Charlestown Township Board of Supervisors Business Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2002

The Board of Supervisors held a special meeting to discuss future plans for the Brightside Farm. The meeting was held at the Great Valley Middle School, Room 154. Hugh D. Willig, Chairman, Paul J. Hogan, Vice Chairman, Irene W. Ewald, Kevin R. Kuhn, Michael J. Rodgers, James E. McErlane, Esq., Ed Theurkauf, Linda M. Csete, Township Administrator and those on the attached list were present.

The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M.

Introduction

Mr. Willig explained that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to become more focused in the visioning process for the Brightside Farm. He provided background on the two adjacent parcels on Yellow Springs Road, the first a 20.6 acre parcel purchased in 1996 and the second a 55 acre parcel purchased in 2000. The structures are all located on the 55 acre parcel known as the Brightside Farm, where members of the Pyle family continued to live until mid-2001.

Mr. Willig explained that Thomas Comitta Associates has been engaged to act as facilitator during the visioning process. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Theurkauf, who introduced Dale Frens as the first speaker.

Structures Inventory

The Township’s Historical Architectural Consultant, Dale Frens, distributed a report entitled Highlights of the Conditions Assessment for Brightside Farm, which will be incorporated as part of the minutes in its entirety. He presented data from this report including architectural highlights of the farm, general periods of development of the buildings, general building conservation issues and potential adaptive re-uses of the structures. Mr. Frens encouraged the development of oral histories of the farm through interviews of family and neighbors. He noted that as the farm modernized, it expanded yet didn’t demolish the historic core, which remains intact. Preservation of the minor outbuildings is important in the understanding of how the farm functioned economically. Rehabilitation of the structures should observe the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in order to keep the farm eligible for the National Register. Very little emergency repair is needed at this time except for some tree removal and the installation of triple track storm windows on the farmhouse before summer. Mr. Frens has also detailed short term and long term repairs needed on the structures.

County Parkland and Open Space Acquisition Grant

Bill Gladden, Open Space Coordinator for the Chester County Parks & Recreation department (CCPC), provided a brief overview of the CCPC grant program which began in 1989 and has provided funding for parks, open space, agricultural preservation, northern tier agricultural preservation, planning and acquisition throughout Chester County. To date, the County has been able to fund all projects with merit.

Charlestown Township applied for an acquisition grant under Round 13 for the 55 acre Brightside Farm. Mr. Gladden said Round 13 was the most heavily subscribed grant round, with over $10 million requested. The County granted Charlestown Township $450,000 toward the acquisition of the Brightside Farm. This was the entire amount requested, and was awarded based on a scoring system that the Farm scored highly on, primarily due to the adjacency of the 20.6 open space parcel, since linkages of open space are a top priority. However, at present the 20.6 acre parcel is not permanently protected. This will be required in order to obtain the Round 13 grant on the adjacent 55 acres. Mr. Gladden referenced the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions document that must be executed and recorded at the Recorder of Deeds office prior to the Township receiving the grant funding. A copy of this document will be incorporated into the minutes in its entirety. The text will also be posted on the Citizens’ website shortly. The maximum valuation for grant determination purposes is $31,000/acre, which includes a 50% match from the Township and totals $900,000. Since structures are not eligible for grant funding, and since the Township paid in excess of $900,000 for the Brightside Farm, the property must be delineated into two parcels, with one 29 acre tract (29 acres x $31,000 = $900,000) to be placed under the Declaration of Covenants. The remaining 26 acres will contain the structures and will have no county restrictions imposed on them, although a conservation easement is recommended. An easement of this nature would be more flexible in allowing a variety of future uses.

Mr. Gladden referenced the Declaration of Covenants Article III on restrictions, noting that the land must be available to all county residents and have the potential for broad public use. Restrictions include:

1. That the property must be used for public park, recreational and natural resources conservation only;
2. If #1 is deemed inappropriate, it must then be used for passive recreation or open space;
3. The terms are perpetual, and no additional restrictions may be imposed without the County’s consent;
4. The municipality shall manage and develop the property in a manner that preserves the integrity of natural resources.

Mr. Gladden opened the floor to questions.

1. Bob Jones asked if the 29 acres to be under covenant can be transferred to another parcel. Mr. Gladden said yes, if the parcel is adjacent and allows for a similar or greater potential use.
2. Bob Elmer asked if the 29 acres must be contiguous with the 20.6 acre parcel, and Mr. Gladded said ideally, yes. Mr. Elmer asked if fees can be charged for programs, and Mr. Gladden said in most cases, yes, giving examples of a fundraiser for the park or a community day picnic. Mr. Elmer asked about a partnership with the Great Valley Nature Center and whether they could use the land in exchange for the charging of fees for their expertise and educators. Mr. Gladden said this would probably be acceptable. He explained that there are many gray areas that would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
3. Phil Staas asked if the 29 acres must be improved beyond passive farm fields, and Mr. Gladden said there can be as little as a walking trail, but he stressed that the County expects some public use of the space. Mr. Staas stated his concern over more expensive public improvements such as a playground, and Mr. Gladden said this is not required.
4. A man who did not identify himself asked if provisions for parking are required, and Mr. Gladden said no, although it is permitted, along with uses such as ball fields, trails, or a tot lot.
5. Louse Cantrell-Kehoe expressed an interest in developing a horse ring for the Pickering Pony Club, which requires membership to join. The club is open to all individuals ages 6-21. Mr. Gladden said he would have to look into whether this use would be permitted.
6. Vincent Kling asked if the property could be maintained as farmland, perhaps 50-60% of it, and Mr. Gladden said it isn’t the intention of the CCPC for grant-acquired land to be used for this purpose. Mr. Kling stated his concern that users of the park would have to drive there, that there is no good walk-in residential area close by with the exception of the proposed Deerfield subdivision across the street. Mr. Gladden agreed that the Visioning committee should take this into account.
7. A woman who did not identify herself asked if it is an underlying principle of the grant program that the public is able to use the land with no fees required. Mr. Gladden said somewhat; there can be no exclusive use claimed by an organization or league. A fee tied to an activity to cover costs is acceptable. He said many Townships audit the books of these groups to determine that they are operating on a non-profit basis.
8. Ben Bingham asked if the Township is considering use of part of the property as a self-sustaining farm, how a walkway could be installed without disruption to crops and animals. Mr. Gladden said this could be explored, but suggested that any commercial hub must remain outside county restricted land.
9. Mr. Jones asked if the restrictions could be withdrawn in the future if the money was repaid, and Mr. Gladden said no, it is a permanent covenant on the land.
10. Mrs. Staas asked about maintenance issues, and whether the Pony Club could be charged rent for their use of the property. Mr. Gladden said probably, yes, or an exchange of maintenance for some scheduled exclusive use could be worked out.
11. Debbie Kuhn asked if a community garden arrangement, where people could till 20x20 foot tracts for personal gardening, could be done. Mr. Gladden responded no.
12. Alix Coleman asked who makes the decision on what can and cannot be done on the restricted portion of the property, and Mr. Gladden said the County makes the determination upon advice from their Solicitor.
13. A woman who did not identify herself asked, isn’t parking required? Mr. Gladden answered no.
14. Rick Reis asked if there are guidelines on what percentage of exclusive use is permitted, and Mr. Gladden said the schedule for activities is managed at the municipal level, but the County will monitor the concessionaire agreements.

Bond Issue - Restrictions

Mr. Theurkauf introduced Jim McErlane, Esq., Township Solicitor, who provided an outline of the restrictions placed on the 55 acre Brightside Farm parcel due to the use of federal bond funding to make the original purchase. For example, the farm cannot be leased for profit. However, a farm manager could be engaged on a short-term (I year) contract basis to manage the farm and access to this area could be limited. Any improvements would be made by the Township, and not the farmer. The existing agriculturally used areas and buildings are not required to have public access.

The floor was opened to questions:

1. Mark Connolly asked if concessionaire agreements, such as the two in place at Charlestown Park for the Phoenixville Area Soccer Club (PASC) and Phoenixville Marion Youth Club (PMYC), which automatically renew for a 7-year period, could be utilized. These two organizations provide the programming for sports events and league play and maintain the facilities. They have exclusive use of certain storage facilities and a snack bar. Mr. McErlane said this can be done as long as the groups are non-profit.
2. Ben Bingham asked if a cooperative Community Supported Agriculture program (CSA) would be acceptable if run by the Township with an annually contracted hired manager, and Mr. McErlane answered yes.
3. Bob Jones asked if the restrictions apply to the land after the bond issue is paid off, and Mr. McErlane said no. The Treasurer noted that the bond issue will be paid off in 2029.
4. Mr. Connolly asked, if a non-profit organization was chartered and transacted the management of the entire farm, providing public programs, would that be acceptable. Mr. McErlane said yes, assuming the use was reasonable.
5. Mrs. Staas asked if the CSA made a profit but put it back into improvements to the farm, would that be acceptable, and Mr. McErlane said yes.
6. Paul Hogan, Supervisor, asked about a military vehicle organization using one of the structures to provide an educational and historical function. Mr. McErlane said if non-profit, this would be acceptable.
7. Phil Staas asked if the County grant funding of $450,000 could be used to pay down the bond issue so the bond funds could be used elsewhere. Mr. McErlane said that this could be done in the short term only, otherwise arbitrage comes into play, meaning that it’s not legal to take the federal funding and hold it indefinitely in order to earn interest on it. The funds would have to be used to acquire additional open space within a short period of time.

Potential Program Elements

Mr. Theurkauf said information presented tonight on both county and federal restrictions provided a useful overview that will enable the Township to revisit potential programs and establish priorities. Discussion followed.

1. A woman who did not identify herself asked if the Township plans to send out a survey to Township residents asking what uses they’d like to see at the park. Mr. Theurkauf said that the intention was to conduct a public visioning process of perhaps four additional sessions in order to achieve the broadest reception. The next step would be to develop a land use plan.
2. Bob Jones asked if the land use plan is part of the present proposal with Thomas Comitta Associates, and Mr. Theurkauf answered no.
3. Jacob Merriwether asked how the 29 acres of the 55 acre Brightside Farm would be delineated for restriction under the county regulations. Mr. Theurkauf said he’ll provide recommendations to be reviewed and discussed.
4. Mrs. Staas asked if the 29 restricted acres must be all together or can be a combination of separate pieces, and Mr. Gladden said they can be delineated in any way.
5. Jim Scharnberg suggested that the delineation be made dependent on the natural footprint of the property. Mr. Theurkauf agreed that the physical and visual attributes of the property would be taken into consideration.
6. Joanna Reed asked how the farm would be maintained while this visioning process is underway, stating her concern that farmland deteriorates rapidly without maintenance. Mr. Theurkauf explained that the Township has an area farmer managing the fields and that they have not been left fallow. Mr. Elmer added that the Brightside Farm Committee looked at each field, its past history, and made determinations on how to best maintain and preserve them. The Chester County Soil Conservation group came in and gave advice also. Winter rye was planted last fall, and spring oats have now been planted this year.
7. Mike Rodgers, Supervisor asked for clarification that the same County restrictions must be imposed on the 20.6 acre adjacent parcel in order to be eligible for the Round 10 grant, and Mr. Gladden said yes, they must be restricted. Mr. Theurkauf said this means 49 acres out of the total 75 will be under County restrictions. Mr. Elmer asked if all 49 acres can be incorporated on the Brightside Farm parcel, and Mr. Gladden said the County would consider such a delineation and make recommendations.
8. Dale Frens suggested that prolonging the Visioning process will not be constructive, as people will lose continuity.
9. A man who did not identify himself said a framework and timeline should be established and published for the general public, and Mr. Theurkauf agreed. The man asked who would take charge of the process, and Mr. Theurkauf responded, the Supervisors. A person with a specific proposed use for one of the structures would go to Dale Frens to determine which building might be suitable.
10. A woman who did not identify herself suggested that residents bring ideas to the next meetings, and indicated her interest in historical, cultural, art and science uses. Mr. Theurkauf said it would be advisable to think of the uses as they interrelate to one another.
11. Kevin Kuhn, Supervisor, said a mechanism for reviewing proposals against the 2 stringent levels of restrictions is needed, so time is not wasted on ideas that cannot be utilized. Mr. McErlane suggested that he and Mr. Gladden can review outlines of concepts.
12. A woman who did not identify herself recommended that people come out and walk the mowed trail to look over the property. Mr. Elmer invited the public to come on Sunday, April 28th to help clean up the area in celebration of Earth Week, and take time to walk the trails at this time. Mr. Hogan added that anyone with a pick up truck would be especially welcome.
13. Mrs. Kuhn asked for the location of the trail and parking area. Mr. Hogan showed it on the site plan. Alix Coleman asked how wide the trail is, and Mr. Hogan responded 6 feet.
14. Mrs. Kuhn stated her concern for the costs associated with various uses, and Mr. Theurkauf said fiscal needs will be outlined and included as part of each proposal in order to determine which programs are conceptually viable.

Mr. Willig said the Board will schedule the next meeting near the same time in May, and then additional meetings will follow every 4-6 weeks.

Adjournment

Mrs. Ewald moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 P.M. The next business meeting will be held on May 6, 2002, 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School, Room 154. Future Brightside Farm meetings will be scheduled over the next few months.

Attachment #1

Frens and Frens, LLC
Restoration Architects

Dale H. Frens, A.I.A.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT FOR BRIGHTSIDE FARM
Charlestown Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania
Presented April 22, 2002

---

INTRODUCTION

“Each farm is a segment of the earth’s surface which has been organized in a manner by which its former owners believed they could, and present owners believe they can, maximize their capabilities of earning a living from its operation. Any farm is a culturally organized, economically functional microregion. The farmstead contains the most concentrated array of activities of the entire farm and thereby represents the greatest level of intensity of a farm’s spatial organization. It may be composed of separate structures, but not of independent ones. All farmstead buildings are interdependent, interacting parts of a working unit, spatially arranged to maximize their functional effectiveness and that of the farm itself.” (The Pennsylvania Culture Region A View from the Barn, Joseph W. Glass, p. 171)

The farmhouse and the barn are the core of the farmstead, and cultural patterns can be established regarding their relationship to each other and their orientation in the landscape. On many farmsteads, the supporting outbuildings have disappeared because they have ceased to function and have fallen into disrepair. “All farms have lanes and some kinds of lawn and fencing, most have vegetable and flower gardens, and a large number have grape arbors and fruit trees.” (The Pennsylvania Culture Region A View from the Barn, Joseph W. Glass, p. 170).

Brightside, while not possessing the best individual example of each farm building type in the region, possesses one of the best collections of supporting outbuildings, spatially arranged to reflect their interdependence. Surviving also are remnants of the flower gardens near the farmhouse and the fencing that separated the farmyard from the fields and pastures.

ARCHITECTURAL HIGHLIGHTS OF BRIGHTSIDE FARM

Pyle Farmhouse: Clearly built as a working farmhouse; the surviving attached wash house and chamber above are significant (probably dating from c.1840).
Pennsylvania Bank Barn: Good example of 18th century style bank barn (probably c.1840)
Spring House: Good example of stone springhouse (probably c.1840).
Wagon Barn: Preserved work shop at loft level.

GENERAL PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT

(Based on physical survey of extant buildings only)

Early 19th Century:

Original Farm House and Wash House Spring House Bank Barn

Late -19th Century

East Addition to Bank Barn Wagon Barn Outbuilding #4

Early 20th Century

Farm House Addition Chicken Houses (?) Pig Pen (?) Corn Crib #16 and #5 Creamery addition to Bank Barn Silo addition to Bank Barn

Mid 20th Century

Small Cow Barn Small silo

Late 20th Century

Dairy Barn Equipment Storage Building Corn Crib #19

GENERAL BUILDING CONSERVATION ISSUES

1. Standards for Rehabilitation: Based on the property’s eligibility for National Register listing, all work should comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for Rehabilitation.
2. Preservation of minor outbuildings: Rarely do minor outbuildings such as multiple chicken coops, pig pen, and sheds survive farm modernization programs. When Brightside was modernized in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the new dairy facilities were built adjacent to (north of) the historic farm complex, without disturbing the minor outbuildings. In order for future generations to understand farm life in Charlestown Township, it is important that all the minor farm outbuildings be preserved.
3. Painting of farm outbuildings: While most of the wood frame buildings at Brightside once had painted red wood siding red and weathered wood shingle roofs; the order is now reversed: most buildings have painted red roofs and weathered wood siding. While the metal roofing has no doubt protected the timber framing from water damage, over time the roofs of the old buildings should be replaced with either wood shingle roofing or substitute wood shingle roofing. To preserve the wood siding, the wood should be painted or stained earth red.
4. Re-installation of fences, gates, and gardens: Surviving remnants of farmyard and garden fences and gates should be preserved. Where photographic evidence is clear, fencing of the entire farmyard is desirable.
5. Carpenter bees and wasps: Many buildings are infested with carpenter bees and wasps. The gap between the replacement metal roofing and the previous shingle roofing provides an ideal habitat for wasps and other insects. When the site is more open to public visitation, wasp infestation is a more serious issue, because some people are highly allergic to bee/wasp stings. The unpainted, softwood siding and fascia boards provide an ideal habitat for carpenter bees. A secondary infestation are the woodpeckers that feed on the carpenter bees, further enlarging the carpenter bee holes.

ADAPTIVE REUSE POTENTIAL OF BUILDINGS

“...it is rare to find a farm without a dog, and multiple cats are even more common. As is so widely the case, remaining functional is the key to the persistence of a cultural feature.” The Pennsylvania Culture Region, A View from the Barn, Joseph W. Glass (p 170)

BUILDING NO. 1 - PYLE FARMHOUSE

(Mid 19th and early 20th Century)

Main House and addition best suited for continued residential use with the exception of the wash house addition. A presence on the site is important for security, and this building is best suited for residential occupancy. Because of ADA and exit requirements, this building is not well-suited to public use.

Existing area on three floors = 8,416 square feet with well defined circulation and (2) sets of interior stairs. Adequate for (2-3) 2-bedroom apartments. The unique 2-story wash house addition (256 square feet) Should be preserved for public interpretation. Alternately, the oldest portion of the first floor, combined with the wash house could be interpreted for the public (Grade level entrance at original front (south porch) and north door of wash house.).

BUILDING NO. 2 - BANK BARN

(Mid 19th to early 20th Century)

To keep the character of the Bank Barn and additions consider using it for animals. The lower part of the bank barn could have a public use, but the threshing floor is not ADA accessible without an elevator. Also, because the threshing floor structural framing is so irregular, extensive reframing will be required for legal human occupancy. It may be possible to get ADA access to the Creamery addition first floor with a ramp. If Brightside is maintained as a farm, this is an ideal place to house large farm animals.

BUILDING NO. 14 - SMALL COW BARN

(Mid 20th Century)

In addition to returning to its previous cow barn function, this 360 square foot building would be good for public use as it is accessible and one story. Adequate exits would not be difficult to provide and windows provide light and ventilation on the west side. This could be a classroom, meeting room, a CSA storage/sorting space, office.

BUILDING NO. 18 - EQUIPMENT STORAGE BUILDING

(late 20th Century)

This building is easily ADA accessible, and egress could be added if a public function was identified. It could easily remain an equipment storage building, or be converted to public meeting spaces. The 2,560 square feet could be used for Boy/Girl Scout Troop meeting rooms, classrooms, or CSA use. Windows and additional exits would need to be added.

BUILDING NO. 20 - MODERN DAIRY BARN

(late 20th Century)

In addition to returning to its previous use as a modern dairy barn (or stables), this building could be adapted for public use. The first floor is accessible and access to the 2nd level could be through an elevator. (The exterior ramped entrance to the second floor is too steep for ADA standards.) The Creamery addition could become a reception area or management office for the site. The upper level has about 4,480 square feet of minimum 8 foot high ceiling area available with the possibility of a loft or mezzanine over 1/3 of the area. This could be useful office space (possible Township office space) or public meeting space with the addition of windows. (1997 Architectural Program for Township offices required 3,392 square feet + core spaces (elevators, restrooms, egress stairs).

The lower level has 6,400 square feet available for public use if the milking units are removed. At the east end of the first floor the pit area could be used for vehicle or other large equipment storage.

Deed Restrictions, Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Other Documentation Issues.

1. Irrespective of other restrictions on the property, the exact declaration language contained in Section IV herein is required to access County Park Land and Open Space Acquisition grant funding.
2. Deeds to all lands to be reimbursed under this program shall contain a restrictive covenant requiring the perpetual use of the land for public park, recreation, or natural resource conservation purposes and no other.
3. At the time the deed is recorded at the Chester County Recorder of Deeds, the municipality shall also record the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shown in Section IV. Further restrictions to the property or alterations to the Declaration of Covenants prior to or at the time of purchase are not permitted.
4. Any building footprint and any other land area encumbered by structures of value must be subtracted out from the land area and not included in the grant application. The property may need to be subdivided with the respective parcels surveyed.
5. Municipalities acquiring lands that have been previously restricted by a third party through a conservation easement or any other instrument must secure the approval of the third party. Such approval shall acknowledge the covenants in Section IV and Section II Step 9, and make provisions for insuring that the property will be accessible and usable to the public. Further, the approval shall allow future installation of any facilities agreed to by the municipality and third party.

SECTION IV:     DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS TO BE FILED PRIOR TO REIMBURSEMENT

Chester County Park Land and Open Space Acquisition Grant
Declaration of Covenants, Condition, and Restriction

THIS DECLARATION, made this ______________day of _____________, 20____, by the ________________ of ____________________________, Chester County, Pennsylvania, (hereinafter “Declarant” and “Municipality”).

BACKGROUND

Municipality, by Deed dated _____________________________, acquired a certain parcel of land from ___________________________, et ux, containing ___________acres identified as Tax Parcel Number(s) _____________________________________________ located in __________________________________, more particularly described in Article II, Section I hereof and further being more particularly described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter the “Property”).

The Commissioners of Chester County have designated a portion of the proceeds from a County bond issue, for grants to municipalities within Chester County for the acquisition of land for open space, recreation, public access parkland, and natural resources conservation.

Pursuant to the guidelines and criteria of the Chester County Landscapes 21st Century Fund Grant program, Municipality has received such a grant and has used the proceeds from said grant for the acquisition of the Property.

As a specific condition of the aforesaid municipal park land and open space acquisition program, any Municipality obtaining such a grant and utilizing the funds for the acquisition of park land or open space land agrees that a covenant requiring the continuous use of said land for recreation, public access park land, and natural resources conservation shall be recorded as a restriction running with the land. No additional or future restrictions may be placed on this land without the express written consent of the Commissioners of Chester County.

Municipality desires to place a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions declaring that the Property shall be utilized perpetually for park, recreational, and natural resources conservation purposes only and shall be available to all County residents. Further, Municipality desires that this Declaration shall be recorded as a covenant running with the land and shall bind the Property in perpetuity.

NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, Declarant hereby declares that the Property shall be utilized perpetually for public park, recreational, and natural resources conservation purposes only subject to further restrictions of use more particularly described below in Article III. The Property shall be held subject to the restrictions set forth in this Declaration, which are for the purpose of insuring a continuous use of the Property for the purposes indicated and which restrictions or covenants shall run with the Property. The municipality shall manage and develop the property for recreation and public access parkland in a manner that preserves the integrity of natural resources such as stream corridors, steep slopes, wetlands and state or globally rare species.

ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS

The following words and terms which are used in this Declaration shall have the following meanings:

1. “DECLARATION” shall mean and refer to this instrument, as amended from time to time.
2. “DECLARANT” shall mean and refer to Municipality.
3. “SUCCESSOR DECLARANT” shall mean each entity to which Declarant shall have specifically, by writing, assigned or conveyed any or all of Declarant’s rights in and to the Property.
4. “PROPERTY” shall mean the existing property or parcel of real estate referenced above and more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. In the event of any additions to the existing property, which shall be made subject to this Declaration pursuant to the provisions of Article II hereof, then, from and after the recording of an appropriate Supplementary Declaration, the term “Property” shall mean the existing property and any such additions.

ARTICLE II - EXISTING PROPERTY; ADDITIONS

1. Existing Property. The existing property is all that certain tract of ground identified as Tax Parcel Number(s) ________________________________ situated in _______________________Chester County, Pennsylvania, containing _______acres, more or less, more particularly identified in Exhibit “A” hereto.

ARTICLE III - RESTRICTIONS

The use of the Property as defined in this Agreement shall be restricted to open space/park land/recreational/natural resources conservation purposes. The Property shall be utilized perpetually for public park, recreational and natural resources conservation purposes only. If, when and as it is deemed inappropriate to utilize said real estate for active park, recreational and natural resources conservation purposes, it is agreed, understood and hereby declared as a declaration, restriction and covenant running with the land that the utilization of the Property shall be for passive recreation or open space. The term of this restriction shall be perpetual and it shall be a covenant running with the land. No additional or future restrictions may be placed on this land without the express written consent of the Commissioners of Chester County. The municipality shall manage and develop the property for recreation and public access parkland in a manner that preserves the integrity of natural resources such as stream corridors, steep slopes, wetlands and state or globally rare species.

ARTICLE IV - ENFORCEMENT

1. The County of Chester shall have the right and power to enforce this covenant and restriction, by any proceedings at law or in equity, against the Declarant or any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any provision of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; to restrain violations; to require specific performance and/or to recover damages.
2. If the County determines that Declarant is in violation of the terms of this Declaration or that a violation is threatened, the County shall give written notice to Declarant of such violation and demand corrective actions sufficient to cure the violation, and, where the violation involves injury to the Property resulting from any use or activity inconsistent with the permitted uses of this Declaration, to restore that portion of the Property so injured. If Declarant fails to cure the violation within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice thereof from the County, or under circumstances where the violation cannot reasonably be cured within a thirty day period, fails to begin curing such violation within the thirty (30) day period, or fails to continue diligently to cure such violation until finally cured, the County may bring an action at law or equity in a Court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Declaration, to enjoin the violation, ex parte as necessary, by temporary or permanent injunction to recover any damages to which it may be entitled for violation of the terms of this Declaration or injury to any public interest protected by this Declaration, and to require the restoration of the Property to the condition that existed prior to such injury.
3. Without limiting Declarant’s liability therefore, the County, in its sole discretion, may apply any damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any corrective action on the Property. The County’s rights under this paragraph apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Declaration and Declarant agrees that the County’s remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Declaration are inadequate and that the County shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this Article, both prohibitive and mandatory in addition to such other relief to which the County may be entitled including specific performance of the terms of this Declaration, without necessity or proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. The County’s remedies described in this Article shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity.
4. Cost of enforcement. Any costs incurred by the County in enforcing the terms of this Declaration against Declarant, including, without limitation, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by Declarant’s violation of the terms of this Declaration shall be borne by Declarant.
5. The failure by the County to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do thereafter.

ARTICLE V - MISCELLANEOUS

1. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with the land and bind the Property in perpetuity.
2. The provisions of this Declaration shall, pursuant to its terms, inure to the benefit of, and bind the Property, Declarant and its successors and assigns.
3. Recording. This Declaration shall forthwith be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for the County of Chester, Pennsylvania.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has executed this Declaration the day and year first above written.

ATTEST: _______________________________

MUNICIPALITY OF By:_____________________________

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA	:
	:	SS
COUNTY OF CHESTER	:

On this _____day of______, 20___, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared __________________________________who acknowledged himself to be the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of ____________________________________Township, and that he, as such Chairman, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument, for the purposes therein contained, by signing the name of ___________________________Township by himself as Chairman.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

_________________________________________ Notary Public