Certificate of Appropriateness Testimony
LPC-23-08141
363 Macon Street – Bedford-Stuyvesant/Expanded Stuyvesant Heights Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
An Altered Italianate style rowhouse built c. 1873. Application is to construct rooftop and rear yard additions.
Architect: ALAO
HDC agrees with Brooklyn CB3 that a full-height rear yard extension is inappropriate here. The top two floors of the proposed rear yard extension should be eliminated.
Action: 7-2 Approved with modification that the rear yard addition is reduced by a floor and the top floor addition is set back three feet and is built without the proposed trellis
|
LPC-23-02083
931 President Street – Park Slope Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A neo-Grec style rowhouse built in 1886. Application is to construct a rear yard addition.
Architect: ARCHITECTURE + CONSTRUCTION, PLLC
HDC finds this rear yard addition to be appropriate, but we feel that the muntin pattern should be consistent across the windows of the top two existing floors.
Action: Unanimously approved
 |
LPC-23-07389
21-37 45th Avenue – Hunters Point Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
An Italianate style rowhouse built in the early 1870s. Application is to construct rooftop and rear yard additions.
HDC finds this rear yard addition to be appropriate, but we feel the newly proposed window openings on the second floor should relate to the existing openings on the third floor.
Action: Unanimously approved with the modifications that applicants restudy the addition so that it is no deeper than surrounding additions on the block and that they restudy the fenestration on the third floor so that it relates to the historic fenestration.
LPC-22-07217
36 West 85th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A Georgian/Renaissance Revival style rowhouse designed by George F. Pelham and built in 1897. Application is to construct a rear yard addition.
Architect: Murdock Solon Architects
What is being proposed here is not a rear yard addition, but instead a full-height extension, which is completely inappropriate. The top two floors of the extension should be eliminated.
Action: Unanimously approved with modifications the applicant reduce the addition by one story and work with staff on the shape of the lintels.
