Media Center

July 10, 2026
Publications

Ontelaunee Township v. Ontelaunee Township Zoning Hearing Board, No. 25-17136 (Berks Cty. C.C.P. July 2, 2026).

For property owners, zoning hearing boards, and municipal solicitors alike, this case is an instructive example of how Pennsylvania courts apply the dimensional variance standard and the considerable deference afforded to local zoning hearing boards when a substantial record supports their decisions. It also demonstrates that pre-existing nonconforming uses carry significant legal weight, and that a variance may be appropriately tailored to address narrow, time-limited circumstances.

On July 2, Judge J. Benjamin Nevius of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas denied the Ontelaunee Township Board of Supervisors’ land use appeal and affirmed the Zoning Hearing Board’s (ZHB) decision granting a dimensional variance to the Property Owner, permitting her to keep one turkey, named Lenny, on her one-acre residential lot in the Township’s R-1 Low Density Residential District.

Key takeaways:

• Pre-existing nonconforming uses carry weight. A use that was lawful when it began and continued without interruption will not easily be characterized as a self-created hardship, even when subsequent zoning amendments restrict the activity.
• Dimensional variance standard applies broadly. Where a use is permitted in the district but subject to quantitative restrictions (here, acreage requirements), relief is more properly analyzed under the relaxed dimensional variance standard.
• Tailored conditions matter. The ZHB’s carefully crafted conditions, limiting the variance to one specific animal, capping total bird count, and building in an expiration, demonstrated the minimum variance necessary and weighed heavily in the Court’s affirmance.
• Broader implications. Although this decision is specific to Ontelaunee Township, its reasoning offers a roadmap for variance applicants across Berks County, particularly where a pre-existing use predates the regulation at issue, and the applicant can demonstrate physical limitations unique to the Property. Municipalities and zoning hearing boards throughout the county should expect reviewing courts to uphold narrowly tailored variances supported by comprehensive records and reasonable conditions.

Background

The Property Owner has resided at the Property, a one-acre lot at the edge of the Township’s R-1 District, abutting a farm and active train tracks since 1993, continuously keeping poultry as pets since moving in. At that time, the 1972 Zoning Ordinance permitted live poultry for agricultural use. The Township adopted a new Zoning Ordinance in 2000 prohibiting poultry in the R-1 District, but for more than 25 years, no one took issue with the Property Owner’s birds. In June 2025, she received her first Notice of Violation. During the pendency of her appeal, the Township adopted a 2025 Amendment permitting chickens, ducks, and turkeys as an accessory use. Still, turkeys require at least two acres, which the Property does not have.

The ZHB hearing and decision

The ZHB conducted a two-day hearing (August and September 2025), producing a 430-page record. The Property Owner testified that she had kept poultry for more than 32 years, that Lenny was approximately two years old with an expected lifespan of four to five years, and that she would commit not to acquire any additional turkeys. A neighbor, testifying as an objector, acknowledged that noise arose from the rooster-turkey combination and that after the rooster was removed, things had become “actually quite peaceful.” On November 7, 2025, the ZHB denied the rooster variance but granted a Turkey Variance with conditions: the Property Owner would not replace Lenny with another turkey, and she would house no more than ten total birds while Lenny remains. The Supervisors appealed, arguing that the variance was a use variance (not dimensional), that the hardship was self-imposed, and that the turkey altered the neighborhood’s essential character.

The Court’s analysis

Because the Court did not receive additional evidence, its review was limited to whether the ZHB committed an error of law or abuse of discretion. This standard affords the ZHB considerable deference as the body “better positioned than reviewing courts to assess local conditions.”

The Court rejected the Supervisors’ argument that this was a use variance (which permits a property to be used in a manner entirely prohibited by the zoning ordinance and requires a higher burden of proof) rather than a dimensional variance (which merely adjusts quantitative requirements, such as setbacks, height, or acreage, within an otherwise permitted use). Because the 2025 Amendment permits turkeys in the R-1 District on lots of two or more acres, and Section 554 is titled “Accessory Keeping of Chickens, Ducks, and Turkeys,” the variance more closely resembles a dimensional adjustment than a request for a wholly prohibited use. In other words, the Property Owner was seeking a quantitative adjustment within a use already permitted in the district, not permission to engage in an activity the Zoning Ordinance prohibits entirely. The Property is a fixed one-acre lot bounded by neighboring properties and an active railroad corridor, giving the Property Owner no practical ability to increase lot size to meet acreage requirements, a physical limitation peculiar to the Property.

On the question of self-created hardship, the Court held: “It is difficult to characterize a hardship as self-created when the use was lawful when it began and continued without interruption.” The Property Owner had kept poultry continuously since 1993, seven years before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The Court also rejected the Supervisors’ contention that keeping birds as “pets” rather than for agricultural purposes defeated nonconforming-use status, noting that the 1972 Ordinance’s reference to “animal husbandry” encompassed the care and raising of animals regardless of commercial purpose. Citing Mutimer Co. v. Wagner, 103 A.2d 417 (Pa. 1954), the Court observed that a nonconforming use need not be identical to the current use so long as it is “substantially the same.”

As to neighborhood character, the Record showed that the noise issues arose from the rooster-turkey combination, not the turkey alone. The neighbor herself testified that the neighborhood was peaceful after the rooster was removed. The ZHB granted only the Turkey Variance, consistent with both the neighbor’s testimony and the Township Solicitor’s own request at hearing, and tailored conditions so narrowly that the variance expires upon Lenny’s death and restricts total bird count below the otherwise permissible maximum.

The full opinion from the Court of Common Pleas is available here for those wishing to review the detailed procedural history and legal analysis.