The Westchester Borough Planning Commission voted Sept. 30 to recommend that a draft unified residential development ordinance for the town center be forwarded to the borough’s Smart Growth committee and borough council, with conditions to strengthen building-materials language and to resolve technical site standards. The motion, made during the commission’s regular meeting, asked staff and a small working group to return selected mandatory design requirements drawn from the borough’s historic design guidance before the ordinance advances.

Why it matters: The ordinance would create a new "unified residential development" use for parcels in and adjacent to the town center. Commissioners said the rule could shape the size, materials and parking of future for-sale housing projects on several large in-town parcels — including the site variously described in the meeting as the Burger King/Rubinstein parcel — and could limit demolition or low-quality construction if material standards are enforced.

Commissioners and staff debated several substantive points before voting. The ordinance draft circulated in advance included a minimum tract size (1–3 acres in the draft), parking requirements, a requirement that at least one parking space per unit be inside a garage, dimensional rules (build-to line, setbacks, height-overlay exceptions), and references to the borough’s HEART historic-design guidance. Tom (staff) led the presentation and Aaron Luke (staff) read several draft provisions aloud, including a provision stating: "Uncovered stoops and steps may project a maximum of 4 feet into the right-of-way of a dedicated street; provided, however, in no case shall the width of the sidewalk be less than 4 feet to maintain an accessible route for pedestrians." That language remained in the draft the commission reviewed.

On minimum tract size, multiple commissioners recommended removing a required minimum parcel size. Commissioner Thomas (planning member) and others said a hard 1-acre minimum could encourage consolidation and demolition of smaller lots and historic buildings; several members argued that leaving no minimum (or a very small minimum) would allow incremental in‑town projects without forcing large acquisitions. Commissioners discussed alternatives including a 1.5‑acre maximum for larger incentives, but the meeting record shows consensus in favor of eliminating the minimum requirement for the new use and instead relying on other controls.

On building materials and historic character, commissioners asked that the HEART (historic) guidelines be given stronger, mandatory effect in the new use. Carol (historic design consultant referenced in discussion) was discussed as the person who would review projects and provide letters or recommendations to the commission; several speakers urged that visible facades facing public ways use masonry or comparable traditional materials and that vinyl/aluminum siding be prohibited on primary facades. The commission voted to forward the ordinance "contingent on" a Planning Commission review and incorporation of selected sections of the HEART design guidelines (the motion language requires staff/PC review and incorporation of selected design guideline provisions before Smart Growth/council action).

On parking and garage requirements, commissioners debated a draft clause requiring two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit and at least one space inside an attached garage. Some members said that many desirable town center housing types (narrow townhouses, courtyard designs) do not fit an attached-garage requirement and recommended removing the attachment requirement while keeping overall parking minimums governed by the town-center parking ordinance. Aaron Luke and other staff noted the town‑center parking standards and turning/parking templates would still apply and would be enforced during engineering review.

On access and driveways, the commission discussed common/shared drives versus alleys and whether new shared drives should be as wide as 18 feet or narrower. The group agreed to require design that demonstrates safe passage (turning templates) and set a working minimum for private common drive cartway width of 12 feet, with the borough engineer to review and sign off on templates and on-site vehicle maneuvers.

Other items discussed and left as technical edits included references to multiple zoning sections (for example, provisions cited in discussion included sections referenced as 112-602-03, 112-405 retail overlay, 112-202 definitions, 112-916 and others), whether the retail overlay should be excluded from the new use, and how the new use interacts with the height-overlay standards and existing build-to-line changes previously forwarded to council.

The commission’s formal action was to recommend approval of the draft ordinance to Smart Growth and borough council with the stated condition that the Planning Commission review and incorporate selected HEART design-guideline language and that staff make the technical edits discussed at the meeting. The motion was seconded and approved during the Sept. 30 meeting.

Looking ahead: The ordinance will be sent to the Smart Growth committee, then to borough council, and will return to the Planning Commission during the formal municipal ordinance review steps. Commissioners asked that a short working-session or special meeting be scheduled so the commission and Carol (historic design consultant) can finalize mandatory design-language edits before the Smart Growth review. Staff and the borough engineer will be asked to produce vehicle‑turning templates and a brief materials-prohibition list (for example, prohibiting vinyl on primary facades) to accompany the ordinance as it advances.

Attribution of quotes and statements in this article is limited to speakers recorded on the meeting transcript and to paraphrases of their remarks. Where the transcript did not identify a speaker’s official title, the article uses descriptive labels (for example, "staff" or "planning commission member").