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