Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Developers, planners discuss lot division, impervious coverage and overhangs at 210–214 West Washington

July 23, 2025 | West Chester, Chester County, Pennsylvania


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Developers, planners discuss lot division, impervious coverage and overhangs at 210–214 West Washington
The Planning Commission reviewed a proposed infill project at 210–214 West Washington Street and discussed whether building overhangs should count toward the zoning calculation for building coverage and impervious surface.

The applicant showed a plan with narrow townhomes facing Washington and additional units facing an alley; civil calculations showed a ground-level building footprint under the NC‑2 limit (about 34.99%), but counting second-floor overhangs would push the total coverage to roughly 45% in the applicant’s engineering sketches. That distinction matters because the NC‑2 zoning table ties allowable coverage to parcel size: the commission cited draft figures discussed in the meeting (lots over 5,000 sq ft — 50% impervious; lots 4,000–5,000 sq ft — 70%; lots under 4,000 sq ft — 80%), and building-coverage limits that reduce as lot size increases.

Planning staff and the applicant said the common practice is to calculate coverage based on the ground-level footprint that "touches the ground," not roof area, arguing that rain and drainage patterns make ground footprint the controlling factor for impervious calculations. The zoning officer, however, must make the official determination. Borough staff advised that if a revised plan increases coverage beyond the zoning officer’s interpretation, the applicant would be required to seek relief from the Zoning Hearing Board — a process that can add time and cost to the project.

Applicant representatives and commission members agreed the proposed design was an overall improvement from the existing fully paved or built condition and included steps to add perimeter green space, tuck garages behind recessed entries to reduce garage-door streetscape impacts, and consider pervious pavement. Planning staff offered to meet with the applicant to identify the shortest procedural path forward and to check whether a minor plan revision or formal zoning relief would be required.

Ending: Staff and the applicant planned a short meeting to review coverage calculations and procedural options before returning to the commission; no formal approvals or variances were requested during the work session.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee