NYC Council Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises Hears Three Queens and Staten Island Rezonings – June 17, 2026

The New York City Council Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises, chaired by Council Member Farah N. Louis, held a hybrid hearing on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, to consider three mixed-use residential rezoning proposals. The subcommittee heard presentations from applicants, public testimony, and remarks from local council members. All six land use applications (LU 0094-2026 through LU 0099-2026) were laid over without a vote, meaning they will be taken up at a later date.

Consent Calendar

• No items were listed on the consent calendar.

Public Comments & Testimony

• 164th Street Rezoning (LUs 94-95): Marva Dudley, president of the Flushing Suburban Civic Association, testified in opposition, disputing the applicant’s claims about express bus service and outreach. She stated the applicant had not contacted civic leaders and that the project represented spot zoning. Joe, a long-time resident, also opposed the rezoning, arguing it was spot zoning in a non-transit area, that street widths were exaggerated, and that the building height was inappropriate for the low-density neighborhood. He raised concerns about displacement and increased taxes.
• 50-20 108th Street Rezoning (LUs 96-97): Maria Silva, representing SEIU Local 32BJ, testified in support, noting the developer’s commitment to prevailing wages and benefits for building workers and the provision of 51 permanently affordable units.
• 198-208 Richmond Terrace Rezoning (LUs 98-99): No members of the public testified.

Discussion Items

164th Street Mixed-Use Residential Rezoning (Fresh Meadows, Queens – Council District 24)

• Applicant: Leah Vallone and Steve Sinacori of Ackerman LLP, representing 88-66 Myrtle LLC.
• Proposal: Rezone from R3-2 to R6A with a C2-4 overlay on a 24,000 sq ft site at 164th Street between 75th Road and 76th Avenue. A six-story mixed-use building with approximately 80 residential units, 24 permanently affordable under MIH Option 1 (25% of floor area at 60% AMI), plus a daycare expanded from 85 to roughly double the capacity. 50 accessory parking spaces proposed.
• Council Member James Gennaro read a statement noting community concerns about density and height in a low-scale neighborhood of one- and two-family homes, and infrastructure capacity. He committed to working toward a solution.
• Questions: Chair Louis asked about engagement with civic associations (applicant said they had reached out but received no response). Council Member Gennaro questioned the appropriateness of a six-story building amid small homes, the lack of step-down height (applicant noted setbacks), and water/sewer costs (applicant deferred). Parking count was corrected from 37 to 50.
• Public Opposition: Testifiers challenged transit access, outreach claims, street width data, and called for a community plan.

50-20 108th Street Mixed-Use Residential Rezoning (Corona, Queens – Council District 21)

• Applicant: Same representatives for Federici Builders Corp.
• Proposal: Rezone from R6B/C2-3 to R7A/C2-4 on two sites (28,000 sq ft and 15,000 sq ft) along 108th Street and Corona Avenue. Two buildings (seven and eight stories) with 196 total units, 51 permanently affordable under MIH Option 1. 95 parking spaces, local retail, community facility space. Sites are within outer transit zone.
• Council Member Shanel Thomas-Henry emphasized the need to align growth with community benefits, affordability for residents (median income ~$55,000), and community-serving spaces. She highlighted that Community District 4 is 54% rent-burdened.
• Questions: Chair Louis asked about unit breakdown (applicant confirmed MIH Option 1) and engagement with non-applicant site owners regarding displacement. The EIS estimated a 1% population increase from the rezoning. Council Member Thomas-Henry pressed for lower AMI levels and more two- and three-bedroom units; applicant committed to exploring both and working with her office to tenant the community facility space with a local nonprofit. She also asked about temporary relocation for existing commercial tenants; applicant said they would work with tenants to return after construction. Council Member Thomas-Henry requested support for nearby parks (William F. Moore Park and Flushing Meadows Corona Park); applicant agreed to consider.
• Public Support: SEIU 32BJ testified in favor, citing good jobs and affordable housing.

198-208 Richmond Terrace Mixed-Use Residential Rezoning (St. George, Staten Island – Council District 49)

• Applicant: Eric Palatnik, representing Economic Development Opportunity Zone Fund 1 LLC.
• Proposal: Rezone from R6/C2-2 to R7-3/C2-4, extending adjacent R7-3 zoning, on a hillside site. A 14-story, 97,000 sq ft building with 118 units (30–36 affordable under MIH), 10,000 sq ft community facility space, and only 4 parking spaces (no parking required under City of Yes). The site is in the outer transit zone near Staten Island Ferry and bus routes.
• Council Member Kamillah Hanks read a statement of general support, noting the potential for housing and community space, and expressing interest in streetscape improvements.
• Questions: Chair Louis asked about relationship to the adjacent River North project (applicant said it’s analogous) and benefits of the Special St. George District over Hillsides Preservation District (building designed around rock outcropping, avoiding hillside cutting). Council Member Hanks sought details on public realm improvements (widened sidewalks, street trees, ornamental lighting) and commitment to tenant the community facility space with community use; applicant agreed and submitted an affidavit. Council Member Simcha Felder queried about parking; applicant explained physical constraints (rock outcropping) and noted the nearby former Wheel parking lot could be leveraged.
• Community Board Objection: The only objection from Community Board 1 was due to insufficient parking, though they otherwise supported the project.

Key Outcomes

• All six land use applications (LU 0094-2026 through LU 0099-2026) were heard and laid over by the subcommittee. No votes were taken. The items will be considered again at a future subcommittee meeting.
• Next Steps: Applicants were asked to provide additional information in writing (parking costs, affordability details, tenant relocation plans, etc.) and to continue community engagement. The subcommittee will revisit the applications after further review and responsive materials.