Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer asks Hilltown to favor cul‑de‑sac to preserve slope and trees; board signals preference for private, wider cul‑de‑sac
Summary
Applicant counsel presented competing engineered plans for a 21‑home development (through road vs a long cul‑de‑sac). Counsel said zoning variances were granted for slope/woodland disturbance; neighbors and staff favored a private cul‑de‑sac with wider width for emergency access and to reduce hillside disturbance. No formal waiver vote was taken; board provided guidance to send revised plans to the Planning Commission.
On behalf of the applicant, attorney Greg Adelman asked the Hilltown supervisors whether the board would prefer a through road that requires significant clearing and slope disturbance or a long cul‑de‑sac (roughly 1,200–1,500 feet) that would be privately maintained.
Adelman said the zoning hearing board had already granted variances tied to woodland clearing and steep slope disturbance and that the cul‑de‑sac option would support the same housing yield (about 21 units, 17 of them in Hilltown and four in adjacent East Rock Hill) while leaving more trees and reducing hillside cuts. He said the applicant is prepared to build either plan but sought board guidance before further engineering expense.
Planning and engineering staff and board members raised three practical points: who would own and maintain a long private road (the applicant proposed private ownership with maintenance), emergency vehicle access (wider road width eases response), and sewer/water routing up the hillside (utility disturbance would still be required under either plan). Staff asked the applicant to provide a cul‑de‑sac design option and submit it to the Planning Commission for review.
Neighbors speaking during public comment, including John McFerson, described prior crashes and steep grades near South Perky/Hill Road and urged the board to favor the cul‑de‑sac to reduce slope disturbance and preserve the hillside. Board discussion summarized informal guidance in favor of the cul‑de‑sac option if the developer provides a wider cross‑section for emergency access and shows how sewer and drainage impacts will be minimized; no formal waiver or binding approval was recorded in the transcript.
Next steps: applicant to return with refined cul‑de‑sac details for the Planning Commission and to the supervisors if the board’s formal waiver would be requested.
Representative quote: "We think the cul‑de‑sac makes more sense — it’s environmentally more sensitive," said Greg Adelman, counsel for the applicant.
