Search
Close this search box.

Queens: New Satmar Yeshiva coming under fire


satmarnewbuilding.jpgThe moment many Glendale residents have been trying to forestall for over two years came at 10 a.m. Sunday, when a line of buses pulled up to a new yeshiva at 88th Street and began unloading hundreds of students for their first day of class. The United Talmudic Seminary, located at 74 10 88th St., opened to an initial 600 pupils, despite loud objections by civic leaders who claim the facility will drain local resources and add nothing useful to the community. (More pictures in the YW photo album.)

The opening came six days after the city Department of Buildings temporarily certified the property for complying with city zoning, electrical and building ordinances. That approval defied calls by opponents last month to not issue a certificate of occupancy until the school had obtained a license to operate as a vocational school from the city Department of Education.

The opening has also renewed concerns about increased traffic and noise problems. Since plans for its construction were first unveiled in early 2004, the yeshiva has drawn fire from residents who worry the school’s 11 buses will block roads and tie up traffic as more than 1,000 students arrive daily from Williamsburg at 6 a.m. and depart for home at 10 p.m. 

“We’re going to have major problems with this school,” said Dorie Figliola at a Glendale Property Owners’ Association meeting last Thursday. “Now we have to wake up to the sound of buses idling in the street at six in the morning and blocking traffic on our way to work.”

Yeshiva officials were quick to allay these concerns, saying they had deliberately scheduled classes so as not to interfere with morning and evening traffic, especially near P.S. 113, the 529 seat elementary school located just blocks away. In addition, bus drivers will only allow students to board or disembark within the yeshiva’s fenced perimeter.

“We have made a special effort to accommodate people’s concerns,” said yeshiva spokesman David Neiderman. “Check our record. We are good neighbors.”

But some residents remain unconvinced. As early as Sunday’s opening, locals witnessed several buses blocking the entire roadway as students disembarked in the street outside the complex.

Civic leaders also worry the yeshiva sets a dangerous precedent for rapid, large scale future development in the neighborhood. The Glendale Civic Association sued the city on Nov. 9 for failing to enforce its own building codes and improperly “delegating government responsibility to private citizens” through a process known as self certification. That allows architects to approve their own plans without input from the Department of Buildings.

Citing evidence compiled against the yeshiva for over two years, the civic association will argue at a Jan. 10 court hearing that self certification has allowed developers to routinely abuse the department’s authority and paved the way for rampant over-development throughout the borough.

“The yeshiva is just one of the more egregious examples of this (problem),” said Kathy Masi, president of the group filing the lawsuit. “At some point, we all need to stand up and do something about this.”

The yeshiva site was first slated to house a transient motel, but developers scrapped the plan after learning it would violate M 1 zoning rules. The Brooklyn based United Talmudic Seminary then purchased the site and, after receiving city approval, began converting planned bedrooms into classrooms. The Department of Buildings shot down an initial proposal to build a 100 student dormitory at the site.

Since work began in early 2004, the property has incurred four violations. In January, it was also slapped with a stop work order after developers failed to provide proper paperwork to inspectors. In addition, the yeshiva has prompted 61 complaints from residents, who have alleged that crews were working on weekends, building beyond the approved limits and violating the stop work order.

According to the lawsuit, a former architect for the Department of Buildings, Joseph Trivisonno, conducted two independent inspections at the site in October 2005 and March 2006, and found that the structure warranted additional violations for shoddy construction and lack of fire escapes from the cafeteria. A spokeswoman for the department declined to comment because of the pending litigation.

“When this kind of thing keeps happening, over and over, we can’t just sit around and wait for the DOB to do something,” said Gabriel Tapalaga, the lead attorney in the suit, “because by the time they act, you’re stuck with one of these three story atrocities.”

QC



8 Responses

  1. I don’t know why you assume it has to be anti-semitic. I know I would not be very happy living in a residential neighborhood and then having numerous buses blocking the roadways with hundreds of children (bli ayn horo) loading and unloading. You know how the buses block the streets in Boro Park. Don’t forget, these children don’t even live there. For 1000 children you have to have quite a few buses. Don’t forget the noise aspect either from all the children coming into the neighborhood. I wonder what R’ Yisroel Salanter would have said.

  2. What’s typical is the claim of anti-semitism for something that almost any Jew would oppose if it were constructed in his neighborhood. It’s hypocritical.

  3. kishke, do not assume any Jew would oppose a Yeshiva in their neighborhood. It takes a perosn of a certain caliber to oppose Torah in their neighborhood.

    What chilik if the children learning Torah are from the neighborhood or not? Yiddish kinder zenen Yissishe Kinder. Learning Torah is learning Torah.

    In any event those opposed to this Mokem Torah have lost their war on the Yeshiva, as it is B’H in full swing.

  4. Don’t agree with you PD87. How would you like a school that size built on your residential block? I don’t believe it has anything to do with Satmar.

  5. Plenty of people would oppose having an elementary school on their block. It’s a tremendous inconvenience. And even those who wouldn’t oppose would be acting out of frume reasons. Which is fine, but a non-Jew who does not share those feelings is not an anti-Semite.

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts