Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission gives preliminary nod to lot consolidation for Fusting Center, tables multi‑story site plan for more detail
Summary
Commissioners recommended preliminary approval Nov. 6 for a lot consolidation tied to the proposed Fusting Center Phase 2 but voted to table the detailed four‑story mixed‑use site plan because drawings, parking calculations, cross‑easements, and state sewer and PennDOT approvals were incomplete.
The Planning Commission on Nov. 6 recommended preliminary approval of a lot consolidation for the proposed Fusting Center Phase 2 but tabled the associated detailed site plan until the applicant supplies substantial additional information.
Architect Ray Gusty (Fahringer, McCarty & Grey) presented the consolidation of tax parcels 57-12-00-0-027 and 57-12-00-0-024 and a proposed four‑story building program: a fast‑food restaurant and a sit‑down restaurant with retail on the first floor, offices and additional condominiums on the second, and further condos on the third and fourth floors, for a total of 40 condominium units of 1‑, 2‑ and 3‑bedroom types. Gusty said the submitted site drawings were 30x42 rather than the township’s preferred 36x48, and commissioners said the plans lacked required clarity and detail.
The commission listed required changes before final approvals: add a location map and clear purpose statement; label the edge of the right‑of‑way and centerline of State Route 22; remove mortgage certification language; add recorder and county planning certifications; and include the highway‑occupancy permit note required by state law. The commission also flagged infrastructure requirements: FTMSA/DEP approval of sanitary‑sewer taps (to be included in the township’s tap allocation request for 2025), a stormwater management plan approved by the township engineer, erosion and sedimentation (NPDES) approval, and a PennDOT highway occupancy permit.
Commissioners asked for larger, clearer sheets, building dimensions and heights, a breakdown of 1‑, 2‑ and 3‑bedroom units (to calculate parking; the existing Phase I had a waiver reducing required spaces from 60+ to 56), traffic and emergency vehicle circulation plans (including ladder‑truck access considerations), and proof of cross‑easements for access to a signal at SR‑22. Because those materials were not provided, the commission voted to table the site plan; it recommended preliminary approval of the lot consolidation subject to the listed conditions.
Connie Mattei said the lot consolidation and land‑development approvals should be coordinated so that final approvals and recordation occur together; the solicitor warned that if consolidation is recorded and build‑out later fails, the applicant may have to return to reverse the consolidation or find alternate uses.
