Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Trucks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends revised food‑truck ordinance with clarifications on parking and operations
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended the revised mobile food facility ordinance to council after clarifying definitions (allowing non‑alcoholic beverage sales), where the rules apply, driveway/blocking language, overnight parking limits and permit durations. Staff will incorporate several minor edits requested by commissioners.
Get email alerts on the Food Trucks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend an updated mobile food facility (food truck) ordinance to borough council after a detailed review and a series of agreed clarifications.
Solicitor Jake Leland summarized the redlined ordinance, noting the definition of a mobile food facility was tightened to explicitly allow the sale of non‑alcoholic beverages and to enumerate zoning districts where the ordinance applies. Commissioners questioned language about whether prohibitions applied to borough streets only or to all streets; the commission directed the draft to be changed to cover "any streets within the borough."
Commissioners raised practical concerns about language that would prevent blocking driveways or fire lanes and about a provision that limited a food truck to not remain on the same street/property for more than 72 consecutive hours while another section prohibited overnight street parking. Commissioners and staff agreed to reconcile those provisions so the rule restricting overnight parking applies to streets, while the 72‑hour limitation applies to private property parking. Jake Leland agreed to make the minor edits discussed and the commission moved to recommend the ordinance to council with those changes.
Steve Esposito urged clear wording to avoid preventing a property owner from inviting a food truck onto their own private property for an event; commissioners agreed the intent was not to disallow owner‑authorized activity. The recommended package will be transmitted to council with the requested clarifications.

