Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.
207 A.3d 886 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance that defines "family" as persons living together as a "single housekeeping unit" implicitly requires a degree of stability and permanence in the occupancy. Therefore, the purely transient use of a property for short-term commercial rentals does not constitute a permitted single-family residential use.
Facts:
- Slice of Life, LLC, owned by Val Kleyman, purchased a house ('the Property') in a residential area of Hamilton Township, Monroe County.
- The Property is located in Zoning District A, where the primary permitted use is 'Single Family Residential'.
- The Township's zoning ordinance defines a 'family' as one or more persons 'living together as a single housekeeping unit', but does not define 'single housekeeping unit'.
- Kleyman, who lives in New York, bought the Property solely as an investment for exclusive use as a short-term rental.
- Slice of Life advertised the property online for rent to large groups for periods ranging from a minimum of two nights to a maximum of one week.
- The Property was rented approximately 25 weekends per year to various groups of people.
- Neighbors lodged complaints regarding noise, late-night fireworks, public urination, lewd conduct, and large bonfires from the renters, resulting in multiple police calls to the Property.
- Kleyman acknowledged that the renters were 'transient' and that his business was part of the 'tourism industry,' for which he paid Pennsylvania's Hotel Occupancy Tax.
Procedural Posture:
- A Hamilton Township zoning officer issued an enforcement notice to Slice of Life, LLC, ordering it to cease using the property as a transient rental facility.
- Slice of Life appealed the notice to the Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board ('the Board').
- Following evidentiary hearings, the Board denied the appeal, concluding the short-term rental use was a prohibited transient lodging business.
- Slice of Life appealed the Board's decision to the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- The trial court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the transient, commercial nature of the use was prohibited in the residential district.
- Slice of Life, as appellant, appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court, holding that because the ordinance did not expressly prohibit short-term rentals, the use was permitted.
- The Township and the Board, as appellants, petitioned for and were granted an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the purely transient use of a property for short-term commercial vacation rentals violate a residential zoning ordinance that limits use to a "single family detached dwelling" and defines "family" as persons living together as a "single housekeeping unit"?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Donohue
Yes, the purely transient use of a property for short-term vacation rentals violates the ordinance. By defining 'family' with the requirement of a 'single housekeeping unit,' the ordinance implicitly excludes purely transient uses. The phrase 'single housekeeping unit' is a legal term of art that requires stability and permanence in the occupancy, a standard this Court established in precedents like Albert v. Zoning Hearing Bd. and In re Appeal of Miller. The purpose of residential zoning is to create stable neighborhoods where residents develop a sense of community, a goal that is subverted by the constant turnover of short-term renters. The lower court erred by ruling that any use not expressly prohibited is permitted; the correct principle is that uses not expressly permitted are excluded by implication. Because the renters in this case are purely transient, they do not constitute a 'single housekeeping unit' and thus their use of the property is not a permitted single-family dwelling use.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Pennsylvania zoning law concerning the burgeoning short-term rental market. By holding that the common zoning phrase 'single housekeeping unit' inherently requires permanence and stability, the court provides municipalities with a powerful tool to regulate or prohibit services like Airbnb in residential districts without needing to amend their existing ordinances. The ruling also reaffirms a foundational principle of zoning interpretation: uses not expressly permitted are implicitly excluded, pushing back against a trend in lower court decisions that favored broader property use rights. This precedent will likely influence zoning disputes nationwide as local governments grapple with the impact of the sharing economy on residential communities.
