Could letter from 7-year-old Kyle McCarron have tipped the balance?
By Rick Marts, Correspondent, The Times
Kennett Township supervisors took the initial steps Wednesday night that could lead to the Chandler Mill Bridge being rehabbed and reopened as a one-lane bridge, if it can get the bridge back from Chester County. Kyle McCarron, his mother Tracy, and sister Allie are proud of contributing to the discussion about the future of Chandler Mill Bridge with Kyle’s letter professing his love of the bridge.
KENNETT — Wednesday evening, at its public working meeting, the Kennett Township BOS approved, by a two to one vote, a motion to allow its solicitor, David Sanders, and township manager Lisa Moore, to work with Chester County officials to bring Chandler Mill Bridge under the township’s ownership.
By gaining ownership, the township would preclude the county’s on-going plans to rehab the bridge into two lanes and widen Chandler Mill road to permit more and faster traffic, and it would allow the township to pursue its own preference for a one-lane pedestrian and vehicle bridge.
The Chandler Mill Bridge was built in 1910 and placed on the National Register of Historical Places 100 years later. One year later, in 2011, the bridge was closed due to being fracture critical, functionally obsolete, and structurally deficient. However, without access to the bridge, all traffic— including school buses, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles — are diverted to other more time-consuming routes.
In Board of Supervisors’ Chairman Scudder Stevens’ opening statement, he said, “I have received many communications from residents about their positions on the bridge’s future. Most have been in favor of saving the historical nature of the bridge and allowing it to continue as a vehicle-friendly structure.” At this point, Stevens took a moment — a touching moment — to rise from the dais, walk to the back of the meeting room, and greet 7-year-old Kyle McCarron and his father Bob, mother Tracy, and younger sister, Allie.
When he returned, Stevens referred to a letter the Board had received from young Kyle, age 7, of Sharp Road, that said, “I love the bridge,” and was adorned with colorful heart shapes. Stevens said the letter would be entered into the minutes of the evening’s proceedings.
Continuing his opening statement, Stevens said, “I note that the bridge question has energized Kennett’s residents who have become vocal and emotional but that we have discovered the important facts.” He described a proposal from the Land Trust for 50 acres around the bridge to be created as a nature preserve with public access. Nearby residents, together with the Land Trust, would contribute resources to create the preserve.
Stevens also summarized several positions of interested parties. One group of residents claims it has been inconvenienced by the bridge closing, saying that without the bridge many trips in the area become convoluted and time-consuming. Also, safety representatives of the fire and emergency-respondent community are concerned about achieving their missions without bridge access. Stevens gave many poignant examples of the need for the most rapid route to be available to emergency vehicles.
He said, however, another group of neighbors favors closing the bridge to achieve higher land values, return of flora and fauna, and the opportunity to end the traffic and noise when the bridge is open to truck and other vehicular traffic heading to the shopping center on Rt. 41. He tempered this sentiment, though, by noting the existence of other more drivable routes than Chandler Mill Road.
Stevens stated his bottom line this way, “I am not persuaded that either position is substantiated. We need to find a compromise. And I think we can, now that the Land Trust has removed its proposal from the table so that we can more ably search for a compromise.”
A motion was offered and seconded to allow township officials to negotiate with the County to take ownership of the bridge for the purpose of rehabilitating it and making it a one-lane bridge open to pedestrians and vehicles. Stevens said, “What we are trying to move toward is to take the best from both sides and find a middle ground we can all live with. Safety is important, as are the environmental concerns.”
Supervisor Richard Leff also outlined the three main options he sees: One, make the surrounding area a park; two, make the bridge one lane to serve pedestrians and bicycles; and three, make it a new two-lane vehicular bridge. He said most residents prefer a one-lane bridge, which has the advantage of qualifying for federal funding and would not cost nearly as much a vehicular bridge. He said, “In conclusion, I prefer to make it a one-lane bridge that would support vehicles.”
Before calling the question on the motion on the table, Stevens asked for public comments and among those received were the following:
• “Any repairs to the bridge will cause it to lose its historical nature.” Stevens responded that the Lichtenstein approach (named after renowned bridge engineer Abba Lichtenstein who specialized in preserving historical bridges) to rehabbing the bridge would save the historical nature of the bridge.
• “If there is a house fire, no amount of fire-fighting has ever been able to save a house, in my experience [thus, why the concern for emergency access].”
•“I question the township’s liability insurance if the bridge is opened as a pedestrian bridge. Will the insurance rate go up and therefore our taxes go up?” Sanders, the township solicitor, said that the township has the appropriate umbrella insurance policy and no rate increase would be anticipated unless some unexpected circumstances were to occur.
• A resident who lives adjacent to the bridge read from a letter, “I am opposed to rehabbing the bridge and prefer action that leads to land conservation and favors the Land Trust proposal of a 50-acre park setting.”
• “Safety has its trade-offs and seems to be overstated. In the extreme, we could have roads and bridge all over the place to enhance safety, but we don’t tend to do that.”
After the public discussion ended, the motion on the table to authorize the township discussions with the County with the goal of taking ownership of the bridge to preclude continued development of a two-lane bridge was put to a vote. The motion carried with a two to one vote, with Supervisor Hammaker voting no and Stevens and Leff voting yes.
Stevens closed the meeting by saying, “We still have to work with the County so that we can gain ownership of the bridge.”
