[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5975364,"mediaKeyId","5854230-8d8c3895c0264824d1dac17f63bacc33","parentId",5854230,"title","Commission delays action on 700 S. High master plan; seeks joint engineering review and public comments","audioSeconds",450,"startMs",1540000,"endMs",1990000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5854230-8d8c3895c0264824d1dac17f63bacc33&start=1540&end=1990","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5854230-8d8c3895c0264824d1dac17f63bacc33/thumbnail_1540000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5975364/West-Chester/Chester-County/Pennsylvania/Commission-delays-action-on-700-S-High-master-plan-seeks-joint-engineering-review-and-public-comments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5975364-0f856ca64b1ba5057e3d7213d24130a0/orig.mp4?Expires=1775442237&Signature=btj0lfIX1GRKV1aBgZB~B1IaFbZLlfctxDjcID4kJkm-h2VUhPLINp4LTKvw~AD0FzDzqZjeeJdVN9hzG5fvBZkjnRKHyNrkIie5rQ6GT6GuBALqxmw3ZKtlayiTboReuJmf-VQI5EXVT0PmEKAiObMKoTSOLi8wGae533Kb6zzB6afxImY2e4~mWOEV0WkBvzoFg9mQfpWmBP0MylgUvUY-fZ2QeinH6JgxOysIeGeEVJR2~3sHJ6m7-MyPeUa5fLurt9fX-CeuF7Fds08cXZXyQ7faGV~nvQdLiyKvgkDvJwGlSfNWQgPDQzyb8MclOWHWOHRhYanyPF06nPrKGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Borough of West Chester, PA","date","2025-09-24T01:28:34Z","article","The Planning Commission discussed the master-plan submission for 700 South High Street on Sept. 23 and agreed not to take formal action at the working session. Commissioners said they will collate comments and forward them to borough council with a letter so the council and the university (where applicable) are aware of the commission’s positions.

Commission member Jim Cherry said staff will collect and collate comments received to date and circulate them before the next voting session; he asked commissioners to send any additional comments by email so staff can include them in the commission’s formal correspondence to borough council. “Regardless of how the motion or the vote goes, they will forward that with a letter to borough council,” Cherry said, describing the intended process for documenting the commission’s review.

Commissioners also noted a pending joint engineering review: the master plan is being coordinated with West Goshen Township, and both municipalities contemplated hiring an independent engineer to review traffic and engineering implications jointly and to share the cost. Staff reported the joint engineer selection had been discussed and that the commission will confirm which engineering firm had been retained and circulate the engagement details. Commissioners agreed the planning commission should wait to see the joint-engineer review before making a formal recommendation; the review letter will be part of the record that a future recommendation would reference.

Timing was a recurring concern. The commission discussed whether the applicant had granted an extension to commence the conditional-use hearing, and whether another extension would be necessary if the joint engineer had not completed its review before currently scheduled hearing dates. No extension decision was made at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to verify the remaining timeline for the conditional-use hearing and whether the applicant had agreed to any extension.

No formal motions or votes were recorded; commissioners set a path forward that includes collecting written comments, confirming the joint-engineer status and timeline, and returning the consolidated materials and any engineering review to the commission prior to a formal vote or recommendation to council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Worksession - September 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission agreed there would be no vote at the working session and directed staff to collect public comments, obtain a joint engineering review with neighboring township, and confirm whether the applicant has or needs another extension to the conditional-use hearing schedule.","taxTitle","West Chester, Chester County, Pennsylvania","taxId",71483,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5975369,"Planning commission debates new \"unified residential development\" use for town center",914,2031000,2945000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5854230-8d8c3895c0264824d1dac17f63bacc33&start=2031&end=2945","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5854230-8d8c3895c0264824d1dac17f63bacc33/thumbnail_2031000.jpg","/articles/5975369/West-Chester/Chester-County/Pennsylvania/Planning-commission-debates-new-unified-residential-development-use-for-town-center","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5975369-2adfbd4bb018c711137524f29250b005/orig.mp4?Expires=1775442237&Signature=D9VdDajfBXyb-dlwoURLlOotXTH12DrKX9LFYfkQsVCVU2pkpnsBtZhSMXaW4vS8KH623smjikA4f~tYPYBmeNnNv~GrsFgT-G7MxRNqtONXBza6zvcvscKAnBNf-DxaPXTiZ1-cb3X2dps5REWdiQajJTcYYCBkJPm2Bdg9D9q1vssN-KFcSq71wnRtJFb0GH2VMNRyQbb0u5iheiwiYSoEK-QQKKCWDK4IQH~c0sLMp3sZrPerwK2boyxGwekuoTrfCHPtO1wpPHJouCnnrZopgRY1PvMwhN9EA95IUTtd1pwqCS05J~QUGEToiNE~fhgHXfbCh4dE-C07O46lAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","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.","Commission reviewed a draft ordinance to permit a new residential use in the town center with design standards, setbacks, parking and adjacency limits; members directed staff to split out a separate building-setback item and send the draft for Act 247 review.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5975374,"Westchester intern presents story map showing grants funded much of borough’s 2016 plan work",526,554000,1080000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5854230-8d8c3895c0264824d1dac17f63bacc33&start=554&end=1080","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5854230-8d8c3895c0264824d1dac17f63bacc33/thumbnail_554000.jpg","/articles/5975374/West-Chester/Chester-County/Pennsylvania/Westchester-intern-presents-story-map-showing-grants-funded-much-of-boroughs-2016-plan-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5975374-5c24c49df2de6ad61a1f676f0d26ca1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775442237&Signature=Jx2Doh9qdKTAC03w64fNADPlMkG1UvTyuBrOJU-RCdIls911oqu233ZH4peJnDHie76wQscIxgz-VcZV3cmCWpCev9cnDQx3U9OSHeuNgm8ErhrLWVz2RgTxJOzklBauIAQHUlVyujZZ6XtAuAfO86s5IVWhuwkO9-mAh4RP8ZyVKdmyVb3WNIx3ewDGK~xvb5Rhzca8AOQvGRTZ455dF4iqrAV1SbNhTuIa1PY080I8V4i9HNTCL67EobjhosXuQSi9HtQHOvijMZnUBPR3EPp8mFLbZXgwIvCZRr6tTkMKPEEScY6LaiSmySZl~nVLySJ9bPqNX3QTDRSiU8CyMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mikey Cummins, an intern with the borough and a senior at Westchester University, told the Westchester Borough Planning Commission on Sept. 23 that her review of the borough’s 2016 comprehensive plan shows most completed projects relied heavily on outside grants. “Adding the completed and partially completed together, that’s 40% of the completed actions,” Cummins said, summarizing the status categories she used. She demonstrated a publicly accessible ArcGIS Online story map that catalogs recommended actions, status (completed, partially completed, not started), locations and funding sources.

The story map matters for the commission’s upcoming comprehensive-plan update because it provides a data-driven inventory staff and commissioners can use to prioritize projects and target grant applications. “We did a great job of fundraising through grants,” Planning Commission member Jim Cherry said after the presentation, noting many projects required borough matching funds and that the map will help the commission prepare for the update.

Cummins said she categorized 119 recommended actions from the 2016 plan (by her count) into three status buckets and mapped the actions by ward and project cost and funding source. She reported about 59% of actions were “not started,” 24% were “fully completed” and 16% partially completed; she called the combined 40% completion rate “outstanding for a municipality.” The presentation highlighted more than 20 stormwater-improvement projects since 2016, including rain gardens, the Taylor Run stream restoration and public-works best management practices, and called continued stormwater upgrades an ongoing priority.

Cummins also broke out funding sources on the map and on an associated dashboard. She told commissioners that grants constituted the largest funding share and that viewers can click any project to see award amounts and which grants were used. In the meeting she said Chester County “approximately received about $102,000,000; the borough received about 2,” and that the dashboard shows grant funding as the top source for implemented projects. Cherry said staff would work to post the story map link on the borough website once an IT staff member reviews it.

Commissioners asked about data access and usability. Cummins said the AGOL items include tables that can be downloaded as source data for filtering and sorting; she agreed to share access instructions and the underlying data set with commission members. Aaron Fluke (director, as stated in the meeting) and other members urged commissioners to use the map to “rack and stack” unfinished work so the next plan can prioritize applications to recurring grant programs and stagger timing of grant requests.

No formal action or vote was taken; commissioners directed staff to make the map available to the public and to use the inventory as a starting point for the comprehensive-plan update.

Commissioners praised the presentation as a tool to inform grant strategy and the upcoming plan update, and asked staff to provide the map link and downloadable data before the next voting session so members can review and note priorities.","An intern’s 10-week review mapped 2016 comprehensive-plan recommendations, showing grant funding financed the bulk of completed projects and identifying many actions left unstarted ahead of the next plan update.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission delays action on 700 S. High master plan; seeks joint engineering review and public comments

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

Westchester intern presents story map showing grants funded much of borough’s 2016 plan work