Goshen Public Library
Salesian School Building Report

The Board of Trustees of the Goshen Public Library & Historical Society requested that Peter R. Hoffmann, Architect review the Former Salesian Seminary School Building for use as a Library Facility.

The purpose of the investigation was to aid the Library Board in determining that adequacy of the existing structure for renovation and re-use as a Library Facility. The Architect was requested to review the existing structure and make an assessment of the structure and its components.

On July 1st, 2003, the Architect was given access to the building by John McCarey, Orange County’s Real Property Director. Mr. McCarey, several Board members and the Library Director were present for an initial walk-thru of the structure. After the walk-thru the Architect remained to review and document the existing conditions.

This report was prepared using the information readily available at the time of assessment. The assessment was based on visual inspection. No disruptive investigation techniques were used. Disruptive investigation requires the disturbance of finishes to expose underlying structural and nonstructural elements. Permission from the owner is required to do disruptive investigations. Inasmuch as many of the finishes have deteriorated from years of water penetration and/or lack of maintenance, disruptive investigation techniques were not required to expose underlying structural and nonstructural elements. Additionally disruptive investigation techniques were not applied due to the reports of asbestos containing materials found throughout the building.

Refer to “Asbestos Containing Materials Evaluation and Report on the Salesian School and Mansion” dated February 15, 1998, and prepared by Richard C. Roberts and Dolores M. Carney.

The school building was constructed in 1931. It is a three (3) story building with two (2) wings each two-stories. During the investigation the building was determined to be Type 1 construction. The construction type will be discussed elsewhere in this report. The school building has three (3) flat roof areas with parapet wall construction surrounding all of the roof areas. No mechanical equipment is located on any of the rooftops.

The exterior of the existing structure is brick and stone masonry sitting on a mortared stone foundation wall. The mortared stone foundation wall is assumed to be a veneer face on a concrete foundation. This assumption was made based on examination of the exterior walls of the basement area.

Much of the ornamental exterior stone work above the foundation line is deteriorated. Ornamental stone facings are cracked or completely missing their original facing. Open joint work around the ornamental exterior stone has allowed water penetration to enter the walls. Moisture entering the walls has subsequently frozen and thawed spalling the face of the ornamental stone.

The brick facing shows areas of open joint work also. Moisture has penetrated the open joint work. Limited areas of brick work show signs of face deterioration. Much of the brick work would require raking and re-pointing of the mortar joints assuming the exterior walls were salvagable.

The window fenestration is a combination of annealed glass and stain glass in wood sashes. The wood sashes are hung in wood frames. Many of the windows are broken out allowing rain and snow to enter the building. The wood window frames and sashes are in poor condition. Much of the woodwork is rotted along the sills and at the base of the jambs. The backup wood blocking where exposed shows signs of rotting also. None of the windows would meet the NYS Energy Code requirements.

The exterior doors and frames vary in material based on location. The doors that would be considered entrance doors are wood doors with wood frames. The finish of the wood has not been maintained in years and much of the wood has absorbed moisture. The door frames in some locations are showing the signs of rot.

There are three (3) levels of roofs. The roofs are bituminous built-up membranes which have long passed their maximum life expectancy. All roofs show multiple signs of membrane failure. These roofs have failed beyond repair. All roofs would need to be removed and replaced. The roofs were not identified as a potential asbestos containing material in the “Asbestos Containing Materials Evaluation and Report on the Salesian School and Mansion”. Additionally the report indicates that no samples were taken from any of the roof areas for testing. Prior to any removal of roofing, asbestos testing would be required per the requirements of Industrial Code Rule 56.

The interior of the building consists primarily of plaster wall and ceiling finishes with areas of ornamental wood or ornamental plaster detailing. Due to the deterioration of the plaster from years of water entering the building, many sections of plaster have fallen exposing the underlying structural and nonstructural elements.

The plaster is applied in a multi-coat application, commonly referred to as a three coat system. Plaster ceilings are applied to a metal lath which is wire tied to black iron. The black iron in turn is wired tied to the structural elements above. Plaster walls are applied to metal lath which is nailed to wood nailers (blocking) which is inset in the masonry backup.

Due to the extensive water entering the building through open windows, open joints in the masonry walls, and failure of the roof membrane and its flashings, the plaster lath and metal ties are rusted to the point where sections of plaster have fallen exposing the underlying structural and non-structural elements.

Refer to the “Asbestos Containing Materials Evaluation and Report on the Salesian School and Mansion”. This report specifically indicates that plaster was not tested for the presence of asbestos. Industrial Code Rule 56 will require the complete testing of all plaster products. The use of asbestos additives to plaster was a common practice at the time this building was constructed and in buildings of Type 1 construction. See construction classification elsewhere in this report.

The interior walls are all non-load bearing. They are constructed of clay tiles and pyro-bar blocks with a plaster veneer. The exterior walls are also non-load bearing walls. They are constructed of clay tiles, brick and pyro-bar blocks with a plaster veneer.

The structure is constructed with a structural steel frame consisting of light weight steel trusses (roof, second and third floors) bearing on steel beams supported by structural steel columns. The structural steel columns bear as point loads on piers and footings designed for the accumulation of load transmitted through the structure. The foundation walls are designed to carry the weight of the walls directly above the foundation, and do not pick up the loads transmitted from the floors and roof. The structural steel frame and its connections are extensively rusted due to years of moisture penetration of the building.

The exterior walls are tied to the structural elements (both columns and beams) at specific intervals. These ties provide the support necessary to maintain the required bracing for non-bearing exterior walls. This is a crucial consideration that will be discussed elsewhere in this report.

The flooring varies based on location. In the old gymnasium, there is a wood floor which is totally deteriorated from moisture penetration. The wood floor has heaved in some areas and dropped in other areas. Rot is present throughout this floor. The classrooms and corridors have 9 x 9 vinyl asbestos tiles. On the first floor, these tiles are assumed to be over a concrete slab, however sleeper construction was noted in both the gymnasium and the chapel.

In the basement the exposed floor structure above is cast-in-place concrete. On the second and third floors, these tiles are over a concrete slab on metal deck and bar joists as the structure can be seen from below. The chapel floor is carpeting over areas of wood flooring. The altar end of the chapel has a raised floor. The construction of the wood floor is assumed to be done with wood framing over concrete slab.

Upon examination, it was determined that the structure was designed (1931 codes) as a Type 1 (fire-resistive construction). The difference between Type 1 and Type 2 (non-combustible construction) is the minimal fire-resistance requirements of structural elements. Both construction classifications are considered Class A construction as it relates to project bonding (financing). At the time the Architect was directed to make this report, it was assumed the building was Type 2 construction. Type 2 construction was commonly used in school construction at the time this school was built. Type 2 construction is easier to modify because of its load bearing walls.

There has been a significant amount of water damage inside the building. This damage has resulted in the deterioration and in many places the complete release of the metal lath and plaster fire protection covering the structural elements. In the areas where the lath and plaster fire protection has fallen off at ceilings and walls, the building framing system is exposed to view.

It was determined that the building’s framing system is a structural steel frame. This structural steel frame entirely supports the second and third floors, and the roofs. The existing first floor is a combination of slab-on-grade construction and poured concrete structural slabs above the modest basement area. Unlike most school buildings of that era which are masonry bearing, this structure has a structural steel framing system. None of the existing building walls (both exterior and exterior) are load bearing.

The interior and exterior walls are constructed of clay tiles and pyro-bar blocks. Both clay tile and pyro-bar blocks were used extensively for their fire-resistive qualities. However, neither of these products can be used in a load bearing capacity. They are used in walls that are strictly non-bearing. The fact that this building consists of a structural steel frame is significant as it impacts the Library’s ability to renovate the structure for library use. Additionally, it should be pointed out that the structural steel where exposed is significantly rusted.

Libraries are one of the heaviest loaded building types. Their floor loading requirements are specifically identified in the New York State Construction Code.

The chart below indicates the 1931 requirement for floor loading for a school structure versus the 2003 requirements for library floor loading.

FLOOR LOADING:

1931 Construction		2003 Construction
School Design Floor Live Loads		Library Design Floor Live Loads
Classrooms 40 psf		Reading Rooms 60 psf
		Stack Areas 150 psf min.
		Corridors above 1st floor 80 psf

The effect of the increased floor loading on a structural steel frame is significant for the following reasons. In a structural steel building, loads are transferred from one structural element to another by means of properly sized connections and properly sized horizontal members (beams). In this structural steel framed building, not only do the floors have to be removed, re-engineered and reinstalled to accommodate the required library floor loads, but all beams, beam to column connections, column base plates, foundation piers and pier footings must also be re-engineered to accommodate the increased floor loading.

It is not uncommon to modestly over-design structural steel. However, in this structure, the structural steel skeleton would never have been over-designed in anticipation of the heaviest possible loads of today’s Code. In fact, the maximum loading of the original design could not be applied today with the amount of rusting evidenced on the exposed portions of the structural steel.

A building constructed in 1931 would have used A7 steel. A7 steel would have a working stress of 30 ksi and a yield stress of 18,000. Today’s steel is A36 structural steel with a greater yield strength and improved qualities for modern fabrication. ASTM A36 has supplanted the earlier and now obsolete A7 and A373 steels as the all-purpose carbon grade steel widely used in buildings. A373 steel was fabricated between A7 and the use of A36 steel. A36 steel is available in two working stresses, 36 ksi and 50 ksi, and have a yield stress of 22,000 and 30,000 respectively.

The existing A7 steel has heat rivet connections on the factory side of all connections, and bolted connections for the field connections. These connections would be undersized for the new library loading. Today’s connections are bolted with high strength A307 or A325 bolts.

It is not feasible to simply remove the existing structural steel frame and replace it with a structural steel frame designed for the proper library loads. First, the exterior walls as mentioned elsewhere are non-load bearing and are tied to the existing structural steel frame for their required bracing. If the structural steel frame was removed, the walls would be unbraced and incapable of supporting themselves without extensive shoring. Second, the existing piers and pier footings would all be undersized for the increased concentrated loads of the replacement structural steel frame. Extensive foundation modifications would be required. These modifications would additionally undermine the support of the non-load bearing exterior walls.

It was hoped that this building could be renovated for the Library’s use. Unfortunately, this is not the case. After conferring with William Squires, Structural Engineering Consultant, regarding the site observations, we concur that the existing structural steel frame would not be adequate for the increased building loads of a library.

Structural capacity of every beam, column and connection has not been analyzed. This structural analysis can not be done with the building in its current condition. To perform a thorough structural analysis, every structural member (beams, columns and connections) would have to be exposed to view so that members can be documented for size and condition. The condition is important because of the amount of rust present on the exposed structural members. To perform the analysis, it requires the Goshen Public Library to perform the asbestos abatement project to have sufficient access to analyze the existing structural steel. The preparation work (abatement) and the structural analysis would be very costly, and would only confirm that the existing structural steel frame will not accommodate the significant increase in loading when changing the building to library use. Therefore an extensive and costly structural analysis is not recommended.

It is known for sure that all of the second and third floor framing (light weight steel joists including decking and slab) will be undersized for the increase in floor loading. Therefore all second and third floor framing would have to be replaced.

Extensive structural modifications of the existing structural system are not an option. Replacement of the structural framing system is also not a viable option. Thus this building is unsuitable for conversion to a library use. As a Public Board overseeing the best use of taxpayer money, you would use the money more efficiently by constructing a new building as opposed to renovating the former Salesian Seminary School Building. There are uses that would be appropriate for the Former Salesian Seminary School Building. Unfortunately, a library is not one of them due to the loading requirements.

If this site is to be considered further, it is recommended that the existing Salesian Seminary School Building be completely demolished and removed. It will cost less to demolish the existing building and construct a new library in its place than attempting any renovations of the existing structure. The existing building for the Library’s use has no salvage value.

The asbestos report prepared in 1998, indicates an estimated cost of $490,962.00 for asbestos removal. This cost did not include the cost of plaster and roofing abatements if required. An updated asbestos removal cost is recommended. It is also recommended that the full requirements for testing as required by Industrial Code Rule 56 be applied. All plaster and roofing materials will have to be tested.

Once abated, the building could be demolished. The most efficient way to demolish this building would be with heavy equipment. The construction demolition material could be sorted for recycling. The two primary end products will be masonry and steel. Disposal of all demolition products is based on weight or tonnage.

Because the costs associated with demolition projects varies greatly based on such factors as trucking distance, availability of disposal sites, workers compensation costs, demolition costs have been solicited from an independent source. Lamela Sanitation will be providing a non-binding estimate of the structure removal cost. Their estimate will be based on all asbestos containing materials being removed in advance of demolition. Mr. Lamela indicated that should the plaster contain asbestos, the owner should consider building demolition as a complete asbestos abatement project. He indicates that plaster removal independent of the structural demolition would be a very expensive and time consuming process that would add greatly to the cost of asbestos abatement.

The demolition costs will be provided to the Goshen Public Library and Historical Society as soon as the estimate is received.

The cost of demolition and removal as well as asbestos abatement should be considered in the value of the property. Property price should be adjusted based on who is performing the abatement, demolition and disposal.