BY LINCOLN ANDERSON | Last Tues., Sept. 16, the city’s Board of Standard and Appeals, reached an agreement with Ben Shaoul under which the developer conceded he would remove the seventh story that he added to 515 E. Fifth St.
Shaoul was given 60 days to comply, and a week from the B.S.A. hearing date in which to obtain a Department of Buildings permit to remove the seventh story. If he was unable to do so, the B.S.A. would intervene.
It’s not clear how the B.S.A. will rule on the building’s sixth story, which was also added by Shaoul. A follow-up B.S.A. hearing was scheduled for Nov. 25, at which time the issue will be further discussed.
According to a representative of Councilmember Rosie Mendez, Shaoul is continuing to seek a variance for the sixth floor. However, one case involving the building’s rooftop additions under the Multiple Dwellings Law is on hold, while another involving the zoning resolution has been deferred. The B.S.A. won’t rule on the sixth floor until the one above it comes down, the Mendez aide said.
However, it’s possible the developer will earn some “goodwill” with the board by removing the topmost floor, the aide indicated. Mendez meanwhile is withholding comment until the Nov. 25 hearing, her staffer said.
Mendez and state Senator Brad Hoylman were at last week’s B.S.A. hearing.
The 515 E. Fifth St. rooftop addition has a long, complicated history. D.O.B. initially granted a waiver to allow it. But in 2008, the B.S.A. ruled D.O.B. lacked authority to grant the waiver. In 2012, Shaoul applied to the B.S.A. for a variance allowing the extra floors.
Since 2008, the pair of additional stories have been rented to tenants. There are four duplexes, all spanning the two floors, which would have to be reconfigured to remove the seventh story.
In a very similar case, in June 2013, Shaoul, based on a September 2012 B.S.A. ruling, finally removed the seventh-floor penthouse he added atop another building, 514-516 E. Sixth St. A sixth story he added was allowed to remain.
At both the E. Fifth and Sixth St. buildings, tenants — working with the Urban Justice Center — challenged the rooftop additions under the 1929 Multiple Dwellings Law, charging they were illegal because neither building had an elevator or adequate fire escapes, as required by law.
Tenants at the Fifth St. building also filed a lawsuit charging D.O.B. had issued Shaoul the permit for the rooftop additions in violation of the “Sliver Law,” which caps building heights on lots narrower than 45 feet.
“This seems to be a tougher decision than on Sixth St.,” Alice Baldwin, a 515 E. Fifth St. tenant, said of the latest B.S.A. ruling. “This story has ramifications for the rest of the neighborhood.”
