File Number: P18-015-2018
21
City of Kingston Report to Heritage Kingston Report Number HK-18-025 To: Chair and Members of Heritage Kingston From: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Resource Staff: Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services Date of Meeting: April 18, 2018 Subject: Application for Heritage Permit Address: 268 Main Street (P18-416) File Number: P18-015-2018 Executive Summary: The subject property at 268 Main Street is located on the east side of Main Street in the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The subject property contains St. Mark’s Anglican Church, constructed 1843-1844. An application for alteration under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act (File Number P18-015- 2018) has been submitted to gain heritage approval to undertake a significant amount of masonry re-pointing on and around the main bell tower, including a number of buttresses. This application was deemed complete on March 22, 2018. The Ontario Heritage Act provides a maximum of 90 days for Council to render a decision on an application to alter a heritage building under Section 42(4). This timeframe will expire on June 20, 2018. Upon review of all the submitted materials, as well as applicable policies and legislation, staff have no concerns with the proposed scope of work, subject to the conditions outlined herein. Recommendation: That Heritage Kingston supports Council’s approval of the following: That alterations to the property at 268 Main Street, be approved in accordance with the details described in the application (File Number P18-015-2018), which was deemed 25
Transcript of File Number: P18-015-2018
City of Kingston - Heritage Kingston Committee Agenda - Meeting
04-2018 - Report HK-18-025City of Kingston Report to Heritage
Kingston Report Number HK-18-025
To: Chair and Members of Heritage Kingston From: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Resource Staff: Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services Date of Meeting: April 18, 2018 Subject: Application for Heritage Permit Address: 268 Main Street (P18-416) File Number: P18-015-2018
Executive Summary:
The subject property at 268 Main Street is located on the east side of Main Street in the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The subject property contains St. Mark’s Anglican Church, constructed 1843-1844.
An application for alteration under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act (File Number P18-015- 2018) has been submitted to gain heritage approval to undertake a significant amount of masonry re-pointing on and around the main bell tower, including a number of buttresses.
This application was deemed complete on March 22, 2018. The Ontario Heritage Act provides a maximum of 90 days for Council to render a decision on an application to alter a heritage building under Section 42(4). This timeframe will expire on June 20, 2018.
Upon review of all the submitted materials, as well as applicable policies and legislation, staff have no concerns with the proposed scope of work, subject to the conditions outlined herein.
Recommendation:
That Heritage Kingston supports Council’s approval of the following:
That alterations to the property at 268 Main Street, be approved in accordance with the details described in the application (File Number P18-015-2018), which was deemed
25
April 18, 2018
Page 2 of 7
complete on March 22, 2018, with said repairs and re-pointing to the main bell tower and a number of buttresses; and That the approval of the alterations be subject to the following condition:
1. All masonry works shall be completed in accordance with the City’s Policy on Masonry Restoration on Heritage Buildings.
26
April 18, 2018
Consultation with the following Members of the Corporate Management Team:
Jim Keech, President & CEO, Utilities Kingston Not required
Desirée Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer & City Treasurer Not required
Denis Leger, Commissioner, Corporate & Emergency Services Not required
27
jcthompson
Commissioner
jcthompson
CAO
April 18, 2018
Options/Discussion:
Description of Application The subject property at 268 Main Street is located on the east side of Main Street, in the Barriefield HCD (Exhibit A - Context Map & Photos). The subject property contains St. Mark’s Anglican Church, a Gothic Revival Style church designed and built by Richard Jones in 1843- 1844.
In the fall, emergency repairs and re-pointing were carried out on the tops of the buttresses along the north and south elevations to seal some of the holes to prevent water ingress and further damage over the winter. Additionally, a hole on the upper portion of the southeast corner of the tower was filled.
An application for alteration under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act (File Number P18-015- 2018) has been submitted to gain heritage approval to undertake a significant amount of masonry re-pointing on and around the main bell tower, including a number of the buttresses. The extent of re-pointing can only be confirmed upon commencement of the works, and stone replacement may be required. However, it is anticipated that the majority of the re-pointing work will take place on the southeast corner of the tower.
The applicant has submitted information from structural engineer, Andy Huctwith (Exhibit B - Letters from Engineer), outlining the scope of work above.
All submission materials are available online through the Development and Services Hub (DASH) at the following link, DASH, using “Look-up a Specific Address”. If there are multiple addresses, search one address at a time. Submission materials may also be found by searching the file number.
This application was deemed complete on March 22, 2018. The Ontario Heritage Act provides a maximum of 90 days for Council to render a decision on an application to alter a heritage building under Section 42(4). This timeframe will expire on June 20, 2018.
Reasons for Designation The subject property was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2016 through By-Law Number 2016-173. It was included in the Barriefield HCD created pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1979 and amended in 2016. The District Plan describes the church as:
“A two storey (plus tower) Gothic Revival structure. It is located towards the northern edge of the Barriefield District, and its tower is visible from Highway 15 and 2, making it a landmark structure in Barriefield.”
The HCD Plan identifies the Church as a ‘Heritage’ property in Appendix A: Inventory of properties within the Barriefield HCD (Exhibit C).
April 18, 2018
Page 5 of 7
Cultural Heritage Analysis As a landmark structure and the only church in the village, St. Mark’s Anglican Church is significant to the cultural heritage value of Barriefield and is listed as an attribute of the District on page 17 of the District Plan:
“St. Mark’s Church being located on a high point of land open to views from multiple directions”
The proposed repair and re-pointing work is required to conserve St. Mark’s Anglican Church as a heritage attribute of the Barriefield HCD. The proposed repairs also support the Conservation Goals and Objectives as set out on page 18 and 19 of the District Plan, including:
Goal: To conserve the Village of Barriefield’s heritage attributes by allowing only those changes that are compatible with the built form and that are consistent with the cultural heritage value of the District.
Objectives:
a) To ensure the conservation, maintenance, enhancement and protection of the cultural heritage value of the District;
d) To encourage the ongoing maintenance and repair of Heritage buildings by property owners;
e) To support the continuing care, conservation and restoration of Heritage buildings by providing guidance on sound conservation practice and encouraging applications to funding sources for eligible work; and
h) To protect significant historic views.
Additionally, limestone is one of the primary building materials found in the District and is listed as a heritage attribute in the District Plan. Given the cultural heritage value of limestone in the District, combined with the significance of limestone to the City and wider region, the conservation of St. Mark’s Anglican Church and bell tower will provide considerable public benefit. All works are to be completed in accordance with the City’s Policy on Masonry Restoration in Heritage Buildings and best practices in heritage conservation, including the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
Upon review of all of the submitted materials, as well as applicable policies and legislation, staff have no concerns with the proposed application, subject to the conditions outlined herein.
Previous Approvals P18-089-2016 Replacement of limestone step with concrete step.
P18-031-2017 Reconstruction of existing limestone walls flanking entrance and two short walls within the municipal right-of-way.
29
April 18, 2018
Comments from Departments and Agencies The following internal departments have commented on this application:
Building Division: Where significant structural repairs are required a building permit is required. It does not appear that a Building Permit is required based on the scope of work described.
Engineering Department: Engineering has reviewed the proposal and have no objections.
Utilities Kingston: Utilities Kingston has no issues or concerns with this application.
Consultation with Heritage Kingston Heritage Kingston was consulted on this application through the DASH system. A summary of consultation is attached as Exhibit D. No comments were provided by members of the Committee as they relate to this proposal.
Conclusion Staff recommend approval of the application (File Number P18-015-2018), subject to the conditions outlined herein, as there are no objections from a built heritage perspective, and no concerns have been raised by internal departments or members of the Committee.
Existing Policy/By-Law:
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada) Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.O. 18 (Province of Ontario) Village of Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan City’s Policy on Masonry Restoration in Heritage Buildings
Notice Provisions:
Pursuant to Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), notice of receipt of a complete application has been served on the applicant.
Accessibility Considerations:
Not applicable
Financial Considerations:
Not applicable
Alex Rowse-Thompson, Planner, Heritage 613-546-4291 extension 3251
30
April 18, 2018
Other City of Kingston Staff Consulted:
The application was circulated internally for review and all comments have been incorporated.
Exhibits Attached:
Exhibit B Letters from Engineer, Prepared by Andy Huctwith, WSP
Exhibit C Property Inventory Evaluation
Exhibit D Correspondence Received from Heritage Kingston
Exhibit E Final Comments from Heritage Kingston – April 18, 2018
31
Subject Property
Exhibit B
Suite 101
Tel.: +1 613 546-2227
Fax: +1 613 546-3555
October 10, 2017
St. Mark's Anglican Church 268 Main Street Barriefield, ON K7K 5S6
Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir:
Subject: Inspection
On September 30, 2017, Andy Huctwith P.Eng., reviewed the condition of the stone at St. Mark's Church. The church had noticed indications of deterioration and had asked that they be reviewed. When the stone was examined several issues were identified which would suggest that a project is required. Currently it is too late in the year to start a significant stone project and the results of the inspection indicate that at least a decent amount of work is required to the southwest buttress and the southeast pilaster of the tower. This fall it would be good as a preventative measure to seal some of the open joints before the winter if at all possible using one day of masonry patching from a genie boom.
The southwest buttress of the tower is exposed to the effects of temperature gradients as the tower is warmer than the buttress during the winter months. In addition the south side of the church is exposed to warming from the sun during the day and cold at night which increases the number of freeze thaw cycles and drives the damage. As a result cracks have formed and water is let in through the cracks to freeze and cause additional damage. To combat these effects in past projects the inclusion of Perma-chink joints (partial expansion joints) has been intended reduced the amount of cracking and has been effective but has not stopped it. Particularly on the backside of the buttress which faces the sun there are currently issues with cracked stones and cracked joints heading up the buttresses and some stone replacement and pointing is required. Given that it is too late in the year to ensure that all work would be completed this work should be scheduled for the spring.
At the southeast upper portion of the tower there is a hole where mortar has fallen out and it is now letting water to enter this corner of the tower. Below
WSP Canada Group Limited 34
Exhibit B
this hole are a series of cracks that may be related to the entry of water. There is a twist in the stonework of this corner but when we compare photos of the tower from 10 years ago to today the twist appears to be present in the corner 10 years ago and has not significantly increased. It is interesting that the cracks that currently are visible in the tower have shifted one joint to the east from the previous cracks indicating that either the repairs were effective and the weakest point is now shifted to another joint or that there is still issues in the corner which must be addressed. Ideally this entire corner would be chipped and re-pointed but again this is an operation that would have to start in the spring. Ideally the hole at the top of this corner of the buttress would be addressed prior to the winter to reduce further damage.
The remainder of the church was reviewed and there are a series of open joints which could be addressed prior to winter in order to keep water from deteriorating other areas of the stone. These include the minor buttresses along the sides of the church and some individual missing joints near areas which have been damp as well as along the ground.
The inspection appears to indicate that while there is cracking and deterioration of the buttresses and the tower major shifts in the tower have not occurred. At some point the interior of the tower should be reviewed. Steel frames had been added in the 1990’s which should control the position of the corners of the church however some additions have been made relative to cell phone equipment since the time of that construction. The inspection did not indicate significant movement however with a onetime inspection the rate of change cannot be assessed. The tower should be monitored by the church and if any changes in the size, location or frequency of the cracks are observed this winter by the church the tower and the movement should be reassessed.
In addition to the stone issues it was noted that the lightning protection system at the North East corner has been cut above the ground and is not connected and therefore does not provide any protection, this ground should be reconnected.
Discussions indicate the church is aware that the rear accessibility ramp is deteriorated and the rim beams are to the point where they would not support much load. This area should be rectified if this ramp is to remain open.
As far as the one day masonry patching work this fall, the church has a history of using mainly two masonry companies. Either Upper Canada Stonehouse Group or Satin Masonry. It was thought that both companies would be completely unavailable this fall as I had talked to the one and the other was completely booked by Queen’s projects. It turns out that Santin Masonry must shutdown their jobs at Queens on the homecoming weekend and therefore would be available this Friday. While this is extremely short notice we would
Page 2 35
Exhibit B
suggest that you take advantage of this opportunity given that the church has a relationship with Santin and that this window will not be available for the remainder of the year.
The intent of the work in this one-day blitz would be to seal some of the holes to prevent water from making the problems worse this winter. While it costs a significant amount to mobilize a genie boom and the Masons for one day the preventative nature of the work provides a significant benefit. The attached photographs show some of the areas that would be of concern over the winter months.
For the spring work we can work with the church and develop a budget however we will take the information from the genie boom access into account before providing those budgets.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Encl.
Stone Inspection September 2017
PHOTO 1: Southeast Corner of Tower Showing cracks in the face of the pilaster.
PHOTO 2: Hole due to missing mortar at top of Southeast Corner of Tower.
WSP Page 1 of 2
37
Stone Inspection September 2017
PHOTO 3: Open joints at top of minor buttress at sight of Church.
Photo 4: Deteriorated beams under handicap summary under accessibility ramp.
WSP Page 2 of 2
38
F +1 613 546-3555
On December 15th, 2017, Andy Huctwith P.Eng., reviewed the condition
of the interior of the tower stone at St. Mark's Church in the hope of
refining the budget for immediate stonework at the church. The review of
the interior of the tower was encouraging as the stonework did not appear
to show signs of the issues that were seen on the exterior of the corners of
the tower as described in the earlier inspection letter.
The maintenance of stone church is a matter of balancing maintenance
pointing with more significant repairs. While maintenance pointing can
generally be completed from man lifts proper scaffold is required to
complete significant stone replacement and this comes with a significant
access cost. The asset management for the structure therefore becomes a
matter of balancing of doing as much as one can from the lift and allowing
just enough deterioration to justify the cost of the scaffold but not so much
that deterioration progresses to the point where the replacement stone and
rebuilding is so costly that the access should have been paid for earlier.
On top of trying to estimate the correct timing one has to superimpose that
in some cases the surface can look good and hide issues inside.
While any stonework can always use maintenance the buttress and the
back corner have reached the point where the cost of scaffold is
warranted. In the case of the buttress the stone damage is more obvious
and this again is related to the issues with differential temperature
movements between the tower and the buttress that have been described
before. The issues and cracking will always reoccur and this will be a
maintenance item for the life of the church. The back corner has the
potential for more unknowns. The cracking would indicate some water
WSP Canada Group Limited 39
Exhibit B
has entered the tower or could also be related to temperature or changes in
the tower. During the fall filling of the joints the major goal was to try to
limit the entry of water which would cause further immediate damage. It
was not possible to definitively identify just how bad the issues at the
corner were and their full extent.
Based on previous estimates and discussions with the contractor a budget
of $80,000 for construction was estimated. While this is not the maximum
amount the issues could cost if the back corner is more severe than
anticipated it is thought that it is slightly more than the likely cost. Until
stone is marked and the joints removed and the interior of the corner can
be explored this is our best estimate of the cost. If it is found that the
money can be raised and the issues at the corner are not as severe or that
more money is available there are other issues which can be addressed
elsewhere in the church. The focus of this project will be the buttress and
the corner and these area will be the only areas scheduled to be included
unless efficiencies are found. The access will be targeted to these issues
and while any areas that the access also reaches could be completed this
would be decided after the main issues are addressed.
The one day masonry blitz turned into a two day or day and half masonry
blitz but it is my understanding that the cost did not increase. This is the
type of behaviour I have witnessed from Santin Masonry on other projects
particularly when they are working on churches. The church has
expressed interest in continuing with Santin in the spring and while the
other mason mentioned at the time of the inspection operates somewhat
similarly Santin to date has earned the owners trust. The work in the fall
when reviewed Friday appeared to be effective. The worst of the cold and
changes in temperature in the spring of course have not yet occurred but
some of the issue are masked by the maintenance pointing making the two
areas look slightly better. It is anticipated that the maintenance pointing
should limit water as intended until the spring. It will be interesting to see
if any corner cracking reappears in the spring.
While more information will be found when the work proceeds we would
estimate that the construction budget should be estimated at $80,000 plus
HST. Our fees will depend on our involvement and both the contract
method and contractor who is finally chosen for the work. We have found
in the past that inspecting Santin Masonry is less costly than most other
contractors and what is needed for the church to be satisfied with the
contractual relationship with the contractor as far as contract documents
would also affect our fees. Our fees would be in addition to the
construction estimate.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Page 2 40
Name: St. Mark’s Anglican Church
Address: 268 Main Street
Lot: CON EGCR N PT LOT 19 ST;MARKS CHURCH HALL
Property Type: Church Era/Date of Construction: 1843-1844 Architect/Builder: Richard Jones Building style/Influence: Gothic Revival Materials: Stone Number of Bays: Three Roof Type Front gable with tower Building Height: Two storey plus tower Alterations: Addition of chancel and sanctuary (1897), balcony and
choir loft moved to front of church (1897), church hall constructed next to church (1961), bell tower restored (1993), steel cladding installed (1998), bell tower masonry restored (2006), roof soffit, fascia, eaves, troughs and downspout repaired and restored (2007), chimney repaired (2007), section of bell tower repointed (2010-2012)
Landscape/setting: Large lot, open lawn, shrubs and specimen plantings, long driveway, constructed on rise of land
Heritage Value: Heritage
Description of Historic Place:
St. Mark’s Church is a two storey (plus tower) Gothic Revival structure. It is located towards the northern edge of the Barriefield District, and its tower is visible from Highway 15 and Highway 2, making it a landmark structure in Barriefield.
Heritage Value:
A public meeting was held in March 1843 at the James Medley House to discuss erecting a church for Barriefield. Land was donated by John Marks and a tender was let to Richard Jones to build a stone church by May 1844. St. Mark's was opened for services in July 1844 by Archdeacon George Okill Stuart of Kingston. The church
MHBC April 2015
Exhibit Exhibit C
Village of Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan update Heritage Conservation District Inventory (REVISED DRAFT)
underwent a major renovation in 1897 with the addition of a chancel and sanctuary. The balcony and choir loft were moved to the front of the church. Several Barriefield buildings have served as the parish rectory over the years including Barriefield House, Willowmere, and the John Marks House. The parish hall has been at different times located in the township hall and the 1850 Barriefield school. A new hall was erected in 1961 next to the church. The property is still partially enclosed with a dry stone fence and stone pillars at the entranceway. St. Mark's is an important landmark building within the heritage conservation district.
St Mark’s Church is a two storey structure with central front tower constructed in the Gothic Revival Style. The church is constructed of stone and features a front gable roof. The Church features many of the hallmarks of the Gothic Revival style, including lancet (pointed arch) window and door openings, buttresses and tower. The church also features recessed quatrefoil details on the front, and stained glass windows. A stone fence with tall pillars and a pointed, gothic motif cap are located at the entrance to the church.
Heritage Attributes:
Elements that define the historical value of the property include:
- Use of the property as a church/community amenity - Status as the only village church
Elements that define the architectural value of the property include:
- Two storey stone construction - Central square front tower - Stone buttresses - Lancet windows and louvred opening in tower - Stone courses surrounding windows and stone sills - Pointed arch wooden double door - Quatrefoils in gable on either side of the tower - Front gable roof
Elements that define the contextual value of the property include:
- Deep setback from street - Long central drive - Location on rise of land - Stone fence and pillars
Mixed vegetation framing the lot
MHBC April 2015
Heritage Kingston Summary of Input from the Technical Review Process
P18-015-2018
No Comments Provided
No Response Received
following final comments were provided at the April 18, 2018
Heritage Kingston meeting:
Exhibit E
Exhibit C - Property Evaluation
Exhibit E - Final Comments from Heritage Kingston. cm
To: Chair and Members of Heritage Kingston From: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Resource Staff: Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services Date of Meeting: April 18, 2018 Subject: Application for Heritage Permit Address: 268 Main Street (P18-416) File Number: P18-015-2018
Executive Summary:
The subject property at 268 Main Street is located on the east side of Main Street in the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The subject property contains St. Mark’s Anglican Church, constructed 1843-1844.
An application for alteration under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act (File Number P18-015- 2018) has been submitted to gain heritage approval to undertake a significant amount of masonry re-pointing on and around the main bell tower, including a number of buttresses.
This application was deemed complete on March 22, 2018. The Ontario Heritage Act provides a maximum of 90 days for Council to render a decision on an application to alter a heritage building under Section 42(4). This timeframe will expire on June 20, 2018.
Upon review of all the submitted materials, as well as applicable policies and legislation, staff have no concerns with the proposed scope of work, subject to the conditions outlined herein.
Recommendation:
That Heritage Kingston supports Council’s approval of the following:
That alterations to the property at 268 Main Street, be approved in accordance with the details described in the application (File Number P18-015-2018), which was deemed
25
April 18, 2018
Page 2 of 7
complete on March 22, 2018, with said repairs and re-pointing to the main bell tower and a number of buttresses; and That the approval of the alterations be subject to the following condition:
1. All masonry works shall be completed in accordance with the City’s Policy on Masonry Restoration on Heritage Buildings.
26
April 18, 2018
Consultation with the following Members of the Corporate Management Team:
Jim Keech, President & CEO, Utilities Kingston Not required
Desirée Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer & City Treasurer Not required
Denis Leger, Commissioner, Corporate & Emergency Services Not required
27
jcthompson
Commissioner
jcthompson
CAO
April 18, 2018
Options/Discussion:
Description of Application The subject property at 268 Main Street is located on the east side of Main Street, in the Barriefield HCD (Exhibit A - Context Map & Photos). The subject property contains St. Mark’s Anglican Church, a Gothic Revival Style church designed and built by Richard Jones in 1843- 1844.
In the fall, emergency repairs and re-pointing were carried out on the tops of the buttresses along the north and south elevations to seal some of the holes to prevent water ingress and further damage over the winter. Additionally, a hole on the upper portion of the southeast corner of the tower was filled.
An application for alteration under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act (File Number P18-015- 2018) has been submitted to gain heritage approval to undertake a significant amount of masonry re-pointing on and around the main bell tower, including a number of the buttresses. The extent of re-pointing can only be confirmed upon commencement of the works, and stone replacement may be required. However, it is anticipated that the majority of the re-pointing work will take place on the southeast corner of the tower.
The applicant has submitted information from structural engineer, Andy Huctwith (Exhibit B - Letters from Engineer), outlining the scope of work above.
All submission materials are available online through the Development and Services Hub (DASH) at the following link, DASH, using “Look-up a Specific Address”. If there are multiple addresses, search one address at a time. Submission materials may also be found by searching the file number.
This application was deemed complete on March 22, 2018. The Ontario Heritage Act provides a maximum of 90 days for Council to render a decision on an application to alter a heritage building under Section 42(4). This timeframe will expire on June 20, 2018.
Reasons for Designation The subject property was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2016 through By-Law Number 2016-173. It was included in the Barriefield HCD created pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1979 and amended in 2016. The District Plan describes the church as:
“A two storey (plus tower) Gothic Revival structure. It is located towards the northern edge of the Barriefield District, and its tower is visible from Highway 15 and 2, making it a landmark structure in Barriefield.”
The HCD Plan identifies the Church as a ‘Heritage’ property in Appendix A: Inventory of properties within the Barriefield HCD (Exhibit C).
April 18, 2018
Page 5 of 7
Cultural Heritage Analysis As a landmark structure and the only church in the village, St. Mark’s Anglican Church is significant to the cultural heritage value of Barriefield and is listed as an attribute of the District on page 17 of the District Plan:
“St. Mark’s Church being located on a high point of land open to views from multiple directions”
The proposed repair and re-pointing work is required to conserve St. Mark’s Anglican Church as a heritage attribute of the Barriefield HCD. The proposed repairs also support the Conservation Goals and Objectives as set out on page 18 and 19 of the District Plan, including:
Goal: To conserve the Village of Barriefield’s heritage attributes by allowing only those changes that are compatible with the built form and that are consistent with the cultural heritage value of the District.
Objectives:
a) To ensure the conservation, maintenance, enhancement and protection of the cultural heritage value of the District;
d) To encourage the ongoing maintenance and repair of Heritage buildings by property owners;
e) To support the continuing care, conservation and restoration of Heritage buildings by providing guidance on sound conservation practice and encouraging applications to funding sources for eligible work; and
h) To protect significant historic views.
Additionally, limestone is one of the primary building materials found in the District and is listed as a heritage attribute in the District Plan. Given the cultural heritage value of limestone in the District, combined with the significance of limestone to the City and wider region, the conservation of St. Mark’s Anglican Church and bell tower will provide considerable public benefit. All works are to be completed in accordance with the City’s Policy on Masonry Restoration in Heritage Buildings and best practices in heritage conservation, including the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
Upon review of all of the submitted materials, as well as applicable policies and legislation, staff have no concerns with the proposed application, subject to the conditions outlined herein.
Previous Approvals P18-089-2016 Replacement of limestone step with concrete step.
P18-031-2017 Reconstruction of existing limestone walls flanking entrance and two short walls within the municipal right-of-way.
29
April 18, 2018
Comments from Departments and Agencies The following internal departments have commented on this application:
Building Division: Where significant structural repairs are required a building permit is required. It does not appear that a Building Permit is required based on the scope of work described.
Engineering Department: Engineering has reviewed the proposal and have no objections.
Utilities Kingston: Utilities Kingston has no issues or concerns with this application.
Consultation with Heritage Kingston Heritage Kingston was consulted on this application through the DASH system. A summary of consultation is attached as Exhibit D. No comments were provided by members of the Committee as they relate to this proposal.
Conclusion Staff recommend approval of the application (File Number P18-015-2018), subject to the conditions outlined herein, as there are no objections from a built heritage perspective, and no concerns have been raised by internal departments or members of the Committee.
Existing Policy/By-Law:
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada) Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.O. 18 (Province of Ontario) Village of Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan City’s Policy on Masonry Restoration in Heritage Buildings
Notice Provisions:
Pursuant to Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), notice of receipt of a complete application has been served on the applicant.
Accessibility Considerations:
Not applicable
Financial Considerations:
Not applicable
Alex Rowse-Thompson, Planner, Heritage 613-546-4291 extension 3251
30
April 18, 2018
Other City of Kingston Staff Consulted:
The application was circulated internally for review and all comments have been incorporated.
Exhibits Attached:
Exhibit B Letters from Engineer, Prepared by Andy Huctwith, WSP
Exhibit C Property Inventory Evaluation
Exhibit D Correspondence Received from Heritage Kingston
Exhibit E Final Comments from Heritage Kingston – April 18, 2018
31
Subject Property
Exhibit B
Suite 101
Tel.: +1 613 546-2227
Fax: +1 613 546-3555
October 10, 2017
St. Mark's Anglican Church 268 Main Street Barriefield, ON K7K 5S6
Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir:
Subject: Inspection
On September 30, 2017, Andy Huctwith P.Eng., reviewed the condition of the stone at St. Mark's Church. The church had noticed indications of deterioration and had asked that they be reviewed. When the stone was examined several issues were identified which would suggest that a project is required. Currently it is too late in the year to start a significant stone project and the results of the inspection indicate that at least a decent amount of work is required to the southwest buttress and the southeast pilaster of the tower. This fall it would be good as a preventative measure to seal some of the open joints before the winter if at all possible using one day of masonry patching from a genie boom.
The southwest buttress of the tower is exposed to the effects of temperature gradients as the tower is warmer than the buttress during the winter months. In addition the south side of the church is exposed to warming from the sun during the day and cold at night which increases the number of freeze thaw cycles and drives the damage. As a result cracks have formed and water is let in through the cracks to freeze and cause additional damage. To combat these effects in past projects the inclusion of Perma-chink joints (partial expansion joints) has been intended reduced the amount of cracking and has been effective but has not stopped it. Particularly on the backside of the buttress which faces the sun there are currently issues with cracked stones and cracked joints heading up the buttresses and some stone replacement and pointing is required. Given that it is too late in the year to ensure that all work would be completed this work should be scheduled for the spring.
At the southeast upper portion of the tower there is a hole where mortar has fallen out and it is now letting water to enter this corner of the tower. Below
WSP Canada Group Limited 34
Exhibit B
this hole are a series of cracks that may be related to the entry of water. There is a twist in the stonework of this corner but when we compare photos of the tower from 10 years ago to today the twist appears to be present in the corner 10 years ago and has not significantly increased. It is interesting that the cracks that currently are visible in the tower have shifted one joint to the east from the previous cracks indicating that either the repairs were effective and the weakest point is now shifted to another joint or that there is still issues in the corner which must be addressed. Ideally this entire corner would be chipped and re-pointed but again this is an operation that would have to start in the spring. Ideally the hole at the top of this corner of the buttress would be addressed prior to the winter to reduce further damage.
The remainder of the church was reviewed and there are a series of open joints which could be addressed prior to winter in order to keep water from deteriorating other areas of the stone. These include the minor buttresses along the sides of the church and some individual missing joints near areas which have been damp as well as along the ground.
The inspection appears to indicate that while there is cracking and deterioration of the buttresses and the tower major shifts in the tower have not occurred. At some point the interior of the tower should be reviewed. Steel frames had been added in the 1990’s which should control the position of the corners of the church however some additions have been made relative to cell phone equipment since the time of that construction. The inspection did not indicate significant movement however with a onetime inspection the rate of change cannot be assessed. The tower should be monitored by the church and if any changes in the size, location or frequency of the cracks are observed this winter by the church the tower and the movement should be reassessed.
In addition to the stone issues it was noted that the lightning protection system at the North East corner has been cut above the ground and is not connected and therefore does not provide any protection, this ground should be reconnected.
Discussions indicate the church is aware that the rear accessibility ramp is deteriorated and the rim beams are to the point where they would not support much load. This area should be rectified if this ramp is to remain open.
As far as the one day masonry patching work this fall, the church has a history of using mainly two masonry companies. Either Upper Canada Stonehouse Group or Satin Masonry. It was thought that both companies would be completely unavailable this fall as I had talked to the one and the other was completely booked by Queen’s projects. It turns out that Santin Masonry must shutdown their jobs at Queens on the homecoming weekend and therefore would be available this Friday. While this is extremely short notice we would
Page 2 35
Exhibit B
suggest that you take advantage of this opportunity given that the church has a relationship with Santin and that this window will not be available for the remainder of the year.
The intent of the work in this one-day blitz would be to seal some of the holes to prevent water from making the problems worse this winter. While it costs a significant amount to mobilize a genie boom and the Masons for one day the preventative nature of the work provides a significant benefit. The attached photographs show some of the areas that would be of concern over the winter months.
For the spring work we can work with the church and develop a budget however we will take the information from the genie boom access into account before providing those budgets.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Encl.
Stone Inspection September 2017
PHOTO 1: Southeast Corner of Tower Showing cracks in the face of the pilaster.
PHOTO 2: Hole due to missing mortar at top of Southeast Corner of Tower.
WSP Page 1 of 2
37
Stone Inspection September 2017
PHOTO 3: Open joints at top of minor buttress at sight of Church.
Photo 4: Deteriorated beams under handicap summary under accessibility ramp.
WSP Page 2 of 2
38
F +1 613 546-3555
On December 15th, 2017, Andy Huctwith P.Eng., reviewed the condition
of the interior of the tower stone at St. Mark's Church in the hope of
refining the budget for immediate stonework at the church. The review of
the interior of the tower was encouraging as the stonework did not appear
to show signs of the issues that were seen on the exterior of the corners of
the tower as described in the earlier inspection letter.
The maintenance of stone church is a matter of balancing maintenance
pointing with more significant repairs. While maintenance pointing can
generally be completed from man lifts proper scaffold is required to
complete significant stone replacement and this comes with a significant
access cost. The asset management for the structure therefore becomes a
matter of balancing of doing as much as one can from the lift and allowing
just enough deterioration to justify the cost of the scaffold but not so much
that deterioration progresses to the point where the replacement stone and
rebuilding is so costly that the access should have been paid for earlier.
On top of trying to estimate the correct timing one has to superimpose that
in some cases the surface can look good and hide issues inside.
While any stonework can always use maintenance the buttress and the
back corner have reached the point where the cost of scaffold is
warranted. In the case of the buttress the stone damage is more obvious
and this again is related to the issues with differential temperature
movements between the tower and the buttress that have been described
before. The issues and cracking will always reoccur and this will be a
maintenance item for the life of the church. The back corner has the
potential for more unknowns. The cracking would indicate some water
WSP Canada Group Limited 39
Exhibit B
has entered the tower or could also be related to temperature or changes in
the tower. During the fall filling of the joints the major goal was to try to
limit the entry of water which would cause further immediate damage. It
was not possible to definitively identify just how bad the issues at the
corner were and their full extent.
Based on previous estimates and discussions with the contractor a budget
of $80,000 for construction was estimated. While this is not the maximum
amount the issues could cost if the back corner is more severe than
anticipated it is thought that it is slightly more than the likely cost. Until
stone is marked and the joints removed and the interior of the corner can
be explored this is our best estimate of the cost. If it is found that the
money can be raised and the issues at the corner are not as severe or that
more money is available there are other issues which can be addressed
elsewhere in the church. The focus of this project will be the buttress and
the corner and these area will be the only areas scheduled to be included
unless efficiencies are found. The access will be targeted to these issues
and while any areas that the access also reaches could be completed this
would be decided after the main issues are addressed.
The one day masonry blitz turned into a two day or day and half masonry
blitz but it is my understanding that the cost did not increase. This is the
type of behaviour I have witnessed from Santin Masonry on other projects
particularly when they are working on churches. The church has
expressed interest in continuing with Santin in the spring and while the
other mason mentioned at the time of the inspection operates somewhat
similarly Santin to date has earned the owners trust. The work in the fall
when reviewed Friday appeared to be effective. The worst of the cold and
changes in temperature in the spring of course have not yet occurred but
some of the issue are masked by the maintenance pointing making the two
areas look slightly better. It is anticipated that the maintenance pointing
should limit water as intended until the spring. It will be interesting to see
if any corner cracking reappears in the spring.
While more information will be found when the work proceeds we would
estimate that the construction budget should be estimated at $80,000 plus
HST. Our fees will depend on our involvement and both the contract
method and contractor who is finally chosen for the work. We have found
in the past that inspecting Santin Masonry is less costly than most other
contractors and what is needed for the church to be satisfied with the
contractual relationship with the contractor as far as contract documents
would also affect our fees. Our fees would be in addition to the
construction estimate.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Page 2 40
Name: St. Mark’s Anglican Church
Address: 268 Main Street
Lot: CON EGCR N PT LOT 19 ST;MARKS CHURCH HALL
Property Type: Church Era/Date of Construction: 1843-1844 Architect/Builder: Richard Jones Building style/Influence: Gothic Revival Materials: Stone Number of Bays: Three Roof Type Front gable with tower Building Height: Two storey plus tower Alterations: Addition of chancel and sanctuary (1897), balcony and
choir loft moved to front of church (1897), church hall constructed next to church (1961), bell tower restored (1993), steel cladding installed (1998), bell tower masonry restored (2006), roof soffit, fascia, eaves, troughs and downspout repaired and restored (2007), chimney repaired (2007), section of bell tower repointed (2010-2012)
Landscape/setting: Large lot, open lawn, shrubs and specimen plantings, long driveway, constructed on rise of land
Heritage Value: Heritage
Description of Historic Place:
St. Mark’s Church is a two storey (plus tower) Gothic Revival structure. It is located towards the northern edge of the Barriefield District, and its tower is visible from Highway 15 and Highway 2, making it a landmark structure in Barriefield.
Heritage Value:
A public meeting was held in March 1843 at the James Medley House to discuss erecting a church for Barriefield. Land was donated by John Marks and a tender was let to Richard Jones to build a stone church by May 1844. St. Mark's was opened for services in July 1844 by Archdeacon George Okill Stuart of Kingston. The church
MHBC April 2015
Exhibit Exhibit C
Village of Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan update Heritage Conservation District Inventory (REVISED DRAFT)
underwent a major renovation in 1897 with the addition of a chancel and sanctuary. The balcony and choir loft were moved to the front of the church. Several Barriefield buildings have served as the parish rectory over the years including Barriefield House, Willowmere, and the John Marks House. The parish hall has been at different times located in the township hall and the 1850 Barriefield school. A new hall was erected in 1961 next to the church. The property is still partially enclosed with a dry stone fence and stone pillars at the entranceway. St. Mark's is an important landmark building within the heritage conservation district.
St Mark’s Church is a two storey structure with central front tower constructed in the Gothic Revival Style. The church is constructed of stone and features a front gable roof. The Church features many of the hallmarks of the Gothic Revival style, including lancet (pointed arch) window and door openings, buttresses and tower. The church also features recessed quatrefoil details on the front, and stained glass windows. A stone fence with tall pillars and a pointed, gothic motif cap are located at the entrance to the church.
Heritage Attributes:
Elements that define the historical value of the property include:
- Use of the property as a church/community amenity - Status as the only village church
Elements that define the architectural value of the property include:
- Two storey stone construction - Central square front tower - Stone buttresses - Lancet windows and louvred opening in tower - Stone courses surrounding windows and stone sills - Pointed arch wooden double door - Quatrefoils in gable on either side of the tower - Front gable roof
Elements that define the contextual value of the property include:
- Deep setback from street - Long central drive - Location on rise of land - Stone fence and pillars
Mixed vegetation framing the lot
MHBC April 2015
Heritage Kingston Summary of Input from the Technical Review Process
P18-015-2018
No Comments Provided
No Response Received
following final comments were provided at the April 18, 2018
Heritage Kingston meeting:
Exhibit E
Exhibit C - Property Evaluation
Exhibit E - Final Comments from Heritage Kingston. cm
