Wyomissing advances broader redevelopment rules. What does that mean for Berkshire Mall?

Watch the full meeting on Real Wyomissing Boro’s YouTube channel.

Wyomissing’s proposed redevelopment rules would affect what can be built at Berkshire Mall and other commercial properties, how individual building parcels can be sold, and how shared parking and infrastructure would be maintained.

On September 15, the Planning Commission recommended advancing those rules with a larger boundary and changes to parking provisions. It did not approve a Berkshire Mall construction plan. County review and Council’s public-hearing and adoption process remained ahead, according to the meeting discussion. Meeting recording: 49:17–53:48. The meeting agenda identifies the ordinance items considered.

The presentation was led by Samuel “Sam” Wiser of Salzmann Hughes P.C., whom Borough Council appointed on June 9 as “Special Counsel for the Berkshire Mall redevelopment project.” The appointment passed 5–1. June 9 Council minutes Jeffrey Stonehill introduced Wiser at the September 15 meeting as the special counsel hired by Council to develop the overlay proposal. Meeting recording: 6:00–6:47.

The meeting explained several reasons for the rewrite. It also left questions about comparable completed projects, redevelopment outcomes and the exact revised boundary unanswered in the public discussion.

What is an overlay, in plain English?

An overlay applies additional zoning rules to a mapped area. In the arrangement described at this meeting, an owner could use the redevelopment overlay as an alternative to the underlying zoning rules. Where the proposed area overlaps the existing RD-3 overlay, Wiser said that option would remain available too. Meeting recording: 7:19–8:13; 41:29–42:39; 51:10–51:27.

For a large shopping property, one practical change is the ability to create separately owned lots around individual buildings or building pads while managing shared facilities across the site.

A store could own its building parcel. Parking, entrances, stormwater facilities and utilities could still serve several owners. A mandatory lot owners association would organize maintenance and collect the money needed for shared responsibilities. Meeting recording: 21:25–27:23.

That explains the ownership arrangement. Whether and when a particular property is redeveloped depends on the project that follows.

Why officials say the changes are needed

Wiser and Borough representatives described separate ownership of commercial building parcels as a response to financing preferences in retail development. They also described a desire for one master redevelopment plan, shared infrastructure, additional landscaping, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Meeting recording: 21:25–22:02; 38:10–40:22.

The presentation said the proposed rules would specifically accommodate shopping centers, warehouse clubs, supermarkets, restaurants, drive-throughs and convenience stores with fueling stations. Accessory warehousing associated with a retail use would be limited to 25% of that use’s floor area, rather than 25% of all buildings across the site. Meeting recording: 13:16–18:42.

Officials also described parking reductions tied to improvements such as pedestrian connections and bicycle facilities. An engineer-reviewed demand analysis would establish the minimum parking needed for the proposed uses. Meeting recording: 27:31–29:53.

Those were stated purposes and proposed requirements. The presentation did not supply a completed mall redevelopment example demonstrating the results of this particular combination of provisions.

What would still have to happen at Berkshire Mall?

The presentation described a later master-plan submission covering the overall redevelopment site, followed by Planning Commission review and Council approval. Construction could occur in phases, with the necessary services for each phase. Meeting recording: 25:38–26:48; 38:41–39:28.

The written draft requires a Council-approved completion schedule. It also specifies association assessments, reserves, annual reporting and Borough enforcement rights for shared obligations. Those provisions are safeguards, but the September 15 discussion did not explain what security or remedy would ensure completion of later phases if redevelopment stopped. Draft: §501A.5.G, PDF page 5; §511A, PDF pages 18–19

The meeting did not establish a mall-specific construction timetable, committed tenants or financing. It did not resolve the difference between maintaining shared facilities that have been built and completing redevelopment that has not yet occurred.

The proposed boundary grew during the meeting

Commission members discussed extending the proposed area toward the Route 222 ramp, including Shops at Woodside, and including property across the highway shown in the second map option. The resulting recommendation incorporated that expansion, a reference to updated ULI shared-parking standards and rideshare parking incentives. Staff said the exhibit would be revised to reflect the discussion. Meeting recording: 42:56–50:58.

The exact affected parcels need to be identified from that revised exhibit. The transcript’s spoken property descriptions are not a substitute for a boundary map.

The 38-page meeting packet reviewed for this article references Exhibit B on page 2 but contains no boundary map. At the meeting, officials said maps had previously been posted and circulated, and map options were displayed. The exchange did not establish the particular exhibit’s date, revision and publication location in response to the opening questions. Packet, PDF page 2; Meeting recording: 3:10–5:33; 11:20–13:08; 58:27–1:00:50.

Which questions received no specific answer?

During closing public comment, Real Wyomissing Boro’s Adrian Jadic asked for a completed example that would help residents understand what the approach had achieved elsewhere. No project was named in response. Meeting recording: 57:14–1:01:02.

Another resident asked about the comparative tax-revenue effect of the proposed ownership arrangement. Wiser explained taxation of individual parcels and common property, but did not present a before-and-after revenue estimate. Meeting recording: 1:01:08–1:02:58.

The record therefore establishes an explanation of the proposed structure. It does not establish a demonstrated result at a comparable mall, a quantified fiscal outcome for Wyomissing or a committed redevelopment program for Berkshire Mall.

What happens next?

The Commission’s vote was a recommendation to advance the ordinance process. At the meeting, Sam Wiser, the Borough’s special counsel for the Berkshire Mall redevelopment project, confirmed that the Berks County Planning Commission had not yet reviewed the proposed ordinance. Meeting recording: 49:17–49:43; 53:18–53:48. The September 16 Council agenda lists a Planning Commission overlay overview under staff reports; it lists no overlay-adoption item. Council agenda, item 10(c)

Subsequent coverage can identify the revised text and map, county comments, hearing notice and any actual redevelopment application as those records become available.

Reporting note: Real Wyomissing Boro is independent of the Borough. Its publisher participated in the meeting. This report draws on the meeting recording and the public documents linked above.

Earlier coverage: Berkshire Mall: zoning rewrite returns. Boundary map missing. · September 14, 2026.