Crafton Borough Council heard detailed public comment and staff discussion on the proposed new zoning code during an education session and the public-comment portion of its July meeting, with residents urging limits on ground-mounted solar panels, asking for clearer definitions of impervious surfaces, and raising concerns about building size and parking standards.

The exchange matters because the new zoning code would replace Crafton’s existing rules for the borough’s business and residential districts and could change what is allowed on lots in the central business district and elsewhere.

Residents asked council to add specific limits and studies to the draft. Laura Casey of Lincoln Avenue said the borough’s tree canopy limits the opportunities for ground-mounted solar and asked council to “please consider adding specific limitations to the proposed ordinance for solar panels, which would require them to be on the roofs of buildings, garages, and at residences, while also removing the allowance for them to be in the ground and up to 10 feet high.” Nicole Kuravan of 184 South Grandview asked council to require equal standards for affordable housing, to require fair-housing impact assessments for large developments, to require 25% green coverage on lots, and to mandate cool roofs or incentives for them; she also asked procedural questions about council and planning commission roles.

Solicitor Corbel answered procedural questions from residents about whether council could alter statewide building codes and how building-code changes compare to zoning changes. Corbel said the borough cannot make material changes to statewide building codes and that “changing something within the borough’s building code takes less time or is as much less rigorous process than changing the borough zoning code” is not accurate; in short, the solicitor said the building code is largely controlled at the state level and borough changes are limited to narrow, local adjustments.

Staff and councilors explained how some of the resident requests fit into zoning, subdivision and building-code responsibilities. A borough staff member said the building code sets construction standards and is imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while the subdivision ordinance already triggers technical impact studies—traffic, soils and stormwater—on larger developments. Council members and staff said fair-housing goals are best supported by allowing a broader mix of housing types, rather than by separate building standards for affordable housing.

On impervious-surface language, resident Greg Wozniak asked for clearer definitions and suggested the borough align with PennDOT-approved pervious surfaces or explicitly define impervious materials. Staff said the draft code places the base definition in the definitions section and that coverage limits are enforced through lot-coverage rules in the subdivision and zoning materials; they advised caution about overly detailed drafting that would be difficult to enforce.

Several residents asked about minimum floor-area standards and density in key corridors. Council and planning staff said modern best practices favor moving minimum area and technical construction requirements to the building code, while zoning focuses on use, form, setbacks and lot coverage; they stressed that reducing artificial minimums can increase housing options. Residents asked the council to review how parking ratios and density allowances would work in practice; councilors noted concerns that very high permitted density with low parking requirements could worsen local parking stress.

Why this matters: the draft zoning ordinance would reframe what uses and building forms are permitted in Crafton’s business districts and how new development is reviewed. Changes to density, parking, green coverage and how conditional uses are handled could affect neighborhood character, traffic and the viability of long-standing businesses.

Council next steps include an education session on July 16 at 6 p.m. in the big community room, ongoing planning-commission review and outreach to the county. Staff signaled they will research specific technical edits residents requested—impervious-surface language, appropriate thresholds for impact studies, and which standards belong in zoning versus the building code.

Residents who spoke on zoning included Laura Casey (Lincoln Avenue) and Nicole Kuravan (184 South Grandview); other commenters included Greg Wozniak and Terry Midgley. Solicitor Corbel and borough staff provided procedural and technical clarifications; planning commission and council members also participated in the discussion.

The education session on July 16 will be the next public opportunity for detailed questions before council advances the draft to the planning commission and county review.