The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a township prohibiting Airbnb-style rentals in its residential sections, interpreting the municipality's zoning ordinance to bar “transient” lodging.

In doing so, the justices reversed a Commonwealth Court ruling that had found the ordinance to be ambiguous and open to interpretation.

The Hamilton Township Zoning Board had appealed the Commonwealth Court's June 2017 ruling in Slice of Life v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board that property owner Val Kleyman did not violate residential zoning codes in the Monroe County municipality by operating a short-term rental.

Crucial to the decision was the Supreme Court's take on the language of the ordinance, specifically the meaning of a “single housekeeping unit,” and whether it prohibited transience in neighborhoods, as the township claimed.

Justice Christine Donohue wrote in the Supreme Court's opinion that single housekeeping unit clearly meant a single family continuously occupying the property.

As for the house in question, she said, “The use in the case at bar is purely transient. Individuals rent the premises for a minimum of two nights and up to one week at a time. Kleyman estimated that the property was rented 25 separate times over a one-year period. As Kleyman acknowledged during his testimony, this fits squarely within the common usage of the word 'transient.'”

Donahue concluded, “The use is not as a single-family dwelling, i.e., use by a single housekeeping unit, and therefore, is not a permitted use.”

James Brando, who represents Kleyman, did not return a call seeking comment. Marc Wolfe of Newman, Williams, Mishkin, Corveleyn, Wolfe & Fareri represents the township zoning board and also did not return a call seeking comment.

Previously in the case, Commonwealth Court Judge Joseph Cosgrove wrote in the court's majority opinion that the as-written language of the ordinance was unclear on whether such use of the home was permissible.

Kleyman and his company, Slice of Life LLC, “have proven that ambiguity exists in the language of the ordinance. Because of that ambiguity, we are required to interpret the language of the ordinance in favor of the landowner and against any implied extension of restrictions on the use of one's property,” Cosgrove said.

The trial court had held that Kleyman's use of the property as a short-term rental created public health and safety concerns, specifically regarding the untested septic system on the property, upholding the ruling of the zoning board.

However, Cosgrove said the board offered only speculation on the possible harm that could befall the community because of the septic system or tenant conduct.

“The record identifies there was never a septic system problem or violation at the property. Regarding the actions of tenants and their guests at the property, the adjoining neighbor testified he witnessed improper and indecent conduct emanating from some guests,” Cosgrove said. “The adjoining neighbor also testified the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) were called in November 2013. However, when questioned as to what actions the PSP took in response to the calls around that time, the adjoining neighbor testified that '[t]he [PSP] felt that because the township had not, as yet, determined there to be a violation that they would prefer to attend to these issues subsequent to a[n enforcement notice] decision made by the township.'”

(Copies of the 30-page opinion in Slice of Life LLC v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board, PICS No. 19-0529, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)