! EE FR “ W E ’ R E T H E N E I G H B O R LY N E W S PA P E R ” Union Township • Finleyville • Gastonville • Eighty Four • Nottingham • Ginger Hill • Mingo Park • Venetia • New Eagle • Monongahela • Elrama • Elizabeth • West Elizabeth • Jefferson • Library • South Park
November 2007 Vol. 4, Issue 6
Shopping For Answers Union First Group Wants Residents To Understand The Many Unresolved Issues About Union Highlands Development
GRAND OPENINGS: Local Allstate Insurance Office Provides Personal Attention Page 28 LOCAL PEOPLE: Local Daycare Owner Sue Goodson Honored by NAACP Page 41 SPECIAL SECTION: Pet Guide Page 43
Index: Local News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 Happenings & Events . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 Local Business News . . . . . . . . . . Page 27 Local Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 36 Local People News . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 40 Area School News . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 54 Local Sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 60 Kids & Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 68 Your Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 70 Senior News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 78 Classifieds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 81 Business Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 84
By Paul Chasko
S
ince 2003, developers have maintained their interest in building the Union Highlands Mall just north of Finleyville on Route 88 in Union Township (UT). Preliminary planning documents describe a 440,000-square-foot development containing a discount super center, a home improvement store, a bank, and 12 additional smaller shops and restaurants. The center would also include a large paved parking lot with two driveways exiting onto State Route 88. These plans are preliminary, as the UT Board of Supervisors has not received a formal development plan. Since 2003, numerous meetings and court hearings regarding the rezoning of the properties involved have been held. The developer cannot move ahead until the properties involved are properly rezoned from a mix of commercial and residential to all commercial. They are seeking court intervention to make this zoning change. The UT Board is waiting for court direction. Since the plan first surfaced, the developer, property owners, the UT board, a group called Union First and the courts have taken many complex actions. Also, since inception of this project, the members of the UT board has changed as has the structure of the development company. It’s been an interesting struggle between the developer, who sees an opportunity to move into a project without the restrictions that might be encountered elsewhere, and a municipality struggling to protect itself with legal action (ordinances) that will keep development costs from falling on UT taxpayers. The third player in this struggle is the Union First Group—a group of concerned citizens and local business owners with legal representation that believe this particular development is ill conceived. While the membership of Union First is somewhat nebulous; spokesperson for the group is UT resident and business owner Frank Dupree. The group has gathered reports, letters, and other communications on this issue from the public records. According to Dupree, Union First is not against development in UT but it is
against this particular development. Their point of view is in opposition to other residents that are pro-development and wish to see an increase in the UT tax base through development. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of commercial development in the UT area, the data compiled by Union First raises some interesting questions—some old, some new. The UT Board of Supervisors is aware of all these issues but all UT residents may not be. Tax payers and elected representatives must keep these questions in the forefront, as missteps here could be very costly to UT. 1) Preliminary traffic studies indicate that there will be increased traffic on State Route 88 due to the proposed Union Highlands development – enough of an impact that turning lanes and additional traffic lights will be necessary. Will these implementations be enough and who will pay for these improvements? 2) Even with improvements for traffic flow, is the Route 88 corridor too restricted to permit a reasonable level of service with this development in place? 3) Will widening of Route 88 require “eminent domain” actions to acquire road space? Who would undertake this unpleasant task? (See Shopping For Answers on page 5)
Union-Finley Messenger P.O. Box 103 Finleyville, PA 15332
Presorted Standard US POSTAGE PAID Pittsburgh, PA Permit #0033
**ECR WSS** Postal Customer