We had such a deck on our building's roof. The unit went through two closings plus at least one re-fi without any attention from lenders. But a nasty neighbor did report it to DOB later, and that is a headache.

Posted by: uglyjohnny at June 5, 2009 12:50 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

Another new bike shop coming to Bergen Street? On the Pintchik block. I saw a sign yesterday.

Posted by: uglyjohnny at April 21, 2009 1:35 PM in response to Brooklyn Bicycles Ready for Launch

There's this project called Atlantic Yards? Near Atlantic Avenue?? And Pacific Street? And Flatbush Avenue? And Fifth Avenue. And Sixth Avenue . . .

Posted by: uglyjohnny at March 31, 2009 1:18 PM in response to Abandoned Projects Mar Brooklyn Landscape

I spent two weeks last fall as a Kings County grand juror. We heard over a dozen cases involving drug busts. None were accidental arrests where a beat cop saw something suspicious going on. And none came from patrol cars responding to a call. They were very focused efforts using teams of narcotics detectives whose job was to spot, engage and arrest drug sellers working on specific blocks or corners.

It sounded like very productive work. They weren't fishing in unknown waters. If the cops targeted a a block, it was because they knew there was drug selling going on, and they knew if they made the effort, they were going to come away with some arrests.

So what makes them focus on one corner instead of another? I don't think it's ignorance. Sure, the police appreciate all the tips we citizens provide, but they already know where most of the hots spots are. But they have to deploy their resources. Lot of man hours involved in those narcotics teams. How are you going to pick your targets?

I expect all the obvious answers apply. Incidence of other crime in the area. The possibility of additional charges (eg, weapons possession). Repeated complaints from residents. A nudge from the city councilman. A nudge from the precinct captain. Maybe lots of blog postings makes a difference. (Taking photos probably not such a great idea!)

In short, don't expect the police to respond effectively to every call, but don't stop calling. Keep pestering them, and in lots of different ways. (How about an invitation to the precinct captain to speak to the local neighborhood/merchant/block association?) And get your neighbors involved. One angry resident is a crank. One hundred angry residents are something else.

The police can be effective. They put our local crack house out of business with a battering ram to the front door. But you've got to make them want to do it.

Posted by: uglyjohnny at March 19, 2009 11:37 AM in response to Quote of the Day

Good luck writing to the politicians. There's a family near me (perpetually "on official business") that has a couple of favorite illegal spots on my block--next to a fire hydrant, blocking the crosswalk. Certificates on the dash indicate he or she is a home town congressional staffer with parking dispensation (for business! and not to block a fire hydrant!) from the state.

There's a receptive audience for your cards, letters and phone calls.

Better solution: Shame them! I've seen a blog that publishes photos (with license numbers) of cars blocking bike lanes. Why not something similar for judges, cops and politicos?

Posted by: uglyjohnny at March 2, 2009 12:28 PM in response to Firemen, Cops, Judges Still Parking Illegally Downtown

Who knows if or when, but that "stunning panoramic view of NYC" disappears with Atlantic Yards.

Posted by: uglyjohnny at December 23, 2008 10:06 AM in response to Co-op of the Day: 209 Lincoln Place, #9D

Just to clarify 1:40's comment, it's close enough to walk to 321, but it's not zoned for 321. Nor, I believe, is it zoned for 282, which falls between the two. Used to be easy for folks in Prospect Heights to get a variance for 282, but that changed a few years back.

Posted by: uglyjohnny at December 10, 2008 2:04 PM in response to Foreclosure of the Week: 555 Carlton Avenue

No qualms here about the school digression. For some, schools rank right up there with mortgage payments and recessed lighting when making a real estate decision.

I'm a couple of years out of date, but we had a great experience with 282. All my kids are graduates. All came away with good educations and went on to top rated schools elsewhere. Some of their teachers were the finest one could hope for. (To be fair, not all were above average, but that's often the case.) In retrospect, what's most important is that for all the kids, the introduction to what turned out to become their most satisfying subject/ability/interest years later came from a particular teacher or program at 282.

Added bonus: we never had to explain to the kids why we lied about our address to get into 321.

Posted by: uglyjohnny at November 13, 2008 10:19 AM in response to House of the Day: 141 Lincoln Place

No one pays any attention to the 20% rule.
What the inspector wants is his own 20% rule.
If you get a cranky inspector at the DOB he will demand you make the deck handicap accessible. I try to tell you people time and again, the building code and the dob do not have cut and fast rules, they are a bureaucratic nightmare of the most dysfunctional kind. The only thing that works are the "Christmas bonuses" that every expiditer worth his salt delivers to the family of certain civil servants.
Oy, such naivette on this site!

Posted by: sam at June 5, 2009 1:48 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

nasty, vengeful neighbors suck. a friend of mine had one call and rat out rooftop BBQ (illegal in NYC).

Posted by: Fjorder at June 5, 2009 1:50 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

I believe mscrochety means 'fireproof material...' That basically boils-down to steel - though I've heard Trex is fireproof too. Anyone know about whether it's up to NYC code?
As for the 20% rule when building with 'non-fireproof' material, I've often heard the same but have never actually seen it verified.
What bivouac needs to do, first-off, is have a lawyer confirm that the co-op offering plan allocates the roof rights to their unit [which ought to be reflected in a bigger # of shares than other units - and a higher maintenance charge]. If the roof rights are part of the deal, then it's really up to the buyer & seller to come to an agreement: if the buyer is paranoid about the legality of the deck [which sounds both illegal & bad for the integrity of the roof - heavy, wooden decks sitting on the roof membrane are a recipe for disaster], then they should make removal of the deck a condition in the sale & have the roof itself inspected. The other option is to be cool & enjoy the fresh air!
Brokestone makes a good & scary point too, though a 'no trespassing' sign ought to give the deck-owner some level of protection from injury claims caused by illegal use of the deck.

Posted by: parkedslope at June 5, 2009 1:55 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

After all this, not clear if it's your private deck, or shared? If the coop owns it and you have rights to is, worse that could happen is you'll be responsible for 1/6th. As far as the rest, appraisers are not usually experts on code issues.

Posted by: denton at June 5, 2009 2:40 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

parkedslope: thanks, great advice. The broker made a point to mention that it is a private deck, with roof rights as part of the share & will be included in the sale. Our lawyer will be very clear on what we're expecting.

Personally I would like to keep the deck because we'd like to save on the expense, and it is quite nice, but I'd rather not court trouble, with the integrity of the roof or with the DoB.

Posted by: bivouac at June 5, 2009 3:52 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

I bought my co-op with its existing all wood deck on top of steel supports and had no problem closing on the co-op or the commercial condo under the roof under the deck.

Posted by: bessie2 at June 5, 2009 5:48 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

Doesn't the entire apartment, including the deck, actually belong to the Co-op? You're buying shares and the right to occupy the apartment, but does that make YOU responsible for the deck?

Posted by: Bob Marvin at June 5, 2009 6:02 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

Bob - the typical arrangement is that the person with roof rights is responsible for any damage caused to the communal property [the roof itself] due to private use of the roof.
Again, I'd warn anyone against placing a deck directly on the roof membrane: it's a 'pay now or pay later' situation.
The best short-term solution that I could see is having Bivouac get a written agreement from the co-op board that when the time comes to maintain/replace the roof, the old deck will be removed & replaced by a properly sized & engineered one built on joists attached to the roof's parapet walls [i.e. suspended off the rubber roof surface]. Of course, the removal and new construction would be at the owner's expense - but at least that would spare you from being responsible for paying for all the inevitable problems caused by a leaky roof!

Posted by: parkedslope at June 5, 2009 6:27 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

parkedslope,

Does this apply even if the OP buys an apartment with an EXISTING roof deck? The Co-op board knows, or should know, of it's existence and has permitted it to be built and to remain in place.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at June 5, 2009 6:56 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code

parkedslope: thank you, that advice is invaluable and sounds like a great way to go.

Posted by: bivouac at June 5, 2009 6:59 PM in response to Roof Deck Not Up To Code