Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Valley Hills

Tredyffrin Twp Planning Commission agenda — Chesterbrook Shopping Center project & Plans for 250-unit multifamily building in Paoli!

The upcoming Planning Commission meeting on Thursday has a couple of major township redevelopment projects on the agenda for discussion – Chesterbrook Shopping Center and 250 unit multi-family building with structured parking in Paoli.

The applicant for the Chesterbrook Shopping Center project, 500 Chesterbrook Boulevard, LP is back in front of the Planning Commissioners regarding the proposed text amendments to the Town Center District (TCD). The proposed TCD changes included amending the standard for building height, sidewalks, parking, building façade and the steep slope regulation, to differentiate for manmade steep slopes. The Planning Commission originally approved the TCD zoning changes on November 21 and sent it to the Board of Supervisors for review at their December 16 meeting. However, after discussion and community input, the supervisors sent the proposed TCD text amendments back to the PC for further work that will happen at Thursday’s meeting.

One of the sticking points in the proposed zoning changes is in regards to steep slopes; the current TCD ordinance differentiates between natural and manmade slopes but makes no distinction from a regulatory standpoint – both have the same requirements. It is the suggestion of the applicant that if the slope is manmade because of a prior development (which is the case at the Chesterbrook Shopping Center), it should not need to be preserved – especially when considering that much of the development affected by this will be redevelopment. For those that don’t know, the backside of Chesterbrook Shopping Center (Wilson Farm Park side) is multi-story; the slope created as part of the original development plan when the center was constructed.

Ever since Genuardi’s closed 3-1/2 years ago, the center has continued its spiral downward. Unlike the retail stores that may close along Rt. 252 or Lancaster Avenue, the Chesterbrook Shopping Center is the core of Chesterbrook – it’s their town center. The redevelopment of the Chesterbrook Shopping Center is very overdue – this project is going to be a win-win for the neighboring residents, the corporate employees working in Chesterbrook and other township residents, who like I drive through the area regularly. I hope that the 500 Chesterbrook Boulevard, LP developer can successfully maneuverer any remaining obstacles regarding the text amendment zoning changes and this exciting project can move forward!

I wish I could say that I was as positive about the proposed Paoli redevelopment project as I am about the Chesterbrook Shopping Center. The owner of Station Square (a group of dated office buildings at the corner of East Central and N. Valley Road), the Palmer Group is proposing a 250-unit multifamily building with structured parking plan at this site adjacent to the Paoli Train Station. Having just praised the plans for the Chesterbrook Shopping Center, my objection to the Station Square project has nothing to do with not supporting redevelopment.

There are so many issues surrounding the proposed Station Square project, it’s hard to know where to start. First off, for anyone that travels on North Valley Road or Central Avenue during either morning or afternoon rush hours, you know how much traffic already exists in this area of the township. Certainly, the employees working in the existing Station Square office buildings contribute to the traffic although a certain number probably use the convenient adjacent public transportation. However, any additional traffic from the Station Square office workers is Monday-Friday, 9 – 5 type of traffic. However, the addition of a 250 unit multifamily building in this location and the traffic is compounded – and it’s 24/7 traffic.

The residents of Valley Hills already face major morning and afternoon traffic challenges maneuvering from their community onto E. Central and N. Valley roads – I cannot imagine how the local roads will handle the traffic created by an additional 250 families or the quality of life effect on the neighbors.

I am certain that an argument to support this proposed project is that it is part of of the Paoli Transit Center and Paoli redevelopment vision. However, I have problems with the density of the development and the additional traffic issues such a project will cause. One of the arguments regularly used by residents opposing the Wayne Glen development project is the potential additional students into the T/E School District. The targeted audience for the proposed Wayne Glen townhouses and carriage homes and the new Chesterbrook townhouses is the 55+ buyer but that has not kept that argument from being made. However, my guess is the planned 250-unit multifamily building in Paoli is going to appeal to families with children and will provide a lower cost way to enjoy the benefits of the T/E schools. As an aside, it is clear from attending school board meetings that many of our schools are currently operating at near capacity and this proposed Station Square multifamily building could have a dramatic effect on the school district enrollment.

According to the Planning Commission agenda, the developer will provide a sketch plan of the Station Square project. This is the first opportunity for residents to hear about the concept and see the plans – I look forward to hearing how the developer plans to resolve the additional traffic issues and density concerns.

T/E School District (Paoli) House & Contents Goes to Auction July 16

I received a notice from an antique auction site that caught my attention. Although fairly common in some parts of the country, I don’t recall the last time I saw a house and its contents on the auction block in Tredyffrin Township.

On July 16, a ranch style house at 788 N. Valley Road in Paoli is going to be auctioned (open house is this weekend) — details are in the advertisement below. The property includes 3.2 acres and is a fixer-upper. This is a lovely area of the township and my guess is someone may buy it and rather than fixing the house, will knock it down for the property. I’m sure that there is story behind this auction as I am on this road almost every day and there was not a ‘for sale’ sign, so appears that it is going directly to auction. Is this auction an isolated situation, sign of the economic times or foreshadowing of what’s to come.

Auction Listing

AuctionZip Auctioneer ID# 9683

OPEN HOUSE JULY 8th, 9th & 12TH FROM 2-5 PM


SATURDAY JULY 16, 2011 AT 1:00 PM










610-955-9417 OR 610-283-8469

Will Delaware Valley Friends School and TEYSA listen to the neighbors concerns about field lighting and other issues?

Last night a diverse group of people came together at Delaware Valley Friends School to discuss Tredyffrin Easttown Youth Soccer Association’s (TEYSA) artificial turf field and the associated open resident issues related to its construction and current usage. Representatives from DVFS and TEYSA met with local residents from Valley Hills, Paoli Pointe and Paoli Apartments. Also in attendance was township solicitor Tom Hogan, Zoning Officer Emmy Balderserre and township supervisor Kampf.

I am currently in Seattle and therefore unable to attend the meeting. I did receive notes from several Valley Hills residents and I will offer a meeting summary. (For any of you who attended the meeting, please feel free to offer your comments). Residents left the meeting with a sense that progress was made with the airing and discussion of issues. Two particular issues surfaced in the discussion; the lighting of the turf field and landscaping replacement.

The general consensus among the East Central Avenue area residents was they would prefer there be no lighting of DVFS field. However, it is understood that the preferred ‘no lighting’ option is probably not realistic. With that said, the residents believe that the current ‘temporary lighting’ is less desirable than a permanent lighting solution which would include usage covenants. One of the problems with the temporary lighting is the requirement for a generator whereas permanent lighting would not require a generator. The running of the generator is very noisy and additionally the temporary lighting is deemed to be more invasive to the neighbors. Although TEYSA representatives presented a rough lighting plan at the meeting, there is concern among the neighbors that TEYSA will drag its feet on the permanent light issue, due to the cost. It is hoped that a permanent lighting solution can be in place by fall which would have a calming effect on the neighbors most affected.

The open landscaping issue faired better with the neighbors although the planting season is a fall activity and therefore must be placed on hold until that time. The mature trees that were lost cannot be easily replaced; and the replacement landscaping will take time to grow.

The community members left the meeting feeling that real progress was made and that their concerns were heard by DVFS and TEYSA; it is hoped that the momentum can continue. It is my understanding that any changes to the turf field will require zoning board approval. Involving the neighbors in the discussion regarding the field’s usage, times of operation, lighting, etc. and any proposed zoning changes should allow for a more successful outcome. The community members were encouraged by Tom Hogan’s involvement in the process and it is hoped that he will continue to stay involved.

Obviously the meeting did not completely solve all the problems but the residents left the meeting feeling hopeful. I will look forward to hearing updates from the East Central Avenue neighbors.

Community Issues Regarding Artificial Turf Field at Delaware Valley Friends School . . . Will meeting on Wednesday help to resolve?

Since I began Community Matters, I have had several Valley Hills neighborhood members write to me about the new artificial turf field at Delaware Valley Friends School, and associated community issues as a result of the field’s construction. This Paoli neighborhood is located in the East Central Avenue area in close proximity to the Friends School and some of the residents have had specific issues since the installation of the turf field, including lighting, generator noise, increased traffic, buffer intrusion, etc.

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, under the ‘new matters from citizens’ section, the issue of the turf field resurfaced along with specific questions. There was also an announcement of an upcoming meeting at Delaware Valley Friends School (DVS) this Wednesday at 7 PM between DVS representatives and the neighbors.

I have tried to piece together some of the background on the turf field project and the open issues and ongoing concerns of the neighbors. At the supervisors meeting, Steve Ross, a Valley Hills resident, asked the board why an $800,000 turf field did not require a building permit. Mimi Gleason explained that because the school was changing an existing field in to turf field (rather than creating a new field) the project was not a land development project, regardless of the cost. However, the project did require a grading permit; Mr. Ross has asked to see a copy of that permit.

Here is some of the history of the project as I understand it. The early discussion on the turf field began in the late summer of 2008. I should mention that up until this point, the local neighbors had enjoyed an open and friendly relationship with DVS and the residents and their children were welcome to use the existing school playing fields if they were not being used. (Now there are large, rather unwelcoming signs indicating the field is for use by DVS and Tredyffrin Easttown Youth Soccer Association (TEYSA) only). In late summer, TEYSA in a partnership agreement with DVS developed the project. Although it appears that DVS still owns the field, TEYSA has a ‘sports easement’ to use it (I am not entirely clear about the meaning of this term). It is my understanding that TEYSA paid for the turf field through fundraising efforts. I am unclear whether TEYSA fully funded the project or if there was financial contribution from DVS.

Many of the Valley Hills neighbors feel that the problems began at DVS (with the turf field) as a result of not being included in the process and discussion. Having previously shared a good relationship with the school and its administrators, I think that the neighbors feel they were a bit blind-sighted and not kept in the loop. It is interesting to note that the township has maintained because the usage of the field was not changed, a building permit was not required. Without a building permit, there would not be a legal requirement to notify the neighbors. However, neighbors claim that the blueprints are very clear about building in water containment tanks since water does not perk the same into turf as it does into soil But without a building permit, there were not inspections – therefore leaving the local residents to accept the word of DVS that the turf field was indeed constructed as planned. The turf field was built into the buffer and no variance was filed with the township. Was a variance required and if so, was it the responsibility of DVS or TEYSA?

The strained relationship with DVS and its neighbors started when the buffer of mature trees were taken down. Although DVS apparently claims that there were not aware that the contractor would remove so many trees, the blueprints actually tell a different story. The neighbors witnessed the aftermath of the tree removal vs. being advised and included in the process prior to the removal of the trees. I maintain that you can never give the community ‘too much information’; rather it’s when they are left questioning that the problems occur.

Fast forward to May 2010 and how does Delaware Valley Friends School’s artificial turf field continue to impact the neighbors in and around East Central Ave? The once passive recreational area, that the school and neighbors enjoyed, has dramatically changed. The character of the neighborhood and the open space has transformed in to a very commercial, noisy setting with the construction of the turf field, its lighting, increased traffic and noise issues. Specifically, the lights and the artificial turf have increased the use of the field from very occasional evening and Saturday use to every evening and all day Saturday and Sunday use. The neighbors have no relief from the increased traffic on East Central Avenue. Cars start coming in at 5 PM weekdays, 8 AM on Saturday and Sunday mornings and stay until well after dark. With or without the lights on the field, people stay until after dark using car headlights to extend their time on the field. This is certainly a problem and one that needs further discussion between DFS, TEYSA and the residents.

Although one can not go back and plant mature trees that were removed for the project, can the neighbors negotiate the re-planting of some trees and vegetation to help create a new buffer zone around the field? This might improve the open sound and lighting issues. The new turf field was built in to the buffer zone so it will require some creative landscaping ideas. Working together with the community, perhaps a solution could be found.

Is TEYSA required to conform to the township’s standard at this site as in other township fields? Or, because the field is privately owned by DVS, are they exempt from any restrictions? I would encourage neighbors to attend Wednesday night’s meeting at DVS. The turf field is now a reality, but there needs to be a way for the field and its users to peacefully exist in the community. It is hoped that this meeting may bring thoughtful discussion and compromise from both sides. The field lighting and usage, in addition to the impact of the field on the Valley Hills community, needs to be fully understood. This situation begs for resolution for the affected local residents.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme