Council denies rezoning request for Reagan Ridge parcel; planning commission had recommended denial
October 02, 2025 | Murrysville, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Murrysville Borough Council rejected a rezoning request Wednesday that would have changed 35,987 square feet of parcel tax ID 49‑21‑00‑0‑087, at the Wilson Road/Manor Road intersection, from R‑3 (high‑density residential) to B (business).
Council member Jason Lemack was the lone vote in favor; four members voted no and one seat was absent. The planning commission had recommended denial at its September meeting.
The applicant, developer Craig Fusting of Reagan Ridge, said the proposed footprint was roughly 3,000 square feet per floor in a two‑story building and that the structure would primarily serve Reagan Ridge residents as a gym and to provide amenities that prospective buyers want. Fusting said the building would be smaller than an existing barn on the site and that “there’s plenty of a buffer” between the proposed commercial footprint and residential units.
Solicitor and staff members explained the zoning issue: because the gym site is a separate parcel from the Reagan Ridge residential parcels, it could not be treated as an accessory use to the housing without lot consolidation. As a result, rezoning the standalone parcel to B would permit any uses allowed in the B district, and that possibility concerned planning commissioners and some council members. As the solicitor summarized, “once you rezone it to a particular type of district, then the uses that are permitted or conditioned in that district apply.”
At the council hearing, planning commission members and councilors referenced plans presented earlier that had labeled the existing barn “convert to an activity center,” and some commissioners said the updated intent to use the space as a gym differed from what neighbors had expected. The applicant said potential partners and tenants could help offset the cost of a two‑story building and that the proposed gym would primarily serve residents and employees of the adjacent commercial park.
Council voted 4–1 to deny Z‑1‑25; the applicant may pursue alternatives such as lot consolidation or seeking conditional approvals under the current R‑3 provisions.
Council member Jason Lemack was the lone vote in favor; four members voted no and one seat was absent. The planning commission had recommended denial at its September meeting.
The applicant, developer Craig Fusting of Reagan Ridge, said the proposed footprint was roughly 3,000 square feet per floor in a two‑story building and that the structure would primarily serve Reagan Ridge residents as a gym and to provide amenities that prospective buyers want. Fusting said the building would be smaller than an existing barn on the site and that “there’s plenty of a buffer” between the proposed commercial footprint and residential units.
Solicitor and staff members explained the zoning issue: because the gym site is a separate parcel from the Reagan Ridge residential parcels, it could not be treated as an accessory use to the housing without lot consolidation. As a result, rezoning the standalone parcel to B would permit any uses allowed in the B district, and that possibility concerned planning commissioners and some council members. As the solicitor summarized, “once you rezone it to a particular type of district, then the uses that are permitted or conditioned in that district apply.”
At the council hearing, planning commission members and councilors referenced plans presented earlier that had labeled the existing barn “convert to an activity center,” and some commissioners said the updated intent to use the space as a gym differed from what neighbors had expected. The applicant said potential partners and tenants could help offset the cost of a two‑story building and that the proposed gym would primarily serve residents and employees of the adjacent commercial park.
Council voted 4–1 to deny Z‑1‑25; the applicant may pursue alternatives such as lot consolidation or seeking conditional approvals under the current R‑3 provisions.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting