Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

August 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 16 Zoning Bulletin The Siwinskis advertised their home for rent on the Internet Web site "Vacation Rentals by Owner" utilizing the domain name VRB O. com. In April 2007, the Town sent the Siwinskis a cease and desist letter. The let- ter advised the Siwinskis that renting their property was prohibited by the Zoning Code. Nevertheless, on five different occasions in 2007, the Siwins- kis rented their home to people for stays of between two and 11 days. In August 2007, the Town filed suit against the Siwinskis for violating the Zoning Code. The Town noted that the Zoning Code permitted the Siwinskis to only use their home "exclusively as a residence by one fam- ily. " The Town argued that the Siwinskis rental of their home for profit violated this restriction. The Siwinskis disagreed that the phrase "exclusively as a residence" prohibited them from renting their home to multiple families. They ar- gued that the home was still used for "eating and sleeping and other things typically associated with a family residence." Furthermore, they interpreted the phrase "by one family" to mean one family at a time, as opposed to multiple families living in a home at the same time. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the superior court issued summary judg- ment in favor of the Town. The Siwinskis appealed. DECISION: Affirmed; matter remanded as to damages. The Supreme Court of Indiana held that "the Siwinskis impermissibly rented their dwelling in violation of the Town's ordinances." In so holding, the court interpreted the language of the Zoning Code. The court found it clear that, by designating a Residential District and a Commercial District, the Town intended to have certain classes of uses in designated areas. Of the applicable uses in the Residential District where the Siwinskis' home was located, the court found the only relevant use of the Siwinskis' home was as a single - family dwelling. The court inter- preted the Zoning Code's definition of single-family dwelling. The court found the ordinance was clear: it facially stated that the Residential Dis- trict shall have single-family dwellings, which were dwellings occupied exclusively as a residence by one family. On this alone the court found the ordinance clearly forbid the renting of a home in the Residential Dis- trict. The court concluded that the Siwinskis' rental of their dwelling was not a single-family use as allowed in the Residential District because the dwelling was not occupied exclusively by one family. Still, the court also looked to the Zoning Code as a whole in order to assist its analysis. The Town had a Commercial District, which allowed "commercial activity." "Commercial activity" was defined as "[a]ny ac- 10 © 2011 Thomson Reuters