Proposed 106‑unit supportive housing at 626 Pelham Parkway South draws strong support and sharp neighborhood pushback

The Housing and Land Use Committee heard detailed plans on March 19 for a new nine‑story supportive housing development at 626 Pelham Parkway South that would create 106 single‑occupancy “mini” units and on‑site social services.

Kyle Jeremiah, director of external affairs at the Bowery Residents Committee, told the committee the project is designed to serve single adults, including formerly unhoused people and low‑income residents. "This project is permanent housing, and it cannot be converted into a shelter," Jeremiah said, describing a legal agreement he said binds the site to permanent housing uses for the life of the building. He said 60% of units would be set aside for formerly unhoused individuals and the remainder would be available to low‑income New Yorkers through the New York City Housing Preservation and Development lottery process.

Jeremiah described unit features and supports the organization plans to provide: private bathroom and kitchenette nooks in each unit, shared kitchens on every floor, laundry and multi‑purpose community rooms, 24/7 front‑desk staffing and on‑site case management funded in part through the city's 1515 program. BRC staff projected construction closing in fall 2027 and first move‑ins in fall 2029 after Department of Buildings approvals and city capital funding applications; Nicole, the project’s real‑estate development officer, estimated the project cost at "slightly under $70 million" and said financing would rely primarily on low‑income housing tax credit equity, a private mortgage and low‑interest city and state loans.

Supporters, including former shelter residents, told the committee the project offers dignity and stability. "Housing matters more than anything else when someone is trying to rebuild their life," said Miguel Dyer, who identified himself as someone who had experienced homelessness and urged the committee to approve the supportive model.

But many neighborhood speakers urged changes or opposed the plan outright. Roxanne Delgado said the small units resemble dormitories and argued that residents deserve full kitchens: "Who would like to be warehoused in some small‑sized unit with no kitchen," she said. Several speakers repeated that concern and questioned the 270‑square‑foot unit size the project team described during the meeting. Diana Finch, chair of the Bronx Park East Community Association, asked whether the project would include a community preference; Jeremiah said roughly 15% of the project’s lottery units could be prioritized for the immediate district under current legal limits tied to prior litigation over set‑asides.

Speakers also raised operational concerns. Multiple residents pressed BRC to explain staffing ratios for clinical and case management services, especially for residents described as having severe and persistent mental illness. Jeremiah said the project would employ five case managers, a licensed practical nurse case manager and an activity specialist, and that the city determines whether individuals can live safely and independently in supportive housing. "The services are voluntary," he added, and said staff would do periodic check‑ins and maintain emergency protocols.

Financial stewardship and oversight were another theme. A commenter identified as Patty cited earlier audits of BRC and asked how the community could be reassured funds would be used properly if public funding is awarded. Jeremiah responded that subsequent reviews and contract renewals had not found malfeasance sufficient to bar the organization from contracts and invited critics to consult BRC’s funder, DHS, for further detail.

Community members also stressed safety and neighborhood impacts. Speakers expressed worry about proximity to schools and playgrounds, enforcement of guest‑stay rules (BRC described a 14‑day visitor limit enforced through front‑desk sign‑in and ID checks), and potential effects on property values. BRC repeatedly pointed to a "good neighbor" policy, 24‑hour contact lines and perimeter checks as its primary mitigation practices.

No formal vote or committee action occurred at the meeting. The presentation and prolonged public comment period produced a clear split: some residents and advocates praised the project as a realistic way to expand deeply affordable units for single adults, while many neighbors pressed BRC and the committee for stronger assurances on unit design, staffing, financial oversight and neighborhood protections.

What happens next: BRC said it will continue outreach with elected officials and the community board and proceed with filings to the Department of Buildings and funding applications. Committee members did not record a formal action at the March 19 meeting; funding decisions and any required approvals would occur in separate city processes and votes.