New Three-Family for 67 Greene Avenue

67greeneave.jpg
ftgreenemap333.jpg
The plans for a new three-family townhouse at 67 Greene Avenue in Fort Greene were filed a year ago but we only recently noticed that work had begun. The weird thing is, as you can see from the photo on the jump, there are no permits posted at the site. As you can see from the map, this property is within the existing historic district (current in grey, proposed in blue), so at least we don’t have to worry about a monstrosity rising here. The original filing calls for a four-story building with an eye-popping 5,800 square feet of space. Given that the lot’s only 71 feet deep, we’re not quite sure how this is being accomplished while observing the rear yard minimums. Anyone know what’s going on here? GMAP P*Shark DOB

67greene-nopermits.jpg

0 Comment

  • I live around the corner on Clermont and walk by a few times a day. Work began, yes, but its been stalled for many many weeks. They did have permits posted at one point but they were removed. We’ve been wondering what is actually happening there.

  • And as far as the rear yard requirements I have seen the foundation of it and the building takes up the entire 71 feet of it. Maybe that is why their permits have been yanked.

  • A 3.9 FAR building on a G7 lot in a R6 landmarked neighborhood. What’s wrong with that?

  • What’s a G7 lot?

  • There is a new regulation (as of june 2006) that says no rear yard is required within 100 feet of an intersection of streets in all districts. Seems unbelievable but true. Anyone else know about this? And what does this mean for 60-80% lot coverage rules?

  • there is no such thing as a G7 lot. there are only G7 buildings. and the photograph clearly illustrates that the one- or two-car garage is history. real property tax codes are statements of what is, for assessment purposes. zoning districts are definitions about what can be.

  • this appears to a architect self-certified building, from the DOB website. Doesn’t that make a zoning violation more likely?

  • 5:01, their audit was conditionally accepted to begin with meaning that they have/had some objections to work on but for the most part they’re in code….so they’re ok….if it was anything serious they would have failed audit and their permits would have got revoked.

  • no rear yard has been required in lots within 100′ of a corner since the existing zoning was enacted in 1961.

  • 1.17pm. Wow, that seems odd. So if a block is filled with 20 foot wide houses, the first five houses, assuming they had the available FAR, could fill the entire back lots with extensions/buiding?

  • The one thing I don’t get is that I don’t belive that this building has gone before the LPC. Does anyone have any information that they have met Landmarks requirements?

  • Paul, when our records did not indicate any local review of the project, I contacted LPC on Thursday after reading this post. LPC staff and I had a follow-up conversation the next day and I am waiting to hear the agency’s determination.

    Robert Perris, District Manager
    Community Board 2

  • Thank you Robert. I actually contacted LPC when I saw the fence go up last fall and received no response (3 unreturned phone calls). Can CB2 follow up on the ability of our assigned inforcemnt agent to meet the needs of the community? Our old complaince agent, Jesscia Schmidt, was very attentive to the neighborhood. I don’t feel the same level of attention with her replacement.

  • Don’t know if anyone is still following this thread, but to update: the developer had not submitted an application to LPC and will be meeting soon with the agency to determine how to go forward. Unlike 54 State Street (brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2006/09/the_curious_cas.php), 67 Greene Avenue has the “L” landmark designation in BIS.

    Robert Perris, District Manager
    Community Board 2