[WSBARP] VRBOs

Fri Sep 12 14:19:19 PDT 2014

          County is trying to require a VRBO to seek a special use permit.
Their theory is that it is a hotel. They have no regulations other than,
for this zone, 

17.04.212 Uses permitted. 

(a)

Uses. Single-family residential, hobby farm (small scale commercial
agriculture, including aquaculture and wood lots), church, group homes,
cell towers, public utilities.

(b)

Accessory Uses. Cottage industry (home occupation).

(c)

Special Permit Required Uses. Cemetery.

(d)

Signs are permitted not to exceed twelve square feet in size and six feet
in height except for temporary signs permitted by section 17.05.025. Signs
prohibited by
<https://library.municode.com/HTML/16478/level2/TIT17ZO_CH17.03DERE.html#T
IT17ZO_CH17.03DERE_17.03.203NOSI>  section 17.03.203 are not allowed.

          They cite me to a WAC that talks about taxation of "such as"
hotels and motels, and is not only about taxation, but VRBOs don't fit
under that section either, definitionally.

          I have read Wilkinson v Chiwawa, the HOA case that says that
VRBOs are not commercial but are residential uses under a single-family
residential use covenant restriction. I think that decision applies.

*6 ¶ 17 Not only is it manifestly clear that the drafters intended to
permit vacation rentals without any durational limitation, such rentals
are consistent with the prohibition on commercial use. If a vacation
renter uses a home “for the purposes of eating, sleeping, and other
residential purposes,” this use is residential, not commercial, no matter
how short the rental duration.
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=201780745
0&pubNum=4645&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)> Ross, 148 Wash.App. at 51–52, 203
P.3d 383 (holding rental use was residential not commercial because such
use “is identical to [the homeowner’s] use of the property, as a
residence, or the use made by a long-term tenant”). “The owner’s receipt
of rental income either from short- or long-term rentals in no way
detracts or changes the residential characteristics of the use by the
tenant.”
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=201780745
0&pubNum=4645&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)> Id. at 51, 203 P.3d 383. Nor does
the payment of business and occupation taxes or lodging taxes detract from
the residential character of such use to make the use commercial in
character. See
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=201780745
0&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)> id. (determining that “whether the short-term
rental is subject to state tax does not alter the nature of the use”).

¶ 18 The Association argues that we created in
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199314376
4&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)> Mains Farm and reaffirmed in
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199424724
5&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)> Metzner v. Wojdyla, 125 Wash.2d 445,
886 P.2d 154 (1994), “a bright line rule ... that prohibits any commercial
or business use of a property subject to a residential use restriction.”
Reply Br. of Appellant at 7–8. The Association reads these cases too
broadly. In
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199314376
4&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)> Mains Farm, “[w]e caution[ed] that the
interpretation of a particular covenant is largely dependent upon the
facts of the case at hand.”
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199314376
4&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)> 121 Wash.2d at 827, 854 P.2d 1072.
We held the operation of an adult family home violated a covenant
restricting use to “ ‘single family residential purposes only’ ” because
it was “ ‘more institutional in nature than ... familial’ ”; “ ‘[t]he
single-family residential nature of defendant’s use of her home [was]
destroyed by the elements of commercialism and around-the-clock care.’ ”
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199314376
4&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)> Id. at 813, 821, 854 P.2d 1072
(emphasis omitted). Similarly, in
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199424724
5&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)> Metzner, we held the operation of a child day
care violated a provision requiring properties “ ‘be used for residential
purposes only’ ” because it involved the exchange of money for care of
persons unrelated to the homeowner.
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199424724
5&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)> 125 Wash.2d at 447, 451, 886 P.2d
154 (emphasis omitted).

¶ 19 The Wilkinsons’ short-term rental of their properties is
distinguishable from the commercial uses in
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199314376
4&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)> Mains Farm and
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199424724
5&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)> Metzner. Both the operations in
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199314376
4&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)> Mains Farm and
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=199424724
5&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)> Metzner provided some form of on-site service
that the Wilkinsons do not provide to their guests. Thus, the Wilkinsons’
short-term rentals do not, without more, violate the 1988/1992 covenant
prohibiting commercial use.3

¶ 20 Nor does the 1988/1992 covenants’ “single family residential use”
restriction limit to whom vacation rentals may be rented. Reading the
restriction, as the Association does, to prohibit unrelated persons from
residing within Chiwawa would require us to read the provision out of
context. The “single family, residential use” restriction is incorporated
into a provision that restricts the type of structures that can be built
and how far from the front line they must be built. Read in context, the
single-family covenant restricts only the type and appearance of buildings
that may be constructed on the lot, not who may reside there. This reading
is preferred as it “protects the homeowners’ collective interest” and is
consistent with how other states interpret single-family covenants. See
generally Mark S. Dennison, Annotation, Construction and Application of
“Residential Purposes Only” or Similar Covenant Restriction to Incidental
Use of Dwelling for Business, Professional, or Other Purposes, 1 A.L.R.6th
§ 5, at 135 (2005).

*7 [14] ¶ 21 Moreover, reading the provision to prohibit unrelated persons
from residing together would produce absurd results. Under the
Association’s reading, Chiwawa residents would violate their covenants
whenever they host a sleepover for their children’s playmates, share their
homes with friends for a weekend, or cohabitate with a partner outside of
marriage. We reject “forced or strained” interpretations of covenant
language if they lead to absurd results.
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=200714628
5&pubNum=4645&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)> Viking Props., Inc. v. Holm, 155
Wash.2d 112, 122, 118 P.3d 322 (2005).

          This is Mason County. What happens in other counties around
VRBOs? Are they allowed without permits? Is there a specific reference to
them in the zoning codes? 

          Client will never get a special use permit, based on
well-organized and enthusiastic neighbors. Client mitigates impacts, but
needs the income. Not a bed and breakfast, and no other services are
provided except referrals to restaurants and kayak rental places and so on
. 

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss 
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP 
236 West Birch Street 
Shelton, WA 98584 
360 426-2999

www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
rob at hctc.com

This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the addressee, you are
hereby notified that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify
us by reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed
above) and immediately delete this message and any and all of its
attachments.  Thank you.

This office does debt collection and this e-mail may be an attempt to
collect a debt, Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.
To the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §
1692) applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the
condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to
it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You
have the right to seek advice of legal counsel.

===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
webmaster at wsbarppt.com 

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list. 

Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 20223 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20140912/4e6014fe/winmail.dat>