August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

testified about had been added be- fore the area had been designated as a historic district and her testimo- ny "did not focus on the impact of the proposed additions on the vistas being 'affected' in the area." Finally, the court determined that the Mayor's Agent had not committed error as a matter of law by improperly construing one of the purposes of the Act. Under the court's analysis, "no grounds for setting aside his decision" existed, since the Mayor's Agent deter- mined both that the owner was required to prove under the Act that the proposed additions were compatible with the character of the historic district and that Mr. Reneau had failed to meet his bur- den of proof. The court also deter- mined that the Agent's apparent combining of two different but related statutory provisions, by its statement that the owner had failed "to show that the proposed changes were necessary to 'encourage their adaptation for use,'" could not be said to be "unreasonable under the circumstances here." Accordingly, the court affirmed the Mayor's Agent's decision, find- ing that substantial evidence in the record supported his decision and the Agent's interpretation of the District's preservation law was "reasonable." In closing, the court stressed that it must "be particular- ly deferential to the agency's deter- mination where the decision lies within the agency's expertise." Analysis. The decision of the District of Columbia Court of Ap- peals in Reneau v. District of Co- lumbia is important in two re- spects. First, it underscores the degree of deference generally ac- corded to preservation commissions and review boards in ruling on ap- plications to alter or add on to pro- perties in historic districts. Second, the decision recognizes that in pre- serving the character of the historic district, it is important to consider all views within that district. In other words, the court's decision provides important guidance on the application of compatibility re- quirements in historic preservation ordinances to all facades, not just those facades visible from the street on which the structure abuts. [Richard W. Luchs, Esq. of Wash- ington, D.C. and Jacques B. DePuy, Esq. represented Paul Reneau. Charles F.C. Ruff, Corporation Counsel, and Charles L. Reischei, Deputy Corporation Counsel, repre- sented the District of Columbia. Richard A. Friedman, Esq. of Wash- ington, D.C. represented the Du- pont Circle Conservancy, Inc., who intervened in support of the Dis- trict in this case.] ------------- North Carolina Appeals Court Rejects "Bed and Breakfast" Use by Purchasers of Church -owned Historic Property; Allows Continued Use as Meeting Hall The Court of Appeals of North Carolina has ruled that the prospective purchasers of Maryhurst, a historic house located in the Pinehurst his- toric district, may not operate a "bed and breakfast" on the premises. The court, however, determined that the property could be utilized for meetings and other social events as a continuation of an existing, 4 non -conforming use. The house is zoned for residential use. In its "de novo" review of the case, the appeals court determined that bed and breakfasts fall within the meaning of "guest cottages," which are explicitly identified as a non permissible, accesso- ry use under the zoning ordi- nance of the Village of Pine- hurst. The court concluded, nonetheless, that the noncon- forming use of the property by its current owners, the Catho- lic Diocese of Raleigh, for meetings and social events could be continued by the purchasers. Under the Vil- lage's zoning ordinances, non- conforming uses may be con- tinued unless discontinued for a period of 120 days. Significantly, the court rejected the argument raised by the Village that the Dio- cese's use of Maryhurst as a meeting hall was not noncon- forming. The court determined that although the house was owned by a church, the house could not be construed as a "church," a. permissible use under the ordinance. In reach- ing its decision on this issue, the court stressed that if the term. "church" was construed more broadly, then every use of buildings owned by reli- gious organizations would be deemed permissible under the ordinance. Describing this as an "absurd" and "illogical" result, the court stated that it is "the proposed use of the land, and not the nature of the using organization" that controls in zoning cases. (Hayes v. Fowler, 473 S.E.2d 442 (N.C. App. 1996).) This case addresses the issue of whether a historic house may be operated as a "bed and breakfast" or meeting hall un-