UWS Homeowner Forced To Remove 6th Floor Of Building

L: with the addition, R: without the addition

The Landmark Preservation Commission is making an example out of one Upper West Side homeowner. The 19th-century Queen Anne-style mansion at 12-14 West 68th Street is in an area that was landmarked in 1990, but sometime in 2005 the owner at the time, Polly Cleveland, received a permit from the Buildings Department to add one floor to the five-story structure. This was completed in 2007, but Cleveland has since moved out. Arthur Minerof is the current owner, and he's now been told the sixth floor has to be torn down.

In March the LPC deemed the addition to be in violation of landmark rules, and now steps are being taken to remove it. But how did it get there in the first place? That part of the story is full of holes. While the new owner isn't talking, Cleveland told the Wall Street Journal that she assumed the requirements were fulfilled when she received the Building Department permit. And indeed, a Buildings Department spokesman told the paper, "Licensed professionals are required to notify the department about a building's landmark status when submitting construction plans. It appears that did not happen in this case."

Alas, the sixth floor, which houses part of a duplex apartment, must come down. In part due to people like Arlene Simon, president of the preservation group Landmark West!, who says, "I organized in all five boroughs to protest this. I told neighbors if it can happen here it can happen anywhere." As it stands, the paper notes that something like this has never happened anywhere in New York.

Well, at least in the end the owner still holds the key to a 19th-century Queen Anne-style townhouse on the Upper West Side.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Carlson in News on May 4, 2010 3:15 PM

Comments [rss]

ASB

Why is it that when it comes to breaking the landmarks law the "law and order" crowd feel it is OK and they attack those trying to enforce the law saying they should "get a life." Thank goodness we have people like Arlene Simon who are willing to stand up to such barbs and demand that the law be followed. Since when is asking that a law be enforced being NIMBY?

PTG in nyc

Who cares what the DOB or LPC should have done, why the F does Arlene Simon feel the need to treat a 1 floor addition as though it's a terrorist?

Get a life and leave these fools alone to their 1 extra story. What harm has this caused, other than to inflate some bitchy woman's ego for successfully fighting it?

juniper19

Amen!

Spirit of 76

"Licensed professionals are required to notify the department about a building's landmark status when submitting construction plans."

That's ridiculous. DOB should have access to a complete database of landmarked buildings and districts. They shouldn't have to rely on someone else's good faith and competence, both of which are often in short supply.

rasputinsghost

boo fucking hoo

Papercutninja

Lol at rich people.

greeen

in all honesty the building looks better with the addition that it did before, at least according to the above photos. In the before image it looks pretty run down. and they replaced the parapet. Leave it be I say. there are more important issues at hand, such as the rampaging ugly development in Williamsburg, for example.

kissel

ridiculous. They approved it. The LPC should have done their homework back in 2005. To force the new owner to tear down a city approved addition at their expense is ludicrous. BTW, the job that was done looks to be an improvement to the original and seems to have gone to some length to fit in with the surrounding structure and its own architecture.

jaycjay

"they approved it. The LPC should have done their homework back in 2005."

DOB approved it, not the LPC. And apparently that happened because the building's landmark status was not properly reported by the owner or contractor.

Sucks for the current owner, in about the same way it would to buy something like an expensive piece of art and then find out that it was stolen. The current owner was deceived.

chuzzlewit

architect should have done due diligence regarding the LPC. new homeowner should at least consult (arch.) now to see if changes could be made to the addition in order to obtain a certificate of no effect from LPC - worth a shot.

1stephanie

At least the addition isn't one of those where it looks like there's a shed sitting on top of the roof. I've seen a few of those around Brooklyn, and I'm surprised they're allowed to happen. So ugly.

Mr Mel

Can we assume the current owner is going to fight it? He'd be a jerk not to. Being made an example of is prejudicial. Unless they intend to go after every violator of LPC dictums he's got a good shot at reversal.

JenChungsBaby

A friend recently bought a townhouse on the UWS in which the last owner had illegally built a small loft-like addition to the top floor in order to have a staircase to the roof. The city fined him over $50,000 (which he bargained down to $25,000). But I guess that's better than having to remove it.

Just to ensure that absolutely nobody on Gothamist has one ounce of sympathy remaining, it's a five-story townhouse that had been converted to ten apartments. My friend removed all the inside walls, doors, plumbing, wires, etc, and converted it back to a one-family house -- all 5 floors plus the basement and backyard. It's now probably the nicest house on the UWS though you couldn't tell from the outside.