[PAGE 1]
ADVISORY FORM-BASED CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes of 1/04/23 Meeting
Time and Place: 6:00 P.M., Village Hall Conference room,
222 Grace Church St, Port Chester, NY
Attendees: Curt Lavalla, David Tepper, Dan Brakewood,
Tony Cerreta, Adrienne Conca, Michael De Vittorio, Frank
Ferrara, Monica Fonseca, Dan Panaccia, Tav Passarelli,
Ralph Rossi, Paul Zaccagnino, Richard Falanka, Kevin
McFadden
Absent: Ruth Hiensch
Debrief of 12/6/23 Meeting
Meeting opened at 6:07pm. The minutes from 12/6 were
discussed. Some did not receive so we will resend and
vote next meeting
Committee Schedule
Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6pm Senior Center
Wednesday, January 24, 2024 6pm Senior Center
Wednesday, January 31, 2024 6pm Senior Center
NO MEETING JANUARY 17TH
Committee voted on and passed, motion by Adrienne and
seconded by Tav to hold January 24th meeting even
though Curt is not available.
Temporary Acting Secretary
Monica Fonseca acted as secretary for this meeting and
Paul Zaccagnino will act as secretary for next meeting in
Ruth’s absence.

[PAGE 2]
Public Listening Session Next Meeting January 10
It was agreed by committee to have Chair Monica
Fonseca and/or Curt Lavalla give a brief update to the
public on the work the Committee is doing. Then, turn over
to public. It was agreed that it won’t be a back and forth
but if a speaker has questions/needs clarity we will
respond. Suggested and agreed to encourage all
speakers to also submit their comments in writing to the
shared Committee email account. Two versions of flyers
voted on and approved to post on social media and village
website to advertise public meeting for next week. Curt will
follow up on access to public comment mailbox for
committee members. There will be a microphone and
village provided tech support for next week’s meeting
Density bonus continued
Gridics platform was mentioned as a tool to help us
integrate zoning data.
Should we decide on heights and other zoning codes
before we discuss bonuses?
Dave showed his chart with examples of height changes
with and without density bonuses.
Affordable Housing different levels of affordability. Rather
than increasing affordability from 10% to 15% or 20% to
instead lower the AMI to 50% rather than the current 60%

[PAGE 3]
Westchester County’s affordability at 10 or more units.
Dave suggested a possibility of giving a density bonus to
units 10 or less if affordable units are created.
Open space $2000 per unit in lieu of open space is
currently on the books. Concrete in lieu numbers should
potentially be increased based on inflation.
It was pointed out that Form Based Code included
formulas, but that the in lieu fees were done outside of
Form Based Code formulas
Parking in lieu fees in the FBC were brought up and it
was discussed that changes have since been made. BOT
has draft local law, and upcoming public hearing on
changing parking ration from 1:1 to 1.5:1 space per each
unit regardless of number of bedrooms. Properties under
12,000 sf where its impossible to design interior structure
it would be $15,000 per space to buy down to 1:1 ratio.
For sites that cannot accommodate any parking it would
be $30,000 per space.
It’s estimated that the cost of each parking space on
average is $35,000-$40,000.
Flood zone areas will likely not be permitted to have below
ground parking which may impact height restrictions, as
one above ground floor would have to be utilized for
parking.

[PAGE 4]
Under SEQRA are obligated to do a 100 year flood study
in order to determine current flood plain and potential flood
map changes.
There is no standard flood mitigation fees under current
code to pay for such study. Flood mitigation fees can be
determined at Planning stage. Should we consider flood
mitigation fees as part of recommended changes?
Can we lower buildings and demand parking? Should we
relax heights to accommodate more parking or vice versa?
CD5 is in flood plain and much of CD6 is not.
Is parking downtown really that bad? Curt will forward
AKRF study that details the shortage of parking currently
and projected shortages with proposed/approved new
dwelling units.
The current proposed legislation is steering potential
parking changes so we should skip it for now; takes it out
of our hands. Parking structure survey was brought up.
G&S parking structure is not a solution as cars get booted
whom aren’t shopping at shops within the structure.
It was agreed to skip parking issue in light of current
proposed legislation.
Affordable Housing:
Affordable housing is standard incentive because it’s a
great cost and a large public benefit.

[PAGE 5]
We need to price density bonuses to divert developers
choosing the cheaper route. It would be helpful to know
what buying down certain inducements cost.
We have access to IDA studies that can be tapped into but
it is difficult to cost out.
Many of suggestions that Paul compiled from group are far
less expensive than affordable housing. Suggestions were
made to have several tiers of buy ups to get to 12stories
Dave’s chart of CD6 shows change to 2-6 stories base. To
get 2 additional stories (total 8 stories) then half required
affordable units at 50% AMI and the other half at 60%. For
additional 2 stories (10 stories max) all required affordable
units at 50% AMI. If there were third level bonus (2 more
stories to get to 12 total) would that push the total
affordable units from 10% to 20%
It was suggested as well that mass timber over 6 stories
should be abolished from village code.
County Executive George Latimer spoke before leaving
meeting as spectator that many communities in
Westchester are struggling with same issues and he is
available if we need.
PEW research study showed that building more rental
housing will help stabilize rent and New Rochelle was
cited as an example.

[PAGE 6]
If you double height from 6 to 12 stories what is the
community benefit? 6 additional stories for just producing
50% from 60% AMI is not the greatest hurdle to reach.
There is also element of who’s eligible for affordable units,
as it’s not just income with federal regulations that
supersede preference to Port Chester residents.
It was brought up that in today’s environment with
increased construction costs that it’s difficult to drop AMI to
50% and increase percentage of affordable units to say
15% without public assistance. But, perhaps the IDA could
grant 30 year PILOTS to drop down to 50% AMI.
Incentivize the developer to build it.
Keeping heights but making it difficult to achieve the
density bonuses, you take the liability away from the
village.
If you do setbacks, step-backs density bonuses, you may
chop away enough income that you make development
impossible.
Can we chop the heights and feather the surrounding
areas. If you take the same plot of land and can only build
6 stories and still be profitable, and go a block and a half
away, with same size plot of land, why are 12 stories
needed to make it profitable.

[PAGE 7]
IDA website shows independent analyzes indicate all
these projects between 5-7% on cash. By taking away
income you make them less likely to be built.
Fire safety needs to be a requirement not an incentive; it
should be a regulation.
Two items, besides affordable housing, worth discussion
are
1. Activating the water front: making improvements.
2. Public space which can often trigger future waterfront
development. Create fund or other path to get specific
dedicated project completed. Village has list of
projects. Price the out and have developers fund those
project. Examples, redoing Willett ave intersection,
expanding lower king st.
Create master list of potential projects for developers to
pay for to achieve density bonuses.
How do other towns do it? There’s a state law with a
general ratio of parkland 6-10 per 1000 residents. If we
are short on available land for parkland. P.C doesn’t have
space to build one, then it would be a per lot fee per
project. It’s up to BOT to decide how to spend those
separate funds either on new parkland and/or
improvements to existing parkland.

[PAGE 8]
Current P.C fee in lieu of parkland is $2000 per unit and
Mamaroneck is $8500. Recommendation is not have a
static amount in perpetuity (rises with inflation) open space
buy back is fine but as incentive for density bonus we
need to consider a higher one. Mamaroneck has
requirement not as incentive.
Could we address heights? If we can’t touch what’s
approved can we say no more.
Adrienne made a motion on voting on maximum stories in
CD6 seconded by Tav
There was interest in voting on broad based
recommendation that factors everything.
Voting on one recommendation that includes 18 to 20
different things makes it impossible. We need to take it
step by step to get to what we want otherwise we are
going to disagree about each different thing.
Time constraint was brought up but it was stated that it’s
not set in stone and we will likely be granted more time if
needed.
Can we look at each zone and vote on maximum stories
tonight for Cd5, 6 and 6T? If we get height out of way, we
can move on to other things
Should we first look at zones to see which individual
streets need rezoning?

[PAGE 9]
Voting tonight on heights is premature because we’ve
talked about cutting back some boundaries like the CD 5W
lower and upper portion.
Take a look at income with every step you make, and look
at IDA website to see costs and see if you keep cutting
you can make a beautiful vision that will never get built.
There’s a lot of units approved already, maybe we should
recommend a safety valve once a certain number is hit,
that there’s a shut off valve. And a Sunset clause of 2
years. Should we penalize people because they are held
up because of Veolia lawsuit? We could do 2 year cutoff
with potential ability to increase to 3 year with approval of
planning commission.
Committee was formed because the zoning is off and as a
response to public pressure to correct it. We are at 18 yrs
already with approved projects of a 20 yr buildout and
whether they get built or not the pace is rapid and it’s hard
for the village to absorb that.
Some of the consternation on heights could get resolved
with looking at areas where 12 story buildings without
adequate side walks wouldn’t work and rezone those
areas. Maybe some of those outskirt area need to be
addressed.

[PAGE 10]
A lot of public’s problem is that every project in CD6 ends
up being 12 stories and every project in CD5 ends up as 6
stories. Make it harder to get to top stories and view what’s
on outskirts that need to be rezoned.
The BOT are adding more specific street issues for our
review specifically, 200 William, and Beech St. Franklin
and Merritt have been brought up to committee members
that should also be looked at.
We should get through the crux of this. Go through the
regulations that need to be changed setback, setbacks,
and then we can combine.
Motion for vote on heights withdrawn. We will let public
give us their ideas and start making our motions, votes
and recommendations after public meeting. Dave will get
blown up zoning map for discussion at next meeting
Survey for County Downtown Revitalization grant needs
more feedback. Please spread word to get others to
complete survey.
Adrienne motion to adjourn, Fritz seconded. Motion
passed with end time of meeting at 8:01p.m.
NEXT MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2024 6pm
Senior Center