Court Opinion

ID: 9408169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 18:10:10.797287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.226311
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ana M. Gheorghiu                      :
                                      :
      v.                              : No. 1028 C.D. 2022
                                      :
Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud        :
Township and Stroud Township          :
Board of Supervisors                  :
                                      :
Appeal of: Ana M. Gheorghiu           : Submitted: April 28, 2023

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: July 11, 2023

      Appellant Ana M. Gheorghiu (Gheorghiu) appeals from the Court of Common
Pleas of Monroe County’s (Common Pleas) September 1, 2022 order, by which
Common Pleas affirmed two decisions issued on March 25, 2022, by Appellee
Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud Township (ZHB) regarding Gheorghiu’s property,
located at 810 Church Street in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (Property). Through these
decisions, the ZHB affirmed a notice of violation issued by Stroud Township’s
(Township) zoning officer regarding Gheorghiu’s use of the Property as a short-term
rental, as well as the zoning officer’s denial of Gheorghiu’s application for a
certificate of non-conformance (Application), the approval of which would have
declared short-term rental as a valid, nonconforming use of the Property. We affirm.
      On August 20, 2021, the Township’s zoning officer formally notified
Gheorghiu that she had violated Section 11-505 of the Township’s Code of
Ordinances1 by offering the Property for rent on a short-term basis without the
necessary permit. See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 6a-7a. In response, Gheorghiu
filed her Application with the Township and then appealed this notice of violation
to the ZHB. Id. at 8a-9a. On October 21, 2022, the Township’s zoning officer denied
the Application, prompting Gheorghiu to appeal that denial to the ZHB as well. Id.
at 10a-11a.
       The ZHB then held a public hearing on January 5, 2022, at which it addressed
both of Gheorghiu’s administrative appeals. At the close of that hearing, the ZHB
voted unanimously to deny both of those appeals. See id. at 92a-93a. Thereafter, on
March 25, 2022, the ZHB issued both of the aforementioned decisions. In the first,
regarding ZHB Case #21-11, the ZHB concluded that the zoning officer had properly
issued the notice of violation because “[t]he Property is located in the [Township’s]
R-2 Low-Medium Density Residential District where short-term rentals are
prohibited.” Id. at 101a. Furthermore, the ZHB found that Gheorghiu had not shown
that she had relied in good faith upon statements allegedly made to her by Township
officials regarding the legality of offering the Property as a short-term rental and,
thus, had not gained an estoppel-based right to continue that use. Id. at 101a-02a. In
the second, regarding ZHB Case #21-12,2 the ZHB determined that Gheorghiu was
not entitled to a certificate of non-conformance, because the Property could not be
lawfully used as a short-term rental at the time she began using it in that manner. Id.
at 128a-31a.

       1
           Stroud Township Code of Ordinances, Monroe County, Pa., as amended (2019).

       2
         The ZHB expressly incorporated the decision it had issued regarding Case #21-11 into its
decision regarding Case #21-12 by reference “[t]o the extent required.” R.R. at 121a n.1.

                                               2
       Gheorghiu then appealed the ZHB’s decisions to Common Pleas on April 11,
2022. Common Pleas took no additional evidence and, on September 1, 2022,
affirmed the ZHB in full. This appeal to our Court followed shortly thereafter.
       Gheorghiu presents two arguments for our consideration regarding her belief
that Common Pleas incorrectly affirmed the ZHB’s March 25, 2022 decisions, which
we summarize as follows.3 First, the ZHB abused its discretion and erred as a matter
of law by denying her Application, because the Township’s Zoning Ordinance
allowed the Property to be used as a short-term rental at the time she began using it
in that manner, as well as because the denial was predicated in part upon the ZHB’s
improperly retroactive application of Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Township
Zoning Hearing Board, 207 A.3d 886 (Pa. 2019). Gheorghiu’s Br. at 15-25. Second,
the ZHB abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by denying Gheorghiu’s
appeal regarding the notice of violation, because she established that she was entitled
to equitable relief that would estop the Township from preventing her from using
the Property as a short-term rental. Id. at 25-32.
       After thorough review of the factual and legal issues at play in this appeal, we
conclude that we fully agree with the Honorable Arthur L. Zulick’s analysis of
Gheorghiu’s arguments, as articulated by him in his thorough and well-reasoned
opinion for this matter, which was docketed in Ana M. Gheorghiu v. Zoning Hearing
Board of Stroud Township and Stroud Township Board of Supervisors, (C.C.P.
Monroe Cnty., No. 2155 CV 2022, filed September 1, 2022). Accordingly, we adopt

       3
         Because Common Pleas took no additional evidence in this instance, our standard of
review is restricted to determining whether the ZHB committed an abuse of discretion or an error
of law. Valley View Civic Ass’n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637, 639-40 (Pa. 1983).
“We may conclude that the [ZHB] abused its discretion only if its findings are not supported by
substantial evidence. . . . By ‘substantial evidence’ we mean such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 640 (citations omitted).

                                                 3
Judge Zulick’s analysis for purposes of appellate review, and affirm Common Pleas’
September 1, 2022 order on the basis of the rationale discussed by him in his opinion.

                                          ____________________________
                                          ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

                                          4
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ana M. Gheorghiu                   :
                                   :
     v.                            : No. 1028 C.D. 2022
                                   :
Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud     :
Township and Stroud Township       :
Board of Supervisors               :
                                   :
Appeal of: Ana M. Gheorghiu        :

                                 ORDER

     AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court
of Common Pleas of Monroe County’s September 1, 2022 order is AFFIRMED.

                                     ____________________________
                                     ELLEN CEISLER, Judge