Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2010

Home

April 25, 2010 ~ Volume 41 No. 8 Zoning Bulletih Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ' held that the Siwinskis' short-term rental of their house was not a "commercial use" of the.property in violation of the Ordinance. In reaching its conclusion, the court of appeals agreed with the Si- winskis' arguments. Construing the language of the Ordinance,,the court found that it did "not expressly prohibit short-tetm rentals, but merely restrict[ed] the use of property in an R District to that of a sin- ' gle-family dwelling,. which was defined as being `occupied exclusively as a residence by one family."' The court said that such language re- stricting land use regarding residential uses was "concerned with the physical activity conducted upon the property and not the profit-mak- ing intentions of the homeowners." Here, the court found the Siwin- skis' renters used the house for: "eating, sleeping, and other activities typically associated with a residence or dwelling. place." The. court found no evidence that "any commerce- or other activities not associ- ated with a residence were ever conducted on the Siwinskis' property." Nor was the property ever occupied by more than one family simul- taneotisly. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Siwinskis' occa- sional short-term rental of their property was a residential use, not a commercial use. See also: Applegate v. Colucci, 908 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), transfer denied, (Jan. 7, 2010). "\ Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that, "under the trial court's overly broad construction of the Ordinance, the Siwins- kis would be prohibited from, and subject to substantial fines for, such things as having weekend guests, or allowing family members to use the property while they were away as the property would then not be occupied exclusively as a residence by one family." Low-Income Housing-State overturns town's denial of comprehensive permit for affordable housing development Town defends denial, claiming traffic safety concerns outweigh regional housing needs Citation: Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Canton v. Housing Appeals Com- mittee, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 923 N.E.2d 114 (2010) MASSACHUSETTS (03/18/10)-This case addressed the issue of minimal requirements for affordable housing and the authority of the state to weigh the regional need for low or moderate income housing against local safety concerns. © 2010 Thomson Reuters . 62