Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landersburg Duplex topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landersburg duplex proposal raises sidewalk, setback and stormwater questions; commission seeks borough input
Summary
A proposed duplex on a small Landersburg Borough lot prompted debate over reduced setbacks, sidewalk requirements and stormwater controls. Commissioners agreed to request borough comment and additional engineering details before acting on waivers.
A developer’s proposal to split a vacant lot in Landersburg Borough and construct a duplex prompted detailed discussion Dec. 17 about setbacks, sidewalks and stormwater design.
The applicant’s representative described the site as approximately 135 by 124 feet and said the owner planned to split it into two lots to build a duplex with party‑wall units, on‑site wells and a sewer easement through Lot 2 for Lot 1. "It's about a 135 feet by 124 feet, lot, and the owner would like to split it into 2 pieces and put a duplex there," the presenter said.
Because the borough’s ordinance calls for a 15‑foot side‑yard setback, the applicant proposed 10‑foot setbacks to match the existing compact borough pattern; the representative said a neighbor letter could support a variance and that plan line adjustments might make a side‑yard waiver unnecessary. Commissioners discussed that option and suggested the applicant revise the plan accordingly.
Sidewalks on Main Street became a focal point. Some commissioners said sidewalks are important to borough walkability and character; others noted sidewalks are not continuous along the street and argued it might be unfair to require construction now. The applicant proposed adding a plan note that would obligate property owners to construct sidewalks only if the borough later decides to extend sidewalks along that block. Commissioners asked staff to obtain Landersburg Borough’s formal input before acting on the sidewalk waiver.
Stormwater was another area of concern. Staff and commissioners recommended soil testing for infiltration but acknowledged ground freezing limits winter testing; one commissioner suggested a surface rain‑garden approach as a more maintainable and visible alternative to trenches. The applicant agreed to provide additional examples, photos and possible rain‑garden details and said they would return to the commission with further information.
Outcome: The commission did not grant final waivers at the meeting; members requested revised plan materials and borough comments and indicated the matter will return for further review.
