Upper St. Clair project protested
In a familiar scene for the developers and neighbors of the former Consol Energy headquarters in Upper St. Clair, residents came to the township's Community and Recreation Center on Wednesday night to hear arguments against the project.
Moira Cain-Mannix last month filed an appeal to the township's Zoning Hearing Board, contesting that the board of commissioners' decision to allow a mix of retail, residential and office uses on 28 acres previously zoned only for offices was invalid.
“My client lives a half mile from the Consol site. ... This ordinance deprives Upper St. Clair residents and my clients of their rights to have proper notice, information about what happens to that property and input,” said her attorney, Tom Ayoob.
The meeting had not ended at press time.
Developers Hal Kestler and Gerard Cipriani are seeking the township's permission to build “Siena at St. Clair,” a mix of townhouses, retail and a Whole Foods Market, where Consol Energy's headquarters once stood at the corner of Route 19 and Fort Couch Road.
In October 2011, the commissioners voted to make a mix of development possible within the township's “special business” type of zones.
There are other parcels in Upper St. Clair classified as “special business” zoning, but Cain-Mannix's appeal said the conditions the commission set pertaining to lot size, setbacks and planning approvals could only feasibly apply to the Consol property. That made it a case of “spot zoning,” or changing the zoning rules just for the benefit of a single parcel, which courts generally consider illegal.
Matthew Santoni is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5625 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.