Something a little different here... a penthouse is actually going to be torn down, not built... The Post has the report:
The owner of an East Village tenement is going to have to take a little off the top of his building to comply with a ruling issued yesterday by the city, his lawyer said.
The Board of Standards and Appeals voted to approve a sixth story that had been added to 514-516 E. 6th St. last year, but not the penthouse above it, said lawyer Marvin Mitzner.
He described the decision as a "three-quarters victory" for his client, developer Ben Shaoul.
Mitzner said the main issue was the developer's right to expand a tenement without having to strip it to the foundation, and not the penthouse addition that could be easily removed.
"We're going to have to do some demolition work," Mitzner said. "I don't think it will be a big deal to deconstruct it."
Sure thing, Marvin! And will the demolition put a dent on the partying?
As The Villager reported in December 2008:
The Board of Standards and Appeals ruled at the end of last month that the Department of Buildings was wrong to issue permits to add two extra floors to two East Village tenements.
The B.S.A. ruled that the additions to the five-story buildings at 515 E. Fifth St. and 514-516 E. Sixth St. violated the state’s 1929 Multiple Dwelling Law in regard to fire safety and elevator requirements.
Meanwhile, Marvin will seek a variance for 515 E. Fifth St., where another story and penthouse were added, the Post reported.
[Image via Curbed]
Previously on EV Grieve:
Important notice about "partying" in Shaoul buildings on East Fifth Street and East Sixth Street
3 comments:
Wow...ouch. Does anyone live in there or is it just a party space?
Anyone interested in knowing more about Mr. Shaoul's record with the NYC Dept of Buildings should look up the property profile for Mr. Shaoul's 120 St. Marks Place . There all can see that not only is there no Certificate of Occupancy after the building has been occupied for 2 to 3 years, but there is also currently a Padlock/closure order in effect on the property .
WOW. This is a kinda big deal. And after all the astroturfed "it'll be so terrible for the residents to endure deconstruction if they win, they should just shut up and accept it" comments when this was previously discussed, funny to hear the "I don't think it will be a big deal to deconstruct it" talk now.
But am I to understand that Shaoul ultimately got away with investing in building new market-rate units, without making the required safety upgrades to the existing units? That's a pretty significant loss for tenants.... I *would* classify that as a 3/4 win for Shaoul despite how embarrassing it will be to have to tear down the penthouse. Does this set any kind of precedent that greedy developers can continue to put profit over tenant safety?
Post a Comment