Port Washington planners debate how to measure 38-foot height cap; consultants favor midpoint rule

Planning commissioners in Port Washington spent much of their meeting focused on how to measure a proposed 38-foot maximum building height for non-downtown zones, weighing whether measurement should go to the midpoint of a gable or to the roof peak.

A commission member opened the discussion by asking for clarification about how measurements would apply to hip or gable roofs and noted that using the midpoint, rather than the peak, can preserve roof variety and avoid incentives to flatten rooflines. The commissioner cited Spring Harbor as an example where midpoint measurement better captured the intended form.

"If we go with a hip or the gable... 38 ft would be kind of at the midpoint of the gable," the commissioner said, adding that measuring to the peak could allow an extra 4 to 6 feet and encourage flatter roofs.

Mr. Ryer said he favored shorter overall heights and suggested local business and residential districts typically fall between 35 and 40 feet; he noted residential maximums commonly sit near 32 feet in some zones.

"I've always supported the shorter height," Mr. Ryer said, arguing consistency with nearby business-district norms helps maintain a coherent streetscape.

The architect advising the commission recommended measuring to the midpoint of a gable, saying measuring to the peak often leads designers to flatten roofs to secure additional headroom, which reduces the variety of roof pitches the commission wants to preserve.

"If you go to the peak and everybody wants more headroom... they'll start flattening the roofs," the architect said.

Commissioners and consultants discussed trade-offs: midpoint measurement can allow steeper pitches and maintain attic/headroom, while peak measurement is simpler but can produce flatter, boxier roofs. Participants estimated the midpoint-versus-peak difference at roughly 4–6 feet on typical buildings.

Several commissioners urged clearer, more prescriptive code language to avoid repeated requests for exceptions during reviews. One commissioner requested that consultants draw language from conservative, restrictive model codes so staff can apply objective "yes/no" standards and prevent future inconsistent decisions.

Consultants said they will return with revised code language and legal review around September; the commission will use that draft to prepare a recommendation to the city council.

The meeting concluded with no formal vote on the height measurement approach; commissioners asked staff and consultants to draft clearer model language for the next review.