Agenda - 09-08-94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The general statutory guidance for legislative public there are substantial changes in the proposal after the hearings is G.S. 160A-81 for cities and G.S. 153A-52 for initial notice. counties.The statutes allow the governing board to A 1971 case,Heaton v.City of Charlotte,set the stan- ??- adopt reasonable rules governing the conduct of the lard for determining whether an additional hearing is public hearing, including but not limited to rules (i) required.The court held: fixing the maximum time allotted to each speaker,(ii) providing for the designation of spokesmen for groups Ordinarily, if the ordinance or amendment as finally of persons supporting or opposing the same positions, adopted contains alterations substantially different (iii)providing for the selection of delegates from groups (amounting to a new proposal) from those originally of persons supporting or opposing the same positions advertised and heard, there must be additional notice when the number of persons wishing to attend the hear- and opportunity for additional hearing. However, no ing exceeds the capacity of the hall,and(iv)providing further notice or hearing is required after a properly for the maintenance of order and decorum in the con- advertised and properly conducted public hearing when duct of the hearing, the alteration of the initial proposal is insubstantial.Al- teration of the initial proposal will not be deemed sub- Therefore reasonable rules can be established to limit stantial when it results in changes favorable to the the number of speakers and the amount of time each complaining parties. Moreover, additional notice and speaker is given,provided that the hearing is conducted public hearing ordinarily will not be required when the in a fair and reasonable fashion.An example is provided initial notice is broad enough to indicate the possibility 4 in Freeland v. Orange County," in which 500 citizens of substantial change and substantial changes are made attended the required public hearing on the adoption of of the same fundamental character as contained in the notice,such changes resulting from objections,debate zoning for the Chapel Hill township.The chair allotted and discussion at the properly noticed initial hearing.'7 one hour each to the proponents and opponents of the zoning ordinance,with each side also having fifteen min- In this instance,the court noted that the notice was utes for rebuttal. Some sixteen proponents and fifteen broad enough to indicate that changes might be made, opponents were heard.By a show of hands,it appeared the changes were consistent with the fundamental char- that those at the hearing were opposed to the adoption acter of the noticed proposal, and the changes were of zoning by a four-to-one ratio. About 200 persons in- made as a result of comments received at the hearing. dicated that they wished to speak but were not allowed This led the court to conclude that an additional hear- to because of the time limitation.The court upheld this ing"could have resulted only in repetitive statements by procedure,ruling that the legislative intent was to man- the same parties or parties similarly situated....The very date a hearing and provide a"fair opportunity"for those purpose of the public hearing was to guide the City in attendance to present their views. The governing Council in making changes in the original proposal con- board is allowed,however, to establish an"orderly pro- sistent with the views reflected at the public hearing. cedure"for the hearing,as"[t]he General Assembly did This is exactly what was done."'s So, if in response to not contemplate that all persons entertaining the same comments raised at the hearing the city council rezones views would have an unqualified right to iterate and re- less land than was requested or rezones it to a less intense iterate these views in endless repetition.'!6 category,a new hearing generally is not required. Given that the purpose of a legislative hearing is to Occasionally lengthy legislative zoning hearings are broadly solicit public opinion,there is no problem with recessed and continued at a subsequent meeting.In this receiving petitions, hearing personal opinions, or with situation no additional public notice is required. G.S. board members'talking to members of the public about 153A-52 and 160A-81,the general provisions on public the issue prior to the hearing. This is an important hearings,specifically allow hearings to be continued with- distinction between a legislative hearing and an eviden- out further advertisement.19 tiary hearing.Also,unlike evidentiary hearings,no writ- Many zoning ordinances limit additional hearings of ten findings of fact or explanation of the decision is ter a decision is made on a rezoning proposal by estab- required. lishing a minimum waiting period between consideration of rezoning proposals.A typical provision would be that Additional Hearings once a rezoning petition has been considered for a par- A question frequently arises as to whether readvertise- ticular parcel, no additional rezoning petitions will be ment and rehearing are required if changes are made in considered for a set period,most frequently six or twelve the proposed ordinance at or after the hearing.The gen- months. These mandatory waiting periods have been eral rule is that an additional hearing is required only if upheld by the courts?° POPULAR GOVERNMENT Spring 1993 31