Landmark permit issued for 136 CLINTON AVENUE, BROOKLYN
Landmark building permit details
| Location | 136 CLINTON AVENUE, BROOKLYN |
|---|---|
| Issue date | May 9, 2007 |
| (?) COFA | COFA 07-8285 |
Certificates of Appropriateness (COFAs) are issued by the landmarks commission when it approves such things as building construction, demolition and visible additions to historic property. The certificates require a public hearing and the entire process can take several months. |
|
| Docket | 07-0090 |
| Historic district | N/A |
| Landmark name | LEFFERTS LAIDLAW HOUSE |
| Expiration date | May 8, 2013 |
| Text | Pursuant to Section 25-307 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, at the Public Meeting of May 8, 2007, following the Public Hearing and Public Meeting of April 24, 2007, voted to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forth in your application completed on March 29, 2007. This permit will expire on May 8, 2012. The work, as approved, consists of removing the existing driveway and constructing a new driveway at the north end of the property including, removing a section of the stuccoed masonry retaining wall and iron fence; excavating to the level of the sidewalk; constructing a new stuccoed masonry retaining wall and iron fence to match the existing; removing the existing black top; building a new stuccoed masonry retaining wall to match the existing; reinstalling the iron fence; and adding fill as needed. This work was shown in photo boards; and drawings LPC-01 through LPC-04; dated April 18, 2007; prepared by James Wagman Architects, LLC, and submitted as components of the application, and presented at the Public Hearing and Public Meeting In reviewing this application, the Commission noted that designation report describes 136 Clinton Avenue, the Lefferts Laidlaw House, as a Greek Revival style house built c. 1836-1840 with an addition constructed prior to 1855. The Commission also notes that the existing driveway is not historic nor is there any evidence that the House ever had a driveway; and that it is partially located on an adjacent property.. With regard to this proposal, the Commission found that the stuccoed concrete block retaining wall and cast iron fence are not original to the house, therefore, their removal for the relocation of the driveway will not cause the removal of significant historic material or features; that relocating the driveway from the south end of the lot to the north maintains its placement to the side of the house alongside a secondary façade; that the proposed masonry posts will provide a termination the fence is currently lacking; that the cast iron fence removed from the top of the retaining wall to create the new driveway will be reused atop the new retaining wall at the location of the old driveway, preserving the material and maintaining the continuity of the fence across the front of the property; that installing the new driveway below the grade of the front yard will help to minimize the visual intrusion of the new driveway when seen against the house and front lawn; and that the proposed work will not diminish the special architectural and historic character of the Individual Landmark. Based on these findings, the Commission determined that the work is appropriate to the building and to the historic district, and voted to approve this application. However, in voting to grant this approval, the Commission made its determination subject to the stipulation that two sets of final signed and sealed drawings, showing the approved work, which are to be filed at the Department of Buildings, be submitted to the staff of the Commission for review and approval. Subsequently, on May 9, 2007, the staff of the Commission received drawings A-1, dated May 1, 2006, revised February 2, 2007; LM-1, dated July 27, 2006; LM-2, dated Jult 24, 2006; and LM-3 and LM-4, dated March 12, 2007; prepared by James S. Wagman, R.A. The Commission reviewed the submitted drawings and found that proposal approved by the Commission has been maintained. Therefore, these drawings are being marked approved by the Commission with a perforated seal, and this Certificate of Appropriateness is being issued. This permit is issued on the basis of the building and site conditions described in the application and disclosed during the review process. By accepting this permit, the applicant agrees to notify the Commission if the actual building or site conditions vary or if original or historic building fabric is discovered. The Commission reserves the right to amend or revoke this permit, upon written notice to the applicant, in the event that the actual building or site conditions are materially different from those described in the application or disclosed during the review process. All approved drawings are marked approved by the Commission with a perforated seal indicating the date of approval. The work is limited to what is contained in the perforated documents. Other work or amendments to this filing must be reviewed and approved separately. The applicant is hereby put on notice that performing or maintaining any work not explicitly authorized by this permit may make the applicant liable for criminal and/or civil penalties, including imprisonment and fines. This letter constitutes the permit; a copy must be prominently displayed at the site while work is in progress. Please direct inquiries to Rob Panepinto. Robert B. Tierney Chair PLEASE NOTE: PERFORATED DRAWINGS AND A COPY OF THIS PERMIT HAVE BEEN SENT TO: Lin Qing, J. Callahan Consulting cc: Lin Qing; Sarah Carroll, Director of Preservation; William Neeley, Deputy Director of Preservation PAGE 2 Issued: 5/9/07 DOCKET: 07-0090 |
Added to EveryBlock on January 16, 2008.