HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-15-041 - Designation of 79 Moore Ave & 54-68 Shanley St - Sacred Heart Church & Buildings Staff Report
��c tl R Community Services Department wwwkitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, April 7, 2015
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning, 519-
741-2200 ext. 7648
PREPARED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning,
519-741-2200 ext. 7306
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: April 2, 2015
REPORT NO.: CSD-15-041
SUBJECT: Designation of 79 Moore Avenue and 54-68 Shanley Street under
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (Sacred Heart Church, Rectory,
Convent and Former Pastor Residence)
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a
Notice of Intention to designate the property known as 79 Moore Avenue and 54-68
Shanley Street, as being of cultural heritage value and interest.
BACKGROUND:
I�h ,
7 4
Waird 10 19
N
ar rr
51
lli ,
M
*This information is available in accessible formats upon request. Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-
969-9994 for assistance.
The property municipally addressed as 79 Moore Avenue and 54-68 Shanley Street is located
on the north west corner of Moore Avenue and Shanley Street in the KW Hospital Planning
Community of the City of Kitchener. The property is commonly known as the Sacred Heart
Roman Catholic Church property. The property contains a church, rectory, convent, former
pastor house and a residential building.
Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, an early 20th century building built in the Romanesque
Revival architectural style, is located on the corner of Shanley Street and Moore Avenue with
the main entrance facing Shanley Street. A rectory facing Shanley Street is located to the west
of the church and is attached by a breezeway. Situated north of the church, facing Moore
Avenue, is a former convent. Two additional 2 storey residential buildings are located at the
south west corner of the property along Shanley Street. One of the residential buildings was
formerly used as a pastor house.
The property was recently listed in 2013 as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value
or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The principal resources that contribute to the
heritage value of the property are the church, convent, the rectory and the residential building
located at the property's far west end. These resources are recognized as having
design/physical, associative/historic and contextual values.
A demolition application has been submitted for the former convent building located on the
Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church property. Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that
the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church property meets the criteria for designation under Part
IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and should be designated at this time to prevent the demolition of
the former convent building.
REPORT:
Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within our City is an important part of
planning for our future, and of helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures
and landscapes that give our City its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the
conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario
Heritage Act is the main tool that the City has to provide long-term protection of cultural heritage
resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the
local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value; encourages good stewardship
and conservation; and, promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation
also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and
that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest.
Cultural Heritage Value
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street is recognized for its design/physical,
associative/historic and contextual values.
The design and physical values relate to the architectural style of the church and convent
buildings. The church is a notable example of the Romanesque Revival style. The design and
physical values of the convent relate to its use of stripped classical architecture to complement
the design of the Romanesque church.
The associative / historic value relates to the relationship between the church and early Polish
settlement in Berlin (now Kitchener). The Canadian Polish Congress, a national association of
Polish organizations across Canada, has identified 5 plaques at Sacred Heart Church as having
historic value for Polish Canadians. The associative / historic value also relates to the architect
of the church. The church was designed by Toronto architect, Arthur William Holmes, a prolific,
ecclesiastical architect who devoted most of his active career to the design of buildings for the
Roman Catholic Church in southern Ontario. In addition, the church, convent and rectory have
direct historical associations with the adjacent former Sacred Heart Catholic School and Mount
Hope Cemetery. The convent was constructed in 1927 to house the Sisters of Notre Dame who
taught at the Catholic separate school which was located on an adjacent property along Moore
Avenue. The Sacred Heart Church operated the Roman Catholic Mount Hope Cemetery
between 1918 and 1958.
The contextual value relates to the role of the church as a landmark within the neighbourhood,
and the linkages that exist between the church, rectory and convent to the adjacent former
Sacred Heart Catholic School and Mount Hope Cemetery. This physical, historic and functional
linkage between the church property, former Catholic school and Mount Hope cemetery is
uniquely significant within the City of Kitchener and distinguishes the Sacred Heart
Church property from other historic places of worship in the city.
A more complete description of the cultural heritage value of the property and list of heritage
attributes is described in the Statement of Significance attached as Appendix `A' to this report.
Proposed Demolition of the Convent Building
�e
i
G
Photo showing Sacred Heart Church(left)and former convent(right)
On March 9, 2015 a Building Permit application to demolish the former convent was received by
the City's Building Division. The application was made by a consulting engineering firm on behalf of
the Diocese of Hamilton which owns the church property.
There is a presumption against the demolition of properties listed on the Municipal Heritage
Register (MHR). On March 13, 2015, a letter was sent to the owner of the Sacred Heart Roman
Catholic Church advising that under the Ontario Heritage Act, the owner of a property listed on the
MHR may not remove a building that is listed unless the owner provides written notice of their
intention to demolish along with plans and any additional information required. The letter advised
that if the proposed demolition is related to the condition of the building (e.g. maintenance
requirements, structural issues, etc.) then a report prepared by a qualified building consultant is
required and must outline the work necessary to bring the building up to a minimum standard
including cost estimates. The letter also advised that the Diocese should refer to the directory of
practitioners and professionals maintained by the North Waterloo Region Branch of the
Architectural Conservancy of Ontario and the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals for a
list of qualified building consultants and structural engineers.
Once the notice, plans and information is received, a 60 day timeframe commences whereby the
City must decide whether to pursue a heritage designation as a means of preventing the
demolition. May 8, 2015 represents sixty days from the date when the application to demolish the
convent building was received by the City's Building Division.
In response to the City's letter, a meeting was held on March 25, 2015 with representatives of the
Diocese, Kitchener Planning staff, and the ward Councillor. Staff and the ward Councillor toured
the former convent building which has been vacant for several years. At the meeting, the Diocese
advised that they have no use for the former convent, cannot afford to maintain the building, and
wish to demolish the building to gain needed surface parking for the church. The Diocese has
advised they only have 7 parking spaces on site and that the adjacent former school property is
used for parking when required. The Diocese estimates that 20 parking spaces may be gained
should the former convent building be demolished.
On the tour, City staff observed that the exterior of the convent building appeared to be in general
good condition. The roof was not visible from the ground. The interior of the convent was intact, but
there was evidence of mould, paint peeling from walls, and some water damage primarily seen in
the basement. It appeared that water was continuing to enter the basement of the building.
Proposal to Explore Options
The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has published a Heritage Toolkit including a guide to
conserving heritage places of worship in Ontario. According to the guide; "as a community
asset, the demolition of a heritage place of worship should be considered only as a last resort
after options that do not involve demolition have been fully explored (e.g. mothballing, sale for
adaptive re-use, relocation, retention or partial retention in a new building)".
The Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church property is located within a stable residential
neighbourhood, and is centrally located with good access to various amenities including the future
rapid transit system. In the interest of exploring possible conservation options, City staff contacted
the Region of Waterloo to inquire as to the Region's possible interest in the former convent for
adaptive re-use into affordable housing. The Regional Director of Housing has advised that there is
a need for shared living space in the Region, and that former convent buildings have potential to
provide such accommodation. She explained that different funding opportunities are available
and that a number of groups currently have proposals in place for funding but are searching for
suitable land and/or buildings. This information was shared with the Diocese.
Staff can advise that arrangements are being made for various groups, including Regional
Housing staff, to gain access to the property on April 8, 2015 in the hope to generate interest in
the building and a resolution that would result in the building being conserved.
In light of the cultural heritage significance of the property; its location within a stable residential
neighbourhood; and that there may be Regional interest in exploring the feasibility of converting
the former convent into affordable housing, City staff presented a proposal to the Diocese. Staff
requested that the Diocese and City staff work together to find a solution that would be
acceptable to the Diocese and result in the conservation rather than the demolition of the former
convent. Staff requested that in an act of good faith, the demolition application be withdrawn. In
turn, staff would abandon immediate efforts to designate the property. Staff committed to
undertaking efforts to find an acceptable solution within a reasonable time frame, and advised
that if unsuccessful, the proposal would not preclude the Diocese from making a new
application for demolition or the City from considering a heritage designation.
On March 31, 2015 staff received an e-mail from the Diocese advising that the demolition
application would not be withdrawn. The Diocese offered that if a demolition permit was
obtained, they would be willing to wait 90-120 days after issuance of the demolition permit to
see if there is any interest from other groups in regard to finding an alternative arrangement.
The Diocese also offered to work with a group at salvaging features of heritage interest for
future use.
While staff appreciate that the Diocese has offered to defer acting on the demolition for a period
of time, it is important to note that once a demolition permit is issued, the City loses all
ability to prevent the demolition and loss of the former convent building. In contrast,
should the City proceed to pass a notice of intention to designate, a number of options continue
to be maintained. Should the City proceed to pass a notice of intention to designate, the subject
property would receive interim protection as if it were designated prior to the passage of the
designating by-law. There is no timeline under the Ontario Heritage Act for Council to pass the
designating by-law, and Council would maintain the ability to withdraw the notice of intention to
designate. Should Council proceed to pass a designating by-law, the owner still has the ability
to make an application under the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish, and a right of appeal to the
Ontario Municipal Board should the application be denied.
Submission of a Building Condition Assessment
On March 31, 2015 the Diocese provided a copy of a Building Condition Assessment dated
March 25, 2015 prepared by Lanhack Consultants Inc. (an Engineering consulting firm). A copy
of the Building Condition Assessment is attached as Appendix `B' to this report.
The assessment examined the building's structure, envelope, roofing system and site conditions
as part of a walkthrough inspection. By definition, a walkthrough investigation is a non-intrusive,
visual observation of a subject property and survey of readily accessible, easily visible
components and systems. The following summarizes some of the information contained in the
Building Condition Assessment.
• The foundation walls were found to be in fair condition with no evidence of deterioration
to the exposed portion of concrete above grade.
• No obvious deformation or significant cracks were found to suggest instability or
structural deficiency with the support or floor structure.
• The brick and stone veneer was found to be in good condition with no apparent signs of
deterioration or structural instability.
• Windows and doors units appeared to be in poor condition but could still be salvaged
and refurbished (though the consultant advises that would be a costly endeavour).
• The roofing system was found to be in poor condition. Deterioration was mainly a result
of aging and deterioration of the waterproof membrane and built-up tar paper.
• The electrical and heating system was found to be in fair working order.
• Interior partitions and ceilings were found to be in fair to poor condition. The building has
experienced several water leaks over time from the roof and broken water lines which
has resulted in damaging interior finishes.
Lanhack Consulting Inc. estimates the cost to make the necessary repairs and system
replacements to the convent building to be a minimum of 1.7 million dollars. This cost estimate
is based on the consulting firm's experience with contractors specialising in the fields in
question, and direct inquiries to service contractors involved with the property.
The Ministry's guide to conserving historic places of worship advises that property owners may
need to consider full or partial demolition when the structure of a heritage place of worship is
determined to be unstable or unsafe and beyond repair (e.g. as a result of a fire). Further, the
guide states that before making the decision to demolish, the owner should have an analysis of
the structure done by a qualified structural engineer with experience in the conservation of
historic structures. Staff note that Lanhack Consulting Inc. are currently not identified on the
database of qualified Building Specialists maintained by the Canadian Association of Heritage
Professionals (CAHP). Staff are unaware if the consulting firm has demonstrated experience in
matters relating to heritage properties.
In reviewing the Building Condition Assessment that was provided, staff note that in the opinion
of the consulting engineer, the convent building is not structurally unsound or unstable, and that
it is has not been damaged beyond repair. Staff do question some of the observations made in
the assessment that could impact the estimated cost of repair. For example, the Building
Condition Assessment states that all the finished wood floors have been affected due to water
damage and would have to be removed and new finishes provided. Staff did not observe
significant or even moderate damage to the wood floors of the convent building.
iri„�1,
1
i
f
e
r �e
l�
Vii V VV ��•''' � ��/�/� i/
Photograph taken March 25, 2015 showing condition of wood floors in common room in convent building
City staff are pursuing having the Building Condition Assessment prepared by Lanhack
Consulting Inc. peer reviewed by a qualified structural engineer with experience in the
conservation of historic structures. As of the date of this report, it is uncertain whether such peer
review will be undertaken in time for Heritage Kitchener and/or Council's consideration of the
recommendation to pass a notice of intention to designate.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Designation supports the Quality of Life and Development Community Priorities of the City of
Kitchener Strategic Plan by publicly acknowledging a property's heritage value and ensuring its
conservation for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM, CONSULT —The Diocese is aware of City staff's intent to pursue and recommend the
heritage designation of the subject property, and will be provided a copy of this staff report. Staff
note that the Diocese has been cooperative in providing access to the property. Section 29(2) of
the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee
(Heritage Kitchener) before giving notice of its intention to designate a property. Heritage
Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report. Members of the
community will be informed via consideration of this report at Heritage Kitchener and via formal
consideration by Council. In addition, should Council choose to give notice of its intention to
designate, such notice will be formally served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage
Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record). Once notice has been served, the
owner has a right of appeal to the Conservation Review Board.
CONCLUSION:
Staff are of the opinion that 79 Moore Avenue and 54-68 Shanley Street, known as the Sacred
Heart Roman Catholic Church property, meets the City's criteria for designation under Part IV of
the Ontario Heritage Act, and Ontario Regulation 9/06 with regard to cultural heritage value or
interest. Staff are of the opinion that a heritage designation should be applied at this time to
prevent the demolition of the former c.1927 convent building, which is specifically identified as
having design/physical value, and together with the other buildings on the property contributes
to the associative/historic and contextual value and significance of the property. Designation
under the Ontario Heritage Act applies to real property. While a demolition application has been
made for the former convent building only, the convent forms part of a grouping of buildings on
the property deemed to have cultural heritage value or significance.
Though the convent building is currently vacant and in need of repair, a heritage designation of
the property would not obligate the property owner to replace or upgrade the building systems
(e.g. electrical/mechanical ) or to make repairs beyond those that may be associated with the
City's Property Standards By-law. Heritage designation would still enable the Diocese and the
City to work together in pursuing options that could see the former convent at Sacred Heart
Roman Catholic Church being retained and put to a use that could serve the community and
neighbourhood.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Brandon Sloan for Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
APPENDICES
Appendix `A': Statement of Significance for 79 Moore Avenue & 54-68 Shanley Street
Appendix `B': Building Condition Assessment dated March 25, 2015 prepared by Lanhack
Consultants Inc.
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Statement of Significance
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Municipal Address: "'�,,,
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley � ''��� nw;
Street Kitchener ��
� , "��,�
Legal Description: I" 7
Plan 376 Part Lot 433, 434 & 435 �1 11 ,
Plan 385 Part Lot 457 71N511 W , R a I FAMISH
�' Q aird 10 ALpl��
Year Built: 1916 (church); 1927 ,� «�
(convent); 1962 (rectory) )- °` ry
Architectural Style: Romanesque
Revival (church)
Original Owner: Sacred Heart
Church (church, convent and
rectory)
Original Use: church
Condition: Good
Description of Historic Place
The 1.25 acre property at 79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street is located on the
north side of Shanley Street at the corner of Moore Avenue and Shanley Street in the
KW Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of
Waterloo. Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, an early 20th century building built in a
Romanesque Revival architectural style, is located on the south east corner of the
property. A rectory is located to the west of the church and attached to the church by a
breezeway. Situated north of the church, facing Moore Avenue is a former convent. Two
additional 2 storey residential buildings are located at the south west corner of the
property along Shanley Street. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage
value of the property are the church, convent, the rectory and the residential building
located at the property's far west end.
Heritage Value
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street is recognized for its design/physical,
associative/historic and contextual values.
The design and physical values relate to the architectural style of the church and
convent. The church is a notable example of the Romanesque Revival style which is
characterized by medieval design influences such as the use of square towers, round
arched windows and entrances, and substantial voussoirs. The building features: a
square corner tower; a half circular tower at the rear (north elevation) with half conical
roof; large entranceways on south and west elevations capped with semi-circular
window with wide, concrete voussoirs and hoods; single and paired semi-circular
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
arched windows with concrete surrounds; tripled semi-circular arched window with hood
and sill; arcaded corbel table under cornice; singular semi-circular arched windows
separated by buttresses on side elevations; buff brick construction; rough-faced,
squared stone foundation; and, use of concrete detailing and stained glass.
The design and physical values of the convent relate to its use of stripped classical
architecture to complement the design of the Romanesque church. The stripped
classical style was commonly used in the early part of the 20th century and reflected a
desire for economical and conservative building styles. Design features that are
complementary to the church include: buff coloured brick; vertical bands of brick on the
west and side elevations that emulate the buttresses found on the east and west
elevations of Sacred Heart Church; concrete cornice and dentils under the cornice;
entranceway on the west elevation with arched pediment and columns; a concrete brick
foundation. Other design elements that contribute to the building's stripped adaptation
of classical architecture include: symmetry of the front (east elevation) facade, a central
brick band on the front facade leading to a decorative roofline; a small iron balcony
above the front (east elevation) entranceway, and the use of transoms on first storey,
west and side elevation windows.
The associative / historic value relates to the relationship between the church and early
Polish settlement in Berlin (now Kitchener). The first Polish settlers spoke German and
were directed to Berlin between 1860 and 1872, possibly also drawn by the fact that the
Catholic Priest at the time could speak Polish (Spetz, 1916). Polish settlers joined the
St. Mary's parish and in 1888, began holding their own services in an old school near
St. Mary's parish (Walewandra, 1992). An independent Polish parish was established in
1912 and a site was selected for the construction of a new church. The cost of
construction amounted to approximately $52,000 and was paid for by the parishners.
Construction started July 30, 1916 with the consecration of the corner stone in October
297 1916, and was completed in September 29, 1918 (Unknown, n.d.; Uttley, 1975). The
church was named the Sacred Heart. The 2 storey brick house at the far west of the
property served as the residence for pastors of the Polish parish, including Reverend S
Rogalski (1920s), Rev. Joseph Samborski (1930s), Rev. J. D. Capiga (1940s)
The church, convent and rectory have direct historical associations with the adjacent
former Sacred Heart Catholic School and Mount Hope Cemetery. The convent was
constructed in 1927 to house the Sisters of Notre Dame who taught at the Catholic
separate school which was located on an adjacent property along Moore Avenue. The
Sacred Heart Church operated the Roman Catholic Mount Hope Cemetery between
1918 and 1958 (City of Kitchener, n.d.).
The Canadian Polish Congress, a national association of Polish organizations across
Canada, has identified 5 plaques at Sacred Heart Church as having historic value for
Polish Canadians, including the Our Lady of Czestochowa Plaque (south elevation); the
Millennium Bas-Relief(south elevation); the Father Jerzy Popieluszko Plaque, the
Heroic Dead Plaque, and St. Maximilian Kolbe Plaque and Portrait (Canadian Polish
Congress, n.d.).
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The associative / historic value also relates to the architect of the church. The church
was designed by Toronto architect, Arthur William Holmes, a prolific, ecclesiastical
architect who devoted most of his active career to the design of buildings for the Roman
Catholic Church in southern Ontario (Thomas, 1985; Hill, 2009). A. W. Holmes' use of
traditional architecture and his rejection of modernism appealed to the conservative
character of Roman Catholicism in the early 1900s, permitting Holmes to dominate the
field of ecclesiastical design for Catholic churches in southern Ontario between 1904
and 1940 (Thomas, 1985; Hill, 2009). Other local churches designed by A.W. Holmes
include: St. Agatha Roman Catholic Church and St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church
(Hill, 2009).
The contextual value relates to the role of the church as a landmark and the physical,
historic and functional linkages between the church, rectory and convent to the adjacent
former Sacred Heart Catholic School and Mount Hope Cemetery. Sacred Heart Church
is situated in a prominent location at the corner of Moore Avenue and Shanley Street
and its square tower and peaked roof rise above of the surrounding two storey
residences. The church is connected to the rectory by a breezeway. The property forms
a contiguous viewscape along Moore Avenue with the adjacent separate school
property, which in turn shares a boundary with Mount Hope Cemetery.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value of 79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street resides in the following
heritage attributes:
■ All elements related to the construction and architectural style of the church,
including:
o All elevations of the building;
• Roofline;
• Buff brick construction;
• Rough-faced, squared stone foundation;
• Square corner tower;
• Half circular tower at the rear (north elevation) with half conical roof;
• Doors and door opening, including:
■ one front entrance on south elevation and with wooded double
doors, semi-circular window, with concrete surround and moulding;
• two side entrances, one east elevation and one west elevation, with
wooded double doors, semi-circular window, with concrete
surround and moulding;
• Windows and window openings, including.
• single and paired semi-circular arched windows with concrete
surrounds;
• tripled semi-circular arched window with hood and sill;
■ singular semi-circular arched windows on side elevations;
• stained glass;
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
• Arcaded corbel table under cornice and dentil moulding on all elevations;
• Concrete detailing on all elevations;
• Rough stone and concrete staircase on south elevation;
• Cornerstone dated 1916;
• Plaques.
• All elements related to the construction and architectural style of the rectory,
including:
o All elevations of the building;
• Roofline;
• Buff brick construction;
• Doors and door openings, including:
■ Concrete surround on south elevation door;
• Windows and window openings;
• Chimney.
• All elements related to the construction and architectural style of the residential
house at the west side of the property (historically known as 54 Shanley), including:
o All elevations of the building;
• Roofline;
• Buff brick construction;
• Doors and door openings;
• Windows and window openings;
• Porch;
• Chimney.
• All elements related to the construction and architectural style of the convent,
including:
o All elevations of the building;
• Roofline;
• Buff brick construction;
• Concrete brick foundation
• Symmetrical front facade;
• Vertical bands of brick on the west and side elevations;
• Doors and door openings, including:
■ One front entrance with arched pediment and columns;
• Windows and window openings, including:
■ transoms on front and side elevation ground floor windows;
• concrete cornice and dentils under the cornice;
• iron balcony on west elevation above entranceway;
• Cornice and dentil moulding.
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
References
City of Kitchener. (n.d.). A walk through time: A historical walking tour of Kitchener's Mount
Hope Cemetery. Kitchener, Ontario: City of Kitchener Cemeteries.
Canadian Polish Congress. Polish Heritage in Canada. Retrieved from:
http://www.polishheritge.c /contct. spx
Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from
http://www.dictionryofrchitectsincnd .org/architects/view/264.
Spetz, T. (1916). The Catholic Church in Waterloo County. Catholic Register and Extension.
Thomas, C. A. (1985). A Thoroughly Traditional Architect: A. W. Holmes and the Catholic
Archdiocese of Toronto, 1890-1940. Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Architecture
in Canada, 10(1): 3-9.
Uttley, W. V. (1937 reissued 1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier
University Press.
Unknown. (n.d.). A History of Sacred Heart Church, Kitchener.
Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Ontario Directory. (1933). 291h Edition,Vernon
Directories Ltd, Publishers, Hamilton Ontario.
Walewandra, Rev., E. (1992). Sacred Heart Church. Retrieved from
http://www.polishheritge.c /news detil. spx?news page id=4&news id=20.
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Photos
IIIIIIIIIII ,
r II
n
s
1
I
f
J
l
/ 1
y
I
1,
q s,
i
i
1
/
f,
UI,Qi nii 1)1�ti lug,°�ili i Iii I 7h �i 1
U � l
IS�� ti ,mbw e, ,a
( , II�IW)44V��)IU'�� IV��1411
M1�)�I)UI��IUI���If�11�1�k1 �V��6I�S�a�'1DII�f�1
�I�VI{I���;, y4y�1N11�1114��91�I1V�I�1Wl�
VNII�� �l��N�'��1➢ BI���UD�lal��ll��ll�( � ti ,
IVfI^IIIIIIIr V ��p�mp�p�p�p��I�(pQp��(Irtmlm�p ...
m!Uf!�Ny,� p�rg���Urygllfp(�(�ll,{WSW^U'1V�71gV�I(pmU�(I�f�fipW;1�1��1p11pll)ll)N)➢U�1�91 V�,: ��
�IV�'1�N��oNnYIlN1 11!��119�U1`1��14���11{S+W11i �" "Y!;'
i
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Sacred Heart Catholic Church
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
i
1,
1 �
s
Y y I
I ti
I
r
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Sacred Heart Catholic Church, front elevation detail
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
x
�1
fi
�rN
r
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Sacred Heart Rectory, Church and connecting breezeway
r r
"`� muu,uuu pp tj
ry�y Y�/fi e/ e
e r wi/ JI rennrm�lGir� ��,��jy'� f
e/r
f �
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Sacred Heart Rectory, side elevation detail
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
n
u 6
J ,
V � m
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Rectory, front elevation
k
IL F k / ✓
iw
,a
I
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Sacred Heart Church, north and west elevations
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a •
N
I
rl
/ f
,9i�D/�/.,,,�� i 4�� ��oirllli u� / �u�w�� u I /� /y ��Ii,w�rk�N^�INh� ✓�/////�
mm"�Wwwuw�wwmww�ua 'u�=
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Convent, west elevation
i
� ut
i
j,
r
' IVI
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Convent, west and south elevation
APPENDIX`A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
.I V
� VIII Y YI'
�II
/
79 Moore Avenue / 54-68 Shanley Street
Former pastor residence, south elevation
N w 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ w
Ll
❑ ❑ ❑ O
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 z z z z z
Q z z ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
a o
v ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
w w ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
z z z z z z
U z z z z
w z 0 a ❑ o ❑ a
❑ o
w a
❑ ❑ ° z z
w ❑ � z z z � � O O O
Li Li o z z z Li Li
❑ ❑ ❑
Li Li Li Li Li Li Li
z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
a z z z o00
cot
w c.
w r �
a a
o
.d .� °o ►�
� r O
W4 ° ° ❑ °
5 ❑ ❑ ° ❑
Z Z Z Z O ❑ ❑ ❑
z ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ z z z
o o ❑ ❑ ❑
v ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
w W � � w
z z z z z
w
O ° ° ❑ °
z ° ❑
W a ❑ ❑ ° ❑ w z
z z z z o ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° z
o ❑ o
A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z
z z z z o
p�
bA
O �' N C �' ✓� Ur�' .m 'O ' O O
000
� � o
BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
79 Moore Avenue
Kitchener, Ontario
r1;
I,
Prepared For
Diocese of Hamilton
Prepared By
I_ANHACK CONSULTANTS INC.
Project No. 15073
March 25, 211
w
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Scope of Work 1
1.2 Out-of-Scope Issues 2
13 Definition of Terms 2
1.4 Cost Estimates 3
2.0 BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT 4
2.1 Reliance Information 4
2.2 Procedures and Conditions 4
2.3 Site and Building Contacts 4
2.4 Property Use 4
2,5 Property Description 4
2.6.1 Exterior Grounds 5
2.6 Building Condition 5
2.6.1 Structure 5
2,6,2 Building Envelope 6
2.6,2,1 Exterior Walls 6
2.6.2.2 Windows and Doors 6
2.6.2.3 Roofing 6
27 Electrical and Mechanical Systems 7
2.7.1 Electrical Systems 7
2,7.2 Heating and Air-Conditioning 7
2.8 Interior Finishes 7
3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION 8
3.1 Technical Limitations/Jut-of-Scope Issues 8
3.2 Legal Limitations 8
Appendix A Capital Expenditure Table
Appendix B Out-of-Scope Issues
' LANHACK Consultants Inc.
Consulting Engineers
17&8ckimeAry Street-Trailer
Hamilton, Ontario L8L8C2
is TeL (905)777-1454
Fax: (9O5)33O' 142
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of Work
The services of Lanhauk Consultants Inc. were retained to perform an assessment of the construction
details, physical performance and attributes of the property's systems for the building.
The Building Condition Aaoemmnnenl procedures and documentation have been conducted in general
accordance with the National Research Council Canada's publication "Protocols for Building Condition,
Assessment."
|m this report, a physical deficiency ie defined: aa conspicuous defects or significant deferred maintenance
of e subject property's material systems, cormpoments, or equipment as observed dwrin0 the field
obsen/er'owa|kthnough survey. Included within; this definition are issues affecting life safety and material
systems, oomponemtm, or equipment that are apppoachimg, have reached, or have exceeded their typical
expected useful life or which remaining useful life should not be relied upon in view of actual or effective
age, abuae, excessive wear and tear, exposure to the elements, lack of proper or routine maintenance,
etc. This definition specifically excludes deficiencies that may be remedied within routine maimtemanoe,
mniaue||emeoun minor repairs, normal operating nmainhenance, etc,' and excludes conditions that generally
do not constitute a material physical deficiency mf the subject property.
AII of the reasonably accessible areas were examined during the assessment of the building. Our Scope
of Work did not include non-destructive or destructive testing; opening of roof systems, wall assemblies or
their enclosures-, or testing of meohaniom|, electrical or |X#s safety systems. Our Scope of Wo�rk did not
include verification or engineering calculations of the building or the design of its components.
The building's structure, building envelope, roofing system and site cmodidumo were visually eammimed,
m/hena pmmuib|e, during a vva|k±hroogh inspection. The structural components (coKurmms, juiuta, beams,
etc.) were, randomly inspected, where accessible, to assess the overall condition. Original architectural
and engineering drawings were not consulted to verify or analyse design loads or design details. The
windows were examined for deteriorated oau|kimg, gaskets and broken ghezimg, as well as for
condensation or rust in the air spaces between the glazing panels in the double pane units, which would
indicate possible broken thermal seals.
It should be noted that cracking of a slab-on-grade may be due to long-term dry shrinkage over the early
life of the building, the nature of the granular base, loading conditions, the type of concrete, the manner in
which it was placed and reinforced, and the location of control joints.
The assessment of the e|ectrlom| and mechanical systems was strictly visual to determine the type of
system, age and visual condition. The system components were randomly reviewed to assess their
oweusU8 condition. Operating conditions of the actual equipment were determined through a review of
available logbooks, interviews with property contacts and maintenance personnel. No physical testing or
intrusive investigative techniques were used.
It :should be noted that the Scope of VVmMk did not include e review of the National Building and Fire
Codes or compliance of the property to these codes. Only code issues that were mmported, or were
readily apparent during them/o|kthrnugh are indicated in this report.
This report is not intended to address or provide comment on the pnaaemoe or absence of organic
bacterial growth organisms through statemento, inferences oromissions.
Partners: n. Hacking,psny Asauc/ate� J.Day, P.Eng.
o. /amu|a.P.Eng. 4
f5D73/ Page 2mf8
The particular physical components of the building which are addressed in this assessment are as
follows..
�
Bui'l'ding Structure:
• Support structure
• S|ab'mn~0oade
• Floor structure
�
Building Enwo|mpe�
• Exterior walls
• Windows/Doors
• Roofing system
Electrical/Mechanical Systems:
• Heating and cooling systems
• Electrical
�~
Interior Partitions-.
* Interior surfaces (Omoxn. walls and ceilings)
1.2 Out-of-Scope Issues
In the context of this protocol, an out-of-scope issue is defined as"Any aspect the condition of the subject
building that cannot be readily ascertained during a walkthrough investigation". Any barriers that prevent
or limit the, direct and continuous visual observation of system or item will render the item "out-of-
scope". (See Appendix C)
1.3 Definition of Terms
The following terms and their respective definitions are used to describe the condition of the bui!AdinQ
systems:
Excellent: The system or equipment was found to be in new or nearly new condition with no
deficiencies ordamages.
Good- The system or equipment was found to be in satisfactory condition with no major
recommendations for repairs orimprovements.
Fair The system or equipment was found tobe im satisfactory condition with recommendations
to correct minor deficiencies. This condition may also describe a situation requiring,
immediate attention.
Poor: The system or equipment was found to be in unsatisfactory condition and must be
replaced or repaired in the short term.
15073/Page 3 o 9
The following terms are oommomiy used in a Building Condition Assessment to describe the state of the
building and the appropriate maintenance strategies for the required repairs:
Ws|kthrough |nveatigation: Num-intruaive, visual observations of the subject property' survey of
readily anoemoib|e, easily visible components and systems for the subject
property. A vvaUkihnzmgh investigation is not technically exhaustive, and
excludes concealed physical deficiencies and other O�ut-cf-SoopeIssues.
Observations of the building (exterior and interior) are limited to vantage
points that are on grade, from readily aoommmib|e balconies, nsoftops,
platforms, etc.
Remaining Useful Life(R0L): A subjective estimate of the number of remaining years that an itenm,
component or system will be able to function in accordance with its
intended purpose before warranting n*p|mmamnmrt.
Expected Useful Life (EUL): The average amount of time in years that an item, component orsystem
is estimated to function when installed new and assuming routine
maintenance im carried out.
Definitions of addition selected Building Science and maintenance terms can be found in the "Glossaty of
Selected Terms"included imthe appendices.
1.4 Cost Estimates
The estimated costs associated with the deficiencies and conditions reported herein are presented in the
Capital Expenditure Tab|es, included in the appendices. The term "Capital Expenditure" as it pertains to
the Capital Expenditure Tables, means the cost to replace defective elements of the building or to fully
repair the deficient elements within a given building system at o specified point during the investment
horizon,
Items that are deemed to bedeficient, but not significant in terms of importance, cost or their effect on the
overall building condition will bm considered to lie within the scope mf regular building maintenance.
Cost estimates for repairs and system replacements presented in this report are not derived from quantity
surveys or detailed engineering oaUouUations. The costs and unit rates provided are based on the
following information sources:
• Our experience with contractors specialising in the fields in quem imn�
• Direct inquires to service oontnaohnno imwo4vedm/ith the property.
These estimates are intended only for global budgeting purposes. They should be used as a guide only,
as costs may very according to the time of year, quality of materials umed, volume of work, actual
observed conditions, etc. Note that the estimates,do not include applicable taxes.
/\utumU mnmta for work can only be determined after preparing specifications and tender documents,
understanding Site restrictions that may impact work,, and establishing a construction schedule.
The range of prices for roofing, where applicable, depends on various factors, such as the condition of the
insulation and the correction of the slopes for drainage. Also, increasing the number of roof sections
(splitting a large roof into smaller sections is recommended) could extend the bmefnanne for the re-roofing
program. Prices are estimated assuming that each section is repaired (or nm-romfed) alone; hence, the
estimation could decrease when work is for more than one section at a time.
15073 Page 4 o 9
Fmrthe/mona, the estimates are based on the replacement of given roofing system with an equivalent
system, thus the estimation could vary significantly if upgrades are impUemembed, such as increasing the
thickness of the insulation or using an alternative membrane. The implementation of a regular
maintenance program could also extend the service fife of the roof and delay the proposed schedule.
2.0 BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
2.1 Reliance Information
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Diocese of Hamilton and may not be relied
upon by any other party without the written concurrence of Lanhack Consultants Inc.
2.2 Procedures and Conditions
Subject tothe provided "Out-of-Scope" information (Secthon No. 1.2. Out-of-Scope |aeueo, and in the
appendicea). observations of the property and building were compiled and are presented hereafter.
During the on-site assessment, no construction drawings were consulted for the purpose of locating
specific systems. No verification or analyses concerning design loads or design details was married out.
Selected photographs are enclosed inthe appendices.
Inspections for the current Building Condition Assessment were conducted byLamhack Commu|tambaKmo,'s
qualified building professional. The visit for the building assessment was conducted March 16. 2015
under overcast conditions.
2.3 Site and Building Contacts
The following personnel were contacted during the investigation and research periods:
'Pe I rson Company, Position
Diocese of Hamilton ar 905-975-1837
Mr. Moe Kowall
2.4 Property Use
The building is considered residential use and has two(2) floors of available space plus a basement.
2.5 Property Description
Address: 79 Moore Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario
Lot No.: Lot 457
Size of P,roperty: N,A.
Building Configuration: Two-storey+ basement
Year(s)of Construction: Approximately 1927 (Phase 1)
Potable Water Supply Source: Municipal system
Sanitary Sewer Service: Municipal system
Storm Water Drainage Municipal storm water and/or sanitary sewer system
L Facing Street: Property bu�ilding facing east onto Moore Avenue
16073 Page 5 o 9
2,5.1 Exterior Grounds
The building is on relatively flat ground and is level with the
Topography: adjoining property to the north and raised above the property to
the south and abutting street on the east.
Paved Area: West side, beyond lawn area.
Exterior Concrete: Walkway on the south and on east entrance.
Landscaping: Not applicable
Recreational Facility: There are no recreationall facilities on the property.
Observations and Recommendations:
The building's foot print ummoumem approximately 4596 of the entire property. The east side of the
property consists ofa concrete sidewalk that extends from the main porch tm the street and imsurrounded
by sod mn either side. The north side, adjacent to the building consists ofa sodded strip. The south side
consists mfsod between the building and auoncreha sidewalk. The concrete sidewalk extends along the
south side, adjacent to the property line. The west side consists ofa large lawn area from the rear ofthe
dwelling to the fence. Between the fence and the property line is asphalt paving. In 8en*naU. the
landscape areas were found to be in fair condition, The asphalt areas were found to be in |emo than
satisfactory condition and in need of replacement. The asphalt was found to be cracked and rutted in
several locations,
2.6 Building Condition
2.6.1 Structure
Foundations. Concrete
Frame: Brick/Block (Assumed)
Roof Deck: Concrete (Assumed)
Floor eck: Concrete (Assumed),
Slab,-on-Grade: Concrete
Observations and Recommendations:
The overall facility consists ofa two-storey residential building with a basement. The buihdimg appears to
have been constructed in two phases. The original portion on the east built in 1g27, extends
approximately 54'-0''from the front face cfthe building, The remaining portion of the building west mfthis,
was built at later time and is not original to the 1927 building.
The foundation walls for the facility consist ofpuured-in-p|aoeconcrete. For a majority nf the building, the
foundation walls primarily support the structural wall: systems around the perimeter and on each side of
the corridor.
The foundation walls were partially visible along the perimeter of the building and were,found to be in fair
condition. The exposed portion of concrete, directly above grade, showed no evidence of deterioration,.
The main structural, elements are the load bearing walls and floor slabs. Access and visibility to many of
the members was limited since they were hidden beneath the interior finishes and were not accessible for
viame8evm|uodlpm.
15073/Page 6mf9
In the areaawherethe structure was visible, no obvious deformation or significant cracks were observed
with the structure or transferred to the interior finishes (including Momro' walls and ceilings), that would
have indicated significant or ongoing structural movement. No merioua, important or generalized defect
that would imply a problem with ground water or unstable soil conditions was noted.
The second floor of the building is assumed to be a reinforced concrete floor, Our review of the structural
components that were visible, found no obvious deformation or any significant omsoks in the floor system,
to suggest instability or structural deficiency with the support structure. The floor a|ob and framing was
observed hrbein good condition.
2.6'2 Building Envelop
2A 2.f Exterior Walls
East Elevation Brick Stone
West Elevation Brick Wood Porch
North Elevation Brick Veneer/Stone
South Elevation Brick Veneer/Stone
Observations and Recommendations:
The brick and atone veneer were found to be in good condition with no apparent signs of deterioration or
structural instability. The brick veneer was found to be in good condition with only localized areas where
spelling or deterioration of the brick or mortar joints was observed. Cracks should be repaired to ovoid
any penetration of water and further deterioration of the wall in the deficient areas.
2.8.2.2 Windows and Doors
Windows: * Single-glazed, double hung units, in wood frames with transoms.
a Storm windows added on lowerRaq�����
D noo r s: Solid wood with wood frames.
Observations and Recommendations:
The windows and door units noted appeared to be in poor condition. Caulking around the window and
door frames was also found to be in poor condition. The window units appear original, to the dwelling,
The windows and doors can be salvaged and refurbished to preserve the heritage; however this is a
costly endeavour. In addition, the original window units are only a single glazed unit. Hence, to provide
the necessary energy efficiency, our opinion would be to remove the windows,and doors.
2.6.2.3 Roofin �
The roofing system for this building was found! tobeim poor condition. The roof for the building appears
to be a built-up roofing system over a concrete deck, Deterioration cf this type ofroofing system is mainly
caused by the aging and deterioration of the waterproof membrane and built-up tar paper. Membranes
nn building like this are exposed to thermal cyclic loading due to temperature extnemnes,. which account for
the major cause of this type of roofs failure. Once this protective membrane has failed, water ispermitted
to penetrate the roof assembly and creep its way to the main structural roof. This then results in the
presence of water marks om the ceilings below.
,
'
150�73/Page 7 o 9
Observations and
The survey of the roofing system for the purpose of this Building Condition Assessment was strictly visual.
The completion of a full roof condition murwey, with cut-tests and Infra-Red Thermogmsphy, is
recommended in order to verify the exact con60on of the components of the membrane and insulation
systems. and: 10 more accurately predict the Remaining Useful Lives (R0Ls) of the individual sections,
However, based on our observations, we found the roof to be greater than 15 years old. Leaks from the
roof were observed in various locations throughout the building. |tia our opinion that the roofing system
inin poor condition and itisin need of immediate replacement.
2.7 Electrical and Mechanical Systems
2.7.1 Electrical Siestems
Main Entrance: Underground
Metering: Central meter room
Interior Lighting: Conventional incandescent lighting fixtures
Exterior Lighting: Not applicable
Observations and Recommendations:
The electrical system for the building asa whole was found tobeim fair working order. Utiurecomnnended
that the electrical system for the entire facility be replaced and upgraded to current �EGA standards. Knob
and tube wiring may exist in the building and vvmu|d have to be removed. This would also involve
replacing the electrical panel and all plugs and switches.
2.7.2 Heating and Air-Conditionin
Heating: BoHer with radiators
Cooling: NA
Observations and Recommendations:
The heating system was reportedly im fair condition. The boiler and hot water tank appear tubein fair to
good comdition, however the radiators throughout the building will have to be replaced. Cracked pipes
and cracked welded sealed joints have opened up due to a lack of heat in the building during the winter
months. Pipes have frozen and will have tobereplaced.
2.0 Interior Finishes
Walls: Painted plaster
Floors: Carpet, VT and ceramic
Ceilings: Painted plaster or acoustic tile
Observations and Recommendations:
The interior partitions were Qenemafly found in fair tm poor condition. The ceilings were also im fair topoor
'
15O73/Page 8of9
The building has experienced several water leaks over time from the roof and also due h» broken water
lines. As a result, the water has damaged finishes throughout the interior and mould is currently present,
particularly in the lower basement. It is our opinion and recommendation that the present finishes be
removed and reinstated. This also would have to happen to rewire and provide new mechanical and
plumbing services to the upper level of the building.
All the finished wood floors have also been affected due to the water damage. Based on our
observations, the existing floors would have tube removed and new finishes provided.
3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION
3.1 Technical Li:mitations/Out-of-Scope Issues
Limitation to the scope of Building Condition Assessment as defined as Out-of-Scope Issues is "any
aspect of the condition of the subject building that cannot be readily ascertained during a xxa|kthrmugh
investigation". Additional information regarding Out-of-Scope Issues is included im the appendices. The
examples therein do not constitute an exhaustive list cflimitations. In fact, any barriers that prevent or
limit the dinect, continuous and eaha visual observation of a system or item will render the item Out-of-
Scope.
The following specific technical limitations uf this investigation should benoted:
• Our retained services did not include mon~destructive or destructive testing- opening of roof
syetems, xva|| assemblies or their enclosures; or testing of mechanical, e|eodca| or life safety
systems.
• Our retained services did not include verification or engineering calculations of the building or
component design.
• The assessment of the electrical and mechanical systems was strictly visual to determine the
type of syatam, age and aesthetic condition. Operating conditions of the actual equipment were
determined through a review of available logbooks, interviews with site contacts and maintenance
personnel. Nu physical testing or intrusive investigative technique was used.
• It should be noted that our review did not include a review of the Ontario Building Code and Fine
Codes mr compliance of the property to these codes.
• It should be noted that our verification for the presence of organic bacterial growth orgemimma,
commonly referred tomsmom|d during our wa|k±hrough visit cf the property, was strictly visual and
limited to,exposed surfaces. Nm physical testing or intrusive investigative technique was used.
• Cost estimates for repairs presented in this report are not based on quantity surveys or detailed
engineering calculations and are intended for global budgeting purposes only.
• Determining the extent of infestation or remedy for traatment, pertaining to any type of pests,
rodents, urinsects.
3.2, Legal Limitations
This report is intended solely for the Client(s) named. The material in it reflects our best judgement in
light of the information available toLamhack Consultants Inc. md the time ofpreparation. No portion mfthis
report should be used as a separate entity, as it is written to be read in its entirely. Any use which a third
party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of
such third parties.
15073/Page 9 of 9
The information presented in the Building Condition Assessment portion of this report was obtained
through interviews and observations of the subject building. Documentation and data provided: by the
Client(s), designated representatives of the Client(s), interested third parties or subcontractors not
retained by Lanhack Consultants Inc. and referred to in the preparation of this assessment, have been
used and referenced with the understanding that Lanhack Consultants Inc. assumes no responsibility or
liability for their accuracy.
The findings and conclusions of the Building Condition Assessment are developed in accordance with
generally accepted standards of practice within the industry in the jurisdiction in which the building is
located, the information made available, and/or professional judgement. The findings represent the best
judgement of the assessor during the time of the inspection and cannot warrant against undiscovered
deficiencies. Lanhack Consultants Inc. will not accept liability for any loss, injury, claim, or damage arising
directly or indirectly from any use or reflance on this report by any person or entity other than the
addressee.
By conducting a Building Condition Assessment and preparing a Building Condition Report, Lanhack
Consultants Inc. is merely providing an opinion and does not warrant or guarantee the present or future
condition of the subject property, nor may the Building Condition Assessment be construed as either a
warranty or guarantee of any of the building's components or systems.
Furthermore, changes in the use of the property, renovations or modifications made to the property may
affect the findings and conclusions stated in the Building Condition Assessment section of the report.
Therefore, it is important that the Client(s) periodically re-evaluates the facility and reviews developments
or operations that may potentially impact the facilities.
We trust this report meets your present requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us, if any questions arise.
Yours truly,
n I
Giancarlo Lancia P.Eng.
GL/Ig
Enclosures:
APPENDIX
Capital Expenditure Table - Summary
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TABLE—SUMMARY
79 Moore Avenue,Kitchener,Ontario
Total Required IMMEDIATE Capital Costs
[tem'No Item': Description CosF;
2.5.1 Exterior Grounds $150,000.00-$200,000.00
2.6.1 Building Structure $200,000.00-$225,000.00
2.6.2 Building Envelope $450,000.00-$500,000.00
2.7 Electricat and Mechanical $350,000.00-$450,000.00
2.8 Interior Finishes $550,000.00-$600,000.00
'TOTAL IMMEDIATE COSTS. $1,700,000.00-$1,975,000.00
APPENDIX
Out-of-Scope tissues
^
~
OUT-OF-SCOPE ISSUES
|m the context of this report, amOut-mf-Srope Issue ba defined as "Any aspect the condition mf the subject building
that cannot be readily 000edaUmed during a wa|kth*ough investigation." E;enene| and specific Out-of-Scope Iummee
for Building! Condition Assessments, as reported by Lamhack Consultants Inc., are aofollows:
Issues:General
• Our scope of work did not include non-destructive or destructive testing, openings of roofing systems, wall
assemblies or other enclosures, or testing of mechanical, electrical or life-safety systems.
• Our scope of work did not include verification or engineering oa|oulsdioma of the building or component
design.
• The assessment of the mechanical and electrical systems was strictly visual to determine the type of
systemo, age and aesthetic condition. Operating conditions of the actual equipment was determined
through review of available |ogbooku, interviews with Site contacts and maintenance personnel. No
physical testing mr intrusive investigative techniques were used.
• It should be noted that our scope of work did not include a review of the Ontario Building Code 2012 and
Fire Codes or compliance of the property to these codes.
• It should be noted that our verification for the presence of organic bacterial growth unJaniama, umnnmnmn|y
referred to as mould during our walkthrough viisit of the Property, was strictly visual and limited to exposed
surfaces. No physical testing or intrusive investigative techniques were used.
• Costs estimates for repairs presented in this report are not based on quantity surveys or detailed
engineering calculations and are intended only for gilobal budgeting purposes.
• Determining the extent of infestation or remedy for treatment, pertaining to any type of pests, rodents, or
insects.
N
I
Specific Issues:
Topic Out-of-Scope Issues
Site Conditions e Operating conditions of any manholes or utility pits.
• Condition of any items on the property that are extraneous to the property
(e.g. Hydro One transformers, transmission poles and lines, etc.).
Confined or crawl spaces will not be entered, although observations will be
made from the point of entry, if possible.
Building Structure e Our mandate did not include coring of the slab-on-grade and retrieval of
samples of the granular foundation. We, therefore, cannot confirm the
presence or absence of pyrite bearing aggregate or other materials, which
could alter the condition of the siab.
Determination of previous substructure flooding or water penetration unless
reasonably visible or if such information is provided.
Seismic and wind load considerations, or calculation of any load design
requirements.
Review of structural drawings related to this building.
Building! Envelope * Mounting any roof with inadequate access„ general or localised instability,
or any other perceived safety issue.
Accessing wall details or windows on a building's upper floors.
Observations will be limited to vantage points that are on-grade or from
readily accessible balconies or rooftops.
The evaluation of the roof membrane systems did not include cut tests to
verify the composition of the systems, for the presence of moisture below
the membrane surface, or the compatibility of the different components.
Commenting on elements confined within the wall or roof assemblies, such
as masonry anchorage, insulation, etc. No cut tests or other openings were
carried out.
Checking for the presence of phenolic foam insulation in the roof cross-
section.
• Review of architectural drawing, related to this building.
Electrical and Mechanical w Review of drawings or construction documents related to these systems.
Systems a Measurement to verify the capacity„ adequacy, or efficiency of the system..
Removal of panel or device covers.
EMF (electromagnetic field) issues.
Issues concerning tenant-owned equipment.
Observations of flue or vent connections.
Observations of interiors of flues, vents, ducts and chimneys.
a Verification of pipe sizes or other design issues.
Verification of any underground systems.
Determining adequacy of pressure and flow rate.
Vertical l_.ift Systems ® Examination of cables„ sheaves, controllers and motors.
d Entering elevator pits or shafts.