<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:normal"><font face="arial, sans-serif" style="" size="4"><span style="color:black">Here is how we cite<i style=""> Styller</i> in </span>
<span style="color:rgb(80,80,80)">Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning, 4th</span> <span style="color:black"> :</span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><br></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">81:11. Short term rentals</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"> Short-term rentals are becoming more common with the
growth in Internet-based “house sharing” companies such as “Airbnb,” “VRBO,”
and “HomeAway,” which allow property owners to earn extra income by renting out
to short-term tenants. Restrictions on short-term rentals and the house sharing
industry are increasingly utilized by municipalities.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super">1</span></a>
Such restrictions generally have been upheld where they are found to be
substantially related to land use impact on the area. Prohibiting short-term occupancy
in single-family areas has been held to be within the lawful scope of the
zoning power.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super">2</span></a> A handful of cases,
however, have invalidated regulation of short-term rentals or have subjected
such regulations to takings review.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super">3</span></a></span></p>
<div><br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="gmail-ftn1">
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super">1</span></a> <span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">See ordinances cited at §33:15.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-ftn2">
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super">2</span></a> <span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">See the following cases:</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>United States.</b>
Heyman v. Cooper, 31 F.4th 1315 (11th Cir. 2022) (short-term rentals were not
permitted nonconforming uses of development code that banned short-term rentals
in residential zones); Hignell v. City of New Orleans, 476 F. Supp. 3d 369
(E.D. La. 2020) (finding no vested right to operate short-term rentals because
previous ordinance granted permits for just one year, and therefore no
unconstitutional taking).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Alabama.</b> Slaby
v. Mountain River Estates Residential Ass'n, Inc., 2011 WL 4790638 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2011) (holding that cabin owners' short-term rental of their property did
not violate the terms of the restrictive covenant limiting the use of the
property to single-family residential purposes because they rented their
property to groups who used the cabin for residential purposes only).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>California.</b>
Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, 940 F.3d 439, 445-447, 449, 452 (9th Cir.
2019) (upholding a vacation rental ordinance preventing property rentals for 30
days or less with an exception for rentals where a primary resident remained in
the dwelling); HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 918 F.3d 676 (9th
Cir. 2019) (upholding denial of a preliminary injunction sought by short-term
rental platforms Airbnb and HomeAway challenging the City of Santa Monica,
California's short-term rental regulations on First Amendment right to freedom
of association grounds where the court found the regulation applied to purely
non-expressive conduct); Homeaway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 2018 WL
1281772 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (municipal regulation of short-term rentals, including
prohibiting booking transactions for residential properties not listed on the
city's registry does not violate the Communications Decency Act; the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; or the Stored
Communications Act); Young v. County of San Mateo, 2005 WL 3454106 (N.D. Cal.
2005) (upholding validity of ordinance regulating bed and breakfast
establishments, which prohibited the hosting of conferences, meetings, or
social events); Whitman v. City of San Buenaventura, 2019 WL 1292274 (Cal. App.
2d Dist. 2019), unpublished/noncitable (upholding dismissal of challenge to
short-term rental regulations as within the scope of proper zoning regulation).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Florida.</b>
Bondar v. Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, 321 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
(zoning enforcement restricting short-term rental of property is an executive,
rather than legislative, action, and is not a substantive due process violation
unless it is “arbitrary, irrational, or conscience shocking”); City of Miami v.
AIRBNB, Inc., 260 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (local zoning prohibiting
property from being used solely for short-term or vacation rentals not
preempted by state law where the local zoning predated prospective state law);
Rollison v. City Of Key West, 875 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding that
owner's use of condominium unit for short-term rentals was a lawful
nonconforming use; at time of owner's purchase, city's administration
interpreted city's zoning code to allow short-term rental of transient housing
if rental occurred less than 50% of year, owner complied with 50% rule and
obtained required occupational license, and owner was engaged in short-term
rentals prior to changes in zoning code that prohibited such rentals); Mojito
Splash, LLC v. City of Holmes Beach, 326 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), review
dismissed, 2022 WL 122317 (Fla. 2022) (where plaintiff lacked lawful existing
use, city could restrict the number of occupants in short-term rentals,
decreasing the profitable of the plaintiff's property).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Hawaii.</b> Thinh
Tran v. Department of Planning for County of Maui, 2020 WL 3146584 (D. Haw.
2020) (challenge to Department of Planning's issuance of Notice of Violations
on several grounds based on short-term rental ordinance turns on questions of
state law and warranted Pullman abstention).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Indiana.</b>
Siwinski v. Town of Ogden Dunes, 949 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. 2011) (finding that property
owners' short-term rental of their home violated the town ordinance prohibiting
commercial use of property).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Massachusetts.</b>
Styller v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Lynnfield, 487 Mass. 588, 169 N.E.3d 160
(2021) (use of a home as a short-term rental did not qualify as a prior
nonconforming use that would be exempt from new zoning bylaw banning short-term
rentals because the use was inconsistent with the character and purposes of the
“single-residence” zoning district); Hall v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of
Edgartown, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 249, 549 N.E.2d 433 (1990) (interpretation of
zoning prohibition of “transient residential facilities” based on whether
tenants live together as a single housekeeping unit in family-like situation).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Michigan.</b>
Reaume v. Township of Spring Lake, 2019 WL 2195030 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019)
(short-term rental neither a permitted use in the zone nor a nonconforming use,
and township not equitably estopped to deny approval); Eager v. Peasley, 2017
WL 5907310, *11 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (holding that lake house owner's
short-term rental of her property violated terms of the restrictive covenant
limiting the use of the property to "private occupancy only" and
"private dwelling" coupled with the prohibition against "commercial
use" despite renting her property to groups who used the lake house for
residential purposes only).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>New Jersey.</b>
Williams v. City of Asbury Park, 2021 WL 961125 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
2021) (regulating short-term rentals is not considered a land-use restriction
but is within the city council's police power).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>New York.</b>
Airbnb, Inc. v. City of New York, 373 F. Supp. 3d 467 (S.D. N.Y. 2019)
(preliminary injunction granted on Fourth Amendment grounds to stop law from
taking effect that would require short-term rental platforms, Airbnb and
Homeaway to provide data on the customers using their platforms); LuxuryBeachfrontGetaway.Com,
Inc. v. Town of Riverhead, New York, 2018 WL 3617947, *2 (E.D. N.Y. 2018) (“although
plaintiffs identify the subject [short-term rental] properties as 'residential
houses,' since the function of the subject properties was commercial, and neither
plaintiffs nor their potential guests used or intended to use the properties as
a residence, [lower court] correctly concluded that the subject properties are
not 'dwellings' within the meaning of the” Fair Housing Act) (citations
omitted) (internal quotation marks modified); Cradit v. Southold Town Zoning
Board of Appeals, 179 A.D.3d 1058, 117 N.Y.S.3d 675 (2d Dep’t 2020) (use of
property as a short-term rental in a low-density residential zoning district
does not constitute a legal nonconforming use); Spilka v. Town of Inlet, 8
A.D.3d 812, 778 N.Y.S.2d 222 (3d Dep't 2004) (amendment to zoning ordinance
requiring special use permits for rental of non-owner-occupied dwellings for
periods of less than four months not arbitrary or capricious). In Soule v.
Scalci, 288 A.D.2d 585, 732 N.Y.S.2d 662 (3d Dep't 2001) the court holding that
a zoning ordinance provision regulating a "tourist accommodation" as
a private residence for "the overnight accommodation of guests" did
not apply to an apartment building where separate housekeeping units were used
for short-term rentals. The court found that transient rentals did not convert
the apartment building into a tourist facility which required the rental of
space in a private residence.</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> And see Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City, 2021 WL 1138360
(D.N.J. 2021) (ordinance banning subletting long-term leased premises as
short-term rentals and limiting short-term rentals to 60 days a year when they
are not owner-occupied was not a taking or violation of the Contracts Clause).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> And see Steenrod v. City of Oneonta, 69 A.D.3d 1030, 892
N.Y.S.2d 649 (3d Dep't 2010) (substantial evidence in the record supported
determination of city common council that landlord's proposed special use of
rental property that he sought to rent to summer transients on weekly basis was
undesirable due to current conditions in neighborhood, warranting judicial
deference to council's denial of special use permit; council member cited
congestion on the block due to expansion of nearby restaurant, fire department's
regular use of street as shortcut, and existing use of other properties for
summer transient rentals, provision in landlord's sample rental agreement
requiring tenants to pay for on-site parking space permitted conclusion that
tenants would choose to park on street to avoid extra expense, and neighbor
raised public safety concerns regarding difficulty that emergency vehicles
would have in traversing street); City of New York v. 330 Continental LLC, 60
A.D.3d 226, 873 N.Y.S.2d 9 (1st Dep't 2009) (finding that city stated claims
for alleged violations of zoning regulation and apartment hotels' certificates
of occupancy based upon alleged failure to use buildings “primarily” or “as a
rule” for permanent occupancy).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Ohio.</b> Kasper
Invest. Properties, L.L.C. v. Put-in-Bay Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals,
2015-Ohio-4628, 49 N.E.3d 788 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. Ottawa County 2015) (it
was not unreasonable for township board of zoning appeals to deny conditional
use permit to investment company for the occasional rental of its home, a
converted shiphouse, even assuming it had granted one to owners of neighboring
property, where the properties were different in key respects, such as
neighboring property was 1,500 square feet, shiphouse was 7,000 square feet, allowing
it to be rented by many more people at one time, neighboring property was
accessible from a public paved road, whereas the shiphouse was accessible only
from a private road, and then only via an easement, and unlike in company's
case, there was no evidence put forth that rental of the neighboring property
generated complaints of traffic, noise or trash).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Oregon.</b> Cope
v. City of Cannon Beach, 317 Or. 339, 855 P.2d 1083 (1993), wherein an
ordinance prohibiting the creation of new residential rental units for “transient
occupancy” (i.e., rental for less than 14 days), and requiring the amortization
of existing transient occupancy uses (except in cases of “hardship”) was held
not to constitute a taking of property. The court rejected a facial challenge
to the ordinance after finding that the law substantially advanced the
legitimate state purposes of providing affordable housing for permanent
residents and preserving the residential character of certain neighborhoods.
The law did not deny property owners all economically viable use of their land,
since they could still rent their properties for periods of 14 or more days, or
occupy the properties themselves.</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Pennsylvania.</b>
Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 207 A.3d 886 (Pa.
2019) (exclusive use of a residence for short-term rental is not a “single-family”
use and not permitted in the residential district); Kintner v. Zoning Hearing
Board of Smithfield Township, 2019 WL 178486 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019) (no
nonconforming use established where short-term rental tenants were not “family”
defined as “as many as six (6) persons living together as a single, permanent
and stable nonprofit housekeeping unit” as that term was used in the zoning
district limited to “one-family detached dwelling” use); Pham v. Upper Merion
Tp. Zoning Hearing Board, 113 A.3d 879 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015) (held tie-vote
adequate for appellate review and that a “more reasonable” use of the property
was insufficient to support a use variance to conduct a bed and breakfast).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Texas.</b> Schack
v. Property Owners Association of Sunset Bay, 2018 WL 3470647 (Tex. App. Corpus
Christi 2018), rule 53.7(f) motion granted, (Aug. 30, 2018) (definition of “family”
and other occupancy restrictions in homeowners association covenants did not
preclude short-term rentals); compare Ridgepoint Rentals, LLC v. McGrath, 2017
WL 6062290 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2017), petition for review filed, (Dec. 18,
2017) (holding that property owner's short-term rental of vacation home
violated terms of deed restriction that "[t]he land to be conveyed
hereunder shall be used for residential purposes only" and "[t]he
term 'residential purposes' as used herein shall be held and construed to
exclude hospitals, clinics, duplex houses, apartment houses, boarding houses,
hotels, and all other commercial uses and all such uses of said property are
hereby expressly prohibited") with Boatner v. Reitz, 2017 WL 3902614 (Tex.
App. Austin 2017) (holding property owner's short-term rental of property did
not violate terms of subdivision deed restriction that "[a]ll tracts shall
be used for residence purposes only, and not for business" because such
restrictions are ambiguous). See also Draper v. City of Arlington, 629 S.W.3d
777 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2021), review denied, (Jan. 28, 2022) (dismissing
landlord plaintiff's claim that city's ordinance restricting short-term rentals
was in violation of Texas constitution's provision for freedom of assembly as
not a real controversy because it was not the landlord's rights that were
potentially restricted, but possible tenants').</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Utah.</b> Brown v.
Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (dictum) (city
has authority to prohibit short-term rentals in single-family neighborhood).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Virginia.</b>
Norton v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 299 Va. 749, 858 S.E.2d 170
(2021) (upholding a county board's interpretation of a “dwelling” as only
permitting “non-transient residential occupancy” and the use was not permitted
as of right. Further, short-term rental property owners were subject to the
imposition of a transient occupancy tax).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>Wisconsin.</b>
Forshee v. Neuschwander, 2018 WI 62, 381 Wis. 2d 757, 914 N.W.2d 643 (2018)
(ambiguous subdivision covenant prohibiting commercial activity narrowly
interpreted to protect the free use of private property and not prohibit
short-term rentals); Vilas County v. Accola, 2015 WI App 52, 866 N.W.2d 406
(Wis. Ct. App. 2015) (holding that zoning ordinance permitted short-term rental
of single-family detached dwelling units located in a single-family residential
district).</span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-ftn3">
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="gmail-MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super">3</span></a> <span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">See Zaatari v. City of Austin, 615 S.W.3d 172 (Tex.
App. Austin 2019), petition for review filed, (Sept. 14, 2020) (finding
requirement that owner occupy short-term rental property unconstitutional);
Morgan County v. May, 305 Ga. 305, 824 S.E.2d 365 (2019) (criminal citation
dismissed where short-term rental ordinance was unconstitutionally vague as it
applied to rentals of seven nights where property owner had a vested right to
continue short-term rentals); Robert D. Ferris Trust v. Planning Com'n of
County of Kauai, 138 Haw. 307, 378 P.3d 1023 (Ct. App. 2016) (county ordinance
which required “owner, operator or proprietor” seeking to operate a
single-family transient vacation rental as nonconforming use to have consent of
75% of lot owners, was ambiguous, precluding county planning department from
refusing to consider or process trust's application for a non-conforming use
certificate on the basis that trust did not have a 75% or more controlling
interest in the equitable and legal title of the lot; trust fell within the
ordinary meaning of “operator” and “proprietor” based on its operation of its
transient vacation rental business); Repair Master, Inc. v. Borough of
Paulsboro, 352 N.J. Super. 1, 799 A.2d 599 (App. Div. 2002), the court holding
that a borough lacked authority under the general police power and under the
municipal land use regulatory power to attempt to control the rental occupancy
of single-family homes and non-owner occupied duplex units in an effort to
manage community dynamics and demographics. The court stated:</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">We conclude that the
Legislature did not imply the power to municipalities to deny or regulate a
property owner's right to rent non-owner occupied residential housing in an
effort to alter the community's dynamics and demographics, and control the
ratio of owners and tenants. This is a power we simply will not infer in light
of the evidence and the history of our land use and occupancy jurisprudence. If
this power is conferred on municipalities, we think it should be the result of
legislative deliberation and evaluation of all the complex considerations, not
from a judicially-created attempt to accommodate a single, though doubtlessly
sincere, municipal effort. The problem could be compounded if other
municipalities were to take this route and seek an arguably more desirable
occupancy mix. Specific legislative approval should be a precondition to the
exercise of a power we consider a radical regulatory development.</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> And see Village of Tiki Island v. Ronquille, 463 S.W.3d
562 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2015) (finding property owner adequately pled
that ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals constituted a regulatory taking);
Calvey v. Town Board of North Elba, 2021 WL 1146283 (N.D. N.Y. 2021) (challenge
of short-term rental regulation alleging unfair treatment compared to other
similarly situated landowners was adequately pleaded to make Equal Protection
claim). But see Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City, 2021 WL 1138360 (D.N.J. 2021)
(ordinance limiting short-term rentals on properties was not a taking or
violation of the Contracts Clause) and Wallace v. Town of Grand Island, 184
A.D.3d 1088, 126 N.Y.S.3d 270 (4th Dep't 2020) (prohibition on short-term
rentals is not a taking when the plaintiff shows only a “mere diminution” in
property's value).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> And see City of Grapevine v. Muns, 2021 WL 6068952 (Tex.
App. Fort Worth 2021), petition for review filed, (Feb. 14, 2022) (finding
homeowners presented sufficient evidence that short-term rental ordinance had
economic impact on value of their property, so homeowner takings claim survived
summary judgment motion by city).</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> See also Town of Vail v. Village Inn Plaza-Phase V Condominium
Association, 2021 COA 108, 498 P.3d 1123 (Colo. App. 2021) (invalidating city
ordinance requiring condominium owners in special development district to place
units on a short-term rental market, where town ordinance preempted by state
law).</span></p><p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></p><p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br></span></p><p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Regards,</span></p><p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Dwight Merriam, FAICP</span></p><p class="gmail-MsoFootnoteText" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="http://www.dwightmerriam.com">www.dwightmerriam.com</a></span></p>
</div>
</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:37 AM Pam Kueber via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">What Jeff said. Plus: Not sure what your current zoning says about STRs, but this case from the Supreme Judicial Court in 2021 was an important milestone in the STR issue in Mass. :</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">article: <a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/breaking-mass-sjc-rules-compatibility-short-term-rentals-single-family-zoning" target="_blank">https://www.natlawreview.com/article/breaking-mass-sjc-rules-compatibility-short-term-rentals-single-family-zoning</a><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">case: <a href="https://www.massdirtlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Styller-v.-Zoning-Board-of-Appeals-of-Lynnfield.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.massdirtlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Styller-v.-Zoning-Board-of-Appeals-of-Lynnfield.pdf</a></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Pam Kueber<br>Lenox Planning Board</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:18 AM Jeff Lacy via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Chris:<div>Assuming bylaw is zoning. The question to ask is: are the existing short-term rentals “lawful?” If so, and the bylaw inhibits them in some way, they would then become lawfully non conforming, may continue, but are subject to Chapter 40A, Section 6 if any expansions, reconstructions, alterations, etc. But, if not now lawful, they must come into full compliance with the new bylaw.</div><div>Jeff Lacy </div><div>Rural Planning Associates </div><div>(413) 230-9693<br><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Aug 16, 2023, at 10:04 AM, Chris Skelly via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt"><font face="arial, sans-serif">At a planning board meeting, the topic of short-term rentals
was discussed. The following question
was raised: If a new bylaw is passed that
limits short term rentals by size and zoning district, will the currently
operating short-term rentals be non-conforming uses? In other words, can they remain a short-term
rental use so long as they do not abandon the use and are properly inspected
and permitted for health and safety? The
question was being sent to town counsel but curious what the insight is here. </font><font face="verdana, sans-serif"> </font></p></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:10pt"><strong><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></strong></span></div><div><span style="font-size:10pt"><strong><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Chris Skelly</font></strong></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt"><strong>Skelly Preservation Services</strong></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt">Community Planning and Preservation</span></div>
<div><a href="http://www.skellypreservationservices.com" style="font-size:10pt" target="_blank">www.skellypreservationservices.com</a><br></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt"><a href="mailto:ccskelly12@gmail.com" target="_blank">ccskelly12@gmail.com</a></span></div></div></div></div>
<span>-- </span><br><span>MassPlanners mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div>-- <br>
MassPlanners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
-- <br>
MassPlanners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>