COBBLE HILL — A public meeting will address the controversial Long Island College Hospital redevelopment as the community continues to debate the size and scope of the plan.
The proposed towers at the LICH site will be discussed at the Cobble Hill Association's fall general meeting at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 18 at P.S. 29, located at 425 Henry St.
Other neighborhood matters are also on the agenda for the meeting, a representative from the association said.
"At our annual meeting, the lead topic will be the current situation relating to the proposed redevelopment of the LICH site," CHA President Laurel Burr and First Vice President Buzz Doherty said in a statement Friday sent to DNAinfo New York.
"[T]he CHA will report to the meeting the results of numerous block meetings held recently to understand whether the community will support the Fortis ULURP [rezoning] process."
Developer Fortis Property Group has two proposals for multi-story towers at the site. The first, which Fortis has openly advocated for, involves a property rezoning and would include affordable housing, a new school and 900,000 square-feet of market-rate units. This proposal requires approval from the City Council.
The second proposal, which can be built without any special permission, includes neither afforable housing nor a new school but Fortis can only build roughly 528,000 square-feet of market-rate condos.
The community meeting comes on the heels of smaller, private meetings that have been taking place with Councilman Brad Lander, developer Fortis Property Group, members of the Cobble Hill Association and local stakeholders.
A DNAinfo reporter was asked to leave one of those meetings last week, prompting a Twitter debate on whether they should be open to the press.
.@bradlander told a @DNAinfo reporter to leave a public meeting on the LICH redevelopment: https://t.co/tAws9SSOMg
— Market Urbanism (@MarketUrbanism) November 6, 2015@MarketUrbanism @bradlander @DNAinfo Brad taking lessons from the "transparent" mayor we have? Next he'll only take "on topic" questions
— Vamos Mets (@VamosMets) November 6, 2015@MarketUrbanism @DNAinfo We've had many, many open-press meetings on LICH. Totally reasonable to have some closed-press meetings too.
— Brad Lander (@bradlander) November 7, 2015@bradlander @MarketUrbanism @DNAinfo Was this open to the public? Sounds like it was. If so, no justification to exclude ctn mbrs of public
— Erin Durkin (@erinmdurkin) November 7, 2015@erinmdurkin @MarketUrbanism @DNAinfo No, it was by-invitation. We had announced at earlier public mtgs we would have smaller sessions (1/2)
— Brad Lander (@bradlander) November 7, 2015@erinmdurkin @MarketUrbanism @DNAinfo Comm'ty members who expressed interest in partic topics were invited to allow smaller discussion (2/3)
— Brad Lander (@bradlander) November 7, 2015@erinmdurkin @MarketUrbanism @DNAinfo One of the invitees tweeted abt mtg (how @nkvenugopal found out). But that didn't make it open-press.
— Brad Lander (@bradlander) November 7, 2015.@MarketUrbanism When "local stakeholders" in room, press should be too if pols, developers want all constituents aware @bradlander @DNAinfo
— Joanna Oltman Smith (@jooltman) November 7, 2015@jooltman @NWBkyln Our LICH meetings have been mix of large/public/open and smaller/by-invitation. No secrets. Pretty standard process.
— Brad Lander (@bradlander) November 7, 2015@bradlander @jooltman @NWBkyln I think the balance between meetings type/ makeup is necessary and effective
— Mike (@mike_racc) November 7, 2015@bradlander @jooltman @NWBkyln brad/his office have done great job esp when considering the bad situation (a closed hospital) suny's sale
— Mike (@mike_racc) November 7, 2015@mike_racc When non-elected Public reps (community orgs, CB, political clubs) in room, shouldn't press be allowed? Agree @bradlander's great
— Joanna Oltman Smith (@jooltman) November 7, 2015@jooltman @bradlander I would agree if this meeting was the only meeting but cm lander has held multiple public meetings as well
— Mike (@mike_racc) November 7, 2015
