Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears presentation on Hawkins/Silvestri subdivision; action scheduled for next meeting
Summary
Applicants sought preliminary and final subdivision approval to split and recombine parcels in an R‑2/S conservancy area. Planning commission recommended approval; staff and the applicants identified a sanitary‑sewer easement clarification and deed/easement documentation as a condition.
Applicant Sigurd (Siggers) Hawkins and John Silvestri, representing a personal trust, presented a preliminary and final subdivision plan Tuesday to divide and reconfigure property in Monroeville (Subdivision 25‑3‑SUB). The application would split parcel 638‑J‑090 and combine newly created Lot 1 with parcel 638‑E‑068 to create a 3.21‑acre Lot 1; proposed Lot 2 would total about 3.161 acres. The properties sit at the zoning boundary between R‑2 (single/multi‑family) and S (conservancy) districts.
Silvestri described minor revisions made after planning‑commission review and said surveyors will provide a corrected sanitary‑sewer easement alignment; Allegheny County asked for additional ownership documentation and meets‑and‑bounds clarification, which the applicants said have been addressed. The applicants explained easements that provide access and sanitary sewer service to the subdivided lots; council and a member of the public asked whether any lot would be landlocked, and the applicants pointed to recorded easements from Iva Street and a triangular access easement.
Planning staff told the council the planning commission recommended approval. Council had questions about access and about where future homes might sit; applicants said house designs are in progress. The hearing closed with staff saying the subdivision will be acted upon at the next council meeting.
Why it matters: the subdivision reconfigures lot lines, creates building lots and formalizes easements and sanitary‑sewer arrangements. County survey and ownership documentation were requested and the applicants said they would supply corrected easement descriptions before final recorded approval.
Action: no final council vote occurred at Tuesday’s meeting; staff indicated the application will return for council action next Tuesday after submission of the county’s requested easement documentation.
