Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves lot-line revision on Ewing and DeSoto, subject to engineering edits
Summary
The Crafton Borough Planning Commission approved a lot-line revision for parcels at Ewing and DeSoto and directed the applicant to incorporate minor engineering corrections from Gateway Engineers before Borough Council review.
The Crafton Borough Planning Commission on the evening of the meeting approved a lot-line revision application for two parcels near Ewing and DeSoto, moving the line southerly so a house and detached garage can be sited, with final technical edits required by the borough’s consulting engineer.
The approval matters because it clears the subdivision step needed before the applicant can pursue a separate building permit for a new house; the commission emphasized that the lot-line decision does not itself authorize construction. Jim Price, Planning Department staff, said, “This is technically simply a lot line revision consideration process. This is not a consideration of whether or not the applicant can build a house.”
Staff reported the application was deemed administratively complete under Chapter 197 (Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance) and that Gateway Engineers had reviewed the packet and issued a three‑page memo with mostly minor, easy-to-address technical edits. Planning staff outlined two procedural paths: approve and require the applicant to satisfy Gateway’s comments prior to Council consideration, or table the item until the revisions are incorporated. Commissioner Alan Bealer moved to approve the subdivision conditioned on Gateway’s recommendations; a second was recorded and the motion passed by voice vote.
The commission and staff repeatedly distinguished the subdivision decision from the future building-permit review: if the commission approves the lot-line change it advances the application to Borough Council for final legislative action, while construction approvals (setbacks, grading, foundation design) would be reviewed later under the building‑permit process and engineering requirements.
Planning staff also noted one Gateway comment asking that primary access be located on a particular roadway; commissioners characterized that as an engineering detail to be resolved during technical plan revisions rather than a planning-policy constraint. No citizen speaker testified on the lot-line item at the meeting. The approved motion directs the applicant to revise plans per Gateway’s memo and pass the corrected materials to staff for the Council packet.
