Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

Page 8 --April 25, 1999 zog. Notice -- Do changes to proposed comprehensive zoning ordinance require new hearing? Citation: Bedingfield v. Mooresville Town Council, Court of Civic Appeals of Alabama, No. 2980018 (1999) In February 1991, the newly appointed zoning commission of the town of Mooresville, Ada., submitted a proposed ordinance and zoning map to the town council. In March, the town council posted public notice-r~f the commission's proposed zoning ordinance and map. It posted notice in several places in the town stating the proposed ordinance and map would be considered at the council's April meeting. Before the meeting, Bedingfield and a number of other residents sued the town to prevent the town council's consideration of the proposed ordinance and to recover damages should the ordinance be adopted. The April meeting went ahead as planned, and after considerable debate the council adopted the zoning ordinance and map with minor amendments. The council changed the zoning of two lots from residential to business because they had mistakenly been excluded from the business district on the original map. The residents' lawsuit remained essentially dormant until January 1997, when they asked the court for judgment without a trial. According to the resi- dents, the zoning ordinance was illegal because the town council didn't com- ply with a state law governing notice requirements for local ordinance changes. The statute provided that local ordinances could be passed, amended, changed, or repealed, and that the public notice and hearing requirements ap- plied equally to all changes or amendments. The residents claimed the statute also applied to changes in proposed ordinances, such as the zoning commission's reclassification of the two lots. The court awarded the town judgment, finding it would be too burdensome and expensive to require the town to publish public notice for each proposed change to a proposed zoning ordinance, no matter how minor. According to the court, it was enough that the council provided notice that clearly indicated the council would hold a hearing to consider a comprehensive zoning ordi- nance and map. The residents appealed, claiming 'the state notice statute required strict com- pliance and required the town to publish new notice for each change of the proposed ordinance, no matter how burdensome. DECISION: Affirmed. The council didn't violate the public notice statute. The ordinance was valid. The statute requiring public notice and a public hearing for all changes and amendments to zoning ordinances didn't apply to revisions to a proposed ordi- nance made at a public hearing held to review and discuss the same proposed ordinance, provided the revisions were minor. In this case, the town council didn't have to suspend its hearing, publish a new public notice, and hold a separate hearing simply to change the zoning classification of two lots that had been left off the original zoning map. This would be excessively burdensome and expensive to local governments and, ultimately, to taxpayers.