Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/2017

Home

November 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 22 Zoning Bulletin found that no term in the Ordinance addressed "the short-term renting of a single-family dwelling to a series of different families,where only one family lives at the single-family dwelling during a rental period."The Ordinance's definition of"single-family dwelling"also failed to address such a short-term rental use. The Ordinance defined "single-family dwelling" as "[a] detached building designed for and occupied exclusively by one family."The Ordinance defined"family"as: "One or more persons,related by blood,adoption or mar- riage,living and cooking together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit or a number of persons living and cooking together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption or marriage, provided that they live together in a manner similar to a traditional nuclear family." The ZHB determined that Marchenko's rental activity,in fact,constituted a lodge use.Although the Ordinance did not define"lodge,"it did list"lodge"as an example of a "transient dwelling accommodation," an undefined use that was only permitted in the Township's RD Recreational District. Marchenko appealed to the trial court,which affirmed the ZHB's decision. Marchenko again appealed. On appeal, she argued that her short-term rent- als of the Property were not prohibited in the R-1 District and were not incon- sistent with the single-family dwelling use. She also argued that the ZHB erred in concluding that her short-term rentals of the Property constituted use as a lodge. DECISION:Judgment of Court of Common Pleas reversed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with Marchenko's arguments.It concluded that the ZHB erred in finding Marchenko's short-term rentals of the Property were prohibited in the R-1 District. It also concluded that the ZHB erred in concluding that Marchenko's short-term rentals of the Property constituted a"lodge"use. In reaching its decision, the court focused on Marchenko's personal use of the property. It noted that the Property was primarily used as a single-family dwelling by Marchenko, and thus determined that "the composition of the family living at the Property is not purely transient." Moreover, the court noted that the Ordinance's definition of"single-family dwelling"did not pro- hibit short-term rental activity, and short-term rental activity was not encompassed by any other use defined by the Ordinance.Under those circum- stances, the court found that the ZHB "should have broadly interpreted the term `single-family dwelling'to allow this rental activity rather than straining to designate the activity as a prohibited lodge use, which the Ordinance does not define." Similarly, noting that Marchenko used the Property as her primary resi- dence and only rented it out "a minority of the time in order to defray her housing expenses," the court found that designating it as a lodge use was inappropriate.The court noted that the purpose of a lodge,per dictionary defi- nition,was to provide short-term accommodations,while the primary purpose of Marchenko's property was for use as her primary residence. See also:Albert v.Zoning Hearing Bd. of North Abington Tp., 578 Pa. 439, 854 A.2d 401(2004). 8 ©2016 Thomson Reuters i