Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
36 <br /> Popular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm <br /> circumstances. <br /> 28. Burton v.New Hanover County Board of Adjustment,49 N.C.App.439,271 S.E.2d 550, cert. <br /> denied, 302 N.C. 217,276 S.E.2d 914(.1981).The court of appeals has noted that while a verbatim <br /> transcript is not required, its presence would facilitate appellate review.In re City of Raleigh Parks and <br /> Recreation Dept., 107 N.C. App. 505,421 S.E.2d 179 (1992). <br /> 29. Little v. City of Raleigh, 195 N.C. 793, 143 S.E. 827(1928).See also In re J. H. Carter Builder,Inc., <br /> 95 N.C.App. 182, 381 S.E.2d 889,rev. denied, 325 N.C. 707,388 S.E.2d 458 (1989) (rehearing by <br /> board of adjustment six weeks after original vote,made because chair wished to change his vote after <br /> reviewing the minutes,held improper because there had been no substantial change in the facts, <br /> evidence, or conditions). <br /> 30.In re Broughton Estate,210 N.C. 62, 185 S.E.434 (1936). <br /> 31. There are other important differences in how legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions are made <br /> beyond the differences in hearings discussed in this article. For example,there are different standards on <br /> conflicts of interest, voting majorities required,creation of vested rights, imposition of conditions, and <br /> the time limits for seeking judicial review. <br /> The author is an Institute of Government faculty member who specializes in land-use law. <br /> Return to the N.C. Planning� ome page <br /> Go to the Institute of Government home page M <br /> Last Updated. 2-Jan-1997 by Susan Dunn <br />