BeehiveHairdresser.com

I figured that it was about time that the people who built a spite wall up against their neighbor’s home (and on their neighbor’s property) only to then spend years fighting to make the illegal activity legal should get their own moniker. 

I deem the people who live in the house on the left and who are responsible for this hideous mess, the Bay Ridge Bastards!

As one can imagine that when dealing with a bastard, a bastard is going to act like a bastard.

After losing what should have been their final legal opportunity to make the illegal structure legal the Bay Ridge Bastards have come up with a loophole. 

The main problems with the construction is that it goes against zoning code which states that these houses have at least an eight foot clearance on at least one side of them. 

Plus the whole item about the construction attaching itself to the neighboring foundation/property illegally - the house on the right has inches of property that the wall was inappropriately built on.

The Bay Ridge Bastards found what could have been a loophole to keep the illegal wall up by partially demolishing the original house on the lot, aka the home on the left of the photo.

Doing a partial demolition of eight feet on the left sure should be able to skirt around the existing zoning regulations regarding that whole eight feet of clearance, but it would have done nothing to fix the illegal foundation attachment and building on the neighboring property issues - and it would have been a great big f*ck you to the neighbors with whom they have been spiting for years already.

The plan for partial demolition was submitted less than a week after the Bay Ridge Bastards lost in court - go figure! 

Thankfully the Department of Buildings activated some check and balances.  They looked at the plan and realized that the plan wasn’t kosher for what I can only assume to be the following reasons at bare minimum:

1. The plan failed to address any of the violations that 123 87th Street currently has against it.
2. The whole “no asbestos” abatement not being required sounds like 100% BS.
3. The fact that they’re trying to say that the partial demolition of the building is an alteration but not a substantial alteration making it exempt from the ECCCNYS is 100,000% false!

Thank you Department of Buildings for getting it right in a speedy manner.  Please keep your heads up on them as they are some sneaky bastards.