South Park strip mine a no-go, court agrees
A Whitehall businessman plans to appeal a court ruling denying his right to strip-mine 93 acres in the Sleepy Hollow section of South Park.
Commonwealth Court on Tuesday sided, 3-2, with Allegheny County against Nello Fiore, who owns mineral rights under the county-owned park. Fiore, 76, contends his rights amount to 700,000 tons of coal worth $100 million. Fiore sued when the county denied his requests to mine the coal.
"Our intention is to ask the (state) Supreme Court to review it. This issue is of great importance in Pennsylvania," said Fiore's attorney, Thomas King. "The issue is, can people who own mineral rights extract them?"
The appeals court upheld a ruling from a Common Pleas judge. Kevin Evanto, a spokesman for county Executive Dan Onorato, declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
"It is clear from an examination of the deed in this case and the facts found by Common Pleas that Fiore does not have a right to strip-mine in South Park," Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter wrote for the majority.
As part of the post-mining reclamation, Fiore proposed soccer, football, baseball and softball fields for the land, offering the county royalties that could top $1 million.
County officials rejected Fiore's proposal in 2008 after hosting a town hall meeting on the issue. More than 250 people attended, mostly to speak against strip-mining.
Fiore acquired the mineral rights when his brother died in 1996. The mineral rights were separated from the surface rights in 1902, before the county owned the land.
The Sleepy Hollow section of the park is the southern tip of the 2,000-acre park. South Park's master plan, developed in 2001, designates the section as an important biological zone.
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.