HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-28-1981 AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY
mo. mi*r 28, 1981
7:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS' ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
1. Does any Board member desire to modify this agenda?
2. DOeS any member of the audience desire to address the Board about:
A. Matters on the agenda;
B. Matters not on the agenda?
3. The Clerk submit Minutes of Meetings held August 3rd and 18th and
September 2nd, 8th (9:30 A.M. meeting) and September 15th for Board
consideration.
4. The Board has requested information on the conducting of special use permit
public hearings.
5. Mr. Wilbur Mbrse, Chair of the Health and Medical Care Advisory Cbmmittee,
presents that Cbmmittee's reports on "Hospital Needs of Orange County."
6. The Sheriff, Mr. C.D. Knight, will discuss with the Board the Jail Inspection
of August 27, 1981, conducted by Mr. C.W. Wilson for the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Human Resources.
7. The Tax Supervisor recommends release/refunds of Carrboro taxes due to the
effective date change in annexation by the Tcwn of Carrboro.
8. Will the Board appoint a Redevelopment Commission for the CD project?
9. Will the Board consider sponsorship of RSVP?
10. The Planning Director submits a clarification df the Fee Schedule for current
planning activities.
11. Will the Board reschedule a public hearing on the naming of remaining
State maintained roads? The Road Naming Advisory Committee suggests Oct.20.
12. Discussion of 1113 405.
-mow-
611 ;
13. The Finance Officer will report on the status of Community Levelopment
and CETA budgets for the period of October 1, 1981, to September 30, 1982.
14. The Finance Officer recommends a prOje6-E ori-fitiinde". 7amenarreati?,for.:MA cencerni
deobligation of unspent 3rd quarter funds.
15. Will the Board ratify its authorization to the County to provide for the
defense of employees and officers in civil or criminal action or proceedings
brought against employees and officers on account of acts done or omissions
made in the scope and course of employment or duty as an employee or officer
of the County?
Will the Board ratify its authority to the County to appropriate funds to
provide for payment of claims or judgments against any employee or officer?
16. Will the Board consider the Manager's revision of Section 13 of the Travel
Policy in the County's Personnel Policy?
17. An executive session to consider personnel.
. Ill[ Ill illii1lilIIIIII IIII illIiliilill i nil illllllllliiilliililiiii 111111111ii
i. j,i'' I IIII I��► . II: it '� III II ,III'
mill�I III ill II 111 I Ill i (� f I i► 1 �'III)I l� � 'I I� I I r , II HIP IIII ZON ING
T "1ii 'i I�111 .11 111!11„
dI fl ii Il III III i' Jai i III N o, 4 (197 5)
' I NEV
ICIOri T
nil (I!� f ,III.•1 i. ii I' ll I
,, I -: ' . a- Ch - p : H II
I
Ill IIIliIIIIf IIIIII!lI 111111111 11IIlIIIIINIIII111111 IIIIIIIl111NIIlIININI
PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PART I MAKING A RECORD a
j
MICHAEL BROUGH Source of the Rules
No North Carolina statutes prescribe the
(u-asi-judicial Administrative Power nature of the proceedings ofisuch local admin-
The board of adjustment can be described as a istrative bodies as the board of adjustment or
quasi-judicial administrative agency. Like other
define the scope of judicial review applicable to
administrative bodies operating at the local local administrative decisions. The newly adopted
level--the planning board, the appearance commis- Administrative Procedure Act;1 which becomes effec-
sion, the historic district commiasion, the plan- rive February 1, 1976, specifically exempts from
ning department, the various enforcement divisions its coverage "counties, cities, towns, villages,
(zoning, building codes, minimum housing codes, other municipal corporations or political sub-
etc.)---the board of adjustment is involved in the divisions of the State or any agencies of such
administration and enforcement of a locally adopt- subdivisi2ns, or,-,local...units or bodies of any
ed ordinance. But the board also exercises a type kind., .." The new act also repeals all the prior
of power--quasi-judicial power--in a manner and to sections of the Genera]. Statutes that deal in
an extent that differentiates it from other adman- general with administrative agencies, several of
istrative bodies dealing with the regulation of which bad been held applicable to local admin-
development. By the grant of this type of power, istrative bodies. Consequently, one must look to
the board is authorized to interpret local ordi- the decisions of the appellate courts to find
nances, make findings of fact, and exercise limit- guidelines for administrative action by local
ed discretion in determining the rights of prop- governments.
erty owners in specific cases. The legal re-
quirements imposed on boards of adjustment as they Without statutory guidance, the courts are
exercise this quasi-judicial power is the subject forced to rely upon the state and federal con-
( of this three-part series of memoranda, sttcations as well as the common law (judge-made
11 law) to formulate appropriate standards for admin-
In some cases the city council or the board istrative decision-making, In the past, North
of commissioners also sits as an administrative Carolina courts most often turned to the latter
body and acts in a quasi-judicial capacity (e.g., source for inspiration and were able to draw upon
when it passes on applications for special-use a body of "established rules of procedure (i.e. ,
permits). In these situations, of course, the established by the common law courts] applicable
rules discussed below in connection with the board generally to administrative tribunals" as they
of adjustment apply to the governing body as well, sought to establish guidelines for local admin-
In addition, as the memorandum on Zoning Amend- istrative action. While many of these rules have
ments: Part 2, Substantive Requirements, dis- constitutional (due process) overtones, they are
cusses in greater detail, several courts have not yet indelibly written into the fabric of
begun to recognize that in acting upon rezoning constitutional law and therefore are subject to
applications, the local governing body is really later modification by legislative enactment, if
acting in an administrative capacity and should be such modification becomes advisable.
held to standards required of other local admin-
istrative bodies. For this reason, it is recom- Judicial Review of Administrative Action
mended that local governing bodies, when passing The courts impose both procedural and sub-
upon rezoning requests, adhere to the requirements stantive requirements on local boards of adjust-
discussed below as well as the procedural require- ment. First, from a procedural standpoint, courts
ments set out in the memorandum on Zoning Amend- require that local boards conduct their meetings
meets: Parc 1, Procedural Requirements, in such a way that interested parties have an
•
(I
r .-
lii„ 2
•
opportunity to be heard and are otherwise fairly miscellaneous documents, pictures, plans, specs-
treated. Second, boards are required to make fications, and other physical evidence that cannot
their findings of fact based upon evidence that is be captured in the minutes; and (2) a separate,
legally sufficient in terms of both quantity and written statement of the board's findings of fact,
' quality. Third, boards must make a record of conclusions, and ordinance interpretations and a
, , their proceedings that is adequate to allow a " statement of the board's decision These matters
I . (reviewing court to determine whether the other are explained more fully in the paragraphs that
requirements have been complied with. In terms of follow.
, �I' substantive 'requirements, courts insist that the
:. facts found by the boards lead reasonably to the The Written Decision in General
1' 1 1,, conclusions they reach and that in making a final The Administrative Procedure Act requires
L ■, , decision:on the merits, the boards apply the that administrative agencies report their deci-
Vi
I iii i correct principles of law. sions in writing, and this is a salutary practice
for locnl boards as well, A separate statement of
u''1,. ' I This three-part series of memoranda attempts the board's findings of fact, conclusions, and
to deal only with the procedural requirements ordinance interpretations should precede and lead
p1 , imposed by the courts. To proceed logically, this logically to the statement of the board's deci-
!;' . i series begins here with a discussion of the record lion, Fact-finding and the drawing of conclusions
' : 11 i of the:proceedings; Part 2 deals with matters are at the very heart of the board's responsi-
1 relating to the presentation of evidence before bilities, and the process of reducing these find-
I,-,,, lthe board; and Part 3 takes up some of the re- info and conclusions to concrete statements in
! Pt maining procedural requirements, black and white discourages the kind of casual
I thinking and overgeneralization that can result
i RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS when the board simply "records" its decision by
making offhand remarks to be included in the
11' ' According to the city and county zoning record. For the rest of this three-part series,
' enabling acts, every decision made by a board of the term "written decision" will mean this written
adjustment is subject to review in the superior statement of the board's ultimate decision, cm-
, a court Or proceedings in the nature of "certio- plete with a statement of its findings of fact,
frani." This means that a party aggrieved by a conclusions, and ordinance interpretations.
decision of the board petitions the superior court
to instruct the board to send the court the record Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of the proceedings so that it can review the Since it is routinely stated in the cases
record to determine whether the standards of that the board's findings of fact, if supported by
fairness, evidence, and recordation have been substantial evidence, are binding on the reviewing
complied with. The superior court truly acts in court, one might suppose that some general con-
the capacity of an appellate court in this in- sensus exists about what a finding of fact is In
stance. It takes no additional evidence but must reality, however, the cases reveal that there is
make its decision strictly on the basis of the much confusion about what the board should be
record submitted.6 Consequently, all of the doing when it sets out to make findings of fact.
information necessary to affirm or reverse the This confusion stems primarily from a failure to
board of adjustment must be contained in the distinguish between what may be called a "pure,"
record; otherwise the case mat be returned to "actual," or "basic" fact and a factual conclusion
the board for further action.. In other words, or inference. A "pure" fact may be defined as a
looking strictly to the record, the superior court "circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually
must be able to answer at least the following takes or took place; a physical object or ap-
questions: What sort of action was requested of pearance, as it actually exists or existed. An
the board (i.e., an appeal from a decision of the actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from
zoning administrator, a variance, or a special-use mere supposition or opinion."9 A conclusion, by
permit)? What sections of the ordinance are contrast, requires the finder to draw inferences
relevant? What procedures were followed at the from the pure facts. It involves an exercise of
hearing? What evidence was presented or con- judgment. For example, whether a lot is of a
sidered at the hearing? What did the board find certain size or located within a certain distance
to be the facts after considering the evidence? from a fire station is a matter of pure fact.
What conclusions did the board draw based upon the Whether a certain use, if located on that lot,
facts it found? How did the board interpret would be detrimental to the public health and
specific provisions of the ordinance or other safety is a question that can be answered only by
matters of law? What was the board's final deci- the exercise of judgment.
II ' sion?
To clarify matters, as part of their written '
The minutes of the board meeting alone might decision, boards should begin to distinguish
contain all the information that a reviewing court between findings of actual fact and statements of
needs to answer the foregoing questions. But to conclusions drawn from the facts. For example,
expedite the process of judicial review as well as before granting a variance, a board is required to
' to make the actual. decision-making process more make a number of "findings," including: (1) the
i deliberate and precise, the record should contain, applicant can make no reasonable use of his prop-
. addition to the minutes: (1) a compilation of erty unless the variance is granted; (2) the
E 11
I' '
0
A
3
ilk/ hardship of which the applicant complains is due Pact based upon yubskantLai evidence, the board is
to unique circumstances that result from the required also, in denying or allowing the appli-
application of the ordinance to his land; and (3) cation, to "state the basic facts on which it
the hardshiplp not the result of the applicant's relied with sufficient specificity to inform the
own actions. Conversely, before denying a parties, as well as the couy , what induced this
variance, the board must find that one of the decision [emphasis added]." While the court's
requisite conditions precerlrint to the granting of meaning is not altogether clear, it is reasonable
a variance does not exist. Clearly, these to assume that the court will no longer be willing
"findings" are conclusions that the board can to accept general conclusions as "findings of
reach only after proceeding through the inter- fact,"
mediate step of finding basic or pure facts that
lead logically to these conclusions. Since the Officially Noticed Facts
board is required to exercise its judgment with In some cases, the board may base its con-
respect to each of these issues (among others) in elusions at least in part on facts that axe com-
the process of acting upon every variance request, manly known, or on facts within the specialized
it is most expedient to devise a standard form knowledge of the board, even though no evidence
containing a statement of all these issues, has been taken in support of those facts. Such
leaving space below each for the board to enter a facts are said to be "officially noticed." For
statement of the basic facts it finds that lead it example, it may he common knowledge in a town that
to conclude that each of those conditions pre- a major industry is building a plant in an area,
cedent to the issuance of the variance either is or that a creek floods every spring, or that a
or is not satisfied. certain stretch of road is dangerous. In ad-
dition, because of its experience, a board may be
The same sort of approach can be used with aware of certain facts not commonly known--e.g.,
respect to the special- use permit application, that because of certain special-use permits re-
The typical zoning ordinance conditions the Gently granted, traffic in a certain area is
issuance of a special-use permit on the board's Likely to increase in the near future. Whenever
ability to make three types of "findings"; (]) such facts are used to support conclusions, they
findings of actual fact relating to the appli- should be included as part of the statement of the
dam's property—e.g., that the tract is of a findings of fact and some indication made that
certain size; (2) findings of actual fact that the they have been officially noticed.
petitioner's plans now indicate that the future
development of the tract will be in accord with Two words of caution: First, officially
the ordinances specifications for that type of noticed facts should not be confused with in-
development--e.g., that setback access and parking formation about a particular applicant's case that
requirements will be met; and (3) conclusions of a is within the knowledge of one or more board
more general nature- e.g., that the proposed members, which information must be stated at the
development will not substantially injure the hearing as part of5the evidence if it is properly
value of adjoining or abutting property. As a to be considered. Officially noticed facts are
matter of practice, when acting upon a special-use facts about which nn evidence need be taken, since
permit application, the board should have before the facts involved are common knowledge, or about
it a document (which can become part of the which evidence could not practically be taken,
written decision) containing a checklist of all since the board is aware of the facts due to its
the findings of actual fact [of both types (1) and specialized knowledge, Second, the board should
(2) above] that the ordinance requires it to make.. be wary of taking official notice of "facts" that
The same document nr form should also contain a are said to rest on common knowledge but in reality
statement of the general conditions [type (3)) may rest only on assumptions--e.g., that property
stated in the ordinance as prerequisites to the values decline where mobile homes are allowed in
granting of the permit. Ihen under each general a residential neighborhood.
condition, the board can state the actual facts it
finds that lead it to conclude that each general Ordinance Interpretations
condition precedent to the issionce of the permit When acting upon appeals from the zoning
either is or is not satisfied, administrator, the board Is frequently required to
interpret the zoning ordinance. These inter-
Two factors indicate that the separate state- pretattons can take two forms, On one hand, the
ment of actual facts and conclusions advocated board may have to make an interpretation that
here not only is good practice but a]so may he involves applying the facts of a particular case
required as a matter of law. First, the Admin- to certain words or phrases in the ordinance. For
istrative Procedure Act requires that "findings of example, it may have to review a zonir..g admin-
fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be istrator's decision that a gasoline station is a
accompanied by a concise and explicit �t3atement of "noxious or offensive" use within a neighborhood
the underlying facts supporting them. As noted business district and is therefore prohibited by
above, this statute is not binding on local govern- the zoning ordinance. Such interpretations
ments, but it may be persuasive with the courts, involve conclusions that must he reasonable ac-
Second, in the very important recent case of cording to the facts found by the board but have
Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, the court little precedential value except in other cans
stated that in addition to making findings of presenting nearly identical fact situations, On
1
4
N/141
! the other hand, the board may upon to
y be called u P 18 1 acceptable for local boards, In some cases, where
interpret an ambiguous section of the ordinance. elaborate diagrams or expensive displays cannot be
In such a case, when the board's task, is to in- copied, the secretary should attempt to capture
! terpret the words of the ordinance without nee-- the gist of the diagrams or displays in the min-
` essary regard to the facts of a particular case, utes. The essential point to remember is that a
the interpretation does have recedential value
I P reviewing court must be able to find substantial
and becomes the official interpretation for the evidence in the record for the board's decision;
! 1 zoning enforcement division unless the ordinance if a crucial document or other piece of evidence
! ! is changed by the local governing body or unless is missing, the board's decision cannot be sue-
the board's decision is reversed on appeal. tamed,
! ! In any event, the board's interpretation CONCLUSION
should be explicitly stated as part of the board's
written decisions In the first type of interpre- In summary, boards of adjustment must make a
tation, the board's conclusion can then be re- record of each case that comes before them suE-
viewed by a court to determine whether the find- ficient for a reviewing court to determine,
ings of fact stated by the board lead reasonably without reference to external sources, whether the
to the conclusion reached. In the second type of decision rendered in the particular case can be
interpretation, the board is involved strictly in reconciled with the procedural and substantive
a matter of law, and while the interpretation requirements imposed by law. The record should
placed upon a law by the administrative agency consist of three parts; (1) the written decision,
charged with enforcing it is entitled to due containing a separate statement of the board's
consideration, the reviewing court is still free findings of basic fact, conclusions drawn from
i tci substitute its judgTgnt if it is convinced that those facts, and ordinance interpretations; (2)
the board is in error. the minutes, containing a summary of what happened
at the hearing and what evidence was presented as
The Minutes well as a record of the vote; and (3) a compile-
! Meeting Procedures, While the written deer tion of documentary and other physical evidence.
I sion reveals the results of the hearing before the
board, accurate minutes are necessary to describe
what happened at the meeting that lead up to the "
board's final decision. Consequently, the minutes 1N.C. Gen, Stat, 44 150A-1 through -64.
should 'carefully record all the procedural aspects
of the meeting, such as the number and names of 211-C. Gen, State. 4 150A-2(1),
the board members present, what witnesses were
heard, whether they were sworn, whether parties 3Article 33 of Chapter 143 of the General
were represented by counsel, whether cross-exam- Statutes, "Judicial Review of Decisions of Certain
ination of witnesses was requested and allowed, Administrative Agencies," was held applicable to
and any other event at the hearing that had any local agencies by Jarrell V. Board of Adjustment,
i impact on the outcome. 258 N,C, 476, 128 S.E.2d 879 (1963). See also
"Jamison v. Kyles, 271 N.C. 722, 175 S.E.2d 550
Taking Evidence. Whenever possible, the (1967),
entire meeting should be recorded in order to have
a permanent record of exactly what transpired Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N,C,
concerning the presentation (or proposed pre- 476, 480, 128 S.E.2d 879, 883 (1963), Undoubt-
sentation) of evidence. At a minimum, a1126vi- edly, even though the new Administrative Procedure
dente presented orally should be recorded. The Act is not by its terms applicable to local gov-
minutes need not consist of a transcript of the ernments, its provisions will influence the court
testimony--a narrative summary of what was said is as it decided on a case-by-cane basis what rules
adequate--but a recording is a useful device if a should be applied to board of adjustment pro-
question should arise about the minutes' accuracy. ceedings,
Record of the Vote. The vote of every board
member on every issue should be recorded in the SN.C. Gen. Seat, 4 16DA-388(e}; N.C.. Gen..
minutes. It is most important that this record be Stet• 4 153A-344 5(c).
made accurately since, according to the general 6In re Pine Hill Cemeteries Inc., 219 N.C.
rule, a reviewing court can refuse to listen to 735, 1-5-S.E.2d (1941); Jamison v, Kyles, 271 N.C.
eubeequent allegations th21 the record does not 722, 157 S,E.2d 550 (1967),
reflect the actual tally..
Documentary and Physical Evidence Long v. Board of Adjustment, 22 N.C, App.
Documentary and physical evidence of any kind
191, ju5 ment 807 (1974). Chambers d Board of. admitted by the board at the hearing should be (1959).
Adjustment, 250 N,C. 195, 108 S,E,2d 211
retained and made part of the (1959).
P permanent record of
the case. ' The Administrative Procedure Act pro-
vides that cope2a of documents may be received BN.C. Cen. Stet, § 150A-36.
into evidence, and this practice certainly seems 9
Black s Law Dictionary, 4th ed:
I
I ,
i
V -
rD
V
10 See Green, Functions of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment 15-24 (Xnstitute of Government, 1974).
11 While a variance is granted in the dis-
cretion of the board, that discretion cannot be 4
exercised arbitrarily.
12 While not usually necessary for purposes of
judicial review, it is also good practice to
include in written decision a statement of the
"conditions subsequent" imposed on the successful
variance or special-use applicant -- i.e. , a list
of those additional requirements imposed by the
board (over and above those specified in the
ordinance) in order to safeguard the public health,
safety, and welfare,
13 N,C. Can, Stat. § 150A-36.
14 284 N.C. 458, 470, 202 S.E.2d 129 (1974).
15 Refining Co. V. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
458, 468, 202 S,E.2d 129, 138 (1974), See the
memorandum on The Board of Adjustment Part 2,
Taking Evidence, dated.
16 Harden v. Raleigh, 192 N.C. 395, 135 S.E.
151 (1906).
17 5ee Green, op. cit. supra note 10 at 4,
18 See, e.g., James v. Sutton 229 N.C. 515, 50
S.E.2d 300 (1948).
1110 19 MacPherson v. City of Asheville, 283 N,C.
299, 307, 196 S,E.2d 200, 206 (1973).
20 This is a requirement under the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act, N.C. Cen. Stat, § 150A-
37(b).
21 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, § 16.49
Record of Vote, (1968).
N.C. Gen. Stat, § 153A-29(b).
1110
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
i
2
which the principle was first enunciated, the itancy to testify are not revealed; his
Court held that the existence or nonexistence of motives and bias are not uncovered; his
a nonconforming use was a "crucial" finding of demeanor while testifying cannot be known,
fact, but has never established any criteria for Most important of all, the affient's state-
distinguishing crucial from noncrucial facts, ments cannot be subjected to that searching
i However, it is reasonable to assume that a fact is light of cross-examination which provides the
crucial or critical if: (1) except for the exist- best instrumentality our experience has yet
:J ence of that fact, the board could not reach a devised FoE assessing the true value of
'iiI ' certain conclusion; and (2) the conclusion reached testimony.
i is indispensable to the outcome of the case. The
11 issue of whether proffered evidence relates to a
"crucial" fact can easily be avoided when the Fourth, testimony that ge not made according
evidence is offered in the form of oral testimony co the witness's own knowledge cannot be the sole
1 simply by lacin support for a critical finding of fact. In other
P y y p gall witnesses under oath, and words, unless a witness is recognized as an expert
this seems now to be the customary practice, by the chairman of the board, the witness should
Third, as a not be allowed to tell what he "thinks" or "feels"
general rule, and subject to or "believes," but only what he knows as a fact,
certain exceptions long recognized in courts of In the same way, the board cannot rely upon tes-
law, crucial findings of fact may not be based timony of a witness if it becomes clear that the
upon hearsay evidence alone. Hearsay can be source of the witness's "knowledge" is the state-
defined as a statement not made at the hearing ments of another individual. This requirement is
which the proponent seeks to have admitted as evi- obviously quite closely related to the hearsay
dence of the truth of the matter asserted in that rule. For this reason, an attorney should not be
, statement, In other words, if an ordinance pro- allowed to "testify" for his client as to factual
j vides that before a board can grant a special-use matters about which he has only secondhand know-
permit, it must find that the use will not have an ledge (although he can make arguments about any of
adverse impact on neighboring properties, the these matters).
following items all constitute hearsay, even if
they are otherwise relevant and material; (1) a Beyond these four basic considerations lies a
statement by the applicant that he consulted all whole sea of evidentiary questions that eventually
of his neighbors, and all said that they favored must be explored by litigation or chartered by
his application; (2) letters by the applicant's legislation. In the meantime, boards of adjust--
neighbors stating that they favor the proposed went should be guided by the following general
use; and (3) sw3rn affidavits by the neighbors to principles: (1) the most reliable evidence prac-
the same effect, The factual matter at issue in ticably available should always be obtained, and
each case is the existence of objections to peti- the more crucial the fact in question the more '
tioner's application on the part of his neighbors, important this requirement; and (2) in any event.
The proffered statement, letters, and affidavits only evidence of a kind relied upon by reasonable
are all hearsay because the proponent seeks to use men in the conduct of their own important affairs
the words of the neighbors themselves to prove his should ever be considered.
point, but those words were not uttered at the •
hearing. When in Doubt, Admit the Evidence
Although the guidelines differentiating
Hearsay of this type cannot be used as the competent from incompetent evidence are somewhat
sole foundation for crucial findings of fact by hazy, boards of adjustment can take some comfort
the board because it is regarded by the law as from the doctrine generally recognized in North
inherently unreliable. The following statement by Carolina that the decision of an administrative
the State Court of Appeals concerning affidavits board will not be reversed simply because the
(probably the most reliable of the three types of board admitted incompetent evidence as long as
hearsay mentioned here) indicates some of the there is sufficient competent evidence An the
reasons why hearsay of this type is suspect: record to support the findings of fact. However,
the existence of this doctrine emphasizes the need
Although made under oath, an affidavit is for the board to make specific findings of fact,
inherently weak as a method of proof. It is for if the board were allowed to state only gen-
prepared without notice and under circum- eral conclusions, in all probability it would be
stances which afford ample opportunity to relatively easy to find sufficient competent
lead the witness; it normally includes only evidence in the record to support these general
matters deemed helpful by the party who conclusions, and this would make a mockery of the
prepares it, omitting all matters deemed principle that only competent evidence should be
detrimental; it may be entirely true as far considered by the board. As a result, courts
as it goes, and yet constitute the misrep- might find it necessary to require boards to make
resentation of a half-truth because of mat- difficult decisions on the admissibility of evi-
tars omitted, The source and extent of the dance, with errors in judgment penalized by re-
af£iant's knowledge of the facts concerning versa'. Therefore, it appears that when there is
which he swears are seldom adequately die- reasonable doubt as to whether a matter conati-
closed; any weakness in his memory or hes- tutee admissible evidence, the board should let
1
i
I
A
e � 3
the matter into the record, but it should elan be reliability of certain types of evidence. In
certain to make specific findings of fact. In courts of law, where a dispute usually involves
�� this way, a party who feels aggrieved by the the rights of private litigants only and the
admission of allegedly incompetent evidence will burden of protecting his own interests can fairly
have a fair opportunity:to obtain relief if he can be placed upon each contending party, this result
demonstrate in court that except for the allegedly is not necessarily pernicious. But unlike the i
incompetent evidence, there is not sufficient private lawsuit, in board of adjustment proceed-
evidence in the record to support a "crucial" ings the public interest is always involved, and
finding of fact (as that term is described above). no one can waive the public's right to see that
the applicant meets his burden of proof by corn-
When Evidence Is Excluded petent evidence. Consequently, even though no one
If the board has no doubt that a matter is objects to the admissibility of certain types of
inadmissible as evidence and decides to exclude evidence, the responsibility remains with the
it, it should offer the proponent of the evidence board to see that clearly incompetent evidence is
the opportunity to include in the record some sort excluded.
of statement as to what the evidence would have
shown if it had been admitted. In this way, a If the board requires the applicant to meet
reviewing court will be able to determine not only his burden of proof with competent evidence only,
whether the evidence was improperly excluded but it is hardly fair to the applicant, who quite
also, if an error occurred, whether the proponent frequently is unrepresented by counsel, to allow
was prejudiced by the error, the doctrine of waiver to work against him. In
addition, the North Carolina Supreme Court has
Waiver of Objections to Admissibility of Evidence stated that when a petitioner has produced suf-
The question next arises whether the board ficient competent evidence to establish the exist-
should exclude evidence on its own initiative or ence of the facts and conditions required for the
whether it should exclude evidence only when some issuance for the permit, he is entitled to the
participant at the hearing has objected. The permit unless a denial can reasonably be based
answer involves a consideration of the doctrine of upon sufficient competent evidence in the reco n!
waiver. As a general principle of evidence, at that tends to contradict the applicant's case.
least as the rules are applied in a court of law, Consequently, the board should exclude obviously
a party waives his right to have incompetent incompetent evidence offered in opposition to the
evidence excluded in most instances simply by application, even when the petitioner fails to
failing to raise a timely objection to the admis object to it,
sibility of the evidence. Some carry-over of this
doctrine into the field of local administrative Consideration of Natters Not
ID law is indicated by the North Carolina Supreme Presented in Evidence by Hearing Participants_
Court's statements in two cases and its holding in In some cases, one or more board members may
a third to the effect that a party to a hearing be aware of matters that are relevant to the
can waive his right to hove only sworn testimony petitioner's application. For example, it is a
considered by the board. However, there appear common practice for at least one board member to
to be ample reasons why the waiver doctrine should make an on-site inspection of the piece of prop-
be limited to the facts of the one case in which erty involved in the petitioner's application
it was actually applied (in which the court held before the hearing. Occasionally, the entire
that an applicant for a variance who failed to board may view the property in question as well as
request at the hearing that opposing witnesses be the surrounding area. When this is done, the
sworn and who testified himself without being board may properly consider the information so
sworn waived his right to object on appeal to tI5 gained, as long as the board member explains at
admission of the opponents' unsworn testimony), the hearing exactly what information he believes
the board has obtained from the inspection. In
The reasons that the doctrine of waiver this way, a participant in the hearing will have
should not apply to board of adjustment hearings the opportunity to counter the board's information
stem from the differences between the nature of with additional evidence and argument, and a re-
these proceedings and true adjudicatory proceed- viewing court will have before it the entire mass
ings in courts of law or some state administrative of evidence consic Bred by the board in making its
agencies. Io begin, while opposing points of view findings of fact.
may be presented at board of adjustment meetings,
they are not truly'adversary proceedings since Substantial Evidence
usually there is only one formal party to the Not only must the board consider only corn-
hearing--the applicant. In many cases, no one petent evidence, but also it must have in front of
will appear to oppose the application. Even when it substantial competent evidence gedfore it can
parties opposing the application do appear, they make a particular finding of fact, for a re-
frequently are unrepresented by counsel and con- viewing court applies quantitative as well as
sequently are not in a position to object to the qualitative criteria in assessing the results of
evidence. If lack of objection were always held the board's deliberations. In the recent Refining
to constitute a waiver, then in these cases the Co. V. Board of Aldermen case, the Board explicitly
applicant could meet his burden of proof in total refused to establish a definitive yardstick
disregard of accepted principles concerning the against which to measure "substantial" evidence.
ill
Instead, it contented itself with a reaffirmation 'Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
of the following description, taken from several 458, 470, 202 S,.E.2d 129, 137 (1974),
U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
2258 N.C. 476, 481, 128 S.E.2d 879, 883
"Substantial evidence is more than a mere (1963),
scintilla. it means such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 3N.C. Gen. Stat. 5 150A-29(a).
to support a conclusion," It "must do more
than create the suspicion of the existence of 4Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C.
the fact to be established.,,.It must be 476, 128 S.E,2d 879 (1963).
enough to justify, if the trial were to a
jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the SId,
conclusion sought to bg4drawn from it is one
of fact for the jury.." 66 N,C. App. 375, 170 S.E.2d 84 (1969).
In other words, if reasonable minds could draw 7lhis principle is an adaptation of 5 10(1)
different conclusions from the same evidence, a of the Uniform Law Commissions revised Model
reviewing court will defer to the judgment of the State Administrative Procedure Act, 1970 version.
board; only when the court finds that the board
could not reasonably have made a particular find- 8Blalock v. City of Durham, 244 N.C. 208, 92
ing of fact based upon the competent evidence S,E,2d 922 (1956). Campbell v. Board of Alcoholic
in the record will it reverse the board for lack Control, 263 N.C. 224, 139 S,E.2d 197 (1964),
of substantial evidence,
9"Absent stipulations or waiver such a board
It is important to note in this regard that may not base findings as to the existence or
the board is required to look at all the competent nonexistence of crucial facts upon unsworn state-
evidence in the record before determining whether ments." Refining Co_ v. Board of Aldermen, 285
there is substantial evidence to make a particular N.C. 458, 470, 202 S,E,2d 129, 137 (1974).
finding of fact. The substantial evidence require-
ment is not automatically satisfied by the intro- 10Craver v. Board of Adjustment, 267 N.C. 40,
duction of some evidence that, if believed, would 147 S.E.2d 599 (1966).
support the finding, In some cases, for example,
dubious evidence on one side of a factual issue 1 1
may be so outweighed by overwhelming, extremely Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
credible evidence on the other side that a court 458, 468, 202 S.E.2d 129, 236 (1974). For further
looking at the record as a whole would be forced discussion of this point, see Part 3 of this ser-
to conclude that the board could legitimately ies, the section entitled "Burden of Proof."
resolve the factual question in only one fashion.
CONCLUSION 12Id.
In summary, boards of adjustment must be 131d, at 470, 202 S.E.2d at 137 (1974),
conscious of the fact that they are dealing with 14
property rights that are every bit as important as Id. at 471, 202 S.E.2d at 137 (1974),
those resolved in courts of law. Consequently,
they must make every effort, consistent with the
necessarily informal nature of the hearings, to
make certain that the evidence considered is the
most reliable that can reasonably be obtained
under the circumstances. More particularly,
boards should consider unsworn testimony, hearsay,
and other types of secondhand information only
when no other evidence can reasonably be obtained.
Finally, boards must include in the record spe-
cific findings of fact so that a reviewing court
can determine whether a party has been prejudiced
by the admission of incompetent evidence.
fill i ilium I, 1 II 1111111111111111 11111liiilil111111111111111111111111111111I11111111111I1111
I, 1ul 1 it 11 11 llI II II
II IIIIjI1 i Iii III 11'IJJ IIII 1 II I1I11 IIIIl11
11 111111 iiIiIi 11 +Illli I '. .,.. II .c .i 1 ZONING
IIi11 IlI III 1 1111111
III II tl I III ,Ili I I It I hhY No, 6 (1975)
II II `i i 'IIII i I III HII Ii II I,i�IIi .
. I 111111111111111111II111111111111111111111111III lili111111IIi1111111IIIIIIllliiIll
PROCURES OF THE 13OARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PART 3 CON DUO INC A I INN RINK;
MICHAEL 'ROUGH grand and petit juries from its coverage, as well
as "(a]11 State agencies, commissions or boards
This Is the third of a three-part series of exercising quasi-judicial functions during any
memoranda dealing with the quasi-judicial pro- meeting or session held solely for the purpose of
ceedings of boards of adjustment. Part 1 deals making a decision in an adjudicatory action or
with the nature of the record of the proceedings. proceeding." However, since an earlier section
It also contains a general introduction to the of the law recognizes the separate viatence of
series, discussing such matters as the reasons "State, county, city and municipal" commissions
boards of adjustment are considered quasi-judicial and boards, it would be difficult to argue that
agencies and the sources of the rules imposed on the exemption for state quasi-judicial agencies
such boards. Part 2 examines what types of evi- also applies to local boards of adjustment.
dance are admissible at board hearings. Ihis Consequently until the law is changed, the de-
memorandum covers some remaining questions con- liberations of boards of adjustment must remain
cerning the conduct of board hearings. open to the public.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS Locally Adopted Procedural Rules
Many cities and counties, acting pursuant to
In General authority granted by general law or local. act,
With the one exception noted immediately have adopted their own rules and regulations
below, all of the procedural requirements ap- governing the procedures that boards of adjustment
plicable to board hearings are judicially imposed. must follow. It is critical that boards be aware
The central thread that tics all of the require- of the following statement of the State Supreme
ments together is the due process notion that a court:
proceeding that affects property rights must be
"fair" in all respects; or, as the North Carolina The procedural rules of an administrative
Supreme Court recently said: "[The board] can agency are binding upon the agency which
dispensrl with no essential element of a fair enacts them as as well as upon the public....
trial" Although most of the requirements dis- To be valid the action of the agency must
cussed below are based on this principle, many conform to its rules which are in effect at
questions surrounding the translation of this the time the action is taken, particularly
principle into concrete rules must await reso- those designed to provide procedural safe-
lution in future cases. guards for fundamental rights." [Citation
omitted.] In no other way can an applicant
Qpen Meetings Law he accorded due process and equal protection,
The only procedural requirement imposed by or the [board( refute a charge that their
state atatute1on meetings of local administrative denial of a permit constituted an arbitrary
bodies such as boards of adjustment is that the and unwarrantedbdiscrimination against a
meetings of such boards be open to the2public in property owner.
accordance with the Open Meetings Law. A strong
argument can be made that boards ought to be able Parties
to meet in executive session in order to weigh the The city and county zoning enabling acts
evidence before making findings of basic fact.. provide that "any person aggrieved" by the deci-
After all, when acting in this capacity, the board sion of the zoning enforcempt officer may appeal
is acting much like a jury, and our tradition is to the board of adjustment. Obviously, the owner
to have such deliberation shielded from public of the property involved can appeal an adverse
scrutiny. The Open Meetings Law does exclude decision to the board. In addition, the language
2 ,\
"person aggrieved" is broad enough to include a Right to Present Evidence
neighbor who believes that a permit was errone- The State Supreme Court has held that a party
ously granted under the ordinance, As indicated to a board of adjustment hearing must be allowed
in Part 2 of this series, a property owner who to present evidence to meet his burden of proof
applies for a variance or special-use permit is and must also be permitted to pment evidence by
the only formal party to such a proceeding, though way of explanation or rebuttal. But this right
i, other interested individuals may participate at is not unlimited. Clearly, the board is not
1 the hearing. required to listen to evidence that is incompetent
(as that term is explained in Part 2 of this
' A question has arisen in several North series),1IIrrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repe-
Carolina cases as to whether a person who has only titious. Evidence is irrelevant if it has no
an option to buy a certain piece of property has reasonable tendency to prove or disprove a point
standing to appeal from an adverse decision of a at issue, For example, evidence that all the past
zoning administrator or to apply for a variance or ventures of a builder have been successful is
special-use permit. the North Carolina Court has irrelevant if the issue is whether the plans for a
resolved the issue by holding that a mere option -particular development comply with the specifi--
holder does not have standing but a prospective cations of the ordinance. This is a rather
purchaser who has conditionally exercised his technical doctrine with which boards of adjustment
option (the contingency being a successful appeal need nor be much concerned. The concept of mate-
to the board or successful application for a riality is more important. Evidence is immaterial
variance or special-use permit) doee have stand- if it does not bear upon one of the issues. in the
ing. Obviously, persons with interests in the case. For example, evidence of personal or
property more remote than those of an optionre, or family hardships in a variance application is
persons with no legal interest whatever in the immaterial because a variance can be granted only
property, cannot properly seek permits from the on the bases of hardships that stem from the
board. application of the ordinance to the land. Evi-
dence that is merely repetitious may be excluded
Notice simply on the pragmatic basis that meetings have
In proceedings before boards of adjustment, to end, decisions eventually have to be made, and
notice to the parties is seldom a problem because evidential or argumentative overkill does not help
in most cases the only party to the action is the the fact-finder reach more accurate conclusions.
individual making application to the board, One
rare exception might occur when a neighbor appeals Burden of Proof
the issuance of a zoning permit to a property The burden of proof includes both the bur-
owner on the basis that the zoning administrator den of producing evidence and the burden of per-
misinterpreted the ordinance and the ordinance suasion. The burden of producing evidence is the
! actually prohibits the use for which the permit obligation of an applicant to bring sufficient
was granted. In such a case, the property owner evidence before the board of adjustment to allow
to whom the y it to find in his favor on a particular issue. In
permit was issued would be a would bar the case of an application for a variance or s e-
party to the appeal by the neighbor and would have Pp P
to be notified of the appeal. Another deviation cial use permit, this means that he must produce
from the norm occurs when a lessee makes appli sufficient evidence to allow the hoard reasonably
cation to the board, In this type of case, good to conclude that the conditions precedent to the
land be
issuance of the permit have been Satisfied. When
practice $ictates that the owner of the land
notified, he has carried this burden the applicant is said
to have made out a prima facie case. According
Usually, however, the only issue is whether to the common understanding of this term, the
notice of the appeal or application to the board trier of fact is authorized but not compelled to
must be given to the public or to neighboring find in fav��r of the party establishing the prima
landowners. The city and county zoning enabling facie case.
acts are silent on this question, although it
appears that most ordinances do require that some The burden of persuasion also lies with the
form of notice be given (most frequently newspaper applicant. Thus, if the applicant's opponents
notice) announcing a public hearing on variance introduce evidence that is as persuasive as his
and special-use permit applications. Perhaps the evidence, the applicant loses. In other words,
best practice is to provide in the ordinance that a tie goes to the party that does not have the
newspaper notice only (similar to Me notice burden of persuasion,
requirement for zoning amendments) must be given
for all special-use permit and variance appli- In Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, the
cations, leaving to the discretion of the zoning court made a statement that is certain to cause
1 enforcement officials the determination of when a confusion on the issue of the burden of producing
more direct form of notice ought to be sent to evidence:
property owners immediately affected by the pro-
posed variance or special use. When an applicant has produced competent,
material, and substantial evidence tending
1
!
I
ors
i
/ /
to establish the existence of the facts and Sore active/role in the hearings before them than
/ conditions which the ordinance requires for Judges ordinarily take in judicial proceedings;
( the issuance of a special use permit, prima they should be impartial, but not impassive.
u m t he hiou f l coond d o on ttrha e
VoCi eitbe
which are supported by competent, material, In virtually identical language, both the
and sub evidence a antial evid
( appearing in the city and county enabling acts provide:
5a3 record.
[I]he concurring vote of four fifths of the
This statement may cause difficulty for two reasons: members of the board shall be necessary to
First, the court uses the term prima facie in a reverse any order, requirement, decision, or
manner inconsistent with the accepted meaning of determination of an administrative official
the term as explained above. It appears from the charged with the enforcement of an ordinance
'' court's statement that if the applicant produces adopted pursuant to this Article, or to '
` sufficient evidence to authorize the board to find decide in favor of the applicant any matter
in his favor, the board must do so unless evidence upon which it is required to pass under any
tending to counteract his case is introduced by ordinance, or to grant a variance from the
local planning officials, the board members them- provisions of the ordinance.
selves, or other interested parties, Second, the
very concept of establishing a prima facie case Note that the statute requires a four-fifths
may have less meaning in the context of proceed- vote of the board membership and not merely the
ings before a board of adjustment than it does in members present,
a court of law because of the nature of the find-
ings the board is called upon to make. As Part 1 while the required majority must participate
of this series explains, before granting or deny- in the decision, the Court has indicated that not
log a variance or a special-use permit, the board every member voting to make up the four- fifths
must reach conclusions that involve a considerable majorityl�ust actually have been present at the
exercise of judgment, For example, one finding hearing, In one case in which the board men-
the board was required to make before issuing a bership changed between the date of the hearing
special-use permit in the Refining Co. case was and the time when the vote on a special-use permit
that "the location and character of the use if de- was taken, the Court held that "the changes in
veloped according to the plan as submitted members Hp did not break the continuity o
6 t d and of t
P Y the
Board," The n
approved will be e ew men
1 e in harmo members iy PP n ith the had act
t e area in which access to the
it is to be located, ,yl It is not at all minutes and records of the hearings, and so no
clear how one establishes a prima facie case on infirmity was found in the proceedings. According
such an issue when the very definition of what is to the logic of this decision, it might be per-
0 harmonious may vary from board member to board missible for only one member of the board to
member. Virtually any factual representation actually hear the evidence so long as the required
an applicant might make could be construed to majority has access to the record of the hearing
support a finding that the proposed use will be and participates in the decision. Such a prac-
in harmony with its surroundings. And conversely, Lice, however, might push judicial tolerance to
almost anything the applicant proposed could be the breaking point. In any event, the issue is
construed to be inharmonious, depending on one's avoided in many local units by ordinances or board
definition. The point is that when findings in- rules establishing a quorum requirement of four-
volve the exercise of considerable judgment and fifths (or in some cases even higher) of the
discretion, the rule that an applicant who es- membership of the board.
tablishes a prima facie case is entitled to the
permit may be extremely difficult to apply, An essential element of a fair hearing is
that the decision be made by an impartial tri-
Crosa-examination bunal,. This means that in certain circumstances,
Cross-examination of adverse witnesses is a board member may have to disqualify himself from
another right found by the North Carolina Court to participation in a particular case if his vote
be fundamenigl to a fair hearing before a board of could be challenged on the basis of bias, pre-
judice, or other conflict of interest, However,
adjustment. In many cases, particularly when a
party is not represented by counsel, no attempt is an important countervailing factor is the four-
made to take advantage of this right. However, If fifths vote requirement, As a result of this
a participant at a hearing expresses a desire to requirement, a board member who removes himself
question a witness presenting adverse evidence, from a case not only neutralizes whatever pre-
the board must give him or his attorney every fair judicial impact his own participation might
opportunity to do so, have but also (unless an alternate member is
readily available to take his place) greatly
If no participant at the hearing makes any increases the risk that the board will not be able
attempt to cross-examine witnesses, the board to muster the necessary quorum to take affirmative
itself has some duty to satisfy itself of the action. In effect, one sort of bias is exchanged
accuracy of the testimony by asking whatever for another, Also where the doctrine of self-
questions it believes suitable under the cir- disqualification is liberally interpreted and
cumstances. Board members may properly take a frequently invoked, a tendency sometimes develops
IP
i
4, , /
to avoid making difficulE or politically unpopular 9For purposes of determining whether the
decisions by resort to this technique. Conse- applicant (lessee) is entitled to the relief he
quently, in order to give recognition to the seeks, the terms of the lease relating to re-
concept that a fair hearing requires an impartial strictions on the use of the property are not
board while avoiding abuse of the practice of relevant, just as restrictive covenants in deeds
diaqualificagon, boards of adjustment should have no bearing upon how the zoning enforcement
adopt a rule stating that no member of the board officer enforces the ordinance. In other words, a
may be eriused from voting except when immediate lessee should not be denied a permit simply be-
personal or financial interests preclude im- cause his application is opposed by the property
partial, consideration of the issues involved, owner. The legal relationship between the lessor
Such a rule should also provide that in all other and lessee is a matter of private concern. None-
& cases, a failure to vote by a member who is pre- thelesa, it is good practice to notify the owner.
sent at the meeting place or has withdrawn without
being excused by a majority vote of the remaining 10See N.C. Gen. Stat, 5 160A-364 and N.C.
members present shall be counted as an affirmative Gen. Stet, 5 153A-323.
vote,
11Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N,C,
CONCLUSION 458, 470, 202 S.E.2d 129, 137 (1974).
Neither this memorandum alone nor this three- 12The Administrative Procedure Act provides
part series taken as a whole is in any way an that "In all contested cases, irrelevant, im-
exhaustive treatment of the principles of admin- material, and unduly repetitious evidence shall be
istrative law as applied to local quasi-judicial excluded." N.C. Gen.. Stat. 5 153A-29(a).
agencies like the boards of adjustment, Even-
tually, a state law may be enacted specifying 13Stanbury, 2 North Carolina Evidence § 201
rules of procedure for local agencies, much as the at 130 (Brandis rev. 1973).
Administrative Procedure Act has codified pro-
cedures for state agencies, In the meantime, this 14Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N,C.
three-part series of memoranda may help boards of 458, 468, 202 $.E.2d 129, 136 (1974).
adjustment interpret some of the hazy guidelines
established by the courts. 15 Id. at 466, 202 S.E.2d at 135.
F 16Id. at 470, 202 S.E.2d at 137.
17N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-388(e); N,C. Gen.
Stat. 5 153A-345(e).
18Brannock v. Board of Adjustment, 262 N.C.
426, 132 S.E.2d 758 (1963).
'Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
458, 470, 202 S,E,2d 129, 137 (1974). 19Id. at 427, 132 S.E.2d at 759 (1963).
2N.C. Gen. Stat. 55 143-318.1 through 318.7. 20A similar rule pertaining to city governing
bodies is written into the General Statutes at
3N.C. Gen. Stet, § 143-•318.4. N.C, Gen. Stat. § 160A-75.
4N.C. Gan. Scat. 5 143-318.2, 21...
here the applicant belongs to the board
member's immediate family or is a close relative,
SN,C. Gen. Stat. 15 160A-381, 388(b) and (c); disqualification might be in order. However, a
N,C. Cen. Stat. 55 153A-340, 345(b) and (c), board member should not disqualify himself merely
because the applicant is a friend or acquaintance.
6Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C.
458, 467-68, 202 S.E.2d 129, 135 (1974).
7N,C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-388(b); N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 153A-345(b). Note that this discussion of
appeals refers only to appeals to the board, and
not to appeals to the courts of action taken by
the Board.
BRefining Company v. Board of Aldermen, 284
N.C. 458, 464, 202 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1974).
•
59 C
AGENDA ATTACEMIT 6
k
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Division of Facility Services
JAMES 0 HUNT.JR.
GOVERNO4 P.0.BOX 12200 RALEIGH 27605 I.0 WILKERSON.JR.
DiRScTOR
TLUM4DNE
SARA:1 T MORROW.MD MPH.
VECRET.AT September 9, 1981 (919)733-4560
Mr. C. D. Knight, Sheriff
Orange County Sheriff's Department
125 Court Street
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear Sheriff Knight:
On August 27, 1981 Mr. C. W. Wilson, Jail Consultant from the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, inspected the Orange County jail. Enclosed is
a copy of the inspection report for your attention. Immediate action should
be initiated as soon as possible to correct any deficiencies cited in the report.
In forMulating any plans for corrective action, it is of extreme importance that
Items E3, E5, £7, E8, E10, E12, and E13, Fire Safety, receive priority since any
deficiencies in these areas could produce potentially life threatening situations.
Deficiencies in the above mentioned areas, when uncorrected, could also pose a
threat to the health, safety, and well being of those confined.
If I or any member of the Jail and Detention staff may be of assistance to you
concerning this or any detention matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
7A917:424-4
Thomas A. Ritter, Acting Head
Jail and Detention Branch
TAR:ssm
Enclosure
cc: Ms,,.Anne Barnes, Chairperson, Orange County Board of Comnissioners
Bill Laws, Acting Orange County Manager
•
59i . .
. . ,
- . .
- _
685 .
. .. .
YS-7 023
‘1.)-ev. 6/81)
LOCAL CONFINEMENT FACILITY SEMIANNUAL INSPECTION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES
JAIL AND DETENTION BRANCH
Post Office Box 12200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Inspection Date August 27, 1981 Time 1:00 p.m.
Facility Orange County Jail County Orange
Address 125 Court St., HillshOrOugh, N.C.
Sheriff/Chief of Police C. D. "Buck" Knight
Chief Jailer John Irwin Capacity 24 Date Built 1925
No. of Confinement Levels 2 Total Jail Staff 4 Jailers: Male 4 Female 0
Staff on Duty: Male 1 Female 0 Inmates Confined: Male 22 Female 0
Facilfty Staff Schedule: 8-hour shifts X 12-hour shifts Other
1A shift 8:00 am - 4:00 pm 1 male
2nd shift 4:00 pm - 12:00 am . 1 male
3rd shift 12:00 am - 8:00 am 2 males
STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES OR INADEQUATE PROGRAM SERVICES IN THIS BLOCK
o may jeopardize the safe custody, safety, health, or welfare of persons con- •
,
. m fined in the facility and thus result in an immediate order for corrective A
1 7 action or closure as provided in G.S. 153A-223. The governing body shall P
1.1 i consider the entire report at the first regular meeting after receipt of ?
'.-. the 'report and shall promptly initiate any action necessary to bring the
n
facility i
c nto conformity with the standards as provided by G. S. 153A-222. ' 3
e
A. SUPERVISION 1
Continuous supervision is provided to the following types of inmates as required
by G.S. 153A-224, Section .1500 of the North Carolina Minimum Standards for the
Operation of Local Confinement Facilities:
1. Adult Males . v
I 2. Adult Females (must be supervised only by female Jailers r-
1- 3. Juvenile Males (must be supervised only by male jailers
I . 4, Juvenile Females (must be supervised onlyb female 'ailers
B. MEDICAL CARE
The unit has a written medical plan properly posted which functions effectively
as required by G.S. 153A-225 and Section .1800 of the North Carolina Minimum
Standards for the Operation of Local Confinement Facilities. v
._ 4.
C. SANITATION
The sanitation of the unit is maintained in accordance with rules and regulations
adopted under G.S. 153A-226 to effectively protect the health of inmates and
public.
D. FOOD SERVICE
The diet is adequate as required by Section .1700 of the North Carolina Minimum
Standards for the Operation of Local Confinement Facilities.
59
686
: S-7O23
ev. 6/61)
".2.age. 2
- C STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES OR INADEQUATE PROGRAM SERVICES IN THIS BLOCK
may jeopardize the safe custody, safety, health, or welfare of persons con-
fined in the facility and thus result in an immediate order for corrective I P
- 1 action or closure as provided in G. S. 153A-223. The governing body shall
1
n
consider the entire report at the first regular meeting after receipt of
a a
the report and shall promptly initiate any action necessary to bring the
facility into conformity with the standards as provided by G. S. 153A-222.
E. FIRE SAFETY
1. There are at least two complete sets of facility and emergency exit keys
as required by Section .1401, Paragraph a , of the Minimum Jail Standards.
(There are 2 . sets of keys in the facility.)
X
2. One complete set of facility and emergency exit keys not in use is stored
in a safe place but accessible to supervisory personnel for use in an
emergency as required by Section .1401, paragraph b, of the Minimum Jail
Standards.
3, Approved, permanently identified mattresses in good condition are pro-
X vided as required by Section .1412 of the Minimum Jail Standards.
4. Sufficient fire extinguishers are available as required by Section .1413-
.1415 of the Minimum Jail Standards.
, X
--------
5. Fire extinguishers bear a current inspection tag and are maintained in a
fully charged and operable condition as required by Sections .1416 and
.1417 of the Minimum Jail Standards.
6. Means of egress in sufficient number comply with N.C. Building Code and
G.S. 69-12 for each level.
7. Emergency exit doors are approved type, keyed to both sides, are func-
x tional, and comply with N.C. Building Code,
9. The confinement facility is of fire-resistive construction materials and
unattached to any structure of less than fire-resistive construction
unless separated by an approved fire wall as specified by the N.C.
X Building Code.
9, There is a plan for the emergency evacuation of inmates as required by
Section .1506, Paragraph a, of the Minimum Jail Standards. X
10. The facility has a master fire plan posted as required by Section .1506,
X Paragraph a, of the Minimum Jail Standards.
11. Jailers have been trained in the use of fire fighting equipment as re-
.
quired by Section .1506, Paragraph b, of the Minimum Jail Standards.
12. Fire drills are conducted at least quarterly and recorded as required by
X Section .1506, Paragraph b, of the Minimum Jail Standards.
13. Sufficient number of smoke detectors with automatic audible alarm and
test capability, in operating condition, to monitor all inmate occupied
X areas, as required by Section -1419 of the Minimum Jail Standards.
1
59
687
r
. .
37:3-7023
(Rev. 6/S1)
Pe 3
/_.
-c?f
u
w 1:74/ ,
u g •
tr7 . "'
ct 0
8-
cD
44 -'
j-5, 44 0 r!".'
.`: "^- ,.....
1. Construction Materials as Required by Minimum Standards
A. Paint
B. Bunks . I X 1_X 4 .
C. Floors • I I '
D. Ialls -I
E. Ceilings
F. Windows ______,_±...iLL__,
G. Security Screens ________;__I 1 • 1 I '
H. Doors and Integral Locks . X 1 I
I. Dayroom Equipment . I ,
J. Steel Grating IX X = ,
K. Wiring and Electrical Fixtures I t
L. Safety Vestibules LX i
M. Multiple Door Locking Mechanisms with Mechanical Override X ...X-L.......,
N. F]oor Drains Accessible to Inmates are Provided with Secure
Fasteners X_ i
..._....
2. Grouping of Prisoners ; 1
A. Segregation of Females (G.S. 153A-228, G.S. 14-261, Minimum I I
Standards)
B. Segregation of Juveniles (G.S. 153A-221.1, Minimum Standards) ---1-1—1
3. Safety and Security Features i
A. Local Fire Department Has Been Requested to Inspect Facility In
Its Fire Prevention Inspection Program X I
B. Mirrors Comply With Standards X X
C. Safety-Type Razors for Shaving are Provided ,i■ 7-1
D. Visiting Areas are in Compliance with Standard Requirements I I
E. Conference Area is Provided for Attorneys and Clergymen I IX '--
F. Medical Clinic Area is Provided
G. Booking Area Provides Proper Security I IX .
H. All Locks are Kept in Good Working Order =rn
I. Heat, Lights, Windows, or Controls are Not Accessible to Prisoners X I I j
J. Security Section Doors are Kept Locked I X j
K. Facility is Hazard Free X ....j
4. Space Utilization
A. Approved Holding Area is Provided and Proper]. Equi ped
B. Plan is Provided to Handle Excess Population Should
Overcrowded X owded Conditions Exist in the Facility •
C. Overcrowding Does Not Occur X I .1
... , . _ • *7":.7'77,1,7.7 '7.:. " '7 ' ' -
.-..
• .
:-.•
688
'7S-7023
6/8I)
Fegc 4
C E
0, 0
t? g4
5. Structural Arrangements and Accommodations
A. Single Cells Conform in Size to Minimum Standards X
B. Multiple Cells Conform in Size to Minimum Standards
C. Cell Areas Utilizing a Common Dayroom Do Not Exceed
Multiples of twenty-four (24) Persons IX
D. If Facility Has Dormitory-Type Confinement, Size Conforms to
Standards
No More Than Sixteen (16) Persons are Held in Any Dormitory 1
E. Facility Has Sufficient:
1. Number of Commodes
1 XX 1
2. Number of Lavatories X
3. Sanitary Drinking Water iX I
4. Number of Showers I X X 1
5. Tempered Water X
6. Dayroom Space jI X J
F. Sufficient Storage Space is Provided XI
6. Heat, Light and Ventilation
A. Heat (Type: Steam ) is Adequate X
-
B. Ventilation (Type:• Natural-Fan ) is Adequate jX -- I
C. Lighting (Artificial X Natural X ) is Adequate X 1
T. Personal Hygiene and Comfort
A. Clean and Adequate Bedding is Provided X
B. Necessary Towels and Soap for Bathing are Provided 111111111111
C. Juveniles are Provided Toothpaste, Toothbrush, Soap, Towels,
Bedding and Combs EMI
D. Adequate Laundry Services are Provided IX
8. Medical Care
A. Supervisors Understand Responsibility and Requirements in
Submitting Death Reports X
B. The Mentally Ill are Properly Observed and Expeditiously
Transferred to a Medical Facility X
C. Inmates with Infectious or Contagious Diseases are Segregated X „,
9. Food and Sanitation
A. If Food is not. Prepared at the Facility, Food Catering is
Handled by Written Agreement as Prescribed
B. Prisoners are Provided Three 3 Adequate Meals Per Day X
C. Diet and Meal Schedule are in Compliance with Minimum Standards X
D. Zitclien Appears Clean and Sanitary *X I ,
• - 7,7.5 77777
. •
.. ,.„
•.
59z.
683
.7S-7023
':ev. 6/81)
:-,ge 5
.t) .
tit 'I.
C 0
g c,
44 44 0
4-e 0
9. Continued 44
E. Kitchen Equipment is.Adequate
F. Clean-'-up Stations and E.ukoment are Provided MIN
-
G. Jail Appears to be Clean and Sanitary 11111.1
H. Sanitation Inspection Recommended: Yes No
I. Reports are Submitted as Prescribed (G.S. 108-81). - --X
10. Are there any plans for new construction or major renovation: Yes
If yes, describe:
11. Name(s) of Person(s) Contacted: Major Bobby McCullock, Jail Administrator and
Deputy Sheriff William T. King
12. Comments: NO ENTRY INDICATES ITEM NOT APPLICABLE
Sheriff Knight has stated that he is aware of his responsibilities
under the Federal Civil Rights Act regarding segregation by race.
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
(1),1
Jail Earisiril&n'e- A
-Distribution:
Ms. Anne Barnes, Chairperson, Orange County Board of Commissioners
Mr. Bill Laws, Acting Orange County Manager
-0 V E R-
- • t. :
-'-'•
. .
„....
•.
•
591
. .
INSPECTION REPORT COMMIS
Orange County Jail
August 27, 1981
Item E,3: Need to provide approved, permanently identified mattresses.
Item E,5: Fire extinguishers need to bear a current inspection tag.
item E,7: Repair emergency exit door lock so that it functions for both
sides.
Item E,8: Not in Compliance.
Item E,10: Draft a master fire plan and post.,
Item E,12: Conduct fire drills quarterly and record.
Item E,13: Install required smoke detectors.
Item 1,B: Two (2) cells have movable bunks.
Item 1,D,E: Some deterioration on first level.
Item 1,F: Non-detention sashes with breakable glass.
Item 1,1: No table or combination unit in dayroom.
Item 1,J: Severe deterioration at ceiling level on first floor.
Item 1,K: Non-security type fixtures; some bulbs need protective covers.
Item I,L: No safety vestibules.
Item 1,M: Not functional.
Item 3,B: Install additional mirrors.
Item 3,D: Visitation takes place in inspection corridors.
Item 3,E: Empty cells are used, privacy may not be afforded.
Item 3,F: No clinic area.
Item 3,G: Non-security area used for booking.
Item 3,H: Several locks are not operable.
Item 3,J: Security-section door to upper level unlocked.
Item 5,B: Not in compliance.
Item 5,E(1)(2): Replace or repair.
Item 5,E(4): Shower drain covers needed; severe deterioration in steel stalls.
Item 5,E(6): Dayroom space inadequate.
Item 5,F: Sufficient storage space is not provided.
Item 6,B: Ventilation is inadequate during extremely high temperatures.
Item 9,F: Cleanup stations are not provided.
Item 9,G: Commodes and lavatories in need of minor general cleaning.
Remove all items stored in the pipe chases.
CWW:ssm
- r - .•
. -
- •
:-•
,.
•
, .
S9 e Fe"R '~ ~' °' 'I-"`D —` —'--- CF � - ai y TAX ^0/9 / / ,q ° - ~2/
��� ----- ' -- --�-------' e�� /
-��r-
11 /66.04 ' -
WILE wUV e°~ "*n " ' /a°�c�--- = papid_titi) .77-'---- ------
ii feiPukids _ _
.- .
4�/ �� f�3�/ �o
_ ��� ��/�V -_--�� ��/* -- '
_ _~.- _- ^ �_/ -
y /ve nm t"
_ � � /��/o�,��
°'
-- -- -- ' — Tag ' ���c^
� ��� //�c� /+�wm
_��������_�� v°` 'x�'
git.ciel
'
_11111 Ur' so os8 _�����L
/ °y�'~`~-
-----'---��� y�
�%
x-/ /
(� � /�L��i- ��/7[ -_- ------- -- -
' � '�x��'.,� � ^/ ^ --__--_---_-
_ ---'---'---- a` �Zy}45�� � 154
° . _ -' ^ ' '� ^- -- -'
-------��
_ _--_---___�_--_-_ -__/ '�--'~_~-
l - -^~
-_ 9
�
�/q ��
/.wm
------
Shardil ��
---' - �� �H "� �21J,g1
m�`~. --=
'
y ~— x�����/� ~ =�/ �4�
���� J /"~'~ / ,'°v^ ^ - / °
.-_--__ ~/ /
�����-_-�- h~~^—
��7�M -- --'-------------
- -- ---------- � ����i�
�� ��� � y��I]
---' . �- �L vY��L'L�'� �����_�� ,� _ ___^� '
--- --- e7O�[�r78 fy � /�'
_ __���____n~ /��_� ��'�,/' ~'_-. ---
�'�
-'---'��'��"�-�^=.�_. _--____ ____--_ _-_.
_ �����
/n
peLith'/I7TL4i.
_-_
_ _-_ _________ '__-_--- _____________ --__-___'_ _________
59- .�
-
6 92
--'-_- - --
'" D,/ip RVVe[z 'L. S mU/
!GL, g #_- �go/6774-�
_ 4
15 , _7
OruO � Tr/ke ��� �
• '
��� � /3 55-2
n�� m/��� nu��_ '-~����__
- ---_-
-_-_ [,~ �A iIII7a
~^~ ---
- -- -/ -�---- X��/�y�
- ' /� /�_ _-
552,�
- '--
� �� �a ��� �c~
f�U CmU7 �' ��u' /�
,
�
��
er ��
/ ��*�__ - -
7c~ m'��
-__'--_
�L ���° /�� /
� -__--- . - '_-_-�� -
���o DI��
` u//«*°«�
--_---_ ---_ �
KELGASE ^
° � •
--- -
1bet' (kW'
- -�
-_-_- 'u��u/^/°^-v/^�«c�7°=�^=' .
�v ff
`- 7A blo
_-__-__'-_-_-___-_-__-_--
-------
_-_- - �
_'_- __ ._'-
_ ...______ __��`���`
_ _-________
_
_
-
- -- _ --'- '_ _ __-_- --
_ _ _ ___ ____ _ _ __________
r ../.... le.d.e
I
°
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Mark H. Rees, Acting Assistant County ManagerIOL
,
DATE: July 29, 1981
Attached please find two documents for your review. Please contact
me if you have any questions.
. _
....
/lir 9' -.21 -ji
MEMORANDUM
tr
TO: Paulette Ponds, Clerk of County Commissioners
FROM: David B. Roberts, Town Clerk
RE: Resolution Regarding County Administration of the RSVP Program
(81-R-111)
DATE: July 17, 1981
Attached is a copy of a resolution the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill
adopted on July 13, 1981. Please forward this copy to the County Commissioners.
/ P
oof
P._ „
4
A RESOLUTION REGARDING COUNTY ADMINISTRATION OF THE RSVP PROGRAM
(81-R-111)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council
hereby respectfully requests the Orange County Commissioners to consider the
administration of the RSVP program and sponsorship of the ACTION grant for the
RSVP program on October 1, 1981.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council is ready to discuss this matter with
the Commissioners or the Commissioners' representative(s).
This the 13th day of July, 1981.
I hereby; certify that this is a true copy of the resolution adopted by the
Council of the Town of Chapel Hill on July 13, 1981.
fiP&da2ei
avid B. Roberts
Town Clerk
'
C
ORANGE COUNTY
SENIOR CITIZENS BOARD
Operational By-Laws
ARTICLE I - NAME
The name of the board established by ordinance on September 2, 1980
by the Orange County Commissioners is the Orange County Senior Citizens
Board.
ARTICLE II - POWERS AND DUTIES
The Senior Citizens Board shall be responsible for the following duties
(1 ) Serve as a liasion between the older citizens of Orange Couni
and the County Government.
(2) Serve as the advisory body for the Orange County Department c
Aging.
(3) Suggest policy and make recommendations to the Department, al
the Board of County Commissioners on the special needs of the elderly,
particularly with respect to the needs for a comprehensive , integrated
approach to the delivery of services in the fields of health , mental
health , social services , recreation , employment and other programs for
the elderly.
ti (4) Work to stimulate and promote needed services and programs ft
older persons.
(5) Assist public and voluntary agencies in providing services is
older persons .
(6) Review and make recommendations concerning service proposals
and funding of services that have an impact on older persons .
(7 ) Consult with and assist the Director of the Department on Ag
in the preparation of the Department' s budget .
(8) Review the proposed budget of the Department on Aging prior
the time the Department' s budget is submitted to the County Manager.
(9) Advocate the needs of the Department on Aging to the Board o
rx:
-2-
County Commissioners .
( 10) Assist the Director of the Department on Aging in planning a
developing a unified and coordinated "County Aging Plan" with a view
towards defining policies , services and facilities in consultation
with the Area Agency on Aging of the Region J Council of Governments an
the North Carolina Division of Aging.
(11 ) To provide input of the appointment of the Director of the
Department on Aging in accordance with the Orange County personnel poli
(12) Perform other functions and duties as may from time to time
requested and prescribed by the Board of County Commissioners .
ARTICLE III - COMPOSITION
1 . Number and Qualifications,
The Orange County Senior Citizens Board is composed of nine citize
of Orange County. Each member of the Board shall be a County resident
appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners . The Board shall
include : at least five members over the age of 60 years , one County
Commissioner, at least two persons who are residents of the Town of
Chapel Hill , at least one person who is a resident of the Town of Carrbi
and at least one person who is a resident of the Town of Hillsborough .
2. Terms and Replacements
Members of the Senior Citizens Board shall serve three year terms ,
but no board member may serve more than two consecutive three year term
When the County Commissioner member of the board ceases to be a County
Commissioner for any reason , his or her appointment as a member of the
board shall also cease and the Board of County Commissioners , during
their next meeting , shall appoint another Commissioner to the board.
-3-
3 . Vacancies
All vacancies in the Senior Citizens Board occuring from any cause
shall be filled by appointment by the County Board of Commissioners ,
and the person appointed shall serve for the unexpired portion of the
{ term.
4. Attendance
Any member of the board who misses more than three meetings or
more than one quarter of the meetings in any twelve month period ,
shall lose their status as a member of the Board and shall be replaced
by the Orange County Board of Commissioners . Absences due to sickness ,
death of an immediate family member shall be considered approved absenc
and shall not affect the member' s status . Following the second absence
the Secretary will notify the member in writing of the attendance polic
ARTICLE IV - REGULAR MEETINGS
1 . Dates and Location
Regular meetings of the Orange County Senior Citizens Board will be
conducted on the second (2nd ) Thursday of each month, and will begin at
10:00 a .m. All meetings will be conducted with a maximum time limit of
two (2) hours . Location of meetings will be rotated between a northern
and southern Orange County location as established by the Board.
2. 213.2.EiM
A majority of the board then in office shall constitute a quorum fc
the transaction of business for any meeting of the board .
ARTICLE V - -OFFICERS
I . Number and Title
The principal officers of the board shall be a chairperson , vice-
chairperson and secretary. The office of secretary will be held by
-4-
•
Director of the Orange County Department on Aging and serve without a
'J1!
vote.
2. Election
The chairperson and vice chairperson shall be elected by the board
for a term of one year at its first meeting in the County fiscal year o
until his/her successor shall be duly elected and qualified .
3. Vacancies
Any vacancy in any office elected by the board may be filled by the
board for the unexpAred- portion of the term.
4. Chairperson
The chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the board and shal
represent the board in approved activities on its behalf.
5. Vice-Chairperson
In the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson shall perfo
the duties of the Chairperson.
6. Secretary
The Director of the Department on Aging as Secretary shall :
(a ) record and keep a file of the minutes of the meetings of the board,
(b) see that all notices of meetings are duly given and (c) in general
perform all duties incident to the office of secretary.
ARTICLE VI.-- COMMITTEES
The Board may designate one or more Committees as it shall determin
Persons not Board members may be named to committees , but they may not
serve as chairperson .
ARTICLE VII - RULES OF ORDER
At all meetings of the Board and of such committees as may be estab
-5-
„41
t
by it , parlimentary procedure shall be governed by the latest edition
of Roberts Rules of Order, and as modified by rules of the Board.
ARTICLE VIII - AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENTS
These By-Laws may be adopted , altered or appealed by the affirma-
tive votes of a majority of the Directors in office at any regular or
special meeting of the Board, but only if the notice of such meeting
shall have contained a copy or an accurate summary and explanation of
the proposed by-laws amendment, alternation or repeal as the case
may be
MEMORANDUM"
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Bill Laws, Interim County Manager
DATE: September 14, 1981
RE: RSVP Matching Funds
Please find enclosed information regarding the matching fund for
RSVP and other concerns expressed in a letter of August 26, 1981 , from
Anne Barnes. The funds from each contributor is attached. As to the
continuing of matching funds, there would be no guarantee of this from
the towns or federal government. The sponsorship runs from July 1 through
June 30 and the County would have the option to pull out as the sponsor
if there was no help from the other units of government. The Town of
Chapel Hill has applied for the grant through June 30, 1982 but has not
signed as the sponsor. The requirement is for the matching to be at
least 30% of the federal grant however the non-federal is about 51% for
1981-82 budget. There is attached a copy of the sponsorship requirements.
The paid employees that are now on board would become County employees as
they- are now Town employees. Under the sponsorship requirements (attached)
and from what I could gather, the County would not necessarily have to
house this organization but to help find a suitable location. I trust
this will answer some of your questions regarding the sponsorship of this
organization.
- -
tf; ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Roots No 12
106 EAST blaaariarr tam
HILLSBOROUGH. N. C.
27278
AMR Nns,Chair
NORMAN GUSTAVESON
NORMAN%Winos
RICHARD WHIT=
DoNALDUrrialimT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Laws & Mark Rees
FROM: Anne Barnes )16L)
RE: Chapel Hill's Request re RSVP
DATE: August 26, 1981
In regard to your recent communication of the Resolution passed by the
Chapel Hill Town Council requesting the County to assume sponsorship of
the RSVP Program, it would be helpful if same background information
could be secured before this item comes on the Board's agenda.
- --
It is my understanding that the Retired Senior Volunteer Program was
started by the Tbwn of Chapel Bill some years ago. It was later ex-
tended County-wide, and the County began to appropriate funds toward
the matching local funds for the program. I believe that the Town
of Carrboro has also been contributing. I think our financial records
will show that the County has increased its contribution several years
running. However, the Town of Chapel Hill has continued as the sponsoring
agency for purposes of securing the Federal funds, and monitoring the
program.
In anticipation of questions twin our Board, we need to know what is expected
of the sponsoring agency by both the Federal Government and by the Towns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro. During the recent budget sessions, I inquired
of the RSVP representative what the contractual arrangement with the Federal
Government requires. My understanding from her response is that the sponsoring
agency is obligated to appropriate the matching funds. Heretofore those
funds have been appropriated jointly by the three governing units, and perhaps-I-
Hillsborough as well. Same Questions which came to mind are:
1--What is the total amount of local matching funds for the
current fiscal year, and how much has each governmental unit
appropriated?
2--Do these governmental units intend to continue contributing
to the RSVP program?
3-—What is the percentage of local match to Federal dollars, and
is there a minimum dollar.amount?
Memorandum
Mr. Laws and Mr. Rees
August 26, 1981
Page two
4--Mat are the other requiremants placed on the sponsoring agency?
5--Should the County decide to becane the sponsOring agency, would
VA4 the paid employees of RSVP bemire County errployee.s?
6—If the County berms the sponsoring agency, would the County then
be excected to house the program ?
I suggest that the best starting place for gathering this information might
be with a meeting between yourselves and Interim Town Manager Ron Secxist
and RSVP Director Kay Huey, if you feel this is the appropriate approach.
When you are ready to bring this an the Board agenda, please let Paulette
kncw. Thank you.
cc: Oannissioner Gustaveson
Commissioner Willhoit
Oamtaissicner Whi'tted
Cannissicner Walker
Mayor Joseph Nassif
1,44 ,
.
443EA-71?"
Retired Senior Volunteer Program
306 N. Columbia St
-serthng Orange aunty ive+446,s-wassairsfivAh
CHAPEL HILL N. C. 27514
TELEPHONE: 942.7248
HILLSBOROUGH: 72.743
September 4, 1981
William Laws
Interim Orange County Manager
County Court House
Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
Dear Mr. Laws,
T so appreciate your meeting with us on Wednesday, the 2nd. It was
a relief to feel that the logjam concerning RSVP sponsorship may
be breaking up and, most importantly, in a logical, fair manner.
_ .
As you requested, I am sending along an updated version of the
RSVP revenue sources for the past eight years. I thought you might
also like a copy of a letter sent to Kathy Battern this past May.
The letter shows the rationale of the County' s funding in greater
detail.
I hope we completely answered Anne Barnes' questions regarding
RSVP sponsorship. As you well realize, since there is a federal
grant involved, there are some intricacies that other local programs
do not encounter. If there are any areas that need some clarificatit
please do contact me.
Sincerely,
44.!)
Kay F. Huey
RSVP Director
cc: Ronald A. Secrist, Interim Town Manager
Steven Gaber, Human Services Director
VIS -1714
CI
19*7 4 - 75
-7 &
URI(*- 17
19'7I 7q
1981, 2z
TOTALS
li
SUMMARY
Sources
197s - Tf
197'4 --15
3 •1 5
orw ;iC Carr6we
q4rl 1 .1114, 0" eA ti,&A
19'75 -7G
="Wna
rr? Ack
14-74 •77
197 2 -79
19'74 -TO
eder'l
?11 0
4
1971 -2Z
T+"sTALS
I
2 'r.7qi
e ev
I
Will
Cxpenjk,
13, 3
ii 0133+
=j��
'RSVP
pproprimeq
Sources
3 •1 5
orw ;iC Carr6we
q4rl 1 .1114, 0" eA ti,&A
� mahteJorfil Cask 11
Apr C A !A
="Wna
rr? Ack
ti
'41m
eder'l
?11 0
4
ii
Rai, i1
I fac(I
I
Will
Cxpenjk,
13, 3
ii 0133+
=j��
'RSVP
Revenue
Sources
3 •1 5
orw ;iC Carr6we
q4rl 1 .1114, 0" eA ti,&A
� mahteJorfil Cask 11
Apr C A !A
="Wna
rr? Ack
'41m
eder'l
?11 0
4
Rai, i1
I fac(I
zimill
it ('.73 93d
2 7
V
14133
i
5 fa
4 17021408•
005:
2 1 7:1
0 t I 6
ZE,
fil 25,
fill
IT
t 489 I
i 14
2
I
00
2a5S 9,
�
3q-4,
if
1200
we
1 1Zp0
201CIII
J 45305&
solo
b-a 36
11 aw aa
x 29.129
i,
qVq0z
1333V
A11518
Z4 1';
71 8Et1o3.
q it.4 2
3144
if (PS491
I ONA, IN 9 1 �
31�et:`fY0-
,ztn1;33x�'�. j : i
It 17
@A IPA 'I
2:859s
E}?
4 � r
I ii
411;
eder'l
T.01TAIP6
357-1
190317:
5 fa
4 17021408•
2 1 7:1
22aill
z #:196
1 44OZ154Y
41.4'
i 3433218,;
b-a 36
11 aw aa
x 29.129
i,
qVq0z
1333V
A11518
if (PS491
I ONA, IN 9 1 �
31�et:`fY0-
,ztn1;33x�'�. j : i
It 17
@A IPA 'I
2:859s
E}?
4 � r
I ii
411;
2:859s
E}?
4 � r
I ii
411;
,1
, e
:t. •
,
t....
••■■ i' t,
Retired Senior Volunteer P ocri am
serging Orange eoanty
304 EAST FRANKLM STREET
11 CHAPEL HILL. N. C 27514
,
TELEPHONE 042-7248
HILLSBOROUGH: 732.7a33
May 18, 1981
Kathy Battern
Orange County Finance Director
County Court Rouse
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear Kathy,
I spoke with Jerry Passmore this afternoon and was relieved to
learn that he still is planning office space for RSVP at the Chapel
Hill Multi-Purpose Center. I'm sure you will hear more about the
plans from him.
On Friday, you questioned the County appropriation amounts for RSVP
The chart I sent Joe Bradshaw showed the amount expended, but not
the amount received. Far the first four years any difference betwe
the amounts contributed by the County and the proration of actual
expenditures were applied to subsequent funding requests. This
procedure was a bit confusing because it overlapped two funding
years; thus, Mary Parker decided that a more realistic budget would
be written and 100% of the appropriations would be requested, begir
with the 1979-80 fiscal year. The following chart shows a more
complete breakdown of appropriations.
[
AMOUNTS % NEEDED AMOUNT NEEDED AMOUNT RECEIVED
APPROPRIATED
1973-74 -- -- -_ --
1974-75 -- -- -- --
1975-76 $ 2,193 x 51.51% = $ 1,130 $ 2,767
1976-77 3,653 x 76. 11% = 2,780 2,016
1977-78 4,018 x 69. 32% = 2,785 3,145
1978-79 10,116 x 77,72% = 7,862 8 ,883
1979-80 11,990 x 100% = 11,990 9,736
1980-81 5,000 x 100% = 5,000 5,000
TOTALS $36,970 $31,547 $31,547,....
As you can see, the final totals of the amounts needed and receive(
are identical. Also, over the years, there has been a savings of
-...- $5,423 in appropriations over expenditures.
I do hope the chart clarifies this issue, but if you would like
additional information, please contact me.
Sialcerely,
Kay- Huey
f
- RSVP Director
cc: Mary Parker, Finance Director, Town of Chapel Hill
4405.92
8 . THE POTENTIAL SPONSOR
a. Rbguirements of Potential Sponsor
(1) A public or private non-profit organization.
(2) Selected by the community to seek RSVP sponsorship.
(3) Has a charter which legally permits operation and adminis-
tration of the proposed project.
b. Other characteristics of a sponsoring organization include :
(1) The capacity to effectively manage and operate community
service programs.
(2) Interest and participation in a broad range of community
service programs, especially those related to older persons.
(3) A good working relationship with other community service
agencies and organizations.
(4) Adequate financial support at the local level with the
capacity to develop sources of non-Federal support.
(5) A governing body or agency board which understands and
endorses the nature and purpose of the project so as to
assure:
(a) Continuing assessment of the project' s success.
(b) Funding support.
(c) Allocation of staff time to the project.
(d) Assistance from governing body members when needed.
c. An applicant agency becomes a sponsor upon receipt and acceptance
of a Notice of Grant Award (NGA) . The NGA officially signifies
ACTION' s acceptance, approval and funding of an application. it
must be accepted in writing by the sponsor.
d. Requirements for Sponsorship of an RSVP Without Federal Funding
Support
The same requirements as those for Federally funded projects-5.
pertain to potential sponsors desiring to affiliate ( or remain
affiliated) with the program but who do not require (further)
Federal financial assistance. A written agreement specifying
the sponsor's provision of technical support and programmatic
materials, formalizes the relationship. ACTION - furnished
materials include such items as:
(1) Recognition materials (ribbons, pins, certificates)
(2) Pamphlets, brochures, posters
(3) Other informational and public relations materials as availah
:' ' 93
AGENDA AMCHMENT 10
ORANGE COT_TIN TY PL ANN-DIG DEPARTMENT
mT,LSBOROUGEt
NORM. CAROLINA
27278
•r el...
ILZ ea 7 4
P,
41',6) C.:t I■•''''
----
MEMO
TO: Bill Laws, Acting County Manager
FROM: Planning Stafftf
SUBJECT: Clarification of the Fee Schedule for Current Planning
Activities
The Board of County Commissioners set up a fee schedule,
effective July 1, 1981, for certain current planning functions.
(See Attachment A) With the adoption of the revised Zoning
— Ordinance it would be appropriate to clarify the fee schedule. .
The new activities in the new Zoning Ordinance include the
"Class A Special Use Permit" and the Planned Development District.
It would be difficult at this time to ascribe a certain amount of
staff time to either of the new functions. Staff would base a
recommendation on our experience with similar activities in the old
ordinance.
The Board of Adjustment fees were partially based on the
existing special use permits. Since new "Class A Special Uses" are
similar to the old special uses and rezoning applications, we
recommend a combined fee of $180,00 ($60.00 for Board of Adjustment,
plus $120.00 for Rezoning Applications) for "Class A Special Use
applications. All "Class B Special Use" applications can
remain at the $60.00.fee.
Planned Development applications combine rezoning and sub-
division process. Our recommendation is that these fees be combined
to set the appropriate fee:
PD with 1 - 4 lots
Rezoning $120.00
Minor Subdivision 30.00 ,
Plus $5 per lot 5.00 - $ 20.00
(To $20.00) $155.00 - $170.00
PD with S - 15 lots
Rezoning $120.00
Major Subdivision 210.00
Plus $5 per lot 25.00 - $ 75.00
$355.00 - $405.00
ATTACHMENT A 601..
694
FEE SCHEDULE
ZONING PERMITS 5.00 0
TENOR SUBDIVISIONS •
Filing Fee 30.00
Lots on Final Plat 5.90
•
MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS
Less thah 15 Lots
Filing Fee 210.00 0
Lots on Final net 5.00
MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS
More than 15 Lots
Filing Fee 370.00 e '
Lots on Final Plat .5.00 @
PRIVATE ROADS 30..00 0
REZONING REQUESTS 120.00 Q
BOARD OF avusniffEar 60.00 @
Memo Bill Laws
September 17, 1981
Page 2
PD with more than 15 lots
Rezoning $120.00
Major Subdivision 370.00
Plus $5 per lot 80.00 up
$570.00 up
60.i. . . ,, ..-,.,:.,..-... . . -y....
895 /
.. . . . __. . . __.... ___... ._. ... ..... ...
PIM.,.., ti TDA ATTACHMENT 12
'..,., ' t,74.„ ..s. •''V: . 60: -3- 300 W Tryon Slreel
Hillsborough,N.C.27278
732-J351 ea 305
Chapel Hill line 95841507
HEALTH EPTENT Mebane line 227-2032
.....,MOICO WPM'WAN: Durham tine 688-7333
...
Carr Mill Mall,Suite 225
100 N Greensboro Slreel
Carrboro,,N C 27570 .
942-4168
Jerry Robinson,M,P A.
Director
UM
MEMORAND _
......___ . .
To: Ann Barnes, Chair
County Commissioners
From: Jerry Robinson g9--
Date: September 23, 1981
Re: Discussion of the Board of Health About House Bill 405
Below is an excerpt from the first draft of the September 17, 1981 minutes
of the Board of Health meeting (these first draft minutes are not yet accepted
by Board) which I believe communicates their position regards House Bill 405.
If the Commissioners wish, I could attend a Commissioners meeting and discuss
our position on the issue.
Added Agenda Item No. 19 A: Request From Ann Barnes for Board Discussion
5' House Bill 46g7
Jerry Robinson presented a letter from Ann Barnes that was received just
before the meeting. The concern therein was coordinated local services and
the establishment of a local team to determine appropriateness of referrals to
nursing homes. The idea of House Bill 405 is to reduce institutional care
of the elderly. Evelyn Lloyd moved, seconded by James Boyd, that the Board's
position is:
A. It is very much in the best interest of citizens and the County to
encourage in-home care:
B. In-home care is much more cost efficient than institutionalization;
C. The cost of institutionalization is a significant burden to the taxpayer;
D. The Board of Health believes that the idea of providing a County service
team to maximize in-home care is an excellent suggpstion;
H. The Board of Health encourages further exp4ation and development of
the precise mandate, role and procedural details of this approach;
F. However, there is no possible way for the Health Department to involve
itself in this effort without supplemental funding,
Further, that this position be communicated to Dr. Morrow with a copy to
the County Commissioners. The motion passed unanimously.
cc: Ann Woodward, Chair
Board of Health
2:7ted-00 / 3
:
ORANGE COUNTY
PROPOSED
1980-81 PROJECT ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
,
The 1980-81 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on December
1, 1980 is hereby amended as follows:
Increase
Fund - Item (Decrease) Total
°
CETA II B - OJT - Operations (3,840) 7,000
'
CETA II B - YWE - Part. Personnel (1,205) 31,922
CETA II B - AWE - Part. Personnel (2,139) 9,264
- Operations ( 543) 0
CETA YCCIP BG - Part. Personnel (15,318) 9,555
CETA YCCIP Services - Operations ( 170) 34
CETA IV YETP - Part. Personnel (9,705) .54,985
CETA IV YETP - Training - Operations ( 157) 230
CETA IV YETP Services - Personnel (3,882) 6,880
CETA Admin Pool - Personnel (4,835) 57,372
- Operations 2,830 12,562
. CETA II D - Part. Personnel (6,956) 31,460
;
) - Services - Personnel 6,956 10,556
E
CETA Summer YETP - Operations 1,666 5,226
1
! Revenue - Item
' II B (7,727) 93,115
IV YCCIP (15,488) 21,728
IV YETP (13,744) 62,994
Admin Pool (2,005) 69,934
!..
1 Summer YETP 1,666 194,027
t
��"� '��
_ _ ~^r6U'
����
���
' .
AGENDuATTAMENT 14
ORANGE COUNTY
PROPOSED
1980-81 Project Ordinance
Amendment
The l980-81 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on
December 1, 1980 is hereby amended as follows:
Increase
Fund - Item (Decrease) Total
CETA II B - OJT - Operations (3,840) 7,000
CETA II B - YWE - Part. Personnel (1,205) 31 ,922
CETA II B - AVE - Part. Personnel (2,139) 9,264
- Operations ( 543) 0
CETA YCCIP BO - Part. Personnel (15,318) 9,656
CETA YCCIP Services - Operations (170) 34
- CETA IV YETP - Part. Personnel (9,705) 54,985
CETA IV YETP - Training - Operations (157) 230
CETA IV YETP Services - Personnel (3,882) 0,880
CETA Admin Pool - Personnel (4,835) 57,372
- Operations 2,830 12,562
Adopted this the day of ', 1981'
C{M
697
AGENDA ATTACHMENT 16
Sec. 13. Travel - Status of Employees While Traveling Out-of-Town
Participation in official out-of-town business meetings, authorized
training courses, and authorized professional conferences, is "time
worked" for the purpose of computing wages for employees. Travel
away from home is work time when it cuts across such an employee's
normal work day. The employee is simply substituting travel for
other duties. Regular meal time is not counted as work time.
8
417•
AGENDA ATTACRIETT 16
_
•-
_
'-
Sec,. 13. Travel - Status of Employees of Official While Traveling.
Participation in offibial out-of-town business meetings, authOrized trajrij
cobrses, and authorized professicmal conferences, is "time worked" for
the purpose of computing wages for employees eligible for overtim. oompens
travel away from home is work time when it cuts across such an employee's
normal workday. The employee is simpl;y substituting travel for other dutic
The time is not only hours.worked during normal workdays but also during ti
corresponding hours on nomorking days. Thus, if an employee regularlymm
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. from Monday through Friday but is traveling = offici
duties on Saturday and Sunday, the travel time during those hours is work t
on Saturday and Sunday as well. RegtUar meal period time is not counted as
time.
Sec. 14. Travel - Workmen's Compensation.
EMployees of the county abSent from the county on official business, or in
training courses or professiona/ meetings, will be covered by wotkmen's
compensation insurance in accordance with the North Carolina WOrkmen's
Ocmpensation Act and the bounty's workmen's ccmpensation insurance policy.
LEAVES OF ABSENCE:
,
For..* purpose of 'thiSlArticie, the phrase "uvrking day" will_mean any
'On-C.440i ari-eapioyee of the county actually ‘,Norks or would i,.,ork under
ordin;azy carcmistances- Saturday or Sunday will Mt he considered as a
-wo--7rking ss th'e-officer or employee rxrzmaLly works_on Saturday or
-• Sunday.7-"Tgoi-k- week will mean the time span of Seven (7) consecutive
s. f24) hour periods Within which the county computes pay.
Sec. 2. Holidays - Effect of Holidays, Weekends.
Regular holidays, Saturday andior Sundays which may fall or occur during a