“The bottom line…no deal.”

That was Upper Milford Supervisors Chairman George DeVault’s conclusion June 2 after more than two hours of discussion regarding a possible compromise to resolve complaints about Paul Sarver, who is still renting his property for weddings despite being denied permission by the zoning hearing board.

In attendance at the sometimes contentious meeting last week were Sarver and his attorney, John Hacker, about a dozen nearby residents who are upset about the activity at Sarver’s 6575 Vera Cruz Road home and barn and two of the couples who have reserved the site for upcoming weddings, including one which was scheduled June 4.

The compromise outlined by township Solicitor Marc Fisher would allow weddings scheduled June 4, 11 and 18 to continue, with attendance limitations, would restrict all parking to the site and require additional guests to use a shuttle service, would require Sarver to employ a private security service and to end all amplified music by 9:30 p.m. It would require Sarver to try to cancel two additional weddings, Aug. 27 and Sept. 7, but allow them to go on if he is unable to do so.

The compromise would also mandate Sarver not schedule any additional events until and unless he receives the appropriate permits and that he agree not to fight the township in court if any of those conditions are violated. Fisher said Sarver has signed the agreement.

Fisher said Hacker contacted him after the May meeting at which supervisors authorized legal action against Sarver and asked to meet in an effort to address a difficult situation for the township, the neighbors, Sarver and the couples who had already booked weddings.

Sarver had begun hosting weddings on his property, Meadowbrook Farm, last year, but was notified he was in violation of the zoning ordinance. He then applied for a variance, but was turned down by the zoning hearing board earlier this year. Official written notice of the rejection was issued just last week.

In proposing the compromise, Fisher said stopping the activity at Meadowbrook Farm “doesn’t happen overnight.” He pointed out even though the board denied the request, Sarver has the right to appeal, and realistically, “any judicial relief wouldn’t take place before the first three scheduled events.” Whether supervisors sign the agreement or not, “we’re stuck with these three events,” he acknowledged.

“The proposed agreement would bring some finality to it,” he concluded.

Hacker said Sarver has canceled several other events booked in August, September and October, as well as in 2017. In an effort to explain why Sarver had continued to book weddings, he said after Sarver originally received the violation notice, he was told someone else in the township in similar circumstances had easily received a variance.

“We thought it would be a no-brainer,” he said.

Sarver said he has reached out to as many people as he could to cancel upcoming events, but it has been difficult. “People have booked flights….paid non-refundable deposits. I don’t want to ruin anybody’s wedding.”

He insisted, “It was never my intention to have the neighbors mad at us.”

But the neighbors in the audience were skeptical. Tom DeWire charged Sarver is still advertising on several online wedding sites. Kimberly DeWire, Tom’s daughter-in-law, expressed frustration there will be no punishment for the activity and asked how the behavior of guests at the events will be controlled. She said state police had to be called the previous weekend because of an incident during an event.

“There’s clearly a trust factor involved,” another resident said.

On the other side, Dr. Richard Baylor, whose wedding was scheduled June 4 talked about the difficulties involved in canceling on such short notice. “It takes over a year to schedule a wedding,” he said.

His fiancé, near tears, said she had spent the entire previous day trying to line up transportation for the wedding guests because of the proposed restrictions on parking and traffic. “What if it was your daughter, or your son?” she asked the residents.

The traffic issue was particularly problematic for supervisors, who said they didn’t see how the limits in the agreement on the number of trips going and coming to any event were workable. And Hacker said nearby venues which could be used for parking, including a church, have backed away because of the controversy.

Supervisor Daniel Mohr said he was reluctant to approve the agreement. “If they violated the zoning ruling, would they violate this?” he asked.

All three supervisors agreed the situation is terrible for everyone involved.

Supervisor Robert Sentner eventually made a motion to accept the compromise agreement, but it died for lack of a second. Township Manager Daniel DeLong said he was reminded of a similar situation recently in which legal action regarding a zoning violation dragged through the courts for two years, and while the township finally prevailed, the parties involved had moved, the plaintiff never received relief and it cost the township a lot of money.

More discussion ensued, with supervisors indicating they would be likelier to accept the agreement if a security deposit of $6,800, the maximum amount Sarver said he charges for weddings, were included.

But after a private consultation with Sarver, Hacker said that would not be acceptable.

Back to square one.