Agenda - 10-19-1999 - 9d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

29 Popular Government Spring 1993 http: // ncinfo. iog.unc.edu /planning/pgsp93.htm outside of the hearing, and the like - -need not be observed. After all, with these hearings the governing board is receiving comments, not hearing evidence. The general statutory guidance for legislative public hearings is G.S. 160A -81 for cities and G.S. 153A -52 for counties. The statutes allow the governing board to adopt reasonable rules governing the conduct of the public hearing, including but not limited to rules (i) fixing the maximum time allotted to each speaker, (ii) providing for the designation of spokesmen for groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions, (iii) providing for the selection of delegates from groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions when the number of persons wishing to attend the hearing exceeds the capacity of the hall, and (iv) providing for the maintenance of order and decorum in the conduct of the hearing. Therefore reasonable rules can be established to limit the number of speakers and the amount of time each speaker is given, provided that the hearing is conducted in a fair and reasonable fashion.' An example is provided in Freeland v. Orange County, 15 in which 500 citizens attended the required public hearing on the adoption of zoning for the Chapel Hill township. The chair allotted one hour each to the proponents and opponents of the zoning ordinance, with each side also having fifteen minutes for rebuttal. Some sixteen proponents and fifteen opponents were heard. By a show of hands, it appeared that those at the hearing were opposed to the adoption of zoning by a four -to -one ratio. About 200 persons indicated that they wished to speak but were not allowed to because of the time limitation. The court upheld this procedure, ruling that the legislative intent was to mandate a hearing and provide a "fair opportunity" for those in attendance to present their views. The governing board is allowed, however, to establish an "orderly procedure" for the hearing, as "[t]he General Assembly did not contemplate that all persons entertaining the same views would have an unqualified right to iterate and reiterate these views in endless repetition. "jl Given that the purpose of a legislative hearing is to broadly solicit public opinion, there is no problem with receiving petitions, hearing personal opinions, or with board members' talking to members of the public about the issue prior to the hearing. This is an important distinction between a legislative hearing and an evidentiary hearing. Also, unlike evidentiary hearings, no written findings of fact or explanation of the decision is required. Additional Hearings A question frequently arises as'to whether readvertisement and rehearing are required if changes are made in the proposed ordinance at or after the hearing. The general .rule is that an additional hearing is required only if there are substantial changes in the proposal after the initial notice. A.1971 case, Heaton v. City of Charlotte, set the standard for determining whether an additional hearing is required. The court held: Ordinarily, if the ordinance or amendment as finally adopted- contains alterations substantially different (amounting to a new proposal) from those originally advertised and heard, there must be additional notice and opportunity for additional hearing. However, no further notice or hearing is required after a properly advertised and properly conducted public hearing when the alteration of the initial proposal is insubstantial. Alteration of the initial proposal will not be deemed substantial when it results in changes favorable to the complaining parties. Moreover, additional notice and public hearing ordinarily will not be required when the initial notice is broad enough to indicate the possibility of substantial change and substantial changes are made of the same r" fundamental character as contained in the notice, such, changes resulting from objections, debate and discussion at the properly noticed initial hearing: r 17 In this instance, the court noted that the notice was broad enough to indicate that changes might be made, the changes were consistent with the fundamental character of the noticed proposal, and the changes were made as a result of comments received at the hearing. This led the court to conclude that an additional hearing "could have resulted only in repetitive statements by the same parties or parties