Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 22 ing,the court concluded that it could not form the basis to submit the issue to a k vote. E` See also:State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 67 Ohio St. 3d 556, 621 N.E.2d 391 (1993). Zoning Use—Landowner receives d notice of zoning violation for short- term rentals of property in residential district Landowner argues short-term rentals were not inconsistent with single-family dwelling use Citation:Marchenko a Zoning Hearing Board of Pocono Township, 2016 WL 4978459(Pa., Sept. 19, 2016) PENNSYLVANIA(09/19/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether short-term rentals of property were inconsistent with single-family dwelling use as per a township's zoning ordinance. The Background/Facts: Tatiana Marchenko ("Marchenko") owned a single-family dwelling(the"Property")in Pocono Township(the"Township"). The Property was located in the Township's R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning District("R-1 District").Under the Township's Zoning Ordinance(the "Ordinance"),uses permitted in the R-1 District included,among other things: single-family detached dwellings,customary accessory uses,churches and re- lated uses, and home occupations. In September 2014, the Township's zoning officer issued to Marchenko a notice of zoning violation(the"Notice").The Notice stated that Marchenko's use of the Property for short-term rentals was use of the Property for a com- mercial.purpose which was in violation of the Ordinance. Commercial uses were not one of the permitted uses in the R-1 District. Marchenko appealed to the Township's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB"). Q' The ZHB found that Marchenko considered the Property to be her primary residence because she received mail at the Property, did not own other prop- erty, and listed the Property on her driver's license. The ZHB found that Marchenko rented out the Property on weekends to help defray her housing expenses. It also found that, during the rental periods, she would stay with a friend and lock her personal effects in a room at the Property. The ZHB determined that,for the first 185 days that Marchenko owned the Property,she resided at it for 114 days (62% of the time) and rented out the Property 71 days (38% of the time). The ZHB heard testimony from neighbors who said that the people who rented the Property created noise and other disturbances in the neighborhood. Ultimately, the ZHB denied Marchenko's appeal. In doing so, the ZHB ©2016 Thomson Reuters 7