Public hearing in September to review Whitehall zoning changes
Whitehall residents will have the chance to comment on a proposed zoning change meant to boost development and provide consistency along Provost Road.
Council members on July 17 authorized Solicitor Irving Firman in a 5-0 vote to file documents with various planning agencies, and schedule a public hearing for 8 p.m. Sept. 18 to hear residents' comments on proposed zoning changes for five properties along Provost Road.
Council members Harold Berkoben and Robert McKown were absent.
The zoning amendment would change the five properties to an R2-AS residential zone, a category that allows four single-family dwellings or 12 town houses to be built per acre. Properties that would be rezoned include the former Whitehall Country Club site and 50 townhouses on Shadow Drive.
“The ordinance is basically completed. I just need some additional information,” Firman said.
Whitehall officials have said rezoning the 4.3-acre former country club property on Provost Road could help owners of the now-defunct club market the site to potential buyers.
Three of the five properties, including the former country club, are zoned R2-S, which allows fewer homes per acre.
The other two properties, including the Shadow Drive Plan town-house association common area and 50 existing town houses, are in R-5 zoning, which allows for eight town houses or a multifamily dwelling containing 20 apartments per acre.
Stephanie Hacke is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5818 or email@example.com.
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.