« 111 Lawrence Rising Brownstoner Book Club Reads In the Country of Brooklyn »

October 14, 2008

A Sexy Behind for 139 Lincoln Place?

This proposal for a rear addition at 139 Lincoln Place surfaced at the LPC back in August; it also included a rooftop addition. The application was laid over before the commissioners could opine on it and it will be resurfacing again at tomorrow's meeting. It caught our eye when we were snooping around the viewing room at LPC last week because of what looks like a glass ceiling for the basement which extends 15 or 20 feet out into the yard. What do you make of that?
Agenda 8/12/08 [LPC]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6562

Comments

It's probably an underground lap pool. They were very popular in pre-crash 2008.

Posted by: sam at October 14, 2008 11:05 AM

Is it a one family? I'm too lazy to look it up.

Rear will probably get approved.

What's the rooftop addition? Any pics of that?

Posted by: bayridgegirl at October 14, 2008 11:11 AM

Does LPC really have jurisdiction over the rear of a house? It's not like that in other places around the country...only what's "visible from the street" in most cases. I would guess they don't have the same issues with the rear given what the architects have proposed. The rooftop addition would be a different story.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 14, 2008 11:16 AM

they probably shouldn't have hillary over for drinks.

tres cool but i wouldn't want to be the one in charge of keeping it clean.

Posted by: i disagree at October 14, 2008 11:21 AM

dibs, i think once you're landmarked, LPC looks at all your plans first to verify that they won't be visible from the street at a certain distance. they make that determination and, if it's not, then they don't have "jurisdiction" over the plans.

Posted by: i disagree at October 14, 2008 11:23 AM

A google search reveals this has been kicking around for more than 3 years. Rejected by CB6 in 2005, and LPC declined to take action at hearings in 2006 and 2008. Now it has been elevated to "public meeting" status for extended discussion. The owner is nothing if not persistent.

Posted by: NorthHeights at October 14, 2008 11:24 AM

Unless its an issue with the rooftop edition, I'm of the mind that CB6 and any other people with too much time on their hands keep their hands off the addition to the rear.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 14, 2008 11:27 AM

Whoever thinks that the Landmarks Preservation Commission has no jurisdiction over what gets built in rear yards simply because it may not be visible from the street is sadly mistaken. I doubt very much that they will approve this addition. It appears too big and it looks like the only one nearby. The Commission is concerned about preserving the green space behind rowhouse blocks. And if you owned the house next door you would be glad they did. These folks will need to downsize considerably in order to get the OK from Landmarks, that is my guess.

Posted by: sam at October 14, 2008 11:31 AM

yes, it's more than a little disconcerting when the lpc puts its hands on your rear.

Posted by: z at October 14, 2008 11:34 AM

Dave, Yes, Landmarks has jurisdication of the entire house. Front, rear, side, top, inside. Even when you're doing interior only renovation, you still need to submit drawings to Lanmarks and get a Landmark Permit. When you live in a Landmark District, you don't own your house landmarks does!!

Unless the rear has some historic significance and is not visible from a sidewalk they will most likely approve. Rooftop additions on the other hand can not be visible from the sidewalk. They will ask you to build a mock-up of the addition, they will come down measure it, look at it, walk up and down the street to make sure not one inch is visible from the street.
They take a long time to respond to applications and calander hearings, Dealing with them is lots of fun. But, hey, that's what keeps these nabes beautiful.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at October 14, 2008 11:39 AM

I like grass more than glass.

Posted by: KIM at October 14, 2008 11:39 AM

i probably am sadly mistaken about landmarks in lots of ways! here i was just referring to my understanding that even though you have for all non-minor work except, you'll likely be given a certificate of no effect if it's not visible from the street. i'm sure there's a million things they can do to get around that if they don't like the plans, but isn't that the basic rule? we're not landmarked, but it would be interesting to know.

Posted by: i disagree at October 14, 2008 12:07 PM

I disagree...Yes, when doing interior work, you'll be given a Cert of no Affect, BUT the process is the same. Drawings stil need to be submitted to them for review indicating that NO work will be done to the exterior. BTW - Doing work in Co-ops and Condos must go through the same review process.

Rears are not just about visibility. Landmarks is concerned about a variety of factors, one of them being historic brick patterns.

Landmarks is not against additions to rears and they're not concerened with the zoning and whether it complies with rear yard codes, that's what the DOB is for. However, if you get Landmark approval and then submit to DOB and it's disapproved because it doesn't comply and you need to change the design, You're going to have to go back to Landmarks.

FYI - DOB won't even look at your application until you submit the Landmarks Permit. It's a very long drawn out process.

I don't think my post made any sense...bring on Thursday.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at October 14, 2008 12:37 PM

I hope LPC lets them go ahead. The visual implications to the neighbors are neutral (maybe even positive) and it's their backyard! People have done much worse without getting blockedf by LPC. Glass, grass, stone, how is that anyone's business?

It's a nice idea...wish I had room to do it.

Posted by: new2 at October 14, 2008 1:38 PM

I have heard that this house had something to do with calvert and vaux,did one of them live there maybe? Regardless, I think this guy needs to think about spending some money on the facade. It has been falling apart for at least the 15 years I have lived in the neighborhood and probably decades before that.

The owner is quite a cheap creep if he has the money to do this. They continue to put up scaffolding to give the appearance that they are taking care of the crumbling facade (like for 10 years now), but I think it is just to keep from getting fined. If it is still there, there was a huge 2x2x2 stone cube that fell from the lintel (sp?) and gouged out a piece of bluestone in front, just inside the fence. Good thing it didn't hit anybody. I also love the draped netting, is that to keep the pigeons out, or the bricks in?

Also, the block folk are a formidable foe when it comes to development.

Posted by: oaklandchris at October 14, 2008 2:17 PM

thanks bayridgegirl. my post didn't make much sense either! i think you can get a CNE even for some work that isn't entirely exterior, and there are some things that seem to have an expedited process for getting of C of A (like windows) but i guess it's kind of irrelevant what the rules are if they can just hold you up forever if they don't like your plans.

oaklandchris - that's interesting context. maybe there's an LPC-owner face-off going on.

Posted by: i disagree at October 14, 2008 3:03 PM

err, i meant "entirely interior." gah. Thursday indeed.

Posted by: i disagree at October 14, 2008 3:06 PM

I dis...yes, there is some exterior work that qualifies for a CNE, like minor work to rear that doesn't affect architectural elements.

Windows require a C of A, unless you're just replacing the storm windows, then you can get a Minor Work Permit.

Replacing Windows and Landmarks is a bitch. I hate doing window packages for LPC. On one job, windows were replaced, Landmarks came down, measured the glass opening size, it didn't match the approved drawings (it was off by about 4"). Windows needed to be changed costing the owner $$$$$$$$$. Thank god it wasn't my fault. Owner changed the frame from what was approved therefore decreasing the glass.

Landmarks is very specfic as what they'll approve and not, and it all has to do with the architectural integrity of the building, block, neighborhood.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at October 14, 2008 3:55 PM

interesting. but i thought renovations were cheap and no hassle, as long as there aren't tenants!? ;)

no wonder there's a career to be made (if only in part, i'm guessing) in shepherding the applications work!

Posted by: i disagree at October 14, 2008 4:31 PM

4" difference on glass opening is a very big difference, no wonder it was rejected...

Posted by: 1842 at October 14, 2008 5:46 PM

Dear I disagree:
Nothing is cheap and no hassle for you because you are an idiot without a clue in the world.

Posted by: sam at October 14, 2008 8:55 PM

Oh yeah! I also heard from a previous tenant some 4 years back that the owner plans on converting it into...wait for it...LUXURY CONDOS! No joke, he plans on putting in at least 4 units in there. Can you change a C of O from lower number of units to a higher number in a land marked district?

Posted by: oaklandchris at October 14, 2008 9:36 PM

The DOB rules on code; Landmarks rules on aesthetics. The building department will not approve plans for any work on a landmark building until after the Landmark Commission rules. If the exterior is not visible from a public thoroughfare the Landmark Commission issues a Certificate of No Effect and has no jurisdiction over any part of the design.

The concept of private property is alive and well. If the addition meets the building code it doesn't matter what the neighbors want. Light and air requirements are met based on your property; your neighbor's property is not a factor and shade from a neighboring addition is irrelevant.

Unless that house is on a really deep lot, it looks like it exceeds the limits. However the limits are based on mathematical calculations not looks so maybe it is within limits.

Posted by: jfss at October 14, 2008 10:43 PM

what about taking away sunshine from the neighbors?
They can sue if your tree is blocking their sun.
What about a neighbor's ugly addition?

Posted by: richierich at October 22, 2008 1:00 AM

« 111 Lawrence Rising Brownstoner Book Club Reads In the Country of Brooklyn »

October 14, 2008

A Sexy Behind for 139 Lincoln Place?

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions