[Eddie] Peralta told the Queens Chronicle all is not as it seems.
He adamantly denied that he intends to enlarge the house.
As for why the siding and roof were removed, he said the previous owner put layer upon layer on without removing the first piece and he feared the roof was about to collapse, later showing pictures to a Chronicle reporter that apparently proved his claim. He is in the process of submitting those plans to the DOB now, he said, and intends on going back to work if those plans are approved.
Why no construction fence? He only needs one if new construction is occurring, something he denies is happening.
At least two people don’t buy Peralta’s story.
State Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside) said the pictures he’s seen of the house show something more than “minor renovations” going on.
“If that’s the case,” Avella said of Peralta’s claim the roof came off for safety reasons, “then he has to reamend the permit and get a different one.”
Paul Graziano, an urban planner who has raised questions about the house, said the removal of the roof is “not a minor alteration.
“That is a major alteration,” the Flushing resident continued, adding he, too, believes that if the homeowner does not intend to enlarge, he should file different permits.