18620_DAVIS, BERTHA C_19980304

J
Applicant Narne U
Address
CAMA AND DREDGE AND FILL
j GENERAL STY 018620
,PERMIT 8,e4 v 7 t
as authorized by the State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC ^% —� 0�00
3
Phone Number
City 6 Z U v State _ IZ e-- zip �L
Project Locat' n (County, State Road, Water Body, etc.) Z—' L{ —t F-2 z2 7�
Type of Project Activi J — A cr } ! .! 13
.P ✓ , �+ l
PROJECT DESC IPTION SKETCH £'(ij,� PTA. (SCALE: �r )
Pier dock) length rGt ) C �i
1�5
Groin length
number
Bulkhead length
max. distance offshore ' a t i3 ©(A IDOL! I !' �
Basin, channel dimensions
cubes yards `
Boat ramp dimensions a 5'
Other
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site
drawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine,
imprisonment or civil action; and may cause the permit to be-
come nul( and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the
permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance.
The applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) this pro-
ject is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement has been obtained from
adiacent riparian landowners certifying that they have no
objections to the proposed work.
Gi'►„/l'v- c
applicant's signature
l �—
permit officer's signature
issuing date expiration date
attachments
In issuing this permit the State of North Carolina certifies that t^ �D 9r
this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal application #e 7 U,
R1,uaal;ernent Program.--

• ..
RIPARIAN AREA
RESULTING FROM "OLD POLICY"
ON ONE SIDE AND "NEW POLICY"
ON THE OTHER SIDE
3 PILE DOLPHIN
�I
02D gS
Gig
O, s
E DOLPHIN
4 g,
TAYLORS CREEK
CHANNEL as per USACE MAP
BEAUFORT HARBOR LINE 6/1/39
015
+,
OI3 \
014
+35
,a
a
24
36
• 0 2• •• .•
■■■■■■■■■■
GRAPHIC SCALE — FEET
■■■■■■■■■■

a) Will enforcement of the applicable development guidelines or standards causing the Petitioner
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships? If so, the petitioner must identify the difficulties or
hardships. (affirmative)
Along Front Street and, in particular, within my immediate area, piers have been permitted and
built using an unwritten variance defining the riparian boundary as the extension of the property
line. Specific properties, which were built parallel to the property line, include 915 and 917 Front
Street to the east and to the west 909 Front Street. No pier exists at 911 Front Street.
If the Coastal Resources Commission rule found in NCAC T15A: 0208(b)(6)(L), requiring the
riparian boundary to be perpendicular to the channel is applied to the west side of my riparian
area, but not to the east side, I will lose a significant portion of my riparian area. My east riparian
boundary was established as an extension to the property line by a permit issued to Bertha C.
Davis (915 Front Street) on 34-98 for a pier with outboard mooring pilings. If the west riparian
boundary is maintained in accordance with NCAC T15A: 0208(b)(6)(L), the distance between the
two riparian boundaries will be 38.84 feet at the water's edge and only 22.34 feet at the seaward
end. This will preclude using both sides of a pier built in the center of the riparian area.
b) Do such difficulties or hardships results from conditions peculiar to the Petitioner's property?
Explain. (affirmative)
Considering that my property is only 38 feet wide, the lose of 16 plus feet at the seaward end of
the riparian area is catastrophic in terms of usability.
c) Could the Coastal Resources Commission have reasonably anticipated these conditions when the
applicable guidelines or standards were adopted? Explain. (negative)
The adopted standards are not the problem. The problem is that the surrounding properties have
had their riparian areas defined by a variance (official or unofficial) setting the boundary as an
extension of the property line. Changing from a policy (established by actual permits issued) of
riparian boundary as an extension of the property lines to a policy of riparian boundary
perpendicular to the channel has significantly reduced my riparian area.
d) Is the proposed development consistent with the sprit, purpose, and intent of the Commission's
regulations? Explain. (affirmative)
The variance to build a pier in a riparian area defined by boundaries as extension of the property
lines will be consistent with the intent to ensure that each property owner's riparian area is
protected and that the water's edge dimensions are approximately equal to the seaward dimensions
(given the channel that does not bend).
The riparian area of my neighbor to the west (911 Front Street) will not be reduced since his west
the riparian boundary between him (911 Front St.) and his neighbor (909 Front St.) has already
been set as an extension of the property line.

ATLANTIC COAST
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING, PA
Steven D. Powers, PLS
L-2994
Bus: [phone] Fax: [phone]
PO Box 261, 129 Honeysuckle Lane, Harkers Island, NC 28531-0261
Im"MIll"I am���► '-
0 Wi IT�Mlllqffrim M-.1
yo�� IC-z- yc��Z_
SEP 3 0 1999

07-Feb-00 09:52am From -LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 9193804640 T-593 P.02/02 F-231
Mr. Ted Tyndel
Division of Coastal Management
Hestron Plaza II, I51-B, Hwy 24
Morehead City, NC, 28557
Mr. Tyndel,
7 Feb. 2000
In my efforts to replace my pier at 913 Front St. with a Floating dock, I find that ray riparian rights are being
denied by previous and present events. This letter is an effort to inform you of the facts, as I know them,
and to provide a solution, which ensure all parties retain their riparian rights.
In the past, all docks for properties along Front St. have been installed with the assumption that the
riparian boundary was an extension of the property line. When adjacent property owners agreed to a
proposed dock it was based on this assumption, CAMA never informed these property owners that the
proposed dock might cross over the legal definition (perpendicular to the waterway) of the riparian
boundary.
On 3/4/98 CAMA issued a permit to Bertha Davis to build a dock just to the east of my property.
This dock was built using the extension of property line as the riparian boundary. The resulting dock and
its associated pilings extend over into what is the legal riparian area of my property. Neither Mrs. Davis
nor myself were informed of this fact.
When I attempted to replace my pier with a floating dock and to bring my dock in line with the
other residents within my block, my neighbor to the west, John Kincheloe, objected sighting the legal
requirement for the riparian boundary. CAMA agreed, and is forcing me to install dock in accordance with
the legal definition of riparian boundaries. This requires me to remove one the pilings install by the Davis
and renders adjacent sides of Mrs. Davis' docks and mine almost useless.
In the mean time, Mr_ Kincheloe has gotten his neighbor to his west (John Lampros) to sign an
agreement, that establishes their common riparian boundary as an extension of the property line. Since this
reduces the total riparian area of John Lampros and most likely his property value, I will have to assume
that he believed the riparian boundary to be the extension of the property line and that Mr. Kincheloe did
not inform him other wise.
During this same time frame, John Lampros replaced the pier originally constructed by Charles
Barnes with a floating dock_ This new dock extends well to the west of his riparian area but the dock was
approved by CAMA and again no one was informed_
Establishing exactly what is the base line, which defines the waterway from which to draw the
perpendicular line to the property line at high water, does not appear to be straightforward. CAMA in my
case is using a 1939 US Army Corp of Engineers drawing which defines both the channel and the US Pier
& Bulkhead Line. Using a 60-year-old drawing to define the channel for Taylor Creek does not sound
ideal.
My objective is to ensure that 1 have the riparian boundaries that provide approximately the same
footage along the shoreline as along the waterway. Since I am boxed to the east by the Davis' pier and
pilings, installing my dock perpendicular to the waterway would not provide the riparian rights to both Mrs.
Davis and myself. However, if the riparian boundary for the west side of my property were set as an
extension of the common property line between John Kincheloe and myself, then Bertha Davis, John
Kincheloe, John Lampros and I would all have a riparian area where the shore side and waterway
dimensions are approximately to same.
Lester H. Sadler
913 Front St
Beaufort, NC
Beaufort [phone]
Office [phone]

07/13/99 TUE 10:48 FAX [phone] BULLUCK FURNITURE 002
Lester and Carole Sadler
Beaufort, NC
The following is a description of the work to be doze a 913 Front Street, Beaufort, NC
Remove the existing pier and the four pilings to the west of the pier.
Replace the pier with a six-foot NxIde 48-foot long loadug dock centered on the property and parallel to the
property line (Centerline of the floating pier will be approximately 17.4 feet from extension of property
line.) The existing platform on the water end of the dock house will be enlarged to provide a platform from
which to connect the ramp to the floating dock. The ramp and the floating dock will be at an angle from the
"shed". The four pilings will not be replaoed.
J
0
Q.
i
k
SO
yt��

Lester and Carole Sadler
913 Front Street '
Beaufort, NC
The following is a description of the work to be done a 913 Front Street, Beaufort, NC
Remove the existing pier and the four pilings to the west of the pier.
Replace the pier with a six-foot wide 48-foot long floating dock centered on the property and parallel to the
property line (Centerline of the floating pier will be approximately 17.4 feet from extension of property
line.) The existing platform on the water end of the dock house will be enlarged to provide a platform from
which to connect the ramp to the floating dock. The ramp and the floating dock will be at an angle from the
"shed". The four pilings will not be replaced.

I
To:
Fax
From:
Subject:
0 NSMISSION
FAX TfiA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
919-716-6600
Fax: [phone]
TED TYNDALL Date-.
252-247-3330 pages:
MERRIE JO ALCOXE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL
SADLER plIEHEARING STATEMENT
COMMENTS:
please review paragraph #2- 1 am keeping it broad.
6/1512000
5 (including cover sheet)
I am using the Yanceyville address for Mr. Sadler since that's what he put on the petition.
If you have any comments, please let me know.
Thinks,
Mi
Cp/3 5412
TO SZ:TT 00, ST Unf Z9Z9-9TZ-6T6: xPJ �Ud3N39 A3NdOliU '3'N

STATE OP 14ORTH CAkOLTNA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HF-AF-INGS
00 EHR 0668
Lester Hardy Sadler )
Petitioner, )
V. )
pnHEARING STATEMENT OF
DENLtIDi wge RESPONDENT (AND DOCUMENT
of Coastal CONSTITUTING AGENCY ACTION)
Management
Respondent. )
NOW COMES the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR" ),
Division of Coastal Management ("DCM"), Respondent, by and through its undersigned attorney,
Meredith Jo Alcoke, Assistant Attorney General, and files this Prehearing Statement in the
above -captioned matter pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §150B-33(b)(4) and N.C. Admin. Code Title
26, r. 3.0104 and an Order signed by the Honorable Melissa Owens Lassiter, Administrative Law
Judge, on May 16, 2000.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED, AND THE STATUTES, RULES, AND LEGAL
PRECEDENT INVOLVED.
This matter involves the denial of petitioner's request under the Coastal Area Management
1
Act ("CAMA") to remove an existing dock and constrict a new dock on Taylor's Creek, adjacent
to Petitioner's property at 913 Front Street in Beaufort, North Carolina.
At issue is whether DCM lawfully denied petitioner's permit application under the Coastal
Area Management Act, N. C. Gene. Stat. §l 13A-100, et seq. and the riles promulgated thereunder.
(A copy of the permit denial is attached hereto as the Document Constituting Agency Action.)
The controlling statutes and regulations include the CAMA statute and rules promulgated
1
ZO'd 9Z:TT 00, ST ME Z9Z9-9TZ-6T6:xp3 �dd3N39 A3N2011d '0'N

thereunder as cited above and the Administrative Procedure Act, N. C. Gen. Stat. §15013-1 et seq.
and rules promulgated thereunder. At this early stage of the proceedings, Respondent has not
determined the specific legal precedent which might be relevant or controlling in this contested
case.
2. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND REASONS SUPPORTING THE
RESPONDENT'S POSITIONS.
Petitioner applied for a CAMA General Permit to remove an existing dock on his property
and construct a new one. Petitioner's lot is 38 feet wide and bordered on the east and west side
by lots of similar size with piers. Rule 15A NCAC 7H .0208(b)(6)(L) governs the placement of
docks and piers in public trust waters and states the following:
Piers shall not interfere with the access to any riparian property and shall have a
minimum setback of 15 feet between any part of the pier and the adjacent property
owner's areas of riparian access. The line of division of areas of riparian access
shall be established by drawing a line along the channel or deep water in front of
the properties, then drawing a line perpendicular to the line of the channel so that
it intersects with the shore at the point the upland property lime meets the water's
edge. The minimum setback provided in the rule may be waived by the written
agreement of the adjacent riparian owner(s) or when two adjoining riparian owners
are co -applicants ... Application of this Rule may be aided by reference to the
approved diagram in 15A NCAC 7H .1205(q).
It is the application of this rule to Petitioner's proposed project which Petitioner contends
was incorrect. Petitioner submitted a surveyed plat to the Division of Coastal Management which
revealed that the dock would extend outside the defined riparian area. Thus, Respondent contends
that in accordance with the rule cited above, Respondent was in fact required to deny the permit.
3. PROPOSED WITNESSES.
Witnesses for the Respondent include, but are not limited to, the following DCM
employees:
2
20'd 9Z:TT 00, ST unf Z9Z9-9T1-6T6:xp3 �Ud3N39 A3Nd011d '0'N

Donna D. Moffitt, Director, Raleigh, NC
Charles S. Jones, Assistant Director, Morehead City, NC
Ted Tyndall, District Manager, Morehead City, NC
Tere Barrett, Field Representative, Morehead City, NC
Additionally, Respondent may call as a witness any person named as a witness by any other
party. Respondent reserves the right to supplement this list as it prepares for hearing.
4. DISCOVERY.
Respondent wishes to pursue discovery; the length of tixne set forth in the Scheduling Order
is acceptable.
5. REQUESTED LOCATION OF THE HEARING.
The location of the hearing specified in the Scheduling Order is acceptable.
6. ESTIMATED LENGTH OF HEARING.
Respondent estimates the hearing will take a half day.
7. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney for the State of North Carolina will appear
on behalf of Respondent. All pleadings, notices, calendars or other documents should be directed
to the attention of the undersigned.
8. SUGGESTED DATE OF HEARING.
The date of the hearing specified in the Scheduling Order is acceptable.
9. OTHER SPECIAL MATTERS.
Respondent reserves the right to amend this Prehearing Statement.
b0'd Zz:TT 00, ST unf Z9Z9-9T1-6T6:xpd �Hd3N39 A34KI1d '0'N

This the day of June, 2000.
0
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
Meredith Jo Alcoke
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24090
NC Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Telephone: [phone]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the attached Prehearing Statement of Respondent and
Document Constituting Agency Action were served on Petitioner by depositing the copy in the
United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Lester Hardy Sadler
P.O. Box 702
'Y'anceyville, NC 27379
This the day of June, 2000.
By:
EP/41321/wp
Meredith Jo Alcoke
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24090
NC Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Telephone: [phone]
4
SO 'd ZZ: TT 00, ST Of Z9Z9-9TZ-6T6: xpd �dd3N39 A3Nd011d '0 'N

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax:[phone] Jun 14 '00 14:08 P.01
pM s
Reply to,
State of North Carolina Mrrc4it
Mcredith Jo Aiookc
MICHAEL F. E&SLEY Department of Justice EnAronrocnWDivision
ATToaNeY ceN9RAL P. O. BOX 829 Td: [phone]
RALEIGH Fax; [phone]
27602-0629
MEMORANDUM
TO: Donna D. Moffitt, Director
Charles S. Jones, Assistant Director
Ted Tyndall, Morehead City District Manager
FROM: Merrie Jo Alcoke, Assistant Attorney General
DATE: June 14, 2000
RE: CAMA General Permit Appeal by Lester H. Sadler, Carteret County
00 EHR 0668
Attached is a copy of a Petition for Contested Case Hearing filed by Lester Sadler.
Petitioner challenges the denial of his permit application to construct a new pier adjacent to his
property on Taylor's Creek in Beaufort, North Carolina. Petitioner's proposed pier was found to
be inconsistent with 15A NCAC 7H .0208(b)(6)(L) because it is outside of the defined riparian
area. It appears that the petition was not filed within 20 days after the permit decision was made
in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(a).
Please note that I have been assigned to handle this case. Please send me a copy of the
complete permit file, if available. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further, do not hesitate to call me.
Significant dates in this case are as follows:
April 19, 2000 Letter denying permit sent to Petitioner
May 12, 2000 Petition filed
June 15, 2000 Respondent's Prehearing Statement and Document
Constituting Agency Action to be filed
September 4, 2000 Discovery Deadline
September 18, 2000 Hearing during this week in New Bern, NC
Attachment: Petition for Contested Case Hearing
cc: Jessica Gill (without attachment)
EP/41292/wD
POSt-It" Fax Note 7671
°a'e
G oo
#of
pneso.
To -��
From
Co./Dept
Co.
Phon®e
Phone a
Fax #
Fax #

N.C.
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
Fax:[phone]
Jun 14 '00
14:08 P.02
MAY.-12',00 (FRI1
16:20
DEHNR
COSTAL MGMT
TEL:919
733
1495 P, 002
1
� -�z�
0 ��
CO1/ED
MAY 12 2000
ST1% OF NORTH C.1lZOLINA gg''��'��
IN TH£�O�li�ai
coaf%7y OF (1) CatrE,? AZIMMsr)rATIVE IMA=0S
—
i )
l 1
(your nine) PETMONZR )
I , )
CO FOR A (3) llll° f pYkr�t _ NTZSTED CAA REAaWG
MC`i3V✓ii� t.,•.)
Mr4YA �' ltitc7/'!` ENT,. ,
f7'pe state aeancv or board abetn'Wbirh You are mMalafniae) )
1 hereby '—raested c= bearing as provided for by North Carolina Genera) S hu, iaattre 4 15OB-23 bemuse RCspmdcm
(Briefly Slam facts sh"'ing pow yi y' K'tvt You have b6= harmed by the5rare a&etrcy or board.)
(lf more s�rx is n-!4d. aM=h addiziona! Rages.)
(4) Beeautc of ;hut, fads, tha Stare meaty or boafd h&;; (cherk at I= one from each Col
.� deprired Me cif propetry �)
ordorcd me to pay a rote or eiv% pcnalrrt or - - - mta d aTdcd ice audwriry or jureadjp ;
1111=W ld MSUntiaPY prejudiced 3py ri@hts; AND n.:mwteouslY:
fatlod to use ptgRn PrW
none arbirraa)y ar Mprir-iausly; or:
failed to act u rcqured by Im or rule.
Dots: I D6� K Ytsur pbca- R=bcr: LV� woe[ (Ill) Yi?-32al
M Print your fwl address:
(sIIeet sddr-sa�R o2bat)•8Z'�111��aJL�'
(city) (start) (zip)
(8) Print Y= name:
(9) Your si¢runrrt:
Yap maz mail or doIiver a COPY of this Peddc to the smm 49=CY or fraard named an line (�) of Yids form. You should Go�tatt the e;eaty or board to determine the came of thm perxm a bz M ved.
CUTWICATE Of SERVICE
I CIT'llry fiat this Peddoa &u been set.ed an eb_ Sure apeecy or board named below by depositinC a copy of it +pith jin Uniud
SMM %231 Servica with suffjciPiit paszge affixed OR Dy delivering it to the Lotted aceocy or build.
(name of persoo served) (State Aga Y of board lisred on line 3) T,
(1 o - )?7 ALi;Jr, r+
(;=r. addreztp.o. box) � (city) (toll)
---Y a�— " ai?
�(�� � ^_ (toll) (zip mod.)
(14) �F m j " 2 cutUoA—
Wbm you havc compL--red this forra. you MUST M0 or aeliver tim ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY ra Ibe =go of
Adminismadv: hearings. 671a maii Sff-iro cenrer. RaJeilh, NC 276D9-6714.
H-OU9196)

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax:[phone] Jun 14 '00 14:09 P.03
MAY. -127 00(FRI1 16:21 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT _ , TEL:[phone] P. 003
I have been deprived of my full access to my riparian property by having used a policy
for perttn Wng piers (parallel to property lines) and now thaaging the policy to permitting
piers perpendicular to the waterway (complying with NCAC T15A: 0208(b)(6)(L)).
Along Front Stroct, in the Town of Beaufort, Carteret County, and, in particular, within
my in=diate area of 913 Front Street, piers have been permitted and built with the line
of division of areas of riparian access defined as the extension of the property line.
Specific properties, which were built with the riparian boundary as the extension of the
property line, include 915 and 917 Front Street to my east and to my west, 909 Fron•:
Street. No pier exists at 911 Front Street.
On 9124/99, I submitted a request for a permit to replace my existing pier with a floating
pier relocated at the center of my riparian area. This would align my pier with that of my
neighbor's pier at 915 Front Street and define my riparian area benvedn the extension of
the property lines. See attachment (B)- This followed the apparent policy established by.
the permitting and building the piers in my immediate area.
The paftt was not granted, See Attachment (C). The stated reason was that the
proposed dock was within the property line extensions, but outside the defined riparian
area. The Coastal Resources Commission rule found in NCAC Tl5A: 0208(b)(6)(L)
requires the riparian boundary to be, perpcndicular to the charnel. Applying this rule and
defining the Taylors Creek Channel by USAGE Map Beaufort, NC Harbor line dared
6/1139, my riparian area would be bounded by lines parpendicular to this ch=cd. See
attachment (D),
However, my cast riparian boundary is fixed by the pier and outboard mooring pilings
built in accordance with a permit issued to Bertha C. Davis (915 Front Street) on 3-4.98.
Sot attachment (E). If the west riparian boundary is maintained in accordance with
NCAC T15A: 0208(b)(6)(L), the distance between the two riparian boundaries will be
38.94 feet at the water's edge and only 22.354 feet at the channel end. See attach nan--
M-
By having one policy for permitting piers (parallel to Property lines) and then changing
the policy to cornply with NCAC T15A, 0208(b)(6)(L) has deprived me of my full access
to my riparian property and because of the narrowness at the channel cad, rendered the
access useless.

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax:[phone]
MAY. -12'00(PR1) 16!21 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
Jun 14 ' 00 14 : 09 P. 04
TEL:[phone] P.004
r
r
FRONT STREET 60' P f W
so -
a
COVff�D �
COCK �
i
ff'
r
ir-
F
eG a.
Do
US F ok
Romoct
gwcK
,47r,40�VIV;k--A� r (49).

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax:[phone] Jun 14 '00 14:10 P.05
MAY. -12' 00(FRI) B:21
DEHNR COSTAL WIT
TEL:[phone]
'P, 005
L.M.
Huron JR.
• ismon '�
April 18, 2(W
Mr. Lester K. Sadler
913 Front Street
Beaufort, NC 29516
Dear Mr, Sadler;
NORTH CAROLINA DIEPARTMN:NT OF
ENVIRQNM6NT AND NATURAL RrRSOURCES
D(VISION of CQ+I.9TAL MAHAGEMItNT
This letter is in response to your request for a permit under the CoaSMI Area Management
Act (LAMA) to remove an existing dock and construct a new dock on Taylors Creels,
adjacent to your property at 913 Front Street, in the Town of Beaufort, CanLct County.
After reviewing your proposed project in conjunction with the development standards
required by the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA), it is the Division's determination
that no permit may be granted for the development as proposed.
According m the CoatW Resources Cot'nmiMion tuft found in NCAC T15A:0208(b)(6)(L),
"Piers shall not interfere with the ar-=3s to riparian property and shall have a minimum
setback of 15 feet between any part of the pier and the adjacent property owner's riparian
access. The line of divisicm of wt,Lt of ripaziaA a.t= shall be established by drawing a line
along the channel or deep water in front of the properdes, then drawing a line perpendicular
to the Line of the channel so that it intersects with the shore at the point the upland property
line moeta the water's edge."
A review of the surveyed plat dated 9/24199 submitted to this office indicates the proposed
dock on Taylors Creek to be located within property line extensions, but outside the Wimd
riparian area, nerefore, it is necessary that your request for a permit under the CAMA to
construct the &-ek as proposed be denied. NCGR 113A-120(a)(9) which requires pemit
denial when the proposal is found inconsistent with the state guidelines for Areas of
Environmental. Concern.
If you wish to appeal this denial, you are endued to a hearing, The hearing will involve
appearing before an Administrative Uw Judge who listens to fie evidence and arguments
of both parties and then makes a recommendation to the Coastal Resources Commission.
You have also indicated that you wish to apply for a variance from the Commission's rules.
The variant* west must be served on the Director, Division of Coastal Management, And
the Attorney General's Office, FAvironmental Division, at the address shown On the
attached CAMA Variance Rcquest form.
V WmteiY1' Olncs
HRATPON PI.+L l:, t31•H HlC:MWAT 441 MVRLgtIO GITy HC S"57
FMeKa: 272-600•g.6oe FAY; 1a1Z,147,3aZo
AN EQUAL o"►oRTuryirr / AFP1H'1AT)V6 ACTION GN►�CWRQ EOX -CGVf L[o y 10% "1r 6H14M6A MaiA
pEMR TOIL F859 MGTLlh61 1-a77•822.074•
44 IN&uT' rC

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax:[phone]
MAY. -12' 00(FR1) 16:22 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
Jun 14 ' 00 14 : 10 P. 06
TEL:[phone] P.006
W. Lem H. Sadler
Page 2
April 18, 2000
T have enclosed a copy ¢f the form for your use. Also, enclosed is a copy of the Use Standards
for Docks and Piers. Tf you have any question, please contact me at 252-808-2808.
Sincerely,
M. Ted Tyn
2�
District Manager
Enclosures
cc: Charles Jones - Assistant Director, ACM
Tern Barrett - Coastal Management Representative, DCM
W egf r(c) (cot

MAY, -12. 00 (FRI) W22 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P.007
Sh
E ocu"N
TAYI
CHA
BEAUFORT HARBvkt Luvr- ""
,4-7T,4C f{tfgIr
z0'd TT:bT 00, VT unT Z9Z9-9TZ-6T6:x23 �dd3N39 l3N�011U '9'N

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax:919-7lb-6767 Jun 14 '00 14:11 P.08
11AY.-12',00iFR11 16:23 ➢EHNR COSTAL MGMT
7EL:9119 7331495
P. 008
641
Applicar
Address
City
Project I
Ty pw of
11 i
CAMA AND DREDGE AND FiLL
GENERAL N`: 018620
,PERMIT ��� �, o,. t -,c -
as authorized by the State of North Carolina
DepaWrIM of Environment, Healtn, and Natural Aesources and the Cgsstal�I at,rCes Gemmisslon
in an area of onvironmental concern pursuant io 15A NCAC ��—I 00
a Wl- 3 4
,
PRO] ECTDESC IPTION
SKETCH £14,;
Pl-A
(SCALE:
Plcr Gock)�ngm _ I
t 5 41
I p y
j
j(''l 1 �' `Q�
5 X
Groia Ugh
�i--
num6ar
Bulkhead longth
j a ' ilj 4 p
lea I
MM dittanr4 VOWS
+ j�
I
S f p
�
T
Basing channel dlmentidnt
cuhj�ylydS �—
peat ramp dlmenslons
0 that
L
This iwrmil is subject td eomptiance with this application, sire
drawing and ac►&�hcd gowal an4 specific eonditibn�. ,any
viul.Won of thew wrma may subicat Zhe parrmittae to a find.
irnpris,onmt:nt or civil action, And may eaus4 the permit to bo-
colne null 4nd void. (� _
' plrmllOi gccrss,gnawn
This permit must be an the project SitC and acussibk to the
pwr»i� nFfie.,r whoa the orolacL is inspeetrd for compliance.
Ti— .ppl.. ,J --brig; by sistnlnu tnis permit that 1) this pro• y / .�, ne�a. exPiratid+date
ioct is consicr�nt with dl,! local land use plan and all local
urain.ulee6, and 2) a Writtep statzmont has been obtained from
+,lj..cont rlp':+ridn landowners certifying that Choy haYC no sttaFhmonta yG AC �AL
6bju,!tiuns to the prepoSed work. i
In i+aujng this permit the State of North Carolina cvrdfres that /�,
Lhn project a Gunsls,jans with the North Carolina Cu4 511 wi lk+tson4.
nt.imwzmunt Program.

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax:919-7lb-6767
MAY.-12',00 (FR1) 16 ; 23 DEW COSTAL MGMT
Jun 14 '00 14:12 P.09
TEL:[phone]
P. 009
RIPARIAN AREA
RESULTING FROM "OLD POLICY"
ON ONE SIDE AND "NEW POLICY"
ON TIC OTHER SIDE
� PRfmOOL�hIIN
r
019 /
f e13
i
Oil e14
J�
� Jr:
d DOLPHIN
f
Fj16
fJ
1 � i
TAYLORS CREEK
CHANNIEL as per USAGE MAP ! i
BEAUFORT HARBOR i.irTI- 6IM9
�e+
�Q,
0 aw
•4t
20 0 :.
It■1■/■■■■■

02�/ _ eqn w CE
1,� r
NIF GUY SMrfN
-9 S6'�!- a3'E—i 4.S2S" S SSg59-.Zo"c -i
T- - - 34.&5..Cy�
04D Fe. cra F-IS.
(Dnr coRN+=2
I 2851Ci
BEAT R
POP. 4,052
r y. , r.
I
l `Y o
I
1412
� r
!•�
Pr'in�Mi
P ♦ � tr` 'J
\ �
4v
S ♦ P q4R
Z
I
",.Pr k
♦
i
_ _ _
Sr
r
1 J`__ —
�.+DCw�
—1%
�n n—IOONi—�
•T. �__ __
ST
r. ESEhy.
sue• � (,�
�'2,Z.
S 6 90 5q t
ZN C A Roj /
r
l�o¢i.oi-f
r
�
N
Z
o
T
A
0
7
N
0
o'
M
EVES 0��2
Przop�,:ry
S ra'i
FIR 640
h� 4•a 1 cis
Tl. '7• 0
0 p4' 46.• --
F.I.P. S 6 9
I�1
0
� n
'Z s o" Ian
—1 31
R/,/j Fj.P
o
0�o
s u2ut Y
Fo,e. / Z9 �I
0.9 OVE2 f�2oAc'RTY L ��.lc
I�
y
L ESTER -c'
CAROL L. SADLER
'o
N
y � tiMAasH
Al-k
PORT/one L.OT l7 Xjew Town! -"own( of BEHUFOP-T
"
4
C-i-3 27-Z�-/ZS7- CoU/-lTY 1,i-C.
M/9,ecH 2S /99a Se,9L-- / r=3o
PA AZ /4-1 L-JIE
7-)9V.4o2s C/ZcEK
�w is/GKT or- wAy
FOuN� r/?vn ST/ ke
SLJRVEY�� 6Y
L c� rcn A"Ife _
POWELL 50VEYOG
COMPAOY
Towx w.aTt2 4 -Sctiv
T,ax F�.4 L>CEL : 73 0S. 0 6 38 444-9
%,
i�>w
r�.0. 80X rots
EEAIJF0A7 M.C. Z851C
Qoo/� 63>-Ps9

P, o
4
ST�F
Sfi
\ 0 R
POINT NORTHING EAST
D 5 758944.05 2707
N >^,
JS I422B 2 .. 8 6 e
0
__ \ 48'4g IA, 362 358494.58 270'
o- r::r,.4 �— \ ��•- rY 19 358776.54 2'r*�-ey��_ \ 308 358838.5� 2TCa
-IGI- ISvt.•: C-• .1Cr
4 ._vc+ , •I* :� r-;c ' \ J �6/
EXISTINGorC'JL: MAN DOCK b� JOlPHl45 NOT LOCATED
rv15 St.?�.C�'CAE�+CS > 5�37W IS•:N OF LwC •I'vv .-C �'.
:E• CI -E a.,.T• � ^.::I..L:T. T—' —S ., .•.: .cE CA
;EIS-ISC. ihC. If — �:'.$T• G •oICCL v LAC. ,�� RQl �i 9
r..E Sa^E� IS I •aGT." CatC-7=
- r .fi !/�1STcvtFA
Ep r CO 66 SOS \ rq YL
�„�,•,,1I_ _ - SEAL ,/o ORS
=r L-3151 _ , V�` 9S• 6� CR�`
� C
�.
R�;
ltiti`4 -f Af _ FRS \
�I I PIH'
200 200 400 600. \
GRAPHIC SCA_E - FEET
?NMUPS R
?SSOCIATfS�1
7ECI5iOED LA
NO SLRVE7CR
L-31S1 ?#CRTN-AROL•NA O
I LRE.4CELL V. (T>•E LAW 9VIU^IHG)
?1z 5492, wcAE E.�D ::rY. HC 23S
j' 9—'tC_447D