Archive

State court’s reversal blocks proposed Unity cellphone tower | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

State court’s reversal blocks proposed Unity cellphone tower

Jeff Himler
Gavel2

A plan by Verizon Wireless to improve its coverage with a proposed cellphone tower in Unity hit a new snag Friday as Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court ruled in favor of neighboring property owners who are opposed to the 150-foot structure off Arnold Palmer Drive.

In his opinion on behalf of the state court, Judge P. Kevin Brobson reversed Westmoreland County President Judge Richard E. McCormick Jr.’s Oct. 27, 2016 ruling that the Unity Township Zoning Hearing Board had incorrectly denied a special exception developer SBA Towers needs to build the tower at Pershing Park in the residentially-zoned neighborhood.

McCormick said the zoning panel abused its discretion in objecting to the tower on safety and health issues and on several other grounds.

McCormick’s ruling was appealed by neighboring residents Dr. Chris and Jill Bellicini, James and Megan McIntosh, Edward and Kathy Sobota and Christopher and Lynn Schmauch — who included arguments in their filing based on eight issues.

“Both Judge McCormick and the appellate court took the time to thoroughly analyze all the issues,” said Greensburg attorney Bernie Matthews, who represented the residents. “The Commonwealth Court agreed with Judge McCormick on some of the issues and disagreed with him on others. Those were enough to reverse the decision.

“It’s the result that we wanted,”

Attorney Joseph Cortese, who has represented Verizon in the tower dispute, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. SBA Towers and Verizon have 30 days to decide if they want to pursue the case further and petition the state Supreme Court to hear it.

Jeff Himler is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-836-6622, [email protected] or via Twitter @jhimler_news.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.