|
'opular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planninglpgsp93.htm
<br /> 13.Note that a zoning text change that substantially changes the range of permitted uses in a district can
<br /> have the same practical effect as a map change and in those instances may be covered.
<br /> 14.Many of the modifications are of only temporary duration.This trend of local modification is
<br /> continuing. Some thirteen bills were introduced in the 1993 General Assembly to provide mailed-notice
<br /> exceptions to thirty-three local governments. A bill is also pending that would extend these alternatives
<br /> to mailed notice to all local governments.
<br /> 15.Freeland v. Orange County,273 N.C.452, 160 S.E.2d 282 (1968).
<br /> 16. Freeland,273 N.C. at 457, 160 S.E.2d at 286.
<br /> 17.Heaton v. City of Charlotte,277 N.C. 506, 518, 178 S.E.2d 352, 359-60 (1971).
<br /> 18. Heaton,277 N.C. at 518-19, 178 S.E.2d at 360. See also Walker v.Town of Elkin,254 N.C. 85, 118
<br /> S.E.2d 1 (1960);In re Issuance of CAMA Permit to Worthy, 82 N.C. App. 32, 345 S.E.2d 699(1986).
<br /> 19.Also, G.S. 160A-71(b1)provides that regular and special meetings of the governing board may be
<br /> recessed or adjourned to reconvene at a time and place certain(the comparable county provision, G.S.
<br /> 153A-40,contains a similar provision for regular county board meetings). G.S. 143-318.12(b)(1)in the
<br /> state's open meetings law provides that if the time and place for reconvening are set in the properly
<br /> noticed original meeting,no additional public notice is required.
<br /> 20. See George v.Town of Edenton;294 N.C. 679,242 S.E.2d 877(1978);Nelson v. City of
<br /> Burlington, 80 N.C. App. 285,341 S.E.2d 739(1986); Clark v. City of Charlotte,66 N.C.App. 437,311
<br /> S.E.2d 71 (1984).
<br /> 21. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v.Board of Aldermen,284 N.C.458, 202 S.E.2d 129 (1974); Jarrell v.
<br /> Board of Adjustment,258 N.C. 476, 128 S.E.2d 879(1963). .
<br /> 22. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 284 N.C. at 470,202 S.E.2d at 137 (citations omitted).
<br /> 23. See, e.g., Jarrell,258 N.C. at 476, 128 S.E.2d at 879;Brummer v.Board of Adjustment, 81 N.C.
<br /> App. 307, 343 S.E.2d 603,rev. denied, 318 N.C.413, 349 S.E.2d 590 (1986).
<br /> 24. Craver v. Board of Adjustment,267 N.C. 40, 147 S.E.2d 599 (1966);Burton v.New Hanover
<br /> County Board of Adjustment,49 N.C. App. 439,271-S.E.2d 550,cert. denied, 302 N.C.217,276 S.E.2d
<br /> 914 (1981); Carter v. Town of Chapel Hill, 14 N.C. App. 93, 187 S.E.2d 588,cert. denied, 281 N.C.
<br /> 314, 188 S.E.2d 897 (1972).
<br /> 25. Robinhood Trails Neighbors v.Board of Adjustment,44 N.C. App. 539,261 S.E.2d 520, cert.
<br /> denied, 299 N.C. 737,267 S.E.2d 663 (1980).See also Rule 5.2,Rules of Professional Conduct of the
<br /> North Carolina State-Bar. This rule prohibits a lawyer from testifying as a witness in a case he or she is
<br /> handling unless the testimony relates solely to an uncontested matter,is related to legal fees,or if refusal
<br /> to testify would work a substantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer in
<br /> the particular case.
<br /> 26. A standard oath may be used,such as, "Do you swear(or affirm)that the evidence you give shall be
<br /> the truth,the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,so help you God?"
<br /> 27. Crump v.Board of Education, 326 N.C. 603, 392 S.E.2d 579 (1990).It is important to distinguish
<br /> personal knowledge,which can be considered if disclosed,from personal bias,which disqualifies a
<br /> member from participation.Personal bias is present if the member has a fixed opinion that is not
<br /> susceptible to change regardless of the evidence presented.Also,in Rice Assoc. v. Town of Weaverville
<br /> Bd. of Adjustment, 108 N.C.App.346,423 S.E.2d 519 (1992),the court held that participation of a
<br /> member with bias does not invalidate the decision if the applicant is not entitled to a permit under any
<br />
|