Severing Doon landmark ‘another mistake,’ residents tell planners

Kitchener panel defers application covering property that predates act of Confederation

Kitchener’s committee of adjustment has deferred a severance application for a designated heritage property at 883 Doon Village Rd. that predates our country’s act of Confederation.

The property includes a twostorey brick house, circa 1863, that was originally owned by Benjamin Burkholder, one of the first four people to receive a teaching certificate in Waterloo County in 1843.

The home is said to be a good example of Georgian-style architecture, with a symmetrical three-bay facade, a centrallylocated door with surrounding transom and sidelights, “six over six” paned windows with shutters, two chimneys and a gable roof.

At issue, however, is the interpretation of a consultant’s heritage impact assessment that determined views of the 1.3-acre property from Bechtel Drive aren’t historic, as they were only made available when the surrounding subdivision was built back in the 1980s.

Plans include moving a former coach house on the site to make way for four new development lots fronting onto Bechtel Drive.

The old home and coach house would remain, with access maintained off Doon Valley Road as it’s always been.

Yet local residents and heritage advocates who appeared as delegates at the Feb. 20 committee meeting emphasized that the property, across the street from the Doon Retirement Village, was designated under Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act back in 1984.

One of its former owners, Tim Keller, made a severance inquiry back in 2007. He was told, in writing, that his proposal wouldn’t be supported, partly because of the negative impact it would have on views of the heritage property.

Coun. Yvonne Fernandes said that fact could present legal implications for the city if it were to approve the severance application.

Third-party analysis by one heritage expert determined the entire site falls under the provincial heritage designation, not

just the house, she noted.

Juliane von Westerholt, a senior city planner and co-ordinator for the committee of adjustment, said the heritage designation bylaw references the entire property, but elaborates on the cultural heritage value in the statement of significance and the list of heritage attributes.

“Under the current bylaw, only the main house is identified as a heritage attribute,” she said.

Von Westerholt said staff required the heritage impact assessment under the Planning Act. It identified other heritage attributes, including the accessory building (referred to as the coach house or the hog and hen house).

A number of heritage-related conditions are outlined in staff recommendations, including revising the heritage designation bylaw to include additional heritage attributes, as well as the requirement to relocate the accessory building to the same lot, so that it remains visually connected to the main house.

But not everyone agrees with the move.

“If the owners are allowed to go ahead with this severance, they will alter the grandness of the site, probably take down numerous old and majestic trees, create more traffic and deny schoolchildren walking by an appreciation of the beautiful agricultural scene, a link to our early history and rural roots in Waterloo County,” said Irene Hoffman, a Bechtel Drive resident who lives directly across from the historic property.

“If this whole property is not kept intact, then a cultural heritage design will be turned into an ordinary suburban lot,” she said.

Irene’s husband, Ross, said a past planning/surveying “mistake” resulted in the demolition of a heritage barn that stood on the southwest corner of the property until 1978.

“Let’s not make another mistake that will conceal, behind a row of houses, the coach house that is currently a trademark in our Doon Pioneer Park community,” Ross Hoffman told the committee.

He argued that the east view of the homestead would have been seen for more than 100 years by eastbound travellers going from the village of Strasburg to the village of Doon.

“At that time, this view — unobstructed by houses or industrial buildings — could have been seen from more than one kilometre away and would have been enjoyed for several minutes by travellers who would have only gotten a passing view of the front facade of the house.”

Even though Kelli Kuzyk doesn’t live in the immediate area, she was disturbed to hear of the application. She had always been under the impression the property was fully protected under the heritage act.

“The heritage designation was very clear that it covered the house and the hen house, also fondly known as the coach house, along with the property itself and its mature trees and pleasant landscape, depicting life as it was in the 1860s and beyond,” she said.

“This property, which measures about one acre in size, was severed off from the original farm of about 25 acres by a developer many years ago, with the intent that someone would buy the house and lot to preserve the look and feel of the cultural heritage depicted from its roots.”

Kuzyk believes the current owners, who purchased the property in 2012, knew it was designated heritage and there would be strict rules around what they could/couldn’t do with the property.

“This application to sever the property appears to be a way to cash in on a property on the backs of the previous owners, all of whom respected the rules and decisions of the heritage committee and the city.

“Not asking for input from the public ahead of time is also a travesty, as we all consider this property a piece of our own Doon neighbourhood,” she added.

The city staff recommendation to approve the severance with numerous conditions was deferred by the committee due to a lack of information, Fernandes said.

“I think that what struck me is that all three members were very concerned around the heritage of the site — not just the house, but the entire site,” she said.

The ward councillor plans on meeting with residents before the committee of adjustment reconsiders the recommendation.

“The challenge is that often when the committee of adjustment makes its decision, it often comes to council as a consent item and we don’t discuss it any further,” she said.