New York City Community Board Land Use Case Study: Charles B. Wang Community Health Center
Disclaimer: In compliance with Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter, I am required to disclose that the views expressed in this article are wholly my own as a private citizen. Nothing I write here is to be construed as an official position of Queens Community Board 7, the City of New York, or any of its agencies.
See Related Articles
How and Why I Decided to Join My Local Community Board | What a Community Board Meeting is Like | Committee Meetings | Land Use Committee
Other Case Studies
Kissena Blvd. Re-zoning (March 2019) | Willets Point Redevelopment (March 2019)
Background
This article is part of a series on my experience serving as a member of Queens Community Board 7’s Buildings/Land Use Committee. You can read about the general outline of what this committee does and what kinds of themes emerge in these meetings in this prior article.
Overview of the Project
Charles B. Wang Community Health Center, a well-known and established non-profit healthcare provider serving low-income residents, brought forward a proposal to construct a 9-story building adjacent to Skyview Plaza on the corner of 40th Road and College Point Blvd. This proposal became the most contentious one that I’ve seen come before the full board, where the final vote ended up being 22–13 in favor of rejecting the requested variances. The debate around this proposal was emotional, pitting those who saw the benefits of having this facility as clearly outweighing any other considerations against those who thought that there were important practical land use considerations that needed to take precedence.
First, some background about the specifics of the proposal is in order. The proposed 9 story, 60,000 square foot structure would become by far the largest facility operated by Charles B. Wang Community Health Centers. It is planned to have 65 exam rooms, including for dentistry, have 134 staff, including 34 doctors, and serve approximately 65 patients per hour. The Charles B. Wang organization already operates two other sites in Flushing (with several more across the city) totaling 39,000 square feet, and the impetus behind this new facility was that the existing facilities are now operating at full capacity. The organization stated that they spent 6 years searching for a suitable plot of land to purchase, being outbid many times by commercial developers. They ended up with parcel that had some substantial physical constraints, which is why they needed to seek BSA (Board of Standards and Appeals) variances to proceed with construction. As part of this process, community boards are consulted and can vote on the variances in question. Since the community boards’ votes are only advisory in nature, the BSA, applicant organization, and city government can always move forward even if the boards vote against proposed variances.
Recurring Theme: Parking and Traffic Congestion
I knew right off the bat that this proposal would run afoul of the committee because of the variances sought for on-site parking, in line with the recurring theme of parking as a point of contention for this board area. The zoning code for this parcel, and the planned size of the building, would normally require 198 parking spaces. The variance sought for this proposal was to reduce this to 34 spots, almost all of which would be reserved for doctors working at the facility, with no provision made for patients.
The Charles B. Wang organization presented analyses to back their claim that the vast majority of their patients would not drive to this facility, and also pointed out physical constraints related to the water table and narrowness of the plot that would make constructing an underground parking garage prohibitively expensive. They also stated that anyone needing to drive and park could use the parking facilities at the adjacent Skyview Plaza, which they claimed had plenty of available parking spots. This was contested by committee members, and anecdotally, I have also seen myself that parking at Skyview Plaza is far from a sure bet. Committee members questioned whether Skyview Plaza would be amenable to letting non-tenants utilize parking their parking spaces. Charles B. Wang was asked whether they had any kind of written agreement with Skyview Plaza regarding this parking arrangement, which they replied that they did not. Other questions were raised by committee members who had a background working with the FDNY regarding fire safety.
The Outcome
I struggled with this proposal because I know the work that Charles B. Wang Health Centers perform for the community. However, the location that they sought to build on and the existing conditions there made me ultimately rethink backing the proposed variances they sought. Committee members engaged in a at times contentious debate that weighed the potential benefits of the services provided against the downsides of the added congestion a facility of this size would undoubtedly bring. I didn’t dispute the studies put forward in the proposal stating that most patients would not drive to the facility, but I personally found it concerning that no passenger offloading area was designed for those who needed to get there via something like Access-a-Ride, ambulettes etc. The entrance to the facility would not be fronting College Point Blvd, which means any vehicle accessing it would need to turn down a side street from the already congested thoroughfare onto a road that also carries traffic into the busy mall’s parking facility. There’s also already tons of pedestrian traffic here for Skyview Plaza Mall, to the point that crossing guards man the intersection at College Point Blvd. and Roosevelt Ave., making turns that much harder. Even if patients did use Skyview Plaza for parking, they’d have to walk out of that garage to access the health center, something I though would not be ideal for anyone who’s sick or has difficulty getting around.
I was swayed by the argument put forth by some board members that when we assess proposals, we shouldn’t only consider if the proposed development is something we want to see in the community. We also have to weigh whether the proposal presents the least possible adverse impacts on the surrounding area from a variety of other angles. The committee ultimately voted against this proposal by 12–1.
Update: This project has long since been approved by the BSA (application 2017–228-BZ) and City Council, and is under construction.
