Franklin Park commission rejects clean-fill site
Some Franklin Park and McCandless residents opposed to a clean-fill site won a victory on Tuesday night, but it might be short-lived.
The Municipal Authority of the Borough of West View wants to use the site to hold excavated earth on 5 acres off West View Lane near the Franklin Park reservoir in Franklin Park. When the authority conducts water main repairs, it is prohibited by law from reusing excavated materials to fill holes.
The state Department of Environmental Protection defines clean fill as “uncontaminated, nonwater-soluble, nondecomposable inert solid material.” The term covers soil, rock, stone, dredged material, used asphalt, and brick, block or concrete from construction.
The Franklin Park Planning Commission has been considering the authority's land development and conditional use applications for several months, but on Tuesday the commission voted against recommending that the council approve the applications.
The plan, however, will still go before the council for a vote next month, when a public hearing will take place.
About 80 residents, many of whom oppose the project, attended Tuesday's meeting. About a dozen people voiced concerns about the potential noise from dump trucks, the disturbance of lights, contaminated materials affecting their well water and home values declining.
The municipal authority's solicitor, Fred Baxter, said the authority has taken all necessary precautions to protect public safety and welfare, and it would seek relief in the Court of Common Pleas if council denies approval.
“We're in the non-pollutant business. We're the water authority … so we follow all the regulations that there are. They're trying to make up new ones,” he said.
Planning Commissioner Robert Salvatora said the authority's plan met all the borough's criteria for stormwater management, but he questioned how residents would know that only clean fill is used.
Franklin Park resident Barbara Kohl, who lives on Ashbury Lane within view of the land, said her experience as chief operating officer of the West Penn Multi-List real estate listing service has shown her that clean-fill sites can affect homes' resale values.
“You buy in an area that was zoned R-2 (medium-density residential), and you expect it to stay R-2,” she said.
The DEP does not regulate clean fill sites, but it issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. The system controls water pollution and provides rules for sediment control, especially when trees are being removed.
“The only way we would get involved is if there was a question about the quality of the fill of if the fill at the site turned out to contain contaminated, not clean materials. Then we would investigate, take samples and perhaps force the people who were putting the fill in to remove it,” said John Poister, spokesman for the DEP.
The authority has applied for its permit.
To qualify for a conditional use approval, the water authority's project would have to meet three criteria: safe and adequate traffic flow, prohibit glare due to site lighting and provide sufficient screening to protect the neighborhood from inappropriate noise and other disturbances.
The water authority applied for the conditional use permit by deeming that the clean-fill site would be an emergency service and municipal facility, but the attorney for the residents opposed to the project, Alan Shuckrow of Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick and Gefsky, Downtown, said that the site would fall under the borough's more broad definition of a solid waste facility, which includes land used for organic refuse. Solid waste facilities are not permitted in Franklin's Park's R-2 zoning district.
Several commissioners also said that they believed the plan would be categorized as a solid waste facility.
Tory N. Parrish is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-380-5662 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
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 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.