5 Plum properties set to be demolished | TribLIVE.com

5 Plum properties set to be demolished

Michael DiVittorio
PHOTOS: Michael DiVittorio | Tribune-Review
This structure at 1007 Old Frankstown Road in Plum is slated for demolition.
PHOTOS: Michael DiVittorio | Tribune-Review
This structure at 9116 Oak St. in Plum is slated for demolition.

Plum officials hired a borough-based construction company to demolish five dilapidated structures.

Council voted 6-0 at the July 8 meeting to award the $31,500 contract to Cherep Construction.

Councilman Dave Majernick was absent. A start date for demolition was not set.

Vacant properties to be razed are at 338 Coxcomb Hill Road, 1007 Old Frankstown Road, 3158 and 3209 Universal Road and a garage at 9116 Oak Street.

Borough engineer Robert Mitall said the structures have multiple code violations, were deemed unsafe and “in danger of falling over.”

The borough had public hearings for the properties in October.

Borough Manager Michael Thomas said contacting the property owners was challenging, and the borough must address safety issues.

“It’s to get rid of nuisance properties, dangerous structures and things that are negatively impacting neighbors’ property values,” Thomas said. “It’s safety. We’ve got these dangerous structures. Sometimes, they’re not secured so kids go in them. Kids could get hurt. Often times, because they’re uninhabited, mice, rats, snakes, raccoons, rabbits, birds, all kind of stuff living in them become a nuisance for adjacent neighbors.”

He said officials will have a preconstruction meeting with the contractor to discuss a project timeline.

The borough will file liens on the properties to help recoup demolition costs.

Plum averages about five demolitions annually.

Michael DiVittorio is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Michael at 412-871-2367, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Plum
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 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.