The builders are getting ready to extend Dean Street to S. Bradford Avenue, put eight single-family houses on the south side of the new street, and four single-family houses plus a stormwater retention basin on the north side. The existing alley (Honey Alley) located between Dean and Union Streets will remain, but no new alleys will be added. The street will have nine ornamental streetlights and twenty street tress; each house will sit on about a third of an acre and have its own driveway and detached garage.

Although there have been several proposals to develop this property over the years, this project was first put forward in July 2001. At that time, the developers (Paxson Park LP) asked to build fifteen homes using the "Traditional Neighborhood Development" section of the Borough's Zoning Code. In exchange for allowing smaller lot sizes (i.e. more houses), the TND requires that the development include alleys, front porches, and all of the other things that distinguish most of West Chester's neighborhoods. (For an example where this was NOT done, compare the newer houses at the west end of the 400-block of Dean Street to the older houses at the east end of the same block.)

The plan calls for all construction to be finished within twelve months, although it provides the right to seek extensions. The four houses on the north side of the Dean Street extension will be built to TND specifications, while the eight houses on the south side will conform to the more lenient NC-2 standards that apply elsewhere in the neighborhood. Additional plantings will screen the stormwater retention basin, which will be situated at the bend in Honey alley. Dean Street will run one- way eastbound, just as it does along the rest of its length to High Street.

House Bill 446 was passed on December 4, 2006 to amend the state Liquor Code. Among its provisions: a "county tourism promotion agency" in a 2nd class township of a 5th class county can now apply for a "special occasion permit," Philadelphia license holders no longer need to meet the "30% food requirement" in order to sell liquor on Sunday, and the item that received the most press coverage -- casinos may serve free drinks to gamblers. The only item that affects the Borough of West Chester is a modification to the language concerning intermunicipal license transfers.

Since West Chester's nearly 40 licenses serve roughly 18,000 inhabitants (an average of one per about 450 people), the law requires Borough Council to hold a public hearing and render a decision on every ILT application. But given the narrow limits on grounds for disapproval, Council was left with little option other than to recommend conditions -- like an early closing time -- and hope that the Liquor Control Board would agree to enforce them. Now, two new words in this section of the Liquor Code appear to have put some teeth into Council's decision to approve or disapprove a license transfer.

First, the new legislation takes away the right of the applicant to appeal a decision to the Court of Common Pleas by adding the word "not" to the relevant passage. That eliminates one way for an applicant (or his/her lawyer) to pressure Council by threatening an expensive lawsuit if it tries to say no or impose too many conditions. Any decision by local government still has to be approved by the state Liquor Control Board, but at least this change eliminates one potentially costly step in the process.

The other change substitutes the word "may" for "must" in the line that includes "the municipality must approve the request." WCJIM expects that it will take a few lawsuits to determine exactly what this means, but it no longer requires approval unless the narrow criteria are met. It gives the Liquor Control Board the option to consider citizen comment, police concerns, and other opinions if they are placed on the record at a public hearing for an ILT transfer.

Dinniman, who taught at West Chester University for more than thirty years, has seen how the problem has affected the community.

He cited problems ranging from the costs of police overtime and cleaning up the downtown, to the need to hire more police officers than other towns of comparable size. He described the burden carried by "the residents who pay for police overtime and clean-up crews, who are awoken at 2 a.m. every weekend, who trip over beer bottles on their way to Sunday morning services, and whose homes are being damaged by alcohol-fueled vandalism."

Fitzpatrick said that the Borough approached Senator Dinniman for help because "when the state passed the law letting liquor licenses be transferred within the county, the license holders transferred them to the hub of the county -- West Chester. ... "That increased our need for law enforcement [and] that costs money."

The timing of this news could not be better for a Borough that has been inundated with requests to create new liquor establishments. Last January 10, Borough Council were forced (by state law) to approve West Chester's 37th liquor license for Limoncello Ristorante at 7- 9 N. Walnut Street. Next Monday (January 29), they will consider the application for "Bar Blue II," owned by the same people who own Rex's (344 W. Gay Street), to open a new establishment with seating for 250 people in the former Brenda's Vac Shop at 142 E. Market Street. The Bar Blue II proposal calls for full bars on each of two floors, a stage at one end of the building, plus a menu based on hamburgers and salads. Residents of the 100-block of East Miner Street -- located less than 200 feet away -- plus the owners of two houses that abut the rear of the building, are extremely concerned, and a number plan to voice their concerns at next Monday's public hearing (starts at 6:30pm at Borough Hall, 401 E. Gay Street).

142 E. Market Street, site of proposed night club

The "Norley Apologizes" story described his behavior in a meeting of the Neighborhood Task Force, a group formed by Borough Council at his request. Since last spring, the Task Force has been systematically developing a list of recommendations designed to address behavioral problems in Borough neighborhoods, including the one where Mr. Norley lives. At one of their first meetings, the members agreed to handle disputes within the group rather than take them to the press. Until early this year, no one had broken the agreement, but earlier this month, Norley went public with criticism of the group's co-chairs, Borough Council member Carolyn Comitta (Dem, Ward 5) and WCU Director of Judicial Affairs Lynn Klingensmith. After they learned of Norley's remarks, Comitta wrote a response and shared it with the Task Force at their Monday, Jan. 22 meeting. That prompted Norley's apology and the story in the Daily Local the next day.

Unfortunately, Norley's apology began with "I don't remember exactly what I said or may have said," but after Comitta reminded him, he responded "I don't disavow that that's my sentiment; that I said something more or less to that effect. Uh, I uh, I'm not uh, well, first of all, I apologize for having gone outside the purview of the group setting." Then Norley tried to justify his action in terms of the "suffering of the residents," but Comitta put him on the spot by asking "Since you are so vocal about your criticism, where is your report that we can send to Council for their action, that has been reviewed by this committee and that has been verified to be actionable and legal and [that] addresses a documented issue?"

The rest of the members of the Task Force were unmoved by Norley's apology, although they stopped short of asking him to resign. The Local article contained a portion of the comments by 15 North owner Mike Dempsey, who acknowledged Norley's activism and frustration with his neighborhood's problems, but then said "I don't think an apology is good enough. I just think you've stepped way over the boundaries. By someone going outside of the realm we agreed upon, that is not working together." Other members offered their support for the Task Force's leaders, while one told Norley point-blank: "When you start talking, I shut down. A lot of what you say just doesn't make sense."

Norley continued to alternate between apologizing and rationalizing his behavior with arguments like "Some times I get critical, and some times my criticism is justified" and excusing his failure to bring his criticisms directly to the task force because he was "trying to be a cooperative member." After about fifteen minutes, Norley finally agreed to present his report at the next Task Force meeting on Monday, February 12, at 4pm. The next day, the Daily Local News article appeared and many people (including WCJIM) hoped that it might make an impression on Norley, who has offended many people over the past few years. Instead, it appeared to encourage him to offer an even more embarrassing display of bad behavior at Wednesday night's public hearing.

The hearing addressed an application by McCool Properties LLC. They are real estate investors who own rental properties in West Chester and who purchased the former Yearsley hardware store and adjacent properties at 104-120 E. Market Street last year. They have asked Borough Council to consider a zoning change that would allow them to build a six-story building on the site, including three floors of residential condos, one floor of retail space and two floors for parking. During the hearing, which lasted more than two hours and attracted about fifty people, Council heard from the McCools' lawyer, architect and land planner, then listened to questions and statements from members of the audience. As reported by the Daily Local on Thursday, Jan. 25, the project's supporters claimed that it would offer a substantial economic benefit to the Borough, County and School District, while its opponents questioned its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. At the end of the meeting, Council voted 7-0 to grant a continuance requested by the McCools, so the hearing will resume on Tuesday, March 27, at 7pm.

Before it ended, however, Norley went to the podium. After promising to speak for three minutes, he delivered a seven-minute speech that began with a list of his credentials, his objections to the McCool project, and a list of comments that he claimed were made by people on the 100-block of E. Miner Street, the residential neighborhood closest to the project. Then Norley began to digress. First, he repeated arguments about another issue -- the proposal to reduce the height option in the Borough's Town Center -- and then began to make accusations against the BID (Business Improvement District) board of directors, unnamed "pro-development interests," and finally, Councilperson Comitta. As the crowd began to murmur its disapproval, he ignored them, as well as two attempts by Council President Fitzpatrick to cut him off. Finally, Norley ended with a sarcastic "Yes sir" and took his seat.

To their credit, no one on Council responded directly to Norley. Instead, after an awkward silence, others got up to speak, including four of the neighbors from E. Miner St. and S. Matlack St. The meeting ended about twenty minutes later after Steve Bond (Rep, Ward 2) reminded the audience that "the Council who sits here today is not the Council that approved the Justice Center ... we ask for input from all of community ... this is why we have ad hoc committees and other committees to discuss the issues. ... We are going to make the best decision, considering the residents and what is best for the Borough." After that, the meeting broke up and the writer for the Daily Local News hurried away to meet his deadline. That is when Norley got his second big break of the week, because the story that appeared the next morning (Jan. 25) did not mention his name or behavior. Instead, it reported on the developers' claims, several of the arguments offered by opponents, and concluded with a portion of Steve Bond's final comments.

Although these are merely the most recent examples of a pattern of behavior that dates back for several years, WCJIM will emulate the Daily Local News and leave out the details for now. He does wonder, however, if Norley's allies are thinking about how his behavior affects their message. Council has given him a Task Force and a forum in which to act like a leader, while the Daily Local News has, for the most part, ignored his lapses of behavior. When will he recognize this, and is he capable of showing genuine gratitude?

The web page lists accomplishments of the current Landscapes plan, of which the most important seem to be encouraging regional cooperation, the revitalization of towns and the preservation of open space. Regarding regional cooperation, WCJIM recalls a conversation that he had with a professional land planner in Germany whose planning area is roughly one third the size of the state of Pennsylvania. When WCJIM described his own experience on the Planning Commission of the 1.8 square mile Borough of West Chester, the German planner broke out laughing and said something that translates roughly to "that's not planning, that's applying first aid." Pennsylvania is burdened with an enormous number of local governments -- 67 counties, and in Chester County alone, 73 municipal governments -- which make it difficult to manage the impact of anything much large than a single building. In an era of globalization, the forces that influence land use tend to be larger, not local, and Landscapes offers one way for local governments to make decisions that are good for their neighbors as well.

Residents of West Chester have seen the results of Landscapes's emphasis on urban revitalization. The main benefit has come in the form of more than $1.5 million in grants used to upgrade stormwater sewers, reconstruct several Borough streets, change the look of High Street between Market and Miner, and create the "Wayfinding signs" that now direct traffic to destinations within West Chester. The effort to preserve open space is less obvious within the Borough, but the neighboring townships of West Goshen and East Bradford have both approved open space initiatives based on Landscapes. In all, voters in twenty-one Chester County townships have approved bond issues or tax increases to finance open space preservation since Landscapes was approved, and so far roughly 40,000 acres have been preserved. That is more than 62 square miles, an area roughly 35 times the size of the Borough of West Chester.

Easements protect the Singer farm in East Bradford (above) while increasing traffic clogs US Route 202 (below)

The first Landscapes plan won a national award from the American Planning Association in 1997. Although that's not the goal of the update, it's a sign that the effort was worthwhile. You can support the effort to improve Landscapes by answering the survey at this link.

Five are based on a list of planning issues and ask you to identify up to four things that work, don't work, are important for the future, should be priorities and should not be priorities. The list includes things like rural character, public transportation, cost of housing, quality of schools, property tax rates, clean air, plus another half dozen issues, and each offers the change to supply your own idea under "Other."

A six question asks "Where in the County should future development be encouraged? (check up to two)." The choices are in existing urban centers like West Chester, suburban areas like West Goshen, villages like Eagle, or in new villages/towns or currently undeveloped rural areas. There is no option to refuse new development, in recognition of the realities of state law. Unless the state legislature decides to intervene, developers will congregate in counties like Chester where roads and other infrastructure are already constructed and amenities that attract buyers are already in place.

The seventh question is an open-ended one that asks if you have "any other comments or concerns about the future of Chester County?" Several mass emails are already questioning whether things like historic preservation and the environment get enough emphasis on the survey, so this is the place to address that kind of concern.

The on-line survey is easily accessible to people with Internet connections, and it only exists in the English language. Although affluent Chester County boasts a high percentage of Internet users, not everyone is so-equipped, and there are significant numbers of non-English speakers. The authors of the survey ask everyone who takes it to encourage their friends and neighbors to do the same,

Want to compare Chester County's landscape in 1937 and 1990? Visit the new web site hosted by Pennsylvania State University which offers low, medium and high resolution aerial photos of every county in the state. The address is www.pennpilot.psu.edu and, as this sample shows, it offers remarkable detail fom the past.

>