Redevelopment plans proposed for Picket Post Swim Club property in Chesterbook – Plans include saving the historic 19th century barn

In the last few weeks, I have received many emails and phone calls about a privately owned historic barn in Chesterbrook. Rumors have swirled about the deteriorating 19th century timber post and beam barn, its possible demolition and a proposed redevelopment plan of townhouses for the Picket Post Swim Club owned property. For those that do not know the property, here’s a photo of the barn which I took last night.

Referred to locally as the Chase Road barn, its historic name is the Green Valley Farm Barn and is listed in the 2003 Tredyffrin Township Historic Resource Survey with a c. 1890 construction date.

Hidden in the middle of the Ridings, one of the 28 Villages in the Chesterbrook community is a group of original Green Valley Farm properties – the Federal manor home, a tenant house and the barn.  In the 1700s the Green Valley Farm of 800 acres adjoined the Chesterbrook Farm owned by Alexander Johnston Cassatt. Cassatt, the 7th President of the Pennsylvania Railroad, bred thoroughbred race horses on his 600 acres.

Fast forward to 1969, and Richard Fox from Jenkintown bought the property (which would become Chesterbrook) for $2.3M.  There was strong opposition from the neighboring residents to the development of this land. A battle that went as far as the Supreme Court ended and in 1976, they began grading and clearing the 865 acres originally known as “Green Valley Farm”.

In 1985, the large manor house was architecturally developed into three separate condominium units, while maintaining its original style. The tenant house to the property is a single-family private residence and the barn became a part of the community swim club and tennis courts (Pickett Post).

Although the manor house and tenant house are enjoyed and successfully maintained by their owners, sadly the historic barn has not fared as well.  During the last decade, Picket Post Swim Club membership and revenues has declined.  In 2016, the swimming pool on the property was closed to save repair and operational expenses. The property’s sole current use is for tennis while the maintenance, taxes and insurance of the entire 4.8 acres is paid by Picket Post Swim Club.  And without attention, the condition of the 130-year old barn has continued to deteriorate.

In 2018, the community is at a crossroads, with opinions divided on the swim club property and its future.

Picket Post Swim Club placed the 4.8 acre site up for sale and my understanding is that several developers looked at the property but for various reasons did not move forward. One of the significant stumbling blocks for development is the property would need to be re-zoned to R-4 (currently the zoning is Rural Conservation RC).

According to several sources, including John McFadden, the president of Picket Post Swim Club, the township is not interested in the property – although some in the community believe that the township wants the tennis courts and will manage them.

But the Picket Post property is more than the tennis courts, there is a closed swimming pool and more importantly, a deteriorating historic barn. And although the large 19th century barn is a Tredyffrin Township Class 1 historic resource (see below), the structure is not protected from demolition. Remember, the township does not have a historic preservation ordinance.

To further explain — In 2003, historic resources were identified and listed in the township’s Historic Resources Survey and classified into three categories – Class I, Class II, and Class III.  Viewed as the most important historic structures (and therefore most worthy of preservation), Class I resources are identified as resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The survey identifies 47 historic resources, including the Chase Road barn, in the Class I category.

I met with the swim club president John McFadden three years ago about the Chase Road barn and its future. At that time, the barn had already fallen into disrepair, which is more obvious from the inside. Major issues included a weak, sagging wall and roof problems.  The meeting resulted in no clear-cut direction and the barn’s condition has not improved in the intervening years.

As mentioned, a major obstacle for the property is the Rural Conservation  (RC) zoning designation. RC zoning permits one single family home. Since advertising the Picket Post property for sale, one company emerged as willing to taking on the challenges of development. Green Bridge Development LLC has entered into an Agreement of Sale with the swim club and will seek to have the property re-zoned.

As president of Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust, whose mission is to preserve and protect historic and cultural resources in Tredyffrin Township for the benefit of present and future generations, I take the role seriously.  When discussing the proposed Chase Road project with the Green Bridge developers, my first question was “what about the barn”? Knowing that the cost to stabilize the large barn had to be over $500K, any plans for the barn would require a significant financial commitment.

After thorough discussion and review of the plans with the developer, I am pleased to report that the barn will be saved. In addition to townhouses, the proposed redevelopment plans include the adaptive re-use of the barn. A fan of re-purposing historic buildings, this is a way for old buildings, such as the barn, that have outlived their original purposes to have a ‘new future’.  With agreement to retain the integrity and historic features of the barn, I support the developer’s adaptive reuse of the Chase Road barn into 4 condominiums.

Green Bridge Development has hired local architect Rene Hoffman of R.A. Hoffman Architects in Paoli to design the project. Below is the rendering for the proposed adaptive re-use of the Chase Road barn —

If you attended the Trust’s 12th Annual Historic House Tour in 2016, one of the featured stops was the Westthorpe Farm Barn, c.1915 in Berwyn. In 2015, Bob Coppock of Coppock Properties and R. A. Hoffman Architects (the same firm hired for the Chase Barn conversion)meticulously crafted two luxury homes, retaining original architectural and historic elements — adaptive reuse of a historic barn at its best!  (See below)

There are some community members who want the Picket Post Swim Club property to remain ‘as is’.  Unfortunately, that is not a realistic option – the swim club cannot afford to keep the property and needs money for its other Chesterbrook swimming facility at Bradford Road. Additionally, the barn continues to deteriorate and in my opinion, is standing on borrowed time. Without financial intervention, the barn will probably need to be taken down at some point in the near future. When that happens, the community loses another historic resource.

There are those who want the Picket Post property to become a community park – again, not certain this is realistic. The purchase price on the property is $1.5M, where will the money come from to purchase and then maintain the property?  Taxpayers?  Grants?  Individual contributions?

Lots of opinions about the Picket Post Swim Club property and its future. The clock is ticking for this property and in my opinion, to ‘do nothing’ is not an option.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

40 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Agree with the potential rezoning and redevelopment of the area as there is no money for any other option,and the property sale proceeds would allow for the Picket post Swim club to maintain and improve the remaining pool and paddle courts.

    If the rezoning is denied, both swim clubs will continue to deteriorate and THAT will decrease the value of the neighboring properties – not the building of new townhouses.

    [Reply]

  2. The deterioration of this barn occurred on Picket Post Swim Club’s watch. Today the only builder stepping up wants to build 3 story condominiums / high volume occupancy homes, the same as those built on the Chesterbrook Shopping Center property. This over crowding causing water drainage / lack of green space plus parking is the issue are causing the local community members to attempt to hold the current zoning regulations.
    Picket Post Swim Club has victimized the local residents by NOT managing this property, we’re just trying to maintain our beautiful community and house values.
    Thank you for reading this.

    [Reply]

    Lilibet Reply:

    If you attended the developers’ presentation you will see the townshouses as proposed are not at all like the shopping center property which is zoned Town Center & has different building criteria. R4 zoning is different and is what Chesterbrook is zoned (residential that is).
    The builder and engineer have taken into account all the nieghbors’ objections & suggestions, and has even given Picket Post village some parking spaces, which it is not obligated to do.
    Parking in 2-1/2 spaces per unit, if there is a garage, that gives you 4-1/2 spaces. [clean out your garages, people.]

    [Reply]

  3. It’s great that you support preservation so strongly; it’s an important value. It would help if your article also didn’t completely ignore the current price of preserving this barn for residents of the area–40 townhomes plopped down in the middle of existing communities. There was a reason this land was deed restricted in the first place.

    I’m not saying that it must become a park but you write as if it’s an impossibility. Considering that the township purchased what is now Wilson Farm Park, why couldn’t they purchase this tract? Of course, the supervisors at that time had the foresight to incur a relatively short term cost for the long term gain of the park. It’s not clear that the current board has similar foresight.

    And by the way, the management of the club shouldn’t be given a pass in all this. What do they do to promote membership?

    Bottom line, let’s not ignore solutions that could be more suitable than the developer’s first proposal.

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    I am all for people coming up with other solutions. And if the Board of Supervisors are willing to purchase the property and make it a community park, that would certainly be a solution. I hope that those who oppose the development plan explore other options and do come up with Plan B, C, etc.

    My focus was intentionally focused on the barn, the Class I historic barn, that is an important part of our local history. My point is simple — to “do nothing” is not a solution — to do nothing the community loses the barn. I get that some people don’t care about the barn and I’ve heard people say that it should just be torn down. For me, that’s just not OK. These historic properties are not protected in Tredyffrin Township — just like the Covered Wagon Inn could have been demolished, so can the Chase Road barn. If it were not for myself and others standing up against the Covered Wagon Inn’s demolition, it would be gone. Without Board of Supervisor support for a historic preservation ordinance, our local history in these buildings is going to continue to disappear. Again — I get it that for some people, our local history doesn’t matter.

    I will agree with you that the current situation exists because of Picket Post Swim Club management issues and I’m certainly not giving them a pass. In my opinion, it has probably been 20 years since significant repairs/improvements were done to the Chase Road barn.

    [Reply]

  4. No one is suggesting we “do nothing”. We just don’t think overdevelopment is the answer. You might feel differently if you lived across the street from a construction site.

    [Reply]

  5. I applaud your efforts to save the barn. And I agree we as neighbors should be able to come up with options. However, we did not know this was happening until very recently. No one saw the property advertised for sale. can you show us where that was listed? No letters were sent except the ones we just got announcing the meeting for re-zoning. Believe it or not we have been getting post cards to join the club as recently as last month, with the chase rd address on it. Therefore, to ask us to come up with a solution right away is not fair. We should be given more time to come up with options and form a comitee. We should have been told a long time ago

    I do however realize the barn is in disrepair and the club is now defunct, however, that shouldn’t mean that we as neighbors should be inundated with years of construction and towering new structures that do not blend with the neighborhood. Needless to mention the added traffic and parking strains it will put on all of us.

    As stated, the property is zoned RC. It was zoned that way for a reason. It was the original goal of the township to have some open space as buffers for R1 clustering. 40 new townhomes is just too much. Chase Road is already a danger zone.

    Also, If RC is allowed one single family home, why wasn’t it listed for sale that way. At least given a try. Is it because a developer has deeper pockets and will pay more or is it something else? Personally I could care less about the paddle Courts or their pool. I care about our neighborhood and the rapidly diminishing space we have left.

    [Reply]

  6. I like the developer’s consideration of the barn structure and interest in bringing it to new life. The rendering looks like a place I would enjoy calling home…that is if the beautiful green space around the barn would still exist. I’m curious to see the plan for the entire area including the 40 townhomes to get a better understanding of the space. Is it possible for fewer townhomes to create enough profit for the developer?

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    The plan is for 36 townhouses and 4 condos in the barn. In the next couple of days I will put the plan up, and show renderings of the townhouses. The plan saves all the wonderful large trees next to the barn and swimming pool and each of the townhouses have front porches and 50 ft. front yards — very much like a village feel with sidewalks. The townhouses replicate the stone foundation and board and batten of the barn in their design.

    [Reply]

  7. A couple of constructive ideas come to mind:

    1.Will the swimming pool be used for the 30+ new homes?
    2.Could the developer add a small Park like setting with benches?
    3.Small dog park?
    4. Will units have garages? Off street parking?
    5. Small common area for community garden for veggies or flowers?
    6. Can the community build less townhomes?
    7. Will there be a clubhouse or community center?
    8. Off street mailboxes?
    9. Green Roof and Green spaces for native plants, birds?
    10. Can the builder replace sidewalks and roads ?

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    The Picket Post swimming pool/wading pool were closed several years ago – no longer maintained. The only reason that they were not removed already is that it is too costly and Picket Post does not have the funds.
    Townhouses will have garages as will the barn conversion.
    No community/club house in the plans.
    The plans include new sidewalk trails and roads.
    I cannot answer about mailboxes, gardens, benches, dog parks

    [Reply]

  8. Another idea or two:

    1.Ask builder to put in energy saving street lights for safety.
    2.And those street bumps to keep cars from speeding along.
    3.What will be the condo fees for the new development?
    4.Will it have private or public roads?
    5.Will buses be able to pick up kids who go to a school more than a mile away?
    6.Can the first responders/fire companies handle the new amount of people who will live in the units?
    7.Can the builder /township spell out the responsibilities of the builder to the community?
    8.What are the factors that are looked at in re zoning the property?
    9. How many new estimated students with 36 units? 74?

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    The developer has held several public meetings and neighbor meetings with residents and perhaps these questions were answered. The developer will be in front of the township Planning Commission, Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors where the public can ask questions. I do not speak for the developer.

    [Reply]

  9. Thank you for sharing this information. Someone told me about this developers plans but I live in the Panhandle and didn’t know where in Chesterbrook the property was located. The fact that this township doesn’t have historic protection of its buildings is ridiculous. A Class I building anywhere else on the mainline would be protected. If I understand the situation, the Chase Road barn is a Class I property but could be demolished. Please clarify, is that correct?

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    Yes, you are correct. No historic building in Tredyffrin Township is protected from demolition. Sometimes people think that if a property is on the National Register of Historic Places, that automatically protects the property. Short answer is NO, it still is not protected in Tredyffrin. You could own one of the Revolutionary War general’s headquarters and have it listed on the National Register of Historic Places and still demolish it. Oversight of historic properties in Pennsylvania is left to the local jurisdiction. There’s nothing forcing a PA township/borough to have a historic preservation ordinance — and sadly in Tredyffrin Township we do NOT have an ordinance to protect properties from demolition.

    [Reply]

  10. Patty
    There is a large group of residents with a much better plan – please reach out to me and I will be happy to update you. You should be helping us preserve this treasure – not destroying our neighborhood
    Shame on you –
    greenchesterbrook@hotmail.com

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    I sent the following email to you at greenchesterbrook@hotmail.com

    Hello,
    There is much misinformation swirling around concerning the Picket Post property. If you have a plan for this property, I would welcome hearing it.

    Pattye Benson

    The email was returned to me with the following response:

    Address not found
    Your message wasn’t delivered to greenchesterbrook@hotmail.com because the address couldn’t be found, or is unable to receive mail.

    To be clear — I tried to contact you but email was returned. Please provide a working email or contact me at tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com

    [Reply]

  11. If you read the email from DAVID MILLER, you would have learned that the developers for Parkview did the same thing. Said one thing and built another. If the developer gets the zoning change, all bets are off. And Pattye I don’t care if it looks like a nice place to you – you aren’t living across the street from it.

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    Please see my response to the last comment. If a “large group of residents” have a plan for the Picket Post property, the community would like to hear about it.

    [Reply]

  12. The only beneficiaries are 1. Builder/Developer and 2. Picket Post (specifically John McFadden). Not sure why Chesterbrook should be transformed into a “monstrosity” due to negligence and mismanagement of this club. This should not be a “bailout”. The residents of Chesterbrook have voted with their wallets, even with “bargain basement pricing” the membership and defection rate has been in a nosedive for many years. This is a self serving project for the few swim team members and group of Paddle players to fund the ongoing failed operations with this windfall gain. If approved this may set a precedence for developing the remaining open space areas of this serene community.

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    OK, so let me ask you what is the solution? What should happen to the property? Should taxpayer dollars fund the purchase of the property and make it a community park? What happens to the 130-yr. old barn? I am confident that the supervisors will not support the cost of stabilization — so would you recommend demolishing the barn? It’s not protected, so there’s nothing stopping that outcome. It the barn is taken down, it will give the neighbors more open space.

    People keep saying that there are other solutions for the property — I’m very interested in hearing those options.

    [Reply]

  13. The builders pitch was well prepared but got “tripped up” with some good questions on –> building height, tree preservation, traffic patterns (80+ more cars exiting every morning, parking, child safety and clutter caused by “no back yards” causing the front to be used for some storage.

    [Reply]

  14. Sadly, there are some in our community receiving personal attacks over this issue, myself included. My focus in writing the post was in the barn and its significance to local history, particularly Chesterbrook’s history.

    Apparently there are some who think that my support for the barn means that I don’t care about the community. Choosing to attack me personally over the issue is not the answer and does not solve the problem. What a world we live in :(

    [Reply]

  15. The asumption is the Township will approve rezoning, what are the odds?

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    If you are asking me the odds, I have no idea. Those who oppose the re-zoning are making their voices heard loudly. And to be clear, there is a process to change zoning — first to the Planning Commission, next in front of the Zoning Hearing Board and then to the Board of Supervisors. IMO, the re-zoning application could go either way.

    [Reply]

  16. What are you suggesting happens to this property? All I have heard thus far is 1. It should be left “as is” which is not an option or 2. The township should take over the property. The township does not want this property. If the township were to convert to “open space” who will have to pay for that? We as TE residents will. There is no need for another park when you can walk to Wilson Farm Patk from this location.

    [Reply]

  17. Aside from the a redevelopment plan for 36 townhouses and adaptive reuse of the barn to include 4 condos, I am not certain what some of the people want or who will pay for it.

    Those that say keep it like it is – OK, if you go along with that suggestion, is the township going to take over the tennis courts and manage? What happens to the barn? For those that suggest the 4.8 acre property as open space, I’d say that short of winning the lottery, is the expectation that township [Tredyffrin taxpayers] underwrite the cost.

    I am told that there is a plan by some of the neighbors who oppose the rezoning/redevelopment — but that their strategy is ‘not to disclose’ the plan. I’d say they might want to float their suggestion ‘sooner’ rather than ‘later’ if they want it to have any traction. I’m in the dark as to what this ‘plan’ is.

    [Reply]

  18. The Chase swim and tennis club have had financial difficulties for many years, in part because of poor fiscal management. For years they tried to solve the problem by raising rates, which got to the point that one could belong to the local YMCA for a close to a full year for what the swim club charges for approximately 3 months access. It’s ridiculous, and the main reason that my family no longer belongs.

    As for the barn, I am all for retaining historical sites, and re purposing as it makes sense. Let me point out in the years that I belonged to the swim club, the barn was used largely only for storage and little was done or spent for maintenance. And so to me it’s current condition is of no surprise.

    I feel that changing the use of this land must be evaluated more completely and thoroughly before letting it be rezoned, sold and developed with more townhouses in an already crowed area of Chesterbrook. From what I’ve read of the plans, this plan would be another atrocity to the original plans and designs, much like what has happened at the Shopping Center, where the only winners are the land owner, developers and township in being able to collect more taxes. Having attended a number of the sessions of the planning board, it was clear that this was the original plan from them anyway; residents of Chesterbrook be damned.

    Even so, I would support the re-purposing of the barn, but does it have to be made to townhouses? Perhaps, there could be a greater Chesterbrook or township community use. Have actual alternatives been explored, other than to help bail out the Swim Club? They originally received the property for a nominal fee for transfer of title, why should they substantially benefit now from its sale? I don’t feel we as members of the Chesterbrook, township or county communities have such an obligation. As for the tennis courts, they should be donated to the township for public use; there are none in the area except those at some schools for such a purpose, and would be a worthwhile addition to the area.

    When discussing the pools, I think it important to add that the still open pool on Bradford Road presents a large nuisance in the summer when there are swim meets since there in not adequate parking, and the street becomes filled with many many vehicles making it hard for local traffic to pass. When the shopping center was still intact, people could be encouraged to park there and walk to the pool, which already has changed the initial intent of the design of Chesterbrook…too crowded, too tall, not adequate open space, drainage problems that were noted as concern at early review meetings. Not a lot is unknown in such a proposal as with the Chase pool area, and developers must be kept honest, made responsible if the product does not meet the promises. What has happened in the shopping center should not be allowed to happen at the Chase pool.

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful comment — it is much appreciated.

    [Reply]

  19. There is a real value to having open space, regardless of how close it is to other open space. As fas a the “township” not wanting it, the citizens are the township. If (and iI know it is an if) we want it, they could find a way to do it, much like Radnor Township did with Ardrossan open space and our township did with Wilson Farm Park years ago. Chesterbrook already bears the brunt of traffic and other issues to support all the office buildings here that contribute revenue to the township.

    [Reply]

  20. Something needs to happen to the Chase Road property. The property was already going downhill but when the pool closed a few years ago, it has gotten much worse. The roads in this part of Chesterbrook are private (owned by the homeowners not the township) and are not adequately maintained. I keep hearing keep the Chase Road property as it is and don’t want to see the property developed. That is one opinion but there are some of us who don’t think it looks all that great the way it is and wonder who is going to foot the bill if the township takes the property.

    [Reply]

  21. Agree with you 100%!!! As a member for over 25 years, I have seen great times but, hard to sustain with lack of members and general upkeep.

    [Reply]

  22. Thanks, Pattye, for increasing our awareness of this issue, which will send clear signals about how the community wants Tredyffrin to evolve.

    The Club wishes to sell the property and appears to be allowing it to fall into disrepair. One potential buyer proposes to purchase the property subject to re-zoning that will allow for repurposing of the 130 year old barn and for another 36 townhouses. The consequences will include increased traffic, more school enrollment and reduction of open space – factors that the original zoning of Chesterbrook was arguably designed to limit.

    If our representatives decline to approve the re-zoning application, the Club will have to continue as-is, fail, or find another purchaser. The value of the RC zoned property is unlikely to be $1.5 million, though. (A ploy developers often use: “well, the only way the numbers work is if we get approval for [n] times the density”. Based on an assumed, but not set-in-stone and maybe inflated, purchase price!). Maybe someone would find the value in purchasing the property at a nominal price, converting the barn to residences and giving the tennis courts to the Township?

    As many have suggested here, this seems to be worth a full exploration of all possibilities before approving such an extreme measure as re-zoning.

    I don’t know how important tea-leaf reading is here, but is it an indicator of Township thinking that that the title of this item on the Planning Commission agenda item is “R-4 Zoning Map Amendment”?

    Note that also on Thursday’s Planning Commission agenda is a proposal to develop the eastern part of the Swedesford Plaza shopping center at 400 – 450 West Swedesford Road into a “multi-family building”.

    [Reply]

  23. I really doubt there is a legitimate alternative plan by the local residents, and if their plan calls for the township (meaning all TE taxpayers) to buy this property and turn it into a park for the benefit of a small group of residents, that will not fly either.

    I would suspect any approved plan will likely have a lower density, and from the initial sketches, the units and proposed layout looks like a positive addition to the area.These units will likely have a higher price point than the surrounding , existing units so that would tend to raise the values of the neighboring properties.

    As far as the claims of mismanagement by the pool club, it’s more a function of the Chesterbrook residents not supporting the pool club by joining , and the resulting revenue not supporting the operating and capital expenses. I’d like to see some proof of the mismanagement that is being claimed – but maybe BOTH pools should be sold and the properties redeveloped.

    [Reply]

  24. Chesterbrook residents haven’t been joining (and have been defecting) for a reason. At the same time, neighboring clubs are thriving and have “wait lists” to join.

    [Reply]

  25. Thank you for an informative historical presentation and concern for barn property as well as trying to spell out the issues. Ultimately, any decision comes down to people accountable to the community and voting public and, hopefully, in their best interests.

    As part of former Picket Post member family, we sense great frustration from words exchanged here and otherwise. This frustration if not anger seems related to sudden even surprising to some what appears ram down, cram down of ONE very recent development proposal. Consider this whole issue has been probably festering since 2015 or before.

    What has emerged are active constructive discussion and A NUMBER of ALTERNATIVE IDEAS that could be viable for this site. Know awareness exists not to burden taxpayers while still achieving results that may work and should definitely be heard and considered. People have been thinking and very constructively. This family alone has been among many others actively participating. These alternatives may not provide relief let alone windfall to a private club but are aimed to benefit greater public (who do vote).

    To me and many others inside and outside this situation, being faulted for not supporting the club or its position parallels railing at consumers for not buying a product found unacceptable, unworthy for whatever reasons that somehow it’s owed ‘support’..regardless. If something doesn’t sell, it doesn’t sell. We have heard no one want to keep things ‘as is’ but many wanting an opportunity to offer ideas toward more open workable space. Citing the existing site as ‘somewhat developed already’ and space constrained because of paving, tennis courts, barn goes the way of criticizing in greater magnitude NYC Central Park that it could be partially or even totally developed for residential and/or commercial purposes. Yes, Wilson Park and others exist, yet these 4.8 acres are zoned Rural Conservation already and deserve to stay that way as what appears the intent and the vision of Chesterbrook’s developers ‘creating’ this space in a dense development area plan. And an historic barn should have its chance too.

    Thank you for this consideration and to all working for collective, constructive solutions.

    [Reply]

    Pattye Reply:

    Thank you. I look forward to hearing all viable solutions for the property, especially those plans that include saving the historic Chase Road barn.

    [Reply]

  26. For those that may not have heard, the Chase Road project has been removed from tomorrow’s Planning Commission agenda. The re-zoning project will be on the Planning Commission’s agenda for July 19.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2017 Frontier Theme