Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bronx residents urge Community Board 11 to oppose BRC’s SRO proposal at 626 Pelham Parkway
Summary
At a March 26 Community Board 11 meeting, multiple residents urged the board to oppose BRC’s plan to demolish the 1948 bank at 626 Pelham Parkway and build a nine‑story single‑room‑occupancy (SRO) building, citing height, loss of banking services, safety and audit concerns; the board said its role is advisory and BRC will return next month.
At the full board meeting of Bronx Community Board 11 on March 26, dozens of residents spoke during the gallery session to oppose a proposed redevelopment of 626 Pelham Parkway by BRC, a nonprofit developer. Speakers said the project would demolish a 1948 bank, replace it with a nine‑story building and house residents in single‑room‑occupancy (SRO) units without full kitchens.
Residents said the project would reduce neighborhood banking access, tower over surrounding six‑story buildings and strain local safety resources. "A room is not a home," Jay Lopez told the board, arguing that the planned units resemble hotel rooms rather than permanent housing and would not promote self‑sufficiency without individual kitchens. Several speakers repeated concerns about the proposal's scale and compatibility with nearby co‑ops and family housing.
Why this matters: The site—referred to by speakers as the former Apple/Bank building at 626 Pelham Parkway—sits on a tightly built corridor where neighbors say parking, traffic and quality‑of‑life issues are already acute. Speakers pressed the board to advise city leaders against approving large funding reportedly associated with the project, arguing local needs (youth, seniors, rental relief) might be better served by alternative investments.
Speakers also raised financial‑integrity questions about BRC. Gina Caliendo cited a Crain's review she said found a 2021 audit with multiple unresolved findings and alleged unsupported expenses (she mentioned figures she said were about $1.4 million and $500,000). Those audit claims were not independently verified at the meeting; board members and staff noted BRC has been engaged with city oversight and, according to one board member, has been working on implementing prior audit recommendations.
Public‑safety concerns surfaced in multiple comments: Morris Park BID executive director Camilla Tepelos described viral videos of dangerous 'donuts' and reckless driving on Morris Park Avenue and asked for stronger NYPD public messaging. A 49th Precinct officer who spoke at the meeting said precinct staff have canvassed local stores for evidence but that offenders often obscure license plates or swap plates and that high‑speed pursuits are rarely feasible because they increase danger.
Board response and next steps: Chair stressed the board's role is advisory; staff explained BRC previously presented to the housing committee for information, not as an application requiring a formal board decision. Several board members said they heard the community's concerns and proposed further internal discussion: some urged the board to draft a letter reflecting community sentiment, while others cautioned about overstepping the board's advisory authority.
Elected‑office staff at the meeting said they were continuing conversations with BRC. The borough president's representative said that, historically, the borough president has not been supportive of SRO‑style living but had no position on this specific proposal yet. BRC is expected to return to the board next month for further engagement; no formal board vote or recommendation on the project was recorded at the March meeting.
The gallery session closed after community testimony; the board moved on to elected‑officials reports and committee business.
