Business owners say Granville County planning rules forced auction company to leave; county attorney defends enforcement

Landon Tate, co-owner of Grandpa Auction Company, told the Granville County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 20 that a months-long exchange with county planning staff over zoning compliance culminated in new, last-minute requirements that made it impossible for the business to continue operating in the county. "We were misled. We were dismissed. And frankly, I felt belittled," Tate said, describing a notice of violation and a later special-use-permit process he called opaque and unfair.

Tate and his partner Perry Enloe said the planning director gave them guidance that discouraged an appeal and then later imposed a 10-item checklist with a three-business-day deadline to keep a scheduled hearing. Enloe told the board the auction operation generated significant sales-tax revenue — he estimated the county’s 2% share from their auctions topped $100,000 in the last 12 months — and said the county’s handling of the zoning matter drove the business to relocate to Person County.

County Attorney Ed Wren and planning staff described a different timeline. Wren said county staff received a formal complaint in June 2025 and, after investigation, issued a notice of violation on June 11. Staff determined large-scale, repeat commercial auctions and on-site storage were taking place on a 14.3-acre parcel zoned AR-40 (agricultural/residential), which Wren said does not allow ongoing commercial auction operations without additional approvals. Wren said the company submitted a special-use-permit application on Sept. 9; planning staff requested clarifying information from the applicant on Sept. 25 — including site setbacks, screening, floodplain and parking details, and whether a traffic-impact analysis would be required — and asked for an electronic revised site plan ahead of a review scheduled Oct. 1. "These were standard questions and easily addressed," Wren said.

Wren directly disputed one public claim. He said the planning director did not advise the applicants not to file an appeal and that the verbal and written communications he reviewed were routine application comments, not legal advice discouraging an appeal. The planning director also sought North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) input about whether the road fronting the parcel was an arterial/collector, a detail that affects screening and driveway-permit requirements.

Commissioners repeatedly framed the dispute as a tension between enforcing zoning rules and supporting local businesses. Several members urged staff to review whether procedures and communications could be improved to avoid similar breakdowns. "We need to evaluate how we've been treated and make changes to ensure no other business is stomped out by your zoning regulations," Enloe told the board.

Board members noted the special-use-permit process includes public notice and a hearing where conditions can be negotiated. Staff said the company waited roughly three months between the notice of violation and the special-use-permit submission. The board did not reverse enforcement or grant an immediate exemption; commissioners did invite staff to review processes and to consider potential legislative changes to the land-development ordinance if the county wants to allow broader activity in AR-40 districts.

Next steps: staff described the special-use-permit review requirements and said any future rezoning or text-amendment requests would be legislative matters for the board. No formal board direction to relax zoning enforcement was recorded; the county attorney urged consistent, law-based enforcement to preserve fairness across property owners.