City of Chester reviews three redevelopment projects; council raises maintenance, traffic and stormwater concerns

City of Chester council members and staff on Aug. 11 reviewed three major land‑development proposals and related grant and infrastructure items, raising questions about long‑term maintenance, traffic, stormwater management and public improvements. The deliberative meeting included an overview of the projects and the waiver requests that would accompany approvals; no final votes on the resolutions were recorded in the transcript of the session.

The most detailed presentation, by planning staff member Paul Fritz, described three separate projects that would be brought before the council for final action: SilverCare Senior Housing (a two‑phase conversion of an existing hospital complex into 94 assisted‑living apartments), a Liberty Housing Development Corporation project (marketed as Sean and Eileen’s Place: a one‑story office with six accessible, affordable residential units), and a 742 West Front Street LLC proposal to consolidate 14 lots and build a roughly 57,695‑square‑foot warehouse with about 7,000 square feet of office space and on‑site parking. Fritz said the city has updated its resolution format for subdivision and land‑development projects to include more detailed attachments spelling out conditions and waiver requests.

"We're changing how we're going to do these resolutions going forward," Fritz said during the presentation, adding the longer format ties the projects more clearly to the municipal planning code and to required conditions.

Why it matters: all three projects involve redevelopment of underused or vacant parcels and include requests for waivers from subdivision and land‑development rules. They affect street frontage and public infrastructure (curbing, sidewalks, stormwater controls) and involve federal, state and private funding sources or approvals.

SilverCare Senior Housing

Fritz described SilverCare as a two‑phase reuse of a large former hospital building to create 94 units targeted to residents age 62 and older. He said the applicant has funding for the first phase and expects to seek funding for the second phase; council members were told the city would approve the plan for both phases even though the second phase is dependent on later financing.

Fritz said the project requested several standard waivers, including a combined preliminary/final plan waiver and a waiver of a traffic impact study. The city engineer recommended the traffic waiver after the developer’s engineer presented data indicating the site’s senior population and limited car ownership reduced expected trip generation. Fritz described a partial curbing waiver that would limit new curbing to the frontage immediately adjacent to the project and said curbing work for the site would be deferred to the second phase because of funding constraints.

Council members pressed on maintenance and long‑term upkeep. One member said, "My concern is going forward, just how the property will look 10 years from now." Fritz pointed to three post‑approval agreements that would govern maintenance and public improvements: a stormwater management agreement, a land‑development agreement for public improvements (curbs, sidewalks, street trees), and a financial agreement backing those improvements. He also said the applicant is reducing impervious cover marginally and will provide on‑site stormwater management; the city engineer recommended a waiver for a portion of the stream/erosion standard because the site would reduce runoff volume and improve water quality.

Fritz confirmed the project includes a mix of unit sizes and that phase one would include roughly half of the total units (speaker estimated about 43–47 units). He said the developer and the city discussed potential pedestrian crossings to Memorial Park and other amenities but noted the city does not control how the applicant will market available units.

Liberty Housing Development Corporation — Sean and Eileen’s Place

The Liberty project would consolidate several shallow lots on Morton Avenue to build a brick‑faced, single‑story office plus six accessible residential units. Fritz said the office would be staffed 24 hours and would provide on‑site support to residents; the units are ADA accessible and intended as long‑term affordable housing rather than short‑term transitional placements.

Council members asked about coordination with Widener University and potential volunteer or service partnerships; Fritz said those conversations did not occur in the planning‑commission review but could be pursued. City staff told council the project team has experience on similar infill projects in the Philadelphia area and intends to serve Chester residents.

742 West Front Street LLC (Power Home Remodeling site)

The third project is a reverse subdivision consolidating 14 lots into one to construct a roughly 57,695‑square‑foot building in the city’s light industrial zone. Fritz said the developer will use the site as a training center and warehouse for Power Home Remodeling, and that the project team agreed to reorient loading docks to the rear of the site to improve truck circulation.

Council members asked about traffic and safety. Fritz said the applicant supplied a traffic‑impact study and that because West Second Street is a state road, final egress and access will require coordination with PennDOT. He said most truck movements will be routed to Curlin Street or Yuleridge Street rather than narrow West Front Street and that the site will be fenced and secured. Fritz confirmed demolition of the prior building had already occurred under appropriate demolition permits; he said no major site work had begun at the time of the meeting.

Waivers and conditions

Across the three projects, Fritz described waiver requests common to infill redevelopment: combined preliminary/final plan approval, partial curbing waivers, limited waivers related to stormwater code (when a project reduces runoff), and the city engineer’s determinations on whether traffic studies are required. Fritz explained the city negotiates conditions such as compliance with the engineer’s review letter, sidewalk and curb installation within project frontage, and stormwater maintenance obligations recorded through agreements.

Other items on the agenda

At the start of the meeting the solicitor read a list of resolutions scheduled for final passage at the council meeting, including a series of handicap parking authorizations (Resolution 89), an amendment to an existing contract that reduces one project's amount by $95,060.80 from $237,946.19 to $142,885.39 (Resolution 90, as read on the agenda), a PennDOT Transportation Alternatives reimbursement grant agreement for the Norris Street Trail and Streetscape Improvement Project (Resolution 91), an agreement with Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) related to a multiuse trail crossing (Resolution 92), and an application to HUD’s Lead Hazard Reduction Grant Program not to exceed $4,400,000 with a 10% local match (Resolution 93). Fritz noted the updated resolution format includes attachments that spell out waiver requests and conditions for land‑development approvals (Resolutions 94–96).

Council follow‑up and next steps

Several council members asked staff to track long‑term maintenance and to ensure that required public improvements are completed, emphasizing inspection and enforcement through city codes and the conditions attached to approvals. On the facade improvement program, staff reported that two storefront owners opted out after a contractor award; the contractor agreed to proceed with the remaining three storefronts and staff said the freed ARPA funds would likely be reallocated (staff mentioned the public‑works building as a possible use).

Fritz closed by encouraging council members to attend planning‑commission meetings for more technical detail and by noting the attachments to each resolution provide the legal and technical bases for conditions and waivers. "I do believe all of these are good projects. I wouldn't tell you otherwise if they weren't," he said.

Ending: Council members will consider the resolutions at the council’s upcoming final‑action meeting; the deliberative meeting transcript shows discussion and clarifications but no formal final votes on the listed resolutions.