Streetlevel: Nigerian No Time Soon in Fort Greene
Fort Greeners who’ve been waiting with bated breath for the Nigerian restaurant to open at the corner of Lafayette and Cumberland are going to have to wait a little longer. As it turns out, all the work on the ground-floor space—including new storefront windows—was done without permission from either the Department of Buildings or the…
Fort Greeners who’ve been waiting with bated breath for the Nigerian restaurant to open at the corner of Lafayette and Cumberland are going to have to wait a little longer. As it turns out, all the work on the ground-floor space—including new storefront windows—was done without permission from either the Department of Buildings or the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Oops. That kind of mess could take months to unwind.
Streetlevel: Nigerian, Not Thai, for Lafayette [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark DOB
I get it. This owner gets to benefit (with higher rents, more affluent customer base) from the beautification of the neighborhood that his neighbors had to pay for when they stupidly follow the rules and he gets to just fudge it because he’s an old guy. Sorry. If you can’t abide by landmarks rules and processes you should sell your landmarked building. Why should we have to pay a fortune to get new windows and the same? What excuses would we have to give landmarks then? And since when does everybody get a say as to what’s okay in a landmark area? The poor guys who own the deli on Cumberland and Dekalb got so held up by the whole process and they didn’t ‘get a free pass in the end. Why should you??
1:28,
Oh, well. Meanwhile, a longstanding member of the community, now elderly, who has already spent tons of money on this will be further delayed getting a real tenant into the space. Guess you showed’em.
Since you’re so knowledgeable, you should have offered to help guide this home/business owner through the process.
By the way, the “after the fact”/”sidestepper” permit was obtained AFTERward because the repairs from the first tenant were EMERGENCY repairs that had to happen immediately. The bad-boy tenants were the ones who called in the “violation” of the repair work that was fixing the demolition nightmare they had caused without permits.
So, the permits were obtained at least for the interior work… Am not sure how horrible final results have been on the outside. As we all know, it was not gorgeous before.
If the exterior work was not permitted properly, how long and what will it take to have it permitted? Is it really that cumbersome or will it just take calling Schnall & Schnall (sp?) on Atlantic?
What silly boys. It’s about a dumb sidestepper and the nimby snitch. Excuses, excuses. So you got caught and didn’t get away with it.
P.S.: My conversations with Mr. B, LPC and DOB were with regard to the exterior only. Sincerely, 1:28
2:06, Mr. B wrote his blurb based on a conversation he had with me, the person who contacted LPC and DOB. After the fact permits for only some of the work? Hello, I’m still not impressed. Yours truly, 1:28
2:06:
You seem to be quite involved with this situation. Explain this: why would non-approved and non-permitted facade work have anything at all to do with emergency repairs to the “main central beam???”
For projects that require Landmarks review, you MUST get their approval before you can get a Building Permit. This is not rocket science, and if the project has a competent architect, the process is rather straightforward. Why so many property owners continue to ignore the very basics of permitting escapes me. In the end, it’ll cost you time and money if you don’t follow the rules.
1:28
There ARE permits, hello. Mr. B. wrote his mini-blurb without full knowledge of the situation and possessing some misinformation. Now…maybe not everything was included on the permits…am not sure, BUT it is clear the interior work was permitted.
When the bodega guys’ got into the space, before they began any work, the lease agreement called for permits to be in place and the job to be funded. They were armed with neither. When the people working for the bodega owners cut out the main central beam, emergency work had to be done to stabilize the house.
Permits were filed for after this after the repairs were underway: Shut out for causing unbelievable damage and not meeting the lease requirements, the bodega guys apparently, and vindictively, sicked DOB on the owner immediately when he rushed in to do the emergency work (the family lives upstairs and the floors were falling in).
So, the owner got a fine but filed for the work to be done. The permit should still be in force timewise.
You do need the approvals and permits, of course. That said, there are FAR worse storefront than this one. The fence thing is tacky but the rest is fine.
12:24, you seem to be missing the point. The current appearance of the building, your opinion that the changes couldn’t make the building look worse, the fact that the owner has been in the neighborhood for 40 years, the alleged comprehensiveness of the lease terms, the integrity or lack thereof of “the bodega guys,” the facts that the interior lay-out has not changed and the windows and door are as they originally were, that the fence is on the property … all irrelevant.
As ‘stoner wrote, “all the work on the ground-floor space—including new storefront windows—was done without permission from either the Department of Buildings or the Landmarks Preservation Commission.” That’s what’s relevant. There are no mitigating factors in the “back-story.” If you don’t play by the rules, you run the risk of getting slapped with violations.