Jefferson Hills planning commission tables UPMC land development application | TribLIVE.com
South Hills

Jefferson Hills planning commission tables UPMC land development application

1993072_web1_shr-upmcupdate-112918
Tribune-Review
The proposed UPMC South facility that was stripped of a zoning permit by the borough of Jefferson Hills.

The Jefferson Hills planning commission could make a recommendation to borough council on how they think the municipality should proceed with a land development application for UPMC in December — or they could agree to extend the deadline.

UPMC, operating under the name AUUE Inc., is appealing a decision by the Jefferson Hills zoning hearing board to strip the health care giant of a zoning permit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Thomas Ayoob, legal council for AUUE, appeared before the borough’s planning commission on Nov. 18 seeking a “general table” of the land development process until the court renders a decision on the appeal regarding the permit.

AUUE filed its appeal in Common Pleas Court on Nov. 21.

“It doesn’t make sense to expend the energy and effort of both the applicant and the staff of the borough and the planning commission on an application when the use itself is the subject of an appeal,” he said.

Jefferson Hills leaders, however, said that is not how they typically handle land development applications. If there is meaningful progress with the application being reviewed and amended, the borough has, in the past, granted a 90-day extension on the application, planning consultant John Trant said.

“That’s how we handle every application,” he said.

AUUE must secure land development approval from the municipality — along with other permits — before it builds a planned 63-bed hospital, medical clinic and professional offices near the intersection of state Route 51 and Elliot Road in Jefferson Hills.

The planning commission has a 90-day timeframe to render a decision. While UPMC filed the land development application in November 2018, a stay was imposed on it when 104 residents challenged the borough’s issuance of a zoning permit.

With the zoning hearing board rendering a decision in October, the clock again started ticking on the land development application. The planning commission now has until Jan. 22 to render a decision.

Ayoob said AUUE would agree to a waiver of the deadlines.

“Table it, generally, until we would request that it be reconsidered and then we would have a 30-day time frame to request that and have a proceeding before the planning commission at that time,” he said.

Trant said when planning commission members table an application, it comes before them the next month.

“Our practice is that it will come back at the December meeting. There is no general,” he said. “You can withdraw the application.”

Ayoob said he does not want to do that. “It doesn’t make sense,” he said.

“We understand that. But that’s not our dilemma. We have a process. We’re following our process — the 90-day window,” Trant said. “At the end of the 90 days, if meaningful progress is being made, we certainly can agree to an extension.”

Planning commission members voted 5-1 to table the application until December. Commission member Christopher Hynes dissented.

“I feel that that’s the most prudent thing to do. Hopefully, this can be resolved by the Jan. 22 deadline,” commission member Derek Reckard said.

Categories: Local | South Hills
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.