[PAGE 1]
ADVISORY FORM-BASED CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes of 2/8/24 Meeting
Time and Place: 6:00 P.M., Port Chester Senior Center, 222 Grace Church St, Port Chester, NY
Attendees: Curt Lavalla, David Tepper (consultant), Dan Brakewood, Tony Cerreta, Adrienne
Conca, Michael De Vittorio, Richard Falanka, Frank Ferrara, Monica Fonseca, Ruth Hiensch, Dan
Panacci, Tav Passarelli, Ralph Rossi, Paul Zaccagnino. Absent: Kevin McFadden
Meeting Agenda
Review Public Comments from 1/31 Meeting
Review Additional Written Public Comments
Look at Dimensional Summary distributed to group via email
Review of Current/Pipeline Development Map
Look at February Meeting Schedule
Minutes from 1/31
The meeting was opened at 6:08. After a brief discussion of the minutes from the 1/31 meeting,
Paul Zaccagnino moved to approve, seconded by Richard Falanka, and passed unanimously.
Additional Public Comments
No new public comments have been received; therefore, no further discussion was needed.
Review of Dimensional Summary
The Committee asked to start with Dimensional Test Cases as set forth by Dave Tepper.
The first chart shows existing dimensions for these districts. As we discussed, there are
relatively few limitations relative to the number of stories and setbacks. This is consistent
across all districts. It may be an opportunity to slightly reduce development density in some
areas to match what is happening on the ground and in neighborhood layouts.
Let’s consider some of the more nuanced dimensions first.
 Front Setbacks
The Test Case Dimensional Summary for Front Setbacks are:
CD-5 and CD-5W: For existing Principal Building(s) with common side Lot Line, shall be the
average front setback of the Block face; otherwise, 0 feet minimum, 15 feet maximum; For
Buildings 5 stories and greater, 4 feet at corners; 4 feet minimum; 15 feet maximum elsewhere.
CD-6 and CD-6T: For existing Principal Building(s) with common side Lot Line, shall be the
average front setback of the Block face; otherwise, 0 feet minimum, 15 feet maximum; For
Buildings 6 stories and greater, 8 feet at corners; 8 feet minimum; 15 feet maximum elsewhere.

[PAGE 2]
Dave Tepper explained that these provide flexibility and recognition that we are a compact,
dense village. Development has to align with that. The Committee should be cognizant that
there is still some need for density here. The Form Based Code (FBC) pushes in that direction.
This also takes the neighborhood context into account.
The proposed setbacks for larger buildings addressed the concern about the wall or canyon
effect created by taller buildings. They allow more light and more entryway space.
 Side Setbacks
The Test Case Dimensional Summary for Side Setbacks are:
CD-5: For Buildings less than 5 Stories, 0 feet minimum; if a side yard setback is provided,
setback shall not be less than 4 feet on each side. For Buildings 5 stories and greater, 6 feet
minimum, 24 feet maximum per side.
CD-5W: 12 feet minimum; 24 feet maximum per side
CD-6 and CD-6T: For Buildings less than 6 Stories, 0 feet minimum; if a side yard setback is
provided, setback shall not be less than 4 feet on each side. For Buildings 6 stories and greater,
10 feet minimum, 24 feet maximum per side.
Dave explained that he tried to regulate it similarly to front setbacks based on building height.
Do you want to have six story buildings right up next to each other? That size building generally
needs a little more independence. It gives more breathing room. Four feet for each building
allows for eight feet between two buildings on sides or back.
Difference between front yard setbacks and side yard setbacks is that the front is often
legislated by a code that says take the average. Sideyards are more difficult to calculate. It is not
common to take the average.
The intent is to clean up some items in FBC. Setbacks provide the opportunity to clean up some
of the items in the FBC. They don’t change the overall urban character tremendously, just refine
it. Setbacks are not the tool for regulating density.
We need to specify that these are ground level set-back lines. The whole building isn’t set back.
What about “stepbacks” for a building? This needs to be clearly defined. Maybe there is a
better term -- architectural step back or wedding cake architecture?
There was a discussion of setbacks at the waterfront. These have been set by state and federal
regulations.
 Rear Setbacks
The Test Case Dimensional Summary for Rear Setbacks are:
CD-5: 4 feet minimum, or 15 feet from center line of Rear Alley

[PAGE 3]
CD-5W: 10 feet minimum, or 15 feet from center line of Rear Alley
CD-6: 10 feet minimum, or 15 feet from center line of Rear Alley
CD-6T: 10 feet minimum, or 20 feet from center line of Rear Alley
One member asked what do you do with a four foot setback in the back? Are they functional or
aesthetic? What do you put in that four foot space? How do buildings get deliveries? Where
does their garbage go?
According to Dave, those items have to be built into the property design. It’s the difference
between “zoning requirements” and “site plan issues.” They have to design their own
driveways and refuse areas.
The Committee looked at an example. Tarry Light House has no set backs. How would this
building and the building at 108 South Main Street have been affected if these regulations were
in effect? Would this have pushed those building back a bit? Yes, they would be subject to
these setbacks.
For whole block buildings, how are these applied? This needs to be looked at.
 Lot Widths
The Test Case Dimensional Summary for Lot Widths are:
CD-5 and CD-5W: 18 ft. minimum; For Buildings 4 stories and greater, 36 ft. minimum.
CD-6: 18 ft. minimum; For Buildings 6 stories and greater, 36 ft. minimum.
CD-6T: 36 ft. minimum
Dave Tipper said that it is uncommon to see no lot width regulations (as in the current code).
Larger buildings require wider lots. He tried to find a balance and still provide opportunity to
redevelop all properties
 Full Flat Walls
One member commented about a building with a full flat wall that is completely blank and
extremely unattractive. That building was built under the previous code. Dave said he has
reviewed the current code and thinks that there are pretty solid protections for more attractive
architectural features and requirements. That building couldn’t be built under this code.
For a blank wall, the developers are expected to put something attractive, but there no detail in
the code as to what that is. And there may be some disagreement on what is a blank wall. For
example, a large wall with one small window may not be considered a blank wall by some,
while others may diagree.

[PAGE 4]
Curt commented that the Village often has to “fight” for compliance with regulations. It was
noted that developers often try to skirt around regulations. They will try for it and see what
happens. They understandably push to maximize their profits.
The FBC is pretty specific. There is such detail in code that it is actually really challenging to
digest it all. There are hundreds of pages of regulations. It’s a lot for the developer to fully
review. Dave suggested that it would not be wise to introduce more protections.
 Sidewalks
Questions was raised about sidewalks. Would the sidewalks width would remain the same as
they exist prior to the development project? Are they subject to setback size? What if there are
narrow sidewalks? Part of our goal was to get larger sidewalks and make the Village more
walkable. Can we have minimum sidewalk size?
Dave said that for a sidewalk minimum to work, the committee would have to come up with
standardized or ideal sidewalk width per district. It could be a great idea but it’s complicated. Is
it feasible everywhere? Does it make sense everywhere? It is not a traditional zoning provision.
Regulations would almost have to go by specific streets. The concept is good but hard to apply.
While the above discussed regulations focused on property line setbacks, Dave explained that
regulation of sidewalks is a little different. You don’t calculate sidewalk width in the same way
you calculate setbacks.
Curt: Here is the way that FBC attempted to regulate that if there is not sufficient public
walkway area. The code says that the sidewalk can be extended into the owner’s property. It’s
not easy to administer. It’s a negotiation with the developers. He thinks it should be a more
prominent regulation.
Article 6. Section 345-609
d. If there is not sufficient public right-of-way area for all or any of the required Streetscape
repairs, replacements, or improvements as set forth in this Section 345.609, such element or
elements must be provided within the Lot Adjacent to the public right of-way and the property
owner must grant perpetual non-exclusive easement for public use of such elements.
 Corner Sidewalk Widths
Members voiced concern about visibility at the corners. Let’s make a standard set back at the
corners. Maybe eight feet from the curb line to the building (at ground level) at the corners.
Can this be one of the dimensional changes?
History has shown that it isn’t straight forward. One developer said that the state wouldn’t
allow him to widen the sidewalk. Another developer proposed taking out some parking spaces
at the corner in order to widen the sidewalk, but couldn’t get permission to do so.

[PAGE 5]
Why not just come up with a minimum sidewalk requirement? Could be solved with an arcade?
Can we make it a dimension and regulate in that way? Or could this be proposed as a density
bonus as an incentive for extra stories?
Dave: I think the concept is solid. In practice it gets a little tricky. It creates other irregularities
with the sidewalks on the rest of the block. Usually when there are large public space projects
or sidewalks or streetscapes, a public entity comes in and does an entire block. It doesn’t work
to do building by building. To do smaller areas is really complicated. There are different
ownerships with the public space. The sidewalk can be owned by the village, the county, or the
state.
Dave said he likes the concept. Maybe there should be an “ideal” associated with each district
as opposed to just pictures. It’s a hard regulation to create and a hard one to regulate. It is a
particularly challenging issue. It introduces a lot of new variables. Property lines have become
the standard for measurment for a reason.
Curt: There are different circumstances. You can never have a uniform sidewalk width because
they are not uniformly deficient. We made it a village regulation but we had to amend it.
Understand that there are differing conditions.
We could introduce a modest corner setback, such as “Where width is substandard, the
applicant shall provide additional two feet.” But who decides if it is substandard? It is on us to
decide what is substandard. Anything under four feet
After this discussion of setbacks, the Committee members were asked if there is a consensus on
the Setback Dimensions as proposed. There was no motion made, but the members seemed to
be satisfied with the proposed setbacks. Some members remained concerned about the corner
setbacks. Any corner building regardless of height needs to have a standard set back from the
curb line to the building.
 Max Impervious Surface Coverage
The Test Case Dimensional Summary for Max Impervious Surface Coverage Are:
CD-5, CD-6, CD-6T: 90%
CD-5W: 80%
One member asked if a green roof is considered a part of the impervious calculation? Can it
count against the impervious requirement? Generally no, because roof top gardens vary a lot.
It was noted the CD-5W Character District limits impervious surface coverage to 80%, whereas
CD-5, CD-6 and CD-6T allow 100% site coverage. Curt noted the permitted site coverage in the
CD-5W recognizes the minimum Side Setback of 12 feet. Additionally, there is a Waterfront
Setback that of 25 feet from the property line. Thus, full coverage is not attainable in the CD-
5W.

[PAGE 6]
One developer said that a change from 100% to 90% is a lot – basically a 10% penalty. This is
not an insignificant change—especially on smaller lots. In CD-5 on a 20ft wide lot, it will be very
hard to find 10% to dedicate to pervious surface.
There is pervious pavement available. But it does not replace grass or other vegetation. It
requires regular sweeping and maintenence. It’s hard to enforce the maintenance.
One member asked what percent of storm water is absorbed by a green roof. A developer on
the committee said they got a 25 – 30% credit. Because their green roof does retain water.
Keeps a lot of it out of the drainage.
Is this an open space issue or a drainage issue? Dave said it is not an open space issue. It is too
small to create effective open space. Does a setback count toward impervious percentage? It
could. It depends on if it is hard scape or other pervious surface.
What is the public benefit of a green roof as compared to open space? It benefits drainage.
Keeps water out of the street.This is important because of drainage issues in the village.
Is this change in the imprevious max effective? Curt suggested that he invite the village
engineer to talk to the group. In the grand scheme of things, one Committee member said that
this does not make a significant difference in our drainage problem. Our flooding problem is not
coming from the water downtown but coming from water upstream.
This discussion wiill continue at our next meeting.
 Other Items
Curt brought up the question of using parkland requirements as a density bonus. Giving people
credit for complying with state law regarding parkland somehow doesn’t seem right. It is not
illegal to give people a benefit for meeting the requirements of the state law. He just doesn’t
support it.
There was a discussion of green space and setbacks on King Street near Summerfield Church.
February Meeting
Upcoming meetings are Thursday, Feb 15, Tuesday, Feb 20, and Thursday Feb 29.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Hiensch