North Strabane considers slope restrictions on development

Several representatives of development companies attended a North Strabane Township meeting to urge supervisors not to adopt a new grading ordinance that would restrict steepness of a slope for development.
In a 4-1 vote, the supervisors approved the new restriction as a pending ordinance. It would limit the “maximum permissible slope to 4:1, or 3:1 with a soil stability analysis and geotechnical plan,” and would require the removal of utilities and storm water outfalls from the slopes. A 4:1 ratio represents a 14-degree slope, while a 3:1 ratio would be an 18-degree slope.
The current maximum slope ratio is 1.5:1 with a geotechnical plan, which is a 33-degree slope.
The board’s Tuesday decision, for which Supervisor Neil Kelly was the only opposing vote, comes one month after several Majestic Hills residents were displaced due to a landslide on a steep slope. The land behind four Majestic Hills townhomes slid about 30 feet onto Forest Lane Drive following extensive rain June 19. Of the three homes that had to be evacuated, one was damaged.
“A 3:1 slope cannot create affordable housing,” said Jim Eichenlaub, executive director of Builders Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh. “This isn’t flat Ohio. This is a hilly area – the rolling hills of Pennsylvania.”
Eichenlaub was joined by several other representatives of development and building companies, who took issue with the ordinance, calling it too restrictive. Marty Gillespie, a representative for Laurel Communities, said the ordinance would be “very unfeasible” for development.
“I have not seen that in any other community in Southwestern Pennsylvania,” he said.
Even attorneys representing township property owners argued the new restriction would “impair” residents from marketing their properties.
Resident John Erdner said that while the township probably needs to update its grading restrictions, it should “allow for the growth but also protect everybody along the way.”
“We don’t want to be too restrictive on the grading because we do want to see growth,” Erdner said.
Most of the speakers Tuesday said they would be more in favor of an ordinance previously suggested by the township’s planning commission, which would allow for a 2:1 slope, with a geotechnical plan. A 2:1 ratio represents a 26.5-degree slope. However, most of the supervisors are if favor of tightening those restrictions.
At last week’s township meeting, Supervisor Harold Close argued that developers have had “little to no accountability.”
“We have no way of controlling what they’re doing up there and we have houses falling off hills,” Close said last week.
Supervisors voted to hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Aug. 21 for anyone to voice concerns before a final vote on adopting the ordinance.