Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

---.... / \- ~ ! " March 10, 2008 I Volume 21 No, 5 gued that the court erred in granting the town's motion because: (1) the town failed to properly give notice of all public hearings; (2) the town failed to comply with its own notice and public hearing require- ments since the ordinance purported to change the zoning of 5.5 acres not included in any of the public hearing notices; (3) the public hear- ing notice posted on the land did not meet the requirements of state law; (4) an issue of material fact existed regarding whether notice was properly sent to eligible property owners; and (5) state law did not au- thorize the town to decrease certain requirements of the UDO. DECISION: Affirmed. The court found that the newspaper publication notices of the pub- lic hearings on the rezone were legally sufficient. State law (N.c. Gen. Stat. S 160A-364(a)) and the UDO required advance notice of the public hearing in a newspaper. The court said that additional notice and hear- mg were required only if the ordinance or amendment finally adopted contained alterations substantially different from those originallyadver- tised and heard. No additional notice or hearing was required when al- teration of initial proposals were insubstantial. Nor, the court said, were they required when initial notices were broad enough to indicate the pos- sibility of substantial change and substantial changes were of the "same fundamental character" as contained in the notice and resulted from ob- jections, debate and discussion at the properly-noticed initial hearing. The court rejected the residents' allegation of improper notice be- cause 5.5 acres of the rezone was not included in any of the public hearing notices. The notice of the public hearing on the proposed re- zone stated that 51.3 acres of the parcel were to be rezoned to Highway Business Conditional District. It also stated that the remaining 5.5 acres were to be rezoned to Urban Residential Conditional District. The court said newspaper notices were legally sufficient so long as no substantial change to the proposed ordinance occurred as it moved toward passage and those interested parties were informed when additional meetings would be held. The court concluded that the residents presented no evi- dence to show either a substantial change to the proposed ordinance or that interested parties were not informed of additional meetings. The court also found that the notice by posted sign was sufficient. State law (S 160A-384(c)) and the UDO required that when a zoning map amendment was proposed, the town must post a notice of the public hearing on the site proposed for rezoning. The court rejected the residents' argument that the lack of information on the sign as to the dates of aU of the public hearings violated State law. The town found that neither the State law nor the UDO required the sign give notice of dates of the town's subsequent meetings. The court said the posted sign requirement was designed as part of the ove!all notice scheme to iden- 11 135