Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rear Addition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves rear‑yard reconstruction and extension at 23 East 90th Street

5495230 · June 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Landmarks Preservation Commission approved reconstruction of the altered top floor and a four‑story rear extension at 23 East 90th Street in the Carnegie Hill Historic District, finding the work will return the rear elevation closer to its historic appearance and will not be visible from most public thoroughfares.

On June 24 the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved reconstruction of the altered top floor and a four‑story rear addition at 23 East 90th Street in the Carnegie Hill Historic District, finding the proposal would restore a more typical rear‑yard massing and return brick and corbel detail that had been lost under stucco.

The project team (Higgins Quasbarth and Partners) described the property as part of an AB Ogden row constructed in 1889–90; the existing rear elevations have been extensively modified in several campaigns and many rear facades on the block are covered with paint or stucco. The applicant proposed removing an altered stucco‑clad top floor, reconstructing the top floor in red common brick with cast‑stone lintels and a corbeled cornice, and building a four‑story rear yard extension in brick and multilite fenestration consistent with nearby secondary facades.

Public comment was supportive. Zeynep Turan of Friends of the Upper East Side said the proposal “is a significant improvement over the existing condition” and that the revised massing aligns with the adjacent building at No. 25. Kaylee Johnson of the Historic Districts Council found the proposal “largely appropriate” but preferred a different massing option in which the full‑depth extension would be lower on upper floors. Community Board 8 recommended denial; the record shows the applicant scaled back earlier proposals following board feedback.

Commissioners found the restoration of masonry details and the proposed configuration consistent with a pattern of diverse rear additions across the block and noted the work will result in limited public visibility. The commission approved the work by recorded vote.