{
  "id": 11359559,
  "name": "PNE AOA MEDIA, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. JACKSON COUNTY, JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "PNE AOA Media, L.L.C. v. Jackson County",
  "decision_date": "2001-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA00-1239",
  "first_page": "470",
  "last_page": "483",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 470"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-134.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "507 S.E.2d 272",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "278",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571708
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "322",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "530 P.2d 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "632"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Wash. 2d 959",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1125159
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "963"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash-2d/84/0959-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 S.E.2d 595",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "598",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Godfrey v. State, 84 Wash. 2d 959, 963, 530 P.2d 630, 632 (1975)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 N.C. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2515756
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "402",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Godfrey v. State, 84 Wash. 2d 959, 963, 530 P.2d 630, 632 (1975)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/322/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 S.E.2d 332",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "344-45",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Armstrong v. Armstrong, 322 N.C. 396, 402, 368 S.E.2d 595, 598 (1988) (quoting Godfrey v. State, 84 Wash. 2d 959, 963, 530 P.2d 630, 632 (1975))"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 N.C. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2535852
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Armstrong v. Armstrong, 322 N.C. 396, 402, 368 S.E.2d 595, 598 (1988) (quoting Godfrey v. State, 84 Wash. 2d 959, 963, 530 P.2d 630, 632 (1975))"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/336/0657-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 S.E.2d 272",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "279"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4771671
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "62"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "484 S.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "414",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 317 N.C. 51, 62, 344 S.E.2d 272, 279 (1986)"
        },
        {
          "page": "414",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11709198
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "171",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 317 N.C. 51, 62, 344 S.E.2d 272, 279 (1986)"
        },
        {
          "page": "171-72"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/126/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "392 S.E.2d 101",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5308416,
        5304771,
        5309702,
        5307243,
        5304989
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0486-04",
        "/nc/326/0486-03",
        "/nc/326/0486-01",
        "/nc/326/0486-05",
        "/nc/326/0486-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 S.E.2d 439",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "443"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N.C. App. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523434
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/96/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 S.E.2d 283",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "285-86"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 779",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523537
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "782"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/103/0779-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683934
      ],
      "year": 1877,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/76/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 S.E.2d 231",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "235-36"
        },
        {
          "page": "236"
        },
        {
          "page": "237"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 N.C. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561040
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73-74"
        },
        {
          "page": "76"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/287/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-134",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-126",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E.2d 823",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "829"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561041
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "533"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "483 S.E.2d 172",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.C. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        53953,
        54054,
        53962,
        53838,
        53854
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/345/0344-04",
        "/nc/345/0344-02",
        "/nc/345/0344-05",
        "/nc/345/0344-03",
        "/nc/345/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "472 S.E.2d 358",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "362"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11911479
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "8"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/123/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1063,
    "char_count": 28711,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6689996804091606e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8256166672265449
    },
    "sha256": "e402c0471d09e468ab8049261fdbd97648d91cafd5c7e991dee8c1e7124c8f4f",
    "simhash": "1:900cb5a23f294450",
    "word_count": 4716
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:58.205856+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN and BIGGS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PNE AOA MEDIA, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. JACKSON COUNTY, JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants-Appellees"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCullough, Judge.\nPlaintiff PNE AOA Media, L.L.C. (PNE) is a limited liability corporation which provides off-premises advertising to businesses, mainly in the form of outdoor billboards. In July 1999, PNE leased a parcel of land along State Highway 441 outside the town limits of Dillsboro, North Carolina, but within the jurisdiction of Jackson County. On 13 and 14 August 1999, PNE erected a steel monopole sign structure on its property; PNE also bought the existing billboard, which was approximately 300 feet from the new structure on the same parcel of land. The existing billboard had previously been authorized by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT); however, PNE had to dismantle and remove the old billboard before DOT could issue a permit for the new structure, since the two billboards were within 300 feet of each other, in violation of DOT regulations.\nPrior to erecting the sign on the property, PNE employees talked with Buddy Burrell, a DOT employee, and notified him that a new sign would soon be erected on the land. According to plaintiff, Mr. Burrell told PNE the sign was in compliance with the State\u2019s requirements, and also stated that DOT would issue a permit for the new sign as soon as the old sign was removed from the premises.\nIn July 1999, PNE employee Julie Snipes contacted the Jackson County Planning Department and asked whether Jackson County required any special permits for the new sign. She was told that Jackson County did not require any permits. Thereafter, PNE employees Frank Moody and Robert Shipman went to the Jackson County Land Records Department and located the map that included the newly purchased tract of land. The two discussed the location with the Jackson County Director of Land Records, Bobby McMahan, who again confirmed that Jackson County did not require any permits to be filed for PNE\u2019s new sign.\nPNE proceeded to erect the steel monopole sign structure on 13 and 14 August 1999, though it did not place an advertisement upon it. At that time, PNE had not secured a permit from DOT. On 18 August 1999, the Jackson County Board of Commissioners (Board of Commissioners) met, and among other things, considered an outdoor advertising sign moratorium; this sixty-day moratorium was passed on 19 August 1999. The Board of Commissioners did not advertise or publish notice to the public that it was considering the moratorium, and the official agenda of the meeting did not indicate that a moratorium would be discussed.\nPNE delivered its sign permit application to DOT on 20 August 1999. At that time, DOT informed PNE that Jackson County had voted on, and approved, a sign moratorium the night before. DOT also told PNE that it could not grant the permit because it was prohibited from issuing sign permits that conflicted with a county zoning code. PNE\u2019s steel skeleton structure remained on the premises, but no billboard was ever erected.\nPNE filed its initial complaint on 12 October 1999. PNE also filed an amended complaint on 18 October 1999, alleging that Jackson County\u2019s moratorium was illegal and violated PNE\u2019s constitutional, statutory and common law vested rights. On the same date, PNE also filed a petition for writ of certiorari and a request for declaratory relief, asking the trial court to declare the Jackson County moratorium \u201cnull and void and of no legal effect[.]\u201d\nOn 22 November 1999, DOT answered, responded to PNE\u2019s petition, and moved to dismiss the complaint against it on the grounds of sovereign immunity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On 9 December 1999, the Board of Commissioners and Jackson County filed a document entitled \u201cMotions, Defenses, Answer to Amended Complaint and Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari,\u201d as well as a counterclaim requesting temporary and permanent injunctions against PNE\u2019s sign.\nOn 28 December 1999, the trial court denied plaintiff\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari. Both plaintiff and defendants Jackson County and the Board of Commissioners filed motions for summary judgment in April 2000. On 15 June 2000, the trial court denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted DOT\u2019S motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint against it. The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of the Board of Commissioners and Jackson County with regard to their counterclaim requesting temporary and permanent injunctions against plaintiffs sign. Pursuant to the trial court\u2019s order, plaintiff was required to dismantle and remove the steel skeleton within 30 days of the order.\nPlaintiff appealed to this Court on 14 July 2000. Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting a stay of the trial court\u2019s decision pending appeal so that its steel structure could remain in place. The trial court granted PNE\u2019s motion for a stay on 31 July 2000.\nOn appeal, plaintiff brings forth seven assignments of error, all of which revolve around PNE\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants. For the reasons set forth, we disagree with PNE\u2019s arguments and affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment to defendants.\nWhen a party files a motion for summary judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1999), this Court must determine whether the trial court properly ruled that no genuine issue of material fact existed such that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Murray v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 123 N.C. App. 1, 8, 472 S.E.2d 358, 362 (1996), disc. reviews denied, 345 N.C. 344, 483 S.E.2d 172-73 (1997). \u201cIn addition, the record is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, giving it the benefit of all inferences which reasonably arise therefrom.\u201d Id. When making its determination, the trial court is to consider evidence \u201cincludfing] admissions in the pleadings, depositions on file, answers to Rule 33 interrogatories, admissions on file . . . affidavits, and any other material which would be admissible in evidence or of which judicial notice may properly be taken.\u201d Kessing v. National Mortgage Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 533, 180 S.E.2d 823, 829 (1971). With this standard of review in mind, we turn to the allegations of PNE\u2019s complaint.\nPreemption\nPNE first argues that the Jackson County sign moratorium preempted North Carolina\u2019s Outdoor Advertising Control Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-126, et. seq. (1999), because it cut short the statutory thirty-day right to cure defects in outdoor advertising provided by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-134 (1999). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-134 states that\nany outdoor advertising maintained without a permit regardless of the date of erection shall be illegal and shall constitute a nuisance. The Department of Transportation or its agents shall give 30 days[\u2019] notice to the owner of the illegal outdoor advertising ... to remove the outdoor advertising or to make it conform to the provisions of this Article or rules adopted by the Department of Transportation hereunder. The Department of Transportation or its agents shall have the right to remove the illegal outdoor advertising at the expense of the owner if the owner fails to remove the outdoor advertisement or to make it conform to the provisions of this Article or rules issued by the Department of Transportation within 30 days after receipt of such notice ....\nPNE applied for its permit from DOT on 20 August 1999, one day after the Jackson County sign moratorium was passed. Because PNE\u2019s sign was erected without a permit, it is a nuisance as that term is defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-134; thus, the issue of preemption is properly before this Court.\nIt is well settled that state regulation of a particular field preempts county and municipal rules which govern the same issue and conflict with the state provision. Greene v. City of Winston-Salem, 287 N.C. 66, 73-74, 213 S.E.2d 231, 235-36 (1975). If there is discord between the state provisions and the municipal or county provisions, the municipal and county provisions \u201cmust give way.\u201d Id. at 73, 213 S.E.2d at 236 (quoting Town of Washington v. Hammond, 76 N.C. 33 (1877)). Moreover, if the state law clearly shows a legislative intent to provide \u201ca complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulationf]\u201d in a particular area of law, then the local rules must be consistent with the General Assembly\u2019s legislative intent. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-174(b)(5) (1999); and Greene, 287 N.C. at 76, 213 S.E.2d at 237. Plaintiff contends that the General Assembly intended the state rules for outdoor advertising to harmonize with the local rules, as well as DOT\u2019S regulations. Thus, plaintiff argues, the statutory thirty-day right to cure found in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-134 conflicted with Jackson County\u2019s moratorium, in which case the moratorium should have given way. We disagree.\nPNE asserts that its statutory right to cure defects in its sign structure began with receipt of DOT\u2019S letter on 17 August 1999 and lasted for thirty days, during which PNE could remove the old billboard so its new sign would comply with DOT regulations. The Board of Commissioners passed the Jackson County moratorium on 19 August 1999. At that time, PNE had not yet filed for a permit from DOT, so its sign properly fell under the scope of the moratorium.\nWhile DOT is not responsible for interpreting the legality of zoning regulations or the legality of moratoriums, it must honor properly passed local rules and moratoriums. The Board of Commissioners expressly stated that Jackson County\u2019s moratorium was passed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-121(a) (1999), which confers general police powers upon the county as follows:\n(a) A county may by ordinance define, regulate, prohibit, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the county; and may define and abate nuisances.\nWe discern no procedural problems with the passage of the moratorium, and it was therefore properly in place at the time PNE filed its sign permit application with DOT on 20 August 1999.\nWhile conceding that the Jackson County moratorium cut short PNE\u2019s right to cure, defendants maintain that PNE was at fault because it erected the steel structure without first securing a permit from DOT. We agree. Defendants point to the deposition of Frank Moody, the General Manager of PNE. Mr. Moody explained that he had worked in the outdoor advertising business for over sixteen years. Over that span, his job duties included sales, leasing, and general management. Mr. Moody started his own outdoor advertising business in 1989, and part of his job was to select sites for outdoor billboards and secure the proper permits. After explaining how he selected the tract of land along State Highway 441, Mr. Moody was asked whether he secured a permit before the steel structure went up. He responded as follows:\n[Q.] Prior to this time have you \u2014 do you usually get a permit before you erect a sign?\nA. Yep.\nQ. Do you do that most of the time or some of the time?\nA. All the time.\nQ. You do it all the time?\nA. Yeah.\nQ. So this would be the only instance in which you have ever erected a sign without first obtaining the necessary permits. Is that true?\nA. I believe so, yeah.\nMr. Moody stated he and his coworkers spoke to several people at DOT and in Jackson County and determined that the only permit necessary was the one issued by DOT. Mr. Moody stated that he knew PNE\u2019s new sign was too close to an existing sign, and that the existing sign would have to be purchased and dismantled before a DOT permit could be issued. He further explained that there was confusion about the sequence of events because Mr. Buddy Burrell, his contact at DOT, was out sick and was unavailable for consultation a few days before construction commenced, and before the permit application was filed. As a result, PNE\u2019s new sign was erected too early, before Mr. Moody had secured a permit from DOT.\nPNE knew it needed a permit from DOT, and failed to secure one. At the same time, Jackson County and its Board of Commissioners properly passed their sixty-day moratorium on 19 August 1999. PNE filed for its permit one day later, on 20 August 1999. Had PNE filed sooner with DOT, it would have learned that its sign was too close to the existing billboard, and it could have taken steps to remedy the situation. However, PNE failed to do so, and was bound by the terms of the newly enacted moratorium. Based on these facts, we decline to assist PNE on appeal when its own inaction caused it to suffer pecuniary losses. We conclude that the Jackson County moratorium on outdoor advertising was properly passed, and that it does not preempt state law. Plaintiff\u2019s first assignment of error is overruled.\nNotice\nPNE next argues that Jackson County\u2019s moratorium was enacted in violation of the notice provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-323 (1999) and that it was therefore ultra vires. We disagree.\nArticle 18 of the North Carolina General Statutes sets forth the rules for county planning and regulation. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-320, et seq. (1999). Before adopting ordinances pursuant to Article 18, counties must follow certain procedural and notice requirements. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Iredell County, 103 N.C. App. 779, 782, 407 S.E.2d 283, 285-86 (1991). Specifically, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-323 states that\n[b]efore adopting or amending any ordinance authorized by this Article . . . the board of commissioners shall hold a public hearing on the ordinance or amendment. The board shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once a week for two successive calendar weeks. The notice shall be published the first time not less than 10 days nor more than 25 days before the date fixed for the hearing. In computing such period, the day of publication is not to be included but the day of the hearing shall be included.\nThe evidence in this case indicates that no notice was given either that a sixty-day moratorium was being discussed by the Board of Commissioners on 18 August 1999 or that the moratorium was adopted on 19 August 1999.\nDefendants maintain that Jackson County and the Board of Commissioners enacted the sign moratorium under the general police powers granted to counties under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-121(a). We agree. We note first that Article II of Jackson County\u2019s \u201cOff-Premise Sign Control Ordinance, Jackson County, North Carolina\u201d states:\nThis ordinance is established by the Jackson County Board of Commissioners pursuant to the authority conferred in Chapter 153(A)-121(a) of the North Carolina General Statutes. The Board of Commissioners hereby ordains and enacts into law the following articles and sections.\n(Emphasis added.) Thus, by its very terms, Jackson County made its moratorium part of its official Off-Premise Sign Control Ordinance via N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-121(a), rather than by Article 18 of Chapter 153A.\nThe issue of ordinance passage and statutory authority was thoroughly discussed in Summey Outdoor Advertising v. County of Henderson, 96 N.C. App. 533, 386 S.E.2d 439 (1989), disc. review denied, 326 N.C. 486, 392 S.E.2d 101 (1990). The Summey Court stated\n[w]e do not believe that because defendant has authority to regulate signs under G.S. 153A-340, it may not regulate signs in a similar manner under the general police powers in G.S. 153A-121 (allowing regulation of \u201cconditions detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the county . . .\u201d). G.S. 153A-121 and 153A-340 do not operate exclusively of each other. See G.S. 153A-124 (Specific powers enumerated in Article 6, Chapter 153A to \u201cregulate, prohibit or abate acts, omissions, or conditions is not exclusive [or] a limit on the general authority to adopt ordinances . . . [under] G.S. 153A-121.\u201d).\nId. at 538, 386 S.E.2d at 443.\nWe therefore conclude that Jackson County\u2019s sixty-day moratorium and subsequent ordinance were passed pursuant to the general police powers of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-121, and as such, no notice or public hearing was required. Plaintiffs second assignment of error is overruled.\nCommon Law Vested Right\nPNE next argues that it acted in good faith and had common law vested property rights to erect a sign on its property because it reasonably relied on statements from defendants that no local permits were needed to proceed. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that PNE did not act in good faith and cannot, therefore, assert common law vested property rights. We agree with defendants.\nThe common law vested rights doctrine \u201c \u2018has evolved as a constitutional limitation on the state\u2019s exercise of its police power[s].\u2019 \u201d Browning-Ferris Industries v. Guilford County Bd. of Adj., 126 N.C. App. 168, 171, 484 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1997) (quoting Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 317 N.C. 51, 62, 344 S.E.2d 272, 279 (1986)). The Browning-Ferris Court also explained that\n[a] party\u2019s common law right to develop and/or construct vests when: (1) the party has made, prior to the amendment of a zoning ordinance, expenditures or incurred contractual obligations \u201csubstantial in amount, incidental to or as part of the acquisition of the building site or the construction or equipment of the proposed building[;]\u201d (2) the obligations and/or expenditures are incurred in good faith[;] (3) the obligations and/or expenditures were made in reasonable reliance on and after the issuance of a valid building permit, if such permit is required, authorizing the use requested by the party[;] . . . and (4) the amended ordinance is a detriment to the party.\nBrowning-Ferris, 126 N.C. App. at 171-72, 484 S.E.2d at 414 (citations omitted).\nIn this case, there is evidence that plaintiff meets element one, because it leased the property along State Highway 441, bought the existing sign, hired contractors to build and erect the steel skeleton and the new sign, and hired people to remove the existing sign. Plaintiff has also shown that the Jackson County ordinance is a detriment to its pecuniary interests, because it loses $1,500.00 per month in advertising revenues which it could have earned had it secured the permit allowing it to post advertisements.\nHowever, plaintiff did not act in good faith. Though plaintiff talked to employees of DOT and Jackson County, Mr. Moody proceeded to take on the project without first securing the permit from DOT, and this was the first time he had ever done so. Mr. Moody was highly experienced and knew the proper course of action for securing permits from DOT.\nWe also reject plaintiff\u2019s argument that its obligations and expenditures were made in reasonable reliance on and after the issuance of a valid building permit. While it is true that no county permit was required, a permit from DOT was, and it is clear that PNE had not secured that permit before it began to erect the sign along State Highway 441.\nPlaintiff has failed to show that it met all four elements necessary to establish that it had a common law vested property right. Plaintiffs third assignment of error is therefore overruled.\nStatutory Vested Right\nBy its fourth assignment of error, PNE argues that it had a statutory vested right to erect a sign on the property when no local regulations governed the erection of the sign at the time plaintiff began building. Plaintiff also argues that defendants had full knowledge of PNE\u2019s actions at all times relevant to this lawsuit. While plaintiff may technically be correct that no local rule was in effect, we can discern no reason why Jackson County and the Board of Commissioners could not act at the time and in the manner they did.\nPlaintiff cites N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-344.1(b) (1999) and argues that it had a vested right to complete the development of real property \u201cunder the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan or the phased development plan.\u201d Plaintiff also argues that the plan must be made after notice and a public hearing. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-344.1(c). PNE characterizes these factors as creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it had a statutory vested right to erect the sign, such that summary judgment was improper. We disagree.\nAs previously discussed, Jackson .County did not have a comprehensive zoning plan or ordinance in effect when PNE began building on its leased land. Plaintiffs arguments assume that the Jackson County moratorium and subsequent ordinance were passed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat: \u00a7 153A-344.1, such that notice and a public hearing were required. However, we have concluded that the Jackson County moratorium and ordinance were passed pursuant to the general police powers granted to counties under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-121. This statute does not have notice and public hearing requirements, nor does it contain a provision for a statutory vested right. We therefore deem plaintiffs arguments to be without merit, and overrule this assignment of error.\nDue Process Considerations\nBy its fifth assignment of error, PNE argues that the Board of Commissioners and Jackson County violated its due process rights by failing to provide public notice of the proposed moratorium, and thus the moratorium constituted an unjust taking of its vested right without just compensation. We disagree.\n\u201c \u2018A vested right, entitled to protection from legislation, must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance of the existing law; it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment of property, a demand, or legal exemption from a demand by another. \u2019 \u201d\nState ex rel. Utilities Comm. v. Carolina Utility Cust. Assn., 336 N.C. 657, 678, 446 S.E.2d 332, 344-45 (1994) (quoting Armstrong v. Armstrong, 322 N.C. 396, 402, 368 S.E.2d 595, 598 (1988) (quoting Godfrey v. State, 84 Wash. 2d 959, 963, 530 P.2d 630, 632 (1975))). While it is true that a governmental entity must afford procedural due process to a party who has a vested right to property before that party\u2019s right is altered, we do not find a vested right for PNE in this case. We further note that\n[w]hile the demonstration of a protected \u201cproperty\u201d interest is a condition precedent to procedural due process protection, the existence of the \u201cproperty\u201d interest does not resolve the matter before this Court. We must inquire further and determine exactly what procedure or \u201cprocess\u201d is due. The fundamental premise of procedural due process protection is notice and the opportunity to be heard. Moreover, the opportunity to be heard must be \u201cat a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.\u201d\nPeace v. Employment Sec. Comm\u2019n, 349 N.C. 315, 322, 507 S.E.2d 272, 278 (1998) (citations omitted).\nWe are persuaded by defendants\u2019 position that there was no need for notice and a hearing because PNE did not have a vested property right in this case. Defendants correctly point out that the Board of Commissioners\u2019 meetings are open to the public, and there is time reserved at each meeting for public comment. We do not believe that PNE was entitled to notice beyond that given to the general public. We again note that the Board of Commissioners was not required to provide public notice when enacting an ordinance pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-121. Compare Summey, 96 N.C. App. 533, 386 S.E.2d 439 (Henderson County ordinance passed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-121(a), even without the procedural safeguards required when proceeding under Article 18).\nWe also agree with defendants that plaintiff enjoyed ample due process under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-134.1 (1999), which provides an avenue for plaintiff to challenge DOT\u2019s determination that its sign was illegal. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-134.1, PNE can file a petition for judicial review of the Secretary of Transportation\u2019s determination that PNE\u2019s sign was illegal. After examining the record, we note that plaintiff in fact filed such a petition with the Wake County Superior Court on 5 November 1999. Such protection is adequate in this situation, and we therefore overrule plaintiff\u2019s fifth assignment of error.\nOther Arguments\nBy its sixth assignment of error, PNE argues that the trial court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by granting summary judgment to the Board of Commissioners and Jackson County and ordering plaintiff to dismantle and remove the sign along State Highway 441. This argument is merely an amalgamation of plaintiff\u2019s previous arguments, and adds no new information. For the reasons previously stated herein, we reject plaintiff\u2019s argument and overrule this assignment of error.\nLastly, PNE argues that the trial court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by granting DOT\u2019S motion to dismiss. However, plaintiff\u2019s assignment of error was rendered moot by this Court\u2019s order on 27 June 2001, which dismissed DOT as a defendant in this case.\nThe trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment to Jackson County and the Board of Commissioners is affirmed. The trial court\u2019s order directing plaintiff to dismantle and remove its sign erected along State Highway 441 is also affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges MARTIN and BIGGS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCullough, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles F. McDarris and Bradford A. Williams, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hunter, Large & Sherrill, P.L.L.C., by Raymond D. Large, Jr., for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PNE AOA MEDIA, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. JACKSON COUNTY, JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants-Appellees\nNo. COA00-1239\n(Filed 16 October 2001)\n1. Zoning\u2014 billboard moratorium \u2014 local ordinance \u2014 not preempted by state law\nA local outdoor sign moratorium was properly passed and was not preempted by state law where PNE built a new billboard without the required DOT permit because an old billboard had not yet been removed; the Outdoor Advertising Control Act, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 136-134, provides 30 days for curing defects; and, in the interim, the Jackson County Board of Commissioners passed a sign moratorium. DOT must honor local rules and moratoriums and this local moratorium was properly in place at the time PNE filed its sign permit application. PNE failed to secure a DOT permit which it knew it needed; its own inaction caused its pecuniary loss.\n2. Zoning\u2014 billboard moratorium \u2014 passed without notice\u2014 police power\nA local outdoor advertising sign moratorium was properly passed by a county board of commissioners despite the absence of notice where the moratorium and subsequent ordinance were passed pursuant to the general police powers of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-121. No notice or public hearing was required.\n3. Zoning\u2014 common law vested rights doctrine \u2014 billboard moratorium \u2014 good faith \u2014 building permit\nPlaintiff did not have a common law vested property right to erect a billboard where the county passed a sign moratorium between the time plaintiff began construction and the time it applied for a required DOT permit. The common law vested rights doctrine has four elements; plaintiff satisfied the first and fourth elements in that it made expenditures prior to the amendment of the zoning ordinance and in that the ordinance was a detriment to its pecuniary interest, but did not satisfy the second and third elements in that plaintiff knew the proper course for securing DOT permits and did not act in good faith, and did not rely on the issuance of a valid building permit. Even though no county permit was required, it is clear that the necessary DOT permit was not issued before plaintiff began to erect the sign.\n4. Zoning\u2014 statutory vested right \u2014 billboard moratorium\u2014 police power\nPlaintiff did not have a statutory vested right to erect a billboard under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-344.1 where there were no local regulations at the time it began building. The local sign moratorium and subsequent ordinance were passed under the general police powers granted to counties by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 153A-121.\n5. Constitutional Law\u2014 due process \u2014 billboard moratorium without notice \u2014 no vested property right \u2014 judicial review provided\nPlaintiffs due process rights were not violated where it began construction of a billboard without the required DOT permit and a local sign moratorium was passed without notice just before plaintiff applied for the permit. There was no need for notice and a hearing because PNE did not have a vested property right; moreover, plaintiff could and did challenge DOT\u2019S determination that its sign was illegal by filing a petition for judicial review under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 136-134.1.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 15 June 2000 by Judge Marlene Hyatt in Jackson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 September 2001.\nCharles F. McDarris and Bradford A. Williams, for plaintiff appellant.\nHunter, Large & Sherrill, P.L.L.C., by Raymond D. Large, Jr., for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0470-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 515
}
