Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
29 <br /> opular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning pgsp93.htm <br /> outside of the hearing,and the like--need not be observed. After all,with these hearings the governing <br /> board is receiving comments,not hearing evidence. <br /> The general statutory guidance for legislative public hearings is G.S. 160A-81 for cities and G.S. <br /> 153A-52 for counties. The statutes allow the governing board to <br /> adopt reasonable rules governing the conduct of the public hearing,including but not limited to <br /> rules(i)fixing the maximum time allotted to each speaker, (ii)providing for the designation of <br /> spokesmen for groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions, (iii)providing for the <br /> selection of delegates from groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions when the <br /> number of persons wishing to attend the hearing exceeds the capacity of the hall, and(iv) <br /> providing for the maintenance of order and decorum in the conduct of the hearing. <br /> Therefore reasonable rules can be established to limit the number of speakers and the amount of time <br /> each speaker is given,provided that the hearing is conducted in a fair and reasonable fashion.An <br /> example is provided in Freeland v. Orange County, 15 in which 500 citizens attended the required <br /> public hearing on the adoption of zoning for the Chapel Hill township.The chair allotted one hour each <br /> to the proponents and opponents of the zoning ordinance,with each side also having fifteen minutes for <br /> rebuttal. Some sixteen proponents and fifteen opponents were heard.By a show of hands,it appeared <br /> that those at the hearing were opposed to the adoption of zoning by a four-to-one ratio.About 200 <br /> persons indicated that they wished to speak but were not allowed to because of the time limitation.The <br /> court upheld this procedure,ruling that the legislative intent was to mandate a hearing and provide a <br /> "fair opportunity" for those in attendance to present their views.The governing board is allowed, <br /> however,to establish an"orderly procedure" for the hearing, as "[t]he General Assembly did not <br /> contemplate that all persons entertaining the same views would have an unqualified right to iterate and <br /> reiterate these views in endless repetition."r 16 <br /> Given that the purpose of a legislative hearing is to broadly solicit public opinion,there is no problem <br /> with receiving petitions,hearing personal opinions, or with board members'talking to members of the <br /> public about the issue prior to the hearing.This is an important.distinction between a legislative hearing <br /> and an evidentiary hearing. Also,unlike evidentiary hearings,no written findings of fact or explanation <br /> of the decision is required. <br /> Additional Hearings <br /> A question frequently arises as'to whether readvertisement and rehearing are required if changes are <br /> made in the proposed ordinance at or after the hearing. The general rule is that an additional hearing is <br /> required only if there are substantial changes in the proposal after the initial notice. <br /> A.1971 case,Heaton v. City of Charlotte, set the standard for determining whether an additional hearing <br /> is required.The court held: <br /> Ordinarily,if the ordinance or amendment as finally adopted contains alterations substantially <br /> different(amounting to a new proposal)from those originally advertised and heard,there must be <br /> additional notice and opportunity for additional hearing.However,no further notice or hearing is <br /> required after a properly advertised and properly conducted public hearing when the alteration of <br /> the initial proposal is insubstantial. Alteration of the initial proposal will not be deemed <br /> substantial when it results in changes favorable to the complaining parties. Moreover,additional <br /> notice and public hearing ordinarily will not be required when the initial notice is broad enough to <br /> indicate the possibility of substantial change and substantial changes are made of the same <br /> fundamental character as contained in the notice, such changes resulting from objections,debate <br /> and discussion at the properly noticed initial hearing.flj7 <br /> In this instance,the court noted that the notice was broad enough to indicate that changes might be <br /> made,the changes were consistent with the fundamental character of the noticed proposal,and the <br /> changes were made as a result of comments received at the hearing.This led the court to conclude that <br /> an additional hearing "could have resulted only in repetitive statements by the same parties or parties <br />