Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents ask for hearing as Boston Road project increase draws criticism; board says lower AMI secured

Community Board 11 Housing & Land Use Committee · May 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Public commenters urged Community Board 11 to hold a hearing on a density increase at 2560 Boston Road, calling the environmental assessment 'significant negative impact' and criticizing the developer; the housing chair said HPD secured a lower AMI for some units and defended selective compromise.

Residents told the Community Board 11 Housing and Land Use meeting that a density increase at 2560 Boston Road requires more public review, accusing the developer of a 'bait‑and‑switch' after rezoning and warning of negative neighborhood impacts.

"It was already a significant negative impact, and now with those additional 100 units, it's a significant negative impact on this surrounding community of Allerton Avenue," said Roxanne (public commenter), urging the board to have held a public hearing and to reconsider the project’s increased size. She also accused Slate Property Group of predatory landlord practices and urged the board to register stronger opposition.

Richard (chair, Housing & Land Use Committee) responded that HPD and the board had pressed the applicant for a lower area‑median‑income (AMI) level and that the board had obtained that adjustment: "We asked for a lower AMI, and we got it… I sent the lower AMI letter, and we got the victory there." He said the board must prioritize which issues to pursue and sometimes accept compromises.

Context from HPD and other commenters Ted (HPD official) said HPD finance staff asked the developers for additional underwriting information because the project is large and that private‑site rezonings can change after the community board review; when applicants revise projects after community review, HPD asks that they return to the community board and council member to describe changes even when no new formal vote is required.

Other commenters suggested practical steps the board could take to maintain oversight: request construction staging plans, ask where debris and equipment will be stored, and press for public hearings when project scope increases materially.

Outcome The meeting produced no new public hearing or board vote on 2560 Boston Road; community members requested more transparency and an advisory hearing, while the committee chair described a recent compromise obtaining a lower AMI for some units.