Developer Andrew Esposito made clear that if the City Council shot down his firm’s proposal for a 248-unit housing development in Queens, he would look to a three-person appeals board to revive the project.
But that ultimately wasn’t necessary.
To ensure local Council member Vickie Paladino’s approval, Apex and co-developer Barrone Management offered some concessions, including adding more parking than required at 217-14 24th Avenue. The developers also wouldn’t add density, Esposito said, even though the passage of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity text amendment paved the way for another floor to the eight-story building.
The developers also wouldn’t demap and open up a paper road near the neighboring Bayside Gables, a waterfront gated community whose residents testified against the project.
“I do think that it is the much preferred route to work with the Council member to get these done,” Esposito said. “Even if the development community has to bend in some ways.”
The City Council on Tuesday approved rezoning the site, paving the way for 183 housing units, of which 55 will be affordable. The project will include another 65 long-term care senior units, as well.
Paladino, who earlier said she doesn’t want to see the building rise, ultimately voted in favor of the project on Tuesday. In the lead up to the vote, she blamed one of the housing ballot measures approved in November, which allows an appeals board — made up of the applicable borough president, the City Council Speaker and the mayor — to reverse the City Council’s rejection of a land-use action resulting in affordable housing in one borough.
She cited the prospect of losing out on the developers’ concessions and, therefore, what leverage she had over the project.
“I’m really not happy about any of this, but this is what the props were designed for — to force our hand on unpopular projects,” Paladino said in a statement, noting that she didn’t want to be the test case for the appeals board.
Over the weekend, Paladino posted a video on Facebook explaining her likely “yes” vote on the project. She said she didn’t want to be sidelined in negotiations and didn’t want to see the project handed over to Borough President Donovan Richards, who recommended approval of the development.
She also indicated that she expects to run into similar difficult choices going forward.
“Since these ballot props passed, my office has been inundated with calls from developers looking to build here,” she says in the video. “Every single empty lot in the district is now up for grabs. And I will not be able to stop much of it.”
This was the first time a Council member publicly blamed the housing ballot measures for forcing their hand on a land-use vote. It could set the stage for similar acquiescence among members who don’t want developers to skip negotiating with them, seeing the borough president as the new person to win over.
The Council at large doesn’t want to see projects go to the appeals board. Previous Council leadership condemned the measures as a power grab by the Adams administration. The measures created paths for projects to avoid Council review or challenge it, taking aim at the Council’s tradition of voting according to the local member’s wishes on land-use actions.
When asked during a press conference on how she would have voted if the project came before the appeals board, Council Speaker Julie Menin said she made clear to Paladino that one of the Council’s “number one priorities is to build as much affordable housing in every single neighborhood as possible.”
“It is always better if we can get Council members to be supportive of projects,” Menin said during the press conference. “We want to build as much affordable housing as possible.”
Still, the project could have been bigger and called for deeper affordability. The developers, mindful of Paladino’s preference, went with option 2 under the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing, which calls for 30 percent of the units to be affordable, on average, to those earning 80 percent of the area median income. Council members often seek to eliminate option 2 in favor of options under MIH that require deeper affordability.
Esposito noted that Community Board 11 opposed the project, and that while the concessions didn’t win members over, he preferred to secure Council approval rather than move on to the appeals board.
“I feel that I did my part to make it as palatable as possible, while doing my part to address the affordable housing crisis,” he said.
Read more
Will the housing measures bring projects back from the dead?
Affordable housing
New York
Bronx housing project tests out ballot measure’s speedier approval process
The Daily Dirt: Here come the borough presidents