Commission hears conceptual plan for 123‑unit personal care boarding home in White Valley, no action taken
November 12, 2025 | Murrysville, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Planning Commission held an advisory review of a conceptual personal care boarding home proposed by Luxe Caesar Investments/DeCesar Properties in the White Valley neighborhood.
Theodore DeCesar (speaker 11) and planner Brian Almeter described a three‑story, licensed personal care boarding home with about 123 units on roughly 20–21 acres accessed from Pennsylvania Avenue near the Whispering Springs townhouse community. Almeter said the proposal includes recreational amenities, parking for roughly 120–121 spaces, and a building orientation intended to limit impacts on nearby townhomes. "The proposed development is a 123 units," Almeter said.
Heather Diaz Granados (speaker 12), a licensed administrator, clarified regulatory distinctions: personal care homes are rental month‑to‑month arrangements and are governed by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services personal care code (chapter 2600). "The personal care license portion would not be a buy in. That is not permitted under Department of Human Services personal care code 2600," Diaz Granados said, responding to questions about purchase/"buy‑in" models such as some independent living communities.
Commissioners and staff focused on two primary ordinance issues: (1) whether 'personal care' should be treated as 'multifamily' for bulk and density calculations (the code's bulk area table references multifamily requirements) and (2) whether the property's frontage—on a mix of unopened alleys and Pennsylvania Avenue—meets the ordinance requirement of 200 feet of frontage on a collector or arterial as required for the conditional use. Staff said frontage definitions are linked to average daily traffic (ADT) thresholds and recommended the applicant verify right‑of‑way status and, if necessary, pursue variances or solicitor opinion before advancing.
No formal motion or vote was taken; the review was advisory. The applicant was advised to confirm right‑of‑way/frontage status, clarify multifamily/density interpretation with staff or solicitor, and return with refined plans and required documentation for formal review and a public hearing.
Theodore DeCesar (speaker 11) and planner Brian Almeter described a three‑story, licensed personal care boarding home with about 123 units on roughly 20–21 acres accessed from Pennsylvania Avenue near the Whispering Springs townhouse community. Almeter said the proposal includes recreational amenities, parking for roughly 120–121 spaces, and a building orientation intended to limit impacts on nearby townhomes. "The proposed development is a 123 units," Almeter said.
Heather Diaz Granados (speaker 12), a licensed administrator, clarified regulatory distinctions: personal care homes are rental month‑to‑month arrangements and are governed by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services personal care code (chapter 2600). "The personal care license portion would not be a buy in. That is not permitted under Department of Human Services personal care code 2600," Diaz Granados said, responding to questions about purchase/"buy‑in" models such as some independent living communities.
Commissioners and staff focused on two primary ordinance issues: (1) whether 'personal care' should be treated as 'multifamily' for bulk and density calculations (the code's bulk area table references multifamily requirements) and (2) whether the property's frontage—on a mix of unopened alleys and Pennsylvania Avenue—meets the ordinance requirement of 200 feet of frontage on a collector or arterial as required for the conditional use. Staff said frontage definitions are linked to average daily traffic (ADT) thresholds and recommended the applicant verify right‑of‑way status and, if necessary, pursue variances or solicitor opinion before advancing.
No formal motion or vote was taken; the review was advisory. The applicant was advised to confirm right‑of‑way/frontage status, clarify multifamily/density interpretation with staff or solicitor, and return with refined plans and required documentation for formal review and a public hearing.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting