ShareThis Page

Trees near Finleyville Airport spur dispute

| Monday, Feb. 18, 2013, 12:13 a.m.
The trees at the right are causing a controversy at the Finleyville Airport Tuesday February 12, 2013 because they are higher than state safety standards and a township ordinance allow, creating a possible hazard for landings, airport and township officials say. James Knox | Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

A patch of trees on private property abutting the Finleyville Airport grew higher than state safety standards and a township ordinance allow, causing a possible hazard for landings, airport and township officials say.

“If we fail to enforce our ordinance and somebody is killed or injured, we are extremely liable,” township Supervisor Larry Spahr said.

The trees — cherry, elm, locust and sumac ranging in height from 29 to 69 feet — are owned by Mary Parish, who contends in response to a lawsuit the township filed in Washington County Court that she should not have to remove them.

Parish could not be reached but argues in court documents that the township cannot establish how tall the trees were in 2008, when the ordinance passed, and therefore cannot prove growth since then. Parish's attorney, John Arminas, could not be reached for comment.

The ordinance mirrors state standards, which say that for every 20 feet an aircraft travels, it must be able to ascend or descend by one foot. The trees are too tall to allow that for landings and must be removed, said Jim Kirk, manager of the airport, and Gerald Cook, attorney for the 39-member board that runs the private airport.

“The problem is that the trees are in the approach zone,” Cook said. “Pilots can't get the angle they're supposed to have to come in. They come in at a steeper angle than recommended.”

Cook said attorneys are trying to reach a resolution. He said someone is interested in buying the Parish property but would not provide details.

“We just want this resolved,” Kirk said.

Over the years, the airport offered to buy the Parish property or pay to remove the trees, he said. The township has spent more than $50,000 on its legal battles with Parish, who is the mother of township supervisor Steve Parish. He could not be reached.

Kirk said summer is the busiest time at the airport, with about 50 takeoffs or landings a day. In winter, the number drops to about four a day. The airport also is a fueling station, and the height of the trees has lessened traffic and hurt sales, Kirk said.

A crash occurred there three years ago, because of the trees, Cook said. No one was injured.

PennDOT's Bureau of Aviation, which inspects the airport annually, has issued written warnings to the airport about the trees for “at least the last few years,” a spokeswoman said.

Erin Waters-Trasatt said the airport has tried to fix the problem. “They are working with the township as necessary,” she said.

The airport's next inspection is scheduled in March. Cook said he hopes the situation will be resolved by then.

Leo Miltenberger, 86, of Union has flown out of the Finleyville Airport since 1957. He considers the trees a hazard.

“They started as just little bushes and through the years have continued to grow. They shortened the runway,” he said.

Miltenberger said he worries the township could be liable if an accident happens, especially considering the money the board has spent on lawsuits.

“It hurts to see that being wasted,” he said. “The longer it draws out, the more it will cost. “

Rachel Weaver is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-320-7948 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.