Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
West Chester committee splits on solicitor for Spring Grove case, votes to send solicitor for Magnolia student‑home hearing
Loading...
Summary
The Smart Growth Committee recommended not sending the solicitor to oppose an impervious‑coverage variance at 515 Spring Grove Lane (2‑1), but agreed that the solicitor should attend the zoning hearing for 138/138 Magnolia to address procedural errors and possible misuse of a special‑exception process.
The West Chester Smart Growth Committee on Monday debated whether to instruct the borough solicitor to attend two upcoming zoning hearings and recorded split recommendations to borough council.
For 515 Spring Grove Lane — an application seeking relief tied to impervious‑coverage thresholds near a 12,000‑square‑foot lot boundary — staff described the relief as de minimis and recommended the solicitor need not attend. Council members Jerry Spaniak and Brian Travis agreed with that recommendation; Council member Steven Marvin dissented and asked staff to research stormwater/runoff impacts. The committee recorded a 2‑to‑1 recommendation not to send the solicitor; that recommendation will be transmitted to the full seven‑member borough council for a formal vote.
Chair Spaniak summarized the Spring Grove issue as a technical variance tied to the borough’s sliding impervious‑coverage limits (50 percent under 12,000 sq. ft.; 35 percent above). Staff said the property is “a little over 12,000 square feet” — roughly 300–400 square feet over the threshold — and that the proposed addition would raise impervious area from about 36 percent to roughly 41 percent. Staff noted the zoning hearing board will determine whether de minimis relief is appropriate.
By contrast, the committee agreed to send the solicitor to the hearing on the Magnolia application. Staff reported multiple application errors for the property listed as 138 West Magnolia (agenda typo), including a misclassification as a conditional use rather than a special exception, missing square‑footage and parking information, and uncertainty about whether the structure qualifies as a single‑family detached dwelling (the code requires a detached house for a student‑home special exception). Aaron Flook said the application appeared procedurally flawed and that he would prefer the solicitor “work with them and actually make them understand that they may not be going through the right process.”
The Magnolia matter raised broader concerns among committee members about precedent and neighborhood impacts. One council member warned that allowing a student‑home special exception where criteria aren’t met could open a path for more conversions of rentals into student housing in the borough. Members said the solicitor should attend to challenge the application and explain the requirements to the zoning hearing board.
Residents also spoke at the meeting. Sean Berry, of 15 London St., said the property in his neighborhood is listed for rent and told the committee that a five‑bed unit had moved from $3,400 to $4,000 per month — “a 20% increase in, like, a 5‑month span,” he said — and urged the committee to consider affordability and neighborhood character when reviewing student‑home requests.
The committee’s recommendations on solicitor attendance will be recorded for the council packet and decided by the full borough council at its next meeting.
