Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Of Adjustment Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment receives training on quasi‑judicial hearings, recusal and UDO procedures
Summary
At a February training session, Chad Meadows reviewed North Carolina land‑use law relevant to Clayton’s Board of Adjustment, including due process under the 14th Amendment, Chapter 160D authorities, unified development ordinance procedures, special‑use and variance standards, standing, evidence rules and best practices for hearings.
Chad Meadows, chair of the Durham Board of Adjustment, led a training session for the Clayton Board of Adjustment on the town’s quasi‑judicial hearing process and the legal standards that guide appeals, special‑use permits and variances.
Meadows told board members that the board’s authority flows from constitutional protections and state law. “Everybody in The United States has 2 fundamental rights, that are relevant to the development review process ... the first of those is due process and the second 1 is equal protection,” he said, framing the board’s role as a check on administrative decisions and a guarantor of impartial hearings.
The training focused on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) adopted by the town, citations in Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes, and the step‑by‑step procedure for evidentiary hearings. Meadows described three categories of cases the board decides: appeals of administrative decisions, special‑use permits and variances. He reviewed procedural requirements—oaths for witnesses, calling the seating, staff reports, applicant presentation, support and opposition testimony, cross‑examination, closing the hearing, deliberation and the final written order.
Meadows emphasized recusal and ex parte contacts, advising members to disclose any outside communications and to step aside when impartiality could be questioned. He described a local practice of having recused members leave the room and noted the presence of an attorney for the board at hearings: “You should always have an attorney at your board of adjustment meetings,” he said.
On special‑use permits, Meadows said the board’s task is limited to evaluating the negative impacts tied to the use and whether mitigation meets the UDO’s review standards; the underlying zoning allowance is a legislative determination already made by elected officials. He reminded members that neighborhood meetings required before special‑use applications are primarily for notice and awareness and that testimony for and against an application must be given at the public hearing to be considered in deliberations.
On variances and reasonable accommodations, Meadows repeated the standard test: the hardship must be undue and unique to the property. He noted there are four types of variances (zoning/subdivision, flood hazard overlay, stormwater and water‑supply watershed) and that some watershed variances may involve state agencies such as the Environmental Management Commission. He also explained reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act and said such approvals typically run with the land.
Meadows reviewed rules on evidence and witnesses, saying the applicant bears the burden of proof and that testimonial evidence must be substantial, material and competent. He highlighted two subject areas that require expert testimony: traffic (transportation impact analysis) and property‑value/appraisal testimony. A board member who spoke during the session recounted a COVID‑era appeal that the superior court remanded because a witness could not log in to a remote hearing, saying: “we had 1 that was appealed to the superior court during COVID where we were having, the meetings were done via Zoom. And the the resultant was that the due process was inhibited because 1 of the witnesses wasn't able to log on to Zoom.”
Meadows closed by offering to return for hypothetical case studies and urged the board to build procedural routines—reading standards into the record, assigning members to track specific review criteria and ensuring final orders address each required finding point by point.
Votes and formal business during the meeting were limited. The board approved the November 20 meeting minutes after a motion and second; the motion carried. The meeting ended on a motion to adjourn that also carried.
The training is intended to guide the Clayton Board of Adjustment when it later hears appeals, special‑use permits and variances and to reduce the risk of procedural error in decisions that can be appealed to superior court.
