Public Hearing Scheduled for Boyce Plaza Road Apartment Complex

The Boyce Plaza Road apartment complex in Upper St. Clair is one step closer to becoming a reality.

The Boyce Plaza Road apartment complex in Upper St. Clair is one step closer to becoming a reality.

The Upper St. Clair Planning Commission unanimously agreed Thursday night to send the apartment complex plans to the township commissioners in order to hold two public hearings.

The first public hearing is scheduled during the Board of Commissioners’ regular meeting on May 6. The second and final hearing will be in June when the commissioners could make a final ruling on the plan.

Director of Community Development Scott Brilhart has previously said that the plan calls for nine 3-story buildings.

Developer John Deklewa, who purchased the property for $1.2 million, said in August that he wants to build 216 to 228 apartment unit in the area off Boyce Road near Chartiers Creek. He expects there will be one- and two-bedroom units that will probably rent for $1,000 to $1,500 per month.

The planning commission had previously tabled the plans because of concerns about traffic congestion in the area.

The complex would be built on 27.6 acres of property at the end of Boyce Plaza Road along Chartiers Creek in the southwestern corner of the township.

B March 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Can't stop development but this is bad in the long run for the school district. People already abuse and misuse the apartments of painters run trying to get their kids into the township without paying taxes.
porkchop March 23, 2013 at 02:18 PM
The school district would be receiving tax money from the property owner, way to snob it up bro
KOFA March 23, 2013 at 03:08 PM
Where and when is the meeting? Also i travel Boyce and Mayview Rds quite often PLEASE fight this tooth and nail and do not allow it until the developer can make a deal with Pendot to widen Boyce from Mayview to 19 and add turn lanes of ample length at the Boyce Mayview intersection, wake up you can't keep adding traffic to roadways designed in the 50's or earlier!
KOFA March 23, 2013 at 03:12 PM
Sorry missed the date of the meeting, read article a second time and saw the May 6th date.....OOPS! But the rest of my comment stands!
Deb Levy March 23, 2013 at 03:20 PM
228 apartments here, new homes at Bedners, Townhomes at the old Consol site...AND the current 4th grade is OVER capacity and the 8th grade is at capacity....When I asked one of the commisioners about the schools and the impact on them he actually said to me "that is not our problem, we don't have to take that into consideration. That is the school districts problem."
KOFA March 23, 2013 at 03:24 PM
WTF "not his problem" It's everyone's problem WAKE UP PEOPLE
Roger March 23, 2013 at 06:11 PM
He is right. When one governing body starts to dictate policy that is outside their domain, the result is chaos. Lines of responsibility and authority are clearly drawn for this reason. I really don't think you would want it any other way. If you do, then why bother with more than one governing body?
Duke March 23, 2013 at 08:19 PM
I can hardly wait for these apartments to be built so I can move into one and be able to walk to Ardolinos to get pizza and hoagies!
Deb Levy March 23, 2013 at 08:51 PM
@Roger, I agree with you that one governing body should not "dictate" to the other, but they should at least work in conjunction to make sure the decisions that one body makes does not HARM the other. The schools at capacity and the more homes and apartments we build, the more room we need. The school district has no money as it is and could not afford to add on once again if they needed more room.
Pat H. March 23, 2013 at 09:48 PM
I totally agree w/ Deb. Also,is that the way a commissioner should answer an honest and reasonable question? He should be ashamed
Somepplstillamazeme March 23, 2013 at 11:11 PM
@Bryan. Every community has apartment complexes and Upper St. Clair is no different. Get off your high horse.
Somepplstillamazeme March 23, 2013 at 11:13 PM
I think that the only problem with this development would be with the increased traffic turning left or right onto Boyce Road.
B March 24, 2013 at 01:42 AM
Yes, the challenge really comes when you have more than one family all saying they live in the same apartment registering their children to attend school in USC. It happens, we are a desirable district.
B March 24, 2013 at 01:44 AM
Great answer Deb! There isn't a need for one body to dictate another but the commissioner fails to see the big picture. Overpopulation in our schools could lead to larger classes and poorer school rankings. This, in turn can lead to making the township a less desirable place to live and have an impact on the township side. As much as they are two separate governing bodies, they have a symbiotic relationship and need to respect that and work WITH each other instead of turning the blind eye.
James March 24, 2013 at 02:17 AM
KOFA I couldn't have said it better!!!!
James March 24, 2013 at 02:23 AM
Unless.......They throw some of those "speed humps" on Boyce Road that seem to have been multiplying around the Township. These roads are going to be one big speed hump.
James March 24, 2013 at 02:37 AM
@Bryan.... Diversity is good for everyone.... Take off your Dolce & Gabbana sunglasses and open your eyes. The parents that are "abusing" the Painters Run apartments are just wanting the best for their children. Are you suggesting that only children born while their parents are residents of the Township (single-family home of course), be eligible for the USC schools. Or.....are you nervous that your 3-year-old son will have to lean among these impecunious children? Wake Up Bryan!!!!
FED UP Fred March 24, 2013 at 08:58 AM
STOP - STOP - STOP! This is just stupid! This development is only going to make Deklewa more money and cost the rest of us millions! It is with certain truth there will be several families living in ONE apartment and abusing the school district. It is the "REAL World' of economics that will dictate it happening. I see it in my neighborhood now and we live in residential housing with assessments around $300,000. I have two neighbors abusing the system as we speak! I am not raciest just a person with open eyes that has worked my A* * off for my family to get a good education!
Jim March 24, 2013 at 10:12 AM
As much as I would like to stand up and say no, is that really going to do any good? They have it in their mind to approve it already. In addition, if the school system starts to diminish, what does that do to the value of the houses in usc? It would be one thing if it was a retirement community, but it is not. I am not paying out of this world taxes for nothing!
Roger March 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM
The question to the Commissioner was reasonable, and the response (as given here) is more than reasonable. It is clear, not being vague, or evasive. From the comments here about wanting to cross-over on lines of responsibility, many needed to have this clear answer from the Commissioner. Just because the answer is not liked does not make it wrong, dishonest, or too direct.
Roger March 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Several posts here express concern about the added burden on the school district if these apartments are added to the housing capacity in the area. If I understand correctly, you are concerned that any new residents would add students to the school enrollments. I will assume my assessment is correct. Taking your criteria, then you must also wish to add restrictions on new residents moving to existing homes as well. Do you wish to add restrictions on the size of family for new residents? Do you wish to add age restrictions on new residents (e.g. over 55, so we are assured you will bring no new students to the school enrollment,but will bring tax revenue). My point is that if you wish to maintain, or decrease, student enrollment, then you need to impose restrictions on how any increase may happen. An added enrollment may happen through larger families, or more families. In either case, you are saying you don't want to enlarge student population. Please confirm my understanding, and also what restrictions you want to impose on any new residents. Thanks.
John Rambo March 24, 2013 at 12:13 PM
What many of you fail to understand is that this project cannot be turned down due to over- crowding in our schools. A justified and costly legal battle would follow only to have the decision overturned and the deveolpment would occur anyway. The problem we have is that our school board has grossly over spent on two new middle schools and wasted programs like IB without any foresight about future development in the township. USC...you keep voting for thess people. You get what you deserve. Sorry!
James March 24, 2013 at 01:38 PM
Fred, Race was never brought up in any posts. Therefore, you are the only one bringing race into the discussion.....Unbelievable, I feel like I just stepped out of the DeLorean and into the 1960's......Our society still has a long way to go.
Jim March 24, 2013 at 01:44 PM
Maybe we need an ordinance that puts a limit on how many children you can have to live in Uppity St Clair, and maybe we need an ordinance on what age you are allowed to be when you live in uppity st clair!! Wow, another snow storm is coming, I hope someone put some extra hay out for the polo ponies- Oh wait they are probably in a climate controlled barn. You people are so full of yourself and think you are so special in uppity st clair, I am amazed that you can get your head through your front door, but then again most of them are double wide!
James March 24, 2013 at 02:21 PM
I think an ordinance not allowing you to reproduce would also work!
Even Steven March 24, 2013 at 04:15 PM
WE just can't continue to operate business as usual! How about the way we PAY school tax? Think out of the box! Each and every house is assessed at 1% of the property value ($400,000 = $4,000) Then each student attending the school is assessed $2,500 no matter where you live, (Apartment, House Condo, Townhome, etc...) Once a student graduates it then becomes $2,500 less of a burden for the parents. Empty nesters would NOT have to pay a full burden. Results could be many, but here are two possibilities: The larger homes in USC would gain value and become more desirable for people to stay, thus less students and maybe a small tax increase, but bearable. The smaller economic home would pay more taxes especially if there are children attending school. (Their fair share). If YOU want to PLAY then you have to PAY!
Even Steven March 24, 2013 at 04:18 PM
Well the problem is the last time I made this comment I was accused of being a raciest! Why don't you go back to the 60's? It wasn't so bad!!! At least the Pirates won a World Series!
bothsidesofthefence March 28, 2013 at 12:59 PM
It will be interesting to see what that would do to the middle school concept. Unless they redistrict (always a very unpopular action), it looks like children from those apts. would go to Streams. Another captive source for IB students.....


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »