Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2017

Home

April 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 7 Zoning Bulletin Shvekh appealed to the trial court. The court affirmed the Board's decision. Shvekh again appealed. On appeal, she argued that, in holding that the Prop- erty was being used as a "tourist home," the Board misconstrued the Zoning Ordinance. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas reversed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with Shvekh. The court held that the vacation rental of Shvekh's Property did not meet the definition of an unpermitted "tourist home." Rather, the court agreed with Shvekh that the vacation of her Property was permitted as a single-family use. In so holding, the court acknowledged that in the concept of a single-family dwelling is "a certain expectation of relative stability and permanence in the com- position of the familial unit." The court noted that since the Property was oc- cupied at least once a month by the Shvekh and her family, it was not used in a "purely transient" way that would undermine that familial unit composition. Further, looking at the language of the Ordinance, the court found that it did not define occupancy of a single-family dwelling in a way that precluded vaca- tion rentals. More specifically, the court found no provision in the Ordinance that prohibited the owner of a single-family home —such as Shvekh—from "renting it out from time to time to vacationers." Moreover, the court found that the vacation rental of an entire home (such as Shvekh's rental of the Property) bore "no rela- tion to the bedroom -by -bedroom rental that is the hallmark of a tourist home." The court found it clear that the ZO and the Board had sought to expand the defi- nition of "tourist home" to include any short-term rental. The court admonished that a municipality "cannot advance a new and strained interpretation of its zon- ing ordinance in order to effect what it would like the ordinance to say without an amendment." See also: Albert v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of North Abington Tp., 578 Pa. 439, 854 A.2d 401 (2004). See also: Marchenko v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pocono Township, 147A.3d 947 (Pa. Conznnw. Ct. 2016). AuthorityBoardof zoning appeals grants special exception application subject to setback requirement Applicant contends board exceeded authority in requiring setback distance greater than that set forth in zoning ordinance Citation: Flat Rock Wind, LLC v. Rush County Area Board of Zoning Appeals, 2017 WL 586487 (Inc!. Ct. App. 2017) INDIANA (02/14/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a board of zoning appeals exceeded its authority when it imposed a setback condition that was greater than the minimum setback distance specified in the county zoning ordinance. 6 © 2017 Thomson Reuters