207 A.3d 886
Pa.2019Background
- Slice of Life, LLC owned a house in Hamilton Township (zoned Single-Family Residential) and rented it exclusively as short-term vacation lodging (2 nights–1 week) via web platforms; owner never lived there.
- Township issued an enforcement notice directing cessation of hotel/transient rentals; Board denied Slice of Life’s appeal, finding the use purely transient and inconsistent with a “single housekeeping unit.”
- Trial court affirmed the Board; Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the ordinance ambiguous and treating the leaseholder as the permitted “family.”
- Key ordinance language: permitted use = single-family detached dwellings; “family” = one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit, related by blood/marriage/adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit (term “single housekeeping unit” undefined).
- Commonwealth Court decisions (Marchenko, Shvekh) had held short-term rentals permitted where not expressly prohibited; Township sought review to reconcile those rulings with this Court’s precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a zoning ordinance defining “family” as requiring “a single housekeeping unit” permits purely transient short-term rentals | Slice of Life: ordinance does not expressly prohibit short-term rentals; leaseholder counts as the single-family so use is permitted | Township/Board: “single housekeeping unit” (term of art) requires stability and permanence; purely transient use is excluded | Reversed Commonwealth Court; purely transient short-term rentals are not permitted where ordinance requires a single housekeeping unit |
| Whether Albert v. North Abington applies when ordinance defines “family” | Slice of Life/amicus: Albert inapplicable because that case defined “family” where undefined; defined ordinance language controls | Township: Albert adopts the term-of-art meaning of “single housekeeping unit” and applies even when “family” is defined | Albert (and Miller) apply; definition requires nontransient, stable composition; Albert controls here |
| Whether ambiguous ordinances must be construed in favor of landowner to permit unlisted uses | Slice of Life/amicus: zoning restrictions must be explicit; ambiguities resolved for landowner so short-term rental allowed | Township: unlisted uses can be excluded by implication; Miller’s functional analysis governs | Ordinance not ambiguous on “single housekeeping unit”; excluded uses include purely transient rentals |
| Mootness: sale of property after appeal | Slice of Life: sale renders appeal moot | Township: case capable of repetition and parties retain stake (corporate owner, investor holdings) | Court finds exception to mootness; proceeds to decide merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Albert v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of N. Abington Twp., 854 A.2d 401 (Pa. 2004) (defines single housekeeping unit to require stability; transient residency incompatible with "family" in zoning)
- In re Appeal of Miller, 515 A.2d 904 (Pa. 1986) (adopts functional analysis to determine whether household operates as a family and requires nontransiency)
- Vill. of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1974) (upholds zoning aimed at preserving residential character and stability)
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1926) (recognizes validity of residential zoning under police power)
- Silver v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 112 A.2d 84 (Pa. 1955) (uses not expressly permitted may be excluded by implication)