The committee should not lessen the number of days for a second public hearing notice. Community members should have the full seven days which is not much time to begin with. There are numerous reasons why the days should not be shortened including their need to to change their schedule in order to attend or hire a sitter or prepare for the meeting as planning and zoning is complicated and many times impacts a block, neighborhood and sometimes the entire community. The community members are already on the short end as these meetings are not publicized well enough and the developers and lawyers representing them know all details and have already been working with the town in preparation and payment of fees, etc. Further, in many cases the attorneys and sometimes the developers have worked on other projects that have been before either or both boards. Please show the community members the respect they deserve and keep the full seven days as is. It is important that the community does not feel railroaded into irreversible decisions. Thank you.

I am against the change to reduce the public hearing notice period from seven to five days for planning and zoning actions. Here are my concerns: Reduced Public Awareness: A shorter notice period might not give the community sufficient time to become aware of and engage with the proposed changes, potentially reducing public participation in local governance, which is crucial for democratic processes. Legal Precedents: Cases like Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) emphasize the importance of adequate notice in administrative proceedings to ensure due process. Reducing the notice period could be seen as contrary to ensuring fair notice and opportunity for public input. Potential for Misinformation: With less time, there's a higher risk that misinformation or lack of information could spread, leading to public misunderstanding or opposition based on incomplete knowledge of the proposals. Community Involvement: Effective community involvement requires time for residents to review plans, discuss them, and organize if necessary. Five days might not be enough, especially for complex zoning changes that require detailed consideration. Work Days and Weekends Issue: The bill does not distinguish between work days and weekends, which could lead to confusion: If the 5th day before the meeting falls on a weekend or a day when offices are closed, this could mean that the notice might not be effectively communicated if published on a non-business day, potentially excluding those who do not check local government notices regularly outside of work hours. This oversight could undermine the purpose of public notice, which is to ensure broad community awareness. Administrative Burden: While the intention might be to reduce costs, the change could actually increase administrative confusion or require additional steps to ensure notices are published on business days, potentially offsetting any savings. I strongly oppose this legislation due to concerns over reduced public engagement, potential legal issues, misinformation risks, insufficient time for community involvement, and the lack of consideration for non-business days in the notice publication, advocating for maintaining or even extending the current notice period to better serve democratic principles and community interests.

Mecklenburg County supports the amendment to Section 15.2 - 2204.A. contained in HB 1996. While we appreciate the intent of the changes made by the last two sessions of the General Assembly to standardize public notices throughout the Code, we believe, from experience, that this last change to zoning notices (implementing a seven-day end-window) frustrates rather than enhances public notice. In many areas of the Commonwealth, newspapers publish once a week. In our area, our papers publish on Wednesday. With Monday Board meetings, we are unable to publish the second notice in the paper in the edition leading up to the meeting, when people are most apt to be looking for what will be on the Board’s agenda. Since the second notice should be a reminder notice, we believe it serves the public interest to have that reminder notice in the paper immediately preceding the meeting. A reversion to the five-day end-window, as existed prior to 2023, would allow for this in our case. This change still allows for advance notice to be placed in time to put the meeting on one's calendar via the first notice, so it would not reduce the information provided to the public. Rather, the change most meets the public when they need notice.