CITY OF HAMILTON

Transcription

CITY OF HAMILTON

CITY OF HAMILTON
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
Hamilton
TO:
Chair and Members
Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee
COMMITTEE DATE:
March 19, 2015
SUBJECT/REPORT NO: Heritage Permit Application HP2015-006, under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act, for the Disassembly, Storage and
Reconstruction of the Hermitage Ruins at 739 Sulphur
Springs Road, Ancaster (PED15041) (Ward 12)
WARD(S) AFFECTED: Ward 12
PREPARED BY:
Alissa Golden
Cultural Heritage Planner
(905) 546-2424 Ext. 1214
Steve Robichaud
Director of Planning and Chief Planner
Planning Division
SUBMITTED BY:
Jason Thorne
General Manager
SIGNATURE:
Pÿ%mic Development Department
RECOMMENDATION
That Heritage Permit Application HP201 ÿ-006 be approved for the disassembly, storage
and reconstruction of the Hermitage Ruins at 739 Sulphur Springs Road, Ancaster, in
accordance with the submitted application, subject to the following conditions:
(a)
That the detailed methodology, plans and elevations for the proposed
documentation and dismantling of the walls shall be submitted, to the satisfaction
and approval of the Director of Planning and Chief Planner, prior to the removal of
any portion of the existing walls, including:
(i)
Method for mapping and labelling the face stones for reconstruction,
including measurements of the existing vertical and horizontal joint widths to
be reconstructed;
(ii)
Method for loosening the stones, raking of the joints and dislodging and
removing the stones for storage;
OUR Vision: To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage dtizens and provide diverse economic opportunities.
OUR Mission: WE provide quafity public service that contribute to a healthy, safe and prosperous community, in a sustainable manner.
OUR Values: Accountability, Cost Consciousness, Equity, Excellence, Honesty, Innovation, Leadership, Respect and Teamwork
[]
1
SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HP2015-006, Under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act, for the Disassembly, Storage and Reconstruction of the
Hermitage Ruins at 739 Sulphur Springs Road, Ancaster (PED15041)
(Ward 12) - Page 2 of 14
(iii) Stabilization of the structures during removals; and,
(iv) Storage of the salvaged materials on site during construction, including site
protection and monitoring;
(b) That the mortar used to reconstruct the mansion walls shall be compatible with the
type of stone and match the original colour and appearance of the historic mortar;
(c)
That the detailed methodology and materials specifications for the masonry repairs
and installation of wall capping for the outbuilding walls shall be submitted, to the
satisfaction and approval of the Director of Planning and Chief Planner, prior to the
commencement of any repairs;
(d)
That a detailed plan for the installation of the new paths, landscaping, hardscaping
and interpretive signage, including surface treatments, grading and tree protection,
shall be submitted, to the satisfaction and approval of the Director of Planning and
Chief Planner, prior to any soil disturbance activities;
(e) That the design of the decorative stone fence shall be submitted for review by the
Heritage Permit Review Subcommittee prior to installation;
(f)
That a licensed archaeologist shall be retained to undertake an archaeological
assessment of the areas to be impacted by grading, excavation, staging of
machinery and stockpiling of materials, and any further archaeological
assessment, protection, mitigation and/or monitoring that is recommended by the
archaeologist, shall be undertaken, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and Chief Planner, prior to any soil disturbance activities;
(g)
That any minor changes to the plans and elevations following approval shall be
submitted, to the satisfaction and approval of the Director of Planning and Chief
Planner, prior to submission as part of any application for a Building Permit and/or
the commencement of any alterations;
(h)
That implementation of the alterations, in accordance with this approval, shall be
completed no later than April 30, 2017. If the alterations are not completed by
April 30, 2017, then this approval expires as of that date and no alterations shall
be undertaken without a new approval issued by the City of Hamilton;
(i)
That a protocol for advising the public of the scope of the work and timing of the
project shall be submitted, to the satisfaction and approval of the Director of
Planning and Chief Planner, at least one month prior to the commencement of any
construction activity on the site and that any actions in the plan shall be
implemented as per the approved plan.
OUR Vision: To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage citizens and provide diverse economic opportunities.
OUR Mission: WE provide quafity pubfic service that contribute to a healthy, safe and prosperous community, in a sustainable manner.
(Ward 12) = Page 3 of 14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject property, located at 739 Sulphur Springs Road, Ancaster (see Location
Map attached as Appendix "A" to this Report) and was designated in 1990 under Part IV
of the Ontario Heritage Act by former Town of Ancaster By-law No. 90-91 (attached as
Appendix "B" to this Report). A Heritage Permit is required for demolition or removal of
a building or structure on a designated property and for any alterations likely to affect
the heritage attributes of the property as described in the designation By-law. The
designation By-law includes the ruins of the mansion and outbuildings of the "Hermitage
Estate" and the gatehouse at the entrance to the former estate/conservation area.
The mansion and outbuildings were constructed circa 1855 for George Leith. The
mansion house was extensively damaged by fire in 1934. The property was acquired by
the Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) in 1972, and the structures are now located
within the Dundas Valley Conservation Area. The ruins of the mansion have been
subject to various stabilization efforts over the years, while the gatehouse remains intact
and is used by the HCA as an interpretive centre.
In 2014, staff received a Heritage Permit application (HP2014-023) from the HCA for the
stabilization of the ruins by removing the upper portions and lowering all ruin walls to an
overall height of approximately 1.2 m (4 ft). On August 15, 2014, Council received the
staff recommendation for conditional approval of HP2014-023 and referred the item
back to the Ward Councillor to find a creative solution to salvage the Hermitage ruins
rather than lower them. Subsequently, Council passed a motion on September 24, 2014
to contribute $200,000 towards the restoration of the ruins, contingent on the HCA
receiving Heritage Permit approval for the proposed work.
A new Heritage Permit application has been submitted for the disassembly and storage
of the Hermitage Ruins, reconstruction of the three principle facades of the mansion
ruins and stabilization of the outbuilding ruins to an overall height of approximately
1.2 m (4 ft), with some areas being above or below this height, as feasible. In addition,
Heritage Permit approval is being sought for the installation of new paths, hardscaping
and interpretive signage throughout the site (see Heritage Permit Application HP2015006 - Submitted Plans attached as Appendix "D" to this Report).
Portions of the heritage resource are proposed to be displaced; however, the principle
facades of the mansion ruins will be reconstructed and the site will largely retain its
character as a cultural heritage landscape and continue to embody historical
associations with the Leith family and the development of the area. Staff are
recommending conditional approval of the Heritage Permit application.
OUR Mission: WE provide quality public service that contribute to a healthy, safe and prosperous community, in a sustainable manner.
OUR Values: Accountability, Cost Consciousness, Equity, Exceflence, Honesty, Innovation, Leadership, Respect and Teamwork
The Heritage Permit Review Subcommittee of the Hamilton Municipal Heritage
Committee reviewed the subject application on February 24, 2015 and recommended
conditional approval of the application (see Relevant Consultation).
Alternatives for Consideration - See Page 13
FINANCIAL - STAFFING - LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Financial: None.
Staffing: None.
Legal:
This Heritage Permit application has been processed and considered within
the context of the applicable legislation.
Section 34 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act states that: "No owner of property
designated under Section 29 shall demolish or remove a building or structure
on the property, or permit the demolition or removal of a building or structure
on the property, unless the owner applies to the Council of the municipality in
which the property is situate and receives consent, in writing, to the
demolition or removal."
Section 34 (2) of the Ontario Heritage Act states that: "Within 90-days after
the notice of receipt is served on the applicant under Subsection (1), or within
such longer period as is agreed upon by the owner and the Council, the
Council, after consultation with its Municipal Heritage Committee, if one is
established,
(a)
May,
(i)
(ii)
Consent to the application;
Consent to the application, subject to such terms and conditions
as may be specified by the Council; or,
(iii)
Refuse the application;
(b) Shall give notice of its decision to the owner and to the Trust; and,
(c) Shall publish its decision in a newspaper having general circulation in
the municipality."
With respect to the delegation of Council's approval authority, Section 33 (15)
of the Ontario Heritage Act states that: "The power to consent to alterations
to property under this Section may be delegated by By-law by the Council of
a municipality to an employee or official of the municipality if the Council has
established a Municipal Heritage Committee, and has consulted with the
Committee prior to delegating the power." The Ontario Heritage Act does not
allow for the delegation of Council's authority to consent to demolition or
removal of a building or structure.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Originally set in an extensive landscaped park, the "Hermitage" mansion and
outbuildings were constructed circa 1855 for George Gordon Brown Leith. George Leith
immigrated to Hamilton from Scotland, and used the mansion as his summer residence.
The front facade and side walls of the main house were constructed of dressed
limestone; the remainder of the house and the outbuildings, which included a carriagehouse, hen-house, laundry, and gatehouse, were constructed of random coursed
limestone. The mansion was constructed in the Georgian style with a square plan,
symmetrical front facade, and an interior layout arranged around a central hall.
Originally the roof was flat with a balustrade. Approximately ten years after the
construction of the house, the roof was changed to a hip roof and a veranda, treillage
and French doors, were added on the lower level.
The mansion was extensively damaged by fire in 1934 and remained in the ownership
of the Leith family until 1948. The property was acquired by the then Hamilton and
Region Conservation Authority (HRCA) in 1972, and the structures are located within
the Dundas Valley Conservation Area.
The masonry walls of the front facade and east side facade remain largely intact. The
central portion of the second level of the front facade has been removed, while the
original window openings with sills and voussoirs remain, as well as the cornice and
regularly spaced pilasters (see photographs attached as Appendix "C" to this Report).
Portions of the west side and rear facades remain. The gatehouse is an intact structure
and is used by HCA as an interpretive centre for the site.
1973-74
Masonry repairs and repointing throughout the ruins was undertaken. The concrete
coping along the tops of the walls and the wood shoring on the front side of the facade
(no longer extant) and rear side of the facade was installed around this time.
1985
$5,000 spent to remove the central portion of the second level of the front facade and
brace the remaining upper portions.
OUR Mission: WE provide quafity pubfic service that contribute to a healthy, safe and prosperous community, in a sustainable manner.
OUR Values: Accountability, Cost Consdousness, Equity, Excellence, Honesty, Innovation, Leadership, Respect and Teamwork
1987-88
$22,000 spent to undertake masonry repairs to the walls overall and repair the brick
course at the top of the foundation.
1989
The rear of the mansion ruins were fenced to prevent public access.
1990
$42,000 spent on repairs and stabilization.
The property was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by former Town
of Ancaster By-law No. 90-91 (the Reasons for Designation are attached as Appendix
"B" to this Report), at the request of the HRCA. The former Town of Ancaster
considered the ruins of the mansion and outbuildings of the estate known as the
"Hermitage", to be "of considerable historical and architectural value and interest". The
designation By-law includes the ruins of the mansion and outbuildings of the "Hermitage
Estate" and the gatehouse at the entrance to the estate/conservation area.
1993
HRCA indicated their intent that the ruins would be allowed to deteriorate naturally as
no further funds were available for stabilization or restoration. The intention to allow the
mansion to naturally deteriorate was not received well in the community, and
subsequently the HRCA agreed to establish a working group to investigate funding
sources.
1994
A working group comprising of members of the Ancaster Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), City of Hamilton staff, Dundas Valley
Residents Association, and HRCA, was created to secure funding totalling $110,000 to
restore the ruins. The funds were not raised.
1996
HRCA considered reducing the height of the walls to a height ranging from 0.6 m and
1.2 m. The former Town of Ancaster LACAC supported the plan based on the statutory
limitations of the Ontario Heritage Act, which at the time did not allow the municipality to
prevent demolition or require that heritage resources be maintained or repaired.
1997
The Town of Ancaster approved contributing $5,000 towards a total repair cost of
approximately $30,000 - the remainder of which was raised from the HRCA budget and
private donations.
OUR Vision: To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage dtizens and provide diverse economic opportunities.
2005
Masonry repairs and repointing were undertaken.
2012
A report by PJ Materials Specialists in association with Tacoma Engineers was
commissioned by HCA to identify the deficiencies with the structures and costs for
various levels of intervention. Both firms specialize in historic stone structures. The cost
of full restoration and stabilization was estimated at $600,000.
The consultant report found that:
The ruins are in urgent need of intervention to prevent the collapse of portions of
the masonry walls;
• Portions of the upper parts of the walls are out of alignment by up to 600 mm;
• There is bending and bulging in localized areas of the walls;
The lime mortar has washed out of the inner core of the wall and in some areas
the inner wythe of the wall has partially collapsed;
Previous mortar repairs that used inappropriate cement mortar and elastometric
sealant materials (at joints/cracks in concrete caps) have failed;
The existing concrete caps and parging at the top of the walls and the concrete
sills and jambs of the window / door openings have cracked and are ineffective at
keeping water from infiltrating the wall assembly;
The brick course at the top of the foundation wall has been damaged by being
saturated with moisture caused by the grade being too high around the building;
The existing metal bracing and steel anchors are corroding and the wood bracing
has also deteriorated. The design of the bracing facilitates climbing by
trespassers; and,
• There is evidence of ongoing public access and vandalism of the ruins.
2013
HCA undertook pre-consultation with the Heritage Permit Review Subcommittee of the
Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee, including facilitating a site visit to the ruins and
the preparation of five options for the ruins. The HCA Board authorized HCA staff to
pursue detailed design and permits to implement Option 5 and report back to the HCA
Board with the final design and estimates. Option 5 included: lowering the walls to a
safe height; stabilization of the ruins as required; and, increasing/enhancing interpretive
signage on the site.
2014
Submission of Heritage Permit application HP2014-023 for the removal of the upper
portions of the mansion ruins, stabilization/reconstruction of the remaining portions of
the mansion and outbuildings, and installation of new paths and interpretive signage.
Council referred HP2014-023 back to the Ward Councillor to find a creative solution to
salvage the Hermitage ruins rather than lowering them. Council passed a motion to
contribute $200,000 towards the restoration of the ruins, contingent on the HCA
receiving Heritage Permit approval for the proposed work.
2015
Submission of the subject application HP2015-006 for the disassembly and storage of
the Hermitage Ruins, reconstruction of the three principle facades of the mansion ruins,
stabilization of the outbuilding ruins, and installation of new paths, hardscaping and
interpretive signage throughout the site.
The perimeter of the mansion and portions of the outbuildings are now completely
fenced and public access is restricted.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND LEGISLATED REQUIREMENTS
Urban Hamilton Official Plan:
Volume 1, Section 3.4 - Cultural Heritage Resources Policies of the Urban Hamilton
Official Plan states that the City shall "protect and conserve the tangible cultural
heritage resources of the City, including archaeological resources, built heritage
resources, and cultural heritage landscapes" (B.3.4.2.1(a)), and "encourage the
rehabilitation, renovation, and restoration of built heritage resources in order that they
remain in active use" (B.3.4.1.4). Further, the policy goals include promoting "public and
private awareness, appreciation, and enjoyment of Hamilton's cultural heritage through
public programmes or heritage interpretation activities, heritage tourism, and guidance
on appropriate conservation practices" (B.3.4.1.5).
These policies demonstrate Council's commitment to the identification, protection, and
conservation of the cultural heritage resources, and the recommendations of this Report
meet the intent of these policies.
RELEVANT CONSULTATION
Pursuant to Sub-sections 28 (1) and 33 (4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Hamilton
Municipal Heritage Committee advises and assists Council on matters relating to Part IV
of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Heritage Permit Review Subcommittee of the Hamilton Municipal Heritage
Committee reviewed the subject application on February 24, 2015 and recommended
approval of the application subject to two recommended conditions:
O
That the mortar used to reconstruct the walls shall be compatible with the type of
stone and match the original colour and appearance of the historic mortar; and,
That the design of the decorative stone fence shall be submitted for review by the
Heritage Permit Review Subcommittee prior to installation.
The Recommendations of this Report are consistent with the advice from the Heritage
Permit Review Subcommittee.
ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The mansion and outbuildings are not intact structures and the integrity of their original
construction and design is poor. According to the consultant report commissioned by
the HCA, the existing stone walls require extensive repairs, including, in many cases,
the reversal of previous incompatible repairs. The Hermitage ruins have no roof or
lateral support from floor joists; therefore, the walls of the Hermitage are exposed on
both sides and the top and lateral support must come from external bracing.
A ruin is a place that is disused and incomplete, is usually no longer maintained, and
appears unlikely to regain its original use or be adapted to a new use, function or
purpose, other than interpretation. As the condition of vacant heritage buildings or ruins
decline, the likelihood that a building will be reused for another purpose diminishes.
Although ruins require ongoing maintenance and resources, their lack of functionality
limits their economic viability.
Ruins that have deteriorated beyond reasonable repair for active use may also have
intangible heritage values and attributes. Tangible attributes are the physical fabric of a
place, such as structures and artifacts, while intangible attributes are the knowledge of a
place and associated cultural practices, traditions, and history. The significance of any
place comes from both its tangible and intangible attributes. Despite the Hermitage
ruins having no active use, the ruins have important associations with the history of the
area and have meaning to the local community.
Heritaqe Permit Application:
The Applicants have requested approval to (see the submitted plans attached as
Appendix "D" to this Report):
1)
Dismantle the existing Hermitage ruins and reconstruct the front and side walls of
the former mansion, including:
a) Dismantling all remaining walls and rock foundations of the mansion ruins;
b) Removal of the rear (north) wall and re-use of the salvaged stone;
c) Removal of the wall off the west side addition and re-use of the salvaged
stone;
d) Reconstruct a portion of the rock foundation off of the west side wall for
display and educational purposes;
e) Pouring a new concrete foundation for the reconstructed front and side
walls of the mansion;
f) Constructing new infrastructure with galvanized steel plates and girder
frames to support the reconstructed front and side walls;
g) Reconstructing the exterior walls with the existing cut stone in the original
locations;
h) Reconstructing the interior walls with the salvaged rubble stone from the
existing walls, the out building walls, and a supply of rubble stone that is
currently stockpiled on site;
i) Connecting the reconstructed exterior and interior walls with galvanized
masonry ties and straps in the mortar joints of the exterior face stone and
hooks into the mortar of the interior rubble stone;
j) An anticipated mortar mixture to reconstruct the stone walls that includes
one part natural hydraulic lime, one part hydrated lime, one part Type N
Portland Lime masonry cement and five parts sand; and,
k) Installation of a new cast-in-place concrete cap on top of the reconstructed
walls;
2)
Lower the walls of the remaining outbuildings to a safe and stable height and
maintain the footprints;
3)
Construct a decorative stone fence at the road entrance using the excavated
foundation stone, including a new ornamental gate; and,
4)
Install new paths, landscaping, hardscaping and interpretive signage.
Key factors that are considered in the evaluation of any change affecting a heritage
resource are consideration of:
Displacement effects: those adverse actions that result in the damage, loss, or
removal of valued heritage features; and,
Disruption effects: those actions that result in detrimental changes to the setting
or character of the heritage feature.
Dismantling, storage and reconstruction of the three principle stone facades (south, east
and west) of the mansion ruins will result in a temporary displacement of these
designated heritage features on site. The construction of a new internal infrastructure to
support the reconstruction of the exterior cut-stone facades in the original locations and
the interior random-coursed stone will provide for the long-term conservation of these
materials in place without the need for cumbersome and obtrusive external bracing.
Staff recommend that the methodology for the dismantling of the walls, stabilization of
the structures during removals, and the salvage and storage of materials during
construction, be submitted for review prior to the dismantling of any portion of the
existing walls (Recommendation (a)). Staff also recommend that the mortar used to
reconstruct the walls shall be compatible with the type of stone and match the original
colour and appearance of the historic mortar (Recommendation (b)).
The proposed alterations will also result in the displacement of heritage fabric through
the removal of the two-storey rear (north) mansion wall and the one-storey wall off the
west side addition, as well as the removal of the upper portions of the outbuilding ruins
required to stabilize them to a safe height of approximately 1.2 m (4 ft), where feasible.
This stabilization and repair of the outbuilding ruins is proposed be undertaken using
appropriate materials and methods, which will allow portions of the structures to remain.
The expectation is that the reconstruction of non-extant portions of the outbuilding ruins
should only occur where necessary to assist with the interpretation of the site and / or
as needed for the structural integrity of adjacent structures.
In addition, the height of the outbuilding walls should vary slightly and the tops of the
walls should be capped in a manner that does not appear to be an original condition or
design element. Staff recommend that the detailed methodology and materials
specifications for the masonry repairs and installation of wall capping be submitted for
review prior to the commencement of any repairs (Recommendation (c)).
Further, the salvaged stones from the walls to be removed, and from the lowered
sections of the outbuilding ruins, will be re-used in the reconstruction of the principle
facades and in the construction of the proposed decorative stone fence, where
appropriate. Staff are of the opinion that the tangible attributes (stones) and the
intangible attributes (historical associations) of the site will be conserved.
Currently the public is prevented from accessing the buildings by safety fencing, which
produces disruption effects to the cultural heritage landscape character of the property
and prevents public education or amenity use of the heritage resource. The HCA is
proposing to enhance the access and interpretation of the site as a complex of buildings
and a cultural heritage landscape through the construction of new pathways around the
site and a decorative stone fence at the site entrance, and the installation of interpretive
plaques, benches, and flagstone hardscaping within the footprint of the reconstructed
mansion ruins.
Staff recommend that a plan for the installation of the new paths, landscaping,
hardscaping and interpretive signage, including surface treatments, grading and tree
protection, be submitted for review prior to installation so that staff can ensure that the
existing character of the site will be maintained (Recommendation (d)). As per the
advice of the Heritage Permit Review Subcommittee, staff recommend that the design
of the proposed decorative stone fence shall be submitted for review by the
Subcommittee prior to installation (Recommendation (e)).
Archaeoloqv:
The proposed alterations involve excavation and dismantling of the foundation walls, regrading around the buildings and stockpiling and storage of machinery on site. The
property meets the Provincial criteria for determining archaeological potential and the
overall site has not been extensively and intensively disturbed by either historic or
contemporary activities. Therefore, there is the potential for the discovery of
archaeological resources during soil disturbance, and these resources should be
identified and protected from displacement. If this application is approved, staff
recommend that at least a Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the area to be
impacted by construction activities be undertaken and that, if further assessment work
or monitoring is recommended by the consultant archaeologist, this be undertaken prior
to any soil disturbance (Recommendation (f)).
Conclusions:
The proposed alterations result in a loss of some heritage fabric and the authenticity of
the nature of the ruin; however, the principle facades of the mansion ruins will be
reconstructed and the site will largely retain its character as a cultural heritage
landscape and continue to embody historical associations with the Leith family and the
development of the area. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed reconstruction of the
Hermitage Ruin is supportable, as it provides for:
Continuing function by stabilizing the precarious ruined structure and opening the
site up for safe public use; and,
Public education on the historical value and evolution of the site through
interpretive signage.
Staff recommend approval of the application subject to the above described conditions,
as well as the standard two-year expiry date for completion and provision for minor
changes to be approved by staff (Recommendations (g) and (h)). Staff also
recommend that the HCA advise the public of the scope and timing of the proposed
construction ahead of commencement (Recommendation (i)).
ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSIDERATION
=
=
=
Refuse the Heritage Permit application.
Council may refuse the Heritage Permit. This decision would be inconsistent with
the advice of staff and the Heritage Permit Review Subcommittee.
Approve the Heritage Permit with additional or amended conditions.
Council may approve this application with additional or amended conditions of
approval other than the staff recommendations. This is not being recommended.
The recommended conditions of approval have been drafted to ensure that the
City's interest in the archaeological, built heritage and cultural heritage landscape
value of the property is protected during the implementation of the proposal.
Approve the Heritage Permit with no conditions,
Council may approve this application with no conditions. This alternative is not
recommended, as it would prevent the review by staff of additional details to
ensure that the Heritage Permit approval will result in quality conservation work
and the implementation of the project design, as submitted.
ALIGNMENT TO THE 2012 - 2015 STRATEGIC PLAN
Strategic Priority #1
A Prosperous & Healthy Community
WE enhance our image, economy and well-being by demonstrating that Hamilton is a
great place to five, work, play and learn.
Strategic Objective
1.6 Enhance Overall Sustainability (financial, economic, social and environmental).
APPENDICES AND SCHEDULES ATTACHED
,,
•
•
•
Appendix "A":
Appendix "B":
Appendix"C':
Appendix "D":
Location Map
Reasons for Designation from Town of Ancaster By-law No. 90-91
Images of the Subject Property
Heritage Permit Application HP2015-006- Submitted Plans
:AG/th
Appendix "A" to Report PED15041
Page 1 of 1
PJg
• Site Location
Location Map
Hÿmikon
PLANNINGANO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
File Name/Number:
HP2015-006
Appendix "A"
Scale:
N.T,S.
Date:
July 2, 2014
Planner/Technician:
MH/AL
Subject Property
729 Sulphur Springs Road, Ancaster
(Dundas Valley Conservation Area)
Hermitage
"
Key Map - Ward 12
N.T.S.
Gatehouse
Appendix "B" to Report PED15041
Page 1 of 1
Reasons for Designation from Town of Ancaster By-law No. 90-91
The reasons for the proposed designation are that the ruins of the mansion and
outbuildings of the estate known as the "Hermitage" are of considerable historical and
architectural value and interest. Situated on Mineral Springs Road in the Town of
Ancaster, the buildings were constructed c. 1855 for George Gordon Brown Leith, who
came to Ancaster from Scotland. Members of the Leith family lived in the mansion until
1934, when it caught fire, and was reduced to a state of ruin.
Originally set in a beautifully-landscaped park, the Hermitage was an imposing sight.
The front facade and side walls of the main house were constructed of hammered
limestone; the remainder of the house and the outbuildings, which included a carriagehouse, hen-house, laundry-room, and gatehouse, were constructed of random coursed
rubble. The mansion was marked by many different architectural features. When it was
first constructed in 1855, the mansion was very Georgian in its squareness and
symmetry. Its interior was likewise Georgian insofar as it was oriented to a central hall.
Originally the roof was flat and railed, but within ten years this was replaced with a
hipped gabled roof showing the influence of the early Victorian Gothic style. A veranda
was also added at this time, typical of the Regency cottage, as were the treillage and
the French windows giving access to the veranda. On the second floor there were
Italianate windows above the French windows below. The front facade had four large
corbels, one on each side of the French and Italianate windows, and parts of the east
and west walls display-these corbels too.
Today, the ruins retain many of the most notable architectural features, and are situated
within the splendour of the Dundas Valley Conservation Area. The estate's gatehouse is
the sole structure which remains intact, and is an interpretive museum for the estate's
rich history.
Appendix "C" to Report PED15041
Page 1 of 7
..................
Drawing of the Hermitage mansion circa 1855
Historical image of the Hermitage mansion circa 1890
i
Page 2 of 7
o
:The Hermitage- Circa 1885
Sketch of the estate layout, circa 1885
i i
+m
I
i
=I
:3
Plan of the house and outbuildings
Page 3 of 7
Front facade of the mansion ruins showing former central bay of second storey,
circa 1980s (courtesy of Hamilton Conservation Authority)
Existing front facade of the mansion ruins
Page 4 of 7
//
Mansion ruins, including west side wall to be removed (far left)
View of Hermitage looking northeast from the private road
Page 5 of 7
View of external bracing from rear
View of mansion ruins from the rear with nursery ruins in foreground
Page 6 of 7
Rear (north) wall to be removed
Protective fencing in place around the mansion ruins
Page 7 of 7
Ruins of laundry outbuilding ruin to the rear (north) of the mansion
Detail of the condition of the front facade of the mansion
Appendix "D" to Report PED15041
Page 1 of 9
Authority
Hea/ffÿy Stmams...He¢s/ihy Communitiesf
Hermitage Ruins Stabilization and Restoration Project
Background
In 2014, HCA submitted a heritage application to stabilize the Hermitage Ruins located
at 739 Sulphur Springs Road, Ancaster within the Dundas Valley Conservation Area.
The Heritage Permit Review Sub-committee and the Hamilton Heritage Municipal
Committee were not in favour of the proposal mainly due the amount of heritage
building fabric that would be lost. The application was considered by City Council at
their meeting on August 15, 2014 at which time they deferred any decision in order to
permit additional time for Councilor Ferguson to develop an alternative restoration
proposal and funding formula.
Councilor Ferguson quickly put together a restoration proposal with the assistance of
several community partners that would provide for the long term restoration of the three
main walls of the Hermitage ruins at their existing height. This proposal was considered
by the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of Directors at their September 4, 2014
meeting and their direction was as follows:
• The previous approval for the stabilization project was rescinded.
• The restoration proposal put together by Rock Solid Natural Masons Ltd. was
approved as the preferred option for the restoration of the Hermitage ruins.
• Staff were directed to pursue the required permits to implement the restoration
work.
• Staff were directed to enter into contribution agreements and any other
agreements with the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Conservation Foundation
to establish a funding relationship between the HCA, the City of Hamilton, and
private donors with $200K from the HCA, $200K from the City, and the balance
from donations.
• Staff were directed to enter into detailed discussions with Rock Solid to finalize
the scope of work and cost estimates for the consideration of final contractual
arrangements by the Board of Directors.
On January 12, 2015, the Board of Directors approved entering into a contract with
Rock Solid Natural Stone Masons Ltd. for $460K plus applicable taxes for the
Hermitage ruins restoration works outlined in this application. Sufficient funds have
been secured to undertake the restoration of the Hermitage Ruins in accordance with
the HCA approved preferred option. Additional fundraising is ongoing and these funds
will support contingencies, archeological works and the implementation of a unifying
landscape plan. The landscape plan also addresses improvements to public access,
Page 2 of 9
circulation, education, and interpretative features that support expanded programming
opportunities that the restoration works will present.
..........
The ProposaI
............
The significant elements of this proposal include a complete and accurate rebuild of the
main front wall and the two sidewalls to the full height which will result in a structure that
will have no visible external supports and can be safely visited by the general public.
To accomplish this objective all the remaining walls will be dismantled including the rock
foundation. A new engineered concrete foundation will be excavated and built for the
three walls along with a supporting steel infrastructure that will not be visible. The
former outside walls will be faced the existing cut stone in their original location. The
interior walls will be re-faced with rubble stone supplied from the existing walls, the out
building walls and a supply of rubble stone that is currently stockpiled in the east
hedgerow. This approach provides a structure that will have a new foundation, an
internal supporting steel skeleton and a significantly extended life span beyond that
anticipated in previous options.
Several additional concepts related to the unique rock foundation include exposing a
section of the old foundation to show the distinctive design of the original foundation and
using the excavated foundation stone to create a stone fence at the entrance to the
Hermitage ruins.
Following are some of the additional procedures and specifications to be followed:
Cut Stone Procedure
Prior to dismantling on stone walls, detailed photographs will be taken to map the
original stone placement, using lettered sections and numbers.
Each stone piece will be labeled using a mason's superpencil with the
corresponding letter and number on the photographic mapping to indicate section
and placement.
Each dismantled cut stone piece will then be placed on the ground in its original
arrangement in the designated area to the north of the ruins. The stone will be
covered with a tarp until it is ready to be re-installed.
Mortar Methodology
• All masonry components to be mixed on site with clean, coarse sand.
° All batches will be allowed an appropriate mix time of 3-5 minutes.
° Mortar to be finished with 2 hours in warmer temperatures 25+ degrees C or 3
hours below 25 degrees
Page 3 of 9
,, Anticipated Mortar Mixture of Heritage Lime and Masonry Cement
o 1 part Natural Hydraulic Lime
..........
.'.
.....
o>lpait Hydl;ated Lime;
....
. ""." .'.
.....
..
.........
.-.
.......
.
.........
-.
.......
.
........
o 1 part type N Portland Lime Masonry Cement
o 5 parts Sand
J
°
)>
-0
-o
(I)
Q_
X
0
0
HERMITAGE
Existing
• 1:ÿ o.1
-.hÿ
CD--ÿ
Page 5 of 9
1.1.1 ._c
m
EXISTING WALL
To be deconstructed and stones reused
POURED CONCRETE CAPPING
To be repoured ferlRestoralion
-- EXISTING STONE CAPPING (x2)
To be numbered aod reassembled
EXISTING STONE HEADERS
To be numbered and reassembled
EXISTING STONE LINTELS
To be numbered and reassembled
EXISTING FACE STONES
To be numbered a0d reassembled
EXISTING BRICK PODIUM
To be replaced witlÿ recovered rubble
EXISTING sToNE FOUNDA'T/ON
To be used as recovered ttibble
>
-0
Q_
EXISTING WALL
To be deconstructed and stones reused
EXISTING STONE FOUNDATION
To be kept as part of a museum exihibÿ'
x
d
0
CD
0
Nm
HERMITAGE
Restoration Project
(D ---ÿ
Page 7 of 9
Page 8 of 9
INTERPRETIVE AREA DETAIL LAYOUT
rÿ/ÿLE: I" • 2'0
Page 9 of 9
NOTES.;
1. ALL TREES SHOWN ON PLAN TO
BE MARKED BY HCA FORCES
AND PROTECTED ATALL TIMES
DURING CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES,
2, ALL EXCAVATED SOIL TO BE
PROTECTED WITH HCA
ACCEPTABLE SEDIMENT
CONTROL FENCING MEASURES,

CITY OF HAMILTON

Transcription

Similar documents

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

Wonder Holland

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

The Mighty Wurlitzer Debuts at the Garrett

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Work on

Sustainable management of the World Heritage Site, Bryggen.

From: Lee Sexsmith [mailto:hecubuspg@telus

family matters summer 2016 - Heritage Family Credit Union

Summary Yesterday today