|
provide mailed-notice exceptions to thirty-three local govern- Conduct of the North Carolina State Bar.This rule prohibits
<br /> ments.A bill is also pending that would extend these alterna- a lawyer from testifying as a witness in a case he or she is han-
<br /> tives to mailed notice to all local governments. dung unless the testimony relates solely to an uncontested
<br /> 15.Freeland v.Orange County,273 N.C.452, 160 S.E.2d matter,is related to legal fees,or if refusal to testify would work
<br /> 282(1968). a substantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive
<br /> 16.Freeland,273 N.C.at 457, 160 S.E.2d at 286. value of the lawyer in the particular case.
<br /> 17. Heaton v. City of Charlotte, 277 N.C. 506, 518, 178 26.A standard oath may be used,such as,'Do you swear
<br /> S.E.2d 352,359-60(1971). (or affirm)that the evidence you give shall be the truth, the
<br /> 18.Heaton,277 N.C.at 518-19, 178 S.E.2d at 360.See also whole truth,and nothing but the truth,so help you God?"
<br /> Walker v.Town of Elkin,254 N.C.85, 118 S.E.2d 1(1960);In 27.Crump v.Board of Education,326 N.C.603,392 S.E.2d
<br /> re Issuance of CAMA Permit to Worthy,82 N.C.App.32,345 579(1990).It is important to distinguish personal knowledge,
<br /> S.E.2d 699(1986). which can be considered if disclosed, from personal bias,
<br /> 19.Also,G.S. 160A-71(bl)provides that regular and special which disqualifies a member from participation.Personal bias
<br /> meetings of the governing board may be recessed or adjourned is present if the member has a fixed opinion that is not sus-
<br /> to reconvene at a time and place certain (the comparable ceptible to change regardless of the evidence presented.Also,
<br /> county provision,G.S. 153A-40,contains a similar provision for in Rice Assoc.v.Town of Weaverville Bd.of Adjustment,108
<br /> regular county board meetings). G.S. 143-318.12(bXl) in the N.C.App.346,423 S.E.2d 519(1992),the court held that par-
<br /> state's open meetings law provides that if the time and place ticipation of a member with bias does not invalidate the deci-
<br /> for reconvening are set in the properly noticed original meet- sion if the applicant is not entitled to a permit under any
<br /> ing,no additional public notice is required. circumstances.
<br /> 20. See George v. Town of Edenton, 294 N.C. 679, 242 28.Burton v.New Hanover County Board of Adjustment,
<br /> S.E.2d 877(1978);Nelson v.City of Burlington,80 N.C.App. 49 N.C.App.439,271 S.E.2d 550,cert.denied,302 N.C.217,
<br /> 285,341 S.E.2d 739(1986);Clark v.City of Charlotte,66 N.C. 276 S.E.2d 914(1981). The court of appeals has noted that
<br /> App.437,311 S.E.2d 71(1984). while a verbatim transcript is not required,its presence would
<br /> 21.Humble Oil&Refining Co.v.Board of Aldermen,284 facilitate appellate review.In re City of Raleigh Parks and Rec-
<br /> N.C.458,202 S.E.2d 129(1974);Jarrell v.Board of Adjustment, reation Dept., 107 N.C.App.505,421 S.E.2d 179(1992).
<br /> 258 N.C.476, 128 S.E.2d 879(1963). . 29. Little v. City of Raleigh, 195 N.C. 793, 143 S.E. 827
<br /> 22. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 284 N.C. at 470, 202 (1928).See also In re J. H.Carter Builder,Inc.,95 N.C.App.
<br /> S.E.2d at 137(citations omitted). 182,381 S.E.2d 889,rev.denied,325 N.C.707,388 S.E.2d 458
<br /> 23. See, e.g., Jarrell, 258 N.C. at 476, 128 S.E.2d at 879; (1989)(rehearing by board of adjustment six weeks after origi-
<br /> Brummer v. Board of Adjustment, 81 N.C. App. 307, 343 nal vote,made because chair wished to change his vote after
<br /> S.E.2d 603,rev.denied,318 N.C.413,349 S.E.2d 590(1986). reviewing the minutes,held improper because there had been
<br /> 24.Craver v.Board of Adjustment,267 N.C.40,147 S.E.2d no substantial change in the facts,evidence,or conditions).
<br /> 599(1966);Burton v.New Hanover County Board of Adjust- 30.In re Broughton Estate,210 N.C.62,185 S.E.434(1936).
<br /> ment,49 N.C.App.439,271 S.E.2d 550,cert.denied,302 N.C. 31.There are other important differences in how legisla-
<br /> 217,276 S.E.2d 914(1981);Carter v.Town of Chapel Hill, 14 tive and quasi-judicial zoning decisions are made beyond the
<br /> N.C.App.93, 187 S.E.2d 588,cert.denied,281 N.C.314, 188 differences in hearings discussed in this article. For example,
<br /> S.E.2d 897(1972). there are different standards on conflicts of interest, voting
<br /> 25.Robinhood Trails Neighbors v.Board of Adjustment,44 majorities required, creation of vested rights, imposition of
<br /> N.C.App.539,261 S.E.2d 520,cert.denied,299 N.C.737,267 conditions,and the time limits for seeking judicial review.
<br /> S.E.2d 663 (1980). See also Rule 5.2, Rules of Professional
<br /> Addendum
<br /> After this article was published, the 1993 General July 23, 1993, simply by adopting an ordinance setting
<br /> Assembly adopted amendments to G.S. 153A-343 and forth the earlier date.
<br /> 160A-384 regarding individual mailed notices(1993 N.C. The new statute creates five exceptions to the require-
<br /> Sess. Laws ch. 799). This statute repealed all of the lo- ment of sending an individual first-class mailed notice
<br /> cal laws providing exemptions for mailed notices of pro- when a zoning classification action is proposed. The five
<br /> posed zoning classification changes, including nine exceptions are:
<br /> additional exemptions that had been adopted earlier in 1. a total rezoning of all property within a city or
<br /> the 1993 session. This new statute is effective January within a zoned area of a county,unless the rezon-
<br /> 1, 1994 (effective January 1, 1995, for Forsyth County ing is to a less intensive category;
<br /> and its municipalities). Local governments have the op- 2. an initial zoning of an entire zoning jurisdiction
<br /> tion of moving up this effective date to any time after area;
<br /> POPULAR GOVERNMENT Spring 1993 35
<br />
|