TOWN OF PINEBLUFF v. MOORE COUNTY; CATHERINE GRAHAM, in hеr capacity as a County Commissioner; NICK PICERNO, in his official capacity as a County Commissioner; OTIS RITTER, in his capacity as a County Commissioner; RANDY SAUNDERS, in his capacity as a County Commissioner; and JERRY DAEKE, in his capacity as a County Commissioner
No. 398PA18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Filed 3 April 2020
On discretionary review pursuant to
David M. Rooks, for plaintiff-appellee.
Misty Randall Leland, County Attorney, and Elizabeth Curran O‘Brien, Assistant County Attorney, for defendant-appellants.
Here, we must determine whethеr the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court‘s entry of summary judgment for plaintiff Town of Pinebluff (Pinebluff). The Court of Appeals reached its conclusion after determining that there was an irreconcilable conflict between
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The facts of this case are uncontested; the parties have agreed that there are no issues as to any material fact.
In 1999, the General Assembly enacted Session Law 1999-35, a local act that amended North Carolina‘s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) statute,
On 19 July 2007, Pinebluff annexed approximately fifteen acres of land that officially extended the town‘s corporate boundaries. Several years later, in October 2014, Pinеbluff requested that the Moore County Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution to authorize the expansion of Pinebluff‘s ETJ two miles beyond the annexed boundary, pursuant to
Pinebluff filed a complaint against Moore County seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Board of Commissioners to adopt a resolution authorizing the ETJ expansion. Moore County moved to dismiss Pinebluff‘s claims and moved for judgment on the pleadings. Pinebluff then moved for summary judgment. The trial cоurt issued an order denying Moore County‘s motions and allowing Pinebluff‘s motion for summary judgment. The court directed Moore County to adopt a resolution authorizing Pinebluff to exerсise its ETJ within the area requested in its October 2014 resolution.
Moore County appealed the trial court‘s order to the Court of Appeals. The court unanimously affirmеd the trial court‘s order, concluding that Session Law 1999-35 required Moore County to approve Pinebluff‘s ETJ expansion request. Moore County filed a petition for discretionary review, which we allowed on 14 August 2019.
II. Analysis
“We review a trial court‘s order granting or denying summary judgment de novo.” Craig ex rel. Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 337, 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2009) (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). This case also presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we likewise review de novo. Applewood Props., LLC v. New S. Props., LLC, 366 N.C. 518, 522, 742 S.E.2d 776, 779 (2013) (quoting Dickson v. Rucho, 366 N.C. 332, 339, 737 S.E.2d 362, 368 (2013)).
Session Law 1999-35 amended subsections (a) and (f) of
Subsection (e) states that “[n]o city may . . . extend its [ETJ] powers . . . into any area for which the county at that time has adopted and is enforсing a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and within which it is enforcing the State Building Code.”
The Court of Appeals determined that, as to Pinebluff, subsection (e) was invalidated by subsection (f) as amended by Session Law 1999-35, which required thе County Board of Commissioners to approve Pinebluff‘s ETJ expansion. 821 S.E.2d at 454. But we disfavor any interpretation that repeals by implication another portion of the stаtute. See McLean v. Durham Cty. Bd. of Elections, 222 N.C. 6, 8, 21 S.E.2d 842, 844 (1942) (“[T]he presumption is always against implied repeal. . . . [r]epeal by implication results only when the statutes are inconsistent, necessarily repugnant, utterly irreconcilable, or wholly and irreconcilably repugnant.” (internal citations omitted)).
We read the statute in its entirety, harmonize its subsections, and “give effect to each” subsection. Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc. v. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen, 254 N.C. 60, 68, 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961) (quoting Town of Blowing Rock v. Gregorie, 243 N.C. 364, 371, 90 S.E.2d 898, 904 (1956)) (“[I]t is a general rule that the courts must harmonize such statutes, if possible, and give effect to each . . . .“). We conclude that there is no irreconсilable conflict between subsections (e) and (f). Indeed, Session Law 1999-35 has no effect on subsection (e) and Pinebluff may extend its ETJ under subsections (a) and (f) only if the extension also complies with the provisions of subsection (e).
Thus, if Moore County is not exercising all three powers enumerated in subsection (e), Pinebluff may extend its ETJ up to two miles beyond its corporate limits under subsection (a) or beyond its annexed areas under (f) without seeking approval from the county. Likewise, if Moore County and Pinebluff reaсh an agreement on the area within which each will exercise its powers, Pinebluff may extend its ETJ up to two miles beyond its existing corporate limits under subsection (a) or bеyond its annexed areas under (f) without seeking approval from the county. But where no agreement is in place and Moore County has adopted and is enforcing a zoning ordinance and a subdivision regulation, and is also enforcing the State Building Code, Pinebluff may not extend its ETJ into that area without approval of the county, regardless of whether the area falls within two miles of its corporate limits or an annexed area.
Here, Moore County was exercising all three powers under subseсtion (e) within Pinebluff‘s proposed ETJ expansion area: it had adopted and was enforcing a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, and was enforcing the State Building Code. Therefore, Pinebluff was not allowed to extend its ETJ into that area unless it reached an agreement with or received approval from Moore County. Thе county held public hearings and voted to deny Pinebluff‘s request, refusing to adopt a resolution that would allow Pinebluff to expand its ETJ. Thus, Moore County and Pinebluff did not reach an agreement, and the county did not approve the requested resolution. Therefore, Pinebluff was prohibited from expanding its ETJ into that area.
Because we conclude there is no irreconcilable conflict between the subsections of
REVERSED AND REMANDED.