|
r .-
<br /> lii„ 2
<br /> •
<br /> opportunity to be heard and are otherwise fairly miscellaneous documents, pictures, plans, specs-
<br /> treated. Second, boards are required to make fications, and other physical evidence that cannot
<br /> their findings of fact based upon evidence that is be captured in the minutes; and (2) a separate,
<br /> legally sufficient in terms of both quantity and written statement of the board's findings of fact,
<br /> ' quality. Third, boards must make a record of conclusions, and ordinance interpretations and a
<br /> , , their proceedings that is adequate to allow a " statement of the board's decision These matters
<br /> I . (reviewing court to determine whether the other are explained more fully in the paragraphs that
<br /> requirements have been complied with. In terms of follow.
<br /> , �I' substantive 'requirements, courts insist that the
<br /> :. facts found by the boards lead reasonably to the The Written Decision in General
<br /> 1' 1 1,, conclusions they reach and that in making a final The Administrative Procedure Act requires
<br /> L ■, , decision:on the merits, the boards apply the that administrative agencies report their deci-
<br /> Vi
<br /> I iii i correct principles of law. sions in writing, and this is a salutary practice
<br /> for locnl boards as well, A separate statement of
<br /> u''1,. ' I This three-part series of memoranda attempts the board's findings of fact, conclusions, and
<br /> to deal only with the procedural requirements ordinance interpretations should precede and lead
<br /> p1 , imposed by the courts. To proceed logically, this logically to the statement of the board's deci-
<br /> !;' . i series begins here with a discussion of the record lion, Fact-finding and the drawing of conclusions
<br /> ' : 11 i of the:proceedings; Part 2 deals with matters are at the very heart of the board's responsi-
<br /> 1 relating to the presentation of evidence before bilities, and the process of reducing these find-
<br /> I,-,,, lthe board; and Part 3 takes up some of the re- info and conclusions to concrete statements in
<br /> ! Pt maining procedural requirements, black and white discourages the kind of casual
<br /> I thinking and overgeneralization that can result
<br /> i RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS when the board simply "records" its decision by
<br /> making offhand remarks to be included in the
<br /> 11' ' According to the city and county zoning record. For the rest of this three-part series,
<br /> ' enabling acts, every decision made by a board of the term "written decision" will mean this written
<br /> adjustment is subject to review in the superior statement of the board's ultimate decision, cm-
<br /> , a court Or proceedings in the nature of "certio- plete with a statement of its findings of fact,
<br /> frani." This means that a party aggrieved by a conclusions, and ordinance interpretations.
<br /> decision of the board petitions the superior court
<br /> to instruct the board to send the court the record Findings of Fact and Conclusions
<br /> of the proceedings so that it can review the Since it is routinely stated in the cases
<br /> record to determine whether the standards of that the board's findings of fact, if supported by
<br /> fairness, evidence, and recordation have been substantial evidence, are binding on the reviewing
<br /> complied with. The superior court truly acts in court, one might suppose that some general con-
<br /> the capacity of an appellate court in this in- sensus exists about what a finding of fact is In
<br /> stance. It takes no additional evidence but must reality, however, the cases reveal that there is
<br /> make its decision strictly on the basis of the much confusion about what the board should be
<br /> record submitted.6 Consequently, all of the doing when it sets out to make findings of fact.
<br /> information necessary to affirm or reverse the This confusion stems primarily from a failure to
<br /> board of adjustment must be contained in the distinguish between what may be called a "pure,"
<br /> record; otherwise the case mat be returned to "actual," or "basic" fact and a factual conclusion
<br /> the board for further action.. In other words, or inference. A "pure" fact may be defined as a
<br /> looking strictly to the record, the superior court "circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually
<br /> must be able to answer at least the following takes or took place; a physical object or ap-
<br /> questions: What sort of action was requested of pearance, as it actually exists or existed. An
<br /> the board (i.e., an appeal from a decision of the actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from
<br /> zoning administrator, a variance, or a special-use mere supposition or opinion."9 A conclusion, by
<br /> permit)? What sections of the ordinance are contrast, requires the finder to draw inferences
<br /> relevant? What procedures were followed at the from the pure facts. It involves an exercise of
<br /> hearing? What evidence was presented or con- judgment. For example, whether a lot is of a
<br /> sidered at the hearing? What did the board find certain size or located within a certain distance
<br /> to be the facts after considering the evidence? from a fire station is a matter of pure fact.
<br /> What conclusions did the board draw based upon the Whether a certain use, if located on that lot,
<br /> facts it found? How did the board interpret would be detrimental to the public health and
<br /> specific provisions of the ordinance or other safety is a question that can be answered only by
<br /> matters of law? What was the board's final deci- the exercise of judgment.
<br /> II ' sion?
<br /> To clarify matters, as part of their written '
<br /> The minutes of the board meeting alone might decision, boards should begin to distinguish
<br /> contain all the information that a reviewing court between findings of actual fact and statements of
<br /> needs to answer the foregoing questions. But to conclusions drawn from the facts. For example,
<br /> expedite the process of judicial review as well as before granting a variance, a board is required to
<br /> ' to make the actual. decision-making process more make a number of "findings," including: (1) the
<br /> i deliberate and precise, the record should contain, applicant can make no reasonable use of his prop-
<br /> . addition to the minutes: (1) a compilation of erty unless the variance is granted; (2) the
<br /> E 11
<br /> I' '
<br />
|