HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-042-24
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: October 21, 2024 Report Number: PDS-042-24
Authored by: Jane Wang, Senior Planner, Community Planning
Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: PLN 34.5. and PLN 34.18
Report Subject: Relocation of a listed heritage house - Lambert House, 47 Liberty Street;
Lakeridge Health Bowmanville Hospital redevelopment project
Recommendations:
1. That Report PDS-024-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That Council approve the relocation of the Lambert House to a different location on
the Hospital property, 47 Liberty Street, Bowmanville, as demonstrated on the
conceptual site plan;
3. That the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and Conservation Management Plan
(CMP) prepared by Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc., be accepted and adopted
(Attachment 1);
4. That the recommendations outlined in the CMP be implemented, including but not
limited to:
i. Relocate the Lambert House and mothballing,
ii. Restore the exterior elevation,
iii. Install protective measures around the Lambert House to protect its
heritage attributes during redevelopment of the Hospital; and
iv. Renovate the building to upgrade the building to the current building
standards;
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-042-24
5. That the Lambert House be designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act following the relocation and restoration, and completion of the hospital
construction in accordance with the Clarington Heritage Committee’s Motion 24.38
and recommendations from the HIA; and
6. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-042-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-042-24
Report Overview
The Municipality holds the responsibility for recognizing and safeguarding valuable heritage
assets. In 2018, the Lambert House (the former Nurses Residence, 11 Mabel Bruce Way),
located on the grounds of the Bowmanville Hospital property at 47 Liberty Street,
Bowmanville, was added to the Municipal Register for its cultural heritage significance and
contribution to the history and development of Bowmanville. (PSD-030-18)
As the redevelopment of the Lakeridge Health Bowmanville Hospital progress, it will be
necessary to relocate the Lambert House from its current location to the Liberty Street
frontage.
At its meeting on September 17, 2024, the Clarington Heritage Committee recommended
that Council approve the proposed relocation of Lambert House, adopt the Conservation
Management Plan to ensure the preservation of the heritage values during the relocation
process, and that the Lambert House be designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act. after the completion of the Hospital project.
The report is to present the proposal for relocating the Lambert House and staff
recommendations for the Council’s approval in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act.
1. Background
1.1 The Lambert House, also known as the Nurses Residence, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, is
located on the grounds of Lakeridge Health Bowmanville Hospital. The building was
built as a training facility and residence for nurses in 1926. It continued its inst itutional
use until 1941. Over the years, it has also served as office space for the Durham
Regional Health Unit and the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation. The building contributes
to the development history of the Bowmanville Hospital, which provides a critical service
to the community.
1.2 In 2018, through staff report PDS -030-18, the Lambert House was acknowledged for its
cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) and its contributions to the history and
development of Bowmanville under Section 27 , Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act
(OHA).
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-042-24
1.3 Lakeridge Health, the property owner, is planning the redevelopment of the Lakeridge
Health Bowmanville Hospital to service the growing community and provide a greater
variety of medical services. A phased design and construction process is proposed to
build the new hospital facility on the property while the existing facility continues to
provide services.
1.4 In the commitment to preserving heritage resources, Lakeridge Health is proposing to
relocate the Lambert House to a different location on the property facing Liberty Street.
This relocation will facilitate the construction of the new hospital facility as well as allow
for the repurposing the Lambert House for future use.
1.5 The relocation of the Lambert House requires a demolition permit under the Ontario
Building Code. This permit triggers the need for a heritage permit subject to Council
consent in accordance with the OHA since the property is listed on the Municipal
Register. The process is outlined in the section below.
Figure 1: Aerial photograph – existing Lambert House location on the Hospital property
2. The process under the Ontario Heritage Act
2.1 The OHA regulates the conservation, protection, and preservation of heritage properties
in Ontario.
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-042-24
2.2 Under Section 27 of the OHA, Municipalities in Ontario are required to maintain a
Municipal Register that lists all formally designated heritage properties and “non-
designated” properties that possess cultural heritage value or interest, meeting the
criteria set in Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the OHA. The benefit of including a property in
the Municipal Register is that it provides the Municipality with up to 60 days to review a
request for a demolition permit and require supporting materials for the demolition
proposal.
2.3 A demolition permit is required to allow the Lambert House to relocate to a different
location on the Hospital property, which is subject to Council’s approval following the
process under the OHA. In support of the demolition permit, a comprehensive report
including a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), and a Conservation Management Plan
(CMP) September 6, 2024, prepared by Vincent J. Santamaura Architect Inc, was
submitted. These Plans described the relocation proposal, provided an evaluation of
the building’s CHVI, and outlined the relocation process and necessary measures to
preserve the building in the action.
2.4 Upon reviewing and being satisfied with the supporting materials for the demolition
proposal, Council has the authority to approve or deny the proposed demolition in
consultation with the Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC).
2.5 The supporting documents have been circulated to Staff and the CHC. The CHC had
been consulted on the proposal. Staff bring forward this recommendation report for
Council approval in accordance with the OHA.
3. Intent to relocate the Lambert House
3.1 The proposal for Lambert House relocation is to move the house from the current
location on Maple Bruce Way to the west side of the property facing Liberty Street, as
shown in Figure 2 below. For the construction of the new facility and moving the
Lambert House, a few mature trees on the Hospital property, including several adjacent
to Liberty Street will be removed. The trees to be removed are identified on the below
figure. All necessary removals will be confirmed at the building permit stage.
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-042-24
Figure 2: Proposed location of the Lambert House on the property
3.2 The HIA evaluated and identified the heritage value of the Lambert House and explored
several options to conserve the heritage building. The HIA confirmed that the Lambert
House possesses sufficient value and interest to meet the criteria for designation under
Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the OHA. Relocation of the Lambert House was identified as
the best option for the conservation of the heritage value of the Lambert House and
facilitation of the hospital redevelopment.
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-042-24
3.3 The CMP outlined the goals for the conservation of the heritage house and the work
plan to move the building based on heritage attributes and the conservation approach
identified in the HIA. It included a building program, documentation plan, construction
and moving plan to ensure the relocation of the building is implemented safely and
appropriately according to the best practices of heritage conservation. The CMP also
included a general restoration and renovation plan for future reuse up to current building
standards.
3.4 In the future, the building’s new use and integration into the park design will be explored
as the hospital redevelopment project design progresses. The tentative plan is to
convert the building for hospital-related uses, including office space.
4. Cultural Heritage Value and Interest
4.1 The submitted HIA includes an evaluation of the Lambert House’s Cultural Heritage
Value and Interest (CHVI) and included an exploration of conservation options. The HIA
concluded that the building meets seven of nine criteria listed by O. Regulation 9/06 of
the OHA and recommended the property be considered for Designation under Section
29, Part IV of the OHA.
Figure 3: View of the Lambert House from Maple Bruce Way
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-042-24
4.2 The Lambert House is a fine example of Tudor Revival Architecture popularized during
the first four decades of the 20th century. This two-storey solid masonry building was
built with a basement and a full attic on a steeply sloped roof in a Tudor Revival
Architectural style in 1926.
4.3 Originally a training facility for nurses at the hospital, Lambert House was re-purposed
as a health clinic and now as the home of the Hospital Foundation. The building has a
history of contributing to the hospital and the well-being of the community.
4.4 For 25 years, the Lambert House was the face of the Hospital fronting Liberty St. before
the north wing of the current hospital was built. The Lambert House has remained a
contributing component to the hospital property’s characteristics.
4.5 The Statement of Heritage Significance has been included in the HIA, providing a
summary of its design value, historical value and contextual value, and a list of heritage
attributes. The Statement of Heritage Significance will be included in the designation by-
law to define and explain the building’s cultural, historical and social values of the to the
community.
5. Consultation with Clarington Heritage Committee
5.1 The CHC is an Advisory Committee of Council established under the OHA, to advise
Council regarding heritage matters. The heritage permit for a demolition request of a
listed heritage property is subject to Council’s approval in consultation with the CHC,
according to the OHA.
5.2 The supporting materials for the demolition permit (request to relocate the Lambert
House) were circulated to the CHC for review.
5.3 At the CHC meeting on September 17, 2024, Mr. Santamaura presented the relocation
proposal and HIA to the Committee. Project managers of the hospital development
project also attended the CHC meeting and provided clarification information.
5.4 The Committee reviewed and considered the relocation proposal. The Committee
appreciated the efforts made by Lakeridge Health to conserve the Lambert House. The
Committee was pleased by the approach brought forward, allowing the building of the
new Hospital facility while the existing one still operates and, at the same time, retaining
the heritage building and minimizing the negative impacts on heritage attributes.
5.5 The Committee recommended the approval of the relocatio n of Lambert House and the
adoption of the CMP for implementation of the relocation process, restoration and
adaptive use in the future.
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PDS-042-24
5.6 The Committee also accepted the findings of the HIA and supported the
recommendation that the building be designated un der Section 29, Part IV of the OHA
following the relocation, restoration and completion of the hospital construction.
5.7 The Committee passed motion 24.38 in the CHC meeting to support the proposed
approach for the preservation of the heritage building.
24.38 That the Committee recommends Council to approve
I. The relocation of the Lambert House to a different location on
the Hospital property at 47 Liberty Street, Bowmanville as
demonstrated on the conceptual site plan;
II. The Conservation Management Plan prepared by Vincent J.
Santamaura, Architect Inc., was adopted and executed to
relocate the Lambert House and mothballing, restore the
exterior elevation, build an envelope to maintain its heritage
attributes, and building shell renovate to upgrade the building
to current building standards.
III. Designate the Lambert House under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act following the relocation and restoration, and
completion of the hospital construction.
6. Communication with Staff
6.1 Staff was involved in the early stage of the project initiation to comment on heritage
matters related to the Lambert House. The HIA and CMP were circulated to staff to
support the proposed relocation.
6.2 Staff reviewed the supporting materials and accepted the HIA evaluation that aligned
with staff and the CHC preliminary assessment on the cultural heritage significance of
the Lambert House. Staff is in support of the recommendation for the designation of the
Lambert House under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA following the relocation,
restoration and completion of the hospital construction.
6.3 Staff acknowledged that relocating the Lambert House on the property is an appropriate
approach to conserve the heritage building and facilitate the construction of the new
facility while maintaining the existing hospital operation.
6.4 Staff was made aware that the CMP provided the work plan to move the building,
including a building program, documentation plan, construction and moving plan to
ensure the relocation of the building is implemented safely and appropriately. More
details of ongoing planning will be updated as the project progresses.
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PDS-042-24
6.5 The project team has been communicating with staff on considerations and logistics for
successfully moving the building and maintaining the building, including tree removal,
road occupancy, sign or utility concerns, timing of relocation, traffic and impact on
adjacent residents. The project team will work with the Region and the Municipality to
strategically carry out the project covering all the grounds.
6.6 Staff understand that the Hospital project team will prepare communication plan to
inform and communicate with neighbouring residents and the public on the progress of
the project, including the relocation of the Lambert House. It will help to provide
sufficient notification to the public regarding the relocation project and minimize the
impact on the surrounding area.
7. Financial Considerations
7.1 Not Applicable.
8. Strategic Plan
8.1 The Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-27 outlines the objectives to cultivate a strong,
thriving, and connected community where everyone is welcome. Designation of the
subject property contributes to achieving one of the priorities (Connect 4.1) that
promotes and supports local arts, culture, and heritage sectors.
9. Climate Change
9.1 Relocation of the Lambert House and adaptive reuse of the heritage building can
contribute to combating Climate Change by reducing construction and material
consumption for building a new house, resulting in a reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. It aligns with the goal of the Corporate Climate Action Plan.
10. Concurrence
10.1 Not Applicable.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The Clarington Heritage Committee and staff are in support of the relocation of the
Lambert House on the grounds of the hospital property at 47 Liberty Street, as proposed
and shown on the concept plan.
11.2 The proposal balances the objectives of improving the hospital facility for the
community’s critical needs and the conservation of the Lambert House, a heritage
building that is valuable to the community's history.
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PDS-042-24
11.3 It is recommended that the relocation of the Lambert House to a different location on the
Hospital property at 47 Liberty Street, Bowmanville, as demonstrated on the conceptual
site plan, be approved.
11.4 It is also recommended that the Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation
Management Plan prepared by Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc., be accepted and
adopted (Attachment 1).
11.5 In particular, the following recommendations outlined in the Conservation Management
Plan be implemented, including but not limited to
i. Relocate the Lambert House and mothballing;
ii. Restore the exterior elevation;
iii. Install protective measures around the Lambert House to protect its heritage
attributes during redevelopment of the Hospital; and
iv. Renovate the building to upgrade the building to the current building
standards.
11.6 That the Lambert House be designated under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
following the relocation and restoration, and completion of the hospital construction in
accordance with the Clarington Heritage Committee’s Motion 24.38 and
recommendations from the Heritage Impact Assessment.
11.7 It is respectfully recommended that the recommendations be adopted as presented.
Staff Contact: Jane Wang, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ex. 2411 or Jwang@clarington.net;
Lisa Backus, Manager, Community Planning, 905-623-3379 ex 2413 or
lbackus@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Heritage Impact Assessment - Conservation Management Plan Lambert
House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Heritage Impact Assessment –
Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House
11 Mabel Bruce Way,
Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario
Prepared for:
Lakeridge Health Corporation
Prepared By:
Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
06 September 2024
Project No. 2024-01
Attachment 1 to PDS-042-04
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 2 of 74
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary
2.0 Introduction
1.1 Guiding Principals
1.2 Associated Documents
3.0 Present Owner Contact Information
4.0 Site Documentation
4.1 Site Inventory
4.1.1 Site Location
4.1.1 Site Identification
4.1.2 Site Survey
4.1.3 Current Applicable
Designations
4.1.4 Existing Building
4.2 Cultural Inventory
4.2.1 Chain of Title
4.2.2 Assessment Rolls Review
4.2.3 Written References
4.2.4 Mapping
4.3 Past Uses
4.3.1 11 Mable Bruce Way
4.4 Heritage Examination
4.4.1 Design/Physical
4.4.2 Associative/Historical
4.4.3 Contextual
5.0 Development Proposal
5.1 Proposal Description
5.2 Alternative Development Options
5.2.1 Preservation
5.2.2 Conservation
5.2.3 Re-location (on site)
5.2.4 Re-location (off site)
5.2.5 Demolition
5.2.6 Commemoration
5.3 Development Assessment
5.3.1. Intensification
5.3.2. Built Form
5.3.3. Site Access
5.3.4. Impact on the Streetscape
5.3.5. Building Orientation
5.3.6. Views Through the Site.
5.3.7. Architectural Treatment
6.0 Heritage Assessment – Heritage Value
6.1 Heritage Register Inventory – Listed
6.1.1 Design/Physical
6.1.2 Associative/Historical
6.1.3 Contextual
6.2 Statement of Heritage Value
6.3 List of Heritage Attributes
7.0 Conservation Principles
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Conservation Guidelines
8.0 Conservation Management Plan
8.1 Conservation Goals
8.2 Work Plan
8.2.1 Design Goals
8.2.2 Building Program
8.2.3 Documentation
8.2.4 Municipal Approvals
8.2.5 Construction Management
8.2.6 Subtrades
8.2.7 Moving Plan
8.2.8 General Review
9.0 Heritage Assessment – Conservation
Management Plan
9.1 Relationship of content with
related HIA
9.2 Implementing Good Conservation Practices
10.0 Summary Statement and
Recommendations
10.1 Impact on Heritage Value
11.0 Mandatory Recommendations
11.1 Mandatory Recommendations regarding the
Impact on Heritage Value of the Listed
Property
12.0 Report Authorship
Appendix 1: Bibliography
Appendix 2: Methodology
Appendix 3: Structural Report
Appendix 4: Qualifications of Author
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 3 of 74
1.0 Executive Summary
The property at 47 Liberty Street South is the home of the Lakeridge Health Hospital
campus in the Town of Clarington (originally known as the Bowmanville Hospital). It has
been providing health services to the community for over 100 years. The hospital is
planning to build a new facility and renovate existing facilities in order to provide the
best of care to the local community.
The building at 11 Mabel Bruce Way (formerly Lambert Street) sits on the Hospital’s
campus and has been identified as having potential heritage value. It has been listed on
the Town of Clarington’s Inventory of Heritage Properties since 2018. As such, a
Heritage Impact Assessment is required to be prepared to assess the impact of the new
hospital’s design proposal on the Heritage value of the existing building on the site.
The building on the site, known as the Lambert House, formerly known as the Nurses’
Residence, was opened in 1926 and it has been in continuous use – first as a nurses’
training facility/residence until 1941, then as a Durham Regional Health Unit office, and
currently as the offices for the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation. It has always been
associated with the Hospital on the site.
Lakeridge Health has retained Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc., CAHP to prepare
the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), and a Conservation Management Plan (CMP),
as required under the Terms of Reference of the Town of Clarington’s Heritage
Department.
Having performed an Heirtage Impact Assessment with respect to the proposed new
hospital design and its impact on the Lambert House located at 11 Mabel Bruce Way,
Clarington (Bowmanville), it is recommended that:
i) the Lambert House possesses sufficient Design and/or Physical heritage
value and Associative and/or Historical heritage value to qualify for
Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act;
ii) the Conservation Management Plan prepared by Vincent J. Santamaura,
Architect Inc. be executed which includes:
a. Phase 1: the re-location of the Lambert House elsewhere on the
Hospital property and mothballing;
b. Phase 2: the restoration of the exterior elevations and building
envelope to maintain its Heritage attributes; and
a building shell renovation to upgrade the building to current building
standards;
iii) following the re-location and restoration and completion of the hospital
construction, the Lambert House be Designated under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act;
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 4 of 74
iv) for occupancy of the Lambert House, internal tenant fit out alterations be
permitted to be undertaken under separate permits (Phase 3);
v) the proposed Conservation Management Plan will have no negative impact
on the Heritage value of the Lambert House, and
vi) this report be received and recommended for approval.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 5 of 74
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Guiding Principles
The property at 47 Liberty Street South is the home of the Lakeridge Health Hospital
campus in the Town of Clarington (originally know as the Bowmanville Hospital). It
has been providing health services to the community for over 100 years. The
hospital is planning to build a facility and renovate part of its existing facilities in
order to provide the best of care to the local community.
The building at 11 Mabel Bruce Way (formerly Lambert Street) sits on the Hospital’s
campus and has been identified as having potential heritage value. It has been listed
on the Town of Clarington’s Inventory of Heritage Properties since 2018. As such, a
Heritage Impact Assessment is required to be prepared to assess the impact of the
new hospital’s design proposal on the Heritage value of the existing building on the
site.
The building on the site, known as the Lambert House, formerly known as the
Nurses’ Residence, was opened in 1926 and it has been in continuous use – first as
a nurses’ training facility/residence until 1941, then as a Durham Regional Health
Unit office, and currently as the offices for the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation. It
has always been associated with the Hospital on the site.
Lakeridge Health has retained Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc., CAHP to
prepare the Heritage Impact Assessment, and a Conservation Management Plan, as
required. While the Hospital plays an important role in Town life, this assessment will
focus on solely on the Lambert House/Nurses’ Residence.
2.2 Associated Documents
This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been with regard to the following
governing documents:
▪ Provincial Policy Statement
▪ The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. c.18
▪ Park Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada 2nd Edition, 2010,
▪ Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Ontario Heritage Toolkit - Heritage
Property Evaluation section, 2006,
▪ Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Eight Guiding Principles in the
▪ Conservation of Built Heritage Properties 2007,
▪ The Durham Official Plan
▪ The Clarington Official Plan
▪ The Ontario Building Code 2012
▪ Heritage Impact Statement Terms of Reference, Municipality of Clarington,
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 6 of 74
3.0 Present Owner Contact Information:
Lakeridge Health Corporation
850 Champlain Avenue, Oshawa, Ontario. L1J 8R
4.0 Site Documentation
4.1 Site Inventory
4.1.1 Site Location
The Lakeridge Health Bowmanville (LHB) hospital campus comprises the
block bounded by Queen Street to the north, Liberty Street to the west,
Prince Street to the south, and detached residences which front onto
Frank Street to the east.
The LHB property was originally the estate of Hector Beith, a longtime
landowner. Named “South Park”, the estate was purchased by J.W.
Alexander, the president of the Dominion Organ and Piano Company, and
then donated to become the Hospital in 1913. The site is located centrally
in the Town, one block south of the main intersection of King and Liberty
streets.
4.1.1.A – Aerial Photograph – Site (note: tree along Queen St. frontage has been removed.)
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 7 of 74
4.1.1.B – Aerial Photograph 2 (note: tree along Queen St. frontage has been removed.)
4.1.2 Site Identification:
The parcel of land consists of an assembly of lots defined as:
Block E, Block G, Lots 40, 44 and 53 and
Part of Lots 41, 45, 54, 59, and 60 and Block G, and
Part of Prince Street, George Street and Lambert Street,
C.G. Hanning’s Plan, and
Lots 1, 2, 3, 39 and 40, and Blocks A, B, and C,
Registered M-Plan 629
Municipality of Clarington,
County of Northumberland
The lot is addressed as:
47 Liberty Street South, and 11 Mabel Bruce Way (formerly 11 Lambert
Street)
Tax Roll Number: 18 17 020 110 09901 0000
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 8 of 74
4.1.3 Site Survey
4.1.3.A – Survey
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 9 of 74
4.1.4 Current Applicable Designations:
The Legislation and Authorities Having Jurisdiction below may override
heritage concerns and recommendations included this Heritage Impact
Statement. The lot is currently designated as follows:
4.1.4.A Durham Official Plan:
Living Area
4.1.4.B Municipality of Clarington Zoning By-Law 84-63
P1- Institutional
4.1.4.C Municipality of Clarington’s Inventory of Heritage Properties:
11 Mabel Bruce Way - “Listed – Primary property”
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 10 of 74
4.1.5 Existing Building – the Lambert House/Nurses’ Residence
The building on the hospital campus at 11 Mabel Bruce Way is an
institutional building originally purposely built to act as a training facility
and residence for nurses. Designed by Architect Douglas Edwin Kertland
and built by local contractor T.E. Flaxman in 1926, it is a two storey solid
masonry building with a basement and a full attic in a steeply sloped roof.
It has approximate dimensions of 13.83m (45’-4”) x 11.10m (36’-5”) and
sits with its principal façade facing west onto Mabel Bruce Way and its
(north) end wall facing Queen Street. It is set back approximately 20.00m
(65’-0”) from Queen Street. It has a building height of approximately 7.6m
(25’-0”) to the eaves and 9.6m (31’-6”) to the peak in building height.
The building replaced the original carriage house of the estate which was
converted into the Nurses residence when the training program began in
1913. Originally, the building had a presence on Liberty Street including a
large front lawn. The building now sits behind the north wing of the “new”
hospital built in 1951, beside hospital maintenance facilities and hospital
staff and visitor parking, and screened from Liberty Street South. The
House sits approximately 101.0m (331’-0”) back from Liberty Street.
4.1.5.A – Aerial View from West (note: tree along Queen St. frontage has been removed.)
4.1.5.B - Aerial View from North (note: tree along Queen St. frontage has been removed.)
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 11 of 74
4.1.5.C – Aerial View from East (note: tree along Queen St. frontage has been removed.)
4.1.5.D – Aerial View from South (note: tree along Queen St. frontage has been removed.)
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 12 of 74
4.1.5.1 – Exteriors
The building is a Tudor Revival styled, two storey solid brick
structure with a full basement. Light wells permit light into the
basement level. The arched front door is at grade, and the entry is
set a few steps down from the main floor. A small stair rises up from
the entry to the main floor.
The plan has a principal hall running north – south on each floor. On
the main floor sit former classrooms facing the street (west) side of
the building and offices along the rear (east) side. The second floor
was devoted to bedrooms but are now offices. Stairs to the second
floor are located in the centre of the building and at the south end of
the hallways.
Vinyl windows with plastic muntin inserts have replaced the original
wooden windows, though stone sills remain. Aluminum flashing has
replaced the window surrounds. Only the stone front door surround
is remaining. Soffits are now aluminum. Asphalt shingles are the
roof material. A large chimney adorns the north façade. Masonry
detailing includes a Flemish bond masonry coursing, a soldier
course belt course, and voussoir windows headers.
4.1.5.1.A – Existing West (Front) Elevation
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 13 of 74
4.1.5.1.B – Existing South (Right) Elevation
4.1.5.1.C – Existing East (Rear) Elevation
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 14 of 74
4.1.5.1.D - Existing North (Left) Elevation
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 15 of 74
4.5.1.2 - Exterior Details
4.5.1.2.A - Doors
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 16 of 74
4.5.1.2.B - Windows
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 17 of 74
4.5.1.2.C – Masonry Detailing
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 18 of 74
4.5.1.2.D – Eaves/Soffits
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 19 of 74
4.5.1.3 - Interior Details
Portions of the interiors remain unaltered, though years of use,
maintenance and safety upgrades have altered parts of the building’s
interior appearance. The interior detailing consisting of mouldings, window
and door trim, baseboards, wood paneling, and terrazzo floors have been
largely left untouched. Other higher use areas have been re-painted and
had new flooring laid down. Electrical systems have been updated as
have the light fixtures. New Mechanical systems and fire safety hardware
have been introduced.
The basement and attic areas have been left unfinished except for
mechanical and fire safety improvements.
4.5.1.3.A – Entry Vestibule
4.1.5.3.B – Main Stairs
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 20 of 74
4.1.5.3. C– Main Board Room
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 21 of 74
4.1.5.3.D - Typical Hallway
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 22 of 74
4.1.5.3.E - Interior Trim
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 23 of 74
4.1.5.3.F - Attic
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 24 of 74
4.1.5.3.G Basement
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 25 of 74
4.1.5.3.H – Mechanical
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 26 of 74
4.1.5.3.I – Electrical
The Structure of the building is solid masonry construction with exterior
brick and block back up. Plaster, lath, gypsum board and paint finish the
interior walls. The floor assembly is wood joists with Tongue and Grove
floorboards and the roof is constructed using roof joists. The former wood
windows have been replaced with vinyl windows. Stone window surrounds
have been replaced with Aluminum flashing. The roofing has recent
asphalt shingles.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 27 of 74
4.2 Cultural Inventory
4.2.1 Chain of Title for:
Block E, Block G, Lots 40, 44 and 53 and
Part of Lots 41, 45, 54, 59, and 60 and Block G, and
Part of Prince Street, George Street and Lambert Street,
C.G. Hanning’s Plan, and
Lots 1, 2, 3, 39 and 40, and Blocks A, B, and C,
Registered M-Plan 629
Municipality of Clarington,
County of Northumberland
The enclosed lists identify the owners of the properties since the Crown
Patent:
Grantor Grantee
Patent 31 Dec 1798 The Crown Silas Sargent (200 ac.)
58 Deed 9 July 1805 Silas Sargent John Burk (100 ac.)
442 Deed 30 May 1820 John Burk Lewis (100 ac.)
460 Deed 3 Nov 1820 Lewis William Allen (100 ac.)
1922 Deed 12 Feb 1833 William Allen Jane Frank (South ½ 50
ac.)
1740 Qt. Cl. 13 Dec 1854 Jane Frank John Frank Jr. (South 120 ac.)
2170 Deed 5 Nov 1855 John Frank Jr. Norman Frair (Lots 35 & 36,
Blk F)
2218 Deed 17 Dec 1855 Norman Frair Peter Coleman (Lots 35 & 36,
Blk F)
3765 Deed 16 July 1864 Peter Coleman Thomas Coleman (Lots 35 & 36,
Blk F, Lots 48,
49 Blk F)
5549 Deed 15 Sep 1865 Thomas Coleman John McLeod (Lots 35, 36,
48, 49 Blk F)
2035 Decree 25 Feb 1860 John McLeod Hector Beith (Lots 35 & 36,
48, 49 Blk F)
5732 B & S 22 June 1909 Hector Beith John Harrison (All Blk F)
6178 Deed 6 May 1912 John Harrison John Alexander (All Blk F)
6461 Deed 28 May 1913 John Alexander The Bowmanville Hospital
14347 Grant 15 May 1952 The Bowmanville Hosp. H. Powell Chem. Co.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 28 of 74
14737 Grant 13 May 1953 H. Powell Chem. Co. Memorial Hospital
LT883904 1 Jan 1999 Memorial Hospital Lakeridge Health Corp CH Name
Owner
Definitions:
B & S = Bargain and Sale GR.= Grant of Land D = Deed of Land
MEM = Memorial Grant/Deed/Conveyance CONV.= Conveyance of Land
TRAN.= Transfer of Land
4.2.2 Assessment Rolls Review
Owing to the lengthy and singular title held by the Bowmanville Hospital,
Assessment Rolls were not reviewed.
4.2.3 Written References – The Nurses Residence/Lambert House
The Bowmanville Hospital is a central institution to the community of
Bowmanville. It plays an important role as a focus for the health of its
citizens. Much has been written over the years regarding the growth of the
hospital and the contributions to it by members of the town.
The initial committee to establish the Hospital was created in 1910. After
the purchase of the lands owned by Hector Beith (“South Park”) for the
hospital by John W. Alexander, the existing mansion on the grounds was
renovated for hospital use. John Alexander was the president of the
Dominion Organ and Piano Company located in Bowmanville whose
pianos and organs were sent around the world. The Hospital was also
known in the early days as Alexander Hospital.
4.2.3.A - J.W. Alexander 4.2.3.B - South Park Mansion, c. 1913
The Canadian Statesmen “Centennial Edition” -July 26th, 1951
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 29 of 74
4.2.3.C – Hospital Board Minutes
4.2.3.D – The Canadian Statesmen “Centennial Edition” - July 26th, 1951
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 30 of 74
The first Superintendent of the Hospital was Miss Mabel Bruce who
headed it from 1913 to 1915 at $40.00 per month. She left the Hospital to
participate in the First World War as a nursing sister. The next
Superintendent was Mrs. Florence Smyth who held the position from
September 1915 to September 1941.
4.2.3.E - Hospital Board Minutes
4.2.3.F - The Canadian Statesmen – June 26th, 1958
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 31 of 74
One of the unique features of the Bowmanville Hospital was that it ran a
training school for nurses. Mabel Bruce began the first class of nurses in
training in 1913 with its first nurses graduating in 1916. Florence Smyth
continued and grew the program. In all, 62 nurses graduated from the
program until it was closed in 1941. At least eight of the graduates
became supervisors on the Hospital staff.
4.2.3.G - The Canadian Statesmen “Centennial Edition” - July 26th, 1951
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 32 of 74
4.2.3.H - The Canadian Statesmen – June 26th, 1958
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 33 of 74
4.2.3.I - The Canadian Statesmen “Centennial Edition” - July 26th, 1951
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 34 of 74
4.2.3.J - The Canadian Statesmen - June 24th, 1958
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 35 of 74
In 1913, the Ladies’ Auxiliary renovated the old carriage house behind the
newly opened hospital to serve as a nurses’ residence. A tennis court for
the nurses was added in 1914. The hospital grew and in 1926, under
Florence Smyth, a new Nurses’ residence was built at the end of Lambert
Street on the Hospital property. On June 1st, 1926, T.E. Flaxman was
awarded the contract to build the new Nurses’ residence designed by
Architect Douglas Edwin Kertland. $5,000.00 was set aside to pay for the
Nurses’ Residence. The Official opening was on February 16th, 1927. It
was announced at the Hospital Board meeting of June 7th, 1929 that the
Residence’s mortgage was paid off.
4.2.3.K - Hospital Board Minutes
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 36 of 74
4.2.3.K - Hospital Board Minutes
With the closure of the Nurse in Training program in 1941, the Nurses’
Residence ceased operating as a residence/training facility. It kept
contributing to the Hospital’s works by becoming a clinic and is currently
the home for the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation.
As Bowmanville grew, the hospital expanded, but eventually could not
keep up with the need for space and services. After the Second World
War, monies were raised, and a new hospital was built along Liberty
Street which opened in 1951 at a cost of $400,000.00. This building was
built in front of the old Nurses’ residence. A second addition was added to
the south in the 1960’s. A third addition was added to the east in the
1970’s.
Currently, a new building program is being proposed for the site which
builds a new hospital building and incorporates part of the existing hospital
(south wing) and demolishes all other wings. The Lambert House is
proposed to be retained, but moved to the Liberty Street frontage.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 37 of 74
4.2.4 Mapping
The visual history through mapping can show the growth of
neighbourhoods over time:
4.2.4.A - Original Draft Plan for the neighbourhood - 1893
4.2.4.B - Aerial – South Park c.1915
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 38 of 74
4.2.4.C - Hospital 1954 – new hospital
4.2.4.D - Hospital 1960 – new hospital
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 39 of 74
4.2.4.E - Hospital 1971 – South Wing addition
4.2.4.F - Hospital Campus - 2019 with East Wing addition
4.2.5 Past Uses
4.2.5.1 - Institutional – Hospital
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 40 of 74
4.4 Heritage Examination
4.4.1 Design or Physical Value
(Assessment scale: poor, fair, good, excellent)
4.4.1.1. Lambert House
The Lambert House is a fair example of Tudor Revival Architecture
popularized during the first 4 decades of the 20th century.
Cladding - masonry. some deterioration at - good
Grade, Staining, mortar joints cracking and
spalling, walls lack insulation;
Windows –Not original vinyl replacements - poor
Non-original window surrounds;
Interiors – largely the original floor plan layout remains - fair
Finishes – largely altered, but certain areas retain original - fair
Finishes but painted over;
Stairs – largely original; - fair
Flooring – non-original; - poor
Structure – original, cracking due to settlement especially – fair
in stair wells; foundation deterioration at basement
level;
Roof – Non-Original, - poor
Example of Tudor Revival Architectural Style – simplified - good
architectural treatment except front entry bay
stonework;
Contribution to the neighbourhood character - good
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 41 of 74
Criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest:
Section 1.(2)1. - The property has design value or physical value because
it:
i) Is a rare, unique representation or early example of a style,
type, expression, material or construction method:
A good example of Tudor Revival Style; Yes
ii) Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit: Yes
Or
iii) Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific
achievement: No.
4.4.2 Associative or Historical Value
4.4.2.1 Lambert House
The Lambert House has a long history and connection to the Town
of Clarington (Bowmanville). The building has a proud history of
contributing to the hospital and the well-being of the community.
Originally Having been a training facility for nurses for the hospital,
Lambert House has been re-purposed to act as a Health Clinic and
now as the home for the Hospital Foundation. Dating back to the
Women’s Auxiliary, fundraising has been crucial to the success of
the Hospital.
Criteria for determining Associative or Historical heritage Value or Interest:
Section 1.(2)2. - The property has historical value or associative value
because it:
i) Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person,
activity, organization or institution that is significant
to a community: Yes
ii) yields, or has the potential to yield, information that
contributes to an understanding of a community or culture : Yes
or
iii) Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,
artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant
to the community: No
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 42 of 74
4.4.3 Contextual Value
4.4.3.1 The Lambert House
The original property for the hospital – “South Park”, the residence
of Hector Beith – was centrally located to the Town, and a perfect
location for a hospital. The Town has grown around the lands of the
hospital and the hospital property has been a neighbourhood focus
for the community.
For 25 years, the Lambert House was the face of the face of the
Hospital fronting onto Liberty St. The Lambert House has remained
a contributing component to the Hospital campus.
Section 1.(2)3.- The property has contextual value because it
i) is important in defining, maintaining or supporting Yes
the character of an area –
ii) is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked Yes
to its surroundings –
iii) Is a landmark: Yes
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 43 of 74
5.0 Development Proposal
5.1 Proposal Description:
Close to 70 years following the “New” Hospital replacing the South Park
mansion and about 50 years following the South Wing addition, the Town
of Bowmanville has doubled in population, and has amalgamated with
surrounding smaller towns to form the Municipality of Clarington.
Lakeridge Health is planning a new hospital facility to better service the
larger community and provide greater variety of medical services to it.
A phased design and construction program is being proposed to build the
new hospital using the P3 partnership method (Design and Construction)
which will allow it to continue to function during construction. A new
campus is being designed which proposes to demolish/renovate part of
the original hospital. A new main hospital building is to be added to the
campus with frontage along Queen Street on the north and access from
Prince Street to the south. A parking structure is proposed to the east of
the new hospital building covering existing surface parking. The northwest
corner of the site at Queen and Liberty is proposed to become a parkette.
The project includes the redevelopment of the Lakeridge Bowmanville
Hospital site located in Bowmanville, Ontario. The scope of work includes
the construction of a new main facility with rooftop helipad, parking
structure, connecting link to the existing East Wing, and related site
development activities. Please note that the site plan development
concept is preliminary in nature and subject to change.
Owing to its Heritage value, the Lambert House is proposed to be
retained; moved closer to Liberty Street and re-purposed for an as-yet
undetermined use. A phased conservation management plan is proposed
whereby in Phase 1, the Lambert House is to be re-located facing Liberty
Street in front of the current north wing of the Hospital. It will be
mothballed during the construction of the new hospital. Upon the
demolition of the north wing, Phase 2 proposes the Lambert House will
undergo a restoration and building shell renovation to facilitate its re-use
by a future tenant. The Lambert House will sit at the south edge of the
proposed parkette.
Owing to the nature of the P3 process, the final site plan and building form
will not be determined until a winning entry is chosen. However, the re-
location of the Lambert House is not part of the construction of the hospital
and will be moved before work begins by Lakeridge Health. The proposed
new hospital design will be reviewed and adjusted so as to reduce or
mitigate any loss in heritage value to the Lambert House.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 44 of 74
5.1.A - Conceptual Site Plan –Re-location of Lambert House (Buildings’ locations may vary)
5.1.B - Conceptual Site Plan – Hospital Construction Completion (Buildings’ locations may vary)
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 45 of 74
5.1.C - Conceptual Site Plan – Demolition of North Wing (Buildings’ locations may vary)
5.1.D - Conceptual Site Plan – Fully built (Buildings’ locations may vary)
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 46 of 74
5.1.E - Conceptual Site Plan – Parkette (Buildings’ locations may vary)
5.2 Alternative Development Options:
Upon the assessment of the Heritage value of a property, appropriate Heritage
conservation strategies consist of Conservation, Preservation, Re -location (on
site), Relocation (off site), Demolition and Commemoration:
5.2.1 Preservation
Conservation of a structure, where appropriate, owing to the excellent
Heritage value and condition of the building, proposes to keep the building
in its original condition and with minor restoration using authentic materials
and construction methods.
The building has been sufficiently altered from its original state that it has
lost some of its original built character. It is not a candidate for
Preservation.
5.2.2 Conservation
Preservation of a structure, where appropriate, owing to the good Heritage
value of the building, proposes the salvaging of the existing
building/structure, and restoring, renovating and re -using the structure.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 47 of 74
The building has been altered from its original state but retains most of its
original built character. It is a candidate for Conservation.
5.2.3 Relocation (on site)
Relocation (on site) of a structure, where appropriate , owing to the good
Heritage value of the building, proposes to move the building to a location
on site which will minimize the loss of Heritage value, but permit the
Building to be preserved, renovated and reused.
The building has been altered from its original state and has lost some of
its original built character, but is a candidate for Preservation. Given the
complexity of the proposed hospital re-development, its existing location
would greatly hinder the construction program. A re-location on site is an
excellent strategy.
5.2.4 Relocation (off site)
Relocation (off site) of a structure, where appropriate owing to the good
Heritage value of the building, proposes to move the building to a location
on site which will minimize the loss of Heritage value, but permit the
Building to be preserved, renovated and reused.
The building has been altered from its original state and has lost some of
its original built character, but is a candidate for Preservation. As the site is
quite large, re-location on-site is preferred and possible. It should not be a
candidate for re-location offsite, unless absolutely necessary.
5.2.5 Demolition
Demolition of a structure may be permitted when there is little or no
Heritage value remaining in the building and/or the building has
deteriorated to a condition where it is structurally unsafe for the public.
The building has sufficient Heritage value to qualify for designation under
the Ontario Heritage Act. Though it has lost some of its original built
character, it is not a candidate for demolition.
5.2.6 Commemoration
Commemorative strategies may be used to demarcate and commemorate
the Heritage of a property. It can assist in interpreting and educating the
community to the history of the property.
The Cultural Heritage could be commemorated in a variety of ways:
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 48 of 74
the naming of streets and public spaces with names of original
residents/events, and/or providing plaquing and interpretive exhibits which
commemorate and illustrate the heritage of the area in public areas.
5.3 Development Assessment:
5.3.1 Intensification – the re-construction of the hospital responds to the
increase in population of the community. The proposal provides a built
form which provides for today’s medical standards minimizing any
potential major impact on the streetscape or the community. The new
buildings are located away from existing neighbouring properties. The re-
location of the Lambert House to the Liberty Street frontage will restore its
exposure to the community, and move it some distance from the new
hospital facility The development patterns of the site is being respected.
5.3.2 Built Form- the history of the built forms on the site supports the
institutional built form as being appropriate. The proposal for a variety of
buildings on site echoes previous campus development pattern.
5.3.3 Site Access – the campus approach echoes older development patterns.
Multiple access points along the frontage of the streets similar to existing
conditions.
5.3.4 Impact on the Streetscape – With the demolition of the original hospital,
the Lambert House is exposed to Liberty Street. With the proposed re -
location of the Lambert House to the Liberty Street frontage at the corner
with Queen Street will greatly improve its exposure and express its history
to the hospital to which this building is connected.
5.3.5 Building Orientation- The exposure of the Lambert House to Queen Street
is proposed to increase. The demolition of the original hospital re-opens
the exposure of the front facade to Liberty Street. The moving of the
Lambert House closer to Liberty Street will increase its exposure to the
community. It will also restore – in part – the original face of the hospital to
the community that existed early in the 20th century.
5.3.6 Views through the site –The proposed new buildings’ location and parkette
allow view corridors throughout the site. With the Lambert House being
located along Liberty St, its exposure is increased.
5.3.7 Architectural Treatment – The proposed setback of the new buildings to
the Lambert House will respect the size and scale of the building.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 49 of 74
6.0 Heritage Impact Assessment – Heritage Value
6.1 Heritage Register Inventory – Listed
6.1.1 Design or Physical Value
This site has been the health focus point for the community for many
years. The Lambert House has continuously been used by the hospital.
The exterior of the building has had general maintenance repairs and
alterations over the years but is basically intact.
The demolition of the original hospital and the insertion of a new hospital
in the centre of the site allows for intensification on the site without any
negative impact on the adjoining properties.
The re-location of the Lambert House permits the location of the new
hospital in the centre of the site. It also allows for greater exposure of the
Lambert House to Liberty Street and permits increased contribution to the
streetscape. The Lambert House will continue to be used.
The Impact on the Heritage value of the Lambert House as a result of its
move will be minor as the move restores the house’s exposure to Liberty
St.
6.1.2 Associative or Historical Value
The Lambert House has played an important role in the history of the
Hospital. It remains the only link to the original South Park mansion
hospital (1913 to 1951). The Nursing-in-Training program it ran was
unique to a small hospital at that time. The people involved in the running
of the Hospital have left their presence there.
The keeping of the Lambert House will reinforce the Associative heritage
value it has to the community.
6.1.3 Contextual
The Lambert House was exposed to Liberty Street from 1926 to 1951. The
new hospital has been the blocking the view to the Lambert House from
Liberty Street to this present day.
The opportunity to restore this exposure to Liberty St., and allow the
heritage of the Lambert House to be exposed and recognized to the
community should be seized.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 50 of 74
6.2 Statement of Historical Significance
The Lambert House has been part of the Lakeridge Health Bowmanville
Hospital (formerly Bowmanville Hospital) for almost 100 years. The
building, formerly known as the Nurses’ Residence, was opened in 1926
and it has been in continuous use – first as a nurses’ training
facility/residence until 1941, then as a Durham Regional Health Unit office,
and most recently as the offices for the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation.
It has always been associated with the Hospital on the site.
The building on the hospital campus at 11 Mabel Bruce Way was originally
purposely built to act as a training facility and residence for nurses,
replacing the carriage house on the original estate which had been
converted into the nurses’ residence when the nurse training program
began in 1913.
Designed by Architect Douglas Edwin Kertland and built by local
contractor T.E. Flaxman in 1926, it is a two storey solid masonry building
with a basement and a full attic in a steeply sloped roof in a Tudor Revival
Architectural style. Until the construction of the “new” hospital in 1951, it
faced Liberty St across a generous front lawn acting as the principal
expression of the hospital to the town.
It has a solid building mass, Flemish bond masonry pattern with an
accentuating belt course, masonry voussoir window headers, stone sills,
stone surround around the front door, punched windows and a massive
chimney in the Tudor revival Style.
The Nurses’ training program was founded by Mabel Bruce, the first
hospital supervisor, in 1913, as permitted by provincial regulations to
educate and train nurses in hospital care. Many graduates remained and
worked at the hospital with a few even becoming the supervisor of the
hospital. The program ran until 1941 when provincial regulations change d
and the hospital did not qualify to run a nurses training program.
6.3 List of Heritage Attributes
The List of Physical Heirtage Attributes include:
▪ a solid building mass with punched windows,
▪ steeply pitched roof,
▪ “Ontario” sized masonry with a Flemish bond masonry pattern
with an accentuating belt course, masonry voussoir window
headers,
▪ stone sills,
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 51 of 74
▪ stone surround around the front door, and
▪ a massive chimney
typical of a Tudor revival Style.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 52 of 74
7.0 Conservation Principles
7.1 Introduction
When component of a community’s built environment has been determined to
have Heritage value to the community, its preservation becomes the key goal
to ensure it continues to contribute its history to the community. While this
resource can take various forms, it generally is embodied in an older, built
structure set in a particular location.
Bringing this resource into the 21st century requires a balance between
interventions which permit the resource to meet current safety standards and
programmatic requirements while maintaining its Heritage value through its
defined Heritage attributes.
A successful conservation program strives to find the balance of retaining the
Heritage value while permitting the resource to be adapted for modern use.
7.2 Conservation Guidelines
Achieving Conservation and Design goals involves implementing industry
accepted techniques from a variety of sources. In Canda, the currently most
recognized and respected approach to conservation of Historic places and
best practice guidance is found in “Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places In Canada”, Second Addition, Historic Places
Canada, Government of Canada, 2010.
In Ontario, conservation guidance can be found in the “Ontario Heritage
Toolkit”, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Ontario, and “Eight Guiding
Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties” , Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport, Ontario, which incorporate the above guidance.
The above documents also reference international guidelines including the
Venice Charter, 1964, The Appleton Charter, 1983, The Burra Charter, 1999,
the ICOMOS Charter, 2003 and the UNESCO Recommendation on Historic
Urban Landscape, 2011, but tailored to Canada’s unique environment.
The “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places In
Canada” guidance will be followed for this project. Section 4.3 – Guidelines
for Buildings offers the following guidance:
1 Understanding the exterior form and how it contributes to the heritage
value of the historic building.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 53 of 74
2 Understanding the design principles used by the original designer or
builder, and any changes made to the exterior form over time.
3 Documenting the building’s exterior form before undertaking an
intervention, including the form and massing, and viewscapes, sunlight
and natural ventilation patterns
4 Assessing the condition of the building’s exterior form early in the
planning process so that the scope of work is based on current
conditions.
5 Protecting and maintaining elements of the building’s exterior form
through cyclical or seasonal maintenance work.
6 Retaining the exterior form by maintaining proportions, colour and
massing, and the spatial relationships with adjacent buildings.
7 Stabilizing deteriorated elements of the exterior form by using
structural reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting unsafe
conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken.
8 Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from accidental
damage or exposure to damaging materials during maintenance or
repair work.
9 Documenting all interventions that affect the exterior form, and
ensuring that the documentation is available to those responsible for
future interventions.
10 Reinstating the exterior form by recreating missing, or revealing
obscured parts to re-establish character-defining proportions and
massing.
11 Accommodating new functions and services in non -character defining
interior spaces as an alternative to constructing a new addition.
12 Selecting a new use that suits the existing building form.
13 Selecting the location for a new addition that ensures that the heritage
value of the place is maintained.
14 Designing a new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction
between what is historic and what is new.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 54 of 74
15 Designing an addition that is compatible in terms of materials and
massing with the exterior form of the historic building and its setting.
16 Adding new features to meet health, safety or security requirements,
such as an exterior stairway or a security vestibule in a manner that
respects the exterior form and minimizes impact on heritage value.
17 Working with code specialists to determine the most appropriate
solution to health, safety and security requirements with the least
impact on the character-defining elements and overall heritage value
of the historic building.
18 Finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements that are
compatible with the exterior form of the historic building. For example,
introducing a gently sloped walkway instead of a constructed ramp
with handrails in front of an historic building.
19 Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and users to
determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility issues with the
least impact on the character-defining elements and overall heritage
value of the historic building.
The other governing document is the Ontario Building Code, 2012 which
governs life and safety, and construction of buildings in Ontario. The building
is of a size that Part 9 of the OBC applies. Compliance Alternatives to the
standards in Part 9 can be applied through Part 11. Negotiations for
compliance alternatives to retain existing Heritage attributes will be
undertaken with the Chief Building Official.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 55 of 74
8.0 Conservation Management Plan
8.1 Conservation Goals
Lakeridge Health has committed to conserve the Lambert House by:
i) not demolishing the building;
ii) moving the building to a location on site which permits its preservation;
iii) restoring as best as possible its Heritage Attributes;
iv) renovating it permitting its re-use.
8.2 Work Plan
8.2.1 Design Goals
Design Goals include:
i) renovating the building to meet current life safety and building envelope
standards;
ii) retaining the current barrier-free accessibility;
iii) making the building more energy efficient;
iv) preserve Architectural Heritage attributes identified as:
▪ a solid building mass with punched windows,
▪ steeply pitched roof,
▪ “Ontario” sized masonry with a Flemish bond masonry pattern with an
accentuating belt course, masonry voussoir window headers,
▪ stone sills,
▪ stone surround around the front door,
▪ a massive chimney,
▪ restore its exposure to Liberty St.,
▪ restore any generous lawn, as possible.
8.2.2 Building Program
The programing goal is to prepare the building for a new tenanted use. The
building program is proposed as follows:
8.2.2.1 Phase 1: Building Re-location & Mothballing –
Whereby the Lambert House will be re-located to a new location on the
property; set on a new foundation and mothballed pending work on the
new Hospital:
i) Install Site Life and Safety protections;
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 56 of 74
ii) disconnect all services (water, sanitary,
telecommunications etc.);
iii) remove building shrubbery, easterly tree, and trees along
Liberty St frontage;
iv) prepare moving route (create roadway; secure permits for
foundations, power & street closures, co-ordinate with
Hospital ambulance operations, etc.)
v) empty Lambert House of all equipment and furniture
vi) reinforce and/or brace structure, as required, for moving;
vii) excavate site for construction of transportation cradle;
viii) prepare new site for receipt of Lambert House;
ix) locate underground services and protect;
x) excavate new basement;
xi) pour new footings;
xii) move the building to the new location on site;
xiii) backfill remaining building excavation to grade;
xiv) provide new services connections – water, storm, sanitary,
electrical and telecommunications;
xv) construct new block foundation to match perimeter foundation
wall;
xvi) install internal basement steel beams and columns and pads;
xvii) install foundation drainage protection and weepers;
xviii) backfill and grade to match existing finished grade;
xix) pour concrete basement slab on crushed gravel bed;
xx) refer to construction drawings for full details and specifications;
xxi) mothball building to protect during hospital construction as per
construction drawings;
xxii) protect and secure building.
8.2.2.A –Site Plan – Building Re-location (note: not illustrative of building moving route.)
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 57 of 74
8.2.2.2 Phase 2: Restoration - Building Envelope/Shell -
Whereby a base building shell renovation is to be performed including:
i) Install Site Life and Safety protections;
ii) reinforcing the building structure as noted;
iii) install a new asphalt roof shingles;
iv) install R60 insulation;
v) assess the condition of the windows following move and install new
energy efficient vinyl windows and doors to match existing styling (2
over 8 casement-authentic muntins), as required;
vi) retain existing interior window trim;
vii) repoint windows sills;
viii) repoint existing exterior masonry walls with lime cement;
ix) re-install barrier free access;
x) remove interior lathe and plaster finish;
xi) construct new 2 x 4 wood frame wall only to permit future spray foam
insulation, drywall finish, base building services electrical and
computer wiring, mechanical distribution systems;
(walls will be left uncovered for future tenant fit out.)
(Mechanical systems will be very basic allowing for improvements
during tenant fit out)
xii) refer to construction drawings for full details and specifications
xiii) scope of work may change based on site conditions;
8.2.2.3 Phase 3: Interior Renovation/Tenant Fit Out for Occupancy -
i) Partition Plan layout to tenant space requirements
ii) Emergency Lighting and Exit signage
iii) Update fire separations as required
iv) Install/renovate washrooms and kitchenette, as required;
v) Install lighting, outlets and telecommunications
vi) Install interior finishes
vii) refer to construction drawings for full details and specifications.
8.2.3 Documentation
Given the building is being re-located to part of the property which needs
municipal servicing, grading and servicing design will be required with their
associated review and approvals by the municipality
The following documentation will be prepared to define and itemize the Phase
1, 2 and 3 Work to be performed:
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 58 of 74
- Construction Drawings by a certified Architect:
Phase 1 – Building Re-location & Mothballing:
a. Site plan/grading drawing (min. 1:200 or larger),
b. Basement Floor Plan,
c. Building Section
d. Construction Details as required
e. Construction notes/Specifications
Phase 2 – Restoration - Building Envelope/Shell:
a. Site plan
b. As-Bult Drawings of the Building,
c. Floor Plans (Basement, Ground Second, & Roof).
d. Building Elevations
e. Building Sections
f. Construction Details as required
g. Construction notes/Specifications
h. Window Schedule and Corresponding Details
Phase 3 – Interior Renovation/Tenant Fit Out for Occupancy:
a. Site plan
b. As-Bult Drawings of the Building,
c. Floor Plans (Basement, Ground Second, & Roof)
d Reflected ceiling plans, as required
f. Construction Details, as required
g. Construction notes/Specifications
- Engineering drawings as required prepared by a certified
Professional Engineer including, as required by Municipality:
Phase 1:
a. Structural (foundation), as required.
Phase 3:
a. Mechanical (tenant fit out)
b. Electrical (tenant fit out)
- Building Re-location Plan prepared by a certified
professional engineer. (Phase 1)
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 59 of 74
- Civil drawings prepared by a certified engineer for water, sewer
and storm water services and management, if required by
Municipality/Region for servicing connection permits. (Phase 1)
8.2.4 Municipal Approvals
Given the size of the building, Part 9 and Part 11 of the Ontario Building Code
will govern. Once the Construction drawings are complete, appropriate
required Municipal Approvals will be obtained to ensure compliance with local
Municipal regulations including:
a. Committee of Adjustment Application (if required),
b. TRCA Site Permit (if required),
c. Engineering Permits (as required),
d. Demolition/Foundation Permit (Phase 1),
e. Building Permit (Phase 3),
f. Heritage Permit (Phases 1 and 2).
8.2.5 Construction Management
A qualified General Contractor will be retained to manage the execution of the
Work itemized in Phases 1 and 2. The General Contractor will carry WSIB
clearance and Construction and Liability Insurance.
8.2.6 Subtrades
The success of the execution of the Phase 1 and 2 Work is reliant, in part, on
the skills of the trades retained to perform the many construction tasks
associated with the project.
Subtrades which are hired must:
▪ Have education and certification for the tasks they perform;
▪ Have a least 5 years construction experience in their field;
▪ Provide examples of similar work they have performed;
▪ Provide reference from previous clients for whom they have
▪ performed similar work.
8.2.7 Moving Plan
A Building Re-location plan will be prepared by General Contractor in
consultation with the Building mover and a certified professional engineer
which will delineate the process by which the building will be re-located
including but not limited to:
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 60 of 74
▪ Work Plan & schedule;
▪ Providing knowledgeable and skilled staff;
▪ Pre-moving structural re-enforcing & bracing;
▪ Jacking up of the building;
▪ Designing building cradle for transportation;
▪ Provide transport to move building;
▪ Securing permits for the moving of the building; traffic
management/road closures; emergency ambulance access to the
hospital; cables and power line interruptions;
▪ Identifying and preparing route for building transportation to
new location;
▪ locating building on new foundation;
▪ Stabilizing building on new foundation;
Refer to Building Re-location memorandum by Tacoma Engineers in Appendix
3.
8.2.8 General Review
Though not required under the Ontario Building Code for a Part 9 building,
General Review for compliance to the Conservation Management Plan will be
performed by a certified Heritage professional – in this case Vincent J.
Santamaura, Architect Inc., CAHP. Mr Santamaura has been involved in many
building relocation, restoration and rehabilitation projects in Vaughan, including
The Heritage Lofts on Kipling which won a Vaughan Urban Design award and
projects around the Keele and Major MacKenzie intersection in Maple.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 61 of 74
9.0 Heritage Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
9.1 Relationship of Content with related HIA
The HIA has identified the following Attributes:
▪ a solid building mass with punched windows,
▪ steeply pitched roof,
▪ “Ontario” sized masonry with a Flemish bond masonry pattern with
an accentuating belt course, masonry voussoir window headers,
▪ stone sills,
▪ stone surround around the front door, and
▪ a massive chimney
typical of a Tudor revival Style.
Given the external pressures from the scale of the new hospital, the
conservation plan conserves the building and minimizes any loss of the
building’s contact to its context with its relocation on site.
The re-location of will reinforce its presence on Liberty St.
Its greater exposure to the street via relocation will improve its roll in defining,
maintaining and supporting the hospital use and scale of the area.
The re-location of the building preserves the mass and façade characteristics
of the Tudor Revival style.
The repointing of the masonry will preserve the existing Flemish bond masonry
pattern and detailing.
The majority of the Heritage Attributes have been preserved.
The renovation and rehabilitation of the building will ensure its continued
usefulness.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 62 of 74
9.2 Implementing Good Conservation Practices
The Conservation practices proposed in the “Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places In Canada” referred to section 5.0 have been
largely implemented:
Practice CMP
1 Understanding the exterior form and Yes. Analyzed by
how it contributes to the heritage value CHIA
of the historic building.
2 Understanding the design principles used Yes. Analyzed by
by the original designer or builder, and any CHIA
changes made to the exterior form over time.
3 Documenting the building’s exterior form before Implemented
undertaking an intervention, including the form
and massing, and viewscapes, sunlight and
natural ventilation patterns
4 Assessing the condition of the building’s exterior Implemented
form early in the planning process so that the
scope of work is based on current conditions.
5 Protecting and maintaining elements of the Implemented
building’s exterior form through cyclical or
seasonal maintenance work.
6 Retaining the exterior form by maintaining Implemented
proportions, colour and massing, and the spatial
relationships with adjacent buildings.
7 Stabilizing deteriorated elements of the exterior Implemented
form by using structural reinforcement and
weather protection, or correcting unsafe conditions,
as required, until repair work is undertaken.
8 Protecting adjacent character-defining elements Implemented
from accidental damage or exposure to damaging
materials during maintenance or repair work.
9 Documenting all interventions that affect the exterior Yes CHIA
form, and ensuring that the documentation is available
to those responsible for future interventions.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 63 of 74
10 Reinstating the exterior form by recreating missing, N/A
or revealing obscured parts to re-establish character-
defining proportions and massing.
11 Accommodating new functions and services in Yes
non-character defining interior spaces as an alternative
to constructing a new addition.
12 Selecting a new use that suits the existing building form. Yes
13 Selecting the location for a new addition that ensures Yes
that the heritage value of the place is maintained.
14 Designing a new addition in a manner that draws N/A
a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new.
15 Designing an addition that is compatible in terms of N/A
materials and massing with the exterior form of the
historic building and its setting.
16 Adding new features to meet health, safety or security Yes
requirements, such as an exterior stairway or a security
vestibule in a manner that respects the exterior form and
minimizes impact on heritage value.
17 Working with code specialists to determine the most Yes
appropriate solution to health, safety and security
requirements with the least impact on the character-
defining elements and overall heritage value of the
historic building.
18 Finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements Yes
that are compatible with the exterior form of the historic
building. For example, introducing a gently sloped
walkway instead of a constructed ramp with handrails
in front of an historic building.
19 Working with accessibility and conservation specialists Yes
and users to determine the most appropriate solution
to accessibility issues with the least impact on the
character-defining elements and overall heritage value
of the historic building.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 64 of 74
10.0 Summary Statements and Recommendations
10.1 Impact on Heritage Value
Based on the analysis of the impact of the development proposal using the
criteria employed to determine Heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act,
the development proposal will have no negative impact on the building at 11
Mabel Bruce Way:
▪ The re-location of the Lambert House closer to Liberty Street will
preserve and increase the exposure of the Heritage Design/Physical
and Associative/Historical value of the building;
▪ The demolition of the original north wing of the hospital will improve
the visibility of the higher quality Heritage components of the Lambert
House, and provide generous buffer space to the house;
▪ The proposed development respects the traditional siting of buildings
in the neighbourhood and matches the existing street siting
strategies;
▪ The scale of the Architecture will be similar;
▪ the remaining and proposed buildings will observe generous
setbacks from the re-located Lambert House so as to not impose on
it;
▪ The re-location of the Lambert House permits the intensification of
the site without major impact on the adjoining properties;
▪ The proposed development continues the natural regeneration of the
urban fabric and intensification as envisioned by Provincial and
Municipal policies but respecting the past.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 65 of 74
11.0 Mandatory Recommendations:
11.1 Mandatory Recommendations regarding the Impact on the Heritage value of the
Lambert House, Listed Building at 11 Mabel Bruce Way:
It is the recommendation of this report that:
i) the Lambert House possesses sufficient Design and/or Physical
heritage value and Associative and/or Historical heritage value to qualify
for Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act;
ii) the Conservation Management Plan prepared by Vincent J.
Santamaura, Architect Inc. be executed which includes:
a. Phase 1: the re-location of the Lambert House elsewhere on the
Hospital property and mothballing;
b. Phase 2: the restoration of the exterior elevations and building
envelope to maintain its Heritage attributes; and
a building shell renovation to upgrade the building to current
building standards;
iii) following the re-location and restoration, and completion of the hospital
construction, the Lambert House be Designated under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act;
iv) for occupancy of the Lambert House, internal tenant fit out alterations
be permitted to be undertaken under separate permits (Phase 3);
v) the proposed Conservation Management Plan will have no negative
impact on the Heritage value of the Lambert House, and
vi) this report be received and recommended for approval.
12.0 Authorship
Report Prepared By:
VINCENT J. SANTAMAURA, ARCHITECT INC. Date: 06 September, 2024
Vincent J. Santamaura, B. Arch, OAA, MRAIC, CaBGC, CAHP (Building Specialist)
Principal Architect/President
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 66 of 74
Appendix 1: Bibliography
1.1 Books A, C, D, F, Lot 10, Concession No.1, Township of Bowmanville (Darlington),
Ontario Land Register, Parcel Registry, (on Microfiche), Land Registry Office # 40,
Ministry of Government Services, Province of Ontario.
1.2 Site Visits – 17 October 2018, 16 February 2024, 14th August, 2024, 23rd August,
2024, 3rd September, 2024.
1.3 Bowmanville Centennial Committee, “Bowmanville, A Retrospective”, 1958. (from
the Collection of the Clarington Museum and Archives)
1.4 Reformer Print, “Commercial and Industrial Edition of Port Hope, Bowmanville,
Orono and Newcastle, Ontario”. Oshawa, 1916 (from the Collection of the
Clarington Museum and Archives)
1.5 Bowmanville, Town Of, “Bowmanville History Project”. 1980. (from the Collection of
the Clarington Museum and Archives)
1.6 The Canadian Stateman, “Numerous Articles” Bowmanville. 1950-2000. (from the
Collection of the Clarington Museum and Archives)
1.7 Bowmanville Hospital Board, “Minute Book of Meetings”, as transcribed by Elsie
Lunney 1913-1960. Clarington Museum and Archives
1.8 Belden, H & Co. “Illustrated historical atlas of the counties of Northumberland and
Durham, Ont.” Toronto, 1878.
1.9 Historic Places Canada, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places In Canada”, Second Addition, , Government of Canada, 2010.
1.10 Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, “Ontario Heritage Toolkit”, Queen’s
Printer for Ontario, 2006.
1.11 Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, “Eight Guiding Principles in the
Conservation of Built Heritage Properties”, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport,
Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2007.
1.12 Natural Resources Canada, Earth Observation Data Management System. Aerial
Photographic Collection, National Aerial Photographic Library, Ottawa.
1.13 http://google.com/maps
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 67 of 74
Appendix 2: Methodology
The methodology used to research, analyze and assess the heritage value and interest
of the subject property was as follows:
i) Review of Terms of Reference of Heritage Impact Assessments prepared
by the Municipality;
ii) Review of Provincial Legislation and Policy Statements affecting Municipal
Growth and Heritage;
iii) Review of Regional and Municipal Official Plans with respect to Heritage;
iv) Engage in an on-site visit to document and assess the building(s) with
respect to:
Physical Architectural attributes,
Heritage components and detailing
Condition of exterior building envelope and structure,
Mechanical systems
Electrical systems
Interior design treatments;
v) Engage in historical research in collections of Local Civic Archives, Public
Library and Historical Societies;
vi) Engage in research at the Ontario Land Registry;
vii) Review and Assess Development Proposal;
viii) Prepare report.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 68 of 74
Appendix 3: Structural Report by Tacoma Engineers
11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
Structural Condition Assessment
11 Mabel Bruce Way (11 Lambert Street)
Bowmanville, Ontario
Prepared by:
176 Speedvale Avenue West
Guelph, ON
TE-44025-24
September 6, 2024
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
i
Table of Contents
List of Photographs ................................................................................................................................... ii
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Building History ..................................................................................................................................... 1
4. Scope and Methods.............................................................................................................................. 2
5. Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 2
6. General Structural Conditions .............................................................................................................. 3
6.1. Attic .............................................................................................................................................. 3
6.2. Second Floor ............................................................................................................................... 4
6.3. Ground Floor ................................................................................................................................ 5
6.4. Basement ..................................................................................................................................... 5
6.5. Exterior ......................................................................................................................................... 6
7. Relocation Feasibility.......................................................................................................................... 10
8. Summary of Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 11
9. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Appendix A: Material Condition Definitions ................................................................................................. 12
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
ii
List of Photographs
Photograph 1: Attic space (typical) ............................................................................................................... 4
Photograph 2: Exterior foundation wall (typical) ........................................................................................... 5
Photograph 3: Mortar deterioration at south elevation, east corner ............................................................. 7
Photograph 4: Poorly executed masonry repairs (typical) ............................................................................ 8
Photograph 5: Lost mortar in head joints of arch (typical) ............................................................................ 8
Photograph 6: Chimney, north elevation ....................................................................................................... 9
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
1
1. Introduction
Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Lakeridge Health (LH) to carry out a structural condition
assessment of a 2-storey plus attic masonry building located at 11 Mabel Bruce Way in Bowmanville, also
known as the Nurses Residence.
Tacoma Engineers was retained by LH on July 10th, 2024. The undersigned attended the site on July 29th,
2024, accompanied by Marina Moukhortova as a representative of LH.
This report includes a summary of the following items for the building:
· major structural systems;
· existing structural conditions and areas of potential concern;
· conceptual repair options for any areas that may require remedial work; and
· feasibility of relocation.
2. Background
LH owns the building in question, and Tacoma Engineers is being retained as a Consultant directly by the
Owner.
This assessment is being undertaken by the Owner and is intended to form part of the early preparation
related to future development of the site for a new hospital. This report is not being prepared as a response
to an Order; however, it may form part of ongoing discussions currently underway with the local
municipality.
The primary purpose of this assessment is to provide a snapshot of the existing building conditions and to
provide an initial summary of the feasibility of relocating the building to a nearby site.
This report is based on a visual inspection only and does not include any destructive testing. Where no
concerns were noted, the structure is assumed to be performing adequately. The structure is assumed to
have been constructed in accordance with best building practices common at the time of construction. No
further structural analysis or building code analysis has been carried out as part of this report unless
specifically noted.
No previous work has been completed by Tacoma Engineers on this building for this or any other owner.
No sub-consultants have been retained by Tacoma Engineers to participate in this assessment.
3. Building History
The Nurses Residence was designed by the architect Douglas Edwin Kertland, and constructed in 1926 by
contractor T.E. Flaxman. The building is a good example of a brick Tudor revival, constructed as a two-
storey masonry building plus an attic, complete with wood-framed floors and partition walls1. It measures
approximately 600 m2 in gross building area, excluding the basement.
1 Planning Services Report, Report PSD-030-18, Submitted by David Crome, Director of Planning Services,
and reviewed by Andrew C. Allison, CAO.
https://weblink.clarington.net/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=126644&dbid=0
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
2
4. Scope and Methods
The following documents were provided to the undersigned prior to the preparation of this report:
· Hand sketches of floor layouts (NTS).
The assessment of the building is based on a visual assessment from grade. Note that most the spaces in the
building have applied finishes that preclude a direct visual assessment of the structural systems. Limited
areas are unfinished, and a review of the primary structure was possible in these areas.
A site visit was carried out by Gerry Zegerius, P.Eng., on July 29th, 2024, accompanied by Marina
Moukhortova as a representative of LH. A visual review of all accessible spaces was completed on this
date, and photographs were taken of all noted deficiencies.
5. Definitions
The following is a summary of definitions of terms used in this report describing the condition of the
structure as well as recommended remedial actions. Detailed material condition definitions are included in
Appendix A of this report.
· Condition States2:
1. Excellent – Element(s) in “new” condition. No visible deterioration type defects present,
and remedial action is not required.
2. Good – Element(s) where the first signs of minor defects are visible. These types of
defects would not normally trigger remedial action since the overall performance is not
affected.
3. Fair – Element(s) where medium defects are visible. These types of defects may trigger
a “preventative maintenance” type of remedial action where it is economical to do so.
4. Poor – Element(s) where severe or very severe defects are visible. These types of defects
would normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if the extent and location affect the
overall performance of that element.
· Immediate remedial action2: these are items that present an immediate structural and/or safety
hazards (falling objects, tripping hazards, full or partial collapse, etc.). The remedial
recommendations will need to be implemented immediately and may include restricting access,
temporary shoring/supports or removing the hazard.
· Priority remedial action2: these are items that do not present an immediate hazard but still require
action in an expedited manner. The postponement of these items will likely result in the further
degradation of the structural systems and finishes. This may include interim repairs, further
investigations, etc. and are broken down into timelines as follows:
1. Short-term: it is recommended that items listed as short-term remedial action are acted on
within the next 6 months (before the onset of the next winter season).
2. Medium-term: it is recommended that items listed as medium-term remedial action are acted
on within the next 24 months.
3. Long-term: it is recommended that items listed as long-term remedial action are acted on
within the next 5-10 years. Many of these items include recommendations of further
review/investigation.
2 Adapted from “Structural Condition Assessment”, 2005, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural
Engineering Institute
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
3
· Routine maintenance2: these are items that can be performed as part of a regularly scheduled
maintenance program.
In addition to the definitions listed above, it should be noted that the building in question is listed on the
municipal heritage register as a building with Heritage Merit. The Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada provide direction when a structural system is identified as a
character-defining element of an historic place. They also provide direction on maintaining, repairing, and
replacing structural components or systems3. Refer to the General Guidelines for Preservation,
Rehabilitation, and Restoration to further inform the development of more detailed remedial actions.
6. General Structural Conditions
The building is constructed as a two-storey masonry and wood-framed structure. Exterior walls are
constructed with multi-wythe brick, several interior bearing walls are assumed to be constructed with wood-
framing, and the roof and floors are constructed with wood framing.
Due to the layout of the building, and the extent of finishes throughout, this report has been arranged by
floor, with specific attention called to rooms or areas where deficiencies were noted.
6.1. Attic
Construction
The attic floor is constructed with 2x10 wood joists spaced at 16” on centre. The sloped roof is visible in
the attic space, although the installation of drywall to the underside precludes the confirmation of the rafter
size and spacing. Wood-framed kneewalls are constructed along the length of the attic immediately above
the loadbearing lines on carrying down through the building.
3 “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”, 2nd Edition, 2010,
www.historicplaces.ca
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
4
Photograph 1: Attic space (typical)
Conditions
The attic space appears to be in good condition. There was no sign of substantial water ingress and the
stored materials in the attic are relatively light.
Recommended Actions
The following routine maintenance actions are recommended for the attic:
· Maintain roof shingle to ensure that water ingress does not begin to negatively impact the structure.
· Limit storage in the attic to light materials not exceeding a uniformly applied load of 0.5 kPa (10 psf).
If additional storage is required, an analysis of the attic framing would be required to determine the
maximum safe storage load.
6.2. Second Floor
Construction
It was not possible at the time of the review to identify the floor framing of the second floor; however, it is
likely that the floor framing is supported on the hallway walls and exterior walls. All spaces on the second
floor, including several separate offices and a central hallway, are completed with interior finishes including
drywall and laminate flooring.
Conditions
The second floor is in good condition. There are no signs of structurally significant deterioration.
Recommended Actions
There are no recommended actions for the second floor.
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
5
6.3. Ground Floor
Construction
It was not possible at the time of the review to identify the floor framing of the ground floor; fire ratings
have been applied to the underside of the floor framing. It appears that the direction of the floor joists
changes throughout the floor area to make best use of the basement loadbearing walls. All spaces on the
ground floor, including several separate offices, a central hallway, and a reception space are completed with
interior finishes including drywall and laminate flooring.
Conditions
The ground floor is in good condition. There are no signs of structurally significant deterioration.
Recommended Actions
There are no recommended actions for the ground floor.
6.4. Basement
Construction
The exterior foundation appears to be constructed with a combination of cast-in-place concrete and multi-
wythe brick. Interior loadbearing walls appear to be constructed with multi-wythe brick covered with a
parging coat. The majority of the space is unfinished, with the exception of the fire-ratings applied to the
ceiling. The basement is largely unoccupied and houses a variety of mechanical services.
Conditions
The basement is generally in good condition. Some efflorescence was noted on the exterior walls, indicating
an ongoing water ingress through the foundation walls.
Photograph 2: Exterior foundation wall (typical)
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
6
The medium concrete scaling does not appear to have compromised the structural integrity of the foundation
walls.
Recommended Actions
The following routine maintenance actions are recommended for the basement:
· Monitor the conditions of the basement and take action to limit water ingress. The site is generally
sloped away from the building, and as such a significant water ingress issue is not expected.
6.5. Exterior
Construction
The exterior of the building is constructed with multi-wythe masonry, built with a common bond varied
with a Flemish header course provided every fourth course. Window and door lintels are constructed with
rowlock arches, varying in height between two and three (2-3) courses, depending on the size of the
opening. Sills appear to be constructed with precast concrete provided with a drip edge on the underside.
Conditions
The exterior masonry is in generally good condition, with localized areas in fair condition. Medium mortar
deterioration was noted on the south elevation near the east corner.
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
7
Photograph 3: Mortar deterioration at south elevation, east corner
Poorly executed masonry repairs were noted on the east elevation at the south corner, including cut out
head joints that extend into masonry units above and below and incompatible mortar. Similar conditions
were noted on the east elevation at the north corner and on the north elevation at the upper east corner.
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
8
Photograph 4: Poorly executed masonry repairs (typical)
Medium mortar deterioration is visible at several lintels at various locations, including the loss of mortar in
some head joints.
Photograph 5: Lost mortar in head joints of arch (typical)
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
9
The tall narrow chimney on the north elevation appears to be generally in good condition with some
localized head joints deteriorated.
Photograph 6: Chimney, north elevation
Recommended Actions
The following medium-term remedial actions are recommended for the exterior:
· Carry out a comprehensive assessment of the exterior masonry and carry out repairs as required,
including localized joint cut-out and repointing, brick unit replacement (as required), and replacement
of exterior sealants where required.
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
10
7. Relocation Feasibility
Tacoma Engineers was asked to review the relocation feasibility of the Nurses Residence, with respect to
the suitability of the structural elements only. It is assumed that grading of the proposed site would be
similar to that of the existing house location for the purposes of the discussion below. It is assumed that the
wood-framed ramp on the north elevation would not be relocated.
The relocation of a building is generally carried out as follows:
· Complete the design and construction of a new foundation at the proposed location of the building’s
final site. Make accommodations (pockets, openings, etc.) to suit temporary supports such that the
structure can be set on top of the new foundation without interference of the temporary supports.
· Install temporary supports around the primary structural support locations of the building at the
lowest level in its original location, including:
o exterior walls;
o interior loadbearing walls;
o interior pad footings; and
o interior strip footings.
· Cut all connections between the house and its foundation.
· Cut all service connections to the house, including all plumbing and electrical connections.
· Remove any and all stored material from the structure, including finishes that are intended for
replacement in the new location.
· Install jacking beams to lift the house from its original foundation.
· Move the temporarily supported structure from its original location to the proposed relocation
site.
· Secure the structure to the new foundation.
· Carry out restoration and renovation work as planned, including repairs or replacement of
damaged and brittle finishes and/or other materials.
The building at 11 Mabel Bruce Way would require, at minimum, supports at the following locations:
· the exterior perimeter; and
· all interior basement walls.
It is also recommended that bracing be installed to support the masonry chimney at the north elevation.
Structures that are smaller in size and constructed of materials that can accommodate some movement are
the best candidates for relocation. While the majority of the Nurses Residence is constructed with multi-
wythe brick, the building is currently in good repair and, assuming that the distance to the new location is
relatively small, it is expected that a contractor experienced in moving buildings can successfully reinstate
the building in its new proposed location with minimal damage during the process.
The risk of damage to brittle finishes and materials that cannot accommodate movement, such as drywall
and plaster finishes and brick masonry, is increased with the increasing distance of the move. The distance
of the move should be considered in the design of temporary bracing on the structural and in discussions
with a qualified moving contractor. Finally, the recommendations for masonry repairs should be deferred
until after the building has been relocated, should this course of action be taken.
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
11
8. Summary of Recommendations
The following provides a summary of the recommendations for the existing structure.
Items requiring medium-term remedial action:
1. Carry out a comprehensive assessment of the exterior masonry and carry out repairs as required,
including localized joint cut-out and repointing, brick unit replacement (as required), and replacement
of exterior sealants where required.
Items requiring routine maintenance:
1. Maintain roof shingle to ensure that water ingress does not begin to negatively impact the structure.
2. Limit storage in the attic to light materials not exceeding a uniformly applied load of 0.5 kPa (10 psf).
If additional storage is required, an analysis of the attic framing would be required to determine the
maximum safe storage load.
3. Monitor the conditions of the basement and take action to limit water ingress. The site is generally
sloped away from the building, and as such a significant water ingress issue is not expected.
9. Conclusions
In general, the building is in good condition. Finishes on the ground and second floors are intact and do not
show signs of structurally significant deterioration. The basement and attic are essentially unfinished and
unoccupied. The exterior masonry is in good repair, with localized areas of concern that could be addressed
with relatively minor repairs and maintenance.
It is possible to move the building from its current location; however, it is recommended that the Owner
coordinate this process closely with a contractor experienced in moving structures of this size and height.
Please contact the undersigned with any further questions or comments.
Per ___________________________
Gerry Zegerius, P.Eng., CAHP
Structural Engineer, Senior Associate
Tacoma Engineers
September 6, 2024
TE-44025-24
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
12
Appendix A: Material Condition Definitions
Condition States4:
1. Excellent – Element(s) in “new” condition. No visible deterioration type defects present and remedial
action is not required.
2. Good – Element(s) where the first signs of minor defects are visible. These types of defects would not
normally trigger remedial action since the overall performance is not affected.
3. Fair – Element(s) where medium defects are visible. These types of defects may trigger a “preventative
maintenance” type of remedial action where it is economical to do so.
4. Poor – Element(s) where severe or very severe defects are visible. These types of defects would
normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if the extent and location affect the overall performance
of that element.
Steel Corrosion1:
SC1. Light – Loose rust formation and pitting in the paint surface. No noticeable section loss.
SC2. Medium – Loose rust formation with scales or flakes forming. Up to 10% section loss.
SC3. Severe – Stratified rust with pitting of metal surface. Between 10% and 20% section loss.
SC4. Very Severe – Extensive rusting with local perforation or rusting through, in excess of 20% section
loss.
Timber Checks, Splits and Shakes1:
TCh1. Light – Extend less than 5% into the member.
TCh2. Medium – Extend between 5% and 10% into the member.
TCh3. Severe – Extend between 10% and 20% into the member.
TCh4. Very Severe – Extend more than 20% into the member.
Timber Cracking, Splintering and Crushing1:
TCr1. Light – Damage is superficial with less than 5% section loss.
TCr2. Medium – Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section loss.
TCr3. Severe – Significant damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.
TCr4. Very Severe – Extensive damage with section loss in excess of 20%.
Timber Rot/Decay1:
TR1. Light – Slight change in colour. The wood sounds solid and cannot be penetrated by a sharp object.
Damage is superficial with less than 5% section loss.
TR2. Medium – Surface is discoloured with black and brown streaks. The wood sounds solid and offers
moderate resistance to penetration by sharp object. Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section
loss.
TR3. Severe – Surface is fibrous, checked or crumbly and fungal fruiting bodies are growing on it. The
wood sounds hollow when tapped and offers little resistance to penetration by sharp object.
Significant damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.
TR4. Very Severe – The surface can be crumbled and disintegrated with ease. Extensive damage with
section loss in excess of 20%.
4 Adapted from “Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM), 2000 (Rev. 2008)” by the Ministry of
Transportation Ontario (MTO)
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
13
Masonry Cracking5:
MC1. Hairline Cracks – Less than 0.1 mm wide.
MC2. Narrow Cracks – Between 0.1 and 0.3 mm wide.
MC3. Medium Cracks – Between 0.3 and 1.0 mm wide.
MC4. Wide Cracks – Greater than 1.0 mm wide.
Masonry Splitting, Spalling and Disintegration1:
MS1. Light – Hairline cracking and minor loss of stone surface with loss of section up to 50 mm.
MS2. Medium – Considerable damage with 5% to 10% Section loss.
MS3. Severe – Significant damage with 10% to 20% Section loss.
MS4. Very Severe – Extensive damage with section loss in excess of 20%.
Mortar Deterioration
MD1. Light – Mortar lost from the joints in a few places, to a depth of 10 mm.
MD2. Medium - Mortar lost from the joints in a few places, to a depth of 20 mm
MD3. Severe – Mortar lost from the joints over an extended area, to a depth between 20 and 50 mm.
MD4. Very Severe – Extensive loss of mortar resulting in the loss of a few stones.
Concrete Scaling1:
CSc1. Light - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of up to 5 mm without exposure of coarse aggregate.
CSc2. Medium - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of 6 to 10 mm with exposure of some coarse aggregates.
CSc3. Severe - Loss of surface mortar to a depth of 11 mm to 20 mm with aggregate particles standing
out from the concrete and a few completely lost.
CSc4. Very severe - Loss of surface mortar and aggregate particles to a depth greater than 20 mm.
Concrete Spalling1:
CSp1. Light - Spalled area measuring less than 150 mm in any direction or less than 25 mm in depth.
CSp2. Medium - Spalled area measuring between 150 mm to 300 mm in any direction or between 25 mm
and 50 mm in depth.
CSp3. Severe - Spalled area measuring between 300 mm to 600 mm in any direction or between 50 mm
and 100 mm in depth.
CSp4. Very Severe - Spalled area measuring more than 600 mm in any direction or greater than 100 mm
in depth.
Concrete Delamination1:
CD1. Light - Delaminated area measuring less than 150 mm in any direction.
CD2. Medium - Delaminated area measuring 150 mm to 300 mm in any direction.
CD3. Severe - Delaminated area measuring 300 mm to 600 mm in any direction.
CD4. Very Severe - Delaminated area measuring more than 600 mm in any direction.
Concrete Cracking1:
CC1. Hairline Cracks – Less than 0.1 mm wide.
CC2. Narrow Cracks – Between 0.1 and 0.3 mm wide.
CC3. Medium Cracks – Between 0.3 and 1.0 mm wide.
CC4. Wide Cracks – Greater than 1.0 mm wide.
5 Adapted from “Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM), 2000 (Rev. 2008)” by the Ministry of
Transportation Ontario (MTO)
Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment
TE-44025-24 11 Mabel Bruce Way (Nurses Residence)
September 6, 2024 Bowmanville, Ontario
14
Corrosion of Reinforcement1:
CR1. Light - Light rust stain on the concrete surface
CR2. Medium - Exposed reinforcement with uniform light rust. Loss of reinforcing steel section less than
10%
CR3. Severe - Exposed reinforcement with heavy rusting and localized pitting. Loss of reinforcing steel
section between 10% and 20%
CR4. Very severe - Exposed reinforcement with very heavy rusting and pitting. Loss of reinforcing steel
section over 20%.
Immediate remedial action6: these are items that present an immediate structural and/or safety hazards
(falling objects, tripping hazards, full or partial collapse, etc.). The remedial recommendations will need to
be implemented immediately and may include restricting access, temporary shoring/supports or removing
the hazard.
Priority remedial action1: these are items that do no present an immediate hazard but still require action
in an expedited manner. The postponement of these items will likely result in the further degradation of the
structural systems and finishes. This may include interim repairs, further investigations, etc. and are broken
down into timelines as follows:
1. Short-term: it is recommended that items listed as short-term remedial action are acted on within the
next 6 months (before the onset of the next winter season).
2. Medium-term: it is recommended that items listed as medium-term remedial action are acted on within
the next 24 months.
3. Long-term: it is recommended that items listed as long-term remedial action are acted on within the
next 5-10 years. Many of these items include recommendations of further review/investigation.
Routine maintenance1: these are items that can be performed as part of a regularly scheduled maintenance
program.
6 Adapted from “Structural Condition Assessment”, 2005, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural
Engineering Institute
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 69 of 74
Appendix 4: Biography of Author:
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL RESUME
Vincent J. Santamaura, B. Arch, MOAA, MRAIC
Overview:
Vincent has evolved his close to 30 years of experience in the Construction Industry from Vincent J.
Santamaura, Architect into a founding partner of SRN Architects Inc. A creative designer, familiar with
a variety of Building systems, and the Building and Approvals process, he applies his knowledge to
solving the building needs of his clients.
Trained and registered as an Architect, Vincent graduated from the University of Toronto. He has been active in
the Greater Toronto Area – from downtown infill housing to new communities to historic renovations, adaptive
re-use to high-rise. Vincent has worked for award winning architectural firms and has run his own practice. He
has worked for a large land developer/home builder as Staff Architect and Community Planner where he was
responsible for designing new communities, lotting modules and commercial and residential unit forms. Fully
versed in the grand picture, Vincent applies his knowledge and experience back into the urban and architectural
design fields.
Familiar with a variety of building systems, Vincent is comfortable designing in steel frame, cast-in place
concrete or wood or light gauge steel framing. His design solutions balance urban concerns, client needs, and
budget demands. Sustainability has always been an interest of Vincent’s since his university days having been
involved in passive energy design since the first oil crisis, and this has led to an interest in building envelope
systems and an exploration of the new techniques. Fundamentally, though, it is the satisfaction of the client’s
needs that drives the building design solution and the delivery of it on time and on budget.
Vincent derives a large amount of his design inspiration from our Ontario Heritage. He’s been the Chair of the
Uxbridge LACAC and has been active in the preservation efforts of the Foster Memorial and the Lucy Maud
Montgomery House, both in Leaskdale. He designed the York/Durham Heritage Railway/Go Train Station in
Stouffville, and renovations to the Goodwood Town Hall (1875) and the Uxbridge Music Hall (1901). With these
works, Vincent has developed strong interpersonal skills interacting with various communities, committees and
municipal governments. This sensitivity to the existing built (and social) environment ensures that any design
intervention will respect its neighbours.
Keenly aware of the complex issues and interests in building communities, Vincent uses his design skills, his
consensus building skills and his experience to arrive at a balanced solution to any design challenge.
Professional Memberships:
2010 to present – Member, Building Specialist, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals
1981 to present – Member, Ontario Association of Architects, Registered 1988
1983 to present – Member, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 70 of 74
Community Memberships:
Currently - Member, Heritage Whitby/LACAC, Town of Whitby
2015 to 2018 - involved in Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee to the Town of
2009 to 2012 Whitby
1993 to 1996 - Member/Chairman, Heritage Uxbridge/LACAC, Town of Uxbridge
- involved in Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee to the Town of Uxbridge
1993 to 2002 - Member, Friends of the Foster Memorial, Town of Uxbridge
- involved in the fund raising, preservation and designation efforts for the Foster Memorial in
the Town of Uxbridge
1994 to 2002 - Member, York/Durham Heritage Railway Association, Stouffville
- involved the running of the heritage railway between Stouffville and Uxbridge
1995 to 1998 - Member, Celebration of the Arts Committee, Town of Uxbridge
- involved in organizing the annual Cultural Celebration in the Town of Uxbridge
Professional Activities and Selected Projects:
Expert Witness – Heritage Matters:
Expert Witness – Heritage Matters: Ontario
Municipal Board -
Recognized as an Expert in Heritage Matters by the
Ontario Municipal Board for Testimony during
Dunbar Homes Appeal of the City of Mississauga
Refusal to Enact By-Law no. 0225-2007
Expert Witness – Heritage Matters: Ontario
Municipal Board
Recognized as an Expert in Heritage Matters by the
Ontario Municipal Board for Testimony during
Testimony for Vitmont Holding Inc Appeal of the
Town of Aurora Non-Decision on Site Plan for 15160
Yonge Street & No. 5 Tyler Street, Aurora
Expert Witness – Heritage Matters: Ontario
Municipal Board -
Recognized as an Expert in Heritage Matters by the
Ontario Municipal Board for Testimony during
Ballantry Homes Appeal of the Town of Markham
By-Law no. 2006-78
Heritage Impact Statements/Reports:
Heritage Impact Statement/Conservation Plan –
68 Daisy Street, City of Toronto (Etobicoke):
Analyzed and authored a Heritage Impact
Assessment and Conservation Strategy for the
Vincent Massey Public School on the impact of a
new cluster of townhouses proposed around it in
the City of Toronto.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 71 of 74
Cultural Heritage Impact Review Assessment/
Conservation Plan - 8161 & 8177 Kipling Avenue,
(The Thomas Wright House and the McGillivray-
Shore House) City of Vaughan:
Heritage Architect & Architect who analyzed and
authored a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment/
Conservation Plan for the re-location and
renovation of two Designated Homes and the
impact of a proposed stacked townhouse project in
the Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District, in
the City of Vaughan.
2017 Vaughan Urban Design Award winner.
Cultural Heritage Impact Review
Assessment/Conservation Plan –
The Thomas Watson House
8934 Huntington Road, City of Vaughan:
Architect/Heritage Architect who analyzed and
authored a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement and
Conservation plan for the renovation of a formerly
Designated Home as part of the proposed Arlington
Estate Banquet Hall re-development project in the
City of Vaughan.
Heritage Impact Statement – 4583, 4589 & 4601
Mississauga Road, City of Mississauga:
Analyzed and authored a Heritage Impact
Statement for the impact of a new cluster of homes
on the Credit River Cultural Landscape (Heritage
Registered Inventory) and the Mississauga Road
Scenic Route (Heritage Register Inventory) in the
City of Mississauga.
Heritage Impact Assessment - 6 Mann Street,
Clarington (Bowmanville):
Analyzed and authored a Heritage Impact
Assessment for the impact of an infill project of
three single detached homes in the Town of
Clarington (Bowmanville).
Heritage Impact Statement – 4390 Mississauga
Road, City of Mississauga:
Analyzed and authored a Heritage Impact
Statement for the impact of a proposed semi-
detached and townhouse development on the
Mississauga Road Scenic Route (Heritage Register
Inventory) in the City of Mississauga.
Heritage Impact Statement –10056 & 10068 Keele
Street
(Le Sedici Viletti) City of Vaughan:
Analyzed and authored a Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement for a proposed townhouse project in the
Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District, in the
City of Vaughan.
Heritage Impact Statement/Conservation Plan -
Stiver Tenant House-9721 Kennedy Road, City of
Markham
Heritage Architect who analyzed and authored a
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment/Conservation
Plan for the conservation, re-location, renovation,
and addition of a Designated Stiver Tenant Home
project in the Town of Markham.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 72 of 74
Restoration:
The Music Hall (1901), Uxbridge:
Architect for the renovation of the cultural centre
of the thriving artistic life of Uxbridge since 1901.
The facilities of the Historically Designated Music
Hall were updated, and the stage was restored.
Adaptive Re-Use:
11 Woodlawn Avenue, Toronto:
Project Architect for a conversion of a church
building into condominium suites. The existing
4,000 sf building shell had another 8,000 sf of
building area inserted into its envelope to create six
luxury 2-storey units.
Mixed Use Projects:
Old Brooklin-The Mews, Brooklin:
Architect for the infill and extension of downtown
Brooklin’s Heritage District’s main street with a
mixed-use project using traditional living above
retail programming and local heritage architectural
styles.
Institutional:
Go Transit Stouffville and York Durham Heritage
Railway Terminus, Stouffville:
Architect for the Heritage inspired Go Transit
Station Stouffville which also acts as a terminus
station for the York Durham Heritage Railway line
between Stouffville and Uxbridge.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 73 of 74
Commercial:
10 Richmond Street, Maple:
Architect for a commercial infill building in
Downtown Maple’s Heritage, currently approved by
the City of Vaughan Heritage Committee, the Maple
Streetscape Committee and City of Vaughan
Council.
Architectural Control Guidelines:
Spring Creek, Waterdown:
Control Architect who created Architectural Control
Guidelines which selected all components for the
accurate re-creation of Georgian, Edwardian, Queen
Anne, Arts & Crafts and Canadiana styles in this
heritage inspired residential community.
Kleinburg Estates, Vaughan (Kleinburg):
Control Architect who created Architectural Control
Guidelines which selected all components for the
accurate re-creation of Georgian, Queen Anne,
Second Empire and Victorian styles in this
residential community in the Heritage Conservation
District of Kleinburg.
Heritage Impact Assessment – Conservation Management Plan
Lambert House, 11 Mabel Bruce Way, Clarington (Bowmanville), Ontario.
06 September 2024. Project No. 2024-01
Lakeridge Health Vincent J. Santamaura, Architect Inc.
Page 74 of 74
End of Report