Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Building Violation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing for 22 Pershing Avenue opened, adjourned after staff flagged vacant‑building violation
Summary
The Zoning Board opened but did not decide on an application for 22 Pershing Avenue after staff said an active vacant‑building registration violation prevents action; the hearing was adjourned to Nov. 10 to allow the owner to supply documentation and clear the registration.
The City of Poughkeepsie Zoning Board of Appeals opened a public hearing on Oct. 14 for an application concerning 22 Pershing Avenue but adjourned the matter to the Nov. 10 meeting after staff informed the board of an active vacant building registration violation.
At the hearing the applicant’s representatives acknowledged recent filings and submitted materials but were told the ZBA could not vote on any application while an active violation remained. Deputy Zoning Administrator Judith Knauss told the room the violation — an expired vacant‑building registration — dated to Sept. 24; staff said the code prohibits moving forward on an application when an active violation exists.
Owner Charles “Charlie” McCain, who said he purchased the property in January and plans to operate an automobile dealership at the site, disputed the effect of the violation and urged the board to act. McCain and his counsel argued that prior approvals and a sign permit had been issued in earlier cycles and that building‑department paperwork including a certificate of occupancy process had not been completed by earlier operators.
Corporation Counsel Rebecca Vault and staff advised caution. Vault noted the board must apply the zoning criteria for use variances and consider the political and legal context of recent zoning code changes, while Knauss said the registration violation must be cleared before the ZBA can take a vote.
Public comment came from property‑interested neighbors and a local broker who urged the board to consider commercial uses for the arterial corridor and said the applicant had improved the site. After discussion the board moved to open the hearing and then adjourned the matter to Nov. 10 so the owner could supply requested documentation and the vacant‑building registration could be re‑instated.
No substantive vote on the application was taken on Oct. 14. The board’s staff requested that the applicant supplement the record with any documentation — including a signed affidavit of final construction or other evidence — showing prior submissions or building‑department filings, and that the owner resolve the vacant‑building registration before the next meeting.
