Judge upholds rejection of tree harvest in Turnpike Gardens in Monroeville
An Allegheny County judge upheld a decision by Monroeville Council that blocks a proposed timbering project in Turnpike Gardens.
Common Pleas Judge Joseph M. James ruled Jan. 28 that council “correctly denied” a request from the Point Circle Association homeowners group to remove more than 300 trees on 29.5 acres between Point Circle Drive and the turnpike.
The land is owned by the nonprofit association.
Members wanted to remove large, dying trees on the land, which they said could fall and cause injury and property damage.
They also said removing the trees would allow younger trees to grow and invigorate the land.
The group asked council to waive an ordinance that prohibits harvesting trees on property prone to landslides.
An engineer hired by the municipality said the hillside was landslide prone, and council denied the association's request, 6-1.
Association members appealed to court. They said council denied them due process at a public meeting and that municipal officials failed to hire a forestry specialist while making its decision.
James dismissed the appeal in his ruling.
Association members could not be reached for comment.
More than 300 residents signed a petition, presented to council, that opposed the timber harvest.
Residents living near the parcel said they were concerned with a potential increase in turnpike noise, property damage caused by logging trucks and the loss of healthy trees.
Some said the association's sole intent was to sell the lumber for a profit.
“I'm really pleased that (the county judge) denied it,” Turnpike Gardens resident Ralph Greco said. “I don't want to see an more trees being cut down in Monroeville than have to be.”
Kyle Lawson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8755, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.