With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or will be adversely affected.” Id. (citation omitted). We have held that “[e]xamples of adequate pleadings include allegations that the rezoning would cut off the light and air to the petitioner’s property, increase the danger of fire, increase the traffic congestion and increase the noise level.” Id. at 769-70, 431 S.E.2d at 232. However, the “mere averment that [petitioners] own land in the immediate vicinity of the property for which the special use permit is sought, absent any allegation of special damages ... in their Petition, is insufficient to confer standing upon them.” Sarda, 156 N.C. App. at 215, 575 S.E.2d at 831 (quotation omitted) (citing Lloyd v. Town of Chapel Hill, 127 N.C. App. 347, 351, 489 S.E.2d 898, 900 (1997)); Kentallen, 110 N.C. App. at 770, 431 S.E.2d at 233 (<HOLDING>). In this case, Petitioners alleged in their

A: holding that the owner of property who retained an independent contractor did not owe any nondelegable duty of care to the plaintiff who had slipped and fallen on the adjoining sidewalk
B: holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner
C: holding that plaintiff may satisfy the state of mind pleading requirement simply by saying that scienter existed
D: holding that petitioners allegation that it is the owner of adjoining property does not satisfy the pleading requirement
D.