Orange County NC Website
Popular Government Spring 1993 33 <br />http://ncinfo-iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.h'tm <br />5. 5. a zoning classification done as Part Of adopting a mandated water-supply watershed protection <br />program. <br />Where these five exceptions apply, a substitute notice is required in lieu of the individual mailed notice. <br />The substitute notice consists of both publication of a half-page newspaper advertisement for four <br />successive weeks and the posting of a prominent sign at the site of the proposed rezoning. Also, <br />individual mailed notice still has to be provided to those affected landowners who reside outside the <br />newspaper's circulation area. <br />Also, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in County of Lancaster v. Mecklenburg County, <br />N.C. , 1993 N.C. LEMS 403 (Sept. 10, 1993), after this article was published. In this case the court <br />reaffirmed that evidentiary hearings are required for quasi-judicial zoning decisions. The court <br />emphasized that it is the nature of the type of decision--ratfier than what it is called in the ordinance or <br />who makes it--that controls whether this more formal decision-making process is required. Those zoning <br />decisions that involve findings of fact and application of discretion (typically special- and <br />conditional-use permits, variances, and appeals of administrative decisions) are quasi-judicial. The court <br />in this case also addressed the standard for avoiding conflicts of interest in zoning decisions. The court <br />held that with legislative zoning decisions' "where there is a specific, substantial, and readily identifiable <br />financial impact on a-member, nonparticipation is required. Additional considerations beyond these <br />financial interests require nonparticipation in quasi-judicial zoning decisions. A fixed opinion that is not <br />susceptible to change may well constitute impenhissible bias, as will undisclosed ex parte <br />communication or a close familial or business relationship with the applicant-,' Id. at <br />Table I <br />Key Differences between Legislative and Evidentiary Zoning Hearings <br />Legislative <br />Evidentiary <br />Notice of <br />Hearings <br />Both newspaper notice and mailed <br />notice to owners and neighbors are <br />Only notice to parties to the matter is required <br />required. <br />unless -ordinance mandates otherwise. <br />Sparin eskers at <br />He gs <br />Number of speakers, time for <br />speakers can be reasonably <br />Witnesses presenting testimony can be limited <br />limited. <br />.to relevant evidence that is not repetitious. <br />None is required; members are <br />Substantial, competent, material evidence must <br />Evidence <br />free to discuss issue outside <br />be put in the record; witnesses are under oath, <br />hearing. <br />subject to cross-examination; no discussion. of <br />the case outside the hearing is allowed. <br />Findings <br />None are required. <br />Written findings of fact are required. <br />Records <br />Regular minutes are satisfactory. <br />Detailed record of testimony is required; clerk <br />should retain all exhibits during period of <br />potential appeal. <br />Table 2 Summary of Requirements for Mailed Notice of Proposed Zoning Classification Actions <br />Triggered by: Zoning classification action <br />Sent to: Owner of parcel and abutting parcels, as shown on county tax listing <br />How mailed: First class <br />Exceptions: Not required for total rezonings of entire jurisdiction (but even here must be sent to any <br />property that is put in less int- <br />ensive zone) <br />Verification: Certification to governing board of mailing to be provided by person making the <br />mailing <br />