Greg Werstil, a Duncansville-area businessman, five years ago offered to help his neighbor, James Peters, who owns Best Way Pizza, repair a wall separating the two properties, but, what occurred next, Werstil says, is “insane … surreal … truly surreal.”

After the repairs were underway, a zoning officer for the borough took notice of the “fence being constructed or reconstructed,” and ruled that while fences are allowed in the borough, permits for them must be obtained under the borough’s Zoning and Floodplain ordinances.

Werstil was cited on May 25, 2015, for violations of the ordinances, sparking a long court battle that concluded Monday with a ruling by a three-judge panel from Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court that upheld a $100 fine and an award of $4,695 in legal fees paid by the borough to litigate the alleged violations.

Because Werstil had not obtained a permit for the repair of the wall separating Werstil’s landscaping business at 306 15th St. and the drive-thru lane of Best Way Pizza at 1424 Third Ave., he was cited, even though he argued the wall was not on his land.

He showed the violation notice to Peters, and Peters eventually obtained a permit for the reconstruction of the wall.

Werstil thought the issue was settled and there was no reason for him to appeal the violation notice to the borough’s Zoning Hearing Board since the owner of the property on which the wall was located had obtained a permit and the wall had been rebuilt.

But on March 14, 2016, Duncansville filed a civil complaint against Werstil because he had not obtained a permit to work on the wall.

According to the complaint, he faced fines of $500 per day for violating the Zoning Ordinance and $600 per day for breaching the floodplain ordinance.

A hearing was held before Magisterial District Judge Paula Aigner in which the zoning officer submitted an email from Werstil admitting he was “repairing the fence,” and that it was “his wall.”

She also placed into evidence a letter from Levine Engineering pointing out Peters had submitted an application for a floodplain review of the property — allegedly owned by Werstil.

Justice Aigner ruled in favor of the borough, ordering Werstil to pay a judgment of $11,707 that included daily fines plus engineering and attorney fees.

Werstil, through attorneys Jessica L. Smith and Brian Patrick Litzinger of Johnstown, appealed the judgment to the Blair County Court of Common Pleas, where Judge Wade A. Kagarise in 2018 lowered Werstil’s judgment to a $100 fine and $4,695 for attorney fees.

Kagarise found:

* The violation constituted “little to no practical harm to the Borough.”

* The property owner derived no economic benefit from the violation.

* The property owner complied with the zoning requirements “in a reasonable length of time.”

* Werstil’s actions “were not in bad faith.”

The borough argued that Kagarise had no authority to reduce the $11,707 award, but he ruled that there was no record of the hearing before Aigner in which she offered her reasons for imposing such a large judgment.

Kagarise stated in his Nov. 28, 2018, opinion that he reduced the judgment based on the testimony presented during the hearing before him.

When the case reached Commonwealth Court, a panel that included Judges Michael H. Wojcik, who wrote the opinion, Patrick A. McCullough and Ellen Ceisler, rejected Duncansville’s argument to reinstate the $11,000-plus award, but upheld the $100 fine and $4,695 in attorney fees imposed by Kagarise.

Werstil argued he was not in violation of the ordinances, noting he gave the violation notice to Peters, who then obtained a permit. He thought the permit issue had been resolved.

Werstil, the Commonwealth Court concluded in its review of the case, never appealed the violation to the Zoning Hearing Board and that proved fatal to his appeals and to his argument that the wall was not on his land.

The appeals court supported Kagarise’s decision to lower the judgment, supporting his reasoning that there was no record of Aigner’s rationale to impose the initial $11,707 order.

Peters, who owns several pizza businesses in the area was stunned to find out the case, after all these years, was still going on.

“I’m a friend of Greg’s,” he said.

Peters said that in 2015, the two of them decided to repair the wall because it was badly eroded due to road salt that was spread throughout the years.

“We both did it. We just repaired a wall. We didn’t change the wall by making it higher or anything,” he explained.

Peters agreed the wall was on his property.

“I’m proud of Greg for standing up,” he said,

Werstil, who has a landscaping business and is involved in many other enterprises — noting he is about to become owner of the former North American Communications plant in Duncansville — said he spent $30,000 in legal fees fighting the case.

“It’s surreal … truly surreal. We had a wall falling apart from salt. We repaired it. After the wall was repaired, they said we needed a permit. It’s not on my property,” Werstil emphasized.

He explained these days things are difficult enough for small businesses.

“Every day is a challenge,” he said.

Borough solicitor Mike Emerick, when asked why the borough continued to pursue Werstil in view of his argument that the wall was not on his property, answered that initially Werstil had claimed it was “his wall” and “his project.”

The testimony before Judge Aigner indicated, “It’s his wall,” Emerick stated.