|
1
<br /> 4
<br /> N/141
<br /> ! the other hand, the board may upon to
<br /> y be called u P 18 1 acceptable for local boards, In some cases, where
<br /> interpret an ambiguous section of the ordinance. elaborate diagrams or expensive displays cannot be
<br /> In such a case, when the board's task, is to in- copied, the secretary should attempt to capture
<br /> ! terpret the words of the ordinance without nee-- the gist of the diagrams or displays in the min-
<br /> ` essary regard to the facts of a particular case, utes. The essential point to remember is that a
<br /> the interpretation does have recedential value
<br /> I P reviewing court must be able to find substantial
<br /> and becomes the official interpretation for the evidence in the record for the board's decision;
<br /> ! 1 zoning enforcement division unless the ordinance if a crucial document or other piece of evidence
<br /> ! ! is changed by the local governing body or unless is missing, the board's decision cannot be sue-
<br /> the board's decision is reversed on appeal. tamed,
<br /> ! ! In any event, the board's interpretation CONCLUSION
<br /> should be explicitly stated as part of the board's
<br /> written decisions In the first type of interpre- In summary, boards of adjustment must make a
<br /> tation, the board's conclusion can then be re- record of each case that comes before them suE-
<br /> viewed by a court to determine whether the find- ficient for a reviewing court to determine,
<br /> ings of fact stated by the board lead reasonably without reference to external sources, whether the
<br /> to the conclusion reached. In the second type of decision rendered in the particular case can be
<br /> interpretation, the board is involved strictly in reconciled with the procedural and substantive
<br /> a matter of law, and while the interpretation requirements imposed by law. The record should
<br /> placed upon a law by the administrative agency consist of three parts; (1) the written decision,
<br /> charged with enforcing it is entitled to due containing a separate statement of the board's
<br /> consideration, the reviewing court is still free findings of basic fact, conclusions drawn from
<br /> i tci substitute its judgTgnt if it is convinced that those facts, and ordinance interpretations; (2)
<br /> the board is in error. the minutes, containing a summary of what happened
<br /> at the hearing and what evidence was presented as
<br /> The Minutes well as a record of the vote; and (3) a compile-
<br /> ! Meeting Procedures, While the written deer tion of documentary and other physical evidence.
<br /> I sion reveals the results of the hearing before the
<br /> board, accurate minutes are necessary to describe
<br /> what happened at the meeting that lead up to the "
<br /> board's final decision. Consequently, the minutes 1N.C. Gen, Stat, 44 150A-1 through -64.
<br /> should 'carefully record all the procedural aspects
<br /> of the meeting, such as the number and names of 211-C. Gen, State. 4 150A-2(1),
<br /> the board members present, what witnesses were
<br /> heard, whether they were sworn, whether parties 3Article 33 of Chapter 143 of the General
<br /> were represented by counsel, whether cross-exam- Statutes, "Judicial Review of Decisions of Certain
<br /> ination of witnesses was requested and allowed, Administrative Agencies," was held applicable to
<br /> and any other event at the hearing that had any local agencies by Jarrell V. Board of Adjustment,
<br /> i impact on the outcome. 258 N,C, 476, 128 S.E.2d 879 (1963). See also
<br /> "Jamison v. Kyles, 271 N.C. 722, 175 S.E.2d 550
<br /> Taking Evidence. Whenever possible, the (1967),
<br /> entire meeting should be recorded in order to have
<br /> a permanent record of exactly what transpired Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N,C,
<br /> concerning the presentation (or proposed pre- 476, 480, 128 S.E.2d 879, 883 (1963), Undoubt-
<br /> sentation) of evidence. At a minimum, a1126vi- edly, even though the new Administrative Procedure
<br /> dente presented orally should be recorded. The Act is not by its terms applicable to local gov-
<br /> minutes need not consist of a transcript of the ernments, its provisions will influence the court
<br /> testimony--a narrative summary of what was said is as it decided on a case-by-cane basis what rules
<br /> adequate--but a recording is a useful device if a should be applied to board of adjustment pro-
<br /> question should arise about the minutes' accuracy. ceedings,
<br /> Record of the Vote. The vote of every board
<br /> member on every issue should be recorded in the SN.C. Gen. Seat, 4 16DA-388(e}; N.C.. Gen..
<br /> minutes. It is most important that this record be Stet• 4 153A-344 5(c).
<br /> made accurately since, according to the general 6In re Pine Hill Cemeteries Inc., 219 N.C.
<br /> rule, a reviewing court can refuse to listen to 735, 1-5-S.E.2d (1941); Jamison v, Kyles, 271 N.C.
<br /> eubeequent allegations th21 the record does not 722, 157 S,E.2d 550 (1967),
<br /> reflect the actual tally..
<br /> Documentary and Physical Evidence Long v. Board of Adjustment, 22 N.C, App.
<br /> Documentary and physical evidence of any kind
<br /> 191, ju5 ment 807 (1974). Chambers d Board of. admitted by the board at the hearing should be (1959).
<br /> Adjustment, 250 N,C. 195, 108 S,E,2d 211
<br /> retained and made part of the (1959).
<br /> P permanent record of
<br /> the case. ' The Administrative Procedure Act pro-
<br /> vides that cope2a of documents may be received BN.C. Cen. Stet, § 150A-36.
<br /> into evidence, and this practice certainly seems 9
<br /> Black s Law Dictionary, 4th ed:
<br /> I
<br /> I ,
<br /> i
<br />
|