Residents and local officials told the Beaver County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 13 that repeated inspections by the local conservation district have stalled construction at Lakeside Village and other new developments, leaving partially completed streets, utilities and community facilities vulnerable while builders push for answers.

The dispute centers on whether conservation-district inspectors and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection are applying standards consistently. Janine Presto, a Lakeside Village resident, said the delays are harming homeowners and sales. “We’re losing value in our homes,” Presto said. “Somebody needs to get to the bottom because we’re losing value in our homes.”

County officials said they have scheduled a meeting with the DEP regional office for Aug. 28 to review the situation. A county official told residents the August meeting will “discuss what’s going on” with lakeside-related reviews and related projects.

Why it matters: Residents and contractors said the dispute is delaying completion of neighborhood infrastructure and could reduce tax and school-district revenue if developers stop work or withdraw. Speakers said about 13–14 houses in Lakeside Village are occupied while the rest of the development remains largely dirt and unfinished streets and amenities. Glenn Seltzer, a council member with Columbia Grove who said he has built for many years, described the volume of comments and rework as unprecedented: “I’ve built my whole life… I’ve never seen stuff to that degree.”

What was said and done: Multiple residents and a municipal council member described repeated cycles of inspections and follow-up comments. Residents said some builders have been required to re‑seed and stabilize slopes repeatedly; one resident said landscaping crews have been adding straw for months. Diane Alexander and other callers asked whether the conservation district is enforcing a higher standard against Lakeside builders than it applies elsewhere. Darlene Harrington, a longtime Economy Borough resident, said residents support the local builder and urged that differences in enforcement be reviewed.

Residents and officials described procedural details discussed in the meeting: they said a developer’s engineers requested an extra 30 days to respond to agency comments; one county official characterized the review as escalating from roughly 18 initial comments to “240” in later rounds. County staff said some buried utilities and road work have been installed but not formally accepted by municipal authorities because testing and final inspections remain incomplete.

Discussion versus action: The meeting record shows audience members made statements and asked the commissioners for help; there was no county vote or formal county directive recorded at the work session. The county reported the DEP meeting set for Aug. 28 and said it will pursue follow-up conversations with municipal officials; those follow-ups are a staff direction rather than a formal County decision recorded that day. Residents said they plan to present photos and attend conservation-district meetings.

Remaining questions and context: Speakers raised practical questions about who would cover the cost of unfinished sewer, water and roads if a developer stopped work, and whether bonds are sufficient to cover community infrastructure. Residents estimated that once complete the larger development would add significant tax revenue to the Freedom School District over many years, but those estimates were described as long‑term and contingent on project completion. The county said it had received phone calls and will pursue discussions with DEP and municipal officials before any further action.