Three nights of sometimes heated debate and testimony ended Wednesday with North Whitehall Township supervisors rejecting a zoning amendment that would allow the longtime operator of a home auto repair shop to stay in business.
Now, the case is almost certain to end up in Lehigh County Court.
Gene Weierbach is trying to keep the business he started more than 20 years ago at his isolated 16-acre property in the northern part of the township. He was served with a cease and desist order in 2023 after the township determined his shop wasn’t a permitted use in the residential zoning district.
Attorneys from the Institute For Justice, a nonprofit law firm that specializes in property rights, argued that the township’s zoning law is unconstitutional because it bars Weierbach and other residents from an occupation that causes no harm to the community.
Their solution was a curative amendment to remove the prohibition, not only for Weierbach but for all property owners. The township argued that doing so would open every neighborhood in the township to garages and other potentially objectionable uses; Weierbach’s attorneys said nuisance laws and other measures would prevent that, with applications considered case by case.
The hearings began Monday, with supervisors Al Geosits and Ronald Heintzelman weighing arguments from Weierbach’s attorneys and Matthew Deschler, a land-use attorney representing the township. Supervisor Dennis Klusaritz recused himself because Weierbach has accused him of being behind the order to shutter the business.
Broadly, the hearing concerned the tension between the rights of property owners and the obligation of governments to assure land use is in the public interest and maintains public health and safety.
Deschler said the zoning ordinance provides multiple districts where auto repair is a permitted use, meaning Weierbach could open a shop elsewhere. Weierbach’s attorney argued that zoning is intended to prevent harmful uses, but his business has never been the target of a complaint from residents or officials.
He works in the attached garage of his house, which can’t be seen from the road. His makes no noise detectable outside the property and he adheres to environmental regulations in disposing of motor oil and other waste. He is the sole employee and relies on word of mouth for business instead of advertising.
A number of residents spoke on Weierbach’s behalf. Some were customers. Others were neighbors who were surprised to learn he ran a garage on the property. They uniformly described him as a good, fair, hardworking man who deserved consideration from supervisors.
Some urged the board to restore the zoning variance Weierbach was granted by the zoning hearing board two years ago, until supervisors overruled the decision.
The zoning board “came up with a reasonable way to let him operate,” said Ed Noga, an Upper Saucon Township resident who has been following the case from the beginning. “You folks pulled the carpet out from under that and I don’t understand what your motivation was. … I find it disgusting, I find it unreasonable, that you can’t find a solution here.”
In the end, the supervisors decided that current zoning laws are a constitutional and appropriate way to regulate uses and that Weierbach’s proposed fix was too sweeping.
In that, they were following the lead of the township planning commission and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.
“When you’re talking about changing the ordinance to affect every residential property, and we’re talking probably over 6,000 residential properties, it’s a big ask,” Geosits said.
In addition to the constitutional claim, Weierbach’s attorneys wanted to argue that he had been the target of selective enforcement, but Geosits and Heintzelman, who essentially acted as judges in the quasi-judicial proceeding, barred that argument at the outset. They agreed with Deschler that the hearing was the wrong venue to consider the allegation.
That decision nullified a subpoena that would have compelled Klusaritz to testify about his role in the matter. Weierbach’s zoning battle began in 2023 shortly after he had a falling-out with Klusaritz, who was a customer of Weierbach’s for about two years until he objected to the cost and quality of some repairs.
Weierbach — who says he didn’t know zoning in his neighborhood didn’t allow auto repair shops when he started the business two decades ago — believes Klusaritz discovered the irregular use and told the zoning department. The supervisor denies doing so, claiming he inquired about the zoning status after a resident asked about it during a casual conversation.
Weierbach says working at home is essential because his wife, Debbie, works outside the home and he is caretaker to their autistic adult son. It would create financial hardship if he had to find a job elsewhere and hire a caretaker.
Based on that argument, the zoning hearing board granted a variance allowing the shop but was overruled by supervisors.
Ari Bargil, senior attorney for the Institute For Justice, said Weierbach will appeal Wednesday’s ruling to court once the township provides its decision in writing. That should happen by the end of the month, as Heintzelman must sign off on it and will be replaced on the board in the new year.
Bargil said the supervisors, through the exclusion of the selective enforcement charge and other decisions, hadn’t given Weierbach a fair hearing. He and his team — who are representing Weierbach for free — anticipated they would have to seek relief in county court and weren’t surprised by the supervisors’ ruling.
In court, Bargil said, “we’ll have a more fair and equitable opportunity to present evidence.”
Morning Call reporter Daniel Patrick Sheehan can be reached at 610-820-6598 or dsheehan@mcall.com.
