Lisa Khan and Alexander Khan had filed an appeal challenging the order of a West Hartford zoning enforcement order that said operating 39 Pheasant Hill Drive as an Airbnb is an illegal use of the property they own.

West Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. Sept. 16, 2026. Photo credit: Ronni Newton

By Ronni Newton

A West Hartford zoning official had issued an enforcement order to the owners of 39 Pheasant Hill Drive in May – requesting that they “cease and desist” operating the property as a short-term rental because such use is a violation of the town’s zoning ordinances – and an appeal of that order submitted by owners Lisa Khan and Alexander Khan was denied by the West Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 16, 2026.

After a nearly three-hour hearing concluded, all members of the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to dismiss the Khan’s appeal.

The fact that the 39 Pheasant Hill Drive property has been listed on Airbnb as available for rental for a term as short as one night was not being contested by any of the parties. What was in dispute was whether or not the property – a 3,654-square-foot split-level residence constructed in 1965, around the corner from Duffy Elementary School in an R-10 residential zone – is being operated in violation of the town’s zoning ordinance 177-6(B) and 177-6(C), as stated by West Hartford Zoning Enforcement Officer Sam Santaniello.

39 Pheasant Hill Drive is listed on Airbnb. Photo credit: Ronni Newton

The property backs up to Rockledge Golf Course and is listed on the rolakresorts.com website as “Nineteenth Hole.” As of Sept. 24, 2026, the listing remained active.

The 39 Pheasant Hill Drive property was purchased on Jan. 29, 2026 by ROLAK LLC. Alexander Khan and his mother, Lisa Khan, are principals of that LLC and they subsequently transferred the property into their personal names via a quit claim effective June 10, 2026 – a move they said was required because of their application to the town to create an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the property. In the application, which was approved administratively, Alexander Khan said he planned to live in the ADU. Owner occupancy of either the main dwelling or the ADU is one of the required conditions in West Hartford.

Notice of potential violation and subsequent enforcement order

Santaniello sent a “Notice of Potential Violation & Request for Voluntary Compliance” letter to ROLAK dated March 24, 2026, after receiving a complaint about the property being used as a transient rental for less than 30 days – information which was verified by the Airbnb listing. After a lack of compliance with the initial request, and his statement that there was no written response to the request or “clear intent to comply,” Santaniello followed up on May 18, 2026 with an enforcement order that informed the property owner: “You are formally ordered to cease and desist the activity(ies) identified as zoning violation within 10 days of your receipt of this Order.” Failure to comply would result in legal action and fines, the order stated.

Rather than ceasing the use of the property for short-term rental, the Khans filed an appeal of the enforcement order – initially as a handwritten document that stated: “We purchased 39 Pheasant Hill following the court decision in Instant Property Solutions LLC v. the Town of WH ZBA, and in reliance upon that court decision legalizing STRs in WH. To date that decision is in effect and the controlling order regarding STRs. Sam [Santaniello, the zoning enforcement officer] noted that 39 Pheasant Hill is in a different zone (10 vs. 3) than the Instant Property but that is not what the court’s order depended upon. It applies to All homes in WH as there is no 30-day language in ordinance.” [Note: The zones referenced in the initial appeal are R-10, which is single-family residential, while the Raymond Road properties owned by the plaintiff in the Instant Property Solutions case are in an RM-3, multi-family residence zone.] A supplemental narrative addressing the appeal was provided by attorney Forrest Noirot of Hassett & George on July 10.

The referenced “Instant Property Solutions” case involves four homes located at 136 through 152-154 Raymond Road. Mark Chu of Farmington, principal of Instant Property Solutions, continues to operate those properties as short-term rentals following an Oct. 31, 2025 ruling in Connecticut Superior Court. The court in part noted that the town’s existing schedule of permitted accessory uses, which allow “keeping of not more than 3 nontransient roomers or boarders in any dwelling unit,” is ambiguous. The town has petitioned for review of that decision, and is awaiting further action in Appellate Court.

When the ZBA met in Town Council Chambers on Sept. 16 to review the Khan’s appeal there was a standing-room crowd that included many residents from Pheasant Hill Drive and surrounding streets – some of whom had submitted testimony via email. Since the appeal was filed in August, many yards on Pheasant Hill Drive and other area properties posted signs urging the public to speak up against Airbnbs in the neighborhood.

A sign on Pheasant Hill Drive calls for neighborhood support at the West Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Sept. 16, 2026. Photo credit: Ronni Newton

Several neighbors also addressed the ZBA following statements by attorney Jack Fazzino of Shipman & Goodwin representing the zoning officer, and attorney Forrest Noirot of Hassett & George representing the Khans. Both Zoning Officer Sam Santaniello and Lisa Khan also provided sworn testimony at the request of the ZBA.

“At the heart of this case is the R-10 residential zone,” Fazzino said. He said the zone is intended to be family-centered as a primary use, and any non-residential use “is meant to support residential family living.” West Hartford code defines the town’s one-family residential districts as: “The purpose of the following types of one-family residence districts is to provide areas for those residents who desire individual dwelling structures surrounded by open space which can be landscaped and developed with facilities for outdoor family living and where there is generally less traffic and relatively greater quiet. In keeping with these purposes, it is intended that nonresidential uses in such districts be limited to those which are primarily necessary or desirable to serve the residents of these districts and are compatible with residential uses when located in their midst. Only those nonresidential uses listed as permitted in each district are considered to be compatible.”

While 39 Pheasant Hill looks like a dwelling, Fazzino stated that it is not being used as a dwelling but rather functions as a hotel (defined in the code as: “A building containing rooms intended or designed to be used or which are used, rented or hired out to be occupied or which are occupied for sleeping purposes by guests and where general kitchen and dining facilities are provided within the building or in an accessory building.”) He said hotels are not permitted in residential zones, and noted that the property is income-generating with transient use, and the owners admit to having purchased it as an investment vehicle. “Both families and non-families are renting out the property,” he said.

Santaniello testified that 39 Pheasant Hill is not being used as a dwelling structure for “family use,” and he noted that guests check in and check out, there is a security hold, as many as 11 people who are not required to be related can stay there for a period of one to 10 days, and there is “not any bonafide residential presence at the property.” Based on the reviews of the property on Airbnb, he said that people come from all over the country.

Noirot said the Khans “believe strongly in Airbnbs” and believe that short-term rentals are an important alternative. “You could go to the Delamar and pay $500 a night,” he said, and noted that people have rented 39 Pheasant Hill for various reasons, including visiting family, visiting family graves, and attending reunions. Some have returned to the street they grew up on. He said that there are rules that must be followed, including no parties, no vaping or smoking – some of the activities that neighbors said have taken place.

Noirut said the property is not being used as a hotel with separately rented rooms.

Lisa Khan testifies at West Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. Sept. 16, 2026. Photo credit: Ronni Newton

Lisa Khan testified that after the Oct. 31, 2025 ruling, the court said “nowhere in West Hartford ordinances anywhere are short-term rentals prohibited.” She said the Pheasant Hill Drive home had been on the market, two buyers had previously backed out, and she went out and bought it. Town records indicate the purchase for $695,000 of the property from the estate of Elena Steier, with a deed filed on Feb. 4, 2026. “I relied on that court decision,” she said, referring to the Instant Property Solutions case, adding that “transient is not in our ordinances” and not specifically illegal in any zone.

“Why don’t we all come together and have the town create regulations on Airbnbs,” Khan said, but added that as of now the court has decided, “and we can’t just ignore it. … Everybody wants a homogeneous neighborhood, everybody wants a ‘not in my backyard.'” She said if there is a party, people can call Airbnb or the police. As she continued to speak, Khan’s voice became louder and her tone more strident, and she said, “If you don’t like it you can move or you can actually petition the town,” which would have to change the laws and create an ordinance restricting short-term rentals.

The Town Council has not had any further formal review of a short-term rental ordinance since a very rough draft was reviewed by the Finance and Administration Committee in January.

The Superior Court’s decision on the Instant Property Solutions case is not binding on the town while the decision is being appealed, West Hartford Deputy Corporation Counsel Gina Varano said at the ZBA hearing.

Signs along Pheasant Hill Drive call for neighborhood support at the West Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Sept. 16, 2026. Photo credit: Ronni Newton

Four Pheasant Hill Drive residents provided public comment during the hearing, including Paul Smith, a 48-year resident of the street, who shared that he has observed activity at 39 Pheasant Hill not compatible with residential family occupancy, including a party where there were at least eight cars parked on the street, and another incident where he said it caught his attention when a “scantily clad” woman parked at the house and went in and out of the house a few times. He said he saw from a window that a man arrived at the house, “goes into the house, stays for an hour, hour and 15, drives away,” and then then another car drove up and he saw the same situation repeat at least two times. “I would use the term ‘brothel,'” he said.

Kathy Scanlon, another long-time resident, said they have always “relied on families to keep our children safe” in the neighborhood where students are walkers to Duffy Elementary School, Sedgwick Middle School, and Conard High School. Since 39 Pheasant Hill has become an Airbnb, there are out of state cars coming and going, and rooms being rented to guests who are not related. She also questioned whether or not there might be a “family rider” on the mortgage, which would not allow the property to be used for short-term rental.

Robert Miller, who lives across the street, noted that over the past several months since the property has operated as an Airbnb, he has observed “a consistent pattern of short-term guest turnover, with many guests only staying for one or two nights.” Some groups “do not appear to meet the town’s definition of family,” he said.

“Overall we have observed over 225 guests staying at the property and over 110 vehicles from 20 different states,” not including the guests of guests or parties. “The frequency of guests has resulted in disruption and altered the residential character of the neighborhood,” he said. Miller said “unfamiliar guests” have come onto his property, they have conducted activities in the street, there and there has been yelling and speeding. He also observed a female guest “who has various male visitors who stop by individually for about an hour,” and said the female has been “seen outside the property wearing what may be described as bedroom attire.” Taken together, he said, the incidents are not minor.

“My family chose to live in this neighborhood because of its residential character. We believe that the town’s zoning regulations are important for preserving that character,” Miller said.

Chris Duflo said the use of the property as a short-term rental has “significantly degraded the character of the neighborhood.” Pheasant Hill has no sidewalks, he said, and the children must walk in the streets where cars are lined up and parked overnight.

Dismissal of the appeal

In deciding to deny the appeal, ZBA member John Harris said, “I don’t think the appellate is using the property as a dwelling as is defined in the code.” He said that Lisa Khan admitted that there is no determination that it is only rented to families.

“I am also of a mind that it is more being used as a hotel than a single-family residence,” Harris said, by different people at different times, and they are paying an occupancy tax “which is imposed on hotels, motels, and Airbnbs.”

ZBA Chair Michael D’Amato said that “every word in the zoning code is not defined, but the way in which you use your property is.” And, he said with respect to 39 Pheasant Hill Drive, “we cannot find that it is synonymous with a single-family home.”

What happens now?

According to an email to We-Ha.com from Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer Robert Isner, it is the “Town’s position is that the Enforcement Order will become final and enforceable 15 days after the publication of the Legal Notice for [the Sept. 16] ZBA decision.” That notice was published on Friday, Sept. 18. “Should the owners of the property continue to operate in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, the matter would be reviewed for additional enforcement action at that time,” he said.

If the Sept. 16 decision is appealed by Lisa and Alexander Khan, “Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 8-8 requires any aggrieved party to file an appeal with the superior court with 15 days” of the publication of the decision, Isner said.

According to Varano, if an appeal of the ZBA decision is made to the court, the property would be permitted to be used for short-term rental while that appeal is being considered.

Like what you see here? Click here to subscribe to We-Ha’s newsletter so you’ll always be in the know about what’s happening in West Hartford! Click the blue button below to become a supporter of We-Ha.com and our efforts to continue producing quality journalism.