Bayside neighbors urge council to reject 24th Avenue rezoning over flood, traffic and parking concerns

A heated hearing on LU 20–21 in Bay Terrace, Queens, drew numerous residents, community board leaders and civic groups to tell the subcommittee they oppose a private rezoning that would allow an eight‑story, mixed‑use building at 217‑14 24th Avenue.

The applicant presented plans for a roughly 217,000‑square‑foot development with 183 total apartments (128 market units and 55 permanently affordable units under MIH option 2), an approximately 56,000‑square‑foot senior assisted‑living component (65 units), and an 86‑space cellar parking garage. Counsel for the applicant said the building would be all‑electric and designed with flood‑resilient construction techniques and that MIH option 2 was selected to make the financing workable.

Community members and civic leaders told the subcommittee the site is inappropriate for upzoning. "This dead ends intersection cannot safely handle the traffic which would be created by buses, ambulances, and resident traffic," said Sylvia Johnson, who testified representing local residents and noted existing flooding in heavy rains. Speakers repeatedly cited a 2022 moratorium CB11 adopted on new high‑rise projects in the peninsula, the narrow and dead‑end nature of 24th Avenue, nearby construction of a 572‑seat school and a planned park that together, they said, would compound congestion and emergency‑access risks.

Council members asked for specifics on parking and resiliency. Applicant counsel described building‑level measures — raised floorplates where required, floodproofed commercial/community spaces, a green roof and waterproofing — and said that a senior‑care operator had not yet been selected. The applicant also noted the project maps MIH and that exact unit sizes and final operator contracts remain subject to post‑approval design and financing steps.

Why it matters: Neighbors argued the proposal imposes a dense, multifamily development on a single‑family corridor, risking daily traffic congestion, parking spillover and strained emergency response in a flood‑prone area. The applicant framed the plan as meeting housing and senior‑care needs while applying resiliency standards.

Key details - Proposed total units: 183 (128 market; 55 MIH units under option 2). - Senior assisted‑living component: ~65 units (senior amenity space on ground and second floors; operator not selected). - Parking: 86 proposed cellar spaces; residents argued that figure is inadequate for the scale of development and adjacent school/park needs. - Community response: Community Board 11 voted unanimously against the rezoning; dozens of residents presented oral testimony opposing the project for infrastructure and flood‑risk reasons.

Representative quotes - Sylvia Johnson (resident): "This dead ends intersection cannot safely handle the traffic which would be created by buses, ambulances, and resident traffic." (public testimony) - Applicant counsel (Frank Sajak): "MIH option 2 provides more affordable units and allows the permanent financing to take out the construction financing" (explanation on MIH and financing).

Next steps The subcommittee took testimony but did not vote. Members asked the applicant for additional materials — including engineering or infrastructure analyses, parking and traffic plans, a clearer resiliency narrative and any MWBE/local hiring commitments — and laid the item over for further review.