Three inches are all that stand between Richard Muzio and a good night’s sleep.
Muzio, owner of the three-story building at 653 Vanderbilt Ave., has been asking his neighbor, the wine store Fermented Grapes, to remove its mauve awning because it encroaches on his property by a pesky three inches.
Because of those three little inches, Muzio now finds himself fighting a war of red tape. His foe is the Department of Buildings, which has refused to pass judgment, leaving Muzio and his neighbor at a bitter impasse.
Muzio, it seems, is just not a high priority for the department.
“The department will prioritize responding to a complaint about a building in danger of collapse over a complaint about a building with an illegal sign,” said agency spokeswoman Kate Lindquist.
Since 2004, Muzio has entered nine complaints against the awning above Fermented Grapes. He’s been scrupulously documenting his struggle — a file folder overflows with detailed documentation of what he calls an endless “runaround,” as well as a survey for which he paid $500 that indicates the awning is, indeed, encroaching on his property.
By three inches.
But no one wants to do anything about what he believes is a clear and present danger (to his sanity, if nothing else).
And certainly, not everyone believes Muzio or his surveyor.
“There’s no encroachment. It’s our property,” said, Fermented Grapes’ co-owner Deborah Summer, who opened the store with Jan McGill in September 2004
Summer told Muzio three years ago that she would not take down the awning. She has refused to speak to him since.
But Muzio persisted: In November, 2005, the matter even made it to court after the Buildings Department cited Summer for installing the awning without a permit, though a judge dismissed the charge.
Besides, that was during a brief citywide moratorium on the enforcement of sign and awning laws anyway.
But that moratorium ended in December, and Muzio was quick to pester the Department of Buildings for a new inspection. Alas, this time the inspector came out in January, but left without issuing a violation.
Besides, said Lindquist, it’s unlikely that a business would be required to remove an awning, even if it doesn’t have permits, unless it “poses a threat to public safety.”
Which leaves Muzio where he started, with no resolution in sight and with three inches of awning ruining his life.
