Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ashe County v. Ashe County Planning Board

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

May 21, 2019

ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner,
v.
ASHE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND APPALACHIAN MATERIALS, LLC, Respondents.

          Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 October 2018.

          Appeal by Ashe County, North Carolina, from an order entered 30 November 2017 by Judge Susan E. Bray in Ashe County, No. 16 CVS 514 Superior Court.

          Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by John C. Cooke, for Ashe County, North Carolina, Petitioner-Appellant.

          Poyner Spruill LLP, by Chad W. Essick, Keith H. Johnson, and Colin R. McGrath, for Appalachian Materials, LLC, Respondent-Appellee.

          DILLON, JUDGE

         Appalachian Materials, LLC ("Appalachian Materials"), filed an application for a permit to operate an asphalt plant in Ashe County (the "County"). Its permit was initially denied by the County's Planning Director. However, the County's Planning Board reversed the Planning Director's decision, directing that the permit be issued. The County appealed the decision of its Planning Board to the superior court. The superior court affirmed the decision of the Planning Board. The County appeals to this Court. We affirm.

         I. Background

         In June 2015, Appalachian Materials submitted an application to the County, seeking a PIDO permit[1] to operate an asphalt plant on a certain tract of land. However, Appalachian Materials noted in its application that it had applied for but not yet obtained an air quality permit from the State, a permit which must be obtained before the County can issue a permit for an asphalt plant in its jurisdiction.[2]

         Later in June 2015, the County's Planning Director sent Appalachian Materials a letter (the "June 2015 Letter") positively commenting on the application, but stating that Appalachian Materials needed to provide the State-issued air quality permit before any PIDO permit could be issued.

         Four months later, in October 2015, Ashe County's elected Board of Commissioners (the "Governing Board") adopted a temporary moratorium on the issuance of PIDO permits (the "Moratorium").

         During the Moratorium, in February 2016, Appalachian Materials finally supplemented its PIDO permit application with the State air quality permit. But two months later, in April 2016, the Planning Director issued a letter to Appalachian Materials denying the PIDO permit request. In the denial letter, the Planning Director cited the Moratorium, among other reasons, for the denial. Appalachian Materials appealed the Planning Director's denial to the Planning Board.

         In the Fall of 2016, prior to the decision of the Planning Board, the County's Governing Board lifted the Moratorium, but repealed the PIDO ordinance (the "Old Ordinance") and replaced it with a new ordinance (the "New Ordinance") which created additional barriers for the approval of a permit to operate an asphalt plant.

         In December 2016, the Planning Board reversed the decision of the Planning Director, determining that Appalachian Materials was entitled to the PIDO permit. The County appealed the Planning Board's decision to the superior court.

         Almost a year later, in November 2017, Superior Court Judge Bray affirmed the Planning Board's order. The County has now appealed Judge Bray's order to our Court.

         II. Analysis

         The County's unelected Planning Board, which operates as the County's board of adjustments, voted in favor of permitting Appalachian Materials' proposed asphalt plant. See Ashe County Code § 153.04(J) (2015) (stating that the County's Planning Board acts as the County's board of adjustments). The County's elected Governing Board, however, is against the decision of its Planning Board, and is seeking a reinstatement of the decision made by its Planning Director, a County employee, denying the permit application. To better understand the issues on appeal, we pause briefly to describe the bases why the Planning Director denied the permit application and why the Planning Board reversed, voting to allow the permit application.

         In June 2015, Appalachian Materials applied for the permit. In October 2015, the County's Governing Board adopted its temporary Moratorium on permit approvals. By October 2016, the Moratorium had been lifted, the Old Ordinance was repealed, and the New Ordinance had gone into effect.

         However, in April 2016, while the Moratorium was still in effect, the County's Planning Director denied Appalachian Materials' application for a PIDO permit, concluding that: (1) his June 2015 Letter to Appalachian Materials, in which he positively commented on the permit application shortly after the application was submitted, did not constitute a binding decision on the County that the permit would be approved once the State permit was procured; (2) the proposed site of the asphalt plant was within one thousand (1, 000) feet of certain commercial buildings, in violation of the Old Ordinance's set-back requirements; (3) Appalachian Materials' permit application was not completed when the Moratorium went into effect, as the required State permit was still pending; and (4) Appalachian Materials made misrepresentations in its application.

         Appalachian Materials appealed the Planning Director's denial to the County's Planning Board. The Planning Board reversed the Planning Director's conclusions and ultimate denial, itself concluding that (1) the June 2015 Letter from the Planning Director did constitute a binding determination that the permit would be approved once the State permit was procured; (2) the proposed site was not in violation of the Old Ordinance's one thousand (1, 000) foot buffer; (3) Appalachian Materials' application was sufficiently completed when submitted, prior to the adoption of the Moratorium, to merit a decision under the Old Ordinance; and (4) the application did not contain misrepresentations which warranted denial.

         For the following reasons, we conclude that Judge Bray was correct in affirming the decision of the Planning Board.

         A. Appalachian Materials' Application Was Sufficiently Complete

         One disagreement between the parties is whether Appalachian Materials had completed its application sufficiently prior to the October 2015 Moratorium to trigger the statute which allows an applicant to choose which version of an ordinance to have its application considered under where the ordinance is changed before a submitted application is acted on by a county. Specifically, Section 153A-320.1 of our General Statutes, the "Permit Choice" statute, provides that "[i]f a [county's] rule or ordinance changes between the time a permit application is submitted and a permit decision is made, then G.S. 143-755 shall apply." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-320.1 (2015). And Section 143-755 provides that, in such situations, "the permit applicant may choose which version of the rule or ordinance will apply to the permit." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-755 (2015).

         We conclude that Appalachian Materials' application had been "submitted" to the County, notwithstanding that a required State permit was still under review. The required State permit is one of many possible prerequisites which might have to be met after a sufficient application is submitted but before a permit can be finally approved. Here, the application was submitted, and the County accepted and deposited the application fee. The application was still before the County when the State permit was approved. Therefore, we conclude that the application was sufficiently "submitted," pursuant to the Permit Choice statute, in June 2015.

         B. The Moratorium Does Not Nullify Permit Choice Rights

         A county has the right to adopt a temporary moratorium on certain permit approvals. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(h) (2015). We conclude that the existence of a moratorium is not grounds to deny a permit. A moratorium simply delays the decision.

         The County, though, argues that when a county adopts a temporary moratorium and then modifies an ordinance, the Permit Choice statute has no application. Instead, the County contends, a pending application must be reviewed under the new ordinance once the moratorium is lifted. We understand the County's policy arguments, but we are compelled to disagree.

         In reaching our conclusion, we are guided in part by our Supreme Court's decision in Robins v. Hillsborough, 361 N.C. 193, 639 S.E.2d 421 (2007). In that case, Mr. Robins applied for a permit to construct an asphalt plant. Id. at 194, 639 S.E.2d at 422. While his application was pending, the town adopted a moratorium and then amended an ordinance which prohibited asphalt plants from operating in the town. Id. at 195-96, 639 S.E.2d at 423. Our Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Robins had the right to have his application considered under the version of the town ordinance in effect when his application was filed, an ordinance which did allow asphalt plants to operate within the town, under certain conditions:

We hold that when the applicable rules and ordinances are not followed by a town board, the applicant is entitled to have his application reviewed under the ordinances and procedural rules in effect as of the time he filed his application. Accordingly, [Mr. Robins] was entitled to receive a final determination from [the town] regarding his application and to have it assessed under the ordinance in affect when the application was filed. We express no opinion [on the application's merits], but merely that [Mr. Robins] is entitled to a decision by [the town] pursuant to the ordinance as it existed before passage of the moratorium and the amendment.

Id. at 199-200, 639 S.E.2d at 425.

         Seven years later, in 2014, the General Assembly essentially codified much of the Supreme Court's reasoning in Robins when it enacted the Permit Choice statute. Like the rule applied in Robins, there is no language in Section 153A-340(h), the moratorium statute, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.