Residents speak out against plan for Delmont gas station
By Daveen Rae Kurutz
Published: Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2013, 4:15 p.m.
A group of Delmont residents are adamant in opposing the construction of a gas station and convenience store that they say will create traffic problems.
Almost two dozen residents attended the Sept. 10 Delmont Council meeting to speak out against a proposed Speedway along Route 66 near West Pittsburgh Street.
“This is a disaster for Delmont,” resident Julie Walczer said. “You're going to have traffic all over the place.”
Residents addressed council for nearly 90 minutes at the start of Tuesday's council meeting, stating worries about increased traffic, safety issues and property values.
Council President Jim Bortz said has hasn't seen the plans — they are first reviewed by the borough planning commission before being passed along to council — but Bortz noted that the development is the same size as the Get-Go along Route 22 in Salem. The proposed development would occupy 4.5 acres of an 8-acre lot. It would feature eight gasoline pumps and three diesel pumps.
“This thing should be out on 22 in Murrysville, not here in Delmont,” Walczer said.
Residents accused council of catering to developers, which officials disputed.
Resident Rebecca Killian threatened to sue council members individually if they approve the plan.
“We don't need another service station,” Killian said. “I don't understand how anybody can vote for this. I will be the first one to sue all of you.”
Officials last month agreed to give Speedway developers an extra month to adjust the proposal to meet Delmont's regulations. Solicitor Dan Hewitt said there are at least seven aspects of the plan that need substantial changes before the planning commission will recommend the proposal to council.
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.