52144_HERLONG, JOHN_20080207

16 jI
❑ CAMA / ❑ DREDGE & FILL &
C
E�ERAL PERMIT 4
Previous permit #
`New ❑Modification El Complete Reissue ❑Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources ."•!"
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC
❑ Rules attached.
Applicant Name Project Location: County
Address Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
City State ZIP l
Phone # O Fax # O Subdivision
Authorized Agent : ' ,�,, CityZIP
Affected Q CW Q EW El PTA DES El PTS Phone # ( ) River Basin
AEC(s): L1OEA [IHHF ❑ IH Q UBA EJ NIA Adj. Wtr. Body (nat /man /unkn)
❑ PWS: ❑ FC:
ORW: yes/ no PNA yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
Type of Project/ Activity
Pier (dock) le^^*k
Platform(s)_
Finger pier(s)
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Rip
avg disci
max dist
Basin, channe
cubic ya
Boat ramp _
Boathouse/ B
Beach Bulldo:
Other
Shoreline Len
SAV: n
Sandbags: n
Moratorium:
Photos:
Waiver Attad
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions
(Scale:
Agent or Applicant Printed Name
Signature Please read compliance statement on back of permit **
L -"I See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
4—
PermitOfficer's Signature
Issuing Date
ApplicationFee(s) Check# Local Planning Jurisdiction
Expiration Date
Rover File Name

7
Statement of Compliance and Consistency
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 or criminal or civil action; and may cause the permit to become
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) prior to undertaking any activities authorized by this permit, the applicant will
confer with appropriate local authorities to confirm that this project is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement or certified mail return receipt has been obtained from the adjacent riparian
landowner(s) .
The State of North Carolina and the Division of Coastal Management, in issuing this permit under the best available
information and belief, certify that this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
River Basin Rules Applicable To Your Project:
❑ Tar - Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules ❑ Other:
❑ Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
If indicated on front of permit, your project is subject to the Environmental Management Commission's Buffer Rules for the
River Basin checked above due to its location within that River Basin. These buffer rules are enforced by the NC Division of
Water Quality. Contact the Division of Water Quality at the Washington Regional Office (252-946-6481) or the Wilmington
Regional Office (910-796-7215) for more information on how to comply with these buffer rules.
Division of Coastal Management Offices
Raleigh Office
Morehead City Headquarters
Mailing Address:
400 Commerce Ave
1638 Mail Service Center
Morehead City, NC 28557
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
252-808-2808/ 1-888-4RCOAST
Location:
Fax: [phone]
2728 Capital Blvd.
(Serves: Carteret, Craven, Onslow -above
Raleigh, NC 27604
New River Inlet- and Pamlico Counties)
919-733-2293
Fax: [phone]
Elizabeth City District
1367 U.S. 17 South
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
252-264-3901
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Camden, Chowan, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Pasquotank and Perquimans
Counties)
Washington District
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6481
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Beaufort, Bertie, Hertford, Hyde,
Tyrrell and Washington Counties)
Wilminzon District District
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
910-796-7215
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Brunswick, New Hanover,
Onslow -below New River Inlet- and
Pender Counties)
Revised 08/09/06

WN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
ivlichael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. ,tones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Date 1�1 ( 0 (6 -4 -
Applicant
(4'Applicant Name.� t-DOC7
Mailing Address R) A 2 [ P-Ct C-
��1
I certify that I have authorized (agent) L -LL— to act on my
behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMA Permits necessary to
install or construct (activity) hl-po tJ i r� Wpu-'7 f ('JULY -flew -
at (location) w pl p�'j (�L U r�c GP` I -�-e
This certification is valid thru (date) ) '(-� I 1 U I U?�)
Signature
G- re-TuM �s G leu.sc .
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Intemet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

IF
LKS DECKS N' DOCKS CONSTRUCTION, LLC
499 CRUMP FARM RD.
OCKS NEW BERN, NC 28562
[phone] DL 8929001
Construction, LLC
PAY TO THE ' ( e:i
ORDER OF 1J l�
e —f 20 60
v BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
800 -BANK -BBT bbt.com
FOR
n'OOS9261" I:OS3LOLL2LI:000SL9S626296ii'
5926
66-112/531
$ _ <710'!p . e -`o
h
—DOLLARS 8 - �•�•••^^>r•
mr
E

,CKS
OCRs
Construction, LLC
Left Neighbor
Mr. Thomas Frank
2413 Beechridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27608
Right Neighbor
Mr. Robert Carr
1420 Granada Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
(#47 Indian Bluffs Drive)
Quality Craftsmanship from
the Ground Up!
RE: Mr. John Herlong - #23 Indian Bluffs Drive
12/17/07
Hello everyone! This letter is to inform you of the construction that my company plans on
doing for your neighbor, Mr. John Herlong. We plan on building some retaining walls and a
vinyl bulkhead along his waterfront. I have included some drawings of this project along
with some information that I need your signature on in order to obtain the necessary CAMA
permit and Pamlico County Building Permit for this project. We plan on getting started
sometime in January, so time is of the essence to get these forms back. I have included a
self-addressed stamped envelope for your convenience.
If you have any questions, or if you would like to meet with us to discuss the project, please
do not hesitate to give me a call. I am usually back in the office by 4:00pm each day.
Thank you in advance for your time!
Sincerely,
J on Hill
IV
Decks N' Docks, LLC

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER
FORM
Name of individual applying for the permit: J o w -J klZuol-jC')
Address of property:_ I o n A>J OL Uy" `� I%2 (.rE
(Lot or street#, street of road)
- �"CPI\40e t -AC, "*moo fR"L-1c0)
(City & County)
I hereby certify the I own property adjacent to the above referenced property. The
Individual applying for this permit has described to me (as shown on the attached
drawing) the development they are proposing. A description or drawing, with
dimensions, should be provided whit this loter.
�
'� E.'t v/4 "[t& ►1 R . .1 w 4O p Wer I��.�Pibn
I have no objections to this proposal Ow Q� `\�,�llz7
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal 4,0.3006.r�
Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 or call [phone] P t..gJ"Fr. -
within 10 days of receipt of the notice. No response is considered the same as no
objection if you have been notified by Certified Mail. )
W frdi%i4,�7 y.� .r:n
Waiver Section
ALM
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift or ��,;,,,,.-�
sandbags must be set back a minimum distance of 15' From my area of riparian
access unless waived by me. (If you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the b.J�
appropriate blank below.)
l do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement
—X— I do not wish to waive the 15" setback requirements
t 4og
Signature ate
Mr. Robert Carr
Print Name 1420n Granada Drive
of VR - 4 W - 538 S Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone number with area code (#47 Indian Bluffs Drive)

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to 0(�Ir.L�r�1L=� _s
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at -41-7 )- l I'4 ( Imo'! bLUF(--`7 024 VC.
(Lot, Block, Road,
etc.)
on >`� C �lv — , in -�L-IC L , N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County)
He has described to me as shown below, the development he is proposing at that location,
and, I have no objections to his proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPNIENT
(To be filled in by individual proposing development)
�V' K ' woof L i�1 r�+��t ln!%�� i� ��v� wALl-)
K -'D-- ' rI I L ('3v L*-t-VC&0 wj u-) w I r`1G ( I "
( 0AP-(I1-1&t✓ V -
Signature
Mr. Robert Carr
1420n Granada Drive V/. Goy , �z
Raleigh, NC 27612 Print or Type Name
(#47 Indian Bluffs Drive)
at�4- 4(00 - 53g3
Telephone Number
�a Joe

O -C; „1 -1

Message Conf irmation Report
Name/Number 919196844860
Page
2
Start Time
APR -22-2008 03:30PM TUE
Elapsed Time
00'14"
Mode
STD ECM
Results
[ O. K]
APR -22-2008 03:30 PM TUE
Fax Number 2522473330
Name DCM MHD
CQ QST AL �
A� ���� � E
Y
N ENS U
ENvIrpNMLA µD NauNa.
OFFICE: Gf4,(oO
TELEPHONE-. _ —
Corind
FROM Office
Morehead City
400 Coerce Avenu 3421
Morehead City, NC 28557-
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
—�1~l
Re:
DATE SENT
G COVERSHEEC:
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDIN

T-6 5/8" 351_011 81_01'
.,A

(2) 4X4 .80 TREATED
W/ 112" X14" BOLTS
21_011 / 2' 0. C.
0 backfill sand
CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
5/2/06
DESIGNED BY: DECKS N' DOCKS CONST., LLC
SCALE: 112" = 1 '
(1) 6X6 2.5 TREATED ** NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES**
(1) 4x6
1-5/8" x16' TIE ROD
4f\,♦,\/.,♦ f
PER 6' OF WALL
ROCK BED DRAIN
• f f r f
FILTER CLOTH AROUND
ROCK BED
- -
NWL
♦"♦`♦"♦`4`♦`•
—
` ♦ ♦ ` ♦ ♦ \
BLUE MARLIN DRAIN 5' O.C. @ NWL
m\♦♦♦\.,
ESP 3.5 SERIES VINYL
DEAD MAN
0 backfill sand
CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
5/2/06
DESIGNED BY: DECKS N' DOCKS CONST., LLC
SCALE: 112" = 1 '
(1) 6X6 2.5 TREATED ** NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES**

remove rock wall
remove old deck
T
T
cut r for equipment
safe,
_,- 00
reform OW by V)t+jL;,
adding fill "L- J--r�A
raising rhm and
�t ti-liJ (Tfktil�U05L�
pull wand rock into toe
0 (- G -n+
Oc�,E CLo-rl+
line of rock placed ondW ofd
todfMKWfill from going in water
bout for toe

Og-. - oOt- .! R yah!

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER
FORM
Name of individual applying for the permit: -)C) 1w 4EP-Lot jc�l
Address of property: i� 9 �' 10 01 Ati 6L, L) 09-1 VU
(Lot or street#, street of road)
Pam
(City & County)
I hereby certify the I own property adjacent to the above referenced property. The
Individual applying for this permit has described to me (as shown on the attached
drawing) the development they are proposing. A description or drawing, with
nsions, should be provided whit this letter.
I have no objections to this proposal
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 or call [phone]
within 10 days of receipt of the notice. No response is considered the same as no
objection if you have been notified by Certified Mail.
Waiver Section
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift or
sandbags must be set back a minimum distance of 15' From my area of riparian
access unless waived by me. (If you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the
appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement
I do not wish to waive the 15" setback requirements
)-
L)
Signature
Signa re Date
Print Name
Telephone number with area code
Mr. Thomas Frank
2413 Beechridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27608
(Indian Bluffs Drive)

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at 2 Inti �%I I JLi�F'�jiy C
n (Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on >�l C I�-l� — , in 0
N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County)
He has described to me as shown below, the development he is proposing at that location,
and, I have no objections to his proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOP�NTENT
(To be filled in by individual proposing development)
C t'j-,- �►ar� o+-
f')Y Y, wou;) �-c '+C U,)k i, (:Ibc wAu-)
\f I N `l L t' UL -10-t (I?flkr- K -Z-:?
Mr10II-JCL747-IV`) 0 Ar J Duk I (,z-7 60 V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas Frank
Road
,n ture
2413 Beechridge
/4:—
Raleigh, NC 27608
(Indian Bluffs Drive)
Print or Type Name
Telephone Number

April 17, 2008 morehe cl GO 0CM
Robert W. Carr, Jr. — Owner
47 Indian Bluff Drive
Arapahoe, North Carolina, 28510
Mr. Brad Connell
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina, 28557
Re: Land Improvements to #23 Indian Bluff Drive—Pamlico County, NC
John Herlong—Property owner -23 Indian Bluff Drive
Dear Mr. Connell,
This is to advise you that on Sunday April 13, 2008 1 observed what I considered to be a violation
to an agreement that I signed with our neighbor, Dr. John Herlong at 23 Indian Bluff Drive,
Arapahoe, North Carolina and this agreement was approved by CAMA.
Specifically, the contractor for John Herlong, Decks and Docks Construction Co. has begun
building the outer most seawall some fifteen feet in front of (toward the river) where he indicated
this wall would originally be built on the original drawings.
The contractor has also extended the rock wall well out into the river and some ten feet in front of
my outer most sea wall. This again is contrary to the original drawings that were approved by all
parties including CAMA. The original drawing shows the rocks well behind my sea wall!
This is to request that this construction be stopped immediately, and that the owner be brought
into compliance with what was originally approved by all parties. I do not want any structure to
be built on the adjacent property out beyond the front of my sea wall!
I am enclosing copies of documents that were approved by all parties AND I am enclosing a
picture (I have 30 some pictures taken from various positions) of what the site looked like before
the contractor began work. This picture illustrates where the rocks were positioned before
construction began and you will notice there is not a sea wall. We contend that this is a
violation of the CAMA act where they have moved the rocks out into the river.
By extending the rocks beyond my adjacent sea wall the contractor has essentially formed a jetty
that over time could weaken my wall by the mere fact of what jetty's do. They build up sand on
one side and take away sand on the other. By taking sand away from in front of my sea wall it
will weaken the strength of my boards in the wall.
The contractor has drawn a second drawing and we object to this plan.

Page 2
Mr. Brad Connell
April 17, 2008
APR 2018
Moreheaci QtV DGIv,
I would like to request a meeting with a representative from your office at the property site to
discuss this project in full. Please call me when this can be arranged.
Until we have this meeting I continue my objection to this work because the original drawing is
not being complied with.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr.
P.O. Box 1594
Durham, North Carolina, 27702
Enclosures

about:blank
Brad Connell wrote:
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
041708 John Herlong 004
041708 John Herlong 005
041708 John Herlong 006
041708 John Herlong 007
041708 John Herlong 008
041708 John Herlong 009
041708 John Herlong 010
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving
certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments
are handled.
1 of 7 4/30/2008 3:37 PM

about:blank
of 7 4/30/2008 3:37 PM

about:blank
4 of 7 4/30/2008 3:37 PM

.. ow
1 �
s. 4
about:blank
6 of 7 4/30/2008 3:37 PM

about:blank
of 7 4/30/2008 3:37 PM

"-§
about:blank
7 of 7 4/30/2008 3:37 PM

9 r
-- � 9� :+-•`,,��!� � '��C: fir.. -,' iy � {
- ft
��� , ��.. ..��•*...+fir'. �'. '� � � �-

r.
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
10',70 CA ZAJ"A
qq-AnG �k IJC,
COMPLETE
Postal
A. SignatureCERTIFIED MAILT. RECEIPT
X ❑ Agent r a (Domestic
❑ Addressee
B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
' ^ u]
QCO
a f z
Ig.delivergaftp* different from item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No Postage $
O C
� Certified Fee Q•
gUMJ ED Return Receipt Fee ='
Z ddv 171 (Endorsement Required) m H
E3 Restricted Delivery Fee
r-9 (Endorsement Required)
3. ice Type ,� rl r, r•1_i_; J
�
fTl Total �Express Mail Postage &Fees $
OR I -e ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise u1
11 Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 0 Sent To
O
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes orPO,, 4pENo.; 9��"/n"�""l' "------------------------------------------------------
or
� ��� ^�� vj�---.--__-_
or PO Box C:
2. Article Number c1ryea ......" ""'-...."'---.---'
' ----- -----------------
(Transfer from service label) 7005 31,1 0 0000 2895 6014 ', � C� iD G H Nc lq [ 2
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540PS Form See Reverse for Instructions
V

s
48'-0" 95'-0"
WOOD KNEE WALL ROCK SUPPORT
12'-0" IF NO WAIVER IS GIVEN
101-011
'41
_011
5'-6' VINYL WALL -
SLATS SLATS
61_011
V24 Q 321_011
` 24' WALL NEEDED
6'-0" 148' HANDRAIL �,`�t` FOR SLOPE -- -- - RETAINING WALL
350 SQFT. STAIRS - - -
0
GRADE
5'-0" `-
40l-011
0 -0 161-011
40'-0"
i
DUE TO THE PRIOR DIFFICULTIES WITH THE TIE IN OF HIMtONG'S
PROPERTY TO CARR'S PROPERTY, ONE OF TWO OPTIOJ MJST-tCC d
1) IF DECKS N' DOCKS MUST CROSS OVER THE PROPS f TY LIME TO
PROPERLY TIE IN THE BULKHEADS, A MINIMUM OF 3ASEM�RIT M, ,
BE GRANTED BY CARR; THUS THE WAIVER MUST 60SIGNEkPER CS A
AND DECKS N' DOCKS.
2) IF NO EASEMENT/WAIVER IS SIGNED THEN TH11R WILL I -
BETWEEN BOTH WALLS AND NEITHER PARTY WILL HOLD if
DOCKS, CAMA (NCDENR), DR. HERLONG, OR MR. CARR RESPOffBtE
FOR ANY FUTURE DAMAGES AND/OR ERROSION THAT MAY OCCUR.

.,Mar 29 08 08:29a Broadcom Morrisville, NC 9198405466 P.1
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER ST
f
9
I herebycertify` MAY 0 2
that I own property adjacent to oq� Ot". �
r�, (Name of Property
property located at j N' f% iAN` PL, Vii We n�p,
(Lot, Block, Road, etc.) '
on . in PASUCv
(Waterbody)(T, N.C.
own and/or County)
He has described to me as shown below, the development he is proposing at that Iocation,
and, I have no objections to his proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(To be filled in by individual proposing development)
r:
e(2- T-! .
'? ' OA�2-Pt rP--P"�
�P�k -, (&II
Si�fure �
Print or Type Name
S- "7� JPO
Telephone Number
Date: 7 9 0

21f1990 ,ldW 1dHl NOISOM3 KAINb S39dWda 32Jnini ,lNV 2J0.J
T81SNOdS]d MVD *2 W 210 `9NO-NJ H '2Ja `(?INXDN) VNVD `S)1904
,N S)1930 aIOH 71M ADWd d3H113N GNV S-nVM H108 N33M138
OIOA d 38 -nlM 2J13H1 N3H1 a3N91S SI 23AIVWA3W3SVI ON 31 (Z
'S)190a ,N S)1930 (INV
` NV3 d1d 43N91S 38 ism d3AIVM 3H1 snH1 "HV9 ,l8 (MNVJ9 38
ism 1N3W3SV3 £ 30 Wf1WINIW d `S(IV3HN-ing 3Hl NI 311 A-N3d02Jd
Ol 3Nn .112J3dM2Jd 3H1 213/10 Ss02J9 1sf1W s)190a ,N S)193Q 3I ( L
:bno90 1SfW SNOl1dO OMl 30 3NO `Ai'83d02Jd S,2 dVD 01,112J3dOM
S,9NO-N3H 30 NI 311 3H1 H11M S3111f191331a 2JOldd 3H1 Ol 3na
v
..0 -.9L
KVE)
6
l ff
--nVM DMNIdl321 - ---- 3d0 -IS dOJ
0-.tbZ 43(133N ��`dM ►�Z
-1-IVM -IkNIA .9-.S siv-is
..0-.0 L
213AIVM
N3n10 SI 20AI 'M ON 31
AOddns )IOMd -11VM 33N)1 QOOM
..0-.9
siv-is
sdIdls 'ljas OSE
-11V2 INVH ,8171

LN C.
i Ilom su IIBM Bas
oqs �u!Muip IBu!2l.lo oq jL -VNVD .�ulpnloul soiliud llu , q Panoiddu
atom lugs s2u,mLlp IBuI21.Io oqj of , Iwjuoo si u!Ou sigl 'IIuM pas isow .laino ,Cw jo iuo.ij u!
IaaJ aAIaMI 01 u91 awoS pup .IaA!l 0111 OJUI Ino Ilom IIuM )Iooi oqi popualxo OSlp suq loloulluoo OU
'IIBMBas isow .Toho , w pu!gaq ll!nq oq 01 Pano.iddu
spm jI 1# $uIMB.Ip uo poluool XlluuMio pinOM IIBM Slgj paIBDIpUI ,Cagj alagM (aaAIJ agl p.IBM01)
jo luoij u! laa3 OZ - Sl owos IIBMuos Isow aaino .1lagl 2ulpl!nq un2oq suq •oo uooz)najsuoD
sNOOQ pup sNOOCI lugs 80OZ `LI I!ldd polup noX of jouol Xw u! p!p I Su owls II!M I `u!pnd
•osuodxo sNoo(I pup SNoaa Jp panowaa oq l# 2u!Muip qj!M aouuildwoo
jo zno si jugj pup alup of pogslldw000u uaaq suq lugs )l.loM aqi jo IlL, wqi isonba.I ll!M I 'I# fuimuip
Ipul2ijo aq; ql!M ,fldwoo 01 OAl;oa.I!p B waq; uaAl2 aABq no,C g2noq; uana Z# 2UIMBap DulMOIIOJ
NioM .Ilagj ponulluoo suq , uudwoD slooCl pup SNOOD JUgj anatloq I ipgj noX aSIApp 01 s! S!q j,
'I# 2ulmulcl
pano.iddu oqj qj!M omuildwoo u! )I.IoM a!agl s5uuq sNooCl pup sNoaQ I!Iun palluq oq NioM slgl
jugj isonboi �Inw.io3 uTOL, pup I! qi!M NioM poluiaossu oqj pup Z# uuld QEISIA92I S!ql 01 100fgo I
i;ua.Iajj!p XlgB.Iap!suoo on sNoo.i pamoossB
aql pup IIuM Bas Mau oql 3o uo!lBool aqj XIluogioods pup `s2uIMB.Ip oMi asagi uo uMogs NioM
aqj '80/£/i UO pano.iddu I go!gM I# 2uimuip su jI palou pup 2u!MB.Ip ,yuld„ IBulnlao oqj jo , doo
U pagopjjp oslp aABq I '80/£Z/V polup Z# 2u!Mu.lp su palou puu pogoullu s! 2mmu(p ,yuld„ s!ql
•loafo.id paoua.Iaja.l anoqu oqi uo pags!Idw000u oq of NioM oq; .loj XuudwoD sNooQ pup sNoaQ
wO.IJ 5ulMp.Ip Q3SIAMI p PaAlaoa.l 1800Z `£Z I!adV , upsoupaM uo wqj noX aSIApp 01 Si S!q j
`IlauuoD -1" .In(]
aAI.IQ 33nlg uplpuI £Z—aauMo ,Cjaadold—�uolaaH ugof
DISI `,CjunoD oo!lwud—aAlaQ j3nlg uplpuI £Z# 01 sIuawanoidwl puu-I :om
OISSZ `uuilojua glioN `aoqudu.iv
aA ia(l 33nW uulPuI Lb
.aaumo – -.if `.i.zua •M pagog
800Z `tZ I!id`d
LS98Z `Bullo.IpD WON'4D ppagaaON
onuaAV aoaawwOD OOt,
IUaw02UUUN JUISBOD JO UOISIAIQ
IiauuOD puig .1"

• Page 2
Mr. Brad Connell
April 17, 2008
This is to AGAIN request that this construction be stopped immediately, and that the owner be
brought into compliance with what was originally approved by all parties. I do not want any
structure to be built on the adjacent property out beyond the front of my sea wall!!!!!!!
By extending the rocks beyond my adjacent sea wall the contractor has essentially formed a jetty
that over time could weaken my wall by the mere fact of what jetty's do. They build up sand on
one side and take away sand on the other. By taking sand away from in front of my sea wall it
will weaken the strength of my boards in the wall.
I would like to request a meeting with a representative from your office at the property site to
discuss this project in full. Please call me when this can be arranged.
Until we have this meeting I continue my objection to this work because the original drawing is
not being complied with.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr.
P.O. Box 1594
Durham, North Carolina, 27702
Enclosures
APR 2 � 200$
M f,
�ttl,,d City 1DCM

C5-05-Q3;1fi 51 12522'73330 2/
•s2awA&u.,p aqa uo paatnbaa aq pinogs'IVUS S2IaHNIJP[a 4-
4N-i.SI�32i
e Isual Baan, atp lie puV -lq�taq s!ql lu paJmNaa r Iql gold si Nmq ail auo uugl aaoul osly •uo!l!puoa
slgl Jo3 a)20 .IadoJd oql jo Jou g2nouo tuol Jaglrau alu s[augd IIv.M [�u!n agl lggl l!wgns I
i 119 AU anogg laa3 xis si IIuM luaaefpe aql lugs uoswi aql si s[gL u>3s�o punoui asoo
- - - --- ---��. JON P qI3 I�
ay; uI #aap �aa3 any .Jo zno3 aaR fi a sao s a o not tt. aua
Tqj ,puus asool jo punow oql nlui spur d ITEM [�uin looj-an[aMJ pini looj Ual u! 2upind uagl
aJg hagd gloia .tale aql lsurn;?u s13,01 pa[!d uagl pue l! uo gloio I -op] Ind uagl pue (118M lsouJJalno
AJ gl!M au!l u!) aui[aJogs aql lE puss asoo[;nuos'olid si auop sett of sloocl pug slaa[i jugm
•swp-3doJd .mo 3o gloq no UOIIUAala oulgs aql su au!laaogs oq1 :IZ)V�I
•anoge aql luaaJnaop of aJnssaut advl e pine
BjeuiB':) )fool I puoNoom lsgd snl j •sau!{ap!n2 p.rnpugs s,la-inlaEjnuew aql ql!M aaueploon ul lou
S1 s[[8M 14UTA aq] Ilslsa! of 5UISi1 si fueduioJ sloo(I pue wqj poglatu agl ana!loq I `pu000S
panoa; aa!p u! I iuz i[Itdh uas Of jo luoij ag1 puo aq Ino pUSM
ol X11506.16 ;uaau.pu agp uo almq aq oI s45 ! a.tnxanjls I u op I
•panssi VWd7 lggl l!wiJ d aql jo uo!lelo!n ul aJE kagl lett uuagl palIlou svq i[auuoJ puJg
g2nogl uana )IJoM sitz panu!luoo angq -loafrud oqi uo 4JoM uuSaq Xa p aou!s So/£Oii polup
2atMgzp panoiddu aql ql!M aouu![dwoa jo Ino uoaq suq /ugdLuoj sNooQ pue qoaQ aql `lsJ�d
11 pJdV aau[s vwd7 lg [1aiuo7 prig 'JIN of SUK)MIOo asagl 5n[Non uaaq ;IALq I
pue laafoJd s!qi uo au!paaaoid si legl I.IoM aql ql!M sulaouoo Itumos ongtl I Moul no,C sv loafoxd
paoiaaalaJ anogg aq1 aW gl!M ssnostp of 800Z `tZ jpdb `,tep!J,g uo a)wg 2ui)igl Jo3 no,C juuq j
:d!jS Jeoa
waCj 4pIg ueipu[ 4-Z aauMo k adWd---�uolJaH ugof
JN 'AlunoJ ooi[tued—an1JQ I.Inlg ug!puI £Z# of S'1URWanoJduIJ pue-1 :aK
6I.S8Z `augom3 gs,toN `aoqud,6,xv
ae!.tR ,min IMiPul LP
. mmo – -if li.j I -M I.iagoH
8o0Z '8Z l!-xdd
9T9RZ `gn!IO-TD quoN `wogkeg
Iaalls uIr2w ZOZ
•ldaQ suopoadsu[ ,ClunoJ ooiluled
03r1 dill •.tly
8o0Z `8Z 1!Jdd
aa'I doIS •JW
Z

Page 2
Mr. Skip Lee
April 28, 2008
I finally submit that by allowing the rocks
contractor to extend the beyond my adjacent sea wall
the contractor has essentially farmed a jetty that over time could weaken my wall by the mere fact
of what jetty's do. They build up sand on one side and take away sand on the other. By taking
sand away from in front of my sea wall it will weaken the strength of -my boards in the wall.
Thank you for your help with the above issues.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr.
P.O. Box 1594
Durham, North Carolina, 27702
' /� # 0£E�LtZZ9Zl x:91'80 -50 -SG

May 4, 2008
Mr. Skip Lee
Pamlico County Inspections Dept_
202 Main Street
Bayboro, North Carolina, 28515
Robert W. Carr, Jr. – Owner
47 Indian Bluff Drive
Arapahoe, North Carolina, 28510
Re: [.,and Improvements to #23 Indian Bluff Drive—Pamlico County, NC
John Herlong Property owner ----23 Indian Bluff Drive
Dear Skip:
This past weekend 1 took tape measure in hand and went out into the Neuse River to confirm and
validate the statements that I have made previously on the work that Decks and Docks is doing for
my neighbor as referenced above.
The new vinyl wall panels that have been installed adjacent to my property are six feet or more
above the TOP of my existing seaward seawall. (All of these vinyl panels stick up above the six
foot mark because they have hit a rock and cannot be driven down any furtherl) The top of my
seaward seawall is six feet -eight inches above the elevation of the existing shoreline.
THEREFORE, the bottom of the twelve -foot vinyl wall panel is eight inches or more ABOVE the
existing elevation of the shoreline. In other words the vinyl panels DO NOT reach virgin soil and
are NOT penetrating the grey clay that it should and is common for this area.
The twelve -foot vinyl wall panels change to ten foot vinyl wall panels midway in the wall,
therefore, the bottom of the ten foot vinyl wall panels is two feet -eight inches above the existing
elevation of the existing shoreline?
The rocks have been placed twelve feet seaward of my existing seawall and thirteen feet seaward
of the vinyl seawall, because my neighbor's wall has been set back one foot in front of my
seawall -
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr.
P.O. Box 1594
Durham, North Carolina, 27702
1:1!6 # 06ESLtzzsZI 65:9��80-90-50

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Y
NCDENR
NOR TM CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AMC) NATURAL RESOURCES
OFFICE: �s C'31
I
TELEPHONE: (qLl )(60-5395- FAX: (a /0/ g9G0
FROM: E V A -j- Go rine (,
Morehead City Office
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Re: t' I e_Q S
DATE SENT:
0- C
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:

Vinvi Wall Specifications
From Everiast Seawall Products
www.everlastseawalls.com
COLOR CHOICES:
CLA Y
VINYL SPECIFICATIONS:
I
GRAY
APPLICATIONS:
5% increase in price for Brown Vinyl
Sheeting per ESP

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
TO:
OFFICE:
TELEPHONE:
. r
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT O/
ENVIRONMENT AND NrcuRAL RE5OURCES
s + T6 CC k '<;.
FAX: Q CD?J' 7- l '�/✓�
• FROM: BVIOL� Conf3e,l�
Morehead City Office
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Re: -copy
Gp ✓��l -� �e, �- V0ut
DATE SENT: 7 ��
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: ✓

Message Confirmation Report
Name/Number
96371595
Page
15
Start Time
APR -17-2008 02:19PM THU
Elapsed Time
02'32"
Mode
STD ECM
Results
[ 0. K]
APR -17-2008 02* 22 PM THU
Fax Number 2522473330
Name DCM MHD
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
NCDENR
Rwr.. CGn — Dv.n.—T o
E,, --CH -0 NRVII/Y RL—.cCj
TO: o\ S l? rT r /1
OFFICE: �PiG s + bock"-
TELEPHONE:
oCk -
TELEPHONE: ( ) FAX• (,2.Q 63 - ! 5Y5-
FROM:
a /. -
FROM: DC•' O�G� l�o � �P � � . -----
Morehead City Office
400 Commerce Avenuc
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Re COPY 0- l -3-66 f 1 e c'D I -f q w�
DATE SENT:
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: ✓

48'-0" 95'-0"
Note: Hidden section of rock wall Note: New bulkhead at NWL
was "Brought to Front" to show exposed where needed.
full COMPLIANCE with CAMA rules.
-
101-011
10'-0 121-0
_ -NW L -- _ _ 3'-0"
24'-01' SLATS SLATS 5'-6' VINYL WALL
61-011
32-0
--
24' WALL NEEDED 24'-0"
148' HANDRAIL - l - - ! RETAINING WALL
1 6'-0"350 SQFT. STAIRS FOR SLOPE - -
OLD WALL- _
- �-- � o GRADE
5'-0" Note: Neighbors wingback over
property line approx. 3' - Removal
40'-0" of this wingback is needed ASAP.
/401-011
i 16'-0"
DUE TO THE PRIOR DIFFICULTIES WITH THE TIE IN OF HERLONG'S
C�Oo �M
**Optical appearance of this drawing may vary from
the final product. This drawing is not to scale.**
PROPERTY TO CARR'S PROPERTY, ONE OF TWO OPTIONS MJST OCCUR:
1) IF DECKS N' DOCKS MUST CROSS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE TO
PROPERLY TIE IN THE BULKHEADS, A MINIMUM OF 3' EASEMENT MUST
BE GRANTED BY CARR; THUS THE WAIVER MUST BE SIGNED PER CAMA
AND DECKS N' DOCKS.
2) IF NO EASEMENT/WAIVER IS SIGNED THEN THEIR WILL BE A VOID
BETWEEN BOTH WALLS AND NEITHER PARTY WILL HOLD DECKS N'
DOCKS, CAMA (NCDENR), DR. HERLONG, OR MR. CARR RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY FUTURE DAMAGES AND/OR ERROSION THAT MAY OCCUR.

Herlong Drawing
Subject: Herlong Drawing
From: Jason & Miranda Hill <decksndocksC embargmail.conv
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:36:19 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Brad:
c(OPNI
Here is the last drawing of Herlong's project that was sent out for the permit
modification. Jason has made some slight modifications to the drawing to show that
the original revised drawing (Dated: 4/18/08) fell within all LAMA
rules/regulations.
Also, the note on the drawing pertaining to Carr's wingback over the property line
by 31, although Jason highly certain that it is over the line, a actual survey will
need to be done to prove so before this issue can be addressed.
Thanks!
Miranda
Herlong Drawing.pdf Content -Type: application/pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
Part 1.3 Content -Type: text/plain
Content -Encoding: 7bit
1 of 1 5/12/2008 4:04 PM

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Ak Q-1 W4
74,�'A a
NCDENR
Np�rn GIO��I� UVMTNCIT oe
E:-1—MCIT mu Hmt RC3—ACEI
T0; , N2Gt\5 �- �Oc�s
OFFICE: Co � cane
TELEPIIONE: ( ) FAX: a -a) L3,7-1bgs
FROM _ g '�-
Morehead City Office
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Re:
DATE SENT:
TOTAL PAGES L'r'CLUDING COVER SHEE1��_
[aar,sW ON ]
£D ass
..00.00
IE3 WdT0:Z0 8002-60-) VW
0
S6STL£96
QHFI WDC 8WpN
0£££LVZZSZ zaqwnN Xp3
s4TnseE
apoyl
aurTy pesdpTq
auris '4Zpqs
abUd
jacImN/awleN
IE Yid ZKO 8002-60-M gaodag uoigEuai;uoa abpss@W

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Erm RCMIMENT AND KcuRAL RESOURCES
TO:
OFFICE: 70 Pk-
1 OLnA,6� l�
TELEPHONE: ( ) FAX: (z ) 6317-
• FROM: v �-C,�
Morehead City Office
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Re: V-9 oe1�-s
DATE SENT: 5/(1 to K
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET

Re: Poll aw up to our previous conversation
Subject: Re: follow up to our previous conversation
From: Judge Carr <judge. carr @duke. edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:23:11 -0400
To: Brad Connell <Brad. Connell@ ncmail.net>
Brad -
Hi! I met with Dr. Herlong and his contratctor Jason Hill of Decks and Docks this
past Sunday evening. Unfortunately I was not able to persuade them to reduce the
height of their front wall or to comply with the drawing that we ALL approved back
in January. They are redrawing their plan according to what has already been
constructed on site to present to you for approval. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS NEW
DRAWING FOR APPROVAL OR INFORMATION YET!
Again, I am NOT in favor of this work as it being drawn or performed. I am not
sure that you have anything to say about the ENGINEERING of the wall system, but I
think it is flawed and the first major hurricane is going to scatter these VINYL
WALL pieces all over Pamlico County! As far as the enginering is concerned here are
my thoughts as stated in a previous e-mail to Dr. Herlong:
Dr. Herlong, your front wall does not need to be six feet above my lower wall to
accomplish what you want to do. This is simply overkill and most reasonable people
with a little common sense would understand this. This advice is free. The higher
you build your wall the better chance that nature will destroy it. You should have
your vinyl members hammered into virgin soil (like Rusher's) not several feet deep
in loose fill as you do now. Your stone wall is what will be holding
everything --your entire system into place. If something happens to your stones
(hurricane water surge) you will lose everything on your bank --every plant, every
structure, EVERYTHING! It will be like dominos!! WHY? Because you have nothing
embedded in virgin soil!!!!! Nothing anchored!!!! Everything, all three or four
walls that you.build is in fill. You will have lost your entire investment because.
some rocks got shifted in a hurricane. (I've seen this happen before!) YOU are on t g�
the open Neuse River --NOT somewhere up the Trent River. If I should lose my first 5p
wall I still have my second wall. Why? Because my pilings and boards were driven
into virgin soil on my second wall like my first wall. *I mentioned to you that a 5
visitor could mistep and fall off your wall onto the rocks eight feet below. This�`�)�r`1
would be unfortunate and could have been avoided!
`"�
*So Brad, you and LAMA are again notified that I oppose this construction as/ Ali r
is presently being accomplished. The vinyl wall sections are NOT being hammered into
virgin soil, but are being placed in sand fill with less than four feet penetration. q
The rocks in front of the wall is all that will hold the vinyl sections in place.U" JIS'),.S
These rocks can and WILL be moved by a storm's water surge and history has shown i L,.,t w•t
this to be a fact. —710, 1.06 9A, `
And finally Brad I feel that CAMA overstepped its a>�horit_y_by__al�owing Dr.
Herlong to extend his wall and therefore his --0S out�in front omy-wall. Thus
creating a "jetty" that over time WILL weaken my wall sy'ste`m-�7-additionally feel
that CAMA has allowed Dr. Herlong to RECLAIM property that because of a "specific"
time period has elasped since the previous wall was removed by a storm is now no
longer available to him to reclaim. *
I agree that CAMA should look at each case on its own merits, *HOWEVER when you
see that there is an adjacent wall already in place you should NOT allow the
property owner to go out beyond this wall KNOWING the effects that this will have on
the existing wall.* ALSO it should be considered that by LAMA allowing the Herlong
wall to do out so far into the River CAMA has approved an impediment that will
prevent people from being able to walk the shore line. THIS SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN
CONSIDERED WHEN YOU MADE YOUR DECISION.
You should know that I have contacted both an engineer and counsel to continue my
opposition to this work.
Judge
1 of 2 4/22/2008 11:35 AM

Re: follow up to our previous conversation
Brad Connell wrote:
Mr. Carr,
I have notified Mr. Herlong and Decks & Docks of their options:
1)either bring the work into compliance per the drawing that you signed off on,
OR
2)apply to modify the permit.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Brad
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr. E'71
Senior Associate Dean
Development and Alumni Affairs
305 Teer Engineering Building
Box 90271
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, 27708-0271
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
2 of 2 4/22/2008 11:35 AM

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
305 TEER BUILDING
7 ti� DUKE UNIVERSITY
D<F BOX 90271
G
NE�R CIMc F
rNDURHAM, NC 27708-0271
r_Ncr�r
FAX: [phone] PHONE: [phone]
TOTAL PAGES: -4---_---- (INCLUDING THIS ONE)
TO: Ara c�iIJI>L 1£aX. _FAXN0_: 2152-241-1.5,%Q - -
COMPANY: d4kA ,
CITY:
STATE:
COUNTRY
GATE: - � ��' TIME: �
FROM:
arses + �. t rt,`11 V4*
DU�{E
ROBERT W. "JUDGE" CARR, JR. E'71
EUO/W+D T, rwu;�w St=NIUR ASSOCIATE DEAN
sckooLur
BNO(Nrs M DEVELOPMENT AND ALUMNI AFFAIRS
DUKE UNIVERSITY
305 TEER ENidINEERING BUILDING [phone]
BOX 90271 FAX. [phone]
DURHAM, NO 27708-0271 judge.carrOdukr.Gdu
/, # OCLZLtZZSZI

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHFET
DFVELOPMENT OFFICE
. rili 305 TEER BUILDING
�,rr DUKE UNIVERSFTY
DIAKF: F: BOX 90271
�CHOENCNF R ori DURHAM, NC 27706-0271
ENCIN �1'(Z WC
FAX: [phone] PHONE-, 919/660-5385
TOTAL PAGES:_ (INCLUDING THIS ONE)
T0.� • �as��g _— FAX NO: 252 - 24'1 - Ss3v
COMPANY: 4&+AA
CITY:
STATE :
COUNTRY
DATE: — TIME:
FROM: C� ►n�a �z.
DUKE
ROBERT W, "JUDGE" CARR, JR. E'71
P2uUm�r.rWL)a SENIOR ASSOQIATE DEAN
Byr
ENCINME UCVELOPMENT AND ALUMNI AFFAIRS
GIWQR
D11
DUKE UNIVERSITY
305 TEER ENpINEERING BUILDING [phone]
BOX 9027 1
FAX: [phone]
DURHAM, N027708 -027I judgexarr®duke.edu
� OEEEctZZSZ�

,tKS
NO
OCKS
Construction, LLC
Left Neighbor
Mr. Thomas Frank
2413 Beechridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27608
Right Neighbor
Mr. Robert Carr
1420 Granada Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
(#47 Indian Bluffs Drive)
Quality Craftsmahship from
the Ground Up!
RE: Mr. John Herlong - #23 Indian Bluffs Drive
12/17/07
u©R 1 8 2008
Morehead City ocim
Hello everyone! This letter is to inform you of the construction that my company plans on
doing for your neighbor, Mr. John Herlong. We plan on building some retaining walls and a
vinyl bulkhead along his waterfront. I have included some drawings of this project along
with some information that I need your signature on in order to obtain the necessary CAMA
permit and Pamlico County Building Permit for this project. We plan on getting started
sometime in January, so time is of the essence to get these forms back. I have included a
self-addressed stamped envelope for your convenience.
If you have any questions, or if you would like to meet with us to discuss the project, please
do not hesitate to give me a call. I am usually back in the office by 4:00pm each day.
Thank you in advance for your time!
Yf
`...Hill
I
Decks N' Docks, LLC

CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DIVISION OF COAS'CAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPER'T'Y OWNER NOTIFICATION1W KER
FORM®
Name of individual applying for the permit: �00r-j CLP-UPr.1C_) ; L
APR
Address of property: rr I N n At ] 191z ly - yy
(Lot or street#, street of road) . City is DGIA f"f
(City & county)
I hereby certify the I own property adjacent to the above referenced property. The
Individual applying for this permit has described to me (as shown on the attached
drawing) the development they are proposing. A description or drawing, with
dimensions, should be provided whit this e ter.
„,/►-T,. N a . ►fit UA— Zo visa J4649ii"
I have no objections to this proposal ow IF, �\ y &#J:.�j` , Saw"
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division f Coastal pcy7o�J�
Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 or call [phone]�.-
within 10 days of receipt of the notice. No response is considered the same as no ,����
objection if you have been notified by Certified Man. j
W fr�✓�4.J vYf►
Waiver Section
L�aJE-
�LL
b. -1-%o j cams G3K
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift or
sandbags must be set back a minimum distance of 15' From my area of riparian
access unless waived by me. (If you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the
W
appropriate blank below.)
LSC,
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement
—X— I do not wish to waive the 15" setback requirements
3 08
Signature ate
IZc�tZ.'T V. G oZ E-
. �—
Print Name
OV19 - GW - 53SS
Telephone number with area code
Mr. Robert Carr
1420n Granada Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
(#47 Indian Bluffs Drive)

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to 3c"Ho iC s
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at 4T � 1 lam, (,- I ) bL() Fr` -2 L"
(Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on � 7E �lv�!�- , in FAZE-kI-IC-L , N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County ` , T —
He has described to me as shown below, the development he is ono at that loca j
and, I have no objections to his proposal. lf'i-R -1 3 2008
_ A&M -eh-
' IMI
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPiVIENT
(To be filled in by individual proposing development)
/� Aq��
C'oo�oC-noo DF
f -)Y K �) ' Woc p�E i'i� i (�, ltifki -, L-vc)c V-)AuL)
L -O' X-6 ` V i r-JIYL ('�v c,iLtA� i�l
Mr. Robert Carr
1420n Granada Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
(#47 Indian Bluffs Drive)
Signature-
iz��GG't
Print_or. Type Name
Telephone --Number
r V> le ` / a 1013

Imm"glopmad,
WNIO-allo
304,0 kP-L-DfJ'--7
C3
304,0 kP-L-DfJ'--7

T-6 5/8"
351-0"
m"I
YV.-)C) 00 piaeq(),C)w
rl

**S3SOd29nd N091:n91SN00 'dW 43Sn 290 a3:)ncn1d321 38 Ol ION **
L = ,Z/ L :3`11V3S
D-1-1 "iSNOD S)000 .N SNDIG :J18 a3NDIS3a
90/Z/S
M31n -IdN01103S SSOdO
P/
-NdW GV]G ----
-l­lVM 30 .9 dad
QOd 311 19 LX „8/S -L
pues IIpoeq
a31ti3d1 S'Z 9X9 (L)
038 )000
GNnOdd H10-10 d31-11:1
NIVK 038 ),130d -
9Xt, ( L) -- -
'0'0 .Z
S1-108 A7 LX Z/ L /M
a31d3d1 08' i7X{, (Z)
110-1z
a
w
L
0
S'S dS3
�,lNln S31d3S
CMN @'D'0 .S NI`dda NFIdVN 3(1-l8
,r,/\/`r\,\♦'
/
038 )000
GNnOdd H10-10 d31-11:1
NIVK 038 ),130d -
9Xt, ( L) -- -
'0'0 .Z
S1-108 A7 LX Z/ L /M
a31d3d1 08' i7X{, (Z)
110-1z
a
w
L
0

04,22-08;19::5
it
12522473330 ;
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET
FAX- 919/684-4860
DEVEL OPMEN-I- OFFICE
305 TEER BUILDING
DUKE UNIVERS11-Y
BOX 90271
DURHAM, NC 27708-0271
PHONE: [phone]
TOTAL PAGES: 2- (INCLUDING THIS ONE)
TO:EMCs�.ti-�-- — FAX NO:. ---SZ - 'J=
COMPANY-.a►t�IQ
01 -TY: STATE: –1 COUNTRY
DATE: �" `xZ�
FROM:
►.U��.- d
-----------
ROBERT
EROBERT W. "JUDGE" CARR, JR. E'71
rmmarraCna SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEAN
acwootnP DEVELOPMENT AND ALUMNI AFFAIRS
bNOfNbbPINO
DUKE UNIVERSITY
305 TEER ENGINEERING BUILDING [phone]
BOY 90271 FAY: [phone]
DURHAM, NG 27708-0271 ludp.carrOduke.edu
TIME:

o
LO
C'4
A=Lj 11 I.EEI
R,
I
V
Co"
II <- ex

&vr,.o vim' J
IA/C.6

65D
O
CD
CD t
71
c::D
00
C:::)
o
0

48'-0"
i
'4'-011
I
6 1 11 -0 / 148' HANDRAIL
350 SQFT. STAIRS
40'-0"
i
SLATS I i
95'-0"
i
WOOD KNEE WALL ROCK SUPPORT
12'-0" IF NO WAIVER IS GIVEN
WAIVER
101-011
31
-011
SLATS 5'-6' VINYL WALL
6'-0"
24' WALL NEEDED 24'-0" 32'-0"
FOR SLOPE RETAINING WALL
O
0
GRADE
DUE TO THE PRIOR DIFFICULTIES WITH THE TIE IN OF HERLONG'S
PROPERTY TO CARR'S PROPERTY, ONE OF TWO OPTIONS MJST OCCUR:
j 1) IF DECKS N' DOCKS MUST CROSS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE TO
PROPERLY TIE IN THE BULKHEADS, A MINIMUM OF 3' EASEMENT MUST
BE GRANTED BY CARR; THUS THE WAIVER MUST BE SIGNED PER CAMA
AND DECKS N' DOCKS.
2) IF NO EASEMENT/WAIVER IS SIGNED THEN THEIR WILL BE A VOID
BETWEEN BOTH WALLS AND NEITHER PARTY WILL HOLD DECKS N'
DOCKS, CAMA (NCDENR), DR, HERLONG, OR MR. CARR RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY FUTURE DAMAGES AND/OR ERROSION THAT MAY OCCUR.

rA
,CKS
r
P�
OCKS
Construction, LLC
To: Judge Carr
From: Jason Hill
4/18/08
Quality Craftsmahship from
the Grouted Up!
APR 92 5 2008
Morehead City�,Im
I have chosen to give Decks N' Docks Construction, LLC the proper 3'
easement needed in order to properly tie in my bulkhead to my neighbor, Dr. John Herlong's
bulkhead. I understand how Dr. Herlong's wingback/tie-in will be built if I decide to not
waiver this 3' easement as listed on the drawing enclosed.
I have chosen NOT to give Decks N' Docks Construction, LLC a 3'
easement onto my property to properly tie-in the wingback/tie in.
Signed
Date:
Please mail this document back to Decks N' Docks Construction, LLC
in the envelope provided.
Y
Decks N' Docks, LLC

May 4, 2008
Mr. Skip Lee
Pamlico County Inspections Dept.
202 Main Street
Bayboro, North Carolina, 28515
Robert W. Carr, Jr. – Owner
47 Indian Bluff Drive
Arapahoe, North Carolina, 28510
Re: Land Improvements to #23 Indian Bluff Drive—Pamlico County, NC
John Herlong—Property owner -23 Indian Bluff Drive
Dear Skip:
This past weekend I took tape measure in hand and went out into the Neuse River to confirm and
validate the statements that I have made previously on the work that Decks and Docks is doing for
my neighbor as referenced above.
The new vinyl wall panels that have been installed adjacent to my property are six feet or more
above the TOP of my existing seaward seawall. (All of these vinyl panels stick up above the six
foot mark because they have hit a rock and cannot be driven down any further!) The top of my
seaward seawall is six feet -eight inches above the elevation of the existing shoreline.
THEREFORE, the bottom of the twelve -foot vinyl wall panel is eight inches or more ABOVE the
existing elevation of the shoreline. In other words the vinyl panels DO NOT reach virgin soil and
are NOT penetrating the grey clay that it should and is common for this area.
The twelve -foot vinyl wall panels change to ten foot vinyl wall panels midway in the wall,
therefore, the bottom of the ten foot vinyl wall panels is two feet -eight inches above the existing
elevation of the existing shoreline!
The rocks have been placed twelve feet seaward of my existing seawall and thirteen feet seaward
of the vinyl seawall, because my neighbor's wall has been set back one foot in front of my
seawall.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr.
P.O. Box 1594
Durham, North Carolina, 27702

Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine
Subject: Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine
From: Judge Carr <judge.carr @duke. edu>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 10:43:18 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]>
Brad -
COPY
Hi! I wanted you to have a copy of a letter that I sent to Skip Lee. It is
attached. My attorney Tom Wilson will be handling this for me and I will be
contesting the work that is presently underway on the Herlong property.
Thank you.
Judge
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr. E171
Senior Associate Dean
Development and Alumni Affairs
305 Teer Engineering Building
Box 90271
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, 27708-0271
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
................ _................................. _...... _............ ......... _..........
Lee, Skip Pamlico Co. 5:4:08 doc Content -Type: application/octet-stream
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of' 1 5/5/2008 11:25 AM

RE: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
Subject: RE: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
From: "Thomas Wilson" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 08:30:00 -0400
To: "Brad Connell" <Brad. Connell@ ncmail.net>
Brad, thanks. Sorry to hound you. I know how busy you guys are ... I am married to one of your old
attorneys (Merrie Jo). Thanks for the heads -up, and please keep me posted. We would like to be copied
on the amendments as submitted to DCM and notice as soon as DCM makes its decision.
GREENE & WILSON, P.A.
Thomas R. Wilson
Greene & Wilson, P.A.
409 Pollock Street
Post Office Box 1676
New Bern, NC 28563
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, any information regarding any U.S. federal tax matters contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, as advice for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient, any review, dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this message
or any attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify
I of 4 5/5/2008 11:25 AM

RE: CATMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please delete this message and all
attachments from your system.
Thank you.
From: Brad Connell[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:19 AM
To: Thomas Wilson
Subject: Re: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
Mr. Wilson,
I apologize for not responding sooner. I will respond to your voicemail in the order it was received
ASAP. Your patience and understanding is much appreciated.
Yes sir, there is currently a stop work on the Herlong permit until a modification request has been
received and reviewed by the DCM staff. It is my understanding that if the proposal meets the rules,
then the general permit will be modified as such.
Brad
Thomas Wilson wrote:
Brad:
My name is Tom Wilson and I am an attorney in New Bern. I have been retained by Judge Carr to
represent him regarding his CAMA related issues, specifically those issues related to Lot #23 Indian
Bluff Drive in Pamlico County (Dr. Herlong's property). I have left a few messages on your voicemail
at work to discuss. On Wednesday I spoke with Skip Lee, and Skip informed me that you would be
requiring Dr. Herlong to resubmit objection letters to adjacent property owners addressing his proposed
amended permit. I wanted to confirm this with you, confirm that there is a current "stop work" on the
property, and get your position as to whether DCM is going to be approving the amended permit.
2 of 4 5/5/2008 11:25 AM

RE: CAM, Issues Re: Judge Carr
Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss, as my client wants clear notice as to any agency
decision that might lift the stop work and otherwise trigger the clock on his deadline to submit his 3rd
Party Hearing Request/Petition as to the amended permit.
Regards,
0
Tom Wilson (C9
Thomas R. Wilson
Greene & Wilson, P.A.
409 Pollock Street
Post Office Box 1676
New Bern, NC 28563
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, any information regarding any U.S. federal tax matters contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, as advice for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient, any review, dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this message
or any attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please delete this message and all
3 of 4 5/5/2008 11:25 AM

RE: CAM(k Issues Re: Judge Carr
attachments from your system.
Thank you.
4 of 4 5/5/2008 11:25 AM

CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
Subject: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
From: "Thomas Wilson" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:16:03 -0400
To: <brad. connell @ ncmail.net>
CC: "Judge Carr" <judge. carr @duke. edu>
Brad:
My name is Tom Wilson and I am an attorney in New Bern . I have been retained by Judge Carr to
represent him regarding his CAMA related issues, specifically those issues related to Lot #23 Indian
Bluff Drive in Pamlico County (Dr. Herlong's property). I have left a few messages on your voicemail
at work to discuss. On Wednesday I spoke with Skip Lee, and Skip informed me that you would be
requiring Dr. Herlong to resubmit objection letters to adjacent property owners addressing his proposed
amended permit. I wanted to confirm this with you, confirm that there is a current "stop work" on the
property, and get your position as to whether DCM is going to be approving the amended permit.
Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss, as my client wants clear notice as to any agency
decision that might lift the stop work and otherwise trigger the clock on his deadline to submit his 3rd
Party Hearing Request/Petition as to the amended permit.
Regards,
COPY
Tom Wilson
GREENE & WILSO , P.A.
Thomas R. Wilson
Greene & Wilson, P.A.
409 Pollock Street
Post Office Box 1676
New Bern, NC 28563
Telephone [phone]
1 of 2 5/5/2008 8:08 AM

Ql�s� � � � c

GREENE & WILSON, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
409 Pollock Street
P.O. Box 1676
New Bern, North Carolina 28563
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
20 May 2008
Via: Electronic Mail and Facsimile: 252-247-3330
Mr. Brad Connell
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: Land Improvements to 23 Indian Bluff, Pamlico County— CAMA issues
Dear Brad:
311 Turner Street
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing concerning the issues that have been
ongoing with the Carr/Herlong properties in Arapahoe, NC as they relate to marine
construction on Dr. Herlong's property. Based on our phone conference of 9 May 2008,
it was my client's and my understanding that Docks N' Docks would be submitting a
modified permit proposal seeking approval as to the work as constructed, and not
originally permitted. Furthermore, it was our understanding my client would have an
opportunity to object to this, thus giving us clear notice as to the new agency decision and
triggering our right to submit a 3'd Party appeal. We are still waiting for some clear
determination by DCM and request the same be in writing.
I will be out of town Thursday through Monday, and would very much appreciate an
update to ensure no deadlines have been triggered by any decision by the agency. I
understand that there was a meeting last Thursday, 15 May 2008, and particularly want to
know any decisions made at that meeting that affect my client and his appeal rights.
I look forward to hearing from you, and appreciate your efforts in assisting my client
through the regulatory process as it relates to an adjacent property owner in this situation.
Regards,
'A' d 0, e,
Thomas R. Wilson
/trw
CC: Judge Ca1T (by electronic ]nail)
www.greenewilson.com

rr-om:Greene & Wilson, P. A.
Kelly L. Greene
Thomas R, Wilson
252 634 3464
G€iEENE & WILSON, PA
05/20/2008 08:55
409 Pollock Street
P.O. Box 1676
New Bern, North Carolina 28563-1676
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
#840 P. 001/002
TELEFAX TRANSMITTAL
The information contained in this Telefax Transmittal message is ATTORNEY
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use
of the individual or entity named as recipient. If the reader is not the intended
recipient, be hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to
us at the address indicated in this letterhead, via the United States Postal Service.
THANK YOU.
DATE: Zp ZQOQ
This transmission consists of this cover sheet and _pages.
FROM.•
ATTN.•
OUR CLIENT NO.:� c rr'
FACSIMILE NO.: -333L�
TELEPHONE NO:
COMMENTS:
1
1
r c�S e Q z
"
(�k- cc -A —"In
S j �C. �rsT
L116Cre
o�
DOCUMENT.-

l-row6repne & Wilson, P. A.
4 -
409 Pollock $creat
PO. Box 1676
New Bern, North Carolina 28563
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
20 May 2008
252 634 3464
05/20/2008 08:55
GREENE & WILSON, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Via: Electronic Mail and Facsimile: 252-247-3330
Mr. Brad Connell
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: Land Improvements to 23 Indian Bluff, Pamlico County — CAMA issues
Dear Brad:
1840 P. 002/ 002
311 Turner Street
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing concerning the issues that have been
ongoing with the Carr/Herlong properties in Arapahoe, NC as they relate to marine
construction on Dr. Herlong's property. Based on our phone conference of 9 May 2008,
it was my client's and my understanding that Docks N' Docks would be submitting a
modified permit proposal seeking approval as to the work as constructed, and not
originally permitted. Furthermore, it was our understanding my client would have an
opportunity to object to this, thus giving us clear notice as to the new agency decision and
triggering our right to submit a 3rd Party appeal. We are still waiting for some clear
determination by DCM and request the same be in writing.
I will be out of town Thursday through Monday, and would very much appreciate an
update to ensure no deadlines have been triggered by any decision by the agency. I
understand that there was a meeting last Thursday, 15 May 2008, and particularly want to
know any decisions made at that meeting that affect my client and his appeal rights.
I look forward to hearing from you, and appreciate your efforts in assisting my client
through the regulatory process as it relates to an adjacent property owner in this situation.
Regards,
2 �
Thomas R. Wilson
/trw
CC: Judge Carr (by electronic mail)
www,greenewilson.com

[Fwd:. RevCj
e�
Subject: [Fwd: Re: ]
From: Tere Barrett <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:48:35 -0400
To: Brad Connell <Brad. Connell@ ncmail.net>
Brad, please send Tom an electronic copy of both NOV's. Thanks
Subject: Re:
From: "Thomas Wilson" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:35:35 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <Brad. Connell @ncmail.net>, <[e-mail]>
Thanks tere. Please forward me a copy of the NOV.
Sent using B1ackBerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Tere Barrett <[e-mail]>
To: Thomas Wilson
Cc: Brad Connell <Brad. Connell@ ncmail.net>; Ryan Davenport <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tue May 27 14:02:46 2008
Subject: Re:
Hey Tom. I apologize for the brevity of this response, but it is all
that time allows just now.
Dr. Herlong and Decks and Docks were both issued Notices of Violation
for the development that was not done in accordance with the permit.
The portion of the riprap across Mr. Carr's riparian corridor was
removed, and the remainder of the development was allowed to stay, as it
was consistent with the rules and guidelines, but not the permit. As
you are aware, the DCM does not require "punitive" restoration. If
development is not permitted, we cite the property owner and contractor,
assess them, but let them keep the development. With the exception of
the portion of the rock across Mr. Carr's property, that was the case
here. Both NOV's were sent out this morning, and the work can continue
as authorized by way of the Notice. I hope this explains the situation,
however briefly.
Say hey to MerrieJo and Millie Kate for me. We miss MJ terribly, but
upon seeing her, I know that she made the right decision. Take care. Tere
Thomas Wilson wrote:
> Tere:
I of 3 5/28/2008 11:39 AM

[Fwd; Reo.sT,
a,
> I hope you are doing well. Please find attached a letter I faxed to
C(D
> you a moment ago regarding issues with the Herlong/Carr property in
> Arapahoe, NC. At your convenience, give me a call or email to discuss.
> Best regards,
> Tom
> Thomas R. Wilson
> Greene & Wilson, P.A.
> 409 Pollock Street
> Post Office Box 1676
> New Bern, NC 28563
> Telephone [phone]
> Fax [phone]
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the United
> States Treasury Department, any information regarding any U.S. federal
> tax matters contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
> used, as advice for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
> The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged and/or
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any review,
> dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of
> this message or any attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you
2 of 3 5/28/2008 11:39 AM

[Fwd; Re,-,]
> receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please delete this
> message and all attachments from your system.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
Re: Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content -Encoding: 7bit
P'�\ /-7
U-) .
3 of 3 5/28/2008 11:39 AM

�� USAirbill reIk 8608 271,1, 2701
Express Number
From PleesepontsodplesshaN.
/ 1 I Senders FedEx
NameSendlera 1 r�� C 11y L i1 Phone 0--Q► t1 a g t vo v
40nib 1.i LYl 1 1 n M /) e'—A l iM J9 A
1 Your Internal uming Heterence OPTIONAL
RFs 2a chanecora wd appear anmdca.
3 —
0,C,#find drop-off locations at fedex.com
Simplify your shipping. Manage your account. Access all the tools you need.
Form
No. 0200.,
Sender's 11
p
4a Wess Package Service
Packages up to 150 Ms.
FedEx Priority Overnight FedEx Standard Overnight
Nexthusiness mommp.'FMay ❑ NeatbuamessaNemocn'
FedEx Frst Overnight
❑ Eadlsat naMbusiness rooming
shipmeMswill be delhomeden Monday SaWNay DegveryNOTavaDabe.
delNe'so salad locatims.•
unless SATURDAY OoWery is selected.
Saturday Delivery NOT available.
FedEx 2Day FedEx Express Saver
❑ Second business doyy.'Thursday ❑ Thim business day:*
shipments vdll6e delivered on Monday Sato Delivery NOT available.
uNess SATURDAY Delivery is selected.
L— FedEx Envelope rate not available. Minimum charge: Oro -pound rate. —�
'Tonmtloutiwrx
4b Express Freight Service
Packages over 750 ft
FedEx 1Day�/FreiQht* FedEx WayFre�M
❑ Nen business dey'Fridoy ❑Second business'eeyy Thursday
FedEx3D%Yreight
❑ Third business day.«
shipments wT be deGnsred on Monday shipments vriD be delivered on Mond ay
Saturday Delivery NOTavailable.
unless SATURDAY Def --y isselacted. unless SATURDAY DeFrer/bselectad.
• faD for Confirmation:
•• Ta mmt locations
5Z aging
❑ FedEx Pak" FedEx
E] FedEx LlOther
ape"
Incl udes Fad&Small Pak, Box
Fad&large Pak and FedEx Sturdy Pak
Tube
Z
•Decuredvolue!'sbog
ti
6 Special Handling
Include Fed& address in Section 3
F—
❑SATURDAY Delivery HOLD Weekliay
NOT ❑ at FedExLocatim
HOLD Sehudry
❑ Fed ExLocaIon
o
Available for
FadExRod amOvamigln NOTAvailablefor
Fed&FastOvemight
FedEx RrF
at
Available ONLY for
Fed& Priority OvemipM end
K
o
dEx3gM,Fed&Express
Saver, or Fed&3Day Freight
Fed&2Daymssledbcatiats
s
Ones this shipment Conte in dangerous goods?
-<
One box must be checked. —�
o
No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑Dry Ice
a
As per attached Shippels Declaration Dry
Shippels Declaration. notreguired.
x
L. UN 1. kg
❑
a
Dangerous goods (including dry ice)—not be shipped in Fed&packaging.
Cargo Aircraft Only
p
Bin%
s
Vayment
Eider FedEx Acct No. or Credit Card No. below.ender
in❑Recipient Thi 'd Party ❑Credit
Card ❑ Cash/Check
san"60.I
be need.
Fe0&Acct No.
oadacamNo,
Tall Packages Total Weight Total Dec lared Va I uet
Tourliabgty is imbed mSIDD unless you declare a higher value. See beck for details Byusing this Airbill you agree to the FedEx Use Only
service conditions on the back of this Airbill and in the cement Fed& Service Guide, including mmsthat limdour liability.
8 NEW Residential Delivery Signature Options HvGu agekeasignawre,ehackDir�t«Indimnt
No Signature Direct Signature Indirect Sicature
❑ Required ❑ Amvneatreaponrs ❑ Rnoonaisavaablest 520
Pscksgemaybeleftwoh- addressmay. synfardefony. renponef ddress,anyone
outobmining asigneture Fee appllas. at a neighboring address may
fmdelimry, sign for delivery. Frc applies.
Rev. Date BA&Part 0159291rt21994-21)D5 Fed&•PRINTED IN USA SRY

Terms And Conditions
Definitions On this Airbill, "we," "our," "us," and "FedEx"
referto Federal Express Corporation, its employees, and agents.
"You" and "your" refertothe sender, its employees, and agents.
Agreement To Terms By giving us your package to deliver,
you agree to all the terms on this Airbill and in the current
FedEx Service Guide, which is available upon request. You
also agree to those terms on behalf of any third party with an
interest in the package. If there is a conflict between the
current FedEx Service Guide and thisAirbill,the current FedEx
Service Guide will control. No one is authorized to change
the terms of our Agreement.
Responsibility For Packaging And Completing Airbill
You are responsible for adequately packaging your goods and
properly filling out this Airbill. If you omit the number of
packages and/or weight per package, our billing will be based
on our best estimate of the number of packages we received
and/or an estimated "default" weight per package as
determined by us.
Responsibility For Payment Even if you give us different
payment instructions, you will always be primarily responsible for
all delivery costs, as well as any cost we incur in either returning
your package to you or warehousing it pending disposition.
Limitations On Our Liability And Liabilities
Not Assumed
• Our liability in connection with this shipment is limited to the
lesser of your actual damages or $100, unless you declare a
higher value, pay an additional charge, and document your
actual loss in a timely manner. You may pay an additional
charge for each additional $100 of declared value. The
declared value does not constitute, nor do we provide, cargo
liability insurance.
• In any event, we will not be liable for any damage, whether
direct, incidental, special, or consequential, in excess of the
declared value of a shipment, whether or not FedEx had
knowledge that such damages might be incurred, including
but not limited to loss of income or profits.
• We won't be liable:
— for your acts or omissions, including but not limited to
improper or insufficient packing, securing, marking, or
addressing, or those of the recipient or anyone else with
an interest in the package.
— if you or the recipient violates any of the terms of
our Agreement.
— for loss of or damage to shipments of prohibited items.
— for loss, damage, or delay caused by events we cannot
control, including but not limited to acts of God, perils of
the air, weather conditions, acts of public enemies, war,
strikes, civil commotions, or acts of public authorities
with actual or apparent authority.
Declared Value Limits
• The highest declared value allowed for a FedEx Envelope,
FedEx Pak, or FedEx Sleeve shipment is $500.
• For other shipments, the highest declared value allowed is
$50,000 unless your package contains items of extraordinary
value, in which case the highest declared value allowed
is $500.
• Items of extraordinary value include shipments containing
such items as artwork, jewelry, furs, precious metals, nego-
tiable instruments, and other items listed in the current FedEx
Service Guide.
• You may send more than one package on this Airbill and fill
in the total declared value for all packages, not to exceed
the $100, $500, or$50,000 per package limit described above.
(Example: 5 packages can have a total declared value of up
to $250,000.) In that case, our liability is limited to the actual
value of the package(s) lost or damaged, but may not exceed
the maximum allowable declared value(s) orthe total declared
value, whichever is less. You are responsible for proving the
actual loss or damage.
Filing A Claim YOU MUST MAKE ALL CLAIMS IN
WRITING and notify us of your claim within strict time limits
set out in the current FedEx Service Guide.
You may call our Customer Service department at
1.800.GoFedEx 1.800.463.3339 to report a claim; however,
you must still file a timely written claim.
Within nine months (from the ship date) after you notify us of j
your claim, you must send us all the information you have
about it. We aren't obligated to act on any claim until you
have paid all transportation charges, and you may not deduct
the amount of your claim from those charges.
If the recipient accepts your package without noting any
damage on the delivery record, we will assume the package y
was delivered in good condition. For us to process your claim,
you must make the original shipping cartons and packing
available for inspection.
Right To Inspect We may, at our option, open and inspect j
your packages before or after you give them to us to deliver. I
Right Of Rejection We reserve the rightto reject a
shipment when such shipment would be likely to cause
delay or damage to other shipments, equipment, or
personnel; or if the shipment is prohibited by law, or if the
shipment would violate any terms of our Airbill or the current
FedEx Service Guide.
C.O.D. Services C.O.D. SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH
THIS AIRBILL. If C.O.D. Service is required, please use a FedEx
C.O.D. Airbill.
Air Transportation Tax Included A federal excise
tax when required by the Internal Revenue Code on the air
transportation portion of this service, if any, is paid by us.
Money -Back Guarantee In the event of untimely delivery,
FedEx will, at your request and with some limitations, refund
or credit all transportation charges. See the current FedEx
Service Guide for more information.
Pan •15828NB1 • Rev. BN5

DCM FORINT5Copy
PETITIONER'S NAME Robert W. Carr
COUNTY Pamlico
FILE NUMBER
(Petitioner leave this line blank)
PIC
JUN 4
THIRD PARTY HEARING
MAPE
CARMIT D NWOGM
off-Io
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the undersigned, a person affected by the decision of (check one):
a Local Permit Officer acting on a CAMA Minor Development Permit
application; or
X the Division of Coastal Management, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, acting on a CAMA Major Development Permit
application or CAMA General Permit application
hereby requests permission from the Coastal Resources Commission to file an appeal pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) and N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7J.0300 (Please attach a
copy of the permit application decision. If you cannot obtain a copy of the permit application
decision, please provide the name of the permittee, the project location and the permit number.)
Requests are reviewed by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission to determine
whether a hearing should be granted. The determination of whether to grant a hearing is in the
sole discretion of the Chairman. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7J.0301(b).
For this application to be complete, the Petitioner must address each factor listed below on a
separate sheet of paper. You must address these factors before your request will be reviewed.
The Chairman's decision to grant a hearing will be based on whether the Petitioner:
(1) Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or'rule [N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A -121.1(b)(1)];
(Please cite the statute or regulation allegedly violated by the permit decision.)
(2) Is directly affected by the decision [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b)(2)]; and
(Please describe how you are directly affected by the permit decision.
Persons directly affected by a decision include, but are not limited to.-
(a)
o:(a) any owner of real property in the vicinity of the property to
be developed who can show that the proposed development
is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the value
and enjoyment of his property; and
(b) any person who can demonstrate a history of substantial
use ofpublic resources in the area directly affected by the

development when the development is within or touches
upon an area subject to the public trust.)
(3) Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the request for
the hearing is not frivolous [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b)(3)].
(Please summarize the evidence or arguments you will present at a
hearing in support of your appeal.)
Based on the attached responses to the above factors, the undersigned hereby requests a third
party hearing.
This � day of June, 2008.
GIRvENE & S A
T OMAS RESTON WILSON
409 Pollock St.
Post Office Box 1676
New Bern, NC 28563
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
N.C. State Bar No.: 31876
NOTES: This request must be served on the Director, Division of Coastal Management, at
the address shown on the attached Certificate of Service Form, within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(6). Failure to
do so constitutes waiver of the right to request a hearing. A copy should also be
sent to the Attorney General's Office, Environmental Division, at the addresses
shown on the attached Certificate of Service Form.
Approval of a Third Party Hearing Request allows a petitioner to file a contested
case petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within twenty (20) days
of receipt of the Chairman's Order. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b).
Denial of a Third Party Hearing Request is a final agency decision which may be
appealed to the Superior Court in the county where the property is located under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) and Chapter 150B, Article 4.

0"3esn tjo,
e#W
C,�-P A -�le

4
ATTACHMENT TO THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST BY
ROBERT W. ("JUDGE") CARR REGARDING PERMIT ISSUED TO DR JOHN
HERLONG, 23 INDIAN BLUFFS DRIVE, ARAPAHOE, NORTH CAROLINA
I. Summary.
Robert W. Carr ("Petitioner") is an adjacent riparian property owner to Dr. John Herlong
("Permittee") on the Neuse River in Arapahoe, North Carolina. Permittee submitted a Coastal
Area Management Act ("CAMA") permit proposal to move existing riprap and construct a
bulkhead on his riparian shoreline ("the Permit")(Exhibit "A"). Petitioner approved the
proposed development which at its outermost point was 20 feet landward of Petitioner's existing
bulkhead. The Permit was approved, and Permittee began work. As currently constructed, the
riprap work extends approximately 15 feet waterward of both Petitioner's existing bulkhead and
the Permittee's new bulkhead (a 35 foot difference from the permit proposal), directly adversely
affecting Petitioner's property and in violation of CAMA rules as set forth bel
II. This Third Party Petition is Timely.
CAMA provides that third party hearing reques must be received by e Commission
"within 20 days after the disputed permit decision i ade." N.C.G.S. 113A -121.1(b). In this
case, the "disputed permit decision" was made o 21 ay 2008, the date that the Division of
Coastal Management ("DCM") determined that that the bulkhead and riprap could remain as
being constructed, despite the fact that those structures were in violation of the permit.
Specifically; DCM found in its 21 May 2008 Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Dr. Herlong that he
had reconfigured his bulkhead waterward of the authorized location, and had reconfigured the
riparap waterward of the bulkhead location. (Exhibit `B", page 2, numbers 1-2). DCM
determined that despite being a violation of the permit (and inconsistent with the drawings
submitted to this Petitioner), the waterward location of the bulkhead and riprap could remain
because it was still consistent with the relevant rules. DCM also assessed a penalty for the
unauthorized development (Exhibit "C"). It is the decision memorialized in the 21 May 2008
NOV that gives rise to Petitioner's appeal rights under N.C.G.S. 113A -121.1(b).
It is not appropriate in this case to calculate the appeal period from the original date that
the General Permit was issued (7 February 2008) because the notice was clearly deficient. That
is, the notice provided to this Petitioner and approved by DCM depicted a significantly different
structure than what the Permittee ultimately built. Petitioner can only be required to challenge a
permit of which he has adequate notice. The facts show and DCM has acknowledged that the
Permittee did not build what was authorized by the original permit. This Petitioner would have
never issued a statement of "no objection" and certainly would have appealed any permit for the
development the Permittee has now undertaken. DCM's decision that the unauthorized
development is nonetheless permittable constitutes a second and new "agency decision" subject
to administrative review under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Thus, this appeal is
timely filed.

III. A contested case hearing is appropriate under N.C.G.S. § 113A -121.1(b).
A. The decision is contrary to statute or rule.
DCM's decision to allow the riprap and bulkhead to remain as presently being constructed is
contrary to the general and specific conditions required for a general permit to place riprap and
construct a bulkhead as set forth in 15A N.C.A.C. 07H .1100 et seq.:
15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1105(b)(with emphasis added) requires as follows:
(b) Bulkhead and Riprap material shall be positioned as follows:
(2) Riprap shall be positioned so as not to exceed a maximum of 5 feet waterward
of the mean high water mark or normal water level contour ay any point along its
alignment. Where there is an existing bulkhead structure, riprap shall be
allowed to extend a maximum of 10 feet offshore. This location standard shall
take into consideration the height of the area to be protected (i.e. bulkhead types,
water depth) and the alignment shall allow for a slope no flatter than 2 feet
horizontal per 1 foot vertical and no steep than 1 1/2 feet horizontal per 1 foot
vertical.
"Petitioner contends the riprap extends beyond 10 feet offshore of Permittee's bulkhead
now under construction.
15A N. C.A.C. 07H.1105(f) requires as follows:
(f) The bulkhead shall be constructed, or the riprap shall be placed prior to any
backfilling activities.
'Petitioner contends that the Permittee placed sandy backfill on the shoreline prior to
construction of the bulkhead and placement of riprap.
15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1105(g) requires as follows:
(g) The bulkhead shall be constructed, or the riprap shall be structurally tight so as to
prevent seepage of backfill materials through the structure.
"Petitioner contends the bulkhead is not structurally tight, and seepage will occur through
the structure.
15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1 105(k) requires as follows:
(k) Bulkheads or riprap shall not extend beyond established alignments nor restrict
the original width of the canal or basin.
N

**Petitioner contends the riprap was authorized to extend approximately 15 feet beyond
the established alignment on the relevant shoreline.
Below, Petitioner will further address each of the preceding rules and the alleged
violations in the order they are set forth in 15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1105. (Exhibit "D").
15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1105(b)(2): Petitioner respectfully disagrees with DCM's permit
decision allowing the riprap to remain as placed because the riprap extends beyond 10 feet
offshore in violation of .1105(b)(2). When DCM first learned that the Permittee had placed
riprap and begun construction on the bulkhead in violation of the Permit, DCM stopped work at
the project site. DCM at some point determined the riprap extended beyond the 10 foot
requirement and told Petitioner it would have to be removed. By its NOV, DCM reversed this
decision and found that the riprap did not exceed the 10 foot rule and could remain.
Petitioner has personally taken measurements of the riprap currently in place at the
development site. Petitioner's most recent measurements were taken on 9 May 2008 and show
the rock riprap placed in front of the bulkhead under construction extending approximately 15
feet waterward from the bulkhead. Petitioner is prepared to put on evidence to support this
contention.
15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1105(f) & 15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1105(g): These rules require the
riprap and bulkhead be constructed prior to placing backfill, and that the structure be sufficiently
sound to prevent the seepage of the backfill. Petitioner respectfully submits these rules have
been violated.
Permittee placed a large number of cubic feet of back fill on the project site prior to the
completion of the bulkhead and riprap in violation of 15A N.C.A.C. 0711-1 105(f). (Exhibit "E")
(these pictures depict the sandy backfill placed prior to the construction of the bulkhead). Based
on the height of the vinyl, it is Rirther evident that Permittee is actually driving the pilings and
the vinyl bulkhead into this sandy fill. The panels appear to be driven into the fill to a depth of
no more than 6 feet. It is unlikely, therefore, that the panels will reach the virgin soil/clay at a
depth sufficient to support a long term, safe placement of the bulkhead as required by 15A
N.C.A.C. 07H.1105(g). (Exhibit "F") (opinion letter from Sterling Brockwell, Professional
Engineer and his attached CV).
15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1105(k): Petitioner has observed the established alignment of the
shoreline along the Neuse at his property for 13 years. As historical photos show, the riprap
placement at the project site currently extends far waterward of the established alignments of the
shoreline for the surrounding properties. (Exhibits "Gl-G.V )(pictures showing the historical
established alignment along this shoreline prior to the Permittee's recent placement of riprap 15'
waterward of Petitioner's seawall).
In a contested case hearing, Petitioner will present evidence that at least two prior owners
of Permittee's property have constructed bulkheads and/or placed riprap that have aligned with
both Petitioner's riparian property line as well as all of the neighboring riparian property lines
3

relevant to Indian Bluffs. Mr. Gordon Vermillion built a wooden bulkhead inline with
Petitioner's bulkhead. After a hurricane removed Mr. Vermillion's bulkhead, rock riprap was
placed in its stead which naturally aligned with Petitioner's and the other adjacent property
shoreline. The Brady's, who owned the property after the Vermillions, applied for a CAMA
permit for a wooden bulkhead which was aligned with Petitioner's bulkhead.
The effect of the riprap as allowed by DCM is to obstruct and usurp public trust waters,
extending well beyond the natural alignment of the neighboring shorelines. Moreover, it is sure
to cause increased and artificial rates of erosion to the adjacent property owners' shoreline.
B. Petitioner is Directly Affected by this Decision.
As an adjacent riparian property owner, Petitioner is directly affected by the permit
decision as required by N.C.G.S. 113A -121.1(b)(2). Petitioner is directly affected in his person
and property by the unlawful existence and extent of riprap placed waterward of Petitioner's
bulkhead. The location of these structures will cause wave deflection that will affect Petitioner's
own retaining wall and substantial property interests. The riprap extending 15' in front of
Petitioner's retaining wall and the established alignment of the shoreline will cause an artificial
increase in the erosion to Petitioner's property, severely weaken his retaining wall and shorten
the lifespan of that wall and its protection of his property. Petitioner's property rights stand to
be improperly infringed upon if Permittee's bulkhead and riprap remain in violation of the permit
that was issued, and so substantially in violation the rules governing the specific conditions of
the placement of riprap and construction of bulkhead.
The unsound construction of the bulkhead possesses an unnecessary risk to the welfare
and safety of the public; and, there remains a heightened risk to Petitioner's property by its
proximity to this unsound structure as it is currently being constructed.
C. Facts and legal arguments demonstrate that the request for a hearing is not
frivolous.
As further set forth below in the "Background and More Particular Facts" section, based
on the allegations that the permitting decision is contrary to 15A N.C.A.C. 07H.1105, and that
Petitioners are directly affected by DCM's decision to allow the construction of the bulkhead and
placement of the riprap outside the scope of the original permit (authorized through the NOV),
and in violation of the governing rules and regulations, Petitioner has established that his hearing
request is not frivolous under N.C.G.S. 113A -121.1(b)(3), and is worthy of administrative
review.
W. Background and More Particular Facts
In support of the above set forth Third Party Hearing Request, and to more fully assist the
Chairman of the CRC in his determination as to the merits of a contested case, Petitioner alleges
the following facts based on the information known to him:
4

Petitioner is owner of a lot and home located at 47 Indian Bluff Drive, Arapahoe, North
Carolina. Petitioner's riparian property is adjacent to the waters of the Neuse River in Pamlico
County. Petitioner purchased the lot and home in September of 1995. The adjacent riparian
property to the east at 23 Indian Bluff Drive is owned by Dr. John Herlong ("Permittee") (the
"Project Site").
On 17 December 2008, marine contractor Decks'n Docks Construction, L.L.C. ("Decks'n
Docks"), on behalf of Permittee, sent a notification letter to Petitioner concerning proposed
bulkhead and riprap construction that was submitted to DCM for CAMA permit review. Exhibit
"H". The letter included an adjacent property notice/ and waiver form providing the Petitioner
an opportunity to object to the proposed Permit. It also indicated the adjacent property owner
statement providing a written description of the proposed shoreline construction. Exhibits "I"
& "J". The written description states that a wood retaining wall and two vinyl bulkheads would
be installed. A work drawing was also included with the notice providing a depiction of the
marine construction. Exhibit "K". As shown on the drawing, all of the proposed development
was to be located well landward of the alignment of Petitioner's existing wooden bulkhead,
including all riprap. The second drawing of the proposed construction depicts the construction
approximately 3 feet to 6 feet 5/8 inches in front of Petitioner's preexisting outermost wooden
bulkhead. Exhibit "L". As shown on Exhibit "I", Petitioner did not object to the proposed
development.
DCM issued CAMA General Permit No. 52144C on 7 February 2008 (the "Permit").
Exhibit "A". Consistent with the work drawings, the Permit also showed all of the proposed
development to be located landward of Petitioner's existing bulkhead. Construction did not
begin on the proposed bulkhead and riprap until some time in late March of 2008. On or about
17 April 2008, Petitioner first noticed that the construction of the bulkhead and the placement of
the riprap was different from the drawings submitted to Petitioner on the Adjacent Property
Owner Notice and approved by DCM in the permit.
Permittee began constructing his bulkhead in line with Petitioner's bulkhead (different
than proposed), and further placed riprap approximately 15 feet waterward of this new bulkhead
(currently still under construction). The current location of the riprap is, according to
Petitioner's calculations, approximately 35 feet waterward of its original placement as depicted
in the notice submitted to Petitioner. During construction, Petitioner observed the use of sand
backfill being placed prior to construction of the bulkhead, and that the bulkhead itself would be
placed in the backfill and never reach virgin, clay soil. Petitioner put DCM on notice of these
issues. Petitioner also notified the Pamlico County building inspector about the issues pertaining
to unsound construction of the bulkhead.
Petitioner was originally told by DCM that the bulkhead and riprap were not in violation
of CAMA regulations. This decision was soon after reversed, where DCM found the following
violations: (1) that the riprap extended waterward beyond 10 feet of the bulkhead under
construction; and, (2) that the riprap was placed across Petitioner's eastern property line. [Note
that this second issue regarding placement of the riprap laterally across Petitioner's eastern
property line (also noted in the NOV, page 2, paragraph 3) is not a concern raised by this hearing
request.] A "stop work order" was then issued by DCM. Petitioner was notified by DCM of the
5

following: that for Decks'n Docks to resume construction at Dr. Herlong's property, they will
have to either bring the construction into compliance with the drawing Petitioner signed off on,
or submit a modified permit. Exhibit "M" (email correspondence between Petitioner and DCM).
On or about 23 April 2008, Petitioner received a modified drawing from Decks `n Docks
showing the proposed bulkhead wall 20 feet waterward from that depicted in the original Permit,
with riprap approximately 35 feet waterward from that depicted in the original Permit. Exhibit
"N". This modified drawing depicted placement of riprap 12' waterward of the proposed
bulkhead. DCM did not deem this drawing to be a modified permit application. Exhibit "O".
On 8 May 2008, a "stop work order" was still in place on the Project Site. On this date,
by telephone conference between DCM, Petitioner, and the undersigned, Petitioner was informed
that Decks'n Docks would be submitting a modified permit and that Petitioner would have the
opportunity to raise objections to any modification and appeal if necessary. During this phone
conference, DCM indicated that the riprap placement was in violation where it extended beyond
10' waterward beyond the proposed bulkhead, and that a DCM violation would be issued. No
modified permit has been submitted for review by Petitioner.
On 15 May 2008, Decks'n Docks met with representatives of DCM at the Project Site.
Upon information and belief, as a result of this meeting, DCM determined that Decks'n Docks
would be required to remove any riprap located across Petitioner's property line only, but that
otherwise the project as being constructed could go forward. On 20 May 2008, DCM confirmed
by email that no modified permit was submitted by Decks'n Docks/Permittee, nor was one
approved, and that Decks N' Docks/Permittee would be issued a violation for placing the riprap
across Petitioner's property line. On that same day, by email with the undersigned, DCM also
confirmed for the first time that the riprap could remain in place. Petitioner maintains that this
decision is in error since the riprap extends approximately 15 feet offshore.
On 30 May 2008, Petitioner first received a copy of the NOV DCM sent to
Decks'n Docks/Permittee on 21 May 2008 officially setting forth violations for the
riprap on Petitioner's property line and the failure to comply with their CAMA permit.
The NOV acknowledged that Petitioner had developed under the Permit well outside the
specified terms and conditions of the Permit. The NOV provided a restoration plan to be
signed by Permittee requiring that riprap be removed from Petitioner's riparian line, and
acknowledged that the property was completely restored on 15 May 2008 when the riprap
on Petitioner's riparian property was removed. Also on 30 May 2008, Petitioner first
received a copy of DCM's letter dated 27 May 2008, officially stating for the first time
that "the restoration appears to be complete to the satisfaction of DCM" and fining Dr.
Herlong $975.00. See Exhibit "L".
The NOV states: "Conformation that the adjacent riparian property owners
have been notified by certified mail of the completed work has [sic.] been
performed. This notice instructed the adjacent property owners to provide any
comments on the completed development in writing to the division within ten (10)
days of the receipt of the notice and indicated that no responses from them will be
interpreted as not having any objection." Petitioner did not receive this notice, and ,
G

therefore, was not provided any process to provide comments or objections to the
restoration plan as set forth in the NOV. Riprap remains buried under Petitioner's eastern
property line despite the NOV and restoration plan.
V. Conclusion.
The preceding facts giving rise to this appeal further establish that Petitioner's appeal is
timely and that Petitioner meets each of the three criteria for being granted a hearing under
N.C. G. S. 113A -121.1(b).
Respectfully submitted this day of June, 2008.
THOMAS RESTON WILSON
409 Pollock St.
Post Office Box 1676
New Bern, NC 28563
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
N.C. State Bar No.: 31876
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I this day have served a copy of this pleading upon the other parties
to this action by facsimile transmission and by depositing a copy thereof in an envelope bearing
sufficient postage in the United States mail addressed to the said parties as follows:
Mr. James Gregson, Director and
Mr. Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
Office of the North Carolina Attorney General
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-9001
This day of June, 2008.
GRE
THOMAS RESTON WILSON
409 Pollock St.
Post Office Box 1676
New Bern, NC 28563
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
N.C. State Bar No.: 31876

Q r�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director
C (0-) �M
Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
EXHIBIT
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
May 21, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
John Herlong .
1212 Sweet Briar Circle
Kinston, NC 28501
RE: VIOLATION(S) OF CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 52144C
CAMA VIOLATION #08-14C
Dear Mr. Herlong:
This letter confirms that on May 15, 2008, 1 was onsite at your property located at 23 Indian' Bluff Drive in
Indian Bluff subdivision adjacent to the Neuse River located in or near Arapahoe, off Bennett Drive,
Pamlico County, North Carolina. The purpose of the visit was to monitor the permitted development of a
new bulkhead and riprap along the Neuse River. Tere Barrett of the DCM, Jason Hill of Decks 'n Docks,
and Pete Chiles were also present at this meeting. I also conducted two previous site visits on April 17,
2008 and May 6, 2008 during the investigation process.
Information gathered by me for the NC Division of Coastal Management shows that you have violated the
terms or conditions of State Permit No. 52144C which was issued to you by the Coastal Resources
Commission and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. [hereby request
that you immediately CEASE AND DESIST such violation(s) and comply with the terms and conditions of
the above permit.
On February 7, 2008, State Permit No. 52144C was issued to Jason Hill of Decks 'n Docks Inc. for
construction of a new bulkhead and riprap within the Neuse River on property located in Pamlico County,
North Carolina, off Indian Bluff Drive. This permit was issued for a CAMA Major Development in an Area of
Environmental Concern, in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.) 113A-118. This
permit included the following terms and conditions:
1. Bulkhead was to be placed landward of normal water level, with the riprap not to exceed 10'
waterward of normal water level.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www,nccoastalmanagement.net
An r: --I 0nnn.f—;i,.1 A;;;--;-- A-,; ^- C_..i.,.... C-1 n__.._i_aI iA., n__. --. r,____

Herlong
May 21, 2008
Page 2
For the following reasons, you are in violation of the above terms and conditions(s) of your permit:
1. Bulkhead was reconfigured waterward of authorized location, but not waterward of normal water
level;
2. Riprap was reconfigured waterward of the bulkhead location, but not exceeding 10' waterward of
normal water level;
3. Riprap was placed across the adjacent riparian property, measuring approximately 6' by 5'.
If the terms and conditions of a permit are not complied with, the permit becomes null and void from the
date of its issuance.
A civil penalty of up to Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) may be assessed, or an injunction or criminal
penalty may be sought against any person who violates a CAMA Major Development permit. It is the policy
of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a minimum civil penalty of $650, plus investigative costs
against all violations of this type. This is done to recoup some of the costs of investigating violations and/or
to compensate the public for any damage to its natural resources. Whether a higher amount will be
assessed will depend on. several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected
and the extent of the damage to them. If restoration of the affected resources is requested but is not
undertaken or completed satisfactorily, a substantially higher civil penalty will be assessed and a court
injunction will be sought ordering restoration (N.C.G.S. 113A-126).
Based upon review of the Coastal Area Management Act, Coastal Resource Commission's rules, and the
local jurisdiction's Land Use Plan, the activity you have undertaken appears inconsistent with the terms and
conditions of the permit by placing 6' by 5' of riprap across the adjacent riparian property. Therefore,
restoration of the impacted area is being requested and the restoration was completed on May 15, 2008.
Confirmation that the adjacent riparian property owners have been notified by certified mail of the
completed work has been performed, This notice instructed the adjacent property owners to provide any
comments on the completed development in writing to this Division within ten (10) days of receipt of the
notice and indicated that no response from them will be interpreted as not having any objection.
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If -you have any questions
about this or related matters, please call me at [phone]. Upon my submission of an enforcement
report to the District Manager, you will be notified as to the amount of the civil assessment for failure to act
in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of such permit.
The relevant statutes and regulations are available from this office, and I am willing to assist you in
complying with the requirements of these laws. A site inspection will be made in the near future to
determine whether this REQUEST TO CEASE AND DESIST has been complied with. I request that you
contact me immediately about these important matters.
COPY
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Herlong
May 21, 2008
Page 3
Sincerely,
Coastal Management Representative
Cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Tere Barrett, District Manager, DCM
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Skip Lee, Pamlico County, LPO
ENCLOSURE
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
. _ .. .., __.._. —01 C)-..,,I..a \ tnoi 0nn4 (Donor

'Herlong
May 21, 2008
Page 4
RESTORATION PLAN
For
John Herlong.P.roperty
CAMA Violation No. 08-14C
Property located at 23 Indian Bluff Drive, Pamlico County
NTS
May 21, 2008
®-Approx. 6' X 5' of riprap
Herlong Bulkhead
® . -Carr Bulkhead
I, John Herlong; agree to remove all riprap that is across the adjacent riparian property.
I completed this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by May 15th.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to levy a_,minirnum civil assessment $650, plus investigative
t,.
costs and higher against all violations of this :type depending, upon the, damage to the resources. If restoration is not
undertaken or satisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment will be levied and an injunction
• sought. to require restoration.
400 Commerce Avenue; Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Eaual Opportunity\ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 100,10 Post Consumer Paper

I
EXHIBIT
s D C,
N
North Carolina Depart CDFNR
R meet of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Coastal Management
Nafural Resources
James H. Gregson, Director
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
CERTIFIED MAIL May 27, 2008
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. John Herlong
1212 Sweet Briar Circle Copy
Kinston, NC 28501
RE. -
CAM VIOLATION #08-14C
Dear Mr. Herlong:
This letter is in reference to the Notice of Violation da
Division of Coastal Management, issued to
ted May 21, 2d acemthat nt Connell, representative for
bulkhead adjacent to the Neuse River at 23 Indian Bluff
you for unauthorized placement/locatlon/desi n the
and Public Trust Waters and the Estuarine Shoreline which
the Coastal Resources Commisby
sion. gas Drive, Pamlico Count . 9 of riprap and
rch are Areas of Environment I Co Cem olation de d Estuarine
Tere Barrett, the restoration requested appears
upon the site visit conducted on Ma -15
Management. PPears to be complete to the satisfaction of the 08 b srf Cooand
sgnated al
he Division of Coastal
The Coastal Area Management
be assessed;for any violation: Itis the policy of the
Ment Act provides that a civil assessmerif of up to $10,000 plus
a!1 violations in order to recoversome of the costs of investigating
Coastal Resources Commission o assess invesfa civil penalty may
any damage to its natural resources. estrgating violations and/or to compensate P ty for
Under the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission,P sate the public for
appropriate for this violation. You ma a proposed civil penalty in the amount
Penalty b y expeditiously resolve this matter prior to the assessment of $975.00 is
Y Y accepting responsibility for the violation and
You must: (1) sign one of the attached copies of an " nt of a formal civil
Paying the amount proposed above.
money order for $975.00
made a Agreement to Pay Civil Assessment;" In order to do this
(NCDENR); and 3 payable to the North Carolina Department of Environment a
envelo ' () return the signed agreement and a (2) attach a check or
Pe within ten (10) days of Your receipt e this d payment
U oto this office in the enclosedaself-tural Resources
account, you will receive a Notice of Com self-addressed
pliance officially closipg th�s e�for�ement action eck in the Department's
If you do not send.a signed agreement and payment to '
of Coastal Management will formally. assess a civilPenalty
tars office within fen (10) days, the Director of
request a hearing on the penalty or request remission.ofth against you.
Y You will then have the the Division
e penalty, Opportunity to
400 Commerce Avenue _
Phone: 252-8pg_2808 I Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
FAX.`
252-24 7-3330

John Herlong
May 27, 2008
Page 2
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Tere Barrett
District Manager, MHC
Division of Coastal Management
Enclosures
cc: Ted Brnlp�a
irector, DCM
Roy
owow,Cmince Coordinator, DCM
'"'astal Management Representative, DC
Ryan Davenport, Compliance Field Representative, DCM
Raleigh Bland, USACE
Ad(03
400 Commerce Avenue,
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastaimanagPaement.net per
. - _:..., nac.,., iw. Artinn EmoloYer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Poconsumer

John Herlong
May 27, 2008 00p.Y7 Page 3
CAMA VIOLATION #08-14C
MR, JOHN HERLONG
AGREEMENT TO PAY PROPOSED CIVIL ASSESSMENT
I, John Herlong, understand that the staff of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources will propose
the assessment of a civil penalty in the amount of $975.00 against me for violation of the Coastal Area
Management Act, NCGS 113A-100 et seg, committed on or near my property at 23 Indian Bluff Drive, in Pamlico
County, North Carolina. In order to resolve this matter with no further action or expense on my part, I accept
responsibility for the violation as described in the Notice of Violation letter dated May 21, 2008, and agree to pay
the proposed civil assessment of $975.00.
DATE
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www,nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

LU
EXHIBIT
W
J
Q
(c) There shall be no significant interference with navigation or use of the waters by the public by the existence of the
bulkhead or the riprap authorized herein.
(d) This permit will not be applicable to proposed construction where the Department has determined, based on an initial
review of the application, that notice and review pursuant to G.S. 113A-119 is necessary because there are unresolved
questions concerning the proposed activity's impact on adjoining properties or on water quality; air quality; coastal wetlands;
cultural or historic sites; wildlife; fisheries resources; or public trust rights.
(e) This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any other required state, local, or federal authorization.
(f) Development carried out under this permit must be consistent with all local requirements, AEC rules, and local land use
plans current at the time of authorization.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A -107(a); 113A -107(b); 113,4-113(b); 113A-118.1; 113A-124;
Eff. March 1, 1984;
Amended Eff. May 1, 1990; December 1, 1987;
RRC Objection due to ambiguity Eff. May 19, 1994;
Amended Eff. August 1, 1998; July 1, 1994.
15A NCAC 07H .1105 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
(a) This general permit is applicable only along shorelines void of wetland vegetation including marsh grass and wooded
swamp, or where all construction is to be accomplished landward of such vegetation.
(b) Bulkheads and riprap material shall be positioned as follows:
(1) Bulkheads shall be positioned so as not to exceed more than an average distance of 2 feet waterward of the
normal high water mark, or the normal water level contour, whichever is applicable. In no case shall the bulkhead
be positioned more than 5 feet waterward of the normal high water or normal water level contour at any point along
its alignment.
(2) Riprap shall be positioned so as not to exceed a maximum of 5 feet waterward of the mean high water mark or
normal water level contour at any point along its alignment. Where there is an existing bulkhead structure, riprap
shall be allowed to extend a maximum of 10 feet offshore. This location standard shall take into consideration the
height of the area to be protected (i.e. bulkhead height, water depth) and the alignment shall allow for a slope no
flatter than 2 feet horizontal per 1 foot vertical and no steeper than 1 %Z feet horizontal per I foot vertical.
(c) Along shorelines within upland basins, canals, and ditches, bulkheads or riprap material must be positioned so as not to
exceed more than an average distance of 5 feet waterward of the normal high water mark or the normal water level contour,
whichever is applicable. In no case shall the bulkhead or riprap be positioned more than 10 feet waterward of the normal high
water or normal water level contour at any point along its alignment. For the purpose of these Rules, the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW) is considered a natural shoreline and development shall occur as described in 7H .I 105(b).
(d) Construction authorized by this general permit shall be limited to a maximum shoreline length of 500 feet.
(e) All backfill material shall be obtained from an upland source.
(f) The bulkhead shall be constructed, or the riprap shall be in place prior to any backfilling activities.
(g) The bulkhead or riprap shall be structurally tight so as to prevent seepage of backfill materials through the structure.
(h) Riprap material shall be free from loose dirt or any other pollutant. It shall be of a size sufficient to prevent its movement
from the site by wave or current action.
(i) Riprap material shall consist of clean rock or masonry materials such as but not limited to granite or broken concrete.
Materials such as tires, car bodies, scrap metal, paper products, tree limbs, wood debris, organic material or similar material,
are not considered riprap.
0) The bulkhead shall be solid and constructed of treated wood, concrete slabs, metal sheet piles or other suitable materials
approved by department personnel. No excavation is permitted except for that which may be required for the construction of
the bulkhead wall, riprap, deadmen cables, etc. This permit does not authorize any excavation waterward of the approved
alignment.
(k) Bulkheads or riprap shall not extend beyond established alignments nor restrict the original width of the canal or basin.
(1) If one contiguous acre or more of property is to be excavated or filled, an erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be
filed with the Division ofLand Resources, Land Quality Section, or appropriate local government having jurisdiction. This
plan shall be approved prior to commencing the land -disturbing activity.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A -107(a); 113A-107(6); 113A -113(b); 113A-118.1; 113A-124;
Eff. March 1, 1984;
Amended Eff. April 1, 2005; December 1, 1991; January 1, 1989; December 1, 1987.
46

CJV11t311

BROCKWELL ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTS - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS
(' SamUel,W.Brockwell,AIA
'President
Sterling M. Brockwell, Jr._ P.E.
Vice President
Ernest R. Bessent, AIA
Secretary
S. Thomas Green, AIA
Associate
George L. Duncan, AIT
27 May 2008 EXHIBIT
Mr. Thomas Wilson �
Greene and Wilson, PA
P. O. Box 1676
New Bern, NC 28563
Subj: Site Visit to Examine Construction on Hedong Waterfront Property
Downstream of 47 Indian Bluff Drive, Arapahoe, NC
Dear Mr. Wilson,
On 24 May 2008, 1 accompanied Robert W. Carr on a cursory examination of waterfront
construction activities on the property downstream from his riverfront property at 47
Indian Bluff Drive in Arapahoe, NC. The purpose of this cursory examination was to use
my waterfront engineering experience to identify potential economic and physical
damages to the Carr property that might result from the construction underway on the
Herlong property.
I have attached a CV that describes some of my background that enables me to make
engineering judgments about this matter. I have been a member of or project manager
of scores of design and construction teams that have dealt with shoreline protection in
various locations and in various soil conditions. This experience has led me to
understand the shoreline stabilization and sheetpile wall construction issues at this site.
This is a difficult river front site because of the high bluff face (-25 feet), the easily
eroded material (sand), the eroded condition of the existing bluff, the presence of the
relics of a previous wood wall and exposure of the site to storm surge and wind driven
waves over fetches ranging from 6 miles from the south to 12.5 miles from the west.
Several issues should be resolved before construction on the adjacent property is
allowed to proceed. These are:
Permit Drawing Compliance:
During the permit application process, Mr. Carr signed off on a drawing provided to him
by Dr. Herlong's agent, Decks 'n Docks Construction. It is difficult to correlate the sketch
shown on CAMA General Permit No. 52144 with the drawing that Mr. Carr signed, but
the position of the vinyl sheetpile wall and the rip -rap toe protection being constructed
are clearly several feet forward of the position Mr. Carr accepted during the permit
application process.
1911 Hillandale Road, Suite 1050 • Durham, North Carolina 27705 • Voice: 919-383-2426 • Fax: [phone] • email: [e-mail]

47 Indian Bluffs Drive, Arapahoe, NC
Page 2
Location of the Herlong Rip -Rap
The rip -rap on the Herlong property is a relic part of a wood and rip -rap wall system that
failed more than a decade ago. During recent construction operations, the rip -rap was
removed from the river's edge, staged ashore and then reinstalled outboard of the wall
now being constructed. Normally, rip -rap is placed on geotechnical fabric in front of a
sheetpile wall after the wall and tieback system has been installed.
Unless additional rip -rap is added atop what is now installed, it is likely that the sand in
front of the wall will be eroded, increasing the likelihood of a failure at the toe of the
sheetpile.
It is hard to predict the impact on shoreline erosion and sediment transport at Carr's
shoreline due to the Herlong rip -rap being forward of the Carr wall (which is at the high
water line), but it is obvious that it will deny access to residents who have been able to
walk along the shoreline at the toe of the bluffs when the Neuse stage is below the high
water level.
Elevation of the Herlong Water's Edge Terrace:
Based on construction to date, the contractor intends to use 10 foot sheetpile imbedded
about 2 feet into the sand behind the relocated rip -rap. This is a problem from a
structural standpoint due to inadequate embedment of the sheetpile. This wall geometry
will place the top of the Herlong wall several feet above Carr's terrace at the water's
edge and create a vertical face at the end of the Carr terrace.
One's initial reaction is that this is only an un -neighborly arrangement, but there are
serious structural and erosion issues. Herlong's west end wall will be separated from
the east end wall of Carr's terrace. During storm events that overtop Carr's lower
terrace, wind driven waves will be reflected off this vertical face and the impounded
water will jet down between the two end walls, eroding the sand between the walls and
probably jeopardizing the structural integrity of both end walls.
If the Herlong lower terrace is constructed at the same elevation as the Carr lower
terrace, the waves will pass along the Herlong terrace and the erosion will be greatly
reduced. In either case, it is recommended that the sand in the gap between the walls
be protected by installing geotechnical fabric and rip -rap.
End walls of sheetpile bulkheads are often involved in wall failure because the wall is
flanked and fill is lost from behind the wall. End walls in tied back sheetpile systems are

47 Indian Bluffs Drive, Arapahoe, NC
Page 3
particularly vulnerable because of the difficulty in constructing the tieback system and
keeping the deadman anchors outside the soil slip circle.
Structural Integrity of the Herlong Lower Terrace Wall As Now Constructed
It appears that the 10 foot sheetpile wall sections for the Herlong lower terrace wall have
not been driven far enough into native material to develop the soil structure interaction
necessary to keep the wall in place. Unless the sheetpiles are driven further into the
natural sand, it is highly probable that the toe of the wall will kick out and the wall will fail.
I suspect that the contractor has had problems driving the vinyl sheetpile material
because the tips of the sheetpile encountered subterranean portions of the prior timber
wall and tiebacks. In order to successfully drive the vinyl material, it may be necessary
to use a steel sheetpile mandrel.
Potential Failure of the Herlong Upper Terrace Walls and Tieback System
One can readily understand the desire of an owner to preserve the property along the
bluffs overlooking the Neuse estuary at Indian Bluff Drive. Mr. Carr has taken great
pain and incurred considerable expense to protect the shoreline and the bluff on his
property by a combination of structural and vegetative means.
It makes sense that Dr. Herlong would want to recover and be able to use the south end
of his property that is now an eroded bluff. He apparently intends to do this by
constructing a series of terraces supported by tied back sheetpile walls constructed in
the material of the eroded slope.
Stabilizing high bluffs of this nature requires careful analysis by an experienced
geotechnical engineer, even when a series of walled terraces is used to solve the
problem. Sheetpile walls must always be driven a sufficient depth into competent
material to develop the structural properties of the sheetpile or of the sheetpile and
tieback system. When tiebacks are used, the "deadman" anchors and the tieback rods
must have the capacity to support the sheetpile wall and the deadman anchors must be
installed far enough behind the wall to be beyond the soil slope failure curve.
Constructing a wall and filling behind it in a high bluff situation like this one often requires
post -tensioning of the tieback system in order to develop the soil -structure interaction.
Constructing a viable system of walled terraces in a situation like this one where there is
already a severely eroded slope would be very demanding. Such construction will
remove the vegetation that currently protects some of the bluff from runoff erosion.

47 Indian Bluffs Drive, Arapahoe, NC
Page 4
If the Herlong terrace wall system should fail, reconstruction would be an even more
daunting task because of the presence of deadman anchors, tieback rods, sheetpile, etc.
and the movement and erosion of the backfill. It is likely that the east flank of the Carr
waterfront improvements would be damaged by a terrace wall failure on the Herlong
property.
Recommendations:
The current stop work order should remain in effect until these matters can be resolved
in a way that will not harm the Carr property.
Dr. Herlong and his agent should provide wall design drawings and calculations
prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in North Carolina and experienced in
design of sheetpile wall systems in this type of sand bluff environ.
These documents should specify the minimum embedment of the sheetpile sections and
the placement of the deadman anchors.
If I may be of further service or, if you have questions, please contact me.
Sincerely yours, >"ROA$��'"
Z'
B
% �
O O
Sterling M. Brockwell, Jr., Af a
North Carolina PE #8064 e 2 �.F�, ��
*00000
INE,; ,e.
Attachment: ,,�+BRO' 1��,,� �
Sterling M. Brockwell, Jr. CV

REGISTRATION:
Brockwell Associates Inc
STERLING M. BROCKWELL, JR.
Vice -President
Professional Engineer: Current: North Carolina, California
Previous: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas
EDUCATION:
• B.S., Civil. Engineering: Duke University, 1956
• M.S., Financial Management: Naval Postgraduate School, 1968
• Studies in Engineering Management, UCLA, 1977
• Studies in Waterfront Design, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University, 1988
• Various Seminars and Short Courses in Waterfront Design and Engineering
EXPERIENCE:
Mr. Brockwell has extensive experience in the planning, design, construction, maintenance and
operation of port facilities. He completed a distinguished and versatile career in the Navy Civil
Engineer Corps after serving in numerous facilities engineering assignments in the US and
abroad. He subsequently was Principal -in Charge of the Raleigh operation of Moffatt & Nichol
Engineers from its opening in 1981 until he moved to Brockwell Associates in 1997. His
current engineering practice is focused on the Civil Engineering aspects of various medical,
institutional, educational and sports facilities in the Raleigh-Durham area.
Mr. Brockwell's experience in the Navy and with Moffatt & Nichol included providing planning
and design of waterfront facilities, harbors and navigation channels, shore protection
structures, utility systems, and site development. Projects include:
Extend Cargo Wharf, Berth 1, Port of Wilmington, NC
Rehabilitate Berths A & B, Port of Wilmington, NC
Forest Products Transit Shed, Port of Wilmington, NC
Emergency Concrete Crack Repairs, Berth 1, Port of Wilmington, NC
Amphibious Assault Ship Storm Moorings, Morehead City Terminal, NC
Repairs to Berths 7-9, Morehead City Terminal, Morehead City, NC
Investigation of Berths 4-7 Structural Deficiencies, Morehead City, NC

STERLING M. BROCKWELL, JR
bo
Vice President
Page - Two
EXPERIENCE (Continued):
Gantry Crane Rail Replacement, Morehead Terminal, Morehead City, NC
Charleston Naval Base Reuse Study, Charleston, SC
Container Wharf Extension, Wando Terminal, Mount Pleasant, SC
Port Services Support Facility, Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA
Replace Wharf & Convert to Cruise Ship Terminal, Berths 271-273, Tampa, FL
Gypsum Terminal Feasibility Study, Tampa, FL
Talleyrand Terminal Expansion, Jacksonville, FL
Pier E Conversion, Long Beach, CA
Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor Deepening, Los Angeles, CA
Drystack Marina Feasibility Study, Port of Seattle, Seattle, WA
Structural Repairs & Fuel System Replacement, Pier H, Pearl Harbor, HI
Master Plan for the Port of San Pedro de Macoris, Dominican Republic
Container Port Study, Nevis, West Indies
Deep -Draft Munitions Pier, Laem Chabang, Thailand
Petroleum, Oil & Lubricants (POL) Pipeline Mooring, Sirachai, Thailand
POL Jetty and Tank Farm, Sattahip, Thailand
Heavy Equipment Loading Facility, Danang, Republic of Viet Nam (RVN)
Aggregate Barge Loading Facility, Blackrock Bay, Republic of Vietnam (RVN)
Barge Fleeting Facility, Tan My, RVN
Construction Material Port, Hue, RVN
Construction Material Port, Cua Viet, RVN
Floating Piers, Red Beach, RVN
CURRENT AND FORMER PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:
Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers
Past President, Eastern Branch, North Carolina Section
Society of American Military Engineers
American Association of Port Authorities
Facilities Engineering Committee
The Waterfront Center
Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses
Western Dredging Association
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association

�S��b���5�,� �

on,
Y.l

9-4

Ll
tv-

04-28-08;14.10 ;
XMIKS
OCRs
Construction, LLC
Left Neighbor
Mr. Thomas Frank
241.3 Beechridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27608
Flight Neighbor
Mr. Robert Carr
1420 Granada Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
(#47 Indian Bluffs Drive)
12526725477
Quality Craftsmanship
the Ground Up!
Q
frown
RE: Mr. John Herlong - #23 Indian Bluffs Drive
12/17/07
Hello everyone! This lett& is to inform you of the construction that my company plans on
doing for your neighbor, Mr. John Herlong. We plan on building some retaining walls and a
vinyl bulkhead along his waterfront. I have included some drawings of this project along
with some information that I need your signature on in order to obtain the necessary CAMA
permit and Pamlico County Building Permit for this project. We pian on getting started
sometime in January, so time is of the essence to get these forms back. I have included a
self-addressed stamped envelope for your convenience.
If you have any questions, or if you would like to meet with us to discuss the project, please
do not hesitate to give me a call. I am usually back in the office by 4:00pm each day.
Thank you in advance for your time!
Nlwap;"
IF
!decks N' Dwitt, LLC

1 X04-28-08;14.:10 ; 12526725477
CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFTCATIONfWAIVIER
FORM
Natne of individual applying for the pertnit:.-J�{; t (Lw
Address of property:_i'- � 1�0AI-) 2
(Lok or etrceed,1111 of 1-51
(City & Coity)
# 3/ 24
EXHIBIT
I hereby certify the I own property adjacent to tte above referenced property. The
Individual applying for this perntit has described to me (as shown ort the attached
drawing) the development they are proposing. A description or drawing, with
dimensions, should be provided whit thister. f
>r-� �l �'T� r�R . ►.1 �,...- vis A'
I have no objections to this proposal
It you have objections to what is bent proposed, r� ~�I�s�write the Division Coastal t�
g p i�dt ! san�.►�t�..+�
Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC: 28557 or call (252) 80&2808
within 10 days of receipt of the notice. No response is considered the same as no
objection if you have been notified by Certified Mail. h 4a6a.
Waiver section
understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift or
saudbags must be set back a minimum distance of IS' Fronk in
y arca of riparian
access unless waived by me. (If you wish to waive the setback, you ,must initial the
appropriate blame below.)
i do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement
I do not wish to waive the 15" setback requirerllCnts
Signature bate
Mr. Robert Carr
Print Name
1420n Granada Drive
q t q - 4 &o - 5Z$ 5
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone number with area code
(#47 Indian Bluffs Dilve)

04-28-08;14:10 ;
12526725477
EXHIBIT
W
Q
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PRQpERTy OWNER STATEME �
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to
(Narne of Property Owner)
property located at -jr rr��,,� " i IIS P I PI.- i t r L) R `;> P24'" Jr
(Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on j-lcvq�je l�-1 uR�f— , in PAiL�G-iC'D ��(�Lin1 ► `�
(Waterbody)
(Town and/or County)
, N. C'
He has described to me as shown below, the development he is proposing at that location,
and, I have no objections to his proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWENG OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(To bu fulled in by individual proposing development)
'�� �4fi`i A�,f-�;�� i ►� �-�(�-�-ATI o>�.l
�'Or�iy�Ji �JGTI tai DC
>�' x W009� E i � I tJ�r llJ�i L L"I UC v -)A -L t.,)
f �L(' x�' � E N `� (,. �UL.iI )-���� W � C Z � L.l i rJC-► ('lJ��-�� l i.o W-�- t�--�
L�lr�(� I 1-fC--1�r � �F�P�i , � �1Ar•s pR-FI- l LTJ �: C U ref G �k:,�t-� (�JQI �i�-�I �iC-_
['fir, Robert Carr
i420n Granada Drive -11-,
Raleigh, NC 27612 Prir-it-or Type Name —
(#47 Indian Bluffs Drive)
5Sa,5
Tetepharre-Number -T

�H
" m
zLIC
TV031 atdls-rro
w
1
1I�I6 �►�c"-- , 'EAS,j62
f
,

04-28-08;14:10
12526725477
EXHIBIT
3'-6 5/8"
16 1_01T
351-011
4---rof;,

04-28-08;14:10 12526725477 # 11/ 24
IUllcn� up to Our prCx-ic)us cc1rnversaUun
� EXHIBIT
0
Subject: follow up Lo our previous conversation
From: Brad Connell <Brad.Conncll(Prtcmail.ner,
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:08:04. 0400
To: judge.carrc�duke.edu
Mr. carr,
I have notified W. Herlong and Decks & Docks of their options:
1)ei.ther bring the work into compliance per the drawing that you signed off on,
OR
2)apply to modify the permit.
It you have dny further, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact M.
Brad
13rid Connell ti13r; 1.C.onnelltiilltionnail.ne>
i
Coastal ti{anagc.mcnt Ficld Rcpicscntative
l NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Divkioo of Coastal Managemem
1 of 14/24/08 12;26 PM

r -
04-28-08;14:10 12526725477 # 20/ 24
Re: "Which o%;er rules FN-hich" �,otcematl t'esl)onse
,t xlge
Mr. Carr,
I apologize for nut_ cieLLing your call yEsterday 4ftecnoon. To try to answer, your question,
what the applicant was pern;itted for (i.e. the design drawn on tha permit) trumps it. In
other word$, the drawning on the permit Shows M.r., tterlong's rip rap and bulkhead lanchrard
of your seawall --so he must build it acvurding to that permit, or apply to modify it_ a,
hope this answers your quesL•ion. If not, please dant neSi_tate to contaCL me.
Brad
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr. E"I1
Senior Associate Dean
Development and Alumni Affairs
305 Teer Engineering Building
Box 90271
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, 2770s-0211
Phone. [phone]
Fax: [phone]
j udge. c4r1@duke=?fin
2 L)1'2 4/24/08 2:52 PM

11
4b'-0" I
i
,41-011
-- SLATS
148' HAND}2All
G r-011
l.} 350 SQFT. STAIRS
C I
N
r
co
N _.
Lo-
'} 51.011
40'-011
401-011
0
0
1
0
WOOD KNEE WALL ROCK SUPPORT
IF NO WAIVER IS GIVEN
WAIVER
101-011
SLATS -s VINYL WALL- -
.... .. +I
24' WALL NEEDED 24`-Q" I : 32}_fll�
----.- ----.--
FOR SLOPE I Z.._ -_
1 -RETAINING WALL
9-1- GRADE--
DUE
RADE--
DUE TO THE PRIOR DIFFICULTIES WITH THE TIE iN OF HERLONG'S
PROPERTY TO CARR'S PROPERTY, ONE OF TWO OPTIONS NtJST OCCUR:
1) IF DECKS N' DOCKS MUST CROSS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE TO
PROPERLY TEE IN THE BULKHEADS, A MINIMUM OF 3' EASEMENT MUST
BE GRANTED BY CARR; THUS THE WAIVER MUST BE SIGNED PER CAMA
AND DECKS N' DOCKS.
I 2) IF NO EASEMENT/WAIVER IS SIGNED THEN THEIR WILL BE A VOID
BETWEEN 80TH WALLS AND NEITHER PARTY WILL HOLD DECKS W
DOCKS, LAMA (NCDF-NR), DR. HERLONG, OR MR. CARR RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY FUTURE DAMAGES AND/OR ERROSION THAT MAY OCCUR.
F

F�CE�C ®, US Airbill
Express
FedEx
Numbe 8608 2711 2697 l 0200
1 From Peasepmdand resshem. ;
Sandals FedEx
Date Account Number
Sender's
s
' Name Phone ( �
Comparry 1./ t /
LIA
Address 7U O _ (j
7 DeptlHoodStilelRpvr
P. mcaState ZIP
2 Your Internal Billing Reference o r v
F924 characters wdl appear on mvoice.
Name
a V ^ ^ so MJr�o Phone���
Recipients w r ,
Name
`j Schedule a pickup at fedex.com
Simplify your shipping. Manage your account. Access all the tools you need.
/,. Exp Package Service Peekagesupto150ms.
Fe Priority Overnight FedEx Standard Overright FedEx Frst Overnight
business mammg.'Fnday ❑ Nwitusnessefuuneen.• ❑ Eadiast next business mommg
ipmams wi8 be delivered on Monday Saturday Oeliuery NOTavadeble. deliveryeselect locations•
SATURDAY Delivery a selected. Saturday Delivery NOT available.
FedEx Way FedEx Express Saver
❑ seeondbusinessday.•Thursday ❑Thirdbuanesedayy
slnmamswalbeder eed-Monday SaemdayDalrvaryNOTay..a.
unless SATURDAY Delivery a selected.
FedEx Envelope rata rwtaveilahia mum charge:One-pound rete. f •Tommlacedone
4b Express Freight Service Packages over 1501h&
❑FedEx 1 Dat Freight* FedEx 2Day Frewgj [ FedEx 3Day Freight
Nonbusiness ay.•' FndaV ❑ SBCOM business day. Thursday ❑ Third business ay.'•
shipmemswillbedeliveradon Monday shipinems will be delivered on Monday Saturday Delivery NOTavailable.
unless SATURDAY Delivery is selected. unless SATURDAYOelvvy is selected.
•Can for Confirmation: '• To most locations
ackaging
a
Fe [:1FedEx Pak* E] FedEx [:1 FedEx ❑ Other n
nv lope_
IncludesFedf small Pak Box Tube
Fed& Large Pak and FedEx Sturdy Pak • Declared value limbt<e0. 2
6 Special Handling 9 Include FedEx address in Section 3. �+
SATURDAY Delivery HOW -1.,day HO►D Saba
—b o
❑ NOTAvailablefor ❑ atFed6CL. ebon E] at FedEx n
Fed&SeMard ovemigM NOTAvailablefor Available ONLY for
FedEx Pont demigght Fed&Express FedEx Pmovemighc Feder Prosy Dvamig R.nd o
Sever,ar FedEx 3Day Freight FedEx Wayan select locations.
Does this shipment contain dangerous goods?
— One box must he checked. o
❑ No ❑ Yes ❑Yes ❑ Dry Ice
As seethed Shippers Declaretion Dryice, 9, UN 1845 kg s
Shippers Declaration. natregwred.
Dangerous goods (including dry ice) cannot be shipped in FadEx packaging. ❑ Cargo Aircraft Only o
7 Payment Bigax
r— nrFedElt Ata. No. orCmdt Card Na below. �
❑Sender ❑ RecipEekient L1Third Parry El CreditCard ❑Cash/Check
Acct No. in
Section I will
be Milled.
Fulakallo, Exp.
Credit card No. este
Total Packages Total Weight Total Declared Valuet
$ .00
tour tiab8by is emited IDS100 unless you declare ahighervalue.See backfor details By ung MisAirMe you agree a dm Fed&Ussonly
service condmons onthe backuf thisAirbill end bodne cunem RadixSwAce Guide, includingemetletrunk our gabibry.
8 NEW Residential Delivery Signature Options dyou require a signature, check Director Indirect
No Signature Direct Signature Indirect Si nature
❑ Required ❑ AAmrenretiilaRa ❑ dmpneaawiblea 520
Packagit beledwah- addressmay " nation far delivery. recipientsaddress,ammo
re.1daming a signature Feepph- at a neighboring address may
for delivery. sign for delivery, Fceapplics
Rev. Dae N05 -Pen 4158281•R11M-20D5 Fed&•PRINTED IN USA SKY

Terms And Conditions
Definitions On this Airbill, "we," "our;' %s," and "FedEx"
referto Federal Express Corporation, its employees, and agents.
"You" and "your" referto the sender, its employees, and agents.
Agreement To Terms By giving us your package to deliver,
you agree to all the terms on this Airbill and in the current
FedEx Service Guide, which is available upon request. You
also agree to those terms on behalf of any third party with an
interest in the package. If there is a conflict between the
current FedEx Service Guide and this Airbill, the current FedEx
Service Guide will control. No one is authorized to change
the terms of our Agreement.
Responsibility For Packaging And Completing Airbill
You are responsible for adequately packaging your goods and
properly filling out this Airbill. If you omit the number of
packages and/or weight per package, our billing will be based
on our best estimate of the number of packages we received
and/or an estimated "default" weight per package as
determined by us.
Responsibility For Payment Even if you give us different
payment instructions, you will always be primarily responsible for
all delivery costs, as well as any cost we incur in either returning
your package to you or warehousing it pending disposition.
Limitations On Our Liability And Liabilities
Not Assumed
• Our liability in connection with this shipment is limited to the
lesser of your actual damages or $100, unless you declare a
higher value, pay an additional charge, and document your
actual loss in a timely manner. You may pay an additional
charge for each additional $100 of declared value. The
declared value does not constitute, nor do we provide, cargo
liability insurance.
• In any event, we will not be liable for any damage, whether
direct, incidental, special, or consequential, in excess of the
declared value of a shipment, whether or not FedEx had
knowledge that such damages might be incurred, including
but not limited to loss of income or profits.
• We won't be liable:
— for your acts or omissions, including but not limited to
improper or insufficient packing, securing, marking, or
addressing, or those of the recipient or anyone else with
an interest in the package.
— if you or the recipient violates any of the terms of
our Agreement.
— for loss of or damage to shipments of prohibited items.
— for loss,. damage, or delay caused by events we cannot
control, including but not limited to acts of God, perils of
the air, weather conditions, acts of public enemies, war,
strikes, civil commotions, or acts of public authorities
with actual or apparent authority.
Declared Value Limits
• The highest declared value allowed for a FedEx Envelope,
FedEx Pak, or FedEx Sleeve shipment is $500.
• For other shipments, the highest declared value allowed is
$50,000 unless your package contains items of extraordinary
value, in which case the highest declared value allowed
is $500.
• Items of extraordinary value include shipments cqntaining
such items as artwork, jewelry, furs, precious metals, nego-
tiable instruments, and other items listed in the current FedEx
Service Guide.
• You may send more than one package on this Airbill and fill
in the total declared value for all packages, not to exceed
the $100,$500, or $50,000 per package limit described above.
(Example: 5 packages can have a total declared value of up
to $250,000.) In that case, our liability is limited to the actual
value of the package(s) lost or damaged, but may not exceed
the maximum allowable declared value(s) or the total declared
value, whichever is less. You are responsible for proving the
actual loss or damage.
Filing A Claim YOU MUST MAKE ALL CLAIMS IN
WRITING and notify us of your claim within strict time limits
set out in the current FedEx Service Guide.
it
You may call our Customer Service department,at
1.800.GoFedEx 1.800.463.3339 to report a claim; however,
you must still file a timely written claim.
Within nine months (from the ship date) after you notify us of
your claim, you must send us all the information you have
about it. We aren't obligated to act on any claim until you
have paid all transportation charges, and you may not deduct
the amount of your claim from those charges.
If the recipient accepts your package without noting any
damage on the delivery record, we will assume the package
was delivered in good condition. For us to process your claim,
you must make the original shipping cartons and packing
available for inspection.
Right To Inspect We may, at our option, open and inspect
your packages before or after you give them to us to deliver.
Right Of Rejection We reserve the rightto reject a
shipmentwhen such shipmentwould be likely to cause A
delay or damage to other shipments, equipment, or
personnel; or if the shipment is prohibited by law; or if the
shipment would violate any terms of our Airbill or the currefit
FedEx Service Guide. 11
C.O.D. Services C.O.D. SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH
THIS AIRBILL. If C.O.D. Service is required, please use a FedEx
C.O.D. Airbill.
Air Transportation Tax Included A federal excise
tax when required by the Internal Revenue Code on the air
transportation portion of this service, if any, is paid by us.
Money -Back Guarantee In the event of untimely delivery,
FedEx will, at your request and with some limitations, refund
or credit all transportation charges. See the current FedEx
Service Guide for more information.
Pan 01582&1!81 • R.. 80

04-28-08;14:10 12526725477
Kc: "Which otter rules %vluch" voicemail response
Subject: Re: "Which over- niles which" voicemail response
From: Brad Connell <Brad.ConnellP_ncinaihiet>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15.48:07 -0100
To: Judge Carr <jLidbe.carrCrPduke.edu>
Mr. Carr,
# 16/ 24
EXHIBIT
Decks and Docks has not applied Lo modify aL of yet. Constr-UcLion or e;:gineeri,ng concerns should
Lu pre.:sented to the Pamlico County Flaruii:tq and Inspections Department to ensure compliance with
tha building permit that should have Wen issued to ter. Herlong.
$Lad
Jupge carr wrote:
I Brad -
if 1 understand you correc•tl.y the permit was provided in accordance with the dLawiny that 1.
Laxed to you yesterday whi.ch showed the rocks LANDWARD or north of my seawall and NOT extended
clot in front of my seawall. Decks and Docks has nat given me a REVISED drawing with the rocks
extended lU - 12 feet out beyond my seawall. I OBJECT TO THIS PLANT
T have been told by two engineers that allowing the rocks to be ext(andeci nut t•,Pyond my
seawall. will causo a "Jetty" effect and and will erode the base of rrty sQaral.l ,n that T could
lose it in a hurricane. SHOULD I SEND YOU LETTERS FROM THE ENGINEERS ON THIS TSSUR?
Have you saen the revised dawing --in PLAN view? This is considerably different frntn tho
original Pr.AN drawi.nq that I approved in Janaury. I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS KAN for roasons ay
staled above. Tf you approve it then I WILL go through the appeal process.
I have no idea what the vontraotor is talking about on this REVISED clrxwing in rpgurds to The
Wood knee wall or Wrt1vF;R?
Pleaso let me hear from yon.
Thant you,
Judge
Brad Canpell wratp:
;qr,
T api.LOgize 'Cot a:,r. v,�.r.:.€.:�cj YOUr Cali YC_SLS-xday 'fU try t.n an4wer y:,;:- riar:;r:ton,
L;ir sppii.cr::r. Ww; PtuLi!.Lrxl for (;.C. Lhe design Jra'arn on the ognnir-; r.r:mq.)s
otltc:r word^S, Lhc- t._G permiL shorts ter. ltorllony' . rip ran and hu! che;ca !nrrl•..,nrr_ o,
yen:. ; eu..all--ao he :must bui ! i Lt tc:cC:rd nq to chat• !x-rmiL or apply to modify it, h.age.
.ins-wwz ti your rjUCTst. i on - TF nor:, pl:,ase don't hesiLato to ccn LacL ve .
4/214I08 12, 29 PM

[Fwd: CAMA Permits A Variances & Appeals]
Y
Subject: [Fwd: CAMA Permits - Variances & Appeals]
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:56:38 -0400
To: John Herlong <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:CAMA Permits - Variances & Appeals
Date:Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:07:41 -0400
From:Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
To:[e-mail]
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Permits/forms.htm
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
.........
I of 1 6/10/2008 4:37 P.`

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:50:05 -0400
To: [e-mail], John Herlong <[e-mail]
------- Original Message--------
Subject:Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation] CopyDate:Tue, 22 Apr2008 15:01:03 -0400
From:Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
To:Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
References: <4 80EOD 1 C. 3 00 @ duke.edu> <[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
<480E2BA8.9090203 @duke.edu>
Mr. Carr,
They did indeed have communication originally with DCM and yourself
concerning rip rap placed waterward of the bulkhead (as shown in one of
the drawings you signed). But the applicant did not construct it
according to the permit drawing. Therefore, they either bring the work
into compliance per the permit, or apply to modify the permit. If I can
be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Brad
Judge Carr wrote:
> Brad-
> Hi! Sorry for this one last question. I am attempting to recreate a
> time line of events here.
> Sometime after January 3, 2008 when I approved the drawing that was
> to be used for the construction of the Herlong's seawall and March
> 2008 when Decks and Docks Company began construction THEY said that
> THEY had a communication with CAMA where CAMA agreed to let them push
> the wall and rocks out into the Neuse River beyond the original
> drawing limits.
> I know CAMA would have required a NEW drawing from them to make
> this change, but as you know I was NOT notified of this change by CAMA
> or the owner and therefore I don't have a copy of this NEW drawing and
> document. Would you please send this to me and the date that LAMA
> allowed for this change.
> Thank you.
> Judge
> Brad Connell wrote:
>> Certainly, Mr. Carr. Please let me know if I can be of any further
>> assistance.
I of 4 6/10/2008 4:31

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
t
>> Respectfully,
>> Brad Connell
» Judge Carr wrote: C(op >>
>>> Okay.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Judge
>>> Brad Connell wrote:
»» Mr. Carr,
»» The authorized agent nor the applicant have submitted a new drawing
»» as of yet.
»» Brad
»» Judge Carr wrote:
»»> Brad-
>>>>> Counsel has advised me that I need to ask you for a copy of the
>>>>> re -drawing. Please send the new drawing to me.
»»> Thank you.
»»> Judge
>>>-------- Original Message --------
»»> Subject: Re: follow up to our previous conversation
»»> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:23:11 -0400
>>>>> From: Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
»»> Organization: Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University
»»> To: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
>>>>> References: <[e-mail]>
»»> Brad-
>>>>> Hi! I met with Dr. Herlong and his contratctor Jason Hill of
>>>>> Decks and Docks this past Sunday evening. Unfortunately I was not
>>>>> able to persuade them to reduce the height of their front wall or
>>>>> to comply with the drawing that we ALL approved back in January.
>>>>> They are redrawing their plan according to what has already been
>>>>> constructed on site to present to you for approval. I HAVE NOT
>>>>> RECEIVED THIS NEW DRAWING FOR APPROVAL OR INFORMATION YET!
>>>>> Again, I am NOT in favor of this work as it being drawn or
>>>>> performed. I am not sure that you have anything to say about the
»»> ENGINEERING of the wall system, but I think it is flawed and the
>>>>> first major hurricane is going to scatter these VINYL WALL pieces
>>>>> all over Pamlico County! As far as the enginering is concerned
>>>>> here are my thoughts as stated in a previous e-mail to Dr. Herlong:
>>>>> Dr. Herlong, your front wall does not need to be six feet above
>>>>> my lower wall to accomplish what you want to do. This is simply
>>>>> overkill and most reasonable people with a little common sense
>>>>> would understand this. This advice is free. The higher you build
»»> your wall the better chance that nature will destroy it. You
2 of 4 6/10/2008 4:31 P?

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
»»> should have your vinyl members hammered into virgin soil (like
»»> Rusher's) not several feet deep in loose fill as you do now. Your
>>>>> stone wall is what will be holding everything --your entire system
»»> into place. If something happens to your stones (hurricane water
»»> surge) you will lose everything on your bank --every plant, every
»»> structure, EVERYTHING! It will be like dominos!! WHY? Because you
»»> have nothing embedded in virgin soil!!!!! Nothing anchored!!!!
»»> Everything, all three or four walls that you build is in fill. You
»»> will have lost your entire investment because some rocks got
>>>>> shifted in a hurricane. (I've seen this happen before!) YOU are on
>>>>> the open Neuse River --NOT somewhere up the Trent River. If I
>>>>> should lose my first wall I still have my second wall. Why?
>>>>> Because my pilings and boards were driven into virgin soil on my
>>>>> second wall like my first wall. *I mentioned to you that a visitor
»»> could mistep and fall off your wall onto the rocks eight feet
>>>>> below. This would be unfortunate and could have been avoided!
>>>>> *So Brad, you and LAMA are again notified that I oppose this
>>>>> construction as it is presently being accomplished. The vinyl wall
>>>>> sections are NOT being hammered into virgin soil, but are being
>>>>> placed in sand fill with less than four feet penetration. The
>>>>> rocks in front of the wall is all that will hold the vinyl
>>>>> sections in place. These rocks can and WILL be moved by a storm's
>>>>> water surge and history has shown this to be a fact.
>>>>> And finally Brad I feel that CAMA overstepped its authority by
»»> allowing Dr. Herlong to extend his wall and therefore his rocks
>>>>> out in front of my wall. Thus creating a "jetty" that over time
>>>>> WILL weaken my wall system. *I additionally feel that CAMA has
>>>>> allowed Dr. Herlong to RECLAIM property that because of a
>>>>> "specific" time period has elasped since the previous wall was
>>>>> removed by a storm is now no longer available to him to reclaim.
»»> I agree that CAMA should look at each case on its own merits,
>>>>> *HOWEVER when you see that there is an adjacent wall already in
»»> place you should NOT allow the property owner to go out beyond
>>>>> this wall KNOWING the effects that this will have on the existing
>>>>> wall.* ALSO it should be considered that by CAMA allowing the
>>>>> Herlong wall to do out so far into the River CAMA has approved an
»»> impediment that will prevent people from being able to walk the
>>>>> shore line. THIS SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED WHEN YOU MADE
>>>>> YOUR DECISION.
>>>>> You should know that I have contacted both an engineer and
>>>>> counsel to continue my opposition to this work.
»»> Judge
>>>>> Brad Connell wrote:
>>>>>> Mr. Carr,
>>>>>>
»»» I have notified Mr. Herlong and Decks & Docks of their options:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1)either bring the work into compliance per the drawing that you
>>>>>> signed off on,
»»» OR
>>>>>> 2)apply to modify the permit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not
>>>>>> hesitate to contact me.
»»»
>>>>>> Brad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
C
3 of 4 6/10/2008 4:31 F

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
w
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
4 of 4 6/10/2008 4:31 P'

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:53:35 -0400
To: John Herlong <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
- Original Message--------
Subject:Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]
Date:Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:05:46 -0400
From:Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
To:Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
References:<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
<480E341 F.1080209 @ duke.edu>
It appears that you signed off on two different possible proposals, but
the permit that was issued shows the rip rap landward of your bulkhead.
Judge Carr wrote:
> Brad-
> I have a copy of the original drawings --thank you. I sent a copy of
> these to you w;.th my FedEx letter. Remember? What I don't have are the
> drawings that -he contractor is building by, which is DIFFERENT from
> the original drawings. They said that you approved what they are
> constructing right now!
> Judge
> Brad Connell wrote:
>> Mr. Carr,
>> As I previously stated, I have not received a request to modify the
>> permit as of yet. I will be glad to mail you the sets of drawings
>> that you originally signed, if you so desire.
>> Brad
>> Judge Carr wrote:
>>> Brad-
>>> Hi! Sorry for this one last question. I am attempting to recreate
>>> a time line of events here.
>>> Sometime after January 3, 2008 when I approved the drawing that
>>> was to be used for the construction of the Herlong's seawall and
>>> March 2008 when Decks and Docks Company began construction THEY said
>>> that THEY had a communication with CAMA where CAMA agreed to let
>>> them push the wall and rocks out into the Neuse River beyond the
>>> original drawing limits.
s
r
1 of 4 6/10/2008 4:36 P

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd,: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
2 of 4 6/10/2008 4:36 P
>>> I know CAMA would have required a NEW drawing from them to make
>>> this change, but as you know I was NOT notified of this change by
>>> CAMA or the owner and therefore I don't have a copy of this NEW
>>> drawing and document. Would you please send this to me and the date
>>> that LAMA allowed for this change.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Judge
>>> Brad Connell wrote:
»» Certainly, Mr. Carr. Please let me know if I can be of any further
»» assistance.
»» Respectfully,
»» Brad Connell
»» Judge Carr wrote:
"Ou
»»> Okay.
»»>
>>>>> Thank you.
V
v
»»> Judge
»»> Brad Connell wrote:
»»» Mr. Carr,
»»»
»»» The authorized agent nor -the applicant have submitted a new
»»» drawing as of yet.
»»»
>>>>>> Brad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Judge Carr wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brad-
»»»>
>>>>>>> Counsel has advised me that I need to ask you for a copy of
>>>>>>> the re -drawing. Please send the new drawing to me.
»»»>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
»»»>
»»»> Judge
»»»>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: follow up to our previous conversation
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:23:11 -0400
>>>>>>> From: Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Organization: Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University
>>>>>>> To: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> References: <[e-mail]>
»»»>
»»»>
»»»>
>>>>>>> Brad-
»»»>
>>>>>>> Hi! I met with Dr. Herlong and his contratctor Jason Hill of
>>>>>>> Decks and Docks this past Sunday evening. Unfortunately I was
>>>>>>> not able to persuade them to reduce the height of their front
>>>>>>> wall or to comply with the drawing that we ALL approved back in
2 of 4 6/10/2008 4:36 P

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
»»»> January. They are redrawing their plan according to what has
»»»> already been constru;:ted on site to present to you for approval.
»»»> I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS NEW DRAWING FOR APPROVAL OR IN?ORMATION
»»»> YET!
»»»>
»»»> Again, I am NOT in favor of this work as it being drawn or
»»»> performed. I am not sure that you have anything to say about the
»»»> ENGINEERING of the wall system, but I think it is flawed and the
>>>>>>> first major hurricane is going to scatter these VINYL WALL
»»»> pieces all over Pamlico County! As far as the enginering is
»»»> concerned here are my thoughts as stated in a previous e-mail to
»»»> Dr. Herlong:
»»»>
»»»> Dr. Herlong, your front wall does not need to be six feet
»»»> above my lower wall to accomplish what you want to do. This is
>>>>>>> simply overkill and most reasonable people with a little common
>>>>>>> sense would understand this. This advice is free. The higher you
>>>>>>> build your wall the better chance that nature will destroy it.
>>>>>>> You should have your vinyl members hammered into virgin soil
>>>>>>> (like Rusher's) not several feet deep in loose fill as you do
>>>>>>> now. Your stone wall is what will be holding everything --your
>>>>>>> entire system into place. If something happens to your stones
»»»> (hurricane water surge) you will lose everything on your
>>>>>>> bank --every plant, every structure, EVERYTHING! It will be like
>>>>>>> dominos!! WHY? Because you have nothing embedded in virgin
»»»> soil!!!!! Nothing anchored!!!! Everything, all three or four
>>>>>>> walls that you build is in fill. You will have lost your entire
>>>>>>> investment because some rocks got shifted in a hurricane. (I've
>>>>>>> seen this happen before!) YOU are on the open Neuse River --NOT
>>>>>>> somewhere up the Trent River. If I should lose my first wall I
>>>>>>> still have my second wall. Why? Because my pilings and boards
>>>>>>> were driven into virgin soil on my second wall like my first
>>>>>>> wall. *I mentioned to you that a visitor could mistep and fall
>>>>>>> off your wall onto the rocks eight feet below. This would be
>>>>>>> unfortunate and could have been avoided!
»»»>
>>>>>>> *So Brad, you and CAMA are again notified that I oppose this
>>>>>>> construction as it is presently being accomplished. The vinyl
>>>>>>> wall sections are NOT being hammered into virgin soil, but are
>>>>>>> being placed in sand fill with less than four feet penetration.
>>>>>>> The rocks in front of the wall is all that will hold the vinyl
>>>>>>> sections in place. These.rocks can and WILL be moved by a
>>>>>>> storm's water surge and history has shown this to be a fact.
»»»>
>>>>>>> And finally Brad I feel that LAMA overstepped its authority by
>>>>>>> allowing Dr. Herlong to extend his wall and therefore his rocks
>>>>>>> out in front of my wall. Thus creating a "jetty" that over time
>>>>>>> WILL weaken my wall system. *I additionally feel that CAMA has
>>>>>>> allowed Dr. Herlong to RECLAIM property that because of a
>>>>>>> "specific" time period has elasped since the previous wall was
>>>>>>> removed by a storm is now no longer available to him to reclaim.
»»»>
>>>>>>> I agree that CAMA should look at each case on its own merits,
>>>>>>> *HOWEVER when you see that there is an adjacent wall already in
>>>>>>> place you should NOT allow the property owner to go out beyond
>>>>>>> this wall KNOWING the effects that this will have on the
»»»> existing wall.* ALSO it should be considered that by CAMA
>>>>>>> allowing the Herlong wall to do out so far into the River CAMA
>>>>>>> has approved an impediment that will prevent people from being
>>>>>>> able to walk the shore line. THIS SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN
>>>>>>> CONSIDERED WHEN YOU MADE YOUR DECISION.
»»»>
>>>>>>> You should know that I have contacted both an engineer and
>>>>>>> counsel to continue my opposition to this work.
»»»>
»»»>
3 of 4
A
6/10/2008 4:36 1
i

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
ti
»»»> Judge
»»»>
»»»> Brad Connell wrote:
»»»>
»»»» Mr. Carr,
»»»»
»»»» I have notified Mr. Herlong and Decks & Docks of their options:
»»»»
»»»» 1)either bring the work into compliance per the drawing that
»»»» you signed off on,
»»»» OR
>>>>>>>> 2)apply to modify the permit.
»»»
>>>>>>>> If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not
>>>>>>>> hesitate to contact me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brad
»»»»
»»»»
»»»>
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
4of4
6/10/2008 4:36 PIS

[Fwd: rip rap rules]
Subject: [Fwd: rip rap rules]
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:54:34 -0400
To: John Herlong <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
-------- Original Message--------
Subject:rip rap rules
Date:Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:12:36 -0400
From:Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
To:Judge Carr <judge.carr @duke.edu>
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Rules/Text/tl5a-07h.1100.pdf
.....
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
loft
4
1
6/10/2008 4:36 P'

•
[Fwd: "Which Qver rules which" voicemail response]
Subject: [Fwd: "Which over rules which" voicemail response]
From: Brad Connell <Brad. Connell@ ncmail.net>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:55:14 -0400
To: [e-mail], John Herlong <jherlong @yahoo. corn>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:"Which over rules which" voicemail response
Date:Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:54:50 -0400
From -Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
To:Judge Carr <judge.carr @duke.edu>
Mr. Carr,
COPY
I apologize for not getting your call yesterday afternoon. To try to
answer your question, what the applicant was permitted for (i.e. the
design drawn on the permit) trumps it. In other words, the drawning on
the permit shows Mr. Herlong's rip rap and bulkhead landward of your
seawall --so he must build it according to that permit, or apply to
modify it. I hope this answers your question. If not, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Brad
Brad Connell <Brad.ConnelI@ncmail. net>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
l of I 6/10/2008 4:36 1

[Fwd: Re: "Which over rules which" voicemail response]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: "Which over rules which" voicemail response]
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:55:49 -0400
To: [e-mail], John Herlong <[e-mail]>
------- Original Message -------- -
Subject:Re: "Which over rules which" voicemail response
:07 -0400 V �J
Date:Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:48:07
From:Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
To:Judge Carr <judge. carr @duke. edu>
References: <480F23 8A.4020404 @ ncmail.net> <[e-mail]>
Mr. Carr,
Decks and Docks has not applied to modify as of yet. Construction or
engineering concerns should be presented to the Pamlico County Planning
and Inspections Department to ensure compliance with the building permit
that should have been issued to Mr. Herlong.
Brad
Judge Carr wrote:
> Brad-
> If I understand you correctly the permit was provided in accordance
> with the drawing that I faxed to you yesterday which showed the rocks
> LANDWARD or north of my seawall and NOT extended out in front of my
> seawall. Decks and Docks has now given me a REVISED drawing with the
> rocks extended 10 - 12 feet out beyond my seawall. I OBJECT TO THIS PLAN!
> I have been told by two engineers that allowing the rocks to be
> extended out beyond my seawall will cause a "jetty" effect and and
> will erode the base of my seawall so that I could lose it in a
> hurricane. SHOULD I SEND YOU LETTERS FROM THE ENGINEERS ON THIS ISSUE?
> Have you seen the revised dawing --in PLAN view? This is
> considerably different from the original PLAN drawing that I approved
> in Janaury. I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS PLAN for reasons as stated above.
> If you approve it then I WILL go through the appeal process.
> I have no idea what the contractor is talking about on this REVISED
> drawing in regards to The Wood Knee Wall or WAIVER?
> Please let me hear from you.
> Thank you.
> Judge
> Brad Connell wrote:
1 of 2 6/10/2008 4:36 P

k
[Fwd: Re: "Which over rules which" voicemail response]
ti
>> Mr. Carr,
>> I apologize for not getting your call yesterday afternoon. To try to
>> answer your question, what the applicant was permitted for (i.e. the
>> design drawn on the permit) trumps it. In other words, the drawning
>> on the permit shows Mr. Herlong's rip rap and bulkhead landward of
>> your seawall --so he must build it according to that permit, or apply
>> to modify it. I hope this answers your question. If not, please
>> don't hesitate to contact me.
>> Brad
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
-
.
2 of 2 6/10/2008 4:36 Pi`

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine]]
It
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine]]
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:56:19 -0400
To: John Herlong <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
-------- Oriinal Message --------
C)
Subject:Re: [Fwd: Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine] (�
Date:Tue, 06 May 2008 15:49:17 -0400
From:Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
To:Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
References:<481 F744B.7040209 @ duke.edu>
Mr. Carr,
A strong case for what? What would you like to see happen as a result
of your objections?
Brad
Judge Carr wrote:
> Brad-
> Hil As you suggested at the beginning of our communications I have
> been reading the Section .1100 - General Permit for Construction of
> Bulheads and the Placement of Rip Rap, etc. ---- and in addition to my
> other argunments if you look at 15A NCAC 07H .1105 Specific Conditions
> article (k) --- Bulheads or rip rap shall not extend beyond
> established alignments, nor etc. I believe this is an additional area
> that I have a strong case.
> I do have pictures of where the walls and rocks were located on
> both properties adjacent to mine and down the river if they will be of
> value to you.
> Thank you.
> Judge
>-------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine
> Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 10:43:18 -0400
> From: Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
> Organization: Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University
> To: [e-mail]
> CC: Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]>
> Brad-
> Hi! I wanted you to have a copy of a letter that I sent to Skip
> Lee. It is attached. My attorney Tom Wilson will be handling this for
> me and I will be contesting the work that is presently underway on the
I of 2 6/10/2008 4:36 P

L
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd; Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine]]
> Herlong property.
> Thank you.
> Judge
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
2 of 2 6/10/2008 4:36 1

Re: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
Subject: Re: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 08:18:44 -0400 O Fly To: Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]> O
Mr. Wilson,
I apologize for not responding sooner. I will respond to your voicemail in the order it was received
ASAP.. Your patience and understanding is much appreciated.
Yes sir, there is currently a stop work on the Herlong permit until a modification request has been
received and reviewed by the DCM staff. It is my understanding that if the proposal meets the rules,
then the general permit will be modified as such.
B rad
Thomas Wilson wrote:
B rad:
My name is Tom Wilson and I am an attorney in New Bern. I have been retained by Judge Carr to
represent him regarding his CAMA related issues, specifically those issues related to Lot #23
Indian Bluff Drive in Pamlico County (Dr. Herlong's property). I have left a few messages on your
voicemail at work to discuss. On Wednesday I spoke with Skip Lee, and Skip informed me that you
would be requiring Dr. Herlong to resubmit objection letters to adjacent property owners
addressing his proposed amended permit. I wanted to confirm this with you, confirm that there is a
current "stop work" on the property, and get your position as to whether DCM is going to be
approving the amended permit. Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss, as my client
wants clear notice as to any agency decision that might lift the stop work and otherwise trigger the
clock on his deadline to submit his 3rd Party Hearing Request/Petition as to the amended permit.
Regards,
Tom Wilson
1 of 3 6/10/2008 4:37 P

Re: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
ti
GREENE & WILSON, P.A.
Thomas R. Wilson
Greene & Wilson, P.A.
409 Pollock Street
Post Office Box 1676
New Berri, NC 28563
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, any information regarding any U.S. federal tax matters contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, as advice for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review, dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of
this message or any attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please
delete this message and all attachments from your system.
Thank you.
2 of 3 6/10/2008 4:37 F

Re: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
3 of 3 6/t0/2008 4:37 P.

Re: follow up tQ our previous conversation
Subject: Re: follow up to our previous conversation
From: Brad Connell <Brad.Connell@ ncmail.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:16:19 -0400
To: Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
Mr. Carr,
I have notified Mr. Herlong and Decks & Docks of their options:
1)either bring the work into compliance per the permit drawing,
OR
2)apply to modify the permit.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Brad
Judge Carr wrote:
Brad-
COpM
Hi! I met with Dr. Herlong and his contratctor Jason Hill of Decks and Docks
this past Sunday evening. Unfortunately I was not able to persuade them to reduce
the height of their front wall or to comply with the drawing that we ALL approved
back in January. They are redrawing their plan according to.what has already been
constructed on site to present to you for approval. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS NEW
DRAWING FOR APPROVAL OR INFORMATION YET!
Again, I am NOT in favor of this work as it being drawn or performed. I am not
sure that you have anything to say about the ENGINEERING of the wall system, but
I think it is flawed and the first major hurricane is going to scatter these
VINYL WALL pieces all over Pamlico County! As far as the enginering is concerned
here are my thoughts as stated in a previous e-mail to Dr. Herlong:
Dr. Herlong, your front wall does not need to be six feet above my lower wall
to accomplish what you want to do. This is simply overkill and most reasonable
people with a little common sense would understand this. This advice is free. The
higher you build your wall the better chance that nature will destroy it. You
should have your vinyl members hammered into virgin soil (like Rusher's) not
several feet deep in loose fill as you do now. Your stone wall is what will be
holding everything --your entire system into place. If something happens to your
stones (hurricane water surge) you will lose everything on your bank --every
plant, every structure, EVERYTHING! It will be like dominos!! WHY? Because you
have nothing embedded in virgin soil!!!!! Nothing anchored!!!! Everything, all
three or four walls that you build is in fill. You will have lost your entire
investment because some rocks got shifted in a hurricane. (I've seen this happen
before!) YOU are on the open Neuse River --NOT somewhere up the Trent River. If I
should lose my first wall I still have my second wall. Why? Because my pilings
and boards were driven into virgin soil on my second wall like my first wall. *I
mentioned to you that a visitor could mistep and fall off your wall onto the
rocks eight feet below. This would be unfortunate and could have been avoided!
*So Brad, you and CAMA are again notified that I oppose this construction as
it is presently being accomplished. The vinyl wall sections are NOT being
hammered into virgin soil, but are being placed in sand fill with less than four
feet penetration. The rocks in front of the wall is all that will hold the vinyl
sections in place. These rocks can and WILL be moved by a storm's water surge and
history has shown this to be a fact.
And finally Brad I feel that LAMA overstepped its authority by allowing Dr.
1 of,- 6/10/2008 2:55 PA

Re: follow up to our previous conversation
v
Herlong to extend his wall and therefore his rocks out in front of my wall. Thus
creating a "jetty" that over time WILL weaken my wall system. *I additionally
feel that CAMA has allowed Dr. Herlong to RECLAIM property that because of a
"specific" time period has elasped since the previous wall was removed by a storm
is now no longer available to him to reclaim. *
I agree that CAMA should look at each case on its own merits, *HOWEVER when
you see that there is an adjacent wall already in place you should NOT allow the
property owner to go out beyond this wall KNOWING the effects that this will have
on the existing wall.* ALSO it should be considered that by CAMA allowing the
Herlong wall to do out so far into the River CAMA has approved an impediment that
will prevent people from being able to walk the shore line. THIS SHOULD HAVE ALSO
BEEN CONSIDERED WHEN YOU MADE YOUR DECISION.
You should know that I have contacted both an engineer and counsel to continue
my opposition to this work.
Judge
Brad Connell <Brad.Conne11 ncmail.net>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
2 of 2 6/10/2008 2:55 1

Re: modification procedure question
Subject: Re: modification procedure question
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 07:57:33 -0400
To: John Herlong <[e-mail]>
Mr. Herlong,
C(OPY
I spoke with Mr. Hill yesterday after my site visit and receipt of the modification request. According to
the submitted drawing, the proposal was in conflict with 15A NCAC 07H .I 105(c) by the rip rap
extending out past 10' from nwl. I informed Mr. Hill of this and explained to him how to bring the
project into compliance. He is currently taking steps to do so. If you have any further questions or
concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me.
B rad
http://www nccoastalmanagement.net/Rules/Text/t15 a-07h.1100.pdf
John Herlong wrote:
Hello Brad,
I understand that a stop work order has been placed on the 23 Indian Bluff project and has not been
resolved over the past seven work days. Can you update me on what the issues are that need to be
resolved?
Jason Hill tells me that a water line demarcation has been moved since your visit on 4/16/08 where
you reported to me that the project was appropriate.
1. Can you explain in laymans terms what is going on, and is there anything that I can do to
facilitate this process?
2. Is there a bulkhead alignment issue at this point, and if so, what must be done to bring it into
compliance.
3. Are there any other issues with regard to Mr. Carr's sea wall that I need to know about?
Jason also tells me that there is a fine pending for him on this project. What is the nature of this
fine?
-a 3
6/10/2008 2:55 P1I

Re: modification procedure question
a
John Herlong wrote:
Brad,
I need to clarify a procedural element of permits and modifications in reference to 23 Indian
B luff.
Is there a potential scenario where a modification could be submitted, but not signed by
adjacent property owner, but approved by LAMA? Mr. Hill tells me this is feasible.
Thank you,
John Herlong
........
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
(�Op�
3 of 3 6/10/2008 2:55 P

J.
Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization Options
Subject: Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization Options
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 10:11:13 -0400
To: Judge Carr <[e-mail]>, Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]>
httD://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/estuarine_ stabilization%20ootions.htm
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
.... _.....
C(OPY
I of 1 6/10/2008 2:55 P\

Hazards Information - Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization Options
r
Page 1 of 7
r
Home About Contact CAMA Search
DCM DCM Counties DCM
Coastal Hazards & Storm Information :: Estuarine Shoreline
Stabilzation Options
�•PY
Shoreline erosion is common along North Carolina's broad sounds and tidal rivers. Many waterfront owners
would like to slow or prevent further erosion by stabilizing the shoreline. Shoreline Stabilization is defined as
the use of engineered structures, vegetation, or land management practices to provide protection of a shoreline
from future or existing erosion. Although the most commonly used method is a bulkhead, there are many other
options available. Some of the available options can actually improve the local habitat.
Land Planning
Land planning is designing your property around existing conditions and possible erosion. This includes
utilizing the land as it exists without construction of shoreline stabilization methods. The most common
practices associated with land planning include setbacks, buffers, and no action. Land Planning allows for
marsh to migrate and allows for the system to remain natural at minimal cost, but will allow erosion to continue.
Permitting Options: None required
Vegetation Control
Vegetation control (a.k.a.: Wetland or upland plantings) is the use of wetland (marsh or swamp forest)
vegetation (new plantings or preserving existing wetland vegetation) to control or prevent further erosion.
Vegetation may be planted or allowed to colonize naturally. A final established minimum width of 10 feet is
preferable to dissipate wave energy and thus controlling erosion. Planting vegetation is the cheapest and most
environmentally sound stabilization method. Vegetation increases the marsh habitat and provides food for the
lower organisms such as algae and seaweeds, finfish and shellfish, mammals and shorebirds.
Construction Material Options: Wetland or Upland Vegetation native to the area.
Permitting Options: None required unless filling and/or grading is needed.
Marsh Toe Protection Revetments
Marsh Toe Protection Revetments
(a.k.a.: Riprap at the waterward toe of
marsh) are a shore -parallel, sloping
structure constructed against a marsh
escarpment to protect the marsh
wetland roots from undermining.
Placing riprap or stone on the
waterward edge of the marsh helps to
stabilize or reestablish the marsh
vegetation. Marsh grasses dissipate
wave energy and wave height through
friction and drag, and thus help to
reduce erosion further inland (usually
on the high ground). Marsh vegetation
also increases the marsh habitat and
provides food for the lower organisms
such as algae and seaweeds, finfish
and shellfish, mammals and shorebirds.
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/estuarine_stabilization%20options.htm 6/10/2008

r
Hazards Information - Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization Options
EXIST MARSH
EXIST. MWRSH ESCARPMENT
1
PROPOSED RIPW {
ARMOR STONE
M.L.W.
i `.._._PROPOSED D&EDDEOTOE
Construction Material Options: Stone/Riprap
Permitting Options: General or Major Permit
Sills
A sill (a.k.a.: Marsh Sills, Marsh
Enhancement Breakwaters) is a shore -
parallel, wood orrock structure that is
designed to protect existing or newly planted
wetland vegetation. A sill is placed just
offshore of existing marsh to help reduce the
erosion of the waterward edge
(escarpment). If there is not marsh already
on the property, a sill is placed just offshore
of where marsh would or could grow and is
planted. The sill helps to protect the marsh
by dissipated enough wave energy so that
the marsh can establish. Once established,
the marsh grasses dissipate wave energy
and wave height through friction and drag,
and thus help to reduce erosion further
inland (usually on the high ground). Marsh
vegetation also increases the marsh habitat
and provides food for the lower organisms
such as algae and seaweeds, finfish and
shellfish, mammals and shorebirds.
PfiiOPCSED
GE07EMLE FABRIC
Page 2 of 7
Stone Sill:
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/estuarine_stabilization%20options.htm 6/10/2008

Hazards Information - Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization Options
PROPOSED MIARM PLANTINGS
f
PROPOSED PROFILE ORGiM PROFILE
PROPOSED CLEAN FILL PROPOSED ST044E
Sheet Pile Sill:
rv,cr n0 of suTrn iAApgw
M.H.W.
M.Lw.
- ORIGINAL PROFILE
PROPOSED
f SHEET PILE
r
M.H.W.
M.L.W.
.... .... ...-........
-
EXIST. MARSH
ESCARPMENT
M.M.W.
4K
to LW.
..._........ ____..
PROPOSED
SHEET PILE
Construction Material Options: Stone/Riprap, Timber, Vinyl
Permitting Options: General or Major Permit
Groins
A groin is a straight and usually shore -
perpendicular structure, constructed with
stone or as a freestanding vertical wall to trap
sand along one side. Trapped sand
becomes a wave energy dissipation zone
during daily wave action or sacrificial buffer
during storms. Groins can be constructed
1
Pale 3 of 7
1
http://www.nccoaStalmanagement.net/Hazards/estuarine_stabilization%20options.htm 6/10/2008

4
Hazards Information - Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization Options
Page 4 of 7
either singly or in a series. Groins function only when longshore transport of sand (movement of sand along a sl
produce accretion of beach material along the updrift side and erosion on the downdrift side.
A saw-toothed shaped shoreline is created with
commonly "stolen" from somewhere downdrift, v
of your property. Groins are often mistakenly c,
for stabilization of navigation channels at river rT
Construction Material Options: Stone/Riprap, Timber, Vinyl, Concrete
Permitting Options: General or Major Permit
Breakwaters
A breakwater (a.k.a.: Wave Attenuator, Wave Breaks, Wave Fence) is a shore -
parallel non -shore -connected structure, designed to trap sand and to attenuate
wave energy. Breakwaters are typically constructed of stone, with multiple
structures detached or gapped with a distance equal to length of one individual
structure. Breakwaters reflect and dissipate wave energy creating a lower wave
energy area landward of the structure. A sandy beach is usually created between
the structure and shore, but only when longshore transport of sand (movement of
sand along a shoreline) occurs. The trapped sand is commonly "stolen" from
somewhere downdrift, which then in turn accelerates erosion downdrift of your
property.
ORIGINAL SHORELINE
PROPOSED
TOW 0LO
SFK)RELINE
PROPOSED PROPOSED
BREAK'NAT:R DIRECTION OF NET SX!EINT SHORELINE
LONGSHQRE TRANSPORT
Construction Material Options: Stone/Riprap, Timber, Vinyl, Concrete
ORIGINAL SHMUNE
EROSION
ACCRETION
RESULTANT SHORELINE
DIRECTION I
LONGSHORE TF
http://www.nccoastalmanageineiit.net/Hazards/estuarine_stabilization%20options.htm 6/10/2008

Hazards Information - Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization Options
Permitting Options: Major Permit Only
Riprap Revetments
A revetment (a.k.a.: Riprap, Sloped
Structure) is a shore -parallel, sloping
structure constructed against a
bank/escarpment to protect it from
erosion while absorbing wave
energy. Revetments are typically
constructed on a 1 V: 1.5-31-1 slope.
The riprap used to construct the
revetment will settle and readjust
during storms or wave action and as
such the stone used needs to be
heavy enough or securely tied down
to remain in place. Revetments are
long lasting structures designed to
hold back the land to prevent erosion
and because it is sloped, absorb
wave action. Although revetments
cause a loss of soft bottom habitat, it
causes less habitat destruction and
loss than bulkheads and also creates
fisheries habitat.
Page 5, of 7
PROPOSED FINWEDGRADE
PRCPOSEC RIPRAP REVE rMENr
OPIGINALPROFILE{�
_ PROPOSED CLEAN FILL
DESIGN BEACH
\ — ,.y �� .'�,�►�'a' PROPOSED GEOTEXTILE FABRDC
49f`t PROPOSED STONE BEDCING LAYER
PROPOSED FIWI COED TOE STONE
Construction Material Options: Stone/Riprap, Concrete
Permitting Options: General or Major Permit
Bulkheads
A bulkhead (a.k.a.: Vertical Structure,
Seawall, Gravity Wall) is any shore -
parallel vertical structure designed to
prevent overtopping, flooding, or sliding
of the land. Bulkheads are usually
placed along an eroding bank or
escapement to hold back the land and
prevent erosion. Bulkheads are a long
lasting hardy structure that can stand up
to moderate to high wave energy; but
they also prevent the natural migration of
wetland vegetation.
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/liazards/eStLial-ine stab* I ization%20options.htm 6/10/2008
3
�^h
r
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/liazards/eStLial-ine stab* I ization%20options.htm 6/10/2008

Re: per your request...
041708 John Herlong 012
041708 John Herlong 013
041708 John Herlong 014
050608 Herlong 001
050608 Herlong 002
050608 Herlong 003
050608 Herlong 004
050608 Herlong 005
050608 Herlong 006
050608 Herlong 007
050608 Herlong 008
050608 Herlong 009
050608 Herlong 010
050608 Herlong 011
050608 Herlong 012
050608 Herlong 013
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or
receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings
to determine how attachments are handled.
...... _. ........... .......... . ............ _
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
C(Opy
2of2 - -- , "))� I. p,

per your request...
1 of 22
Subject: per your request...
From: Brad Connell <Brad. Connell@ ncmail.net>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 09:45:58 -0400
To: Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]>
CC: Judge Carr <judge.carr @duke.edu>
The message is ready to be
050608 Herlong 014
041708 John Herlong 001
041708 John Herlong 002
041708 John Herlong 003
041708 John Herlong 004
041708 John Herlong 005
041708 John Herlong 006
041708 John Herlong 007
041708 John Herlong 008
041708 John Herlong 009
041708 John Herlong 010
041708 John Herlong 011
041708 John Herlong 012
041708 John Herlong 013
041708 John Herlong 014
050608 Herlong 001
050608 Herlong 002
050608 Herlong 003
050608 Herlong 004
050608 Herlong 005
050608 Herlong 006
050608 Herlong 007
050608 Herlong 008
050608 Herlong 009
050608 Herlong 010
050608 Herlong 011
050608 Herlong 012
050608 Herlong 013
sent with the following file or link attachments:
a
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or
receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to
determine how attachments are handled.
6/10/2008 2:56 P:

NOW

.�, Jam%. � '�'`+4•�..
am
,.5�,� �
►� syr �..
i
t1
b

��.wl 1W
"Wo
�arltM
r

t >, li -•-may}. ear. ��, r . s
AA
i
N 4L
'� R' � ,�.• '���,y}py�R ){ i; � * 'ri G�.+{: ' � _ y • �. Y j "b � E +9�„f 'n M >'4ya., 6 � -.id
'^�> p�atl 7���'y/ 1 � a.� �i ! � Y, r� �v{ 1% •d�.�„ � wi�i L
1 i I
1
Al
a
fi
4
1 '
1�

4'
ty S
! r �j�sii►
t.
... .p� `^sd r t " � stir• �.yM,us.. till�t.!rM� i.� ,
t r •'
•�-: +j+# .�M•D.i+�i%nr/�"'�1f ,1:.� ,''�aea+�+�. ..i.,• ^��`►��''x�r���i~.3Lri .,:..
"y�a,;..YY11y:'•-''ry � i --t- ' 4 i�.w - ^tet r r, ~� �
sy �.!• Vie.' -•i 7►<� .�Pt�. ry�•••y

Ass. r
i
1
r4. A.
v
. -- r
-�s• w �. - ., '`,. 'MSI
�,�,� _ s,�"„".. ,.,. ,.may,. .•'rt`yy�"n
r' ..� .'moi +i`1Y�.:y. X4+5"'^�.e ,y„� fir.
+rte'*�«"
�•. _-
e 7
FF jyge ;,
0
i

per your request...
8 of 22
6/10/2008 2:56 P.'vl

per your request...
X►r
9 of 22 6/10/2008 2:56 PN

.a'
K
t � }

■
Wil
� R •ice' s �L w'�
fir{ q•°Mrser�'`�wie;"."•.e~-•
'N �T.r �+�'�wt: 'ya0��� ,. 9w""'°'�,r•a+f ..,,N� ` v„�'y 4"`":
'+ � ;, ,i �` ��9v. , r�r a. a' •�"°vw_..'04'7M.w�re��•��• � � ili�y.. yi ►:_;'; �..
�1, w� i� t • �,�`>�.: ,• .., w+ '` S fib; { ,,
/ ����., ,t�w � t �.1 ,.c _� � � y i .,/t^1 '... 'tea.✓ „.w.,i
!�° .:w"�'�.d"'� � r?k�� �1. •:.�..'�, «�� X � ami;' ,`,'• "p rsti_ � `� �• yrJ'Z'.i"",! �Yj

Af—
°^'+�*a",-�, _ "`&-+.°ter � `� r � .+�•,�,
ijs S�Rv��,�, g9 rel 4`�`• { �, r�'w....��•., �_
k.,
i �$$,
a 5

Af
41M

y�r
'tP
ey;�y �� ".flmrc...:..i„,,,,.,-d��.. bxai•,'at&.�:g'•>,iecaq..
milli

v
9 k�.
�y
Ileair
141
r, ' fa• y�.,� y. w� ��' • • ,4', � .d",�' .:. � -� �
� •# ,i"' i s._4a w i� �� .S rP.y.� yam} �4
'^:✓ �•=n *�a�$• �� �' f �, t s� °°�� ti F. `if�Mt 3r. � � +,;,,,. � `�: -L �,�r :4
t *� i'4,. ,y� �` `} .' ,�'.i'R M �� : \ „p s Ei l�;�C �{ 4 Ate.. 'b•.�1.. '..
IL
,�t."•e+� .J' �' �A `y� / . 3'• . �• 4 :�'? � :. A `'d/ �+R.•�s*Zs �.� f �`a�.
.L. •.! : ��l.l ...Y .4t ... �.-� ..t. .. �` ,...c ..art.. !. �� .•� � iR.

^�}� •Y �vr+.e.� ;�• �• �• �. y 3�;_..iih.. ti�: -�.�y}ice -�ii ` �-di�,,�i �« �''k,,
• .. �+$ N.:"r_ t%�", sc °° ,rr .�'. �<.�. 0!3: .1ti: '. v'•�'►..'iF'i+a4 !'3'i+f .rw' i , °s. ,.
w.+.R bg� c;� ,�,,�y �,7�!�. . t'x�.> •. ,��ii Vii. �.
.a.

1
� �'{3' h... �'��.�y� u J��--~tea• """�+s.�.h.�."�..,,�r.,,Y�df Sr.

JL
qAL
''"K .Ar L° � ^3� ! .�5x a '����gg,pi�.�y,�. w - w .. J 4� ��• R
'pgpa. pt�er�kay£ a ti -1". -�0 u
adi 41r.
� � ,��� '" f...;€,g* �y4.. �Ts♦Y sM, �'` s^;`k,. �,+'A.t,�, s,��.. r n �?
r j
' •1m�.. "•�Y'NSw y .'g'.,Hr �{�'' � jy " ij ��.I�it��.6 w'" 7
azi
�„ �� r rR� 'moi. -i � ✓'+` , _. x. t� � ��. :� _t �r *� :�
w ��--"" Joe t" ,),��YR.� ..i• ,,+
o„
- ';pr .;,� stv
- eye r•.•. �(!'i '

per your request...
E
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 014.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
041708 John Herlong OOI.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
041708 John Herlong 002.jpg Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
041708 John Herlong 003.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image
041708 John Herlong 004.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image
041708 John Herlong 005.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
041708 John Herlong 006.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
19 of 22
6/10/2008 2:56 PNl

per your request....
1.
041708 John Herlong 007.jpg Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
041708 John Herlong 008.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
041708 John Herlong 009.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
041708 John Herlong 010.jpg Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
041708 John Herlong 011.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
041708 John Herlong 012.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
041708 John Herlong 013.jpg
Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
041708 John Herlong 014.jpg Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 001.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
20 of 22
6/10/2008 2:56 PNI

per your request...
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 002.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 003.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 004.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 005.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 006.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 007.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 008.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 009.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
050608 Herlong 010.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
050608 Herlong 011.jpg Content -Type: image/jpeg
21 of 22
QCT.
6/10/2008 2:56 PN

per your request...
050608 Herlong 012.jpg
050608 Herlong 013.jpg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
22 of 22 6/10/2008 2:56 P:v1

Re: Carr/Herlong Properties in Pamlico
4
Subject: Re: Carr/Herlong Properties in Pamlico
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:07:58 -0400
To: Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]>
Mr. Wilson,
A modification to General Permit #52144-C was not approved. The applicant & authorized agent were
found to be in violation of the terms and conditions of that permit. The riprap has been removed from
Mr. Carr's riparian property area as of May 15, 2008. No further restoration is being required by the
DCM at this time. I hope that this clarifies the issue for you.
Respectfully,
Brad
C OD
C
Thomas Wilson wrote:
. J
I Thanks Brad. Please copy me on the violation if you could.
I don't think correspondence should go through the AG's office until there has been an agency
action. That is what we are trying to figure out. Once the rocks are moved from Carr's riparian
line, is DCM going to allow the project to go forward as it is being constructed without a permit
modification? Or, if a modification has been submitted, what date is DCM using as the date of the
,'modified permit" submission and what date was that approved (if any)? This will clarify
whether the issue if proper for filing a third party or not.
Regards,
Tom
GREENE & WILSON, P.A.
Thomas R. Wilson
Greene & Wilson, P.A.
409 Pollock Street
Post Office Box 1676
I of 4 6/10/2008 2:57 P

Re: Carr/Herlong Praperties in Pamlico
New Bern, NC 28563
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, any information regarding any U.S. federal tax matters contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, as advice t )r the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, mark _ ting or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The contents of : is e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the
intended recipiet . any review, dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of
this message or : iy attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
error, please not Y us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please
delete this messz e and all attachments from your system.
Thank you.
From: Brad Connell [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:53 AM
To: Thomas Wilson
Subject: Re: Carr/Herlong Properties in Pamlico
Mr. Wilson,
During the site meeting on May 15, 2008, Mr. Hill of Decks 'n Docks was notified by my
supervisor that a Notice of Violation (NOV) was forthcoming concerning the shoreline stabilization
2 of 4 6/10/2008 2:57 PNl

Re: Carr/Herlong Properties in Pamlico
a
project on Mr. Herlong's property. I notified Mr. Carr of this later on that same day. Mr. Carr
notified me of his intent to pursue a third -party appeal at the end of that phone conversation. I then
informed him that any future correspondence from this point forward concerning the matter would
need to be through the Attorney General's office.
Respectfully,
Brad
Thomas Wilson wrote:
Brad:
Attached please find a letter requesting an official update from DCM in writing regarding the status
of the CAMA issues at the Herlong/Carr properties. Give me a call or email at your earliest
convenience. As you know, we are concerned about being very clear if DCM has made any agency
decisions affecting my client's Third Party Appeal rights.
Thanks,
GREENE & WILSON. P.A.
Thomas R. Wilson
Greene & Wilson, P.A.
409 Pollock Street
Post Office Box 1676
New Berri, NC 28563
3 of 4 6/10/2008 2:57 PM

M
Re: Carr/Herlong Prdperties in Pamlico
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, any information regarding any U.S. federal tax matters contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, as advice for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review, dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of
this message or any attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please
delete this message and all attachments from your system.
Thank you.
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
4 of 4 6/10/2003 2:57 P%1

Re: Carr/Herlong Properties in Pamlico
Greene & Wilson, P.A.
409 Pollock Street
Post Office Box 1676
New Bern, NC 28563
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, any information regarding any U.S. federal tax matters contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, as advice for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review, dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of
this message or any attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please
delete this message and all attachments from your system.
Thank you.
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
of 3 6/10/2008 2:57 F

[Fwd: CAMA Issues Re: Judge Carr]
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, as advice for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient, any review, dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this message
or any attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please delete this message and all
attachments from your system.
Thank you.
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
2of2
6/10/20084:11 Phi

v
[Fwd: Gordon Vermillion's DCM permit]
s
Subject: [Fwd: Gordon Vermillion's DCM permit]
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:40:22 -0400
To: John Herlong <jherlong @yahoo. com>, [e-mail]
-------- Original Message--------
Subject:Gordon Vermillion's DCM permit
Date:Thu, 08 May 2008 10:51:42 -0400
From:Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University
To:Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
CC:Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]> C(n
Brad -
Hi! Again thank you for your time this morning.
would you mind sending both Tom Wilson and myself a copy of the DCM
seawall permit that was issued by your office several years ago for
Gordon Vermillion at the same address of Dr. Herlong.
Thank you.
Judge
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr. E'71
Senior Associate Dean
Development and Alumni Affairs
305 Teer Engineering Building
Box 90271
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, 27708-0271
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
_....._.. _..............
-....... __- . .
... _. _ ........................
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
6/10/2008 4:11 P,%
1 of l - - - - - - — - - - -

[Fwd: [Fwd: Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine]]
a
Box 90271
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, 27708-0271
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr. E171
Senior Associate Dean
Development and Alumni Affairs
305 Teer Engineering Building
Box 90271
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, 27708-0271
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Lee, Skip Pamlico Co. 5:4:08 doc
Content -Type: application/octet-stream
Content -Encoding: base64
2 of 2 6/10/2008 2:58 PV

t
[Fwd: Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine]
Subject: [Fwd: Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine]
From: Brad Connell <Brad. Connell@ ncmail. net>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:39:32 -0400
To: John Herlong <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
-------- Original Message--------
Subject:Seawall work on propery adjacent to mine
Date:Mon, 05 May 2008 10:43:18 -0400
From:Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University
To:[e-mail] n
CC:Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]>
Brad -
Hi! I wanted you to have a copy of a letter that I sent to Skip Lee.
It is attached. My attorney Tom Wilson will be handling this for me and
I will be contesting the work that is presently underway on the Herlong
property.
Thank you.
Judge
Robert W. "Judge" Carr, Jr. E'71
Senior Associate Dean
Development and Alumni Affairs
305 Teer Engineering Building
Box 90271
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, 27708-0271
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Lee, Skip Pamlico Co. 5:4:08 doc Content -Type: application/octet-stream
Content -Encoding: base64
I of 1 6/10/2008 2:58 PN

[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: fo�Qow up to our previous conversation]]
stones (hurricane water surge) you will lose everything on your
bank --every plant, every structure, EVERYTHING! It will be like
dominos!! WHY? Because you have nothing embedded in virgin soil!!!!!
Nothing anchored!!!! Everything, all three or four walls that you build
is in fill. You will have lost your entire investment because some rocks
got shifted in a hurricane. (I've seen this happen before!) YOU are on
the open Neuse River --NOT somewhere up the Trent River. If I should lose
my first wall I still have my second wall. Why? Because my pilings and
boards were driven into virgin soil on my second wall like my first
wall. *I mentioned to you that a visitor could mistep and fall off your
wall onto the rocks eight feet below. This would be unfortunate and
could have been avoided!
*So Brad, you and CAMA are again notified that I oppose this
construction as it is presently being accomplished. The vinyl wall
sections are NOT being hammered into virgin soil, but are being placed
in sand fill with less than four feet penetration. The rocks in front of
the wall is all that will hold the vinyl sections in place. These rocks
can and WILL be moved by a storm's water surge and history has shown
this to be a fact.
And finally Brad I feel that LAMA overstepped its authority by
allowing Dr. Herlong to extend his wall and therefore his rocks out in
front of my wall. Thus creating a "jetty" that over time WILL weaken my
wall system. *I additionally feel that CAMA has allowed Dr. Herlong to
RECLAIM property that because of a "specific" time period has elasped
since the previous wall was removed by a storm is now no longer
available to him to reclaim. *
I agree that CAMA should look at each case on its own merits,
*HOWEVER when you see that there is an adjacent wall already in place
you should NOT allow the property owner to go out beyond this wall
KNOWING the effects that this will have on the existing wall.* ALSO it
should be considered that by LAMA allowing the Herlong wall to do out so
far into the River CAMA has approved an impediment that will prevent
people from being able to walk the shore line. THIS SHOULD HAVE ALSO
BEEN CONSIDERED WHEN YOU MADE YOUR DECISION.
You should know that I have contacted both an engineer and counsel
to continue my opposition to this work.
Judge
Brad Connell wrote:
> Mr. Carr,
> I have notified Mr. Herlong and Decks & Docks of their options:
> 1)either bring the work into compliance per the drawing that you
> signed off on,
> OR
> 2)apply to modify the permit.
>
> If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate
> to contact me.
> Brad
Robert W. "Judge" Carr,
Senior Associate Dean
Development and Alumni
2of3
Jr. E'71
Affairs
6/10/2008 2:58 PN1

M
[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]]
From: Brad Connell <Brad.Connell@ ncmail.net>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:38:59 -0400
To: [e-mail], John Herlong <[e-mail]>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Re: follow up to our previous conversation]
Date:Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:06:52 -0400
From:Judge Carr < i udge.carr @duke. edu>
Organization:Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University n
To:Brad Connell <Brad.Connell@ ncmail.net>
Brad -
Counsel has advised me that I need to ask you for a copy of the
re -drawing. Please send the new drawing to me.
Thank you.
Judge
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: follow up to our previous conversation
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:23:11 -0400
From: Judge Carr <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University
To: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Brad -
Hi! I met with Dr. Herlong and his contratctor Jason Hill of Decks
and Docks this past Sunday evening. Unfortunately I was not able to
persuade them to reduce the height of their front wall or to comply with
the drawing that we ALL approved back in January. They are redrawing
their plan according to what has already been constructed on site to
present to you for approval. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS NEW DRAWING FOR
APPROVAL OR INFORMATION YET!
Again, I am NOT in favor of this work as it being drawn or
performed. I am not sure that you have anything to say about the
ENGINEERING of the wall system, but I think it is flawed and the first
major hurricane is going to scatter these VINYL WALL pieces all over
Pamlico County! As far as the enginering is concerned here are my
thoughts as stated in a previous e-mail to Dr. Herlong:
Dr. Herlong, your front wall does not need to be six feet above my
lower wall to accomplish what you want to do. This is simply overkill
and most reasonable people with a little common sense would understand
this. This advice is free. The higher you build your wall the better
chance that nature will destroy it. You should have your vinyl members
hammered into virgin soil (like Rusher's) not several feet deep in loose
fill as you do now. Your stone wall is what will be holding
everything --your entire system into place. If something happens to your
I of 3 6/10/2008 2:58 P'v1

Re: Carr/Herlong PropeAles in Pamlico
Greene & Wilson, P.A.
409 Pollock Street
Post Office Box 1676
New Berri, NC 28563
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the United States Treasury
Department, any information regarding any U.S. federal tax matters contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, as advice for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The contents of this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review, dissemination, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of
this message or any attachment by you is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone [phone]), and please
delete this message and all attachments from your system.
Thank you.
Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Coastal Management Field Representative
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
6/10/2008 2:58 PM

Re: Carr/Herlong Properties in Pamlico
Subject: Re: Carr/Herlong Properties in Pamlico
From: Brad Connell <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:53:07 -0400
To: Thomas Wilson <[e-mail]>
Mr. Wilson,
During the site meeting on May 15, 2008, Mr. Hill of Decks 'n Docks was notified by my supervisor
that a Notice of Violation (NOV) was forthcoming concerning the shoreline stabilization project on Mr.
Herlong's property. I notified Mr. Carr of this later on that same day. Mr. Carr notified me of his intent
to pursue a third -party appeal at the end of that phone conversation. I then informed him that any future
correspondence from this point forward concerning the matter would need to be through the Attorney
General's office.
Respectfully,
Brad
Thomas Wilson wrote:
B rad:
Attached please find a letter requesting an official update from DCM in writing regarding the status
of the CAMA issues at the Herlong/Carr properties. Give me a call or email at your earliest
convenience. As you know, we are concerned about being very clear if DCM has made any agency
decisions affecting my client's Third Party Appeal rights.
Thanks,
Tom
GREENE & WILSON, PA.
Thomas R. Wilson
I of 3 6/10/2008 2:58 P'

Re: Carr/Herlong Proorties in Pamlico
Division of Coastal Management
3 of 3 6/10/2008 2:57 PNI

r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
May 27, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. John Herlong
1212 Sweet Briar Circle
Kinston, NC 28501
RE: CAMA VIOLATION #08-14C
Dear Mr. Herlong:
This letter is in reference to the Notice of Violation dated May 21, 2008 that Brad Connell, representative for the
Division of Coastal Management, issued to you for unauthorized placement/location/design of riprap and
bulkhead adjacent to the Neuse River at 23 Indian Bluff Drive, Pamlico County. The violation involved Estuarine
and Public Trust Waters and the Estuarine Shoreline, which are Areas of Environmental Concern designated by
the Coastal Resources Commission. Based upon the site visit conducted on May 15, 2008 by Brad Connell and
Tere Barrett, the restoration requested appears to be complete to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal
Management.
The Coastal Area Management Act provides that a civil assessment of up to $10,000 plus investigative costs may
be assessed for any violation. It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil penalty for
all violations in order to recover some of the costs of investigating violations and/or to compensate the public for
any damage to its natural resources.
Under the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission, a proposed civil penalty in the amount of $975.00 is
appropriate for this violation. You may expeditiously resolve this matter prior to the assessment of a formal civil
penalty by accepting responsibility for the violation and paying the amount proposed above. In order to do this,
you must: (1) sign one of the attached copies of an "Agreement to Pay Civil Assessment;" (2) attach a check or
money order for $975.00 made payable to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR); and, (3) return the signed agreement and payment to this office in the enclosed, self-addressed
envelope within ten (10) days of your receipt of this letter. Upon deposit of your check in the Department's
account, you will receive a Notice of Compliance officially closing this enforcement action.
If you do not send a signed agreement and payment to this office within ten (10) days, the Director of the Division
of Coastal Management will formally assess a civil penalty against you. You will then have the opportunity to
request a hearing on the penalty or request remission of the penalty.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycled 110% Post consumer Paper

John Herlong z
May 27, 2008
Page 2
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
9.
Tere Barrett
District Manager, MHC
Division of Coastal Management
Enclosures
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator, DCM
stal Management Representative, DCM
Ryan Davenport, Compliance Field Representative, DCM
Raleigh Bland, USACE
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

John Herlong
May 27, 2008
Page 3
CAMA VIOLATION #08-14C
MR. JOHN HERLONG
AGREEMENT TO PAY PROPOSED CIVIL ASSESSMENT
I, John Herlong, understand that the staff of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources will propose
the assessment of a civil penalty in the amount of $975,00 against me for violation of the Coastal Area
Management Act, NCGS 113A-100 et seg, committed on or near my property at 23 Indian Bluff Drive, in Pamlico
County, North Carolina. In order to resolve this matter with no further action or expense on my part, I accept
responsibility for the violation as described in the Notice of Violation letter dated May 21, 2008, and agree to pay
the proposed civil assessment of $975.00.
DATE
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

r
NCDEN�
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
June 4, 2008
Decks -N- Docks Construction, LLC
ATTN: Jason Hill & Miranda S. Hill
499 Crump Farm Road
New Bern, NC 28562
RE: Payment of Proposed Penalty for Violations of the Coastal Area Management Act,
Committed in Pamlico County
CAMA Violation # 09-13C
Dear Mr. Hill:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your Check # 6156, in the amount of $975.00, and dated
June 2, 2008. Once the amount of the check is credited to the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources' account, this matter will be fully and completely closed.
If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me at my Morehead City
office, [phone].
Sincerely,
—`,—�S�-L�1 tiiL�t
Tere Barrett
District Manager
TB/Isb
cc: Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator
Ted 'Tyndall, Asst. Director
Brad Connell, Coastal Management Rep.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper

Q��
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., secretary
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
May 21, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Decks `n Docks, Inc.
c/o Jason Hill
P.O. Box 3482
New Bern, NC 28564-3482
M /r`(0-)nM
RE; NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND REQUEST TO CEASE UNAUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT
CAMA VIOLATION #08-13C
Dear Mr. Hill:
This letter is in reference to my May 15, 2008 visit onsite John Herlong's property off Indian Bluff Drive in
Indian Bluff subdivision, on the Neuse River, at or near Arapahoe in Pamlico County, North Carolina. The
purpose of the onsite visit was to investigate unauthorized development on the aforementioned property.
Tere Barrett of the DCM, yourself, and Pete Chiles were also present at this meeting. I also conducted two
previous site visits on April 17, 2008 and May 6, 2008 during the investigation process.
Information gathered by me for the Division of Coastal Management indicates that your actions as
contractor for John Herlong are in violation of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). No person may
undertake major development in a designated Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) without first obtaining
a permit from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources pursuant to the North
Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.) 113A-118.
I have information that indicates that you have undertaken or are legally responsible for violating permit
conditions by not adhering to the configuration drawn on the permit. This activity took place in Estuarine
Shoreline and Public Trust Waters that are contiguous with Neuse River. Estuarine Shoreline and Public
Trust Waters areas are designated as Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). No permit was issued to
you for work in this area. Based on these findings, I am initiating an enforcement action by issuing this
Notice of Violation for violation of the Coastal Area Management Act.
I request that you immediately CEASE AND DESIST any further development and contact me about this
matter. A civil assessment of up to $10,000 may be assessed against any violator. Each day that the
- -—devefopment-describecLia-this- otimis-continued or repeated may constitute a separate violation that is
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Decks `n Docks Inc.
May 21, 2008
Page 2 of 2
subject to an additional assessment of $2,500. An injunction or criminal penalty may also be sought to
enforce any violation in accordance with N.C.G.S. 113A-126.
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a minimum civil penalty $650, plus
investigative costs against all violations of this type. This is done to recoup some of the costs of
investigating the violation and/or to compensate the public for any damage to its natural resources.
Whether a higher amount will be assessed will depend on several factors, including the nature and area of
the resources that were affected and the extent of the damage to them.
Based upon the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 7J.0409(g)(4)(B)(6)(E), the
policy of the Coastal Resources Commission is to levy a civil assessment against contractors in addition to
that assessed against the landowner.
The relevant statutes and regulations are available from this office, and I am willing to assist you in
complying with the requirements of these laws. A site inspection will be made in the immediate future to
determine whether this REQUEST TO CEASE AND DESIST has been complied with. I request that you
contact me immediately about these important matters.
Sincerely,
l!"astal Management Representative
Cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Tere Barrett, District Manager, DCM
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Skip Lee, Pamlico County, LPO VC
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F, Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
May 21, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
John Herlong
1212 Sweet Briar Circle
Kinston, NC 28501
CPO
Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RE: VIOLATION(S) OF CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 52144C
CAMA VIOLATION #08-14C
Dear Mr. Herlong:
This letter confirms that on May 15, 2008, 1 was onsite at your property located at 23 Indian Bluff Drive in
Indian Bluff subdivision adjacent to the Neuse River located in or near Arapahoe, off Bennett Drive,
Pamlico County, North Carolina. The purpose of the visit was to monitor the permitted development of a
new bulkhead and riprap along the Neuse River. Tere Barrett of the DCM, Jason Hill of Decks `n Docks,
and Pete Chiles were also present at this meeting. I also conducted two previous site visits on April 17,
2008 and May 6, 2008 during the investigation process.
Information gathered by me for the NC Division of Coastal Management shows that you have violated the
terms or conditions of State Permit No. 52144C which was issued to you by the Coastal Resources
Commission and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. I hereby request
that you immediately CEASE AND DESIST such violation(s) and comply with the terms and conditions of
the above permit.
On February 7, 2008, State Permit No. 52144C was issued to Jason Hill of Decks `n Docks Inc. for
construction of a new bulkhead and riprap within the Neuse River on property located in Pamlico County,
North Carolina, off Indian Bluff Drive. This permit was issued for a CAMA Major Development in an Area of
Environmental Concern, in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.) 113A-118. This
permit included the following terms and conditions:
1. Bulkhead was to be placed landward of normal water level, with the riprap not to exceed 10'
waterward of normal water level.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Herlong
May 21, 2008
Page 2
For the following reasons, you are in violation of the above terms and conditions(s) of your permit:
1. Bulkhead was reconfigured waterward of authorized location, but not waterward of normal water
level;
2. Riprap was reconfigured waterward of the bulkhead location, but not exceeding 10' wateNvard of
normal water level;
3. Riprap was placed across the adjacent riparian property, measuring approximately 6' by 5'.
If the terms and conditions of a permit are not complied with, the permit becomes null and void from the
date of its issuance.
A civil penalty of up to Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) may be assessed, or an injunction or criminal
penalty may be sought against any person who violates a CAMA Major Development permit. It is the policy
of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a minimum civil penalty of $650, plus investigative costs
against all violations of this type. This is done to recoup some of the costs of investigating violations and/or
to compensate the public for any damage to its natural resources. Whether a higher amount will be
assessed will depend on several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected
and the extent of the damage to them. If restoration of the affected resources is requested but is not
undertaken or completed satisfactorily, a substantially higher civil penalty will be assessed and a court
injunction will be sought ordering restoration (N.C.G.S. 113A-126).
Based upon review of the Coastal Area Management Act, Coastal Resource Commission's rules, and the
local jurisdiction's Land Use Plan, the activity you have undertaken appears inconsistent with the terms and
conditions of the permit by placing 6' by 5' of riprap across the adjacent riparian property. Therefore,
restoration of the impacted area is being requested and the restoration was completed on May 15, 2008.
Confirmation that the adjacent riparian property owners have been notified by certified mail of the
completed work has been performed. This notice instructed the adjacent property owners to provide any
comments on the completed development in writing to this Division within ten (10) days of receipt of the
notice and indicated that no response from them will be interpreted as not having any objection.
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions
about this or related matters, please call me at [phone]. Upon my submission of an enforcement
report to the District Manager, you will be notified as to the amount of the civil assessment for failure to act
in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of such permit.
The relevant statutes and regulations are available from this office, and I am willing to assist you in
complying with the requirements of these laws. A site inspection will be made in the near future to
determine whether this REQUEST TO CEASE AND DESIST has been complied with. I request that you
contact me immediately about these important matters.
COPY
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Herlong
May 21, 2008
Page 3
Sincerely,
44,"'
Br
Coastal Management Representative
Cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Tere Barrett, District Manager, DCM
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Skip Lee, Pamlico County, LPO
ENCLOSURE
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Herlong
May 21, 2008
Page 4
RESTORATION PLAN
For
John Herlong Property
CAMA Violation No. 08-14C
Property located at 23 Indian Bluff Drive, Pamlico County
NTS
May 21, 2008
Approx. 6' X 5' of riprap
I, John Herlong, agree to remove all riprap that is across the adjacent riparian property.
Herlong Bulkhead
-Carr Bulkhead
I completed this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by May 15th,
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to levy a minimum civil assessment $650, plus investigative
costs and higher against all violations of this type depending upon the damage to the resources. If restoration is not
undertaken or satisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment will be levied and an injunction
sought to require restoration.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post consumer Paper

Ake��Ll-
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
May 27, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Decks 'n Docks, Inc.
C/o Mr, Jason Hill
PO Box 3482
New Bern, NC 28564-3482
RE: CAMA VIOLATION #08-13C
Dear Mr. Hill:
This letter is in reference to the Notice of Violation dated May 21, 2008 that Brad Connell, representative for the
Division of Coastal Management, issued to Decks'n Docks, Inc. for unauthorized placement/location/design of
riprap and bulkhead on the property of Mr. John Herlong, adjacent to the Neuse River at 23 Indian Bluff Drive,
Pamlico County. The violation involved Estuarine and Public Trust Waters and the Estuarine Shoreline, which are
Areas of Environmental Concern designated by the Coastal Resources Commission. Based upon the site visit
conducted on May 15, 2008 by Brad Connell and Tere Barrett, the restoration requested appears to be complete
to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management.
The Coastal Area Management Act provides that a civil assessment of up to $10,000 plus investigative costs may
be assessed for any violation. It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil penalty for
all violations in order to recover some of the costs of investigating violations and/or to compensate the public for
any damage to its natural resources.
Under the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission, a proposed civil penalty in the amount of $975.00 is
appropriate for this violation. You may expeditiously resolve this matter prior to the assessment of a formal civil
penalty by accepting responsibility for the violation and paying the amount proposed above. In order to do this,
you must: (1) sign one of the attached copies of an "Agreement to Pay Civil Assessment;" (2) attach a check or
money order for $975.00 made payable to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR); and, (3) return the signed agreement and payment to this office in the enclosed, self-addressed
envelope within ten (10) days of your receipt of this letter. Upon deposit of your check in the Department's
account, you will receive a Notice of Compliance officially closing this enforcement action.
If you do not send a signed agreement and payment to this office within ten (10) days, the Director of the Division
of Coastal Management will formally assess a civil penalty against you. You will then have the opportunity to
request a hearing on the penalty or request remission of the penalty.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Decks 'n Docks
C/o Mr. Jason Hill
May 27, 2008
Page 2
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
r
Tere Barrett
District Manager, MHC
Division of Coastal Management
Enclosures
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Coastal Management Representative, DCM
Ryan Davenport, Compliance Field Representative, DCM
Raleigh Bland, USACE
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

FORM 3O02P
= MAOE IN U.S.A.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
DATE
A.M.
TIME P.M.
ff
OF
PHONE
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
FAX"�
U MOBILE
AREA CODE NUMBER TIME TO CALL
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
GAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
RUSHRETURNED.
YOUR CALL
SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
SIGNED
FORM 3O02P
= MAOE IN U.S.A.
FORM 3O02P
= MAOE IN U.S.A.

, UNITED STATES, POSTAL SERVICE
First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
LISPS
Permit No. G-10
f Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box -
Peaks N' Docks Const., LLC
1483 Crump Farm Rd.
New Sem, NC 28562

%,cr,i i iritu iviF
(Domestic Mail Only, Nc
-�For
delivenj int nnation visit our website:
IT
fU
O
Postage
Certified Fee
$
Q
=1
O
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
` ` -
7 R
p
r -=I
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Ttt-
-
y
Q
M
Total Postage R Fees
Sent To
M
�.
�treef, Apt No.; p ��-1r`l n n
orPOBoxNo. 10 MOA{/A
QC -NC-,
City, Srate, ZIP- .................. _----------••------------------.....................
(��t✓1L N t CPC 2
PS F644 :0i June 2002
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to: I
C -i ZAi-JN ?A D
9-1U12,
A. Signature
X ❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
B. Received by (Printed Name) I C. Date of Delivery
D. Is. deliver�at&ejis different from item 1? ❑ Yes
@%If YES, enter deliverya0dress below: ❑ No
9001 0 z adv
3S�4 e Type
tlTy Express Mail
is e ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service label) 7005 3110 0000 2895 6 014
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt .102595-02-M-1540

DUKE
ROBERT W. "JUDGE" CARR, JR. E71
SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEAN
EDMUNOL MArf JR. FOR DEVELOPMENT
SCHOOLOF
ENGINEERING AND ALUMNI AFFAIRS
DUKE UNIVERSITY
305 TEER ENGINEERING BUILDING [phone]
BOX 90271 FAX: [phone]
DURHAM, NC 27708-0271 [e-mail]

GenBrowse
,..&. --J \,.,.5. ��, ,
Hwy70)
Project Site's nearest city or town
sm
Project Site's nearest city or town (e.g. Eliz%, Atlan%B%, Oriental)
, I ("'EPT Project Siti:
ddres.� ,setzrch C.rituria
Run Query Reset Prev. Value [ Clear Query
Page 2 of 3
ID
Permit# Type SourcePNo
Issue Date Expiration Date
JExpiredlDistrict IStaff JCountylProject
City Project Name
42360
GP -52144 JInitial 1
102/07/2008 06/06/2008
IN IMorchead City Brad Connell Pamlico
JArapahoe
1
Records Matching Query = 1
ID SELECTED: 42360
Print PerFiT71
Edit Initial Reissue Permit EDIT Reissue Modify Permit EDIT Modify QUICK Reissue
Applicant Info:
Applicant (Owner): John Herlong
Addl: 1212 Sweet Briar Circle
City: Kinston
State: NC
Zip: 28501
Country: USA
Phonel: 252-560-6242
Applicant (Contractor): Decks and Docks
Applicant (Contractor): Jason Hill
City: NOT SPECIFIED
Permit Info:
Permit No.: GP -52144
DCM District.: Morehead City
DCM Representative: Brad Connell
Issue Date: 02/07/2008
Expiration Date: 06/06/2008
Fee Collected: 400.00
Fee Description: General Permit Fee (9/1/2006)
Objections Received: N
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/dcmcdaits/general/view/GenBrowse.aspx 6/5/2008

GenBrowse
Page 3 of 3
Permitted Rules
07H.1100 General permit for construction of bulkheads & placement of riprap in estuarine/public trust waters.
Permitted Activities
Activity: Bulkhead(vinyl)
Activity Type: M
Replacement: Y
Dimensions: length_width_height
Parameterl : 154.000
Parameter2: 5.000
Parameter3: 4.000
Activity: Riprap
Activity Type: M
Replacement: Y
Dimensions: length_width
Parameterl : 154.000
Parameter2: 5.000
Site
Description:
Adjacent Waterbody: Neuse River
Adjacent Waterbody Type: Nat
Sandbags: N
SAV: N
PNA: N
Critical Habitat: N
ORW: N
Shoreline Length: 143.000
Digital Photos: N
15ft Waiver: N
AECS:
07H.0206 Estuarine Waters
07H .0207 Public Trust Areas
07H .0209 Estuarine Shoreline
Project Site:
Add1: 23 Indian Bluff Drive
Subdivision: Indian Bluffs
City: Arapahoe
County: Pamlico
RoverNo: M020715A
Local Planning Juris: Pamlico County
Riverbasin: NEUSE
Major Waterbody: Neuse River
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/dcmcdaits/general/view/GenBrowse.aspx 6/5/2008

r
UenBrowse
Username: LowanaB
CDAITS: General Permit Browse MainMenu
....... ..... .
The purpose of the GenBrowse Page is to search for a General Permit and perform an
action on it. These actions include: view, print, edit intital, reissue, edit reissue, modify,
edit modify, and delete. (Depending on User access level.)
Applicant or Contractor Applicant or
Pulllame Contractor Last Name
Note: uerces using Name Data may result in a recor set that is greater t an the # of permits.
Project Name
%52144%
Permit Number
Select County
County
Select Rep
Permit Officer
Project Location (City)
Select District
District
Begin/End Issue Date BegirdEnd Expiration Date Expired
El Search by Project Site
Project Site Address (e.g. %Coquina%, 57 Oyst%, 123 Oak Dr%)
Project Site's nearest city or town (e.g. Eliz%, Atl%B%, Oriental)
N.
Page 1 of 3
OR
State Road (e.g. SR%, SR64) Project Site subdivision name (e.g. Ocean%)
nr P;alhx nv (a cr TAQJ
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/dcmcdaits/general/view/GenBrowse.aspx 6/5/2008