Is the Times "reporting" this information or just transcribing what the broker tells them? I always thought it was the latter. They should at least be clear about the source of information.

Posted by: WBer at August 14, 2007 10:24 AM in response to Is the Times Sugarcoating Local Sales Statistics?

You DO need a LPC permit (regardless of what district you are in), even for rear-yard alterations that are not visible from the public way. Depending on the scope of changes, you will either need a Certificate of No Effect (staff review) or a Certificate of Appropriateness (commission review with public hearing). The LPC rules have guidelines for what constitutes what level of review for rear yard alterations, but basically if you are keeping the ends of the rear wall intact and blowing out masonry in between (which sounds like what you are doing), it should fall under staff review.

If its just replacing windows in existing openings, then it probably falls under a Permit for Minor Work (also staff level).

Posted by: WBer at August 15, 2007 10:31 PM in response to Landmark/Windows Advice Needed

9:46 and 9:47 are right, this is standard procedure. Someone (not Con Ed, a subcontractor) will come out and replace the sidewalk. You can probably call Con Ed and (eventually) find out when it will happen.

Posted by: WBer at August 16, 2007 9:56 AM in response to A Special Kind of Blackout Courtesy of Con Ed

I would guess denied, though it is a bit cryptic. Also note the comment - the "A" classification at DOF (Dept of Finance) refers to one-family dwellings. (A4 = "City Residences", whatever that means - I think it means its more than 2 stories.)

Posted by: WBer at August 27, 2007 2:50 PM in response to LNO?

A district (or building) can be listed on the National Register without being a local landmark. DUMBO, for instance, has an NR district, but is not (yet) a local landmark. [And Sunset Park - I didn't know about that one.]

The tax attorney's advice is probably worth listening to. There is a lot of room for abuse here - the value of the house itself (inflated appraisals), what per centage of the value of the house does the facade represent (and what per centage of a landmarked house), et., etc.

Keep in mind too that the Trust for Architectural Easements, while a non-profit, exists solely to take these easements and makes their money off a per centage of the value of the easement, and whoever you are dealing with there probably gets paid a commission off that. So it is entirely in their interest to inflate the numbers all down the line.

All that said, easements are a viable and important preservation tool. Hire an independent attorney and an independent accountant, and work with a "real" non-profit. "Real" non-profits will take a cut, but will use that money to monitor your maintenance and upkeep of the facade (that is after all what you are giving the non-profit - control over the exterior of your house, in perpetuity).

Posted by: WBer at September 7, 2007 11:29 AM in response to Facade Easements: Worth the Risk of Audit?

Greenpoint IS a New York historic district.

Posted by: WBer at September 7, 2007 11:38 AM in response to Facade Easements: Worth the Risk of Audit?

In addition to DUMBO and Sunset Park, here are a bunch of other Brooklyn National Register district that do NOT appear on Landmark's list of historic districts: Cypress Avenue West HD; Floyd Bennett Field HD; Hunterfly Road HD; Lefferts Manor HD; Pratt Institute HD; Prospect Heights HD; Rockwood Chocolate Factory HD; Senator Street HD; and Willoughby Suydam HD. Some of these may overlap with or have different names than local districts.

There is also a Clinton Hill South district, a Fort Greene extension and a Stuyvesant Heights extension on the National Register.

Vinegar Hill, BAM, Crown Heights North and Prospect-Lefferts Gardens do not appear on the NR (Vinegar Hill may be part of the DUMBO listing, though, and the Lefferts Manor HD is within PLG HD).

Also, the boundaries of NR-listed districts do NOT have to conform to the boundaries of the local districts (see PLG, Lefferts Manor, above).

Posted by: WBer at September 7, 2007 12:59 PM in response to Facade Easements: Worth the Risk of Audit?

Yes, but as Jeb pointed out, he had a reasonable appraisal. The validity of easements aside (and as I said, they are valuable tools for preservation), people making these donations need to make sure that they are doing so by the book. The IRS is aggressively auditing easements because groups like TAE are marketing them very heavily and encouraging aggressive appraisals.

Posted by: WBer at September 7, 2007 6:04 PM in response to Facade Easements: Worth the Risk of Audit?

Bob - despite not being a landmark, Austin Nichols is still eligible for the NR, and could (at the owner's discretion) be listed. So the easement could still be donated.

I think the guest's point that local designation is not protection in perpetuity is valid, however, local designation still does reduce the "value" of the easement you are donating. If an unprotected facade is worth 12% to 15% of the value of a property, is a protected facade worth only 5%? Less? More?

That number, and the overall appraisal value of the property, are still open to audit by the IRS.

Posted by: WBer at September 7, 2007 11:34 PM in response to Facade Easements: Worth the Risk of Audit?

In my very brief (and early) drop in, the Salvage Fest looked pretty good. I only looked at Moon River and the folks from Albany. I agree its pretty pathetic that Demo Depot only brought a book of photos, though I suspect for most dealers the event was as much about networking as making a sale that day. Still, I'd think you'd attract more browsers with stuff.

As for diversity, I saw a mixed though predominantly white crowd. I'd say the mix was about the same as that at the kid's playground next door, where I spent a lot more time. For what its worth...

Posted by: WBer at September 10, 2007 1:33 PM in response to Soaking Up Some Salvage at the Fest