New Kensington, Arnold agree on handling of code, zoning matters at industrial park | TribLIVE.com
Valley News Dispatch

New Kensington, Arnold agree on handling of code, zoning matters at industrial park

Brian C. Rittmeyer
1664048_web1_ptr-amazon-092917-1
Tribune-Review file photo
Schreiber Industrial Park, along the Allegheny River in Arnold and New Kensington, once was the site of Alcoa’s New Kensington Works, from 1891-1971.

New Kensington and Arnold both approved an agreement giving New Kensington complete control of code and zoning matters at Schreiber Industrial Park, which spans both cities.

New Kensington’s Redevelopment Authority bought the park for about $8 million in 2018. It stretches for more than a mile along the Allegheny River.

The city received a $4 million grant and an $8 million loan to buy the park; money remaining after the purchase is being used toward the park’s redevelopment.

More than 7,000 people once worked at the industrial park when it was home to Alcoa. It covers about 60 acres between Ninth Street in New Kensington and 16th Street in Arnold, with most of the park within New Kensington.

New Kensington hopes to make it a center for manufacturing and bring back some of the lost jobs. Efforts are under way to upgrade its facilities to make it attractive to new tenants.

The park has not yet been renamed, but that is expected down the road, New Kensington City Clerk Dennis Scarpiniti said.

Arnold Mayor Karen Peconi voted against the agreement, questioning if Arnold should give up control. She said she worries Arnold will not have any “say-so” in the park.

Arnold solicitor David Regoli said the idea behind the agreement is for uniformity, so there is just a single interpretation of code and zoning matters.

If the park fills up, Arnold will benefit, he said.

Consistency was the word Scarpiniti used. Convenience was another.

“The idea behind having one person is so we don’t have any lags in trying to get two different people to make the same decision,” he said.

In the agreement, the cities recognize it would be best for code and zoning enforcement to be done through a single code or zoning official, as having officials with both cities involved at the park could result in a duplication of efforts and inconsistent application of the law.

Coordinating services enables each city to minimize the costs of administering its code and zoning enforcement programs, the agreement states.

Under the agreement, all work will be done by either New Kensington employees or contracted licensed professionals at New Kensington’s direction.

New Kensington will be responsible for all costs associated with any inspections or interpretations of code and zoning ordinances. New Kensington will retain all fees collected for any inspections, applications, fines or any money owed as a result of code or zoning issues at the park.

Arnold will not be responsible for any damages that may result from work performed by New Kensington employees or contractors. Arnold will not be able to intercede or object to any determinations made by New Kensington relating to code and zoning issues at the park.

The agreement will stay in effect until terminated by either city, which requires one-year notice.

Arnold will not be able to revise or reverse any code and zoning decisions already made by terminating the agreement.

Brian C. Rittmeyer is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Brian at 724-226-4701, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.