Neighbors urge rejection of 11‑story rezoning at 2131–46th Avenue, citing undercounted EAS and neighborhood impacts

Vicki Garvey, land use director for Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, convened a public hearing where 21‑31 Holdings LLC presented an application to rezone 2131–46th Avenue from manufacturing/low‑rise zoning to R7X/C2‑5 to enable an 11‑story, roughly 81,000‑square‑foot mixed‑use building with about 84 dwelling units and mandatory inclusionary housing under MIH option 1, which the applicant says would yield roughly 21 affordable units.

The application team, represented by attorney Richard Lobel of Sheldon Lobel PC, and architect Nicholas Liberas, said community board 2 recommended approval by a 32–2 vote and that the rezoning would activate an underutilized one‑story commercial site. "Rezoning the site to R7X would allow for a more productive use of the site inclusive of affordable housing," Lobel said during the presentation.

Why it matters: Neighbors contend the project’s design and the environmental record are inconsistent. Multiple speakers told the borough president’s office that the Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) analyzed a 70‑unit project while the developer’s current plans show 84 units—something residents say should have triggered additional CEQR open‑space analysis, and which the applicant’s consultant said will be documented in a technical memorandum before City Council consideration.

Community objections centered on scale, unit count, and local impacts. Insoo Lee, a long‑time Queens resident, said the EAS undercounted units and "that discrepancy must be reconciled before we move ahead," arguing the higher unit total should trigger an open‑space study. Kevin Williams, principal planner at GZA (the environmental consultant), responded that the application was redesigned after initial environmental review and that the team will prepare a technical memorandum for the Environmental Assessment Review Division to document the change; he told the panel the redesign "does not create measurable technical differences in the analyzed chapters."

Several adjacent homeowners described potential harms from the building’s massing and construction. Melissa Guam, who lives next door, said an 11‑story tower and deep cellar excavation for parking would "permanently block all natural sunlight" for south‑facing units and could threaten foundations; she also said neighbors are prepared to pursue legal remedies if the review or approvals fail to protect their homes. Other residents listed traffic congestion, sewer capacity, loss of backyard light and air, and the absence of publicly accessible open space as concerns.

On affordability and public benefit, critics said MIH option 1 is too shallow for this site given its upzoning value and the neighborhood’s open‑space deficit. Olivia Wang urged the borough to require MIH option 3 (deeper set‑aside at 40% AMI) and to require a deed‑restricted plaza of at least 2,500 square feet, saying the neighborhood is "deeply deprived" of public space. The applicant said the project proposes ground‑floor commercial/community facility space and committed to solicit arts‑related tenants for the first floor and to consider streetscape improvements and a green wall or mural along the side lot line.

On parking and construction mitigation, the applicant initially said 15 parking spaces would be provided in the cellar (reduced from earlier iterations) and described construction lasting about 16–18 months with standard shoring, debris protection and opportunities to use electric construction equipment to limit diesel emissions. Opponents disputed the safety and flood risks of cellar parking and questioned whether reduced parking would worsen curbside pressures.

The borough president’s office closed the public testimony after a long list of speakers for and against the application. The applicant’s environmental consultant said a technical memorandum will be prepared and submitted to the Environmental Assessment Review Division before City Council consideration "should we get that far." No formal action or vote was taken at the hearing; the office will issue a written recommendation that may advance the matter to the City Planning Commission and City Council as part of the land‑use review process.

What’s next: The applicant said it will prepare a technical memorandum to document the unit change for environmental reviewers; the borough president’s written recommendation will determine whether the application advances to city planning and council review.