The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-2026-011 - Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment - 30 Margaret Avenue Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: January 6, 2026 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-783-8922 PREPARED BY: Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner, 519-783-8912 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: December 8, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD-2026-011 SUBJECT: Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30 Margaret Avenue RECOMMENDATION: For information. BACKGROUND: The Development and Housing Approvals Division is in receipt of a draft scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by MHBC and dated October 9, 2025. The heritage consultants were retained on behalf of Vanmar Developments Margaret Inc. who are the registered owners of the property municipally addressed as 30 Margaret Avenue. The subject property is currently vacant and located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (Ðthe ActÑ). Immediately to the east of the subject property is the c. 1935 Church of the Good Shepherd, located at 12 Margaret Avenue/116 Queen Street North. In addition to being designated under Part V of the Act, the church property is also individually designated under Part IV of the Act. Immediately to the west of the subject property is a residence built in the Queen Anne style and identified as a Group ÒAÓ (or highly architecturally significant) building located at 54 Margaret Avenue. To the north and the rear are the properties fronting Ellen Street West and occupied by single detached dwellings. Properties to the south on the opposite side of Margaret Avenue are occupied with single detached dwellings as well as 4 and 18 storey apartment buildings. *** 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 215 Figure 1: Location Map The lands were previously occupied by several large estate residences located on separate lots. However, the residences were demolished, and the amalgamated property has been vacant since the late 1980s. This is the third proposal for development on the subject lands. Site Plan applications SP19/040/M/JVW and SP22/187/M/AP were submitted in 2019 and 2022 respectively, however the developments proposed as part of these applications did not proceed to final approval. REPORT: The current development proposal includes the construction of a 6-storey residential building comprised of 261 residential units. The site will contain one level of underground parking and surface parking to the north (rear) and west. The eastern portion of the property adjacent the Church of the Good Shepherd (12 Margaret Avenue/116 Queen Street North) is proposed as parkland, to be dedicated to the City of Kitchener as a public park. Page 4 of 215 Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan Figure 3: Rendering of Front Perspective A Site Plan Application (SPF25/089/M) for the subject lands has been submitted to the City and is in circulation. The draft HIA was identified as a required component for a complete application due to the subject property being located within a heritage conservation district and adjacent to protected heritage property. Impact Assessment The draft HIA assessed the potential impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent properties to the east, west, and north, as well as potential impacts on the character of the CCNHCD. Based on the analysis conducted, the HIA concludes that the only identified impact to adjacent properties is for potential adverse impacts due to vibration during excavation and construction activities to the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue, which is located 23 metres away from the proposed development. The HIA also concludes that no adverse impacts are anticipated to the character of the CCNHCD due to the proposed development. The HIA does note, however, that sympathetic redevelopment of the subject lands is regarded as a beneficial impact for both the neighbourhood in terms of spatial organization, the overall historical land use patterns, and provides scenic infill in what is currently an unbalanced streetscape. Page 5 of 215 The HIA concludes that the proposed development is in general conformity with the relevant policies and guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan and preserves the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood. The proposed development does not, however, incorporate a 2+ metre stepback, which is encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in the CCNHCD. The HIA speaks to the angular plane analysis and design features of the building to rationalize the proposalÓs nonconformity with this guideline. The HIA does not deem additional mitigation measures necessary to address this. The HIA recommends the following mitigation and conservation measures: That a Vibration Monitoring Plan be prepared for 54 Margaret Avenue to ensure that the dwelling which is located 20 metres from the proposed development is not adversely impacted due to vibrations for the duration of excavation and construction activities. It is also recommended as a precautionary measure that construction fencing be erected around 54 Margaret Avenue to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entry to the site during construction avoid this property, if possible, and that the storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of the adjacent dwelling. Additionally, the following measures are encouraged: That the park be named after a previous landowner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D.S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in order to honour the former historical associations of the subject lands; and That the proposed tree plantings along Margaret Avenue be of appropriate native species in order to enhance the character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. At this time, Heritage Planning staff are seeking comment from Heritage Kitchener which will be taken into consideration as part of staffÓs review of the HIA and processing of the related Planning Act application. While the Site Plan Review Committee meeting will have already taken place prior to the January 6, 2026 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting, there is still opportunity for the committee to provide comment and feedback as Heritage Panning staff works through the finalization of the HIA and any heritage-related conditions of approval. The applicantÓs heritage consultant will be at the January 6, 2026 meeting to answer any questions the Committee might have. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the January meeting. A copy of the HIA is included as Attachment A to this report. 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. Page 6 of 215 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM Î This report has been posted to the CityÓs website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Î Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC dated October 9, 2025 Page 7 of 215 PREPARED FOR: Vanmar Developments Margaret Inc. PREPARED FOR: Heritage Impact File no. 15202U , October2025 Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue | | MHBC -MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Page 8 of 215 www.mhbcplan.com Contents 1.0Introduction........................................................................................................................6 Background...............................................................................................................6 Methodology.............................................................................................................7 Approach..................................................................................................................8 1.4 Description of Subject Lands..........................................................................................9 1.5Description of Surrounding Area...................................................................................10 1.6 Heritage Status...........................................................................................................11 ...................................................................................................................................11 2.0Policy Context...................................................................................................................16 The Ontario Planning Act..........................................................................................16 Provincial Planning Statement (2024)........................................................................16 Ontario Heritage Act................................................................................................18 City of Kitchener Official Plan....................................................................................18 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007)........................19 City of Kitchener Terms of Reference.........................................................................19 3.0Existing Conditions............................................................................................................20 Existing Conditions of the Subject Lands....................................................................20 Existing Conditions of the Adjacent Properties............................................................22 4.0Description of Proposed Development.................................................................................26 Distances to Adjacent Properties...............................................................................28 Angular Plane Analysis.............................................................................................29 5.0Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................32 Introduction............................................................................................................32 Impact Analysis for Subject Lands.............................................................................33 Impact Analysis for Adjacent Cultural Heritage Resources...........................................34 Impact Analysis to the Character of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.............................................................................................................................36 Impact Analysis to Views and Streetscape..................................................................38 Conformity with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan Policies 42 Conclusion..............................................................................................................56 Page 9 of 215 1 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 6.0Alternative Development Options, Mitigation and Conservation Measures...............................57 Alternative Development Options..............................................................................57 Mitigation and Conservation Measures.......................................................................57 7.0Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................................59 8.0Bibliography.....................................................................................................................61 Page 10 of 215 2 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, Senior Review CAHP Christy Kirwan, BA, Dipl. Author, Fieldwork CAHP-Intern Paul Jae Woong LeeMap Figures Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities This Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges that the subject property located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener is situated in the traditional territory of Haudenosaunee, Anishnawbe, Attiwonderonk (Neutral) nations. These lands are acknowledgedas being associated with the following treaties: This document takes into consideration the cultural heritage of indigenous communities, including their oral traditions and history when available and related to the scope of work. Other Acknowledgements This report acknowledges the assistance provided by City of Kitchener Planning Staff, the Waterloo Historical Society, the Grace Schmidt Room in the Kitchener Public Library and the Waterloo Region Museum. Owner VanmarDevelopmentsMargaretInc. c/o PaulLeveck CambridgeONN3 Page 11 of 215 3 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Executive Summary The City of Kitchener requested a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development on the subject lands located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario. This report assessed the impact that the proposed development may have on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District, including any potential impact to the individually designated property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street (the Church of the Good Shepherd). In conclusion, the following impacts have been identified: Beneficial impact with regard to the sympathetic redevelopment of the subject lands which is anticipated to be beneficial for both the neighbourhood in terms of spatial organization and the overall historical land use patterns. Additionally, the proposed development will provide scenic infill in what is currently an unbalanced streetscape. Potential adverse impact to 54 Margaret Avenue with regard to land disturbances which may result in vibration during excavation and construction activities. Additionally, the proposed development is generally in conformity with the relevant policies of the CCNHCD Plan and preserves the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood. Where the proposal does not conform is with regard to the following guidelines: The Margaret Avenue Site/Area Specific Design Guidelines encourage building step backs of 2+ metres for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. The proposed development is 6 storeys and does not incorporate a 2+ metre step back. However, the Angular Plane Analysis indicates that positive access to sunlight and sky views is anticipated to remain available while maintaining a shallow setback for a comfortable pedestrian experience. Additionally, design features have been incorporated which are intended to preserve the pedestrian environment of the street. These include the separation of the building into several distinct visual units via recessed alcoves, the variation in material along the front façade which reduces massing towards the street, the use of limestone and red brick is consistent with the residential character of surrounding historic dwellings, and the incorporation of a neutral colour palette. No additional mitigation measures are deemed necessary. The following mitigation and conservation measures are recommended: That a Vibration Monitoring Plan be prepared for 54 Margaret Avenue to ensure that the dwelling which is located 20 metres from the proposed development is not Page 12 of 215 4 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment adversely impacted due to vibrations for the duration ofexcavation and construction activities. It is also recommended as a precautionary measure that construction fencing be erected around 54 Margaret Avenue to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entry to the site during construction avoid this property, if possible, and that the storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of the adjacent dwelling. It addition to the above, it is encouraged that the park be named after a previous land owner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in order to honour the subject lands former historical associations. It is also encouraged that the landscaping incorporate tree plantings of appropriate species along Margaret Avenue in order to enhance the character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. Any new trees should be indigenous to the area. Page 13 of 215 5 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1.0Introduction Background MHBC was retained to undertake a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener hereafter referred to as the Òsubject lands.Ó The subject lands are located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, adjacent to the downtown core of the City of Kitchener. In November 2006, a heritage conservation district study was completed on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood and the following year, inAugust 2007, the (CCNHCD) was established to regulate the designated district. The subject lands are located within CCNHCD and therefore, designated under Part V of the (ÐOHAÑ). The subject lands are currently vacant; formerly there were seven (7) dwellings on the subject lands, however, all dwellings were demolished in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As such, there is no protected property on (PPS 2024. the subject lands as defined by the OHA and The purpose of this scoped HIA is to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources located adjacent to the property and to the overall CCNHCD. There are 17 adjacent properties to the subject lands including:12, 54 & 64 Margaret Avenue, 116 Queen Street North and 15, 17, 21, 25, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 & 45 Ellen Street West. The adjacent, contiguous property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street North (Church of the Good Shepherd) is designated under Part IV and is a protected property under the OHA. The other adjacent properties located in the CCNHCD with the exception of 54 Margaret Avenue, however, are not listed under ÒGroup AÓ in the District, meaning that they are not considered to have high cultural heritage value. This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the CityÓs policy framework and Provincial policy. It also uses previous reports including: a scoped HIA completed by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (2013), an HIA completed by MHBC in 2019 and subsequent Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) (2020). Page 14 of 215 6 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Methodology The methodology of this report is based on the Terms of Reference provided by the City of Kitchener for the Scoped HIA for development on the subject lands (see Appendix A).The City of KitchenerÓs Heritage Planner requires the following content for this scoped Heritage impact Assessment: Present owner information; A written description of the subject landsto include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical 1 photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material; An outline of proposed development, its context and how it will impact the properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties0 including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties shall be assessed. Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re-use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the (Parks Canada); (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. The summary statement should provide a full description of: 1 There are no buildings or structures on-site, however, the property has been documented with photographs. Page 15 of 215 7 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. The identification of any impact the proposed repair, alteration or development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage property. An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. It is important to note that the subject properties do not include any buildings or structures or particular landscape features and therefore, the analysis is based on the heritage attributes of the adjacent protected heritage property and of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. Approach A site visit was conducted by MHBC Staff on April 8th, 2025to document the current state of the subject lands. This report reviews the following documents: HIA by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (2008); Scoped HIA by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (2013); Scoped HIA by MHBC (2019) and Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (2020); (2014); (2006); (2007); ; (2024); The ; (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism); (Second Edition); This HIA assesses the proposed development in terms of its compliance with these policies, guidelines and recommendations and assesses any impacts of the development on cultural heritage value and attributes of adjacent resources. In particular, this report assesses the impact that the proposed development will have on the key heritage attributes of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Key heritage attributes of the CCNHCD are outlined in 2.6 (Section 2.4) of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). These attributes are the defining factors of the heritage district. Key attributes are described in the physical geography and configuration of similar original buildings and their Page 16 of 215 8 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment direct relationship to surrounded businesses and factories and original land development pattern of the City. It also describes the progression of architecture and building technology exhibited by houses and other buildings, in particular the unique form of Queen Anne Style specific to the City of Kitchener dubbed ÐBerlin VernacularÑ. ÒFineÓ examples of these are categorized by Group ÒAÓ or ÒBÓ; three quarters of the properties (147 properties) are categorized as Group ÒCÓ which exhibit the standard construction and are in a condition of repair and potential restoration. The following is a list of the key attributes of the CCNHCD as defined by the District Plan (2007) on 2.7: 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; A significant range of recognizable architectural styles 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 laneways; Hibner Park, KitchenerÓs second oldest city park, as a green jewel in the centre of the District . 1.4 Description of Subject Lands The subject lands are located centrally within the City of Kitchener and bound by Margaret Avenue to the south, Ellen Street West to the north, Queen Street North to the east and Victoria Street North to the west. The subject lands are currently vacant andinclude open space, construction fencing, a gravel pad, and a concrete retaining wall. Currently, there is one vehicular entry to access the subject lands off of Margaret Avenue. The subject lands are surrounded by residential properties to the west, north and south and a place of worship (institutional) to the east. Page 17 of 215 9 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure 1: Map of subject lands and surrounding areas; subject lands are identified by the red dotted line (Source: OpenStreetMap, 2025) 1.5Description of Surrounding Area The subject lands are located inthe Civic Centre Neighbourhood, adjacent to the downtown core of the City of Kitchener. To the north of the subject lands are two storeys, residential dwellings along Ellen Street West and to the east is the Church of the Good Shepherd. Further to the east is the contemporary building of the Centre in the Square. To the west of the property is the heritage home at 54 Margaret Avenue, which is the last remaining house, aside from 70 Margaret Avenue, from the original row of houses on the north side of Margaret Avenue in the th century (see Figure 2). early 20 Page 18 of 215 10 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure 2: View of the surrounding area (Source: Google Earth Pro and MHBC, 2025) The properties to the south of the subject land in include both heritage homes as well as residential apartment buildings. There is a four-storeyapartment building located at 43 Margaret Avenue and an 18-storey apartment building at 11 Margaret Avenue/ 100 Queen Street North, (The Queen Margaret Apartments). 1.6Heritage Status 1.6.1Subject Lands The subject lands are not ÒlistedÓ (non-designated) or designated under Part IV of the however, they are designated under Part V of the within the (2006) (see Figure 3). The property does not include any potential built heritage resources as it is vacant. There are special policies within the HCD Plan (2006) that address the subject lands and future redevelopment of the lands. Page 19 of 215 11 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure 3:Map of subject lands and surrounding areas; subject lands are identified by the red line; green line indicates the CCNHCD boundaries (Source: CCNHCD Plan, 2007). 1.6.2Adjacent Heritage Properties Thefollowing Table 1 identifies adjacent designated properties and a description based on the CCNHCD Plan. Table 1: Description of Adjacent Cultural Heritage Resources AddressDescriptionHeritage Status 54 Margaret Avenue ÐA flamboyant large house with Listed; Designated under Part V decorative half-timber Tudor details (Group A); Identified as ÐUnique and grand circular turret and conical BuildingÑ in Section 3.4.3 of the roof exposed currently on three CCNHCD Study (2006) sides. Built in c. 1904 for Herbert J. Bowman, County Clerk, later occupied by Charles J. Baetz, President of Baetz Brothers, Speciality Manufacturers, makers of floors and table lamps.Ñ 64 Margaret Avenue (Formerly 66 Margaret Avenue) Designated under Part V (Group Presently stacked townhouses and B) an apartment complex.William H. Page 20 of 215 12 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Breithaupt constructed a house at 64 Margaret Street (now Margaret Avenue). The house was demolished in 2003 and the property has since been redeveloped. 116 Queen Street Three-storey Gothic Church of the Designated under Part IV and North/ 12 Margaret Good Shepherd Swedenborgian Part V (Group A) (see below for Avenue church with clock tower, fence and more information regarding adjoining coach house (12 Queen designation). Street) originated with the William Roos Estate, c.1885; Roos was a wholesale grocer. 15 Ellen Street West Two-storey brick house built in c Listed; Designated under Part V 1920. (Group C) 17 Ellen Street West Two-storey vernacular brick house Listed; Designated under Part V built in c.1910. (Group C) 21 Ellen Street West Two-storey stucco house built in Listed; Designated under Part V c.1905 (Group B) 25 Ellen Street West Two-storey vernacular brick house Listed; Designated under Part V built in c. 1905.(Group C) 29 Ellen Street West Two-storey brick house built in c. Designated under Part V (Group 1910C) 31 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Queen Designated under Part V (Group Anne house built in c. 1910 with C) shingled gable. 33 Ellen Street West Two storey, brick and stucco, Tudor Designated under Part V (Group house built in c. 1925.C) 35 Ellen Street West Two storey, brick, Tudor house built Designated under Part V (Group in c. 1925.C) 37 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Designated under Part V (Group Vernacular house built in c. 1910 C) 39 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Designated under Part V (Group Vernacular house built in c. 1910 C) 41 Ellen Street West Two storey, brick, Vernacular house Listed; Designated under Part V built in c. 1900 (Group B) 43 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Listed; Designated under Part V Vernacular house built in c. 1900 (Group C) 45 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Listed; Designated under Part V Vernacular house built in c. 1910 (Group C) On July 15, 1985, By-law 85-129 was passed pursuant to Section 29 of the OHA to designate under Part IV of the OHA the property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street, ÐThe Church of the Good ShepherdÑ (see Appendix B); this by-law outlines the designating features as follows: Page 21 of 215 13 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment This designation is acknowledged in the CCNHCD Plan as being a key attribute of the property. Figure 4:View of the cast iron fence of the Church of the Good Shepherd located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street, Kitchener (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2022) 1.6.3Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District th The CCNHCD was designated under Part V of the on February 25, 2008 under By-law number 2008-39. Initial interest in designation was sparked as a result of the Civic Centre NeighbourhoodÓs close proximityto the downtown corealong withits well- established cultural and architectural history associated with many of KitchenerÓscivic leaders thth in the late 19and early 20centuries. Its heritage attributes are summarized as follows: Page 22 of 215 14 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment These identified attributes are used to analyze potential impacts to the character of the CCNHCD in Section 5.4 of this report. Page 23 of 215 15 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 2.0Policy Context The Ontario Planning Act The includes direction relating to a number ofprovisions respecting cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. Regarding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. Provincial Planning Statement (2024) In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (PPS). The PPS is Ðintended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situationÑ. This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: Page 24 of 215 16 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment The PPS defines the following terms: Page 25 of 215 17 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Ontario Heritage Act The , R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This HIA acknowledges the criteria provided with of the which outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. City of KitchenerOfficial Plan Section 12 of the Kitchener Official Plan provides the policies regarding the identification and conservation of cultural heritage resources, including inventoried, listed, designated, or otherwise protected properties. The conservation of the CityÓs cultural heritage resources is directed to be completed through Ðidentification, protection, use and/ or managementÑ. As part of these objectives, the following provides the following in relation to development: These policies are directly relevant to this proposal as it proposes development within an area protected under the OHA. In order to meet these objectives, the City states the following: Page 26 of 215 18 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment The subject lands are located to Protected Heritage Properties (Part V), and to Protected Heritage Properties(Part IV). Section 12.C.1.13-12.C.1.16 of the Plan outlines policies related to Heritage Conservation Districts. The intent is that the HCD will be conserved through the adoption of an HCD Plan. This report evaluates the proposed development against the CCNHCD Plan to assess for conformity. The following policy outlines the requirements of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan used as a means to meet the objectives of this section, particularly as it relates to development: The above-mentioned information is intended to be provided as supplementary information for the heritage permit application related to the subject lands. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) The CCNHCD Plan contains specific policies and design guidelines for the subject lands. This area is identified as one of four (4) site/ area specific policies in the Plan including: Margaret Avenue, Ellen Street, Weber Street and Victoria Street. All new development should confirm to these policies and guidelines. An analysis of the proposed development and the conformity with each policy is provided in Section 5.6 of this report. City ofKitchener Terms of Reference This report is based on the Terms of Reference provided by the City of Kitchener for the Scoped HIA for development on the subject lands. The Terms of Reference are summarized in Section 1.2 of this report and provided in full in Appendix A. Page 27 of 215 19 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 3.0Existing Conditions A site visit was conducted by MHBC Cultural Heritage Staff on April 8, 2025to document the existing conditions of the subject lands and surrounding heritage properties. Existing Conditions of the Subject Lands The subject lands currently include construction fencing, a gravel pad, a concrete retaining wall, and open space (see Photos 6-8). Page 28 of 215 20 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Photos 6-8:Views of the subject lands looking north across Margaret Avenue. (MHBC, 2025) Page 29 of 215 21 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Existing Conditions of the Adjacent Properties 3.2.154 Margaret Avenue The dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue is a 2.5 storey structure in the Tudor revival stylewhich includes a round turret at the west elevation. The first storey is constructed of red brickand the two upper half-storeys are of Tudor half-timberingand painted wood shingles. The structure includes a gable roof with a gable dormer and a shed roof dormer at the east elevation. The window at the first storey principal elevation includes an arched stained glass transom, while the structureÓs other windows are square. The property also includes vehicular access to Margaret Avenue as well as landscape plantings and several mature and semi- mature trees, particularly at the east property boundary. 3.2.264 Margaret Avenue The property currently includes 2.5-storey stacked townhouses interfacing with Margaret Avenue and a 6-storey apartment complex to the rear. Both buildings include vehicular access to Margaret Avenue. 3.2.3116 Queen Street North/ 12 Margaret Avenue The property at 116 Queen Street North/12 Margaret Avenue currently includes a 1.5 storey Swedenborgian church in the Gothic revival style. The building includes a multi-gable slate roof, a belfry at the east elevation, and a number of stained glass windows. The grounds also include mature and semi-mature trees, open space, a decorative iron fence along Margaret Avenue and Queen Street North, and a surface parking lot at the western edge ofthe property. The property also includes a 1.5 storey buff brick coach house at the northwest corner of the property. 3.2.415 Ellen Street West The property includes a 2.5 storey yellow brick dwelling with a hip roof which includes Georgian revival and Edwardian elements. It has a symmetrical design with a central triangular pedimented portico supported by four Doric columns. The structure includes a central hip roof dormer at the principal elevation and a brick chimney at the west elevation. st The eaves are supported by decorative brackets at the roofline. The west section of the 1 Page 30 of 215 22 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment storey of the principal (north) elevation includes a bay window. The property also includes paved vehicular access to Ellen Street West, mature trees, open space, and a rear 1.5 storey detached garage. 3.2.5 17 Ellen Street West The property at 17 Ellen Street West currently includes a 1.5 storey buff brick dwelling with both multi-gable and hip roof sections. The principal elevation includes a veranda supported by square brick pillars. The veranda includes a stepped entrance with wood balustrades and nd decorative posts at the principal elevation. The 2storey of the principal elevation includes an enclosed balcony. The property also includes vehicular driveway access to Ellen Street West, open space, and a mature evergreen tree. 3.2.6 21 Ellen Street West The property at 21 Ellen Street currently includes a 1.5 storey dwelling in the Arts & Crafts style. The structure includes a combination of hip and gable roof styles and rectangular window openings. The structure includes a portico at the principal (north) elevation supported by square posts and balcony above including decorative wood railings. The building includes a car port at the east elevation which includes an enclosed balcony above. The property also includes a mature deciduous tree, open space, landscape plantings, and vehicular access interfacing with 21 Ellen Street West. 3.2.7 25 Ellen Street West The property at 25 Ellen Street West includes a 1.5 storey multi-gable painted brick dwelling with Arts & Crafts elements. It includes a veranda at the principal elevation with a partially nd enclosed balcony above. Window openings at the 2storey are arched with decorative voussoirs. There is an exterior red brick chimney at the west elevation. The property also includes a wood fenced rear yard, open space, landscape plantings, and vehicular access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.8 29 Ellen Street West The property includes a 1.5 storey buff brick dwelling that does not appear representative of a particular architectural style.The dwelling features a front-facing multi gable roof with cornice returns and a rear chimney. Openings are rectangular and the principal elevation includes a veranda with Craftsman-style columns and simple decorative moulding at the architrave. The Page 31 of 215 23 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment property also includes natural stone edging interfacing with the public sidewalk, a mature tree, open space and landscape plantings, and vehicular access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.931Ellen Street West 31 Ellen Street West currently includes a 2.5-storey red brick dwelling that does not appear to be representative of a particular architectural style. It includes a front-facing gable roof with cornice returns. There is a veranda at the principal elevation supported by square wood columns with simple decorative lines on brick piers. The property also includes landscape plantings and vehicular access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.10 33 Ellen Street West The property currently includes a 1.5 storey red brick and Tudor half-timbering dwelling in the Tudor revival style.It appears to have been constructed as a twin dwelling to the adjacent property at 35 Ellen Street West. The property also includes a mature tree, landscape plantings, and a shared driveway with 35 Ellen Street West that provides access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.11 35 Ellen Street West The property currently includes a 1.5 storey red brick and Tudor half-timbering dwelling in the Tudor revival style.It appears to have been constructed as a twin dwelling to the adjacent property at 33 Ellen Street West. The property also includes landscape plantings and a shared driveway with 33 Ellen Street West that provides access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.12 37 Ellen Street West The property at 37 Ellen Street West currently includes a 2.5 storey red brick dwelling with Italianate and Arts & Crafts elements. The property includes a front veranda on Craftsman- style wood pillars supported by brick piers. Both the veranda and roof feature a shallow-pitched hip design supported by decorative brackets. There is a central hip roof dormer at the principal elevation. The property also includes landscape plantings and vehicular access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.13 39 Ellen Street West The property at 39 Ellen Street West currently includes a 2.5 storey red brick dwelling which does not appear to be constructed in a particular architectural style. It includes a rectangular Page 32 of 215 24 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment plan and hip roof with a central front-facing hipped dormer.There is a simple wood veranda and balcony which appear to be of later construction. The principal elevation includes an st asymmetrical window with a stained glass transom at the 1storey. The property also includes open space, landscape plantings, and vehicular access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.1441Ellen Street West The dwelling at 41 Ellen Street West is a 1.5 storey buff brick dwelling that does not appear to nd be constructed in a particular architectural style. It includes an arched window at the 2storey of the principal elevation and a portico which is an extension of the roofline supported by decorative wood columns. The property also includes open space, landscaping, and vehicular access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.15 43 Ellen Street West The property at 43 Ellen Street West currently includes a 2.5 storey red brick dwelling which does not appear to be constructed in a particular architectural style. The building includes a multi-gable roofwith full and partial cornice returns, rectangular openings, and a decorative stnd moulding at the principal elevation between the 1 and 2storeys. It appears to have been constructed as a twin home to the adjacent property at 45 Ellen Street West. The property also includes a mature tree, open space, and vehicular access to Ellen Street West. 3.2.16 45 Ellen Street West The property at 45 Ellen Street West currently includes a 2.5 storey red brick dwelling which does not appear to be constructed in a particular architectural style. The building includes a multi-gable roof with full and partial cornice returns, and rectangular openings. There is a hip roof portico supported by simple wood columns. It appears to have been constructed as a twin home to the adjacent property at 45 Ellen Street West. The property also includes a mature tree, open space, and vehicular access to Ellen Street West. Page 33 of 215 25 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 4.0Description of Proposed Development The proposed development includes the construction of a6-storey residential building comprised of 2residential units. The site will also contain one level of underground parking and surface parking to the north (rear) and west for a total of 23 parking spaces. The eastern portion of the propertyadjacent to the Church of the Good Shepherdis proposed as parklands. (see Appendix C of this report for larger versions of the site plan, elevations and renderings). Figure 9: Proposedsite plan. (McCallumSather, 2025) Page 34 of 215 26 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figures10& 11:Proposed elevations.(McCallumSather, 2025) Page 35 of 215 27 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure12:Proposed renderings. (McCallumSather, 2025) Distances to Adjacent Properties Theproposeddevelopmentwillbelocateda minimumof 2metresfromthe adjacent properties to the north,metres fromthe Churchofthe GoodShepherd,and2 metres from54 MargaretAvenue tothe west.See Figure 13 belowfordistancestoall adjacentproperties. Page 36 of 215 28 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure 13:proposed site plan with distances to adjacent buildings. (MHBC, 2025) Angular Plane Analysis While not required by the CCNHCD Plan, anAngular Plane Analysis was conductedin October of 2025(available in Appendix E) to ensure that the proposed development is respectful of the pedestrian experience. As part of the analysis, a 45 degreeangular plane was taken from the south side of Margaret th Avenue (see Figure 12). Per the Staff Report dated August 6, 2019 in response to the previous Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-V-010for the subject property (which City staff supported), Kitchener Cultural Heritage Planning staff noted that an angular plane taken from the opposite side of Margaret Avenue is an accepted urban designstandard relative to achieving a comfortable sense of enclosure for pedestrians, with positiveaccess to sunlight and sky views.Therefore, the same approach has been taken in the preparation of the current Angular Plane Analysis. Page 37 of 215 29 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure 12:View of the angular plane analysis taken from the opposite side of Margaret Avenue as well as from the rear (north) property line. (McCallumSather, 2025) Theanalysis indicates that only a small portionof the building doesnot meetthe 45 degree angular plane. This isa result of the buildingÓs shallow setback at the principal (south) elevation which is encouraged within the CCNHCD Plan in order to promotea strong, pedestrian-oriented street edge due to its close proximity/shallow setback. While a deeper setback would result in the proposed development meeting a 45 degree angular plane at the principal elevation, the buildingÓs close proximity to the street would be sacrificed for minimal improvement when the current proposalis anticipated to result in a comfortable pedestrian experience along Margaret Avenue. Additionally,the analysis indicates that a small portion of the building does not meet the angular plane to the rear (north) elevation (see Figure 12 above). However, this is true only for the two north wings of the building located closest to the nearest rear property line.The majority of the north elevation meets and exceeds a 45 degree angular plane. Additionally, plantings are proposed to the rear (north) of the subject property along the property boundary to visually screen the proposed development from the rear yards of the adjacent dwellings, further reducing the perception of height. An angular plane was also taken from the base of the adjacent dwelling located at 54 Margaret Avenue (see Figure 13). The proposal meets the angular plane, indicating a comfortable access to sunlight and sky views is anticipated for theclosestadjacent property. Page 38 of 215 30 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure 13:45 degreeangular plane taken from the base of the adjacent dwelling located at 54 Margaret Avenue. (McCallumSather, 2025) Page 39 of 215 31 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 5.0Impact Analysis Introduction The following constitutes adverse impacts which may result from a proposed development, per the City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference: Demolition of any, or part of any, heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance of a building; Shadows created that obscure heritage attributes or change the viability of the associated cultural heritage landscape; Isolation of a heritage resource or part thereof from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Obstruction of significant identified views or vistas of, within, or from individual cultural heritage resources; A change in land use where the change affects the propertyÓs cultural heritage value; and Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource. The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may be direct (demolition or alteration) or indirect (shadows, isolation, obstruction of significant views, a change in land use and land disturbances). Impacts may occur over a short term or long term duration, and may occur during a pre-construction phase, construction phase or post- construction phase (medium-term). Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. Severity of impacts used in this report derives from . Table 2: ICOMOS Scale and Severity of Change/Impact Impact GradingDescription MajorChange to key historic building elements that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Page 40 of 215 32 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment ModerateChange to many key historic building elements, such that the resource of significantly modified. Changes to the setting an historic building, such that it is significantly modified. MinorChange to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to setting of an historic building, such that is it noticeably changed. Negligible/ Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly affect it. Potential No changeNo change to fabric or setting. Impact Analysis for Subject Lands The subject lands are currently vacant and are not considered to exhibit CHVI. As no heritage attributes are located on site, no impacts adverse impacts are anticipated to the redevelopment of these lands. Additionally, thesubject lands were historically used for residential dwellings,which were demolished in the 1980s and 90s. The vacancy has created a void along the Margaret Avenue streetscape which is within one of the CityÓs oldest neighbourhoods. Infill in this case is recommended as a form of conservation for the general rhythm of the neighbourhood, and in particular, the streetscape of Margaret Avenue. A building of good quality and architectural design can be beneficial for both the neighbourhood interms of spatial organization and overall historical land use patterns, as well as visually provide a scenic infill in what is currently an unbalanced streetscape.Therefore, the sympathetic redevelopment of these lands is considered a beneficial impact. However, the CCNHCD Planprovides specific policies for the redevelopment of thesubjectlands to ensure that new development enhancesthe overall character of the neighbourhood. Therefore, analysis of the proposed development for conformity with the CCNHCD Plan policies will be provided in Section 5.6 of this report. Page 41 of 215 33 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Impact Analysis for Adjacent Cultural Heritage Resources Potentialimpacts as a result of the proposed development tothe adjacent properties located at 54 and 64 Margaret Avenue, 116 Queen Street North/ 12 Margaret Avenue (Church of the Good Shepherd), and 15, 17, 21, 25, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45 Ellen Street Westare assessedin Table 3 below. Table 3: Impact Analysis for Adjacent Cultural HeritageResources None.The redevelopment of the subject Demolition of any, or part lands does not propose to demolish of any, heritage attributes or identified heritage attributes of the features; adjacent cultural heritage resources. None.The redevelopment of the subject Alteration that is not lands does not propose to alter sympathetic, or is identified heritage attributes of the incompatible, with the adjacent cultural heritage resources. historic fabric and appearance of a building; None.The proposed development is limited Shadows created that to 6 storeys in height and there are obscure heritage attributes or no identified landscape features change the viability of the associated with these properties associated cultural heritage which would be adversely impacted landscape; by shadows. Additionally, the Shadow Study (see Appendix D) indicates thatadjacent properties will be in partial shadow for no more than a few hours per day during certain times of the year. Therefore, no adverse impacts from shadows are anticipated. Page 42 of 215 34 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment None.Some of the adjacent heritage Isolation of a heritage properties exhibit a significant resource or part thereof from relationship to adjacent dwellings its surrounding environment, (such as the twin dwellings located context or a significant at 33 and 35 Ellen Street and as well relationship; as the twin dwellings at 43 and 45 Ellen Street), however, no adjacent heritage properties exhibit a significant relationship with any features located on the subject lands. Additionally, no adjacent properties exhibit a significant relationship with any features located outside of the subject lands which they might be visually or physically separated from as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, no impacts from isolation are anticipated. None. While no views or vistas of the Obstruction of significant adjacent heritage properties have identified views or vistas been identified as significant, views of, within, or from individual of the principal elevation of a cultural heritage resources; heritage structure from the public realm are often considered significant. The proposed development does not propose to alter views of the principal elevations of any of the adjacent heritage properties. Therefore, no impacts from obstruction are anticipated. None.No change in land use is proposed. A change in land use The historic use of the subject lands where the change affects the has been residential, and these propertyÓs cultural heritage lands are proposed to remain value; and residential. Potential.The dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue Land disturbances such as is located 2 metres from the a change in grade that alters proposed development (see Figure soils, and drainage patterns 11). There is the potential for that adversely affect a adverse impacts to this property due cultural heritage resource. to vibration during excavation and construction activities. All other Page 43 of 215 35 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment adjacent buildings are located a minimum of 2 metresfrom the proposed development (21 Ellen Street West) with the majority being located3+metresaway. Additionally, the Church of the Good Shepherdis separated from the proposed development by proposed parklands to the east. Therefore, no other potential adverse impacts from vibration are anticipated, other than potential impacts to 54 Margaret Avenue. In conclusion, there is the potential for adverse impacts due to vibration during excavation and construction activities to the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue, which is located 2 metres from the proposed development. Impact Analysis to the Character ofthe Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District The following Table 4 analyzes the potential for impacts of the proposed development to the character of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. This analysis is based on attributes which have been listed in Section 1.6.3 of this report. Table 4:Impacts to the CCNHCD ImpactLevel of Impact Analysis (None, Negligible, Minor, Moderate or Major) Negligible.The proposed development includes Demolition of any, or part of vehicular access to Margaret any, heritage attributes or Avenue. There is the potential for features; adverse impacts from demolition to a small portion of the CCNHCD heritage attribute of the Ðgrassed boulevards.Ñ However, as the proposed vehicular access includes a proposed width of 6.7 metres, the potential for impacts is considered Page 44 of 215 36 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment negligible, as only a very small portion of the grass boulevards along Margaret Avenue may be impacted. Mitigation measures are not deemed necessary. None.There is the potential for a Alteration that is not development which is not sympathetic, or is sympathetic to the context of the incompatible, with the historic CCNHCD to result in adverse fabric and appearance of a impacts due to alterations which are building; not compatible to the character of the neighbourhood. However, this potential for impacts is considered adequately mitigated provided the proposed development complies with the policies of the CCNHCD Plan. The proposed development is analyzed for conformity with the CCNHCD Plan policies in Section 5.6 of this report. None. The proposed development will not Shadows created that result in shadows that negatively obscure heritage attributes or impact the CCNHCD including change the viability of the landscape features (i.e. mature associated cultural heritage trees) due to the limited height of 6 landscape; storeys proposed for the building. The Shadow Study (see Appendix D)also indicates that shadows are not anticipated to impact the streetscape along Margaret Avenue as it is located to the south of the proposed development. None.The proposed development will not Isolation of a heritage isolate adjacent heritage buildings resource or part thereof from or features but rather create a fluid its surrounding environment, streetscape, which is considered a context or a significant beneficial impact. relationship; None.While the CCNHCD Plan does not Obstruction of significant identify significant views or vistas identified views or vistas of, amongst the heritage attributes of within, or from individual the District, the proposed cultural heritage resources; development does not propose to alter views of the principal elevations of any of the adjacent heritage properties. Additionally, it is it not anticipated to result in adverse impacts on views or vistas Page 45 of 215 37 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment within the CCNHCD such as the views which are available along Margaret Avenue.As mentioned previously, the proposed development is intended to create a fluid streetscape, which is considered a beneficial impact to the streetscape.See Section 5.5 below for further analysis of the impacts to views and viewscapes within the District. None. The subject lands are proposed for A change in land use where residential uses, which represent a the change affects the return to historic uses of the propertyÓs cultural heritage property. value; and None.The proposed development is Land disturbances such as approximately metresfrom the a change in grade that alters adjacent coach houseand a soils, and drainage patterns minimum of 2metresfrom that adversely affect a cultural properties to the rear along Ellen heritage resource. Street. The new construction will be approximately 2metresfrom the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue which is sufficient distance to not anticipate impacts of vibrations as a result of construction activities. Drainage and grading should be appropriate based on an approval of an adequate drainage and grading plan. In conclusion, no adverse impacts are anticipated to the characterof the CCNHCD as a result of the proposed development. Impact Analysis to Views and Streetscape 5.5.1Introduction The Standards and Guidelines of Historic Places (Second Edition) defines in Section 4.1.5 ÐVisual RelationshipsÑ which is included as part of a character-defining element of a historic place and relates to an observer and their relationship with a landscape or landscape feature (viewscape) Page 46 of 215 38 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment or between the relative dimensions of landscape features (scale). This policy adopts the following definition for viewscape: can include scenes, panoramas, vistas, visual axes and sight lines. In designed landscapes, a viewscape may have been established following the rules of pictorial composition: elements are located in the foreground, middle ground and background. A Viewscape may also be the chief organizing feature when a succession of focal points is introduced to draw the pedestrian onward through a landscape. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit (ÑOHTKÑ) acknowledges that views of a heritage attributes can be components of its significant cultural heritage value. This can include vantage pointsand views and vistas to and from an area. The OHTK has adopted the following definitions of a views and/or vistas: Views can be either static or kinetic. Static views are those which have a fixed vantage point and view termination. Kinetic views are those related to a route (such as a road or walking trail) which includes a series of views of an object or vista. The vantage point of a view is the place in which a person is standing. The termination of the view includes the landscape or buildings which is the purpose of the view. The space between the vantage point and the termination (or object(s) being viewed) includesa foreground, middle-ground, and background. Views can also be ÒframedÓ by buildings or features. 5.5.2Views and Viewscapes within the CCNHCD The CCNHCD Plan (2007) mentions the importance of views and overall effect of visibility of the proposed development on the District, Thus, it is important that the proposed development enhancesviews and viewscapes in the district. The following diagram identifies views, both kinetic and stationary, as well as viewscapes that may be affected by the proposed development. Page 47 of 215 39 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment The CCNHCD Study (2006) reviewed views and viewscapes within the boundary of the district. The study states that, Ð- Consistency as part of a view and viewscapes of the district will be evaluated in this sub-section. See the following Table 5 for an analysis of potential impacted views and viewscapes. 2 3 1 5 4 Table 5: Analysis of Views and Viewscapes View/ ViewscapeDescription of View View No.1 Kinetic view along Margaret Avenue View No. 2 Kinetic view along Ellen Street West View No .3 Kinetic view along Queen Street North View No. 4 Stationary view of western elevation of the Church of the Good Shepherd Viewscape No. 5 Viewscape (scene) of the Church of the Good Shepherd at the intersection of Queen Street North and Margaret Avenue 5.5.3Analysis of Potential Impacts to Views and Viewscapes View No.1: The CCNHCD Study of 2006, specifically identifies in Section 4.4 that scale and character does shift across Margaret Avenue. Margaret Avenue is currently composed of low, medium and high-rise buildings. The scale and character of the Avenue is a mosaic of types of architecture. The kinetic view along MargaretAvenue will change so as to fill in a space that historically was filled with residential dwellings. The impact isbeneficialto this view and will Page 48 of 215 40 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment not adversely affect the streetscape but rather it will complete the streetscape while maintaining the overall view of the street. View No.2:Thekinetic view along Ellen Street West will not be negatively impacted. The proposed development may be visible to the rear of the residential homes. However, existing trees in the rear yards of these homes and will screen the building masses.Additional plantings are also proposed for the rear property boundary. View No.3:Queen Street North is characterized by a variety of types of architecture; there are medium/ high rise buildings existing along this street. The proposed development will not impact the kinetic view of Queen Street North. View No. 4:The view of the western façade of the Church of the Good Shepherd will not be negatively impacted due to the proposed development. Due to the parking lot on the church property and the proposed park, theview of the north façade will still be visible. Viewscape No. 5:The CCNHCD Plan (2007) defines churches as Ðdistinctive landmarks within and at the edges of the DistrictÑ as one of the key attributes of the district.The viewscapein the form of a scene of the Church of the Good Shepherd at the intersection of Queen Street North and Margaret Avenue is a distinctive part of the district. The Gothic revivalchurch with its wrought iron fence at the corner of this intersection marks its presence on both streets(see Figure 14). This scene is presented by the wrought iron fence in the foreground, church structure in the middle ground with its three-storeyclock tower leading the viewer to the heavens as a background. The view of the wrought iron fence will be limited to the change in the background from the proposed development. The foreground including the fence and the middle ground of the landscaping and church will, however, remain the same. Figure 14:Aerialview of the Church of the Good Shepherd; reddotted line outlines the approximate perimeter of the designatedwrought iron fence line (Google Earth Pro, 2019) Page 49 of 215 41 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Conformity with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan Policies The CCNHCD Plan contains specific policies and design guidelines for the subject lands. This area is identified as one of four site/area specific policies in the Plan including: Margaret Avenue, Ellen Street, Weber Street and Victoria Street. All new development should confirm to these policies and guidelines. An analysis of the proposed development and the conformity with each policy is provided below. See Appendix C forsite plan, elevations,and architectural renderings. 5.6.1Site Specific Guidelines: Margaret Avenue The CCNHCD policies with regard to new development on Margaret Avenue are provided below, along with responses pertaining to the proposed development. Page 50 of 215 42 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Response 1: The proposed development is located centrally on Margaret Avenue between Victoria Street North and Queen Street North. A portion of the overall building is adjacent to the parking lot of the Church of the Good Shepherd which is on the Òeast sideÓ of Margaret Avenue. Architectural details such as recessed portions of the principal (south) façade and landscape features have been intentionally designed to maintain the overall residential character of the neighbourhood. The new construction presentsitself as several visually distinctunits similar to the surrounding single-family dwellings (including 54 Margaret Avenue) as a result of the recessed alcoves which break up the solid massing at the pedestrian level. Materials have been chosen which complement the historic character of the area including red brick and limestone cladding. The colour palette of the building is neutral and includes black and shades of grey in addition to the red brick so as not to overshadow adjacent heritage resources. Response 2: The site will contain one level of underground parking.One row of surface parking is proposed along the vehicular access point to Margaret Avenue at the west edge of the proposed development, but all other surface parking will be located predominantly to the north (rear) of the building and not visible from the public realm. A total of 293 parking spaces are proposed. Response 3: The proposed building height is 6 storeys(21.149 metres), which, while taller than the buildings on the adjacent properties, is not considered inappropriate to the context. The Angular Plane Analysis (see Section 4.2 and Appendix E of this report) indicates that a comfortable pedestrian experience with positive access to sunlight and sky views is anticipated. Additionally no adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of shadow (see Appendix D for full Shadow Study). Section 3.3.5.3of the CCNHCD Plan includes policies specific to Margaret Avenueand notes a designation at the time of Medium Density Multiple Residential and zoned R8, allowing for a full range of residential uses up to 24 metres (approximately 8 storeys). Therefore, a proposed height of 6 storeys is within the height limit permitted on the property at the time of the CCNHCD. Additionally, the property includes visual separation from the surrounding buildings via the parkland and church parking lot at the east elevation, the rear yards and mature trees of the dwellings along Ellen Street West, and the laneway and surface parking at the west elevation of the subject property. The proposed development is approximately Page 51 of 215 43 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment three metres from the front yard property line which situates it close to the streetscape, and the design includes a variety of heights, setbacks, forms and textures to reduce the perception of massing. Response 4: The orientation and location of the proposed development promotes a strong, pedestrian oriented street edge due to its close proximity/shallow setback to the street. The separation of the building into several distinct visual units via recessed alcoves provides a more inviting streetscape in lieu of one building mass and interacts with the streetscape as singular residential units which promotes the residential character of the District. The variation in material along the front façade reduces massing towards the street and the use of limestone and red brick is consistent with the residential character of surrounding historic dwellings. Additionally, the height of 6 storeys is anticipated to preserve s comfortable pedestrian experience (see Section 4.2 of this report). Response 5: While a Shadow Study has not been requested, one has been prepared to ensure that the proposed development will not result in adverse impacts to surrounding heritage resources as a result of shadows. The Shadow Study (see Appendix D) indicates thatthe properties located to the east, north, and west are anticipated to be in partial shadow for no more than a few hours a day during certain parts of the year. Shadows are not anticipated to impact the viability of existing plantings, nor to obscure identified heritage attributes within the District. Response 6: The subject lands currently consist of open space, a gravel pad, and a concrete retaining wall. The majority of mature trees referenced in this policy were removed by the previous owner. Some trees remain along the north and west property boundaries, of which 13 are proposed for retention in accordance with the recommendations of the Arborist Report and Tree Management Plan conducted by GSP Group in September of 2025. Page 52 of 215 44 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Response 7: No road widenings are required along Margaret Avenue.Access to the proposed development is in the location requested by City transportation staff and aligns with Maynard Avenue. Any future turning lanes would be within the existing road right- of-way and would not impact the existing character of the area. 5.6.2Land Use Designations and Zoning Guidelines for Margaret Avenue Response 7: The proposed building height is 21.149 metres. The Angular Plane Analysis (see Section 4.2) indicates that positive access to sunlight and sky views is anticipated to remain available. Additionally the Shadow Study (see Appendix D) indicates that shadows are not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to adjacent heritage resources. Page 53 of 215 45 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment The proposed building setback ofapproximately 3 metres is within the CCNHCD recommended maximum and establishes a similar street edge to the opposite side of Margaret Avenue. It is important to note that the majority of mature trees referenced in the CCNHCD Plan were removed by the previous owner. Some trees remain along the north and west property boundaries, of which 13 are proposed for retention in accordance with the recommendations of the Arborist Report and Tree Management Plan conducted by GSP Group in September of 2025. Additionally, new tree plantings are proposed which are anticipated to contribute to the streetscape and character of the neighbourhood. 5.6.3 Site/Area Specific Design Guidelines: Margaret Avenue Response 8: The front yard setback is approximately 3 metres and therefore, is within the maximum setback and similar to the rest of the street. Landscaping of a tree boulevard for the proposed development will also address the relationship between the trees on the south side of the street and those in front of the new building. The development will be oriented to the street. The subject lands include frontage on Margaret Avenue and the front elevation along the streetscape has been designed to have architectural interest and details that promote a fluid streetscape. Response 9: While the setback to the rear of the building is not uniform, this guideline is met and exceeded. The setback of the building is approximately 13.5 metres at the narrowest point and ranges from approximately 26 metres at the northwest portion to Page 54 of 215 46 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment approximately 45.5 metres at the recessed portions of the building. Additionally,therear yard is intended to be landscaped which allows for a buffer between the development on the existing residents along Ellen Street West to minimize impacts as a result of the new dwelling units. The majority of the building meets and exceeds a 45 degree angular plane from the closest property boundary (see Section 4.2) and the few portions of the rear of the building which do not meet a 45 degree angular plane are anticipated to be appropriately screened with plantings along the rear landscape buffer. Response 10: The proposed new construction is 6storeys in height, however as described above, design features have been incorporated which are intended to preserve the pedestrian environment of the street. These include the separation of the building into several distinct visual units via recessed alcoves, thevariation in material along the front façadewhichreduces massing towards the street, the use of limestone and red brick is consistent with the residential character of surrounding historic dwellings, and the incorporation of a neutral colour palette.Additionally, building includes a shallow setback of 3 metres, which is anticipated to result in a positive pedestrian experience. Response 11: Architectural details include arched balcony openings at the 3rd storey, oculus-like circular detailing below the roofline, and a variety of textures, colours, and setbacks at the principal elevation. Limestone cladding reflects the materials of the adjacent Church of the Good Shepherd, and red brick is a commonly-used material along Margaret Avenue. The colour palette is proposed to be neutral. Colours proposed include: red brick,dark and light grey, and black(see Figure 15). Page 55 of 215 47 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure 15:Proposed colour palette of the new building. Response 12: This architectural design of the building uses repetitive façade elements, such as the mirrored rhythm of building sections (see Appendix C for architectural elevations and renderings). The articulation of the front façades reflects width and spacing of the single detached dwellings on the south of Margaret Avenue. There are 18separate glazed wallsat the principal elevation alongMargaret Avenue which has the effect of creating visually distinct single unitssimilar in character to the single detached dwellings on the south side of Margaret Avenue. Page 56 of 215 48 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Response 13: The proposed developed incorporates red brick and limestone veneer on the first 2.5 storeys of the front façade. Response 14: The proposed development does not include parking located in the front yard. The proposal includes one level of underground parking. One row of surface parking is proposed to be located at the west side yard along the vehicular access point to Margaret Avenue, but all other surface parking will be located predominantly to the north (rear) of the building and not visible from the public realm. A total of 293 parking spaces are proposed. Response 15: The subject lands currently consist of open space, a gravel pad, and a concrete retaining wall. The majority of mature trees referenced in the CCNHCD Plan were removed by the previous owner. Some trees remain along the north and west property boundaries, of which 13 are proposed for retention in accordance with the recommendations of the Arborist Report and Tree Management Plan conducted by GSP Group in September of 2025.Additionally, new plantings are proposedwhich are intended to enhance the existing streetscape. 5.6.4Guidelines for Part IV Designations within CCNHCD Page 57 of 215 49 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Response 16: The proposed development is not anticipated to negatively impact the wrought iron fence along the property of the Church of the Good Shepherd as the fence will not be removed, altered, or obscured, and construction activities are not proposed to take place in the vicinity of the wrought iron fence, which is located approximately 52 metres from the development area. Additionally, the fence (location noted in is separated from the proposed development by the existing parking lot and proposed parklands. 5.6.5 Other Applicable Guidelines for the Public Realm within the CCNHCD This section analyzesother applicable guidelines within the CCNHCD Plan which relate to the overall public realm and the effect on the district by the proposed development. Response 17: As previously mentioned, the majority of mature trees referenced in the CCNHCD Plan were removed by the previous owner. Some trees remain along the north and west property boundaries, of which 13 are proposed for retention in accordance with the recommendations of the Arborist Report and Tree Management Plan conducted by GSP Group in September of 2025. Additionally, new plantings are proposed which are intended to enhance the existing streetscape. Response 18: New trees are proposed along Margaret Avenue. Further landscaping elements will be determined through the approval process. Page 58 of 215 50 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Response 19: Construction activities are not proposed to impact publicly owned trees as construction will be confined to the subject lands, which do not include publicly owned trees. Response 20: The existing boulevard will be maintained as green space to serve as a buffer between vehicular and pedestrian space within the streetscape. New vehicular access is proposed to Margaret Avenue, but this access will be limited to 6.7 metres in width; all other grass boulevards adjacent to the subject lands are proposed to remain. Response 21: A landscape plan has been prepared which details the variety and placement of proposed plantings. Landscaping will be composed of typical plant material selection for residential landscaping indicated in Table 5.1 of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). Response 22: A wood board fence is proposed along side and rear property lines, which is in keeping with this policy. Page 59 of 215 51 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Response 23: The proposal mostly conforms to this recommendation. No fences are proposed along the front of the building, and wood board fences are proposed for the rear and side property lines in a minimal, uncomplicated design. While the side yard fences are proposed to include unfinished wood, they are intended to be part of an integrated landscape which is proposed to include tree plantings and vegetative screening which. The use of unfinished wood for side yard fences is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts to the streetscape along Margaret Avenue. Response 24: The size and scale of the fencing is intended to be appropriate to the context and is not anticipated to obscure or isolate any heritage attributes of the CCNHCD as viewed from the public realm. Response 25: There is no ornamental furniture proposed. 5.6.6 Compatibility with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan Preferred Examples of Infill Section 5.6 of this report completed an overall analysis of the policies in the CCNHCD Plan (2007). This analysis concluded that the proposed development is compatible with the overall character of the CCNHCD. The proposed development relays similar architectural articulations as the preferred example provided in the CCNHC Plan above in Figures 17 and 18. Although the development is taller than the historic residential buildings in the immediate surrounding area, it generally complies with the neighbourhood. Page 60 of 215 52 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figure 16: Diagram showing good and bad examples of infill (OHTK,Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport of Ontario) Page 61 of 215 53 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Figures 17& 18:(above) Preferred example showing axonometric view of a proposed development from Sub-section 6.9.1 of the CCNHCD Plan for Margaret Avenue; (below)Example of front elevation of preferred example along Margaret Avenue.(Source: CCNHCD Plan, 6.29-6.30) In addition to complying with the architectural design guideline policies in the CCNHCD Plan (2007), the overall design of the proposed developmentisalso considered compatiblewith the preferred examples from case studies outlined in 6.9.5of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). The excerpt below explains how these preferred examples are compatible for Margaret Avenue: Figures 19 to 23 provide a comparative analysis of the preferred examples presented in the Plan and the proposed new construction. Some similarities include the used of glazed walls to delineate individual units,the use of setbacks and various projecting bays,and contrast of red brick and other materials. Page 62 of 215 54 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Proposed Development Figures 19-23:(above left to bottom left) Preferred examples from Sub-section 9.6.5 of the CCNHCD Plan for Margaret Avenue; (right) elevations, materials, and colours of the proposed development. Page 63 of 215 55 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Conclusion In conclusion, this report has identified the following impacts as a result of the proposed development: Beneficial impact with regard to the sympathetic redevelopment of the subject lands which is anticipated to bebeneficial for both the neighbourhood in terms of spatial organization and the overall historical land use patterns.Additionally, the proposed development willprovide scenic infill in what is currently an unbalanced streetscape. Potential adverse impact to 54 Margaret Avenue with regard to land disturbances which may result in vibration during excavation and construction activities. Additionally, the proposed development is generally in conformity with the relevant policies of the CCNHCD Plan and preserves the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood. Where the proposal does not conform is with regard to the following guidelines: The Margaret Avenue Site/Area Specific Design Guidelines encourage building step backs of 2+ metres for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. The proposed development is 6 storeys and does not incorporate a 2+ metre stepback.However, the Angular Plane Analysis indicates thatpositive access to sunlight and sky views is anticipated to remain available while maintaining a shallow setback for a comfortable pedestrian experience.Additionally, design features have been incorporated which are intended to preserve the pedestrian environment of the street. These include the separation of the building into several distinct visual units via recessed alcoves, the variation in material along the front façade which reduces massing towards the street, the use of limestone and red brick is consistent with the residential character of surrounding historic dwellings, and the incorporation of a neutral colour palette.No additional mitigation measures are deemed necessary. Page 64 of 215 56 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 6.0Alternative Development Options, Mitigation and Conservation Measures Alternative Development Options Consideration of alternative development approaches is routinely undertaken through the assessment of heritage impacts when significant adverse impacts are identified.As this report has not identified any major adverse impactsas a result of the proposed development,the exploration of alternative development options is not deemed warranted. Mitigation and Conservation Measures The following mitigation and conservation measures are recommended: That a Vibration Monitoring Plan be prepared for 54 Margaret Avenuetoensure that the dwelling which is located 20 metres from the proposed development isnot adversely impacted due to vibrations for the duration ofexcavation and construction activities. It is also recommended as a precautionary measure that construction fencing be erected around 54 Margaret Avenue to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entry to the site during construction avoid this property, if possible, and that the storage of material and equipmentbe located away from the immediate area of the adjacent dwelling; Additionally, the following measures are encouraged: Page 65 of 215 57 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment That the park be named after a previous landowner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in order to honour the former historical associations of the subject lands; That the proposed tree plantings along Margaret Avenue be of appropriate native species in order to enhance the character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. Page 66 of 215 58 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7.0Conclusions and Recommendations This report has identified no adverse impacts as a result of the proposed development. The following impacts havebeen identified: Beneficial impact with regard to the sympathetic redevelopment of the subject lands which is anticipated to be beneficial for both the neighbourhood in terms of spatial organization and the overall historical land use patterns. Additionally, the proposed development will provide scenic infill in what is currently an unbalanced streetscape. Potential adverse impact to 54 Margaret Avenue with regard to land disturbances which may result in vibration during excavation and construction activities. Additionally, the proposed development is generally in conformity with the relevant policies of the CCNHCD Plan and preserves the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood. Where the proposal does not conform is with regard to the following guideline: The Margaret Avenue Site/Area Specific Design Guidelines encourage building step backs of 2+ metres for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. The proposed development is 6 storeys and does not incorporate a 2+ metre step back. However, the Angular Plane Analysis indicates that positive access to sunlight and sky views is anticipated to remain available while maintaining a shallow setback for a comfortable pedestrian experience. Additionally, design features have been incorporated which are intended to preserve the pedestrian environment of the street. These include the separation of the building into several distinct visual units via recessed alcoves, the variation in material along the front façade which reduces massing towards the street, the use of limestone and red brick is consistent with the residential character of surrounding historic dwellings, and the incorporation of a neutral colour palette. No additional mitigation measures are deemed necessary. The following mitigation and conservation measures are recommended: That a Vibration Monitoring Plan be prepared for 54 Margaret Avenue to ensure that the dwelling which is located 20 metres from the proposed development is not Page 67 of 215 59 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment adversely impacted due to vibrations for the duration ofexcavation and construction activities. It is also recommended as a precautionary measure that construction fencing be erected around 54 Margaret Avenue to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entry to the site during construction avoid this property, if possible, and that the storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of the adjacent dwelling. Additionally, the following measures are encouraged: That the park be named after a previous landowner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in order to honour the former historical associations of the subject lands; That the proposed tree plantings along Margaret Avenue be of appropriate native species in order to enhance the character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. Page 68 of 215 60 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 8.0Bibliography Blumenson, John. ÐOntario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the presentÑ. Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990. Blumenson, John. . Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study, 2006. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2007. City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (2014). City of Kitchener, By-law No. 85-129. To designate the property at 116 Queen Street (The Church of the Good Shepherd) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (15 July, 1985). Eby, Ezra. . Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. English, John and Kennedth McLaughlin. . Robin Brass Studio, 1996. Glaeser, Adolph, Mayor George Gruestzner, John Klein, Ezra Kraft, Ludovika Isabella Lang, Jacob Mohr, Joseph Mueller, Revered Andrew Spetz, Albert Tuerk. Berlin Today 1806- 1906 Official Souvenir. Courtesy of the Kitchener Public Library, S1420. Google Maps & Google Earth Pro, 2022. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. . 2010. Page 69 of 215 61 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. Heritage Resources Centre. . University of Waterloo, 2009. Intaglio Gravure Limited, Toronto & Montreal. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C. 1935. Martin Simmons Architects. Site Plan & Rendering, 2022. MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Tree Preservation Plan, October, 2022. MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Site Plan, March, 2022. MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Landscape renderings, March, 2022. Mills, Rych. Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. . Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. . Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Moyer, Bill. . Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 1979. n/a. , Jubilee Souvenir. 1897. Ontario Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Act 2005, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18. Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Ontario Ministry of Affairs and Housing. Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 2014. S.3 the Ontario Planning Act R.S.O 1996. Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx Page 70 of 215 62 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Pender, Terry. ÐVacant Margaret Avenue property to house condo: ACTIVA Group plans two, six-storey buildings on land made vacant 25 years ago.Ñ October 12, 2013. Pender, Terry. ÐLocal developer purchases long-empty Margaret Avenue land.Ñ August 9, 2012. Region of Waterloo GIS Locator, 2018. Region of Waterloo. ÐInfill: New Construction in Heritage NeighbourhoodsÑ. (PDF) Accessed February 17, 2019 Swedenborgian Church of the Good Shepherd. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C.1955. Swedenborgian Church of the Good Shepherd. ÐOur Historical Journey through the AgesÑ. http://www.shepherdsway.ca/our-history. Accessed February 21, 2019 Unknown. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C. 1965-1970. Courtesy of the Kitchener Public Library. Uttley, W.V. (Ben), . The Chronicle Press: Kitchener, 1937. Waterloo Generations. ÐFamily Surname Search.Ñ http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/searchform.php . Accessed February 14, 2019. W. V. Uttley and Gerald Noonan. ., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975. MAPS Aerial photograph of subject lands of 1930, 1945, 1955 and 1963. KMZ Files. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. C.M. Hopkins. ÐMap of the Town of Berlin, Waterloo County.Ñ 1879. Scale unknown. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. City of Kitchener. Map 9 of the Secondary Plan. City of KitchenerÓs Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (2014). Page 71 of 215 63 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment City of Kitchener. Aerial and zoning map for the subject lands. City of Kitchener Interactive E- map, 2022. Goad, Chas. E. Ð Kitchener (including the Village of BridgeportÑ . February 1908, revised March 1925, 50 sheets on 4 microfiche. Goad, Chas. E. ÐKitchener (including the Village of BridgeportÑ . February 1908, revised and reprinted January 1947. Underwriters' Survey Bureau. 54 sheets, 1 index on 28 pages, both sides. 54 sheets. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Government of Canada. ÐWaterloo County: Historical Canadian County Atlas.Ñ 1881. Scale not given. McGill University Rare Books and Special Collections Division, McGill University (Digital). http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/CountyAtlas/searchmapframes.php M.C. Schofield. ÐMap of Part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of WaterlooÑ. 1853- 1854. Scale Eight Chains to the Inch. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Voght, G.H. ÐBerlin, Province of Ontario.Ñ 1875. Lithograph. Published in in 1989 by the City of Kitchener L.A.C.A.C. with the Kitchener Public Library. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre Page 72 of 215 64 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix A: Terms of Reference Page 73 of 215 63 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix 1 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment ÎTerms of Reference 1 (received from Leon Bensason Î April 3, 2013) City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division 30-40 Margaret Avenue Proposed Site Plan Application Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment ÎTerms of Reference 1.0Background A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the CityÓs Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the CityÓs Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. These terms of reference have been scoped, based on the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment which received conditional approval as part of a previous application made for the subject property. Sections not required are noted by strikethrough. 2.0Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre-application meeting, followed by written notification to include specific terms of reference. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site alteration. 2.2A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). 2.3A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject property including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildingsÓ development, such as additions and demolitions. The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. The statement should address the relationship of the property to the surrounding context (including surrounding properties located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and the Margaret Avenue streetscape). 2.4Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of the property/each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also Page 74 of 215 Appendix 1 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment ÎTerms of Reference 2 include, where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5An outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes (buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping). In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on identified heritage attributes of the subject property, neighbouring properties, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and the Margaret Avenue streetscape shall be assessed. For the purpose of the HIA the Ðproposed developmentÑ shall include both the proposed residential development and the temporary sales centre. The HIA shall also consider potential impacts associated with the proposed phasing of the development. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & SportÓs Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Potential impacts may include those that are visual/contextual, as well as physical/structural. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the Heritage Conservation District, including any impact on views or site lines. 2.6Options shall be provided that explain how the cultural heritage resources may be conserved, relating to their level of importance. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re-use, alternative development approaches, design guidelines, relocation, commemoration and/or documentation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for identified cultural heritage resources. 2.7A summary of the conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. The conservation principles may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada Î Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport; and, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & SportÓs Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). The HIA should also make reference to the specific policies and guidelines contained within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. 2.8Any loss of cultural heritage value (whether permanent or temporary) resulting from the proposed development (residential and sales centre) impacting the subject property, neighbouring properties, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District or the Margaret Avenue streetscape, and which cannot be mitigated, shall be explained and justified. 2.9Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, timing, etc. 2.10The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 3.0Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: ¤The significance and heritage attributes associated with the subject property. ¤The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject property, neighbouring properties, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and the Margaret Avenue streetscape. Page 75 of 215 Appendix 1 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment ÎTerms of Reference 3 ¤An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are recommended. ¤Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4.0Mandatory Recommendation The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why not. The following questions must be answered in the final recommendation of the report: 1.Do the properties meet the City of KitchenerÓs criteria for Listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? Why or why not? 2.Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3.Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 5.0Approval Process Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf format burned on CD shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies shall be marked with a ÐDRAFTÑ watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment (ÐDRAFTÑ watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the CityÓs Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until the CityÓs Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of StaffÓs comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. Page 76 of 215 Appendix B: 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen StreetDesignation By-law Page 77 of 215 64 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Page 78 of 215 Page 79 of 215 Page 80 of 215 Appendix C: Site Plan, Elevations, and Renderings of the Proposed Development Page 81 of 215 65 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Page 82 of 215 Page 83 of 215 Page 84 of 215 Page 85 of 215 Page 86 of 215 Page 87 of 215 Page 88 of 215 Page 89 of 215 Page 90 of 215 Page 91 of 215 Page 92 of 215 Page 93 of 215 Appendix D: Shadow Study Page 94 of 215 66 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Page 95 of 215 Page 96 of 215 Page 97 of 215 Appendix E: Angular Plane Analysis Page 98 of 215 67 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Page 99 of 215 Appendix F: CVs Page 100 of 215 68 MHBC | Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Education University of Waterloo Dan Masters of Arts (Planning) University of Waterloo Bachelor of Environmental Studies Currie University of Saskatchewan BA, BES, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Bachelor of Arts (Art History) Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBCÓs Cultural Heritage Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various positions in the public sector since 1997. Dan provides a variety of Professional Associations planning services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including strategic Registered Professional Planner planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and plans, heritage master plans, cultural heritage evaluations, heritage impact Full Member, Canadian Institute of assessments and cultural heritage landscape studies. Planners (CIP) Selected Project Experience Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) Heritage Conservation District Studies and Plans Professional Member, Canadian Streetsville Heritage Conservation District Plan (underway) Association of Heritage Professionals Amherstburg Heritage Conservation District Plan (underway) Melville Street Heritage Conservation District Plan (underway) Stouffville Heritage Conservation District Plan (2022) Alton Heritage Conservation District Study, Caledon (2021) Contact Port Stanley Heritage Conservation District Plan (2021) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District Plan, Mississauga (2018) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Town of Cobourg Heritage Conservation District Plan updates Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 (2016) Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan, Chatham Kent (2016) T: 519 576 3650 x744 Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update, Kingston C: 519 404 6894 (2015) dcurrie@mhbcplan.com Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study, Markham www.mhbcplan.com (2015) Bala Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Township of Muskoka Lakes (2015) Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan, Guelph (2014) Garden District Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Toronto (2014) Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan (2013) Heritage Master Plans and Management Plans City of Guelph Cultural Heritage Action Plan (2020) Town of Cobourg Heritage Master Plan (2016) Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan (2016) City of London Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan (2014) Page 101 of 215 2 Cultural Heritage Evaluations Township of Tiny Heritage Register Review (on going) City of Barrie Heritage Register Review (2024) Aurora Heritage Register Review (2022) MacDonald Mowatt House, University of Toronto (2020) Designation of Main Street Presbyterian Church, Town of Erin (2019) Designation of St. Johns Anglican Church, Norwich (2019) Cultural Heritage Landscape evaluation, former Burlingham Farmstead, Prince Edward County (2018) City of Kitchener Heritage Property Inventory Update (2016) Niagara Parks Commission Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Evaluation (2016) Heritage Impact Assessments Redevelopment of former amusement park, Boblo Island (2022) Mount Pleasant Islamic Centre, Brampton (2020) Demolition of former farmhouse at 10536 McCowan Road, Markham (2020) Redevelopment of former Goldie and McCullough factory, Cambridge (2019) Redevelopment of historic Waterloo Post Office (2019) Redevelopment of former industrial facility, 57 Lakeport Road, Port Dalhousie (2018) Redevelopment of former Brick Brewery, Waterloo (2016) Homer Watson House Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener (2016) Expansion of Schneider Haus National Historic Site, Kitchener (2016) Heritage Impact Assessment for Pier 8, Hamilton (2015) Redevelopment of former American Standard factory, Cambridge (2014) Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental Assessments Edgerton Bridge Assessment, Scugog (2024) Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of Twenty Mile Creek Arch Bridge, Town of Lincoln (2021) Heritage Evaluation of Deer River, Burnt Dam and MacIntosh Bridges, Peterborough County (2021) Heritage Assessment of 10 Bridges within Rockcliffe Special Policy Area, Toronto (2019) Blenheim Road Realignment Collector Road EA, Cambridge (2014) Badley Bridge EA, Elora (2014) Black Bridge Road EA, Cambridge (2013) Conservation Plans Conservation Plan for Log house, Burgetz Ave., Kitchener (2020) Conservation and Construction Protection Plan -54 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener (2019) Black Bridge Strategic Conservation Plan, Cambridge (2013) Tribunal Hearings: Redevelopment 18 Portland Street, Toronto(OLT)(2023) Redevelopment 292 Main Street, Grimbsy (OLT) (2023) Redevelopment 1919 to 1949 Devonshire Court, Windsor (OLT) (2023) Redevelopment 9 Dee Road, Queenston (OLT) (2023) Redevelopment 18314 Hurontario Street, Caledon Village (OLT) (2023) Redevelopment 217 King Street S, Waterloo (OLT) (2022) Redevelopment 147 Main Street, Grimsby (OLT) (2022) Redevelopment of 12 Pearl Street, Burlington (OLT) (2021) Page 102 of 215 3 Designation of 30 Ontario Street, St. Catharines (CRB) (2021) Designation of 27 Prideaux Street, Niagara on the Lake (CRB) (2021) Redevelopment of Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays (LPAT) (2021) Redevelopment of property at 64 Grand Ave., Cambridge (LPAT) (2019) Youngblood subdivision, Elora (LPAT) (2019) Demolition 174 St. Paul Street (Collingwood Heritage District) (LPAT) (2019) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District (LPAT) (2018) Brooklyn and College Hill HCD Plan (OMB) (2015) Rondeau HCD Plan (OMB) (2015) Designation of 108 Moore Street, Bradford (CRB) (2015) Downtown Meaford HCD Plan (OMB) (2014) Master Plans, Growth Management Strategies and Policy Studies Township of West Lincoln East Smithville Secondary Plan (2022) Town of Frontenac Islands Maryville Secondary Plan (2021) Niagara-on-the-Lake Corridor Design Guidelines (2016) Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan (2013) Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan (2013) Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study (2012) Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review (2012) Ministry of the Environment Review of the D-Series Land UseGuidelines (2012) Ministry of Infrastructure Review of Performance Indicators for theGrowth Plan (2011) Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study and Employment Land Strategy (2011) City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy (2010) Development Planning Provide consulting services for municipal and private sector clients for: Secondary Plans Draft plans of subdivision Consent Official Plan Amendment Zoning By-law Amendment Minor Variance Site Plan Page 103 of 215 Education Willowbank School of Christy Restoration Arts Diploma in Heritage Conservation 2024 Messors Field School Kirwan Art Conservation and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Workshop BA, Dipl., CAHP-Intern Completed 2023 Christy is a Heritage Planner with MHBC whojoined the firm in 2023.She holds a Diploma in Heritage Conservation from the Willowbank School of University of California: Santa Restoration Arts and a BachelorÓs Degree in History from the University of Cruz California: Santa Cruz where she graduated with Department Bachelor of Arts in History 2010 Honours and College Honours. Christy has experience in research and report writing for both public and private sector clients. She has completed historical research, inventory work, and evaluation on a variety of projects, Professional Associations including cultural heritage landscapes, cultural heritage evaluation reports, andheritageimpact assessments. She currently serves on the Provincial InternMember, Board of Directors of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. CanadianAssociation of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Prior to joining MHBC, Christy gained experience as a Heritage Intern for the Town of Grimsby. She has also received hands-on training from the Provincial Board Directorat Large Messors Field School in art and monument restoration and previously and Education Committee Member, worked in the skilled trades restoring heritage buildings and fine furniture. Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) Professional History Emerging Professional Member, Heritage Planner, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning International Council on Limited Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (2023ÎPresent) Member, Heritage Carpentry Apprentice, Bruce Chambers Period Furniture Canadian Association for Ltd. Conservation of Cultural (2023) Property(CAC) Heritage Intern, Town of Grimsby (2023) Heritage Contractor, DJ McRae Heritage Restoration (2022) Contact 540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ONN2B 3X9 T: 519 5763650 ckirwan@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com Page 104 of 215 2 Project Experience Cultural Heritage Landscapes DoctorÓs Lane, King City and Old King Road, Nobleton, Township of King Heritage Conservation Districts Melville Street Heritage Conservation District Plan, Hamilton Municipal Heritage Inventories Township of Tiny, 31 properties City of Barrie, 13 properties Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments 43 Mill Street West, Elora 7631 Creditview Road, Brampton 473 Ontario Street, Cobourg 230 North Centre Road, London 3563 Bostwick Road, London 1930-1934 Sideroad 5, Bradford West Gwillimbury 260 Main Street West, Grimsby 185 Third Street, Collingwood 228 McNeilly Road, Hamilton 1069 Highway 8, Hamilton 119 Sideroad 19, Fergus Mount Zion United Church, 473 Ridgewood Crescent, London 66 Banfield Street, Paris 1940 Fischer-Hallman Road, Kitchener 141 Laurel Street, Cambridge 5480 Major Mackenzie Drive, Markham 193, 195, 197 & 199 College Avenue, London 63 Courtland Avenue East, Kitchener 300-306 King Street West, Hamilton 35 Elgin Street, Collingwood 743 Richmond Street, London 11 Roy Street & 68 Queen Street North, Kitchener 145-152 Central Avenue, London 96 Main Street East, Hamilton 273 Main Street North, Brampton The London ChildrenÓs Museum, 21 Wharncliffe Road South, London 531 Talbot Street, 535-537 Talbot Street/105 Kent Street, 101 Kent Street, London 1880 Assumption Street, Windsor Sulphur Spring of Ancaster, 820 Sulphur Springs Road, Hamilton Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports 8 St Andrews Avenue, Grimsby 12 St Andrews Avenue, Grimsby Page 105 of 215 3 934322 Airport Road, Mono 986 Powerline Road, Brant 53 St. Laurent Drive, Richmond Hill 4267 Manning Drive, London th 677-681 4Concession Road West, Flamborough, Hamilton Parry Sound Post Office, 74 James Street, Parry Sound Conservation Plans 18 Portland Street, Toronto 19 East Mill Street, Elora Documentation & Salvage Plans 3078 Regional Road 56, Binbrook, Hamilton 5515 Garrard Road, Whitby Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental Assessments Edgerton Road Municipal Bridge No. 11, Blackstock, Township of Scugog Warminster Sideroad, Township of Oro-Medonte Shoreline Drive, Township of Oro-Medonte Faris Avenue Watermain Expansion, Nobleton, Township of King Heritage Permit Applications 43 Mill Street West, Elora 7631 Creditview Road, Brampton 2051 Davis Drive, Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage By-law Peer Reviews St. Mary's Ukrainian Catholic Church, 3625 Cawthra Road, Mississauga Trinity Anglican Church, 26 Stavebank Road, Mississauga New Apostolic Church, 160 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener 2 Guelph Street, Georgetown, Halton Hills Hands-On ConservationProjects St. Paul's Anglican Church, CoulsonÓs Hill, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Ontario o Restoration and painting of 1887 Gothic doors Byzantine Rupestrian Cave Frescoes, Alta Murgia, Italy o Mechanical frescoe cleaning o Cellulose poultice frescoe cleaning o Plaster infilling and consolidation Burwash Hall, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario o Stone masonry conservation o Window installation Cathedral of St. Alban the Martyr, Toronto, Ontario o Cathedral window woodwork restoration 16 Elm Avenue, Branksome Hall, Toronto, Ontario o Brick masonry restoration Bishop Strachan School, Toronto, Ontario o Window restoration and reglazing Page 106 of 215 4 St. Mark's Cemetery, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario o Headstone monument conservation Willowbank National Historic Site, Queenston, Ontario o Decorative plaster repair o Wood window restoration o Historic flooring restoration o Stonework crack repair o Historic painting Page 107 of 215 Education Fanshawe College Paul Jae GIS and Urban Planning 2020 University of Seoul, South Korea Bachelor of Urban Planning Woong Lee 2005 BE Contact Paul Jae Woong Lee, a Technician with MHBC, joined the firm in 2022 and 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, provides a variety of technical design and drafting services for public and Unit #200 private sector clients. Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Prior to working for MHBC, Paul received his GIS & Urban Planning Diploma from Fanshawe College in 2020 and worked as a draft technician T: (519) 576-3650 at a consulting firm. C: 226-868-3443 pjwlee@mhbcplan.com Before Paul came to Canada, he also received a bachelorÓs degree in urban www.mhbcplan.com planning from the University of Seoul and worked as an urban planner in Korea. He is in the process of becoming a member of the Canadian Association of Certified Planning Technicians. Professional History Planning & Design Technician, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (2022 Î Present) Drafting Technician, GeoPro Consulting Limited (2020 Î 2021) GIS Technician (Co-Op Student), Aamjiwnaang First Nation (2019) Planner, Dongbu Engineering Co., Ltd. (South Korea) (2016-2017) Planner, JU Engineering Co., Ltd. (South Korea)(2014-2016) Planner, DOHWA Engineering Co., Ltd. (South Korea) (2005-2014) Page 108 of 215 Page 109 of 215