Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2019

Home

November 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 22 Zoning Bulletin Stellar Revocable Trust ("Landowner") owned a 48.1-acre property (the "Property") in Lynn Township (the "Township"). The Landowner's Property had a cabin, which was used by the Landowner's family for 70% of the year, and which was rented to members of the public 30% of the year. The Prop- erty was located partially within the Township's Blue Mountain Preserva- tion ("BMP") zoning district and partially within the Township's Agriculture Preservation ("AP") zoning district. Both of those districts permitted only a limited number of uses, including "single[ -]family detached dwellings." In December 2015, Cheri Ann Leinberger, Matthew S. Leinberger, Daniel P. Seneca, Kathleen A. Seneca, and William J. Necker (the "Neighbors") brought a legal action against the Landowner. The Neighbors sought to enjoin the Landowner from using his property for short-term rentals. They argued that short-term rental was not a permitted use in the zoning districts in which the Property was located. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that the Landowner's Property met the definition of "single[ -]family detached dwelling," a permitted use in the relevant zoning districts. Finding that the Township's zoning ordinance contained no prohibition on short-teuu rentals, the court concluded that the use of the Property for short-teiui rentals was consistent with the zoning ordinance. The Neighbors appealed. On appeal, they again argued that "Landow- ner's use of his rural, single-family residentially -zoned property, as a for - profit business venture involving short-term transient rentals, violated the zoning ordinance." They pointed to the fact that the relevant zoning districts allowed only a limited number of uses, "none of which include[d] operation of a short-term rental business." Moreover, they contended that leasing the Property to "unrelated strangers" under "several -day long booking agree- ments" did not qualify as a zoning ordinance -permitted single-family resi- dential use either. DECISION: Judgment of trial court affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania first held that the Property met the Township's definition for "single[ -]family detached dwelling," a use that was permitted in the relevant zoning districts. In so holding, the court rejected the Neighbors' contention that the dwelling was not occupied as a residence for "one family" because of the transient, for -profit nature of the short-term rentals. Rather, looking at the language of the zoning ordinance, and broadly interpreting it, the court found that the ordinance defined "fam- ily" as "one or more individuals living independently as a single housekeep- ing unit and using cooking facilities and certain rooms in common." Here, the court found that the Property was used as a single-family dwelling because, even when it was rented 30% of the year, the entire dwelling was rented out and was rented to a maximum of eight occupants. The court also held that because the zoning ordinance did not expressly prohibit the Landowner from using his dwelling on the Property for short- term rentals, that short-teiin rental use was not prohibited. Thus, finding that there were no short-term rental prohibitions in the 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters