Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning commission rejects Manorwoods subdivision review, citing inadequate stormwater and intermunicipal coordination
Loading...
Summary
The Blair County Planning Commission voted to reject its advisory review of the 13‑lot Manorwoods subdivision in Blair Township and requested resubmission with a detailed stormwater management plan, intermunicipal coordination with Hollidaysburg/Holidaysburg and clearer environmental/soil documentation.
The Blair County Planning Commission voted to reject its advisory review of the Manorwoods subdivision in Blair Township and asked the applicant to resubmit with a detailed stormwater management plan and clearer intermunicipal coordination before the commission will reconsider the proposal.
Planner Tom Gisson (S1) presented the application for Greystone Holidaysburg LLC, describing a 22‑acre site proposed to be subdivided into 13 single‑family lots. Public commenter Regis Snail (S15) told the commission that the Mattern/Manorwoods area and nearby Gaysport have experienced severe flooding and urged the commission to "take special attention" to stormwater planning because prior development has increased flows.
Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff and the applicant for a comprehensive stormwater and erosion-control submission. Commissioner S13 said the current materials were "blurry" and inadequate for proper review and argued a formal stormwater plan and intergovernmental coordination with neighboring Hollidaysburg and Blair Township are necessary to avoid shifting flood burdens onto downstream neighborhoods. Staff (S12) confirmed major subdivisions ordinarily require detailed stormwater and erosion-control plans and recommended additional review by the county conservation district.
Commissioner S13 moved to reject the advisory review and request resubmission with: (1) a full stormwater management and maintenance plan, (2) explicit intermunicipal coordination with affected municipalities, and (3) clarification of whether the lands are identified as prime agricultural or conservation easements in county mapping. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote; one commissioner recorded a dissent.
The commission noted that a county advisory rejection does not block a township’s final decision but typically prompts applicants to return with expanded engineering and intermunicipal documentation. Staff said they would ask the applicant to engage the conservation district and municipal engineers and would welcome resubmission with clearer plans.
What happens next: The applicant may resubmit the subdivision materials with a stormwater plan and intergovernmental coordination details; if not, the township could still act independently but the county record will have flagged the commission’s environmental and intermunicipal concerns.
