Heidelberg Township, v. Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board

Heidelberg Township, v. Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board

Civil Action-Property Law-Constitutional Law-Zoning-Variance-Single Dwelling Residence-AirBnB-Appeal-Scope of Review-Substantial Evidence-Unnecessary Hardship

Heidelberg Township (“Township”) appealed the decision of the Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board (“Zoning Hearing Board”) that approved an application for variance filed by Clinton Martin (“Martin”), who owns a property containing a single family dwelling unit.  Martin sought permission to use the property as an AirBnB or short term rental property with use as short term rental not being a permitted use, special exception or conditional use of the Village Center Zoning District in which the property is located. 

1.  In a zoning case where the trial court takes no additional evidence, the scope of review is whether the zoning hearing board committed an abuse of discretion or an error of law. 

2.  An abuse of discretion exists where the findings of the zoning hearing board are not supported by substantial evidence.

3.  Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached.

4.  Since use as a short term rental is not included as a permitted use or special exception within the applicable zoning ordinance, a variance is required to use the property as a short term rental.

5.  An applicant seeking a variance has the burden of showing: (1) unnecessary hardship would result if the variance were to be denied; (2) the hardship is shown to be unique or particular to the property as distinguished from hardship arising from the impact of the zoning regulation on the entire district; and (3) the proposed use will not be contrary to public interest. 

6.  An applicant requesting a use variance must establish that: (1) the physical features of the property are such that it cannot be used for a permitted purpose; (2) the property can be conformed for a permitted use only at a prohibitive expense; or (3) the property has no value for any purpose permitted by the zoning ordinance. 

7.  The burden of the applicant when seeking a use variance is heavy, and a use variance should be granted sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances.

8.  The evidence establishes that the property is suitable for use of a single family detached dwelling where Martin failed to show any unique characteristic of the land preventing it from being used as a single family dwelling and the property was used as a long term rental with a prior tenant. 

9.  While the applicable zoning ordinance allows some commercial uses by special exceptions including uses as bed and breakfasts and boarding houses, the ordinance also requires that the owners of these establishments be residents of the dwellings.

10.  Where the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board failed to specify the evidence it applied to any of the criteria for a variance and the evidence presented did not establish unnecessary hardship or why the property cannot be used in accordance with the ordinance, the decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2025-CV-0039, Opinion by John C. Tylwalk, President Judge, July 2, 2025.

                        IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                            PENNSYLVANIA

                                                            CIVIL DIVISION

HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP,                        :           NO. 2025-CV-0039

            Intervenor/Appellant               :

                                                                        :

            v.                                                         :

                                                                        :

HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP                         :

ZONING HEARING BOARD,                     :

            Appellee                                              :

                                                            ORDER OF COURT

            AND NOW, this 2^nd day of July, 2025, upon consideration of the Decision of the Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board, the appeal of Heidelberg Township, the Briefs submitted by the parties, and the record of this matter, it is hereby Ordered that appeal is GRANTED and the Decision is REVERSED.

                                                                        BY THE COURT:

                                                                        _____________________________, P.J.

                                                                        JOHN C. TYLWALK

JCT/jah

Cc:  Amy Leonard, Esquire

       Colleen Gallo, Esquire

       Clinton Martin/219 Old Mill Road/Newmanstown, PA  17073

       Judith Huber, Esquire/Law Clerk

                        IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                            PENNSYLVANIA

                                                            CIVIL DIVISION

HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP,                        :           NO. 2025-CV-0039

            Intervenor/Appellant               :

                                                                        :

            v.                                                         :

                                                                        :

HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP                         :

ZONING HEARING BOARD,                     :

            Appellee                                              :

APPEARANCES:

AMY LEONARD, ESQUIRE                     FOR HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP

HENRY & BEAVER

COLLEEN GALLO, ESQUIRE                 FOR HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP

BARLEY SNYDER                                       ZONING HEARING BOARD

CLINTON MARTIN                                               SRL

OPINION, TYLWALK, JULY 2, 2025.

In this matter, Heidelberg Township (“Township”) appeals from the decision of the Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”) which approved the application for a variance filed by Clinton Martin (“Martin”) for property located at 1194 Heidelberg Avenue.  A single-family detached dwelling is located on the property which is comprised of 0.48 acres of land. 

The property is located in the Township’s Village Center Zoning District.  Martin’s application sought permission to use the property as an AirBnB or short-term rental. 

A hearing on the application was conducted by the ZHB on November 20, 2024.  At the hearing, Zoning Officer Nicholas Hartman testified that a short-term rental is not a permitted use, special exception, or conditional use in the Village Center Zoning District. 

Martin testified that he bought the property in 2015 and rented it to a tenant for eight years.  After the tenant moved out and renovations were completed, he listed it as an AirBnb in 2023.  Since then, it has been used as an AirBnb 80% of the time.   Martin explained that his out-of-state children and a visiting minister also stay at the property during the time it is not being used as an AirBnB and that the property would not be available for his personal use if he used it for a long-term rental.  He explained that long-term rentals are harder to deal with because it is hard to get rid of the tenant if they fail to maintain the property.  He further explained that he makes more money and has more control over short-term rentals and is able to work on the property when it is vacant.  When asked whether the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or alter the character of the neighborhood, Martin noted:

Mr. Martin:  Well, if there was opposition against this, if I understand they were notified, I gave addresses to surrounding houses, and I see nobody here giving opposition to it.  I have our renters next door, never told me any one occurrence in the past year of anything that happened that was disturbing to the neighborhood.

(N.T. ZHB hearing, 11/20/24 at 13) 

During the hearing, one of the members of the ZHB also commented that “I just always look to see if any neighbors come and complain about whatever somebody wants to do, and you’re right, nobody here.”  (N.T. ZHB hearing, 11/20/24 at 13)  After hearing all the testimony, the ZHB granted the request for the variance and issued a written decision on December 18, 2024.  The Township filed a timely Notice of Land Use Appeal and Notice of Intervention on January 9, 2024.  We conducted Oral Argument on May 2, 2025 and the matter is now before us for disposition.

In a case where the trial court takes no additional evidence in a zoning case, the scope of review is whether the zoning hearing board committed an abuse of discretion or an error of law.  Ruprecht v. Zoning Hearing Board of Hampton Township, 680 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Commw. 1996), appeal denied 699 A.2d 737 (Pa. 1997).  An abuse of discretion is present when the zoning board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence.  Bernie Enter v. Hilltown Township Zoning Hearing Board, 657 A.2d 1364 (Pa. Commw. 1995), allocator denied 666 A.2d 1058 (Pa. 1995).  Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached. Greth Dev. Group, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 918 A.2d 181, 185, n. 4 (Pa. Commw. 2007).  Substantial evidenceexists when a board issues an opinion which sets forth the essential findings of fact and sufficiently shows that the board’s action was reasoned rather than arbitrary.  Lando v. Springettsbury Township Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment, 286 A.2d 924 (Pa. Commw. 1972).  If a board’s decision is legally sound and supported by substantial evidence, it will be upheld.  D’Amato v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, 585 A.2d 580 (Pa. Commw. 1991). 

Pursuant to Section 1102 of the Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, the permitted uses in the Village Center District are single family detached and semi-detached dwellings, two family (duplex) detached, and semi-detached dwellings, single family detached dwellings (row houses/townhomes), two family attached dwellings, apartments, municipal uses, no impact home-based businesses, group family dwellings, family daycare homes, communication antennas on existing public utility transmission towers, forestry activities, customary uses and buildings incidental to any of the other permitted uses, and elder housing units.  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1102.  The allowable special exception uses in a Village Center District are bed and breakfast establishments, boarding houses, churches and related uses, home businesses, nursing rest, or retirement homes, public or private schools, amusement arcades, and certain limited commercial establishments provided they are contained within a residential structure.  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1103.

Since short-term rentals are not included as a permitted use or special

exception use within the Village Center District, a variance is required.  An applicant seeking a variance has the burden of showing (1) that unnecessary hardship will result if the variance is denied; (2) the hardship is shown to be unique or particular to the property as distinguished from the hardship arising from the impact of the zoning regulation on the entire district; and (3) the proposed use will not be contrary to public interest.  Chacona v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment, 599 A.2d 255 (Pa. Commw. 1991).  With regard to a request for a use variance, the applicant must establish that (1) the physical features of the property are such that it cannot be used for a permitted purpose, or (2) the property can be conformed for a permitted use only at a prohibitive expense, or (3) the property has no value for any purpose permitted by the zoning ordinance.  Marshall v. City of Philadelphia, 97 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2014). 

The burden of the applicant when seeking a use variance is heavy and should be granted “sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances.”  Pham v. Upper Marion Township Zoning Hearing Board, 113 A.3d 879 (Pa. Commw. 2015).  A zoning hearing board may only grant a variance when (1) there are unique physical circumstances or conditions particular to the property and the unnecessary hardship is due to such circumstances or conditions; (2) that due to such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance; (3) the unnecessary hardship was not created by the applicant; (4) the grant of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district, substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property owner or be detrimental to the public welfare; and (5) the grant of the variance will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation at issue.  53 P.S. §10910.2.  For a use variance, an unnecessary hardship is established by showing that (1) the physical features of the property prevent it from being used for a permitted purpose; or (2) the property can be conformed for a permitted use only at prohibitive expense; or (3) the property has no value for any purpose permitted by the zoning ordinance. Marshall v.  City of Philadelphia, 97 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2014).  Mere economic hardship is not sufficient.  Id. at 330.  Unique physical circumstances or conditions which may justify the grant of a variance include irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the property which render it impossible of being developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance.  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 2106(A)-(B). 

            Single family detached dwellings are permitted uses in this zoning district. The evidence established that this property is suitable for that use. Martin failed to show any unique characteristics of the land, such as any irregularity in its shape or topography, that prevent it from being used as a single family dwelling.  The property has been subject to this use in Martin’s long-term arrangement with his prior tenant and he is free to use the property for his visiting family members and the visiting minister.

The zoning ordinance does allow some commercial uses by special exception, including bed and breakfasts, boarding houses and “any other commercial use and its accessory uses or building which, in the opinion of the ZHB, are of the same general character … .”  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1103.  Although an AirBnB might appear to be similar to a bed and breakfast, the zoning ordinance requires the owner and operator of a bed and breakfast to be a resident of the dwelling.  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Sections 202, 1909(H).  The boarding house special exception is intended to be used for long-term housing and also requires the owner to be the primary resident.  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1910.  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1910.  Martin is not a permanent resident of the property involved here. The lot size of Martin’s property is also too small for the boarding house requirement of 1 acre.  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1910(E).  We also note that short-term rentals are permitted in the Highway Commercial District as a special exception which is indicative that they should not be permitted in the Village Center District.  Heidelberg Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1203.

The ZHB found that Martin met the criteria for a variance, stating that the essential use of the property is consistent with a residential zoning district and the character of the general neighborhood.  In its written decision, the ZHB made findings of fact but did not specify what evidence it applied to any of the criteria for a variance.  Our review of the record reveals that there was not substantial evidence to establish any of the required criteria.   The testimony presented at the hearing did not establish any unnecessary hardship and failed to establish a reason why the property cannot be used in accordance with the uses permitted under the zoning ordinance.  It appears from the comments at the hearing that ZHB may have based its decision on the fact that none of the property’s neighbors complained about Martin’s use of the property as an AirBnB.  Thus, we find the ZHB’s decision to be in error as it was arbitrary and capricious and in disregard of the language of the zoning ordinance.  We will issue an Order reversing the decision.