Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2026-077 - Notice of Intention to Demolish - 63 Courtland Avenue East Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 3, 2026 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals 519-783-8922 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals 519-783-8922 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: February 12, 2026 REPORT NO.: DSD-2026-077 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Demolish Î 63 Courtland Avenue East RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Section 27(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Notice of Intention to Demolish received on February 3, 2026, regarding a portion of Building 1 and the entirety of Building 2 and 3, as per the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, at the property municipally addressed as 63 Courtland Avenue East, be received as information and that the notice period run its course. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to consider the proposed demolition of a portion of Building 1 and the entirety of Building 2 and 3, as per the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, at the property municipally addressed as 63 Courtland Avenue East, which is listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on The key finding of this report is that demolition of portions of Building 1 and all of Building 2 and 3 is required to facilitate site remediation and future redevelopment, and that such redevelopment will be regulated by Site Plan approval conditions, including a condition that requires the future designation of sections A, B, Ci and Cii of Building 1 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. There are no financial implications associated with this report. Community engagement included consultation with Heritage Kitchener. This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development and Housing Approvals Division is in receipt of Site Plan application SPF25/090/C proposing to develop the property municipality addressed as 63 Courtland *** 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 282 Avenue East. The proposed development will include five (5) stacked townhouse buildings, including the conservation and adaptive reuse of the existing built heritage resource. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was submitted with a complete Site Plan application under the Planning Act. A draft HIA for the proposed development dated January 2025 (updated February 2025) was prepared by MHBC and presented to Heritage Kitchener on April 1, 2025. The focus of this HIA was the partial demolition of Building 1 and the full demolition of Building 1 and 2. In response to Heritage Planning staff comments and Heritage Kitchener comments, a revised draft HIA dated January 2025 (updated February 2025, October 2025) was prepared by MHBC and presented to Heritage Kitchener on February 23, 2026. The focus of this HIA was the proposed new construction and alterations to the existing built heritage resource. Figure 1: Location Map Î 63 Courtland Avenue East In addition to the Site Plan application noted above, the Development and Housing Approvals Division is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Demolish a portion of Building 1 and the entirety of Building 2 and 3, as per the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, at the property municipally addressed as 63 Courtland Avenue East. The reason for this notice is that it will facilitate the work required to be undertaken for a Record of Site Condition, it will reduce the number and size of vacant buildings in the interim before redevelopment proceeds, and it will allow for the redevelopment. The subject property was listed by Council as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the . The Notice of Intention to Demolish received on February 3, 2026. Page 4 of 282 Photo 1: Aerial photograph identifying the proposed building demolitions (shown in red) (Source: MHBC, 2026) Ontario Heritage Act Provisions Part IV, Section 27(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act (see excerpt below) provides restrictions on demolitions to property that is listed as non-designated property of cultural heritage Restriction on demolition, etc. (9) If property included on the register under subsection (3) has not been designated under section 29, the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives the council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of the ownerÓs intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Council has 60 days as of and including February 3, 2026 (the date of receipt of the Notice of Intention to Demolish), to pass a Notice of Intention to Designate as a means of preventing the demolition. REPORT: The existing building (Building 1) located at 63 Courtland Avenue East is a 2-storey brick building situated on a 1.57-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Courtland Page 5 of 282 Avenue East between Benton Street and Peter Street in the Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Cultural Heritage landscape. Building 1 is comprised of eight sections constructed th between the early and late 20 century. These sections are identified as A, B, Ci and Cii. Section A was constructed c. 1909 as the original single storey brick addition to the former J.M. Schneider home. Section B, Ci and Cii were constructed between 1909 and 1914. Section B was a second story addition above A, Section Ci was one storey addition adjacent to A, and Section Cii was a second storey addition above Ci. The applicant is proposing to demolish Section B, Ci and Cii of Building 1 and all of Building 2 and 3. Photo 2: Aerial photograph identifying Building 1, including sections, and Building 2 and 3 (Source: MHBC, 2026) Structural Reports Three structural reports were prepared by Tacoma Engineers and submitted as part of the Notice of Intention to Demolish. The structural engineer who authored and signed all the assessments is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. A condition assessment (Attachment A) was completed by Tacoma Engineers in May 2024 to confirm the structural stability of Building 1. This assessment concluded that the building is generally in fair condition, structurally stable, and that sections of the building could be demolished while avoiding adverse impacts to the heritage attributes and cultural heritage value. A supplementary feasibility and condition assessment (Attachment B) was completed by Tacoma Engineers in December 2024 to determine the feasibility of Page 6 of 282 retaining sections of the building. This assessment concluded that the building continues to be in fair condition, and nothing was observed that would suggest concern for the structural stability of the building. It was noted that the exterior masonry is showing signs of distress but was silent on the existing condition of the cornice. This assessment also reconfirmed that sections of the building could be removed without affecting the structural stability of the existing built heritage resource. Photo 3: View of Building 1 (east and north elevations), including the identification of the portion of building proposed for retention and conservation (MHBC, February 6, 2026) A structural report (Attachment C) to address the partial demolition was completed by Tacoma Engineers in February 2026 to outline how the sections of the building will be removed without compromising the structural stability of existing built heritage resource. This assessment concluded that some sections of the building could be removed without compromising the structural stability of the existing built heritage resource. This assessment also outlined five (5) recommendations (see bullets below). Roof framing should be removed by hand where it interacts with the portions to remain. This will ensure that the buildings roof framing will not be compromised during the demolition of the addition roof framing. During demolition, the floor and roof framing of the building should remain intact, as it provides lateral support to the load bearing walls. Floor framing of the addition should be reviewed, and separated by hand from the building structure, as to not damage the building during demolition of the addition. All openings created by demolition of the recent addition should be made weather tight to prevent damage to the heritage asset. These weather tight closures can be made after the demolition is complete, but should be constructed without significant delay. Demolition should be carried out by a licensed demolition contractor, with experience in the demolition of heritage properties. Heritage Impact Assessment A revised draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated January 2025 (updated February 2025, October 2025) was prepared by MHBC and submitted as part of the Notice of Page 7 of 282 Intention to Demolish. Links to the first draft and revised draft HIA are provided in the port. Photo 4: View of Building 1 (west elevation), including the identification of the portion of building proposed for retention and conservation (MHBC, February 6, 2026) The revised draft HIA provides a description of the subject property, overview of the policy context, historic overview and site history, existing conditions, descriptions of all buildings, evaluation using Ontario Regulation 9/06, condition assessment, description of proposed development, impact analysis, alternative development approaches, and mitigation and conservation recommendations. The revised draft HIA concludes that the subject property meets two (2) of nine (9) criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Met? Rationale (Yes/No) 1. The property has design Yes Portions of Building 1 are considered value or physical value representative of the Romanesque because it is a rare, architectural style. Building 2 and 3 do not unique, representative or demonstrate design/physical value. early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Page 8 of 282 4. The property has direct associations with a Yes The property is associated with John M. theme, event, belief, Schneider and the J.M. Schneider & Sons person, activity, business from 1897 to 1924/1925 for a organization, institution period of approximately 28 years. that is significant. 6. The property Yes The original portion of Building 1 (c. 1909) demonstrates or reflects was constructed by Jacob Baetz, a stone the work or ideas of an mason, bricklayer and skilled tradesman architect, artist, builder, who was active in Kitchener during the designer or theorist who late 19th and early 20th centuries. is significant to a community. Based on the evaluation, the revised draft HIA concludes that the subject property meets the minimum two criteria for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The revised draft HIA provides three mitigation recommendations: 1. Submission of a Conservation Plan which details how the building will be appropriately conserved over the short, medium, and long-term. The Conservation Plan will include information related to any structural systems needed to ensure the building is stabilized during construction activities. 2. Submission of a Documentation and Salvage report which documents the existing buildings with photographs and identifies any materials which could be salvaged for a range of uses. 3. Submission of a Commemoration and Interpretation strategy which outlines the strategy for the interpretation of the history of the site. Site Plan Application A Site Plan application to develop the subject property was received on November 4, 2025. The development will include five (5) stacked townhouse buildings, and the conservation and adaptive reuse of the existing built heritage resource. A revised draft HIA was submitted in support of the application. Both the original draft and revised draft HIA were presented to Heritage Kitchener. Their comments have been considered in the revised draft HIA and in the final heritage conditions prepared by Heritage Planning staff for Site Plan Approval in Principle. The final heritage conditions for Site Plan Approval in Principle address the following: Approval of HIA; Submission and approval of additional heritage studies, including: Conservation Plan; Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan; Hoarding and Construction Plan; Structural Assessment; Vibration Monitoring Plan; Risk Management Plan; Documentation, Salvage and Reuse Plan; and, Commemoration, Interpretation and Reuse Plan; Page 9 of 282 Submission of Heritage Works Certification Forms prepared by a qualified Heritage Consultant certifying that the recommendations of the approved heritage studies have been completed; Implementation of the final recommendations of all heritage studies to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Housing Approvals; Provision of a cost estimate for 100% of the total cost of all short- and medium-term conservation works identified in the approved Conservation Plan; Provision of a Letter of Credit for 100% of the total cost of all short- and medium- term conservation works; and, Designation of the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. A draft Cultural Heritage Conservation Plan (CP) dated February 2026 and prepared by MHBC has been submitted for review by Heritage Planning staff. The draft CP includes information related to: demolition, stabilization and temporary protection of Building 1; hoarding and construction adjacent to Building 1; a structural assessment of Building 1; vibration monitoring during demolition and construction on the subject property; risk management before, during and after development; and commemoration and interpretation of the subject property. A separate Documentation and Salvage Plan dated February 2026 and prepared by MHBC has also been submitted for review by Heritage Planning staff. Figure 2: Site Plan with retained section of Building 1 outlined in red (MHBC, 2026) Page 10 of 282 Heritage Planning Comments Heritage Planning staff have reviewed three structural reports and are satisfied that section D, E, F and G of Building 1 can be demolished without compromising the structural integrity of section A, B, Ci and Cii of Building 1. Heritage Planning staff note that the reports mention the need to repair brick masonry but is silent on the condition and conservation recommendations for the cornice (referred to as the stone or concrete banding and dentils in the HIA). Heritage Planning staff will require the structural engineer to review the condition of the cornice and provide conservation recommendations before the sections D, E, F and G of Building 1 are demolished. Through the Site Plan process, Heritage Planning staff will require the structural engineer to provide a detailed condition assessment of heritage attributes on each elevation, including recommendations for short- and medium-term conservation works, and an itemized cost estimate for each heritage attribute. Heritage Planning staff are in a position to recommend approval of the HIA subject to one comment that requires further discussion and approval through the Site Plan process. Heritage Planning staff have expressed concerns with cladding Section Ci and Cii of Building 1 with dark grey fibre cement panels. Heritage Planning staff would like to understand why the original cladding cannot be repaired or reconstructed. If it is demonstrated that repair and reconstruction is not feasible, Heritage Planning staff may support the fibre cement panels in a colour that is complimentary to the existing building. Heritage Planning staff do not support the use of dark grey for cladding, which results in a heavy contrast that distracts from the existing building. Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the Site Plan application and the heritage studies submitted to support the application. Heritage Planning staff comments are scoped to the relevant components related to the partial demolition of Building 1 and the full demolition of Buildings 2 and 3. The relevant components address matters related to risk management, demolition, temporary protection, monitoring and documentation and salvage. With respect to risk management, the draft CP provides recommendation for construction fencing, security cameras and vibration monitoring during demolition and construction. Heritage Planning staff will require that the draft CP be updated to address risks associated with vacant buildings such as deterioration to heritage attributes due to lack of heat and partial or total loss of the building due to a fire. With respect to demolition, the draft CP includes three structural reports that confirm that sections D, E, F and G of Building 1 can be demolished without impacting the structural integrity of sections A, B, Ci and Cii of Building 1 (see page 4 and 5 of this report). The structural reports and the draft CP outline the proposed demolition methods, including areas where demolition must occur by hand to ensure that structural parts are not compromised during the demolition process. Based on these reports and the requirement for a demolition report when an application to demolish is submitted under the Ontario Building Code, Heritage Planning staff have reviewed three structural reports and are satisfied that section D, E, F and G of Building 1 can be demolished without compromising the structural integrity of section A, B, Ci and Cii of Building 1. Page 11 of 282 With respect to temporary protection, the draft CP explains that the building will be made weather tight following the demolition of sections D, E, F and G of Building 1. The draft CP also explains that the short-term conservation works will include mothballing the building. All doors and windows will be boarded. Heritage Planning staff agree with boarding the building and will ask that the boarding comply with the following: all boards used in the boarding shall be installed from the exterior and shall be property fitted in a watertight manner to fit within the side jambs, head jamb, and the exterior bottom of the door or window so that any exterior trim remains uncovered by the boarding; and, all boards shall be 12.7 mm (0.5 in) weatherproofed sheet plywood secured with nails or screws at least 50 mm (2 in) in length and spaced more than 150 mm (6 in) on centre. This approach to boarding must be added to the CP before sections D, E, F and G of Building 1 are demolished With respect to monitoring, Heritage Planning staff generally agree with the approach to inspect the building, at minimum, every four weeks and to address any issues that arise. Heritage Planning staff will require the details of the qualifications of who should undertake those inspections, what they should do if deficiencies arise, and what timelines should be followed to address the deficiencies. With respect to documentation and salvage, Heritage Planning staff agree that existing heritage attributes associated with sections A, B, Ci and Cii of Building 1 should be retained in-situ and not salvaged. Heritage Planning staff also agree that, at minimum, bricks that are in good condition and that are similar in colour, material, patina, and dimensions should be salvaged and retained for use in the conservation and rehabilitation of the retained sections of Building 1. Heritage Planning staff will require that the documentation and salvage plan identify the minimum number of bricks to be salvaged and more details regarding their storage with a strong preference for the bricks to be stored on site in a building or structure. Heritage Planning staff will require all comments noted above to be addressed prior to the demolition of sections D, E, F and G of Building 1, and any other comments raised between the date of this report and final Site Plan Approval will need to be addressed before staff is able to clear approval in principle conditions. C ouncilÓs Options Under the Ontario Heritage Act Intention to Demolish. Rather, Council has three options: 1. Request further information; 2. Receive the Notice of Intention to Demolish, allowing the notice period to run its 60- days course, at the end of which the Building Division may issue a demolition permit as early as April 4, 2026; or 3. Council may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would have the authority to deny demolition. Based on the Heritage Planning staff comments above, Heritage Planning staff recommend that Council proceed with Option 2. This option results in Council receiving the Notice of Intention to Demolish and allowing the 60-day notice period to run its course. Page 12 of 282 Through the conditions of Site Plan Approval in Principle, the owner will be required to fulfill various conditions before the different stages of construction proceed (e.g., before grading, or before servicing, or before final Site Plan Approval, etc.). One of these conditions requires that the owner agree to designation of 63 Courtland Avenue East under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Planning staff are satisfied that these conditions will conserve the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the subject property. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM the March 3, 2026 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT The Heritage Kitchener committee will be consulted at the March 3, 2026 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: CSD-13-110 Listing of Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and Refinements to the 4-Step Listing Process DSD-2025-110 Draft Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment 63 Courtland Ave E DSD-2026-004 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment 63 Courtland Avenue East Ontario Heritage Act Planning Act REVIEWED BY: Sandro Bassanese, Manager of Site Plan APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Structural Report, Feasibility Study, 63 Courtland Avenue East prepared by Tacoma Engineers and dated May 10, 2024 Attachment B Structural Report, Feasibility & Condition Assessment, 63 Courtland Avenue East prepared by Tacoma Engineers and dated December 9, 2024 Attachment C Structural Report, Partial Demolition, 63 Courtland Avenue East prepared by Tacoma Engineers and dated February 2, 2026 Page 13 of 282 Page 14 of 282 Page 15 of 282 TW-1481-24 MAY 10-24 Page 16 of 282 Page 17 of 282 Page 18 of 282 TW-1481-24 DEC 9-24 Page 19 of 282 Page 20 of 282      TW-1481-25 FEB 2-26 Page 21 of 282 PARTIAL SECOND FLOOR / ROOF DEMO FRAMING PLAN - SCHEMATIC PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR DEMO FRAMING PLAN - SCHEMATIC Page 22 of 282