# A. Tongg Weiler v. Stroud Twp. ZHB & Stroud Twp.

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9440279

## Case

- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 3, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wojcik, J.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9440279

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “it is axiomatic that issues are preserved when objections are made timely to the error or offense[]”

## Opinion text

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alisa Tongg Weiler, :
:
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 1303 C.D. 2021
: Submitted: September 23, 2022
Stroud Township Zoning :
Hearing Board and :
Stroud Township :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: August 3, 2023

Alisa Tongg Weiler (Landowner) appeals from an order of the Monroe
County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) that affirmed the determination of the
Stroud Township Zoning Hearing Board (Board) upholding an enforcement notice
and preventing her from holding wedding ceremonies on her property. Landowner
contends that the Board erred or abused its discretion by restrictively interpreting the
Stroud Township Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance) to preclude her use; falsely
characterizing and considering a neighbor’s irrelevant testimony; and infringing
upon her religious freedoms. Upon review, we affirm.
I. Background
Landowner owns property located at 5347 Hickory Circle, Stroud
Township (Township), Monroe County (Property), which is improved with a single-
family dwelling. The Property is in the Township’s S-1 Special and Recreational
Zoning District (S-1 District). Landowner lives at the Property with her family.
Landowner, who is an ordained minister and registered wedding officiant, also
conducts weddings and other ceremonies at her Property.
Schedule 27-I of the Ordinance allows the following uses in the S-1
District as permitted, special, or conditional: Dwelling, single-family; clustering,
single-family; agriculture crops production; animal husbandry; agricultural services;
flea markets (private); cemetery; bed and breakfast; camps and recreational vehicle
parks; sporting and recreational camps; and membership lodge houses. Reproduced
Record (R.R.) at 233a-34a. Section 27-402.4(A) of the Ordinance prohibits “any
use not permitted . . . within a District.” R.R. at 229a. Omitted from the list is
“personal services,” which appears only in the commercial districts as a permitted
or conditional use in Section 27-202 of the Ordinance. R.R. at 226a. Section 27-
508 permits accessory uses “customarily incidental to the permitted use” by right.
R.R. at 231a.
On September 30, 2020, the Township zoning officer issued an
enforcement notice to Landowner alleging that she was violating the Ordinance by
operating a “personal service/wedding venue” on her Property. Landowner appealed
the notice to the Board.

2
The Board held a public hearing on January 6, 2021.1 Landowner
testified and presented evidence in support of her use. Landowner argued that the
notice should be set aside because her use of the Property was not prohibited under
the Ordinance and qualified as an accessory use. Alternatively, Landowner argued
that, if the use was prohibited, the Ordinance unduly burdened her religious freedom
in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000,
42 U.S.C. §§2000cc - 2000cc-5 (RLUIPA). Landowner’s adjoining neighbor,
Roberta Marsh (Neighbor), appeared at the hearing and testified in support of the
enforcement notice and in opposition to Landowner’s use. Based on the testimony
and evidence presented, the Board found the following relevant facts.
Landowner has resided at the Property with her family since purchasing
it in 2005. The Property is approximately one acre and is served by an on-site water
well and sewage system. In addition to the single-family residence, the Property
features a 16-foot-by-30-foot single-roof pitch shed, which Landowner constructed
after acquiring a permit in 2019 for residential use. Board Op., 3/12/21, Findings of
Fact (F.F.) Nos. 4-6.
Landowner is an ordained minister in good standing through the
Universal Brotherhood Movement, Inc. and a registered marriage officiant in the
City of New York. She performs marriages and other services required by clergy.
She is also a certified Life-Cycle Celebrant specializing in creating weddings and
other special ceremonies. Since 2012, she has conducted approximately 600
weddings, 100 of which have been held on her Property in an area she refers to as

1
Due to the COVID-19 restrictions, the hearing room capacity was limited to 10 persons.
R.R. at 251a. Present at the hearing were the court reporter; three Board members; the Board
solicitor; the zoning officer; Township zoning office attorney; two neighbors; the Township clerk;
Landowner and her attorney.
3
the “Promise Ridge,” which uses the pitch shed and scenic views of the Appalachian
Trail ridge. In 2020, Landowner officiated approximately 80 weddings at her
Property because many traditional wedding venues closed due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Landowner advertises her services on the internet and provides a fee
schedule for her officiant services, the use of the Property, and options such as
catered post-ceremony dinners/receptions at the Property. Landowner testified that
she limits attendance to events conducted at her Property to no more than 20 persons.
Ceremonies can last up to 90 minutes, followed by an additional four hours for
receptions. F.F. Nos. 4, 7-9, 20-23.
Landowner testified that normally only four vehicles park on the street
for various events held at her Property. However, she admitted that the number of
vehicles increased during COVID-19 because of social distancing. In May 2020,
the Township septic enforcement officer determined that the Property needed a new
septic system with a carbon filter based on a malodor detected. F.F. Nos. 24-26.
Neighbor testified that she was annoyed by Landowner’s use of off-
street parking for her events, which included stretch limousines, buses, and catering
vehicles from spring to late fall. Neighbor testified that commercial use is not
permitted under the Ordinance or the restrictive deed covenants. Neighbor further
testified that her home is built on a bedrock outcrop with limited space for a suitable
well and septic. Neighbor expressed concern that excessive use of Landowner’s
septic system on a regular basis could cause a second system malfunction
jeopardizing Neighbor’s well. F.F. Nos. 28-30; see R.R. at 139a-141a.
The Board found that Landowner’s use of the Property as a wedding
venue constituted the provision of “personal services,” which is not permitted in the
S-1 District. The Board rejected Landowner’s claim that the use constituted an

4
accessory use. The Board found that a wedding venue use is not customarily
incidental to the permitted residential use because it impacts neighbors in a manner
that contradicts the fundamental purpose of the S-1 District. The Board also rejected
Landowner’s claim that the zoning restriction places a substantial burden on her
religious exercise. The Board concluded that the Ordinance and the enforcement
proceeding were neutral under the RLUIPA, making no distinction between
religious and nonreligious assembly. Thus, the Board upheld the enforcement
notice.
Landowner then appealed to the trial court, which affirmed, without
taking additional evidence. This appeal now follows.2

II. Issues
Landowner raises four issues on appeal. First, Landowner contends
that the Board erred or abused its discretion by applying the Ordinance’s definition
of “personal services” in an improperly restrictive manner to prohibit her use.
Second, she contends that the Board compounded its error by labeling Landowner’s
services as that of a “wedding celebrant” or “wedding officiant” and the Property as
a “wedding venue” when none of those terms appear in the Ordinance. Third, she
claims that the Board’s decision places an undue burden on her religious freedoms
in violation of the RLUIPA. Fourth, she asserts that the Board falsely characterized
Neighbor’s testimony as “uncontradicted” and improperly considered Neighbor’s

2
Where the trial court does not take additional evidence, our review is limited to
determining whether the Board committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Victory
Gardens, Inc. v. Warrington Township Zoning Hearing Board, 224 A.3d 1110, 1114 n.4
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2020). The Board “abuses its discretion only if its findings are not supported by
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
5
testimony regarding issues not before the Board, including possible future sewage
issues and a restrictive deed covenant.

III. Discussion
A. “Personal Services”
First, Landowner contends the Board erred or abused its discretion by
determining that Landowner’s use of the Property is prohibited under the Ordinance.
To reach this conclusion, Landowner asserts that the Board interpreted the Ordinance
in an overly restrictive manner by characterizing her use of the Property as “personal
service.” Landowner maintains that she is not performing services of the same
general class or nature as those listed in the Ordinance as “personal services.”
Rather, Landowner advances that she is providing a “professional advisory service,”
which removes the use from the definition of “personal services.”
To evaluate this claim, we must interpret the language of the Ordinance.
This presents a question of law for which our standard of review is de novo and our
scope of review is plenary. Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing
Board, 207 A.3d 886, 898 (Pa. 2019).
The general rules of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of
zoning ordinances. Slice of Life, 207 A.3d at 899. The primary objective of statutory
construction in this context is to determine the intent of the governing body that enacted
the ordinance. Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 (Statutory
Construction Act), 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(a). Generally, an ordinance’s plain language
provides the best indication of this legislative intent, and as such, ordinance
interpretation begins with examination of the text itself. See 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(b).
When reading the plain text of an ordinance, “[w]ords and phrases shall be construed
according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.”

6
1 Pa. C.S. §1903(a); City of Hope v. Sadsbury Township Zoning Hearing Board, 890
A.2d 1137, 1143-44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Where a term is undefined, we may consult
dictionary definitions for guidance. THW Group, LLC v. Zoning Board of Adjustment,
86 A.3d 330, 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
An ordinance must be “construed, if possible, to give effect to all its
provisions” so that no provision is mere surplusage. 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(a); accord
Commonwealth v. Ostrosky, 909 A.2d 1224, 1232 (Pa. 2006). “When the words of a
statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded
under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(b). Thus, if the Court
determines the ordinance provision at issue is unambiguous, it must apply it directly
as written. Bowman v. Sunoco, Inc., 65 A.3d 901, 906 (Pa. 2013); see 1 Pa. C.S.
§1921(b).
However, when the statutory language is ambiguous, we may look to
Section 1921(c) of the Statutory Construction Act for guidance. Berner v. Montour
Township Zoning Hearing Board, 217 A.3d 238, 245 (Pa. 2019). Section 1921(c)
provides:

(c) When the words of the statute are not explicit, the
intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by
considering, among other matters:

(1) The occasion and necessity for the statute.

(2) The circumstances under which it was enacted.

(3) The mischief to be remedied.

(4) The object to be attained.

(5) The former law, if any, including other statutes
upon the same or similar subjects.

7
(6) The consequences of a particular interpretation.

(7) The contemporaneous legislative history.

(8) Legislative and administrative interpretations of
such statute.
1 Pa. C.S. §1921(c). An ambiguity exists when language is subject to two or more
reasonable interpretations, not merely because two conflicting interpretations may be
suggested. Roethlein v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd., 81 A.3d 816, 824 (Pa. 2013).
Further, the presence of the term “include” or “including” in a definition

exhibits a legislative intent that the list that follows is not an
exhaustive list of items that fall within the definition; yet,
any additional matters purportedly falling within the
definition, but that are not express, must be similar to those
listed by the legislature and of the same general class or
nature.
Department of Environmental Protection v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP, 102
A.3d 962, 976 (Pa. 2014); but see Marcellus Shale Coalition v. Department of
Environmental Protection, 292 A.3d 921, 943-44 (Pa. 2023) (plurality) (favorably
citing the foregoing excerpt, but generally rejecting application of ejusdem generis in
statutory analysis in that case).
Indeed, Section 27-106(1)(B) of the Ordinance itself provides:

Any list of permitted or prohibited uses shall not be deemed
to be an exhaustive list but has been included for the purpose
of clarity and emphasis, and to illustrate, by example, uses
which are desirable (permitted, special or conditional uses)
or undesirable (prohibited uses). Whenever the Zoning
Officer or [] Board make[s] an interpretation of this chapter,
then, unless other standards are in this chapter, the decision
shall be made so that the results will not be contrary to the
spirit and purpose of this chapter or injurious to the
surrounding neighborhood.
See R.R. at 379a.

8
Finally, a zoning hearing board’s interpretation of its own zoning
ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference from a reviewing court. Slice of
Life, 207 A.3d at 902. “Such deference is appropriate because a zoning hearing board,
as the entity charged with administering a zoning ordinance, possesses knowledge and
expertise in interpreting that ordinance.” City of Hope, 890 A.2d at 1143.
Notwithstanding, “where doubt exists as to the intended meaning of the language
written and enacted by the governing body,” it must be resolved in favor of the
landowner and the least restrictive use of the land. Section 603.1 of the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code (MPC)3; accord Slice of Life, 207 A.3d at 899.
Guided by these principles of statutory construction, we examine the
Ordinance and the parties’ proffered interpretations of “personal services.” To begin,
the purpose of the S-1 District

is to preserve open space, agriculture, steep slopes,
wetlands, scenic viewpoints and other unique and aesthetic
environmental features. To provide for the continuation and
protection of large lot residential development and rural
residential character with on-lot water and sewage facilities.
Outdoor recreational facilities and uses would be
compatible with the character of this District.
Section 27-302(2) of the Ordinance; R.R. at 227a. “Personal services” are not
permitted in an S-1 District but are allowed as permitted or conditional uses in the
commercial districts. Schedule 27-I of the Ordinance; R.R. at 234.
Section 27-202 of the Ordinance defines “personal services” as: “Places
primarily providing services oriented to personal needs[,] which do not involve retail
sales or professional advisory services. Personal services include barber and beauty
shops, shoe repair shops, household appliance repair shops, and other similar

3
Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, added by the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L.
1329, 53 P.S. §10603.1.
9
establishments.” R.R. at 225a (emphasis added). As the trial court aptly observed,
“[t]he common denominator of all the examples listed under personal services is that
they are commercial locations where services are exchanged for profit.” Trial Court
Op., 10/19/2021, at 5. The other shared trait is that the services are tailored to the
personal needs or desires of the clients.
Here, although Landowner is not providing any of the enumerated
services, the list is not exhaustive. Landowner is providing a service, which she
describes as “celebrant services” or “officiant services,” for a profit. R.R. at 62a,
65a. Landowner explained that she works with her clients to create a custom
ceremony. Id. at 63a. On the day of the wedding, Landowner performs the
ceremony and offers the use of her Property for the ceremony. Id. at 63a, 65a. Such
services are similar to those listed in that they are based on the intellectual or manual
services of the provider rather than a physical, salable product, and they are oriented
to a client’s personal needs. We agree with the Board’s assessment that Landowner’s
service is of the same general class or nature.
Notwithstanding, Landowner argues that she is providing a
“professional advisory service,” which is expressly excluded from the definition of
“personal services.” The Ordinance does not define “professional advisory
services.” “Advisory” means “[c]ounselling, suggesting, or advising . . . .” Black’s
Law Dictionary 54 (6th ed. 1990); accord Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
59 (9th ed. 1987). According to common everyday usage, “professional advisory
services” refers to a profession in which advice is given.
Landowner describes herself as a “spiritual advisor.” Appellant’s Brief
at 20. According to Landowner, she guides couples in advance of their wedding to
craft a special ceremony, which may include personal vows, readings, music

10
selections, and more. As an ordained minister, Landowner may even provide
premarital counseling.
However, Landowner’s services do not end there. As Landowner’s
own testimony demonstrates, Landowner performs the actual ceremony, completes
the couple’s marriage license, and uses her Property for the ceremony and
accompanying festivities, including the option of a small reception for up to 20
guests. R.R. at 63a-64a. Landowner’s services go beyond “professional advisory
services” and are more akin to the examples included under “personal services.” To
further illustrate, barber or beauty shops do not just provide advice to their clients
regarding the best haircut or style, they also actually provide a haircut or style. An
appliance repair person does not just offer recommendations on appliance maintenance
and repair, but also fixes the appliance. In the same way, Landowner does not just
provide spiritual or matrimonial advice to her clients, but also provides them with the
attendant ceremonial services. We, therefore, conclude that the Board did not err in its
interpretation of the Ordinance and its determination that Landowner’s services are
“personal services,” which are not permitted in the S-1 District.

B. Wedding Services
Next, Landowner argues that the Board erred or abused its discretion by
labeling Landowner’s use and profession with terms that are not defined in the
Ordinance, including “wedding venue,” “wedding celebrant,” and “wedding
officiant,” to advance its interpretation of “personal services.” Landowner maintains
that she is not operating a “wedding venue” on her Property. Landowner officiates
different ceremonies at the Property, not just weddings. Landowner does not market
the Property as a “wedding venue.” There is no signage outside the Property

11
identifying it as a “wedding venue.” Unlike traditional wedding venues, the Property
is not open to the public. In addition, Landowner is the only individual providing
celebrant services at the Property, whereas a traditional wedding venue would never
grant exclusive rights to just one minister. Further, the act of officiating wedding and
other ceremonies at a single-family dwelling does not alter or change the character of
that single-family dwelling to some other use. Landowner asserts that her wedding-
related services are similar in character to a homeowner inviting approximately 20
guests to a dinner party, an outside barbecue, a graduation party, or similar events at a
residence.
A “wedding venue” is commonly understood to mean a place where
weddings and similar ceremonies and celebrations are held. It may be a formal location
like a hotel, estate, or banquet center that provides various services and amenities, or a
casual location like a backyard, beach, or field that may not have any facilities or staff.
The Board’s description of Landowner’s use of her Property as a “wedding venue” is
appropriate because Landowner officiates weddings there. R.R. at 65a, 86a.
As for the description of Landowner’s services, Landowner describes her
services as “celebrant services” or “officiant services” for weddings and other
celebrations. R.R. at 62a, 65a. The fact that Landowner’s services are not limited to
weddings does not negate the Board’s characterization of her services as wedding-
related. Although we recognize that Landowner’s services are similar in character to
a homeowner inviting approximately 20 guests to a dinner party or other event, the
frequency and intensity of the use combined with the for-profit fee structure are
distinguishing. Thus, we discern no Board error in this regard.

12
C. RLUIPA
Next, Landowner contends that her use of the Property is protected by
the RLUIPA. The RLUIPA protects land use as a religious exercise by prohibiting
the implementation of a land use regulation in a manner that places a substantial
burden on the religious exercise of a person. It also precludes the imposition of a
land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less
than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. Landowner argues the
Ordinance, as enforced, imposes a substantial burden on her right of religious
assembly and treats nonreligious assemblies more favorably.
With regard to substantial burden, Section 2000cc(a)(1) of the RLUIPA
provides:

(1) GENERAL RULE

No government shall impose or implement a land use
regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden
on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious
assembly or institution, unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person,
assembly, or institution—

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and

(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest.
42 U.S.C. §2000cc(a)(1).
With regard to equal terms, Section 2000cc(b) of the RLUIPA provides:
“No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that
treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious
assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. §2000cc(b). To meet the equal terms provision,

13
a RLUIPA plaintiff must show that it was treated less well than a similar secular
assembly or institution having a negative impact on the aims of the land use
regulation similar to the negative impact on the religious assembly or institution.
Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism Inc. v. The City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253,
266 (3d Cir. 2007).
Our review of the record does not support Landowner’s assertion that
the Ordinance or its enforcement places a substantial burden on her individual
exercise of religion. Landowner appeared before the Board in her own personal
capacity, not as a representative of the Universal Brotherhood Movement, Inc., and
presented no testimony that a religious institution is burdened by the Ordinance.
Further, Landowner offered no testimony or other evidence that she must host clients
and up to 20 guests as a condition to the exercise of her religious faith. As
Landowner herself admitted, religion is a non-essential component to her officiant
services. R.R. at 72-73a. Landowner testified that she performs religious and
nonreligious ceremonies and does not encourage or endorse any particular religious
belief. Id.
As for Landowner’s equal terms argument, there is no evidence in the
record nor any distinction in the Ordinance that treats religious assembly or
expression on less than equal terms with nonreligious assembly or expression.
Rather, the Ordinance simply prohibits personal services in the S-1 District and
applies to religious and nonreligious assembly alike. Thus, we conclude that the
Board did not err in determining that the Ordinance was neutral and did not violate
the RLUIPA or otherwise infringe upon Landowner’s religious freedoms.

14
D. Neighbor’s Testimony
Finally, Landowner contends that the Board erred by considering
portions of Neighbor’s testimony that were immaterial and had no bearing on the
proceedings. Neighbor voiced general concerns over potential sewage issues on the
Property and asserted the existence of a restrictive covenant, neither of which were
matters raised in the enforcement notice. Further, the Board abused its discretion by
characterizing Neighbor’s testimony as “uncontradicted” where Landowner
introduced six letters from other neighbors saying that they were undisturbed by traffic
or noise as a result of her wedding business.
The formal rules of evidence do not apply in Board hearings, “but
irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence may be excluded.” Section
908(6) of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10908(6). With regard to Neighbor’s testimony, the
Board found:

28. Adjoining owner [Neighbor] of 5333 Hickory Circle,
while speaking respectfully for [Landowner] as a neighbor
and for [Landowner’s] “lovely home,” stated that street
parking, including stretch limousines, buses and catering
vehicles line Hickory Circle “solid with cars from spring
until late fall . . . and is annoying.”

29. [Neighbor] stated that she believed the [P]roperty had
been converted to commercial use not permitted by zoning
or deed restrictions for Hickory Valley Farm.

30. [Neighbor] further testified that her adjoining home is
built on a bedrock outcrop with limited space for a suitable
well and septic and that she feared excessive use of
[Landowner’s] septic system on a regular basis threatens to
again cause a system malfunction and threatens to
contaminate [Neighbor’s] well.
F.F. Nos. 28-30; see R.R. at 139a-141a. The Board credited Neighbor’s
“uncontradicted testimony of traffic volume and on-site sewage volume generated by
15
[Landowner’s u]se.” Board Op., Conclusion of Law (C.L.) No. 7. The Board
concluded that such “land use impacts” are “not compatible with surrounding
residential uses, and not normally associated with a residential use.” C.L No. 7.
Upon review, Landowner did not object to Neighbor’s testimony. See
R.R. at 139a-41a. Consequently, Landowner waived any challenge to Neighbor’s
testimony. See Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59, 73 (Pa. 2008) (holding
“it is axiomatic that issues are preserved when objections are made timely to the error
or offense[]”).4 Notwithstanding, Neighbor’s testimony regarding sewage concerns
and restrictive covenant was not contradicted; only her testimony regarding traffic and
noise was. See R.R. at 191a-97a. Neighbor’s testimony regarding sewage concerns
was relevant in ascertaining whether Landowner’s use otherwise qualified as an
accessory use.
As for Neighbor’s testimony regarding restrictive covenant, we agree that
it was irrelevant because the issue before the Board was whether Landowner’s use of
the Property was permitted in the S-1 District and not whether it was precluded by
restrictive covenant. Nevertheless, because Neighbor’s testimony ultimately had no
bearing on whether Landowner’s services constituted “personal services” under the
Ordinance, Landowner was not duly prejudiced by the Board’s consideration of this
testimony. Any purported error in this regard is harmless because it does not affect the
outcome of the appeal. See Garner v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 16
A.3d 1189, 1200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (“[R]eversible error requires the determination

4
See also Harrisburg Gardens, Inc. v. Susquehanna Township Zoning Hearing Board, 981
A.2d 405, 415 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (“[A]ny objection to the testimony and evidence received after
that point has been waived. A party cannot gain advantage by making a hasty retreat from the
hearing room. As noted above, a party who fails to raise an issue before a municipal zoning hearing
board is precluded from doing so for the first time on appeal.”) (citations omitted).
16
‘must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party.’
D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 2 A.3d 712, 726 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).”).

IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, we conclude that the Board did not err in its conclusion
that Landowner’s use was not permitted in the S-1 District. Accordingly, we affirm
the order of the trial court.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

17
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alisa Tongg Weiler, :
:
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 1303 C.D. 2021
:
Stroud Township Zoning :
Hearing Board and :
Stroud Township :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2023, the order of the Monroe
County Court of Common Pleas, dated October 19, 2021, is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________
MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9440279. Public record. Not legal advice.