Some Murrysville officials and residents think a general business overlay district would provide better quality developments in the municipality.

Others think it would allow large commercial centers to take over their rural community.

Both sides got their say at a sometimes contentious 90-minute public hearing last week.

The overlay district proposal would set standards for commercial development throughout Murrysville and would allow development in some residential areas.

One of the areas included in the overlay is the Buncher property, which has been the subject of much debate after its owners, Manor Development Group II, had a request to rezone 50 acres of the land from residential to business rejected last year.

Michael Dematt, an attorney representing Citizens for the Rural Preservation of Murrysville, said he felt officials already had decided on the issue when it rejected Manor Development Group II's rezoning request.

"It is clear that it's all a product of and focused on this Manor Development Group issue," he said.

Resident Brian Palmer said he thinks the Manor Development Group II issue was being forced into the overlay ordinance. He said he worried the entire community could be overrun by shopping centers.

"I feel like we're going to Buncherize the entire community," Palmer said.

Chris Rearick, director of community development, said the mediation committee working with Manor Development Group II to try and resolve the zoning dispute had input into the ordinance.

"The mediation committee found that this ordinance -- while addressing a much larger picture -- was a useful tool in mediating the Manor Develop-ment challenge," he said.

The committee also recommended limiting large retailers such as Target or Wal-Mart to one per 50 acres.

Export councilman John Nagoda said he worried about the impact the overlay could have on the borough. He said borough officials should have a say.

"With this overlay, there is no say," Nagoda said. "You can do whatever you want."

However, not everyone in the audience was against the proposal.

Resident Maggie Reba said she was in favor of the proposal because it opened the door for more business in Murrysville.

"I'm totally for it," Reba said. "I hate leaving town to go shopping."

Alice Drjenovich said she supported the proposal because it would provide standards for developers.

"We need to stress beautification of Murrysville," she said.

Mayor Joyce Somers said she was one of the proposal's supporters.

"We have discussed for years that we would like some control of aesthetics for our buildings and this has finally be accomplished with this plan," she said.

Somers also said the overlay focuses development along Route 22, which is what the municipality's comprehensive plan calls for.

Chief administrator John Barrett said he believed the proposed ordinance would help keep Murrysville a quality community.

"I think Murrysville is a premier community," he said. "And we're interested in offering options and alternatives to investors that will allow them to build quality development that preserves open space in a scale that fits this community."

During the hearing, questions were raised about whether Council President Nancy Kacin and councilman Larry Nicolette would abstain from voting because of a possible conflict of interest. Kacin's husband, Richard, is a local developer and member of the Murrysville Economic and Community Development Corp. and Nicolette works for his company.

"It would seem this type of overlay would benefit someone involved with Kacin construction company and the Murrysville Economic and Community Development Corp.," Dematt said.

Kacin later said she would not comment during the hearing.

Residents who still have questions on the overlay ordinance can submit them in writing to Barrett or Rearick. Answers to those questions and any posed during the hearing will be posted on the municipal Web site.

Officials will vote on the overlay at the next council meeting on June 18 at 7 p.m. at the municipal building at 4100 Sardis Road.