Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 12 that there was evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact for the jury as to whether the zoning denial was indeed necessary to achieve the City's zoning goals and plans. Accordingly, with issues of fact in dispute, the court concluded that summary judgment was in appropriate here. See also: Avenue 6E Investments, LLC a City of Yuma, Ariz., 818 Rid 493 (9th Cir: 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 295, 196 L. Ed. 2d 214 (2016). See also: Texas Dept. of Housing and Comnnunity Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507, 192 L. Ed. 2d 514 (2015). See also: Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Com'n, 636 Rid 511 (9th Cir: 2011). See also: Reinhart v. Lincoln County, 482 F.3d 1225 (I0th Cir. 2007). Case Note: In its decision, the court rejected several other arguments of the City. Those arguments challenged that Developers' expert analysis, and included argu- ments that the analysis was flawed and unreliable. Use/Short-term rentals Property owners rent their single-family homes on a short- term basis to transient guests County maintains such short-term rentals are not a permitted use under the zoning regulations Citation: Bostick v. Desoto County by and through its Board of Supervisors, 2017 WL 1910098 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) MISSISSIPPI (05/09/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a "single family dwelling" may be continuously rented to a succession of transient guests on a short-term basis and yet retain its character as a single family dwelling. The Background/Facts: Tom Bostick and Larry Poe (the "Home- owners") each owned houses in a residential subdivision in DeSoto County. The Homeowners 'did not live in those houses but rather offered the houses for short-term rent on HomeAway.com and other websites. In December 2014, Desoto County (the "County") filed legal actions in court, asking the court to "halt the short-term rental" of the Homeown- © 2017 Thomson Reuters 7