Hempfield zoning code rewrite continues despite confusion
By Richard Gazarik
Published: Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 12:01 a.m.
Updated: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Hempfield supervisors voted to continue the process of adopting a new zoning code despite some confusion over the wording of the motion, which may have caused at least one supervisor to vote for it when he meant to vote against it.
The vote means the supervisors will continue to gather public input and hold another public hearing held before a final vote is taken.
The motion Monday was to no longer consider efforts to adopt a new zoning ordinance and map. A negative vote meant the board will proceed with the process; an affirmative vote meant the process would be halted, said township attorney Les Mlakar.
Board president Doug Weimer introduced the motion to scuttle the proposed code. Supervisor Sherry Hamilton provided the second.
Voting no were supervisors John Silvis, Jerry Fagert and Tom Logan.
“I vote no with reservations,” said Silvis. “I think this has to be looked at again. My vote is no, but it should be reconsidered.”
Resident Kevin Leeman asked Mlakar to clarify the motion and restate the vote after Silvis' comments.
“If we are going to proceed with this thing, it better be done right,” Leeman said.
Joan Shaver, a member of the task force that began revising the township's zoning laws in 2006, said while the law is not perfect, she hoped the supervisors would continue saying the proposal “could be fixed with further study.
“Please don't deep six this. There's so much good in it.”
Shaver said most of the public opposition to the new law concerns the use of agricultural land. She said the problem is the map and the way the new zoning districts are configured.
“If you take anything away from this meeting it is ordinance good, map bad. That's the whole problem with this thing. We didn't do anything nefarious. We made it better. The map is a disaster.”
Former supervisor Bob Davidson, who also served on the task force, praised Logan, Fagert and Silvis for their votes.
“You made my day,” he said. “(The code) wasn't meant to be perfect. There will be some people who always will object. We probably didn't listen to enough people.
“Take time to do it, Make the effort,” he added.
Another resident said there was too much secrecy surrounding the process.
“This kind of happened behind closed doors,” said Reid Crosby.
Ron Croder, a business owner in Hempfield, said the proposed ordinance will hurt businesses and lessen property values.
Les May, a real estate investor who owns property in Hempfield, said the process “should be reexamined and started from scratch.”
Jan Esway said “rezoning, ie., redevelopment, is not synonymous with progress. We don't want to end up with an asphalt and concrete township.
Mlakar said the major opposition to the proposed law seems to center on the use of farm land under the two proposed agricultural zoning districts. He said the supervisors will have to provide guidance on how to proceed.
Richard Gazarik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
- Kovacevic: It doesn’t have to be this hard
- Former Charleroi pastor indicted on child pornography charge
- Steelers rookie moves on after PSU scandal
- Mt. Washington’s Grandview Avenue isn’t looking so great these days
- Police: Man escapes car hit by train in East Deer
- I-70 to reopen after crash in Westmoreland
- Steelers might be looking at a youth movement in 2013
- Penguins blow late lead, fall to Senators in 2OT
- Goalie Anderson stands tall in Senators’ victory over Penguins
- K9 patrols return in Lower Burrell
- Penguins notebook: Vitale a no-go
You must be signed in to add comments
To comment, click the Sign in or sign up at the very top of this page.
This would make a great comedy of errors if it were not such a serious matter. “I vote no with reservations,” said Silvis. “I think this has to be looked at again. My vote is no, but it should be reconsidered.” Mr. Silvis, your lack of command of the English language is either appalling ignorance or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. Which is it? “If we are going to proceed with this thing, it better be done right,” Leeman said. How about doing it right in the first place. Was that option considered? Joan Shaver says “Please don’t deep six this. There’s so much good in it.” Good for whom? The majority of township residents who do and would opposes this if so much of the process were not hidden. At least former supervisor Bob Davidson was happy. “You made my day,” he said. “(The code) wasn’t meant to be perfect. There will be some people who always will object. We probably didn’t listen to enough people. “Take time to do it, Make the effort,” he added. It wasn't meant to be perfect? Was it meant to be self-serving? Now you advise that an effort be made to listen? For all of the ones who supported this extremely flawed proposal move forward: How many do-overs do you want before you bulldoze through an ordinance that hurts more than it helps? Mr, Gazarik, please continue your excellent reporting on this treacherous attempt to sneak this ordinance into law. There is too much money involved, and a few who stand to acquire or increase their wealth for there not to be agendas yet uncovered.