HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-047-23Clarftwn
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council
Date of Meeting: June 26, 2023 Report Number: PDS-047-23
Submitted By: Carlos Salazar, Director of Planning and Infrastructure Services
Reviewed By:
File Number:
Report Subject:
Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO
PLN 34.18 and PLN 34.19
Resolution#: C-102-23
By-law Number:
Proposed Demolition of Listed Heritage Property: 45 Raynes Ave.,
Bowmanville (former Goodyear)
Recommendations:
1. That Report PDS-047-23, be received;
2. That the non -designated property and structures located at 45 Raynes Avenue,
Bowmanville be removed from the Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to section
27 of the Ontario Heritage Act;
3. That the proposed demolition of the structures, as identified on Attachment 3, be
permitted to proceed subject to:
a. The property owner providing information to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Infrastructure Services demonstrating the necessary approvals
from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and the Ministry of
Labour for the proposed demolition have been obtained; and
b. The owner providing a Salvage and Documentation Plan, and
Commemoration Plan, as per the Heritage Impact Assessment, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Services;
4. As requested per Council's Heritage Committee Motion 23.19, that staff work with
the property owner and the Committee towards the designation under Part IV of the
Heritage Act for the following structures: the Cement House (Building 27),
Powerhouse (Building 1), and Chimney Stack.
5. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-047-23, and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PDS-047-23
Report Overview
Page 2
In 2018, Council added the property at 45 Raynes Avenue (former Goodyear) to the
Municipal Heritage Register under Part IV, section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) for
its cultural heritage value and interest (CHVI) and its contributions to the history and
development of Bowmanville (PSD-030-18).
Recently, concerns have been raised about the current condition of the vacant buildings and
property, increased unauthorized entry and activities, and negative impacts to air and water
associated with the recent fire incidents. These concerns have prompted the subject request
for demolition.
On May 19, 2023, the owner submitted a Notice of Intent to Demolish certain buildings on
the property, as required by the OHA for properties listed on the Municipal Heritage Register.
The receipt of the Notice of Intent to Demolish triggered a 60-day period for further
evaluation of the property's CHVI to determine whether to pursue designation of the property
or to allow the proposed demolition to proceed.
The Clarington Heritage Committee was consulted and supporting Heritage Impact
Assessment provided by the applicant was considered. The HIA states the property has
CHVI sufficient to meet criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the OHA.
At its Special Meeting on June 6, 2023, the Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC)
recommended to Council a hybrid approach, pursuing designation of certain structures
proposed to be retained by the owner that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest
of the site, and allowing the demolition of other buildings as proposed.
1. Background
1.1 The subject property at 45 Raynes Avenue, known as the former Goodyear property, is
located within the Bowmanville downtown area and is currently being considered for
redevelopment as part of the update to the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary
Plan.
1.2 A Memo provided to the CHC summarizing the site context, background about the
Ontario Heritage Act and Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan processes,
and an overview of the other site considerations forms Attachment 1 to this report.
2. Ontario Heritage Act and Notice of Intent to Demolish
2.1 On May 19, 2023, the property owner submitted the 60-day "notice of intent to demolish"
as required under the Ontario Heritage Act for properties listed under s. 27 on the
Municipality of Clarington
Report PDS-047-23
Page 3
Heritage Register. The intent is to demolish the large `main building' and separate
reclaim buildings located on the south side of the property. The Notice of Intent to
Demolish is included as Attachment 2. A Map illustrating the buildings proposed to be
demolished is separately included as Attachment 3.
2.2 During the 60-day period and after consulting with the CHC, Council may state an
intention to designate the property pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act or allow the
demolition as requested and remove the property from the Municipal Register.
2.3 The Ontario Heritage Act empowers a municipality to pass a by-law to designate a
property that is considered to be of cultural heritage significance and outlines the
process for designating properties.
2.4 Once a property is designated by by-law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, the
property owner is required to obtain consent for any proposed significant alteration to
the building's heritage features that are listed in the designation by-law, or for demolition
of all or part of the structure.
3. Consultation with Clarington Heritage Committee
3.1 A special meeting of the Clarington Heritage Committee was held on June 6, 2023, to
consider the proposed demolition of the site. The property owner and their
representatives attended the meeting to speak to their intent to demolish submission.
3.2 After consideration of the matter, the CHC recommended to Council Motion 23.19:
"To authorize the intent to designate the portions of the site that are proposed to be
conserved (Cement House (Building 27), Powerhouse (Building 1), and the stack), and
require the applicant to prepare a reference plan to delineate the area for designation
for inclusion in the notice of intent.
To request the property owner to move forward with the completion of a Salvage Report
and Commemoration Plan as outlined in the HIA, and any other amendments to the
HIA, as necessary.
That the remainder of the property be removed from the Municipal Register, and allow
the demolition to proceed as proposed, along with the development of a plan to protect
the portions of the site to be designated and retained.
That staff be directed to work with the applicant and CHC through the development
approvals process to implement the accepted salvage and commemoration plan,
including architectural control."
The motion is detailed in Attachment 4: Heritage Committee Special Meeting Minutes.
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-047-23
3.3 Subsequent to the CHC meeting, the property owner confirmed they are generally
aligned with the CHC's Motion, and do not object to the recommendation to designate
the buildings to be retained (Powerhouse, chimney stack, and Cement House), provided
the designation can be scoped by way of a reference plan to only include the area of the
site containing the built heritage value. The property owner also indicated the desire to
work collaboratively with the CHC towards the adaptive reuse of the buildings to be
retained, which would include alterations to the structures.
4. Former Goodyear Property has Cultural Heritage Value and
Interest (CHVI)
4.1 45 Raynes Avenue, known as the former Goodyear Tire and Rubber factory site, is
considered a significant example of the 20th century industrial complexes representing
the once thriving manufacturing industry in Bowmanville. The factory was instrumental
in the early population growth and development of housing in Bowmanville.
4.2 The HIA for the site prepared for the property owner and accepted by the Planning and
Infrastructure Services Department as part of the Bowmanville East Urban Centre
Secondary Plan update establishes the property has design, historical, and contextual
cultural heritage value sufficient to meet the criteria for designation under the Ontario
Heritage Act. The Statement of Significance outlining the CHVI of the property proposed
by the HIA is included as Attachment 5.
5. Discussion
5.1 Council is recommended to:
Remove the property from the Municipal Register to enable the demolition of the
site to proceed, as proposed, to address the safety concerns raised about the
vacant buildings and property, increased unauthorized entry and activities, and
negative impacts to air and water associated with the recent fire incidents;
Direct the property owner to proceed with the Salvage and Documentation Plan,
and Commemoration Plan as per the HIA to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Infrastructure Services; and
Direct staff to proceed with the process to designate the property as per the
CHC's Motion.
5.2 This recommended hybrid approach provides for the conservation and commemoration
of the property's CHVI while also considering the public health and safety concerns that
have prompted the need to proceed with demolition and remediation of the subject site
as expeditiously as possible.
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-047-23
5.3 However, once the cultural heritage component is addressed, the demolition of this site
will be complex, possibly lengthy, and must be undertaken with great care to ensure that
all potential contaminants are properly contained and disposed of, minimizing any
adverse impacts to the community and the environment.
5.4 Staff will be working with the property owner to develop a Communication Plan to be
implemented throughout the demolition and site remediation process to help ensure all
departments and agencies involved remain engaged and up to date, and that accurate
information is readily available to the community.
5.5 Prior to demolition, it is staff's understanding that approval is required from the Ministry
of Environment and Climate Change relating to site contamination and Ministry of
Labour approval is required relating to building contamination. The timeline associated
with these approvals is not known.
5.6 Staff is awaiting information from the property owner confirming details about the
method of demolition, how retained heritage structures will be protected, whether site
alteration is required, and possible truck traffic associated with the demolition operation,
in addition to the status of the provincial approvals that are required prior to demolition
of contaminated sites.
5.7 It is recommended that Council request the owner to submit this outstanding information
to enable staff to better understand how the community and natural heritage systems
will be protected throughout the demolition process, given the complexities associated
with this site.
6. Financial Considerations
6.1 There are no direct financial considerations associated with the Ontario Heritage Act
processes outlined in this report.
6.2 However, there may be indirect financial impacts to the Municipality associated with Fire
and Emergency Services' responses to the recent increased number of incidents of
unauthorized entry to the site due to the current lack of security.
7. Concurrence
7.1 This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO/Treasurer.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PDS-047-23
8. Conclusion
Page 6
8.1 The purpose of this report is to consider a Notice of Intent to Demolish submitted by the
property owner for 45 Raynes Avenue, being a property listed on the Municipal Heritage
Register under section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
8.2 It is respectfully recommended that the Recommendations be adopted as presented.
Staff Contact: Jane Wang, Planner II, 905-623-3379 ext. 2411 or jwangclarington.net. Sarah
Allin, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2419 or SAIlin _clarington.net; Lisa Backus,
Manager, 905-623-3379 ext. 2419 or Ibackus(Dclarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Memo to CHC, dated June 6, 2023
Attachment 2 — Letter prepared by Biglieri Group Re: Notice of Intent to Demolish 45 Raynes
Avenue
Attachment 3 — Map illustrating Buildings Proposed to be Demolished
Attachment 4 — Clarington Heritage Committee Special Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2023
Attachment 5 — Excerpt from HIA, prepared by AECOM, dated January 2021 (Proposed
Statement of Significance)
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Clarington
MEMO
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
To: Clarington Heritage Committee
From: Sarah Allin, Lisa Backus Planning and Infrastructure Services
Date: June 6, 2023
• File No: PLN 34
Re: Notice of Intent to Demolish: Former Goodyear Property; 45
Raynes Avenue, Bowmanville
Purpose of Memo
The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of information that may be helpful to
the Heritage Committee in its consideration of the Notice of Intent to Demolish received
for the property at 45 Raynes Avenue. The property is currently listed on the Municipal
Register under s. 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Site Context
The subject site is located south of Queen Street in Bowmanville, with frontage on
Queen Avenue and Durham Streets. The site is approximately 15.57ha (38.47 acre).
However, 6.27ha is located within the Bowmanville creek and valley.
Page 11
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net
Figure 1: Location Map and Aerial — 45 Raynes Avenue
The site currently contains the former Goodyear plant main building, the cement house,
powerhouse and chimney stack, and other associated outbuildings. Industrial
operations ceased in 2016 and the site has been unoccupied since that time.
The Goodyear lands are designated as `Special Study Area 3' in Clarington's
Official Plan. The designation provides for the redevelopment of the site, subject to Page 2
remediation of contamination associated with the former industrial use, and the
consideration of the cultural heritage value. The objectives for this area include
repurposing the former industrial land, providing a complementary new neighbourhood
at higher density, and an open space spine that connects to the Bowmanville Creek.
In April 2018, Council formally acknowledged the property has cultural heritage
value and listed the property on the Municipal Heritage Register through report
PSD-30-18; the property is not designated.
The Heritage Committee's evaluation identified the cement house and the north fagade
of the main building as having potential cultural heritage value. The owners of the site at
the time were notified of the process to list the property on the Municipal Register
(Figure 2).
The Update to the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan commenced in
2018 and will add the Goodyear land to the Secondary Plan Area.
Since the start of the Secondary Plan update, staff has engaged with the owner of the
Goodyear lands as a key stakeholder recognizing that the property presents a unique
opportunity for redevelopment.
In January 2021, a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken by the owner
establishes the property has cultural heritage value sufficient to meet the O. Reg.
9/06 criteria for designation.
Specifically, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) identifies Building 1
(Powerhouse, including chimney), Building 2, Building 3, Building 6, Building 18,
Building 21, Building 25, and Building 27 (Cement House) as having cultural heritage
value or interest and, in accordance with best practices, recommends retention in the
event of proposed redevelopment for the site, where possible (Figure 3).
In 2022, the property owner submitted a redevelopment concept for consideration
as part of the Secondary Plan process (Figure 4).
The HIA has not been updated to reflect the proposed redevelopment concept. The
property owner has also conducted additional studies that look at risk management for
contamination and structural assessment for the adaptive reuse of the buildings. Staff
are in receipt of these studies but have not yet confirmed the findings.
In May 2023, the property owner submitted demolition permit applications.
Page 13
Although the comprehensive secondary plan work remains ongoing, the property owner
submitted demolition permits for the large `main building' and separate reclaim building
located on the south side of the property. The permit excludes the former powerhouse
building with adjacent chimney stack (Building 1), the pumphouse, and the standalone
cement house building (Building 27) located on the north side of the property (Figure 5).
On May 19, 2023, the property owner submitted the 60-day "notice of intention to
demolish", as required under the Ontario Heritage Act for properties listed under
s. 27 on the Heritage Register.
The 60-day notice period gives the Municipality time to consult with the Heritage
Committee and determine whether to begin the designation process.
After consulting with the Heritage Committee, Council may:
• State an intention to designate the property pursuant the Ontario Heritage Act; or
• Allow the demolition as requested and remove the property from the Municipal
Register.
A hybrid approach may also be considered, pursuing designation of certain
buildings/structures that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the site,
while allowing the demolition of non-contributing buildings/structures.
After the Heritage Committee is consulted at its special meeting on June 6, a
recommendation report to Council will be presented at the Council meeting on June 26.
The Ontario Heritage Act process is scoped to consider whether the property has
sufficient cultural heritage value for designation.
However, Planning and Infrastructure staff is aware of the other issues and concerns
relating to this site, outlined below.
Public Health and Safety
Clarington's Emergency and Fire Services Department (CEFS) and Durham Regional
Police Services have raised public health and safety concerns about the current
condition of the vacant buildings and property, and lack of site security that has led to
increases in unauthorized entry and activity.
Page 14
Environment and Natural Heritage
Concerns have been raised about potential impacts to air and water associated with the
smoke from the recent fires. Other concerns relate to the water used put out the fires
that may carry contaminants from the buildings to the surrounding land and into the
Bowmanville Creek, which runs through the site immediately to the south of the
buildings.
Financial Implications
The recent increase in unauthorized activity site due to the lack of security has put
pressure on municipal resources and has been costly for both Clarington's Fire and
Emergency Services and Durham Region's Police Services.
Economic Development
Clarington's Economic Development Strategy identifies the 'revitalization of downtown
Bowmanville, including the adaptive re -use of the Goodyear brownfield site' as a
commercial activity node as one of several notable catalyst initiatives that could help
shape the long-term economic success of the community.
With its unique history and heritage value, the adaptive re -use of the Goodyear site with
appropriate conservation and commemorative measures represents an opportunity to
create a destination in downtown Bowmanville for residents and tourists.
Conclusion
The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of information that may be helpful to
the Heritage Committee in its consideration of the Notice of Intent to Demolish received
for the property at 45 Raynes Avenue, currently listed on the Municipal Register under
s. 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Context and Aerial — 45 Raynes Avenue, Bowmanville (inset, above)
Figure 2: Goodyear Buildings identified by the Heritage Committee as having
Potential Cultural Heritage Value
Figure 3: Buildings Identified by the HIA as having cultural heritage value or interest
Figure 4: Redevelopment Concept Proposed by Property Owner
Figure 5: Buildings Proposed to be Demolished Page 15
Figure 2: Goodyear Buildings identified by the Heritage Committee as having
Potential Cultural Heritage Value
Page 16
Figure 3: Buildings Identified by the HIA as having cultural heritage value or interest
Buildings With Cultural Heritage Value identified by HIA a� 0
r�
r �
6uilding'25
a. - �•L'QTF ' �
Building 6 J
Building �l 4
Building 2 Building 18
Building 3 Building 21
Building
46
. - fir t�
L .xi
77
i y
Page 17
Figure 4: Redevelopment Concept Proposed by Property Owner
Figure 5: Buildings Proposed to be Demolished
45 Raynes Avenue
Buildings proposed to remain ,
Buildings proposed to be removed
r
Ov
Proposed Demolition Plan
a e `
`1,4
• Lrp�,L
� o
buildings 2-6, 8, 18,
20-25, 28, 29
la -
"I, -
Itj
Page 19
BIGLIERI G RO UP e
May 19, 2023
Municipality of Clarington
Legislative Services
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON
L1 C 3A6
Attention: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Dear Ms. Gallagher,
RE: Notice of Intention to Demolish
45 Raynes Avenue, Bowmanville
Goodyear Lands
TBG Project No. 20634
INTRODUCTION
The Biglieri Group Ltd. ("TBG") is the planning consultant for Karmina Developments, the owner
of the lands municipally known as 45 Raynes Avenue, Bowmanville (the "Subject Site" or "Site")
(Figure 1). The Subject Site is commonly referred to as the "Goodyear Lands". In April 2018, the
Subject Site was added to the Municipal Heritage Register. Outlined in Planning Services Report
PSD-030-018, staff identified the three -storey front facade of the factory along with the "Cement
House", otherwise known as Building No. 27, as buildings with potential heritage interest.
Further to recent developments, the owner is looking to submit a demolition permit application
for various buildings on the Subject Site including Buildings 2-6, 8, 18, 20-25, 28, 29, and the
reclaim plant. Buildings 1 (including smokestack) and 27 and the pump house will be retained.
Please refer to Attachment 1 showing the various buildings. A Demolition Plan outlining the
buildings to be removed is provided on Attachment 2. While the ultimate goal is to redevelop the
Subject Site into a mixed -use community, an increase in break-ins and vandalism of the vacant
buildings has prompted a hastened need to demolish the buildings out of concerns for safety
and security. The Fire Department has made multiple trips to the Subject Site to put out fires
within the main buildings in the last few months, including most recently on May 13' and May
15t'. In Buildings 6, 18 and 21. The number of reported calls to the Durham Regional Police
Department has increased significantly over the last few years (Figure 2).
As the Subject Site is a Listed property on the Municipal Heritage Register, we are submitting this
Notice of Intention to Demolish to the Municipality of Clarington. Further, following the submission
of this Notice of Intent to Demolish, the Municipality has 60 days to designate the Subject Site
under the Ontario Heritage Act. As such, we are requesting that the Subject Site not be
designated.
PLANNING I DEVELOPMENT I PROJECT MANAGEMENT I URBAN DESIGN
2472 Kingston Road, Toronto, Ontario M1N 1V3
21 King Street W Suite 1502, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4W7
Office: (416) 693-9155 Fax: (416) 693-9133
tbg@thebiglierigroup.com
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
2
HISTORY OF THE GOODYEAR FACTORY
The original building was construction in 1897. The property was then sold to Durham Rubber
Co. Ltd. in 1905 who used the lands to manufacture various rubber products including tires. In
1910, Durham Rubber began producing tires for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Goodyear's first
manufacturing facility in Canada. Goodyear would then purchase the Subject Site in 1911 and
built the first addition to the factory, being the central portion of the north fagade. The following
year a rail spur was built to connect the Subject Site to the Grand Trunk Railway. Multiple additions
were added to the main building over the following decades. In addition, the Cement House
building (Building 27) was constructed in 1943, while the Reclaim Plant was constructed in 1965.
A year before, the factory employed about 600 people.
From the 1970s until the factory's closure, conveyor belts were the main product produced at the
facility. By 2000, Goodyear sold the factory to Veyance Technologies, which was then acquired
by ContiTech, a division of Continental Corporation, in 2015. The factory closed in 2016 with the
property sold to Karmina Developments in 2019, with the buildings being vacant since.
Figure 1: Aerial View of Subject Site.
MSUBJECT SITE
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
3
Ca Ills to 45 Raynes Ave (Good Year PIant)
50
00
4 ,,
o 0 = N
� trit Cr.vwr+
14
on
019 2020 2021
�.r..rr ([af pwlriinl
n
022 202
Figure 2: Police Calls to 45 Raynes Avenue (source: Durham regional Police Service).
PLANNING CONTEXT
The Subject Site is located within the Urban Area Boundary and designated as Regional Centre
and Major Open Space Areas in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The Subject Site is designated
as Urban Residential and Environmental Protection Area and identified as "Special Study 3" in
the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan (Figure 3). Policy 17.4.2 of the Official Plan states "The
Goodyear Redevelopment Area shall be planned as a mixed -use residential area taking full
advantage of its proximity to downtown Bowmanville and the Bowmanville Creek. Prior to any
redevelopment, a comprehensive redevelopment plan shall be prepared and adopted as an
amendment to the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan".
In October 2017, Municipality of Clarington Planning Staff prepared a report to the Planning and
Development Committee (PSD-072-17) to begin a review and update of the Bowmanville East
Urban Centre Secondary Plan. Several Public Information Centres ("PIC") have been held by the
Municipality, most recently PIC #3 on June 1, 2022. At this PIC, staff presented a "Vision" of the
different precincts within the Secondary Plan area, including the Goodyear Lands Precinct. As
per Staff Report PDS-028-23 — Secondary Plan Update presented at the April 24, 2023, Planning
and Development Committee, a Phase 2 Summary Report is being prepared for the Bowmanville
East Secondary Plan study.
A key component of the revised Secondary Plan is the redevelopment of the Subject Site and
adding it to the Secondary Plan area. The Report identifies the site as a "unique redevelopment
opportunity in the centre of Bowmanville adjacent to the Bowmanville Creek". The owners of the
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
4
Goodyear Lands, originally ContiTech and now Karmina, have sat on the Steering Committee
since its inception. Further, the owners entered into a financial agreement with the Municipality
with respect to the preparation of certain studies specific to the Goodyear Lands that will help to
inform the Secondary Plan, including a Functional Servicing Report, Transportation Impact Study,
Goodyear Dam Field Investigation and Review Report, and Stable Top of Slope Assessment -
Fluvial Geomorphology. In addition, a Heritage Impact Assessment ("HIA") was prepared by the
owner's cultural heritage consultant, AECOM, for the purpose of the Secondary Plan study with
respect to the cultural heritage attributes of the Goodyear Lands. The HIA has been revised
following comments from Planning staff and Peer Reviews from Common Bond Collective. The
most recent revision was submitted to Planning staff in January 2021.
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE GOODYEAR LANDS
Karmina Developments intends on developing the Subject Site as a mixed -use development
consisting of residential, medical, institutional, and commercial uses (Attachment 1). The
proposed development consists of multiple high -density development blocks with sixteen (16)
buildings ranging in height from four (4) to eighteen (18) storeys in height. Street townhouses are
also proposed along the north and east boundaries to provide a transition in height and density
to the existing low-rise residential land uses. Buildings 1 and 27 and the smokestack are
proposed to be retained. At this time, 1,168 to 1,412 residential units are envisioned. The
proposed concept plan prepared by Biglieri Group on behalf of Karmina is generally consistent
with the "Vision" of the Goodyear Lands Precinct as presented by the Municipality at the June 1,
2022 PIC (Attachment 2).
SUMMARY OF HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, AECOM LTD., JANUARY 2021
The January 2021 HIA follows the general conservation principles of the Ontario Heritage Act and
Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010).
Specifically, the HIA was guided by the content, impact analysis and structure as outlined in the
Municipality's Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference and the Ministry of Heritage,
Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries' Information Bulletin #3 Heritage Impact Assessments for
Provincial Heritage Properties (2017). The HIA analyzed and documented a range of impacts to
the Subject Site and provided recommendations related to impact mitigation measures for the
Subject Site. For the purposes of the report, AECOM undertook the following tasks:
1. Review of the Municipal Heritage Register, as well as the Ontario Heritage Trust's online
inventory of buildings, museums, and easement properties, the Canadian Register of
Historic Places, and the Directory of Federal Heritage Designations;
2. Preparation of a land use history of the subject property based on a review of primary and
secondary source material, previous evaluations, and historic mapping and aerial
coverage;
3. Site investigation of the property, undertaken on April 23 and 24, 2018, and February 12,
2020, in order to document the property and structures;
4. Evaluation of the property according to the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9106,
Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest in order to prepare an
appropriate Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and identify appropriate Heritage
Attributes; and,
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
5. Preparation of recommendations to provide guidance for the potential re -use of portions
of the property and its potential future uses, or commemoration opportunities.
Given the review and evaluation, AECOM Ltd. has recommended that the property not be
designated and that a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and a list of Heritage Attributes not
be prepared.
Evaluation of Property, Ontario Regulation 9/06
The building was evaluated as per the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06. The results
were that the Subject Site met five of the nine criteria in that:
➢ the factory is a representative example of the evolution of early 20th century factory
architecture;
➢ the factory has played a significant role in Bowmanville as one of the oldest and most
important industries in Bowmanville's history;
➢ the factory has defined the character of the area for over 100 years;
➢ the Subject Site is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings as it was originally
constructed along the Bowmanville Creek and utilized the water supply provided by the
watercourse; and,
➢ the factory may be considered by some as a landmark building within Bowmanville.
Based on the above evaluation under the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, the Subject Site
possesses cultural heritage value an early-20th century industrial complex. The HIA notes that
while the property as a whole is considered to have heritage value, certain buildings and
landscape elements are not required to be retained to conserve the cultural heritage value of the
property.
Through the evaluation of each building, the following have been identified to have cultural
heritage value or interest on the Subject Site and are recommended for retention in the event of
proposed redevelopment:
➢ Building 1 (including chimney)
➢ Building 2
➢ Building 3
➢ Building 6
➢ Building 18
➢ Building 21
➢ Building 25
➢ Building 27
Potential Impacts Based on Evaluation
The HIA included an assessment of potential impacts to the Subject Site. Impacts include
property redevelopment with the retention of existing buildings in situ, adaptive reuse, permanent
relocation of all or parts of the buildings, and demolition of all or parts of the buildings proceeded
with salvage and documentation of building components.
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
1J
Potential Mitigation Strategies
For each of the potential impacts to the Subject Site, the HIS provided mitigation options. Where
relocation or adaptive reuse of a building with cultural heritage value or interest is not feasible
and the only option is demolition, the following mitigation measures are to be completed:
➢ Consult with municipal staff and the Clarington Heritage Committee regarding any
physical impact to the property in order to determine if any approvals/consent is required;
➢ Complete a Documentation and Salvage Report which should be completed by a qualified
heritage consultant;
o Documentation should include photographic records, drawings, or floor plans
where appropriate, the identification of salvageable materials including interior
features, and/or salvageable heritage attributes;
➢ During design of a property development plan, incorporate commemorative signage into
the design in consultation with Clarington Heritage Committee to communicate the
cultural heritage value of the property i.e., it's industrial history) and the demolished
structure to the public
o Complete a Commemorative Strategy which can be incorporated or separate
from the Documentation and Salvage Report.
o Consider integrating salvageable materials from the property into the new
development such as decorative features in a communal area within the
development.
Therefore, the following combination of mitigation strategies are likely the most appropriate
actions to take in order to mitigate the loss of the buildings on the Municipal Heritage Register:
➢ Photographic documentation;
➢ Complete a Commemorative Strategy;
➢ Prepare a Documentation and Salvage Report; and,
➢ Recover unique features of a building and incorporate these features into new
development.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The HIA outlined requirements to be undertaken should the property be redeveloped, and it is
determined that demolition or removal is the preferred alternative and that it is the only viable
option. It must be demonstrated that retention or modification of Buildings 1, 2, 3, 6 18, 21, 25
and 27 could not be adapted to fit a new use and the retention of the building in situ was not
feasible.
Recommendations
The HIA concluded with the following recommendations:
I. The proposed mitigation options identified in Table 10 should be used to guide the next
steps when considering proposed redevelopment of the property.
2. If adaptive reuse of the property is not feasible or if buildings identified for removal
demonstrate design, historical, and context value, a Commemoration Strategy should be
developed by a qualified heritage professional for the property. The strategy should be
developed in consultation with the Town of Bowmanville and the Clarington Heritage
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
7
Committee. The Commemorative Strategy can be incorporated into or separate from a
Documentation and Salvage Report. Commemorative material should be designed and
incorporated in a public area within a new development plan. The plan should include an
interpretative cultural heritage sign to commemorate the history of the Goodyear Tire and
Rubber factory. Interpretative material should include textual and graphic material. In
addition, salvaged material may be suitable for integration into a new development, such
as for decorative features, including part of the commemorative feature.
3. This Heritage Impact Assessment should be submitted to the Municipality of Clarington
Planning Staff and the Municipal Heritage Committee for review.
4. In the event there is a site re -development or re -configuration plan for the subject property,
a qualified heritage professional should review this Heritage Impact Assessment and
confirm impacts and mitigation measures and identify any changes, including an
assessment of impacts to adjacent heritage properties
Assessment of Retention
As outlined in the HIA, if demolition is the only viable option, it must be demonstrated that adaptive
reuse of Buildings 1, 2, 3, 6 18, 21, 25 and 27 or retention of a building in situ is not feasible. A
Structural Feasibility Study (August 2021) was prepared by Gravity Engineering as it pertains to
the re -use of buildings or building elements from a structural perspective in relation to the HIA
and redevelopment of the Subject Site. Further, a Risk Management Measures report (September
2021) was prepared by Cambium in consideration of adaptive reuse of the buildings from a site
contamination perspective in relation to the Site's history as a manufacturing facility of rubber
products.
These studies reviewed the feasibility of reusing or retaining in situ the buildings identified as
having cultural heritage value or interest. The Structural Feasibility Study found that Buildings 2,
3, 6, 18, 21, and 25 were not suitable for any type of vertical addition and minimum structural
alteration. Further, the costs to retain elements of the buildings comes with a high cost. Meanwhile,
the Risk Management Measures report identified very high costs associated with implementing
various risk management measures into the reuse of the existing buildings.
STRUCTURAL FEASIBILITY STUDY, GRAVITY ENGINEERING
A Structural Feasibility Study (August 13, 2021) prepared by Gravity Engineering comments on
the feasibility of re -use of all, or a portion of Buildings 1, 2, 3, 6, 18, 21, 25, and 27, and provides
a summary of the potential budgetary expectations based on the Study's recommendations. The
Study reviewed each of the buildings identified as having cultural heritage value or interest.
Buildings 2, 3, 6, 18, 21, and 25 were not suitable for any type of vertical addition and minimum
structural alteration. The buildings would have to be left "as -is" for any reuse. Further,
recommendations and costs for historical attributes are provided. These elements include the
raised "louvre" skylight in Buildings 2 and 3 and the exterior facade for Buildings 6, 18, 21, and
25.
General Comments
➢ Altering, or removing buildings not identified as having cultural heritage value or interest
will likely require very costly review and reinforcing to ensure any retained buildings meet
the current structural guidelines as it provided in Part 4 of the Ontario Building Code;
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
8
➢ It may be most feasible and structurally efficient to keep the building elements which can
be temporarily supported or relocated during construction to meet the guidance of the
HIA, but also ensure proper support of new and re -used building elements. This is likely
the most structurally feasible method of re -using or re -purposing buildings 2, 3, 6, 18, 21,
and 25;
➢ Given their location, Buildings 1 and 27 appear to be able to be feasibly re -used "as -is"
as stand-alone buildings with only minor structural remediation/reinforcing required; and
➢ In general, re -use of interior structural framing members for structural supporting
purposes is likely not cost feasible to undertake due to the lack of documentation and
structural information on these existing members. However, use of these elements for
aesthetic purposes is feasible and could be considered.
It must be noted that the Structural Feasibility Study was prepared in August 2021 and assessed
the buildings as they were at that time. While the extent of damages caused by the recent fires is
unknown at this time, it is possible that the structural integrity may have been further
compromised.
Risk Management Measures: Building Reuse, Cambium
Cambium prepared a Risk Management Measures study (September 20, 2021) to assess the
feasibility and potential environmental risk management measures required to support reuse of
the existing buildings identified as having cultural heritage value. The study also provides
commentary on the implementation of measures required to reduce human health risk related to
exposure to soil and groundwater contaminants of concern via migration to indoor air. This study
focused solely on the risk of exposure to volatile contaminants of concern (COCs). The study also
considered the reuse scenarios presented in Gravity's structural feasibility study.
Summary of Findings
➢ Previous investigations at the Subject Site identified soil and groundwater contamination
related to historical operations of the factory. Volatile COCs identified include petroleum
hydrocarbon fractions 1 and 2 (PHCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), select polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and mercury;
➢ Evaluation of risks and identification of measures required to reduce human health risk
via exposure to indoor air will be undertaken as part of a risk assessment completed
consistent with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 153/04. As a minimum, it is
expected the risk assessment will conclude risk management measures (RMMs) are
required for new and reused buildings to mitigate contaminant migration to indoor air and
reduce human health risk to acceptable levels. Buildings 1, 2, 25, and 27 are most likely
to require implementation of RMMs;
➢ For buildings where structural support or relocation of heritage features could occur
(Buildings 2, 3, 6, 18, 21, and 25), a strategy for implementation of RMMs can be
developed to provide appropriate risk reduction. Optimally, this would include removal of
the existing slab on grade or basement floors within these buildings to allow construction
of a sub -slab vapour intrusion mitigation system (SSVIMS); however, less intrusive RMMs
may be identified for one or more of these buildings by the proposed risk assessment;
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
�fl
➢ Stand-alone use of Buildings 1 and 27, both of which are within and/or proximate to
source areas for volatile contaminants, will require implementation of RMMs to reduce
human health risk from migration of volatile contaminants to indoor air. The most effective
measure for this purpose would be implementation of an SSVIMS, which will require
removal of the slab on grade building floors and replacement after construction of the
SSVIMS;
➢ An outline of available RMMs, challenges related to reuse of buildings, and relative costs
are provided in Table 1. This outline is not exhaustive and depending on COCs
concentrations, a combination of RMMs may be required to reduce risk to acceptable
levels;
➢ This study provides a preliminary evaluation of measures to reduce human health risk in
the reuse of buildings identified as having cultural heritage or other interest, related to
migration of volatile contaminants from soil and/or groundwater to indoor air. It has
identified optimal RMMs for implementation to provide risk mitigation. Alternate, less
intrusive and/or lower cost RMMs may be identified by the proposed risk assessment for
one or more of the buildings; and,
➢ This study has not assessed the effect of the reuse of buildings; however, in general, the
feasibility (costs and construction) is significantly better for implementing RMMs for new
structures relative to existing structures.
Table 1: Summary of Potential RMMs (source: Cambium Inc., 2021)
RMM
Challenges
Cost
Underground
Extensive construction requirements to retain heritage
High
garage
features in place during construction or remove/replace
after construction
At grade garage
Extensive construction requirements to retain heritage
Moderate
features in place during construction or remove /
replace after construction; may be inconsistent with
development plan
Sub -slab ventilation
Requires removal of existing floor followed by
High
installation of venting systems; may require temporary
structural supports to retain heritage features during
construction
Perimeter
Likely ineffective due to the size of the buildings (i.e.,
Moderate to
ventilation
insufficient flow induced beneath existing structures);
high
May require implementation with other RMMs
Floor sealing
May not provide sufficient risk reduction; May require
Moderate
implementation with other RMMs
Excavation
Requires removal of existing floor followed by
High
excavation of impacted soil and groundwater; Will
require extensive shoring /structural support to retain
heritage features; May not reduce risk sufficiently if
impacts remain in soil or groundwater beyond the limits
of the buildings
In -situ Treatment /
May require extensive injection points through interior
Moderate
stabilization
floors; may not be effective for metals and PAHs;
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
uncertain timeline to meet applicable standards /
reduced risk levels
Restrictions (e.g.,
May require implementation with other RMMs; may be
Moderate to
no first -floor
inconsistent with development plan Low
High effect
residential use)
implementation;
on revenue
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT
The adaptive re -use or temporarily support or relocate Buildings 2, 3, 6, 18, 21, and 25 comes
with considerably high financial limitations associated with the structural requirements and risk
management measures. The HIA report outlines several recommendations that would be feasible
for the potential redevelopment of the Subject Site. In particular, a Commemoration Strategy
should be developed by a qualified heritage professional in consultation with the Municipality of
Clarington and the Clarington Heritage Committee. As such, we are proposing the following
mitigation strategies for commemorating and remembering the heritage value of the Goodyear
Factory:
➢ Photographically document the interior and exterior of the buildings to provide an archival
record of the buildings prior to demolition;
➢ Complete a Commemorative Strategy to incorporate in public areas within the
redevelopment of the Subject Site. The plan will include an interpretative cultural heritage
sign to commemorate the history of the Goodyear Factory and commemorative art
displays throughout the redevelopment.
➢ Prepare a Documentation and Salvage Report; and,
➢ Recover unique features of a building and incorporate these features into the
redevelopment where feasible.
SUMMARY
In summary, the Subject Site is Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register and requires a Notice
of Intention to Demolish prior the issuance of a demolition permit. The HIA prepared for the
Subject Site identified heritage attributes associated with the various buildings and provided a
range of mitigation strategies. If demolition was the only viable option, it must be demonstrated
that reuse or retention in situ is not feasible. The Structural Feasibility Study and Risk Management
Measures study have demonstrated the significant costs associated with reuse and/or retention
of the building in situ. Also, these costs are in addition to the significant costs associated with
remediating the remainder of the Subject Site associated with its historical use as an industrial
facility.
Biglieri Group and the owner have been working with staff throughout the Bowmanville East Urban
Centre Secondary Plan study. While demolition of the buildings has certainly been the preferred
option for the owner as part of their redevelopment plans, they have been waiting patiently for the
Secondary Plan process to conclude prior to the submission of a redevelopment plan and
demolition application. Unfortunately, the Secondary Plan process has taken far longer than
expected —five years and counting —with no updated time provided of its anticipated completion.
With multiple incidents of break-ins, fires, and other calls to emergency services reported weekly,
the owners are therefore intending on submitting the appropriate demolition applications and
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
materials. As such, we are submitting this Notice of Intention to Demolish to the Municipality of
Clarington in order to demolish various buildings at 45 Raynes Avenue including Buildings 2-6, 8,
18, 20-25, 28, 29, and the reclaim plant. In addition, we are requesting that the Subject Site not
be designated in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act.
Supporting Documents
In support of the proposed Demolition Permit Application, please find enclosed the following
supporting documents:
One (1) copy of the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by AECOM Ltd. dated January
2021;
➢ One (1) copy of the Structural Feasibility Study prepared by Gravity Engineering dated
August 13, 2021; and,
➢ One (1) copy of the Risk Management Measures: Building Reuse study prepared by
Cambium dated September 20, 2021.
We trust you will find all in order, however, should you have any questions or require additional
information please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
KA 4k
Mark Jacobs, MCIP, RPP
Planner
Laura Lebel-Pantazopoulos, MPI.
Planner
CC. Carlos Salazar, Director, Planning and Development Services Department
Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning
Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, Community Planning
Emily Corsi, Senior Planner, Community Planning
Absar Beg, Karmina Developments
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
Attachment 1
Site Plan with Building Num tiers and
Construction Dates (1976)
Heritage Impact Assessment
6
�UI
1943
1937
i
Project number: 60571812
So-
-
Prepared for: The Biglieri Group Ltd. AECOM
Goodyear HIA March 2_2020.docx 205
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
Attachment 2
Derrioinion Plan
.�r
,J
N bJ
JOB
h
0
45.11kry ti�� ti9 �JO.
t yo
`JO.
7a x /ry9
C4
Building 27
I Iz
0
0
Building 1
Pum house
I p I
(Building 15)
Buildings 2-6, 8, 18, 20-25, 28, 29
I I
�I I
N7227'00 E
Z20
ro
m
Reclaim
FI Plant
I I
I49'S13' z
N 4'30 71.25 N I n d
o �
_ 56,31
N717720 E N6823'30'E N69 0 E 41.74 N703800"E �5.29 N7101'00 E N7041'40'E
N57.57.00.E N60'7.330�E
18.53 30.48
g.28
Buildings to be remove
Buildings to be remain i
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
Attachment 3
Conceptual tine Plan
t
Scale 1:2000
NATURAL HERITAGE /
OPEN SPACE
J� �vFFN ST RFF!
4l=
e� 037 l r ¢k �
A.
/p03
J 04
Sehi
ding i
04
/
/40 /
4 \ //
s / �Tc°k g 04 \
/ Ret/re 04FocIE
12 '"eht
�_ ny 2 \ �� ,
ilding 2 \ .Bird k
S
BuildMrl'IS ` \ 7
II��LL i
HERITAGE \ � i �
BUILDINGS AND 18
`� ,
SMOKESTACKS TO
BE RETAINED
G 1 �
/ BO g \ dlo� lock C \ / w
Seniors
•l
LTC /
LONGTERM —
STABLE TOP OF -- -�_
SLOPE (LTSTSL)
DEVELOPMENT
LIMIT
\ u1ng \
13\ I;\
\ 03
12 / 0
q-/3/
n
/
Staked Dripline/Top / B�fdg,z \ BI ck /
/ / i
of Bank by CLOCA
\� / Iding 9
04
Description Area (ha) Building # GFA m2 Units \ Bulld
Block Al - A-7 0.94 12,152 41 Block E 06
Building 1
Block B 0.98
1 12,984 122 1 \
2 9,900 101 uilding 16 \ / FUTURE
3 18,916 161 06 � eu°d'�� �� DEVELOPMENT
4 2,880 0
Block C 0.92 5 21,900 172 BIOC H /'
6 10,864 85 DEVELOPMENT
7 1,672 10 LIMIT 03
Block D 0.48 18 \
Block E 0.81 8 7,432 73
9 1,960 10 \
10 2,400 12
11 1,928 10 \
12 6,004 59
Block F 0.41 13 30,117 246
Block G1 0.50 14 27,044 245
Block G2 0.33 15 9,888 101
Block H 0.39 16 7,248 70
Total Units 1536
Net Density (UPH) 267.13
Residential GFA 179,549
Non -Residential GFA 8,755
Jet Development Area 5.75
ROW 2.32DRAFT
Parkland 0.60
Future Development 0.06 06
Natural Heritage / 6.81 CONCEPT
Open Space
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Total Area 15.54
- CONFIDENTIAL -
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
Attachment 4
Goodyear Lands Precinci `Vision"
Vision for the Precincts
Goodyear Lands Precinct
0
Design Vision
To create a new mixed -use district with
residential, commercial, and community
uses and open spaces.
Objectives
• Diverse commercial to complement
King St
• Increased residential base to support
local businesses
• Diversify housing
• Placemaking / heritage integration
• Connections to surrounding natural
heritage network
NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM
EXISTING OPEN SPACE
WATER BODIES
- - - EXISTING TRAILS
- - - PLANNED TRAILS
EXISTING BUILDINGS
EXISTING PLACES OF WORSHIP
- = PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT SITES
PROPOSED BUILDINGS
REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
0 PROPOSED BUILDINGS (SP)
® PROPOSED SHARED AMENITY/SURFACE
PARKING/OPEN SPACE
J PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
H MULTI USE PATH CONNECTION
F -> VEHICULAR CONNECTION
O PRECINCT BOUNDARY
W ingim sVN ■�►eleKOM footprint Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan Update 131
45 Raynes Avenue Proposed Demolition Plan
Buildings proposed to remain
Buildings proposed to be removed
le
44
L ,
Building 15 Buildings�2 6,,8, 18,
20-25, 28, 2
Y x
- Reclaim t ,;
Plant .;
AI
r
**Subject to Advisory Committee Approval**
ci
ffftwin
Clarington Heritage Committee Special Meeting
Minutes
June 06, 2023
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility.
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Minutes of the Clarington Heritage Committee Special Meeting held as a hybrid
meeting in person at 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville and via Microsoft Teams on
June 06, 2023, at 7:00 PM.
Members Present: Councillor Elhajjeh, Peter Vogel, Steve Conway, Victor
Suppan, Jason Moore (ACO), Ron Sproule, Heather
Graham, Noel Gamble, Laura Thiel-Convery (Museum),
Colin Maitland, Joseph Dalrymple, Steven Lawson.
Regrets: Sher Leetooze (NVDHS), Myno Van Dyke (NVDHS), Ron
Hooper
Staff Present: Sarah Allin, Jane Wang, Lisa Backus, Planning and
Infrastructure Services
Guests: Mark Jacobs (Biglieri Group), Absar Beg, Tara Jenkins
(AECOM)
1 Declaration of Interest
There were no disclosures of interest stated at this meeting.
2 Land Acknowledgement Statement
P. Vogel read aloud Clarington's Land Acknowledgement Statement.
3 Adoption of Agenda
23.18 Moved by S. Conway, seconded by R. Sproule
That the Agenda be adopted
"Carried"
4 Delegations/Presentations:
4.1 Mark Jacobs, Re: 45 Raynes Avenue, Former Goodyear property
Mr. Jacobs from the Biglieri Group gave a presentation regarding the property
status and proposed demolition. The presentation outlined the redevelopment
concept under the current site and planning context. The property history was
summarized, and the cultural heritage value and the Registered heritage status
were acknowledged. Mr. Jacobs listed the current issues the property was facing,
including the crumbling facades, remediation, trespassing and vandalism. He also
reiterated the intention to demolish the large `main building' and of retaining the
- 1 -
**Subject to Advisory Committee Approval**
ci
ftw
Clarington Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes
ffn
June 06, 2023
former powerhouse building with the adjacent chimney stack (Building 1), the
pumphouse and the cement house building (Building 27).
5 Business Arising
6 Project Reports
7 Correspondence and Council Referrals: None
8 New Business:
8.1 45 Raynes Avenue (Former Goodyear property)
A site visit was conducted the day before the Special meeting. The Committee
members discussed the current situation based on the site visit and review of the
submitted Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated January 2021, prepared by
Aecom and other supporting materials. Committee members asked for clarification
of interior heritage attributes.
M. Jacobs stated that the factory expansion surrounded the oldest building. The
original wooden columns, some brickwork and raised "louvre" skylight system can
be observed. But most features were covered by additional structures built over
the years.
Clarification was requested by Committee members relating to year the oldest
building and the Chimney were built, a missing reference of 181 Queen Street,
and the history of Devitte's Lane. Committee members also raised concerns about
the site security and reuse of retained buildings, the demolition plan, preservation
of the pumphouse and Indigenous community consultation. The representatives of
the property owner provided clarifications. The consultant Aecom will update the
HIA, improve the deficiencies mentioned in the meeting and will prepare a Salvage
and Documentation Plan and Commemoration Strategy for the adaptive reuse of
the structures proposed to be retained.
Property owner and representatives indicated the remaining structures will be
fenced to prevent unauthorized entry and vandalism. A Stage 1-2 Archaeology
Assessment has been done for the site. No archaeological resources were
discovered, and no further archaeological assessment is required. The proposed
demolition does not include the pump house. The CHC indicated an interest in
exploring the cultural heritage value of the dam.
The Committee members discussed the approach of designating individual
structures including Cement House (Building 27), Power House (Building 1), and
the stack). Additional discussion took place as to whether to designate the
chimney stack. Staff will explore the possibility of using a reference plan, to be
provided by the applicant, to delineate the portion of the property that would be
-2-
**Subject to Advisory Committee Approval**
ci
ftw
Clarington Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes
ffn
June 06, 2023
subject to the designation so as not to apply the designation to the entirety of the
property.
23.19 Moved by S. Conway, seconded by R. Sproule
That the Committee recommends to Council:
To authorize the intent to designate the portions of the site that are proposed to be
conserved (Cement House (Building 27), Power House (Building 1), and the
stack), and require the applicant to prepare a reference plan to delineate the area
for designation for inclusion in the notice of intent.
To request the property owner to move forward with the completion of a Salvage
Report and Commemoration Plan as outlined in the HIA, and any other
amendments to the HIA, as necessary.
That the remainder of the property be removed from the Municipal Register, and
allow the demolition to proceed as proposed, along with the development of a plan
to protect the portions of the site to be designated and retained.
That staff be directed to work with the applicant and CHC through the development
approvals process to implement the accepted salvage and commemoration plan,
including architectural control.
"Carried"
9 Reports from the committees: None
10 Standing items: None
Adjournment: 9:10 P.M.
Next Meeting: June 20, 2023, 7.00 p.m.
The Biglieri Group Ltd. on behalf of Karmina Developments
Former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Factory: Heritage Impact Assessment
4. Proposed Statement of Significance
Based on the background research, including the history of the property, and the
Ontario Regulation 9/06 evaluation completed as part of this Heritage Impact
Assessment, the following Statement of Significance has been drafted:
4.1 Description of the Property
45 Raynes Avenue, known as the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company factory is part
of an industrial complex in the Municipality of Clarington, Town of Bowmanville. The full
legal description of the property is "Con 1 Pt Lot 12 Plan H50081 — Pt Lt 8 Lots 10 to
20 Plan; 34 '/z Pt St RP 40R14289; Parts 1 to 3.
The property consists of approximately 15.5 hectares and is comprised of table lands
and valley lands situated along the Bowmanville Creek, near the centre of the commu-
nity. Since 1905, this property became a manufacturing site to produce rubber items
has been occupied by buildings and landscape features associated with the
Bowmanville Goodyear Tire and Rubber factory.
The main historic features of the property include the main two -and three -storey
buildings associated with the former Durham Rubber Company, and the subsequent
Goodyear Tire and Rubber factory on site (Buildings 2,3,6, 18, 21, and 25). Also
included are the Cement House (Building 27), the Mechanic's Shop (Building 29), and
the Powerhouse with its associated brick chimney (Building 1). Associated landscape
features include the railway spur, and the adjacent dam on Bowmanville Creek.
The Statement of Significance refers to the cultural heritage landscape and the
associated cultural heritage resources found therein.
4.2 Proposed Statement of Significance
45 Raynes Avenue is significant for its design, historical and contextual value.
The Bowmanville Goodyear Tire and Rubber factory is the largest and one of the oldest
early 20t" century industrial complexes in the Town of Bowmanville. It represents a
significant example of the importance of manufacturing in the 20t" century development
of the Municipality of Clarington.
The industrial complex is a representative example of the evolution of early 20t" century
factory architecture in the Town of Bowmanville. The property is characterized by its
Iff
The Biglieri Group Ltd. on behalf of Karmina Developments
Former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Factory: Heritage Impact Assessment
grouping of industrial buildings that display typical industrial style architecture for its
time. The property includes long and narrow rectangular brick structures with flat roofs
which were built to house the functional industrial requirements of the early 20th century
rubber factory. The Goodyear buildings are constructed of heavy timber framing with
brick facades along Raynes Avenue. The extensive windows, now bricked over, had
once provided light into both sides of a building. Over the years, the sides of the
buildings have been altered to accommodate for expansion with addition. The
landscape elements are associated with the historic movement of goods by rail during
the formative years of the factory.
Historically, the Durham Rubber Company received a loan in 1905 from the Town of
Bowmanville to purchase the Raynes Estate, to establish a new facility. The site may
have been a former industrial site with brick buildings constructed in 1897. In 1906 the
Durham Rubber Company built a two -storey brick building on site to produce carriage
and bike tires and other rubber items. In 1910, the Durham Rubber Company entered
an agreement with Goodyear, and 45 Raynes Avenue became the first Goodyear plant
in Canada. In 1911, the first addition was constructed to meet the demand of production
for tires.
Contextually, the industrial complex is situated in the heart of the community of
Bowmanville amidst residential buildings of similar age, many of which were built for or
occupied by workers at factory. The property, located along Bowmanville Creek,
represents an industrial site established in the late 19th century, likely as a former mill
site. Views to 45 Raynes Avenue from the public realm, including the creek valley trail
system reinforce a connection to the industrial and economic heritage of the
Bowmanville community. The former Goodyear Tire and Rubber factory is a well-known
local landmark that has defined the industrial character and history of the community of
Bowmanville since its inception in the early 20th century.
4.3 Heritage Attributes
The following heritage attributes in Table 5, below, express the cultural heritage value
of the property at 45 Raynes Avenue, Bowmanville, containing the Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Complex as an example of late 19th and early 20th century industrial style that
reflects the alterations, changes in use throughout a century of operations.
47
The Biglieri Group Ltd. on behalf of Karmina Developments
Former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Factory: Heritage Impact Assessment
Table 5: Heritage Attributes Associated with the Former Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Factory
Building No.
� Original Function
Construction Date
I Heritage Attributes
1 (with
Powerhouse and chimney
1897
• Architectural details on the south fagade including engaged pilasters and brick corbelling just below the original roofline on the building.
chimney)
• Series of factory -style windows that have since been painted.
• A large, hipped -roof cupola is located on the roof of the building, the cupola houses a metal hopper.
• Large chimney located east of the building
2
Mill room
1897
• Raised louvre" skylight system in the middle of the building with extant mechanisms too en and close the windows.
3
Mill room
1897
• Raised 'louvre" skylight system in the middle of the building with extant mechanisms too en and close the windows.
6
The first storey was used as a shipping
1911
• Scale, massing and configuration of the brick fagade fronting onto Raynes Avenue.
area. The second storey was used as
• Series evenly placed bays of windows with a shallow arch and voussoirs.
storage, and the third storey was used for
• Engaged pilasters which extend from the foundation to just above the third storey window.
hose manufacturing.
• Brick corbelling between each pilaster.
18
Mixing
1914
• Scale, massing and configuration of three -storey brick fagade fronting onto Raynes Avenue.
• Series evenly placed bays of windows with a shallow arch and voussoirs
• Engaged pilasters which extend from the foundation to just above the third storey window.
• Brick corbelling between each pilaster.
21
The first storey was used primarily for
1929
• Scale, massing and configuration of three -storey brick fagade fronting onto Raynes Avenue.
shipping and receiving. The third storey
• Series evenly placed bays of windows with a shallow arch and voussoirs
housed the administrative offices and
• Engaged pilasters which extend from the foundation to just above the third storey window.
meeting rooms for the facility.
• Brick corbelling between each pilaster.
25
Milling
1937
• Scale, massing and configuration of three -storey brick fagade fronting onto Raynes Avenue.
• Series evenly placed bays of windows with a shallow arch and voussoirs
• Engaged pilasters which extend from the foundation to just above the third storey window.
• Brick corbelling between each pilaster.
27
Cement house
1943
• Series evenly placed bays of windows with a shallow arch and voussoirs
• Engaged pilasters which extend from the foundation to just above the third storey window.
• Brick corbelling between each pilaster.
• Original exterior wood and metal doors.
Table 6: Landscape Features Associated with the Former Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Factory
Landscape Feature
Bowmanville Creek (Formerly Barbour's Creek)
Construcuon Datell
NA
Heritage Attributes
• Spatial relation to the former Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Factory.
• The former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. utilized the water supply provided by the watercourse. The former factory also utilized the creek to
dispose of waste from the factory.
Grand Trunk Railway rail spur
1912
• Raised railway spur which extended south from the Grand Trunk Railway mainline, tracks located on north and south sides of the Former Goodyear
Tire and Rubber Co. to facilitate shipping.
Viewscapes within and to the Former Goodyear
NA
• The key views that represent the value of the former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Factory as a landmark and continue to define the
Tire and Rubber Company factory
industrial character and history of the community and the industrial cultural heritage landscape as experienced from the public realm including the
Bowmanville Creek Valley, Queen Street, Raynes Avenue, Queens Avenue and within the property.