Berks County Bar Association The Berks Barrister Spring 2019 - 20

w w w.BERKSBAR.org

Court Rulings Test Assumptions
Continued from page 19
www.glasgowfarm.org

and sent back to the County Planning Commission for review and
revision.
The Wimers appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of
Lawrence County, which found that the zoning ordinance was
exclusionary of wedding and special-event barn uses, and that one
such use, known as "Five Fillies," was more of an "aberration" than
evidence of a lack of exclusion. It further found that the limitation
of the number of events per year, and the limitation to 200 guests
in the proposed amendment did not cure the exclusion, as the use
would not be viable with the proposed restrictions. Even the expert
testimony presented, which admitted that the use was not included
in the zoning ordinance, did not state that the special-event barn
use was a danger to operate community health, safety, and welfare.
The trial court also granted the Wimers the right to the wedding
barn on their property (site-specific relief ).
The Township appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The
Commonwealth Court upheld the lower court finding of exclusion
and of the right of the Wimers to site-specific relief. The expert
testimony in the record contained admissions that the Township
did not allow wedding barns, which was clearly a fully lawful use,
and that the use would not be detrimental to community health,
safety, welfare, and/or morals. As to the appeal of the site-specific
relief, the Commonwealth Court noted that a common pleas court
has broad discretion to fashion its remedy in a land use case, and
in this case, the Wimers had shown entitlement to site-specific
relief. The attempts at curing the admittedly exclusionary zoning
ordinance by adopting two proposed zoning amendments was
insufficient because one proposal offered a theoretical right and
the right was illusory due to the restrictions placed on the use. The
"pending ordinance" doctrine also could not be applied to either
proposed enactment, as there was no public indication of intention
to adopt the new ordinance.

Don't assume that because the house is located in a
historic district that it has to be a historic replica.

Meyer v. Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission, No. 303 C.D.
2018, 2019 Pa.Commw. LEXIS 55 (Pa.Commw., January 7, 2019)
Like many cities and towns, Pittsburgh has a Historic Review
Commission. The Historic Review Commission (HRC), by the
description on the City's website, maintains historical/significant
buildings and neighborhoods in Pittsburgh. The HRC is made
up of seven members appointed by the Mayor. The membership
of the commission must include an architect, a preservationist, a
realtor, a building inspector, and a planner. The HRC has control
over any proposed new construction, demolition, or exterior work
to an historic landmark. The review process begins when an owner
decides to do work to the building. See www.pittsburghpa.gov/
dcp/hrc.
20 | Berks Barrister
http://www.berksbar.org http://www.glasgowfarm.org http://www.pittsburghpa.gov/
Berks County Bar Association The Berks Barrister Spring 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Berks County Bar Association The Berks Barrister Spring 2019
