Browse by Date

Zoning Board Rejects Request to House Federal Prisoners in Park Place

I attended the Wilkinsburg borough zoning board meeting tonight where they announced their unanimous decision to reject the requests from Abraxas Cornell to change the use of the building located at 306 Penn Avenue.

Currently the facility has a variance and non-conforming use granted, allowing them to house female juvenal offenders, while providing them programs for schooling, life skills, and substance abuse programs. The facility has operated, largely unknown and unnoticed by local residents, for the last 10 years.

The company had recently requested permission to change the non-conforming use in such a way as to allow the housing of adult, co-ed felons in the last months of their sentences. Additionally, they requested an accompanying variance to increase the permitted number of housed offenders.

The borough solicitor had argued against the granting of the requests, and submitted legal briefs to support the rejection. Many in the local community had attended previous hearings and also urged the board to reject the request.

Follow-up To Zoning Request to House Federal Prisoners

306_penn_avenue I attended the Wilkinsburg Zoning hearing yesterday and have some additional information to share. The hearing was very well attended, and the crowd spilled out into the hall, as not everyone could fit into the hearing room.

First off the request is to change the offender population from juvenile females, to co-ed adults. It is not to mix the juveniles with adults. So the total proposed population is for 108 offenders.  The program is to take convicted offenders during the last 3 to 6 months of their sentence, and house them in the facility while providing life skill, job skill, and other counseling- with the goal of improving their reintegration with society.

Some specific questions/answers from the hearing, as answered by the facility’s representatives (Disclaimer: this is based on my notes and best recollection. There were almost 4 hours of questions/comments/testimony!):

  1. Do the offenders leave the facility or otherwise interact with the community?
    Answer: The offenders will be able to leave the facility (unsupervised) for specific durations and activities such as job interviews, jobs, week-end passes to visit family, etc. They must return by predetermined times or an arrest warrant will be issued for them.
  2. What are the nature of the crimes committed by the offenders?
    Answer: The (planned, not current) offenders  may be convicted of any felony (or lessor crime if they are coming from non-federal systems).  While the majority are expected to be non-violent offenders, a small percentage may have been convicted of violent crimes, and/or be sex offenders.
  3. What security precautions are taken?
    Answer: The offenders are monitored within the facility by camera. There are some small number of security guards, in addition to employees. Schedules are set for the offenders and compliance is monitored, specifically for leave from the facility.
  4. Doe the company operate other facilities? In residential communities?
    Answer: Yes. Two examples of residential communities provided are in Brownsville Texas, and Oakland California.
  5. Are there any statistics available for crimes committed by resident offenders while in similar facilities operated by the corporation?
    Answer: No, not at the time of the hearing.
  6. What is the basis of the plaintiff’s argument for the zoning variance (to allow 108 instead of the already permitted 19 resident offenders)?
    Answer: First, the institution would struggle to continue to function as a juvenile facility, and the already granted request to switch to adults, requires re-requesting of a variance to have more that the permitted 19 residents. More than 19 are needed to be viable as a business location.
    Second, other uses are very limited or impractical with the current building.
  7. Was the impact or relation to the current neighborhood comprehensive plan considered or presented?
    Answer: No.
  8. How long has the facility be operating in the community?
    Answer: Since 2000, they have housed female juvenile offenders. Currently they have about 72 residents.

The hearing lasted from 7:00Pm to after 11:00PM, with unlimited time for public questions and comments permitted. The Borough of Wilkinsburg’s representative before the board requested that the board deny the request for the variance.  The Board asked them and the plaintiffs to provide legal briefs prior to the next meeting, when they will announce their decision.

The next meeting is at
7:00pm, Thursday November 19
3rd Floor, 605 Ross Ave Wilkinsburg, PA 15221

The decision will be announced at that time.

Proposal to House Federal Prisoners in Community

On Wednesday, October 28th, at 7:00 pm the Wilkinsburg Zoning Commission (3rd Floor, 605 Ross Ave Wilkinsburg, PA 15221) will be holding a meeting to discuss a request by Abraxas Cornell (located at 306 Penn Avenue, the corner of Penn and S. Trenton Avenue – across from Lifecare) to get a use variance.  They currently house 77 female juvenile delinquents, but due to a change in funding streams, they are now requesting the variance to add 108 adult male federal prisoners to our community.  They would like to house both in their location.

Local residents are strongly encouraged to attend this Zoning meeting to both learn more and to let their voices be heard. We all should have a part in the development and direction of our community.

There have been quite a few new developments in the immediate area that has kept the community engaged. This facility is located near the new Peebles Square housing development, the new GetGo, and other shopping.

You may visit the following link to check out what Abraxas Cornell does. (http://cornellcompanies.com/index.html)

Zoning Meeting
Wednesday, October 28th, at 7:00 pm

718 Wallace Ave
Wilkinsburg, PA 15221-2299

Please try to make this meeting.  We need as many people there as we can!

Public Zoning Hearing Thursday February 5, 2009 at 9:30AM.

Downtown Pittsburgh, 200 Ross Street, 15219

The hearing is to address a request regarding the former Cooke funeral home, located at 210 East End Avenue. Currently the funeral home has a ‘non-conforming use’ to operate as a funeral home in the residential neighborhood. The Cookes have closed the funeral home and are requesting a change to another non-conforming use: making the house into 4 units, 2 on the first floor and 2 on the second floor with 7 parking stalls in rear and 2 car garage.

The non-conformity in question is that the zoning for the block is R-2, meaning a maximum of 2 units are permitted for any new uses. Years ago, the community had fought to change the zoning to prevent any more homes from being subdivided beyond 2 units. As a result, any property owners that wish to change the number of units in their property to more than 2 units must obtain permission from the zoning board. This hearing is the request seeking such permission.

The hearing is public and those wishing to express their opinions on the request for the non-conforming use are encouraged to attend the hearing. Attendees are generally permitted to speak for 3 minutes each. Please keep in mind that regardless of where you stand on this request, remember that the Cookes are long time neighbors and residents of Park Place, and all should be respectful and polite.

UPMC/Western Psyhc Crisis Zoning Hearing, August 7, 2008

UPMC/Western Psyhc is planning on building a Crisis center at 333 N. Braddock Ave.

The development group in Point Breeze is not in favor of this location. As I understand it, they feel it conflicts with the work and plans they have been doing in the immediate area of the site. They have hired a lawyer, and are protesting the approval that had already been granted by the city.

For more information, please contact Cheryl Hall (cluhall@aol.com)

The hearing is scheduled for:
August 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am at 200 Ross St., 1st floor. (Downtown)
UPMC met once in Park Place at the invitation of our city council member, Reverend Ricky V. Burgess, to present some general information about the planned facility.   We had some questions for the presenters, and I just followed up with Denise Macerelli’s offce at UPMC, but she was out on vacation. I’ll update with any information received.

Of note, is the following article, passed on by the Point Breeze development group:

Referrals to Western Psych halted
State intervenes after rash of incidents involving outpatients
Thursday, July 24, 2008
By Joe Fahy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08206/899182-455.stm

Peebles Square Community Meeting Monday November 19

There will be a Peebles Square Community Meeting on Monday November 19 at 7:00 PM at the Church of the Nazarene, on the corner of Peebles & Waverly. [map]

Please try to attend this meeting because there have been changes to this project since we last met in January! Continue reading Peebles Square Community Meeting Monday November 19 »

Walgreens Development Update

Large numbers of community members from Park Place and a host of other local community organizations and non-profits have worked hard beginning in 2005 and throughout 2006 to protect our neighborhood from bad development, winning important concessions from Walgreens and Paradise Development. The final agreement between GPPNA and the developers stipulates among other things that the developers:

  • are permitted to take only the one house closest to the commercial lot on Braddock Avenue
  • must purchase and make specific renovations to the remaining adjacent homes and sell them as residences
  • must pay for $10,000 in street trees

You may see the details and full agreement here:
Agreement between GPPNA and Paradise Agreement between GPPNA and Paradise

This is a great outcome for the community— we gained input over the commercial development of our own neighborhood and we also can stabilize the adjacent residential properties through direct investments and deed restrictions.

The most important factor in our success was the significant level of participation from community members at protests, community input meetings, and hearings— all of which had tremendous impact in the development’s rather political process. In addition to that critical support from our own community, we also had help from all of the following organizations which provided letters of support and/or sent representatives to city council and planning commission hearings:

  • 14th Ward Democratic Committee
  • ACORN
  • Nine Mile Run Watershed Association
  • North Point Breeze Development Corporation
  • Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation
  • Regent Square Civic Association
  • SPUR Consulting
  • Young Preservationists Association of Pittsburgh

Thank you to everyone for all the hard work and tremendous participation throughout this process. This conflict with our city officials and Walgreens lasted well over a year, but the final outcome is a good one for our community. We have influenced the development process into one that accommodates the specific needs of our community, strengthening an important entrance to the neighborhood. We also have shown, to our elected officials, future developers, and ourselves, the strong commitment that out friends and neighbors have for our community.

Rezoning for Walgreen’s Finalized

The final agreement between the Greater Park Place Neighborhood Association and Paradise Development Group has been signed. This agreement outlines what Paradise will see for the development and rezoning near Penn and South Braddock for Walgreens.

This agreement restricts the developers to the taking of only one residence in that block, and further stipulates the developers purchase the two remaining adjacent homes and complete exterior renovation and restoration of those homes within a year and place them for sale on the open market.

The developers will pay for street trees for the entire block, working in conjunction with the city.

Arbitration, if needed will be provided by the Community Design Center of Pittsburgh, a non-profit organization.

Now that the agreement has been signed, the Pittsburgh City Council has passed the preliminary vote on a revised version of the zoning that matches the agreement reached between GPPNA and Paradise Development.

Thank you to everyone for all the hard work and tremendous participation throughout this process. This conflict with our city officials and Walgreens has lasted well over a year, but the final outcome is a good one for our community. We have influenced the development process into one that accommodates the specific needs of our community, strengthening an important entrance to the neighborhood. We also have show, to our elected officials, potential developers, and our selves- the commitment our friends and neighbors have for our community.

Update on Walgreens’ Rezoning

We are close to completing the final agreement between the community organization and the developers. At this time, we are waiting on the developers to send us a final version of the agreement reflecting some minor changes that have been verbally agreed to. I’ll post the final version here. It will include a site plan and a renovations list.  We have verbal agreement on all the outstanding issues at this point.

As of last week, Paradise has now taken this agreement to Walgreens, as part of the overall deal they are brokering with them.  We have not yet heard back from them, but expect to soon.

Provided this is approved by Walgreens, then the last item is to sign the agreement, and I am expecting/hoping that will be this week.

Walgreens Community Meeting and Vote

Thursday, October 19th at 7pm, at the Church of the Nazarene (corner of Peebles and Waverly), there will be a community meeting to review the proposed agreement between the community organization and the Walgreens’ developers. The agreement would be a variation of the proposal the community organization was exploring with the developers last month.

New, revised site plans and details will be provided, and community members will have the oportunity to ask questions about the proposed agreement and what it would mean for the community.

A vote will be held to either accept or reject the agreement.