posted by Tom Moertel at 6:58 PM /
Updated 2010-10-16 15:55 with details from school-board director Jo Posti’s blog post about the school district’s zoning appeal being denied.
Over on his blog, Commissioner Dan Miller writes about being inundated with questions about the school district losing its zoning appeal. He guesses that the school board is likely to respond by resurrecting an idea the municipal planner had suggested a couple of years back – a shared-parking agreement between the school district and municipality for the Commissioners’ Lot. This agreement would provide the school district with the additional parking needed to meet zoning requirements.
To give residents an idea of how long it takes for the gears of government to turn, Commissioner Miller offers a potential timeline for the school district’s detour through the municipal government, first to obtain the parking agreement and, following that, re-approval of its plans.
The timeline begins with this Monday’s school board meeting, where the board could vote to pursue a shared-parking agreement. The proposed agreement would then go to the commissioners. If they approve the agreement, the school district could then submit parking-enhanced plans to the planning board. The planning board could then meet in December or January to grant preliminary approval of the plans and to recommend to the commissioners that the plans receive final approval. Finally, the commissioners could vote on the planning board’s recommendation – in late February or, more likely, in early March 2011.
I gather that the school district would be able to continue with the high-school project after receiving preliminary approval from the planning board in December or January. Still, that’s quite a detour.
Which raises the question: Why didn’t the school district pursue the shared-parking option earlier?
The option was recommended to the school district two years ago. The school district knew it lacked adequate parking back in March, when the zoning hearing board told it so. So why pursue a time-consuming court appeal to an uncertain conclusion without securing other options? Court cases are always a gamble. If the school district had such an obvious way to hedge its bet, why didn’t it?
The only reason I can fathom is that the school district didn’t think it needed other options; it thought the zoning appeal was a sure thing. If that’s the case, what made it so confident? On its merits, the case didn’t look strong to me, so the sure-thing explanation seems hard to believe.
In the end, it’s a mystery to me. If anybody can explain why the shared-parking option wasn’t pursued earlier, let’s hear it.
Update
On her blog, school-board director Jo Posti implies that a shared-parking agreement was, in fact, pursued but has just taken a long, long time:
So what really happened? Did the school district earnestly pursue a shared-parking agreement during its zoning appeal or didn’t it?
Over on his blog, Commissioner Dan Miller writes about being inundated with questions about the school district losing its zoning appeal. He guesses that the school board is likely to respond by resurrecting an idea the municipal planner had suggested a couple of years back – a shared-parking agreement between the school district and municipality for the Commissioners’ Lot. This agreement would provide the school district with the additional parking needed to meet zoning requirements.
To give residents an idea of how long it takes for the gears of government to turn, Commissioner Miller offers a potential timeline for the school district’s detour through the municipal government, first to obtain the parking agreement and, following that, re-approval of its plans.
The timeline begins with this Monday’s school board meeting, where the board could vote to pursue a shared-parking agreement. The proposed agreement would then go to the commissioners. If they approve the agreement, the school district could then submit parking-enhanced plans to the planning board. The planning board could then meet in December or January to grant preliminary approval of the plans and to recommend to the commissioners that the plans receive final approval. Finally, the commissioners could vote on the planning board’s recommendation – in late February or, more likely, in early March 2011.
I gather that the school district would be able to continue with the high-school project after receiving preliminary approval from the planning board in December or January. Still, that’s quite a detour.
Which raises the question: Why didn’t the school district pursue the shared-parking option earlier?
The option was recommended to the school district two years ago. The school district knew it lacked adequate parking back in March, when the zoning hearing board told it so. So why pursue a time-consuming court appeal to an uncertain conclusion without securing other options? Court cases are always a gamble. If the school district had such an obvious way to hedge its bet, why didn’t it?
The only reason I can fathom is that the school district didn’t think it needed other options; it thought the zoning appeal was a sure thing. If that’s the case, what made it so confident? On its merits, the case didn’t look strong to me, so the sure-thing explanation seems hard to believe.
In the end, it’s a mystery to me. If anybody can explain why the shared-parking option wasn’t pursued earlier, let’s hear it.
Update
On her blog, school-board director Jo Posti implies that a shared-parking agreement was, in fact, pursued but has just taken a long, long time:
[T]he parking agreement concept isn’t new but one that has required ongoing discussions regarding language and terms... It’s an agreement unique to the community that’s been given thoughtful consideration since there isn’t local precedent to model.But Commissioner Miller’s account is somewhat different: “Some may also be aware that there were some discussions on [the shared-parking agreement] in April and May of this year – but until recently the issue was dead.”
So what really happened? Did the school district earnestly pursue a shared-parking agreement during its zoning appeal or didn’t it?
Labels: Dan Miller, high school renovation, mt. lebanon school board, parking, planning board, zoning
3 Comments:
Tom,
This is just another prime example of the gross incompetence of THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE SOLICITORS, THE SUPERINTENDENT and THE ARCHITECTS !
An attempt was made to establish such an Agreement earlier this year after the Zoning Hearing Board hearing and decision; but, the School District broke off negotiations without warning or explanation after filing the Appeal they were so overconfident they would win.
This situation will mean among other things that the premature issuance of the $69 million bond issue 12 months ago will cost and waste taxpayers $5.1 million in bond debt service payments by next February...a bond issue we had no spending need for at the time nor until shovels were in the ground !
This is disgraceful and heads should roll. There has been an absolute failure in fiduciary responsibility by all involved who are both responsibile and accountable.
Bill Lewis
It didn't.
A shared parking agreement is not limited to a contract between governmental bodies or agencies....it can apply to a contract between any two parties...one who owns or controls offstreet parking spaces, and the other who requires more spaces than it owns or controls due to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The space deficiency is normally identified by virtue of the approval process associated with a property development or redevelopment project.
There have been and are a number of shared parking agreements in place due to Mt. Lebanon's Zoning Ordinance. Three come immediately to mind in the Central Business District alone for example....the hotel planned for the Noth Parking Lot, the Molnar Building at 603 Washington Rd., and the office building at 733 Washington Rd. owned by Mrs. Bognar, all under 20-year agreements with the Parking Authority as a result of development or redevelopment (expansion) projects.
I wish members of the SB would stop making false statements in attempting to dodge criticism and blame, or in denying culpability.
Bill Lewis
Post a Comment
<< Home