Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Appeal Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pender County board continues Salty Acres appeal after public-records dispute
Summary
The Pender County Board of Adjustments voted to continue an appeal from Salty Acres Adventure Park LLC, citing an outstanding public-records request and related jurisdictional questions; the continuation was unanimous.
The Pender County Board of Adjustments on July 16 voted unanimously to continue Appeal 2025-15, an administrative appeal filed by Salty Acres Adventure Park LLC challenging a notice of violation for operating a commercial adventure park without permits.
The board’s action followed requests from the appellant’s attorney, Grady Richardson, who told the board he had submitted a public-records request on April 22 and had not received the documents he said were necessary to prepare meaningful testimony. "As of today, I have not seen one sheet of paper from my public records request," Richardson said. Richardson asked the board to continue the hearing so his client could receive and review the records.
Daniel Adams, Pender County planning and community development director, told the board that county public-records responses are routed through the clerk to the board and that the county had a backlog of large requests. Adams noted staffing turnover in the clerk’s office and said some documents had been uploaded but the clerk must finalize their publication. Matt Nichols, the board’s attorney, and board members asked whether the records were relevant to threshold jurisdictional questions; Richardson said the records were "absolutely germane" because his position is that a previous notice of violation issued in December had been resolved and that the county’s April 4 notice was a separate matter.
The board approved a motion to continue the appeal to a date to be determined once the requested public records were produced and Richardson had adequate time to review them. The motion passed with five votes in favor.
The continuance preserves any arguments previously raised by the parties. Board members and county staff noted that enforcement stays while an appeal is pending under the county’s Unified Development Ordinance, meaning county enforcement action would not proceed while the appeal remains pending. The board directed staff and counsel to coordinate with the parties to set a new hearing date after records are made available.
Speakers who addressed the board during the matter included the appellant’s counsel, Grady Richardson; Daniel Adams, planning and community development director; Matt Nichols, attorney representing the board; and members of the public who raised concerns about ongoing activity at the site.
