Questions accrue as YMCA plans Ligonier facility
Members of Ligonier's planning commission expressed frustration with lack of communication over the Ligonier Valley YMCA's proposed rezoning and conditional-use applications.
“This thing is so disorganized, so disconnected,” commission member Jim McDonnell said as the board met on Monday.
The Y's application requests include changing the zoning district from R-2 to C-2 for the property where it plans to build an expansion and amending the zoning ordinance to allow surface parking lots as a conditional use in the C-2 zoning district.
Some board members said they are unsure whom they should contact to get their questions answered about details of the expansion.
Commission member Dirk Matson suggested the board give its questions to YMCA Executive Director Ben Wright for him to submit to either the Y or Excela Health System, which plans to partner with the Y on therapy resources.
Chairman Joe Willard raised the issue of whether the expansion should be considered a medical office or a medical clinic.
He said many of the questions the board has cannot be answered until after borough council holds its public hearing on Sept. 16 and decides whether to approve the rezoning application.
“If they want a parking lot there, they still have to submit a conditional-use application for the parking lot,” Willard said.
After the public hearing, the testimony and information presented will go back to the planning commission so members can review it and make a recommendation within 30 days, McDonnell said.
The public hearing will be held at 7 p.m. Sept. 16 in Town Hall. The planning commission's next meeting will be at 7 p.m. Sept. 23.
Nicole Chynoweth is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-850-2862 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.