Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Person County residents urge action after new Mayo Lake dock rule; commissioners to invite Duke Energy, wildlife officials
Summary
Residents from Mayo Lake told commissioners a recent Wildlife Resources Commission rule banning docks left for more than 24 consecutive hours could depress property values and tax revenues; the board agreed to place the issue on the next agenda and asked Duke Energy and wildlife officials to attend.
At the March 2, 2026 Person County Board of Commissioners meeting, Mayo Lake residents pressed the board to intervene after an administrative rule from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission changed language governing docks and piers on Mayo Lake.
Dan Phillips, speaking for a small group of lake residents, said the rule now reads that "placement of docks, piers, and personal property for more than 24 consecutive hours on the shoreline or lake bed of Mayo Lake is prohibited," and that enforcement has shifted from the power company to wildlife enforcement. "This was a well-planned, well-executed ambush coordinated by Duke Energy and Wildlife to achieve a goal without our input," Phillips said, urging the county to ask Duke to pause enforcement while residents seek a compromise.
Phillips told the board the change could cut lake-property values by an estimated 20 to 30 percent and suggested the county could lose about $25 million in valuation, which he said would reduce property tax revenue. He also said residents plan to retain counsel to challenge the rule if necessary.
Board chair Perier said county leaders had been surprised by the rule and that the item will be added to the board's next regular agenda so officials from Duke Energy and the Wildlife Resources Commission can answer questions. "I would ask that an official from Duke and an official from wildlife be present so they can answer some questions from this board," Perier said, adding the county attorney will research options including a possible resolution of support for homeowners.
County officials did not provide new technical findings at the meeting. The board's action was procedural: scheduling the issue for further public discussion with agency representatives present. No formal legal action or vote on a policy opposing the rule occurred at the March 2 meeting.
Next steps: the board will place the Mayo Lake rule on its next regular agenda and expects to invite representatives from Duke Energy and the Wildlife Resources Commission to explain the rule change and enforcement plans.
