Brooklyn Borough President Opposes Resi Tower Next To Botanic Garden
Proposals for a 14-story residential building that would tower over the Brooklyn Botanic Garden have run into local political opposition.
Continuum Co., led by Ian Bruce Eichner, has proposed developing a 475-unit residential property across the street from the gardens at 962-972 Franklin Ave.
But the site requires a rezoning to move ahead — and it may not get the political support it needs.
Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso said in a Friday morning post on social media platform X that he will oppose the proposal.
Today I disapproved 962-972 Franklin Ave.@BrooklynBotanic is sacred, and this one-of-a-kind community resource deserves one-of-a-kind consideration.
— Antonio Reynoso (@BKBPReynoso) July 26, 2024
I will not support any development here that will create additional shadow impacts.
This proposal fails to meet that standard.
Reynoso’s rationale is that the shadows cast by the proposed development would still implicate the nearby Jackie Robinson Playground and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, with shadows threatening some of the thousands of rare plant species housed in the gardens.
“The Borough President believes that supply is a critical part of addressing the housing crisis — this is simply the wrong place [for] this proposed building because of its adjacency to a critical, public, sunlight-sensitive resource,” Reynoso wrote in a 14-page testimony that he linked to in his X post.
Reynoso’s disapproval of the project follows a June vote against the towers by Brooklyn’s Community Board 9.
The scenario is similar to one that Continuum faced in 2021 when it sought to build two 39-story rental buildings on the same site with a different address.
That proposal was crushed by public and political opposition following calculations that the towers would cast 4.5 hours of shade over the gardens every day, and the developers’ analysis in its environmental impact statement said the shadows “may affect the public’s use or enjoyment” of the space.
While the new proposal is different from its predecessor, Reynoso said in his testimony that the question he has to answer “is whether the applicant’s proposed actions are appropriate in their own right, not whether they are merely improved relative to the legally distinct 2021 application.”
