Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Summerhill Phase 2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Murrysville planners forward Summerhill Phase 2 steep‑slope conditional use to council with conditions
Summary
After engineers and residents raised concerns about steep‑slope excavation and drainage, the Murrysville Planning Commission voted Oct. 8 to forward the Summerhill Phase 2 conditional‑use application (CU‑3‑24) to borough council with four conditions, including a right‑of‑way notation and required turnarounds.
The Murrysville Planning Commission on Oct. 8 voted to forward conditional‑use application CU‑3‑24 for Summerhill Phase 2 — a proposed excavation and steep‑slope development off Goldie Lane — to borough council with four conditions, after engineering reviews and public comments highlighted concerns about slope stability and drainage.
Planning staff told the commission that recent submittals had prompted review and identified four primary issues that must be addressed: earthwork proposed within the North Duane Drive right of way (staff recommended a note on the plan), two proposed dead‑end streets (Kelsey Court and Dillon Court) that lack cul‑de‑sacs or adequate turnarounds, a missing reforestation plan required under the steep‑slope conditional‑use standards, and apparent discrepancies in existing setbacks along the northern phase boundary. Planning staff said revisions to road terminations could affect grading and might reduce the number of buildable units.
Summerhill resident Cathy Adesi urged caution, citing groundwater and landslide concerns on the hillside above existing homes. "When the site was evaluated, it was evaluated as a dry site ... I'm just really concerned about those first 5 houses," Adesi said, adding that underground springs and recent heavy rains raise safety and drainage questions for nearby homeowners. Tom Phelps, another nearby resident, asked whether tree removal and excavation could affect the rear of his yard; the commission said professional assurances had been provided but that the public record would follow the application through council.
A developer representative, Gary Hall, said adjustments such as hammerheads or cul‑de‑sacs could be made during subdivision and design and estimated adding turnarounds might remove about three units. The developer's attorney told the commission his review — supported by underwriting counsel at Fidelity National Title Insurance Company — concluded there were no private rights in the unopened street but that adding a notation on the plans would address the concern.
Commissioners and an independent geotechnical reviewer said the geotechnical comments raised in earlier reviews had been addressed by additional borings and test pits and that predictive stability modeling incorporated water and other factors. The commission nonetheless attached conditions to the recommendation so council would review the complete, revised record.
An unidentified commissioner moved to forward CU‑3‑24 to borough council for approval "including those 4 conditions that they be met," a motion seconded by another commissioner. The motion carried on a voice vote; Mister Lemke was recorded as abstaining. Planning staff said council will hold a publicly advertised hearing, likely starting with the Nov. 6 meeting, and that significant revisions could require the conditional‑use process to run again.
The commission's action is a recommendation; final approval and any additional conditions will be decided by borough council at a subsequent public hearing.
