strictness of NYC co-op boards

Before thinking about renovations, I would make sure that your DTI is acceptable. A lot of co ops in the city have their own financial requirements: https://www.hauseit.com/nyc-co-op-financial-requirements/

And I think what you think they'll "probably" want is optimistic. See article.

Alex, no coop board will say no to what you are doing. However, they may want you to get permits from DOB, approval from building architect or redo the bathroom plumbing.

alex--as long as you are not moving the toilet to another location or trying to expand the bathroom (wet-over-dry) then you should be ok. But yes, a board would want to review all plans, would require any necessary DOB permits and have their own architect sign off. Keep in mind that if the bathroom is not ADA compliant (likely it is not if it is as old as you suggest) there may be additional updates that would be needed to pass inspection (like compliant door width).

For retiling and no moving of fixtures, ada compliance is not needed. Most building will not need an architects review as well.

300--the board would likely want an architect to review if tub being converted to shower. If his 'change' to the toilet means moving it elsewhere or if the bathroom footprint is being expanded/altered then ADA compliance would be needed.

My philosophy is that the more you share with the board, the more controls they want. The board does not need to know whether you have shower or a tub as long as you are not expanding the bathroom or moving the location of the fixtures significantly and you are going to do water proofing.

Well from my own experience as a board member we would absolutely want to know whether a tub were being converted to a shower stall for the very concern you mention - adequate waterproofing. If a shareholder submitted plans that failed to disclose a conversion from tub to shower stall (especially if shower body was being altered or repositioned) that would be a problem.

Squid, I fully understand the desire for the board to know what renovations a unit owner is planning for their unit if it might might affect neighbors or the building as a whole. But many boards are overly conservative in their willingness to approve reasonable projects even those that have no effect on neighbors such as partitioning rooms. As long as the work is done according to code and the coop reviews the work, why would the board object?

That is why owners often prefer that the board knows as little as possible. My board had a serious "culture of no" problem which made living there a bit of a nightmare. When asked why the board prohibits certain renovations, the answer was often "it's just our policy".

Squid, What action would the board take in your building if someone did not disclose conversion from tub to shower but did waterproofing?

Ximon -
I think the reason why boards sometimes seem 'overly conservative' is because they want to be sure of the holistic health of the building. Moving pipes, expanding kitchens and bathrooms can be problematic if not done correctly. I would be very wary of any alteration plan that was submitted without full details and exact plans. I would expect plans to be as thorough as possible so the board could make a decision with all the facts present. I get your 'culture of no' concern and every building is of course different. Our particular board is very reasonable and open as long as plans are sound and adhere to code requirements.

300 -
It would depend. If proper waterproofing were done and the alteration caused no harm to the building it may wind up being a small monetary fine for lack of disclosure. The important issue is that any alteration to a single unit that involves plumbing or other significant work is an alteration to the building as a whole. Shareholders need to be respectful of this and of the fact that what they do in their apartment may affect other units (improper waterproofing for instance).

We did have a situation a while back in which a shareholder was approved for an alteration but veered drastically away from the approved plans without alerting the board. In that case a significant fine was levied.

Squid, Why wouldn’t your board simply issue a requirement that “If the bathroom is no expanded, we need proof of waterproofing for a bathroom redo and a dob permit for plumbing rather than force the shareholder through time consuming beaureaucracy of building architect’s or engineers approval? “

300, we require that as part of the renovation application the shareholder submit full architectural plans that address all aspects of the reno. Then we run it by our building architect for guidance before approving. This is standard in most co-ops and I don't see it forcing unnecessary hoop-jumping.

If some wanted to redo their bathroom without moving the walls, our coop does not require any approvals except dob plumbing permit and work done by an insured plumber. We do require that every shareholder carry fairly hefty liability insurance. That is typically what a condo will do. Your coop is forcing people to hire an architect and adding unnecessary costs. It will take at least 5k for someone to hire an architect who is going to wait 1-2 weeks for building architect for approval. Building architects are rarely reasonable as they want to be seen protecting the interest of the building. They may ask for ada compliance when none is necessary. I would think of your coop as stuffy and the board being potentially harmful to shareholder value.

You raise a valid point, 300. In our case most alteration applications have involved larger areas of a unit - with many being either full guts or close to it. In those cases we do require architectural plans to be submitted. As I mentioned previously we have had one very serious incident in which a shareholder was approved for one plan and then did something entirely different, resulting in damage that affected surrounding units. This caused the board to tighten the alteration application policy.

With all this said, if a shareholder were to come to the board saying they wanted to renovate a bathroom in the manner you are describing (and not as part of a broader alteration to the unit) we may consider allowing it. But that would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Squid, you are using buzz words that scare me a little such as - "MAY consider allowing", "case-by-case basis", etc. which sound a little too authoritative to me.

Tightening a policy as a result of a single incident also seems overly conservative. My old coop added a provision in the house rules that spas were prohibited after one board member complained of noise coming from one apartment above. And requiring a shareholder to submit full architectural plans that address all aspects of a small reno and then require the building architect to review seems unnecessarily conservative, expensive and time-consuming. One size does not fit all renovations.

I know that not too long ago the pendulum swung too far to the side of unit owners but today it appears it has swung too far the other way. Overreacting is not good policy in a cooperative housing environment where most people expect their chosen leaders to show caution, fairness, and reasonableness. Boards are not supposed to act like Big Brother but sadly too many do.

But I agree with you that "any alteration to a single unit that involves plumbing or other significant work is an alteration to the building as a whole". This is a very good principal to follow.
Also, shareholders who only consider their wants as opposed to their needs (see link below) or the needs of their neighbors are much of the reason for rules that seem burdensome. Coop living is unfortunately tricky business and a proper balance between the individual and the whole is critical.

https://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/43757-nyt-article-about-acs-in-co-ops

Squid, That seems reasonable. Substantial Renos in our coop do go through architect or engineer. Usually we let our very capable managing agent propose the action.