AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 17-1-17, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE TIME FRAME FOR NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CHANGE ZONING REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND BOUNDARIES THAT MAY BE AMENDED, SUPPLEMENTED, CHANGED OR REPEALED; TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF CERTAIN SOCIAL MEDIA TO PROVIDE SUCH NOTICE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; TO AMEND SECTION 11-51-75, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT A WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEAL CONCERNING SUCH CHANGE OF ZONING REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND BOUNDARIES MUST BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS, RATHER THAN 10 DAYS, OF THE RENDERING OF THE DECISION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF A COUNTY OR THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF A MUNICIPALITY FOR SUCH CHANGE; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Impact
The proposed changes in HB 984 are intended to create a more transparent process for citizens regarding local zoning matters. By incorporating social media into the notification process, the bill acknowledges the evolving nature of communication and aims to reach a broader audience. Furthermore, the bill adjusts the timeframe for filing appeals against zoning decisions to twenty days, thus providing additional time for individuals or groups dissatisfied with a decision to prepare their case for consideration in the circuit court.
Summary
House Bill 984 seeks to amend the Mississippi Code of 1972 by revising the procedural requirements for public hearings regarding changes to zoning regulations, restrictions, and boundaries. The bill proposes extending the notice period for such hearings from the current fifteen days to a multi-tiered system where notifications are to be provided thirty days and fifteen days prior to the hearing. A significant addition is the authorization of notifying the public through specified social media platforms, aiming to enhance public accessibility and engagement in local governance.
Contention
While supporters argue that the bill will improve public participation and modernize the approach to zoning hearings, concerns may arise regarding the adequacy of social media as a sole means of communication. Critics might express apprehension over whether all constituents have equal access to social media and if this could inadvertently disenfranchise certain groups. Additionally, extending the appeal period could be seen by some as lengthening the process unnecessarily, potentially delaying necessary developments in local areas.