Murrysville planning commission backs revised two‑lot plan for Jones property, with permit conditions

The Murrysville Planning Commission on Jan. 13 agreed to move forward with a revised two‑lot subdivision for property owned by Scott Jones, after staff and commissioners flagged zoning, frontage and stormwater requirements that made the applicant's three‑lot layout infeasible as submitted.

John Senkner, an engineer with Senkner Engineering, presented the proposal as “this 3 lot subdivision” developed after prior comments and said the submission reflected changes from an earlier advisory meeting. Commissioners questioned whether unopened streets and access (notably Dunning Avenue) would meet requirements and who would maintain them. Jones, the property owner, told the commission he currently maintains the private driveways “with a skid steer,” including snow removal, and said he needs to separate his house from the remainder of the land to secure bank financing to finish construction and proceed with future development.

Staff and commissioners raised multiple technical constraints: the proposed Lot 103 as drawn would have only about 35 feet of frontage on an unopened street, short of typical zoning frontage requirements; the site has steep slopes and will need erosion‑and‑sediment (E&S) control measures and stormwater management approvals; and the borough is subject to a Pennsylvania DEP consent order that makes permitting and proper controls especially important. A staff member identified these as prerequisites to full land development, including a planning module or similar sewage‑authority submittal where required.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to adopt staff’s recommendation to redesign the lot lines to eliminate the problematic lot, require a note on the plan that any further subdivision of the remaining lot (Lot 102) would trigger full land development review and an NPDS permit for additional earth moving, and forward the revised plan to borough council for final approval. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; the transcript records several “ayes” but contains no roll‑call tally.

Emily, a borough planning staff member, told the applicant that if revised plans and required documentation were submitted by midweek the commission could place the item on the Feb. 4 borough council agenda for final approval. Staff also advised that signed and sealed sets of drawings would be needed for signatures if council approves.

Why it matters: Commissioners emphasized that, because the borough has been fined previously and is operating under a DEP consent order, piecemeal approvals without required stormwater and sewage controls could expose the municipality to regulatory and environmental risk. The commission’s action allows the applicant to proceed toward financing and a council decision while making clear that engineering, permitting and frontage issues must be resolved before final building or further subdivision.

The Planning Commission did not adopt the three‑lot plan as submitted. The applicant was instructed to provide a revised two‑lot plan, the necessary planning module or postcard per the sewage authority’s guidance, and any NPDS/E&S documentation; final approval remains with the borough council.