Skip to main content

Legal case involving B15 progresses, though school construction timing unclear; project update at March 7 meeting

The legal case involving Greenland Forest City, owners of the stalled B15 site (aka 664 Pacific) and neighboring property at 497 Dean seems to have progressed, which raises the likelihood of construction.

At least one element of the dispute, according to the eCourts web site, has been settled, as shown in the screenshot at right.

But the overall case remains listed as active, with a "control date" (conference) set for 5/4/17, so it's unclear whether the dispute is fully resolved, and construction of the 27-story tower can proceed and ultimately bring market-rate apartments and a middle school. I queried both sides but didn't hear back.

However, given that pre-construction activities were delayed until this year, at least and the projected time for pre-construction and construction is four years, unless construction goes faster than expected, the promised middle school won't arrive until 2021, rather than 2018 or 2019, as once projected. The school has been dubbed by backers as M.S. OneBrooklyn.


The site, in center; 497 Dean at right
A public meeting

Perhaps we'll learn more at the next Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Quality of Life meeting (fka Community Update fka Quality of Life), which addresses various project-related issues and will be held:
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
@ 6:00 PM
Shirley Chisholm State Office Building
55 Hanson Place
1st Floor Conference Room
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Access at issue

Not yet really in progress; won't be finished by Q4 2018
As described by Supreme Court Justice Sylvia Ash in her 12/5/16 decision, the developer must demolish an existing structure on site, which will take two weeks, and require excavation to a depth lower than the foundations of the neighboring 497 Dean, a four-story apartment building, as I wrote 12/13/16,

That was delayed by a dispute about safety precautions regarding 497 Dean.

Ash indicated she was "inclined to grant Developer a license" to enter the neighboring premises but ordered the parties to appear in a conference set forth license parameters. She also said she'd assess what would be a reasonable license fee.

If the settlement regards the license, and the fee, well, what's left to negotiate? Or is the "control date" merely an update on the work done so far? Stay tuned.


Comments