Landmarks Says No Go To Willow Street Backyard Pool

By on May 20, 2013 3:58 pm in Architecture, Brooklyn Heights

Residents of 105 Willow Street who applied to excavate their backyard 25 feet deep for an in-ground pool got a thumbs down from Landmarks, according to a story in Brownstoner. The application called for excavation of the property’s rear yard, “putting in a pool and whirlpool underground with a barrel vault ceiling and a skylight, and an infinity reflecting pool on the top.”

The underground pool would not be visible from the outside, however, according to Brownstoner’s source, Landmarks “didn’t like the sound of excavating the whole backyard” of the “eclectic-diverse-style rowhouse built between 1861-1879.” Potentially, the homeowner could modify the plans and try again.

Share this Story:

,

  • fit4ufor3rd

    wait let me get my violin out

  • Violinist

    Ah, the troubles and travails of the 1%

  • monty

    How does the LPC have authority over backyards?

  • http://www.cognation.net/ deancollins

    ridiculous, what happened to private property rights when this isn’t even visible to other people living next door.

    how is it that LPC can reject this…?

    How does LPC even have jurisdiction here for something not even visible???

    As for the naysayers who complain about the 1%ers….jealous much.

  • DIBS

    Yes dean, so much jeralous hate for those who would like to spend the money they earn on what they would like. Obama has brought this to a new level.

  • Bloomy

    I’m all for conspiracies, but how on Earth is Obama in anyway relevant to this pool?

  • Bob Sacamano

    I also don’t understand how the LPC can have a say on this. While this is something I would never do. However, if it is not visible to the street and doesn’t adversely impact the the integrity of the building and surrounding buildings, I am not sure what the problem would be.

  • DIBS

    A little reading comprehension might do you well. Not the pool per se, but the hate now so often directed at the the rich, or, those who don’t yet pay their fair share.

  • ckheights

    ridiculous overstepping by Landmarks….nice to have a pool, though….I am sure they will reapply…

  • DIBS

    I agree strongly with those who question their say on this but others have told me that they do have purview over yards as well. I don’t know the details of the law. And, yesterday someone mentioned the “creep” of their ever expanding jurisdiction. Seems the residents never get a say in this sort of thing. As we all know, petty tyranny is the worst form of tyranny.

  • petercow

    First – I presume this refers to federal income tax.. and a good part of the reason for this is because a) the minimum required before you had to pay was -raised-.

    b) if they made more money, they’d pay federal tax.

    I’d love to see Mitt Romney’s federal taxes for the years before he knew he was going to run for prez (in other words, more than the last 2).

    I would wager he paid close to zero.

    But this was all resolved in the election with a 126 electoral-vote stomping.

  • petercow

    It’s “envy” , not “jealousy”. School, much?

  • DIBS

    I’m sure whatever Romney paid was what he was legally required to do so. Yoiu forget how many Democrats have run afoul of the IRS!!!!

    And, he was right about the 47% which is a really sad state for this country. If you want to argue with me the facts about the economy and how much worse it has gotten over the past 4 years, you better get up a little earlier.

  • yoohoo

    I believe the point here is not the pool but the possible lack of 30 feet of open space that must remain to the property line, i.e., the rear fence.

  • petercow

    Yeah – remind me where the Dow and S&P.

    But hey – keep pushing that 47% crap and see where it gets you in 2016.

  • DIBS

    Whaaaaa, whaaaaaa, whaaaaaa.

  • MonroeOrange

    what they don’t have a pool at their summer home? how gauche!

  • David on Middagh

    I think Grand Tyranny is worse.