Notes:Devonshire Road

1927-10-24: Source:Ordinance-1927-692 passed in City Council, accepting Devonshire Road as a city street.

1927-10-31: The following letter was presented in City Council (Source:Municipal-record-1927, pp. 765–766):

Also

No. 5069.

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING.

Pittsburgh, October 31, 1927.

President and Members of Council,
City of Pittsburgh.

Gentlemen:

Relative to Bill No. 4911, An Ordinance accepting, as a city street, Devonshire road, in the Fourteenth Ward of the City of Pittsburgh, from Fifth avenue to a point 384.66 feet southwardly therefrom, and describing the grade thereof, I beg to advise that this ordinance was presented to the City Planning Commission at its regular meeting on the 26th instant with the result that it was disapproved by unanimous vote of the Commission.

This bill was introduced in Council on October 17th, 1927, but was not referred to this department with the other Ordinances introduced on the same date and the Commission had no notice of such an ordinance being introduced until October 20, 1927, which was too late for the regular weekly meeting of the Commission and, therefore, it was impossible to secure any action on the bill until October 26, 1927. This office is now advised that the bill was finally passed by Council on the 24th instant.

The Commission is advised that this Ordinance was prepared by the City's Legal Department for the acceptance of Devonshire road, a private street, with the knowledge that the plan of subdivision of this property, including the location of Devonshire road, was disapproved by the Planning Commission after several hearings and conferences on the subject.

This Ordinance is prepared under the new planning act No. 492, approved May 13th, 1927, and it is difficult to understand how Council could finally pass upon this Ordinance without having a report from the Planning Commission as the act states specifically the manner in which the Council can authorize the placement upon the official street map of such streets.

The Commission's disapproval of this plan was based upon a study of the entire block and it was the opinion of the Commission that the subdivision proposed for this property would be objectionable for the following reasons:

(a) It would act as a deterrent to the development of the surrounding properties.

(b) It did not adequately provide for the City's or the neighborhood's interests in this district.

(c) The plan violates all the principles of sound City Planning.

Yours very truly,

U. N. ARTHUR,
Chief Engineer.

Which was read, received and filed.