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.

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.

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!

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.

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

Please try to attend this meeting because there have been changes to this project since we last met in January!

A couple of weeks ago the County & Action Housing prepared a layout to present to the Borough Planning Commission, which has reduced the number of new homes and increased the size of the lots from what we had last seen. Throughout the year, at monthly meetings I have repeatedly requested that if any changes were made from our consensus plan, that the design first come back to the community group and the neighborhood before moving forward. I have met with the County and Action Housing and they agreed to meet again with the neighbors although this new layout was presented to the Planning Commission last Monday.

The Planning Commission did agree to table any vote until after our meeting next Monday.

Another concern that I have is that it does not appear that Action Housing will be hiring an architect for this phase of the project. They plan to use an in house architect or possibly an engineer from Mystic Construction. Melana Mears from Action Housing sent me a sample of a model home that they’re considering.

I would like to see Donyo Rothschild brought back to continue to work with the community on this project.

Personally, I look at the house at West & Kelly with the very large lot, or the house at Mifflin & Kelly which looks to me like a model home & that is not what I was expecting from this project.

So PLEASE come to this meeting and spread the word.

Bluntly, I’ve been to bat a couple of times on this one & the county & the developer have both insinuated that perhaps these are my feelings but not representative of the neighborhood. So, we really need to fight to have this project be the best it can be. Jason Vrabel from the Community Design Center of Pittsburgh worked with our group last year and the article below is very relevant to this discussion.

East Liberty housing’s good design is rewarded with funding

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07295/827381-53.stm

Feel free to call if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Tracey Evans
412-244-9588 412-401-4666
Wilkinsburg Borough Council

Revised Plan, provided by Action Housing

Previous Consensus Plan presented to the community.

• 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

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.

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.

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.

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.