Planning commission urges zoning changes to allow smaller, durable homes to preserve borough character

The Westchester Borough Planning Commission on May 22 presented a detailed review of how recent development compares with the borough’s 2016 comprehensive plan and urged the council to pursue zoning tools that legalize traditional, smaller‑scale housing types.

Planning Commission Chair Jim Cherry summarized the commission’s annual report and training participation. Commissioner Thomas Doherty delivered a 40‑minute presentation on “traditional patterns of building homes in Westchester,” arguing that the borough’s current dimensional standards — notably a 20‑foot minimum lot width — and other zoning rules prevent construction of the small, brick rowhouses and narrow lots that define much of Westchester’s character.

Doherty said the comprehensive plan’s “underlying premise… is that new development and preservation are complementary elements of a planning strategy” and urged the council to legalize the building types that residents value. He contrasted existing and proposed projects, saying recent townhouses and multifamily buildings often “do not contribute to the character of the borough” and that developers default to by‑right envelopes that produce large, vertically scaled apartment blocks.

The planning commission presentation included several data points presented by the commission’s members: a stated count of one new detached housing unit reported for Westchester in 2023, a Chester County 2023 figure for multifamily production cited at roughly 411 units countywide, and a discussion of per‑unit construction economics. Doherty said a new single‑family home in the borough “is probably in the $800,000 range” in all‑in cost, and compared that with annual rental outlays to illustrate equity accumulation differences between ownership and rental models.

The presenters proposed a targeted approach: identify the small, contributing building types and locations (for example, 14–18‑foot‑wide rowhouses and similar historic lots), document them as acceptable “contributing” prototypes, and create an overlay district or a discrete set of rules that would allow those narrower, durable buildings where they fit historically. Doherty said doing so would avoid simply lowering dimensional standards across the board — which could otherwise produce low‑quality, vinyl‑sided products — and would provide developers a predictable path to build homes that “contribute to the character of the borough.”

Commissioners pointed to existing workarounds developers use, such as homeowner‑association structures and private drives, to achieve densities that conflict with current zoning. Several council members and planning professionals at the meeting discussed tradeoffs including parking, construction costs for multifamily podium projects (e.g., elevators and garage requirements) and the feasibility of small‑scale ownership models.

Council members thanked the commission for the presentation and urged it to continue refining recommendations. Several council members said they supported exploring targeted overlays or standards that would enable smaller, durable homes while preserving sidewalks, tree cover and other features that sustain the borough’s small‑town character.

The presentation was a commission initiative and did not itself change zoning; the planning commission and council discussed next steps, including drafting an overlay proposal, mapping candidate blocks and returning to council with specific text for any code amendments.