Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Page 2 -- November 15, 1996 z.g. Nonconforming Use -- New owner wants to use former church meeting hall as guest house Hayes v. Fowler, 473 S.E. 2d 442 (North Carolina) 1996 The Catholic Diocese of Raleigh owned a historic home in a residential district in the village of Pinehurst, N.C. The house was about a half-block away from the Diocese's Sacred Heart Catholic Church, and was used as a meeting place for both religious and secular groups. EVents held there included bridge club meetings, school board meetings, choir practice and social gatherings. Hayes, who had contracted to buy the house, applied to the building inspec- tor for a permit to renovate it. She wanted to live in the house, rent out four of the 11 bedrooms as a guest house, and use other space to "host meetings of private groups and host various classes." The building inspector ruled none of Hayes' proposed uses -- except the house's use as a residence -- were permissible under the village's zoning ordinance. Hayes appealed to the village Board of Adjustment, which affirmed the inspector's ruling. The board said using the house as a guest house and as a site for meetings and social gatherings was not accessory to the permissible residential use of the property. Also, Hayes could not continue using the prop- erty as the church had used it (for meetings). Hayes asked a court to review the board's decision. She claimed the deci- sion was arbitrary and capricious, and that her proposed use of the house as a guest house was accessory to uses allowed in a residential district. The court in part reversed the board's decision. It rejected Hayes' two arguments, but found she could continue using the house as the church had used it. The court explained that even though the Diocese owned the house, the house hadn't actually been used a church (an allowed use in the district), so it was a nonconforming use. Under the ordinance, nonconforming uses could continue until they were removed, destroyed or discontinued for more than 120 days. Hayes appealed the court's finding that the board's decision wasn't arbi- trary and capricious, and also appealed the determination that a guest house wasn't permitted as an accessory use. The ordinance specifically defined "Guest House (Tourist Home)," but not guest cottage. It stated "guest cottages" weren't permitted as accessory uses in residential zones, but didn't mention guest houses. According to Hayes, since the ordinance didn't equate guest cottage with guest house,, her proposed guest house should be permitted as an acces- sory use. The board appealed the court's finding that the house hadn't been used as a church, and as such, was a nonconforming use that Hayes could continue. The board claimed even though no religious services were held in the house, the church meetings, retreats and other social activities all qualified the house for church status under the ordinance. The board argued since churches were