The house in the middle of the frame was the house at 48-23 211 St.
There allegedly was a fire here and afterward the owner filed for an alteration permit. (There's no record of a fire on the DOB's website, but the architect claims there was on his site.)
A stop work order was put in effect on January 15 for failure to provide approved plans, but soon rescinded.
Hard to tell, but it looks like the front was extended, in violation of the R2A "Line Up Provision," where the front of the building MUST line up with the houses on either side.
Here's what the finished product will look like:
While I think the house is kind of interesting, it certainly is out-of-context with the rest of the block.
24 comments:
And does anyone really believe the Chinese who are building this are making a bigger home for just ONE family?
No way.
Once they get the CO and inspections are over, the kitchen goes in the basement and the house will have multiple dwellings. This is the new MO since housing stock that can be converted to two families is running low in the Flushing Bayside area.
Keep an eagle eye on this place.
The maximum height of the building's perimeter walls is 21' in R2A zone. It certainly violates the zoning regulation.
It dose look modern unlike the other homes on the block. Is that illegal ?
The DOB needs to get inside homes for annual inspections to stop illegal conversions. Otherwise all the illegal home owners will get is a useless LS4 on the door from the DOB. Then more money in the bank from collecting rent.
WHo the hell has the right to tell someone else what they should make their house look like. (excluding landmarked). Why dont I tell you that your car is ugly, or you have the wrong color hair, or your just an ugly @#$! I'm so sick of these "neighborhood civic assoc" who think they have some sense of entiltlement to someone else's property rights. Zip it, and go take care of your own shitbox you call a house.
Cookie cutter ranch and cape cod homes like these, were designed to be expanded.
THIS ONE TAKES THE CAKE FOR BOXY PSEUDO MODERN UGLINESS!
It looks like it's more suitable for a beach house in Ronkonkoma.
http://paikwinleung.com/2013/01/05/architecture-48-23-211th-street/
See any blackened wood from fire damage?
Zoning is what dictates the sized a house, not civic groups. This house violates the zoning,which is law.
Everyone - take it down a notch, please.
It's simple: the perimeter wall height allowed in an R2A zone is 21 feet. The straight portion of the "roof" is an extension of the perimeter wall and goes up to 27 feet. All rooflines in an R2A zone must have a defined tilt after the perimeter wall maximum has been reached.
There is no question that this is a violation of the R2A zoning that was put into place in Bayside in 2005 to stop the kinds of abuses that were going on here previously.
A Stop Work Order and audit needs to take place immediately...if I were you, I would demand that your elected officials get on this pronto.
Paul Graziano
We're lucky we have Paul to explain these things to us. Most communities just get screwed over and think its as of right.
It isn't changing the "look" but increasing the square footage so the house is out of character with other single-family houses and is certain, as others have already mentioned to soon have illegal multiple occupancy.
The character of all of Queens itself has been changed - and only for the worse - by having single-family and two-family houses which were once occupied by owners with a stake in the maintenance of the house and neighborhood into mazes of locked rooms, shared kitchens and bathrooms rented out to illegals by absentee owners.
To Joe F--We have City and State building regulations that are frequently ignored and most are passed and used as a matter of safety, not esthetics. I don't know where you live, but you sound like an absentee landlord, in it for the money. Perhaps the adjoining landowners care about their properties and the impact such infill zoning and property out of character will have on the homes they reside in. Expansion is certainly permitted within reason and this one looks to be way off course. And....I don't live on the block, just a lifelong Queens resident who hates seeing these monstrosities destroying the character of so many properties all to add illegal tenancies.
The perimeter wall height is 21'.
Max building height is 35'. Owner is going to argue he's not over that, and what would be a peak at the center of a traditional roof line is the perimeter peak.
Owner can argue whatever he likes. He didn't build it to code.
I'd be happy to make phone calls and add complaints to 311 or directly to agencies if someone posts proper procedure.
I watched Queensboro Hill turn into a Chinese shanty town within 15 years because of anything goes zoning. Now the Chinese are trying to stretch the new zoning laws. As someone who has sold properties in the area, there is HUGE demand for houses and not enough for sale. And 9 out of 10 Chinese want two family (or a basement/cellar they can make illegal to put the in-laws).
Parts of east Flushing and Bayside have a fighting chance from turning into the dump that is QBH and west/downtown Flushing, but people need to speak up and make a lot of noise.
Don't let this overtly illegal house off the radar.
http://paikwinleung.com/2013/01/05/architecture-48-23-211th-street
This designer Leung is talented in architecture, but apparently she is not licensed and is not familiar with NYC zoning resolution. The engineer of record who rubber stamped the drawings, apparently does not have any clue either about the zoning.
Why is the Community Board doing about this ...and everywhere else this is happenining in this district???
Conflicts of interest?
Might be close people. If they have 8' cielings, that top ridge might be really close to 21' .
Community boards are a shining example of
"TOY GOVERNMENT" with NO REAL VOTING power.
Their decisions are purely ADVISORY and often trampled upon by borough hall or the BSA!
Don't expect miracles.
yes, it should be checked for zoning and occupancy compliance, but you cant (and shouldn't) regulate taste. Its an 'unfortunate' side effect of freedom.
If you want your neghibors house to look exactly like yours, then find an HOA somewhere.
It doesn't have to look like mine. It has to follow the zoning codes.
yes, it should be checked for zoning and occupancy compliance, but you cant (and shouldn't) regulate taste. Its an 'unfortunate' side effect of freedom.
If you want your neghibors house to look exactly like yours, then find an HOA somewhere.
If you noticed what the Crapper said on the main post, it's an "interesting" design.
I agree: it's definitely unusual and not totally gross. But it violates the R2A zoning that we fought long and hard for. That's the focus of this posting, from what I can see, not "taste" of a particular property owner.
And, by the way: you don't need to be in an HOA to control bad development/design. There's a little thing called a NYC Historic Landmark District that also regulates design, and there are many neighborhoods in Queens that are deserving of it.
Paul Graziano
Thank you Paul & thank you Crappy !
This site makes a big difference...
Might be close people. If they have 8' cielings, that top ridge might be really close to 21' .
----------------
Nope, from the houses next door, the first floor is at least 2 feet above grade. That means the wall at the ridge is at least 2+9+9+4= 24'.
omg this looks like a house that's on the service road of the GCP around forest hills... it's horrible.
Post a Comment