Green space proposed; Sharpsburg Council wants to see plans before moving forward
Sharpsburg officials want to see what plans for green space along Bridge Street look like before deciding if they will support the project.
Money left over from construction work on the street could be used to create a green space that might alleviate flooding in that area.
Borough secretary Jan Barbus said officials of the Allegheny River Towns and Enterprise Zone (ARTEZ) organization are seeking quotes for the project.
Sharpsburg would have to maintain the area because it would be in the borough.
Barbus said borough leaders need to let enterprise zone officials know thoughts about the potential project and if they want to maintain it.
“It will be a low-maintenance project, but that's something that council needs to let ARTEZ know,” Barbus said.
Borough engineer Robert Ziskhau said the problem with water runoff in the area, which includes a staircase coming down from the 62nd Street Bridge, also could be fixed by PennDOT.
“If there's a problem with the runoff from the 62nd Street Bridge, then PennDOT needs address that problem and take care of it up on the bridge,” Ziskhau said.
Councilman Anthony Sacco said while the project would look nice, the amount of water runoff from the bridge might be too much for that space.
“I'd like to see what the green space will look like,” Sacco said. “It'd have to be like a football field.”
Councilman Lou DeLuca agreed that if the green space is meant to help with drainage, it wouldn't be enough for the water runoff.
“The water that comes off that bridge, no way it is going to be absorbed by a green space,” DeLuca said.
Barbus said she will request that borough officials see plans for the site before any decisions are made.
Tom McGee is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 1513, 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.