logo CityLand
      • Home
      • About CityLand
      • CityLand Sponsors
      • Filings & Decisions
      • Commentary
      • Archive
      • Resources
      • CityLaw
      • Current Issue

    Review denied of neighbor’s alterations


    CityLaw  •  Landmarks Review  •  Riverside-West End Historic District Extension II, Manhattan
    10/23/2020   •    Leave a Comment

    315 West 103rd Street (Center building). Image Credit: Google Maps

    Neighbor asks the Landmark Preservation Commission to review their neighbor’s completed renovations. Richard Robbins lives in an apartment on West 103rd Street. Robbin’s next-door neighbors at 315 West 103rd Street received permission in 2008 from the Department of Buildings to enlarge their home. In 2009, Buildings ordered the neighbor to stop working on the addition, at a point when only the roof and the backyard expansion had been completed. In 2015 The Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the neighborhood. The new Riverside-West Historic District included both Robbins and his neighbor’s homes, and both homes contributed to the historic status.

    Robbins requested that Landmarks review the alterations to the rear of the neighbor’s house and the roof. Landmarks sent a staff member to evaluate the existing and proposed modifications to the neighbor’s house. The staff member determined the external appearance was in harmony with the historic district and closed the matter.

    Robbins objected and filed an Article 78 petition. Robbins asked the court to compel Landmarks to consider the appropriateness of improvements to the back of the neighbor’s home and roof. The court dismissed Robbins’ petition. Robbins appealed.

    The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Robbin’s petition. Landmarks has discretion to determine whether proposed improvements or changes would affect the architectural features that contribute to a historic district. Landmarks could not consider the propriety of previously completed renovations to the neighbor’s home as Buildings had approved them, and the permit issued for them expired before the houses were included in a historic district.

    Robbins v. NYC Landmark Preservation Comm., 112 N.Y.S.3d 89 (1st Dept. 2019).

    By: Kelly Barrett (Kelly is a New York Law School student, Class of 2022.)

     

    Share this:

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Email
    Tags : Landmarks Preservation Commission
    Category : CityLaw

    Comment on this article

    Click here to cancel reply.

    Subscribe To Free Alerts


    Follow Us on Social Media

    twitterfacebook

    Search

    Search by Category

      City Council
      CityLaw
      City Planning Commission
      Board of Standards & Appeals
      Landmarks Preservation Commission
      Economic Development Corporation
      Housing Preservation & Development
      Administrative Decisions
      Court Decisions
      Filings and Decisions
      CityLand Profiles

    Search by Date

    © 1997-2010 New York Law School | 185 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013 | 212.431.2100 | Privacy | Terms | Code of Conduct | DMCA | Policies
     

    Loading Comments...