Round 1 w/ Historic Preservation – OK So Far

It took us forever to get our application together for the historic preservation tax credit, but we finally got it in just after New Years. Yesterday we got a call from one of the reviewers who asked a few questions and then sent us a PDF of their comments. All in all no huge surprises. They wanted a lot more detail on exactly what we were doing with the exterior masonry. How we were getting the stucco off the brick in the rear. How we were cleaning the brick. Exactly what we going to do with the front since the brownstone is currently painted, etc. If you follow historic preservation guidelines none of those items are big deals. It’s just important to make sure you know what they want before you do it. Today we had a meeting with our contractor and the masonry sub-contractor – none of it seemed to be a problem, though it did change how he was going to handle the brownstone in the front.

They also wanted to know what we meant about raising the parapets. They prefer we put railings on top of the parapets instead of raising them. However, on the party wall fire code requires that we actually raise the parapet. The sum total is that they want us to raise parapets as little as possible and prefer railings over taller parapets since railings are easily reversible.

One issue was that we had spec’d vinyl windows in bathrooms. The windows are in shower areas and vinyl is more appropriate in a wet location. Plus, it’s in a sidewall which is a few feet from an apartment building – so not generally visible. The said they understood why we had spec’d vinyl in that particular location, but said the National Park Service usually doesn’t like vinyl windows. But the sum total was that they cautioned us to not order the windows before we get NPS approval – so it sounds like they personally think vinyl is OK in that particular situation.

The last issue was that I told her we heard from our window and door manufacturer that they weren’t able to fabricate 10 foot tall doors. That means we’d need to have shorter doors with a transom on top. I said our other option was to get salvaged doors and restore them, but our concern was that they wouldn’t be identical to what was there originally. She thought salvaged doors were the stronger option even if they weren’t like the originals. As long as they were of the neighborhood and of the era we’d be fine. However, in talking to our contractor today he’d prefer to make new replicas of the original doors. We just have a photo of our place from 1940, but I think it should be good enough for him to come pretty close to what was there originally, so that’s what we’ll propose in our revised application.

All in all nothing major. That means we can proceed with getting a loan and going into contract with our contractor. More hurdles to jump through, but we’re moving forward…

It’s Just A Construction Fence…

Continuing with the bureaucratic insanity of the NYC DOB… It’s amazing how difficult it is just to build a simple plywood construction fence…

First and foremost it takes a completely separate permit to build a temporary construction fence. They’re all built pretty much the same I honestly don’t know why they can’t have an approved design that people can build without a permit. If you have an approved permit for other work, then the fence should just be something that you can do without overthinking it. But no, this is the NYC DOB we’re talking about.

Next up our architect had never drawn a construction fence and didn’t want to be responsible for it. I guess there are liability issues since pedestrians come in contact with it. The architect/expediter who works for him hadn’t ever drawn one either. So we asked our contractor to take care of it. His expediter searched around for the architect with the best price and $800 later we had plans we had approved plans. I doubt our contractor will charge us $800 to build the thing – it’s just plywood and 2x4s…

But that’s not the end of it… We have a permit for construction, we have a permit for a fence, but we still have a stop work order on the property so we can’t do anything…

The original stop work order that was issued in 2007 for working without a permit when no work was being done and a permit was in place (but not displayed) – that one got lifted. But apparently the new stop work order they put on us in late December for having two sets of approved plans is still in place. But I’ll reiterate – the first set has expired and cannot be renewed. We filled out the paperwork to cancel the original (expired) job a couple of weeks ago now, but they still haven’t lifted the stop work order. How is this so complicated? Old plans that can’t be renewed + new plans that reference the old plans… What’s not to understand?

All we want to do is build a construction fence to resolve a violation (for the current fence not being constructed properly)…

Once we have the stop work order resolved things should go a bit more smoothly. We want to start renovations in earnest in mid to late March. Before then we want to get sewer, water, electric and gas service re-established. But sometimes it just feels like it’s never going to happen…

Bureaucratic Insanity @ The NYC DOB

There are times when all you can do is shake your head in disbelief… Let me go back in time to explain…

November 2005 – The prior owner of our townhouse submits plans to the DOB to convert it to two family.

July 2006 – The plans still aren’t approved, so the owner submits a smaller set of plans just to do demolition. They’re approved in August and a permit was pulled on August 2, 2006.

November 2006 – The original full set of plans are finally approved.

January 2007 – A permit for the full job was pulled.

February 2007 – Plans were filed and approved to build a construction fence.

March 2007 – Plans were filed and approved for structural, mechanical and plumbing. No permits were ever pulled and none of the work was ever done.

July 1st/2nd, 2007 – The permits for demolition and renovation expired on the 1st and were renewed on the 2nd.

July 14, 2007 – A violation and full stop work order was issued for not having the renewed permits for the full job posted. However, a permit was in effect and as far as we can tell no work was ever done on that job.

August 2007 – The permit for the construction fence was pulled. It was renewed 11 days before it expired.

July 1, 2008 – All permits expired.

March 2010 – We purchase the building.

April 2010 – We submit plans to renovate the building.

August 2010 – Our plans are approved.

December 23, 2010 – We pull a permit to do work (but don’t actually start).

January 3, 2011 – An inspector stops by the house and issues another violation for not having resolved the stop work order on the building from 2007 even though the stop work order was issued for not having a permit when a permit existed and no work was being done and we still weren’t doing any work.

Our problem at the moment is how to get rid of the stop work order from 2007. It should never have been issued in the first place – no work was being done and there was a permit in effect at the time (it just may not have been displayed at the property). But now that it exists it won’t go away… In fact we got another violation 3 days ago for not resolving the first one. We thought if the violation was for not having a permit, that getting a permit would resolve it, but no… You can have a permit and get a violation for not resolving a stop work order that was issued for not having a permit (when there was a permit).

Our contractor’s expediter is saying that we should withdraw the previous owner’s job application. The problem we see with that is that that job is the primary job number for our job. Because that job was never started (or completed) and our job has roughly the same scope of work our job continues that job. If we withdraw it we worry we’ll void our current approval and permit.

To me it’s just absurd that DOB is enforcing a stop work order that probably never should have been issued in the first place when we’ve resolved the underlying issue. It’s also absurd that you can get a stop work order for not having a permit posted when you’re not doing any work. It’s also absurd that it doesn’t seem anyone can press a “resolved” button somewhere and make it all go away. I mean a full stop work order in a situation like this? Please…

UPDATE: The expediter got back to us. It’s not quite as bad as it sounds… They do recognize that the original 2007 stop work order was an error and it should get cleared without a problem, though it will take them a few days to handle it. And the stop work order a few days ago was because we technically had two “Alt-1s” active at the same time. In other words two sets of building plans had been approved for the same place – the 2005/2006 set and the 2010 set. Thing is, we’ve been told previously that the old plans cannot be resurrected – once they’re expired for two years they’re completely dead. So it’s still a bit crazy that we got a violation / stop work order for not formally withdrawing plans that can’t ever be reopened. Why can’t the system just automatically withdraw them for you?

The one lesson from this is that you should clear all violations and pull ALL your permits before starting your mortgage. If we were paying $5,000+ a month on a mortgage while all of this was happening I’d be freaking out right now. As it is, it’s just a somewhat amusing irritation. Hopefully the expediter won’t charge us an arm and a leg to take care of it.

Differences Between NYC & National Landmark Rules

Getting our house renovated feels like a never ending series of delays. We thought we had picked a contractor, but his final bid was 88% higher than his initial bid (!). We knew his initial bid was too low, but weren’t expecting such a huge increase. Now that his price is so much higher we’re re-examining our options and are back to getting other bids. We may wind up going with him, but the equation has changed.

Then there’s the tax credit incentives which I wrote up in a previous post. It’s yet another delay, but a delay that may put $100,000 in our pocket, so it’s worthwhile…

The first thing to realize is that the tax incentives follow federal (National Park Service) guidelines. Those are not the same as New York City Landmarking rules (as enforced by the Landmarks Preservation Commission). In some ways they’re more lenient, in other ways they’re stricter. Personally, I like the national standards better than the City’s standards.

When you get landmarked by New York City their objective is to restore the area to what it looked like in the past. As you do major work you’re required to put things back to what they used to look like. But the City is only worried about what things look like from the street (with the rare exception of landmarked interiors).

The federal government has a slightly different objective – they want to preserve and respect existing historic details. They’re more restrictive in that they care about everything – not just what can be seen from the street. However, they’re less restrictive in that if an original detail is missing they’re not quite so fussy about what replaces it. I spent a half hour on the phone with the woman from NY State’s Office of Historic Preservation in part trying to understand how that actually gets implemented. They have two options for replacing original details – 1) replicate the original exactly, or 2) put something contemporary in it’s place that’s generally “compatible” with the original design and more plain (less ornate) than what was there originally. Here are a few examples…

Front Doors – When we started thinking in terms of meeting the guidelines for the tax credit we wondered what we should do about the front door. Our original plan was to have two 8 foot (French) doors with a 2 foot transom over them. The doors would be wood and have the general proportions of the original doors with wood panels in the bottoms and glass in the upper portion.  Thing is, in looking at the picture of our house from 1940 we see there were solid wood doors that were the full 10 feet tall. We then went to Demolition Depot thinking we might be able to find an old door that would pass muster with the historic preservationists. We found some, but they had glass panels in them. When I was talking to the woman from NYS I realized I had it all wrong. They don’t want old doors, or even new doors that look like old doors, unless they’re the originals or identical to the originals. The doors we were planning on initially were almost perfect – clearly contemporary, similar proportions, less ornate than the originals, etc. We’ll probably need to get rid of the transom and make the doors full height. And they may push back on the the glass in the doors – we’ll see… But the point is they like new doors better than non-original old doors.

Stoop Newel Posts – Unlike NYC LPC, the state/federal guidelines don’t require us to do anything with the newel posts – we could just repair what’s there. If we were landmarked by the City LPC I’m pretty sure they’d would require us to restore them given the overall size of our project. We want to do more than patch up what’s there – we want it to be much closer to what was there originally. Our guidelines will be 1) generally similar to the original, 2) less ornate than the original. Our only problem is Dan wants cast iron posts and finding ones that meet the federal guidelines.

Ground Floor Security Gates – Like the newel posts, because the originals are missing we have some latitude. We can do something contemporary and compatible and less plain than the original. That’ll save us a lot of money…

Windows – Again, the state/federal government lean a bit more liberal when replacing details that aren’t there. The woman I spoke with was open to the idea of “fake double hung windows” – ones that look like double hung from the exterior, but are actually tilt-n-turn windows. She was also open to the idea of having color matched protective metal trim on the wood windows’ most vulnerable spots. But she emphasized “open” didn’t mean they’d get approved. Still, I don’t think LPC would even entertain the ideas.

BUT, there are ways in which state and federal guidelines are stricter than LPC’s guidelines. They care about things like rear façades which can’t be seen from the street. We don’t have any original details inside the building, but I think they’d care about them if we had them which could be a huge headache.

Our rear deck is probably going to be the biggest sticking point. For starters federal guidelines require an archeological survey if there’s ground disturbance. However, because that’s cost prohibitive for small projects they’ve never actually required it for homeowners. But they clearly don’t like the idea of ground disturbance. Because our deck is, in part, a fire egress for our unit they’re willing to consider it. We’ll see what feedback they have.

I’m also not sure how they’ll handle the bulkhead we’re putting on the building – we’ll see what they say about that. I think we can make a strong argument for how we’ve done it, but I sorta expect them to ask us to change something – I’m just not sure what that something will be.

Both the LPC and National Park Service guidelines are somewhat difficult. I’m really glad we only have to meet one of the two. If we were landmarked by the City we’d need to comply with both. I’m also really glad we don’t have a lot of original detail. The lack of it is really helping us. After talking to her I wondered what limitations there would be if you had original plaster walls – would you be allowed to tear them out and change your floorplan?

At least they pay you to put up with all the rules…

Our townhouse over the years…

The City of New York has old tax photos available from 1940 and 1980 for people who want to know what their building looked like in the past. Here are the photos of our building…

Here’s the building in 1940…

168 West 123rd Street Harlem Brownstone in 1940

There are a few things that are interesting here. First is the size of the windows. I was expecting to see smaller panes. Clearly the architect liked the idea of big huge panes of glass.

I also like the low wall along the street, though that wouldn’t be considered safe enough these days. We plan on putting in a low wall with some sort of fencing above to make it meet current standards.

The next item is that you can sorta see the front door in the house next to ours and it’s solid wood with no windows. That’s somewhat surprising (and dark).

I also love the newel posts at the bottom of the stoop – wish they were still there. Dan thinks they’re done in brownstone, I think they’re done in cast iron. Oddly cast iron was the less expensive option back then. We probably only have the money to recreate something like them in brownstone.

The other surprising thing was that the building 2 doors down already had a fire escape by 1940 (it’s still on the building).

And here’s the building in 1980…

168 West 123rd Street Harlem Brownstone in 1980

You can see that the building had sorta seen hard times by 1980s. City records tell us a vacate order was issued in 1966 (and never lifted). So the building’s problems most likely started in the early 1960s, if not sooner.

By 1980 windows had been replaced with less expensive windows – a smaller window on the parlor floor and smaller panes of glass in the top two floors. The front doors were gone and replaced by one that was far less expensive and with a lot less character. The wonderful newel posts were gone.

On the plus side we can see that the exterior had been painted. While this may not seem like a good thing, what’s good about it is that 30 years later it’s still in remarkably good condition – the only problems are the cornices. We were thinking of doing a major job on the exterior, but seeing how stable it’s been we’ve changed our plans and will just patch up and restore the painted surface.

Our building has a commercial overlay. We’re allowed approximately two floors of commercial space. You can see in the picture that the ground floor was “The Happy Game Room”…

The Happy Game Room - 168 West 123rd Street, NYC, 1980

I’m sure the Happy Game Room wasn’t a completely legal establishment. After all, our block was a drug block back in the day. I’m sure there was a fair amount of drug use, drug dealing and gambling going on…

And here’s the building today (actually November 2009)…

168 West 123rd Street Harlem Brownstone Shell, 2009

After 1980 a storefront was added to the ground floor.

Things got pretty bad in the mid-90s when the building became a drug flop house. We’ve talked to some of the neighbors who “lived” in the building at that time. There was a raid and a largely unsocialized (nearly feral) child was found in a closet. Then there was a fire and apparently people pretty much stopped “living” there after that. But the woes continued and the building was involved in a mortgage fraud scandal that delayed it’s being renovated.

But hey, it got a tree! That’s a small step forward… 🙂

It’s definitely time for the building to get a new lease on life…