Council hears public comments on Reagan Ridge rezoning; record closed, decision pending

Murrysville councilors held a public hearing on Z‑1‑25 (Reagan Ridge), a proposed rezoning of about 3.14 acres at the intersection of Wilson and Manor roads from R‑3 (high‑density residential) to B (business), and closed the hearing record for later consideration.

The rezoning application, represented by attorney Brian Almader of Feringer, McCarty & Gray on behalf of applicant Bushy Run Investments LP, described a plan to rezone a portion of Parcel A to permit an indoor recreation use he described as a fitness/gym facility intended primarily for employees of the Fusting Executive Park. Almader said the applicant offered a smaller 1.2‑acre rezoning option around the barn site instead of the entire Parcel A and noted the parcel had been shown as an “activity center” on the Fusting Executive Park master plan recorded in 2021. Almader said, “the intent was to fall within that indoor commercial type use.”

Residents who live adjacent to the site urged council to deny the rezoning or delay approval until nearby residential units are completed. William Murra, who said he lives at 2330 Wheatland Circle, told council the development has been “unfinished” for three years and that approving business zoning for “unspecified future commercial uses will…put off potential buyers and further delay completion of Reagan Ridge.” Diane Dougherty, also of Wheatland Circle, noted the original master plan showed the barn site as an activity center for Reagan Ridge and asked why commercial uses could not be placed on 40 acres across Wilson Road that are already zoned business.

Almader referenced a May 27, 2025 letter from the Westmoreland Department of Planning and Development noting that the proposed rezoning “appears to be compatible with the surrounding uses” but urging care to “balance and control negative consequences of potential other B permitted uses on…residents.” Almader also told council he had not found a specific “fitness center” definition in the municipal zoning code and said comparable uses appear under “recreation, indoor commercial” or “recreation membership club,” with different tables of permitted/conditional uses across zoning districts. Council and staff also noted that a PennDOT permit remains outstanding and that, if approved as B, the parcel would be subject to all permitted uses in that district, not just the fitness use described in the application.

Council member Jamie Ling moved to close the record on the rezoning hearing; the motion was seconded by Carl (surname not stated on the record). The motion passed on a voice vote and the matter will return to council for decision at a future meeting; no rezoning vote was taken at the hearing.

Why it matters: rezoning from residential to business would change the legal uses allowed on the property; residents said the change could affect marketing for the nearby residential units and alter the long‑term character near the townhomes. Staff flagged outstanding permit reviews and the planning commission’s prior recommendation (reported at the planning commission meetings) as inputs council will weigh before acting.

Next steps: council will consider the rezoning application at a later meeting after the record is closed, staff responses to outstanding agency comments (including PennDOT), and any written planning commission findings and conditions.