A public land-use hearing on a proposed rezoning for 7801 Queens Boulevard drew sharp opposition from Elmhurst residents and Community Board 4, which voted 30-2-1 to recommend denial.

The developer, 7801 Queens Holding LLC, asked the Department of City Planning to rezone three contiguous tax lots and an adjacent block front currently mapped M1-1 to R7X with a C2-4 commercial overlay and to map the area as a Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) area using MIH Option 1. Frank Sajak, counsel with Acreman LLP speaking for the applicant, described the site as roughly 45,000 square feet now improved by a one-story commercial building and said the rezoning would enable a 13-story building of just over 266,000 square feet with 314 apartments and 79 permanently affordable units under MIH Option 1.

The development team described the proposal as transit-oriented and consistent with rezonings along Queens Boulevard. "We sort of stand by our land use rationale as previously stated," Sajak said, and noted the proposal includes retail on Queens Boulevard, a community facility on Albion, about 5,700 square feet of public open space and cellar parking with EV charging stations. The applicant also said the MIH breakdown would meet a weighted average of about 60 percent of area median income (AMI), with 10 percent of the affordable floor area at 40 percent AMI.

Community Board 4 members and Elmhurst residents countered that the plan would accelerate displacement and overwhelm local infrastructure. Brianna Cia, identified as a Community Board 4 member who participated in the board review, called the application a "monstrous gentrification project that would fundamentally change the character of Elmhurst" and said most units would be market rate. Phil Wong, a long-time Elmhurst homeowner, said new towers along Queens Boulevard have raised local rents: "They are not helping a housing problem. They are making it worse." Community Board 4 Chair Marilena Giampino said the rezoning would allow high-density, market-rate apartments and argued the MIH proposal was not sufficiently affordable for the district. "This is not a win for Elmhurst. This is a land grab," she said.

Speakers raised several specific concerns recorded in the public hearing: the scale and height of the project relative to surrounding R6 and low-rise blocks; the adequacy of MIH Option 1 for long-term Elmhurst residents; potential school overcrowding from up to 314 residential units; the precedent created by rezoning a remaining M1-1 manufacturing block; and claims about environmental conditions on parcels included in the rezoning. Marlena Giampino and others stated some of the parcels are historically manufacturing and described them as having brownfield concerns; the applicant disputed that characterization. "None of the sites associated are brownfields," a developer representative said during rebuttal and added that brownfield is a technical designation under New York State environmental law.

The applicant also clarified procedural points in response to testimony. A developer representative disputed a claim about the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP), saying, "Rejecting UAP is completely false and erroneous. MIH is in lieu of. You cannot do both." The applicant team emphasized that this is a private rezoning application that would require mandatory inclusionary housing when development exceeds 12,500 square feet and that some non-applicant-owned properties included in the rezoning could be developed as-of-right under R7X if the rezoning is approved.

Queens Community Board 4's formal action at its public hearing was recorded as a 30-2-1 vote to deny the application; board members cited the project's scale, the limited number of deeply affordable units for neighborhood residents, and infrastructure concerns. The hearing moderator said the Queens Borough office will accept written testimony on these calendar items until 5:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing and closed the hearing. The application was filed to the Department of City Planning under docket numbers 250044ZMQ and 250045ZRQ and will proceed through city review after written comments and agency reports are compiled.

Next steps noted at the hearing: written testimony acceptance through 5:00 p.m. that day, and the Queens Borough President's next scheduled land-use public hearing announcement; no final city approvals were announced at the meeting.