Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6-25-2026 Agenda Packet BOA
PERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 325 S. Morgan Street, Suite B Roxboro, North Carolina 27573 PERSON COUNTY BOARD of ADUSTMENT PERSON COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 215 June 25, 2026 7:00 P.M. A.Call To Order / Determination of Quorum B.Conflict of Interest polling of members C.Regular Agenda 1.AP 02-26 – Appeal of Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order - 2510 Berry Pearce Rd, Tax Map & Parcel No. A43 7 D.Minutes of May 19, 2026 E.Adjournment PERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 325 S. Morgan Street, Roxboro, North Carolina 27573 Case: AP 02-26 – Appeal of Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order - 2510 Berry Pearce Rd, Tax Map & Parcel No. A43 7 Background Ms. Angela Battle has submitted an appeal to the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order issued in connection with the operation of an Event Center without the required Special Use Permit. Prior to issuance of the current enforcement action, Planning staff made extensive efforts to assist Ms. Battle in achieving compliance, including coordination related to a potential Special Use Permit application following a previous Notice of Violation issued on November 14, 2025. Despite these efforts, the record reflects continued and repeat violations of the Person County Planning Ordinance related to Event Center activities on the property. The Person County Planning Ordinance, as amended on September 9, 2019, defines an Event Center as: A commercial establishment and associated grounds engaged in the hosting and production of pre-planned events like weddings, corporate parties, or reunions. Typical accessory uses include kitchens or meal preparation space, limited overnight accommodations, photography studios, facilities to accommodate live or recorded music, on- and off-site parking and outdoor recreation facilities. Additionally, nearby residents have continued to express concerns regarding recurring large college parties occurring on the property. These events have generated repeated complaints related to noise, traffic, and public safety and have required intervention by the Person County Sheriff’s Office to disperse gatherings. Staff finds that the continued occurrence of such events presents ongoing concerns related to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Nature of Appeal: Ms. Battle asserts that the subject property qualifies for exemption from local regulation under the State’s Bona Fide Farm provisions, with reliance on agritourism. Specifically, she contends that the non-farm or agriculture related activities occurring on the property, by college students, constitute protected agritourism activities incidental to a bona fide farm operation and therefore fall outside the County authority (Attachment 1). Notice Requirements: On May 7, 2026, signs were posted on the property’s right-of-way. Staff also mailed letters to property owners and adjacent residents informing them of the public hearing in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 160D- 406. Signs were later confirmed to have remained on the property the following day. On May 14, 2026, in accordance with Planning Ordinance Section 160-2, staff published the legal ad for the appeal to the local paper. Evidence of County meeting public notice requirements are in Attachment 2. Evidence Submitted: Staff’s review of the record indicates that the Notices of Violation, Agritourism Determination, and related correspondence consistently identified the unauthorized use as the operation of a commercial Event Center without the required zoning approval. The record further demonstrates that Ms. Battle was provided with multiple opportunities to pursue compliance through the Special Use Permit process and to exercise her appeal rights in accordance with applicable local and state regulations. In support of the County’s position, staff has submitted a detailed report and supporting evidence documenting repeated violations associated with the property dating back to the “Oil Spill” incident occurring on October 22, 2025. The record reflects that the property was previously marketed and operated as an event venue known as “Field of Dreams,” as documented through local media coverage, and has more recently been rebranded as “Pond Haven.” Further evidence submitted by staff includes event-related contracts and promotional materials indicating the accommodation of large gatherings involving increased traffic, on-site parking, amplified noise, and the presence and consumption of alcohol at events conducted on the property. The record also includes correspondence from college students attempting to characterize fraternity gatherings and similar social events as agritourism activities. Staff finds that such descriptions are inconsistent with the ordinary and statutory understanding of bona fide agritourism activities and instead reflect organized social gatherings involving college-aged attendees, including concerns associated with underage alcohol access and related public safety impacts. Staff Position: Staff maintains that the Notice of Violation, Stop Work Order, and Written Agritourism Determination were properly issued in accordance with the Person County Planning Ordinance and applicable North Carolina General Statutes. Based on the evidence contained in the record, including videos, staff requests that the Board of Adjustment uphold the enforcement actions and determinations in full (Attachment 3). County Attorney: The Planning Department is represented by County Attorney T.C. Morphis of Brough Law Firm, PLLC. Counsel has provided a legal memorandum and supporting analysis for the Board of Adjustment’s consideration in evaluating the facts, applicable provisions of the Person County Planning Ordinance, and relevant North Carolina General Statutes governing zoning enforcement, agritourism exemptions, and quasi-judicial appeals. The legal analysis is intended to assist the Board in determining whether the Notice of Violation, Stop Work Order, and Agritourism Determination were lawfully issued, supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record, and consistent with the County’s regulatory authority under Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes. Attachments: 1.Appeal Application 2.Public Notices 3.Notice of Violation and Written Determination 4.Memorandum of Law Re: 2510 Berry Pearce Road Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3 II. BACKGROUND AND FACTS 1. I received a Final Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order dated April 16th 2026 alleging that activities on my property do not qualify as “bona fide farm purposes” or permissible agritourism under North Carolina law and county regulations. 2. My property has been formally recognized as qualifying for bona fide farm status, as evidenced by: o A forest management plan; and o Inclusion in the Present-Use Value (PUV) tax program. 3. I provided documentation to the Planning Director demonstrating that my use of the property falls within agritourism activities associated with bona fide farming. Over 90% of my property is used for forestry or agriculture. 4. The County’s own Agritourism Determination acknowledges that the property qualifies for bona fide farm status but asserts—without sufficient factual support—that certain uses constitute a nonfarm “event center.” 5. As further evidence of agritourism use, I submitted pictures that highlighted the farm’s agritourism aspects and a written request from a prospective customer describing the property’s available passive recreational and nature-based activities, that include: o Enjoyment of a woodland and pond setting o Bird observation o Catch-and-release fishing o An outdoor gathering space consistent with rural farm use configurable for seating and/or other structures using hay bales from the farm’s hay operation 6. On April 24, 2026, I requested clarification from the Planning Director regarding the specific nature of the alleged violations. No response was provided. 7. On or about April 24, 2026, the Planning Director met with the Person County Sheriff and requested preemptive enforcement actions against activities on my property. BEFORE THE PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND STOP WORK ORDER Appellant: Angela Battle Property Address: 2510 Berry-Pearce Rd, Timberlake NC Date of Appeal: May 4th 2026 I. INTRODUCTION I, Angela Battle, hereby file this appeal of the “Final Notice of Violation and Notice of Stop Work Order” issued by Planning Director Nishith Trevidi on April 16, 2026, pursuant to applicable provisions of North Carolina law and Person County ordinances. This appeal is timely filed within the 30-day period provided in the notice. It is noted that this appeal, during its duration, stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from. Page 2 of 3 III. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL A. The Property Qualifies for Bona Fide Farm Use Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-903, property used for bona fide farm purposes is exempt from county zoning regulations. The County has already acknowledged that my property meets this standard. The activities conducted on the property are directly related to and supportive of the farm’s rural character and use, and therefore fall within the scope of permitted agritourism. B. Agritourism Activities Are Mischaracterized The County’s characterization of my property as an “event center” is inaccurate and unsupported. The described activities are incidental, low-impact, and consistent with agritourism, including nature observation and passive outdoor recreation. These uses are commonly recognized components of agritourism operations and do not constitute a separate commercial use outside the farm exemption. C. Failure to Provide Statutorily Required Specificity The Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order fails to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-404, which requires that such notices clearly state: • The specific violations; and • The specific actions required to achieve compliance. The notice does not identify: • What specific activities must cease; • What specific ordinance provisions are being violated; or • What corrective actions are required. This lack of specificity renders the notice legally deficient. D. Violation of Due Process Rights Because the notice lacks clarity and specificity, I have been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to: • Understand the alleged violation; • Take corrective action; or Page 3 of 3 • Prepare an informed defense. This constitutes a violation of fundamental due process protections under North Carolina law. E. Procedural and Enforcement Concerns The Planning Director’s failure to respond to a request for clarification, combined with coordination of preemptive enforcement actions through the Sheriff, raises serious concerns regarding: • Fair and impartial enforcement; • Ethics and Civil Rights violations • Premature or extrajudicial action prior to resolution of this appeal; and • Interference with lawful agritourism operations. IV. RELIEF REQUESTED For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment: 1. Reverse and rescind the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order in its entirety; 2. Affirm that the use of the property qualifies as bona fide farm use and permissible agritourism under North Carolina law; 3. Find that the notice issued fails to meet statutory requirements; and 4. Grant any other relief the Board deems just and appropriate. V. CONCLUSION The evidence demonstrates that my property is lawfully operating as a bona fide farm with associated agritourism activities. The enforcement action taken is unsupported by sufficient facts, procedurally deficient, and inconsistent with North Carolina statutory protections. Respectfully submitted, Angela Battle Email: angela.j.battle@gmail.com Tel: 919 884 7667 Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Case #CE-26-13 / Notice of Violation 1 message Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com>Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 12:12 PM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: "B. Michie Brandon" <bmbrandon@personcountync.gov>, "gerisa@scei.us" <gerisa@scei.us> HI Nish, As previously requested, please provide an explanation of how the property is being used outside of the agritourism statute and is being used for a "non-farm" purpose. This needs clarification. What is the basis/evidence for this statement? Again, N.C. Gen. Statute § 160D- 903(a) establishes that property used for "bona fide farm purposes" is exempt from county zoning regulations. I would kindly request that you send me this explanation by the 28th of April 2026, I need this information to properly address the questions and appeals documents the county is sending me. I am within my rights to have this information, and this email serves as a formal record of my request to ensure proper due process in this matter. If there is no factual basis for this "non-farm" claim, I would ask that you close this case. Kind Regards, Angela Battle On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:47 AM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: The Notice of Determination was included with your Notice of Violation, see attached. Nish From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 11:43 AM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: B. Michie Brandon <bmbrandon@personcountync.gov>; gerisa@scei.us <gerisa@scei.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Case #CE-26-13 / Notice of Violation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Nish, I am happy to provide you with more information on the Pond Haven agritourism operation. However, it appears that your department does not have much experience in contract law and the agritourism area. In the Notice of Violation letter that was sent to me, the last sentence reads "The ongoing use of the Subject Property as an event center is a nonfarm purpose and thus is subject to County zoning regulations". I would formally like to request a Written Zoning Determination from the county planning department explaining why the department believes the activites on my property do not meet the legal definition of agritourism. Without this clarification, I am unable to answer any more questions or determine if I am actually required to fill out the requested appeals documents given 5/4/26, 11:05 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Case #CE-26-13 / Notice of Violation https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1863367423450303293%7Cmsg-a:r672926739941126070&simpl=msg-a:…1/3 that N.C. Gen. Statute § 160D-903(a) establishes that property used for "bona fide farm purposes" is exempt from county zoning regulations. I would kindly request that this Written Zoning Determintion be sent to me by the 28th of April 2026. This email serves as a formal record of my request to ensure proper due process in this matter. I will CC Michie Brandon, who has also begun to send me emails . Kind Regards, Angela Battle On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 10:39 AM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: As property owner, who enforces the Alcohol and Noise provisions of your contract? Nish From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 10:36 AM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; gerisa@scei.us <gerisa@scei.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Case #CE-26-13 / Notice of Violation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Please see attached. On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 9:31 AM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: Ms. Battle, Kindly provide us a copy of your standard Contract for these Events, college Fraternity and others. Thank you. Nish From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 6:11 PM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; gerisa@scei.us <gerisa@scei.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Case #CE-26-13 / Notice of Violation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Dear Nish, I received your letter in regards to my agritourism operation in Person County. Thank-you for acknowledging that I have all the necessary prerequisites (Forestry plan, PUV enrollment, signage displays, etc.) for my newly established agritourism site, which definitively certifies my property is being used for "bona fide farm purposes". The N.C. Gen. Statute § 160D-903(a) establishes 5/4/26, 11:05 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Case #CE-26-13 / Notice of Violation https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1863367423450303293%7Cmsg-a:r672926739941126070&simpl=msg-a:…2/3 that property used for "bona fide farm purposes" is exempt from county zoning regulations. Accordingly, because the statute explicitly includes agritourism as a qualifying bona fide farm purpose, an Event Center Special Use Permit need not be acquired. The activities that take place on my property most definitely fall within the operational/permissible scope defined by the term agritourism (DEFINITION: "agritourism means any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment or educational purposes, to view or enjoy activities including farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest-your-own - activities hunting, fishing, equestrian activities, or natural activities and attractions. A building or structure used for agritourism includes any building or structure used for public or private events, including but not limited to weddings, receptions, meetings, demonstrations of farm activities, meals, and other events that are taking place on the farm because of its farm or rural setting.") Please note that having a public or private "event" on a property does not make the property an "Event Center". Also note that more than 90% of my property is used for farming and forestry. I am a member of the NC Agritourism Network Association, where there are numerous organizations with profiles similar to mine ( https://nc-ana.org/about/our-bona-fide-farm-members#!directory/map); studying this information may be helpful to your department in gaining an understanding of currently occuring agritourism activities permissable under the N.C. Gen. Statute § 160D-903(a). It appears your officers could not access the gated area of my property to examine and photograph the relevant agritourism elements, so I have provided more images (see attached).The farm's hay production and storage operation provides my clients with composite material to design and assemble some of their event structures. The campfire pit is fueled with wood from the forest. The area also has a wildlife certification and is a bird sanctuary. If your officers need to access this area for inspection purposes please contact me for entry instructions. I have attached a recent email requesting use of the property for a private event, which clearly states the agritourism related activities that would take place there. Given your inquiry, I will require all future customers to send me a similar letter detailing how they plan to use the property. I hope this response addresses all your concerns and clarifies that my property is not in violation of any Person County planning ordinances and no corrections are necessary. Please contact me via email in a reasoable time before the end of the 30 day appeals period if more information is required. Kind Regards, Angela Battle 5/4/26, 11:05 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Case #CE-26-13 / Notice of Violation https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1863367423450303293%7Cmsg-a:r672926739941126070&simpl=msg-a:…3/3 From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 7:49 AM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: B. Michie Brandon <bmbrandon@personcountync.gov>; gerisa@scei.us <gerisa@scei.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Angela Battle - Submission of Appeal to Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Nish, Please see the attachment. Let me know the procedure for paying the appeals fee. Kind Regards, Angela Battle From: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 8:45 AM To: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Cc: B. Michie Brandon <bmbrandon@personcountync.gov>; gerisa@scei.us <gerisa@scei.us> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Angela Battle - Submission of Appeal to Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order Ms. Battle, Please submit the application provided to you by Michie along with the fee and we will have you scheduled for the Board of Adjustment, Tuesday, May 19th meeting. Thank you. Nish From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 7:49 AM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: B. Michie Brandon <bmbrandon@personcountync.gov>; gerisa@scei.us <gerisa@scei.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Angela Battle - Submission of Appeal to Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Nish, Please see the attachment. Let me know the procedure for paying the appeals fee. Kind Regards, Angela Battle Home /North Carolina /“You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham Translate “You Know W hat You Did ” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of V iolation under Durham Green F lea Market v. City of Durham Date: Dec 13, 2025 “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham I. Introduction In Durham Green Flea Market v. Cit y of Durham, the Supreme Court of North Carol ina sharply constrained how municipalit ies may draft zoning enforcement notices. Interpreting Durham’s Unifie d Development Ordinance (UDO), the Court held that a Notice of Violation (NOV) m ust do more than generically state “failure to comply with an approved site pl an.” It m ust desc ribe the alleged violation with enough spe cifi city that the property own- er has a reasonable unde rstanding of: which ordinance provisions are allegedly violated, and what physical conditions on t he property are claimed to consti tute those violations. Because Durham’s NOV to the Durham Green Flea Market did not meet that standard, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered the City to dismiss the NOV. In doing so, the C ourt reaffirmed seve ral i mport ant 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 1/22 principles: Local governments must foll ow the procedural protections they write into their own ordi nances. Zoning ordinances are construed by their plain language and, where ambiguous, in favor of the free use of l and. Vague, boil erplate notices that effectively tell an owner “you know what you did—now fix i t” are inconsis- t ent with those principles. The ruling ha s significant implications not only for Durham but for zoning enforcement practices across North Carolina, particularly in jurisdictions tha t, like Durham, require NOVs to “incl ude a descript ion of the violation.” II. Summary of the Opinion Durham Gree n Flea Market (the Market) operates a flea market within the City of Durham. After a January 2020 inspection, a Ci ty site compliance officer issued an NOV stating that the following zoning violation had been observed: “Failure to comply with an approved site plan (D1300045).” The NOV cited UDO § 3.7.2 (site plan applicability) and § 15.1.2 (violation), ordered the Market within thirty days to “rem ove all alterations inconsistent with t he approved site plan,” threatened up to $500 per day in civil penalties, and advised of a right to appeal. It attached: four blurry black-and-white phot os of structures on the property, 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 2/22 a hard-to-read copy of the approved site plan, and an aerial photograph of the property. The NOV did not identify: which specific features or structures were noncompliant, t he particular deviations from the site plan, or specific corrective measures for parti cular violations. At the Board of Adjustment (B OA) hearing, Planning staff openly acknowledged they intentionally ke pt the NOV “very broa d” because the re were “seve ral different issues,” and they did not want the Market t o “fix” only the listed ones and leave others. One BOA mem ber candidly stated that, from the NOV, he was “unable to deter- mine what the violation was,” and he voted to overturn it. The remaining si x m embers affirmed the NOV. The Superior Court affirmed the BOA and granted the Market thirty-six months to com e into full compliance with an approved site plan. A divided C ourt of Appeals also affirmed, concluding that the NOV met UDO § 15.2.1.C ’s requirement that a not ice include “a description of the violation” and “the measures nece ssary to cor- rect it.” The dissent argued the NOV was noncompliant and violated due process. On appeal of right based on the dissent, the Supreme Court: Applied de novo review to the l egal question whether the Cit y followed its own ordinance. Held that UDO § 15.2.1.C, by its plain language, re quired a description of the violation sufficient to give t he owner a reasonabl e understanding of what was wrong and what had to be fixed. 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 3/22 Concluded the NOV’s generic assertion of “failure to comply with an approved site plan” and instruc tion to remove “all alterations inconsistent with the approved site plan” did not satisfy t hat requirement. Rejected the City’s reliance on the attac hed photographs as curing the deficiency. Reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded with instructions that the City dismiss the NOV. Because it resolved the case on ordinance grounds, the Court expressly declined to reach the Market’s constitu- tional due process arguments or its other claim s (e.g., about t he impa rtiality of the BOA or the 36-month compli- ance period). III. Detailed Analysis A. Factual and Proc edural Background in Context The underlying dispute is common in land-use practice: a long-operating business had made incremental change s to its site—suc h as adding or expanding temporary structures, including in required parki ng areas— without formally amending its approved site plan. After inspecting the property, the C ity alleged “failure to comply with an approved site plan” but deliberately de- clined to list the specific deviations. The planning mana ger ’s rationale was explicit: There were “several different violations,” and the C ity did not want to limit the NOV to “fix this, this, this, and this” if there were “a whole lot of things” on the site. By keeping the NOV “very broad,” the City hope d to force the Market to prepare and submit a new or amended site plan showing “a ll the changes that we re made.” 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 4/22 In effect, the City was using a single, intentionally vague NOV as a blunt instrument to compel a comprehensive re-permitting of the prope rty, under the threat of substantial daily civil penal ties. The Market objected that: t he NOV was too vague to provide notice of what exact ly was being alleged, t he lack of specificity prevent ed it from knowing what to fix or how to prepare for the BOA hearing, and t his violated both Durham’s UDO and its due process rights. The BOA majori ty and the lower courts neve rtheless upheld the NOV, essential ly treating the generic description plus attachments as sufficient. The Supreme Court disagreed, taking a markedly more demanding view of what “a description of the violation” requires. B. Prec edents and Authorities Cited, and How T hey Shaped the Decision 1. Arter v. Orange County, 386 N.C. 352 (2024) The C ourt opens with a quotation from Arter: “Local governme nts have a responsibilit y to enact clea r, unam- biguous zoning rules.” That framing serves two purposes: It situates this case within a recent line of North Ca rolina decisions insisting on clarity in land-use regulation. It signals that the C ourt will apply ordinary statutory-i nterpretation principle s to the UDO’s NOV provi- sions, rather than defer to administrative practice or “flexible” understandings of notice. Arter is later cited again for the method of interpreting zoning ordinances: 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 5/22 Zoning ordinances are interpreted like statutes. If the text is clear a nd unambiguous, courts apply the plain meaning. 2. Coastal Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 299 N.C. 620 (1980) Coastal Ready-Mix provides the standard interpretive touchstone: “The basic rule is to ascert ain and effectuate the int ent of the legislative body.” Here, the “legislati ve body” is the Durham City Council that adopted the UDO. This reinforces that the question is not what the Planning Department prefers admini strati vely, but what the ordinance itself requires. 3. Lanvale Properties, LLC v. County of Cabarrus, 366 N.C. 142 (2012) Cit ed through Arter, Lanvale supports the canon that, when language is clear, courts implement the plain mean- ing. The Court uses this to justify reading “description of the violation” in UDO § 15.2.1.C a s re quiring substan- tive specificity, not a perfunctory formula. 4. Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205 (1990) Burgess articulates the “anti-surplusage ” canon: courts presume t he legislature did not intend any provision to be meaningless or redundant. The Court applies this to UDO § 15.2.1.C: If “a description of the violation” coul d be sa tisfie d by a bare statement “failure to comply with an ap- prove d site plan,” t hen that requirement would add virtually nothing to the ordina nce. The Court refuses to interpret the UDO in a way that renders that phrase empty, and uses this to support a robust reading of the descri ption requirement. 5. Schooldev E., LLC v. Town of Wake Forest, 386 N.C. 775 (2024) 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 6/22 Schooldev is used for two key propositions: Standard of review in quasi-judicial zoning appeals: Errors of law receive de novo revi ew. Substantive canon for zoning ordinances: Ambiguities are resolved in favor of “the free use of land,” cit- i ng Westminster Homes (discussed below). The Court invokes this second aspect in the alternative: even if the phrase “description of the violation” were ambiguous, any “well-founded doubts” must be resolved in favor of more protection for the landowner ’s use, which implies a more demanding st andard for what an NOV must contain before the government may interfere with that use. 6. Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Board of Adjustment, 354 N.C. 298 (2001) Cit ed via Schooldev, Westminster supplies the “free use of land” canon. The logic is: Zoning regulations restrict otherwise lawful property uses. Accordingly, any interpretive ambiguity in those restricti ons should be resolved narrowly, to minimize in- t erference with property rights. Here, zoning enforcement via an NOV is itself a form of interference; thus, the City must clearly and specifically state what i t claims is unlawful be fore penalties and corre ctive orders can fairly attach. 7. Hamilton v. Adams, 6 N.C. (2 Mar.) 161 (1812); McMillan v. Robeson County, 262 N.C. 413 (1964); County of Lancaster v. Mecklenburg County, 334 N.C. 496 (1993) These cases anchor the opinion in longstanding due process princi ples: 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 7/22 Hamilton (1812) articulates a foundational principle: no one should be deprived of property or rights “with- out notice and an opportunity of defending them.” McMill an appl ies the federal Due Process Clause and the state “law of the land” cla use (N.C. Const. art. I, § 19) to protect a gainst deprivati on of property without a dequat e procedural safegua rds. County of Lancaster makes clear that these due process standards a pply to quasi-judicial zoning decisions, which must observe all “fair trial standards.” These cases frame the due process backdrop. Importantly, though, the Court ul timately does not decide the con- stit utional issue; i t resolves the case on UDO-interpretation grounds while referencing due process principle s as context for why specific ity in NOVs matters. 8. PHG Asheville, LLC v. City of Asheville, 374 N.C. 133 (2020) PHG Asheville is cited for the Court’s role in reviewing Court of Appeals dec isions: when a case reache s the Supreme Court, “the issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed a ny errors of law.” This reinforces t hat the core questi on is whether the intermediate appellate court properly interpreted and applied UDO § 15.2.1.C. 9. Statutes: N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-30(2), 160D-404, 160D-1402 Section 7A-30(2): Provided an appeal of right to the Supreme Court when there is a dissent in the Court of Appeals. Although re pealed, it still applies here because the case wa s pending before repeal; this explains t he Supre me Court’s jurisdiction. Section 160D-404: Governs enforcement of development regulations and requires written NOVs as the starting point for formal enforcement. The Court not es tha t 160D-404 was not in effect when this NOV was 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 8/22 served and thus is not directly governing, but highlights it to show the statutory framework reflecting the General Assembly’s concern for owner notice. Section 160D-1402: Provides standards and scope of revi ew for quasi-judicial zoning appeals to superior court. Subsection (j)(2) confirms de novo review for errors of law, which frames the standard used by the courts below. C. The Court’s Legal Reasoning 1. Standard of Review and Posture The Market’s central contention was that: The C ity failed to follow its own ordinance (UDO § 15.2.1.C), and By doing so, it violated the Market’s due process rights. As an alleged error of law in a quasi-judicial zoning decision, the Supreme Court applied de novo review, “con- sidering t he matter afresh and freely substi tuti ng its own judgment for that of the board.” The C ourt agreed t hat the trial court and Court of Appeals used the correc t standard of review, but concl uded they misapplied it by er- roneously upholding the NOV as compliant with the UDO. 2. T he Text of UDO § 15.2.1.C The critical ordinance provision reads: “The notice shall include a description of the violation and its location, the measures necessar y to correct it, the possibility of civil penalties and judicial enforcement action, and notice of the right to appeal. The notice shall also state the time period allowed, if any, to correct the violation….” 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 9/22 The Court approaches this text with the canons described above: Plain meaning: “Description of the violation” must be given its ordinary sense—an explanation of what, specifically, is being alleged. Anti-surplusage: The requi rement must have some real content; it cannot be satisfied by a generic, conclu- sory label that would apply in virtually every enforcement case. Fre e use of land: Any doubt as to how specific a n NOV must be should be resolved in favor of the l andowner, because zoning enforcement restri cts the free use of property. From this, the Court distills a standard: “[F]or an NOV to satisfy the description requirement, it must leave the property owner with a reasonable understanding of the alleged violation. To accomplish this, the NOV will normally have to specify (1) which UDO provisions are at issue and (2) what conditions on the owner ’s proper ty violate those provisions.” Note that the Court does not demand microscopic detail or a formal “charging document” akin to a criminal in- dictment. Instead, the touchstone is functional: does the owner, upon reading the notice, re asonably understand what is claimed to be wrong and why ? 3. T he Function of Specificity: Link to Corrective Measures and T ime Period The Court emphasize s that § 15.2.1.C does not stop at “description of the violation.” It also requires: “the measures necessary to correct i t,” and “the time period allowed, if any, to correct the violation.” 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 10/22 These elements are interdependent: One cannot meaningfully describe “measures necessary to correct” an unspecified or vaguely described violat ion. Nor can an owner effectively use the allotted time period to “correct the vi olation” if he or she i s unsure what specifically needs to be correcte d. Thus, by design, the ordinance links: 1. de scription of violation → 2. de scription of corrective measures → 3. t ime period for compliance → 4. potential penalties and enforcement. A breakdown a t step (1) undermines t he ent ire structure, which is why the Court treats noncompliance with the description requirement as fatal. 4. Application to the City’s NOV The Court concedes that the NOV: did i denti fy a specific UDO reference: § 3.7.2 (site plan applicability) and § 15.1.2 (violation), and did say “failure to comply with an approved site plan (D1300045),” and did prescribe a general corre ctive directi ve: “remove all alterations inconsistent with the approved site plan.” 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 11/22 However, this was not enough. The NOV: did not say which structures, improve ments, or changes were unauthorized, did not identify which portions of the site plan were being violated (e.g., parking area, building footprint, setbacks), and did not differentiate among multiple alleged deviations. The Court characterizes the NOV as effectively telling the Market: “Basically, the NOV told the Market, ‘You know what you did. Now fix it.’” This, the Court c oncludes, is not what the City Council envisioned when it adopted § 15.2.1.C. The NOV leaves the owner to guess what the City is targeting while simultane ously exposing the owner to signific ant monetary penalties if those guesses are wrong. 5. T he City’s Intentional Vagueness and the Fairness Problem The opinion gives unusual weight to the Planning Department’s own te stim ony about why t he NOV was drafted vaguely. Staff admitted they: purposefully avoided listing “t his, this, this, and this” because there were “several different violations,” and wanted to compel the Marke t to submit a compre hensive site plan showing “all the changes that were made,” ra ther than focus on specific, i denti fied violations. The Court labels this “not just inconsistent with the de scription requirem ent; it was also unfair.” The combina- tion of: 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 12/22 an intentionally broad and non-specific NOV, and t he threat of up to $500/day per violat ion, created a scenario where the Ma rket faced: uncertainty about what conduct or conditions would actually be sanctioned, and a heavy financial risk if its interpretation of the City’s concerns did not matc h the City’s unstated list of grievance s. While the Court c ouches this critique partly in terms of fairness and due process principles, it grounds its hold- ing squarely in the City’s failure to adhe re to its own ordinance’s specificity require ment. 6. T he Role (and Limits) of Attachments and Photographs The City argued that the attached photographs and other documents, when read together with the NOV, were enough to “identify the violation and how the violation can be cured.” The Court was willing, arguendo, to as- sume that photographs might count as part of “writt en notice” for purposes of UDO § 15.2.1.A. But even so: The pa rtic ular photos here were “blurry, black-and-white” copies. They did not, on their face, point to specific code sections or a rtic ulate t he nature of any violation. Nothing in the NOV or attac hments explicitly connected any partic ular photo to any particular asserted violat ion. As a result, the Court concluded the atta chments did not rescue the notice. At best, they showed that something had been built or was present on the property; they did not perform the function of describing why those condi- 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 13/22 tions were regarded as violations of the UDO. 7. Institutional Consequences for the BOA The Court also highlights a syst emic consequence: when an NOV lacks the required de scription, t he Board of Adjustment ends up spending its time debating: whether the NOV itse lf is valid or suffi cient, instead of evaluating the evidence of a ctual violations. A properly drafted NOV would allow the B OA to: focus on factfinding (did the described conditions exist?), and apply law to those specific facts (do those conditions violate the referenced UDO provisi ons?). A vague NOV undermines the BOA’s quasi-j udici al role, furt her reinforcing the need for specificity. 8. Disposition and Avoidance of Constitutional Issues Having held that the NOV failed UDO § 15.2.1.C’s description requirement, the Court: Reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment. Remanded the case “with instructions to the City to dismiss the NOV.” The Court explicitly declined to reach: The Market’s due process arguments (federal or state constituti onal), Arguments about the impartiality of the quasi-judicial hearing, and 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 14/22 The propriety of the trial court’s 36-month compliance condition under N.C.G.S. § 160D-1402(k). This is a classic application of “constitutional avoidance”: when a c ase can be resolved by applying nonconstitu- tional law (here, municipal ordinance interpretation), courts do so and avoid deciding c onstitutional questions unnece ssarily. D. Impact and Implications 1. Immediate Consequences for Durham For Durham, the decision: Invalidates this specific NOV a nd any enforcement action tied to it. Effectively requires the Planning Department to revise its NOV practices to: Identify specific deviations from approved site pl ans (or other UDO st andards). State which UDO sections those deviat ions violate. Describe what corrective measures are needed for each violation. Discredits the practi ce of issuing intentionally vague NOVs designed to force wholesale resubmission of site plans “showing all changes,” without specifying which changes the City regards as unlawful. The City remains free, as a matter of substanti ve zoning law, to enforce its site plan requirements and require amendments where necessary. What it ca nnot do, after this decision, is initiate that enforcement via a boilerplate, non-specific NOV. 2. Broader Effect on Nor th Carolina Zoning Enforcement 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 15/22 Although the holding formally inte rprets Durham’s UDO, its reasoning has broader persuasive force: Many North Caroli na jurisdictions have similar provisions requiring that an NOV include a “description of t he violation” and corrective measures. Even where the local language is not ident ical, the Court’s canons—plain meaning, anti-surplusage, and “free use of land”—will push courts towa rd requiring a compara ble leve l of specificity. Case law is now clear t hat local governments cannot dilute these text-based requirements by informal ad- ministrative practices or convenience. Practical ly, zoning and code-enforcement officials will need to: Abandon gene ric “failure to c omply with site plan” statements as standalone descriptions. Prepa re NOVs that function more like concise, factual charge lett ers: “On X date, you erected Structure A in Area B which is designated as required parki ng on the approved site pla n D1300045, c ontrary to UDO § [citation].” Ensure that attachments (photos, plans) are clearly referenced in the te xt and tied t o specific alleged viola- t ions, not merely appended as an undifferentiated packet. 3. Reinforcement of “Follow Your Own Rules” Doctrine The decision underscores a powerful administrative-law theme: when a gove rnment body adopts procedural rules (here, in its own UDO), it must follow them. The Court does not permit the C ity to: argue that the Ma rket could have called Planning st aff to “ask wha t the problem is,” or 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 16/22 rely on the availability of hearings or appea ls to cure deficiencies in the initial notice. The ordinance itself prescribes what must be in the written notice. Failure to meet those requirements is itself a legal error that can invalidate the enforcement act ion. 4. Practical Consequences for Property Owners and Counsel For property owners and their lawyers, t his decision provides: A concrete standard to challenge vague enforcement notices: Does the NOV articulate specific factual conditions alleged to violate specific ordinance provisions? Would a reasonable owner, reading the NOV, know what must be done to cure the problem? A strategic path: Conte st the adequacy of the NOV itself as a threshold issue before the BOA and in judicial revi ew, es- peciall y where the language mirrors Durham’s UDO § 15.2.1.C. Argue that vague NOVs not only fail local law but also im plicate due process concerns, even if courts, as here, may choose to resolve on nonconstitutional grounds. 5. Interaction with Civil Penalties and Enforcement Strategy The Court’s decision will like ly influence how cities use civil penalties. The greater the sanctions (e.g., $500/day per violation), the more crit ical it is that: The owner knows prec isely what is being penalized. 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 17/22 The NOV’s description allows a cle ar determination of when and whether violat ions have been corrected, to stop the penalty clock. Municipalities that rely heavily on penalty-driven enforc ement will now have a strong incentive to invest more effort up front in drafting specific NOVs, rather than relying on vague, “clean up everything” direc tives. IV. Clarifyi ng Key Legal Concepts and Terms 1. Notice of V iolation (NOV ) An NOV is the formal written docum ent by which a municipality or county notifies a property owner (or permit holder) that the government believes the property is in violation of zoning or devel opment re gulat ions. It typically: Describes the alleged violation. Identifies the property and relevant approvals (e .g., site plans, permits). Specifies what must be done to correct the probl em. Warns of potential penalties. Advises of appeal rights. In North Carolina, N.C.G.S. § 160D-404 contemplates that a written NOV is the sta rting point for formal enforcement. 2. Site Plan N.C.G.S. § 160D-102(29) defi nes a “site plan” as: 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 18/22 “scaled drawing and suppor ting text showing the relationship between lot lines and the existing or proposed uses, buildings, or structures on the lot.” It typically details: Building locations and dimensions. Parking a reas and ci rculation. Landscaping and open space. Setbacks, buffers, and easements. Once a site plan is approved, t he owner is generally required to develop and maintain the property in accordance with that plan unless a formal amendment is approved. 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) A UDO is a comprehensive local code that consolidates zoning, subdivision, and related land-use regulations into a single document. Durham’s UDO: Defines permitted uses, dimensional standards, a nd procedures for approvals. Includes e nforcem ent provisions, including NOV requirements (Art. 15). 4. Quasi-Judicial Hearing and Board of Adjustment (BOA) A quasi-judicial hearing is a formal, evidence-based proceeding before a local board (often a Board of Adjustment) where: Evidence is presented under oath. 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 19/22 Witnesses may be examined and cross-exam ined. The board makes findings of fact and applies legal st andards. Unlike le gislative decisions (e.g., adopti ng a zoning map), quasi-judicial decisions must: Be based on compe tent, material, and substantial evidence. Observe due process and “fair trial standards,” as recognized in County of Lancaster. 5. Due Process and “Law of the Land” The federal Due Process Clause (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1) and North Carolina’s “law of the land” clause (N.C. Const. art . I, § 19) both protect individuals from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without appro- priate procedures. Core components include: Notic e: Timely and adequate information about what the government is alleging or proposing to do. Opportunity to be he ard: A fa ir chance to present one’s side, chall enge evidence, and argue the law. In zoning enforcement, inadequate notice can undermine the fairness of any subsequent hearing, because the owner l acks a clear understanding of the ca se to be met. 6. De Novo Review “De novo” review means the revie wing c ourt considers the issue anew, without deferring to the de cision-maker below. In quasi-judicial zoning appe als, questions of law—such as whe ther an NOV satisfies ordi nance require- ments—are reviewed de novo under N.C.G.S. § 160D-1402(j )(2). 7. Canons of Interpretation Used 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 20/22 Plain Meaning: Words are interpreted by their ordinary meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Anti-Surplusage: Courts avoid interpretations that render statutory or ordinance language redundant or meaningless. Fre e Use of Land Canon: Ambiguous zoning provisions are construed in favor of unrestricted property use. Constitutional Avoidance: Courts avoid deciding constitutional issues when a case can be resolved on non- constitutional grounds. V. Conclusion Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham establishes a clear and consequential rule in North Carolina zon- ing law: when a local ordi nance requires that a Notice of Violati on include “a description of the violation,” the notice must do more than recite a generic conclusion like “failure to comply with an approved site plan.” It must provide enough detail to give the property owner a reasonable understanding of: what specific conditions on the property are alleged to be unlawful, and which specific ordinance provisions those condit ions violate. The Court grounds this requirement in: t he plain text and structure of Durham’s UDO, t raditional canons of st atutory interpretation, 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 21/22 t he “free use of land” principle , and l ongstanding due proce ss values of fair notice and opportunity to be heard. By rejecting Durham’s inte ntionally vague, boilerplate NOV—and requiring its dismissal —the Court sends a strong signal to local governments: zoning enforcement must begin with clear, spec ific, ordinance-compliant no- tice. Vague directives that effectively tell an owner “you know what you did—now fix it” are incompatible with both loca l law a nd t he broader principles that govern fair land-use regulation. As a prac tical matter, this decision will shape how NOVs are drafted and litigated across the state, offering prop- erty owners a meaningful procedural shield and compelling municipalities to articulate their enforcement claims with precision at the outset. Case Details Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham Year:2025 Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina Comments Write your comment 6/6/26, 4:39 AM “You Know What You Did” Is Not Enough: Specificity in Zoning Notices of Violation under Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham: N.C. | CaseMine https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/“you-know-what-you-did”-is-not-enough:-specificity-in-zoning-notices-of-violation-under-durham-green-flea-market-v.-city-of-durham/view 22/22 Search ATTORNEYS CAREERS EVENTS Example: Business Law PRACTICE AREASRESULTSNEWSLOCATIONS ABOUTOUR TEAM RESOURCES Cranfill Sumner LLP Resources Appellate Law North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses Zoning Enforcement Requirements January 5, 2026 | By Matthew Carter Last month, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that municipalities must provide landowners with a clear description of an alleged violation when enforcing zoning ordinances in Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham. Durham Green Flea Market runs a flea market in the City of Durham. In January of 2020, a zoning officer inspected the property and found numerous violations because of changes to the property that were not in the Market’s approved site plan. Durham subsequently issued an intentionally vague Notice of Violation (NOV), alleging the Market failed “to comply with an approved site plan” and giving the Market thirty days to “remove all alterations inconsistent with the approved site plan[.]” The Market appealed the NOV to Durham’s Board of Adjustment, arguing that the NOV was not sufficiently descriptive to provide meaningful notice of what conditions created zoning violations. One Board Member agreed, stating he could not determine what the violation was after reading the NOV. The remaining Board Members dismissed the Market’s appeal. A Superior Court and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s decision. In an appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, the Market argued the NOV violated Section 15.2.1.C of Durham’s UDO, which requires NOVs to include “a description of the violation and its location” and “the measures necessary to correct it[.]” The Court agreed, holding that the vague language left the Market guessing as to what property conditions formed the basis of the violations and how it needed to fix them to come into compliance with the UDO. When reaching this North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses ZoningNorth Carolina Supreme Court Addresses Zoning Enforcement RequirementsEnforcement Requirements 6/6/26, 4:41 AM North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses Zoning Enforcement... https://www.cshlaw.com/resources/north-carolina-supreme-court-addresses-zoning-enforcement-requirements/1/4 conclusion, the Court emphasized that property owners must receive clear notice of alleged violations to ensure due process and to enable them to take corrective action. Fundamental to the Court’s analysis was that UDO Section 15.2.1.C placed higher standards on Durham’s zoning enforcement officials than Section 160D-404 of the North Carolina General Statutes, a law requiring local government to initiate formal zoning enforcement proceedings by delivering a notice of violation to property owners. The Court construed Section 15.2.1.C’s heightened requirements to indicate Durham’s intent to provide more stringent detail in its notices than that required by the General Assembly. So, moving forward, what must a municipality include in its notices of a zoning violation? Local governments must give clear notices of zoning violations, identifying the violation with enough detail to give the recipient a reasonable understanding of the alleged violation and the corrective measures they must take. General and nondescript notices will not suffice. In the same vein, municipalities should remain aware that if they include a higher standard in their ordinances than that set forth by the legislature, they will be held to it down the line. About the Author Matthew Carter Matthew is a civil litigation attorney with experience working at every level of the North Carolina court system. His experience covers numerous areas of law including partnership and contract disputes, real property issues, and unfair and deceptive trade practice claims. Stay Up-to-Date: Subscribe for E-Alerts Employment Law Tool Kit Categories 6/6/26, 4:41 AM North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses Zoning Enforcement... https://www.cshlaw.com/resources/north-carolina-supreme-court-addresses-zoning-enforcement-requirements/2/4 Administrative, Regulatory & Government Law Admiralty & Maritime Appellate Law Aviation & Aerospace Business Disputes & Litigation Business Law Community Association Law Construction Law COVID-19 Cyber Liability Elder Law & Estate Planning Eminent Domain & Land Condemnation Employment Law Insurance Law Insurance Law and Coverage Intellectual Property International Business Law Medical Malpractice Mergers & Acquisitions Municipalities & Public Entities Premises Liability Product Liability Professional Liability Retail, Restaurant & Hospitality Risk Management & Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Calculator Trucking & Commercial Transportation White Collar, Government Investigations & Special Matters Home Events Raleigh Wilmington (919) 828-5100 5440 Wade Park Boulevard, #300 (910) 777-6000 5535 Currituck Drive, Suite 210 Wilmington, NC 28403 6/6/26, 4:41 AM North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses Zoning Enforcement... https://www.cshlaw.com/resources/north-carolina-supreme-court-addresses-zoning-enforcement-requirements/3/4 Careers Locations Charlotte Washington Raleigh, NC 27607 (704) 332-8300 2907 Providence Road, #200 Charlotte, NC 28211 (771) 210-1998 2001 K Street NW, Suite 250 North Tower Washington, DC 20006 Privacy Policy Disclaimer Copyright © 2026 Cranfill Sumner LLP. All rights reserved. 6/6/26, 4:41 AM North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses Zoning Enforcement... https://www.cshlaw.com/resources/north-carolina-supreme-court-addresses-zoning-enforcement-requirements/4/4 NOV / SWO Compliance Checklist Appeal AP-02-26 Angela Battle v. Person County Planning Department Legal Requirement Source Complies? Written Notice of Violation N.C.G.S. §160D- 404(a) NOV must be issued in writing. Yes ✓ ✓ identified Durham Green Flea Market the alleged violation, not merely make a conclusory accusation. Specific ordinance provision identified Durham Green Flea Market able to determine or legal provision is allegedly violated. Specific activity identified N.C.G.S. §160D- 404(b) specific work or activity to be stopped. (North Carolina Specific reasons for SWO N.C.G.S. §160D- 404(b) the order. (North Carolina General Conditions for resuming activity N.C.G.S. §160D- 404(b) under which activity may resume. (North Carolina General identified practice; local ordinances implementing what must be done to achieve compliance. (American Legal Legal Requirement Source Complies? Ability to understand how to comply Durham Green Flea Market sufficiently specific to allow recipient to understand alleged violation and remedy. Ability to know which activities are prohibited Due Process / §160D-404(b) be able to determine what conduct is forbidden. (North Carolina General Ability to know when SWO ends §160D-404(b) resumption must be stated. ( Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Re: Packet given to Person County Board of Adjustment for the May 19th Meeting 1 message Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com>Fri, May 29, 2026 at 12:35 PM To: Brian Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com> Cc: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>, TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com>, Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Mr Ferrell, Thank-you for your reply. May I ask if the BOA members have already seen the NOV/SWO combined with Mr. Morphis' Attachment 4 and beyond? My worry is that BOA members might be under the impression that I was presented all of that information before making the appeal. Are you saying I can object to the introduction of that extraneous information? Yes, I will provide the board with a PowerPoint presentation and extensive supporting material. Do I need to make hard copies or can that be done for me? I think you previously mentioned a projector would be available and a record of the proceedings would follow. I hope I can also record the proceedings on my own audio device. I will upload all of my documents at the appropriate time. I am still deciding how to approach addressing the BOA and will let you know next week. Unfortunately changing the date to the 25th instead of the third Tuesday of the month complicated a plan I put in place after our initial conversation and I'm trying to come up with a solution. I'm guessing I can bring neighbors, NAACP members and relatives as witnesses and support, but it sounds like they could not actually participate in the process. Thanks in advance for your further clarification. On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 11:45 AM Brian Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, It is common practice for the Board to receive agenda materials of the type you described below in advance of quasi-judicial hearings. However, when deciding the case, the Board may consider only those documents that are admitted into the hearing record during the evidentiary hearing. Agenda materials do not become part of the hearing record unless and until they are introduced at the hearing. At this time, no evidence has been admitted into the record in this case. The Board Chair will address any objections raised by a party to the introduction of evidence during the hearing. Please note that only parties with standing may object to the admission of evidence. I will advise the Board accordingly during the hearing. I understand that you may also have a PowerPoint presentation to include in the agenda materials for the June meeting. If so, your submission will be treated in the same manner as all other agenda materials. As T.C. previously explained, it is not necessary to include with the agenda materials all evidence a party intends to submit at the hearing. Again, the hearing record will consist exclusively of the evidence submitted during the hearing. I would appreciate your confirmation by next week as to whether the Trust will move forward with the appeal on its own behalf or whether you intend to proceed with the appeal as an individual asserting standing. Please also confirm whether the relevant party will be represented by counsel at the hearing. Thank you, Brian 6/6/26, 7:45 AM Gmail - Re: Packet given to Person County Board of Adjustment for the May 19th Meeting https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-7966716150722366306%7Cmsg-a:r8685338263320903042&simpl=msg-a:r8685338263320903042&mb=1 1/3 Brian M. Ferrell Attorney Kennon Craver, PLLC 4011 University Drive, Suite 300 post office box 51579 Durham, NC 27717-1579 919 490 0500 T 919 490 0873 F bferrell@kennoncraver.com www.kennoncraver.com From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 4:32 PM To: Brian Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com> Cc: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: Packet given to Person County Board of Adjustment for the May 19th Meeting **EXTERNAL EMAIL; use caution with links and attachments** Mr. Ferrell, I recently downloaded the packet associated with AP-02-26, which I understand was provided to the Board of Adjustment in connection with the May 19, 2026 meeting. Because my appeal was continued to the June BOA meeting, I was surprised to see that pages 30–65 of the packet, including the Staff Report, Attachment 4 ,Table of Uses, and the discussion of Jeffries v. County of Harnett, were apparently presented to the Board prior to the continued hearing date. I respectfully object to the inclusion of these materials to the extent they may be treated as part of the original Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order issued to me. My appeal was not based upon these additional legal arguments or materials. Rather, one of the central issues raised in my appeal is whether the original NOV/SWO complied with the notice and specificity requirements of North Carolina law. I am concerned that inclusion of these supplemental materials could be viewed as an attempt to provide additional justification or clarification beyond what was contained in the original enforcement documents that were appealed. 6/6/26, 7:45 AM Gmail - Re: Packet given to Person County Board of Adjustment for the May 19th Meeting https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-7966716150722366306%7Cmsg-a:r8685338263320903042&simpl=msg-a:r8685338263320903042&mb=1 2/3 I also question whether substantive representations regarding the merits of the appeal should have been made to the Board while the matter was under continuance and while I was not present to respond. As counsel for the BOA, I would appreciate your guidance regarding how this issue can appropriately be clarified for the Board prior to the continued hearing so that all parties may proceed with a fair and impartial process. Thank you, Angela Battle Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. 6/6/26, 7:45 AM Gmail - Re: Packet given to Person County Board of Adjustment for the May 19th Meeting https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-7966716150722366306%7Cmsg-a:r8685338263320903042&simpl=msg-a:r8685338263320903042&mb=1 3/3 Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> "Field of Dreams" operation reorganized under NC State Agritourism Law 1 message Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com>Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 9:36 AM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>, gerisa@scei.us Cc: floyd@mckissicklaw.com Gerisa and Nish, Wishing you a prosperous and successful 2026! As stated in a communication from last year, I am in the process of re-organizing the former "Field of Dreams" (Will be renamed) operation to comply with NC Agritourism laws. The relevant regulation GS-160D-903 is attached with the pertinent wording highlighted. Please note that my property is a Bona Fide Farming Operationi in regard to 3 measures (PUV, Schedule F, Forestry Plan). I am in the process of putting up the required signage and will have that completed within 2 weeks. In addition, in order to prevent any spillage of vehicles from my future agritourism activities to any of the surrounding roads, I have made a request to Jason Watson (Person County Maintenance Engineer) who has forwarded the request to Lawrence Fernandez (NCDOT) to put up NO PARKING signage along the relevant portions of Berry-Pearce Rd and Willie Gray Rd. In 2026 I look forward to working within the law to maintain a cordial relationship with the county residents as I advance this agritourism business. I welcome your comments and suggestions. Kind Regards, Angela Battle GS_160D-903.pdf 126K 5/15/26, 5:37 AM Gmail - "Field of Dreams" operation reorganized under NC State Agritourism Law https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r4069763233765413423%7Cmsg-a:r-8150421343584176183&simpl=ms…1/1 Located in Roxboro, North Carolina Close to Raleigh-Durham, Chapel Hill & Greensboro NC, Danville & South Boston VA (336) 599-1297 Sunset Ridge Buffalo Farm offers a unique venue in a quiet lakeside environment surrounded by rolling hills and pastures where buffalo still roam today. Possibilities are endless for weekday corporate retreats for team building and training, parties for the holidays, celebrations of birthdays, graduations, retirement or engagements as well as picnics, brunches, luncheons, dinners, family reunions – all with lasting memories of fun, laughter and music. We have a Preferred Vendor List for you to choose and book your own caterer or we can arrange for breakfast, lunch or dinner meals for your group. You can bring your food and use our outdoor grills. Select a package which suits your event. Depending upon package selected, possible amenities include: PHOTOS ON FLICKR BROCHURE PACKAGES & FEES TERMS & P R I VAT E & C O R P O R AT E BISON MEAT FARM TOURS WEDDINGS PRIVATE & CORPORATE NEWS & EVENTS ABOUT CONTACT US Book NowBook Now 6/6/26, 5:29 AM PRIVATE & CORPORATE – Sunset Ridge Buffalo Farm https://www.sunsetridgebuffalo.com/private-corporate/1/3 Use of 33’ diameter, 10-sided gazebo, electricity, and adjacent 400 sq. ft. deck Use of outdoor covered kitchen, running hot and cold water, 2 grills with propane Fountain in lake Use of 3 station, modern bathroom facility (AKA “Porcelain Convenience”) Up to thirteen 5’ round tables, two 6’ round tables, four 6’ rectangular tables Up to 200 white folding chairs Two 1023 sq. ft. high peak hexagon shaped tents – one with skylight and one with chandelier Provisions for inclement weather Parking for 50 cars adjacent to The Gazebo (overflow parking 125 yards) Recycling/disposal containers for refuse Preferred Vendor List of local caterers or will coordinate for you Bison meat available for meals and sale CONDITIONS MAKE AN INQUIRY C o n t a c t u s Sunset Ridge Buffalo Farm, LLC 465 Yarbrough Rd Roxboro, NC 27574 Map to our location (336) 599-1297 (336) 583-6666 info@sunsetridgebuffalo.com P l a n y o u r e v e n t View our events brochure Make your wedding inquiry Inquire for other private and corporate events M o r e f r o m S u n s e t R i d g e Photos on Flickr Photo and printing credits Text and photography provided by Sunset Ridge Buffalo Farm. Book NowBook Now 6/6/26, 5:29 AM PRIVATE & CORPORATE – Sunset Ridge Buffalo Farm https://www.sunsetridgebuffalo.com/private-corporate/2/3 Bona Fide North Carolina Farms (Agritourism) with Ongoing “Event” Activities Source: NC Agritourism Networking Association (https://nc-ana.org/about/our-bona-fide- farm-members) https://www.3bluebirdsfarm.org/programs https://www.cloerfamilyvineyards.com/event-venue/ https://durrantfarms.com/ https://ellaberryllamafarm.com/events/ https://www.greenleaffarmsnc.com/event-space https://growingfaithfarms.com/our-events/ https://heritageculturalfarm.com/events https://www.hiddencreekfamilyfarm.com/parties-celebrations https://jordanlakefarms.com/event-venue https://www.barheventcenter.com/events/ https://www.littlefarmmidland.com/yoga https://www.lockwoodfarmsllc.com/events https://www.lookingglasscreamery.com/pages/events https://www.gallowayfarmnc.com/maze-craze https://sites.google.com/view/mclawlandfarms/visits/events?authuser=0 https://www.millstonecreekorchards.com/party-at-the-pond https://www.montgomeryskyfarm.com/The-Experiences https://www.odomfarmingcompany.com/parties-events https://outlawacres.com/weddings-private-events/ https://www.pascualesfarm.com/public-events-calendar/ https://www.visitpattersonfarm.com/host-a-party-event/company-group-events/ https://www.milkandhoneyacres.org/events https://www.sonlightfarmsnc.com/activities https://www.sunrisecommunityfarmcenter.com/?category=a96c24d9-7cf2-47bc- 9990-8ea87a70ea5b https://surrattorchards.com/events-2026 https://www.sweetwaterfarmsnc.com/events https://www.themeadowsraleigh.com/events https://www.horseshoeacresnc.com/ https://twodachshundfarm.com/birthday-party-farm-tour/ Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal 1 message Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com>Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:58 PM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com>, "Brian M. Ferrell" <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>, Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Bcc: Carmen Battle <cbattlelaw@gmail.com> Nish, Thank you for your response and for clarifying that the County’s position does not depend upon whether an activity is public or private in nature. I appreciate that clarification because the current version of North Carolina’s agritourism statutes, as amended by the General Assembly in 2020, plainly contemplates both public and private activities occurring on bona fide farms. While the law uses the term "general public," in my research courts and legal experts interpret this phrase to simply mean "visitors" or those outside the immediate farming operation. It is accepted by agritourism experts that events like private farm weddings, private corporate retreats, or ticketed private dinners can all fall under the agritourism umbrella if they are hosted on a qualifying farm setting. Indeed, Sunset Ridge Buffalo Farm is located in the Roxboro area, and as bona fide farm with a full event operation does not have a special use permit. https://www. sunsetridgebuffalo.com/private-corporate/ There are many more examples I could cite of event spaces on bona fide farms within the state of North Carolina, which, because they are exempt from county zoning, do not have event special use permits. I am attempting to understand how the County distinguishes my operation from similarly situated bona fide farm agritourism operations within North Carolina that appear to conduct comparable activities without event-center permitting requirements. In this regard, I think the US constitution affords me equal treatment under the law, and I should not be singled out by the Person County Planning Department for partisan/biased/selective zoning enforcement, when my situation is almost identical to others and clearly demands an exemption. I respectfully disagree with the County’s conclusion that the proposed reunion necessarily falls outside the scope of protected agritourism activities under N.C.G.S. § 160D-903(a), and because the County has indicated its willingness during the appeal's pendency to evaluate proposed activities for consistency with N.C.G.S. § 160D- 903, I would like to pursue this issue further. Therefore, before I give the interested parties a hard no to their reunion inquiry, I would kindly request further clarification. The statute expressly recognizes activities connected with the “viewing and enjoyment of rural activities” including, among other things, “historic, cultural, harvest-your - own activities, hunting, fishing, equestrian activities, or natural activities and attractions.” The statutory language does not appear to require that attendees actively engage in farming operations themselves, nor does it exclude organized gatherings occurring within a rural farm setting. Again, I refer to Sunset Ridge Buffalo Farm’s operation. As described, the proposed reunion would occur entirely within the rural and natural setting of Pond Haven (BTW I am thinking of altering the name to Pond Haven at Bennu Farm to emphasize its farm location) and would involve invited guests gathering for the enjoyment of the property’s rural environment and natural attractions (bird watching, wildlife sanctuary, etc.). The fact that temporary tents or catering may be utilized for guest accommodation does not transform the activity into a prohibited nonfarm commercial use. In fact, the court, in a case involving Jeffries v. Cty of Harnett, contended that construction and use of artificial/permanent structures or the altering of natural land makes it less likely that a location/activity would be considered agritourism. Additionally, the County’s reference to the property being “rented out commercially for events” appears to assume facts and legal conclusions that remain disputed in the pending appeal proceedings. 6/6/26, 5:12 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865919222064550339%7Cmsg-a:r6637340484984449434&simpl=msg-a:r6637340484984449434&mb=1 1/8 To better understand the County’s interpretation of the statute, I respectfully request clarification regarding the following: 1. Does the County contend that gatherings occurring for the enjoyment of a farm’s rural, scenic, natural, historic, or cultural environment can never qualify as agritourism unless attendees are directly participating in agricultural production activities? 2. What specific statutory language excludes organized private gatherings conducted within a bona fide farm setting from the scope of “natural activities and attractions” or “cultural” agritourism activities recognized in N.C.G.S. § 160D-903(a)? Certainly, high school reunions are an integral part of American culture. 3. Is the County’s position that any compensated gathering involving invited guests automatically constitutes a commercial “event center” regardless of whether the activity occurs on a bona fide farm otherwise protected under the agritourism statutes? I am guessing you will refer this matter to Mr. Morphis, who I know has a duty to zealously advocate for the County. At the same time, I don’t think he is allowed to willfully misinterpret and cede confusion through weaponization of plain letter law in the County’s favor. It is my understanding that the BOA quasi-judicial process protects ordinary citizens by preventing political favoritism and requiring decisions to be based strictly on factual evidence rather than popular opinion and sentiment. Given the vicious racist vitriol, I myself received from mostly unidentifiable hateful dark forces in the County in the wake of the “Oil Spill” event, I can only hope that the issuance of the POV and SWO and the County’s continued insistence on halting my agritourism operation is not intentionally or unintentionally part of a racist agenda. Because these issues enumerated above challenge the applicability of the County’s SWO, and its lifting would allow me to pursue the reunion opportunity under my bona fide farm status, I would appreciate further identification of any statutory authority, ordinance provisions, case law, or formal guidance documents the County relies upon in reaching its “nonfarm” interpretation and applying the SWO to this particular case. Thank you again for your continued correspondence and clarification. Yes, transparency is important, and I hope additional evidence and an expanded presentation of facts may be helpful in pouring sunlight into this process. Please let me know the deadline is for uploading materials to give to the board members for the June meeting Also, please confirm whether the next meeting is the 25th of June (the date given by Mr. Morphis) or the 16th of June (the third Tuesday of the month). Kind Regards, Angela Battle On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 3:47 PM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: Ms. Battle, First, thank you for notifying us of the proposed reunion. We really appreciate your efforts to be transparent about the uses of your property. Second, I have conferred with the County Attorney, and we agree that the proposed high school reunion would be a "nonfarm use" and, thus, is not agritourism. The County's position on this proposed use does not turn on whether the event is open to the public or private. Instead, we believe that the proposed event does not fit within the purpose or plain language of the term "agritourism," as it is defined in GS 160D-903(a). Factors in our analysis include, (i) the property is being rented out commercially for events, and (ii) while the events, including the proposed reunion, might require the land space that only a rural setting can provide, they are not purposefully performed at Pond Haven primarily for the viewing or enjoyment of rural activities, such as farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, hunting, fishing, equestrian activities, or natural activities and attractions. As stated in my April 27, 2026 email to you and elsewhere, these types of activities must be done through the "events center" use, which requires a special use permit. Respectfully, Nish 6/6/26, 5:12 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865919222064550339%7Cmsg-a:r6637340484984449434&simpl=msg-a:r6637340484984449434&mb=1 2/8 From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 6:15 PM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com>; Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com> Cc: Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Mr. Morphis, Thank you for your response. I will get back to you early next week regarding the proposed date. In the meantime, I have received an inquiry regarding a potential event opportunity. Because the County has indicated a willingness during the appeal's pendency to evaluate proposed activities for consistency with N.C.G.S. § 160D-903, I would appreciate clarification regarding the following proposed activity. The inquiry involves a High School Reunion for about 500 private guests. The organizers would provide their own temporary tents and catering, and the event would be contained within Pond Haven's boundaries. Please advise whether the County would contend that this proposed activity falls outside the scope of protected agritourism activities. If so, I respectfully request that the County identify the basis for that conclusion, including the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law relied upon. Additionally, if it is appropriate to probe your legal analysis for clarification during the appeal pendency, I would appreciate a response to the question raised in my prior email concerning the County’s apparent position that agritourism activities must necessarily be open to the public in order to qualify under North Carolina law. As amended by the General Assembly in 2020, North Carolina’s agritourism statutes contemplate both public and private activities conducted on bona fide farms. The statutory framework does not appear to limit protected agritourism solely to events open to the general public. Farm-based educational activities, retreats, workshops, cultural activities, and similar experiences conducted for invited or organized groups may still constitute agritourism where they are related to and incidental to the farm operation and rural environment. Accordingly, the fact that an activity involves invited guests, students, retreat participants, or private groups does not, by itself, appear to remove the activity from the scope of protected agritourism under North Carolina law. Because this issue appears central to the County’s position, I would again espectfully request that the County identify the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law supporting any assertion that agritourism activities must be open to the public in order to qualify under N.C.G.S. § 160D-903 or related statutes. Thank you in advance for your response. Angela Battle On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:15 PM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, 6/6/26, 5:12 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865919222064550339%7Cmsg-a:r6637340484984449434&simpl=msg-a:r6637340484984449434&mb=1 3/8 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Would a site the morning of June 17th work for you? Unfortunately, there are a number of scheduling conflicts on our side, and this appears to be the only date currently available for us. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 6:33 PM To: Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Mr. Bowen, Thank you for your email and for confirming the continuance date. I appreciate the County’s acknowledgment that qualifying agritourism activities conducted on a bona fide farm are exempt from County zoning regulation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D- 903. However, I respectfully wish to clarify an important point regarding the scope of agritourism under current North Carolina law. The County’s references to facilities “made available to the public” appear to suggest that agritourism activities must necessarily be public events in order to qualify for protection or exemption. My understanding is that this is inconsistent with the current statutory framework. 6/6/26, 5:12 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865919222064550339%7Cmsg-a:r6637340484984449434&simpl=msg-a:r6637340484984449434&mb=1 4/8 As amended by the General Assembly in 2020, North Carolina’s agritourism statutes contemplate both public and private activities conducted on bona fide farms. The statutory language is not limited solely to events open to the general public. Farm-based educational activities, retreats, workshops, cultural activities, and similar experiences conducted for invited or organized groups may still constitute agritourism where they are related to and incidental to the rural environment/farm operation. Accordingly, the fact that an activity involves invited guests, students, retreat participants, or private groups does not, by itself, remove the activity from the scope of protected agritourism under North Carolina law. Because this issue appears central to the County’s position, I would respectfully request that the County identify the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law upon which it relies for any assertion that agritourism activities must be open to the public in order to qualify under N.C.G.S. § 160D-903 or related statutes. I hope you can suggest a few dates in early June when the interested parties would like to view the property. I will be happy to meet the parties at the site. Because my filed appeal raises procedural and due process issues regarding the original NOV and SWO, I respectfully reserve all objections related to those issues, and I do not waive any argument that any additional factual investigation occurring after issuance of the notices cannot retroactively cure deficiencies identified in the appeal. At present, I do not have any agritourism activities scheduled before the next hearing date. Thank you again for your professionalism and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Angela Battle On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 9:40 AM Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, Thank you for providing this PowerPoint. Last night, the BOA opened the hearing, and no one from the public was present. T.C. Morphis and I briefly explained to the Board the reason for the continuance request, including Mr. Ferrell's analysis of the procedural issues, and the County staff's consent to the continuance. The Board voted to continue the matter until June 25th, 2026, at 7:00 pm. To confirm, the stop work order remains in effect during the appeal period, including through any continuances. N.C.G.S. § 160D-404 states: "No further work or activity shall take place in violation of a stop work order pending a ruling on the appeal. Violation of a stop work order shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor." The property should not host any further events of any kind until such time as the Board of Adjustment rules on the appeal. At this time, the County takes the position that all events being hosted on the property are "nonfarm" events and thus subject to County zoning, which requires a special use permit to operate an event center. That said, the County is willing to evaluate proposed/scheduled events coming up to determine if they constitute "agritourism," which would be exempt from the County's zoning regulations. If you choose - you are not required to do so - you may provide us a list of events scheduled through the end of June, 2026. We will be happy to evaluate those events to determine if they qualify as "agritourism" per G.S. 160D-903. Also, we ask for your permission to visit the property in the next week or two so that you can show the County staff and I the facilities you propose to make available to the public. Lastly, if you retain counsel, please let us know so that the County Attorney's office can communicate directly with him or her. Thank you for your time, Michael J. Bowen Associate Attorney 6/6/26, 5:12 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865919222064550339%7Cmsg-a:r6637340484984449434&simpl=msg-a:r6637340484984449434&mb=1 5/8 Phone 919-929-3905 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email mbowen@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina's Public Records Law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:42 AM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Mr. Morphis, Thanks for getting back to me. I will not attend tonight's board meeting. I did prepare a PowerPoint. Presentation for the BOA 's May meeting (See attached). Perhaps it can help aid in your response to my query in regard to clarifying the Statement of Work. Thanks, Angela Battle PRESENTATION TO PC Board of Adjustment.pdf On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 9:21 AM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle and Nish, My apologies for any confusion. Ms. Battle emailed me last night regarding the Stop Work Order. I will forward that email to Nish shortly. Michael Bowen and I will appear tonight to be available to address any legal questions the Board of Adjustment members may have, but we have no issue with Ms. Battle seeking a continuance to confer with legal counsel. Ms. Battle, your presence is not required tonight, as the Board has already received your request for a continuance. Nish and the County Attorney's office will confer as quickly as possible to determine if we can better address the questions raised in Ms. Battle's email regarding the scope of the stop work order. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner 6/6/26, 5:12 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865919222064550339%7Cmsg-a:r6637340484984449434&simpl=msg-a:r6637340484984449434&mb=1 6/8 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:15 AM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Hi Nish, Yes, a continuance was requested to ensure procedural clarity because Pond Haven is held within a trust. I also requested a clarification from the County Attorney regarding the Stop Work Order, I will CC him on this response to your email. I don't know if my presence is required at this evening's board meeting to make the request, so I am awaiting his response. Thanks, Angela Battle On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 8:59 AM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: Ms. Battle, It has come to my attention that you are requesting a continuance of your appeal scheduled for tonight ’s Board of Adjustment meeting. I have informed the Board of your request. It will be continued to the next schedule meeting in June. I was also advised that you have been notified that the Notice of Violation, Stop Work Order, and Written Determination remain in effect. 6/6/26, 5:12 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865919222064550339%7Cmsg-a:r6637340484984449434&simpl=msg-a:r6637340484984449434&mb=1 7/8 We will update you following tonight's meeting. Thank you. Nishith Trivedi Planning Director Person County Government (336)583-1386 (Cell) (336)597-7423 (Office) ntrivedi@personcountync.gov 325 S. Morgan Street, Suite B, Roxboro, NC 27573 I am generally in the office Monday through Friday. My schedule may be different on weeks when the Planning Board or Board of Adjustment meet. Correspondence to and from this email address may be subject to public disclosure upon request in accordance with the North Carolina public records law. 6/6/26, 5:12 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865919222064550339%7Cmsg-a:r6637340484984449434&simpl=msg-a:r6637340484984449434&mb=1 8/8 Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal 1 message Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com>Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 3:23 PM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com>, "Brian M. Ferrell" <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>, Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Nish, Thank you for your response. However, I am still unclear regarding the difference between the submission deadlines that applied to the May meeting and those now being applied to the June meeting. As I understand it, the Board members are not County employees who must be physically present in the office to review materials. If submissions are provided electronically, it would seem that Board members could access and review them regardless of their location. For that reason, I am having difficulty understanding why the June submission deadline must be earlier than the deadline that applied to the May hearing. Could you please explain the basis for the different deadlines and whether there is any flexibility to allow additional time for submission of materials? Given that this matter involves a pending quasi-judicial appeal, I simply want to ensure that all parties are afforded a fair and equal opportunity to prepare and present their positions to the Board. Thank you for your clarification. On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 3:07 PM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: Board members will be out of town during the week of June 15 and must be provided sufficient time to review all submitted materials prior to the meeting. Please also keep in mind that this is a continued hearing item, and any additional materials should be submitted in a timely manner to ensure they can be properly distributed and considered by the Board. Nish From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 2:59 PM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com>; Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. I see. Do you mind explaining why submissions were made 5 days before the May meeting, but you now require submissions 17 days before the June meeting? Do you have the discretion to extend the submission deadline or are there rules in place regarding the length of time submissions need to be in before the BOA meeting? 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 1/12 Thanks On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 2:50 PM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: I am responsible. Packet is published Tuesday, June 9, 2026. Please provide staff your final material by Monday June 8th so it can be included in the publication. You can submit material at the public hearing, subject to Board of Adjustment processors as described in Mr. Ferrel's emails. Thank you. Nish From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 2:42 PM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com>; Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Hi Nish, Apologies for nitpicking but I reviewed the emails from Mr. Ferrell and can't see where he established a deadline of June 9th for submission of materials. I refer you to the statement below from one of Mr. Morphis' responses : Nish, Thank you for trying to minimize communications off the record, but please let Ms. Battle know the deadline for submitting her presentation so that it can be shown during the June 25th Board of Adjustment hearing. Could you clarify whether you or Mr. Ferrell is responsible for establishing the submission deadline? I would really like to push the deadline out so I can consult more widely before submitting information to the BOA. Thanks On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 10:40 AM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: The packet will be published on Tuesday, June 9th. Kindly refer to Mr. Ferrell's emails for material presented at hearing. Nish From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:23 AM 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 2/12 To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com>; Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Nish, I kindly request that the deadline for submission of materials for the 25th of June BOA meeting be set to June 17th. I note that I only received the appeal packet for the rescheduled May 19th meeting on May 14th. I hope you can make this adustment. Thanks On Mon, Jun 1, 2026, 9:13 AM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: Ms. Battle, We look forward to seeing you at the Board of Adjustment hearing regarding your appeal. As another reminder, the hearing is scheduled for June 25, 2026. If you wish to submit any additional materials, please provide them to staff no later than the close of business on June 8, 2026, to allow adequate time for inclusion in the meeting packet. We look forward to addressing this matter at the hearing. Respectfully, Nishith Trivedi From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 3:43 PM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please verify the sender's email address carefully before clicking links or opening attachments Please report suspicious emails to Person County IT. Mr. Morphis, Thank you for your response and for explaining the County's reasons for requesting a site visit. 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 3/12 After careful consideration, I have decided that I am not comfortable proceeding with a site visit at this time. When I initially expressed a willingness to allow County staff to visit the property, I understood the purpose to be informational. However, because my appeal challenges the validity of the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order on procedural and due process grounds, I am concerned that a site visit could be used, intentionally or unintentionally, to supplement or cure deficiencies in the existing enforcement action that is currently before the Board of Adjustment. As I have previously stated, my position is that the County's Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order fail to satisfy the requirements of North Carolina law, and those issues should be resolved based on the record before the Board. I have also prepared a substantive response addressing the County's assertions regarding agritourism and the classification of my operation, which I am prepared to present through the appeal process. That said, I remain interested in resolving this matter without further dispute if a mutually acceptable resolution can be reached. If the County wishes to discuss withdrawing or rescinding the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order, I would be willing to consider pausing the appeal process while those discussions occur. Among the issues that would need to be addressed are: 1. Recognition that my operation does not constitute an "Event Center" subject to the zoning requirements asserted in the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order. 2. Assurance that future enforcement actions regarding agritourism activities on my bona fide farm property will be consistent with applicable North Carolina law. 3. Reimbursement of the filing fee incurred in connection with this appeal. 4. Consideration of measures previously requested to address traffic and parking concerns along the roadway serving the property, including the installation of appropriate "No Parking" signage. 5. Discussion of the economic losses and expenses I have incurred as a result of the NOV and SWO If the County is interested in discussing a potential resolution, I would be willing to meet at a mutually agreeable location and time. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Angela Battle On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 6:10 AM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Battle, My apologies for the slow response to your most recent emails. I have had an unexpected emergency for another client come up that I have been working on this week. I will start by saying that Mr. Ferrell should address the concerns you raised in your email to him yesterday. I do not believe including the County's Memorandum of Law in the agenda packet was inappropriate, but Mr. Ferrell should address that issue himself. Regarding your question about the site visit, yes, we still want to conduct the site visit. Could we meet you at your property at 10:00 a.m. on 06/17? There are several reasons the County staff want to visit the property. First, we would like to be able to see the property for ourselves, as we believe that will help us do a better job explaining this issue to the Board of Adjustment. Second, I personally hope that a site visit can be the start of discussion of allowable uses on the property. While we disagree about what is permitted on the property without any zoning permit, the County wants to do what it can to help citizens make use of their land. Regarding your questions about the County's interpretation of applicable statutes and the notice of the violation, respectfully, I think these questions need to be resolved by the Board of Adjustment. I do not think the County staff should be debating with you about the legal interpretations of "agritourism" prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing. We remain open to discussing proposed events, and we will let you know if we believe something clearly fits within the definition of agritourism. If you have additional questions or questions, please continue to direct them to me. Thank you. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 4/12 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:37 PM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Mr. Morphis, Thank you for clarifying the June BOA meeting date. I will wait to hear from Mr. Trivedi regarding the presentation submission deadline. Since all interested parties are included on this email thread, I would appreciate clarification on a few additional matters. 1. Site Visit Do the interested parties still wish to visit the agritourism site on June 17th? I was not entirely clear on the intended purpose of the visit, so I would appreciate clarification regarding both the purpose and whether the visit should still be scheduled. For the record, I have no objection to a site visit. My only concern is that the visit not be used to supplement or cure deficiencies in the existing Notice of V iolation and Stop Work Order currently under appeal before the BOA. 2. Follow-Up Clarification Requests Regarding the County’s Interpretation of Agritourism In my prior email to the Planning Director, I followed up regarding the County’s response to the High School Reunion inquiry and requested clarification concerning the County’s interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 160D-903(a). Specifically, I asked: 1. Does the County contend that gatherings occurring for the enjoyment of a farm’s rural, scenic, natural, historic, or cultural environment can never qualify as agritourism unless attendees are directly participating in agricultural production activities? 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 5/12 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 2. What specific statutory language excludes organized private gatherings conducted within a bona fide farm setting from the scope of “natural activities and attractions” or “cultural” agritourism activities recognized in N.C.G.S. § 160D-903(a)? 3. Is the County’s position that any compensated gathering involving invited guests automatically constitutes a commercial “event center,” regardless of whether the activity occurs on a bona fide farm otherwise protected under North Carolina agritourism statutes? I would appreciate clarification on these questions when convenient. If the County declines to provide clarification, I respectfully ask that this email serve as confirmation that these requests were made during the pendency of the appeal. I'm continuing to receive agritourism inquiries but won't submit them "for review" if the County isn't willing to engage with me to answer my questions. As requested, I will follow up this week or next week with Mr. Ferrell regarding all the parties who will attend the BOA meeting with me. Kind regards, Angela Battle On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 3:01 PM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, My apologies for any confusion on my end. The Board of Adjustment discussed continuing the hearing to June 16, but there were scheduling conflicts for some Board members. Instead, the Board continued the hearing to June 25. There is NO hearing scheduled for June 16. Also, please let Mr. Ferrell (copied here) know if you intend to represent the Trust yourself or if you have hired an attorney to do so. He needs to know in advance how to advise the Board of Adjustment. If you have hired an attorney, Michael Bowen and I also need to know so we can communicate with them as well. There's one final matter, which Mr. Ferrell can better advise you about as well: While it is true that you need to provide the County your PowerPoint presentation, if any, in advance of the meeting if you wish to have it projected during the hearing, you may present evidence for the first time during the hearing. I want to be sure that you understand the deadline to submit your presentation to the County is not your deadline to submit evidence as part of your case. Nish, Thank you for trying to minimize communications off the record, but please let Ms. Battle know the deadline for submitting her presentation so that it can be shown during the June 25th Board of Adjustment hearing. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 6/12 dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 6:28 PM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Hi Mr. Morphis, I promised to get back to you regarding your proposed date of June 17th for the site visit. I am currently confused about the date of the continued BOA hearing. In an email dated May 20, Mr. Bowen indicated that the next BOA meeting would convene on June 25th. However, I understand that the BOA typically meets on the third Tuesday of each month, which would place the next meeting on June 16th. Would you kindly clarify the date on which the BOA hearing is currently scheduled? Obviously, if the hearing is to occur on June 16th, then a site visit on June 17th would appear impractical, and we would need to identify another mutually agreeable date and time before the BOA meeting. I hope you can clear up this confusion. I also need to know the deadline for uploading documents for presentation at the June BOA meeting. Thank you. Angela Battle On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 6:15 PM Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> wrote: Mr. Morphis, Thank you for your response. I will get back to you early next week regarding the proposed date. In the meantime, I have received an inquiry regarding a potential event opportunity. Because the County has indicated a willingness during the appeal's pendency to evaluate proposed activities for consistency with N.C.G.S. § 160D-903, I would appreciate clarification regarding the following proposed activity. The inquiry involves a High School Reunion for about 500 private guests. The organizers would provide their own temporary tents and catering, and the event would be contained within Pond Haven's boundaries. Please advise whether the County would contend that this proposed activity falls outside the scope of protected agritourism activities. If so, I respectfully request that the County identify the basis for that conclusion, including the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law relied upon. Additionally, if it is appropriate to probe your legal analysis for clarification during the appeal pendency, I would appreciate a response to the question raised in my prior email concerning the County’s apparent position that agritourism activities must necessarily be open to the public in order to qualify under North Carolina law. As amended by the General Assembly in 2020, North Carolina’s agritourism statutes contemplate both public and private activities conducted on bona fide farms. The statutory framework does not appear to limit protected agritourism solely to events open to the general public. Farm-based educational activities, retreats, workshops, cultural activities, and similar experiences conducted for invited or organized groups may still constitute agritourism where they are related to and incidental to the farm operation and rural environment. 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 7/12 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Accordingly, the fact that an activity involves invited guests, students, retreat participants, or private groups does not, by itself, appear to remove the activity from the scope of protected agritourism under North Carolina law. Because this issue appears central to the County’s position, I would again espectfully request that the County identify the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law supporting any assertion that agritourism activities must be open to the public in order to qualify under N.C.G.S. § 160D-903 or related statutes. Thank you in advance for your response. Angela Battle On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:15 PM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, Would a site the morning of June 17th work for you? Unfortunately, there are a number of scheduling conflicts on our side, and this appears to be the only date currently available for us. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 6:33 PM To: Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 8/12 Mr. Bowen, Thank you for your email and for confirming the continuance date. I appreciate the County’s acknowledgment that qualifying agritourism activities conducted on a bona fide farm are exempt from County zoning regulation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D- 903. However, I respectfully wish to clarify an important point regarding the scope of agritourism under current North Carolina law. The County’s references to facilities “made available to the public” appear to suggest that agritourism activities must necessarily be public events in order to qualify for protection or exemption. My understanding is that this is inconsistent with the current statutory framework. As amended by the General Assembly in 2020, North Carolina’s agritourism statutes contemplate both public and private activities conducted on bona fide farms. The statutory language is not limited solely to events open to the general public. Farm-based educational activities, retreats, workshops, cultural activities, and similar experiences conducted for invited or organized groups may still constitute agritourism where they are related to and incidental to the rural environment/farm operation. Accordingly, the fact that an activity involves invited guests, students, retreat participants, or private groups does not, by itself, remove the activity from the scope of protected agritourism under North Carolina law. Because this issue appears central to the County’s position, I would respectfully request that the County identify the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law upon which it relies for any assertion that agritourism activities must be open to the public in order to qualify under N.C.G.S. § 160D-903 or related statutes. I hope you can suggest a few dates in early June when the interested parties would like to view the property. I will be happy to meet the parties at the site. Because my filed appeal raises procedural and due process issues regarding the original NOV and SWO, I respectfully reserve all objections related to those issues, and I do not waive any argument that any additional factual investigation occurring after issuance of the notices cannot retroactively cure deficiencies identified in the appeal. At present, I do not have any agritourism activities scheduled before the next hearing date. Thank you again for your professionalism and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Angela Battle On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 9:40 AM Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, Thank you for providing this PowerPoint. Last night, the BOA opened the hearing, and no one from the public was present. T.C. Morphis and I briefly explained to the Board the reason for the continuance request, including Mr. Ferrell's analysis of the procedural issues, and the County staff's consent to the continuance. The Board voted to continue the matter until June 25th, 2026, at 7:00 pm. To confirm, the stop work order remains in effect during the appeal period, including through any continuances. N.C.G.S. § 160D-404 states: "No further work or activity shall take place in violation of a stop work order pending a ruling on the appeal. Violation of a stop work order shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor." The property should not host any further events of any kind until such time as the Board of Adjustment rules on the appeal. At this time, the County takes the position that all events being hosted on the property are "nonfarm" events and thus subject to County zoning, which requires a special use permit to operate an event center. That said, the County is willing to evaluate proposed/scheduled events coming up to determine if they constitute "agritourism," which would be exempt from the County's zoning regulations. If you choose - you are not required to do so - you may provide us a list of events scheduled through the end of June, 2026. We will be happy to evaluate those events to determine if they qualify as "agritourism" per G.S. 160D-903. Also, we ask for your permission to visit the property in the next week or two so that you can show the County staff and I the facilities you propose to make available to the public. Lastly, if you retain counsel, please let us know so that the County Attorney's office can communicate directly with him or her. Thank you for your time, 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 9/12 Michael J. Bowen Associate Attorney Phone 919-929-3905 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email mbowen@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina's Public Records Law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:42 AM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Mr. Morphis, Thanks for getting back to me. I will not attend tonight's board meeting. I did prepare a PowerPoint. Presentation for the BOA 's May meeting (See attached). Perhaps it can help aid in your response to my query in regard to clarifying the Statement of Work. Thanks, Angela Battle PRESENTATION TO PC Board of Adjustment.pdf On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 9:21 AM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle and Nish, My apologies for any confusion. Ms. Battle emailed me last night regarding the Stop Work Order. I will forward that email to Nish shortly. Michael Bowen and I will appear tonight to be available to address any legal questions the Board of Adjustment members may have, but we have no issue with Ms. Battle seeking a continuance to confer with legal counsel. Ms. Battle, your presence is not required tonight, as the Board has already received your request for a continuance. Nish and the County Attorney's office will confer as quickly as possible to determine if we can better address the questions raised in Ms. Battle's email regarding the scope of the stop work order. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 10/12 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:15 AM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Hi Nish, Yes, a continuance was requested to ensure procedural clarity because Pond Haven is held within a trust. I also requested a clarification from the County Attorney regarding the Stop Work Order, I will CC him on this response to your email. I don't know if my presence is required at this evening's board meeting to make the request, so I am awaiting his response. Thanks, Angela Battle On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 8:59 AM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: Ms. Battle, It has come to my attention that you are requesting a continuance of your appeal scheduled for tonight ’s Board of Adjustment meeting. I have informed the Board of your request. It will be continued to the next schedule meeting in June. I was also advised that you have been notified that the Notice of Violation, Stop Work Order, and Written Determination remain in effect. We will update you following tonight's meeting. Thank you. 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 11/12 Nishith Trivedi Planning Director Person County Government (336)583-1386 (Cell) (336)597-7423 (Office) ntrivedi@personcountync.gov 325 S. Morgan Street, Suite B, Roxboro, NC 27573 I am generally in the office Monday through Friday. My schedule may be different on weeks when the Planning Board or Board of Adjustment meet. Correspondence to and from this email address may be subject to public disclosure upon request in accordance with the North Carolina public records law. 6/6/26, 9:03 AM Gmail - Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1866822680691405770%7Cmsg-a:r-3602291772669093070&simpl=msg-a:r-3602291772669093070&mb=1 12/12 Skeet Wilbon Person County Sheriff (+19194337440) [2026-04-24 14- 00-54] [Incoming] Transcribed by TurboScribe. Go Unlimited to remove this message. Yes, I just left a meeting with our planning and zoning director and some residents out there off of Barry Pierce Road. I understand that the planning and zoning has sent you a letter of a stop work order for having those parties out there on the property. Yeah, yeah, I'm communicating with them, yeah. Okay, so until that appeal, if you're planning on appealing it, I just wanted to just give you some clarification on my thoughts or what, you know, what's going to happen if something, if they have another party, then by this paperwork, I'm gonna be forced to shut it down. Okay, because I'm talking to them now. They don't seem to, they can't tell me why, what's wrong. I just sent them a... They claim it's in violation of the agritourism. Yeah, no, and I've been sending them evidence that makes no sense whatsoever, but I'm glad you called, because I think some of your officers showed up at a party, maybe it was about a week ago, and I did try to call you and try to figure out what that problem was. My neighbors had called, and I think it was loud music, but they said once the deputies left, once the deputies got there, they turned the music down. Oh, okay. Yeah, the neighbors, every time there's, the bus is pulling, the neighbors go wild and want to shut it down. Okay, because usually they, they're pretty good about the music, and they usually have, I didn't go to this one, but they usually have their own security there, and they have a licensed bartender. They're really organized, but people, everybody seems to hate them anyway. Yeah. Okay, now I'm dealing with the planning department. Let me see, because I've asked them to send me a clarification of exactly what they're complaining about, because I'm probably... Yeah, I just left their office in a meeting. I just pulled out of their parking lot. Okay, all right. Well, hopefully, I asked them to send me something by August 28th. Hopefully, they'll send me. Otherwise, they just need to stop whatever they're trying to do to me, because it doesn't make any sense. Yeah, he sent you a notice of violation, a notice of stop work order. Right. Yeah, I told him it's, all this paperwork is nothing criminal that I can do. It's all civil. Right. With this notice of violation that you've been served with, if they have reason to believe you have, if any other parties are taking place, I don't know how much it is per day, I think it'd be taken up and de-handled in court on a civil matter. On my standpoint, I'm here for the criminal side of it. Right. Since this notice of stop work order is in place by the county, if we get called out there due to another party, then my deputies will shut it down. Okay. And hopefully, they abide by that, and the promoters shut it down. If they don't, then they will be probably arrested and charged for just the way they're stuck in there. Okay. All right. Let me see if I can get this sorted out with Nish and somebody else. I forget the other guy's name. Mickey Brandon, I think. Because what they're trying to claim just isn't true about this agritourism thing. But I appreciate you calling me. That's outside of my umbrella. Right. And that's what I tried to explain to the property owners that was in there complaining today. You know, they all against me because I won't put my foot down and stop it. I said, you know, in my opinion, property owners have rights. Right. I said, it's no different. I said, so where do we put stipulations on? If I have a birthday party at my house and invite my kids, have a birthday party and invite 50 of their friends over, am I in violation of having a party? And then they said, well, I'm sure your kids are not over there drinking underage. You know, they keep throwing it in my face. Right. And they're not playing loud music and blah, blah, blah. And those neighbors. The neighbors have pushed the issue and got Planning and Zoning involved. So that's why you're seeing this notice. And I told them Planning and Zoning wants us to try to enforce it if we see any activity out there. Okay. Got you. And I think sometimes Duke University itself calls you. I think. No, I think nobody's ever called me to let me have a party. Okay. Because the university itself doesn't like these. And I'll be honest with you, my biggest concern is a safety hazard. Somebody is going to get hurt out there. Somebody is going to get hit in that road. Somebody is going to get hurt on that on your property. It's just it's not a matter of when. It's just a matter of when it's going to happen. And that's my only concern. Okay. Somebody is going to get hit in that roadway. Okay. Well, I disagree with you. You know that that NCCU party. No, that was a mess. But that was because of all kinds of different reasons. But these Duke kids, I mean, they're paying $100,000 or whatever a year to go to school. They're not trying to get into any trouble. They are very careful. And I've been doing it for a few years. And I've been in contact with our representative, House of Representatives for our area. And our senator, which he just stepped down and we've got a new appointed senator. But I know the legislature, the General Assembly is trying to put verbiage in a bill to get through legislation as far as these foreign parties. It's not just University County. It's statewide. It's happening all over the state. And it's a huge burden on my resources, on my staff. It is a huge, huge burden when I have three deputies responding to 5,000 or 6,000 people. Right. No, that's not going to happen again on my property. Yeah, it does that because we got called out the other week. Oh, but that wasn't 5,000 or 6,000. That was just a... Oh, I don't know how many people. It was five or six busloads. Okay, yeah, but it shouldn't mind... You're talking 100 or 200 people versus three deputies with those two or three hundred people consuming alcohol. It's just, it's, you know, you never know how someone's going to react. Yeah, no, and my contractor, not allowed to have hard alcohol. They might be drinking beer and they usually, they have a licensed bartender. You know, there shouldn't be underage drinking. But anyway, let me, let me, I'll deal with the planning department because, you know, they're trying to impose something that doesn't make sense. And I've been doing this for three years and nothing has happened. You know, I was scared at first too, but I see, I go to their parties. I'm an old black lady and they don't mind me coming and dancing at their party. I mean, it's, I don't know why everybody's against them. The central party, I understand, that just got out of hand. But this one... If they would have followed their own guideline by, they wouldn't be parking at Orange County Speedway and busing over. Right. That probably would have been a zero issue party itself. Right, right. Now that, there was just, it was during their homecoming and everybody, I mean, it wasn't just students. It was alumni. It was just like the whole central campus came over. It was bad. But, no, I won't do that again. But, you know, these little dupe things, I really don't see what the issue is. So, let me, I'm going to deal with the, we'll see how far it goes. Yeah, get with Mitch. I think, because he was saying you had to have a special use permit. Yeah, no, that's not right. To have these type of venues. Because I know we've got several other venues in the county that are bona fide farmland. Right. They do meet, but they also have a special use permit to have a venue. To have parties, to have weddings, to have different types of things. They did go through the process and get a special use permit. Okay, yeah. Well, according to the regulations, because I don't really have any buildings out there. I can understand if they had, like, code enforcement, because I have a building. But, and it is a bona fide farm. You know, I have the, I have a forestry plan. I have, there's just agriculture out there. So, it is a bona fide farm. And I changed it because I got a certification in wildlife. So, and there are, you know, some really interesting birds out there and stuff. So, I've made it more of a natural spot, you know, to go and, you know, just be with nature kind of thing. So. And a little bit I do know about, like, agritourism. Because I currently own 128 acres and I've got it in forestry management. Okay. And I'm looking to put, I'm looking to put a couple campers on mine. Yeah. But as long as I keep it geared towards agritourism. Right. And not allow for someone to set up, like, say, a permanent residence, I would be okay. But if not, then I'd have to get a special use permit. Right. As long as it's geared towards agritourism. Right. But if those Duke parties, that's not, you know, I can see the county saying that's not agritourism. When you have Duke students out here having a party. Well, they're going out, you know, they want to be in the fresh air, sunshine. They want to be away from the city. You know, some of them bring binoculars. They like looking at the birds. And some of them go fishing. I mean, it is. I'll let you, I'll let you sell that to the planet itself. Okay. Well, that's what they're telling me. So, so anyway. Yeah. Okay. But I do appreciate you. I just want to give you a heads up. Right. No. I just want to open up. I just want to keep our communications open. You know, I would just want to be up front and transparent with you when I get this type of information. I just, I said, well, I'm going to reach out to you anyway and just say, hey, you know, this is what's going on. And if we have any more, if we have anything else, I'll definitely be in touch with you. Okay. No, thanks. I really appreciate that. So, yeah, let me go through this process. And it's a long process trying to get everybody to understand what's happening. So anyway. Good luck. Thanks. Well, I do appreciate it. Okay. Take care. Bye bye. Transcribed by TurboScribe. Go Unlimited to remove this message. Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Re: BOA Appeal 1 message Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com>Fri, May 29, 2026 at 3:43 PM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: "Brian M. Ferrell" <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>, Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>, Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Bcc: Carmen Battle <cbattlelaw@gmail.com> Mr. Morphis, Thank you for your response and for explaining the County's reasons for requesting a site visit. After careful consideration, I have decided that I am not comfortable proceeding with a site visit at this time. When I initially expressed a willingness to allow County staff to visit the property, I understood the purpose to be informational. However, because my appeal challenges the validity of the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order on procedural and due process grounds, I am concerned that a site visit could be used, intentionally or unintentionally, to supplement or cure deficiencies in the existing enforcement action that is currently before the Board of Adjustment. As I have previously stated, my position is that the County's Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order fail to satisfy the requirements of North Carolina law, and those issues should be resolved based on the record before the Board. I have also prepared a substantive response addressing the County's assertions regarding agritourism and the classification of my operation, which I am prepared to present through the appeal process. That said, I remain interested in resolving this matter without further dispute if a mutually acceptable resolution can be reached. If the County wishes to discuss withdrawing or rescinding the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order, I would be willing to consider pausing the appeal process while those discussions occur. Among the issues that would need to be addressed are: 1. Recognition that my operation does not constitute an "Event Center" subject to the zoning requirements asserted in the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order. 2. Assurance that future enforcement actions regarding agritourism activities on my bona fide farm property will be consistent with applicable North Carolina law. 3. Reimbursement of the filing fee incurred in connection with this appeal. 4. Consideration of measures previously requested to address traffic and parking concerns along the roadway serving the property, including the installation of appropriate "No Parking" signage. 5. Discussion of the economic losses and expenses I have incurred as a result of the NOV and SWO If the County is interested in discussing a potential resolution, I would be willing to meet at a mutually agreeable location and time. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Angela Battle On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 6:10 AM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Battle, 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 1/10 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 My apologies for the slow response to your most recent emails. I have had an unexpected emergency for another client come up that I have been working on this week. I will start by saying that Mr. Ferrell should address the concerns you raised in your email to him yesterday. I do not believe including the County's Memorandum of Law in the agenda packet was inappropriate, but Mr. Ferrell should address that issue himself. Regarding your question about the site visit, yes, we still want to conduct the site visit. Could we meet you at your property at 10:00 a.m. on 06/17? There are several reasons the County staff want to visit the property. First, we would like to be able to see the property for ourselves, as we believe that will help us do a better job explaining this issue to the Board of Adjustment. Second, I personally hope that a site visit can be the start of discussion of allowable uses on the property. While we disagree about what is permitted on the property without any zoning permit, the County wants to do what it can to help citizens make use of their land. Regarding your questions about the County's interpretation of applicable statutes and the notice of the violation, respectfully, I think these questions need to be resolved by the Board of Adjustment. I do not think the County staff should be debating with you about the legal interpretations of "agritourism" prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing. We remain open to discussing proposed events, and we will let you know if we believe something clearly fits within the definition of agritourism. If you have additional questions or questions, please continue to direct them to me. Thank you. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:37 PM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 2/10 Cc: Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Mr. Morphis, Thank you for clarifying the June BOA meeting date. I will wait to hear from Mr. Trivedi regarding the presentation submission deadline. Since all interested parties are included on this email thread, I would appreciate clarification on a few additional matters. 1. Site Visit Do the interested parties still wish to visit the agritourism site on June 17th? I was not entirely clear on the intended purpose of the visit, so I would appreciate clarification regarding both the purpose and whether the visit should still be scheduled. For the record, I have no objection to a site visit. My only concern is that the visit not be used to supplement or cure deficiencies in the existing Notice of V iolation and Stop Work Order currently under appeal before the BOA. 2. Follow-Up Clarification Requests Regarding the County’s Interpretation of Agritourism In my prior email to the Planning Director, I followed up regarding the County’s response to the High School Reunion inquiry and requested clarification concerning the County’s interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 160D-903(a). Specifically, I asked: 1. Does the County contend that gatherings occurring for the enjoyment of a farm’s rural, scenic, natural, historic, or cultural environment can never qualify as agritourism unless attendees are directly participating in agricultural production activities? 2. What specific statutory language excludes organized private gatherings conducted within a bona fide farm setting from the scope of “natural activities and attractions” or “cultural” agritourism activities recognized in N.C.G.S. § 160D-903(a)? 3. Is the County’s position that any compensated gathering involving invited guests automatically constitutes a commercial “event center,” regardless of whether the activity occurs on a bona fide farm otherwise protected under North Carolina agritourism statutes? I would appreciate clarification on these questions when convenient. If the County declines to provide clarification, I respectfully ask that this email serve as confirmation that these requests were made during the pendency of the appeal. I'm continuing to receive agritourism inquiries but won't submit them "for review" if the County isn't willing to engage with me to answer my questions. As requested, I will follow up this week or next week with Mr. Ferrell regarding all the parties who will attend the BOA meeting with me. Kind regards, Angela Battle On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 3:01 PM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, My apologies for any confusion on my end. The Board of Adjustment discussed continuing the hearing to June 16, but there were scheduling conflicts for some Board members. Instead, the Board continued the hearing to June 25. There is NO hearing scheduled for June 16. Also, please let Mr. Ferrell (copied here) know if you intend to represent the Trust yourself or if you have hired an attorney to do so. He needs to know in advance how to advise the Board of Adjustment. If you have hired an attorney, Michael Bowen and I also need to know so we can communicate with them as well. 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 3/10 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 There's one final matter, which Mr. Ferrell can better advise you about as well: While it is true that you need to provide the County your PowerPoint presentation, if any, in advance of the meeting if you wish to have it projected during the hearing, you may present evidence for the first time during the hearing. I want to be sure that you understand the deadline to submit your presentation to the County is not your deadline to submit evidence as part of your case. Nish, Thank you for trying to minimize communications off the record, but please let Ms. Battle know the deadline for submitting her presentation so that it can be shown during the June 25th Board of Adjustment hearing. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 6:28 PM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Hi Mr. Morphis, I promised to get back to you regarding your proposed date of June 17th for the site visit. I am currently confused about the date of the continued BOA hearing. In an email dated May 20, Mr. Bowen indicated that the next BOA meeting would convene on June 25th. However, I understand that the BOA typically meets on the third Tuesday of each month, which would place the next meeting on June 16th. 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 4/10 Would you kindly clarify the date on which the BOA hearing is currently scheduled? Obviously, if the hearing is to occur on June 16th, then a site visit on June 17th would appear impractical, and we would need to identify another mutually agreeable date and time before the BOA meeting. I hope you can clear up this confusion. I also need to know the deadline for uploading documents for presentation at the June BOA meeting. Thank you. Angela Battle On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 6:15 PM Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> wrote: Mr. Morphis, Thank you for your response. I will get back to you early next week regarding the proposed date. In the meantime, I have received an inquiry regarding a potential event opportunity. Because the County has indicated a willingness during the appeal's pendency to evaluate proposed activities for consistency with N.C.G.S. § 160D-903, I would appreciate clarification regarding the following proposed activity. The inquiry involves a High School Reunion for about 500 private guests. The organizers would provide their own temporary tents and catering, and the event would be contained within Pond Haven's boundaries. Please advise whether the County would contend that this proposed activity falls outside the scope of protected agritourism activities. If so, I respectfully request that the County identify the basis for that conclusion, including the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law relied upon. Additionally, if it is appropriate to probe your legal analysis for clarification during the appeal pendency, I would appreciate a response to the question raised in my prior email concerning the County’s apparent position that agritourism activities must necessarily be open to the public in order to qualify under North Carolina law. As amended by the General Assembly in 2020, North Carolina’s agritourism statutes contemplate both public and private activities conducted on bona fide farms. The statutory framework does not appear to limit protected agritourism solely to events open to the general public. Farm-based educational activities, retreats, workshops, cultural activities, and similar experiences conducted for invited or organized groups may still constitute agritourism where they are related to and incidental to the farm operation and rural environment. Accordingly, the fact that an activity involves invited guests, students, retreat participants, or private groups does not, by itself, appear to remove the activity from the scope of protected agritourism under North Carolina law. Because this issue appears central to the County’s position, I would again espectfully request that the County identify the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law supporting any assertion that agritourism activities must be open to the public in order to qualify under N.C.G.S. § 160D-903 or related statutes. Thank you in advance for your response. Angela Battle On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:15 PM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, Would a site the morning of June 17th work for you? Unfortunately, there are a number of scheduling conflicts on our side, and this appears to be the only date currently available for us. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 5/10 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 6:33 PM To: Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com>; Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Mr. Bowen, Thank you for your email and for confirming the continuance date. I appreciate the County’s acknowledgment that qualifying agritourism activities conducted on a bona fide farm are exempt from County zoning regulation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D- 903. However, I respectfully wish to clarify an important point regarding the scope of agritourism under current North Carolina law. The County’s references to facilities “made available to the public” appear to suggest that agritourism activities must necessarily be public events in order to qualify for protection or exemption. My understanding is that this is inconsistent with the current statutory framework. As amended by the General Assembly in 2020, North Carolina’s agritourism statutes contemplate both public and private activities conducted on bona fide farms. The statutory language is not limited solely to events open to the general public. Farm-based educational activities, retreats, workshops, cultural activities, and similar experiences conducted for invited or organized groups may still constitute agritourism where they are related to and incidental to the rural environment/farm operation. Accordingly, the fact that an activity involves invited guests, students, retreat participants, or private groups does not, by itself, remove the activity from the scope of protected agritourism under North Carolina law. 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 6/10 Because this issue appears central to the County’s position, I would respectfully request that the County identify the specific statutory authority, ordinance provision, or case law upon which it relies for any assertion that agritourism activities must be open to the public in order to qualify under N.C.G.S. § 160D-903 or related statutes. I hope you can suggest a few dates in early June when the interested parties would like to view the property. I will be happy to meet the parties at the site. Because my filed appeal raises procedural and due process issues regarding the original NOV and SWO, I respectfully reserve all objections related to those issues, and I do not waive any argument that any additional factual investigation occurring after issuance of the notices cannot retroactively cure deficiencies identified in the appeal. At present, I do not have any agritourism activities scheduled before the next hearing date. Thank you again for your professionalism and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Angela Battle On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 9:40 AM Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle, Thank you for providing this PowerPoint. Last night, the BOA opened the hearing, and no one from the public was present. T.C. Morphis and I briefly explained to the Board the reason for the continuance request, including Mr. Ferrell's analysis of the procedural issues, and the County staff's consent to the continuance. The Board voted to continue the matter until June 25th, 2026, at 7:00 pm. To confirm, the stop work order remains in effect during the appeal period, including through any continuances. N.C.G.S. § 160D-404 states: "No further work or activity shall take place in violation of a stop work order pending a ruling on the appeal. Violation of a stop work order shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor." The property should not host any further events of any kind until such time as the Board of Adjustment rules on the appeal. At this time, the County takes the position that all events being hosted on the property are "nonfarm" events and thus subject to County zoning, which requires a special use permit to operate an event center. That said, the County is willing to evaluate proposed/scheduled events coming up to determine if they constitute "agritourism," which would be exempt from the County's zoning regulations. If you choose - you are not required to do so - you may provide us a list of events scheduled through the end of June, 2026. We will be happy to evaluate those events to determine if they qualify as "agritourism" per G.S. 160D-903. Also, we ask for your permission to visit the property in the next week or two so that you can show the County staff and I the facilities you propose to make available to the public. Lastly, if you retain counsel, please let us know so that the County Attorney's office can communicate directly with him or her. Thank you for your time, Michael J. Bowen Associate Attorney Phone 919-929-3905 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email mbowen@broughlawfirm.com 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 7/10 1526 E. Franklin St. Ste. 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina's Public Records Law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:42 AM To: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Cc: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov>; Michael Bowen <mbowen@broughlawfirm.com>; Brian M. Ferrell <bferrell@kennoncraver.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Mr. Morphis, Thanks for getting back to me. I will not attend tonight's board meeting. I did prepare a PowerPoint. Presentation for the BOA 's May meeting (See attached). Perhaps it can help aid in your response to my query in regard to clarifying the Statement of Work. Thanks, Angela Battle PRESENTATION TO PC Board of Adjustment.pdf On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 9:21 AM TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> wrote: Ms. Battle and Nish, My apologies for any confusion. Ms. Battle emailed me last night regarding the Stop Work Order. I will forward that email to Nish shortly. Michael Bowen and I will appear tonight to be available to address any legal questions the Board of Adjustment members may have, but we have no issue with Ms. Battle seeking a continuance to confer with legal counsel. Ms. Battle, your presence is not required tonight, as the Board has already received your request for a continuance. Nish and the County Attorney's office will confer as quickly as possible to determine if we can better address the questions raised in Ms. Battle's email regarding the scope of the stop work order. T.C. Morphis, Jr., Partner Phone 919-929-3905 Mobile 919-602-3528 Web www.broughlawfirm.com Email morphis@broughlawfirm.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 8/10 not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message. Public Records: This message and its attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North Carolina Public Records law. From: Angela Battle <angela.j.battle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:15 AM To: Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> Cc: TC Morphis <morphis@broughlawfirm.com> Subject: Re: BOA Appeal [EXTERNAL Sender] Hi Nish, Yes, a continuance was requested to ensure procedural clarity because Pond Haven is held within a trust. I also requested a clarification from the County Attorney regarding the Stop Work Order, I will CC him on this response to your email. I don't know if my presence is required at this evening's board meeting to make the request, so I am awaiting his response. Thanks, Angela Battle On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 8:59 AM Nishith Trivedi <ntrivedi@personcountync.gov> wrote: Ms. Battle, It has come to my attention that you are requesting a continuance of your appeal scheduled for tonight ’s Board of Adjustment meeting. I have informed the Board of your request. It will be continued to the next schedule meeting in June. I was also advised that you have been notified that the Notice of Violation, Stop Work Order, and Written Determination remain in effect. We will update you following tonight's meeting. Thank you. Nishith Trivedi Planning Director Person County Government (336)583-1386 (Cell) (336)597-7423 (Office) ntrivedi@personcountync.gov 325 S. Morgan Street, Suite B, Roxboro, NC 27573 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 9/10 I am generally in the office Monday through Friday. My schedule may be different on weeks when the Planning Board or Board of Adjustment meet. Correspondence to and from this email address may be subject to public disclosure upon request in accordance with the North Carolina public records law. 6/6/26, 9:21 AM Gmail - Re: BOA Appeal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2febaf12fe&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1865621764034422917%7Cmsg-a:r-8233699021460620096&simpl=msg-a:r-8233699021460620096&mb=1 10/10 REBUTTAL TO COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CHARACTERIZATION OF AGRITOURISM ACTIVITIES AP-2-26 – Appeal of Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order 2510 Berry Pearce Road I respectfully submit this rebuttal in response to the memorandum provided by the Person County Attorney regarding the use of my property located at 2510 Berry Pearce Road. At the outset, the County states that the property qualifies as a bona fide farm under North Carolina law. The County acknowledges that the property satisfies the statutory presumption through evidence including participation in the Present-Use Value taxation program and the existence of a forest management plan. Accordingly, the remaining issue is whether some of the activities occurring on the property fall within the protections afforded to agritourism and bona fide farm operations under North Carolina law. The County’s analysis improperly narrows the agritourism exemption and relies on speculation, subjective characterization, and assumptions regarding the identity of attendees rather than objective land-use criteria. First, the memorandum repeatedly characterizes gatherings on the property as “college parties” and references “students,” “friends of panhellenic organizations,” and “university” attendees. These descriptions are not zoning classifications and are irrelevant to the legal analysis. Zoning regulations govern land use, not the age, social affiliation, or demographic identity of guests attending lawful private gatherings. The statutes expressly include recreational and entertainment purposes within agritourism. The County cannot rewrite the law to exclude gatherings simply because younger adults attend them. The agritourism statutes do not distinguish between attendees based on whether they are students, families, church groups, wedding guests, civic organizations, or other members of the public. The County’s emphasis on the identity of attendees improperly injects stereotypes and subjective assumptions into what should be a neutral land-use determination. Second, the memorandum relies heavily on speculation rather than competent evidence. The assertion that gatherings are held in the rural Timberlake community “solely” because they would not be tolerated elsewhere is expressly based only “upon information and belief.” Such statements are conjectural and unsupported by sworn testimony, factual findings, or objective evidence. As a quasi-judicial body, the Board of Adjustment must base its decision upon competent, material, and substantial evidence rather than assumptions regarding the motives or preferences of attendees. Third, the County improperly attempts to impose requirements not found within the agritourism statutes themselves. The memorandum asserts that the activities are not agritourism because their “primary purpose is not to view or enjoy rural activities.” However, North Carolina’s agritourism protections are intentionally broad and encompass recreational, entertainment, and rural- experience activities occurring on bona fide farm property. The statute does not require that participants engage directly in farming activities, agricultural labor, crop production, or educational demonstrations in order for an activity to qualify as agritourism. Nor does the statute require agriculture to be the sole focus of every activity occurring on farm property. The County’s position would improperly exclude many commonly recognized agritourism activities throughout North Carolina, including outdoor festivals, weddings, recreational gatherings, retreats, concerts, dinners, and similar rural events that occur on bona fide farms. Fourth, the memorandum argues that the gatherings “could be held anywhere” and therefore are not agritourism. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Many accepted agritourism activities could theoretically occur in other locations, including weddings, hayrides, corn mazes, pumpkin patches, outdoor movie nights, farm dinners, and harvest festivals. The fact that an activity could occur elsewhere does not eliminate its agritourism character when it intentionally occurs on a bona fide farm property in connection with the enjoyment of rural open space and outdoor farm environments. The rural setting is not merely “incidental,” as the memorandum suggests. The property’s open fields, pond, agricultural landscape, and rural character are central components of the experience and are precisely what distinguish the gatherings from urban commercial entertainment venues. The County’s reliance on the Jeffries case law is misplaced because a commercial shooting range is fundamentally different from outdoor rural gatherings occurring directly within a bona fide farm environment. The court in Jeffries noted that the construction of large, permanent artificial structures and significant alterations to the natural environment make an activity less likely to qualify as traditional agritourism. That is simply not the case here. More importantly, the County attempts to impose a requirement that the activity must “intrinsically require” a farm setting. That language does not appear anywhere in the agritourism statutes. In fact, the legislature expressly protected “public or private events” occurring on farms because of their rural setting. Weddings, receptions, meetings, and meals also do not intrinsically require farms, yet the North Carolina General Assembly specifically included them within agritourism protections. The issue is not whether an activity could theoretically occur somewhere else. The issue is whether it intentionally occurs on a bona fide farm because of the rural environment and experience that the property provides. The statute does not say there must be “unrestricted access by every member of the public at all times.” Many accepted agritourism activities involve limited attendance: • weddings, • private retreats, • ticketed festivals, • reservations, • school groups, • church gatherings, • corporate events. The legislature expressly included public or private events. The rural setting here is not incidental. The open fields, pond, and agricultural landscape are central to the gatherings and are precisely what distinguish the property from urban commercial venues. In 2020, the North Carolina General Assembly specifically amended N.C.G.S. §160D-903 to broaden protections for agritourism and expressly included public and private events such as weddings, receptions, meetings, meals, and similar gatherings occurring because of the farm or rural setting. Additionally, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E-30, which defines liability protections for agritourism, specifically includes agritourism activities intended for entertainment purposes. The County’s interpretation conflicts with the legislature’s clear intent to protect diversified agritourism activities occurring on bona fide farms. The statute itself disproves the County’s argument that an activity must ‘intrinsically require’ a farm in order to qualify as agritourism. Finally, the County’s attempt to broadly classify these activities as an “event center” risks expanding that term beyond its intended meaning and unlawfully encroaching upon protected agritourism uses. Not every organized outdoor gathering occurring on rural farm property constitutes a commercial event center requiring a special use permit. If interpreted so broadly, ordinary rural recreational and agritourism activities across North Carolina could be subjected to unnecessary zoning restrictions despite clear legislative protections for bona fide farms. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board, in addition finding that the Person County Planning Department violated my fundamental due process rights, I additionally request that the board reject the County attorney’s unsupported characterization of the activities occurring on the property and find that the Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order were improperly issued. Respectfully submitted, Angela Battle PERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 325 S. Morgan Street Suite B Roxboro, North Carolina 27573 May 5, 2026 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Person County Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Person County Office Building, Room 215, at 304 S. Morgan St., Roxboro, NC to hear the following: •AP 01-26 – Appeal of Notice of Violation – 90 Wrenn Crumpton Rd, Tax Map & Parcel No. A105 15 2 •AP 02-26 – Appeal of Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order - 2510 Berry Pearce Rd, Tax Map & Parcel No. A43 7 The public is invited to attend and comment on the request. Any person wishing to speak must be present at the scheduled time and will be required to swear or affirm their testimony, as this is a quasi-judicial hearing. For further information on the case(s) listed above, please contact the Person County Planning and Zoning Department at (336) 597-1750. Person County Planning & Zoning Dept., 325 S. Morgan St. Suite B, Roxboro, NC 27573. Mailed Notice: • 2344 Guess Rd, Timberlake, NC • 2974 Catherine Way, Sophia, NC • 105 Willie Gray Rd, Timberlake, NC • 2857 Berry Pearce Rd, Timberlake, NC • 2112 Crestwood Ridge Dr, Durham, NC • 1823 Satterfield Rd, Hurdle Mills, NC • 3217 Coachmans Way, Durham, NC • 7709 Amesbury Dr, Chapel Hill, NC • 148 Hickson Rd, Roxboro, NC • 105 Willie Gray Rd, Timberlake, NC • 2857 Berry Pearce Rd, Timberlake, NC • 346 E Lakewood Ave Apt 103, Durham, NC • Po Box 27121, Raleigh, NC • 2955 Berry Pearce Rd, Timberlake, NC • 226 Jack Chavis Rd, Timberlake, NC Attachment 2 Date Total Postage Pieces Total Charged Mode May 7, 2026 28 $20.72 $0.00 $20.72 ManualWeightEntry Normal Planning zone 11:31:40 AM 11:32:28 AM 0:00:00:48 1st Class Regular Letter $0.00 Account Transaction Log Total Time (Days:HH:MM:SS) Class of Mail Surcharge Amount Date Range: May 1, 2026 to May 8, 2026 Account Transaction Log Report Meter Group: All Meters 2 meter(s) did not upload before ending date You have 6 meters in the selected group Person County Planning and Zoning Department NOTICE OF VIOLATION Nov 14, 2025 CASE #CE-25-15 THE JOSEPH REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 3217 COACHMANS WAY Durham, NC 27705-6035 To the Responsible Party: Staff of the Person County Planning and Zoning Department conducted a site visit to your property located at 2510 Berry -Pearce Road, Timberlake, NC, 27583 Parcel ID 9990-01-27-0847.000 determined that the property is in violation of the Person County Ordinance. ARTICLE XVI APPENDIX C TABLE OF PERMITTED USES: Event Center. To comply with the provisions of the Ordinance please contact the Person County Planning department for further instructions. The property will be reinspection for compliance December 14, 2025. You may appeal within ten (10) days from the date of this notice. The request for an appeal must be in writing to the County Planning Department and to the clerk, the order of the Planning Director is final. Should you have any questions please call (336) 553-9696 ext. 410. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Gerisa Whyte Person County Code Enforcement Administrator Attachment 3 Photos: Photo Details Date: Nov 05, 2025 13:05 Date: Nov 05, 2025 13:05 Date: Nov 05, 2025 13:05 Person County Planning and Zoning Department FINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF STOP WORK ORDER April 16, 2026 CASE #CE-26-13 Via First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested THE JOSEPH REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 346 E. Lakewood Ave. Apt. 103 Durham, NC 27707-1874 And 3217 COACHMANS WAY Durham, NC 27705-6035 To the Responsible Party: By letter dated November 14, 2025, the Person County Planning and Zoning Department issued a notice of violation for the Property located at 2510 BERRY PEARCE RD, Flat River, NC, 27583 Parcel ID 9990-01-27- 0847.000 (Tax Map & Parcel No. A43 7). By that letter, you were notified that the Property was in violation of the Person County Planning Ordinance for operating an event center without a special use permit. Subsequent investigation indicates that the property continues to be utilized for private events following issuance of the prior November 14, 2025 Notice of Violation. These activities do not meet the definitions or permissible scope of bona fide farming and/or agritourism uses under the State and County regulations. For that reason, the event center use remains subject to the zoning authority of Person County and may only be conducted on the property with a special use permit. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-404(b), you are hereby directed to stop all event center activities on the property until such time as a special use permit has been lawfully obtained. In addition to this final notice, the enclosed Notice of Determination is being issued to formally clarify the applicable regulatory interpretation. In accordance with County regulations, civil penalties will be assessed if the violation is not corrected within thirty (30) days of this notice. To comply with the provisions of the Ordinance please contact the Person County Planning Department for further instructions. The property will be reinspected for compliance 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE. You may appeal this Notice of Violation and/or the Notice of Determination to the Person County Board of Adjustment within thirty (30) days from the date of this notice. The request for an appeal must be in writing to the County Planning Director Mr. Nish Trivedi. A written appeal may be submitted to Mr. Trivedi by email at ntrivedi@personcountync.gov. Should you have any questions please call (336) 553-9696 ext. 410. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Gerisa Whyte Person County Code Enforcement Administrator CC: T.C. Morphis, Jr., County Attorney (via email to morphis@broughlawfirm.com) Mr. Floyd McKissick (via email to floyd@mckissicklaw.com) Photos: Photo Details Date: Apr 09, 2026 15:21 Date: Apr 09, 2026 15:21 PERSON COUNTY STAFF REPORT TO: CC: FROM: DATE: Ms. Angela Battle Mr. Floyd Mcl<issick; T.C. Morphis, Jr. Nishith Trivedi, Planning Director April 16, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 325 S. Morgan Street, Roxboro, North Carolina 27573 SUBJECT: 2510 Berry Pearce Road -Agritourism Determination I.PURPOSE At the request of Person County and by authority pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-403(b) and Person County Planning Ordinance Section 140-1, I offer this memorandum as an interpretation of applicable ordinances and State law and determine that the event center currently operating at 2510 Berry Pearce Road in Person County (the "Subject Property") is not exempt from Person County zoning regulations as agritourism. An event center may only operate on the Subject Property pursuant to a special use permit, which has not been issued as of the date of this memorandum. II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND In October, 2025, it was reported that the Subject Property was the site of a large party, with estimates of attendees ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 people. It was reported that the party was held in connection with NC Central University's homecoming, but the University made it clear it did not sponsor or sanction the event. Tickets were sold for the event. After the County received nearly two dozen 911 calls in connection with the party, the County Sheriff's Department responded. It was reported at the time that the event was hosted on the Subject Property by the "Field of Dreams" Event Center. Soon after, the County Planning Department issued Notices of Violation on November 7 and 14, 2025. In January, 2026, Ms. Angela Battle communicated with the County Planning Staff and stated her desire to reorganize the event center operating at the Subject Property (and no longer referred to as the Field of Dreams) to be exempt from County zoning as agritourism pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-903. In support of her position, Ms. Battle provided the Planning Department with a copy of her approved forestry plan. She also noted that the Subject Property is enrolled in the County's present-use value program. Some time in early April, 2026, the County Planning Department received complaints that the parties were continuing to be hosted on the Subject Property, including a report that buses of college students were brought in for a party on Friday April 3, 2026. Ill. LEGAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to G.S. § 160D-903(a) , "County zoning regulations may not affect property used for bona fide farm purposes; provided, however, that this section does not limit zoning regulation with respect to the use of farm property for nonfarm purposes." G.S. § 160A-903(a) also provides that, "A building or structure that is used for agritourism is a bona fide farm purpose if the building or structure is located on a property that (i) is owned by a person who holds a qualifying farm sales tax exemption certificate from the Department of Revenue pursuant to G.S. 105-164.BE(a) or (ii) PERSON COUNTY’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW RE: 2510 BERRY PEARCE ROAD Statement of Facts Ms. Angela Battle operates her business at 2510 Berry Pearce Road, Person County (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned “Residential District” and is located in the Timberlake community. In October, 2025, County staff became aware of a party of up to 5,000 college-age individuals at the Subject Property. The party was reportedly connected to homecoming at NC Central University, although the University did not sanction the event. During the course of the party, the County received nearly two dozen 911 calls. A vehicle crash injured 4 attendees. County staff issued Notices of Violation on November 7 and 14, 2025. The NOVs directed Ms. Battle to stop any “event center” activities on the Subject Property until she obtained a Special Use Permit. In January, 2026, Ms. Battle communicated her intent and desire to continue using the Subject Property to host events without obtaining a Special Use Permit. Specifically, Ms. Battle argued that no Special Use Permit is required because the Subject Property is exempt from County ordinances as a bona fide farm. In early April, 2026, County staff received complaints of ongoing parties hosted on the Subject Property, including the use of buses to transport college students to the Subject Property. On April 16, 2026, County staff issued another NOV and a written determination to Ms. Battle stating that the use of the Subject Property as an event center does not qualify for bona fide farm protections. Ms. Battle appeals to this Board. Applicable Law Person County regulates property use across the County in accordance with its Planning Ordinance.1 The Planning Ordinance designates an “Event Center” use classification, and that use is permitted only in a Residential District with a Special Use Permit.2 An Event Center is defined as, “[a] commercial establishment and associated grounds engaged in the hosting and production of pre-planned events like weddings, corporate parties, or reunions. Typical accessory uses include kitchens or meal preparation space, limited overnight accommodations, photography studios, facilities to accommodate live or recorded music, on- and off-site parking and outdoor recreation facilities.”3 1 Planning Ordinance, Article I, Section 12 2 Planning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 72 3 Planning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 71 Attachment 4 2 Under state law, “County zoning regulations may not affect property used for bona fide farm purposes,” but County zoning still applies to “the use of farm property for nonfarm purposes.”4 The applicability of this exemption is determined by applying a two-part test: - First, the property must qualify as a bona fide farm, and - Second, the activity at hand must be a “bona fide farm purpose” (as opposed to a non-farm purpose).5 Under the second part of this test, “[j]ust because an activity occurs on a farm does not mean it counts as a farm activity.”6 Instead, state statutes and caselaw have developed a “complex array of what activities count as a bona fide farm purpose,” and “careful consideration and analysis is necessary to make a determination.”7 Part One: Whether a Property Qualifies as a Farm. Under the first part of the test, a property is presumed to be a bona fide farm if one of the following four circumstances is shown: 1. A farm sales tax exemption certificate from the Department of Revenue, 2. A tax listing showing that the property is eligible for the present-use value program, 3. A Schedule F form from the IRS, or 4. A forest management plan. Part Two: Whether the Activity is a Bona Fide Farm Purpose. The second part of the test requires a case-by-case factual analysis to determine if a specific activity is a bona fide farm purpose. Sometimes, the analysis is simple: planting and harvesting crops or timber, raising livestock, and operating a grain warehouse are all certainly bona fide farm purposes. Likewise, operating a car wash, a hotel, or an industrial factory are all clearly non-farm purposes. Some activities are a closer call. For example, the North Carolina courts have determined that breeding and kenneling dogs is not a bona fide farm purpose; that using crop and livestock byproducts to mass-produce biodiesel is not a bona fide farm operation; and that occasional firearms target practice is a bona fide farm purpose, but commercial firearms training is not. “Agritourism” is considered a bona fide farm purpose under state statute.8 and is defined as: any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreation, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural 4 N.C.G.S. § 160D‑903(a). 5 Adam Lovelady, Bona Fide Farms and Development Regulations, 37 Planning and Zoning Law Bulletin p 4 (May 2026). 6 Id. at p 2. 7 Id. 8 G.S. § 160D-903(a). 3 activities, including farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, hunting, fishing, equestrian activities, or natural activities and attractions.9 Broken down into its elements, agritourism is: (1) any activity on a farm or ranch, that (2) allows members of the general public, (3) for recreation, entertainment, or educational purposes, (4) to view or enjoy rural activities like farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, hunting, fishing, equestrian activities, or natural activities and attractions. In the case of Jeffries v. County of Harnett, the Court of Appeals determined that an outdoor shooting range was not agritourism and instead was a nonfarm purpose. The Court reasoned that even though the shooting range required space that only a rural setting can provide, shooting itself is not purposefully performed on a farm for the aesthetic value of the farm or its rural setting. In other words, that farm or rural aesthetic was merely incidental to the true purpose of the shooting activity. Certain activities that are not specifically named in the above interpretation but that likely count as “agritourism” include: - corn mazes, as recreation and entertainment for which the public enjoys agricultural attractions; - wine tasting at a vineyard, for entertainment and educational purposes involving the public consumption of natural items; and - tractor rides around a farm, as rural activity subject to inherent risks of equipment ordinarily used in a farm operation. Applying the above test, each of these activities, (1) occurs on a farm or ranch, is (2) open to members of the general public, is for (3) recreation, entertainment, or educational purposes, and is to (4) view or enjoy rural activities like farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, hunting, fishing, equestrian activities, or natural activities and attractions. And, in accord with the Jeffries case, the farm or rural aesthetic is not merely incidental to the true purpose of these activities. Instead, corn mazes, wine tastings, and tractor rides each intrinsically require a farm or rural setting. Legal Analysis Applying the bona fide farm and agritourism exemptions to this case, the two-part test shows that Ms. Battle’s recurring use of 2510 Berry Pearce Road to host college parties is not a bona fide farm purpose that is exempt from County zoning. Because the use is subject to County zoning and is best classified as an “event center,” it requires special use permit. 9 Id. 4 Under part one of the test, Ms. Battle has offered evidence that creates a presumption that the Subject Property is a bona fide farm. Specifically, she has provided a forest management plan and demonstrated qualification for participation in the Present-Use Value tax program. Although this evidence creates the presumption that the Subject Property has bona fide farm status, G.S. § 160D-903(a) makes it clear that this status does not exempt all activities occurring on the property from County zoning. Under part two of the test, the evidence clearly demonstrates that hosting college parties is not “agritourism.” The college parties are not agritourism because, while they occur on a farm or ranch, they do not allow members of the general public to participate. Rather, they are often limited to students and friends of a panhellenic organization or a university at large. Moreover, although the activities are for recreational and entertainment purposes, their primary purpose is not to view or enjoy rural activities. Instead, these parties could be held anywhere, but upon information and belief, they are being held in the rural Timberlake community solely as a way to move them away from more densely populated areas, such as within the City of Durham, where their size and noise would never be tolerated. As in Jeffries, the use at issue might need the land that is only available in a rural area, but the use itself is not being purposefully performed on a farm for the aesthetic value of the farm or its rural setting. Instead, that farm or rural aesthetic is merely incidental to the true purpose of the partying. Unlike corn mazes or pick-your-own produce attractions, a party venue does not intrinsically require a farm to operate. Conclusion The bona fide farm test requires two parts before a use is exempted from county zoning. Under the first part, Ms. Battle has sufficiently created the presumption that the Subject Property is a bona fide farm. Under the second part, college parties are a nonfarm purpose, regardless of where they are held. As a result, a party venue that hosts college parties is not and cannot be exempt from County zoning, and a Special Use Permit will be required. THE BROUGH LAW FIRM s/ T.C. Morphis T.C. Morphis Attorney for County staff 79 Section 72 – Table of Permitted Uses (Amended: 5/18/92; 11/17/92; 4/4/94; 7/11/94; 2/19/96; 6/3/96; 7/8/96; 5/5/97; 12/6/99; 5/4/2001; 12/1/2003; 6/6/2005; 11/1/2004; 11/19/2007; 11/3/2008; 12/1/2008; 4/20/2015; 9/6/2016; 10/2/17; 10/5/20, 11/16/20; 5/3/21, 8/4/25, 11/3/25, 11/18/25) Districts in which particular uses are permitted as a Use-By-Right are indicated by "X". Districts in which particular uses are permitted as a Use-By-Right with certain conditions are indicated by "X" with a reference to a footnote to this Table. District in which particular uses are permitted as a special use upon approval of the Board of Commissioners are indicated by "S". See Section 153 for details in obtaining a Special Use Permit. PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Accessory Building X X X X X Accessory Uses Incidental to Any Permitted Use X X X X AGRICULTURAL OR FARM USE EXEMPT FROM PLANNING ORDINANCE Aircraft Equipment, Parts and Supplies X X X Airport Operations S S S X S Airstrips, (Private) /Heliport Without Commercial Activity (Added 5/7/01)X X X X X Ambulance Service or Rescue Service S X X S X Amusement Parks S X Animal Medical Care (Including Kennel Operations)X X X Auction X X X Automobile Off-Street Parking, (Commercial)X X X X Automobile Parts and Accessory Sales X X X Automobile Rentals and Leasing X X X X Automobile Repair and/or Body Work (Excluding commercial wrecking, dismantling, or storage of junk vehicles) Amended 12/01/2008 X S Automobile Sales, New and Used S X X Automobile Service Station Operations X X X Bank, Savings and Loan Company and Other Financial Activities X X S X Barber or Beauty College Instruction X X X Bed and Breakfast Inns, Boarding and Rooming Houses S X X Boats and Accessories, Retail Sales and Service S X X Books and Printed Matter, Distribution X X Bowling Alley X X X Brewery, Distillery, Winery (Added 10/2/17)S X X X S Bus Repair and Storage Terminal Activities (Amended 12/1/2008)X S Bus Station Activities S X X X Jeffries v. Cty. of Harnett Court of Appeals of North Carolina November 27, 2017, Heard in the Court of Appeals; May 15, 2018, Filed No. COA17-729 Reporter 259 N.C. App. 473 *; 817 S.E.2d 36 **; 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494 ***; 2018 WL 2206370 KENT JEFFRIES, Petitioner, and LYNWOOD HARE, FRANCES L. HARE, BOBBIE LEWIS JEFFRIES, and THOMAS GLENN FINCH, Intervening Petitioners, v. COUNTY OF HARNETT, Respondent, and DRAKE LANDING, LLC, WILLIAM DAN ANDREWS, and LINDA ANDREWS, Intervening Respondents. Subsequent History: Review denied by Jeffries v. Cty. of Harnett, 372 N.C. 297, 826 S.E.2d 710, 2019 N.C. LEXIS 424 (N.C., May 9, 2019) Prior History: [***1] Harnett County, No. 11 CVS 1187. Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. Counsel: Troutman Sanders LLP, by Gavin B. Parsons, for petitioner-appellant and petitioner- appellee Kent Jeffries, and for intervening-petitioner-appellants and intervening-petitioner- appellees Lynwood Hare, Frances L. Hare, Bobbie Lewis Jefferies, and Thomas Glenn Finch. No brief filed for respondent-appellee, Harnett County. Bryant & Ivie, PLLC, by John Walter Bryant and Amber J. Ivie, for intervening-respondent- appellees and intervening-respondent-appellants Drake Landing, LLC, William Dan Andrews, and Linda Andrews. Judges: ELMORE, Judge. Chief Judge McGEE concurs. Judge MURPHY concurs in result only. Opinion by: ELMORE Opinion [*474] [**38] Appeal by petitioners from order entered 10 March 2017 by Judge C. Winston Gilchrist, and appeal by respondents from orders entered 17 March 2014 by Judge C. Winston Gilchrist and 24 July 2012 by Judge Tanya T. Wallace, in Harnett County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 November 2017. ELMORE, Judge. William Dan Andrews and Linda Andrews own and operate Drake Landing, LLC (collectively, "intervening-respondents"), a recreational hunting and shooting enterprise operating in Harnett County. William Dan Andrews is also [***2] the sole proprietor of Andrews Farms, a bona fide commercial crop farm. Drake Landing operates a controlled hunting [*475] preserve and a variety of other commercial shooting activities on several acres of property it leases from Andrews Farms. Drake Landing has never obtained conditional-use permits to operate its hunting preserve or the other shooting activities on the basis that these activities constituted "agritourism" and were thus exempt from countywide zoning. Petitioner Kent Jeffries and intervening-petitioners Frances L. Hare, Bobbie Lewis Jeffries, and Thomas Glenn Finch (collectively, "petitioners") own residential property adjacent to or near Drake [**39] Landing. This case arose from Jeffries' request that the local zoning authority determine whether thirteen different shooting activities offered at Drake Landing constituted agritourism and were thus exempt from countywide zoning, including a conditional-use permitting requirement. After several hearings and hearings on remand before the Harnett County Board of Adjustment ("Board"), the superior court entered multiple orders on the matter, three of which are on appeal. First, intervening-respondents appeal from a 2012 superior court [***3] order that remanded a 2011 Board decision with instructions to allow petitioners to present evidence to satisfy their burden of establishing that Drake Landing's shooting activities were unrelated to Andrews Farms' farming operations and were thus not shielded from zoning regulation under the statutory farm exemption. On appeal, intervening-respondents assert the superior court misinterpreted the zoning ordinance and our General Statutes by concluding that a nexus must exist between the shooting activities and the farming operations, because the shooting activities constitute agritourism and no such nexus is required for agritourism activities to be shielded by the farm exemption from countywide zoning. Second, intervening-respondents appeal from a 2014 superior court order that reversed in part a 2013 Board decision, in which the court concluded under its de novo interpretation of the statutory farm exemption that shooting activities involving continental shooting towers, 3D archery courses and ranges, sporting clays, skeet and trap ranges, rifle ranges, and pistol pits were not as a matter of law activities intended by the legislature to be shielded from zoning regulation, even when [***4] performed on bona fide farm property, and even when done in preparation for the rural activity of hunting. The 2014 order also remanded the case to the Board with instructions for it to issue adequate findings and conclusions to support its determination that the remaining challenged activity—Drake Landing's operation of its controlled hunting preserve for domestically raised game birds—constituted a zoning-exempt agritourism activity. On appeal, intervening-respondents assert [*476] the superior court misinterpreted our General Statutes by concluding these other shooting activities were not "agriculture" in the form of "agritourism" but, instead, were "nonfarm purposes" as a matter of law, and were thus subject to zoning regulation. Third, petitioners appeal from a 2017 superior court order that affirmed a 2016 Board decision entered on remand from the 2014 order. In its 2016 decision, the Board determined that Drake Landing's operation of its hunting preserve was shielded from zoning under the statutory farm exemption. In its 2017 order, the superior court acknowledged that intervening-respondents filed the only petition for certiorari review of the 2016 Board decision, and that intervening- respondents [***5] conceded they raised no issue with that decision. The order also indicated the superior court judge refused to consider petitioners' challenges to the Board's 2016 decision 259 N.C. App. 473,*474;817 S.E.2d 36,**38;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***1 because they failed to timely perfect an appeal from, or to raise any written objections to, the Board's decision as required under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-393. The superior court thus affirmed the 2016 Board decision. On appeal, petitioners assert the superior court misinterpreted our General Statutes by not concluding that operating a controlled hunting preserve is excluded from the definition of "agritourism" because it amounts to a "nonfarm purpose" as a matter of law and is thus subject to countywide zoning. Petitioners contend, alternatively, that even if operating a controlled hunting preserve is not precluded as a matter of law from the definition of "agritourism," the Board's determination that Drake Landing's particular controlled hunting preserve operation is zoning-exempt was not supported by substantial, competent evidence in the whole record and was thus arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also contend the superior court erred by failing to adequately review the merits of the Board's 2016 decision, since it refused to address [***6] their challenges to that decision. After careful review, we affirm the 2014 and 2017 orders. We dismiss intervening-respondents' challenges to the 2012 order because they failed to include in the appellate [**40] record the Harnett County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), upon which they primarily rely to challenge that order, and because our dispositions of petitioners' appeal from the 2017 order and of intervening-respondents' appeal from the 2014 order renders moot any remaining challenges to the 2012 order. I. Background William Dan Andrews is the sole proprietor of Andrews Farms, an undisputed bona fide farm. Andrews Farms owns over 2,000 acres of property and its agricultural operation currently consists of harvesting [*477] and producing crops, including, inter alia, tobacco, pine straw, soybeans, timber, and grain sorghum. Since the 1990s, a tract of around 240 acres of Andrews Farms' property has been licensed as a controlled hunting preserve, and fowl such as pheasants and chukars have been domestically raised on the property for hunting purposes. Around 2005, William Dan Andrews and his wife, Linda Andrews, established Drake Landing, a recreational hunting and shooting enterprise that [***7] operates on leased property from Andrews Farms. Drake Landing began its business by taking over the hunting preserve operation. Over time, however, Drake Landing added clay target throwers and other parts of the range to offer its patrons additional shooting activities beyond that of the early morning duck hunts and the afternoon pheasant, chukar, and quail hunts. According to the Board's unchallenged finding on the matter, Drake Landing uses over 2,000 acres of Andrews Farms' property to operate its hunting preserve but only about 100 to 120 acres to operate the other shooting activities. In November 2010, petitioner Kent Jeffries, an adjacent property owner and the president of the North Harnett Property Rights Association, Inc. ("Property Rights Assoc."), wrote the Harnett County Planning Department to inquire as to whether the following shooting activities offered at Drake Landing constituted "agritourism" and were thus exempt from countywide zoning: (1) "hunting preserves"; (2) " 'continental tower shoots' for pheasant"; (3) "3-D archery courses and archery shooting ranges"; (4) "sporting clays and sporting clay courses"; (5) "skeet and trap ranges and other shotgun shooting stations"; [***8] (6) "pistol shooting pits and pistol shooting 259 N.C. App. 473,*476;817 S.E.2d 36,**39;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***5 ranges"; (7) "rifle shooting ranges"; (8) "concealed carry handgun training"; (9) " 'Three Gun' firearms competitions"; (10) "IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) competitions, both sanctioned and non-sanctioned"; (11) "shotgun competitions, both sanctioned and non- sanctioned"; (12) "other forms of firearms competitions"; and (13) "corporate events hosted on an agritourism farm . . . ." On 18 January 2011, the zoning authority responded by letter in which it concluded (1) hunting preserves constitute agritourism; (2) continental tower shoots and (3) 3D archery courses and ranges, as "activities related to . . . methods and weapons customarily used in the act of hunting in North Carolina," constituted agritourism; (4) sporting clays, (5) trap ranges, and (6) shotgun shooting stations constitute agritourism "when used 'in preparation for the hunt'"; (7) pistol pits and (8) rifle ranges, when "used to educate, enhance or assist in marksmanship skills for the purpose of hunting in a traditional manner . . . would be considered a related use to the agritourism activity" because those training activities [*478] were "considered 'preparing [***9] for the hunt'"; and (9) corporate events involving these agritourism activities were similarly zoning-exempt. However, the zoning authority concluded, "concealed carry handgun courses, firearms competitions such as three gun and IDPA," and "tactical type training [were] not viewed as a form of agritourism." Jeffries, individually and as president of the Property Rights Assoc., appealed the zoning authority's determinations to the Harnett County Board of Adjustment ("Board"). After a hearing, the Board entered an order on 9 May 2011 upholding the zoning authority's agritourism conclusions as to each activity on the basis that petitioners failed to show reversible error in the zoning authority's decision ("2011 Board Decision"). On 10 October 2011, Jeffries filed a petition in the superior court for certiorari review of the 2011 Board Decision. He argued in relevant part that he was prevented at the Board hearing from presenting evidence to [**41] establish that there was no nexus between Drake Landing's shooting activities and Andrews Farms' farming operations. Later, Drake Landing, William Dan Andrews, and Linda Andrews were allowed to intervene in the case. After the certiorari review hearing, [***10] the superior court entered an order on 24 July 2012 remanding the matter to the Board ("2012 Order"). In its 2012 Order, the superior court concluded that petitioners "were denied the opportunity to demonstrate facts consistent with their appeal to the Board of Adjustment" and thus remanded the 2011 Board Decision and instructed the Board "to determine for each activity from which Petitioners appealed whether Petitioners can demonstrate the requisite lack of connectivity between the shooting activities and farming activities on the premises of Drake Landing" and to allow petitioners "concerning each disputed activity, to offer evidence concerning the scope, size, hours of operation, number of persons involved, traffic, etc. and relation to shooting activities and farming activities as well as enterprise." After the ordered remand hearing, the Board issued a decision on 11 March 2013, again upholding the zoning authority's agritourism conclusions ("2013 Board Decision"). In its 2013 Board Decision, the Board concluded that (1) "[h]unting preserves are agritourism" and concluded further that, "as used in preparation for the hunt," so were the following activities: (2) "Continental Tower [***11] shoots," (3) "3D Archery courses and ranges," (4) "Sporting Clays," (5) "Skeet and Trap shooting and ranges," (6) "Rifle Ranges," and (7) "Pistol Pits." The Board 259 N.C. App. 473,*477;817 S.E.2d 36,**40;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***8 also concluded that (8) "Corporate Events" constituted agritourism "when used with hunting preserves or farming activities." [*479] On 10 April 2013, Jeffries petitioned the superior court for certiorari review of the 2013 Board Decision. Later, adjacent residential property owners Bobbie Lewis Jeffries, Lynwood W. Hare, Frances L. Hare, and Thomas Glenn Finch were allowed to intervene in the case. After the certiorari review hearing, the superior court reversed in part and remanded in part the 2013 Board Decision by order entered 17 March 2014 ("2014 Order"). In its 2014 Order, the superior court remanded the Board's determination as to the (1) hunting preserve and reversed the Board's conclusions that (2) "continental shooting towers," (3) "3D archery courses and ranges," (4) "sporting clay," (5) "skeet and trap ranges," (6) "rifle ranges," (7) "pistol pits," and (8) corporate events involving these shooting activities were shielded from zoning regulation under the statutory farm exemption. Under a de novo review of the farming [***12] exemption statutes, the superior court concluded as a matter of law that those shooting activities were neither "agriculture" under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-581.1 nor "bona fide farm purposes" under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340. Rather, the superior court concluded, those activities were "non-farm purposes" under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b), "even when conducted on property which otherwise qualifies as a bona-fide farm or when conducted in connection with or 'in preparation for' hunting" and were thus subject to zoning. It also concluded, alternatively, that under the whole-record test, the Board's decision was not supported by "substantial competent evidence in the whole record" because "[a]ll of the competence evidence in the record establishes that the activities are in fact non-farm uses which are subject to county zoning." However, the superior court remanded the matter in part with instructions for the Board to issue "findings of fact and conclusions of law on [Drake Landing's] operation of [its] 'hunting preserve.'" On 4 April 2014, intervening-respondents filed notices of appeal from the 2012 and 2014 Orders. This Court subsequently allowed petitioners' motion to dismiss those appeals on the basis that the orders were interlocutory. See Order, [***13] Jeffries v. Hare, No. 14-1022, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 1057 (N.C. App. Jan. 30, 2015) (dismissing appeals). After remand from the 2014 Order, the Board issued a decision on 12 October 2015 in which it concluded that, because Drake Landing possessed a valid controlled hunting preserve license from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, its property was thus categorically exempt from zoning ("2015 Board Decision"). [**42] On 13 November 2015, intervening-respondents, not petitioners, petitioned the superior court for certiorari review of the 2015 Board [*480] Decision. In its petition, intervening- respondents conceded they raised no issue with the 2015 Board Decision and requested relief in the form affirming that decision so they could refile their appeals from the 2012 and 2014 Orders. After a hearing, the superior court reversed the 2015 Board Decision by order entered 2 June 2016 ("2016 Order"). In its 2016 Order, the superior court concluded that possessing a controlled hunting preserve license did not categorically exempt Drake Landing's property from countywide zoning regulation, and it again remanded the matter with instructions for the Board to issue findings and conclusions to "address the specific activities, if any, which [***14] the 259 N.C. App. 473,*478;817 S.E.2d 36,**41;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***11 Board finds to constitute a 'hunting preserve' and whether, and why, such activities are 'agritourism' within the meaning of the applicable North Carolina General Statutes." After the ordered remand hearing, the Board issued a decision on 3 August 2016 with detailed findings and conclusions supporting its determination that Drake Landing's particular controlled hunting preserve operation was exempt from zoning ("2016 Board Decision"). In its 2016 Board Decision, the Board concluded in relevant part that controlled hunting preserves for domestically raised game birds, like those at Drake Landing and Andrews Farms, are exempt from any and all Harnett County zoning ordinances[ ] . . . because hunting preserves like those at Drake Landing and Andrews Farms are operated on a bona fide farm, constitute a bona fide farm purpose under both N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A- 340(b)(2) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-581.1, and are considered agritourism under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E-30. On 1 September 2016, intervening-respondents, not petitioners, petitioned the superior court for certiorari review of the 2016 Board Decision. In its petition, intervening-respondents again conceded they raised no issue with the 2016 Board Decision and requested relief in the form of affirming that decision, [***15] and again explained that they "intend[ed] to refile their appeal[s from the 2012 and 2014 Orders], which was previously dismissed by the Court of Appeals as interlocutory, and file[d] this Petition for Writ of Certiorari out of an abundance of caution in order to preserve their right to appeal." Petitioners never filed a petition for certiorari review of the 2016 Board Decision, moved to intervene as "petitioners" to intervening-respondents' petition, nor filed any responsive pleading in which they lodged any objections or requested any relief from that decision; rather, the first objection petitioners raised to the 2016 Board Decision occurred at the certiorari review hearing initiated [*481] by intervening-respondents' petition. After the hearing, the superior court affirmed the 2016 Board Decision by order entered 10 March 2017 ("2017 Order"). In its 2017 Order, the superior court indicated that it refused to address the merits of any challenge to the 2016 Board Decision raised by petitioners for the first time at the certiorari review hearing. The superior court concluded that petitioners failed to timely preserve their objection to that decision because they failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-393(c)'s requirement [***16] of filing a petition for certiorari review, in which petitioners were required to state the grounds upon which they contended the Board erred and to state the relief they sought from the 2016 Board Decision, and because petitioners failed to file any "form of written objection or request from relief" from that decision. The superior court also acknowledged that intervening-respondents stated in their petition they raised no issue with the 2016 Board Decision and sought relief in the form of affirming that decision "solely to preserve their appellate rights with respect to prior rulings of the Superior Court." Accordingly, the superior court concluded that intervening-respondents were entitled as a matter of law to prevail on the issues properly before it and thus affirmed the 2016 Board Decision. Intervening-respondents appeal the 2012 and 2014 Orders; petitioners appeal the 2017 Order. II. Review Standards 259 N.C. App. 473,*480;817 S.E.2d 36,**42;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***14 On certiorari review of a county zoning board of adjustment's quasi-judicial decision, "the superior court sits as an appellate [**43] court," Bailey & Assocs., Inc. v. Wilmington Bd. of Adjustment, 202 N.C. App. 177, 189, 689 S.E.2d 576, 585 (2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted), and is tasked with the following: (1) review the record for errors of law; (2) ensure that procedures specified [***17] by law in both statute and ordinance are followed; (3) ensure that appropriate due process rights of the petitioner are protected, including the right to offer evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and inspect documents; (4) ensure that the decision is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in the whole record; and (5) ensure that the decision is not arbitrary and capricious. Cary Creek Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Cary, 207 N.C. App. 339, 341-42, 700 S.E.2d 80, 82-83 (2010) (citation omitted). The superior court should [*482] apply de novo review to a petitioner's allegation of error implicating one of the first three enumerations and whole-record review to the last two. See, e.g., Four Seasons Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Town of Wrightsville Beach, 205 N.C. App. 65, 75, 695 S.E.2d 456, 462 (2010) ("If a petitioner contends the Board's decision was based on an error of law, 'de novo' review is proper. However, if the petitioner contends the Board's decision was not supported by the evidence or was arbitrary and capricious, then the reviewing court must apply the 'whole record' test." (citation and quotation marks omitted)). "We review a superior court's certiorari review of a [county] zoning board's quasi-judicial decision to determine whether the superior court: (1) exercised the appropriate scope of review and, if appropriate, (2) decide whether the court did so properly." NCJS, LLC v. City of Charlotte, N.C. App. , , 803 S.E.2d 684, 688 (2017) (citation [***18] and internal quotation marks omitted). III. Petitioners' Appeal On appeal from the 2017 Order, petitioners contend the superior court erred by affirming the 2016 Board Decision because (1) as a matter of law, operating a controlled hunting preserve does not constitute the "bona fide farm purpose[ ]" of "agritourism" under the statutory farm exemption but instead constitutes a "nonfarm purpose" under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(1), that is thus subject to countywide zoning regulation; or, alternatively, (2) even if a hunting preserve is not excluded as a matter of law from the definition of agritourism, the Board's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence in the whole record because petitioners presented substantial, competent evidence that Drake Landing's hunting preserve is wholly unrelated to Andrews Farms' farming operations, and that the scale of Drake Landing's hunting preserve operation is such that it amounts to a "nonfarm purpose" subject to zoning regulation. Petitioners also argue (3) the superior court failed to adequately review the 2016 Board Decision because its 2017 Order affirming that decision was based not on the merits of the 2016 Board Decision but merely on procedural grounds. As a threshold [***19] matter, intervening-respondents contend that petitioners failed to preserve any objection to the 2016 Board Decision because they never filed a petition for certiorari review of that decision, nor filed any responsive pleading in which they raised an issue 259 N.C. App. 473,*481;817 S.E.2d 36,**42;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***16 with, or requested any relief from, the 2016 Board Decision. Thus, intervening-respondents argue, the superior court properly affirmed the 2016 Board Decision based upon the issues properly before it. We agree. [*483] In its 2017 Order, the superior court made the following unchallenged, and thus binding, factual findings: 1. On September 1, 2016, Intervening Respondents . . . filed a "Petition for Writ of Certiorari" from the [2016 Board Decision] finding the "hunting preserve" . . . to be agritourism and exempt from county zoning. 2. In their petition, Intervening Respondents expressly stated that their petition was filed solely to preserve their appellate rights with respect to prior rulings of the Superior Court. Intervening Respondents further stated that they "did not appeal the most recent determination of the Board of Adjustment" regarding their hunting preserve. [**44] 3. Intervening Respondents' Petition did not in any way object to, or [***20] allege any error in, the [2016 Board Decision]. 4. Neither Petitioner Kent Jeffries nor any Intervening Petitioners filed a petition for writ of certiorari from the [2016 Board Decision]. Jeffries and Intervening Petitioners have not filed any written objection or request for relief from the [2016 Board Decision], nor have they asserted in any writing filed with this court, by pleading or Correspondence, the grounds upon which they contend any error was made nor requested any relief from the most recent decision of the Board of Adjustment. 5. Mr. Jeffries and Intervening Petitioners did not file any Answer in response to the petition of [intervening-respondents] and did not request any alternative relief. 6. Intervening Respondents objected at the February 21, 2017 hearing to the court considering any contentions of error now made by Kent Jeffries or Intervening Petitioners because such parties did not file any form of written objection. 7. North Carolina General Statute 160A-393(c), made applicable to county boards of adjustment by N.C. General Statute 153A-349, provides: An appeal in the nature of certiorari shall be initiated by filing with the superior court a petition for writ of certiorari. [*484] The petition shall: (2) Set forth the grounds upon which the petitioner [***21] contends that an error was made . . . . (4) Set forth the relief the petitioner seeks. (emphasis added) 8. Mr. Kent Jeffries and Intervening Petitioners have not complied with the requirements of N.C. General Statute 160A-393 for timely preserving their objection to the [2016 Board Decision] and for seeking relief from such order. 259 N.C. App. 473,*482;817 S.E.2d 36,**43;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***19 9. Drake Landing, LLC, William Dan Andrews and Linda Andrews are entitled, as a matter of law, to prevail on the issues now before the court. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-393 (2017) governs appeals in the nature of certiorari. Upon issuing a writ for certiorari review of a board decision, the superior court "shall hear and decide all issues raised by the petition[,]" id. § 160A-393(j) (emphasis added), and "shall ensure that the rights of petitioners have not been prejudiced[,]" id. § 160A-393(k)(1) (emphasis added). Following its review, the superior court "may affirm the decision, reverse the decision and remand the case with appropriate instructions, or remand the case for further proceedings." Id. § 160A-393(l). Here, intervening-respondents filed the only petition for certiorari review of the 2016 Board Decision in which they contended the Board made no error in its decision and sought relief in the form of affirming that decision. Petitioners, contrarily, [***22] never filed a petition for certiorari review of that decision and, consequently, never set forth any grounds upon which they contended the Board erred, nor requested any relief from the 2016 Board Decision; petitioners never moved to intervene as a "petitioner" for the certiorari review hearing on the 2016 Board Decision, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-393(h); nor did petitioners file any responsive pleading in which they raised any objection to that decision, see id. § 160A-393(g) (permitting but not requiring a party to file a responsive pleading). Indeed, although the 2016 Board Decision was entered and mailed to petitioners on 3 August 2016, petitioners lodged no formal objection to that decision until the 21 February 2017 certiorari review hearing initiated solely by intervening-respondents' petition. Accordingly, because the only petition for certiorari review of the 2016 Board Decision was filed by intervening-respondents, in which they [*485] conceded they raised no issue with that decision and requested relief in the form of affirming that decision, and because petitioners neither lodged any written objections to the 2016 Board Decision, requested any alternative form of relief, nor moved to intervene as a "petitioner," the superior [***23] court properly determined that the 2016 Board Decision did not prejudice the petitioning party's rights, and it thus did not err [**45] by affirming the 2016 Board Decision based upon intervening-respondents' petition. Further, although petitioners attempted to challenge the 2016 Board Decision for the first time at the certiorari review hearing, the superior court properly refused to address the merits of their arguments on procedural grounds. "[A]n appeal is not a matter of absolute right, but the appellant must comply with the statutes and rules of Court as to the time and manner of taking and perfecting his appeal." Hirschman v. Chatham Cty., N.C. App. , , 792 S.E.2d 211, 216 (2016) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also id. at , 792 S.E.2d at 213 (holding that the superior court properly dismissed a petition for certiorari review of a board decision where the petitioner failed to name the conditional-use permit applicant as a respondent as required under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A- 393(e) and thus failed to perfect his appeal, reasoning that this noncompliance deprived the superior court of jurisdiction to review the merits of the board decision). Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-393, to perfect an appeal from a zoning board's decision, a party with standing must file a petition in the superior court for certiorari review [***24] of that decision, which "shall[ ] . . . [s]et forth the grounds upon which the petitioner contends that an error was made" and "[s]et forth the relief the petitioner seeks." Id. §§ 160A-393(c)(1), (c)(4). "Our appellate courts have consistently 259 N.C. App. 473,*484;817 S.E.2d 36,**44;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***21 held that the use of the word 'shall' in a statute indicates what actions are required or mandatory." Hirschman, N.C. App. at , 792 S.E.2d at 213; see also id. at , 792 S.E.2d at 213-16 (holding that a non-conditional-use-applicant seeking certiorari review of a board decision never perfected an appeal because he failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A- 393(e)'s requirement that such a petitioner "shall . . . name th[e] applicant as a respondent . . . ."). Here, petitioners failed to comply with subsection 160A-393(c)'s petition filing requirements and thus never perfected an appeal from the 2016 Board Decision. Further, petitioners never moved to intervene as a "petitioner" to intervening-respondents' petition for certiorari review of the 2016 Board Decision, nor did they file any responsive pleading, raise any written objection, or request any relief from that decision. Cf. Durham Cty. v. Addison, 262 N.C. 280, 283, 136 S.E.2d 600, 603 (1964) [*486] ("The decision of the Board of Adjustment is not subject to collateral attack." (citation omitted)); Wil-Hol Corp. v. Marshall, 71 N.C. App. 611, 614, 322 S.E.2d 655, 657 (1984) ("[T]he statutory procedure for challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance [***25] is to petition the Superior Court for certiorari to review the final decision of the Board of Adjustment. A zoning ordinance may not be collaterally attacked by a party that failed to avail herself of the judicial review that the ordinance and statutes authorize." (internal citation omitted)). Thus, the superior court properly concluded that petitioners were procedurally barred from challenging the 2016 Board Decision for the first time at the certiorari review hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the 2017 Order affirming the 2016 Board Decision based on these procedural grounds and thus do not reach the merits of petitioners' challenges to the 2016 Board Decision. As a secondary matter, petitioners contend the procedural posture underlying the superior court's certiorari merits-review of the 2015 Board Decision is identical to that of its certiorari review of the 2016 Board Decision and, thus, the superior court should have similarly reviewed the merits of that later decision. In both instances, petitioners argue, intervening-respondents filed the only certiorari petition in which they set forth no allegations of error in the Board's decisions and requested relief in the form of affirming [***26] those decisions for the purpose of preserving their right to refile their appeals from the 2012 and 2014 Orders. Although the 2016 Order is not on appeal, we reject petitioners' argument. The postures yielding both certiorari review hearings were procedurally different and, before the superior court's certiorari review of the 2015 Board Decision, petitioners unequivocally expressed their intent to appeal that decision and lodged specific, written objections to that decision. The 2014 Order remanded the 2013 Board Decision, which yielded the 2015 Board Decision. [**46] On 19 October 2015, respondent Harnett County wrote a letter to Judge Gilchrist, who issued the 2014 Order, and enclosed a courtesy copy of the 2015 Board Decision. In its letter, Harnett County wrote: "It is the belief of counsel and the parties that procedurally, the appeal of the [2015 Board Decision] would lie in Harnett County Superior Court, but that Your Honor would be under no obligation to judicially review [that decision] unless appeal is affirmatively taken by any of the parties." On 26 October 2015, Jeffries responded by letter to Judge Gilchrist, writing that Hartnett County "is an adverse party in this case and [***27] does not speak for the petitioners" and that "[i]t is my position that an appeal is not necessary because this matter has already been appealed." Jeffries opined that this Court, in dismissing intervening-respondents' prior appeals, "labeled [the 2014 Order] as an [*487] 'interlocutory order' that 'did not decide all 259 N.C. App. 473,*485;817 S.E.2d 36,**45;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***24 issues before the trial court'" and, thus, "[t]his case is now back in Your Honor's court . . . ." Jeffries then objected in writing to the Board's decision to "adopt[ ] wholesale the County's draft order" and not allow petitioners to discuss or explain their proposed order, and then set forth five separate grounds upon which he challenged the propriety of the 2015 Board Decision. Jeffries also requested that Judge Gilchrist "set dates for the submission of written arguments and for oral argument." Subsequently, on 13 November 2015, intervening-respondents filed their petition for certiorari review of the 2015 Board Decision. As reflected, although the certiorari reviews of both the 2015 and 2016 Board Decisions were initiated solely by intervening-respondents' petition, unlike their failures to do so with the 2016 Board Decision, petitioners unambiguously expressed their intent [***28] to appeal the 2015 Board Decision and lodged specific, written objections to that decision before the hearing. Accordingly, we reject petitioners' argument. IV. Intervening-Respondents' Appeals A. 2014 Order On appeal from the 2014 Order, intervening-respondents assert the superior court erred by reversing the 2013 Board Decision with respect to its conclusions that Drake Landing's operation of commercial shooting activities involving "continental shooting towers, 3D archery courses and ranges, sporting clay, skeet and trap ranges, rifle ranges and pistol pits" constituted "agritourism" activities shielded by the statutory farm exemption from countywide zoning. Intervening-respondents argue that the superior court (1) misinterpreted our General Statutes by concluding as a matter of law that these shooting activities fall outside the farm exemption and were thus subject to zoning; and (2) erroneously concluded that, in the alternative, the 2013 Board Decision was not supported by substantial competent evidence in the whole record. Because we hold that the superior court properly concluded these shooting activities as a matter of law fall outside the statutory farm exemption, we affirm [***29] the 2014 Order on this basis. We thus need not address intervening-respondents' remaining challenge to the superior court's alternative rationale for reversing the 2013 Board Decision. In its 2014 Order, the superior court concluded in relevant part: Issues of statutory interpretation are questions of law to be decided by application of a de novo standard of review. Applying the de novo standard, the court concludes that [*488] the General Assembly did not intend to include continental shooting towers, 3D archery courses and ranges, sporting clay, skeet and trap ranges, rifle ranges and pistol pits within the definition of "agriculture" in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-581.1 or of "bona fide farm purposes" under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340. These uses are instead non-farm purposes under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b) and are not exempt from county zoning laws, even when conducted on property which otherwise qualifies as a bona-fide farm or when conducted in connection with or 'in preparation for' hunting. 259 N.C. App. 473,*487;817 S.E.2d 36,**46;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***27 As reflected, the superior court properly identified de novo as the applicable review standard to address issues of statutory interpretation. Our review is whether it properly applied that standard by concluding these shooting activities do not as a matter of law constitute activities [***30] intended to be shielded [**47] from zoning under the statutory farm exemption. 1. Statutory Farm Exemption from Countywide Zoning "Statutory interpretation properly begins with an examination of the plain words of the statute." Lanvale Properties, LLC v. Cty. of Cabarrus, 366 N.C. 142, 154, 731 S.E.2d 800, 809 (2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "[W]hen the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction, and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning. Id. at 154, 731 S.E.2d at 809-10 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Only where statutory language is unclear or ambiguous may courts resort to canons of judicial construction to interpret meaning. Under the statutory farm exemption, "property used for bona fide farm purposes" is exempt from countywide zoning regulation but "the use of farm property for nonfarm purposes" is not. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(1) (2013) (providing that countywide zoning "regulations may affect property used for bona fide farm purposes," with the exception of swine farms, but providing that "[t]his subsection does not limit regulation . . . with respect to the use of farm property for nonfarm purposes");1 see also Hampton v. Cumberland Cty., N.C. App. , , [*489] 808 S.E.2d 763, 775 (2017) (noting that "non-farm uses, even on bona fide farms, are not exempt from zoning regulation"). "[B]ona fide farm purposes include [***31] the production and activities relating or incidental to the production of crops, grains, fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy, livestock, poultry, and all other forms of agriculture, as defined in G.S. 106-581.1." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2) (2013) (emphasis added). "Agriculture" is defined in relevant part as follows: When performed on the farm, 'agriculture' . . . also include[s] the marketing and selling of agricultural products, agritourism, the storage and use of materials for agricultural purposes, packing, treating, processing, sorting, storage, and other activities performed to add value to crops, livestock, and agricultural items produced on the farm, and similar activities incident to the operation of a farm. Id. § 106-581.1(6) (2013) (emphasis added). However, neither Chapter 153A, governing county authority, nor Chapter 106, governing agriculture, defined "agritourism." But Chapter 99E, governing special liability provisions, defined "[a]gritourism activity" in relevant part as 1 Effective 12 July 2017, our General Assembly eliminated county authority to regulate swine farms by amending N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(1) to now provide that countywide zoning "regulations may not affect property used for bona fide farm purposes; provided, however, that this subsection does not limit regulation . . . with respect to the use of farm property for nonfarm purposes." See Act of July 12, 2017, ch. 108, sec. 9.(a), 2017 N.C. Sess. Laws , (eliminating county authority to regulate swine farms). 259 N.C. App. 473,*488;817 S.E.2d 36,**46;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***29 [a]ny activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, ranching, historic, cultural, [***32] harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions. Id. § 99E-30(1) (2013). 2. 2017 Act While it was unclear when the Board and superior court decided the matter whether the legislature intended to shield from countywide zoning regulation the same "agritourism activities" it intended to shield from liability, after the case reached this Court, our General Assembly enacted "An Act to Amend Certain Laws Governing Agricultural Matters" ("2017 Act"). See Act of July 12, 2017, ch. 108, 2017 N.C. Sess. Laws , . Most pertinent here, the 2017 Act amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b) by adding subdivision (2a), which in relevant parts incorporated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E-30(1)'s "agritourism activity" definition into section 153A-340 and described certain types of zoning-exempt [*490] agritourism buildings and structures. Ch. 108, sec. 8.(a), 2017 N.C. Sess. Laws at (clarifying activities incident to the farm and agritourism). As a result, the applicable statutory farm exemption provisions now provide in pertinent part: [**48] For purposes of this section, "agritourism" means any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, ranching, historic, [***33] cultural, harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions. A building or structure used for agritourism includes any building or structure used for public or private events, including, but not limited to, weddings, receptions, meetings, demonstrations of farm activities, meals, and other events that are taking place on the farm because of its farm or rural setting. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) (2017). A threshold question is whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) applies in this case to guide our interpretation of whether these shooting activities were intended by the legislature to constitute agritourism activities shielded by the statutory farm exemption. An amendment that substantially alters the meaning of a law applies only prospectively. Ray v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 366 N.C. 1, 9, 727 S.E.2d 675, 682 (2012) ("[T]he default rule provides statutes with a prospective effective date[.]" (citation omitted)). But an amendment that merely clarifies the meaning of a law, rather than alters its substance, "will apply to all claims pending or brought before our State's courts after the amendment's passage." Id. We must therefore determine whether the addition of subdivision (2a) clarifies or alters subsection (b). Id. at 9, 727 S.E.2d at 681-82 ("It is this Court's job to determine whether an amendment is clarifying or altering." (citation omitted)). "To [***34] determine whether the amendment clarifies the prior law or alters it requires a careful comparison of the original and amended statutes." If the statute initially "fails 259 N.C. App. 473,*489;817 S.E.2d 36,**47;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***31 expressly to address a particular point" but addresses it after the amendment, "the amendment is more likely to be clarifying than altering." Id. at 10, 727 S.E.2d at 682 (quoting Ferrell v. Dep't of Transp., 334 N.C. 650, 659, 435 S.E.2d 309, 315 (1993)). [*491] In Ferrell, our Supreme Court was presented with an issue requiring it to interpret a statute governing the reconveyance of land taken by eminent domain but no longer needed, which was amended while the appeal was pending, and addressed whether that amendment was merely clarifying and thus applicable, or was substantially altering and thus inapplicable. 334 N.C. 650, 435 S.E.2d 309 (1993). There, when the Department of Transportation (DOT) offered its initial sell-back price offer to the original property owner, the relevant statute did not specify at what price the DOT was to sell back the property. Id. at 657, 435 S.E.2d at 314. But by the time the case reached our Supreme Court, the legislature had amended that statute by adding language that provided clear guidance on the sell-back price calculation. Id. at 658-59, 435 S.E.2d at 315. Our Supreme Court concluded that the amendment was clarifying, not altering, and thus relied on its calculative guidance in [***35] determining the propriety of the DOT's sell-back price offer. The Ferrell Court reasoned: Since here the statute before amendment provided no express guidance as to selling price, the amendment which addresses the selling price is best interpreted as clarifying the statute as it existed before the amendment. It is, therefore, strong evidence of what the legislature intended when it enacted the original statute. Id. at 659, 435 S.E.2d at 315-16 (footnote omitted). Here, when the Board and superior court issued their decisions, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b) exempted from zoning regulation property used for "bona fide farm purposes," which included "all . . . forms of agriculture" under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-581.1, such as "agritourism." But neither statute defined "agritourism." However, after this case reached our Court, the legislature amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b) by adding subdivision (2a), which incorporated verbatim N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E-30(1)'s "agritourism activity" definition into the section 153A-340 and provided guidance on what buildings or structures might constitute agritourism buildings or structures, providing "strong evidence" that the General [**49] Assembly intended to shield from zoning regulation the same agritourism activities it intended to shield from liability, and that the amendment intended to clarify what sorts of activities it contemplated [***36] might constitute agritourism. Thus, we conclude that the addition of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) served merely to clarify, rather than alter, the substance of the statutory farm exemption by providing further guidance on what constitutes [*492] zoning-exempt agritourism activities. See ch. 108, sec. 8.(a), 2017 N.C. Sess. Laws at (labeling the heading of section 8(a), which added N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2), as "Clarify activities incident to the farm and agritourism" (original in all caps)); see also Taylor v. Crisp, 286 N.C. 488, 497, 212 S.E.2d 381, 387 (1975) (" 'Whereas it is logical to conclude that an amendment to an unambiguous statute indicates the intent to change the law, no such inference arises when the legislature amends an ambiguous provision.' In such case, the purpose of the variation may be 'to clarify that which was previously doubtful.'" (citation 259 N.C. App. 473,*490;817 S.E.2d 36,**48;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***34 omitted)). We therefore rely on the clarifying language of subdivision (2a) to guide our interpretation of whether the legislature intended these shooting activities to constitute "agritourism" activities shielded from zoning regulation under the statutory farm exemption. 3. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) It is undisputed that Drake Landing operates its business on property it leases from Andrews Farms, a bona fide farm. At issue is whether using bona fide farm property to operate commercial shooting [***37] activities involving continental shooting towers, 3D archery courses and ranges, sporting clay, skeet and trap ranges, rifle ranges and pistol pits constitutes agritourism. As stated above, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) defines "agritourism" in pertinent part as follows: "[A]gritourism" means any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions. Id. § 153A-340(b)(2a) (emphasis added). Based on its plain language, it is unclear whether our legislature intended for these shooting activities, even when relating to or incidental to a rural activity such as hunting, to constitute zoning-exempt agritourism activities. Indeed, in the 2017 Act, the General Assembly requested a Legislative Research Commission study pertaining to what constitutes agritourism. See ch. 108, sec. 1.(a), 2017 N.C. Sess. Laws at (ordering the Agriculture and Forestry Awareness Study Commission to study "[t]he type of activities that constitute agritourism when conducted on a bona fide farm and other relevant matters relating [***38] to agritourism activities"). Accordingly, we turn to the canons of judicial construction. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a)'s use of "including" to introduce examples of acceptable "rural" agritourism activities indicates the list [*493] is meant to be illustrative and not exhaustive. The statute does not define "rural." "[U]ndefined words are accorded their plain meaning so long as it is reasonable to do so." In determining the plain meaning of undefined terms, "this Court has used 'standard, nonlegal dictionaries' as a guide." Midrex Techs., Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue, 369 N.C. 250, 258, 794 S.E.2d 785, 792 (2016) (alteration in original) (citations omitted); see also id. at 259, 794 S.E.2d at 792 (relying on the New Oxford American Dictionary to define "building," "construction," and "contractor"). The dictionary definition of "rural" is "in, relating to, or characteristic of the countryside rather than the town." New Oxford American Dictionary 1531 (Angus Stevenson & Christine A. Lindberg eds. 3d ed. 2010). As petitioners concede in their brief, "hunting is a traditional rural activity." Under certain circumstances, activities incidental or relating to hunting that occur in, relate to, and are characteristic of the countryside, which retain the spirit of the traditional hunting, may reasonably fit within an example of a "rural" agritourism [***39] activity. Thus, for instance, operating a controlled hunting preserve [**50] for domestically raised game birds which supports a bona 259 N.C. App. 473,*492;817 S.E.2d 36,**49;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***36 fide farm operation and allows the public "for recreational [or] entertainment purposes[ ] to . . . enjoy [the] rural activit[y]" of traditional hunting may constitute agritourism. But the other shooting activities at issue here do not fit so squarely into this interpretation. Because N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) lists examples of rural activities, we turn to associative canons of construction. The interpretative canon of noscitur a sociis instructs that "associated words explain and limit each other" and an ambiguous or vague term "may be made clear and specific by considering the company in which it is found, and the meaning of the terms which are associated with it." City of Winston v. Beeson, 135 N.C. 271, 279, 47 S.E. 457, 460 (1904) (citations omitted); see also State v. Emery, 224 N.C. 581, 583, 31 S.E.2d 858, 860 (1944) ("Noscitur a sociis is a rule of construction applicable to all written instruments." (citation omitted)). The interpretive canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius instructs that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another. See, e.g., Fort v. Cty. of Cumberland, 218 N.C. App. 401, 407, 721 S.E.2d 350, 355 (2012) (citations omitted). Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis to subdivision (2a)'s rural activity examples of "farming, ranching, historic, cultural, [***40] harvest-your-own activities, or other natural activities and attractions" imply that other contemplated rural agritourism activities should fit, in [*494] a categorical sense, within this grouping. The listed examples associate in part because they allow members of the non-rural public to view or enjoy traditional rural activities or attractions relating to agriculture that typically occur in a rural setting. The activities listed also associate in part because they are "natural," in that their performance preserves the land and does not require its alteration other than by public consumption of natural items on the land. Cf. Friends of Hatteras Island v. Coastal Res. Comm'n, 117 N.C. App. 556, 575, 452 S.E.2d 337, 349 (1995) ("Hunting, fishing, navigation and recreation require only a temporary presence on the Reserve and do not necessitate alteration of the Reserve's undeveloped and natural state."). In applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, however, that subdivision (2a) explicitly lists "farming" and "ranching" but not "hunting" implies that shooting activities, even when related to hunting, were not contemplated as "agritourism." Moreover, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) defines "[a] building or structure used for agritourism" in relevant part as any building or structure used for public or private events, [***41] including, but not limited to, weddings, receptions, meetings, demonstrations of farm activities, meals, and other events that are taking place on the farm because of its farm or rural setting. Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis, the illustrative examples of agritourism buildings or structures include those used for "weddings, receptions, meetings, demonstrations of farm activities, [and] meals," events which share no commonality with hunting or shooting activities. Further, the inclusive phrase tying these examples together—"and other events that are taking place on the farm because of its farm and rural setting"—indicates the legislature did not contemplate buildings or structures used for shooting activities to be zoning-exempt agritourism buildings or structures. While shooting activities might require the land space that only a rural setting can provide, unlike the other event examples, they are not purposefully performed on a farm for the aesthetic value of the farm or its rural setting. 259 N.C. App. 473,*493;817 S.E.2d 36,**50;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***39 "Where legislative intent is not readily apparent from the act, it is appropriate to look at various related statutes in pari materia so as to determine and effectuate the legislative [***42] intent." Craig v. Cty. of Chatham, 356 N.C. 40, 46, 565 S.E.2d 172, 176-77 (2002) (citation omitted). Further, "words and phrases of a statute may not be interpreted out of context, but must be interpreted as a composite whole so as to harmonize [*495] with other statutory provisions and effectuate legislative intent, while avoiding absurd or illogical interpretations[.]" Fort, 218 N.C. App. at 407, 721 S.E.2d at 355 (citations and quotations marks omitted). [**51] That N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E-30(1)'s "agritourism activity" definition was incorporated into N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) indicates the legislature intended to shield the same agritourism activities from countywide zoning that it intended to shield from liability. Thus, we turn to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E-30(3)'s explanation of inherent risks of agritourism activity for further guidance, which provides in part: (3) Inherent risks of agritourism activity. — Those dangers or conditions that are an integral part of an agritourism activity including certain hazards, including surface and subsurface conditions, natural conditions of land, vegetation, and waters, the behavior of wild or domestic animals, and ordinary dangers of structures or equipment ordinarily used in farming and ranching operations. Id. § 99E-30(3) (2017) (emphasis added). That this provision lists as examples of inherent risks of agritourism activity "surface and subsurface conditions, [***43] natural conditions of land, vegetation, and waters, [and] the behavior of wild or domestic animals," relatively minor and rarer risks than those associated with shooting guns that would be integral to the shooting activities at issue here, supports our interpretation that such activities were not contemplated as "agritourism." Further, that the statute lists "ordinary dangers of . . . equipment ordinarily used in farming and ranching operations" but not equipment such as guns used in hunting operations, buttresses an interpretation that shooting activities, even when done "in preparation for the hunt," were not contemplated as "agritourism." In summary, commercial shooting activities involving continental shooting towers, 3D archery courses and ranges, sporting clays, skeet and trap ranges, rifle ranges, and pistol pits neither fit as squarely within traditional notions of hunting, the definition of a "rural" activity, nor the category of a "natural" activity. Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a), shooting activities that require the construction and use of artificial structures and the alteration of natural land, such as clearing farm property to operate gun ranges, share [***44] little resemblance to the listed rural agritourism activity examples or the same spirit of preservation or traditionalism. Applying that same principle to subdivision (2a)'s examples of agritourism events yields the same interpretation. Under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio [*496] alterius as applied to both N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340(b)(2a) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E-30(3), that these statutes list "farming" and "ranching" but not "hunting" implies that these shooting activities, even when done in preparation for a rural activity like traditional hunting, were not contemplated as "agritourism." Finally, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E- 30(3)'s illustrative list of inherent risks of agritourism activities omits the typically greater risks of shooting guns that would be an integral danger to operating these commercial gun shooting activities. 259 N.C. App. 473,*494;817 S.E.2d 36,**50;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***41 Accordingly, after our de novo review of the statutory farm exemption provisions, we agree with the superior court that commercial shooting activities involving the operation of continental shooting towers, 3D archery courses and ranges, sporting clay, skeet and trap ranges, rifle ranges, and pistol pits, even when performed on a bona fide farm, and even when done in preparation for the hunt, were not contemplated by our legislature as types of "agritourism" [***45] activities intended to be shielded from countywide zoning under the statutory farm exemption. We thus hold that these shooting activities do not constitute "agritourism" as a matter of law and are subject to zoning. Accordingly, we affirm the 2014 Order on this basis. In light of our decision, we need not address intervening-respondents' remaining challenge to the 2014 Order. Intervening-respondents, of course, may freely apply for conditional-use permits to continue operating these activities, but we hold that they do not constitute "agritourism" as a matter of law under our General Statutes. B. 2012 Order On appeal from the 2012 Order, intervening-respondents assert the superior court erred by remanding the 2011 Board Decision on the basis that (1) petitioners failed to meet their burden of presenting competent, substantial, and material evidence [**52] in support of their appeal to the Board of Adjustment; (2) the superior court erroneously concluded that petitioners had not been given an opportunity to be heard; and (3) the superior court misinterpreted the plain language of the Harnett County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and our General Statutes by concluding that there must be [***46] a nexus between agritourism activities offered on a bona fide farm and its farming operations in order to be shielded by the farm exemption. The linchpin holding together each alleged error is the superior court's conclusion that petitioners burden to support their appeal from the 2011 Board Decision was to present evidence "to establish that there was no requisite nexus between the Respondents' farming activities[ ] and shooting activities." Intervening-respondents contend [*497] that, because the shooting activities constitute "agritourism," no such nexus is required under the plain language of the UDO and our General Statutes. According to intervening-respondents, the UDO provides that "zoning provisions . . . shall not apply to bona fide farms, as defined herein" and that the "use of any bona fide farm property for any non-farm use purposes shall be subject to the regulations of the Ordinance, with the exception of those uses determined to be agritourism, as defined by this Ordinance." (Emphasis added.) Thus, intervening-respondents continue, the superior court erred by finding that Drake Landing operates "on real property of Andrews Farms" and that "Andrews Farms is a bona fide farm pursuant [***47] to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-340" but nonetheless remanding the matter to the Board with instructions to allow petitioners to present evidence that there was no connectivity between Drake Landing's shooting activities and Andrews Farms' farming operations when no such nexus is required for agritourism activities. However, because intervening-respondents failed to include the UDO in the appellate record, the authority upon which they primarily rely to support their main challenge to the 2012 Order, these issues are not properly before us. See Town of Scotland Neck v. W. Sur. Co., 301 N.C. 331, 338, 271 S.E.2d 501, 505 (1980) ("No Town ordinance . . . was introduced, and we cannot take judicial notice of one if it exists." (citation omitted)); Beau Rivage Homeowners Ass'n v. Billy 259 N.C. App. 473,*496;817 S.E.2d 36,**51;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***44 Earl, L.L.C., 163 N.C. App. 325, 327, 593 S.E.2d 120, 122 (2004) ("When no ordinance is presented to the appellate court through the record on appeal, the appellate court is not permitted to take judicial notice of the ordinance if it exists." (citation omitted)); see also Cty. of Durham v. Roberts, 145 N.C. App. 665, 671, 551 S.E.2d 494, 498 (2001) (refusing to consider appellant's zoning-ordinance-interpretation argument where, although the ordinance was attached in an appendix to the appellate brief, it was not included in the appellate record: "[E]xternal documents included in the appendix to defendant's brief are not considered here."). Further, the practical effect of the 2012 Order was to [***48] remand the matter to the Board, which yielded the 2013 Board Decision and, ultimately, the 2014 Order on appeal. Because we have already determined that the superior court in its 2014 Order properly concluded that the challenged shooting activities do not constitute "agritourism" as a matter of law, and because we have already determined that the superior court in its 2017 Order properly affirmed the 2016 Board Decision that concluded the only remaining activity—Drake Landing's operation of its controlled hunting preserve for domestically raised game birds—is exempt from countywide zoning, and that petitioners are procedurally [*498] barred from objecting to that decision, no shooting activities remain to be challenged. Accordingly, we dismiss intervening-respondents' challenges to the 2012 Order on the grounds that they failed to include the UDO in the appellate record and on the grounds that, in light of our dispositions of the 2014 and 2017 Orders, their challenges to the 2012 Order are now moot. V. Conclusion Under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 160A-393(j) and (k)(1), the superior court was only required to address those issues raised by intervening-respondents' petition for certiorari review of the 2016 Board Decision and to ensure [***49] that intervening-respondents' rights were not prejudiced, as petitioners never raised any written objection to that decision, [**53] requested any alternative relief, or moved to intervene as a petitioner. The superior court also properly refused to consider petitioners' objections to the 2016 Board Decision for the first time at the certiorari hearing because petitioners were procedurally barred from challenging that decision by failing to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-393's requirements. Accordingly, based on intervening- respondents' petition for certiorari review, and on petitioners' failures to timely challenge that decision, the superior court did not err by affirming the 2016 Board Decision. We thus affirm the 2017 Order. Additionally, based on our de novo interpretation of applicable provisions of the statutory farm exemption from countywide zoning, we hold that the particular outdoor shooting activities at issue here do not constitute "agritourism" as a matter of law and are thus subject to zoning. We therefore affirm the 2014 Order. Finally, because intervening-respondents have failed to include in the appellate record the UDO upon which they primarily rely to support their appeal from the 2012 Order, [***50] and because our resolutions of petitioners' appeal from the 2017 Order and intervening-respondents' appeal from the 2014 Order renders moot the issues they raised with respect to the 2012 Order, we dismiss intervening-respondents challenges to the 2012 Order. 259 N.C. App. 473,*497;817 S.E.2d 36,**52;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***47 AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. Chief Judge McGEE concurs. Judge MURPHY concurs in result only. End of Document 259 N.C. App. 473,*498;817 S.E.2d 36,**53;2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 494,***50 PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 June 25, 2026, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair Cynthia Lynch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and welcomed attendees. She noted the meeting would follow a quasi-judicial format and that testimony would be limited to competent, material, and substantial evidence regarding the appeal under consideration. Roll Call - Conducted by Staff Michie Brandon. The following members were present: • Steve Evans • Bernhard Lampert • James Thomasson • Cynthia Lynch • Hunt Fitzgerald A quorum was declared. The Planning Director stated that AP-1-2026 was resolved by the applicant pulling a hardship permit. 3. CONFLICT OR INTEREST The Chair stated the discussion on Item AP-2-26 would not be held due to the appellant not being present. The Chair instructed Board members to examine themselves for any conflicts of interest and, if any exist, to contact the Board's Attorney, Brian Ferrell. No conflicts were declared. No conflicts were declared. 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Chair Lynch opened the floor for approval of the March 17, 2026, minutes. No corrections were noted. Member Thomasson made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Member Fitzgerald. The motion passed 5-0. 5. REGULAR AGENDA DISCUSSION The Chair opened the hearing and stated that the appellant Ms. Battle had made a formal request for continuance. The Planning Director stated that he supported the appellant's request for a continuance. Staff Attorneys Michael Bowen and Attorney T.C. Morphis stated that the Boards Attorney Brian Ferrell was hired to advise the Board during the appeal, and they have run into a procedural technicality that Attorney Brian Ferrell raised, which is that the meeting be continued. Because the property is held in a trust, the appellant must be represented by an Attorney to protect the interests of the trust. The Staff Attorneys Bowen and Morphis stated that they supported providing the appellant with an opportunity to obtain legal counsel to represent the trust. The Chair asked for a motion to continue AP-02-2026. Member Lampert made a motion. Member Evans seconded. The motion passed 5-0. The Board discussed which day would be best to continue the meeting. The Board agreed on June 25, 2026 so that Staff Attorneys Bowen and Morphis would be present as well. The Board agreed to amend the motion. New Business Chair Lynch asked whether there was a way for Board members to avoid attending meetings in person when no active cases were scheduled. Staff Attorney Morphis stated that, unfortunately, when a hearing has been scheduled and there is a continuance request, there is not a better way to handle it administratively because, even though the Chair runs the meeting, the Board votes on whether to continue it. The Planning Director asked for clarity that if a quorum is not present, they can continue without formal action. Staff Attorney Morphis stated he would have to check but he thought that was correct and per statute. It would automatically be bumped into the next meeting. Member Fitzgerald asked if modern policy had allowed for online meetings at all. Attorney Morphis stated that he did not know if there was a specific policy in Person County. Attorney Morphis stated that state law allows the Board to conduct a remote meeting during a declared state of emergency. Attorney Morphis explained that state law may allow remote participation under certain circumstances, but not necessarily fully virtual meetings. The Attorney stated that for a Quasi-judicial meeting anyone who is voting needs to be sufficiently apprised of the evidence so that they can be informed. The Attorney stated that he had a concern if the county does not have a written policy and two, he had a concern of due process so he would not recommend an online meeting right now due to the ambiguity of the law. Member Lampert asked what would happen if the Board decided not to grant the continuance. Staff Attorney Morphis stated that, while it was a good hypothetical question, the Board did not have sufficient information before it that evening to make such a determination. ADJOURNMENT Member Evans moved to adjourn. Member Lampert seconded. Vote: Motion carried unanimously, 5–0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. ___________________________________ Chair, Cynthia Lynch ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning