Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2002

Home

Z.B. August 25, 2002 -- Page 5 Signs -- Sign company erecB sign structures withoufpermit County issues ~iotan'on notice and seeks remedy NORTH CA_ROLJ2'[A (07/I 6/02) -- In July 1999, a sis company erected two single-pole, steel sig-n structures with lights with the intention of erecting bi]J- boards on property owned by Moody. Neither Moody nor the sign company applied for perm/ts as required by a relevant ordinance, nor did they acquire required permit emblems. On Aag. 12, 1999, the Count'/Inspections Department posted a "stop worF order, inforrmng Moody and the sign company that the sig-n swacrures were in violation of the ordinance. They were directed to contact the Planning Depart- ment and informed they were subject to a $100 per-day Due. On Aug. 20, 1999, another "stop work" order was posted, which was sim_i- lar to the earlier notice. Moody and the company responded with a statement don't'lng any wrongdoing and indicating the property was not zoned and. was privately owned. On Aug. 26, t 999, they were served with a notice of violation. The letter directed them to bring the sig-ns in compliance within ten days. Tr~ey also were informed they had 50 days to appeal. On Sept. 22, 1999, the courier sued, asking the court to order Moody and the si~,o-n company to dismantle the sig-ns. The lower court decided to enter an order to dismantle the sig-ns and a/so issued a permanent order, stopping Moody and the company "from erecting any bill- board or off-premise sig-n in the areas of Transylvama County." Moody and Lamar appealed, contending the sign ordinance was unconsti- tutionally arbitrary and un.reasonable. DECISION: Affirmed in part and vacated in part. The ordinance was valid, and the order was enforced. However, a civil penal'E/couldn't be issued because the proper procedure Was .not followed. The ordinance was reasonably related to the legitimate state objectives of protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the county's citizens. Moody and the sign company could have applied for a permit and brought the sig-ns into compliance. Further, the enactment of the ordinance was a valid exercise of the general police power under the ordinance and did not Violate due process or equa! protect/on. However, the civil penal~ assessed was dismissed because the County failed to follow the proper notice requirements. C£rarion: Transylvania Count.. v. Moos}; Court of Appeals of ~Vorrh Carolina. No. COA0l..485 (~.00.,_) see also: Town o. f Arlan'~c Beach v. Young, 298 S.£.£d 6~6 (!955). Si~ms - Plistor]c billboard damaged by traffic accident Did ae3v support sgrucfure invalidate ~onconf~rming use? 0~i0 ,'r~,.,,..,'~_ .,~,,c,.-.,~,_ ,.., __ Lam~ owned the oldest billboard in Dayton.. . Oho. !t was mounted on ti~e side of a building ioca'red m a designa~ historic district. 101