Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board grants preliminary approval for Carlton Manor lot consolidation
Summary
The Mount Lebanon Planning Board on Feb. 17 granted preliminary approval and recommended final approval for a lot consolidation combining 16‑acre and 20‑acre parcels on Carlton Drive into a single 36‑acre lot, conditioned on addressing engineering comments in a Feb. 6 review letter.
The Mount Lebanon Planning Board on Feb. 17 granted preliminary approval and recommended final approval for the Carlton Manor lot consolidation, combining the 16‑acre and 20‑acre parcels at 29 and 33 Carlton Drive into a single 36‑acre lot with one single‑family dwelling to remain. The motion to grant preliminary approval was made, seconded and carried with no recorded opposition.
The board heard from municipal staff and the applicant before the vote. Municipal engineer Josh Scan said the project is largely use‑by‑right in the R2 zoning district but the engineering review letter of Feb. 6, 2026 identifies plan cleanup items, nomenclature updates and table corrections that must be addressed. “I have a comment letter dated February 6th, 2026,” Josh Scan said, summarizing the review and noting the need for the applicant to designate which existing home will be demolished as part of the consolidation.
A commissioner moved to grant preliminary approval “conditioned upon the applicant addressing items required to be completed prior to final approval noted in the engineer’s review letter dated February 6, 2026,” and the motion was seconded. Following a brief call for discussion and no further comments, the chair announced that the motion carried.
The chair explained the procedural next steps: final approval will require action by the elected municipal commission; once the commission signs the plan it must be recorded with Alageney County, which maintains formal lot‑line records, and the applicants should return a recorded copy to the municipality for the public file. The board did not provide a numeric roll‑call tally in the transcript; the minutes record that the motion passed.
Members of the public had no substantive comments on the item during the meeting. The planning board moved on to other business after confirming the applicants will address the engineer’s comments before final consideration.
The planning board’s action is procedural approval at the preliminary stage and does not itself change property ownership or lot lines until the commission acts and the plan is recorded.
