HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-317 - Status Updates - Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: August 5, 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: July 10, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD-2025-317
SUBJECT: Municipal Heritage Register Review Î August 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:
99 Strange Street
40 Bridge Street West
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to recommend pursuing designation under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act for two 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:
st
On January 1, 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 ÐlistedÑ properties on the Municipal
Heritage Register to be evaluated to determine if they meet the criteria for heritage
st
designation before January 1, 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 751 of 783
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
th
with consultation from the Heritage Kitchener Committee on February 7, 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 93 properties. 2
properties are before the Committee as of the date of this report to be considered for
designation. 41 properties have fully undergone the designation process. 37 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 Î
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 Î 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 752 of 783
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 CityÓs Municipal Heritage Register if
they met one or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22).
Properties could be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act if they
meet two or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22).
The following two properties were evaluated to determine their cultural heritage value:
99 Strange Street
The subject property municipally addressed as 99 Strange Street meets four (4) of the nine
(9) criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22):
The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique,
representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction
method.
The property has 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.
The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or
supporting the character of an area.
40 Bridge Street West
The subject property municipally addressed as 40 Bridge Street West meets seven (7) 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 yields, or has the
potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community
or culture.
The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or
reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is
significant to a community.
Page 753 of 783
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.
The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.
Heritage Kitchener Committee Options
Option 1 Î 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 Î Deferring the Designation Process
Should Heritage Kitchener vote to defer the designation process for these properties, they
will remain listed on the CityÓs Municipal Heritage Registe r 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 Î Not Pursuing Designation for these properties
Should Heritage Kitchener vote not to pursue the designation of these properties, they will
remain listed on the CityÓs 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. Î 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 Î The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget Î The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Page 754 of 783
INFORM Î This report has been posted to the CityÓs website with the agenda in advance
of the council / committee meeting.
CONSULT AND COLLABORATE Î 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 Î DSD-2023-053
Bill 23 Î Municipal Heritage Register Review Î DSD-2023-225
Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register Review Î August Update 2023 Î DSD-2023-
309
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î January 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-022
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î March 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-093
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î April 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-131
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î May 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-194
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î June 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-250
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î August 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-333
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î September 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-361
Municipal Heritage Register Î October 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-426
Municipal Heritage Register- November 2024 Update Î DSD-2024-444
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î March 2025 Update Î DSD-2025-031
Municipal Heritage Register Review Î April 2025 Update Î DSD-2025-108
Ontario Heritage Act, 2022
REVIEWED BY: Sandro Bassanese, Manager of Site Plan
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Updated Statement of Significance Î 99 Strange Street
Attachment B- Updated Statement of Significance Î 40 Bridge Street West
Page 755 of 783
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
99 Strange Street
Summary of Significance
Social Value
Design/Physical Value
Economic Value
Historical Value
Contextual Value
Environmental Value
Municipal Address: 99 Strange Street
Legal Description: Plan 375 Part Lot 493 & 494
Year Built: 1929
Architectural Styles: Collegiate Tudor
Original Owner: St. JohnÓs Catholic School
Original Use: Institutional
Condition: Good
Description of Cultural Heritage Resource
Page 756 of 783
th
99 Strange Street is a 20 century building built in the Collegiate Tudor architectural style. The building
is situated on a 3.07 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Strange Street between Dominion
Street and Waverly Road in the Cherry Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the
Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the institutional
building.
Heritage Value
99 Strange Street is recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual values.
Design/Physical Value
The design and physical values relate to the Collegiate Tudor architectural style that is in good condition
with many intact original elements. The building features: red brick construction; flat roof, cast concrete
decorative details such as school sign, banding, floral motifs and cross; window openings with concrete
sills; and, front entrance door opening with multi light transom and decorative door surround. There
have been many additions to the original building since its construction in 1929. All of these additions
are located towards the rear of the original building.
Front Façade (East Elevation)
The original portion of the school was constructed in a ÒHÓ shaped plan, and is two-storeys in height.
Each end of this façade includes brick cast concrete detailing, including square motifs and concrete
banding on the upper and lower level. The central portion of this façade has a symmetrical design and
fenestration pattern, including fenestration pattern of multi-pane windows arranged grouping pattern of
one-three-one pattern on each storey with concrete sills. The central door includes a projecting
decorative brick detailing with concrete door surround, and concrete floral motifs. Above the concrete
banding on the upper storey level is a parapet with the schoolÓs sign and other concrete detailing. The
building has a concrete foundation with windows on the basement levels.
Side Façade (South Elevation)
The façade continues the fenestration pattern of the front façade with two multi-pane window
groupings of one-three-one on each storey. The concrete banding extends onto this façade on the
upper and lower levels, with the concrete foundation and basement level windows.
Rear Façade (North Elevation)
The original portion of the school is not visible on this façade. This façade includes one of the modern
additions that was added on to the school. This façade mostly includes blank brick walls, with one
portion of the addition with windows and a rear doorway.
Side Façade (West Elevation)
The façade continues the fenestration pattern of the front façade with two multi-pane window
groupings of one-three-one on each storey. The concrete banding extends onto this façade on the
upper and lower levels, with the concrete foundation and basement level windows.
Historical Value
The historic and associative values relate to the original and continued use of the building as a separate
school. St. JohnÓs Catholic School was built in 1929 as a response to the influx of new families and
Page 757 of 783
increased birth rates following World War I. The original building was an eight-room school that was
constructed at a cost of $60,000. The building was the fourth catholic school in the area.
The school also has associative value to the St. JohnÓs church, which is located adjacent to the property.
The St. JohnÓs church was the fourth church to be constructed in the City, necessitated by the growth
of the City in 1937. The parish of approximately 220 families living within the boundaries of Highland
Road, Victoria park, and Waterloo, and King Street was formed in May 1937, by the late Most Rev. J.
T. NcNally. Magistrate W. F. Gleason (who was Father Gleason at the time) was the first pastor of thie
church, and he held that position until he died in 1965.
The church used the schoolÓs basement for Sunday mass until February 1938, while the new church
was being constructed. Even though the superstructure of the church was unfinished, it was dedicated
by Reverend Joseph Ryan on February 20, 1938, with the cornerstone was laid on August 15, 1937.
The school has associative value due to its direct associations with the theme of educational
development in Kitchener. The school was established in response to the growing population of
Kitchener in the 1920s, and it was the fourth school to be established in the City. The school has
continued to operate as such since its establishment.
Contextual Value
99 Strange Street has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually and historically
linked to its surroundings. The building is in itÓs original location, and has continued to serve as a school
since it was built. In particular, part of itÓs contextual value is tied to the adjacent St. JohnÓs church.
These buildings were built around the same time, and have served the same communities since their
construction. Due to this, the buildings maintain a relationship to each other.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 99 Strange Street resides in the following heritage attributes:
All elements related to the construction and Collegiate Tudor architectural style of the original
building, including:
o ItÓs location, massing, and orientation;
o red brick construction;
o roof and roofline;
o cast concrete decorative details such as school sign, banding, floral motifs and cross;
o window openings with concrete sills; and,
o front entrance door opening with multi light transom and decorative door surround.
All elements related to the contextual value of the building, including:
o ItÓs location on the Strange Street streetscape, and
o ItÓs relationship to the adjacent St. JohnÓs Church.
Page 758 of 783
Photos
99 Strange Street
99 Strange Street
Page 759 of 783
99 Strange Street
99 Strange Street
Page 760 of 783
Deeksha Choudhry
99 Strange Street
Institutional
July 1, 2025
Page 761 of 783
Page 762 of 783
Page 763 of 783
Page 764 of 783
Page 765 of 783
Page 766 of 783
Page 767 of 783
Statement of Significance
40 BRIDGE STREET WEST
Summary of Significance
Design/Physical Value Social Value
Historical Value Economic Value
Contextual Value Environmental Value
Municipal Address: 40 Bridge Street West
Legal Description: German Company Tract Part Lot 59
Year Built: 1933
Architectural Style: Gothic
Original Owner: Emmanuel Evangelical Church
Original Use: Church
Condition: Good
Page 768 of 783
Description of Cultural Heritage Resource
th
40 Bridge Street West is an early-20 century brick church built in the Gothic architectural style.
The building is situated on a 0.72 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Bridge Street West
and Woolwich Street in the Bridgeport West Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within
the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the
institutional building, known as the Bridgeport United Church.
Heritage Value
40 Bridge Street West is recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual
values.
Design/Physical Value
The design and physical value of 40 Bridge Street West resides in its Gothic architecture, being
a representative example of the Gothic style laid out in a rectangular shape with a side gable roof
and offset front projecting gable entrance. The building is constructed of multi-coloured red-brown
brick with brick buttresses with concrete details, and ogee shaped stained glass windows featured
in groups of three per bay with brick voussoirs and concrete sills. There are 1/1 windows at the
basement level. The foundation is concrete but appears to have been re-finished at some point
as chipping reveals another material at the eastern corner of the church. There is a brick chimney
on the rear façade of the church.
The front entrance of the church features a decorative stone door surround with a pointed arch
opening, original wood doors that have been re-painted, with original metal hardware and
decorative strap hinges. There is a stone above the front entrance that reads ÐEmmanuel
Evangelical ChurchÑ and a stone cross at the top of the front projecting gable. Flanking the main
entrance are two former window openings with concrete sills, now infilled with brick of a similar
red-brown brick colour. At the eastern-most corner of the front façade, a date stone just above
the foundation reads Ð1933Ñ. In the front yard to the left of the main entrance, a newer stone sign
reads ÐBridgeport United ChurchÑ. In addition, three large mature trees are located in the front
and exterior side yard.
The western-most section of the building is comprised of an addition built in 1958, creating an
education wing that expanded the capacity of the Sunday School. It is one storey in height with a
flat roof and has a rectangular floor plan that matches the width of the existing church. The
addition features vertical pillars clad in similar brick to match the church. The pillars flank a
concrete base and large windows composed of multiple framed vertical panes topped with
geometric diamond shaped tracery. A metal fascia runs horizontally along the top edge of the
roof. There is a cement walkway connecting a side entrance on the front façade to the street, and
there is another entrance on the rear façade with steps leading down to the lower parking lot.
Historical/Associative Value
The historic and associative values of 40 Bridge Street West relate to the use as a place of
worship along with the buildings architect and contractor. The Emmanuel Evangelical Church
congregation in Bridgeport (now Kitchener) dates back to as early as 1876 (Bridgeport United,
2014). The congregation bought the property in 1878 to hold Sunday school. A white brick church
was built in 1889 and the current church was built in 1933. The congregation changed their name
to Bridgeport United in 1987 to stop the confusion with Emmanuel United in Waterloo (Bridgeport
United, 2014).
Page 769 of 783
The church was designed by W.H.E. Schmalz (Kolarisch & Horne, 1984-85). W.H.E. Schmalz
was a native of Berlin (now Kitchener) and son of former Mayor W.H. Schmalz (Waterloo Region
Generations, 2014). W.H.E. Schmalz graduated from the University of Toronto and was known
as the Twin CitiesÓ dean of architects (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). He, along with B.A.
Jones, designed the 1922 Kitchener City Hall (Hill, 2009). The firm of Schmalz & Jones maintained
an office until 1926 (Hill, 2009). W.H.E. served with the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in 1916;
served with distinction on the Waterloo Historical Society, the Ontario Historical Society, the
Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation and the Waterloo County Hall of Fame; and, held office
in, or was a long-time member of, the Chamber of Commerce, the Kitchener Parks Board, the K-
W Hospital Board, the Kiwanis Club, the Kitchener Musical Society, the Kitchener Young MenÓs
Club, the Kitchener Racing Canoe Club and the Lutheran Church (Waterloo Region Generations,
2014).
The church was built by Oscar Wiles (Bridgeport United, 2014; Kolarisch & Horne, 1984-85).
Oscar Wiles founded Oscar Wiles General Contractor in 1927, which later became Oscar Wiles
and Sons Ltd. (KW Record, 1982). The companyÓs first job was the former KW Record building
at Duke Street and Queen Street (KW Record, 1982). OscarÓs five sons: Arthur, Donald, Peter,
Bill and Richard assisted with the family business, which built houses, churches, schools and
factories.
Contextual Value
The contextual value of 40 Bridge Street West relates to its historical, physical, functional and
visual importance to the surrounding area. The church is located in-situ and retains its original
use. It has operated as a longstanding place of worship and community gathering. The Bridgeport
West Community history dates back to the early nineteenth century and is now an established,
stable neighbourhood characterized by older dwellings, new subdivisions, and low-rise infill
development. Additionally, across the street from the church to the southwest is Bridgeport Public
School, further enhancing the stability of the area.
The church may also be classified as a local landmark. Situated near the top of a hill sloping up
from the Grand River, the Bridgeport United Church has a strong visual presence on Bridge Street
West and Woolwich Street. The church also has views of Bridgeport Bridge that spans the Grand
River and connects to Bridgeport East.
Other Values
Social Values
The Bridgeport United Church has significant social value as a place of worship and education.
This building has been providing these services since its construction in 1933, and the
congregation dates back even further to 1876. It remains a prominent place of importance within
the Bridgeport West community. Places of worship often provide intangible community value,
serving as places where people gather and socialize in addition to providing comfort or support
to those who need it and creating community connections. Schools also contribute social value
for a community, acting as a source of socialization and learning for children.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 40 Bridge Street West resides in the following heritage attributes:
All elements related to the Gothic architectural style of the church, including:
o rectangular plan;
Page 770 of 783
o side gable roof with offset front projecting gable entrance;
o multi-coloured brick;
o brick buttressing with concrete details;
o ogee shaped stained glass windows in groups of three per bay with brick
voussoirs and concrete sills;
o 1/1 windows in basement;
o front entrance decorative door surround;
o front doors with metal hardware and decorative strap hinges;
o sign above front entrance that reads ÐEmmanuel Evangelical ChurchÑ;
o cross in gable end;
o date stone that reads Ð1933Ñ; and
o chimney;
All elements related to the contextual value, including:
o Location of the church and contribution that it makes to the character of the
neighbourhood.
References
Bridgeport United. (2014). History: A short history of Bridgeport United. Retrieved from
http://www.bridgeportunited.org/history on November 26, 2014.
Kolarisch, D. & M. Horne. (1984-85). Historic Property Report: Bridgeport Emmanuel United
Church.
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1211043&dbid=0&repo=CityofKitche
ner
Photos
Page 771 of 783
40 Bridge Street West
Page 772 of 783
40 Bridge Street West
Page 773 of 783
40 Bridge Street West
Page 774 of 783
40 Bridge Street West
Page 775 of 783
40 Bridge Street West
Page 776 of 783
Page 777 of 783
Page 778 of 783
Page 779 of 783
Page 780 of 783
Page 781 of 783
Page 782 of 783
Page 783 of 783