Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 7 necessary for the submission to be deemed an "application for development" protected by the time of application rule, said the court. Use —Township says property owner's vacation rentals of single- family home amount to prohibited "tourist home" use Property owner maintains her use does not fit definition of "tourist home" and is permitted Citation: Shvekh v. Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud Township, 2017 WL 474028 (Pa. Conlnru: Ct. 2017) PENNSYLVANIA (02/06/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether the vacation rentals of a single-family home amounted to the use of the home as a "tourist home," prohibited under a township's zoning ordinance. The Background/Facts: Irina Shvekh ("Shvekh") and her son-in-law owned a single-family home with five bedrooms (the "Property") in the Special and Recreational Zoning District ("S-1 District") in Stroud Township (the "Township"). The Property was being advertised on websites for vacation home rentals and had been rented 20 to 25 times. According to Shvekh and her daugh- ter, their family occupied the Property approximately one week every month. Following complaints from neighbors, in May 2015, the Township's Zoning Officer (the "ZO") issued a notice of violation to Shvekh. The notice asserted that the Property was being used as a "tourist home" —a use which was not permitted within the S-1 District, per the Township's Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). Under the Ordinance, the S-1 District permitted "single-family dwellings," but prohibited "hotels, motels, resorts, and other lodging services." The Ordinance defined a "tourist home" as "[a] dwelling in which at least one but no more than six rooms are offered for overnight accommodations for transient guests for compensation." The ZO opined that because the Property was rented out for short periods of time, it was being used as a tourist home. Shvekh appealed the notice of violation to the Township's Zoning Hearing Board (the "Board"). Shvekh argued that she used the Property for "vacation rentals," which, under a "liberal construction of the Ordinance," was a permis- sible use of a "single-family dwelling," The Ordinance defined "single-family dwelling" as "[a] detached building, designed for or occupied exclusively by one family . . . ." The Ordinance defined "family" as: "Any individual, or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, foster placement, or a group of not more than three (3) persons who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together in a dwelling unit." The Board concluded that the Property was being used as a "tourist home" because the lease agreement Shvekh used with renters did not limit the renters to a single family or a group of no more than three unrelated persons. 2017 Thomson Reuters 5