January 1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CERTTFTCATE OF APPROPRTATENESS STAFF REPORT - RECOMMENDATION This application repeats the request submitted in September of. 3.995 and recorded. in commission records as application #1995 0912-2. In conversation with the applicant concurrent with the submittal of this new application, the applicant indicated that the Division of Code Enforcement was once again citing the property for its defects. Conversation with the Director of Code Enforcement confirmed that they had in fact issued a routine follow—up letter on 12/20/96 noting that the previously noted code citations had not been addressed but that no new citations had been made. She further indicated that though an enforcement hearing might be scheduled, she did not feel that the condition of the property merited scheduling a demolition hearing. Review of the citations of the division of code enforcement finds cause for building repair as follows but does not indicate the requirement of demolition: 1) Failing roof rafters and collar ties. (Contribute to wall deformation — see item 4) 2) Tree growing against -south foundation. 3) Several areas of damaged siding and corner trim. 4) Walls out of plumb. 5) Worn shingles, holes in roofing and exposed decking. No further citations are made regarding foundation, doors, windows, .stairs, etc. Staff has visited the site to establish. whether conditions had changed and found' that the exterior appearance of the building is fundamentally the same • as when the issue was addressed in late 1995. At that time the Standards and Maintenance Committee accompanied by an independent architect participating on behalf of Southhold Restorations Inc. found damage presumably by automobile impact the one corner .and general deterioration of siding surface due to unmaintained siding (i.e. failure to paint and caulk). There appear to have been several alterations of door and window conditions through the buildings period of use.�It would also appear that the deterioration of the building is due to neglect of the most basic requirements of maintenance, especially regarding the roof which contributes to the other areas of deterioration, excepting the impact damage which .is also unrepaired. At the time of the previous application, the applicant_ provided statements from R.L. Kl.itzke PE regarding the structural stability of the building and an estimate of construction cost totaling $9,295 to repair. Demolition cost represented through their attorney were staged at $2,000 to $3600. Thus the Owners estimates establish a net cost- benefit o[ $5695 to $7295 of demolition. On the other hand, these figures submitted by the applicant indicate a net cost of between $4.74 and $6.08 per Square foot to rehabilitate the building. It 'should here be noted that Brian Crumlish, the architect inspecting the property for Southhold believed that the costs to bring the building into compliance with building code would be approximately $5000 or a net cost liability of $1400 to $3000 dollars heyond the cost of demolition which may be otherwise stated as a net cost: of $1.17 to $2.50 per square foot to bring the building into compliance with the city's building code.