{ "id": 4175452, "name": "CARY CREEK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF CARY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Cary Creek Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Cary", "decision_date": "2010-03-16", "docket_number": "No. COA09-799", "first_page": "99", "last_page": "109", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "203 N.C. App. 99" } ], "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": "623 S.E.2d 582", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634697, 12634698, 12634699 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/623/0582-01", "/se2d/623/0582-02", "/se2d/623/0582-03" ] }, { "cite": "615 S.E.2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633266 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "358" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/615/0350-01" ] }, { "cite": "617 S.E.2d 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633744, 12633741, 12633742, 12633743 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/617/0662-04", "/se2d/617/0662-01", "/se2d/617/0662-02", "/se2d/617/0662-03" ] }, { "cite": "670 S.E.2d 341", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642377 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. App. P. 30(e)(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/670/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "612 S.E.2d 156", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632783 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "158" }, { "page": "161" }, { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/612/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "618 S.E.2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633920, 12633921, 12633922, 12633923, 12633924, 12633925, 12633926, 12633927, 12633914, 12633915, 12633916, 12633917, 12633918, 12633919 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/618/0875-07", "/se2d/618/0875-08", "/se2d/618/0875-09", "/se2d/618/0875-10", "/se2d/618/0875-11", "/se2d/618/0875-12", "/se2d/618/0875-13", "/se2d/618/0875-14", "/se2d/618/0875-06", "/se2d/618/0875-01", "/se2d/618/0875-02", "/se2d/618/0875-03", "/se2d/618/0875-04", "/se2d/618/0875-05" ] }, { "cite": "613 S.E.2d 753", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633096, 12633097, 12633098, 12633099, 12633100, 12633101 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/613/0753-01", "/se2d/613/0753-02", "/se2d/613/0753-03", "/se2d/613/0753-04", "/se2d/613/0753-05", "/se2d/613/0753-06" ] }, { "cite": "665 S.E.2d 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641757 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "565", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/665/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3791718, 3787691, 3792556, 3796278, 3794583, 3787192, 3791705, 3793820 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0063-05", "/nc/360/0063-01", "/nc/360/0063-08", "/nc/360/0063-04", "/nc/360/0063-02", "/nc/360/0063-06", "/nc/360/0063-07", "/nc/360/0063-03" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8438714 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "606" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3795078, 3800872, 3801711, 3798065, 3802421, 3795157 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0643-04", "/nc/359/0643-03", "/nc/359/0643-05", "/nc/359/0643-02", "/nc/359/0643-06", "/nc/359/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361", "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "page": "361" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3799435 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402", "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-214.23", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-214.5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9004379 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111" }, { "page": "111" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/170/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 S.E.2d 269", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that \"land-use challenges are not ripe for review until there has been a final decision about what uses of the property will be permitted\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139358 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that \"land-use challenges are not ripe for review until there has been a final decision about what uses of the property will be permitted\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "479 S.E.2d 221", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223", "parenthetical": "stating that \"land-use challenges are not ripe for review until there has been a final decision about what uses of the property will be permitted\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 N.C. App. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11865149 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61", "parenthetical": "stating that \"land-use challenges are not ripe for review until there has been a final decision about what uses of the property will be permitted\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/125/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 L. Ed. 2d 651", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "496 U.S. 931", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12152225, 12152134, 12152362, 12152274, 12152182, 12152311 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/496/0931-03", "/us/496/0931-01", "/us/496/0931-06", "/us/496/0931-04", "/us/496/0931-02", "/us/496/0931-05" ] }, { "cite": "387 S.E.2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "661-62" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5305891 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N.C. App. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "663 S.E.2d 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641507 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "322", "parenthetical": "\"It is not the role of this Court to create an avenue of appeal not properly asserted in plaintiff's brief.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/663/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "646 S.E.2d 851", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638896 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "855", "parenthetical": "quoting David W. Owens, Introduction to Zoning 23-24 (2d ed. 2001)" }, { "page": "856" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/646/0851-01" ] }, { "cite": "665 S.E.2d 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641757 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565", "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/665/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 S.E.2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12129791 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 N.C. App. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4159956 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389", "parenthetical": "\"It is not the role of this Court to create an avenue of appeal not properly asserted in plaintiff's brief.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/191/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 N.C. App. 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8187325 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670", "parenthetical": "quoting David W. Owens, Introduction to Zoning 23-24 (2d ed. 2001)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/184/0665-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E.2d 432", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437-38" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566715 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "540" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E.2d 352", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566665 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 255", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258", "parenthetical": "quoting Heaton v. City of Charlotte, 277 N.C. 506, 513, 178 S.E.2d 352, 356 (1971)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "169 N.C. App. 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8471893 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589", "parenthetical": "quoting Heaton v. City of Charlotte, 277 N.C. 506, 513, 178 S.E.2d 352, 356 (1971)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/169/0587-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1025, "char_count": 25544, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08, "percentile": 0.30815541755523196 }, "sha256": "95c1d4ef7199c6c3397d0d664e6a09dc3b40024741bbca1b3f2d6f309d3a3d0b", "simhash": "1:128acee075e89c86", "word_count": 4047 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:21.116750+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge HUNTER, Robert C., concurs.", "Judge JACKSON concurs by separate opinion." ], "parties": [ "CARY CREEK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF CARY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nOn 29 May 2007, plaintiff Cary Creek Limited Partnership (\u201cCary Creek\u201d) sought a declaratory judgment that ordinances enacted by defendant Town of Cary (\u201cthe Town\u201d) which require preservation of riparian buffers are invalid and unenforceable or, in the alternative, that the Town must compensate Cary Creek under principles of inverse condemnation. The Town moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which motion the trial court subsequently denied by order entered 14 November 2008. On 27 October 2008, Cary Creek moved for partial summary judgment, and on 26 November 2008, the Town moved for summary judgment as well. On 14 January 2009, following a hearing, the trial court entered orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Town and denying summary judgment to Cary Creek on both the declaratory judgment and inverse condemnation claims. Cary Creek appeals. As discussed below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part.\nFacts\nCary Creek owns a tract of approximately 108 acres (\u201cthe site\u201d) near the intersection of Highway 55 and Alston Avenue in the Town of Cary which it plans to develop as a mixed commercial and residential center. The site is within the Cape Fear River Basin and is traversed by both a perennial stream and two intermittent streams which flow only during wet periods.\nThe Town has enacted a series of ordinances known collectively as the Land Development Ordinance which includes a subchapter of stormwater management ordinances. These stormwater management ordinances were designed for the \u201cprotection of riparian buffers, control of nitrogen export from development, control of peak stormwater runoff, and the use of best management practices.\u201d Stormwater management ordinance section 7.3.2, entitled \u201cProtecting Riparian Buffers,\u201d required one-hundred-foot riparian buffers on either side of \u201c[a]ll perennial and intermittent streams\u201d indicated on USGS maps and fifty-foot buffers adjacent to other surface waters indicated by the Soil Survey of Wake or Chatham County. Stormwater management ordinance section 7.3.7 permits parties to seek a variance from the riparian buffer requirement from the Cary Town Council (\u201cthe Council\u201d). The Council denied Cary Creek\u2019s request for such a variance on 26 April 2007.\nCary Creek raises two arguments on appeal, contending the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Town on Cary Creek\u2019s (I) declaratory judgment and (II) inverse condemnation claims. The Town cross-appeals on two issues, arguing that the trial court erred in its 14 November 2008 order denying the Town\u2019s motion to dismiss Cary Creek\u2019s (III) declaratory judgment and (IV) inverse condemnation claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the Town\u2019s cross-appeal implicates the threshold issue of subject matter jurisdiction, we address those arguments first. We affirm both the trial court\u2019s denial of the Town\u2019s motion to dismiss and its grant of summary judgment to the Town on Cary Creek\u2019s declaratory judgment action. We reverse the trial court\u2019s denial of the Town\u2019s motion to dismiss the inverse condemnation claim and vacate the grant of summary judgment to the Town on this claim.\nIll\nThe Town first contends that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Cary Creek\u2019s declaratory judgment claim. As discussed below, we disagree.\n\u201cA suit to determine the validity of a zoning ordinance is a proper case for a declaratory judgment.\u201d Laurel Valley Watch, Inc. v. Mt. Enters. of Wolf Ridge, LLC, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014 , \u2014, 665 S.E.2d 561, 565 (2008) (citations omitted). In a pair of unpublished opinions, we have previously approved a plaintiff challenging the validity of the Town\u2019s riparian buffer ordinance and claiming inverse condemnation via a declaratory judgment action while also pursuing a separate certiorari proceeding to challenge the Town\u2019s denial of his request for a variance under the ordinance. See ARH Int\u2019l Co. v. Cary, 170 N.C. App. 436, 613 S.E.2d 753 (2005) (unpublished); Hashemi v. Town of Cary, 173 N.C. App. 447, 618 S.E.2d 875 (2005) (unpublished). Indeed, because the standard of review and role of the superior court is different in certiorari proceedings, where it sits as an appellate court, than in declaratory judgment actions, where it sits as a trial court, such actions must be brought separately. See Batch v. Town of Chapel Hill, 326 N.C. 1, 11, 387 S.E.2d 655, 661-62, cert. denied, 496 U.S. 931, 110 L. Ed. 2d 651 (1990). The fact that Cary Creek\u2019s certiorari proceeding is on-going does not deprive the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction in this declaratory judgment action. The Town\u2019s cross-assignment of error on this point is overruled.\nIV, II\nThe Town also argues that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Cary Creek\u2019s action seeking compensation under a theory of inverse condemnation because the matter is unripe. We agree.\nCary Creek\u2019s inverse condemnation claim is based on the theory that if the riparian buffer ordinance is upheld as valid and enforceable in the instant case and if Cary Creek does not prevail in its certiorari proceeding, a taking will have occurred. Because neither of these prerequisite events had occurred at the time Cary Creek filed its claim, there had been no taking and there was no concrete controversy ripe for adjudication. See Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill, 125 N.C. App. 57, 61, 479 S.E.2d 221, 223, vacated as moot, 346 N.C. 259, 485 S.E.2d 269 (1997) (stating that \u201cland-use challenges are not ripe for review until there has been a final decision about what uses of the property will be permitted\u201d). We reverse the trial court\u2019s order denying the Town\u2019s motion to dismiss as to this claim. Further, because Cary Creek\u2019s inverse condemnation claim was not ripe and should have been dismissed, we also vacate the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment to the Town on this claim.\n/\nCary Creek argues that the Court erred in granting summary judgment to the Town on Cary Creek\u2019s declaratory judgment claim. We disagree.\nIn a declaratory judgment action to determine the validity of a zoning ordinance, \u201csummary judgment is properly granted where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Laurel Valley Watch, Inc., - N.C. App. at -, 665 S.E.2d at 565 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). \u201c[A]n appellate court reviews the trial court\u2019s decision de novo, with the evidence to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.\u201d Granville Farms, Inc. v. County of Granville, 170 N.C. App. 109, 111, 612 S.E.2d 156, 158 (2005).\nCary Creek moved for partial summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim, arguing that the State\u2019s regulation of riparian buffers preempted any attempt by the Town to implement more stringent regulations. The trial court did not explain the basis for its grant of summary judgment as to Cary Creek\u2019s declaratory judgment and inverse condemnation claims in the order entered 14 January 2009 titled \u201cSummary Judgment in Favor of the Town on Counts I and II\u201d. However, in its order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Town in response to Cary Creek\u2019s motion, also entered 14 January 2009, the trial court states that \u201cthe local laws challenged in this action are not in conflict with or preempted by general State law\u201d.\nIn Granville Farms, Inc., we also considered whether an \u201cordinance was preempted because it purports to regulate a field for which a state or federal statute clearly shows a legislative intent to provide a complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulation.\u201d Id. That case concerned the land application of biosolids and we noted that the relevant \u201cstatute, coupled with the permit requirements set forth in the applicable regulations, are so comprehensive in scope that they were intended to comprise a \u2018complete and integrated regulatory scheme\u2019 on a statewide basis, thus, leaving no room for further local regulation.\u201d Id. at 116, 612 S.E.2d at 161.\nIn contrast, the State\u2019s watershed management system both provides minimal protections which local governments must enforce, and explicitly permits local ordinances which are more protective than those minimal state-wide standards. North Carolina General Statute section 143-214.5, titled \u201cWater supply watershed protection\u201d, contains a policy statement which provides, in pertinent part:\nThis section provides for a cooperative program of water supply watershed management and protection to be administered by local governments consistent with minimum statewide man agement requirements established by the [Environmental Management] Commission. If a local government fails to adopt a water supply watershed protection program or does not adequately carry out its responsibility to enforce the minimum water supply watershed management requirements of its approved program, the Commission shall administer and enforce the minimum statewide requirements.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-214.5(a) (2007) (emphasis added). This statute further specifies that local governments, such as the Town, may implement more restrictive local ordinances:\n(d) Mandatory Local Programs. \u2014 The Department shall assist local governments to develop water supply watershed protection programs that comply with this section. Local government compliance programs shall include an implementing local ordinance and shall provide for maintenance, inspection, and enforcement procedures. As part of its assistance to local governments, the Commission shall approve and make available a model local water supply watershed management and protection ordinance. The model management and protection ordinance adopted by the Commission shall, at a minimum, include as options (i) controlling development density, (ii) providing for performance-based alternatives to development density controls that are based on sound engineering principles, and (iii) a combination of both (i) and (ii). Local governments shall administer and enforce the minimum management requirements. Every local government that has within its jurisdiction all or a portion of a water supply watershed shall submit a local water supply watershed management and protection ordinance to the Commission for approval. Local governments may adopt such ordinances pursuant to their general police power, power to regulate the subdivision of land, zoning power, or any combination of such powers. In adopting a local ordinance that imposes water supply watershed management requirements that are more stringent than those adopted by the Commission, a county must comply with the notice provisions of G.S. 153A-343 and a municipality must comply with the notice provisions of G.S. 160A-384. This section shall not be construed to affect the validity of any local ordinance adopted for the protection of water supply watersheds prior to completion of the review of the ordinance by the Commission or prior to the assumption by the Commission of responsibility for a local water supply watershed protection program. Local governments may create or designate agencies to administer and enforce such programs. The Commission shall approve a local program only if it determines that the requirements of the program equal or exceed the minimum statewide water supply watershed management requirements adopted pursuant to this section.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-214.5(d). Thus, the relevant statute specifically contemplates that local governments, such as the Town, will enact their own watershed protection ordinances and may enact more stringent provisions than the minimum requirements established by the Environmental Management Commission (\u201cEMC\u201d). Further, despite contentions by Cary Creek that the Town had not received approval from the EMC for its riparian buffer ordinances, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-214.5(d) specifies that its approval requirements \u201cshall not be construed to affect the validity of any local ordinance adopted for the protection of water supply watersheds prior to completion of the review of the ordinance by the Commission.\u201d Id.\nIn addition, in 2000, the Town sought an interbasin transfer certificate (\u201cIBT\u201d) to permit it to discharge drinking water obtained from Jordan Lake into the Neuse River Basin. The EMC issued an IBT to the Town in 2001, which required the Town to adopt ordinances creating riparian buffers \u201csimilar to or more protective than the Neuse River buffer rule.\u201d This IBT mandate, along with the language of N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 143-214.5 and 143-214.23(a), indicates that watershed protection is not a \u201cfield for which a state or federal statute clearly shows a legislative intent to provide a complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulation.\u201d Granville Farms, Inc., 170 N.C. App. at 111, 612 S.E.2d at 158. Rather, the statutes anticipate that local governments will enact ordinances more restrictive than those minimal standards established by our statutes. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Town and concluding that \u201cthe local laws challenged in this action are not in conflict with or preempted by general State law.\u201d\nCary Creek\u2019s brief relies largely on our unpublished opinion in Hashemi, supra. However, Cary Creek fails to note that Hashemi was unpublished in its brief to this Court and did not serve this Court with a copy of the opinion as required. N.C.R. App. P. 30(e)(3). Where a party cites an unpublished opinion but fails to comply with the requirement that it \u201cserve[] a copy thereof on all other parties in the case and on the court,\u201d we may decline to consider the unpublished case. State ex rel. Utils. Comm\u2019n v. Town of Kill Devil Hills, - N.C. App. -, \u2014 n.1, 670 S.E.2d 341, 346 n.1 (2009) (quoting N.C.R. App. P. 30(e)(3)). Moreover, \u201c[a]n unpublished decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals is not controlling legal authority.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 30(e)(3).\nIn any event, Cary Creek\u2019s reliance on Hashemi is misplaced. That unpublished opinion required this Court to review the trial court\u2019s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a ruling based solely on the pleadings. The only issue we addressed in Hashemi was whether the plaintiff had stated a claim. Here, in contrast, we review a grant of summary judgment based on an extensive record, running to eight volumes, and including the EMC/IBT requirement not present in Hashemi. Further, in Hashemi, we did not consider N.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-214.5. Instead, we relied solely on N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-214.23(a), titled \u201cRiparian Buffer Protection Program: Delegation of riparian buffer protection requirements to local governments,\u201d which provides, in pertinent part, that \u201cunits of local government may adopt ordinances and regulations necessary to establish and enforce the State\u2019s riparian buffer protection requirements.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-214.23(a) (2007). On the record of the present case, wherein the trial court considered extensive evidence about N.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-214.5 in connection with the requirement from the EMC that the Town adopt ordinances creating riparian buffers \u201csimilar to or more protective than the Neuse River buffer rule,\u201d we reach a different outcome. Any discussion in Hashemi which may appear to hold that the Town\u2019s riparian buffer ordinances were preempted by State law was dictum as that issue was not before this Court.\nThe concurring opinion states that \u201cthe Town\u2019s ordinance is invalid\u201d for failure to comply with requirements of the enabling statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-387. While acknowledging that Cary Creek failed to make this argument at trial or on appeal, the concurrence nonetheless creates an argument not supported by the record in this case and contrary to our case law and Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Viar v. N.C. DOT, 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361, reh\u2019ing denied, 359 N.C. 643, 617 S.E.2d 662 (2005) (per curiam); N.C.R. App. P. 10(a) (\u201cExcept as otherwise provided herein, the scope of review on appeal is confined to a consideration of those assignments of error set out in the record on appeal in accordance with this Rule. . . .\u201d); N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(1) (\u201cEach assignment of error shall so far as practicable, be confined to a single issue of law; and shall state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned.\u201d)\nWe have held that \u201c [i]t is not the duty of this Court to supplement an appellant\u2019s brief with legal authority or arguments not contained therein.\u201d Goodson v. P.H. Glatfelter Co., 171 N.C. App. 596, 606, 615 S.E.2d 350, 358, disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 63, 623 S.E.2d 582 (2005). When the appellate courts construct an appeal on behalf of an appellant, the \u201cappellee is left without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule.\u201d Viar, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361. The concurrence is correct that the record does not contain any information about the existence of a map as part of the zoning ordinance. However, the absence of a map in the record does not support statements in the concurrence that the ordinance is invalid because it \u201cdoes not include an accompanying zoning map, which is controlled and maintained by the Town itself.\u201d Since Cary Creek never raised this issue in the trial court or on appeal, the Town had no notice that it should include such a map, if it exists, in its pleadings or in the record on appeal. Further, as noted in Footnote 1, supra, \u201c[t]he Town has since revised its ordinances, but the parties have stipulated that Cary Creek\u2019s development is subject to the previous ordinance scheme as discussed herein.\u201d Thus, the ordinance in the form considered here no longer exists.\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated in part.\nJudge HUNTER, Robert C., concurs.\nJudge JACKSON concurs by separate opinion.\n. The Town has since revised its ordinances, but the parties have stipulated that Cary Creek\u2019s development is subject to the previous ordinance scheme as discussed herein.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRYANT, Judge." }, { "text": "JACKSON, Judge,\nconcurring in a separate opinion.\nI agree with the majority that we are bound to affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment based upon the arguments presented to us. However, I write separately to note that the Town\u2019s ordinance is not in compliance with this Court\u2019s precedent that clearly requires a zoning ordinance to include an independent map controlled by the municipality.\nThis Court previously has explained that\n[a] suit to determine the validity of a zoning ordinance is a proper case for a declaratory judgment. In such an action, summary judgment is properly granted where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\nLaurel Valley Watch, Inc., 192 N.C. App. at 396, 665 S.E.2d at 565 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). \u201cA municipality has no inherent power to zone its territory and possesses only such power to zone as is delegated to it by the enabling statutes.\u201d Nash-Rocky Mount Bd. of Educ. v. Rocky Mount Bd. of Adjustment, 169 N.C. App. 587, 589, 610 S.E.2d 255, 258 (2005) (quoting Heaton v. City of Charlotte, 277 N.C. 506, 513, 178 S.E.2d 352, 356 (1971)). Accordingly, a municipality\u2019s power to zone \u201c \u2018is subject to the limitations of the enabling act.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Allred v. Raleigh, 277 N.C. 530, 540, 178 S.E.2d 432, 437-38 (1971)).\nHere, the \u201cenabling act\u201d is North Carolina General Statutes, section 160A-387, which provides, in relevant part, that in order to exercise its zoning authority, a city\nshall create or designate a planning board under the provisions of this Article or of a special act of the General Assembly. The planning board shall prepare or shall review and comment upon a proposed zoning ordinance, including both the full text of such ordinance and maps showing proposed district boundaries.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-387 (2005) (emphasis added). This statute, therefore, requires both the written ordinance and an accompanying map:\n\u201c[A] zoning ordinance must contain a map as well as detailed textual instructions. First, the text of the ordinance describes what land uses are permitted in each district, what development standards have to be met in that district, and the like. . . . Second, a map places the land in the jurisdiction into various zoning districts. This map is an official part of the zoning ordinance.\u201d\nTown of Green Level v. Alamance County, 184 N.C. App. 665, 670, 646 S.E.2d 851, 855 (2007) (quoting David W. Owens, Introduction to Zoning 23-24 (2d ed. 2001)).\nIn a case that addressed the parallel statute for counties, we held that \u201cU.S.G.S. [United States Geological Survey] maps could not supply the required map\u201d because \u201cthe U.S.G.S. maps were not part of the . . . ordinance, and in fact, were not maintained or controlled by the [municipality].\u201d Id. at 672, 646 S.E.2d at 856. Additional statutes that refer to a city\u2019s zoning power acknowledge \u201cthe zoning map\u201d as an integral piece of a zoning ordinance \u2014 a piece adopted, controlled, and amended by the city in the same manner as its other legislative enactments. See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-364 (2005); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-384 (2005).\nHere, the Town\u2019s ordinance requires a riparian buffer for \u201call perennial and intermittent streams ... as indicated on the most recent version of the 1:20,000 scale (7.5 minutes) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) . . . .\u201d The record neither includes nor suggests the existence of a zoning map created by the Town as part of the challenged ordinance. Instead, the ordinance relies upon a moving target: \u201cthe most recent version\u201d of a map prepared by an entity over which it exerts no control.\nFurthermore, the ordinance\u2019s reference to a map outside its control significantly reduces the Town\u2019s responsibility to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to those affected by its legislative decisions. Effectively, the ordinance, its requirements, and its prohibitions change any time the U.S.G.S. map changes, but the Town does not give its residents notice of such change or any opportunity to respond, because the wording of its ordinance has remained unchanged. Again, these issues were not raised on appeal, but I believe that the problems associated with an indefinite ordinance warrant attention and discussion.\nBased upon the explicit holding of Green Level and the mandates of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Town\u2019s ordinance is invalid because it does not include an accompanying zoning map, which is controlled and maintained by the Town itself. Nonetheless, it is not the province of this Court to construct arguments for the parties. Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure, 191 N.C. App. 386, 389, 663 S.E.2d 320, 322 (2008) (\u201cIt is not the role of this Court to create an avenue of appeal not properly asserted in plaintiff\u2019s brief.\u201d) (citing Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994)). Accordingly, I am bound to affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment to the Town.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "JACKSON, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Robertson, Medlin & Blocker, RL.L.C., by John F Bloss, and Smith Moore Leatherwood, L.L.P., by Marc C. Tucker, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., by John C. Cooke and Michael T. Henry, for defendant-appellee.", "Julia F. Youngmanfor Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc., Haw River Assembly, North Carolina Conservation Network, Southern Environmental Law Center and WakeUP Wake County, amici curiae.", "Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, for North Carolina League of Municipalities and North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, amici curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CARY CREEK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF CARY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant\nNo. COA09-799\n(Filed 16 March 2010)\n1. Declaratory Judgments\u2014 subject matter jurisdiction\u2014 ongoing certiorari proceeding\nThe superior court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff\u2019s declaratory judgment claim concerning the validity of a riparian buffer ordinance and claiming inverse condemnation. The fact that plaintiff\u2019s certiorari proceeding was on-going did not deprive the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction.\n2. Jurisdiction\u2014 subject matter jurisdiction \u2014 controversy not ripe \u2014 inverse condemnation\nThe superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff\u2019s action seeking compensation under a theory of inverse condemnation. Neither of the prerequisite events had occurred at the time plaintiff filed its claim, there had been no taking, and there was no concrete controversy ripe for adjudication.\n3. Zoning\u2014 riparian buffer ordinance \u2014 inverse condemnation\nThe superior court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff\u2019s declaratory judgment claim concerning the validity of a riparian buffer ordinance and claiming inverse condemnation, and by concluding that the local laws challenged in this action were not in conflict with or preempted by general State law.\nJudge JACKSON concurring in a separate opinion.\nAppeal by plaintiff from orders entered 14 January 2009 and cross-appeal by defendant from order entered 14 November 2008 by Judge James C. Spencer, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 November 2009.\nRobertson, Medlin & Blocker, RL.L.C., by John F Bloss, and Smith Moore Leatherwood, L.L.P., by Marc C. Tucker, for plaintiff-appellant.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., by John C. Cooke and Michael T. Henry, for defendant-appellee.\nJulia F. Youngmanfor Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc., Haw River Assembly, North Carolina Conservation Network, Southern Environmental Law Center and WakeUP Wake County, amici curiae.\nGregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, for North Carolina League of Municipalities and North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, amici curiae." }, "file_name": "0099-01", "first_page_order": 127, "last_page_order": 137 }