Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Transfer Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pittsburgh council hears testimony on zoning change to define and restrict waste transfer stations
Summary
City planning staff and council members presented a zoning amendment to define 'waste transfer station' and add a 500-foot buffer from homes, schools and parks; Republic Services representatives argued the buffer would exclude the Hazelwood facility and cited potential savings and legal concerns; an attorney warned of possible conflict with state law. No vote was taken.
City Council held a public hearing Feb. 6 on Council Bill 23-85, a proposed amendment to Pittsburgh’s zoning code to add a definition for “waste transfer station” and use standards that would, among other provisions, place a 500-foot buffer around residential and commercial zoning districts, schools and parks.
City planning staff told the council the change follows research into how other jurisdictions regulate transfer stations and the city’s 2017 Roadmap to 0 Waste, which identified a local transfer station as a way to reduce long hauls and greenhouse-gas emissions from refuse vehicles. Planning staff said the Planning Commission reviewed the legislation and issued a positive recommendation on Dec. 2, 2025, while recommending edits to clarify that the definition exclude recycling facilities and to change distance language to reference both uses and zoning districts.
Council member Warwood, who presented slides used at the Planning Commission, said Pittsburgh currently does not operate a municipal solid-waste transfer station and that sanitation trucks now travel roughly 20 miles to a landfill in Imperial. He said a transfer station could ease operational strain on the city fleet but stressed the need to avoid placing such facilities near homes and community sites, citing concerns about litter, noise, odors, truck traffic and pests and framing the question as an environmental-justice issue for neighborhoods already adjacent to industrial sites.
Representatives of the privately owned Hazelwood facility addressed the council during public testimony. Lori Kulchinsky, general manager of BFI Waste Services of Pennsylvania (a Republic Services subsidiary), said Hazelwood has been identified in city research as an appropriate location and that Republic Services has operated in partnership with the city for three decades. Kulchinsky told the council her company’s transfer station could reduce the city’s capital and operating costs, saying the facility is “estimated to save the city…over $5,000,000 in recurring capital expenditures” and “another million dollars annually through operating savings,” and urged the council not to pass a setback that would effectively exclude their site.
An attorney for Republic Services, Christopher Volts of Tucker Arensberg, argued the ordinance could conflict with state law. Volts said the bill “violates Act 101 of 1988” (the Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling, and Waste Reduction Act) and told the council that state regulations cited in testimony include a 300-foot guideline and waiver mechanism; he asked the council to pause the bill pending further research into legal consistency.
City planning staff earlier summarized applicable Department of Environmental Protection requirements for siting and operations (including setbacks, monitoring, and nuisance controls) and included attachments and maps showing how a 500-foot buffer would affect potential siting. Staff and council members said the zoning change is intended to govern future siting decisions; they noted that zoning cannot retroactively remove existing uses.
No formal motion or council vote was recorded during the hearing. Council members asked that the item be placed on a standing committee agenda for further consideration next week. The public hearing concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
