UPDATE :: Legal action involving West 68th Street illegal addition brings us back to the beginning

LW! e-Newsletter

January 21, 2011

UPDATE on 12-14 West 68th St.:
From Landmarks to Lawyers

LANDMARK WEST! is the Upper West Side's "watchdog." It's a catchy, feisty, phrase. But what does it mean in the real world? As it turns out, a lot.

SEEING PURPLE?
Read on to learn about this illegal rooftop addition
and LW's work to have it removed.

Case in point: 12-14 West 68th Street, a picturesque Queen Anne-style mansion designed by architect Louis Thouvard and built in 1895, with an attached studio building designed by Edwin C. Georgi and built in 1925. Located immediately north of the Hotel des Artistes Apartments (1 West 67th Street), 12-14 West 68th Street is included in the Central Park West/Upper West Side Historic District (designated by the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission in 1990).

IN THIS ISSUE

UPDATE :: Illegal addition on 68th Street

FOLLOW LW!

DONATE TODAY!

First, a quick review: After spotting a suspicious addition to 12-14 West 68th Street in December of 2008, LANDMARK WEST! reported the inappropriate structure to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), who confirmed that YES, a full fifth floor was constructed atop 12-14 West 68th Street without the approval of the LPC. In the image above, the purple overlay indicats the illegally constructed rooftop addition.

The LPC issued a violation; the owner of 12-14 West 68th responded by filing an application for after-the-fact approval of the illegal addition from the LPC. Such an outcome, LW! argued, would not only undercut the public faith in the legitimate public review process for work to landmark buildings and imply that historic district designation lacks value and meaning, it would legitimize an addition entirely inappropriate architecturally and out of character with the historic district (for LW!'s complete statement from the April 14, 2009, public hearing at the LPC, click here). This application for "indulgence" of the illegal addition was denied by the LPC on June 30, 2009.

But it didn't stop there. A new owner entered the scene and tried to get the LPC to approve the addition with a few minor tweaks. It was not to be! As LW! testified before the Commission at a March 16, 2010, public hearing, "cosmetic tweaks and modifications may be up for consideration, the roster of players may have changed, but this does nothing towards mitigating the fundamental problems of this application." The LPC agreed, voting for the second time (at Public Hearing on March 16, 2010) to deny the owner's application. Visit our blog to review our reportage from the field, and read coverage of the issue by Craig Karmin of the Wall Street Journal.

Since these above-referenced public reviews and votes, more action has taken place behind the scenes ...

On May 20, 2010, the owner of the building filed a lawsuit challenging the LPC's decision to hold the line against this illegal and deleterious addition. The City answered on June 29, 2010, and the action remains pending.

But then, on July 27, 2010, the owner of the property filed a second lawsuit, in the same Court. This "Article 78" proceeding required the LPC to file an "answer," by August 26, 2010. LW! discovered this second lawsuit in a check of the Court's computer index in October, along with a brief notice that the lawsuit had been "disposed," with a "Short Form Order" (otherwise not described). LW! then called LPC legal counsel, and the City's law department, to learn the status of this new lawsuit and its disposition. Neither of them had ever heard of it. LW! later learned that the legal papers had been delivered to the LPC office, but somehow never found their way to the LPC's legal department. Without LW!'s watchdog vigilance, this slip-between-the-cracks may not have otherwise been caught!

It turned out that the owner's Article 78 petition had been granted by default (because the commission "failed to appear"). The LPC's June 8, 2010, order denying the "certificate of appropriation" had been "annulled," and the matter referred back to the LPC. When informed by LW! of the situation, the City's law department and LPC did the right thing -- they filed a motion in the Court asking it to "vacate the default."

THIS JUST IN ...

A court date on the City's motion to vacate the default judgment (occasioned by the LPC's inexplicable failure to respond in a timely manner) was set for December 3, 2010. But then it was rescheduled for February 4, 2011. It is our understanding from the City's and LPC's attorneys that they are trying to reach an agreement to allow the City to respond to the lawsuit and defend the LPC's actions.

Stay tuned for more updates from LANDMARK WEST!.