Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph County Planning Bd.
Decision Date | 28 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 116A01.,116A01. |
Citation | 565 S.E.2d 9 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | MANN MEDIA, INC., doing business as Our State North Carolina; and Bernard Mann, Petitioners, v. RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD, Respondent. |
Keziah, Gates & Samet, L.L.P., by Andrew S. Lasine, High Point, for petitioner-appellees.
Gavin Cox Pugh Etheridge and Wilhoit, LLP, by Alan V. Pugh and Robert E. Wilhoit, Asheboro, for respondent-appellant.
Petitioners Mann Media, Inc. and Bernard Mann (Mann) instituted this action against respondent Randolph County Planning Board to review respondent's denial of petitioners' application for a special use permit to construct a 1,500-foot broadcast tower in Randolph County, North Carolina. In this appeal, we must consider both whether the superior court correctly concluded that there was no competent, material, and substantial evidence to support respondent's decision to deny petitioners' special use permit application and whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the superior court's decision. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the superior court erred in reversing respondent's decision to deny petitioners' special use permit application to construct the broadcast tower, and therefore we reverse the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners initially applied for a special use permit to construct a 1,879-foot broadcast tower on an approximately 119.52-acre tract of land in northeast Randolph County zoned for residential/agricultural use. On 10 November 1998, respondent held a public hearing on petitioners' application and thereafter voted to deny petitioners' request.
On 17 December 1998, petitioners filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Superior Court, Randolph County, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 153A-345, requesting review of the denial of their application. The petition was allowed, and after a hearing in the matter, a superior court judge entered an order on 17 February 1999 vacating respondent's decision to deny the permit and remanding the case to respondent for a hearing de novo on the ground that respondent "did not specify the reasons for the denial of the Special Use Permit in the minutes of the meeting at which the action was taken."
On 20 May 1999, petitioners filed a second application for a special use permit. In this application, petitioners modified their original plans and sought to construct a shorter, 1,500-foot tower in the same location. Respondent held a second public hearing in the matter on 10 June 1999, during which petitioner Mann and Ron Crowder, a North Carolina real estate appraiser, testified on behalf of petitioners. Mann's testimony addressed safety issues, particularly whether the tower could collapse and whether ice could build up on the tower and fall off, while Crowder's testimony was directed toward whether the proposed use would substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties and whether the proposed use would be in harmony with the general area. John Burkett, Rita Mintmier, Terry Davis, and Julia Davis, landowners and residents near the proposed site; Grace Steed, a North Carolina realtor; and Danny Frazier, a North Carolina building contractor, testified in opposition to petitioners' application.
At the conclusion of the hearing, respondent unanimously voted to deny the special use permit, and in a subsequent written order dated 24 June 1999, respondent denied petitioners' application. This order listed as findings of fact:
Respondent then concluded:
On 14 July 1999, petitioners filed a second petition for writ of certiorari, requesting the superior court "to review the record de novo for errors of law, to determine if competent, material, and substantial evidence exists, based on the whole record, to support the decision, and to determine whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious." The writ of certiorari was allowed on the same day, 14 July 1999, and following a hearing, a superior court judge entered a judgment on 17 August 1999 that vacated respondent's 24 June 1999 order and remanded the matter for entry of an order granting petitioners a special use permit. The court listed as findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chavis v. Tlc Home Health Care
... ... Cauble v. Soft-Play, Inc., 124 N.C.App. 526, 529, 477 S.E.2d 678, 679 ... County of Durham, 85 N.C.App. 589, 592, 355 S.E.2d 158, ... own judgment for the agency's judgment." Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd., 356 ... ...
-
Catherine H. Barber Mem'l Shelter, Inc. v. Town of N. Wilkesboro Bd. of Adjustment of the Town of N. Wilkesboro
...decision-making process in granting or denying an application for a [conditional] use permit." Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd. , 356 N.C. 1, 12, 565 S.E.2d 9, 16 (2002). A local governmental body must first determine whether "an applicant has produced competent, material, and......
-
Coker v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., COA04-523.
...Appeal of the Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P'ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003) (citing Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002)). V. "Standing is a necessary prerequisite to a court's proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction......
-
Schooldev E. v. Town of Wake Forest
... ... Vinston M. Rozier, Jr. in Wake County" No. 20 CVS 13930 ... Superior Court ... \xC2" ... Town's planning jurisdiction ... ¶ ... 3 On ... on appeal." Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cnty. Plan ... Bd. , ... ...