On July 15, 2008, former Dormont resident Mary Pitcher lost two of her four sons in a drowning incident at a reservoir in the Allegheny National Forest. The young men, Stephen Pitcher, 19, and Vincent Pitcher, 21, who grew up in Dormont, were avid skateboarders. As a memorial to the two lives lost, their mother, now a resident of Scott Township, approached Dormont Council about establishing a skateboard park and raising the money for its construction. Since then, the proposed facility has been fraught with controversy. This three-part series will look at existing skateboard facilities in other municipalities, as well as examine the views of those opposed to the creation of one in Dormont—and those who feel it would be an asset to the borough.

"It's not that we're against skateboarders," Jeremy Smith emphasized as a group of Dormont residents opposed to Pitcher Park gathered to discuss their concerns with Patch.

In fact, if the skatepark were constructed on private property, some said they wouldn't oppose the idea at all. But its proposed location—and actions that must be taken for it to be built—are what has brought this group together a few weeks ago to raise the issues.

Though the 11 or so residents gathered each had their individual concerns, they concurred that they don't feel the expectations outlined in a document, "Multi-Use Park Questions and Answers," authored by council members Heather Schmidt and Laurie Malka in May, 2010, are being met as plans for the skatepark proceed.

Though not a legally binding document, the 13 points outlined in the three-page paper set the parameters of what the borough expects from the nonprofit Pitcher Park Memorial Skatepark as it proceeds with plans for the skatepark facility, which would also accommodate BMX bikers and rollerbladers. The residents say that borough council has not given much response to their concerns.

"I want what was promised," said Daniele Ventresca, one of the residents. "They just put what people wanted to hear into the document."

Though the Pitcher Park group initially proposed funding a skatepark only, the document indicates to make that happen means the group has to finance construction of the skatepark at the site of the Banksville Road tennis courts in Dormont Park, refurbish the old courts along Memorial Drive, reconstruct the existing basketball court and add a dog park. The foundation would also provide a maintenance fund to help provide upkeep for the facility.

"There is another side to this story," said Amy Keaney, who lives near the park. "We're complaining they've started work and finished work that's not satisfactory, to our beliefs."

One of the issues voiced by the residents opposed to the skatepark is the fact that it would take the place of much-used tennis courts along Banksville Road—and they claim the 75-year-old ones refurbished by the Pitcher Park group this summer along Memorial Drive aren't of the same quality.

"To their credit, it looks much nicer," Smith said, noting, though, that three regulation courts will be eliminated and replaced with two non-regulation courts.

Resident Ken Krugh researched safety zone standards of the U.S. Tennis Association and found the 120-by-60-foot Banksville Road courts meet those requirements. Not only don't the Memorial Drive courts meet the safety zone standards for regulation courts, they don't meet the standards for recreational court safety zones either, he noted.

Minimum court size is 114-by-56 feet and recreational size courts should be at least 110-by-54 feet. According to measurements done by Krugh, the width for one of the Memorial Drive courts falls short of recreational-court standards by 4 feet, and the space between the court and the fence is not even on both sides.

"The initial layout for the courts playing area on Memorial Drive is not centered between the fencing," Krugh said. "This makes one side more dangerous because of the smaller safety zone."

"Someone could get injured," said Dee Krugh, his wife. She also raised concern about the lack of sidewalks along Memorial Drive for those walking down to the proposed skateboard area.

Ventresca questioned the quality of the materials used to refurbish the Memorial Drive courts this summer compared to the existing Banksville Road courts. The older courts were originally clay and, more recently, used by rollerbladers and those practicing hockey.

"My issue is why are we moving the tennis courts," she said.

Although there was initial opposition to a plan to locate the skatepark in the tennis court area on Memorial Drive, there is also opposition to taking out the larger, newer courts on Banksville Road.

Keaney mentioned a conversation with Chris Blackwell, Penn Hills principal planner, where he said he would not have ever put that municipality's skatepark on a well-used recreational facility. (Though Penn Hills did build the skatepark on former tennis courts, they had been unused and in disrepair for a number of years. Blackwell is scheduled to attend the Nov. 14 Dormont Council meeting.)

The residents also raised the issue that if the Banksville courts are eliminated, Keystone Oaks Band will lose the prime spot for its Christmas tree sale that raises money for the band trips. The problem was addressed in the May 24, 2010 document, which states the band can instead use the basketball courts or any level surfaces in the park, as well as using the Memorial Drive tennis courts to hold trees should the skatepark be built.

The dog park is proposed for a tier above the Memorial Drive courts, on an area where a gas line makes construction impossible.

Smith pointed to the discussions that proceeded the skatepark getting a green light from council. Though talk of the park began in Oct. 2008, it wasn't until the next summer that a proposal was submitted to council.

"It became clear to them (Pitcher Park group) and council that it needed to be formalized," Smith recalled.

Opposition to the skatepark began just a few months after the proposal for the park surfaced in 2009. A website, www.savedormontpark.com, though now out of date, was established to challenge the park based on its location, visual impact, sound/noise issues, environmental impact, size, maintenance and other issues.

After public meetings and several council committee meetings to discuss the pros and cons, council voted down the skateboard park proposal in November 2009. But in April 2010, with new council members on board, the plan was approved by a 4-3 vote.

That vote was taken at a council meeting the Monday after Easter, according to Smith, and was not well publicized. And, Ventresca said, the action item missed the deadline to be placed on the printed agenda for the meeting, leaving people in the dark until it was brought up from the floor by council.

Smith and Keaney both have concerns with the process. Smith wonders whether the borough or the nonprofit skatepark group will have the final say about the contractor and if it will be put out for bid since the equipment will be donated.

Smith also has concerns about liability coverage, police coverage, lighting for the park and whether the Pitcher Park group will be able to raise the money needed for the project. He said council and the group have not given any reassurances about those issues nor answered questions pertaining to them.

"The Pitcher Park people should be aware of what the process is, too," he said.

The money should be raised before any work begins, Smith noted. He also said that if "bad things happen" at the park and it would need removed, it would have to be done at the borough's expense.

Ken Krugh said when the liability issue has been raised with council, residents have been told it is covered under the borough's "umbrella" plan. But he questions if that would cover the cost if someone is hurt.

Ventresca and Keaney suggested that traffic and feasibility studies should be done prior to allowing the facility to be built.

Aesthetics are another problem with a skatepark at the entrance to Dormont Park. Cindy Lucas raised the issue of graffiti creating a less-than-desirable appearance and Dee Krugh noted that outhouses might need to be at that location.

"We have a beautiful entrance now," Keaney said.

Councilman John Maggio, who was contacted after the meeting with residents, said he's concerned that the Pitcher Park supporters have "never given a solid answer to" some of the concerns raised by residents. He also doesn't agree with the way the park was approved by council.

Maggio and some of the residents, while understanding Pitcher's desire to memorialize her sons, feel that the sympathy people have for her situation is overriding some of the issues the skatepark might create.

"They made their deal to get the vote through," Maggio said. "Some of the women (on council) voted with their hearts, not their heads."

Part III of this series will appear on Patch on Friday, Nov. 11. It will look at what is being proposed, the lack of recreation for teens in Dormont and how those who support the park feel about it.

To view Part I, click here. To view Part III, click here.