[PAGE 1]
ADVISORY FORM-BASED CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes of 2/15/24 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
Minutes from 2/8
The meeting was opened at 6:11. After correction on the date of last week’s meeting minutes,
Paul Zaccagnino moved to approve, seconded by Richard Falanka, and passed unanimously.
Dimensional Discussions
• Test Case Dimensional Summary for CD-5 is 2- 4 stories, 5 Stories maximum with Density
Bonus
This represents a change from the current zoning which sets the max number of stories at six.
One member commented that there was no reason to reduce the max number of stories. He
observed that there are many six and seven story building all over the Village. If we are going to
be stepping back the upper stories in order to make the building more attractive, he thinks this is
excessively punitive especially with the ground-level setbacks discussed last week.
A question was posed about the distance of an architectural step-backs. One member suggested
they be stepped back far enough that a pedestrian standing at ground level will not see that story.
This would help to eliminate the canyon effect. It was discussed that the Committee doesn’t need
to go into that level of detail as our recommendations will be studied and decided upon by
Village officials.
A compromise was proposed that the buildings be allow to be six stories with the architectural
step-backs applied to the fifth and sixth stories. So that larger building, i.e. more than four
stories, would have both greater setback and architectural step-backs.
Should we require architectural step-backs for the fourth story too? Several members agreed with
this. One member said that we should stick with the five stories max allowed. Another member
agreed with that.
There is a flood zone requirement to elevate the building that isn’t counted as a story, so even a
five story building may be quite high. There was then a discussion of the flood plain issues. The
regulations are part of ongoing discussions. The Committee recommendations should not include
any reference to flood plain regulations, because the village hasn’t yet decided what the new
policies will be.

[PAGE 2]
The new parking regulations, which are not yet complete, may also impact the number of stories
that would be designed as residential.
One member indicted that there may be a canyon effect even if a building is five or six stories
especially given the already approved projects. David Tepper was asked what his thinking was
when he recommended the max stories be set at five. He said that this was to provide for a mix
of stories rather than a solid row of six story buildings. Especially since the starting point for
developers is often going to the max stories.
What about flood gates systems that eliminate the need to elevate the building. Is this effective
flood mitigation?
When talking about building height, the code refers to number of stories, not number of feet.
Dave suggested that using number of feet makes it easier to apply. Regulating by stories builds in
more leeway. Should the Committee recommend that the regulations use number of feet instead
of stories? One member pointed out that there are good reasons to go with number of stories
instead of height in feet – one being that the developer may try to shrink the size of the stories
and to reduce design features. Someone suggested that the zoning could including the average
height of six stories in order to address both measurements.
The question of feathering was raised. Are there areas at the edge of the district where the
number of stories should be brought down? Dave said that there are certain areas that might be
“down-zoned” to make the transition smoother, but the nature of Port Chester is that it is a dense
area. It is going to be hard to avoid having large buildings next to buildings that are substantially
smaller.
The Committee members were polled for their opinion on the max number of stories in CD5 in
this district. Most of the members were willing to compromise by making CD5 2-4 stories, with
the ability to get density bonuses increasing max stories to 6, with step-backs after 4 stories.
Two members wanted to go with Dave’s original chart, which had CD5 at 2-4 stories with the
ability to go to 5 stories max with a density bonus. They felt that setbacks and density bonuses
will still not sufficiently address the canyon affect.
As a compromise, one idea proposed was to establish an average height for six stories. If the
building has to be elevated due to flood plain, they still cannot exceed the average height set for
six stories.Another idea was to recommend that if there is a certain assemblage (square footage),
there has to be the kind of articulation as exhibited in the Ivy project at 27-45 North Main Street,
so that it doesn’t come down to laborious negotiations on every individual project. Dave said that
there are articulation requirements in the code. He will look into that.
One drawback is that the FBC graphics are too small, and developers don’t see the type of detail
that is expected. The alternative could be showing them a picture of the Ivy project as a example.

[PAGE 3]
Can we build that into the code? Perhaps instead of using square footage size, the number of
units in the building could be established as the threshold for the articulation requirements.
One member brought up the idea that the Committee is being too simplistic. There are so many
variables that come into play for each project, that it’s hard to make a few regulations that will
yield the results that we are looking for. We are focusing too much on the number of stories. A
six story building can be very attractive and a four story building can be ugly. Lots of regulations
might force a developer to build more cheaply. Do we really know the impact of the changes that
we are proposing? We need to be able to quantify the impacts.
It was brought up that 35% of village properties don’t pay property taxes. The Committee
decided to table this discussion pending any articulation requirements in the existing code that
Dave will point out.
• Test Case Dimensional Summary for CD-5W is 2- 4 stories, 5 stories for 1st Density Bonus
Level, up to 6 Stories maximum with additional Density Bonus
The current code is 2 Stories minimum in Second Lot Layer, 6 Stories maximum; 4 Stories
maximum along the Byram River waterfrontThere was a proposal to postpone the discussion of
this district because this district is not really being impacted like the other districts. From Costco
south to Long Island sound there isn’t much interest in development.
What might spark interest in this area? This may not be in the purview of the Committee, but we
could make a statement that we are concerned that this area has been completely overlooked by
developers and that it should be given a fresh study to see what it would take to induce
development. Dave pointed out that there are bigger issues than the number of stories in this
district. There are serious site encumbrances such as contamination issues.
We could recommend that another committee be formed to study this area. The issues and
opportunities are complex. One of the members is going to draft a recommendation on this
district for the Committee to consider. Note that there are areas of this district that are not
delineated right now. The upper and lower CD-5W are very different and actually would require
different zoning regulations. Perhaps it should be split into two districts. The waterfront area near
North Main Street needs to be preserved for residential and public uses.
• Test Case Dimensional Summary for CD-6 is 2 - 6 stories, 8 stories for 1st Density Bonus
Level, up to 10 Stories maximum with additional Density Bonus.
Many members spoke in agreement with this reduction to the max of number of stories. It was
noted that there have been many public meetings and postings on social media where people
raised concerns about the heights allowed for new buildings. This is one of the reasons that our
Committee was assembled.

[PAGE 4]
One member said that we don’t have justification to lower the number of stories. There were
reasons the max was set at 12 stories. There were many public meetings that gave input to this,
and we should let that max remain. There were also many village officials, planning professional,
and consultants who helped to develop this. They looked at the areas of the Village that could
tolerate this density before setting this number of stories.
Yes, there were a lot of public meetings in the development of this code. But does this have
anything to do with the charge given to this Committee? We were not asked to argue if the initial
decisions were right. It was suggested by some that the Committee is understandably expressing
“opinions” about these changes in the form of their recommendations, and that it is not a
requirement for us to cite facts to justify them. It is the Board of Trustees’ obligation to study the
recommendations and decide which ones to adopt.
The committee was polled to see if members agree to this recommended change to the max
number of stories in CD-6. Most agreed with the change. Two said, “no,” and two said, “maybe.”
Those who said “no” cited the following reasons. We could lose developers. This could become a
legal issue. We won’t get affordable housing by cutting stories. We would lose contributions to
parkland, green roof, parking, and others. We need to understand the impact to the Village before
we make this decision. We should use the density bonuses and let them control the max number
of stories; that will make it harder to get to 12 stories.
Another consideration is that the taller buildings become more isolated islands, not integrated
into the Village.
Dave said there is justification to cut the stories, and he is comfortable with the numbers behind
it. There is a good amount of background we can point to that will show that our
recommendations make sense.
There was a question regarding the definition of accessory buildings. This is more relevant to
areas out of the center core of the Village.
To summarize, the majority agreed to lower CD-5 heights to 2-4 stories with density bonuses
allowing up to 6 stories maximum. The majority also agreed to lower the CD-6 stories to 8 with
density bonuses allowing 10 stories maximum.
The next discussions are as follows: Discussion of an area in CD-6 that may need to be changed
to CD-5, CD-6T changes, Density bonuses.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55. Moved by Paul and seconded by Dan Brakewood.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, February 20th 6pm Port Chester Senior Center
Meeting After next: Thursday, February 29th 6pm Port Chester Senior Center.
Respectfully submitted by Ruth Hiensch