Residents trying to follow Berkshire Mall’s future need the records behind the Borough’s review. On August 31, I requested the submitted concept plan and records of its zoning review. The Borough supplied documents but restricted access to others. On October 16, I appealed to Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records. [1][2][3]
The case is AP 2026-4623, Adrian Jadic v. Wyomissing Borough. The October 23 docket check showed no ruling on the merits. The appeal asks OOR to decide disputed access questions; it does not establish that the Borough acted unlawfully. [3][4]
What I requested
The request sought six groups of existing records: the complete concept plan identified in an engineer’s report; submission and receipt records; written zoning-review material; records comparing the plan with existing zoning or the proposed overlay; related correspondence; and consultant review billing. It generally covered January 1 through August 31, 2026, with an exception for the specifically identified plan. It included responsive consultant-held records and email attachments. [1]
What the Borough provided—and restricted
The Borough’s October 8 response included correspondence and engineering/billing material. It offered inspection of the plans during business hours, but prohibited copying or reproducing images, citing copyright. [2]
For the requested zoning-review and zoning/overlay records, the Borough said they did not exist in its possession, custody or control. It also invoked the exemption for internal, predecisional deliberations, stating that the review remained incomplete. Those are the Borough’s stated grounds for its response. [2]
What the appeal asks
I am challenging the plan-copying restriction and asking OOR to examine the search and production of responsive records, including Borough–McCarthy Engineering communications, related review material and omitted attachments. The appeal seeks existing records or portions that are not lawfully restricted. It does not ask the Borough to create a review letter. [3]
OOR’s October 21 notice sets October 30 for submissions and closing the record, and November 20 as the date its final determination is due. Those dates remained unchanged in the October 23 docket check; the determination date is not a guarantee of when a decision will arrive. [4]
Why this matters
Residents should be able to follow what was submitted, how the Borough handled it and what review work was billed.
For this appeal, the work meant defining the records request, comparing the returned documents with its scope, identifying the disputed restrictions and omissions, and compiling the appeal and supporting exhibits. The finished filing is one part of the work needed to make the records available for public scrutiny.
That work is part of local accountability. The question now is which requested records must be released and whether the Borough has supported the restrictions it imposed. The appeal puts those questions before OOR.
Source records
Read the redacted procedural receipts — 12 pages. Personal contact details and signature images are removed; the selected original record pages remain otherwise unchanged.
- August 31 request. Complete request and its exhibit, packet pages 2–5.
- October 8 Borough response. Complete response, packet pages 6–8. The supplied correspondence and engineering/billing originals remain in the reporting archive.
- October 16 filed appeal form. Complete form, packet pages 9–10. The challenge is the requester’s position, not an OOR finding.
- OOR acknowledgment and deadline notice. October 21 notices, packet pages 11–12. The docket was checked again on October 23; the same notice dates remained and no later filing or merits determination was visible. The receipt packet retains its original October 22 source-check date.
Official OOR docket search. Search for AP 2026-4623. The redacted packet above provides the source notices cited here.
Real Wyomissing Boro is independent and is not affiliated with the Borough of Wyomissing.