Council approves Hay Lane subdivision and Act 537 amendment; resident raises deed concerns

Council approved a minor subdivision (S‑9‑25, Hay Lane) that divides a 9.64‑acre parcel into two lots and moved to amend the municipality's Act 537 sewage plan for the new development (Resolution 802‑25). Community Development staff described the application as routine and said both new lots have access from existing municipal roads.

Community Development staff said the application was reviewed by a third‑party engineering firm and that the subdivision does not rely on any private drive referenced by an adjacent property owner. "It is a pretty straightforward subdivision," staff said during the council discussion.

During public comment Gwen Shepherd, who identified her address and said she has lived in Murrysville for more than 40 years, asked council to review the Murraycrest subdivision deed and remove references she says incorrectly depict rights to her private property. "The references to my property that are currently shown on the Murraycrest Subdivision deed are untrue, unbinding, and were deeded without my consent or knowledge," Shepherd said. Council told Shepherd the matter raised legal issues and that the solicitor will be asked to review the deed and advise council; staff also noted Shepherd's property is not the parcel being subdivided and that the Hay Lane lots have separate municipal access.

Actions recorded at the meeting: council unanimously approved the Hay Lane minor subdivision (motion made by Jason, seconded by Eli) and later unanimously approved Resolution 802‑25 amending the Act 537 plan, with no abstentions recorded.

Staff noted the application applicant, Mr. Kearns, is a member of the planning commission; because of that relationship the subdivision review was outsourced to Gibson‑Thomas Engineering. Planning staff and the third‑party review found no outstanding technical issues; council discussed the application, viewed GIS overheads during the meeting, and concluded the new lots are accessed from Hay Lane and Windover Road and do not use Treesdale Court, the road that serves Shepherd's property.

Council directed staff to proceed with the approvals and to consult the solicitor about any deed corrections or legal claims Shepherd presented. No council action was taken on Shepherd's deed beyond directing staff to involve the solicitor and to consider her concerns when future plan approvals are processed.

Documentation referenced at the meeting: the minor subdivision application S‑9‑25 Hay Lane, third‑party engineering review by Gibson‑Thomas Engineering, and Resolution 802‑25 amending the Act 537 plan.