Tuesday, March 24, 2009

When Did A Permit For A Two-Story Addition Become An Approval For Brand New Construction?

Back in November '08
Only beams of existing structure at 85 Third Street remained
                                           November '08: After demo
November '08: Original structure gone
85 Third Street Today

Looks suspiciously like a new structure
No sign of existing structure
Two 'Stop Work Orders' have been rescinded

So let me get this straight: A developer proposes a two-story addition to an existing building at 85 Third Street. He gets approval and a permit from the Department of Buildings. Then he proceeds to tear the existing structure down and puts a new structure in its place. 


I am not an expert, but even the latest permits seem to still mention that this is an alteration instead of new construction.Pardon me for asking, but is there something I am missing?


****UPDATE****

A reader passed along a photo f what 85 3rd Street looked like in the fall of '08 during demo
Thanks, Lisa De Brooklyn




Related Reading:

Stop Work Order Of The Day: Destroying Existing Building When Permit Only Allows Two Additional Floors

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just judging by the pics, this is NOT new construction.

It's using the same foundation as an existing foundation, and is likely correctly classified as an alteration.

Mancklin said...

Good grief--you mean you can demolish a building down to the foundation and it's still classified as an alteration? I know nothing about building codes but that seems wrong.

Anonymous said...

from one of the new photos, it looks like the original brick walls were left up too.

this is definitely not new construction.

gary said...

Hmm. If you look closely (very closely!) it looks like the brick walls on either side remain.

I'm not clear on the rules, but this does take the definition of "gut reno" to the absolute extreme.

Anonymous said...

Great post. Here are pictures from Fall 2008, during the demolition. http://www.flickr.com/photos/26377665@N00/sets/72157615848072920/

Katia said...

Thanks so much for the photos.
I could not remember what the original house looked like.
But as soon as I saw the pictures I remembered the sweet little house with the canvas awning.
I will add it to the post right now.

iheartbk said...

I live on that block and have watched this construction closely. They original brick walls are NOT still there. I believe what you see is the outline of where it used to meet the building on either side. The new structure is larger than the old in every dimension. It's a very annoying project because they will work for a few weeks solid then disappear for months. At this point I just want them to be finished since it's such an eyesore as it stands.

lalaland said...

fairly clear from the photos the exterior brick had to be torn down - it's about 3 degrees off level. The I beams should help if the foundation continues to settle and he appears to have salvaged the party walls and beams. Doubt he would have met code if he left any part of the exterior or interior in tact.

As far as "It's a very annoying project because they will work for a few weeks solid then disappear for months." that might have something to do with those stop work orders, no?