Planning staff reviews sketch plan for West Second Street truck storage; applicant says use continues

A sketch plan to consolidate two lots at 2423–2427 West Second Street and build a 27,000-square-foot structure for truck and parts storage was presented to the Chester City Planning Commission at its May 14 meeting.

Planning staff described the proposal as a consolidation of two lots, with a single building footprint of about 27,000 square feet, 54 ground-level parking spaces and 38 stalls roughly 30 feet long. Staff said the site is in the W-1 Waterfront zoning district and that the proposed principal uses — warehousing/storage and a trucking terminal — are not permitted uses in the W-1 district. The planning memo noted the applicant characterizes some existing conditions as a legal nonconformity and that the proposal would increase impervious surface coverage to about 92.3% where the ordinance allows a maximum of 80%.

"In the observation from our review of the plan, the proposed use appears to align with two industrial use types," planning staff said, noting those uses "are not permitted in the W‑one Zoning District." The memo that staff referenced also urged the applicant to show evidence if they claim the use is an existing nonconformity and to clarify limits on any expansion of a nonconforming use.

Attorney Robert Scott, representing the applicant, and Sean Paul of Lynn Architects answered questions from commissioners and staff. Scott and Paul emphasized the site’s existing use and said the project is intended to modernize the property. "It is currently being used for the storage of vehicles and dumpsters and a little bit of office space," attorney Robert Scott said. "The proposal is to build a bigger building that has the same use."

Owner John Placzynski of J and K Trash Removal told the commission the operation is a trash-truck and dumpster storage business that has occupied the site for years. "We were basically building this to accommodate our fleet as it currently is," Placzynski said, adding the current staff count of about 65 could increase by roughly 10%. He said the expansion is not intended to add a large number of trucks beyond current operations.

Planning staff outlined several site issues the applicant will need to address moving forward: whether the proposed principal use should be treated as a nonconformity; demonstration of impervious-surface calculations and any required relief; clarification of proposed building height and fence type/height; the amount and design of exterior metal panels; garage-door orientation relative to West Second Street; planting-strip widths; proposed sidewalks along nearby streets; and the size and intended users of the long parking stalls.

The applicant said some on-site paved areas within a DelCo right-of-way will be returned to green space and that portions of millings and pavement along Front Street will be removed, which the design team said will reduce overall impervious coverage on the assembled site. Architect Sean Paul said existing building area had been partially demolished (noting the original building was about 20,350 square feet and the remaining structure about 8,200 square feet) and that the new building would increase the footprint to roughly 27,000 square feet.

On operations and community concerns, the applicant said trucks return empty at the end of routes and that refuse is not stored on site. "The trucks assemble there in the morning, get in a truck, go do a route ... return the trucks to the lot at the end of the day. So they're not storing any of the material there," Placzynski said in response to a commissioner question about potential smells or hazardous waste.

Staff and commissioners also discussed sidewalks and pedestrian connections. The applicant said there are no sidewalks on Palmer or Ward streets and that those streets dead-end at rail infrastructure; the team said they prefer to concentrate pedestrian access along Second Street and not encourage crossings over the active railroad. The planning memo also asked the applicant to clarify the number of employees and the extent of off‑site parking counts prior to a preliminary plan submission.

Design elements raised by staff that will be requested in later submissions include a detailed fence and landscape plan, an explanation of garage-door orientation, a clearer parking plan that shows where employees will park, and a planting strip that meets minimum widths.

The sketch-plan presentation did not require a commission vote. Planning staff told the commission the comments in the May 7 memo should be addressed on a future preliminary plan if the applicant proceeds.

The commission took no formal action on the sketch plan at the meeting; staff said the applicant will need to pursue any required zoning relief and provide more detailed engineering and landscape plans in subsequent filings.

Ending: Planning staff said they will follow up with the applicant on the outstanding technical questions and that a more detailed land-development submission will be required should the applicant move forward.