I. Shvekh v. The ZHB of Stroud Twp. and Twp. of Stroud
154 A.3d 408
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Irina Shvekh and family own a five-bedroom single‑family home on ~3 acres in Stroud Township’s S‑1 (Special & Recreational) district.\
- Township Zoning Officer issued a violation alleging the Property was being used as a prohibited "tourist home" because it was rented short‑term via internet listings (e.g., VRBO).\
- Shvekh rented the entire dwelling for short stays (minimum two nights); family members occupied the Property periodically (roughly one week per month); over the prior 12 months it was rented 20–25 times.\
- Neighbors complained of noise and disturbances from renters. The Zoning Board concluded the use was effectively a tourist home/hotel and not a permitted single‑family dwelling use.\
- Trial court affirmed the Zoning Board. On appeal, this Court reversed, holding the ordinance’s definitions do not support treating whole‑house short‑term rentals as a ‘‘tourist home’’ and that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the landowner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shvekh’s short‑term rental of the entire single‑family house is a prohibited "tourist home" | Shvekh: renting the entire dwelling for vacations does not fit the ordinance’s "tourist home" or "rooming" definitions (which target rental of individual rooms); single‑family dwelling should be liberally construed to allow such rentals | Township: frequent short‑term rentals make the use transient and functionally equivalent to a tourist home/hotel, which S‑1 forbids | Court: Reversed. Definitions limit "tourist home"/"rooming" to rentals of individual rooms; whole‑house vacation rentals fit the "single‑family dwelling" definition and cannot be recharacterized as tourist homes absent ordinance amendment |
| Whether the Zoning Board improperly expanded the ordinance by adding a frequency/transience element to the "tourist home" definition | Shvekh: Board added an extratextual element (frequency/transience) that broadens restrictions contrary to MPC §603.1; ordinance must be construed in landowner’s favor | Township: frequency and turnover show the occupancy is transient, undermining stability expected of single‑family use | Court: Board erred by inserting frequency as an element; ordinance language controls and doubt favors the landowner |
| Whether Albert v. Zoning Hearing Board controls | Shvekh: Albert (halfway house) is distinguishable (bed‑by‑bed rentals, licensing, purely transient occupants) | Township: Albert supports treating transient occupants as not a "family" and thus not a single‑family dwelling | Court: Distinguished Albert; halfway house involved individual rooming, licensing, and higher turnover—facts not present here |
| Vagueness/conflict between definitions of "family" and "group (family type) dwelling occupancy" | Shvekh: definitions conflict ("family" caps unrelated persons at three; "group" lacks that cap), rendering ordinance vague | Township: Board did not rely on the "group" definition and the "group" definition does not apply here | Court: Did not decide on facial conflict/vagueness because Board did not rely on the "group" definition and that definition does not apply to the facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Albert v. Zoning Hearing Board of North Abington Township, 854 A.2d 401 (Pa. 2004) (transient, room‑by‑room halfway house occupancy lacks the stability required for a single‑family dwelling)
- Marchenko v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pocono Township, 147 A.3d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (short‑term whole‑house vacation rentals by an owner‑occupant should be construed as permitted single‑family use)
- Riverfront Dev. Group, LLC v. City of Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Board, 109 A.3d 358 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (zoning boards must construe ordinance language broadly in favor of least restrictive use for landowners)
- Mt. Laurel Racing Assn. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 458 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (doubt in interpreting zoning restrictions must be resolved in favor of property owners)