Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Issues topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise safety and development concerns; council, staff respond
Summary
During public comment at the June 4 Uniontown council meeting, residents pressed officials about unclear handicap parking enforcement, an overgrown lot creating safety hazards, and questions about a proposed Dollar General development at the Craig Mansion site; staff described enforcement steps, contractor schedules, and high-level litigation cost exposures but did not provide detailed invoices or final development plans.
Several Uniontown residents used the June 4 public-comment period to press city officials on neighborhood safety and an active development proposal.
Patricia Peace, a local resident, said two residential handicap parking zones lacked required striping and additional signage and reported state troopers citing vehicles because the spaces were not visibly delimited. She asked the council to direct Public Works and parking enforcement to correct markings and signage to ensure that spaces are enforceable and accessible.
David Burner reported an overgrown lot adjacent to his Lincoln Street property that blocks sightlines at a cross alley and said the long grass posed a hazard to children on scooters and drivers. City staff said they had contacted the landscaping contractor (Starkey Landscaping) and that redevelopment staff could pursue a citation if the property owner failed to address the overgrowth; Starkey Landscaping was reported to plan a crew visit the following day.
Franklin LaCava, a longtime resident, raised a set of questions about a proposed Dollar General near the former Craig Mansion: whether a traffic signal would be installed at the site, how much the city had spent on legal work related to past challenges, and whether the city engineer had a role in the development. Officials responding in the meeting said no plans showing a traffic signal had been filed with the city; they cautioned that litigation exposures could include paying opposing counsel fees and in some scenarios could reach "hundreds of thousands" depending on case complexity; and they said K2 (identified in the record as the engineer that contracted with the city) is not a city employee and there was no documentary indication in the materials reviewed that the engineer was a principal of the development.
Officials did not provide invoice-level figures for the legal work during the public comment period. City staff directed residents to follow up with redevelopment staff and noted times and mechanisms for filing complaints and for upcoming citizen-participation hearings (CDBG hearing June 23) where public input is invited.
Quote from the meeting: Patricia Peace said the lack of visible markings turns legal parking areas into a trap for law-abiding drivers and asked the city to "review locations and fix whatever the issues are."
