New York City Community Board Land Use Case Study: Kissena Blvd. Re-zoning
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
Charles B. Wang Community Health Center (February 2018) | 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 on the Proposal
This proposal ended up pertaining to an area literally 2 blocks from where I live. It was a proposed re-zoning of a narrow corridor along Kissena Blvd. from R3–2 to R7A, allowing for the construction of an 8-story mixed-use development where the local staple Gold City Supermarket is now.
The applicant, KIMCO (a large commercial real-estate developer with shopping centers nationwide), laid out their plan for building up the lot at 46–15 Kissena Blvd. within the context of the larger re-zoning: an 8-story building with 53,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail, 244 residential units (30% affordable units), a second floor community space, and a below-ground parking garage. Aside from just the lot at 46–15 Kissena Blvd. itself, the proposed re-zoning would also extend one block north of Holly Ave., bringing some existing buildings into compliance with R7A zoning, and south to Laburnum Ave.
Recurring Theme: Over-development and Traffic Congestion
Given the themes laid out in this prior article, you can surmise that this proposal did not get a warm reception among committee members. Members of various civic associations as well as Councilman Peter Koo were at the first committee meeting on this proposal, and many questions and concerns were raised. Chief among these were concerns about the impact such a development would have on traffic along an already congested stretch of Kissena Blvd, especially given some proposed alterations to existing traffic flow including a new stoplight.
It was clear from the outset that the overall bulk and density of the proposed development was also a nonstarter. People from the surrounding civic associations simply did not want to see a dense, high-rise development encroach on an otherwise low-density area comprised mostly of single family homes. There was a genuine concern regarding development creep — that allowing for dense development in this instance would open the doors to more up-zonings that would ultimately undermine the existing character of the neighborhood.
The Outcome
I was surprised to hear after the second meeting where the committee rejected the applicant’s proposal nearly unanimously that they came back with a revised proposal that offered some more substantive concessions. In my brief time on the board, I haven’t seen that many applicants actually try to factor in committee feedback in a meaningful way, since they know the community boards only have an advisory role in this process. Developers really only need to sway City Council, since that’s where the actual authority to approve variances and re-zonings rests. Some highlights of this revised proposal were a reduction in overall density by 25%, reducing the overall square footage of the development by 60,000, reducing the number of residences from 244 to 183 (effectively removing an entire story). KIMCO also proposed increasing parking in the garage beyond zoning requirements, increasing setbacks from nearby residences, reducing the overall area of the rezoning, and some traffic mitigation measures to Kissena Blvd such as adding left turn lanes and a traffic signal. Many of these would be added as restrictive declarations to the property’s deed, meaning that even if KIMCO sold the property, the subsequent property owner would still be legally bound by these provisions.
In the end, committee members and representatives from surrounding civic organizations still found the proposed development and rezoning unacceptable. While the concessions made were appreciated, people felt there were not nearly enough. It boiled down to the fact that people categorically rejected any increase in density in an area otherwise characterized by single family homes (R3–2 zoning). Any attempt to rezone and build up on this lot was seen by some as a betrayal of a prior contextual down-zoning in 2005 that was supposed to preserve the existing qualities of the community. People remained skeptical that the development, even scaled back, with increased parking, and traffic mitigation measures, would have anything but a negative impact on the surrounding community. The committee (including myself) again voted to reject the revised proposal. This was likewise carried on by the full board at the subsequent public hearing.
