On the agenda: Westwhiteland meeting — data center (May 5)

WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP
Planning Commission
Agenda
Tuesday, May 5, 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 Township website
Reminder to meeting participants: Please speak clearly into the microphone
CALL TO ORDER
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES
Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 28, 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. Weston Way Partners II Inc. (Weston Tract)
Address: 1400 Weston Way
Second Review: Conditional Use
Request: Conditional use application for the redevelopment of the former Weston Solutions
office campus for residential use with single-family homes, pursuant to an amended version
of the cluster development option.
NEW BUSINESS
Draft ordinance regarding data centers.
OLD BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: May 21, 2026

1

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning

SUBJECT:

The Weston Property conditional use application

DATE:

May 1, 2026

APPLICANT:

Willow Hill Development Group
1273 Butler Pk.
Blue Bell, PA 19422

SITE ADDRESS:

1400 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380

TAX PARCELS:

41-6-77
41-6-82
41-6-87

ZONING:

R-1, Residential

DESCRIPTION:

Conditional use application for the redevelopment of the
former Weston Solutions office campus for residential use
with single-family homes, pursuant to an amended version
of the cluster development option

41-6-80
41-6-83
41-6-88.2

41-6-81
41-6-84
41-6-88.2A

Background
The subject property is the Weston Solutions office campus along King Rd. It has a gross area
of 53.55 acres and is bound by King Rd. on the north, the US Route 202 expressway on the
west, and by residential neighborhoods on the south and east, which consist of single-family
homes on lots ranging in size from about two-thirds of an acre up to one acre.
The principal access to the site is Weston Way, a private street extending south from King Rd.
There is a secondary access to King Rd. from the west side of the property via Lewis La. and
Old Phoenixville Pk. Existing improvements include office buildings, parking lots, and several
historic resources, the most prominent of which include the Morstein Mansion, designed in 1898
and adaptively re-purposed by Weston for office space; a stable complex associated with the
mansion; and the Morstein train station, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no FEMA-designated floodplain areas or significant areas of steep slope. The northern section is heavily wooded, and two pipeline rights-of-way cross the tract.

1

As explained in greater detail in the Staff memorandum dated October 10, 2025, the property
was in the Office/Laboratory (O/L) zoning district for many years, which allowed the Weston
operation by right. On November 13, 2024, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an
amendment to the Zoning Map that re-zoned this tract and a handful of surrounding properties
from O/L to R-1, Residential.
The Planning Commission first reviewed this conditional use application on October 14, 2025.
At that time, the Commission and Staff identified numerous deficiencies and concerns with the
design, but there was productive discussion nonetheless.
The Applicant next submitted a “concept plan” along with a proposed amendment to the West
Whiteland Township Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning”) in order to allow it, which the Commission
reviewed on March 3, 2026. The discussion that night was generally positive. It was noted
that the concept had the same number of dwellings as the prior version (and was therefore
within the limit imposed by our current regulations), and that the reduction in minimum lot size
from 22,000 to 19,000 sq.ft. allowed for a significant increase in the amount of preserved open
space as well as preservation of more of the existing woodlands along King Rd.
The plan before us tonight is substantially similar to the concept we saw in March; that is, it is
designed to comply with the cluster regulations as they have proposed and not as they exist
today. The Commission may recall that we discussed that it may be possible for the Board to
have the hearings for this conditional use application and for the Zoning amendment on the
same night, although both actions could not be done as part of the same hearing.
The plan proposes 49 lots for development with single-family homes, one lot for the historic
Morstein mansion, 21.67 acres of qualifying1 open space, and approximately 3,000 linear feet of
new roads. Section 325-91.B of the Zoning states that a developer using the cluster option is
entitled to an additional lot if that lot accommodates a historic resource; however, it appears
that this plan does not take advantage of this bonus. The “Zoning Data Tabulation” chart on
Sheet 2 includes the existing area and bulk standards for residential lots, the standards proposed by the Applicant, and what is provided by this design. Since the Applicant is proposing
more than fifteen new lots for residential development, §325-124.A(1) of the Zoning requires
conditional use approval prior to submission of a land development plan.
The Township Historical Commission is scheduled to review this application at their meeting on
May 11, 2026.
Tonight is the second presentation of the conditional use application to the Planning
Commission.

1

As noted on Sheet 2, the area of open space to be preserved is 22.39 acres; however, 1.44 acres of
that amount is occupied by underground utilities such that only half that amount – 0.72 acre – may
count toward the requirement.

2

Conditional Use Review Criteria
The review criteria for Conditional Use applications are established by §325-124.C(1) of the
Zoning Ordinance and are listed here:
(a)

The proposed use shall meet all of the specific standards and regulations for eligibility
which appear in the section of the Zoning Ordinance authorizing the proposed
conditional use.
The “specific standards and regulations” applicable to this project are
those governing the use of the cluster design option in §325-26. As noted
above, the Applicant is proposing an amendment to this section, which
will principally affect §325-26.D; the following analysis notes where the
amendment affects our conclusion about compliance.
§325-26.B – The minimum tract size for clustering is 25 acres, and the
project must be served by public water supply and sewage disposal.
The project meets these standards.
§325-26.C(1) – The developer must provide a yield plan documenting
how many lots could be created on the tract using the standard provisions of the R-1 zoning district; the maximum number of lots permitted
for a cluster development is 20% above that figure. The Applicant provided a yield plan in 2025 showing that this tract could be developed
with 42 one-acre lots, so a maximum of 50 lots may be created using
the cluster option. The project meets this standard.
§325-26.C(2) – The open space “should strive to protect” woodlands,
background open space and scenic roads, and historic resources. Our
review of the original plan was not satisfied on this issue. This new
design is a significant improvement regarding the preservation of
woodlands and preserves some, but not all, of the historic resources on
the site; the Applicant has advised the Commission that it is not feasible to preserve and/or adaptively re-use of all the historic resources on
the site.
§325-26.C(3) – Not less than 30% of the developable acreage must be
set aside as permanent open space; additional open space criteria are
found in §325-26.C(4). The Applicant’s proposed amendment would
increase this to 40%. The “Open Space” chart on Sheet 2 documents
that 50.30 acres of the tract is “developable acreage,” indicating a current open space requirement of 15.09 acres and 20.12 acres under the
proposed amendment. The current design provides 21.67 acres of
qualifying open space and therefore satisfies this provision.
§325-26.D – This section lists the minimum area and bulk standards for
new residential lots; this is also the section that will be affected the
most by the proposed amendment. The design complies with the
proposed standards, but not the existing standards.
Staff is now satisfied that these criteria have been met, based upon the
requirements of the proposed amendment.

3

(b)

The size, scope, extent, and character of the exception desired is consistent with the
plan for future land use in West Whiteland, and with the spirit, purpose, and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance.
The Township amended the future land use element of the Comprehensive
Plan in March 2022. The amendment affected the Future Land Use map,
and this property was changed to the “LDR Low Density Residential” category. The text states that the LDR areas are to accommodate residential
development, primarily in the form of single-family detached homes, at a
density of not more than two dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
The Township is now in the process of adopting a new Comprehensive
Plan. The Future Land Use element of the draft Plan retains the project
site in the LDR category.
The Zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adds details
about minimum lot requirements and the purpose of the cluster option.
We note that, even with the 20% density bonus allowed by the cluster
option, the overall density of the development is less than two du/ac.
Staff is now satisfied that this criterion has been met.

(c)

The suitability of the property for the use desired and the new or expanded use, if
approved, will be susceptible of regulation or restriction by appropriate conditions and
safeguards.
The Board of Supervisors has the right to attach reasonable conditions to
the approval of any conditional use application and to make provisions for
their enforcement.
This criterion has been met.

(d)

The public interest in, or the need for, the proposed use or change, and the proposal
will serve the best interest of the Township, the convenience of the community (where
applicable), and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
It is our practice to define “the best interest of the Township” as being
compliant which both the Township Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance, as §325-2.A of the latter states that its overall purpose is to
promote, protect, and facilitate the public health, safety, morals, and
general welfare.
Based upon our conclusions above in (a) and (b), Staff is now of the
opinion that this criterion has been met.

(e)

Where pertinent, the effects of the proposal with respect to congestion on the roads or
highways; the most appropriate use of land; conserving the value of buildings; safety
from fire, panic, and other dangers; adequacy of light and air; the prevention of overcrowding of land, congestion of population, and adequacy of public and community
services will not have a substantially adverse effect thereon.
The Applicant has stated that the project will generate less traffic than the
Weston campus did, but no data have been provided to support this statement. We note that the principal access will be an upgraded version of the

4

existing Weston Way access, but Bowman has concerns about the secondary access to Old Phoenixville Pk.
Lacking any traffic information or analysis, Staff concludes that this application does not adequately address “congestion on the roads.”
(f)

The proposed change is reasonable in terms of the logical, efficient, and economical
extension of public services and facilities including, but not limited to, public water, sewers, police and fire protection, transportation, and public schools.
For decades, this tract has been an office campus for Weston Solutions, an
engineering and environmental consulting firm. When Weston first occupied this property, this part of the Township was much more rural. The
area has since become almost entirely residential, although a handful of
office and light industrial operations may still be found in the vicinity.
Residential use of this property is consistent with both the character of
the neighborhood and Township policy. The public services cited in this
criterion will not need to be extended, per se, but the level of demand will
be different. The school district is likely to experience the greatest change
as there will now be dwellings where before there were none. SEPTA may
experience a reduction in demand for the bus stop at the intersection of
King Rd. and Weston Way, although there may not be a sudden change, as
Weston has been reducing the number of employees based here for a
number of years.
In conclusion, Staff is of the opinion that this criterion is satisfied.

(g)

The natural features and processes characterizing the proposed site and its surroundings
shall not suffer unmitigated degradation; that the management of stormwater, the
provision of water and/or sewer service, and any other alterations to the site’s predevelopment conditions shall be consistent with Township goals, practices, and plans in these
regards and that demand for water and energy by the proposed use shall be minimized
to the optimal extent.
While this is a developed property, Weston has been a conscientious steward of the land. This revised design has mitigated our earlier concern
about preserving existing wooded areas, but there is still no information
about the use of the historic structures that are to be preserved, other
than to say that the Morstein Mansion is to be “adaptively reused pursuant
to Township Code.” In addition, Township Engineer Spotts, Stevens and
McCoy (“SSM”) has raised significant concerns about the design of the
proposed stormwater management facilities.
In conclusion, Staff is of the opinion that these criteria have still not been
met, as it is not possible to make any conclusions regarding the impact
upon historic resources, and the Applicant has not demonstrated that
stormwater will be managed in accordance with our regulations.

(h)

The character and type of development in the area surrounding the location for which
the request is made and the proposed change or modification, if permitted, will constitute an appropriate use in the area and will not substantially injure or detract from the
use of surrounding property or from the character of the neighborhood.

5

The proposed residential development is similar in character to the Mill
Valley community, which abuts the project site to the south and east:
while the individual house lots will generally be smaller than those in Mill
Valley, the overall density will be nearly the same. From this perspective,
the proposed development is actually more compatible with the neighborhood than the existing office campus.
There are non-residential uses north of this site, across King Rd. These
are mostly low-impact uses and are not likely to be affected by this project. Previously, we expressed concern about the potential impact of
those uses – or their successors – upon future residents. The current
design preserves more of the wooded area along King Rd. than did the
original version, mitigating our concern on this point.
Our only concern regarding this criterion is the potential impact upon the
homes along Old Phoenixville Pk. Currently, this segment of Old Phoenixville is a dead-end street about 600 ft. long, serving four single-family
residences and the Knights of Columbus facility. Even though the connection to this project is characterized as a secondary access, we expect it
will be popular with residents who want to turn left onto King Rd., as the
intersection is signal-controlled.
In conclusion, Staff finds this proposed development to be appropriate in
this area and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The only
negative aspect we can discern at this time is the likelihood of increased
traffic on a short segment of Old Phoenixville Pk. We cannot identify any
way in which this project would injure or detract from the use of any of
the surrounding properties.
(i)

Development of highway frontage insofar as possible has been designed so as to limit
the total number of access points, reduce the need for on-street parking, and encourage
the frontage of buildings on parallel marginal access roads or on roads perpendicular to
the highway.
The plan does not propose any new access points to the road network:
•

The principal point of access to the site will be a new road intersecting
King Rd. at the same location as Weston Way.

•

A secondary access will be provided to Old Phoenixville Pk. (and from
there to an existing signal-controlled intersection with King Rd.) at the
same location as the existing intersection with Lewis La.

•

No connection is proposed to Whiteman Way.

Off-street parking is provided for all lots in compliance with the Zoning;
none of the proposed homes will have driveway access to King Rd.
Staff is of the opinion that these criteria have been met.
(j)

The probable effects of proposed development on highway congestion have been considered, and adequate access arrangements are provided in order to protect major highways from undue congestion and hazard.

6

As noted above under criterion (e) the Applicant may be able to show that
this project will generate less traffic than Weston did. However, data to
support this claim have yet to be provided, and comments #2 and #4 of
the Bowman review express concerns about the need for improvements to
Old Phoenixville Pk. While Staff supports this connection as it will provide
a signal-controlled access to King Rd., we share Bowman’s concerns and
also question the impact upon the current residents.
Staff is of the opinion that the Applicant needs to provide additional traffic
and trip generation data as well as plans for improving Old Phoenixville
Pk. in order to satisfy this criterion.
(k)

The impact upon on-site and adjacent historic resources of the Township has been
mitigated.
The Township has identified six historic resources on the subject property
and an additional four resources within 300 feet of the site.
The previous design for this site was reviewed by the Township Historical
Commission on October 13, 2025. This new design is to be reviewed by
them on May 11. Any conclusion regarding this criterion is premature
until the Commission has made their recommendation.

(l)

Where the property or a portion of the property that is the subject of the application is
improved at the time of the conditional use application, the Township may require that
any existing development and/or uses on the property comply with all previous conditions of approval of a land development, subdivision, conditional use, special exception,
zoning variance, or waiver of any provision of Chapter 281, Subdivision and Land Development, previously granted for the property.
Staff has not found any evidence of previously imposed conditions upon
prior development; this is a moot issue.

Consultant Reviews
•

2

SSM review dated April 29, 2026. As before, SSM expresses several concerns about
Zoning compliance, particularly in regard to the open space. Comment #4 advises that
the plan should more clearly identify which lands are included in the open space calculation, particularly the areas that are subject to the 50% reduction as noted in the “Open
Space” chart on Sheet 2; Staff agrees. Comment #5 notes that the historic Morstein
train station is to be relocated to serve as an entrance feature for the community – as
we discussed previously – but the new location is included in the open space calculation.
Staff does not necessarily object to this, but the Applicant may wish to explain their
thinking, and the Commission should advise as to whether you are agreeable to this.
Comment #8 notes the proposed demolition of historic resources and the need for
review2 by the Historical Commission.

The Historical Commission does not have the authority to deny a Demolition Permit for a historic
resource; however, they are required to review the permit application, and they may require the
Applicant to document the structure prior to demolition.

7

Comments #10 through #19 review the stormwater management provisions. Please
recall that conditional use applications need not provide fully engineered plans but must
document the feasibility of complying with the Ordinance. The Commission may also
recall that this was a particular concern of the residents of the abutting properties when
we were reviewing sketch plans for this site. This section includes a description of the
existing conditions, noting the challenges presented by both the topography and the
existing development, which already includes some stormwater management facilities.
The most serious concerns are in comments #10 and #11, regarding the potential
impact upon the abutting properties along Amstel Way, and comment #14, regarding
the non-compliant distance between the bottom of Basin 1 and the underlying bedrock.
Staff recommends that these concerns be more fully resolved prior to action on this
application. Other comments note that the design does not provide for required freeboard (comments #15 and #16) and express concern about whether sedimentation is
adequately controlled (comments #13 and #19).
Finally, comment #20 notes the need for Historical Commission review, and comment
#21 advises that there be a clear understanding of whether the proposed roads are to
be dedicated to the Township or maintained privately.
•

Theurkauf Design and Planning (“Theurkauf”) review dated April 28, 2026.
Regarding the conditional use criteria, comment #1 expresses remaining concerns about
the preservation of both woodlands and historic resources. This comment further
advises that the plan does not provide adequate buffers from a number of features.
Comment #2 lists remaining concerns about the configuration of the open space. Comment #3 addresses the historic resources on the site. The Commission will recall that
several of these were discussed at the March 3 meeting, including the feasibility of
repurposing the Whitman House, the stable complex, and the train station. Staff
advises waiting until the Historical Commission has addressed these concerns prior to
taking a position on these issues.
Comments #4 through #7 review the proposed landscaping. While this design preserves more of the existing woods than the prior version, comment #4 recommends
that the woods be assessed to assure that the highest quality areas are being preserved.
This comment further suggests that the Applicant provide an estimate of the compensatory plantings that will be required. Comment #5 notes three locations where the width
of the landscaped screen buffer is less than required, but it appears that the feasibility
of compliance has otherwise been demonstrated, along with the perimeter buffer and
street tree requirements (comments #6 and #7). Staff is less concerned about the
screen buffer from the I-1 district (on the north side of King Rd.), as the deficiency
appears to be a result of the relocated train station building. We note that this building
will not be a residence and could be considered a screening element; furthermore, we
prefer that the station be at the location shown to make it more visible to the public.
Comment #7 suggests some alternatives to street tree placement where strict
compliance is not feasible due to the pipeline easement.
Finally, comment #8 notes the gas pipelines traversing the site and advises that the
plan be revised such that there are no pipelines within private yards or within 100 feet
of any proposed residence.

•

Bowman review dated April 29, 2026. Comment #1 notes that the project is too
small to trigger the Township’s requirement for a traffic impact study, but the Applicant

8

will need to provide PennDOT with some kind of study relative to the work proposed
within the King Rd. right-of-way. The Applicant should provide a copy of this study to
the Township during land development review, if not before. Comment #10 states that
the site is within our transportation service area and may be subject to payment of a
traffic impact fee. The Applicant has claimed that this project will result in a reduction in
trips such that no fee would be warranted. Staff agrees that any impact fee must be
based upon the increase in traffic, and this study would provide the information needed
to determine the amount of any fee that may be warranted.
Comments #2 and #4 address the access to Old Phoenixville Pk. Staff shares these
concerns, and we agree that the width of the existing cartway is not adequate and that
the new road through the community should be designed to feel like an extension of Old
Phoenixville Pk. The Applicant should therefore be required to improve the road segment between the Road “A” intersection and King Rd. Staff is less concerned about the
site distance for the Knights of Columbus property, as the segment of Old Phoenixville
Pk. along its southern property line will essentially become a driveway to that site.
Comments #5 through #9 address the street and pedestrian network. The Commission
should provide guidance regarding the configuration of the proposed sidewalks and
trails; we expect that this aspect of the design will not be finalized until the land development stage. Comment #7d recommends improvements to the existing SEPTA bus
stop along King Rd. in addition to a pedestrian connection; Staff agrees. Staff also
agrees with comment #8 in that parking appears ample, with provisions on each lot as
well as on-street parking along one side of Road “A.” The land development plan should
show where on-street parking will be allowed and provide a count of how many vehicles
those spaces could accommodate.
•

Remington & Vernick review dated October 6, 2025. Our sewerage engineer
notes that the full design of the disposal infrastructure will be required with the land
development plan. It appears that the Applicant is proposing a connection to the Downingtown Area system using a low-pressure force main through the entire site. The
Applicant should review this strategy with RVE and the Township as this will require a
waiver from §281-41.G of the Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance,
which specifically prohibits low-pressure systems for new construction.

The earlier review by the Township Codes Department noted that the new homes will be
required to have a separate water connection for fire suppression and that fire hydrants will be
required as well. We note that a water supply line is shown on Sheets 14 and 15 of the plan
set, except that there is no line to serve the homes along Road “B;” Staff assumes that this is
an error that will be corrected on future submissions.
Staff Comment
While this revised plan appears superficially similar to the prior design, Staff finds it to be an
improvement, particularly in the preservation of the wooded area along King Rd. and the
amount and usefulness of the proposed open space areas. There has also been progress
regarding the historic resources, although information has yet to be provided about their future
use, and the Historical Commission has not yet reviewed this version of the plan.

9

The Applicant has also made progress regarding the twelve conditional use criteria in §325124.C(1) of the Zoning, but Staff still is of the opinion that four of them have not been met.
Staff suggests that Planning Commission action is still premature and that the Applicant should,
at a minimum, resolve SSM’s concerns about stormwater management along with the issues of
trip generation and traffic impact noted in the Bowman review. The Applicant may also wish to
meet with Theurkauf regarding the comments about the design of the open space and the issue
of compensatory plantings as well as with RVE and the Township’s Public Works Department
regarding the design of the sanitary sewer system. As we have already noted, the Historical
Commission has yet to review the revised design.
Although we do not recommend action at this time, the Commission could still take this opportunity to provide guidance regarding the configuration of the pedestrian network, any remaining
concerns about the design of the open space and potential for recreational uses, whether the
area of the relocated train station should be counted as open space, possible uses for the
historic structures, and any other areas of Commission concern.
As we have noted, this design will require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance: the most
critical change is to allow residential lots designed in accordance with the cluster option to be as
small as 19,000 sq.ft. instead of the current minimum of 22,000 sq.ft. The Applicant has provided draft language for the amendment for our consideration. At our meeting in October
2025, the Applicant stated that they would revise the language to add a minimum open space
requirement of 40% (the current requirement is 30%), but this does not appear in the most
recent version in our files. Subject to the inclusion of this increased minimum, Staff supports
the amendment and will be prepared to discuss the adoption process, if you desire.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

SSM review dated April 29, 2026.
Theurkauf review dated April 28, 2026.
Bowman review dated April 29, 2026.
Remington & Vernick review dated April 29, 2026.
Plan set prepared by Howell Engineering, dated August 1, 2025, revised April 3, 2026.

Plans\U thru Z\Weston\Conditional Use\PC memo – 260501

10

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

April 29, 2026

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

RE:

Weston Way Partners II, Inc.
Weston Property
Conditional Use Application
SSM File 101008.0399

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

Conditional Use Plan (16 sheet), prepared by Howell Engineering, dated August 1, 2025, last
revised April 3, 2026;

•

Response Letter to SSM’s October 1, 2025 Review, prepared by Howell Engineering, dated April
3, 2026;

•

Response Letter to RVE’s October 6, 2025 Review, prepared by Howell Engineering, dated April
3, 2026;

•

Response Letter to Bowman’s September 25, 2025 Review, prepared by Howell Engineering,
dated April 3, 2026;

•

Response Letter to Pattern Ives’s October 2, 2025 Review, prepared by Howell Engineering,
dated April 3, 2026;

•

Response Letter to Theurkauf’s October 24, 2025 Review, prepared by Howell Engineering,
dated April 4, 2026;

•

Response Letter to West Whiteland Township’s October 1, 2025 Review, prepared by Howell
Engineering, dated April 4, 2026;

•

Cover / Transmittal Letter, prepared by Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco Attorneys at Law
(RRHC), dated April 6, 2026.

•

Application to Amend the Zoning Ordinance, prepared by Weston Way Partners, II, Inc., dated
April 2, 2026;

•

Preliminary Stormwater Management Feasibility Report, prepared by Howell Engineering, dated
August 15, 2025, last revised April 3, 2026; and

•

DRAFT Ordinance Amending the Area and Bulk Regulations for Clustering and Lot Averaging
Developments (Chapter 325, Zoning).

ENGINEERING | SURVEYING | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0399
April 29, 2026
Page 2 of 6

Weston Way Partners II, Inc. proposes to develop a 50-lot residential cluster subdivision consisting of 49
new single-family detached dwellings and the retention of an existing historic building, referred to as the
Morstein Mansion on the Township’s Historic Resource Inventory, on Lot 40 of the proposed
subdivision. The Conditional Use Plan includes approximately 22.38 acres of open space. The Applicant
proposes to retain and relocate the Morstein/Woodland Train Station, which is also listed on the
Township’s Historic Resource Inventory, within the open space. The other existing structures would be
demolished.
Weston Way Partners II, Inc. is the equitable owner of an approximately 53.5 gross acre tract of land
comprised of nine (9) parcels, located southeast of the intersection of King Road and Old Phoenixville
Pike, further identified as UPI Nos. 41-6-77, 41-6-80, 41-6-81, 41-6-82, 41-6-83, 41-6-84, 41-6-87, 41-688.2, 41-6-88.2A. The Property is currently occupied by Weston Solutions, Inc. for its corporate campus.
It is zoned R-1 Residential District and is currently served by public sewer and water.
The project is designed according to the lot clustering provisions, permitted in the R-1 by Section 3259.B(3) and Section 325-26 of the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the applicant previously provided you
a yield plan as required by Section 325-26.C(1) which you concluded that this tract could be developed
with up to forty-nine (49) new lots for single-family detached dwellings (including the bonus cited in the
Zoning), with an extra lot allowed for the historic Morstein Mansion.
The application is additionally accompanied with a proposed Text Amendment which would modify the
area and bulk regulations associated with Clustering and Lot Averaging requirements.
Issues regarding landscaping and buffering, sanitary sewer, traffic, and historic resources will be
addressed by Theurkauf Design and Planning, Remington & Vernick Engineers (RVE), Bowman, and
Pattern Ives, respectively.
We have the following comments.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS
1.

A Conditional Use application shall be accompanied by information in graphic and/or narrative
form to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Township the technical and economic feasibility of
compliance with all applicable standards for pedestrian circulation; parking; landscaping;
stormwater management; sedimentation and erosion control; active and passive recreation and
open space; architectural compatibility; restoration and adaptive reuse of any historic resources;
public water and sewer, Section 325-124.A(3). The following items shall be addressed:
a.

Pedestrian connectivity shall be discussed with the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors. It is noted that concerns regarding pedestrian connectivity from Bowman
and Pattern Ives should be considered.

b.

Renderings showing the view from S. King Road may be required.

c.

The existing site is served by public water and sewer. The applicant shall acquire a “will
serve” letter from Aqua for their expanded need, as well as a letter from West Whiteland
Township which indicates adequate sewer capacity is available.
The response letters notes that requests for such letters will be pursued. To date, no “will
serve” letters have been received.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0399
April 29, 2026
Page 3 of 6

2.

The Board of Supervisors may impose additional conditions that are reasonably necessary to
assure that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is complied with, Section 325-124.C(2).

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE
3.

The permitted Uses within the R-1 Residential District are defined by Section 325-9.B. The plans
note on Sheet 2 that the proposed Use is Clustering and Lot Averaging for 49 of the proposed
lots.
The plans shall further note that adaptive reuse of the Morstein Mansion is proposed. It is our
understanding the building will be converted to an apartment building. The plans shall clarify the
anticipated number of apartments proposed.

4.

The proposed text amendment proposes 40% open space in lieu of the required 30% per Section
325-26.C(3); however, it appears all basin areas are included within the Open Space Area
calculations. See Comment 7, which impacts the total proposed Open Space area. As presented,
we cannot verify the total Open Space area proposed.

5.

Open space areas shall contain no major structures other than those related to the purposes of
open space, Section 325-26.C(4)(b).
The applicant proposes to relocate the Morstein/Woodland Train Station and repurposes it such
that it is the entrance monument to the development from King Road.
We have no objection to the Morstein/Woodland Train Station being relocated and repurposed as
an entrance monument, so long as the future Homeowners Association agrees to maintain and
preserve the structure. We defer to the Township if this structure can remain on Open Space.

6.

Open space areas shall be suitable for active recreational uses to the extent deemed necessary by
the Board, without interfering with adjacent dwelling units, parking driveways and roads, Section
325-26.C(4)(g).
The Plans appear to provide a sufficient Open Space area with a 5-ft wide trail, which
interconnects the various Open Space areas. We defer to the Township if the proposed
improvements meet the “active” recreation requirements of the Board.

7.

Off-street parking requirements are defined by Section 325-39.G. It is our understanding that the
Morstein Mansion is being converted into an apartment building and it appears 12 off-street
parking spaces are proposed. We do not know the anticipated number of dwelling units within the
apartment; therefore, we cannot verify if adequate parking is proposed.

8.

No historic resource shall be demolished, in whole or in part, including the indiscriminate
removal or stripping of any significant interior or exterior architectural features, unless a permit is
obtained from the Zoning Officer of West Whiteland Township in accordance with the
procedures and requirements of this section and other applicable standards and procedures of the
Township Building and Fire Codes, Section 325-85.B.
The applicant still proposes to demolish the Morstein Stable and Gatehouse.
We defer to Pattern Ives, the West Whiteland Township Historic Commission, and the Township
regarding this matter.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0399
April 29, 2026
Page 4 of 6

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
9.

The dimensions of all drainage easements shall be shown, Sections 281-16.C(8) and 281-51.A.
The response letter notes that this information will be provided once the stormwater management
design is finalized.
It is noted that per Section 281-47.E(2)(d) only 50% of areas occupied by surface stormwater
management facilities, such as detention and retention basins and rain gardens shall be deemed
eligible for open space.

COMPLIANCE WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Background
Existing runoff generally flows west to east from King Road and Old Phoenixville Pike as well as south
from the center of the site to an existing detention basin along US Route 202. The design identifies 5
Points of Analysis (POA) that are either point discharges (i.e. through a swale or pipe) or Lines of Interest
in which runoff currently sheet flows off the property. The plan proposes 2 new stormwater infiltration
basins and the conversion and reconfiguration of two existing stormwater management basins into
infiltration basins. Stormwater will not be increased at POA #2 and will continue to flow in the same
manner (point discharge or sheet flow) as it does currently. Therefore, a stormwater management system
will not be proposed at this location. Basins 1, 2 and 4 will have conventional outlet structures with a
piped outflow. Basin 3 will not have an outflow structure and pipe but rather will infiltrate all storm
events (1-100 year storms).
10.

The site design shall identify and delineate all existing natural or man-made hydrologic features
that are located within the site, or receive discharge from, or may be impacted by the proposed
regulated activity, Section 270-18.A. The plan and stormwater management report shall clearly
identify the following:
We previously noted that “The plans shall clearly show that Basin 3 overflow shall discharge
safely around the downstream houses along Amstel Way.” We disagree with the response that
runoff from basin 3 will be directed around the existing downstream houses. The design of this
basin is such that the 1yr -100 yr storms will infiltrate all increases of runoff. Such an increase to
the groundwater will likely have an impact to the downstream houses; therefore, we recommend
that this basin be redesigned as follows:

11.

a.

The infiltration for this basin shall be restricted to only the increase in the 2-yr storm.

b.

All flows greater than the 2-year storm event shall be controlled in a similar manner as
the other basins, i.e. through the use of an outlet structure and pipe.

c.

The outlet pipe and overflow shall be directed into basin 4.

The design engineer shall explore benefits of improving the existing discharge/conveyance from
the existing basin at POA 5 down and to Amstel Way and the ponds in Mill Valley Park.
Howell Engineering noted in their response that this will assessed and improved as necessary
during land development the land development and PADEP NPDES permitting. We recommend
that this be made a condition of the Conditional Use approval.

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0399
April 29, 2026
Page 5 of 6

12.

Consideration of conveyance improvements to the Mill Valley Park pond should be considered.
Howell Engineering notes in their response that this will be considered, if necessary. We
recommend that this be made a condition of the Conditional Use approval.

13.

Runoff from disturbed areas shall be treated for water quality prior to entering existing waterways
or water bodies. If a stormwater management practice does not provide water quality treatment,
then water quality BMPs shall be utilized to provide pretreatment prior to the runoff entering the
stormwater management facility, Section 270-19.F. We note that the issuance of an NPDES
permit for this project will satisfy Section 270-19 in this regard.

14.

The lowest elevation of the infiltration area shall be at least two feet above the seasonal highwater table ("SHWT") and bedrock, Section 270-27.B. The following items must be addressed:
a.

Two tests were conducted in the area of Basin 1. In one of these test locations the bottom
of the basin is within one foot of bedrock and in the other the infiltration rate was too
slow and as noted in the narrative, the underlying test is not recommended for use.
Additional testing must be conducted at this time and the design revised to demonstrate
feasibility.

b.

Page 3 of the Stormwater Feasibility Study notes “It should also be noted that TP 5-23-1
observed redoximorphic features within the soil horizon. The other test within the basin
(TP 5-23-2) did not exhibit redoximorphic features and our infiltration elevation is
located below the soil horizon where the redoximorphic features were observed. It is the
opinion of Howell Engineering that this is not indicative of seasonally high water table
soils. Should any poor soils be encountered during construction, they are to be
excavated and replaced with well draining soils.” This shall be clearly noted on the
Preliminary/Final Plans.

15.

Six inches of freeboard shall be provided between the crest of the primary outlet structure and the
invert of the emergency spillway, Section 270-29.A(5)(b). Only 2.4 inches of freeboard has been
provided in Basin 2.

16.

The design shall demonstrate that the freeboard requirements of Section 270-29.A(5)(d) can be
met. In accordance with the PADEP Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program Manual, the
maximum C value to be used in the Broad Crested Weir Equation shall be 2.8. The calculations
shall be revised accordingly.

17.

We previously noted “All SWM site plan materials shall be submitted to the Township in a
format that is clear, concise, legible, neat, and well organized, Section 270-32. The stormwater
report jumps around and is difficult to follow. We respectfully request that the design engineer
add a detailed table of contents to Appendix E “Hydraflow Hydrograph Reports” section of the
report.”
Howell Engineering’s response indicates that this will be added. The request of the table of
contents was suggested for ease of review of the current document that consists of over 200
pages. We respectfully request that this be added to the next submission.

18.

The following corrections must be made to the analysis:

Mr. John Weller | West Whiteland Township
SSM File 101008.0399
April 29, 2026
Page 6 of 6

19.

a.

We previously noted that “The offsite drainage areas POA 001 and POA 005 in the pre
developed analysis must be delineated on the drainage area maps.” Although numerous
changes have been made to the delineation of drainage areas on the map, it lacks labels;
therefore, we cannot confirm the accuracy of the pre-developed analysis.

b.

We previously noted that “The watershed model schematic (pdf page 26) shall be
corrected.” As noted by Howell Engineering in their response, the schematic has now
been removed. The schematic helps in the review of the analysis; therefore, the corrected
schematic shall be added to the stormwater report.

All surface inflows shall be designed to minimize the discharge of sediment into the infiltration
system in order to prevent sediment accumulation, which reduces stormwater storage capacity
and ultimately clogs the infiltration mechanism, Section 270-27.G. We recommend that forebays,
and/or other sediment removing BMPs, be proposed, Section 270-27.J(2).
Howell Engineering notes in their response that proper erosion and sedimentation control systems
will be implemented as the design progresses. Sediment and other debris occur even with proper
erosion controls; therefore, additional pretreatment measures shall be implemented.

GENERAL
20.

The Township Historical Commission reviewed the Application on October 13, 2025. We
recommend that the proposed plan changes which impact historical resources be reviewed with
the Township Historical Commission.

21.

Plan note 29 on the cover sheet notes that the proposed roadways will be offered for dedication to
the Township. We recommend this be further discussed with the Township’s Public Works
Department.

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

Nick Szeredai, P.E.
Municipal Engineer
[email protected]
cc:

Kent D. Morey, P.E., CBLP

MEMORANDUM
TO:

John Weller, AICP, West Whiteland Township Director of Planning and Zoning
Patrick Gorman, AICP, Township Planner
Dave Gibbons, P.E., Howell Engineering
Alyson M. Zarro, Esq., Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco

FROM:

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

DATE:

April 28, 2026

SUBJECT:

REVIEW COMMENTS – WESTON RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PLAN DATED 4-3-26

Please note our review comments pertaining to the following documents that we received on 4-13-26:
•
•
•

Plan consisting of 16 sheets;
Response letter from Denny Howell dated 4-4-26; and
Cover letter from Alyson Zarro dated 4-6-26.

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

REVIEW COMMENTS – WESTON RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PLAN DATED 4-3-26

Page |2

April 28, 2026
1. Conditional Use Requirements – Section 325-124.A of the zoning ordinance (ZO) requires that the
conditional use plan demonstrate feasibility of compliance with all pertinent requirements, including
open space, buffering, and landscaping. Further, the following specific standards apply:
a. The natural features of the site shall not suffer unmitigated degradation. Where the development
of wooded lands is proposed, improvements shall be designed and located to minimize the loss
of viable trees to the extent consistent with the reasonable use of the property. The plan raises
questions concerning the extent of forest removal and proposed mitigation.
b. The proposed use shall constitute an appropriate use in the area and shall not substantially injure
or detract from the use of surrounding property or from the character of the neighborhood.
Buffers from the Morstein Mansion, the Woodland Railroad Station, basins, and trails are of
inadequate width.
c. The impact on historic resources shall be mitigated. Multiple historic buildings would be
destroyed, and no viable adaptive reuse is proposed for the Woodland Station.
2. Open Space Configuration – Per section 325-26.A (ZO) cluster developments should promote
woodland and historic resource protection, provide for open areas and recreation within
developments, and shall minimize adverse scenic impacts. Section 325-26.C.4.b (ZO) prohibits any
major structure not related to the purposes of open space from being in the open space.
The proposed open space configuration is inadequate in the following regards:
•

Much of the open space is occupied by stormwater basins and a pipeline. Although 50% of
the pipeline area may count toward required open space, the basins serve none of the
recreation or conservation purposes of open space and do not meet the zoning ordinance
definition of usable open space.

•

The trail still is inadequately buffered from lots 7-10, 22-24, 29-33, and lot 50. More space,
screening vegetation, and/or privacy fencing should be proposed in these areas.

•

The historic Woodland Railroad Station is proposed for relocation within the open space, but
no use program related to open space is described for it.

•

Other than the trail, there is no viable recreation component proposed in the open space.

•

The trail system has sharp turns in places and should be revised to have smoother bends.

•

The trail at Morstein Mansion should be moved off of the lot and into open space.

Open space should be reconfigured to promote neighborhood compatibility and to meet the
recreational demands of the community.
1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

REVIEW COMMENTS – WESTON RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PLAN DATED 4-3-26

Page |3

April 28, 2026
3. Historic Resources – The site contains the following historic resources, of which only two would be
preserved:
•

Morstein Mansion House – proposed for adaptive reuse as residential, and possible later
conversion to apartment dwellings

•

Woodland/Morstein Railroad Station – proposed for relocation to the open space

•

Morstein Stable – proposed for demolition

•

Whiteman House – proposed for demolition

•

Morstein Gate House – proposed for demolition

The Whiteman House and the Gate House should be reevaluated for upgrades to facilitate continued
residential use.
The Stable could have the contemporary office additions removed and the historic structure
repurposed as residential dwelling(s) or as a community/recreation center.
The Woodland Railroad Station has no proposed use program and is therefore likely to be viewed as
a costly liability to the HOA and rendered to demolition by neglect. It has excellent potential for reuse
as a residence, or it could be adaptively reused as an essential common amenity, such as a
community/recreation center.
4. Tree Preservation and Compensatory Planting – Section 281-34.A of the Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance (SLDO) requires every effort to be made to preserve mature trees of 12
inches DBH or greater. Section 281-34.G (SLDO) establishes compensatory planting requirements for
mature trees that are removed for development. The majority of the site is wooded, and based on
archival aerial imagery much of the woods are over 100 years old. In addition, there are a number of
large specimen trees on site that would be removed for development.
In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposal in preserving mature trees and forested areas, the
plan should provide some quantitative and qualitative assessment of the age, health, size, and species
of trees and forested areas on site. Areas of highest quality forest should be identified and preserved
to the extent possible.
Further, the applicant should provide information on the amount of tree disturbance proposed and
the likely number of required compensatory trees. The plan requires revision to determine removal
impacts and required mitigation as follows:
1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

Page |4

REVIEW COMMENTS – WESTON RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PLAN DATED 4-3-26
April 28, 2026
•

Quantities of trees of 12-inch DBH and greater to be removed shall be estimated using
representative surveyed sample areas of each different forest community on site and applied
to the area of proposed disturbance.

If it is determined that the compensatory planting requirement cannot be met on site, which is highly
likely, the plan should be modified to reduce impacts, or an effective alternate means of tree removal
mitigation proposed.
5. Screen Buffers – Section 281-35.D (SLDO) requires 50 foot wide planted screen buffers between
historic resources and proposed residential uses, and to separate incompatible zoning districts as
follows:
Buffer/Length

Plant Type

Required

Proposed

Mansion/370 LF
Lots 39, 41

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

7
15
37

7
15
40

Station/165 LF
Lots 27

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

3
7
17

6
7
18

I-1 District/1,330 LF
King Rd.

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

27
53
133

0*
52
129

* Existing woodland to remain fulfills this requirement.
Each of the elements has insufficient screen buffer with as follows:
•

Mansion/Lot 41 – 20 feet

•

Station/Lot 27 – 15 feet

•

I-1 District – 30 feet to proposed relocated Morstein Station

The plan requires revision to provide the required screen buffer widths for historic resources and the
incompatible zoning district.
6. Perimeter Buffers – In accordance with section 281-35.E (SLDO), a 25-foot-wide vegetated perimeter
buffer is required around the residential perimeter of the tract, along Route 202, and around any
proposed stormwater basins as follows:

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

Page |5

REVIEW COMMENTS – WESTON RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PLAN DATED 4-3-26
April 28, 2026
Buffer/Length

Plant Type

Required

Proposed

P1/60 LF
Basin 1

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

1
1
3

1
4
3

P1/695 LF
Wooded

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

7
14
35

7*
4
22*

P2/260 LF
Lot 32

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

3
5
13

4
9
21

P3/1,120 LF
Lots 34-40

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

11
22
56

13
26
63

P4/1,400 LF
Lots 40-44

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

14
28
70

7*
16
-*

Cannot verify shrubs – see comment 10.d
P5/650 LF
Lots 46-50

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

7
13
33

11
22
51*

P7/80 LF
Lot 4

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

1
2
14

4
16
13

P7/220 LF
Wooded

Shade tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

2
4
11

*
0
3*

Basin 1/300 LF

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

3
6
15

7
15
32

Basin 2/780 LF

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

8
16
139

9
25
-

Cannot verify shrubs – see comment 10.d
1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

Page |6

REVIEW COMMENTS – WESTON RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PLAN DATED 4-3-26
April 28, 2026
Buffer/Length

Plant Type

Required

Proposed

Basin 3/550 LF

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

6
11
28

7
15
35

Basin 4/410 LF

Shade Tree
Evergreen Tree
Large Shrub

4
8
21

0
0
0

* Existing woodland to remain fulfills these requirements.

The land development plan shall indicate additional plants where deficiencies exist.
7. Street Trees - Section 281-36 (SLDO) requires one street tree for every 50 feet of road frontage, in
addition to required buffer plantings. In accordance with section 281-36.D.1 (SLDO), trees shall be
spaced no further apart than 50 feet. Street trees are required and proposed as follows:
Frontage/Length
King Road/1,330 LF
Old Phoenixville Pike/450 LF
Road A/5,668 LF
Road B/1,490 LF

Required
27
9
113
30

* Requirement met by existing woodland to remain.

Proposed
26*
4*
113
30

Street trees that are set back from the road should be moved closer along lots 25 and 27.
No street trees are proposed between lots 28-32, due to pipeline conflict. The road should be
realigned so that street trees can be placed along the lot frontages. Alternatively, a boulevard
entrance could be considered with the required trees in the median. If the applicant can
demonstrate that neither of these alternatives are feasible, a waiver would be required.
8. Pipelines – Pipeline safety has been an issue of intense public concern in the Township, and this site
is traversed by three gas pipelines. Pipelines and associated easements pass through the yard areas
of lots 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, close to houses and restricting areas from customary landscaping
and lot improvements. In addition, the pipelines pass very close to dwellings on lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 15,
and 22, although not directly on those lots.
According to the Chester County Pipeline Information Center, pipelines have a “consultation zone”
extending 100 feet wide each side of the center line within which development activities should be
discussed with the pipeline operator prior to initiation. In addition, human habitation should be kept
clear of a “Potential Impact Radius” that is dependent on pipeline size and pressure (Source: “A Model
1350 Elbow Lane • Chester Springs, PA 19425 phone 484-888-5574 email [email protected] www.theurkauf.com

REVIEW COMMENTS – WESTON RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PLAN DATED 4-3-26

Page |7

April 28, 2026
for Sizing High Consequence Areas associated with natural Gas Pipelines”, Gas Research Institute and
C-FER Technologies, 2000).
The layout should be reconfigured so that no pipeline passes through a private yard area, or within
100 feet of a proposed residence.
9. Plant Count Errors – The following shall be corrected:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

The plan shows 21 Southern Hackberry, but the plant list indicates 26
The plan shows 57 Basswood, but the plant list indicates 62
The plan shows 84 White Pine, but the plant list indicates 90.
The plan shows 112 Red Cedar, but the plant list indicates 121.
Shrubs and flowering trees are unable to be counted due to graphic errors.

10. Plan Graphic Errors – The following graphic errors shall be resolved:
The plant legend on C05.3 is cut off.
The scale bar is different than the title block scale on multiple sheets.
The match line for C05.2 and C05.3 do not line up.
Part of the plan on C05.3 is cut off, obscuring flowering trees and shrubs.
The label for basin 2, “B2”, overlaps with other graphics and should be moved to increase
plan legibility.
f. The woodland edge symbol along King Road conflicts with proposed plantings.
g. Basin nomenclature is inconsistent between the landscape plans and the post development
drainage area plans.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

11. Conclusion – Prior to conditional use approval, the plan should be revised to address the following
deficiencies:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Open space that fails to provide for recreation and buffering of lots from trails
Demolition of irreplaceable historic resources and no viable use program for Morstein
Railroad Station
Failure to demonstrate feasible mitigation of woodland clearing
Noncompliant screen buffers
Infeasible street tree compliance
Pipeline safety concerns

Please contact this office if there are further questions.

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

April 29, 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
Weston Residential Development – Conditional Use Plan Review
West Whiteland Township, Chester County, PA
Bowman Project No. 310538-25-004

Dear Mr. Weller:
Bowman completed a traffic review of the proposed 50-lot single family residential development (49 new
homes and one existing building to be retained) located on the south side of King Road (S.R. 2022) just
east of Phoenixville Pike. The site currently contains office space, two single family homes, and several
other ancillary buildings with access provided via an unsignalized driveway to King Road and an
unsignalized driveway to Old Phoenixville Pike. Our traffic review is based on the following document.


Conditional Use Plan of the Weston Property, prepared by D.L. Howell & Associates, Inc., revised
April 3, 2026.

Based on our review of the above document, we offer the following comments for consideration.
1.

ZO Section 325-124.A(4) – A traffic impact study is not required for the conditional use
application since the development proposes less than 100 residential units. However, since
access improvements are proposed within the King Road (S.R. 2022) right-of-way, a traffic study
will be required by PennDOT. The Township should be copied on the traffic study submission to
PennDOT. We recommend submitting the traffic study to the Township during land development,
as it relates to confirming acceptable traffic operations in the immediate vicinity of the site,
including verifying the site access design and operations. Pending the results of the traffic study,
traffic improvements may be required for the site accesses. The applicant’s engineer
acknowledges a traffic study will be prepared during land development.

2.

SALDO Section 281-25.B – Old Phoenixville Pike currently provides a 17- to 18-foot wide cartway
width along the site frontage, which does not meet the Township’s road width requirement for a
local street of 28 feet. The applicant’s engineer acknowledges the need for improvements to Old
Phoenixville Pike will be evaluated during land development as part of the traffic study. However,
at this time, at minimum we recommend widening Old Phoenixville Pike to provide at least a 20
foot width to accommodate the increase in traffic along this section of road, which is consistent
with the approach used for other recent developments in the Township which provide an access

1 of 3

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

Mr. John R. Weller, AICP
April 29, 2026
Project Number 310538-25-004

connection to an existing narrow road. The final scope of the Old Phoenixville Pike road
improvements and width can be confirmed during land development subject to more detailed
engineering.
3.

SALDO Section 281-28.F – The plans have been revised to show sight distances for traffic exiting
both site access intersections looking to the left and right. During land development, provide
additional information as to the specific dimensions for the required and available sight distances,
as well as the source of the required sight distances. Also during land development, show the
required and available sight distances for left-turn entering traffic looking ahead and behind.
Lastly, during land development a PennDOT-style sight distance note should be added to the
plans for the access intersections.

4.

SALDO Section 281-28.F – In our opinion there continues to be a possible issue regarding sight
distance at the Old Phoenixville Pike access for left-turn traffic entering the access looking ahead
due to vegetation and the horizontal curve of Old Phoenixville Pike along the Knights of
Columbus property. Please provide additional sight distance information in this area. Also, we
recommend evaluation of an alternate alignment of the access, such that Road A shall be aligned
with Old Phoenixville Pike as the through road, and the western leg of Old Phoenixville Pike
(serving the Knights of Columbus) is the stop sign controlled, minor street approach of the Tintersection. This can be evaluated in more detail during land development subject to more
detailed engineering.

5.

SALDO Section 281-25.B – The plans propose a 28-foot wide cartway for the internal roads, which
will allow for parking on one side of the internal roads. The applicant’s engineer indicates “No
Parking” signs on one side of the streets will be provided during land development.

6.

SALDO Section 281-26 – All street design details should be provided for review to verify
satisfaction of the ordinance requirements. The applicant’s engineer indicates this information
will be provided during land development.

7.

SALDO Section 281-31 – The following comments pertain to the proposed pedestrian facilities:

2 of 3

a.

The two midblock pedestrian crossings of Road A should provide pedestrian crossing
warning signs. Also, verify the pedestrian sight distances at these crossing locations. The
applicant’s engineer indicates this information will be provided during land development.

b.

The existing gravel connection between the proposed internal path and Whiteman Way
should be reconstructed as an improved asphalt path to the edge of the property.
Please review this with Township staff and the Planning Commission.

c.

The applicant’s engineer indicates all sidewalk shall be concrete and the internal path
shall be asphalt. Further review of the design of the pedestrian facilities shall occur
during land development.

bowman.com

Mr. John R. Weller, AICP
April 29, 2026
Project Number 310538-25-004

d.

The Township’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan does not have any specific recommendations
for pedestrian or bicycle improvements along the site frontages. However, since there is
an existing bus stop at the intersection of Road A and King Road, we recommend a level
five-foot by eight-foot concrete pad should be provided at the location of the existing
bus stop, at a minimum. Furthermore, the applicant should coordinate with SEPTA, the
Township and PennDOT to determine whether additional bus stop and pedestrian
improvements are need at this bus stop. The applicant’s engineer has indicated this will
be evaluated during land development.

8.

ZO Section 325-39.G – Verification of the parking supply shall be reviewed during land
development with additional information showing the layout of each lot and their respective
driveways; however, we have no reason to believe the parking supply will be an issue.
Furthermore, since the internal streets are 28-feet wide, we support on-street parking on one side
of the streets to accommodate overflow parking.

9.

The plans indicate Weston Way will be reconstructed as part of the proposed development,
including modifications at its intersection with King Road. Since King Road (S.R. 2022) is a state
road, any modifications to Weston Way within the state right-of-way will require a Highway
Occupancy Permit from PennDOT. The applicant’s engineer has indicated the Township will be
copied on all PennDOT submissions.

10. Chapter 295-12 – The subject development is located within the Township’s Act 209
Transportation Service Area, and as such, it is subject to the Township’s Transportation Impact Fee
which is equal to $1,449.00 per new weekday afternoon peak hour trip.
Upon resubmission, the applicant's engineer should compose a response letter that describes how each
comment has been addressed and where any revisions are located. Additional comments regarding the
plans may follow upon review of future submissions.
If there are any questions or if additional information is requested, please contact our office.
Sincerely,

Christopher J. Williams, P.E.
V:\310538 - West Whiteland PA\310538-25-004 (ENG) - Weston\Engineering\Reviews\2026-05-05 Review\Review\2026-04-29 Weston Review.docx

3 of 3

bowman.com

April 29, 2026

Mr. Pamela Gural-Bear
Township Manager
West Whiteland Township
101 Commerce Drive
Exton, PA 19341
Re:

Weston Property (1400 Weston Way)
Weston Way Partners II, Inc.- Review #2
West Whiteland Township
RVE File# PA152135P002

Dear Pamela:
Remington & Vernick Engineers (RVE), on behalf of the West Whiteland Township, has reviewed the
following submission materials in connection with Weston Tract Development.
 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Cover letter dated April 6, 2026, prepared by Riley, Ripler, Hollin
& Colagreco.
 Conditional Use Revised Plan Set, dated April 3, 2026 and consisting of sixteen (16) sheets,
prepared by Howell Engineering.
 RVE Response Letter dated April 3, 2026, prepared by Howell Engineering.
 West Whiteland Application to Amend the Zoning Ordinance, dated April 2, 2026.
 Proposed West Whiteland Zoning Ordinance Amendment
 Traffic Engineering Review Response Letter., dated April 3, 2026, prepared by Howell
Engineering.
 Historic Preservation Review Response Letter dated April 3, 2026, prepared by Howell
Engineering.
 Conditional Use Application Response Letter, dated April 3, 2026, prepared by Howell
Engineering.
 Conditional Use Plan Response Letter, dated April 4, 2026, prepared by Howell Engineering
 Conditional Use Review Response Letter, dated April 4, 2026, prepared by Howell Engineering.
 Preliminary Stormwater Narrative Management Feasibility Report, prepared by Howell
Engineering and dated August 15, 2025, revised April 3, 2026
I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Owner:

Roy F. Weston, Inc
1400 Weston Way
PO Box 2653
West Chester, PA 19380

Applicant:

Weston Way Partners II, Inc.

rve.com

Weston Property (1400 Weston Way) - Review #2
Weston Way Partners II, LLC
Page 2 of 3

1273 Butler Pike
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(484) 459-5633
Attn: Thomas G. Kessler
[email protected]
Engineering Firm:

Proposal:

II.

Howell Engineering
1250 Wrights Lane
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 918-9002

The proposed development consists of demolishing existing structures and subdividing an
existing property into fifty (50) lots and the future construction of forty-nine (49) single
family homes.

COMMENTS

Upon review of this submission, RVE has the following comments. Any underlined comments must be
addressed by the Engineer prior to our recommendation for approval by the Township.
1.

Full land development plans must be completed and submitted for Township review. Full development
plans shall include utility plans showing layout of all proposed collection and conveyance
infrastructure and details. Design shall include plan and profile of all linear facilities. RVE will review
the design of the proposed sewer system serving the development. The full land development plan will
be completed and submitted to the Township for review. This comment is to remain until the plans and
have been submitted, reviewed, and approved.

2.

Developer will need to obtain sewage facilities planning approval, exemption, or waiver. Developer
shall complete Sewage Facilities Planning Module Application Mailer and submit to Township for
review. The Sewage Facilities Planning Module Application Mailer will be completed and submitted
to the Township for review. Comment is to remain until the SFPM Mailer has been submitted,
reviewed, and approved.

The Engineer shall address the above comments and resubmit the package for further review. In conjunction
with any resubmission, the Engineer should provide a response letter using the same numbering system
explaining how each underlined comment has been satisfactorily addressed.

Weston Property (1400 Weston Way) - Review #2
Weston Way Partners II, LLC
Page 3 of 3

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at (610) 940-1050.
Sincerely,
REMINGTON & VERNICK ENGINEERS
By

James Bulicki, P.E., Associate
Township Sewer Engineer
JB/er
cc: Thomas G. Kessler, President, Weston Way Partners II, Inc.
Denny L. Howell, P.E., Howell Engineering
Alyson M. Zarro, Esq, Riley, Ripler, Hollin & Colagreco
John Weller, West Whiteland Township, Director of Planning & Zoning/Zoning Officer (via e-mail)
Patrick Gorman, West Whiteland Township, Planner
Carol Zindel, West Whiteland Township, Operations Assistant (via e-mail)
Christopher J. Fazio, P.E., C.M.E., Executive Vice President
Owen Hyne, P.E., C.E.A., Senior Associate
Eric Rauch, P.E.

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

John R. Weller, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning

SUBJECT:

Proposed zoning regulations for data centers

DATE:

March 31, 2026

The attached “red line” draft of the proposed amendment to the Township Zoning Ordinance
shows revisions made by Staff in response to the discussion at the meeting of March 17, 2026,
as well as additional research. Please note:
•

Section 1 lists new terms to be defined. The definition proposed for the term “data
center” is consistent with other communities, and we discussed that it applies not only
to the large, stand-alone facilities we are most concerned about, but also to smaller
ones that may be within and accessory to an office or industrial building. For this reason, the draft allows data centers smaller than 20,000 sq.ft. in all zoning districts as an
accessory use. While the term includes smaller facilities, the regulations proposed here
would apply only to data centers that are either the principal use of a property, regardless of size, or have a floor area larger than 20,000 sq.ft., even if they’re part of some
other use. 1 Staff remains of the opinion that this is sufficient, particularly since 20,000
sq.ft. is the threshold beyond which conditional use review is required, but another
approach is to amend the definition of “data center” to exclude the smaller ones. A
model ordinance developed in Allegheny County (metropolitan Pittsburgh) and endorsed
by PennFuture2 has a similar definition for “data center,” except that it includes the disclaimer, “This use does not include computers or telecommunications-related equipment
that is secondary and customarily incidental to an otherwise permitted use on the property, such as servers associated with an office building.” What are your thoughts on
taking this approach instead?

•

In March, we agreed that there should be a minimum separation distance between data
centers and other land uses that would be most sensitive to their impact; this is now
included in Section 4. Some communities (like East Vincent Twp.) call these “sensitive
receptors” and define them as residential uses, educational uses, religious uses, and
hospitals. This approach could create a de facto exclusion 3 for us, as “educational use”
would include the Collegium School athletic fields now under construction along Clover
Mill Rd. (and actually within the I-2 zoning district), and “religious use” would include
Grace Covenant Church in Oaklands. For this reason, we are recommending that the

1

Of course, the smaller facilities allowed as accessory uses by right still need to comply with the physical
performance standards in §325-41 of the Zoning, which apply to all uses everywhere in the Township.

2

“Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future,” a non-profit environmental advocacy organization based in
Harrisburg.

3

A situation where a use is on the list of permitted uses, but other restrictions – such as a minimum
separation distance – result in there being no legal location for the use in the district(s) where the use
is otherwise permitted.

1

minimum separation distance be measured only from residential uses, so we are
proposing the definition of “residential use” shown here.
•

We have eliminated Section 2, which allowed data centers in the I-1 district, but kept
Section 3, limiting them to the I-2 district. Recall that we agreed not to amend these
regulations to allow buildings taller than fifty feet. Here – and in some other parts of
the draft – we have not yet renumbered subsequent sections to respond to the elimination provisions; we will make sure that the final version is properly numbered.

•

Section 4 still contains the actual regulatory language to be incorporated into Article
VIII of the Zoning Ordinance as a new §325-38.4. There are a lot of changes here:
these are explained below.

•

Section 5 provides parking standards for data centers and is unchanged from before.

•

Sections 6 and 7 are administrative items and are also unchanged.

Comments on the proposed regulations (Section 4).
1. The introductory portion of Subsection C now prohibits primary energy sources as an
accessory use. Back-up energy sources and solar energy systems have been added to the
list of permitted accessory uses. Some of you were uncomfortable with the “catch-all”
clause – now paragraph (9) – but we still recommend including it, as it’s unlikely that we
can anticipate all possible accessory uses, particularly those related to employee amenities
(like an on-site cafeteria or fitness center). Bear in mind, these facilities will need to go
through the conditional use process, so details of any such accessories will be brought to
light at that time and may be addressed by conditions of approval.
2. We agreed that “wireless communications facilities” (i.e., cell towers) should be retained as
a permitted accessory use, but that we would not amend Article XXII to allow towers taller
than 120 feet. It was noted that the design of the facility in East Whiteland once included
150-foot-tall towers, but the most recent design eliminated them, evidently due to new
technology. So this may end up being a moot issue anyway.
3. Subsection D still lists the supplementary information to be provided with the conditional
use application for a data center. There was a question about the use of the term “public
utility” in §D(2)(b). Our research found that while the State PUC regulates only eleven electric suppliers state-wide (one of them being PECO), any entity that distributes and sells
energy on the open market must still have a license from the PUC. We therefore eliminated
the phrase “public utility” here and replaced it with “utility regulated or licensed by the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.”
4. Paragraph D(3) is now split to add a separation requirement. As noted above, the distance
cannot be so large that it creates a de facto exclusion. For example, the model ordinance
from Food and Water Watch recommends that no data center be allowed within 2,500 feet
of a residential zoning district. This is not a feasible restriction for our I-2 district as it
would exclude the entire district except for a 2-acre portion of one parcel. Reducing this to
1,000 feet, as we discussed, still eliminates about half of the district since the southern edge
of the I-2 district abuts the R-1 Residential district. If we change the restriction to apply to
properties actually in residential use, portions south of Clover Mill Rd. become viable, but

2

about half of the area north of Clover Mill Rd. is now excluded due to the J Creekside apartment community. 4 In conclusion, we are recommending a separation distance of 750 feet
from a residential use as the best balance between protecting our residents and allowing
a reasonable number of sites. We will have maps at the meeting to illustrate the impact of
this distance, and we can certainly discuss other options. For now we note:
-

Recall that much of the area north of Clover Mill Rd. is in the floodplain for Valley Ck.
Development in a floodplain requires not only a zoning variance, but also extensive engineering to document that any such development will not worsen the likelihood of flooding downstream. This must be shown to the satisfaction of FEMA.

-

Some ordinances establish a minimum separation distance from schools, hospitals, and
houses of worship in addition to residential. We have not done so here, principally due
to the fact that the Collegium Charter School athletic fields are in the I-2 district, so
requiring a buffer from “educational uses” would eliminate nearly all the property
remaining in the I-2 district after applying the buffer from residential uses.

-

The I-2 district is bisected by the U.S. Route 30 expressway, abuts an active rail line,
and includes a quarry. While we have legitimate concerns about noise and vibration
caused by a data center operation, bear in mind that these existing features also generate noise and vibration: the existing conditions in this area are not pristine.

-

We state that the separation distance is to be measured from the property line of the
residential use (to assure that all of the residential property is protected) to the exterior
walls of the data center operation.

5. The requirement for an emergency response plan has been amended to add that it must
address disposal of waste created by event.
6. A new paragraph D(5) has been added to require a noise and vibration study as part of the
conditional use application. The previous draft had no such requirement, but our research
shows that this is a nearly universal requirement. As proposed, there are three parts to the
study: (1) an analysis of conditions prior to construction of the data center, (2) an estimate
of the noise that would be generated by the data center (specifically including the cooling
system and emergency power supplies), and (3) a post-construction analysis to document
the actual noise. We direct that this analysis be conducted “within three months of the first
August 31 that the … center is fully operational” in order to assure that it will include the
period when temperatures are highest and power demand is greatest.
7. We have amended subsection E, “operational requirements,” to eliminate the dBC noise
limit, since we agreed that this should be added to the Noise Disturbance Ordinance,
thereby making is applicable to all uses and not just data centers. We discussed whether
60dBC was too high a limit. Staff has researched this matter and found information suggesting that the limit could be higher: sources 5 note that the human ear is less sensitive to
4

These apartments are in the O/R Office/Residential zoning district, which is a “commercial/professional”
zoning district, not “residential.” Similarly, the Clover Mill townhouse community in East Caln is in their
OC-3 (office, commercial, hotel/motel campus) district. By specifying residential use rather than district
in the regulations, we protect these residents while simultaneously eliminating properties (like the rail
line) that are in a residential zoning district but could not actually be developed for residential use.

5

Environmental Noise Control, Inc., a California-based specialist in noise control, and the Hearing Health
Foundation, a non-profit organization.

3

this range of noise. In contrast, information from Lancaster County (attached) notes that
sounds beyond the range of human hearing can still affect livestock and wildlife. Based
upon this research, Staff is comfortable with keeping the limit at 60 dBC, but we do not
support making it any lower.
8. Some communities include architectural standards for data centers. We have not included
any here for three reasons: first, we do not have any such standards for other large structures; second, we require extensive landscaping to shield the building(s) from public view,
so 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 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.
10. Subsection G is the decommissioning requirement. While we don’t have this requirement
for any other use, Staff finds it 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 model ordinances we reviewed.
In addition to the red-line of the draft language, we have attached copies of a summary
provided by the Chester County Planning Commission of a March 2026 event at which they discussed data centers as well as a publication by the Lancaster County Planning Commission on
this topic.
As before, if you have any questions, they must be discussed at a public meeting, but you can
provide them to Staff before the meeting so we can be prepared. Dan Cote provided us with a
review of the text that had been generated by AI, which made for interesting reading! Some
points were way off base (it didn’t recognize that we were limiting large data centers to the I-2
district, so it concluded that we’d be allowing them everywhere by right), but others were more
pertinent. We can discuss if you like. Finally, we will not be providing a copy to the Township
Solicitor until the Commission is satisfied with the proposed language, so they have yet to
review it; they may direct changes based upon legal concerns.
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance red-line version, dated April 2026.
2. “Data Center Event Recap,” Chester County Planning Commission, dated March 18, 2026.
3. “A Planning Guide Pertaining to Data Centers in Lancaster County, PA,” Lancaster County Planning Commission, dated November 2025.
PC MMO’s – Miscellaneous\2026\260331 – 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.
RESIDENTIAL USE – A lot improved with a structure or structures used or suitable for
use as a permanent dwelling or dwellings, including but not limited to convents,
dormitories, life care facilities, monasteries, and personal care facilities. This term
does not include hotels, inns, motels, and similar commercial operations providing
accommodation for a limited duration.
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.

DRAFT – APRIL 2026

1

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:
§325-28.4: Data Centers
A.

Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to assure that the operation of a data center will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of
the occupants of neighboring other 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.
Facilities and/or equipment designed and intended to be the primary
energy source for the data center are hereby prohibited as an accessory
use. 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.

DRAFT – APRIL 2026

2

D.

(6)

Equipment to provide emergency energy supply should any or all
of the utilities and/or other primary energy providers
temporarily cease to provide energy.

(7)

Roof-mounted solar energy systems, as provided for by §325-44
of this Chapter.

(8)

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 other property or to the public generally.

(9)

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

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)

DRAFT – APRIL 2026

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.

3

(2)

(3)

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 both the average and peak energy
demands 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 regulated or licensed by the Pennsylvania Public
Utility Commission, 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 improvements to the generation and/or
distribution infrastructure in order to meet said needs,
the estimated cost of such improvements shall be noted.

(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.
(a)

DRAFT – APRIL 2026

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

4

provision of a “screening buffer” around the perimeter of
the site, pursuant to §281-35.D of the said Article.
(b)

(4)

(5)

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.

(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 include a recovery strategy that shall
provide for the safe disposal of waste generated by the
emergency event as well as the restoration of off-site
property damaged by both the emergency event and the
response to the event.

(e)

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.

Noise and vibration.
(a)

DRAFT – APRIL 2026

No part of any data center structure, including structures
accommodating accessory uses as provided for above,
shall be closer than 750 feet to any residential use in
existence at the time of submission of the conditional use
application. This distance shall be measured from the
exterior walls of the data center or accessory use
structure to the property line of the lot accommodating a
residential use.

The information submitted with the conditional use application shall include a report on noise and vibration,
prepared by a qualified professional acceptable to the
Township.
5

DRAFT – APRIL 2026

(b)

The report shall include documentation of the noise and
vibration characteristics of the proposed data center
location and the surrounding area to establish the preconstruction conditions. The physical extent of the area
to be analyzed shall be determined in consultation with
an acoustic engineer or similarly qualified professional
retained by the Township.

(c)

The report shall include an estimate of the noise levels
and vibration generated by the data center operation,
specifically including but not limited to cooling
equipment and emergency power supplies.

(d)

If the report determines that the data center will
produce noise in violation of Chapter 213, “Noise
Disturbance,” of the Township Code of Ordinances, the
report shall identify mitigation measures sufficient to
bring the operation into compliance with the said
Chapter.

(e)

If the report determines that the data center will
produce any vibration perceptible to human sense or
feeling beyond the property line of the data center
property, the report shall identify mitigation measures
sufficient to reduce the vibration to the point where it is
no longer humanly perceptible.

(f)

Within three (3) months of the first August 31 that the
data center is fully operational, the data center operator
shall submit to the Township a post-construction report
documenting the noise and vibration generated by the
operation, specifically noting the noise and vibration
generated during testing of back-up power equipment
and of cooling equipment during period of highest
demand.

(g)

If the post-construction report finds that the data center
produces noise in violation of Chapter 213, “Noise
Disturbance,” and/or any vibration perceptible to human
sense or feeling beyond the property line of the data
center property, the data center operator shall take
immediate steps to bring the operation into compliance.

(h)

This reporting requirement shall not be interpreted to
prevent the Township from enforcing Chapter 213 or any
other Township ordinance or regulation prior to the
submission of the report.

6

E.

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. [Recall that we agreed
that the dBC sound limit is to be included in the Noise
Disturbance Ordinance so that it will be applicable to all uses,
not just data centers. Also, Staff research indicates that 60 dBC
is the lowest practical limit.]

(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.

DRAFT – APRIL 2026

(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
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.

7

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.
(1)

DRAFT – APRIL 2026

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.
8

(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
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.
DRAFT – APRIL 2026

9

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 – APRIL 2026

10