The establishment of residential zoning districts has long been recognized as a valid exercise of a municipality’s police power. That right is permissibly limited by a zoning ordinance that is substantially related to the protection of the public health, safety, morality and welfare – commonly known as a municipality’s “police power.” In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Assoc., 838 A.2d 718, 728 (Pa. I, § 1 (providing for the “inherent” right of “acquiring, possessing and protecting property”) Newtown Square E., L.P. ![]() A property owner has a constitutionally protected right to the enjoyment of his or her property. To properly frame the matter before us, some background regarding the underlying law is useful. 1986) (“Miller”), the purely transient use of a house is not a permitted use in a residential zoning district limiting use to single-family homes by “a single housekeeping unit.” We therefore reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court and reinstate the decision of the zoning hearing board, as affirmed by the common pleas court. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that pursuant to this Court’s prior decisions in Albert v. See 5 Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 81:11 (4th ed.) (2018). This question arises based on the increasingly popular concept of web-based rentals of single-family homes to vacationers and other transient users for a few days at a time. 4642 CV 2015 ARGUED: DecemOPINION JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: ApIn this discretionary appeal, we must determine whether a zoning ordinance that defines “family” as requiring “a single housekeeping unit” permits the purely transient use of a property located in a residential zoning district. 941 CD 2016 dated June 21, 2017, Reconsideration Denied August 7, 2017, Reversing the Order dated Apof the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, at No. ![]() Appeal from the Order of Commonwealth Court at No. HAMILTON TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD AND HAMILTON TOWNSHIP, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. ![]() SLICE OF LIFE, LLC AND VAL KLEYMAN, Appellees v. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |