Does it violate the religious freedom of Old Order Amish to connect to municipal sewer?

It’s a question up for further review in the wake of a recent Commonwealth Court decision in a case appealed from Warren County.

According to the court’s opinion, Sugar Grove Township filed a complaint against Iva H. Byler back in 2015 alleging a lengthy list of non-compliance, including that she had “unlawfully made use of privies” at her Wilson Road property and that she “created a nuisance under the Sewage Facilities Act….”

The case was before President Judge Maureen Skerda for evidentiary hearings in October and December 2016 before an order and opinion were issued in April 2017.

That order, per the Commonwealth Court’s opinion, directed Byler to remedy all of the violations and face eviction if she failed to do so. Further, it was ordered that Byler begin to pay towards an astounding amount of fines levied by the township that had accrued in the case, at least $160,000.

Several issues were addressed in Skerda’s opinion, including an analysis of the township’s privy ordinance, a conclusion that Byler was in violation of the Sewage Facilities Act as well as commentary that “addressed (Byler’s) religious beliefs, recognizing the sincerity of the same but also recognizing its obligation to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community in which (Byler) resides…. The trial court referenced testimony from the hearings regarding an environmental hazard in the nature of E. Coli bacteria being found in the area and concluded that the community’s interest in safety overrides (Byler’s) interest in non-compliance for religious reasons.”

Skerda’s order also sided with the township that Uniform Construction Code violations occurred at Byler’s property.

According to the Commonwealth Court, post-trial motions were filed in the wake of Skerda’s order but were denied. Byler’s attorney, Bernard J. Hessley, then appealed to Commonwealth Court.

Hessley’s appeal argued that the trial court failed “to afford her the religious freedom protections” of the US Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution, that the court “erred in applying the Privy Ordinance retroactively,” challenged the UCC violations and “erred” in not determining the amount of fines imposed by the township.

The Commonwealth Court’s opinion first addressed the religious freedom issue, arguing that Skerda “vaguely” referencd high levels of E. Coli “without any explanation of how (Byler’s) purported violations contributed or exacerbated this hazard.”

The judges of the court then noted that the “trial court ignores additional protections provided by the Religious Freedom Protection Act,” citing a piece of the legislation that indicates that laws passed by the General Assembly or political subdivisions “shall be construed so as to avoid the imposition of substantial burdens upon the free exercise of religion without compelling justification.”

“Thus,” the Commonwealth Court ruled, “this Court must remand the matter to the trial to address the issues discussed….”

They future determined that Skerda was correct to uphold the UCC violations against the trust in which the property is held but “erred in retroactively applying the Township’s Privy Ordinance to the property” and, regarding the fines, “erred…to the extent that it…awarded relief that the Township never requested.”

In their conclusion, the Commonwealth Court stated that “the matter is remanded to the trial court to issue a new opinion considering the issue of the religious freedom protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as well as the Religious Freedom Protection Act.”