|
i
<br /> 4, , /
<br /> to avoid making difficulE or politically unpopular 9For purposes of determining whether the
<br /> decisions by resort to this technique. Conse- applicant (lessee) is entitled to the relief he
<br /> quently, in order to give recognition to the seeks, the terms of the lease relating to re-
<br /> concept that a fair hearing requires an impartial strictions on the use of the property are not
<br /> board while avoiding abuse of the practice of relevant, just as restrictive covenants in deeds
<br /> diaqualificagon, boards of adjustment should have no bearing upon how the zoning enforcement
<br /> adopt a rule stating that no member of the board officer enforces the ordinance. In other words, a
<br /> may be eriused from voting except when immediate lessee should not be denied a permit simply be-
<br /> personal or financial interests preclude im- cause his application is opposed by the property
<br /> partial, consideration of the issues involved, owner. The legal relationship between the lessor
<br /> Such a rule should also provide that in all other and lessee is a matter of private concern. None-
<br /> & cases, a failure to vote by a member who is pre- thelesa, it is good practice to notify the owner.
<br /> sent at the meeting place or has withdrawn without
<br /> being excused by a majority vote of the remaining 10See N.C. Gen. Stat, 5 160A-364 and N.C.
<br /> members present shall be counted as an affirmative Gen. Stet, 5 153A-323.
<br /> vote,
<br /> 11Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N,C,
<br /> CONCLUSION 458, 470, 202 S.E.2d 129, 137 (1974).
<br /> Neither this memorandum alone nor this three- 12The Administrative Procedure Act provides
<br /> part series taken as a whole is in any way an that "In all contested cases, irrelevant, im-
<br /> exhaustive treatment of the principles of admin- material, and unduly repetitious evidence shall be
<br /> istrative law as applied to local quasi-judicial excluded." N.C. Gen.. Stat. 5 153A-29(a).
<br /> agencies like the boards of adjustment, Even-
<br /> tually, a state law may be enacted specifying 13Stanbury, 2 North Carolina Evidence § 201
<br /> rules of procedure for local agencies, much as the at 130 (Brandis rev. 1973).
<br /> Administrative Procedure Act has codified pro-
<br /> cedures for state agencies, In the meantime, this 14Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N,C.
<br /> three-part series of memoranda may help boards of 458, 468, 202 $.E.2d 129, 136 (1974).
<br /> adjustment interpret some of the hazy guidelines
<br /> established by the courts. 15 Id. at 466, 202 S.E.2d at 135.
<br /> F 16Id. at 470, 202 S.E.2d at 137.
<br /> 17N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-388(e); N,C. Gen.
<br /> Stat. 5 153A-345(e).
<br /> 18Brannock v. Board of Adjustment, 262 N.C.
<br /> 426, 132 S.E.2d 758 (1963).
<br /> 'Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
<br /> 458, 470, 202 S,E,2d 129, 137 (1974). 19Id. at 427, 132 S.E.2d at 759 (1963).
<br /> 2N.C. Gen. Stat. 55 143-318.1 through 318.7. 20A similar rule pertaining to city governing
<br /> bodies is written into the General Statutes at
<br /> 3N.C. Gen. Stet, § 143-•318.4. N.C, Gen. Stat. § 160A-75.
<br /> 4N.C. Gan. Scat. 5 143-318.2, 21...
<br /> here the applicant belongs to the board
<br /> member's immediate family or is a close relative,
<br /> SN,C. Gen. Stat. 15 160A-381, 388(b) and (c); disqualification might be in order. However, a
<br /> N,C. Cen. Stat. 55 153A-340, 345(b) and (c), board member should not disqualify himself merely
<br /> because the applicant is a friend or acquaintance.
<br /> 6Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
<br /> 458, 467-68, 202 S.E.2d 129, 135 (1974).
<br /> 7N,C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-388(b); N.C. Gen.
<br /> Stat. § 153A-345(b). Note that this discussion of
<br /> appeals refers only to appeals to the board, and
<br /> not to appeals to the courts of action taken by
<br /> the Board.
<br /> BRefining Company v. Board of Aldermen, 284
<br /> N.C. 458, 464, 202 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1974).
<br />
|