Agenda - 09-28-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 a ► ..°' I i, , �� - 111111III1111IIIIII lIIIIIIIIllllill f 11Ir III II! II 111 IV I iii III I��ilii II Ilf IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiII IIIiIIIIIIIIIIII(III I I 1 ∎P It IIl I li1 ", IJ1 v- u I I fII ill: ZON 1 iii iq I I If 1�II i� I� (j ,II ! Na. 5 1 llI ill I I Ill I I I II III I I,I. II: III � ( lj '�, MENT I , „ I, . I a „ I . „ a C h },I IIIIIIIIIIfi 11111IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111I111NI1Ii11IIIIII1IllllllliIllllllllll • PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAR°I 2 TAKIN{; INIL)I:NC.I: I. MICHAEL. BROUGH 7AKINC BVIAENCE Background This is the second in a three-part series of Some Basic Guidelines memoranda dealing with the ad three-part ar on the Admissibility of Evidence 7 y proceed- t nc l The first general principle is necessity despite ings of boards of adjustment. The first mem orandum dealt with the nature of the record of the the Court's evidence,e, i reference le the atclocaly for proceedings, and the third will discuss a number "competent"d ovibound,by is clear that local of procedural requirements not covered in either boards are not bound py all the rules of evidence of the first two parts. Part 1 of this series followed in judicial proceedings. The reference also contains a general introduction that explains i "competent" evidence entered the cases dealing why boards of adjustment are considered with board re adjustment matters for thg first quasi- tine took in Jarrell v, Board of Ad ustment, which judicial agencies and discusses the sources of the rules imposed on boards of adjustment, This took the language directly from C.S. 143-315 (the statute governing the scope of ek memorandum deals with a number of matters relating administrative agency des sit s)udicial As Part vl of of to the presentation of evidence before the board of adjustment, this series indicates, the New Administrative Procedure Act (effective February 1, 1976) repeals The General Problem of Evidence in Board Hearings that statute. The new law does require that the In attempting to establish guidelines for the rules of evidence as applied in the trial division admissibility of evidence in proceedings before of the General Court of prtant ee followed but adds the importance local boards of adjustment, courts are faced with t exxceptrony hception Chat a dilemma: These boards have the power to affect '�hcn evidence is not reasonably available under substantial property rights and therefore should such rules to show relevant facts, they may be be held to rigorous evidentiary standards; yet shown by the most reliable and substantial evi- they are most often composed of laymen who cannot ctence available, 3 Since the legislature has made be expected to deal with complex rules of evi- this relaxed standard acct table for dente, and therefore the evidentiary standards istrative proceedings, it is doubtful sthat adcourt" must be relaxed. This ambivalence is reflected in would require that local boards follow more Berne gent evidentiary rules. Therefore, it is reason- the recent case of Refining Company v, Board of Aldermen, in which the North Carolina Supreme able to conclude that when the Court states that Court with one breath stated that local agencies the board of adjustment can consider only "tom could not reasonably be held to the evidentiary it mar evidence in making its findings of fact, standards required of judicial bodies and with the t merely means that the board must limit itself next breath field that crucial findings of fact to the type of evidence that ought to be admis- must be supported with "competent" evidence--a Bible before local administrative agencies gen- term generally understooll to mean legally admis- orally- The term "competent," then, is little sible in a court of law. The tension caused by more than a synonym for the phrase ''admissible this dilemma will no doubt result in confusion for before a local boarde mainder of this memorandum, That is how the word is some time. However, by reasoning from the few used throughout the re cases that have touched upon evidentiary matters, some principles and guidelines can be offered that The second principle, which can be also may be useful to boards of adjustment in future stated with some certainty, is that, at least with cases. respect to crucial findings of4fact, the board may not rely on unsworn testimony. In the case in Amok