Slice of Life v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board (2019)

Summary:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously held that a residential zoning ordinance restricting homes to use by a “family,” defined as “a single housekeeping unit,” prohibited their exclusive use as short-term rentals through online services, like Airbnb, despite the absence of specific language prohibiting such use. The state’s top court justified the restriction as an exercise of the municipality’s police power.

The Verdict:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ignored its own precedent and statutory authority meant to preserve property owners’ rights to use property as they see fit. The ordinance in question did not specifically limit the use of residential property so as to preclude short-term rentals and should not have been interpreted against the homeowner. In re-interpreting the local ordinance instead of applying the law as written, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overstepped and exercised a function reserved to local government.

Background:

Val Kleyman owned and operated a Pennsylvania-based business that purchased a Poconos home for short-term, Airbnb-type rentals. A zoning officer notified him that he was in violation of a zoning ordinance prohibiting “hotel/transient rental facility[ies]” and had to cease such use. The local ordinance restricted use of property to single-family dwellings, but it did not prohibit “transient lodging” or “transient tenancies.”

The Commonwealth Court held that the zoning ordinance was ambiguous and that the ambiguity must be construed in favor of the landowner and against any implied restrictions on the use of property. Indeed, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code requires that, in determining the extent of a restriction in a zoning ordinance upon the use of land, “the language shall be interpreted, where doubt exists as to the intended meaning of the language written and enacted by the governing body, in favor of the property owner and against any implied extension of the restriction” (53 P.S. § 10603.1).

Yet Justice Donohue, writing for a unanimous Pennsylvania Supreme Court, determined that “single housekeeping unit,” while undefined by the ordinance, is a term of art that ruled out the use of residences for “purely transient” use.

Opinions:

Opinion (Hon. Christine Donohue, joined by Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor with the Hon. Max Baer, Hon. Debra Todd, Hon. Kevin M. Dougherty, Hon. David N. Wecht, and Hon. Sallie Updyke Mundy)