The Poughkeepsie Zoning Board of Appeals on July 14 pushed back on a proposal to demolish and rebuild 105 Albany Street as a three-unit building without on‑site parking, asking the applicant to return with detailed site and engineering drawings showing how vehicle access, parking, stormwater, and open space would be addressed.

Michael, who identified himself as the property owner and applicant, presented revisions that reduced the originally proposed four units to three and reduced the number of variances requested. Board members said they remained concerned about the absence of on‑site parking on a narrow, older-street lot and about how additional curbside vehicles would affect winter street clearing and neighborhood congestion.

“Without any on‑site parking, I have a real difficulty approving this,” said Sam Fitterman, a zoning board member, citing neighborhood crowding and winter snow‑clearing impacts. Board members and staff noted that the existing building could be rehabilitated as a two‑family without variances and that the owner owns adjacent lots that could allow a combined, integrated design with shared access and rear parking.

The applicant said he had explored combining lots and creating rear parking but that grade, stormwater, snow storage and turning radii limited how many functional spaces could be achieved. He offered to pursue an easement on an adjacent lot to provide one or two rear parking spaces and said he would ask his architect to prepare engineering drawings showing the proposed parking layout and stormwater measures.

Board members urged the applicant to work with city staff and the building department on setback and fire‑code issues, noting that state building code rules could affect openings on sides of rebuilt structures. Members also said any variance would likely be conditioned on continued maintenance of any easement or parking provided on a neighboring parcel.

After discussion the board adjourned the public hearing and application review to the Aug. 12 meeting to permit submission of revised plans, engineering details, and any proposed easement documentation.

The board’s discussion separated options that would not require variances — such as renovating the existing two‑family structure — from the proposed demolition and rebuild without on‑site parking. No vote to approve the variances was taken; the matter was continued for further review.