Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Property Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After public pushback, Murrysville council will not advance vacant‑property ordinance
Summary
Following public comment and staff explanation that the draft is intended as a code‑enforcement tool, council decided not to proceed with Ordinance 11‑04‑25, a proposed vacant‑property ordinance that residents said could impose onerous fees and registries.
Murrysville council on Monday declined to advance a draft vacant‑property ordinance (described in the meeting as 'Ordinance 11‑04‑25') after residents urged the borough to reject the measure and staff said the draft needs refinement.
Chief administrator Mister Nestico told council the ordinance was intended as "another tool out of the toolbox" for code enforcement and was not meant to allow the borough to take ownership of property. He said the draft should be narrowed to target vacant structures (not unimproved land) and that language on fee waivers and administrative discretion needed work.
Residents at the meeting criticized the draft. Ron Summerhill said the proposal "creates a tax on individual holdings" and warned it would produce a public registry and could expose owners to fines and unwanted solicitations. Dennis Padlik said the draft reads as though it would apply to 'abandoned' property and could levy progressively higher fees—$300 in year one up to $5,000 after 10 years—and urged council to reject it.
After discussion and community input, council concluded not to proceed with the ordinance. Mayor and council characterized the proposal as premature and agreed staff should not move forward with advertisement or adoption at this time.
Council emphasized that the draft, as presented, did not allow seizure of private property but agreed the language needs careful revision if revived.
