DOCSLIB.ORG

Rules of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Title 63, Rules of the City of New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rules of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Title 63, Rules of the City of New York Rules of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Title 63, Rules of the City of New York Effective January 22, 2019 Bill de Blasio, Mayor City of New York Sarah Carroll, Chair New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Landmarks Preservation 1 Centre Street Phone (212) 669 7700 Commission 9th Floor North Fax (212) 669 7960 New York, NY 10007 nyc.gov/landmarks Introduction The Rules of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (the “Commission” or the “LPC”) set forth the processes, procedures and standards of the agency. They include the practice and procedures of public hearings and meetings, the application process, the standards for work on designated properties, fees for various types of work, enforcement and standards for the agency’s preservation grant program. Additional standards and definitions are set forth in the Landmarks Law, which is found in Title 25, Chapter 3, sections 301 to 322 of the New York City Administrative Code. A significant aspect of the rules is that they set forth what work may be approved by the Commission’s staff, without having to take the application to a public hearing before the full Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff approval is the most efficient and cost- effective way to obtain a permit to do work on designated property and structures. Owners and architects are strongly urged to carefully review the rules, and work with LPC staff, to determine whether and how proposed work can or could meet them. The rules should also be used to help understand what materials are required for a staff approval to be issued. The more complete an application is at the time of submission, the faster the work can be approved. The LPC provides a few different processes for expedited review for certain types of work: an Expedited Certificate of No Effect for certain types of interior work, which can be issued within two days (see sections 2-31 to 2-34), and the “FasTrack” program, which applies to many simple exterior work types on non-visible facades, where a permit can be issued in 10 working days if the application is complete when submitted. For more information on FasTrack use this link to the LPC’s website: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/lpc/applications/fast-track-service.page The official rules for the Landmarks Preservation Commission are published in Title 63 of the Rules of the City of New York (the “RCNY”), the official compendium of rules for all New York City agencies. They can be found through an online portal that contains all of the city rules. Click on “Rules” and then scroll down to Title 63. You can also access the Landmarks Law, referenced above, through this website: click on “Administrative Code” and then scroll down to Title 25, Chapter 3. DISCLAIMER: Because reading the official version of the rules can be difficult for members of the public, staff has reformatted the rules to provide a more user-friendly document to help owners, architects and members of the public understand the criteria for staff level approval of work, as well as other procedures and processes at the Commission. Please note that if there is a discrepancy between the language of the rules in the RCNY and this document, the language in the RCNY is binding. Landmarks Preservation Commission ii Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION ..................................................... 1 §1-01 QUORUM......................................................................................................................... 1 §1-02 CALENDARING ............................................................................................................ 1 §1-03 WITHDRAWING AND LAYING OVER CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ITEMS ................................................................................... 1 (a) Lay-Overs (requests prior to being heard) ............................................................. 1 (b) Withdrawals (requests prior to being heard) .......................................................... 2 (c) Withdrawals from calendar (after having been heard) ........................................... 2 §1-04 FINAL ACTIONS ........................................................................................................... 2 §1-05 SUBMISSIONS TO THE RECORD ......................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: ALTERATION OF LANDMARK AND HISTORIC DISTRICT BUILDINGS .......................................................................................................... 1 SUBCHAPTER A: APPLICATION PROCEDURE....................................................................... 1 §2-01 APPLICATION SIGNATURES NECESSARY FOR WORK PERMITS ....... 1 §2-02 MASTER PLANS AND AUTHORIZATIONS TO PROCEED ......................... 1 §2-03 PROCESS FOR COMPLETING APPLICATION: STAFF WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION .............................................................................................. 2 §2-04 SUMMONSES -- NEW APPLICATIONS ............................................................... 3 (a) Effect of a Summons on Processing of a New Application .................................... 3 (b) Exceptions to this Procedure ................................................................................. 4 §2-05 TEMPORARY INSTALLATIONS ............................................................................. 4 Landmarks Preservation Commission iii SUBCHAPTER B: SPECIFIC ALTERATIONS ............................................................................. 7 §2-11 REPAIR, RESTORATION, REPLACEMENT AND RE-CREATION OF BUILDING FAÇADES AND RELATED EXTERIOR ELEMENTS ................ 9 (a) Introduction ............................................................................................................ 9 (b) General Conditions and Requirements .................................................................. 9 (c) Repair or Restoration of Façade Materials and Features .................................... 11 (d) Replacement of Deteriorated Architectural Features........................................... 16 (e) Reconstruction of Facades .................................................................................. 20 (f) Re-Creation and Restoration of Missing Façade Features ................................. 20 §2-12 STOREFRONTS, AWNINGS AND CANOPIES................................................ 23 (a) Definitions ............................................................................................................ 23 (b) General ................................................................................................................ 25 (c) Storefront Infill ...................................................................................................... 26 (d) Awnings and Canopies at Commercial Storefronts and at Residential and Other Buildings ............................................................................................................... 31 §2-13 SIGNAGE ...................................................................................................................... 37 (a) Introduction .......................................................................................................... 37 (b) Definitions ............................................................................................................ 37 (c) Installation of Storefront Signs ............................................................................. 38 (d) Installation of Bracket Signs ................................................................................. 40 (e) Signage for Commercial Spaces Below the Sidewalk ......................................... 43 (f) Miscellaneous Commercial Signage .................................................................... 43 §2-14 WINDOWS AND DOORS ......................................................................................... 45 (a) Introduction .......................................................................................................... 45 (b) Definitions ............................................................................................................ 45 (c) Work for Which No Approval is Required ............................................................ 49 (d) Installation of Exterior Add-Ons for Windows and Doors in Individual Landmarks and Buildings in Historic Districts and Scenic Landmarks ................................... 50 (e) Special Windows and Special Doors; Any Facade .............................................. 51 (f) Primary Facades .................................................................................................. 52 (g) Secondary Facades; Visible Facades ................................................................. 57 (h) Secondary Facades; Nonvisible and Minimally Visible Facades ......................... 59 (i) Entrance Infill, Excluding Entrances in Storefront Infill ........................................ 61 §2-15 ADDITIONS: ROOFTOP AND REAR YARD ADDITIONS OR ENLARGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... 65 (a) Applicability .......................................................................................................... 65 (b) Rooftop Additions of Occupiable Space; General Requirements ........................ 66 (c) Rooftop Additions of Occupiable Space; Specific Requirements ........................ 66 (d) Rooftop Additions of Non-occupiable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • M 2006-093 in the Matter of the Arbitration
    NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD Case No. IA 2006-24; M 2006-093 In the Matter of the Arbitration OPINION - between- THE CITY OF NEW YORK PUBLIC - and- ARBITRATION PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION PANEL CHAIR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC. Pursuant to Section 209.4 of the New York Civil Service Law ("Taylor Law"), on July 11, 2007 the New York State Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB") designated the undersigned Public Arbitration Panel in the above dispute between the City of New York ("City") and the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. ("PBA"): Susan T. Mackenzie, Esq., Public Panel Member and Chair; Carole O'Blenes, Esq., Public Employer Panel Member; and, Jay W. Waks, Esq., Employee Organization Panel Member. By accepting appointment to this Public Arbitration Panel, the Panel Members agreed to "make a just and reasonable determination on the matters in dispute" between the parties over the terms of their collective bargaining agreement for the contract term, August 1, 2004-July 31, 2006. Pre-hearing conferences were held on August 27, 2007 and September 17, 2007, and hearings on November 6,27,28 and 29, 2007, December 12, 13 and 14,2007, and January 7,8,9, 10 and 11, 2008. A transcript of the hearings was recorded and all witnesses gave sworn testimony. The parties filed pre-hearing briefs on October 22, 2007, post-hearing briefs on February 20, 2008 and reply briefs on March 11, 2008. The Panel met in executive session on March 19, 2008, April 29, 2008, May 9, 2008 and May 19,2008.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Charter School Center the First 5 Years
    It’s about great public schools. New York CitY Charter SChool CeNter the First 5 Years July 2010 Contents executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 New York City’s Charter School Sector: A National Model....................................................................................................................................... 2 Launching the New York City Charter School Center: Context & Background................................................................................................. 3 the Charter Center’s work & impact: Growing NYC’s charter Sector.................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Ensuring High Quality Schools.................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Providing charter School Supports......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Creating a Favorable Policy environment............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Understanding
    [Show full text]
  • The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn Suleiman Osman Reviewed By
    67 the true subject is not the place, but the characters that give it life. In teasing out the attitudes, convictions, and values of the gentrifiers, or “brownstoners,” and the many times contradictory impulses that drove them to recreate and “reimagine” a forgotten urban landscape, Osman creates a truly memorable and powerful piece of scholarship. By the end of World War II, the area known as South Brooklyn was a “polycultural, polycentric and polyhistorical cityscape.” Disgusted with the sterility of suburbia and desperate for diversity and “authenticity,” young, highly educated professionals began moving to Brooklyn’s oldest, but now largely depressed, residential district, Brooklyn Heights. A neighborhood ravaged by the flight of wealthy residents to the nascent suburbs in the early 20th century, Brooklyn Heights’ once majestic brownstones were in severe disrepair. While the rehabilitation of these structures and the revitalizing of their urban environment were the most visible elements of this new “brownstoning” movement, its heart and soul was a “do-it-yourself”, counterculture ideology that would have a profound impact on the social, political, and physical environment of the American city. Osman argues that many of these “brownstoners” imagined themselves as urban pioneers building settlements in the wilderness”—out to reclaim, rediscover, and rehabilitate an urban environment lost to decades of decay. Brooklyn Heights quickly became the “birthplace of a new romantic urban ideal”, a jarring juxtaposition to the “dominant modernist ideology of the 1950s.” With Daniel Widis is a first-year DCRP student specializing in Brooklyn Heights providing both the ideological and Placemaking and Real Estate Development.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 142/Monday, July 27, 2009/Notices
    37056 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices and Douglas Sts., Forest Grove, 09000360, IOWA Orange County LISTED, 5/28/09 Madison County Murphy School, 3729 Murphy School Rd., Hillsborough, 09000637 PUERTO RICO Seerley, William and Mary (Messersmith) Caguas Municipality Barn and Milkhouse—Smokehouse, 1840 Transylvania County 137th La., Earlham, 09000621 Puente No. 6, SR 798, Km. 1.0, Rio Canas East Main Street Historic District, Ward, Caguas vicinity, 09000361, LISTED, MINNESOTA (Transylvania County MPS) 249–683 and 5/28/09 (Historic Bridges of Puerto Rico 768 East Main St.; 6–7 Rice St.; St. Phillip’s MPS) McLeod County Ln.; 1–60 Woodside Dr.; and 33 Deacon Komensky School, 19981 Major Ave., Ln., Brevard, 09000638 SOUTH CAROLINA Hutchinson, 09000622 UTAH Abbeville County Ramsey County Summit County Lindsay Cemetery, Lindsay Cemetery Rd., O’Donnell Shoe Company Building, 509 Due West vicinity, 09000364, LISTED, 5/ O’Mahony Dining Car No. 1107, 981 W. Sibley St., St. Paul, 09000623 27/09 Weber Canyon Rd., Oakley, 09000639 MISSISSIPPI VIRGINIA VIRGINIA Lee County Loudoun County Lunenburg County Carnation Milk Plant, 520 Carnation St., Round Hill Historic District, Area within the Fort Mitchell Depot, 5570–5605 Fort Mitchell Tupelo, 09000624 Round Hill town limits that is bounded Dr., Fort Mitchell, 09000640 roughly by VA 7 to the S., Locust St. to the Marion County Newport News Independent City W., Bridge on E, Round Hill, 09000366, Columbia North Residential Historic District, LISTED, 5/28/09 Simon Reid Curtis House, 10 Elmhurst St., Roughly bounded by High School and N. Newport News, 09000641 WASHINGTON Main St.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunset Park South Historic District
    DESIGNATION REPORT Sunset Park South Historic District Landmarks Preservation Designation Report Designation List 513 Commission Sunset Park South LP-2622 Historic District June 18, 2019 ESSAY RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN BY Michael Caratzas and Jessica Baldwin BUILDING PROFILES MaryNell Nolan-Wheatley, Margaret Herman, Theresa Noonan, and Michael Caratzas ARCHITECTS’ APPENDIX COMPLIED BY Marianne S. Percival EDITED BY Kate Lemos McHale PHOTOGRAPHS BY Sarah Moses and Jessica Baldwin COMMISSIONERS Sarah Carroll, Chair Frederick Bland, Vice Chair Diana Chapin Wellington Chen Michael Devonshire Michael Goldblum John Gustafsson Anne Holford-Smith Jeanne Lutfy Adi Shamir-Baron LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Lisa Kersavage, Executive Director Mark Silberman, General Counsel Kate Lemos McHale, Director of Research Cory Herrala, Director of Preservation Landmarks Preservation Designation Report Designation List 513 Commission Sunset Park South LP-2622 Historic District June 18, 2019 DESIGNATION REPORT Sunset Park South Historic District LOCATION Borough of Brooklyn LANDMARK TYPE Historic District SIGNIFICANCE Consisting almost entirely of two-story row houses built between 1892 and 1906, Sunset Park South is a remarkably cohesive historic district representing the largest collection of well-preserved row houses in Sunset Park, containing several of the neighborhood’s most distinctive streetscapes, and recalling Sunset Park’s origins and history as a middle-class community. Landmarks Preservation Designation Report Designation List 513 Commission
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Charter School Growth and Sustainability in Harlem
    REGIMES, REFORM, AND RACE: THE POLITICS OF CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY IN HARLEM by Basil A. Smikle Jr. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2019 © 2019 Basil A. Smikle Jr. All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT REGIMES, REFORM, AND RACE: THE POLITICS OF CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY IN HARLEM By Basil A. Smikle Jr. The complex and thorny relationship betWeen school-district leaders, sub-city political and community figures and teachers’ unions on the subject of charter schools- an interaction fraught with racially charged language and tactics steeped in civil rights-era mobilization - elicits skepticism about the motives of education reformers and their vieW of minority populations. In this study I unpack the local politics around tacit and overt racial appeals in support of NeW York City charter schools with particular attention to Harlem, NeW York and periods when the sustainability of these schools, and long-term education reforms, were endangered by changes in the political and legislative landscape. This dissertation ansWers tWo key questions: How did the Bloomberg-era governing coalition and charter advocates in NeW York City use their political influence and resources to expand and sustain charter schools as a sector; and how does a community with strong historic and cultural narratives around race, education and political activism, respond to attempts to enshrine externally organized school reforms? To ansWer these questions, I employ a case study analysis and rely on Regime Theory to tell the story of the Mayoral administration of Michael Bloomberg and the cadre of charter leaders, philanthropies and wealthy donors whose collective activity created a climate for growth of the sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenure, Attachment, and Changing Perceptions in Gentrifying Williamsburg, Brooklyn
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 5-2018 There’s Nothing Here: Tenure, Attachment, and Changing Perceptions in Gentrifying Williamsburg, Brooklyn Sara Martucci The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2642 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] THERE’S NOTHING HERE: TENURE, ATTACHMENT, AND CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF GENTRIFYING WILLIAMSBURG, BROOKLYN by SARA MARTUCCI A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Sociology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 SARA MARTUCCI All Rights Reserved ii There’s Nothing Here: Tenure, Attachment, and Changing Perceptions in Gentrifying Williamsburg, Brooklyn by Sara Martucci This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Sociology in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Professor Philip Kasinitz Chair of Examining Committee Date Professor Lynn Chancer Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Professor John Mollenkopf Professor Jason Patch Professor Sharon Zukin THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract There’s Nothing Here: Tenure, Attachment, and Changing Perceptions in Gentrifying Williamsburg, Brooklyn by Sara Martucci Depending on the audience, the term “gentrification” conjures images of pristine condos, fancy restaurants, dive bars full of hipsters, or eviction notices.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Analysis Report Campaign Finance Board April 2020
    20192020 VOTER ANALYSIS REPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD APRIL 2020 NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD Board Chair Frederick P. Schaffer Board Members Gregory T. Camp Richard J. Davis Marianne Spraggins Naomi B. Zauderer Amy M. Loprest Executive Director Kitty Chan Chief of Staff Sauda Chapman Assistant Executive Director for Campaign Finance Administration Daniel Cho Assistant Executive Director for Candidate Guidance and Policy Eric Friedman Assistant Executive Director for Public Affairs Hillary Weisman General Counsel THE VOTER ASSISTANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE VAAC Chair Naomi B. Zauderer Members Daniele Gerard Joan P. Gibbs Christopher Malone Okwudiri Onyedum Mazeda Akter Uddin Jumaane Williams New York City Public Advocate (Ex-Officio) Michael Ryan Executive Director, New York City Board of Elections (Ex-Officio) The VAAC advises the CFB on voter engagement and recommends legislative and administrative changes to improve NYC elections. 2019–2020 NYC VOTES TEAM Public Affairs Partnerships and Outreach Eric Friedman Sabrina Castillo Assistant Executive Director Director for Public Affairs Matthew George-Pitt Amanda Melillo Engagement Coordinator Deputy Director for Public Affairs Sean O'Leary Field Coordinator Marketing and Digital Olivia Brady Communications Youth Coordinator Intern Charlotte Levitt Director Maya Vesneske Youth Coordinator Intern Winnie Ng Art Director Policy and Research Jen Sepso Allie Swatek Graphic Designer Director Crystal Choy Jaime Anno Production Manager Data Manager Chase Gilbert Jordan Pantalone Web Content Manager Intergovernmental Liaison Public Relations NYC Votes Street Team Matt Sollars Olivia Brady Director Adriana Espinal William Fowler Emily O'Hara Public Relations Aide Kevin Suarez Maya Vesneske VOTER ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS How COVID-19 is Affecting 2020 Elections VIII Introduction XIV I.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewal Recommendation Report Uncommon New York City Charter Schools' Authority to Operate
    THE SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS INSTITUTE RENEWAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT UNCOMMON NEW YORK CITY CHARTER SCHOOLS’ AUTHORITY TO OPERATE: BROOKLYN EAST COLLEGIATE CHARTER SCHOOL KINGS COLLEGIATE CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PREPARATORY BEDFORD STUYVESANT CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PREPARATORY BROWNSVILLE CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PREPARATORY OCEAN HILL CHARTER SCHOOL OCEAN HILL COLLEGIATE CHARTER SCHOOL WILLIAMSBURG COLLEGIATE CHARTER SCHOOL Report Date: October 4, 2019 Visit Dates: June 3 - 7, 2019; June 10 and 12, 2019 SUNY Charter Schools Institute Charter Schools Institute SUNY Plaza 518.445.4250 The State University of New York 353 Broadway 518.320.1572 (fax) Albany, NY 12246 www.newyorkcharters.org CONTENTS 2 Introduction & Report Format 5 Renewal Recommendation 10 Education Corporation Background and Executive Summary 14 Academic Performance 42 Organizational Performance 48 Fiscal Performance 51 School Overview Appendices A: Education Corporation Overview B: Education Corporation Fiscal Dashboard In INTRODUCTION SUNY Charter Schools Institute INTRODUCTION & SUNY Plaza 353 Broadway REPORT FORMAT Albany, NY 12246 This report is the primary means by which the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) transmits to the State University of New York Board of Trustees (the “SUNY Trustees”) its findings and recommendations regarding the education corporation’s Applications for Charter Renewal for all schools under renewal consideration during the current school year, and more broadly, details the merits of the schools’ cases for renewal. The Institute
    [Show full text]
  • This Brooklyn Neighborhood Is Cool — and Still Affordable by Adam Bonislawski September 26, 2018 | 7:14Pm | Updated
    In search of a larger apartment with character at an affordable price, Christina Poletto and son Theodore recently moved to Sunset Park. Annie Wermiel REAL ESTATE This Brooklyn neighborhood is cool — and still affordable By Adam Bonislawski September 26, 2018 | 7:14pm | Updated Nikki Grossman had her eye on Sunset Park for some time. Formerly a resident of the Lower East Side, Grossman moved to area rental building The Hamilton in June. She says she was drawn to the 98-unit development, which opened two years ago at 968 60th St., by its amenities (which include a fitness center, landscaped roof deck and screening room) and reasonable rents (studios from $2,200, one-bedrooms from $2,350). Though less hyped than other, more celebrated Brooklyn nabes, Sunset Park’s affordable prices and low-key vibe have been luring residents from other city spots and even other counties in the state. Take Christina Poletto, 42, and her 5-year-old son Theodore, who recently relocated to the neighborhood from Rockland County. For Grossman, who grew up in nearby Gravesend, it was also a repatriation of sorts. “I had been living in Manhattan just for proximity to work, but I had been wanting to come home,” says Grossman, 40, a nurse at New York University’s main hospital. “When I learned about [The Hamilton] and all its amenities, I was very interested.” Nikki Grossman moved into The Hamilton, one of the few Sunset Park buildings to boast amenities like a gym and a screening room. Annie Wermiel Little wonder — despite a wave of commercial development and a steadily rising profile, newly built, amenity-rich apartment buildings are still a rarity in Sunset Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Brownstone Brooklyn Market Report Brennan 1Q18 Brownstone Brooklyn Market Report
    1Q18 BROWNSTONE BROOKLYN MARKET REPORT BRENNAN 1Q18 BROWNSTONE BROOKLYN MARKET REPORT Overview We continue to expand our coverage of the neighborhoods we are actively working in with our clients. This quarter, we have added Gowanus, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Prospect Heights to the existing seven neighborhoods—Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Boerum Hill, Columbia Street Waterfront District, Park Slope and Dumbo. We will continue to add coverage of additional neighborhoods in the coming quarters. Townhouses In the brownstone Brooklyn markets we cover, over $222MM worth of 1- to 4-family townhouses traded hands in 1Q18, versus $259MM during 1Q17, a decrease of $37MM, or 14.2%. However, the average sales price increased 9.97% from last year. Inventory remains low and well-located homes under $3.5MM continue to draw significant interest from end- users and investors. Here are three notable transactions; $9,150,000 ($2,043 psf) – 181 President Street, Carroll Gardens | 4,478 sq ft 1-family $8,580,000 ($1,134 psf) – 838 Carroll Street, Park Slope | 7,565 sq ft 2-family $7,600,000 ($1,174 psf) – 374 Pacific Street, Boerum Hill | 6,473 sq ft 2-family Condominiums Over $318MM worth of condominiums sold in 1Q18, versus $500MM during 1Q17, a decrease of $182MM, or 36.4%. The average sales price decreased 2.76% from last year. Sales volume dropped significantly year over year but is stable in relation to the prior quarter. Here are some notable transactions; $5,900,000 ($1,170 psf) – 321 Pacific Street, #321, Boerum Hill | 4 bedrooms, 7 baths $5,909,262 ($1,486 psf) – 130 Furman Street, #S-100, Brooklyn Heights | 4 bedrooms, 3 baths $5,250,000 ($1,576 psf) – 25 8th Avenue, #1&2, Park Slope | 3 bedrooms, 3 baths If you are interested in receiving a complimentary opinion of value for your property please don’t hesitate to reach out to me for insight on the local market condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Bensonhurst's Downzone
    STILL LOOKING FOR A SUMMER CAMP? TURN NOW TO PAGE 14 BROOKLYN’S REAL NEWSPAPERS Including The Bensonhurst Paper Published every Saturday — online all the time — by Brooklyn Paper Publications Inc, 55 Washington St, Suite 624, Brooklyn NY 11201. Phone 718-834-9350 • www.BrooklynPapers.com • © 2005 Brooklyn Paper Publications • 20 pages •Vol.28, No. 26 BRZ • Saturday, June 25, 2005 • FREE Bensonhurst’s downzone set Dyker Heights rezone is next / Tom Callan / Tom By Jotham Sederstrom time around in the interest of saving time. our neighborhoods,” the mayor said in a The Brooklyn Papers Redrafting the entire neighborhood all at prepared statement. “As a result, residents once, said City Planning spokeswoman will know that my administration hears The City Council on Thursday Rachaele Raynoff, would have taken in- their concerns about out-of-scale develop- approved a zoning initiative intended spectors twice the time to survey. ment in Bensonhurst and is working hard to to scale back much of Bensonhurst, a The Brooklyn Papers The Brooklyn Upon Bloomberg’s final approval, the prevent it.” neighborhood that, like most of south- plan will cover an area bounded by Bay But before moving forward with the re- Brooklyn second baseman Armand Gaerlan scores in front of Yankees catcher P.J. Pilittere in the eighth in- west Brooklyn, has experienced an Parkway and 61st Street to the north, Mc- maining parts of Bensonhurst, City Planning ning of the Cyclones 10-7 Opening Night victory at Keyspan Park in Coney Island. onslaught of new condominium Donald Avenue to the east, Avenue U to the officials say they will likely move forward development over the past decade.
    [Show full text]