Couple: Parking scuffle retaliation for zoning appeal
A Sewickley Township couple voiced concerns that through a parking dispute officials are trying to intimidate them after they filed an appeal to a zoning decision for a neighboring property.
Tracy and David Hampshire, of 209 Library Ave., Herminie, addressed supervisors at their regular meeting Wednesday and presented a notarized affidavit.
The document is signed by former supervisor and roadmaster John Costanza, attesting to permission he gave to the Hampshires to legally park in the alley in September 2003, signed with Wednesday's date.
“It's a sudden disruption in our lives and I think we all know why,” Tracy Hampshire said.
She referred to an Oct. 17 decision by supervisors to allow a zoning change for a property bordering the Hampshires. The portion of a vacant lot between the Sewickley Township Recreation Center and Herminie Post Office was changed from a residential to commercial designation with a vote at a public hearing.
A developer hopes to build an 8,000-square-foot Family Dollar store there, which could employ between seven and 12 people.
The Hampshires have appealed that decision in civil court. The case has been assigned to Westmoreland County Judge Richard E. McCormick Jr., but no hearing date has been scheduled.
Now, the couple refutes a letter dated Jan. 14, 2013, sent to them from Ordinance Officer Dean Zimmerman.
“This alley is a public roadway and must be kept open for vehicle passage,” he said in the letter.
The Hampshires said they have been living in their home for 13 years and have never had a problem with parking in the alley.
Stacey Federoff is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-6660 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.