Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2015

Home

July 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin erty for periods of less than one month, the Accolas subsequently created a corporation called A Better Way to Live. They began allowing people to stay at their property for periods of less than one month in exchange for "dona- tions" to the corporation. The County again informed the Accolas that renting their property for periods of less than one month violated the general zoning ordinance. The County asserted, "Soliciting donations on a weekly basis in exchange for housing is the functional equivalent of renting the property[.]" In August 2013, the County brought an enforcement action against the Ac - colas, seeking forfeitures and an injunction prohibiting the Accolas from rent- ing their lake property for periods of less than 30 days. The Accolas argued that the short -team rental of their property was permit- ted because the general zoning ordinance allowed "[s]ingle-family detached dwelling units" in the R-1 district. They asserted their property indisputably qualified as a single-family detached dwelling unit, and the general zoning ordinance did not explicitly prohibit short-term rentals of single-family detached dwelling units in the R-1 district. The County argued that the Accolas' short-teiui rental of their lake prop- erty constituted "transient lodging," which was only expressly permitted in the RL district. Reading together the provisions of zoning ordinance govern- ing the R-1 and RL districts, the County argued that the ordinance permitted rental of residential dwelling units for periods of less than one month in the RL district only. The county contended that the Accolas' interpretation of the ordinance would render the provision of the ordinance listing rental of resi- dential units as a use in the RL district (§ 4.2(B)(4)) superfluous because, if rentals of residential dwelling units for periods of less than one month were permitted in the R-1 district, there would be no need to separately list "rental of residential dwelling unit" as a permitted use in the RL district. The circuit court agreed with the County's argument. The court concluded that short-teiiu rentals of the Accolas' property for periods of less than one month, whether compensated by direct payment of rent or by donations to the Accolas' corporation, were not permitted in the R-1 district. As a result, the court imposed a $35,000 forfeiture and peimanently enjoined the Accolas from renting their lake property for periods of less than 30 days. The Accolas appealed. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin held that short-term rentals of single- family residential units were not permitted in the R-1 district and therefore the Accolas' could not rent their lake property for periods of less than 30 days. In so holding, the court agreed with the Accolas that the provision of the ordinance permitting uses in R-1 districts did not expressly prohibit the rental of single-family detached dwelling units. The court said that if it were limited to considering that provision of the County's zoning ordinance, it would agree with the Accolas that the ordinance did not unambiguously prohibit the rental of single-family detached dwelling units in the R-1 district for periods of less than one month. However, the court also found that § 4.2(B) of the general zoning ordinance unambiguously permitted in the RL district both: (1) the rental of single-family detached dwelling units for periods of less than one 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters