97-St-Marks-Avenue-0909.jpg
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


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. brownstoner’s map button show wrong block, so yes it is Prospect HTs… And even if Park Slope not much of Park Slope is historic district.

    I could never figure where/when/who can get curb cuts. I’m not historic district. Could I get one? (not that I plan on it).

  2. Curb cuts are not legal in the R6B zoning district for lots under 40′ wide. This has been the case since contextual zoning rules were adopted in the late 1980’s. The permit should not have been issued without going through the Board of Standards and Appeals. Seems like a simple matter of complying with the law.

  3. As I mentioned on the forum post about this topic, Prospect Hts has been calendared for quite some time, even though it was landmarked about six months ago, and formally voted on by the city council only last week or so. That info is supposed to be on the DOB site, so that any permits filed should have been red flagged and passed along to LPC. This should not have happened.

    Gotta agree with shillstoner on this one. The community supersedes the individual in this case. Landmarking has to have some teeth, or why bother?

1 15 16 17 18