[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.
12 comments:
I want to remind everyone that the owners' permits were for "minor interior alterations" to this house. That's it. This BS about there not being any alterations is exactly that - BS.
Around the corner on 32nd Avenue between 149th and 150th streets, the owner of the house built on exactly 100 square feet on to a second floor bedroom. That owner filed an Alt-1 permit which showed the 100 square foot addition as an exterior change to the building.
This liar - and I will call him that to his face - has not only torn down the 3rd floor of a building without permits but also added on to the 2nd floor at the front and rear elevations (which is clearly visible in the photos and can be compared to what it previously looked like). Square footage was added on to this building at the 1st and 2nd floors and the roof elevation and profile is totally different from the previous one, again adding square footage to the building.
There is also no question that a construction fence should have been surrounding the property.
This situation should not be treated as some minor clerical error; there was a clear intent to defraud the DOB - and the residents of North Flushing - with falsified SELF-CERTIFIED DOB applications. This is a prime example of when an owner and architect should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Given the recent arrest of yet another DOB inspector who was dismissing valid complaints, it's high time for more serious penalties - including a felony count for perjury, which is what this owner and architect did - to be levied against offenders.
Paul Graziano
Re: Eddie Peralta and 30-35 150 St.
Question: Does Mr. Peralta own 30-37 150th Street also?
Question: Does Mr. Peralta own additional properties in Queens?
For the answer to those questions see NYC Department of Finance website.
It is all about fulfilling the "American Dream".
DOB Website:
2008 William Harvey, Orion Plumbing
Fined,12 month probation, and 2 year voluntary surrender of self-certification privileges.
Seems to me that he worked for the Huangs too.
They all lie!
I saw workers using air powered nail drivers on the room beams, this morning, Oct. 10th. And the full dumpster that was in the driveway was emptied. Draw your own conclusions, as to how severe the several day stoppage was.
No real consequences. The system stinks. It pays to be crooked. When you falsify DOB applications there are consequences, only if they would be implemented. Maybe then, it would send a message that the risks are too high.
Workers are framing the roof as of 11 o'clock on Saturday. Looks like their trying to sneak the work in.
If it's a simple alt why does the roof look completely different?
All you people complained when Paul Vallone was running for City Council. Well, know that he is fighting to get this issue with the house, as well as the DOB, corrected.
Only when we unite as a community can we fight injustice like this. We need our leaders like Paul Vallone, Graziano, and the Bowne-Park Civic Association to come together and be one. Well, if we want our neighborhood to stay beautiful, as well as keep its history.
Come visit us at 42-40 Bell Blvd #30, Bayside, NY to join our team.
There is a FULL STOP WORK ORDER. That is what is indicated on the DOB Website. NO ONE IS SUPPOSE TO BE DOING ANY WORK WHATSOEVER on the interior or the exterior. Further more, looks like there could be a serious STABILITY ISSUE.
Perhaps a complaint about the stability of the structure should be recorded as well.
In addition, if the workers do not have harnesses; hats, etc. call OSHA. Keep your eye on the scaffolding to make sure that it is anchored properly and that the materials are hoisted as they are required to be. You have to keep hammering away at the City agencies until you get satisfaction.
Note: There is no PARTIAL STOP WORK ORDER that, if issued, would have given them permission to make the building safe. So, they are not authorized to do roofing. It sounds like it could be extremely dangerous.
There is no construction fence required because the owner and/or architect apparently misrepresented the facts on the application. Or perhaps they just had a change of heart. They decided to wing it; forget about safety and the public, and do as they damn will please. That has to stop.
Replacing a roof and framing a new roof are two different things. Put the before and after pictures in the photos on Queenscrap's website side-by-side. It is obvious what is going on. They did structural work which is evidence by the boarding on the second floor which now extends over the first floor. In other words, they extended the second floor. That is a structural issue and so is re-framing the roof.
As far as permits: Harvey's permit is for plumbing -- with a notorious reputation according to the DOB website. See, DOB's list of disciplined Plumbers.
The Alt-2 permit is for "PROPOSED MINOR INTERIOR RENOVATION IN EXISTING ONE FAMILY HOUSE. NO CHANGE OF USE, EGRESS OR OCCUPANCY."
The BEST SQUAD will be there soon. It is a big fine to work contrary to a FULL STOP WORK ORDER. Perhaps that will have some impact -- for the moment anyway.
No contractor should want to do work on a project that has a FULL STOP WORK ORDER. He deserves a stiff fine -- which he may also get. The contractors need to lose their licenses when they do illegal work. That is the only answer. The penalties are not stiff enough to deter them. We know they typically start up under different circumstances -- circumventing the system.
The southern roof exposure is now clad in sheathing. My guess is work will be on going through completion of these little handy home owner minor alterations. From just my own cursory observations in this neighborhood in and around Zip Code 11354, that NOTHING is impeded by so meaningless as some official looking piece of paper on view that looks like official permission. Unless some worker falls from a ladder, is killed, or sustains serious injury, on any given work site have hammer will proceed. The City basically doesn't give a rats ass. DeB goes to Israel or some other place for self aggrandizement while shit just plods along with no oversite. He is so full of low income housing crap that the real backbone of tax paying folks, especially home owners, just try to hang on. I am looking forward to the day when at some news event, when he is hankering for reelection, I can lean on my working press card, look him in the eye and just tell him he has been a shit excuse for a leader, and ain't worth chicken shit on a pump handle as they say down South. That day will come.
I guess we should sent Mr Peralta back to China?
I guess we should sent Mr Peralta back to China?
Why? He is already in China.
Post a Comment