Combining Floors - Legal 3 family to 2 family conversion?
Im in contract to buy a 3 family townhouse.
– garden, parlor and top floors are separate apartments
– the parlor and top floor share an outdoor entrance. They are connected by a foyer + internal staircase
I want to take the top two apartments as my own for owners use. I’d like to remove the extra kitchen and cap the gas & plumbinh.
To legally do this work, am I looking at an ALT-2 filing at the minimum?
alexkavourias
in General Discussion 3 weeks ago
23
Please log in, in order to post replies!
23 replies
alexkavourias | 4 days ago
@jimhillra – wow. this is annoying. The building was originally a 2 family before being renovated ~15 years ago, when the C of O was amended to 3 family.
Really hoping this doesn’t turn into a big fiasco trying to combine apartments legally
BobMarvin | 4 days ago
Thank you Jim—I stand corrected.
jimhillra | 4 days ago
@umanish – The short answer is that the exemption has nothing to do with the number of stories. The long answer is below.
@BobMarvin – A basement/garden level is considered a story for most, if not all, code issues. A house with a cellar, basement, parlor, and second floor is a three-story house.
The exemption I quoted is from the NYC Fire Code, section 501.4.3.1 Provision of Sprinkler Protection in Altered Buildings on Substandard Width Public Streets and Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
https://up.codes/viewer/new_york_city/nyc-fire-code-2014/chapter/5/fire-operations-features#5:~:text=501.4.3.1%20Provision%20of%20Sprinkler%20Protection%20in%20Altered%20Buildings%20on%20Substandard%20Width%20Public%20Streets%20and%20Fire%20Apparatus%20Access%20Roads
This section is what is generally used for houses on streets less than 34 feet wide (curb to curb) which is most of Brooklyn, unless you’re on a major avenue with or street 2-way traffic.
There are several exemptions here. Below is the text for the one I mentioned:
“By reason of alteration or otherwise, there is a change in the “main use or dominant occupancy” of the building, as determined by the New York City Department of Buildings for purposes of assigning a single occupancy classification to the building, including any change from a Group R-3 occupancy to a Group R-2 occupancy, but excluding a change in use or occupancy that is limited to restoring a building that was originally constructed as a one-family or two-family dwelling to its original one-family or two-family use and occupancy”
The thing to remember on this and all other issues covered by multiple codes is that when there are conflicting codes, the more stringent code will apply. So even if the building meets the fire code exemption, it may not meet the building code exemption, so sprinklers would be required.
BobMarvin | 5 days ago
The house the OP describes is considered to be two story. The garden floor is a “basement”. My house is the same, even though it’s functionally three stories.
umanish | 6 days ago
@jimhillra – isn’t the “returning to original use” exception still limited by number of stories? That’s what I was led to believe when I looked into this. Less than 3 stories, the exception seemed to be viable, but 3+ stories and the sprinklers would be needed?
jimhillra | 1 weeks ago
I’m going to respectfully disagree with some of the statements here. TPPN 3/97 allows for the combination of units in a multiple dwelling, but ONLY if it remains a multiple dwelling. Reducing the number of families from 3 to 2 changes the occupancy class to a one- or two-family dwelling, subject to different codes, so it would require a C of O change.
That change of use can also trigger sprinklers throughout the entire building. Keeping the fire escape might allow you to avoid the sprinklers, but it could take some work to convince the DOB of that. Removing the fire escape would definitely trigger sprinklers.
Another exception for the sprinklers is if you can prove that the original use of the house was a one- or two-family, and you’re returning it to its original use.
michaelhanson | 2 weeks ago
Hi, I’m just seeing this – it’s a common issue I’ve tackled more than a few times – as pmody points out, a licensed architect (or engineer) can file the work as an Alt-2 under TPP3/97, keeping things more simple and not requiring a change to (or creation of) the C of O, avoiding a lot of red tape and triggers. It’s actually pretty straightforward, though it may require multiple filings (Gen Constr & Plumbing, most likely).
Assuming you’re doing more than just removing a kitchen, you can also take the opportunity to adjust the layout as needed – your best bet is to find a basic team – an architect and expediter, and maybe an MEP engineer if needed. With everything filed, you can avoid the exposure to working without a permit, and you get more definitive drawings for the GC to work from (tightening up prices and reducing Change Orders). It can also help down the road, should you want to sell at some point.
I’d also suggest just keeping the fire escape if you can – trying to get rid of it may push you into filing an Alt-1, or to adjust (get) a C of O to reflect the egress change.
alexkavourias | 2 weeks ago
Thanks pmody. Are you going through the process of submitting an ALT-2 right now? Any issues you’ve run into?
pmody | 2 weeks ago
This may be helpful as well.
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/code_notes_combining_apt.pdf
pmody | 2 weeks ago
FWIW this is the technical document which allows for combining apartments without changing COO. We are going through it now for our building.
cate | 2 weeks ago
AFAIK removing the fire escape will trigger the sprinkler requirement. Your best bet is to consult with a code expert such as an expediter who specializes in code. (BTW, changing the CofO from three to two may also trigger the sprinkler requirement.)
alexkavourias | 2 weeks ago
Does anyone know what it would take to remove the fire escape from a 3 family building? Does that require bringing the whole building up to modern fire codes (sprinklers etc)
I plan to live in the top two floors with a ground floor tenant, but i imagine that doesn’t matter since it’s still a legal 3 family and the fire escape is required as egress?
amt230 | 3 weeks ago
As it was explained to me, it’s only worth changing the COO if you need to add occupancy (since overutilization is a big problem).
Aside from the LL152 gas inspection, what are the additional requirements and inspections for a multi family, as it would seem in a few years behind then!
BobMarvin | 3 weeks ago
Wow Cate. If RE taxes increase that much is it EVER practicable to change one’s C of O?
cate | 3 weeks ago
That’s very true that there are many more requirements and inspections for a three-family house than a single-family. However, changing the C of O will one year later reset the property tax to the full current market value of the house all at once.
bobjbkln | 3 weeks ago
On the other hand, a three family house is considered a multiple dwelling and is subject to significantly more requirements and inspections than a 2 family. If you can spend the additional money, time, and permit processing, it might be worthwhile in the end to change the C of O.
amt230 | 3 weeks ago
For whatever it is worth, I converted my 4 family for use as a 3 family and only considered permits to the extent that they were otherwise required based on the substantive work. But, I was told by all the people guiding me at the time that the underutilization in and of itself does not create a problem with your COO and that no permits were required for that wrinkle. We otherwise navigated the project to be permit light, so my home remains technically a 4 family though I use as 3, and nothing was filed to accomplish this.
cate | 3 weeks ago
Maybe rules have changed but many houses in Brooklyn do have many gas lines that are capped with no fixtures whether for lighting or stoves.
Brownstone Home Inspection | 3 weeks ago
so with due credit to (i think) Chris at Petri Plumbing who answered this a month ago:
you cannot simply cap a gas line and leave it that way. a gas line must terminate at an appliance.