cicero-031210.jpg
“Shoring has been put up, presumably after the fact, to prevent further damage but it looks to me like that corner is about to take a swim in the mud pit next door,” writes Tyler King over on the Miller Cicero blog about a building in Williamsburg who’s only crime was being adjacent to a big development site where adequate safety precautions were not taken upfront. More details on the link.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. IMBY…sounds like the ultimate level of inefficiency and incompetence WRT the way the DOB actually works. Many people are to blame here. The homeowner might get a faster settlement if he sues the DOB.

  2. There currently is a stop work order on the developer.

    http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyProfileOverviewServlet?bin=3855756&requestid=2

    Architect: NATALIYA DONSKOY
    Business Name: ND ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN
    Business Phone: 718-701-2638
    Business Address: 66 KNICKERBOCKER AVENUE Brooklyn NY 11237
    ECB violations:
    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD ALL PERSON AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. NOTED: AT TIME OF INSPECTION JOB SITE CLOSED. OBSERVED BARRICADES FOR TEMP PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY IN DISARRAY AND NO REFLECTIVE

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    27-1031(A)(B). FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY SUPPORT ADJOINING GROUND AND STRUCTURES AFFECTED BY EXCAVATION OPERATIONS 310067192 UNDERPINNING. NOTED CONCRETE UNDERPINNING 1)NOT AS PER PLAN BULGERING AT EXP 2 152 SO 4 ST

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    PUBLIC NUISANCE/DAMPER PLACE.CONSTRUCTION FENCE #310067192 ERECTED ATFRONT OF CONSTRUCTION SITE W/BARBED WIRE INSTALLED ON IT SIZE APPROX 150 LINEAR FEET.BARBED WIRE,DEFECTIVE ( )AT SEVERAL PLACES

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    27-1009A. FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD PUBLIC AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. NOTED ALT2#310067192 1)AT FRONT GATE EXP 1 AT SO 4 STREET GATES SWING TO PUBLIC WALKWAY. 2)AT INTERIOR EXP 4 REAR OF 357 B

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    FAILURE TO FILE 10F TR-1 PRIOR TO START OF CONTROLLED WORK. (CONCRETEUNDERPINNING). NOTED PROCESS OF UNDERPINNING TO 152 SO 4 ST FOOTING/FOUNDATION AT 152 EXP 3. REMEDY: STOP WORK FILE TR-1 FORTHWITH.

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    FAILURE TO MAIN ADEQUATE HOUSEKEEPING PER SECTION REQUIREMENTS.CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND DEBRIS NOT PROPERLY STORED OR REMOVED FROM SITE.NOTED:EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEBRIS THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE.CONSISTING OF RA

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    B206,BC3304.8 MISSCELL VIOLATIONS,EXCAVATION UNIT ADEQUATELY DRAINED OF RAIN WATER AND OR SUBSURFACE WATER.NOTED:CONT/OWNER FAILED TO ADEQUATELY DRAIN SITE OF ANY RAIN OR SUBFACE WATER.SUBSURFACE WATER EXISTING

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    JOB SITE FENCE AT THIS CONSTRUCTION SITE HAS BEEN CROWNED W/RAZOR WIREWHICH WAS OBSERVED TO BE HANGING OVER THE TEMPORARY SIDEWALK ON SOUTH4TH ST AT APPROX 7′ IN PLACES. REMEDY:REMOVE RAZOR WIRE FROM THE FENCE

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    FAILURE TO PROVIDE/POST DOT PERMIT FOR SIDEWALK/STREET CLOSING. NOTED:AT TIME OF INSPECTION JOBSITE FENCE ERECTED ALONG THE CURB OCCUPYING THE SIDEWALK, TEMP PEDESTRIAN WALK IN USE IN STREET NO DOT PERMITS POST

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTIONOPERATIONS. EMERGENCY REPAIR WORK IN PROGRESS W/LOADING 30′ STEEL I BEAMS ON TO SITE W/NO FLAG PERSONS AT SIDEWALK/WALKWAY LEVEL INSTRUCTING

    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY EXCAVATION CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS NOTED EXCAVATION AND SHORING DONE AT NORTH SIDE OF SITE WITH 20LX1 1/2W CRACK AND LARGE HOLE 4LX12WX12DEEP IN PATH
    Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
    FAILURE TO PROVIDE APPROVED PLANS AT TIME OF INSPECTION. SITE PARTIALLY EXCAVATED APPROX 16′ BELOW GRADE. FORM WORK PLACED IN CENTER OF EXCAVATED GRADE W/OUT FOUNDATION PLANS ON LOCATION. ALT 3, 310067183.

    Seems from the violations it would appear to be a less than stellar crew at work. The way this kind of disaster goes down is that DOB issues a vacate order and a violation for failure to maintain building to the damaged property/owner placing the immediate safety issues/responsibility for repairs in their hands. In this case the scaffold sidewalkshed company the damaged property owner hired got additional multiple violations.

    The developer gets his stop work order violation. Someone also has to pay for the installation of the steel rakers, those inclined struts used to stabilize the damaged buildings. May or may not be the developer who ends up paying. Once the building is considered secure the DOB installs plastic crack monitors that will indicate whether the building is still shifting. It is my experience that they will check on these monitors for awhile and then forget about it.

    For you South Slopers familiar with the vacate order of 1504 8th Avenue (still vacant) and the damage to multiple adjoining properties (still cracking) along 16th Street, I thought you should know that the civil lawsuit is still ongoing, now in it’s 4th year. Justice is extremely slow in Brooklyn.

    Did you know that a developer/contractor can take out insurance in order to get his permits and then let the policy expire immediately? The DOB (unlike the DOT) does not keep track of coverage until the permits expire. Then all the contractor needs to do is renew the policy, get their permits renewed, and let it expire again. They can save $$$$ as long as no one makes a claim.

  3. “yeah dibs, they’re called crack meters.”

    Where can I get a box, denton? I’d like to meter a few cracks.

    You have to come out to a bar called Veracruzana on 46th St between 5th & 6th (Little Brazil). The bartender chicas are all very hot and there’s one that sticks the “church key” down the back of her pants.

  4. “I assume it will be very difficult for the owner of that property to prove the developer of the adjacent property liable for the damage, no?”

    DH, there’s a very simple way for both parties to protect themselves with a lil’ foresight. Developers usually do it but then they lose it in a case like this… it’s called a ‘condition survey’. Basically, you photograph and or videotape every square inch of the building, inside and out, before work commences.

    If the homeowner squawks about something that the developer maybe did or didn’t, and is trying to take advantage of the developer, then the developer can produce the survey as evidence.

    If the homeowner did the same, he could produce his survey to show that before work began the property was undamaged.

    I’ve done these for both sides of the fence.

1 2