So, this is an example of what I give away for free as speculation to get
future work. I leave it up to the consultants on BP to tell me if this is
giving away too much. One interesting aspect of this visit is that the first
thing I was told was that they intended to pay for any services and that they
enough money. Anyone else want to play in the game?

As per my visit to the church on April 2, 1998 I observed the following:

There are two potentially hazardous conditions that I recommend a structural
engineer review. We will arrange for a second visit, to bring a structural
engineer familiar with early 20th century construction to investigate the
site, and who will be able to provide a separate proposal to do design work
for safe remediation of the hazardous conditions.

The first hazardous condition is the easternmost roof support beam in the
tower, at a location approximately direct overhead of the organ. It appears
that due to water infiltration into the tower that both ends of the beam have
been water saturated. The water saturation appears to have caused decay to the
wood where the beam rests upon the masonry of the tower. At the south end of
the beam, in the upper half where the wood appears to remain in good
condition, there is a horizontal crack running for approximately five feet in
length. At the north end of the beam the decay appears to be more serious than
at the south end. The location of the beam is not easily accessible and
arrangements will be required to make safe access, with adequate lighting, for
a structural engineer to closely investigate the existing conditions. We will
provide a proposal to make the safe access with lighting.

The second hazardous condition is with the stonemasonry at the exterior north
side of the church, at the exit driveway area and to the north of the altar
area. The stonemasonry above and to the west of the arched window, where there
is no mortar in the joints, appears to be in unstable condition. I suspect
that this area of masonry will need to be removed and rebuilt. I pointed out
this condition to Monsignor **** and advised him that for the interim some
sort of barrier be placed at this location in order to discourage people from
going into this area. Further actions should be followed as directed by a
structural engineer.

At the east elevation of the church, the chimney to the north of the entrance,
the top stones appear to be dislocated. We will provide a proposal to use a
manlift to access to these stones, to investigate the existing condition of
the chimney, and to re-set the stones as feasible at the time of
investigation.

The initial reason for the visit was to investigate the cause of water
penetration into the building, particularly above the organ room. It had
rained considerably the night before and there were several large areas of
water observed on the interior of the stonemasonry (vertical surfaces) of the
tower, beneath the roof, and apparently directly related to the water running
along the wood rafters from a small flat roof above. It was noted that this
flat roof was recently re-done. Visual inspection of the roof from the top
surface, a 90 lb. gravel membrane set in cold-tar, did not reveal any obvious
problems. Observation was made of the mortar repointing on the tower stonework
exterior to the roof area. The existing pointing appeared sound. The stone is
a schist, which is not very porous. It is highly unlikely that the amount of
water observed on the interior was a result of penetration through either the
mortar or the stone. The copper flashings on the masonry turrets appeared to
be in sound condition, no pinholes were observed. We recommend a water test be
done at the location of the flat roof in order to determine the actual cause
of the water penetration. We will provide a proposal to do a water test at
this location.

At the arch above the altar area there is a sign of water penetration in the
plaster interior to the church. Directly above this location is the copper
steeple which functions as a ventilator. This steeple is located at the
junction of the roofs. Water penetration can be a result of the louvers in the
steeple, problems with the copper valley flashings, or with the tile roofing.
Access to this location is difficult as a result of having to work over the
tile roof without doing damage and the complication of details converging at
this one location. We will provide a proposal to use a manlift to investigate
at close range the conditions, in conjunction with a structural engineer, and
to perform a water test as required.
On the main tower there are buttresses at each of the four corners. The
buttress at the northeast corner is complex in design and abuts the main body
of the church. Past repointing work has cracked in the juncture of the masonry
at this location. It is possible that too hard of a repointing mortar has been
used in the past. In all buttresses there are stress cracks that should be
investigated by a structural engineer.

As I mentioned during the visit, it is our recommendation that a condition
survey be done starting with the foundation, moving to the roof, and then
encompassing the walls of the structures. We will provide a proposal to
conduct a condition survey.

There were several areas noted where access problems, including at the top of
the turret roof, inhibit proper maintenance. We recommend that a maintenance
and annual inspection program be arranged for these difficult to reach areas

Though it was not possible, from the ground, to observe any major cracking in
the exterior of the tower structure itself, if it is later determined that a
close visual inspection is required this is a service that we can arrange at
less cost than using either scaffolding or other expensive access equipment.

We discussed the air flow and cooling aspects of the church during warm
weather. It appears that the original design of the church included
accommodations for air flow using the ventilators in the tower, through
hatches above the organ room, and through the ventilator located above the
altar. This designed system appears to be dysfunctional at this time. It is
our recommendation that consideration be made for reviving this system as it
will reap more comfort at less cost than installation of an A/C system (which
could create other problems for the building), and will result in lower annual
energy costs if properly maintained. If you wish to pursue this further then
let me know.

We also looked at the original stained glass windows behind the altar. There
were two windows with broken glass. We do not recommend installation of
plastic over the exterior of these windows. Exterior plastic can cause more
harm than good. Having the mechanical aspects of these windows functioning
properly would assist in ventilation of the church. We will provide a proposal
for the rehabilitation of the works on these windows and replacement of the
broken glass. The work will be done by the stained glass conservator who
refurbished the windows at the St. **** Hospital chapel.

We were recommended by **** of St. **** Hospital as a result of our work on
the exterior, interior ceiling, and stained glass windows at the hospital
chapel. I very much enjoyed the visit to St. Peter of **** Church and look
forward to a long-term working relationship. I will be making arrangements for
a second visit to follow up on this report and to prepare work proposals to
cover the items as mentioned above. In the mean time, if we can be of further
assistance, or you have additional questions, do not hesitate to call.

][<en Follett