Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Mrs. Mott's Douglaston house to be drastically altered

Here's some history:
38-60 Douglaston Parkway, constructed in ca. 1865, is a two-story, 4 bay, wood frame, rectangular plan, single-family residence. The one-and-a-half-story sub-type has a strong Greek Revival presence with elements that include a heavy cornice and deep fascia boards; 6/6 double-hung wood sash windows; a hip-roofed portico with plain entablature supported by substantial wood piers, and a rectilinear transom and sidelight configuration at the front door. The cornice at the north end of the street elevation is embellished with Italianate paired brackets. Other features include a cross-gabled roofline, and louvered wood shutters. A one-story, flat-roofed wing is attached at the rear (west) elevation. An early twentieth century, two car garage is placed at the southwest end of the property.

The first documented house constructed in the Village of Marathon was the John Quade (later) house, built in 1854 and located at 39-18 Douglaston Parkway. For over one hundred and twenty years, the west side of Douglaston Parkway north of the railroad tracks up to Bay Street (originally Myrtle Place), was lived in by members of the Quade family, an extended tenant farm family originally from Ireland. The earliest remaining buildings are the John Quade House, later shown as the P. Dimmeny house on the Beers Atlas of Long Island (1873); the D. Starkings house (c. 1865), located at 38-80 Douglaston Parkway; and the Mrs. Mott house (c. 1865), which was moved from just south of the John Quade house in 1956 to its current location at 38-60 Douglaston Parkway.
Mrs. Mott's house, saved from destruction 6 decades ago, is soon to lose all of its historic value and character. A permit for "vertical and horizontal extensions" was issued this week. This will basically look like a brick box when the dust settles.

We can thank Council Member Dan Halloran for this. He has been opposed to everything that's been calendared by the LPC since he became council member.

The Douglaston Extension is the only ORIGINAL part of Douglaston left, with the original farmhouses, etc. - and he's against it because it is "our right in liberty and freedom to develop our property as we deem fit in America" and "property owners should not be forced to landmark their property against their wishes" because it's a "taking of property rights." Never mind that the extension was supposed to be included in the original designation of 1997 with the rest of Douglas Manor, and the LPC was going to follow-up on it - which they did.

Dan stated - flat out - during the 2009 campaign that he was against landmarking the Douglaston HD Extension in principle but understood that there were mitigating circumstances (that it was supposed to be included in 1997) that changed his opinion. As soon as he took office, he reneged on that position. He's opposed to other two designations because property owners are opposed. Sometimes there is an overriding public need to protect something. In the case of the Ahles House, it's the last remnant of the Bell family, who essentially created Bayside. Here's another example:

39-12 Douglaston Parkway, constructed ca. 1910, is a two-story, 2-bay, wood-frame, L-plan, late Queen Anne style residence. The straightforward ‘Free-classic’ farmhouse has a wrap-around hip-roofed porch on the east and south elevations supported by stylized classical columns, interspersed by a simple wood porch railing. The building is finished with wood clapboard siding and the 1/1 double-hung sash are flanked by louvered wood shutters. The two-story projection on the south elevation is gabled, but does not rise to the full height of the main roof; it contains a one-story angular bay with a hipped roof. The site drops off sharply to the west close to the street and the long lot terminates at a seasonal pond.
The pond was filled in by the owner. Then he built a horrible addition to the original house. Then the house went BOOM. Then he demolished most of the original house. Apparently, he started reconstruction today and is bricking over the remnant that's still standing.

Dan Halloran, by putting a roadblock between the LPC and the designation of these homes, is personally responsible for the destruction of one of the oldest remaining streets left in Queens - first the Huang construction explosion disaster and now 38-60 being destroyed by a developer - because his ideology - and lies - have gotten in the way of saving the history of our neighborhoods for future generations to appreciate.


Anonymous said...

And nobody seems to give a damn!
Where is the Queens Hysterical Society?
Kissing the asses of Asian donors.

Anonymous said...

Going, going, GONE, very soon...
not with a bang but without a whimper of protest.

Anonymous said...

I understand people wanting to remodel a home they just bought, i do. but why buy a house like this then? I'm sure there is a ton of crap-boxes out there for sale.

It comes off as intentional.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like (yet) another reason to vote for Paul Graziano.

Anonymous said...

Queens remains the laughing stock of NYC.

Anonymous said...

the over-development of queens properties vs landmarking is a controversial subject.if proper zoning laws are followed by property owners and laws are enforced by government, reasonable results should happen.

Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) says without a individual's property rights, one has NO other rights.

former environmentalist,Elizabeth Nickerson,wrote the book "ECO-FACISTS", after she attempted to sub-divide her property to build a second house. WHY ?

i am a home OWNER,pay PROPERTY taxes, and
maintain MY PROPERTY.

does a outside group have the RIGHT TO FORCE THEIR WILL on me ? think about it ?

all citizens will be forced by government to BUY health insurance in 2014 . do you agree with this Gov. and court mandate, that over 60% of citizens polled against ?

what is the next forced buying scheme in the future?

Anonymous said...

As the author of the report that the information on this posting is cribbed from, I want to make something very clear:

This section of Douglaston - which is not landmarked, but calendared (meaning that it's ready to be designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission) - is important for many, many reasons, whether historically, architecturally or culturally.

I am so tired of listening to property rights zealots who would cut off their nose to spite their face - using the arugment that the only thing that matters is your individual property rights above all else - and yet complain about how things are going to hell in a handbasket in their neighborhoods as new, Crappy development gets built.

Using this argument, Grand Central Station should have been demolished because Penn Central, a privately-owned company, wanted it so back in the early 1980s. There was an overriding public interest in protecting this building, particularly after the loss of Pennsylvania Station in 1963 and it was not allowed by the LPC, and upheld at the United States Supreme Court.

Now, Grand Central has been restored inside and out and has become a massive tourist attraction, generatiing tens of millions of dollars in income for both the private owner and the City of New York.

We have all seen terrible development happen around northeast Queens over the last two decades. SOMETIMES, it is for the greater good to protect and preserve certain buildings, sites, open space and other things that matter to people.

We are not talking about landmarking every building in every neighborhood of the 19th Council District. To the contrary, perhaps 10-15% of the 19th Council District would even be eligible for this kind of protection.

The issue here is that this small section of 20 buildings or so was supposed to be designated with the rest of Douglas Manor over 15 years ago. CM Halloran knew this and agreed to support designation of the area when he ran in 2009, even if it went against his own ideology because there were other things at play here.

Immediately upon getting elected, he reneged on his agreement and has threatened to overturn any landmarking designation where the property owner is in opposition.

In fact, he has also held up the designation of the Ahles house in Bayside, which has also been calendared by the LPC. That house, owned by an absentee landlord who lives out of state, is the last connection to the Bell family, the main landowners of Bayside who Bell Boulevard is named after.

Back to Douglaston: to lose a half-dozen 150-year-old farmhouses in excellent condition - the nucleus of what actually became Douglaston - because of ideology against the wishes of the vast majority of the Douglaston community is completely unacceptable.

I challenge ANY/ALL of my opponents in this City Council race to support the preservation of these buildings that are essential to the fabric of Douglaston.

Paul Graziano,
Candidate for City Council, 19th District

Anonymous said...

And, I would add, to the previous poster:

You are completely wrong.

Zoning is an imaginary envelope. It has nothing to do with protecting the look, feel or character of a particular building. It only deals with basic height, volume and scale - in other words, the building being proposed by the developer is well within the R1-2 zoning that exists at this site, as was the house that exploded down the street.

ANYTHING can be built "within reason" as you say. In this case, that most likely means a brick box.

As the person who designed the rezonings in all of northeast Queens, there is no question that they have HELPED to curb the rampant overdevelopment that was happening here. It has not stopped it entirely, nor does it help buildings or neighborhoods that need ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS.

That's what landmarking is for.

And, if landmarking is so horrible, why are neighborhoods around the city clamoring for it?? Why does Manhattan have close to 80 historic districts?

I can tell you, those Manhattanites who live in them are laughing all the way to the bank.

Paul Graziano
Candidate for City Council, 19th Council District

Anonymous said...

Anon No. 6:

More important than Freedom or Speech or Freedom of Religion? Not sure? And some people here think that their Second Amendment rights are really important.

Anonymous said...

TO OPINE ON WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED (and I am in full agreement)
"And We have all seen terrible development happen around northeast Queens over the last two decades. SOMETIMES, it is for the greater good to protect and preserve certain buildings, sites, open space and other things that matter to people." ANYONE WHO DISAGREES SHOULD TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK AT DOWNTOWN FLUSHING AND ALL THE LOVELY HISTORIC HOMES LOST, THE DESTRUCTION OF ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS TO MAKE ROOM FOR COMMERICAL USE OR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN WHAT WAS ONCE A STREET OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. WHERE DOES IT STOP?
Anyone who feels that an owner has the right to modify his/her property without regard to the asthetics of the surrounding neighborhood is obviously not the person who lives in a one family home who can no longer access a portion of their windows because the owner of the adjacent property felt they were entitled to construct right up to the property line. Must be a real nice view of the neighboring brick or concrete structure... so close you can touch it! Oh and lets not forget to maintain your siding, gutters etc. You know... the ones you can no longer access.

Anonymous said...

Come on give good ole Danny boy a break. He got those nice historical street signs. Isn't that enough?

Yes indeed. Vote Paul Graziano.


Anonymous said...

can one detail the negatives of landmarking ones private home/property ?

did not the former, mostly Caucasian/African American/Hispanic , Flushing community get Asian populated by the Immigration and Naturalization Act voted for by a democrat congress,spearheaded by DEM.Sen. Ted Kennedy and signed by Dem Pres. L.B.Johnson, in 1965 ? and has since become "COMMERCIAL USE OR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN WHAT WAS ONCE A STREET OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. WHERE DOES IT STOP?

does not this constantly accuse the past local dem, machine politicians and bureaucrats of selling Flushing out to immigrant Asians.

can you handle the facts ?many of you voted for them. B.Rosenthal...L.Stavisky...G.Ackerman...D.Manes...S.Weprin etc. etc..

Anonymous said...

why are there NO critics of #10, permitted on Q.C.?

Queens Crapper said...

Maybe you should keep your pants on until I get around to moderating your comment.

Anonymous said...

can one detail the negatives of landmarking ones private home/property ?
In the words of Milton Friedman.....JUST MOVE! If you dont' like the laws, MOVE TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION!

But negatives....It makes NYC look backwards...That's why New York in the media is portrayed as being so great and beautiful but when my cousins come to visit Manhattan their first reaction is "ew", NYers are rude, "it smells like pig/beef in Manhattan", "Buildings are old" and "how come the subway stations and trains are so old/sordid?"

Landmarking is great because it preserves the history of a street but when street after street is landmarked, it makes Manhattan look less modern. There should be a balance between progress/modernism and preserving ones history. This is why Manhattan (although some buildings have excellent artistic detailing) some just aren't worth saving and simply put...just a pile of crap...

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, we don't even have "street" let alone "street after street" landmarked in Queens.

All we're asking for is our important buildings and neighborhoods to be protected, not every square inch of Queens.

Anonymous said...

Dan Halloran's Ayn Rand,individual rights, tea party,"A" hole trolls are out in force on QC, I see!

Is doofy Dan wearing his Theod mini skirt under his suit in the city council chambers?

You're done Dan. Face it. Maybe you can get a judgeship out in Mineola.

I'd even vote for a villain like Vallone over a traitorous asshole like you.

If Kevin Kim didn't run, you'd have never won your seat.

The vote was against Kim, certainly not for you!

Go back to your seat at the bar, and I don't mean the Bar Association.

Sullivan's misses you.
Without your slovenly presence, Bell B'lvd. is dull.

Have you porked any of your aides lately?

Anonymous said...

As I understand the NYC landmarks law, if it's calendered it's protected
until a final vote is taken.

Anonymous said...

And so Paris is old and "ew" too, because the French are civilized enough to have preserved their significant historic sites?

Your logic is flawed, you phony.

Fess up now,'re really a developer's troll (and most likely Asian)!

I can even smell the soy sauce online.

Anonymous said...

Ho hum.
I'm not impressed.

Anonymous said...

Gee...we haven't heard from that "great" Libertarian, Ed Konechnik on an individual's property rights.

Or have we?

Anonymous said...

Landmarked nabes get premium city services delivered and their property values increase.

Aren't they also offered a tax abatement for the privilege of their landmark status?

I see nothing wrong in a little sacrifice on the part of a homeowner, to maintain the quality of his neighborhood.

Some people are just consumed by their anger and laziness. Others might simply be tightwads, never wanting to part with a nickel.

For example:
Jackson Heights would have joined the cocaine dealing ghetto of Elmhurst years ago, if it hadn't been rescued by becoming a historic district.

Anonymous said...

"As I understand the NYC landmarks law, if it's calendered it's protected until a final vote is taken."

Then, why did the Building Department allow the alteration permit been issued?

Anonymous said...

how many nyc officials and bureaucrats reside in the Douglaston Manor/Douglaston L/M/area ?

it is County type quality of life ,with lower NYC property tax.

compare the nassau property tax with city tax ?

when a DM/D issue comes before the C.P.B.11,this POPULATION TURNS OUT with a full auditorium.
that is their RIGHT to petition and assemble.

it reminds one of a UFT charge on the Albany pols.

Anonymous said...

They throw this bullshit the house is your castle shit around Queens because the preservationists (read rich Manhattanites and Brooklynites) do a crappy job of spreading info on the benefits of preservation.

We just do not get the info, nor is their a real sustained effort to let us know.

They need our politicians to vote for their protection and they are not about to sever the bond between master and serf.

We are on our own out here fighting an unequal battle that, with the exception of the odd victory, is one dreary defeat after another.

End of discussion.

Anonymous said...

Calendaring is the first step to an area or building being designated a New York City landmark.

When a property or area is calendared, any building, alteration of demolition permit that is requested has an immediate 45-day delay.

The LPC then has 45 days to determine whether they will proceed with designation of said property.

As I stated previously, in the case of 38-60 Douglaston Parkway, the LPC has not continued forward with a designation due to the fact that CM Halloran has stated his opposition and intent to overturn any landmarking that is not agreed upon by a property owner.

The developer who purchased this house has his plans up on the DOB website for anyone to examine (or as much as they let you look at it, which isn't a lot). Parkway&requestid=0&s=A03C41B885B461E4F46BD08866A7430E

Paul Graziano
Candidate for City Council, 19th District

Anonymous said...

Paul Graziano. For city council


Anonymous said...

has the owner of this property scammed the building system and community with a 'as of right'claim ?

like the asian daycare center at 196-30 42 ave. in never re-zoned or landmarked ,11358 AUBURNDALE ?with two sub basements,no p/u or d/o of over 250 toddlers,and rooftop playground. joy for next door 1-2 family residents,who may want to sleep because of night shift work.

on who's city council watch did this occur ?was it avella?

Anonymous said...

Anon No. 28: Which, of course has nothing to do with Crapper's post.

Queens Crapper said...

My apologies to Mr. Graziano for not sourcing the info. The report this came from is in the Douglaston section of his website.

Anonymous said...

i reread your headline/body and you state " Dan Halloran----------first the Huang disaster explosion" ? Halloran was not an elected official when the Huang development in Bayside was started aproximately 2003.

is this addition to your Douglaston property development post a smoke screen to demonize a Cons/G.O.P. candidate ?
you are usually fairer than this attempt to copy the yellow journalists.

i do not want to be FORCED to have my property landmarked. i must be able to choose voluntarily.

Anonymous said...

What's the site? I can't find it. Can you please provide link?

Queens Crapper said...

Not the Huang houses in Bayside, the Huang house on Douglaston Parkway that exploded last year. That was 100% Halloran. No yellow journalism necessary. And yes, the City can landmark your property without your permission. The Supreme Court said so decades ago.

Anonymous said...

i just read" the house went boom"link.when the house blew up and was mostly demolished by the owner,was anyone arrested for a crime ? if not, were the workers found negligent?

did Huang own this property ?was Halloran arrested for a crime? what was Halloran's connection to this event ?

connecting him to all of these historical property renovations over many years ,is suspicious. many dem. pols were in office during the existence of these they have any responsibility while in office ? or does only the other side get the demonizing,during a campaign season ?

Anonymous said...

please provide a link that confirms the city can landmark my property without my permission and the Supreme Court decision.

Anonymous said...

Gramps -

There are many, many people with the last name of Huang. It's like the "Smith" of Chinese last names.

As for only landmarking houses voluntarily, you obviously didn't read anything that Mr. Graziano wrote.

If landmarking were only done voluntarily, most of the parts of New York City that are landmarked would be demolished already because of owner opposition.

As the Crapper just said and Mr. Graziano said earlier, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of a municipality to designate a building or neighborhood a landmark for the public good.

This is in every town, city and state in America. If you don't like it, please pick up and move to a different country.

Anonymous said...

Halloran needs to be defeated.

This self serving hooligan has a screw loose, and has been siding with developers since he took office.

That sot is power hungry.
His God complex and kookie ideology come first.

His constituents come second.

They're handed the shitty end of the broom to clean up the mess he leaves in their neighborhoods.

I call out this phony as a traitorous cur who needs to be put down at the polls.

Queens Crapper said...

Here's the link that explains the Supreme Court case.

And Gramps, Halloran is being "demonized" because he was the one in office when the LPC decided they wanted to move forward with landmarking. He refused and now all the properties are in limbo.

Anonymous said...

The boy chick is not "being demonized " he is a demon.