Side Window Woes in Cobble Hill
A proposal to renovate 227 Clinton Street hit Community Board 6’s Landmarks and Land Use Committee last week, and it was rough-going from the start. Coming not long after Norah Jones finished installing her controversial side windows and began work on her swimming pool, the timing could not have been worse. The designers, who presented…
A proposal to renovate 227 Clinton Street hit Community Board 6’s Landmarks and Land Use Committee last week, and it was rough-going from the start. Coming not long after Norah Jones finished installing her controversial side windows and began work on her swimming pool, the timing could not have been worse. The designers, who presented the design shown after the jump, were there to try to rally support for four additional windows on the side of the brownstone, a modestly sized swimming pool, and an all-glass, two-story “tea room” in the back yard, with trellis and vines up each side. The committee felt that the side windows were out of historical context and that there was “no historical credibility for glass boxes on the backs of homes in Cobble Hill.” There was no opinion expressed about the swimming pool, although it’s only the second one to come in front of this community board since Norah’s. The only nod of approval from the committee was changing the the existing windows to a wood frame. The session ended with the committee saying it would testify against the entirety of the design at their Landmarks hearing. Tough luck!
Totally insane. Neither Landmarks not CB should have anything to say about backyard additions if they don’t violate zoning and FAR. Same for windows.
The stupidity of this is in the phrase “no historical credibility”… well, duh… who built glass boxes in the 1800’s?
btw, “good neighbor relation” SHIP has long sailed on these folks. Instead of hello’s, how are you doing,…. it’ll be F U’s, prick this prick that,….
at the same time, this aint no massive surprise to the owner since it is buyer beware as far as this crap when in a landmarked premo hood.
tybur6, one can always sue. to win is a different story. it’s time consuming, expensive, etc. to deal with someone suing you. that’s why it’s such a popular choice by the richie rich – ie “F with me?!! send in the lawyers”
I think this screams: “we hate the wealthy and their lifestyle.”
So many backyards are pure junk, to have these owners want to make improvements should be looked upon favorably.
CB6 takes itself much too seriously.
The Community Board is non-binding and just advisory… they will be testifying and making mean comments at the Landmark hearing. I don’t think you can sue for the CB just being a bunch o’ dicks. However, you CAN sue the Landmark folks if they turn down your application.
just F’ing sue, take the board to court or something, etc. we are talking about richie rich folks here and isn’t lawsuit among the top reaction choices?
ugh. the trials and tribulations of the super wealthy :-/
it’s a hard knock life, indeed. barf
*rob*
‘ A good community board is composed of many perspectives and work towards the end goal. A community that works for its residents. ”
So would you say CB6 is working for it’s residents in this instance? You’re totally getting off topic. This decision is pure NIMBYism and doesn’t serve the community (especially since people have stated there is precedence for all these changes)
“DH, applications for the community board are available at Borough Hall. It sounds as if you would bring a new perspective to your board.”
I’ve been to a few of my CB meetings (CB1) and I actually trust that they’re good people for the most part. I think my time would be better spent picking up crap in McCarren Park.
Who are the designers/architects of this plan? That sketch looks awfully amateurish. Perhaps the board members were just mistrustful of the people involved in this project if that’s the best they can do, and are worried that unqualified workmanship might de-stabilize the entire structure.