If the paint has any gloss, or has absorbed any oil (kitchen ceiling for example), you are going to want to roll on a coat of plasterweld before you skim coat.

Posted by: Smokychimp at November 11, 2009 11:45 AM in response to Skim Coating Over Paint?

Plan B! on Vanderbilt!

Posted by: Smokychimp at October 28, 2009 3:01 PM in response to Best sports bar in Brooklyn?

To amplify on the above a bit -- you likely don't need a C of O, and you shouldn't be looking to establish one with a renovation, as long as the renovation doesn't change the "use" of the building. That's "use" as in DoB lingo, which is a very broad category of what the overall building is intended for so for example from residential to commercial, or from a one family residential to a multi-tenant dwelling, etc. requires a change of C of O. Rearranging rooms doesn't change use (as long as the bedroom count remains the same or less), adding a roofdeck terrace or rear deck doesn't change use, to provide examples of things you can do without changing the C of O. You can usually rearrange the interior of a residence to your heart's content as long as you're not increasing the number of bedrooms.

For whether you need a normal permit or not, what triggers a permit requirement at the City is:
-change in plumbing fixtures (fixtures may be replaced in the same position as a "repair" without a filing as long as this is not done in combination with other work).
-changes to partitions (these are also known as: walls.)
-three or more trades working on the project.
-work involving structural issues.
-maintenance that changes the nature of what is being repaired (repairing a boiler doesn't require a permit, replacing it with a different model does.)
So if in a renovation you're just plastering and repainting existing walls, changing tiles in a bathroom, that sort of finish work does not need a permit.

If there's a dispute about this, and for example a neighbor calls you in and an inspector shows up, keep in mind that the above list is subject to the on-the-spot interpretation of a city inspector. The ones going around responding to calls for illegal inspections are pretty impatient and not always in the best of moods. So you might not see an issue as structural, but if an inspector writes it down that way, you're in ECB court. In my mind it's usually better to be on the safe side (in full disclosure I'm an architect so I make my living doing that).

Posted by: Smokychimp at October 23, 2009 5:15 PM in response to Certificate of Occupancy

NY state law states that the security deposits must be kept in a separate account, and that these funds cannot be intermingled with building operating funds.

Posted by: Smokychimp at October 20, 2009 3:12 PM in response to Security Deposits

Beautiful! You have a very lovely hand

Posted by: Smokychimp at September 28, 2009 3:30 PM in response to Park Slope Sketches

The process is that while a building or area is being considered for landmarking and "calendered," any department of buildings filing must be put on hold for 40 days while Landmarks considers whether to review the building. If Landmarks does not respond to the DoB within the 40 day hold window, the permit may be issued.

Once the permit is in place, it can be renewed indefinitely and built even though the formal landmarking process shifts from calendered to landmarked.

I find this discussion particularly interesting because I'm doing the same thing. Not demo'ing a historic facade or anything -- but adding a room onto the back of my apartment within the Prospect Heights district. I got the permit half a year ago, waited through the 40-day hold process, and now have the permit open and am saving money for the renovation. I intend to build it in a few years, but I imagine I'm going to get some flack for not having the LPC permit up on the door in two years even though it would be perfectly legal.

Here's a wierd aspect of the process if anyone's interested: if I want to amend the filing, say for example to add another window on to the proposed addition before it gets built, then Landmarks reviews the amendment with the (previously approved but still just proposed) project imagined as existing, historic, and grandfathered in.

Posted by: Smokychimp at September 25, 2009 12:28 PM in response to DOB v. Landmarks

Take a photograph of the door, along with a color sample of what you intend to repaint the door, and a written description (not much more than your paragraph above) to Landmarks. They'll assign you a case officer that will probably approve it right away if it's this minor, but the case officer's job will also be to tell you for what else they'd need to get their approval. It sounds like a staff level review that can generally be decided on the spot. You might also want to include photographs of neighboring doors with a similar color to what you're proposing, that helps.

Posted by: Smokychimp at September 23, 2009 2:34 PM in response to Front Door in Landmarked Area

It's likely that zoning will be a bigger issue than Landmarks if you're adding square footage. Have you worked out how many square feet are left to build on the property according to its allowable floor area ratio? that's probably the most important thing to review, everything else being equal.

Posted by: Smokychimp at September 13, 2009 2:59 PM in response to Extension on Landmarked House

If you are adding an extension to your house, the Department of Buildings requires that plans of the extension be filed and permitted before you build it. Depending on what you're doing, they may look at the proposed foundations, and the way someone exits the room that makes up the extension.

But they are definitely going to require a proof (prepared by an architect or engineer) that you have the right to add square footage to your house, in other words that your house plus the addition is still under allowed zoning "bulk" (total square footage versus lot size).

Depending on what you're doing, there might also be a review of the setbacks from the rear or side yards, and issues involving window requirements.

Posted by: Smokychimp at September 8, 2009 12:47 PM in response to Extension Process

wow that's amazing, Island107.
I have seen a whole range of inspectors and if I were to generalize, the newer the inspector the tougher they are. A long time inspector looks for just the safety issues and leaves.

Posted by: Smokychimp at September 1, 2009 4:25 PM in response to Inspectors and Their Quirks

Anything's better than what they've got now. That stretch of Flatbush Ave is a pedestrian's nightmare.

Posted by: Smokychimp at August 18, 2009 10:59 AM in response to Safety Improvements on Flatbush Ave

You would not have to file a new application, you could close out your current one as the new owner. You should contact the architect or engineer of record to see what is left on the application if you're not currently working on the project with a contractor.

Also, check on the DoB website to see if your permit is current. If it's expired, you will need a contractor to open a new permit for you in order to close out the project, even if there's no actual work left.

Posted by: Smokychimp at August 3, 2009 7:15 PM in response to Work Permit

I'd think it would be very tricky to modify the C of O with regard to the backyard building.

That structure may be perfectly legal as an existing condition, if it was built prior to modern zoning. But the DoB considers it a non-compliant structure for any modifications, which makes an extra layer of hassle on top of any other approval/issues. I worked on a project in Staten Island a few years ago with a similar setup, with a rear building used as an artist's loft that the owner wanted to add a small half-bath to, the DoB wouldn't approve it on the basis that the half-bath increased the habitability of the building or some such nonsense.

Posted by: Smokychimp at July 10, 2009 1:01 PM in response to C of O for Rear House?

To do this legally would require a permit, yes, and the biggest technical obstacle is that the area you are adding is limited by the entire building's permissible floor area. You may not be able to add area to the building if it's already built to its maximum.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 28, 2009 12:49 PM in response to DOES A LOFT NEED A PERMIT ?

There isn't such a thing as a lot-line window grandfathered for light requirements. The DoB presumes that a lot-line window may be bricked up in the future by your neighbor, so these windows don't satisfy ventilation or light requirements for a habitable space such as bedrooms.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 26, 2009 10:23 AM in response to 2nd bedroom light/air req

Well if you're talking about a cellar of a residential building, I think that what you mean by "technically possible is in "only in theory".

--For one thing, you'd have to have zoning appropriate for commercial office.
--Secondly, the office would have to have two fully compliant means of egress and two separate exits for the building for that office.
--Thirdly, you cannot share exits between a commercial egress and a residential tenancy, so you have to have two fully separate lobbies.

you meet those conditions and yes, I think it would be possible. But does this describe any residential building in NYC?

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 23, 2009 5:43 PM in response to cellar to office-I have new info

i_disagree, email me i'll send some more details

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 23, 2009 4:46 PM in response to Prospect Heights Landmarked!

"I disagree" - it's a few different filings and modifications on St Marks, both taking place in the backyard but you can see them a little from the street. Would have been possible to do with Landmarks jurisdiction but the process would have taken forever and ever. When they start, I will post them here for everyone to roast.

My own view of the Landmark Commission is that it's probably a good thing, and certainly well intended, but I feel that the LC disproportionately burdens individual homeowners while too often giving the larger scale developers a pass.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 23, 2009 3:42 PM in response to Prospect Heights Landmarked!

well thank god we got the permits in last week!

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 23, 2009 2:19 PM in response to Prospect Heights Landmarked!

Prospect Heights as a historic district has not been languishing, it's in Landmark's normal process. The district was "calendered" back in October for consideration, which effectively acts as a default Landmarking for the area as far as the Department of Buildings is concerned. The vote to decide whether it becomes a historic district (a formality, they always do if they've come this far) is on Tuesday, the hearing is at 12:30 at the Commission.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 21, 2009 4:56 PM in response to Crown Heights Historic District

Bugleg's your posts are for the most part correct -- but the DoB does have a role in enforcing the licensing issue by confirming the HIC license at the time of issuing an alt1 or alt2 permit. And yes they're required, Pig Three's opinions notwithstanding.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 14, 2009 3:36 PM in response to Visit from Consumer Affairs

Respectfully disagree with the above posts.

As a backsplash, its durability will have a lot to do with the individual situation -- maybe you use the kitchen once a year, maybe you use it every day and splash water everywhere, I don't know. But tile grout is not waterproof and can transmit water to its underlayment, this goes for water vapor too if the tile's next to the pasta pot, for example.

For a workmanlike standard, you should prep the gypsum board with a waterproof membrane (such as laticrete) before you apply the tile. It's easy, fast, and you won't have to worry about it again. It doesn't make sense to risk mold damage to the drywall, however unlikely that might seem, when a membrane is so simple to apply.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 12, 2009 2:29 PM in response to Can you tile over dry wall

Jelly Donut, LL58 is functionally equivalent to ADA. From LL58: "Even though ADA and FHA are not enforced by the Department of Buildings and do not exist in the current city building code, it has been the industry’s practice and professional responsibility to comply with ADA and FHA where applicable." In other words ADA and LL58 are interpreted by the DoB the same way, especially in regards to the issues above, fixture clearances.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 9, 2009 1:03 PM in response to DOB Handicap Hell

Iddelz I do sympathize with you and please note I am not trying to say who's right in this case, just that there is a question of legal responsibility that becomes a bigger factor than even common sense sometimes.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 9, 2009 12:49 PM in response to a/c rooftop dunnage

A condenser can be placed up to the property line, in theory. This issue is not limited by distance setbacks. The placement has to do with noise dissipation, as the equipment cannot generate noise of a specific amount of decibels at the neighboring property. I don't know the decibel levels offhand, but that is the limiting factor.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 9, 2009 12:11 PM in response to setback on central a/c condenser

Your architect is the sole party responsible for the specification of the dunnage. Unless the contractor has an architectural or engineering license and is willing to supercede the architect for the dunnage, this is not a question that's normally open to opinion polling.

The architect may well have reasons for the sizing the dunnage that the contractor isn't aware of; that scenario (there are others) makes it easy for a contractor to take a quick glance and make the claim that it's oversized. The contractor may even be right, but that has nothing to do with the issue.

I suggest you convey the opinions of the contractors to the architect, and see if he or she can come up with any alternates that would be acceptable and meet their standards.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 9, 2009 11:52 AM in response to a/c rooftop dunnage

Here is the link to the DoJ's standards on accessibility:
http://www.ada.gov/stdspdf.htm

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 9, 2009 11:41 AM in response to DOB Handicap Hell

Once you have re-arranged the walls within a bathroom, or divided one bathroom into two, the fixtures are no longer grandfathered as "existing" in terms of ADA compliance. They have to be re-evaluated based on the new condition the proposed work creates. That's code and common sense.

The issue is not that the DoB wants you to rip out already existing fixtures. It's that their objection takes place in that form: reviewing the fixtures is DoB-language for preventing you from trying to take a bathroom and dividing it and making it less accessible for those with a handicap.

If you want the "clause in the law" that requires this, these standards are federal, not NYC, and I'd refer you to Department of Justice's required clearances and design standards. It's on their website as a pdf file.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 9, 2009 11:36 AM in response to DOB Handicap Hell

It's not a grey issue. Yes, Ipe is rated class A for fire, but it's still combustible. Fire rating classes indicate resistance to flame spread and smoke generation, not combustibility, and furthermore fire class rating does not pertain to the section of code governing the issue, c26-313. Non-combustible means that a material does not burn. The choices available in this case would be concrete, or steel.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 4, 2009 4:39 PM in response to Ipe deck not up to code??

The code requires non-combustible material within three feet of a property line. Non-combustible isn't the same thing as flame-retardant; ipe is combustible and not applicable in that use.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 4, 2009 3:16 PM in response to Ipe deck not up to code??

Despite the recent court ruling (ny state appeals court not supreme court) favorable to Ratner, it's becoming unlikely that any financial scenario exists where Atlantic Yards can move ahead. Certainly not in the close enough future that this would cause a problem to you as a renter.

Meanwhile, the neighborhood has great restaurants, great bars, and is a wonderful place to live.

Posted by: Smokychimp at May 27, 2009 12:42 PM in response to Carlton Avenue/Prospect Heights

if the harassment continues in that form, an exterior-grade close circuit security camera kit only costs about fifty bucks these days.

Posted by: Smokychimp at May 3, 2009 4:34 PM in response to Retaliation for DEP Complaint

It depends on how damp the area is / how well it drains. All things being equal you are better off with the framed space and resulting crawlspace. For one thing, it's certainly much easier to retrofit electrical down the road if you need it.

Make sure the crawlspace is adequately vented. Also, presumably both options would include a vapor barrier, critical to either assembly.

Posted by: Smokychimp at May 1, 2009 4:39 PM in response to crawl space under extension

Ringo, a small correction: they didn't condo the place. As typical, they own the whole building, live in the garden unit and the top two floors are rentals. Also, agree with you that reds are extremely difficult -- the only time I've ever seen it perfect is basically pure cadmium red, done in a modern setting (see Bar Etats-Unis on 81st St).

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 29, 2009 1:15 PM in response to Real Housewives: Simon and Alex's Renovation Revealed!

Oh and also, these people are totally reasonable, nice, and fun to be around in the real world. On the teevees, the editors are looking for conflict and nuttiness, so that gets played up.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 29, 2009 11:34 AM in response to Real Housewives: Simon and Alex's Renovation Revealed!

As the architect for the project, working on this thing was a lot of fun, and for all you haters out there the place looks better than the collection of photos above. Although disclaimer I had nothing to do with the paint choices and lighting design - the whole vibe of the decor is different that anything I would do myself. But it's really fun, I mean who can argue with a bright red room and a 10' high photograph of Alice Cooper?

To answer one of the questions above, yes the deck is going to be built in phase two, as with some other parts. Who knows, perhaps that would be done in the next season, but really this is being held up by my welder, Weng, having gone MIA he's now somewhere in Indonesia. When he gets back, they get a deck.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 29, 2009 11:29 AM in response to Real Housewives: Simon and Alex's Renovation Revealed!

To do this work legally requires a permit -- there are regulations controlling the height and other characteristics of the rail, extensive code about the construction of the staircase, so the city wants a filing representative (arch. or engineer) on the hook to certify that the work is done right.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 22, 2009 2:30 PM in response to Is a permit needed?

New plumbing (a change to the rough plumbing, or to the fixture count) triggers a permit requirement, as does removing a partition (wall).

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 22, 2009 2:27 PM in response to What do you actually need permit

Sandrew, nail the LL in Small Claims. In SC, the fact that he is a rel estate lawyer will count dramatically AGAINST him, not for him -- it will merely bolster the impression he is preying on you. If it were television, SC is more like the Peoples Court than Law and Order, and they wouldn't put up with that kind of manipulation.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 17, 2009 3:34 PM in response to Deposit on M-t-M Tenancy

This might have to be tested in Small Claims but it seems it would depend to some degree on the quality of the documentation. The tenant apparently received the LL's requirement to provide thirty days notice AFTER reasonable time had been given for the landlord to respond, and after the lease was over. I believe that any small claims court judge would find in favor of the tenant. Time to push back.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 16, 2009 5:58 PM in response to Deposit on M-t-M Tenancy

Sunspot you want to make sure the contractor is carrying insurance for the duration of the construction too, specific to your project.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 8, 2009 9:57 AM in response to Renovate and homeowner insurance

Amybnyc,

In the former code (1965), there was a requirement that if you hit $10,000 cost on a project or had multiple trades (example a plumber, carpenter, and electrician) involved then a permit requirement is triggered. They have revamped these policies in the 2008 code, and I don't know if the $10,000 requirement is still in place or if this number has changed.

I can ask my expeditor next time I speak with her what she knows about this; sorry I don't have the energy to open the code book today.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 2, 2009 1:39 PM in response to What can you do without permits?

An most important first step is to prove that the extension was built prior to current zoning regulations (1965), if that's the case. If you can find a tax map or an aerial photograph with a date stamp clearly showing the addition, then you're grandfathered for zoning. As an example, I recently did this with a Staten Island house with a little commercial outbuilding built in the front yard, and an old newspaper image from the 30's was enough to satisfy the DoB.

Otherwise, the first step of the process is a zoning review to make sure the extension complies with floor area ratio, light and air requirements, and setbacks.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 2, 2009 1:33 PM in response to No Permit on Extension?

The borough DoB's have become a lot more restrictive with plans after Sept. 11, and each borough's access policies are a little different. From what I've seen in Brooklyn, it's only building owners, architects, engineers, and expeditors that have access to a building's records at the moment.

By the way -- this is also at odds with the fact that the DoB is soon going to be placing most filed permit drawing sets up on the website (with some buildings restricted from view) that anyone can view online.

It's kind of an interesting development really. Think your building down the street is adding one floor too many? YOu can go online and see the plans that are approved, and see if they are different from what's built. Might make those trying to get away with something a little scared.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 2, 2009 1:27 PM in response to Pulling building's plan from DOB

If you go that route with the cameras to challenge this in court, please post back on Brownstoner and tell everyone how that turned out. It's an interesting approach.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 1, 2009 2:28 PM in response to Fight Sanitation NY

Sorry to hear about your experience, that's really horrible you had to go through that.

But I think you're insistence on the police "pressure" for a positive ID is misplaced, if you can pardon my critique. Police and DA's are used to victims having some degree of recognition of an assailant (or their jacket, glasses, etc). They are not at that point arguing about 100% certainty, just "yeah that's him," so someone having qualms about that may have seemed overly legalistic to them. Or maybe question what else you weren't certain about recalling the event. I'm sure they were just not used to it, and a little baffled.

Not that you're wrong to do what you did -- just that I can see why you got that pressure.

Posted by: Smokychimp at April 1, 2009 2:24 PM in response to Getting Mugged in Park Slope

Building partitions within a space requires a permit if you want to do it legally. It doesn't matter that there might have been a partition there before in any way -- generally speaking, the DoB concerns itself with proposed work, rather than what might have been there at one time.

You might think that this is an excessive amount of paperwork for a partition, but these rules come about from
-a review of the safety of the partition. Three years ago, two firemen were killed by a fire where they could not escape from the room because the tenants had installed an illegal partition blocking their escape route. The owner of the building was recently convicted of criminally negligent homicide for this:
http://tgllaw.com/new-york-law-blog/accidents/145/negligent-firefighter-death
-a review of light and air requirements. The city does not want conditions where people are living in bedrooms with no windows, so there are requirements for this as well.

The city's requirement that this be filed by an architect or engineer has to do with insuring that there is a state-licensed party on the hook for the work. That's why an architect is going to charge an amount to file even if you've already done the drawings. It's not a work-based fee, it's a responsibility, liability, and insurance based fee.

Posted by: Smokychimp at March 31, 2009 4:31 PM in response to Do I Need an Architect?

If the work is a repair of existing fireplaces, and you're not changing them at all, you most likely do not need a permit nor Landmarks permit. If you are changing the configuration of the fireplaces, modifying them, altering their structure, etc you would need a building permit.

If you do need to go the DoB permit route, you will still need to apply through Landmarks. You will need what's called a "Certificate of No Effect" which means you're not touching the outside. It's a simplified process and usually delays things by only a day or so.

Posted by: Smokychimp at March 30, 2009 1:50 PM in response to Permits for Fireplace Work?

My money sez no way. Brownstones can't bear that kind of weight. Unless someone retrofitted new steel all the way up through the building. And if they wanted to drop that kind of money, wouldn't they seek out an easier building to begin with?

Posted by: Smokychimp at March 27, 2009 1:09 PM in response to pool?

It's been my experience that inspectors are overbooked, rushed, and wanting to look only at what they're paperwork instructs them to look at. If your building is in reasonable and safe condition, they shouldn't be hassling you, and you should have little to fear. Get it over with and get your money back.

Posted by: Smokychimp at March 25, 2009 11:54 AM in response to Clearing HPD violations?

thanks for the advice

Posted by: jdlcnm at September 13, 2009 10:12 PM in response to Extension on Landmarked House

It's called FAR & there are formulas for it on nyc.gov

Posted by: Arkady at September 14, 2009 11:00 AM in response to Extension on Landmarked House

we were given an estimate of $50K for something about the same size including new foundation, no fancy materials or wall of windows or anything.

Posted by: well_pHed at September 14, 2009 12:27 PM in response to Extension on Landmarked House

The Piping looks pretty. The Header is wrong! Steam rises. It doesn't fall. If you look at the manuf. near boiler piping You will see the header should be higher than the swing joints. With that said, it may work with out too much noise because it appears from the photo that the condensate will return and not get trapped in the header.

Posted by: wilsonbros1 at September 16, 2009 3:51 PM in response to Sweet New Steam Boiler

The Piping looks pretty. The Header is wrong! Steam rises. It doesn't fall. If you look at the manuf. near boiler piping You will see the header should be higher than the swing joints. With that said, it may work with out too much noise because it appears from the photo that the condensate will return and not get trapped in the header.

Posted by: wilsonbros1 at September 16, 2009 3:51 PM in response to Sweet New Steam Boiler

I'd be tempted to just do it & hope no one noticed.

Posted by: Arkady at September 23, 2009 5:51 PM in response to Front Door in Landmarked Area

I would too, Arkady.

A good source for entry hardware...

www.houseofantiquehardware.com

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 24, 2009 9:17 AM in response to Front Door in Landmarked Area

Honestly, if the LPC report doesn't note the color, and you are trying to make it more complimentary to the age of your house by repainting and replacing the shiny hardware, I'm not sure that I would worry about landmarks. You're not planning on replacing the door from what you've written, and not painting it pink, so I doubt any neighbors would be calling LPC on you... .

Then again, it would likely be relatively painless to get LPC approval for something like this, so it might not be worth the risk.

How's that for the most indecisive post ever... :)

Posted by: 1842 at September 24, 2009 10:04 AM in response to Front Door in Landmarked Area

Thanks, folks -- very helpful advice. Sounds like this is totally do-able, whichever route I take. And I appreciate the hardware site, DIBS.

Posted by: chebubble at September 24, 2009 11:58 AM in response to Front Door in Landmarked Area

Landlords, regardless of the number of units in the building, must treat the deposits as trust funds belonging to their tenants and they may not co-mingle deposits with their own money. Landlords of buildings with six or more apartments must put all security deposits in New York bank accounts earning interest at the prevailing rate. Each tenant must be informed in writing of the bank’s name and address and the amount of the deposit.

Landlords are entitled to collect annual administrative expenses of one percent of the deposit. All other interest earned on the deposits belongs to the tenants. Tenants must be given the option of having this interest paid to them annually, applied to rent, or paid at the end of the lease term. If the building has fewer than six apartments, a landlord who voluntarily places the security deposits in an interest bearing bank account must also follow these rules.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 20, 2009 3:36 PM in response to Security Deposits