Prospect Heights Owner Still Wants That Curb Cut!
The owner of the gorgeous brownstone at 97 St. Marks Avenue in Prospect Heights continues to gun for a curb cut. A reader let us know the owner has “an appearance before the BSA on Tuesday, 3/15….looks like they are still trying to get the curb cut and garage approved, even though the area is…
The owner of the gorgeous brownstone at 97 St. Marks Avenue in Prospect Heights continues to gun for a curb cut. A reader let us know the owner has “an appearance before the BSA on Tuesday, 3/15….looks like they are still trying to get the curb cut and garage approved, even though the area is now landmarked,” and a Board of Standards and Appeals employee confirmed that an appeal on the matter is calendared for that date. (The owner also has a separate appeal in to continue construction under prior zoning regs that hasn’t yet been calendared, according to the BSA.) This story is an old one: The application for a curb cut was originally filed shortly after the Prospect Heights landmarking in 2009 but the DOB slapped an SWO on it that still remains in place. Something tells us we haven’t heard the last of this one, unfortunately.
97 St. Marks Avenue Update [Brownstoner] GMAP
DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave [Brownstoner]
A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? Really? [Brownstoner]
i don’t think it’s irrational. we and lots of other people frequently walk down that street with our kids, in strollers, tricycles, scooters and on foot. if there is a curb cut, often people park across the sidewalk (with the owners’ consent or otherwise) and that means folks have to walk into the street to get by. decidedly not safe, especially that close to the corner of flatbush, and not at all the same thing as people purportedly not being able to cross at a crosswalk.
btw, the hearing is public. held at 40 rector street, 6th floor, hearing room E. it starts at 10am, and assuming it’s an appeal this will be discussed shortly after the beginning. but wise to check beforehand to see where it is on the calendar.
> There’s also the safety issue created by cars crossing the sidewalk while little kids on the block try to navigate on their scooters and bikes.
Now much as I hate curb cuts and totally agree with i-disagree, MM etc, THIS is not a valid argument, it’s just as untenable as ‘elderly people can’t cross a 2-way bike lane’. It’s wise not to use arcane arguments which may put rational people off, there’s plenty against the curb cut already.
The plan at #97 isn’t just for a curb cut. It includes converting the ground floor into a garage with a roll up metal gate. This row of brownstones is one of the few examples of grand scale Italianates in the neighborhood. Most of our rowhouses were built a little later in the NeoGrec and Renaissance Revival eras. The front yard is now filled with weeds and trash as if they’re just waiting for the day when the original iron fencing can be ripped out. Ironically, the previous owner was a wonderful gardener and a favorite on the PH house and garden tours. There’s also the safety issue created by cars crossing the sidewalk while little kids on the block try to navigate on their scooters and bikes. If the BSA rules in favor of this, it will effectively gut the new landmarked status of the neighborhood. One can only hope LPC will submit evidence against this.
“bxgrl, then you must HATE when people park on the street.”
You don’t do logic well, blatantninja. a curb cut is on public property, not the owners property. And please reread yet again what MM and i_disagree said. Perhaps you’ll get it this time around.
Very, very unlikely to get approved, since the curb cut is against the rules and against community feelings. I don’t know why the owner is bothering. She might as well pray for a meteorite to hit her front yard.
Can the BSA grant a variance without LPC approval?
blatant – a curb cut in this location is against the law, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with the personal circumstances of this individual. Everyone must obey the law. Obeying the law is a foundational rule for any system of civil government. A corollary for this is consent of the governed. In our case, consent is reflected in the free and fair elections that occur every two years, as well as by the access we have to our elected representatives.
There is an issue of fairness here. If one person is allowed to break the law, why can’t everyone else? Why is this different from – say – littering on the street or speeding? Anyway, it is my sincere hope that this person fails after spending a lot of time and money.
“None one can really do what they want with their properties. That’s the reality of living in any municipality.”
I think people forget that you can’t do whatever you want to private property anywhere in the US. There’s always regulations and restrictions. She should be glad she doesn’t live in one of those exclusive gated communities out in the suburbs where they dictate the color can paint your house, limit what you can put on your lawn and even have laws prohibiting cars parked outside on the driveway and not inside the garage.
If we didn’t have landmarking, we wouldn’t have Grand Central Terminal, we’d have a giant I.M. Pei tower over an unpleasant shell with a basement train terminal akin to Penn Station’s unholy blunders. It is the entire public’s right to good architecture and design, not the individual.
So please, the whole private property argument is mute here. Live in some far flung car suburb of Suffolk or upstate New York if you have to have a car. There’s no excuse for a curb cut here with the alphabet soup of transit options nearby.