South Fayette commissioners deny Hastings Phase 5 subdivision and master‑plan revision after residents cite safety and engineering concerns

South Fayette Township commissioners voted June 10 to deny a pair of Hastings development applications after neighborhood residents and engineers raised unresolved safety and technical concerns.

Bill Culp, president of the Hastings Neighborhood Association, opened public comment by asking the board to “hold Charter Homes accountable” for commitments made to the neighborhood. Linda Santolini, a member of the project transition team, cited a Gibson Thomas engineering letter dated May 26, 2026, that she said lists 22 open items, including a missing geotechnical report, potential construction disturbance within the 100‑year floodplain, insufficient turning radius for fire trucks in a cul‑de‑sac, slope percentages inconsistent with construction standards (she cited slopes “in excess of 40 degrees” in some areas), utilities shown in paved areas and several lots that do not meet a 40‑foot minimum width. “We strongly request that the commission postpone approval of Phase 5 until these open issues have been adequately addressed,” Santolini said.

Resident Colleen Miller urged the board to consider nonresidential options for the Phase 5 parcel, saying the original plan showed nonresidential uses and that a park or a storage facility might better serve the neighborhood. Miller pointed to topographic maps showing slopes of 25–40 percent and said the drawings for townhomes (lots she cited as 596–600) did not make clear how front access, sidewalks and green space could be achieved on the steep terrain.

On the agenda the board considered PP01‑20‑26 (Hastings Master Plan revision) and F01‑20‑26 (Hastings Phase 5 preliminary and major subdivision application). After brief discussion, a motion to deny the applications was made and seconded and carried by roll call; the clerk announced the denial. Staff and a Gateway Engineers representative later offered to meet with the applicant to review outstanding technical questions.

Why this matters: Commissioners said the record shows outstanding technical and safety items that would affect public safety, roadway function and school‑bus routing if unaddressed. Residents asked that the missing geotechnical review and other engineering corrections be completed before approval.

The denial does not itself prohibit the applicant from resubmitting after addressing the technical items. The transcript did not include a mover or seconder by name for the motion to deny, nor a full, name‑by‑name vote tally in the public record beyond the roll‑call announcements.