GASP’s Comments to Pittsburgh City Council Regarding the Conditional Use Application #711
September 2003
These are comments made on behalf of GASP at the City Council Meeting that granted approval of the Conditional Use Exception to undertake a major excavation/grading/fill operation by the remining and regrading of approximately 645 acres of property identified as Parcel # 2 in the DGD Plan of lots located in the Hays neighborhood.
A Resolution — Bill No. 2006 — regarding the Conditional Use Application #711 submitted to Pittsburgh City Council by the Pittsburgh Development Group II, L.P.
The Group Against Smog and Pollution opposes the Pittsburgh City Council granting approval of a Conditional Use Exception Application #711 as submitted by P.D.G. for the following reasons:
The general criteria for review and approval of a Conditional Use Exception as set out in Pittsburgh Urban Zoning Code 922- 13, July 31, 2002, 922.06.E- Review Criteria says that City Council shall approve Conditional Uses only if the proposed use is determined to comply with all applicable requirements of this Code. All requirements have not been adequately addressed, especially section (e) having to do with detrimental health and safety, protection including impacts from emissions, vibrations and noise.
- Blasting is expected on much of the site. Thomas Kolvalchuk, Chief, Permitted and Technical Services, Greensburg District Mining Office said, ‘The unfortunate thing about blasting is that you’re probably going to feel it, it’s probably going to shake your home.’ If that is the case, how can citizens have assurance that there will be no harm to their homes, yet alone to their water, sewer and gas lines. Subsidence insurance is apparently recommended given the prominence of its discussion at the DEP meeting on July 16 to discuss the Surface Mining Permit Application yet it does not cover cracked or broken water, sewage or gas lines. Leakage for example from sewage lines may not be discovered for years but will nevertheless be very costly to the owners. What is the likelihood of proving or disproving linkage to the blasting operation and recouping this expense from Developer Charles J. Betters and P.D.G.? DEP officials could not even offer words of assurance concerning the safety of the water at the nearby Pennsylvania American Water Supply. Saying simply, ‘There are no guarantees in life.’
- One of the incentives for this project is the recent promise of donation to the city of acreage around the perimeter of the site. Given the severe change in internal topography, what will the effect be on this perimeter property? Will the trees remain? What is the contour relationship between interior and perimeter property? How will this affect water drainage as this is a relatively new agreement? Will the whole vista from below the bluffs become a lowered and denuded landscape? Do you know the answers to these questions? Since this is a recent development, how could this be incorporated into the plan documents on hand?
- It is clear that the Pittsburgh Planning Commission did not have all the information they needed to judge the section (e) criteria, as important environmental applications were not submitted until after approval by the Commission. Clearly citizens were ill informed when they attempted to make comments to the Planning Commission on this application. Even today, Council and citizens continue to learn new items about this application. Just yesterday, August 3 in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, it was made clear that Mr. Bettors himself is not sure he and his partners own the coal at the site. Betters said, ‘he was not certain that he owns the mineral rights and wouldn’t be sure until he receives a report from his attorneys sometime this week.’ Does this not demonstrate some degree of unpreparedness? ‘He can’t mine the coal without owning the right to dig it.’ How many other aspects of this permit have not been thoroughly thought through and properly prepared?
Council does not need to join this fast track approach. We urge you to get all the clarifications and answers to all of your questions before voting on this application especially including all considerations for ‘detrimental health and safety impacts. Consider also the wisdom of having a large mining operation such as this next door to the main urban center and up against a dense urban neighborhood which is also undermined. This is the largest continuous tract of green land in the city. Is this its best use?
Thank you for this time to make comments.
Sue Seppi, Executive Director