Monsour development can proceed after closure of ‘paper alley’ in Jeannette |

Monsour development can proceed after closure of ‘paper alley’ in Jeannette

Rich Cholodofsky
The former Monsour Medical Center property, along Route 30 in Jeannette, is where a developer wants to build, among other things, a controversial gas station.

A Westmoreland County judge ruled Tuesday in favor of the county’s land bank to close a 50-foot unused road at the rear of the former Monsour Medical Center property in Jeannette, a decision that inches forward plans for a proposed retail development at the site.

The ruling by Common Pleas Court Judge Chris Scherer bars residents of the adjoining Paruco Park housing plan from seeking to open what has been called a “paper alley” that for decades has been part of the Monsour property and not used as a road.

North Huntingdon-based Colony Holdings late last year agreed to purchase the 6.4-acre site to build a commercial development with retail businesses and a gas station.

Closing on the $2.1 million purchase has been held up as lawyers worked to clear the title from any encumbrances that could impact the sale.

“From our perspective this ruling means we’re moving closer,” said Colony owner Don Tarosky Jr.

Tarosky said it is expected the judge’s ruling could pave the way for the company to obtain title insurance, a necessary step before the property purchase is completed.

“Potentially in the next month we’ll know if we can move forward,” Tarosky said.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-830-6293 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.