Riverfront park work to move forward following Aspinwall's OK
Work at the west portion of Aspinwall Riverfront Park can proceed, after the borough gave preliminary approval to a land development use application.
The application covers the three-acre part of the property off Freeport Road known as “west park.”
That part of the park is slated to be the more natural part of the park.
Organizers of the park originally sought both preliminary and final approvals for their application.
However, after being told by borough solicitor Steve Korbel that final approval would require them to put up a bond to ensure required improvements at the site are completed, that request changed.
Korbel said the preliminary approval means the borough engineer would need to examine the property, to make sure necessary work was completed.
“Until we provide final approval, that part of the park could not be used but you wouldn't have to expend funds in order to secure it by a bond,” Korbel said.
Councilman Kevin Gordon, a member of the park's board of directors, said the preliminary approval was preferred because of the potential cost of the bond. That cost is based on the amount of work needed.
“I get the impression it's pretty expensive,” Gordon said.
Susan Crookston, who has led efforts to develop the park, formally asked council to withdraw the request for final approval so work on the park can continue.
The approval came with eight conditions, including requiring the park's organizers to address any issues the engineer raises. Failure to comply with conditions would void the approval, Korbel said.
Aspinwall's planning commission had unanimously approved the application, but concerns were raised earlier this month about parking availability at the site.
Tom McGee is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 1513 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.