Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Chester planning commission reviews proposed 42‑unit townhome project on High Street; neighbors raise parking and tree concerns
Summary
At a July 6 work session, developers presented a preliminary land development plan for a multi-cluster townhouse project at the High/Price/Dean block in West Chester. The plan draws praise for design and landscaping but prompts resident concern over parking, tree replacement and long-term HOA maintenance.
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a July 6 work session, the West Chester Borough Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary land development plan for a multi‑cluster townhouse development at the block bounded by High, Price and Dean streets. Brian Abel, speaking for the applicant, said the team submitted responses to reviewers and would present elevations and site updates.
The applicant team, led by architect Gabe Jap and civil engineer John Anderson of Forester Consulting, described a design organized into five clusters: single‑family townhomes along Price and Dean streets, eight two‑family (stacked) buildings along High Street and two interior clusters of duplexes. John Anderson said the submission shows 42 total dwelling units and on‑site parking sized to provide two spaces per unit. "We're providing 42 units, and we're providing 84 parking spaces on‑site," Anderson said.
Why it matters: the project would alter pedestrian and parking patterns on three narrow borough streets, remove some on‑site trees and add a new block of homes next to established residential yards. Residents and commissioners focused on how the project handles street trees, stormwater, emergency access and whether the proposed verge and plantings will be durable in winter plow/salt conditions.
Project details and public-safety checks The architect said materials are intended to reflect the surrounding historic character: a red brick veneer across the lower three floors, a mansard/top‑floor treatment of fiber‑cement or slate‑like material, arched entryways and bay projections in places. The design is held under the borough's 45‑foot height limit by stepping unit elevations.
John Anderson said the team ran turning templates with the fire marshal’s chosen ladder truck and revised radii and curb details so emergency apparatus can enter and exit the site. The fire marshal asked for a hydrant on site; the applicant agreed to install one. The stormwater system was changed in response to reviewer comments to a concrete underground system.
Neighborhood concerns and responses Residents praised design changes but pressed the team on practical operations. Questions included whether residents would still use street parking, how delivery vehicles (Amazon, food delivery) would be handled, where trash would be stored, and whether the interior verge plantings would survive salt, snow and pedestrian desire‑lines.
The applicant said each dwelling has rear‑loaded garage access and that a homeowners association is expected to contract private trash pickup; residents would store totes in garages and place them at collection points on trash days. On deliveries, the team said the interior drive and rear loading areas are designed to accommodate service vehicles, but cautioned it cannot control the behavior of all delivery drivers.
Several speakers urged stronger commitments on tree size and maintenance. Karen Bosborough, who identified herself as a Price Street resident, asked for bigger canopy trees and a requirement that the HOA replace lost trees. Commissioners and staff pointed to the HOA declarations (a recorded public document) and borough enforcement mechanisms tied to what was approved on the landscape plan, but residents pressed for specific, long‑term guarantees.
Zoning, timing and next steps Commissioners and staff discussed process and timing. The commission can make a recommendation at an August work session; borough council will then act on the preliminary plan. The team said some items (historic/town‑center review and permit windows with agencies such as PennDOT and NPDES) will affect timing; a rough construction timeline estimate ranged from about 9 to 14 months after final approvals.
What’s next: staff and the applicant agreed to circulate the missing renderings and detailed elevation sheets to commissioners by email. The commission plans to take up the plan again at its August 3 work session so members can make a recommendation to council.

