posted by Tom Moertel at 8:19 PM /
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that the planning board withheld approval of the proposed high-school project again:
Mt. Lebanon planners again postponed approval of the $113.3 million high school renovation Tuesday night, adding another month to refine the project.For the details, see the article:
Not yet satisfied with all the details of traffic studies, crosswalks and parking, the municipal planning board gave school officials more time to go over their plans for the final product, which would involve two years of renovations, demolitions and additions to the high school.
- Mt. Lebanon High School renovation project waits on answers (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
Labels: high school renovation, pittsburgh tribune-review, planning board
2 Comments:
The application for preliminary approval was tabled for a second time by the Planning Board for reasons not acknowledged by Super. Steinhauer in his quoted statement in the article.
1)the District has been responding to Planning Board questions and document requests , mostly very recently, including in lengthly, complex oral testimony at this very meeting. Planning Board membership of 5 is comprised of citizen volunteers, professionals in the fields of architecture and law. These are not full time paid positions. The Board is supported by 3 professionals, 1 a full time employee who has numerous other duties, and two employed part time consultants who perform numerous other assignments for Lebo. The District, on the other hand, has under employment literally dozens whose collective costs on this project will possibly and contracturally amount to some $9.5 milliom
Yes, Dr. Steinhauer, more due diligence is required, but why have the District responses (a) been submitted so late in the game, and (b)even more germain, why are so many aspects of the proposed design being questioned and challenged in the first place ? It seems like the District team of dozens cannot follow the Zoning Ordinance or the Subdivision And Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) that have been readily available to them and referred to them by the Municipality repeatedly for several years. It seems this is the 1st. construction project ever undertaken by MTLSD. In reality, the District is trying to get the Muni to play by District rules in every which way and manner they can...see the following for a prime example...
2)a second reason has to due with the Districts appeal of the Muni. Zoning Hearing Board appeal of the Boards decision to deny District zoning varience requests associated with the project. The Planning Board would like to defer decisions until the Court renders a decision on the appeal. The Distict had been cautioned and advised repeatedly by the Municipal Planner not to submit a request for a formal review & consideration of HS plans to the Planning Board until the zoning appeal had been resolved. There is no law preventing the District to do so anyway, so they applied anyway. Nice ?
And the Planning Board has tabled a decision twice now because of yet unresolved design & compliance issues, as well I believe because of the Court appeal not yet decided. Here's where it becomes extremely interesting and ever so illustrative....during this meeting the Planning Board wanted the District to discuss the outstanding zoning matters. The Diustrict solicitor declined, saying he wanted to defer discussion until a Court decision was rendered. The Planning Board said NO, that zoning was also under their jurisdiction and they wanted to discuss the matter in public. The solicitor knew better than to refuse or object further, and then made an astounding statement about District conformance to the onsite parking space requirement should Judge James rule in favor of the Zoning Hearing Board. He stated that such a decision would not apply to a Planning Board consideration or opinion because such a decision would apply only to the Zoning Hearing Board, apparently because (things were a bit hard to follow at that point) the District had not submitted the Wilber Smith Parking Analysis study/report to the Planning Board as they had only to the Zoning Hearing Board....he failed to recall that I brought that omission to the attention of the Planning Board in testimony during the June 22nd, meeting, and requested that the study and Traffic Engineer's review letter of March 5, 2010 be incorporated into the official record of the Planning Board proceedings by reference.
The reaction of the Planning Board to the District Solicitors stated position was.....well, descriptors like disbelief, anger, etc. would by no means be a stretch. Upon serious questioning, the solicitor employed different language and tried to change the subject.
The application for preliminary approval was tabled for a second time by the Planning Board for reasons not acknowledged by Super. Steinhauer in his quoted statement in the article.
1)the District has been responding to Planning Board questions and document requests , mostly very recently, including in lengthly, complex oral testimony at this very meeting. Planning Board membership of 5 is comprised of citizen volunteers, professionals in the fields of architecture and law. These are not full time paid positions. The Board is supported by 3 professionals, 1 a full time employee who has numerous other duties, and two employed part time consultants who perform numerous other assignments for Lebo. The District, on the other hand, has under employment literally dozens whose collective costs on this project will possibly and contracturally amount to some $9.5 milliom
Yes, Dr. Steinhauer, more due diligence is required, but why have the District responses (a) been submitted so late in the game, and (b)even more germain, why are so many aspects of the proposed design being questioned and challenged in the first place ? It seems like the District team of dozens cannot follow the Zoning Ordinance or the Subdivision And Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) that have been readily available to them and referred to them by the Municipality repeatedly for several years. It seems this is the 1st. construction project ever undertaken by MTLSD. In reality, the District is trying to get the Muni to play by District rules in every which way and manner they can...see the following for a prime example...
2)a second reason has to due with the Districts appeal of the Muni. Zoning Hearing Board appeal of the Boards decision to deny District zoning varience requests associated with the project. The Planning Board would like to defer decisions until the Court renders a decision on the appeal. The Distict had been cautioned and advised repeatedly by the Municipal Planner not to submit a request for a formal review & consideration of HS plans to the Planning Board until the zoning appeal had been resolved. There is no law preventing the District to do so anyway, so they applied anyway. Nice ?
And the Planning Board has tabled a decision twice now because of yet unresolved design & compliance issues, as well I believe because of the Court appeal not yet decided. Here's where it becomes extremely interesting and ever so illustrative....during this meeting the Planning Board wanted the District to discuss the outstanding zoning matters. The Diustrict solicitor declined, saying he wanted to defer discussion until a Court decision was rendered. The Planning Board said NO, that zoning was also under their jurisdiction and they wanted to discuss the matter in public. The solicitor knew better than to refuse or object further, and then made an astounding statement about District conformance to the onsite parking space requirement should Judge James rule in favor of the Zoning Hearing Board. He stated that such a decision would not apply to a Planning Board consideration or opinion because such a decision would apply only to the Zoning Hearing Board, apparently because (things were a bit hard to follow at that point) the District had not submitted the Wilber Smith Parking Analysis study/report to the Planning Board as they had only to the Zoning Hearing Board....he failed to recall that I brought that omission to the attention of the Planning Board in testimony during the June 22nd, meeting, and requested that the study and Traffic Engineer's review letter of March 5, 2010 be incorporated into the official record of the Planning Board proceedings by reference.
The reaction of the Planning Board to the District Solicitors stated position was.....well, descriptors like disbelief, anger, etc. would by no means be a stretch. Upon serious questioning, the solicitor employed different language and tried to change the subject.
Post a Comment
<< Home