Murrysville council axes proposal for vacant property registry

Murrysville council will not move ahead with a proposed ordinance establishing a registry for vacant properties.

Murrysville Chief Administrator Michael Nestico said a draft copy of the ordinance began circulating in early November, and the municipality received significant feedback about the proposal, which would have established a fee schedule for vacant properties, with the fee rising depending on how many years a property remained vacant.

“I want to stress that the goal was not to force something into place without letting the community weigh in on it,” Nestico told council at its Nov. 5 meeting, where the ordinance was on the agenda for a possible vote. “The fact that it kind of became an election topic is refreshing in some ways, because it shows our community certainly cares and wants to ensure that any decision by council is given full and proper consideration.”

Murrysville resident and former council member Dennis Pavlik didn’t find anything refreshing about the ordinance itself.

“Previous councils have rejected this anytime it was proposed,” Pavlik said.

Nestico said the ordinance was intended for properties with vacant structures on them, rather than unimproved or wooded parcels. Pavlik said it didn’t look that way in the draft ordinance.

“You can state all you want what the ordinance’s intent is supposed to be, but what counts is the language that was written down,” Pavlik said.

In the draft ordinance, Pavlik said the definition for “abandoned property” included “vacant lots.”

“There are many people who purchase a vacant lot because they want a buffer,” Pavlik said. “Or they want to retain that property as an investment. The only way this ordinance can be interpreted is the way it’s written. We already have property maintenance codes, and I think we need to simply enforce those better.”

Resident Ron Summerhill agreed.

“This creates a tax on individual holdings, vacant properties or land for personal investment or private use,” Summerhill said. “It also creates a public registry for developers, insurance companies and criminals, with easy access to known properties that could become subject to increased insurance premiums, unwanted purchase solicitations or the release of other valuable information.”

Nestico said the proposal was different from the type of vacant-property ordinance employed in urban settings.

“It wouldn’t create a situation where the municipality could take the land and turn it into a community garden,” he said. “This is intended for properties with vacant structures on them.”

Pavlik said he didn’t feel the ordinance specified either of those things.

“I don’t think you can fine-tune this,” he said. “It needs to be rejected, and I think council should take a vote and kill it.”

While council didn’t do exactly that, no council members made a motion to vote on it, which means it will not come back on the agenda.

Nestico said vacant properties are not a major concern in Murrysville, and the ordinance was intended as another tool for staff to help bring neglected properties into compliance.

“Some elements of this have been publicly scrutinized and rightfully so,” he said. “The goal was to address properties that either should be in use, or properties that are becoming problems within a neighborhood. I think it’s very positive to see that people in the community care and want to make sure we’re doing things properly.”