Real Property  –  Zoning – Firing Range – Farm ID Number – Insufficient Findings

We improvidently granted certiorari as to the Court of Appeals’ decision (Although petitioners’ Agriculture Farm Identification Number is “sufficient evidence [their] property is being used for bona fide farm purposes,” G.S. § 153A-340(b)(2), it is not conclusive evidence. In upholding a notice of violation issued to petitioners because they were operating a firing range on their property, the Cumberland County Board of Adjustment (the Board) made no findings as to how frequently petitioners or their invitees used firearms on their property, whether the property was used for target practice or formal firearms training, or whom petitioners allowed to use the property. Absent those material factual findings, we are unable to determine on appellate review (1) how the Board interpreted the zoning ordinance’s Farm Exemption, and the “occasional use” exception in the Firing Range Amendment to the county’s zoning ordinance; and (2) how the Board applied those interpretations to the facts before it. Nor should the superior court have made such a determination.).

Hampton v. Cumberland County (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-045-10, 1 p.) (Per curiam) Appealed from Cumberland County Superior Court (Robert Floyd Jr., J.) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Garris Neil Yarborough for petitioners; Robert Hasty for respondent. N.C. S. Ct.