ShareThis Page

Excela center plan gets Unity supervisors' approval

| Friday, March 15, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

Unity supervisors Thursday unanimously approved the site plan for Excela Health to construct an outpatient care center in the township.

The township planning commission recommended the proposal at its meeting earlier this month.

According to plans outlined earlier this year, Excela Health intends to build the three-story, 114,000-square-foot facility off Route 30 between the Wal-Mart and Kmart stores.

The planned Latrobe Ambulatory Care Center would place primary-care physicians, specialists, rehabilitation and diagnostic services in one site, similar to the Excela Square facility in North Huntingdon.

Excela purchased property for the site in 2012. It has expressed plans to complete the new facility by mid-2014.

Latrobe officials last month said they are in support of the health system's plans, after earlier expressing hope that the new center would be constructed in downtown Latrobe.

Excela said a suitable site could not be found within Latrobe's borders.

The supervisors agreed to suspend the township's newly adopted waste collection ordinance, pending a response to a recent lawsuit.

Earlier this month the Pennsylvania Waste Industries Association, a trade group representing private waste haulers and landfill operators, asked for a declaratory judgment against the township ordinance in a lawsuit filed in Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court.

An ordinance the board approved on Feb. 14 required the township's haulers to register and submit a rate they would charge for one year.

Unity residents are required to have a state-licensed hauler collect their trash, and residents are permitted to select the hauler of their choice.

The association claims that the state's waste planning, recycling and reduction act, as well as Westmoreland County's municipal waste management plan, prohibits municipalities from enacting a licensing program.

Unity has four haulers operating within the township, which has resulted in a lack of uniform rates and services, making it difficult for residents to easily compare rates, according to the ordinance.

“Because this was recently filed, there has not been a lot of time for the supervisors to decide which way to proceed with litigation,” township solicitor Gary Falatovich said Thursday.

Falatovich reviewed options the board could consider, including defending the ordinance through the lawsuit, repealing the ordinance to prohibit multiple haulers from registering and go to a single hauler provision, or repeal the ordinance substantially and resume the township's former system of allowing multiple haulers at varying costs.

“The supervisors are going to have to make some decisions. We have (until March 28) to respond to the complaint,” Falatovich said.

Supervisors last year discussed seeking bids for a single hauler, but met opposition from smaller haulers and some residents.

Mary Pickels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-5401 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.