[PAGE 1]
FORM BASED CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of 3/7/24 Meeting
Time and Place: 6:00 P.M., Port Chester Senior Center, 222 Grace Church St. Port
Chester, NY
Attendees: David Tepper (consultant), Curt Lavalla (Assistant Planning Director), Greg
Cutler (Planning Director), Tony Cerreta, Michael De Vittorio, Richard Falanka, Frank
Ferrara, Monica Fonseca, Kevin McFadden, Dan Panaccia, Tav Passarelli, Ralph Rossi,
Paul Zaccagnino. Absent: Dan Brakewood, Adrienne Concra, Ruth Hiensch.
Meeting Agenda
Adoption of Minutes from February 20, 2024 Meeting
Beech and William Street study and discussion
Density Bonuses Discussion (Parkland/Open Space/Affordable Housing)
Maximum Impervious Surface
General and Public Comments/Additional Items
Action:
Meeting opened at 6:05, with a motion by Richard Falanka and seconded by Tav
Passarelli, and passed unanimously.
Motion to approve minutes from 2/20/24 was made by Richard Falanka, seconded by
Paul Zaccagnino and passed unanimously.
Discussion on voting:
Suggestion was made to allow members present to vote on topics we resolve tonight
and allow members not in attendance to vote next week, so that every member’s vote
counts. No opposition was raised to that suggestion
Summary of resolved topics:
Dimensional Summary Table, prepared by David Tepper, was reviewed with the new
Planning Director, Greg Cutler.
In discussing potential caveats to height maximums in CD-5 (2-4 stories with ability to
go up to 6 stories max) it was suggested to add a maximum height in feet requirement
to avoid greater heights above 6 stories, should future flood zone updates mandate
higher elevations. Mr. Cutler suggested that by doing that it could disincentivize
development in flood zones. He would not recommend putting a maximum height
requirement on the 6 story maximum in CD-5.
Density Bonuses
Suggestion was made to go from 60% to 50% Westchester County AMI. Issues was
raised that developers cannot get any additional assistance from the County if 15%

[PAGE 2]
affordable units were mandated in the Code. One member stated that the committee
has agreed to broadly soften the density, with setbacks and step-backs, and with less
trips to zoning board of appeals.
Mr. Cutler has worked on pro forma analysis in his prior job in Mamaroneck, where cost
of land and cost of construction based on final cost affidavits, which may or may not be
accurate, were used to determine if they could still get financing. They never checked
on 15% as workable, but at 20% it was determined not to be workable in Mamaroneck.
It depends on the zone and density you could build. It could be a document that they
could put together for the Board of Trustees to aid them in making their decision on our
recommendations.
One member stated that if we make the density bonuses easy to achieve, without a
significant public benefit, then we will be stuck with larger, more dense buildings like we
have now. One member stated that the committee worked with an experienced urban
planner (David Tepper) to help guide us in shaving down some of the density. The
member further stated that these recommendations are not radical departures from the
existing zoning and will not make development impossible.
One member brought up that there are 7 and 8 story buildings already in the village,
and have been here for years. Another member stated that those existing buildings are
spread out, but if you take those same buildings that are spread out and move them to
Main Street and up Westchester Avenue near downtown, you’ve now supersized the
density. The member further stated that since this committee’s inception, up to this
point, there have been compromises already made to achieve the changes we’ve
discussed and largely agreed on.
One member stated that affordable housing has been the leading component to get the
density bonus in places like New Rochelle. The member further stated that the historical
footprint of Main Street is being impacted and public outcry has gotten us to this point,
and we are here to recommend changes. The member further stated that New
Rochelle has put their higher density buildings on the outskirts, and kept heights lower
on their Main Street. A suggestion was made to make the first density bonus be at 50%
AMI, and increase it from 10% or 15% affordable units to achieve the second density
bonus. One member stated that we are trying to make it a little harder to achieve, and
see a greater public benefit in order to achieve the density bonuses.
One member stated that we need to identify density bonuses. What will the report look
like and who is going to create a sheet for us to vote on? It was suggested that the draft
report should be distributed to the committee for review and comment, and then we
should have a vote.
How do we nail down exact affordable housing density bonuses? Could we just suggest
that the density bonus could be 15%, and in exchange for that, the developer would get
a two-story bonus?

[PAGE 3]
CD-5 would have one 2-story density bonus to get to the 6-story max, and CD-6 would
have 2 different density bonuses; one density bonus to go from 6-8 stories, and another
to go from 8-10 stories. CD-6T would also have 2 different density bonuses (1st tier to
go from 8-10 stories and 2nd tier to go from 10-12 stories).
Are there priorities? How do you decide which density bonuses are best? Are there
other density bonuses like infrastructure improvement or fire equipment, or other things
the village could use? According to Curt Lavalla, our code already contains fees to fund
new fire equipment under the fair share mitigation fees.
Mr. Lavalla suggested a potential option for building a public plaza as part of a
development that could earn an additional density bonus. As an another example, one
member suggested that larger developments could contribute an additional fee
(separate from the current $2000 per unit fee for parkland) of approximately $40,000 for
each unit built on the additional floors of the density bonus(es). The member further
suggested that the developer could afford to, with the extra floor space, perhaps
purchase an adjacent lot for parkland, or some other significant bonus for a significant
benefit.
Dave Tepper suggested that when considering density bonuses there should be a well-
defined nexus between cost of amenities and what you’re charging developers.
Affordable housing is generally the most well established in that realm. Most
municipalities have adopted inclusive zoning.
Parkland is similarly established in the development world. As currently written into the
Code, parkland funds could be used for park, playground and other recreational
purposes including acquisition of property which is pretty broad. The challenge is
coming up with a number. Port Chester charges $2000 per unit as standard. We
wouldn’t potentially increase that fee for all development, but only for density bonuses.
Pocket parks could also be established if a benefit to the developer was given.
The two potential density bonuses that rose to the top of the list were open space and
affordable housing.
Affordable housing:
1st Tier Density Bonus moving to 50% County AMI because it makes more sense to
have it correlated closer to Port Chester’s AMI.
2nd tier would require increased the affordable units 10% to 15%.
Where infrastructure is available and land use changes are not excessive, a 15%
affordability could make sense, with the cost of the land being the variable.
Given that this would be the top density bonus level, it makes sense per Dave Tepper.
In general, infrastructure is available, there is plenty of adaptive reuse in Port Chester,
with regards to existing roads and infrastructure.
Other option (Less aggressive way)

[PAGE 4]
1st Tier Density Bonus would mandate half of affordable units at 50% County AMI.
2nd Tier would be all affordable units at 50% County AMI.
Public Parking:
One member stated that the BOT is in the process of changing the parking ratios and, in
essence, has taken that out of our hands. Some members would like to address parking
as a density bonus. Some members questioned why would we give them a density
bonuses for giving parking to their tenants?
The Village Code previously had a dedicated fund for public parking, which is also part
of the buy down option of the pending proposed local law. One member suggested that
if a portion was dedicated to public parking that would be run by developers, on behalf
of the Village, then that would be a community benefit. The member further stated that it
might be better if it was smaller places for parking in several different locations.
A recommendation was made to add a separate dedicated structured public parking fee,
above the 1:1 ratio, as a community benefit and potential density bonus.
Mr. Lavalla would like to give Mr. Cutler time to review what we have done so far, and to
study what funds are being collected currently.
Parkland:
A potential recommendation could be to substantially increase the parkland in lieu fees
per unit to be more akin to what a parking spot costs to build per spot (around $40,000),
and utilize that as the top tier of the density bonus.
We could provide neighboring municipalities’ fees as examples. It is potentially less
complex to increase parkland fees vs building affordable housing. One member asked if
adding more density bonus options would make affordable housing sink to the bottom of
the list?
Green/Efficient buildings:
The IDA already factors those items into their package, so we do not need to duplicate
them as density bonuses. However, it would be good to codify certain green building
items instead. Green buildings are a moving target with technology changing, as well as
New York State regulations continuously being updated, making many of them eventual
requirements. It would be better to codify them, rather than make them a density bonus
option.
Fire Sprinkler/Flood Mitigation:
A suggestion was made for a recommendation to codify Fire Sprinkler system
requirements, changing from 13R fire sprinkler system to 13 fire sprinkler system.
Per the guidance of Mr. Lavalla, flood mitigation is required to be studied village-wide,
so it is out of our hands right now to make any determination on potential flood
mitigation code changes and/or flood mitigation improvements as a density bonus
option.

[PAGE 5]
Historical Facade:
One member asked if we can recommend keeping historical facades in order to achieve
a density bonus? This would maintain the character or the Village, especially on Main
Street.
Another member suggested that we should include guidance within the Code to
maintain our facades in Port Chester, and also include of list of the materials that need
to be used in these buildings. We can recommend facades and materials and codify it in
the FBC.
The member further stated that if we don’t get the ARB reconstituted in a timely fashion,
at least we could recommend that they include the design guidelines of 2018, that we
spent the money on, into the Code. Mr. Tepper suggested that we could integrate into
those design guidelines a preference to preserve historic facades.
Community Space/Community Center
One member stated that we have little to no community space. Another member
suggested that the church on Smith and Westchester Ave would be a good spot to use
for a community space, as an example. Per Mr. Tepper’s guidance, we could expand
the open space category in the Code to include community centers.
Mr. Cutler advised that those spaces might not always remain community centers so it’s
hard to ensure the continuity of that to make it a density bonus. It would have to be
conveyed to the village in order to make it a density bonus. Another member suggested
that the developer could put a deed restriction on the land/building used for the
community center.
Infrastructure/Burying Electrical Lines
Per guidance from Planning, this would likely not work as a density bonus, as it would
be site-specific and push the onus of aerial service lines/burying service onto other
nearby property owners.
Additional Recommendations:
A recommendation was suggested to have the BOT put together another committee to
study CD-5W with the goal of revitalizing and re-activating the waterfront.
Another suggested recommendation was to have the Village translate all the zoning
documents, including our eventual recommendations, into Spanish as we are a majority
Spanish community.
Beech Street:
There was a CD-4 zoning committee package that resulted in a change where
everything that is not leased by the Clay Art Center on Beech Street was rezoned to
R2F. Mr. Lavalla suggests that the committee make a recommendation rezoning Beech

[PAGE 6]
street as CD-4 or CD-4MU. The motion was made by Mike Di Vittorio and seconded by
Richard Falanka, to make all of Beech Street CD-4MU and was passed unanimously.
William Street
Changes were made prior, based on recommendations from the CD-4 committee, that
rezoned William Street to R2F, where there are currently established retail businesses.
It would likely need to be changed to CD-4MU. William Street from the cross streets of
Washington Street to Pearl Street, on both sides of William Street, should be changed
to CD-4MU. Richard Falanka made the motion, seconded by Mike Di Vittorio and it
passed. Motion was made by Mike Di Vittorio, to change Oak, Grove, and Smith streets
from Westchester Ave to William street to CD-4MU from R2F. Curt will follow up before
we include Oak, Grove and Smith streets in any recommended change. No vote was
taken on those streets being added to potential recommendations.
Franklin St was rezoned, as part of the CD-4 package, to single-family on the north
side. If there aren’t many single family homes should it be rezoned as a CD-4
residential? We are not bound to study that as this was an add-on and not specifically
requested by the BOT in their resolution. No vote was taken.
Maximum Impervious Surface:
As suggested by Mr. Tepper, this is not critical and will likely not be a recommendation
on the draft he will prepare.
Discussion on Voting Continued:
The committee will meet again after David Tepper has prepared a draft for our review
and comment. We would vote on the entire package at that point. We also want the new
planning director to take a look at the draft, as well as follow up on William Street, and
be able to review what we have discussed, thus far. We would need the draft several
days prior to our next meeting where the vote will take place.
The next meeting could be the last week of March or the first week in April depending
on when the draft is completed, and the availability of the committee members and the
Planning Director. We would like every member’s vote to count, so it would be
contingent on all being present and/or available via zoom. We will also need an official
extension of our deadline by the BOT granted, giving us until 4/30/24, in order to review
the draft report, vote on it, and finish the final product. Mr. Lavalla and Mr. Cutler will
request an add-on to the agenda for the next BOT meeting on 3/18/24 in order to
request an extension of our committee’s work.
Next meeting: TBA with follow up from the Chair, Mr. Lavalla, Mr. Cutler, and Mr. Tepper.
Motion to close was made by Richard Falanka and seconded by Frank Ferrara and
passed unanimously. Meeting closed at 7:56 p.m.