Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, August 7, 2018

TOWN OF GRIMSBY Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee Agenda

Tuesday, September 4, 2018 6:00 p.m.

Town Hall, 160 Livingston Avenue

Page

1. Call to Order

2. Disclosure of Interest

3. Minutes

3 - 5 a) Grimsby Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, August 7, 2018

4. Reports

6 - 27 a) H.R. 18-05, 133 Main Street East - Heritage Permit Application

28 - 33 b) H.R. 18-06, 16 Ontario St. - Doctors House. Designating By-Law No. 13-44, Proposed Amendment

5. Memorandum

34 - 36 a) Request for Comments - 14 Elizabeth St. Facade Improvement Program Application

37 - 40 b) Request for Comments - 32 Main St. W. Facade Improvement Program Application

Page 1 of 146 Grimsby Heritage Advisory Committee September 4, 2018 Agenda Page 41 - 144 c) Request for Comments - 21-23 Main Street East and 6 Doran Avenue, Revised Heritage Impact Assessment and Peer Review Technical Memorandum

145 - 146 d) Heritage Register Update

6. Closed Session

a) Municipal Act Sec. 239 (2) (k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. 33 Victoria Terrace

7. Open Session

a) Return to Open Session

8. Correspondence

a) CHO Summer Newsletter

9. New Business

10. Adjournment

If you require any accommodations for a disability in order to attend or participate in meetings or events, please contact the Accessibility Advisory Administrator at 905 309-2003 or hsoady- [email protected]

Page 2 of 146 The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby

[Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee] Minutes

Town Hall Council Chambers

160 Livingston Avenue

August 7, 2018

Present: Alderman J. Dunstall, Chair R. Paola A. Brabant Regrets: P.V. Hoad Alderman N. DiFlavio Staff: J. Hogg, Senior Planner, Deanna Maiden, Planner 1, Bianca Verrecchia, Heritage Planning Assistant

1. Call to Order

a) The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.

2. Disclosure of Interest

a) There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest.

3. Minutes

a) Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee received the minutes of the July 4, 2018 meeting.

4. Closed Session

Page 3 of 146 Page 2 of 3

Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee August 7, 2018

RESOLVED that the Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee retire to a Closed Session under Municipal Act Sec. 239 (2) (k) - 33 Victoria Terrace: to discuss a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. CARRIED

5. Open Session

a) Return to Open Session GH-18-24 Moved by R. Paola; Seconded by A. Brabant; RESOLVED that the Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee return to Open Session. CARRIED

b) Information Regarding Negotiations - 33 Victoria Terrace GH-18-25 Moved by R. Paola; Seconded by A. Brabant; RESOLVED that the Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee receive the information provided by staff regarding 33 Victoria terrace. CARRIED

6. New Business

a) The Committee received correspondence regarding 33 Victoria Terrace.

7. Adjournment

a) There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:41 P.M.

Alderman John Deanna Maiden, Dunstall, Chair Planner 1

Page 4 of 146 Page 3 of 3

Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee August 7, 2018

Page 5 of 146 H.R. l8-05

REPORT TO: Alderman John Dunstall, Chair and Members of the Grimsby Heritage Advisory Committee

RE Heritage Permit Application, 133 Main Street East

DATE: September 4,2018

I.O RECOMMENDATION

That Report H.R. 18-05, regarding the recommendation that the Town of Grimsby approve the Heritage Permit Application at 133 Main Street East, be received and that the resolution by the Grimsby Heritage Advisory Committee be forwarded to Council for approval.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2017

A property standards order was served on the former owner of the property in March of 2017. The ownership of the lands changed during the legal process and the previous owner was fined by the provincial courts. Following the completion of the prosecution of the first order, a second order (the "Order") was served on the new owners of the property in December of 2017 and this order was not appealed by the owners and is final and binding. A copy of the Order can be seen in Appendix 'A' to this report.

2018

The Town hired ERA Architects in June of 2018 to assess the building in order to create a proposalto repair the building and bring it into conformity with the Order. Following the completion of the assessment, the intention was for the Town to hire ERA Architects to coordinate and undertake the repair work for the property and the cost of which would ultimately be charged back to the owner through the taxes.

It's worth noting thatthe Town of Grimsby is a pioneer in this proactive approach to protect its heritage and culture; these measures have not previously been undertaken by a municipality in Ontario.

Current State

Since hiring ERA Architects to complete the assessment portion of the repair process, the new owner has met with Town staff to discuss their plans for repairing the building. The owners have hired Leah D. Wallace, MA, MCIP, RPP, of Leah D. Wallace Land Use

Page 6 of 146 H.R. l8-05 Heritage Permit Application September 4,2018 133 Main Street East

& Heritage Planning Services who is a well-respected and experienced heritage planner to coordinate the repair works. The ERA Architects inspection was conducted on July 26, 2018 with ERA staff, the owners, their heritage planner and Town staff present. An assessment report was prepared by ERA Architects per the Town contract for the first phase of the repair process and this reportwas provided to the owners to create a timeline of proposed repair works. The assessment report can be seen in Appendix 'B'.

Commitment to complete repairs

A contract is currently being drawn up between the Town and the owners to enforce the proposed timetine. lf the owners fail to adhere to the contract at any point, it will have the effect of voiding the contract and the Town will resume the original plan of hiring ERA Architects to conduct the physical portion of the repair work. The full proposal and timeline as submitted by the owners is attached to this report as Appendix'C'. A heritage permit is required for a portion of the proposed works.

2.I SITE CONTEXT INFORMATION

The dwelling, known as the James Willison Grout Nelles House and largest mature beech tree at the southwest corner of the site are designated under Part lV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property currently supports the vacant heritage home and the designated tree as well as a coach house. The location of the subject site can be seen in Figure 1 below and photographs of the building in its current condition can be seen in the ERA Architects report attached as Appendix 'B'.

Figure l. The subject site located at 133 Main Street East - indicated by the yellow outline

Page 2 oÍ 4

Page 7 of 146 H.R. f 8-05 Heritage Permit Application September 4,2018 133 Main Street East

2.2 PROPOSED WORKS

The proposed repair works have been broken into three priority groupings to create the timeline. The immediate works are proposed to start as soon as all necessary approvals are in place (September). A summary of the three priority groupings are as follows:

Priority A - 6 to 8 weeks, September I - October 13 - 27, 2018 . Roof repairs to specifications o lnstallation of new eaves trough and gutters . Repair of unplanned openings, as required . Grading around the building o Installation of screen covers on chimneys. Covering of all window and door open¡ngs with appropriate ventilation as directed by ERA

Priority B - I to l0 weeks, October 13 - October 27,2018 o Removal of damaged and decayed wooden portions of front porch steps, landing and roof (please see note below regarding this item) . Dismantle and document side porch, storage in a clean, dry, secure environment off site Priority C - Spring (March - April 20f 9) o Demolish the rear one storey addition. The rear openings in the main building adjacent to this addition will be appropriately covered at the same time that the other openings in the house are covered (Priority A).

A heritage permit is required to remove and store the materials of the side porch as it is a designated heritage attribute. Technically the remaining demolition and repair works do not require a heritage permit; however, staff have included the full repair works proposal in this report to ensure that the Committee and Council have a fulsome understanding of the extent of the proposed repairs. A demolition permit is also required for the proposed demolition works of the undesignated portions of the front porch and the rear addition as well as to dismantle the designated side porch (which will be later restored and reconstructed in its current location). The owner has indicated that upon redevelopment of the property the designated attributes of the site will be incorporated into any proposed redevelopment and as such, the appropriate time to re-instate the side porch will be when the re-development occurs. As such, the materials will be stored in a clean, dry location until this time.

3.0 COMMENTS

By working with the owners and their heritage planner, the liability placed on the Town during the repairs has been relieved and the owners will be able to directly pay for the ERA Architects inspection and the repair works without the Town having to charge the costs back through the taxes. The new owners have demonstrated a keen willingness to

Page 3 of 4

Page 8 of 146 H.R. 18-05 Heritage Permit Application September 4,2018 133 Main Street East work with the Town to ensure that the repair works are completed.

The proposed timeline w¡ll allow the immediate priorities to be addressed and

4.0 coNcLusroN ln summary, Town Planning Staff recommend that resolution by the Grimsby Heritage Advisory Committee be fonruarded to Council for approval.

Respectfully red by: Respectfully Submitted by:

ice Hogg, RPP Michael Seaman, MCIP, RPP Senior Plan Director of Planning tjh

Attachments: Appendix A: Property Standards Order Appendix B: Assessment Report by ERA Architects Appendix C: Proposed RepairWorkTimeline by Leah D. Wallace, MA, MCIP, RPP

Page 4 of 4

Page 9 of 146 COPY *W& TOWN OF GRIMSBY

IN THE MATTER OF THE BUILDING CODE ACT, SECTION 15.2, AS AMENDED, AND IN THE MATTER OF BY-LAW NO. 15-17, PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GRIMSBY.

ORDER

TO: MOVENGO NELLES ESTATES INC. 163 Jackson Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8P 118

RE: #133 Main Street East, Grimsbv. Ontario

yOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT the property more particularly described in Schedule'A' hereto does not, with respect to the matters as set out in Schedule 'B' hereto, comply with the standards prescribed in By-law No. 15-17, by the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby, and require that within Sixtv (60) davs of this date, the répairs more particularly described in Schedule 'C' hereto be done and you are further advised that By-law No. 15-17 provides that if such repairs or clearing are not done within the specified time limit, the owner of the property or every fine þerson who contravenes any provisioñs of this By-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a of not more than $25,000.00 for a first offence and to a fine of not more than $50,000.00 for any subsequent offence.

yOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN NOTICE THAT in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed under this By-law, where any person who is in default in doing any matter or thing directed or ordered to be done pursuant to ifr¡s By-law, such matter or thing may be done by the Corporation or its servants or agents and the expenses it incurs in so doing may be recovered by action or in like manner as municipal taxes.

DATED AT GRIMSBY, ONTARIO this 12th day of December 2017

ICE HOGG OPERTY ST OFFICER

NOTICE: lf any owner or occupant upon whom this Order has been served is not satisfied with the terms or conditions of this Order, then he/she may appeal to the Property Standards Committee by sending NOTICE OF AppEAL By REGTSTERED MAIL WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after service of this Order to: Secretary PropertY Standards Committee Town of GrimsbY P.O. Box 159, 160 Livingston Avenue Grimsby, Ontario L3M 4G3

ln the eveni that no appeal is taken, the Order shall be deemed to have been confirmed.

This Order shall be considered binding upon any other person having or acquiring any interest in the property if posted on the property or registered on title'

Page 10 of 146 SCHEDULE 'A'

Municipally known as #133 Main Street East, Grimsby, Ontario. Part Lot 6 Concession 1 North Grimsby, being Parts 1 and 6, Plan 30R13800; Subject to an easement in Gross over Part 6 on 30R13800 as in RO593153; Town of Grimsby (PlN 46028-0506 (LT))

Page 11 of 146 scHenuLilg'

SUM DEFICIE

Condition of lands and vards.

1. The roof is in a deteriorated state. 2. The eaves and downspouts are in a deteriorated state and are not properly functioning to allowwater to travelthrough the eaves/ downspout system. 3. The rear addition is in a deteriorated state. 4. The side porch is in a deteriorated state with holes in the floor, stairs, roof and damaged woodwork. 5. The front porch is in a deteriorated state. b. The building has been vacant for more than 90 days. 7. Several wintows are not secured with boards in order to prevent unauthorized entrance'

SCHEDULE'C'

REQUIRED REMEDIAL MEASURES

1. Repair and restore roof to be waterproof using material that is in keeping with the building (i.e. asphalt shingles). 2. Repair or re-plaóe damaged eave to ensure that runoff water is travelling through the eaves/ downspout system. Ensuie all eaves are free of debris that would otherwise prevent water from travelling through the eaves/ downspout system. No galvanized gutters and downpipe material is to be used-to repaìr or replace the downspout system. Aluminum gutters and downpipe materials shall be used for repair/ replacement of the eaves/ downspout system. 3. The rear addition is nót original to the building and may be removed. Any brickwork that is exposed or any openings that are created by the removal of the addition must be appropriately secured to ensuie that the house is free of water damage and intruding animals and humans. Alternatively, the rear addition may be repaired and appropriately secured to ensure the house is free of water damage and intruding animals and humans. 4. Repaii and replace wóoden elements where necessary to meet relevant health and safety standards aná to ensure the structural integrity of the porch including the porch roof. Alternatively, the porch may be disassembled and the mãterials kept in a clean, dry location approved by Town staff until it can be restored and reassembled at a later date S. The current front porch is not original to the building. The porch should be repaired to meet relevant health and safety standards; alternatively, the porch may be removed untila suitable replacement porch is approued by Council for replacement. Any brickwork that is exposed or any openings that are created' by the rámoval of the porch must be appropriately secured to ensure that the house is free of water damage and intruding animals and humans. 6. Ensure that appropi¡ate utilities are connected to ensure thât mould and mildew do rrot accuttlulate within the building and cause damage' 7. All windows sfloùO be fully boarded with plywood in a manner that eliminates gaps and fastened securely in a manner that minimizes damage to the heritage attributes.

Page 12 of 146

August 24, 2018

Movengo Nelles Estates Inc. C/O Movengo Corporation 163 Jackson Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1L8

Attention: Fernando Puga, Director of Land Development

Re: Temporary Securing and Mothballing of 133 Main Street east, Grimsby

The following instructions are provided to temporarily secure and mothball the property at 133 Main Street East in Grimsby. The building is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Act, and currently sits vacant while the development proposal for the property is being finalized.

In December 2017, a Property Standards Order (the Order) was authorized by the Town of Grimsby requiring the following work to carried out to secure the building:

1. Repair and restore roof to be structurally sound and waterproof using material that is in keeping with the building (i.e. asphalt shingles). 2. Repair or replace damaged eaves to ensure that runoff water is travelling through the eaves/downspout system. Ensure all eaves are free of debris that would otherwise prevent water from travelling through the eaves/downspout system. No galvanized gutters and down pipe material is to be used to repair or replace the downspout system. Aluminum gutters and down pipe materials shall be used for repair/ replacement of the eaves/downspout system. 3. The rear addition is not original to the building and may be removed. Any brickwork that is exposed or any openings that are created by the removal of the addition must be appropriately secured to ensure that the house is free of water damage and intruding animals and humans. Alternatively, the rear addition may be repaired and appropriately secured to ensure the house is free of water damage and intruding animals and humans. 4. Repair and replace wooden elements where necessary to meet relevant health and safety standards and to ensure the structural integrity of the easterly side porch including the porch roof. Alternatively, the porch may be disassembled and the materials kept in a clean, dry location approved by Town staff until it can be restored and reassembled at a later date.

Page 13 of 146

5. The current front porch is not original to the building. The porch should be repaired to meet relevant health and safety standards; alternatively, the porch may be removed until a suitable replacement porch is approved by Council for replacement. Any brickwork that is exposed or any openings that are created by the removal of the porch must be appropriately secured to ensure that the house is free of water damage and intruding animals and humans. 6. Ensure that appropriate utilities are connected to ensure that mold and mildew do not accumulate within the building and cause damage. 7. All windows should be fully boarded with plywood in a manner that eliminates gaps and fastened securely in a manner that minimizes damage to the heritage attributes.

All alterations to the exterior of the original two storey portion of the dwelling should be completed using techniques and materials that are respectful of and in keeping with the heritage attributes of the building. The one storey addition at the rear of the dwelling and the existing front porch are not included in the heritage designation and requires repairs and maintenance in accordance with normal property standards requirements.

To date, the repairs as described in the Order have not been carried out. The following recommendations are intended to apply to a relatively short-term vacancy period - of approximately 2-3 years maximum in duration - which is understood to be the case for this property. In general, the period a building will remain vacant will determine how to manage the mothballing procedures. If the duration 133 Main Street East is to remain vacant is to be extended, additional stabilization measures may be required at that time.

The primary objective is to provide recommendations to temporarily secure the unoccupied building from the elements, from unwanted entry and vandalism. The following recommendations are provided to supplement and elaborate on the requirements listed in the Order, and are discussed in more detail in the sections below. The main recommendations are as follows:

• Cover all unplanned holes in the building envelope. • Provide temporary aluminum gutters and downspouts where they’re missing at the building perimeter, and drain water runoff away from the building. • Cover all openings in the roof and ensure proper water drainage to the gutters and downspouts. • Temporarily cover all doors and windows using plywood while allowing for interior ventilation and periodic inspections. • Perform a regular maintenance routine to ensure that the unoccupied buildings do not deteriorate further.

Page 2 of 13 Page 14 of 146

The following recommendations constitute a basic level of protection which when implemented will assist to safeguard the building from further deterioration. The recommendations will not damage the heritage defining features of the building; they are intended to protect them. All of the measures outlined in this report are reversible, and follow up inspections will ensure that they continue to function as intended.

Gutters, Rainwater Leaders and Perimeter Flashings:

There are currently no gutters, rainwater leaders or perimeter flashings installed anywhere on the building. As per the Order, new aluminum gutters and rainwater leaders are to be installed on each elevation. Deteriorated wood eaves will have to be repaired in order to properly secure and support the new gutters and downspouts. Where the new rainwater leaders can’t be connected to the Town’s storm-sewer system, gutters are to be installed with leaders that eject water a minimum of 2-metres away from the building foundations.

Going forward, as part of the maintenance program, the new temporary raingear should be inspected on a regular basis to ensure it remains clear of debris, is continuous (without holes/missing or disconnected sections), and functions as intended to drain rainwater away from the building. This work should include:

• New aluminum gutters and rainwater leaders are to be properly affixed to structurally sound fascias and building surfaces to ensure they remain connected. • Perimeter drip edge flashings should be provided where required to allow roof water runoff to drain correctly into the new gutters and downspouts. • Downspouts should be installed to ensure water is ejected a minimum of 2 metres away from the foundations. Temporary re-grading may be required in some locations at the building perimeter to ensure water is channeled away from the building.

Structural Work and Stabilization:

The house appears to be generally structurally sound. We did not observe any shifting, cracking or subsidence of the house or foundations during the inspection on July 26. The main exterior masonry walls appeared to be sound and in good condition. If the house remains vacant for longer than the anticipated timeframe, a structural engineer should be engaged to carry out a thorough inspection to confirm the building continues to remain structurally sound. The following observations were noted:

• Daylight could be seen through the decayed roof deck within the attic space on the south side end of the building. Interior structural deterioration was not yet apparent as a result of water ingress at that location, however it’s a major concern if the roof is not repaired to prevent water from continuing to enter the building. Additional roof repair notes are provided in the section “Securing the Exterior Building Envelope from Moisture Penetration and Pests”, below.

Page 3 of 13 Page 15 of 146

• As noted in the Order, the rear addition on the north elevation is not original to the building, and can be demolished or repaired and made temporarily sound while the building remains vacant. The roof over the addition has suffered extensive deterioration and experienced localized collapse. If this part of the building is being retained for future use, new roof joists and a roof deck will be required to make the building weather-tight. If the north addition is to be demolished, any openings created during demolition exposing the interior of the house are to be covered using vented plywood coverings, as described in the section “Doors and Windows”. • The front porch on the south side of the building is also a later addition and experiencing localized structural failure. The masonry piers and sidewalls appear generally sound, but the wood roof and landing are failing and partially collapsed. The owner may choose to remove the front porch at this time, or repair it. If the porch is retained, the structure under the stairs and landing should be removed or repaired to meet relevant health and safety standards, and the roof stabilized to prevent collapse. Steel post-shores should be added under the perimeter beams, set on 38mm thick wood plates and spaced at 2 metres on centre for the length of each beam. • The historical wood porch at the southeast corner of the building is in poor condition and nearing collapse. The porch may be repaired and structurally stabilized in place, although we recommend carefully dismantling it and storing the wood components (decorative posts, brackets, running trim details, beam and other sound structural components) in storage temporarily to ensure their safekeeping until it can be rebuilt. This building feature is included in the Designation Description for the building, and must be retained or rebuilt using the salvaged porch components to match the existing historical details.

Doors and Windows:

All door and window openings on the building should be closed-over temporarily to prevent unwanted entry, vandalism and exposure to the elements, while providing for proper ventilation to the interior of the building. Providing adequate ventilation to the interior is essential to ensure sufficient air exchange. Proper ventilation will ensure that the building “breathes” and that moisture and humidity levels do not rise to a level that will encourage the growth of mould, promote rot or allow insect infestation to thrive. Ventilation will also encourage excess moisture that has already accumulated in the building through uncovered openings to evaporate, and will promote drying out of the building interior.

• All window and door openings should be covered from the interior or exterior with 19mm painted exterior grade plywood. Plywood panels should be screwed in place on wood blocking frames set into the door and widow openings, and properly ventilated to the exterior. • Within the closed-in window and door openings, louvered panels with insect screens should be installed to allow for interior ventilation. A window sash or door should be

Page 4 of 13 Page 16 of 146

left open behind the louvered panels to allow the exchange of air, and all interior doors and hatches should be left open a minimum of 100mm to allow for thorough ventilation within each room (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Examples of louvered plywood window and door panels in a mothballed building (ERA Architects).

Securing the Exterior Building Envelope from Moisture Penetration and Pests:

Any holes in the exterior envelope of the building that have developed while it’s been unoccupied will require covering to secure it from exposure to the weather, unwanted entry and pests. The main objective is to keep moisture out of the building and discourage further deterioration. In addition to securing the doors and windows:

• Unplanned openings found around eave lines, dormers, masonry walls, chimneys or beneath the porches should be covered with 19mm painted plywood fastened to sound backup material with screws, incorporating new drip edge flashings and gutters where required around the roof line. In other areas (i.e. under porches), framed wire screens are also appropriate.

An area of the roof deck on the south side of the building (and perhaps in other locations) has deteriorated and is allowing water to enter the building. The asphalt shingles are missing and the roof deck appears to have rotten through in some locations. This may also be the case in other locations as a close-up inspection was not possible.

All the main roof areas on the building are currently covered with tarpaulins secured in place with lightweight wood battens, which is an insufficient protection measure. The tarpaulins will weaken quickly and expose the deteriorated roof areas again, allowing water into the building. New temporary coverings are required to secure the roof areas from the elements:

Page 5 of 13 Page 17 of 146

• All the main roof areas (including dormers) are to be covered with 13mm oriented strand board (OSB) or plywood sheets and thirty-pound roofing felt, bonded with cold adhesive and galvanized mechanical fasteners (nails or screws). The new, temporary roof membrane should be dressed into the new gutters to channel water away from all the roof areas. • Alternatively, asphalt shingles may be used as temporary cover on the plywood/OSB sheets. • The chimneys should be temporarily covered with ventilated plywood caps or framed wire screens to keep water and animals out, similar to the following detail:

Fig. 2: Proposed detail for ventilated plywood chimney caps (ERA Architects).

Grading Around the Building:

The building perimeter should be properly graded to slope away from the building. Where this is not the case, the perimeter should be gently re-graded to allow water to flow away from the foundations.

• Where low spots or excavations are found adjacent to the building, slope the soil 1.8 to 2.4 metres (6 to 8 feet) away from the foundations and cover with 6-mil polyethylene sheets and 50 to 100mm of washed gravel. Particular attention should be paid to these low areas and around the basement windows. • Ensure that the adjacent new rainwater leaders are operating correctly and redirecting water away from these areas.

Page 6 of 13 Page 18 of 146

Maintenance Schedule:

The following maintenance schedule should be followed for the period the building will remain unoccupied:

Bi-weekly: • Provide regular drive by surveillance. • Inspect around the building perimeter for any signs of disturbance or vandalism. • Check all entrances and basement/ground floor window locations for signs of disturbance.

1-3 months (periodic): • Inspect the covered roof areas for water-tightness and integrity. • Open up and enter the buildings every 3 months to inspect the interior and air it out. • Check for new moisture ingress and/or damage in all areas on all floors (including the basement). Check the attic spaces after storms, if possible. • Check for evidence of pest intrusion. • Check the gutters and downspouts to ensure they’re continuous and operating as intended. Clean them out if necessary.

Within 6-8 months: • Provide site clean-up; pruning and trimming of high bushes adjacent to the building. • Inspect the roof areas for any new openings or leaks. • Provide pest inspection and treatment, if required. • Provide building envelope spot repair if required, as described in the sections above. • Review the overall condition of the building to determine if additional stabilizing measures are required.

In carrying out these temporary stabilization measures and establishing a periodic maintenance plan for 133 Main Street East, protection will be provided to the heritage features for a period of time (up to approximately 3 years). Additional measures will be required if the timeframe the building will remain unoccupied is extended, and if regular inspections reveal the need for extra stabilization work.

Sincerely,

______Jeff Hayes, Associate

Page 7 of 13 Page 19 of 146

Fig. 3: South elevation showing blue tarp temporarily affixed to the roof, which requires replacement. (ERA Architects).

Fig. 4: Deteriorated wood facia to be repaired prior to installation of new aluminum raingear. (ERA Architects).

Page 8 of 13 Page 20 of 146

Fig. 5: View within attic showing location of rotten roof deck and missing shingles. (ERA Architects).

Fig. 6: Collapsed wood steps of main entrance porch. The porch is a later addition, and can be demolished or repaired in place. (ERA Architects).

Page 9 of 13 Page 21 of 146

Fig. 7: If the front porch is retained, additional temporary post-shores are to be installed to support the deteriorated porch roof. (ERA Architects).

Fig. 8: All windows and doors temporarily covered with plywood should be ventilated with louvres (ERA Architects).

Page 10 of 13 Page 22 of 146

Fig. 9: East elevation. The covered windows and doors are to be ventilated, and the roof tarps replaced with OSB/plywood and temporary roll roofing material. Install new aluminum rain gear. (ERA Architects).

Fig. 10: The east wood porch should be repaired in place, or dismantled and placed in temporary storage until it can be rebuilt. (ERA Architects).

Page 11 of 13 Page 23 of 146

Fig. 11: Cover both chimneys with vented chimney caps, as per fig. 2 (ERA Architects).

Fig. 12: The north addition, which is a later addition, can be demolished or repaired to replace the collapsed roof structure. (ERA Architects).

Page 12 of 13 Page 24 of 146

Fig. 2: Temporary window and door covers on the west elevation are to be ventilated. Install new aluminum rain gear.(ERA Architects).

Fig. 2: New metal gutters and downspouts will protect the northwest corner of the building that has been badly affected by water runoff in the past.(ERA Architects).

Page 13 of 13 Page 25 of 146 LEAH D. WALLACE, MA MCIP RPP Land Use & Heritage Planning Services 47B Garrison Village Drive, RR#3, NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE, ONTARIO LOS 1J0 Cell/Text: 905-941-1950 Email: [email protected]

August 28, 2018

MEMO TO: Janice Hogg, Planner, Town of Grimsby

FROM: Leah Wallace, MA MCIP RPP Heritage Planning Consultant

C.C. Fernando Puga, Movengo Corporation Johanna Shapira, Solicitor, Wood Bull LLP

RE: ERA Architects Inc. Report, 133 Main Street East (Nelles Estate), Temporary Securing and Mothballing, dated August 24, 2018

We have reviewed the above report completed by ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) and propose the following timelines for completing the work to the standards outlined in the report and as required in the December 2017 Property Standards Order. You will note that, with respect to the rear addition, front porch, and historical wood porch, we have indicated which approach Movengo intends to pursue.

These timelines are provided on the assumption that we receive a heritage permit in time to complete any work on the significant heritage attributes.

Priority A – 6 to 8 weeks, September 1 - October 13 – 27, 2018

 Roof repairs to specifications.  Installation of new eaves trough and gutters.  Repair of unplanned openings, as required.  Grading around the building  Installation of screen covers on chimneys. Covering of all window and door openings with appropriate ventilation as directed by ERA.

Page 26 of 146 Priority B – 8 to 10 weeks, October 13 – October 27, 2018

 Removal of damaged and decayed wooden portions of front porch steps, landing and roof (please see note below regarding this item)  Dismantle and document side porch, storage in a clean, dry, secure environment off site

Priority C – Spring (March – April 2019)  Demolish the rear one storey addition. The rear openings in the main building adjacent to this addition will be appropriately covered at the same time that the other openings in the house are covered (Priority A).

We note that both the front porch and the one storey addition at the rear are not listed as heritage attributes in the designation by-law and would appreciate confirmation that no heritage permit is required for their demolition. Demolition permits will be applied for as required.

A heritage permit is required for removal and documentation of the wooden side porch. If you require an application for this demolition, please forward it to Mr. Puga. Further to your email dated of August 27, 2018, please place this on the agenda of the September Municipal Heritage Committee meeting.

Note regarding front porch: We understand through discussions at our meeting in your office and on site that removal of the decayed and collapsing wooden portions of the front porch would be sufficient at this time in order to comply with the Town’s Order, as this approach would appropriately limit the probability of liability should anyone try to enter the building through the front door. Please confirm that this is sufficient until such time as the building is restored when the rest of the porch will be removed in its entirety.

If these timelines are acceptable to staff at the Town of Grimsby, Ms. Shapira will commence work on an agreement with the Town. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Movengo Corporation is anxious to proceed with the work in order to safeguard the house over the next 2-3 years.

Leah D. Wallace, MA MCIP RPP Land Use & Heritage Planning Services

Page 27 of 146 H.R. 18-06

REPORT TO: Alderman J. Dunstall, Chair and Members of the Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee

RE: Designation under Part lV of the Ontario Heritage Act, 16 Ontario Street, Proposed Amendment to By-Law ',3-44

DATE: September 4,2018

1.0 RECOMM NDATION

That Report H.R. '18-06, regarding the recommendation that Schedule'B'of the designating by-law for 16 Ontario Street be amended to reflect the correct municipal address preceding the heritage attributes of the property, be received:

And that the notice of intention to amend the by-law be issued under Part lV Section 30.1 of lhe Ontario Heritage Actfor the property at 16 Ontario Street.

2.0 BACKGROUND

On July 15,2013, Council Passed By-Law 13-44, designating the property at 16 Ontario Street, known as "The Doctor's House", under Part lV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Planning staff have recently been made aware of an error contained within By-Law 13- 44.The error is located in Appendix "8" to By-Law 13-44, under the "Heritage Attributes" heading, where the incorrect municipal address is listed. The proposed amendment is to correct this by replacing "133 Main Street East" with the correct municipal address, "16 Ontario Street".

Under Part lV Section 30.'l of the Ontario Heritage Act, designation by-laws may be amended by Council to clarify or correct the statement explaining the property's cultural heritage value or interest or the description of the property's heritage attributes.

Under Part lV Section 30.1(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the council of a municipality shall consult with its municipal heritage committee, if one has been established, before giving notice of a proposed amendment to the owner of property.

The amended draft by-law is attached in Appendix'A'.

3.0 coM ENTS

This technical amendment will ensure that the correct property information is tied to the heritage attributes of the building.

Page 28 of 146 H.R. 18-06 Proposed Amendment to By-Law 13-44 September 4,2018 16 Ontario Street

4.0 coNcLUsloN ln summary, Town Staff recommend that by-law 13-44 is amended in accordance with Section 30.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act to reflect the property address information on Schedule 'B' of By-Law 13-44.

lly pared by: Respectfully Sub

Deanna Maiden ice Hogg P Planner I ior Planner /dm

Attachment: Appendix A: Draft Designating By-Law

Page 2 of 2 Page 29 of 146

The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby

By-law No. 13-44

A by-law to designate the Doctors’ House, 16 Ontario Street, as a feature of historical, architectural and/or contextual significance.

WHEREAS pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter O.18, the Council of a municipality is authorized to enact by-laws to designate a real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

WHEREAS the municipal council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby has cause to be served on the owners of the lands and premises at:

16 Ontario Street Grimsby, ON and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, notice of intention to designate the Doctors’ House at 16 Ontario Street and a statement of the reasons for the proposed designation, and further, has caused said notice of intention to be published in the Grimsby Lincoln News, being a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality;

AND WHEREAS the reasons for designation and extent to which the designation applies are set out in Schedule “B” attached hereto and form part of this By-law.

COUNCIL ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. THAT the following real property, more particularly described in Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law is hereby designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest:

The Doctors’ House 16 Ontario Street Town of Grimsby The Regional Municipality of Niagara

2. THAT the Town solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this By-law to be registered against the property described in Schedule “A” attached hereto at the Land Registry Office.

READ A FIRST TIME this 15th day of July, 2013.

READ A SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED this 15th day of July, 2013.

R. N. Bentley, Mayor

H. Soady-Easton, Clerk

Page 1 of 4

Page 30 of 146

Schedule ‘A’ to BY-LAW 13-44

In the Town of Grimsby in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, property description as follows:

The Doctors’ House, LT 303, Corporation Plan 4; Grimsby, municipally known as 16 Ontario Street, Town of Grimsby, Regional Municipality of Niagara

Page 2 of 4

Page 31 of 146

Schedule ‘B’ to BY-LAW 13-44 Statement of Significance And Description of extent of the features To which the designation applies

Description of Property

The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Ontario Street and Doran Avenue. The property has the original brick building and its addition and includes the addresses 16-20 Ontario Street. The subject of the designation is the brick building and its southwesterly addition at 16 Ontario Street. The addresses 18-20 Ontario Street constitute commercial buildings that do not form part of the designation.

Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest

The Doctors’ House at 16 Ontario Street demonstrates physical value as a good example of the Queen Anne Style of Architecture, and as the most substantial residential building in the downtown core of Grimsby. The subject dwelling embodies the rich architectural detail associated with historical fruit farms and with the Queen Anne Style of Architecture as a result of the profitability of the tender fruit industry in the area which allowed residential farm architecture to be lavish. The building represents an early example of a converted estate type residential building into a building used for medical practice. The physical value of the building is enhanced by the Queen Anne Style detailing that is prominent on the exterior of the building.

The Doctors’ House at 16 Ontario Street demonstrates associational value as a focal point of the medical profession in Grimsby from the 1910s to the 1960s. A number of the physicians who operated out of 16 Ontario Street were significant in the community as both professionals and community leaders. Dr. Buck was the first physician associated with the building and a community leader in many ways including education, service clubs and lodges. His greatest community impact was his leadership of the Grimsby Peach Kings Hockey Club during its first years of operation which was a period of great prominence in the sporting history of Grimsby. Dr. McMillan was the second physician associated with the building and was prominent in his leadership of the local community through the establishment of the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital. The third prominent physician associated with the building is Dr. Jamieson. All three of the physicians associated with the Doctors’ House were role models for their service as medical practitioners in the First World War.

The Doctors’ House at 16 Ontario Street has contextual value as it supports the character and quality of built form in downtown Grimsby and on Ontario Street. The building demonstrates historical land use patterns as a medical practice hub within the downtown.

Heritage Attributes

The following architectural attributes have been determined to contribute to the heritage value of the dwelling and constitute part of the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for 16 Ontario Street:

 Local red stone foundation;  Brick plinth above foundation;  Two storey bay on south facade: o Decorative windows; o Stone sills and lintel; o Decorative brick patterns; o Blind bay with decorative brick; o Four decorative brackets in gable;  One storey bay on the north façade;  Stone sills and lintels;  Stone corbels;  Decorative brackets supported by stone corbels;  1/1 sash windows;  Brackets below the eaves;  Patterned slate roof;  Gable with decorative shingles;  Gable window;  Peaked roof;  Dormer window on south elevation;

Page 3 of 4

Page 32 of 146

 Brick chimneys and chimney base on north façade;  Setback of west façade from Ontario Street;  Physical reminders of medical practice (speaking tube); and  Red pressed brick exterior (currently painted).

Page 4 of 4

Page 33 of 146 "Ë*Fþ PLANNING DEPARTMENT vn MEi'I ORANDUM TO Alderman J. Dunstall, Ghair and Members of the Heritage Grimsby Advisory Gommittee

FROM: Deanna Maiden, Planner I

RE Request for Comments, 14Elizabeth Street, Façade lmprovement Application

DATE: September 4,2018

An application for through the Façade lmprovement Program has been submitted by the owner of the subject site for Yoga Truly. Please find attached the proposed design concept for the façade for your perusal and comment.

Deanna Maiden Planner 1 /dm

Attachments: Appendix'A'- Proposed Façade improvements, 14 Elizabeth St.

Page 34 of 146 Appendix'A'

Colst n IN Arctuve/" dqçÇ,inc\*? wrod'

fi¡nhrr ffsrl lomtlCh, Sl^ruun gtliun

u'üfi)rl (.olunç S\le, 5hc,rl-'Iu*^n

Pøiec+inc1 ,Nnd Kil h nq Q fu,l,,slers 0/l klenÒr u¡fh tell,Y

Figure 1: Proposed design concept and materials

Page 35 of 146 I

I J

Figure 2: Side view of proposed design concept

Ir I

-ra-

SÏ.',:i"r¡ ?ii¡r.Tr¡ ,u/rr¡n¡r-t a.rr åruì-É piÞ.. ru.tre aor¡¡¡¡¡rur lduærik n par¡I¡ ie,;r'¡rc,t, Figure 3: Typical Edwardian porch features

Page 36 of 146 .#Ð PLANNING DEPARTMENT vn MEMORANDUM TO: Alderman J. Dunstall, Ghair and Members of the Heritage Grimsby Advisory Committee

FROM: Deanna Maiden, Planner I RE: Request for Gomments, 32 Main Street West, Façade lmprovement application DATE September 4,2018

An application through the Façade lmprovement Program has been submitted by the owner of the subject site. The purpose of the renovations is to rent the space to the retail business "Tous Jours" (currently operating out of 5 Main Street W). The project will be completed in two phases ¡n order to allow the owners to expedite renovations. Please find attached the proposed design concept and phasing for your perusal and comment.

Deanna Maiden Planner 1 /dm

Attachments: Appendix'A' - Proposed Façade improvements, 32 Main Street West

Page 37 of 146 Appendix'A'

.--"&^læ'd4.€

Figure 'l: Building location -Awning has since been removed

FOOTWEAR o-olïl\E JOURS

,I lj

Figures 2-4: Proposed Façade lmprovements

Page 38 of 146 CLOTHING TOUS FOOTWEAR

CLOTHING TOTJS JOtns rcOTVUT¡R

Page 39 of 146 Frtûæt¡ar AÊ üeþ ry ft C¡t¡isÞU

Thb proisct it u irprew fiÊ tont ÊfiÞrlor d üe &w groffiy. Tha rniol ûonìponenb i¡idude: ' Replacacriditg wltctoteand dooæ ' f,ådåd sxigrbræ per attadrad tnaSpe ' Add eiignagadnilarb ffiched lmager " lnaÞll Ëlarficd as mqulrcdlorl¡gltürE as p€rilãGhed iragee . HeFåh nry damege b dde{uÊlk áÊ required due u wirdorn replacarnenL

ThÉ pmiåçtwil ba unde¡tahn in ùmphaæ

Phas f irdudee: " Hepke ExEürU r¡vlndnule ånd ilüörg

Eeil'msbË am fficfied Tor thb phem.

Phaæ 2 hdudEe:

* Rrolåd exþ¡iffa€ peraüedted frnagee " ådd slgnqE slmilårb mcfùted imgne r lnÉffi|elçctienl ae mquired fur lþhüqg ås p€r dhËùrçd imagee . Rep* any darnage b ddewf,t ¡¡ requiud ûæ b wirdslfl replacement.

E$illabs tp f.slollr Íor thÞ phasa

Page 40 of 146 +%. PLANN¡NG DEPARTMENT vn i,IEMORANDUM TO Alderman J. Dunstall, Chair and Menibers of the Heritage Grimsby Advisory Gommittee

FROM: Michael Seaman, MCIP, RPP, Director of Planning RE: 21-23 Main Street East and 6 Doran Avenue, Updated Heritage lmpact Assessment and Peer Review Technical Memorandum DATE: Septembe¡ 4,2018

1.0 Backqround

Applications for Zoning and Official Plan Amendments were submitted to the Town for the subject properties to permit the development of a mixed use (commercial/ residential) building in the Downtown. The Heritage Committee was circulated the CHIA and the peer-reviewed report of the CHIA for comment and passed the following resolution: GH-18-10 Moved by A. Brabant; Seconded by N. DiFlavio; Resolved, that Heritage Grimsby recommends that a new Heritage lmpact Assessmenf be submitted by the applícant as part of a complete application that addresses fhe deficiencies noted in the peer-reviews report by Letoumeau Heritage Consulting lnc. for any new proposalfor the propeñies at 21-23 Main Street East and 6 Doran Avenue.

And that the submitted report be peer-reviewed as part of the application review. CARRIED

The applicant has revised the application to a four storey building from the original proposal of 8 storeys. As part of the application requirements, a Cultural Heritage lmpact Assessment (CHIA) by Golder Associates was updated and submitted. The Town has retained Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. to peer-review the submitted report.

A copy of the submitted CHIA report is attached in Appendix 'A', and the Peer Review Technical Memorandum is attached in Appendix'B'to this memorandum. 2.0 Summarv

In summary, it is respectfully requested that the Heritage Committee review the CHIA and Technical Memorandum and provide comments with respect to the application

Hogg, RPP Senior Planner /dm Attachments: May 2018 Grimsby Revised HlA, TechnicalMemorandum,2l-23 Main Grimsby Revised Peer Review

Page 41 of 146

REPORT Heritage Impact Assessment 21-23 Main Street East, Vacant Lot, & 6 Doran Avenue, Town of Grimsby, Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario

Submitted to: Homes By DeSantis (Downtown) Inc. c/o Gabriel DeSantis, President 461 Green Road, Unit 10 Stoney Creek, ON L8E 5B4

Submitted by: Golder

1784554-R02

May 9, 2018

Page 42 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Distribution List

1 e-copy: Homes By DeSantis (Downtown) Inc.

1 e-copy: IBI Group

1 e-copy: Golder

Project Personnel Project Director Hugh Daechsel, M.A., Principal, Archaeologist

Project Manager Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP, Cultural Heritage Specialist

HIA Lead Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP

Research Shannen Stronge, M.A., Cultural Heritage Specialist

Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP

Elizabeth Nicoll, M.Pl., Cultural Heritage Specialist

Field Investigations Shannen Stronge, M.A.

Report Production Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP

Shannen Stronge, M.A.

Elizabeth Nicoll, M.Pl.

Maps & Illustrations Zachary Bush, CAD/GIS Technician

Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP

Senior Review Andrew Mason, M.A., Principal, Senior Archaeologist

Acknowledgements Homes By DeSantis Benny Yu and Mike Bozzelli

IBI Group Jared Marcus, CPT, Associate – Manager, Planning

Town of Grimsby Janice Hogg, MCIP, RPP, Planner I, Planning Department

Page 43 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Executive Summary

The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only, for complete information and findings as well as limitations, the reader should examine the complete report.

In September 2017, Homes By DeSantis (Downtown) Inc. (DeSantis) retained Golder to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for a proposed development at 21 Main Street East, a vacant lot, and 6 Doran Avenue in the Town of Grimsby, Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario. Except for a one storey commercial building at 21 Main Street, the 0.25-hectare combined area is vacant.

DeSantis is proposing to construct on the combined properties a four-storey, mixed use commercial/residential building, consisting of 92 residential units, 481 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor, two levels of underground parking, and a 34-space outdoor parking lot. Since the development will potentially impact nearby designated and listed heritage properties and recognized cultural heritage landscapes, the Town of Grimsby required that a HIA be submitted as part of the site plan approval.

Following guidelines provided by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, the Town of Grimsby, and Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010), this HIA identifies the heritage policies applicable to new development in the Town of Grimsby, summarizes the area’s geography and history, and provides an inventory and evaluation of the built and landscape environment. Based on this understanding, potential adverse impacts resulting from the proposed development were assessed, and future conservation actions recommended.

This HIA concludes that the proposed development at 21 Main Street East, 23 Main Street East, a vacant lot, and 6 Doran Avenue in the Town of Grimsby will:  Indirectly impact the heritage attributes of surrounding heritage properties and cultural heritage landscapes to a negligible degree.

Impact from shadow is predicted to effect 15 Main Street East and 3 Ontario Street for short periods at certain points in the year, and although there are no heritage properties adjacent to the development, a number are within 60 m and potentially at risk of impact from construction vibration. Golder therefore recommends to:  Monitor for construction vibration at the property boundaries and stop work immediately if construction vibration exceeds accepted thresholds.

Provided this recommendation is implemented, the currently proposed development application to construct a four-storey building at 21 Main Street, 23 Main Street, a vacant lot and 6 Doran Avenue is unlikely to adversely affect nearby designated and listed heritage properties and recognized cultural heritage landscapes to a significant degree.

Page 44 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 SCOPE & METHOD ...... 3

3.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 4

3.1 Federal and International Heritage Policies ...... 4

3.2 Ontario Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement ...... 4

3.3 The Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06 ...... 5

3.3.1 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ...... 6

3.3.2 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Heritage Conservation Guidance ...... 7

3.4 Municipal Heritage Policies ...... 8

3.4.1 Regional Municipality of Niagara Regional Official Plan ...... 8

3.4.2 Town of Grimsby Heritage Policies ...... 8 3.4.2.1 Official Plan ...... 8 3.4.2.2 Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines ...... 10 3.4.2.3 Downtown Grimsby Community Improvement Plan & Downtown Master Plan ...... 10 3.4.2.4 Town of Grimsby Special Places Significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes ...... 11

4.0 GEOGRAPHIC & HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 12

4.1 Geographic Context ...... 12

4.2 Grimsby Township and Town of Grimsby, Lincoln County ...... 12

4.3 Study Area...... 14

5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 19

5.1 Setting ...... 19

5.2 Built Environment ...... 24

6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 33

6.1 Proposed Development ...... 33

6.2 Assessment of Adverse Impacts ...... 33

6.2.1 Design Compatibility Assessment...... 38

Page 45 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

6.2.2 Shadow Impact Assessment ...... 45

6.3 Summary of Results ...... 48

7.0 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 49

8.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 51

9.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT ...... 51

10.0 REFERENCES ...... 52

TABLES Table 1: Listed and designated properties within a 100 m radius of the Study Area ...... 25 Table 2: Assessment of Direct and Indirect Adverse Impacts ...... 35 Table 3: Assessment of the Proposed Development for Compatibility with the Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines ...... 38 Table 4: Results from analysis of the KNYMH Shadow Study for impacts to adjacent heritage properties ...... 45

FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map ...... 2 Figure 2: 1876 Historical Atlas Map of the Village of Grimsby ...... 15 Figure 3: Goad's 1914 Fire Insurance Plan of Grimsby ...... 16 Figure 4: 1928 Underwriter's Survey of Grimsby ...... 17 Figure 5: 1934 Aerial Imagery ...... 18 Figure 6: View facing east toward the Study Area from the south side of Main Street East and west of Elm Street...... 20 Figure 7: Streetscape of Main Street from south of the Study Area, facing northeast...... 20 Figure 8: View facing southeast toward the Study Area from the northeast corner of Doran Avenue and Ontario Street...... 21 Figure 9: View facing southwest toward the Study Area from the southeast end of Doran Avenue...... 21 Figure 10: View facing northeast of the Study Area from the south side of Main Street East...... 22 Figure 11: View of the Study Area, facing northwest from the south side of Main Street East...... 22 Figure 12: Panoramic view of the south portion of the Study Area from the southeast corner of 21 Main Street East...... 23 Figure 13: Panoramic view of the south portion of the Study Area from the southeast corner of the Study Area...... 23

iii

Page 46 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Figure 14: Panoramic view of the north portion of the Study Area, facing south from north side of Doran Avenue...... 24 Figure 15: Panoramic view south from the south boundary of the Study Area...... 24 Figure 16: Heritage properties within 100 m of the Study Area...... 32 Figure 17: Shadow impact analysis results...... 47 Figure 18: Town of Grimsby Downtown Master Plan Potential Form and Use for the Study Area (Town of Grimsby 2009:43) ...... 50

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Designation By-Laws: 5-11 Main Street East (Whittaker Block) And 15 Main Street East (Old Fire Hall) APPENDIX B Plans, Elevations & Renderings of Proposed Development in the Study Area (courtesy Homes By DeSantis & IBI Group) APPENDIX C Shadow Impact Analysis, courtesy KNYMH Inc.

Page 47 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

1.0 INTRODUCTION In September 2017, Homes By DeSantis (Downtown) Inc. (DeSantis) retained Golder to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development at 21 Main Street East, 23 Main Street East, a vacant lot, and 6 Doran Avenue in the Town of Grimsby, Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario (the Study Area; Figure 1). Except for a one storey commercial building at 21 Main Street the 0.25-hectare property is vacant.

DeSantis is proposing to construct in the Study Area a four-storey, mixed use commercial/residential building, consisting of 92 residential units, 481 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor, two levels of underground parking, and a 34-space outdoor parking lot. Since the development will potentially impact nearby designated and listed heritage properties and recognized cultural heritage landscapes, the Town of Grimsby (the Town) required that a HIA be submitted as part of the site plan approval.

Following guidelines provided by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), the Town, and Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010), this HIA provides:  A background on the purpose and requirements of an HIA, and the methods used to investigate and assess impacts to cultural heritage resources;  An overview of the property’s geographic context and its history;  An inventory of the built and landscape features on properties surrounding the Study Area;  A description of the proposed development and an assessment of potential adverse impacts; and,  Recommendations to safeguard and conserve the heritage attributes of surrounding heritage properties.

Page 48 of 146 Page 49 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

2.0 SCOPE & METHOD To undertake this HIA, Golder:  Reviewed applicable municipal heritage policies and consulted the Town’s heritage planner;  Reviewed published documents and readily available sources relevant to the property;  Conducted field investigations to document designated, listed and inventoried properties of cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) and cultural heritage landscapes surrounding the Study Area, and to understand the wider built and landscape context;  Assessed the impact of the proposed development on any heritage attributes of surrounding properties using provincial guidelines and municipal policies; and,  Developed recommendations for future action based on international, federal, provincial, and municipal conservation guidance.

Since the Study Area does not have any existing built elements, background research was limited to published sources accessible through online collections or from the Town. Field investigations were conducted by Cultural Heritage Specialist Shannen Stronge on October 13, 2017 and included accessing and photographing all elements of the property and wider context with a Canon EOS Rebel T5i digital single reflex camera and an iPhone 6S. Golder consulted the Town’s heritage planner Janice Hogg by telephone on October 18, 2017 and was provided with a follow-up email on October 24, 2017 on the relevant municipal policies and information on properties of CHVI near the Study Area. Golder was subsequently provided with the Grimsby’s Special Places: Significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the Town of Grimsby (2015) and designation by-laws by email between May 1 and May 7, 2017.

The development was assessed for adverse impacts using the guidance provided in the MTCS Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process and the scope was expanded from the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 definition for ‘adjacent lands’ to include all listed heritage properties and recognized cultural heritage landscapes within a 100-m zone of potential visual and shadow impact (see below). Several widely recognized manuals related to determining impacts and conservation approaches were also consulted for ‘best practice’, including:  The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (5 volumes, MTCS 2006);  Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties (MTCS 2017);  Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Canada’s Historic Places 2010);  Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation (Fram 2003);  Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (Landscape Institute & Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment 2013);  Heritage Planning: Principles and Process (Kalman 2014);  Seeing the History in the View: A Method for Assessing Heritage Significance Within Views (Historic England 2011); and,  Informed Conservation: Understanding Historic Buildings and their Landscapes for Conservation (Clark 2001).

Page 50 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

3.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK The Study Area is subject to several Provincial and municipal heritage planning and policy regimes. Although these have varying levels of priority, all are considered for decision-making in the cultural heritage environment. The relevant guidance, legislation, and policies are described below. 3.1 Federal and International Heritage Policies No federal heritage policies apply to the property, although many of the provincial and municipal policies detailed below align in approach to that of Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Canada’s Historic Places 2010). This document — drafted in response to international and national agreements such as the 1964 International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter), 1979 Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter, updated 2013), and 1983 Canadian Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment— defines the three conservation treatments of preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration, and outlines the process, standards, and guidelines to meet the objectives for each treatment on a range of cultural heritage resources. 3.2 Ontario Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement In Ontario, the Planning Act and associated Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS 2014) provide the legislative imperative for heritage conservation in land use planning. Both documents identify conservation of resources of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific interest as a provincial interest, and PPS 2014 further recognizes that protecting cultural heritage and archaeological resources has economic, environmental, and social benefits, and contributes to the long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being of Ontarians. The Planning Act serves to integrate this interest with planning decisions at the provincial and municipal level, and states that all decisions affecting land use planning ‘shall be consistent with’ PPS 2014.

Two sections of the PPS 2014 recognize the importance of identifying and evaluating built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes:  Section 2.6.1 – ‘Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved’; and,  Section 2.6.3 – ‘Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.’

PPS 2014 defines significant resources as those ‘determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people’, and conserved as ‘the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value of interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act.’ ‘Adjacent lands’ are defined as ‘those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan’.

Page 51 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, heritage attributes, and protected heritage property are also defined in the PPS:  Built heritage resources: a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Aboriginal [Indigenous] community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers.  Cultural heritage landscapes: a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal [Indigenous] community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site).  Heritage attribute: the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).  Protected heritage property: property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

For municipalities, PPS 2014 is implemented through an ‘official plan’, which may outline further heritage policies (see Section 3.4). 3.3 The Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06 The Province and municipalities are enabled to conserve significant individual properties and areas through the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Under Part III of the OHA, compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties is mandatory for Provincially-owned and administered heritage properties and holds the same authority for ministries and prescribed public bodies as a Management Board or Cabinet directive.

For municipalities, Part IV and Part V of the OHA enables councils to ‘designate’ individual properties (Part IV), or properties within a heritage conservation district (HCD) (Part V), as being of ‘cultural heritage value or interest’ (CHVI). Evaluation for CHVI under the OHA is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06, which prescribes the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The criteria are as follows:

Page 52 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

1) The property has design value or physical value because it: i) Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method;

ii) Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or

iii) Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2) The property has historic value or associative value because it: i) Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community;

ii) Yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture; or

iii) Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community.

3) The property has contextual value because it: i) Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area;

ii) Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or

iii) Is a landmark.

If a property meets one or more of these criteria, it may be eligible for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA.

Designated properties, which are formally described1 and recognized through by-law, must then be included on a ‘Register’ maintained by the municipal clerk. At a secondary level, a municipality may ‘list’ a property on the register to indicate its potential CHVI. Importantly, designation or listing in most cases applies to the entire property, not only individual structures or features.

The Town maintains a Register of Properties Designated Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and List of Properties Council Believes to be of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Under Section 27(1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. At the Town, like most municipalities, heritage planning staff and municipal heritage committees report to Council on issues pertaining to the OHA. If these individuals or bodies are absent in a municipality, the Province may assume responsibility. 3.3.1 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe came into effect in July 2017, replacing the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006). The revised Growth Plan is a long-term plan developed to align with the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan to manage growth, build complete communities, curb sprawl and protect the natural environment. The Plan is to be read in conjunction with other provincial plans including the PPS 2014.

1 The OHA defines ‘heritage attributes’ slightly differently than PPS 2014; in the former, heritage attributes ‘means, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest’.

Page 53 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Under Section 4.2 Policies for ‘Protecting What is Valuable’, Section 4.2.7 identifies the following priorities for cultural heritage resources:

1) Cultural heritage resources will be conserved to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas.

2) Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Métis communities in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the identification, wise use and management of cultural heritage resources.

3) Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making.

In addition to the conservation of cultural heritage resources, the Plan also identifies the vision for growth within the Horseshoe. Development is directed to settlement areas, although growth will be limited in settlement areas that are located within the Greenbelt Area. This growth will be focused in delineated built-up areas, strategic growth areas, locations with existing or planned transit, and areas with existing or planned public service facilities. 3.3.2 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Heritage Conservation Guidance As mentioned above, heritage conservation on provincial properties must comply with the MTCS Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, but this document also provides ‘best practice’ approaches for evaluating cultural heritage resources not under provincial jurisdiction. For example, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (MTCS 2014) provides detailed explanations of the O. Reg. 9/06 criteria and its application.

To advise municipalities, organizations, and individuals on heritage protection and conservation, the MTCS developed a series of products called the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Of these, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (MTCS 2005) and InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plan (2006) defines an HIA as:  ‘a study to determine if any cultural resources (including those previously identified and those found as part of the site assessment) are impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development or site alteration approaches may be recommended.’

Advice on how to organize the sections of an HIA is provided in the MTCS document, although municipalities may also draft their own terms of reference. Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process also outlines several direct and indirect adverse impacts to be considered when assessing the effects of a proposed development on a cultural heritage resource, as well as mitigation options (see Section 6.2).

Determining the optimal conservation or mitigation strategy is further guided by the MTCS Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (2012), which encourage respect for: 1) Documentary evidence (restoration should not be based on conjecture);

2) Original location (do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them since any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably);

3) Historic material (follow ‘minimal intervention’ and repair or conserve building materials rather than replace them);

Page 54 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

4) Original fabric (repair with like materials);

5) Building history (do not destroy later additions to reproduce a single period);

6) Reversibility (any alterations should be reversible);

7) Legibility (new work should be distinguishable from old); and,

8) Maintenance (historic places should be continually maintained).

The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit partially, but not entirely, supersedes earlier MTCS advice. Criteria to identify cultural landscapes is provided in greater detail in the Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (1980:7), while recording and documentation procedures are outlined in the Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1992:3-7). The latter document also stresses the importance of identifying and gauging the cumulative effects of a development (MTCS 1992:8). 3.4 Municipal Heritage Policies 3.4.1 Regional Municipality of Niagara Regional Official Plan The Regional Municipality of Niagara Regional Official Plan implements the Niagara Region Growth Management Strategy (Niagara 2031) and was developed to align with the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) and the Greenbelt Plan (2005). Section 4.G.1 of the Official Plan identifies Niagara’s Urban Community Objectives, with Objective 4.G.1.7 identifying the goal to promote the preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage resources.

Section 10.C.2.1 describes policies as it relates to Built Heritage Resources, Cultural Heritage Landscapes and Archaeological Resources. Policy 10.C.2.1.5 states that where a development, site alteration or a public works project is proposed on or adjacent to a significant built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscapes, a heritage impact assessment will be required. The findings of the assessment must include recommendations for design alternatives and satisfactory measures to mitigate any negative impacts on identified significant heritage resources (Niagara Region 2014:10-7). 3.4.2 Town of Grimsby Heritage Policies 3.4.2.1 Official Plan The Town’s Official Plan, last consolidated in 2016, informs decisions on issues such as future land use, transportation, infrastructure, and community improvement within the Town limits. Of the zones illustrated in Schedules A and B-3 of the Official Plan, the Study Area falls within the historic Main Street portion of the Downtown District and is guided by the land use policies of Section 3.5 in the Official Plan. The preamble of Section 3.5 recognizes the ‘eclectic mixture of buildings – different styles, different scales and from different eras’, as well as the varying number of uses. The overall objectives for the Downtown District are ‘to protect and enhance the character of the historic ‘Main Street’’, and ‘ensure that new development is compatible with existing development patterns,’ but also to ‘promote new intensified development in appropriate locations’.

Page 55 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Section 3.5.3 specifically addresses the Main Street portion of the Downtown District, and in its intent aims to foster ‘economic revitalization…within the context of historic preservation, while recognizing that adaptive reuse, and moderate levels of redevelopment and intensification can and should be accommodated.’ Of Main Street’s two components, the Study Area is in the ‘historic main street’ east of Mountain/Christie Street. For this portion:

“…it is intended that the main street built form and streetscape character be maintained and strengthened…[and] It is also the intent of this Plan to ensure that new development will be appropriately designed to be compatible with the character and image of the area and will not create adverse impacts on adjacent areas within Downtown District.”

Design in the Downtown District – Main Street is guided by Sections 3.5.6, and of relevance to built heritage are two policies for ‘compatible development’ provided in Section 3.5.6.5:  All new development and redevelopment within the Downtown District shall demonstrate sensitivity to the existing architectural styles, building materials and scale, with the exception of the existing suburban style plaza developments. The design and selection of materials used for proposed additions, alterations, and new buildings shall also have regard for the style, both volumetrically and materially, of existing buildings to strengthen themes of existing character in the vicinity; and,  All development and redevelopment shall respect the character of existing development, with the exception of the existing suburban style plaza developments, through compatible and complementary building massing (i.e., building height and scale), building design principles, landscaping, and streetscape elements. New buildings shall be designed at a height and scale, which is compatible with the surrounding area and in conformity with the policies of this Plan. Specific consideration shall be given to massing options that establish an appropriate relationship to the surrounding built form.

Section 8 of the Official Plan outlines the goals, objectives and policies for conservation of heritage, which include:  To protect cultural heritage resources which are important to the identity and character of the Town.  To protect and preserve heritage resources having architectural and historical merit within the context of the Town including the original architectural detail.’  To develop and encourage creative, appropriate, and economic uses of heritage resources throughout the Town of Grimsby while having special regard to heritage resources in the Downtown District including the retention of unique streetscapes.  To consider social and community needs in the preservation, restoration, and utilization of cultural heritage resources.  To encourage and develop private and public financial resources and techniques in the preservation, restoration, and utilization of heritage resources, particularly in the Downtown District and the Grimsby Beach Neighbourhood.  To coordinate heritage policies and programs with the comprehensive planning programs of the Town.  To provide for the periodic review and update of heritage policies and programs.  To foster civic beauty, strengthen the local economy and to promote the use of heritage for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the residents of the Town and its visitors.

Page 56 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

The policies of Section 8 primarily cover identification and designation of individual properties and a heritage conservation district, but in Section 8.18 also state that:  Development and site alteration may be permitted in the vicinity of protected heritage property where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.  Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required to conserve the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property affected by the adjacent development or site alteration.

The Plan identifies under Section 2.2 ‘Municipal Structure Principles’ that strategic intensification and infill will be permitted in appropriate areas with high quality design that is sensitive to the surrounding character of the neighbourhood. 3.4.2.2 Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Another document guiding development in the Downtown District and that includes consideration for heritage is the Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines (GSP Group 2010). It defines the ‘traditional core’ as primarily two storey buildings that ‘frame the streetscape to create a comfortable pedestrian space’ and with a mix of architectural styles most commonly rendered in brick. The four ‘principle components’ covered by the Design Guidelines include building form, façades, site planning, and façade improvements, but the latter is not relevant to the proposed development as it is new construction. The existing heritage character of downtown Grimsby is integral to the Design Guidelines, as explicitly stated in two of its five objectives:  New buildings that match the scale and massing of the historic main street environment; and  Additions to existing buildings that complement the heritage character of the area. An assessment of the proposed development for compatibility with the Design Guidelines is provided in Section 6.2.1. It is important to note that the design guidelines are not policy and are intended to be flexible. As the Design Guidelines notes:

…the design guidelines have been written with the understanding that the guidance offered is to be used on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that context and different situations will affect how they will be applied. There is flexibility in the interpretation and application of the guidelines, provided it is in keeping with the spirit of the overarching design vision and principles established in Section 3.0 of the Downtown Master Plan.

The Downtown Master Plan is described in further detail below. 3.4.2.3 Downtown Grimsby Community Improvement Plan & Downtown Master Plan The Study Area falls within the Urban Settlement Area Boundary in the Town as identified in the Downtown Grimsby Community Improvement Plan (2008). The Community Improvement Plan (CIP) provides a guiding framework for redevelopment and improvements within a defined area. The Downtown Master Plan (2009) was produced as part of the Downtown Grimsby CIP process. The Master Plan provides the overall design strategy for the Downtown area. The Plan defines the Main East District as offering a range of retail, service and office commercial uses which are small to medium in scale. There are opportunities in the District to fill in the gaps in the streetscape created by vacant properties with multi-storey buildings that frame the street and provide opportunities for more residents downtown (Town of Grimsby 2009: 21).

Page 57 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Under 6.2 ‘Intensification Opportunities’, the Study Area is specifically identified as an area targeted for residential intensification under the Intensification Opportunities Plan. The Study Area is determined to be a potential site within the Downtown that could accommodate development or redevelopment, with potentially a 3-storey mixed- use development with ground floor commercial and upper storey residential. The Town identified a timeframe for redevelopment of the site as 0 to 5 years. 3.4.2.4 Town of Grimsby Special Places Significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes The Study Area falls within the Main Street Grimsby Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) boundaries and is adjacent to the Depot District CHL as identified in the Town’s Grimsby’s Special Places: Significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the Town of Grimsby (2015). The report was developed to expand the Town’s knowledge base beyond the recognition of individual heritage properties and, although not an exhaustive list, identified 39 potential cultural heritage landscapes within the Town and preliminary conservation strategies. The report uses the definition of CHL’s as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement 2005:

A defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. Examples include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, main streets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value.

Applications for development located within or adjacent to a CHL need to be reviewed by the Town to determine consistency with the character of the CHL. Applications must encourage: maintenance of the special character; the conservation of built, natural and cultural heritage resources; the conservation of significant natural resources; preservation of significant trees; interpretation of the history and character of the CHL through plaques, markers, etc.; and consideration that any proposed changes or infill development be designed to support the character of the CHL.

The Main Street Grimsby CHL key heritage attributes includes the trees, 19th and early 20th century commercial architecture, red brick architectural concentration at east and west ends of the street, and topography of the street (higher on the south side than the north). The Depot District CHL key heritage attributes include the railway tracks, 19th and early 20th century commercial industrial and residences, street alignment, and mature trees.

Page 58 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

4.0 GEOGRAPHIC & HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 Geographic Context The Study Area is on the Niagara Peninsula of southwestern Ontario, approximately 1.4 km south of Lake Ontario and 350 m east of Forty Mile Creek. It is within the Iroquois Plain physiographic zone, an area of rolling terrain encompassing much of the Lake Ontario shoreline from Niagara to Cobourg, and just 80 m to the south is the Niagara Escarpment zone. The physiographic context of the property can be further defined as within the Niagara Fruit Belt subsection of the Iroquois Plain, which is a composed of well-to-imperfectly drained, stone-free, and fine textured clays. As the name of this subsection suggests, the soils and climate make the area ideal for fruit growing (Chapman & Putnam 1984:190-191). Naturally occurring trees of the area are predominately deciduous, but coniferous species are also present, as is typical of the Lake Erie to Lake Ontario subsection of the Mixedwood Plains Ecoregion.

In reference to cultural boundaries and features, the Study Area was formerly located on Lot 9, Concession 1 of Grimsby Township, Lincoln County, and was amalgamated into the Town of Grimsby, Regional Municipality of Niagara, in 1970. It is located approximately 270 m southeast of the centre of the historical Town of Grimsby at the intersection of Main Street East and Ontario Street, and bounded on the north by Doran Avenue, on the south by Main Street East, on the west by 21 Main Street East and 4 Doran Avenue, and on the east by 35 Main Street East and 5 Robinson Street North. 4.2 Grimsby Township and Town of Grimsby, Lincoln County Following the Toronto Purchase of 1787, today’s southern Ontario was divided into four political districts — Lunenburg, Mechlenburg, Nassau, and Hesse— that were all within the old Province of Québec. These became part of the Province of Upper Canada in 1791, and renamed the Eastern, Midland, Home, and Western Districts, respectively. The Study Area was within the former Nassau District, then later the Home District, which originally included all lands between an arbitrary line on the west running north from Long Point on Lake Erie to Georgian Bay, and a line on the east running north from Presqu’ile Point on Lake Ontario to the Ottawa River. Each district was further subdivided into counties and townships by Colonel John Graves Simcoe, with the Study Area originally falling within part of the County of Lincoln and Township of Grimsby.

The historical Township of Grimsby, originally referred to as Township No. 6, was situated in the northwest portion of Lincoln County, and was bounded by Lake Ontario to the north, Clinton Township to the east, Gainsborough and Caistor Townships to the south, and Saltfleet Township in Wentworth County to the west. It was named for Great Grimsby, Lincolnshire, England (Armstrong 1930:121). Abraham Iredell surveyed the township in 1791 according to the Front and Rear survey system. This system, which was commonly used between 1787 and 1813, involved “survey[ing] the boundaries, base lines, if any, and the side lines of the lots and establish[ing] the corners of the lots and mak[ing] road allowances between each concession and along the side lines between each second lot” (Surveys Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.30). In Grimsby Township, this method produced a rectangular pattern of two 100 acre lots measuring 50 chains long by 20 chains wide, bounded on all four sides by road allowances, with the concession lines-oriented east to west, and the side roads crossing the township running north to south.

Settlement of Grimsby Township commenced well before Augustus Jones’ survey. According to the 1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Lincoln and Welland County, the first settlers to the area were Henry Nelles and his two sons from Palestine on the Mohawk River, New York, who arrived in 1780 (H.R. Page & Co. 1876:10; Powell 1955:5). Historical researchers surmise that Nelles and his sons lived in Grimsby Township for about a year before moving further west to the Grand River (Powell 1955:5). Accounts by Henry Nelles’ granddaughter, Margaret (Nelles) Pilkington describe how Henry Nelles, his two sons and “a black servant, who followed the

Page 59 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

fortunes of his master, set to work to fell the trees and erect a habitation which they accomplished in three months, thus making the first settlement in the township of Grimsby” (quoted in Powell 1955:6). In 1782, John Greene from New Jersey, acquired Lot 11, Concession 3 and built a gristmill (although the lands were only granted fit for husbandry), and later also purchased Lot 10, Concession 1 and constructed a sawmill to supply the troops stationed in Niagara, Fort Erie, York and Kingston (Powell 1955:13; H.R. Page & Co. 1876:10). Soon after, Henry Nelles’ sons Colonel Robert Nelles and Abraham Nelles settled on Lot 11, Concession 1; later joined by their relation William Nelles in 1787 (H.R. Page & Co. 1876:10). The Nelles family erected a sawmill on Lot 10, Concession 2 (east of the Upper Bridge, Gibson Avenue); a year or so later, a gristmill was built on the west side (Powell 1955:13). By 1787, 46 Loyalist families had settled on Concessions 1 to 3; 42 from New Jersey and four from Pennsylvania (Powell 1955:6,17). Notable personage included Andrew Pettit, John Pettit, Nathaniel Pettit, John Green, Adam Green, Levi Lewis, Jacob Glover, two John Smiths, Elijah Chambers, Esea Chambers, Absol Willcox, Allen Nixon and John Beamer (Powell 1955:7). In 1794, the first log-cabin church, which also functioned as a school, was constructed in Grimsby Township (Powell 1955:22). A blacksmith shop reportedly stood one mile west of Grimsby by 1800 (Powell 1955:36).

In 1812, war broke out between the Unites States and Britain. The 4th Lincoln Regiment mobilized under General Vincent and headed south to Niagara. In May of 1813, American forces invaded the Niagara Peninsula, gained possession of Fort George, and drove British troops westward. Vincent and his troops retreated through Grimsby Township and remained in the area for two days (Turcote 1995:14). Following the War of 1812, there was a period of readjustment for the Township as casualties of the Lincoln regiment left behind widows, orphaned children and deserted farms (Powell 1980:4).

In 1816, the first post office was established, with William Crooks as the first postmaster (as well as a miller and merchant) (Powell 1980:4). By 1825, four mills were recorded in The Township of Grimsby (Powell 1980:23). In 1845, Grimsby, St. Catharines and Beamsville were added to the Great Western Railway route connecting Burlington Bay to Niagara Falls (GHS 1979:273). This rail line was quickly adopted to ship mail and eventually also fruit to Montreal and Ottawa. During the latter half of the 19th century, the population of the Township continued to grow, and the first grammar school was established in 1857 (Powell 1980:51). By 1876, Grimsby had four churches, one high school, one public school, Mechanic’s Institute, one Grange, one lodge of Good Templars, a public hall, two taverns, one brewery, one fruit canning factory, two saw mills, two grist mills, one foundry and machine works, a railway station, and a drill shed (H.R. Page & Co. 1876:10-11). The township also supported four resident ministers, three doctors, three surveyors, one conveyancer, three merchant shops, two butcher shops, one druggist, one tin shop, two boot and shoe repairs, two groceries, three blacksmith shops, two carriage makers, and one harness maker (Page 1876:10-11).

Throughout the 19th century, several communities developed in Grimsby Township: Grimsby, Smithville, Muir’s Settlement, Grassie, and Grimsby Beach. The Study Area itself is in the central portion of the historical Town of Grimsby. Originally known as The Forty settlement for the community’s location along the banks of Forty Mile Creek, the history of Grimsby dates to 1783 when United Empire Loyalists began erecting log cabins in the area (Powell and Coffman 1956). Within a few years, three mills had been built along the creek. When Mrs. Simcoe, wife of Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe visited the community in 1794-96, she noted that the population numbered 100 individuals. By the time the War of 1812 broke out, the community had two schools, one Episcopal church, several stores, two distilleries and a parade ground where the 4th Lincoln Regiment paraded and held training days. On June 13, 1813, a battle known as the “Engagement at The Forty” took place within the community. The community suffered heavy losses as a result of the battle. By 1816, the name of the community was changed to Grimsby and the first post office was opened in the area. By the mid-19th century, the community of Grimsby supported a canning factory, two inns, a foundry, a blacksmith shop, a merchant shop, a mechanic’s

Page 60 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

hall, and several stores. The community of Grimsby was officially incorporated as a village in 1876, and a town in 1922. In 1970, the Town of Grimsby amalgamated with the north portion of Grimsby Township to form the new Town of Grimsby. The new municipality had a population of 25,325 in 2011. 4.3 Study Area The Study Area was originally located within the village of Grimsby at the north-central portion of the Township of Grimsby. The 1876 map of the Village of Grimsby included in the Illustrated Historical Atlas of Lincoln and Welland County (Page & Co. 1876) shows the Study Area as part of an unnumbered lot located on the northeast corner of the Main Street and Depot Street (presently Ontario Street) intersection (Figure 2). It is unclear whether any of the surrounding properties had been developed by this time.

Figure 3 indicates that by the early 20th century, the Study Area had yet to be fully developed. Properties developed on the same block consisted of a combination of two storey commercial and municipal buildings fronting along the north side of Main Street East, including a dry goods store immediately to the west, followed by a Chinese laundry, fire station, paints store, grocery store, and the Bank of Hamilton, with what appear to be one- and-a-half to two storey residential structures occurring along Depot Street and Doran Avenue. Two of these structures have been designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and five have been listed on the Town’s List of Properties Council Believes to be of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Under Section 27.(1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act: the fire station building located at present day 15 Main Street East was designated as the Old Fire Hall (By-Law 14-30); the building housing the paint store and grocery store located at present day 5- 11 Main Street East was designated as the Whittaker Block (By-Law 13-80); and, the structures located and 1 and 3 Main Street East, as well as those fronting along Depot Street at present day 2 Ontario Street, 4 to 6 Ontario Street, and 8 to 10 Ontario Street have been municipally listed. The south side of Main Street East had been developed with a series of two storey commercial buildings, including a garage, waiting room, confectionary store, barber, and pool room. These structures do not appear to be consistent with any of the buildings presently standing in the area.

The 1928 Underwriters Survey for the Town of Grimsby (Figure 4) and an aerial photograph from 1934 (Figure 5) indicate that the Study Area had been developed by this time, with a two-storey concrete block moving pictures building located on the southwestern portion of the Study Area at 27 Main Street East, a two-storey residence and associated garage located on the southeast portion at 31 Main Street East, and a second two storey residence located on the northern portion at 6 Doran Avenue. The Study Area was bounded by a two-storey residential building to the east at 35 Main Street East, vacant land to the north, a one-and-a-half storey residential building, two storey vacant building, and single storey garage to the west at 4 Doran Avenue and 21/23 Main Street East, and a single storey office building to the south at 26 Main Street. Properties further west of the Study Area fronting along either side of Main Street East are largely consistent with those depicted on the 1914 fire insurance plan.

Subsequent aerial photographs accessible through the Niagara Region online mapping tool (Niagara Region n.d.) show the removal of the moving pictures building and the residential structure at 31 Main Street East from the Study Area by 2000, with the residential structure located at 6 Doran Avenue being removed sometime between 2010 and 2013.

Page 61 of 146 Page 62 of 146 Page 63 of 146 Page 64 of 146 Page 65 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 Setting The setting of the Study Area can be characterized as town urban, typified by two-to-three storey commercial buildings with some former residential residences since converted to commercial use (Figure 6 to Figure 11). Northwest of the Study Area the elevation of Main Street gradually rises to the southeast, with a steeper grade beginning immediately northwest of the Study Area. Over the Study Area the ground also gradually slopes to the northeast with an undulating topography (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Vegetation along the street is primarily recent tree plantings, but within the Study Area and along Doran Avenue are more mature trees and bushes that mark the property boundary (Figure 14). Most of the Study Area is rough lawn with a portion covered in gravel to serve as parking and is bounded on the southeast by a low embankment, on the northeast by an armour stone revetment wall for an adjacent parking lot and the sidewalk for Doran Avenue, on the northwest by the fence line and outbuildings of an adjacent residential property, and on the west by the two-part commercial block of 17 Main Street East.

Surrounding structures are a range of heights, materials and age, although northwest of the Study Area are predominately low-rise, flat or gable-roofed commercial buildings with short facades facing the street, no or narrow side yards, constructed in brick, and older in date than those to the southeast. While most buildings on the south side of Main Street predominately date from the late 20th century, those on the north side of Main Street and west of the Study Area have a late 19th or early 20th century date of construction, and this is continued in the residential areas of Ontario Street and Doran Avenue to the north. Apart from the Edwardian Classicism building immediately to the east of the Study Area, most buildings to the southeast either side of Main Street were built in the late 20th century and through the varying setbacks, side yards, building orientation, and heights the streetscape is markedly different than that found northwest of the Study Area.

Access to the Study Area is via both Main Street and Doran Avenue. Typical of town thoroughfares, Main Street is single lane each way but wide with sidewalks, on street parking and a turning lane for Elm Street to the west. Doran Avenue follows a more typical residential road, although it too is relatively wide. Many of the properties on all surrounding streets have parking at the rear of the street frontages. A mid-block laneway is located between Main Street East and Doran Avenue, which runs approximately 95 m northwest to southeast. The laneway commences between 4 and 8 Ontario Street and terminates at the parking lot to the rear of 35 Main Street.

Views both from and to the south side of the Study Area are clear to the west and northwest along Main Street and Elm Street, but partially obscured from the southeast as the Study Area is on a reverse slope. The long length of structures along Main Street block all views into and outward from the centre of Study Area, and views from and to the property along Doran Avenue are obscured by vegetation and the relatively minimal setback of buildings along that street. The clearest views are directly south to the Canada Trust bank at 20 Main Street East (Figure 15).

Spatially, topographically, and architecturally, the Study Area stands at a transition zone between the historic downtown and more contemporary development to the southeast and continues a wide break in the streetscape formed by Elm Street and setback of the Canada Trust building to the south.

Page 66 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Figure 6: View facing east toward the Study Area from the south side of Main Street East and west of Elm Street.

Figure 7: Streetscape of Main Street from south of the Study Area, facing northeast.

Page 67 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Figure 8: View facing southeast toward the Study Area from the northeast corner of Doran Avenue and Ontario Street.

Figure 9: View facing southwest toward the Study Area from the southeast end of Doran Avenue.

Page 68 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Figure 10: View facing northeast of the Study Area from the south side of Main Street East.

Figure 11: View of the Study Area, facing northwest from the south side of Main Street East.

Page 69 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Figure 12: Panoramic view of the south portion of the Study Area from the southeast corner of 21 Main Street East.

Figure 13: Panoramic view of the south portion of the Study Area from the southeast corner of the Study Area.

Page 70 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Figure 14: Panoramic view of the north portion of the Study Area, facing south from north side of Doran Avenue.

Figure 15: Panoramic view south from the south boundary of the Study Area. 5.2 Built Environment The only structure within the Study Area is a single detached, single-storey and one-part commercial block built in concrete masonry units after 1950 at 21 Main Street East. It is currently used as a dance studio and divided into dance instruction rooms, seating areas, and change rooms. The interior of this structure was not investigated as part of this HIA, and the building is not considered by the Town to be of potential CHVI.

The Study Area is not directly adjacent to any heritage properties. However, there are eight properties within a 100-metre radius, two of which are protected heritage properties (5 to 11 Main Street East and 15 Main Street East; APPENDIX A), and one which is currently under consideration for designation as a protected heritage property (1 Main Street). These properties are summarized in Table 1 and mapped in Figure 16.

Page 71 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Table 1: Listed and designated properties within a 100 m radius of the Study Area

Civic Photograph Description CHVI Heritage Attributes Recognition Address Semi-detached related row, two- storey, and two-part commercial block constructed in  2-storey, 2-part brick polychromatic brick and stone, commercial block with: and with the short façade facing the street with minimal setback. . Ornate polychromatic Listed on the At the cornice of the flat roof is a brick cornice; Town’s List of Flemish bond corona in red and blackened brick with quarry faced . Second level window Properties 1) Design or physical value: The stone base, and corbelled brick openings with segmental building has design value as a Council forming dentils. A repeating arch heads and stone lug representative example of late diamond pattern using buff and sills; Believes to be 19th to early 20th century ‘main blackened brick forms the frieze. 3 Main street’ commercial architecture. of Cultural Segmental arches with stone 3) Contextual value: . Central ground level Street West keys and imposts and two orders Heritage Value The building has contextual value entrance with large of brick voussoirs form the heads since it supports the historic and transom; and, or Interest of the second level windows, and commercial character of all have quarry faced stone lug Under Section Grimsby’s downtown district. . Traditional storefronts with sills. recessed entrances 27(1.2) of the The ground level has a single-leaf flanked by large windows. side entrance with nearly square Ontario transom, while the two storefronts . Matched but slightly Heritage Act. on either side have recessed different facades in an doors flanked by display attached row windows. These storefronts are not symmetrical, and street-side masonry at this level is a veneer. Semi-detached related row, two- Listed on the storey, and two-part commercial  2-storey, 2-part brick block constructed in brick and commercial block with: Town’s List of situated on a corner with minimal 1) Design or physical value: The Properties Page 72 of 146 setback. On the hip roof are building has design value as a . Hip roof and prominent gabled dormers, while at the representative example of late Council th th dormers; eaves is a cornice with moulded 19 to early 20 century ‘main Believes to be fascia, soffit, and widely spaced street’ commercial architecture. 1 & 3 Main modillions or brackets. Window 3) Contextual value . Cornice with moulded of Cultural openings at the second level are fascia, soffit and Street East Heritage Value asymmetrically placed and have The building has contextual value modillions; and, segmental arch heads with buff since it supports the historic and or Interest brick keystones and shoulders, . Second level window and plain lug sills. At the ground commercial character of openings with segmental Under Section level are asymmetrical shop Grimsby’s downtown district. arch heads and plain lug 27(1.2) of the fronts with recessed doors, sills. display windows, and stucco and Ontario masonry veneer. Heritage Act.

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Civic Photograph Description CHVI Heritage Attributes Recognition Address 1) Design or physical value: The building’s physical value lies in the heritage red pressed brick with the Running Bond pattern and Victorian Era design that incorporates an end gable roof pattern and double chimneys and contributes to the vernacular of  2-storey, 2-part brick the Town. The keystones, commercial block with: voussoirs and chiselled window Intermediate unrelated row, two- sills enhance the decorative . Original red pressed storey, and two-part commercial value of the building and brickwork of the second- block constructed in brick and compliment buildings of the same storey; capped by a side gable roof with dates (ca. 1895-1905) that raised firewalls. At the projecting populate the downtown . Brick columns; eaves is a cornice with moulded commercial core of Grimsby. The facia and soffit, and plain soffit decorative brackets under the . Cornice on both the first with curvilinear brackets. This first and second storey cornices and second storey; Protected cornice is repeated at the top of add aesthetic value, and the the first level, with the exception carved rosettes add a historical heritage that here the fascia is also element to the Whittaker block. . Decorative brackets with rosette or medallion property moulded. Windows at the second 2) Historical or Associative value: carved details; 5-11 Main level have segmental arch heads one of the most recognizable designated with stone keystones and figures is Charles T. Farrell, Street East under Part IV of shoulders, and a single order of married into the Whittaker . Stone window sills; brick voussoirs. The lug sills are Family, a Mayor, and of course a the Ontario also stone and are plain. Lodge Master. The Whittaker . Keystone, voussoirs and Heritage Act At the first level are three Block was the meeting place of decorative end stones traditional store fronts with the Masonic Lodge, which adds (limestone or sandstone); (By-Law 13-80). recessed doors, mullioned another layer of historical and display windows, panelled stall associative value to the buildings . Transom window over the risers, and signboard fascia. as the Masons have been a apartment door of #9 Main There is also an off-centre single fundamental part of the Street East; Page 73 of 146 leaf entrance with transom. The community of Grimsby and building is known as Whittaker overall development of Ontario’s . End gable roof pattern; Block. history. There is associative and, value of the Mayor of Grimsby and of prominent citizens who worked or supported the . Two brick chimneys. Whittaker, Farrell, Robinson, Robertson, Farrow and Wells families. 3) Contextual value The building has contextual value for the wider connections to the Village and the Town of Grimsby.

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Civic Photograph Description CHVI Heritage Attributes Recognition Address This building is surmised to have been built before or around c.1914, which makes it a testament to commercial development in southern Ontario in the pre-war era. Architecturally, it connects to other small-town centres of trade and commerce, and links Grimsby to the broader history of Ontario in early 20th century. 1) Design or physical value: The building demonstrates physical value as a traditional late nineteenth century Main Street Commercial building and Fire  2-storey, 2-part brick Hall. The form and historical brick commercial/institutional block detailing of the building, the with: location of the now vanished fire End unit of unrelated row, two- tower, and height of the first- storey, and two-part . Arced window openings storey doors are all indicators of commercial/institutional block on upper front façade with the original and intended function constructed in brick and set back voussoirs; and contributes to the character from adjacent buildings. At the of Main Street. top of the flat roof is a brick . Corbelled brick parapet on 2) Historical or Associative cornice with dentils at the fascia upper front façade; Protected Value: the building has and on a lower string course. The heritage associational value as the second level windows have . Flemish Stretcher Bond property purpose-built home for the 15 Main segmental arch heads with single brickwork; designated Grimsby Fire Department in order of soldier brick voussoirs, under Part IV of Street East 1855, a use it served in until and plain stone lug sills. A the Ontario 1960. The building later served . Reproduction (2012) Fire minimal cornice with signboard Heritage Act as home to the Grimsby Police Hall doors; caps the ground level, which has (By-Law 14-30) Service and historical jail cells in Page 74 of 146 a single leaf door with transom and two sets of glazed and the rear of the building indicate . Reproduction (2012) 2/2 panelled double leaf doors. this historical function of the sash windows; building.

3) Contextual value: The building is known as the Old . Reproduction (2013) Fire Fire Hall. The building has contextual value Hall Signage; and, as it supports the historic Main Street character of downtown . Setback of building from Grimsby. The building’s location the street line. on Main Street at the terminus of Elm Street, place it in a landmark location for those travelling northbound on Elm Street towards Main Street.

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Civic Photograph Description CHVI Heritage Attributes Recognition Address Single detached, two-storey, residence constructed in red brick  2 storey brick Italianate in the Italianate style and set residence with: back a distance from Main Street East. Either side of the . Significant setback; Listed on the frontispiece with front gable and Town’s List of 1) Design or physical value: The oculus are two storey bays with Properties building has design value as a . Front gable frontispiece hip roofs and both these and the Council representative example of 19th with oculus; main hip roof have a cornice with Believes to be Italianate residential architecture. 43 Main moulded fascia, soffit, and of Cultural 3) Contextual value: modillion brackets. Prominent . Two, 2-storey front Heritage Value Street East buff coloured keystones are over The building has contextual value projecting bays; or Interest the segmental arch heads, and since it supports the historic and Under Section the oculus is also decorated with commercial character of . Hip roof with bracketed 27(1.2) of the buff brick and keys. In plan the Grimsby’s downtown district. cornice; and, Ontario main block is square, and a Heritage Act. storey and half wing with gable . Segmental arch head roof was added to the rear and windows with plain lug sills has short but segmental arch head windows with plain lug sills.  2-storey, 2-part brick commercial block with:

. Hip roof and prominent Listed on the 1) Design or physical value: The dormer; Town’s List of building has design value as a Properties Side façade of 1 & 3 Main Street representative example of late Council East with identical roof and . Cornice with moulded 19th to early 20th century ‘main Believes to be second level details but no fascia, soffit and 2 Ontario street’ commercial architecture. of Cultural storefronts. Much of the first level modillions; 3) Contextual value: Heritage Value Street has blind windows, and a stepped or Interest addition has been added to the The building has contextual value . Second level window Under Section north end wall. since it supports the historic and openings with segmental Page 75 of 146 commercial character of arch heads and plain lug 27(1.2) of the Grimsby’s downtown district. sills; and, Ontario Heritage Act. . First level with multiple blind windows.

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Civic Photograph Description CHVI Heritage Attributes Recognition Address Single-detached, storey and a half-gabled ell former residence (now commercial) built in brick in  1 ½ storey brick gabled ell the Gothic Revival style. On the residence (now commercial) Listed on the 1) Design or physical value: The side-gable roof of the ell is a with: Town’s List of building has design value as a steep cross gable with segmental Properties representative example of 19th arch headed window while the Council Gothic Revival residential . Steep cross gable; gable has projecting verges, Believes to be architecture within the downtown 3 Ontario symmetrically placed segmental of Cultural context. . Symmetrical fenestration arch head and plain lug sill Heritage Value Street 3) Contextual value: with segmental arch windows, and an off-centre or Interest The building has contextual value heads and plain lug sill entrance with sidelights. Both windows; and, Under Section gables have curvilinear since it supports the historic and 27(1.2) of the vergeboards. A flat roof addition commercial character of Ontario . Curvilinear vergeboards. has been added to the first level Grimsby’s downtown district. Heritage Act. of the ell and has an off-centre entrance and asymmetrical fenestration. Listed on the 1) Design or physical value: The 2-storey hipped roof residence Double semi-detached and  Town’s List of building has design value as a (now commercial) with: related two storey commercial Properties representative example of late building (possibly former Council 19th or early 20th century residence) with hip roof and . Second level balcony and Believes to be 4 & 6 residential architecture within the ground level storefronts. At the windows with segmental of Cultural downtown context. Ontario second level is a balcony with arch heads and plain lug Heritage Value 3) Contextual value: sills; and, Street doors and windows with or Interest segmental arch heads with single The building has contextual value Under Section order of soldier brick voussoirs. since it supports the historic and . Ground level storefronts. 27(1.2) of the commercial character of Ontario Grimsby’s downtown district. Heritage Act. Double semi-detached and related row one and a half storey Listed on the 1) Design or physical value: The 1 ½ storey brick gabled ell row gabled ell residences constructed  Town’s List of Page 76 of 146 building has design value as a housing with: in red brick. At the first level of Properties representative example of 19th the street facing gables are Council Gothic Revival residential projecting bays with bracketed . Projecting bays capped by Believes to be 8 & 10 architecture within the downtown cornices and segmental arch bracketed cornices; and, context. of Cultural Ontario head windows, and at the central Heritage Value 3) Contextual value: Street eaves are brackets. An open . Symmetrical fenestration or Interest porch covers the two central The building has contextual value with segmental arch head Under Section entrances and has an since it supports the historic and windows. 27(1.2) of the undecorated pediment on its commercial character of Ontario shed roof. Grimsby’s downtown district. Heritage Act.

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Civic Photograph Description CHVI Heritage Attributes Recognition Address  Commercial District with: . 19th and early 20th century Commercial architecture (1830 to 1950); 2) Historical or Associative Value: the area represents the . Red Brick architectural historical downtown commercial concentration at east and Identified in the centre of Grimsby. west ends of street; Town’s 3) Contextual value: the natural North and south sides of Main Grimsby’s backdrop to the District provided Street between Christie Street Special Places: Main Street by the Niagara Escarpment . Grimsby Sub-Shop early and Elm Street. The lands Significant Grimsby provides a rare scenic vista for a commercial architecture; See Figure 16 represent the historic commercial Cultural CHL downtown in the largely flat core of the Town of Grimsby, Heritage Golden Horseshoe. . Livingston House a unique Ontario. Landscapes in Approximately 80% of the pre- architectural landmark the Town of 1920 building stock exists along with turreted roof and Grimsby. Grimsby Main Street, providing garden in front; unique historical commercial ambiance in the vicinity. . Trees; and,

. Topography of the street – higher on the south side than the north.

2) Historical or Associative value: Residential District with: the area is the location of a 19th  century residential settlement that grew up around the Great . Great Western Railway Western Railway Station (built Station Building; 1853-54), said to be the oldest Identified in the wooden railway station in . Railway tracks; Town’s

Page 77 of 146 Canada. Many of the residential Grimsby’s Residential neighbourhoods in homes in the area today largely . Railway tunnel at Special Places: the vicinity of the Grimsby Great date from the late 19th and early Depot Elizabeth Street; Significant Western Railway Station along 20th century. See Figure 16 Cultural District CHL Ontario Street (formerly Depot th th 3) Contextual Value: The old . 19 and early 20 century Heritage Street). station building is a dominant Commercial Industrial Landscapes in landmark in the district, serving Cluster near the depot; the Town of historically as both a train station Grimsby. and a centre of the local fruit . 19th and early 20th century industry when the station was residences; displaced by a later station (destroyed 1994). Remnants of other local industries associated . Carnegie Library; with the railway continue to exist.

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Civic Photograph Description CHVI Heritage Attributes Recognition Address Another significant landmark is . Commercial buildings in the Carnegie Building, built in the the vicinity of Main Street; early 20th century which has been a civic landmark for over a century. . Residences along Adelaide Street and Elizabeth Street and Carnegie Lane;

. Doctor’s House – Centre of Medical life in Grimsby for half a century;

. Mature trees; and,

. Street alignment. Page 78 of 146

Page 79 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 Proposed Development As currently proposed, DeSantis intends to:  Demolish the commercial block at 21 Main Street; and,  Construct a mixed-use commercial/residential development with: . Four-storey, 92-residential unit block with south façade that steps back on the second-storey;

. 481 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor; and,

. 2 levels of underground parking and 34 space outdoor parking lot (APPENDIX B). 6.2 Assessment of Adverse Impacts When determining the effects a development or site alteration may have on known or identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, the MTCS Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process advises that the following direct and indirect adverse impacts be considered:  Direct impacts . Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features; and

. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance.  Indirect Impacts . Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;

. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship;

. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; or

. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces.

Other potential impacts associated with the undertaking may also be considered. Historic structures, particularly those built in masonry, are susceptible to damage from vibration caused by pavement breakers, plate compactors, utility excavations, and increased heavy vehicle travel in the immediate vicinity. There is no standard approach or threshold for assessing construction or traffic vibration impact to historic buildings but works within 60 m of a historic building is generally accepted to require precondition surveys, regular monitoring of the structures for visible signs of vibration damage, and traffic or construction separation (Carman et al. 2012:31). Like any structure, historic buildings are also threatened by collisions with heavy machinery or subsidence from utility line failures (Randl 2001:3-6).

Although the MTCS Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process identifies types of impact, it does not advise on how to describe the magnitude or severity, which is recommended in the MTCS Information Bulletin 3 (2017:6): ‘In order to make predictions about potential impacts, additional factors should be considered. Factors may include the scale or severity of impacts, whether they are to be temporary or permanent, reversible or

Page 80 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

irreversible, etc.’. This advice is continued in a yet unreleased October 2017 revision of the A Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (2017:61) that: ‘There may be negative impacts on cultural heritage resources before, during or after work has been completed. These impacts may be direct or indirect, temporary or permanent’. Impact assessment guidelines produced at the federal level also lack clear advice to illustrate the extent of each impact. In the absence of a Canadian source of guidance, the ranking provided in the UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11, HA 208/07 (2007: A6/11)2 is used here:  Major . Change to key historic building elements, such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting.  Moderate . Change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified.

. Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is significantly modified.  Minor . Change to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different.

. Change to the setting of an historic building, such that it is noticeably changed.  Negligible . Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly affect it.  No impact . No change to fabric or setting.

If adverse impacts are identified, the MTCS guidance suggests that mitigation be achieved through:  Alternative development approaches;  Isolating development and the site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas;  Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials;  Limiting height and density;  Allowing only compatible in-fill and additions;  Reversible alterations; and,  Buffer zones, site plan control, and other planning mechanisms. An assessment of impacts resulting from the proposed development on the property’s heritage attributes is presented in Table 2. Where an impact is identified, conservation measures are recommended.

2 This guidance provides a method for heritage impact assessments of road and bridge projects in both urban and rural contexts, and is the only assessment method to be published by a UK government department (Bond & Worthing 2016:167). Similar ranking systems have been adopted as best practice by agencies and groups across the world, such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS 2011), the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (Kalman 2014), and New Zealand Transport Agency (2015), all published after the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.

Page 81 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Table 2: Assessment of Direct and Indirect Adverse Impacts Predicted Adverse Impact without Recommended Predicted Type & Source of Adverse Heritage Attributes at mitigation Assessment Rationale Conservation/Mitigation Residual Adverse Rationale Impacts Risk of Impact (magnitude/reversibility/extent/duration/ Measures Impact and frequency) The only structure proposed Destruction of any, or part of for demolition or destruction any, significant heritage is 21 Main Street East, which See Assessment attributes, or features  None  No impact is not considered a built  None required  No impact Rationale.  Demolition of 21 Main heritage resource. Street East See Section 6.2.1 Design Compatibility Assessment – the proposed development is compatible with the historic fabric and appearance of surrounding properties in the Main Street Grimsby CHL, and the height meets that 3 Main Street West recommended in the Alteration that is not  1 & 3 Main Street Downtown Grimsby Design sympathetic or is  East Guidelines. Additionally, the incompatible, with the historic proposed development fabric and appearance.  5-11 Main Street meets the growth objectives See Assessment East No impact None required No impact  Addition of four-storey,  of both the Downtown Master   Rationale. 92-residential unit block  15 Main Street Plan and the Official Plan, within the Main Street East and the massing and design Grimsby CHL  Main Street of the proposed 4-storey Grimsby CHL development references historic architecture of surrounding areas yet, following the Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic

Page 82 of 146 Places (2010:132), does not replicate it.

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Predicted Adverse Impact without Recommended Predicted Type & Source of Adverse Heritage Attributes at mitigation Assessment Rationale Conservation/Mitigation Residual Adverse Rationale Impacts Risk of Impact (magnitude/reversibility/extent/duration/ Measures Impact and frequency)  3 Main Street West  1 & 3 Main Street East See analysis in Section 6.2.2  5-11 Main Street – only 15 Main Street East East and 3 Ontario Street are Shadows created that alter  Since the predicted  15 Main Street predicted to be affected by impact is expected the appearance of a heritage East Negligible Negligible attribute or change the  shadow at different times of to be negligible and  43 Main Street Irreversible the year. The proposed Irreversible viability of a natural feature or   the proposed height  See Assessment East height meets that plantings, such as a garden  Localized is within the  Localized Rationale. recommended in the recommended limits Addition of four-storey,  Main Street  Short  Short  Downtown Grimsby Design recommended, no 92-residential unit Grimsby CHL Recurring Recurring  Guidelines and is predicted mitigation measures  block.  2 Ontario Street 3 Ontario Street to result in a negligible are recommended  change to existing  4 & 6 Ontario conditions. Street  8 & 10 Ontario Street 3 Main Street West Isolation of a heritage  1 & 3 Main Street attribute from its surrounding  East Development in the Study environment, context or a Area will not isolate any significant relationship  5-11 Main Street surrounding heritage See Assessment East No impact None required N/A  Addition of four-storey,  properties from their   Rationale. 92-residential unit block  15 Main Street surrounding context or within the Main Street East significant relationship. Grimsby CHL  Main Street Grimsby CHL 3 Main Street West Direct or indirect  1 & 3 Main Street Development in the Study obstruction of significant  East Area will not directly nor views or vistas within, from, or indirectly obstruct any Page 83 of 146 of built and natural features  5-11 Main Street significant views or vistas See Assessment East No impact None required N/A  Addition of four-storey,  within the Main Street   Rationale. 92-residential unit block  15 Main Street Grimsby CHL or those to and within the Main Street East from surrounding heritage Grimsby CHL  Main Street properties. Grimsby CHL

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Predicted Adverse Impact without Recommended Predicted Type & Source of Adverse Heritage Attributes at mitigation Assessment Rationale Conservation/Mitigation Residual Adverse Rationale Impacts Risk of Impact (magnitude/reversibility/extent/duration/ Measures Impact and frequency) A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from The Study Area was open space to residential use, previous used for allowing new development or commercial and residential site alteration to fill in the purposes. It has been See Assessment formerly open spaces identified in the Downtown  None  No impact  None required  N/A Rationale.  Addition of a four- Master Plan and Official Plan storey mixed-use as an area for a mixed-use commercial/residential development and development with intensification. associated parking Land disturbances such as  3 Main Street West a change in grade that alters  1 & 3 Main Street soils, and drainage patterns East that may affect a cultural By implementing 5-11 Main Street standard heritage resource.  Heritage properties within a East drainage and Addition of a four- 60 m radius of the Study  15 Main Street Major  Monitor for vibration storey mixed-use   Area may be at risk from East Irreversible construction monitoring commercial/residential  vibration caused by heavy vibration that 43 Main Street Extensive No impact measures, no development with   equipment operation during exceeds guideline  East heritage associated parking Short site preparation and  limits (see Section attributes will be 2 Ontario Street Once construction (Carman et al.  Heavy equipment   8.0) at risk of damage 3 Ontario Street 2012:31). vibration from  from construction 4 & 6 Ontario demolition, new  vibration. building construction, Street and parking lot grading  8 & 10 Ontario and tamping Street Page 84 of 146

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

6.2.1 Design Compatibility Assessment To determine compatibility with the surrounding historic architecture, streetscape, and zoning, the proposed design for the Study Area was assessed for compatibility with the heritage elements of the Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines and informed for local context by field investigations. The results of this assessment are provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Assessment of the Proposed Development for Compatibility with the Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Assessment of Proposed Development

2.0 BUILDING FORM

Objectives (only applicable presented) 1. A low-rise profile form of development characteristic of a main street environment; 2. A consistent building-to-street edge throughout the Compatible. downtown; The proposed development meets the scale and 3. Creation of a continuous building façade wall that frames massing requirements identified by the Town and the street and facilitates a strong pedestrian environment; creates a continuous building façade wall with little 4. New buildings that match the scale and massing of the setback, which is consistent with surrounding historic main street environment; and, heritage properties. 5. Additions to existing buildings that complement the heritage character of the area. Character & Style Compatible. a) The building references surrounding heritage a) Use building styles for new buildings that reflect the historic structures through the use of red brick with buff character and theme of Downtown brick accents, voussoirs over semi-elliptical Grimsby and are a “main street” type with commercial or windows, has prominent bays to visually divide the similarly active uses on the ground floor. continuous wall, and has ‘main street’ type b) Provide additional design emphasis for buildings located at commercial use on the ground floor. street intersections, gateways or terminating views along b) As a potential gateway feature, the proposed visual corridors through façade treatments, architectural development has added design emphasis such as elements and materials appropriate for these locations. pillars, pilasters, and a setback upper storey façade. Scale and Proportions a) For infill development or additions to buildings within the Compatible. Core District, align architectural elements with those of the adjacent building to ensure visual continuity.  The proposed development aligns the first b) Clearly define the three façade zones on new buildings and and second storeys with surrounding additions to existing buildings through the use of horizontal heritage properties. A setback of the upper elements such as sign bands, cornices, and projections. storeys ensures visual prominence of the c) Design building widths to generally be between 7.5 and ground floor. 15.0 metres.

Page 85 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Assessment of Proposed Development d) For new buildings wider than 15.0 metres, include a  There is a balanced pattern of bays which symmetrical and balanced pattern of bays, defined by vertical are differentiated through a recessed main elements, to emphasize the individual units of the buildings. entrance and use of materials. e) Delineate bays with vertical elements, such as changes in materials, building projections, columns, or other vertical  The proposed development maximizes architectural elements. building frontage along the street. g) Design and situate new buildings to maximize the building frontage along the street, preferably  The proposed development is 4-storeys, 100% from side property line to side property, not including which meets the requirements of the Town any frontage required for pedestrian connections or vehicle and these design guidelines. access points. The third and fourth storeys along with some h) For infill development or additions to existing buildings  portions of the second storey are stepped within the heritage block, design the height to be no greater back from the ground floor to reduce shadow than one storey higher than the height of the tallest immediately adjacent building. impacts on the streetscape. i) For corner sites within the Core District, design building up to four storeys to punctuate and heighten these prominent locations. j) For development within the remainder of Downtown Grimsby, design buildings with a minimum height of two storeys and a maximum height of four storeys. k) Consider the use of stepping for upper storeys from the front building line for upper floors that may create undue shadowing impacts on the streetscape. m) Design the building with taller first floors (at least 4 metres) while still maintaining pedestrian scale. Orientation and Siting (only applicable presented) a) Orient all buildings parallel to the street right-of-way so that they frame and animate the street and strengthen the street edge’s definition. c) Site buildings as close to possible as the front property edge, ideally with a 0-metre setback, but no greater than 3.0 Compatible with all guidelines. metres. Arcades or colonnades are not desirable. d) Within the Core District, setback new buildings and changes Minimal setback is proposed for the development, to existing buildings to align with the established setback of which is aligned with surrounding heritage the immediately adjacent buildings. properties. Patio space and street trees are e) Use deeper setbacks for increased pedestrian access or proposed to activate the public realm. active outdoor use, such as a courtyard at-grade or patio space accessible from the inside of the building. f) Use any setback space between the street right-of-way edge (0 metre) and the building front (3.0 metres) for landscaped areas, amenity areas, seating opportunities, or display areas.

Page 86 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Assessment of Proposed Development

3.0 FAÇADES

Objectives (only applicable presented) 2. Articulated and visually interesting façades for new buildings; 3. New building façades that complement rather than replicate the heritage main street environment; Compatible. 4. All buildings, new and existing, to respect the proportions The proposed development creates visual interest and scale of heritage buildings in the (2), provides a complementary use of brick and area; classical elements rather than replication of 5. Building façades that contribute to creating an attractive, historic design (3), contributes to pedestrian pedestrian-oriented streetscape; and oriented streetscape (5), and with the key Key architectural principles for the composition of a façade for architectural principals. a building within a traditional main street: It is slightly larger in scale and proportion to other 1. Proportion: the ratio and relationship between the length heritage buildings in the area (4), however, it is and width of a façade. within the allowable height for the site as identified 2. Rhythm: the qualities that tie the façade into the whole. by the Town’s planning documents. 3. Scale: the elements that create a human-scaled form. 4. Balance: the arrangement of elements to create unity and individuality. Materials (only applicable presented) a) Use materials that are of high quality, durable, and easily maintainable. b) Ensure façade materials are complementary to one another and appropriate for the architectural style of the building. c) Limit the number of building façade materials, not including windows and door materials, generally to no more than 3 materials. d) For the side and rear elevations that are publicly visible, design in a similar fashion to the front elevation in terms of material use and treatment in relation to façade proportions Compatible with all guidelines. and horizontal and vertical divisions. Façade materials are complementary and not e) For new developments within the Core District, use excessive. Rear and side elevations use the same traditional materials that are natural and local, preferably material as Main Street façade. pressed brick but also natural rock/stone is acceptable. g) Use other materials on the façade only as accent materials to complement the base materials, which may include finished and painted wood trim, copper, or steel. h) Throughout the downtown, do not use the following as a base material: materials that mimic other materials (“faux” materials); aluminum, sheet metal, or other siding systems; non-local stone materials (i.e. marble, granite); or textured stucco.

Page 87 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Assessment of Proposed Development i) When multiple building materials are used, make a change in material at the point of a recession/projection along the façade, on the inside corners of the recession/project. Along a single, flat building wall, define the change in materials with a pronounced expansion joint. j) If using bricks, ensure they are unglazed, earth tone in colour, and in a horizontal orientation. Mortar any brick and stone veneer and wrap around corners to give an appearance of structural function to minimize a “veneer” appearance.

Colour a) Use colours that are muted and soft, as compared to bold and bright. If used, such colours should only be used as accent colors on façade elements, such as window and door frames, building trim, sign bands and lettering, and other Compatible with all guidelines. details. The proposed development uses neutral colours. b) Limit base colours to no more than two, preferably for

defining the vertical distinctions of the building (i.e. storefront versus upper storeys) if using more than one colour. c) Limit accent colours to two or three, selected to complement the base colours of the façade. d) When painting base materials, such as brick, if necessary use a matte finish for paint. Storefront Elements (only applicable presented) a) Design façades with a combination of traditional “main street” storefront elements, including display windows; window bases or “kickplates”; transom windows; and storefront cornices. c) Ensure at least 70 percent of the storefront zone is transparent surfaces, either storefront windows or doors, using opaque glass to provide clear views to and from the street and Compatible. allow natural surveillance opportunities. The proposed development incorporates floor-to- d) Do not use mirror, tinted or spandrel glass for any storefront ceiling storefront windows at the ground floor. windows or doors. e) Ensure that vertical framing elements, such as building

piers or columns, used on the storefront façade appear as “structural” elements for the upper storeys. f) Use recessed entrances and/or display windows, where desired, to accommodate outdoor sitting areas or display areas. g) Ensure the sides of recessed entrances have opaque surfaces to enhance comfort and visibility.

Page 88 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Assessment of Proposed Development

Awnings a) Limit the entire height of awnings to no more than two-thirds the depth of the awning and limit the front faces of awnings, the valance, to no more than 0.5 metres in height. b) Use awnings that are square or triangular in shape, rather than rounded or bubbled. Ensure all awnings on a building have a consistent pattern of size, shape, and placement. c) Mount awnings in the storefront zone of the façade, not in the upper façade zone. Ensure that awnings do not cover storefront display windows, piers, columns, pilasters, Compatible with all guidelines. clerestory windows, architectural expression lines or details. Square awnings are proposed above two of the d) Size awnings to span the façade’s window openings, and commercial spaces, along with the main entrance not span the entire façade from side-to-side. to the residential space. The residential awning is e) Use retractable awnings given they can accommodate to differentiated by colour, style and size to the different seasons and weather patterns. commercial awnings. f) Use fabric awning materials rather than synthetic materials,

such as plastic or metal. g) Design awnings with shapes and colors that are compatible with and complement those of the façade and its signage. Incorporate signage on awnings, where desired, in keeping with the design guidelines below in Section 6.3.2.3.6 (c). h) Use multiple awnings for larger building frontages rather than a single continuous awning. For multi-tenanted buildings use different colors and patterns to represent the different businesses in the building if desired. Upper Storey Windows (only applicable presented) a) Use transparent glass surfaces for upper storey windows. Do not use mirrored, tinted or spandrel glass for upper storey windows. b) Use windows that function and can open to encourage natural ventilation. d) Incorporate window openings that have distinct lintels and Compatible with most guidelines. Although sills to provide visual interest on the upper storeys. square, window openings of the upper storeys e) Orient upper storey window openings to have a vertical, have a predominately vertical orientation, and this rectangular orientation. For square or horizontal orientations is reinforced by the pane divisions. for window openings, use windows and windowpanes should have a vertical orientation. f) Recess upper storey windows into the wall surface to assist in articulating the facade and creating interesting shadow patterns.

Page 89 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Assessment of Proposed Development

Signage There are a number of sign types that are not appropriate, and thus discouraged, as part of existing and new buildings in Downtown Grimsby. These include • Pole mounted or pylon signs; • Billboards; • Inflatable or windblown signs; Compatible with all guidelines. • Signs that produce smoke or sound; No inappropriate sign types proposed. • Signs with animated or moving characters; • Changeable letter marquee signs; • Roof mounted signs; • Permanent sidewalk signs; or • Monument signs. Rooflines a) Design rooflines for infill development or additions to the existing buildings within the heritage block to match or complement existing roof lines in the area, either immediately adjacent or elsewhere on the block. b) Ensure roofline forms, slopes, details, materials, and overall design is compatible with the building’s overall style and character. c) Use a flat roof with a parapet or cornice or a sloped roof combined with a roof parapet as the preferred roofline style for Compatible with all guidelines. new development. Rooflines are flat to match existing heritage d) Ensure any gutters/downspouts match the trim or body buildings (a) and have a strong cornice (c, g). A color of the façade and are inconspicuously located. cornice of buff brick also defines the top of the e) Use appropriate roof materials that are durable and fit with storefront facades (g). Other elements do not the overall façade character. appear on the renderings (d, f, h) but are assumed f) Paint vent pipes that are publicly visible to match the color of will follow the guidelines. the roof to make them less conspicuous. g) Use a cornice or parapet to define the top of the facade. Coordinate roofline cornices with those distinguishing the storefront façade. h) Locate mechanical equipment and servicing away from the roofline edge, either the front, side or rear edges. Alternatively, screen such equipment with features, such as parapets, that complement and fit with the overall façade design. 4.0 SITE PLANNING

Objectives 1. Provision of a visually interesting and attractive interface Compatible with all guidelines. between buildings and the street The street edge incorporates varying setbacks to edge; provide visual interest and livens the streetscape

Page 90 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Assessment of Proposed Development 2. Inclusion of design treatments that are durable and easily through distinct commercial spaces and patio maintained; areas. 3. Incorporation of structural site elements that are in keeping with the character of the downtown; 4. A safe and secure pedestrian environment on a site for all users. 5. Incorporation of green treatments and activity that liven the streetscape; 6. Provision of appropriate transitions between properties within and outside the downtown; and 7. Minimization of the extent, visual appearance and impacts of parking and service areas. Parking (only applicable presented) a) Locate the parking for any new developments at the rear of the development and not between the front or side of a building and abutting public street right-of-way. b) Locate the access to an off-street surface parking lot from the secondary street, whenever possible, particularly where parking areas for individual properties can be coordinated. d) Coordinate parking areas across several properties, or within one larger property, as much as possible particularly Compatible with all guidelines. regarding access in order to limit the number of interruptions Parking is located to the rear of the building, with of the streetscape and public sidewalks. some open covered surface parking spaces. e) Divide larger off-street parking areas both visually and functionally into smaller parking areas through the use of use landscaped islands to minimize the visual extent of the paved area. f) Ensure pedestrian routes through off-street parking areas are safe, convenient and clearly demarcated. Ensure they are a similar size to a public sidewalk, are barrier-free, and are served by adjacent shade trees and pedestrian lighting. Service Areas and Equipment a) Locate building utility meters in less visible locations such as the rear of building, or screen them with an appropriate design that complements the overall façade building design. b) Locate service areas, including areas for loading/unloading Compatible with all guidelines. and garbage, in locations that are not directly visible from a Rooftop utility equipment will be screened on the public street, such as in the rear yard of building. roof. Garbage facilities will be located in the c) Coordinate and share service areas between buildings or underground parking space, which won’t be visible within developments as much possible to prevent disruptions from the public street. to vehicular or pedestrian flows. d) Ensure such service areas are screened appropriately, through landscape materials, fencing or building design, from

Page 91 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines Assessment of Proposed Development the views of adjacent properties or from the upper stories of the building to which they serve. e) Design any screening structures so that they complement the character form, materials, and colours of the building. f) Locate the accesses to service areas from secondary streets or the rear of buildings wherever possible to reduce the number of driveways on Main Street/Livingston Avenue. g) Site all rooftop equipment, such as HVAC equipment, so that they are setback from the roof edge and/or screened through roofline design elements.

6.2.2 Shadow Impact Assessment Despite including the criteria for shadow in its assessment guidance, the MTCS does not identify methods to measure this impact, nor provide advice on what are acceptable thresholds for heritage properties. Similarly, national guidance such as the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada does not address how to determine impact from shadow. Only recently has the subject been explored in other jurisdictions, notably by Historic England (2015) and the cities of Toronto (City of Toronto 2012) and London, UK (Mayor of London 2012), but these too do not offer any clear methods or measures, and the most widely used approach is to integrate the heritage assessment with more general shadow studies (Short 2007).

For the proposed development, a general shadow study was conducted by KNYMH Architecture Solutions Inc. (KNYMH 2018), who modelled a sample of days and hours in March, June, and December (APPENDIX C). From this it was possible to illustrate and estimate the percentage of new shadow effect on the surrounding designated or inventoried heritage properties. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 17.

Table 4: Results from analysis of the KNYMH Shadow Study for impacts to adjacent heritage properties Percentage of Simulated date Simulated time Impacted listed or listed or designated New shadow (from shadow (from shadow designated property of CHVI impact study) study) property of CHVI impacted by shadow (estimate) No impact – principal 15 Main Street East 100% façade already under shade No impact – principal 5-11 Main Street 9:30 AM 100% façade already under East shade March 21 1 & 3 Main Street Less than 5% No impact East 3 Main Street West 0% No impact No impact to 12:30 PM 15 Main Street East Less than 5% principal façade 3:30 PM No properties 0% No impact

Page 92 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Percentage of Simulated date Simulated time Impacted listed or listed or designated New shadow (from shadow (from shadow designated property of CHVI impact study) study) property of CHVI impacted by shadow (estimate) Negligible impact 9:30 AM 15 Main Street East Less than 5% to principal façade June 21 12:30 PM No properties 0% No impact 3:30 PM No properties 0% No impact No impact – will not 15 Main Street East 98% affect principal façade No impact – will not 5-11 Main Street 50% affect principal East façade No impact – will not 1 & 3 Main Street 50% affect principal East 9:30 AM façade December 21 No impact – principal 2 Ontario Street 100% façade already under shade Impact to principal 3 Ontario Street 100% façade No impact – principal 4 & 6 Ontario Street 100% façade already under shade 12:30 PM No properties 0% No impact 3:30 PM No properties 0% No impact

Page 93 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Page 94 of 146

Figure 17: Shadow impact analysis results.

May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

6.3 Summary of Results The preceding assessment has determined that the proposed development of the Study Area:  Has the potential to indirectly impact the heritage attributes of surrounding heritage properties and cultural heritage landscapes through construction vibration; and,  Will indirectly impact the heritage attributes of 15 Main Street East and 3 Ontario Street by casting shadow for short periods at certain points in the year. These adverse effects are not considered significant.

Page 95 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

7.0 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES As discussed in Section 3.0, the Study Area has been identified by the Town as an area for densification. The Official Plan (2016) states that moderate levels of redevelopment and intensification can and should be accommodated. Further, single family dwellings, single family duplexes and townhouses are prohibited, limiting housing options for the area. The proposed development provides retail uses at-grade and is built to the property line with parking located to the rear. As the proposed development is infill and will only require the demolition of one property that is not of cultural heritage value or interest, it will preserve and maintain the Downtown’s cultural heritage. The proposed development will introduce ninety-two (92) residential units to the downtown core of the Town, with twelve (12) of those being two-bedroom units. This will assist the Town in their objectives to provide a safe place to live, work and play within the downtown area.

The Downtown Master Plan (2009) identifies the Study Area as a potential site within the Downtown that could accommodate development or redevelopment. The Town drafted a potential redevelopment of the site which included a mixed-use development with surface parking at the rear, ground floor retail and upper floor residential units (Figure 18). The Town identified a timeframe for redevelopment of the site as 0 to 5 years. Although the time frame has been exceeded, the proposed development aligns with the Town’s vision for the site. The Main Street Grimsby Cultural Heritage Landscape key heritage attributes includes the trees, 19th and early 20th century commercial architecture, red brick architectural concentration at east and west ends of the street, and topography of the street (higher on the south side than the north). The proposed development will not adversely impact these heritage attributes as it is infill development.

In sum, the Study Area has been identified as a densification area by the Town for almost a decade. The Downtown Master Plan identified the study area as an Intensification Area, with a maximum height of 4-storeys. The Official Plan also identifies the study area as an area for redevelopment and intensification. The intent of the intensification areas is to provide a diverse mix of land uses that complement and support the overall residential intensification objective, which the proposed development achieves.

Page 96 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Figure 18: Town of Grimsby Downtown Master Plan Potential Form and Use for the Study Area (Town of Grimsby 2009:43)

Page 97 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

8.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the negligible level of impact predicted to result from shadow, no mitigation measures from that source are recommended. However, to mitigate the potential impact from construction vibration to heritage properties within 60 m of the Study Area, Golder recommends to:  Monitor for excessive vibration during construction . Continuous ground vibration monitoring should be carried out at the Study Area boundaries using a digital seismograph capable of measuring and recording ground vibration intensities in digital format in each of three (3) orthogonal directions. The instrument should also be equipped with a wireless cellular modem for remote access and transmission of data.

. The installed instrument should be programmed to record continuously, providing peak ground vibration levels at a specified time interval (e.g., 5 minutes) as well as waveform signatures of any ground vibrations exceeding a threshold level that would be determined during monitoring. The instrument should also be programmed to provide a warning should the peak ground vibration level exceed the guideline limits specified (such as 8.0 mm/s). In the event of either a threshold trigger or exceedance warning, data would be retrieved remotely and forward to designated recipients.

By monitoring vibration at the Study Area boundaries, any exceedance warnings will be received before any adverse effects from vibration will reach heritage properties in the immediate vicinity. 9.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT Based on historical and policy research, field investigation, and rigorous design and impact assessment, this HIA concludes that the proposed development at 21 Main Street East, 23 Main Street East, a vacant lot, and 6 Doran Avenue in the Town of Grimsby will:  Indirectly impact the heritage attributes of surrounding heritage properties and cultural heritage landscapes to a negligible degree.

Impact from shadow is predicted to effect 15 Main Street East and 3 Ontario Street for short periods at certain points in the year, and although there are no heritage properties adjacent to the development, a number are within 60 m and potentially at risk of impact from construction vibration. Golder therefore recommends to:  Monitor for construction vibration at the property boundaries and to stop work immediately if construction vibration exceeds accepted thresholds.

Page 98 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

10.0 REFERENCES Blumenson, John 1990 Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms, 1784 to Present. Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Toronto.

Bond, Stephen and Derek Worthing 2016 Managing Built Heritage: The Role of Cultural Heritage Values and Significance. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, UK.

Canada’s Historic Places 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa.

Carman, Richard A., Buehler, David, Mikesell, Stephen, and Carolyn L. Searls 2012 Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects. Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, ICF International, and Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger, Incorporated for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC. Clark, Kate 2001 Informed Conservation: Understanding Historic Buildings and their Landscapes for Conservation. English Heritage, London.

Chapman, Lyman John and Donald F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.

City of Toronto 2013 Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines. City of Toronto, Toronto.

City of Vaughan 2009Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan. City of Vaughan, Vaughan, Ontario.

Fram, Mark 2003 Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Third edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario.

Grimsby Historical Society (GHS) 1979 Once Upon a Little Town…. Compiled by Ada Bromley and Jean Powell. Edited by Phil Dechman. Grimsby Historical Society, Ontario.

Government of Ontario 2017 A Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Review Draft, October 2017. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. 2017 Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. 2017 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Toronto. 2014 Provincial Planning Statement 2014. Electronic document: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx 2014 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation – A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

Page 99 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Designating Heritage Properties: A Guide to Municipal Designation of Individual Properties Under the Ontario Heritage Act. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. 1990 The Planning Act. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13?search=planning+act 1990b Ontario Heritage Act. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18?search=heritage+act

Historic England 2011 Seeing the History in the View: A Method for Assessing Heritage Significance within Views. Historic England, London.

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 2013 Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter). ICOMOS Australia, Burwood, Victoria. 2011 Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. ICOMOS, Paris. 1983 Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment. ICOMOS Canada, Ottawa. 1965 International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). ICOMOS, Charenton-le-Point, France.

Kalman, Harold 2014 Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York.

Landscape Institute & Institute for Environmental Management & Assessment 2013 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition). Routledge, London.

Longstreth, Richard 1987 The Buildings of Main Street: A Guide to American Commercial Architecture. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington D.C.

Mayor of London 2012 London View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning Guidance. Greater London Authority, London.

New Zealand Transport Agency 2015 Historic Heritage Impact Assessment Guide for State Highway Projects. NZ Transport Agency, Wellington.

Niagara Region n.d. Online Mapping Navigator Tool. https://maps.niagararegion.ca/navigator/.

Page, H.R. 1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Lincoln & Welland Ont. H.R. Page, Toronto.

Powell, Janet 1955 Annals of the Forty, 1783-1818. No. 1. Grimsby Historical Society, Ontario. 1980 Annals of the Fort, Grimsby – 1816-1876. No. 10. Grimsby Historical Society, Ontario.

Powell, Janet and Barbara F. Coffman 1956 Lincoln County, 1856-1956. Lincoln County Council, St. Catharines.

Page 100 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Randl, Chad 2001 Temporary Protection No. 3: Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction. U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Service Cultural Resources Tech Notes. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech-notes/Tech-Notes-Protection03.pdf. Last Accessed: 20 November 2015.

Regional Municipality of Niagara 2014 Regional Official Plan. Electronic document: https://www.niagararegion.ca/living/icp/policy-plan.aspx

Short, Michael 2007 Assessing the impact of proposals for tall buildings on the built heritage: England’s regional cities in the 21st century. Progress in Planning 68:97-199.

Town of Grimsby 2009 Downtown Grimsby Downtown Master Plan. GSP Group Inc. and RCI Consulting. 2010 Downtown Grimsby Design Guidelines. GSP Group Inc. 2012 Town of Grimsby Official Plan. Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. and the Planning Partnership Ltd.

Turcote, Dorothy 1995 People & Places from Grimsby’s Past. Published by Dorothy Turcote. Ampersand Printing, Guelph.

UK Highways Agency 2007 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11, HA 208/07. The Stationary Office, London.

Page 101 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

Signature Page

Henry Cary, M.A., Ph.D., CAHP Andrew Mason, M.A. Cultural Heritage Specialist Principal and Cultural Heritage Specialist

HC/AM/ca

Page 102 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

APPENDIX A Designation By-Laws: 5-11 Main Street East (Whittaker Block) And 15 Main Street East (Old Fire Hall)

5 6

Page 103 of 146 The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby

By law- No. 13 80-

A By law- to designate the Whittaker Block, 5 11- Main Street East as a feature of historical, architectural and or/ contextual significance

Whereas pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.O. S.1990, Chapter 0.18, the Council of a municipality is authorized to enact by laws- to designate a real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

Whereas the municipal council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby has cause to be served on the owners of the lands and premises at: 5 11- Main Street East Grimsby, ON and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, notice of intention to designate the Whittaker Block at 5 11- Main Street East and a statement of the reasons for the proposed designation, and further, has caused said notice of intention to be published in the Grimsby Lincoln News, being a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality;

And whereas the reasons for designation and extent to which the designation applies are set out in Schedule "B"attached hereto and form part of this By law;-

Now therefore the Council of the Town of Grimsby enacts as follows:

1. That the following real property, more particularly described in Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part of this By law- is hereby designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest: The Whittaker Block 5 11- Main Street East Town of Grimsby The Regional Municipality of Niagara

2. That the Town solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this By law- to be registered against the property described in Schedule A"" attached hereto at the Land Registry Office.

Read a first time this 18 day of November, 2013.

Read a second and third time and finally passed this 18 day of November, 2013

R.N. Bentley, ayor d

i s Hazel Soady E- 1ston, Town Clerk

Page 104 of 146 Page 2 By law- 13 80-

Schedule A'` to By law- 13 80-

In the Town of Grimsby in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, property description as follows:

The Whittaker Block, LT 322, Corporation Plan 4; S/ T RO451938; GRIMSBY, municipally known as 5 11- Main Street East, Town of Grimsby, Regional Municipality of Niagara

Page 105 of 146 Page 3 By law- 13 80-

Schedule B'` to By law- 13 80-

Statement of significance and description of extent of the features to which the designation applies

Description of Property The subject property is located on the north side of Main Street East within the commercial core of the downtown. The property has the original brick building and includes the addresses 5 11- Main Street East.

Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The building at 5 11- Main Street East has design and physical value in the historic character of the building. The physical value lies in the heritage red pressed brick with the Running Bond pattern and Victorian Era design that incorporates an end gable roof pattern and double chimneys and contributes to the vernacular of the Town of Grimsby. The keystones, voussoirs, and chiselled window sills enhance the decorative value of the building and compliment buildings of the same dates (circa 1895 1905)- that populate the downtown commercial core of Grimsby. Also, the decorative brackets under the first and second storey cornices add aesthetic value, and the carved rosettes add a historical element of design to the Whittaker Block.

The building at 5 11- Main Street East has historical and associative value for the individuals correlating to its history. One of the most recognizable figures is Charles T. Farrell, married into the Whittaker Family, a Mayor, and of course a Lodge Master. Born in Grimsby in 1870 he was also a shoe merchant like Samuel Whittaker. C. T.Farrell was also the Reeve of the Town of Grimsby from 1917 1920- and was the Mayor for 1922 and 1923.

The Whittaker Block was the meeting place of the Masonic Lodge, which adds another layer of historical and associative value to the building as the Masons lave been a fundamental part of the community of Grimsby as well as the Development of our Ontario history. There is also the associative value of the Mayor of Grimsby and of prominent citizens who worked or supported the Whittaker, Farrell, Robinson, Robertson, Farrow, and Wells families in 5 11- Main Street East.

The building at 5 11- Main Street West has contextual value for the wider connections to the Village and Town of Grimsby. This building is surmised to have been built before or around c. 1914, which makes it a testament to commercial development in Southern Ontario in the pre war- era. Architecturally, it connects to other small town centres of trade and commerce, and links Grimsby to the broader history of Ontario in the early twentieth century.

Heritage Attributes The following architectural attributes have been determined to contribute to the Zeritage value of the front facade of the building and constitute part of the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for 5 11- Main Street East: The original red pressed brickwork of the second storey Running( Bond pattern); Brick columns; Cornice on both the first and second storey; Decorative brackets with rosette or medallion carved details; Stone window sills;

Page 106 of 146 Page 4 By law- 13 80-

Keystone, Voussoirs and decorative End Stones Limestone or Sandstone); Transom Window over the apartment door of 9# Main Street East; End gable roof pattern; and The two brick chimneys.

Page 107 of 146 The Corporation of the Town of Grimsby

By law- No. 14 30-

A By law- to designate the Old Fire Hall, 15 Main Street East as a feature of historical, architectural and or/ contextual significance.

Whereas pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.O.S. 1990, Chapter 0.18, the Council of a municipality is authorized to enact by laws- to designate a real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

And whereas the municipal council of the Corporation of the Town of Grimsby has cause to be served on the owners of the lands and premises at: 15 Main Street East Grimsby, ON

and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, notice of intention to designate the Old Fire Hall at 15 Main Street East and a statement of the reasons for the proposed designation, and further, has caused said notice of intention to be published in the Grimsby Lincoln News, being a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality;

And whereas the reasons for designation and extent to which the designation applies are set out in Schedule B"` attached hereto and form part of this By- law.

Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of the Town of Grimsby enacts as follows: 1. That the following real property, more particularly described in Schedule A"attached hereto and forming part of this By law- is hereby designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest: The Old Fire Hall 15 Main Street East Town of Grimsby The Regional Municipality of Niagara

2. THAT the Town solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this By- law to be registered against the property described in Schedule "A" attached hereto at the Land Registry Office.

Read a first time this 7 day of April 2014.

Read a second and third time and finally passed this 7 day ofApril 2014.

7 R.N. Bentle , Mayor 14 H. Soady East- r n, Town Clerk

Page 108 of 146 Schedule `A' to By law- 14 30-

In the Town of Grimsby in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, property description as follows:

The Old Fire Hall, LT 321, Corporation Plan 4; GRIMSBY, municipally known as 15 Main Street East, Town of Grimsby, Regional Municipality of Niagara

Page 109 of 146 Schedule `B' to By law- 14 30- Statement of Significance And Description of extent of the features To which the designation applies

Description of Property The subject property is located on the north side of Main Street East in the Downtown commercial core of Grimsby. The original brick building on the property is the former Police and Fire Building in Grimsby.

Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The Grimsby Fire and Police Station Building demonstrates physical value as a traditional late nineteenth century Main Street Commercial building and Fire Hall. The building was purpose built to be a fire hall. The form and historical brick detailing of the building, the location of the now vanished fire tower, and height of the first storey doors are all indicators of the original and intended function of the building. The building contributes to the character of the historic commercial Main Street.

The Grimsby Fire and Police Station Building has associational value as the purpose built home for the Grimsby Fire Department in 1885, a use it served in until 1960. The building was an important civic building in the small village of Grimsby. The building later served as the home of the Grimsby Police Service and the historical jail cells in the rear of the building indicate this historical function of the building.

The Grimsby Fire and Police Station Building has contextual value as it supports the historic Main Street Character of downtown Grimsby. The building's location on Main Street at the terminus of Elm Street, place it in a landmark location for those travelling northbound on Elm Street towards Main Street.

Heritage Attributes The following architectural attributes have been determined to contribute to the heritage value of the building and constitute part of the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for 15 Main Street East:

Arced window openings on upper front facade with voussoirs; Corbelled brick parapet on upper front facade; Flemish Stretcher Bond brickwork; Reproduction (2012)Fire Hall doors; Reproduction (2012)2/2 sash windows; Reproduction (2013)Fire Hall Signage; and Setback of building from the street line.

Page 110 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

APPENDIX B Plans, Elevations & Renderings of Proposed Development in the Study Area (courtesy Homes By DeSantis & IBI Group)

Page 111 of 146 Page 112 of 146 CONTRACTOR MUST CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND JOB CONDITIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK

ALL DRAWINGS MAY BE TO BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO COMMENTS FROM MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES WITH AUTHOURITY

ALL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECTS AND MUST BE RETURNED AT THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK

THE CONTRACTOR WORKING FROM DRAWINGS NOT SPECIFICALLY MARKED "FOR CONSTRUCTION" MUST ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY AND BEAR COSTS FOR ANY CORRECTIONS OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM HIS OR HER WORK. KEY TO DETAIL LOCATION 900 NOTE: 600 No. DETAIL NUMBER 107000 EIFS SYSTEM IS TO BE A RAIN SCREEN SYSTEM COMPLETE WITH 150 DRAWING SHEET NUMBER T/O ROOF CONTINUOUS VERTICAL DRAINAGE CHANNELS. EIFS SUPPLIER / No. 675 INSTALLER TO PROVIDE DETAILED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. EIFS SUPPLIER TO PROVIDE ONSITE INSPECTIONS 106325 OF THE EIFS INSTALLATION AT REGULAR INTERVALS TO ENSURE U/S TRUSS COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATION & SHOP DRAWINGS. INSPECTION DATE REPORTS ARE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDER & ARCHITECT DRAWING SETS ISSUED No. (DD,MM,YY) BY CONTROL JOINTS IN STUCCO AS PER STUCCO SUPPLIER SHOP

3050 ISSUED FOR ZONING 1. 26,10,17 MB DRAWINGS REISSUED FOR ZONING 2. 04,05,18 MB

103275 4th FLOOR

NOTES:

ALL GUARDS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.B.C. 2006.

3175 MANUFACTURER/SUPPLIER TO PROVIDE ENGINEERED STAMPED SHOP DRAWINGS COMPLETE WITH MOUNTING DETAILS.

GUARDS SHALL COMPLY WITH O.B.C. 3.3.1.17, 3.4.6.5 AND 4.1.10 100100 3rd FLOOR GUARDS SHALL COMPLY WITH O.B.C. 4.3.6

15000 ALL GLASS IN GUARDS TO COMPLY WITH O.B.C. SB-13

GLAZING LOCATED 1070 OR LESS ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AND MORE

3175 THAN 600mm ABOVE GRADE SHALL BE DESIGNED AS A GUARD AND SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.B.C.

ALL WINDOWS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.B.C. 2006 96925 ARTICLE 3.7.2.2. PROTECTION OF WINDOWS IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS. 2nd FLOOR WINDOW SUPPLER TO PROVIDE ENGINEERED STAMPED DRAWINGS FOR ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OF THIS DRAWING ARE SUPERSEDED REVIEW

ALL DOOR AND WINDOW FRAMES AND SASHES TO MEET THE DATE REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.B.C. 2006 ARTICLE 3.1.5.4. COMBUSTIBLE GLAZING AND SKYLIGHTS. No (DD,MM,YY REVISIONS TO DRAWING . )BY REFER TO NOISE IMPACT STUDY FOR ADDITIONAL GLAZING 4925 REQUIREMENTS N ENSURE CO-ORDINATION WITH MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR EXHAUST WALL BOX LOCATIONS WITHIN ALUMINUM SCREENS IO ALL SPANDREL GLASS PANELS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM R-VALUE OF R-8 T 92000 C/W METAL BACK PAN 1st FLOOR MAIN DOOR AND WINDOW LOCATIONS, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS AND BUILDING T FOR MATERIALS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON FINAL BUILDING LAYOUT, AND UC SHOWN FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. O R N T NS 1 SOUTH ELEVATION O A400 1 : 100 C BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: NOT FOR CONSTUCTION W/O PERMIT

110745 MECHANICAL ROOF

A R C H I T E C T U R E • S O L U T I O N S

107150 K N Y M H I N C. MAIN ROOF 1006 SKYVIEW DRIVE • SUITE 101 PARAPET BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 107000 T/O ROOF T 905.639.6595 F 905.639.0394 106325 U/S TRUSS www.knymh.com [email protected]

ASSOC RIO IA A T T OF IO 103275 N N 4th FLOOR O ARCHITECTS

PRZEMYSLAW MYSZKOWSKI LICENCE 7984

100100 3rd FLOOR HOMES BY DeSANTIS

96925 2nd FLOOR LEGEND CENTRUY CONDOS GL GLAZING PANEL

SP SPANDREL PANEL 93750 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, 1st FLOOR WING ONTARIO S1 92650 STUCCO COLOUR LIGHT 1st FLOOR DRAWING SHEET RESIDENTIAL92000 TITLE: 1st FLOOR MAIN S2 STUCCO COLOUR DARK

AR ALUMINUM RAILING W/ GLASS ELEVATIONS C:\Revit Local\DORAN 4 renaissance_marcb.rvt Local\DORAN C:\Revit STN STONE 88900 PARKING LEVEL DRAWING PROJECT NUMBER: FILEPATH: Page 113 of146 BR SCALE: BRICK As indicated 88400 17010 DORAN ENTRY

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWING SHEET Author Checker NUMBER:

DRAWING 2 NORTH ELEVATION VERSION: 2018-05-04 1:01:52 2018-05-04 PM A400 1 : 100 A400 PLOT DATE: 2018 04 05 TIMESTAMP: CONTRACTOR MUST CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND JOB CONDITIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK

ALL DRAWINGS MAY BE TO BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO COMMENTS 107150 FROM MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES WITH MAIN ROOF AUTHOURITY PARAPET ALL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE 107000 ARCHITECTS AND MUST BE RETURNED AT THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK T/O ROOF 150

675 THE CONTRACTOR WORKING FROM DRAWINGS NOT SPECIFICALLY MARKED "FOR CONSTRUCTION" MUST ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY AND 106325 BEAR COSTS FOR ANY CORRECTIONS OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM HIS U/S TRUSS OR HER WORK. KEY TO DETAIL LOCATION 3050

DETAIL NUMBER 103275 No. 4th FLOOR No. DRAWING SHEET NUMBER

3175 DATE DRAWING SETS ISSUED No. (DD,MM,YY) BY 100100 ISSUED FOR ZONING 1. 26,10,17 MB 3rd FLOOR REISSUED FOR ZONING 2. 04,05,18 MB 3175

96925 2nd FLOOR 4925 93750 1st FLOOR WING

92000 1st FLOOR MAIN

ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OF THIS DRAWING ARE SUPERSEDED

88900 DATE PARKING LEVEL No (DD,MM,YY 88400 REVISIONS TO DRAWING . )BY DORAN ENTRY N 2 EAST ELEVATION IO A401 1 : 125 T T FOR O UC 107150 R MAIN ROOF PARAPET N T

150675 107000 T/O ROOF NS 106325 U/S TRUSS O

3050 C BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: 103275 4th FLOOR NOT FOR CONSTUCTION W/O PERMIT 3175

100100 3rd FLOOR 15000

3175 A R C H I T E C T U R E • S O L U T I O N S

96925 2nd FLOOR K N Y M H I N C. 1006 SKYVIEW DRIVE • SUITE 101 BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 3175 T 905.639.6595

93750 F 905.639.0394 1st FLOOR WING www.knymh.com [email protected] 1100650 92650 1st FLOOR RESIDENTIAL ASSOC 92000 RIO IA 1st FLOOR MAIN A T T OF IO

N N

O ARCHITECTS

88900 PARKING88400 LEVEL PRZEMYSLAW MYSZKOWSKI DORAN ENTRY LICENCE 7984

3 WEST ELEVATION A401 1 : 125 HOMES BY DeSANTIS

NOTES:

ALL GUARDS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.B.C. 2006. MANUFACTURER/SUPPLIER TO PROVIDE ENGINEERED STAMPED SHOP DRAWINGS COMPLETE WITH MOUNTING DETAILS. CENTRUY CONDOS

GUARDS SHALL COMPLY WITH O.B.C. 3.3.1.17, 3.4.6.5 AND 4.1.10 LEGEND

GUARDS SHALL COMPLY WITH O.B.C. 4.3.6 GL 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ALL GLASS IN GUARDS TO COMPLY WITH O.B.C. SB-13 GLAZING PANEL ONTARIO GLAZING LOCATED 1070 OR LESS ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AND MORE THAN 600mm ABOVE GRADE SHALL BE DESIGNED AS A GUARD AND SHALL SP SPANDREL PANEL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.B.C. DRAWING SHEET TITLE: ALL WINDOWS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.B.C. 2006 S1 ARTICLE 3.7.2.2. PROTECTION OF WINDOWS IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS. STUCCO COLOUR LIGHT WINDOW SUPPLER TO PROVIDE ENGINEERED STAMPED DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW ELEVATIONS S2 STUCCO COLOUR DARK ALL DOOR AND WINDOW FRAMES AND SASHES TO MEET THE

C:\Revit Local\DORAN 4 renaissance_marcb.rvt Local\DORAN C:\Revit REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.B.C. 2006 ARTICLE 3.1.5.4. COMBUSTIBLE GLAZING AND SKYLIGHTS. AR NOTE: ALUMINUM RAILING W/ GLASS REFER TO NOISE IMPACT STUDY FOR ADDITIONAL GLAZING DRAWING PROJECT NUMBER: FILEPATH:

Page 114 of146 EIFS SYSTEM IS TO BE A RAIN SCREEN SYSTEM COMPLETE WITH REQUIREMENTS SCALE: CONTINUOUS VERTICAL DRAINAGE CHANNELS. EIFS SUPPLIER / STN STONE As indicated INSTALLER TO PROVIDE DETAILED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW PRIOR ENSURE CO-ORDINATION WITH MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR EXHAUST 17010 TO STARTING WORK. EIFS SUPPLIER TO PROVIDE ONSITE INSPECTIONS WALL BOX LOCATIONS WITHIN ALUMINUM SCREENS OF THE EIFS INSTALLATION AT REGULAR INTERVALS TO ENSURE BR COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATION & SHOP DRAWINGS. INSPECTION ALL SPANDREL GLASS PANELS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM R-VALUE OF R-8 BRICK DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWING SHEET REPORTS ARE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDER & ARCHITECT C/W METAL BACK PAN Checker NUMBER: CONTROL JOINTS IN STUCCO AS PER STUCCO SUPPLIER SHOP DRAWINGS DOOR AND WINDOW LOCATIONS, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS AND BUILDING DRAWING MATERIALS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON FINAL BUILDING LAYOUT, AND VERSION: 2018-05-04 1:02:06 2018-05-04 PM SHOWN FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. A401 PLOT DATE: 2018 04 05 TIMESTAMP: Page 115 of146

K N Y M H I N C. CENTURY CONDO DORAN AVE 1006 SKYVIEW DRIVE • SUITE 101 BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 HOMES BY DESANTIS T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com GRIMSBY, ON Page 116 of 146 Page 117 of 146 May 9, 2018 1784554-R02

APPENDIX C Shadow Impact Analysis, courtesy KNYMH Inc.

Page 118 of 146

SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4 Storey Condominium 21 & 23 MAIN ST W Grimsby, Ontario

KNYMH FILE # 17010

Prepared by: Marc Begin KNYMH INC.

May 4, 2018

Page 119 of 146 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS KNYMH FILE # 17010

Prepared by: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT KNYMH INC. 4 Storey Condominium Marc Begin 21 & 23 Main St W Grimsby, Ontario May 4, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE NO:

1.0 PURPOSE 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES 1

3.0 METHOD OF ANALYSIS 2

4.0 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3 4.1 WINTER SHADOWS (Dec. 21) 3 4.2 SPRING / FALL SHADOWS (Mar. 21) 4 4.3 SUMMER SHADOWS (June 21) 4

5.0 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 5

6.0 SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS REGARDING IMPACT OF 6 DEVELOPMENT UPON THE SURROUNDING AREA

7.0 APPENDIX “B” – SHADOW DIAGRAMS 7 FOR THE STUDY PERIODS 7.03.21.0930 to 7.03.21.1530 SPRING SHADOWS 8-10 7.06.21.0930 to 7.06.21.1530 SUMMER SHADOWS 11-13 7.12.21.0930 to 7.12.21.1530 WINTER SHADOWS 14-16

8.0 CONTEXT PLAN 17

KNYMH INC. – 1006 Skyview Drive, Burlington Ontario L7P 0V1 P: 905-639-6595 / F:905-639-0394 / E: [email protected] Page 120 of 146 KNYMH FILE # 17010

Prepared by: KNYMH INC. Marc Begin

SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS May 4, 2018

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 21 & 23 Main St W Grimsby, Ontario

1.0 PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to analyse the impact of a proposed development upon the adjacent properties, streets, and public spaces at the above noted location. We will discuss and comment upon the impact of the massing of the proposed development upon the adjacent properties using a computer generated model for analysis of the proposed 4 storey building with a flat roof and a rooftop mechanical room which includes the rooftop building service equipment.

We have provided shadow graphics along with a context plan and Satellite imagery of the surrounding area.

The property is located in Grimsby Ontario, on the North side of Main Street West.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES:

The Subject Property: (See Diagram in Section 8.0)

The subject property is zoned as “DMS – Downtown Main Street Zone

The subject land has a grade variance lowering from the Southeast corner to the Southwest corner as well as grade difference lowering from South to North and neighboring parcels generally appear to be uniform in grade. For the purpose of this analysis the proposed development and adjacent properties are represented at the same elevation as is the situation along the North property line adjoining the adjacent property (worst case represented).

Neighbouring properties include:

2.1) TO THE WEST: The property abuts a 1 storey restaurant and 2 storey single dwelling that is currently zoned DMS. Additional Residential property to the west

2.2) TO THE NORTH: The property abuts Doran Avenue. Across the road are 2 storey single dwelling that are currently zoned Transitional Residential Multiple (TRM)

2.3) TO THE SOUTH: The property abuts Main Street West. Across the road is currently single storey commercial uses (bank, restaurant).

2.4) TO THE EAST: The property abuts a single storey law office and a school.

KNYMH INC. – 1006 Skyview, Suite 101, Burlington, Ontario L7P 0V1 1 P: 905-639-6595 / F:905-639-0394 / E: [email protected] Page 121 of 146 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS for 4 Storey Residential Building at 21 & 23 Main St W, Grimsby, Ontario. KNYMH File # 17010

3.0 METHOD OF ANALYSIS:

The method of analysis will be a discussion of the impact the development of the 4 storey residential building fronting Main St W has on the adjacent properties and the public realm. The summary is within Section 6.0.

The graphic analysis which we present within this report is developed using a computer generated modelling program in conjunction with satellite imagery and survey information.

Geographic Coordinates: Latitude 43.19 North, Longitude 79.56 West Standard Time: UTC -5:00 Daylight Savings Time: UTC -4:00 Test Dates: March 21, June 21, and December 21 Test Times: 930am, 1230pm, and 330pm

The diagrams enclosed illustrate shadow patterns for 3 times of day on 3 specific days of the year, which reflect the solstice through the 4 seasons of the year. Generally speaking the analysis of the shadow diagrams identifies the typical shadows, which are cast in a Spring / Fall, Summer and Winter periods.

The following analysis of the shadow plans will discuss the shadow pattern for each of the dates and times and will identify characteristics of those shadows and the anticipated impact upon the immediate site and neighbouring sites with specific concern for amenity spaces and predominantly pedestrian utilized areas which may be impacted by the proposed development.

KNYMH INC. – 1006 Skyview, Suite 101, Burlington, Ontario L7P 0V1 2 P: 905-639-6595 / F:905-639-0394 / E: [email protected]

Page 122 of 146 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS for 4 Storey Residential Building at 21 & 23 Main St W, Grimsby, Ontario. KNYMH File # 17010

4.0 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

4.1 WINTER SHADOWS: (DECEMBER 21 • Diagrams 7.12.21.930 through 7.12.21.1530)

The next section provides a summary of the Winter shadow effect of the subject property upon the surrounding area. This commentary will discuss the impact of the 4 storey residential apartment building shadows upon properties at the north, and west side of the subject property.

It should be noted that Winter Shadows are the “longest” in terms of the shadow length due to a very low sun angle, but shadows are present for the shortest period of time (hours in the day) due to very short days this time of year. The times for this period are under Eastern Standard Time (UTC -5:00).

4.1A 9:30am (Diagram 7.12.21.0930) The morning sun in winter rotates approximately 116-degrees from east to west in approximately 9-hours at this time of year. At this time the sun has an altitude angle of 13.167degrees.

• The shadow falls across the commercial properties and parking areas to the West and crosses to the commercial property West of Ontario St • Majority of the rear yards of the adjacent residential properties 2 and 4 Doran Ave are in shadow as well as the mixed use buildings south of the Doran Ave / Ontario St intersection

4.1B 12:00pm (Diagram 7.12.21.1200) The noontime sun in winter is still relatively low (23.26-degrees) in the sky and is located directly south of the subject property.

• Majority of the rear yards of the adjacent residential properties 2 and 4 Doran Ave are in shadow • Shadow is crossing Doran Ave onto the front yards of 3 and 5 Doran Ave • The shadow is also over the commercial property and parking lot to the West.

4.1C 3:30pm (Diagram 7.12.21.1530) The afternoon sun in winter is starting to descend and is 9.92 degrees above the horizon.

• The shadow by this time of day falls onto the backyards of the single family property 4 Doran Ave to the Northwest and extends over the buildings and to the rear yards of the properties across Doran Ave. It is to be noted that the buildings on these properties are already casting full shadow onto their rear yards.

KNYMH INC. – 1006 Skyview, Suite 101, Burlington, Ontario L7P 0V1 3 P: 905-639-6595 / F:905-639-0394 / E: [email protected]

Page 123 of 146 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS for 4 Storey Residential Building at 21 & 23 Main St W, Grimsby, Ontario. KNYMH File # 17010

4.2 SPRING & FALL EQUINOX SHADOWS: (MARCH 21 • Diagrams 7.03.21.930 through 7.03.21.1530)

A summary of the Spring and Fall shadow effect on the subject property and surrounding area is following. It should be noted that the Fall and Spring are the “moderate” in terms of the annual shadows. The times for this period are under Eastern Daylight Time.

4.2A 9:30am (Diagram 7.03.21.930) The morning sun in spring / fall rotates approximately 183-degrees from east to west in 12- hours. It is low in the sky rising to approximately 22.5-degrees at this time of day.

• The shadow falls across the commercial properties and parking areas to the West stopping short of Ontario St • North sidewalk of Main St is in shadow, however shadow does not extend to south sidewalk. • Majority of the rear yards of the adjacent residential properties 2 and 4 Doran are in shadow

4.2B 12:30pm (Diagram 7.03.21.1200) The noontime sun in spring / fall is higher (approximately 43.23-degrees) in the sky and originates from near-south.

• The shadow by this time of day falls onto the east third of the backyard of the adjacent residential property 4 Doran • The shadow is over the commercial property and parking lot to the West.

4.2C 3:30pm (Diagram 7.03.21.1200) The afternoon sun in spring / fall is past its peak. It is approximately 39.07-degrees above the horizon and the shadows are still short at this time of day.

• The shadow falls into a portion of the rear yard of the adjacent residential use 4 Doran Ave • Shadow crosses North over Doran Ave to the front yard of the Residential property 5 Doran Ave

4.3 SUMMER SOLSTICE SHADOWS: (JUNE 21 • Diagrams 7.06.21.930 through 7.06.21.1530)

A summary of the Summer Shadow affect is as follows. At this day the solar altitude is at a maximum; Shadows are minor and stay short, falling on to Main Street and the east and west commercial properties. The times for this period are under Eastern Daylight Time.

4.3A 9:30am (Diagram 7.06.21.930) The morning sun is rising and already at 39.15 degrees at this time. The sun will rotate almost 248 degrees in the sky on this day over fourteen and a half hours. KNYMH INC. – 1006 Skyview, Suite 101, Burlington, Ontario L7P 0V1 4 P: 905-639-6595 / F:905-639-0394 / E: [email protected]

Page 124 of 146 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS for 4 Storey Residential Building at 21 & 23 Main St W, Grimsby, Ontario. KNYMH File # 17010

• The shadow falls across the commercial properties to the West and onto Main St but does not extend to the south side of Main St. • The east half of the rear yard of 4 Doran Ave is in shadow

4.3B 12:30pm (Diagram 7.06.21.1230) The noontime sun in summer is high in the sky (64.25-degrees) originating from the south at this time. • The shadow falls only onto the commercial building and parking lot to the West.

4.3C 3:30pm (Diagram 7.06.21.1530) The afternoon sun in summer has begun descending and is still at about 56.78 degrees altitude. The sun appears to be shining from the southwest.

• The shadow mostly falls mostly onto the subject property • The shadow falls marginally on the commercial property to the east • Shadow will fall onto the south sidewalk of Doran Ave

5.0 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: REGARDING THE 4 STOREY DEVELOPMENT

5.1 The shadows cast from this proposed Apartment building are largest in the Winter.

• Shadows regularly fall on the adjacent commercial properties to the West. • Shadows regularly fall on the adjacent single family properties 2 and 4 Doran to the Northwest • Later in the day, long shadow is cast over neighbouring residential properties across Doran Ave to the North.

5.2 The major shadow affect in Spring and Fall is as follows:

• The adjacent commercial buildings to the west and Main St will be affected by shadows in the morning but will be cleared of shadows by early afternoon. • Shadow will fall mainly on the subject property and the backyard of the adjacent single family properties to the Northwest in the morning and early afternoon. Shadow clears the majority of the yard by 2pm. • Late afternoon shadow will cross Doran avenue to the front yards of the properties across Doran • The adjacent properties to the east and south are unaffected.

5.3 The major shadow affect in Summer is as follows:

• The adjacent buildings to the west and Main St will be affected by shadows in the morning but will be cleared of shadows before noon. • The adjacent properties to the north, east and south are unaffected. • Shadow mostly falls on subject property throughout the afternoon with a small shadow on the commercial property to the east without much impact. • Shadows are very short throughout the whole study period. KNYMH INC. – 1006 Skyview, Suite 101, Burlington, Ontario L7P 0V1 5 P: 905-639-6595 / F:905-639-0394 / E: [email protected]

Page 125 of 146 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS for 4 Storey Residential Building at 21 & 23 Main St W, Grimsby, Ontario. KNYMH File # 17010

5.4 General Comment Regarding Shadow Affect based upon SITE DESIGN:

• 45 degree angular plan stepping has been incorporated to reduce impact on adjacent buildings to the west and north, creating shadows on those properties mostly during the morning hours and will leave most surrounding buildings unaffected throughout the rest of the day for the majority of the year.

6.0 SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS: REGARDING SHADOW IMPACT OF A 4-STOREY BUILDING ON THE NEIGHBOURHOOD

• The proposed development will cast shadows on the commercial properties to the West during the morning and early afternoon hours and will impact mainly paved areas throughout the rest of the day. • It will have little to no impact on the properties to the east, south-east and south. • Adjacent residential properties 2 and 4 Doran will have their yards in shadow for the majority of the winter and mornings in remaining seasons but will have full sun throughout the afternoon in both Spring and Summer • It is expected to have a passing impact on the residential properties to the north of Doran Ave, only in winter and at the end of the day. It is this time of day where shadows can universally be expected to be long-cast, and in a season with fleeting daylight hours. Existing structures and trees would already be casting large shadows into the rear yards of these properties.

Based upon the analysis it is our opinion that the proposed development and its proposed height of 4 storeys will not have a significant negative effect on this neighbourhood.

Sincerely,

KNYMH Inc. Marc Begin

KNYMH INC. – 1006 Skyview, Suite 101, Burlington, Ontario L7P 0V1 6 P: 905-639-6595 / F:905-639-0394 / E: [email protected]

Page 126 of 146 SHADOW IMPACT ANALYSIS KNYMH FILE # 17010

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: KNYMH INC. 4 Storey Condominium Marc Begin 21 & 23 Main St W Grimsby, Ontario May 4, 2018

SECTION 7.0: APPENDIX “A”

SHADOW PLAN DIAGRAMS FOR THE 3 STUDY PERIODS

SECTION 7.0: 4 Storey Building Concept:

7.12. 21.0930 – 7.12. 21.1530 SHADOW PLANS AT WINTER: December 21st 7.12. 21.0930 = 9:30 AM 7.12. 21.1230 = 12:30 P4 7.12. 21.1530 = 3:30 PM

7.03. 21.0930 – 7.03. 21.1530 SHADOW PLANS AT SPRING(FALL): March 21st 7.03. 21.0930 = 9:30 AM 7.03. 21.1230 = 12:30 PM 7.03. 21.1530 = 3:30 PM

7.06. 21.0930 - 7.06. 21.1530 SHADOW PLANS AT SUMMER: June 21st 7.06. 21.0930 = 9:30 AM 7.06. 21.1230 = 12:30 PM 7.06. 21.1530 = 3:30 PM

KNYMH INC. – 1006 Skyview Drive, Burlington Ontario L7P 0V1 P: 905-639-6595 / F:905-639-0394 / E: [email protected] Page 127 of 146

07.12.21.930

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 DECEMBER 21st 930am 21st DECEMBER 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 128 of 146

07.12.21.1230

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 DECEMBER 21st 1230pm 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 129 of 146

07.12.21.1530

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 DECEMBER 21st 1530pm 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 130 of 146

07.03.21.930

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 MARCH 21st 930am 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 131 of 146

07.03.21.1230

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 MARCH 21st 1230pm 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 132 of 146

07.03.21.1530

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 MARCH 21st 1530pm 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 133 of 146

07.06.21.930

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 JUNE 21st 930am 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 134 of 146

07.06.21.1230

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 JUNE 21st 1230pm 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 135 of 146

07.06.21.1530

N I

B O R

N E O V A N A R O D

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com Project No. 17010 JUNE 21st 1530pm 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 136 of 146

8.0

N I

B O R : PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

T A B: LAW OFFICE C: RESTAURANT DWELLING FAMILLLY D: SINGLE E: SCHOOL F: BANK G: RESTATAUNT H: CAFE COMMERCIAL VARIOUS I: DWELLING J:SINGLE FAMILLLY DWELLINGS FAMILLLY K: SINGLE

O J

S K

N E D O V A B

N J A R O H D G C F I

W T S

A T

T S

N I

U O M K N Y M H I N C. N I H M Y K N SUITE DRIVE • 101 1006 SKYVIEW BURLINGTON, ONTARIO • L7P 0V1 T 905.639.6595 www.knymh.com CONTEXT Project No. 17010 21 & 23 MAIN ST W, GRIMSBY, ONTARIO SHADOW STUDY - 4 STOREY A RC E H I C T T U RS E • U O L T I O N S Page 137 of 146

golder.com

Page 138 of 146

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Subject: Revised Heritage Impact Assessment 21-23 Main Street East, Vacant Lot, & 6 Doran Avenue

To: Janice Hogg, MCIP, RPP Planner I Town of Grimsby | Planning Department

From: Marcus R Létourneau Managing Principal, Senior Heritage Planner Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. Suite 400 – 837 Princess Street Kingston, ON, K7L 1G8

Date: August 1, 2018

Introduction

This technical memorandum has been prepared by Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. at the request of Janice Hogg, MCIP, RPP (Town of Grimsby). The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a peer review of the revised Heritage Impact Assessment 21-23 Main Street East, Vacant Lot, & 6 Doran Avenue, Town of Grimsby, Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario, prepared by Golder. In terms of the format of this memorandum, it is divided into two sections: 1) compliance with CHIA requirements and heritage policy framework and 2) efficacy of argument.

LHC has previously undertaken a review of the original HIA document prepared by Golder for the property and recommended that the document not be accepted by the Town of Grimsby for the following reasons:

 It did not sufficiently take into account all applicable legislation and policy (including the Growth Plan, the applicable Regional Official Plan, and the Town’s Official Plan);  It did not properly identify all relevant cultural heritage resources (including two Council-approved CHLs);  It did not apply the Council adopted OHA by-laws for the determination of impact on heritage attributes.  It applied approaches and documents without a clear explanation of why these were applicable;  It failed to address (either through considered alternatives or recommended mitigative measures) all of the potential adverse impacts identified in its assessment of potential impacts;  Its analysis was flawed both in its compliance with the MTCS Guideline Document and heritage policy frameworks, and for the efficacy of its argument in terms of a reflection of heritage conservation best

Page 139 of 146 practice (including the conservation of the identified heritage values and heritage attributes of a subject property, any adjacent properties, and the overall heritage character if located within a HCD or CHL).

The following outlines the findings of the review of the revised document undertaken to ascertain if deficiencies have been adequately addressed. In general, the proposed project has improved from the previous design, but additional changes are still required for the HIA,

1) EVALUATION OF HIA (COMPLETENESS)

The following provides a review of the submitted revised HIA against the MTCS Guidelines for the preparation of “Heritage Impact Assessments”.

Table 1: Requirements as outlined MTCS InfoSheet #5 (Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans) (2006)

Requirements Included in Comments CHIA 1. Historical Research, Site The revised document provides a more complete Analysis and Evaluation description of the site, its boundaries, and its land- use history. However, it still does not clearly show the existing lot parcel fabric, nor does it state who Incomplete owns each of the parcels. As outlined in the previous HIA peer review, one of the parcels appears to be municipal property (and as such is partially located within a CHL.) 2. Identification of the Significance The revised document provides more complete and Heritage Attributes of the information regarding CHLs and heritage attributes Cultural Heritage Resource for designated properties.

One outstanding issue is that Figure 15 identifies properties using labels over structures, rather than identifying property parcels. Partial Another is that within Figure 16, the boundaries of the CHL should not be running through buildings- based upon our review, it appears it should be aligned with the alley behind the buildings on Main Street. This is likely an issue of perspective, but recommend correcting.

3. Description of the Proposed Although the report provides an overview of the Development or Site Alteration design proposal, it lacks visual, notable the contextual or streetscape perspective, or textual Incomplete description that would contextualize the development proposal and provide a basis for the impact analysis. 4. Measurement of Development or Within the discussion of the Federal Standards and Site Alteration Impact Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, it Incomplete should be noted that this document has not been adopted by the Town of Grimsby,

Page 140 of 146 Requirements Included in Comments CHIA

Table 2 – The assessment of potential impacts with respect to alteration is limited to height and does not address scale, massing, or setback of the proposed design.

Table 3, Scale and Proportions. The impact assessment fails to address item (c) “Design building widths to generally be between 7.5 and 15.0 metres.” The proposed development does not appear to conform with this guideline. This could be addressed by visually breaking up the façade, but this does not appear to have been considered.

In general, the assessment in Table 3 does not appear to respond directly to all of the applicable guidelines and there is no clear rationale for the identification of which guidelines are applicable where the table indicates “only applicable presented”, nor is there an explicit identification of which guidelines are being considered applicable.

Table3, Façade – “It is slightly larger in scale and proportion to other heritage buildings in the area (4), however, it is within the allowable height for the site as identified by the Town’s planning documents.” This fails to adequately address potential impacts from a heritage planning perspective, such as the previous finding of OMB (HC MPAR Church Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City).) Further, it should be clearly stated how it meets the Town’s planning documents.

Impact analysis fails to respond to key documents such as the Regional Official Plan, the Town’s Cultural Heritage Landscape report, the applicable CIP, the 2017 Growth Plan, and the heritage policies of the Town’s Official Plan. Although these documents have been addressed in the framework, they have not been addressed in the impact assessment. They should be address in a chart similar to what has been provided for the design guidelines. As stated, the HIA must clearly state if the project meets the applicable legislation, OP policies and zoning, and if it does not, why it should be considered as good planning and in the public interest. It must also be clear that this is a heritage

Page 141 of 146 Requirements Included in Comments CHIA planning document, and as such, needs to clearly address the heritage planning consideration (including policy and legislation) that apply to this project.)

The assessment of impact should not reference the 2017 draft document Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. This document has not been finalized, and could be changed. Reference should continue to be to the 2006 version.

The report should not refer to the 2017 Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. This for provincially- owned properties. Alternatively, a stronger rationale should be made for its inclusion, include a clear statement that it is recognized by the authors’ that the document as written only applies to provincial properties and is not a document or policy that must be automatically considered by municipal governments.

Analysis failed to sufficiently account for the grade changes of the property, and how this will affect adjacent and nearby properties as well as along the broader length of Main Street.

Again, we disagree with the use of the “UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11,” This is not a bridge or a road, and there are comparable North American examples.

5. Consideration of Alternatives, The revised document does not describe any Mitigation and Conservation considered alternatives – including the earlier Methods development proposal.

Where this section should be providing information on alternatives considered and providing a basis for Incomplete why the chosen alternative is preferred, instead, it provides a narrative of further impact assessment responding to selected policy documents/ statements. It should also consider alternative treatments for the proposed façade.

6. Implementation and Monitoring There are no implementation or monitoring Incomplete proposals for issues caused during or after

Page 142 of 146 Requirements Included in Comments CHIA construction, e.g.: pre-/post-construction inspection, timely intervention if structural or other problems occur during construction, financial or other loss of enjoyment of personal space during or after construction, and increased traffic.

The HIA should have considered the applicability of a “Temporary Protection Plan” during construction. This should include (at a minimum) the location of laydowns, delivery, vibration, dust, and security.

7. Summary Statement and This is included. Yes Conservation Recommendations

2) EFFICACY OF ARGUMENT Building on the comments above, LHC notes that the revised design proposal has not been described (textually or visually in its context/ streetscape) in a manner that provides a basis for evaluation. In addition, the impact assessment has not thoroughly responded to all of the relevant policy and legislative documents. As stated above, the analysis has to clearly show how the project applies to more than the Design Guidelines.

Table 3, for example, fails to adequately address potential impacts related to the scale and massing of the proposed development. In one case, the assessment states, “It is slightly larger in scale and proportion to other heritage buildings in the area (4), however, it is within the allowable height for the site as identified by the Town’s planning documents.” Without visual representations showing the proposed project within the existing streetscape, or more thorough textual description, contextualising the proposed design, this statement is misleading – slightly larger is a bit vague and Appendix B does not appear to support this statement. In other cases, where scale and massing should be addressed, the discussion has been omitted.

Based upon our review, the design, as proposed, has a much larger streetscape presence that the neighbouring heritage properties. Although the height and massing appear to be in keeping the required policies (again, there needs to be a clear statement that it meets the zoning and OP, and if it does not, why it should be considered), the report does not consider if it would be more appropriate to break up the façade more to better integrate the structure into the existing streetscape pattern. This has been done on a number or projects around the region and Ontario in general. There should be a greater discussion concerning the use of different materials to break up the façade. As such, we disagree with the assertion that there is no impact. This is something that should be addressed.

Further, as outlined above the report does not sufficiently considered alternatives. This can include the previous proposal, but should also consider different options for the façade treatment.

As such, additional information is required in order to support the position provided within the HIA in order to clearly demonstrate that the assessment is based upon a through policy analysis, that adjacent resources will be protected during construction, and to demonstrate that the proposed project was adequately considered within its broader context,

Page 143 of 146 3) CONCLUSIONS

Based on the review of the document, as outlined above, it is LHC’s professional opinion that while the proposed design and HIA have improved from the previous iteration, there are still issues that should be addressed. As such, the Town should request additional corrections to address the issues herein identified.

If there are any questions or concerns with this analysis, or if you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned

Sincerely,

Marcus R Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Managing Principal, Senior Heritage Planner- Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc.

Chris Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Principal, Manager – Heritage Management Services - Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc.

Page 144 of 146 "*!t PLANNING DEPARTMENT Îyn MEMORANDUM TO Alderman J. Dunstall, Ghair and Members of the Heritage Advisory Committee

FROM: Michael Seeman, Director of Planning RE: Proposed Additions to the Municipal Heritage Register DATE: September 4,2018

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide background for Council's attention with respect to the proposed inclusion of the following properties on the Municipal Heritage Register.

1. 7 Ontario Street 2. 266 Main Street West 3. 18 Auditorium Circle 4. 28 Auditorium Circle 5. 30 Auditorium Circle 6. 3 Betts Avenue 7. 13 Nelles Boulevard 8. 39 Victoria Terrace

The subject properties have been identified as having potential cultural heritage value or interest, as defined by the Ministry of Culture under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The properties have been brought to the attention of the Planning Department as a site with redevelopment potential. ln order to enable the Town to more fully consider the cultural heritage value or interest of the subject properties prior to any development being proposed on the sites it is recommended that the subject properties be included on the Grimsby Heritage Register. ln 2008, the Heritage Advisory Committee recommended to Council that a Heritage Register be established under Section 27(1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Register for non-designated resources was at the time a new feature of the Ontario Heritage Act. lnclusion of a property on the register by resolution of Council allows the municipality to delay demolition of a register building by 60 days. The 60 day time period is intended to give the municipality sufficient time to determine whether the heritage features of the property would merit designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and or integration into the redevelopment of the subject lands.

The only implication of being included on the Heritage Register are relatively minor (60 day delay in the issuance of a demolition permit), therefore, The Ontario Heritage Act does not require consultation with property owners prior to inclusion on the Heritage

Page 145 of 146 Register. Inclusion on the Register is essentially a planning tool that would enable the Town, through its planning department and the Heritage Grimsby committee, to consider the cultural heritage value or interest of potential heritage resources. lf the resource was found to have cultural heritage value or interest, the Town could consider designation under Section 29 of the the Ontario Heritage Act which would provide permanent demolition control. Designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act is a process that is subject to appeal by property owners and other members of the public as the implications are more stringent. Furthermore if the municipality required a heritage resource to be included in a property which is subject to the condition of approval of a development application under the Planning Act, the property owner could appeal this requirement. lf a property owner wishes to request removal of a building from the Grimsby Heritage Register a letter requesting removal would be submitted to the Town of Grimsby Planning Department and the Town's Heritage Committee outlining reasons for removal. Planning Department staff in conjunction with the Town's Heritage Committee would review the request, conduct further research, and make a recommendation through the Town's Planning and Development Committee. lf Council wishes to include the building on the Grimsby Heritage Register, the following resolution passed by Council would achieve this:

THAT the list of properties included in the September 4,2018 staff memorandum regarding the proposed additions to the Heritage Register be listed on the Town of Grimsby Municipal Heritage Register.

A draft resolution with the above wording has been prepared for Council's consideration.

P Reviewed by

Deanna Maiden ice Hogg, Planner I Senior Planner /dm

Submitted by

Michael Seaman, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning

Page 146 of 146