In order for the evidence adduced during municipal board hearings to be relied upon in making factual findings it must in every instance be given under oath. Indeed, even in settings where the rules of evidence are relaxed the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has recognized “the importance of administering the oath before a witness may testify.” Penbara v. Straczynski, 347 N.J.Super. 155, 158 n.1 (App. Div. 2002). Sworn testimony is expressly required under the Municipal Land Use Law. N.J.S.A . 40:55D-10d. Although there is no comparable provision in the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, at least one trial court in an unreported decision has held that the purpose for requiring competent evidence in municipal board hearings under the MLUL applies equally to proceedings conducted by planning boards under the LRHL. See Cramer Hill Residents ASO v. COO Primas and the Camden Redevelopment Agency (Docket No. CAM-L-008135-05), decided January 23, 2006. In addition to purely statutory considerations, a municipal agency’s reliance upon unsworn testimony in making a redevelopment determination, which implicates the rights of property owners within the study area and the public at large, may violate due process.