NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-93 (2026)

Openings, structures, pipes, trees, and issuance of permits

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 136 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No opening or other interference whatsoever shall be made in any State road or highway other than streets not maintained by the Department of Transportation in cities and towns, nor shall any structure be placed thereon, nor shall any structure which has been placed thereon be changed or removed except in accordance with a written permit from the Department of Transportation or its duly authorized officers, who shall exercise complete and permanent control over such roads and highways. No State road or State highway, other than streets not maintained by the Department of Transportation in cities and towns, shall be dug up for laying or placing pipes, conduits, sewers, wires, railways, or other objects, and no obstruction placed thereon, without a written permit as hereinbefore provided for, and then only in accordance with the regulations of said Department of Transportation or its duly authorized officers or employees; and the work shall be under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the Department of Transportation or its officers or employees, and the entire expense of replacing the highway in as good condition as before shall be paid by the persons, firms, or corporations to whom the permit is given, or by whom the work is done. The Department of Transportation, or its duly authorized officers, may, in its discretion, before granting a permit under the provisions of this section, require the applicant to file a satisfactory bond, payable to the State of North Carolina, in such an amount as may be deemed sufficient by the Department of Transportation or its duly authorized officers, conditioned upon the proper compliance with the requirements of this section by the person, firm, or corporation granted such permit. Any person making any opening in a State road or State highway, or placing any structure thereon, or changing or removing any structure thereon without obtaining a written permit as herein provided, or not in compliance with the terms of such permit, or otherwise violating the provisions of this section, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor: Provided, this section shall not apply to railroad crossings. The railroads shall keep up said crossings as now provided by law.

(b) Except as provided in G.S. 136-133.1(g), no vegetation, including any tree, shrub, or underbrush, in or on any right-of-way of a State road or State highway shall be planted, cut, trimmed, pruned, or removed without a written selective vegetation removal permit issued pursuant to G.S. 136-133.2 and in accordance with the rules of the Department. Requests for a permit for selective vegetation cutting, thinning, pruning, or removal shall be made by the owner of an outdoor advertising sign or the owner of a business facility to the appropriate person in the Division of Highways office on a form prescribed by the Department. For purposes of this section, G.S. 136-133.1, 136-133.2, and 136-133.4, the phrase "outdoor advertising" shall mean the outdoor advertising expressly permitted under G.S. 136-129(4) or G.S. 136-129(5). These provisions shall not be used to provide visibility to on-premises signs.

(c) For outdoor advertising, vegetation cut or removal limits shall be restricted to a maximum selective vegetation cut or removal zone for each sign face pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 136-133.1.

(d) If the application for vegetation cutting, thinning, pruning, or removal is for a site located within the corporate limits of a municipality, the municipality shall be given 30 days to review and provide comments on the application if the municipality has previously advised the Department in writing of the desire to review such applications and the name of the local official to whom notice of such application should be directed. (1921, c. 2, s. 13; 1923, c. 160, s. 2; C.S., s. 3846(u); 1933, c. 172, s. 17; 1943, c. 410; 1957, c. 65, s. 11; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; 1977, c. 464, s. 7.1; 1993, c. 539, s. 992; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2011-397, s. 1; 2014-115, s. 11.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1960–2013 · leading case: High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. North Carolina Dep't of Transporation, 720 S.E.2d 706 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. North Carolina Dep't of Transporation, 720 S.E.2d 706 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-93 (2009) (amended by Section 1 of Session Law 2011-397 and applying to permit applications or renewals submitted *453 or offenses occurring on or after 1 September 2011) (emphasis added).”

High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 735 S.E.2d 300 (N.C. 2012). “§ 136-93 (2011). According to DOT, when construed in pari materia with the Driveway Permit Statute, these general grants of power conferred upon it the authority to enact its “Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways,” under which it issued High Rock’s…”

Dep't of Transp. v. Webster, 751 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 136-18 (5) gives [DOT] the power “to make rules, regulations and ordinances for the use of, and to police traffic on, the State highways____” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-93 provides that [DOT] shall have sole authority to grant street and driveway permits onto State roads.”

Van Leuven v. Akers Motor Lines, Inc., 135 S.E.2d 640 (N.C. 1964). · cites it 2× “G.S. 136-93. In the case of Highway Commission v.”

Shapiro v. Toyota Motor Co. Ltd., 248 S.E.2d 868 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “Under the cited statutes together with G.S. 136-93, when a city street becomes a part of the State highway system-, the Board of Transportation is responsibile for its maintenance thereafter which includes the control of all signs and structures within the right-of-way.”

Taylor v. Town of Hertford, 117 S.E.2d 469 (N.C. 1960). · cites it 2× “1; G.S. 136-93 and G.S. 160-54. The record shows that counsel for defendant in making motion for judgment as of nonsuit called primarily to the Judge’s attention three statutes which defendant contends either separately or in combination one with the other absolutely control the…”

Milner Hotels, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 155 S.E.2d 543 (N.C. 1967). · cites it 2× “1; G.S. 136-93 and G.S. 160-54 . . . defendant contends, and we hold rightly so, that these statutes clearly demonstrate that the authority and control over the tree referred to in this action was that of the State Highway Commission .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.