MA Supreme Court Concluded Short-Term Rental House Did Not Constitute a Permissible Primary Use as One Family Residence and Affirmed

This post was authored by Olena Botstheyn, Esq.

Styller family owned a family house in a single-resident zoning district in the town of Lynnfield (“Town”). Between 2015 and 2017 the house was used for short-term rentals and rented out multiple times to a group of six or more guests. In 2016, the Town building inspector notified Styller that use of his home for short-term rentals violated the town’s zoning bylaw, as it constituted a lodging or rooming and qualified as additional use under the bylaw and required a prior authorization. The building inspector then ordered Styller to stop offering the house for short-term rentals, and Styller appealed to the board. While the appeal was pending, the town amended its bylaw expressly to prohibit short-term rentals in single-resident zoning districts, without prior authorization. The board then upheld the decision of the building inspector. Styller commenced an action with the Land Court, which affirmed the board, having concluded that before the bylaw was amended, “short-term rental use of the property constituted an additional use because it was functionally equivalent to use as a “tourist home” or “lodging house.” Styller appealed.

On appeal, the court first considered the issues of standing and mootness, as after the trial in the Land Court, but before judgment entered Styller sold the property. The court concluded that Styller had standing, since the use of the property is not such that is linked with a particular party. With regard to mootness, despite the fact that the ownership transferred and Styller may no longer have personal stake in the litigation, the court decided to exercise discretion and decide this case in the public interest, stating that it is “an important public question whose resolution will affect more persons than the parties to the case.”

Further, the court stated that it agreed with the plaintiff that the short-term rental was not an additional use, but ultimately concluded that it was not a specifically permitted principal use either. The court evaluated the terms of a “lodging house” and a “tourist home” and came to a conclusion that short-term rentals do not qualify for either one, as both terms entail that only part of a property is occupied by a person that comes for a short stay, and the rest is occupied by the owner, who remains on the property. During short-term rental of Styller’s house, tourists occupied all rooms in the house and the owner was not on the property. Nonetheless, the house did not constitute a permissible primary use as a one family detached house either, according to the court. The primary purpose of the single-residence zoning district is to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Where short-term rentals are at issue, there is an “absence of stability and permanence of the individuals residing in those districts, [and] the goal is necessarily subverted.” A “residence” is commonly understood to mean a place where one stays permanently, not temporarily. The court thus concluded that the plaintiff’s use of the property for short-term rentals was not a permissible use under the Town’s zoning bylaw and affirmed.

Styller v Zoning Board of Appeals of Lynnfield, 487 Mass. 588 (MA 6/7/2021)