Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2017

Home

June 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 12 Zoning Bulletin ers' properties. The County alleged that the use of the properties violated the County zoning regulations because the use of the houses for short- term rentals did not meet the definition of "single family dwelling," which was the applicable permitted use in the zoning district. The chancery court consolidated the actions. The court concluded that it was not the intention of the County zoning regulations to allow "so-called vacation rentals in a residential subdivision." The court permanently enjoined the Homeowners from renting their homes as "so-called vacation rentals." The Homeowners appealed. They argued that the County zoning regulations did not prohibit the rental of a "single family dwelling" to "transient guests" on a "short-term basis." The Court's Decision: Judgment of chancery court affirmed. The Court of Appeal of Mississippi held that, under the County zon- ing regulations, short-term rentals to transient guests were not a permit- ted use. In so holding, the court looked at the language of the County zoning regulations. Permitted uses in the district in which the Homeowners' properties were located included "[s]ingle family dwellings." The County zoning regulations defined a "dwelling" as "[a]ny building . . . designed or used as a residence . . . but not including . . . a room in a hotel, motel or boarding house." The County zoning regulations defined "hotel" as a "building in which overnight lodging is provided and of- fered to the public for compensation, and which is open to transient guests." The court acknowledged that a house may be a "dwelling" "as long as it is `designed' as a `residence,' even if it is not `used' as such." Still, the court found that the County's interpretation of the definition of "dwelling" was not "manifestly unreasonable." The County had determined that the Homeowners' properties were being used as "hotels," which excluded them from the definition of "dwelling" —the permitted use. The court concluded that although the Homeowners' properties "lack[ed] some common, recognizable features of most hotels, the County reasonably concluded that they [were] being used as hotels," as that term was defined in the County zoning regulations. Furthermore, since the zoning regulations defined a "dwelling" as specifically excluding "a room in a hotel," the court concluded that it was "not manifestly unreasonable for the County to apply the exclusion to a property being used as a hotel." The court found additional support for the injunction against the Homeowners' use of their properties for short-term rentals in the specific definition of "single family dwelling." The County zoning regulations defined "single family dwelling" specifically as "[a] dwell- ing designed for and occupied by not more than one family . . .." 8 © 2017 Thomson Reuters