[PAGE 1] ADVISORY FORM-BASED CODE STUDY COMMITTEE Minutes of 1/10/2024 Meeting Time and Place: 6:00 P.M., Port Chester Senior Center, 222 Grace Church St., Port Chester, NY Attendees: Curt Lavalla, David Tepper, Dan Brakewood, Tony Cerrito, Adrienne Conca, Michael De Vittorio, Richard Falanca, Frank Ferrara, Monica Fonseca, Kevin McFadden, Dan Panaccia, Tav Passarelli, Ralph Rossi, Paul Zaccagnino. Absent: Ruth Hiensch. Residents Attending (from Sign-In Lists): Andrew Weiss, Nora Freeman, Geraldine Gaal, Lori Micale, Gregg Hamilton, Howie Ravikoff, Kevin Leahey, Frederique Sol, Jeffrey Bauman, Rigoberto Lua, George Ford, Perla Arellano, Stuart Rabin, Joan Grangenois-Thomas, Jessica Berkowitz, Emily Yeck, Linda Turturino, Rejeu Chennalth, Keith Morlino, Nick Williams. Introduction to the Listening Session Ms. Fonseca and Mr. Lavalla welcomed the residents and introduced the members of the committee. Mr. Lavalla outlined the charge that the Village Board of Trustees gave to the committee. He also gave a quick introduction to the Form-Based Code and acknowledged that what was planned as a 20-year buildout seems to be happening all at once, noting that more than 2,500 new apartments have been approved so far. He told attending residents that the committee has been focusing on building heights, parking, green space and parkland. He pointed out that the committee has been meeting almost weekly since October 6th and that members of the committee come from many different backgrounds. The purpose of this meeting would be to listen to input from Village residents. He explained that the committee’s recommendations will go to the Board of Trustees for action. Mr. Lavalla next introduced Mr. Tepper, the committee’s consultant. Mr. Tepper spoke about his qualifications and stressed that the Village now has a unique opportunity to examine the Form- Based Code with a fine-tooth comb. He expressed the hope that the committee could find a balance of ideas. Ms. Fonseca then invited residents to speak. Jessica Berkowitz • A parking solution is needed and may involve building a parking structure • Requiring an increased parking ratio for new developments is important • An Architectural Review Board is needed o Not all developers have good building designs o The ARB could also codify lamp poles, benches, garbage enclosures, paving materials o The ARB could encourage the preservation of historic facades; no need to pull everything down [PAGE 2] • Narrow sidewalks with no setbacks will create a canyon effect in urban core areas • The Village needs more parkland o Increase developer fees in lieu of not providing green space o Increased fees could also allow the Village to purchase more parkland • Problem with utility poles and wires o Prevents fire department access in case of a fire o This should be included in the Code • Developers should also find ways to support the arts in Port Chester Emily Peck (on behalf of the Clay Art Center • The Center would like Beech Street rezoned so that the Center can expand as planned Andrew Weiss • The CD-5 & CD-6 should coordinate with the CD-4 committee • Important to balance the needs of developers and the Village’s need for affordable housing • Incentives for developers should include rewards for rentals vs. co-ops and condos Geraldine Gaal • Needed: more green space; developers should contribute to this goal • Question: can the schools handle the influx of students new development will bring in • The Village needs an Architectural Review Board like many neighboring communities have • The ARB should serve as a watchdog for the Village Nora Freeman • We should support more parkland, especially more trees Rigoberto Lua • Echoed need for more parkland • Abendroth Park needs upgrading • Current parks are overused and have drainage problems Andrew Weiss • Attention has to be paid to traffic Jessica Berkowitz • Will it be possible to fill all of this new development with tenants? • Aesthetics and traffic has to be addressed Deirdre Curran • There is too much development • Port Chester is a great community but it is becoming too developed • There is not enough green space and trees [PAGE 3] • The Village does not have adequate infrastructure • The Village has only a volunteer fire department • Only the developers will benefit from this build up; what’s in it for the Villagers? • The current waterfront development has too many empty stores • In 15 or 20 years, will all these buildings be empty? • The Village needs to be mindful of Waterfront failures Gregg Hamilton • Three areas with big infrastructure problems o Westchester Avenue to Ridge Street o Putnam Avenue to North Regent Street o Mill Street to Abendroth Avenue • We can’t change our streets and we’ll be adding more traffic to problems we already have • Building heights, especially in CD-6, will change the character of the Village o However tall buildings have the potential to help with affordable housing • We are in competition with other Metro North villages o We are not alone building transit oriented housing • We must be concerned that our youth and service workers can afford to live in Port Chester • The zoning code should allow for renting rooms in houses; this is also a way to help senior citizens stay in their homes • The Zoning Plan is not yet printed in Spanish Perla Arellano • The Zoning Plan needs to be printed in Spanish • The Village should make sure that workers in the new development are paid for their work; workers have been cheated out of their wages in the past • Millennials cannot afford to live in Port Chester Keith Morlino • There is a lot of history behind the Comprehensive Zoning Plan • It was a major undertaking with many citizens involved o Not created in a vacuum; lots of input • The makeup of the CD-5 & CD-6 committee seems random and no one can explain to him how the members of the committee were chosen • If the committee goes too far with changes, development will stop and vacant properties will be abandoned • Affordable housing should primarily benefit residents of Port Chester • Developers will help pay for future bonds for schools, etc. • Problem: Port Chester has small lot sizes; building height is necessary • Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Plan should be consistent • Too many restrictions will lead to lawsuits from developers [PAGE 4] George Ford • This committee is only looking at a small section of the Village • The committee should ask, What is the best decision for the Village? o The Village needs tax dollars • New buildings are designed for young adults and seniors; should not impact the schools Kevin Leahey • As a developer, I know the Village situation well • Developers would benefit from many of tonight’s comments • Port Chester should be the best village in Westchester County o It has diversity, culture, walkability, etc. • Developers would like to add input also; they have lots of data • They also know what won’t work, like the 1.5 parking ratio • In the past, site plan approval was difficult because of the many different zoning rules • The Comprehensive Zoning Plan streamlines the procedure for developers • Changing with ratios on heights will stifle development • Bonuses for height leads to uncertainty, which hinders development • Development going forward will be slow, not as fast as people think Nancy Mastic • She read a report stating that development actually costs the community more in services than it takes in in tax dollars • Park land has a low cost in services vs. tax dollars Perla Arellano • Question: What is the AMI based on? • Answer from Mr. Lavalla: The Westchester County AMI Nick Williams • We are all here because we all believe in Port Chester • The Form Based Code was developed over time in several phases • It envisioned a buildout of 6,200 units • Question: If things change too much what will that do to the Form Based Plan? • The Plan includes a levy system to support schools, police, etc. • The Plan so far includes $9 million in fees, in addition to taxes • The Plan has to be viable Jessica Berkowitz • These are 1-time fees • Developments also get PILOTs Howie Ravikoff • The committee should have another session during which residents can hear what plans [PAGE 5] developers have to offer the Board of Trustees • Developers need information from Village departments o What are their wish lists o Where do they see the Village in 5 or 10 years? • Building height revenue should support the wish lists of the Village Rigoberto Lua • Question: Will the average home owner benefit from development? o Will taxes go down? Deirdre Curran • Question: Will all these buildings get filled? • These units are not affordable for many Port Chester residents • Suggestion: a meeting during which Villagers ask developers questions Keith Morlino • He explained how PILOTs work • Not all PILOTs are bad, they can be mutually beneficial for the developer and the Village Ms. Fonseca encouraged attendees also to write their comments and email them to the committee. She thanked residents for attending. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M. Responses Mailed to the Committee Jessica Berkowitz 1. Green space There is a lack of green space or recreational space that is available in Port Chester. Whether may be no universal ratio appropriate as a standard for the area of public parkland per capita, the National Recreation and Park Association recommends between 2.5 and 10 acres of parkland per 1000 residents. Employing a ratio of 4 acres per 1000 residents, Port Chester should maintain approximately 120 acres of parks. The village has approximately 62 acres village-wide. Therefore, the Village should acquire additional parkland and undertake capital improvements to its parks- proportionate to the population growth. Based upon the analysis in the BC GEIS and pursuant to the FBC EFS, the combined impact of the proposed projects would create a significant need for more park and civic space. As the projects are proposed, they do not and cannot suitably locate parks or parks of adequate size on-site and the recreational amenities proposed in these projects are for the use of residents or tenants. Thus, the developers are expected to provide a fee in lieu of parkland for the proposed projects. The fee at this time ($2000 per dwelling unit) as established in chapter 175 the Village code hardly seems adequate in light of the cost of suburban land and is well below the fee in lieu of parkland in multiple other local municipalities. The fees in other municipalities range from [PAGE 6] $4500 per dwelling unit or building lot to $10,000 per acre. Costs for land in Port Chester are $48,000 for an empty 5719 square-foot lot, $675,000 for 5633 square-foot lot and $740,000 for a 7058 square-foot lot based on listings on realtor.com. To purchase additional parks or recreational facilities and to develop this land to make it usable for residents will require more funds than our in lieu of fee will generate for the proposed buildout that will occur based on the number of applications, approved projects and the size of these projects. A recommendation to increase the fees as well and a determination of areas where land can be made available for recreational use is of paramount importance. 2. Architectural review board My 2nd area of concern is the lack of an architectural review board to oversee the development in Port Chester from an aesthetic point of view. We have no mechanism by which to ensure some uniformity of the streetscape in Port Chester such as the type of sidewalks installed by developers, the color palette of these sidewalks, the type of lighting proposed for the public right-of-way, the appearance of street furniture (benches and bicycle racks), the type of trees to be planted along the sidewalks, the types of fencing to be placed around the bases of trees or other plantings in the public right-of-way and the appearance of any garbage receptacles along the sidewalks. An architectural review board is of significant importance in delineating standards for the issues described above. In addition, as projects are proposed individually and approved individually, the village has no way to ensure that the totality these projects enhance is the streetscape and that the façades of the projects on the edges of the higher density development districts serve as appealing welcomes to downtown Port Chester rather than as forbidding blank walls. Without an architectural review board to opine on these matters, we risk these aesthetic issues being overlooked in light of the far more pressing issues of traffic and parking. 3. Setbacks The sidewalks in Port Chester are extremely narrow in the downtown. Adding 6 to 12 story buildings along roads with narrow sidewalks and narrow roadbeds will cause a cavern effect for pedestrians walking along the sidewalk way that will not be pleasant. The necessity of putting trees along the sidewalks in front of the new buildings as the code requires will impede the flow of pedestrians and make it difficult for handicapped people or people with mobility issues to navigate the sidewalks. In addition, bike racks, benches, bus stops and signs all in 2 sidewalk clutter. Greater setbacks off the property line would improve the situation described above. Arcades that setback the first floor of the buildings and allow more sidewalk room and alcoves used for doorways in retail establishments and lobbies also increase sidewalk room. In addition setbacks or stepbacks of the building floors above the 2nd or 3rd level will allow more light to penetrate to the street and give the buildings a less bulky appearance. This is clearly used in Manhattan to great effect if anyone is looking for examples of how this works. This was very common in buildings built in the 1920s and 1930s. 4. Parking The explosion of housing supply in Port Chester will lead to a greatly increased need for parking spaces. The village of Port Chester IDA finds that even though projects are truly transit oriented, residents in urban centers in the inner ring metropolitan suburbs remain committed to owning [PAGE 7] an automobile and projects with insufficient parking availability have suffered, in part, because of lack of adequate parking requirements. The October 2023 Metro-North ridership rates were 24.7% above the rates in 2022 but 31.8% less than the rates in 2019 before the pandemic. Increasing the number of dwelling units combined with a decrease in commutation suggests that people may be moving to the suburbs for the opportunity to work close to where they live or to work from home. Many of these people will want cars either because they need to commute to work locally or because suburban life often requires automobiles for activities such as errands, shopping and recreation. The solution to “how much parking is needed” dilemma is flexibility to undertake various parking management strategies beyond setting minimum parking requirements for each multi-family dwelling. Constructing more parking spaces within multifamily dwellings reduces housing affordability and low income households tend to own fewer vehicles. Minimum parking requirements in multifamily dwellings are therefore unfair and regressive. Structured parking can increase housing affordability, economic efficiency and equity. “In lieu of fees” can be charged to developers who create fewer than the defined number of parking spaces in their buildings than are required by the building code. “In lieu of fees” to help fund off-site municipal parking as an alternative to providing on-site parking gives developers more flexibility in allowing better site design and allows parking facilities to be located with where most optimal for the sake of urban design. This will avoid some of the concerns about traffic into and out of the developments, interference with pedestrian flow along sidewalks and issues of venting air pollution from structured parking near residential spaces. “In lieu of fees” can also be used for shared transportation facilities in the village such as a circulator bus that stops by structured parking lots, large businesses and large residential buildings or for developing other programs such as shared bicycles or locations for car sharing programs. Fees can be used for developing safe and easily accessible bicycle racks for residents and patrons of businesses. Off-site municipal parking can also act as overflow parking options for guests of residents, for residents who purchase additional vehicles or for building employees and commercial establishment patrons. One other serious issue that should be noted in relation to parking is that the greater the number of cars looking for parking spaces, the harder it will be for patrons of local businesses to find places to stop to go into these businesses. This shortfall of parking spaces will seriously hurt the first floor retail establishments that are so important to the streetscape experience, the comfort of the residents of and the identity of Port Chester. Another benefit of developing off-site parking in a structured facility is that if future transportation needs change and almost automobile ownership decreases, these off-site structures can be repurposed or removed. “In lieu of fees” must be increased to make the building of structured parking and attainable goal. 5. Building heights My personal feeling is that 12 to 15 story buildings are just too large for downtown Port Chester but I think one issue that is important to recognize is that some of these tall buildings will be next- door to 2 and three-story buildings or lots with single-family homes. Because of this juxtaposition, I think it is important to think about the concept of “feathering” which means that [PAGE 8] building heights should step down gradually from taller buildings to shorter buildings for a more aesthetic appearance and to prevent the smaller buildings from being overwhelmed by the larger buildings. I am also worried that a large influx of rental housing at market rate will be a glut on the market and that these buildings will be at least partially empty which would destroy downtown Port Chester. If parking is limited and retail opportunities are limited for the tenants of these buildings, the apartments will be difficult to rent. As existing buildings are being razed and the new buildings are being built the retail tenants must relocate. This means that our restaurant capital will no longer be such. 6. Zoning While not a clay artist or even someone attends classes at the Clay Art Center, I think that the continued existence of the Clay Art Center in Port Chester is of paramount importance. The center is a draw of for people from all over Westchester and into Greenwich. In addition, the Clay Art Center provides classes in the Port Chester schools providing untold enrichment opportunities for students. The Clay Art Center also pairs with a number of nonprofits to offer classes for underserved communities. Allowing Clay Art Center to expand in the properties that it already owns by making zoning changes on Beech Street will allow them to launch a capital campaign and apply for grants to build a new facility where there are currently very old and outmoded buildings. In addition to the changes that Clay Art Center needs, it may be appropriate to think about adding some language to the zoning code to facilitate the development of artist housing or to allow other nonprofits to expand in their spaces or to build new facilities in Port Chester. If we want to attract new residents, we need to have a multitude of cultural offerings. Nora Freeman Hello committee members. My comments concerned shade, and so, by extension, trees. I live on King St. If I walk in almost any direction I will encounter very few trees, most of them small, or on private property and providing little or no shade beyond the property. Haseco Ave. and Poningo St. have a similar deficit. Going further afield, I have noticed an almost total lack of trees on Traverse Ave. and Purdy St. Notably, I have not observed that on Betsy Brown Road, for example. Clearly this is not a big issue at this time of year, but come summertime that will change, of course. I am sure you are aware that last summer was the hottest one on record since records have been kept. There is also the possibility that it may have been the hottest summer in 100,000 years, based on evidence found by paleoclimatologists at the bottom of lakes and oceans. Climate change can no longer be denied. Now we have to learn how to live with it, while we do the best we can to mitigate it. Learning how to live with it is a process that must take place at the local level. More mature trees on public property in sections of town with an existing shade deficit would go a long way towards that goal. I am aware of the problem posed by the fact that many of our more mature, therefore taller trees are pin oaks. It is unfortunate that previous generations planted so many of them not in parks but on streets, where their roots have done so much damage. However, when they are removed [PAGE 9] and replaced by saplings, or not at all, this only aggravates the shortage of shade in many areas of the village where it is already lacking. Please consider this outcome when removing mature trees for any reason. Thank you for holding this meeting and welcoming public comments. Kikki Short Thank you for asking for public input on this important issue. I know that zoning laws are complex and that development is a complicated issue. I am not against development in Port Chester by any means, but I have long been unhappy with zoning changes made when the Form Based Code was instituted. Although Plan the Port cited the Waterfront as one of the least successful areas in the entire Village, the FBC eliminated the maximum lot width and depth restrictions. Plan the Port cited the Waterfront’s blocky appearance and canyon-effect on the streets as discouraging pedestrian traffic and encouraging car traffic only. And yet, the FBC didn’t take these lessons into account and allowed for the creation of developments that are whole blocks. We have already seen that this leads to a developer purchasing the entire block, razing all the buildings [historic or not, charming or not] and turning the whole block into one building. The Tarry Lighthouse project will be over 300 feet long - that is radically larger than anything around it and feels enormous. When it is completed, it will tower over all the surrounding buildings. We would be much better off making lot size standards that fit in with current buildings. Before the FBC, the Village used a Floor Area Ratio, which then got changed to a 120 foot lot maximum in an explicit effort to avoid creating superblocks. And then the 120 foot maximum was dropped … so we have superblocks. Looking at the lot sizes of current buildings you would see that even 120 feet is on the outside edge (The Salvation Army). We would be better off limiting the lot size to less than 80’ and the height to less than 6 stories [or less than approximately 50 feet]. The current list of developments are single buildings taking the place of multiple smaller buildings, and adding many stories above. The adage, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” would seem to be applicable here. If one business out of ten fails and is looking for another tenant, that has very little impact on our Village. If an entire block fails, we all pay the price. In addition, I would like to encourage zoning that considers a building’s impact on its environment, not just economically, but socially as well. As Plan the Port wrote, no one is tempted to walk around the Waterfront and hang out. People scurry from one place to another or drive. If we want to revitalize our Village - and I think we all agree we do - we need to think about this holistically. Having an increase in greenscaping would attract pedestrian traffic and create spaces for people to shop and socialize. When buildings take the maximum footprint, sidewalks feel crowded and unpleasant. We need bigger setbacks and lower buildings. Good zoning changes could lead to a great revitalization. Emily Peck Thank you for taking the time to examine the zoning needs of Port Chester. Clay Art Center [PAGE 10] purchased 25 Beech Street across from our current locations so we can expand our facilities. In the local law that was passed a few months ago, our two current buildings at 38-40 Beech Street and 40 Beech Street were rezoned as CD4MU. 25 Beech Street was rezoned as R2F. As part of Beech Street is already zoned CD5 and the street behind 25 Beech Street is also CD5, it was suggested by trustees that the CD5/6 commission could rezone Beech Street into CD5 to allow us to continue our expansion plans. The majority of Beech Street is commercial usage and a large apartment complex. There are only 2 houses on the street so this would not impact the character of the street. Our goal with the expansion is to serve even more of the Port Chester community through grant funded, scholarship and paid programs, free exhibitions, community events and more. We are proud to serve the community with free afterschool programming at our studios and at Don Bosco throughout the week as well as provide programming for many local social service and community organizations. Thank you for the time you are spending making sure that Port Chester develops in a way that is best for the whole community! Paula Belli I feel that the village is overbuilding without considering that Port Chester is not a city. The. Village is losing its identity with too many buildings of great heights being built. Lauren Linkowski Unfortunately, due to my work schedule, I am unable to attend the 1/10 meeting on the Form Based Code study. I would like to provide some feedback and suggestions in lieu of attendance. I understand the need to modernize downtown Port Chester and revitalize its tax base; I am not arguing for a lack of development. However, as a resident of the downtown area (I live in the Landmark Building), I would like to voice several concerns in hopes that the development process results in a a diverse, equitable, and user-friendly village area. Concern 1: Concessions to Developers. It is obvious from the amount of interest in building in our village that Port Chester is being viewed by realtors and developers as "up and coming" and an opportunity. This is wonderful, but as demand rises, it is important to hold developers to standards in what they are giving our village. Specifically, developers should not get tax advantages to the point that the development actually costs the village money. Additionally, new developments should not have reduced expectations regarding the amount of parking they should provide, or what they pay towards infrastructure like sewer mitigation. Holding developers to the same standards as private owners will create a village that is more fair and has the infrastructure to grow over time. Concern 2: Local Business It is very clear to me as an observer that a lot of what is going on in our village is intentional: landlords neglect buildings to the point that they are "unsalvageable", so a developer buys the land, ad nauseum. This does not benefit residents - it is a visual blight on our village and displaces [PAGE 11] lower income residents and small business. I urge the board and all involved to recommend holding building owners to standards of habitation and if appropriate, historic preservation. Additionally, in the case of new development, I would advocate for street level retail space (unlike the Waterfront) which adds vibrancy and safety to the streetscape, and for that street level retail space to be small/medium in square footage. If the space is only large, it will at best be a mega- chain, or at worst, empty. Concern 3: Restrict the building of Cannabis-focused businesses I have no problem with legal Cannabis and do not mind if there is cannabis-based business in the village. However, there should be a limit on the amount of these. Unlike bars that sell alcohol but also food, THC lounges do not attract families. Additionally, our neighboring towns - Greenwich and Rye - do not allow such shops, meaning that Port Chester would become a hub for cannabis sales, again, taking all the burden (traffic, big box stores, etc.) that our wealthier neighbors want, but do not want in their town. Concern 4: Waterfront Safety I have been very pleased with the progress on our bulkhead/waterfront project. Please envision this area, when finished, to be well lit and allow businesses nearby - we want it to be safe, trafficked, and inviting. Concern 5: Fair Housing As an apartment owner, I appreciate that the village is sponsoring higher-density housing - this is the future of homes in our area. However, the village must study several things for each project including - having enough parking for every unit (there have been projects that assume that not all units will have cars, a fantasy in Westchester County), having safe entry/exit for those vehicles, and having affordable housing for low income people and senior citizens planned for the developments. Do not give on affordable housing, and most especially, do not believe any developer who says there will be "no extra burden" on the school district. Make them pay for what they will use/benefit from. While we are on this topic, I notice most of these buildings only have 1-2 bedrooms. If we want a healthy multigenerational community, 3 bedroom units are a necessity. Lastly, I hope this group will consider how to get input from our whole community - it sometimes feels like there are few efforts to include working families or people who do not speak English in village decisions, despite these groups being part of our community. In conclusion, I urge the committee and the board to study communities we want to be like, and not replicate negative behaviors from communities that have had less success. I am wishing you all the best in your work - I know it is not easy. Peter Coperine I was the Chairman of the CD-4 FBC Review Committee that concluded work in Feb 2023. The Committee requested permission of the BOT to extend it's scope to look at districts that bound the CD-4 areas and it was approved. The attached document (BOT Requested Changes - Outside of CD4) outlines the Committee's recommendations. Please note that we referenced a district CD-4X that the BOT renamed CD-4MU and accepted some of the recommendations and went [PAGE 12] further in some of the areas in our recommendation but did NOT address any of the changes to the various districts that bound CD-4. I have also attached a second document (Map Letter Projects - Parking) that I prepared for the Planning Commission and BOT in April, 2023. This document outlines the parking shortfalls and traffic concerns with all of the new development. I hope these documents are reviewed and recommendations taken into consideration in your work. The physical Village infrastructure just cannot handle the development already approved and potentially more to come. It is critical that changes are made to the current FBC by reducing building stories, density, parking, reducing potential traffic and for the overall quality of life for the Village residents. Recommendations for change to zoning districts outside of the CD-4 November 1, 2022 The CD-4 Review Committee has also looked at areas that bound the CD-4 district and see zoning inconsistencies related to transitional zones along with building height (feathering), density, lack of following standard block and street boundaries when establishing districts and potential traffic, density, and quality of life issues. At your meeting on October 17, 2022, the BOT directed the CD-4 Review Committee to continue with our work and submit recommendations for the November 1, 2022, Agenda meeting. (Refer to the notes within the map 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5 and the justification below. Map is the last page of this document) • 1 – Cross sections of Palace Place, Summerfield Place, King Street, Pearl Street, Irving Avenue and Poningo Street, re-zone CD-6 to CD-5; Recommendation based on the consistent historical zoning use, environmental impacts of traffic, parking, density, transitional zoning, feathering building heights and preservation of quality-of-life issues • 2 -Westchester Ave as it abuts the end 3 blocks of Oak Street, Grove Street and Smith Street rezone CD-5 to CD-4 to achieve historical zoning consistency and density continuity along the east side of Westchester Ave • 3a – Cross sections of Pearl Street, Westchester Avenue, and Smith Street rezone CD-6 to CD-4 or CD-4X (if BOT accepts the CD-4X recommendation). Recommendation based on the consistent historical zoning use, environmental impacts of traffic, parking, density, transitional zoning, feathering building heights and preservation of quality-of-life issues • 3b – The block bounded by Smith Street, West Williams Street and Pearl Street (See #2 above and Westchester Ave) rezone CD-5 & CD-6 to CD-4 or CD-4X (if BOT accepts the CD- 4X recommendation). Recommendation based on the consistent historical zoning use, environmental impacts of traffic, parking, density, transitional zoning, feathering building heights and preservation of quality-of-life issues [PAGE 13] • 4a – Smith Street (northeast side), FBC improperly zoned properties, rezone CD-5 to R2F to eliminate potential spot zoning, inconsistent zoning, transitional height and density, and preservation of quality of life, (this may have been a printing error on the map). • 4b – Abendroth Place and Willett Avenue, FBC improperly zoned properties, rezone CD-5 to R2F to eliminate potential spot zoning, inconsistent zoning, transitional height and density, and preservation of quality of life, (this may have been a printing error on the map). • 5 – Fox Island Road…… allow for enhancement of the CD-5W district development, possible PDU, PRD, PMU allow transitional development to enhance the current mixed uses. • Building Permit - ARTICLE 8: ADMINISTRATION, PROCEDURE & ENFORCEMENT, 7. Expiration or Lapse of Approval, “If a Building Permit related to an approved Site Plan application is not issued within three (3) years from the date the Site Plan was approved, the Site Plan approval shall expire.” Recommendation: Recommend this Section be amended to allow 1 year for the issuance of a building permit. An extension or extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission in any increments up to 3 years from the Site Plan approval. This will allow the Village to monitor the applicants progress and good faith commitment to build their approved project. This will also prevent sites from sitting idle and in disrepair as the applicant has no emphasis to move the work along. This will protect the Village and its residents from looking at rundown buildings and empty lots only to see 3 years go by and the application expires. (Comments and map continue on the next page.) [PAGE 15] I just wanted to share a document that I put together that outlines the projects that have been built, approved, and proposed in the downtown and surrounding area. This is like the document that the Planning Staff puts out but mine is focusing on parking and traffic concerns. I hope this prompts discussion at the upcoming meetings as we continue to receive new projects and no action has been taken to attempt to address concerns that have been raised by the Planning Commission and the Public. On the map below (not exactly to scale, but the distances are correct) you will see all the projects color coded. ORANGE currently exist, YELLOW is approved and RED are proposed. Please keep in mind that there are other projects that will be coming down the road within this same area. You will also see a Blue line that outlines all but one of the projects. This area in the Blue rectangle is an area .2 x .5 miles (1,056’ x 2,640’). All this development and more in this small area. Can the narrow streets (Westchester, Pearl, Irving, Broad, Palace and Willett) really handle the traffic we have today and what these developments will bring? Please do not forget water, sewer and power and drain on municipal services such as police, fire, EMT, sanitation. The only thing that I agree with the developers is that the number of school aged children that will be generated from these projects is very low based on actual data, not subject matter experts using data from industry standards that do not reflect the specific conditions of each individual municipality. Existing, Approved and Proposed Residential Buildings in the Port Chester Downtown/Business Area <------------------------------------------------ 0.2 mile------------------------------------------------> Po ytu ae B ,e ciffO tso P r A P t E R P i e ro tS ro u q iL & n o la S X o O P I n R S P T o O O I f V N S W E E G to L g n ikra P e galliV D D ashin 2 2 g W I & 2 0 t r o 3 4 v e S n - - i s n t 2 2 t o M 2 2 g ' r r 7 0 e e w s O s W , t F A h e i e p s r c P t e r a o c o r S H h r t n t n m e o o i e s n u r e r t e g s e n o e s o r t f w a a B t n i l t d d h g t t e e e e r r t t S S o o g g n n i i n n o o P P Westc Ir h v e in st g S e e ca lP e ca la P im r o 2 n 0 K B 8 i h tim S u - n 2 1 i g 9 l 1 5 d 6 5 P i n a Ir l g K v a M H 2 i i c S n n 8 o e e o T g g u P n d h s s e p i e e i o a n o r r r n g r l t l r t a t e e l l r r l P a a li e e . W N P P W C 1 K 7 5 1 T a 2 4 i i l s h 2 n 0 l t re tse h ctse W e e 9 - g l 1 e t t 5 4 0 4 W a B n T e r d o h s a t e R c 3 d e h C 0 s e a B t p s u r t i o r e t a a a r n l d t d ra o rB d d w a a o o e r r N B B St L a o t f i g n ikra P & n o ita tS h tro N o rte M t o s n 10 E 1 8 2 m 8 M M - T S - 1 b 2 h a . a 6 a 0 e i M i n s n S S s a . y . i n n ia M h tro N n ia M h tu o S Li 2 g P 7 h M T M - o t I a 4 v h r a a r 5 t y o i i r n n y & N u s . e h to rd n e b A Ma T r h in e e r -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e - - l - - 5 i - - m . - - 0 <- - [PAGE 16] Now look at the numbers in the recap below: • 3,681 units • 3,164 parking spaces provided on-site • 706 residential parking spaces short to meet a 1:1 ratio of actual on-site parking to units • 149+ parking space shortage for retail uses, Shared Parking option in the code requires updating • 5,638 people squeezed into this small area with what is on the table today (Comments and graphs continue on the next page.) [PAGE 17] Existing Residential On-Site Retail Parking Estimated Project Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3BR Total Parking Parking Requirements 3 Population 1 Shortfall The Castle 4 60 40 20 0 120 182 0 No Retail 170 The Mariner4 50 25 25 0 100 149 0 No Retail 150 The Modern 15 26 9 0 50 46 4 No Retail 77 Kingsport Senior 7 121 1 0 129 54 75 No Retail 130 Port & Main 4 40 39 0 0 79 0 0 2 0 2 99 TOTALS 172 251 55 0 478 431 79 0 625 Approved Residential On-Site Retail Parking Estimated Project Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3BR Total Parking Parking Requirements 3 Population 1 Shortfall 229 Willett 10 35 16 10 71 38 33 No Retail 138 208-216 King 36 58 80 11 185 152 33 No Retail 362 44 Broad 98 168 70 0 336 322 14 10,370 sf / 21 spots 525 28 Pearl 75 70 49 0 194 124 70 No Retail 303 140-150 Westchester 98 87 38 0 223 112 111 4,763 sf /10 spots 324 30 Broad 13 23 0 0 36 0 36 4,896 sf / 10 spots 48 18-20 S. Main 52 54 14 0 120 90 30 19,083 sf / 38 spots 168 2-16 S. Main 60 202 63 0 325 332 0 6,766 sf / 14 spots 521 Tarry Lighthouse 74 85 50 0 209 271 0 Satisfied On-Site 327 Ivy (27-45 N. Main) 50 108 45 0 203 144 59 9,975 sf / 20 spots 325 Station Lofts 34 85 61 0 180 224 0 No Retail 314 108 S. Main 40 35 20 0 95 128 0 Satisfied On-Site 143 TOTALS 640 1010 506 21 2177 1937 386 113 3494 Proposed Residential On-Site Retail Parking Estimated Project Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3BR Total Parking Parking Requirements 3 Population 1 Shortfall 157 Westchester 52 106 32 0 190 110 80 1,465 sf / 3 spots 291 155 Irving/9 Palace 54 106 21 0 181 124 57 2,135 sf / 4 spots 266 223 West'r/204 Irving 232 169 20 0 421 317 104 2,190 sf / 4 spots 536 The Embassy 28 120 82 4 234 245 0 11,860 sf / 24 spots 427 TOTALS 366 501 155 4 1026 796 241 36 1519 GRAND TOTALS 1178 1762 716 25 3681 3164 706 149 5638 Notes 1 Studio = 1 person 2 Parking provided within G&S properties 1 BR - 1.5 people 3 Based on square footage and use (utilized Personal Service Establisment, least intensive use) 2 BR = 2.5 people Personal Services Establishment 1 per 500 square feet of total Usable Floor Area 3 BR = 3.5 people 4 Unit split is estimated Sure, some of these developers paid down the parking but where are these cars going? Sure, a parking garage would help if people were willing to walk a distance but what about the existing residents that also need parking to reduce the existing parking issues we have today? Just from these projects above we potentially have 850+ cars looking for a place to park. [PAGE 18] Urgent items that need to be addressed that should not require in depth study, just common sense: • All zones, on-site parking o Eliminate the parking buy down option. o 1:1 for Studio apartments o 1:1.5 for 1 BR, 2 for 2 BR, 2.5 for 3 BR o Correct number for 1, 2 and multi-family homes • Shared Parking needs to be re-written or eliminated from the code. o Retail parking must be accounted for within the on-site parking requirements. • Average Grade, any story that is above grade at any point of the building should be counted as a story. • Re-establish the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to address building design and finish issues. • Reduce the time from 3 years to 1 year for site plan approval expiration but give the applicant up to 1 additional year to request an extension from the Planning Commission (total 2 years). This is the only item that would need to be studied to determine the right size and the appropriate areas: • CD-5, CD-6, CD-6T, determine what the correct height and areas. Just some personal thoughts: • Port & Main has no on-site parking and only 3 tenants, is it the rent costs, lack of accessible parking or both? • With all these buildings going up, what does PC offer that would have people move here rather than White Plains, Stamford, Harrison, Mamaroneck, Larchmont, or New Rochelle? • What if all these buildings are built and units cannot be rented? • Something needs to be done with the vacant buildings/store fronts where projects have been approved and are waiting for work to begin. Get the owners to clean up the store fronts, remove all the advertising and try to make it look decent rather than what we have today. Maintain the fencing, clean the trash, etc. • Consider using the Traffic Enforcement people to work overnight to address the parking issues rather than the Police. We would have more consistent parking enforcement and I’m sure the salaries would more than be covered by the violations issued. • These big residential developments will NOT save Port Chester without also taking care of the residential areas via zoning map changes, zoning code definition changes and code and parking enforcement. Initially go after the obvious things like trash, parking, and public safety issues before we lose the entire Village. • I have lived in PC for 70 years and travel these streets every day and see the traffic we currently have and cannot imagine what it will be like once all the projects go on-line. [PAGE 19] Linda Turturino Thank you for the meeting you held which allowed for public input. It would have been a more productive event if people focused on the topic of the CD5-CD6 districts and less on personal agendas. Hoping there will be another meeting to get additional comments from others. Just a bit of background on me. My family settled in PC in the 1800's and my grandfather was part of the engineering firm of Daly and Merritt that built the road in Liberty Square and the famous bathhouses at Oakland Beach. For 3-years I worked for BLT in Stamford and was the Marina Administrator for Harbor Point Marinas. I was witness to the creation of the South End revitalization with new buildings being developed and built. It was such an incredible experience and all I kept saying is "It can be done". The south end was not a safe place to go day or night, it was a mess and a complete eyesore. It now has been transformed into a beautiful space where people do "Live, Work and Play", from the amazing waterfront, beautiful buildings with great amenities, food options, amazing waterfront, and programing in the park with events to bring people to the area. It is a fun spot and people really enjoy living there. There is NO issue with parking as all the buildings have sufficient parking and visitor guest spots. There are options for street and structured parking as well. It is a good combination of residential and commercial and all seem happy who live and visit the area. PORT CHESTER PARKING: We need better signs to direct people to utilize the Metro North parking lots and the parking structure where the movie theaters are. It would be nice to have a new parking structure near or in the downtown area somewhere so it can be utilized by all. I do believe the 1:1 ratio for new buildings is the correct one. Any parking problems that currently exist in our Village are not being caused by any of the new developments. 1. There should be streets that allow overnight parking and streets that don't. 2. There should be a list of streets that when a weather emergency is called, lots of rain or snow, cars should be moved off those streets and cars towed that don't move, ie enforcement. DEVELOPERS: Instead of developers telling us what they are going to do for the Village, we should bring ideas to them. They are NOT the enemy and not all are money grabbers. They want to be proud of what they have created and don't want negativity overshadowing their projects. We are very lucky to have the developers we have. I have met many of them and they want to help make Port Chester better. It is amazing that everyone thinks the new buildings are going ruin PC. In fact, it is just the opposite. The new buildings will be built up to code and will not be modified from the original plans once completed. There are a massive number of homes throughout this Village that have been modified from the original plans, allowing landlords to take advantage with unsafe units that have NO egress, no fire alarms, some with no heat, all to make money to pay for the second and in some cases third homes. While these landlords sit fat and happy breaking the laws [PAGE 20] and stretching village services, these are the enemies that have taken this Village down and ruining it. No one talks about that though. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: We need a balance of housing, which is affordable, convenient, safe, and most of all an option for people who currently live here and are in their 60's to be able to downsize and want to stay here in PC. This would be a great perk for long time PC people, like myself, not to have to leave the area because there is nothing here that suits their housing needs. This can be done in the downtown area as well as other areas in the Village. My vision for Downtown Port Chester is keeping a “Village feel” as much as possible while welcoming new development. Small businesses with a good mix of different types of restaurants and unique businesses that will draw people to come eat and shop. The waterfront is critical and should have better security, new and expanded docks to make Port Chester a water front destination to support Port Chester businesses. That said, it would require a harbormaster and staff to manage the marine traffic that would come from this. In closing, I feel that at this time any changes made to the code should be done based on researched based facts that would benefit the Village. Keith Morlino I understand the need to make changes to the comprehensive zoning plan to address things such as additional parking traffic, etc. but when the village had proceeded on this endeavor over a decade ago., the village had done a very encompassing and inclusive public reach out for input along with several studies. With over 40 meetings, several public collaboration meetings that included hundreds of residential families, retail owners, business owners, landlord property owner's renters the village did an excellent job of inclusion. It opened up the need for development and encouraged a Renaissance that was desperately needed downtown. Now fast forward to the present and the fear is that it will reverse all of these comprehensive collective inclusive changes to the village code. I don’t disagree. Some changes are probably necessary, but here are the concerns that we all should have. 1) How many of the recommendations will be made with these recommendations that the committee that was formed will still encourage development or will it just end up discouraging not only current development, but any future development with the prospects of going backwards. Has anyone reached out to the developers to see how this will affect their future plans and even develop the property they had purchased prior to all these changes ? 2) Does this also put us in a situation of additional lawsuits? It was pretty clear that these changes were made after many the purchases of many of these commercial property lots. Does this further expose the village? 3) Another concern I have is the current selection criteria and 15 member committee were making these changes. is it representative of the village based on what originally was proposed to the village? I must remind the committee we had 100’s of people involved in the process. Very [PAGE 21] inclusive to many of the residents and business owners. These changes are now being made by 15 people over course of a few months. Originally this had taken years almost a decade to come to fruition just seems very quick and proprietary not accurately, reflecting the village demographics. 4) Has anyone or the committee I’ve reached out directly to all the developers and see if they can work out some of these recommendations prior to the board voting on them, and implemented them to avoid any future litigation 5) My other fear is at the damage has been done already. Even if we were able to work with the current commercial landowners what message have we sent to any future development? 6) If height restrictions are now reduced, how will the consistency of already approved buildings look in the village? We already have a majority of the downtown and many buildings grandfathered in under the current comprehensive zone in plan. We make these changes we will have an incomplete and uninformed view. it will no longer resemble a comprehensive planned out municipality I understand the need for change comprehensive zone and plan was never meant to be set in stone, but to be a living and breathing document. That being said, what will these changes due to the future of development the concern is, it will not only stagnate development it will stop it completely or any future development. George Ford The Village of Port Chester, its professional staff, planners, other third party professional organizations and residents, all spent the time to study and eventually approve a Form Based Code (FBC). This was specifically done to provide a solution for downtown development and to create a sustainable financial future for the Village. Here we are today (January 2024), wasting time and valuable resources on studying the newly approved FBC simply because a small group of people within the Village don't like what was approved or they don't want to see Port Chester progress, evolve and change for the better. Many of the comments made during your public input session were outside the boundaries of the CD5-CD6 committee's task, but you allowed them. As I stated in my public commentary to you that same night, this committee needs to agree and be clear as to what the decision criteria is for recommending any changes to the approved FBC. Political agendas and personal opinions are not the decision criteria, all decisions should be based solely on factual and supportive information to any change(s) while ensuring they are in the best interest of moving the Village forward without halting development. We continue to hear that the Village has three main issues: Parking, Traffic and Infrastructure. While this may in fact be true, let's be very clear, these issues are not being caused by any new developments. So rather then using this as the basis for stopping new development, the question needs to be asked and addressed outside the scope of development, Why do we have these issues and what's causing these issues? The answer is simple: the Village has a significant amount of unsafe and illegal housing that is causing the Parking, Traffic, and Infrastructure issues. If the Village were to finally get serious on [PAGE 22] Code Enforcement and Prosecution, things would be a lot different. We cannot allow property owners to beat the system (theft of services), these are the people and/or corporations who are making money off our backs, don't blame the developers, they are trying to improve our Village. Do we want broken down eyesores in our downtown like the buildings on the corner of Westchester Avenue and S Main St? How did they get to the condition they're in today, that they now need to be torn down? Answer = no real code enforcement or prosecution and no accountability. As a member of the CD-4 Committee, we highlighted in our report to the BOT that this needs to be addressed once and for all, I implore you to do the same so our Village will look better, operate better and more buildings/houses won't need to be knocked down. I recommend this committee review ALL materials from Planapalooza and Plan the Port to understand why and how the FBC came to be what it is today. As I stated in my public comments to you, one of your committee members, Mr. Passarelli, participated in these meetings/events and is now on our Planning Commission, he has the insights and direct knowledge. One thing I learned through these events, was that the FBC was the tool that would simplify the Village's development and approval process, taking political or personal agendas out of the mix. How? The word "Form" is specific to what you can and cannot do, if a project checks the boxes within the FBC (number of stories, parking spaces, glass glazing, setbacks, type of materials, type of units etc etc), then they receive approval to move forward. The idea is not to have each and every project stand in front of an ARB where a particular member may not like a light fixture and nitpick about that, wasting Village time and resources. It's my understanding the Planning Commission is there to do the "box checking" and to be the gate keeper for the projects. These are things that the FBC has detailed already for the developers and the Village, ask your consultant from Cameron Engineering to explain this. The committee should also ask the IDA to present and walk you through the financial spreadsheets for just one of the already approved projects that is receiving a PILOT. Let them show you what taxes would've been paid if nothing was done at one of these projects versus what will be paid with a new development receiving approvals and a PILOT over that same 20-year term. It was interesting to hear some public members balk at the idea that developments are stabilizing our tax base. After that night, I reviewed assessments and taxes paid on single family homes from 2018 through 2023, the numbers are eye opening. While assessments have increased significantly, taxes have gone up minimally, even though last year the BOT raised the tax levy by 7%. How is that so? Because development is working to level out our homestead tax rates. My last point, rental markets will ebb and flow, our new developments are ALL rented despite people twisting the facts that they are not. And on the question of - "Do we need more? Will they rent?" - Well ask Governor Hochul or Senator Shelley Mayer. You can also find the answer in this report: https://link.zixcentral.com/u/9779674b/JMqyDni17hGk6dPW- uoD4Q?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.governor.ny.gov%2Fnews%2Fgovernor-hochul-announces- statewide-strategy-address-new-yorks-housing-crisis-and-build-800000 I thank you all for serving our Village in this endeavor and wish you luck. I again ask you to make informed decisions outside of your own personal opinions of what you like or don't like, and solely base the decisions on facts and what will be in the best interest of the Village long-term. [PAGE 23] Chris Pierro (Text sent as a .png file and can only be inserted as an image.) Zula Ruda Good afternoon, I am writing this statement to ask you about my complaint about the state of the town of Port Chester. He reported that the rent is very high, for example: a room WITHOUT access to a kitchen is charged $1,200 dollars, this is very unfair. Furthermore, as in a state where there is no employment, we do not have the protection of any institution that can do and say for us about the cost of living. We are suffocated about this situation, we are a group of members of workers who are outside Don Bosco waiting to see if someone comes and takes us to work so we can earn a day. We are mothers and fathers, please put your hand on your heart and look around at our hard and sad situation. I came to this country to grow with this country not to be a burden on this country. I want to grow in this country. The Don Bosco workers in Port Chester want you to take us into account, since we are the ones who pay the bill when they give tax cuts to new developments. Jackie Welsh I am writing to ask you to rezone Beech Street from its current mistaken R2 designation to MU4 or 5. Both the existing uses which are Mult Use and the topographical situation at the same elevation and usage as Purdy Street which is CD5, reinforce the case for Beech Street to be rezoned. Currently both the churches Saint John Bosco and New Hope Kingdom Wellness are zoning CD4. As you probably know the existing character of Beech St is already Mixed Use and I strongly believe it should stay that way. There is a need in Port Chester for these small commercial businesses and non profits: Clay Art Center, Concrete Cutting, CJ Tool, Wohl Diversified Services, Port Chester Auto Repair that co-exist with the few remaining 2+ family houses, public housing and the two churches. Topographically Beech Street is at the same grade elevation as Purdy Street that is zoned CD5. This zoning splits the Beech Street North side block with R2 rear yards backing on CD5. The residential area on the elevated plateau on which Central Avenue sits, bisects the Beech Street block on the south side and is at an elevation +/- 15 feet above Beech Street. Beech street on the south side acts as a retaining wall for the Central Avenue housing. It would make sense for [PAGE 24] residential zoning to begin on the top of this plateau and not on the much lower mixed use Beech Street. For twenty years i have had an artist studio at the Clay Art Center and I love the commercial character of Beech Street and our neighbors, I also love Port Chester and its diversity and I attended many of the zoning workshops organized by planning and zoning to explain and get input for form based zoning.. As an architect with many years of experience with zoning issues i appreciate how complicated this issue can be and appreciate and thank you for your hard work and dedication to making Port Chester an wonderful place to live and work. Frederique Sol I attended the January 10 th meeting and wish to comment on the amount of development that has been pushed through by the Board of Trustees, Planning Dept and developers since the BOT signed off on the Form-Based Code. Many of us were preoccupied with staying safe during Covid when the code was approved which really is a disgrace. While the Westmore News and the Journal News have done articles on various development projects, to actually see the 34 projects in various stages was eye popping. This wouldn’t happen in Chappaqua, Irvington or Pelham. I grew up in Terryville, a small section of Port Jefferson Station which was up the two-lane road from Port Jefferson on Long Island. PJ had a walkable downtown, a ferry to Connecticut, fantastic school system, etc. It was a nightmare to get to during the spring and summer because of the traffic. Just like Port Chester has been for a very long time. I can’t even think of going to the Kneaded Bread because the intersection where they are located at is always too busy. I moved to New Rochelle in 1996 and saw various buildings go up in downtown New Rochelle as I commuted into the city. There was nothing in New Rochelle besides food shopping at Stop and Shop or Costco, various parks that needed a NR Parks Pass or Westchester County Parks Pass. I shopped at the Curtain Store (a true NR asset), the Bread Factory and dined in some very good restaurants. I remember reading the Journal News articles about the development occurring in Port Chester. What a nightmare for the various businesses that lined Main Street. Using eminent domain to rip out businesses for a Walgreens with a postage sized parking lot in addition to massive concrete walls around the Waterfront shopping district is reason to avoid shopping here at all costs. I moved to Port Chester in 2015 to be closer to my job in Rye Brook. I may live here but each week drive to the Palmer Ave Stop and Shop and visit the ShopRite a couple of times a month. I prefer the Costco in New Rochelle. During Covid, I was almost hit by a car driven by a handicapped person in the Stop & Shop parking lot which made me so angry that I said, screw it, I will not support this store especially since I hate the dark parking lot. Someone at the January 10 th meeting mentioned that retail is dead so the only way our tax base is going to grow is by development. That’s a crock of garbage. The Kohl’s shopping center is a fairly decent place to shop but only at the right time of day. It won’t be once the United Hospital site is up and running considering BPR traffic. The Target is way too small as is the Costco at the Waterfront. We will go to Target in Connecticut or Yonkers before Port Chester’s. Colony Pizza opened in the only parking lot available to shoppers who wanted to visit restaurants like Coals [PAGE 25] (now in Norwalk and still making the best burgers) or drop off shoes at Occhicone’s for repair without having to feed a meter for the privilege of spending money in your own village. We have a marina but thanks to an incompetent government and a shady, greedy developer, we can’t use it. We can use tax dollars to repair it but who even knows that it’s there? Please, for the good of the people of Port Chester, please stop and take a serious look at what a monster the Board of Trustees created when they shoved this on us. We went to the meetings, told you what we wanted, what PC needed, however, rather than listening to us, the developers came first. Now, we have to recommend a dog park, more greenery, more parks, etc. because concrete doesn’t quite make living here enjoyable. Rye Brook’s Pine Ridge Park which I visited almost daily is what we need here. More places to actually enjoy the outdoors rather than be cooped up behind concrete walls. Kevin Leahey First, let me thank you for taking the time to volunteer to serve on the newly formed Committee. We know that you are all donating valuable time that otherwise could be spent with your families, so thank you! I also want to thank you for holding a public comment period on Tuesday, January 9th, where members of the community as well as business owners and developers had an opportunity to engage in open and collaborative dialogue. I found the discussions to be both productive and informative. As some of you may know, I am the principal and founder of The Renatus Group (“TRG”). TRG is a real estate investment and development company that has been in business since 2008 and active in Port Chester since 2010. More importantly, in 2019 we moved our headquarters to Port Chester. We are the developers behind the recently completed Floor and Décor property at 130 Midland Avenue which took a blighted vacant site and developed it into a substantial employer that generates jobs and tax revenue for Port Chester. We have also owned and managed more than 30 properties in Port Chester over the past decade. Additionally, we are the developers of the recently approved 336 unit, 15-story property located at 44 Broad Street in the CD6T zoning district. I highlight some of these items to demonstrate that we have been invested in and committed to Port Chester for over a decade and we have substantial interest in the success of the Village of Port Chester as a whole. Even though our project is fully approved, we are still extremely vested in making sure that the Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Trustees have the most detailed information at their disposal prior to making any changes to the zoning code that will potentially negate the comprehensive planning process that preceded the adoption of the form based code, and could negatively impact the growth and success of Port Chester. Below are some comments, suggestions, and take-aways from the meeting. Why Port Chester? Why Now? • Port Chester has the potential to be the most attractive and dynamic Village in Westchester. Key differentiators include: • Arguably the most walkable transit-oriented development (“TOD”) market in all of Westchester • Amazing history of cultural diversity reflect in local residents and businesses • Excellent restaurant scene [PAGE 26] • The Capital Theatre • However, Port Chester is at an economic inflection point providing the necessity for economic development, both residentially and commercially, that will generate revenue for the Village and jobs for Village residents • Items that Need to be Addressed for Port Chester to reach its full potential • Aging and failing infrastructure • Dilapidated Main Street corridor • Local job creation • One of the highest Homestead and Non-Homestead tax rates • Lack of a balanced disposable income ratio for local economic generation • Uncertainty in the investment community about whether Port Chester is committed to the growth and development of the Village The CD5 & CD6 Location: • This is the TOD core of the Village due to its proximity to the MTA train stop and Main Street commercial district. • This is the area where you want the most residential density given its proximity to Main Street where locals can walk to local businesses and public transportation. • Years of development planning and review went into the proposed building heights and density allowance to achieve the best results for the Village. • More than 50 public comment periods, Planning Board and Board of Trustee meetings were involved in this decision. Lack of Collaboration & Communication: • My key take-away from attending dozens of meetings and the most recent public hearing of the Committee is that there can be greater collaboration and communication between the multiple Village agencies involved, the residential community, and the commercial business and development community. The Village underwent a comprehensive visioning and planning process before adopting the form based code in 2020—one that brought residents, business owners, developers and elected officials together to collectively “plan the port.” This process has not continued with the recent contemplated changes to the form based code. 3 Improved collaboration and communication will allow Village leaders, Village residents and business owners to better understand the rationale behind the Village’s zoning regulations and empower them to support initiatives that encourage growth and investment in Port Chester. Building Heights & Parking Ratios: • It is important that all parties involved in the decision-making process – Village officials, residents and business leaders – understand the economics of real estate investment and what makes investment possible. Again, this was a critical element of the Village’s adoption of the form based code in 2020. • Building heights are a key component to the balance between residential density and parking ratios. • Building heights and floor plate sizes are directly related to the ability to provide onsite parking Smaller floorplates and low-rise developments make parking spaces difficult to create Parking efficiency is derived from floorplate sizes due to ramp necessity and curb cut [PAGE 27] access from the street • Building heights are also a key driver in construction cost efficiency Smaller buildings are more expensive to build Larger buildings allow for amortized costs across more square footage, resulting in efficiencies that could make or break the viability of a project. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Home - Institute of Transportation Engineers (ite.org) - ITE has detailed empirical data and information that should be relied on as part of any decision that is made by the Village. This information was utilized by the Village as part of the Form Based code review. Below are some of the highlights as they relate to the CD5 and CD6 districts. Also attached here as Exhibits A & B • The ITE studies provide recommendations for parking requirements. • The CD5 and CD6 downtown area would fall into the Dense Multi-Use Urban setting within 1⁄2 mile of transit. For High Rise projects (10+ stories), ITE studied facilities that had on average a 0.94 parking ratio but was only 79% occupied (0.75 demand ratio). For Mid-rise projects (4-10 stories), the average parking ratio was lower than the high rise at a 0.88 parking ratio with 88% occupied (0.71 demand ratio). • Based on this information, empirical data studies suggest a parking ratio of less than 1 space per unit is more in line with actual usage and demand statistics. Entitlement and Project Timelines: • Timing and predictability are critical components when making a significant investment (millions of dollars) in a real estate project • Without a form-based code, it can take 12-18 months or longer to complete the site plan approval process. • Long site plan approvals delay development, extend the market risk of a project’s viability and make development less attractive when compared to other communities. o Effects of Unnecessary Delays • Missing market supply and demand cycle • Interest rate risk • Supply chain and construction cost risk • The form-based code should allow for a streamlined approval process of 3-4 months. • Projects would have a standardized review process eliminating the subjective procedural process. • This provides a clear, transparent path that can enable significant investment. Development Timelines • Once site plan approval is obtained, developments still have a lengthy and costly process prior to putting a shovel in the ground. • Projects can easily take 10-14 months to begin building after site plan approval. • From the start of a site plan approval process to the completion of a project the full lease up of a building could take between 4-7 years depending on the size of the project. How does this all apply to the CD5 & CD6 Committee? • Fast and sweeping changes to the newly established code would be inconsistent with the Village’s comprehensive plan and vision for revitalizing the downtown and create instability [PAGE 28] in the market and scare away potential investors who lose faith in the Village. • Setting a precedent that drastic changes could be made at any moment is not supportive of long-term decision making for Village leaders, residents, and business owners, any of whom have invested significant time, money and resources premised upon the vision and plans that the form based code is supposed to facilitate. • Lack of properly considering development fundamentals prior to code changes can lead to lower investment and growth. • Risk of approved projects being forced to reapply to the new code requirements in the event they can’t build in the original approval timelines creates additional risk for potential investors. • The newly proposed local law amending the code to increase the parking ratio for new applications from 1:1 to 1:1.5 is not based on any public parking study indicating a need for this requirement. • The Village should allow projects to get developed in line with the existing code which went through a comprehensive process and was based on a long-term vision for the Village focused on growth and employment. Any effort to make changes or reassess the existing code should be based on actual data and individuals should not rush to judgement before anything has even been completed. The grandfathering of all currently approved projects for five years from any changes the Committee recommends. Thus, allowing current projects to receive a reasonable amount of time to begin construction given all the unexpected challenges faced by the Village. Items the Committee should also consider: • Not a single project approved under the Form-Based code has broken ground since receiving approvals. • Not a single project has been able to obtain a building permit because of the lack of willingness to serve letters and the ongoing Veolia issue regarding the water supply. • Many projects have lost one-year of approval time or more due to the Veolia issue, which as of today still has not been resolved. • Port Chester has the highest fair share mitigation costs of any comparable municipality. • Changing the parking ratio from 1:1 to 1:1.5 without any empirical data or supporting studies will prevent future investment and development and will prevent our Village from incorporating existing and proposed development to complete a full build out over time. • Lack of new development causes retail to stagnate and our Village will experience increased vacancy rates. Conclusion In summary, we simply ask that the Committee take these items into consideration and not be hasty in their recommendations. Making the wrong decision or sending the wrong message to the broader community of residents, business owners, and potential investors in Port Chester can cause the economic situation of the Village to continue to get worse, infrastructure to continue to deteriorate and discourage future investment in our Village. In the meantime, we would welcome the opportunity to follow this up with another in-person meeting where we can further discuss these items in a collaborative environment and provide additional facts and clarity where it may be helpful. [PAGE 29] Howie Ravikoff I look forward to hearing what the Committee is considering. I hope you offer the public an opportunity to respond to your draft guidance before you present a final set of recommendations to the BOT. In addition to the thoughts I expressed in person the other day, I'd like to add following; The BOT has given you a nebulous charge: “…the focus of the committee shall be to review, comment and recommend proposed changes to the Code regarding issues such as building heights, parking ratios, shared parking, green and park space, fees in lieu of parkland, lot lines/setbacks and the design and appearance of buildings…” With the initiation of an advisory committee, the BOT is stating the current Form Based Code in character districts 5, 6 and 6T is inadequate. But how is it inadequate? The BOT is asking you to revisit decisions of those that came before you and do better. The BOT is stating after years of study, after dozens of touch points with the public, after hundreds of thousands of dollars invested with professionals in multiple zoning related fields, the authors of the current code with all their credentials…simply got it wrong. Have you identified what is it they got wrong? How was their work product deficient? MOST IMPORTANTLY: what are you doing that is better? What are you doing that is better than what was done before you were given this open ended task? It's my opinion that you need to be able to provide the BOT with guidance that is clear, complete and substantiated. You need to provide evidence to support your guidance and evidence to support the discarding of the alternatives. If you can’t provide evidence as to why the current code is bad and if you can't provide new recommendations that are substantiated then what your offering is arbitrary. I hope your conclusions are not arbitrary. In my opinion that would be worse than keeping the code we have today in place. Maybe your review will conclude that you just don’t have the time or resources to do the task at hand. Maybe you will conclude the Form Based Code as it is written in to law today is the best choice for this Village. Maybe you will conclude only minor clerical type changes are needed. Again, thank you for your dedication to the improvement of our Village. One final thought: should you choose to make any recommendations please quantify them. E.g. if you recommend the potential heights of buildings change please share with the BOT what that change means in terms of tax dollars being collected. If you choose to recommend more parking be built with a new development, please share with the BOT what change that will result in. Will it slow down development? A simple cause and effect in terms of what we have versus what you recommend. [PAGE 30] Linda Bradford As a long-time resident of Port Chester, I am concerned with the continuation of conventional zoning that would affect the overdevelopment of our downtown area. We are a small village and continued construction and overdevelopment consisting of large building structures that would house both commercial and residential sites will have a negative impact. Creating form-based zoning for downtown PC will minimize building heights and density, allow space for additional parking areas, stop traffic congestion, create walking paths and parkland areas. We need areas for recreational and cultural activities and having more green spaces can also reduce air pollution and improve the overall quality of life in our village. Carol Chevlowe My name is Carol Chevlowe and I have been involved with Clay Art Center since 2005. I am the past board President and continue to serve on the board today. For the last 20 years I have firsthand knowledge of the extent of Clay Art Center’s deep roots in the community. The value and economic impact we add to the local community by providing free exhibitions, grant funded classes to all the local public schools, community partnerships with Don Bosco, the Carver Center, Hope House and other local nonprofits, and the vibrant mosaics we have installed to beautify the community. Everyday adult students help support the local economy by shopping at local businesses and supporting local restaurants. We have purchased the property at 25 Beach Street in anticipation of expanding Clay Art Center. It our hope that you will rezone Beech Street to CD4MU or CD5. Sally Ng We would like to request to rezone Beech Street to CD4MU or CD5. • Clay Art Center (CAC) is planning an expansion to better serve the Port Chester community with the purchase of 25 Beech Street. • Clay Art Center brings value to the local community by providing free exhibitions, grant funded classes to all the local public schools, community partnerships with Don Bosco, the Carver Center, Hope House and other local nonprofits, create mosaics to beautify the community. • CAC Supports the local economy by bringing students, artists, parents, teachers, constituents to Clay Art Center who shop at local businesses, support local restaurant, and use many other services within the Port Chester community. We sincerely request to rezone Beech Street to CD4MU or CD5 so Clay Art Center can better serve our Port Chester Community. Emma McKee I'm writing to share my very strong support for the Clay Art Center and their request for rezoning of Beech street to CD4MU or CD5. Below are some of the main reasons I am such an [PAGE 31] avid supporter of this: · As you may know, the Clay Art Center is planning an expansion to better serve the Port Chester community with the purchase of 25 Beech Street - those of us who are closely connected to the Clay Art Center and Port Chester are thrilled about this expansion! · The Clay Art Center brings immense value to the local community by providing free exhibitions, grant funded classes to all the local public schools, community partnerships with Don Bosco, the Carver Center, Hope House and other local nonprofits, creating mosaics to beautify the community, and so much more! They are a true community partner! · The Clay Art Center supports the local economy by bringing students, supporters, and artists to Port Chester who shop at local businesses, support local restaurants, and become champions of the Port Chester community. I, myself, am one who is a true advocate and supporter of Port Chester because of the wonderful experiences I've had with the Clay Art Center. I would be happy to provide additional information if needed. Thank you! Claire Cohen I am writing to you to share my support of Clay Art Center’s request to rezone Beech Street. Clay Art Center is planning an expansion to better serve the Port Chester community with the purchase of 25 Beech Street. CAC is a special place that brings value to the local community by providing free exhibitions, grant funded classes to all the local public schools, community partnerships with Don Bosco, the Carver Center, Hope House and other local nonprofits, and creates mosaics to beautify the community. The students, artists and ceramic lovers who come to exhibitions and other Clay Art Center events further support the local economy by shopping and eating in the local stores and restaurants. I hope you will approve the zoning request. Jackie Welsh I am writing to ask you to rezone Beech Street from its current mistaken R2 designation to MU4 or 5. Both the existing uses which are Mult Use and the topographical situation at the same elevation and usage as Purdy Street which is CD5, reinforce the case for Beech Street to be rezoned. Currently both the churches Saint John Bosco and New Hope Kingdom Wellness are zoning CD4. See photo on the next page [PAGE 32] Rajeev Chennattu As a property owner in the village for almost four years, and a concerned stakeholder, I would like to see the Village of Port Chester and its residents be allowed to benefit from the current form of its Form-Based Code with a minimal revision. The change that I would like to suggest incorporating into the zoning code is the following: • Have an architecture review board in place with well-defined instructions for developers. The ARB is to provide specific recommendations for facade type, carefully selected color theme, font size and type for signages. This help developers to facilitate the character elements and uniformity to streetscapes and their projects in line with the village’s preferences. It will be difficult to pencil-out projects if the density and height are brought down from their current levels. The current mitigation fees in the village average out to approximately $19,000 per apartment for a new development. If the permit fee is to be included, then that amount would climb to $28,000 per apartment! In addition, the newly proposed 1.5 space per apartment parking ratio will make it a no-go for many of the investors and most of the proposed projects. These are some of the few challenges impeding developments. As we move forward into the future, The immediate vicinity of (at least a minimum of 1,000' to 1,500' radius) the Metro North Train station must remain a focal area of the village to develop with market rate and mixed- income housing, and mixed-use projects. We owe it to the current and future generations of our village residents. A meaningful number of transit-oriented housing can only be constructed vertically! It is impossible to accomplish this horizontally with our current suburban landscape with the limitation on land. If the current Form-Based Code is allowed to remain intact, the resulting developments will bring much needed additional revenue to the Village through various fees and charges from the developers. The Village can allocate these resources to improve its school district, parks and recreation, community services, infrastructures, Police and Fire departments, etc. The current and future residents and businesses will stand to gain and enjoy these real and tangible [PAGE 33] improvements to the quality of life in the village. Moreover, the Village’s tax base will see substantial increase and that will directly help reduce every property tax for its current residents. Gregg Hamilton Committee members -- Ameliorating the shortage of affordable housing (AFH) in the Village is my greatest concern going forward. I would like to see our middle and lower-middle class service workers be able to remain in our community (and not have to commute to their job from elsewhere. So, I have some recommendations which might help to encourage the modification of homes and new projects to create more AFH units: > Reward developers with greater building height in return for increasing their AFH setaside beyond the current 10% requirement. If they agree to a setaside of 11%, let them build an extra story; two extra stories for a 12% setaside, and so on, up to 5 additional stories (above the current maximum height of the zone in which their project sits) for a 15 setaside. I don't' think that a 20 story building will be a significantly greater eyesore or disruption of the Village's character than a 15 story building, particularly if the 15 and 20 story buildings are next to each other. In that same vein, perhaps the zoning code could explicitly encourage and reward "feathering" of adjacent buildings. > I suggest that a household's qualification for an AFH unit be judged in proportion to the Village's AMI (~$75,000 as of the 2020 Census), as opposed to the County's AMI (at ~ $100,000). > The zoning in residential neighborhoods should explicitly permit and allow accessory units and the rental of rooms, which will enable elderly "empty nester" residents to afford to pay their property and school taxes and live comfortably in retirement. In this vein, the city of Minneapolis passed a resolution in December, 2018, which "outlawed" single family housing zones. I believe that residents of the Village cannot be given preference over non-residents in the consideration of their applications to occupy new AFH units. I don't have a problem with this. I suspect that a non-resident that moves into an AFH unit in Port Chester will vacate an apartment or unit which will effectively add to the inventory of AFH units elsewhere in the County. I do not believe that the zoning code can encourage developers to hire local workers or to pay their workers wages which will allow them to reside within the Village. But, I think that the IDA could play a role here by modifying their UTEP scheme to favor developers who commit to hiring locally and paying good wages. Both of these activities are difficult to monitor and measure but, at a minimum, developers applying for tax relief should be required to provide the local building trades with a level playing field, i.e. a transparent and open bidding process, so that unions have a fair shot at winning jobs and their workers can be rewarded with the opportunity to work on new projects in the Village. I am concerned that the current Fair Share Mitigation fee pertaining to the school system (which is payable when a developer applies to the Village for a building permit) is a "one-time" fee, while the costs of educating a child extend over 12 years. Perhaps this Fair Share Mitigation fee should be carved into multiple payments over time. For example, there could be a series of school fees imposed at three, six and ten years after an apartment building obtains its certificate [PAGE 34] of occupancy, and those fees could be based upon the ACTUAL number of public school children residing in the building at those various milestones. Fair Share Mitigation fees are baked into the Form-Based Zoning Code, so it is my assumption that the Trustees could re-evaluate and modify the current fee structure in the code to ensure that the costs of expanded infrastructure (for emergency services, sewer expansion, the burying of electric cabling, etc.) are sufficiently and fairly funded. We are all concerned that the increase of population density in the downtown will exacerbate the current shortfall of parking spaces. Instead of allowing developers to reduce the number of parking spaces in their building by paying a "per space" mitigation fee, perhaps they should be required to pay into a structured parking fund in proportion to 1.25 times the number of dwelling units in their building. This would have the effect of gradually creating EXCESS parking capacity in the Village, instead of exacerbating the anticipated shortfall of public parking spaces in the downtown. Finally, I am concerned that the increase of population density in the downtown will lead to proportionately more traffic and gridlock, such as: on the approach from the west to Ridge Street along Westchester Avenue; on the approach from the north towards Irving Avenue along Regent Street; along Abendroth Avenue's approach to Mill St; and on Mill Street itself back into CT. Perhaps the zoning code should seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks by forbidding on-street parking where an extra traffic lane is needed; reducing the width of sidewalks to increase the width of traffic lanes; and requiring other measures which would improve traffic flow. As an example: Rose Associates & Bedrock Realty could afford to relinquish some of the acreage at the old United Hospital site so that a traffic circle/roundabout could be installed, allowing traffic to flow continuously on the Post Road by eliminating stop lights there. In addition, they could build a pedestrian overpass or underpass from their property to provide safe crossing to the shopping center across the Post Road. Rose Foley Please rezone Beech Street to CD4MU or CD5. • Clay Art Center is planning an expansion to better serve the Port Chester community with the purchase of 25 Beech Street. • We bring value to the local community by providing free exhibitions, grant funded classes to all the local public schools, community partnerships with Don Bosco, the Carver Center, Hope House and other local nonprofits and create mosaics to beautify the community. • We support the local economy by bringing students and artists to Clay Art Center who shop at local businesses and support local restaurants. I hope that you will consider our request to rezone so that we can continue our good works in the community. Emma McKee I'm writing to share my very strong support for the Clay Art Center and their request for rezoning of Beech street to CD4MU or CD5. Below are some of the main reasons I am such an [PAGE 35] avid supporter of this: · As you may know, the Clay Art Center is planning an expansion to better serve the Port Chester community with the purchase of 25 Beech Street - those of us who are closely connected to the Clay Art Center and Port Chester are thrilled about this expansion! · The Clay Art Center brings immense value to the local community by providing free exhibitions, grant funded classes to all the local public schools, community partnerships with Don Bosco, the Carver Center, Hope House and other local nonprofits, creating mosaics to beautify the community, and so much more! They are a true community partner! · The Clay Art Center supports the local economy by bringing students, supporters, and artists to Port Chester who shop at local businesses, support local restaurants, and become champions of the Port Chester community. I, myself, am one who is a true advocate and supporter of Port Chester because of the wonderful experiences I've had with the Clay Art Center. I would be happy to provide additional information if needed. Thank you! Jeanne Carreau I'm writing to you in support of the Clay Art Center's current zoning request to rezone Beech Street to CD4MU or CD5 as part of our expansion with the purchase of 25 Beech Street. I've been an instructor at the Clay Art Center since 1998 and have personally witnessed the impact we have been able to achieve on the community of Port Chester, as well as the many benefits the Clay Art Center has enjoyed as the result of being in such a welcoming, vibrant, dynamic community as Port Chester. We bring value to the local community by providing free exhibitions, grant funded classes to all the local public schools, community partnerships with Don Bosco, the Carver Center, Hope House and other local nonprofits, and have created mosaics that allow the community to visually present it's unique cultural milieu to anyone who comes to Port Chester. Additionally, we support the local economy by bringing students and artists to the Clay Art Center from other communities, who shop at local businesses and support the many delicious local restaurants. The Clay Art Center has built a warm relationship with Port Chester, and this planned expansion will help us serve the community we care about even better. A positive response to our zoning request will make this possible. Michael Carter As a member of Clay Art Center I am highly supportive of rezoning 25 Beech street so that Clay Art can expand its classes and services to the community. With more space we can provide more [PAGE 36] classes, student summer programs and bring in more adults to Clay Art that can shop and eat in the community providing economic support as well.