« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: another landmark violation  (Read 1981 times)

Offline francis

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
another landmark violation
« on: November 08, 2009, 09:08:16 PM »
A new 99 cent store at 81-10 37th Avenue just took down what was the appropriate awning to replace it with something that is not within landmark guide lines. There were no permitts from the Landmark Preservation Committee or from the city. I reported it to 311 and thought I'd put the information here if any one else was inclined to call to complain.
Logged

Offline Tony T

  • Resident
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: another landmark violation
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2009, 09:43:31 PM »
I will call also and encourage my neighbors
Logged

Offline francis

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
Re: another landmark violation
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2009, 10:31:43 AM »
Sorry the address is 82-10 37th ave. I apologize for the confusion
Logged

Offline Griswold Girl

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: another landmark violation
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2009, 09:33:50 AM »
I saw the awning.  Yes, it is hideous, it needs to come down.  

I can't help but wonder though, are these people totally naive that they are in a landmark district?  (Ignorant, Belligerent, Other?) I am sure no owner of a business would set out to spend a couple thousand dollars only to be told to take their awning down.

Is there a way to make new business aware of the rules before they go out and spend thousands of dollars on inappropriate signage and awnings?  It seems that there has to be a better way to be pro-landmark and pro-business in this horrible economy.
Logged

Offline dssjh

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 5314
    • View Profile
Re: another landmark violation
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2009, 09:46:48 AM »
i'd say that more often than not, the business owners aren't aware of the finer points of what one can and cannot do in a landmark district and i think it should be incumbent upon the landlord to spell it out for them. many (i'll be charitable and not say 'most to all') commercial landlords are probably not eager to do anything that will mean a single penny of missed rent, so i doubt there's much pre-lease signing discussion of such niceties.
Logged

Offline jhlifer

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Re: another landmark violation
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2009, 12:55:47 PM »
Thanks Francis. 

If the commercial tenant actually reads the lease before signing it, they will find out that the property is in a NYC historic district and that there are rules and regulations regarding what they can and cannot do to the exterior of the property.  This notification requirement has been in effect for about a dozen years.  Whether the tenant - or their attorney - read it, we don't know... but it was there.  And, unfortunately, whether they decide to comply is up to them.  So it is imperative that we notify the Landmarks Preservation Commission for each and every violation.

You can take a digital photo (if you like, it can't hurt) and email it along with the address to:  Katy Rice  krice@lpc.nyc.gov   Katy is our violations contact

The more we get involved and actually "do" rather than simply "complain" the better our community will look.
Logged

Offline Griswold Girl

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: another landmark violation
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2009, 08:39:59 AM »
Thank you jhlifer.  That is great practical information to have.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »