Zoning Ordinance Single-Family Residential District Transient Lodging Business Public Health, Safety and Welfare
Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Twnshp. Zoning Hearing Bd., PICS Case No. 17-1055(Pa. Commw. June 21, 2017) Cosgrove, J. (25 pages).
Trial court erred in finding that appellants' use of home in a single-family residential district as a transient rental property violated the zoning ordinance because the language of the ordinance did not bar appellants' use of the property and township did not meet its burden of showing that appellant's use of the property was a substantial threat to the health and safety of the community. Reversed.
Appellants formed a limited liability company to own a single-family house and rent it as part of a transient lodging business. The sole member of the LLC lived out-of-state. The zoning board charged appellants with violating the township zoning ordinance by using the house as transient lodging. Appellants appealed, the board denied the appeal and appellants appealed to the trial court which affirmed the board and found that appellants were not operating a single-family dwelling but conducting a short-term transient lodging business with a clear profit motive. Appellants appealed.
Appellees argued that a "transient lodging business" was not a permitted use in the zoning district and relied on Albert v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of North Abington Township, 854 A.2d 401. The court looked to the ordinance and determined that the house was in a zoning district in which only single-family residential use was permitted. However, the ordinance did not define "single family," "tourist home," "transient lodging" or "transient tenancies." Appellants asserted that the township could not read unspecified requirements into the meaning and definition of "family" set forth in the ordinance. Appellants proved that the language of the ordinance was ambiguous and thus, the court had to interpret the language in favor of the landowner. The court found that the township's interpretation of the ordinance was counter to the purpose of the ordinance and that the ordinance did not specifically bar appellants' use of the property.
The trial court also erred in finding that township satisfied its burden of showing a relationship between a ban on short-term transient tenancies and public health, safety and welfare. The record was devoid of evidence of any violations pertaining to occupancy of the property and showed that there were no septic system problems or violations at the property. While a neighbor testified as to improper and indecent conduct from some of the guests at the house, the state police issued no citations for any of the purported activities and the alleged actions did not rise to the level of a substantial threat to the health and safety of the community.