Roberson Mansion & Carriage House Condition Report – Masonry July 27, 2022.pdf

Roberson Museum and Science Center Roberson Mansion & Carriage House Condition Report - Masonry

July 27, 2022

30 Front St.

Binghamton, NY 13905

Prepared for:

Michael Grasso - Executive Director Roberson Museum and Science Center 30 Front St.

Binghamton, NY 13905

Prepared by:

Christopher Brandt and Richard N. Osgood, Jr.

Bero Architecture, PLLC 32 Winthrop Street Rochester, NY 14607

(585) 262-2035

July 27, 2022

30 Front St.

Binghamton, NY 13905 July 27, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

1 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Method

1.3 Limitations

1.4 Organization of the Report

1.5 Construction Quality

1.6 Cyclical Maintenance

1.7 Durability vs. Historic Authenticity

1.8 Building Codes

1.9 Building Changes

1.10 Historic Buildings and the Existing Building Code

1.11 Historic Preservation Projects

1.12 Buildings’ History

1.13 Building Descriptions

OBSERVATIONS

2 SITE

2.1 General

2.2 Grade at Building Perimeter

2.3 Plantings

3 MASONRY

3.1 Repointing (General)

3.2 Repairs (General)

3.3 Cleaning (General)

4 MANSION

4.1 West Elevation

4.1.1 General

4.1.2 North Section

4.1.3 West Verandah & Center Section

4.1.4 South Section

4.2 North Elevation

4.2.1 General

4.2.2 Rear Porch

4.2.3 Rear Wing

4.2.4 East Verandah

4.2.5 Main Block

4.2.6 Living Room Chimney

4.3 East Elevation

4.3.1 General

4.3.2 Rear Wing

4.3.3 Porch

4.3.4 Porch Interior

4.3.5 Main Block

4.3.6 Dining Room Chimney

30 Front St.

Binghamton, NY 13905 July 27, 2022

4.3.7 East Verandah

4.4 South Elevation

4.4.1 General

4.4.2 Main Block

4.4.3 Chimneys

4.5 Basement

4.5.1 General

4.5.2 West Foundation Wall

4.5.3 North Foundation Wall

4.5.4 East Foundation Wall

4.5.5 South Foundation Wall

5 SITE ELEMENTS AND PERIMETER FENCING

5.1 Site Elements

5.1.1 Mansion

5.1.2 Carriage House

5.2 Perimeter Fencing

5.2.1 West Property Line

5.2.2 North Property Line

6 CARRIAGE HOUSE

6.1 West Elevation

6.1.1 General

6.2 North Elevation

6.2.1 General

6.2.2 Chimneys

6.3 East Elevation

6.3.1 General

6.3.2 Stair Tower

6.4 South Elevation

6.4.1 General

6.4.2 Rear Wing

6.4.3 Stair Tower

6.4.4 Front Wing

WORKLIST

ATTACHMENTS

1. “Standards for Preservation” - National Park Service, US Department of the Interior

2. “Historic Preservation Funding” - Bero Architecture, PLLC

3. Original Drawings - Roberson Mansion, prepared by C. Edward Vosbury - 1904

a) Basement Plan, First Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan, & Attic Plan

b) Front (West) Elevation, North Elevation, Rear (East) Elevation, & South Elevation

4. Renovation Drawings - Carriage House (Roberson Education Center), prepared by Crawford & Stearns - 1996

a) Basement Plan, First Floor Plan, & Second Floor Plan

b) Front (West) Elevation, North Elevation, Rear (East) Elevation, & South Elevation

5. Building - Structure Inventory Form, Division for Historic Preservation - New York State Parks and Recreation Department

a) prepared by Richard Barons (Roberson Center for the Arts and Sciences) - September 7, 1977

30 Front St.

Binghamton, NY 13905 July 27, 2022

6. Building - Legacy Nomination Form, Division for Historic Preservation - New York State Parks and Recreation Department

a) prepared by Lucy A. Breyer (Program Assistant, Division for Historic Preservation - New York State Parks and Recreation Department) - February 28, 1979

7. “Foundation Plantings: Concerns and Cautions” - House Notes #6 - The Landmark Society of Western New York, by Ted Bartlett

8. “Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings” - Robert C. Mack, FAIA, and John P. Speweik, Preservation Brief 2, National Park Service.

9. “Summary of Cleaning Techniques” - National Park Service, US Department of the Interior

10. “Weathercap Joint Protective System” - Weathercap, Inc.

30 Front St.

Binghamton, NY 13905 July 27, 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Roberson Museum & Carriage House buildings were originally constructed with the highest-quality, longest-lasting materials available at the time for a residence of this prominence. The buildings are challenged by their geographic location within the City of Binghamton, extreme local weather conditions, their year-round use, minimal upgrades and limited maintenance over the last twenty-five plus (25+) years. The replacement building materials from various eras of repairs and upgrades are of far lesser quality than the original materials (i.e. -caulking in lieu of mortar, concrete block wall construction, EPDM roofing in lieu of multi-ply bitumen or copper roofing, etc.).

Report highlights include the following areas of notable deterioration in the buildings' masonry-related materials:

Mansion

Existing site grading retains water against the foundation, and in some areas directs it towards the building.

The stone foundation walls are generally well built but have suffered prolonged exposure to excess moisture from failed components of the stormwater disposal system.

Faulty original construction details at the water-table of the foundation have led to the failure of several dressed stone units, most notably at the majority of the basement window lintels.

Inadequate ventilation has led to the premature failure of repairs at the east verandah steps.

The brick exterior walls are sound, but widespread repointing of deteriorated mortar joints is needed.

The stone frieze of the roof entablature is in generally good condition, but many joints have been inappropriately pointed with sealant.

The condition of the mansion’s many chimneys is varied, but most suffer from inappropriate use of sealant and deteriorated mortar joints; some require significant repair or partial reconstruction.

Perimeter Fence

Several of the brick piers are in distressed condition and are leaning dangerously out of plumb.

The wrought iron fence panels are in distressed condition, with most of the panels along the west property line in need of full replacement.

Carriage House

Most of the railings along the accessible concrete walk and steps are unsecured and dangerous.

The rubble stone foundation is in generally good condition.

The brick exterior walls are in fair condition, but there are several large areas of deterioration due to prolonged exposure to excess moisture from concentration of salt-laden snow near walks, ice dams, and failed components of the stormwater disposal system.

The condition of the carriage house’s chimneys varies; all have deteriorated or open mortar joints, and one requires partial reconstruction.

30 Front St.

Binghamton, NY 13905 July 27, 2022

(this page intentionally left blank)

INTRODUCTION

1 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Purpose

This report was initiated by Michael Grasso, Executive Director, of the Roberson Museum and Science Center, and is to be used for the planning of short- and long-term maintenance issues of masonry-related materials, at the Roberson Mansion and Carriage House.

Its purpose is to document our observations on the existing conditions of the exterior systems listed above and limited interior areas of concern, propose remedies (where appropriate), and/or recommendations if further study is required. This report will identify general conditions causing & accelerating exterior problems, so a coordinated restoration project can be implemented.

As part of the report, a worklist with an “Opinion of Probable Costs” (OPC) is provided for the identified work items and is intended to provide the Owner an initial budgetary assessment of probable costs for an overall restoration project. Any work item(s) identified within the report and on the worklist deferred beyond six (6) months of issuing the report will require:

Monitoring for change affecting a work item’s condition.

Interim maintenance not discussed in this report or included in the worklist and estimates.

Re-evaluation of the scope of work and estimated costs.

1.2 Method

This report is based on observations made by Richard N. Osgood, Jr. and Christopher Brandt of Bero Architecture, PLLC, (BA) during site visits on July 12 & 13, 2021, and June 15, 2022. Observations were made from the interior basement spaces, perimeter grounds, on accessible or adjacent roofs, and with aerial drone footage. Accessible floors of interior spaces of the buildings were also utilized. The general arrangement and configuration of the structures is shown in Figures 1- 4.

The Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Preservation” - https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-preservation.htm - are used as the basis for recommendations in this report (Attachment 1).

Digital photographs were taken to document observations made on-site, with many included in the report as examples of the existing conditions.

1.3 Limitations

This report is on two overall structures on the site, the Roberson Mansion & Carriage House, as well the remaining portions of the original perimeter fencing.

The survey was visual only. No finishes or trim were removed from any parts of the buildings.

This report does not include in-depth observations or comments on any specialized systems: structural, HVAC, electrical or plumbing. We recommend those systems be evaluated by specialists who design and/or repair them. Remedial structural, HVAC, electrical and plumbing items to be repaired or replaced, and were easily observed are included for the general knowledge of the Owner.

Bero Architecture PLLC has no expertise in the identification, treatment, repair, or removal of lead-, asbestos-, or pcb-containing products; mold, mildew, fungi, or other biological dangers; or other hazardous or toxic materials.

1.4 Organization of the Report

This report is divided into the following five sections:

Executive Summary

Brief overview of the report findings.

Introduction

Information about the scope and organization of this report.

Observations

Brief descriptions of existing conditions and suggestions for maintenance, repairs, & preservation of important items. Observations are arranged by construction trade.

Worklist

Worklist of repair or upgrade items, and a three-level priority* categorization.

1. Essential [E]: Life safety and immediate stabilization within the next 1-5 years (max).

2. Preservation [P]: Work which can be deferred approximately 5-10 years (max), but required for long-term stabilization & longevity of the building.

3. Optional [O]: Optional improvements/upgrading, and future planning approximately 10+ years.

* Priorities are assigned on the basis of an item’s importance as it relates to occupancy and preservation of the property, and without knowledge of available funds.

In the text of the report, preferred repairs or recommendations are included at the end of each section paragraph (i.e. - 2.2: Improve grade…………$ 1,000 [P1]).

Attachments

Supplementary and/or technical information.

1.5 Construction Quality

Building construction varies in quality from low to high standards: residential, commercial, institutional, and museum. In today’s standard, the lowest level, residential, is also the least expensive, the least durable and the most susceptible to destruction by natural forces. The quality of your buildings is institutional- or museum-level based on their original construction. For future work, we urge you to consider the highest quality level possible for construction and repairs as they are significant and highly valued historic buildings to the City of Binghamton.

For an organization that will continue to own these buildings for a long period, replacing sound original materials with short-lived modern materials is almost always a bad idea (i.e. - the use of temporary materials like EPDM-roofing, aluminum flashing and pressure-treated wood is more expensive over the long term than more durable materials from the onset).

Highly-skilled and appropriately-trained tradesmen are important members of a preservation team, and we are fortunate to have many such craftspeople in your region. We recommend you seek them out to do any work you require on these buildings. Historic materials are easily and irreversibly damaged by the use of inappropriate repair techniques and materials by tradesmen who claim to have worked on “old, historic” buildings, but are not truly familiar with proper treatments and repair of historic materials.

Recommendations in this report are for long-term repairs and preservation of the buildings.

1.6 Cyclical Maintenance

Routine and unglamorous cyclical maintenance is what helps to preserve valuable buildings with the least amount of damage to historic fabric. It is highly recommended to set up an ongoing cyclical maintenance program so routine work can be budgeted annually and recognized as an ongoing expense. We suggest the maintenance program include work for each season, as well as tasks, such as roofing and boiler inspection, which have multi-year cycles. These lists, if used properly, will grow and evolve over time to reflect actual experience with the building and the skills of an ever-changing staff.

1.7 Durability vs. Historic Authenticity

Choices often must be made between the most cost-effective solutions to a problem versus the most authentic solutions. Each decision must be approached on its own merits but it is important to state our bias so this report can be properly interpreted. Because funds for preservation are limited and the needs are great, we sometimes recommend what we believe to be the most cost-effective solution to a problem, rather than the most authentic.

The position taken in this report is money should be spent carefully, occasionally at the expense of authenticity, particularly when the repair is obscured or concealed from view.

1.8 Building Codes

New York State has adopted a family of codes which regulate the operation and construction of buildings; the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (Uniform Code) and State Energy Conservation Construction Code (Energy Code).

As of May 12, 2020, the 2018 edition of the International Building Code (IBC) is recognized as the derivative base code for New York State. New York State has written clarifications and amendments to the base code to create the current Uniform and Energy Codes.

The Uniform Code incorporates the following publications by reference:

2020 Building Code of New York State 2020 Residential Code of New York State 2020 Existing Building Code of New York State 2020 Fire Code of New York State 2020 Plumbing Code of New York State 2020 Mechanical Code of New York State 2020 Fuel Gas Code of New York State 2020 Property Maintenance Code of New York State ICC A117.1-2009 Standard and Commentary - Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities

The Energy Code incorporates the following publications by reference:

2020 Energy Conservation Code of New York State 2016 ASHRAE 90.1 (as amended)

This report does not include a comprehensive survey of these codes (this is a major task beyond the scope of this report), but if clearly obvious violations were observed we have attempted to point them out and, in some cases, to cite the applicable code.

1.9 Building Changes

Specific codes listed above and are pertinent to additions and alterations to an existing building(s) include:

2020 Building Code of New York State 2020 Existing Building Code of New York State 2020 Energy Conservation Code of New York State

The Building Code is the code usually referenced by building professionals. It is primarily applicable to new buildings, but if the use of an existing building is changed, then the Building Code applies as if it were a new building.

The Existing Building Code, contrary to its name, does not apply to existing buildings, but strictly to the “…repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition and relocation of existing buildings.”

The Building Code, Existing Building Code, and the Energy Conservation Code are usually triggered only by change(s); absent changes, there is rarely an obligation to alter your building to comply. If changes are minor, then only the changes need to comply with these Codes. If changes are major, then the entire building may be required to comply with these Codes.

As your buildings stand today, they are not required to comply with most provisions of the current Building, Existing Building, or the Energy Conservation Construction Codes. Nevertheless, these codes are good standards to use as targets for improvements.

For all future work, including electrical items, we recommend referencing this family of codes to help ensure the building(s) are safe and secure.

1.10 Historic Buildings and the Existing Building Code

In New York State, historic buildings are defined by the Existing Building Code as “Any building or structure that is one or more of the following: 1.) Listed, or certified as eligible for listing, by the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, in the National Register of Historic Places; 2.)

Designated as historic under an applicable state or local or state law; 3.) Certified as a contributing resource within a National Register, state designated or locally designated historic district.”1

In many circumstances certain onerous Code requirements can be waived for historic buildings by local authorities. When planning for any change requiring a building permit, you should investigate the potential advantages of being an historic building by reviewing the New York State Codes and meeting with the local Code Enforcement Officer.

1.11 Historic Preservation Projects

The overall community has an interest in the preservation of an historic building(s) and so funding can sometimes be obtained from public or not-for-profit sources. Attachment 2 contains information about donors and organizations interested in historic buildings, though they are typically only open to not-for-profits or municipalities. Each of these organizations has eligibility criteria which may or may not be similar to the Code

1 Section 202 of the 2015 International Existing Building Code, in effect October 3, 2016.

definition, but most will at least require the building(s) or property be eligible for listing on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places.

1.12 Buildings’ History

The exact date is unknown, but prior to 1904, Alonzo Roberson, Jr., and his wife, Margaret Hays, purchased an approximately two-acre lot on Front Street. At the time, Front Street & Riverside Drive was the rapidly growing neighborhood for the wealthy and established of Binghamton society. Mr. Roberson’s lot is located with a commanding view of the confluence of the Chenango and Susquehanna Rivers.

In 1904, Mr. Roberson commissioned C. Edward Vosbury (Binghamton, NY) to design their new residence reflective of their business wealth and prominence in society in the Italian Renaissance Revival-style. The home, carriage house, and formal gardens were completed in 1909. For reference, the original 1904 drawings for the mansion (floor plans and elevations) are included as Attachment 3. No original drawings for the carriage house are known to exist; c.1996 era renovations (floor plans and elevations) are included as Attachment 4.

Alonzo Roberson passed away in 1934, and his widow continued to live in the home until her death in 1953.

Upon her death the property was converted into an educational center for the greater Binghamton and Southern Tier area per Mr. Roberson’s will, and in 1954, the Roberson Memorial Center opened to the public.

Over the ensuing years, the popularity and mission of the museum center expanded to encompass more land for parking, administrative, and gallery spaces. By the mid-1960s, the Board of Directors decided to expand the facility with a Richard Neutra-designed master plan of five buildings added to the enlarged site (1966). Only one of the Neutra buildings was completed, the Keith Martin Building (current Science Center), in 1968. The design of this building connects at the southeast corner of the mansion - forcing the loss of the original formal gardens and porte cochere, as well as other exterior and interior changes to the mansion.

The majority of the mansion’s formal rooms remain original and intact - dating to the period of the Roberson’s life in the home. The two biggest architectural changes to date have been the enclosure of the servants’ porch (c.1957), and the removal of the porte cochere (c.1966).

The carriage house has been extensively re-modeled on the interior due to a fire (25+ years ago), and then to fit various tenant buildout needs and improve accessibility.

The mansion (“Alonzo & Margaret Hayes Roberson Home”) and the carriage house (“Bartoo Gallery”) are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, having been formally included March 25, 1980, and in the New York State Register of Historic Places, on June 23, 1980. In 1984 the National Register listing was amended to include archeological resources uncovered during testing and excavations from 1981-1983. There is currently one Building - Structure Inventory Form, and one Legacy Nomination Form linked in the Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) website.

Attachment 5 is the “Building - Structure Inventory Form” prepared by Richard Barons (Roberson Center for the Arts and Sciences) - September 7, 1977.2

Attachment 6 is the “Building - Legacy Nomination Form” prepared by Lucy A. Breyer (Program Assistant, Division for Historic Preservation - New York State Parks and Recreation Department) - February 28, 1979.3

The two buildings are also part of the Roberson Museum and Science Center Building District which includes the Keith Martin Building (by Richard Neutra) and the Mason-Randall House (“Two Rivers Gallery”). As of May 26, 2 Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) website: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/ 3 Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) website: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/

2022, the Keith Martin Building (c.1968) has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register as part of the eligible Riverside Drive-Front Street Historic District.

1.13 Building Descriptions

The Roberson Mansion building is located on Front Street, just north of the intersection with Riverside Drive. The main elevation is on Front Street to the west, and the rear elevation faces the City of Binghamton and the confluence of the Chenango and Susquehanna River on a downward sloping site to the east.

The Carriage House is located behind the residence to the east, and slightly farther south on the property. The main elevation is to the west, and the rear elevation faces east.

The original property was approximately two acres, but has grown to approximately 2.92 acres in total; 270 feet wide (north-south) by 470 feet deep (east-west).

Please refer to Figures 1-4 for aerial views of the buildings on the site.

Mansion: The mansion is two and one-half stories tall, over a full-height basement level. The upper half story is a full-height space, though partially hidden on the exterior by the sloping rooflines. The ashlar limestone basement is partly exposed on the west, north and south elevations due to the raised first floor, and becomes half exposed at the east elevation because of the downward slope of the property towards the river. The southeast corner of the house, along with an extension to the east, generally contained the servants’ rooms for the Roberson family.

The servants’ porch has been modified at least two times - once in c.1957 and then again in a more recent renovation not documented.

The mansion is designed in the Italian Renaissance Revival-style. It is constructed as load bearing exterior masonry walls with Roman brick facing, limestone trim detailing around the windows, doors, wood at the eave, columns & balustrade of the verandahs, and “composition” at the main eave cornice. The building has a series of hip roofs with five brick chimneys, and seven round arched dormers. The main roofs of the mansion are covered in barrel tiles made of glazed terra cotta, however there are small areas of EPDM membrane roofing at the connection to the 1968 addition, on the roof of the former servant’s porch, on the exterior roofs/floors of the 2nd floor and attic floor balconies.

Please refer to Figures 5-8 for elevation views of the building on the site.

Carriage House: The carriage house is a t-shaped building, with a two-story main section (closest to the mansion), with a modern two-story stair tower addition at the southeast corner, and a one and one-half stories tall rear section. Both original sections are constructed over a full-height basement constructed out of rubble stone partly exposed on the north elevations due to the raised first floor, and then fully exposed at the east elevation because of the downward slope of the property. The south elevation of the rear section has very little exposed basement wall because of the handicap ramp and stair tower addition (c. unknown).

The carriage house is designed in the Colonial Revival-style. It is constructed as load bearing exterior masonry walls with common brick facing, stone and wood trim detailing around the windows and doors, and with a wood eave cornice. The two portions of the building are covered hip roofs with two cupolas (one per block), three brick chimneys (two are original), one original dormer (east elevation), and one dormer (c.1996) on the north elevation. The original main and rear portions of the building are roofed in modern asphalt shingles; the c.1996-era dormer and stair tower addition are roofed in EPDM membrane roofing. The main section roof has a replacement cupola and is presumably a close match for the original. It is wood framed, with wood siding and trim, and topped by a copper roof. The rear section has its original copper cupola. The modern dormer and stair tower addition completed with membrane roofing.

Please refer to Figures 9-12 for elevation views of the building on the site.

Figure 1 - Roberson Museum & Carriage House, aerial view from west

(screengrab image from - https://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-area-calculator-tool.htm#)

Figure 2 - Roberson Museum & Carriage House, aerial view from south

Figure 3 - Roberson Museum & Carriage House, aerial view from west

Figure 4 - Roberson Museum & Carriage House, aerial view from north

Figure 5 - Roberson Mansion, west elevation

Figure 6 - Roberson Mansion, north elevation

Figure 7 - Roberson Mansion, east elevation

Figure 8 - Roberson Mansion, south elevation

Figure 9 - Carriage House, west elevation

Figure 10 - Carriage House, north elevation

Figure 11 - Carriage House, east elevation

Figure 12 - Carriage House, south elevation

OBSERVATIONS

2 SITE

2.1 General

The following existing site issues are from our previous report (March 14, 2022) at the two buildings are to give context as it pertains to the current masonry problems observed as per the focus of this report. The ability to keep the masonry as dry as possible is critical to their longevity and to ward off expensive repair work in the future. Recommendations for these repairs and improvements and an Opinion of Probable Costs are in the March 14 report.

2.2 Grade at Building Perimeter

Mansion: Although located on a sloping site, existing grade is essentially level immediately against the building across all the elevations (Figures 13 & 14). Over many years, grade slowly gets adjusted by plantings and landscaping, maintenance crews, building additions, etc.

At locations where gutters are non-existent or overflow their capacity, or a downspout is broken, a depression is formed which collects water at or near the foundation (Figures 15 & 16). Moisture against the foundation wall (particularly a stone foundation) may lead to water penetration through cracks or open masonry joints. Over time freeze-thaw cycles of the moisture will dislodged the mortar and deteriorate the masonry units. On interior wall surfaces, mold and/or mildew may form leading to air quality problems, and rot in wood or other materials.

A grade of compacted soil sloped away from the foundation at one half-inch per foot over ten feet or more should be adequate. Sometimes adding soil raises the grade high enough to affect wooden elements, basement windows, or other vulnerable exterior materials. In those instances, re-grading may require the removal of soil, creation of drainage swales, installation of stormwater drain inlets, and installation of window wells (area ways).

We recommend improving grade in all areas where it is level, and where it slopes back to the building and causes ponding. This is best accomplished with a subtle drainage swale across the south, west, and north elevations to redirect stormwater away from the building. The north elevation may be done in a manner for stormwater to naturally drain across the lot; the south elevation may require an area drain in the yard connected to the underground stormwater piping system.

In general, we recommend 6-8” of height difference from the bottom of basement window sills to grade level if possible. There are nine basement windows at the mansion with sills near grade level already (Figures 17 & 18).

We also recommend adding wells as part of the re-grading work to maximize mobilization and labor costs.

Carriage House: Generally better than the mansion, the existing grade at the carriage house slopes away from the building across all the elevations (Figures 19 & 20). The one exception is grade of the asphalt paving at the southeast corner which is generally level, if not sloping back towards the building, in the recessed area by the wooden shed (Figure 21). The concrete retaining wall from the stair tower addition on the south elevation is deteriorating from the amount of water run-off against the surface and possibly vehicular impacts.

We recommend improving the grade in this area by replacing the asphalt with a new concrete slab connected to the existing walk.

Figure 13 -Mansion, west elevation - level grade Figure 14 - Mansion, north elevation - level grade

Figure 15 -Mansion, west elevation - “dished” grade Figure 16 -Mansion, south elevation - ponding water

Figure 17 -Mansion, west elevation - sill at grade Figure 18 - Mansion, south elevation - sill at grade

Figure 19 -Carriage House, north & west elevations - grade Figure 20 – Carriage House, south elevation - grade

Figure 21 -Carriage House, southeast corner - level grade

2.3 Plantings

Plantings (either planned or overgrowth) are not recommended too close to the building or fencing for many reasons: 1.) they are usually not historically correct, 2.) they obscure the architectural details and finish materials, and 3.) they prevent the materials from drying out since they keep moisture in contact with the finish materials, encouraging organic growth and deterioration. Please refer to Attachment 7.

It is best if materials are allowed to dry out as quickly as possible after it rains or the snow melts. The drying process is expedited if there is sufficient space between decorative plantings and buildings for the sun and wind to warm and circulate air. We recommend decorative plants be located no closer than 18” from the foundation wall; this distance may have to be increased for a given location and/or condition.

Plantings should be inspected from time to time, preferably seasonally so their full growth can be understood, and conditions of the soil and the adjacent walls can be observed. Quite often we find soil becomes “dished” in the vicinity of mature foundation plantings over a period of time. This area then retains more water which can seep into the basements or foundations of buildings. Any plants which have growth shoots closer than 18” should be trimmed back (or removed or relocated) to allow better air movement across the face of the building.

Where trunks of trees, bushes or shrubs are closer than 18” to the face of the building, we recommend removing or relocating them and re-grading around your foundation to help keep your buildings dry.

We also recommend a coordinated approach of trimming and selective removals with any maintenance staff, landscaping staff, and volunteers. This should be conducted as an annual (or semi-annual) inspection of the property and grounds to see the plantings while in full bloom and their proximity to buildings and materials

Mansion: The mansion plantings are starting to encroach on the building and growing into openings, etc. The ones to monitor are across the west elevation and around the front portico, a larger tree at the northwest corner, plantings against the iron grate openings at the round bay on the north elevation, and plant beds along the north elevation. We recommend removing the tall yews on the east elevation of the Servants’ wing (Figures 22 - 27).

Carriage House: The carriage house plantings across the west elevation, and a couple of bushes at the southeast corner of the stair tower addition are prominent and have grown up very close to the building (Figures 28 & 29).

Figure 22 - Mansion, west elevation - plantings Figure 23 -Mansion, west elevation - plantings

Figure 24 - Mansion, west elevation - plantings Figure 25 -Mansion, west elevation - plantings

Figure 26 - Mansion, east elevation - plantings Figure 27 -Mansion, east elevation - plantings

Figure 28 - Carriage House, west elevation - plantings Figure 29 -Carriage House, east elevation - plantings

3 MASONRY

3.1 Repointing (General)

The repair of deteriorated masonry joints should be considered normal maintenance while replacement of the actual masonry units is not. Typically, we recommend masonry repointing be done as part of a larger project wherever possible to take advantage of consolidated soft costs.

Repointing is a tedious process, but when done well lasts many decades. Masonry units - whether stone or brick

- vary in density and porosity, and are subject to different weather exposures. Each project requires custom mortar mixes depending on these materials and exposure conditions. Repointing masonry should always be completed with mortars softer than the adjacent masonry units. Mortar joints are intended to be sacrificial; they to absorb thermal movement and transmit moisture from the masonry unit system.

The use of caulk or sealant in a joint, rather than mortar, should be carefully reviewed before acceptance. More often than not, this is an inappropriate material for a high-quality repair as: 1.) sealant can trap moisture in the masonry rather than letting it permeate out at the mortar joint, and 2.) as sealant dries out it becomes brittle (in a relatively short period of time), allowing for rain and melting snow to enter the weathered and exposed joint.

It is important that building owners hire contractors who are knowledgeable about historic masonry when repointing or making repairs. The masonry contractor should understand the type of stone or masonry unit being repaired and the appropriate mortar formulae that will be durable yet not harm the surrounding masonry (units).

Soft mortar is easy to make and is not any more expensive than Portland cement mortar.

Please refer to Attachment 8 for more information on repointing mortar joints in historic masonry buildings.

3.2 Repairs (General)

Typical repairs to brick or stone masonry include patching or replacement of units that have cracked or spalled, the resetting of masonry that has moved, or fragment and “Dutchman” repairs to broken pieces, and efflorescence and cleaning of the units. The following definitions are for typical masonry problems observed:

Spalling often occurs from moisture penetrating the masonry through “hairline” cracks and then going through a series of freeze/thaw cycles. Eventually, the material breaks apart into small pieces and/or delaminates. In the case of brick, the spalled face material is the protective layer that has been fired at a high temperature to produce the finished product. The spalling leaves the weaker, inner material of the brick exposed to the weather and accelerates its decline. With brick units that have spalled faces, we recommend replacement of the entire unit. For limestone, an epoxy repair may be considered if the spalled material has been saved; if not, the masonry piece should be cleaned of loose material and patched with an approved proprietary product by a certified installer. The color and texture of the existing masonry and mortar should be matched to the surrounding units.

In cases where too much material and/or detailing has been lost, more extensive repairs (epoxy, mechanical attachments, “Dutchman,” etc.) may be necessary.

Movement (or displacement) of masonry pieces from their original position may be caused by differential movement and stresses created between assemblies, or perhaps moisture entering through openings in joints between the pieces of the assembly. Eventually in our climate, freeze/thaw cycles slowly move the masonry as ice forms in an open joint. The masonry, if sound, should be salvaged for reinstallation. If the masonry is beyond repair, a duplicate material should be investigated and used. An assessment of hidden conditions should be undertaken to determine if any pins, reinforcing, and/or flashings are required to be installed in the assembly.

Efflorescence is a whitish, powder-like salt that forms on the surface of masonry units as water vapor is drawn out from the interior cavity of a wall system. It is generally not a major problem for the integrity of the masonry wall system, but certainly affects the aesthetics of the building. If caught early, a simple scrubbing brush and water may loosen the material and remove it from the building surface. If it has been left untreated for a while (months or years), the salts calcify and become much harder to remove, and chemical cleaners may have to be used. The recommended course of action is to test in a small area using the gentlest means possible, before moving on to chemical (acid) cleaners.

Rust jacking is a corrosion process that occurs when moisture stays in contact with ferrous material over a significant period of time. In this process, the ferrous material forms expanding layers of rust which is larger in volume than the original size of the metal. This causes large amounts of stress on the masonry, and forces the displacement and/or spalling of the pieces. The recommended repair is to remove (and salvage, if possible) enough masonry to expose the steel lintel so that loose rust, etc. can be wire-brushed off removed, a rust-inhibitive primer and paint applied to the steel, flashing installed, and the masonry be reinstalled or replaced.

3.3 Cleaning (General)

There are two primary reasons for cleaning an historic masonry building: 1.) to improve its appearance or, 2.) to remove dirt, stains, coatings, efflorescence (salts), and pollutants that may be causing damage to the masonry.

Before starting on any cleaning program, the most important factor to consider is the building’s existing patina -the color and surface texture, or appearance only time and weathering can create. If the patina does not contribute to, or conceal any deterioration, then careful consideration should be given to its preservation.

Determining if the patina is harmful to a building depends on the type of masonry, the extent of soiling, and how much the soiling conceals damage to the masonry and/or mortar joints.

We generally do not recommend cleaning as part of most projects due to its potential negative impacts to the historic material and underlying building systems. If soiling and discoloration becomes an issue by causing increased deterioration of the historic material or their underlying building systems, then we recommend a cleaning project be carried out under the supervision and guidance of a preservation architect or conservation specialist, and the method specified should utilize the gentlest means possible to achieve the desired result.

Please refer to Attachment 9 for more information on cleaning historic masonry.

4 MANSION

General: The exterior walls of the Roberson Mansion are a multi-wythe solid masonry assembly with reddish-brown roman face brick laid in a running bond articulated with finely cut and carved limestone water-table, corner quoins, casings, belt course, and entablature frieze. The exterior walls are set upon a rubble stone foundation faced with finely dressed ashlar bluestone blocks. Despite their age, severe weather exposure, and deferred maintenance, these materials have endured due to their original high quality and expert craftsmanship.

Stone Foundation Walls: The bluestone ashlar stone units in generally good condition, but the facing is in poor to fair condition depending on location (Figure 30). The condition of the existing mortar joints varies greatly, with many areas requiring repointing on all elevations. The existing mortar joints appear to be mostly original to the date of construction and are pointed with an appropriate soft, likely lime-based mortar. This type of mortar has prevented more widespread damage from occurring by allowing the stone walls to breathe and dry out after exposure to water. Mortar should be the softer, sacrificial, component of the overall masonry wall system. If a hard, Portland cement-based mortar had been used to replace the original mortar, then it would have diminished the walls’ breathability and caused more spalling and damage to the masonry units. We recommend all deteriorated joints in the foundation be raked out and repointed with a soft finely grained Type O or N mortar (Attachment 8).

The section profile of the foundation wall includes two inset ledges between the top of the bluestone and limestone water-table and the limestone water-table and the brick walls (Figure 31). Neither of these exposed horizontal surfaces is sloped to shed water, nor is there any integrated flashings to direct water seeping out of or running down the face of the brick walls away from these surfaces. This inappropriate detail has led to many edges of the softer bluestone to spall off. We recommend installing a continuous lead joint tee at top edge of the bluestone to mitigate further damage (Attachment 10).

Figure 30 – Typical ashlar bluestone foundation. Note dark areas where moisture is exiting the wall. Exfoliation of stone is typical at highly weathered areas.

Figure 31 – Typical stepped profile of foundation. Joint to receive lead tee shown in red. Note spalled bluestone.

Basement Window Lintels: The limestone basement window lintels (which are aligned with the limestone water-table) have an insufficient bearing dimension at the jambs and/or are incorrectly sized to span the openings (Figures 32 & 33). This has led to the majority of the lintels cracking, some in more than one location. We recommend most of the lintels be repaired with epoxy and sistered with a stainless-steel angle spanning the opening, and others be replaced in kind and with a similar stainless-steel angle to prevent future failure.

Figure 32 - Typical basement window.

Figure 33 - Closeup of typical cracked lintel

Brick Walls: The roman brick facing of the walls is in fair to good condition. The condition of the mortar joints varies greatly, with some areas requiring repointing on all elevations. The existing mortar joints are a mix of the original, lime-based mortar and limited areas of newer mortar from past repointing efforts - some using inappropriate hard Portland-cement based mortar (Figure 34). We recommend all deteriorated joints and joints pointed with hard Portland cement-based mortar at the brick be raked out and repointed with a finely grained Type O or N mortar (Attachment 8).

Although small as a percentage of the overall wall area, there are many cracked and spalled brick units throughout the building due to weathering, inappropriate mortar, and settlement (Figure 35). We recommend all cracked and spalled brick units be replaced in kind with new brick carefully matched to the original in dimension, color, texture, and physical strength.

Figure 34 - Typical brick wall with deteriorated original joints and newer repointing work with poorly matched mortar.

Figure 35 - Spalled brick units

Limestone Trim: The limestone corner quoins, window and door casings, sills, and belt course are in good condition. The condition of the mortar joints at these components varies, with a portion of the joints requiring repointing at all elevations (window casings requiring the most attention - Figure 36). The existing mortar joints appear to be original to the date of construction and are pointed with an appropriate soft, lime-based mortar.

We recommend all deteriorated joints be raked out and repointed with a finely grained Type O or N mortar (Attachment 8).

The head of the limestone window and door casings on all elevations of the Main Block, especially where they are articulated as hoods with a projected cornice, are prone to permitting water into the masonry wall assembly (Figure 37). We recommend lead joint tees be installed at all casing head joints. (Attachment 10).

Figure 36 - Open and deteriorated joint at casing, typical.

Figure 37 - Typical window hood without provision for flashing

Abandoned Fasteners and Insect Nests: There are a variety of abandoned fasteners and active or dormant mud-wasp nests attached to the brick and stone masonry of the walls (Figures 38 & 39). We recommend carefully removing the fasteners and wasp nests, and then pointing the holes with mortar to match the joints.

Figure 38 - Typical abandoned fasteners.

Figure 39 - Typical mud wasp nests at stone trim.

Limestone Entablature Frieze: The limestone frieze of the roof entablature is generally in good condition. The condition of the mortar joints varies, with some of the joints filled with sealant or caulk which can trap moisture leading to accelerated deterioration of the masonry (Figures 40 & 41). We recommend all deteriorated joints and joints pointed with sealant be raked out and repointed with a finely grained Type O or N mortar (Attachment 8).

Figure 40 - Limestone entablature frieze typical.

Figure 41 - Closeup of typical frieze joint with sealant.

Chimneys: The mansion’s chimneys are constructed of roman brick shafts with cut limestone entablature caps (Figures 42 & 43). Although they vary in size, their shared design and construction details present common condition issues.

The roman brick facing of the shafts is in fair to good condition. The condition of the mortar joints varies, with some proportion of the joints requiring repointing on all chimneys. We recommend all deteriorated joints be raked out and repointed with a finely grained Type O or N mortar (Attachment 8).

The limestone entablature caps are in fair to good condition. Most of the mortar joints are filled with sealant or caulk which has trapped moisture leading to accelerated deterioration of the stone on some of the caps. We recommend all stone joints be raked and repointed with a finely grained Type O or N mortar (Attachment 8).

In addition, all the existing chimney flues terminate at a punctured slab of limestone at the top of each chimney without any provisions for flashing or connection of flue caps. This has allowed water to enter the chimney assembly below. We recommend providing flat-seam copper caps with integrated flue vents at each chimney.

Figure 42 - Typical chimney

Figure 43 - Chimney crown with sealant joints and open flue.

4.1 West Elevation

4.1.1 General

The west elevation (Figure 44) is the most highly articulated of all the elevations with stone trim and decorative elements, some of which present unique repair challenges.

Common repairs and improvements for the west elevation comprise of replacing damaged brick, removing miscellaneous fasteners, and installing lead joint tees along the bluestone foundation.

• Allowance for access (75' boom lift) ..................................................................... $ 11,500 [P]

• Replace cracked and/or spalled bricks ...................................................................$ 8,100 [P]

• Remove various assorted ferrous fasteners and point holes with mortar .........................$ 1,600 [P]

• Provide lead joint tee along water-table of foundation ...............................................$ 1,700 [P]

Figure 44 - 1904 West Elevation Drawing (Note: Original Porte Cochere to right has been removed.)

4.1.2 North Section

The condition of the foundation walls along the west elevation is typical for most of the mansion, with a percentage of repointing of the existing mortar joints required. The two basement window sills (Figure 45) are significantly weathered due to exposure from excess moisture from the former sump pump discharge and misaligned downspout at this location, and/or buildup of leaf debris within the openings previously observed.

We recommend a large stone dutchman repair be provided along the exterior portion of the sills, or that the sills be replaced in their entirety.

Both lintels over the basement windows are cracked (Figure 46). The north window has remained stable, whereas the south window lintel has begun to displace vertically leading to direction cracking in the brick above.

We recommend that the lintels be repaired and replaced respectively.

Repoint 30% of stone foundation joints $ 1,300 [P] Provide large dutchman repair or replace spalled basement sills $ 14,900 [P] Repair cracked basement lintel $ 1,700 [P] Replace cracked basement lintel $ 8,400 [P]

Figure 45 - Closeup of spalled basement sill.

Figure 46 - Typical basement window. Note crack in lintel at left.

The condition of the brick walls of the west elevation is typical for most of the mansion, with a percentage of repointing of the existing mortar joints required.

The Palladian window centered on the first floor of the north section (Figure 47) has finely articulated casings, sill, pilasters, and carved lintels, and requires one of the more challenging sets of repairs. The limestone sill at the southern edge of the arched window (Figure 48), and the carved limestone lintel above the north sidelight (Figure 49) have both cracked, with the sill having a more pronounced open joint. These signs of movement carry up into the brick wall above with a stepped directional crack extending from the keystone of the arched window up to the belt course beneath the second floor (Figure 50).

For the sill, we recommend the face brick beneath it be salvaged, a stainless-steel angle…