[PAGE 1]
ADVISORY FORM-BASED CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes of 1/24/24 Meeting
Time and Place: 6:00 P.M., Port Chester Senior Center, 222 Grace Church St, Port Chester, NY
Attendees: David Tepper (consultant), Dan Brakewood, Tony Cerreta, Adrienne Conca, Michael
De Vittorio, Richard Falanka, Frank Ferrara, Monica Fonseca, Ruth Hiensch, Kevin McFadden,
Dan Panacci, Ralph Rossi, Paul Zaccagnino. Absent: Curt Lavalla, Tav Passarelli
Meeting Agenda
Review Public Comments from 1/10 Meeting
Examine Zoning Map brought by Tony Cerreta
Look at Dimensional Considerations Presented
Discussion of Public Comments
 Parkland
As the issues of Parkland and “Fees in Lieu of” were discussed, one member commented that
he doesn’t want to see another ‘pot of money” paid by developers because it “just sits there.”
He would rather see developers work on projects chosen from the list pre-selected from the
Village, similar to those in the Village Mobility and Streetscaping studies.
Regarding the money paid in lieu of parkland, members raised the following questions: “Why
can’t it all go the Parks and Recreation?” and “Why can’t it go to the Waterfront Revitalization
Phase 3?”
Dave Tepper said that it would require identifying specific projects and asking for an RFP. It was
noted that there is an RFP for the Bush Homestead in the amount of $1.7 million. RFPs are for
public projects only. Maybe these should be private projects. A list of 8 bonus projects was
previously distributed to the Committee.
Another member reminded the Committee that the Village has had bad experiences working
with developers doing this type of projects. His thinking was that the Board of Trustees will be
reluctant to do this again. These could be a nightmare to administer and supervise, according to
another member.
Another issue with Parkland is lack of space to put new parks. This question was asked: Could
the Village acquire some space?
One member requested that the Committee not get carried away with these types of topics as
they aren’t really in our purview. The Committee should simply recommend raising the “In lieu
of Parkland” fees rather than trying to develop a detailed solution of how to spend the money.
Parkland fees should be part of the density bonus structure in order to get more stories

[PAGE 2]
 Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Several public comments indicated that an ARB is needed. It was opposed by one member who
said that we don’t need an ARB, because the Form-Based Code (FBC) was designed to include
all those details. However, it was pointed out that the code is not specific enough in some
cases. The solution then is to fix the FBC rather than add another layer to the process. The
Village has had an ARB in the past and, according to some, it never worked out -- partially
because it was difficult to get qualified people to be on the board.
It was noted that the Planning Commission now deals with the issues that might go to an ARB,
and they are time consuming for an already busy Commission.
The recommendation to create an ARB was previously moved and passed.
 “In Lieu of” Fees
The Committee feels they need to understand more about the fees specified in FBC. How many
mitigation fees are there and what are the amounts that the developers have to pay? This
information is not readily available. It was noted that the traffic related fees aren’t yet finalized.
What is the total of fees that have been paid and how has it been spent?
Should the Committee simply recommend that fees be reviewed (relative to what other
municipalities are paying) and increased? Should fees be part of the density bonus structure?
One member said that it costs more to build in Port Chester than anywhere else because of the
taxes and fees. Our Village has the highest taxes and the highest mitigation fees, according to a
member. We have to keep in mind viability. Will changes to the FBC stifle development? We
have to balance changes with the impact on the developers.
It was suggested that maybe fees should be assessed only on larger projects. Maybe for smaller
projects, they could be applied differently.
 Affordable Housing
This was raised in several comments. It was suggested that we look at what other municipalities
have done. New Rochelle, for example, made the affordable housing requirements tiered.
 Impact on Schools
In response to the comments about the schools, one member said that history has shown that
there are few children in these types of housing.
 Clay Art Center
This topic should be reviewed at part of the general neighborhool changes rather than focus on
a specific building.

[PAGE 3]
 Traffic
There were many concerns about traffic in the comments. A transportation master plan is
currrently being developed. So this is not a topic for the Committee.
 Parking
While this was brought up in several of the public comments, it is not within the scope. The
Committee has discussed this in the past, and Dave Tepper reminded us that he mentioned in
the beginning of our meetings that the parking ratio should be more nuanced.
 Communications in Spanish
Several comments suggest that the Zoning Plan as well as all communications should be
available in Spanish.
 Port Chester’s Master Plan
The plan is in need of reviewing and updating, but again it is not within our scope.
 Form Based Code (FBC)
One member told the Committee that while the FBC needs some changes, it has worked. The
property values in the Village have increased more than surrounding areas. Dave Tepper said
that there are some omissions in the FBC that need to be addressed – small refinements, not
major changes.
 Session with Developers
One comment requested that the Committee have another session during which the residents
can hear what the developers have to offer. One member suggested that we go to the
developers and ask what they have done and how it has worked.
The review of the public comments was completed. The review of the written comments will be
done in the next meeting.
Minutes from January 10 meeting were approved and passed.
Future meetings: Jan 31 and, going forward, we will meet on Thursday starting on Feb 8
Dan Brakewood moved that we adjourn the meeting at 7:53. Seconded by Mike De Vittorio and
passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Hiensch