Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mixed Use Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks mixed‑use conversion at 191 Cottage; board flags parking justification
Summary
A developer proposed a mixed‑use building at 191 Cottage Street that would include a craft‑beverage manufacturing tenant on the ground floor and rental units above. The Zoning Board asked the applicant to provide financial justification for unit count because the project requires a parking variance; the hearing was adjourned to June 10.
Developer Jim Sullivan presented plans at the May 13 meeting of the City of Poughkeepsie Zoning Board of Appeals for a mixed‑use project at 191 Cottage Street that would place a craft‑beverage manufacturing facility on the first floor and residential units above, and requested variances for parking and a few setbacks.
Sullivan, who said he has redeveloped about 100 vacant or abandoned properties in Poughkeepsie over 15 years, described the ground‑floor tenant as a small manufacturing operator who would use the space during daytime hours and “get a delivery once a week,” and said the project’s parking demand is partially offset because building residents would use parking at different times than the manufacturer. Sullivan said the design aims to be a transition between larger industrial buildings and the surrounding residences and that he and the manufacturer are prepared to occupy and operate the ground floor.
Board members agreed the design could benefit the neighborhood but focused questioning on the parking calculation. The applicant’s site plan shows 11 on‑site spaces and uses timing and on‑street availability to reduce peak demand, but the board emphasized it needs a formal financial justification for the number of residential units because unit count drives parking requirements. A board member explained that to consider a use or parking variance after the city enacted the comprehensive zoning code “is gonna be a heavy lift,” and asked for documentation showing why fewer units would not make the project feasible.
The board opened the public hearing, heard no in‑person public speakers, and adjourned the application to the June 10 meeting to allow the applicant to supply the requested financial and parking justification and to coordinate with Planning staff about stormwater and screening measures. No variances were granted at the May 13 hearing.
Next steps include submission of the applicant’s financial pro‑forma and any parking‑demand analysis to the Zoning Office; the board indicated those documents would be central to determining whether the parking variance can be approved.
