6072_COLONIAL ENGINEERING, INC_19900329

Applicant
Address _�
City ---,A
Pc,Qjr,ct Location
`LAMA AND DREDGE AND FILL
GENERAL
PERMIT���� ap
as authorized by the State of North Carolina,el
rr
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development an he �o tal Reso C�frtrn(V'n
in an ea of env' onmental concern pursuant to IS NCAC r
/
(((( Phone Number
Type of Project Activity
State_ Poad �aaeter Bo�dy/ etc.
State
9W
n
V Zf0 l
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SKETCH (SCALE: )
Pier (dock) length C:::�"`-!G / � � - ���T��• '
Groin length g /1:
01
number
Bulkhead length
max. distance offshore
Basin, channel dimensions
cubic yards
Boat ramp dimensions
• mss
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:.' applicant's signature
come null 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
adjacent riparian landowners certifying that they have no
objections to the proposed work.
permit officer's si nature
issuing date expiration date
attachments — Z!�� .
In issuing this permit the State of North Carolina certifies that
this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal application fee
Management Program.

ENLARGED MAP
n.achool
n
/j r.l.- Sa 4-• ..7 Crw a Fa,. R6 a '✓ /r S Q�� .
1 AS
..
°Ot1 P"w4st
40
-.�� �1.t1 %",USF
L.TI a2. o wa.f—clon Pon
Ta.<<p 0°orltr �re<k
ter• - \—_.'".."— 1as.c ck Rd
- (urtey U.art `form na 1A fkd 1 1 I l"wna a
7.< 1aa1 1 1.0 uaa 1 t ('d \ ¢
C�-�J., o '' Peri•�b" -- - ' 1n4 �' wC(av en
1 CT. LA10`% �eUV
C
• ss
Koor a To.r14 x o ,
_ \,4F -U— SITE o s P°e ..
E
c
• • _ - ' 1.7) Cy d •�srV� 0, / ? wa4t
f (/
Rd
Qqs R C f<
to -on
- � ZjarrNl JasCr •-+� a. • a
173 �j„c a nry 12 _ �7 c R ° i 1.2 • Aa ♦ - T 2.o f� i 71:
a( A'b.R7 Q1. D pe Q,,-�i ! d aJ �. c C` , w
t ,)� 17a3 � - "; fhH1 P-cacr! I3c.
12.7F`i, 1r 1 - i27a Pouwd .<y7a. FT-•. Y..� �r
17J7 ~ 1:37 12aa�'JI
C.�• CA• LOW Rd. �q 1� C"
.55 \ " 0 fas • T 1 \/
° pG ►1111 grorKh M
R0. 70
12_3 _IOCS 122 -
r -r \ � Tuscarora
io n 7 • + +
1271 1` 1 R C^'�'� �• ! fat %F +.,
• ° 1> L) ,A Ec-T
r Cc' , l
1.757 173. f►S t fS c� Cr rk C2 Rd.
CO"i c7y 7 ilx i'
i
rpt. sod 1 7 C•c<ra Rants Ra. }; a,0. ,_�. Rocky R.
1537 t15C �." QOM•°+cc 1� b Rd
„?' 1221 _3, ti �� 1.1
E'er Mi't I 11�..: �_ s P.1 ■
RE. „ Yrrp.1 7W1 r e y.rtrlona ,I.
Pr<rrtlat GS c Rd.
_Y .e O` v tlti l
'L 2 v\ 7 R arK e R C / 1
� ZI „ 1 ♦ y-.aap.)a id. °
h o /
:Z 7• '•.aa� 1215 Rd �°' t .y r r
P
so
f«c"15-a .~.Ham An- '7 177aR0 d �P,
R� 1Y//�+y� as \ \ /
O N E 5 C O U N T Y
MAR 2 7 1090
F

w
4
WI:
0.
NAI
Ifp
ik
NC
ti
147 t.
59.
*!A
-ds
0 -
WASH I NGTON
L
7'777-77F
�77 eY;
:77 7t
.4p
kq
rX
v-:
..:
7-0
A
rk f, 0
�
J AV�
T,
Ar
41�a�Pl�'J�it36aitJ�ri+i��ii�riYdWir'�i{;ry{r�{,,.o ,,,,,�,._..
POST ROAD (SR ]_Lioj_ )
777-

O/v Tf/� GEEK
A O11Vr
-IN
cc
9.0
.l<
Im.

R IIV(3QUiREO

102' 1
A t TD
80'
2-0' 48
WATERLINE
DI 36"
----- - -- 70
Lay Waturliijc-, UjI,j(_,j, crook With 'its' or
,j Q rostrainocl joint DI pipe.
to be
_)t.j tIlL, !_)OttOjjj
Of the crook bed .
SANDERS OR DOG POUND ROAD
T.,i Awl
'It
lilt
r,4
it lo
N.
(SR �

m

22
ir
00.
22

•
6 04 kl
L4
WAG
! tF,
r -k
ir Kra Ne It 14,11ir•
i1 a Cu, cA r 7,,Sv
- ?-I'•"i
-SM.
Ply.-
_74
,l i
7 P0
4r'
I:c7 W. .,L
Ile
OV,
*NY
161 V A -P 11. sit.,
a 1 'fi. 'r',�''`i ,4 � , ♦'.� � « '�..,•.y i r�R tyy .t+�,�1,-yi�k .Y��.a�\ 1;.
'J4
C's
!if
N , 4
� L wr---
L V i
y
1" W
Jr. 14.
14
% N 4 . Ij
HWY. 70
122 " -dlm-
4-- y

COLONIAL ENGINEERING, INC.
140 Wind Chime Court (27615)
P.O. Box 97005
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27624
[phone] 8447-1498 (FAX) J
TO _ ✓. C![_r7 ! /rr�_1/
z��,
WE ARE SENDING YOU
tached ❑ Under separate cover vi
❑ Shop drawings
❑ Copy of letter
❑ Prints
L[EUUMN OF UINQRMIOAU QL
3 - 540,3 /3WO
ATTENTION
RE;
9 A,!✓,t11i/�
❑ Plans ❑ Samples
❑ Change order ❑
following items:
❑ Specifications
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
t ` 7A"11.S
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
El1-111aQ ''RRn�nn
For approval Approved as submitted Resubmit coVre►F a7pl=
�Forr use El Approved as noted L1 Submit cop1 tlistqq hi6 -:
-----------------------------
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
'74
/ �fi✓J 7'•� �/ S �jh
�►� f� t el
COPY TO _ SIGNED:
PRODUCT 2393 � Inc.. Grow, M&. 01471. T0Ord.r PHONE TOLL FREE 1 -MM -63M If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.

-0. QfL O. X..' .g" di -F.
9--A-a
January 5, 1989
Mr. Jim Mercer
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: Water Line Installation
Number Eight Township - Craven County, NC (3903/3910)
Dear Jim:
9.0-93.97005
:J A4, 6X.C. 27624
919 ) 847-1499
Recently you had a conversation with Mr. Harold Tant, from our
field inspection staff, with regard to water line installation
in Number Eight Township in Craven County. Harold has put together
some 8k by 11 copies of the details as we get near the stream
crossing areas as he discussed with you. Attached please find
copies -of these particular areas.
Please look at these areas, and provide us with your feedback
with regard to concerns, conditions of installation, etc. as may
be provided through you agency in order to meet requirements
thereof. ease fee ree to contact Harold as you need to in
regard o this part' lar w er line installation issue.
t
VVeryruly yo s,
Vernon O. Harris, Jr.
President
VOH,Jr/ed
Attachments
cc: Harold Tant

It
A."' .1
February 26, 1990
C.. lonial e, yineering, -9nc.
P.O. 12 , 97005
R.Lgi , PC 27624
Mr. Jim Mercer
Morehead City Regional Office
N. C. Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: CAMA Permit Requirements
Water Line Installation
Number Eight Township (Bachelor Creek Area)
Craven County, NC (3903)
Dear Jim:
919) 847-1499
-7.[phone]
HE F,
T11FE8 2 8 1990
Et a;izt''G-y-
-------r.--11---- -- -
I am responding to your letter dated January 17, 1990 for the
referenced project. Please recall that this is an extension of
the existing Northwest Craven Water and Sewer District water system.
It is being done under the auspices (funding) of ZURN-NEPCO. ZURN-
NEPCO is building the Wood Energy Conversion Power Plant on the
south side of the Industrial Park at the Clark's interchange
(SR 1225 and U.S. Highway 70).
The one item in your letter that you mention as still being
required was signed statements from each of the adjacent riparian
property owners to each of the four sites. I have gone back to the
County Engineer who worked on the acquisition of the easement
documents and I am herewith providing you copies of same. The
other site, and adjacent areas that are affected also is on DOT
property, and I am herewith providing you with copy of the DOT
encroachment agreement as issued from that agency.
I trust this will allow you to issue the permit for this work as
required for your agency. Incidentally, I did contact the Corps
of Engineers and am making a separate submittal to them of plans
and written description of the project. Through Mr. Jones, you
will be getting a copy f that letter as well. As always, Mr.
Harold Tant and my sel appreciate your kind assistance in our
project aptivities, A7
Very tyuly y
VL'rnon O. Harris,
President
VOH,Jr/ed
Enclosures
cc: Harold Tant
., PE

RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good
and valuable consideration paid to CLARA L. PARKER and her
husband, J. E. PARKER, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", by
NORTHWEST CRAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, a body politic and
corporate of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to
as "Grantee", the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer, and convey
unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual
easement with the right to erect, construct, install, and lay,
and thereafter use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain, replace,
and remove water lines and pipes and attachments appurtenant
thereto over, across, under, and through a strip of land 20 ft.
in width, lying and being situated in Number Eight Township,
Craven County, North Carolina, the said strip of land is
described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the centerline of Caswell
Branch, which said point of beginning is the point of
intersection of the centerline of said Caswell Branch
with the with the northern right-of-way line of North
Carolina State Road Number 1243 (also known as Ipock
Road); and running thence from said point of beginning
so located, Northwardly along and with the centerline of
the said Caswell Branch, 20 feet; thence Westwardly and
parallel with the Northern right-of-way line of said
road, 100 feet; thence, Southwardly 20 feet to the
Northern right-of-way line of the aforesaid N.C.S.R.
1243; thence Eastwardly along and with the Northern
right-of-way line of said road, to the point of
beginning. Together with the right of ingress and
egress over the adjacent lands of the Grantor, her
successors and assigns, for the purposes of this
easement.
The consideration hereinabove recited shall constitute
payment in full for any damages to the land of the Grantors,
FOP
991
FEB 2 8 1999 ��

BOUK ti 11i1GE -i1
their successors and assigns, by reason of the installation,
operation, and maintenance of the improvements referred to
herein. The Grantee covenants to maintain the easement in good
repair so that no unreasonable damage will result from its use to
the adjacent land of the Grantors, their successors and assigns.
The grant and other provisions of this easement shall
constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of
the Grantee, its successors and assigns.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantors has hereunto set their
hands and adopted as their seals the typewritten word "SEAL"
appe ring beside their name below, this the 3041 day of
1989.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CRAVEN
1,_;'? 49Q�� (S EAL )
CLARA L. P ER(�;7
/
(SEAL)
. E. PARKER
I, POP3"J p t-_10F5L_J_=✓ , a Notary Public in
and for the above stated County and State, do hereby certify that
CLARA L. PARKER and husband, J. E. PARKER, personally appeared
bef,oXg " me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the
for�egQ&'hg instrument.
,01
Q„ -AW S my hand and notarial stamp or seal, this 30-rF-+ day of
d,U
• �,: 4P4*19 8 9 .
r-
-.'Mp 3bnira�on Expires: �T
•'; 1'q;q NOTARY P LIC
2

NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
/�) j
The foregoing certificate of
a Notary Public of the County of Craven, State of NorthnCa olina,
is hereby certified to be correct. This instrument was presented
for registration this day and hour and duly recorded in the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Craven County, North Carolina,
in Book /1�4 o , at Page //X
This C day of _ &'✓ . A.D. , 1989, at
o'clock %'M.—
BY:
REGISTER OF DEEDS" DEPUTY' REGISTER Off --DEEDS
2 /E -P ARK
3

GOOK ' 4 0 1 4G 1
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good
and valuable consideration paid to VERTA B. RICHARDSON, widow,
hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", by NORTHWEST CRAVEN WATER
AND SEWER DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of the State of
North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee", the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant,
bargain, sell, transfer, and convey unto the Grantee, its
successors and assigns, a perpetual easement with the right to
erect, construct, install, and lay, and thereafter use, operate,
inspect, repair, maintain, replace, and remove water lines and
pipes and attachments appurtenant thereto over, across, under,
and through a strip of land 20 ft. in width, lying and being
situated in Number Eight Township, Craven County, North Carolina,
which said 20 ft. wide strip of land is described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the centerline of Caswell
Branch, which said point of beginning is the point of
intersection of the centerline of said Caswell Branch
with the with the northern right-of-way line of North
Carolina State Road Number 1243 (also known as Ipock
Road); and running thence from said point of beginning
so located, Northwardly along and with the centerline of
the said Caswell Branch, 20 feet; thence Eastwardly and
parallel with the Northern right-of-way line of said
road, 100 feet; thence, Southwardly 20 feet to the
Northern right-of-way line of the aforesaid N.C. S. R.
1243; thence Westwardly along and with the Northern
right-of-way line of said road, to the point of
beginning. Together with the right of ingress and
egress over the adjacent lands of the Grantor, her
successors and assigns, for the purposes of this
easement.
The consideration hereinabove recited shall constitute
payment in full for any damages to the land of the Grantor, her
successors and assigns, by reason of the installation, operation,
1 @Tffl,
i�l FEB 2 8 1990

EOUK i ti 4 0 IMGE
and maintenance of the improvements referred to herein. The
Grantee covenants to maintain the easement in good repair so that
no unreasonable damage will result from its use to the adjacent
land of the Grantor, her successors and assigns.
The grant and other provisions of this easement shall
constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of
the Grantee, its successors and assigns.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set her hand
and adopted as her seal the typewritten word "SEAL" appearing
beside her name below, this the 2g day of
, 1989.
SEAL )
VERTA B. RICHARDSON
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CRAVEN
I, RO-31,.J P. M pp LE;' , a Notary Public in
and for the above stated County and State, do hereby certify that
VERTA B. RICHARDSON, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument.
p ,VITNESS my hand and notarial stamp or seal, this a8rH day of
f:l&,/En-1 ge�t2� 1989.
My -Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUB C
2

SGUK GE I 1
NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
The foregoing certificate of
a Notary Public of the County of Cr en, State of NorthnCa olina,
is hereby certified to be correct. This instrument was presented
for registration this day and hour and duly recorded in the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Craven County, North Carolina,
in Book /154-G , at Page //%
a_
This day of _ A.D. , 1989, at4
o'clock .M M.
_
BY:
REGISTER OF DEED8 DEP TY REGISTER OF DEED
E -RICHARD

EOJ►S � 4 &PAGE 6 i
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good
and valuable consideration paid to GREGORY POOLE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", by NORTHWEST
CRAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of
the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as
"Grantee", the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer, and convey
unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual
easement with the right to erect, construct, install, and lay,
and thereafter use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain, replace,
and remove water lines and pipes and attachments appurtenant
thereto, over, across, under, and through a strip of land 30 ft.
in width, lying and being situate in Number Eight Township,
Craven County, North Carolina, being more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the Southeastern corner, on North Carolina
Secondary Road #1225, of that certain tract or parcel of
land which was conveyed by S. H. Vernelson, et ux, et al
to Wolf Summit Coal Company, by deed dated January 13,
1981, and recorded in the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Craven County in Book 972 at Page 928; and
running thence Westwardly and right angles to the
western right-of-way line of the aforesaid North
Carolina Seconday Road #1225, 30 feet; thence
Northwardly and parallel with the western right-of-way
line of said road, to the southern line of the
subdivision known as addition to Clarks; thence
Eastwardly along and with the southern line of said
subdivision to the western right-of-way line of the
aforesaid N.C.S.R 1225; thence Southwardly along and
with the western right-of-way of said road, to the point
of beginning. Together with the right of ingress and
egress over the adjacent lands of the Grantor, its
successors and assigns, for the purposes of this
easement.
1 (� FEB 2 81990

J U11 .L r.r Z V I AU L V 1 rr
The consideration hereinabove recited shall constitute
payment in full for any damages to the land of the Grantor, its
successors and assigns, by reason of the installation, operation,
and maintenance of the improvements referred to herein. The
Grantee covenants to maintain the easement in good repair so that
no unreasonable damage will result from its use to the adjacent
land of the Grantor, its successors and assigns.
The grant and other provisions of this easement shall
constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of
the Grantee, its successors and assigns.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has causedt is indenture
to be executed in its corporate name by its � President,
attested by its ASecretary, and its common corporate
seal to be hereunto affixed all by order of its Board of
Directors duly given this �_ day of
1989.
ATTEST:
SECRETARY�r
GREGORY POOLE EQUIPMENT COMPANY
BY: C -N &'L10ZL
NJ PRESIDEN
E

'OUK i- � 4 j i'dGE
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
Public of a Notary
ounty, North Carolina, do hereby
certify that '"�� /, personally
p e red befoze; me this day n acknowledged that he is the _
Secretary of GREGORY POOLE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a
corporation, and that by authority duly given and as the act of
the corporation, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name
by its President, sealed with its corporate seal, and
attested by h self as its Secretary.
•y hand and notarial seal, this / day of
1989. .y .
•
%Mf'F"JCb"hi sign expires:
v
PIS �-i�•n,L.n.n, .S. •V• ,•` •/ /�
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CRAVEN
The foregoing certificate of
a Notary Public of the County o
Carolina, is hereby certified to
presented for registration this
the Office of the Register of
Carolina, in Book t Pag
qW
NOTARY PUBLIC
f State of North
be correct. instrument was
day and hour and duly recorded in
Dee�ds�� of Craven County, North
_day of
BY:
TER OF DEE
E- POOLE
3
clock
bid

F E B 2 8 1998 co
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
County
STATE OF NORTH.CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Craven (17-89-1
Greenville, NC 27835
May 9, 1989
SUBJECT: Encroachment Contract - Hydra -Co Enterprises, Inc.
County of Craven
Mr. Bruce C. Bley, President
Craven County Wood Energy Limited Partnership
New Bern Energy Recovery, Inc., General Partner
C/O Hydra -Co Enterprises, Inc.
100 Clinton Square, Suite 400
Syracuse, NY 13202-1049
I C. LAMB, JR,
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Attached hereto, for your files, is a copy of the Right of Way Encroachment
Contract which has been properly executed. This Contract covers the following:
Installation of 10", 12" and 16" waterlines from existing county system to new
power plant on SR 1401, 1243, 1225, 1005 and NC 43 as shown on attachments.
Approved Subject To:
(1) Workmanship and materials to conform to DOT standards and specifications.
(2) Remain- 4' minimum from edge of pavement.
(3) Backfill material to be thoroughly compacted to 95% original density. All
trenched areas to be compacted by mechanical tamp or by other approved
method.
(4) No open cut on SR 1225, SR 1005, NC 55, and NC 43.
(5) All appurtenances, hydrants, etc. to be located at R/W or to not interfere
with maintenance activities.
(6) Dress, seed, mulch, and tack with asphalt tack all disturbed areas immediately
following installation.
(7) Traffic Control Devices shall be in accordance with Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices and amendments or supplements thereto.
(8) A $5,000.00 Performance Bond be submitted to District Office before work
begins.
(9) Approval for structure attachment to be secured before project begins.
(10) Approval for work within Controlled Access portion of right of way be
secured before project begins.
An Equal Opportunity/Affifinative Action Employer

he Department of Transportation does not quarantee the right of way on these
)ads, nor will it be responsible for any claim for damages brought by any
-operty owner by reason; of the installation.
(12) Upon completion of the work involved in this agre4nent, the utility owner or
his agent will be required to furnish to the Department an accurate "as built"
plan or location statement, if appropriate. This "as built" plan or statement
shall include both horizontal and vertical locations of the encroaching utilities
and will 'be used tolocate the encroaching utilities on _future highway projects.
Sincerely,
G. R. Shirley,Jr., P.E.
Division Engineer
GRSjr:LLJ:jb
Attachment
cc: Manager of Right of Way (copy of contract)
District Engineer (copy of contract)
x

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1401,;243,1005, PROJECT COUNTY OF Craven
_ and 1.225.NC4�
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
THREE PARTY RIGHT OF WAY
Craven CountyNWood Energy Limited Partnership,ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT ON
N w Bgern Energy Recovery, Inc., en rel
cP74iYDRP.- 0 n Prl) se, lnc. far ner. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEM
100 Clinton Square, Suite 400
Syracuse. 14.Y. 13202-1049
-AND-
the County of Craven
Y.O. Box 1425
New Bern, 1d.C. 28560
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the _ day of _ , 19 ,
by and between the Department of Transportation, party of the first part; and
Craven County Wood, ,•nPrgy T.; mi tPrl P3rtnprghi r, 4 party of the
second part; and the County of Craven,_ N:C.
party of the third part,
W I T N E S S E T H:
THAT WHEREAS, the party of the second part desires to encroach on the right of
way of the public road designated as Route 1401,1243,100q, located along the western
edge of #8 Township in Craven County, &1225
with the construction and/or erection of wa er Ines as o ows: pproxima e y
15,850 LF of 10", approximately 6,865 LF ot J.2", approxima e y LF
o , and approxima e y b,86b Lb o pipe; plus a roe ore o
o pass an coo ing ower 01.owdown line,to batcnelors ree
WHEREAS, it is to the material advantage of the party of the second part to effect
this encroachment, and the party of the first part, in the exercise of authority con-
ferred upon it by statute, is willing to permit the encroachment within the limits of
the right of way as indicated, subject to the conditions of this agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that the party of the first part hereby grants to
the party of the second part the right and privilege to make this encroachment as
shown on attached plan sheet (s), specifications, and special provisions which are
made a part hereof upon the following conditions, to wit:
That the installation, operation, and maintenance of the above described facility will be accomplished in ac-
cordance with the partyofthe first part's latest POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCOMODATING UTILITIES ON HIGH,'AY
RIGHTS-OF-WAY, and such revisions and amendments thereto as may n e Octa a a o a agreamen n-
orma on as to these policies and procedure• may be obtained from the Division Engineer or Stet• Ut111ty Agent of
the party of the first pert.
That the said party of the second part binds and obligates himself to install and maintain the encroaching
facility in such safe and proper condition that it will not interfere with or endanger travel upon said highway, nor
obstruct nor interfere with the proper maintenance thereof, to reimburse the party of the first part for the coat
incurred for any repairs or maintenance to its roadwaya and structures necessary due to the installation and ex-
istence of the facilities of the party of the second part, and if at any time the party of the first part shall
require the removal of or changed in the location of the said facilities, that the said party of the second part
binds himself, his successor. and adsigna, to ppromptly remove or alter the said facilitisa, in order to conform
to the said requirement, without any cost to tha Party of the first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to provide during construction and any subsequent maintenance proper
signs signal lights, flagmen and other warning devices for the protection of traffic in conformance with the latest
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and H1 hwa a and Amendments or Supplements thereto. Infor-
Mdtion ac to • above ruled and re
part. gu a Sons may DO Obtained trom the Division Engineer of the party of the first
That the party of the second part hereby agrees to indemnify and save harml•sa the party of the first part
from all damages and claims for damage that may arise by reason of the installation and maintenance of this en-
croachment.
That the party of the "cold part agrees to restore all areas disturbed during installation and maintenance
to the satisfaction of the Division Engineer of the party of the first part. The party of the second part agreed
to exercise every reasonable precaution during construction and maintenance to prevent •coding of soil; silting or
pollution of rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, othor water impoundment., ground surfaces or other property; or
pollution of tt,. air. T"A"' eh.11l 1"cos.pllanc�. with _ ell. ah i- rule. and regulations of thN
e orth Carolina
Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, and with ordinances and
regulations of various coup ties, municipalities and other official agencies relating to pollution prevention and
control. When any installation or maintenance operation disturbs the ground surface and the existing ground cover,
the party of the second part agrees to remove and replace the sod or otherwise reestablish the gross cover to.meet
the satisfaction of the Division Engineer of the patty of the first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to assume the actual cost of any inspection of the work considered to
be necessary by the Division Engineer of the party of the first part.
That the party of the second part agree. to have available at the construction site, at all times during con-
struction, a copy of this agreement showing evidence of approval by the party of the first part. The party of the
firat part reserves the right to atop all work unless a idenc• of approval con ba shown.
Prcvided the work contained in this agreement is being performed on a completed highway open to traffic; the
party of the second part egress to give written notice to the Division Engineer of the party of the first part
when all work contained herein has been completed. Unless specifically requested by the party of the firs[ part,
written notice of completion of work on highway projects under construction will not be regulred.
FORM R/W 16.6
Rev. July I. 1977
r7 18�tl,

That .1.n the case of noncompliance with the terms of this agreement by the party of the second past, the party
or+t!,a'firet part reserves the right to atop all work until the facility hes been brought ,lnto compliance or
moved from the right of way et no coat to the party of the first pert.
That It is agreed by both parties that this agreement shall become void if actual construction of the work
contemplated herein Se not begun within one (1) year from the date of nuthorizetion by the petty of the first part
unlees wr It ten waiver in secured by the party of the second part from the party of the first part.
During the performance of this contract the second party, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest
(hereinafter referred to as the 'contractor"S, agrees as follows:
a, Comlienee with Regulations: The contractor shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondiscrimin-
e ton in re era y -ase s e programs of the U. S. Department of Transportation, Title /9, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred,to ee the Regula-
tione), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract.
b. Nondiscrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, shell not
leer m na a on he grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcon-
tractors, including procurements of materials and leasee of equipment. The contractor shall not partici-
pate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Requlntlons,
including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the Requlations.
c. Solicitations for Subcontracts Includln Procurements of Materials and E 1 ment: In all solicitations
sIt er ti comps ve ng or nego to on ma e y e contrac or or worko e performed under a sub-
contract, including procurements of materials or lenses of equipment, each potential subcontractor or
supplier shall be notified by the contractor of the contractor's obligations under this contract and the
Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national oriQln.
d. Information and Rnpnr[s; The contractor shall provide all Information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives
issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of Information, and Its facilities
as may be determined by the Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration to be pertinent to ascertain compliance
with such Regulations or directives. Where any Information required of a contractor Is In the exclusive possession of another
who fails or refuses to furnish this Information, the contractor shall so certify to the Department of Transportation, or the Federal
Highway Administration as apor,priate. and shall set forth what efforts It has made to obtain the Information.
s. Sanctions for Noncom hence: In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this contract
tn< spar tn�e nt o ran
sportation shall Impose such contract sanctions as It or the Federal Highway Administration may determine to
be appropriate, including, but not limited to,
(1) withholding of payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies, and/or
(2) cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.
f. Incor oration of Provisions: The contractor shall Include the provisions of paragraphs "a" through "f" In every subcontract,
nc ud my pracu rements o materials and leases of equlpmenl, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives Issued pursuant
thereto. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Department of Transportation
or the Fede.,l Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions Including sanctions for noncompliance:
Provided, however, that, in the event a contractor becomes involved In, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or
supplier as a result of such direction, the conractor may request the Department of Transportation to enter into such litigation to
protect the Interests of the State, and, In addition, the contractor may request the United States to enter Into such litigation
to protect the Interests of the United States.
That when title to the subject that constitutes.the aforesaid encroachment
passes from the party of the second part and vests in the party of the third part,
the party of the third part agrees to assume all responsibilities and rights and
to perform all obligations as agreed to herein by the party of the second part.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties to this agreement has caused the same
to be executed in the day and year first above written.
WITNESS:
�, ' .{.r; ,� l V (/ •I t:rJ ^ (1.1/1 �
Jonathan A. Ba an
WITNESS:
v
Audrey L. Fields, Clerk
Board of Commissioners
Craven County,N.C.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY :
DIVISION ENGINEER
Bruce C. Bley, President, New er Energy
Recovery, Inc., General Partn r—`&4 t e ,
Craven County -Wood -Energy Lim ted
z"
ntrahi�
100 ClintonySquare Suite 400
Gys r „cr r 1 i�6iil flaA
Seton Party
Craven County Board of Commissions
P.O. Box1425, New Bern,14.C.-265G0
Third Party

or AP.
/41,00
I rl V V 1= xS 1 N61
\4 0 M-) H I" F_-
r�-AVF_ tJ t)TG Vn
Bellair
12
Beach Grove Ch.
1420
tA\
5
41,
6"W
C13
1244
124:t
1243
NO:
1005
)q1,j,C7WWEfiT C9,1V,-1v•
'Clarks
yma
�,
0
1226
@
=;;� - �
No. REVISION BY DATE
'gob" y
loop-.
4-0
N
ca"040
0.0 No"M
0090
NORTH CAROLINA
J
0 It
N 41
1< CRON E N
P71 COU N-rY
1481
Q Pop. +(.Pl
1483
Duc
r
OeWashington
Forks
ood rov
P A M L I C 0
vr.
131
17
C 0 U NTY
55 70
1304 1.6 R
Ob N EW B.
L.:FAtj POP. 1 57"
70
01 M�LMI CITY
INC;)
AP .7 1.2
70
Grantham. -
ALA 1.
2
Cm - TOWNSHIP \``
-,Top
135 D'�T' C IAV EN N
C;4*u wr Y
SIT CO2 P
PA,,. 5L K.
122
1223
1225•
Z
\9 Zft
1228
C)
PUMP
'1224
OB 112 4 ­9��
1004 f V
Simmons- Nott /C%
'Airport
PROJECT TITLE
TRENT \WOO S
POP.1 177
TOWNSHIP NO. 8
D WATER
I
N E P C 0
CIV
ZURN
1004 •
Z­
ry f4pon e•o.e.0
*** . e•*2
*a oe►
0..
0.60...
,:-1144
RIVER BEND
CRAVEN COUNTY,
• %
NORTH CAROLINA
X. POP. 1 t045
(EST. 1980)
ti
307 •DRAWING TITLE
•te.oX. A I ERVIEW OF WATER
*
10
0 9.0 0,000
00 00.. C R 0 A T A N
0 6:01 *
: R.
00:0
00- a ... DISTR I B UT I ON
.0. 0
:00,
t4,0;-
• N A T 1 0 N A L
SYSTEM THROUGH
f0'
J 0 N E S C 0 U N TY 17
0 AFPROX. 100 LJR,
rrLZ)6b ?.0,6tAtAR
0
FOREST
TOWNSHIP NO. 8
MAR 2 7 1990
L E fil N D
F=i­Q�1' iju
-------------- ---------- DESIGNED BY: V 0 H
EXISTING WATERLINESDRAWN BY: FLH
CHECKED BY:
PROPOSED WATERLINES V Ott
APPROVED BY: V O H
FUTURE VATERLINESFIELD BOOKS PROJECT NO.
3903
SCALE: AS SHOWN DWG. NO.
DATE: 10/89
FILE NO. 3903 SHEET 3 OF 19

CAMI°A AND DREDGE AND FILL.
GENERAL
PERMIT
as authori.-ed by the Stale of North Carolina,
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and the Coastal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15 NCAC
Applit'1111 Name __srene_C:asper_--__ _ Phone Number�19-2tiQ
Addrt•as ._--591 _Longb§wh Vriyt__ ___ --
_-Hertford - - - -
City.-___.H_._State NC zip 27944
Project Location (County, State Road, Water Body, etc.) Pe�u�M_QgUnty,_pff_.R 13.21, Tuna B ash Fctaf=gg� __
Lot 22, adjacent Albemarle' Sound.
Type of Project Activity -1$UT—X b_T-pierg_Fffi attache
PR"ll-Cl DESCRIPTION I SKEICII PT, Fn, I•SV
Pirr (clock) Irngtlh tn_-3C.11
1()' x 20, platform
_--
number
Bulkhead length
max. distance distance offshore
Basin, channel dimensions
whir yards
float ramp dimensions
Other
See Attached Plat
Ibis permit is subject to compliance with this application, site
drawing and attached general and specific condition%. Any
vi-Ilition ref these teens may subject tilt: permittee to a fine,
impriammenl or civil action; and may cause the permit to he -
Clime 111111 and void.
Ibis permit must he on the project site and accessible to the
permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance.
flit, applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) this pro-
jeet is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordin;mces, and 2) a written statement has been obtained from
adj,lcent riparian landowners certifying that they have no
Objections to the proposed work.
In i -Hing this permit the State of North Carolina certifies that
this project is consistent with lite North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
(SCALE:
applicant's signature
permit officer's signature
04/23/91 _ 07%23[91
iccuing date expiration date
attachments %)) . 1.200
application fee $50.00 pd. ck # 2109

F
� ,1 r • ..
�• �-,a-,oc tom^

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Flealth and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Managemcnt
I Iiglhway 17 Sonth • Hizabeth City, North Car<,lina 27909
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
Williarn W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
April 23, 1991
Ms. Mary Casper
925 Maryland Ave.
Virginia Beach, VA 23451
Dear Ms. Casper:
Attached is General Permit #8145-A to construct a 180' x 6'
pier with attached 201 x 20' platform at Lot 22, Long Beach
Estates, adjacent the Albemarle Sound, Perquimans County.
In order to validate this permit, please sign all three (3)
copies as indicated. Retain the white copy for your files and
return the yellow and pink signed copies to us in the enclosed,
self-addressed envelope.
Your early attention to this matter_ would be appreciated.
MTB: do
Enclosures
sincerely,
/�_' / A'e
M. Todd Ball
Field Representative I
Route 6 hod( 203, R7 ahrth ( ltv, North Carolina 27(Xp) "I 4,-phonr 919 71,4-39p1
An r(ptal ( )pporhodty AlHnnative Action [mployer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF PERQUIMANS
LUCY R. HANSON, STANLEY P.
and JEAN SZWED,
Petitioners,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent,
and
IRENE CASPER,
Intervenor -Respondent.
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
E
2 8 1992
U-3
FINAL ORDER
On May 8, 1991, petitioners filed a request for a contested
case hearing pursuant to NCGS 113A-121.1 concerning the issuance
of CAMA General Permit 8145A to Irene Casper for construction of
a pier in the waters of Albemarle Sound. By order of June 3,
1991, the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission granted
petitioners' request for a contested case hearing as to one of
the four grounds alleged in the hearing request. The petition to
commence this contested case hearing was filed in the Office of
Administrative Hearings on June 17, 1991. The matter was
assigned to Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) Thomas R.
West for hearing. Respondent filed a motion for partial
dismissal on July 31, 1991 to limit the issues in the contested
case hearing to the single issue identified in the Chairman's
order.

-2 -
ALJ West conducted the administrative hearing in the
above -captioned matter on October 21, 1991 in Edenton, North
Carolina. The hearing was held in accordance with North Carolina
General Statutes (hereinafter NCGS) Chapter 150B and 26 North
Carolina Administrative Code (hereinafter NCAC) Chapter 3. Mrs.
Szwed represented herself; Associate Attorney General J. Peter
Rascoe, III represented the respondent Division of Coastal
Management, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
ALJ West issued a recommended decision on November 26, 1992.
Through counsel, the Division of Coastal Management filed
objections and exceptions to the recommended decision on February
5, 1992. In its statement of objections and exceptions to the
ALJ's recommended decision, DCM renewed its motion for dismissal
of the issues determined by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources
Commission in the Order of June 3, 1991 to be inappropriate for
hearing. The matter was scheduled for final arguments to and a
decision by the Coastal Resources Commission (hereinafter CRC) on
March 27, 1992.
Before determining the substantive issues presented in the
contested case, the Commission heard petitioners' motion for a
continuance of the proceeding because the originals of certain
exhibits in the hearing record were not available for reference
during petitioners' argument. The Commission denied petitioners'
request, noting that failure to make a final decision at the

-3 -
March 1992 CRC meeting would cause the Commission to violate NCGS
113A -122(c) (which mandates a final decision within 180 days
after the appeal is filed) and the permit would be upheld by
operation of law.
The CRC declined to adopt the Recommended Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge for the following reasons:
1. On the issue of exap rte communication, the ALJ
erroneously interpreted NCGS 150B-35 to prohibit consultation
between the Commission Chairman and the Commission's duly
appointed legal counsel and made findings and conclusions
concerning communication between the Commission's counsel and the
Chairman in the absence of any evidence in the record as to the
content of such communications.
2. On the issue of the Commission's authority to delegate
the decision to grant or deny a hearing request to its Chairman,
the ALJ exceeded his statutory authority in purporting to issue
an order voiding an administrative rule adopted by the Coastal
Resources Commission; made no findings of fact concerning the
feasibility of a decision by the full Commission within the time
allowed by statute; ignored the legal concept of implied
statutory authority and therefore erred in concluding that the
Commission has no authority to delegate the decision to grant or
deny third party hearing requests to its Chairman by rule.
3. For the same reasons stated in paragraph (2) above, the
ALJ erred in concluding that the Chairman does not have the

-4 -
authority, under NCGS 113A-121.1, to limit the issues appropriate
for hearing.
4. The ALJ misapplied 15A NCAC 7H.1205(b) in concluding
that the 180 -foot pier proposed by the intervenor -respondent
would exceed the established pier length on the same shoreline.
On hearing the arguments of the parties and upon
consideration of the entire record in this matter, the Coastal
Resources Commission adopts the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONSISTENCY OF PERMITTED PIER WITH 15A NCAC 7H.0208(b)(6
1. Longbeach Estates is a residential subdivision located
off State Road 1321 on the eastern shore of the Perquimans River
approximately 18 miles south of the Highway 17 bridge. Lots
18-25 face southward onto a concave cove near the mouth of the
River and Albemarle Sound. The cove is shallow, heavily
vegetated by Milfoil and contains four old pilings.
2. Intervenor -respondent Irene Casper owns Lots 21 and 22
in Longbeach Estates.
3. A small dock and a pier of 106 feet in length on Lot 21
currently provide water access to the Casper property. The water
is approximately two feet deep at the end of the pier and the
bottom is heavily vegetated with Milfoil.
4. The Perquimans River is approximately one and one half
miles wide in the vicinity of the cove. The Casper property
faces Albemarle Sound which is approximately six miles wide.

5.'0
5. In July 1990, Mrs. Casper and her late husband applied
for a CAMA permit and a Department of the Army permit to extend
the existing 106 -foot pier on Lot 21 to reach water less
obstructed by submerged vegetation. The Caspers proposed to angle
the pier extension to the southeast and construct a platform at
the waterward end of the pier for a total length of 250 feet.
6. Petitioners Jean Szwed and Lucy Hanson objected to the
proposed pier extension. Mrs. Szwed owns Lots 19 and 20,
immediately to the north of the Casper property; Mrs. Hanson owns
Lots 24 and 25 which are one lot removed to the south of the
Casper property.
7. The Caspers modified the permit application and
proposed alternatively to construct a new pier 180 feet long and
6 feet wide on Lot 22. The modified application also proposed
construction of a 20' x 20' platform on the waterward end of the
pier.
8. 15A NCAC 7H.0208(b)(6) states in pertinent part:
(C) Piers shall be designed to minimize adverse
effects on navigation and public use of waters while
allowing the applicant adequate access to deep waters
by:
(i) not extending beyond the established pier length
along the same shoreline for similar use;
9. The only existing pier in the cove is the 106' pier on
the Casper property.
10. The eighteen -mile shoreline between the subject
property and the Highway 17 bridge has similar characteristics in
terms of water depths and the presence of aquatic vegetation.

11. There are approximately 70-80 piers on the eastern
shoreline of the Perquimans river south of the Highway 17 bridge.
The piers range from 20 feet to 400 feet in length.
12. A pier of 200 feet in length is located approximately
one-half mile upstream of the subject property.
13. A pier of 400 feet in length is located on the eastern
shore of the Perquimans Rivers within approximately four miles
upstream of the subject property.
14. DCM determined the areas of riparian access for each of
the cove lots by establishing a deep water line 250 feet from
shore and allocating a percentage of the off -shore area out to
the deep water line to each lot in proportion to its shore
frontage. The resulting lines delineating the riparian access
areas intersected with the deep water line at angles varying from
80 to 100 degrees.
15. Under the plan for delineation of riparian access areas
for the cove lot, each property owner could construct a 200 -foot
long pier.
16. Construction of a pier of 200 feet in length on the
Casper property will not obstruct access to deep water from
petitioners' property.
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION
17. NCGS 150B-35 states as follows:
Unless required for disposition of an ex parte matter
authorized by law, neither the administrative law judge
assigned to a contested case nor a member or employee of the

-7 -
agency making a final decision in the case may communicate,
directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of
fact, or question of law, with any person or party or his
representative, except on notice and opportunity for all
parties to participate.
18. The Commission takes official notice of the fact that
Black's Law Dictionary 517 (5th Ed. 1979) defines "ex parte" as
"[o]n one side only; by or for one party; done for, in behalf of,
or on the application of, one party only".
19. Under NCGS 113A-126, the Attorney General is designated
as counsel for the Coastal Resources Commission; the Attorney
General did not represent any party in the hearing request.
20. The record contains no evidence concerning the content
of any communication between the Commission Chairman and the
Commission's counsel while petitioners' request for a contested
case hearing was pending.
21. At the time the Commission Chairman issued the order
granting petitioners' request for a contested case hearing, the
Division of Coastal Management was represented by the General
Counsel's office, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
22. Under NCGS 113A -121.1(b), persons other than the permit
applicant and the Secretary of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources may file a petition for a contested
case hearing only after the Commission has determined a contested
case hearing to be appropriate.

S
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO CHAIRMAN
23. NCGS 113A -121.1(b) directs the Coastal Resources
Commission to grant or deny requests for contested case hearings
within 15 days following receipt of the request.
24. The Coastal Area Management Act does not expressly
authorize the Commission to delegate the authority to grant or
deny hearing requests.
25. Under NCGS 113A-104, the Coastal Resources Commission
is a 15 -member citizen commission whose members must reside in a
minimum of eight different counties.
26. As a practical matter, it is impossible for a quorum of
the full Commission to meet within fifteen days after receipt of
every hearing request submitted to the Commission to determine
whether a hearing is appropriate.
27. The Commission has delegated its authority to grant or
deny hearing requests pursuant to NCGS 113A -121.1(b) to the
Chairman by rule. 15A NCAC 7J.0301(b).
28. Under NCGS 113A -121.1(b), the decision to grant or deny
a hearing request is a final agency decision which is subject to
judicial review.
AUTHORITY TO LIMIT ISSUES ON APPEAL
29. The Chairman's order pursuant to NCGS 113A -121.1(b)
granted petitioners' hearing request- as to one of the four issues

�.m
raised in petitioners' request for contested case hearing, but
denied petitioners' request as to the remaining issues.
30. Petitioners did not seek judicial review of the
Chairman's order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The parties are properly before the Coastal Resources
Commission. There is no question of misjoinder or nonjoinder of
parties.
2. For purposes of 15A NCAC 7H.0208(b)(6), the "same
shoreline" means the contiguous shoreline, both upstream and
downstream, having similar characteristics in terms of water
depth, shoreline profile, presence of aquatic vegetation and
other natural features affecting access to deep water.
3. In the present case, the shoreline from the mouth of
the Perquimans River to the Highway 17 bridge constituted the
"same shoreline" for purposes of evaluating Mr. and Mrs. Casper's
permit application.
4. The permitted pier does not exceed the established pier
length on the same shoreline for similar use.
5. The intent of a prohibition against ex parte
communication is to avoid a situation in which the
decisionmaker's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned".
See United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 946 F2d 180 (CA2 1991)
and to prevent the decisionmaker's consideration of facts outside

-10 -
the official record. On legal issues, it is commonly accepted
that judges and administrative decisionmakers may directly
consult other impartial sources and need not rely solely on the
legal arguments advanced by the parties. See, Hanft, Some
Aspects of Evidence in Adjudication by Administrative Agencies in
North Carolina, 49 N.C.L.Rev. 635 (1971), in which Hanft notes
that "judges may even informally consult law professors,
specialists in their fields, seeking light on law in connection
with cases before them."
6. The Coastal Resources Commission Chairman's discussion
of a pending request for contested case hearing with the
Commission's statutorily designated legal counsel does not
constitute improper ex parte communication within the meaning of
NCGS 150B-35 in that the Commission's counsel neither represented
a party nor had any association with the parties or their
representatives and there is no evidence in the record tending to
show that such communication concerned factual rather than legal
issues.
7. Statutory authority may be either express or implied.
Implied powers include "those necessarily or fairly implied in or
incident to the powers expressly granted" and "those essential to
the accomplishment of the declared objects". Shopping Center v.
Town of Madison, 45 N.C.App 249 (1980) (concerning the implied
powers of municipal corporations).

-11-
8. Since it is impossible for the full Commission to meet
to determine whether a contested case hearing is appropriate
within the statutorily prescribed time due to the number of
Commission members, their geographic separation and the frequency
of such requests, the Coastal Resources Commission has the
implied authority to delegate its power to determine whether a
contested case hearing is appropriate to its Chairman.
9. The intent of NCGS 113A -121.1(b) is to limit the
availability of a contested case hearing to challenge an issued
permit to those requests demonstrating both a legal and a factual
basis; the power to grant a hearing only as to those issues
meeting the criteria set out in the statute is necessarily
implicit in the authority to deny such a request for failure to
meet the criteria.
10. Acting under a proper delegation of authority from the
Commission, the Chairman has the implied authority to determine
that some, but not all, of the issues raised in the hearing
request are appropriate for hearing and to thereby limit the
issues for hearing.
11. All matters related to the Chairman's decision under
NCGS 113A-121.1, including the questions of ex parte
communication and statutory authority, are outside the scope of
this contested case hearing because they relate to a final
Commission decision prior to the initiation of the contested
case.

-12 -
ORDER
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, the Coastal Resources Commission by action of
March 27, 1992 upholds the issuance of CAMA General Permit 8145A
to Irene Casper and petitioners' appeal is DENIED.
This the ZD day of April, 1992.
James Harringtknj Chairman
CSResources commission

_ COPY TO: JOHN PARKER
LN-Q-UE:5�tate
PRES PATE
DEDRA BLACKWELL
31992
of North Carolina
111(11tNHI'M; I)cparttnent of Justice
13.0.130X 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
August 21, 1991
Jean C. Szwed
Route 3, Box 588
Hertford, N.C. 27944
DEC 13-9i
COASTAL RfSOLH CES COM
RE: Respondent's Response to Petitioners' Request for
Discovery and Respondent's Reply to Petitioners'
Response to Motion for Partial Dismissal, Szwed v.
DEHNR, 91 EHR 0551
Dear Ms. Szwed:
I am treating your letter dated August 6, 1991, as a Request
for Production of Documents pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1.
Pursuant to Rule 34, the Division of Coastal Management is
only required to make the documents you have requested available
for your inspection and copying. The Division is not required to
copy any documents for you and mail them to you as you seem to be
requesting.
Therefore, I have advised David Griffin, the Division's
District Manager in Elizabeth City to make his file available to
you. Call him at [phone] to make an appointment with him.
I have also advised him that he may charge you a reasonable fee
for any copying of any documents. In addition, you need to
provide Mr. Griffin with a list of any of the files you copy.
In addition, Todd Ball has sent me a copy of your letter to
him dated August 6, 1991, in which you requested copies of
certain listed permits. You should have sent this Request to me
as Counsel for the Division, but I will treat it as a proper
Request for Documents. Copies of these permits should be in the
files of the Elizabeth City District Office, and I have advised
David Griffin to let you inspect and copy them on the same terms.
I understand that you recently telephoned Todd Ball and
asked him for copies of additional permits. If an extensive
search of DCM's files will be required, the Division will make
its files available to you but you will have to search for the
files you desire and inspect and copy them on the same terms.
An F(jual 0Pf)0rtunity/Aff1nrla11ve Action Employer

2
Furthermore, you have requested copies of the CAMA
regulations. The Elizabeth City Office should have copies of
these regulations available for the public. If they are out of
them, you can also obtain copies from the Office of
Administrative Hearings for a fee.
I am hereby objecting to your broad request in the next to
last paragraph of your August 6 letter to provide "statements
from CAMA officers both local and statewide, statements from
expert witnesses•if any, and other information contained in this
file" except to the extent you may obtain this information by
inspecting and copying the Division's file. By this broad
request, you appear to be seeking information that is obtainable
through a deposition or written interrogatories, and I object to
this broad request until it is properly made under the Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Since you are representing yourself, you may not understand
that Judge West has ordered the parties to exchange a list of
their witnesses and exhibits by September 18. By that time, I
expect that Judge West will have ruled on the Division's Motion
for Partial Dismissal and the parties will have a clearer
understanding of what the issues will be at the hearing. At that
time, I will be willing to explain to you what the Division's
witnesses will testify to at the hearing.
Finally, I strongly disagree with your statement in your
letter to Judge West dated August 3, 1991, which is in effect
your Response to the Motion for Partial Dismissal I filed on
behalf of the Division. In your Response, you indicated that I
misadvised you regarding how you could correct any errors or
omissions in Chairman Harrington's Order. My recollection is that
You stated you and Mr. Szwed and Lucy Hanson would be
representing yourselves for the remainder of this proceeding
until you indicated otherwise. You also asked how to file a
Petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings, and I
explained what you needed to so.
I do not recall that you sought my opinion about the effect
of the Chairman's granting of your Hearing Request only on the
issue of the consistency of Permit No. 8145A with Rule 15A NCAC
.1205(b) and his denial of your Request on the other issues you
raised. If you had, I would have informed you I was under no
obligation to advise you in a manner that would prejudice any
claim or defense my client might have in this matter. As an
Attorney who represents a state agency, I obviously have to deal
with litigants fairly but I do not and should not attempt to
advise an opposing party regarding what course of action they
should take. If you had indicated you intended to raise such
other issues in your petition to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, which you did not tell me, I would have advised you
that I would file a Motion for Partial Dismissal because his
Order was a final decision regarding such other issues.
)Vj

3
By copy of this letter to Judge West, I am hereby objecting
to that part of your Discovery Request which broadly seeks
information outside the files of the Division of Coastal
Management until you have properly done so under the Rules of
Civil Procedure. By copy of this letter, I am also informing
Judge West that I am prepared to withdraw from this matter and
testify on behalf of the Division of Coastal Management if he
determines your allegation that I mislead you is relevant to his
ruling on the Division's Motion for Partial Dismissal and a
hearing should be held on that Motion.
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney may not
communicate with an adverse party who is represented by an
attorney unless he is authorized by law or has the consent of the
other attorney. Except as I have outlined above, I am hereby
requesting that you not have any further contacts with the
Division of Coastal Management without first obtaining my
consent.
cc: Honorable Thomas R. West
Lucy Hanson
Irene Casper
David Griffin
Allen Jernigan
A:DRLHJS.DH
sa
Sincerely,
LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General
a" -te-
David G. Heeter
Associate Attorney General

-L -FT1-
JAW Q Z 1992
ORIGINAL TO: ROGER SCHECTER
COPY TO: PRES PATE
JOHN PARKER
DEDRA BLACKWELL
DAVID GRIFFIN
Rt. 03, Box 588
Hertford, N. C. 27944
December 16, 1991
Lacy H. Thornburg
Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. 0. Box 619
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Re: 91 EHR 0551
91 EHR 0557
Dear Mr. Thornburg:
I have today received a "MOTION TO RECONSIDER (G.S. 1A-1,
RULE 60; 26 NCAC 26 .0001(1).) dated 12/11/91 signed by
David G. Heeter, Associate Attorney General under your name
as Attorney General.
I believe David G. Heeter completely jeopardized our case
by giving me incorrect advice on how to get errors and
omissions corrected, whether intentional or not, and should
have withdrawn as he suggested in his letter of 8/21/91.
Had we been advised to file a judicial review on the issues
that he suggested be denied, we could have then formally
corrected the errors and omissions in his RECOMMENDATION
and presented the correct facts and evidence which would
have allowed this case to have a fair presentation at the
hearing on all issues.
The RECOMMENDED DECISION by Judge West states on Page 4, Item b.
"The Assistant Attorney General's consultation with the Chairman
during his final decision making process without notice to the
parties and their opportunity to participate is a violation of
G.S. 150-B 35." This appears to be another attempt to limit our
ability to present correct facts and evidence.
We believe that there have been sufficient legally questionable
acts by Mr.Heeter to require his withdrawal from participation
in this case, such as:
af6yl,e ilk
,V4
COASTAL RvJ. Ea COMM.
1. Presenting omissions and errors, too numerous to mention,
in his RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIVISION OF THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT
as facts on which the Chairman of the CRC would make his decision

on al lowing a contestea case nraT 111Y.
1
Page 2
2. Misadvising us to file a contested case hearing instead
of a Judicial Review when I asked how to get the omissions and
errors corrected. thereby, denying us the right to get the true
facts before the Coastal Resources Commission to be considered in
their decision 'of the issues to be heard in the Contested Case
Hearing.
2. Consulting with the Chairman of the CRC in an ex parte
fashion prior to his making the final derision without giving
notice to the parties which would allow us to participate.
Ali of the above actions, have cut us off from the opportunity
to fairly present the facts and evidence. Now that Judge West
Has made his RECOMMENDED DECISION, we believe Mr. Heeter is again
attempting to circumvent it with his interaction with the
Coastal Resources Commission.
For the above reasons, we respectfully request that Mr. Heeter
be removed from further legal or advisory capacity in this
case.
Sincerely,
Jean C. Szwed
Copies: Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General
Thomas R. West, Administrative Law Judge
James Harrington, Chairman, CoastalResourcesCommission
David G. Heeter, Associate Attorney General
It

4
Auqust 3, 1991
Honorable Thomas R. West
Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Officer
Office of Administrative Hearings
Post Office Drawer 28447
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7447
Re: Stanley & Jean Szwed Y. Dept. of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management,
File No. 91 EHR 0551 and File No. 91 EHR 0557
Dear Judge West:
I have before me the "RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER RULE 12(B) (i) --
submitted by David G. Heeter, Associate Attorney General, N. C.
Dept. of Justice dated 7/31/91. My letter of 7/27/91 pointed out
some of our objections to this motion but I would also like to get
the facts on record.
We have been at a distinct disadvantage in getting copies of the
statutes and regulations and also in getting advice on how to
Proceed with the appeals process. We relied on the local CAMA
office and Mr. Heeter who apparently satisfied our request
without giving full disclosure.
FACTS
I. In March 1991, I requested copies of the regulations govern-
ing the issuance of CAMA permits. Mr. Todd Ball gave me one page
containing Section .1200 of the N. C. Administrative Code dated
3/16/89 (Exhibit 1) on which we based our objections in my letter
of 3/7/71 (Exhibit 2). In the beginning of April 1991, he fur-
nished me with an updated version dated 1/29/91 (Exhibit 3) to
show that .1205 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (g) "The line of division of
areas of riparian access..........". Our objections were then
based on this updated set of regulations as stated in my letter of
4/3/91 (Exhitit 4). We were not told that the permits must also
be consistent with State Guidelines and were not given a copy of
these guidelines.
2. The permit was issued and our timely appeal was filed on
instructions from and forms furnished by the local permit officer.

r
3. Mr. Heeter made a "RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT" to the Chairman, Coastal Resources Commission (CRC)
to deny a THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST because the allegations were
not supported by the evidence or the applicable laws. We have not
been given an opportunity to present evidence so we don't know how
he can make that statement.
4. After receiving the above "RECOMMENDATION", I spoke to Mr.
Heeter on the phone on June 5, 1991 at 3:46 P M for nine minutes
and asked how I should get the errors and omissions corrected. He
told me we should file a "CONTESTED CASE PETITION ON CAMA PERMIT
DECISION" which I could get at the local CAMA office. He now
states in his Motion, Item 18. that we should have sought juducial
review. I specifically followed his instructions and filed a
timely appeal.
5. The CRC accepted that apoeal.without limitation and the PRE -
HEARING STATEMENTS were filed on a timely basis.
6. Mr. Heeter has again filed another RECOMMENDATION to limit
issues and evidence and we still have not presented any evidence.
7. The pier permit has been issued erroneously because the Div.
Of Coastal Management failed to act as required by statute or law
G. S. &113A-120 Grant or denial of permits. (a) The responsible
Official or body shall deny an application for a permit upon
finding:
(10) In any case, that the proposed development would contribute
to cumulative effects that would be inconsistent with the guide-
lines set forth in subdivisions ( 1) through (9) of this
subsection. Cumulative effects are impacts attributable to the
collective effects of additional projects similar to the re-
quested permit in areas available for development in the vicinity.
Exhibit 5 shows what the cumulative effects of similar projects
would be if fully developed.
For the above reasons, we respectfully make a MOTION that
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL" be denied.
Sincerely,
Jean C. Szwed
It

A copy of the foregoing was mailed to:
Lucy R. Hanson
845 First Colonial Rd., Apt. 154
Virginia Beach, Va. 23451
PETITIONER
David G. Heeter
Associate Attorney General
P. 0. Box 629
Raleigh, N. C. 27602-0629
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
Irene Casper
Rt. 03, Box 591
Hertford, N. C. 27944
INTERVENOR -RESPONDENT
------ -------
Jean C. Szwed -----------------------
Rt. #3, Box 588
Hertford, N. C. 27944
919-264-2018

State of North Carolina
r.ACY rr III(MN14111U; Deparlrnent Of JUS11ce
�r rP.O. BOX 629
RALEIGf f
276020629
August 21, 1991
Jean C. Szwed
Route 3, Box 588
Hertford, N.C. 27944
RE: Respondent's Response to Petitioners' Request for
Discovery and Respondent's Reply to Petitioners'
Response to Motion for Partial Dismissal, Szwed v.
DEHNR, 91 EHR 0551
Dear Ms. Szwed:
I am treating your letter dated August 6, 1991, as a Request
for Production of Documents pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1.
Pursuant to Rule 34, the Division of Coastal Management is
only required to make the documents you have requested available
for your inspection and copying. The Division is not required to
copy any documents for you and mail them to you as you seem to be
requesting.
Therefore, I have advised David Griffin, the Division's
District Manager in Elizabeth City to make his file available to
you. Call him at [phone] to make an appointment with him.
I have also advised him that he may charge you a reasonable fee
for any copying of any documents. In addition, you need to
provide Mr. Griffin with a list of any of the files you copy.
In addition, Todd Ball has sent me a copy of your letter to
him dated August 6, 1991, in which you requested copies of
certain listed permits. You should have sent this Request to me
as Counsel for the Division, but I will treat it as a proper
Request for Documents. Copies of these permits should be in the
files of the Elizabeth City District Office, and I have advised
David Griffin to let you inspect and copy them on the same terms.
I understand that you recently telephoned Todd Ball and
asked him for copies of additional permits. If an extensive
search of DCM's files will be required, the Division will make
its files available to you but you will have to search for the
files you desire and inspect and copy them on the same terms.
11/41,
An E(ju,11 Oj)port01)1ty/Aff1rrni,1t1ve Action Employer

I/
2
Furthermore, you have requested copies of the CAMA
regulations. The Elizabeth City Office should have copies of
these regulations available for the public. If they are out of
them, you can also obtain copies from the Office of
Administrative Hearings for a fee.
I am hereby objecting to your broad request in the next to
last paragraph of your August 6 letter to provide "statements
from CAMA officers both local and statewide, statements from
expert witnesses -if any, and other information contained in this
file" except to t'he extent you may obtain this information by
inspecting and copying the Division's file. By this broad
request, you appear to be seeking information that is obtainable
through a deposition or written interrogatories, and I object to
this broad request until it is properly made under the Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Since you are representing yourself, you may not understand
that Judge West has ordered the parties to exchange a list of
their witnesses and exhibits by September 18. By that time, I
expect that Judge West will have ruled on the Division's Motion
for Partial Dismissal and the parties will have a clearer
understanding of what the issues will be at the hearing. At that
time, I will be willing to explain to you what the Division's
witnesses will testify to at the hearing.
Finally, I strongly disagree with your statement in your
letter to Judge West dated August 3, 1991, which is in effect
your Response to the Motion for Partial Dismissal I filed on
behalf of the Division. In your Response, you indicated that I
misadvised you regarding how you could correct any errors or
omissions in Chairman Harrington's Order. My recollection is that
You stated you and Mr. Szwed and Lucy Hanson would be
representing yourselves for the remainder of this proceeding
until you indicated otherwise. You also asked how to file a
Petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings, and I
explained what you needed to so.
I do not recall that you sought my opinion about the effect
of the Chairman's granting of your Hearing Request only on the
issue of the consistency of Permit No. 8145A with Rule 15A NCAC
.1205(b) and his denial of your Request on the other issues you
raised. If you had, I would have informed you I was under no
obligation to advise you in a manner that would prejudice any
claim or defense my client might have in this matter. As an
Attorney who represents a state agency, I obviously have to deal
with litigants fairly but I do not and should not attempt to
advise an opposing party regarding what course of action they
should take. If you had indicated you intended to raise such
other issues in your petition to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, which you did not tell me, I would have advised
yu
that I would file a Motion for Partial Dismissal because his
Order was a final decision regarding such other issues.
)Vs

3
By copy of this letter to Judge West, I am hereby objecting
to that part of your Discovery Request which broadly seeks
information outside the files of the Division of Coastal
Management until you have properly done so under the Rules of
Civil Procedure. By copy of this letter, I am also informing
Judge West that I am prepared to withdraw from this matter and
testify on behalf of the Division of Coastal Management if he
determines your allegation that I mislead you is relevant to his
ruling on the Division's Motion for Partial Dismissal and a
hearing should be held on that Motion.
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney may not
communicate with an adverse party who is represented by an
attorney unless he is authorized by law or has the consent of the
other attorney. Except as I have outlined above, I am hereby
requesting that you not have any further contacts with the
Division of Coastal Management without first obtaining my
consent.
cc: Honorable Thomas R. West
Lucy Hanson
Irene Casper
David Griffin
Allen Jernigan
A:DRLHJS.DH
J Se)
Sincerely,
LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General
David G. Heeter
Associate Attorney General

Rt. #3, Box 588
Hertford, N. C. 27944
August 24, 1991
David G. Heeter
Office of General Counsel
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Re: Your letter of 8/21/91
Szwed v. DEHNR. 91 EHR 0551
Dear Mr. Heeter:
In reply to your letter of 8/21/91, I would like to take this
opportunity to clarify our position and request for files and
information.
We do not propose to make an extensive search of DCM's files as
you suggest but rather need copies of only those permits which you
plan to present as evidence. We believe that, in addition to
Longbeach Estate permits, you will also present permits from the
William Penn Chappell Lots and that is our reason for including
them. If you do not plan to present them as evidence, then we
will not need copies of them. Mr. Todd Ball advised me yesterday
that the files and permits are available to copy.
The first paragraph of the above referenced letter states that you
are treating my letter "as a Request for Production of Documents
pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. IA -1."
Paragraph 2 on page 2 states that you object to my "request until
it is properly made under the Rules of Civil Procedure." We con-
sidered our request to be part of the exchange of evidence which
must take place before September 18. The request was purposely
made broad to insure that we received everything we should have
and did not find vital information missing because we did not ask
for it. Your two statements above are somewhat confusing as to
whether you will or will not furnish the information requested.
Please clarify the issue of which items in your file will be
furnished and which will not, when and where they will be made
available and at what cost, if any.
I requested copies of the CAMA regulations from the Elizabeth City
Office back in March 1991 and was given one page of NCAC dated
1/29/91 EHNR - Coastal Management - T15A:07H .1200 pages 1 and 2.

Paqe 2
I asked if there was anything additional and was shown discussions
which led to the passing of the regulations. I have since written
to Raleigh and received a complete set of Article 7, Coastal Area
Management $113A-100-134.3 as well as Subchapter 7H - State Guide-
lines for Areas of Environmental Concern, Section .0100-.1905.
The Elizabeth City Office failed to give me the major portion of
the regulations when I asked for them.
When we received the "RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT" dated 5/15/91 signed by you, we were in Freeport,
Grand Bahama. I flew home on June 3, 1991 to do what was neces-
sary to get the correct facts before the Commission for their
consideration. I assumed that you were not aware of all the
inaccuracies and omissions in the Recommendation so I called you
to ask what I should do to accomplish this. You told me to file
an appeal "CONTESTED CASE PETITION ON CAMA PERMIT DECISION" which
I could get from David Griffin in the Elizabeth City Office. It
was at this time that I asked how to file the Petition.
I did not, in fact, ask about the Chairman's decision because we
had not yet received it. I spoke to you on June 5 and that was
the date the "ORDER" was mailed. We received it later in the week
after I spoke to you.
You now state in your letter that the Chairman's ORDER was a final
decision regarding the "other" issues. Is it not true,that if we
had requested a Judicial Review with correct facts presented in
our favor, that this final decision could be reversed? You did
not tell me that the way to get the correct facts in the record
was by way of Judicial Review and have, therefore, effectively
prevented the true facts from being entered on the records on all
of the issues and also taken away our opportunity to present our
evidence on the "other" issues.
In view of the above, it would seem that you did, indeed, "mis-
advise" us on how to get the errors and omissions corrected on the
records.
I note you mailed a copy of your letter to Allen Jernigan. Please
advise who he is, his address and his connection with this case.
Sincerely,
Jean C. Szwed
Copy to: Honorable Thomas R. West
Lucy Hanson
Irene Casper
David Griffin

J�
JUL 3 11991
State of North Carolina
LACY H -MO RNHI M; Department of Justice
P.O. BOX 62<) n
RALEIGH �I
27602-0629
July 23, 1991
Honorable Thomas R. West
Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Officer
Office of Administrative Hearings
Post Office Drawer 27447
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447
RE: Lucy Hanson v. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Coastal Management, File No. 91 EHR 0557
Dear Judge West:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Prehearing Statement of
Respondent in the above -referenced matter. Please note that G.S.
113A -122(c) requires the Coastal Resources Commission to make a
final decision on this matter within 180 days of June 17, 1991,
unless the Permittee, Irene Casper, agrees to a longer time
period. Therefore, I urge you to schedule a prehearing
conference so a hearing date can be agreed upon in order to
present this matter to the Commission at its November 21 and 22,
1991, meeting.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
DGH/sd
attachment
cc: Preston Pate
Dave Griffin
Irene Casper
Sincerely,
LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General
David G. Heeter
Associate Attorney General
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer

Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF PERQUIMANS
LUCY R. HANSON,
Petitioner
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FILE NO. 91 EHR 0557
PREHEARING STATEMENT
OF RESPONDENT
NOW COMES the Division of Coastal Management of the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Respondent, by and through the undersigned pursuant to G.S.
150B -33(b)(4) and Regulation 26 NCAC 3 .0004 and files prehearing
statements in the above -captioned matter with the Office of
Administrative Hearings in accordance with its Order of June 25,
1991.
1. This contested case hearing arose because the Chairman
of the Coastal Resources Commission granted a Third Party Hearing
Request by Lucy Hanson to challenge the issuance of CAMA General
Permit No. 8145A to Irene Casper to construct a 6' wide by 180'
long pier with a 20' by 20' platform on the end over the waters
of Albemarle Sound, Perquimans County, North Carolina. Pursuant
to G.S. 113A -121.1(b), a third party, i.e., someone other than
the Permittee or the Secretary, Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, may not seek a contested case
hearing to challenge the issuance of a CAMA Permit unless the

t
Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) first determines that such a
hearing is appropriate. G.S. 113A -121.1(b) provides that the
determination as to whether a contested case hearing is
appropriate shall be based upon a consideration of three factors,
and the CRC has delegated the authority to make such
determinations to its Chairman. Rule 15A NCAC 7J 40301(b).
Upon considering the information provided to him by the
Petitioner and the Respondent and their arguments, the Chairman
granted the Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request. However,
in granting the Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request, the
Chairman ruled that the Petitioner had demonstrated a substantial
likelihood of prevailing in a contested case hearing only on
her allegation that the authorized pier was inconsistent with
Rule 15A NCAC 7H .1205(b) which provides that "Piers, docks, and
boat houses shall not extend beyond the established pier length
along the same shoreline for similar use."
Under G.S. 113A -121.1(b), a third party has a right to file
a Contested Case Hearing Petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings to challenge the issuance of a CAMA
Permit only if the CRC grants the third party's Hearing Request
or a court upon judicial review determines the Hearing Request
was improperly denied. The Petitioner filed a Contested Case
Hearing Petition with OAH after the Chairman issued his Order
finding the only issue on which she had a substantial likelihood
of prevailing was the length of the pier under Rule 15A NCAC 7H
.1205(b) and did not attempt to seek judicial review of that part
of his Order finding she had no substantial likelihood of

prevailing on the other issues she raised. Therefore it is the
Respondent's position that the only issue properly before the
Administrative Law Judge is whether the pier authorized by CAMA
General Permit No. 8145A is consistent with Rule 15A NCAC 7H
.1205(b). This is the sole issue before the Administrative Law
Judge. The controlling rule is 15A NCAC 7H .1205(b) and the
controlling statute is G.S. 113A -120(a)(8) which provides that a
CAMA permit application should be issued unless it is found to be
inconsistent with one of the State guidelines adopted by the CRC.
2. The Respondent contends that the length of the pier and
platform authorized by CAMA General Permit No. 8145A is
consistent with Rule 15A NCAC 7H .1205(b) for the reasons already
stated in the Respondent's Recommendation to the Chairman of the
CRC.
3. Witnesses for the Respondent include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Preston Pate, Assistant Director, DCM;
2. David Griffin, District Manager, DCM;
3. Todd Ball, Field Representative, DCM;
4. Irene Casper, Permittee; and
5. All of the Petitioner's witnesses.
4. Respondent, pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rules of Civil
Procedures, Article 5, plans to limit its discovery to Requests
for Admissions, Production of Documents and Things and
Interrogatories to Parties. Discovery is estimated to take sixty
(60) days.

41
5. Respondent will stipulate to holding the hearing in
Perquimans County.
6. The length of the hearing is estimated to be one day.
7. Respondent will be represented by the undersigned.
8. G.S. 113A -122(c) requires that the Coastal Resources
Commission make a final decision on this matter within 180 days
of June 17, 1991, unless the Permittee, Irene Casper, agrees to a
longer time period. Unless Irene Casper agrees to a longer time
period, the hearing needs to be scheduled so the CRC can make its
decision at its November 21 and 22, 1991, meeting.
9. The Administrative Law Judge has not yet ruled on Irene
Casper's Motion to Intervene. Once this has been done,
Respondent will make an appropriate Motion to limit the issue
before the Administrative Law Judge and the evidence to be heard.
Respectfully submitted this the o2 3 r day of
Sv.A� , 1991.
LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General
David G. Heeter
Associate Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
919/733-7247

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have caused the attached PREHEARING
STATEMENT OF RESPONDENT to be served on Lucy Hanson, acting pro
se, by causing the same to be deposited in the United States Mail
in an envelope addressed to *Lucy hanson, 845 First Colonial
Road, Apartment 154, Virginia Beach, Va. 23451, and bearing
sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail.
Respectfully submitted this the ;k3rcll day of
A 1991.
5-234
LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General
David G. Heeter
Associate Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
919/733-7247

G
17
��
MAY 11991
K
CERTIFIED MAIL,
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Irene Casper
591 Longbeach Drive
Hertford, North Carolina 27944
RE: Suspension of CAMA Permit No. 8145A by Hearing Requests,
CMT 02 and 03-91, Perquimans County
Dear Ms. Casper:
This is to notify you that Lucy R. Hanson and Stanley and
Jean Swzead have filed Third Party Hearing Requests with the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission seeking a hearing on
the issuance of CAMA Development Permit No. 8145A.
Pursuant to G.S. 113A -121.1(c), Permit No. 8145A is
automatically suspended until the Hearing Requests are denied or
the Coastal Resources Commission makes a final decision on these
matters. During the period Permit No. 8145A is suspended, _you
may not undertake any development that would be unlawful in the
absence of a CAMA Permit. G.S. 113A -121.1(c).
I will file a Recommendation with the Chairman on behalf of
the Division of Coastal Management. You may also want to file a
Reply to the Hearing Requests. If so, contact Robin Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, [phone], who will be advising
the Chairman on these matters.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of
Environment, Health and Natural
Resources
512 North
Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
John C.
Hunter
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary
General
Counsel
Office of General
Counsel
May 9, 1991
Edwin L. Gavin II
John P. Barkley
David G. Heeter
J. Peter Rascoe, III
James C. Holloway
Leigh L. Stallings
Robert R. Gelblum
Billy R. Godwin
Elizabeth E.Rouse
Jay L. Osborne
CERTIFIED MAIL,
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Irene Casper
591 Longbeach Drive
Hertford, North Carolina 27944
RE: Suspension of CAMA Permit No. 8145A by Hearing Requests,
CMT 02 and 03-91, Perquimans County
Dear Ms. Casper:
This is to notify you that Lucy R. Hanson and Stanley and
Jean Swzead have filed Third Party Hearing Requests with the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission seeking a hearing on
the issuance of CAMA Development Permit No. 8145A.
Pursuant to G.S. 113A -121.1(c), Permit No. 8145A is
automatically suspended until the Hearing Requests are denied or
the Coastal Resources Commission makes a final decision on these
matters. During the period Permit No. 8145A is suspended, _you
may not undertake any development that would be unlawful in the
absence of a CAMA Permit. G.S. 113A -121.1(c).
I will file a Recommendation with the Chairman on behalf of
the Division of Coastal Management. You may also want to file a
Reply to the Hearing Requests. If so, contact Robin Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, [phone], who will be advising
the Chairman on these matters.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

A
or
Also feel free to call me if you have any questions.
DGH\rbw
cc: Roger Schecter
`Preston Pate`
Dave Griffin/Todd Bell
Yours truly, 1 � -�-
David G. Heeter
Deputy General Counsel

n i �i ti
lwf
11
V S • t n
j
. jt 121,2 Ilk'
13 *row t9 14 t�
t5 : i ,
6 17 _� 8 15 142
!2 \ OwNrse�,P
l •. Ig — Youa�
RIhRIAm
bI--J 194 G- % � � � = � S. CPkSP�
C -As PE
21 1
C ��� / ✓400
1 2-1 tjf
v
2-3 L9
lob ?leg,
24
o �
IVEu( :z 0,)( zo PARK ' el � 3 � • r,s ,5 7 8 �
Pi.>E4�0RM�c�sTt�1G- 7 -<
'Flu Ll
5 • r-

R �
�� �Fri1FD
pPR 15 '`)1
11:10110"
5%uo•
IZ I: , It 'A , f to x 'iHq
He -rt: f ord , N. C . 27949
Apri 1 1:+, 1` V1
Mr. IIavid Iiri t I in
N. C. Irivi^iron of r lar. Lal h1anaclrmr11f.
Rt, NA, Hr -,x 2n:
F I Oahpt.h City. N. r:. 279n9
UP: r :asnper Pier
DR= Mr-. Hri11 in:
I t o t hank yr ir l and Mr . Hat I for Winn time out of your
lopoy sr_:I miuln to mrr► with me, Lucy Hanson whn was unable to
h" Prpnpnt: anti Bi I 1 and Jana Yn"nq who also have a vented
interr Rt in t:hp nvPrdevPlopment; of our Invpty waterfront.
i ternild I i ke in rrnatr my u"dPrnt:sandinrr of our discussion
and the rnnnlr-rnf.nnn that were arrived at; drrr i nq this meet inr1,
t.liniirih nrrt: nPc.PsRar i I y i rr the order di nruRnprl .
Yni i R t a t ed that you would he ern ra l l y as personally
that. n 200' pier would i n f r i neap on
upset ac,
wp are at:
the prospect n1 havi rid a 2001pi er
in front
of your
prnper t. ,y
wh i rh accomplishes not h i nq ( such as
deeper
water or
ahapnnn n
f nrass) more t: han the 106, hier now
does,
You sa i ri
ynr r mi int
rout t Persona I feel I i ngs aside to make
your dec
f s i son.
O nr e yn"
arra not pprnnna l l y involved, i heli
eve you
can make
an oh.ier:t.
ivr deciRin" whichr will fair to all
and not
favor one
prrynr L y
rM"Pr Hnd"o l y .
We ren i n f rd nut.
that. n 200' pier would i n f r i neap on
the
riparian
riuhtn of L"my
Han.snn, Ri l 1 & Jane Younq, Stan &
Jean
S7wpd,
a nf I i h I " a I
I r r f t hp , peep 1 e dnwn t: he 1 i ne f r nm
t r ,' .
We v i pwecl
the rlrvan t: a t: i no
r t 1 Pr, t: it will have from each "t'
the
above
pr"Prr t. i p" an wr,
I 1 aR the r ommnn property of park
and
boat ramp.
I hin in a "niq"p Ri mat; inn in which each of the parties involver)
m"Ph nharr in Ow Parr i t i r'p of l i vi nn on a rove. We not need out
hnr.i our r-irriprrt ie s are adversely affected and you saw the
nor 1 nq f r.a I damanr that hay: heen done.
We pni.nt;r--ori lith; that, excerpt for the Casper's existing pier of
1DA. there are no nt hrr visihlp pierR rxtpndinrt from l onq Reach
Lir .proppr t: i p" t. ha t are more than 7n' and therefore erefore t Fre Proposer l
n i rr anH deck is not: r,.nnO st ent with I nr.a i land use.

0
I i ni l l y, to Haim 1r) I .r i e f l y the valid rra<;nnq for Bony i nq this,
Permit are:
1 . 1Iir r:nrhs of Fniniers held a ntihl ir: intrrest review and
rir t. erm i nee -I ,i 1 air cnmhrnm i se for at I hart, i en concerned in this
cove and not h i no hao c ha need since that. time.
. T he P i er w i 1. 1 rint: arrnmpn 1 i sh what: i:Iie r:a par's state t he it
r"As;nnn for the 1 nngrr h i Fr of cert. t. i nn Wyonf the press or even
into deprer water.
A. f he pier wi I I i n f r i nqr on W mmi ng and haat i nq arras
directly ad japent to the Property owner^ park and adversely
affect t: he s,r.en i r. and rrnroat. i ona l value to other residents
in the area who uRe the facilities.
4- 1 he n i er is not cons: i nt: rent with local 1and use customs as
detailed ahove .
5. lhr Pier, els have the already existing five structures, will
further affect: the ecN ogy and wildlife of the area.
Please review mY letters of 3/7/91 and 4/3/91 with reference to
the requ 1 a t, i nn^ and ,advise what course of action you are t a k i. ng
and the rrannnc for that action.
Your PrnmPt attention will he greatly appreciated
Singerel y ,
Jean C. Szwed
r
Copy to: Mr. G. Wayne. Wriqht, Chief, RegUiatory Branch,
14ilminnfon District, Army Corp, of Engineers;
Mr. Rnher Rr.hrct er , N. C. Dent. of Env i ronment o l
Health 'ane) Natural Resources-
MS. t nHra Manue l e , Corps of Engineers
Mrs. Lucy Hanson
Mr, Hill Young
",
Mr. Fred Mansf ield

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
I ligliv",ly 17 South • Elizabeth City, North ( :arolina )7909
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, jr., Secretary Director
April 23, 1991
Mr. and Mrs. Stanley szwed
RFD 3, Long Beach Drive
Hertford, NC 27944
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Szwed:
Please find enclosed, a copy of LAMA General Permit No.
8145-A, issued to Irene Casper on April 23, 1991, authorizing the
construction of a 180' x 6' pier with attached 20' x 20'
platform, adjacent Lot 22, Long Beach Estates, Perquimans County.
This permit was issued per Title 15A: 07H .1200 authorizing
the above referenced construction. I assure you that your
objections and those of the adjacent neighbors were weighed and
taken into consideration; however, this office felt that the
Casper's riparian right of access outweighted the stated
objections.
A copy of the forms needed in order to file a Third Party
Appeal were provided to you on April 17, 1991. The forms need to
be received by the Director of the Division of Coastal Management
by May 13, 1991 in order to be valid.
if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at
919 2.64-3901..
Sincerely,
e. %111 /. ,&
M. Todd Ball
Field Representative I
MTB/dc
cc: `Phomas P. Nash Iv
Lucy Hanson
Bill Young
Route () Brix 203, Flizaheth ( pity, North Carolina 27909 '1 drpliome Q19 264-3901
An Fnual Opportunity Affirmative Action Fmrployer

�.=•� `�� �0�5
i•
��ati� '1
•
�,
'�'� Y.�1
�.�C.:
��
:.;.
��-
° '0" �`
� •' �
"fir V�
i� �` - ��
-` � . _ � _ _
r pp�-,,ea ,
..�• -
/ r� � �_
/ �' \0.v -j Uc ��
I
�'.�.v�a
�y��
_}. _�
i \'as \- �
��
r,1li��