L to R: Preservationists Fern Luskin and Julie Finch in front of scaffolding-draped Hopper-Gibbons House, whose fifth floor addition has been the topic of a long court battle.
BY ZACH WILLIAMS | The ongoing legal battle over Manhattan’s only documented and landmarked Underground Railroad site continued in the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court on Feb. 4 through contesting arguments of the city permit process necessary for the building owner to pursue alterations to the building.
Opponents of the construction argued that Tony Mamounas, owner of the Hopper-Gibbons House (339 W. 29th St. btw. 8th & 9th Aves.), needs approval from the city Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) in order to conclude construction of a fifth story to the building. But his attorney, Marvin B. Mitzner, told the five-judge panel that a 2005 permit from the Department of Buildings (DOB) preceeded the 2009 historical designation of Hopper-Gibbons House and adjacent buildings as the Lamartine Place Historic District. Thus, he argued, Mamounas should be allowed to bypass the landmark review process and apply directly to the city Board of Standards and Appeals.
A decision from the court will likely take months.
The DOB permit resulted in alterations in the building protruding above adjacent roof lines — which together served as an escape route for slavery abolitionists fleeing from the 1863 Draft Riots. With scaffolding and the roof addition in place, visiting history enthusiasts are already deprived of an opportunity to properly appreciate the old building, said Fern Luskin, lecturer of art and architectural history at LaGuardia Community College, who a member of Friends of the Hopper-Gibbons Underground Railroad Site and Lamartine Place Historic District, a group of local activists leading the push to protect the structure.
“People come from other states to see this and that is what they see,” said Luskin. “They are not able to see the true history of the place because that is so dependent on the uniform cornice line.”
The DOB revoked the permit shortly before the building became a landmark because of the revelation that it cannot waive provisions of the city Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL), despite a longstanding practice of doing so, Mitzner notes. According to the City Charter, only the city Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) can waive MDL provisions.
But that was not clear when his client applied for the permit, according to Mitzner, who told the judges that his client acted in good faith by pursuing the permit through DOB as others had done before. But using an invalidated permit as a pretense for circumventing the subsequent historical designation of a building was questioned by one judge on the panel — to which Mitzner said there was precedence through the case of a building on E. Sixth St., when a zoning law changed but a voided DOB permit was nonetheless reinstated.
BSA and Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Eileen Rackower agreed that Mamounas would need LPC approval for the construction, which activists say continued after the landmark designation, Chelsea Now reported in Aug. 2013, resulting more than one year later in the current appellate case. But the issue of historical designation is beside the point, Mitzner told Chelsea Now in an interview.
“The way you correct the mistake DOB made is to go to BSA for (the waiver),” he said. “That’s what the board failed to do and why we’re here.”
If the appellate court reverses that decision, the historical integrity of the building will crumble, according to Jack L. Lester, attorney for Friends of the Hopper-Gibbons. Furthermore, the 2005 DOB permit was never valid and thus could not be reinstated in any form, Lester and a city attorney argued in court on Feb. 4.
“All we are asking the court to do is sustain what BSA has already done. Allow landmarks to review this, allow the historical importance of the buildings to be reviewed and then the owner still has the right to get his waivers and everything else from BSA,” Lester said.
Even if his clients and the city eventually prevail in the current case, it could be years before the additional floor is removed and the roof restored to its original height, he added.
