Commission pushes back on new rooftop mass at 83 Horatio; supports cellar excavation and rear‑façade changes with limits

The Landmarks Preservation Commission heard May 6 an application proposing excavation of a rear cellar and construction of a rooftop addition at 83 Horatio Street in the Greenwich Village Historic District. Commissioners signaled support for cellar excavation and rear‑façade modifications that increase light and allow planted soil at the rear, but expressed strong concern about an additional full‑width rooftop massing that would add a second elevated story above an earlier, substantial addition.

Proposal summary: The property includes a previously approved and built multi‑story addition (approved in 2017). The current proposal would excavate below the rear yard to create a planted roof over a new cellar, reconfigure two lower rear bays into larger openings, and construct a new rooftop assembly that increases the apparent rooftop bulk. The team said the yard would be raised near the neighboring grade and provide substantial planting and soil (leaving five feet of undisturbed soil adjacent to the lot line).

Preservation commentary and Commission reaction: Village Preservation opposed further rooftop enlargement and described earlier additions to the house as already “egregiously out of scale.” Commissioners and preservation commenters agreed the rear‑yard excavation and landscape‑forward approach would be appropriate and welcomed the planting plan, but repeatedly rejected the proposed new rooftop bulk as too large and out of scale with the original nineteenth‑century house. Several commissioners also urged the applicant to move rooftop mechanical units to the new roof rather than mounting equipment on the rear façade and to reduce the new addition’s height and extent so it reads as a modest bulkhead rather than a full second story.

Outcome and direction: LPC did not vote on the application. Commissioners said they would be open to an altered rooftop that reads clearly as a bulkhead or stair/top‑house element, is lower in height, uses a smaller footprint (not full width), and keeps mechanical equipment placed and screened on the roof rather than on the rear wall. The applicant was asked to return with revised options that reduce rooftop massing and better respect the building’s hierarchy while LPC staff and commissioners expressed support for the proposed cellar excavation and rear‑façade fenestration changes.

Next steps: Applicant to revise rooftop design (height, width, mechanical placement) and return for further LPC review; LPC noted the project’s rear‑yard planting would be beneficial if the rooftop massing can be reduced.