In New York City, the controversy surrounding the homeless shelter project in the Sheephead Bay community along U Avenue continues to escalate. Following previous complaints by residents regarding the “stormwater discharge project permit,” a new round of appeals has been filed with the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) concerning the “building permit” itself. This appeal was recently officially accepted with the case number 2026-09-A.
The core of this dispute can be summarized in one sentence: why was the building approved by the Buildings Department in 2024 when the land rights have not been fully clarified and there are doubts about the application documents?
Eddie, a representative of the Sheephead Bay residents, pointed out that the crux of the dispute lies in the fact that the land division process, which serves as the basis for development, has not been completed. The addresses involved are 2134 Coyle Street (the planned site for the homeless shelter) and the adjacent 2114 (currently occupied by a Dollar Tree retail store).
The proposed homeless shelter is set to be built on the land parcels at 2134 and 2501, with the completed building designated as 2140. The developer has already obtained a new construction permit for 2140. However, residents emphasize that the division application for 2134 and 2114 has not yet received official final approval.
According to the regulations of the Buildings Department, if a property involves division and the existing structures are to be retained, the final signed confirmation of the land division must be completed before new building applications can be approved.
In this case, however, this sequence was reversed: the land division was not completed, yet the Buildings Department approved the new building application in April 2024. Residents therefore believe that this approval violates the department’s own regulations and questions the legitimacy of approving a building before the land division is finalized.
Another key issue is “who is eligible to apply.”
It is stipulated that when applying for a building, it must be signed by the real owner. However, residents found that the developer submitted the documents in January 2024, claiming to be the owner and signing, but government records show that they did not officially purchase the land until May 2024.
In other words, they signed the documents for building application before purchasing the property. Residents question the validity of such an application.
The seemingly insignificant “ST-1 street tree document” has also been found to have issues. This document also requires the signature of the property owner, but the signer was not a legal owner at the time of signing. Residents believe that this indicates that multiple crucial documents in the application process do not comply with regulations.
Furthermore, the project also involves stormwater discharge permits. The Buildings Department’s regulations are clear: such permits cannot be submitted late, yet the developer applied for an extension and it was approved.
Residents believe that this once again highlights issues in the approval process.
On the other hand, the case also involves several key permits and insurance issues nearing expiration. According to Eddie, the developer’s related insurance and some permits (including land division and partial demolition permits) are set to expire on May 20, 2026. Currently, the work on the 2134 site has been completely halted due to allegations of illegal demolition.
Eddie stated that two scenarios may arise next: first, if the Buildings Department does not approve the extension of relevant permits during the BSA review period, the project may come to a halt and construction cannot proceed. Second, if the Buildings Department approves the extension, residents may further challenge the administrative decision through new appeals.
At the same time, Eddie also mentioned that if the BSA ultimately rejects their appeal, they would consider taking the case to court for judicial review, including filing a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court.
The case is currently undergoing the BSA review process, and the subsequent developments are still to be observed.