[PAGE 1]
ADVISORY FORM-BASED CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes of 1/31/24
Time and Place: 6pm, Port Chester Senior Center, 222 Grace Church St, Port
Chester, NY
Attendees: Curt Lavalla, David Tepper, Dan Brakewood, Tony Cerreta, Adrienne
Contra, Michael De Vittorio, Richard Falanka, Frank Ferrara, Monica Fonseca,
Kevin McFadden, Dan Paniccia, Tav Passarelli, Paul Zaccagnino. Absent Ruth
Hiensch and Ralph Rossi
Ac†ion:
Motion to open meeting made by Richard, seconded by Tav passed and meeting
opened at 6:08. Motion to approve minutes for 1/24/24 meeting with addendum
added of Curt’s clarifying emailed comments regarding Parkland funds, made by
Kevin and seconded by Paul was also passed.
Continued Review of Enlarged Downtown Map
The committee reviewed enlarged downtown Map courtesy of Tony Cerreta to
determine feathering and zones abutting other zones.
CD 6T area was reviewed. Should we reduce heights there?
Palace and Poningo currently CD6 and should that change?
The committee had floated reducing heights in CD5 and CD6.
Some of existing zone designation was done for feathering purposes. If they didn’t
do feathering than the projects on east side of poningo would be 12 and the west
side would be 6 stories. Between palace and poningo could you cut that long ways
and transition that way? It might be difficult as they are narrow lots. The transition
has to happen at some point.
Suggestion was made that if you go there in person it gives you a better idea versus
just looking at a map. A lot of those parcels are 25ft wide and not great for larger
heights.

[PAGE 2]
Palace to Poningo should be CD5. We would also potentially recommend a sunset
clause to make any future projects and those that don’t get built, liable to new
zoning.
The village needs the heights and we can provide heights in certain locations. A
suggestion was made to put the higher buildings in CD5W because the topography
will allow for heights without overshadowing the surrounding neighborhoods.
Should the block that houses Simons building be 12 stories? (Irving to Westchester
b/w N.Pearl and Poningo)
There are certain considerations that should be looked at like where there are small
lots, it could make sense to change. Other areas with things in pipeline and
possibly more favorable development setups we don’t have as much justification to
make as many changes. One member brought up that FBC dictates conditions as
to what an urban core looks like and certain CD6 areas don’t meet those
requirements.
Even though there are approved projects there are sunset clauses so that projects
don’t linger for years and years without being held to zoning changes for newer
development.
North Peal Street is a very wide road and it would look fine for larger buildings but
other streets like palace and poningo are very narrow and less apt to house them.
One member reminded the group that the BOT requested that we review heights.
We also have to provide a rationale to justify changes. We are doing this for the
village and their goal was to increase tax revenue. If we don’t certain areas and
their heights, and if we recommend to change, we have to justify why.
One member stated that since FBC has passed assessable in this village has
increase by 30%. So, the development has increased revenue.
One member brought up that at end of last meeting we sat around looking at the
enlarged downtown map, and three former board members on this committee said
that when they signed off on this they didn’t think they (larger developments with

[PAGE 3]
12 story heights) were gonna bleed out into all these additional areas. It was said it
was a “mistake.” So, if they can all attest that it was in fact a mistake, then we
need to correct that mistake.
One member stated that per the Resolution adopted by BOT the focus of our
committee was to comment and recommend proposed changes to the code… the
number one item on the list of things to focus on from the BOT in the resolution
was building heights. They (BOT) can choose to take our recommendations or
not.
One member brought up the opportunity to garner heights in CD5W along the
Byram River; the lower part of CD5W. Where would you put DPW?
One member stated that CD5W development was way into the future because of all
the industrial development that’s there now. If we could just take some of this
balloon (rapid and high density development downtown) and take some air out. We
want to keep it feasible to build but bring it down a little. And if focus is transit
oriented development Fox island is too far. We have to focus on walkability and
how traffic flows. We can suggest another committee for CD5W and waterfront
development. We should focus on downtown for now.
Village in past 8 years spent lots of money with lots of plans, and there are
numbers as goals. What are those goals? We have greatly outpaced the SEQRA
projections which is a big deal. In terms of environmental impact, we are way
beyond projected rate of growth and overall units. That calculation is included in
EIS that accompanied the adoption of the zoning code.
One developer, in his written comments, made mention that not everything that’s
approved will get built and full completion of what’s approved, of what will get
built, will take 7-10 years.
One member stated that it will always be more profitable to do taller buildings but
you have to look at quality of life.
Another member asked what will be projection of potential recommendations on
income for village?

[PAGE 4]
One member stated that is not what the BOT is asking us do. They are asking us to
take a look at the neighborhoods to have a professional urban planner with us to
tell us what is standard in codes, what’s lacking in ours, and guide us towards
making recommendations. After that, it’s up to the village to study all of that. They
could tell us we are not taking your recommendations. They should be responsible
and study it but we can’t just keep going back and forth over this.
David Tepper is trying to provide us with sensible changes and provide us with
justification for our recommendations. It’s great to have all this development but
anyone can come in and put up a 12story building with no minimum lot size, no
setbacks, no minimum frontage, basically nothing but a blank canvass. It (FBC)
achieved most of the village’s goals but in some of those cases there’s some pretty
basic stuff that most zoning codes have that we could use and that wouldn’t kill
development.
One former trustee said he didn’t make any mistakes and where he allowed greater
heights it was to try to eliminate illegal housing, which has overwhelmed schools
and put entire village behind. He did not think village would get up to speed on
proper code enforcement and thought landlords could be incentivized to sell out.
Density is already there, so you might as well legalize it and make it pay for itself.
It wasn’t a mistake when he voted on any of this originally, but is willing to
compromise. But, at some point something has to be done about illegal and
dangerous housing.
Has most of current/proposed development been focused on larger vacant lots or
has it eliminated illegal housing? The answer is it didn’t eliminate illegal housing.
One member stated FBC doesn’t have anything to do with anything where illegal
housing is, it’s vacant lots in downtown area and we’re not solving overcrowding.
There has to be compromise to the bleeding into other residential neighborhoods.
One member said when BOT adopted this all departments met and decided 4
(stories max) on waterfront 5 or 6 (stories) in downtown and 12 (stories) by
railroad. Other than 1 building that requested a 17 and BOT granted it at 15 in CD
6T. We didn’t visualize by poningo as part of this. This got stretched. We didn’t
see a map.

[PAGE 5]
One member asked how could it get voted on without a map to view what was
being voted on?
It was during covid and there were a lot of plan the port meetings and they (BOT)
never visualized places like poningo as being railroad areas with greater heights.
Do we agree on palace to poningo being reduced down to CD5 from CD6?
What about N. Pearl to palace? With that block it’s important to look at the lots.
There’s going to be development interest there. It would be harder to justify.
One member stated that the biggest outcry from public came from the 12 story near
Summerfield church. Those are 2 and 3 family homes that are gonna be demolished
to put up a 12 story building at one of the worst traffic circles in the village. That
was one of the catalysts that brought the public out and likely led to us being here
and this committee being formed. How does that get approved with that street
width?
Are we able to say that if a CD 6 area abuts up to CD5 that it needs to be feathered.
If CD 6T wasn’t 15 stories you wouldn’t have a problem with lowering that block
across the street to 6 stories. The Modern (also on that block) is 4 stories.
We are not looking at approved buildings. However, until they pull a building
permit and there are shoves in the ground, our town attorney advises that the town
has the right to make zoning changes up until the point that shovels hit the ground.
What if instead of changing that block to a CD5, we table it and determine
dimensional changes? If we determine that all of CD6 should be reduced on
heights and allow for density bonuses then perhaps that will solve the problem of
that block.
General idea from earlier discussions that in CD6 rather than 12 story max, it could
be 8max with the ability for an additional story or two with a density bonus.
We also talked about Irving to Westchester from Oak to Smith potentially changing
to CD5 from CD6. Simons building is also on a block that’s in CD6.

[PAGE 6]
Dave offered to give us land area analyzes numbers so we can talk about it and that
can give us projected impact of potential recommended changes. Whatever
substantive data we can provide will help BOT and also attempt to get unanimous
consent and that will go a long way with BOT.
Can we agree on recommending changing poningo to palace from CD6 to CD5 and
the feathered area across street from Poningo also downzoning to CD5?
One reason to down zone that area is the topography, it has a high elevation.
Elevation should be considered in some of these recommendations.
Rationale is the topography, high elevation means that a CD6 building would be
too high, and existing parcels are quite small in relation to other CD6 areas, narrow
street as well. We have consensus on that change. We are reserving voting until
everything is done but listing this on our to do list.
We attempted to discuss Beech Street regarding Clay Art. We will table until we
get more info on what the request is. Parts of Beech were changed to R2F and Clay
Art Center is requesting to change to CD4MU or CD5. One of the written
comments from a CD4 member explained the rationale for the change and
suggested to leave it as is and Clay Art Center can go to ZBA if they want to
rezone it. There was a huge amount of public input regarding making Beech CD5
or CD4MU to accommodate Clay Art Center’s expansion, so we need to look at
that and not leave it up to ZBA.
Other areas requested for study by BOT were William St. from Spring to Pearl and
Olivia and Beech street to revert back to old zone.
Merritt and Franklin were also changed via recommendations from CD4
Committee. Should they be reverted back? Could we get a map of these areas
before we make recommendations? Could we get a map of the whole village
enlarged to show what may need to be changed? What is our purpose to look at
Merritt, and Franklin?
We should stick to downtown area for now and put these outskirt issues at the
back. We don’t have enough information to make recommendations right now.

[PAGE 7]
What is next major transitional area to feather; Pearl to Smith? Curt cannot discuss
because the zoning issues there have been closed sessions due to lawsuit. Does it
make sense to recommend to BOT to turn it back to what it was (CD5)?
Curt reminded the committee that we are not making any changes to approved
projects but that doesn’t mean that we cannot make recommendations in those
areas, as some of those projects may not get built and our recommendations would
apply to those that don’t get built and those that come in the future.
The block near Summerfield church in particular is larger more attractive for
development properties. We talked about regulating via heights with potential
density bonuses. That particular site there’s some misgivings about heights. They
still have their approval but should that expire, then they will be liable to new
zoning changes.
It was suggested to make minimum on sidewalks of 10ft. Everything on King
Street is either set back or someone’s yard because they are houses and not
buildings. Shouldn’t buildings that get approved there keep setbacks already in
existence? We should have minimum sized sidewalks. That’s what code says.
We can have further discussion on block where post office is (Westchester to Irving
from Poningo to Haseco) lowering that from CD6 to CD5. If we go back to issue
of topography that fits as well.
Dimensional changes need to be discussed. Are we reducing heights with density
bonuses?
Not to downplay the CD5W there are more pressing issues in the
Once they take this and digest it, then they can take a look at CD5W.
Next week we will discuss dimensional changes and discuss the outskirt areas.
Curt will provide us with more info on outskirts and Dave will distribute his draft
chart on dimensional changes with density bonuses. There is a retirement party for
village attorney on Feb 22 which many committee members will attend. We can
discuss next week changing the date of our meeting that week to accommodate
that. Motion to close passed and meeting closed at 7:50pm.
Next meeting Thursday, February 8, 2024 6pm Senior Center 222 Grace
Church St.