Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission approves house addition in resource‑protection area with revised stormwater conditions

Westmoreland County Planning Commission · October 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Westmoreland County Planning Commission approved Case 2510‑CBA‑11, allowing house additions at 1014 Salisbury Park Road in the Resource Protection Area with conditions tied to the September 29 site revisions; staff and the applicant adjusted infiltration design to avoid a county force‑main easement.

The Westmoreland County Planning Commission approved an application to permit house additions and related site work at 1014 Salisbury Park Road, a parcel within a Resource Protection Area, after staff and the applicant revised stormwater controls to address easement and setback constraints.

Staff introduced Case 2510‑CBA‑11 on behalf of property owners David and Denise Britton and noted the property’s setting at Coles Point with a pond and a beach that separates the site from the Potomac River. Presenter materials showed the planned addition would total 1,774 square feet, including a 69‑square‑foot porch and a 14‑foot rear stoop, and that the project’s rooftop runoff collection area had increased from 2,249 to 2,762 square feet since an earlier work session.

Jeff of Bay Shore Design, the applicant’s agent, said the increase in roof collection required an additional infiltration feature. "Under roof sizing B, 15 square feet times a half‑inch of rainfall gives you about 61 cubic feet of runoff; two chambers at about 31 cubic feet each get us to the limit—adding more roof area would have necessitated a third chamber," he said, explaining why downspout placement and chamber location mattered.

Staff also explained a county force‑main easement and an existing sewer grinder adjacent to the house will be relocated by county contractors; the applicant pulled proposed infiltration chambers outside the easement to avoid interference and to comply with the county’s insurance and easement constraints.

Commissioners questioned whether moving a downspout a foot or two could avoid runoff discharging at a stairwell; the applicant and designer said minor adjustments could reduce localized flow, but moving the downspout farther toward the road would have increased calculated roof area and triggered additional storage requirements.

A motion to approve the application with recommended conditions as revised to reflect the September 29 drawings was moved and seconded; a roll call produced affirmative responses and the motion carried. The approval includes the revised site plan and the conditions presented at the meeting. The commission did not record individual vote tallies in the transcript.

The matter will proceed under the approved conditions and any necessary county contractor work to relocate the sewer grinder will be coordinated by county administration.