Forum
« Emergency Asbestos Removal After a freeze: rusty water »
February 5, 2009
Issue for our Co-op Board
We have a meeting this week regarding the vote on an issue that I can't seem to wrap my head around. It is a small co-op and an older gentleman who lives on the first floor raised his ceiling to exposed the beams in his apartment. The results are beautiful and there are other apartment owners that want to do the same. members of the board want to charge for owners who expose this area because they claim that the owners are now occupying more area space. They taking common area between apartments and now claiming it as their own. Any thoughts? How would you even figure out a formula for this? Any help would be much appreciated.
Comments
The board should talk to their attorney about how hard it would be to amend the proprietary lease to reflect the change in shares (and change it again when another unit decides a year down the road they like the look and want to do it), and how much it would cost.
I think the answer will be clear that it doesn't make financial sense.
(I think the idea that he's taking common space doesn't make sense either, but talking money in detail is the easiest way to negotiate your way around things in a co-op board I've found)
Here's what the board could do -- impose a nuisance fee for any substantial work to floors or ceilings because that work really is a pain for the people living above/below you. Say, $500 fee for any work that takes more than a week and $1000 for any work taking longer than a month. Take a deposit and then return it (or not) depending on how long job takes.
Posted by: Ringo at February 5, 2009 8:00 AM
I could be wrong but in real estate, the 3rd dimension, ceiling height, has little to do with occupiable area which is what really counts, no? It isn't an actual space you can walk on?
Posted by: helppls at February 5, 2009 8:49 AM
You really need to look at the offering plan and see how the shares are allocated -- they are generally not on cubic feet! And is this truly common space? If someone dropped his ceiling would he get a reduced allocation of shares? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Is there any interference with building systems? The only issue I can see is that sound from upstairs neighbors is more likely to be a problem for an owner who has exposed the beams. I would make sure that if someone did this, they could not complain about noise from above -- make them sign something that any impact from any alteration that breeches space between walls, floors is the responsibility of the shareholder.
Posted by: BH76 at February 5, 2009 8:51 AM
Yea, what BH76 said about noise. I manage a co op in Soho with only tin ceilings nailed to the joists and the sound is pretty much unbearable going up and down! These are 2 millions dollar lofts where you can here your neighbor having a bowel movement!
Posted by: mod squad at February 5, 2009 9:07 AM
LOL...is this a joke??????? Exposing the beams may increase the volume but the area is still two dimensional as helpps states.
I think this coop meeting could be the basis for a Faulty Towers episode!!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 5, 2009 9:43 AM
Sounds like the busybodies(board members) need to some reading.
Posted by: DeLepp at February 5, 2009 9:53 AM
How about the coop gives the unit owner a credit every time the coop has to make repairs to plumbing or electrical in the now-exposed space because now they don't need to pay someone to open and then refinish the sheetrock ceiling? Really, this seems like a silly matter for the board. There should be some protection on the noise issue, however. You can't go around exposing your beams and them complaining about noisy toddler footsteps upstairs.
Posted by: slopefarm at February 5, 2009 10:06 AM
I once lived in a coop building that had a similar bright idea. Based on that experience (and reading between the lines of your post), I'm wondering if the Board members are among the group of tenants who don't want to raise their ceiling, but would like their maintenance costs reduced because they'll have fewer shares than those that do. Both Ringo and BH76 have good suggestions about how to frame an argument against this ridiculous idea. Good luck.
Posted by: Iris at February 5, 2009 10:13 AM
Wait till they figure out it might cost more to heat/cool all of this "extra space". The calculators will be humming to redistribute that last penny in fuel and utility costs, if shared. They might want to figure that larger people use more air than smaller people, and figure that out, too. Sheesh. BH76 seems to have a great take on it.
Certainly makes me glad I'm not in a co-op, seems like you get ruled to death. Reminds me of going out with people who can't just split the restaurant tab, if everyone has had similar items. They have to figure it out to the last penny."My dessert cost $.50 less than yours." Arghhh!
Posted by: Montrose Morris at February 5, 2009 10:27 AM
Green in so many ways. I want what you have but I wanted it first.
Posted by: DeLepp at February 5, 2009 10:40 AM
what a silly predicament. The co-op board should have never approved the removal of the ceiling. Doing so is a violation of multiple dwelling fire codes. Without a ceiling, the building's structural system is exposed to the possiblity of open flames. Furthermore, the removal of a ceiling eliminates sound proofing between upstairs and downstairs units. I can't imagine how incredibly loud footsteps must sound. If the shareholder wants to look at beams, they should put back the approved fire-rated ceiling assembly and add fake beams beneath that. The board should get cracking on this or they could lose their fire insurance.
Posted by: sam at February 5, 2009 10:41 AM
sam,
If you are right, the whole Ansonia clock factory condo is one massive code violation. I assume no one's cracked down on tehm and they haven't lost their insurance.
Posted by: slopefarm at February 5, 2009 10:47 AM
This is funny! Shares are based on square feet of space, indoor and outdoor as incorporated in the original offering plan. Sometimess extra shares are allocated based on the floor an apt. is located on. Have never seen shares based on cubic feet. Of bigger concern is fire safety! Plaster and drywall create a 1.5 to 2.0 hour fire rating between apartments. To expose joists and bridging (probably wood) to a direct fire is against the multiple dwelling law. The Dept. of Building would deny approval for this work unless the wood is treated and or a sprinkler system is present. Consult a professional on this issue and forget about changing the share allocation.
Posted by: MarionG at February 5, 2009 10:51 AM
Ansonia clock factory has a sprinkler system
Posted by: MarionG at February 5, 2009 10:52 AM
The entire discussion has to be predicaated on the fact that any alteration meets all apllicable codes. While I assumed this was so, it may not have been (smaller coops are less picky about those things than larger ones).
Posted by: BH76 at February 5, 2009 10:54 AM
I'd really be concerned with safety issues. Noise transmission and air rights aside, removing the plaster/drywall ceiling layer(s) and exposing the buildings structural elements (wood joist and wood subfloor?)is not the brightest thing to do.
The fire resistance rating is now non existent for that units ceiling and the spread of a potential fire can be disastrous.
Additionally, remedial work such as a sprinkler system should be introduced to protect the other unit owners interests, and avoid DOB violations and fines.
Good Luck!
Posted by: NYCBuilder at February 5, 2009 10:55 AM
there are a lot of good answers here. I have never seen a offering plan with cubic feet. Most I have sen are zoning room or square feet. But this is a violation and not only does the shareholder have to fix this issue. IF HPD/DOB or any of these governing agency come by and see this you would be hit with fines. Plus the space between the walls is owned by teh coop to speak quite literally. In a coop you do not own your doors windows or anything in the walls just the walls floors and everything inside of them. It sounds like you board is a little confused.
Posted by: 646 at February 5, 2009 10:56 AM
I take back my snark. I now agree with the comments on the fire issue. Coop shouldn't sell this off, even if it has it to sell. Coop should make clear rule about not exposing the beams and work out getting old Mr. Beam to put his sheetrock back up.
Posted by: slopefarm at February 5, 2009 11:14 AM
Old industrial buildings were constructed entirely differently than small residential buildings. The framing elements, if wooden, are massive and are themselves pretty fire resitant. In addition, since the Piano factory was converted to residential all at once, the architects and enginners dealt with the fire codes and made sure the buuilding was complying. In addition to sprinklers, there is probably a layer of fire proofing and sound insulation between the beams. But taking the ceiling off of a residential building built with thin joists (not massive beams)is dangerous. You want the ceiling to protect the wooden structure for two hours after a fire starts (2-hour rating) That would give the upstairs tenants at least a fighting chance of escaping the building.
Posted by: sam at February 5, 2009 11:16 AM
The fire thing might be a consideration but it doesn't address the OP's question about a coop board's rights to charge those apt owners for use of that cubic foot ceiling space. Every time a coop board pulls something silly and petty like this and the stories get around it convinces yet more people never to buy into a coop. We'll never do it again, not in a million years. With the glut of new condos in Brooklyn you'd think coops would try harder to be a preferable choice, not the absolute last resort for a buyer.
Posted by: traditionalmod at February 5, 2009 11:42 AM
> "I take back my snark."
Sorry baby, I've moved on and I ain't coming back.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at February 5, 2009 11:46 AM
I see your point Sam, but I'm also thinking there are likely enormous exceptions. We have no idea how old this building is, nor how it was built.
We live in a massive old "sweatshop" loft in an old Manhattan neighborhood. There is about 5 feet of cement bathtub filled with pebbly stuff between floors, having nothing to do with where ceilings may have been raised or dropped. We removed our dropped ceiling during a reno, gained about 14 inches, and lost nothing in sound attenuation. That is until our upstairs neighbors decided to install a water pump for their "body shower", which means we now hear a mechanical hummmmm and thwank every time they flush the damned toilet, brush their teeth or take a twenty minute shower. Which they seem to do a lot...
Posted by: Nokilissa at February 5, 2009 12:08 PM
taditionalmod -- There are coops and coops. There are plenty of buildings that I would never live in -- yenta buildings. And I would be equally nervous about a small building -- both in terms of quality of life and finances. That said, a well-run coop assures everyone in a multi-family building has, to the extent possible, a minimum quality of life and proctection of their investment in their home. From the press reports (and I know they are all just trying to fill space), many of the newer condos are becoming more like coops as resident owners demand more procedures to protect their property.
Posted by: BH76 at February 5, 2009 12:08 PM
On the one hand, I'm picturing a coop collapsing because after exposing all the beams someone decides to start carving them up to install lighting and ceiling fans.
On the other hand, I'm picturing a coop board trying to charge someone more money because they bought some closet organizers and now have a higher concentration of clothing stored in their closets.
On the one foot, I have no useful advice for Ellen except that piecemeal destruction of the property is probably bad.
On the other foot, I'm now much more frightened about possibly living in a small coop some day.
Posted by: northsloperenter at February 5, 2009 12:10 PM
traditionalmod, the fire issue moots the poster's original issue if the board takes it seriously. The answer would simply be "no, you cannot remove the sheetrock and expose the beams, you don't own the space and it's not for sale."
Posted by: slopefarm at February 5, 2009 12:13 PM
It sounds unreasonable to charge people more for cubic space. I echo the sentiment to check the offering plan... If it isn't addressed there, well, I've heard of a coop board charging a small fee for inconvenience during renovations (but things like this are why I found coops less attractive than condos). I would be more concerned about fire and safety issues than nickel and diming owners, but that's just me. Also, I agree that if you do this in your apartment, you may be bothered by what more you may hear from neighbors above.
Posted by: meerkatz at February 5, 2009 12:39 PM
The idea of charging people more because they gained a few inches by (illegally) removing their ceiling is almost too ludicrous to take seriously.
The only way a co-op can charge more to one shareholder than another is to issue that shareholders more shares of the corporation. Common charges are always based on number of shares owned. If this is a true story, the building is just wacky. I really and truly would not base my decision on whether to purchase a co-op based on this possibly apocryphal story.
Posted by: sam at February 5, 2009 12:40 PM
Back when I was shopping for a new Park Slope pad [2005], I thought I wanted a condo: modern layouts & the ability to rent it out. But I couldn't find one in the location I wanted [north/center Slope, close to the Park], so I bit the bullet and bought a co-op.
And am I glad that I did!
I was careful to study the board & its history just as much as I studied the apartment itself. It's easy to figure out what kind of board you're dealing with by studying the minutes of its meetings & by having them answer to a set of questions. If you don't like how they respond, don't buy-in, no matter how great the apartment might be!
A well-run co-op protects your investment far better than a condo, requiring owners to have adequate finances, even allowing all owners to have a voice in issues that may superficially appear to be private but actually impact everyone in the building - like renovations that violate fire codes & cause permanent noise problems between neighbors.
That may sound intrusive to some of you, but for anyone who's serious about making an apartment your home, it's invaluable.
Posted by: parkedslope at February 5, 2009 1:12 PM
I am now living in my 2nd co-op, and always thought shares (and therefore montly maintenance charges) reflected the square footage of the apartment in question or its street value. Under this equation, larger apartments or those with gardens pay more and own more shares. However in my current place I am told that maintenance amount reflects the amount of "common space" used by the particular apartment...so that the two apartments with private roofdecks pay more than I do, even though mine has more square footage, *not* because the decks are counted as part of their living space, but because their decks are using up a bigger chunk "common space".
Even as I type this I am confused.
Posted by: mscrochety at February 5, 2009 1:43 PM
Number of shares is not necessarily based solely on square footage. For example a sixth floor apartment could have more shares than the identical apartment on the first floor. Likewise an apartment with a terrace would have more shares than an identical one without. It is more or less common sense.
Posted by: sam at February 5, 2009 1:55 PM
How did this tenant (because that's what co-op owners are, tenants of the corporation that owns the building) get approval to expose the beams in his ceiling in the first place? When you buy a co-op you are buying shares of stock in the corporation that owns the building, not the actual apartment (you get a proprietary lease allowing you to occupy a certain space). You only own up to the paint on the walls -- everything past that belongs to the co-op and in theory you need board approval to change anything, even so much as putting a nail in a wall to hang a picture.
Of course some co-ops are more relaxed than others in this regard, but to actually allow someone to go so far as to knock down a ceiling without board approval is scary -- what if there were structural elements involved?
Seriously, I know many co-ops that would fine this person heavily, while requiring him to pay for the replacement of the ceiling as well. But if the board approved this work, without charging him any extra maintenance or anything, it did set a precedent. Others could argue that they be allowed to do the same for this reason.
Posted by: babs at February 5, 2009 6:07 PM
We live in a small co-op, but I can tell you that every alteration that isn't cosmetic needs approval by the shareholders, ie. all of us. And if the managing agent thinks it needs plans/approvals/permits, that what it gets. Someone screwed up here, I think. As for the charging more issue, no way. It's gotta be floorspace, or things like decks/higher floors. But I would think seriously about the DOB consequences of allowing anyone else to do this.
Posted by: Bolder at February 5, 2009 9:59 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.