Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning HO60 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission narrows HO‑60 height overlay, adds setback language
Summary
The Westchester Planning Commission voted to recommend eliminating most of the HO‑60 height overlay district and to reinstate a 15‑foot setback provision for taller buildings along select blocks, aiming to protect adjacent residential NC districts and the town’s historic scale.
The Westchester Planning Commission voted to recommend amending Chapter 112 to narrow the HO‑60 height overlay option district, excluding blocks that do not overlap the retail overlay district, and to reinstate a 15‑foot building setback where buildings exceed 45 feet.
The motion was introduced by a commission member (S5), who presented a map showing the HO‑60 boundaries and the retail overlay and said the changes are intended “to protect the NC districts and to ensure the goals of the comp plan are achieved.” The motion would also incorporate setback language previously used when Hotel Indigo was designed: a 15‑foot street setback when height increases above 45 feet, with an intermediate setback between 35 and 50 feet to maintain the street wall.
Commissioners debated the proposal’s goals and drafting details. S3 called the proposal “brilliant” and said the amendments are a “minimum step” to curb unacceptably large consolidated developments; S2 emphasized the intent is to protect adjacent neighborhoods and to encourage owner‑occupied housing as a form of preservation. S1 (staff) explained that the proposed setback language was used in earlier district ordinances and that the motion’s changes are designed to preserve the borough’s character and reduce the massing of new developments.
On process, commissioners said they expect the planning commission’s recommendation to be forwarded to borough council and that additional drafting clarifications (for example, tying the motion to retail overlay language) would be handled in a supporting letter or staff report. The chair declared the motion adopted at the meeting; the transcript records the chair stating, “the yeses have it.” The record does not include a full roll‑call tally in named, countable form in the transcript excerpt provided.
The commission discussed related tools — unified residential development (URD), maximum lot sizes and stepbacks — as complementary measures to control massing and encourage a mix of owner‑occupied housing. Commissioners asked staff to draft the ordinance language consistent with the motion and to include goals and clarifying language tying the change back to the retail overlay where appropriate.
Next steps: staff will prepare the formal amendment language, include the stated goals in a transmittal to borough council, and incorporate technical edits discussed during the meeting. The commission also requested a separate letter to explain the motion’s purpose and to ensure the retail overlay and NC district protections are clearly cross‑referenced in the draft language.
