Ashbury Court residents ask Monroeville to adopt private road; council to consider ordinance after draft

Residents of Ashbury Court asked Monroeville council on Dec. 2 to approve a subdivision that would create a municipal right-of-way for Bay Hill/Ashbury Court, a short private lane that residents say historically received borough services.

Kathy Brown, speaking for neighbors, said the effort began in 2023 after the borough stopped providing snow-plow service and that homeowners have since worked with surveyors and staff to propose a subdivision. “You guys are the problem solvers in the community,” Brown said as she described meetings with council and staff to find a solution.

Planner testimony described the application (25-5-SUB) as a request to subdivide several parcels and dedicate a 33-foot right-of-way to the municipality. Staff noted the road is roughly 283 feet long, lacks stormwater infrastructure, and does not meet current municipal standards; utilities are underground but a transformer near the end could complicate turnaround work. Scott Pilsen of Pilsen Surveying said the original recorded plan dedicated a 25-foot private access and utility easement, and that the proposed plan would create a dedicated road parcel and a hammerhead design that could permit future turnarounds.

Resident Khalid Desmond, who lives at 438 Ashbury Court, told council that the private status of the road was not disclosed when he bought his house and raised concerns about emergency access and safety if municipal services remain irregular. “When I bought the house… it was never mentioned that this road was private,” Desmond said, adding that he and other homeowners are willing to cooperate and to dedicate land to create a compliant right-of-way.

Council and staff discussed whether creating a new right-of-way would make the segment eligible for Pennsylvania’s liquid fuels program; staff said eligibility is possible but not guaranteed. Staff also highlighted precedent adoptions (Scarlet View Court, Orchard Lane) and noted that adoption would not guarantee immediate paving—it would place the segment into future paving programs and could carry conditions about utility relocation costs being borne by property owners.

Because the meeting was an agenda-setting, non-voting session, staff recommended tabling the subdivision item so the solicitor and manager can work with the engineer to draft a road-adoption ordinance; the plan and the ordinance would be scheduled concurrently for formal action at a future regular meeting (staff suggested January or February depending on advertising requirements). The council left the item on the agenda for next Tuesday with the expectation that a draft ordinance and a letter from the developer would reset procedural timelines.

Next steps: staff will prepare a draft road-adoption ordinance and the subdivision will be placed on the regular meeting agenda for formal consideration after required advertising and any developer agreements are obtained.