Planning commission debates new "unified residential development" use for town center

The Westchester Borough Planning Commission spent much of its Sept. 23 working session reviewing a draft ordinance that would create a new permitted use called “unified residential development” in the town center and establish area, bulk and design standards for such projects. Tom (meeting speaker who drafted and explained the text) walked commissioners through a multi-page ordinance that, as written, would allow consolidated residential developments subject to specific limits on tract size, density, setbacks, parking and design.

Tom said the draft derives from a sketch plan for 410 South High Street and is intended to provide a rules-based path for developments that replicate traditional, owner-occupied housing forms rather than large, multi-story urban apartment buildings. “This is where, your input is needed,” Tom told the commission as he read standards on minimum and maximum tract sizes, adjacency rules and design guidelines.

Key provisions discussed include a density benchmark (the draft used an illustrative yield of about 40 dwelling units per acre), minimum tract size thresholds (the draft contemplated one- to three-acre parcels to limit where the use could apply), a requirement that a tract be adjacent to lots in NC-2, NC-3 or CS zoning districts, and a parking standard of two off-street spaces per dwelling unit (one required inside a garage). The draft requires front facades to face a dedicated street, private green or common open space and directs garages and parking to alleys or rear driveways. Alley and private-driveway widths in the draft read 18 feet for one-way and 24 feet for two-way operation, and alleys constructed as part of a unified development would remain private and be maintained by an owners’ association.

Commissioners raised multiple substantive points. Several asked that the portion of the draft that alters the town-center dimensional table (labelled in the draft as section 5) be separated into a standalone ordinance because it is a distinct change to building-setback/front-yard language; commissioners agreed to extract that piece and submit it for county Act 247 review and advertisement. Tom agreed to that approach and said staff would prepare a separate building-setback/front-yard ordinance for county review. Commissioners also asked staff to clarify terms (for example, whether the draft’s “building setback line/front yard” should be labeled consistently as “front yard” in other sections), to spell out whether stacked parking would be allowed without requiring shared coordination among different homeowners, and to refine language governing how many unit types (townhouses, duplexes, etc.) could be combined within a single unified development.

Several members emphasized protecting the retail core. Planning Commission member Alan Burke and others suggested excluding properties that fall inside the borough’s retail-overlay district from being eligible for the new use to avoid eroding first-floor commercial storefronts in the downtown. Commissioners also discussed how the design standard cross-references the Westchester Historic District design guidelines (July 2002, as amended), and they asked to add a mechanism allowing the borough architect or the commission to request an architectural review for design compliance.

No vote was taken. The commission directed staff to remove section 5 (the dimensional-table changes) for separate processing, to gather written comments from commissioners before the next voting session and to circulate the revised draft and comments to the county for Act 247 review. Tom and staff agreed to return the ordinance with edits reflecting the commission’s comments.