Permit issues delay proposed GetGo construction in Forward Township
Forward Township officials say there are permitting issues involving the proposed construction of a GetGo convenience store and gas station along Route 51.
Plans for the store, which would sell beer and be built at the site of the old Paydays supermarket, have been in the works for at least two years.
It was discussed at the township supervisor's meeting on Monday.
Last fall, township supervisors approved a development agreement that GetGo officials have yet to return, according to township solicitor Matt Racunas.
The agreement requires that developers post bond before beginning the project and make infrastructure improvements, Racunas said.
GetGo, which is operated by Giant Eagle supermarkets, last month sent the township a letter asking that the municipality sign off on a PennDOT highway occupancy request form.
GetGo has yet to receive approval for the project from the state transportation department.
Racunas said the township does not want to sign off on the state permit request until GetGo formalizes the township agreement.
Township supervisors said they do not expect the permitting issues to affect the overall development of the store.
Board of supervisors Chairman Tom DeRosa said he believes the store could be up and running by the end of the year.
The state Liquor Control Board said last fall that it is holding in safe keeping a liquor license that already has been issued to the store.
Eric Slagle is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1966, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.