Brooklyn proposal would replace 100‑year‑old building with 47 fully affordable senior units; public hearing laid over

The New York City Council subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises heard an application to rezone a site at 1946 East Seventh Street in Brooklyn for a fully affordable senior housing development that the applicant said would contain 47 one‑bedroom apartments. The project proposer, represented by Eric Palatnik, said the building would be six stories tall and replace a century‑old four‑story structure on a corner that currently contains several community facilities operated by the applicant organization, AHI Ezra.

Why it matters: The applicant characterized the project as “one of its kind” fully affordable senior housing intended to serve an established local community and indicated federal funding from HUD (Section 202) is in place. The project drew a mix of support and opposition: the borough president and the City Planning Commission showed support or cooperation, the applicant asserted some community support exists, while Community Board 15 disapproved and residents voiced concerns about height, density and cumulative impact from existing community facilities.

Project and zoning details - Program: A six‑story building with 47 one‑bedroom units intended for seniors; applicant said a 35‑foot rear yard is proposed where 30 feet is required. - Zoning actions: The application requests rezoning to R6A and R7A for portions of the site and removal of the property from the Ocean Parkway Subdistrict; the applicant said the project would rely on the rezoning to permit the six‑story design. - Financing and approvals: Palatnik said the project “has a fully accepted financing program set in place by HUD” and described Section 202 financing as committed; he added that if federal funding were not received, the not‑for‑profit sponsor could not build the project and the site would remain as is.

Community comments and council questions: Council Member Mark Treyger (panel questions) and others pressed the applicant on the length of the entitlement process (the applicant said it took 7 years and several iterations) and on why Community Board 15 opposed the application; Palatnik attributed the board’s opposition in part to concerns about the cumulative impact of multiple community facilities on traffic, noise and deliveries. The applicant said design changes were made in response to community objections, including reducing height from earlier proposals and removing a bulkhead. He offered to cap the height at six stories to address concerns.

Outcome: Public testimony closed and the subcommittee laid LU‑347/348 over for additional consideration. The applicant, council members and panelists noted continued outreach would be necessary to address community concerns.