Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 8 ( ) INDIANA (03/16/10)-This case addressed the issue of whether ho- meowners' occasional short-term rental of their house was a "commer- cial use" of the property in violation of the town's zoning ordinance. The Background/Facts: Steven and Lauren Siwinski owned a lake- front house iri the "R-Residential District" ("R District") in the town. The Siwinskis did not live at the house full time. Instead, they occa- sionally rented the house to other families. In 2007, the Siwinskis rent- . ed the house five times, each time for a period of fewer than 30 days. In August 2007, the town filed a legal complaint against the Siwin- skis. The town alleged that the Siwinskis violated the .town's zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance") by renting their house. The town main- tained that the Siwinskis' rental activities were a "commercial use," not permitted in the R District. The Ordinance allowed only the fol- lowing uses in the R District: (1) single-family dwelling; (2) accessory buildings of uses; (3) public utility buildings; (4) semi-public uses; (5) essential services; and (6) special exception uses permitted by the zon- ing code. The Ordinance defined asingle-family dwelling as: "[a] sepa- rate detached building designed for and occupied exclusively as a resi- dence by one family." Commercial uses were not. included in the list of uses permitted in the R District. "Commercial or business" was defined in-the Ordinance as "[a]ny activity conducted for profit or gain." ~ The town asked the court to permanently prohibit the Siwinskis from renting their house. It also sought monetary fines of up to $2,500 for each day a violation occurred. The Siwinskis argued that the short-term rental of their property was permitted under the Ordinance. They noted that the Ordinance did not explicitly prohibit the short-term rental of property. Moreover, they claimed that their house was being used for residential purposes by renters and not for commercial activities. They said the renters. used the house for. "typical. activities associated with a residence such as eat- ing and sleeping." Both parties fled motions for summary judgment with the court. They noted that there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and asked the court to find in their favor on the law alone. The court issued summary judgment in favor of the town. The court concluded that "the Siwinskis were in violation of the Ordinance be- cause the short-term rental of their house was a commercial use and not residential activity." The court found that the R District "was not meant for transient guests and that the renters' occupation of the Si- winskis' house was not a residential use because they did not intend to return to reside in the house." The court fined the Siwinskis $40,000. ( ~ The Siwinskis appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of the trial court reversed, and mat- ter remanded with instructions. .© 2010 Thomson Reuters s~