DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave
Here’s an update on the situation at 97 St. Marks Avenue that we wrote about two days ago: In response to complaints that were lodged, the Department of Buildings made two visits to the worksite, one on Wednesday and on one Thursday. Yesterday’s visit resulted in the Borough Commissioner issuing a Stop Work Order as…
Here’s an update on the situation at 97 St. Marks Avenue that we wrote about two days ago: In response to complaints that were lodged, the Department of Buildings made two visits to the worksite, one on Wednesday and on one Thursday. Yesterday’s visit resulted in the Borough Commissioner issuing a Stop Work Order as well as a 15-day Letter of Intent to Revoke. While the owner technically has 15 days to address the specific issues, a code consultant we just got off the phone with suggested that the fact that the letter was combined with a Stop Work Order means that the odds are now strongly against the owner. If anyone can clarify/expand on that reading of the situation, please do.
A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? [Brownstoner] GMAP
i disagree- I suggest you read the initial forum post (see snappy’s post above)and Mr. B’s response. If it were you I highly doubt you’d be quite so cavalier. But if you are ever in the same position I will hold you to your word that this was perfectly ok.
AY is a public issue of major proportions. My tax money and my neighborhood are being affectedAnd there is plenty of documented proof about what the deal is with AY,soomething you seem unable to admit. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and dogs.
This woman’s neighbors called the proper agencies and obviously the matter is being corrected. But her neighbors went further and posted it here- with Mr. B’s blessing to personally embarrass the woman because they don’t like what she was doing. Seems a little Salem witch hunt for my taste. And her motives, etc certainly are relevant. If she was told by her architect there was no problem, it was legal, why assume ( and you know what assuming does) that she was behaving maliciously.) Posting her address and the situation (from the neighbors point of view only) let people post all manner of personal attacks, including dissing her profession.
And finally, brownstoner is not a law enforcement agency, LPC, DOB or anything else with a postion of authority. It’s a damn blog. The only thing this blog could do is post it to embarrass the owner. Any other interpretation on your part is disingenuous. And if this is the way you want to see life conducted, have at it.
Snappy dont be thick. I just said I made no such statement!
Is the pulsa massive gunnin for Jack Slade?????
Oh no!!! dont they know he just jumped out of an airplane Navy SEAL style texting with one hand and blasting with the other. BooYA!! Hold that! Blakatah, blakatah!! Hold 2!
Have a good weekend =) Wont you be my neighbor?
“The fact is if I do win, most homeowners except you will be thankful to the new property line law due to Slade vs NYS.”
oh yeah, it would be terrific if every few steps of sidewalk were owned by a different person! just imagine the fun of walking to the subway and navigating a gauntlet of “no trespassing” signs and fenced-in sidewalk patios. i can’t think of anything better for the city than handing over our pedestrian thoroughfares to private property owners.
Jack, my point is simply in response to your statement about a lack of desire to embarrass. Maybe you personally didn’t have such intent, but that was the purpose behind the whole thread from Mr. B. – wag his finger at the owner and invite others to wag their fingers in unison.
Insert, you’re thinking about me. Thank you very little, but get clue why dont you? Those words never came out me.
Go back and read my comments on that day.
Tool get back in pants I dont remember teaching you how to type.
You want plain and simple? Next time I’ll post in “sheep” for you.
“you will make a bunch a lawyers rich and annoy a lot of judges and that’s about it.”
So? The fact is if I do win, most homeowners except you will be thankful to the new property line law due to Slade vs NYS.
Jackslade…you say there was no intent to embarass. Wrong! Did you read the original forum post that started this whole thing?
Well, we can at least try public embarrassment. Send us a photo of the front of the house and the address…
Posted by: brownstoner at September 22, 2009 7:46 PM
That’s what I was hoping. I will take and send a photo tomorrow morning.Other ideas appreciated!
Posted by: prospect heights renovator at September 22, 2009 9:30 PM
jack slade: yes. ignorant. there’s no “thin line.” the survey IS the line. in this situation, your property ends where the survey says it does. plain and simple. challenge it all the way to the supreme court if you can – you will make a bunch a lawyers rich and annoy a lot of judges and that’s about it.
bxgrl – wrong all over. a) this site does relate to all things brownstone, including quite frequently things like the building code. we don’t see you protesting about inappropriate content when the subject is the legalities and agencies involved in AY, do we? b) no one’s acting as “judge and jury” here. the request was for the proper authorities to revisit (or visit for the first time, as it were) a decision that appeared to be against regulation. it’s not as if people are conducting a sit-in in front of the bulldozers; c) i, personally, and i’m guessing most people here don’t give a flying feather what her motives and story are, as they are totally and 100% irrelevant to the situation, and the things i care about. there’s no intent to embarrass or harrass; the intent is solely to stop this person from doing something that flagrantly is against code and outside of the established procedure; and d) not that it matters, because this isn’t a trial. but you can convict on circumstantial evidence in a court of law. absolutely, 100% permissible. “circumstantial evidence” is just as admissible as any other type of evidence in the eyes of the law.