Sign in

Chester Valley Engineers

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Chester Valley Engineers? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Chester Valley Engineers

Chester Valley Engineers Reviews (2)

June 11, 2015To Whom It May Concern:I am the President of Chester Valley Engineers, and fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances regarding the claim of [redacted] as stated in your most recent correspondence.First and foremost, it should be stated that this company was retained to perform a survey and partial topographical survey and zoning hearing board exhibit for [redacted] ’s propertyThese exhibits were to be offered in conjunction with a variance application that would precede any construction activities on his propertyThe reviewer of this response should be aware that zoning variances are limited to exceptional circumstances when an applicant demonstrates that his property cannot be used in compliance with existing zoning ordinances, Any anticipation that a variance would be granted was not based upon any action or representation by Chester Valley EngineersThe reason that this variance was required had nothing to do with the location of the subject property in an R-or R-R district, as both districts did not permit the contemplated construction of the addition proposed by the applicant.It was not until June that [redacted] represented to Chester Valley Engineers, after the completion of the work covered in the proposal with Chester Valley, that he did not seek a variance, it was not until he retained the services of another engineering firm in February that we became aware that our plans were being utilized for some undisclosed application processWe advised [redacted] , six months prior to this time that before any application was submitted, additional planning details and review would be required – we were told that our services were not neededA subsequent request for the transfer of electronic CAD files was received from his new professional consultants and the plans were released after an acknowledgement was signed that the plans should not be used for submission without further verification of detailsThis request for files did not contain any indication as to why or how oursurvey and partial topographic study would be utilized.A signed copy of our proposal is attached that clearly discloses the need for a variance and subsequent documents that would be prepared in conjunction with the submission of a request for a varianceAt the time of the submission of a request for a variance, the Township would confirm the identification of a designated zoning classificationAt that point, if necessary an application is amended, if necessary, to reflect the correct zoning designation [redacted] undertook to circumvent or avoid this process by applying directly for a building permit although the proposed use was not permitted under either the R-or R-R zoning regulationsHe also proceeded to purchase building materials without obtaining the necessary zoning varianceUnder any scenario, Chester Valley Engineers did not participate, nor have knowledge of the non-compliant course of action [redacted] pursued to achieve his desired resultThese activities were beyond the scope of our proposal and undertaking on his behalf and represent risks that he took without regard to the law or knowledge of the law previously disclosed to him.The work that was completed by Chester Valley was utilized and necessary in conjunction with any and all submissions for variances, and these variances were required to accomplish [redacted] ’s desired goals of constructing an “in-law suite”The proposal clearly enumerates the required steps necessary to obtain zoning relief and the extent of services that were provided under the initial proposal was responsive to that contract, [redacted] chose not to avail himself of those services beyond the preparation of the survey and partial topographical plans[redacted] contends by the time the permit was revoked he purchased materials to construct the additionHe has since applied for the appropriate zoning relief, we told him was required in our initial proposalThat application is pending and also incorporates additional relief relative to the setback requirements applicable to an RR Zoning districtThe information provided by this office regarding the zoning district was never intended to form a part of a building permit application.In summary we believe we performed the services provided as per our agreement, and that any damages alleged were not caused by anything done by this organization as a zoning application for relief would have been required under any circumstances and the purchase of materials before that authorization was at [redacted] ’s own riskFurther whatever services he retained from other professional engineers was for work that was distinct from the work performed by Chester Valley and required independent inquiry into zoning laws that may have appliedIt should be noted this work was almost months after Chester Valley completed its servicesOrdinary practice would require re-visiting any drawings and Submissions based on zoning or land development regulations as Townships often change requirements and zoning designationsAn applicant, such as [redacted] , has no vested rights under ordinances until a formal application for a permit or variance is submitted.Our review of the complaint suggests the complaints are inconsistent with the facts known to this organizationIt is a clear from the record that [redacted] chose not to follow the course of action outlined in the attached proposal by Chester Valley Engineers and incurred losses as the result of that decision.Very truly yours,Robert P., P.F., P.L.SPresident

June 11, 2015To Whom It May Concern:I am the President of Chester Valley Engineers, and fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances regarding the claim of [redacted] as stated in your most recent correspondence.First and foremost, it should be stated that this company was retained to...

perform a survey and partial topographical survey and zoning hearing board exhibit for [redacted]’s property. These exhibits were to be offered in conjunction with a variance application that would precede any construction activities on his property. The reviewer of this response should be aware that zoning variances are limited to exceptional circumstances when an applicant demonstrates that his property cannot be used in compliance with existing zoning ordinances, Any anticipation that a variance would be granted was not based upon any action or representation by Chester Valley Engineers. The reason that this variance was required had nothing to do with the location of the subject property in an R-1 or R-R district, as both districts did not permit the contemplated construction of the addition proposed by the applicant.It was not until June 2015 that [redacted] represented to Chester Valley Engineers, after the completion of the work covered in the proposal with Chester Valley, that he did not seek a variance, it was not until he retained the services of another engineering firm in February 2015 that we became aware that our plans were being utilized for some undisclosed application process. We advised [redacted], six months prior to this time that before any application was submitted, additional planning details and review would be required – we were told that our services were not needed. A subsequent request for the transfer of electronic CAD files was received from his new professional consultants and the plans were released after an acknowledgement was signed that the plans should not be used for submission without further verification of details. This request for files did not contain any indication as to why or how oursurvey and partial topographic study would be utilized.A signed copy of our proposal is attached that clearly discloses the need for a variance and subsequent documents that would be prepared in conjunction with the submission of a request for a variance. At the time of the submission of a request for a variance, the Township would confirm the identification of a designated zoning classification. At that point, if necessary an application is amended, if necessary, to reflect the correct zoning designation. [redacted] undertook to circumvent or avoid this process by applying directly for a building permit although the proposed use was not permitted under either the R-1 or R-R zoning regulations. He also proceeded to purchase building materials without obtaining the necessary zoning variance. Under any scenario, Chester Valley Engineers did not participate, nor have knowledge of the non-compliant course of action [redacted] pursued to achieve his desired result. These activities were beyond the scope of our proposal and undertaking on his behalf and represent risks that he took without regard to the law or knowledge of the law previously disclosed to him.The work that was completed by Chester Valley was utilized and necessary in conjunction with any and all submissions for variances, and these variances were required to accomplish [redacted]’s desired goals of constructing an “in-law suite”. The proposal clearly enumerates the required steps necessary to obtain zoning relief and the extent of services that were provided under the initial proposal was responsive to that contract, [redacted] chose not to avail himself of those services beyond the preparation of the survey and partial topographical plans.[redacted] contends by the time the permit was revoked he purchased materials to construct the addition. He has since applied for the appropriate zoning relief, we told him was required in our initial proposal. That application is pending and also incorporates additional relief relative to the setback requirements applicable to an RR Zoning district. The information provided by this office regarding the zoning district was never intended to form a part of a building permit application.In summary we believe we performed the services provided as per our agreement, and that any damages alleged were not caused by anything done by this organization as a zoning application for relief would have been required under any circumstances and the purchase of materials before that authorization was at [redacted]’s own risk. Further whatever services he retained from other professional engineers was for work that was distinct from the work performed by Chester Valley and required independent inquiry into zoning laws that may have applied. It should be noted this work was almost 6 months after Chester Valley completed its services. Ordinary practice would require re-visiting any drawings and Submissions based on zoning or land development regulations as Townships often change requirements and zoning designations. An applicant, such as [redacted], has no vested rights under ordinances until a formal application for a permit or variance is submitted.Our review of the complaint suggests the complaints are inconsistent with the facts known to this organization. It is a clear from the record that [redacted] chose not to follow the course of action outlined in the attached proposal by Chester Valley Engineers and incurred losses as the result of that decision.Very truly yours,Robert P., P.F., P.L.S. President

Check fields!

Write a review of Chester Valley Engineers

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Chester Valley Engineers Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 83 Chestnut Rd, Paoli, Pennsylvania, United States, 19301-1559

Phone:

Show more...

Add contact information for Chester Valley Engineers

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated