlers from relocating to join their relatives. By 1815, settlement of
the German Company Tract finally lands began to speed up, with additional Pennsylvania
Mennonite settlers, German -based settlers, and later English, Irish and Scottish settlers. Several
settlers from England, Scotland and Ireland also came to the area by assisted immigration and
colonization schemes (Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society, 2006 p. 55).
According to Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society (2006) and Uttley (1975), the German
Company Tract was surveyed into 128 lots of 181.3 hectares (448 acres) each and 32 lots of 33.6
hectares (83 acres) each. No restriction was placed on the number of lots a member of the GCT
might buy. According to Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society (2006), each shareholder's lot
was randomly selected so that all would be given an equal and fair chance to win the best lots.
Around 1805, the pledge by the GCT to purchase the lands from Beasley was made good, when
Samuel Bricker, John Bricker, and Daniel, John, and Jacob Erb drove the balance of the funds to
Niagara, after which, the Government saw to it that the Six Nations were paid in full and clear deed
issued.
According to Uttley (1975), by 1805, the lands that would make up Kitchener (Berlin) were Lots 1
(George Eby), 2 (John Eby), 3 (Jacob Herschey), part of 4 (John Erb), part of 15 (Abraham Erb), 16
(Henry Weaver), 17 (Benjamin Herschey), and 18 (John Eby).
In 1816 the lands would become Waterloo Township, named in honour of the battle that ended the
Napoleonic Wars in Europe. The map below shows Waterloo Township with the Grand River and
names of the original German Company Tract landowners circa 1815 (see Figure 31: 1815 Map of
Waterloo Township with German Company Tract Lots and Landowners). The German Company
Tract parcel that would eventually play home to the subject lands, was Lot 17, first owned by
Benjamin Herschey (sometimes recorded as Hershey, Heirsly or Heinsly) who later transferred it to
Joseph Schneider, a person sometimes referred to as the founder of Kitchener (previously Berlin).
According to Uttley (1975), "the first stones in the city's foundation were laid in South Queen Street,
in 1807, by Joseph Schneider."
Figure 31 - 1315 Asap of Waterloo Township, German Company Tract Lots and Landowners
�- - 1
e : f.tA r
SAOCt Lak
yLL�
Source: University of Waterloo, n. d.
Page 89 of 316
In 1838, plans were announced to form a new District of Wellington from parts of Halton County in
the Gore District and parts of Simcoe County in the Home District. The 1838 act provided that the
new Wellington District should be re -designated as the County of Waterloo for electoral reasons as
well as for land registration and militia purposes (Bloomfield & Waterloo Historical Society, 2006).
The Municipal Act of 1849 abolished all districts in Upper Canada and replaced them with
administrative counties or unions of small counties starting in 1850. When Wellington District
reached a population of 15,000, a petition by two-thirds of the reeves dissolved the union by order -
in -council, abolishing Wellington District in favour of the County of Waterloo. In 1850, another act
provided for the municipal incorporation of each township listed in the new County of Waterloo,
formally establishing Waterloo Township as a separate municipality. The County of Waterloo was
created in 1849, and was further refined in 1852, being subdivided into the three separate Counties
of Waterloo, Wellington, and Grey. The new County of Waterloo consisted of the smaller townships
Waterloo, Wilmot, Woolwich, Wellesley, and North Dumfries. According to Bloomfield & Waterloo
Historical Society (2006 p. 114) the first provisional Waterloo County Council convened in Waterloo
Township in May 1852, and the new County of Waterloo was official proclaimed in January 1853. A
map of this new County of Waterloo is provided below circa 1880 (see Figure 32: County of
Waterloo, 1880).
Figure 32 -County of Waterloo, 1880
I
'
,.
W�
Source: McGill University, 2001
65
Page 90 of 316
k \T
w
r �
a4•
of
�
R.
+
4 sw{ry Y�•
l 4
•aLr .� A..:
_
,
Source: McGill University, 2001
65
Page 90 of 316
5.2 City of Kitchener (Berlin)
The subject lands are located in the City of Kitchener, forming a part of the original Lot 17 of the
GCT. The original Indigenous settlers to the area would have had their own name for what would
eventually become Kitchener. The first colonial settlers referred to the area as "Sand Hills", and the
community was called "Ebytown" (Uttley, 1975). Then, before it was Kitchener, the area was known
as "Berlin".
According to Uttley, the assumption is that the name Berlin was given in the summer of 1833 by a
Bishop Eby and Joseph Schneider, with the first official description made on a deed by Mr.
Gaukel; a sort of homage to Berlin, Germany.
Kitchener was officially incorporated into a village in 1853, a town in 1870 and then a city in 1912.
In 1916, due in part to growing negative sentiment towards Germans (with Berlin as the County's
capital) during the First World War, two hundred businessmen petitioned Berlin City Council to
change the name of the City. The name "Kitchener" was finally chosen in 1916 in commemoration
of Horatio Herbert Kitchener, first Earl of Khartoum and of Broome, a senior British military officer
and colonial administrator. Today, Horatio Herbert Kitchener is known both as a hero and an anti-
hero, the later stemming from his expansion of concentration camps during the Second Boer War.
Much of Kitchener was settled by German Mennonites, who succeeded in commerce and
agricultural. According to H. J. Schneider et al. (1897), in 1806 Benjamin Eby, later known as
Bishop Eby, was the first person to settle on the territory that is now Berlin. Eby was followed
closely by other early settlers including Joseph Schneider, and Jacob and Joseph Shantz.
The extension of the Grand Truck Railway in 1856 provided a means of transport for goods,
materials, and people both into and out of the area, and help speed up the area's settlement and
growth. Subsequent growth was fueled by industry and manufacturing for a wide variety of goods
including leather products, furniture, shirts, and collars, felt footwear and buttons, and food related
businesses, among others. The other great industry which lent to the growth of Kitchener was
insurance. Between 1880, Berlin's population increased from 3,900 to over 12,000 by 1906 (News
Record, 1906).
A detailed history of the City of Kitchener is not required according to the scoped Terms of
Reference. However, the following figures provide a visual history of the Town of Berlin through to
its incorporation as the City of Berlin, and then its renaming as the City of Kitchener between 1881
and 1923. Over the years, the maps show how the City grew and intensified, with a large focus of
growth along the Grand Truck Railway line, and the downtown, especially at the intersections of
King and Queen Streets. The maps also show the creation of Victoria Park (now also referred to as
"Willow River Park") (Dhillon, 2022).
.^
Page 91 of 316
Figure 33 - Township of Waterlog 1881, Town of Berlin Highlighted
Source: McGill University, 2001
Figure 34 - Township of Waterloo, 1881, Zoomedin on Town of Berlin
r I
d. kip
dp
pid
dp
r' 1
�._..
' m
"PLA Mpr 9p�-
-:74
Source: H. Parsell & Co. & Walker & Miles p. 25
67
Page 92 of 316
Figure 35 - Town of Bei/in, 1877 (Appro)imate Location of Subject Lands Within Black Circle)
Source: University of Waterloo, n. d.
Figure 36 - Town of Bei/in, 1879
yi iN
"
ZOO
dop
Igo
Source: University of Waterloo, n. d.
4 _
.>
ops
LI
f�
s C Subjegt Lands
Page 93 of 316
Figure 37- Town of Bei/in, 1881
'r r if
dw
r rrl a
NIP
.FG
' Ir
Source: University of Waterloo, n.d.
Figure 38 - Town of Bei/in, 1908
Source: University of Waterloo, n.d.
••
Page 94 of 316
Figure 39 - City of Berlin, 1912
i k
I Sul
,
M.
Source: University of Waterloo, n.d.
Figure 40 - City oflfitchener, 1923
do
Source: University of Waterloo, n. d.
70
Page 95 of 316
5.3 History of the Subject Lands
The subject lands are situated along the western periphery of the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood, along
the western edge of the Cedar Hill Cultural Heritage Landscape, and within the newly combined
Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape via the Growing
Together framework.
Cedar Hill is located south of the original downtown core and was part of the original village
survey. What makes this neighbourhood unique is its elevated position in the city. The height of
land in Cedar Hill stands out in the mostly flat City of Kitchener, as there are very few elevated
areas from a topographic perspective. According to the City of Kitchener (2014c), this location
would have been desirable for higher -quality homes due to the pleasant breezes and reduced
presence of insects during the summer months.
The Cedar Hill neighbourhood encompasses a diverse mix of uses, ranging from larger historic
homes to smaller residences that emerged during the population growth of the late 19th and early
20th centuries. Additionally, the neighbourhood includes various institutional uses such as
churches and schools and several mid- and high-rise apartment buildings.
The subject lands are currently municipally addressed as 39 and 51 Church Street and 69 and 73
Benton Street. Over time, there have been changes in the assigned addresses, including a
different set of numbers at the beginning of the 20th century and consolidation or deletion of other
municipal addresses.
Previously, the subject lands were associated with up to seven different municipal addresses (now
deleted), including 45 and 47 Church Street. It is important to note that not all of these addresses
necessarily had separate structures, as some may have been related to rental unit numbers or
served other purposes.
Originally, the subject lands were part of Lot 17 of the GCT, which was original purchased by
Benjamin Herschey of the German Company. Mr. Herschey eventually sold Lot 17 to Joseph
Schneider who is often referred to as the founder of the City.
Mr. Schneider built a log cabin on the east side of Queen Street (formerly Schneider Road) and cut
a road to the Walper house and beyond to King Street (Uttley, 1975). Figure 41 shows a portion of
a hand drawn map with the GCT lots and their owners circa 1820, with Joseph Schneider's 448 -
acre farm on Lot 17 being corner -cut by King Street (formerly "the Great Road").
71
Page 96 of 316
Figure 41 - Joseph Schneider's 446 Acre Farm on Lot 17, GCT
zo
d Q�W 7L
v
Source: Mills, 1996 p. 5
L pp
By 1853, Berlin had a population of 1,000 when it was officially incorporated as a Village. The first
Village Council was elected in 1854, and held their first meeting on January 7, 1854 (Uttley, 1975).
The first Council consisted of one Reeve (Dr. John Scott), and four Councillors (Henry Stroh,
Gabriel Bowman, Enoch Ziegler, and George Jantz).
As part of the Village incorporation, a man named William Benton was named as constable. It was
William Benton, who the street ("Benton Street") was named after (Uttley, 1975 p 108). Church
Street was named for its cluster of churches that developed along it as Kitchener evolved over the
years.
At around the same time, some of the street around the downtown core had started to take shape,
and some development near the location of the subject lands became evident. Figure 42 illustrates
the approximate location of the subject lands in red, and shows footprint of a building to the
southeast, which is labelled as "Methodist Chapel". Ostensibly, this is the location of what is now
53 Church Street.
72
Page 97 of 316
Figure 42 - Town of Bei/in, 1853
f
� 3
D \
4o
r+� Subtest Lands
Source: University of Waterloo, n. d.
The Methodist Chapel depicted in Figure 33 was the result of the growth of the Wesleyan
Methodist Mission which was opened in Berlin in 1841 as a charge of the Guelph Circuit (Uttley,
1975 p. 67). The Berlin Mission bought a plot of land at the corner of Church and Benton Streets
large enough for their chapel and a cemetery, who then built a frame church capable of seating
120 people. According to Mills (2002), this cemetery was the first Methodist cemetery, and the
chapel, now located on what is now 53 Church Street, was the Village of Berlin's first Methodist
chapel.
Between 1857 and 1858, Lot 17 of the GCT was subdivided through Plans 393 and 394. The
subject lands would become part of Lot 19 on the east side of Benton Street on Plan 393; and part
of Lot 41 on Plan 394 (see Figure 43 and Figure 44). The subject lands can be seen highlighted in
pink, which shows the transfer from J.S. (ostensibly Joseph Schneider) to an S. Moxley.
73
Page 98 of 316
Figure 43 - Plan 393 and 394 circa 1857-1858
` r `'.•�i I� �.14i_ Ih1--i'� V. 1S
�S7.�1,il..ou
�� ill 1'.5 1` -�ll i � I 6 � •1 � , +, � 1� I b.,k. ...sem � ,Y..�� }1\j,���
' JHL
�.k ��l. 3•eL1�
Source: OnLand (1857-58)
Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo circa 1861, shows the growth of the Village of Berlin.
Although the map does not reflect the exact street network at the time or the Plan of Surveys (393
and 394), it does show the breakdown of Joseph Schneider's farm on Lot 17 of the GCT (see
Figure 45).
74
Page 99 of 316
_
rr
Source: OnLand (1857-58)
Figure 44 - Subject Lands on Plan 393 and 394
circa 18571858
R
e h. 4 t
f' a.t4pw
..•rK r
i C X vR c,v
"�-��r.:r�—ger•--�
- -- --*
7C
da1. A. 6, +
sirf,ll.��p
�
gairx •s,. � rtr�.,�
..y .-�
JA. O.L.wr_
rd
Source: OnLand (1857-58)
Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo circa 1861, shows the growth of the Village of Berlin.
Although the map does not reflect the exact street network at the time or the Plan of Surveys (393
and 394), it does show the breakdown of Joseph Schneider's farm on Lot 17 of the GCT (see
Figure 45).
74
Page 99 of 316
Figure 45 - Tremaines Map of Waterloo County, 1861
1
r �
a
Source: Tremaine, 1861
A; -
EL I
stih :.-t LandK
By 1875, the subject lands showed their first signs of development on maps. In an artist's
rendering of Berlin circa 1875, you can see the Wesleyan Methodist Mission's cemetery on the
subject lands which have their approximate location highlighted in pink. There are no other
structures on the lands at this time (see Figure 46).
Figure 46 - 1875 Birds Eye Drew of Berlin (Artists Rendering)
rl
.'4A I. 14 j
,ff BIZ. �r
41l
1 Y i
Source: Collishaw & Preston (1979)
75
Page 100 of 316
In 1870, the growing Village of Berlin was incorporated into a town, with the first mayor being Dr.
Wiiliam Pipe. Dr. Pipe is described as a self-made man, a woodturner, and physician (K.
McLaughlin 1912). According to Uttley (1975), the Methodists were a progressive group, and the
Methodist Mission Board sold their first chapel to the United Brethren in the latter half of the 1800s.
However, the cemetery was kept up until 1876, when it was sold to P. E. W. Moyer's father, William
Moyer. Uttley notes that there were fifteen beech trees in the cemetery at the time (1975 p. 69).
Following the exhumations, all remains were transferred to the Mount Hope Cemetery, and the
former cemetery land was sold for building lots. (Uttley, 1975 p. 69). In the 1879 map shown in
Figure 47, you can see that there is now a church marked with the initials "U. B. Ch", which stands
for "United Brethren Church", and more clearly spelled out in Figure 48.
Figure 47- Map of Me Town of Berlin, 1879 (Version A)
Source: University of Waterloo (n.d.)
Figure 48 - Map of the Town of Berlin, 1879 (Version B)
`j 'k
4
e � Y �T ..J. R� i � � ��. ��1 1.•,','L n� ��� is
'iLY .ice ! �� � { 3•. h � t�p }� "4 a' � ' �.
•
PA
Source: University of Waterloo (n.d.)
76
Page 101 of 316
The United Brethren Church had a presence at 53 Church Street for quite a while, appearing on
maps up to at least 1904. This is illustrated in Figure 49 (1881 map of the Town of Berlin) and later
in this report, on an 1892 artist's rendering of the Town of Berlin (bird's eye view).
Figure 49 - Map of Town of Berlin, 1881(Showing United Brethren Church)
Source: H. Parsell & Co. & Walker & Miles (188 1) p. 30
Figure 50 provides an artist's rendering of the Town of Berlin circa 1892, showing a second bird's
eye view of the subject lands. For the first time, there are now structures appearing on the subject
lands numbered in pink. Based on available land records and research, the numbered structures
on Figure 41 correlate to: 1) 51 Church Street; 2) 45 Church Street (now demolished); and 3) 39
Church Street (now demolished).
The other two houses depicted along Benton Street on Figure 41, are not structures on the subject
lands, and at least one (furthest south) is likely 83 Benton Street. Based on the 1892 Bird's Eye
View of the Town of Berlin and the description on how the cemetery was kept until 1876, it is likely
that the house at 51 Benton Street (today's address) would have been built sometime between
1877 and 1892, making the structure around 130 to 145 years old.
77
Page 102 of 316
Figure 50 - Bird's Eye View of the Town of Berlin (Artist's Rendering), 1892
2
Fit
r
k rv�-,
r
f
Source: Victoria Park Historical Committee, 2015
The Fire Insurance Plan ("FIP") depicted in Figure 51, is a historical document dating back to the
period between 1894 and 1904. FIPs provided valuable information about buildings and properties
within cities and towns, including their construction materials, layout, use, and fire protection
features. The maps were typically colour-coded and included key details such as the type of
construction (e.g., brick, wood), the number of stories, property boundaries, locations of fire
hydrants, and even the presence of specific fire hazards like hazardous materials or storage.
The Fire Insurance Plan of 1894-1904 provides a visual representation of the subject lands, with
existing structures outlined in red. Upon examining the 1894-1904 FIP, it is evident that the lands
encompassed both standing structures (presently located at 51 Church Street and 73 Benton
Street) and demolished ones (previously at 45 Church Street now merged as 39 Church Street).
What adds intrigue is that the municipal addressing on the 1894-1904 FIP differs from the present-
day system, showing a change in the assigned addresses. In comparison to the current addresses
of 51, 45, and 39 Church Street, which were formerly known as 23, 21, and 17 Church Street,
respectively. We also observe that today's 73 Benton Street was previously referred to as 31
Benton Street. Notably, the 1894-1904 FIP serves as the earliest map to indicate the presence of a
structure at 73 Benton Street (then known as 31 Benton Street). This finding allows us to estimate
the time of its construction to be between 1893 and 1904, making the existing house
approximately 118 to 129 years old.
a
Page 103 of 316
Figure 51- Fire Insurance Plan, 1894-1904
I 4 `
711
silo
4, 40
i
f �
rx,
Source: Goad, 1904
Based on the 1894-1904 FIP, the following notes are provided with respect to 51 Church Street
(then 23 Church Street) and 73 Benton Street (then 31 Benton Street):
51 Church Street (then 23 Church Street)
• 2 -storey brick structure with 1.5-storrey rear bump -out (red = brick)
• Windows along the west side of building.
• A single window to the rear of the building.
• Two windows on the east side of the building.
• Verandah at the northeast corner of the building facing Church Street.
• Wooden Cornice (represented by dashed line around edge of structure).
• Generally rectilinear building lines, but irregular in shape.
73 Benton Street (then 31 Benton Street)
• 1.5 -storey brick structure with 1.5 -storey brick bump -out to the rear and a second 1 -storey
wood bump -out also to the rear.
• Windows along both the north and south faces of the building.
• Main portion of the building facing Benton Street (less the rear bump -outs) is symmetrical
in shape, with rectilinear building lines.
• Bay window at the front facing Benton Street.
• Verandah at the northwest corner of the building facing Benton Street.
79
Page 104 of 316
• Verandah at the south side of 1.5 -storey brick bump -out facing southern side yard.
• Windows or entrances indicated by "x" on the north building face.
There is also a 2 -storey rectangular brick and stone building with a hipped roof to the rear of either
51 Church Street (then 23 Church Street) or 73 Benton Street (then 31 Benton Street), which is no
longer existing today.
An image of the house formerly erected at 39 Church Street (then 17 Church Street) has been
recovered and shows what once a 2 -storey Italianate house circa 1874.
Source: News Record, 1906
In 1912, Berlin was incorporated as a City, and the first Aldermanic Council was formed. On the
Council, was W. H. Schmalz as Mayor, W. D. Euler as Reeve, and 18 members of Council. The
Councillors were J. Winterhalt, C. Kranz, J. H. Schnarr, N. B. Detweiler, C.B. Dunke, W. Pieper,
G.G. Bucher, J. R. Schilling, W. O. Kneehtel, H. A. Hagen, E. W. Clement, J. S. Sehwartz, F. H.
Rohleder, C. H. Mills, D. Gross Jr, N. Asmussen, W. V. Uttley, and H. A. Dietrich.
At the time the City was incorporated, one of the first City Aldermen (Councillor) was Charles
Boehmer Dunke. Mr. Dunke, at the time, resided at 73 Benton Street (then 31 Benton Street) — in
the house that still exists on the subject lands.
Mr. Dunke would have served on Berlin City Council during the first part of the First World War. Due
in part to growing negative sentiment towards Germans (with Berlin as the County's capital) during
:N
Page 105 of 316
the First World War, two hundred businessmen petitioned Berlin City Council to change the name
of the City. The name "Kitchener" was finally chosen in 1916 in commemoration of Horatio Herbert
Kitchener, first Earl of Khartoum and of Broome, a senior British military officer and colonial
administrator.
A map of the City of Berlin circa 1919, shows the subject lands outlined in red with the existing
structured pictured thereon (see Figure 52: City of Berlin, 1919). The map is not to scale, so the
existing lot boundaries do not perfectly align with the existing lot boundaries today, and slightly cut
through two of the structures.
The structure furthest south along Benton Street, is likely 73 Benton Street, which would have been
the house of Mr. Dunke and wife Emma L. Weaver. Mr. Dunke owned it and resided there until his
death in 1937, after which, the property and home were transferred to his wife, Emma L. Weaver.
Figure 52 - City of Berlin, 1919
. OU 1
Ito '01111
109\ r
rra
Its
A photo of the Dunke house is provided in the image below, showing the house as it was
(ostensibly) at around 1906.
9
Page 106 of 316
"-
IPA
0 a�
60100 so
0
00 0
ip
'ot.
■
r
Ilk 0`' ,10
ft...
all
Source: M. S. Boehm & Company Ltd. (1919)
A photo of the Dunke house is provided in the image below, showing the house as it was
(ostensibly) at around 1906.
9
Page 106 of 316
"-
s
0 a�
60100 so
0
00 0
ip
io 10
■
r
Ilk 0`' ,10
QL4010
OL
A photo of the Dunke house is provided in the image below, showing the house as it was
(ostensibly) at around 1906.
9
Page 106 of 316
nl inkP PP.4irlPnrP. rirra 1.cni
Source: News Record, 1906
By 1923, the street network started to take the shape of Kitchener's modern network, save for
some streets, like Alps Road for example, which would eventually be assumed by other roads in
the Downtown. On Figure 53, the subject lands are illustrated in red outline atop a City engineering
plan from that year.
Figure 53 - 1923 Engineer's Map ofiGtchener
L
Source: Collishaw & Preston (1979)
4
rA
82
Page 107 of 316
Halfway through the 1920s, Kitchener was in a period of economic prosperity. The subject lands
and the structures thereon are illustrated on a 1925 FIP, which shows new information related to
the development of the lands. One of the notable changes is the introduction of the current
municipal addressing, and the other is the construction of the house at 69 Benton Street. Based on
the FIP, the house at 69 Benton Street would have been constructed in the 21 -year -period between
1904 and 1925, placing the age of the house at around 97 to 118 years old. The 1925 FIP is
provided in Figure 54, with the subject lands outlined in red. It is noted that the City Directories
indicate that a "new house" was constructed here in 1918. Based on the directory information, 69
Benton Street is likely to have been constructed in 1918, making it 104 -years -old.
Figure 54 - Fire Insurance Plan, 1925
LM
— I ` % ❑
--
Source: Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. (1925)
i
W
W
I
I
IN
Page 108 of 316
Figure 55 compares the two available FIPs between 1894-1904 and 1925 to provide a visual
illustration of the structures on the subject lands and the changes over that 21 -to -3l -year period. A
summary of the changes to the subject lands is provided below:
• Construction of house at 69 Benton Street along with a stone -veneered auto garage to the
rear (northeast corner of lot).
• Introduction of 1 -storey brick addition to rear of house at 39 Benton Street (now
demolished).
• Filling in of the verandah on the south side of the house at 73 Benton Street with brick.
• A 1 -storey stone -veneered auto garage has been constructed at 73 Benton Street in front
of the west fagade of the 2 -storey rectangular brick and stone building to the rear of 73
Benton Street. This structure is now labelled as a "Machine Shop" and shows a rear
addition in the southeast corner as being made of wood. It is unclear if this structure forms
part of 73 Benton Street given the placement of the garage, but it is possible.
Figure 55- Comparison of Fire Insurance Plans 1894-1904 to 1925
- -- y -
WR
1994-1904 Fire Insurance !i - -___ F 1925 Fire Insurance
Source: Goad, 1904
Source: Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. (1925)
The topographic maps below in Figure 47 and Figure 45 are from 1968 and 1976, respectively.
The topographic maps do not show any structures on the subject lands (outlined in red) but do
show the church to the east along Church Street, and the borders of Downtown Kitchener at the
time, which are shaded in grey on the 1968 topographic map. These maps demonstrate the
urbanization of Kitchener in the latter half of the 1900s.
011
Page 109 of 316
Figure 56 - 1968 Topographic Map Figure 57- 1976 Topographic Map
Source: Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources, 1968
Source: Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources, 1976
The following series of aerial photographs provides visual history of the subject lands between
1930 and 2020 and provides chronological visuals of the development on the subject lands from
their use as lots with single -detached residential dwellings to their current use as single -detached
residential lots and surface parking. By 1973 the house at 45 Church Street had been demolished,
followed by the house at 39 Church Street around 1981, according to the City of Kitchener
directories and the below images.
Figure 58 - 1930 Air Photo Figure 59 - 1945AirPhoto
Source: University of Waterloo, 2013
Source: University of Waterloo, 2013
M
Page 110 of 316
Figure 60 - 1955Air Photo
Figure 61- 1960 Air Photo
Source: University of Waterloo, 2013
Figure 62 - 1975Air Photo
IOA
Source: Kitchener -Waterloo Record, 1960
Figure 63 - Air Photo Prior to 1980
Source: Kitchener Public Library, 1975
Source: Kitchener -Waterloo Record, 1980
II
Page 111 of 316
Figure 64 - 1980 Air Photo Figure 65 - 1985 Air Photo
441
Oy
41
#.r
a
Source: Kitchener Public Library, 1980 Source: Kitchener Public Library, 1985
Figure 66 - 1990 Air Photo Figure 67- 1995AirPhoto
` T f
A `r
IF
It A
dr
a # # a
P . _ qp § ,
Source: Kitchener Public Library, 1990 Source: Kitchener Public Library, 1995
87
Page 112 of 316
Figure 68 - 2000 Air Photo
Source: Waterloo Region, 2000
Figure 69 - 2003 Ar Photo
r x va ' -b - I F �
m4w,
OKI.
N
Source: Waterloo Region, 2003
Figure 70 - 2006 Ar Photo Figure 71 - 2009 Ar Photo
40
Aj k
kkI
�O
N
40
"�4
Source: Waterloo Region, 2006
Source: Waterloo Region, 2009
0
Page 113 of 316
Figure 72 - 2012 Air Photo
Figure 73 - 2014 Air Photo
� ' .sem � '� �,� • .
%
Source: Waterloo Region, 2012
Source: Waterloo Region, 2014
Figure 74 - 2016 Air Photo Figure 75 - 2020 Air Photo
AY 4
,' •:°;
h r�
Source: Waterloo Region, 2016
Development and Uses
Source: Waterloo Region, 2020
The following provides a highlight of some of the uses, businesses, institutions, and names
associated with the subject lands over the years, based on the available City directories, from
1912, when the first "City" directory was published, until 2014, when they were discontinued.
Before the City directory, there were other earlier directories going as far back as about 1860, but
they tend to show less detailed information. For the earlier years, a chain of title has been provided
we
Page 114 of 316
for the subject lands. The names that appear in the below tables sometimes represent the owner
of the property, but many of the listings shown below represent tenants, as the subject lands have
been largely converted into multiple rental units over time. A detailed chain of title has also been
provided below, which breaks down the land ownership from the original Crown patent to present.
The following tables also include deleted addresses which have either been merged on title, or
which have been deleted (i.e., 45 and 47 Church Street).
Table > - 39 Church Street (City Directory)
•Directory)
Year(s)
Associated Person, Business, or Institution
1912-1913
Arthur B. Pollock
1918
Arthur B. Pollock & Irene Heimpel
1919-1926
W. H. Meisner
1927-1928
Mrs. F. H. Haviland
1929-1936
Alice Gingrich
1938-1943
Hazel Dingwall
1945-1952
Edythe Emery (Dorothy O'Connor, 1947)
1953
Vacant
1954
1955-1957
Dorothy Walter & Christine Galley
Mrs. R. Stevenson & Mrs. M. Harker
1958
Mrs. R. Stevenson & Vacant Unit
1 1959-1960
No Data (Directory Refers to 61 Benton)
1961
-1962
Mrs. R. Stevenson
1963
Vacant
.81
Page 115 of 316
1964-1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971 - 1972
1974-1976
1977-1981
1982 - Present
Bernard Bester
John Moyer
A. J. Le Blanc
S. K. Jacklin
Peter Jackson
Mrs. B. Jackson
R. C. Armstrong
Vacant
C. Sweitzer
M. Omer
House Demolished - No Data
Table 2 - 4.5 Church Street (City Directory)
Year(s)
1912
1913
1918
1919-1942
Associated Person, Business, or Institution
Mrs. J. J. Woelfle
Augusta Woelfle
(Machinists)
Woelfle Family & Woelfle Bros. (Machinists)
1943 i Woelfle Family & Acme Machine Co. Ltd.
1945-1947
1948-1952
Woelfle Family
Woelfle Family & Canadian Homes & Kitchens
91
Page 116 of 316
1953-1955
1956
Directory)47
Woelfle Family & Kitchener Police Department (Traffic Division)
Woelfle Family
1957-1958
No Data
Woelfle Family & A. Lord (Refractories & Accessories)
1959-1972
1961
P. K. Woelfle
1973
- Present
House Demolished - No Data
Table 3 - 47 Church Street (City Directory)
Church Street (City
Year(s)
Directory)47
Associated Person, Business, or Institution
1912-1958
No Data
1959-1960
A. Lord Supply Company
1961
Morrice Antique & Furniture Repair
1962
North American Colour Crete Ltd.
1963 - Present
No Data
Table 4 - 51 Church Street (City Directory)
Year(s) Associated Person, Business, or Institution
1912-1943 Benjamin Musselman
1945-1949 Mrs. M. Moser & A. H. Wellein
1950-1953 1 F. L. Barber & A. H. Wellein
1954-1964 1 Fred Musselman & Herbt Helm
1965 1 F. K. Musselman & Edith E. Elliot
92
Page 117 of 316
1966
Directory)
F. K. Musselman & J. Cuturic
1967-1969
No Data
F. K. Musselman & Gordon Wolfe
1970
1919-1927
Mrs. H. O. Musselman & Gordon Wolfe
1971
-1974
Willbur Brubacher & W. D. Brubacher
1975-1976
E. Brubacher & S. Snow
1977-1981
W. Poll, D. Constant, & S. Snow
1982
S. Snow
1983-1999
M. Dias & House of Prestige (Business)
2000
House of Prestige (Business), D. Lambert, & C. Justy
D. Lambert, & C. Justy
D. Lambert, & M. Cote
2001
2002-2004
2005-2006
L. Moses
2007-2014
S. Casselman
2015
- Present
Directories Discontinued (House Currently Tenanted)
Table 5 - 69 Benton Street (City Directory)
.• Benton Street (City
Year(s)
Directory)
Associated Person, Business, or Institution
1912-1913
No Data
1918
Directory Notes "New House"
1919-1927
Mrs. R. W. Boehmer
1928-1948
William H. Meisner, A. F. Maisner (1940 - 1943), A. C. Meisner (1945),
& G. Hathaway (1946 - 1948)
93
Page 118 of 316
1949-1953 Mrs. E. Meisner, G. Hathaway, & Elmer B. Hyatt
1954
Mrs. E. Meisner, Roger S. Fick, & Elmer B. Hyatt
1955-1956
Mrs. E. Meisner, B. Pollock. Fick, & Elmer B. Hyatt
1957
Mrs. E. Meisner, Elam Martin. Fick, & Elmer B. Hyatt
M. L. Holmes, Ronald Pellar, & Elmer B. Hyatt
John Vollans, Ronald Pellar, & Elmer B. Hyatt
1958
1959
1960-1961
Ronald Pellar, John Klassen, Mrs. M. Weber
1962-1963
R. Dunsmore, Mrs. M. Weber, & LeRoy Seftel
1964
R. Dunsmore, Mrs. M. Weber, & Rudolph Queda
J. Hammermuller, P. Buckheidt, & Vala Lowdes
1965
1966-1967
Antonio Morgado, Francisco Vala, Jose Corvalho, Carlos Simoes
1968
Antonio Morgado, Francisco Vala, Jose Corvalho, Natalie Alves
1969
Jose Calisto, Luis Morgado, Francisco Vala, & Donna Densmore
Jose Calisto & V. C. Veves
Jose Calisto, V. Calisto, & J. Alves
Jose Calisto, Sprung, & Valdemai Calisto
Jose Calisto & Valdemai Calisto
Jose Calisto, B. Neves, J. Fatima
Jose Calisto, B. Neves, A. Silveira
Jose Calisto, V. Neves, J. Guterres, & Valar Masonry (Business)
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975-1976
1977-1978
Page 119 of 316
1979
Jose Calisto, A. Gil, A. Lopes, M. Duarte
1980-1986
Kitchener Observation and Detention Centre, & Casatta Limited (1980 -
1982)
1987-1988
Hope Harbour & V. Calisto
1989-1990
V. Calisto
1991
Casatto Limited (Business), V. Calisto, & L. Valil
1992-1996
Casatto Limited (Business) & Napco Investments Ltd. (Business)
1997-2011
Casatto Limited (Business)
2012
No Data
2013-2014
G. Thompson
2015
- Present
Directories Discontinued (House Currently Tenanted)
Table 6 - 73 Benton Street (City Directory)
Year(s) Associated Person, Business, or Institution
1912-1936 Charles B. Dunke
1937 Emma L. Dunke
1939 Emma L. Dunke & I. G. Imrie
1940 1 R. S. Bearhope & Frank Medlagel
1942 1 Frank Medlagel
1943-1945 1 G. Waever & R. Tanner
1946-1953 1 H. W. Martin & J. D. Peppler
95
Page 120 of 316
1954-1956
1957-1962
1963-1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969-1970
1971 -1973
1 1974-1980
1981 -1983
1984-1986
H. W. Martin, Frank Medlagel, & Mrs. Theresa Prust
Frank Medlagel, & Mrs. Theresa Prust
Mrs. Theresa Prust & Vacant Units
Mrs. Theresa Prust & Peter Schweizer
Mrs. Theresa Prust & Edward Mitchell
Mrs. Theresa Prust & A. M. Possmeyer
Mrs. Theresa Prust & Robert Staher
Mrs. Theresa Prust
Mrs. Theresa Prust & M. Kovacs
Mrs. Theresa Prust & Vacant Units
H. Prior & Vacant Units
H. Prior H, A. Sauder, & D Awender
H. Prior H &A. Sauder
1988 P. Blanchette & Vacant Units
1990-1991 Vacant
1992 Waterloo Wellington Insurance Agencies Inc. (Business)
1993-1994 Waterloo Wellington Insurance Agencies Inc. (Business) & Birthright
(Business)
1995 Birthright (Business), Westmount Financial Services (Business), & V.
Kavelman
1996 Birthright (Business) & V. Kavelman
1997 Birthright (Business), M. Delarosbil, & M. McArdle
96
Page 121 of 316
1998 Birthright (Business), M. Delarosbil, & M. Doucette
1999 Birthright (Business) & Vacant Units
2000
Greenpeace, D. Ford, & C. Lucas
2001
M. Theriault, C. Chamberlain, & R. Casselman
2002
M. Theriault & C. Chamberlain
2003
M. Theriault, M. Maclntyre, & G. Henrich
2004
J. McCoy, E. Koerner, & K. Winteringham
2005
E. Koerner & Vacant Units
2006-2008
E. Koerner & S. Casselman
2009
E. Koerner & Vacant Units
2010
E. Koerner, Z. Jalloh, & R. Kimmich
2011
E. Koerner & M. Lavigne
2012
No Data
2013
Barbara L. Butts
No Data & Directories Discontinued (House Currently Tenanted)
2014 - Present
According to the City Directories, the houses at 39 and 45 Church Street were demolished in 1982
and 1973, respectively. Another address, 43 Church Street contained some entries between 1959
and 1962, but there are no records of a fourth structure along Church between the intersection with
Benton and the church / chapel at 53 Church Street. It is possible this address was assigned
separately to one of the units in either 39 or 45 Church Street, or there was a mis-recording or error
in the Directories.
Overall, there have been a wide variety of people, businesses, and institutions associated with
each of the three structures at 51 Church Street, and 69 and 73 Benton Street. Based on the above
directory information, the 51 Church Street was converted into a 2 -unit apartment building by about
1945. The house at 69 Benton Street was converted into a 3 -unit apartment building by about
1928, with a possible 4th unit. The house at 73 Benton was converted into a 2- to 3 -unit apartment
building by about 1939.
Each of the three structures at 51 Church Street, and 69 and 73 Benton Street have contained
commercial businesses or institutional uses over the years, including the Kitchener Observation
and Detention Centre at 69 Benton Street in the 1980s.
97
Page 122 of 316
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the many different uses and various tenants have left a
lasting mark on the buildings, with various alterations, renovations, additions, and destruction
removing most of the original building integrity, and leaving the structures in a variety of conditions.
Based on the site visit, the noted alterations, renovations, additions, and destruction, and the
variety of tenants and uses that came and went over time, the originality of all three existing
structures has been lost. The structure at 51 Church Street is in the fairest condition, but the
conversion of the structure on the inside has resulted in a loss of the building's original layout. The
structures at 69 and 73 Benton have seen numerous interior changes over the years, and it is now
difficult to visualize how they would have functioned as a single-family home.
Photos of the existing conditions of the subject lands and the interior of the buildings are provided
above in Section 2.0 of this report.
The follow street view photos have also compiled and assembled to provide a brief time lapse of
the subject lands between 2009 and 2020. These images illustrate that there has been very little
change to the structure between 2009 and 2023, with the recognizable differences being the
exterior colour selection and trim colour, which change slightly during this time.
2nn9 StrPPt View .51 Church
2009 Street View, 69 / 73 Benton
Source: Google Street View, 2009
2011 Street View. 51 Church
Source: Google Street View, 2009
Source: Google Street View, 2011
Source: Google Street View, 2011
Page 123 of 316
2n15 StrPPt View .51 Church
Source: Google Street View, 2015
2n15 StrPPt View 51 Churr h
2015 Street View. 69 / 73 Benton
Source: Google Street View, 2015
2016 Street View. 69 / 73 Benton
Source: Google Street View, 2016
2019 Street View, 51 Church
Source: Google Street View, 2016
2019 Street View, 69 / 73 Benton
Source: Google Street View, 2019
Source: Google Street View, 2019
Page 124 of 316
2n2n strPPt View .51 Churnh .9ron strPPt View 59 / T3 RPntnn
Source: Google Street View, 2020
Chain of Title
Source: Google Street View, 2020
In addition to the historical directory research, chains of title were prepared for each of the four
parcels forming the subject lands by Lisa Leva, a professional title searcher with over 35 years
experience and a registered member of the Ontario Association of Professional Searchers of
Records ("OAPSAR").
The chains of title for each of the four parcels are appended to this report as Appendix C.
The chains of title trace the sequential transfers of title from the current owner back to the original
Crown patent. It is noted that the land registry records for these lots are based on the best
available information provided through OnLand and several other sources, many of which contain
scanned copies of hand-written script that can be difficult to glean. As such, the appended chains
of title are based on the best information available at the time of writing, and some names and
transfer may be slightly off due to illegible script and availability of information. As well, sometimes
the chain of title information branches off or breaks into two or multiple tracks of land transfers. The
reason for this is not always known, but sometimes those multiple tracks relate to conveyances,
severances, or grants that are associated with the lineage of the current address. In those cases,
the separate tracks are highlighted in a different colour. Lastly, sometimes the dates associated
with the names may include a wide date range and not account for all grants / transfers within that
range.
The purpose of examining the chains of title is to determine the ownership history of the subject
lands in relation to their current parcel configuration. It is important to note that the earliest owners,
are often notable individuals in the community, but yet may not have a direct association with the
current parcel fabric or structures on the lands, since early ownership was typically for much larger
lots and concessions and owners did not always build homes before subdividing or re -selling.
Additionally, the chain of title and directories may not always align due to inconsistent record
keeping or other factors such as differences between tenants and owners.
Generally, the chains of title trace back to the original largest piece of land, in this case, the
Beasley Block, and then focus on the ownership progression to the current owners of the current
parcel fabric, which are subdivisions of the larger original parcels and typically much smaller (like
the subject lands).
100
Page 125 of 316
Interestingly, the available chains of title do not indicate the transfer of a 1 -acre portion of land to S.
Moxley between 1857 and 1858, as depicted on Plans 393 and 394, where J.S. (presumably
Joseph Schneider) transferred the subject lands to an S. Moxley. It is possible that the historical
records are incomplete or that the documentation regarding this transfer is illegible. Sometimes,
there are gaps in the chains of title over the years. However, according to the Waterloo
Generations website (2022), Samuel Moxley is said to have sold a 1 -acre parcel of land to the
Trustees of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Kitchener for $1 in 1842. The website describes the
current location of Trinity United Church (54 Benton Street) as the site of this transaction. However,
this information does not align with Plans 393 and 394, as the timing and location differ.
Additionally, according to the 100th anniversary book of St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church
(2004), the church trustees purchased portions of the subject lands — 39 Church Street, 45 Church
Street, and 51 Church Street — in 1963, 1964, and 1999, respectively. The records indicate that 39
Church Street was acquired for $19,500 and 45 Church Street for $26,000, both properties being
used as parking lots at the time. The property at 51 Church Street was purchased for $179,000
and was occupied by a tenant at the time of acquisition.
Of particular relevance is the ownership history of 51 Church Street, 69 Benton Street, and 73
Benton Street when they were still single-family homes before being converted into multiple rental
units. According to available information, Benjamin Musselman resided at 51 Church Street for
approximately 31 years, the Boehmer family owned and lived at 69 Benton Street for about 8 years,
and Charles Boehmer Dunke owned and lived at 73 Benton Street for around 26 years (potentially
longer). There are slight discrepancies between the City Directories and the chain of title regarding
the timing of ownership and the residence of the Boehmer family at 69 Benton Street.
Notably, Charles Boehmer Dunke, the owner of 73 Benton Street, was a prominent
businessperson, landowner, and respected member of the community, as referenced in various
local historical books.
The following provides a more specific story for each of the parcels that comprise the subject
lands.
39 Church Street
The parcel at 39 Church Street no longer contains any structures and is currently a gravel parking
lot.
The location was initially identified as a historic cemetery in an artist's rendering of Berlin circa
1875. The cemetery was the Wesleyan Methodist Mission's cemetery, and according to Mills
(2002), may have been the first Methodist cemetery in the City tied to a chapel that was on or near
the parcel. However, the cemetery was only kept up until 1876, when it was sold to William Moyer.
According to Uttley (1975 p. 69), the cemetery was exhumed in 1876 and all remains were
transferred to the Mount Hope Cemetery. After the exhumations, the land was divided and sold as
building lots, which were subsequently built out for single -detached homes. As mentioned
previously, the parcel was also assigned different addresses over the years, all of which are now
consolidated under the 39 Church Street address.
101
Page 126 of 316
Over the years, 39 Church Street changed ownership multiple times and experienced various uses.
Two of the historic owners of 39 Church Street are inductees into the Waterloo Region Hall of
Fame: Arthur B. Pollock who owned a house at 39 Church Street (from 1912 to 1918) and John
Moyer who owned it in 1966.
According to the Waterloo Region Hall of Fame, Arthur B. Pollock, attended Berlin High School and
later worked in New York as a bookkeeper and clerk. In 1907, recognizing the potential of the
phonograph as a central musical device in households, Pollock returned to Berlin and established
"The Pollock Manufacturing Company" to produce the "Pollock Talking Machine." Initially operating
from a carriage house at 68 Benton Street, the company later moved to a factory on Victoria Street.
In 1909, Alex Welker joined the company as an engineer and production manager. In 1917, the
Phonola Company was incorporated, and an additional plant was opened in Elmira for
manufacturing phonograph cabinets. By 1925, the Berlin plant was renamed Pollock -Welker Ltd. In
the same year, the Grimes Radio Corporation was established for radio set production. In 1933, all
three organizations merged under the name Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited. Arthur B.
Pollock, a prominent citizen, passed away in 1951 (Waterloo Region, 2021).
According to the Waterloo Region Hall of Fame, John Moyer, born in Waterloo in 1913, excelled in
bowling and baseball. He achieved championships in bowling, including the Canadian Singles
Five -Pin Bowling Championship and the Eastern Canada Championship in 1958. In baseball,
Moyer was a star pitcher for Waterloo's Senior County Baseball League, leading his team to victory
in the Inter -County and Ontario Baseball Championships in 1939. He also represented the
Canadian Army team in 1943 (Waterloo Region, 2021).
Since Mr. Pollock and Mr. Moyer lived at 39 Church Street, all of the structures have since been
demolished (circa 1982).
The property was also previously owned by the St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church, who
purchased it in 1963 for $19,500 as an investment. In the 100th anniversary pamphlet of the church,
it noted as being a parking lot at that time. In 2021, the church sold it to the current owners
(Church and Benton Itd.).
The association with the St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church was transactional in nature, as
the site remained a parking lot from their time of purchase to the date of sale and continues as a
parking lot to this day.
In summary, the property at 39 Church Street was once associated with the Wesleyan Methodist
belief and organization, and with two Waterloo Region Hall of Fame inductees, Arthur B. Pollock
and John Moyer who lived at 39 Church Street; all of which held some significance in the
community at the time. However, this association ceased when the nearby Wesleyan Methodist
Mission chapel and cemetery were removed and exhumed in 1876. The same is true of any
association with Mr. Pollock and Mr. Moyer, whose houses have since been demolished.
51 Church Street
The chronology of 51 Church Street reveals a series of ownership and occupancy changes over
the years. From 1912 to 1943, the property was ostensibly owned by Benjamin Musselman, a
teamster that passed away in the house on December 11, 1942. In 1970, the property was owned
102
Page 127 of 316
by Willbur Brubacher from 1971 to 1974. Willbur Brubacher was a member of the Calvary United
Church and the Senior Citizens Glee club. There were a variety of other owners over the years, but
the Musselman and the Brubacher family name sometimes have historic significance within the
City of Kitchener or Waterloo. However, in this instance the Musselmans and the Brubachers who
owned 51 Church Street were not identified as people whose contributions or impact on the
community were widely recognized or extensively documented, nor are they listed in the Region of
Waterloo's Hall of Fame.
The structure at 51 Church Street was constructed sometime between 1877 and 1892, making the
structure around 130 to 145 years old.
In 1999, the property was purchased by the St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church for
$179,000 as an investment, and the 100th anniversary pamphlet described the house as being
rented at that time. In 2021, the church sold it to the current owners (Church and Benton Itd.).
The house was never used by the St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church as a clergy house.
There is no discernible connection between the house at 51 Church Street and the neighbouring
church at 53 Church Street. The association with the St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church
was transactional in nature, as the house was purchased with tenants in it, which is still the case
today even after its sale to the current owners.
The structure has been subjected to several alterations over the years, which has altered the
original format of the building, particularly the interior layout. Today, the house exists as a two -unit
rental apartment building, with one upper and one lower unit.
69 Benton Street
The history of 69 Benton Street spans several decades. In 1918, a new house was noted in the
directory. From 1919 to 1927, Mrs. R. W. Boehmer resided at the address. The ownership changed
hands multiple times over the years, with most occupants appearing to be tenants, none of which
were identified as people whose contributions or impact on the community were widely recognized
or extensively documented, nor are they listed in the Region of Waterloo's Hall of Fame.
In addition to having multiple tenants over the years, the structure also served a commercial
purpose having been the location of several business over the years and a couple of one-off public
service type uses. This included the Jose Calisto, V. Neves, J. Guterres, & Valar Masonry business
from 1977 — 1978, the Kitchener Observation and Detention Centre from 1980 - 1986, and Casatta
Limited (another business) from 1980 to 2011.
The house at 69 Benton Street ostensibly dates back to around 1918, making it approximately 104
years old.
Over the years, the property has been converted into multiple rental housing units. Various
alterations and additions have been made to accommodate this change, including a saltbox roof
covering a rear extension, randomly placed and sized windows, symmetrical brick chimneys on
both sides, a combination of brick and vinyl siding, large stone lintels, multiple entrances and
openings to accommodate unitization, boarded or covered window openings, wide overhanging
103
Page 128 of 316
eaves with evenly spaced brackets, and a primary entrance through the side of the portico into a
front 2 -storey rectilinear bump -out facing Benton Street.
The property's history includes a conversion from a single-family home to a multiple unit apartment
building around 1928. Today, the interior condition ranges from poor to fair, with the upper unit
being in relatively better shape.
73 Benton Street
The property at 73 Benton Street contains a structure that was once the home of Charles Boehmer
Dunke (a.k.a., C. B. Dunke) who was the owner and resident of 73 Benton Street during the first
half of the 20th century. Alongside his wife Emma L. Dunke, they lived in the house when it served
as a single-family residence. Mr. Dunke, born in 1861, was a merchant who owned and operated a
grocery store on King Street in downtown Kitchener for almost 50 years. He passed away in 1937
at the age of 76, shortly after his retirement.
Mr. Dunke was an Alderman on the first City of Berlin Council and witnessed significant changes in
the city, including the establishment of paved streets, the construction of the street railway, and the
introduction of waterworks. He also played a role in the transformation of the grocery business. As
a member and trustee of the Benton St. Baptist Church, he owned several buildings along King
Street, collectively referred to as the "Dunke Block."
Today, the building at 73 Benton Street has been converted into a 3 or 4 -unit rental building and
shows signs of deterioration and unsympathetic alterations to the exterior. The building at 73
Benton Street is now around 118 to 129 years old and is in poor condition both externally and
internally. Several original features, such as finials, vergeboarding, window shutters, and certain
window and door openings have been removed or bricked over. Additionally, new openings have
been created in the brickwork to accommodate the conversion of the house into multiple units,
and various external fixtures have been added to support individual gas lines, electrical systems,
and HVAC installations. A comparison of the house at 73 Benton as it was in 1906 and 2022 is
provided below, which shows the changes to the house from a single-family home with decorative
accent and window shutters, to today's 3 -unit apartment building conversion.
Figure 76 - House Comparison of 73 Benton Street between 1906 -2022
z
Source: News Record, 1906
Source: Google Maps, 2020
104
Page 129 of 316
As can be seen, the relationship of the house to the street has also changed, with the earlier image
showing a yard and walkway, and the more recent image showing a wide driveway and paved
parking area for tenants. The house at 73 Benton Street is in the poorest condition among all the
buildings on the subject lands, both externally and internally. The interior has undergone significant
modifications, leaving little evidence of the original structure and floor plan. The units are in a
poorly maintained, with the basement exhibiting severe mold and rot, and the upper unit showing
damage caused by both tenants and landlords, including signs of a fire.
Overall, the house presents a mix of original and altered elements, and its overall condition is rated
as fair to poor. The surviving features at 73 Benton Street include the original shell and some of the
original silhouette, but mostly the house is no longer representative of the original design,
particularly on the inside. Extensive alterations have been made to the building, resulting in
unsympathetic changes to its original craftsmanship. The building has been extensively modified,
expanded, damaged, and reconfigured internally, reflecting the shift from a single-family home to a
multi -unit rental building and the subsequent alterations made to accommodate tenants and
repairs over the years.
A thorough examination of both the exterior and interior elements confirms that multiple alterations
and changes have occurred, resulting in a farrago of constructed elements and materials. These
alterations have accumulated over time under various owners and tenants.
5.4 Charles Boehmer Dunke
Charles Boehmer Dunke
Source: McLaughlin, 1912
Charles Boehmer Dunke, often written as "C. B.
Dunke", was the owner and resident of 73 Benton Street
in the earlier half of the 201h Century. Mr. Dunke lived in
the house with his wife Emma L. Weaver (a.k.a., "Emma
L. Dunke") when it was still a single-family residence.
Born in 1861 to Reinhardt Dunke (father) and
Magdalena "Lena" Boehmer (mother), Mr. Dunke was a
merchant who owned and operated a grocery store
along King Street in downtown Kitchener for nearly 50
years. Mr. Dunke passed away in the house at 73
Benton Street in 1937 at the age of 76, shortly after his
retirement just a year before.
Mr. Dunke's grocery store was established along King
Street in 1887, and according to the Kitchener Daily
Record (1937), "had the distinction of having been in
business longer than any other King St. merchant."
105
Page 130 of 316
Mr. Dunke was on the first City of Berlin Council as an Alderman and would have lived through
many changes in the City. According to the Kitchener Daily Record (1937):
When he first opened his store King St. was a gravel road, he saw the first pavement constructed,
the street railway built, and the waterworks established. When he was of the younger merchants,
streets and stores were lighted by coal oil lamps and each night at sundown businessmen of the
day paused a moment watching for the lamp lighter to make his rounds.
Mr. Dunke also experienced a great revolution in the grocery business since the day when he
opened his store. At that time farmers dealings with the store were all in the way of trading. Today,
although not eliminated, this system has been greatly curtailed.
Source: Moulton & Walker, 2005
106
Page 131 of 316
Source: Moulton & Walker, 2005
Figure 77- City of Berlin FiistAtdennanic Council, 1912 (C. B. Dunke Circled in Red)
eJlY eMwt�lll�IaU �iws E���. ti•�.. .,,�t, .,.� .,
IL
Source: McLaughlin, 1912
As a Councillor starting in 1912, Mr. Dunke would have been on City Council for at least 4 years
from 1912 to 1915. Mr. Dunke would have sat on Council, likely prior to the name change from
Berlin to Kitchener by referendum in May and June 1916.
Mr. Dunke was also a member and trustee of the Benton St. Baptist Church, and a landowner of
several buildings along King Street, sometimes referred to as the "Dunke Block".
107
Page 132 of 316
5.5 Brief History of Adjacent Heritage Properties
The following provides a brief history of the listed and designated heritage properties identified as
properties to be assessed as part of this report via the scoped Terms of Reference. The below
histories are not intended to be comprehensive, as the histories of the below properties are already
well documented through City records and the designating by-laws. Instead, these histories are
intended to serve as contextual reference with respect to the Cedar Hill neighbourhood and
development near the corner of Benton and Church Streets.
53 Church Street
The property municipally addressed as 53 Church Street is the current location of a place of
worship called the Martin Luther Church. The property at 53 Church Street is adjacent to the 51
Church Street, one of the parcels forming the subject lands in the northeast corner. According to
the City of Kitchener's records, the existing church was built in 1921 in a vernacular architectural
style with Romanesque influences. This listed, non -designated property, has been recognized by
the City of Kitchener for its design, contextual, historical, and associative values.
Source: Original Photo
The property at 53 Church Street has been the site of some form of place of worship since at least
1841, when the Wesleyan Methodist Mission open their Chapel at this location with a cemetery just
to the west. Over the years, this property has seen various congregations come and go starting
with the Wesleyan Methodist's (between 1841 —1868) and including the United Brethren Church
(between 1898-1907); the Grace Congregational Church (between 1907-1921); Grace Tabernacle
W:
Page 133 of 316
(between 1921-1935); the Mennonite Brethren (between 1935-1953); the Bethel Evangelical
Lutheran (between 1953-1966); and Martin Luther Evangelical Church (present) (City of Kitchener,
2012). According to the City of Kitchener (2012) the current structure may have been constructed
around 1921.
The church is generally rectilinear in shape, and the design is focused around a steeply pitched
front gable roof, tall windows with round arched tops, and buttresses with pinnacles at the front
gable. The focus for the windows appears to be more utilitarian and for symmetry than it does
ornamental. There does not appear to be any remarkable stained-glass windows. The church
structure is separated from the structure at 51 Church Street by about 8.7 metres and has a front
yard setback of about 2.5 metres, according to the City of Kitchener's online interactive mapping
application.
Exterior Attributes:
- brick dentils;
- buttresses with pinnacles;
- round (full circle or porthole) window in the front fagade;
- steeply pitched front gable roof;
- tall and slim arched windows with brick voussoirs, dripstones, and sills;
- wooden double entrance door (front along Church Street) with round arched top;
- yellow brick exterior;
- vernacular church architecture with Romanesque influences; and
As well, City staff have recognized the location of 53 Church Street and its contribution to the
continuity and character of the Church Street streetscape as notable attributes in their 2012 cultural
heritage evaluation form and statement of significance, though there was not a lot of qualifications
to this statement.
As 53 Church Street is immediately adjacent to where construction activities are proposed, we
have provided an image to illustrate the location of the attributes listed above.
109
Page 134 of 316
Figure 78 - lrisua( of Exterior Attributes, 53 Church Street
Steeply Pitched
Source: Original Image
51 Benton Street
The property municipally addressed as 51 Benton Street is the current location of the Benton
Medical Centre, which includes a medical clinic and on-site pharmacy, dental office, and
physiotherapy. The property at 51 Benton Street is another listed, non -designated property of
cultural heritage value or interest and is located across the street from the subject lands, making it
adjacent, as per the City's definition.
110
Page 135 of 316
The structure at 51 Benton Street is a 2 -storey brick building built in the Italianate architectural style
around 1890. The building has seen several conversions of the years, including its adaptation into
a funeral home in 1929 (i.e., Schreiter Sandrock Funeral Home) and its more recent conversion
into the medical centre. The Schreiter Sandrock Funeral Home operated until 2014 (Mercer, 2017).
The following excerpt from the City of Kitchener's statement of significance explains the
significance of the property:
The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the
Italianate architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and
features: shallow hip roof with wide eaves; decorative soffits, scroll brackets and fascia, including
dentil trim; stucco with corner quoins; segmentally arched window openings with hood moulds
and 2/2 windows; first and second floor bay windows on the front elevation, including transoms;
storm door on front elevation; and wrap around porch. The contextual values relate to the
contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Benton Street and Church
Street streetscapes.
The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and the funeral home. The original
owner was E.P. Clement who was a prominent local lawyer (Shea, 1989). He became King's
Council in 1904 and was also a director and president of Mutual Life (Shea, 1989). The home was
purchased by the Schreiter's family and converted to a funeral home in 1929 (Shea, 1989). Arthur
Sandrock purchased the funeral home from the Schreiter's in 1939 (Dignity Memorial, 2014). He
had experience in funeral services stemming from his involvement in World War I when he was in
charge of embalming and shipping bodies from Camp Cody, New Mexico to points throughout the
US (Dignity Memorial, 2014). The home continues to function as a funeral home. It is noted that the
above description was written prior to the conversion of the structure into a medical centre, which
also changed the colour of the building fagade, added new and different stone veneer to the
exterior, and changes to the some of the decorative elements on the fagades.
51 Benton Street, circa 2022
�r
3.,'
-qT
ljt-
r
OWN
M+
Source: Original Photo
Page 136 of 316
Exterior Attributes (Original Italianate Component):
- decorative soffits;
- first and second floor bay windows on the front elevation, including transoms;
- Italianate architectural style and 2 -storey height;
- long and slim segmentally arched window openings with hood moulds;
- scroll brackets, fascia, and dentil trim;
- shallow hip roof with wide eaves;
- storm door on front elevation;
- stucco with corner quoins;
- wrap around porch; and
- the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Benton Street
and Church Street streetscapes.
64 Benton Street
i
Source: Original Photo
Exterior Attributes:
The property municipally addressed as
64 Benton Street is the current location
of the Benton Condos (see image left)
and is located on the western corner of
the intersection of Benton Street and
Church Street.
The building at 64 Benton was
constructed sometime between 1975
and 1980 and is a 15 -storey residential
condominium with red/brown brick
exterior.
Although technically a protected property
through its inclusion within the Part V
designation of the VPA-HCD, this
building is one of several newer tall multi-
unit buildings within the VPA-HCD.
- recessed balconies and fagade variation;
- red/brown brick exterior;
- vertical window rhythm and openings; and
- vertically articulated construction creating a columnar effect separated into 6 vertical
sections.
112
Page 137 of 316
79 Benton Street
Source: Original Photo
The property municipally addressed as 79
Benton Street is the current location of Robert
J Dyck Architect & Engineering Inc.'s business
(see image left). The business is located inside
of 2.5 -storey vernacular brick house built
between 1926 — 1927 and features influences
from the Arts and Crafts architectural style. The
property at 79 Benton Street is another listed,
non -designated property of cultural heritage
value or interest, and the original owner of the
property was a person named R. Boehmer.
According to the City of Kitchener, statement
of significance (2013) the house at 79 Benton
Street is recognized for its design and
contextual values. The design value relates to
the architecture of the house. The house is a
unique example of a vernacular house
influenced by the Arts and Crafts architectural
style.
The house is in good condition. The house is two -and -a -half storeys in height and features: front
gable roof; soffits and exposed rafters; coursed shingles on gable wall; red and black brick;
asymmetrical enclosed entry and upper porch; trio 1/1 windows; rusticated concrete sills and
lintels; brick chimney; gabled dormers; matching outbuilding (garage); and leaded glass transoms
on first storey windows.
The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of a
vernacular house influenced by the Arts and Crafts architectural style. The house is in good
condition. The house is two -and -a -half storeys in height and features: front gable roof; soffits and
exposed rafters; coursed shingles on gable wall; red and black brick; asymmetrical enclosed entry
and upper porch; trio 1/1 windows; rusticated concrete sills and lintels; brick chimney; gabled
dormers; matching outbuilding (garage); and leaded glass transoms on first storey windows.
The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and
character of the Benton Street streetscape. The property at 79 Benton Street is south of and
directly adjacent to the property at 73 Benton Street.
Exterior Attributes:
- asymmetrical enclosed entry and upper porch;
- brick chimney;
- coursed shingles on gable wall;
- front gable roof;
113
Page 138 of 316
gabled dormers;
- leaded glass transoms on first storey windows;
- red and black brick;
- rusticated concrete sills and lintels;
- soffits and exposed joists/rafters;
- trio 1/1 windows;
two -and -a -half storey height;
vernacular residential home, influenced by the Arts and Crafts architectural style; and
As well, City staff have recognized the location of 79 Benton Street and its contribution to the
continuity and character of the Benton Street streetscape as notable attributes in their 2013 cultural
heritage evaluation form and statement of significance, though there was not a lot of qualifications
to this statement. As 79 Benton Street is immediately adjacent to where construction activities are
proposed, we have provided an image to illustrate the location of the attributes listed above.
Figure 79 - Ksua/ of ExtedorA&ibutes, 79 Benton Street
Front Gable
Roof
Source: Original Photo
114
Page 139 of 316
90 Benton Street
The property municipally addressed as 90 Benton Street is the current location of the Benton Street
Baptist Church (Clubine, 1976; and Benton Street Baptist Church, 1925). This property is across
the street from the subject lands to the west and is adjacent as per the City's definition.
The congregation for this church originated in Bridgeport (now a neighbourhood within Kitchener)
in September of 1851 with a charter member of only 16. The current day congregation was
established at 90 Benton Street in 1852 in a different church from what exists today.
The first pastor of the church was Henry Schneider (a colporteur' with the American Tract and
Bible Society) who was ordained in 1852 (Clubine, 1976; and Benton Street Baptist Church, 1925).
Initially, the congregation and church were comprised of mostly German-speaking people and was
the first German Baptist Church of Berlin. In 1918, and after World War I, the church switched to
English after more than sixty years as a German-speaking congregation (Clubine, 1976; and
Benton Street Baptist Church, 1925).
In 1852, the Bridgeport congregation "erected a building in Berlin on the site of the present
sanctuary. Berlin, at that time, boasted a population of 782, and had 123 houses, three schools,
four stores, and five churches" (Clubine, 1976; and Benton Street Baptist Church, 1925).
Between 1900 and 1901 the original church was remodelled to include new windows, pews, and a
pipe organ. Sunday School facilities were added in 1901, 1927, and 1953. In 1920, the church
separated from the Eastern Conference of the German Baptist Churches, and united with the
Ontario and Quebec Convention (Clubine, 1976; and Benton Street Baptist Church, 1925). In 1925,
during the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Church, the Reverend was A. S. Imrie,
and the trustees included Charles. B. Dunke, H. F. Boehmer, and William Toman.
On February 11, 1964, the original church was destroyed by a fire, leaving only the 1953 addition
still intact (Clubine, 1976; and Benton Street Baptist Church, 1925).
The current church was constructed in 1965 in a contemporary architectural style at a cost of
$700,000, with the cornerstone being laid on April 3, 1966. The official opening of the new (and
current) church was September 18, 1966 (Clubine, 1976).
Today, the church at 90 Benton Street, is a designated heritage property under Part V of the OHA,
within the VPA-HCD. The VPA-HCD, provides that the contemporary style Benton Street Baptist
Church lends to the impressive series of church buildings within the VPA-HCD providing a unique
picture of ecclesiastical architecture that spans close to a century. The VPA-HCD states that "it is
important to conserve the salient' characteristics of each building style", although, no specific
features of the Benton Street Baptist church have been identified.
In our opinion, the salient exterior features of the Benton Street Baptist Church include the brick
buttresses with pinnacles; brown brick and limestone exterior; copper finial (with oxidized blue-
green patina); covered brick entranceway (portico) with segmental archway; cross -gabled and
a A colporteur is someone employed by a religious society to distribute bibles and other religious tracts.
a Salient means most noticeable or important.
115
Page 140 of 316
steeply sloping roof; pointed segmental arches within the gables; stained glass windows; stone
mullions, and the buttresses with pinnacles; and tracery and stone mullions.
Benton Street Baptist Church at 90 Benton Street, circa 2022
Source: Original Photo
Exterior Attributes:
- brick buttresses with pinnacles;
- brown brick and limestone exterior;
- copper finial (with oxidized blue-green patina);
- covered brick entranceway (portico) with segmental archway;
- cross -gabled and steeply sloping roof;
- pointed segmental arches within the gables;
- stained glass windows;
- stone mullions, and the buttresses with pinnacles; and
- tracery and stone mullions.
116
Page 141 of 316
-
6.0 l Heritage Impact
Atage 142 of 316
6.0 HERITAGE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
6.1 Primer
The following section is intended to assess the potential impacts of the proposed high-rise, mixed-
use commercial / residential redevelopment on:
• the applicable adjacent heritage properties;
• the interface with the VPA-HCD as it exists along this stretch of Benton Street; and
• the Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape.
Development impacts can be direct or indirect, and they can affect resources and landscapes
differently over time. The construction process itself can affect resources and landscapes during a
pre -construction phase when preparing a site for construction, during the construction phase, and
/ or once construction is completed (e.g., removing protective barriers). Impacts to a cultural
heritage resource or landscape may also be site-specific or widespread, and any impacts can
have different degrees of severity from low, moderate, or high.
The following sub -sections assess the development proposal against several potential impact
categories, as established in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit.
6.2 Alteration
The redevelopment does not propose any alterations to the adjacent designated properties and
structures at 64 and 90 Benton Street within the VPA-HCD, nor does it propose any alterations to
the listed properties and structures at 51 and 79 Benton Street and 53 Church Street.
Therefore, impacts associated with alterations are not applicable.
6.3 Shadows
Kirkor Architects and Planners prepared a Shadow Study. The Shadow Study provides a visual
model of the impact of shadows that would be cast by the proposed development on surrounding
streets and properties. The intent of the Shadow Study was to evaluate the impact of shadows at
various times of day, throughout the year. Accordingly, the Shadow Study created a geo-
referenced drawing set that visually demonstrated shadows during the spring and fall equinoxes
on March and September 21St and the summer and winter solstices on June and December 21St
Times for each were taken between the hours of 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM with the exception of the
winter solstice on December 21St, which was adjusted for daylight hours and taken from 9:00 AM to
3:00 PM. A copy of the Shadow Study is included as Appendix D to this report.
117
Page 143 of 316
It is important to note that the focus of impacts related to shadows is tied to the potential impacts
related to the adjacent heritage properties and, specifically, shadow -sensitive uses. The balance of
shadow -related impacts is an urban design exercise and is separate from this report.
From a cultural heritage standpoint, shadow sensitive uses or areas or identified heritage attributes
that could be adversely impacted by shadows, includes features such as designed gardens or
heritage trees which may require a certain amount of daylight to thrive, heritage squares or plazas
intended to be adequately limited of shadows, or stained-glass windows in heritage churches
which may require sunlight at certain times of the day to highlight the art and symbolism in the
glass, for example.
Due to the shape of the building, most shadows appear to be fast moving and are incremental in
nature having an impact that, throughout the year, often merges with existing shadows already
produced by the buildings in the area.
With respect to the adjacent listed properties at 79 Benton Street and 53 Church Street, shadows
cast as a result of the redevelopment proposal will avoid 79 Benton Street altogether and will
slightly hit the northern corner of the church at 53 Church Street from 5:00 — 6:00 PM on the June
21St and March / September 21st. As a result, there will be no shadow impacts to the house or
property at 79 Benton Street and limited shadows on the church at 53 Church Street. Also, neither
79 Benton Street nor 53 Church Street have been identified as having shadow -sensitive uses, so
even with additional shadowing there is no expectation that shadows would have any negative
impact from a heritage perspective. Although 83 Benton has been exempted from this
assessment, shadows will not be cast onto that property as well.
With respect to 51 Benton Street, no shadow -sensitive uses have been identified in the statement
of significance provided by the City, or in the attributes listed previously. The original house which
is now enveloped by the balance of the Benton Medical Centre addition, contains first and second
floor bay windows on the front elevation facing Benton Street. Shadows that fall onto 51 Benton
street are only slightly cast onto the original house within the converted building, and are generally
limited to 3:00 PM on June 21St, and from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM on March and September 21St. After
4:00 PM the new shadows appear to merge with existing shadows already cast, and no new net
impact is seen. On December 21St from 1:00 — 3:00 PM shadows are cast onto the original house
at 51 Benton Street, which represents about 2 hours of new shadowing. It is important to note that
at this time of the year in southern Ontario, shadows everywhere, including those cast from single -
detached houses are at their broadest, the additional shadows cast will be incremental in nature.
Across the street at 64 Benton Street (which is a high-rise building), there are several instances of
minimal shadowing throughout the year. On June 21 st at 11:00 am, there will be a sliver of
shadowing on the southernmost corner of building, followed by shadowing at 12:00 pm. However,
there will be no further shadowing in the afternoon on that day. On March 21st and September
21 st, partial shadowing will occur from approximately 10:00 am to 11:00 am, with only a sliver of
shadow remaining by 12:00 pm.
The most significant shadowing will occur on December 21 st, which is the winter solstice and
when shadows are at their worst for any building. On this day, 64 Benton Street will experience
shadowing from 9:00 am until just after 11:00 am (a little more than two hours). It is important to
note that during the winter solstice, the shadowing is largely incremental, and new shadows tend
to blend into existing shadows.
118
Page 144 of 316
From a heritage perspective, it is worth mentioning that 64 Benton Street does not contain any
shadow -sensitive uses. Therefore, while there may be instances of shadowing throughout the year,
the impact on the heritage attributes of the building is negligible and related, generally, to new
shadows cast onto the VPA-HCD. The short duration of shadowing and the absence of shadow -
sensitive uses within the property contribute to the conclusion that the shadowing effect on 64
Benton Street, in terms of its heritage, will not be significant.
Regarding the Benton Street Baptist Church at 90 Benton Street, it is important to note the
presence of stained-glass windows, which can be considered a shadow -sensitive attribute.
On June 21 st, shadows cast onto 90 Benton Street will fall onto the stained-glass windows of the
front fagade along Benton Street, beginning at 10:00 am. However, these shadows will quickly
move away, and there will be no shadowing by 11:00 am. On March, September, and December
21 st, there will be no new shadowing on 90 Benton Street.
Considering that the new shadows affecting the stained-glass windows are limited to a one-hour or
less time slot during the spring equinox, it can be concluded that the shadow impacts on 90
Benton Street are minimal. These shadows are fast-moving and generally have minor or negligible
effects from a heritage perspective.
In terms of general shadowing on the VPA-HCD, some new shadows will be cast to the north,
including onto the St. Matthews Lutheran Church at 54 Benton Street (which was not identified as a
property to be included in this HIA). Shadows cast to the north onto the St. Matthews Lutheran
Church are incremental in that they join with other existing shadows produced from nearby
buildings including condominium building at 64 Benton Street. Notwithstanding, new shadows
cast onto the St. Matthews Lutheran Church would be experienced on March and September 21 st
for one hour between 12:00 to 1:00 pm. Other shadowing is tied to December 21" in the morning,
while most of the VPA-HCD is already in shadow due to a combination of the sun's low angle, the
shallow solar path, and the extended period of low sunlight throughout the day which cumulatively
contribute to greater shadowing are generally worse on the winter solstice in Ontario.
Overall, the Shadow Study conducted by Kirkor illustrated that the proposed development would
result in new shadows that are expected to have minimal impacts on adjacent heritage properties
from a heritage perspective. The study determined that the shadow effects were generally thin,
fast-moving, and somewhat incremental in nature. The existing high-rise building and church
massing already cast shadows into the VPA-HCD, reducing the significance of the new
shadowing. Overall, the study concluded that the shadow impacts on the VPA-HCD and on other
adjacent heritage properties were minor and would not have a significant adverse effect on the
heritage resources / attributes of the area.
6.4 Isolation
The assessment focuses on whether the proposal might isolate adjacent heritage resources from
their setting, context, or significant relationships.
119
Page 145 of 316
When constructing new high-rise buildings near heritage resources, several factors should be
considered regarding the setting and context. These factors include contextual design, setbacks
and height considerations, design articulation and massing, and pedestrian connectivity.
With regard to contextual design, the proposal, if approved, will result in the creation of a new high-
rise mixed-use building with a 4 -storey podium featuring commercial uses at grade along Benton
Street, residential uses at grade to the south interfacing with 79 Benton Street, residential amenity
uses to the north along Church Street, and back—of-house type uses and landscaping to the east
at the interface with 53 Church Street.
To the north (interface with Church Street), the building is proposed to be set back from Church
Street by between 1.6 and 2.1 metres (post widening) from the property line to the main outer wall
of the podium. Pre -road widening, the podium would be set back about 5 metres from the existing
edge of the street. The tower is proposed to be stepped back between 4 and 5 metres from the
Church Street frontage (post widening) and more than 3.0 metres from the podium along Church
Street.
To the east (interface with 53 Church Street), the tower will be stepped back more than 7.5 metres
from the podium to create separation from the church at 53 Church Street, and the distance
between the property line to the nearest main building wall will be at least 20 metres and more than
27 metres between property line and the tower. The closest distance between the edge of the
church at 53 Church Street and the tower component will be more than 27.5 metres. Furthermore,
the northwest corner of the podium has been cut to create enhanced sight lines for pedestrians
and traffic at the corner of Benton and Church Street and to reduce the pinch at this intersection.
To the south (79 Benton Street interface), the building is proposed to be set back between about 6
to just over 8 metres from the main outer wall of the podium to the property line. The tower will be
stepped back an additional 20 + metres from the southern edge of the podium. The nearest
distance between the main outer walls of the existing structure at 79 Benton Street and the podium
of the proposed building is more than 14.5 metres. When coupled with the tower step back, this
distance will be nearly 35 metres.
To the west (interface with Benton Street), the building is proposed to be set back between 0 and
0.5 metres from the property line to the main outer wall of the podium (post road widening). Pre -
road widening, the podium would be set back more than 3.5 metres. The tower is proposed to be
stepped back by about 6.5 metres from the Benton Street frontage nearest to the intersection with
Church Street and about 6.4 metres nearest to the southwest corner (post widening), and more
than 5.7 metres from the edge of the podium along Benton Street.
The proposed site configuration, setbacks, and stepping demonstrate an effort to frame the
streets, fill the corner while ensuring corner cut for better sight lines and less pinching, and create
separation from the existing church and structure at 53 Church Street and 79 Benton Street,
respectively. Additionally, new landscaping elements and outdoor amenity spaces would be
incorporated into the interfaces with the properties to the east and south. The transformation of the
subject lands into a pedestrian -oriented high-density building with an active street frontage would
enhance the area's vitality.
Design principles that consider the surrounding heritage character have been adopted, respecting
the historical context, setbacks, and building heights along Benton and Church Streets. This was
120
Page 146 of 316
achieved primarily through the design of the podium which adopts a horizontal banding at the
historical roofline datum and incorporating articulation near this datum line that pays homage to
the historical residential rhythm and peaked roofs of the past. This integration ensures visual and
physical separation between the new development and the surrounding context. The buildings on
the west side of Benton Street within the VPA-HCD will remain highly visible along the street, and
their prominence will not be overshadowed by the new development, in our opinion.
Moreover, the subject lands have been designed to include pedestrian walkways between the
adjacent heritage resources, promoting accessibility for people and helping to create a pedestrian
space at these interfaces. These include a pedestrian walkway along the southern interface, paved
connections, an outdoor amenity area to the east, and sidewalk and boulevard enhancements
along both streets.
The following figures illustrate the proposed development in the existing area context, highlighting
the attempt to recreate and pay homage to the low-rise residential components, community
aspect, commercial component, vernacular block, and motifs within the building envelope. These
elements aim to minimize the isolation of adjacent heritage properties and appropriately design
and site a tall new building within the CHSC-CHL, mitigating changes to the neighbourhood as
much as possible.
Figure 80 - Homage to Residential Component (grey) in Proposal (South Interface)
!CW -RISE RESP.IE PMAL iCW ONINT
Source: Kirkor, 2023
40
1
121
Page 147 of 316
Figure 81 - Communal Component (ye/%w) of Proposal (Northeast Interface)
0
0
Source: Kirkor, 2023
j
.
Figure 82 - Commercial Component of Proposal and Homage to Building Datum (West Interface)
enw�rncr�--nair;:rarr�r
Source: Kirkor, 2023
122
Page 148 of 316
Figure 83 - Homage to the Vernacular Block
QMIU.�Ii+t
Source: Kirkor, 2023
9Ji[ #]P }�1I15H C61EFlT
�'�irr�TMs ne+�s+nrfsraz straw
giult&ir�Y§uvtW
As can be seen in the images below, the design of the new proposal includes horizontal banding
around the podium which was intended as an homage to the existing horizontal building height
datum of the structures along this stretch of Benton Street. Figures 74 and 75 illustrate this datum
line from two different directions. It is noted that the renderings are slightly older than the current
site plan configuration and do not include the corner cut-out at the corner of Church and Benton
Streets, which will help ensure the view at this intersection is not pinched.
Figure 84 - Representation of6asting Building Height in Horizontal Datum (looking Southwest)
Source: Kirkor, 2023 (modified by TBG)
123
Page 149 of 316
Figure 85 - Representation of basting Building Height in Horizontal Datum (iooidng Northeast)
Source: Kirkor, 2023 (modified by TBG)
Figure 86 - Commercial Component of Proposal and Homage to Building Datum
Source: Kirkor, 2023 (modified by TBG)
124
Page 150 of 316
Figure 87 - 6dsting vs. Proposed Interface Scenario with 79 Benton Street
Source: Waterloo Region, 2022 Source: Kirkor, 2023 (modified by TBG)
Figure 88 - Landscaped and Residential Interface with 79 Benton Street
Source: Kirkor, 2023 (modified by TBG)
125
Page 151 of 316
Figure 89 - Rendering of Residential Component at Grade Interface With 79 Renton Street
Source: Kirkor, 2023
Figure 90 - 6a"sting vs. Proposed Interface Scenario with 53 Church Street
Existing Scenario
Source: Waterloo Region, 2022 Source: Kirkor, 2023 (modified by TBG)
Based on the information provided, the proposed development will not isolate any of the resources
within the VPA-HCD across the street. Although the changes to the street frontage will alter the
relationship between the subject lands and the interface with the VPA-HCD, measures have been
taken to help mitigate any isolation impacts. Setbacks from the podium to the property line, tower
126
Page 152 of 316
step backs, building articulation, the corner cut-out, and the incorporation of historic building
height and forms within the envelope all contribute to this mitigation.
Regarding the interface with 79 Benton Street, the massing of the new building is larger than the
structure to the south, potentially resulting in the house appearing somewhat isolated from the
street when viewed from the north. However, there have been improvements made to this
interface. The separation between the main building walls has increased, a significant tower step
back has been implemented, and grade -related residential uses have been incorporated instead
of back -of -house uses or a drive aisle. Additionally, pedestrian -scale landscaping and a walkway
enhance the area between the two buildings.
Similar separation measures have been implemented for the church at 53 Church Street. While a
portion of the lands at this interface currently serve as a parking lot, the post -development scenario
includes the replacement of some of the parking space with a designed outdoor amenity area,
another pedestrian walkway, and a paved drive aisle. The existing trees at this interface are
proposed to be removed, but the new building has been sited to expand upon the separation from
the church by about 115% (between building walls).
The setbacks adopted for the proposed building along Church Street align with the precedent -
setting setbacks of the building across the street (Benton Medical Offices) and are consistent with
the range of setbacks found along Church Street from Benton to Eby Streets (which range from 0.6
- 14.8 metres). While the church may appear somewhat isolated from certain angles when viewed
southeast down Church Street, its presence remains unchanged from the opposite direction. The
setbacks, compatible communal features, corner cut-out at the intersection with Benton Street,
and generous tower step backs help mitigate any isolation impacts on the church. As well, the
setback and the view of the church along Benton Street was not identified as a significant attribute,
and the existing view of the church at 53 Benton Street is already restricted when looking southeast
down Church Street from Benton Street today (see image below).
View Down Church Street looking Southeast from Benton Street
Source: Google Maps, 2020
127
Page 153 of 316
With respect to 51 Benton Street (Benton medical Offices), there are no impacts anticipated as it
relates to isolation, since the streetscape on the north side of Benton Street will remain unchanged.
In our opinion, the proposal will not result in the isolation of the CHSC-CHL. The design pays
homage to the historic residential theme by incorporating residential and designed elements into
the building's base. The juxtaposition of the modern building design along the edge of the CHL
and existing major street creates contrast and visual appeal, highlighting the unique characteristics
of both the old and the new and enriching the urban environment. The proposal also fills in and
repairs a gap on the subject lands while cutting out the corner at the intersection which improves
sight lines and visibility looking southeast along Church Street, contributing to the distinct sense of
space. The diversity of building types and land uses in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood CHL can
accommodate the presence of large mid -twentieth-century apartment blocks without excessive
visual deterioration, adding to the visual variety of the community.
In our opinion, there will be minimal to no impact in terms of isolation on the VPA-HCD since the
proposal is across the street from the district, and the building design respects the historically
residential character along Benton Street. There may be minor to moderate impacts on the
isolation of 79 Benton Street due to the prominence and massing differences, but these are
mitigated through enhancements at the interface. Similarly, there may be minor isolation -related
impacts on the Church at 53 Church Street, but site design and building location help mitigate
these. Finally, the proposal will result in a change to the west edge of the CHSC-CHL, but this
change is offset by incorporating some elements of the historic character and building heights
within the podium and adding to the visual variety of the area as recognized by the City's Cultural
Heritage Landscape Study.
6.5 Direct or Indirect Obstruction of Views
With respect to views, the view looking southeast along Church Street from the intersection of
Benton and Church Street has been identified as an entrance view into the neighbourhood, starting
at the corner of Church and Benton Street which is identified as priority gateway location.
The proposed redevelopment aims to infill and intensify the subject lands located at the south
corner of the intersection of Benton Street and Church Street, where this significant view looking
southeast has been identified. The design of the new high-rise mixed-use commercial/residential
building has considered the range of setbacks and the average building setback along Church
Street, to which there is quite a variation.
In this regard, setbacks were approximately measured from 37 properties along Church Street
using online mapping, starting at the intersection of Church and Benton Streets, and ending at
about Eby Street to the southeast. Accordingly, it was found that building setbacks along this
portion of Church Street generally range from 0.6 to 14.8 metres, with the average setback coming
it at around 5.5 metres. However, the most vital setback, are those at the intersection of Church
and Benton Streets. Accordingly, the Benton Medical Centre at 51 Church Street sets the
precedent for the building setbacks at this entrance to the Cedar Hill neighbourhood. In this
regard, the setback of 51 Church Street appears to range from approximately 0.8 metres to about
1.5 metres. This measurement accounted for the road widening, which appears to have already
been taken.
128
Page 154 of 316
The design of the proposed building incorporates a setback from Church Street that generally
ranges from 1.6 to 2.1 metres after a 3.5 -metre -wide road widening is taken. If road widening was
not taken, then the setback of the new building from Church Street would be about 5.0 metres. Not
only does the proposed setback fall within the measured ranges of building setbacks along
Church Street, but it also compliments the precedent setting entrance setback established by 51
Church Street. Furthermore, a corner cut-out is proposed which further helps to ensure that the
view is not pinched, and sight lines are maintained southeast down Church Street from a wider
variety of angles.
By doing this, the entrance view southeast down Church Street is not obstructed or constrained,
eliminating any potential pinch point. Furthermore, the boulevard is proposed to be improved in
the post -widening scenario, which will include wider sidewalks than exist today, street trees, and
generally streetscape improvements.
To illustrate the proposed entrance view scenario, Kirkor have prepared a series a renderings
which illustrate the new relation at this intersection into the Cedar Hill neighbourhood. It is noted
that the below renderings are slightly older than the site plan proposed and do not illustrate the
corner cut-out at the intersection of Church and Benton Street. However, an excerpt of the site plan
is provided below for reference.
Source: Kirkor, 2023
Perspective Southeast Down Church Street
Source: Kirkor, 2023
129
Page 155 of 316
Perspective South at Corner of Benton and Perspective from Southeast on Church Street
Church Streets
Source: Kirkor, 2023
Source: Kirkor, 2023
Perspective looking Southeast Down Church Street
Source: Kirkor, 2023
130
Page 156 of 316
Site Plan Excerpt: Corner Cut -Out at Church and Benton Street
{ EXISTING BUILDING
f I I 51 BENTON ST
5
i
�II
I
I
- — — — '; — -- - — FM MUM CHURCH STREET
I f I I
fj x
.' I. rJ oaf!✓` Y ,_ T ,� .�
r' E r'
1
E--
JEVEL 4ii
aim k.I3F
I Evf
I f ;
I f •I i I iTJ m
I 1 +P F
Source: Kirkor, 2024
Perspective looking Southeast Down Church Street
Source: Kirkor, 2023
131
Page 157 of 316
pr -
Source: Kirkor, 2023
It is important to acknowledge that the view looking southeast at the entranceway of the
intersection between Church and Benton Street will undergo a change. The introduction of a high-
rise building with a large podium will transform the currently vacant site. However, the treatment of
the building location on the subject lands has been thoughtfully considered, considering existing
setbacks, anticipated widening, the precedent setback established by 51 Benton Street, and
improvements to the streetscape. Furthermore, the listed property at 53 Church Street (Martin
Luther Church) is not exceptionally visible when looking southeast down Church Street from
Benton Street. Accordingly, the view of Martin Luther Church will not be radically changed from the
existing view (i.e., its presence along the street).
Although the new tall building will differ from the current building heights on the subject lands, it will
incorporate some design details in the podium that will help it to integrate into the surroundings.
As well, the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood already exhibits a mix of architectural styles, building
heights, and urban forms. The presence of other taller and mid -rise buildings along Church Street
already contributes to the visual variety along this corridor without causing any undue visual
deterioration. This sentiment aligns with the observations made in the City's Cultural Heritage
Landscape Study.
As can be illustrated in the above renderings, and based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that the
proposed redevelopment will have a minor to moderate impact on this entrance view, but the
impacts are well mitigated through the adoption of the 5.0 -metre setback from Church Street (1.6
to 2.1 metres after widening). The proposed setback from Church Street demonstrates a
thoughtful consideration of maintaining and preserving the visual quality and openness of the view,
contributing to the overall enhancement of the streetscape and urban experience in the area, and
will not result in a pinch point at this intersection. The infill of the subject lands will generally repair
what is otherwise a broken street frontage today.
132
Page 158 of 316
Consequently, the impacts on the entrance view southeast along Church Street from Benton
Street, though present will be well mitigated if the current proposal and 5.0 -metre setback (1.6 to
2.1 metres after road widening) are maintained moving forward. In fact, we believe that the
proposed redevelopment will improve the currently broken frontage resulting from the vacancy of
the subject lands. While the view will be new in terms of building height and massing, the addition
of a new tall building will add to the visual variety and building heights, including a tall and a mid -
rise building, that already exist down this view.
6.6 Change in Land Use
The development plans to construct a mixed-use building that incorporates commercial spaces at
ground level and residential units in both the lower level facing 79 Benton Street and the tower
section. Currently, the designated land use for the subject lands and other parcels along Benton
Street, as stated in the City's Growing Together framework, supports high-density mixed-use
residential / commercial development, with no maximum building height or Floor Space Ratio.
Historically, the subject lands have predominantly featured residential uses, although some
commercial activities have also existed in the structures over the years. Furthermore, Benton Street
and Church Street were initially developed with a blend of residential and institutional uses, and
various commercial businesses have been added over time, particularly at corner locations and
where Benton Street approaches Charles Street East and King Street East. Evidence of the
introduction of commercial uses along this portion of Benton Street can be observed across the
street at the Benton Medical Centre and adjacent to the southern limits of the lands at 79 Benton
Street, which houses Robert J Dyck Architect & Engineering Inc and possibly another business.
Therefore, the mixed-use nature of the proposed building aligns well with the mixed -used character
of the neighbourhood. The change in land use will continue the historical mixed-use nature of the
neighbourhood, with the primary alteration being the inclusion of grade -related commercial uses.
Given that the area has been gradually incorporating more commercial activities over time, the
proposed grade -related uses align with both the historical evolution and the current and proposed
land use designations.
The proposed building will undoubtedly be distinct and major addition to the area, yet it is well
located along an existing major street, on a large land assembly, and at the periphery of the Cedar
Hill neighbourhood where most of the existing taller buildings tend to be located, especially in the
northeast as you transition towards the Downtown. Moreover, the development aims to rectify a
partially broken street frontage along Benton and Church Street, becoming a part of the evolving
landscape along Benton Street.
Careful attention to site and building design including setbacks, articulation of the massing, tower
location, and design in both the podium and tower components will help ensure a harmonious
coexistence with neighbouring heritage buildings. This approach demonstrates sensitivity and
respect towards the diverse character and visual variety of the CHSC-CHL.
In our opinion, the introduction of a new tall building in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural
Heritage Landscape is both distinctive and appropriate. This corner location, situated at the edge
of the CHSC-CHL within a Strategic Growth Area and PMTSA, makes it well-suited for such
133
Page 159 of 316
intensification. The neighbourhood's diverse character, visual variety, and capacity to
accommodate tall structures without undue visual deterioration, particularly near the edges and
along existing major streets, further support this opinion. Overall, the proposed development can
make a successful contribution to the ongoing evolution of the Benton Street edge, enhancing the
neighbourhood's overall visual variety, while also preserving the character internal to the
neighbourhood.
Consequently, we do not anticipate any significant impact on the subject lands or the surrounding
areas, including the VPA-HCD and the CHSC-CHL, from the perspective of land use typology.
6.7 Land Disturbance
Land disturbance impacts are typically associated with archaeological matters below grade. The
subject lands have been developed on for over 140 years. Over the years, numerous construction
activities have likely significantly disturbed the soil, including the exhumation of the cemetery at 39
Church Street in 1876, the digging of basements, installation of servicing and utility trenches, the
installation of septic systems prior to the arrival of municipal services, the installation and
reconstruction of roads and surface transit, and other changes in land use.
Therefore, the redevelopment proposal is not anticipated to result in any land disturbance impacts
beyond what would have already occupied over the 140 -year period the site has been developed
and disturbed.
Notwithstanding, given the historic cemetery located on the subject lands (which was exhumed in
1876), there is still a chance that human remains could be found during construction activities. In
the even that human remains are found during construction, all work should cease immediately,
ensuring that workers are aware of the discovery with instructions to refrain from disturbing the
area further. The discovery site should be secured, and the appropriate authorities should be
notified promptly prior to any continuation of work. This could include involving the local police
department, archaeologists, the Bereavement Authority of Ontario, and / or the Office of the Chief
Coroner (OCC) in Ontario.
It will be a recommendation of this report that Ground -Penetrating Radar ("GPR") be used to scan
the subject lands especially towards the corner of Church and Benton Street prior to excavation to
confirm that all possible graves have in fact been exhumed. This can be especially useful for
finding unmarked graves.
Lastly, there are no land disturbances proposed to any of the adjacent heritage properties, though
below grade construction efforts may present an opportunity for vibration related impacts.
Accordingly, it will be a recommendation of this report to prepare a Cultural Heritage Protection
Plan (CHPP), which should include a vibration monitoring report outlining mitigation strategies and
monitoring measures during construction activities (especially related to 51 and 79 Benton Street,
and 53 Church Street), along with a grading, servicing, and stormwater management report
delineating the drainage plan to be implemented.
134
Page 160 of 316
6.8 Destruction
The redevelopment does not propose demolitions of any structures on the adjacent designated
properties at 64 and 90 Benton Street within the VPA-HCD, nor does it propose demolitions of any
structures on the adjacent listed properties at 51 and 79 Benton Street and 53 Church Street.
Therefore, impacts associated with demolitions are not applicable as it relates to the adjacent
heritage properties.
135
Page 161 of 316
17,
1
7.0 CONSIDERATION OF
ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION &
CONSERVATION
7.1 Alternative Development Options
The following section considers the potential for alternative development options on the subject
lands to fully explore land use alternatives as they relate to heritage conservation. Note that the
options presented below are not exhaustive, and generally assume scenarios that would comply
with the policy direction set out for the lands.
Alternative Development Option 1: Do Nothing/ Leave Lands As Is
Choosing to leave the land as is would mean keeping the buildings in their current state without
any destruction, alteration, or other impacts. However, the do-nothing approach for strict
conservation lacks effectiveness when assessed within the framework of land use planning. One of
the key directives of the Province, Region, and City is to maximize the efficient utilization of land
and resources.
The subject lands are not listed or designated properties on the City's Register and have been
designated for high-density mixed-use development with no maximum building heights or FSR and
are located in an area earmarked for intensification to accommodate population and employment
growth. Leaving the site untouched and taking no action would not represent the most efficient use
of these lands within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (Strategic Growth Area). The proposed
redevelopment plan aims to intensify underutilized lands through a compact mixed-use,
pedestrian -oriented development. It would include over 500 residential units (with parking below
ground) and new commercial space. One of the current primary directives of the Province is to
provide more housing options for everyone. Demolishing the structures on the lands would
facilitate a building design that optimizes land efficiency, allowing for the accommodation of more
dwelling units within the building envelope.
Furthermore, leaving the subject property untouched would maintain the inefficiencies seen on the
lands today and a continuation of the gap they present in the evolving urban fabric. Considering
these factors, the do-nothing alternative development option is not recommended.
Alternative Development Option 2: Accommodating Architecture (Stilting or
Enveloping)
This option is typically employed when a heritage building is deemed to possess exceptional
cultural heritage value or interest, often in the case of designated buildings. The purpose is to
conserve the building's significant design, physical, historical, and/or contextual value. Under this
136
Page 163 of 316
approach, the heritage building would continue to function independently from the new
construction. Stilting a building involves the careful architectural design of constructing a new
building over an existing one. This is achieved through the use of long linear supporting elements
like columns, beams, or cantilevers, resulting in the appearance of a building standing on stilts.
Enveloping a building entails designing a new structure around an existing one, often with limited
setbacks, to preserve the appearance of the original building when viewed from the street or
sidewalks. This approach provides additional building envelope for the new construction while
maintaining the visual integrity of the existing structure.
Stilted Buildings
8-20 Widmer Street, Toronto
Scott Shields Architects Inc.
Source: Gallant, 2016
Ontario St & Weber St. N., Kitchener
Source: Thompson, 2019
Enveloped Buildings
400 Jarvis St, Toronto
Canada's National Ballet School
Source: National Ballet School, 2022
7 St. Thomas St, Toronto
Hariri Pontarini Architects
Source: Hariri Pontarini Architects, 2019
137
Page 164 of 316
Utilizing accommodating architecture, such as enveloping or stilting the new building over the
structures on the subject lands, is an available option. However, it should be noted that these
architectural designs are typically employed when a heritage building is deemed exceptional and
requires conservation to preserve its identified value and attributes.
The subject lands are not listed or designated as heritage resources of cultural heritage value or
interest and evaluations under O. Reg 9/06 of the OHA were not required. Accordingly, this type of
architectural design is not necessary for consideration. Moreover, implementing such designs can
be less efficient in terms of building envelopes and more expensive due to the unique construction
techniques involved.
Adopting this highly technical architectural style to conserve structures on non -listed and non-
designated properties may not be the most resourceful or efficient use of land and resources. It is
important to consider whether such an approach balances desired conservation goals, land use
intent, and the most effective utilization of available resources.
An alternative version of this option could involve demolishing one or two structures while retaining
one or two others. This would allow for the stilting or enveloping of the new building around the
retained structures, rather than encompassing all three. However, given that the subject lands are
not listed or designated properties on the City's Register, this option is not recommended.
Alternative Development Option 3: Adaptive Reuse
Adaptive reuse involves repurposing an existing structure for a new use or purpose, contributing to
the reduction of abandoned or underutilized buildings and the preservation of cultural heritage
assets. It allows for the introduction of new programs and functions, contributing to the
maintenance, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of targeted areas within a community. Additionally,
adaptive reuse helps realize the environmental investment in existing buildings by utilizing their
embodied energy.
In this option, one or all of the structures on the subject lands would be adapted for a new purpose
and integrated into the new building, forming a cohesive development. Adaptive reuse can take
various forms, utilizing the host structures in different ways. In this case, it would involve
maintaining the Benton Street, Church Street, or both street -facing fagades when viewed from the
street.
However, adaptive reuse is typically performed when the host structure is capable of
accommodating the adaptation, meaning that it is robust enough for the new purpose. Examples
of successful adaptive reuse projects in the region include Circa 1877 by HIP Developments (at
181 King Street South, Waterloo) and the proposed redevelopment at 16-20 Queen Street North in
Kitchener by Momentum Developments, adjacent to Goudies Lane.
The structures at 69 and 73 Benton Street have undergone significant alterations over the years to
create multiple rental units. It is unclear whether the structural integrity of these buildings is robust.
Extensive repair work and renovations would likely be necessary to make 73 Benton Street suitable
for adaptation, while 69 Benton Street may require unique construction methods that would need
to be assessed by a structural engineer. The structure at 69 Benton Street may be suitable for a
"shell" style adaptive reuse, where the building's exterior features are maintained and incorporated
138
Page 165 of 316
into the new construction. The most appropriate structure for adaptive reuse appears to be 51
Church Street, as it seems to be in the best condition among the three.
While leaving the structures as "shells" to preserve their appearance along the street is not entirely
unacceptable, this approach, known as "facadism," is not necessarily the ideal conservation
technique. The successful examples of adaptive reuse mentioned earlier, such as Circa 1877 and
the proposed project at 16-20 Queen Street North, had more robust structures to work with and
fully integrated them into high-rise developments.
Adaptive reuse remains an option moving forward, as it aligns with sustainable development
practices and can harness the embodied energy of the existing buildings. However, it is not
required since the subject lands are not listed or designated heritage properties. Furthermore, due
to the shape of the existing structures, adaptively reusing them may result in inefficiencies in the
building envelope. The primary benefit of this option is the preservation of the street appearance of
one, some, or all of the existing structures.
Considering that conservation of the structures on the subject lands is not mandatory and the
potential inefficiencies that can arise when adaptively reusing old house structures as part of a
high-rise building, this option may not be the most feasible choice. Given that the subject lands are
not listed or designated properties on the City's Register, this option is not recommended.
Alternative Development Option 4: Relocation
This option is not necessary since the structures on the subject lands are not listed or designated
heritage resources on the City's Register.
Alternative Development Option 5: Infill the Lands with Low -Rise Buildings
In this option, the structures on the lands would be maintained and other low-rise options would be
developed around them to fill in the gaps along the street.
The subject lands are located within a Strategic Growth Area and a PMTSA. These are areas that
are earmarked to accommodate growth and intensification with high-density development and no
height caps.
Infilling the lands for low-rise buildings within Strategic Growth Area and PMTSA intended for high-
density mixed-use development within a major transit station is inefficient and not aligned with
sound planning for several reasons:
• It can hinder land use efficiency and the capacity to accommodate a larger population and
diverse activities;
• it can underutilize the transit infrastructure and potential for transit -oriented development;
• it can fall short of meeting urban intensification and growth targets;
• it can limit the creation of vibrant, walkable environments; and
• it may require future reconfiguration or redevelopment to align with long-term planning
goals in the fullness of time.
139
Page 166 of 316
Overall, this approach contradicts the objectives of efficient land use, transit -oriented
development, urban growth targets, walkability, and long-term planning considerations.
Furthermore, this option would create land uses that would not conform with the City's Official Plan
and would stray further from the intent of Official Plan than the current proposal. Therefore, this
option is not necessarily representative of good planning.
Ultimately, when considering the goals of maximizing land use efficiency, promoting transit -
oriented development, achieving urban growth targets, enhancing walkability, and aligning with
long-term planning considerations, infilling lands with low-rise buildings within a strategic growth
area intended for high-rise mixed -uses within a major transit station may not be viewed as an
efficient use of urban land or represent sound planning principles. For these reasons, this option is
not recommended.
7.2 Mitigation & Conservation Options
The following section outlines the recommended mitigation measures as part of the heritage
impact assessment. These measures are designed to address and minimize any potential adverse
impacts on the identified heritage resources or for commemorative purposes. By implementing
these mitigation strategies, we aim to ensure appropriate conservation and /or commemoration is
undertaken, while allowing for the proposed redevelopment to proceed in a manner that respects
and safeguards the cultural significance and values of the heritage resources of the area. The
mitigation measures outlined herein have been developed based on thorough assessment,
analysis, as set out in the foregoing. Furthermore, although the subject lands are not listed or
designated as properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Register, some
recommendations have been provided for consideration regarding the lands and their structures.
These recommendations are optional and do not need to be followed due to the absence of
heritage status.
39 Church Street
1. Commemoration could be considered to acknowledge the historical existence of what was
potentially the first Methodist cemetery in the City, even though the cemetery has been
removed and the remains have been exhumed and relocated. This recommendation is for
consideration only and is not required as the property is not listed or designated.
51 Church Street
2. Some consideration could be given to salvaging materials from the existing structure at 51
Church Street during demolition. The yellow brick appears to be in good condition, along
with several other features such as old moldings, decorative trims, flooring, doors and
windows, fixtures and fittings, and wood beams and structural elements, for example.
There are companies in Waterloo region that will salvage these elements for resale or re-
purposing, or the materials can be offered to the public. This recommendation is for
consideration only and is not required as the property is not listed or designated.
140
Page 167 of 316
73 Benton Street
3. Commemorating the association of 73 Benton Street with Charles Boehmer Dunke, who
resided there during the first half of the 20th century, is worth considering. Mr. Dunke, an
Alderman on the first City of Berlin Council, witnessed significant citywide changes such as
the introduction of paved streets, street railway construction, and the establishment of
waterworks. He also played a role in transforming the grocery business and owned multiple
buildings known as the "Dunke Block" along King Street.
To honor Mr. Dunke's legacy, several commemorative options are available for
consideration. One possibility is a bronze plaque featuring his bust and / or an engraving
depicting his house in its original condition. The plaque should be visible to the public
(e.g., building face, sidewalk, within landscaping to the south). Alternatively,
commemorative artwork could be incorporated within or on the exterior of the new
building's podium. Another option is to include stamped concrete in the sidewalk directly in
front of the current location of 73 Benton Street. These commemorative measures would
serve to recognize and celebrate Mr. Dunke's contributions and association with the house
at 73 Benton Street. This recommendation is for consideration only and is not required as
the property is not listed or designated.
General
4. Ground -Penetrating Radar ("GPR") should be used to scan the subject lands especially
towards the corner of Church and Benton Street prior to excavation to confirm that all
possible graves have in fact been exhumed. This can be especially useful for finding
unmarked graves. In the event of discovering human remains during construction, all work
must cease immediately. Workers should be informed of the discovery and instructed to
refrain from further disturbing the area. The site should be secured, and the relevant
authorities, such as the local police department, archaeologists, the Bereavement Authority
of Ontario, and / or the Office of the Chief Coroner (OCC) in Ontario, should be promptly
notified before any work can resume.
5. The structures on the subject lands should be documented and archived. Accordingly, this
heritage impact assessment can serve as adequate documentation, which provides a
comprehensive set of photos of the structures circa 2022. High resolution photos should
be taken of the structure during and after construction and archived with the City.
6. If Alternative Development Options No. 2 or 3 are adopted, documentation and archiving
should include high-resolution digital photographs of the structures before, during and
after construction is complete. Accordingly, this heritage impact assessment can serve as
"before construction" documentation, which provides a comprehensive set of photos of the
structures circa 2022. All photos should be archived with the City.
7. Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties at 79 Benton Street and 53 Church
Street, because there are multiple levels of underground parking proposed, and because
of the scale of the overall development, a Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) should
be prepared. The CHPP should encompass various components, including the following:
141
Page 168 of 316
a. a description of the significance and heritage attributes of the surrounding cultural
heritage resources;
b. a preconstruction inspection report for the identified impacted heritage resources to
be completed on site with City staff, any consultant from the developer's team as
appropriate, and either a structural engineer or a City building inspector;
c. a detailed overview of the planning application and proposed development;
d. a thorough review of protection measures and monitoring protocols adhering to
recognized conservation practices to safeguard adjacent heritage resources from
construction -related damage, a hoarding plan specifying access points and
storage locations during the construction phase; and
e. a vibration monitoring report outlining mitigation strategies and monitoring
measures during construction activities (especially related to 51 and 79 Benton
Street, and 53 Church Street), and a grading, servicing, and stormwater
management report delineating the drainage plan to be implemented.
8. The proposed setbacks, tower step back, podium elements that pay homage to the
historic character of Benton and Church Street, residential component at grade along the
southern building envelope, and the enhanced landscaping treatments as illustrated on the
architectural drawings prepared by Kirkor dated April 30, 2024 (Issued for Site Plan) should
be maintained moving forward. These measures have been carefully designed to ensure a
harmonious integration between the new development and the surrounding heritage
context.
9. The proposed tower floor plate, vertical breaks, softening, twisting and articulation of the
tower edges, as illustrated in the Design Presentation prepared by Kirkor dated June 8,
2023 should be maintained as much as possible to help ensure shadowing is limited on
adjacent and nearby heritage resources.
7.3 Implementation & Monitoring
Implementation and monitoring of the above recommendations should be as follows.
Recommendations 1 to 3 are suggestions for consideration only and are not required as the
properties specified are not listed or designated.
1. Commemoration of Historic Methodist Cemetery (Not Required)
a. Timing: If elected, as a condition of site plan approval in principle, or during the
building permit stage.
b. Responsibility: Prepared in coordination between the developer, heritage
consultant for the developer, and City Heritage staff.
2. Optional Salvaging of Useable Materials from 51 Church Street
a. Timing: If elected, prior to demolition, the developer should contact local salvaging
companies and/or advertise for the materials and timing. The materials can also be
made publicly available is elected. Opportunity should be given for interested
parties to partake in a site visit to request certain building components or elements
prior to demolition taking place, so demolition crews can know which components
142
Page 169 of 316
or elements to take down with special care. A statute of limitations of one week (or
as otherwise agreed upon) should be given to interested parties to collect their
requested materials, after which time, the materials can be disposed, so that
demolition / construction is not delayed.
b. Responsibility: Prepared in coordination between the developer and City Heritage
staff (for timing).
3. Charles Boehmer Dunke
a. Timing: If elected, as a condition of site plan approval in principle, or during the
building permit stage.
b. Responsibility: Prepared in coordination between the developer, heritage
consultant for the developer, and City Heritage staff.
4. Scanning and Monitoring for Human Remain
a. Timing: Prior to and during all construction below grade.
b. Responsibility: The developer.
5. Photo Documentation
a. Timing: At time of Zoning By-law Amendment Submission.
b. Responsibility: Developer. This heritage impact assessment can serve as "before
construction" documentation, which provides a comprehensive set of photos of the
structures circa 2022.
6. Documentation (Pre, During, and Post Construction) for Alternative Development Options
(Not Required)
a. Timing: Pre, during and post construction. Final images to be archived with City at
time final building inspection is complete.
b. Responsibility: Developer.
7. Cultural Heritage Protection Plan
a. Timing: Site Plan stage, as a condition of Approval in Principle or part of complete
Building Permit application.
b. Responsibility: Developer, supported by heritage consultant, vibration specialist,
and civil engineer. The preconstruction inspection report for the identified impacted
heritage resources should be completed on site with City staff, any consultant from
the developer's team as appropriate, and either a structural engineer or a City
building inspector.
8. Setbacks, Tower Step Back, Podium Elements Residential At Grade, and Enhanced
Landscaping Treatments
a. Timing: Carried through to final site plan approval, as much as possible.
b. Responsibility: Developer and architect.
143
Page 170 of 316
9. Tower Treatments to Reduce Shadow Impacts
a. Timing: Carried through to final site plan approval, as much as possible.
b. Responsibility: Developer and architect.
144
Page 171 of 316
!' A "
8.0
is
Conclusions
Page 172 of 316
J+F
is
Conclusions
Page 172 of 316
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed redevelopment of the subject lands involves the construction of a mixed-use high-
rise building with residential and commercial units. The building will have a 4 -storey podium,
ground floor commercial spaces, townhouse units along the southern edge, underground parking,
and a total height of 40 storeys. The project aims to revitalize underutilized land, provide additional
housing, and support transit in the neighbourhood. The existing structures on the subject lands will
be demolished to make way for the new development.
Since the subject lands are located adjacent and near to heritage properties and fall within the
CHSC-CHL, the site plan application was required to be accompanied by a Heritage Impact
Assessment.
The subject lands are located within the City's Urban, Built -Up Area, are within Strategic Growth
Area and a Protected Major Transit Station Areas and are designated and planned for high-density
mixed-use development with no maximum building heights or FSR. Overall, the current and
emerging land use planning framework applicable to the subject lands earmarks them for growth
and intensification in a mixed-use format at transit supportive densities. Accordingly, the proposal
is permitted as -of -right under the existing and emerging land use framework.
The subject lands are not designated or listed on the City of Kitchener Heritage Register, nor are
they within a Heritage Conservation District or a Heritage Corridor as set out on Maps 9 or 11 of
the City's Official Plan. However, they are located within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural
Heritage Landscape (CHN-CHL) identified in Kitchener's 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study,
which together with the Schneider Creek CHL is now an official part of the City's broader policy
framework through the Growing Together Official Plan Amendment as the Cedar Hill and
Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape. Notwithstanding, the CHSC-CHL
has no legal protections under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Two parcels of the subject lands were recognized for their specific interest within the CHN-CHL
due to their adjacency to listed properties. In total, the subject lands are situated next to four listed
properties of cultural heritage value and interest, as well as three designated properties and the
eastern border of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District, which is protected under the Part
V Designation By-law 96-91. Although 83 Benton Street is technically adjacent, the structure on
that property is separated from the subject lands by 79 Benton Street. During discussions with City
heritage staff, it was agreed to omit 83 Benton Street from this report.
The history of the subject lands narrates a tale of evolution, growth, and transformation.
The property at 39 Church Street was once associated with the Wesleyan Methodist belief and
organization, and with two Waterloo Region Hall of Fame inductees, Arthur B. Pollock and John
Moyer who lived at 39 Church Street in single -detached houses; who held some significance in the
community at the time. However, this association ceased when the nearby Wesleyan Methodist
Mission chapel and cemetery were removed and exhumed in 1876. The same is true of any
association with Mr. Pollock and Mr. Moyer, whose houses have since been demolished.
145
Page 173 of 316
The property at 51 Church Street has seen various ownership changes over the years. It was
owned or occupied by Benjamin Musselman from 1912 to 1943 and later by Willbur Brubacher
from 1971 to 1974. However, these people did not have widely recognized contributions or impact
on the community. Based on historical research, the house is estimated to have been constructed
between 1877 and 1892. In 1999, the St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church purchased the
property as an investment, but it was never used as a clergy house. The church sold the property
to the current owners in 2021. There is no evidence that the house at 51 Church Street was ever
tied to or used as a clergy house for the adjacent church at 53 Church Street (now the Martin
Luther Church).
The history of 69 Benton Street reveals multiple changes in ownership and occupancy. From 1918
to 1927, Mrs. R. W. Boehmer resided there. Over the years, the property had various tenants and
commercial uses, including a masonry business, and at one point, an observation and detention
centre. The building, constructed around 1918, is a 2 -storey structure with a side gable saltbox
roof. It has been converted into multiple rental housing units, with features such as randomly
placed windows, brick and vinyl siding, and a primary entrance through a portico. The original
single-family home may have been converted into apartments around 1928. The house currently
consists of at least 3 units, with the upper unit undergoing alterations and additions.
The property at 73 Benton Street was once the home of Charles Boehmer Dunke, a prominent
merchant and Alderman on the City of Berlin Council. Mr. Dunke operated a grocery store on King
Street and was involved in the development of the city. The building, now a 1.5 -storey rental
property, is in poor condition both inside and out. It has undergone significant modifications and
alterations over the years, resulting in unsympathetic changes to its original design and
craftsmanship, especially on the inside. The interior has been extensively modified and shows
signs of deterioration, including mold and fire damage. The overall condition of the building is
rated as fair to poor.
This HIA assessed the potential impacts of the proposed high-rise, mixed-use redevelopment on
adjacent heritage properties, its interface with the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District
along Benton Street, and the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape.
Development impacts related to alterations, demolitions, shadows, isolation, direct or indirect
obstruction of views, change in lane use, and land disturbance were considered.
With respect to alterations or demolitions, the adjacent designated properties at 64 and 90 Benton
Street within the VPA-HCD, and the listed properties at 51 and 79 Benton Street and 53 Church
Street are not proposed to be altered or demolished. Consequently, impacts related to alterations
or demolitions of adjacent or nearby heritage resources are not applicable.
In our opinion shadow impacts on adjacent heritage properties are generally thin, fast moving, and
incremental. The impacts that do exist are limited and minor from a strictly heritage perspective.
There are no new shadows on 79 Benton Street, and new shadows cast onto 53 Church Street,
and 51 Benton Street are minimal and will not adversely affect their heritage attributes. The high-
rise building at 64 Benton Street experiences minimal shadowing, further diminished by the
absence of shadow -sensitive uses. Shadows on Benton Street Baptist Church's stained-glass
windows have limited duration and minor overall effects. Considering the existing high-rise and
church structures, the new shadow impacts on the VPA-HCD are largely incremental, and new
shadowing is restricted to one hour midday on March and September 21 ", and therefore minor.
146
Page 174 of 316
Other shadowing on the VPA HCD is linked to the winter solstice on December 21s' in the
morning, while most of the VPA-HCD is already in shadow due to a combination of the sun's low
angle, the shallow solar path, and the extended period of low sunlight throughout the day which
cumulatively contribute to greater shadowing during this time.
In our opinion, the proposal will have minimal to no isolation impact on the VPA-HCD as it is
located across the street and respects the historical residential character along Benton Street.
City staff have noted the location of 79 Benton Street and its contribution to the continuity and
character of the Benton Street streetscape as an attribute in their 2013 Evaluation Form and
Statement of Significance. The proposal will alter the streetscape along Benton Street, leading to
the minor to moderate isolation of 79 Benton Street when viewed in one direction. These impacts
are due to differences in massing, setbacks from Benton Street, and visibility when looking south
down Benton from the east side. However, when looking south from the west side of Benton, the
new building is not expected to hinder the visibility of 79 Benton Street.
The isolation impacts on 79 Benton Street will be mitigated through interface enhancements and
homage to the historic character, as outlined in the proposed site configuration and podium
design. Furthermore, the overall planning framework for Benton Street indicates a shift towards
high-density mixed-use development with tall building heights. This planned intent for Benton
Street, including a diverse combination of commercial, retail, institutional, and residential activities,
helps offset the relatively minor consequences related to the isolation of 79 Benton Street.
Similarly, the Church at 53 Church Street may experience similar isolation -related impacts, since
one of its identified attributes is its contribution that the church makes to the continuity and
character of the Church Street streetscape. However, these impacts are primarily related to the
visibility of the church along the street and will only be noticeable when standing on the south side
of Church Street at the intersection, looking southeast down Church Street. As well, the current
setback of the house at 51 Church Street (0.8 metres) already blocks some of the view of the
Church at 53 Church Street when viewed to the southeast down Church Street at the intersection
of Benton Street, which has an existing setback of about 2.4 metres. The new building's location
will adopt a setback from Church Street that complements the existing building setback
established by 51 Benton Street opposite the subject lands (Benton Medical Offices) at the corner
and will be consistent with the existing building setbacks along Church Street between Benton
Street and Eby Street, which range from about 0.6 to 14.8 metres. The view of the church at 53
Church Street will remain unimpeded when observed from the north side of Church Street, looking
southeast from the Benton Medical Office building, or when looking back up Church Street to the
northwest, for instance, from the intersection of Peter and Church Streets.
As well, the site design and building location help mitigate these view impacts, including the use of
a corner cut-out at the intersection which will reduce any pinching at this entrance view. As a result,
the impacts related to the isolation of 53 Church Street are of relatively minor consequence.
While the proposal will alter the west edge of the CHSC-CHL along Benton Street, integrating
elements of the historic residential character and respectfully considering the historic building
height datum within the podium enhances the visual diversity and helps to mitigate the impact,
aligning with the City's Cultural Heritage Landscape Study.
147
Page 175 of 316
With respect to 51 Benton Street (Benton medical Offices), there are no impacts anticipated as it
relates to isolation, since the streetscape on the north side of Benton Street will remain unchanged.
The impacts on the entrance view from Church and Benton Streets, specifically looking southeast
along Church Street, will be effectively mitigated if the proposed redevelopment maintains the 5.0 -
metre setback (1.6 to 2.1 metres after road widening). In fact, we anticipate that the redevelopment
will enhance the existing broken frontage caused by the vacant portions of the subject lands, and
the proposed corner cut-out at the intersection will help ensure the view looking southeast at this
entrance point is not pinched. Although the view will feature a new building with increased height
and massing, it will contribute to the visual variety and building heights already present in the area,
which include both tall and mid -rise structures. Accordingly, if the design as proposed is
approved, it will not create a pinch point at the intersection.
Historically, the subject lands have featured predominantly residential uses, with some commercial
activities over the years. Benton Street and Church Street have had a mix of residential,
institutional, and commercial uses, especially at corner locations and near Charles Street East and
King Street East. The introduction of commercial uses can be seen across the street at Benton
Medical Centre and at 79 Benton Street.
The proposed mixed-use building will align well with the character of the road along Benton Street,
reflecting the historical and evolving mixed-use nature of the neighbourhood. The inclusion of
grade -related commercial uses is the most noticeable and primary change at the street level.
Given the gradual incorporation of more commercial activities in the area, the proposed uses align
with the historical evolution and current land use designations.
Therefore, we anticipate no significant impact on the subject lands or the surrounding areas,
including the VPA-HCD and the CHSC-CHL, in terms of land use typology. In fact, the land use
designation applied to the lands in the Growing Together framework permits the mixed-use
proposal as -of -right.
In our opinion, the introduction of a new tall building in the CHSC-CHL is both distinctive and
appropriate. This corner location, situated at the edge of the CHSC-CHL within a Strategic Growth
Area and PMTSA, makes it well-suited for such intensification. The neighbourhood's diverse
character, visual variety, and capacity to accommodate tall structures without undue visual
deterioration, particularly near the edges and along existing major streets away from the interior of
the neighbourhood, further support this opinion. Overall, the proposed development can make a
successful contribution to the ongoing evolution of the Benton Street edge, enhancing the
neighbourhood's overall visual variety, while also preserving the character internal to the
neighbourhood.
The redevelopment proposal is not expected to cause additional land disturbance beyond what
has already occurred over the past 140 years of development and activity on the site.
However, due to the historical presence of a cemetery on the subject lands (which was relocated
in 1876), there remains a possibility of discovering human remains during construction.
Accordingly, GPR should be used to scan the subject lands for remains that may have been
missed during the historical exhumations. If human remain are discovered prior to or during
construction, all work should immediately cease to prevent further disturbance of the area. Workers
must be informed of the discovery and instructed not to disturb the site. The area should be
Page 176 of 316
secured, and the appropriate authorities, such as the local police department, archaeologists, the
Bereavement Authority of Ontario, and / or the Office of the Chief Coroner (OCC) in Ontario, should
be promptly notified before work can resume.
This report also explored alternative development options for the subject lands in relation to
heritage conservation. Four alternative options were considered: (1) Do Nothing / Leave Lands As
Is, (2) Accommodating Architecture (Stilting or Enveloping), (3) Adaptive Reuse, and (4)
Relocation. An additional option of infilling the lands with low-rise buildings was also evaluated.
Based on the consideration to alternative options, and because the subject lands are not listed or
designated properties on the City's Register, it is recommended to proceed with the proposed
redevelopment plan, which includes demolishing the existing structures and incorporating design
elements that pay homage to the historic character of the area. This plan aligns with the efficient
use of land, heritage conservation goals, and the overall objectives of urban planning.
Lastly, this report presents several recommended mitigation measures as part of the heritage
impact assessment for the proposed redevelopment. These measures aim to address and
minimize potential adverse impacts. By implementing these strategies, we aim to ensure
appropriate conservation and/or commemoration while proceeding with the redevelopment in a
manner that respects the cultural significance and values of the heritage resources.
The recommended mitigation measures include:
1. Potential (optional) commemoration to acknowledge the historical existence of a potential
cemetery, although the remains have been relocated (optional).
2. Potential (optional) consideration given to salvaging materials from the existing structure at
51 Church Street during demolition.
3. Potential (optional) commemoration related to the association of 73 Benton Street with
Charles Boehmer Dunke through various options, such as a bronze plaque with his bust
and a sketch of his house, artwork on the building's podium, or stamped concrete in the
sidewalk.
4. Scanning for human remain prior to excavation and ceasing all work and notifying relevant
authorities immediately if human remains are discovered prior to and during construction.
5. Documenting and archiving the structures on the subject lands, including high-resolution
photos before, during, and after construction.
6. Developing a Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) to protect adjacent heritage
resources, including comprehensive descriptions, inspection reports, protection measures,
hoarding plans, vibration monitoring, and drainage plans.
7. Maintaining the proposed setbacks, tower step back, podium elements, residential
component at grade, and enhanced landscaping treatments depicted in the architectural
drawings.
8. Maintaining proposed setbacks, tower step back, podium elements, residential component
at grade, and enhanced landscaping treatments to integrate the new development with the
surrounding heritage context.
9. Maintaining proposed tower floor plate, vertical breaks, softening, twisting, and articulation
of tower edges to minimize shadowing on adjacent and nearby heritage resources.
It is clear that the introduction of a new mixed-use 40 -storey building will be a noticeable change
for the subject lands in terms of height and massing. However, this is a planned changed for the
149
Page 177 of 316
lands and neighbourhood in keeping with the existing and emerging planning framework. By
adopting the aforementioned recommended mitigation measures, we believe that the proposed
redevelopment can proceed in a manner that helps safeguard heritage resources, respect the
heritage context, and incorporate commemorative elements, effectively helping to mitigate all
identified impacts. In an area experiencing ongoing change, where visual diversity allows for the
presence of large apartment blocks without significant visual decline, the proposal marks another
step in the neighborhood's evolution.
150
Page 178 of 316
<.
a
.} a
j^ f
n
h
� fi� �• .ti 1�sTr - ..
qw
ti
77
41,
W Y
P,r :
-
t . � ✓ _hilk'" cr +' 'fir ,� • �� r.• s
J y +.
� \IL
,"�► ,: � Ef' �, a.` sr �"' � ,�L`f �"�: �.' +f � } ice`' �r �, _ _
K
" j
-7
�y
S�i v
r �
-4�
r•
Y
f
e
� s \
1 • n _
g. 0
References
Page 179 of 316
9.0 REFERENCES
Allen, R., & Conn, H. (2019). Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea). In The Canadian Encyclopedia.
Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/joseph-brant.
Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. (1992). Vernacular Architecture in Ontario. Proceedings of a
conference held in Brantford, April 1992. Editors: Julia Beck and Alec Keefer.
Badone, D. (1988). The complete house detective: An Ontario house and its history.
Bain, R. (1996). Images of Waterloo Country. Quarry Press.
Benton Street Baptist Church. (1926). History of the Benton Street Baptist Church., Kitchener,
Ontario, and Programme of Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the Church.
Benton Street Baptist Church. (1976). Benton Street Baptist Church, Kitchener, Ontario - 125 Years
of God's Faithfulness.
Bloomfield, E. & Waterloo Historical Society. (2006). Waterloo Township through Two Centuries. St.
Jacobs Printery Ltd.
Blumenson, J. (1990). Ontario Architecture — A Guide to Styles and Buildings Terms 1784 to the
present. Fitzhenry & Whiteside.
Boehmer, W. H. (2020). BOEHMER & CO. - A Company History.
Bricker, I. C. (1805). Survey of Block Number Two (Waterloo Township). Showing names of owners
of farms including original owners of the German Company Tract as of September 1, 1805.
City of Kitchener et al. (1996). Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan.
City of Kitchener et al. (1996). Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Designating By-law
No. 96-91.
City of Kitchener. (1989). Designating By-law No. 83-21 for 43 Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (1994). Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form, Statement of Significance,
and Additional Background — 43 Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (1995). Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form and Statement of
Significance - 54 Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (2009). Additional Background: Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form — 90
Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (2009). Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form and Statement of
Significance — 90 Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (2012). Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form and Statement of
Significance — 53 Church Street.
City of Kitchener. (2012). Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form and Statement of
Significance — 51 Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (2013). Additional Background: Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form — 83
Benton Street.
151
Page 180 of 316
City of Kitchener. (2013). Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form and Statement of
Significance - 83 Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (2013). Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form and Statement of
Significance - 79 Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (2014). City of Kitchener Official Plan, as amended.
City of Kitchener. (2014). Cultural Heritage Landscape Study.
City of Kitchener. (2017). Municipal Heritage Register, as updated.
City of Kitchener. (2018). Proposed Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) Boundary and Heritage
Attributes (Map).
City of Kitchener. (2022). Proposed Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Secondary Plan
City of Kitchener. (2022). Urban Design Manual.
City of Kitchener. (Multiple). Additional Background: Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form —
53 Church Street.
City of Kitchener. (Multiple). Additional Background: Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form —
51 Benton Street.
City of Kitchener. (Multiple). Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) project.
City of Kitchener. (n.d.). Plan 393 and 394. Plan of part of the Town of Berlin, Township and County
of Waterloo, 1857-1858.
Collishaw & Preston, B. (1979). Recollections of 125 years (Collishaw & B. Preston, Eds.).
Committee for the 125th, City of Kitchener.
Cruickshank, T. & Visser, I. D. (2009). Old Ontario Houses - Traditions in Local Architecture.
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. (1969). Topographic Map.
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. (1976). Topographic Map.
Dhillon, H. K. (2022). Renaming and reclaiming an iconic Kitchener park. The Community Edition.
Retrieved online.
Dignity Memorial. (2014). Schreiter-Sandrock Funeral Home & Chapel. Retrieved on April 15, 2014,
from http://www.dignitymemorial.ca/schreiter-sandrock-funeral-home-chapel/enca/
Earthworks Archaeology. (2020). Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for Subject Lands.
Elsworthy. (2016). Evolving Urban Landscapes: A Photographic Memoir.
Evangelical United Brethren Church. (1964). The Canada Conference Of The Evangelical United
Brethren Church: A Century in Canada.
Gallant, P. (2016). Condo on stilts give Widmer Street heritage homes some breathing room.
Young Street Media.
Goad, C. E. (1904). Fire Insurance Plan of Berlin, Ontario, 1904. Retrieved from the Kitchener
Public Library, Local History and Genealogy, Grace Schmidt Room.
Google Street View. (2009). Street view of subject lands circa 2009. Retrieved online.
Google Street View. (2014). Street view of subject lands circa 2014. Retrieved online.
152
Page 181 of 316
Google Street View. (2015). Street view of subject lands circa 2015. Retrieved online.
Google Street View. (2016). Street view of subject lands circa 2016. Retrieved online.
Google Street View. (2019). Street view of subject lands circa 2019. Retrieved online.
Google Street View. (2020). Street view of 73 Benton Street, circa 2009. Retrieved online.
Google Street View. (2020). Street view of subject lands circa 2020. Retrieved online.
Google Street View. (2021). Street view of 149 Queen Street South. Retrieved online.
Government of Ontario. (1990). Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18, as amended.
Government of Ontario. (1990). Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
Government of Ontario. (2012-22). Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves. Retrieved online from:
https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves.
Government of Ontario. (2012-22). Six Nations of the Grand River. Retrieved online from:
https://www.ontario.ca/page/six-nations-grand-river_
Government of Ontario. (2020). A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,
as amended.
Government of Ontario. (2020). Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 - Under the Planning Act.
Government of Ontario. (2021). Updates to the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. ERO number 019-2770.
Government of Ontario. (2023). Proposed Provincial Planning Statement, April 6, 2023. ERO
number 019-6813.
H. J. Schneider et al. (1897). Busy Berlin: jubilee souvenir, 1897. Berlin News Record.
H. Parsell & Co. & Walker & Miles (1881). Illustrated Atlas Of The County Of Waterloo.
Hariri Pontarini Architects. (2019). 7 St. Thomas, Toronto, ON. Retrieved from
https://hariripontarini.com/projects/7-st-thomas/.
Hays, G. (1961). Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Waterloo Historical Society.
Johnston, C. M. (1964). The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian
Lands of the Grand River. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing.
Kalman, H. (1994). A History of Canadian Architecture - Volume 1. Oxford University Press.
Kirkor. (2023). Context Plan for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners.
Kirkor. (2023). Design Presentation for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners.
Kirkor. (2023). Elevation Plans (Building Sections) for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects
and Planners.
Kirkor. (2023). Floor Plans for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners.
Kirkor. (2023). Massing Model for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners.
Kirkor. (2023). Renderings for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners.
Kirkor. (2023). Shadow Study for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners.
Kirkor. (2024a). Site Plan for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners.
153
Page 182 of 316
Kirkor. (2024b). Ground Level Floor Plan for Subject Lands. Prepared by Kirkor Architects and
Planners.
Kitchener Public Library. (1975). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1975. Retrieved from the Kitchener
Public Library, Local History and Genealogy, Grace Schmidt Room.
Kitchener Public Library. (1980). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1980. Retrieved from the Kitchener
Public Library, Local History and Genealogy, Grace Schmidt Room.
Kitchener Public Library. (1985). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1985. Retrieved from the Kitchener
Public Library, Local History and Genealogy, Grace Schmidt Room.
Kitchener Public Library. (1990). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1990. Retrieved from the Kitchener
Public Library, Local History and Genealogy, Grace Schmidt Room.
Kitchener Public Library. (1995). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1995. Retrieved from the Kitchener
Public Library, Local History and Genealogy, Grace Schmidt Room.
Kitchener Waterloo Community Foundation. (n.d.). Territorial Acknowledgment. Retrieved online
from: https://www.kwcf.ca/territorial-acknowledgement_
Kitchener -Waterloo Record & Weicker, S. (1990). History Of Congregations In Kitchener And
Waterloo.
Kitchener -Waterloo Record. (1960). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1960. Street Extension.
Kitchener -Waterloo Record. (n.d.). Air Photo of Subject Lands, pre -1980s.
Kraemer, G.L. (2003). Faith and Foundations — The Germanic Pioneers of Waterloo County and
Bruce Country Ontario, 1828-1867. Gogol Press.
Laurier Students' Public Interest Research Group. (n.d.). Know The Land Territories Campaign.
Retrieved online from: http://www.Ispirg.org/knowtheland_
Leva, L. (2022). Chains of Title for Subject Lands.
Lorbetski, D. B. (1986). Reference Plan 58R-5235. Plan of Survey of Pt. Lot 19, Reg. Plan 393 & Pt.
Lot 3, Reg. Plan 205, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Guenther Rueb
Surveying Ltd. Retrieved online from OnLand.
M. S. Boehm & Company Ltd. (1919). Map of Busy Berlin showing property of M. S. Boehm &
Company Limited (Queen's Park), in red.
McGill University. (2001). The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Retrieved online from:
https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes.php.
McLaughlin, K. (1912). Made in Berlin. Joseph Schneider Haus Museum. The German Printing &
Publishing Cc (of Berlin) Limited.
Mercer, G. (2017). Kitchener's forgotten connection to the Halifax explosion. Waterloo Region
Record.
Mikel, R. (2004). Ontario House Styles: The distinctive architecture of the provinces 18th and 19th -
century homes.
Mills, R. (1996). Victoria park — 100 years of a park and its people. An historical and photographic
essay on Victoria Park, Kitchener, Ontario with illuminations on the neglected past and
projected future.
154
Page 183 of 316
Mills, R. (2002). Images of Canada — Kitchener (Berlin) 1880-1960. Arcadia Publishing, an imprint
of Tempus Publishing, Inc. Charleston, SC.
Ministry of Indigenous Affairs. (2018). Crown Grant to the Six Nations or the Haldimand Tract.
Moulton & Walker. (2005). Boehmer Family History and Dunke Family History. Retrieved from the
Kitchener Public Library, Local History and Genealogy, Grace Schmidt Room.
Moyer, B. (1979). Kitchener Yesterday Revisited - An Illustrated History.
National Ballet School. (2022). About NBS - Facilities: Canada's National Ballet School. Retrieved
from https://www.nbs-enb.ca/en/about-nbs/facilities.
Native Land. (2021). Native Land Digital. Retrieved online from: https://native-land.ca/
News Record. (1901). Twentieth century number of "Busy Berlin."
News Record. (1906). Berlin today, 1806-1906: centennial number, in celebration of the Old Boys'
and Girls' reunion, August 6th., 7th., 8th., 1906.
News Record. (1906). Official souvenir: Berlin today — Centennial number in celebration of the old
boys; and girls' reunion. Printed and published by the News Record, Berlin, Canada.
OnLand. (Multiple). OnLand (LRO 58) Historical books, property records, and documents
(various).
Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. (2006). Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, as updated
online, 2022.
Orend, J.M. (2014). This Is Waterloo Region. Lomic Books.
R. Mills. (2002). Kitchener (Berlin), 1880-1960. Arcadia.
Region of Waterloo. (2000). Region of Waterloo GIS locator: 2000 Aerial imagery. Retrieved online.
Region of Waterloo. (2010). Waterloo Regional Official Plan, as amended.
Region of Waterloo. (2021). Waterloo Region Hall of Fame, as updated.
Region of Waterloo. (2022). Exploring the Region: About Waterloo Region — History. Retrieved
online.
Region of Waterloo. (2023). Waterloo Regional Official Plan Official Plan Amendment 6, as adopted
by By-law 22-038.
Scott Shields Architects Inc. (2022). 8-20 Widmer Street, Toronto, ON. Retrieved from
https: //scottarch. ca/portfolio/8-20-wi dmer/.
Shea, P. (1988). Victoria Park: An Inventory of Historic Buildings.
Shea, P. (1989). Historic Property Report: Schreiter-Sandrock Funeral Home — 51 Benton
Six Nations Lands & Resources. (2008). The Haldimand Treaty of 1784. Retrieved online from:
https://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm.
St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church. (2004). 100th Anniversary of the St. Matthews
Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1904-2004. St. Jacobs Printery.
St. Matthews Lutheran Church. (1954). Souvenir of the Golden Jubilee of St. Matthews Lutheran
Church, Kitchener, ON. Rev. John Schmieder, D.D., Pastor.
155
Page 184 of 316
Thompson, C. (2019). Downtown Kitchener condo tower to wrap around heritage building.
Waterloo Region Record. Article updated Apr. 13, 2020.
Tiessen, & Hunsberger, D. P. (1979). Berlin Canada: a self-portrait of Kitchener, Ontario before
World War One. Sand Hills Books.
Tiessen, & Hunsberger, D. P. (1979). Berlin Canada: a self-portrait of Kitchener, Ontario before
World War One: being a printing of the complete text of Berlin: celebration of cityhood and
of various other documents. Sand Hills Books.
Tiessen, H. F. & Tiessen, P.G. (1982). Waterloo Portfolio: Woldemar Neufeld's Paintings and Block -
prints of Waterloo, Ontario. Sand Hills Books.
Tremaine, G. (1861). Tremaine's map of the county of Waterloo, Canada west.
Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. (1925). Fire Insurance Plan of Kitchener, Ontario, 1925.
University of Waterloo. (2013). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1930. Retrieved online from Maps,
Geospatial Centre, Air Photos Digitization Project, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -
Waterloo.
University of Waterloo. (2013). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1945. Retrieved online from Maps,
Geospatial Centre, Air Photos Digitization Project, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -
Waterloo.
University of Waterloo. (2013). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 1955. Retrieved online from Maps,
Geospatial Centre, Air Photos Digitization Project, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -
Waterloo.
University of Waterloo. (2016). Digital historical air photos of KW and surrounding area. Maps,
Geospatial Centre, Air Photos Digitization Project. University of Waterloo Library.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of Berlin, 1875. Geospatial Centre, Collections, Maps and
Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of Berlin, 1879. Geospatial Centre, Collections, Maps and
Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of City of Greater Berlin, 1912. Geospatial Centre, Collections,
Maps and Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo, 1923. Geospatial
Centre, Collections, Maps and Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of County of Waterloo, 1879. Geospatial Centre, Collections,
Maps and Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of County of Waterloo, 1908. Geospatial Centre, Collections,
Maps and Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of Map of the Town of Berlin, 1879. Geospatial Centre,
Collections, Maps and Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of the County of Waterloo, 1861. Geospatial Centre, Collections,
Maps and Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of Town of Berlin, 1853. Geospatial Centre, Collections, Maps
and Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
156
Page 185 of 316
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Map of Town of Berlin, 1856. Geospatial Centre, Collections, Maps
and Atlases, Waterloo Region historical maps. Retrieved online.
University of Waterloo. (n.d. [a]). Territorial Acknowledgement. University of Waterloo Office of
Indigenous Relations. Retrieved from https://uwaterloo.ca/math/about/territorial-
acknowledgement#Haldimandtract.
University of Waterloo. (n.d. [b]). Waterloo Region historical maps. Geospatial Centre: Collections,
Maps, and atlases. Retrieved online.
Uttley, B. (1975). A History of Kitchener, Ontario. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.
Vernon's City Directories. (1912-2014). Vernon's Kitchener-Waterloo City Directories. Kitchener
Public Library, Local History and Genealogy, Grace Schmidt Room.
Victoria Park Historical Committee. (2015). Artist's Rendering of Town of Berlin, 1892.
VuMap. (2024). Ownership parcel and aerial imagery of subject lands and surrounding.
Warner, P. (1985). Kitchener — The man behind the legend.
Waterloo County Board of Education. (1987). 19th Century Architecture Of Waterloo County.
Waterloo County Board of Education, Educational Services Division, Visual Arts
Department.
Waterloo Region. (2000). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2000. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Waterloo Region. (2003). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2003. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Waterloo Region. (2006). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2006. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Waterloo Region. (2009). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2009. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Waterloo Region. (2012). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2012. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Waterloo Region. (2014). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2014. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Waterloo Region. (2016). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2016. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Waterloo Region. (2020). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2020. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Waterloo Region. (2022). Air Photo of Subject Lands, 2020. Retrieved online from the Waterloo
Region GIS Locator.
Weicker, S. (1994). Artistry at St. Matthews Lutheran Church, 54 Benton St., Kitchener, ON.
Weicker, S. (1996). Reminiscings of St. Matthews Lutheran Church, Kitchener, ON.
Welker, R. (1974). A historical study of the Lutheran church in Kitchener 1910 — 1937.
Whose Land. (n.d.). Treaties & Agreements. Retrieved online from: https://www.whose.land/en/.
157
Page 186 of 316
W.m
en ix
Author CV
Page 187 of 316
BIGLIERI G R 0 UP
EVAN SUMER HBASc, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
2023 to present: The Biglieri Group Ltd.
Toronto, Ontario
Associate I Heritage Lead
2021 - 2023: Bright Past Heritage Consulting Inc.
Kitchener, Ontario
Co -Founder & President, Heritage Planner
2021 - 2023: Bousfields Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
Senior Planner
2020 - 2021: Perth County (Contract through MHBC)
Perth, Ontario
Municipal Planner
2017 - 2021: MHBC Planning Ltd.
Barrie, Ontario
Planner
2016 - 2017: Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc.
Barrie, Ontario
Planner
2016: Planscape Inc.
Bracebridge, Ontario
Junior Planner
EDUCATION
2017 Master of Arts in Planning
University of Waterloo
2015 Honours Bachelor of Arts and Science
Lakehead University
PLANNING I DEVELOPMENT I PROJECT MANAGEMENT I URBAN DESIGN
2472 Kingston Road, Toronto, Ontario MiN iV3
21 King Street West, Suite 1502, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4W7
Office: (416) 693-9155 Fax: (416) 693-9133
tbg@thebiglierigroup.com
Page 188 of 316
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
MEMBERSHIP
Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners
Member of the Ontario Professional Planning Institute
Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Evan is an Associate and the Heritage Lead at the Biglieri Group, specializing in land
development, long-range strategic planning, heritage conservation, and project
management. He has a broad range of experience including development approvals for
subdivisions, condominiums, consents, waterfront development, and various
infill/intensification projects. Evan has helped design and implement public and
stakeholder consultation and engagement strategies and has been involved in the design
and approval of various projects including Official Plan and Zoning By-law reviews,
secondary plans, master plans, large-scale greenfield developments, adaptive reuse,
expropriations, master environmental servicing plans, affordable/ supportive housing
developments, and municipal class environmental assessments.
Evan is a registered Heritage Professional (CAHP) with the Canadian Association of
Heritage Professionals and provides specialized knowledge in the conservation and
stewardship of cultural heritage resources. He has a Master of Arts (MA) degree in
Planning from the University of Waterloo and an Honours Bachelor of Arts and Science
(HBASc) degree in Geography from Lakehead University.
Below is a preview of Evan's professional experience.
Heritage Planning and Conservation
➢ Heritage Impact Assessment for 203-209 Waterloo St S, Stratford, ON
➢ Heritage Evaluation Report for 3087 Colonel Talbot Rd & 7056 Park Rd, London,
ON
➢ Heritage Impact Assessment for 39-51 Church St, 69-73 Benton St, Kitchener, ON
➢ Heritage Impact Assessment for 203-205 King St S, Waterloo, ON
➢ Heritage Impact Assessment for 129 Meadowlily Rd S, London, ON
➢ Heritage and Urban Design Impact Assessment for 18 Brunswick Street, Stratford,
ON
➢ Heritage Impact Assessment & Opinion for 201 Water St. S., Cambridge, ON
➢ Heritage Impact Assessment for Dare Family Home, Waterloo, ON
➢ Girven Bridge , Macintosh Bridge , Deer River Hatchery Bridge, and Burnt Dam
Bridge Cultural
➢ Heritage Evaluations and Heritage Impact Assessments (Municipal Class EA),
Peterborough
➢ County, ON
➢ Hanlan Street Extension Heritage Evaluation and Heritage Impact Assessment
(Municipal Class
➢ EA), Town of Essex, ON
➢ Jordan's Hollow Bridge Heritage Evaluation and Heritage Impact Assessment
(Municipal Class EA),
Page 189 of 316
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
➢ Lincoln, ON
➢ Lincoln Historic Culvert Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment
(Municipal Class EA),
➢ Lincoln, ON
➢ New Vision United Church Cultural Heritage Assessment, Hamilton, ON
➢ Cultural Heritage Due Diligence and Planning Opinion for Adaptive Reuse of
Heritage Structures
➢ (Added High -Rise onto Heritage Fabric), Toronto, ON
➢ Cultural Heritage Due Diligence and Planning Opinion for Redevelopment of Peter
Hay Knife Co. ,
➢ Cambridge, ON
➢ Heritage Impact Assessment for 40 -Storey Luxury Hotel, 1013 Fallsview Boulevard,
Niagara Falls,
➢ ON
➢ Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Documentation, and Conservation Plan, 160
Salvation Road,
➢ Brampton, Brampton, ON
➢ Cultural Heritage Screening Report for the Kelso/Glen Eden Urban Servicing
Extension, Milton, ON
Ministerial Zonina Orders ("MZO") & Ontario Land Tribunal Aooeals
➢ MZO for New Community Area Land Markham & Stouffville, ON 10. Reg 172-20
➢ MZO for New Community Area Land Stouffville, ON O. Reg. 610-20
➢ MZO for New Community Area Land Stouffville, ON O. Reg. 770-21
➢ MZO for New Community Area Land Markham, ON O. Reg. 172-21
➢ MZO for Dolime Quarry in Guelph, ON 10. Reg. 822/21
➢ OLT Motion to Dismiss Appeal, 824 Sheppard Av W, 177-181 Cocksfield Av,
Toronto, ON
➢ OLT Settlement Hearing, 53-71 Plains Rd. East, 1025 Cooke Blvd, Burlington, ON
Low -Rise Residential / Greenfield / Mixed -Use Development
➢ 306 -Unit Subdivision, 269 German School Road, St. George, Brant County, ON
➢ 425 -Unit Subdivision, 160 Burnhamthorpe Road West, Oakville, ON
➢ 57 -Unit Subdivision, Part of Lot 16, Concessionl North of Dundas Street, Oakville,
ON
➢ 505 -Unit Subdivision, Part Lot 16, Con 1 North of Dundas St, 382 Burnhamthorpe
Rd W, Oakville, ON
➢ 974 -Unit Mixed -Use Subdivision as part of an MZO, 11861 and 12045 McCowan
Rd, Whitchurch Stouffville, ON
➢ 965 -Unit Mixed -Use Subdivision as part of an MZO, Part of 11776 Highway 48 and
11822 Highway 48, Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON.
Mid -Rise Residential / Mixed -Use Devel
➢ 12 -Storey Mixed -Use, Mid -rise Redevelopment, 399 Greenhill Av, Hamilton, ON
Page 190 of 316
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
➢ 3 Mid -rise Residential Buildings (6- to 8 -Storeys), 390-400 Woodsworth Road, North
York, Toronto, ON
➢ 12 -Storey Mixed-use, Mid -rise Building, 333 Wilson Avenue, North York, Toronto,
ON
➢ 11 -Storey Mid -rise Residential Redevelopment, 401 — 407 Martha Street, Burlington,
ON
High -Rise Residential / Mixed -Use Development
➢ 9- to 18 -Storey Mixed -Use, Mid- to High-rise Commercial / Residential
Redevelopment, 53-71 Plains
➢ Road East, 1025 Cooke Boulevard, Burlington, ON
➢ 25- and 35 -Storey High-rise, Residential building, Part Lot 175, Portage Road,
Niagara Falls, ON
➢ 49 -Storey High-rise, Mixed -Use Residential / Community Services Redevelopment,
307 Lake Shore
➢ Blvd E, Toronto, ON
➢ 72 -Storey High -Rise, Mixed -Use Residential / Commercial Development, 6609
Stanley Avenue, Niagara
➢ Falls, ON
➢ 35- and 36 -Storey High -Rise, Mixed -Use Residential / Commercial Development,
5613-5633 Victoria
➢ Ave & 4890-4902 Walnut St, Niagara Falls, ON
➢ 77 -Storey High -Rise, Mixed -Use Residential / Commercial Development, 6158
Allendale Av and 5592
➢ Robinson St, Niagara Falls, ON
➢ 30- and 35 -Storey High-ris, Mixed -Use Redevelopment, 2020 Lakeshore Road,
Burlington, ON
➢ 25 -Storey Niagara Falls Marriott Fallsview Hotel & Spa Addition, 6740 and 6760
Fallsview Boulevard,
➢ Niagara Falls, ON
Master Planning
➢ Black Creek Commons Master Plan, 2900 College Road, Fort Erie, ON
➢ Toronto Stock Yards South Master Plan and Employment Land Conversion, 2151-
2161 St. Clair
➢ Avenue West, 542 & 620-630 Keele Street, Toronto, ON
➢ Town of Grimsby Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (Part of a Project
Team)
Page 191 of 316
W.M
en ix
HIA Terms of
Reference Page 192o,,,s
City of Kitchener
Development Services Department — Planning Division
Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference
39 & 51 Church Street and 69 & 73 Benton Street
1.0 Background
Introduction
A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural
heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future repair, alteration, or development.
The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning
application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage
resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward
mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact
Assessment may be required on a property which is identified on the City's Heritage Kitchener
Inventory of Built Heritage Resources; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated
under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to protected heritage
property. The requirement may also apply to known or recorded cultural heritage resources which
are discovered during the development application stage or construction.
Subject Lands
The subject lands are municipally addressed as 39 & 51 Church Street and 69 & 73 Benton Street.
The subject lands are adjacent to properties located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage
Conservation District (64 & 90 Benton Street).
The subject lands are also located adjacent to several properties that are listed on the City's
Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or
interest, including: 51 Benton Street, 79 Benton Street, and 53 Church Street. As part of the City's
four -step process for listing properties on the MHR, a statement of cultural heritage value or
interest for each property was drafted, which identifies design, contextual, associative, and
historic values along with a detailed list of heritage attributes. These statements of significance
were drafted using the current criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest (O. Reg.
9/06); however, the contents are based on readily available information and therefore may not be
exhaustive with respect to all values and attributes.
All of the subject lands are located within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage
Landscape (CHL) as defined in Kitchener's Cultural Heritage Landscape Study dated 2014 and
approved by Council in 2015. As part of the City's neighbourhood planning review process,
properties of specific CHL interest were identified. The properties municipally addressed as 51
Church Street and 73 Benton Street are identified as properties of specific CHL interest given
their adjacency to properties listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register.
2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements
It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible
stage of development, alteration, or proposed repair. Notice will be given to the property owner
and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is subject of a Plan of
Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of Heritage Impact Assessment will typically be given
Page 193 of 316
at the pre -application meeting, followed by written notification. The notice will inform the property
owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to
completing the Heritage Impact Assessment.
The following minimum requirements will be required in a scoped Heritage Impact
Assessment:
2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site
alteration.
2.2 Omitted.
2.3 A written description of the buildings, structures, and landscape features on the adjacent
properties located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District including:
building elements, building materials, architectural app' iRteFiG finishes, natural heritage
elements, and landscaping. The rdeonripdiep Will also ipnli irde a nhrepeleginal histopy of the
S' deV pmeR+ S Gh as ardrditiepc aprd rdemelitiepo.
2.4 Omitted.
2.5 An outline of the proposed repair alteratiep er development, its context, and how it will
impact the identified designated and listed properties including buildings, structures, and
site details including landscaping. This includes the assessment of potential visual and
physical impacts. The HIA shall also identify how the proposed development will impact
the draft Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Secondary Plan, particularly in relation to the
Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) boundary, related
recommendations regarding the conservation of the CHL, impacts of the proposed
development on the entrance view identified at Benton Street and Church Street, and
impacts to properties identified as being of specific CHL interest.
The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified
in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries' Ontario Heritage
Toolkit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: repair/alterations that are not
sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a
cultural heritage resource; etc. The assessment should also address the influence and
potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties
and adjacent protected heritage property at 64 and 90 Benton Street, the Cedar Hill
Neighbourhood CHL, in particular the properties identified as properties of CHL interest,
and the adjacent listed properties at 51 and 79 Benton Street and 53 Church Street.
2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources, and
properties of specific CHL interest, may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include
but are not limited to: preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all
or part of the heritage resource, and relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a
sympathetic context for the heritage resource.
2.7 A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must
be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks
Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario
Page 194 of 316
Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries); and the Ontario Heritage
Toolkit (Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries).
2.8 Omitted.
2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations,
elevations, materials, landscaping, etc.
2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact
Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of
professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study.
The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people
contacted during the study and referenced in the report.
3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations
The summary statement should provide a full description of:
• Omitted.
• The identification of any impact the proposed repair' altepati„n, or development will
have on the heritage attributes of the adjacent protected heritage property at 64
and 90 Benton Street, Cedar Hill Neighbourhood CHL, in particular the properties
identified as being of specific CHL interest, and adjacent listed property at 51 and
79 Benton Street and 53 Church Street.
• An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative
development, or site alteration approaches are recommended.
• Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative
development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate.
4.0 Omitted
5.0 Submission Requirements
One (1) digital copy of the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be provided to Heritage
Planning staff. The digital copy shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background.
The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by the City to determine whether all
requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review
of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, one (1) hard copy and one (1) digital
copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be
required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the
Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments will be circulated to the City's
Heritage Kitchener committee for information and discussion. The comments received
from Heritage Kitchener will help staff in compiling their own comments for a
recommendation. Final approval of the HIA will be a condition for final Site Plan Approval
Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a
qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be
notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection, of the report. An accepted
Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development
application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the
final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into
Page 195 of 316
development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the
discretion of the municipality.
Page 196 of 316
W.w
en ix
16
Chains of Title
Page 197 of 316
39 Church Street, Kitchener, ON
Page 198 of 316
M
9
9
S
f
H
M
O
9
51 Church Street, Kitchener, ON
Page 207 of 316
HIM
9
�L�
W
..I
H
LL
O
_2
U
cc
'
�
f
0
i
l
1
i
1
j
4
i
69 Benton Street, Kitchener, ON
Page 213 of 316
m
Em
M.n
o
Ilk
N3
Ills
it
NO,
A
73 Benton Street, Kitchener, ON
Page 220 of 316
��
V
`❑
V
}�
M
a
6
■
E
W.W
en ix
01
Shadow Study
Page 225 of 316
maw �N
V N
�
O
�v
N
z
a
_
_
N
N
�
A
N
LU
U
6
r.X �
U)
i
®we N
�
C
6
li
e
m
�
FAY+{ g 4",
Wo -
�N\\
", V
Q
/OHO
��e U
N
o
v • o
yd
N
N
�
A
N
t�
U
6
r.X �
U)
i
®we N
�
C
6
\/4P
e
m
�
FAY+{ g 4",
r
�N\\
", V
Q
��e U
IIS
N
o
v • o
t�
r.X �
U)
i
®we N
�
6
\/4P
U
h
O
'r" O
i
�O\
V
U)
r yb
i
(6
)
�
o
v • o
t�
U)
n
N
6
\/4P
2x
0
0
z
a
_
='
U
U
N
0
y
LU
0
�
� a
e
,J
w o
�
N
N
CO
U
N
2.
i
E o
Cu
A?
n
O
O
2x
0
0
N
U
U
N
0
y
Z.
0
�
� a
e
,J
w o
�
N
N
�6.
�E
U
N
2.
i
Cu
A?
® �
O
O
/
N
/O®'
yyy
N
U
N
O
�O\\
� N
� U
V o� 0
0
d�
0
0
U
N
0
h
/�
,J
M
A?
® �
♦ N
9
y
ko O
O
e V
Ul
_
N
N
U
�Q
h
Q
s'
\
E
r
L 11"afi B
Page 229 of 316
Staff Report
r
NJ :R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: September 3, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals,
519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: August 12, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-359
SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum
1385 Bleams Road
Construction of a 3 -storey building with 8 Units
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
REPORT:
The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Addendum
dated August 22, 2024, prepared by CHC Limited, regarding a proposal to redevelop the
subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road (Attachment A). The subject
property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through designating By-
law 1987-309. The subject property includes the building commonly known as the
"Williamsburg School", one of the last remaining buildings of the former Hamlet of
Williamsburg.
A previous redevelopment proposal for the subject property was presented to Heritage
Kitchener at its March 7, 2023 meeting. The proposal included the construction of eight
(8), three-storey townhomes on the western half of the property, towards the rear of the
designated building (Fig. 1). To facilitate the proposed development, a Zoning By -Law
Amendment application was submitted and approved in 2023, with the HIA receiving
approval on June 12, 2023.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 230 of 316
GLEAMS ROAD
a
-L FM6blj � J
_ N11Y)N .�
r �■ ■ �� r Ni �� r
�r r
■
R 5 n.,� r w 51108 Q�r,o• ■
N
]D' 1Gk a j P'' 3' 2
-
LLr_r,.�..._r_._rL._._■ ■_r_r_r..
- ----s fjl
Figure 1. The proposed development as presented to Heritage Kitchener at its March 7, 2023, meeting.
There has been a change in the proposed development, due to which an HIA Addendum
was required. The new development contemplates development on the western portion of
the property includes the construction of a three-storey stacked townhomes with eight (8)
units and eight (8) parking spaces (Fig. 2). The parking will be located at the rear of the
building. `Block A' will be located 29.7 m from the existing heritage resource with the
driveway located 21.9 m from the existing heritage resource.
BLEAMS R O A D
Figure 2. Revised proposed development on the subject property.
Page 231 of 316
- -
1J
' 1
jyzoae
—__`—//
L -------
A
_-.-_—
_-------------
BLOCK A
3 STOREY
(8 UNITS)
1
EXISTING
1
1 STOREY
I 1
HOUSE
I I
I I
I
�
�
f 191
EXISTING
❑ETACHE
'
GARAGE
R1
Ek15TING
a
4
$
5 2 1
SHED
o---
---------�-
----------o
Figure 2. Revised proposed development on the subject property.
Page 231 of 316
Since the proposed development has changed and is a departure from what was
previously presented to Heritage Kitchener, this addendum is being presented to Heritage
Kitchener and staff are seeking the committee's input. This input will be taken into
consideration as part of the staff review of the HIA. This addendum is in its draft stage and
has not been approved by the Director of Housing and Development Approvals. The
applicant's heritage consultant will attend the September 3, 2024, meeting of Heritage
Kitchener to answer any questions the Committee may have. A motion or recommendation
to Council is not required for the September meeting.
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.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 1385 Bleams Road — Proposed
Construction of 8 Three -Storey Townhomes, DSD -2023-080
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum — 1385 Bleams Road
Page 232 of 316
ai
N N 110 r-
r-
w
zcl
V]
H
..0
�
c
bA
U
�
�
U
x
N
N
N
0
N
r-
w
7t
Ic
O O O O O
6
a
I
¢�
Y m _�
W, $ 0o
Ny U
1 �
i
sws g aais aa�aaHoa w d d
El-
asm
iR .Sd ,9r -CdH
N
CIDcnO
O
U
O
U
cn
U
U
cl
cn
.t.0
Q
N
U
cn
OU
0
'cl
0
cn
�
O
+�
°
N
t
to
w
n
U
cn
d .
cn
c
0
O
t
to
C,3
c
N
cl
C
cn
U
U
•},
rn
S�
cn
cl
'C
Ocnn
ct
d .
C)
^C
o
c
U
cn
O
cn
0
cn
+�
ctljo
N
CH
cn
cd
cn
O
U
'
�
C)
cn
S
"
�
cn
O
o
-cn
�
to
cl
U
cn
O
cn
0
cn
N
sm
I
MW ■
N
EGA,
I
Fm I Fm I
D"MI
F=l D
0
E3
l�
�
o CI
o
1 I
L
EGA,
I
D"MI
F=l D
0
E3
n
�
o CI
o
EGA,
I
cv
cn
cn
cl
Cl
U
+'
"0
�
utb
O
U
�
O
l cj
U
,S'
O
N O
Fj
cl
p U
O �, �
42
Cj
U U 0
'C
UO
+C�
O
U)
0
c
cli
¢cn
0
0
,S'
O
4°
cl
cl
cd
O
U
vU
• U
cl
—Cli
(4+ 0
cl
n
clCj
+,
�•
ct
rn Q
U
v„
O
p
cH
U
bC,jA
N
cd
cd
U
N
a�
�,S'
O
..
+�
U
C�
+�
O
C�cl
CT
4cl
U bA
cl
cli
o
'+�
�.
cl s
O U
UUC
c,:" +�
U
4
cl
� �
l U
V] +�
O
p
N
U
+,
cli
clju
cH
O
O
�.
U
cj
O
cl
s .
r3
U
V
4+
O
.0
U
�
O
QCj
cn
cli
'C
'C
cd
,5.,"
U
cd
N
°
U)
cl
�
bA
U
n
�.
n
U
+�
to
�"
V
O
cJ
C
s.
s
U
cl
c
cl
o
:z
v
O
cn
S�
bUA
s
U
cd
U
4U
4+
cd
C
=
O
cv
L
u
N
N
O
— M
N
i
O
v
M
N
9
N
9
N
Ig.
o
U
U
�i
N
0
U
U
U
O
U
U
_O
U
O
O
H
'C
U
U
N
�
O
'C
N
U
O
O
N
�
O
�
_N
M
U
U
O
O
U
O
U
c
U
OZA Inspections Ltd.
A Member Company of the OZA Group
August 20, 2024
M1
1385 B eams Road
Kitchener, ON N2E 3X7
202-400 Jones Road
Stoney Creek, ON L8E 5P4
Toll Fri`e 1-800-667-8263
Tel: (905) 643-1074
Fax: (905) 643-9040
estimating*,ozainspections.com
www.ozainspections.com
Re: Preliminary Construction Vibration Assessment
1385 Bleams Road
Proposed Stacked Townhouse Block
City of Kitchener
Our File No. 23355
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and the requirements imposed by the City of
Kitchener for site plan approval, OZA Inspections Ltd. has conducted a preliminary
vibration assessment with respect to the proposed development and the potential
impact of construction vibrations relative to the existing `Heritage' designated
buildings located at 1385 Bleams Road. A vibration monitoring assessment has been
recommended as part of the Heritage Protection Plan for this property (CHC Limited,
May 30, 2023, Addendum July 18, 2024). This assessment shall specify monitoring
requirements and associated vibration controls as necessary towards the preservation
of the subject property, based on the current site plan.
Prediction models were developed based on conventional types of machinery used in
excavation, grading and servicing. Standard equipment was modeled separately to
assess the impact. Predicted vibration levels were compared with thresholds for
potential building damage to determine the required safe set -back distances.
Vibration impact shall be controlled through the implementation of recommended
mitigation measures and vibration monitoring for key operations.
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024
Page 245 of 316
CONSIDERATIONS
Development of the subject site will include, but not necessarily be limited to:
excavation for construction and servicing of the proposed 3 -storey, 8 -unit stacked
townhouse block, excavation for driveway and parking lot construction, and
backfilling and compaction associated with these activities. Driveway and parking lot
construction west of the existing heritage buildings (former Williamsburg schoolhouse
and batten wood shed) shall involve vibratory compaction of granular base and
asphalt. The new building is proposed in the west site area.
Based on our review of the Site Plan (Preliminary, Drawing No. A1.01, Orchard
Design Studio Inc. Project 15158, updated 2024-08-14), we estimate that the proposed
driveway construction is offset by 23± metres from the old schoolhouse building, the
proposed new building footprint is offset 30.5± metres. We note that the nearest part
of the proposed parking area is offset from the schoolhouse building by 20± metres,
the shed structure by 21± metres.
We have anticipated that construction activities for this project as described above will
involve the following conventional construction equipment:
• Bulldozers
• Excavators
• Compactors (vibratory drum roller and/or hoe-pac)
• Dump trucks
ASSESSMENT METHODS / DETAILS
For assessment of ground borne vibration impact, measurement of the Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV) is widely accepted as the best descriptor of potential for damage; pre -
construction assessment involves prediction methods in lieu of measurement.
The United States Department of Transportation has published procedures (Reference:
United States Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, Report No. 0123, September 2018) for construction vibration prediction.
The reference values provided are considered a reasonable average based on a wide
range of site conditions. This procedure involves the use of these reference values at a
given distance, factored into a distance attenuation equation to calculate the PPV
value. These predicted values are then compared to appropriate criterion to assess
potential impact.
2
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024
Page 246 of 316
CRITERIA
This section forms a preliminary criteria guideline and the basis for the calculation of
the setback distances.
Currently there is not a universally accepted standard in Ontario for limiting vibration
relative to heavy construction such as grading, excavation and vibratory compaction.
Subsequently, vibration and loss control consultants rely on our expertise, and
interpretation of resources, such as international vibration standards. For specific
projects, many factors are typically considered, including but not limited to the
structural sensitivity and construction methods (source characteristics).
In general, more restrictive vibration limits are applied to vibration sensitive
structures, such as buildings designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, than limits for
modern buildings.
The previously referenced FTA procedures report suggests limits based on the
structure type; see Table 1 following:
Table 1: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Type
PPV
mm/s)
Reinforced concrete, steel or timber (no plaster)
12.7
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)
7.6
Non -engineered timber and masonry
5.1
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage
3.0
Other references, such as the City of Toronto Municipal Code (Chapter 363-5),
specify PPV limits with consideration of the corresponding frequency of the
construction generated vibration, with the lower thresholds applicable at frequency
levels of IOHz or less. Based on our extensive experience monitoring construction we
anticipate vibration frequency levels from conventional machinery measuring in the
20-50 Hz range for this project, well above the typical natural frequency of buildings
(3-11 Hz). Older `Heritage Designated' structures are often assigned lower criteria
regardless of favourable frequency and building condition. We note that the age of a
structure or the heritage designation does not necessarily mean that it is more
susceptible to vibration than other structure types. Structure condition should be
3
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024
Page 247 of 316
considered.
At the time of this report, condition survey documentation of the subject heritage
structures at 1385 Bleams Road was not available. Review of the aforementioned
CHC Limited Addendum to the Heritage Protection Plan indicates that these
structures are in good, sound condition; nonetheless, for the purposes of this
assessment and considering the heritage designation and age of these buildings, we
have conservatively modeled based on a restrictive 3.0 mm/s PPV value, typically
applied to buildings that are considered extremely susceptible to vibration damage.
ASSESSMENT
Table 2 presents the reference values used in prediction of the vibration levels with
respect to the proposed activities and anticipated machinery.
TABLE 2
Equipment Type
Reference
Distance (m)
Reference
PPV (mm/s)
Activity
Grading
Large Dozer
7.6
2.261
Grading
Small Dozer
7.6
0.076
Compaction
Vibratory Roller / Hoe-
ac
7.6
5.334
Excavation
Large Excavator
7.6
2.261
Hauling
Loaded Truck
7.6
1.930
Using these FTA reference values, we calculated the minimum separation distance at
which a level of 3.0 mm/s is predictable for each activity (source), without
consideration of site specific mitigation. The following equation was used:
PPVsource PPVRef (DR/D)" (mm/sec)
PPVRef reference value at 7.6m
DR reference distance (7.6m)
D Distance of machinery/activity to the receiver in metres
n value, for attenuation rate based on soil conditions
Factoring the Table 2 typical reference values for the various activities and factoring
competent soil conditions for this site (n = 1.3), set -back distances for the various
machinery types are presented in Table 3 following:
4
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024
Page 248 of 316
TABLE 3
Required Minimum Separation Distance (m)
PPV
(mm/s)
Dozer Small
Dozer
Compactor
Excavato
r
Dump
Truck
3.0
6.5
<1
12
6.5
5.5
MITIGATION PROCEDURES
Setback distances outlined in Table 3 should be maintained for each of the identified
activities in order to control vibration to below PPV limits generally specified for
vibration sensitive structures. Based on the revised site plan (August 14, 2024),
construction operations will not encroach within ±20 metres of the nearest existing
heritage structure at 1385 Bleams Road. See Figure 1.
Predicted vibration levels indicate work can be carried out in a safe manner, without
implementation of a fulltime vibration monitoring program, as the proposed work is
outside the required minimum setback distances for the various construction vibration
sources.
We recommend vibration testing at the onset of key activity, specifically compaction
of backfill and/or granular for pavement base, to verify the accuracy of the reference
values used in determining the safe setback distances. Testing/monitoring of these key
activities shall serve to assess site specific machinery, and allow for additional
mitigation of vibrations, if necessary.
During the recommended test period, digital, tri -axial seismographs shall be used,
with sensors spiked at ground level, positioned in line between the nearest point of the
existing heritage structures at 1385 Bleams Road and the vibration source,
programmed to measure and record PPV in real time (see Figure 1).
Should testing confirm vibration levels consistent with the reference values used in
this assessment, further mitigation will not be required. In the event that any of the
tested activities produce levels approaching the recommended PPV limit used for
assessment purposes, additional vibration mitigation measures may be required.
5
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024
Page 249 of 316
In summary, the following mitigation measures are required:
• Application of the Table 3 minimum setback distances
• Site vibration testing at the onset of key activities to verify the accuracy
of the Table 3 set -backs
Supplementary mitigation measures, should actual site testing indicate higher than
predicted levels, may include but not be limited to the following:
• Use of equipment known to produce lower generating vibration where
set -back distances are not feasible, verified through site specific vibration
monitoring
• Use of smaller vibratory equipment, such as a 48 -inch drum versus a 60 -
inch drum roller, in low mode for granular compaction and asphalt
compaction
• Smaller excavators/bulldozers for grading and granular placement work
• Ongoing remote vibration monitoring with automated alert notification
capability for vibration levels approaching the specified threshold
CONCLUSION
OZA Inspections Ltd. has conducted a pre -construction vibration impact assessment
for the proposed 1385 Bleams Road stacked townhouse block development. Based on
modelling, work will not encroach within the minimum setback distances required for
vibration pertaining to heritage structures on the subject property. Therefore, specific
vibration controls are not required.
Initial testing of vibration levels from key construction operations will help ensure
safe management and subsequent protection of the nearby heritage buildings.
INDENMITY
The information and recommendations contained in this report represent our
judgement in light of the limitations and industry standards for the preparation of
similar reports. Judgement was exercised in gathering and analyzing the information
obtained and the compilation of our report. This report carries no guaranties or
warranties as to the structural competence of adjacent buildings. This report must be a
read as a whole.
Notwithstanding full compliance with the specifications of the project, approval of the
6
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024
Page 250 of 316
construction plan and the successful completion of the work, the Contractor shall be
solely responsible for any damage, direct or indirect, arising from the work and shall
hold OZA harmless from any costs, liens, charges, claims or suits, including the costs
of defence arising from such damage, real or alleged. OZA accepts no responsibility
for damages that may be suffered by any third parry as the result of decisions made or
actions taken based on this report.
Respectfully submitted,
OZA Inspections Ltd.
David Williams
Senior Vice President
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Erik Q
P.Eng.
yQ �ssro,4�
E. QUIST
0
eEOFO
August 2024
Page 251 of 316
I
�- ■swca�z�.
BLEAMS R O A D
or Zone of Influence q -W—1
Excavation/Grading
r
— 6.5m�
Zone of Influence j �y
Compaction -12m
_J L_____
1 �
I 1385 Bleams
I
j Former
Schoolhouse
�. Building
•� j � I
L
EXISTING
WETACiIE
GARAGE
:I I •
S 6
I I I I
Vibration
Testing
Positions
EXISTING
SHED
FIGURE 1: VIBRATION ZONE OF INFLUENCE AUGUST 2024
OZA INSPECTIONS LTD 1385 BLEAMS ROAD HERITAGE STRUCTURES NTS
8
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024
Page 252 of 316
wuec DMIM 1L Maw
HT.r M'ir t
4
M
5'
BLOCK A
3 STOREY
(O UNITSi
1
B —
„•„
V a' Ip U.O KBE S..
I
�- ■swca�z�.
BLEAMS R O A D
or Zone of Influence q -W—1
Excavation/Grading
r
— 6.5m�
Zone of Influence j �y
Compaction -12m
_J L_____
1 �
I 1385 Bleams
I
j Former
Schoolhouse
�. Building
•� j � I
L
EXISTING
WETACiIE
GARAGE
:I I •
S 6
I I I I
Vibration
Testing
Positions
EXISTING
SHED
FIGURE 1: VIBRATION ZONE OF INFLUENCE AUGUST 2024
OZA INSPECTIONS LTD 1385 BLEAMS ROAD HERITAGE STRUCTURES NTS
8
OZA Inspections Ltd.
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024
Page 252 of 316
Staff Report
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: September 3, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals,
519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT: August 12, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-360
SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-017
307 Queen Street South
Foundation Repairs
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2024-IV-017 be approved to permit the foundation repairs on the property
municipally addressed as 307 Queen Street South in accordance with the
supplementary information submitted with this application.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to present staff's recommendation for foundation repairs
at the subject property municipally addressed as 307 Queen Street South.
• The key finding of this report is the proposed foundation repairs are necessary as the
current cement mortar is not appropriate for the long-term conservation of the building.
The proposed work will use pure hydraulic lime mortar to repair the foundation wall,
matching the historic mortar in colour, texture, and tooling
• There are no financial implications associated with this report.
• Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-
2024-IV-017 seeking permission to repair the foundation walls at the subject property
municipally addressed as 307 Queen Street South (Fig 1) (Attachment A).
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 253 of 316
51
JUal1EF
O,p
254
262
CORE
nosh Bar
h
C 290 251 `S'p
Vietcria Park �iaic
R�� w 253 152
Pa
\ y� 35 +0 4 iii 261
QPQ 31 ��' 'w,� 279 P % J
27 1 �' ! 93
79 � - �..— 95
99
CORIA PARK 85 1612 1513 ,t� _* '..., CEDAR HILL A 341
89 17, 543
yf�0 10 5 i 0_ Ij
11 4pC 8 3420 _
2
93 9 3S0 r � 4`.` -_'d, 120
1
\ \
91 372 339 ♦ 1/22 2` \ 119
� ` 351
9 ` 3C 323^ 125
361
400 36g 22
Vicrona Green 11 9�� ^,. 129
MILL LOUR (LAND WOODSIDE PARK 19 25 5�'pG� 135
T /
480 ��v� 369 379 148 `.C,i`O 54
^_7 4J�`�LF 56 62 36
432 f% }52 39 R 35
- 419 399 156 �O 145 p'70
�i 4i� 147 45 'Vq 66 3c
429
T 9 @
w6 C,hc, 5ko 14n
Figure 1. Location Map of 307 Queen Street South.
This permit has been brought before the Heritage Kitchener Committee as the subject
property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating By-
law 1988-78. In accordance with By-law 2009-089, delegating Council's approval for
certain classes of alterations to Staff, delegated approval authority is permitted for Part IV
designated properties after consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee.
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the south side of Queen Street South between
Courtland Avenue East and St. George Street. Home to the Bread and Roses Cooperative
Homes, the subject property contains one of the oldest industrial buildings in Kitchener
and is a complex of three buildings having separate construction dates.
Page 254 of 316
Figure 2. Front (west) fagade of 1879 building of the complex.
The original gable roofed building at the corner of Queen Street and Courtland Avenue
East was constructed in 1879 by Emil Vogelsang, known as the father of the Berlin button
industry (Fig. 2). This was his fourth and last button factory. The building was then taken
over Williams, Greene and Rome, who were shirt manufacturers, and they built an addition
c. 1893. During the first World War, the structure was used as a military barracks and was
subsequently sold to the Rumpel Felt Company in 1919.
The designation encompasses all elevations and rooflines of the 1879 and 1893 buildings.
It also includes the Queen Street fagade of the c. 1919 building. The designation by-law
identifies the property as being significant for its historical and architectural value, and
protects the following features of the property:
- Exterior fagade of each elevation, including the rooflines of the two older buildings
on the site ( the so-called "1879" and 1893" buildings)' and
- The fagade and roofline of the Queen Street elevation of the newest building (the
"1919 building")
Proposed Foundation Repair
The proposed work involves the foundation walls on the Queen Street South fagade (west)
and Courtland Avenue East fagade (south) on the original 1879 building. According to a
Building Condition Assessment done in 2022, spalled and cracked mortar was observed
on the stone foundation walls on these facades (Fig. 3-4). Furthermore, according to the
cover letter submitted with the heritage permit application the mortar of the stone
Page 255 of 316
foundation wall along Courtland Avenue East was done in 2012. However, the mortar
joints appear to have been repaired with cement, which is not an appropriate repointing
agent. The cement patch does not bond well with sand and causes more damage when it
falls.
_6
Figure 3. Cracking and spalling of the cement mortar Figure 4. Cracking and spalling of the cement mortar
on the side (south) fagade facing Courtland Avenue on the front (west) fagade facing Queen Street South.
East.
Lime based mortars are appropriate for their flexibility and breathability and minimize the
risk for moisture -related damage and cracking. The applicant is proposing to carry out the
repairs using "Daubois — XhN-60" mortar, which is a repointing mortar based on pure
hydraulic lime, well graded sand, and air entraining agent and colorant. The new mortar will
match the historic mortar in colour, texture, and tooling. There will be a mock up test prior
to full application.
The project will be overseen by Rimkus Consulting, with the proposed work being one by
Robertson Restoration, who specialize in masonry and restoration of historical/heritage
buildings.
The proposed alterations meet the "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built
Heritage Properties", especially:
• Respect for historical material — repair or conserve rather than replace building
materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention
maintains the historic content of the resource.
• Respect for original fabric — repair with like materials. Repair to return the resource
to its prior condition, without altering its integrity.
• Maintenance — with continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With
regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided.
The proposed alterations meet the "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada", especially:
• Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace, or
substantially alter its intact or repairable character -defining elements. Do not move a
part of an historic place if its current location if a character -defining elements.
• Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention.
Page 256 of 316
Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining elements to determine the
appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any
intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention.
Maintain character -defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining
elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods.
Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining
elements, where there are surviving prototypes.
Heritage Planning Comments
In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following:
• The subject property municipally addressed as 307 Queen Street South is designated
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of designating by-law 1988-78.
• The proposal is for the repair of foundation walls of the 1879 building.
• Portions of the foundation walls are in poor condition, with spalling and cracks
identified during a Building Condition Assessment in 2022.
• Previous work that has been done was done using cement mortar, which is not
appropriate for historic buildings.
• The application proposed the repair of the foundation wall using pure hydraulic lime
mortar to ensure the continued protected of the foundation walls.
• The proposed work is consistent with the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation
of Built Heritage Properties and with Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines
for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; and
• The proposed work will not adversely impact the building nor it's reasons for
designation.
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 has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit
Application.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Ontario Heritage Act, 2022
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
Page 257 of 316
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A —Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-017
Attachment B — Cover Letter — 307 Queen Street South Foundation Repair
Page 258 of 316
2024
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION &
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
�—� Development & Housing Approvals
.L 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor
MNER Kitchener ON N2G 4V6
519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca
PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Page 1 of 10
The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order thal
their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible.
If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(a)kitchener.ca.
1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION?
The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with
the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources.
Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical
change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management
is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications
and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and
heritage attributes.
As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace
original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their
heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be
compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of
heritage attributes.
According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the
alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner
applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the
approval of a Heritage Permit Application.
Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts
(designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act).
2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED?
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated
under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act
(within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to
change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a
Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the
Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the
approval of a Heritage Permit Application.
Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application:
• Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building
• Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings
• Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material
• Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies
• Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys
• Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2024
• Repointing of brick
Page 2 of 10
Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies
and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's
website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan
(Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area).
3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION?
The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage
Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any
proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where
required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as
required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted.
Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage
Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum,
the following information is required:
Heritage Permit Application Form
The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit
Application Form.
Written Description
The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should
complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information
submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work
including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc.
Construction and Elevation Drawings
Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit
a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph.
Drawings must be drawn to scale and include:
a) Overall dimensions
b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or
addition to a building
c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building
d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.)
e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles
f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description)
g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description)
Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff
following discussion with the applicant.
Photographs
Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property
is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the
specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be
included.
Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with
hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged.
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2024
Samples
Page 3 of 10
It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener
meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding,
roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours.
Other Required Information
In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact
Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional
information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre -
consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly
encouraged.
4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED?
City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to
solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions
usually result in successful applications.
However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised
application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations
to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated
under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V).
5. IMPORTANT NOTES
Professional Assistance
Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the
applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or
others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents.
Building Codes and Other By-laws
It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and
by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City's zoning and property
standards by-laws.
2024 Heritage Permit Application
Submission Deadlines
2024 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates
November 24, 2023
January 9, 2024
December 29, 2023
February 6, 2024
January 26, 2024
March 5, 2024
February 23, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 29, 2024
May 7, 2024
April 26, 2024
June 4, 2024
-
No July Meeting
June 28, 2024
August 61 2024
July 26, 2024
September 3, 2024
August 23, 2024
October 1, 2024
September 27, 2024
November 5, 2024
-
No December Meeting
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2024 Page 4 of 10
6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION?
a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal
submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that
might help with your proposed changes.
b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written
description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff
are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission
deadlines and committee meeting dates).
c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all
supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the
Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant.
d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under
delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage
Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to
Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavour to process the application within
10 business days.
e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff
prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines
and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site
inspection.
f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to
Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting.
g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present
staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the
Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to
attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information,
which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage
Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be
processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning.
Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage
Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be
forwarded to Council for final decision.
h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to
Council for final decision, Council may:
1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application;
2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or,
3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application.
i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or
terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).
7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO
DESIGNATED PROPERTY
Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for
designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area,
including the following:
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2024
Page 5 of 10
Setting
1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property
2. Lot size related to building size
3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street)
Building Details
1. Proportion and massing
2. Roof type and shape
3. Materials and detailing
4. Windows and doors:
• Style
• Proportions
• Frequency or placement
5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape
Heritage Attributes
The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes:
Windows and Doors
The applicant should consider in order of priority:
1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy
efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff)
2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour
3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units
If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following:
• Description of the condition of the existing units
• Reasons for replacing the units
• Description of the proposed new units
If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered:
• A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct
a replica of the original
• The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed
• Exterior trim should match the original
Roofing
The application should include:
• Description of proposed roofing material to be applied
• If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what
the original material might have been
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2024
Page 6 of 10
Masonry Work
The application should include:
A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and
methods of repair and application
• Outline the reasons for the work
Signage
The application should include:
• A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed
A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials, methods of construction, colours and
means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between
historic masonry units or into wood building elements)
• Type of illumination, if applicable
Awnings
The application should include:
• A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo
A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism,
method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be
arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements)
• Type of illumination, if applicable.
8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION
Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including
the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area,
specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should
provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the
building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus
cost to demolish and construct a new building.
9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES
The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction
or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage
Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In
addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the
Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at
www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx).
For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning
staff at heritage(o-)-kitchener.ca.
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2024
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION &
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
�—� Development & Housing Approvals
.L 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor
MNER Kitchener ON N2G 4V6
519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca
STAFF USE ONLY
Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number:
H PA -
PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
1. NATURE OF APPLICATION
Page 7 of 10
0 Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage
❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation
2. SUBJECT PROPERTY
Municipal Address: 307 Queen Street South, Kitchener, ON, N2G 4V3
Legal Description (if know):
Building/Structure Type: 12 Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional
Heritage Designation: 12 Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District)
Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ® No
3. PROPERTY OWNER
Name: Bread and Roses Cooperative Homes (Kitchener) Inc
Address: 307 Queen Street South, Office
City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4V3
Phone
Email:
4. AGENT (if applicable)
Name:
Company:
Address: As Above
City/Province/Postal Code:
Phone:
Email:
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2024
5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
Page 8 of 10
Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail
as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric
is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener
Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction.
See cover letter
6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work:
Foundation wall (along Queen St and Courtland) has spalled and cracked mortar and needs to be repaired.
See cover letter for more details.
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage
Conservation District Plan:
The new sand mortar will match the original in colour, texture, and tooling.
See cover letter for more details.
Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx):
As above
7. PROPOSED WORKS
a) Expected start date: 2024-09-09 Expected completion date: 2024-10-04
b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ❑ Yes 0 No
- If yes, who did you speak to?
c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes 13 No
- If yes, who did you speak to?
d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes 0 No
e) Other related Building or Planning applications
Application number,
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
2024
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Page 9 of 10
The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this
application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this
application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application.
The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the
information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and
the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or
issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application
will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and
Council meeting. Submission of, this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter
upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are
necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has
been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and
this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The
undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and
understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any
of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the
requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event
this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener
or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could
result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: c23 A"' T'_Y 202-1/
Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Zp'214 ^47_2 j
9. AUTHORIZATION
If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must
be completed:
I / We, Bread and Roses Co-operative Homes (Kitchener) Inc , owner of the land that is subject of this application,
hereby authorize to act on my / our behalf in this regard.
Signature of Owner/Agent: Date. a3° �vU� y /�Zo7_�
Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: �� 0 7 (�" 4l 7 2-3
The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2),
and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of
administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under
Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection
of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division,
City of Kitchener (519-741-2769).
A city for •
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community
Page 267 of 316
2024
Application Number:
Application Received:
Application Complete:
Notice of Receipt:
Notice of Decision:
90 -Day Expiry Date:
PROCESS:
❑ Heritage Planning Staff:
❑ Heritage Kitchener:
❑ Council:
STAFF USE ONLY
Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage
Page 10 of 10
July 24, 2024
City Of Kitchener
Bread and Roses Co-operative Homes (Kitchener) Inc.
307 Queen Street South, Kitchener, ON, N2G 4V3
Phone: 519-742-4886 Fax: 519-742-0388
E-mail: i nfo(ft readan d roses. coop
Different grains, same loaf; rising and growing together!
Development & Housing Approvals
200 King Street West, 6th Floor
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4V6
Re: Heritage Permit Application for Foundation Repair at 307 Queen Street S
Bread and Roses Co-operative Homes (Kitchener) Inc is applying for a Heritage Permit Application to
repair foundation wall of the 1879 heritage building. The repair will involve re -pointing the above -grade
portion of the foundation wall along Queen St. and Courtland Ave. The new sand mortar will match the
original design. Here is a map showing where the foundation repair is required.
The 1879 Building has been built on stone masonry foundation. Spalled and cracked mortar was
observed on the stone foundation wall along Queen St. during our most recent Building Condition
Assessment (conducted by Rimkus Consulting in 2022). The mortar of the stone foundation wall along
Courtland Avenue (west elevation) was redone in 2012. The mortar joints appear to have been repaired
with cement. Patching sand mortar with cement mortar is not a proper repair as the cement patch
does not bond with sand and causes more damage when it fails. Here are some pictures that show the
condition of the wall:
Page 269 of 316
Photographs
General view of stone foundation on the west.
Loss of mortar at stonemasonry joints.
Previous repairs were noted to consist or areas or cement
patches on the existing masonry.
General view of the Stone masonry foundation walls on the
south elevation
The proposed repair will use Dau boisTM - XhN-60, a repointing mortar based on pure hydraulic lime,
well graded sand, an air entraining agent and colorant. The hydraulic properties (hardens by reaction
with water) of this lime allows formulation of a cement free mortar which is closer to the formulation
of historic mortars. The new mortar will match the historic mortar in colour, texture, and tooling. There
will be a mock-up test prior to full application.
If the permit is granted, the proposed work will start on September 91h and end on October 4th. This
project will be overseen by our project managers from Rim kus Consulting. They prepared a tender and
sent it to contractors specializing in masonry and restoration of historical/heritage buildings. Bread and
Roses Co-op's Board of Directors chose the winning bid from Robertson Restoration.
The full tender document (Appendix A) and full submission of the winning bid (Appendix B) are
attached to this application.
Please reach out to me at info@breadandroses.coop or 519-742-4886 if you have any questions about
this application or require more information..
Sincerely,
Office Manager
Page 270 of 316
Staff Report
r
NJ :R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: September 3, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals,
519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602
DATE OF REPORT: August 12, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-361
SUBJECT: Municipal Heritage Register Review — September 2024
RECOMMENDATION:
The pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or
interest be recognized, and designation be pursued for the following properties:
• 53 Church Street
• 265 Frederick Street
• 57-61 Stirling Avenue North
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to recommend pursuing designation under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act for three properties that are currently listed as non -designated
properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register.
• The key finding of this report is that the properties possess design/physical,
historical/associative, and contextual value and meet the criteria for designation under
Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22).
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
On January 1 st, 2023, amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) came into effect
through Bill 23, the More Homes Build Faster Act. One of the primary changes introduced
was the imposition of a new timeline which requires "listed" properties on the Municipal
Heritage Register to be evaluated to determine if they meet the criteria for heritage
designation before January 1 st, 2025. Bill 200, the Homeowners Protection Act, 2024,
extended the time municipalities have to designate properties listed on their municipal
heritage registers until January 1, 2027. Listed properties are properties that have not
been designated, but that the municipal Council believes to be of cultural heritage value or
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 271 of 316
interest. The criteria for designation is established by the Provincial Government (Ontario
Regulation 9/06, which has now been amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22) and a
minimum of two must be met for a property to be eligible for designation.
A work plan to address these changes has been developed by Heritage Planning Staff
with consultation from the Heritage Kitchener Committee on February 7t", 2023.
Implementation of the work plan has now commenced. This report contains a summary of
the findings for the properties recently reviewed, and recommendations for next steps.
Progress on Work Plan Implementation
As part of the work plan proposed in February 2023, Heritage Planning Staff committed to
the review of 80 properties listed on the Municipal Heritage Register prior to January 1,
2025. As of the date of this report, a review has been complete for 81 properties. 3
properties are before the Committee as of the date of this report to be considered for
designation. 26 properties have fully undergone the designation process. 37 properties are
currently undergoing the designation process and are at various stages of completion. 15
properties have been reviewed and determined that no action should be taken at this time.
Bill 200, the Homeowners Protection Act, 2024, extended the time municipalities have to
designate properties listed on their municipal heritage registers until January 1, 2027. Staff
are working on an updated Work Plan and will bring it forward to Heritage Kitchener later
this year.
REPORT:
Ontario Regulation 569/22 (Amended from Ontario Regulation 9/06)
Among the changes that were implemented through Bill 23, the Ontario Regulation 9/06 —
which is a regulation used to determine the cultural heritage value or interest of a property,
was amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22 (O. Reg. 569/22). Where the original
regulation had three main categories — design/physical, historical/associative and
contextual - with three (3) sub -categories for determining cultural heritage value, the
amended regulation now lists all nine (9) criteria independently.
The new regulation has been amended to the following:
1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique,
representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction
method.
2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree
of craftsmanship or artistic merit.
3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high
degree of technical or scientific achievement.
4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct
associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution
that is significant to a community.
5. The property has historical or associative value because it yields, or has the
potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community
or culture.
Page 272 of 316
6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or
reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is
significant to a community.
7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or
supporting the character of an area.
8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or
historically linked to its surroundings.
9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.
Also, among the changes brought about by Bill 23 are how properties can now be listed or
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. They include:
• Properties would warrant being listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register if
they met one or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22).
• Properties could be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act if they
meet two or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22).
The following three properties were reviewed and meet the following criteria:
53 Church Street
The subject property municipally addressed as 53 Church Street meets five (5) of the nine
(9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22):
• The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique,
representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction
method.
• The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct
associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution
that is significant to a community.
• 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.
• 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.
• The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or
supporting the character of an area.
265 Frederick Street
The subject property municipally addressed as 53 Church Street meets four (4) of the nine
(9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22):
• The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique,
representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction
method.
The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree
of craftsmanship or artistic merit.
The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or
supporting the character of an area.
The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or
historically linked to its surroundings.
Page 273 of 316
57-61 Stirling Avenue North
The subject property municipally addressed as 57-61 Stirling Avenue North meets five (5)
of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22):
• The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique,
representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction
method.
• The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct
associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution
that is significant to a community.
• 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.
• The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or
supporting the character of an area.
• The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or
historically linked to its surroundings.
Heritage Kitchener Committee Options
Option 1 — Pursuing Designation for this property
Should Heritage Kitchener committee vote to start pursuing designation for these
properties, staff will then contact the respective property owners to inform them and to
start working with them towards designation. Staff will then bring a Notice of Intention to
Designate back to the Committee to initiate the designation process. Should a property
owner object to their property being designated, they can submit an appeal to the Ontario
Land Tribunal (OLT) to rule on the decision. If the OLT determines that the property should
not be designated but remain listed, it will be removed from the Municipal Heritage
Register on January 1, 2027.
Option 2 — Deferring the Designation Process
Should Heritage Kitchener vote to defer the designation process for these properties, they
will remain listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2027, after
which it will have to be removed. The process of designating these properties can be
started at any time until January 1, 2027.
Option 3 — Not Pursuing Designation for these properties
Should Heritage Kitchener vote not to pursue the designation of these properties, they will
remain listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2027, after which it
will be removed. Once removed, these properties will not be able to be re -listed for the
next five (5) years i.e. — January 1, 2032.
It should be noted that, per the endorsed work plan, staff are currently undertaking
evaluations for high priority properties that are in located in areas of the City that are
experiencing significant redevelopment.
Page 274 of 316
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 council / committee meeting.
CONSULT AND COLLABORATE — The Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage
Kitchener) have been consulted at previous meetings regarding the proposed strategy to
review the Municipal Heritage Register of Non -designated Properties and participated in
the assessment of the properties subject to this report.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Heritage Kitchener Committee Work Plan 2022-2024 — DSD -2023-053
• Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review — DSD -2023-225
• Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register Review — August Update 2023— DSD -2023-
309
• Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update — DSD -2024-022
• Municipal Heritage Register Review — March 2024 Update — DSD -2024-093
• Municipal Heritage Register Review — April 2024 Update — DSD -2024-131
• Municipal Heritage Register Review — May 2024 Update — DSD -2024-194
• Municipal Heritage Register Review — June 2024 Update — DSD -2024-250
• Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2024 Update — DSD -2024-333
• Ontario Heritage Act, 2022
REVIEWED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Updated Statement of Significance - 53 Church Street
Attachment B — Updated Statement of Significance — 265 Frederick Street
Attachment C — Updated Statement of Significance — 57-61 Stirling Avenue North
Page 275 of 316
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
53 Church Street
60 35
74
7?53 65
51 /
1
33
. $7146 53-60 %
`/ 56
Summary of Significance
®Design/Physical Value
®Historical Value
®Contextual Value
❑Social Value
❑Economic Value
❑Environmental Value
Municipal Address: 53 Church Street
Legal Description: Plan 394 Part Lot 41 Plan 393 Part Lot 45
Year Built: c. 1875
Architectural Style: Vernacular with Romanesque influences
Original Owner: Unknown
Original Use: Religious
Condition: Good
Descriation of Cultural Heritaae Resource
53 Church Street is a two-storey late 19th century brick church built in the Vernacular architectural
style with Romanesque influences. The church is situated on a 0.49 -acre parcel of land located on the
south side of Church Street between Benton Street and Peter Street in the Cedar Hill Planning
Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that
contributes to the heritage value is the church.
Heritage Value
53 Church Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values.
Page 276 of 316
Desipn/Physical Value
The property municipally addressed as 53 Church Street demonstrates design/physical value as an
early example of a 20th century, religious building, displaying Vernacular architecture with influences
from the Romanesque Revival architectural style. The Romanesque Revival architectural style
originates in 19th century romanticism and is distinguished by its use of round arches (Blumenson,
1990). These round arches were considered primitive, not widely accepted, and often the primary
distinction between the Romanesque Revival and the Gothic Revival architectural style (Blumenson,
1990).
The design/physical values relate to the design, composition, craftsmanship and details of the church.
The church is an example of the Vernacular architectural style with Romanesque influences with
many intact heritage attributes in good condition.
Front Elevation (East FaQade)
The front elevation faces Church Street, is built with buff (yellow) brick, and features a three bay wide
symmetrical fagade with buttresses between each baby and a steeply pitched front -gabled roof.
The central bay features: buff (yellow) brick construction, buttresses with caps; front -gabled roof with
brick corbels; round window opening with brick hoodmould, including keystone and dripstones; paired
semi -circular 1/1 windows and window openings with brick hoodmould, including keystones and
dripstones, and angled sills; front -gabled entrance with semi -circular door opening; and, wood doors
with square panels, elongated lites and wood paneled transom.
The left bay features: buff (yellow) brick construction; buttresses with caps; continuation of the front -
gabled roof with brick corbels; semi -circular 1/1 window and window opening with brick hoodmould,
including keystone and dripstones, and angled sill; and, paired semi -circular windows and window
openings with brick voussoirs and angled sills.
The right bay features: buff (yellow) brick construction; buttresses with caps; continuation of the front -
gabled roof with brick corbels; and, semi -circular 1/1 window and window opening with brick
hoodmould, including keystone and dripstones, and angled sill.
Side Elevations (South & North Fa(;ades)
The side facades are seven bays wide and feature: buff (yellow) brick construction on the second
storey; primarily concrete ashlar parging on the first storey; brick pilasters; semi -circular 1/1 windows
and window openings, with brick hoodmoulds, including keystones and dripstones, and angled sills;
and, segmentally arched window openings.
Historical/Associative Value
The historic and associative value relates to the use of the land and the various congregations that
have occupied the building over time, including Wesleyan Methodist Church (1842- c. 1880); United
Brethren in Christ (c. 1880-1907); Congregational Church (1907-1921); Grace Tabernacle (1921-
1935); Mennonite Brethren (1935-1953); Bethel Evangelical Lutheran (1953-1966); and, Martin Luther
Evangelical Church (1966 -present). The land has a long history of religious use beginning with the
Wesleyan Methodists in 1842 (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-85). The United Brethren in Christ
congregation purchased land and a small frame building from Wesleyan Methodists in 1868
(Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-85).
Page 277 of 316
The Wesleyan Methodist Mission dates to 1841 in Berlin (now Kitchener) when the congregation first
began to meet in homes and other buildings (Uttley, 2008). By 1842, the Wesleyan Methodist Church
purchased 1 acre of land on lot 41 for a chapel and cemetery (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-1985; Uttley,
2008). With their limited resources, the congregation of 120 people was able to construct a frame
building (Uttley, 2008). The Trust of the Methodist Church of Canada sold a '/2 acre of the property to
United Brethren in Christ in 1868 (Kolartisch & Horne, 1984-1985). The United Brethren in Christ
congregation retained the cemetery until 1876 when the lands were sold to William Moyer and the
remains/ashes were move to Mount Hope Cemetery allowing for the cemetery lands to be sold for
building lots (Uttley, 2008). In 1889, a division at the General Conference occurred when
amendments were proposed to the Constitution of the Church resulting in division within the
congregation (Uttley, 2008). The congregation on Church Street eventually joined the Congregational
Church in 1906 (Ambrose, 1993). The Bethel Evangelical Lutheran Church Golden Jubilee booklet
(1999) provides a history of the congregation between 1949 and 1999. This congregation was
founded by Pastor C.T. Wetzstein, who spoke both English and German. He welcomed refugees
during and after WWII resulting in the need to establish a German language congregation in 1949
known as the Bethel Evangelical Lutheran Church. This congregation bought the property at 53
Church Street in 1953 for $23,000 (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-1985). In 1952, contractor Oscar Wiles
(b. February 26, 1893; d. March 27, 1980) started excavation for the foundation of the annex
designed by W.H.E. Schmalz (Bethel Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1999; City of Kitchener, 1952).
The church was re -dedicated on May 24, 1953 and provided German language services (KW Record,
1953). The Trust of the German Evangelical Martin Luther Church bought the property in 1966 for
$33,000 (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-1985).
W.H.E. Schmalz (b. July 29, 1890) was born in Berlin (now Kitchener), studied architecture at the
University of Toronto, and apprenticed with the firm of Darling & Pearson (Hill, 2022). He worked as
an architect from 1914 until c. 1960 during which time he designed or co -designed various buildings
and structures such as the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance building on Queen Street North, several
church buildings and additions, structures at Victoria Park (e.g., entry gates, boat house), and the
Cenotaph now located at Duke and Frederick Streets (Hill, 2022).
The 1952 building addition was constructed by Oscar Wiles and Sons Ltd, established in 1927 as
Oscar Wiles General Contractor. This contracting company has built several houses, churches,
schools, and factories within the area, with their first job being the construction of the former KW
Record building located at the intersection of Duke and Queen Street.
Contextual Value
The contextual values relate to the contribution that the church makes to the continuity and character
of the Church Street streetscape. The placement and massing blend with adjacent buildings and
much of the building stock on both sides of Church Street, particularly in terms of setback and height.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 53 Church Street resides in the following heritage attributes:
All elements related to the design/physical value of the church built in the Vernacular
architectural style with influences from the Romanesque architectural style, including:
Page 278 of 316
o Orientation towards Church Street, two-storey height, rectangular plan, buff (yellow) brick,
buttresses or pilasters between each bay and steeply pitched front -gabled roof;
o All elements of the three -bay front (east) elevation, including:
■ The central bay features: buff (yellow) brick construction; buttresses with caps;
front -gabled roof with brick corbels; round window opening with brick hoodmould,
including keystone and dripstones; paired semi -circular 1/1 windows and window
openings with brick hoodmould, including keystones and dripstones, and angled
sills; front -gabled entrance with semi -circular door opening; and, wood doors with
square panels, elongated lites and wood paneled transom.
■ The left bay features: buff (yellow) brick construction; buttresses with caps;
continuation of the front -gabled roof with brick corbels; semi -circular 1/1 window
and window opening with brick hoodmould, including keystone and dripstones,
and angled sill; and, paired semi -circular windows and window openings with
brick voussoirs and angled sills.
■ The right bay features: buff (yellow) brick construction; buttresses with caps;
continuation of the front -gabled roof with brick corbels; and, semi -circular 1/1
window and window opening with brick hoodmould, including keystone and
dripstones, and angled sill.
o All elements of the side elevations, including:
■ Width of seven bays; buff (yellow) brick construction on the second storey;
primarily concrete ashlar parging on the first storey; brick pilasters; semi -circular
1/1 windows and window openings, with brick hoodmoulds, including keystones
and dripstones, and angled sills; and, segmentally arched window openings.
References
Ambrose, R. W. (1993). Waterloo County Churches: A Research Guide to Churches Established
Before 1900. Kitchener, ON: Waterloo -Wellington Branch, Ontario Genealogical Society.
Bethel Evangelical Lutheran Church. (1999). Golden Jubilee Short History of Bethel 1949-1999.
Kitchener, ON: Bethel Evangelical Lutheran Church.
City of Kitchener. (1952). Building Permit # 13547. Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener.
Hill, R. G. (2022). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from
http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org/node/272' on August 9, 2024.
Horne, M. & Kolaritsch, D. (1984-1985). LACAC Report. Kitchener, 1984-1985.
KW Record. (1953). Membership Gains Shown by Churches. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario.
Uttley, W.V. (2008). A History of Kitchener, Ontario. Milton, ON: Global Heritage Press.
Page 279 of 316
Photographs
h
Front Elevation (North Fagade)
Front and Side Elevation (North and West Facades)
Page 280 of 316
Side Elevation (East Fa(;ade)
Page 281 of 316
1
6 "1'1*11 61 10k
CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM
53 Church Street
Address:
Description:
(date of construction, architectural style, etc)
Photographs Attached:
Recorder:
Date:
❑Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade
Michelle Drake
July 29, 2024
❑ Details ❑ Setting
Designation Criteria
Recorder —Heritage Kitchener
Heritage Planning Staff
Committee
1. This property has
design value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
physical value
Yes
❑
Yes
0
because it is a rare,
unique,
representative or
early example of a
style, type,
expression, material
or construction
method.
2. The property has
design value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No 0
physical value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
because it displays a
high degree of
craftsmanship or
artistic merit.
3. The property has
design value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No 0
physical value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
because it
demonstrates a high
degree of technical or
scientific
achievement.
Page 282 of 316
* E.g. - constructed with a
unique material
combination or use,
incorporates challenging
geometric designs etc.
4. The property has
historical value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
associative value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
because it has direct
associations with a
theme, event, belief,
person, activity,
organization or
institution that is
significant to a
community.
*Additional archival work
may be required.
5. The property has
historical or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
associative value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
because it yields, or
has the potential to
yield, information
that contributes to an
understanding of a
community or
culture.
* E.g - A commercial
building may provide an
understanding of how the
economic development of
the City occured.
Additional archival work
may be required.
6. The property has
historical value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
associative value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
because it
demonstrates or
reflects the work or
ideas of an architect,
artist, builder,
designer or theorist
who is significant to a
community.
Page 283 of 316
*Additional archival work
Recorder
Heritage Kitchener
may be required.
Interior: Is the interior
arrangement, finish,
7. The property has
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑
Yes ❑
Yes ❑
contextual value
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
because it is
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
important in defining,
maintaining or
supporting the
character of an area.
* E.g. - It helps to define
an entrance point to a
neighbourhood or helps
establish the (historic)
rural character of an area.
8. The property has
contextual value
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No X
because it is
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
physically,
functionally, visually
or historically linked
to its surroundings.
*Additional archival work
may be required.
9. The property has
contextual value
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No X
because it is a
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
landmark.
*within the region, city or
neighborhood.
Notes
Additional Criteria
Recorder
Heritage Kitchener
Committee
Interior: Is the interior
arrangement, finish,
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑
Yes ❑
Yes ❑
Page 284 of 316
craftsmanship and/or
detail noteworthy?
Completeness: Does this
structure have other
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
original outbuildings,
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
notable landscaping or
external features that
complete the site?
Site Integrity: Does the
structure occupy its
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
original site?
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
* If relocated, is it relocated on
its original site, moved from
another site, etc.
Alterations: Does this
building retain most of its
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
original materials and
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
design features? Please
refer to the list of
heritage attributes within
the Statement of
Significance and indicate
which elements are still
existing and which ones
have been removed.
Alterations: Are there
additional elements or
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑X
features that should be
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
added to the heritage
attribute list?
Condition: Is the building
in good condition?
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
*E.g. - Could be a good
candidate for adaptive re -use if
possible and contribute
towards equity -building and
climate change action.
Indigenous History:
Could this site be of
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes
importance to
❑
❑
Indigenous heritage and
❑ Additional Research Required
❑ Additional Research Required
history?
Page 285 of 316
*E.g. - Site within 300m of
water sources, near distinct
topographical land, or near
cemeteries might have
archaeological potential and
indigenous heritage potential.
Could there be any urban
Indigenous history
associated with the
property?
* Additional archival work may
be required.
Function: What is the
present function of the
subject property?
* Other may include vacant,
social, institutional, etc. and
important for the community
from an equity building
perspective.
Diversity and Inclusion:
Does the subject
property contribute to
the cultural heritage of a
community of people?
Does the subject
property have intangible
value to a specific
community of people?
* E.g.- Waterloo Masjid
(Muslim Society of Waterloo &
Wellington Counties) was the
first established Islamic Center
and Masjid in the Region and
contributes to the history of
the Muslim community in the
area.
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
Unknown ❑ Residential ❑
Commercial ❑
Office ❑ Other ❑ -
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
Notes about Additional Criteria Examined
X11
N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Co
mmercial ❑
Office ❑ Other ❑X Religious
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
Page 286 of 316
1
KIR
Recommendation
Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?)
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X
If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up
❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register
❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register
❑ Additional Research Required
Other:
General / Additional Notes
TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF:
Date of Property Owner Notification:
Page 287 of 316
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Jar
f!,
I -
9
Summary of Significance
®Design/Physical Value
❑Historical Value
®Contextual Value
265 Frederick Street
. ,�''•y 261
1
7�
257
Summary of Significance
®Design/Physical Value
❑Historical Value
®Contextual Value
265 Frederick Street
❑Social Value
❑Economic Value
❑Environmental Value
Municipal Address: 265 Frederick Street
Legal Description: Plan 424 Part Lot 7
Year Built: c. 1901
Architectural Style: Decorative Berlin Vernacular
Original Owner: Arthur Foster Senior
Original Use: Residential
Condition: Good
Description of Cultural Heritage Resource
265 Frederick Street is a two -and -a -half storey early -20th century brick building built in the Decorative
Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.14 -acre parcel of land located on
the south side of Frederick Street directly opposite Pequegnat Avenue in the Central Frederick
Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource
that contributes to the heritage value is the main building.
Page 288 of 316
. ,�''•y 261
1
❑Social Value
❑Economic Value
❑Environmental Value
Municipal Address: 265 Frederick Street
Legal Description: Plan 424 Part Lot 7
Year Built: c. 1901
Architectural Style: Decorative Berlin Vernacular
Original Owner: Arthur Foster Senior
Original Use: Residential
Condition: Good
Description of Cultural Heritage Resource
265 Frederick Street is a two -and -a -half storey early -20th century brick building built in the Decorative
Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.14 -acre parcel of land located on
the south side of Frederick Street directly opposite Pequegnat Avenue in the Central Frederick
Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource
that contributes to the heritage value is the main building.
Page 288 of 316
Heritage Value
265 Frederick Street is recognized for its design/physical and historical/associative values.
Desipn/Physical Value
The property municipally addressed as 265 Frederick Street demonstrates design/physical value as a
representative example of the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The Decorative Berlin
Vernacular architectural style provided the transition between the earlier decorative Queen Anne and
the later plain and simple Berlin Vernacular architectural style (Hill, 1996). The form is consistent with
the Berlin Vernacular, with a front gable roof and full -width verandah, but with more decorative
features (Hill, 1996). Examples of decorative features include wood shingle gable with attic window
and ornate trellis at the peak, elaborate wood eaves brackets, brick fagade, painted wood verandah
with a decorative gable over the entrance, wood columns with tapered brackets on brick piers, painted
wood shingle handrail, and wide entrance steps with brick side parapet walls.
The design/physical value relates to the craftsmanship and architecture of the building. The building is
constructed in the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style with unique decorative features and
is in good condition. The building is unusually tall at two -and -a -half storeys in height and unusually
wide at about 13 metres (44 feet). The building features unusual, side elevations featuring flared
gables with return eaves.
Front Elevation (North Fa(;ade)
The front fagade faces Frederick Street and features: red brick construction; prominent front gable
roofline with return eaves; horizontal wood cladding along with a ribbon of four continuous round
headed windows with decorative trim in the gable end; wood soffits and fascia; 1/1 flat headed
windows with brick voussoirs on the second storey; large flatheaded picture window with stained
glass transom and brick voussoir; flatheaded bay window with stained glass transoms; flatheaded
entrance door with brick voussoir; full width verandah features shallow hip roofline, wood soffit and
cornice brackets, decorative gable over entrance, round tapered wood columns with square brick
piers; decorative wood balusters; wood skirt; and, rusticated stone foundation.
Side Elevation (West Fa(;ade)
The side fagade features: red brick construction; side flared gable roofline with return eaves and
paired brackets; horizontal wood cladding along with paired flatheaded windows with decorative trim
in the gable end; wood soffits and fascia; chimney; 1/1 flat headed window with brick voussoir; one -
storey projecting bay with flat headed windows transoms; three flatheaded basement window
openings; and, rusticated stone foundation.
Side Elevation (East FaQade)
The side fagade features: red brick construction; side flared gable roofline with return eaves and
paired brackets; horizontal wood cladding and a round window with decorative trim in the gable end;
wood soffits and fascia; chimney; flat headed window openings with brick voussoirs; flathead entrance
door with brick voussoir; one flatheaded basement window opening; and, rusticated stone foundation.
Page 289 of 316
Historical/Associative Value
265 Frederick Street is associated with Arthur Foster Senior (b. June 16, 1856; d. January 19, 1931)
who immigrated to Canada and settled in Berlin (now Kitchener) c. 1875. He worked as a shoemaker,
shoe factory agent, and traveler shoe factory. He was Methodist. He was married to Sarah Spencer
(b. January 31, 1857; d. February 11, 1916) and together they had nine (9) children (Annie, Arthur
Junior, Elinor "Nellie", Louisa, Joseph, Lillian, Walter, Ida F., and Archibald). Arthur Senior was the
Chairman of Canada's Diamond Jubilee and a Council Member of the Berlin Board of Trade. Arthur
Junior (b. March 25, 2877; d. July 31, 1933) was a Methodist, Teacher, and Managing Director the
Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada. He was also involved in politics serving as a Councillor
(1919-1921) and Deputy Reeve (1922-1923).
Despite the information noted above, it is not clear if Arthur Senior or Arthur Junior were significant to
the community. It is unclear if the property has the potential to yield information that contributes to an
understanding of a community or culture. The architect and builder are unknown. Research materials
reviewed included the Berliner Journal "Progress in Berlin" reports, various City Directories (e.g.,
Vernon's), various volumes of the Waterloo Historical Society, and the 1904, 1917 and 1924-1925
Fire Insurance Plans.
Contextual Value
The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character
of the Frederick Street streetscape. The property is located within the Central Frederick
Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). One heritage attribute found within CHLs is
terminating views. Pequegnat Avenue and Fredrick Street create a `T' intersection with a terminating
view down Pequegnat Avenue towards the front facade of the building. This terminating view visually
links Pequegnat Avenue and the front fagade of the building at 265 Frederick Street.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 265 Frederick Street resides in the following heritage attributes:
All elements related to the Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style of the house, including:
o location, massing and scale of building;
o unusually tall height at two -and -a -half storeys;
o unusually wide width of front fagade at about 13 metres (44 feet);
o unusual, side elevations featuring flared gables with return eaves;
o Front Elevation (North FaQade)
■ red brick construction;
■ prominent front gable roofline with return eaves;
■ horizontal wood cladding along with a ribbon of four continuous round headed
windows with decorative trim in the gable end;
■ wood soffits and fascia;
■ 1/1 flat headed windows with brick voussoirs on the second storey;
■ large flatheaded picture window with stained glass transom and brick voussoir;
■ flatheaded bay window with stained glass transoms;
■ flatheaded entrance door with brick voussoir;
Page 290 of 316
■ full width verandah features shallow hip roofline, wood soffit and cornice
brackets, decorative gable over entrance, round tapered wood columns with
square brick piers, decorative wood balusters, and wood skirt; and,
■ rusticated stone foundation.
o Side Elevation (West Fagade)
■ red brick construction;
■ side flared gable roofline with return eaves and paired brackets;
■ horizontal wood cladding along with paired flatheaded windows with decorative
trim in the gable end;
■ wood soffits and fascia;
■ chimney;
■ 1 /1 flatheaded window with brick voussoir;
■ one -storey projecting bay with flat headed windows with transoms;
■ three flatheaded basement window openings; and,
■ rusticated stone foundation.
o Side Elevation (East Fagade)
■ red brick construction;
■ side flared gable roofline with return eaves and paired brackets;
■ horizontal wood cladding and a round window with decorative trim in the gable
end;
■ wood soffits and fascia;
■ chimney;
■ flat headed window openings with brick voussoirs;
■ flatheaded entrance door with brick voussoir;
■ one flatheaded basement window opening; and,
■ rusticated stone foundation.
■ All elements related to the contextual value, including:
o location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the
Frederick Street streetscape; and,
o location of the house and terminating vista that it creates at the end of Pequegnat Avenue.
RPfPrPnr_Pc
Bonk, D. (2024). Arthur Foster— Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo
Region, Ontario. Retrieved from
https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.phP?personlD=132679&tree=qenerations on
August 9, 2024.
Bonk, D. (2024). Arthur Foster— Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo
Region, Ontario. Retrieved from
https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.phP?personlD=132681&tree=qenerations on
August 9, 2024.
Tiessen, P. (1912). Berlin, Canada: A Self -Portrait of Kitchener -Waterloo, Ontario Before World War
One. Sand Hills Books, Inc: St. Jacobs, Ontario.
Page 291 of 316
Photographs
Front Elevation (North Facade)
Front and Side Elevation (North and West Facades)
Page 292 of 316
K
Front Elevation (North Fagade) — Historic Photograph circa 1912
(SOURCE: https-//www.historypin.org/services/thumb/phid/50572/dim/1000x1000/c/1518491820)
Page 293 of 316
1
6 "1'1*11 61 10k
CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM
265 Frederick Street
Address:
Description:
(date of construction, architectural style, etc)
Photographs Attached:
Michelle Drake
Recorder:
— Date: July 30, 2024
❑Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting
Designation Criteria
Recorder —Heritage Kitchener
Heritage Planning Staff
Committee
1. This property has
design value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
physical value
Yes
❑
Yes
0
because it is a rare,
unique,
representative or
early example of a
style, type,
expression, material
or construction
method.
2. The property has
design value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
physical value
Yes
❑
Yes
0
because it displays a
high degree of
craftsmanship or
artistic merit.
3. The property has
design value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No 0
physical value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
because it
demonstrates a high
degree of technical or
scientific
achievement.
Page 294 of 316
* E.g. - constructed with a
unique material
combination or use,
incorporates challenging
geometric designs etc.
4. The property has
historical value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑
associative value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
because it has direct
associations with a
theme, event, belief,
person, activity,
organization or
institution that is
significant to a
community.
*Additional archival work
may be required.
5. The property has
historical or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑
associative value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
because it yields, or
has the potential to
yield, information
that contributes to an
understanding of a
community or
culture.
* E.g - A commercial
building may provide an
understanding of how the
economic development of
the City occured.
Additional archival work
may be required.
6. The property has
historical value or
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑
associative value
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
because it
demonstrates or
reflects the work or
ideas of an architect,
artist, builder,
designer or theorist
who is significant to a
community.
Page 295 of 316
*Additional archival work
Recorder
Heritage Kitchener
may be required.
Interior: Is the interior
arrangement, finish,
7. The property has
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑
Yes ❑
Yes ❑
contextual value
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
because it is
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
important in defining,
maintaining or
supporting the
character of an area.
* E.g. - It helps to define
an entrance point to a
neighbourhood or helps
establish the (historic)
rural character of an area.
8. The property has
contextual value
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
because it is
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
physically,
functionally, visually
or historically linked
to its surroundings.
*Additional archival work
may be required.
9. The property has
contextual value
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑ Unknown ❑ No X
because it is a
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
landmark.
*within the region, city or
neighborhood.
Notes
Additional Criteria
Recorder
Heritage Kitchener
Committee
Interior: Is the interior
arrangement, finish,
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑
Yes ❑
Yes ❑
Page 296 of 316
craftsmanship and/or
detail noteworthy?
Completeness: Does this
structure have other
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑X
original outbuildings,
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
notable landscaping or
external features that
complete the site?
Site Integrity: Does the
structure occupy its
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
original site?
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
* If relocated, is it relocated on
its original site, moved from
another site, etc.
Alterations: Does this
building retain most of its
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
original materials and
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
design features? Please
refer to the list of
heritage attributes within
the Statement of
Significance and indicate
which elements are still
existing and which ones
have been removed.
Alterations: Are there
additional elements or
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑X
features that should be
Yes
❑
Yes
❑
added to the heritage
attribute list?
Condition: Is the building
in good condition?
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑
Yes
❑
Yes
❑X
*E.g. - Could be a good
candidate for adaptive re -use if
possible and contribute
towards equity -building and
climate change action.
Indigenous History:
Could this site be of
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes
importance to
❑
❑
Indigenous heritage and
❑ Additional Research Required
❑ Additional Research Required
history?
Page 297 of 316
*E.g. - Site within 300m of
water sources, near distinct
topographical land, or near
cemeteries might have
archaeological potential and
indigenous heritage potential.
Could there be any urban
Indigenous history
associated with the
property?
* Additional archival work may
be required.
Function: What is the
present function of the
subject property?
* Other may include vacant,
social, institutional, etc. and
important for the community
from an equity building
perspective.
Diversity and Inclusion:
Does the subject
property contribute to
the cultural heritage of a
community of people?
Does the subject
property have intangible
value to a specific
community of people?
* E.g.- Waterloo Masjid
(Muslim Society of Waterloo &
Wellington Counties) was the
first established Islamic Center
and Masjid in the Region and
contributes to the history of
the Muslim community in the
area.
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
Unknown ❑ Residential ❑
Commercial ❑
Office ❑ Other ❑ -
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
Notes about Additional Criteria Examined
X11
N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Co
mmercial ❑
Office ❑ Other X
Commercial Office
N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes
❑ Additional Research Required
Page 298 of 316
1
KIR
Recommendation
Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?)
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X
If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up
❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register
❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register
❑ Additional Research Required
Other:
General / Additional Notes
TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF:
Date of Property Owner Notification:
Page 299 of 316
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
57-61 Stirling Avenue North
g1 / 219
� 132
57 234 �� < /' -
�'S-' 236 240
1221
\ f 227 T AUDITORIUM -
,
i / ` F �
,
53 ! 4 - — 244
V ✓A' \,% '� 62 /
71
�. -
49 �
5869
45 241
43 52 Surling
48
KING EAST \
44
53
5140
\
49 A
�38 45
✓\
ti
34 �41 ��� 2
Summary of Significance
® Design/Physical Value ®Social Value
® Historical Value ❑ Economic Value
® Contextual Value ❑ Environmental Value
Municipal Address: 57-61 Stirling Avenue North
Legal Description: Plan 77 Part Lots 59-62 58R-7728 Part 1
Year Built: 1925, additions in 1952 and 1991.
Architectural Styles: Neo -Gothic
Original Owner: Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church
Original Use: Church
Condition: Good
Page 300 of 316
Description of Cultural Heritage Resource
57-61 Stirling Avenue North, also known as the Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church is a church built in
the Neo -Gothic architectural style. The church is situated on a 0.41 -acre parcel of land located on the
east side of Stirling Avenue North between King Street East and Weber Street East in the King East
Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource
that contributes to the heritage value is the church.
Heritage Value
The Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church is recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and
contextual values.
Desipn/Physical Value
The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a notable example of the
Neo -Gothic architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church is one -and -a -half storeys
in height and features: asymmetrical design; front and side gables with shaped parapets; multi color
brick; pointed -arch windows with stone drip -molds; pointed -arch front door with drip -mold; and stone
details such as door surrounds, window surrounds, lintels and date stones.
The original design of the church was a one -storey building built. There have been two major
additions and renovations to the church ever since, one in 1952 and one in 1991. The front facade of
the church has been altered from its original design in 1952. However, both these additions do not
detract from the cultural heritage value of the church, instead contribute to the overall cultural heritage
value. These additions were complimentary and sympathetic to the original design of the church.
The 1952 addition included altering the front fagade of the church, adding wings on both sides of the
fagade, as well as an addition towards the rear of the church. The 1991 addition included constructing
a two-storey building adjoining the front fagade on the northern portion of the property towards the
front.
Front Facade (West Elevation)
The front fagade of the church includes the altered original portion of the church and the 1992
addition. The central portion of the church includes a 3 over 3 gothic arched windows with stone
surrounds and tracery. Above the window is a tripartite arched window with stone surrounds with a
gable parapet. These windows are surrounded by double square windows with square surrounds on
either side. The projecting wing on the right side (as seen from the street) includes a door opening
with stone surrounds and a small, fixed window with stone surrounds with a gable parapet facing the
southern direction. There is also a "1924, 1952" datestone next to the door. The projecting wing on
the left side also includes a door opening (that has since been filled in) with stone surround and a
small, fixed window with soldier coursing and sills. Next to this wing is the 1992 brick addition with an
arched door opening with stone surround, with a tripartite arched gothic window with stone surrounds
above it and a gable parapet.
Page 301 of 316
Side Elevation (South Elevation)
This elevation can be divided into five bays with four brick buttresses and is likely the original portion
of the church. Each bay contains arched gothic windows with sills. Towards the rear, there is a gable -
roofed addition which contains square windows with sills.
Side Elevation (North Elevation)
The north elevation of the church has a gable parapet, with a round -arched tripartite window on the
upper section. This elevation also includes brick buttresses dividing a portion of the elevation into
three bays. Each bay has square windows with sills on the upper and lower section of the elevation.
There are also three -square basement windows.
Historical/Associative Value
The Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church has historical value because it has direct associations with the
establishment, growth and evolution of the Anabaptist faith and Mennonite community in former Berlin
and present-day Kitchener. The First Mennonite Church, located at 800 King Street East, was one of
Kitchener's (then Berlin's) first churches, with the First Mennonite Church cemetery being the principal
ground for the burial of the first two generations of settlers of this area. The original church was a log
structure built in 1813 on a half -acre of land given in 1810 by Joseph Eby. Today, the property
cemetery is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The First Mennonite Church grew steadily after its establishment, however, there was a dispute in
1924 which resulted in the departure of approximately half their members and their pastor, Urias
Knipe Weber, who had been a preacher at the First Mennonite Church since 1907. The rift in the
church had been caused because Weber had attempted to help the church adapt to the urban ways,
but his bishops disapproved, These bishops, who served rural churches, were against giving
communion to girls who went to work without their bonnets, but Weber did not follow their suggestion.
The departed members, along with U.K. Weber decided to establish an independent Mennonite
church on a lot located near Stirling and Weber, elevated on a hill where they could still see the First
Mennonite Church and the cemetery. The constitution committee of seven men and women met on
September 30, 1924, to develop the constitution. By then, the lot had been purchased, and the
Committee declared that the new church would be named "Sterling Avenue Mennonite Church" (The
name of the street was changed from Sterling to Stirling in 1942). Ground was broken for the new
church on November 1, 1924, and excavation began using horse-drawn equipment. Clean fill was
taken from Kitchener's New City Hall, which has been built in the same year. Allan Shantz managed
the building project, which also included many charter member volunteers.
The Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church was established as an independent church and continued to
operate as such for nearly 20 years. They did not have any affiliation with any organizations. U.K.
Weber served as pastor of the Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church from 1924-42, and then as pastor
emeritus from 1942 until his death in 1971. When Weber retired, the church needed another minister,
and Rev. Andrew Shelley, who was from Pennsylvania, was called. He belonged to the General
Conference Mennonite Church in the United States, which was the American Counterpart of the
United Mennonites in Ontario. He did take them to his conference, but they might as well have been
considered independent because all the rest of the Pennsylvania and 500 miles away.
Page 302 of 316
The Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church also has historical value because it has the potential to yield
an understanding of the evolution of the Mennonite community in the City. Even though they were
independent, during the second World War, the Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church started associated
more closely with other Mennonite churches around Kitchener. They worked together on peace
efforts, conscientious objection and relief programs, and even sent emissaries internationally to India
and South Africa. After the war, the cooperation continued to grow, with Stirling members actively
supporting Conrad Grebel College, which was an inter -Mennonite college. The Stirling Avenue
Mennonite Church and First Mennonite Church also began to have a better relationship, with them
offering joint camping trips, missions' programs, and joint church council meetings.
In 1970, the rift that began almost forty-six years ago was healed, with the Stirling Avenue Mennonite
Church being accepted back into the Mennonite Conference on Ontario. At the same time, the church
was also welcomed into the United Mennonite Churches in Ontario. So, the church had no ties with
any Canadian conference became the first and only church to have been associated with two
conferences at once. The building has always been used as a church and continues to be used as a
church.
William Herbert Euaene Schmalz
The historic and associative value of the building also lays with its architect, William Herbert Eugene
Schmalz, who designed the 1952 addition and renovation of the church. A native of Berlin (now
Kitchener) and the son of former Mayor W.H. Schmalz, W.H.E. Schmalz had an active career within
the area which spanned from 1914 until after 1960. Notable works he completed include the 1922
Kitchener City Hall (in conjunction with B.A. Jones through their firm Schmalz & Jones, dissolved in
1926), the fourth office of the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company at 16-20 Queen Street
North (in conjunction with Charles Knechtel), the War Memorial Cenotaph, alterations to the Waterloo
County Gaol, and several churches which remain at the time of this report in 2024. Through his work
Schmalz contributed to the existing appearance of Kitchener's built landscape. In addition to his
prolific architectural career, W.H.E. Schmalz was an engaged citizen who served with distinction on
the board of many local community groups and held much interest in the City's history and
development. He was President of the Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation from 1956-57 and
aided in the planning, development, and operation of Doon Pioneer Village. He also acted as
president of the Waterloo Historical Society, and further was a frequent contributor to its annual
volumes.
Contextual Value
The Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church is important in maintaining and supporting the character of the
area. The church is located within the Central Frederick Neighborhood Cultural Heritage Landscape
(CHL). The Central Frederick Neighborhood is important for its associative value to the explosive
growth and development of Kitchener in the late 19th and early 20th century. The CHL contains a
range of well maintained, finely detailed homes from the second and third decade of the 20th century.
The church was built in the early 20th century and contributes to the streetscape and cultural heritage
value of the CHL through its own craftsmanship, architectural style and detailing.
The contextual value of the Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church relates to the physical, historical,
functional and visual links to the building's surroundings. After the rift that resulted in the many
members of the church leaving the First Mennonite Church, the lot on which the church was built was
strategically chosen to remain close to the First Mennonite Church. Furthermore, the Stirling Avenue
Mennonite Church was built on an elevated hill, that provided visual access to the First Mennonite
Page 303 of 316
Church and cemetery. The proximity to the church also reflected a desire to be close to their homes
and farms as that time that area was considered to be edge of the town. As such, its location has
significant contextual value in relation to the First Church Mennonite Church and cemetery.
Other Values
Social Value
The Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church is recognized for its social value because in 1978, the church
accepted it's first female minister in a Canadian Mennonite Church — Mary Smith. As a commissioned
minister, she could perform all the duties of an ordained minster while she was at the church. When
Smith was accepted as minister, the Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church had already become a
member of the Mennonite Conference of Ontario and the United Mennonite Conference, setting a
precedent for both these organizations.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage attributes of 57-61 Stirling Avenue North resides in the following heritage attributes:
■ All elements related to the construction and Neo -Gothic architectural style of the building,
including:
o The location, massing and scale of the building.
o all elevations of the building.
o asymmetrical design.
o front and side gables with shaped parapets.
o The existing roofline.
o multi color brick.
o windows and window openings, including:
■ pointed -arch windows with stone drip -molds.
■ square window openings.
o doors and door openings, including:
■ pointed -arch front door with drip -mold; and,
o stone details such as door surrounds, window surrounds.
o The "1924, 1952" and 1991" datestones on the front elevation of the church.
■ All elements related to the contextual value of the building.
o The original location of the building on Stirling Avenue North and it's contextual
relationship to the First Mennonite Church and Cemetery.
Page 304 of 316
1 ■v
k �.
Y
Ik
y
References
Bauman, S. (1963). First Mennonite Church 1813-1963. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 51 — 1963: Kitchener,
Ontario.
Millar, A. & D. Millar. (1993). Of such is the kingdom: a pictorial history of Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. Kitchener,
Ontario.
Harder, L. (2003). Risk and Endurance: a history of Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. Kitchener, Ontario.
KW Record. (1952, October 20). Present Keys for Addition to Church. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario.
KW Record. (1974, September 28). Present will vary for Stirling's 50th. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario.
KW Record. (1992, June 13). Kitchener congregation pulls together." KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario.
KR Record (1978, February 28) Mennonites quietly accept first female minister in Canada, Roswitha Goggie for KW
Record, Kitchener, Ontario
Mennonite Archives of Ontario. (1999-2012). Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. Retrieved from
https://uwaterloo.ca/mennonite-archives-ontario/congregations/stirlinq-avenue-mennonite-church on January 24,
2014.
Shantz, E. (1967). Mennonite Groups in Waterloo County and Adjacent Area. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 55 —
1967: Kitchener, Ontario.
Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. (1992). Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church Dedication Service. Kitchener, Ontario.
Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church. (1997). Stirling Quarterly, January 1997. Kitchener, Ontario.
Vernon, H. & Son. (1925, 1928-1928). Vernon's Berlin, Waterloo and Bridgeport: Street, Alphabetical,
Business and Miscellaneous Directory: For the Years 1910-1911 (8th Ed.). Hamiltion, ON: Griffen &
Richmond.
Waterloo Historical Society. (1967). Mennonite Groups in Waterloo County and Adjacent Area. Waterloo Historical
Society, Volume 55: Kitchener, Ontario.
Page 308 of 316
CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM
Address:
Description:
57-61 Stirling Avenue North —Stirling Avenue Mennonite
Church
Church
Deeksha Choudhry
Recorder:
August 1, 2024
Date:
Photographs Attached:
❑x Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑x Right Fagade ❑x Rear Facade ❑x Details ❑ Setting
Designation Criteria
Recorder —Heritage Kitchener
Heritage Planning Staff
Committee
1. This property has
design value or
N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
physical value
❑
Yes ❑X
because it is a rare,
unique,
representative or
early example of a
style, type,
expression, material
or construction
method.
2. The property has
design value or
N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes
physical value
❑
❑
because it displays a
high degree of
craftsmanship or
artistic merit.
3. The property has
design value or
N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes
physical value
❑
❑
because it
demonstrates a high
degree of technical or
scientific
Page 309 of 316
achievement.
* E.g. - constructed with a
unique material
combination or use,
incorporates challenging
geometric designs etc.
4. The property has
historical value or
N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
associative value
❑
Yes ❑X
because it has direct
associations with a
theme, event, belief,
person, activity,
organization or
institution that is
significant to a
community.
*Additional archival work
may be required.
5. The property has
historical or
N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No
associative value
❑
Yes ❑X
because it yields, or
has the potential to
yield, information
that contributes to an
understanding of a
community or
culture.
* E.g -A commercial
building may provide an
understanding of how the
economic development of
the City occured.
Additional archival work
may be required.
6. The property has
historical value or
N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
associative value
❑
Yes ❑
because it
demonstrates or
reflects the work or
ideas of an architect,
artist, builder,
designer or theorist
who is significant to a
community.
*Additional archival work
Page 310 of 316
may be required.
Recorder
Heritage Kitchener
7. The property has
Committee
contextual value
N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
because it is
❑
Yes ❑X
important in defining,
Yes ❑
maintaining or
supporting the
character of an area.
* E.g. - It helps to define
an entrance point to a
neighbourhood or helps
establish the (historic)
rural character of an area.
8. The property has
contextual value
N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
because it is
❑
Yes ❑X
physically,
functionally, visually
or historically linked
to its surroundings.
*Additional archival work
may be required.
9. The property has
contextual value
N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X
because it is a
❑
Yes ❑
landmark.
*within the region, city or
neighborhood.
Notes
Additional Criteria
Recorder
Heritage Kitchener
Committee
Interior: Is the interior
arrangement, finish,
N/A ❑x Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑
craftsmanship and/or detail
Yes ❑
Page 311 of 316
noteworthy?
Completeness: Does this
structure have other original
N/A
❑
Unknown ❑ No ❑x
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes ❑
outbuildings, notable
Yes
❑
landscaping or external
features that complete the
site?
Site Integrity: Does the
structure occupy its original
N/A
X
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes X
site?
Yes
❑
* If relocated, is it relocated on its
original site, moved from another site,
etc.
Alterations: Does this building
retain most of its original
N/A
X
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes X
materials and design features?
Yes
❑
Please refer to the list of
heritage attributes within the
Statement of Significance and
indicate which elements are
still existing and which ones
have been removed.
Alterations: Are there
additional elements or features
N/A
X
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑
that should be added to the
Yes
❑
Yes ❑X
heritage attribute list?
Condition: Is the building in
good condition?
N/A
X
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes X
Yes
❑
*E.g. - Could be a good candidate for
adaptive re -use if possible and
contribute towards equity -building and
climate change action.
Indigenous History: Could this
site be of importance to
N/A
X
Unknown ❑ No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑
Indigenous heritage and
Yes
❑
❑X Additional Research Required
history?
❑ Additional
Research Required
*E.g. - Site within 300m of water
sources, near distinct topographical
land, or near cemeteries might have
archaeological potential and
indigenous heritage potential.
Could there be any urban
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑
Indigenous history associated
❑X Additional Research Required
with the property?
N/A
❑x
Unknown ❑ No ❑
Page 312 of 316
* Additional archival work may be
required.
Yes ❑
❑ Additional Research Required
Function: What is the present
Unknown ❑ Residential ❑
Unknown ❑ Residential ❑
function of the subject
Commercial ❑
Commercial ❑
property?
Office ❑ Other ❑ Church
Office ❑ Other 0 -
* Other may include vacant, social,
institutional, etc. and important for the
community from an equity building
perspective.
Diversity and Inclusion: Does
N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑
the subject property contribute
Yes ❑
❑ Additional Research Required
to the cultural heritage of a
❑ Additional Research Required
community of people?
Does the subject property have
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑
intangible value to a specific
❑ Additional Research Required
community of people?
N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑
* E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim
Yes ❑
Society of Waterloo & Wellington
❑ Additional Research Required
Counties) was the first established
Islamic Center and Masjid in the
Region and contributes to the history
of the Muslim community in the area.
Notes about Additional Criteria Examined
Recommendation
Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?)
N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0
If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up
❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register
❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register
Page 313 of 316
❑ Additional Research Required
Other:
General / Additional Notes
TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF:
Date of Property Owner Notification:
Page 314 of 316
REFERENCES
• Beohmer Family Records, accessed via Kitchener Public Library
• Waterloo Region Generations,
https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personlD=136383&tree=generations
• Waterloo Region Generations,
https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personlD=1176604&tree=generations
• Vernon's street, alphabetical, business and miscellaneous Directory — 1907, 1920, 1940, 1958, 1970.
Page 315 of 316
(Y)
4-
0
m
N
a
o�
cU
N
c N
O '
m
Z
L_
3
N
c
.2
C
c
-°
L O3
cZ
-°
o
0`
a
O
3 0_ g °c
'�
`o
`0
0 0
Q
O
c -o
c
o
.o
-o
c6
O cu `
O
C w
N
L V
cu
r
C
O
Ui
_ m
o w,
N
U
y
o
°23
m
Q)wUZ
c
a w
❑ c
m
a1
A
cLi
c
�
>
Cl
c
co,
cn
af
c N
o
N
L
w -p
E>
-6
E
a
(6 O
r LL m .x
N c6
O c
v
U
O
0
d'
c6 .� � 2
�
U
E cu
i
E
0-o LL
E
a
a)
c%C,Q)
cu
61
❑ 61
C
O
'O
N
N
c
U
O
X
11J
cu
v
�
Q O
o � �
Q,
Oi+
m
Q�
d V 6l
Q
0
G/1
zIz
0
C,
000
0
0
0
0
0
0
H�y�
E
E
E
c
cu
c
cu
c
cu
c
cu
c
cu
c
cu
c
cu
c
cu
c
cu
iw �yI
L
i
T
C
C
z
N
1�1
d j1Oj
W
t'y
N
00 601
00 7
06
r
N
7
N
O
O
O
r
r
N
N
M
M
N
N
N
NN
N
N
N
N
N�
N
�
�
N
ON
N
'y Vi
�
y
V'
�
V
N
� o
m U
a �
v
to
C
h
_
cu
O
0
Q)
O
L
NO
L
N
N
U
N
_
d
o
cu
E
U
a
U
a
♦+
w
O
N
mN
(n
c6
N
C
_
u
N
LnL
m
ol
0.
N
co
N
Ln
D
U
O
J
U
r
W
W
0
cuO
6
O
M
0
M
LO
Q
NM
(6
O
7
N
Q yy
y
O
000
O
O
O
O
a0
O
0 O
O
O
O
w
7
7
7
az
000
N
N
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
r
N
M
l6
i0
1�
W
O
r
r
N
M
r
(O
1�
a0
r
O
N
PNl
N
N
M
N
N
N
to
N
n
N
m
N
m
N
O
M
M
(Y)
4-
0
m
N