Neighbors and preservationists oppose deepening and rear addition at 81 Barrow Street; LPC approves with staff follow-up on top‑floor recladding

The Landmarks Preservation Commission on April 29 approved an application by the owners of 81 Barrow Street to construct a multi‑story rear-yard addition and to excavate the cellar and rear yard, but the commission directed the applicant to work with staff to restudy the top‑floor rear recladding to ensure the rear facade remains differentiated from the new lower levels.

Neighbors and local preservation groups urged the commission to deny the application at public testimony, saying the excavation depth and the extension’s footprint would block a lot‑line window in an adjacent apartment, potentially render a bedroom nonfunctional, and risk structural impacts to neighboring buildings.

What the commission decided

The commission voted 8‑0 to approve the application. Commissioner Goldblum read staff findings and recommended approval while asking the applicant to work with staff on the top floor recladding so the added mass does not entirely subsume the historic building’s original volume; Commissioner Ginsburg seconded the motion.

Public testimony and applicant response

Tova Katzir, owner of the unit at 79 Barrow Street, said the proposed enlargement would "completely bridal off the window in my second bedroom" and noted she had relied on a previous Department of Buildings filing (she said she was given DOB paperwork from a previous owner) that labeled the room as a bedroom. Vincent Bandy, president of the 79 Barrow Street Owners Corporation, and preservation organization Village Preservation urged the commission to require an expanded engineering review because they said the proposed excavation could jeopardize their building’s foundations.

Dina Taswinder of Village Preservation told the commission the proposed depth of excavation "bears the troubling risk of destabilizing the building and impacting its neighbors." Attorney Caroline Harris, representing Katzir, called the proposed addition “too large” and said the excavation “poses a threat to the existing building and particularly to my client’s apartment.”

Applicant representatives said the excavation would be performed using benching techniques rather than underpinning and that the excavation depth was about 4 feet 7 inches. Valerie Campbell, counsel for the applicant, said that the conversion of the neighbor’s window into a bedroom earlier was a DOB-approved, self‑certified filing in 2002 but that a lot‑line window cannot, as a matter of property law, create an easement that prevents an adjacent owner from building; she added there are no recorded easements on the applicant’s title.

Why it matters

Neighbors described a long-running pattern: previous enlargements at 81 Barrow already created substantial rear additions; opponents said a further enlargement and cellar excavation would excessively increase the building’s visible mass in the rear and remove light from adjacent units.…