Trouble in Paradise Newsday November 4, 2003

Some in Sunnyside Gardens want landmark distinction

By Marc Ferris

Marc Ferris is a freelance writer.

November 4, 2003

Sunnyside Gardens was created as an urban oasis. Most of the 1,202 attached homes, constructed between 1924 and 1928 near the Sunnyside train yard, surround large common courtyards where the sounds of birds chirping and the wind rushing through the trees almost drowns out wailing sirens and rumbling trucks.

"It's a gem of a neighborhood," said urban historian Barry Lewis. "It was an attempt to civilize the city with mini-Central Parks behind many of the houses."

But through the years, there has been trouble in paradise as proponents of private-property rights have clashed with residents more attuned to the communal ideal. The problem became manifest in 1966, when the original restrictive covenants that prohibited alterations expired and some homeowners began constructing fences, building decks, renovating their facades and adding driveways and curb cuts.

Disputes became so divisive that the city's Department of Planning intervened and established a Special Planned Community Preservation District in 1974, which required special permits for subsequent alterations. The provisions did not apply retroactively.

Since 1974, however, some homeowners have tinkered with their property, angering others committed to the collective vision of the development's designers. Arguing that the current codes are too weak to protect the neighborhood's character, some residents have formed the Sunnyside Gardens Preservation Partnership to seek designation by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission, which would impose more stringent restrictions on modifications and also regulate aesthetic issues.

"Rather than bicker amongst ourselves, we'd like to get a professional perspective regarding what is historically accurate and what is merely a matter of taste," said Herbert Reynolds, who has lived in the neighborhood since 1985 and is actively pursuing landmark status. "We're hoping to establish standards of consistency and create a surge in community pride that landmarking can provide."

The alterations undertaken through the years have created a spatial and aesthetic hodgepodge. One facade, modified with stucco, resembles a castle. Another porch enclosure features wooden fish-scale shingles that are incongruent with the dominant brick motif. Private fences encroach on all but one of the 10 courtyards, and some front yards have been fenced in and covered with concrete to provide parking areas.

Reynolds and his allies contend that since the planning department has no enforcement powers, and the special zoning restrictions do not appear on buildings department computers when owners apply for permits, some situations fall through the cracks.

Inspectors from the Department of Buildings research the applicable codes whenever a landowner applies for a permit, said department spokeswoman Ilyse Fink. Only six applications have been submitted for alterations since 1977, the first year for which figures are available, said Rachaele Raynoff, planning department spokeswoman. Determining the legality of the modifications is difficult, she said, since "there had already been some changes by 1974 and it is hard to know what predated that and what was done after that."

In landmarked districts, the preservation commission's restrictions automatically appear on Buildings Department computers and permit applications are referred to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Fink said.

"Some people buy homes and have no idea it's an historical area," said Elsie Baietto, who has lived in the neighborhood 54 years and supports landmarking. "If it were landmarked, it will be noted on the deed when you buy the home. If they're not interested, maybe they wouldn't purchase their home and if they are interested, then they will follow the rules."

Landmarks Preservation Commission officials have visited the neighborhood, but the agency has not scheduled a hearing on the proposal, said Diane Jackier, commission spokeswoman.

The recurring disputes have punctured the initial developers' vision of an urban utopia, said Lewis: "The irony with Sunnyside Gardens is that almost everyone agrees that it's a special place, but communally held property never really struck a chord in this country. When regulations are proposed to limit what people can do with their property, there has always been a fight."

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.