HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-462 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-024 - 1385 Bleams Road
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: December 2, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals,
519-783-3922
PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-783-8906
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: November 4, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD-2025-462
SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-024
1385 Bleams Road
Demolition of Shed, Two Additions, and Belfry
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-
2025-IV-024 be approved to permit the demolition of the shed, two additions, and belfry at
the property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road, in accordance with the
supplementary information submitted with this application, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum be approved by the Director of
Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of this permit;
2. That the Owners enter into a heritage easement agreement with the City in accordance
with Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the restoration/reconstruction of the belfry
prior to the issuance of this permit;
3. That the building permit be reviewed, and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage
Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit to facilitate the
restoration/reconstruction of the belfry;
4. The heritage clearance be provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit for the demolition of the shed and c.1920s and 1987 addition.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is
the shed, the two additions, and the belfry at the subject property municipally addressed as
1385 Bleams Road.
The key finding of this report is that the belfry and shed have been deteriorating, and
significant restoration interventions will be needed to stabilize and restore them. The belfry is
There are no financial implications associated with this report.
Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-024 is seeking permission to demolish the two additions
to the original schoolhouse building, built c. 1920s and 1987, the belfry and a woodshedat the
property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road. The belfry and the woodshed have been
identified as heritage attributes and are protected by the designating by-law. The belfry is an
advanced state of disrepair and has been deemed a safety hazard. The belfry was originally
located on the original schoolhouse building. It was relocated in the 1920s when the addition to the
schoolhouse was built. The woodshed is in fair condition, however, there are elements of
deterioration. The two additions are not protected by the designating by-law. Staff are
recommending that the Owners enter into a heritage easement agreement according to Section 37
of the Ontario Heritage Act to ensure that the belfry can be reconstructed and rebuilt.
BACKGROUND:
The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-
024 seeking permission to demolish the belfry, the woodshed and c. 1920s and 1987 addition at
the subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Location Map of subject property (highlighted in red box).
This permit has been brought before the Heritage Kitchener Committee as the subject property is
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating By-law 1987-309.
The subject property is located on the southern side of Bleams Road and western side of Fischer
Hallman Road, between Fischer Hallman Road and Abrams Clemens Street. Also known as the
which was originally constructed as a school for the former hamlet of Williamsburg in 1864 (Fig 2).
Figure 2. North and West elevation of the original Williamsburg Schoolhouse.
Williamsburg Schoolhouse
The Williamsburg Schoolhouse was originally built in 1864. It was a rectangular, gable-roofed
structure constructed of granite fieldstone. A brick addition was constructed in c. 1920 to
accommodate more students towards the rear. In 1966, the school was closed, and the building
was converted into a private residence. In 1987, a stone-faced, wood-framed addition was
constructed at the front of the building (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Phases of construction of the Williamsburg Schoolhouse. The blue arrow points to the
original schoolhouse built in 1864, the red arrow points to the brick addition added in c. 1920s, and
the green arrow points to the stone-faced, wood frame addition added in 1987.
The building has been recognized for its design/physical, and historical/associative value in the
designating by-law. The building is one of the few remaining original buildings from the former
Hamlet of Williamsburg, and the schoolhouse is a representative example of an early construction
style - rubble stone construction. The designating by-law identifies the following features of the
property:
- All rubble stone facades of the original schoolhouse;
- The belfry;
- The fence; and
- The woodshed.
The fence has already been demolished to accommodate a regional road widening in 2024 (DSD-
2024-088).
Associated Planning Applications
1385 Bleams Road was subject to a Zoning-By Law Amendment (ZBA) in 2023, which was
the A-1 (agricultural) zoning to RES-6 (residential) to allow for a medium rise residential
development. The Owners were proposing to build eight, three-storey townhomes towards the rear
of the property.
As part of the ZBA application, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and Conservation Plan (CP)
were submitted in support of the application. The draft HIA was circulated to Heritage Kitchener at
Proposed Re-Development at the Subject Property
2023, meeting has was
revised. At the time, this proposal contemplated development along the western rear portion of the
property. It included 8 three storey townhomes, with parking in the front (Fig. 4)
Figure 4. Initial Redevelopment Proposal presented to Heritage Kitchener Committee.
Now the redevelopment contemplates the construction of a three-storey stacked townhome
complex with parking at the rear towards the western edge of the property at the front (Fig. 5). Due
to the change in design, an addendum to the approved HIA was required to assess any impacts
the proposed redevelopment might have on the existing heritage resources, and to suggest any
mitigation measures. The addendum was presented to Heritage Kitchener at its September 3,
2024, meeting. The Committee was generally supportive of the proposal.
Figure 5. Revised redevelopment proposal site plan
The development in under construction and has a hipped roof and clad in stucco and brick veneer.
Columns proposed for the covered porches are clad in stone veneer (Fig 6-9). There are 8 parking
spaces proposed at the rear of the building, with one accessible parking spot, along with a 6-metre
driveway connecting the parking area to Bleams Road. A 1.1 metre concrete sidewalk surrounds
the building to provide accessibility.
Figure 7. Rear Elevation of the proposed
Figure 6. Front Elevation of the proposed
Development
development
Figure 9. East Elevation of the proposed
Figure 8. West Elevation of the proposed
development.
development
As part of this redevelopment proposal, the existing cultural resources are proposed to be
preserved in-situ, with no alterations proposed. This development was approved by
Heritage Kitchener at its October 1, 2024, meeting, and by Council at its October 21, 2024,
meeting.
REPORT:
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-024 is seeking permission to demolish the following:
- The c. 1920 and 1987 additions to the original schoolhouse building;
- The woodshed; and
- The belfry
The application notes that these elements need to be removed as they are in various stages of
disrepair. Upon reviewing this application, staff required the Owner to submit the following
additional documentation:
- A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Addendum assessing the impacts of the proposed
demolitions; and
- A structural assessment of these building elements, with cost estimates to repair and
restore each of these.
Two Additions to the Original Schoolhouse
C.1920s Addition
The HIA Addendum claims that the brick addition that was thought to have been built in 1874 was
inaccurate (Fig. 10)
been identified as a heritage attribute in the designating by-law and is not protected (Fig. 10).
Furthermore, according to the HIA Addendum, this addition has been found to be in poor condition
as a result of poorly built modifications over time. The cost to repair those issues and bring this
addition up to building code would be approximately $70,000 (Attachment A).
A structural assessment from Tacoma Engineers confirmed that this addition was in fair condition
but has sustained water damage. According to the structural assessment, the exterior walls are
conventionally framed wood studs with brick veneer above grade and poured concrete below
grade. The roof is conventionally framed wood rafters and collar ties. A comprehensive
assessment of the middle addition can be found starting page 10 of Attachment B. However, the
complete restoration of the middle addition would require the following:
-The roof framing (rafters, ceiling joists & roof sheathing) would require restoration, which may
include localized areas of member replacement (for rotten/deteriorated members).
- Plaster ceiling finish would require repairs/replacement.
- It is recommended that a structural review of the roof structure (rafters & ceiling joists) be
completed to ensure the ceiling joists are properly supported. If the ceiling joists are lapped,
additional support will be required.
- The support of the belfry by the roof framing (including support of gravity & wind loads as well
as a review of all required connections) must be investigated and confirmed to be structurally
adequate (refer to section 6.2 above). The existing load path supporting the belfry was not
obvious during our review.
- The roofing over the addition appears to be at the end of its service life and should be
replaced.
- Framing around existing windows/openings should be reinforced to ensure continuous posts &
adequate headers above openings.
- Some brick repointing would be required around exterior.
- The main floor framing would require localized repairs (joist hangers at flush connections),
some reinforcement where members are discontinuous and where notches/drilling exceed
allowable sizes
- New posts & footings (or new flush framing) would be required to properly support existing
flush beam along previous stair opening
- The floor sheathing requires localized replacement where sheathing is rotten, cut or otherwise
damaged (match existing thickness). Ensure all sheathing is supported on all four sides.
Additional blocking between the joists may be required.
- Connection of the floor joists to rim board over the window openings should be verified &
reinforced as required.
- Masonry repairs & repointing as well as installation of new steel lintels would be required over
the altered window openings
- It is recommended that the foundation walls be re-parged on the inside.
- It is suggested that an interior or exterior weeping tile system around this addition and a sump
pump be installed in an effort to reduce moisture within the basement.
Figure 10. C. 1920s addition proposed for demolition.
1987 Addition
The 1987 front addition is also not protected by the designating by-law and has no cultural heritage
significance or value (Fig. 11). This addition was added when the schoolhouse was converted into
a residence. Even though this addition features a similar stone design, it does not complement the
original designated schoolhouse building because best cultural heritage conservation states that
buildings should be distinguishable and of their own time. The HIA states that the cultural heritage
value of the original schoolhouse building would not be impacted if this addition were to be
demolished.
Figure 11. The 1980s front addition.
The Woodshed
According to the structural assessment, overall, fair
condition. However, the roofing and exterior wall finishes are in poor condition (Fig. 12-13).
According to the structural assessment, the structural walls are framed with an in-filled wood studs
between the sidewall roof beams and the floor framing, with board and batten wood siding installed
directly to the wood studs. The floorboards appear to be in poor/failed condition. According to the
HIA Addendum, the cost of which could exceed
$50,000.
The structural assessment recommends that:
- A comprehensive review of the existing roof framing members is required to identify which
members require replacement. Localized replacement of damaged purlins and rafters is
anticipated (approx. 15- 20% is anticipated). The heavy timber beams should be reviewed as
- Visibly damaged heavy timber connections should be reviewed and repaired to reinstate
capacity. The connection must be designed for the roof kickout forces unless the rafters are
adequately tied. External steel angles may be required if the heavy timber members are able to
remain in place.
- Missing knee braces should be reinstated where possible. Due to the low headroom and use of
the space, reinstatement of the knee braces may not be practical.
- The deteriorated asphalt shingles, facia and soffit boards requires complete replacement, along
with associated sheathing for the entire roof. The wood siding requires replacement of
damaged boards, 50% replacement is anticipated, however, the percentage that is salvageable
may decrease based on the condition of each member and the ease of removal. Itis
recommended that new doors be installed that can be secured adequately to deter animals.
-Properly installed eavestroughs are recommended as they will divert water off the roof and
prevent splashing and associated deterioration at the base of the walls.
- The deteriorated floor framing requires complete replacement, along with associated sheathing
for the entire floor. Wood framing should be adequately protected from grade and concrete to
prevent further deterioration.
- A review of any heavy timber members below the floor sheathing should be carried out and
repaired/replaced as necessary.
- The existing foundations would likely require complete replacement to ensure all the roof posts
and the floor framing have adequate support. It is recommended that any new foundations be
-
- Replacing the foundations below the woodshed would be extremely invasive and would require
the shed to be moved while the new foundations are placed and then reinstated. This is an
extremely costly endeavour.
While a restoration of the woodshed may be
contemplated, from a logistics, feasibility, and safety perspective, repairs may not be viable given
urrent state and the invasive structural recommendations for this structure (e.g. new
foundation, full framing of the floor). Further, salvaging a significant portion of the existing cladding
may not be possible
Figure 12. Current condition of the Wood shed.
Figure 13. Front Entrance of the woodshed. (Source: TACOMA Structural Assessment Report)
Belfry
The Belfry is perhaps the most deteriorated of all elements (Fig. 14-15). The belfry roof is in poor
condition. The four wooden posts are almost rotted through and are in a poor/failed condition.
According to the structural assessment:
- Two of the four support posts are very severely rotten and have failed. At their bases, the rot
appears to extend the full cross section of the member. The rotten posts are located on the
north side of the belfry. Due to the extent of the rot at the post bases, the connection of the
- Due to the deterioration of the post bases, the lateral capacity of the belfry is significantly
reduced. Horizontal force was applied at the belfry roof level and significant movement of the
belfry was observed.
- On all four posts, the caulking around base of post is in poor condition and appears to allow
moisture to penetrate under the flashing.
- The metal cap flashing on base is lightly rusted & in poor condition. Popped nails and some
joints in the metal flashing was observed and could possibly lead to moisture infiltration below
the flashing.
- The base framing could not be reviewed, however, based on the condition of the belfry posts
and the staining observed within the attic space below, it is anticipated that many of the base
members are also deteriorated/rotten.
The due to the extent of the deteriorating of the existing
condition is a safety concern and should be removed as soon as possible
The cost to repair and restore the belfry was estimated to be between $25,000 - $35,000 according
to the structural assessment, and above $26,000 according to the HIA Addendum.
Figure 14. Current Condition of the belfry
Figure 15. Deteriorated condition of wooden belfry posts (Source: TACOMA Structural
Assessment Report)
Secondary Cost Estimate
A secondary cost estimatewas required by heritage planning staff to confirm whether the ranges
of repair/restoration quoted in the HIA Addendum, and Structural Assessment were accurate. The
Owners then submitted a second cost estimate from Menno Martin Contractor Ltd. (Attachment C).
These cost estimates have been compared in the table below.
Property Structure HIA Addendum Cost TACOMA Menno Martin
Estimate for Engineers Contractor Ltd. Cost
Repair/Restoration Structural Report Estimate
Assessment Cost
Estimate
Minimum of $70,000 $337,898.25
Between $40,000 (complete restoration
55,000 with HVAC, plumbing,
demolition, etc)
Woodshed $ 91,826.63 (complete
$50,000 + Between $75,000-removal and
$95,000 reconstruction)
Belfry $26,000 + Between $25,000 $20,455.83 (complete
$35,000 removal and
reconstruction)
Heritage Planning Comments
Property owners are required to maintain their properties and to complete any
repairs/replacements required for heritage elements identified in the designating by-law. Since the
submission of this heritage permit application, staff have been working with the Owners to come to
an amenable solution. The Owners have informed staff that they are not willing to rebuild any of
these elements as part of this heritage permit application.
One of main resources staff refer to ensure that any proposed work is in keeping with best cultural
heritage conservation are the Standards and Guidelines of the Conservation of Historic Properties
in Canada. The demolition of the woodshed and belfry proposed as part of this heritage permit
application would result in adverse impacts to the cultural heritage value of the property. These
standards and guidelines include:
1. Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace, or
substantially alter its intact or repairable character-defining elements. Do not move part
of an historic place if its current location is a character-defining element.
o The proposed demolition (without replacement) of the belfry would result in adverse
impacts of the cultural heritage value of 1385 Bleams Road. However, the belfry is
in an advanced state of disrepair and poses a safety hazard. Thus, staff are
proposing rebuilding a new belfry on the original schoolhouse in the believed
original location.
o Even though the shed is in fair condition, the complete repair and restoration would
be a significant financial burden on the property owner.
Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention.
o The removal of the belfry (without replacement) would not result in an approach
calling for minimal intervention.
Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Do not
create a false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic
places or other properties or combining features of the same property that never coexisted.
o The heritage permit application does not propose to create a false sense of
historical development. Instead, according to the HIA, the removal of the 1980s
addition will further restore the cultural heritage value of the property.
Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no chance to its character-defining
elements.
o The property will continue to function as a residential property.
Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any subsequent intervention is
undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is
potential for disturbing archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage
and loss of information.
o A Building Order to Comply has been sent to the Owners in response to the
property owners, which included:
permit
application can be processed, and a decision is taken by Council;
Once the building permit and applicable approvals have been issues, to
remove and reconstruct the belfry; or
lfry.
This is standard practice the City has to undertake once the City has been informed that there is a
safety hazard with regards to any structural element or building element on any property.
Evaluate the existing condition of character-defining elements to determine the appropriate
intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect
heritage value when undertaking an intervention.
o The removal of the belfry and woodshed are not the gentlest means for an
intervention.
Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character-defining
elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in
kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character-defining elements, where
there are surviving prototypes.
o The woodshed and belfry have been deteriorating for quite a while and have not
been properly maintained for many years, which is why a heritage permit has been
submitted for their removal. Replacement-in kind, or reconstruction has not been
proposed by the Owners.
Make any intervention needed to preserve character-defining elements physically and
visually compatible with the historic place and identifiable on close inspection. Document
any intervention for future reference.
o The Owners do not intend to replace the woodshed or belfry.
The designating by-law for this property attributes
School was constructed in 1864 and is one of the few original buildings remaining in the former
hamlet of Williams
Staff undertook additional research to try and determine the relationship of the shed with the
architectural style and condition, however staff could not find any credible research or evidence
linking the shed to the school. Staff, however, did find photographic evidence of the belfry on
the original schoolhouse building (Fig. 16), and then on the addition when it was built (Fig. 17-
18). It is quite possible that the belfry was taken out to facilitate the building of that addition and
was put on the c. 1920s addition when construction was complete. Even if the re-located belfry
is not the original belfry that was on the schoolhouse, it seems to be a close replica of the
original, and it is the one that is protected by the designating by-law. Thus, it should conserved
long-
Figure. 16. Williamburg School, circa late 1800s. (Source: Kitchener Public Library
Archives,Tweedsmuir)
Figure 17. Re-located belfry on the c. 1920s addition (Photo date unknown) (Source: Kitchener
Public Library Archives,Tweedsmuir)
Figure 18. Re-located belfry on the c. 1920s addition (Photo date: July 1, 1948) (Source:
Source: Kitchener Public Library Archives,Tweedsmuir)
Staff recognize that increasing construction costs have been putting a burden on homeowners
trying to maintain their property. Thus, keeping in mind the reasons of designation of this
property, the costs associated with restoring and reconstructing the shed and belfry, and in
rest
proposed to be demolished, as it is not protected by the designating by-law. Staff believe that
lue.
The Standards and Guidelines contain additional guidelines on roof elements and their
restoration/rehabilitation:
- Repairing parts of roofs by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing,
using recognized conservation methods. Repair may also include the limited replacement
in kind, or with a compatible substitute material, of extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of the roof. Repairs should match the existing work as closely as possible, both physically
and visually
- Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of roof assemblies where there
are surviving prototypes
-
g the physical evidence as a model to
reproduce the element. This can include a large section of roofing, a dormer, or a chimney.
If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a
compatible substitute material may be considered.
- Replacing missing historic features by designing and constructing a new roof feature,
based on physical and documentary evidence, or one that is compatible in size, scale,
material, style or colour.
- Recreating a missing roof element that existed during the restoration period, based on
physical or documentary evidence; for example, reinstating a dormer or cupola.
- Replacing in kind an entire roof feature from the restoration period that is too deteriorated
to repair, using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. The new work
should be well documented and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and
treatment.
for work that should be not be/is not appropriate for long-term conservation. In terms of roof
elements and rehabilitation/restoration, they include:
Removing a roof element that is irreparable, such as a chimney or dormer, and not
replacing it, or replacing it with a new element that does not convey the same
appearance or serve the same function.
Replacing deteriorated roof elements and materials that are no longer available with
physically or visually incompatible substitutes.
Removing an irreparable roof feature from the restoration period and not replacing it, or
replacing it with an inappropriate new roof feature. Reinstating a roof detail that is
damaging to character defining elements.
In response to the Building Order to Comply that was sent to the Owners, a Structural Report was
submitted to the City dated November 10, 2025, which was sent to heritage planning staff on
November 17, 2025 (Attachment E). This structural report concluded the following:
Based on the conditions of the belfry observed earlier this year, it is our opinion that temporary
bracing in situ is not structurally viable nor practical from a logistical or financial perspective. As
such, we are recommending an alternative approach to remove the safety risk associated with the
belfry. Based on the condition of the belfry, it is our opinion that the recommendations noted below
Furthermore, it made the following recommendations:
Based on the poor condition of the belfry posts, the lack of obvious existing mechanical
connection to the roof framing below and the undersized roof structure supporting the belfry, it is
our opinion that the most safe and most practical approach to preserve the existing belfry and any
related historical value would be to remove the belfry roof framing rather than temporarily bracing it
in place. Based on the conditions, it is our opinion that this work should be carried out before the
end of November 2025.
Storage requirements for the roof framing should be coordinated with the City to ensure the belfry
roof framing is adequately protected from the elements until future plans for the belfry can be
confirmed.
Our recommendation to remove the belfry roof rather than temporarily bracing in place is primarily
related to the lack of sound material to fasten temporary bracing to. As well, completing this work
during the timeline noted and the complication of potentially needing to reinforce the existing roof
structure below means that temporary bracing is likely unfeasible from a logistical and financial
perspective. Eliminating the potential risks associated with further failure/shifting of the belfry posts
is imperative from a safety perspective.
If the decision is made to restore and repair the existing belfry in situ, the existing posts would
need to be fully removed and replaced. As such, removal of the belfry roof now removes the
ongoing potential risk to human safety in the interim and would simplify the repair/restoration
approach in the future.
Based on this report, and with the recommendation of removing the belfry before the end of
November 2025, the belfry has most likely been removed by the time this application will be
considered by Heritage Kitchener and Council. However, since this is still a heritage attribute
protected by the designating by-law for this property, staff are proceeding with a recommendation
for the owners to enter into a heritage easement agreement with the City to rebuild/restore the
belfry on the original schoolhouse building.
Proposed Heritage Easement Agreement for Restoring the Belfry
Staff have informed the Owners that it is not good heritage conservation practice to propose the
demolition of heritage attributes without proposing an appropriate replacement, especially for
heritage attributes that have deteriorated due to neglect. The Owners stated that they do not intend
to restore or rebuild any of the heritage attributes they are proposing to demolish. Based on these
guidelines and keeping in mind the reasons for designation for this property, staff are
recommending that the Owner enter into a heritage easement agreement. A heritage easement
agreement is a binding agreement between the City and the property Owner, entered into when
heritage attribute(s) need restoration/rehabilitation work done up to the proper standard. A
condition to require a heritage easement agreement is to ensure
the following:
- That the belfry is safely removed, rebuilt and restored.
- Should the Owner not undertake the work in an appropriate manner, the City will be able to
complete said work and will have the ability to charge the Owners for said work.
- The easement agreement is registered on title of the property and can be removed once
said work is complete. Thus, this agreement is not registered in perpetuity on the property
title.
It is staf and balanced approach to process this
heritage permit, addressing the safety issues and the wishes of the Owner, whileensuringthe
long-term conservation of this property, as it is one of the last remaining buildings of the former
Hamlet of Williamsburg.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
Heritage Kitchener committee meeting.
CONSULT Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit
Application.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Ontario Heritage Act,
DSD-2023-080 Draft HIA 1385 Bleams Road
DSD-2024-088 HPA-2024-IV-002 Removal of Chimney and Fence
DSD-2024-359 Draft HIA Addendum 1385 Bleams Road
DSD-2024-IV-018 1385 Bleams Road
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-024
Attachment B
Attachment C Menno Martins Home Restoration Cost Estimate
Attachment D 1385 Bleams Road HIA Addendum
Attachment E - - November 10,
2025.
2025 Page 1 of 10
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION &
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Development & Housing Approvals
th
200 King Street West, 6Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4V6
519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca
PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order that
their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible.
If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage@kitchener.ca.
1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION?
The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with
the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources.
Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical
change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management
is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications
and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and
heritage attributes.
As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace
original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their
heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be
compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of
heritage attributes.
According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the
alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property’s heritage attributes, unless the owner
applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the
approval of a Heritage Permit Application.
Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts
(designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act).
2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED?
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or “alteration” to a property designated
under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act
(within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. “Alteration” is defined as: “to
change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb.” In addition, the approval of a
Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the
Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the
approval of a Heritage Permit Application.
Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application:
Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building
Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings
Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material
Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies
Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys
Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry
2025 Page 2 of 10
Repointing of brick
Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies
and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener’s
website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan
(Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary’s, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area).
3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION?
The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage
Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any
proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where
required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as
required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted.
Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage
Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum,
the following information is required:
Heritage Permit Application Form
The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit
Application Form.
Written Description
The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should
complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information
submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work
including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc.
Construction and Elevation Drawings
Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit
a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph.
Drawings must be drawn to scale and include:
a) Overall dimensions
b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or
addition to a building
c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building
d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.)
e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles
f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description)
g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description)
Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff
following discussion with the applicant.
Photographs
Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property
is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the
specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be
included.
Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with
hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged.
2025 Page 3 of 10
Samples
It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener
meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding,
roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours.
Other Required Information
In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact
Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional
information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre-
consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly
encouraged.
4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED?
City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to
solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions
usually result in successful applications.
However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised
application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations
to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated
under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V).
5. IMPORTANT NOTES
Professional Assistance
Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the
applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or
others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents.
Building Codes and Other By-laws
It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and
by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City’s zoning and property
standards by-laws.
2025Heritage Permit Application 2025Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates
Submission Deadlines
November 27, 2024 January 7, 2025
December 31, 2024 February 4,2025
January 28, 2025 March 4,2025
February 25, 2025 April 1, 2025
April 1,2025 May 6, 2025
April 29, 2025 June 3, 2025
- No July Meeting
July 1, 2025 August 5, 2025
July 29, 2025September 2, 2025
September 2, 2025 October 7, 2025
September 30, 2025 November 4, 2025
October 28, 2025 December 2, 2025
2025 Page 4 of 10
6.HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION?
a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal
submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that
might help with your proposed changes.
b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written
description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff
are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission
deadlines and committee meeting dates).
c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner’s signature and all
supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the
Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant.
d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under
delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage
Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to
Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavor to process the application within
10 business days.
e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff
prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines
and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site
inspection.
f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to
Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting.
g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present
staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the
Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to
attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information,
which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage
Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be
processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning.
Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage
Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be
forwarded to Council for final decision.
h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to
Council for final decision, Council may:
1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application;
2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or,
3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application.
i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council’s Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or
terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).
7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO
DESIGNATED PROPERTY
Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for
designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area,
including the following:
2025 Page 5 of 10
Setting
1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property
2. Lot size related to building size
3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street)
Building Details
1. Proportion and massing
2. Roof type and shape
3. Materials and detailing
4. Windows and doors:
Style
Proportions
Frequency or placement
5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape
Heritage Attributes
The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes:
Windows and Doors
The applicant should consider in order of priority:
1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy
efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff)
2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour
3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units
If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following:
Description of the condition of the existing units
Reasons for replacing the units
Description of the proposed new units
If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered:
A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct
a replica of the original
The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed
Exterior trim should match the original
Roofing
The application should include:
Description of proposed roofing material to be applied
If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what
the original material might have been
2025 Page 6 of 10
Masonry Work
The application should include:
A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and
methods of repair and application
Outline the reasons for the work
Signage
The application should include:
A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed
A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials, methods of construction, colours and
means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between
historic masonry units or into wood building elements)
Type of illumination, if applicable
Awnings
The application should include:
A sketch view of the proposed awning – perhaps over a photo
A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism,
method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be
arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements)
Type of illumination, if applicable.
8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION
Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including
the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area,
specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should
provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the
building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus
cost to demolish and construct a new building.
9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES
The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction
or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage
Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In
addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the
Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at
www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx).
For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning
staff at heritage@kitchener.ca.
2025 Page 8 of 10
5.WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail
as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric
is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener
Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction.
Removal of the two additions to the original school house, removal of the belfry, removal of shed
The portion of rubble stone wall currently inside the middle additon is plastered and will have stucco finish applied
as per elevation drawings. an exterior concrete staircase will be added to the original school exit
6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work:
structure of addition rotten (joists), middle addition was gutted due to excessive water leaks and mold, both
additions are unheated, not connected to house and unused and poorly designed. belfry and shed are both
severely rotten with minimal life expectancy remaining, rotting wood has been exposed to elements for a long time
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage
Conservation District Plan:
neither additions are protected heritage attributes. the belfry and shed are both protected but deverely dekayed
the belfry is at risk of imminent collapse due to the rotten posts, the shed has the exterior wood panels rotten
and coming off. the wooden structure is sitting directly on the ground
Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx):
removal / demolition is required. the belfry and shed can not be restaured without replacing all wooden
Type text here
elements which would effectively be a complete replacement
There is also a safety concern now that the property will house several tenants and both bellfry and shed are at
risk of imminent partial / total colapse
7. PROPOSED WORKS
6-12 months 6-12 months
a) Expected start date: Expected completion date:
b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff?Yes No
- If yes, who did you speak to?
c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? Yes No
- If yes, who did you speak to?
d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? Yes No
ication number
e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Appl
2025 Page 10 of 10
STAFF USE ONLY
Application Number:
Application Received:
Application Complete:
Notice of Receipt:
Notice of Decision:
90-Day Expiry Date:
PROCESS:
Heritage Planning Staff:
Heritage Kitchener:
Council:
1385 Bleams Road
Kitchener Ontario
Prepared by:
F220-155 Frobisher Drive
Waterloo, ON
TW-02272-25
July 3, 2025
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-251385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025Kitchener Ontario
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Background ........................................................................................................................... 1
3. Building History & Construction ......................................................................................... 1
4. Scope and Methods ............................................................................................................. 2
5. Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 3
6. General Structural Conditions Belfry ............................................................................. 4
6.1. Roof Framing ................................................................................................................ 4
6.2. Belfry Posts & Base ..................................................................................................... 5
7. General Structural Conditions Middle Addition ............................................................ 7
7.1. Roof Framing ................................................................................................................ 7
7.2. Exterior walls ................................................................................................................. 9
7.3. Main Floor Framing .................................................................................................... 10
7.4. Basement & Foundation walls .................................................................................. 12
8. General Structural Conditions Wood Shed ................................................................. 14
8.1. Roof Framing .............................................................................................................. 14
8.2. Roofing & Exterior Walls ........................................................................................... 16
8.3. Floor Framing & Foundations ................................................................................... 17
9. Feasibility of Repairs ......................................................................................................... 19
10. Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................ 19
11. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix A: Material Condition Definitions ............................................................................ 21
i
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-251385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025Kitchener Ontario
List of Photographs
Photograph 1: Belfry overall view ............................................................................................................................. 4
Photograph 2: Broken/missing gable siding exposing roof framing beyond ...................................................... 5
Photographs 3a & b: Animal damage to belfry roof ............................................................................................... 5
Photographs 4a & b: Two post bases with significant rot observed .................................................................... 6
Photograph 5: Props below belfry & staining on roof sheathing .......................................................................... 7
Photograph 6: Plywood installed below area of damaged ceiling ....................................................................... 8
Photographs 7a & b: South elevation of addition (from interior and exterior) .................................................... 9
Photographs 8a & b: Posts supporting flush beam & rotten post base ............................................................ 10
Photographs 9a & b: Drilled holes and notches in floor joists ............................................................................ 10
.................................................................. 11
Photographs 11a & b: East elevation southmost window (from interior and exterior)................................. 12
Photographs 12a & b: East Elevation north most windows (from interior and exterior) .............................. 13
Photograph 13: Failed mortise and tenon post connection at middle frame .................................................... 14
Photograph 14: Missing knee brace (notches visible in post and underside of beam) .................................. 15
Photograph 15: Staining on roof purlins, rafter ends and top of roof beam ..................................................... 15
Photographs 16a & b: West Elevation (left photo), South Elevation (right photo) .......................................... 16
Photographs 17a & b: East Elevation (left photo), North Elevation (right photo) ............................................ 17
Photograph 18: Stone foundations in poor condition........................................................................................... 18
Photograph 19: Wood floor framing member with visible deterioration ............................................................ 18
ii
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
1.
Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Alina Solomes to carry out a structural condition assessment of
portions of the existing residence and detached wood shed located at 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener. This
property was previously Alina Solomes, the current property owner, is proposing to demolish portions of
the existing main residence as well as the existing detached wood shed.
th
Following initial discussions in May 2025, Tacoma Engineers was retained by Alina Solomes on June 11,
th
2025. The undersigned attended the site on June 20, 2025.
This report includes a summary of the following items for the reviewed portions of the buildings:
major structural systems;
existing structural conditions and areas of potential concern; and
conceptual repair options for any areas that may require remedial work.
2.
This assessment is being undertaken by the Owner and Tacoma Engineers has been retained directly by the
Owner. This report is not being prepared as a response to an Order, recommendations, or request by any
regulatory body.
The primary purpose of this assessment is to provide a structural condition assessment on the portions of
the existing building that have heritage significance that are proposed to be demolished (including the
middle addition to the original schoolhouse, the belfry on the roof of the middle addition and the detached
wood shed). The Owner provided the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report for the property prepared
by CHC Limited dated June 8, 2023 to Tacoma Engineers for review as part of the background on the
property prior to our site assessment.
This report is based on a visual inspection only and does not include any destructive testing. Where no
concerns were noted, the structure is assumed to be performing adequately. The structure is assumed to
have been constructed in accordance with best building practices common at the time of construction. No
further structural analysis or building code analysis has been carried out as part of this report unless
specifically noted.
No previous work has been completed by Tacoma Engineers on this building for this or any other owner.
No sub-consultants have been retained by Tacoma Engineers to participate in this assessment.
3.
The existing buildings on the property at 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener consist of the main building, a
detached wood shed and a detached garage:
The main building consists of three distinct portions (the original portion of the building and two separate
additions) and is currently used as an existing residence. The original portion of the residence was
constructed in 1864 and was the original schoolhouse building. This portion of the building consists of
rubble stone exterior walls and a wood framed roof. This portion of the residence was not part of Tacoma
review scope as this portion is not proposed to be demolished.
The two additions to the original schoolhouse are located on the east side of the original rubblestone
schoolhouse:
1
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
The older middle addition and a newer front addition. The middle addition is approximately 330 sqft in
area. The addition is one storey above grade with a basement below. It is constructed with wood stud walls
and brick veneer above grade and cast in place concrete foundation walls below grade. The roof is
conventionally framed wood rafters spanning between the two side walls (north-south direction). The floor
is framed with conventional floor joists spanning the east-west direction. The original date of construction
of this portion is somewhat unclear. Based on the HIA report provided to Tacoma, the above grade portion
of this middle addition is said to have been constructed in 1874, however, the report indicates that a
basement below this portion was added in 1922.
There is a wooden framed belfry mounted above the roof ridge of the middle addition. The roof of the belfry
is a cottage-style hipped roof supported on four corner posts that are fully exposed to the elements. Based
on the 2023 HIA report, it is our understanding that the belfry was relocated from the original school
building to the roof of the addition at some point in the past. It is important to note that the bell no longer
hangs in the belfry.
The newer addition is more modern and was constructed in 1987. It is located on the north side of the
middle addition. This portion of the building is not within the scope of our review as it is not included as
part of the s anticipated that this portion of the building
was constructed with wood framed exterior walls with stone veneer, conventionally framed wood rafters &
concrete foundations below. It was reported to Tacoma Engineers that this portion of the building does not
have a basement.
Lastly, there is an existing single storey approximately 300 sqft wood shed on the property that is assumed
to have been constructed around the time of the original schoolhouse (1864). The shed is framed with heavy
timber frames with a stick-framed roof above. The shed is clad with board and batten siding.
Parts of the buildings located at 1385 Bleams are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in
1987 (By-law number 87-309). The by-law lists the following elements being of historical and architectural
value:
- Rubble stone facades of the original stone schoolhouse,
- the belfry,
- the fence (this has been previously demolished), and
- the wood shed.
4.
The following documents were provided to the undersigned prior to the preparation of this report:
Heritage designation for the property (By-law 87-309)
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report for the property prepared by CHC Limited dated June 8,
2023
The assessment of the buildings was based on a visual assessment from grade. Access to the roof was
provided to adequately review the belfry. Visual review of the roof framing over the middle addition was
provided via a small hatch in the ceiling.
th
A site visit was carried out by Emily van Riesen, P.Eng., on June 20, 2025, accompanied by Alina
Solomes. A visual review of all accessible spaces was completed on this date, and photographs were taken
of all noted deficiencies. Note that the wood shed and the middle addition both have existing exterior
finishes installed that preclude a direct visual assessment of the structural systems from all sides.
2
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
5.
The following is a summary of definitions of terms used in this report describing the condition of the
structure as well as recommended remedial actions. Detailed material condition definitions are included in
Appendix A of this report.
1
Condition States:
1. Excellent
and remedial action is not required.
2. Good Element(s) where the first signs of minor defects are visible. These types of
defects would not normally trigger remedial action since the overall performance is not
affected.
3. Fair Element(s) where medium defects are visible. These types of defects may trigger
4. Poor Element(s) where severe or very severe defects are visible. These types of defects
would normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if the extent and location affect the
overall performance of that element.
1
Immediate remedial action: these are items that present an immediate structural and/or safety
hazards (falling objects, tripping hazards, full or partial collapse, etc.). The remedial
recommendations will need to be implemented immediately and may include restricting access,
temporary shoring/supports or removing the hazard.
1
Priority remedial action: these are items that do not present an immediate hazard but still require
action in an expedited manner. The postponement of these items will likely result in the further
degradation of the structural systems and finishes. This may include interim repairs, further
investigations, etc. and are broken down into timelines as follows:
1. Short-term: it is recommended that items listed as short-term remedial action are acted on
within the next 6 months (before the onset of the next winter season).
2. Medium-term: it is recommended that items listed as medium-term remedial action are acted
on within the next 24 months.
3. Long-term: it is recommended that items listed as long-term remedial action are acted on
within the next 5-10 years. Many of these items include recommendations of further
review/investigation.
1
Routine maintenance: these are items that can be performed as part of a regularly scheduled
maintenance program.
In addition to the definitions listed above, it should be noted that parts of the buildings in question are
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation
of Historic Places in Canada provide direction when a structural system is identified as a character-defining
element of an historic place. They also provide direction on maintaining, repairing, and replacing structural
2
components or systems. Refer to the General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration
to further inform the development of more detailed remedial actions.
1
Engineering Institute
2nd
Edition, 2010,
www.historicplaces.ca
3
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
6.
The wood-framed belfry is located on top of the middle addition roof and is generally located over the wall
--
- the belfry. The roof of the belfry is a cottage-style hipped roof
supported on four turned wood corner posts that are fully exposed to the elements.
Photograph 1: Belfry overall view
6.1. Roof Framing
Construction
-
the perimeter of the roof that supports the roof rafters onto the corner posts.
Conditions
Overall, the belfry roof is in poor condition. Items of note are included below:
- The asphalt shingles roof is in poor condition. Signs of deterioration included loose, ripped &
missing shingles as well as moss/vegetation growth.
- There was obvious animal damage/chewed holes in the soffit boards with staining around indicating
animal excrement.
- Many of the siding/sheathing boards were missing and/or broken exposing framing and allowing
animal access.
- One of the decorative wooden corbel brackets was missing.
- The paint is in poor condition and has extensive peeling (all painted elements)
4
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
Photograph 2: Broken/missing gable siding exposing roof framing beyond
Photographs 3a & b: Animal damage to belfry roof
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
Full restoration of the belfry roof would be required. Many of the elements would need to be fully
replaced, and full reconstruction of the roof (all framing, sheathing, siding, roofing, etc.) may be
deemed necessary due to the extent of the animal damage and exposure to the elements.
6.2. Belfry Posts & Base
Construction
due to the turned shape.
The posts frame onto a base that is fully covered with a metal roof flashing. Neither the framing of the base
of the belfry nor the connection to the roof below could be verified at the time of our review.
5
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
Conditions
Overall, the belfry posts are in poor/failed condition. Items of note are included below:
- Two of the four support posts are very severely rotten and have failed. At their bases, the rot appears
to extend the full cross section of the member. The rotten posts are located on the north side of the
belfry. Due to the extent of the rot at the post bases, the connection of the belfry to
roof below appears to be significantly compromised.
- Due to the deterioration of the post bases, the lateral capacity of the belfry is significantly reduced.
Horizontal force was applied at the belfry roof level and significant movement of the belfry was
observed.
- On all four posts, the caulking around base of post is in poor condition and appears to allow
moisture to penetrate under the flashing.
- The metal cap flashing on base is lightly rusted & in poor condition. Popped nails and some joints
in the metal flashing was observed and could possibly lead to moisture infiltration below the
flashing.
- The base framing could not be reviewed, however, based on the condition of the belfry posts and
the staining observed within the attic space below, it is anticipated that many of the base members
are also deteriorated/rotten.
Photographs 4a & b: Two post bases with significant rot observed
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
Due to the extent of the deterioration to the existing posts, and its location perched on top of the
roof of the house, it is our opinion that the belfry in its current condition is a safety concern and
should be removed as soon as possible. Tacoma Engineers recommends that review of this item
be expedited.
Due to the extent of the rot in the posts, all four posts would need to be fully removed and reconstructed
with new materials. Flashing details should be examined to ensure moisture is not being trapped below
flashing materials.
The support of the belfry by the roof framing below (including support of gravity & wind loads as well
as a review of all required connections) must be investigated and confirmed to be structurally adequate
(refer to section 7.1 below). The existing load path supporting the belfry was not obvious during our
6
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
review. If existing framing/connection are deemed inadequate, provide new engineered support &
connections for belfry.
7.
The middle addition is constructed as a one-story wood-framed structure with a full basement below. The
addition is framed attached to the east elevation of the original stone schoolhouse. The exterior walls are
conventionally framed wood stud walls with brick veneer above grade and poured concrete below grade.
The roof is conventionally framed wood rafters and collar ties.
7.1. Roof Framing
Construction
two side walls (north-south direction). Two rows of vertical props were observed within the attic space. It
was unclear from how they are framed whether or not they are providing support to the rafters or if they
were used as temporary shoring when originally framing the roof. It could not be confirmed at the time of
our review whether or not the existing ceiling joists are continuous across the width of the addition or if
they are lapped near the midspan.
Conditions Roof & Ceiling
Overall, the roof framing is in fair condition and the ceiling is in fair condition with localized areas in poor
condition due to water damaged. Items of note are included below:
The asphalt shingles appear to be nearing the end of their service life.
Staining was observed on the underside of the roof sheathing boards throughout the roof of the addition.
The staining appears to also be concentrated below the area of the existing belfry (see photo below). Two
vertical props were observed within the attic space. Based on their relative location to the belfry above, it
is assumed that these vertical props were installed to help transfer the weight of the belfry down to the walls
of the schoolhouse wall below. Other than these vertical props, no other obvious connection for the belfry
framing above could be seen within the attic space of the addition. As such, it appears that the connection
of the belfry does not extend through the roof sheathing to form a mechanical connection into the existing
roof framing.
Photograph 5: Props below belfry & staining on roof sheathing
7
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
It was reported to Tacoma Engineers from the current owners that a significant portion of the existing
plaster ceiling finish has experienced water damage. That portion of the ceiling is currently clad with
plywood and could not be visually reviewed (see photo below).
Photograph 6: Plywood installed below area of damaged ceiling
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
The roof framing (rafters, ceiling joists & roof sheathing) would require restoration, which may include
localized areas of member replacement (for rotten/deteriorated members).
Plaster ceiling finish would require repairs/replacement
It is recommended that a structural review of the roof structure (rafters & ceiling joists) be completed
to ensure the ceiling joists are properly supported. If the ceiling joists are lapped, additional support
will be required.
The support of the belfry by the roof framing (including support of gravity & wind loads as well as a
review of all required connections) must be investigated and confirmed to be structurally adequate
(refer to section 6.2 above). The existing load path supporting the belfry was not obvious during our
review.
The roofing over the addition appears to be at the end of its service life and should be replaced.
8
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
7.2. Exterior walls
Construction
board sheathing and brick veneer. The main floor of the addition is currently fully open with no interior
walls. During our review the half of the wood stud wall framing and all of the main floor joists were exposed
for review.
Conditions
Overall, the main floor walls & framing around openings are in fair condition. Items of note are listed
below:
The existing framing around the existing windows on the south elevation suggest that they have been altered
since the original construction. The window on the east side of this elevation does not have continuous
posts on either side, and the header is a 2x4 on the flat. Further, the brick veneer on the outside of this
elevation does not have a soldier course above this opening as was seen above the other openings. The
window on the west side of this elevation does have full height posts on both sides, however, the header
These windows are both Since this wall
is supporting the roof framing above, these headers appear to be undersized for the span of the openings.
Based on the differing framing observed on site, it appears that the window on the west side of this south
elevation was previously a door that has been infilled and repurposed to be a window (refer to opening on
the right side of the photo below).
Photographs 7a & b: South elevation of addition (from interior and exterior)
Narrow step cracking was observed within the brick veneer near the southeast corner of the addition.
The existing downspouts were observed to expel rainwater adjacent to the existing foundation.
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
Framing around existing windows/openings should be reinforced to ensure continuous posts &
adequate headers above openings.
Some brick repointing would be required around exterior
9
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
7.3. Main Floor Framing
Construction
-west direction. Two
areas of floor appeared to have been previous stair openings that have since been infilled.
Conditions
Overall, the main floor framing is in fair condition. Items of note are listed below:
Two areas of the floor framing appear to have previously been openings that were since in-filled. The one
area is along the south elevation and another area along about half of the east elevation. Two existing posts
were installed to support an existing flush beam -the east wall. It is unclear if these
posts bear on existing footings below the slab.
One of the posts is in poor condition with observed rot (medium level) at the base. The other was in fair
condition and had reportedly been more recently installed to provide adequate support for the main floor
framing at areas of discontinuous floor joists.
Photographs 8a & b: Posts supporting flush beam & rotten post base
The existing joists were observed to have been drilled (photo below) and notched throughout the main floor
of some of the shorter-spanning infill-
framing.
Photographs 9a & b: Drilled holes and notches in floor joists
10
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
Portions of the main floor sheathing are severely rotten. The areas of rot is reportedly in the area below a
previously installed bathroom on the main floor of the addition.
Where the existing main floor joists frame into a flush beam along the original schoolhouse wall, a
gap between the ends of the joists and the flush beam were observed. Joist hangers had been installed on
some but not all these members.
Photograph 10: wide gap between end of joist and flush beam
Three window openings are located on the east elevation. For all the window openings, the headers over
Based on the span, the rim board must
be engaged to help support the floor joists. The connection of the joists to the rimboard should be confirmed
& reinforced if required.
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
The main floor framing would require localized repairs (joist hangers at flush connections), some
reinforcement where members are discontinuous and where notches/drilling exceed allowable sizes
New posts & footings (or new flush framing) would be required to properly support existing flush beam
along previous stair opening
The floor sheathing requires localized replacement where sheathing is rotten, cut or otherwise damaged
(match existing thickness). Ensure all sheathing is supported on all four sides. Additional blocking
between the joists may be required.
Connection of the floor joists to rim board over the window openings should be verified & reinforced
as required.
11
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
7.4. Basement & Foundation walls
Construction
The basement is accessed via the basement of the original schoolhouse portion of the building. The opening
- The three below grade foundation walls appear to
-in-place concrete.
Conditions
The basement felt damp and had a musty smell at the time of our review.
The parging on the interior face of the foundation is in poor condition. In some locations, the parging on
the exterior concrete walls sounded hollow and appeared to be delaminating.
The concrete foundation walls themselves could not be reviewed other than areas where the parging was
coming off & around the window openings. The basement window openings appear to be in fair condition.
Items of note are included below:
The south most window on the east elevation was widened in the past. The original brick lintel was framed
with a soldier course above the window, but it no longer extends the full width of the widened opening.
The masonry above this opening appeared to be in good condition.
Photographs 11a & b: East elevation southmost window (from interior and exterior)
Where there are two windows located side-by-side, the north-most window on this elevation is not original.
Together, these window openings would be over 48, which increases the stress on the adjacent
concrete foundation wall, which are unlikely to have been reinforced around the openings.
Above these openings, the exterior masonry is not properly supported (no steel brick lintel or soldier
course). The masonry above these openings is in poor condition with wide masonry cracking and movement
observed.
12
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
Photographs 12a & b: East Elevation north most windows (from interior and exterior)
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
Masonry repairs & repointing as well as installation of new steel lintels would be required over the
altered window openings
It is recommended that the foundation walls be re-parged on the inside.
It is suggested that an interior or exterior weeping tile system around this addition and a sump pump be
installed in an effort to reduce moisture within the basement.
13
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
8.
The wood shed is a single storey open structure constructed with three main heavy timber frames spaced at
-. The frames consist of posts on either side with a horizontal tie beam. Beams along
the side walls are installed between the frames to support the roof rafters.
The floor is fully sheathed, with limited access to review the floor framing & foundations.
8.1. Roof Framing
Construction
The thin purlins appear
have formed part of the original construction for this roof and would have previously had wood shakes
directly applied. Modern sheathing has been installed over the purlins likely to accommodate the installation
of asphalt shingles. There is no ridge board. Collar ties were seen on two of the rafter pairs located near the
ridge, however, they do not appear to have been original to the structure.
The side
posts. The beams span between the three heavy timber frames that consist of two posts (8 wide x 7 deep)
and one tie beam ( near the eave height.
walls near the tops of the posts.
Conditions
Overall, the wood shed structural framing is in fair condition. Items of note are included below:
- On the interior heavy timber frame, the connection between the tie beam and the south wall post
appears to have pulled apart under the tension load in the beam. The connection has opened, and
the dowel appears to have failed and tilted towards the tie beam.
Photograph 13: Failed mortise and tenon post connection at middle frame
- Knee braces were missing in at least three locations where they appeared to have been originally
installed
14
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
Photograph 14: Missing knee brace (notches visible in post and underside of beam)
- Staining was observed throughout the roof framing. Staining was concentrated near the eaves on
both sides of the roof and near the ridge on the east side of the shed.
Photograph 15: Staining on roof purlins, rafter ends and top of roof beam
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
A comprehensive review of the existing roof framing members is required to identify which members
require replacement. Localized replacement of damaged purlins and rafters is anticipated (approx. 15-
20% is anticipated). The heavy timber beams should be reviewed as well to ensure any existing rot has
not severely structural capacity.
Visibly damaged heavy timber connections should be reviewed and repaired to reinstate capacity. The
connection must be designed for the roof kickout forces unless the rafters are adequately tied. External
steel angles may be required if the heavy timber members are able to remain in place.
Missing knee braces should be reinstated where possible. Due to the low headroom and use of the space,
reinstatement of the knee braces may not be practical.
15
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
8.2. Roofing & Exterior Walls
Construction
The exterior walls are framed with in-filled wood studs between the sidewall roof beams and the floor
framing. Board and batten wood siding is installed directly to the wood studs.
Conditions
Overall the wood shed asphalt roofing & exterior wall finishes are in poor condition. Items of note are
included below:
- The asphalt shingles appear to be near the end of their service life.
- The roof ridge dips near the east gable end wall likely indicating shifting/movement of framing
below.
- The wood board and batten siding was seen to be loose, cracked, and moving away from the
building in some locations especially towards the base of the wall. Daylight could be seen through
the siding in multiple locations where cracks have formed.
- Animal damage was observed on the fascia boards with large openings visible on both gable ends.
- The door and door frame on the east elevation appear to also have undergone animal damage near
the ground.
- The paint is extensively peeling
- No eavestroughs are installed on the shed
- The existing doors do not function well or close properly to prevent animal access to the shed.
Photographs 16a & b: West Elevation (left photo), South Elevation (right photo)
16
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
Photographs 17a & b: East Elevation (left photo), North Elevation (right photo)
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
The deteriorated asphalt shingles, facia and soffit boards requires complete replacement, along with
associated sheathing for the entire roof. The wood siding requires replacement of damaged boards, 50%
replacement is anticipated, however, the percentage that is salvageable may decrease based on the
condition of each member and the ease of removal.
Is it recommended that new doors be installed that can be secured adequately to deter animals.
Properly installed eavestroughs are recommended as they will divert water off the roof and prevent
splashing and associated deterioration at the base of the walls.
8.3. Floor Framing & Foundations
Construction
It is assumed that the floor
framing spans between existing sleeper beams below the floor. Multiple layers of floor boards have been
installed over the lifespan of the shed so the total sheathing thickness is multiple inches thick.
The foundations appear to be a mixture of stacked river stone. A small area of concrete had been poured
below the floor near the south east corner of the shed.
Conditions
Overall the wood shed floor and foundations are in poor/failed condition. Items of note are included below:
- The floor is very uneven and bouncy in some locations which could indicate failed floor joists or
connections below the sheathing
- which can accelerate deterioration of
wood framing members that are note properly protected. In one location, the visible wood framing
member appeared to be severely rotten.
- The mortar of the stone foundations was severely deteriorated or missing from 75% of the area of
stone foundations observed.
17
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
Photograph 18: Stone foundations in poor condition
Photograph 19: Wood floor framing member with visible deterioration
Recommendations & Feasibility of Repair
The deteriorated floor framing requires complete replacement, along with associated sheathing for the
entire floor. Wood framing should be adequately protected from grade and concrete to prevent further
deterioration.
A review of any heavy timber members below the floor sheathing should be carried out and
repaired/replaced as necessary.
The existing foundations would likely require complete replacement to ensure all the roof posts and the
floor framing have adequate support. It is recommended that any new foundations be extended down
-
Replacing the foundations below the wood shed would be extremely invasive and would require the
shed to be moved while the new foundations are placed and then reinstated. This is an extremely costly
endeavour.
18
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
9.
Belfry
As noted above, nearly all structural elements of the belfry are damaged in some manner and require
intervention, such as reinforcing or replacement.
Given the extent of the damage to the belfry, after repairs are carried out, very little of the original historic
materials would remain.
While a restoration of the belfry may be contemplated, from a logistics, feasibility and safety perspective,
the belfry may not be possible to be repaired given its current state of disrepair.
Wood Shed
As noted above, many of the structural elements & cladding elements of the wood shed are deteriorated in
some manner and require some intervention, such as reinforcing or replacement. To facilitate this work, all
finishes and debris from the interior of the shed would be required to be removed and the floor sheathing
would need to be pulled up. Further, the foundation replacements would require the shed to either be
relocated to new foundations on a different location on the property, or the shed would need to be
temporarily relocated to allow for new foundations to be poured in the existing location.
Given the extent of the deterioration to the wood shed, after repairs are carried out, some of the original
historic materials will have been removed. The percentage of historic materials that can practically be
salvaged be known until the work has started and existing conditions are fully exposed.
While a restoration of the wood shed may be contemplated, from a logistics, feasibility and safety
perspective, repairs may not be viable given its current state and the invasive structural recommendations
for this structure (eg. new foundations, full reframing of the floor). Further, salvaging a significant portion
of the existing cladding may not be possible. After the repairs, a large percentage of the building exterior
will have been replaced with modern materials (roofing, siding, fascia, soffits, doors, etc.).
10.
Tacoma Engineers are not cost consultants and can only offer insight into costs for these repairs based on
our experience, as an order of magnitude estimate.
Based on the poor condition of the structures, both the belfry and the wood shed require significant
disturbance to the existing historic fabric of each structure. After any type of restoration / repair, very little
would remain of the original historic materials, resulting in modern structures that only appears to be
historic in nature.
Belfry
Based on our experience, it is anticipated that repairs to the structural framing of the belfry would range
between $25,000 and $35,000. This would include full restoration & reconstruction of the belfry roof, posts
and base as well as connections into the roof. It would also include any temporary shoring & reinforcement
of the supporting rafters as required.
Wood Shed
Based on our experience, it is anticipated that repairs to the structural framing of the wood shed would
range between $75,000 and $95,000. This would include new poured concrete foundations to match the
existing geometry, reconstruction of the floor framing as required, repairs to heavy timber frames &
connections, replacement of roof sheathing and rafters as required and relocation of the existing structure
19
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
to allow for new foundations below. This would also include a fully new building envelope: roofing, siding,
fascia, soffit and eavestroughs.
Middle Addition
Based on our experience, it is anticipated that repairs to the structural framing of the middle addition would
range between $40,000 and $55,000. This would include localized repairs & reinforcement as required for
the roof, ceiling, wall and floor framing, installation of new footings as required for new posts, replacement
of foundation wall parging, masonry repointing & installation of steel masonry lintels, new roofing and
installation of interior or exterior weeping tile system and sump pump.
This would not include new finishes, mechanical, electrical, windows, or other typical elements, which
would be in addition to this cost. It is estimated that the cost to outfit the repaired addition would range
between $40,000 to $80,000 depending on the level of finishes desired and the use of the space.
11.
In general, the belfry, middle addition and wood shed at 1385 Bleams Road are all in fair to poor condition.
Each element requires significant financial commitment to take from the current level of deterioration and
disrepair to a useable structure that serves the intended purpose. The feasibility of repairing each element
is worth discussing from a practical standpoint considering the current and future use of each element.
It is important to note that due to the extent of the deterioration to the existing belfry posts, it is our opinion
that currently the belfry is a safety concern and should be removed as soon as possible. Tacoma Engineers
recommends that review of this item be expedited.
Please contact the undersigned with any further questions or comments.
JULY 3, 2025
TW-02272-25
Per ___________________________
Emily van Riesen, P.Eng., CAHP Intern Intern
Structural Engineer
Tacoma Engineers
20
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
3
Condition States:
1. Excellent
action is not required.
2. Good Element(s) where the first signs of minor defects are visible. These types of defects would not
normally trigger remedial action since the overall performance is not affected.
3. Fair
4. Poor Element(s) where severe or very severe defects are visible. These types of defects would
normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if the extent and location affect the overall performance
of that element.
1
Steel Corrosion:
SC1. Light Loose rust formation and pitting in the paint surface. No noticeable section loss.
SC2. Medium Loose rust formation with scales or flakes forming. Up to 10% section loss.
SC3. Severe Stratified rust with pitting of metal surface. Between 10% and 20% section loss.
SC4. Very Severe Extensive rusting with local perforation or rusting through, in excess of 20% section
loss.
1
Timber Checks, Splits and Shakes:
TCh1. Light Extend less than 5% into the member.
TCh2. Medium Extend between 5% and 10% into the member.
TCh3. Severe Extend between 10% and 20% into the member.
TCh4. Very Severe Extend more than 20% into the member.
1
Timber Cracking, Splintering and Crushing:
TCr1. Light Damage is superficial with less than 5% section loss.
TCr2. Medium Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section loss.
TCr3. Severe Significant damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.
TCr4. Very Severe Extensive damage with section loss in excess of 20%.
1
Timber Rot/Decay:
TR1. Light Slight change in colour. The wood sounds solid and cannot be penetrated by a sharp object.
Damage is superficial with less than 5% section loss.
TR2. Medium Surface is discoloured with black and brown streaks. The wood sounds solid and offers
moderate resistance to penetration by sharp object. Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section
loss.
TR3. Severe Surface is fibrous, checked or crumbly and fungal fruiting bodies are growing on it. The
wood sounds hollow when tapped and offers little resistance to penetration by sharp object.
Significant damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.
TR4. Very Severe The surface can be crumbled and disintegrated with ease. Extensive damage with
section loss in excess of 20%.
3
Transportation Ontario (MTO)
21
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
4
Masonry Cracking:
MC1. Hairline Cracks Less than 0.1 mm wide.
MC2. Narrow Cracks Between 0.1 and 0.3 mm wide.
MC3. Medium Cracks Between 0.3 and 1.0 mm wide.
MC4. Wide Cracks Greater than 1.0 mm wide.
1
Masonry Splitting, Spalling and Disintegration:
MS1. Light Hairline cracking and minor loss of stone surface with loss of section up to 50 mm.
MS2. Medium Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section loss.
MS3. Severe Significant damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.
MS4. Very Severe Extensive damage with section loss in excess of 20%.
Mortar Deterioration
MD1. Light Mortar lost from the joints in a few places, to a depth of 10 mm.
MD2. Medium - Mortar lost from the joints in a few places, to a depth of 20 mm
MD3. Severe Mortar lost from the joints over an extended area, to a depth between 20 and 50 mm.
MD4. Very Severe Extensive loss of mortar resulting in the loss of a few stones.
1
Concrete Scaling:
CSc1. Light - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of up to 5 mm without exposure of coarse aggregate.
CSc2. Medium - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of 6 to 10 mm with exposure of some coarse aggregates.
CSc3. Severe - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of 11 mm to 20 mm with aggregate particles standing
out from the concrete and a few completely lost.
CSc4. Very severe - Loss of surface mortar and aggregate particles to a depth greater than 20 mm.
1
Concrete Spalling:
CSp1. Light - Spalled area measuring less than 150 mm in any direction or less than 25 mm in depth.
CSp2. Medium - Spalled area measuring between 150 mm to 300 mm in any direction or between 25 mm
and 50 mm in depth.
CSp3. Severe - Spalled area measuring between 300 mm to 600 mm in any direction or between 50 mm
and 100 mm in depth.
CSp4. Very Severe - Spalled area measuring more than 600 mm in any direction or greater than 100 mm
in depth.
1
Concrete Delamination:
CD1. Light - Delaminated area measuring less than 150 mm in any direction.
CD2. Medium - Delaminated area measuring 150 mm to 300 mm in any direction.
CD3. Severe - Delaminated area measuring 300 mm to 600 mm in any direction.
CD4. Very Severe - Delaminated area measuring more than 600 mm in any direction.
1
Concrete Cracking:
CC1. Hairline Cracks Less than 0.1 mm wide.
CC2. Narrow Cracks Between 0.1 and 0.3 mm wide.
CC3. Medium Cracks Between 0.3 and 1.0 mm wide.
CC4. Wide Cracks Greater than 1.0 mm wide.
4
Transportation Ontario (MTO)
22
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TW-02272-25 1385 Bleams Road
July 3, 2025 Kitchener Ontario
1
Corrosion of Reinforcement:
CR1. Light - Light rust stain on the concrete surface
CR2. Medium - Exposed reinforcement with uniform light rust. Loss of reinforcing steel section less than
10%
CR3. Severe - Exposed reinforcement with heavy rusting and localized pitting. Loss of reinforcing steel
section between 10% and 20%
CR4. Very severe - Exposed reinforcement with very heavy rusting and pitting. Loss of reinforcing steel
section over 20%.
5
Immediate remedial action: these are items that present an immediate structural and/or safety hazards
(falling objects, tripping hazards, full or partial collapse, etc.). The remedial recommendations will need to
be implemented immediately and may include restricting access, temporary shoring/supports or removing
the hazard.
1
Priority remedial action: these are items that do no present an immediate hazard but still require action
in an expedited manner. The postponement of these items will likely result in the further degradation of the
structural systems and finishes. This may include interim repairs, further investigations, etc. and are broken
down into timelines as follows:
1. Short-term: it is recommended that items listed as short-term remedial action are acted on within the
next 6 months (before the onset of the next winter season).
2. Medium-term: it is recommended that items listed as medium-term remedial action are acted on within
the next 24 months.
3. Long-term: it is recommended that items listed as long-term remedial action are acted on within the
next 5-10 years. Many of these items include recommendations of further review/investigation.
1
Routine maintenance: these are items that can be performed as part of a regularly scheduled maintenance
program.
5
Engineering Institute
23
th
September 4, 2025
Alina Solomes
1385 Bleams Rd., Kitchener, ON, N2E 4L4
(519) 404-5324 /isolomes@gmail.com
Re: Heritage Home Restoration Project
PLANNING
Building permit obtained by Menno S. Martin Contractor.
Drawings for building permit by Menno S. Martin Contractor.
S. Martin Contractor.
$ 5,000,000.00 liability insurance by Menno S.
S. Martin Contractor.
Install dust barriers and floor protection as needed in and around construction area.
Structural engineering allowance of $2000.00 + HST included in the overall budget.
Project planning has factored in a portable toilet for the duration of the project.
SCOPE OF WORK
bƚƷĻʹ .ğƭĻķ ƚƓ ğĭƚƒğ 9ƓŭźƓĻĻƩƭ LƓĭ͵ ƭƷƩǒĭƷǒƩğƌ ƩĻƦƚƩƷͳ
Middle Addition:
Majority of the roof framingis rotted and
must be replaced. Full replacement of roof members, including shingles, is recommended.
Existing plaster ceiling must be completely removed and replaced to address roof and ceiling
framing, while ensuring proper attic insulation and vapor barrier.
Exterior wall window openings have been altered from the original construction. Current
framing is not structurally adequate; undersized headers cannot support the roof load.
Reinforcement with new framing and headers will be required.
It is unclear if the posts supporting the flush beam above are bearing on footings. The floor
system should be temporarily supported, the existing basement concrete floor removed, and
new properly sized footings and concrete floor poured.
Many existing floor joists are notched or drilled. These will need to be replaced with new
framing members, along with the floor sheathing above.
The poured concrete foundation requires cleaning, crack repair, waterproofing with a delta
membrane and weeping tile system, and installation of a sump pump.
Removal and replacement of basement window lintels, along with masonry repairs and
repointing, are required.
Belfry:
The belfry, located on the roof of the middle addition, is in poor condition.
Roof is framed with 2x4 hip rafters and infill rafters spanning 24-
and-groove boards that are deteriorated.
Rafters rest on 1x5 boards supported by four wooden posts, all of which are rotted.
Two of the four posts are severely deteriorated, causing damage to both the belfry and roof
below.
Failed caulking at post bases has allowed water penetration, leading to rot in roof members.
Immediate removal of the belfry is recommended due to safety concerns.
Shed:
Single-
Floor system is fully sheathed, making inspection difficult. Multiple layers of subfloor/floor
boards have been added over time. Floor is uneven and bouncy, indicating failure below.
75% of exposed stone foundation is missing mortar.
Roof framed with 2x6 rafters and purlins supporting sheathing.
Collar ties present on only two rafter pairs; most are missing.
Failed dowel connection between tie beam and post on south wall.
Missing knee braces where originally installed.
Water staining and deterioration observed throughout roof framing, especially near eaves.
DEMOLITION
Middle Addition:
Remove existing shingles, sheathing, and roof framing members as required.
Remove plaster ceilings and walls, along with insulation.
Remove wall framing assemblies (headers, posts, studs, etc.) as needed.
Remove existing windows (to be replaced).
Install shore wall to temporarily support floor load; remove damaged floor joists.
Remove floor sheathing across entire area.
Remove basement concrete floor as needed for footing installation.
Remove loose parging from concrete foundation walls for re-parging.
Remove masonry as needed to replace lintels.
Remove basement windows (to be replaced with new units).
Belfry:
Remove the entire belfry structure in order to re-build/fully restore the structure with new
materials;
o Remove the shingled roof
o Remove the rafters, beams and other framing members on the roof assembly
o Remove all cosmetic sheathing/siding
o Remove the 4 existing posts
o Remove the base, and roof flashing
Shed:
Remove existing roof shingles and sheathing in order to expose the rafters
Remove existing fascia, and soffit
Remove necessary rafters that require replacement
Remove the heavy timber beams (to be replaced) if required
Remove exterior board and batten siding in order to remove necessary wall assembly
members
Remove the window, doors and rotted framing members of the window, and door openings
Remove existing floor sheathing (multiple layers thick), and necessary floor system framing
members
Remove existing stone foundation
Construction debris will be disposed of in an on-site bin clients may use the bin throughout the
duration of the project.
EXCAVATION AND FOUNDATION AND MASONRY
Middle Addition:
Fully excavate around the perimeter foundation to footing level.
Supply and install a delta membrane waterproofing system, along with a weeping tile system
tied into a sump pump
Repair poured foundation cracks with epoxy injection and hydraulic cement.
Backfill after waterproofing, and weeping tile work is complete
Remove the lose parging on the interior of the foundation wall, and re-parge the wall surfaces
Supply and install new brick to best match original brick façade
Supply and install new steel lintels over the basement window spans to support above
Re-point selected areas of the exterior brick wall
Shed:
Excavate, and remove the existing stone foundation haul debris off-site.
Supply and place new
Height of foundation wall T.B.D based on depth and bearing capacity of undisturbed soil.
Note: soil compaction test will be required.
Backfill around new concrete foundation
Supply and pour a new 32mpa concrete floor inside foundation
Excavation, foundation, and masonry allowance: $103,175.00 + HST Included
FRAMING
Middle Addition:
Replace rotted/deteriorated roof rafters, and bracing members as necessary with new 2x6 and
2x4 SPF lumber
Supply and install new 2x6 roof rafters intermediately between the existing truss spaces
roof loads
Supply and install the structural members to carry the load of the Belfry on the roof
Replace the exterior fascia board as necessary with 2x6 SPR
Replace necessary ceiling joists
o Extent to be confirmed once plaster is removed
Replace the necessary 2x4 framing members in the exterior wall assemblies as needed
o Frame new window openings as specked
o Install 2 ply 2x8 headers above window openings
o Install 2x4 jack, and king studs on either side of the window opening to transfer the weight
from the roof load down to the foundation
Erect a temporary shoring wall to support the floor load above
o Replace, or sister the damaged and notched floor joists with new 2x10 SPF
o Replace the existing 4x4 wood posts with new structural steel posts, resting on the
new concrete footings
o Supply and install new joist hangers as necessary between the joist, and flush beam
connections
Replace the basement header materials with new LVL, or Timberstrand engineered lumber, and
install joist hangers to support for the floor joists
Install new PT wood back framing in the basement window openings prepped for the new
basement window installation
Frame 2x4 walls in front of basement foundation walls
Frame bulkheads around dropped beams, and existing ductwork/plumbing to conceal it in
drywall
Belfry:
To fully re-frame a new Belfry to best match the original, and install it on top of the middle
addition roof;
- Reframe a new PT base out of 2x4 material, and sheeted with PT plywood.
o Install solid blocking under in the floor system of the base to fasten the belfry posts
o Install solid blocking in between the trusses to fasten the base to the roof
o Install blue skin, counter flashing, aluminum and caulking to ensure a watertight seal
on the roof
Supply and install 4 new wood post to support the structure profiles to best match the
original structure
2x6 frame, and rafters
Refurbish/re-use existing accent trusses (if possible)
Exterior finishes to match original structure
Asphalt shingles
Shed:
Based on Tacoma Engineers Structural Condition Report it is recommended that the entire
structure me dissembled, removed, and re-built on top of a new poured concrete foundation;
deteriorated beyond safe use
Refasten existing connections between beams or posts with GRK Structural Screws, and/or new
mortise dowels and connections
Fully re-build the entire floor system
- 2x4 PT sill plates
-
-
Framing material allowance: $11,172.00 + HST Included
ROOFING
;
o Min 3m ice and water eaves protection
o Roofing underlayment on top of the plywood sheathing
o 1/300 vented attic areas as per O.B.C
Supply and install a new asphalt shingled roof on the newly constructed Belfry
Supply and install new asphalt shingled roof on the newly constructed shed roof
Roofing allowance: $14,500.00 + HST Included
All roofing materials supplied, and installed by Red Truck Roofing Inc.
WINDOWS AND DOORS:
Middle Addition:
Supply and install new windows for the middle addition
All windows to be white vinyl framed interior and exterior
- (main floor)
-
-
-
Shed:
Supply and install new window, and doors for the shed
-
o White vinyl frame interior and exterior
o
- (1) Custom built barn door to best match the original barndoor
- man door
o 24 Gauge Steel primed only
o RH Inswing
o Vinyl jamb
o Aluminum anodized sill
All windows and door (expect for custom made barndoor on shed) to be supplied by
Strassburger windows and doors
Window and door material allowance: $6,286.43 + HST Included
SIDING/ALUMINUM
Middle Addition:
Supply and install aluminum on the exterior façade for;
- Window and door back framing
- Drip edge flashing above windows and doors
- Frieze board capping
- New aluminum eaves through, and down spouts (if the original materials are not re-useable)
- Soffits, and fascia capping
- Roof flashing around roof protrusions (chimney stack, plumbing stack, etc...)
Supply and install new brick veneer siding to best match the original materials as necessary
- Note: entire addition exterior façade should be cleaned, prepped, and re-painted
Exterior caulking as required
Belfry:
Install aluminum on fascia, PT base, counter flashing, and drip edges.
Install T&G pine siding on gable ends and ceiling to match original.
Refurbish accent trusses if possible; replace with custom replicas if not.
Exterior caulking as required.
Shed:
Supply and install aluminum on the exterior façade for;
- Window and door back framing
- Drip edge flashing above windows and doors
- Frieze board capping
- Eavestroughs, and down spouts
- Soffits, and fascia capping
Supply and install board and batten pine siding to best match the original siding
- Note: the existing siding will be carefully removed, and the materials that are still
salvageable will be re-finished, and re-installed.
Aluminum, and siding allowance: $ $7,461.60 + HST Included
PLUMBING
Re-working of the existing ABS plumbing in both the attic space, and basement of the middle
addition as necessary
- A scope of plumbing work is difficult to put together based on the Tacoma Engineers, and
HIA reports
Plumbing allowance of $2000.00 + HST Included
HEATING & HVAC
Alter supply, and return air ductwork as necessary in the middle addition
Assume that the existing furnace is in good working order, and is not located in the middle
addition
A scope of HVAC work is difficult to put together based on the Tacoma Engineers, and HIA
reports
HVAC allowance of $5500.00 + HST Included
ELECTRICAL
ESA permit obtained by Menno S. Martin Contractor.
Home Owner Supplied light fixture specifications should be given to Menno S. Martin prior to
renovation start, to ensure proper rough-in accommodations are made.
Middle Addition:
Assume existing electrical panel, and breakers are in good working order.
Remove wiring from the existing panel during the construction process
- Based on the photos in the Tacoma Engineers report, majority of the wires are surface
mounted under the joists, and run through damages floor joists that need to be replaced.
Due to this evidence, the panel should be re-wired after the new framing is complete.
Supply and install new electrical in the basement;
o 9 potlights throughout finished ceiling area
o Receptacles as per electrical code
o Install only of 2 client supplied light fixtures (ceiling, or wall mounted)
o All switches and receptacles to be white Decora
Supply and install new electrical in the main floor area;
o 8 potlights throughout finished ceiling area
o Receptacles as per electrical code
o Install only of 2 client supplied light fixtures (ceiling, or wall mounted)
o All switches and receptacles to be white Decora
Electric budget: $14,412.50 + HST Included
Shed:
There is no visible electrical seen in the photos on the Tacoma Engineer, or HIA reports
therefore no electrical budget has been allotted for the shed.
INSULATION
Middle Addition:
Supply and install R60 blown-in cellulose attic insulation in the middle addition attic space
Supply and install a 6mm poly vapor barrier on the main floor ceiling joists
Supply and install 2lbs urethane foam insulation;
-
o
exterior wall face. It is recommended to spray foam the interior sides of the exterior
walls to increase the R-value as much as possible.
-
- Header and rim joist spaces in the basement
All spray foam work supplied and installed by Foam Insulation
Spray foam allowance: $6550.00 + HST Included
Shed:
The shed is to be left as exposed studs uninsulated
DRYWALL
Middle Addition:
Supply and install resilient channel to both the main floor, and basement ceiling joists prior to
drywall installation
- Due to the nature of the old ceiling rafters, resilient channel installation is recommended to
and allow for a cleaner overall finish
- Main floor ceiling area
- Main floor walls
- Basement ceiling area
- Basement exterior walls (2x4 strapped out foundation walls)
Tape, mud, and sand drywall to smooth, paint ready surfaces
INTERIOR DOORS & TRIM
Middle Addition:
Supply and install new finger joint pine/poplar door and window casings throughout main floor,
and basement of the middle addition. *Trim to best match existing trim around other portions
of the house.
Supply and install new finger joint pine/poplar baseboards throughout main floor and basement
of the middle addition. *Trim to best match existing trim around other portions of the house.
- Note original trim, and doors will be salvaged, re-finished, and re-used where possible
throughout the newly renovated space
No interior doors were noted in the Tacoma Engineering, or HIA report. The project budget does
not include allowances for supply, or installation of interior doors.
Trim material allowance: $2,022.00 + HST Included
Shed:
Shed is proposed to be left unfinished on the interior. No allowances have been included in the
overall budget for trim work on the interior of the shed
FINISHED FLOORS & TILE
Middle addition:
Supply and install LVP flooring throughout entire main floor, and basement floor area
All flooring work by Rich-Craft Interiors
Flooring allowance: $9600.00 + HST Included
Additional flooring leveler is not included in this budget.
Shed:
The shed it to be left as exposed subfloor sheathing - unfinished
PAINTING
Middle addition:
Clean, prep, and paint exterior brick veneer of the middle addition
Main floor, and basement area walls to be painted using standard paint options. * Colors T.B.D
Main floor, and basement area ceilings to be painted using standard flat ceiling paint.
Jambs, casings, and baseboard to be painted using standard trim and door paint. *Color T.B.D
Shed:
Strip down, clean, prime, and paint re-used exterior board and batten materials. *Color T.B.D
Paint new exterior board and batten material to match the original materials *Color T.B.D
Painting allowance: $14,700.00 + HST Included
CLEAN-UP
Job site cleaned up each day after work is completed.
BUDGET
Middle Addition
Total: $ 299,025.00
13 % HST: $ 38,873.25
Total Budget: $ 337,898.25
Belfry
Total: $ 18,102.50
13 % HST: $ 2353.33
Total Budget: $ 20,455.83
Shed
Total: $ 81,262.50
13 % HST: $ 10,564.13
Total Budget: $91,826.63
Total Project
Total: $ 398,390.00
13 % HST: $ 51,790.70
Total Budget: $ 450,180.70
*Budget Pricing is subject to change. Actual project costs will be based on final product
selections & material costs. *tƩźĭĻƭ ƦƩƚǝźķĻķ źƓ vǒƚƷğƷźƚƓ ğƩĻ ƭǒĬƆĻĭƷ Ʒƚ ƒğƷĻƩźğƌ ĭƚƭƷƭ źƓ ĻŅŅĻĭƷ ğƷ ƷŷĻ
ƷźƒĻ ƚŅ ƩĻƓƚǝğƷźƚƓƭ͵ LƓ ƷŷĻ ĻǝĻƓƷ ƚŅ ĭŷğƓŭĻƭ źƓ ƒğƩƉĻƷ ĭƚƓķźƷźƚƓƭ ΛǞŷźĭŷ źƒƦğĭƷ ĭƚƭƷƭΜ aĻƓƓƚ { ağƩƷźƓ
LƓĭ͵ ƩĻƭĻƩǝĻƭ ƷŷĻ ƩźŭŷƷ Ʒƚ ƒğƉĻ ğƓǤ ĭƚƩƩĻĭƷźƚƓƭ Ʒƚ ƦƩźĭĻƭ ƨǒƚƷĻķ ķǒĻ Ʒƚ ƦƩźĭĻ źƓĭƩĻğƭĻƭ ŅƩƚƒ ƭǒƦƦƌźĻƩƭ ğƓķ
ƦğƩƷƓĻƩƭ͵ LƓ ƷŷĻ ĻǝĻƓƷ ƚŅ ğ ƦƩźĭĻ źƓĭƩĻğƭĻͲ .ǒǤĻƩ Ǟźƌƌ ĬĻ ƓƚƷźŅźĻķ ğƓķ ğŅŅƚƩķĻķ ğƓ ƚƦƦƚƩƷǒƓźƷǤ Ʒƚ ĭƚƓŅźƩƒ͵
Hayden Diamond
Menno S. Martin Contractor Limited
1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Date: No. of Pages:
November 10, 2025 3 + Encl.
Project: Project No.:
1385 Beams Road, Kitchener TW-02272-25
Address:
1385 Bleams Rd, Kitchener
Client:
Alina Solomes
Distribution:
Alina Solomes isolomes@gmail.com
Background
Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Alina Solomes to provide a response to the Order to
Comply dated October 20, 2025 (Order # 25 125141 UX) requesting temporary
bracing/shoring of the existing belfry on the building at 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener.
Parts of the buildings located at 1385 Bleams were designated under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act in 1987 (By-law number 87-309). The by-law lists the belfry as one of the
elements being of historical and architectural value.
Tacoma Engineers completed a condition assessment of the belfry and the addition below on
June 20, 2025 and issued a Condition Assessment report on July 3, 2025.
Based on the conditions of the belfry observed earlier this year, it is our opinion that temporary
bracing in situ is not structurally viable nor practical from a logistical or financial perspective.
As such, we are recommending an alternative approach to remove the safety risk associated
with the belfry. Based on the condition of the belfry, it is our opinion that the recommendations
noted below should be carried out before the end of November 2025.
Photograph 1: Belfry overall view
Existing Conditions
At the time of our condition assessment review, it was noted that the belfry is in poor/failed
condition. Two of the four belfry posts have severe rot extending the full thickness of the
member and the remaining two posts are significantly rotten. Refer to Photographs 2a & 2b
(below) of the rotten belfry posts below showing an awl penetrating fully into the members as
well as the shifting/failure of one of the posts (Photograph 2a).
155 Frobisher Drive, Suite F220 T: 226-647-0109
Waterloo, Ontario F: 519-824-2000
Canada N2V 2E1 e.vanriesen@tacomaengineers.com
1385 Beams Road, Kitchener Page 2 of 3
TW-02272-25 Structural Report
November 10, 2025 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Photographs 2a & b: Two post bases with significant rot observed
The base of the belfry is currently capped with steel flashing and the steel flashing wraps
around each post with a failed bead of caulking sealing the joint. The condition of the framing
below the steel cap flashing could not be confirmed during our review. It is anticipated that the
base framing is rotten similar to the post bases due to the ability for water to enter at the post
penetrations and the reduced drying potential due to the steel cover.
Further, during our site visit, the framing below the belfry was observed from the attic of the
addition. Based on our visual review, the existing load path supporting the belfry appears to be
undersized. The existing rafters & two props observed do not appear to be structurally adequate
to support the belfry without additional reinforcing. Further, there was no obvious connection
between the belfry structure & the attic roof framing to resist the applied uplift forces resulting
from wind load on the belfry.
Photograph 3: Props below belfry & staining on roof sheathing
1385 Beams Road, Kitchener Page 3 of 3
TW-02272-25 Structural Report
November 10, 2025 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener
Recommendations
Based on the poor condition of the belfry posts, the lack of obvious existing mechanical
connection to the roof framing below and the undersized roof structure supporting the belfry,
it is our opinion that the most safe and most practical approach to preserve the existing belfry
and any related historical value would be to remove the belfry roof framing rather than
temporarily bracing it in place. Based on the conditions, it is our opinion that this work should
be carried out before the end of November 2025.
Storage requirements for the roof framing should be coordinated with the City to ensure the
belfry roof framing is adequately protected from the elements until future plans for the belfry
can be confirmed.
Our recommendation to remove the belfry roof rather than temporarily bracing in place is
primarily related to the lack of sound material to fasten temporary bracing to. As well,
completing this work during the timeline noted and the complication of potentially needing to
reinforce the existing roof structure below means that temporary bracing is likely unfeasible
from a logistical and financial perspective. Eliminating the potential risks associated with
further failure/shifting of the belfry posts is imperative from a safety perspective.
If the decision is made to restore and repair the existing belfry in situ, the existing posts would
need to be fully removed and replaced. As such, removal of the belfry roof now removes the
ongoing potential risk to human safety in the interim and would simplify the repair/restoration
approach in the future.
Please contact the undersigned with any questions or concerns.
NOV 10, 2025
Per ____________________________
TW-02272-25
Emily van Riesen, P.Eng., CAHP Intern
Structural Engineer
Tacoma Engineers
Encl. Nil.