Sidewalk Sheds

Online comments: 8

• Lincoln Restler

  See attached

  Comment attachment
  DOB-Sidewalk-Shed-Rule.pdf

  Comment added April 3, 2026 4:47pm

• philip Susi

  Good afternoon all, my name is Philip Susi. As a member of the riggers association and as President and CEO of Arsenal Scaffold, we firmly stand with and support the get sheds down initiative. The long standing sheds used to delay repair work is a blight on the city and causes safety concerns on many many levels. As Shed installers we want to reduce the timeframe from install to dismantle as much as anybody. So I am sincere in saying thank you for the hard work the City Council and the Department of Buildings has done in tackling this age old problem.

  Our concern as a Company and an industry is in the process of permiting and renewing permits. The current proposals place heavy and to be honest inpossible demands on the shed companies in general. Being that many of us have multiple shed permits (some in the hundreds) it is unimaginable how we would be able to track and secure vital information from the clients prior to moving for a permit renewal. Our Design professionals and our companies are responsible for one thing and that is the design and implentation of the sidewalk shed. We do this well and we are staffed to do this. Asking us to montitor the progress and work being done on all of these sites is akin to having a sheetrock company monitor the Concrete Superstructure company or the plumber to monitor the electrician.

  We ask that the permit renewal process force owners to create the permission for renewal, and that we not get drawn into that process. Perhaps the DOB can issue to ownership a 90 day temp renewal as we do with Hoists, but this renewal would not be a permit only a dated document of permission once all of the adequate information has been provided by the owner and approved by the DOB.

  For us as shed installers to chaase down the people and the information is setting us up for failure. Many owners are corporations who are difficult to pin down and / or owners that do not live in NY or even the USA.
  If the renewal process had this type of block system to it that the owner alone is able to LIFT so we can pull the permit renewal it would make our task more realistic. It is this process that would acheive the goal of the initiative by forcing owners to be prepared and plan ahead and get the work done. I also believe adding a graduated permit fee for the owner to pay as part of releasing the block would help drive repair work incentivize owners to finish their work as quickly as possible.

  In the end it is the duration a shed is erected on each particular Building / Address site itself which is a major concern. The Council and the DOB does not care how many sheds we as Installers have up for customers – they care how long each of these customers keeps their shed in place. By forcing them to reckon with this entire process and alleviating heavy burdens on the shed companies it would better acheive the goals of the inititive.

  I thank you all for your time and effort and hope that some of the ideas presented today help inform final rules and regulations for the process.

  Sincerely Yours,

  Philip Susi

  Comment added April 23, 2026 2:31pm

• Robert Ackley

  I submit these written comments on behalf of Bobby D’Alessio.

  Comment attachment
  SWS-Comment-04.24.2026.pdf

  Comment added April 24, 2026 2:39pm

• Spring Scaffolding LLC

  We send this testimony on behalf of Spring Scaffolding LLC. Our company has been installing sidewalk sheds across New York City for decades, and our responsibility has always been clear: engineer the shed correctly and install it safely.
  We support the City’s desire to reduce unnecessary shed durations. The intention behind Get Sheds Down is understandable. But in practice, the real goal should be to get the job done — meaning the façade work, the repairs, and the inspections that determine when a shed can safely come down. The proposed §102 07 rules, combined with the current DOB NOW workflow, unintentionally place shed companies at the center of an administrative process we are not equipped to manage and do not control.
  1. Shed companies are not the information source the DOB NOW system assumes we are
  When we are hired, we are simply told to install a shed. We are not usually aware of some, or all, of the following:
  • the underlying façade conditions,
  • the repair timeline,
  • the building’s construction details,
  • the repair drawings, or
  • the progress of the work.
  In many cases, the building owner has not even selected an RDP — no architect, no engineer, no consultant. They only know that a shed is required for public safety.
  So, when DOB NOW asks building specific questions during the initial permit, or again three months later at renewal — who is supposed to answer them? The shed company cannot, and the owner often has no RDP yet to provide the information.
  These details belong to the building owner, their RDP, and possibly the contractor performing the repair work. Yet the current system treats the shed permit holder as the coordinator responsible for gathering and submitting all of this information. We do not have it, and we are not privy to it.
  2. The new 3 month renewal cycle makes the process unworkable
  Spring Scaffolding holds hundreds of active shed permits at any given time. Under the proposed rules, every renewal requires us to track down dozens — sometimes hundreds — of different owners, contractors, and consultants to collect data that only they possess… every three months.
  This is not a minor administrative task. It is an impossible one. The result will be:
  • missed renewals,
  • stalled filings,
  • inaccurate submissions, and
  • a system that cannot function as intended.
  The goals are admirable, but the procedure will create widespread delays.
  3. The RDP roles must be clearly separated
  The term “RDP” is being used for two vastly different professionals:
  • the Shed RDP, who designs the shed, and
  • the Owner’s RDP, who oversees the façade work.
  Only the Owner’s RDP can answer questions about why the shed is needed, how long it will remain, what repairs are planned, and what progress has been made. These responsibilities cannot be placed on the shed company or the Shed RDP.
  4. A more logical and efficient permit structure
  A workable system would allow the building owner or their RDP to prepare the renewal application and enter all required information into DOB NOW.
  The shed contractor would then complete the final step:
  • confirming the shed is engineered correctly, and
  • confirming it is installed safely.
  This reflects real world responsibilities and eliminates the bottleneck created by forcing shed companies to manage information outside our scope.
  Summary
  To avoid systemic delays and administrative breakdowns, we respectfully request:
  • clear definitions separating the Shed RDP and Owner’s RDP,
  • a DOB NOW workflow that does not make shed companies responsible for information we do not have,
  • recognition that many owners do not even have an RDP at the time of shed installation, and
  • a permit structure where owners and their consultants prepare the renewal, with the shed contractor providing the final engineering confirmation.
  Spring Scaffolding appreciates the Department’s efforts and is committed to working with the City to create a system that is clear, efficient, and truly capable of getting the job done.
  Thank you for your time.
  The Management of Spring Scaffolding LLC

  Comment added April 27, 2026 8:18am

• Anonymous

  Good morning. I am the Chief Operating Officer of Andamio Scaffolding, a minority owned sidewalk shed and scaffolding contractor. I am here today in support of Local Law 48 of 2025.
  The intent of this law is exactly right. Idle sheds have lingered in this city for too long, and holding building owners accountable to move work forward is the right policy. We stand behind it. We want to do the right thing. We want to support the City’s initiative to get the sheds down.
  But support for the law does not mean the proposed rules are ready. We have serious operational concerns that, if not addressed, will undermine the very efficiency this law is trying to achieve — and worse, could create the exact outcome LL48 was designed to prevent.
  Start with the scale of what DOB is asking the industry to absorb. There are close to 10,000 active shed permits in this city. Under the prior annual cycle, that meant roughly 10,000 renewals a year. Under the new 90-day cycle, it becomes nearly 40,000 renewals a year. Every one of those renewals requires coordination between general contractors, building owners, and the owner’s RDP. We have already hired additional staff just to keep up with the increased administrative load. The industry is doing its part. DOB now needs to build a process that is efficient, scalable, and matches the volume the law has created.
  Public safety has to be the lens through which these rules are written. Sidewalk sheds are a public-safety installation. They exist to protect the people walking beneath them. The rules implementing LL48 cannot allow a shed permit to lapse because a building owner or their RDP failed to attest or didn’t pay the fine levied against the building. That would create a perverse outcome: a shed standing in the public right-of-way without a permit — which is exactly what LL48 was designed to prevent. We cannot end up in a situation where a contractor is forced to take down a shed that is actively protecting the public, simply because the renewal pathway was blocked by another party’s inaction. The appropriate enforcement response to owner non-compliance is owner-directed penalties and a directive to complete the work and remove the shed — not a lapsed permit that punishes the compliant contractor and exposes the public.
  That principle has direct implications for how DOB NOW should be configured. Nothing in Local Law 48 requires the RDP to be a “Stakeholder” who personally logs into DOB NOW to attest. The statute requires only that the renewal application be accompanied by a report prepared by a registered design professional. A PE- or RA-sealed PDF report uploaded by the contractor satisfies the statutory text. The Stakeholder login model is a DOB NOW UI/UX choice — one DOB can change administratively. We urge DOB to decouple the RDP report from the Stakeholder login requirement and allow the sealed report to be uploaded directly, with the professional seal serving as the RDP’s certification. And in cases where a building owner’s RDP refuses or fails to provide a report after repeated documented attempts, the shed contractor must still have a path to renew the permit — noting in the system that the report was not provided — at which point DOB can begin LL48 enforcement against the owner. This single change would alleviate enormous administrative friction and keep sheds properly permitted.
  A few specific items in DOB NOW need to be fixed. Additional questions have been added to the Sidewalk Shed Justification that are not needed for renewal and have created real friction. In some cases, a shed renewal has been blocked because a question on the PW2 required a revision to the PW1 — forcing a PAA filing before the PW2 could move forward. PAAs take significant time, and under a 90-day cycle, time is precisely what we do not have especially with the significantly increased workload. The guiding principle should be this, every question on the PW2 should be tested against a single standard — is this information required to renew the shed permit? If not, it should not be there.
  The rules also need to clarify, plainly, who the RDP is. There continues to be pushback in the field from owners and engineers who believe the shed contractor’s RDP can satisfy the LL48 report requirement. They cannot. The RDP required by Local Law 48 is the building owner’s engineer or architect — the professional examining the building condition that necessitates the shed in the first place. The rules should state this in clear, unambiguous language so the industry can stop relitigating it on every renewal.
  Finally, and most urgently — there must always be a path to renew. Right now, if a building owner needs to be superseded, an applicant needs to be superseded, or a PAA needs to be filed, the permit is placed in hold status and we are prohibited from renewing until those steps are completed. Under a 90-day cycle, this is a serious operational problem. The clock does not stop when hold status is triggered. Coordinating superseding actions and PAAs requires cooperation from building owners, outgoing applicants, and DOB itself — and that takes time that we have significantly less of as we are constantly in the ‘permit renewal’ stage. We find ourselves approaching expiration not because the shed is unsafe or the work has stopped, but because we do not believe the administrative process can keep pace with the 90-day window.
  A lapsed permit is a public safety problem, and it should not be created by the system designed to prevent it. DOB must build a resolution pathway that ensures a permitted shed always has a way to stay permitted while legitimate administrative issues are being worked out. A compliant shed contractor should never face OATH violation exposure for an administrative bottleneck they did not create.

  We support Local Law 48. We are doing our part — we have hired the staff, we are out in the field every day moving these sheds through their cycles.

  We are asking DOB to partner with us by implementing rules that are operationally workable, that keep the public safe, and that direct enforcement at the parties the law was actually written to hold accountable.
  Thank you.

  Comment added April 27, 2026 10:45am

• Anonymous

  I am responsible for permit renewals at Andamio Scaffolding, a minority owned sidewalk shed contractor. I’m here in support of Local Law 48. The intent of this law is exactly right. Idle sheds have lingered in this city for too long, and holding owners accountable to move work forward is the right policy. We support the City’s initiative to get the sheds down.
  However, we have serious operational concerns that, if not addressed, will undermine the efficiency this law is trying to achieve — and could create the exact outcome LL48 was designed to prevent. To me and other people in the industry I have spoken to, this is a permit crisis, an Armageddon that potentially risks the safety of millions of hardworking New Yorkers who need to know the sheds are properly permitted and are safe to walk down the streets with their children and grand parents. New Yorkers should not have to worry about the safety of the shed they are walking under and they should be confident in knowing that New York City has their back in ensuring that these vital public safety necessities are properly permitted and not without a proper permit due to an issue not of the shed contractors doing.
  Let’s start with the scale. There are close to 10,000 active shed permits in this city. Under the prior annual cycle, that meant roughly 10,000 renewals a year. Now we’re looking at nearly 40,000. Every one requires coordination between GCs, owners, and the owner’s RDP. We’ve already hired additional staff and absorbed increased renewal costs to keep up. We are doing our part. DOB now needs to build a process that matches the volume the law has created.
  Public safety has to be the lens. Sidewalk sheds are a public-safety installation — they exist to protect the people walking beneath them. The rules cannot allow a permit to lapse because an owner failed to attest or failed to pay a fine. That creates the perverse outcome LL48 was designed to prevent: an unpermitted shed in the public right-of-way, or a contractor forced to take down a shed actively protecting the public because another party’s inaction blocked the renewal. The right response to owner non-compliance is owner-directed penalties — not a lapsed permit that punishes the compliant contractor.
  This has direct implications for DOB NOW. LL48 requires only that the renewal be accompanied by a report prepared by an RDP. It does not require the RDP to log in as a Stakeholder to attest — that’s a DOB NOW interface choice, not a statutory one. A sealed PDF uploaded by the contractor satisfies the statute. And when an owner’s RDP fails to provide a report after documented attempts, the contractor must still have a path to renew, with enforcement directed at the owner.
  Two specific fixes. First, new questions added to the Sidewalk Shed Justification that aren’t required for renewal need to come off the form. If a question isn’t needed to renew, it doesn’t belong there. Second, the rules need to clarify, plainly, that the RDP required by LL48 is the building owner’s engineer or architect — not the shed contractor’s. We’re still relitigating this on every renewal.
  Most urgently — there must always be a path to renew. A lapsed permit is a public safety problem, and it shouldn’t be created by the system designed to prevent it. A compliant contractor should never face OATH exposure for an administrative bottleneck they didn’t create.
  We support Local Law 48. We’ve hired additional team members to administer this policy. We’re asking DOB to partner with us by implementing rules that are operationally workable, keep the public safe, and direct enforcement at the parties the law was actually written to hold accountable and ensure that sidewalk sheds remain to be properly permitted to protect the public.
  Thank you.

  Comment added April 27, 2026 10:55am

• Rebecca Poole

  See attached

  Comment attachment
  CNYC-Sidewalk-Shed-Testimony-April-27-2026-1.pdf

  Comment added April 27, 2026 1:13pm

• Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal

  See attached

  Comment attachment
  MBP-Hoylman-Sigal-DOB-Proposed-Sidewalk-Shed-Rule-Comments.pdf

  Comment added April 27, 2026 5:30pm