Opinion ID: 2174928
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legality of the February 10, 1969 Council Hearing

Text: The plaintiffs next contend that the hearing conducted by the town council on February 10, 1969, did not satisfy the terms of § 45-24-4.1 requiring    a public hearing, at which, opportunity shall be given all persons interested to be heard   . Section 45-24-4.1, in relevant part, reads as follows: Specific ordinances.  No such ordinance making a specific change in the zoning map shall be enacted, amended or repealed until after a public hearing, at which, opportunity shall be given all persons interested to be heard, has been held upon the question of the enactment, amendment or repeal of such ordinance, before the city or town council   . The plaintiffs argue that because of the extreme weather conditions on February 9 and February 10, 1969, persons who would have ordinarily attended the hearing did not do so because they were unable to leave their homes; that, therefore, the council's refusal to honor plaintiff Willey's request that the hearing on the proposed amendment be adjourned to a later date deprived interested persons of a reasonable opportunity to be present and to be heard in accordance with the mandate of § 45-24-4.1; that compliance with the requirements of § 45-24-4.1, that a public hearing be held at which opportunity shall be given all persons interested to be heard, is jurisdictional and a condition precedent to action by the council; and that in the circumstances enactment of the ordinance exceeded the jurisdiction of the town council.