On Friday, notices arrived on the door here at 227 E. Seventh St. near Avenue C...
As you can see, the asbestos removal completion date is listed as March 13, 2013 ... Meanwhile, it turns out there are permits on file with the DOB for demolition of this structure ... then a new six-story "masonry building" here... (the DOB disapproved the first round of plans last month)...
And, per the DOB, plans for this building date back to 2004 ... though the job was withdrawn then...
Meanwhile, across the street at No. 222, all is seemingly quiet at the moment on the plans to turn the building into the Villa Capri condos...
The sign that appeared last fall is gone...
The DOB disapproved the plans for the extension/renovation in March.
7 comments:
Villa Capri - seriously, somewhere Frank Sinatra is throwing up.
I'm not sure that makes sense. The "abatement" is stated on that form to be via "external foam", so it's encapsulation (covering) not removal of the asbestos.
If the building is subsequently demolished, the asbestos will still be present, so what's the point of the "abatement" via foam?
That wondering the same thing also - if it's being demolished why an abatement at all? Isn't an "abatement" is when the gov't help/reward you when you do something specific? Like a tax abatement when u buy new property? If so, could the owner of this building trying to pull a fast one over city? (i.e. Taking the abatement and not doing anything with the asbestos.) I mean, who'll find out since the building will be in pieces anyway?
@Fipper: Well, my thought was that the property owner would avoid having to deal properly with the asbestos during demolition by hoping (expecting) the city to not notice given that it was previously "abated". So during demo, lots of asbestos fibers in the air but no fine because nobody's the wiser.
typical City govt beaucracy at its best.
before the demolish a building , you have to abate the asbestos. which of course would be removed anyway during the demolition.
And people wonder why rents and condos are so much in New York. A big part of the problem is all the red tape, approvals, delays, tickets, waivers, that the city puts in the way to actually build anything.
and they do nothing but add more and more requirements.
and yes, the rendering is not very good either.
abatement here means removal of ...not a tax benefit.
Thank you to @Anonymous 11:11 PM for pointing me in the right direction for info on this.
According to NYC's Asbestos Rules and Regulations there is a foam encapsulation method that is approved as a preliminary step in the removal of the asbestos.
It's apparently not a bureaucratic requirement but part of the safe removal procedure -- encapsulation to make it less likely that asbestos fibers will be flying around during removal.
Section 1-107 of that document describes the procedure, and reads in part:
§ 1-107 Foam Procedure for Roof Removal
(a) These procedures apply only to the removal of asbestos-containing roofing material (ACRM) from exterior roof surfaces. ...
(b) The foam or viscous liquid shall be non-toxic, shall not require special respiratory protection for handling, and shall not affect the handling and disposal of the waste.
(c) The foam or viscous liquid shall coat and maintain a stable blanket (minimum 1” thickness) for the duration of the removal process and shall leave an identifiable colored residue when it dissipates.
(f) Abatement shall not be carried out during adverse weather conditions (e.g. precipitation, high winds, ambient temperature below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, etc.).
.. etc ..
Post a Comment