Opponents continue to speak against Speedway plan in Delmont
Delmont residents might know the fate of a proposed Speedway by the end of the month.
Borough officials said Tuesday that the planning commission could rule against a proposed gas station and convenience store along Route 66 at its Oct. 24 meeting. Developers haven't yet filed to request the borough vacate a portion of an alley that is part of the proposal.
“Right now, I don't know that the planning commission can act favorably,” Solicitor Dan Hewitt said.
About 10 residents attended Tuesday's council meeting, despite the Speedway proposal not being on the agenda. Several spoke against the proposal.
“I'm concerned about the health and welfare of everybody on Harrison Avenue,” resident Rebecca Killian said.
She said she worries about the health risks — such as cancer, asthma and respiratory problems — associated with the exposure to diesel fumes. The World Health Organization classifies diesel exhaust as a carcinogen, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency classifies the exhaust as “likely to be carcinogenic.”
“My whole concern is that (Speedway) is in a residential area, where people would be exposed to this 24 hours a day,” Killian said.
The proposal will be reviewed and voted on at a planning commission meeting slated for Oct. 24 at 7 p.m. at the borough building. Under state regulations, a decision must be made on the proposal by mid-November.
Daveen Rae Kurutz is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8627, 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.