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
I think the owner of this beauty and her architect should be ashamed of themselves. Ain’t democracy great? Now let the best lawyer win.
Just spoke to LPC. Clearly I wasn’t the first to call. They are on the case.
Yeah, let’s all call 311 to report a legally-issued permit that we can’t interpret correctly. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!
The owner of the building owns the building and maybe even the land on which it stands. They do not own the street where anyone is currently permitted to park their car, nor the sidewalk, both of which will become de facto private property if the curb cut is allowed to proceed. IMHO the laws on curb cuts are perfectly just. The 40′ rule effectively means apartment buildings only – probably taking one street parking space and proving six or more off street parking spaces. The developer of the condo where I live (not in this neighborhood) got a curb cut approved for our building, the street lost one space but twenty-four were created off-street.
I dislike taking public land for private use unless there is an overwhelming public benefit (like getting a net twenty-three cars off the street).
Naturally if the DOB permit is defective it can be rescinded but if it was issued properly, the courts would uphold the right of the owner to use it. I am not familiar with the zoning issue that Dave brings up. In these districts there are certain rstrictions vis a vis curbcuts, they need to be a certain distance from the corner, they can’t be near a fire plug, etc etc, but they are not prohibited outright.
Please call 311 if you care about this! 311 will respond to a situation much, much faster if they receive calls from several concerned citizens. This way they know it’s not just a personal grudge match btw two neighbors. Thanks.
Hi All
have been off this blog for a couple of weeks but I could not agree more with Wasder,Infinite and Rob
it’s sorta like put down the pitchforks folks
As someone who dealt with DOB & DOT to get their driveway grandfathered after getting a dumb violation am very aware that it’s not an easy task where those two departments would just readily approve – am sure the owner is within the guidlines that both departments enforce….
You call 311 and log a complaint, then you follow up with accessing all the political resources available. If the curb cut is illegal, it might be an excellent way to approach the issue.
The What has posted select comments from the thread along with some nice editorialization of the posters… can’t even come up with his own thread ideas without brownstoner & youtube.
PATHETIC
http://asshathill.blogspot.com/