PA Court Upholds Town Zoning Hearing Board’s Determination that Hosting Weddings and Performing “Celebration Services” is not an Accessory Use Where Homeowner Performs the Services for Profit on Residentially Zoned Property Developed with Residential Single-Family Dwelling

This post was authored by Oliver Paulino, Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsber Law Center

Alisa Tongg Weiler (“Petitioner”) appeals from an order of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) that affirmed the determination of the Stroud Township (“Stroud”) Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) that upheld an enforcement notice prohibiting her from conducting wedding ceremonies on her property and finding no violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) under the facts.

Petitioner, an ordained minister in good standing through the Universal Brotherhood Movement, Inc. and a registered marriage officiant in the City of New York, owns an approximately one-acre parcel of land in Monroe County, PA that is zoned S-1 Special and Recreational Zoning District (S-1 District). The property is improved with a single-family residential dwelling served by an on-site water well and sewage system, as well as a 16-foot-by-30-foot single-roof pitch shed constructed with a permit in 2019 that is used in connection with “wedding celebrations” held at the property. Personal services is a prohibited use within the Stroud S-1 district, where accessory uses “customarily incidental to the permitted use” are permitted as-of-right.

Since 2012, Petitioner has conducted approximately 600 weddings and other ceremonies, of which 100 have been at the property in an area she refers to as “Promise Ridge” where she uses the pitch shed and scenic views of the Appalachian Trail ridge as a backdrop for guests. She also performs other ceremonies at the property. In 2020, Petitioner officiated approximately 80 weddings at the property as an alternative venue to the traditional wedding venues that closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioner advertised her services in exchange for a fee. She also provides options for guests to host catered post-ceremony dinners/receptions. Some events lasted over five hours with up to 20 people in attendance. Off-street parking was used for the events, which included stretch limousines, buses, and catering vehicles from spring to late fall.

Following the Stroud septic enforcement officer determining that the property needed a new septic system because of malfunctions, in September 2020, the Stroud zoning officer issued an enforcement notice to the Petitioner for operating a “personal service/wedding venue” at the property in violation of the Stroud zoning ordinance. Petitioner appealed the enforcement notice(s) to the Stroud ZHB on the grounds that the use of the property for wedding ceremonies was an accessory use, and that Stroud’s efforts to enforce the zoning restriction(s) placed a substantial burden on her religious exercise under RLUIPA.

The ZHB determined that Petitioner’s use of the property as a wedding venue was not an accessory use under the zoning code because a wedding venue is not customarily incidental to the permitted residential use of the property, and that the impacts to the neighbors resulting from such use contradict the fundamental purpose of the residential and open space nature of the S-1 zoning District. Instead, the use constituted “personal services”, which is more commercial in nature. The ZHB also concluded that the zoning restrictions and enforcement were neutral under the RLUIPA, making no distinction between religious and nonreligious assembly at the property, and concluded that the zoning restrictions placed no burden on religious exercise.

Petitioner appealed the ZHB’s determination to the trial court, which affirmed, and Petitioner appealed to the appellate court. In upholding the trail court’s determination that the present use described by Petitioner as “celebrant services”, “officiant services” and/or “professional advisory services” in connection with weddings and other ceremonies did not constitute an accessory use to her single-family residential dwelling use. Instead, these services are similar in nature and extent to those services enumerated in the zoning ordinance as a “personal services” use where services are exchanged for a profit, and these “personal services” uses are only permitted in commercial locations.

Further, the appellate court opined that the record did not support any conclusion that the zoning ordinance or Stroud’s enforcement of the zoning ordinance, in this instance, placed any burden on Petitioner’s individual exercise of religion.

The RLUIPA protects land use as a religious exercise by prohibiting the implementation of a land use regulation in a manner that places a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person. Here, the Petitioner admitted that religion is not an essential component of her officiant services. Instead, the Petitioner testified at the ZHB hearing that she performs religious and nonreligious ceremonies and does not encourage or endorse any religious belief. Moreover, the record did not demonstrate that the zoning ordinance treated religious assembly or expression on less than equal terms with nonreligious assembly or expression. The zoning ordinance merely prohibits personal services in the S-1 District. Accordingly, the appellate court upheld the ZHB’s determination that the zoning ordinance is neutral and did not violate the RLUIPA and/or infringe upon Petitioner’s religious freedoms.

Weiler v. Stroud Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 1303 C.D. 2021, 2023 WL 4938361 [Pa Commw Ct Aug. 3, 2023]