Oakmont parking ordinance survives at local level

An ongoing legal battle in Oakmont ended at the local level Thursday night, but the matter may not be closed.

The Oakmont Zoning Hearing Board voted to deny a challenge to the validity of the borough’s newest parking ordinance filed by resident and local restaurant owner John Keefe. Both hearing board members who were present, Joseph Luciana and Charles Fisher, voted to deny the challenge.

Borough council passed a parking ordinance in March that updates parking requirements in the borough’s commercial district.

Similar to an ordinance passed in January 2024 and later invalidated by the Commonwealth Court, businesses will be able to count available street parking as part of the required number of spots for their business to operate.

After making the changes recommended by the Commonwealth Court, council passed the revised ordinance in March despite threats of legal action from Keefe.

Thursday’s vote lasted around one minute, according to Alexis Wheeler, solicitor for the zoning hearing board. She said no public comment was allowed due to a hearing already being hosted previously.

Keefe said he and his attorneys were not properly notified of when vote would take place and ended up missing the decision.

The meeting was originally scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Monday but had to be rescheduled because the board was unable to reach a quorum. Keefe said he received an email that the vote would be moved to Thursday.

Unbeknownst to him or his lawyers, the new meeting was scheduled for 6 p.m.

Borough Solicitor Jacob Leyland said he was informed in person Monday the vote would be continued to Thursday and was told the new time.

Leyland said he inquired about Keefe’s whereabouts when he didn’t see him or his lawyers during Thursday’s vote. Leyland said he was told Keefe wasn’t coming.

“Out of professionalism, they should have another meeting,” said Gusty Sunseri, an attorney representing Keefe.

In regard to the decision, Suneri said he would be meeting with Keefe to figure out next steps.

Wheeler said the meeting was publicly advertised in accordance with the Sunshine Act. The specific notice was published in a newspaper, she said.

“It’s not unusual for people to not come to a voting meeting when there’s no chance to be heard. I didn’t think there was anything peculiar,” Wheeler said when asked if anyone had thought Keefe’s absence was peculiar.

“If there was any procedural issues here, which I don’t think there were, it would result in a deemed denial for the challenger,” Wheeler said.

Deemed denial means the matter would’ve been denied as a matter of law even if there were procedural issues.

Keefe has 30 days to file an appeal in regard to the board’s decision to Allegheny County Court. Wheeler said he would be able to detail any issue with how the decision was announced within that appeal.