Opinion ID: 1373266
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Turner's Cross Appeal

Text: Turner argues that the trial court should have dismissed the city's answer to the complaint for lack of verification. The trial judge ruled that the answer was properly verified, and this ruling was correct. Turner argues that Ordinance No. 153 was not validly enacted, contending that it was in fact a zoning ordinance, and that the statutory procedures for the enactment of a zoning ordinance were not complied with. The trial judge ruled against this contention, and, our having ruled on this issue in the preceding division of this opinion, the trial court's ruling was correct. Turner's other enumerated error contends that the trial court erred in ruling that (the City) is not pre-empted by the laws of the State of Georgia from regulating signs located on federal Interstate Highways to the extent that such regulations require the removal of outdoor advertising signs without payment of just compensation. This contention is wholly without merit. State law has not pre-empted the police power authority of municipalities to regulate the location and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs within their territorial jurisdictions. Furthermore, there can be no taking of property in this case, because the original sign permit, the equivalent of a license issued by the city, was for a two-year period, and since 1966, both Burke and Turner were placed on notice of the two-year amortization provision contained in ordinances duly enacted by the city. Also, the Code of Public Transportation does not restrict the valid exercise of police power by municipalities with respect to advertising signs within their territorial jurisdiction. Art. IV of Chapter 9 of the Code of Public Transportation relates to the control of outdoor advertising. Code Ann. § 95A-932 provides: Nothing in this Article shall be construed to abrogate or affect the provisions of any lawful ordinance, regulation, or resolution, which is more restrictive than the provisions of this Article. All of the issues raised in the cross appeal are without merit.