Litigants against Fayette jail look to join forces
Litigants in two land-use appeals seeking to stop construction of Fayette County's $32 million jail want the cases consolidated, according to a motion filed on Tuesday.
Attorney Rich Bower of Connellsville filed the motion seeking to consolidate an appeal he is handling with another filed through attorneys Leslie J. Mlakar and Michael T. Korns of Greensburg.
Bower represents North Union residents Evelyn Hovanec and John Cofchin, and husband and wife Ralph and Jerrie Mazza of Franklin Township. Mlakar and Korns represent husband and wife Terry and Diane Kriss of Dunbar Township.
The two appeals challenge a May decision by the Zoning Hearing Board that granted variances allowing the county to build the new jail on a lot smaller than the required 150 acres, to plant 143 fewer trees than required and to permit a small section of barbed wire fencing to be visible to the public.
The board granted a special exception allowing the jail to be built on land zoned for industrial use on 18.87 acres of a 61-acre site off Route 119 and Mt. Braddock Road in Dunbar and North Union townships, near Laurel Mall and the Meason House.
The two appeals allege various zoning requirements were not met before the board granted the variances and special exceptions. They want the board's decisions reversed.
In the motion seeking to consolidate the appeals, Bower argued it should “be done for judicial efficiency.” He attached affidavits from Mlakar and an attorney for the county indicating they are agreeable to the consolidation.
A visiting judge, Senior Judge William Ober of Westmoreland County, will hear the cases. Fayette's judges recused themselves “to avoid any appearance of impropriety,” according to the orders recusing them.
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.