Wihbey v. Zoning Board of Appeals — dissenting

Summary

The dissent argues that the 1994 zoning regulations unambiguously require a degree of permanence in the use of a single-family dwelling and therefore prohibit short-term occupancy by transient travelers. It reasons that the ordinary meanings of “home” and “residence,” the exclusion of roomers, boarders, and lodgers, and the regulations’ stated purpose of promoting community welfare all support that interpretation. Justice McDonald, joined by Justice Ecker, dissenting, would have reversed in part and held that the regulations do not permit short-term transient uses.