Orange County NC Website
31 <br /> opular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm <br /> Speakers and Evidence <br /> The principal difference between legislative and evidentiary hearings arises in how speakers and <br /> evidence are handled. Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to carefully gather relevant facts to <br /> aid in decision making,restrictions on what can be heard and how it can be heard are applied to these <br /> hearings. These standards apply to any board making a quasi-judicial zoning decision, even the <br /> governing board.This places a particular burden on city councils and county boards of commissioners, <br /> which are usually more accustomed to conducting less formal hearings on legislative matters. <br /> In the leading case on this subject,Humble Oil &Refining Co.v. Board of Aldermen, which involved <br /> the denial of a special-use permit for a gas station by the governing board in Chapel Hill,Justice Susie <br /> Sharp set forth the key requirements for an evidentiary zoning hearing: <br /> Notwithstanding the latitude allowed municipal boards, . . .a zoning board of adjustment,or a <br /> board of aldermen conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, can dispense with no essential element of a <br /> fair trial: (1) The party whose rights are being determined must be given the opportunity to offer <br /> evidence,cross-examine adverse witnesses, inspect documents, and offer evidence in explanation <br /> and rebuttal; (2) absent stipulations or waiver such a board may not base findings as to the <br /> existence or nonexistence of crucial.facts upon unworn statements;.and(3) crucial findings of <br /> fact which are "unsupported by competent,material and substantial evidence in view of the entire <br /> record as submitted" cannot stand. 22 <br /> If critical factual findings in a quasi-judicial zoning matter are based on unswom testimony or hearsay <br /> evidence,the decision may be overturned by the courts and the matter sent back for a new hearing.1231 If <br /> all the parties agree,however,the right to have witnesses under oath may be waived. 24 <br /> A question arises occasionally as to whether attorneys need to be under oath when making a presentation <br /> in an evidentiary hearing.If the attorney is just summarizing evidence presented by others and making <br /> legal arguments for his or her client,there is no need to be under oath. On the other hand,if the attorney <br /> is offering evidence directly,he or she would need to be sworn like any other witness. The court <br /> tolerates but strongly discourages an attorney from serving both as a witness and an advocate in the <br /> same case.251 Likewise,if the city or county staff is presenting evidence to the board in an evidentiary <br /> hearing,they should also be under oath. <br /> Oaths for witnesses testifying at these evidentiary hearings may be administered by the chair of the <br /> board or any notary.f261 Witnesses may affirm rather than swear. All individuals likely to testify can be <br /> administered the oath together at the beginning of the hearing in order to expedite matters. If this is <br /> done,each witness should be reminded of the oath at the outset of his or her testimony. <br /> Additional rules apply to assure that evidentiary hearings are conducted fairly.All of the parties to an <br /> evidentiary hearing have a right to know all of the evidence being considered by the board.Therefore it <br /> is improper for a board member to discuss the case or to individually gather evidence outside the <br /> hearing. If a board member has prior or specialized knowledge about a case,that should be disclosed to <br /> the rest of the board and the parties during the hearing.f271 Also, it is inappropriate in an evidentiary <br /> hearing to consider nonexpert personal opinions or hearsay testimony. <br /> At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing,the board making the decision must adopt written findings <br /> of the facts upon which it is basing its decision. This contrasts with legislative zoning decisions,where <br /> no findings are required--those decisions are left to the sound discretion of the governing board, and the <br /> board is not required to explain why it made a particular decision.But since the purpose of an <br /> evidentiary hearing is to produce well-documented evidence to support a decision,the parties are entitled <br /> to know what the board concluded are the facts.Any judicial review of the decision is based on the facts <br /> as determined by the board making the decision, so the courts also need to know what the board <br /> concluded. This is done by requiring written findings of fact. <br /> Since any subsequent judicial review is based on the record established in this hearing,it is important to <br /> keep detailed records of evidentiary hearings. Sound recording or a verbatim transcript of these hearings <br />