Vocollect zoning hearing postponed
An appeal of the Penn Hills council's decision to grant a re-zoning request and pave the way for expansion of the Vocollect business will have to wait until next month.
Attorneys for the technology company, with offices in Penn Hills and Monroeville, requested that the May 21 appeal hearing before the Penn Hills Zoning Board be postponed. The matter will likely come back before the board at its June meeting.
An attorney who represents the Chatelain Corp. and a group of local residents are appealing Penn Hills Council's decision to rezone about 10 acres of property off of Maple Lane.
Council voted late last year to change the zoning from single-family residential to a combination of mixed-use and conservation district.
Property owner Joseph D'Andrea, 78, wants to develop a 40,000-square-foot, two-story office building to allow Vocollect to consolidate its employees into one location.
The Chatelain Corp. - whose president is a Gramac Lane resident looking to develop property near Vocollect - and the residents who've joined with it would like to prevent that.
In addition to appealing the zoning ruling, the group also filed a land-use appeal in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court in December 2012.
Vocollect is owned by Intermec, Inc., based in Everett, Wash.
Patrick Varine is an editor with Trib Total Media. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or 412-320-7845.
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.