[PAGE 1]
ADVISORY FORM-BASED CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes of 2/20/24 Mee>ng
Time and Place: 6:00 P.M., Port Chester Senior Center, 222 Grace Church St, Port Chester, NY
A?endees: David Tepper (consultant), Dan Brakewood, Tony Cerreta, Michael De Vi?orio, Richard
Falanka, Frank Ferrara, Monica Fonseca, Ruth Hiensch, Kevin McFadden, Dan Panacci, Tav Passarelli,
Ralph Rossi, Paul Zaccagnino. Absent: Curt Lavalla, Adrienne Conca
Minutes from 2/15
Richard Falanka moved that the minutes be approved. Seconded by Paul Zaccagnino. Passed
unanimously.
Agenda
Dimension Discussions. Resume discussion with CD-6 and CD-6T
TransiSon area discussion
Specific neighborhood concerns
Other recommended changes
Green infrastructure discussion
Dimensional Discussions
One member changed their vote on CD-5 to oppose leaving number of stories allowed at six with density
bonus. Prior majority was reached with 9 members in favor and three now opposed. A discussion
ensued about the impact on building heights of the flood zone requirement to elevate the buildings.
There is a quesSon that the impact of the flood zone study, or any change in stories required for parking,
could result in addiSonal height beyond what an average six story building would be. The Commi?ee
discussed how to convey that issue by including a statement on a maximum height limit or to sSpulate
that a story should be limited to 12 – 14 feet. This may need to be referred to the Planning Commission
or the Engineering department.
The Commi?ee had a majority in favor of the change in CD-6 in the 2/15 meeSng to 2 - 6 stories, 8
stories for 1st Density Bonus Level, up to 10 Stories maximum with addiSonal Density Bonus. (8 in favor,
2 opposed, 2 undecided).
• Sunset Clause
One member brought up the need for a “sunset clause” for buildings where the construcSon is not
begun within a specified amount of Sme afer approval. If a developer has not “put a shovel in the
ground two years afer approval, then the new zoning laws should be effect for that parcel. They
currently have three years. In the past they used to have a marker with an extension to three years.
What if the developer isn’t responsible for the delay? One member said he was not in favor of lowering
it to two years, because you never know what obstacles there are to gelng full documents to proceed.
ConstrucSon documents can take nine months to draw. The delays from Veolia have also go?en in the
way.
1

[PAGE 2]
The Planning Commission has been pushing for a two year limit. It was proposed that at two years, the
developer would come before the Planning Commission and give all update on their progress. They
could then get a six month extension and another six month extension afer that to reach the final three
year deadline. We need to follow up for next meeSng to determine a consensus on this
recommendaSon.
There is a concern that the Village will have empty stores for an extended Sme during this waiSng
period. Another big worry is when the exisSng structures are demolished and the lots remain empty for
a period of years. These are a big detriment to the community.
One of the developers on the Commi?ee relayed his experience with the lengthy delays in the steps
required before the actual building permit can be issued. Other municipaliSes handle this process
differently and can mean a much quicker process. Another Commi?ee member talked about the length
of Sme to get approvals. The general feeling was that this is a problem in Port Chester.
CD-6T
• Test Case Dimensional Summary for CD-6T is 4 - 8 stories, 10 stories for 1st Density Bonus Level, up
to 12 Stories maximum with addiSonal Density Bonus
The Commi?ee had majority on approval of this recommendaSon with two people expressing
reservaSons, and ten in favor.
Will the height change discourage building? Does the lengthy process required by Port Chester
discourage development?
It was brought up by a member that the Commi?ee is pulng too much emphasis on the height of the
building and not enough on the design. Setbacks and features that make it an a?racSve building are
more important. Cavern effect is not relevant to the people walking at street level. The hardest and most
important decisions the Commi?ee has to make are setbacks and Density Bonuses. And how are we
going to negoSate with developers to get them agreed upon.
There was a discussion about how to encourage buildings that are a?racSve. Between setbacks, sidewalk
width, architectural details, who decides what these building should look like? The Commi?ee previously
voted to recommend an Architecture Review Board (ARB). It should be able to tackle the design of these
features. We have been told that there is detail in the FBC that specifies the required architectural
details, but the Planning Commission finds that it takes up a significant amount of their Sme to deal with
quesSons of this sort. They have been trying for almost two years to get an ARB. But the problem is that
it’s hard to get volunteers for an ARB, especially an architect. Qualified people ofen make their living
from projects in the Village and a posiSon on the ARB would conflict with that.
One member introduced a document called Village of Port Chester Design Guidelines from 2018. Several
members said that it is a very good document. Should it be part of FBC? Can we get copies of it for the
next meeSng? Dave suggested that the Commi?ee should review for a couple of specific
recommendaSons from the document rather than just adding the enSre document. Dave will review it
and pull out some informaSon for the Commi?ee.
Density Bonuses
Ofen density bonuses focus on affordable housing, but this may not be a priority for the Commi?ee.
Parkland and open space seem to be prioriSes, but some said that there is the lack of available space for
2

[PAGE 3]
parkland. It was noted that affordable housing is very expensive to the developer. Westchester County
requirement for affordable housing is 10% of units (for projects of 10 or more units) at 60% AMI for
Westchester County. The Commi?ee might want to have a Density Bonus at 15% of units or 50% AMI or
both. This could be configured in several ways. A quesSon was raised about giving local residents priority
to affordable housing. This could lead to legal challenges.
Our parkland fees are very low in comparison to other villages. But the totality of Port Chester miSgaSon
fees are “off the chart.” The details of these fees weren’t available, but there was one example cited
where one project was paying $3.3 million in miSgaSon fees. As a density bonus, could the developer
build a park in exchange for adding another story? This has the advantage of adding open space while
adding density.
AddiSonal bonuses were brought up from prior recommendaSons: all electric building, green roof and
stormwater retenSon, other LEED cerSficaSons, fire safety - NFPA 13, fire safety: non-combusSble
construcSon for four - six stories, dedicated public parking, a Village infrastructure project, open space.
There was some debate about these items.
The safety and cost of the different fire codes was discussed. Several members favored that we
recommend that the Village update the fire codes – especially for the taller buildings. Having village
building codes go above and beyond state requirements (example non-combusSble buildings) should
likely be a change in code and not an incenSve for density bonus.
As an opSon for a density bonus, parking could be treated similarly to how we are looking at parkland.
Examples of parking soluSons used in in other villages were discussed as well as any parking in exisSng
Port Chester projects. New regulaSons on parking are being developed. There should be different
parking requirements for studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments.
The cost of these density bonuses was discussed. Affordable housing may be the most expensive density
bonus. The quesSon was raised about whether these addiSonal costs could become a burden on the
developer. Dave suggested that the developer can go to the IDA and they might change the overall tax
benefit package. It doesn’t instantly become a burden; it becomes another piece in the calculaSon. If the
addiSonal affordability requirement for the density bonus is too burdensome, then the developer can
choose not to build the addiSonal density bonus story/stories.
How will these be applied? Should we provide a list of possible density bonuses and let the developer
pick and choose? We should not be including anything on the list from the IDA, because that would be a
duplicaSon. Curt will provide valuable feedback about these items. Table this unSl Curt gets back.
The density bonuses have to be commensurate to the benefit. One of the things we have to careful
about is to be sure that there aren't “gimmes” (i.e. easily achieved) density bonuses in there. Perhaps we
could create a density bonus where a number of these were combined.
• Lower King Street Zoning
There was group consensus that:
- The properSes that border on the north end of Pearl Street (including the gas staSon at King and Pearl)
should remain CD-6, because they have a lower elevaSon and taller building would be workable.
- The properSes on King Street from Summerfield Church and north should become CD-5 district.
- The back half of the CD-6 bordering on Palace and Summerfield should become CD-5 due to the
elevaSon. This makes a good transiSon.
3

[PAGE 4]
Remember that there are two projects approved for 12 stories in that area that may be built.
• Beech and Franklin Street, and William Street.
This is under discussion, and Curt will bring informaSon about this to the next meeSng.
• Sidewalks
The Commi?ee could recommend that where there is substandard sidewalk width, it has to be
developed to meet a specific standard. One suggesSon is to make developer have a minimum sidewalk
width of 8 feet from the curb back, even if it means that there is a setback on developer property. That
may mean that there are staggered sidewalk widths in the block, but there could be places where there
are benches or tables where people can congregate. Be?er to do piecemeal than not at all. There is a
complicaSon because then you have private land co-mingled with public land. Sidewalk width at corners
remains a concern because of visibility.
The meeSng was adjourned at 7:45. Moved by Richard Falanka. Seconded by Paul Zaccagnino.
Next Mee>ng
Thursday, February 29th at 6pm in the Port Chester Senior Center. Monica will check to see if we can
use the small conference room.
Respectully submi?ed,
Ruth Hiensch
4