Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks variance for 211 Dean Street; council weighs solicitor attendance at zoning hearing
Summary
Developers requested a clear-sight-triangle variance for a proposed house and rear garage/accessory dwelling at 211 Dean Street. Engineers said the design meets PennDOT sight-distance standards; council deferred a decision on whether to send the borough solicitor to the zoning hearing.
Property owners and their engineer asked West Chester council to recommend the borough solicitor attend a zoning hearing over a requested variance from the borough's clear sight triangle requirement at 211 Dean Street.
Denny Howe of Howell Engineering, representing Hazely Builders, presented plans showing a consolidated lot and a new house with a rear garage and accessory dwelling unit. Howe said the proposed layout exceeds PennDOT sight-distance requirements for several approach directions even though the design would cross into the borough's 75-foot clear sight triangle as defined in the zoning code. The engineer said the provided sight distances (the dark blue lines on the exhibit) exceed the PennDOT minimum (red lines) in several directions and that other nearby parcels do not meet the borough's clear sight triangle either.
Council members asked practical questions about visibility, stop signs at the intersection, and the distance between the proposed structure and the clear sight-triangle line; Howe said the building edge would sit about seven feet beyond the magenta clear-sight line and that the proposed parking area and paved approach would be outside the clear sight triangle. Staff said sight-distance calculations assumed a 15 mph speed for the narrow alley.
Council debated whether to send the solicitor to the zoning hearing to oppose or to monitor the application. The borough solicitor (present in discussion) advised that sending the solicitor entails preparing legal arguments and potentially seeking conditions; simply sending the solicitor "to hang out" would not be a good use of billable time. Several councilors said the plans appeared to comply with PennDOT sight-distance standards and that sending the solicitor might not be necessary; others said solicitor presence can help negotiate conditions if the zoning hearing board considers approval.
Council did not make a final decision at the work session; members asked that the matter be placed on the next regular meeting agenda so the full council could decide whether to direct the solicitor to attend the zoning hearing.
