The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHK Agenda - 2025-03-04qw-EM6101 U1 � Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, March 4, 2025, 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 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@kitchener.ca. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *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 - N. Pikulski 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 None at this time. 4. Discussion Items 4.1 Heritage Permit Application, HPA-2024-V-001, 5 m 3 21 St. Leger Street, Repairs and Reconstruction of Porch, DSD -2025-075 4.2 Notice of Intention to Designate, 79-81 St 10 m 14 George Street, DSD -2025-055 4.3 Notice of Intention to Designate, 1434 Trussler 10 m 31 Road, DSD -2025-056 4.4 Status Updates - Bill 23 Municipal Heritage 10 m 57 Register Review, DSD -2025-031 5. Information Items 5.1 Heritage Kitchener Committee, 2025 Work Plan, DSD -2025-072 95 5.2 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 100 6. Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Coordinator Page 2 of 100 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 4, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-783-8922 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-783-8906 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: February 5, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-075 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-V-001 21 St. Leger Street Porch Reconstruction RECOMMENDATION: That further to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-001 be approved to permit porch repairs and reconstruction at the property municipally addressed as 21 St. Leger Street in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application and subject to the following condition: 1. That the final building permit be reviewed, and heritage clearance be provided by heritage Planning Staff prior to the issuance of the building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present Heritage Planning Staff's recommendation for the proposed porch reconstruction at the subject property municipally addressed as 21 St. Leger Street. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed porch reconstruction meets the guidelines within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) and would not have a negative impact on the integrity of the District. • There are no financial implications are associated with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of a Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2025-V-001 (Attachment A) seeking permission to reconstruct the front porch at the property municipally addressed as 21 St. Leger Street (Fig. 1). *** 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 100 .. .✓ r 46S 281: 189 �2 3 i C1 MT. HOPE HURON PARK / 42 '� 1174 / 277 38-` J V� 17z 187 40 30 ki 170 183 �_ 1 '257 �� [- 29 1T X249 253`, \ �33` t 22 18 �2' \�,1g\...: 245 \�� :/��, 9 �� 162 /56239 ,....� _\ / 31,i4 OJ/ /179 37 52 % 29 P g 156 39 25 i Kitchener Manor G / 154 / APartments 41 r 17s 64 17 47 /42 /3 �\ a� J e45r J y1 750, 4 G 165, 56 43 16 ; X163 30 /i0 54 41 39�\26 14 X161 52 CIVIC CENTRE 37 F�! 22 C13 144, �„/ �� 48 u(61=1 35 33 . F�'T 10 �11� 142 31 tb 18 O 157 % 44 53 140 p 29 16 7 i - _ A,1 40 51 25 14 138 153 34 10 136 1 y 65 ✓�%�. 21 6 2 S 45 \ 17 132 283 �X G,� 15 � 75 9 tp 39. �\ 75 143 r �^ i 8 11 I1 33 139 10 27 123 �. 23 , Figure 1. Location Map of 21 St. Leger Street. REPORT: The subject property is located on the west side of St. Leger Street, between Queen Street North and Victoria Street North. It is a two-storey Berlin Vernacular brick building built circa 1910. It is a district significance `C' building (Fig. 2). The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Page 4 of 100 Figure 2. Front Fagade of the subject property in 2023 Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District The CCNHCD is an important historical residential neighborhood that can be linked to several key periods in the development of the City of Kitchener. This neighborhood helps tell the story of Kitchener's phenomenal growth at the turn of the 19th century and of the development of its extensive industrial sector. Almost two-thirds of the existing houses were built between 1880 and 1917 and in most cases were occupied by owners, managers, or workers for some of the key industries that defined the community at the turn of the century. The heritage attributes of the CCNHCD include: • Its association with important business and community leaders during a key era of development in Kitchener; • A wealth of well maintained, finely detailed buildings from the late 1800s and early 1900s that are largely intact; • A number of unique buildings, including churches and commercial buildings, which provide distinctive landmarks within and at the edges of the District; Page 5 of 100 • A significant range or recognizable architectural styles (Queen Anne, Berlin Vernacular, Italianate, etc.) and features including attic gable roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, porches, and other details, associated with the era in which they were developed; • The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees, grassed boulevards and Ianeways; and • Hibner Park, Kitchener's second oldest city park, in the centre of the District. Proposed Porch Reconstruction The proposed development includes the reconstruction of the front porch of the existing building. The front porch had to be taken down as it had deteriorated significantly and posed a safety risk as it could have collapsed. The proposed design is more in keeping with the traditional porch design of Berlin Vernacular buildings found in Kitchener. The existing porch is in poor condition and poses a risk of collapse. The existing porch is simple in design, with two square columns and a basic railing design on the lower and upper levels (Fig. 3). Figure 3. Current Condition of the front porch. Page 6 of 100 The applicant is proposing to replace that porch with a new porch that will be wider than the existing porch. There will be a faux gable covering the entrance of the house, and the new porch covers almost two-thirds of the front fagade. The porch will also include tapered columns with yellow brick pillars and upper wooden columns. The gable will also have western cedar shingles skirting and glass railing on the upper floor balcony (Fig. 4). Ao, Figure 4. Proposed porch design. The porch that had to be taken down was not original to the existing building. The original porch was likely demolished prior to the establishment of this neighborhood as a Heritage Conservation District. The proposed porch design will not alter any heritage attributes or the structural integrity of the existing home. As mentioned above, the proposed porch design is compatible with the existing architectural style of the building and will not negatively impact the heritage value of the existing building. The CCNHCD Plan contains policy direction which pertains to alterations to homes and specifically work done to porches and verandahs. The CCNHCD Plan recognizes porches as being significant features to the appearance of the heritage district that possess both functional and decorative value. While the Plan includes guidelines that strongly discourage the removal of existing porches, it should be noted that this porch was in an advanced state of disrepair. If left unattended, it could have collapsed, posing a significant safety risk. The proposed porch design uses appropriate design, materials, and massing to ensure that the design is compatible with the existing home. Section 8.5 The CCNHCD Plan contains guidelines regarding porches and verandahs: Page 7 of 100 Removal or substantial alteration to the size, shape and design of existing porches is strongly discouraged. o The existing porch is not original to the building and is basic in design. It does not contribute to the cultural heritage value of the building. Do not remove or cover original porches or porch details, except for the purpose of quality restoration. Prior to executing any repairs or restoration, photograph the existing conditions and research to determine whether the existing is original or an appropriate model for restoration. Use annotated photographs or drawings or sketches to represent the intended repairs. o As mentioned above, the existing porch is not original. For the structural elements of the porch, use the best of current technology including secure footings extending below frost and pressure treated wood for wood framing. o The porch deck will be composite wood, which is an appropriate material for porches within the District. For decorative elements such as gingerbread fretwork and other trim, wood is still the best choice to recreate the original appearance, but using improved technology such as waterproof glues and biscuit joiners and liquid preservatives and best quality paints to protect the finished product. o Most of the porch elements do include wood, including the tapered columns, the deck, and the cedar shingles. Fibreglass and plastic versions of decorative trims should be avoided. Poor interpretation of the scale or design of applied decoration detract from the visual appearance and architectural coherence of porches and verandahs. o No fibreglass is being used in the proposed porch. Where there are no other reasonable options, fiberglass and plastic versions of these decorative trims may be considered if the appropriate shape and size is available and they are kept in good condition with adequate maintenance of the paint. o N/A Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, heritage planning staff note the following: • The subject property is located within the CCNCHD, and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The subject property is classified as District Significance `C', meaning it is not a fine or a very fine example of a distinctive architectural style but does have attributes which contribute to the continuity and character of the streetscape and area. • The existing porch was in an advanced state of disrepair and had to be taken down. • The proposed work includes the porch reconstruction using a design and material that is appropriate and compatible with the existing building, and generally within the District. • The proposed work is in compliance with the CCNHCD Plan guidelines porches and verandahs. • The proposed work will not have a negative impact on the integrity and the heritage character of the building, the St. Leger Street streetscape, or the CCNCHD. Page 8 of 100 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 — The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, • Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation Plan APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-V-001 Page 9 of 100 2024 STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development S Housing Approvals 200 King Street West, 611 Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca Accepted Bv: PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM lication Number: H PA - Page 7 of 10 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION Q Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage & Demolition �3 New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 21 St Leger St Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: 0 Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3. PROP Name: Address: 21 St Leger St City/Province/Postal_Qode: Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 41-8 Phone Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: RECEIVED NOV O 7 2014 CITY OF KITCHENER Planning Division Working together ■ Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 10 of 100 2024 Page 8 of 10 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION 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 Word doc attachment 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: See Word doc attachment Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: 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): 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: As soon as possible Expected completion date: As quickly as possible b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ❑x Yes ❑ No - Ef yes, who did you speak to? Jessica I leira and Deeksha Choudhry C) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? - If yes, who did you speak to? Lucas Machado d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑x Yes N.-,. x❑ Yes ❑ No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number 24126585 for plumbin.:1 Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 11 of 100 2424 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained irr documents filed in support of this application shall he deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does rrot guarantee it to be a 'cornplete' application - The undersigned acknowledges lhat the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forrns a complete application. Further review of the application will he undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/ar resolve any discrepancies 4f issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed Ic be fuliy complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and CounnA meeting. Submission of this. application Mnstitutas consent for authorized municipal staff to eater upon the -subject property for the purpose cif 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 ,qct shall not be a waiver of any of tfre provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but riot limited to the requirarnants of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the condkions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the C64jncil of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result In a fine being imposed or irnDriscnwenl as In for under the Ontario Heritage Act_ Signature of OwnerlArge Signature of OwneriAge 9. AUTHORIZATION Date: November 7, 2024 Date: November 7, 2024 If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I /Vile, hereby authorize Signature of Owner/Agent: , owner of the land that is subject of this application, Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: to act on my / our behalf in this regard. The personal infotTnation Gia this form rs collected undgr the legal r7ulhod ity Of .anion 33(2)1, Section 42(2), and .section 42(2.2) of the? Ontario Heritage Act. The information wid be used for the ,purposes of administering the Heritage Parrod Ap licatierr and errsurinrg appropriate service of police of roceipt udder SecFan 33(3) and Secdon 42(3) of the Or4arici Heritage Acl, if you have airy gveshoas aboral dais collection of personal information, please wplacl the Manager of Corporate Records, Laglsl ted Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully ■ Building community Page 12 of 100 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION 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 To remove an existing replacement porch structure that was added after the original home construction circa 1900 and to replace the porch with a heritage -conforming structure. There is no original building material to be removed, because it is a non -original structure (the porch has been replaced several times since 1900). Our proposed replacement structures include a front entrance porch replacement and a kitchen entrance with mud room. This structure allows for the door to be at ground level, and the stairs to be enclosed for added safety Our proposed replacement plans conform to other existing front porches in our heritage district and the side/ secondary entrances of neighbouring homes on St Leger St. (see plan attachment for further design details).and photos of existing examples. Materials • New Ontario -sized yellow bricks for porch columns. 4 Western Cedar shingles for porch features, this will be left to weather naturally (e.g. gable features over doors, privacy railing, etc.) • Glass railing on upper floor balcony ■ Porch Deck material will be composite, dark grey Painted wood clad material on column tops will be painted in light yellow to match the bricks Siding to clad the propose mudroom extension: cedar shake shingle to cover entire extension or Hardie board cove profile siding. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: The current structures are dilapidated and pose risk of collapse and injury. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Our design is consistent with other existing heritage porches and side extensions in the heritage district. 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): Both porch structures are not original and were demolished prior to this neighbourhood's heritage designation; therefore, there is nothing original to restore or conserve. Furthermore, replacing the structures with heritage conforming replacements with modern durable materials would allow for the conservation and beautification of this heritage home, and stand as the single example of heritage conforming work completed on an exterior on St. Leger Street since this street was designated. Building permit # for plumbing: 24126585 Page 13 of 100 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 4, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: January 30, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-055 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 79-81 St. George Street Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 79- 81 St. George Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 79-81 St. George Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance describing the cultural heritage value or interest of 79-81 St. George Street has been drafted by Heritage Planning staff. • The key finding of this report is that 79-81 St. George Street meets four (4) of nine (9) criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) and has been confirmed to be a significant cultural heritage resource recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual values. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting, providing written correspondence to the property owner, and consulting with Heritage Kitchener at their November 5, 2024 committee meeting. Should Council choose to give Notice of Intention to Designate, such notice shall be served to the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust and published in a newspaper. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 14 of 100 BACKGROUND: 79-81 St. George Street is a two-storey late 19th century brick semi-detached dwelling built in the Italianate architectural style. The semi-detached dwelling is situated on a 0.29 -acre parcel of land located on the south side of St. George Street between Peter Street and Hebel Place in the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the semi-detached dwelling. A full assessment of 79-81 St. George Street has been completed, including: field evaluation and archival research. The findings concluded that the subject property meets four (4) of nine (9) criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). An updated Statement of Significance describing the property's cultural heritage value or interest was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on November 4, 2024. The Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 79-81 St. George Street should be confirmed by pursuing designation of the subject property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. This work was undertaken as part of the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. Bill 200, the Homeowner Protect Act, 2024, extended the time municipalities have to designate properties listed on their municipal heritage registers until January 1, 2027. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. Owners of properties recommended for designation were contacted via a second letter. The property owner for 79-81 St. George Street was contacted via second letter sent by mail dated December 19, 2024. This letter was accompanied by the updated Statement of Significance and a "Guide to Heritage Designation for Property Owners" prepared in June 2023. The letter invited property owners to contact the City's Senior Heritage Planner with any comments, questions, or concerns. Per standard procedure, should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID), the property owner will be contacted a third time through a letter advising of the City's NOID. An ad for the NOID will be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and the newspaper ad is posted, there will be a 30 -day appeal period in which the property owner may object to the designation. REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within our City is an important part of planning for the future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures, and landscapes that give the City of Kitchener its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term conservation of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value or interest; encourages good stewardship and conservation; and, promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognizes Page 15 of 100 and promotes awareness, but it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value or interest. 79-81 St. George Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative value and contextual values. It satisfies four (4) of nine (9) criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). A summary of the criteria that is or is not met is provided in the table below. Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a Yes rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, material, or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it No displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design or physical value because it No demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it Yes 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 No yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it No 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 Yes defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, Yes functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No Table 1: Criteria for Designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) Design/Physical Value The property municipally addressed as 79-81 St. George Street demonstrates design/physical value as a rare example of a late 19th century semi-detached building and as a representative example of the Italianate architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: square plan; hipped roof; and, one -storey rear addition with two enclosed verandahs. Front Elevation (North FaQade) The front of the building faces St. George Street and is built with buff (yellow) brick and features a three bay wide symmetrical facade with central porch entrances between two one -storey projecting bays. The fagade features: wood soffits, fascia and decorative Page 16 of 100 brackets; buff (yellow) brick; 2/2 segmentally arched wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; two one -storey trapezoid shaped projecting bays with low pitched hipped (pyramidal) roof with wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets, buff (yellow) brick, 2/2 segmentally arched wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills, and foundation; centred one -storey hipped roof verandah with decorative wood posts, brackets and guard; two wood paneled doors with semi -circular lites and segmentally arched transoms with brick voussoirs; and, two wood storm doors. Side Elevation (West & East FaQades) The side elevations are two bays wide and separated by the chimney. The chimney is not functional as the top above the roofline has been removed. The bay closest to the street is plain with wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; yellow (buff) brick; one flatheaded rectangular basement window opening and window; and, foundation. The bay closest to the one -storey addition features wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; yellow (buff) brick; one segmentally arched 2/2 wood window with brick voussoirs and wood sill on the second storey; two segmentally arched 2/2 wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills on the first storey; two flatheaded rectangular basement windows; and, a stone foundation. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 79-81 St. George Street has historical/associative value because it has direct associations with the theme of early development and housing typologies, and more specifically the semi-detached dwelling housing typology. In Berlin (now Kitchener), the Berliner Journal documented building progress in the 1870s and referred to semi-detached dwellings as "2 family dwelling", "houses built for 2 residences" or "double houses." The semi-detached building typology was rare with less than two dozen being constructed between 1878 and 1903. 79-81 St. George Street was documented as the sixth semi-detached dwelling built in Berlin and it was built by John Sage as a "2 -storey brick house, setup as 2 -family dwelling" for a cost of $2000 in the south ward (Berliner Journal, 1887). The semi-detached dwelling typology was an early demonstration of multiple dwellings, which were not common in Ontario (Fram, 1988), but that could blend into the existing single detached dwelling stock due to similarities in plan, massing, and design. Contextual Value The contextual values relate to the location, orientation, massing, and setback of the building, which help to define and maintain the consistent street edge (e.g., similar building setbacks) on the south side of St. George Street. In addition, the orientation, massing, setback, design, and materials contribute to the continuity and character of the St. George Street streetscape and the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape. The building is in its original location providing a physical, visual, and historic link to its surroundings (e.g., St. George Street and the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape). Page 17 of 100 Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 79-81 St. George Street resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the design/physical value of the semi-detached dwelling building typology as a early representation of a multiple dwelling that blended with the predominantly single detached dwelling typology on St. George Street and within the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape; All elements related to the design/physical value of the semi-detached dwelling as a late 19th century representative example of the Italianate architectural style, including: o square plan; o hipped roof; 0 one -storey rear addition with two enclosed verandahs; o Front Elevation (North FaQade) ■ buff (yellow) brick; ■ three bay wide symmetrical fagade; ■ central porch with front door entrances between two one -storey projecting bays; ■ wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; ■ 2/2 segmentally arched wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; ■ two one -storey trapezoid shaped projecting bays with low pitched hipped (pyramidal) roof with wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets, buff (yellow) brick, 2/2 segmentally arched wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills, and foundation; ■ centred one -storey hipped roof verandah with decorative wood posts, brackets and guard; ■ two wood paneled doors with semi -circular lites and segmentally arched transoms with brick voussoirs; and, ■ two wood storm doors. o Side Elevations (West & East FaQades) ■ two bay width separated by the remnants of a chimney; • the bay closest to the street is plain with wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; yellow (buff) brick; one flatheaded rectangular basement window opening and window; and, foundation; and, the bay closest to the one -storey addition features wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; yellow (buff) brick; one segmentally arched 2/2 wood window with brick voussoirs and wood sill on the second storey; two segmentally arched 2/2 wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills on the first storey; two flatheaded rectangular basement window; and, foundation. Page 18 of 100 All elements related to the contextual value, including: o location, orientation, massing, and setback of the building, which help to define and maintain the consistent street edge (e.g., similar building setbacks) on the south side of St. George Street; o the orientation, massing, setback, design, and materials contribute to the continuity and character of the St. George Street streetscape and the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape; and, o the original building location providing a physical, visual, and historic link to its surroundings (e.g., St. George Street and the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape). 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 Planning staff have consulted with the Heritage Kitchener committee regarding designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Property owners were invited to consult via two separate letters dated May 23, 2023 and December 19, 2024. Heritage Planning staff spoke with the owner by phone on January 10, 2025 and January 21, 2025. The owner did not express objection to the proposed designation. Section 29(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before giving Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) a property. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report (see INFORM above). Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this report to Heritage Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council. Should Council choose to proceed with a NOID, such notice will be served on the property owner, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record). Once notice has been served, the property owner has the right object to the designation. Should Council decide not to proceed with a NOID then the building will remain on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) until January 1, 2027, after which it will be removed in accordance with the legislative changes enacted by Bill 200. Once removed from the MHR, it cannot be re -listed on the MHR for five (5) years (i.e., January 1, 2032). Page 19 of 100 PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 • Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) • Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review (DSD -2023-225) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2023 Update (DSD -2023-309) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update (DSD -2024-022) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — February 2024 Update (DSD -2024-056) • 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) • Bill 200, Homeowners Protection Act, 2024 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — June 2024 Update (DSD -2024-250) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2024 Update (DSD -2024-333) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — September 2024 Update (DSD -2024-361) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — October 2024 Update (DSD -2024-413) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — November 2024 Update (DSD -2024-444) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Statement of Significance for 79-81 St. George Street Page 20 of 100 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 79-81 St. George Street 09. H Q 75 T9 29 8! 3i 55 33 91 Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ❑Social Value ®Historical/Associative Value ❑Economic Value ®Contextual Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 79-81 St. George Street (formerly Mary Street) Legal Description: GCT Sub Lot 17 Part Lot 205 Year Built: 1887 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: John Seage (Sage) Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 79-81 St. George Street is a two-storey late 19th century brick semi-detached dwelling built in the Italianate architectural style. The semi-detached dwelling is situated on a 0.29 -acre parcel of land located on the south side of St. George Street between Peter Street and Hebel Place in the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the semi-detached dwelling. Page 21 of 100 Heritage Value 79-81 St. George Street is recognized for its design/physical, contextual, and historical/associative values. Desipn/Physical Value The property municipally addressed as 79-81 St. George Street demonstrates design/physical value as a rare example of a late 19th century semi-detached building and as a representative example of the Italianate architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: square plan; hipped roof; and, one -storey rear addition with two enclosed verandahs. Front Elevation (North Fa(;ade) The front of the building faces St. George Street and is built with buff (yellow) brick and features a three bay wide symmetrical fagade with central porch entrances between two one -storey projecting bays. The fagade features: wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; buff (yellow) brick; 2/2 segmentally arched wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; two one -storey trapezoid shaped projecting bays with low pitched hipped (pyramidal) roof with wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets, buff (yellow) brick, 2/2 segmentally arched wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills, and foundation; centred one -storey hipped roof verandah with decorative wood posts, brackets and guard; two wood paneled doors with semi -circular lites and segmentally arched transoms with brick voussoirs; and, two wood storm doors. Side Elevation (West & East Fa(;ades) The side elevations are two bays wide and separated by the chimney. The chimney is not functional as the top above the roofline has been removed. The bay closest to the street is plain with wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; yellow (buff) brick; one flatheaded rectangular basement window opening and window; and, foundation. The bay closest to the one -storey addition features wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; yellow (buff) brick; one segmentally arched 2/2 wood window with brick voussoirs and wood sill on the second storey; two segmentally arched 2/2 wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills on the first storey; two flatheaded rectangular basement window; and, foundation. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 79-81 St. George Street has historical/associative value because it has direct associations with the theme of early development and housing typologies, and more specifically the semi-detached dwelling housing typology. In Berlin (now Kitchener), the Berliner Journal documented building progress in the 1870s and referred to semi-detached dwellings as "2 family dwelling", "houses built for 2 residences" or "double houses." The semi-detached building typology was rare with less than two dozen being constructed between 1878 and 1903. 79-81 St. George Street was documented as the sixth semi-detached dwelling built in Berlin and it was built by John Sage as a "2 -storey brick house, setup as 2 -family dwelling" for a cost of $2000 in the south ward (Berliner Journal, 1887). The semi-detached dwelling typology was an early demonstration of multiple dwellings, which were not common in Ontario (Fram, 1988), but that could blend into the existing single detached dwelling stock due to similarities in plan, massing, and design. Page 22 of 100 Contextual Value The contextual values relate to the location, orientation, massing, and setback of the building, which help to define and maintain the consistent street edge (e.g., similar building setbacks) on the south side of St. George Street. In addition, the orientation, massing, setback, design, and materials contribute to the continuity and character of the St. George Street streetscape and the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape. The building is in its original location providing a physical, visual, and historic link to its surroundings (e.g., St. George Street and the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 79-81 St. George Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the design/physical value of the semi-detached dwelling building typology as a early representation of a multiple dwelling that blended with the predominantly single detached dwelling typology on St. George Street and within the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape; • All elements related to the design/physical value of the semi-detached dwelling as a late 19th century representative example of the Italianate architectural style, including: o square plan; o hipped roof; 0 one -storey rear addition with two enclosed verandahs; o Front Elevation (North Fagade) ■ buff (yellow) brick; ■ three bay wide symmetrical fagade; ■ central porch with front door entrances between two one -storey projecting bays; ■ wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; ■ 2/2 segmentally arched wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; ■ two one -storey trapezoid shaped projecting bays with low pitched hipped (pyramidal) roof with wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets, buff (yellow) brick, 2/2 segmentally arched wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills, and foundation; ■ centred one -storey hipped roof verandah with decorative wood posts, brackets and guard; ■ two wood paneled doors with semi -circular lites and segmentally arched transoms with brick voussoirs; and, ■ two wood storm doors. o Side Elevation (West & East Fagades) ■ two bay width separated by the remnants of a chimney; • the bay closest to the street is plain with wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; yellow (buff) brick; one flatheaded rectangular basement window opening and window; and, foundation; and, ■ the bay closest to the one -storey addition features wood soffits, fascia and decorative brackets; yellow (buff) brick; one segmentally arched 2/2 wood window with brick voussoirs and wood sill on the second storey; two segmentally arched 2/2 wood windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills Page 23 of 100 on the first storey; two flatheaded rectangular basement window; and, foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o location, orientation, massing, and setback of the building, which help to define and maintain the consistent street edge (e.g., similar building setbacks) on the south side of St. George Street; o the orientation, massing, setback, design, and materials contribute to the continuity and character of the St. George Street streetscape and the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape; and, o the original building location providing a physical, visual, and historic link to its surroundings (e.g., St. George Street and the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape). Berliner Journal. (1887). New Buildings in Berlin. Berliner Journal: Kitchener, Ontario. Fram, M. (1988). Well -Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation's Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. The Boston Mills Press: Erin, Ontario. Photographs Page 24 of 100 �4"1579 .............. FA IN �l 04, N t gm ill' In 1 KIT iZR CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 79-81 St. George Street Address: 1887, Italianate, semi-detached dwelling Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Michelle Drake Recorder: — Date: September 24, 2024 El 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 physical value because it is a N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ rare, unique, representative or Yes ❑ Yes ❑X early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X displays a high degree of Yes ❑ Yes F-1 craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific Yes ❑ Yes ❑ achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ has direct associations with a Yes ❑ Yes ❑X theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. Page 26 of 100 KIT iZR * Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ yields, or has the potential to Yes F-1 ❑ Unknown El No X Yes Yes F-1yield, 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 associative value because it N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X demonstrates or reflects the Yes ❑ Yes ❑ work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. * Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ defining, maintaining or Yes El Yes ❑X 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 because it is physically, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ functionally, visually or Yes ❑ Yes ❑X historically linked to its surroundings. * Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Page 27 of 100 KIT iZR *within the region, city or Recorder Heritage Kitchener neighborhood. N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Notes Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or detail N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X noteworthy? ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Completeness: Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No XN/A notable landscaping or external ❑ Unknown El No yes El features that complete the site? ❑ Yes ❑ Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original Yes ❑ site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original materials N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ and design features? Please refer to yes ❑ Yes ❑X 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 that should be N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X added to the heritage attribute list? ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown El ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for Yes ❑ adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Page 28 of 100 Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *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. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required 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 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required 1 K4iZR EN Unknown ❑ Residential X Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required ❑X ❑X 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?) Page 29 of 100 N/A X 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: 1 KIT iZR Page 30 of 100 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 4, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: January 30, 2025 REPORT NO.: [Report Number] SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 1434 Trussler Road Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 1434 Trussler Road as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 1434 Trussler Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance describing the cultural heritage value or interest of 1434 Trussler Road has been drafted by Heritage Planning staff. • The key finding of this report is that 1434 Trussler Road meets four (4) of nine (9) criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) and has been confirmed to be a significant cultural heritage resource recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual values. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting, providing written correspondence to the property owner, and consulting with Heritage Kitchener at their November 5, 2024 committee meeting. Should Council choose to give Notice of Intention to Designate, such notice shall be served to the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust and published in a newspaper. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 31 of 100 BACKGROUND: 1434 Trussler Road is a mid -19th century frame house with an early 20th century addition built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The building is situated on a 83.52 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Trussler Road between Bleams Road and Huron Road in the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the house (original and addition), barns, outbuildings, silos, tree lined laneway, hedgerows, agricultural fields, and woodlot. A full assessment of 1434 Trussler Road has been completed, including: field evaluation and archival research. The findings concluded that the subject property meets four (4) of nine (9) criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). An updated Statement of Significance describing the property's cultural heritage value or interest was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on November 4, 2024. The Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 1434 Trussler Road should be confirmed by pursuing designation of the subject property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. This work was undertaken as part of the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. Bill 200, the Homeowner Protect Act, 2024, extended the time municipalities have to designate properties listed on their municipal heritage registers until January 1, 2027. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. Owners of properties recommended for designation were contacted via a second letter. The property owner for 1434 Trussler Road was contacted via second letter sent by mail dated December 19, 2024. This letter was accompanied by the updated Statement of Significance and a "Guide to Heritage Designation for Property Owners" prepared in June 2023. The letter invited property owners to contact the City's Senior Heritage Planner with any comments, questions, or concerns. Per standard procedure, should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID), the property owner will be contacted a third time through a letter advising of the City's NOID. An ad for the NOID will be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and the newspaper ad is posted, there will be a 30 -day appeal period in which the property owner may object to the designation. REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within our City is an important part of planning for the future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures, and landscapes that give the City of Kitchener its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term conservation of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value or interest; encourages good stewardship and conservation; and, promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognizes and promotes awareness, but it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a Page 32 of 100 property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value or interest. 1434 Trussler Road is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative value and contextual values. It satisfies four (4) of nine (9) criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). A summary of the criteria that is or is not met is provided in the table below. Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a Yes rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, material, or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it Unknown displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design or physical value because it Unknown demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it Yes 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 Unknown yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it Unknown demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in Yes defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, Yes functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No Table 1: Criteria for Designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) Design/Physical Value The property demonstrates design/physical value as a rare and early example of a mid - 19t" century one -and -one-half storey frame house constructed with lathe and horsehair covered with stucco while the circa 1910 two -and -a -half storey Queen Anne house is a rare example of a construction method that used a machine to cut an exterior wythe of rock -faced concrete block to clad the wood frame construction beneath (likely used a machine from Sears). The property further demonstrates design/physical value as a rare and early example of mixed architectural styles, including the original one -and -a -half - storey house and the two -and -a -half -storey addition built in the Queen Anne architectural style. Together, the original house and the c. 1910 addition provide a unique example of a single house composed of structures of radically different styles and dates in a way that Page 33 of 100 conserves crucial qualities of each and forms a picturesque whole. The barn has physical value as an early example of a barn and its solid construction. The one -and -a -half -storey frame house is constructed with lathe and horsehair, is clad with stucco, features a four -paned round window on the front (south) and rear (north) elevation, and a one -storey verandah with posts and spandrels that physically and visually connects the two houses. The frame house was converted to a summer kitchen and woodshed when the addition was built. The addition was built in the Queen Anne architectural style. In 1991, the addition featured: L-shaped plan; high hipped roof with three projecting gables with return eaves; a single pedimented dormer with foliated scroll decoration; decorative undulant shingling, bargeboard and pendants in the gables; rock - faced concrete block cladding; two-storey verandah with frieze, scroll brackets, spun posts, spandrel, and spindle work; flat headed and semi -circular window openings with voussoirs and sills; and, double hung sash wood windows and wood frames. In 1991, the interior featured: panelled doors with black ceramic knobs, moulded trim with corner blocks, casings with corner rosettes, panelled wainscotting, heavy turned newel post, turned balusters, beechwood and maple floors, a single staircase, and a 9/6 window and frame on the rear (north) elevation. In 1991, the property featured three original red tin roof drive sheds, a colony house, and a smokehouse that had been converted to a fuel shed. In 2010, the original barn was still standing and described as "impressive in the solidity of its construction" with a foundation of large split stones laid in courses and joists that are flattened tree trunks. Aerial imagery from 2023 and Google Earth Lidar and satellite imagery from 2024 reveal several outbuildings and structures of various sizes and functions including, but not limited to, barns, drivesheds, and silos. At least one of the barns appears to be a similar era of the house given the presence of a split stone foundation. Historical/Associative Value The historical/associative values relate to its history and association with early pioneer settlement, architectural and social development, and original, previous, and existing owners of the property. These values were researched and reported in the "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study" prepared by Nancy Z. Tausky dated August 2010. The original, previous, and existing owners of the property were well documented in the Helena Feasby Women's Institute Tweedsmuir History (1981). The subject property is located within the German Company Tract with Lot 136 being originally owned by a member of the Brubacher family. The property was purchased by Oliver Clemens (b. 20 April 1830; d. 26 September 1904) in 1853. Oliver was a direct descendant of George Clemens (b. 17 July 1777; d. 10 August 1863) who was among the first settlers in Waterloo County arriving c. 1800. Oliver along with Henry McNally, Angus McNally and Moses Eschelman bought a former grist mill and sawmill and converted it to the Blair Woolen Mills in 1875 and operated until Angus McNally died in April 1903. Page 34 of 100 John (also spelled Johann) Philipp Lautenschlager (b. 1808 December 20; d. 1895 August 27) came to Waterloo County in 1831 and was both a cooper and a farmer. In 1834 John married Barbara Stoltz (b. 1808 December 20; d. 1885 January 5) and together they had six children: Magdalena, Jacob, Philip Stoltz, Elizabeth, August, and Frederick. Their first son was Jacob (b. 7 March 1837; d. 25 January 1930) and he purchased the subject property in 1864 and thereafter his occupation is listed as a farmer. Jacob married Elizabeth Rosenberger (b. 1841 January 29; d. 1880 February 21) and together they had seven children: William A., Melinda, Isaac Samuel, Lydia A., Albert, Annetta R. "Nettie", and Rosetta M.. The property passed to their second son Isaac in 1901. Isaac (b. 1864 June 10; d. 1943 May 8) married Mary Ann Schweitzer (b. 1865 April 2; d. 1951 September 23) in 1886 and together they had three children: Rev. Stanton S., Rev. Roy, and Rev. Earl Schweitzer. Isaac was a founding member and a director of The Farmer's Co-operative Creamery Company Limited (also known as the New Dundee Creamery), which operated between 1908 and 1998. Other founding members and directors included: Daniel D. Snyder, Roseville; and, Jacob C. Hallman, William Goettling and Edwin B. Hallman, New Dundee. Together, these men obtained permission to manufacture butter, cheese and other dairy products with their brand being well-known until the late 1940s. The New Dundee Creamery produced the largest volume of butter annually in Ontario and won prizes at the Royal Winter Fair, the Canadian National Exhibition, and the Royal Dairy Show. Isaac and Mary Ann's second son, Roy Launtenschlager (b. 1889 December 20; d. 1978 June 23), was born on the family farm. He attended Rosebank public school, Huntington College and the University of Michigan. He was a member of the Mannheim church, the United Brethren church, and later the American Presbyterian church. He became a Presbyterian missionary in China between 1922 and 1951 and was a political prisoner in a Shanghai camp (1942-1943) during the Sino-Japenese war. During this time, he wrote a poem about his "sweet home" on the "Old Town Line," in which he credits his mother with the design of the 1910 addition. The poem reads: "On the Old Town Line 1 cherish a farm on the "Old Town Line" `Twixt Wilmot and Waterloo Remove from roaring motor -ways Amongst hills secluded too, Where earth gave richly toil's reward Broad hills were verdant green Barns bulged with grain and scented hay None better have we seen. It was a sweet home on the "Old Town Line" Blessed childhood, youth and prime — With song on my lips I ruffled the soil And gathered in harvest time,- We ime,We built the new house to Mother's plan Kept stables and fences renewed Fine horses always were Dad's delight In this rural habitude. Page 35 of 100 The farm still lives on the "Old Town Line" Though the Ls eschewed its worth A hearth forsaken but never forgot This lap of nourishing earth,- There arth,There we were schooled in nature's ways Learned the toil with spirit free Where the web of life was patterned true In honest, homespun sanctity." (In honor of Father and Mother, Shanghai 1942) R. S. L. (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981) Gottleib Goettling (b. 1827 April 11; d. 1909 April 7) and his wife Johanna Katharina Krauss (b. 1834 April 22; d. 1918 December 31) wanted their children to escape inscription with the German army chose to send them overseas to meet with family and friends. Gottleib and his family took up residence in the top storey of his friend, Fritz Kaiser's, blacksmith shop in Roseville (now the Township of North Dumfries). Gottleib's youngest son, Albert Goettling (b. 27 August 1877; d. 24 May 1976), married Anna Magdalena Myers (b. June 1907; d. 19 May 1940) and together they had four children: Violet Marceline, Earl Clare, Gertrude Elizabeth, and Sangster Albert. Albert purchased the 92 -acre Isaac Lautenslager farm for $8300 in 1916. Albert was a member of the Wilmot Centre United Brethren Church and later the Roseville Church, he taught Sunday School, and was a member of the Roseville Church Board. His appreciation for music lead him to donate, the Hallman organ, that was still in use at the Roseville Church in 1967. Albert was instrumental in starting the New Dundee Creamery before it became a co-op. He wanted New Dundee farmers to acquire dividends and profits and spent hours talking and hanging posters promoting the creation of the New Dundee Creamery. As noted earlier in this report, the Farmer's Co-operative Creamery Company Limited operated between 1908 and 1998. The founding members and directors included: Isaac Lautenschlager-, Daniel D. Snyder, Roseville; and, Jacob C. Hallman, William Goettling and Edwin B. Hallman, New Dundee. Together, these men obtained permission to manufacture butter, cheese and other dairy products with their brand being well-known until the late 1940s. The New Dundee Creamery produced the largest volume of butter annually in Ontario and won prizes at the Royal Winter Fair, the Canadian National Exhibition, and the Royal Dairy Show. Albert was an active member of the Rosebank farm forum and director of the Waterloo Township Plowing Match for 25 years. Sangster Albert Goettling (b. 1920 January 23; d. 2007 November 20) was born at this property. By 1946 Sangster had gradually started to take over the farm from his father. Sangster married Helen Marie Eckstein (b. 1925 April 19; d. 2005 June 23) on November 29, 1947, and together they had three children: Ronald W., Robert Carl, and Karen. Sangster farmed his entire life on the farm where he was born and was a longtime member of the Wilmot Centre Missionary Church. According to the Vernon's 2014 Kitchener and Waterloo City Directory, the property remains in the Goettling family. Page 36 of 100 Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the rural character of the property and area. Specific elements that maintain the rural character include: the layout of buildings, the long tree lined laneway terminating at the farm complex with the house on one side and the barn on the other, the south facing house oriented towards the lane, the location of the house within a grove of trees, undulating topography, agricultural fields, hedgerows, and forests. The contextual value also relates to how the heritage attributes are physically, visually, functionally, and historically linked to the rural character of the property and area. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1434 Trussler Road resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction, materials and architectural styles of the house, including: 0 1 '/2 storey frame house: ■ lathe and horsehair construction; ■ stucco cladding; ■ four -paned round window on the front (south) and rear (north) elevation; ■ 9/6 wood window and wood frame on the rear (north) elevation; and, ■ 1 storey verandah with posts and spandrels. 0 2'/2 storey addition: ■ L-shaped plan; ■ high hipped roof with three projecting gables with return eaves; ■ a single pedimented dormer with foliated scroll decoration; ■ decorative undulant shingling, bargeboard, and pendants in the gables; ■ rock -faced concrete block cladding; ■ two-storey verandah with frieze, scroll brackets, spun posts, spandrel, and spindle work; ■ flat headed and semi -circular window openings with voussoirs and sills; and, ■ double hung sash wood windows and wood frames. o Interior: ■ original panelled doors with black ceramic knobs; ■ moulded trim with corner blocks; ■ panelled wainscot; ■ beechwood and maple floors; and, ■ staircase (Ryan, 1991). All elements related to the 19th century and early 20th century outbuildings (e.g., barns, drivesheds, silos, etc.), including: o location and orientation; o height and massing; and, o design, materials and colours. All elements related to the contextual value of the property, including: Page 37 of 100 o the layout of buildings; o the long tree lined laneway terminating at the farm complex with the house on one side and the barn on the other; o the south facing house oriented towards the laneway; o the location of the house within a grove of trees; o undulating topography; o agricultural fields; o hedgerows; and, o forests. STRATEGIC 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 Planning staff have consulted with the Heritage Kitchener committee regarding designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Property owners were invited to consult via two separate letters dated May 23, 2023 and December 19, 2024. Section 29(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before giving Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) a property. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report (see INFORM above). Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this report to Heritage Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council. Should Council choose to proceed with a NOID, such notice will be served on the property owner, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record). Once notice has been served, the property owner has the right object to the designation. Should Council decide not to proceed with a NOID then the building will remain on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) until January 1, 2027, after which it will be removed in accordance with the legislative changes enacted by Bill 200. Once removed from the MHR, it cannot be re -listed on the MHR for five (5) years (i.e., January 1, 2032). PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 • Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) • Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review (DSD -2023-225) • Municipal Heritage Register Review —August 2023 Update (DSD -2023-309) Page 38 of 100 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update (DSD -2024-022) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — February 2024 Update (DSD -2024-056) • 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) • Bill 200, Homeowners Protection Act, 2024 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — June 2024 Update (DSD -2024-250) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2024 Update (DSD -2024-333) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — September 2024 Update (DSD -2024-361) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — October 2024 Update (DSD -2024-413) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — November 2024 Update (DSD -2024-444) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Statement of Significance for 1434 Trussler Road Page 39 of 100 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 1434 Trussler Road Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ❑Social Value ®Historical/Associative Value ❑Economic Value ®Contextual Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 1434 Trussler Road Legal Description: GCT Part Lot 136 Year Built: c. 1841 (1 '/2 storey frame house) & circa 1910 (2 storey Queen Anne house) Architectural Style: Queen Anne Original Owner: Brubacher Original Use: Farm Condition: Good Page 40 of 100 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource The property municipally addressed as 1434 Trussler Road features a mid -19th century frame house with an early 20th century addition built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The building is situated on a 83.52 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Trussler Road between Bleams Road and Huron Road in the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the house (original and addition), barns, outbuildings, silos, tree lined laneway, hedgerows, agricultural fields, and woodlot. Heritage Value 1434 Trussler Road is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The property demonstrates design/physical value as a rare and early example of a mid -19th century one -and -one-half storey frame house constructed with lathe and horsehair covered with stucco while the circa 1910 two -and -a -half storey Queen Anne house is a rare example of a construction method that used a machine to cut an exterior wythe of rock -faced concrete block to clad the wood frame construction beneath (likely used a machine from Sears). The property further demonstrates design/physical value as a rare and early example of mixed architectural styles, including the original one -and -a -half -storey house and the two -and -a -half -storey addition built in the Queen Anne architectural style. Together, the original house and the c. 1910 addition provide a unique example of a single house composed of structures of radically different styles and dates in a way that conserves crucial qualities of each and forms a picturesque whole. The barn has physical value as an early example of a barn and its solid construction. The one -and -a -half -storey frame house is constructed with lathe and horsehair, is clad with stucco, features a four -paned round window on the front (south) and rear (north) elevation, and a one -storey verandah with posts and spandrels that physically and visually connects the two houses (Ryan, 1991; Tausky, 2010). The frame house was converted to a summer kitchen and woodshed when the addition was built. The addition was built in the Queen Anne architectural style. In 1991, the addition featured: L-shaped plan; high hipped roof with three projecting gables with return eaves; a single pedimented dormer with foliated scroll decoration; decorative undulant shingling, bargeboard and pendants in the gables; rock -faced concrete block cladding; two-storey verandah with frieze, scroll brackets, spun posts, spandrel, and spindle work; flat headed and semi -circular window openings with voussoirs and sills; and, double hung sash wood windows and wood frames (Ryan, 1991; Tausky, 2010). In 1991, the interior featured: panelled doors with black ceramic knobs, moulded trim with corner blocks, casings with corner rosettes, panelled wainscotting, heavy turned newel post, turned balusters, beechwood and maple floors, a single staircase, and a 9/6 window and frame on the rear (north) elevation (Ryan, 1991; Tausky, 2010). In 1991, the property featured three original red tin roof drive sheds, a colony house, and a smokehouse that had been converted to a fuel shed (Ryan, 1991). In 2010, the original barn was still standing and described as "impressive in the solidity of its construction" with a foundation of large split stones laid in courses and joists that are flattened tree trunks (Tausky, 2010). Aerial imagery from 2023 and Google Earth Lidar and satellite imagery from 2024 reveal several outbuildings and structures of various sizes and functions including, but not limited to, barns, drivesheds, and silos. At Page 41 of 100 least one of the barns appears to be a similar era of the house given the presence of a split stone foundation. Historical/Associative Value The historical/associative values relate to its history and association with early pioneer settlement, architectural and social development, and original, previous, and existing owners of the property. These values were researched and reported in the "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study" prepared by Nancy Z. Tausky dated August 2010. The original, previous, and existing owners of the property were well documented in the Helena Feasby Women's Institute Tweedsmuir History (1981). The subject property is located within the German Company Tract with Lot 136 being originally owned by a member of the Brubacher family (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). The property was purchased by Oliver Clemens (b. 20 April 1830; d. 26 September 1904) in 1853 (Bonk, 2024x). Oliver was a direct descendant of George Clemens (b. 17 July 1777; d. 10 August 1863) who was among the first settlers in Waterloo County arriving c. 1800 (Bonk, 2024x; Panabaker, 1921). Oliver along with Henry McNally, Angus McNally and Moses Eschelman bought a former grist mill and sawmill and converted it to the Blair Woolen Mills in 1875 (Johannes, 1941) and operated until Angus McNally died in April 1903 (Kinzie, 1954). John (also spelled Johann) Philipp Lautenschlager (b. 1808 December 20; d. 1895 August 27) came to Waterloo County in 1831 and was both a cooper and a farmer (Bonk, 2024b). In 1834 John married Barbara Stoltz (b. 1808 December 20; d. 1885 January 5) and together they had six children: Magdalena, Jacob, Philip Stoltz, Elizabeth, August, and Frederick (Bonk, 2024b). Their first son was Jacob (b. 7 March 1837; d. 25 January 1930) and he purchased the subject property in 1864 and thereafter his occupation is listed as a farmer (Bonk, 2024c). Jacob married Elizabeth Rosenberger (b. 1841 January 29; d. 1880 February 21) and together they had seven children: William A., Melinda, Isaac Samuel, Lydia A., Albert, Annetta R. "Nettie", and Rosetta M. (Bonk, 2024c). The property passed to their second son Isaac in 1901. Isaac (b. 1864 June 10; d. 1943 May 8) married Mary Ann Schweitzer (b. 1865 April 2; d. 1951 September 23) in 1886 and together they had three children: Rev. Stanton S., Rev. Roy, and Rev. Earl Schweitzer (Bonk, 2024d). Isaac was a founding member and a director of The Farmer's Co-operative Creamery Company Limited (also known as the New Dundee Creamery), which operated between 1908 and 1998 (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981; Romahn et al, 1997). Other founding members and directors included: Daniel D. Snyder, Roseville; and, Jacob C. Hallman, William Goettling and Edwin B. Hallman, New Dundee (Romahn et al, 1997). Together, these men obtained permission to manufacture butter, cheese and other dairy products with their brand being well-known until the late 1940s (Romahn et al, 1997). The New Dundee Creamery produced the largest volume of butter annually in Ontario and won prizes at the Royal Winter Fair, the Canadian National Exhibition, and the Royal Dairy Show (Romahn et al, 1997). Isaac and Mary Ann's second son, Roy Launtenschlager (b. 1889 December 20; d. 1978 June 23), was born on the family farm (Bonk, 2024d; Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). He attended Rosebank public school, Huntington College and the University of Michigan (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). He was a member of the Mannheim church, the United Brethren church, and later the American Presbyterian church (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). He became a Presbyterian missionary in China between 1922 and 1951 and became was a political prisoner in a Shanghai camp (1942-1943) during the Sino-Japenese war (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). During this Page 42 of 100 time, he wrote a poem about his "sweet home" on the "Old Town Line," in which he credits his mother with the design of the 1910 addition (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). The poem reads: "On the Old Town Line 1 cherish a farm on the "Old Town Line" `Twixt Wilmot and Waterloo Remove from roaring motor -ways Amongst hills secluded too, Where earth gave richly toil's reward Broad hills were verdant green Barns bulged with grain and scented hay None better have we seen. It was a sweet home on the "Old Town Line" Blessed childhood, youth and prime — With song on my lips I ruffled the soil And gathered in harvest time,- We ime,We built the new house to Mother's plan Kept stables and fences renewed Fine horses always were Dad's delight In this rural habitude. The farm still lives on the "Old Town Line" Though the Ls eschewed its worth A hearth forsaken but never forgot This lap of nourishing earth,- There arth,There we were schooled in nature's ways Learned the toil with spirit free Where the web of life was patterned true In honest, homespun sanctity." (In honor of Father and Mother, Shanghai 1942) R. S. L. (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981) Gottleib Goettling (b. 1827 April 11; d. 1909 April 7) and his wife Johanna Katharina Krauss (b. 1834 April 22; d. 1918 December 31) wanted their children to escape inscription with the German army chose to send them overseas to meet with family and friends (Bonk, 2024e; Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). Gottleib and his family took up residence in the top storey of his friend, Fritz Kaiser's, blacksmith shop in Roseville (now the Township of North Dumfries) (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). Gottleib's youngest son, Albert Goettling (b. 27 August 1877; d. 24 May 1976), married Anna Magdalena Myers (b. June 1907; d. 19 May 1940) and together they had four children: Violet Marceline, Earl Clare, Gertrude Elizabeth, and Sangster Albert (Bonk, 2024e). Albert purchased the 92 -acre Isaac Lautenslager farm for $8300 in 1916 (Bonk, 2024e). Albert was a member of the Wilmot Centre United Brethren Church and later the Roseville Church, he taught Sunday School, and was a member of the Roseville Church Board (Bonk, 2024e). His appreciation for music lead him to donate, the Hallman organ, that was still in use at the Roseville Church in 1967 (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). Albert was instrumental in starting the New Dundee Creamery before it became a co-op (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). He wanted New Page 43 of 100 Dundee farmers to acquire dividends and profits and spent hours talking and hanging posters promoting the creation of the New Dundee Creamery (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). As noted earlier in this report, the Farmer's Co-operative Creamery Company Limited operated between 1908 and 1998. The founding members and directors included: Isaac Lautenschlager-, Daniel D. Snyder, Roseville; and, Jacob C. Hallman, William Goettling and Edwin B. Hallman, New Dundee (Romahn et al, 1997). Together, these men obtained permission to manufacture butter, cheese and other dairy products with their brand being well-known until the late 1940s. The New Dundee Creamery produced the largest volume of butter annually in Ontario and won prizes at the Royal Winter Fair, the Canadian National Exhibition, and the Royal Dairy Show. Albert was an active member of the Rosebank farm forum and director of the Waterloo Township Plowing Match for 25 years. Sangster Albert Goettling (b. 1920 January 23; d. 2007 November 20) was born at this property (Bonk, 2024f). By 1946 Sangster had gradually started to take over the farm from his father (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). Sangster married Helen Marie Eckstein (b. 1925 April 19; d. 2005 June 23) on November 29, 1947, and together they had three children: Ronald W., Robert Carl, and Karen (Bonk, 2024f). Sangster farmed his entire life on the farm where he was born and was a longtime member of the Wilmot Centre Missionary Church (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). According to the Vernon's 2014 Kitchener and Waterloo City Directory, the property remains in the Goettling family. Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the rural character of the property and area. Specific elements that maintain the rural character include: the layout of buildings, the long tree lined laneway terminating at the farm complex with the house on one side and the barn on the other, the south facing house oriented towards the lane, the location of the house within a grove of trees, undulating topography, agricultural fields, hedgerows, and forests. The contextual value also relates to how the heritage attributes are physically, visually, functionally, and historically linked to the rural character of the property and area. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1434 Trussler Road resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction, materials and architectural styles of the house, including: 0 1 1/2 storey frame house: ■ lathe and horsehair construction; ■ stucco cladding; ■ four -paned round window on the front (south) and rear (north) elevation; ■ 9/6 wood window and wood frame on the rear (north) elevation; and, ■ 1 storey verandah with posts and spandrels. 0 2'/2 storey addition: ■ L-shaped plan; ■ high hipped roof with three projecting gables with return eaves; ■ a single pedimented dormer with foliated scroll decoration; ■ decorative undulant shingling, bargeboard, and pendants in the gables; ■ rock -faced concrete block cladding; Page 44 of 100 ■ two-storey verandah with frieze, scroll brackets, spun posts, spandrel, and spindle work; ■ flat headed and semi -circular window openings with voussoirs and sills; and, ■ double hung sash wood windows and wood frames. o Interior: ■ original panelled doors with black ceramic knobs; ■ moulded trim with corner blocks; ■ panelled wainscot; ■ beechwood and maple floors; and, ■ staircase (Ryan, 1991). All elements related to the 19th century and early 20th century outbuildings (e.g., barns, drivesheds, silos, etc.), including: o location and orientation; o height and massing; and, o design, materials and colours. All elements related to the contextual value of the property, including: o the layout of buildings; o the long tree lined laneway terminating at the farm complex with the house on one side and the barn on the other; o the south facing house oriented towards the laneway; o the location of the house within a grove of trees; o undulating topography; o agricultural fields; o hedgerows; and, o forests. References Google Earth (10.49.0.0 Multi -threaded) (2024). 1434 Trussler Road. [online]. Available from: https://earth.google.com/web/search/1434+Trussler+Road,+Kitchener,+ON/(a)43.38722122,- 80.52063306,377.55179775a,32.74626266d,35y,- 26.78886604h,54.72832268t,360r/data=CPABGm ISXAolMHg4ODJiMGE2ZDVhZDYSMWYxOiB4Mid hN2EzNGQzOTgzOWJkMBngIK8Hk7FFQCF18tiFVSFUwCohMTQzNCBUcnVzc2xlciBSb2FkLCBLa XRiaGVuZXIsIE9OGAIgASImCiQJgQYGVlg1 RUAR7DFektWORUAZgCGL13UaVMAh3b2CsfMaVMB CAggB [Accessed 2024, September 16). Helena Feasby Women's Institute. (1981). Tweedsmuir history, Helena Feasby Institute, North Waterloo. Kitchener Public Library: Kitchener, Ontario. Johannes, J. (1941). History of Blair. Waterloo Historical Society 29 (162-164): Kitchener, Ontario. Kinzie, H.S. (1954). History of Blair. Waterloo Historical Society 42 (7-10): Kitchener, Ontario. Panabaker, D. N. (1921). Historical Sketch of the Clemens Family. Waterloo Historical Society 9 (161- 170): Kitchener, Ontario. Page 45 of 100 Romahn, M., M. Sararus, and A. Parker (1997). The New Dundee Creamery 1908-1998. Waterloo Historical Society (85) 69-76: Kitchener, Ontario. Ryan, D. (1991). "Architectural Analysis — 1434 Trussler Road." City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Tausky, N.Z. (2010). "Cultural Heritage Background Study. Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study." City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Vernon's Kitchener and Waterloo City Directory. (2014). Goettling Sangster 1434 Trussler Rd N2R 154. Vernon's Publishing Inc.: Burlington, Ontario. Bonk, D. (2024a). Oliver Clemens. [online]. Available from: https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?person lD=116938&tree=generations (Accessed 2024, September 30). Bonk, D. (2024b). Johann Phillip "Philip" Lautenschlager. [online]. Availablel from: https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.phP?personlD=135055&tree=generations (Accessed 2024, October 10). Bonk, D. (2024c). Jacob Lautenschlager. [online]. Available from: https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personlD=117427&tree=generations (Accessed 2024, September 30). Bonk, D. (2024d). Isaac Samuel Lautenschlager. [online]. Available from: https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.phP?personlD=19394&tree=qenerations (Accessed on 2024, October 10). Bonk, D. (2024e). Albert Goettling. [online]. Available from: https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.phP?personlD=1202445&tree=qenerations (Accessed 2024, September 30). Bonk, D. (2024f). Sangster Albert Goettling. [online]. Available from: https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.phP?personlD=1381523&tree=generations (Accessed 2024, September 30). Page 46 of 100 Photographs -................ ............. ..... i 41171 •� ea 4, � Historic Front Elevation (South Fagade) — 1434 Trussler Road (Source- Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981) Front Elevation (South Fagade) — 1434 Trussler Road (Source- Tausky, 2010) Page 47 of 100 TRUSaLER �GS `r� FP , Aerial Photograph — 1434 Trussler Road (Source- City of Kitchener, 2023) Page 48 of 100 1 KIT_C'HiENER CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 1434 Trussler Road Address: Mid -19th century, 1.5 storey; & c.1910 2.5 storey add Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Michelle Drake Recorder: — Date: January 16, 2024 El 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 ❑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 ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ 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 ❑X No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or Page 10 of 17 Page 49 of 100 KIT—C'HiENER scientific 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 ❑ 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 ❑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 Page 11 of 17 Page 50 of 100 1 KIT—C'HiENER reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has 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 M. Drake: see "Architectural Analysis -1434 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on May 16, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 Page 12 of 17 Page 51 of 100 KIT—C'HiENER Additional Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Criteria Interior: Is the interior N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X arrangement, Yes ❑ finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X structure have Yes ❑ other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X structure Yes ❑ occupy its original site? * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ building retain Yes ❑ most of its original materials and design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Page 13 of 17 Page 52 of 100 KIT_C'HiENER Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ additional Yes ❑ elements or features that should be added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ good Yes ❑ condition? *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 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ this site be of ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Page 14 of 17 Page 53 of 100 KIT—C'HiENER topographical ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required 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: Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential X Commercial ❑ What is the Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑X Farm present Office ❑ Other ❑ - function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Inclusion: ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required Does the subject property contribute to N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ the cultural ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of people? Page 15 of 17 Page 54 of 100 1 KIT_C'HiENER 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. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined M. Drake: see "Architectural Analysis -1434 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on May 16, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 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 Page 16 of 17 Page 55 of 100 1 KITCHENER Other: General / Additional Notes see "Architectural Analysis -1434 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on May 16, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 17 of 17 Page 56 of 100 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 4, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-783-8922 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-783-8906 DATE OF REPORT: February 10, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-031 SUBJECT: Municipal Heritage Register Review March 2025 Update 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: • 241-247 Duke Street East/ 55 Victoria Street North • 30-32 Duke Street West • 1865 Huron Road 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 1St, 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 must 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 interest. The criteria for designation is established by the Provincial Government (Ontario *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 57 of 100 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 completed for 88 properties. 3 properties are before the Committee as of the date of this report to be considered for designation. 27 properties have fully undergone the designation process. 46 properties are currently undergoing the designation process and are at various stages of completion. 14 properties have been reviewed and determined that no action should be taken at this time, and 1 NOID has been withdrawn by Council. 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 58 of 100 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). 241-247 Duke Street East / 55 Victoria Street North The subject property municipally addressed as 241-247 Duke Street East / 55 Victoria Street 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 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. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 30-32 Duke Street West The subject property municipally addressed as 30-32 Duke Street West meets three (3) 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 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. 1865 Huron Road The subject property municipally addressed as 1865 Huron Road meets three (3) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg 569/22): Page 59 of 100 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 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. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 60 of 100 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 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — September 2024 Update — DSD -2024-361 • Municipal Heritage Register — October 2024 Update — DSD -2024-426 • Municipal Heritage Register- November 2024 Update — DSD -2024-444 • 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 — 241-247 Duke Street East / 55 Victoria Street North Attachment B- Updated Statement of Significance — 30-32 Duke Street West Attachment C- Updated Statement of Significance — 1865 Huron Road Page 61 of 100 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 241-247 Duke Street West / 55 Victoria Street North Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 241-247 Duke Street West/55 Victoria Street North Kitchener Legal Description: Plan 374, Lot 63 & 64 Year Built ca. 1913, addition after 1925 Architectural Style: Vernacular Industrial Original Owner: John Sloan Original Use: Commercial/Industrial (Wholesale Grocer) Other Owner: Robert Bergen Other Use: Commercial/Industrial (Electrician) Condition: Good Page 62 of 100 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 241-247 Duke Street West/55 Victoria Street North is an early 20th century commercial building situated on a 0.48 acre parcel of land. The property is located on the south west corner of Duke Street West and Victoria Street North in the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the commercial building. Heritage Value 241-247 Duke Street West (formerly 21 Edward Street) / 55 Victoria Street North is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design/physical value relates to the building as a representative example of early 20th century Vernacular Industrial architecture in Berlin (now Kitchener). The original 1913 portion of the building features elements characteristic of early Vernacular Industrial architecture including a flat roof, buff (yellow) brick (painted c. 2019), a regular arrangement of windows and minimal ornamentation. Decorative features include a horizontal brick band under the cornice and above the foundation, dentils under the cornice band and brick pilasters that separate the door and window openings. An addition constructed after 1925 on the east side of the building replicates the mass, setback, roofline, and pilasters of the original building. Historical/Associative Value The historical/associative value of the building reflects the work of an architect, Charles Knechtel (1869-1951), who was significant to Berlin. Charles was the son of Jonas Knechtel whom he acquired most of his building and design knowledge from between 1886 and 1894 (Hill, 2022). He opened his own business in 1895 and operated until 1930 (Hill, 2022). Over 100 buildings were designed by him, including churches, commercial blocks, factories, homes, schools, etc. (Hill, 2022). In 1913, he built a large warehouse on Victoria Street for John Sloan and Co. (Hill, 2022). Other notable buildings he designed include: First Church of Christ Scientist, Victoria Park Pavillion, Berlin Carnegie Library, Hymmen Hardware Co. Ltd., and St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church rectory (Hill, 2022). The historical/associative value of the property relates to its connection to commercial development in the City during the early part of the 20th century. The building was first occupied in 1913 by John Sloan and Co., a wholesale grocer, and one of only two such wholesale companies in Berlin at that time (Canadian Grocer, 1913; Vernon's Directory, 1918). The location was important given its proximity to the railway spur line that ran along Victoria Street North and enabled easy transport of produce to the warehouse. John Sloan and Co. was a Toronto company that operated several wholesale grocery outlets throughout Ontario in the early 1900s. Victor Sloan, a son of John Sloan, was a resident of the City of Kitchener and served as office manager and later accountant of the wholesale business. In 1920, John Sloan and Co. purchased its sole local wholesale competitor, the Randall and Roos Wholesale Grocer and Liquor Warehouse (est. 1884). Later that same year John Sloan and Co. was purchased by National Grocers Ltd. By 1950, National Grocers had moved to a new property and was later consolidated with Loblaws Companies Ltd, the largest food retailer in Canada. Page 63 of 100 The historical/associative value of the property also relates to the connection of building to well-known local electrical and lighting company called Bergen Electric Ltd and its owner Robert William Bergen (b. 4 December 1900; d. 22 May 1993) (Bonk, 2025). Robert Bergen was an electrician who owned and operated several electrical contracting companies from 1921, including the RW Bierwagon Electric Company, the Mattell & Bierwagen Electric Company and the Bergen Electric Company (The Bergen Group, 2013). Robert Bergen purchased 241-247 Duke Street West/55 Victoria Street North from the Sloan estate in 1950. He helped form the Ontario Electrical Contractors Association and encouraged local farmers to use hydro instead of coal oil at their farms (Bergen Group, 2025). Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the building's role in maintaining and supporting the character of the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (WDCHL) identified in Kitchener's Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (2015). The WDCHL, which roughly encompasses the complex of industrial buildings concentrated along the Canadian National Railway (formerly Grand Trunk Railway) and the railway line itself, was the site of the majority of the City's economic development during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Heritage attributes include a quantity of multi-storey, brick buildings in a Vernacular Industrial style with small setbacks from the street and the rail line (Landplan Collaborative, 2012). The building at 241-247 Duke Street West/55 Victoria Street North supports these heritage values and attributes through its height, mass, setback, Vernacular Industrial architectural style, and original use as a warehouse. The building is historically linked to the Canadian National Railway, which delivered produce and goods via a spur line which permitted freight cars to pull up directly alongside the Victoria Street North elevation of the building (Underwriters Survey Bureau, 1925; Fear, 2011). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 241-247 Duke Street West/55 Victoria Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: o roof and roofline, including the flat roof; o door openings; o window openings, including concrete headers and sills; o yellow brick construction (painted c. 2019); o concrete foundation; o parapets between windows; o shallow horizontal brick banding under cornice and above foundation; and, o dental brick work under brick banding. ■ All elements related to the contextual value of the building, including: o height, mass and set back. References Bergen Group. (2025). Our History. Retrieved February 3, 2025, from http://www.bergengroup.ca/history. Page 64 of 100 The Bergen Group. (2013). About us. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.bergengroup.ca/about-us. Bonk, D. (2025). Robert William Bergen: Waterloo Region Generations. Retrieved February 3, 2025, from https://qenerations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personID=129249&tree=qenerations Canadian Grocer. (1913, January -March). Volume 27, Issue 1-13. Canadian Grocer. (1920, April -June). Volume 34, Issue 14-26. Envision Consulting Group and Scheinman, Andre. (2006). Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Waterloo Region: A Framework for Inventory, Assessment and Policy Development. Kitchener, Ontario. Fear, J. (2011, November 4). Flash from the Past: Some Kitchener streets were once paved with wood. Waterloo Region Record. Retrieved March 1, 2013 from: http://www.therecord.com/living/article/620193--flash-from-the-past-some-kitchener-streets- were-once-paved-with-wood . Hill, R. G. (2022). Charles Knechtel: Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved February 3, 2025 from: http://dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org/node/223. The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. with John MacDonald Architect Inc. (2012). Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment: Proposed Region of Waterloo Multimodal Hub 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener. Kitchener, Ontario. Underwriters Survey Bureau Ltd. (1908 revised and reprinted March 1925). Kitchener Fire Insurance Maps. Toronto. rnotograpns I �g Ark Front Elevation (North Facade): 241-247 Duke Street West / 55 Victoria Street North (Google, 2024) Page 65 of 100 i ........... LI Rear Elevation (South Fagade)- 241-247 Duke Street West / 55 Victoria Street North (Google, 2024 Iv. �= V r �1 f 0 BLISS 40 1403 F� Side Elevation (East Fagade)- 241-247 Duke Street West / 55 Victoria Street North (Google, 2024 Page 66 of 100 i€--%;c'�-'$�c.fvYJ � .�vc.c�-,•sem=,-:�+�c.�a;G kt��i..w-�-c�iay"� .-�et�ii�LE$1i:232?tiy �..'K.iiI�T,Ni�i - 1 r� f� 6ar LLIZ i 9-579-5556 *! �r Side Elevation (West Fagade)- 241-247 Duke Street West / 55 Victoria Street North (Google, 2024) rt i 241-247 Duke Street West / 55 Victoria Street North (Canadian Grocer, April - June 1920) Page 67 of 100 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 241-247 Duke St. W. / 55 Victoria St. N. Address: Vernacular Industrial style Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Recorder: Date: ❑X Front Facade X Left Fagade X Right Fagade X Rear Facade Michelle Drake January 31, 2025 ❑ 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 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 ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X 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 X No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material Page 68 of 100 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 o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X 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 ❑ 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 69 of 100 *Additional archival work Recorder Heritage Kitchener may be required. Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, 7. The property has 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 ❑x Unknown ❑ No ❑ Page 70 of 100 craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ detail noteworthy? Yes ❑ 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 ❑X No ❑ original materials and Yes ❑ Yes ❑ 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 0 0 Indigenous heritage and 0 Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required history? Page 71 of 100 *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 1 KrR N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential X Co mmercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 72 of 100 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 73 of 100 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 30-32 Duke Street West / 141 Ontario Street North D,ttmm„ cw, rvty Centre i Summary of Significance RM 8� OevebVnen, V Caroms 2 ti r4= s 44 •_'' St Peters LLCM Church W ®Design/Physical Value ❑Social Value ®Historical/Associative Value ❑Economic Value ®Contextual Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 30-32 Duke Street West / 141 Ontario Street North Legal Description: Plan 396 Part Lots 3 to 5 Plan 401 Part Lot 8 58R-5891 Part 1 Year Built: 1970 Architectural Style: International with Brutalist and Expressionist influences Original Owner: Corporation Square Original Use: Commercial (Mall, Offices, Theatre) Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 30-32 Duke Street West is two 20th century commercial office buildings connected by a concrete podium and parking garage built in the International architectural style with Brutalist and Expressionist influences. The building is situated on a 1.07 -acre parcel of land located on the corner of Duke Street Page 74 of 100 West and Ontario Street North in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contributes to the heritage value are the buildings, podium, parking garage, and exterior hardscaping. Heritage Value 30-32 Duke Street West / 141 Ontario Street North is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The property municipally addressed as 30-32 Duke Street West / 141 Ontario Street North demonstrates design/physical value as a rare example of the International architectural style with Brutalist and Expressionist influences. The International architectural style is known for its use of hard angular edges, severely plain surfaces, and large expanses of glass expressing a structural system based on a skeleton of steel or reinforced concrete (Ricketts et al, 2011). The International style often featured a flat roof, square or rectangular massing, large horizontal bands of windows, and minimal to no decoration (Ricketts et al, 2011). Landscape design was also influenced by the International architectural style with commercial buildings designed as a focal point in an artificial landscape (Ricketts et al, 2011). This often resulted in a building being built on a podium and/or surrounded by a plaza, which pedestrians would cross to reach the building towers (Ricketts et al, 2011). Historically, the International architectural style was almost exclusively used by the commercial sector during the second half of the 20th century triggered by the prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s leading to a building boom that transformed Canadian cities with introduction of many large commercial complexes in this style (Ricketts et al, 2011). In Kitchener, this is the only property that has been recognized for its design/physical value as an example of the International architectural style with Brutalist and Expressionist influences. The International architectural style is expressed by the flat roof, square and rectangular towers, horizontal bands of windows, podium, and plaza. Brutalist influences include the stairs and columns around the theatre entrance, the north fagade, parts of the east fagade, the relatively maintenance free gardens and walkways. Expressionist influences include the podium and concave concrete panels. The buildings are in good condition and have recently undergone renovations to change the use of some units from commercial to residential. The property features: a plaza leading to a ten -storey square tower on a podium fronting Duke Street West; a six -storey rectangular tower fronting Ontario Street North; a parking garage; a flat roof; concrete construction; bronze double -glazed aluminum frame windows; and, courtyards, plazas (including stairs) and flower boxes. With respect to the concrete construction, the buildings feature: hard angular edges; smooth and rough, naturally textured surfaces; precast concave concrete spandrels; concrete stairs and columns around the theatre entrance; and, concrete hardscaping of courtyards, plazas (including stairs) and flower boxes. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 30-32 Duke Street West / 141 Ontario Street North has historical/associative value because it demonstrates the work of an architect who is significant to the province, the country and the international community. Webb Zefara Menkes Housden (WZMH) Partnership of Toronto designed the building. WZMH was established in 1961 and they are now an award winning international partnership responsible for the design of prominent buildings such as the CN Tower (1973-75), Telegram Building (now the Globe and Mail Headquarters), Toronto (1961-63); the Toronto Star Building, Toronto (1971); Hazelton Lanes, Toronto (1974-76); the Crossways Complex, Toronto (1975-76); the Royal Bank Building, Toronto (1976); Sun Life Centre, Toronto (1981 - Page 75 of 100 83); the Elf Aquitaine Towers, Paris (1982-84); City Hall, Calgary (1985); the Manufacturer's Life Tower, Vancouver (1984-85); the Bank of BC Tower, Vancouver (1984-86); Scotia Plaza Tower, Toronto (1986-88); Waterfront Park, Phase I, Halifax (1988); Canada Place, Edmonton (1988), and Maison des Cooperant, Montreal (completion in 1989) (WZMH Architects, 2014; The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2025; Canada Lands Company Limited, n.d.). Contextual Value The property municipally addressed as 30-32 Duke Street West / 141 Ontario Street North has contextual value because it is important in defining the public versus private space and in so doing also supports the character of the area. The building design includes concrete stairs and flower boxes that lead to a plaza in front of the main entrance to the building. These features align with the general built form setbacks on adjacent buildings fronting Duke Street West helping to create a street edge and rhythm as one walks along the public sidewalk on Duke Street West. At the same time, the main floor concrete arches establish a rhythm as one walks along the public sidewalk on Ontario Street North. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 30-32 Duke Street West / 141 Ontario Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and architectural style and influences of the building, including: o Flat roof; o Concrete construction; ■ hard angular edges; ■ smooth and rough, naturally textured surfaces; ■ precast concave spandrel panels; o Front (South) Elevation ■ ten -storey square tower on a podium; ■ horizontal bands of precast concave concrete spandrel panels; ■ horizontal bands of bronze double -glazed aluminum frame windows; ■ plaza with stairs and flower boxes; ■ parking garage entrance; o Side (West) Elevation ■ ten- and six -storey towers on a podium; ■ horizontal bands of precast concave concrete spandrel panels; ■ horizontal bands of bronze double -glazed aluminum frame windows; ■ stairs and columns around the theatre entrance; o Rear (North) Elevation ■ six -storey tower on a podium; ■ parking garage; ■ rough, naturally textured vertical concrete surfaces with plain concrete bands aligning with the horizontal bands of precast concave concrete spandrel panels; o Side (East) Elevation ■ ten- and six -storey towers on a podium; ■ horizontal bands of precast concave concrete spandrel panels; ■ horizontal bands of bronze double -glazed aluminum frame windows; parking garage Page 76 of 100 • All elements related to the contextual value of the property, including: o location and orientation of buildings; and, o concrete stairs and flower boxes that lead to a plaza along Duke Street West. RPfPYPn! Pc Canada Lands Company. (n.d.). The CN Tower Story. Retrieved from https://www.cntower.ca/histo on February 14, 2025. Ricketts, S., L. Maitland, & J. Hucker. (2011). A Guide to Canadian Architectural Styles, Second Edition. University of Toronto Press: North York, Ontario. The Canadian Encyclopedia. (2025). Article. Webb Zerafa Menkes Housden Partnership. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/webb-zerafa-menkes-housden-partnership on February 14, 2025. WZMH Architects. (2025). About/History. Retrieved from https://www.wzmh.com/about/history/ on February 14, 2025. Page 77 of 100 s Side Elevation (East Fagade) (Google, 2024) r' .s, Side Elevation (West Fagade) (Google, 2024) Page 78 of 100 'Me ys T � /6 r, 1"rF - � s �— — • •121 5 .•— 114 i ••• WIMMA _ I Detail of Ontario Street North Entrance (Google, 2024) Page 79 of 100 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 30-32 Duke St W / 141 Ontario St N Address: 1970 commercial office building Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Recorder: Date: ❑Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade Michelle Drake February 3, 2025 ❑ 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 ❑ Yes 0 physical value Yes ❑ 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 Yes ❑ physical value 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 Yes ❑ physical value Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. Page 80 of 100 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes ❑ associative value 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 ❑ No X Yes ❑ associative value 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 ❑ No ❑ Yes X 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 may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X because it is Yes ❑ important in defining, maintaining or Page 81 of 100 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. Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ because it is Yes ❑ physically, functionally, visually or historically linked N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X to its surroundings. Yes ❑ *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ because it is a Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X landmark. Yes ❑ *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 ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X original outbuildings, 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 ❑ Yes ❑X original site? Yes ❑ * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Page 82 of 100 Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X original materials and Yes ❑ 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 Yes ❑ features that should be Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ 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 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ importance to Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required Indigenous heritage and ❑ Additional Research history? Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required Could there be any urban N/A ❑Unknown X No ❑ Indigenous history associated with the Yes ❑ property? ❑ Additional Research Required * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑X Commer present function of the Commercial ❑ cial ❑X subject property? Office ❑ Other ❑ - Office ❑ Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community Page 83 of 100 from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Does the subject Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required property contribute to ❑ Additional Research the cultural heritage of a Required community of people? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes ❑ Does the subject ❑ Additional Research Required property have intangible N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ value to a specific Yes ❑ community of people? ❑ Additional Research * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid Required (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. 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 ❑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 84 of 100 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 1865 Huron Road Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value Municipal Address- 1865 Huron Road Legal Description- Plan 585 Part Lots 4 & 5 Year Built- 1885 Architectural Style- Vernacular Original Owner- Abraham Cressman Original Use- Residential Condition- Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource - HVROts Ro -. .. ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value 1865 Huron Road is a late 19th century building constructed in the vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.33 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Huron Road between Trussler Road and Amand Drive in the Trussler Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 1865 Huron Road is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Design/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the age, material, and method of construction. The west wing of the farmhouse is a rare example of strapped log construction while the east wing is a representative Page 85 of 100 example of lath construction. The building features: log and lath construction; side gables with a medium pitch whose roof ridges form a `T'; clapboard siding (covered by insulbrick and aluminum siding); symmetrical window placements; original door and window openings, including the round window opening on the east elevation; verandah with hip roof on the south; original interior baseboards, casings and doors; and, the plaster wall with the inscribed date 1885". Historical/Associative Value The property has historical/associative value because it has direct associations with the theme of early pioneer settlement, early pioneer farming, and pioneer settlers Abraham Cressman. The lands are part of Bechtel's Tract. George Bechtel bought 3,150 acres of land from Richard Beasley on July 18, 1800, which came to be known as Bechtel's Tract (Taylor, 1965). Bechtel's Tract is in southern Kitchener and generally extends from the Grand River west to the Wilmot Township and once included the villages of German Mills and Strasburg. The property was once part of a larger lot owned originally by Abraham Cressman circa 1861 (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). The property has historical/associative value because it has direct associations with the Sallans family. The property was purchased by James Henry Sallans (b. 24 January 1885; d. 1959) in 1924 (Bonk, 2025a). He was a local blacksmith and according to local history he moved an old pig stable from Strasburg to his property and converted it to a blacksmith shop (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). He was known for making horseshoes, sleighs and farm wagons (Helena Feasby Women's Institute, 1981). The blacksmith shop no longer exists. He was a member of the Rosebank Brethren in Christ Church (Find a Grave, 2025). His second wife was Lucy Rosenblath (b. 21 October 1897; d. 8 March 1990) and together they had eight children (Bonk, 2025a). Their youngest child was Willard Louis Sallans (b. 7 March 1937; d. 9 October 2004) who married Miriam Effie Hallman (Bonk, 2025b). Willard operated a farm machinery business, Sallans Equipment Ltd., at 1876 Huron Road for 30 years (Find a Grave, 2025; Romahn, 1985). In 1985, Sallans Equipment Ltd. became the biggest farm machinery dealership in eastern Canada for the new Deutz -Allis Chalmers manufacturing company (Romahn, 1985). Willard is recognized across North American within the tractor -pulling community for his skill at announcing and judging at competitions (Romahn, 1985). Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the physical location of the building orientated towards and in close proximity to Huron Road, which would have been connected to its use as a blacksmith shop and later commercial uses. The property is also visually connected to 1876 Huron Road on the south side of the road and west of 1865 Huron Road. Heritage Attributes ■ All elements related to the construction and vernacular architectural style of the house, including: o Log and lath construction; o Roof and roofline; o clapboard siding; o symmetrical window placements; 0 original door and window openings, including the round window on the east elevation; o verandah with hip roof on the south 0 original interior baseboards, casings and doors; and, o the plaster wall with the inscribed date 1885" Page 86 of 100 References Bonk, D. (2025a). James Henry Sallans. [online]. Available from: https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personlD=1181794&tree=qenerations (Accessed 2025, January 30). Bonk, D. (2025b). Williard Louis Sallans. [online]. Available from: https:Hqenerations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personlD=1194677&tree=qenerations (Accessed 2025, January 30). Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/27611795/willard_lewis- sallans: accessed January 31, 2025), memorial page for Willard Lewis Sallans (7 Mar 1937-9 Oct 2004), Find a Grave Memorial ID 27611795, citing Rosebank Cemetery, Waterloo Regional Municipality, Ontario, Canada; Maintained by Darryl Bonk (contributor 47010264). Find a Grave, database and images (https-//www.findagrave.com/memorial/27917574/fames—henry- sallans: accessed January 31, 2025), memorial page for James Henry Sallans (24 Jan 1885-1959), Find a Grave Memorial ID 27917574, citing Rosebank Cemetery, Waterloo Regional Municipality, Ontario, Canada; Maintained by Darryl Bonk (contributor 47010264). Helena Feasby Women's Institute. (1981). Tweedsmuir history, Helena Feasby Institute, North Waterloo. Kitchener Public Library: Kitchener, Ontario. Romahn, J. (1985). Big— and getting bigger. Mergergives K-Wimplementdealera boost. K -W Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Taylor, A. W. (1965). John Steckle Recollects. Waterloo Historical Society, 53, 47-48. Vernon's Kitchener and Waterloo City Directory. (2014). 1865 Huron Road Sallans W N2R 1R5. Vernon's Publishing Inc.: Burlington, Ontario. Page 87 of 100 Page 89 of 100 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Address: Description: 1865 Huron Road Michelle Drake Recorder: 1865 Huron Road, 1885, log and lath construction October 30, 2024 (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Date: NFront Facade X Left Fagade N Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade 1 6 "1'1*11 61 10k ❑ 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 ❑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 ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X 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 ❑X No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, Page 90 of 100 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 ❑x 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 ❑ No ❑x 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. *Additional archival work may be required. Page 91 of 100 7. The property has Recorder Heritage Kitchener contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑ important in defining, ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail Yes ❑ maintaining or ❑ noteworthy? supporting the Completeness: Does this character of an area. structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ * E.g. - It helps to define ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ an entrance point to a ❑ landscaping or external neighbourhood or helps features that complete the establish the (historic) site? rural character of an area. Site Integrity: Does the 8. The property has structure occupy its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x 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 ❑x 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 ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail Yes ❑ Yes ❑ noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ site? Yes ❑ Yes ❑x Page 92 of 100 * 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 ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ materials and design features? Yes ❑ Yes ❑x 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 added Yes ❑ Yes ❑ 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 importance to N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ Yes Indigenous heritage and Yes ❑ ❑ history? ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required 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 Indigenous history associated N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes with the property? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required *Additional archival work may be ❑ Additional Research required. Required Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑x Co function of the subject Commercial ❑ mmercial ❑ property? Office ❑ Other ❑ - Office ❑ Other ❑ - Page 93 of 100 * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes the subject property Yes ❑ ❑ contribute to the cultural ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of Required people? Does the subject property N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes have intangible value to a N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ ❑ specific community of people? Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim ❑ Additional Research Society of Waterloo & Wellington 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 ❑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 94 of 100 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 4, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-783-8922 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-783-8924 Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-783-8906 Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner, 519-783-8909 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: February 12, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-072 SUBJECT: Heritage Kitchener Committee 2025 Work Plan RECOMMENDATION: For information. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to provide the Heritage Kitchener (HK) Committee with an overview of the body of work scheduled to be undertaken in 2025 by Heritage Planning staff with consultation and engagement from members of HK. The three (3) key areas of work will include the review and update of heritage policies within Kitchener's Official Plan, further implementation of strategies to conserve Cultural Heritage Landscapes, and the continuation of the Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review Project. There are no financial implications associated with this report. Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener meeting and consulting with Heritage Kitchener. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: Official Plan Update Kitchener's Official Plan is the policy framework that guides short- and long-term development within the City. The current Official Plan was adopted in 2014. Kitchener is forecasted to grow from today's estimated population of approximately 300,000 to a population of approximately 450,000 by 2051. Through the launch of Kitchener 2051, the City of Kitchener has begun the process of updating the Official Plan to determine how it *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 95 of 100 may grow and evolve. This work will include a comprehensive review of the entirety of the planning document to remove or amend existing policies and/or objectives as well as develop and add new ones. An ambitious timeline is proposed for Kitchener 2051, one which aims to balance meaningful community and collaborator engagement with a quick delivery of a new Official Plan. Work commenced in 2024 with a focus on the completion of different technical studies, the establishment of a community working group, and broader community engagement on the technical inputs of the Official Plan. This year City staff will begin drafting the new Official Plan using the input received from the 2024 community and collaborator conversations as well as the information provided by the technical studies. There will be continuous engagement throughout the year with the community working group, residents, and other collaborators on the policies which will form the new Official Plan. In early 2026, it is intended that a finalized version of the new Official Plan be presented to Council for a decision. Cultural Heritage Landscape Study The Province of Ontario encourages planning authorities to develop and implement proactive strategies for the conservation of Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL) and further requires planning authorities to conserve protected heritage property which may contain CHI -s. The Province defines CHLs as geographical areas that may have been modified by human activity and are identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. In addition, the Regional Official Plan directs the City to designate CHLs in their Official Plans and establish conservation policies. In 2014, the City initiated the Historic Places Kitchener project with the purpose of inventorying CHLs across the city. The project produced Kitchener's CHL Study, which identified 55 CHL's of value and significance. The study was approved by Council in 2015. As part of broader planning projects, the City has been reviewing individual CHLs in order to designate them in the Official Plan and develop both general and CHL -specific conservation policies. At present, 14 of the 55 CHLs have been added to Map 9 of the Official Plan along with general and specific policies to conserve these CHI -s. In 2025, as part of the Official Plan Update, Heritage Planning staff will review the existing CHL policies, revise and/or add general policies that pertain to all CHLs, add the 36 remaining CHLs identified in Kitchener's CHL Study to Map 9 of the Official Plan, and add a maximum of four neighbourhood specific CHL conservation policies. Bill 23: More Homes Built Faster Act 2022 The More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, known as Bill 23, came into force and effect on January 1St, 2023. As part of this omnibus Bill a number of changes were implemented to various pieces of legislation, such as the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Amendments to the OHA included new limitations regarding the issuance of Notices of Intention to Designate (NOID) for listed properties once certain planning applications are submitted, and the requirement for listed properties to be designated within two years. Bill 200, the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, came into force and effect on June 6, 2024, and it extended the two year timeframe to December 31, 2026. Page 96 of 100 REPORT: Official Plan Update - Heritage Policy Review A heritage policy review is to be undertaken as part of the Official Plan update. The primary objective is to identify gaps and develop contextualized policies which will strengthen Kitchener's ability to protect, conserve, and manage its cultural heritage resources as the city continues to grow and develop. Proposed amendments to existing policies and the development of new policies will be based on best practices in heritage conservation, analysis of other municipal policy frameworks, a review of the current legislative and policy context to ensure compliance, and with consideration to the City's specific development pressures, priorities, and goals. As a result of the transition of all planning responsibilities from the Region of Waterloo to the City of Kitchener effective January 1, 2024, the City now implements both the Region of Waterloo Official Plan and Kitchener Official Plan. Kitchener 2051 will consolidate and update both documents into one comprehensive new Official Plan. All existing heritage policies in both plans will be reviewed as part of this project. Cultural Heritage Landscape Implementation The review of existing CHL policies and the drafting of new CHL policies will be completed as part of the Official Plan Update. This work will be scoped to the existing general CHL policies found in the Official Plan and how these policies may apply to all 55 CHLs identified in Kitchener's CHL Study, the CHLs identified on Map 9 of the Official Plan that extend beyond the Growing Together West project boundaries, and the review of a maximum of four (4) neighbourhood specific CHL conservation policies. The four (4) neighbourhood specific CHLs to be reviewed include: Caryndale Neighbourhood CHL, Pandora Neighbourhood CHL, Queens Boulevard CHL, and Rockway Neighbourhood CHL. These neighbourhood CHLs were selected as they generally represent development eras and architectural styles that are not conserved and protected heritage property elsewhere in the city. The review of these neighbourhood CHLs will follow a similar process to previous CHL implementation projects (e.g., Growing Together, Lower Doon, etc.). Proposed revisions to the existing policy framework along with the drafting of new policies will be based on best practices in CHL conservation, including Provincial, Regional and Municipal standards and guidelines. Municipal Heritage Register Review In response to the amendments introduced through Bill 23, the City developed and implemented the Municipal Heritage Register Review Project (MHR Review). This project aimed to evaluate the 231 listed properties on the Municipal Heritage Register and recognize those which meet the criteria for designation. Work on the MHR Review began in February 2023 and is scheduled to continue until December 31St, 2026. As of February 2025, 91 properties have been reviewed. Of that total, 41 have been designated, four have had or will have Notices of Intention to Designate (NOID) issued, one NOID has been withdrawn by Council, 30 are in various stages of review, and 14 have been reviewed and determined to not meet sufficient criteria for designation. Work on the MHR Review is anticipated to continue throughout 2025 and 2026. A general letter reminding owners of listed properties about this ongoing body of work was mailed in Page 97 of 100 February 2025 as a follow up to the first general letter that was mailed on May 23, 2023. Heritage Planning staff intend to continue to bring forward updated Statements of Significance following a field evaluation and archival research for Heritage Kitchener's review and direction to proceed, or not proceed, with a NOID. As heritage planning staff undertake these different projects, staff will be engaging HK for input to these projects wherever necessary. HK's input will help staff in the review of existing gaps in OP policies, developing site-specific policies for CHL implementation, and we continue to designate listed properties on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports Building a Connected City Together: Official Plan Comprehensive Update. One strategic plan action is to undertake a comprehensive review of the City's Official Plan in an integrated way, to update the rules around what can be built in Kitchener's neighbourhoods including a focus on encouraging missing middle housing and adapting to climate change. 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 — The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the areas of work proposed scheduled to be undertaken for 2025. For the MHR Review Project, property owners have been invited a minimum of two times to consult via letters in May 2023 and February 2025. For properties that are actively under review, a minimum of one additional letter will be sent along with two additional registered mail letters if the property proceeds to a NOID and a designating by-law. COLLABORATE — Heritage Planning staff wish to adopt a collaborative approach to the identified projects. Survey questions have been prepared and provided to Heritage Kitchener to help guide future discussions. In relation to the heritage policy review, the intent is for Heritage Kitchener to actively participate in identifying gaps in the existing framework and establish a shared vision which can be used to improve the policies that allow the City to conserve its cultural heritage resources. In relation to CHL Implementation, the intent is to update Heritage Kitchener on work completed to date and create opportunities for participation in the review of existing CHL policies and the development of new CHL policies. Further public engagement will occur in 2025 as part of the Official Plan Review. Page 98 of 100 For the Official Plan update, collaboration has included the establishment of a community working group, the Kitchener 2051 Block Party that was hosted on October 511, 2024, various surveys available on Engage WR, and a series of "Launch On -the -Go Pop -ups". Further opportunities for public engagement are planned throughout the review process. There will be opportunities for focused heritage engagement along with other planned engagement throughout 2025. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Building a Connected City Together: New Official Plan Launch (DSD -2024-077) • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • Regional Official Plan, 2015 • Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CSD -14-110) • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 • Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) • Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review (DSD -2023-225) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2023 Update (DSD -2023-309) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update (DSD -2024-022) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — February 2024 Update (DSD -2024-056) • 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) • Bill 200, Homeowners Protection Act, 2024 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — June 2024 Update (DSD -2024-250) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2024 Update (DSD -2024-333) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — September 2024 Update (DSD -2024-361) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — October 2024 Update (DSD -2024-413) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — November 2024 Update (DSD -2024-444) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — March 2025 Update (DSD -2025-031) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department Page 99 of 100 0 LL C a � O �a O N � 3 0 O a LLL y 2 o ^ N LL N O 0 O p� p O O O F4 O N � N Q w' J7 b d � � e� U � o �o o a � � LO N d u /Cy lL r 11 a� k N rW V � O O xN ? FY O d � U) U) O 68 k � U b a y y m w � t'. m CL O O P PO0 U o u � � Lo N o a a x r N M In f0 f� 00 O r N M In f0 f� 00 r O N N N N M N S N N- N N- N N- N N N N N O M M