Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Commercial Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission forwards recommendation to council to allow gravel parking for Mr. Handyman with screening

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission voted to forward a conditional-use recommendation to council to allow continued use of an existing gravel parking area adjacent to Mr. Handyman (5608 William Penn Highway), while staff and some members raised concerns about precedent and ordinance interpretation.

On March 11 the Murrysville Planning Commission voted to forward a conditional‑use recommendation to borough council allowing continued use of an existing gravel parking area adjacent to Mr. Handyman at 5608 William Penn Highway, with screening for the dumpster shown on submitted plans.

Attorney Brian Almeter, representing the property owner, said the gravel area had been in use for “20 plus years” for prior commercial operations and that the application sought to legalize continued parking and a dumpster pad so Republic (trash collector) would not need to back onto Route 22. Almeter and applicant Jeff Reaping said the proposed work is limited to screening the dumpster and formalizing the parking area; no paving had been proposed.

Planning staff raised ordinance and stormwater concerns. Staff reminded the commission that the zoning code defines impervious surfaces by runoff-coefficient language and typically expects parking areas to be concrete, asphalt or an approved pervious surface similar to those materials. The staff presentation noted the borough has historically not permitted gravel parking lots in similar commercial locations and recommended caution because approving gravel could set a precedent. The applicant’s representative and other commissioners countered that similar gravel areas exist in the borough and that the area had been used historically for parking.

The commission debated options including referral to the solicitor for a formal interpretation or to the Zoning Hearing Board. One commissioner recommended forwarding the application to solicitor with a recommendation for denial on the paving issue; another moved to forward with a recommendation for approval. The motion to forward with a recommendation for approval carried on a 3‑to‑1 recorded vote (commissioners present voted in favor; one commissioner voiced opposition). Planning staff and the chair later noted the motion was passed by a majority of the quorum present and that council will hold the formal conditional‑use hearing.

The commission’s recommendation to council asks council to allow the existing gravel parking configuration to continue under the submitted plan, including landscaping and a fence around the dumpster. The record shows staff will solicit solicitor guidance and the Zoning Hearing Board remains an available avenue if ordinance interpretation is disputed.