IN THE NEWS

Demolition decision looming
Officials divided over plans to demolish buildings that some believe are
historically valuable

By BRIAN FANELLI

Staff Writer DailyLocal.com

WEST CHESTER - Plans to demolish East Market Street buildings and erect condominiums leave Borough Council considering whether to agree with its Historic Architectural Review Board and save the buildings or let a developer knock them down.

It is a marked change from earlier borough debates over demolition, with some council members siding with the development plans - or at least not finding conclusive reasons to follow the review board's recommendation.

The debate about historic preservation and development played out during a nearly four-hour hearing last Wednesday night.

For review board representatives, the buildings in the 100 block that include the former M.S. Yearsley property and the so-called State Farm building contribute to the borough's historic district. The review board is an adviser to council and voted July 2 not to support the demolition plans.

But representatives of the developer, McCool Properties, said it would be too costly to preserve the buildings because of their poor condition and still build 63 condominiums, on-site parking and commercial space.

Chris McCool, a partner of the company, said the buildings are in "horrendous" condition and it would cost more to preserve the buildings for the project than it cost the company to purchase the buildings in 2005.

For Council President H. Paul Fitzpatrick, the debate about historic preservation is not new. He recalled that when county commissioners wanted to demolish buildings to make way for a new courthouse in the town center, Borough Council joined a group of residents and fought to move the project to West Market Street so the older buildings could be saved.

A similar debate occurred over the former Warner Theatre on North High Street. "The interior of the building was beautiful," Fitzpatrick said."It's a shame it's gone."

At that time, council members and the review board fought together to keep the building intact. Now, that is not so much the case. Some review board members were incensed when council granted a zoning change for the Yearsley property that would allow McCool to go through with its project.

Fitzpatrick said Borough Council must decide how much of the debate about the buildings is relevant and should be considered when granting or denying the conditional-use application and demolition permit.

The review board "feels part of their reasonability is to maintain these buildings, their integrity and appearance," he said. "It's up to us to sort out what is real, perceived or a flat-out lie."

Though council decided to extend the hearing until September, it must eventually decide to allow the buildings to be demolished or protect them, which could hold up the project.

At Wednesday's meeting, historic preservationist Aimee Lala described in detail the buildings and their conditions and argued they are not worth preserving.

The State Farm building at 104 E. Market St. has been altered and the interior has been modified. She said the building's current façade does not represent its original 1800s appearance.

Lala said changes were made to façades and interiors of the other buildings, some of which caught fire throughout the years.

The demolitions, she said, would not harm the rest of the historic district. "I do not believe the construction will cause the historic district to be D-listed," she said.

Former review board member Dale Frens defended the buildings' integrity and said they are still valuable.

"I'm very concerned, Borough Council, you have been misled about the integrity of the buildings," Frens said.

If the standard Lala applied to the East Market Street buildings was applied elsewhere, several other buildings in the borough could be knocked down because of their modifications through the years, Frens said.

"I have a feeling buildings would not stand up to her test," said Frens, who resigned from the review board shortly after council approved a zoning amendment in May to allow the project to be 75 feet tall.

Some say the buildings are not worth saving and want the project to advance. Local business owner Patrick Comerford said he would rather see the project move forward than have a string of empty buildings in the borough.

"I think if this doesn't happen in the next year or two, we will have empty, vacant buildings," he said Wednesday. "Next to the Rite Aid, this is probably the most unattractive building in town."

McCool representatives said the project could have a fiscal benefit. According to planning consultant David Babbitt, the project could generate a $141,516 surplus for the borough, a $309,307 surplus for the West Chester Area School District and a $46,025 surplus for the county.

Others say potential revenue from the project is not enough to justify demolishing the buildings.

"The way to get revenue is not to sell the integrity and character of West Chester," said former Councilman Bill Scott, a candidate for county commissioner who argued the review board's decision should be respected.

Scott helped fight to get the Chester County Justice center moved to West Market Street and said council members must act as the "guardians of the town and the character and integrity."

More information about West Chester is available on Brian Fanelli's blog, Uptown Ramblings, at
www3.allaroundphilly.com/blogs/dailylocal/brianf/blog.html.

To contact staff writer Brian Fanelli, send an e-mail to bfanelli@dailylocal.com.