Community Board 11 hears widespread objections to BRC/Propel New York outreach; members agree to continue discussion

Public commenters at Community Board 11’s leadership meeting on March 19 urged the board to formally register opposition to a proposed BRC/Propel New York project and to prioritize the views of longtime Pal Parkway residents.

Roxan, an online public commenter, told the board she did "not support this project" and asked what it would take for the community board to "stand alongside with the community and write a letter to our electeds" expressing opposition. Several residents echoed calls for a stronger community response, saying committee outreach had been posted with short notice and that some neighbors lacked access to WebEx.

Bob Press, a meeting participant who attended a recent information session, questioned the project routing and environmental implications, saying Propel representatives "admitted that Long Island is short of power and probably will never send power back to the Bronx or Westchester County" and that the company had altered routing plans near a casino and would undertake additional environmental study. Angel, another commenter, warned of the "embodied carbon cost" of demolishing existing buildings and urged the board to weigh environmental and disposal impacts.

Board members responded that the board’s formal powers are limited for projects built "as‑of‑right," but that the board can transmit opinions to elected officials. A member noted the project is not scheduled to begin until 2029 and said the board would continue public engagement. Several leaders said the full board could discuss drafting a letter representing community concerns, but no final letter was sent at the leadership meeting.

Why it matters: Community Board 11 serves as a local forum for neighborhood input; while it does not have permitting authority over as‑of‑right development, its letters and testimony can inform elected officials and influence public debate. The comments flagged questions about outreach timing, applicant responsiveness and environmental impacts that members said warrant further review.

What’s next: Members said they will keep the item on future agendas and consider a formal letter at the full board meeting after further discussion and, if needed, additional presentations from the applicant or comparable projects.