Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Summerhill Phase2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council on Summerhill Phase 2 and alleged Murraycrest trespass, council to review legal easements
Summary
Residents raised concerns about the Summerhill Phase 2 subdivision (61 units), stormwater culvert designs and alleged trespass and unrecorded claims tied to the Murraycrest subdivision; council said developer agreements and easements must be finalized and legal issues involving county records may require executive-session review.
Multiple residents addressed the Murrysville Borough Council tonight about the Summerhill Phase 2 subdivision and related concerns involving the Murraycrest subdivision and private driveway access.
Developer representatives said the Summerhill Phase 2 project will construct 61 townhome and multi-unit dwellings as an extension of Goldie Lane and that detailed designs for storm culverts, sanitary sewer connections and MPDES/NPDES permitting have been submitted to the conservation district, FTMSA and Plum for review. Jeff Parabek, the engineer for Summer Hill Development, said the team has obtained easements for the stormwater outfall and is working on easements for sanitary work on North Duane Drive; the firm said it has submitted planning-module materials to FTMSA and Plum and aims to resolve remaining review comments.
Neighbor speakers told council they want enforceable, specific commitments in the developer's agreement rather than only verbal assurances. "We want these things to be well defined before the agreement is approved and that we get these things locked down in the actual real drawings," said resident Dennis Pavlik, who urged that details such as culvert dimensions and sewer routing be put in writing.
Several other speakers raised sharper complaints about an adjoining Murraycrest plan, alleging that plat references imply rights to their private property, that people have been walking and driving across a private driveway, and that some structures in the area appear to be unfinished or to have code violations. Council members and staff noted there is active civil litigation at the Westmoreland County Courthouse related to some of these claims and that municipal action would require review; the council said it would investigate and, because legal issues are involved, may discuss next steps in executive session.
Council and staff discussed technical and legal hurdles affecting the Summerhill project, including whether North Duane Drive (a private road shown on an unrecorded plan) provides a legally available right-of-way for utility access. Borough staff said the detailed storm culvert design has been submitted to the conservation district, and the developer said the planning module for sewer had FTMSA approval and was submitted to Plum for final review. Planning Commission conditions require the developer to consult with affected Duane Drive residents and to finalize items in the developer's agreement.
