HomeMy WebLinkAboutWrit of Certiorari-DL CaseFILE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
2 ? . R 112: L13
HARNETTCOUNTY
KENT JEFFRIES,,' ___ .�,�✓)
BOBBIE L. JEFFRIES, )
GLENN FINCH, )
LYNWOOD HARE, )
and )
SUSAN R. LUNDBERG )
Petitioners, )
V. )
COUNTY OF HARNETT, )
Respondent. )
and )
WILLIAM DANIEL ANDREWS )
and DANIEL B. ANDREWS )
}
Respondents (Applicants). )
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
14 CVS 14
(BA- CU-- 18 -14)
CJ 20 b
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
THIS CAUSE coming to be heard before the undersigned Clerk or Assistant Clerk of
Superior Court of Harnett County, North Carolina upon the filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
and this Court, finding the Writ should be allowed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 153A -341,
160A -388, and 160A -393.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED the Respondent County of Harnett prepare and
certify to this Court within ninety (90) days of this Order the complete record of the proceedings
of the Conditional Use Permit Hearing on William Daniel Andrews Application for Conditional
Use for Recreational Facility Consisting of Commercial Outdoor Firing Range and listed
accessory uses, Harnett County Board of Adjustment, BA- CU- 18 -14.
1/2 OCT 13 2014
The record shall include the transcript of the Harnett County Board of Adjustment's proceedings
held on August 27, 2014 and August 28, 2014, the exhibits introduced at the proceedings, the
decision of the Board and all other documentation that constitute the record of the proceedings
before the Board on August 27, 2014 and August 28, 2014 so that the Court may review the
Board's decision and the record in this matter. The Petitioners shall serve the Petition and the
Writ upon the Respondents named herein in the manner provided for service of a Complaint
under Rule 40) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
This the 8th day of October, 2014.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
HARNETT COUNTY
Clerk/Assistant Clerk of Superior Court
for Harnett County
REC I,V-
OCT 19 2014
2/2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
251€! r17 _?; '' ISUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
HARNETT COUNTY 14 CVS 14_
(BA- CU- 18 -14)
KENT JEFFRIES, C _- )_ ` 02 (►
BOBBIE L. JEFFRIES, )
GLENN FINCH, )
LYNWOOD HARE, )
and )
SUSAN R. LUNDBERG )
Petitioners, )
V. )
COUNTY OF HARNETT, )
Respondent,
and
WILLIAM DAN ANDREWS and
DANIEL B. ANDREWS
Respondents
(Applicants).
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HARNETT COUNTY:
PETITION FOR WRIT
OF CERTIORARI
Petitioners Kent Jeffries, Bobbie L. Jeffries, Glenn Finch,
Lynnwood Hare, and Susan R. Lundberg ( "Petitioners ") , by and
through their attorney, Susan R. Lundberg, request that a Writ
of Certiorari issue pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A -341 and
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A- 388(e2)(2) to review and vacate the
decision of the Harnett County Board of Adjustment ( "Board ")
dated September 9, 2014, case number BA- CU- 18 -14, which decision
granted William Daniel Andrews ( "Andrews ") and Daniel B. Andrews
and Joyce Andrews a Non - Residential Conditional Use Permit (CU
Permit) allowing a Recreational Facility consisting of a
Commercial Outdoor Firing Range, operating under the name of
Drake Landing, and certain uses claimed to be customarily
incidental /accessory activities associated with an Commercial
Outdoor Firing Range on 218.9 acres contained in two parcels of
land located at 3146 Chalybeate Springs Road, Fuquay - Varina,
North Carolina in northeast Harnett County (the Property) . The
requested "accessory "uses are listed on Attachment A of William
Daniel Andrews' July 24, 2014 CU Permit Application. Andrews'
CU Permit Application, including all Attachments, is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
In support of this Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
Petitioners respectfully show unto the Court the following:
1. Petitioner Kent Jeffries ( "Petitioner Jeffries ") is
the record owner of real property located on Purfoy Road,
Fuquay-Varina, Harnett County, North Carolina, PIN 0664 -46-
5391.000. Petitioner Jeffries' property is located approximately
one -half mile from and within earshot, outdoors and indoors, of
Andrews' Commercial Firing Range. The constant shooting
activities have severely harmed Petitioner Jeffries. Whenever
the commercial firing range is open, Jeffries' property is
bombarded with the loud and constant sounds of gunshots. The
RECEIVED
2/22 OCT 13 2014
firing and shooting noises generally begin as soon as the
commercial firing range opens in the morning and last until it
closes in the evening. Jeffries can no longer frequent the
outdoors portions of his property because the noises are so loud
and so constant that he cannot concentrate, for example, while
reading outside, gardening or hiking his property for fitness.
The noises make the property very unpleasant and disorienting,
and thereby render the property unmarketable, creating a
significant diminution in value. The Harnett County Board of
Equalization and Review ( "BER ") determined that the Andrews
Commercial Outdoor Firing Range had negatively impacted the
value of certain properties due to their proximity to the Firing
Range. Based on this determination the assessed tax value of
Jeffries property was substantially lowered due its proximity to
Andrews' Commercial Firing Range. In addition, an independent
real estate appraiser appraised Jeffries property and determined
that the Jeffries property suffered a ten percent (10 %)
devaluation in market value due to the external nuisance caused
by the noise from the shooting activities conducted on Andrews
Commercial Outdoor Firing Range.
2. Petitioner Bobbie Jeffries is the record owner of real
property located on Purfoy Road, Fuquay- Varina, Harnett County,
North Carolina. Petitioner Bobbie Jeffries' property is located
approximately one -half mile from, and within earshot in her yard
RECEIVED
3/22 OCT 13 2014
1 = AA �
and in her home, of the Commercial Firing Range and its
activities operating on the Property. Prior to Andrews opening
their Commercial Firing Range on the Property, Bobbie Jeffries
built her retirement home on her family's third generation farm,
and retired there. Prior to this Commercial Outdoor Firing
Range opening, Bobbie Jeffries enjoyed her porch, her outdoor
activities, and walking on her property. She also enjoyed
spending time in her home, entertaining, reading and relaxing.
Bobbie Jeffries can no longer enjoy these outside or inside
activities. Carrying on a conversation on her porch or in her
yard is basically impossible when the Andrews' Commercial Firing
Range is open. Entertaining in her home is no longer enjoyable
for her or her guests due to the excessive and constant noise
from the Andrews' Firing Range. This Commercial Firing Range
has robbed Bobbie Jeffries of her retirement home, plans and
dreams. The Harnett County Board of Equalization and Review
( "BER ") substantially lowered the assessed tax value of Jeffries
property due its proximity to Andrews' commercial firing range.
3. Petitioner Glenn Finch is the record owner of real
property located on Morning Glory Lane, Fuquay- Varina, Harnett
County, North Carolina. Petitioner Finch's property is located
approximately one half mile from the Property and in the direct
line of fire of any shooting activities conducted from the area
formerly used as the rifle range
4/22
Petitioner Finch's home has
RECENSD
OCR' 13 2014
�.----- �
been struck by bullets that have penetrated into the interior of
the home originating from the direction of Andrews commercial
firing range. Petitioner Finch and his family are frightened
and very concerned about their safety, health and well being
when in their home and outside in their yard. Andrew's
Commercial Firing Range has basically taken away Petitioner
Finch and his family reasonable use and enjoyment of their
property. Pursuant to BER's decision, Finch's property qualifies
for a lowered assessed tax value due its proximity to Andrews'
Commercial Outdoor Firing Range.
4. Petitioner Lynwood Hare (Petitioner Hare or Hare) is
record owner of property located on Purfoy Road, Fuquay- Varina,
Harnett County, North Carolina. Petitioner Hare's property is
approximately three - fourths of a mile from the Property and
Andrews' Commercial Outdoor Firing Range. Hare is a retired
farmer accustomed to farming and agricultural sounds and noises.
He is also accustomed to hearing gunshot noise during hunting
seasons. Hare and his wife enjoyed their property in the
Country until Andrews opened a Commercial Outdoor Shooting Range
on the Property located on the Andrews farm. Hare no longer
enjoys living at his property because of the loud, excessive and
constant noise from the Andrews' Firing Range. The Firing Range
has made it extremely unpleasant to be outside in his yard. The
Firing Range noise has also negatively impacted inside
RECEIVED
5/22 OCT 13 2014
acti- ,:ities. When the Firing Range is operating Hare and his
wife have no peace and quiet in and around their home. To really
enjoy a day when the Firing Range is open they must leave their
property. The Harnett County Board of Equalization and Review
(BER) substantially lowered the assessed tax value of Hare's
property due its proximity to Andrews' Commercial Outdoor Firing
Range.
5. Petitioner Susan Lundberg (Petitioner Lundberg or
Lundberg) is record owner of property located in the
neighborhood of Neill's Creek Farm on Wheeler Road, Angier,
Harnett County, North Carolina. Petitioner Lundberg's property
is approximately one and one - fourth miles from the Property.
Petitioner Lundberg purchased her property in 1993. Neill's
Creek Farm subdivision is a horse community and has a riding and
walking trail inside the neighborhood along Neill's Creek.
Lundberg is a horse owner and purchased her property to have
seven acres in the country with a horse riding and walking
trail. Lundberg extensively researched the area surrounding
Neill's Creek subdivision and its riding trail prior to
purchasing her property. Lundberg wanted property in the
country with a riding trail located away from constant noise,
including traffic noise, so that the ride would be peaceful and
relaxing for both her and her horses. Lundberg wanted a riding
trail that was long enough to provide a good two hours or more
RECEIVED
6 /22 OCT 13 2014
of riding. Lundberg checked into the type of property and
property uses of the properties surrounding Neill's Creek and it
riding trails to ensure that the riding trails would be
relatively quiet for enjoyable riding. There were no commercial
outdoor firing ranges on the properties surrounding Neill's
Creek farms. Neither Andrews nor his parents, Daniel and Joyce
Andrews, operated a commercial firing range on the Property at
issue or on any of their property at that time. Rather, the
Andrews property was a true working farm. A riding trail in a
horse community increases the value of the property in the
community. The horse owner no longer needs to trailer to ride
their horse. They can ride from their own back yard and ride in
their own community. Lundberg was willing to pay more for her
property because of the riding trails. Lundberg purchased her
property and sold her horse trailer. Lundberg is an outside
person. She enjoyed her seven acres in the country and the
riding trails extensively until the Andrews began operating the
Commercial Outdoor Firing Range on the Property. Lundberg lost
the reasonable use and enjoyment of her real property and the
riding trails due to the loud, extensive and continuous gunshot
and firing noise from Andrews Commercial Firing Range. The gun
firing and shooting noise has made the Neill's Creek riding and
walking trails basically unusable for Lundberg. When the Firing
Range is operating being on the trail is like being in a war
RECEIVED
7/22 OCT 13 2014
26: 2, (
zone. It is unsafe to ride a horse in such noise and is a
struggle to even get a horse to enter onto the trail with the
gun fire noise. In fact, one of Lundberg's horses basically
refuses to go onto the trail when the shooting noise is present.
Her other horse will go but is very unsettled making it unsafe
to ride him on the trail. In addition, the gun fire noise is
unsettling to Lundberg causing her anxiety and stress. Andrews
Commercial Outdoor Firing Range has robbed Lundberg of the
riding trails, the reason she purchased her property. Losing
the use of the riding trails has not only decreased the value of
Lundberg's property for Lundberg, it has also decreased the
market value of Lundberg's property to all others, especially
other horse owners. In fact, due to Andrews Commercial Firing
Range, Lundberg appealed her assessed tax value and argued this
loss in value due to the Andrews Commercial Shooting Range and
the assessed tax value of her property was substantially
lowered. Lundberg would not have purchased her property if the
Andrews Commercial Outdoor Firing Range had been in existence at
that time nor would she purchase her property today because of
its existence.
6. Respondent County of Harnett (the "County ") is a
municipal corporation and a body corporate and politic,
chartered and organized under and by virtue of the laws of the
State of North Carolina. The County is named as a Respondent to
RECEIVED
8/22 OCT 13 2014
this certiorari proceeding pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-
345.1, §160A -388 and § 160A- 393(e).
7. Respondent William Daniel Andrews (Andrews), record
owner of the Property, applied for the CU Permit for the
Property.
8. Respondent Daniel B. Andrews also signed Andrews CU
Permit Application.
9. Andrews sought the CU Permit only after he was found
to be in violation of the Harnett County Zoning Ordinance by
operating a commercial firing range on the Property which is
zoned Residential and Agricultural RA -30 and Conservation. Per
the Harnett County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) the RA -30
district is established as primarily a single family residential
and agricultural district, but includes occasional two - family
and multifamily structures.
10. Andrews Commercial Outdoor Firing Range, known as
Drake Landing, is a large -scale commercial outdoor shooting
facility. It conducts advertising campaigns and its facilities
are open to the public for an admission fee. There are multiple
shooting ranges, including, archery courses; continental tower
shoots; sporting clay courses; skeet and trap ranges; pistol
shooting pits; rifle shooting ranges and shot gun shooting
stations. It also had a rifle shooting range until it was
determined to be unsafe this spring. William Daniel Andrews,
operator of Drake Landing has conducted numerous corporate
outing events and firearms competitions on this Commercial
Firing Range.
11. Andrews Commercial Outdoor Firing Range currently
operates shooting activities Wednesday through Saturday, 9:00 am
until 7:00 pm, year round, including holidays. The shooting
activities are clearly audible within the interior of
surrounding residences. Significant traffic enters and exits
the gun ranges, especially during the corporate outings and
firearms competitions. This significant traffic also negatively
affects the surrounding properties.
Findings of Fact of the Board
12. The Board's Findings of Fact are erroneous as a matter
of law as they are often in conflict and contradictory to the
requirements of Section 3.0 of Article VII of the Zoning
Ordinance of Harnett County.
13. The Board's Findings of Fact and its decision are not
supported by and are contrary to the substantial material and
competent evidence presented at the hearing and are, therefore,
arbitrary and capricious.
14. The Board's First Finding of Fact (Finding 1) , that
Andrews requested use for a Commercial Outdoor Firing Range is
in harmony with the surrounding area and compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood because "the land in the area is
RECEIVED
10/22
OCT 13 2014
primarily agricultural ..." is not supported by the competent,
material, and substantial evidence that was presented at the
hearing.
15. Harnett County and the Board acknowledge that the
Property and Andrews Commercial Firing Range is in a Residential
and Agricultural (RA) - 30 and Conservation Zoning District.
Pursuant to the Harnett County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), an RA -30 Zoning District includes medium density
residential housing. The address map contained in the Harnett
County Planning Department's packet prepared for the Board
establishes that the surrounding area to the Property reflects a
medium density housing district as it is comprised of numerous
established residential neighborhoods. The address map and
undisputed testimony of property owners establishes that a
number of these neighborhoods are located less than 3 miles from
the Property and a number of homes are under a mile from the
Property. The Property is less than 2 miles from the Wake
County line.
16. The overall determination of Finding 1 is arbitrary
and capricious as it is not supported by competent, material and
substantial evidence.
17. Finding 1, that the land in the area is primarily
agricultural is erroneous as a matter of law based on the UDO
and the Land Use Plan and does not support its determination
RECEIVED
11/22 OCT 13 2014
that the Andrews requested use for a Commercial Outdoor Firing
Range is in harmony with the surrounding area and compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
18. Finding 1 also states that Andrews requested use for a
Commercial Outdoor Firing Range on the Property is in harmony
with the surrounding area and compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood because there are 9 properties surrounding Drake
Landing (the Property) that have ranges on them." This part of
Finding 1 is not supported by competent, material, and
substantial evidence and is arbitrary and capricious. The
Andrews CU Permit is for a Commercial Outdoor Firing Range that
consists of numerous shooting and firing activities. Very
limited evidence was presented about any of the 9 other
properties or the ranges on these properties. There was no
evidence presented that the other ranges are commercial outdoor
firing ranges or that any of them are operating under a
conditional use permit. No evidence was presented regarding any
of the specifics of any of these ranges. No evidence was
presented as to the size of the ranges, what shooting activities
are being conducted, the type of weapons being used, how often
these ranges are used or the average duration of the use.
Without more evidence regarding the 9 other properties and the
Nxranges" on them, the existence of these ranges is not relevant
or material to Andrews requested use or whether such use is in
RECEIVED
12/22 OCT 13 2014
-fLh�
harmony with surrounding area and compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
19. There is a lack of a rational basis for Finding of
Fact Number 3 (Finding 3), that the requested use, the Andrews
Commercial Firing Range, will not substantially injure the value
of adjoining property, as it is not supported by the substantial
evidence and therefore is arbitrary and capricious.
20. Foremost, there were no appraisals presented at the
hearing that showed that use of the Property as Andrews
Commercial Firing Range did not harm property values. Real
estate appraiser Grant Linderman did testify that the Andrews
Commercial Firing Range was not a detriment to future
development. He did NOT present an appraisal of the value of
any property adjoining to or within the surrounding area of the
Property. Board member Mary Jane Bartlett asked Linderman how
could noise not be a detriment to medium residential
development. Linderman did not address the question; rather he
responded that there is no planned development in the
foreseeable future, 5 to 10 years.
21. An appraisal of Petitioner Kent Jeffries property was
conducted by independent real estate appraiser John (Jack)
Coleman was presented. Appraiser Coleman determined that the
Jeffries property suffered a ten percent (loo) devaluation in
market value due to the external nuisance caused by the noise
RECEIVE D
13/22 OCT 13 2014
from the shooting activities conducted on Andrews' Commercial
Outdoor Firing Range.
22. David Senter, manager, registered agent and
representative of adjoining property owner VLS Real Estate, LLC,
and adjoining property owner Senter Investment Group, LLC,
testified that Andrews Commercial Firing Range will be very
detrimental to the development value of and greatly diminish the
development opportunities for their properties consisting of
approximately 200 acres.
23. Numerous property owners testified to the frequency,
duration and intensity of the noise from the Commercial Firing
Range and that the firing range noise differed substantially
from the other noises in and around the surrounding area and
negatively impacted the value of their property and their
neighborhood overall.
24. A number of property owners in the surrounding area
testified that they would not have purchased their property or
built their homes in the surrounding area if the Commercial
Outdoor Firing Range had been operating on the Property at the
time they purchased or built.
25. In addition, the second part /sentence of Finding 3
which states "the tax adjustment board did grant relief to
residents" (which is correct) directly contradicts the Board's
finding that the Commercial Firing Range will not substantially
RECEIVED
14/22 OCT 13 2014
harm the value of adjoining property. In October of 2010, the
Harnett County Board of Equalization and Review (BER) determined
that Andrews Commercial Outdoor Firing Range (Drake Landing)
negatively impacted the occupied residential properties located
within a one mile radius of the Commercial Firing Range and
substantially lowered the assessed tax value of such properties
upon value appeal. The Board's finding that the requested use
of the Property will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining property when it was fully aware of the BER's decision
establishes that this Finding is arbitrary and capricious.
26. It was also an error of law for the Board to conclude
that Andrews Commercial Outdoor Firing Range - Drake Land did
not harm property values when the BER had previously determined
that it did devalue certain property located within 1 mile of
the Property.
27. Finding 3 of the Board is also an error of law and an
abuse of its discretion for the Board to knowingly make a
finding that directly contradicted the BER decision.
28. The Board committed an error of law when it determined
that the Andrews Commercial Outdoor Firing Range is in
conformance with UDO, the Harnett County Land Use Plan and other
relevant adopted plans because it will go through the commercial
site plan review process. This is an incorrect interpretation
and application of this provision of the Conditional Use
requirements.
29. The Harnett County Land Use Plan calls for medium
density for the area where the Property is located. That the
requested use will go through the Commercial Site Plan and
review process does not determine that the requested use is in
conformity with the Land Use Plan, the UDO or other relevant
adopted plans. Finding 5 is an error of law.
30. The Harnett County Land Use Plan calls for medium
density for the area where the Property is located.
Considering the noise and other safety issues that come with a
commercial outdoor firing range there is not a rational basis
for the Board to find that such a use is in conformance with an
area calling for medium density, therefore the finding is
arbitrary and capricious.
31. In addition, on May 16, 2013, in BA- CU- 13 -13, this
Board determined that a commercial outdoor firing /shooting range
was not a use that was compatible or in general conformity with
an area that the Land Use Plan deemed medium density. Finding 5
is an error of law as it is materially inconsistent with the
Board's previous findings on this Conditional Use requirement.
32. The Board finding that provisions 2 and 4 are met
because the use is an allowed conditional use is an improper
standard. Whether this requested use "is an allowed conditional
RECEIVED
16/22
OCT 13 2014
use" is the question before the Board, and the Board cannot
answer the question before it with the question before it.
33. Asserting awareness of range safety and the
opportunity to practice shooting is an improper standard and
completely fails to address the question of endangerment to the
public health.
34. The Board's determination is facially erroneous as a
matter of law because the majority of the members of the Board
applied the wrong standard by basing its findings and
determinations on how to "split the baby" and "make everyone
happy" rather than determining whether the primary requested use
of operating a commercial outdoor firing range on the Property,
in and of itself, met all of the requirements of Section 3.0 of
Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance of Harnett County.
35. The Board's Findings of Fact and its determination are
contrary and in conflict with the Boards previous written
findings and determinations pertaining to commercial firing
ranges in medium density residential area in Harnett County and
are, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.
36. The Findings of Fact lack a rational basis as they are
not supported by the substantial evidence and are therefore
arbitrary and capricious.
37. The Board erroneously failed to consider the fact of
established residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area
RECEIVED
17/22 OCT 13 2014
and instead focused exclusively on whether there was
proposed /planned development. We are in a unique situation here
as the Board does not need to guess what will surround this
Property, there are established residential neighborhoods
surrounding it. These residential neighborhoods existed many
years prior to Andrews opening the Commercial Outdoor Firing
Range on the Property. This was an error of law and warrants a
de nova review.
38. Due Process rights of Petitioners were violated as the
Board provided no opportunity for the Petitioners to cross
examine Andrews or his witnesses.
39. During the hearing it became apparent that certain
Board members had exparte communications with Andrews regarding
proposed conditions to the CU Permit. Such communications
violated Petitioners' due process rights.
40. The Board committed an error of law when the Board
considered the history of the Andrews shooting activities on the
Property, the history of the Andrews Commercial Outdoor Firing
Range and the costs Andrews and his family incurred to develop
the Commercial Outdoor Firing Range in determining whether the
CU Permit should be granted. A de nova review is warranted.
41. It is an error of law for the Board to impose a number
of specific conditions that are requirements of the CU Permit,
such as a lead management plan, compliance with the Harnett
RECEIVED
18 /22 OCT 13 2014
County Noise ordinance limiting sound to 60 decibels at the
Property boundaries, and construction of the firing ranges per
the requirements of the Harnett County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), and then for the County to allow Andrews to
continue to operate the Commercial Outdoor Firing Range without
complying with these requirements. Such is in direct violation
of Article V, Section 7.5.6. of the UDO and invalidates the
entire CU Permitting process.
42. Even if the evidentiary rulings of the Board are
upheld, the Board's decision is contrary to law and policy and
its decision should be reversed and vacated under a de novo
standard of review.
43. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Board's
Findings of Fact and its decision to grant the CU Permit are
erroneous as a matter of law; unsupported by substantial,
competent, and material evidence; arbitrary and capricious; and
an abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray unto the Court for the
following relief:
1. That the Court issue a Writ of Certiorari to the
County, directing it to deliver to this Court and to
Petitioners, within ninety (90) days of the Writ being issued, a
certified copy of the complete record of the proceedings before
RECEIVED
19/22 OCT 13 20p014
the Board of Adjustment, including a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings;
2. That the Court allow Petitioners leave to file
additional memoranda of law in support of this Petition prior to
any hearing or decision in this case;
3. That the Court hold a hearing and review the Findings
of Fact and the decision of the Harnett County Board of
Adjustment and upon such review, reverse the decision of the
Board and remand the case to the Board, instructing the Board to
vacate and reverse its determination granting William Daniel
Andrews and Daniel B. Andrews and Joyce Andrews a Non -
Residential Conditional Use Permit ( "CU Permit ") for a
Recreational Facility consisting of an Commercial Outdoor Firing
Range, operated under the name of Drake Landing, and certain
uses claimed to be customarily incidental /accessory activities
on the Property;
4. That the Court accept this Petition as a verified
statement and affidavit of Petitioners;
5. That the Court tax Respondent with the costs of this
action, including reasonable attorney's fees; and
6. That the Court grant such other and further relief as
the Court deems just and proper.
20/22
This the 8th day of October, 2014.
1
Susan R Lundberg', Bar �$Q, 22652
Attorney for Petitioners
329 Wheeler Drive
Angier, NN 27501
Tel No. 919- 268 -0195
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HARNETT
Case: 14 CVS 02006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date copies of the
Writ of Certiorari and Petition for Writ of Certiorari were duly
served on Respondents by forwarding a copy thereof enclosed in a
postage -paid envelope, deposited in the United States mail and
addressed as follows:
Tommy Burns, County Manager
County of Harnett
102 East Front Street
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
Scott Tripp, Chair
Harnett County Board of Adjustment
102 East Front Street
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
Janet C. Smith, Esq.
Harnett County Department of Legal Services
P.O. Box 238
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
John Walker Bryant, Esq.
Attorney for Respondents William Dan Andrews,
Daniel Andrews and Joyce Andrews
J.W. Bryant Law Firm, PLLC
P.O. Drawer 909
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
This the "—day of October, 2014.
'Susan R. L'`gTndb e g , ,,,E-s -": �
Attorney for Petitioners
329 Wheeler Drive'- -`____
Angier, North Carolina 27501
I.
22/22 OCT 13 2014
jb��_