WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 243

Denturist practice act.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by John Winter

Durham City and County may adopt ordinances to use electronic public notices for certain hearings, alongside existing notice methods, where allowed by state law.

H:Died in Committee Returned Bill Pursuant to HR 5-4
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 243

Summary — HB 243: Durham/Electronic Notices for Public Hearings

Status: Passed 1st Reading (local bill)
Introduced: (filed in early 2025; latest readings in Feb–Mar 2025)
Subject: Counties; Municipalities; Notification; Public Meetings; Durham County; Durham; Electronic & Other Media

Main purpose

Allow the City of Durham and Durham County to authorize the use of electronic means (including municipal or county websites) for providing legally required public notice of certain public hearings handled through a joint planning board under state planning law.

Key provisions

  • Authorizes a city or county governing body to adopt an ordinance permitting a joint planning board (created under Part 1 of Article 20 of Chapter 160A) to give required public hearing notices by electronic means, such as posting on the city’s or county’s website.
  • Applies specifically to notices required under Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes (state planning and development regulation law).
  • Explicitly does NOT:
    • Supersede any State law that requires mailed notice to particular classes of persons (e.g., adjacent property owners).
    • Replace legal requirements to post signs on property when those are required.
    • Alter existing publication schedules for public notices (e.g., newspaper publication timing).
  • Geographic scope: this authorization applies only to the City of Durham and Durham County.
  • Effective date: the act takes effect when it becomes law.

Who would be affected

  • Local governments: City of Durham and Durham County may change their notice procedures if local ordinances are adopted.
  • Joint planning board(s) and municipal/county clerks: would implement electronic posting processes and maintain records of notices.
  • Residents, property owners, developers, and other stakeholders in Durham: may receive notice electronically (in addition to or instead of some traditional methods, where allowed).
  • Newspapers and other pay-for-publication services: limited impact because the bill preserves publication schedules and certain mail/posting requirements.
  • Legal practitioners and applicants in land use, zoning, and development: may see procedural changes in how notices are delivered and verified.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Administrative/cost effects: municipalities may reduce printing/mailed-notice costs for some notices if local ordinances permit electronic-only or electronic-primary notice where permitted.
  • Access and equity: electronic notice can increase speed and convenience, but may raise concerns for residents without reliable internet access; the bill preserves mailed and posted notice requirements where state law still mandates them.
  • Transparency & recordkeeping: localities will need reliable website posting practices (time-stamped, archived) and clear local ordinances describing how electronic notice satisfies statutory requirements.
  • Legal risk: because the bill is permissive (requires ordinances to be adopted) and preserves existing statutory notice protections, it minimizes conflict with state notice law but local governments should draft ordinances carefully to avoid procedural challenges.

Procedural notes

  • The law authorizes but does not mandate change — Durham city/county must adopt implementing ordinances to use electronic notice as described.
  • Because it preserves mail/posting and publication requirements where state law requires them, many existing notice channels likely remain in use for specified recipient classes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.