Forum
« Building Inspection Firm???? Secure outdoor stroller parking »
January 25, 2007
Rezoning a basement room
I'm in contract to buy a two family house that has a ground floor "Duplex" with a bedroom in the basement. We haven't closed yet, and the buildings department just gave the bedroom a violation and demanded that it be sealed up. On the violation, they said the owner could try to get it reclassified with new C of O. My question is three part: Please answer any part you want.
1. How difficult is it to get something reclassified and what is cost/time.
2. The bedroom (they call it a den) does NOT have a window. Would it need to have one? (It might be possible to extend room to the basement window. )
3. Any thoughts on renegotiating the price based on this scenario? It was sold to me under the understanding (and I have printed material) that this room was a legal den, living room area. I assume this violation allows me to walk away from the deal.
Thanks to all.
Comments
A bedroom does definitely need a window (and needs to be at least 50%, if not more, above ground). However, it sounds like you are talking about a 2nd floor that is commonly called a "recreation room" and not a bedroom, although people do use them as such.
I'm not sure why this is building code violation, unless it is the only place for a person to sleep in that apartment. You can't claim the apartment has that extra bedroom, you can still have a studio apartment to rent. It's seems funny that the room would have to be closed up, unless there is some requirement that if you ever "finish" your basement, you have to leave a window.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2007 2:13 PM
I’m an architect in Brooklyn.
I have written in Brownstoner on the definition of a cellar and basement. Without seeing the building or drawings and surveys it is impossible to give an absolute answer.
Basically, if the room is in a cellar (I guess that this is so because the building was given a violation regarding the room) it can be used as an accessory use to the unit above. The use can be recreation room, storage, gallery and others as defined in the zoning resolution and amended in Department of Buildings memos.
Yes, the violation can be removed. It will cost money and if I was buying the building I would have money put in escrow, have the owner remove the violation and obtain the Certificate of Occupancy. If he doesn’t in lets say three months then I (the buyer) would hire some one to do so and use the money that was in escrow for that.
I would not give you the cost of this since I don’t have enough information and this is not the place to post such information.
This is not a solicitation but if you want to talk more about this you can call me at 917-328-3391.
Robert Proffitt R.A.
Posted by: robert proffitt at January 25, 2007 4:20 PM
I'm not the original poster, but I was wondering how a recreation room would be a violation that had to be removed? Does that just mean the DOB found out someone was illegally sleeping there? Shouldn't that just mean that the bed has to be removed, and not the whole room closed off or torn out?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 25, 2007 5:21 PM
Forgive me if this is thick-headed, but aren't they talking about removing the violation rather than removing the room? Wouldn't it be enough to say it is a den (ie. reclassified) and then get the C of O?
Posted by: anon at January 25, 2007 6:30 PM
Original poster here-- it was marketed as a "rec room" or alternate living room, but I guess someone was using it as a bedroom. It was also called a "basement" but doesn't seem to qualify based on zoning definitions--more than 50% is below the curb line. But I don't understand, even if it is reclassified, what's to stop anyone from sleeping in a rec room? Whatever the case, the stairs leading to it need to be walled until it is reclassified -- that is if it CAN be reclassified.
Posted by: phoffy at January 25, 2007 10:39 PM
Wait--it can't be correct that the stairs leading to the room need to be WALLED OFF until your seller (or you, using those funds in escrow) get the 2-family C of O. (Which is to say that I agree with Mr. Proffit, above, on strategy). I'm no expert, but in my opinion whoever cited you from the DOB gave you wrong info. It only means that you can't RENT the place (legally) to somebody else until you get the 2-family C of O. Right? You can have whatever screwy floorplan you want in a single family; you just have to meet certain requirements to advertise a rental apartment as having X number of bedrooms. Got lawyer?
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 12:38 AM
Also, damned straight this is grounds to break the damned deal. Talk about a major ommision on the part of the seller. Every place I looked at in my hunt, the brokers were very upfront about rentals that weren't kosher. Also illegal wooden decks off parlors. (Now if only Brooklyn brokers would stop their obnoxious practice of refusing to co-broke with buyer-brokers.... but there I go again)
Posted by: anon at January 26, 2007 12:43 AM
OP here, just to clarify, it's a ground floor "duplex", there is no kitchen or bathroom downstair in the cellar, it's not a separate apartment, it's just an extension of the ground floor apartment, called a living room or rec room. (Though someone was obviously sleeping in it, using as a bedroom.)
Can a rec room NOT have a window?
Posted by: phoffy at January 26, 2007 9:56 AM
You may also want to look into the impact that a new C of O will have on your taxes. It could be substantial.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:13 AM
I don't understand what the violation was -- just because someone was sleeping in it, when they shouldn't have been, it has to be closed up?
If there is still a legal apartment there, albeit one that is classified as a studio instead of a 1-bedroom, doesn't that have the same c of o? Is the apartment somehow now officially registered as a 1-bedroom (thus including the illegal bedroom) and needs to be changed to a studio? I still don't understand how this changes the c of o, or is a violation that takes alot of money to fix.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:37 AM
I'm glad you're as confused as me. I'm looking for answers.
Posted by: phoffy at January 26, 2007 1:36 PM
phoffy, did you find out exactly what the violation was? It just seems very strange that an additional rec room that's part of a larger duplex apartment would be illegal. Maybe there's more, or they built the rec room without filing it properly -- although I wonder how many people who finish their basement think that they have to file that kind of renovation.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 4:31 PM
It is possible that the violation was given based upon the Current C of O, which if it doesnt classify a certain area of the house for exactly whats its being used for and its found as something different then yes a violation would be issued, which could be slightly costly.
I am an expediter that works with various architects and obtaining C of O's for various types of properties.
To give you a better insight, shoot me an email or give me a call and tell me the address of the property so I can move forward from there
Maurice
MVJ@tmo.blackberry.net
Tissony Building Consultants
718-844-1054
Posted by: Maurice at February 18, 2007 11:33 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.