[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6106465,"mediaKeyId","2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7","parentId",2780921,"title","Crafton planning commission reports trail study RFP progress; Baker’s Acres parcels purchased for trail work","audioSeconds",249,"startMs",4065000,"endMs",4314000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7&start=4065&end=4314","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7/thumbnail_4065000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6106465/Crafton/Allegheny-County/Pennsylvania/Crafton-planning-commission-reports-trail-study-RFP-progress-Bakers-Acres-parcels-purchased-for-trail-work","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6106465-15d992a9f07d047723f24185dd8da835/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136001&Signature=AHgmc0bz-UruLkp6~6ZHMaZJ~3NkrCN4y55Pe3YBVmOumiia-QtTqk2lJ~8s5J5q~b8OXJGQtj9Ff4m-EZ8f55QL5TTe6AYOG1Vuz~jDMDjs35~yRKRTFDO8c5UTMVwHOHXBoiY26m5vz27f9wcXRQ2umRRJtNNaeABTmYrc5tLrptAF0iY9SOjLtnpge4KGzd2ihDTnRecOCRsC0V3kDF-I~UM2ABLToMKTw2kVQNRFY9cOzEZ1K88z-Y-rycdPWhVUldmmyCcGpH7B0TAw6C54C8O219GMn8dB7ybaeS1RhTKx53U~kUqP4Gm15KGuce8sfw6GdDIddUHVy63PsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Crafton Borough, PA","date","2025-03-26T21:25:26.18Z","article","Planning Commission members updated the commission on a trail study and related land acquisitions at the March 25 meeting, saying the borough has moved forward with a procurement process and an RFP selection expected at the next council meeting.

A commission member told the meeting that the RFP drew multiple applicants and the trail subcommittee met to evaluate proposals; the subcommittee is preparing a recommendation for council that could be considered as early as the council meeting later in the week. \"There were 9 applicants, the committee ... did meet to review. They did evaluate,\" the member said.

The study will examine potential trail connections along Chartiers Creek and parcels that border the Army Corps of Engineers property and the area that connects the Woodlawn Busway to the Blackstreet Bridge and the area behind the Fig Tree. The project scope described to the commission includes the Corps property adjacent to Crafton Creek and the corridor behind the shopping district; staff said the study is an early‑stage planning step that could lead to future design and construction work if funding and permits are secured.

Commissioners also confirmed land acquisitions related to trail planning. Members said the borough purchased multiple small parcels associated with Baker’s Acres for about $50,000 in prior transactions; one later parcel was described as obtained with a roughly $5,000 donor gift pending final paperwork. Staff said there were no liens or encumbrances on those purchases.

Ending: The trail study procurement will continue according to the RFP schedule; the commission expects a recommendation to council and further public engagement as the selected consultant develops study findings and options for trail design and funding.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - March 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners said a trail study RFP attracted multiple firms and a selection is likely at the upcoming council meeting; staff confirmed that Baker’s Acres parcels were purchased previously for roughly $50,000 and that the study will focus on Corps land along Chartiers Creek and connections to the Woodlawn Busway.","taxTitle","Crafton, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania","taxId",71363,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6106467,"New Business Development working group launched; members named and right‑to‑know guidance given",287,2831000,3118000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7&start=2831&end=3118","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7/thumbnail_2831000.jpg","/articles/6106467/Crafton/Allegheny-County/Pennsylvania/New-Business-Development-working-group-launched-members-named-and-righttoknow-guidance-given","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6106467-4bb44689397a800d4601e2165cbcaf1b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136001&Signature=U66lIHiTktzSMOhfdHljYQbUWqOMAnad6xIBSA8FxTDDB0-bZEE8KzjKSxr~xkUVze1JEilpW-t9WZ1HAaaeqQk4JaY~9R5CcN7vcYLpW8Q9vBSWIMctAB3Aa9VSHFVuRpMkGzpLZwG-Jho5W0xWl9zaE5QYxN59~c-XHlZ1ErfqXZSCBf-68cQYgpeq5KD-TDQkzc3AUn0yeo~UVNSHFCTGaNUcJDNOZtQJDCBPal8WkSxoSHIAluyqYcz3AmaP1i0WFDOLeNMv5vlHqQ61LZjh8BR75VBUOmytn~o2PZNw5yR9roKemJ7Wa9oL12goGwNPdYIsNmF45xte~bgoJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission’s business development working group held its first meeting on March 18 and reported progress to the full commission on March 25. Megan (Planning Commission member and working‑group lead) and staff listed appointed members and described next steps for business outreach and data collection.

Megan described the group’s intent to balance business and resident perspectives and to move quickly on practical initiatives such as a business directory, outreach and small infrastructure items. She asked that two applicants who missed the initial appointment deadline — Danielle Oriola (owner, Rooted Hair Studio) and Angela Tempest (owner, Tempest Originals Custom Carpentry) — be added to the working group; members present confirmed the working group may appoint its own members and indicated those additions were acceptable.

Mandy Culhane, retained counsel from GRB Law, advised the working group that it should proceed “as if their documents would be public records,” explaining that many committee outputs and submitted materials could be subject to Right‑to‑Know requests and that members should expect transparency. “Our recommendation is that they proceed as if documents will be subject to public records,” Culhane said. She added that members’ personal notes or working drafts may have limited protection but that agendas and submitted documents should be prepared with the possibility of public disclosure in mind.

The working group’s roster as reported to the commission included small business owners and residents: Danielle Oriola (Rooted Hair Studio), Jennifer Shorthouse (Blue Snail gift shop), Nick and Abby Kelly (Fig Tree), Angela Tempest (Tempest Originals), Joey Booker (auxiliary member; real estate agent with ties to the Ingram‑side shopping plaza), Heidi Munn, Logan Drew, Greg Wozniak, and Kristen Scholey. Commissioners discussed the value and transparency of including an auxiliary member who has business ties on the Ingram side of the shopping plaza; Planning Commission members said an auxiliary role that is disclosed to the public would be acceptable given the member’s local knowledge.

Megan said the group will meet again in April and will brief members on right‑to‑know obligations and next steps for outreach, a business directory and initial marketing and site‑improvement recommendations.

Ending: The working group will continue its outreach and data work, brief new members on Right‑to‑Know obligations, and return recommendations to the Planning Commission for formal consideration.","The Planning Commission’s business development working group has launched and held an initial meeting; commissioners named new auxiliary and full working‑group members and borough counsel advised the group to operate as if records will be subject to right‑to‑know law.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6106472,"Planning Commission votes to move 87 parcels out of Conservancy designation in draft zoning map",742,2141000,2883000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7&start=2141&end=2883","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7/thumbnail_2141000.jpg","/articles/6106472/Crafton/Allegheny-County/Pennsylvania/Planning-Commission-votes-to-move-87-parcels-out-of-Conservancy-designation-in-draft-zoning-map","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6106472-7373332be14a504dcc88428301cb58ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136001&Signature=nc5qAL5M0xuC1KOOfZvdVhMUrx3ZBHQp2Y-PEzhdIExZFPV7BWn8FaIPxV36bbbsgFWm93sahXtO-znY6u9-YZCrcwMpUahFP0mZRcpIruCk0TyFiG2SSRNF9gxO93DI0y24gSOP4qClIbuic0eCPZ0A28nGXkByavKvmpr8DZGP17gzC60gAugShuNeu2EPk2Ipeps7tmqrK6wPuo~BVeF7BGbtTlq-vUgInsuPC2EEO4vHta5G3m1DkKULfa66i85BSRzqHPPC9eq1u8Gy0mCmujv9Z5buD6aVuAvDBvseel-LRoGKzySy1A3GWWi6Bw2wUbg0LxbCVnsPlTHAAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Crafton Borough Planning Commission voted March 25 to amend the draft zoning plan to reclassify 87 occupied parcels from Conservancy to adjacent residential districts. The motion, made by Planning Commission Chair Eric Falstaff and seconded online by Commission member Rhiannon, was approved by voice vote.

The change targets parcels that staff reviewed individually and concluded are not on steep slopes or in ecologically sensitive ground despite earlier mapping that placed them in the Conservancy District. Jim (Planning Commission presenter) described clusters on Rogers, Josephine and Lawson avenues, and parts of South Grandview Avenue, saying they are built and “do not suffer from those issues.” He recommended moving houses on those parcels into NR (neighborhood residential) or CR (community/residential) districts depending on the neighborhood’s existing building types.

Commissioners framed the update as a corrective, equity‑focused step that eases rebuilding and major repairs for existing property owners. The presenter said moving the parcels would remove an unnecessary barrier for owners who otherwise could face limits on reconstruction or upgrading. He noted that single‑family homes are less affected by nonconformity rules than multi‑unit buildings, and argued the change is especially important where multi‑unit properties would otherwise face greater constraints.

No new development was proposed as part of the motion; staff and the presenter emphasized that all 87 parcels already have dwellings and that the amendment simply places developed lots in zoning districts that better reflect parcel topography and building form. One commissioner voiced concern at an earlier meeting that the move could “encourage development,” but staff replied that the identified parcels are already developed and that the change primarily reduces hardship for existing owners.

Motion and vote: Planning Commission Chair Eric Falstaff moved to amend the draft plan to reclassify the identified 87 occupied parcels from Conservancy to NR or CR as appropriate; Commissioner Rhiannon seconded. The motion carried by voice vote (tally: yes 4, no 0). The item will be incorporated into the draft plan; final zoning adoption remains subject to later public hearings and council action.

Ending: Staff will update the draft plan maps and present the amended map as part of the zoning process; the change is not a final adoption and can still be modified in subsequent steps.","The Planning Commission voted to amend the draft zoning plan to reclassify 87 developed parcels out of the Conservancy District into neighboring residential districts (NR or CR) so existing homes and multi‑unit buildings are not constrained by slope‑based rules that staff says do not apply to those lots.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6106478,"Crafton planning staff outlines subdivision steps, costs; lot-line revision presented as a simple upcoming application",588,615000,1203000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7&start=615&end=1203","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2780921-3b3ab74e73c18b44e51d9bfb1b3918e7/thumbnail_615000.jpg","/articles/6106478/Crafton/Allegheny-County/Pennsylvania/Crafton-planning-staff-outlines-subdivision-steps-costs-lot-line-revision-presented-as-a-simple-upcoming-application","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6106478-8157d9457f12912a7a78a37dc726c522/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136001&Signature=cpgF0-DJRac35SHoroUlefU5-kdkfzBbKxQaN5IJJMIMPuH~hV5v4MTEuyXmd9SCX5NE4twm0yylPKD0i57JxrV-YF5t37axoqVpIKa1QlVnfTQ4fJN-WI3zltuObA6UR7CUFv6xoKB3w7xejG2LAgHlAPRy4bc485f0DaWiqNZNHUL88JKjJN8Fzlbcpl3maA9BQWqYCI9T8XfchExl7cIyaWt4mNW5UlqSqr5g1K2INK2L9kJ9194tTbXJvWB6nex1ATiUdQzrIsbDRRZRjXzmLgYhJwYBKBn02g8vwxZrdV6lddVkFrX6FvGswUEOuT6f3dQ8EIDjW9gNohCmLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mike Tedesco, Crafton’s community and economic development director, told the Planning Commission on March 25 that subdividing or adjusting property lines is an extensive, public and sometimes costly process. “The purpose of this agenda item is just to provide planning commission and the public with some awareness around our subdivision process for the borough,” he said.

The briefing matters because residents have raised questions about how changes to lot sizes and lot lines could affect property owners in built‑out neighborhoods such as Thomas Street. Tedesco said the borough’s Chapter 197 Subdivision and Land Development Code, Commonwealth law and the zoning code guide the process and that even a simple change can require surveys, engineering and geologic reports.

Tedesco summarized the early steps and typical costs: applicants often must hire licensed surveyors and engineers; a basic survey can run roughly $6,000; geologic reports “around $15,000 at least” for the example he gave; and a traffic impact analysis for a simple case may cost in the low‑to‑mid thousands. He said the total professional fees cited in an example packet — about $75,000 — reflect the sum of multiple required studies and hourly work by licensed professionals preparing the application. \"Once the applicant does so, staff ... have 5 days to review the application and checklist the 73 requirements and make sure that the applicant fulfilled them,\" he said.

Tedesco also walked the commission through statutory and internal review windows: staff and hired professionals generally have about 20 days to provide recommendations; the planning commission has up to 60 days to consider a preliminary application; and borough council has a 90‑day window to act on it. He pointed out that approval of a preliminary plan typically leads to a final‑plan review that repeats several steps, and that council approval is required before a developer posts security and executes a developer’s agreement.

Commissioner Greg Wiesen pressed staff for more detail on cost breakdowns after noting his own review showed lower figures. \"Your costs seem to be coming up much higher than what I'm finding,\" Wiesen said, and asked staff to provide a line‑by‑line breakdown of the professional fees that make up the $75,000 estimate. Tedesco agreed to provide more detail.

The presentation also included a practical example: a recently filed lot‑line revision for adjacent parcels at Ewing and DeSoto, where the applicant and the neighboring property owner (the applicant’s mother) have agreed to shift a lot line so a new house and a detached garage fit more easily. Staff described that packet as “almost complete” and said it will be routed to the borough solicitor, borough engineer, planning commission and Allegheny County for review once the administrative completeness check is finished. Because staff judged the request modest, the applicant may be allowed to combine preliminary and final review to reduce duplication of work.

The commission did not take action on the lot‑line case on March 25; staff presented it as information only and said a recommendation request will appear at a later meeting. Tedesco closed by reminding residents that subdivision filings are public records and that the process can take months and cost thousands of dollars.

The commission asked staff to provide a clearer line‑item breakdown of the example costs and to circulate the packet for the Ewing/DeSoto lot‑line revision once it is administratively complete.

Ending: Staff said it will circulate more detailed cost breakdowns and the forthcoming application packet for the Ewing/DeSoto lot‑line revision, and the commission indicated it will reserve substantive action for a later meeting when the application is formally before them.","Crafton planning staff gave an educational briefing on the borough’s subdivision and land‑development process, including typical professional fees and review timeframes, and described a pending lot‑line revision at Ewing and DeSoto that staff calls a straightforward administrative case.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Crafton planning commission reports trail study RFP progress; Baker’s Acres parcels purchased for trail work

New Business Development working group launched; members named and right‑to‑know guidance given

Planning Commission votes to move 87 parcels out of Conservancy designation in draft zoning map

Crafton planning staff outlines subdivision steps, costs; lot-line revision presented as a simple upcoming application