Agenda - 09-08-94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

a case previously decided. There is an exception if there the meeting must be provided and it generally must be open is some material change in conditions,such as a new road to the public. being constructed at the site, additional development 4.The statutes that mandate hearings,G.S. 153A-323 and 160A-364,explicitly refer to adoption and amendment of zon- near the site over time,and the like.30 Also, appeals of icg ordinances.The court has held that this also includes re- quasi-judicial zoning decisions go directly to the courts. peal of zoning provisions.Sofran Corp.v.City of Greensboro, It is not appropriate to seek a second evidentiary hear- 327 N.C.125,393 S.E.2d 767(1990);Orange County v.Heath, ing before a different local board, such as appealing a 278 N.C.688, 180 S.E.2d 810(1971). board of adjustment decision to the governing board. 5. Keiger v. Board of Adjustment, 281 N.C. 715, 190 S.E.2d 175(1972).See G.S. 153A-344 and G.S. 160A-387. 6.Johnson v.Town of Longview, 37 N.C.App. 61,245 Conclusion S.E.2d 516,rev.denied,295 N.C. 550,248 S.E.2d 727(1978). The county zoning statute does require a mandatory referral Zoning hearings can be controversial,emotional,and of a proposed zoning amendment to the planning board,but confusing. Often the stakes are high for everyone in- it is not required to hold a hearing.A number of zoning ordi- volved.It is therefore important that these hearings be ordi- nances,however,still require planning board hearings;others provide for joint planning board and governing board hearings conducted in a fair and lawful manner.This requires that on rezoning proposals.If the zoning ordinance itself requires the local government body responsible for the hearing a formal planning board hearing,it must be held and should always keep in mind what type of zoning decision is in- generally follow these rules for alegislative hearing. volved,what type of hearing is required for that type of 7.Helms v. City of Charlotte,255 N.C.647, 122 S.E.2d decision,and what the ground rules for that hearing are.31 817(1961);Walker v.Town of Elkin,254 N.C.85, 118 S.E.2d It is also important that this information be cnmrnu- 1 (1960); Capps v. City of Raleigh, 35 N.C. App. 290, 241 P S.E.2d 527(1978).These cases held that actual personal no- nicated clearly to the participants in the hearing.Land- tice of a proposed rezoning is not constitutionally required owners,neighbors,and citizens need to understand what nor is it sufficient to substitute for compliance with statutory these rules are and why they exist in order to participate requirements. effectively in zoning decisions. Each zoning hearing 8.Capps,35 N.C.App.at 290,241 S.E.2d at 527. should open with a brief explanation of the rules that 9.Though not explicitly required by the statute,a copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance or amendment must be followed and their purpose.A written summary should be available for public inspection at the time the no- of the hearing ground rules can also be provided in ad- tice is published. vance to the parties to the hearing. 10.Sellers v.City of Asheville,33 N.C.App.544,549,236 There will never be complete agreement on how zon- S.E.2d 283,286(1977).By contrast,in In re Raynor,94 N.C. ing decisions should come out,and there will always be App.91,379 S.E.2d 884,rev.denied,325 N.C.546,385 S.E.2d 495 (1989), the court upheld the adequacy of a notice that rooms full of people eager to make their strong opinions stated its purpose was to consider proposed zoning and pro- known to the boards making these decisions.However, posed long-range land use plans within the area recently added the boards'being mindful of the standards for conduct- to the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction."The notice went on ing zoning hearings fairly and clearly communicating to provide a"rough description"of the area affected,using these standards to all involved will help make zoning major streets as boundaries. hearings more understandable,more efficient,and fair 11. The legislature has also extended this mailed-notice requirement to some land-use regulations other than zoning. for all concerned. 4 G.S.143-214.5(d)requires cities and counties that adopt water- supply watershed protection ordinances under their general police powers to use the mailed-notice provision if the ordi- Notes nance imposes requirements more stringent than the state- wide minimum standards adopted by the Environmental 1.A more detailed discussion of the legal issues addressed Management Commission. in this article can be found in the author's forthcoming Insti- 12. Frizzelle v. Harnett County, 106 N.C.App. 234,416 tute of Government publication,Legislative Zoning Decisions: S.E.2d 421,rev.denied,332 N.C. 147,419 S.E.2d 571 (1992). Legal Aspects.The book will be available in summer 1993. In this case,however, the ordinance itself required mailed- 2. In many respects this distinction is similar to the dis- notice and posting,which was not done. • tinction between rule-making decisions and contested case 13. Note that a zoning text change that substantially decisions under the state's Administrative Procedures Act, changes the range of permitted uses in a district can have the G.S.Ch. 150B. same practical effect as a map change and in those instances 3.The open meetings statute does apply to these meet- may be covered. ings and should be observed. See G.S. 143-318.9 to-318.18. 14.Many of the modifications are of only temporary dura- Where a majority of the members of a board,council,or com- tion.This trend of local modification is continuing.Some thir- mittee gather to conduct business or to deliberate,notice of teen bills were introduced in the 1993 General Assembly to 34 POPULAR GOVERNMENT Spring 1993