Planning commission approves 243‑home PUD at Cemetery Pike with conditions on sewer timeline, road stubs and buffers

Plain Planning & Zoning Commission on March 2025 approved rezoning and a preliminary planned unit development (PUD) that will allow Fisher Homes (developer: Grand Communities) to build 243 single‑family home sites on an 89.21‑acre property at 0 Cemetery Pike.

The commission voted to rezone the parcels from Darby Township Agricultural A‑1 to PUD and to approve the PUD preliminary development plan for the project referred to in the hearing as Noavici (Noavici/Noah Beachy) Farms. Applicant Hillary Lafine, planning and entitlements manager for Grand Communities (the affiliated development company of Fisher Homes), told the commission the proposal includes three home collections, on‑site stormwater basins, about 30% open space (the code requires 25%) and two entrances — one on State Route 161 and one on Cemetery Pike.

The project would contain a mix of lot widths and price points: 55‑foot lots (the “Maple Street” starter collection), 65‑foot lots (designer collection) and 80‑foot lots (masterpiece collection). Lafine said the company expects average sale prices near $450,000 for the smallest product, about $610,000 for the designer product and roughly $750,000 for the highest‑end product. Lot dimensions presented during the hearing included 25‑foot front setbacks, minimum 7‑foot side setbacks (14 feet aggregate) and 20‑foot rear setbacks; typical lot depths shown were about 120–125 feet and minimum lot sizes ranged roughly from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet depending on product.

Why it matters: The site is adjacent to existing industrial uses and Darby Township property, includes a pipeline easement and abuts Sugar Run and floodplain areas. Commissioners flagged three implementation issues that could affect timing and neighborhood outcomes: sanitary sewer availability, a requested deviation to omit a northern stub road, and traffic‑calming and buffering for the long straight roadway named Road C.

Sanitary sewer timeline and final plan deadline

Lafine told commissioners the site currently lacks sanitary sewer and requested a longer deadline for filing a final development plan than the village’s typical 24‑month requirement. A planning staff member noted an estimated sewer extension timeline of 28 months, which would already push the project beyond two years. A commissioner asked, “Where did the five — the five years come from? And this seems like an awfully long extension.” Lafine said the five‑year request stems from existing code language carried forward and that the team is asking for flexibility because sewer delivery is not on the site today.

Road stubs, block lengths and traffic calming

The applicant requested deviations for two street‑layout issues: eliminating a northerly stub to an adjacent parcel and allowing some block segments that exceed the code’s 1,200‑foot linear recommendation. Developers said the northerly stub could connect to a parcel that may remain industrial (a ready‑mix concrete plant) rather than become residential; they prefer to coordinate with the village before committing to a permanent stub. Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives including adding pedestrian connections, traffic calming measures such as speed tables or bump‑outs and the possibility of a cul‑de‑sac in place of a through connection. Staff noted safety, pedestrian access and speed mitigation as the principal reasons the code limits very long blocks.

Buffering adjacent to industrial land and Heritage Trail connection

Commissioners asked about landscaping and mounding where the new neighborhood would face an active concrete facility. Lafine said the applicant will propose an internal buffer, either with lot‑level landscaping or a rear‑lot easement dedicated to a homeowners association, and indicated the team is willing to commit to a solution. The applicant also said it wants to coordinate with the village on a potential extension of the Heritage Trail that would run along the east side of the property.

Open space, amenities and site constraints

Lafine presented the plan’s open‑space network — roughly 30% of the site — including a loop trail in a western park area, proposed playground and a pavilion, a 5‑foot paved community path and multiple seating pockets. She noted a stream on the west side of the site and an existing pipeline easement running through the property; portions of adjacent land are floodplain and would limit access and future development without additional infrastructure such as a bridge.

Commissioners praised the range of housing types and internal anti‑monotony rules the developer described — multiple floorplans and elevations designed to reduce repetition — but continued to press the applicant for firm commitments on sewer timing, the approach to the northern edge and concrete‑plant buffering.

Formal actions

The commission approved the rezoning (RZ‑25‑1) and the preliminary PUD (PUD‑25‑1). The motion to approve the PUD was seconded and recorded with the following yes votes in the public record: Eric Harding; Mike McCall; Quinn (first name not specified); Price; and McCoy (names as recorded during the roll call and vote). The rezoning vote included a recorded second by Commissioner Swank and affirmative votes recorded from commissioners present (see actions section).

What’s next

Staff and the applicant will continue to work on final plan details, including the sanitary sewer connection, final open‑space layout and buffering treatments. The developer asked for an extended period to submit a final development plan due to the sewer timeline; the commission discussed but did not adopt a specific final‑plan deadline change during the meeting. The approved preliminary PUD now moves forward to council for the statutory steps required by local code.

Speakers who provided testimony and were named in the hearing included Hillary Lafine (planning and entitlements manager, Grand Communities/Fisher Homes) and Derek Hutchinson (planning staff). Several commissioners participated in the technical and voting discussion. Direct quotes in this article come from the public hearing record.

Ending: The commission’s approval clears the way for the developer to refine engineering and final plans; major implementation remains contingent on sewer delivery, final site engineering and any conditions adopted by council.