|
Popular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pl nepgsp93.htm
<br /> Notes
<br /> 1. A more detailed discussion of the legal issues addressed in this article can be found in the author's
<br /> forthcoming Institute of Government publication,Legislative Zoning Decisions:Legal Aspects. The
<br /> book will be available in summer 1993.
<br /> 2. In many respects this distinction is similar to the distinction between rule-making decisions and
<br /> contested case decisions under the state's Administrative Procedures Act, G.S. Ch. 150B.
<br /> 3. The open meetings statute does apply to these meetings and should be observed.See G.S. 143-318.9
<br /> to -318.18. Where a majority of the members of a board,council, or committee gather to conduct
<br /> business or to deliberate,notice of the meeting must be provided and it generally must be open to the
<br /> public.
<br /> 4. The statutes that mandate hearings, G.S. 153A-323 and 160A-364,explicitly refer to adoption and
<br /> amendment of zoning ordinances.The court has held that this also includes repeal of zoning provisions.
<br /> Sofran Corp. v. City of Greensboro, 327 N.C. 125, 393 S.E.2d 767(1990); Orange County v. Heath,278
<br /> N.C. 688, 180 S.E.2d 810 (1971). -
<br /> 5. Keiger v. Board of Adjustment,281 N.C. 715, 190 S.E.2d 175 (1972).See G.S. 153A-344 and G.S.
<br /> 160A-387.
<br /> 6. Johnson v. Town of Longview,37 N.C.App. 61,245 S.E.2d 516,rev. denied, 295 N.C. 550,248
<br /> S.E.2d 727 (1978).The county zoning statute does require a mandatory referral of a proposed zoning
<br /> amendment to the planning board,but it is not required to hold a hearing. A number of zoning
<br /> ordinances, however,still require planning board hearings;others provide for joint planning board and
<br /> governing board hearings on rezoning proposals.If the zoning ordinance itself requires a formal
<br /> planning board hearing,it must be held and should generally follow these rules for a legislative hearing.
<br /> 7. Helms v. City of Charlotte,255 N.C. 647, 122 S.E.2d 817(1961); Walker v. Town of Elkin,254 N.C.
<br /> 85, 118 S.E.2d 1 (1960); Capps v. City of Raleigh, 35 N.C.App.290, 241 S.E.2d 527 (1978). These
<br /> cases held that actual personal notice of a proposed rezoning is not constitutionally required nor is it
<br /> sufficient to substitute for compliance with-statutory requirements.
<br /> 8. Capps, 35 N.C. App.at 290,241 S.E.2d at 527.
<br /> 9.Though not explicitly required by the statute, a copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance or
<br /> amendment should be available for public inspection at the time the notice is published.
<br /> 10. Sellers v. City of Asheville,33 N.C. App. 544, 549,236 S.E.2d 283,286 (1977). By contrast, in In
<br /> re Raynor, 94 N.C.App. 91, 379 S.E.2d 884,rev. denied, 325 N.C. 546, 385 S.E.2d 495 (1989),the
<br /> court upheld the adequacy of a notice that stated its purpose was "to consider proposed zoning and
<br /> proposed long-range land use plans within the area recently added to the Town's extraterritorial
<br /> jurisdiction." The notice went onto provide a"rough description" of the area affected,using major
<br /> streets as boundaries.
<br /> 11. The legislature has also extended this mailed-notice requirement to some land-use regulations other
<br /> than zoning.G.S. 143-214.5(d)requires cities and counties that adopt water-supply watershed protection
<br /> ordinances under their general police powers to use the mailed-notice provision if the ordinance imposes
<br /> requirements more stringent than the statewide minimum standards adopted by the Environmental
<br /> Management Commission.
<br /> 12. Frizzelle v.Harnett County, 106 N.C.App. 234,416 S.E.2d 421,rev. denied, 332 N.C. 147,419
<br /> S.E.2d 571 (1992). In this case,however,the ordinance itself required mailed-notice and posting,which
<br /> was not done.
<br />
|