Speakers at future public hearings before the Moore County Planning Board will have a five-minute limit, not three minutes.

Board members voted unanimously during its meeting last week to adopt the new policy. All nine members, including the newest, Robert Hayter, were present.

“I believe in listening to everybody,” board Chairwoman Martha Blake said. “The public can speak, but we also need a little bit of order.”

The board also adopted a new policy covering the public-comment period now required at all meetings of government bodies. However, the vote was 8-1 with the vice chairwoman, Kim VonCanon, casting the dissenting vote on a motion by Dave Kinney favoring a policy with a three-minute speaking limit.

The two policies address two different types of public participation in Planning Board meetings.

The public-comment period, now held at the beginning of each meeting, is a time when anyone may address the board on any subject. Public hearings, on the other hand, are called on specific subjects, such as requests for zoning changes or conditional-use permits.

The meeting was a rare occasion with no applications before the board for approval or recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.

Instead, the board devoted almost two hours to discussing the proposed policies and listening to a presentation by County Attorney Misty Leland on quasi-judicial public hearings.

Issues pertaining to public hearing policy arose at a December meeting, when some speakers were abruptly halted in mid-speech upon exceeding a three-minute limit established earlier in the meeting. Several speakers had come to the meeting with prepared statements and were not expecting the three-minute limit.

The hearing was called to consider a request to rezone land for the proposed Pine Forest development at West End.

Harry Huberth, a former Planning Board chairman, was among the critics of the format used at the December meeting who addressed the board during the public-comment period last week.

Huberth told the board that people speaking at these meetings are often not accustomed to public speaking and are nervous. He added that on occasion the hearings are contentious and held on subjects causing personal and emotional reactions. He spoke on the subject at the conclusion of the December meeting, then spoke again at the board’s January meeting.

Allow Flexibility

One of the changes made in the public-comment period is moving it from the end of the meeting to the beginning of the meeting.

The policy adopted by the board is similar to the public-comment policy already in use by the county commissioners. The commissioners’ policy calls for public comment during the first 30 minutes of each meeting, with a three-minute speaking limit and the requirement that each speaker sign up on a special form placed at the door prior to meetings.

The policy also calls for speakers to be courteous and to refrain from making discriminatory or derogatory comments about individuals.

Under the policies adopted by the Planning Board, more flexibility is assigned to the chairman, who can made a judgment call in some situations.

Planning Director Joey Raczkowski explained that in a case where a large attendance is expected, the chairman could describe in more detail the policy at the beginning of the meeting.

Leland added that the board also has the option of altering the 30-minute public-comment period if that is deemed desirable.

Bernard Capstick said the Planning Board is actually closer to the public and holds more public hearings than the commissioners. He questioned whether the Planning Board policy should be identical to that of the commissioners.

Hayter said he also preferred a more Jeffersonian approach, one allowing greater flexibility.

Ricky Lea said the speaking limit is the No. 1 issue. He suggested that the board follow the commissioners’ model but make its policy more informal and more flexible.

The speaking time limit is an issue especially when a hearing attracts a large gathering with many speakers, who often repeat the same opinions and information, causing the meeting to last too long. On occasion in the past, when hearings have lasted for hours, some people signing up to speak leave the meeting before they are called to speak.

Lea agreed with Huberth’s observation that many speakers find the atmosphere intimidating at such meetings.

VonCanon agreed that there is a need for informality and flexibility.

“Maybe we’re making it a bigger issue than it is,” VonCanon said, adding her opinion that the public is generally understanding of policies and rules of order.

Maintaining Decorum

The policy adopted allows speakers to yield their unused minute or two to the speaking time of someone else. This was allowed on a limited basis at the December hearing.

However, board members wrestled with issues arising from several provisions of the proposed policies.

For example, they questioned the requirement that no one be allowed to speak if he or she did not arrive in time to sign up. And what if someone just walks in during a hearing and offers to yield time to another speaker although the newcomer has not signed up to speak? And should speakers be limited just to those who have signed up for a hearing?

VonCanon said she sympathizes with some people who are late arrivals at public meetings. Speaking from personal experience, she said it is sometimes difficult to be on time for meetings and cited the example of the mother who has babysitting problems at the last minute.

Raczkowski said that typically, during commissioners’ meetings and at previous Planning Board meetings, the chairman has asked if there is anyone else in the room who would like to speak but who has not signed up.

Blake expressed preference for limiting speakers to those who have signed up.

“I have a problem with that,” Kinney said. “We should be willing to listen to the people.”

Hayter said, “I think Martha is concerned about decorum.”

After the two policies were adopted, the board listened as Leland reviewed the legal requirements of quasi-judicial hearings, which differ from the average public hearing conducted by county commissioners and Planning Boards. Most public hearings are legislative in nature, which means that opinion and public reaction can be considered.

In the case of quasi-judicial hearings, however, the board must consider only substantial, competent and material evidence, which cannot be arbitrary, subjective or random.

Quasi-judicial hearings are not “an opportunity for citizens to speak their minds,” Leland said, adding that the board’s decision must be based on evidence, not opinion.

All persons speaking during quasi-judicial hearings must be under oath before addressing the board, including staff personnel and applicants, similar to a courtroom proceeding.

Contact Florence Gilkeson at (910) 693-2479 or by e-mail at florence@thepilot.com.