{"id":254402,"date":"2026-06-03T22:41:35","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T22:41:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/254402\/"},"modified":"2026-06-03T22:41:35","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T22:41:35","slug":"bed-stuy-locals-fight-for-future-of-girls-high-in-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/254402\/","title":{"rendered":"Bed Stuy Locals Fight for Future of Girls High in Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"view\"view <\/p>\n

The parking lot attached to Girls High School pictured in June 2025. Photo by Susan De Vries<\/p>\n

Bed Stuy residents are planning to pack a Brooklyn courtroom Wednesday in a fight over the future of a large parking lot behind the landmarked Girls High School on Nostrand Avenue.<\/p>\n

Locals will face the city in court for a second time in the case, in which they are asking Kings County Supreme Court Judge Lisa Lewis to reverse the 2025 rezoning of the school site at 457 Nostrand Avenue and restart the public review process. The rezoning paves the way for an up to 15-story affordable apartment building to rise on the school\u2019s parking lot.<\/p>\n

Sixteen locals are named in the legal action accusing the city of bypassing its rules and sidelining them in the site\u2019s rezoning, which was wrapped up in the sweeping Atlantic Avenue Mixed Use Plan<\/a>. The historic Girls High School sits outside the main area of the rezoning, three blocks to the northeast of the corridor.<\/p>\n

Through the Atlantic Avenue rezoning, the city upzoned the entire school site and got permission to sell<\/a> the parking lot to a developer to build a fully subsidized and 100-percent affordable housing development that could rise up to 155 feet and include 240 apartments.<\/p>\n

\"bedThe school in June 2025. Photo by Susan De Vries<\/p>\n

Filings show the city will seek proposals for the site for a 100 percent affordable income-targeted and rent-stabilized mixed-use project including 240 apartments and 25,000 square feet of space for NYC Public Schools. At least half of the units will be set aside for Extremely Low- and Very Low-Income households, which is between 0 and 50 percent of Area Median Income, court documents say.<\/p>\n

While the city has said it would be 100 percent affordable, it hasn\u2019t specified what rents will be for the remaining 50 percent of apartments, with an HPD rep telling Brownstoner last year they would serve \u201ca range of income levels.\u201d They said future public engagement would help to shape the affordability levels set out in the RFP.<\/p>\n

Locals allege they were left out of planning<\/p>\n

The residents argue they were denied the mandated opportunity to shape plans for the future of the publicly owned site. The city disputes that claim, arguing it followed the required process and that additional community engagement will occur before any development moves forward.<\/p>\n

Locals have pitched alternative visions, including the creation of a community center and a public garden, or a smaller contextual development that doesn\u2019t overshadow the historic and architecturally significant school building. Any plan, they say, should somehow preserve parking and add additional space for Girls\u2019 High current occupant, The Adult Learning Center.<\/p>\n

At a March 25 hearing, Lewis asked the city\u2019s lawyers and the group of locals, represented pro se by Bed Stuy resident Ram\u00f3n Chic\u00f3n, to file paperwork detailing the rezoning timeline and process, which will be reviewed at the June 3 hearing.<\/p>\n

Following the March hearing, the residents requested a temporary restraining order to stop the city from taking any action on the site while the case is ongoing, but that was rejected as the city said no work is expected before 2029.<\/p>\n

Those behind the legal action are \u201cresidents, small-business owners, and community leaders who live across from, next to, and within a few 100 feet of the site, including members of the original steering committee that secured Bedford\u2019s landmark designation,\u201d court filings say.<\/p>\n

The group alleges the city violated its own rules by failing to follow required land-use and environmental review procedures by adding the site to the rezoning proposal after the environmental scoping process had closed. They say this left Community Board 3 residents without a meaningful opportunity to participate in planning for the future of the historic site. There was little community outreach done in Bed Stuy, they argue, and many nearby residents didn\u2019t learn about the proposal until the day the City Council voted on it, which they say violates the city\u2019s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure.<\/p>\n

The group also argues that because the school is individually landmarked and sits within the Bedford Historic District<\/a>, the city was required to explore potential historic-resource impacts earlier in the environmental review process.<\/p>\n

\"view<\/p>\n

The residents \u201cdo not claim a veto over housing policy, only enforcement of the safeguards the Charter, ULURP, and CEQR provide to prevent late-added projects on public land in landmark districts being pushed through on corridor-level generalities and procedural box-ticking,\u201d court documents state.<\/p>\n

However, the city has pushed back on those claims, arguing the rezoning went through \u201cextensive review,\u201d including environmental reviews, and residents had multiple opportunities to weigh in through hearings held at the community board, borough president, City Planning Commission, and City Council levels.<\/p>\n

A central issue in the case is when the Girls High School site was added to the larger Atlantic Avenue Mixed Use Plan<\/a> and whether that timing allowed residents to truly participate in planning.<\/p>\n

\"view<\/p>\n

The Department of City Planning issued a draft scope of work for the broader rezoning in 2023, which didn\u2019t include the school site. During the scoping process, DCP received comments including from Council Member Chi Oss\u00e9, who called for the inclusion of 457 Nostrand Avenue as public land suitable for affordable housing development. The city added the site to the final scope of work published on October 11, 2024, legal documents show. The rezoning was certified by the City Planning Commission on October 15, 2024.<\/p>\n

Residents argue the addition of the site at the end of the scoping period meant \u201cCommunity Board 3 residents were effectively excluded from planning and scoping for 457 Nostrand,\u201d and that the subsequent \u201cperfunctory CB3 contact violated ULURP and CEQR.\u201d<\/p>\n

Most of the earlier outreach connected to the plan took place in Community Board 8, the group points out, and there were \u201cno comparable CB3-based visioning sessions, scoping-stage meetings, or workshops in the immediate vicinity of 457 Nostrand.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cA single, late CB3 hearing after the plan was effectively set, and after CB8 enjoyed a full visioning process, is not the meaningful community-board participation the Charter and CEQR were designed to guarantee,\u201d the filings state.<\/p>\n

\"groupLocal residents first presented their case to the court in March. Photo by Anna Bradley-Smith
\n\"groupThe residents will be back in court on Wednesday. Photo by Anna Bradley-Smith<\/p>\n

The group argues the process meant there was no real opportunity for alternative visions for the site to be considered, and Community Board 3 was ultimately asked (in a meeting the group said in court filings was without quorum) to vote on the proposal without adequate input from locals.<\/p>\n

Other ideas for the site could have included a smaller development under the previous zoning, shifting density to other nearby non-landmarked sites, or creating a community facility that included parking for the school, they said.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlternative concepts could have created a community center celebrating the legacy of Girls High School alumnae, including figures like Shirley Chisholm, so that new construction would reinforce rather than diminish the site\u2019s civic and cultural role,\u201d the filings state. The group argues that, as longtime residents of the area, they were entitled to be involved in the future planning for city-owned land in their landmarked neighborhood.<\/p>\n

\u201cHow amazing would that be for that land right there, which is a very historic site, both culturally and historically, to be utilized as a fresh food market, a space for people to be able to gather and hold block meetings, hold community meetings, hold community gatherings, and also educational things as well,\u201d local resident and architect Omar Walker previously told Brownstoner.<\/p>\n

The history of the site and its role in the community<\/p>\n

Before the rezoning, the parking lot, which stretches between Halsey and Macon streets and is used by staff and students at the Brooklyn Adult Learning Center<\/a>, sat in an R6A and R6B zoning district. It was rezoned to R7-2, which allows for taller and denser development.<\/p>\n

It was one of five publicly owned sites included for disposition and subsidized 100 percent affordable housing development included in rezoning. Three of the sites, including 457 Nostrand Avenue, sit outside the main corridor of the rezoning.<\/p>\n

\"siteImage from the Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan via NYC Planning<\/p>\n

The site was not always a parking lot. A wing of the historic school building<\/a> was destroyed in a 20th century fire and was never rebuilt. The space was later converted into surface parking.<\/p>\n

Locals and staff at the Brooklyn Adult Learning Center, which operates out of the historic school building, argue the lot is an important resource for the school, which offers classes for adult learners, including GED programs. Staff say the school is already at capacity and has been denied requests to expand, and the lot has been a place they can hold events such as resource and health fairs.<\/p>\n

City claims full public review, with more ahead<\/p>\n

The city has fired back at the claims there wasn\u2019t adequate public engagement on the site\u2019s future, and argues the project underwent full public review as part of the Atlantic Avenue Mixed Use Plan.<\/p>\n

According to court filings, plans for the site were presented to Community Board 3\u2019s Land Use Committee on November 13, 2024, and the board held a public hearing on December 2, 2024. Community Board 3 ultimately voted 22 to 6 in favor of the project with conditions that included reducing building height, increasing affordability, and exploring underground parking.<\/p>\n

The city argues that, beyond the community board process, hearings were also held for the rezoning by the borough president, the City Planning Commission, and City Council. A city-sponsored town hall was also held in April 2025.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Land Use Actions, sought to facilitate the AAMUP, underwent extensive public review. Both the zoning map amendment application and disposition application at issue in this proceeding were subject to public review pursuant to ULURP,\u201d the city said in court filings.<\/p>\n

The city also noted that there is plenty of opportunity for public input on the project ahead. Department of Housing Preservation and Development will hold community engagement in 2027, filings say, including public workshops to gather feedback on the project\u2019s design and housing options.<\/p>\n

Any future development would also require approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission because the project would rise on a landmarked site within a historic district. The LPC process would require further public hearings.<\/p>\n

\"view<\/p>\n

Council Member Chi Oss\u00e9, who advocated for the site\u2019s inclusion in the rezoning, told Brownstoner via email that allegations the community was excluded from the planning process were \u201csimply not true.\u201d<\/p>\n

During the 2023 scoping process<\/a>, he said, \u201cCity Planning worked with Council to identify city-owned sites that would be ideal for housing in both Districts 35 and 36. After those initial rounds of workshops, our office, Council Member Hudson\u2019s office, and City Planning continued to discuss the rezoning in more detail. This project went through an extensive public process.\u201d<\/p>\n

He added that \u201cspecific community engagement sessions for the 475 Nostrand site are still upcoming. There will be more engagement opportunities about this site, specifically in 2027. The project will not begin until community engagement is complete.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"view<\/p>\n

Oss\u00e9 said the reasoning behind including the site is that it is large enough to support a new affordable housing development, and is a city-owned parking lot \u201cutilized only by staff and students of 457 Nostrand.\u201d<\/p>\n

He said that building on city-owned land allowed the community to have a say in what they wanted to see on the site, including the level of affordability, community needs and, in this case, space for the Adult Learning Center. It also allowed the city to mandate the building be 100 percent affordable, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cBlack working families are being pushed out of Bed Stuy in real time. What we want to see, what we fought for, is 240 fully income-restricted affordable units on city-owned land. Half for very low-income New Yorkers, studios in the range of $850, two-bedrooms in the range of $1,200, in Bed Stuy, and merely two blocks from the A\/C train,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese prices truly reflect the needs of our community, and this is what happens when the city controls the land we\u2019re looking to build housing on. We don\u2019t have to negotiate with a developer trying to maximize profit. Instead, we\u2019re negotiating for our constituents and the Black families who built this neighborhood and deserve to stay in it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"view<\/p>\n

In order to build a 100 percent affordable development with 50 percent of the apartments set aside for those earning under 50 percent of AMI, developers would need to make heavy use of government subsidies for the project to pencil out.<\/p>\n

In regard to the building\u2019s appearance, Oss\u00e9 said he and his office \u201cpersonally want this building to fit the character of the neighborhood.\u201d He added that the new development would not affect the historic school building, would rise only on the adjacent parking lot, and would be subject to LPC approval.<\/p>\n

Oss\u00e9 said no issues were identified during the environmental review that would impact nearby residents. He added that \u201cwe are aware that, because the surrounding streets are vulnerable and in need of trench repairs, any new construction would exacerbate the issue. Our office wants to reemphasize that the City did not find this to be a concern.\u201d<\/p>\n

He said his office allocated $1.757 million to the Department of Transportation for the Hancock Trench Repair project, which includes streets surrounding 475 Nostrand Avenue, and said the office was taking \u201cproactive steps to ensure trench repairs are completed.\u201d<\/p>\n

[Photos by Susan De Vries unless noted otherwise]<\/p>\n

Related Stories<\/p>\n

Email tips@brownstoner.com<\/a> with further comments, questions or tips. Follow Brownstoner on Twitter<\/a> and Instagram<\/a>, and like us on Facebook<\/a>.<\/p>\n