Morris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Board of Adjustment
365 N.C. 152
| N.C. | 2011Background
- Fairway Outdoor Advertising built a sign along Gastonia Highway in Bessemer City in 2000;
- DOT condemned adjacent land in 2005 for highway widening, necessitating sign relocation;
- Fairway obtained a Bessemer City sign permit (Aug 31, 2005) and discussed relocation with the city;
- Sign permit and county building permit contained six-month commencement requirements;
- DOT offered to pay for relocation and negotiations with Dixon (NAPA building owner) proceeded;
- After DOT deadlines, Fairway took steps to relocate the sign but a 2006 city ordinance amendment banned outdoor advertising, leading to a Notice of Violation (Jan 16, 2007) and BOA ruling upholding the violation (May 7, 2007);
- Trial court and Court of Appeals affirmed; the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding the term “work” in the ordinance has a broader meaning than mere visible construction, and remanding for proper application of the standards of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOA correctly interpreted 'work' under the ordinance | Fairway: 'work' includes negotiations, permits, and related efforts | BOA: 'work' = visible construction activity | No; 'work' has a broader meaning and Fairway did undertakings within six months |
| Applicable standard of review for board interpretations | De novo review should apply to legal interpretation by the BOA | Appellate deferential review to BOA interpretations | De novo review applies; appellate court may freely interpret the ordinance |
| Effect of permit expiration on vested rights to relocate | Fairway relied on ongoing relocation efforts within permit windows | City treated the relocation as lacking commenced work within six months | Remand to reassess vesting and timing under broad 'work' interpretation |
| Effect of municipal ordinance ambiguity on just result and flexibility | Board should accommodate DOT project realities | Strict enforcement of ordinance | Board failed to effectuate a just result; interpretation should be broad enough to allow relocation |
| Role of communication and administrative interpretation in enforcement | Fairway did what was reasonably required and informed; ambiguity excuses strict application | Lack of periodic updates undermined compliance | Fairway's actions under the broader 'work' interpretation support reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill Bd. of Adjust., 334 N.C. 132 (1993) (court may independently assess ordinance interpretations on review)
- Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cnty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1 (2002) (de novo review for errors of law; threshold standard)
- Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 354 N.C. 298 (2001) (zoning restrictions construed in favor of free use of real property)
- Penny v. City of Durham, 249 N.C. 596 (1959) (ambiguity in statutes/ordinances interpreted by ordinary meaning)
- In re Builders' Supply, 202 N.C. 496 (1932) (liberal construction in exemptions favoring owner when dealing with zoning)