DOB Roof deck shenanigans?
A few years ago our building, a 200 unit co-op in Manhattan, started letting residents use the roof on top of our building as a recreation deck. After complaints, the DOB inspected it and closed it down stating that the building had failed to alter its CofO and that the deck would need two means of egress (there is only one access door up two flights of stairs). The building went to court and lost and then asked the ECB to rule. The ECB upheld the DOB’s decision (see attachment). Recently, the building hired a lawyer (she was once an ECB judge) and an engineer who submitted an affidavit stating that the roof deck was legal and lying about the ECB decision to the DOB (I know it’s confusing). Magically, the DOB rescinded their decision and are now allowing the building to open its roof deck to residents – even though it still has only one access door and our C0fO hasn’t changed. Is this sort of thing normal? Anyone have any insights into how the DOB/ECB rules apply – or don’t in this case.
alexisf
in Building Code 9 years and 5 months ago
6
Please log in, in order to post replies!
6 replies
alexisf | 9 years and 5 months ago
Thanks for the insights arch111\. My real concern is that we’ll get another complaint (the penthouse residents are against it) and the DOB will come in and shutter it again.
arch111 | 9 years and 5 months ago
my strategy is to get as much on the CO as possible. I wonder how many hundreds of approved Alt 2 decks are on file with DOB. I do agree that the roof is a separate story and by that needs 2 stairs. the one exit rule is for 50 occupants or less but since it is a de-facto story, that is negated. I looked at the aerial view of the bldg, the code for Places of Assembly is 75 occupants or more. The occupant load for a deck is 1 person per 15 SF. This is a Place of Assembly, and they also require 2 exits and a Place of Assembly certificate of Operation with annual inspections by FDNY.
daveinbedstuy | 9 years and 5 months ago
Given the pettiness of city employees in general and the DOB in particular, I’m sure this building will never have an easy time with any future permits.
thetinkerswagon | 9 years and 5 months ago
I am glad you won. I am a contractor and we never rely on a city agency for any information on anything. the incompetence is unreal. any time I have had to debate anything with them they assume because they have the job they know more and since they all come home and watch tv on their off hours, they can not grasp how someone who actually does something productive with their lives, like pick up a book on a new topic, could actually know more than they do about anything. the first thing you learn when you are in business is that there is always someone out there smarter than you; city employees have never grasped that. What you have learned is what you can do with a little perseverance and money and good for you. I would not even begin to thing about how or why this happen. Put a feather in your cap and take it as a lesson that the next time you are told anything by a city employee that goes against what you want to hear, you will do your research. maybe the next time you will be able to do this without a lawyer.
resident2 | 9 years and 5 months ago
This is just an example of how a.) If you have money for a layer you can do pretty much whatever you want and:\ b.) City employees do not have a clue what they are doing, are poorly trained, supervised etc. so why do we spend so much of our tax dollars on having these agencies that are just there to pick up a pay check and cause obstacles? They certainly do not protect the general public that cannot afford a lawyer for every obstacle.
espeon | 9 years and 5 months ago
That’s pretty funny and just be glad you can use the roof again. The so called rules are asinine in this case so I’d call it one abuse of power cancelling the other.