Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Tradesperson Headquarters topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Chester planning director proposes zoning change to limit tradesperson ‘headquarters’ in mixed‑use districts

5730628 · September 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Paul Fritz, the City of Chester planning and zoning director, told the City of Chester Housing and Community Development Committee that he will pursue a zoning amendment to define “construction/tradesperson headquarters” and remove that use from mixed‑use districts such as C1R, C2R, the central business district and the waterfront.

Paul Fritz, the City of Chester planning and zoning director, told the City of Chester Housing and Community Development Committee that he will pursue a zoning amendment to define “construction‑related businesses” or “tradesperson headquarters” and remove that use from mixed‑use districts such as C1R, C2R, the central business district and the waterfront.

Fritz said the change aims to stop “pole barn” style buildings and outdoor storage — commonly tied to landscaping and similar trades — from locating in areas intended for street‑level commercial activity and housing. “What this specific zoning amendment addresses is a term in the zoning ordinance that relates to construction and trades person headquarters, which is a little bit vague,” Fritz said. He added that the proposed definition would allow offices, storage of tools and parking for company vehicles but would “not include large scale manufacturing or retail sales to the public.”

The proposal would limit tradesperson or construction headquarters to industrial zones (LIC, MIC and HIC) and keep them out of mixed‑use corridors where the city expects first‑floor commercial and upper‑floor housing. Fritz said those industrial districts are concentrated along the 291 Corridor and at other locations the city has planned for more utilitarian uses. He described examples of concern including a current sketch‑plan proposal at the northwest corner of Lamokin and West Third Street and an earlier submittal for the 700 block of Green Street next to Pulaski Park.

Fritz told the committee that existing businesses operating as tradesperson or construction headquarters would remain in place and be “grandfathered” under the change; the amendment is intended to prevent new, by‑right installations that he said are inconsistent with mixed‑use goals. “They're there. Now, what that also leads to is another question is if there is a proposal in front of us right now for this type of use, which there is one in sketch plan which is informal review, the thought is that would be allowed to go through the review process and it would be grandfathered in,” Fritz said.

The planning director described the review process: the draft amendment has been shared with the Delaware County planning department as part of the state’s 247 review process; county comments are expected by Sept. 18. Fritz said the planning commission will be asked for a recommendation, followed by a public hearing and then presentation to city council for adoption. “It could take another month before we get in front of you,” he told the committee.

Committee members and staff asked clarifying questions. Joy Taylor, city controller, asked whether the draft would capture structures that might be described differently but serve the same function: “Have we ensured that we've covered any other structure that goes by a different name that may still have that appearance?” Fritz responded that the proposed construction‑headquarters definition should capture most pole‑barn issues and that tiny homes would be handled as a separate use because they involve dwelling units.

Committee members discussed alternative regulatory options such as allowing the use only by conditional use or special exception, which would require public hearings or zoning‑hearing‑board variances. Fritz said a denial by ordinance would allow the city to resist variances for locations that clearly conflict with neighborhood and park adjacency.

No formal action on the zoning amendment was taken during the committee meeting. The committee approved the prior meeting minutes and then adjourned; Fritz was asked to return once the county and planning commission reviews are complete.

Next steps described by Fritz: receive Delaware County planning comments (expected Sept. 18), request a planning commission recommendation, hold a public hearing, and present the amendment to city council for possible adoption. The committee did not set a final council date during the meeting.