A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? Really?
See this beautiful brownstone front yard at 97 St. Marks Avenue? Better enjoy it while you can, because the owner is getting ready to demolish it to create a driveway and garage despite the recent landmarking of Prospect Heights, according to a tipster and DOB filings. How could this happen? We’re not quite sure, but…
See this beautiful brownstone front yard at 97 St. Marks Avenue? Better enjoy it while you can, because the owner is getting ready to demolish it to create a driveway and garage despite the recent landmarking of Prospect Heights, according to a tipster and DOB filings. How could this happen? We’re not quite sure, but here’s the initial permit where it mentions converting a portion of the ground floor into a garage and here’s an amendment for the curb cut. The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of what happened at 174 Clinton Avenue a couple of years ago. The icing on the cake, according to a Forum post yesterday, is that the owner’s kicking out the old lady who sold him the house but continued to live in the garden apartment in order to do it. We’ll get back to you with what Landmarks has to say. Let’s hope this is all a big misunderstanding! Update: LPC confirms that they have no record of any applications for Landmark approval at this address. GMAP
If the DOB permit predates the landmarking it is grandfathered. This happens often in new districts. Owners are smart they know to pull the DOB permits prior to the new rules going into effect.
With a DOB permit that predates the Landmarks Commission’s jurisdiction, I think the owner is free to do the work. The LPC can’t fight a valid permit issued prior to designation.
And I do not believe the DOB can rescind a legally issued permit.
m4L — Why do you use the term squealed? There’s no ethical or moral issue used in drawing attention to the DOB permit being issued.
This thread has a bit of a “Burn the witch! Burn her!”quality to it, but I would like to remind all the “it’s their house” individualists out there that the beauty of the US system is not that it is a free-for-all for individuals, but that we have a participatory and fair rule of law. So, in this instance, it would be deucedly unfair if the neighbors ganged up on this person, while everyone else on the block got to install Ferris wheels in the front yards, but it is eminently fair that all have to respect the same rules, agreed upon by a majority of the stakeholders.
The owner is a designer, she has an architect and an expediter. Did they all move in from Arizona yesterday? Or did they try to pull a fast one? I think it’s pretty obvious, and it explains the witch hunt tone.
Also as per the city zoning map:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/map16c.pdf
(yes, I know it’s not the official record — only the actual resolution, but this is a lot easier to find.)
Again….
Section 25-633 of the Zoning law states:
Prohibition of curb cuts in certain districts
R4B R5B R6B R7B R8B
In the districts indicated, curb cuts are prohibited for
residential developments on zoning lots having a width of less than 40 feet along a street and existing on the effective date of establishing such district on the zoning maps.
AS PER PROPERTYSHARK, THIS HOUSE IS ZONED R6B.
could we know identity and address of the neighbor who squealed?
LPC trumps DOB. That’s how the system works. The calendering debate aside, the more salient issue seems to be whether the pernmit was issued correctly in the first place. I would hope as soon as this comes to LPC’s attention, they will step in and have it pulled.
It is this person’d home and property, right?
Like, they own it, right?
As in, not yours?
If you have a DOB permit prior to designation, it is grandfathered. If you apply for the permit after calendaring but before designation, there is a 40-day LPC review. Once that review is done (or, in this case, waived), the permit is valid and grandfathered.
With regard to all the blame slinging, I think it’s worth backing off until the actual facts are known. While we might not like curb cuts and garages on historic brownstones, the owner was within his rights to apply for this. This is not the case of an owner desecrating a landmark, but rather one of an owner desecrating a POTENTIAL landmark – and legally, at least, there is a difference.
If DOB or LPC dropped the ball (either of which is likely), or something more nefarious happened (less likely, IMHO), then let the poo fly.