Two Queens Rezoning Proposals Get Public Hearings as ULURP Review Advances

Rendering of 100-12 Queens Boulevard, via NYC.

Two Queens rezoning proposals are moving into the public hearing phase before the New York City Planning Commission, marking the next step in the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The applications, known as the 100-12 Queens Boulevard Rezoning in Forest Hills and the 50-02 Queens Boulevard Rezoning in Woodside, would facilitate the development of new mixed-use residential projects that together would add more than 640 housing units to the borough, including over 160 income-restricted apartments.

100-12 Queens Boulevard, via Google Maps.

The 100-12 Queens Boulevard proposal, filed by 100 Queens Blvd Co. LLC, seeks a zoning map amendment and related zoning text changes to enable a 21-story mixed-use building in Forest Hills. The project is expected to contain approximately 389 residential units, including about 97 income-restricted apartments, along with ground-floor commercial space. The site is located in Queens Community District 6 and falls within Council Member Lynn Schulman’s district.

Rendering of 50-02 Queens Boulevard, via NYC.

In Woodside, 5002 Woodside Development LLC is seeking approvals for the 50-02 Queens Boulevard Rezoning. The proposal would allow the construction of a nine-story mixed-use building totaling roughly 261,100 square feet. Plans call for approximately 257 residential units, including about 64 income-restricted apartments, as well as commercial and community facility space. The development site is located in Queens Community District 2, represented by Council Member Julie Won.

50-02 Queens Boulevard, via Google Maps.

Both applications were reviewed during the City Planning Commission’s June 1 review session and are now expected to receive public hearings as part of the ULURP process. The hearings will provide an opportunity for members of the public, elected officials, and community stakeholders to comment on the proposals before the commission considers recommendations and votes later in the land-use review process.

Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail

Make YIMBY preferred on Google

Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews

.

9 Comments on "Two Queens Rezoning Proposals Get Public Hearings as ULURP Review Advances"

  1. David of Flushing | June 3, 2026 at 7:50 am | Reply

    These are both inoffensive buildings. I love the “Fruit Ranch” name that will be disappearing.

    • Queens Boulevard is offensively huge. You’re 100% right about upzoning the whole corridor. The only way to tame a stroad that massive is to make drivers feel physically constrained. We’re already seeing hints of a better sensory and physical experience with the new developments on Atlantic Ave in Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy.

      • I agree with your overall sentiment but QB is not a stroad. A stroad has a pretty specific definition, and an urban multi-lane blvd with wide sidewalks and for tracks of high capacity rapid transit running underneath isn’t it.

  2. Queens especially needs more high density housing.

  3. It’s really silly that we have to go through these piecemeal rezonings when Queens Boulevard is nearly 200ft wide for most of its length. They should do what they did on Atlantic Avenue and do a massive mixed-use rezoning from 58th Street to Union Turnpike. We should be building 25-30 stories right around the train stations and no shorter than 10 stories between the stops along Queens Blvd. It could be similar to Wilishire Blvd’s “Condo Canyon” in Los Angeles.

    • Yes, but that would be too obvious. Also a lot more well off complainers along the corridor than Atlantic.

    • David of Flushing | June 3, 2026 at 7:06 pm | Reply

      I think around 1968, my area was downzoned from 6-story buildings with basements to attached dwellings with a maximum height of 40 feet. The boundary of the zone passes through the middle of an earlier building.

  4. David in Bushwick | June 3, 2026 at 11:22 am | Reply

    The Forest Hills proposal is really quite nice, to appease the uppity I suppose. The Woodside offer only gets a suburban office building recreation. Both of these should be approved no matter what. The amount of underused space in Queens is really quite ridiculous. That needs to change.

  5. Scott Preston | June 4, 2026 at 2:00 pm | Reply

    These look great!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*