Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Space Fee In Lieu topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Chester planners ask solicitor for legal clarity on whether private courtyards count as required recreation space
Summary
At the June 16 work session the commission sought legal guidance on whether elevated, private courtyards and rooftop amenities count as the "park or recreational land" local ordinances can require from developers, or whether those features trigger a fee‑in‑lieu requirement.
At the June 16 work session the commission sought legal guidance on whether elevated, private courtyards and rooftop amenities count as the "park or recreational land" local ordinances can require from developers, or whether those features trigger a fee‑in‑lieu requirement.
Planning staff reviewed provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) and the borough's Chapter 97 recreation/dedication language. Commissioners noted the MPC authorizes municipalities to require dedication of land or fees "for park or recreation purposes" but also contains phrasing that the land or fee must bear a "reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by future inhabitants of the development." That language, attendees said, has been interpreted in practice in different ways.
Commissioners and staff described past projects where developers provided elevated courtyards or rooftop pools and then argued those features satisfied the dedication requirement. Several commissioners said those facilities are not publicly accessible and therefore do not serve the borough's public‑space objectives; others pressed the solicitor to confirm what the MPC and local ordinances actually allow.
The Planning Commission asked the borough solicitor and consultant to advise whether the borough has legal authority to require ground‑level, publicly accessible land (or to require payment when only private elevated amenities are offered), and whether the borough may define minimum quality and adjacency standards for accepted recreation land. Commissioners agreed to forward a formal request to the solicitor and to convey their policy preference to borough council once the legal analysis is complete.
Why it matters: The ruling will determine whether developers can meet open‑space obligations with private rooftop or internal courtyard amenities or whether the borough will require ground‑level public space or payment so that the borough can provide community parks.
