In Albert, the issue was whether a single-family dwelling could be used as a halfway house for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts in an R–1 low density residential zoning district. Hamilton Township argued the matter was governed and controlled by Albert, particularly regarding Slice of Life’s argument that their use of the Property is consistent with a single family residential use. Slice of Life appealed the trial court’s decision to the Commonwealth Court to consider whether the trial court erred in holding that “…while this Ordinance has a definition for ‘family,’ the principle behind Albert v. Slice of Life then appealed to the trial court, which upheld the Board’s denial, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it upheld the violation under the Enforcement Notice because of the “’extensive evidence’ that ‘the profit motive is the entire basis for the relationship’ of the property as a commercial enterprise.” Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court determined Slice of Life was “not operating a single family dwelling, but rather conducting a short-term, transient lodging business, using the Property as part of that business enterprise, with a clear profit motive at the Property.” Slip Op., at 3.
Slice of Life appealed the Enforcement Notice to the Township Zoning Hearing Board, which denied the appeal. On May 22, 2014, the Hamilton Township Zoning Officer issued an Enforcement Notice to Slice of Life charging it with violations of the Township Zoning Ordinance based on Slice of Life allegedly using the residential property for transient tenancies, and requiring Slice of Life to cease these activities. This appeal involves a Pennsylvania property owned by Slice of Life, LLC in Hamilton Township that was being used as a short-term vacation rental (e.g., Airbnb).
0 kommentar(er)
