On the agenda: Westwhiteland meeting — data center (Feb 17)

WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP
Planning Commission
Agenda
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
7:00 P.M.

Etiquette for
hybrid meetings

Meeting will be held in-person and via Zoom
Register for Zoom Meeting
Call by Phone: 1-646-558-8656
Meeting ID: 873 0897 0242
Passcode: 507637
Meeting Packets can be found on the Township website.
Reminder to meeting participants: Please speak clearly into the microphone
CALL TO ORDER
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES
Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 3, 2026
PUBLIC COMMENT/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS
Comments or questions regarding issues NOT on the agenda should be raised at this time.
Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions and comment upon agenda
items during the discussion on those items.
PLANS
1. Oak Knoll, LLC (Shenkin Tract)
Site Address 1358 Glen Echo Rd.
First Review: Subdivision & Land Development Plan
Project Description: Review for a proposed subdivision of a parcel containing four acres into
five individual lots with access from Glen Echo Road. The existing dwelling will remain.
2. Green Fig Land, LLC
Site Address: 215 Valley Creek Blvd.
First Review: Land Development
A land development plan for stormwater management facilities for an industrial development
on an adjacent property in East Whiteland Township.
OLD BUSINESS
Draft ordinance regarding data centers.
NEW BUSINESS
2025 Annual Report.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: March 3, 2026

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning

SUBJECT:

1358 Glen Echo Rd. subdivision and land development plan

DATE:

February 13, 2026

APPLICANT:

Oak Knoll, LLC
c/o Glenn White
4 Zachary Dr.
West Chester, PA 19382

SITE ADDRESS:

1358 Glen Echo Rd.
West Chester, PA 19380

TAX PARCEL:

41-8D-4

ZONING:

R-2, Residential

DESCRIPTION:

Subdivision of a 4-acre residential lot into 5 lots: one to
accommodate the existing dwelling and 4 to be developed
with 1 single-family home each

EXPIRES:

March 25, 2026

Background
The subject property is a four-acre residential lot in the Ivy Glen neighborhood near the West
Goshen Township border. Most of the lots in Ivy Glen are about half an acre, so this property is
unusually large for the area. The property is the site of the historic Daniel Meredith House
(Twp. Historic Site 061.01), which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The house
remains in use as a private residence; accessory structures include a detached garage and the
ruins of a spring house.
The property has an average slope of about 7%, but the southern part is nearly level, so slopes
are steeper toward the north. The high point of the property is where the southeast property
line meets Glen Echo Rd., and its low point is along the northwest property line bordering 1370
Glen Echo. Approximately two-thirds of the site is wooded, and there is a wetland area of
about 7,000 sq.ft. near its northwest corner; there are no FEMA-designated flood hazard areas.
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into five lots. Lot 2 will accommodate the
existing home; the remaining four lots will be sold as home sites for single-family detached
dwellings. The property is entirely within the R-2 Residential zoning district.
1

The Planning Commission first saw this project as a sketch plan on June 18, 2024. The meeting
was well attended by neighbors expressing concern about the project. The Applicant submitted
a subdivision plan based upon that sketch for review at the Planning Commission meeting on
January 14, 2025, but they chose to withdraw from that agenda due to the number and extent
of concerns raised by our consultants. A revised plan was submitted for review at the meeting
of November 18, 2025, but the Applicant chose to withdraw again for the same reason. The lot
configuration on the plan before us tonight is substantially similar to the 2024 sketch plan and
the subdivision plans submitted in 2025.
The Zoning Officer has confirmed that the proposed lots all satisfy the minimum requirements
of the R-2 zoning district, and the proposed development on each lot complies with the applicable area and bulk standards.
The Applicant presented this plan to the Historical Commission on July 7 and August 11, 2025.
There was discussion about the impact of the new houses on the historic house, the number of
lots, and preservation/stabilization of the spring house ruins. At the August meeting, the Commission passed a motion supporting approval of the plan, including conditions that the Applicant
consider reducing the number of lots to provide a better setting for the historic house and
preserve a visual connection between the house and the spring house. The motion also memorialized concerns about the proposed landscaping.
Tonight is the first presentation of the preliminary subdivision and land development plan to the
Planning Commission.
Consultant Reviews
•

Spotts, Stevens and McCoy (“SSM”) review dated February 10, 2026. The
review is divided into sections according to topic.
−

Comments #1 through #8 review requested waivers from the Stormwater Ordinance
and the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (“S/LDO”). SSM has no
objection to the waivers requested from the Stormwater Ordinance (comments #1
through #3) or from the sidewalk requirement in the S/LDO (comment #4); they
defer to Theurkauf regarding comments #5 and #6, as they concern landscaping.

−

Comments #7 through #15 concern the S/LDO requirements. These are mostly
administrative items or describe information to be added to the plan drawing. It
appears that only comments #11 and #12 – regarding curbing – would result in any
change to the design, albeit a minor one. Regarding comment #9, Staff notes that
the street width requirement applies to new streets, so this provision does not apply
here, and no waiver is needed to allow the streets as shown. Comment #14 states
that the Applicant will be paying a fee in lieu of setting aside permanent open space,
pursuant to §281-47.D(1) of the S/LDO. The Commission will recall that the fee
amount varies according to the Consumer Price Index and is not established until the
Board of Supervisors grants final plan approval. At this time, the total fee required
for the four new dwelling units would be about $17,600.

2

1

−

Compliance with the Stormwater Management Ordinance is addressed in comments
#16 through #31. Most of the comments address administrative requirements or
the need for supporting documentation. It appears that some revision to the design
may be needed in order to resolve comments #18, #19, and #25; the Applicant
should advise the Commission as to the extent of those revisions. Comment #27
notes that there is conflicting information on the plan drawing regarding inspections.
The Commission may recall that the requirements for post-construction inspections
are listed in the Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement that will
be a condition of final plan approval. We suggest that these notes either reflect the
standard language of that Agreement, or that the language on the plan be deleted
and replaced with a reference to the Agreement. Finally, the Applicant should also
report on whether they have been able to resolve the questions about the existing
pipe raised in comment #28.

−

The review concludes with seven general concerns. Most of these are administrative
and legal issues that the Applicant will need to address. Comment #33 recommends
that the Applicant be required to restore the portion of the street that they will be
excavating for the utility connections; Staff agrees, and we have included this in our
recommended conditions of approval.

•

Carroll Engineering review dated February 3, 2026. The existing house has a
gravity connection to the public sewer main in Glen Echo Rd. The home proposed for
Lot 4 will also have a gravity connection to this main. The remaining three houses will
have gravity connections to an existing main on the adjoining Hollow Run property, near
the southwest property line. In all cases, treatment is provided by the West Goshen
Authority. Carroll advises that all of their earlier concerns have been resolved.

•

Theurkauf Design and Planning (“Theurkauf”) review dated February 9, 2026.
The review advises that many of the concerns about prior versions of this plan have
been resolved to their satisfaction. The following issues remain:
−

Comment #1 addresses the request for a waiver from the sidewalk requirement.
Theurkauf notes that there are no sidewalks in this neighborhood and supports the
request, subject to a contribution by the Applicant to the Township Sidewalk Fund
equivalent to the construction cost of the sidewalk that could be required, as is our
practice. SSM did not object to this waiver in their review; Staff agrees, and we note
that no sidewalks are shown along Glen Echo Rd. in the Township’s Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan.

−

Comment #2 provides a tally of the required compensatory plantings and notes that
the Applicant has stated that they cannot accommodate all the required trees on the
site. Theurkauf suggests an additional planting area, but also acknowledges the
Applicant’s proposal to pay a fee in lieu of the deficiency as provided for by §28134.G(6)(a) of the S/LDO. 1 The Commission may wish to discuss this matter with the
Applicant to identify the preferred course of action.

−

Comment #3 reviews the buffer plantings. Comment #3a supports a partial waiver
from the buffer width minimum to allow the design shown, and comment #3c
directs two additional evergreen trees.

This is listed as a waiver on Sheet 2 of the plan set; however, payment of a fee in lieu of provision of
the full complement of trees is an alternative allowed by this section of the S/LDO; it is not a waiver.

3

The remaining comments list resolved issues, minor errors to be corrected, and
administrative items.
•

Bowman review dated February 6, 2026. Bowman also supports the waiver
requested from the sidewalk requirement. They also advise that this project is subject
to payment of a traffic impact fee of $7,245.00.

•

Chester County Planning Commission review dated January 3, 2025. 2 Comment #1 states that this project is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
The remaining comments are all either administrative items or raise concerns already
noted by our consultants, including the need for review by the Historical Commission
and the loss of woodlands.

Staff Comment
While tonight is the Commission’s first review of this land development plan, there are earlier
versions that were reviewed by our consultants and Staff, but not the Commission. The most
serious consultant and Staff concerns from the earlier versions are now resolved; furthermore,
the house placement and landscaping issues noted by the Historical Commission in their motion
have been addressed. Even so, there are several issues where the Commission may wish to
provide guidance to the Applicant:
•

As noted in comment #2 of the Theurkauf review, the Plan does not satisfy the compensatory planting requirement. While the Applicant is willing to contribute to the Township tree
bank to make up for the deficiency (as provided for by the S/LDO), there is an area that
could accommodate more trees. The Commission may wish to discuss with the Applicant
their willingness to plant more trees.

•

The Applicant should explain to the Commission the extent to which the design may need to
be revised in order to resolve SSM’s concerns about the stormwater management facilities,
particularly those noted in comments #18, #19, and #25. The Applicant should also
respond to SSM’s direction to provide curbs, found in comment #11.

•

Lots 3 and 5 will share a driveway that crosses Lot 4. We note that the easement for this
driveway isolates a portion of Lot 4 from the main bulk of the lot, limiting its usefulness to
the owner of Lot 4. The Commission may wish to discuss with the Applicant the possibility
of adjusting the alignment of the driveway 3 to eliminate or at least minimize this concern.

•

We recognize that all of the proposed lots comply with the Zoning, but we are concerned
that the development of some of the lots is so close to the limits that future owners would
be limited in their ability to build an addition to their homes or even erect a shed. Lot 4 is

2

As stated above, the first land development plan for this project was submitted at the end of 2024 for
Planning Commission review on January 14, 2025; however, the Applicant elected to withdraw from
that – and other – agendas. Staff forwarded the plan when originally submitted to the County for their
review, as required by law. As a result, the attached County review is now more than a year old.

3

Lot 4 could also share the driveway for Lots 3 and 5, except that §281-40.E and §281-44.A(2) of the
S/LDO prohibit more than two dwellings from sharing a single driveway. Minimizing the number of
curb cuts along a street is generally desirable, but the low volume of traffic on Glen Echo Rd. suggests
that the benefit of one less curb cut may be too slight to justify waivers from these sections.

4

the most problematic here: the “proposed lot coverage calculations” chart on Sheet 4 shows
that the proposed impervious coverage on that lot is only 11 sq.ft. below the limit.
In addition to the concerns noted by the consultants, Staff notes that the plan does not show
any connection to public water supply for the existing house. This is a critical point, since §32510.C(10)(a) of the Zoning states that any lot not connected to both public sewerage and water
supply must comply with the area and bulk regulations of the R-1 district, which include a minimum lot size requirement of one acre. The Applicant has advised that they are aware of this
requirement and that they intend to connect the existing house to public water; it is already
connected to public sewerage.
An additional concern regarding water supply is that the four new homes will be required to
have sprinklers for fire suppression. This normally requires a separate water supply line for fire
flow, but the plan shows only a single water supply connection to each proposed lot.
If the Applicant and address these and all other Commission concerns to your satisfaction
tonight, Staff would not object to action on this plan tonight. A draft motion is attached for
your consideration.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

SSM review dated February 10, 2026.
Carroll Engineering review dated February 3, 2026.
Theurkauf review dated February 9, 2026.
Bowman review dated February 6, 2026.
Chester County Planning Commission review dated January 3, 2025.
Draft motion dated February 13, 2026.
Plan set prepared by JMR Engineering, dated November 18, 2024, most recently revised January 27,
2026.

Plans\RST\Shenkin\PC memo – 260213

5

Spotts, Stevens and McCoy
1047 N. Park Road > Reading PA 19610
610.621.2000 > F. 610.621.2001 > SSMGROUP.COM

February 10, 2026

Mr. John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning
West Whiteland Township
101 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341

RE:

1358 Glen Echo Road Subdivision
Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan
SSM File 101008.0390

Dear Mr. Weller:
We have reviewed the above-referenced submission consisting of the following:
•

1358 Glen Echo Road Subdivision (12 sheets), prepared by JMR Engineering, LLC (JMR), dated
November 18, 2024, most recently revised January 27, 2026;

•

Post-Construction Stormwater Management Narrative & Report, prepared by JMR, dated November
18, 2024, most recently revised January 27, 2026;

•

1358 Glen Echo Road Waiver Request Letter, prepared by JMR, dated January 27, 2026; and

•

1358 Glen Echo Road Response Letter, prepared by JMR, dated January 27, 2026.

Oak Knoll, LLC is proposing to subdivide the 4 acre property at 1358 Glen Echo Road into five separate lots.
Lot 2 is proposed to contain an existing dwelling and driveway and Lot 5 is proposed to contain an existing
stone springhouse within a wetlands area.
The subject property is in the R-2 Residential District and fronts along Glen Echo Road at the intersection
with Twin Oaks Lane. The property is surrounded by existing residential uses (apartments to the west; single
family homes in all other directions).
Issues regarding landscaping and buffering, sanitary sewer and traffic will be addressed by Theurkauf Design
and Planning, Carroll Engineering Corp. and Bowman, respectively.
We have the following comments.
WAIVER REQUESTS
1.

Section 270-20.J(2) – A partial waiver is requested from the requirement that all infiltration systems
to be set back 20 feet from all property lines and right-of-way boundaries. The waiver request is
specifically for SCM-2 (Lot1), SCM-3 (Lot 3), SCM -4 (Lot 4) and SCM -5 (Lot 5). All proposed
infiltration beds are more than 15-ft from a dwelling and right-of-way line; therefore, we have no
objection to this request.

ENGINEERING | SURVEYING | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0390
February 10, 2026
Page 2 of 5

2.

Section 270-29.A(4)(a) – A waiver is requested to permit a 5-foot basin berm top width when
typically a minimum 8-foot wide top width berm is required. Due to the shallow depths and small
sizes of the basins, we have no objection to this request.

3.

Section 270-29.A(5)(d) – A waiver is requested to provide less than 1-foot of freeboard in the design
of emergency spillways when typically a minim of 1-foot of freeboard is required. All basins are
relatively small and the spillways have been revised to contain a 12-foot width and 6-inch depth. We
support the waiver subject to keeping the emergency spillways a minimum of 12-feet wide width
while still providing a minimum 6-inches of freeboard. The current spillway designs provide a
minimum of 6-inches of freeboard.

4.

Section 281-31.A – A waiver is requested to not provide sidewalks. We have no objection to this
request as there is no existing sidewalk in the general vicinity of this subdivision.

5.

Section 281-34.G – A waiver is requested to not provide all required compensatory plantings
requirements. We defer landscaping related requests to the Township’s Landscaping Consultant.

6.

Section 281-35.E – A waiver is requested from the requirement that a 25 foot wide perimeter buffer is
required along the tract boundary lines on the south east side of Lot 1. We defer landscaping related
requests to the Township’s Landscaping Consultant.

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
7.

The plan should be reviewed by the Historical Commission, Section 281-10.B.

8.

Applications for all preliminary plans shall contain all proposed easements, rights-of-way, and any
covenants applicable and/or references thereto, including utility and maintenance easements as well
as easements to extend utilities to adjoining properties and such easements or covenants requiring
maintenance and repair of sidewalks by the property owners abutting thereon. All such easements,
rights-of-way and covenants shall be in a form capable of recordation and in a form and substance
satisfactory to the Township Solicitor., Section 281-16.D.7.
The plans shall be updated to reflect the metes and bounds associated with the shared driveway access
and utility easement affecting Lots 3, 4 and 5; as well as the metes and bound associated with the
stormwater easement on Lot 5.
All proposed easements and right-of-way dedications shall include exhibits and associated legal
descriptions. These shall be submitted with the final plan.

9.

Standard street width for Glen Echo Road should be 28’, Section 281-25.B. The current street width
is 25’. We recommend that a waiver be requested. We would support such a waiver.

10.

Proposed sidewalks shall be shown, Sections 281-16.D(11) and 281-31.A unless the requested waiver
is granted.

11.

Curbs are required around all paved areas, except to the extent that curbing would inhibit the
functionality of existing or proposed stormwater management facilities in the determination of the
Township Engineer. Exposed curb faces shall have a brushed finish, Section 281-32.B.
The plans currently show proposed curbing along portions of Lots 1 and 2. The curbing should extend
along the entire portions of Lots 1 and 2 to immediately south of the Lot 1 driveway including a 5foot curb taper at the terminus. The curbing shall include a depressed curb at both driveways. Details,
in accordance with Appendixes D and E, shall be provided. This information shall be shown on the
Layout and Grading Plans (Sheets 4 and 5) as a minimum.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0390
February 10, 2026
Page 3 of 5

12.

The curbs shall be sealed with AC-20 or other Township-approved sealer. The seal material shall
extend out a minimum of 6 inches from the face of the curb and a minimum two inches up the face.
The roadway and curb face shall be properly cleaned prior to sealing to provide for maximum
adherence of the sealing materials, Section 281-32.E. The curb detail shall be modified accordingly.

13.

All utilities shall be installed a minimum depth of 24-inches below ground, Section 281-43. The plans
shall note this requirement. Additionally, the plans shall be updated to reflect how the electrical,
cable, etc. connections will be made. If these are made underground and require street restoration, the
Township may want to take this into consideration when noting the extent of street improvements that
will be required.

14.

The plans note that a fee in lieu of open space will be provided in accordance with Section 28147.B(2).

15.

Financial security and development agreements for all public and stormwater management
improvements will be required at Final Plan stage, Section 281-54.

COMPLIANCE WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Background
Existing runoff flows in a northwesterly direction from the site onto the Lisa and Mele Rande Jamgochian
property and Glen Echo Road. Each of the 4 new lots will have individual stormwater basins to control
runoff. Each of these facilities is designed slightly differently due to limiting zones (rock or seasonal high
water table and Lot 1 with no limiting zone). The design summary concludes that the runoff rates in the postdevelopment condition have been reduced to pre-developed rates at a single point of interest (POI).
Comments
16.

The applicant shall provide the Township with a “letter of adequacy” from the Chester County
Conservation District for the E&S Plan prior to the Township endorsing the plan, Sections 27017.A(1)(a) and 270-32.G.

17.

The applicant shall provide the Township with a copy of the required Individual NPDES Permit prior
to the Township endorsing the plan, Section 270-17.A(1)(b).
A copy of the complete NPDES Permit application package shall be submitted to the Township at the
time of submission to the Chester County Conservation District.

18.

All infiltration practices shall have appropriate positive overflow controls, Section 270-20.Q. SCM-3
shall have appropriate overflow controls that direct the runoff to the adjoining swale should the inlets
surcharge.

19.

Any stormwater basin required or regulated by this chapter designed to store runoff and requiring a
berm or earthen embankment shall be designed to provide an emergency spillway to safely convey
flow up to and including the 100-year proposed conditions, Section 270-24.B. An emergency
spillway shall be provided for SCM-1.

20.

In accordance with Sections 270-29.D and 270-29.E, calculations for swales and storm sewers shall
be provided.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0390
February 10, 2026
Page 4 of 5

21.

Stormwater management facilities shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 270-30.I. These
requirements shall be addressed on the Landscaping Plans. The landscaping plan as well as the
details, shall specify the same plant materials that are now shown on the PCSM plans.

22.

The applicant’s statement of Section 270-32.A(3) on Sheet 6 shall be signed prior to the Township
endorsing the plan.

23.

A stormwater operation and maintenance agreement shall be provided, Section 270-43. The
agreement shall include the O&M requirements noted on the PCSM Plan detail sheets, or reference
the PCSM Plan drawing numbers where the O&M requirements are noted. O&M agreements for each
individual lot (Lots 1, 3, 4 & 5) will be required.

24.

An access and maintenance agreement shall be established for all proposed swales which convey
stormwater from one property, directly onto another property. The agreements shall include the items
outlined within Sections 270-44.C.(1) through (11).

25.

The outlet structure to SCM-3 now contains a weir wall and inlet is only 27” x27”. With the weir
wall, the structure is too small to be properly maintain by a homeowner. A means to properly regulate
the runoff without the weir wall shall be used or the structure shall be made larger and access made
easier. A detail of the weir wall shall be provided.

26.

Note 2 in the Construction Sequence on Sheet 12 shall be removed or replaced with the Township’s
standard notes A and B. “Excessive” is undefined.

27.

Throughout the inspection notes on Sheets 6 and 12, there are conflicts as to when inspections must
be done, by whom and when any reports are to be submitted to the Township. All of the inspections
may be legitimate but the plans must clearly identify the “who, what and when” and identify any
overlaps and clarify obligations of each of the parties involved.

28.

We previously noted that as a minimum, the plans shall indicate if there are any pipes associated with
the yard drains on Lot 2 and what direction that they may flow. The plans now show a portion of a
pipe that generally flows in a westerly direction.
The response states “the plan now shows the general direction of the pipe observed in the field. The
pipe generally heads in the direction of lot 3. All existing runoff from Lot 1 will be bypassed around
Lot 3 via swale and will not effect (sic) any stormwater facility.” The pipe shown on the plan has a
hidden bend and therefore the discharge location is not known. It’s possible that the pipe discharge is
not directed towards the swale and may even discharge on lot 3. Further investigation must be
completed to determine the discharge point and if needed properly account for it in any downstream
conveyance. In addition, if the pipe discharges within the limits of another lot, easements may be
required.

29.

Sheet 6 now contains a list of the impervious areas for which the design assumes for each lot.
However, it shall include a note that any future impervious area additions are subject to a Drainage
Permit and must include stormwater provisions for any impervious area beyond the stated design
area. It should also be noted that note 2 on the left side of Sheet 4 that states that “permeable paving is
considered…” shall be removed from the plans.

30.

The emergency spillway details shall note the top of berm elevation.

31.

The SWM and E&S Report Note (on Sheet 1) shall be revised to reflect the latest report revision
dates.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0390
February 10, 2026
Page 5 of 5

GENERAL
32.

A Street Occupancy Permit will be required for any work performed with the Township right-of-way.
The plans shall note the same.

33.

The plans shall indicate the limit of proposed street restoration within the Township’s right-of-way.
The plans proposed three water line connections, and a single sewer lateral connection within the
cartway of Glen Echo Road. We recommend that at a minimum the entire lane of the Glen Echo Road
be milled and overlaid from the southernmost limit where the shared driveway connects to Glen Echo
Road to the northern most limit of the proposed Lot 4 driveway.

34.

The plans propose an off-site sewer connection associated with Lot 1 on the Twohig property. An
easement shall be acquired / established. Alternatively if an existing sanitary sewer easement exists
over the sewer main, then it should be indicated on the plans and the plans should reference the
recorded document which establishes such easement.

35.

The plans propose two off-site sewer connections associated with Lots 3 and 5 on the Hollow Run
Apartments property within an unknown 20-ft sewer easement. The plans shall be updated to reflect
recorded documentation (deed and/or recorded plan reference) which supports that the 20-ft sewer
easement actually exists.

36.

A surveyor’s certification shall be provided upon the installation of the property markers and such
certification shall be required prior to the issuance of the final use and occupancy for each proposed
dwelling unit. This shall be noted on the plans.

37.

A Building Permit will be required for each proposed dwelling. This shall be noted on the plans.

38.

There are numerous instances within notes, construction sequences and details in which the word
should has been used. These instances are directives and words such as “should” or “may” shall be
replaced with “shall” or “must”. This includes standard notes and details required by other agencies.

We respectfully request for ease of review that response letters include a response to each comment and
indicate the sheet number(s) and/or report page numbers corresponding to the changes that have been made.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Spotts, Stevens and McCoy

Kent D. Morey, P.E., CBLP
Senior Engineer
[email protected]

cc:

Nick Szeredai, P.E.

February 3, 2026
John Weller, Director of Planning and Zoning
West Whiteland Township
100 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341
Dear John:
Subject: 1358 Glen Echo Road
This office has reviewed the subdivision and land development plans for the above-subject project. This
is the second submission to Carroll Engineering Corporation, and we offer the following comments:
A.

B.

SUBMISSION
1.

“Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan for 1358 Glen Echo Road”
prepared by JMR Engineering for Oak Knoll, LLC. The plans consist of 14 sheets dated
November 18, 2024, and last revised on January 27, 2026.

2.

Sewage facilities planning exemption.

GENERAL
1.

The plan proposes subdividing an existing four-acre parcel (UPI 41-8D-4) to create five
(5) lots. Four new single-family dwellings will be constructed. An existing dwelling
(Lot 2) will remain. The project is located at 1358 Glen Echo Road in the R-2 Residential
District.

2.

Sewer service for lots 1, 3, and 5 is proposed by saddling the existing sewer in an
easement on the Hollow Run Apartments. Sewer service for lot 4 is proposed by saddling
the sewer in Glen Echo Road. Wastewater will be conveyed by the Grubbs Mill Pump
Station to the West Goshen Sewer Authority for treatment.

3.

All previous comments have been addressed.

Today’s Commitment to Tomorrow’s Challenges
Corporate Office:

630 Freedom Business Center

433 Lancaster Avenue

101 Larry Holmes Drive

105 Raider Boulevard

949 Easton Road
Warrington, PA 18976
215.343.5700

Third Floor
King of Prussia, PA 19406
610.572.7093

Suite 200
Malvern, PA 19355
610.489.5100

Suite 201
Easton, PA 18042
610.989.4940

Suite 206
Hillsborough, NJ 08844
908.874.7500

www.carrollengineering.com
8942_000_285 003.docx

John Weller, Director of Planning and Zoning
West Whiteland Township
Page 2
February 3, 2026
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact this office.
Very truly yours,
CARROLL ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Bill
William N. Malin, P.E.
Senior Vice President
WNM:cam
Attachments

8942_000_285 003.docx

MEMORANDUM
TO:

John Weller, AICP, West Whiteland Township Director of Planning and Zoning
Patrick Gorman, AICP, Township Planner
Jack Robinson, P.E., JMR Engineering LLC
Michael V. Naseef, Esq., Gawthrop Greenwood

FROM:

Edward A. Theurkauf, RLA, ASLA, APA
Celia E. Winters, ASLA, MLA

DATE:

February 9, 2026

SUBJECT:

REVIEW COMMENTS – 1358 GLEN ECHO ROAD
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 9-30-25

Please note our review comments pertaining to the following documents received on 1-28-26, and to a
site visit on 12-3-24:
•

Plan consisting of 14 sheets;

•

Response letter from Jack Robinson dated 1-27-26; and

•

Waiver request letter from Jack Robinson dated 1-27-26

Issues that have been addressed are so noted. New comments are in bold.

1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

Page |2

REVIEW COMMENTS – 1358 GLEN ECHO ROAD
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 9-30-25
February 9, 2026
1.

Sidewalks – Section 281-321.A of the subdivision and land development ordinance (SLDO)
requires minimum 5-foot wide sidewalks at all new developments. The plan does not indicate a
sidewalk on either of the Glen Echo Road frontages. It is noted that there are no existing
sidewalks in the area. A waiver has been requested.
If the Township has no plans to construct sidewalks within this neighborhood, a fee in lieu could
be considered to construct pedestrian access in an area of greater need.

2.

Tree Removal and Compensatory Plantings – Section 281-34.G (SLDO) requires mitigation for
viable mature trees (12-inch DBH and greater) that are removed.
The tree removal and compensatory planting table has been revised per our previous
comments.
Section 281-34.G.5 (SLDO) allows any proposed tree meeting minimum size requirements to
apply as compensatory planting. Plantings applicable to the replacement requirement are as
follows:
Deciduous trees, 2-inch cal.
Evergreen trees, 7-foot ht.

63
45

Total compensatory trees
Compensatory tree deficit

108
153

The applicant maintains that they cannot meet the requirement, but it is evident that additional
trees could be placed in the buffer areas between lots and on the southwest perimeter.
The applicant proposes a fee of $53,404.17 for the unmet requirement of 153 compensatory
trees. Based on a cost of $385.00, the fee in lieu should be $58,905.00 if no additional trees
are planted.
3.

Perimeter Buffers - Section 281-35.E (SLDO) requires 25 foot wide planted perimeter buffers
along property lines and around basins as follows:
Buffer/Length

Plant Type

Southeast cleared/225 LF

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

Required

Proposed

2
5
11

2
5
11

1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

Page |3

REVIEW COMMENTS – 1358 GLEN ECHO ROAD
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 9-30-25
February 9, 2026
Buffer/Length

Plant Type

Required

Proposed

Northwest wooded/110 LF

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

1
2
5

*
3
*

Northwest cleared/90 LF

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

1
2
5

*1
3
3

Southwest wooded/240 LF

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

2
4
10

*
2
*

Southwest cleared/345 LF

Shade Tree
3
Evergreen Tree
9
Large Shrub
15
* Requirement met by existing to remain

4
9
18

a. Southeast buffer – Part of the buffer is under-width at only 8 feet. A waiver is requested for
the noncompliant buffer. In light of the additional proposed plantings, we have no
objection to the requested waiver.
b. Northwest buffer – This issue has been resolved.
c. Southwest buffer – In the wooded area, existing vegetation meets the requirements for
shade trees and shrubs, but not evergreen trees. The plan shall be revised to show the (2)
additional required evergreen trees along the property line.
4.

Street Trees – Section 281-36 (SLDO) requires street trees as follows:
Frontage/Length
Glen Echo Road north/260 LF

Required
5

Proposed*
13

Glen Echo Road east/400 LF

8

14

* Includes credit for existing to remain per §281-34.F.3 (SLDO)

This issue is resolved.

1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

REVIEW COMMENTS – 1358 GLEN ECHO ROAD
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 9-30-25

Page |4

February 9, 2026
5.

Tree Protection – Section 281-34.D (SLDO) specifies protection measures for trees to be
preserved.
a. Tree protection fencing shall be revised to protect the following tree:
•

20 inch Walnut on lot 5

b. The tree protection detail has been revised. This issue has been resolved.
6.

Plant List Errors – The following shall be corrected:
a. The total count for Picea glauca (PG) in the Evergreen Tree-Perimeter Buffer Plant
Schedule lists 10 trees, however 11 are present on the plan.
b. The Street Trees Plant Schedule lists the total count for Carpinus caroliniana (CC) as 2
trees however 4 are present on the plan.
c. Liquidambar styraciflua (LA) has 3 trees listed on the Street Trees Plant Schedule when 5
trees are present on the plan.
d. The Deciduous Trees Compensatory Plant Schedule list Carpinus caroliniana (CC) as having
6 trees when 4 are present on the plan.
e. The Deciduous Trees Compensatory Plant Schedule lists 6 Liquidambar styraciflua (LA)
when 4 are present on the plan.
f.

7.

The Evergreen Tree-Compensatory Tree Plant Schedule lists 19 Picea glauca (PG) however
18 are present on the plan.

Plan Authorship – Section 281-33.C.7 (SLDO) requires that the landscape plan be prepared and
sealed by a PA licensed landscape architect. The plan lacks the required certification and shall be
revised accordingly.
The applicant says a registered landscape architect will prepare and seal future submissions of
the landscape plan.

8.

Cost Estimate – A landscape cost estimate will be required with the final plan in accordance with
section 281-33.C.6.h (SLDO).

1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

REVIEW COMMENTS – 1358 GLEN ECHO ROAD
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 9-30-25
February 9, 2026
9.

Conclusion – The Township shall consider the following prior to preliminary approval:
•
•
•

Waiver/fee on sidewalks – comment 1
Compensatory plantings/fee – comment 2
Waiver on southeast buffer width – comment 3.a

The other identified issues can be addressed on the final plan.

Please contact this office with any questions.

1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

Page |5

February 6, 2026
Mr. John R. Weller, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning / Zoning Officer
West Whiteland Township
101 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341
RE:

Traffic Engineering Review - 1358 Glen Echo Road – Land Development Plan
West Whiteland Township, Chester County, PA
Bowman Project No. 310538-24-005

Dear Mr. Weller:
Bowman completed a traffic review of the proposed development located at 1358 Glen Echo Road. The
site currently contains a single-family home with a driveway to Glen Echo Road. It is proposed to subdivide
the lot, retain the existing home, and build four new homes, with two single lot driveways and one shared
driveway (for two lots) onto Glen Echo Road. Our traffic review is based on the following documents.
-

Preliminary Subdivision & Land Development Plan for 1358 Glen Echo Road, prepared by JMR
Engineering, LLC., revised January 27, 2026.
Waiver Request Letter, prepared by JMR Engineering, LLC., dated January 27, 2025

Our office has no further review comments that require revisions; however, we offer the following
for informational purposes.


SALDO Section 281-31.A – The applicant requests a waiver to not construct sidewalk along the
Glen Echo Road site frontage. The Township’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan does not show
sidewalk, or other pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure along Glen Echo Road. Furthermore, there are
no existing sidewalks in the vicinity of the site. Our office can support this waiver subject to
review by the Township.



Chapter 295-12 – The subject development is located within the Township’s Act 209
Transportation Service Area, and as such, is subject to the Township’s Transportation Impact Fee
which is equal to $1,449.00 per new weekday afternoon peak hour trip. Based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition for Single Family
Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210), four new single-family homes will generate five new
weekday afternoon peak hour trips, and the resultant Transportation Impact Fee is $7,245.

If there are any questions or if additional information is requested, please contact our office.
Sincerely,

Christopher J. Williams, P.E.
BOWMAN
V:\310538 - West Whiteland PA\310538-24-005 (TRA) - 1358 Glen Echo\Engineering\Reviews\2025-11-14 Review\Review\2026-02-06 - 1358 Glen Echo Rd Traffic Review.docx

1 of 1

835 Springdale Drive, Suite 200, Exton, PA 19341
P: 610.594.9995
bowman.com

THE COUNTY OF CHESTER
COMMISSIONERS
Josh Maxwell
Marian D. Moskowitz
Eric M. Roe

PLANNING COMMISSION
Government Services Center, Suite 270
601 Westtown Road
P. O. Box 2747
West Chester, PA 19380-0990
(610) 344-6285
Fax (610) 344-6515

January 3, 2025
John R. Weller, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning
West Whiteland Township
101 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341
Re:
#

Preliminary Subdivision - 1358 Glen Echo Road
West Whiteland Township – SD-11-24-18333

Dear Mr. Weller:
A Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "1358 Glen Echo Road", prepared by JMR Engineering, LLC,
and dated November 18, 2024, was received by this office on December 6, 2024. This plan is reviewed
by the Chester County Planning Commission in accord with the provisions of Section 502 of the
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. We offer the following comments on the proposed
subdivision for your consideration.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Location:
Site Acreage:
Lots/Units:
Non-Res. Square Footage:
Proposed Land Use:
Municipal Land Use Plan Designation:
UPI#:

West side of Glen Echo Road, west of Twin Oaks Lane
4.00
One existing lot, five proposed lots
0
Single Family Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
41-8D-4

PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the creation of five single family residential lots. The existing residence will
remain on Lot 2 (this issue is further discussed in comment #3). The project site, which will be served by
public water and public sewer, is located in the R-2 Residential zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION: The County Planning Commission recommends that the issues raised in this
letter should be addressed, and all Township issues should be resolved before action is taken on this
subdivision plan.

email: [email protected]

• website: www.chescoplanning.org

Page:
Re:
#

2
Preliminary Subdivision - 1358 Glen Echo Road
West Whiteland Township – SD-11-24-18333

Site Plan Detail, Sheet 4: Preliminary Subdivision - 1358 Glen Echo Road

Page:
Re:
#

3
Preliminary Subdivision - 1358 Glen Echo Road
West Whiteland Township – SD-11-24-18333

COUNTY POLICY:
LANDSCAPES:
1.

The project site is located within the Suburban Landscape designation of Landscapes3, the 2018
County Comprehensive Plan. The vision for the Suburban Landscape is predominantly residential
communities with locally-oriented commercial uses and facilities, accommodating growth at a
medium density that retains a focus on residential neighborhoods, with enhancements in housing
diversity and affordability. Additionally, roads, sidewalks and paths with convenient access to parks
and community facilities should be provided. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the
objectives of the Suburban Landscape.

WATERSHEDS 2045:
2.

Watersheds 2045, the County-wide integrated water resources plan and Act 167 Stormwater
Management Plan, indicates the proposed development is located within the Upper Brandywine
Creek watershed. The Watersheds 2045 plan’s highest priority objectives within this watershed
are: protecting first order streams, riparian corridors, and existing woodlands; reducing
stormwater runoff; mitigating flood risks; implementing source water protection measures; and
promoting and expanding water-based recreational opportunities and access. Watersheds 2045
can be accessed at www.chesco.org/watersheds2045.

PRIMARY ISSUES:
3.

The Township’s 2022 Historic Resources Map and Sites Listing catalog indicates that the existing
building on Lot 2, the Daniel Meredith House, is a designated historic resource listed on the National
Register. Additionally, General Note 5.3 on Sheet 2 indicates that the spring house located on Lot
5, which is a contributing historic resource not listed on the Township Historic Resources Map, will
remain. Furthermore, General Note 5.2 states that an existing outbuilding, which appears to be
identified on the site plan as a garage, is a non-contributing resource that will be removed. The
Township should reserve granting final plan approval until the proposal has been reviewed by the
Township’s Historical Commission.
The applicant and Township should work to mitigate any negative impacts on the integrity of the
existing historic resources on the project site. “Appreciate” Objective A of Landscapes3, the 2018
County Comprehensive Plan, is to preserve historic resources in their context while supporting
appropriate reuse as a vital part of our community infrastructure and character. Additional
information on this issue is available online at: www.chescoplanning.org/Landscapes3/1cAppreciate.cfm.

4.

Vehicular access to Lots 3 and 5 will be provided from a 20 foot wide access and utility easement on
Lot 3. The details of this easement should be incorporated into the deeds of both lots.

5.

The plan and 2024 aerial photography indicate that a portion of the site is wooded. Mature trees
and shrubs reduce the volume and impacts of stormwater runoff by intercepting precipitation,
increasing evapotranspiration, and stabilizing soil through root growth. If development or earth
disturbance is going to encroach upon existing woodlands, the removal of trees should be limited
to the minimum area needed for the dwellings and support facilities. The limits of tree removal
should be clearly shown on the plan and “limits of disturbance” should be delineated to protect
all trees that are intended to remain. Orange construction fencing should be placed at the “limit
of disturbance” to prevent unintended intrusion into woodland areas by construction equipment.

Page:
Re:
#

4
Preliminary Subdivision - 1358 Glen Echo Road
West Whiteland Township – SD-11-24-18333
This fencing should be placed at the drip line of any trees that are intended to remain to limit
inadvertent impacts from construction equipment to root zones and long-term tree health.
Additional native trees and shrubs should be incorporated into the landscaping plans to replace
and mitigate the loss of removed trees.

6.

The site contains delineated wetlands. Although it does not appear that any development activity
will encroach into the delineated wetland area, the applicant should be aware that placement of fill
in wetlands is regulated by the Corps of Engineers in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (1977) and the Department of Environmental Protection under Chapter 105 Rules and
Regulations for the Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management.

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES:
7.

Land disturbance and land development activities that occur within Chester County must comply
with the County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan for Chester County, PA (August
2022) and the associated Act 167 stormwater management ordinance standards adopted by each
municipality.

8.

The Waivers Request table on Sheet 2 indicates that the applicant is requesting three waivers from
the provisions of the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, including a
waiver from the sidewalk requirement in Section 281-31.A, along with three waivers from
Chapter 270-Stormwater Management of the Township Code. Waiver requests should only be
granted following the determination that the proposed project either meets the purpose of these
requirements or does not create the impacts that these provisions are intended to manage.

9.

The Maintenance Ownership table on Sheet 6 states that the maintenance of the permanent
stormwater management facilities, which includes rain gardens, shall be the responsibility of the
individual lot owner. Ongoing efforts by the municipality may be needed to educate the
homeowners so that they can fully understand and fulfill the operation and maintenance
requirements for these facilities, particularly in regard to the on-going maintenance of the rain
garden plantings.

10.

The applicant should contact the office of the Chester County Conservation District (telephone
#610-455-1360) for information and clarification on erosion control measures. The provisions of
the Commonwealth Erosion Control Regulations may apply to the project and may require an
Earth Disturbance Permit or a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for
discharge of stormwater from construction activities. Additional information on this topic is
provided online at: https://www.chesco.org/284/ErosionStormwater.

11.

A minimum of four (4) copies of the plan should be presented at the Chester County Planning
Commission for endorsement to permit recording of the final plan in accord with the procedures of
Act 247, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and to meet the requirements of the
Recorder of Deeds, the Assessment Office, and the municipality.

Page:
Re:
#

5
Preliminary Subdivision - 1358 Glen Echo Road
West Whiteland Township – SD-11-24-18333

This report does not review the plan for compliance to all aspects of your ordinance, as this is more
appropriately done by agents of West Whiteland Township. However, we appreciate the opportunity to
review and comment on this plan. The staff of the Chester County Planning Commission is available to you
to discuss this and other matters in more detail.
Sincerely,

cc:

Oak Knoll, LLC
JMR Engineering, LLC
Robert J. and Susan W. Shenkin
Chester County Conservation District

Paul Farkas
Senior Review Planner

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning

SUBJECT:

Draft motion for the 1358 Glen Echo Rd. subdivision and
land development plan

DATE:

February 13, 2026

To recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the five-lot residential subdivision plan for
1358 Glen Echo Rd., as depicted on a 14-sheet plan set prepared by JMR Engineering, LLC,
dated November 18, 2024 and most recently revised Janury 27, 2026 (the “Plan”), with the
fifteen following waivers and conditions:
1.

The Plan is approved as a Final Plan pursuant to §281-10.H of the West Whiteland
Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (“S/LDO”).

2.

Waiver of §270-20.J(2) of the Stormwater Management Ordinance to allow stormwater
infiltration systems to be not less than fifteen feet from dwellings and right-of-way lines,
pursuant to comment #1 of the Spotts, Stevens and McCoy (“SSM”) review dated February 10, 2026.

3.

Waiver of §270-29.A(4)(a) of the Stormwater Management Ordinance to allow stormwater basins with a top-of-berm width of not less than five feet, pursuant to comment
#2 of the SSM review dated February 10, 2026.

4.

Waiver of §270-29.A(5)(d) of the Stormwater Management Ordinance to allow an emergency spillway with not less than six inches of freeboard, pursuant to comment #3 of
the SSM review dated February 10, 2026.

5.

Waiver of §281-31.A of the S/LDO such that no sidewalks need be provided, subject to
the Applicant donating to the Township sidewalk fund a sum equivalent to the construction cost of the sidewalk that could be required, pursuant to comment #1 of the Theurkauf Design and Planning (“Theurkauf”) review dated February 9, 2026. Such donation
shall be made in full before the Plan is recorded at the Office of the Recorder of Deeds.

6.

Waiver of §281-35.E of the S/LDO to allow the perimeter buffer as shown on the Plan,
pursuant to comment #3a of the Theurkauf review dated February 9, 2026.

7.

Payment of a fee in lieu of preservation of permanent open space, pursuant to §28147.B of the S/LDO. The amount of the fee shall be determined at such time that the
Board of Supervisors grants final approval to the Plan. Such fee shall be paid in full at
or before the time that application is made for the first Building Permit for this project.

8.

Payment of a traffic impact fee as required by Township Ordinances 427 and 461. If
there is no substantive change to the design of this project, the amount of the said fee
shall be $7,245.00 as noted in the Bowman review dated February 6, 2026.

1

9.

The Plan proposes four (4) new connections to the West Goshen sewage treatment
facility. A tapping fee of $5,300.00 must be paid to West Whiteland Township for each
connection prior to recording of the Plan at the Office of the Recorder of Deeds.

10.

The Plan shall be revised prior to submission to the Board of Supervisors to show the
public water connection to the existsing house on Lot 2 and fire connections to the
homes proposed for Lots 1, 3, 4, and 5.

11.

The Plan shall be revised prior to submission to the Board of Supervisors to provide the
additional trees described in comment #2 of the Theurkauf review dated February 9,
2026. If these additional trees are not sufficient to satisfy the compensatory planting
requirement in §281-34.G of the S/LDO, the Applicant shall make a payment to the
Township equivalent to the installed cost of the trees needed to satisfy the requirement,
as provided for in §281-34.G(6)(a)[1] of the S/LDO.

12.

Upon completion of the new utility connections and principal construction, the Applicant
shall restore Glen Echo Rd. pursuant to comment #33 of the SSM review dated February
10, 2026. The cost of such restoration shall be included in the financial security for this
project, required below.

13.

Execution and recording of the Township’s Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement
and Landscaping Restrictive Covenant, pursuant to Township practice. If the Applicant
makes no material revisions or additions to the standard form of the said documents,
then the Township Manager should be authorized to sign these forms on behalf of the
Township.

14.

Execution of a Developer Agreement and a Financial Security Agreement pursuant to
Township practice. The amount of such security shall be based upon construction cost
estimates for the site improvements, including landscaping, to be provided by the Applicant, which shall be reviewed and deemed sufficient by SSM and Theurkauf. If the
Applicant makes no material revisions or additions to the standard form of the said
agreements, then the Township Manager should be authorized to sign these forms on
behalf of the Township.

15.

Payment of all outstanding Township invoices within 45 days of the date of Final Plan
approval by the Board.

Plans\RST\Shenkin\PC DRAFT motion – 260213

2

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning

SUBJECT:

The Data Centers land development plan

DATE:

February 13, 2026

APPLICANT:

Green Fig Land, LLC
c/o Charles Lyddane
10 Woodford La.
Malvern, PA 19355

SITE ADDRESS:

215 Valley Creek Blvd.
Exton, PA 19341

TAX PARCELS:

41-3-4

ZONING:

O/L, Office/Laboratory

DESCRIPTION:

Land development plan for stormwater management facilities for an industrial development on an adjacent property
in East Whiteland Township.

EXPIRES:

April 6, 2026

Background
The subject property is a vacant lot covering 25.07 acres in the Office/Laboratory zoning district
along the east side of Valley Creek Blvd. It is bound by the Chester Valley Trail to the north
and the East Whiteland Township line to the east; the adjacent land in East Whiteland is currently vacant but is to be developed as a data center. The property to the south is owned by
West Whiteland Township and is the site of our Public Works Facility. The subject lot is nearly
level, rising at an average grade of just over 1% from Valley Creek Blvd. to the Township line.
Valley Ck. flows across the site, and much of the lot is within the FEMA-designated floodway
and 100-year floodplain associated with that stream. The stream corridor is mostly wooded,
with the rest of the property in meadow. An easement owned by the Philadelphia Electric
Company runs along the north edge of the property, adjacent to the Trail.
In the mid-2000’s,1 the then-owner of the adjacent 75-acre lot in East Whiteland had a plan to
develop that site with a continuing care retirement community to be called Whiteland Village.

1

This was a few years after Rubenstein Partners received approval for the Master Plan of the Valley Creek Corporate
Center, which was to occupy the adjacent lands in West Whiteland. The subject property abuts – but was never

1

All the buildings and amenities were to be in East Whiteland; the West Whiteland lot would
have only a small office building/sales center, an access drive to Valley Creek Blvd., and stormwater management facilities. On June 12, 20072, the West Whiteland Board of Supervisors
(“Board”) granted final approval to the land development plan for those improvements. Since
the storm basin was to be an element of the erosion and sedimentation control facilities during
the construction process, the basin was constructed soon thereafter. However, none of the
proposed buildings were ever built, and the developer eventually abandoned the project.
When the developer applied to withdraw their plans officially, West Whiteland had concerns
about the impact of leaving the essentially complete stormwater basin in place, noting that the
property owner would be responsible for maintenance and reporting, even though the facilities
would not be used as designed. After consulting the Township Engineer and the Township
Solicitor, the Board determined that the site should be restored to its original condition. Since
the restoration work met the definition of “land development,” we required the developer to
secure land development approval for it. The Board approved this land development plan on
October 23, 2013, and the restoration was subsequently completed.
In January 2024, we received a new land development plan for this property that proposed to
re-construct the stormwater management facilities, again to accommodate a large development
on the adjacent land in East Whiteland: as indicated by the plan title, the East Whiteland project this time is a data center complex and not a residential community. Our Board approved
that application on April 10, 2024, and construction has since begun.
Minor deviations from an approved plan during construction are common: these are known as
“field changes,” are typically approved by staff, documented on an excerpt of the plan set, and,
once construction is complete, aggregated onto a plan set known as the “as-built” drawings.
These changes have little if any impact upon the overall design or the functionality of any infrastructure improvements. For this project, however, the extent of the field changes has been
such that Staff became concerned about their cumulative effect, so we directed the Applicant to
submit updated drawings for consultant review and re-approval.
Tonight is the first presentation of this revised land development plan to the Planning
Commission.
Consultant Reviews
Since the plan does not propose any traffic-related improvements, we did not request a review
from Bowman, our traffic engineer. Similarly, no sanitary sewer facilities are involved, so there
is no review from Remington & Vernick.

part of – the corporate center project. This tract is now being developed by Toll Brothers as an active adult
residential community.
2

At that time, we determined that the proposed improvements were allowed by §325-15.B(6) of the Zoning
Ordinance (“Zoning”) as “accessory uses incidential to those permitted above,” even though the use proposed in
East Whiteland was not among those “above” uses. Based upon this precedent, we have determined that the
stormwater management facilities now proposed are permitted under that same section of the Zoning.

2

•

SSM review dated February 12, 2026. Comments #1 through #6 review requested
waivers, some of which were granted when the Board approved the original plan on
April 10, 2024. The first three are provisions of the Stormwater Management Ordinance, and SSM supports them. The other three are related to landscaping, and SSM
defers to Theurkauf.
Comments #7 and #8 are administrative items required by our Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance (“S/LDO”).
Comments #9 through #25 concern the stormwater management provisions. While
extensive, all of these direct minor corrections and revisions; request supporting data
and details; or note administrative requirements. There does not appear to be any
concern about the functionality of the design. A representative from SSM will be in
attendance at our meeting and will be able to address any questions you may have on
these comments.
Comments #26, #27, and #28 direct minor corrections, including text revisions to the
various notes to eliminate confusion about whether a given action is mandatory or
merely suggested.

•

Theurkauf Design and Planning (“Theurkauf”) review dated January 8, 2026.
The Applicant has requested a variety of waivers from our landscaping requirements.
Comments #1 and #2 support waivers from the perimeter and screen buffer requirements as the intent of the buffer is satisfied by the size of the tract and existing vegetation. Comment #3 notes that the proposed basin design qualifies as “naturalistic,” so no
buffer plantings are required.
Regarding our compensatory planting requirement, comment #4 advises that the
proposed landscaping is sufficient compensation for the trees likely to be removed.
Comments #5 and #6 are administrative items.

The Chester County Planning Commission reviewed the entire project at the request of East
Whiteland Township in correspondence dated December 21, 2023. A portion of that review
addressed the stormwater management facilities in West Whiteland, and we previously noted
that addressing SSM’s concerns would also resolve the County’s issues. The County advised
that they would not review the West Whiteland portion separately, so the 2023 review satisfies
the legal requirement for County review.
Staff Comment
While we are interested in the impact of the portion of the project in East Whiteland, we have
no jurisdiction over that area. Fortunately, we enjoy a good relationship with East Whiteland,
so if any issues arise in the course of tonight’s meeting involving that portion of the project,
Staff can make them known to East Whiteland.
While tonight is the first review of this particular submission, this is essentially a re-approval of
an earlier project. Staff therefore has no objection to Commission action on this plan tonight,
and we have attached a draft motion for your consideration. We note that Theurkauf has
advised that some of the waivers requested regarding our landscaping requirements are not

3

needed, so those waivers do not appear in the motion. Also, when the Commission recommended approval of the prior version of this plan, you directed additional landscaping adjacent
to the Chester Valley Trail; this additional landscaping was not to exceed what we could require
pursuant to the waived sections. We have retained this provision within condition #4 of the
draft motion.
Finally, Theurkauf does not directly address the requested waiver from §281-16.C(11)(a) of the
S/LDO, which requires the identification of existing large trees. By comparing the area that will
be disturbed by this project with current site conditions, Staff has concluded that virtually none
of the wooded area will be disturbed by this development, so an inventory of large trees would
not be relevant to this review. Furthermore, comment #4 of the Theurkauf review concludes
that the proposed landscaping is sufficient to compensate for whatever trees are removed,
which addresses both the waiver from §281-34.G (granted previously) and the waiver from this
section. Staff therefore has no objection to this waiver, and it is included in the draft motion.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.

SSM review dated February 12, 2026.
Theurkauf review dated January 8, 2026.
Draft motion dated February 16, 2026.
Plan set prepared by JMR Engineering, LLC, dated January 31, 2024, and most recently revised
February 3, 2026.

Plans\123\215 Valley Creek\PC memo – 260213

4

Spotts, Stevens and McCoy
1047 N. Park Road > Reading PA 19610
610.621.2000 > F. 610.621.2001 > SSMGROUP.COM

February 12, 2026

Mr. John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning
West Whiteland Township
101 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341

RE:

Data Centers
Stormwater Basin Review
SSM File 101008.0386

Dear Mr. Weller:
We have reviewed the above-referenced submission consisting of the following:
•

Preliminary/Final Land Development Plans (14 sheets), “The Data Centers”, prepared by JMR
Engineering, LLC, Project No. 1508-B, dated January 31, 2024 and most recently revised
February 3, 2026;

•

Preliminary PCSM Narrative & Report, Data Centers, prepared by JMR Engineering, LLC,
Project No. 1508-B, dated November 10, 2023 and most recently revised January 10, 2026;

•

Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Report Data Centers, prepared by JMR Engineering,
LLC, Project No. 1508-B, dated November 10, 2023 and most recently revised January 10, 2026,
and;

•

Waiver Request Letter, prepared by JMR Engineering, LLC, dated December 15, 2025.

Green Fig Land Company is proposing to construct two buildings, associated parking, utilities and other
stormwater facilities on the adjoining property in East Whiteland Township. In addition to the stormwater
facilities within East Whiteland Township, a relatively large wet basin (retention pond) is proposed within
West Whiteland Township at the site N/F Whiteland Holdings, L.P. parcel UPI#41-3-4 that was once the
proposed site for the Township’s proposed Public Works Facility.
Issues regarding landscaping and buffering will be addressed by Theurkauf Design and Planning.
We have the following comments.
WAIVER REQUESTS
It is noted that some of the waiver requests were previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on
April 10, 2024, as noted below in italics.
1.

Section 270-15.T(2)(b) – (Previously Approved) – A waiver is requested to permit encroachments
(e.g., fill) within Riparian Buffer Zone 2.

ENGINEERING | SURVEYING | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0386
February 12, 2026
Page 2 of 5

2.

Section 270-20 – (Previously Approved) – A waiver is requested to not require stormwater
infiltration, due to the presence of underlying karst geologic formations (e.g., significant potential
for sinkhole formation).

3.

Section 270-21.D – To allow a minimum orifice size in the outlet structure less than 3 inches in
diameter. The plan proposes orifice diameters of 1.5 and 1.6 inches and provide a trash rack over
the outlet structure in which the orifice is proposed. We have no objection to this request so long
as an NPDES permit approval can be required. We note that the PaDEP Managed Release
Concept (MRC) guidelines specifically permit orifices sizes less than 3-inches in diameter.

4.

Section 281-16.C(11)(a) – A waiver is requested to not require survey of individual mature trees
with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of six inches or more outside of woodland areas and their
associated species name and size. We defer landscaping related waiver requests to Theurkauf
Design and Planning.

5.

Section 281-34.G. – (Previously Approved) – A waiver is requested to not require compensatory
planting for trees removed which are greater than 12-inches diameter at breast height (DBH).

6.

Section 281-35.A. & E. – (Previously Approved) – A waiver is requested to not have to provide
the required buffer plantings within the indicated 25-ft wide perimeter buffer setbacks given the
amount of existing vegetation within these setbacks.

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
7.

The owner’s affidavit shall be signed and notarized prior to the plan being endorsed by the
Township, Section 281-16.B(10)(a).

8.

An improvements agreement and guarantee will be required, Section 281-54. We are currently rereviewing our previous review of the escrow tabulation. However, we cannot complete that
review until other items listed below have been properly addressed.

COMPLIANCE WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Background
The plan proposes a wet pond, Managed Release Concept Rain Gardens and portions of conveyance
facilities (storm sewer pipes, swales and rip-rap / endwalls) located within West Whiteland Township that
will serve runoff from proposed buildings and parking lots within adjoining East Whiteland Township. It
appears that the plan is intended to stand-alone and that other Best Management Practices (BMPs) are
only noted by reference to other plans for facilities in East Whiteland Township.
9.

The MRC design protocol outlined by PaDEP is proposed. We note that the issuance of an
NPDES permit for this project will satisfy the “Water quality and runoff volume requirements”
Section 270-19 in this regard.

10.

The applicant shall provide the Township with evidence that they have received an NPDES
Permit for construction activities, Section 270-17.A(1)(b).

11.

Forebay design calculations shall be provided, Section 270-27.J.(a). Forebay calculation
methodology may be found in the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Chapter 3, page 10,
Section 3.1.3 Pond Pretreatment Criteria. A cleanout stake shall be provided.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0386
February 12, 2026
Page 3 of 5

12.

The upper portion of the rain garden key trench (the basin berm core) is shown and specified
incorrectly. The core shall be shown and specified as required by Section 270-29.A.(4)(d).

13.

The plan shall be updated to contain a standard detail for stormwater endwalls and manholes.
Concrete endwalls shall be set on a minimum of 12 inches of AASHTO No. 57 (PennDOT 2B)
coarse aggregate, Section 270-29.E(6). As currently shown on the grading plans, the proposed
grading around the endwalls is incorrect. Details of the endwalls and their grading shall be
provided demonstrating proper grading such that slopes around the endwalls are no greater than
2:1.

14.

The applicant shall provide the Township with a letter of adequacy from the Conservation District
for an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the Township endorsing the plan, Section 27031.B.

15.

The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan(s) and O&M agreement(s) shall name the person
identified in the SWM (Storm Water Management) site plan (their respective contact information,
e.g., name, company / title, address, phone, email), who shall be the owner of and be responsible
for ongoing inspections, operation, repair, and maintenance of each BMP or conveyance
following completion of construction, Section 270-41.C. It should be noted that the O&M plans
for this project are the PSCM Plans, Sheets 6, 11 and 12.

16.

An O&M agreement shall be submitted, Section 270-41.D(1) and the O&M plan shall be attached
to, incorporated within, and recorded as a public record along with a fully executed O&M
agreement, all of which shall be recorded as a restrictive covenant that runs with the land and
shall be binding upon the landowner and any heirs, administrators, successors in interest or
assigns of the landowner, Section 270-41.D(2). The agreement should be recorded concurrently
with the final plans.

17.

We previously noted that easements shall be provided for access to the stormwater management
facilities, Section 270-41.E(2). Note 24 of the General Notes on Sheet 2 has been added to the
plan. We recommend that the Township should review the note for adequacy.

18.

Details of the diversion structures A2D and B3D must be provided. These details are required
before we can determine if the stormwater management facilities will function as designed. Their
designs are critical in how the system functions. Therefore, we recommend that the Design
Engineer submit these details as soon as possible. If they don’t function as intended, major
modifications to the system may be required.

19.

We have the following comments regarding the Typical MRC Rain Garden Detail on Sheet 11:
a. An internal water storage (IWS) zone is included in the design of MRC rain gardens. This
zone is the area below the outlet orifice and above the bottom of the soil media. The current
design includes 2' of topsoil below the soil media used to protect the underlying PVC liner.
This 2' of topsoil will always be wet as it does not have any means to drain. As currently
shown, the concrete outlet structure will rest on this wet soil and will be unstable. The
protective topsoil shall be replaced with a geotextile fabric.
b. A cross section of the forebay shall be added to this detail and the impermeable liner shall
extend under the forebay.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0386
February 12, 2026
Page 4 of 5

c. The detail shall clarify if the concrete structure in the bed will sit on the impermeable liner or
if the liner will be battened to the concrete structures. If battens are proposed, a detail shall be
provided. The PVC Stormwater Facility Liner Detail shall be revised accordingly.
d. A detail of pipe penetrations of the liner shall be provided.
e. The “Bottom of Soil Media” leader shall point to the correct location.
f.

A cross section (perpendicular to this detail) must be provided to show the depths of the
media and location and separation distances from other materials.

g. “Double Washed” is not a proper specification for the No. 57 Stone within the soil media. A
specification such as a wash loss of no more than 0.5% is appropriate.
h. A detail of the spillways shall be provided clearly showing the extents of the lining material
which shall extend down to the water level of the wet pond.
i.

The outlet sump depth shall be shown graphically on the detail.

j.

The orifice diameter is specified in decimal inches. The size shall also be specified in fraction
of an inch to the nearest 1/16th of an inch.

k. We recommend that the compost be specified as US Composting Council – STA Certified
Compost Class I or II.
20.

Storm sewer profile F3-F1 shall be provided and the crossing of this storm sewer with the Storm
B (1) profile.

21.

Storm A (1) profile shall show the pertinent information (invert elev., rim elev., etc.) for MHA2D
and shall include its pertinent information.

22.

An overall construction sequence has not but shall be provided. Individual construction sequences
for the Sediment Basin and the Rain Gardens have been provided but cannot be constructed at the
same time. The Rain Gardens must be constructed only after the site has been stabilized.
Therefore, the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include interim grading for the
sediment basin that does not include the internal construction of the rain gardens.

23.

The rip-rap aprons shall be drawn to scale and extend a minimum of 4 feet vertically below the
permanent pool elevation.

24.

The legend shall clarify what the light grey circles are which are shown throughout the site.

25.

Endwalls F1 and B2 shall be labelled on the PCSM Plan (Sheet 6).

GENERAL
26.

There are numerous instances within notes, construction sequences and details in which the word
should has been used. These instances are directives and words such as “should” or “may” shall
be replaced with “shall” or “must”. This includes standard notes and details required by other
agencies.

27.

The “Soil Use Limitations and Resolutions” notes on Sheets 5 & 8 refer to “the above chart.” The
above chart shall be provided or the appropriate pertinent information shall be listed in the notes
instead of referring to the chart.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0386
February 12, 2026
Page 5 of 5

28.

The date that the Township has approved the waivers shall be added to the plan.

We respectfully request for ease of review that future response letters include responses to all of our
comments and indicate the drawing numbers and/or report page numbers that correspond to the changes
that have been made.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Spotts, Stevens and McCoy

Kent D. Morey, P.E., CBLP
Senior Engineer
[email protected]

cc:

Nick Szeredai, P.E.

MEMORANDUM
TO:

John Weller, AICP, West Whiteland Township Director of Planning and Zoning
Patrick Gorman, AICP, Township Planner
Anne F. Walters, RLA
John M. Robinson, P.E., M.B.A., JMR Engineering, LLC
Kent Morey, SSM Group, Inc.
Nick Szeredai, SSM Group, Inc.

FROM:

Edward A. Theurkauf, RLA, ASLA, APA
Celia E. Winters, ASLA, MLA

DATE:

January 8, 2026

SUBJECT:

REVIEW COMMENTS – DATA CENTER
PRELIMINARY/FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 12-15-25

Please note our review comments pertaining to the following documents that we received on 12-232025:
•

Land Development Plan consisting of 13 sheets; and

•

Waiver request letter from John M. Robinson, P.E. dated 12-15-2025

1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

REVIEW COMMENTS – DATA CENTER
PRELIMINARY/FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 12-15-25

Page |2

January 8, 2026

1. Property Line Perimeter Buffers – The basin/BMP and rain gardens/MRC are accessories to the data
center use across the eastern property line. Sections 281-35.A and 281-35.E of the subdivision and
land development ordinance (SLDO) require 25 foot wide planted perimeter buffers between the
basins and the municipal public works use to the south and southwest, and from the data center to
the east. The applicant requests a waiver from the planting requirement.
a. Public Works Buffer – The area between the basin/rain gardens and the public works facility
consists of a broad wooded floodplain area that provides more than adequate screening.
We have no objection to the requested relief.
b. Data Center Buffer – The 25 foot buffer width is proposed without the required vegetation.
As the basin is a component of the adjacent development, we have no objection to the
requested relief.
2. Screen Buffer – Section 281-35.A (SLDO) requires a 50 foot wide planted screen buffer between the
proposed basin/rain gardens and the recreational Chester Valley Trail to the north. The nearest rain
garden is 385 feet from the Trail, and there is an ample buffer of existing tree and shrub vegetation
between. The basin/rain gardens will be below grade and scarcely visible from the Trial. We would
support a waiver from any further buffer planting requirement.
3. Basin Buffer – In accordance with Section 281-35.F.4 (SLDO), a perimeter buffer is not required for
naturalistic basins with maximum 4:1 side slopes and 100% native vegetation. The basin and rain
gardens qualify as naturalistic.
4. Tree Removal and Compensatory Trees – Section 281-34.G (SLDO) requires compensatory plantings
for trees of 12-inch DBH and greater that are removed. The (22) proposed evergreen trees would
meet the requirement for any reasonably anticipated amount of tree removal. The plan is deemed
compliant.
5. Cost Estimate – The cost estimate shall reflect the increase of native seed mix for the proposed rain
gardens.
6. Conclusion – Subject to Township approval of the buffer planting waiver requests, we have no
objection to plan approval.
Please contact this office with any questions
1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning

SUBJECT:

Draft motion for The Data Centers land
development plan

DATE:

February 13, 2026

To recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the land development plan entitled “The
Data Centers,” a 14-sheet plan set prepared by JMR Engineering, LLC, dated January 31, 2024
and most recently revised December 15, 2025 (the “Plan”), with the ten following waivers and
conditions:
1.

The Plan is approved as a Final Plan pursuant to §281-10.H of the West Whiteland
Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (“S/LDO”).

2.

Waiver of §270-15.T(2)(b) of the Stormwater Management Ordinance to allow fill within
Zone 2 of the Riparian Buffer Area as shown on the Plan, pursuant to comment #1 of
the Spotts, Stevens and McCoy (“SSM”) review dated February 12, 2026.

3.

Waiver of §270-20 of the Stormwater Management Ordinance such no infiltration of
stormwater need be provided, pursuant to comment #2 of the SSM review dated
February 12, 2026.

4.

Waiver of §270-21.D of the Stormwater Management Ordinance to allow orifices smaller
than three inches in the proposed outlet structure, pursuant to both DEP policy and
comment #3 of the SSM review dated February 12, 2026.

5.

Waiver of §281-35.A and §281-35.E of the S/LDO such that no additional plantings are
needed to satisfy the perimeter and screen buffer requirements, pursuant to comments
#1 and #2 of the Theurkauf Design & Planning (“Theurkauf”) review dated January 8,
2026. However, the Applicant shall provide additional landscaping satisfactory to the
Township to mitigate the visual impact of the development as seen from the Chester
Valley Trail, not to exceed the number of plantings that could be required pursuant to
the said sections.

6.

Waiver of §281-34.G of the S/LDO such that existing trees of 12” or greater DBH that
are to be removed need not be identified, pursuant to comment #4 of the Theurkauf
review dated January 8, 2026.

7.

Execution and recording of the Township’s Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement
and Landscaping Restrictive Covenant, pursuant to Township practice. If the Applicant
makes no material revisions or additions to the standard form of the said documents,
then the Township Manager should be authorized to sign these forms on behalf of the
Township.

8.

Execution of a Developer Agreement and a Financial Security Agreement pursuant to
Township practice. The amount of such security shall be based upon construction cost

1

estimates for the site improvements, including landscaping, to be provided by the Applicant, which shall be reviewed and deemed sufficient by SSM and Theurkauf. If the
Applicant makes no material revisions or additions to the standard form of the said
agreements, then the Township Manager should be authorized to sign these forms on
behalf of the Township.
9.

All remaining consultant and Staff concerns shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the
Township.

10.

Payment of all outstanding Township invoices within 45 days of the date of Final Plan
approval by the Board of Supervisors.

Plans\123 \215 Valley Creek\PC DRAFT motion – 260116

2

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning

SUBJECT:

Proposed zoning regulations for data centers

DATE:

February 6, 2026

Staff has prepared the attached draft amendment to the Township Zoning Ordinance for the
regulation of data centers, based upon our earlier conversations at meetings, various model
ordinances, and other research. We would like to discuss the attached draft at our meeting on
February 17. This memorandum will guide you through the text and will also give you some
background on our thinking, explaining why some elements have been included – and why we
have NOT included some elements found in the models.
The attachment is in the form of an amending ordinance, which is how the Board will eventually
adopt the final version. The amending ordinance lists all of the changes being proposed, in the
order which they appear in the Zoning Ordinance:
•

Section 1 lists new definitions to be added to Article II. The only term we’re proposing
to add is a definition for “data center.” The definition shown is based upon the model
ordinances and is the same as what was discussed at the January 6 meeting. Some of
the models define other terms, but we thought them superfluous. If you disagree, we
can discuss on the 17th.

•

Sections 2 and 3 amend the use regulations for the Limited Industrial (I-1) and General Industrial (I-2) zoning districts to allow data centers as a conditional use. This is
based upon our prior discussion, but we can discuss further – as long as we allow the
use somewhere. You will recall that any non-residential use with more than 20,000
sq.ft. of floor area must be reviewed as a conditional use, so it may seem redundant to
add the conditional use requirement to the district regulations. But we it doesn’t hurt to
make that requirement clear.

•

Section 4 contains the actual regulatory language. The regulations are proposed as a
new §325-38.4 in the Zoning Ordinance, which locates them in Article VIII, “Supplementary Land Use Regulations.” This article provides additional standards for specific uses
that apply in all zoning districts.

•

Section 5 amends our parking regulations to cite data centers specifically. We have
noted that even very large data centers require remarkably few employees, so this
amendment is necessary in order to prevent our regulations from being interpreted to
require acres of unneeded asphalt.

•

Sections 6 and 7 are administrative items.

1

Comments on the proposed regulations (Section 4).
The quality of regulations is not a function of their length. In fact, our experience has been
that more words provide more opportunity for misinterpretation and the creation of unintended
loopholes. If you have read any of the model ordinances, you may note that what is proposed
excludes some elements found in the models. In many cases this is because those elements
are addressed by our existing regulations. Examples include a variety of impact studies to be
included with the conditional use application (already required by §325-124.A(5) of the Zoning),
landscaping (required by §§281-33 thru -37 of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance), and stormwater management (required by §281-38 of the S/LDO and the Stormwater
Management Ordinance).
We also need to be sure that any new regulations cannot be interpreted as unreasonably discriminatory. Relying upon existing regulations – as described above – makes us less vulnerable
to such an accusation: these regulations already apply to all applications and are not affected
by this amendment, so there is no basis for claiming that they place a more onerous burden on
data centers. And if some issue arises in the course of the review process, the Township has a
right to attach a condition to their approval to address that issue – which is why they’re called
conditional uses.
In addition to these general concepts, please note the following more specific items.
1. Subsection B restricts the applicability of the requirements to larger data centers. As we
have discussed, smaller facilities are of limited concern, have limited impact (but are still
subject to the performance standards in §325-41 of the Zoning), and are so prevalent that
controlling them with these regulations would be a burden on the Township. The 20,000
sq.ft. threshold was chosen for two reasons. First, 20,000 sq.ft. of new non-residential floor
area is the existing threshold beyond which all uses are subject to conditional use review.
Second, this is also an industry standard: data centers of 20,000 sq.ft. or less are considered “small” or “micro” (when smaller than 5,000 sq.ft.); at 20,000 sq.ft. and above, they
are deemed “average” or “hyperscale.”
2. The common accessory uses in Subsection C are based upon the various models we
reviewed. Even so, it’s unlikely that we could anticipate all possible accessory uses, so
paragraph C(7) is a catch-all provision.
3. Cell towers – or “wireless communications facilities” – are common accessory uses, which
are provided for by paragraph C(3), citing our existing regulations. These regulations
limit tower height to 120 ft., but many towers are taller than this. The two microwave towers approved as part of the data center development in East Whiteland are each 150 ft. tall.
Do we want to amend the height limit to allow taller towers?
4. Subsection D lists supplementary information to be provided with the conditional use
application for a data center. This information addresses concerns peculiar to data centers:
water and energy consumption, and an emergency response plan. Note that paragraph
D(2)(d) requires the data center developer to offset their energy consumption through the
development or purchase of new renewable energy. This is consistent with the Township’s
commitment (through the WCACOG) to sustainability and renewable energy and is a feature
of data center regulations that we have found in other communities.

2

5. Where a data center application proposes 500,000 sq.ft. or more of floor area, §325-124.A
of the Zoning already requires a traffic impact study, a recreation impact study, a fiscal
impact analysis, an environment and sustainability analysis, and a historic resources impact
study (when such resources are within 300 feet of the project site).
6. We are not suggesting any use-specific area-and-bulk standards, so these aspects will be
controlled by the standards of the I-1 and I-2 districts. In the I-1 district, the minimum
front yard setback is 75 ft., the minimum side yard setback is 35 ft., and the minimum rear
yard setback is 50 ft. For the I-2 district, the setback requirements are 100 ft. (front) and
75 ft. (side and rear). The building height limit in both districts is 35 ft., but both districts
also include a provision whereby this can be raised to 50 ft. if the building is set back an
additional one foot for each foot above 35 ft. of building height. So the setbacks for a 50 ft.
tall building would in each case be 15 ft. more than the numbers shown above. The data
center buildings approved in East Whiteland are each 60 ft. tall. Do we want to consider
adjusting the height limit to allow buildings taller than 50 ft., perhaps with a
higher additional setback requirement?
7. As noted previously, our regular landscaping requirements will apply, but paragraph D(3)
clarifies that a “screening buffer” will be required around the perimeter of the site. This is a
50-foot wide, landscaped strip that will visually screen the site from surrounding properties.
8. A number of other communities include architectural standards for data centers. We have
not included any here, but we can discuss these if you like. We are hesitant to include them
for three reasons. First, we do not have any such standards for other large structures, like
warehouses (although we could add them). Second, since we require extensive landscaping
to shield the building(s) from public view, one could question the justification for such
standards. Third, some of the standards we have seen in other communities are extensive
and detailed, creating concerns about interpretation and enforcement.
9. Subsection E provides operational standards to address concerns unique to data centers.
We bring attention to the existing performance standards in §325-41, which address air
quality, odor, noise, and vibration, among other parameters. You will note that paragraph
E(1) adds a noise limit based upon C-weighted decibels (dBC) in addition to the more common A-weighted limit (dBA) in §325-41. The C-weighted scale specifically addresses the
low-frequency hum associated with data centers that has been a cause of concern. The
limit of 60 dBC is from the model ordinance developed by Food & Water Watch.
10. The operational standards also address concerns about the safe storage of batteries and
provide for an annual inspection.
11. Subsection F addresses the Community Benefits Agreement that is an increasingly common element of data center proposals. These are sometimes proffered by the data center
developer, but we thought it would be helpful to put any developers on notice about the
kinds of benefits we’re really interested in – and that are obviously related to the data
center operation and not just a random wish list.
12. Subsection G is the decommissioning requirement. While we don’t have this requirement
for any other use, Staff agrees that it is appropriate for data centers given the extraordinary
size of the buildings and the likelihood of their obsolescence. The language – including the
financial security requirement – is based upon the model ordinances we consulted.

3

We trust that this background will be useful to you as you review the proposed language. If
you have any questions regarding these provisions, they must be discussed at a public meeting,
but if you provide them to us in advance, we can be prepared for such discussion.
Please note that the Township Solicitor has yet to review the proposed language; they may
direct changes based upon legal concerns.
PC MMO’s – Miscellaneous\2026\260206 – data center zoning

4

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP
CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 325, “ZONING,” OF THE WEST
WHITELAND TOWNSHIP CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REGULATION OF DATA CENTERS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE
TOWNSHIP, INCLUDING DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ESTABLISHING
PERMITTED LOCATIONS, CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL, OPERATIONAL
STANDARDS, AND DECOMMISSIONING
BE IT HEREBY ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of West Whiteland Township, Chester County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as follows:
Section 1.
Section 325-8, “Definitions,” of Chapter 325, “Zoning,” of the West Whiteland
Township Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to add definitions for the following terms:
DATA CENTER – A building or a portion of a building that houses computer systems and
associated components for the purpose of storage, management, processing, and/or
transmission of digital data. These systems and components may include but are not
limited to servers, switches, routers, communication hardware, and back-up energy
sources, including but not limited to battery storage.
Section 2.
Section 325-18, “I-1 Limited Industrial District,” of Chapter 325, “Zoning,” of
the West Whiteland Township Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of a new
Section 325-18.B(10)(d), as follows:
d.

Data centers with a total floor area of more than 20,000 sq.ft. or as the
principal use of a property, regardless of size, subject to the additional
provisions of §325-28.4 of this Chapter.

Section 3.
Section 325-19, “I-2 General Industrial District,” of Chapter 325, “Zoning,” of
the West Whiteland Township Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of a new
Section 325-19.B(11)(l), as follows:
l.

Data centers with a total floor area of more than 20,000 sq.ft. or as the
principal use of a property, regardless of size, subject to the additional
provisions of §325-28.4 of this Chapter.

Section 4.
Article VIII, “Supplementary Land Use Regulations,” of Chapter 325, “Zoning,”
of the West Whiteland Township Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of a
new Section 325-28.4, “Data Centers,” as follows:

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2026

1

§325-28.4: Data Centers
A.

Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to assure that the operation of data center will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of
the occupants of neighboring properties or of the public generally.

B.

C.

Applicability.
(1)

The provisions of this section apply to all data centers that are
the principal use of a property and to data centers that are
accessory to some other principal use of a property where the
total floor area occupied by the data center use is 20,000 square
feet or more. Where a single building contains multiple areas
meeting the definition of a “data center,” the applicability of
this section shall be based upon the combined floor area of all
such data center areas.

(2)

Data centers smaller than 20,000 sq.ft. are permitted as an
accessory use by right in all zoning districts.

Accessory uses.
The following uses are specifically permitted when ancillary to the data
center operation:
(1)

Administrative offices.

(2)

Security provisions, including offices and other accommodations
for security personnel, and security structures, including but not
limited to fences and barriers.

(3)

Wireless communications facilities, subject to the provisions of
Article XXII of this Chapter.

(4)

Storage facilities, except that outdoor storage is prohibited.

(5)

Electrical substations.

(6)

Water treatment facilities, including facilities for storage of
water, provided that the Applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Township during the conditional use review process that such facilities will not present a hazard to any
surrounding property or to the public generally.

(7)

Any other use or structure required to support the data center
operation, provided that the Applicant can satisfy the Township

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2026

2

as to the need for such use or structure in the course of the conditional use review process, and that such use or structure will
not present a hazard to any surrounding property or to the public
generally.
D.

Conditional use requirements.
In the course of the conditional use review required for data centers
subject to the provisions of this section, the applicant shall address the
following issues to the satisfaction of the Township, in addition to the
impact studies and statements required by §325-124.A of this Chapter.
(1)

(2)

Water usage. The conditional use application shall include a
description of the water needs of the data center and all proposed accessory uses. This description shall be prepared by a
qualified professional satisfactory to the Township, and shall, as
a minimum:
(a)

Provide estimates of the volume of water to be withdrawn and consumed, and of the volume of wastewater
to be discharged.

(b)

Identify the source(s) of all water to be used by the facility. Where the source(s) include a public utility, the
Applicant shall provide documentation from such utility
stating that they have the capacity to meet the needs of
the project.

(c)

Quantify the impacts of usage and discharge upon the
natural environment and the existing users of the water
source(s), including the impacts upon groundwater and
surface waters, and the fiscal impact upon existing users
and the general public.

Energy consumption. The conditional use application shall
include a description of the energy needs of the data center and
all proposed accessory uses. This description shall be prepared
by a qualified professional satisfactory to the Township, and
shall, as a minimum:
(a)

Provide an estimate of the energy demand of the facility.

(b)

Identify the source(s) that will meet the projected energy
needs of the facility. Where the source(s) include a public utility, the Applicant shall provide documentation
from such utility stating that they have the capacity to
meet the needs of the project. If the documentation
from the utility indicates the need for capital improve-

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2026

3

ments to the generation and/or distribution infrastructure in order to meet said needs, the estimated cost of
such improvements shall be noted.

(3)

(c)

Describe the impact of the facility upon the energy infrastructure and the existing customers of any and all public
utilities that have agreed to supply the facility, including
but not limited to any impact upon service reliability and
the fiscal impact upon existing customers and the general
public.

(d)

The data center operator shall be required to develop or
purchase sufficient new renewable energy to offset one
hundred percent (100%) of the projected electricity
consumption of the data center operation. The effects
and timing of such development and/or purchase shall be
included in the analysis required by §325-28.4.D(2)(d),
hereabove.

(e)

Provide a description of provisions for back-up power,
should any or all of the utilities and other energy providers cease to provide energy temporarily.

Design requirements.
The data center shall be in full compliance with the area and
bulk requirements of the zoning district within which it is
located. The plan provided with the conditional use application
shall demonstrate the feasibility of full compliance with the
landscaping requirements of Article IV of Chapter 281,
“Subdivision and Land Development,” of the Township Code of
Ordinances, including the provision of a “screening buffer”
around the perimeter of the site, pursuant to §281-35.D of the
said Article.

(4)

Emergency response plan.
(a)

The information submitted with the conditional use application shall include an emergency response plan (“ERP”)
outlining potential emergency situations, including, at a
minimum, fire, flooding and other weather-related
events, and structural damage to the building(s).

(b)

The ERP shall include detailed procedures for responses
to all identified emergency situations, including provisions for fire suppression and containment, evacuation of
the building, and notification of first responders and
other emergency service providers as may be needed in a
given situation.

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2026

4

E.

(c)

If the ERP identifies an emergency situation with the
potential to affect other properties, the ERP shall include
a procedure for providing public notice.

(d)

The ERP shall be reviewed by and found satisfactory to
the Township’s Emergency Management Coordinator
(“EMC”). Should the EMC require the services of a professional consultant to review the ERP, the cost of such
consultant shall be borne by the applicant.

Operational requirements.
(1)

Data centers shall operate in compliance with the physical performance standards established in §325-41 of this Chapter. In
addition to the noise limits established by Chapter 213 of the
Township Code of Ordinances and cited in said §325-41, the data
center and accessory uses on the property shall not produce
sound exceeding 60 dBC at any time, as measured at the property line of the data center property.

(2)

Any accommodations for energy storage devices, including but
not limited to batteries, shall comply with National Fire Protection Association Standard 855, “Installation of Stationary Energy
Storage Systems,” and shall be provided with a fire suppression
system(s) designed for the devices being used.

(3)

Electronic waste generated by a data center shall be disposed of
through an entity specializing in the recycling and safe disposal
of electronic waste. Such entity shall be acceptable to the
Township, and the data center operator shall be required to
maintain a log of all such waste provided to such entity. This log
shall be available to the Township upon request.

(4)

The data center shall be inspected at least once annually to
confirm continuing compliance with fire safety standards.
(a)

This inspection shall be conducted by or at the direction
of the Township Fire Marshal, or by a third-party entity
retained by the data center operator acceptable to the
Township Fire Marshal.

(b)

In addition to documenting compliance with said standards, the inspection shall note if any site-specific training
and/or equipment should be provided to first responders.

(c)

Should any necessary, site-specific training and/or equipment for first responders be identified, such training

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2026

5

and/or equipment shall be provided to the first responders at the expense of the data center operator and at no
cost to the first responders, the Township, or any other
public entity.
F.

Community Benefits Agreement (“CBA”).
The Township shall have the right to require a CBA as a condition of
approval of a conditional use application for a data center. The intent
of a CBA is to define how the data center operator will be required to
offset the impacts of the data center upon the community. Benefits
required by a CBA shall be established in consideration of the following:

G.

(1)

Impacts upon the community identified by the impact studies
and statements required pursuant to §325-124.A and §325-28.4.D
of this Chapter, particularly including the impacts upon traffic,
the natural environment, and historic resources.

(2)

The need for specialized equipment and/or training to monitor
compliance with the provisions of this Chapter as well as any
conditions imposed by the conditional use decision and order.

(3)

The need for specialized equipment and/or training for emergency service providers as identified in the ERP or in consultation with such providers.

(4)

The potential for stream and floodway restoration projects that
will enhance stormwater management facilities, reduce flood
risk, and/or support the Township’s Pollution Reduction Plan.

(5)

Options for enhancing public open spaces and recreational facilities, including but not necessarily limited to how best to satisfy
the requirements established in §281-47 of Chapter 281, “Subdivision and Land Development,” of the Township Code of
Ordinances.

(6)

Opportunities for the preservation, restoration, or adaptive reuse of historic resources upon or in proximity to the site.

(7)

Other concerns as may arise in the course of the conditional use
hearing.

Decommissioning and closure.
The conditional use application shall include a Decommissioning Plan for
the safe shutdown, removal of equipment, disposal and/or recycling of
materials, and site restoration of the data center buildings and property
for implementation at such time that the data center operation ceases.

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2026

6

(1)

The Decommissioning Plan shall establish that the decommissioning process will begin within one year of the cessation of data
center operations and that the entire process will be completed
within a period of eighteen months thereafter, unless a longer
period is agreed to by the Board of Supervisors.

(2)

The Decommissioning Plan shall provide for:
(a)

The removal of all above-ground structures and equipment;

(b)

The removal of sub-surface infrastructure, including but not
limited to building foundations, underground tanks and other
storage, and utilities;

(c)

The disposal of any hazardous materials in accordance with
applicable law;

(d)

The safe disconnection of all utilities; and

(e)

The stabilization and landscaping of disturbed areas and the restoration of the site generally to a condition compatible with the
surrounding area to the satisfaction of the Township.

(3)

The Board of Supervisors may exempt features from the above
removal requirements where they determine that there is
sufficient public benefit to such features remaining;

(4)

The Decommissioning Plan shall include an estimated cost for
the decommissioning process.

(5)

As a condition of final approval of the land development plan for
the data center, the applicant shall be required to provide financial security in a form acceptable to the Township sufficient to
cover the full cost of executing the Decommissioning Plan.

(6)

In the event that the Decommissioning Plan is not executed to
the satisfaction of the Township, the Township shall have the
right to draw upon the financial security to complete the work.
Should the cost of completing the decommissioning exceed the
amount of the financial security, the Township shall have the
right to pursue all legal means to reimburse the Township for
costs incurred relative to the decommissioning, including placing
a lien upon the subject property.

(7)

The Township shall have the right to direct the data center operator to review the Decommissioning Plan from time to time (but
not more than once in a 24-month period) for the purpose of

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2026

7

confirming its viability, updating the cost estimate, and adjusting the financial security accordingly.
Section 5.
Section 325-39.H(6) of Chapter 325, “Zoning,” of the West Whiteland Township
Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of the following to the chart in that
section.
Data centers (20,000 sq.ft. or less)

2 spaces; or 1 space/4,000 sq.ft.
of floor area, whichever is more

Data centers (larger than 20,000 sq.ft.)

As needed, to be determined in the
course of the conditional use hearing for the facility

Section 6.
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and if any section, sentence,
clause, part, or provision thereof shall be held illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision of the court shall not affect or impair the remaining
sections, sentences, clauses, parts, or provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 7.
enactment.

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the date of

ENACTED AND ORDAINED this _____ day of _________ 2026.
BOARD of SUPERVISORS
WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP

Brian Dunn, Chair

Rajesh Kumbhardare, Vice-Chair

Libby Madarasz, Supervisor

ATTEST:

Pam Gural-Bear, Township Manager

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2026

8