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
But you can put a seat out on any sidewalk(as long as you don’t block it) and eat.
It IS public property and while you have some limited obligation to keep it clean, you don’t own it(and BTW the city is liable for any injury on it except if its a large apartment house I think the number is 5 and above but I know 1,2 and 3’s are NOT liable for someone who is hurt on the sidewalk)
The city law also governs activities on public land, so if someone sets up their grill in front of your house and starts having a party, you absolutely should call the local precinct – you can’t picnic any where you feel like it.
When push comes to shove it doesn’t matter what I think, or what anyone else thinks, it’s what the statute says and what the Appellate Court rules. I’m pretty sure that both say that the sidewalk is public property. The stoop and that little bit of garden in front of the row house, that’s private and the owner can kick anybody off that. The city code refers to the sidewalk that “abuts” the property. I think that if the majority of these row house owners who think they own the sidewalk that abuts their property examine the legal title to their row house, they’ll find the description does not include the sidewalk, and may specifically exclude it.
Bohuma, Same way you cant set up shop and have a picknic on the sidewalk in front of my house. There’s a very thin line here.
If you conducted a door to door survey involving row houses most owners would say private. If you did the same survey and rang every bell in 15 story condo/co-op, they would say public.
“I guess we should all just refer to your truism rather than bother making attempts at improving circumstances or making life better/easier/fairer etc.”
Hey look Nokilissa, if you want to start an anti-curb-cut action group to put an immediate end to this terrible scourge that’s threatening the very survival of NYC, go right ahead. No one’s stopping you. I’m just pointing out that just because some people are lucky enough to have (legal) curb cuts, doesn’t mean everyone will have them. It just doesn’t work that way. The sidewalk IS public property. That said, there is nothing wrong with LEGAL curb cuts.
Anyone who’s worked with an architect, engineer, contractor or expediter to file for permits quickly comes to realize that good firms know how to file good paperwork, i.e., paperwork with the greatest chance of obtaining a permit in an expeditious fashion. Usually that means a thoroughly accurate filing, accompanied by all required items, and with everything dotted and crossed. Does that mean that ALL filings accurately reflect alterations? No, that’s why there have been self-certifying scandals.
Wasder, I know you’re a beloved poster on this site, but you’re NOT a victim of the DOB. You’re a victim of your own choices, including your own choice to post your work on this site. When you first started posting about your purchase, I sent you a private note of caution through a 3rd party. I was worried about retaliation by a now-gone poster. I could have made my point through the comments section, but that would have acted as an invitation to anyone with ill will. When you posted your rear facade photos, various comments (not mine) quickly and very publicly noted that your deck was not built to code. Your best bet now is NOT to represent yourself, but to hire a skilled professional to help you with the DOB.
I can appreciate from very personal experience how difficult it is for new owners to become familiar with and navigate the DOB/LPC learning curve. I’ve been there myself, and continue to this day. But it’s just plain hooey for owners or professionals who roll the dice concerning permits to claim their problems were caused by narks, snitches, squealers or blog owners.
As a relatively anti-car person, I think this is great. The restriction against curb cuts maintains the street “facade’; parked cars are a mild deterrent to speeding (the “friction effect”), and a psychological and physical safety factor for peds on the sidewalk.
bohuma is right. The sidewalk is public property.
Whilst I am well aware of the law that requires the property owner to maintain the sidewalk in front of their property, that they’re liable for injuries caused by their failure to maintain, and that the city will fine them for failure to maintain, I still think that the sidewalk is public property. The city/state/whoever has passed a law that requires property owners to maintain that piece of public property, and has shifted liability to the property owner. The property owner cannot control the access of other people to the sidewalk, e.g. by fencing it off (at least not without a temporary sidewalk shed permit) or charging a fee to use the sidewalk. Nor can the property owner do whatever s/he likes with the sidewalk, e.g. store junk their (except on trash day).
So, while I think the city has delegated maintenance to adjacent property owners, the sidewalk is still public property.