to as ‘land farming,’ soil remediation does not fit within the above description of agricultural uses. No products are grown or sold and the tilling of the soil is related to a chemical process rather than to production of crops or plants.”), disc. review improvidently allowed, 349 N.C. 348, 507 S.E.2d 272 (1998); Sedman, 127 N.C. App. at 704, 492 S.E.2d at 622 (“[T]he activities in which Multiflora is engaged including the construction of a driveway, the use of the driveway by large trucks to export plants from the premises, the operation of thirty-seven fans emitting low frequency sound and the selling of plants on the premises, fall within the bona fide farm purposes exemption . ...”); Baucom’s Nursery Co. v. Mecklenburg Co., 62 N.C. App. 396, 401, 303 S.E.2d 236, 239 (1983) (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 322 N.C. 834, 371 S.E.2d
holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on trespass as a lesser included offense of breaking and entering because appellant failed to advise the court which of the numerous trespass statutes he considered to be lesser included to the offense charged holding the nursery and greenhouse to be a bona fide farm because agricultural operations included growing vegetables flowers and shrubs holding that each element required under the act must be included in the written notice and each element must be sufficiently clear and accurate  holding that evidence showed hewlettwhite florist shop had been an established business for thirtythree years and that the sale of flowers was not an uncertain or speculative business so as to preclude lostprofits award