Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. So, we are we're live on YouTube. Um we will um go ahead and get the meeting the recording started, you know, right when right when you announce it at 2. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you. Everything's okay on your end though, right? Seems good. Yeah.

Okay. Okay, we're about three minutes from start. For those of you that um are currently online, thank you for being patient. Commissioner Dick, I see you. Hi there. Looking good as always. Commissioners, as you come in, just turn on your cameras. Let me know that you are here. We may have No, Commissioner Maz, I still see you on. Vice Chair O'Neal, welcome. I see you on. If the court reporter is in the attendees, could you raise your hand for promotion, please? Jackie Jackie Sherwood. Awesome. All right, we're about 2 minutes out from start. Just want to make sure that we've got everyone Now, I think I've got uh two clocks that don't match in time for about 40 seconds, but we are about one minute out from start.

Okay, it's getting closer. All right, we are almost at time here. I am seeing I think we lost uh Vice Chair O'Neal. Did we? I'm looking at the Hollywood Squares. Yeah, I think she had she was having issues with her Zoom. She was going to rejoin in a minute.

Right. Okay. Then if people would be so kind, it is 2 o'clock. Uh good afternoon and welcome everyone. and it is December 2nd, 2025 and you are at the hearing and action portion of today's session. Uh hearing and action is where we're starting today. I am going to do a sound Thank you so much. I'm going to do a sound check for commissioners. Uh Commissioner Blackwell, Commissioner Burton Faulk present. Commissioner Dick present. I see you. Thank you. Commissioner Maza,

I see. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner O'Neal here. Thank you, Commissioner Kenttonia, Commissioner Ruiz, Commissioner Woo here.

Thank you so much. All right. Uh, welcome commissioners. Welcome everyone else. Again, this is the hearing and action portion of today's agenda. We are going to um read through today's agenda and it is as follows. Agenda item A is approval of minutes. Agenda item B is correspondence. Agenda item C is plan of lots. We have one item under uh plan of lots. Agenda item D is hearing and action. We have three items under hearing and action. Uh they are as follows. Council bill 2025-1925, number two under hearing and action, council bill 2025-926. And item number three under D hearing and action is council bill 2025-2385. Agenda item E is the director's report. Moving to agenda item A, which is approval of minutes. Commissioners, we have no minutes before us. Uh agenda item B, correspondence. There has been no correspondence dated December 2nd, 2025. Um, agenda item C, which is plan of lots. There is one item under plan of lots and it is as follows. DCP- lot 20225-0000293 at 4600 Blair Street. This is a major subdivision in the Hazlewood neighborhood. Presenting is Mr. Shepgate.

Thank you. Um this is the 4600 Blair Street subdivision. It's the proposed subdivision of one parcel into five parcels. The proposed parcel D17 would have frontage on Blair Street and would be 209,000 square ft in area. The proposed parcel D35 would have frontage on Blair Street and would be 137,39 ft in area. The proposed parcel D2 would have frontage on Blair Street. It would be 308,252 ft in area. The proposed parcel D55 would have frontage on Hazlewood Avenue and would be 20,651 ft in area. The proposed parcel D1 would have frontage on Hazlewood Avenue and would be 14,587 ft in area. The subject property is currently vacant and the recommended motion is to preliminarily approve um the 4600 Blair Street subdivision and schedule final review on December 16th, 2025.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shepki. Uh is there anyone here uh for testimony on that particular item? Seeing no hands, uh, commissioners, at this time, uh, do we have a motion from the floor for preliminary approval today, final on December 16, 2025? Do I have a motion? Commissioner Dick was moved. Do I have a second? Commissioner Troy, second. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Ru. Second. And I'm going to do roll call. Uh, Commissioner Burton Faulk. I uh Commissioner Dick.

Hi. Thank you, Commissioner Maza. I Thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. I Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. I Thank you. And Commissioner Woo. And Commissioner Blackwell, I

Oh, fantastic. I'm sorry, Commissioner Blackwell. I did not see you when the Hollywood squares were kind of slimmed down there, so my apologies. Okay, very good. Thank you, Mr. Sheepki. Okay, so we are moving on uh to agenda item D, which is hearing and action. Uh we have three items under hearing and action. I'm going to take the first two and read those in. Commissioner, could I interrupt just for a second? Would you uh we actually did have correspondence. I just want to make sure that we get that in. Okay.

So, just letting you know now so that we can get it in by the end of the meeting. But if you want to go ahead to this next item and then bring that uh read that in afterwards, that's okay with me. Fantastic. I'll go ahead and read in item number one, which is council bill 2025-925. This was continued from September 23rd, 2025. This is a zoning text amendment regarding application approval deadlines. This would be citywide. Mr. Layman will be presenting this afternoon. Uh, commissioner, I don't have

I know we have a request from the council office for a continuence due to a medical need from uh the representative that had been presenting this. And so I would recommend uh accepting that continuance and then just to reinforce the previous record. The intent isn't to um represent the entire report. We had the the hearing previously. It was continued with the uh request from the commission that there would be a meeting between the representative Mr. Carter and I um and uh our staff to see if there might be opportunity for collaboration. We did meet. We had a good discussion. Um but ultimately uh after many requests for followup uh which he was going to follow up with the council member um I did not hear anything back. Um and then uh however today there was a request for the continuence and I think just out of uh deference and um and care if somebody is unwell uh to to grant that.

Thank thank you Mr. Layman. Um and I uh concur. I think u medical uh emergency would definitely warrant a continuence. Uh, commissioners, you um are hearing uh Mr. Layman. I think uh that we should definitely offer uh the continuence. Is there agreement with that? And I see a hand raised. Commissioner Maza and Commissioner I just wanted to ask a question if that's for 1925 and 1926.

That's that's correct. They are two bills, but I think you can with intention motion for a continuence for for each or for them together. I'd like to make a motion to have a continuence for bill council bills 1925 and 1926 for a time frame. What would be the time frame? 21 days. No, she's requested for two weeks. The council office has requested for two weeks which is also the end of our of the commission year which would be the next this next meeting. Right. Correct. Okay. I make a motion to have a continuence for council's bills 1925 1926 for two twoe time frame.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Who who was the second? Commissioner Blackwell. Thank you Commissioner Blackwell for a second. Uh, I'll do roll call. Commissioner Blackwell, I. Thank you, Commissioner Burton Faulk. I, Commissioner Dick, I. Thank you, Commissioner Maza. I Thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. I Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. Hi. Thank you. And Commissioner Woo. I

Thank you. That will cover uh items number one and two under uh agenda item D hearing and action. We will now move forward to agenda item number three under hearing and action which is as follows. Council bill 2025-2385. This is a zoning text amendment regarding waste transfer stations. This is in the Hazelwood neighborhood and presenting this afternoon is Mr. Frager.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Um, just a a quick point of clarification. This is a a citywide um text amendment. Um, so I'm going to go ahead and read in the uh the findings of facts for the case and then turn it over to the councilwoman um for the presentation. So this uh council bill 2025 2385 to add a definition and use standards for waste transfer station was referred to planning commission on October 22nd for a report and recommendation per 922.05 of the zoning code. The planning commission shall act to recommend approval or denial of the application within 90 days of the receipt of a completed application, which is January 20th, 2026. Prior to introduction of the legislation, city staff worked with Councilwoman Warwick's office on potential language for the new use. This research was conducted in September and October of 2025. The research looked at existing city policies, state requirements for transportation uses, and how other jurisdictions regulate the use. In 2017, the city uh developed a report, a roadmap to zero waste, that among other measures to decrease waste outlines the need for the city to have its own waste transfer station. The report notes that trash is currently hauled up to 34 miles away after each truck is filled, leading to root rooting routing inefficiencies and increased greenhouse gas emissions from refuge vehicles. As one of the potential action items, the road map to zero waste report states that transfer station ownership could be private, public or public private partnership and that public services, the owner of the Hazlewood facility has expressed interest in

building one in the past. City planning staff met with the Department of Public Works on October 24th. At that meeting, DPW reiterated that having a waste transfer station is a priority of theirs as part of the city's ongoing comprehensive plan efforts. Discussions have been held, noting that noting the need for a transfer station use within the city to help streamline operations. The comprehensive plan has not yet been adopted. City staff researched how other jurisdictions define a waste transfer station use. Please see attachment one for a summary of those definitions. As part of the proposed legislation, staff are recommending a modification to the language of the definition to mention that waste transfer station that the waste transfer station use would exclude recycling facilities and other uses intended to remove and/or reuse material from the solid waste stream. the definition. City staff are also proposing another modification to the definition which so I'll just go ahead and read the definition. It's a waste transfer station means a supplemental transportation facility used as an adjunct to solid waste route collection vehicles for the primary purpose of moving the solid waste from the collection vehicles to other vehicles for further transfer. This excludes recycling facilities and other uses intended to remove and or reuse material from the solid waist stream. The proposed legislation includes a 500 ft buffer requirement around residential and commercial zoning districts as well as schools and parks where waste transfer station use would not be

permitted. Please see attachment three for maps of the 500 ft buffer areas. In discussion with the council woman on November 7th, it was clarified that the use standard three should reference uses as well as zoning districts. Staff are proposing a modification to the language of that use standard to clarify this. Please see below. Please see um please see that uh for the definition. Um, and its waste transfer station shall be located at least 500 ft from the following uses or zoning districts defined by a radius of 500 ft from the property lines of the proposed facility. City staff looked at requirements from other jurisdictions and states as precedent for the proposed 500t buffer. City staff also looked at jurisdictions that have built new modern transfer stations and how those transfer stations are incorporated into the built environment to showcase how a newer facility may be better able to fit within Pittsburgh's urban fabric than a traditional model. An example of the Seattle North transfer station is included as the last attachment in the report. Notice for council bill 2025 2385 was emailed out on November 10 and posted on the city planning notices web page. With that, the recommended motion is that this uh the planning commission of the city of Pittsburgh makes a positive recommendation to city council on council bill 20252385 for a zoning text amendment to add waste transfer station a waste transfer station use and standards to the zoning code with the following conditions. That the definition be revised to state the

following. Waste transfer station means a supplemental transportation facility used as an adjunct to solid waste route collection vehicles for the primary purpose of moving the solid waste from the collection vehicles to other vehicles for further transfer. This use excludes recycling facilities and other uses intended to remove and/or reuse material from the solid waist stream. and that use standard 3 be clarified to say uses or zoning districts and point A be revised to say all residential zoning districts. With that, I will turn it over to the council woman to uh for the presentation. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Um Joe, will you be moving the slides forward? Yes, my colleague my colleague Enara will be doing that.

Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you all so much. Um I appreciate you. Uh apologies if there's some muffled noise of my children fighting downstairs, but it's a snow day. So, um thank you. Yeah. So, uh we can move on to the next slide. Thank you, Joe, for the explanation. This is the legislation language. Um I am uh you know welcome all the the modifications recommended by um city planning staff and also very grateful for their assistance in in putting this legislation together in the first place. Um they I um have nothing but good things to say about our zoning team and the help that they give with these types of bills. So we'll move on to the next slide. This is just more we can move on to the next one. Great. Um yeah. So um sort of why why are we doing this bill? Um so sort of what is the current state of uh you know a waste transport and and the waste transfer station discussion here in Pittsburgh. Um so right now we do not have a municipal solid waste transfer station that in in operation in the city of Pittsburgh. Um it it our environmental services drivers uh have to drive all non-recyclable um municipal waste directly to the landfill in Imperial which is quite far right. It's about 20 miles away maybe a bit more. Um that uh obviously puts a strain on our vehicles and it takes time off um you know away from environmental service routes. Um so um there certainly could be a benefit to the city of Pittsburgh to having a waste transfer station, right? Having a place where those trucks can go drop off the waste that is closer, right? And then once the the the larger receptacles are filled, then those receptacles would then go on

to um the landfill. So that would, you know, that would take some of the burden off of our trucks so they wouldn't have to travel as far to unload. Um but right now we don't have any plan or guidance uh on where such a facility could go in the city and um you know since you know there have been conversations about the need for such a facility um it makes sense to have uh you know that to to have that those that guidance in place and um I'll say that I you know while it's critical that we you know meet our operational efficiency needs uh as a city, we need to be able to do so without negatively impacting the health and the well-being of our residents. So, I'll go to the next slide, please. Thank you. So, here we just have some photos. These are just taken off Google of um uh the the types of receptacles that um that you find in a waste transfer station, right? So, they are very very large, right? These are enormous receptacles that are filled with waste. And then these are obviously taken these are pictures of the landfill of the those receptacles getting dumped out on the landfill. So, you know, you can see these are very large containers um uh oftentimes open air, right? So, they're open at the top as as um as garbage is is um loaded into them. So, go to the next slide, please. So this is a map of where um you know according to these guidelines where um these waste transfer stations could and could not go. So um the pink area or the GI and the blue area is sort of you know residential commercial right parks that that type of um uh district and the overlap in the GI. So within the GI you can see there's sort of like a purplish

overlap. Those are the places in the GI where these waste transfer station, you know, that that's the border, right? To to keep them away from people's homes, basically homes, businesses, commercial districts, schools, that type of thing. Um, next slide, please. So, just, you know, sort of the community impact of a large scale waste transfer station, right? excessive trash and litter, bike pollution from large-scale facilities, noise pollution from increased traffic, right? Lots of large trucks and noisy equipment. Obviously, if you have a waste transfer station that all the city garbage trucks, you know, that all the garbage trucks from around the city are going in and out of to drop off, right? That's going to be a lot of noise around um air pollution from the trucks and odor from the from the the waste itself. and of course rodents, roaches, and other and other pests. Um, so again, you know, I just I want to underscore that as a city, it is our job to find solutions uh to our logistical and environmental challenges that do not harm our residents. And um I there was a facility mentioned prior. Um you know while a waste transfer station may be necessary for the city, we uh as city council, city planning uh planning commission should be proactive about determining where one of those facilities could be safely located. Not just simply allow the private market to decide where one goes based on whatever works for for their for any one company or or waste operators bottom line. Um and in the la so next next slide please. So in the last um in the last uh during the briefing I believe it was Commissioner Woo asked about the um the more restrictive 500 foot barrier versus

the 300 foot barrier uh in the state regulations. Um, so I just I do want to underscore that we have a case in Pittsburgh um that uh is, you know, in my district uh where the the state of Pennsylvania uh gave has has given a um a permit for waste transfer station to a facility that is wholly inappropriate. This is under a previous owner, right? that is just you know wholly inappropriate for a waste transfer station. So, I just wanted to show the current state of that. And this is a and the the facility currently is a recycling uh processing center. But I just wanted to make sure that you know and what that that the commissioners can see sort of what the state has said is okay for a waste transfer station for raw garbage uh in this facility, this existing facility. And this is what we have here. We this is just open open material right out in the air right next to homes. So this is if go to the next slide. This is another and these are these are very recent pictures like taken within the past few weeks right um go to the next slide and just to see how close this facility is to where people live right so so that that is why I have opted to to you know and then uh next slide please just for this one just sort of um you know why am I not relying on the state's regulations because the state uh you seems to think that and this is the facility that we're talking about that's a recycling. It's not a waste transfer station. They have a permit to to become one, but this is where that facility is in proximity to a community. And so I just am not um I don't have confidence in in um the the state DP's uh

determination on what what is appropriate for this type of facility based on based on determinations they've made in the past. Um, so that that I just wanted to clarify that uh for for commissioners um because it came up during the briefing. I think that might be it. Next slide. Yeah. So that's it. That's that's it for me. I'm happy to answer any questions that I can.

Thank you so very much, Councilwoman Warwick. Um at this time, we open the floor for public testimony. I'm also looking at the attendee list. Uh it doesn't look like there are any hands raised, but if someone wishes to speak Okay, now I'm seeing some. All right. As you uh pull them on the panel, we'll we'll let them give testimony, please. And thank you.

Okay. Uh thank you, Commissioner Burton Faulk. I will um promote uh folks for providing testimony. Um, so the first person we have is Lori Kelzinski. Um, you may unmute yourself and provide your testimony. Please state and spell your name for the record.

Hi. Hi, Miss. We can hear you now.

Hi. Uh, Lori Kchinsky, K O CZ Y Nski. I am the general manager of BFIway Services of Pennsylvania, a local subsidiary of Republic Services. This text amendment is yet another attack on our newly acquired facility in Hazlewood. This has operated as the outlet for the city of Pittsburgh recycling volume for many years. The previous owners began the process to obtain a permit for it to also be utilized as a municipal transfer station in 2019 with that permit being issued by the PA in 2024. This facility while has it has not operated as a transfer station at this point, we have focused on the transition of ownership and our desire to focus on upgrading the facility's existing recycling processor operations to date. There are items outlined in the PA D's issued permit that we would need to accomplish and have certified by the state before we could begin accepting any municipal waste. I'm sure you can all understand why we are now hesitant to invest our time into those updates as we focus so much of our attention on continuing to battle these attacks from Council Member Warwick. I want to clear up some of the false items that were identified in the presentation. Those containers depicted are not the types of containers that would be utilized at this facility. They are much larger. Those require tippers. Ours would be on a much smaller scale, typically holding 20 tons of material and would be fully contained. This is no different than the containers that are frequently found outside many of the high waste producing locations like grocery stores and the like. Questions were brought up about increasing from a uh to a 500 ft versus a 300t residence boundary that's listed for the state requirement. This requested boundary in increase is a direct result of our transparency in providing details on how this facility would operate the transfer station at this location to meet the 300 foot requirement by the state. The zoning text amendment would not only have a negative impact on our business

as the only transfer station permit holder within the city of Pittsburgh, but it would also be in direct conflict with the city's stated growth and sustainability goals. Under the Resilient Pittsburgh page on the city's website, PittsburghPa.gov, it details how the city joined the 100 Resilient Cities Network in 2014, powered by the Rockefeller Foundation and the RAN Corporation along with engagement of only over 2,000 Pittsburgers. The report provided was published in 2017 and is also available on the city's website. Page 17 specifically talks to the needs and benefits of building a local transfer station in the city of Pittsburgh. At the top of page 18, we Republic Services are called out as a potential partner because we have a long history of working in partnership with the city. We didn't decide that it made sense for our bottom line. The research dictated what made sense. The next bullet addresses where it should be and it lists a location in Hazlewood as a viable location detailing the proximity to the existing recycling center that is now our facility as a requirement. The text amendment needs to be voted down. The research has been done and remains published by the city. The city's own public's works department knows how beneficial this would be to the city. It could be argued that the current operations at the city's public works department operate as it is defined by this waste transfer station text amendment. Please put a stop to this attack on our facility and let let us get back to work supporting the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Kulchinsky, for your testimony. Next up for testimony is Frank Chimera. Um, you may unmute and provide your testimony. Please state and spell your name for the record.

Hi, good afternoon. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Thank you.

Terrific. Hi, Frank Chimera. Spelled C H I M R A. And uh you know, Lori and myself have spoke in front of this group a few times now. first on the uh the resoning effort and now on this text amendment and I would like to reiterate. As Lori mentioned that this is a continued attack on uh the facility that we operate in the Hazlewood neighborhood. Um again my name is Frank Chimera. Uh I am the area director of business development for Republic Services and I wanted to make it clear to the group that Republic Services has the only permitted waste transfer station in the city of Pittsburgh. Councilman Warwick is trying to create prohibitive zoning language that would impact every potential suitable site for a transfer station throughout the entire city in an attempt to block this permitted transfer station from operating. Republic's facility in Hazlewood has been permitted in accordance with the Pennsylvania D site feasibility requirements and their entire entire approval process, including local community engagement, including setback requirements. The permit was issued in 2024 when it was determined that this facility and parcel met the state's requirements to host a waste transfer station. Councilwoman Warwick showed pictures of the recycling facility and its proximity to homes. Those photos are misleading as the waste transfer station would actually be located around the other side of the building and outside of the 300 ft setback. She showed photos of the recycling tipping floor, not the location of the trash tipping floor. The state setback from residential properties is 300 ft. Councilwoman is proposing a 500 foot setback, but it hasn't been sufficiently answered why 500 feet is in the city's best interest as opposed to the state requirement of 300 feet. So, if not this site, then where else in the city is there a suitable site for a transfer station that can meet the city's proposed requirements? As you saw from the councilwoman's presentation where she showed how few places in the city have the appropriate zoning to host a facility like this, one is permitted and viable right now, but she is trying to eliminate it. Contrary to councilwoman's

assertion, it was not decided by the private market. It was decided through city guidance and state approval. A waste transfer station is an essential public service and as mentioned, it has been identified by city leaders as a need for the city of Pittsburgh. For informationational purposes for the group, Republic Services operates more than 246 transfer stations across the United States in urban, suburban, and rural settings. The goal is to create a more sustainable and cost-effective way to transport waste over longer distances and this is an appropriate location for it. We utilize state-of-the-art technology to minimize any impacts on the surrounding areas. Currently, Pittsburgh's waste trucks travel 30 to 40 miles to one of the two landfills. This would allow them to transport waste just uh within the city's borders. Councilwoman Warwick said there's no plan or guidance on the topic. I would like to point to Pittsburgh's zero waste roadmap. That road map recommends locating any future transfer station as close as possible to the recycling facility that Republic Services owns at 50 Vispuses Street in Hazlewood. Republic can responsibly operate this transfer station at this site. It has already been approved. We encourage the planning commission to vote down this text amendment. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chamir, for your testimony. All right, we have Jesse Zerilo. Um, you may unmute and provide your testimony. Please state and spell your name for the record. Hello, my name is Jesse Zerillo. Z I R I L L O from the law firm Lewis Brisb R I S B O I S. I represent BFI Way Services of Pennsylvania LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Services. And I would just like to reiterate what Frank and Lorie said uh in our opposition of the proposed zoning text amendment outlined today. We feel that our facility and my client are being singled out by this text amendment and that that t is tanamount to illegal spot zoning. As for the use at the property, the current case law permits modification of current use to be grandfathered in when said use is consistent with the type of use previously utilized on the property. Moreover, the doctrine of natural expansion permits a landowner the right to expand as required to maintain economic viability or to take advantage of increases in trade so long as the use is sufficiently similar so as not to constitute a new or different use. This proposed zoning text amendment undermines what the city is trying to do with its planning and would harm my client's business. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Zerillo. Any additional hands? There are no additional hands. Thank you. Okay, commissioners. Uh, at this time, are there some questions and and comments as it relates? Uh, it looks like Commissioner Maza's hand is up. Commissioner Maza.

Yes. Yes, ma'am. Um, a lot of great work here. I agree with a lot of these things that are put in this, you know, zoning code changes, but I think there's a lot of unanswered questions about where it would be if it's not there, whether what other communities are going to be affected. How do we, you know, how are we going to fix that whole the whole thing? I mean, h are there any any other possible sites in the city? Right now, it doesn't look like it. Um the comprehensive plan doesn't look like it's going to be finished which is proposed in that right now. I mean we're in December. We have a new administration administration moving forward coming coming in in the next few weeks. I just think there needs to be more com more questions answered and how we're actually going to do this and make it safe for the whole city and and the residents of the city of Pittsburgh regardless if it's in Hazlewood or if it's over in Sheridan. I just want to make sure that everything is right because we do need one. Obviously, we do need one because of the travel distance because of the the vehicles that we have. I agree with that. And you have to have a safe distance between homes obviously, but I think we have to make sure that we know exactly where we want to do it and have the have it, you know, so we don't have to go back and change the codes again to make it, you know, put in a right p. Um, what I'm saying is, look, I just think there needs to be more conversation how we can fix this whole thing. And you know, Councilman Warick, I agree with you on a lot of this these things, but in my opinion, I think we need to hold back and really try to fix this. And I know Mr. Layman, you're getting ready to probably say something. It looks like after, but anyhoo, um, I just think we need to figure this thing out before we move this thing forward. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Maza, uh, for the discussion. Uh, are there other commissioners that would like to comment or have discussion on the table as it relates? I kind of would like to hear what Corey has to say before I say something. This is Commissioner Fu. Oh, okay. Um what would you would you like? Um sorry just wanted to uh I should probably keep my uh camera off when writing emails. I must have expressed my case while I was composing an email that that you

I apologize. You were smiling. I apologize. Well, hey, we could all use some smiling. Um, no. I I didn't I didn't intend to weigh in on this. Um, Commissioner Ruiz, was there something specific that you uh may may have uh wanted to hear or um maybe a specific question? Yeah. Now, okay, great.

Um, my question is, um, and I think this was said and if I didn't hear it, I apologize. Is this to change the location or is this to change the requirements or like what please explain to me? And the other thing is that I didn't hear a community voice here. I just heard um the voice of the LLC and I was wondering if you know was there community outreach done? What is the community saying that that those were my questions?

Yeah. So um well with regards to the existing facility in Hazlewood, I want to start by saying that it is not a waste transfer station, right? It is a recycling center. Um, it's interesting because someone here stated that they were going to build a separate building, but I was in a call recently with uh, Miss Kochinsky and the state DP where the D was also under the impression that there was going to be a separate building, but that it was clarified on the call that no, indeed the building that, you know, at some point in time after, you know, unclear renovations that the existing building is going to be is intended to be a future waste transfer station. So I I I would definitely recommend that the Republic services team get on the same page about whether it is the existing building which is my understanding from Miss Kchinsky and the call with the D or whether they are planning to build a separate facility somewhere else. Um, and I'd also like to point out that similarly, um, the the notion that the use is so similar that it should be allowed anyway, um, for folks who, uh, were at the hearing about the reasonzoning. I think that this commission has heard ample um testimony. Um and and uh Commissioner Ruiz, you may not have been there for for that, but but we had 30 or so folks in the room from Hazlewood and uh 15 or so who testified to just the incredibly harmful impacts of having um this facility and other, you know, industrial facilities around there, but um next to their homes. So, um, I didn't actually, you know, it was a it was, you know, it was a lot for all

those folks to come out to come down to to to city planning last week. And so, um, I my my hope, you know, I I don't like to ask my residents to come out. Um, I I didn't ask them to come out the first time around, uh, with the last bill. Um but um you know so you know I'm hoping that the that the sort of history of of the residents who came out at the last meeting um will suffice for the commission to understand the incredibly harmful impact of having such a facility which let me underscore is not a waste transfer station right it's recycling so it's a it's material that is you know when it in terms of odor and rodents and all these things it's it's material that's, you know, far far less harmful than than regular waste uh would be and already causing much distress in the community as is. And so, you know, the idea that this similar that these two uses are similar um should underscore the fact that a facility of this size and this magnitude should not be close to to homes and businesses. And now the fact that it is right that this recycling center that that that you know we we we all understand that right there is a large recycling facility smack dab in the Hazlewood neighborhood and um you know that's on that's on me as the council person to work with the county health department to really make sure that that the existing facility um you know is up to code and is passing you know is passing their um their inspections. and all that type of thing. Um, I recognize that. I also am, you know, very glad that Republic Services has, you know, started, you know, recently joined the Greater Hazlewood Community Collaborative and is now sort of engaging with the community as a result of all this. I'm very grateful for that

and I think that that will help um help them sort of hear more directly on a on a more regular basis about the impact that their operations have. However, they are not operating uh waste transfer station at this time. So, I hope that is sort of long long way around explaining why why I didn't I didn't you know sort of pound the pavement and make sure that that residents came out to to this particular hearing. Thank you. But if resident voices are needed, I'm more than happy to to, you know, to to do that again if I need to. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Um, it looks like Commissioner O'Neal's hand is raised.

Yes. Thank you. Uh, thank you for the presentation, Councilwoman, and thank you to the speakers who came out. Um, also recalling all of the community members who were here last week. Um, I understand that this is a separate bill from the um, resoning, but you know, we did have kind of some overlap in some of the testimony. Um, you know, I would recommend supporting this bill and making a positive recommendation. Um, for the reasons Councilwoman Warwick stated, um, you know, this is, uh, you know, something that is going to be coming into the community and, you know, there is a need to protect the health, safety and welfare of that community. Um, and because we have that kind of rational basis behind us, you know, it makes sense to move forward with the the resoning. Um, and I think it was also helpful just to point out and sort of address uh Commissioner Maz's statement, but something I was going to say anyway, um, you know, the map that was included in Councilwoman Warwick's presentation does show, you know, potential areas where these uses would be permitted. Um, you know, and that could be viable. um whether there's a you know market interest there or not, I don't know. Um but it does show that the use would not be uh prohibited in the city. And then um specifically regarding uh Republic Services use, uh I just want to echo some things that Councilwoman Warwick said um and add on a little bit. uh any lawful use in the city, you know, currently permitted is permitted to continue um you know, regardless of this bill before us or the you know, similar reasonzoning bill. Um and there are some rights under, you know, those lawful businesses to continue and expand as was noted by the attorney for Republic

Services. um you know what that expansion and sort of use looks like is really something that would be have to be evaluated on a case-by case basis whether that was permitted or not. Um but here I think we're you know looking at a little bit more of an intensive use. This is you know not just a an industrial use which is what typically garers conditional use approval. Um but it is something that also has increased trough traffic uh and you know potential um impacts on the surrounding community due to that traffic. So it's not just the use itself but it is a lot of the kind of you know ancillary uh travel that could impact these uh applications and is something that kind of garers more um you know thought and review which is why it would be a conditional use in these areas where it would be permitted. Um so thank you to everybody for that presentation um and for your thoughts and I would recommend approval but happy to hear I can't I'm also having

uh vice chair O'Neal your sound went out and I think I was hearing you uh earlier you have some issues as well uh with technology um yes oh very good so I will end on I'm having technology issues. If there are no further comments, I would motion to re There's another hand. There's another hand raised. Um, let me take Commissioner uh Woo at this time.

Yeah, I just had a question for um uh possibly um Mr. Layman um andor councilwoman work um and possibly even the Republic Services as well. What what is the closest use term and definition currently in the existing zoning ordinance in in your I guess estimation to what a waste transfer station would be? Uh M commissioner Woo might I rephrase your question or would it make sense to answer your question as if we had an application without this use category we handle it? Sure. Yeah.

Okay. So the code has a provision for unlisted uses. Um sometimes we get uses that are brand new to the city or brand new to everyone and we need to have a way to deal with them and the code uh has the zoning administrator determine what the closest related use is. When I get an application like that, what I do is ask the applicant for a very detailed description of the use. I go through the use categories that are existing in the code and really base on the impacts and the character traits of that use once I understand it fully um and then try to uh match it to the closest comparable. Uh without all of that information, I don't want to say for certain like a as like a final uh determination. Uh but would probably look at uh the uses. Now, let me pull up the use table here. Um uses that have to do like recycling services or salvage yard um that have to do with trash and recycling and and those kinds of materials. noting that this is different and that's why you know when the council person came to us and asked us to work with her on this use uh we looked and and and she brought to us the knowledge that there are other communities in the area and in Pennsylvania that have this type of use category. Then we went and did research and looked at comparable cities, looked at uh other municipalities in the area and provided some some uh recommendations for her to pursue from there. So um I would say there definitely isn't a um isn't a a use

that's close. Uh this does seem unique and it and it seems that other municipalities have recognized that. Um, but it in order to make a final determination of what that use would be, I would need to have a great deal more information about that proposal.

Yeah, I I think in light of uh your response uh Mr. layman. Um that you know it it is a positive overall to have the definition or or and and the use term now for waste transfer station so that you know something like that is not um you know so uh up in the air. Um and and that goes for both you know both the uh residents and and for uh uh you know the applicants as well. Um if if there would be an applica u application for such a facility. Um, and I think, you know, in terms of location of a waste transfer station, um, I, you know, looking at the map that, uh, Councilwoman Warwick put up, I mean, there's not a lot of, uh, um, areas in this, in the city where, um, you know, that's covered by the GI district or, um, or RIBGI. Um however um you know such a such a use does not necessarily have to be um directly in the city limits. Um you know there there's there definitely you know no shortage of adjacent municipalities um you know around the city um and some you know kind of nearby even to the existing recycling facility. So it doesn't have to be all the way out in the imperial necessarily. Um and you know if this is a use that uh is called out in some other zoning ordinances might you know there it might be in one of those adjacent municipalities as well. So you know I I you know I would say in terms of uh you know having this use uh listed and defined I I think that's a positive

for everyone actually. Um and that concludes my comment. Okay. Um commissioners, is that the uh Commissioner Black? Well, it looks like you've opened.

Yes. I just wanted to second Commissioner O'Neal's motion to support and vote for the bill. Okay. So, she's made a motion uh based on um the conditions in our report. Is that accurate? And then and you're seconding. Correct. Correct. All right. I'll do roll call. And that would be uh Commissioner Blackwell. I Thank you. Commissioner Burton Faulk. No. Commissioner Dick.

I. Thank you, Commissioner Maza. No. Commissioner O'Neal. I Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. I. Commissioner Woo. I Thank you. Okay. Motion passes. Uh, thank you, Councilwoman Warwick. Have a great rest of your day. You're very Thank you all so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Have a good day.

You're very welcome. You also have a great day. Um, I do need to go uh back because it looks as if under uh agenda item B, if you'll be patient with me here, uh, under correspondence, I did miss some correspondence. So, planning commission correspondence for December 2nd, uh, 2025 is as follows. regarding item DCP- MPZC-2025-0000195 uh council bill 2025-1993 um Hazelwood this would be uh correspondence from David Kaye the progress fund uh regarding item DCP- MP PZC-2025-0000230 under council bill 2024-0959 Northshore there is correspondence from the following Nick Wells Elise Macdonald Nadia Beth Knobck Melissa Mcwigan and Bill Chill. So, my apologies for not having read uh agenda item B correspondenc. We've now completed that. Uh we've done C D and now we are moving on to agenda item E which is the director's report.

There is no director's report. Well, it looks like we're then capable of of a motion to adjourn for uh December 2nd, 2025. Do we have a motion? So moved. Thank you so much. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. All in favor? I. Okay. Very good. Stay warm, everybody. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Byebye. Have a great rest of your day today. Thank you.