Dec 24, 2019 3 min read

For the second time this year, a dispute over the use of a former farm in Nottingham Township as a wedding barn and event center has landed in Washington County Court.

Thomas and Marla Ward contend there was no township ordinance in place that restricted the use of property at 230 Sundust Road, Eighty Four, when they inquired about purchasing it.

But they allege that Nottingham officials, by later crafting an ordinance that would limit venues to two events per month, and by placing conditions on land zoned agricultural, have created a hardship for them and their use of the property should be “grandfathered.”

In court documents, the Wards say they bought the 100-acre farm in March 2018, but the township notes the property owners of record are Donald and Tara Toplisek, according to the Washington County Tax Assessment office.

Township solicitor James P. Liekar last summer sought a court injunction against the Wards as the operators of Willow Creek Manor, but President Judge Katherine B. Emery directed the Wards to formally request conditional use of the property from the municipality.

The township deemed the application incomplete, and after a public hearing, the supervisors issued a ruling in late November denying the Wards’ request to use the Willow Creek property for weddings and other social events.

Signing the decision were Peter V. Marcoline Jr., chairman of the board of supervisors, Todd E. Flynn, vice chairman, and Douglas S. King.

Attorney Charles Kurowski, who represents the Wards, called the township’s actions over-regulation that nullifies ownership rights and violates the Constitution. He also branded the ordinance’s two-event-per-month restriction “absurd.”

His clients would not have purchased or invested in renovations on the property because two events per month won’t cover their costs, Kurowski stated in the Wards’ appeal.

In court documents in both rounds, the Wards said the property is no longer used for agriculture and won’t be in the future because of changes in the economy, but “entertainment farming” is a natural expansion that does not alter the character of the neighborhood or pose a detriment to the public welfare.

They asked the court to issue a stay until the outcome of the latest court case can be decided.

Liekar, in a document that is part of the latest case, claims the Wards’ application lacked “information informing the board of supervisors how they intend to comply with objective standards and criteria” outlined in the Nottingham ordinance.

The Wards live at the farm, which has an indoor pool. Don Hindman, Nottingham’s building code enforcement official, noted that an indoor pool used for commercial purposes requires a permit in accordance with the state Uniform Construction Code.

A court date on the land-use appeal has not yet been set.