"At
149-15 33 Ave we were able to get DOB to issue a Full Stop Work Order on 5/19 because work beyond plan and permit approved, for demolition of 100% of exterior walls with a permit for Alteration only. On 6/23 DOB, for no legitimate reason, rescinded this stop work order. On 9/30 on DOB website; "BORO COMMISSIONER HAS ORDERED WORK STOPPED FOR #421003130. DUE TO SUPERINTENDENT OF CONSTRUCTION NOT AUTHORIZING PERMIT". So far they have not issued another Stop Work Order. But then again, it appears those are meaningless and ineffective as they aren't enforced." - anonymous
Hey guess whose district this is in?
30 comments:
Could it ne...STINKY???
Why are you electeds not involved. Where the hell is Melinda? Oh thats right, tweeding as she paints eyes on a dragon boat.
Not THATS important!
Like playing "wack-a-mole".
Flooshing is Chinatown. Fugghettaboutit!
That is the message that elected officials are told by REBNY.
This is THEIR new ethnic neighborhood.
Remember the way Olde NYC, Manhattan proper, was once settled by many cultures?
Germantown Yorkville 86th Street etc. Little Italy, Hungarian nabe, Jewish lower east side , and so on.
Now it's Queens turn to absorb new ethnic nabes.
The old Manhattan ones are gone and homogenized into yuppie town. After all there is truth in Queens being the "world's borough".
In Flushing , everybody looks the other way. So they are told to.
DOB is certainly used to that.
The real problem is that that area lacks a good strong civic association.
Anybody can mess with them without much consequence.
Painting eyes on a dragon boat is metaphoric.
The area has been ceded to China, and everybody is fine with that because it kept Flushing's African Americans from , as some past pols have said, from taking over the town like they did in Jamaica in the 1950s,
Yeah, that is Flushing's dirty little secret.
Politicians behind Asian settlement. "Thank God for the Asians. We didn't want Flushing to become south Jamaica".
(The words of former state assemblyman Morton C. Hillman, 1987.
As long as Flushing's real estate value is protected and skyrocketing everybody is happy.
Well, not everybody!
I live a block away from this monolythic eyesore. Pictures alone cannot convey how brutally oversized and deep extending into what was once a palatial back yard of the former one family house on this narrow plot. The number of dormers is but a small indication of how many individuals are going to be housed in this disgusting display of excess. I do not know if the plans mandated a single family dwelling or a varience was DOB'd. Certainly once it is inhabited it will be interesting to see haw many cars get parked and how many mailboxes or scum dwellers take up residence. And as if Flushing is not saturated enough, the 10 block area borded by Flushing Creek, along College Point Blvd. is scheduled to be rezoned for new residental and commercial development. Wonderful how so much gets promised by pricks who never will live here, and the transporation needs are taken into account by What? A newly projected bus terminal. Of course the number 7 train will be unusable and saturated beyond it's already overburdened ridership. A fucking pig sty of humanity is what FluShing is destined for, beyond the Blade Runner choked downtown area already.
How does the DOB regard the elimination of a backyard and often a garage, when the replacement house footprint ends up filling up almost the entire property?
I've seen a number of these monstrous replacement McMansions in Jamaica that have done this, and asked myself whether this is somehow legal.
Is there anyone who has specific knowledge of what the law allows in these cases?One of the pics of the back of this property shows this, compared to the neighbor's original house in the foreground.
In NYC you do are allowed to build up to the property line. You do not have to leave any space.
In NYC you do are allowed to build up to the property line. You do not have to leave any space.
Whoever wrote this has no idea what they're talking about.
In an R2A zone, you must have two side yards - 5 feet and 8 feet wide - a front yard 15 to 20 feet deep, depending on your neighbors, and a rear yard of at least 30 feet in depth.
How does the DOB regard the elimination of a backyard and often a garage, when the replacement house footprint ends up filling up almost the entire property?
I've seen a number of these monstrous replacement McMansions in Jamaica that have done this, and asked myself whether this is somehow legal.
Is there anyone who has specific knowledge of what the law allows in these cases?One of the pics of the back of this property shows this, compared to the neighbor's original house in the foreground.
Here's the problem: unfortunately, even if there is some illegality going on, the basics are legal. Here's why: the R2A zone, for example, controls the height and size of a building better than just about any other zone in the city and allows 30% lot coverage of the building and a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
However, this is based upon a standard 40' x 100' lot or 4,000 square foot property. This type of property will generate a building (including a garage) that is no more than 2,300 square feet in size, which is less than what the R2 zone generated (almost 4,000 square feet) because of all of the exemptions for floor area that were allowed.
The property in question is 6,360 square feet, and it is 40 feet wide and over 150 feet in depth, as well as having a small notch at the back of the property which goes to the east. That means that this new house can be over 3,400 square feet including a garage, or double the size of the previous building.
The problem is that in most parts of Queens where there are oversized lots (North Flushing, Bayside, Douglaston, Jamaica Estates, etc.) the zoning allows MUCH more to be built than what is there today. This is why landmarking is the *only* solution in some neighborhoods in order to protect it, such as Broadway-Flushing, because so many houses are "under-built" for their lots.
And for anyone who has a question about it, the lowest density zones in the city (R1 and R2 zones) allow a 0.5 FAR.
Paul Graziano
The previous house that was destroyed (although they described it as altered, which is a lie) was 1,736 square feet, or was at a 0.27 FAR.
I've lived in Flushing for close to 40 years... its just sad.
@Paul Graziano
Paul is it possible for you to post (maybe on your own website) an explanation of the building codes in the area? Explaining the FAR ratio, lot coverage, and how to review permits on the DOB website. I'd like to lend a hand in the investigation of these "monstrous" replacements but am having difficult time navigating the DOB website. Thanks again for all you do in the neighborhood. GRAZIANO in 2016
I warned all of you concerned citizens last week when everyone was worried about that other house in Flushing that was being screwed up. No matter how much you complain or protest or how many stop work orders you get some schmuck from DOB to write these people will out wait all of you. I told you they will go find a "friendly" person at DOB or the borough commissioner's office that will lift a stop work when no none is paying attention. Besides their clients will pay cash for the finished shit hole so there is no bank holding a mortgage that will object to open violations on the property for years. Some day years from now when all the concerned citizens are too old to complain anymore or dead the owner will hire an architect to legalize the monstrosity. This happens al of the time, I've seen it over and over again. I mean do you think anyone in city government will actually have them balls to make these people tear down one of these shit holes after they have it almost built by sneaking the construction on weekends and holidays when DOB enforcement people don't normally work. ONCE IT GETS BUILT IT ALWAYS GETS LEGALIZED----ALWAYS.
It's still wrong.
R2A - Minimum Rear Yard Required is 30 Feet
See, NYC ZONING TEXT, 23-47 Minimum Required Rear Yards
Note: When you do not have the Minimum Required Rear Yard -- presumably, it is illegal.
Remedy: Apply to the NYC BSA for a Variance
See, NYC BSA -- Variance (§72-21) 6/20/68
72-21 Findings Required for Variances
It may be "LEGAL" but we should change things so that they can't be!! Whatever that is, changing zoning limits/regs or landmark status. Whichever works. Not only are they "too big" but they don't fit the character of the block, and/or the neighborhood!! So I guess that would make landmarking sense. Wouldn't it? I mean this one wouldn't be legal: .5 FAR if you exclude to extra 40x12 "L" piece of land in the back yard, and just because its w/in .5 but so much more than all other residential homes on the block and simply larger and longer thhan the others should also be part of the zoning bldg limits/regulations. Not to mention it looks commercial, not residential. I think it looks like either a possible school, church or company office (maybe in disguise).
Contruction fence is obviously not built according to code. Keep calling 311 with legitimate complaints.
I sincerely hope landmarking can save the houses in Broadway from suffering this kind of fate. The problem is, there are thousands of other homes in Queens on blocks that have no hope of any sort of protection from this destruction and that's sad. And it's not limited to Flushing. There is one near me in Bayside that is almost identical to this. The new owner tore down an old ranch on a corner with an oversized yard. It looks big enough to house about 30 people. While it isn't an architecturally or historically significant area like Broadway, it was still a nice block before the demolition. Now it's ruined just because someone had the money to do it. Also, I feel like these teardowns are creating a loss of affordable housing stock, as the new house is probably valued at about four times the original. The city seems to be on-board with it though. (I'm sure they've already reassessed the property taxes) Maybe it's just me but it feels like there are more and more 'plywood fences of death' going up these past few months. I went for like a 20 minute walk the other day in Bayside/Whitestone and saw I think four houses under demolition. Anyone know why now or is it just a coincidence?
More construction, more value, more TAXES!
Just saying...
Correct MORE TAXES.
Think about it: There was one house on the property Huang purchased at 39-39 223rd Street, Bayside -- back in 2002.
Now there are 4, yes 4, 4 times whatever the present taxes.
By the way, the houses are still boarded up. They need to be razed. It is an unsafe project that the City and the DOB has failed to do anything about. The Quality of Life has been dramatically affected.
How are we ever going to accomplish that HUGE feat against such a NOTORIOUS FAMILY. Word is: They will be back -- presumably, when their probation is over.
Does it affect the utilities (gas, electric, water, etc.)? Yes. Hence, all the work that Con Ed is doing to upgrade their piping.
Also, I feel like these teardowns are creating a loss of affordable housing stock, as the new house is probably valued at about four times the original. The city seems to be on-board with it though. (I'm sure they've already reassessed the property taxes)
I really don't think any of the residents that are homeowners care about this. In fact I wished that instead of tearing down all those single homes they would just tear down all the co-ops and attached homes in Northeast Queens and replace everything with single family detached homes. That way we will all retire rich.
Landmarking is not in the future for Broadway.
You have had your rally, now what?
Patiently wait for the slow gears of NYC government grind away, while the tear downs increase.
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=4&passjobnumber=420984340&passdocnumber=01
New Permit was issued on October 8th, 2015 ...
'Nuff said!
DOB needs overhaul!
Interesting:
See, 84-16 Queens Blvd. - Queens Still Problematic Construction Site with
FULL STOP WORK ORDER HUSSAIN & MORRIS BOTH PULLED PERMITS ON THAT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
This is the property that was owned by the Huangs. You may remember the fatal collapse in January 2011.
They are going to DEMO the Garage. Should have been done a long time ago according to DOB Website.
By the way, a 311 complaint should be made about that construction fence. It is shabby and not green...looks unstable, too.
No permit yet for garage demo...
To all that say garage was not demo'd, you are incorrect. It was torn down sveral months ago. I live on the block.
Update 10/19: today DOB issued, Another, Stop Work Order on this house. Let's see if they obey this time and that it remains in effect until owner gets proper permit AND pays proper fines!
This was my home. I apologize to the community and my neighbors for having sold it to this family. It is sad to see the monstrosities that are being built. If I'd had a clue, I'd have waited for another buyer.
Post a Comment