G.A. Reihner and J.A. Reihner v. The City of Scranton ZHB
176 A.3d 396
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- George and Judith Reihner own and live in a single‑family home in Scranton’s R‑1A (medium low density) district and listed rooms on Airbnb beginning March 2016.
- Zoning Code Enforcement Officer issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging the Reihners were operating a prohibited “Bed and Breakfast Use” under the City Zoning Ordinance.
- Ordinance defines “Bed and Breakfast Use” as a single‑family dwelling renting overnight accommodations (max 10 guests) and “which does not provide any cooking facilities or provision of meals for guests other than breakfast.”
- At the hearing the Reihners admitted renting rooms (typically up to 4 nights), living continuously on the property, and not serving breakfast (guests had access to kitchen/cooking). Neighbors testified in opposition.
- The Zoning Hearing Board sustained the NOV; the Court of Common Pleas affirmed, holding the activity met the B&B definition. The Commonwealth Court reversed, finding ambiguity in the definition and construing the ordinance in favor of the landowners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reihner) | Defendant's Argument (City/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reihners’ Airbnb rentals constitute a prohibited "Bed and Breakfast Use" under the Ordinance | Term requires both "bed" and "breakfast" — Reihners did not provide breakfast and allowed cooking; thus not a B&B | Definition allows rental and only bars other meals; it does not require serving breakfast; site marketing (Airbnb) supports B&B classification | Reversed: definition is ambiguous; read in favor of landowner — NOV improper because record shows no evidence of providing breakfast or denying cooking facilities |
| Whether the Board may treat Airbnb listings as equivalent to traditional lodging categories | Airbnb is a distinct, sharing‑economy platform and cannot be shoe‑horned into traditional categories without clear ordinance language | Board relied on Airbnb’s historical name/marketing to classify the use as B&B | Court rejected reliance on Airbnb branding and cautioned against expanding ordinance meanings absent clear text |
| Whether ambiguity should be resolved against land‑use restrictions | Reihner: ambiguous terms must be construed to allow the widest use of land | City: ordinance’s purpose (protect neighborhoods) justifies restrictive reading | Held for Reihner: statutory construction and MPC §603.1 require resolving doubt in favor of property owner |
| Whether other ordinance provisions (e.g., prohibition on unpermitted uses or single‑family definition) could sustain NOV | Reihner: NOV only cited B&B; other claims were not the basis of enforcement | City/Neighbors: alternative grounds (use incompatible, not single‑family) could validate prohibition | Court declined to consider those arguments—outside scope of NOV and hearing; only B&B claim addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Marchenko v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pocono Township, 147 A.3d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (short‑term rental of whole house not transformed into a prohibited commercial lodge absent ordinance text)
- Shvekh v. Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud Township, 154 A.3d 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (cannot "shoe‑horn" new Airbnb uses into traditional categories; apply ordinance terms as written)
- Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 164 A.3d 633 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (ambiguities in ordinance construed in favor of landowner; boards may not extend restrictions by implication)
- Latimore Township v. Latimore Township Zoning Hearing Board, 58 A.3d 883 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (ambiguity in zoning language resolved in favor of property owner)