ShareThis Page

Closing of Fort Allen Frosty Shack sought

Rich Cholodofsky
| Saturday, April 28, 2012, 2:08 a.m.

There's a chill in the air between the owners of the Fort Allen Frosty Shack and Hempfield Township.

Local officials on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the ice cream shop, asking a Westmoreland County judge to shut down the Frosty Shack over its alleged failure to comply with a township ordinance.

Hempfield leaders contend the Frosty Shack on Route 136 changed the drainage on its property as part of a parking lot resurfacing in 2002. A swale, or depression, was removed from the parking lot during the work seven years ago, according to the lawsuit.

"The lower property owners are getting flooded in heavy rain storms," said Hempfield Solicitor Les Mlakar.

In the lawsuit, Hempfield claims the parking lot changes caused surface water to run off onto nearby properties.

The township said the parking lot changes violate a storm water ordinance that was approved in 1992. The ordinance required the shop to file a storm water management plan before embarking on the parking lot repairs, something Mlakar said was not done.

"Hempfield has on numerous occasions attempted to seek compliance with the terms and conditions of said ordinance, but Frosty Shack has failed and refused to comply," according to the lawsuit.

In recent months, the township and shop owners have met but were unable to resolve the dispute, Mlakar said.

In the lawsuit, the township asked the court to order the Frosty Shack to close until it complies with the storm water ordinance. Another remedy proposed in the lawsuit is an injunction against shop owners from violating the ordinance.

A call to the Frosty Shack seeking comment about the lawsuit was not returned.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me