The Q at Parkside

(for those for whom the Parkside Q is their hometrain)

News and Nonsense from the Brooklyn neighborhood of Lefferts and environs, or more specifically a neighborhood once known as Melrose Park. Sometimes called Lefferts Gardens. Or Prospect-Lefferts Gardens. Or PLG. Or North Flatbush. Or Caledonia (west of Ocean). Or West Pigtown. Across From Park Slope. Under Crown Heights. Near Drummer's Grove. The Side of the Park With the McDonalds. Jackie Robinson Town. Home of Lefferts Manor. West Wingate. Near Kings County Hospital. Or if you're coming from the airport in taxi, maybe just Flatbush is best.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

PPEN Complaint Against 626 Flatbush Available Online

If you want to know precisely what's been filed with NY County Supreme Court, you can go here:

Then type in Index number: 101695/2013

A lot of detail is there that you won't find in my layman's analyses.


Anonymous said...

So, has anybody heard what happened at the court hearing for 626 Flatbush?

MattOnLincoln said...

Thanks for link. The FHA should have regarded this project as Type 1 (requiring state environmental review because it is close to both Prospect Park and Lefferts Manor district)--that part of this petition seems hard to dispute. Will be interesting to see whether the defendants try. Maybe they can argue that it suffices that the park is not a direct neighbor?

If a judge orders a SEQRA analysis, I view that as reinforcing good government. Still, in the context of Manhattan courts—which probably have a heap of Central Park West and Fifth Avenue precedents of big buildings that went up next to the park with minimal changes—how much of a chance is there that a judge will order changes to the project?

Looking forward to more info. Please post update when defendants' papers are filed.

Anonymous said...

For an amusing reading experience, go here:

If you want to know precisely what's been filed with NY County Supreme Court, you can go here:

From the court filing:

67. Third, Developers misrepresented to the HFA that the Project will create only “nominal increases to demand[s for] recreation, education, police, and fire protection services.” Bassett Affidavit, Exhibit 9 (EAF at 14). This is disingenuous. The Project comprises 254 new residential units. Id. at 4-5. Conservatively, 254 new residential units can be expected to bring at least 345 new residents to the site (assuming each studio and one-bed apartment is occupied by one person, and each two- and three-bed apartment is occupied by two people). This will put a significant strain on public services, including education, police and fire protection.

Well, when it comes to kerfuffles such as this one, there's no harm in making stuff up.

Meanwhile, the filing states that buildings in PLG range from 2 to 17 stories, thus bumping up to 23 isn't setting much of a precedent.

Moreover, the complainants on Chester Court won't see the building -- their windows don't permit a view of it.

Anonymous said...

For further amusement. Now an increase in commercial activity has been recast as "strain", something bad and unwanted by a community that in this filing is insisting it can remain in the doldrums if it wants to.

68. Finally, Developers misrepresented to the HFA that the Project will not “result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels,” and failed to answer the question of whether “the existing road network [was] adequate to handle the additional traffic.” Bassett Affidavit, Exhibit 9 (EAF at 10). To the contrary, the Project contains “93 studios, 70 onebedroom, 56 two-bedroom and 35 three-bedroom units” (Bassett Affidavit, Exhibit 1 (Negative
Declaration at 2)).

Conservatively, this will bring at least 345 new residents to this site (see above). The Project will also contain “approximately 4,800 square feet of retail space.” Id. The New York City Department of Transport has already designated Flatbush Avenue a “Congested

An additional 345 pedestrians and their associated personal and service vehicles plus retail traffic, will put a very significant strain on that “Corridor.”

Ah, such terrible news, the sudden presence of those arrivistes and everything they haul into the neighborhood. Terrible. Just terrible.

Anonymous said...

I agree, a lot of the arguments in the complaint (if not 100% of them) are a stretch, to the point of unintentional comedy. My favorite is the argument that the project is "substantially contiguous" to Prospect Park. Last I checked, "contiguous" meant "adjoining", or "sharing a common lot line", not "in the general vicinity of".

Anonymous said...

It looks like the judge will have some leeway in determining whether this project is actually "substantially contiguous," which is a legal term without a precise definition. Per the NYS SEQR Handbook: (

17. What is meant by the term "substantially contiguous?"

The term "substantially contiguous" as used in both sections 617.4(b)(9) and (10), is intended to cover situations where a proposed activity is not directly adjacent to a sensitive resource, but is in close enough proximity that it could potentially have an impact. Although the term can be difficult to define, the following examples may provide some guidance.

Construction of a structure across a residential or downtown two to four-lane street from a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be substantially contiguous. However, if the street were a six lane limited access highway with a 100 foot median it would not be substantially contiguous.
Construction of a structure on a site that is separated from a City Park by a 50 foot right-of-way would be substantially contiguous.
Construction of a residential development overlooking a historically designated bay would be substantially contiguous.
Construction of a boat launch ramp 100 feet away from a prehistoric Native American encampment site proposed for designation on the National Register of Historic places would be substantially contiguous.
When considering the issue of what is substantially contiguous, it is important to realize that you are only determining if the action will be classified as Type I or Unlisted, and not determining its significance. If there is question whether an action is substantially contiguous, it is best to treat it as Type I and proceed with the review.