Since this was a truly Brownstonery post, I should note that the photos above came from same.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
On today's bike ride...
Two things I noticed today on a bikeride from Pratt to home. One:
Moses Fried's notorious Lefferts Hotel on Classon (some call it his blueprint for work-in-progress 205 Parkside) is 100% condemned, seized by the City, padlocks and all. Don't know how long this has been so, but I didn't read or hear about it from any other source, so maybe not so long?
Then, I ride by notorious 1860 Bedford Ave on Midwood. The door was open and a crew was cleaning up. Some not-too-terribly-official looking guys were standing outside saying the building had been sold and someone was fixing it up. This would be a major development indeed for the neighborhood eyesore. City records show the building changed hands this Spring, so either a new corporate owner is sprucing it up for a sale or we may have a new neighbor.
Since this was a truly Brownstonery post, I should note that the photos above came from same.
Since this was a truly Brownstonery post, I should note that the photos above came from same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Actually 1860 Bedford did not change hands - it is still owned by the same purchasers who bought it in 2004 with the intent of converting it into medical offices. What has changed it that the holder of the mortgage, as well as the assigment of leases and rents from this property as well those from another building owned by the same partnership on Church Ave., transferred this security (not the mortgage, only the assignment) to another institution. This shouldn't have anything to do with the work currently going on, which I do hope the LMA is looking into, considering the history of this building and the fact that the current DoB permit (an amendment of the one issued in 2004 intending to convert the property) incorrectly specifies that the building is NOT landmarked. In actuality an LPC permit is also required here, even if the work is only on the interior, as this is the case ANY time a DoB permit is required.
babs,
The DOB Property Profile Overview shows that the house is landmarked. Isn't that enough?
Not at all. The current job filing states that it is not landmarked; LPC approval is required even for interior work any time a DoB filing is made. They have evidently tried to avoid this by checking "no" on that box on the form (you can see it online on the DoB BIS site). As this most recent filing is merely an amendment of the job filed in 2004 by the same architects I'd be very suspicious of whatever is going on there. Unfortunately, there appears to be no coordination among City agencies to double-check what filets put on their forms.
Additionally, as you know, the mere fact that it says somewhere that the property is landmarked doesn't stop ignorant and/or dishonest people from going ahead with illegal construction. The LPC doesn't have staff to go around verifying every protected building; it only gets involved when someone brings a violation to its attention. We are thus all responsible for protecting landmarked property by signalling apparent violations.
So, have you called 311 to report this discrepancy in the permit?
Actually, 311 is pretty useless here - just an unnecessary middleman. I am instead mailing in a complaint form to the LPC (downloadable on their website) - it receives more direct attention I've found. However, I do wish the LMA would be a little more pro-active in these affairs as well as on violations of the one-family covenant.
I have been inside this one so I had to laugh when I heard one guy banging away with a hammer. This one will have to be completely gutted all the way to the brick - floors and cieling have to go as well.
-josh
So the owner, genius that he is, is just wasting more money to attempt more illegal work on this house. I agree with Babs there could be more done about houses illegally treated as apartment buildings by the owners. Renting a basement with a little kitchenette to a family member is one thing and we shouldn't get uptight about that. A building full of non-family tenants is another thing entirely and it's not uptight at all to crack down on it.
Perhaps I am reading the latest online DOB filing incorrectly, but it appears the most recent filing for this work (approved 8/24 IIRC) does indicate landmark = yes.
It also appears from the filing to be up to $50k in basic structural repairs and related plumbing approved for all floors, also attempting to change or update occupancy status.
One question: is extending a power cord from the owner's property next door, looped a few times around a garage-rooftop barbed wire support then drooped across the yard and up through an open window legal?
See pics taken yesterday:
http://imgur.com/a/r03fb
The initial permit was approved on 8/23/2004 and does state the property is landmarked; the most recent permit is from 4/14/11 and has the "no" box checked next to landmark.
babs, the most recent permit I see on the DOB site is as follows:
Last Action: PERMIT ISSUED - PARTIAL JOB 08/24/2011 (Q)
Application approved on: 12/21/2004
http://tinyurl.com/6ce95be
That permit has the yes box checked for landmark.
That (approved in 2004 but newly issued 8/24/2011) is the most recent one in there as far as I can tell.
What was issued on 8/24/11 was a specific renewal of the 8/23/04 permit, which had been amended on 4/14/11 to indicate that the building was not landmarked. In any case, LPC approval permits are also required and must be posted by the owners, which is not the case. Additionally, this renewal expires on 10/7/11 and I somehow doubt that they will be finished by then!
babs,
Yep, exactly what I pointed out. It's the most recent one, updated to indicate Landmark = Y among other things.
As I mentioned, it's the latest update stemming from the 2004 application, not the prior version one you mentioned that previously indicating Landmark = N.
Since DOB now has Landmark = Y clearly indicated in this latest 8/24 permit evolved from the 2004 application it would be interesting to see what (if anything) has been filed with and approved by LPC. Not holding my breath but it's definitely worth a check.
I had the same thoughts about the expiration date.
Post a Comment