The legal roller coaster continues for a York County winery fighting with neighbors over its ability to continue operating.
In a ruling last week, a York County judge allowed Moon Dancer Vineyards & Winery to reopen this past weekend while the fight plays out in a state appeals court.
It is the second time the winery has been allowed to reopen following court-ordered closures.
What’s the issue: What land-use rules should apply to the winery, which overlooks the Susquehanna River from the Lauxmont Farms housing development in Lower Windsor Township.
Winery owner Jim Miller argues that zoning and township decisions paved the way for his operations, which were established in 2004.
But neighboring homeowners Amanda Perko and Matthew Balsavage argue that deed restrictions prevent a commercial operation in Lauxmont Farms on the scale of Moon Dancer.
Claiming the business is impairing their quality of life, they -filed their lawsuit in 2018.
The winery spreads out over 50 acres and includes a tasting room and event schedule.
What’s the record: A county judge ruled against Moon Dancer in May, forcing it to close June 9.
But following an emergency petition from Moon Dancer to reconsider the case, the court reversed course and allowed the winery to reopen on June 21.
After reconsidering, the county court ordered the winery to close again by July 18.
Moon Dancer then appealed the case to Superior Court, a state-level appeals court, and asked the county court to stay its closure order pending the outcome.
On Aug. 7, the county court agreed to the request
Why: It was not an unqualified “yes.” In an 11-page order, York County Judge Clyde Vedder cast doubt on several of the claims raised by Moon Dancer.
Vedder disagreed, for example, with the winery’s contention that its legal case was compromised by alleged miscommunication with its previous attorney.
However, Vedder said Moon Dancer is “likely to succeed” on another claim: that its 20 years of operations may have “materially altered or destroyed” the original purpose of the deed restrictions.
The issue was “not necessarily readily apparent” in previous legal proceedings, but it warrants further scrutiny, Vedder wrote.
In granting a stay, Vedder also cited the financial consequences of keeping the winery shuttered.
“Defendants have shown that without the requested relief, they will suffer irreparable, economic harm,” he wrote, adding: “The Court believes the loss of goodwill alone due to a protracted shutdown would likely cause irreparable injury, from which it would take years to regain.”
