The executive director for a group who wants the billboard erected by PNE Media outside Dillsboro removed is criticizing a decision not to appeal a court ruling that says the billboard may remain.

“NCDOT has issued or will soon issue a permit for this billboard, as ordered by Judge (Ronald) Stephens of Wake County Superior Court,” said Dale McKeel, the executive director of Scenic America’s Raleigh office.

“It appears that NCDOT now supports the judge’s reasoning, which makes one wonder why they bothered to take this case to court to begin with,” McKeel wrote in a letter to those who had opposed the billboard.

Stephens ruled Oct. 18, 2000, that the state DOT should accept PNE Media’s application for the sign, and that after a nearby nonconforming sign has been removed, the DOT “shall issue a permit for the new sign effective Aug. 17, 1999.”

Jackson County Attorney Raymond Large, however, says he thinks PNE should be required to await the outcome of a court case with the county before it is allowed to use the billboard.

“It would appear that they shouldn’t be using the sign,” Large said.

Large pointed out that there have been two conflicting rulings on the sign. Stephens ruled that the administrative decision by DOT not to accept the permit application was incorrect. Superior Court Judge Marlene Hyatt, however, ruled on June 13, 2000, in the case between PNE and Jackson County, that the sign should be removed. PNE appealed that decision and was granted a stay which allows them to keep the sign up until the case is resolved.

Large said he filed his appellate brief in the Jackson County case just before Jan. 1, 2001, and that no date has been set for the case. It will be heard in the Court of Appeals in Raleigh.

The dispute centers around a large, monopole billboard that was constructed the weekend of Aug. 13-14, 1999, just across the Tuckaseigee River from Dillsboro on U.S. 441. The sign was constructed before PNE had obtained a permit from the Department of Transportation. According to Stephens’ ruling, the sub-contractor “mistakenly erected” the sign before PNE had obtained a permit from the state.

On Aug. 17, the state informed PNE, based in Rock Hill, S.C., that its sign was erected illegally because the company did not have a permit. DOT’s regulations state that illegal billboards must be removed or brought into compliance within 30 days.

One of the state’s stipulations for signs along a four-lane highway is that signs be at least 300 feet apart. A sign for a hotel was 298 feet from the PNE sign. PNE acquired that sign by Aug. 20.

In the meantime, on Aug. 19 Jackson County commissioners enacted a temporary 60-day moratorium on new billboards.

Judge Stephens ruled that the moratorium should not have affected PNE because DOT notified the company that their sign was nonconforming on Aug. 17, before the county passed its moratorium. When the DOT notified PNE on Aug. 17, there were two stipulations required of PNE to bring the sign into compliance: acquire and remove the existing sign; and apply for and receive a permit for the new sign.

Stephens said the company should have been given 30 days to comply with these requirements.

According to a narrative of the case written by the DOT legal staff, “multiple attorneys have reviewed this case for NCDOT independently of one another and none was able to find a legal basis for reversing the judge’s order.”

McKeel and DOT Secretary David McCoy exchanged several letters about the billboard and the court case.

In a Dec. 11, 2000, letter to McCoy, McKeel questioned why DOT would agree to back date the permit to Aug. 17, 1999: “Please explain to me why NCDOT is agreeing to back date a permit. Something about this doesn’t smell right,” McKeel wrote.

A Dec. 13 letter from McCoy informed McKeel that DOT legal staff and two lawyers in the attorney general’s office had determined there was no basis for an appeal.

A subsequent Jan. 4 letter from McCoy to McKeel took a harsher tone: “Your letter states incorrectly that the Department is agreeing to back date the permit. The Department is not agreeing to such. Rather, it is complying with a Superior Court judge’s order to do so. In fact, a notation will be made on the permit that the effective date was pursuant to the trial court’s order.”

In closing, McCoy wrote: “While I appreciate your concern, I take exception to your insinuation that this case has been improperly handled. The fact that an outdoor advertising case has been resolved in favor of a sign company does not mean that the Department has failed in its regulatory duties.”

 

Home
The Smoky Mountain News