Flushing rezoning fight heads to borough hall
/
Advocates and opponents of a plan to rezone the Flushing Creek waterfront packed a land use hearing at Queens Borough Hall Thursday. The rezoning proposal would pave the way for a $1 billion development. Eagle photo by Victoria Merlino
By Victoria Merlino
Dozens of Flushing residents attended a public hearing at Queens Borough Hall Thursday to speak out on a controversial plan to rezone a piece of the Flushing Creek waterfront, a land use proposal that would pave the way for an expansive $1 billion development in the area.
The public hearing on the plan to rezone a waterfront manufacturing district for residential use is the latest phase in the city’s land use review process. Acting Borough President Sharon Lee has about three more weeks to make an advisory recommendation on the plan after Community Board 7 voted 30-8 in favor of the proposal at a contentious meeting Feb. 10. One member, Vice Chairperson Chuck Apelian, abstained from that vote because he was paid as a consultant by the three companies developing the land, a partnership known as FWRA LLC.
FWRA LLC would create a 13-tower, mixed-use complex of housing, hotels, offices and shops across the 29 acres of mostly unutilized land, most of which is “as-of-right,” meaning that the developers do not need a land use variance or rezoning to build the bulk of the project. The owners touted the benefits of the plan, which include an environmental cleanup of the area, thousands of new jobs, public access to the waterfront and a privately maintained road network.
“It’s really important to understand the mindset of these owners,” said Ross Moskowitz, an attorney for the developers, who spoke on their behalf. “They’re not developers. They’ve been here, they live here, they work here, they’ve invested here.”
Moskowitz said the FWRA LLC can build the bulk of the project with or without the rezoning, since it already owns three-quarters of the land. The rezoning would force the developers to build a certain percentage of affordable units under the city’s mandatory inclusionary housing law. There are no affordability requirements for the rest of the land that does not need to be rezoned.
Several local organizations condemned the project, and said there was no environmental impact statement and relatively few affordable apartments attached to the plan. The development would also hasten gentrification and displacement in the region, said Greater Flushing Chamber of Commerce Executive Director John Choe.
“This proposal would add massive burdens to our neighborhood, including traffic congestion, escalating rents and crowded classrooms,” said Choe, a member of Community Board 7 who voted against the plan.
Choe criticized Apelian, the CB7 chair, for consulting the developers while serving on the community board.
Ross Moskowitz, an attorney for the developers who proposed the Flushing Creek waterfront rezoning, addressed the public hearing Thursday. Eagle photo by Victoria Merlino
Community Board 7 Chair Eugene Kelty responded that he “resented” Choe’s accusation of the board being “tainted” by developer money.
“I am 36 years on this board. I have never had somebody insult this board like he did,” Kelty said.
Kelty has faced criticism of his own for losing his temper with demonstrators during the CB7 meeting on Feb. 10. He lunged toward one young woman filming him with her cell phone camera as demonstrators jeered and the NYPD approached to diffuse tensions.
“I’m getting tired of this board getting attacked as if we’re going to solve the world’s problems,” Kelty said.
After considering written testimony and the spoken testimony at the hearing, Lee will make her advisory recommendation on the plan. The City Council will then vote on the proposal. The council traditionally votes in lockstep with the local member, in this case, Peter Koo.
Koo has not yet stated his position on the plan.
