SR zoning hearing board postpones decision
SLIPPERY ROCK TWP — The Zoning Hearing Board continued its decision Wednesday regarding the validity of the township supervisors' past decision to change the zoning classification of a certain property owned by Heilman Pavement Specialties Inc.
The board's solicitor, Alan Shaddinger, said the board members needed time to consider all of the factors presented at the meeting, which came from Heilman's representation, Slippery Rock Township solicitor Mike Hnath and Chris Papa, who represented a group of appellants who filed a lawsuit against the township's decision earlier this year.
“We are here to determine whether or not the challenge to the township's action to adopt the ordinance to change the zoning of this particular parcel was done according to law,” Shaddinger said. “We won't be prepared to make a decision today, and probably not until we have had that opportunity to discuss those issues amongst ourselves.”
The board will reconvene for an executive session at noon Nov. 22 to complete the meeting, which will be immediately followed by a meeting at 1 p.m. regarding Heilman's request for a special exception for heavy industry in a light industrial zoning district at 490 Stoughton Road in Slippery Rock Township, which sits a few yards from Slippery Rock creek.
The zoning hearing board decided at a January meeting to grant the plant a special exception to operate as heavy industry, but residents successfully sued the board, claiming citizen participation, which was only allowed in an online forum, was not adequate. A judge ordered the meeting be held again to allow for in-person participation.
Marcia and Donald Carnahan, Paul Boas and Chris Coleman were the appellants in the suit, and each said they were concerned for the wellbeing of residents, the wildlife in the area and Slippery Rock Creek itself should the asphalt plant be constructed.
Marcia Carnahan, Coleman and Boas each testified, but the representation of the township and Heilman argued that Boas' comments could be irrelevant because he lives eight miles from the proposed site and in Lawrence County.
However, Boas said he lives downstream from the proposed site of the plant, and he frequently uses the creek to kayak and swim.
Marcia Carnahan also lives near the proposed asphalt plant property, and said she is concerned that it will create more truck traffic on Stoughton Road, and more danger for drivers.
Coleman said he lives less than 1,000 yards from where the proposed plant would be built. In addition to his concerns about increased traffic and noise, Coleman said he gets water from a well on his property that could be affected by the asphalt plant.
“I really worry about any type of accident that might happen,” he said. “I know of several cases of tractor trailer haulers that haul those type of materials that crash and spill their loads.”
The appellants also argued that if even if the plant is removed in the coming years, another industrial producer could build heavy industry in that parcel zone due to the special exception.
Heilman's attorney, Joseph Charlton, brought up to the residents that other industrial companies operate and have operated nearby Slippery Rock Creek, including Slippery Rock Salvage and PSC Metals, and formerly Allegheny Mineral.
Charlton also said the light industrial zoning areas already in the township can legally be extended to the parcel of land owned by Heilman, and its exception to operate as heavy industrial should stand.
“The rezoning of this parcel is the natural extension of that light industrial district,” he said. “This area here is classified or can be classified as its nature as being light industrial and in some instances, heavy industrial.”
Hnath also said the design of the asphalt plant or any facility planned for 490 Stoughton Road has not been submitted to the township, so arguments about its impact cannot be substantiated as of now.
“All these issues with the plant itself is for another process,” Hnath said. “We would have no way of knowing what environmental impact any proposed use would have unless it's actually a concrete submission, so there has been no permit issued.”
Nearly 40 people attended the meeting in total Wednesday afternoon, and nine of them spoke following the legal arguments. Each of them were against the construction of the plant because of its potential impact on the region, however, Shaddinger reminded them that Wednesday's meeting was meant specifically to tackle the validity of the township's decision, not the special exception itself.
In his closing remarks, Papa said the zoning hearing board should consider overturning the validity of the township's decision because it was made without the best interest of Slippery Rock Township residents in mind.
“We contend that altering this chunk of property in a vast majority rural conservation ... without really any consideration to health, safety, welfare, environmental community impact and without any notable discernible benefits to residents,” Papa said, “is unconstitutional and should be negated.”
