Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 2i-- March 15, 1996 Z.B. Specia[ Permit -- Why Did Board Reject Bed and Breakfast's Permit? Bal!as v. Town of Weaverville, 465 S.E. 2d 324 (North Carolina) ]996 Balias wanted to convert a derelict building in the town of Weaverville, N.C., ifito a bed and breakfast. The building was in a residential zone on Hamburg Mountain. BallYas applied to the town's Zoning Board of Adjustment for a special use permit. ~t the public hearing on her application, Ballas said her facility would be compatible with other subdivision residences and would be a place resi- dents c6uld recommend to friends who visited. She also said public water and sewer lihes were installed and served the property. Several neighbors spoke in favor!of the bed and breakfast, saying Ballas did a great job renovating the buildings. They also said it would be "an attribute to the community." In opposition to Ballas' application, a certified real estate appraiser said the bed hnd breakfast would decrease property values 11 to 23 percent. The appraise~' reached this conclusion by examining the property and comparing it to anoiher community's experience with a bed and breakfast. After the hearing, the town manager told the board the town did not yet accept tl{te roads and utilities for maintenance. The iboard denied Ballas' request, saying Ballas did not meet the ordinanc~e's "specific design or other criteria" for special use permits. The ordinance section that defined the criteria included requirements that the spe- cial use Would not substantially diminish neighborhood property values, and that the property had or would have "adequate utilities, access roads, drain- age and/or other necessary facilities." However, the board's decision did not state the ~specific reasons for its denial. Ball~ appealed to court, and the court affirmed the board's decision. The court sai¢l Ballas did not show she complied with the ordinance. Balla~ appealed again. DECISION: Reversed and sent back to the trial court. The t~ial court should not have affirmed the board's decision. The board did not rdake clear whether its denial was based on effects on property values or adequacy of water and sewer lines. If based on water and sewer lines, the decision ~ould not be valid since no evidence supported it. If based on prop- erty valu{s, the decision could be sustained if the real estate appraiser per- suaded th~ board. The case had to be sent back to the board for specific find- ings. AlthoUgh the board could have denied Ballas' request based on a belief the bed arid breakfast would diminish property values, that was not necessar- ily so. The evidence regarding effects on property values conflicted. Ballas presentedlenough evidence to support her permit request, but the real estate appraiser'5 testimony about possible decreases in property values could sup- port a deriial. Nobodry presented evidence during the hearing to contradict Ballas' claim