Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Popular Government Spring 1993 <br />circumstances. <br />36 <br />http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm <br />28. Burton v. New Hanover County Board of Adjustment, 49 N.C. App. 439, 271 S.E.2d 550, cert. <br />denied, 302 N.C. 217, 276 S.E.2d 914 (1981). The court of appeals has noted that while a verbatim <br />transcript is not required, its presence would facilitate appellate review. In re City of Raleigh Parks and <br />Recreation Dept., 107 N.C. App. 505,421 S.E.2d 179 (1992). <br />29. Little v. City of Raleigh, 195 N.C. 793, 143 S.E. 827 (1928). See also In re J. H. Carter Builder, Inc., <br />95 N.C. App. 182, 381 S.E.2d 889, rev. denied, 325 N.C. 707, 388 S.E.2d. 458 (1989) (rehearing by <br />board of adjustment six weeks after original vote, made because chair wished to change his vote after <br />reviewing the minutes, held improper because there had been no substantial change in the facts, <br />evidence, or conditions). <br />30. In re Broughton Estate, 210 N.C. 62,185 S.E. 434 (1936). <br />31. There are other important differences in how legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions are made <br />beyond the differences in hearings discussed in this article. For example, there are different standards on <br />conflicts of interest, voting majorities required, creation of vested rights, imposition of conditions, and <br />the time limits for seeking judicial review. <br />The author is an Institute of Governmen 'faculty member who specializes in land-use law. <br />Return to the N.C. Planning home page <br />Go to the Institute of Government home page <br />Last Updated. 2- Jan -1997 by Susan Dunn <br />