Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to address parking, height and infrastructure concerns for proposed 4-story building at 224–226 Nutt Road
Summary
Several residents told Phoenixville Borough Council on Jan. 14 that a developer’s plan to replace two houses at 224–226 Nutt Road with a four‑story, 16‑unit apartment building would not fit the neighborhood, would worsen parking and could strain sewer and access on the narrow nearby Milligan Street.
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several residents told Phoenixville Borough Council on Jan. 14 that a developer’s plan to replace two houses at 224–226 Nutt Road with a four‑story, 16‑unit apartment building would not fit the neighborhood, would worsen parking and could strain sewer and access on the narrow nearby Milligan Street.
The speakers asked council to scrutinize parking, loading and any future requests for waivers or variances. “A 4 story building does not belong on that road,” said Valerie Griffiths, who identified herself as a resident at 335 Morris Street. “Milligan is a very, very narrow street. There’s already not enough parking.”
The matter matters to nearby residents because Milligan functions as a residential street with limited curb space, neighbors said. Borough staff told council the application for 224 and 226 Nutt Road received a recommendation for approval from the planning commission and is likely to appear on the borough council agenda in February for formal consideration, although staff said that timing is not guaranteed.
Florence Manno, who identified herself as a resident at 320 Milligan Street, told council the developer’s original plan sought to use a portion of Milligan Street’s sidewalk and planting buffer to meet required parking, a change the solicitor said was not permitted. Manno said the revised plan now shows the sidewalk and planting buffer on private property and includes “stacked” parking stalls. She noted residents currently struggle to find curb parking and said the neighborhood already has about 14 people who lack sufficient on‑street parking. “We can only imagine that most couples who would rent one of these apartments own two cars,” Manno said.
Residents raised additional concerns about traffic and service vehicle movements on the one‑way Milligan and adjacent Lincoln and Gay streets. Regina (last name not provided), who said she lives at 301 Mars Street on the Milligan corner lot, said large delivery trucks and trash collection vehicles already have trouble turning onto Milligan and sometimes hit curbs, a condition she said will worsen if more cars are introduced.
Neighbors also flagged infrastructure and environmental issues. Griffiths and others said the latest plan appears to remove several large pine trees that earlier drawings had shown preserved; Griffiths said one tree near her property is roughly 60 feet tall. Manno asked whether the borough would require the developer to address stormwater runoff and whether sewer lines in the Lincoln/Milligan area could handle additional flows — she said some neighbors have experienced raw sewage in basements and that pumping has been required to prevent backups. Manno asked whether the borough would help with backflow prevention devices for affected homes.
Greg Schreiner, who said he lives at 329 Morris Street, asked council to resist granting any future waivers or variances that would allow the project to exceed standards that townhouses would not require. “Any waiver or variance that is given to the building in the future is a direct infringement on the rights of the current residents,” Schreiner said.
Council members and staff did not take a final vote on the project at the Jan. 14 meeting. Borough staff advised residents to watch upcoming agendas; if the application is placed on the February agenda residents will have another formal opportunity to comment during the council’s consideration of the land development application.
The project has been discussed at planning commission meetings; the planning commission’s recommendation and staff comments will be part of the council record when the application returns for action.

