Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond County borough board hears update on proposed Richmond Valley Road hotel; mayor says no shelter planned
Summary
At a borough board meeting, a resident asked about a proposed four‑story hotel at Richmond Valley Road and Arthur Kill Road. Board members said the borough president relayed a mayoral assurance that the city has not agreed to place a homeless shelter there or allow vouchers; the project is on hold pending regulatory issues.
At a Richmond County borough board meeting, a resident asked whether a proposed four‑story hotel at Richmond Valley Road and Arthur Kill Road might be converted to a homeless shelter. Speaker 3 asked, “do you have any further information about the proposed hotel on this Richmond Valley Road and Arthur Kill Road?” and Speaker 1 replied that the borough president had issued a statement and that the mayor “confirmed that it was just a rumor” that the city had entered any agreement to locate a shelter at that site.
The board’s Speaker 1 told members the developer still intends to pursue the four‑story hotel but that the project is “on hold” because of outstanding issues, including reviews by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and other regulatory matters. Speaker 1 said the city had assured the board it had not entered into any agreement to place people in that building and that it had not authorized the use of housing vouchers at the site.
Speaker 3 sought clarification about whether an owner could later convert the hotel into a shelter without city involvement. Speaker 1 said an owner cannot unilaterally convert a hotel into a shelter; “the city would have to either enter into an agreement or allow vouchers to be used for that hotel,” and the board had been told the city would not enter such an agreement nor permit vouchers at the property.
The board did not take formal action on the development at this meeting. Members also accepted minutes from the March budget consultation meeting (motion moved and seconded; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript) and adjourned. City Planning is expected to present to the board at the May meeting, which the board said will be held in person because of scheduled presentations.
What happens next depends on the developer addressing site and regulatory issues and any decisions by the city about agreements or voucher use. No formal city approvals or contracts were recorded in the board’s discussion at this meeting.
