Slice of Life, LLC and v. Kleyman v. Hamilton Twp. ZHB and Hamilton Twp.
2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 375
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Slice of Life, LLC (owner) and Val Kleyman (sole member) operated a Monroe County single‑family house rented short‑term; Township issued an Enforcement Notice in May 2014 alleging use as a hotel/transient lodging and ordered cessation.
- Appellants appealed to the Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board; the Board held multiple hearings and denied the appeal in June 2015; Appellants then appealed to the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the Board in April 2016.
- The trial court found the operation resembled a commercial transient lodging business (profit motive, multiple properties, no owner occupancy) and concluded the use was incompatible with Zoning District A (single‑family only) and related to public health, safety, and welfare concerns.
- On further appeal this court reviewed whether the Ordinance’s terms (particularly definitions of “dwelling,” “family,” and absence of definitions for “transient lodging/tenancy”) allowed short‑term rentals and whether the Board met its burden to show substantial threat to public welfare.
- The majority reversed: it found the Ordinance ambiguous as to short‑term rentals, required interpretation in favor of the landowner under Section 603.1 of the MPC and controlling Commonwealth precedent, and concluded the Board failed to present substantial evidence of a high probability of harm to public health and safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ordinance permits use of a single‑family dwelling for short‑term/transient rentals | Appellants: Ordinance permits single‑family detached dwellings; undefined terms must be interpreted for landowner benefit | Township: Short‑term transient lodging is not a permitted use in District A and the operation is a transient lodging business | Held: Ordinance ambiguous; interpret in favor of owner—current Ordinance does not bar Appellants’ use |
| Whether court should apply Albert (definition of “family”) principles to restrict single‑family use | Appellants: Township may not read extra requirements into its defined term “family” | Township: Albert supports narrowing single‑family concept to exclude commercial transient uses | Held: Albert does not authorize importing unexpressed limits where ordinance has ambiguity; owner favored |
| Whether the Board met its burden to show a substantial relationship between banning short‑term rentals and public health, safety, welfare | Appellants: Alleged nuisances do not show high probability of community harm; issues are general conduct problems, not zoning‑specific | Township: Evidence of overcrowding, septic concerns, repeated disturbances supported public welfare concerns | Held: Board failed to present substantial evidence of high probability of specific harm; trial court’s public‑welfare finding reversed |
| Whether the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague or excludes detached single‑family dwellings for short‑term rental (takings claim) | Appellants: Ordinance is vague as to transient/short‑term rental terms; must be strictly construed for landowner, MPC §603.1 supports owner | Township: Ordinance reasonably limits single‑family use to protect community | Held: Court remanded no change to ordinance but held current language ambiguous; construed in favor of property owner (constitutional vagueness/takings concerns subsumed by ambiguity ruling) |
Key Cases Cited
- Albert v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of N. Abington Twp., 578 Pa. 439, 854 A.2d 401 (Pa. 2004) (examining whether use qualifies as a single‑family dwelling when ordinance lacks a family definition)
- Borough of Fleetwood v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of Fleetwood, 538 Pa. 536, 649 A.2d 651 (Pa. 1994) (courts must follow the letter of the zoning ordinance and not disregard definitions)
- Shvekh v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Stroud Twp., 154 A.3d 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (short‑term vacation rental of owner’s single‑family home did not fall into township’s "tourist home" definition)
- Marchenko v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Pocono Twp., 147 A.3d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (owner renting a single‑family dwelling short‑term in a residential district did not violate single‑family use)
- JALC Real Estate Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Lower Salford Twp., 104 Pa. Cmwlth. 605, 522 A.2d 710 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (operative ordinance definition of family controls)
- Reed v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of West Deer Twp., 31 Pa. Cmwlth. 605, 377 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (zoning restrictions strictly construed; cannot restrict by implication where definitions permit use)
- Exton Quarries, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of W. Whiteland Twp., 426 Pa. 43, 228 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1967) (zoning valid to protect health, safety, welfare but cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable)
- Appeal of O'Hara, 389 Pa. 35, 131 A.2d 587 (Pa. 1957) (zoning authority must show high probability that use will substantially affect community health and safety)
- Adams Outdoor Advertising, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield Twp., 909 A.2d 469 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (ambiguities in zoning ordinances are to be interpreted in favor of the landowner)