Roanoke Rapids city council and planning board members Thursday charted the complicated and legally rigid issue of quasi-judicial hearings that must be held when conditional use and special use permits are at issue.

While it is not necessary for the planning board to hold quasi-judicial hearings, Dale Holland, of Holland Consulting Planners, recommended the panel hold them that way.

It is absolutely required by state law that council hold conditional and special use permit hearings that way, Holland said.

Quasi-judicial hearings are akin to court proceedings in which those speaking must be sworn in and those speaking must be directly affected by the topic.

Some of the more hot-button issues that have been subject to these hearings have been Internet sweepstakes cafes and a cell phone tower request by businessman David King, which has been appealed to superior court. The cell phone tower issue was hinted at but not specifically discussed during the training session.

“This process is difficult to follow but important to follow,” Holland said. “It’s more difficult the smaller the community. There are so many people you see every day.”

Holland described council’s role in this proceedings as being like a jury. They are not to discuss the matter before it gets to council and should the matter be tabled, they are not to discuss it outside the council meeting. They are not to discuss the matter in closed session.

When it comes to public participation in these hearings, that participation is limited. “If someone is asking for a conditional use permit on the west side and you are from the east side, you are not affected by that. Those directly affected have the right to be heard in the process … if someone is not directly affected you can let them speak but it is not considered as evidence.”

Like in other judicial proceedings, subpoenas can be requested and during the hearings parties have the right to cross-examination. “The information can’t be hearsay. You can only consider data and facts by people sworn in to give testimony.”

False testimony in these hearings is subject to perjury.”

Councilwoman Suetta Scarbrough was impressed with the information presented. “We should have had this class a long time ago.”

It was clear from the training session the protocol has not always been followed but that is the norm across the state, Holland said. “Let me assure you, this has been violated hundreds of thousands of times across the state. If you do this perfectly you will be a great minority in the state of North Carolina.”

Planning board member Connie Hill openly discussed her confusion of the process when she was involved as a spokesperson for the King cell tower matter. Her neighbor asked her to help him with the matter because he received a letter of notification from the city. “It did not directly impact my property. I went into the city council meeting with no idea what I was walking into.”

Hill said had she known she was not allowed to speak she wouldn’t have done so. She said the meeting became a fiasco. “I was part of that fiasco. I was not aware. This is what we’re doing tonight, all of Roanoke Rapids needs to be here.”

Mayor Emery Doughtie declined on whether he thought after listening to Holland’s presentation council might have erred in turning down King’s cell phone tower request. He declined comment because the matter was sent to superior court.

What he took away from the training session was, “I think what he was saying we need to be more inclusive with notifications.”