Revised FINAL Baseline Property Condition · PDF file44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario....

© 2016 Pinchin Ltd.

Revised FINAL Baseline Property Condition Assessment Camp Orenda 44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario

Prepared for:

Girl Guides of Canada, Ontario Council Girl Guides of Canada, Ontario Council 180 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 100 Toronto, ON M3B 1Z6

Attention: Ms. Jillian Dundas, Executive Director Executive Director

December 8, 2016

Pinchin File: 108378

Baseline Property Condition Assessment December 8, 2016

44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario Pinchin File: 108378

Girl Guides of Canada, Ontario Council FINAL

© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page ii

Issued to: Contact: Issued on: Pinchin file: Issuing Office: Primary Contact:

Girl Guides of Canada, Ontario Council Ms. Jillian Dundas, Executive Director December 8, 2016 108378 2470 Milltower Court, Mississauga, ON L5N 7W5 Casey Norouzian, M.Sc. Senior Project Manager 905.363.1366 [email protected]

Author: Marko Balen, B.A., C.E.T. Building Scientist 905.363.1428 [email protected]

Reviewer: Majid Milani-Nia, P.Eng. Senior Project Engineer 613.851.3771 [email protected]

Baseline Property Condition Assessment December 8, 2016 44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario Pinchin File: 108378 Girl Guides of Canada, Ontario Council FINAL

© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pinchin Ltd. (Pinchin) was retained by Ms. Jillian Dundas, Executive Director of Girl Guides of Canada,

Ontario Council (Client) to conduct a Baseline Property Condition Assessment (BPCA), subject to the

limitations outlined in Section 6.0 of this report. Based on Pinchin’s scope of work this service did not

include any specialist reviews of items such as fire protection and life safety systems,

mechanical/electrical systems, structural components, etc. The municipal address for the property is

44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario (Site) referred to as Camp Orenda. Mr. Marko Balen of

Pinchin, a member of the Pinchin Group of Companies, conducted a visual assessment of the Site on

November 26, 2015 at which time Pinchin interviewed and was accompanied by Ms. Barb Robinson, Site

Chair, hereafter collectively referred to as the Site Representative.

Pinchin was advised by the Client that the purpose of the BPCA was to assess visible deficiencies in

relation to the internal due diligence requirements of the Site.

The Site is located within a wooded area and approximately 15km south of London. The Site is a near

rectangular-shaped property approximately 99 acres in area consisting of wooded areas and trails as well

as a multi-building camp site consisting of eleven Site buildings (excluding the Pavilions and Latrines).

The following is a general description of the Site Buildings:

Site Building Description

Toadstool

• A two-storey building complete with a basement which was reportedly constructed in the 1960’s with a subsequent addition to the south portion of the building in the mid-1990’s.

• The Site Building possesses a footprint area of approximately 2,000 Square Feet (ft2) and total building area of approximately 3,000 ft2.

• The Site Building reportedly sleeps 18 persons.

Workshop

• A single-storey building used as a workshop. • The Site Building is estimated to be constructed in the early-1980’s. • Possesses a footprint and total building area of approximately 1,150 ft2.

Clubhouse/Barn

• A single-storey building reportedly constructed in the mid-1980’s and is used as a playhouse and storage building.

• The Site Building possesses a footprint and total building area of approximately 1,750 ft2.

Chapandale

• A two-storey building complete with a basement which was reportedly constructed in the 1986.

• The Site Building possesses a footprint area of approximately 3,000 ft2 and total building area of approximately 5,500 ft2.

• The Site Building reportedly sleeps 30 persons.


© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page iv

Site Building Description

Kesoki

• A single-storey Site Building which was reportedly constructed in approximately 1985.

• The Site Building possesses a footprint and a total building area of approximately 900 ft2.

• The campsite is equipped with seasonal wood-framed tent platforms.

Norloki

• A single-storey Site Building which was reportedly constructed in approximately 1985.

• The Site Building possesses a footprint and a total building area of approximately 1,300 ft2.

• The Site Building reportedly sleeps 19 persons. • The campsite is equipped with seasonal wood-framed tent platforms.

Norloki Storage Shed

• A single-storey Site Building used a storage building which is estimated to be constructed in approximately 1985.


Program House



Soames Building

• A single-storey Site Building which is estimated to be constructed in approximately 1985.


Soames Storage Shed



Pax Hollow Storage Shed



Pavilions • Five open-air structures located on various campgrounds with a combined

approximate footprint and total building area of 1,500 ft2.

Latrines • Three single-storey latrines located on various campgrounds with a

combined approximately footprint and total building area of 150 ft2.


© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page v

The Site Buildings appear to be in satisfactory condition and in comparable standing with typical camp

sites within the area. Based on our visual assessment, the Site Buildings appears to have been

constructed in general accordance with standard building practices in place at the times of

construction.The assessment did not reveal any visual evidence of major structural failures, soil erosion

or differential settlement. However, cracked and bowed foundation walls were noted at the Barn,

Workshop and Toadstool buildings. Additionally, deteriorated wood framing members and previous

foundation repairs were observed and reported by the Site Representative.

No immediate repair requirements have been identified. Repair and replacement requirements (under

replacement reserves) over the term of the analysis (i.e., 15 years) of $422,000.00 have been identified.

As noted during the Site visit, deficiencies relating to the roof systems, wall systems, balcony systems,

structural systems, interior finishes, Site features, mechanical and life safety systems were noted. Of

particular note, recommendations, repairs and replacements for the following items are included

throughout the term of the analysis:

• Replacement of the sloped asphalt shingled roof systems located atop selective Site

Buildings (i.e., Toadstool, Barn, Chapandale, Norloki Storage Shed, Program House,

selective Pavilions and the Latrines);

• General repairs to the exterior walls systems (i.e., wood/vinyl wood siding, metal

cladding, etc.) of the Site Buildings;

• Replacement and removal of the asbestos siding (Type 1 abatement) on Toadstool and

re-cladding the exterior with vinyl siding;

• Repairs to the deteriorated framing members within Toadstool and the cracked and

displaced concrete foundation walls at the Workshop and Barn under the supervision of a

Structural Engineer;

• Repairs to the cracked concrete floor slabs within the Workshop and Clubhouse/Barn;

• On-going repairs and replacement of the interior finishes;

• Allowances for re-grading the gravel driveways;

• Allowances for replacement of selective electrical panels;

• Replacement of two forced-air furnaces;

• Replacement of two Domestic Hot Water (DHW) heaters; and

• Rehabilitating the on-Site accessibility features to a satisfactory level based on a non-

specialist review.


© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page vi

Consideration has been given regarding required ongoing maintenance and repairs of the major elements

and at the direction of the Client, Pinchin has utilized a threshold of $1,000.00 per system, per year as a

limit in determining and carrying anticipated expenditures. Anticipated expenditures associated with

maintenance and reparation of the major components below the threshold are carried within the annual

operating budget and excluded from the Summary of Anticipated Expenditures.

Regular maintenance should be conducted on the roof systems, wall systems, interior finishes,

mechanical systems, electrical and life safety systems to ensure that the Projected Useful Life (PUL) of

the major components is realized. Repair costs for the aforementioned items have been included over the

term of the analysis (i.e., 15 years) included within Appendix I. The specific deficiencies identified during

the BPCA and their associated recommendations for repair are described in the main body of the report.

These deficiencies should be corrected as part of routine maintenance unless otherwise stated within the

report. Costs associated with desired upgrades have not been carried.

The detailed breakdown of all costs for the Site can be found in Appendix I.

This Executive Summary is subject to the same standard limitations as contained in the report and must

be read in conjunction with the entire report.


© 2016 Pinchin Ltd. Page 1 of 64

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. III

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 3

3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 5 3.1 Site Information..................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Roof Systems ..................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Wall Systems ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Balcony Systems ................................................................................................................ 26 3.5 Structural Elements ............................................................................................................ 29 3.6 Underground Parking Garage ............................................................................................ 35 3.7 Vertical Transportation Systems ......................................................................................... 36 3.8 Interior Finishes .................................................................................................................. 36 3.9 Site Features ...................................................................................................................... 41 3.10 Mechanical Systems ........................................................................................................... 45

3.10.1 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ..................................................... 46 3.10.2 Plumbing ..................................................................................................................... 46 3.10.3 Fire Protection ............................................................................................................ 47

3.11 Electrical Systems .............................................................................................................. 52 3.11.1 Electrical Power .......................................................................................................... 52 3.11.2 Emergency Electrical Power....................................................................................... 54 3.11.3 Fire Alarm System and Life Safety ............................................................................. 54

4.0 NON-SPECIALIST BARRIER FREE ACCESSIBILITY REVIEW .................................................. 60

5.0 KNOWN VIOLATIONS TO CODE ................................................................................................. 61

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 61

7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 62

APPENDICES APPENDIX I Table 1 – Summary of Anticipated Expenditures ................................................... 1 APPENDIX II Table 2 – Non-Specialist Review of AODA Compliance........................................ 2

APPENDIX III Avison Young Commercial Real Estate – Viability Study ...................................... 3



LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 - Site Information ........................................................................................................................... 9

Table 3.2 – Roof Systems ........................................................................................................................... 11

Table 3.3 – Wall Systems ........................................................................................................................... 18

Table 3.4 – Balcony Systems...................................................................................................................... 26

Table 3.5 – Structural Elements .................................................................................................................. 31

Table 3.6 – Underground Parking Garage .................................................................................................. 35 Table 3.7 – Vertical Transportation Systems .............................................................................................. 36

Table 3.8 – Interior Finishes........................................................................................................................ 36

Table 3.9 – Site Features ............................................................................................................................ 41

Table 3.9 – Mechanical Systems (including HVAC, Plumbing, and Fire Protection) .................................. 48

Table 3.10 – Electrical Systems (including Electrical Power and Fire Alarm and Life Safety) ................... 54



1.0 INTRODUCTION

Pinchin Ltd. (Pinchin) was retained by Ms. Jillian Dundas, Executive Director of Girl Guides of Canada,

Ontario Council (Client) to conduct a Baseline Property Condition Assessment (BPCA), subject to the

limitations outlined in Section 6.0 of this report. Based on Pinchin’s scope of work this service did not

include any specialist reviews of items such as fire protection and life safety systems,

mechanical/electrical systems, structural components, etc. The municipal address for the property is

44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario (Site) referred to as Camp Orenda. Mr. Marko Balen of

Pinchin, a member of the Pinchin Group of Companies, conducted a visual assessment of the Site on

November 26, 2015 at which time Pinchin interviewed and was accompanied by Ms. Barb Robinson, Site

Chair, hereafter collectively referred to as the Site Representative.

Pinchin was advised by the Client that the purpose of the BPCA was to assess visible deficiencies in

relation to the internal due diligence requirements of the Site.

The Client has advised Pinchin that no previous Baseline Property Condition Assessments or other

building reports have been prepared for the Site.

It was reported to Pinchin that the costs associated with ongoing general maintenance of the major

components of the Site Buildings are carried as part of the annual operating budget for the Site.






The results of the BPCA are presented in the following report. This report is subject to the Limitations

discussed in Section 6.0. The term of the analysis requested by the Client is 15 years.

2.0 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The scope of the BPCA included a visual examination (without any intrusive testing or demolition of

finishes to observe hidden areas) of the following:

• The building envelope, comprised of the exterior walls, windows, exterior doors and roof

systems;

• The structural elements (i.e., walls, floors, beams, columns);

• The interior finishes of the common areas and individual units;

• The Site features;

• The mechanical systems (i.e., furnaces, domestic hot water, plumbing, etc.); and

• The electrical and life safety systems.



The object of the BPCA included the following:

• A visual examination of the property in order to assess the condition of the major

elements;

• Review of general documentation on the repair/maintenance history of the elements, if

available;

• Cursory review of previous reports pertaining to the Site Buildings, if made available by

the Site Representative;

• Interviews and discussions with on-Site personnel regarding the repair/maintenance

conducted on the Site Buildings;

• Documentation of observed existing deficiencies observed within the various elements;

• Photographic documentation of various components and observed deficiencies; and

• Compilation of Pinchin’s findings in a formal written report including observed

deficiencies, together with a list of recommendations for repair/replacement with

associated estimated costs for both short and long term.

The report provides:

• A basic description of each of the various major components of the Site Buildings;

• A list of deficiencies noted with respect to the components examined; and

• Recommendations and cost estimates for the corrections recommended.

Cost estimates provided in this report are preliminary Class “D” and provided only as an indication of the

order of magnitude of the remedial work. These values have been arrived at by determining a

representative quantity from the visual observations made at the time of our Site visit and by applying

current market value unit costs to such quantities and or a reasonable lump sum allowance for the work.

More precise cost estimates would require more detailed investigation to define the scope of work. They

are not intended to warrant that the final costs will not exceed these amounts or that all costs are

covered. The estimates assume the work is performed at one time and do not include costs for potential

de-mobilization and re-mobilization if repairs/replacement are spread out over the term of analysis.

All costs are identified in 2016 Canadian Dollars, and do not include consulting fees or applicable taxes.

(For consulting fees, Pinchin typically recommends a budget allowance of 10% to 15% of the costs

identified).

All cost estimates assume that regular annual maintenance and repairs will be performed to all building

elements at the facility. No cost allowance is carried for this regular maintenance.



The cost estimates provided in this report are based on costs of past repairs at similar buildings, recent

costing data such as “RS Means Repair and Remodelling Cost Data – Commercial/Residential” and

“Hanscomb’s Yardsticks for Costing”, or Pinchin’s professional judgment.

Unless otherwise stated, the replacement costs identified for an element reflects the cost to remove and

replace the existing element with the same type of element.

3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS

3.1 Site Information

General view of the Site (Google Maps 2016).

General view of Toadstool located at the north portion of the Site.



General view of the Workshop located at the north portion of the Site.

General view of the Clubhouse/Barn located at the north portion of the Site.

General view of Chapandale located at the central portion of the Site.



General view of the Kesoki building located at the west portion of the Site.

General view of Norloki located at the west portion of the Site.

View of the Norloki Shed (right) and a typical Latrine (left).



View of Program Shed located at the west portion of the Site.

View of Soames and a typical Pavilion located at the west portion of the Site.

View of the latrine located at the west portion of the Site.



Table 3.1 - Site Information Site Occupant/Name Camp Orenda

Site Address 44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario

Existing Land Use Type Commercial Primary On-Site Activity

Recreational Camp Site

Multi-Tenant/Single Occupant

Single-Occupant Number of Units Varies

Date First Developed Unknown Site Area ~ 99 acres

Number of Buildings Eleven (not including Pavilions and Latrines)

Building Footprint Area(s)

Refer to Executive Summary

Number of Storeys (Excluding Basement)

Toadstool and Chapandale: 2 Remaining Site Buildings: 1

Total Building Area(s)

Refer to Executive Summary

Date Building(s) Constructed

From ~ 1960’s to early 1990’s

Area of Tenant Spaces

Varies

Date Building(s) Renovated

Early 1990’s – foundation repairs at Toadstool ~ 1995: Addition to the south portion of Toadstool On-going minor repairs

Basement and/or U/G Parking

Basement in Toadstool and Chapandale buildings

Type of Roof System(s) Sloped asphalt shingled roof system Sloped metal roof system

Number of Levels U/G

One

Type of Wall Cladding Fibre cement (asbestos) transite siding Horizontal vinyl/metal siding Preformed metal cladding Painted wood cladding Painted wood sheathing

Area of Roof System(s)

Refer to Section 3.2 – Roof Systems

Type of Doors Hollow-core wood and metal doors Solid wood doors Hollow core wood doors Overhead sectional metal doors

Types of Windows Operable Insulated Glass (IG) units within vinyl frames Single Glazed (SG) units within metal, wood and vinyl frames

Number of Above Grade Parking Spaces

No designated parking spaces on-Site

Electrical Source Erie Thames Power Corporation



Table 3.1 - Site Information Site Occupant/Name Camp Orenda

Site Address 44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario

Surface Type Gravel stone and dirt driveways Soft landscaping (i.e., grass, shrubs, trees, etc.) Undeveloped woodlands and fields

Type of Heating/Cooling

Forced-air furnaces Wood burning fireplace

3.2 Roof Systems

The roof systems atop the Site Buildings consist of a combination of sloped asphalt shingled roof systems

and sloped metal roof systems. The roof systems of the Site Buildings are installed atop wood roof

decking supported by wood roof trusses or wood rafters. Neither the presence of a vapour barrier, nor the

type, or the thickness of the insulation could be verified during the inspection of the roof systems in the

Site Buildings as the scope of the work did not include destructive testing.

Drainage of the roof systems is achieved by a combination of surface deflection and eavestroughs

complete with downspouts where rainwater is discharged at grade.

Penetrations through selective roof systems consist of plumbing stacks and chimneys.

The type, reported approximate age and approximate area of the roof systems atop the Site Buildings are

tabulated in the following table:

Site Building Roof System(s) Approximate Age Approximate Roof Area

Toadstool Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2010 (~ 6 years old) ~ 2,050 ft2

Workshop Sloped metal roof system 1980 (~ 36 years old) ~ 1,265 ft2

Clubhouse/Barn Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2012 (~ 4 years old) ~ 1,100 ft2

Sloped metal roof system 1980 (~ 36 years old) ~ 800 ft2

Chapandale Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2006 (~ 10 years old) ~ 3,300 ft2

Kesoki Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2001 (~ 5 years old) ~ 990 ft2

Norloki Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2001 (~ 5 years old) ~ 1,450 ft2

Norloki Storage Shed Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2000 (~16 years old) ~ 140 ft2

Program House Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2000 (~16 years old) ~ 140 ft2

Soames Building Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2011 (~ 5 years old) ~ 450 ft2



Site Building Roof System(s) Approximate Age Approximate Roof Area

Soames Storage Shed Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2011 (~ 5 years old) ~ 70 ft2

Pax Hollow Storage Shed Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2011 (~ 5 years old) ~ 70 ft2

Pavilions

Sloped asphalt shingled roof 2011 (~ 5 years old) ~ 350 ft2

Sloped asphalt shingled roof 1995 (~ 21 years old) ~ 250 ft2

Sloped metal roof system 1985-1990 (~ 26-31 years old) ~ 1,050 ft2

Latrines Sloped asphalt roof system 1985-1995 (~ 21-31) ~ 165 ft2

Total Roof Area ~ 13,640 ft2

It is noted that overall the total area of the roof systems is larger than the total footprint area of the Site

Buildings due to sloped areas, soffit overhangs and covered balcony systems (noted at Chapandale).

It is noted that the sloped roofs of the Site Buildings were not accessed at the time of the Site visit and the

visual assessment of the roof systems was completed from the ground level.

No active roof leaks were reported or noted during the time of the Site visit.

Table 3.2 outlines the findings of the inspection of the roof systems:

Table 3.2 – Roof Systems Findings Remarks/Recommendations

Major Deficiencies/Findings

• The sloped asphalt shingled roof systems atop selective Site Buildings are anticipated to reach or have exceeded their PUL within the term of analysis.

• Allowances for replacement of the aged and older sloped asphalt shingled roof systems atop the Site Buildings.

• The metal roof systems atop the Workshop, Clubhouse and selective Pavilions are anticipated to reach their PUL within the term of analysis.

• Allowances for replacement of the aged and older metal roof systems atop the Site Buildings.

Minor Deficiencies/Findings

• Deteriorated (i.e., cracked, curled and lifted) asphalt shingles were noted atop various Site Buildings.

• The deteriorated asphalt shingled roof systems will be addressed during the recommended roof replacements. Monitor and repair if required until the recommended roof replacements are completed.

• Localized areas of damaged eavestroughs and downspouts were noted atop the Clubhouse and Workshop.

• Repair the damaged eavestroughs and downpipes to ensure adequate drainage.



Table 3.2 – Roof Systems Findings Remarks/Recommendations

• A sagging roof was noted atop the north portion of Toadstool.

• Monitor the sagging roof until the recommended roof replacement. Repair if necessary.

• Corroded metal fasteners on the metal roof system were noted atop the Clubhouse.

• The corroded metal fasteners will be addressed during the recommended roof replacement.

• Areas of debris (i.e., twigs, leaves, pine cones/needles) were noted atop the roofs and within the eavestroughs of various Site Buildings.

• Remove the debris (i.e., twigs, leaves, pine cones/needles) regularly to avoid potential obstruction of the drains.

• A localized area of missing shingles along the roof ridge was noted atop the Norloki Storage Shed.

• Install the missing asphalt shingles atop Norloki Storage Shed.

General view of the sloped asphalt shingled roof system noted atop Toadstool.

View of the sloped metal roof system noted atop the Clubhouse.



General view of the sloped asphalt roof system noted atop Chapandale.

View of the sagging roof noted atop the north portion of Toadstool.

View of deteriorated (i.e., cracked) fascia board noted on the “Winter Sports Centre”.



View of typical corroded metal roof fasteners noted atop the Clubhouse.

View of deteriorated and cracked asphalt shingles noted atop a latrine.

View of missing asphalt shingles along the roofline of the Norloki Storage Shed.



View of debris (i.e., twigs, leaves, pine cones/needles) within the eavestrough of the Clubhouse.

View of a disconnected downspout noted on the Clubhouse.

It has been Pinchin’s experience that the PUL of a typical sloped asphalt shingled roof ranges between

15-25 years while the PUL of a typical sloped metal roof system ranges between 30-40 years depending

on the quality of workmanship during installation and the level to which the roof system has been

maintained.

Based on the reported ages of the sloped asphalt shingled roof systems as well as their visual condition

observed at the time of the Site visit, replacement of the roof systems atop the following Site Buildings is

anticipated:

• Toadstool • Norloki Storage Shed

• Workshop • Program House

• Clubhouse/Barn • Selective Pavilions

• Chapandale • Latrines

Assuming that the above-mentioned roof systems are replaced, the aforementioned deficiencies are

addressed and regular maintenance is performed, the roof systems of the Site Buildings should perform



in a satisfactory manner throughout the term of the analysis. Annual walk-on inspections are

recommended to ensure the integrity of the roof systems and to extend the service life.

3.3 Wall Systems

The exterior wall systems of each Site Building are tabulated in the following table:

Site Building Wall System(s)

Toadstool • Horizontal fibre cement cladding • Horizontal vinyl siding • Horizontal metal siding

Workshop • Preformed metal cladding

Clubhouse/Barn • Metal cladding

Chapandale • Prefinished metal cladding

Kesoki • Preformed metal cladding

Norloki • Preformed metal cladding

Norloki Storage Shed • Painted wood cladding

Program House • Painted wood sheathing

Soames Building • Preformed metal cladding

Soames Storage Shed • Painted wood cladding

Pax Hollow Storage Shed • Painted wood sheathing

Pavilions • N/A

Latrines • Painted wood sheathing



The window and door systems of each Site Building are tabulated in the following table:

Site Building Window and Door Systems

Toadstool

• Window systems: Double hung and fixed windows within wood frames set into punched openings complete with Single Glazed (SG) and Insulated Glass (IG) units

• Door systems: Hollow core metal doors within wood frames and selective doors complete with a storm door

Workshop

• Window systems: None • Door systems: A combination of hollow core metal and solid

wood doors within metal frames (selective doors complete with a storm door) and sectional metal overhead doors within wood frames

Club House/Barn • Window systems: Fixed windows within wood frames set into

punched openings complete with SG units • Door systems: Hollow core metal doors within wood frames

Chapandale

• Window systems: Double hung and fixed windows within wood frames set into punched openings complete with IG units

• Door systems: Hollow core metal doors within wood frames

Kesoki

• Window systems: Hopper and fixed windows within metal frames set into punched openings complete with SG units

• Door systems: Sectional metal overhead doors within wood frames

Norloki • Window systems: Horizontally-sliding windows within vinyl

frames set into punched openings complete with IG units • Door systems: Hollow core metal doors within wood frames

Norloki Storage Shed • Window systems: None • Door systems: A wood door within a wooden frame

Program House • Window systems: None • Door systems: A solid wood door within a wood frame

Soames Building

• Window systems: Horizontally-sliding windows within vinyl frames set into punched openings complete with IG units

• Door systems: A hollow core wood door within a wood frame and a hollow core metal door within a metal frame

Soames Storage Shed

• Window systems: None • Door systems: A wood door within a wooden frame


• Window systems: None • Door systems: A wood door within a wooden frame

Pavilions • Window systems: N/A • Door systems: N/A

Latrines • Window systems: None • Door systems: A wood door within a wooden frame



It should be noted that due to the fact that the scope of work did not include any intrusive/destructive

testing the presence or condition of concrete block masonry ties behind the masonry walls could not be

visually inspected.

Table 3.3 outlines the findings of the inspection of the wall systems:

Table 3.3 – Wall Systems Findings Remarks/Recommendations


• Areas of cracked and damaged asbestos transite cladding was noted on all elevations of Toadstool.

• Pinchin recommends the exterior cladding be replaced with vinyl siding. Additionally, an allowance has been carried for a Type 1 asbestos abatement which includes disposal of the asbestos siding.

• Localized areas of cracked and displaced concrete foundation walls were noted at the Workshop and Barn.

• Repair the areas of cracking and monitor for further deterioration (Refer to Section 3.5 – Structural Elements).


• Selective windows and doors serving the Site Buildings appear to be original and are anticipated to require replacement within the term of analysis.

• Allowances have been carried within the term of analysis for the on-going replacement of the aged window and door systems of the Site Buildings.

• Isolated areas of deterioration (i.e., impact damaged metal cladding and peeled paint finishes) were noted on selective Site Buildings.

• Perform wall repairs which includes painting the deteriorated finishes.

• Areas of spalled brick masonry along the window sills were noted on Chapandale.

• Replace the spalled brick masonry and install new window sills at the affected locations.

• Corroded metal cladding was noted on the north elevation of the Barn.

• Replace the corroded metal cladding on the north elevation of the Barn.

• Localized areas of deteriorated (i.e., stained, cracked) wood cladding were noted at selective Site Buildings.

• Allowances have been carried for on-going repairs to the wood cladding throughout the term of analysis.

• A failed IG unit was noted at Chapandale. • Replace the failed IG unit.

• Deteriorated paint finishes on the overhead metal doors were noted at Kesoki.

• Refinish the paint finishes on the overhead metal doors.

• An unsealed opening surrounding the electrical conduit was noted on Chapandale.

• Seal the thru-wall opening and ensure the wall is water tight.



General view of the wall systems (i.e., fibre cement cladding) noted on Toadstool.

General view of the wall systems (i.e., prefinished metal cladding) noted on Chapandale.

View of damaged (i.e., cracked) transite siding noted on Toadstool.



View of spalled brick masonry along the window sill noted on Chapandale.

View of cracked transite cladding noted on Chapandale.

View of corroded metal cladding noted on the north elevation of the Barn.



View of peeled paint on the metal cladding noted on the north elevation of the Clubhouse.

View of impact damage on the preformed metal cladding noted on the Workshop.

View of the cracked and bowed concrete foundation wall note at the northeast corner of the Barn.



View of the deteriorated (i.e., cracked and stained) wooden window frame noted at the Clubhouse.

View of scraped paint finishes on the prefinished metal cladding of Chapandale.

View of a failed IG unit noted at Chapandale.



View of typical deteriorated wood frames (i.e., cracked) and peeled paint finishes noted on Chapandale.

View of the unsealed pipe opening through the exterior wall noted on Chapandale.

View of deteriorated (i.e., cracked) perimeter door sealants noted on Chapandale.



View of typical deteriorated (i.e., peeled) paint finishes on the Latrines.

View of deteriorated paint finishes on the overhead metal doors noted on the Kesoki building.

View of deteriorated (i.e., peeled) paint finishes on the metal door noted on the Norloki building.



View of impact damage on the prefinished metal cladding noted on the Norloki building.

View of deteriorated (i.e., cracked, aged) wood cladding noted on a Pavilion.

In general, the wall, window and door systems of the Site Buildings were noted to be in fair condition, with

the exception of the deteriorated wood and metal cladding noted at selective Site Buildings which were

noted to be in poor condition. As such, allowances have been carried for repairs of the wall systems to

address the above-noted deficiencies within the term of analysis.

Of particular note, cracked and damaged asbestos transite cladding was noted on all elevations of

Toadstool. As such, allowances have been carried to re-clad the exterior with vinyl siding cladding and to

conduct a Type 1 asbestos abatement which includes disposal of the asbestos siding.

As mentioned previously, selective windows and doors appear to be original/aged and are nearing the

end of their PUL with evidence of deteriorated and cracked frames. Pinchin has carried allowances for

on-going selective replacement of the aging and deteriorated window and door systems serving the Site

Buildings within the term of analysis.



Assuming that Toadstool is re-clad, general wall repairs are conducted, the aged window and door

systems are replaced, the above-referenced deficiencies are addressed and regular annual maintenance

is performed, the wall, window and door systems of the Site Building should perform in a satisfactory

manner throughout the term of the analysis.

Typical buildings constructed prior to 1978 may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in mastics,

caulking and window putties. Testing for the presence of PCBs in these materials is beyond the scope of

this BPCA report. The potential presence of PCBs in these materials could give rise to additional costs in

future if extensive renovation requiring removal of these materials or demolition activities are undertaken

at the Site. The extent of such potential issues could not be assessed as part of this Baseline PCA

report.

3.4 Balcony Systems

A walk-out balcony system was noted on the west elevation of Chapandale. Access to the balcony from

the 2nd-floor level of the building is provided by a hollow core metal door within a wood frame, complete

with an aluminum and glazed storm door. The balcony is a wood framed structure consisting of wood

decking atop 8-inch wood joists which are attached to the Site Building via joist hangers and supported by

4”x4” pressure-treated wood posts sitting atop concrete piers. Overhead protection is present in the form

of the roof overhang. Water accumulated on the balcony system is drained via surface drainage.

Fall protection for the balcony systems is provided by a wood framed guardrail (i.e., posts, pickets) which

is mechanically fastened to the balcony floor deck.

The balcony systems were generally noted to be in serviceable condition at the time of the Site visit and

no major deficiencies were reported to Pinchin at the time of the Site visit.

Table 3.4 outlines the findings of the balcony systems.

Table 3.4 – Balcony Systems Findings Remarks/Recommendations


• None observed/reported. • None required.


• Localized areas of checking in the wood posts were noted on the balcony system.

• Repair the areas of wood checking and monitor for further deterioration. Pinchin recommends regular repairs be conducted on the balcony systems which can be managed as part of the capital threshold.

• An offset wood column atop a concrete pier was noted at the balcony system.

• Monitor the column/pier for movement which may potentially compromise the integrity of the balcony system and repair if required.



General view of the balcony system noted adjacent to the west elevation of Chapandale.

View of an offset wood column atop the concrete pier noted on the balcony system (below).

Note: Checking was noted in the wood posts supporting the balcony system (above).

View of stained wood finishes on the balcony system.



View of floor joist framing noted on the balcony system.

View of checking in the wood post noted on the balcony system.

The balcony system of Chapandale was noted to be in satisfactory condition with the above referenced

deficiencies. Pinchin recommends on-going repairs to the balcony system throughout the term of the

analysis which can be managed below the capital threshold.

Assuming that the above-referenced deficiencies are addressed and regular annual maintenance is

performed, the balcony system of Chapandale should continue to perform in a satisfactory manner

throughout the term of the analysis.



3.5 Structural Elements

As outlined in the scope of work, a visual assessment of the condition of the structural elements was

carried out on the elements which were visible at the time of the inspection. The structural systems of the

Site Buildings are tabulated in the following table:

Site Building Structural Systems

Toadstool

Substructure: • A cast-in-place concrete substructure (i.e., basement level slab-on-

grade) and stone and cement foundation walls (at the original portion) and concrete block masonry foundation walls (at the addition)

Superstructure: • Wood frame support structure (i.e., columns, beams and stud walls)

supporting wood roof trusses and a wood roof deck

Workshop

Substructure: • A cast-in-place concrete slab-on-grade (i.e., no basement-level)



Club House/Barn

Substructure: • A cast-in-place concrete slab-on-grade (i.e., no basement-level) and

poured concrete foundation walls Superstructure: • Wood frame support structure (i.e., columns, beams and stud walls)


Chapandale

Substructure: • A cast-in-place concrete substructure (i.e., basement-level slab-on-

grade) and poured concrete foundation walls Superstructure: • Wood frame support structure (i.e., columns, beams and stud walls)


Kesoki




Norloki




Norloki Storage Shed






Site Building Structural Systems

Program House




Soames Building




Soames Storage Shed

Substructure: • A wood framed floor system (i.e., plywood sheathing atop wood

floor joists) bearing directly atop grade Superstructure: • Wood frame support structure (i.e., columns, beams and stud walls)



Substructure: • A wood framed floor system (i.e., plywood sheathing atop wood

floor joists) bearing directly atop grade Superstructure: • Wood frame support structure (i.e., columns, beams and stud walls)


Pavilions

Substructure: • Wood posts set within cast-in-place concrete piers

Superstructure: • Wood frame support structure (i.e., posts, beams) supporting a

wood roof deck

Latrines




No structural drawings were provided to Pinchin for review. Based on discusisons with the Site

Representative, foundation wall repairs within Toadstool were conducted in the early 1990’s.



Table 3.5 outlines the findings of the inspection of the structural elements:

Table 3.5 – Structural Elements Findings Remarks/Recommendations


• Localized areas of cracked and displaced concrete foundation walls were noted at the Workshop, Barn and Toadstool buildings.

• Pinchin recommends a structural review on cracked and displaced concrete foundation walls under the supervision of a Structural Engineer. Allowances have been carried for a structural review under the supervision of a Structural Engineer and repairs to the affected areas of cracked foundation within the early portion of the term of analysis.

• Deteriorated (i.e., cracked) wood framing was noted in the basement-level of Toadstool.

• Allowances have been carried for repairs/replacement of the deteriorated framing members. Additionally, Pinchin recommends the condition/adequacy of the framing members be verified by a Structural Engineer.

• Localized areas of repairs to the stone and cement foundation walls were observed in the basement of Toadstool.

• Pinchin recommends the condition/adequacy of the repairs be verified by a Structural Engineer.


• Unsecured (i.e., non-fastened) adjustable supporting steel posts were noted within the basement-level of Toadstool.

• Securely fasten the adjustable steel posts.

• A localized area of step cracking in the brick masonry foundation wall was noted within Toadstool.

• Repoint the brick masonry foundation wall and monitor for further deterioration.

General view of the wood framed structure (i.e., wood floor joists) noted within the basement of Toadstool.



General view of the wood framed structure (i.e., wood trusses and roof decking) noted within Barn.

View of typical deteriorated (i.e., cracked) floor joists noted within the basement of Toadstool.

View of the unsecured (i.e., non-fastened) adjustable supporting steel post noted within the basement-level of Toadstool.



View of foundation wall repairs and poor workmanship (i.e., excess mortar, loose brick masonry) noted within Toadstool.

View of step cracking in the brick masonry foundation wall noted within Toadstool.

View of cracking in the concrete foundation wall noted at Barn.



View of cracking in the concrete foundation wall noted at the Barn.

View of cracking in the concrete foundation wall noted at the Workshop.

View of cracking in the concrete foundation wall noted at the Workshop.

As mentioned previously, localized areas of cracking in the loadbearing concrete foundation walls were

noted in the Barn, Workshop and Toadstool. As such, Pinchin recommends performing a structural

investigation to verify the cause of the displacement and cracking, construction/capacity of the affected

foundation walls and condition/adequacy of their reinforcements.



Assessment of the original or existing building design, compliance with prior or current Building Code or

detection or comment upon concealed structural deficiencies are outside the scope of work. Accordingly,

the findings are limited to the extent that the assessment has been made based on a walk-through visual

inspection of accessible areas of the structure.

Pinchin’s visual review of the structural elements including localized areas of displaced and cracked

loadbearing concrete foundation walls existed within the visibly accessible components of the Site

Buildings. Pinchin has attempted to identify and quantify the deficiencies associated with the structural

elements, however Pinchin recommends that a Structural Engineer be retained to assess affected areas

prior to the repair work and to ensure the extent of damage is fully understood. Until such time that the

exterior wall systems are investigated, costs associated with the remedial work necessary cannot be

determined and have the potential for significant costs based on results of the survey.

Due to the fact that the scope of work was based on a visual inspection, Pinchin has attempted to identify

and quantify the deficiencies associated with the structural systems. It is noted that the cost estimates

provided in this report are preliminary and provided only as an indication of the order of magnitude of the

remedial work. Without a defined scope of work (i.e., tender documents) estimated costs could be

potentially higher than provided. More precise cost estimates would be determined following the

recommended detailed investigation under the supervision of a structural Engineer to define the scope of

work.

3.6 Underground Parking Garage

The Site is not equipped with an underground parking garage.

Table 3.6 – Underground Parking Garage Findings Remarks/Recommendations


• N/A • N/A


• N/A • N/A



3.7 Vertical Transportation Systems

The Site Buildings are not equipped with vertical transportation systems:

Table 3.7 – Vertical Transportation Systems

Findings Remarks/Recommendations


• N/A • N/A


• N/A • N/A

3.8 Interior Finishes

As outlined in the scope of work, the interior finishes of the Site Buildings were reviewed during the Site

assessment.

The floor finishes within the Site Buildings consist of a combination of unfinished concrete floor slabs,

membranes installed atop concrete floor slabs, linoleum, vinyl floor tiles and plywood sheathing (within

the latrines).

The wall finishes within the Site Buildings consist of painted gypsum wall board, stone/brick masonry,

wood siding and concrete block masonry, plywood sheathing and the backside of metal cladding.

The ceiling finishes within the Site Buildings consist primarily of exposed wood roof decks and exposed

wood roof decking, exposed floor joists and decking (in the basement of Toadstool), gypsum board and

metal sheathing.

Table 3.8 outlines the findings of the inspection of the interior finishes:

Table 3.8 – Interior Finishes Findings Remarks/Recommendations


• None noted/reported. • None required.


• Stained, worn and cracked floor finishes (i.e., vinyl floor tiles) were noted within Toadstool and Chapandale.

• Repair/replace the stained, cracked and worn floor finishes.

• Areas of cracked concrete floor slab were noted within the Workshop and Clubhouse/Barn.

• An allowance has been carried to repair the areas of cracked concrete floor slab. Pinchin recommends monitoring the floor slab for further cracking.



Table 3.8 – Interior Finishes Findings Remarks/Recommendations

• Localized areas of stained gypsum board and peeled paint finishes were noted within Toadstool and Chapandale.

• Determine/repair the cause of moisture/water staining and repair/refinish the moisture stained gypsum board and peeled paint finishes.

• Localized areas of delaminated flooring membrane were noted within Chapandale.

• Repair/replace the delaminated floor membrane.

• A damaged door closure was noted within the Norloki building.

• Replace the damaged door closure.

General view of the interior finishes within Toadstool.

General view of the interior finishes within Chapandale.



View of cracked vinyl tiles noted within Toadstool.

View of water-stained ceiling finishes noted within Toadstool.

View of cracked concrete floor slab noted within the Workshop.



View of cracked concrete floor slab noted within the Clubhouse.

View of peeled paint finishes noted within the Clubhouse.

View of missing and cracked vinyl tiles noted on the stairwell steps within Chapandale.



The interior finishes within the Site Buildings were noted to be in satisfactory condition commensurate

with their usage, with the exception of the above-referenced deficiencies. It has been Pinchin’s

experience that the PUL of hard furnishings for camp operations, including furniture, refrigerators,

carpeting and wall coverings typically ranges between 15-20 years.

View of delaminated flooring membrane noted within Chapandale.

View of lifted vinyl floor tiles noted within the Norloki building.

View of damaged closure hardware noted within the Norloki building.



Allowances have been carried for localized repairs and replacements of the interior finishes throughout

the term of the analysis. Assuming that the above-referenced deficiencies are addressed and regular

maintenance is performed, the interior finishes of the Site Buildings should perform in a satisfactory

manner throughout the term of the analysis.

3.9 Site Features

The Site is located within a wooded area and approximately 15 km south of London. The Site is a near

rectangular-shaped property approximately 99 acres in area consisting of wooded areas and trails as well

as a multi-building camp site consisting of eleven Site buildings (excluding the Pavilions and Latrines).

The Site Buildings occupy approximately less than 0.5% of the Site.

Gravel surfaced driveways are located at the north portion of the Site which provides access to the west,

central and east portions of the Site. Vehicular access to the Site is provided by three gravel driveways

located on the south side of Truman Line.

It should be noted, there is no drainage system on-Site.

Table 3.9 outlines the findings of the inspection of the Site features:

Table 3.9 – Site Features Findings Remarks/Recommendations


• None observed/reported. • None required.


• Uneven gravel surfaced and driveways were noted at various locations of the Site.

• Allowances have been carried for on-going repairs to the gravel surfaced driveways throughout the term of analysis.

• A deteriorated and leaning wooden planter box was noted adjacent to Toadstool.

• Repair/replace the deteriorated and leaning planter box adjacent to Toadstool.

• Displaced interlocking pavers were noted adjacent to the Program House.

• Re-level the base and re-install the interlocking pavers.

• A concrete block masonry platform/step was noted adjacent to a Latrine.

• Pinchin recommends removing the concrete block masonry platform/step and installing a sturdier alternative (i.e., wood-framed stairs).

• Areas of corrosion on the exterior metal stairs were noted adjacent to Toadstool.

• Repair/repaint the corroded exterior metal stairs with corrosion resistant paint.



General view of the gravel surfaced access driveway from Truman Line Road.

View of the gravel surfaced driveway serving the west portion of the Site.

Note: Uneven areas and pot holes were noted at various locations of the Site.

View of the wooded area located between the central and west campsites.



View of the steel stairs which provide access from the central to the west portion of the Site.

View of the season tent platforms noted on the Norloki Site.

View of the leaning wooden planter box noted adjacent to Toadstool.



View of deteriorated (i.e., aged, cracked) stairs noted adjacent to a Latrine.

View of displaced interlocking pavers noted adjacent to Program House.

View of a concrete block masonry platform/step noted adjacent to a Latrine.



View of corrosion on the exterior metal stairs noted adjacent to Toadstool.

The Site features were noted to be in satisfactory condition with the exception of the above-referenced

deficiencies. As mentioned previously, deteriorated and corroded steps and stairs were noted at adjacent

to various Site Buildings. Pinchin has carried allowances for repairs to the stairs within the term of

analysis. Additionally, allowances have been carried for on-going repairs and regarding to the gravel

surfaced driveways located throughout the Site.

Assuming that the aforementioned deficiencies are addressed and regular maintenance is performed, the

Site features should perform in a satisfactory manner throughout the term of the analysis.

Assessment of or comment upon concealed deficiencies and any buried/concealed utilities or

components are outside the scope of work.

3.10 Mechanical Systems

Major Service Providers

The following providers serve the subject property:

Water On-Site Wells

Electric Erie Thames Power Corporation

Sewer On-Site Septic Systems

Propane Superior Propane

Police Elgin County Ontario Provincial Police

Fire Central Elgin Fire Department



3.10.1 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Heating, ventilation and cooling within the Site Buildings is summarized in the table below:

Site Building Mechanical Systems

Toadstool

• Heating is provided by one “Carrier” propane-fired forced air furnace located in the basement level of Toadstool. Based on the manufacturer’s data plate, the forced air furnace possesses a maximum input heating capacity of 100,000 British Thermal Units per Hour (BTUH), and was manufactured in 2006 (i.e., approximately 10 years old).

Workshop • Heating within the building is provided by a wood burning stove.

Clubhouse/Barn • Heating within the Clubhouse portion of the building is provided by a wood burning stove.

Hilltop Building • No heating, ventilation and cooling provided within the Site Building.

Chapandale • Heating within the Site Building is provided by a propane-fired forced-

air furnace manufactured by “Keeprite”. Based on review of the manufacturer’s data plate, the forced-air furnace possesses an input heating capacity of 80,000 BTUH and was manufactured in 2013 (i.e.,

Kesoki • Heating within the building is provided by a wood burning stove.

Norloki • Heating within the building is provided by a wood burning stove.

Norloki Storage Shed • No heating, ventilation and cooling provided within the Site Building.

Program House • No heating, ventilation and cooling provided within the Site Building.

Soames Building • Heating within the building is provided by a wood burning stove.

Soames Storage Shed • No heating, ventilation and cooling provided within the Site Building.

Pax Hollow Storage Shed • No heating, ventilation and cooling provided within the Site Building.

Pavilions • N/A (Open-air structure)

Latrines • No heating, ventilation and cooling provided within the Site Building.

3.10.2 Plumbing

The plumbing systems in the Site Buildings include the incoming water services, cold and hot water

piping as well as the sanitary lines. Drainage piping within the Site Buildings consists of ABS piping where

visible, while plumbing for the domestic cold and hot water consist of copper piping. Due to the concealed

nature of the plumbing systems, the condition of the equipment could not be verified. Local repairs to the

piping can be managed as part of on-going maintenance.



The domestic water for the Site is reportedly provided by two on-Site wells. The incoming domestic water

service is available annually at Toadstool and Chapandale while water is available seasonally at the

Kesoki, Norloki, and Soames Sites via outdoor taps. The incoming domestic water service is driven by

electric motor-driven water pumps and are equipped with pre-charged pressure tanks manufactured by

“A.O. Smith”. The incoming water is purified by ultraviolet water filtration systems noted within the

Toadstool and Chapandale. Based on discussions with the Site Representative, the water filtration

systems were installed in 2004 (i.e., ~ 10 years ago) and are serviced annually by “Elgin Contractors”, an

independent contractor.

Domestic Hot Water (DHW) at the Site is provided within Toadstool and Chapandale domestic hot water

tanks. DHW within Toadstool is provided by an electric hot water heater manufactured by “Hotpoint” in

2006 (i.e., ~ 10 years old) and possesses a DHW storage capacity of 270 Litres. DHW within Chapandale

is provided by a propane-fired DHW heater manufactured by “A.O. Smith” in 1984 (i.e., ~ 31 years old)

and possesses a storage capacity of 378 Litres. It should be noted, DHW is unavailable at the remaining

Site Buildings. There was no shortage of hot water reported to Pinchin at the time of the Site visit.

Washroom facilities are provided within Toadstool and Chapandale are connected to on-Site septic

systems. It should be noted, the Latrines are not connected to the septic system. Based on discussions

with the Site Representative, the septic system is equipped with two septic fields while the holding tanks

are cleaned every three years.

Additionally, it should be noted plastic sump pits embedded within the concrete slab-on-grade were noted

within the basement of Toadstool and Chapandale. The sump pumps are driven by 120V electric motors

and are reportedly 3 and 6 years old each.

The inspection of the interior of boilers, pressure vessels, equipment, fan coils, ductwork or associated

components was beyond the scope of work. It should be noted that the heating and cooling duct work

within the Site Buildings may contain interior insulation. The Site Representative did not possess

knowledge of the presence of insulation within the duct work within the Site Buildings. It is Pinchin’s

experience that interior insulation within duct work is prone to deterioration or development of mould

which may require removal of the insulation. In the case where interior insulation is present within the

duct work, Pinchin recommends that the duct work insulation be inspected for the presence of mould.

3.10.3 Fire Protection

Fire protection within Toadstool, Chapandale, Soames, Keoski and Norloki buildings is provided by wall

mounted chemically-charged ABC-class fire extinguishers located throughout. The remaining Site

Buildings are not equipped with fire protection systems. The fire extinguishers were noted to possess up-

to-date inspection tags last dated in November 2015 by “Chubb Edwards”.



Table 3.9 outlines the findings of the inspection of the mechanical systems:

Table 3.9 – Mechanical Systems (including HVAC, Plumbing, and Fire Protection) Findings Remarks/Recommendations


• The forced-air furnaces noted within Toadstool and Chapandale are approximately 3 and 10 years old and are anticipated to reach their PUL within the term of analysis.

• Pinchin has carried an allowances for replacement of the forced-air furnaces within the term of analysis.


• Two DHW heaters noted within Toadstool and Chapandale are 12 and 31 years old have exceeded or are anticipated to reach their PUL within the term of analysis.

• Allowance have been carried for replacement of two DHW heaters within the term of analysis.

• A wood-burning fireplaces were noted within various Site Buildings.

• Pinchin recommends the fireplaces be inspected by a Wood Energy Technical Training (WETT) certified contractor to ensure the condition of the wood-burning fireplaces.

• A pre-charged well pressure tanks were noted within Toadstool and Longhouse and are anticipated to require replacement within the term of analysis.

• A contingency allowance has been carried for replacement of a portion of the pre-charged well pressure tanks within the latter portion of the term of analysis.

• Water filtration systems within Toadstool and Chapandale were reportedly installed in 2004 (i.e., ~ 10 years old) and are anticipated to reach their PUL within the term of analysis.

• An allowance has been carried for replacement of the water filtration systems within Toadstool and Chapandale.

• Equipment and flammable materials (i.e., gasoline) stored adjacent to the fireplace was noted within Workshop.

• Ensure equipment and materials are stored within safe distance from the fireplace.

View of the propane tank noted at north portion of the Site.



View of the propane-fired furnace noted within Chapandale.

View of a wood burning fireplace noted within the Clubhouse.

View of the wood burning fireplace noted within the Norloki building.



View of the wood burning fireplace noted within the Keoski building.

View of the well pipe noted at the north portion of the Site.

View of the pre-charged pressure tanks (right) and water filtration system (left) noted within the basement of Chapandale.



View of the DHW heater noted within Chapandale.

View of the sump pit complete with sump pump noted within Toadstool.

View of equipment and flammable materials (i.e., gasoline) noted adjacent to the fireplace within the Workshop.



View of a typical wall-mounted fire extinguisher noted within Chapandale.

It has been Pinchin’s experience that the PUL of a forced-air furnace typically ranges between 15-20

years, while the PUL of a DHW heater typically ranges between 10-15 years depending on the quality of

the unit and the level to which the unit has been maintained.

The mechanical systems of the Site Buildings were generally noted to be in serviceable condition with the

exception of the above-referenced deficiencies. As previously mentioned, the forced-air furnaces and

DHW heaters have either exceeded or are anticipated to reach their PUL within the term of the analysis.

As mentioned previously, wood-burning fireplaces were noted within several Site Buildings. As such,

Pinchin recommends the fireplaces be inspected by a Wood Energy Technical Training (WETT) certified

contractor to verify the condition of the wood-burning fireplaces.

Assuming that the aforementioned deficiencies are addressed and regular maintenance is performed, the

mechanical systems of the Site Buildings should perform in a satisfactory manner throughout the term of

the analysis.

In accordance with the proposed scope of work, no physical or destructive testing or design calculations

will be conducted on any of the major components of the building. Similarly the inspection of the interior of

ductwork or associated mechanical components is not included in the scope of work. Accordingly, the

findings are limited to the extent that the assessment will be made visually from the exterior of the

systems.

3.11 Electrical Systems

3.11.1 Electrical Power

Electrical power at the Site is provided by pole-mounted transformers located throughout the Site which

feed electrical panels located within the Site Buildings.



The electrical power systems for the Site Buildings are summarized in the following table:

Site Building Electrical Systems

Toadstool

• Electrical power is supplied to a Single Phase, 3 Wire “CNB” main disconnect panel rated at 150 Amperes and 120/240 Volts main bus capacity and voltage tension.

• An additional electrical disconnect switch manufactured by “Crouse-Hinds” was noted within the east portion of the building which is rated at 100 Ampere 120/240 Volts main bus capacity and voltage tension.

Workshop • Electrical power is supplied to a Single Phase, 3 Wire “Federal

Pioneer” main disconnect panel rated at 70 Amperes and 120/240 Volts main bus capacity and voltage tension.

Club House/Barn • Electrical power is supplied to a Single Phase, 3 Wire “Square D” main

disconnect panel rated at 30 Amperes and 120/240 Volts main bus capacity and voltage tension.

Chapandale • Electrical power is supplied to a “Commander” main disconnect switch

rated at 200 Amperes and 120/240 Volts main bus capacity and voltage tension.

Kesoki • Electrical power is fed to a glass fuse box panel manufactured by

“Amalgamated Electric” and rated at 60 Ampere and 230 Volts main bus capacity and voltage tension

Norloki • Electrical power is supplied to a Single Phase, 3 Wire “ITE” electrical

panel rated at 100 Amperes and 120/240 Volts main bus capacity and voltage tension.

Norloki Storage Shed • Electrical power is not supplied to the Site Building.

Program House • Electrical power is not supplied to the Site Building.

Soames Building • Electrical power is fed to a glass fuse box panel manufactured by

“Amalgamated Electric” and rated at 60 Ampere and 230 Volts main bus capacity and voltage tension

Soames Storage Shed • Electrical power is not supplied to the Site Building.

Pax Hollow Storage Shed • Electrical power is not supplied to the Site Building.

Pavilions • Electrical power is not supplied to the Pavilions.

Latrines • Electrical power is not supplied to the Site Buildings.

No problems with power sufficiency were noted or reported to Pinchin at the time of the Site visit. The

visible sections of the electrical services appear to be in satisfactory condition with no major deficiencies

noted.



The Site Representatives were not aware if aluminum wiring is present in the electrical systems of the

Site Buildings. Aluminum wiring was not observed at the time of the Site visit, however, based on the age

of the Site Buildings, selective Site Buildings may contain aluminum wiring. If aluminum wiring is present,

regular inspection of the electrical systems by a licensed electrician and an electrical evaluation is

recommended.

3.11.2 Emergency Electrical Power

There is reportedly no emergency backup power provided for the Site Buildings.

3.11.3 Fire Alarm System and Life Safety

Chapandale is equipped with a multi-zoned, single-stage “Edwards” fire alarm panel located within the

basement. The fire alarm panel is estimated to be approximately 5 years old and was noted to possess

an up-to-date inspection tag (i.e., July 3, 2015 by Chubb Edwards). The remaining Site Buildings and

structures do not possess fire alarm panels. The fire alarm system is activated by smoke and heat

detectors which are located throughout Chapandale and manual pull stations which were noted at the

vicinity of the entrances/exits. The fire alarm systems reportedly do not possess 24/7 monitoring by a

monitoring company.

The fire alarm systems within Toadstool and Chapandale consist of ceiling mounted battery powered and

interconnected smoke detectors located throughout. It should be noted, fire alarm systems were not

observed within the remaining Site Buildings.

Illuminated exit signage and emergency lighting within Toadstool and Chapandale is provided by ceiling

mounted battery powered units which are located within the vicinity of the exits. The remaining Site

Buildings do not possess emergency lighting.

Table 3.10 outlines the findings of the inspection of the electrical systems:

Table 3.10 – Electrical Systems (including Electrical Power and Fire Alarm and Life Safety) Findings Remarks/Recommendations

Major Deficiencies/Deterioration

• None noted/reported. • None required.

Minor Deficiencies/Deterioration

• Smoke/heat detectors and carbon monoxide detectors were not observed in various Site Buildings during the time of the Site visit.

• An allowance has been carried for installation of fire alarm systems within various Site Buildings.

• The electrical panels within selective Site Buildings are aged and will be approaching the end of their PUL within the term of the

• Allowances for replacement of the aged electrical panels have been carried within the term of analysis.



Table 3.10 – Electrical Systems (including Electrical Power and Fire Alarm and Life Safety) Findings Remarks/Recommendations

analysis.

• Aged and discoloured wiring insulation jackets were noted in Toadstool.

• Consideration should be given to conduct an electrical survey by a qualified electrical contractor prior to replacement of the aged distribution systems to better identify the need for replacement.

• Aged and dirty ceiling-mounted smoke and heat detectors were noted within Toadstool and Chapandale.

• Ensure the smoke and heat detectors are operational and replace if required.

• An exterior non-GFI receptacle was noted on the Soames building.

• Replace the receptacle with a GFI receptacle.

• A localized area of exposed wiring (i.e., missing protective conduit) was noted at the Barn.

• Ensure the exterior wiring is protected by a conduit to prevent accidental damage to the wire.

• Deadbolt locks were noted on the emergency exit doors within Chapandale.

• Remove the locks from the emergency exit doors while the building is in operation.

• Contact a qualified electrician to install outdoor rated wiring or an electrical conduit at the Site Building.

• Contact a qualified electrician to install outdoor rated wiring or an electrical conduit at the Site Building.

• Deteriorated and leaning hydro poles were noted at various locations of the Site.

• Pinchin has carried a contingency allowance for replacement of the deteriorated/leaning hydro poles within the term of analysis.

View of the main disconnect panel noted within Toadstool.



View of the electrical panel noted within Chapandale.

View of the “Edwards” fire alarm panel noted within Chapandale.

View of typical emergency lighting noted within Toadstool.



View of a typical smoke detector noted within Toadstool.

View of an aged and stained heat detector noted within Chapandale.

View of a plug-in carbon monoxide detector noted within Chapandale.



View of a wall-mounted emergency lighting battery pack noted within Chapandale.

View of exposed electrical wiring was noted at the Barn.

View of a deadbolt lock on the emergency exit door noted at Chapandale.



View of aged and deteriorated electrical wiring insulation jackets noted within Toadstool.

View of a glass bulb electrical panel noted within the Keseoki building.

View of an exterior non-GFI receptacle noted on the Soames building.



Upon visual inspection, the electrical and life safety systems were noted to be in satisfactory condition

with the exception of the above-referenced deficiencies. As previously mentioned, based on the ages of

selective electrical panels and distribution systems, allowances have been carried for repairs/replacement

of selective electrical panels and their distribution systems within the term of analysis.

Assuming that the aged electrical panels and wiring are replaced, the aforementioned deficiencies are

addressed and regular maintenance is performed, the electrical and life safety systems of the Site

Building should perform in a satisfactory manner throughout the term of the analysis. Completing a

regular infrared scan of the electrical systems is recommended as part of the regular maintenance of the

electrical system.

4.0 NON-SPECIALIST BARRIER FREE ACCESSIBILITY REVIEW

As part of the survey, a cursory review of the barrier free requirements pertaining to site and building

access was completed. As part of the report, a questionnaire, which was completed during the survey,

has been included in Appendix II. Generally, the Site Buildings do not meet the requirements for barrier

free design as it pertains to building access, corridors and washrooms. Allowances have been

View of a leaning electrical/light pole noted adjacent to Chapandale.

View of a deteriorated (i.e., cracked, rotted) wooden hydro pole noted adjacent to the Workshop.



carried for the installation of a barrier free access at Toadstool and Chapandale as well as the

construction/renovations of barrier free accessible washrooms within Toadstool and Chapandale. Please

refer to Appendix II for information regarding the elements which do not meet requirements.

5.0 KNOWN VIOLATIONS TO CODE

It was reported to Pinchin by the Site Representative that no outstanding violations from the Building

Department existed pertaining to the property. Compliance with the National Building Code (NBC) and

National Fire Code (NFC) was not reviewed as it was beyond the scope of this survey.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on Pinchin’s review of the property, conducted on November 26, 2015, the Site Buildings appear

to be in satisfactory condition and in comparable standing to other similar Camp properties in the area.

Based on our visual assessment, the Site Buildings appear to have been constructed in general

accordance with standard building practices in place at the time of construction. The assessment did not

reveal any visual evidence of major structural failures, soil erosion or differential settlement. However,

cracked and bowed foundation walls were noted at the Barn, Workshop and Toadstool buildings.

Additionally, deteriorated wood framing members and previous foundation repairs were observed and

reported by the Site Representative.

No immediate repair requirements have been identified. As noted during the Site visit, deficiencies

relating to the roof systems, wall systems, balcony systems, structural systems, interior finishes, Site

features and mechanical/life safety systems were noted. Of particular note, recommendations, repairs

and replacements for the following items are included throughout the term of the analysis:

• Replacement of the sloped asphalt shingled roof systems located atop selective Site

Buildings (i.e., Toadstool, Barn, Chapandale, Norloki Storage Shed, Program House,

selective Pavilions and the Latrines);

• General repairs to the exterior walls systems (i.e., wood/vinyl wood siding, metal

cladding, etc.) of the Site Buildings;

• Replacement and removal of the asbestos siding (Type 1 abatement) on Toadstool and

re-cladding the exterior with vinyl siding;

• Repairs to the deteriorated framing members within Toadstool and the cracked and

displaced concrete foundation walls at the Workshop and Barn under the supervision of a

Structural Engineer;

• Repairs to the cracked concrete floor slabs within the Workshop and Clubhouse/Barn;

• On-going repairs and replacement of the interior finishes;

• Allowances for re-grading the gravel driveways;



• Allowances for replacement of selective electrical panels;

• Replacement of two forced-air furnaces;

• Replacement of two DHW heaters; and

• Rehabilitating the on-Site accessibility features to a satisfactory level based on a non-

specialist review.

It was reported to Pinchin that the costs associated with ongoing general maintenance of the major

components of the Site Buildings are carried as part of the annual operating budget for the Site.






Regular maintenance should be conducted on the roof systems, wall systems, interior finishes, Site

features, mechanical systems, electrical and life safety systems to ensure that the PUL of the major

components is realized. Repair costs for the aforementioned items have been included over the term of

the analysis (i.e., 15 years) included within Appendix I. The specific deficiencies identified during the

BPCA and their associated recommendations for repair are described in the main body of the report.

These deficiencies should be corrected as part of routine maintenance unless otherwise stated within the

report. Costs associated with desired upgrades have not been carried.

7.0 LIMITATIONS

In accordance with the proposed scope of work, no physical or destructive testing or design calculations

were conducted on any of the components of the building. Assessment of the original or existing building

design, or detection or comment upon concealed structural deficiencies and any buried/concealed utilities

or components are outside the scope of work. Similarly the assessment of any Post Tension reinforcing is

not included in the scope of work. Determination of compliance with any Codes is beyond the scope of

this Work. The Report has been completed in general conformance with the ASTM Designation: E 2018 –

08 Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment

Process.

It should be noted that Pinchin has attempted to identify all the deficiencies required by this Standard

associated with this project. Pinchin does not accept any liability for deficiencies that were not within the

scope of the investigation.



As indicated above the personnel conducting the building assessment, where applicable, have performed

a non-specialist review of the building and all associated finishes and related systems including the,

mechanical and electrical systems, fire and life safety systems, site features, etc. The personnel

conducting the assessment are knowledgeable of building systems and construction, but not technical

specialists in each of these fields. The intent of Pinchin’s comments on these systems are for the sole

purpose of identifying areas where Pinchin has observed a noteworthy condition which will lead to a likely

significant expenditure during the term of the assignment and/or where Pinchin would recommend that

the client consider a further, more detailed investigation. The budget costs for remedial work for each

specific item has been provided to the best of our ability and will provide an order of magnitude cost for

the individual item and the overall possible remedial work. Our experience has shown that the costs that

Pinchin have provided are appropriate and of reasonable accuracy for the purpose intended. It should be

noted that the budget cost or reserve costs for any specific item may vary significantly based on the fact

that the schedule or phasing of the future remedial work is unknown at this time, the impact on building

operations of this remedial work is unknown at this time and that no intrusive inspection or detailed design

work is included in the BPCA. If a more accurate, detailed or documented reserve cost is required at this

time the client should request Pinchin to provide the additional proposal to provide a more accurate cost

estimate.

The assessment is based, in part, on information provided by others. Unless specifically noted, Pinchin

has assumed that this information was correct and has relied on it in developing the conclusions.

It is possible that unexpected conditions may be encountered at the Site that have not been explored

within the scope of this report. Should such an event occur, Pinchin should be notified in order to

determine if we would recommend that modifications to the conclusions are necessary and to provide a

cost estimate to update the report.

The inspection of the interior of boilers, pressure vessels, equipment, fan coils, ductwork or associated

components was beyond the scope of work. It should be noted that the heating and cooling duct work

within the Site Buildings may contain interior insulation. The Site Representative did not possess

knowledge of the presence of insulation within the duct work within the Site Buildings. It is Pinchin’s

experience that interior insulation within duct work is prone to deterioration or development of mould

which may require removal of the insulation. In the case where interior insulation is present within the

duct work, Pinchin recommends that the duct work insulation be inspected for the presence of mould.

Due to the concealed nature of the plumbing system the condition of the risers could not be verified.

Environmental Audits or the identification of designated substances, hazardous materials, PCBs,

insect/rodent infestation, concealed mould and indoor air quality are excluded from this BPCA report.



Further to the aforementioned, determination of the presence of asbestos containing material within the

building such as drywall joint compound or the lead content within the older paint finishes was beyond the

scope of work.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Girl Guides of Canada, Ontario Council subject to the

conditions and limitations contained within the duly authorized workplan. Pinchin will not be responsible

for the use of this report by any third party, or reliance on of any decision to be made based on it without

the prior written consent of Pinchin. Pinchin accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, by any third

party as a result of decisions or actions based on this report.

Pinchin will not be responsible for any consequential or indirect damages. Pinchin will only be liable for

damages resulting from the negligence of Pinchin. Pinchin will not be liable for any losses or damage if

the Client has failed, within a period of two years following the date upon which the claim is discovered

(Claim Period), to commence legal proceedings against Pinchin to recover such losses or damage unless

the laws of the jurisdiction which governs the Claim Period which is applicable to such claim provides that

the applicable Claim Period is greater than two years and cannot be abridged by the contract between the

Client and Pinchin, in which case the Claim Period shall be deemed to be extended by the shortest

additional period which results in this provision being legally enforceable.

This report presents an overview on issues of the building condition, reflecting Pinchin’s best judgment

using information reasonably available at the time of Pinchin’s review and Site assessment. Pinchin has

prepared this report using information understood to be factual and correct and Pinchin is not be

responsible for conditions arising from information or facts that were concealed or not fully disclosed to

Pinchin at the time of the Site assessment.

J:\108000s\108378 GIRLGUIDESOFC,multilocation,DDIL,BCA\BPCA Reports\Camp Orenda\Old\108378_FINAL_BPCA_Report, 44579 Truman Line Road, Belmont, ON, April

4 2016.docx

Template: Master Report for Office Building Baseline Condition Assessment, PCA, July 27, 2015

APPENDIX I Table 1 – Summary of Anticipated Expenditures

Baseline Property Condition AssessmentCamp OrendaBelmont, ON

Table 1: Summary of Anticipated ExpendituresReplacement Reserve Costs

CONFIDENTIAL

LS - Lump SumSF - Square FootEA - Each (per unit component)LF - Lineal Foot Pinchin Job 108378

RemainingITEM Projected

Useful Life (yrs)

Effective Age (yrs)

Projected Useful Life

(yrs)

Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost2016

1 yr Cost2017

2 yr Cost2018

3 yr Cost2019

4 yr Cost2020

5 yr Cost2021

6 yr Cost2022

7 yr Cost2023

8 yr Cost2024

9 yr Cost2025

10 yr Cost2026

11 yr Cost2027

12 yr Cost2028

13 yr Cost2029

14 yr Cost2030

15 yr Cost1 - 15 Year

Total

Life Safety, Consulting and ADALife Safety & Code ComplianceFollow-up RecommendationsGeneral ADA Accessibility (Refer to Appendix II) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $43,000 $43,000 $43,000 $43,000

Table 3.2 - Roof SystemsRoof Structures and Roofing (Repairs - Below Threshold)Roof Structures and Roofing (Replacement of the Sloped Asphalt Roof Systems atop Toadstool, Barn, Chapandale, Norloki Storage Shed, Program House, selective Pavilions and the Latrines)

Varies Varies Varies 6,045 SF $6.00 $36,500 $4,000 $20,000 $12,500 $36,500

Roof Structures and Roofing (Replacement of the Sloped Metal Roof Systems atop Workshop, Club House and selective Pavilions) Varies Varies Varies 3,115 SF $12.00 $37,500 $25,000 $12,500 $37,500

.Table 3.3 - Wall Systems

Exterior Walls (Repairs) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000Exterior Windows and Doors (Repairs/Replacement) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000Asbestos abatement at Toadstool as part of re-cladding the exterior wall systems Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000

Re-cladding the exterior of Toadstool with vinyl siding Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Exterior Walls (Phased-in replacement of the exterior sealants) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000

Table 3.4 - Balcony SystemsBalcony Systems (On-going repairs - Below Threshold)

Table 3.5 - Structural ElementsStructural Elements (Structural review by a Structural Engineer to verify the condition of the structural elements at the affected areas) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Foundations (Repairs to the deteriorated floor joists and cracked foundation walls within Toadstool) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

Superstructure (Repairs to the cracked and displaced concrete foundation at Barn and Workshop) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500

Table 3.6 - Underground Parking GarageParking Garage N/A N/A N/A

Table 3.7 - Vertical TransportationElevator Systems N/A N/A N/A

Table 3.8 - Interior FinishesInterior Finishes (Repairs/Replacement) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $32,500 $32,500 $5,000 $5,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $32,500Interior Finishes (Repairs to the cracked concrete slabs within Workshop and Barn) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

Furniture (Below Threshold)Appliances (Below Threshold)

Table 3.9 - Site FeaturesUtilities N/A N/A N/AParking and Paving N/A N/A N/ADriveways (Allowances for on-going repairs and re-grading of the gravel surfaced driveways) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000

Exterior Stairs (Repairs and Replacement) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $11,000 $11,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $5,000 $11,000

Table 3.10 - Mechanical SystemsBuilding HVAC (HVAC Repairs - Below Threshold)Building HVAC (Replacement of two forced-air Furnaces) 15-20 15 0-5 2 EA $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000Building HVAC (Inspection of a the fireplaces by a certified WETT contractor) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $7,500 $7,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $7,500

Building Plumbing (Annual Inspection of the Wells by a Licenced Well Contractor - Below Threshold) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS

Building Plumbing (Replacement of the Water Filtration Systems) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500Building Plumbing (Replacement of two DHW heaters) 10-15 Varies Varies 1 EA $1,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000Building Plumbing (Contingency allowance for replacement of the Precharged Pressure Tanks) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500

Fire Protection & Security

Table 3.11 - Electrical SystemsElectrical Systems (Replacement of the aged electrical panels and distribution systems) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $7,500 $7,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $7,500

Electrical Systems (Contingency allowance for replacement of two deteriorated hydro/light poles) Varies Varies Varies 2 EA $3,000 $6,000 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000

Electrical Systems (Installation of fire alarms, smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors within various Site Buildings) Varies Varies Varies 1 LS $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

TOTALS (Uninflated) $422,000 $124,500 $109,000 $12,500 $13,000 $22,000 $20,000 $17,500 $8,000 $17,000 $7,500 $9,500 $7,500 $35,000 $17,500 $1,500 $422,000Inflation

Inflation Factor Rate 1.00 1.025 1.050 1.075 1.100 1.125 1.150 1.175 1.200 1.225 1.250 1.275 1.300 1.325 1.350TOTALS (Inflated) $124,500 $111,725 $13,125 $13,975 $24,200 $22,500 $20,125 $9,400 $20,400 $9,187 $11,875 $9,562 $45,500 $23,188 $2,025 $461,288

Term of Analysis 15Total square footage of the Site Buildings 16,018

$1.76$1.92

2.5%

Average Cost per Square Foot per Year (Uninflated)Average Cost per Square Foot per Year (Inflated)

Immediate Costs

Replacement Reserve Costs

APPENDIX II Table 2 – Non-Specialist Review of AODA Compliance

APPENDIX II

NON-SPECIALIST REVIEW OF AODA COMPLIANCE

108378 – Girl Guides of Canada – Camp Orenda Page 1 of 5

Building History

Yes

No

N/A

Remedial Action/Comments

Cost

1. Has the Borrower previously completed an AODA review? 2. Does an AODA compliance plan exist for the property? 3. Has the plan been reviewed/approved by outside Agencies (engineering

firms, building department, other agencies)?

4. Have any AODA related complaints been received in the past? Building Access

Yes

No

N/A


Cost

1. Are there an adequate number (per regulation) of wheelchair-accessible parking spaces available?

2. Is there at least one wheelchair-accessible vehicle parking space (2440 wide and 7400mm long) for every 8 standard accessible spaces?

3. Are accessible parking spaces located on the shortest accessible route of travel from an accessible building entrance?

4. Does signage exist directing you to wheelchair-accessible parking and an accessible building entrance?

Installation of wheel-chair accessible signage is recommend at Toadstool and Chapandale.

5. Is there a ramp from parking to an accessible building entrance (1:12 slope or less)?

Ramp not required.

6. Does the ramp meet design requirements (minimum 900m wide, have a level area 1670mm at the top and bottom of the ramp, have a level area at intervals of 9m and is equipped with handrails on both sides)?

7. If the main entrance is inaccessible, are there alternate accessible entrances?

Construction of accessible alternative entrances is recommended at Toadstool and Chapandale.

$10,000

8. Is the accessible entrance doorway at least 860mm when the door is in the open position?

9. Are doors in the barrier free path of travel equipped with door opening devices and power door operators?

Toadstool and Chapandale do not possess power door operators. Installing a power door operator on the accessible entrances of Toadstool and Chapandale is recommended.

$8,000


Building Corridors

Yes

No

N/A


Cost

1. Is the barrier free path of travel at least 1100mm wide and free of obstructions?

The barrier free path of travel within Toadstool does not meet current requirements.

$2,000

2. Are floor surfaces firm, stable and slip resistant (carpets “wheelchair friendly”)?

Installation of slip resistant floor surfaces are recommended within Toadstool/Chapandale.

$2,300

3. Are changes in level bevelled (1:2 bevel) and not more than 13mm? 4. Are elevator controls low enough to be reached from a wheelchair

(between 900 and 1100mm from the finished floor)?

5. Are there raised elevator markings in Braille and Standard Alphabet for the blind?

6. Are there audible signals inside cars indicating floor change? 7. Do elevator lobbies have visual and audible indicators of car arrival? 8. Does elevator interior provide sufficient wheelchair turning area (1500mm

radius minimum)?

9. Is at least one wheelchair-accessible telephone available? Pinchin recommends installing a wheel-chair accessible telephone within House.

$500

10. Are wheelchair-accessible facilities (restrooms, exits, etc.) identified with signage?

Install signage at the wheel-chair accessible washroom within Chapandale.

$200

11. Are there adequate (and AODA approved) FA visual and audible alarms located throughout the facility?

Not required for this type of occupancy.

Washrooms

Yes

No

N/A


Cost

1. Are common area public restrooms located on an accessible path of travel and possess signage?

Install signage at the wheel-chair accessible facilities of Toadstool/Chapandale.

$20,000 2. Are door handles push/pull or lever type and mounted between 900 to

1100mm above the finished floor level? Install a lever-type door handles on

the accessible washrooms within Toadstool and Chapandale.

3. Are access doors wheelchair-accessible (at least 860mm wide when in the open position)?

4. Are accessible stalls at least 1500mm wide and 1500mm deep?


5. Are public restrooms large enough for wheelchair turnaround (1500mm turning diameter for stalls and 1700mm for universal washrooms)?

A wheelchair accessible washroom is not provided within Toadstool.

6. Are universal washrooms equipped with an emergency call system with audible and visual signal devices and activated by a control device inside the washroom?

Installing an emergency call system within the wheelchair accessible washrooms within Toadstool/Chapandale is recommended.

7. Are stall doors wheelchair-accessible (at least 860mm wide when in the open position)?

Provided in Chapandale building.

8. Are grab bars provided in washroom stalls (L-shaped or diagonal with a horizontal bar 150mm above the toilet tank)?

Horizontal grab bars were noted within the washroom in Chapandale. L-Shaped grab bars are required as a result of the accessibility requirement amendment.

9. Are lavatories mounted not more than 840mm with at least 735mm clearance?

10. Are faucets equipped with lever type handles or handsfree actuators and not more 485mm from the front edge of the vanity?

* *An accessible faucet was noted within Chapandale however, accessible washrooms were not observed within Toadstool.

11. Are exposed pipes under sinks sufficiently insulated against contact? Uninsulated pipes were noted within the accessible washroom in Chapandale. Pinchin recommends insulating the hot water pipes beneath the wheelchair accessible sinks.

12. Are soap dispensers, towels, etc. reachable (mounted between 900 and 1200mm above the finished floor and not more than 610mm from the edge of the lavatory) and operable with one hand?

To be addressed during the recommended washroom renovations.

13. Is the base of mirror no more than 1000mm off finished floor? 14. Are accessible showers provided with a slip resistant floor surface and not

less than 1500mm wide and 900mm deep?


View of an inaccessible entrance noted adjacent to the west elevation of Toadstool.

Note: A step was noted in the path of travel.

View of typical non-compliant thresholds and door openings noted within Toadstool.


View of a non-compliant door handle noted on the west elevation of Chapandale.

View of the grab bars within the accessible washroom noted within Chapandale.

Note: L-Shaped grab bars are required as a result of the accessibility requirement amendment.

APPENDIX III Avison Young Commercial Real Estate – Viability Study

Population Characteristics

Population: Populaiton by Marital Status:2011 466,009 Single 28%2014 481,847 Married 48%2017 500,124 Common-Law 9%2019 512,271 Widowed 6%2024 539,755 Divorced or Separated 6%Population Change % (2014-2024) 12% Separated (legally married) 3%Total Households (2014) 201,422Persons per Household 2.36

Population Mobility Status 5+ Years Ago:Movers 42%Non-movers 58%

Dwelling Types

Occupied Dwellings by Tenure: 2014 Occupied Private Dwellings by Structure Type:Total Occupied Dwellings 201,422 Single-detached House 55%Owner 66% Apartment; building that has fewer than 5 storeys 10%Rented 34% Apartment; building that has 5+ storeys 17%

Labour Force & Income

2014 Population 15 Years & Over by Labour Force Activity:

Educational Attainment:

In the Labour Force 66% No certificate, diploma or degree 10%Not in the Labour Force 34% Bachelor's degree 16%

University certificate, diploma or degree above Bachelor 11%

2014 Labour Force by Occupation:Management 8%Business, Finance & Administrative 16% 2014 Household Income:Natural & Applied Sciences 4% Average Household Income $79,025Health 6% Median Household Income $58,503Social science, education, government & religion 13%Art, culture, recreation and sport 0% 2014 Estimated Households by Income:Sales and service 32% Under $5,000 2%Trades, Transport & equiptment operators & related 16% $5,000 to $49,999 42%Primary industry-specific 0% $50,000 to $99,999 34%Processing, manufacturing and utilities 4% $100,000 to 199,999 18%Occupation - Not applicable 1% $200,000+ 5%

The redevelopment potential of Camp 6 in the near future is Low.Redevelopment Potential

Camp Orenda (44579 Truman Line Road, Belmont - Central Elgin)Camp Orenda is located in Belmont within the regional municipality of Central Elgin. A 25 km radius search indicated that the population was 466,009 people in 2014 and is projected to increase by only 12% by 2024. Majority of the population (55%) have resided in the area for 5+ years.

There are 201,422 occupied dwellings, of which 66% are owned. A high percentage of the dwellings (55%) consist of single-detached homes.

Approximately 27% of the population has a bachelor's degree or higher level education. The average household income is $79,025. Approximatley 44% of the population earn below $50,000 and 18% of the populaiton earn between $100,000 to $199,999. The top three occupations in the area are: (Sales and Service), (Trades & Transport), and (Business, Finance & Administrative).

Revised FINAL Baseline Property Condition · PDF file44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario....

Documents

Transcript of Revised FINAL Baseline Property Condition · PDF file44579 Truman Line Rd., Belmont, Ontario....