A revised parking ordinance in Oakmont has garnered some negative attention from a resident who owns multiple businesses in the borough.

During the borough’s most recent public meeting, Solicitor Jacob Leyland presented a draft of an amended ordinance defining legal parking. The draft would update parking requirements in the borough’s commercial district.

Similar to an ordinance introduced in 2023 and passed in January 2024, businesses would be able to count available street parking as part of the required number of spots for their business to operate in the borough.

The point of the proposed ordinance is to relax the borough’s off-street parking requirement.

The original ordinance, which eliminated the requirement of off-street parking for incoming businesses, was previously invalidated by the Commonwealth Courts.

“From a substance standpoint, this ordinance is nearly identical to the prior ordinance,” Leyland said.

The difference is the newest draft provides an opportunity for existing businesses to request their parking requirements fall under the new ordinance.

Oakmont resident John Keefe, who owns seven restuarants in the borough and some additional properties, filed an appeal on five separate grounds, challenging the validity of the 2024 ordinance.

Commonwealth Court ruled in the borough’s favor on four of them, but found the borough in violation of an equal protection claim. The courts reasoned that the ordinance created unfair advantages for new business owners versus existing business.

“They found that, essentially, that ordinance created two classes of individuals or entities which is impermissible,” Leyland said.

He said that, like new businesses, existing business owners would be able to submit a traffic study to be able to use street parking rather than providing off-street parking for their customers.

“Basically what this provision does is it affords existing conditional use owners the same opportunity as new conditional use applicants,” Leyland said.

Thomas Breth, an attorney representing Keefe, addressed the council during the public comment section of the meeting regarding the traffic ordinance.

“For years we’ve been involved in litigation regarding a parking ordinance that was adopted by this council,” Breth said. “That parking ordinance was done without any traffic study.”

Breth said the litigation had been appealed through the borough council, the zoning hearing board, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas and Commonwealth Court.

“The Commonwealth Court said, ‘you know what, you’re right.’ Oakmont Borough enacted an ordinance in violation of the law,” Breth said. “It is our understanding that you intend to do that again. That would be very unfortunate.”

He claimed the ordinance would “destroy” the town’s traffic pattern and the health, safety and welfare of residents, business owners and borough visitors. He asked council to speak with experts before passing any ordinances. Breth presented council with two “expert letters” claiming the risk of passing the ordinance.

Council member John Arnold inquired about Breth’s argument for a traffic study, asking if any level of courts had said the borough would need a traffic study to validate the ordinance.

Leyland said the fact that the borough did not conduct a traffic study was litigated at every phase of the procedure. No level of court deemed a study conducted by the borough necessary since conditional use owners have to submit their own per the ordinance.

The ordinance was introduced with two other ordinances being drafted. Leyland said there is no rush to vote them into effect, and council will continue to discuss the drafts at future meetings.

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)