IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Greg and Deborah Loch, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 318 C.D. 2020

: SUBMITTED: March 15, 2021

Zoning Hearing Board of Moore :

Township, Stephen Micio and Simona:

Micio :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: April 13, 2021

Greg and Deborah Loch (collectively, Neighbors) appeal from the March 11, 

2020 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (trial court), 

which affirmed the July 15, 2016 decision of the Moore Township (Township) 

Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB), which granted the appeal of Stephen and Simona 

Micio (collectively, Landowners). Landowners had appealed a Notice of Violation 

and Cease and Desist Order (Enforcement Notice) issued by the Township Zoning 

Officer, Jason Harhart (Zoning Officer), who cited them for maintaining a second 

residence on their property (the Property) in violation of the Township Zoning 

Ordinance (Ordinance). The issues before this Court are whether Landowners’ 

appeal to the ZHB was timely and whether the ZHB erred in finding that Landowners 

had a vested right to maintain the second residence on the Property.

I. Background

The Property, which Landowners purchased on March 26, 1969, consists of 

11.24 acres located within the Township’s Limited Conservation Zone and has 
2

several structures, including the main residence and a barn. Original Record (O.R.),

Item No. 13, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 6/1/16, Ex. Nos. A-1, A-7. Landowners 

operate a taxidermy business from the first floor of the barn and reside on the barn’s 

second floor. Landowners rent the main residence to a tenant, who operates a pig 

farm on a separate portion of the Property.1 N.T., 6/1/16, at 11.

The Zoning Officer initiated an investigation of possible Ordinance violations 

related to the Property following a complaint by Gregory Loch (Loch) about odors 

emanating from the pig farm. Id., Ex. No. T-1. Loch’s complaint also asserted that 

Landowners maintained two residences on the Property. Id. The Zoning Officer’s 

investigation revealed that the barn’s second floor contained a full bathroom,

kitchen, bedroom, living room, and storage closets. Ex. No. T-5. 

Landowners subsequently received a Notice of Violation and Cease and 

Desist Order (Enforcement Notice) on March 21, 2016, which advised Landowners 

that their use of the barn as a second single-family residence violated several sections 

of the Ordinance, including Section 200-26A of the Ordinance,2 which restricts a lot 

to no more than one principal use, unless otherwise permitted in the Ordinance. 

N.T., 6/1/16, at 26; Ex. No. T-7. The Enforcement Notice further advised

Landowners that they had 30 days to appeal the Zoning Officer’s determination to 

the ZHB. Id. 

Stephen Micio (Micio) spoke to the Zoning Officer in person on March 27, 

2016, and provided him a handwritten note, which indicated that Landowners 

1 There is no dispute that the taxidermy business constitutes a nonconforming use that

predates the Ordinance, and the pig farm is permitted as an accessory use to the main residence. 

2 Moore Township Zoning Ordinance, § 200-26A. The additional violations cited in the 

Enforcement Notice all relate to Landowners’ use of the barn as a second residence and allege 

Landowners failed to obtain the necessary building and occupancy permits, and code inspections 

required to convert the barn into a residence. N.T., 6/1/16, at 26; Ex. No. T-7. 
3

wished to appeal the Enforcement Notice to the ZHB. N.T., 6/1/16, at 27. 

Landowners filed a subsequent Notice of Appeal, utilizing a boilerplate form 

provided by the Township, and paid the required hearing fee, on May 11, 2016. 

O.R., Item No. 6(1), Notice of Appeal. Landowners sought relief from the 

Enforcement Notice on the basis that the barn was used as a residence prior to the 

adoption of the Ordinance. Id. Accordingly, it qualified as a lawful preexisting, 

nonconforming use. Id. Landowners further argued they had a vested right in 

maintaining the barn residence, as significant funds were expended in renovating the 

barn for that purpose. Id. The ZHB conducted a hearing on the Enforcement Notice 

on June 1, 2016.

The Zoning Officer confirmed that Micio presented him with a handwritten 

appeal on March 27, 2016. N.T., 6/1/16, at 26. He agreed that the Notice of Appeal 

form was not filed until May 11, 2016. Id. The Zoning Officer did not object to 

Landowners filing the Notice of Appeal form on a later date, as the deadline for 

raising the issue at the next ZHB meeting had already passed. Id. at 27. 

With regard to the evidence supporting the Enforcement Notice, the Zoning 

Officer testified that he was unable to locate any permits in the Township’s files 

which authorized a second residence on the Property. Id. at 25. He advised that the 

Northampton County (County) Assessment Office, which receives copies of all 

permits issued by the Township, likewise could not find any evidence demonstrating 

that a second residence was approved by the Township. Id. at 34-35. Moreover, a 

County-wide assessment performed in 1995 indicated that the Property only 

contained one residential unit. Id. at 38. The Zoning Officer acknowledged, 

however, that the accuracy of records kept by the County Assessment Office is 

largely dependent upon the efficiency of each township in providing copies of the 
4

requisite records. Id. at 35. He also related that, between 1999 and 2001, the 

Township began organizing its property records into “parcel identification folders.” 

Id. at 31-32. While some folders did contain records from the 1970s and 1980s, the 

Zoning Officer could not say whether all folders maintained by the Township were 

complete. Id. at 32. 

Micio testified that, when he purchased the Property in 1969, the barn was 

already hooked up to a septic system and supplied with water and electricity. Id. at 

43. The barn also had a small kitchen area where Micio occasionally ate his meals 

and which came equipped with a refrigerator and freezer. Id. at 53-54, 57. 

As Micio worked long hours during hunting season, he initially slept on a cot 

in the barn, which he heated with a coal stove. Id. at 53-54. He obtained a permit 

to remodel the barn when he retired from teaching in 1980, with the intent of 

becoming a full-time taxidermist. Id. at 51. Most of the remodeling was done 

between 1979 and 1981, but Micio did some work when he first purchased the 

Property. Id. at 51-52. 

With the understanding that he had permitsfrom the Township to do so, Micio

updated the plumbing and electric wiring in the barn, installed windows and doors 

throughout, and expanded the kitchen area to include a stove and sink. Id. at 56-57. 

Micio improved the second floor of the barn by adding a second bathroom and 

storage closets, and he closed in the bedroom to make it more private. Id. at 57, 61-

63. The coal stove was replaced with a gas stove and chimney which extended to 

the second floor. Id. at 56. Micio began residing in the barn full time in the late 

1980s after he and his wife separated. Id. at 59. 

Micio made additional improvements to the barn in 1998, as he had remarried 

and wanted to make the barn “a little bit nicer for [his wife.]” Id. at 69. Micio 
5

testified he spent approximately $100,000 over the years remodeling the barn. 

Although Micio was not able to find a copy of the 1979 permits he relied on to 

perform the work, he presented a cancelled check dated April 17, 1979, which was

made payable to the Township and cashed by the Township Board of Supervisors 

on May 10, 1979. Id. at 66, Ex. No. A-24. A notation in the memo section of the 

check indicates the $40 payment related to “Building Permit #1068,” and “Zoning 

Permit #1068.” Id. 

In April 2016, the County reassessed the barn and taxed it as a residence. 

N.T., 6/1/16, at 72. Micio testified that, prior to that time, the barn was taxed as a 

business. Id. After the 2016 reassessment, the barn was taxed as both “a business 

and as a residence.” Id. 

Gregory Loch attended the June 1, 2016 ZHB meeting with his counsel. He 

did not testify or present any evidence, nor did he respond when the ZHB opened 

the floor for public comment. Id. at 99. The ZHB denied Landowners’ request to 

have the barn residence declared a nonconforming use. Id. at 100. The ZHB 

concluded, however, that Landowners were entitled to relief as they had established 

a vested right to maintain the second residence. Id. at 102. 

The ZHB expanded upon its June 1, 2016 decision in a written opinion issued 

on July 15, 2016. O.R., Item No. 6(3), ZHB Decision. The ZHB found that four 

separate uses exist on the Property: a single-family dwelling, a residence in the barn, 

a pig farm, and a taxidermy business. Id., Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 13. Since it 

first went into effect on April 22, 1973, the Ordinance has prohibited a landowner 

from maintaining two principal uses on the same lot. Id., F.F. Nos. 14-15. As the 

taxidermy business was commenced prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, it 

constituted a lawful preexisting nonconforming use. Id., F.F. No 16. The pig farm 
6

was also permitted as a use because the Property is located within the Limited 

Conservation Zone. Id., F.F. No. 17. The Zoning Officer did not know whether the 

Township’s zoning files contained all permits issued by the Township since the 

Ordinance was adopted in 1973. Id., F.F. No 18. While the County Assessment 

Office maintained copies of records which reflected any improvements made on 

properties within the County, the County relied on individual municipalities to 

supply records. Id., F.F. No. 19. Accordingly, if a municipality failed to forward a 

copy of a building permit, any construction resulting from that permit would not be 

reflected in the County Assessment Office’s records. Id. 

The ZHB recognized that Micio frequently slept in the barn during hunting 

season. ZHB Decision at 9. It did not find this evidence sufficient to establish the 

barn’s use for residential purposes prior to the enactment of the Ordinance in 1973, 

however. Id. Therefore, Landowners were not entitled to relief from the 

Enforcement Notice on the basis that the barn residence was a lawful preexisting 

nonconforming use. Id.

As to whether Landowners established a vested right in the permits allegedly 

issued by the Township in 1979, the ZHB noted that such relief is based on a 

landowner’s good faith reliance on government action, which resulted in the 

expenditure of substantial unrecoverable funds. Id. Although neither the Township 

nor Landowners were able to produce the 1979 permits, Micio’s testimony that he 

acquired the permits was corroborated by the cancelled check he produced at the 

June 1, 2016 hearing. Id. at 10. Thus, the ZHB concluded, Micio had no reason to 

believe the permits were not issued. Id. Micio justifiably relied on the issuance of 

the permits and proceeded to expend funds converting the second floor of the barn 

into a residence for his full-time use in the 1980s. Id. at 11. The ZHB reasoned that 
7

enforcing the Ordinance provision prohibiting two principal uses on the same lot 

would cause Landowners extreme hardship. Id. As Landowners presented sufficient 

evidence to establish a vested right in the 1979 permits, Landowners were entitled 

to relief from the Enforcement Notice. Id.

Neighbors appealed to the trial court, arguing that the ZHB abused its 

discretion in hearing Landowners’ appeal, as it was untimely filed on May 11, 2016. 

In response, the Township and Landowners asserted that Neighbors failed to raise 

the timeliness of Landowners’ appeal at the ZHB hearing and the issue was 

consequently waived. Neighbors also challenged the ZHB’s determination that 

Landowners had acquired a vested right to maintain a second residence in the barn.

Because the trial court took no additional evidence, it was bound by the ZHB’s 

credibility determinations and its resolution of conflicting testimony. O.R., Item No. 

14, Trial ct. op. at 5. 

The trial court rejected Neighbors’ argument regarding timeliness of 

Landowners’ appeal. Id. at 7. While Micio’s handwritten appeal was not introduced 

at the June 1, 2016 ZHB hearing, the trial court recognized that the Zoning Officer’s 

receipt and acknowledgment of that appeal was made part of the record through the 

Zoning Officer’s credited testimony. Id. at 6-7. The Zoning Officer acknowledged 

that Micio presented him with a handwritten letter on March 27, 2016, setting forth 

Landowners’ intention to appeal the Enforcement Notice. Id. at 6. Landowners’ 

subsequent completion and filing of the Township’s Notice of Appeal form more 

than 30 days after March 21, 2016, did not diminish the fact that written notice of 

Landowners’ intent to appeal was given on March 27, 2016, well within the 30-day 

appeal period. Id. at 7. The trial court further agreed with the Township and 
8

Landowners that Neighbors did not challenge the timeliness of Landowners’ appeal 

with the ZHB. Id. at 8. Accordingly, the trial court deemed the issue waived. Id.

The trial court likewise dismissed Neighbors’ argument that the ZHB erred in 

concluding Landowners had a vested right in maintaining a second residence in the 

barn. The trial court’s conclusion was based in large part on the ZHB’s credibility 

determinations and the absence of evidence, which contradicted Micio’s testimony, 

which the ZHB credited. Id. at 17. Citing our Supreme Court’s holding in Petrosky

v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Upper Chichester, 402 A.2d 1385, 1390 

(Pa. 2003), the trial court noted the following factors to be weighed in determining 

whether a landowner has a vested right to a land use acquired by virtue of an 

erroneously or unlawfully issued building permit: (1) the landowner’s due diligence 

in attempting to comply with the law; (2) the landowner’s good faith throughout the 

proceedings; (3) the landowner’s expenditure of substantial, unrecoverable sums; (4) 

expiration of the time period during which issuance of the permit could be appealed; 

and (5) a lack of evidence demonstrating that individual property rights or the public 

health, safety, or welfare would be adversely affected by the use of the permit. Trial 

Ct. op. at 10-11. 

As to the first and second factors, Landowners’ due diligence in complying 

with the law and their good faith throughout the proceedings, the trial court pointed 

out that the ZHB credited Micio's testimony that he obtained the relevant permits. 

Id. at 15. Micio’s testimony was corroborated by the cancelled check cashed by the 

Township Board of Supervisors in May 1979. Id. The trial court found no basis for 

believing that Micio falsified the handwritten notation on the check, which indicated 

it was tendered to pay for “Building Permit #1068” and “Zoning Permit #1068.” Id. 
9

Thus, the evidence supported a finding that the Township had, in fact, issued the 

permits in 1979. Id. at 15-16. 

With regard to the third Petrosky factor, the trial court found no fault with the 

ZHB’s finding that Landowners expended significant, unrecoverable funds 

improving the barn. Id. at 16. As most of the barn renovations took place in 1979 

and the few years that followed, the trial court reasoned that the expenditures and 

renovations were made in reliance on the 1979 permits. Id. at 18. The fourth factor, 

expiration of the appeal period during which the 1979 permits could have been 

challenged, was clearly met. Id. at 16.

Finally, as to the fifth factor outlined in Petrosky, the trial court noted the lack 

of evidence suggesting Landowners’ continued use of the barn as a second residence 

would adversely affect the “health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding area.” Id. 

The only evidence presented to substantiate such a claim came from Loch’s original 

complaint to the Zoning Officer, which alleged that Loch’s wife suffered from 

“documented health issues with respiratory issues.” Id., Ex. No. T-2. Although 

Loch attended the June 1, 2016 ZHB meeting, he did not testify or otherwise present 

evidence to support his complaint. Trial Ct. op. at 17.

The trial court concluded that the ZHB’s decision to grant Landowners relief 

from the Enforcement Notice was based on substantial evidence, and the ZHB did 

not commit any error of law or abuse of discretion. This appeal followed.3

3 Where the trial court does not take additional evidence, we are limited to determining 

whether the ZHB committed an error of law or manifestly abused its discretion. Greth Dev. Grp., 

Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Lower Heidelberg Twp., 918 A.2d 181, 185 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 

An abuse of discretion occurs when the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the 

record. Mehring v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Manchester Twp., 762 A.2d 1137, 1139 n. 1 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2000). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion. Id.
10

II. Issues

On appeal, Neighbors argue that Landowners’ appeal to the ZHB was 

untimely, and, as a result, the trial court erred in determining that the ZHB had 

subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Neighbors also argue that the ZHB 

erred and abused its discretion in determining that Landowners acquired a vested 

right to maintain a second residence in the barn located on the Property.

III. Analysis

At the outset, we note that Section 1005-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities 

Planning Code (MPC)4 provides that a party appealing a land use decision may move 

for the presentation of additional evidence before the court of common pleas when

necessary for “proper consideration of the land use appeal.” Thereafter, the court

may “hold a hearing to receive additional evidence, may remand the case to the body, 

agency or officer whose decision or order has been brought up for review, or may 

refer the case to a referee to receive additional evidence.” Id. Instantly, Neighbors 

did not move for the presentation of additional evidence. Had they done so, the trial 

court would have heard the matter de novo and made its own findings of fact. 

DeCray v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Upper Saucon Twp., 599 A.2d 286, 287 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1991) (where trial court receives additional evidence, it decides the case de

novo, and must set forth appropriate findings of fact to allow for proper appellate 

review of its decision). As the trial court here did not take additional evidence, it 

was limited to reviewing the ZHB’s decision under the error of law or abuse of 

discretion standard. Petition of Dolington Land Grp., 839 A.2d 1021, 1026 (Pa. 

2003). 

4 Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, added by the Act of December 21, 1998, P.L.

1329, 53 P.S. § 11005-A.
11

A. Timeliness 

First, we address whether Landowners failed to timely file their appeal of the 

Enforcement Notice. Neighbors maintain that the ZHB did not have jurisdiction to 

hear Landowners’ appeal, as it was not filed until May 11, 2016, nearly 60 days after 

they received the Enforcement Notice, and well beyond the permissible appeal 

period. Moreover, Neighbors argue, the trial court erred in concluding that 

Neighbors’ challenge to the timeliness of Landowners’ appeal was waived because 

they failed to raise the timeliness issue before the ZHB.

Pursuant to Section 909.1(a)(3)5 of the MPC, the ZHB has exclusive 

jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a determination made by the Zoning Officer. 

Section 913.3 of the MPC provides that such an appeal may be filed “in writing by 

the landowner affected.” 53 P.S. § 10913.3. The MPC does not direct a specific 

format for such an appeal beyond the requirement that it be “in writing.” 

Statutory appeal periods are mandatory and may not be extended as a matter 

of grace or mere indulgence. Hudson v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver 

Licensing, 830 A.2d 594, 598 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (quoting Bass v. Commonwealth, 

401 A.2d 1133, 1134 (Pa. 1979)). An appeal filed outside this statutory period is

untimely, depriving a reviewing tribunal of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

While Neighbors are correct that the timeliness of an appeal goes to 

jurisdiction, without which the ZHB had no authority to hear Landowners’ appeal, 

we cannot agree that their appeal from the Enforcement Notice was untimely filed.

While a copy of Micio’s March 27, 2016 handwritten appeal was not 

introduced at the June 1, 2016 ZHB hearing, the Zoning Officer credibly testified 

that Micio gave him a handwritten notice of appeal on March 27, 2016. Neighbors 

5 Added by the Act of December 21, 1998, P.L. 1329, 53 P.S. § 10909.1(a)(3).
12

presented no evidence to contravene this testimony. Moreover, they have not argued 

that the Zoning Officer lacked authority to accept Landowners’ appeal, nor have 

they cited any legal authority that would render Landowners’ March 27, 2016 appeal 

untimely due to their delay in paying the hearing fee or their failure to use the 

boilerplate Township form.6 Instead, Neighbors simply omit any reference to the 

March 27, 2016 appeal in their principal brief and maintain that Landowners’ appeal 

was first filed on May 11, 2016. Neighbors’ failure to acknowledge the March 27, 

2016 appeal does not wink it out of existence. The fact that Landowners did not file 

their appeal on the boilerplate Notice of Appeal form provided by the Township, or 

pay the applicable hearing fee, until May 11, 2016, is not relevant, as their appeal 

had already been filed on March 27, 2016, well within the 30-day appeal period.

B. Vested Rights

Next, we address whether the ZHB erred in concluding that Landowners have 

acquired a vested right in maintaining a second residence in the barn. 

In affirming the ZHB, the trial court reviewed the following factors outlined

in Petrosky: (1) Landowners’ due diligence in attempting to comply with the law; 

(2) their good faith throughout the proceedings; (3) their expenditure of substantial, 

unrecoverable sums; (4) the expiration of the time period during which issuance of 

the 1979 permits could have been appealed; and (5) a lack of evidence demonstrating 

that individual property rights or the public health, safety, or welfare would be 

adversely affected by the use of the permits. Petrosky, 402 A.2d at 1390. Under 

Petrosky, if Landowners have satisfied these requirements, they have acquired a 

vested right to “continue to use their property in accordance with said permits.” Id. 

We will address these issues in turn.

6 Neither the reproduced record filed by Neighbors nor the record from the trial court 

contains a copy of the Ordinance.
13

Neighbors argue that Landowners have not satisfied the first Petrosky factor 

by demonstrating they exercised due diligence in complying with the Ordinance, 

citing both Landowners’ and the Township’s failure to locate copies of any permits 

issued in 1979. Curiously, Neighbors contend that Landowners failed to present a 

cancelled check to support their contention that the Township issued a permit for the 

barn renovations.

We find no merit in this argument, as it goes against the credited testimony of 

Micio that he applied for a permit in 1979, as well as the check cashed by the 

Township Board of Supervisors, which the ZHB considered sufficient to establish 

that the Township issued permits in 1979 allowing the barn renovations to proceed. 

This Court may not substitute its interpretation of the evidence for that of the ZHB, 

as the ZHB is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight afforded to the 

testimony presented. Lamar Advantage GP Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of 

Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 997 A.2d 423, 441 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). We will 

not overturn those determinations on appeal. 

As to the second factor in Petrosky, Neighbors suggest that Micio failed to 

exhibit good faith throughout the proceedings, as he never informed the Township

that he occasionally slept in the barn, nor did Landowners notify the Township when 

they began maintaining that space as a second residence. Neighbors also contend 

that Landowners’ failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the barn residence 

or to pay taxes for that residence demonstrates a lack of good faith. 

It is unclear how Micio’s failure to notify the Township that he slept in the 

barn occasionally, or that he had started to reside in the barn, demonstrates a lack of 

good faith, given that Micio operated on the belief that such a use had been 

authorized by the Township in 1979. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that 
14

Landowners were aware they needed a certificate of occupancy for the barn but 

avoided obtaining one, or that Landowners had intentionally avoided the payment 

of additional tax assessments. Micio testified, in fact, that he did pay business taxes 

for the taxidermy business operated on the first floor of the barn. Neighbors’ 

allegations of bad faith are speculative, at best, and not based on any facts appearing 

in the record. 

As to the third factor in Petrosky, there is no dispute that Landowners 

expended substantial, unrecoverable sums in renovating the barn. With regard to the 

fourth factor, any period during which an appeal could have been lodged against the 

issuance of the 1979 permits has long since passed. 

Finally, Neighbors maintain that sufficient evidence was presented at the ZHB 

hearing that continued use of the barn as a second residence adversely affected the 

health, safety, and welfare of the public. They contend that the pig farm would not 

exist, but for Landowners’ ability to rent out the main residence to the tenant who 

operates it. 

There is simply no evidence to support these contentions. The pig farm, which 

appears to be the source of Neighbors’ discomfort, is a permitted use of the Property, 

and nothing in the record suggests that its operation is solely dependent on the 

existence of a second residence on the Property. Moreover, as the trial court duly

noted, Loch appeared at the June 1, 2016 ZHB hearing but failed to offer any 

comments or any questions after the ZHB opened the floor to the public. The sole 

source of evidence supporting Neighbors’ assertion that Debra Loch suffers from 

“documented respiratory issues” is the Zoning Officer’s report which he dictated 

from Neighbors’ initial complaint. As such, it hardly constitutes substantial 
15

evidence to support a finding that the barn residence negatively affects the health, 

safety, and welfare of the public. 

Accordingly, we discern no error in the ZHB’s determination that Landowners 

have a vested right in maintaining the second residence on the Property, and we 

affirm the trial court. 

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Greg and Deborah Loch, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 318 C.D. 2020

:

Zoning Hearing Board of Moore :

Township, Stephen Micio and Simona:

Micio :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2021, the March 11, 2020 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County is hereby AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge