After months of meetings and debate, Murrysville council passed an ordinance that many say will spark a boom in commercial development.

As they have all summer, opponents of the General Business District Overlay plan filled council chambers Aug. 6 and attempted to persuade officials to vote down the ordinance.

Some spoke with anger in their voices, others were plaintive and calm. They argued passionately and sometimes tearfully, that the overlay, if passed, was sure to bring crime, congestion, noise and pollution, and compromise the quiet, rural character of the community.

But their arguments did little to change minds. The measure passed by a vote of 5-2. Council members Dennis Pavlik and Joan Kearns, who have opposed the overlay since it came before council in June, voted against it.

Jerome Wolf was one of many residents who called for the vote on the overlay to again be delayed, hoping for a compromise that would allow some residential properties along major thoroughfares to be used for certain types of commercial development.

"I think that somewhere out there there's a solution that's just waiting to be found," said Mr. Wolf, a member of the group Citizens for the Preservation of Rural Murrysville and a fixture at council meetings.

"It's a compromise of some sort between the developers and the citizens, what we perceive to be useful development, as opposed to big box stores. I would urge the council to take a little bit of time, let's find that solution that's out there."

Many residents advocated for the formation of a task force that would allow members of the public to participate in revising the ordinance before moving forward. Council listened, but none of the council members pressed the issue or made a motion in support of a task force.

The most vocal supporters of the overlay were council President Nancy Kacin and Vice President Lawrence Nicolette. They said the overlay will make Murrysville a more attractive place for businesses to locate, which would help keep property taxes low. Mrs. Kacin also has said that residents should be excited about having more shopping and amenities closer to home.

Some residents, however, have said they would rather pay higher property taxes and drive elsewhere to shop if it meant keeping Murrysville free of commercial development.

At the meeting, resident Linda Marts read an e-mail she received from Mrs. Kacin in response to her request to delay the vote.

"You are in a very small group of vocal citizens against development," read part of the note. "It is also very obvious that the group opposing this ordinance does not represent the future of Murrysville by gauging the age of the attendees. ...

"Wait and see, I bet you will be doing more shopping in Murrysville soon and enjoying it. Thank you for your input."

Mrs. Kacin's e-mail provoked a negative reaction from the crowd. Some described its tone as arrogant and "snooty."

But there are parts of the ordinance that opponents support, namely the sections that impose strict architectural and design standards on new commercial and residential construction.

Mr. Wolf told council that most people aren't completely opposed to development, just the kind of large-scale, big-box stores and haphazard shopping centers that characterize nearby Monroeville.

"A majority of the people you've heard speak against the overlay ordinance are not against development. That may be something you feel we are against in total but that is not quite true," he said.

Before voting on the overlay, council voted down a petition submitted by Mr. Wolf in June. More than 700 residents signed the petition, which asked that council vote no on the overlay.

Under council's rules, a petition with signatures of more than two percent of the electorate, about 130 voters, must be placed on the agenda at a public meeting within two months of being submitted and the issue raised in the petition put to a vote.

Mr. Pavlik and Mrs. Kearns voted to adopt the petition, but all other members of council voted against it.

In a last effort to criticize the process by which the measure was developed, Mr. Pavlik charged that the Murrysville Economic and Community Development Corp. had overstepped its bounds as a nonprofit organization when it helped write some of the language in the ordinance.

The organization is made up of local business leaders who work to promote economic development in the municipality. Mrs. Kacin's husband, Murrysville-based developer Richard Kacin, is chairman of the group's board of directors.

Mr. Pavlik's critique did not change the minds of Councilmen Rege Synan or Jeff Franke, who were thought to be swing votes on the issue.

After the vote, Mrs. Kacin defended the overlay and said she thinks residents will come around.

"I think it went well," she said. "I think that there's been a misconception as to the amount of development. I think that at least what we've seen proposed is an upscale shopping district with one anchor. I don't feel that big boxes are going to be taking over Murrysville."

Mr. Wolf said he will be suggest residents test the legality of the overlay and the validity of the vote in light of perceived conflicts of interest on council. The group has retained Greensburg attorney Michael E. DeMatt, but so far no action has been taken.

"There's only two of our council members who pay any attention to the public," Mr. Wolf said. "It was said to be a done deal a year ago and apparently it was. They just basically ignored us for eight months."