56825_SCHOEN, KURTIS_20100917

' -C* AMA / ❑ DREDGE & FILLI A
5ENERAL PERMIT j' �IPreviouspermit#
❑New ❑Modification El Complete Reissue El Partial Reissue /L, Date previous permit issued
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources r
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC
O Rules attached.
Applicant Name (f -' j Project Location: County
Address
City
Phone # ( )_
Authorized Agent
Affected ❑ cW
AEC(s): ❑ OEA
❑ PWS:
ORW: yes / no
State ZIP
Fax # ( )
❑ EW ❑ PTA ❑ ES ❑ PTS
❑ HHF ❑ IH ❑ UBA ❑ N/A
❑ FC:
PNA yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no.
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
Subdivision
City r ZIP
Phone # ( River Basin
Adj. Wtr. Body (nat /man /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
Type of Project/ Activity
Scale:
Pier (dock) length 7- 1 V
Platform(s) -.1
on
Finger pier(S) k
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length I
avg distance offshore Full I
max distance offshore
Basin, channel
Boat
Boatl
Beac
Othe
Shor
SAV:
Sandl
Mora
Phot
Waiv
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions
0 See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
1
Agent or Applicant Printed Name Permit Officer's Signature
Signature *'t Please read compliance statement on back of permit ** Issuing Date
Application Fee(s)
Check# Local PlanningJurisdiction
Expiration Date
Rover File Name

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
Mailing Address:
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Location:
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-2293
Fax:[phone]
Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808/ 1-888-4RCOAST
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Carteret, Craven, Onslow -above
New River Inlet- and Pamlico Counties)
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)
Wilmington 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

po�4c;� 47,
e C,,,t rU,\ C 6(-26
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:
` ,CEN i
Id 7
f/ /6��NGa8s v
A. Signature
X �) ❑ Agent t
j�/ O ❑ Addressee
B. Receiv by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery '
D. f 4 I tj% _ ' , 1.,
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Ye
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Se ce Type '
Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise 4
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number 7008 0150 0003 6073 8655
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540

UNITED, STATES POSTAL SERYIC�,
T:..y' ;�'M�h.. r. 1.;'4+K _7.:.. :...+^n�''X:::tlr-,.,i, �?k',•'7"�., ..�,y.,
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 "in this box •
1,9 %
/v.�w �� Alta ��

■ 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,
'i or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to:
i
A. Signatures
i ., , . pp
X
❑ Addressee
eived by (Pr'
ed Name)
C Date of Delivery
D. Is deliver address different froA item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, nter delivery addr s below: ❑ No
3. Servi ype
ertified Mail
❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered
❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail
❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes f
2. Article Number ��QB p1So 0003 6073 8686
(rransfer from service label) r
L PS Fofm 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
ilii{Itl(„{1{1111{II{{tI{i{ 11 I{(IIil1{I I1{{1II IAIII I I)IiIH

la
J
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to LLA:j T` ) s
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at
(Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on Iy 2a I i 4., y , in 7)G i'r ",
N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County
LAY
Applicant's phone #: ?SZ —f�� Mailing Address: 13� l„iA�As�y t� D
PJ(-
He has described to me, as shown below, the development he is proposing at that location, and, I
have no objections to his proposal.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIGPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
(Tq be filled in by property owner proposing development)
..�.._.�.
`Lv -
0 -z
IqM ()q `-'3J LSA -1
a
IU,
.r
(Information for Property Owner Applying (Riparian Property Owner Information)
for Permit)
Mailing Address Signature
Ar
tc��r�(� 1f C
City/State/Zip Print or Type Name
Telephone Number ;
Signature Date
Telephone Number
=7Z —29 -�r
Date

Ct g- ► ?�
y116 fil
S 5(z

RECENED
MAY 17 2011
]Dchf-URO My
May 13, 2011
UPY
Mr. Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
RE: Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Road, Pamlico County
Dear Mr. Prescott:
Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to you dated 5/2/11 concerning our conversation on
4/30/11 re: Schoens' desire to install a jet ski lift.
Since I haven't heard from you, I'm assuming our conversation was not correct and that you are
intending to construct something in the 15 foot set back line on my side of the property.
I object to the construction of your proposal.
Sincerely,
Albert,, orbettNr.
1119 estnut Dr. JI
(919)
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
577

May 2, 2011
Mr. Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
RECENED
MAY 17 2011
RE: Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Road, Pamlico County
Dear Mr. Prescott:
Reference is made to our telephone conversation on the afternoon of Saturday, 4/30/11.
You advised me at that time that your clients, (Schoens) are desirous of installing a jet ski lift on
one (1) pole on the Potter side of their property. You further said that there WOULD NOT be
anything installed on my side of the property that would violate the 15 ft. setback.
Please confirm this is your version of our conversation.
Sincerely,
Albert A. Cor be ;
1119 Ches t Dr.
SmithfieNC 2'
(919)9-) -
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557

MAY 6 Z011
nCM-MHD Crrsr
May 2, 2011
w
1
Mr. Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
RE: Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Road, Pamlico County
Dear Mr. Prescott:
Reference is made to our telephone conversation on the afternoon of Saturday, 4/30/11.
You advised me at that time that your clients, (Schoens) are desirous of installing a jet ski lift on
one (1) pole on the Potter side of their property. You further said that there WOULD NOT be
anything installed on my side of the property that would violate the 15 ft. setback.
Please confirm this is your version of our conversation.
Sincerely,
C���
Albert A. Corbe�,
1119 Ches eft Dr.
Smithfie c, NC 2'.
(9 19) 93�
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557

Albert A. Corbett, Jr.
1119 Chestnut Dr.
Smithfield, NC 27577
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
:cid'"•'.".:,."?•'r�_`•':::r•.� � 1ttl:tir:tat�ti!rtt�ti!t!ltt��!t�tl!tl�t1l�rstlt�tittlt!rt!Iff

R.
RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2011
DCM-MM CITY
May 19, 2011 4-4
r
M
Mr. Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
RE: Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Road, Pamlico County
Dear Mr. Prescott:
I was on my property last weekend and noticed that the Schoens' jet ski lift had been installed..
Please provide me a copy of the building permit.
Sincerely,
Albert . Co ett, Jr.
11 Chestnut r.
ithfield, 27577
(919} 9 - 696
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557

AV
April 27, 2010
Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction, LLC
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
RE: Proposed Development on Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Rd, Pamlico Co.
Dear Mr. Prescott:
This will acknowledge receipt of your certified letter on 4/22/10.
I do not consent to and object to the proposed pier to be built on Kurtis Schoen's property as
shown on your proposal (copy enclosed).
Your plans do not comply with CAMA rules and regulations and your approval procedures do not
comply with appropriate notice rules. You failed to include in your notice to me 15A NCAC
07H.1202 "Approval Procedures," Section .1200 of "General Permit for Construction of Piers
and Docking Facilities In Estuarine and Public Trust Waters and Ocean Hazard Areas."
The property in question is only 47.57 feet wide and there are piers on either side of it. Any
encroachment into this 15 foot area could possibly hinder access to my pier.
CAMA regulation 15A NCAC 07H.1205(q) says "Piers and docking facilities shall not interfere
with the access to any riparian property, and shall have a minimum setback of 15 feet between
any part of the pier and docking facility and the adjacent property lines extended into the water at
the point that they intersect the shoreline."
Sincerely,
Albert A. C r.
1119 estnut Dr.
Smith i
[phone]
RECEIV EC
Enclosure
'APR 2
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector 9 2N
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515 Moreheau +'
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557

ti
in AIR
is,RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
ereby cert that I own property adjacent to ��1,�2T15 j E 's
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at 1 P, i V rv_,P-
^� (Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on iJ 2a,� I *�� 2 , inG fYi t CO , N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County
0
r -
Applicant's phone #: ZS Z -&3 5 -- q 5 g r Mailing Address: i - a t x)ALt v ►Z b
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 DEVELOPMENT:
(Ti be filled in by property owner proposing development) f
I \
koroz2., ,)
—1
t 26
ih i -
S9G
ax 30� Eur,
S 1C a.n � srePao �v►.i
13X10 09 4c
(Information for Property Owner Applying
for Permit)
132.
Mailing Address
0" tx-- /Z hJ ►�L 2g S(y a
City/State/Zip
2sa - 40s5 -1;s9 _ _
Tele hrq6 Number
Y�Wk
ignature Date
(Riparian Property Owner Information)
Signature
Print or Type Name
Telephone Number
APR 2 Date
Morehead City DCM
19-0

Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction, LLC
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
RE: Proposed
Dear Mr. Prescott:
July 16, 2010
on Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Rd., Pamlico
JUI 20 201,
ounty aor jIYDC&f
This will acknowledge receipt of your certified letter on 7/13/10. 1 do not consent, and 1 object, to the proposed
pier to be built on Curtis Schoen's property as shown on your proposal. My concerns are:
1. I do not believe the survey that you furnished me is accurate.
2. There is no indication of the feet distance on the line from my property line to your client's proposed
pier.
3. There are two (2) white stakes on your client's property. If your client's proposal is to build the pier
within those two stakes, I do not believe that is possible.
4. The proposed pier is too long and would extend beyond the end of my pier, the Potter's pier, and other
piers near the adjoining property.
5. The square footage of the boat lift, deck, step-down and pier are not shown.
6. Piers and docking facilities should not extend beyond the established pier length along the same shore
line for similar use. My concerns are that this pier will interfere with access to my property, especially
considering the size of your client's boat, and that your client's proposal extends the pier longer than
other similar situated piers.
I'll be on my property July 19-23 if you would like to discuss this matter. Please call 249-1664 before
coming.
Enclosures
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
0
Albert A.
1119 Che
(919) 934-

• 4
i
IV
TR PRESCOTT
I MARINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC
IIII
5451HIIG.•ITOR LOOP RD d fFRR17T, NC 28556
252-670-0973-252-745-7135
trprescotmiarirreCaginaiLcom
June 27, 2010
Mr. Albert Corbett
1119 Chestnut Dr.
Smithfield, NC 27577
Dear Mr. Corbett:
We are asking for your signature on the adjacent riparian property form for the Kurtis
Shoen property. We completely understand your concerns and we have fully complied
with all Cama requirements and have included a surveyed drawing of the property. We
respect your rights to defend your property lines from encroachment. We will employ a
licensed surveyor to insure proper placement of the outside poles before proceeding with
the project. We will also meet the requirements by hiding the poles along the walkway
and adjusting the width of the pier as it continues along side of the boatlift. Our
employees will be instructed to respect those riparian lines and your property lines at all
times.
We would greatly appreciate your cooperation with this project. Please call us to discuss
any concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction

sG. G
19 CHESTNUT DR
SMITHFIELD NC 27577 r;a j ;z..w1 a F._... ...t
BRAD CONNELL
DCM MOREHEAD CITY HEADQUARTERS
400 COMMERCE AVE
MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557
I i„It 1, t!l,1�1

COpY
May 22, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL
MAY 2 5 2010
Mr. & Mrs. Kurtis Schoen ��OrehsOd CHY DCIVI
132 Walden Rd.
New Bern, NC 28562
Dear Kurtis & Kim:
On May 19'h Mr. Prescott presented to me a proposal concerning a new pier, boat lift,
step down, and deck for your property located at 481 River Rd., Arapahoe, NC 28510.
While I wish to be cooperative, I have several concerns after reviewing the paperwork
from Mr. Prescott. I cannot determine from the survey or drawings the exact width of the
new pier, boat lift, step down, deck or the exact length of the proposed pier.
Let me suggest that a surveyor mutually agreed upon by both property owners and they
being present do the following: The surveyor will mark the property line at the shoreline
and in the water. As a result of your recent rock bulkhead addition, the shoreline marker
between our properties is no longer visible. Now would be the time to get it replaced.
Upon completion of these markers being placed, if your proposal is a minimum distance
of 15'from my area of riparian access property line setback and all other safety issues
identified and addressed I can respect your request.
Upon completion of the survey the surveyor should put down permanent markers on the
property line within the water with visible line to the shore until construction is
completed. This will help avoid any mistakes and unnecessary rework by a contracted
firth completing your project.
Kurtis and Kim please feel welcome to discuss any part of these concerns in person or by
phone.
Best regards,
..'Benj in G. Potter
127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
Phone [phone]
Copy To: Division Of Coastal Management
Attention: Mr. Brad Connell, Field Representative
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557

May 22, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. & Mrs. Kurtis Schoen
132 Walden Rd.
New Bern, NC 28562
Dear Kurtis & Kim:
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 2010
Morehead CIPy DCA4
On May 19`x' Mr. Prescott presented to me a proposal concerning a new pier, boat lift,
step down, and deck for your property located at 481 River Rd., Arapahoe, NC 28510.
While I wish to be cooperative, I have several concerns after reviewing the paperwork
from Mr. Prescott. I cannot determine from the survey or drawings the exact width of the
new pier, boat lift, step down, deck or the exact length of the proposed pier.
Let me suggest that a surveyor mutually agreed upon by both property owners and they
being present do the following: The surveyor will mark the property line at the shoreline
and in the water. As a result of your recent rock bulkhead addition, the shoreline marker
between our properties is no longer visible. Now would be the time to get it replaced.
Upon completion of these markers being placed, if your proposal is a minimum distance
of 15'from my area of riparian access property line setback and all other safety issues
identified and addressed I can respect your request.
Upon completion of the survey the surveyor should put down permanent markers on the
property line within the water with visible line to the shore until construction is
completed. This will help avoid any mistakes and unnecessary rework by a contracted
firm completing your project.
Kurtis and Kim please feel welcome to discuss any part of these concerns in person or by
phone.
Best reards,
�'BKenjinG. Potter
127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
Phone [phone]
Copy To: Division Of Coastal Management
Attention: Mr. Brad Connell, Field Representative
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557

1119 CHESTNUT DR
SMITHFIELD NC 27577
W4K el�YV �..
NIC 27.6
BRAD CONNELL
DCM; MOREHEAD CITY HEADQUARTERS
400 COMMERCE AVE
MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557
w�y��•w"�:�- .. _ .. 1.=I,1'1�;1��1:1,,fl,i>>:isf;i,;i,i,,li��liE�=i�i�:i�i=,�ts(Il

munterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 285E
7006 2150 0003 2226 6802
v s p S o U.S.POSTA6f
Ln
L
\� NAY.24.10 cc=:,
00.55
0 �
+ SSG,
PtTSTAtlA268530
Division of Coastal Management
Attention: Mr. Brad Connell, Field Repres.
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
HAY.24.10
R,
i4E1411i3fi?I?I!f{Si E{Sfilftf llf �flS
QS.POST•A6EI
�z o_IPOST-ALIAZ58530
Q49�
o
{,{,,?,*

August 26, 2010,
Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction, LLC
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
RE: Proposed Development on Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Rd., Pamlico County
Dear Mr. Prescott:
I received a notice about two weeks ago from the post office here in Smithfield that there was a certified letter
from you to be picked up. When I arrived at the post office to pick up letter, I was discovered postage was due
in the amount of $5.00 and some change — can't remember the exact amount.
The Postmaster said one stamp was affixed to the letter and certified labels were attached, however, the certified
fee was not paid and the letter was simply dropped into the mail without proper postage. '
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
I
Alberi A. Co tt, r.
1119 Che ut Dr.
Smith e4-3
, NC 275 '
(919)696
WOCI M10 poegajoW
otOZ 0 C Onv
03AI303a

AUG -26-201`0 01:18P FROM:
TO:912522473330 P.1
Alll�
TR PRESCOTT
MARINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC
545,4 LLIGA TOR LOOPRD MGIUdl-1; NC 28556
251-670-0973-252-745-7135
August 26, 2010
To: Brad Connell
Fax #[phone]
Fr: Miriam S. Prescott
Hey Brad:
I just wanted you to know I am not completely crazy.
Thanks,
Miriam S. Prescott
252-670-1284
trprescottmarineggamil .com
TR PRESCOTT MARINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC

tti
a:
m
r�
PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT
OF THE RETUR
��O AT DOTTED LINE
r�
�r
>�
Ln TR Prescott Marine Construction171-1_
1-1 545 Alligator Loop Rd.
m Merritt NC 28556 =.� . , A -- d4-
O - -c,� -.WIRT
�--
H = . -- -'
- - _ --
lip, 1. y& t I
7007 0710 0003 8862 2445
U.S. Postal Service,,,
CERTIFIED MAIL,,, RECEIPT
,,mestic mail only; No insurance Coverage Provided)
-:1-Mr. Albert Corbett
<u OFFICIAL USS
1129 Chestnut Dr.
-n Li c ( n �_ Smithfield, NC 27577
� Postage $ 0, �,
�\/
fz'I Certitied Fee f
Lark
� a� !�
Return Receipt Fee ])�
O (Endorsement Required) p�. 3 V C -t
Restricted Delivery fee
2010 %:
O (Endorsement Required)
Iti Total Postage & Foes $ J .5 i `"L��?fleiflf?ffliiiiiiiilii{?illi{::ilfI??�i�3Ffif113?�?i5i��e{
E3
fiZ-------------------------
1-3 Apo.;
porPCBox No
C;ry late:
/_..------------'-j-e--5--
LL Z1?
i
a-
m .r.
Q
lU -
r
lt] -
N -
i
L�3
Cl:

F-LJCa- 44-2810 oe:02R FROM:
TO:912522473330 P.1
InTR PRESCOTT
MARINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC
5.15 ALLIGATOR LOOP Rh AIDUU77,, NC 18556
252-0110-0973- 252-745-7135
irprescotfmurine.a gmaa! com
August 24, 2010
To: Brad Connell
Fax # [phone]
Fr: Miriam Prescott
Ph # 252-670-1284
Hi Brad,
((�� T, -)v
7
This is the copied of the certified mail that I sent Mr. Corbett mailed on 8-5-2010, arrived
on 8-7-2010, finally returned on the 19`x' with refiised written on the letter.
Let us know what our next move is.
Thanks,
Miriam
a
\�
X .011
ok� Cp (5
C� Ift
XV
vpl�

AICA -24-2010 08:02A FROM:
TR Prescott Marine Construction
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
T0:912522473330 P.2
MACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT
OF THE RETURN ADDRESS, FOLD AT DOTTED UNE
CER TIFIEn mA x,
ytit wli�llili = A4wa'M`
nim 7iiiw.0 «:
111 1 1Z
7007 0710 0003 8862 2445
Mr. Albert Corbett
1119 Chestnut Dr.
Smithfield, NC 27577
L^t 5?'? -'t �.'•'��� 1r1�t�Irit�l�il111tt1ltttflt�Il�fil�fltillittirf11�T1�tf;llri�

E
O
r'
L
Q
Cu
CD
ib
CD
CD
m
N
i
�t
Q
USPS - Track & Confirm
UNITEUST/ST S
STAUS KE Home I Hele I Sign In
Track & Confrm FAQs
Track & confirm
Search Results
LabeVReceipt Number: 7007 0710 0003 8862 2445
Service(s): Certified Mail"' Track & Confirm
Status: Delivered Enter LabellReceipt Number.
Your item was delivered at 1:48 pm on August 19, 2010 in MERRITT, NC
28556. Go j
('
Detailed Results:
• Delivered, August 19, 2010, 1:48 pm, MERRITT, NC 28556 1
• Arrival at Unit, August 07, 2010,7:53 am, SMITHFIELD, NC 27577
Notification Options
Track & Confirm by email
Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. Go>
Site Map Customer Service Forms Gov't Services Careers Puvacy Policy Terms of Use
Copyright© 2010 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA
http.li't-kcntrml.Sfn;.LISPS.corn/PTS!nteme'l-webi'lnterLabelingiiiT, .cif
Business Customer Gateway
Page 1 of t
/24/2010

SFr` 72010
Aug. 31, 2 010 Moreheov Cit
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
RE: Proposed Development on Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Rd., Pamlico County
Dear Mr. Connell:
Mr. Prescott continues to send me surveys and letters and has failed to address any of my
concerns.
I still object to the construction of Kurtis Schoen's pier as expressed in my letter dated
7/16/2010.
Sincerely,
Albert A.rbett, r.
1119 Ch tnut Dr.
Smithfiel , 57'
[phone]
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction, LLC
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556

August 31, 2010
Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction, LLC
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
RECEIVE®
HP 7 2010
Moret eod City DCM
RE: Proposed Development on Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Rd., Pamlico County
Dear Mr. Prescott:
This will acknowledge receipt of your certified letter of 8/27/2010.
I do not consent and object to the proposed pier to be built on Kurtis Schoen's property as follows:
In my letter to you of 7/16/10, I voiced my concerns to you and still feel the same way.
I indicated to you in my last letter that I would be on my property July 19-23, if you would like to discuss this
matter. I've heard nothing from you other than the letters that you have written me.
I keep writing you voicing my objection to this project and you appear to ignore my concerns.
Albert A. C et%,
1119 Ch ut Dr.
Smitht4-j§-96---
Id, NC 27
(919)
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557

1119 CHESTNUT DR
SMITHFIELD NC 27577
. ......... .
we u
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
'p,

Notes:
Reference
D 79, Pg 695
S84°33'52',W 47.77'
777777�- \ -`1.
WOOD BULKHEAD
OVER LINE 2.0'
ROCK BULKHEAD
20•
° I
12,
Ex. Vnyll Jetty
I a v
� O
o b
v
T�, C_
> chi C
L'� s" Piles fl.
Z I '^ o
Surveyor has made no independent search or
investigation for Rights-of-way or Easements
of record for streets, highway, public utilities itV EUSE
nor for encumbrances, restrictive covenants,
ownership, title or any other facts that may be
disclosed by a full and accurate title search.
This survey is of an existing parcel and does
not create a new street or change an existing one
Leaend
t��et Iron Pin
hip - Existing Iron Pin
1- Centerline
If urt s A Schoen & Wife
Kimberly L. Schoen
481 River Road
Arapahoe
Pamlico County, North Carolina
Mark A Lee Date:
Professional Land Surveyor June 26, 2010
P.O. Box 303 Project #:
Arapahoe, NC 28510
Phone/Fax: [phone] 100501
cPRO
RIVER o • o
•�i� •' •(•�:�D SoAx.
��'M+Ri P```�
0' 30' 60'
Scale: 1" =30'
I, Mark R. Lee, certify that this plat was drawn under my
suf'EF Isic�om an a ,aal sui veydeed description(s) as shown
hereon; that the error of closure is']: 10,000+; that the boundaries not
surveyed are shown as broken linesplatted from information found
in deed books referenced hereon; witness my original signature,
registration number, and seal.
State of North Carolina County of Pamlico
1> Review officer of Craven County,
certify that the map or plat to which certification is affixed meets
all statutory requirements for recording.
County Review Officer Date
r°
NOW OR FORMERLY'
s.
ALBERT A. CORBETT, Jr.
Db 346, Pg 790
o
z
Lbed
a a
Io
of
1,900.8' TO CENTER OFRT
BRIDGE
18.17'=Elv 688011'44"E
17-49,
EL VER ROAD (SR 1304)
ON RIVER RD.
PKI _ 47.57-
00
i
0 1 PK
I
3 0' RfN T
Notes:
Reference
D 79, Pg 695
S84°33'52',W 47.77'
777777�- \ -`1.
WOOD BULKHEAD
OVER LINE 2.0'
ROCK BULKHEAD
20•
° I
12,
Ex. Vnyll Jetty
I a v
� O
o b
v
T�, C_
> chi C
L'� s" Piles fl.
Z I '^ o
Surveyor has made no independent search or
investigation for Rights-of-way or Easements
of record for streets, highway, public utilities itV EUSE
nor for encumbrances, restrictive covenants,
ownership, title or any other facts that may be
disclosed by a full and accurate title search.
This survey is of an existing parcel and does
not create a new street or change an existing one
Leaend
t��et Iron Pin
hip - Existing Iron Pin
1- Centerline
If urt s A Schoen & Wife
Kimberly L. Schoen
481 River Road
Arapahoe
Pamlico County, North Carolina
Mark A Lee Date:
Professional Land Surveyor June 26, 2010
P.O. Box 303 Project #:
Arapahoe, NC 28510
Phone/Fax: [phone] 100501
cPRO
RIVER o • o
•�i� •' •(•�:�D SoAx.
��'M+Ri P```�
0' 30' 60'
Scale: 1" =30'
I, Mark R. Lee, certify that this plat was drawn under my
suf'EF Isic�om an a ,aal sui veydeed description(s) as shown
hereon; that the error of closure is']: 10,000+; that the boundaries not
surveyed are shown as broken linesplatted from information found
in deed books referenced hereon; witness my original signature,
registration number, and seal.
State of North Carolina County of Pamlico
1> Review officer of Craven County,
certify that the map or plat to which certification is affixed meets
all statutory requirements for recording.
County Review Officer Date

RECEIVED
'AUG 16 2010
August 12, 2010 !Morehead CitV DCVI
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Brad Connell, Field Repres.
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
SUBJECT: Adjacent Riparian Property Permit for Kurtis Shoen
481 River Road
Arapahoe, NC 28562
Dear Mr. Connell:
I received a letter dated August 6, 2010 from Terry Prescott —TR Prescott Marine
Construction requesting permission for the above project. Since the first contact�I have
being willing to do just that provided I did not have any objections. The wording of his
letter and the drawing dated Date: June 26, 2010 Rev: Aug 4, 2010 does not change any
of my objections. Upon reviewing the Rev. Aug 4, 2010 drawing, the only real change is
the terminology Property Line to Riparian Line. Therefore I must request to have my
Property/Riparian Line established out in the water by a registered surveyor prior to any
work being started.
You have a copy of our original response to this project mail directly to Mr. & Mrs.
Shoen dated May 22, 2010. I have not had any response to this letter acknowledging co-
operation on their part to ensure no encroachments/endangerments upon completion.
Sincerely,
Ben' in G. Potter
127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
Phone [phone]
Cell Phone [phone]
Enclosure: Copy of Letter from TR Prescott Marine Cons. Dated Aug 6, 2010

AUri
�"li®40
pCov0C41
Mt or Street #, 5traet or Koact, Ubj 8 County)
I hereby certify that I own propeily 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 l:i,-oposing. A desnipti(in or drawi%, wiV'j dimonsk--ms, shoul(l be prc)vidpd with this letter.
_._.1 have no objections to this proposal.
Ir you have obrjectfans tv what is being proposed, please write Me Division of Coastal
Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead Ci1j4 NC, 285:7 orcall [phone] writiain
10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considetwl the same as no o1jee:.tion if yoti
have beetr notified by Cartitied Mall,
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, boatlift 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.
l do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
(Applicant Information)
Ass Rwcf2
Mailing Address
orae �G�t�sii7
City/state/Zip
25.;k - (034& — 9S(i �o
Telephone Number
$ — 1" -- i ()
Date
(Riparian Property Owner Information)
Signature
��r
• b t'D T-t��,
Print or Type Name
72
Telephone Number
Date

August 6, 2010
Mr. Benjamin Potter
127 Hunterfield Ln
New Bern, NC 28560
Dear Mr. Potter:
*fCEIV'Ft'
'Zo 10
more¢*00 city Dc"
TR PRESCOTT
MARINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC
545 ALLIGATOR LOOP RD _A•fERRITT, NC 28556
252-670-0473- 252-745-7135
trprescotttnaritre'agnnaitconr Copp
We are asking for your signature on the adjacent riparian property form for the Kurds
Shoen property. We completely understand your concerns and we have fully complied
with all Cama requirements and have included a surveyed drawing of the property. We
respect your rights to defend your property lines from encroachment. We will employ a
licensed surveyor to insure proper placement of the outside poles before proceeding with
the project. We will also meet the requirements by hiding the poles along the walkway
and adjusting the width of the pier as it continues along side of the boatlift. Our
employees will be instructed to respect those riparian lines and your property lines at all
times.
We would greatly appreciate your cooperation with this project. Please call us to discuss
any concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
1-1z
—
Y
Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction

127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
7006 2150 0003 2226 7304
Mr. Brad Connell, Field Repres.
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
/vSPs\
C) AUG. 1110 0

Division of Coastal Management
A7iA.
WDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor James H. Gregson, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
FAX COVER
DATE:y,
TO: < KA► 5,-J,,oe
OFFICE:
FAX #:
TELEPHONE #:
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:
FROM:
Morehead City Office
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
www.nccoastaimanagement.net
RF: �P V® tj1� Vc°g 0
T:IFax Cover DCM

Sept. 15, 2010
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
JW
RECEIVED
SEP 2 0 2010
Morehead City I)CN[
RE: Proposed Development on Kurtis Schoen Property, 481 River Rd., Pamlico County
Dear Mr. Connell:
Sunday night, Sept. 12, 2010, Mr. Prescott called me at my home and told me that you had called him.
He said that you told him you had approved his pier construction request.
Mr. Prescott and I discussed my concerns regarding the pier as shown on his last proposed survey. I
indicated to him that you told me in a phone call that I would be notified in writing of your agency's
decision.
As of this date, I've not received any notification from your agency of a decision.
I'm requesting that you provide to me in writing:
1. the decision made by your agency;
2. my appeal rights;
3. how my concerns were addressed in regard to the pier in question; and,
4. the specific rules under which you have based your decision.
Copy to: Mr. Skip Lee, Pamlico County Building Inspector
POB 776
Bayboro, NC 28515
Terry R. Prescott
TR Prescott Marine Construction, LLC
545 Alligator Loop Rd.
Merritt, NC 28556
Since ly,
Albert A. Corb ,
1119 Chest t Dr.
Smithfi , NC 27 7
919-93 -3
�e
1� _

1119 DR
SMITHFIELD NC 27577
Mr. Brad Connell
DCM, Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
la TS -? -r " �' rEl "S V-
..........
baA

Date/Time
Fax Number
Fax Name
Model Name
No. Name/Number
840 92492672
Fax Send Report
AUG -19-2010 04:19PM THU
DCM MHDCTY
SCX-5x30 Series
StartTime Time Mode
08-19 04:18PM 00'20 ECM
Division of Coastal Management
AMA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Govemor James H. Gregson, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
FAX JCOVER
I l /
DATE: a �D
TO: Sc(tinen
OFFICE: l�7 � '`7
FAX #: �//'l.!/ /
TELEPHONE #:
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:
FROM: JB `'n
Morehead City Office
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
www.nccoastaimanaciement net
RE:
Q .t 5' - VP f46'57L �..------
Page Result
002/002 O.K

r
y.. _ .a.' /.7,!r�l Ji .7:�.•'y 1r-�. !11 a1t\.''��d!�71�. 1�
kOC-4 N
l
oe, <lUL
- to
(l-ot or Sic-eet !t, Street or rtoaa, "ity ;`t, uoi_inty) C1fybCAa
I heraby certify 'hat I own property adjacent to the above rofer,1:nced property. The, individual
applying for this permit has described to me as shown on the attached drawing the development
i:hc y are: proposing. A description or drrewincy, with dimenSiONS, should h0'pr:wid6d. With t its IF-�I.ic r.
I have no objections to this proposal.
i9' you hanvp 01100MRS tca w/teat is being PrOP0 X00, Please mirth: tine Division of Coastal
iUiMP--90". 10M, 400 Commerce A venue, Morehead Cilfjf, AfC, 285,j7 ezr €.aril (2,,;? fiod3_7808 vvitt)in
'10 day", ofresereif)t aV treis notice. NO re t.;10 se is tree same as no objection ifIfou
Dave booty notified by (certified Mail.
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, boatlift 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.)
(Applicant Information)
Mailing Address
1Je,J 6t-iW, AJL 8s� a-
City/State2ip
-.;25g-,34,9,— lqo c) 3
Telephone Number
(Riparian Property Owner Information)
Sign,Wire
Print or Type Name
1711
Telephone Number
Date
Dare
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
r-/c�
(Applicant Information)
Mailing Address
1Je,J 6t-iW, AJL 8s� a-
City/State2ip
-.;25g-,34,9,— lqo c) 3
Telephone Number
(Riparian Property Owner Information)
Sign,Wire
Print or Type Name
1711
Telephone Number
Date
Dare

July 3, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL
VP /JJ
Mr. Brad Connell, Field Repres.
Division of Coastal Management;
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
SUBJECT: Adjacent Riparian Property Permit for Kurtis Shoen
481 River Road
Arapahoe, NC 28562
Dear Mr. Connell:
Based upon the Certified Letter and drawing (the drawing dated June 26, 2010) I cannot
waiver the 15 feet setback requirement as requested on behalf of Kurtis Shoen. We have
previously let Mr. Shoen know by a letter dated May 22, 2010 we had major concerns
about their requests. We mailed a copy of this letter to you for your records. Based upon
the June 26`h drawing we have even more concerns than what was given to us in the May
13`h drawing. If anything they have presented us with greater encroachments. The
objections are as follows: Endangers our adjoining property, significantly affects the
historic, cultural, scenic and recreation values.
1. Our property has been in the family for 45 plus years. At no time have we ever
had a disagreement with any adjacent property owners on either side of us. We do
not see it being sold as we have children and grandchildren to follow us. Our
youngest grandchild is not yet three years old. Our shoreline is very user friendly
to children playing along the water edge. It has a very nice sandy bottom and no
deep drop-off. Children have enjoyed that area of our property for years for all
types of water play. The property which the Shoen now own has changed
ownership five times as we recall. None of the previous owners have presented us
with such a request. The Shoens have decided they no longer wish to speak
directly with us. It makes it impossible to extend them any consideration beyond
that determined by your agency—DCM.
2. The pier and docking facilities (boat lift) extend beyond the established pier
length along the same shoreline for similar use.
3. The pier/docking facilities and deck interfere with the access to riparian property
and does not allow for a minimum setback of 15 feet between of our adjacent
property line. Piles for the boatlift and deck are located across the 15 feet setback
property.
4. Based upon the 5 by 20 feet step down as shown it appears they plan to have a
minimum of a 2 boat mooring facilities. The docking or mooring facilities width
with boats will extend over our adjoining property line. Based upon what we have
seen they have a pontoon boat, an extremely large motor -powered boat, and Jet
Ski. We have great fear of how they plan to navigate any of these safely between

We are requesting the DCM staff review our objections, concerns, and fears and find
them very relevant as to how they will impact our property use and value.
Sincerely, ,
Benj in G. Potter
127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
Phone [phone]
Cell Phone [phone]
R`
our adjacent properties. It appears the current boat lift will not accommodatei,,
�����
anything other than the Jet Ski. They are currently beaching the Jet Ski at the 04,
shoreline as they see fit directly against or on the property line. �+`,�
5. We are concerned if they are allowed to proceed as requested they will constantly
exceed their boundaries and impose themselves upon us. Their plan is designed
for all of their water activities to take place between our properties. Boat Lift, step
down, and deck. There would constantly be opportunities for them or guests to
abuse or accidentally be on our property on a regular and on going bases.
We are requesting the DCM staff review our objections, concerns, and fears and find
them very relevant as to how they will impact our property use and value.
Sincerely, ,
Benj in G. Potter
127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
Phone [phone]
Cell Phone [phone]

127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT
OF THE RETURN ADDRESS, FOLD AT DOTTED LINE
CER T%FIEDA- -A- -----------
ILTM
it. 1 111 �-
Mr. Brad Connell, Field Repres.
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
v s P s ° a -U S POSTA6f
l0
z r--
JUL-6.10 0 5 5 4
p c o
tiTS B C� :* PQSTALIA168530
1. 111L t#ll i Illi III; ill l l i til t#Il/iif Ilii

s TM Y,
NCDEN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
September 22, 2010
Mr. Benjamin G. Potter
127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
Dear Mr. Potter:
This letter corrects a typo in the salutation as well as in the second paragraph of my September 20,
2010 letter mailed to you referencing who CAMA permit #56825 was issued. I apologize for any confusion it
may have caused.
This letter is in response to your two letters dated July 3, 2010 and August 12, 2010 to the Division
of Coastal Management regarding your objections to the proposed pier project by your neighbor, Mr. Kurtis
Schoen. The proposed project is located on the Neuse River at 481 River Road, in Arapahoe, Pamlico
County, North Carolina.
The Division has reviewed all your concerns and objections to the proposed project. After reviewing
the proposal along with your objections, the Division has determined that the proposed development is in
compliance with the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission in 15A NCAC 07H.1200. Therefore, the
Division issued CAMA General Permit #56825-C to Mr. Schoen on September 17, 2010 for the construction
of a 5' X 130' pier with a 12' X 20' platform, a 5' X 20' finger pier, and a 12' X 12' uncovered boatlift. I
have enclosed a copy of the permit for your review.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party
Hearing. The request for a hearing will be considered by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be
received within twenty (20) days after the disputed permit decision is made (see attached). Please contact me
or Brad Connell at [phone], if you have any questions, or if we can provide any additional
information.
Sincerely,
/YYt/
M. Ted Tyndall
Assistant Director
Enclosures
cc: Brad Connell - Field Representative, DCM w/o enclosures
Tracey Wheeler - USACOE, Washington w/ enclosures
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] ! FAX: [phone] Internet: wwwmcoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity , Affirmative Action Employer
One
NorthCarohna
Natlt1"l ll f

Type of Project/ Activity
A 1,17 #-t i
Pier (dock) length_D 711
Platform(s)
Finger pier(s)
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length_
avg distance offshore
max distance offshore
Basin, channel
cubic yards_
Boat ramp
Boathous Boatlii
Beach Bulldozing
Other
Shoreline Length 11
SAV: not sure Y
Sandbags: not sure Y
Moratorium: �EP Y
Photos: CY
Waiver Attached: Y
A building permit may 1:
(Scale:
Notes/ SpecialVConditions T" `V ivl'i"IV
1-7-
"O
f
-t kil
Cc
'��,geq. r Applicant Printed Name
Signature "Please read compliance statement on back of permit"
or
A—fientinn FPPkl
Permitu"icei
Issuing Date)'
Local lannin;
J
t I
(^o lk cor"N I I
luriscliction
lir Irc).
xpiration Da e
Rover File Nari-i-e
6Z
' 'XCAMA 1:1 DREDGE & FILL
�c
G1ENERAL,,tPFvR.M1T
Previous permit #
ew ElModification 0 Complete Reissue
--6
❑El 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
-Pq Rules attached.
-
Applicant Name
Project Location: County- s t r'"?
- - - - - - - - - -
Addressc
V 3c
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
City 11 A,k-' 0, r State ZIP
5
Phone* 7 -Pax #
Subdivision
d Agent
City city ZIP
7.,
nt_
Ej cwPhone
_,NPTA -�Qr:s o PTs
# River Basin
joxw
Affected 0 OEA 0 HH1H C3 UBA 0 N/A
1F El
AEC(s):
Adj. Wtr. Body '�eu�c �r1K , t k
M-at//man /unkn
0 PWS: 0 FC:Closest
­
Maj. Win Body— /f-"' Ll
VV
ORW: yes / , no PNA yes / 'no ,9 Crit.Hab.
yes
Type of Project/ Activity
A 1,17 #-t i
Pier (dock) length_D 711
Platform(s)
Finger pier(s)
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length_
avg distance offshore
max distance offshore
Basin, channel
cubic yards_
Boat ramp
Boathous Boatlii
Beach Bulldozing
Other
Shoreline Length 11
SAV: not sure Y
Sandbags: not sure Y
Moratorium: �EP Y
Photos: CY
Waiver Attached: Y
A building permit may 1:
(Scale:
Notes/ SpecialVConditions T" `V ivl'i"IV
1-7-
"O
f
-t kil
Cc
'��,geq. r Applicant Printed Name
Signature "Please read compliance statement on back of permit"
or
A—fientinn FPPkl
Permitu"icei
Issuing Date)'
Local lannin;
J
t I
(^o lk cor"N I I
luriscliction
lir Irc).
xpiration Da e
Rover File Nari-i-e

DCM FORM 5
PETITIONER'S NAME
COUNTY
FILE NUMBER
(Petitioner leave this line blank)
THIRD PARTY HEARING
REQUEST ON
CAMA PERMIT DECISION
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
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. 710300 (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) 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 of public 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.
Date
Signature of Petitioner or Attorney
Name of Petitioner or Attorney
Address
City State Zip
Telephone Number
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(b). 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.

A 4
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natura
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
September 22, 2010
Mr. Albert A. Corbett, Jr.
1119 Chestnut Dr.
Smithfield, NC 27577
Dear Mr. Corbett:
Resources
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter corrects a typo in the salutation as well as in the second paragraph of my September 20,
2010 letter mailed to you referencing who CAMA permit #56825 was issued to. I apologize for any
confusion it may have caused.
This letter is in response to your two letters dated July 16, 2010 and August 31, 2010 to the Division
of Coastal Management regarding your objections to the proposed pier project by your neighbor, Mr. Kurtis
Schoen. The proposed project is located on the Neuse River at 481 River Road, in Arapahoe, Pamlico
County, North Carolina.
The Division has reviewed all your concerns and objections to the proposed project. After reviewing
the proposal along with your objections, the Division has determined that the proposed development is in
compliance with the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission in 15A NCAC 07H.1200. Therefore, the
Division issued CAMA General Permit #56825-C to Mr. Schoen on September 17, 2010 for the construction
of a 5' X 130' pier with a 12' X 20' platform, a 5' X 20' finger pier, and a 12' X 12' uncovered boatlift. I
have enclosed a copy of the permit for your review.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party
Hearing. The request for a hearing will be considered by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be
received within twenty (20) days after the disputed permit decision is made (see attached). Please contact me
or Brad Connell at [phone], if you have any questions, or if we can provide any additional
information.
Sincerely,
M. Ted TytZl
Assistant Director
Enclosures:
cc: Brad Connell - Field Representative, DCM w/o enclosures
Tracey Wheeler - USACOE, Washington w/ enclosures
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opporlunity , Aifinrative Action Employer
One
NorthCa.ro na
Naturally

-57 -7r
T KW7--ye-s-7-, 5 -NA yes / ipq s-rix-flad. YUS /� I!, -
CAMA
QG ;Z IT'
permit #
MENOME
MMUNZ
r'' -6
New e Reissue OPartial 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
No 11■
Rules attached.
Applicant Name
Project Location: County__1 xev`� I Co
------ 777—
Address Ve
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
MEMEMEN
City P� 0 (-1 State ZIP
MEMI M
Phone* ;/-Ax #
'o
Subdivision
Authorized Agent Moq�.n ---s
'T
Ci ty--L;
ZIP
7—
IMOMMIN 0 M
0
HUENEME 0 M
M ff M mom M
Basin
f7)
El CW _1:3.IEW [N PTA 0 PTS
Affected
Phone # River
0 OEA El HHF El 1H E3 UIRA 0 N/A
❑
AEC (s):
Adj. Wtr. Bod U! 6.` f", i
Kat;Yman /unkn
0 PWS: OFC-
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
MEMME MEMEN IN
MENEM MENEMA
-57 -7r
T KW7--ye-s-7-, 5 -NA yes / ipq s-rix-flad. YUS /� I!, -
MENOME
MMUNZ
0
MEMMEME woommomommosom■EMMEMEME
No 11■
0 ONE NEON MINEEINIMMEMMIJIMMIMEM
0 OMNI ONE
OEM 0
No MEN 11'�Jl
0IIN
MEMEMEN
MENNIMIN
MEMI M
EMMEMEME M
MEN
FEW=
MMw%%wMM
ARIMEMENE 0
MEPA IMIM M
MEMEMS 111 0
IMOMMIN 0 M
0
HUENEME 0 M
M ff M mom M
ME_
OMEN■NONE■0
0: MENINEEM■MEMEM
MON::1010:■Ia
ME
RSMEI��■EE
a
gn::::■■■:■:::■■:
EN
MEMME MEMEN IN
MENEM MENEMA
M 1511MILMNIMINIP. MEMNMM
K"MMMMMM&M■MENNEN■
-410
so 0
MEMEMEMEME W
M ■E OEM■ MON
EBIMMMMMMMM■MEMEME
MEMEME N■ME■ME
OLUENEMEE1M
M ME
0 -WOM :■■■■E
0■0■OWEEN 0■E■WHEMMEAR1131■MMNM■mom
M■No■mom■M
NEI
M MEN
•
0■MENEM M
01■mommmm■M■M
M ff"NaffiUMMUN■MEMO■mom
KHEM a■ME■NONE■MENNEN=I
MEEMN
":::IINEMENE
mommimm 1W
i■■E■EME■EME■■■11HERM■E■■■EMEME■ME■■■■■1011
M a BE NEES:M
CHIMMIME NMI
EIRMEME■�
MEEN=flfwlawmmnmm
= =110MMME MMMME
ENE M
MWAINEEM
MEMOMENESEN
1010.:
.................:■■.....a.>�........■■...
IMEMEM0
On
2E0mam No's uUMMEMIMMENNEM
:::M
12 EMENE
MMER so MENNEN
0111111111011M
mom MEMEMEMMMEMEMMOME
MMMMMMMMMMM1wMMM
. 1010 1010
1010 M.
!T
C;
r Applicant Frint0d Name
PermitOfficer's Si.g ature
Si tore Please 10 10 statement on back of permit
Issuing0a. I
xpiratiortDate
Ann1irqtinnrPP(0
Lo�01 in,l.risdiction

DCM FORM 5
PETITIONER'S NAME
COUNTY
FILE NUMBER
(Petitioner leave this line blank)
THIRD PARTY HEARING
REQUEST ON
CAMA PERMIT DECISION
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
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) 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 of public resources in the area directly affected by the

I . 4
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.
Date Signature of Petitioner or Attorney
Name of Petitioner or Attorney
Address
City State Zip
Telephone Number
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(b). 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.

s.
.'
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
September 20, 2010
Mr. Albert A. Corbett, Jr.
1119 Chestnut Dr.
Smithfield, NC 27577
Dear Corbett:
Resources
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your two letters dated July 16, 2010 and August 31, 2010 to the Division
of Coastal Management regarding your objections to the proposed pier project by your neighbor, Mr. Kurtis
Schoen. The proposed project is located on the Neuse River at 481 River Road, in Arapahoe, Pamlico
County, North Carolina.
The Division has reviewed all your concerns and objections to the proposed project. After reviewing
the proposal along with your objections, the Division has determined that the proposed development is in
compliance with the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission in 15A NCAC 07H.1200. Therefore, the
Division issued CAMA General Permit #56825-C to Mr. Ritchie on September 17, 2010 for the construction
of a 5' X 130' pier with a 12' X 20' platform, a 5' X 20' finger pier, and a 12' X 12' uncovered boatlift. I
have enclosed a copy of the permit for your review.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party
Hearing. The request for a hearing will be considered by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be
received within twenty (20) days after the disputed permit decision is made. Please contact me or Brad
Connell at [phone], if you have any questions, or if we can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
Ze
M. Ted Tyndall
Assistant Director
Enclosure
cc: Brad Connell - Field Representative, DCM w/o enclosures
Tracey Wheeler - USACOE, Washington w/ enclosures
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] ! FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaiinanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity', Atrinnative Action Employer
. 011e
NorthCarolina

Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
September 20, 2010
Mr. Benjamin G. Potter
127 Hunterfield Ln.
New Bern, NC 28560
Dear Potter:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your two letters dated July 3, 2010 and August 12, 2010 to the Division of
Coastal Management regarding your objections to the proposed pier project by your neighbor, Mr. Kurtis
Schoen. The proposed project is located on the Neuse River at 481 River Road, in Arapahoe, Pamlico
County, North Carolina.
The Division has reviewed all your concerns and objections to the proposed project. After reviewing
the proposal along with your objections, the Division has determined that the proposed development is in
compliance with the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission in 15A NCAC 07H.1200. Therefore, the
Division issued CAMA General Permit #56825-C to Mr. Ritchie on September 17, 2010 for the construction
of a 5' X 130' pier with a 12' X 20' platform, a 5' X 20' finger pier, and a 12' X 12' uncovered boatlift. I
have enclosed a copy of the permit for your review.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party
Hearing. The request for a hearing will be considered by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be
received within twenty (20) days after the disputed permit decision is made. Please contact me or Brad
Connell at [phone], if you have any questions, or if we can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
M. Ted Tyn`aall
Assistant Director
Enclosure
cc: Brad Connell - Field Representative, DCM w/o enclosures
Tracey Wheeler - USACOE, Washington w/ enclosures
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] ! FAX: [phone] Internet: wwwmcoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Afrinnative Action Employer
One
NorthCarolina

Applicant: Kurtis Schoen
Date: September 17, 2010
General Permit #: 56825C
Describe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement
found in your Habitat code sheet.
TOTAL Sq. Ft.
FINAL Sq. Ft.
TOTAL Feet
FINAL Feet
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
DISTURB TYPE
Disturbance total
disturbance.
Disturbance
disturbance.
Habitat Name
Choose One
includes any
Excludes any
total includes
Excludes any
anticipated
restoration
any anticipated
restoration and/or
restoration or
and/or temp
restoration or
temp impact
temp impacts)
impact amount)
temp impacts
amount
HG
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ®
125
125
OW
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other
1,009
1,009
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑

N y�
00
00
N r €
K
cV 5
W '" °O Ni
� � t
:0 NOW OR FORMERLY .
as ALBERT A. CORBETT, Jr.
Db 346, Pg 790 3
W o
0
ON
0
0
z Erp
Disturbed f
rn
o _ .
to o I
1,900.8' TO CENTER OF q
s.I7'=Elv S88011'44"E 17.49'=EL IVER ROAD (SR 1304)
BRIDGE ON RIVER RD. PK i o 47.57'
I o o I PK
' 3 0' R/W
N
n �
in N
M
47.77'
S84°33152 W 17.5' Ripa i. Width G
PK
JI WOOD BULKHEAD
/ 8" Piles OVER LINE 2.0'
ROCKBULKHEAD
x
20'
1
12'
F: x. Vinyl
1GFTt-
a
'"•' 8"Piles
C3' �J
�I
� 20'
Note:
Riparian Property lines established Aug. 4,
2010 by Division of Coastal Management
I 8" Piles -_.—
I j
Notes: a
Reference 1a" P
Pg 695
5 ly—
17.5' Ripai. Width.
Surveyor has made no independent search or
investigation for Rights-of-way or Easements
TELT$E RIVER
of record for streets, highway, public utilities
nor for encumbrances, restrictive covenants,
ownership, title or any other facts that may be
disclosed by a full and accurate title search.
This survey is of an existing parcel and does
not create a new street or change an existing one
�Legen�d
iJ -Jet Iron Pin 0' 30' 60'
Eip - Existing Iron Pin
CL - Centerline
Scale: I " = 30'
Plot Plan for I, Mark R. Lee, certify that this plat was drawn under my
supervision from. an actual survey, deed description(s) as shown
Ku itise P Schoen & Wife hereon; that the error of closure is 1:10,000+; that the boundaries no
surveyed are shown as broken lines platted from information found
in deed books referenced hereon- witness my original signature,
Kim ery L. Schoen registration number, and seal.
481 River Road 0
Arapahoe v
Pamlico County, North Carolina
Mark Lee, Pr—oTes—si—o—nOLana Surveyor -
State NCarolina Countyof Pamlico
Professional Land Surveyor Rev:
l�Y R. Lee Date: June 26, 2010 Itate oorth ,Review officer of Craven County,
Aug. 4, 2010 certi t at the map or plat to which certification is xed meets
P.O. Box 303 all statutory requirements for recording.
Arapahoe, NC 28510 Project #:
Phone/Fax:[phone] 100501 County Review icer ate
mark.lee embar mail.com

N
yV
"
00
w00
rn
N, liti
NOW OR FORMERLY
0o
ALBERT A. CORBETT, Jr.
Db 346, Pg 790
3
W
o
o
O
�
N
o_
M
O
o
O
�
o
z
EIP
Disturbed
0
1,900.8' TO CENTER OFs.I7'=Elv
o
S88°11'44" E
b
o
17.49-ELIUVER ROAD (SR 1304)
BRIDGE ON RIVER RD.
PK b 47.57'
PK
30' R/W
"
N
n �
" N
t+)
S84o33'52',W 47.77'
ROCK 13ULP` —'—
Ex.
' 'Ex. Vnyl Jetty
i
i
0
a
of
al
i U
Notes:
Reference
DTTT6 ,,-Pg 695
S
Surveyor has made no independent search or
investigation for Rights-of-way or Easements NELTSE
of record for streets, highway, public utilities
nor for encumbrances, restrictive covenants,
ownershi , title or any other facts that may be
discloseAy a full and accurate title search.
This survey is of an existing parcel and does
not create a new street or change an existing one
Lie end
tS -Set Iron Pin
EIp - Existing Iron Pin
CL - Centerline
Kurds P. Schoen & Wife
Kimberly L. Schoen
481 River Road
Arapahoe
Pamlico County, North Carolina
1A, 20'
v
I�
8 Fila;rA
irn
20'
5'
B" Piles
i
ai IIS
i
RIVER
WOOD BULKHEAD
OVER LINE 2.0'
N
0' 30' 60'
Scale: I " = 30'
I, Mark R. Lee, certify that this plat was drawn under my
superviso
m an actual survey, deed description(s) as shown
hereon; that the error of closure is 1:10,000+; that the boundaries nc
surveyed are shown as broken lines platted from information found
in deed books referenced hereon; witness my original signature,
registration number, and seal.
Mark X Lee Date: State of North Carolina County of Pamlico
Professional Land Surveyor June 26 2010 I, , Review officer of Craven County,
certity that the ma7p—o—r-PTT to which certification is affixed meets
P.O. Box 303 Project #: all statutory requirements for recording.
Arapahoe, NC 28510
Phone/Fax: [phone] 100501 County eview icer ate
curve or amlico.net
Lee

St' -10-2010 07:22A FROM: TO:912522473330 P.1
I „
t.
TR PRESCOTT MARINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC
545 ALLIGATOR LOOP RD
MERRITT, NC 28556
252-745-7135
To: Brad Connell
Fax # [phone]
Ph 4 1-252-808-2808
From: Miriam Prescott
Ph 4 252-745-3791 Work
Cell # 252-670-1284
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Miriam Prescott

: -10-2010 07:22A FROM:
t c-
TO:912522473330 P.2
`.�.i►�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor James H. Gregson, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
Date I
Name of Property Owner Applying for Permit:
Mailing Address:
qct P„vt,r P- -
I certify that 1 have authorized (agent) '1PV-oc otk lmwi Ne.- Ch§k to act on my
behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMA Permits necessary to
install or construct (activity) Com' U. " ,
at (my property located at) e2g�.�pU� Sl
This certification is valid thru (date)
Property Owner Signature
AT E 0
I/ <�/ 0
Date
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

TR PRESCOTT MARINE CONSTRUCTION LLC
545 ALLIGATOR LOOP RD 252-745-7135
MERRITT, NC 28556
Pay to the/���
Order of A/ �.J ew
04-08 592
66-30/531
Date 471
s� c -'TI
%dd
First Citizens -�
Bank
fir tcitizens.com
For
nm
1:0531003001:00471201946LuP0592

L
pow -
Ke htern propetty
Image U.S. Geological Survey
3760 tt 'D 2010 Google C_2009GOOCSI`
p
Image m 2010 DigltalGlobe
I I 1 I 020 10 Europa Technologies
Dates Jan 14. 2007 - Feb 29, 2008 34°58'24.16' N 76°46'55.77' W slev 0 I Eye all 130091t

Image U S Geological Swvey Goo4Sle
2010 Google G2009
95011 Image 6 2010 DlpltalGlobe
naoely Dates Jan 14. 2007 - Feb 29. 2008 34'58'29.86' N 76-46-51.11-W elev _ 0 I _ Eye all 3288 ft

e
n�} � ,� �.r� '. - �, � , t �,i � � : ice. , •, ��. +'
�ChOen properly
1.
Image U.S Geolcgical Survey
950 tt D2010 Google x_2008 VOOx(�
IC
Image ® 2010 DigitalGlobe LJ
I I I
Dates Jan 14. 2007 - Feb 29, 2008 34°58'29.86' N 76"46'51.11" W elev 0 It Eye all 3288 It

__Tlr�
100 it
I
Imagery Date Feb 29, 2008
.SSchoen property f �,
r �
I
!mage U S Geological Swvey .-,,,Google
D 2010 Google
34"58'30 07"N i6"46'46.83" W elev 0 It Eye alt 34511

rallo
A

PROHIBITED TERRITORY
NEUSE RIVER AREA COUNTIES:
Area F-1 (Map 21) (Prohibited areas are hatched) PAMLICO, CRAVEN
Inset Map #1
I Dawson
Creek
c )' r I�I
Dawson
■.MJ
t r l - ` .• Daniels
Point `
F-5
19
Inset Map #1 ••
!A a
y Wilkinson Great
Point
` Neck
Neuse River Point
F-9 R! V E R -- F 1
Long Creek
,. 34
'Inset Map #Z
.v
I" Clubfoot Creek`
PLocatorMap t� Z_.. n'
Gatlin Creek \ —y
Designated A-1 Identifier
+' Shellfish
rr t_ Harvesting Boundary .
NAD83 �a i Areas • •
NC State Plane
Prohibited Boundary
0 o.s , W Areas Area
Miles
Map 21 (SEE BACK OF MAP FOR
AREA DESCRIPTIONS.)
N
cc
►J7

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF PAMLICO CMT -2010-11
IN THE MATTER OF THE THIRD PARTY RECOMMENDATION OF THE
HEARING REQUEST BY DIVISION OF COASTAL
BENJAMIN G. POTTER MANAGEMENT
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Benjamin G. Potter (Petitioner) requests permission to file a petition for a
contested case hearing as a third party pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1 (b). Petitioner seeks
to challenge the September 17, 2010 issuance of Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
General Permit #56825C to Kurtis Schoen (Permittee), for the replacement and expansion of an
existing docking facility at the Permittee's property, adjacent to the Neuse River, near Arapahoe
in Pamlico County, North Carolina.
Under the CAMA, a third party may file a contested case hearing petition to challenge the
granting or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only if the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is appropriate. Section 113A-121.1 (b) of
the North Carolina General Statutes provides that along with being timely filed, the
determination as to whether a hearing is appropriate should be based upon a consideration of
whether the petitioner:
1. Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;
2. Is directly affected by the decision; and
Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the hearing
request is not frivolous.
Page 1 of 12

The CRC has delegated the authority to its Chairman to determine whether a third party
request for a hearing should be granted or denied. Rule 15A NCAC U .0301 (b). A third party
whose hearing request is granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings. N.C.G. S. § 113A-121.1 (b). A third party whose hearing request is
denied may seek judicial review. Id.
II. FACTS
y A. The Permittee is Kurtis Schoen (Permittee). The Permittee owns property located
r at 481 River Road in Arapahoe, Pamlico Count North Carolina. This property is bisected b
� p � Y� A p Y Y
River Road, and the waterward portion of the property is adjacent to the Neuse River, and has
47.77 feet of river frontage based on the Permittee's survey. The property had still has? an
�g Y p p Y ( )
existing pier with a boat -lift at the end, (vinyl jetty? Bulkhead?deck?- what else existing on site?)
The Permittee has owned this property sij!! �e , b d on county records.
B. The Petitioner is Benjamin G. Potter (Petitioner). Petitioner owns property at 512
7
River Road, also in Arapahoe and adjacent to the Neuse River and to the Permittee's property. 1440.4
The Petitioner
e of Kinston -WHY.
C to figure out -title is in the name of Jud Olsen Jones ( � Y
has owned this property since 2000, based on county tax records.
C. Petitioner's hearing request, attached, was received by DCM on October 6, 2010,
and seeks to challenge the issuance of CAMA General Permit #56825C issued to the Permittee
on September 17, 2010.
D. Both Petitioner's property and the Permittee's property are riparian properties
�
adjacent to the Neuse River. The Neuse River is classified as w ters by the
Environmental Management Commission, and is to shellfishing at this location.
Page 2 of 12

Y17-71141 Q.111
71b1/v
E. The waters of the Neuse River are public trust waters, and so the permitted pier is
within the Public Trust Areas and Estuarine Waters Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs),
and requira CAMA permit per N.C.G.S. § 113A-118.
F. An aerial photograph from the Pamlico County GIS overlain with property lines is
attached. The County's website indicates these are images.
G. In the spring of 2010, the Permittee, through his contractor TR Prescott Marine
Construction, LLC, contacted DCM staff about obtaining a permit to replace and expand their
ab existing dock �,
and b a - ' ��a,`,,s li
� W �Y2�' �
� sF � .
l)" J H.
iib
7' �,� ��_a -the �7,�rrriTlrermit issue- ending--t'h�-
W�
adjacent Riparian Property Owner Statement�to the two adjacent riparian owner, Mr. Corbett
of ,�occ (the Petitioner in the companion 3rd Party request pending) and Mr. Potter �r Petitioner in this
��V
sua P s k no d
case. Both riparian ownersZSJuwd to waive the 15 -foot riparian setback and had several
objections to the 0Wfbrentw4Ljiou&DLee project.
I. �P/ ,Mr. Corbett sent leifers;zl�ed - , August 31, 2010, and September ,
010, to DCM staff objecting to the proposed pier replacement and expansion. Copies of these
letters are attached.
Petitioner sent letters, dated July 3, 2010 and August 12, 2010, to DCM staff
to the proposed pier replacement and expansion. Copies of these letters are attached.
K. The final, permitted design of the pier replacement and expansion included the
' n/U, v
dem of a 5' by 130' pier�a 12' y 20' platform, a 5' by 20' finger pier, and a 12' by 12'
boatlift. A copy of the Permit is attached showing the locations of these different e ements of tlig,
ofq4 70VOMW J�k(
pier structure. Also, a copy of the survey showing the final design^is attached. The p imary
Page 3 of 12
A�,, , J 41--"-- 5
�N'

uS�� QJ N`Q'QrX W etS aoyss ` -'r - I (ti 1 C
changes betwrenlhe initialq propoCsal to the final permitted include a 130' pier instead of (Zv
the initial 150' pier, a 12' by 12' boat lift instead of the initially proposed 30' by boathouse,
and the waterward relocation of the platform from the landward end of the pier to about one-
quarter down the pier. 56S2-!� G
}issued CAMA General Permit�1�� on September 17, 2010 to the
Permi esthe stated ob' loner r.UoriYett.
400e L. On September 22, 2010, DCM Assistant Director Ted Tyndall sent letters to both
Mr. Corbett and Mr. Potter (Petitioner) explaining that the permit to Mr. Schoen had been issued,
and notifying them of their appeal rights. Copies of these letters are attached.
M. The Permittee's site plan shown on the Lee Survey shows that the proposed pier
is setbacks-AJaW 15' from the riparian lines which delineate the Permittee's riparian corridor. As
such, no riparian setback waiver from Petitioner was needed.
III. DCM'S RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Has the Petitioner Alleged that the Decision is Contrary to a Statute or Rule?
Yes. In order to prevail in a third party hearing request, a petitioner must first allege
that the agency has made a decision that is contrary to a statute or rule. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -
121.1(b) (1). Petitioner, in his written response to the first factor, alleges that the permit
decision was contrary to the following rules:
1. 15A NCAC 7H.1202- Cannot determine from the GP the locations of the lines,
pier, platform, or finger pier dimensions. Petitioner notes the survey has changed
several times since the 8-4-2010 survey. Petitioner questions the special
conditions on the GP form.
2. 15A NCAC 7H.1204 (d)- proposed activities will endanger adjoining property
and eliminate or affect recreational value (as all activities will occur adjacent to
Potter side)
3. 15A NCAC 7H.1205 (p)- the pier head length in comparison to adjacent property
owners
Page 4 of 12

4. 15A NCAC 7H. 1205(q) — Shall not interfere with access to adjacent riparian
property
Based on these allegations, Staff agrees that the Petitioner has "alleged that the agency
has made a decision that is contrary to a statute or rule" (emphasis added). As such, Staff
believes these cited concerns meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) (1).
B. Is the Petitioner Directly Affected by the Decision?
C�
Yo. Staff does not agree that Petitioner meets the requirement of N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A -121.1(b)(2) as Petitioners' submission states that he "must defend [his] property from
encroachment. We are dealing with a situation where fractions o n inch are important" and
requests "that no construction begin until a surveyor can com to boundary lines on
[Peititoner's) property." Petitioner's statement on this factor is simply that he is concerned that
the Permitted design won't be built to the permitted dimentions, and wishes that the Permittee
7�
G� hire a surveyor to ensure Petitioner's property is not encroached upon by the as -built pier.
bu� Petitioner makes no allegations detailing how the replacement pier will adversely affect his use
r�
and enjoyment of his own property if it is built as permitted without any encroachment.
Therefore, Petitioner has not met the burden of demonstrating that the permit decision directly
affects him. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) (2).
C. Has the Petitioner Demonstrated that the Hearing Request is not Frivolous?
No. As noted in Item A above, Petitioner lists four arguments about why the permit was
improperly issued. However, Staff contends that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the
hearing request is not frivolous as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § I I3A-121.1 (b)(3). Each of
Petitioner's arguments will be addressed separately below.
Page 5 of 12

4�r
1. 15A NCAC 7H.1202- Petitioner cannot determine from the GP the locatio s of the
lines, pier, platform, or finger pier dimensions. Petitioner notes the surve has
changed several times since the 8-4-2010 survey. Petitioner questions the special
conditions on the GP form.
Petitioner's first argument is that there are not setback lines or riparian lines shown on the
permit, and that should have been present. Additionally, the Petitioner claims that the
dimensions for the pier, platform and finger pier are not on the permit. Finally, the Petitioner
questions the special conditions on the GP form, being that the Permittee is encouraged to have a 01-11 1
surveyor define the bounds of the project. �5 �, S, -e- let �, SU
First, while there are no 15' riparian setback lines shown on the face of the permit, the permit
clearly states that
of 15A NCAC 07H.1200 apply" to this permit, rules which are
noted twice on the face of the permit. These rules include the provisions of 7H. 1205(q) which
requires that a Permittee abide by the 15' riparian setbacks when they are not waived by the
adjacent owners, as they were not in this case. Not showing the lines on the permit sketch does
not negate the requirements of 7H.1200. Additionally, the permit references the 8-4-10 Mark R.
Lee survey as showing the approved riparian corridor (which is bounded by the simple extension
of the property lines in this case where there is a wide, straight waterbody). Having the location
of the riparian corridor lines determined results in the ability of all parties to easily locate the 15'
riparian setback lines. Petitioner's next claim is factually inaccurate, where he claims that the
dimensions for the pier, platform and finger pier are not on the permit. The dimensions of these
components are located along the far right portion of the face of the permit.
es the Permittee to hire
requiring a survevor ��taff notes that there is no such requirement provided by the rules,
and is a decision left up to the Permittee. While it would certainly be helpful, the Permittee may
Page 6 of 12

> be able to still construct a pier within the permitted dimensions and within the approved riparian
corridor without the use of a surveyor. This may be especially the case here, where the riparian
lines are simple extensions of the property lines. However, to have a hearing over the failure of
requiring a survey where such a condition is not required by the rules, would be frivolous. (TED -
DO EVER REQUIRE SURVEYS FOR GPs? Or would we just kick it to a Major if we
OWE E QU S V S � �
truly had concerns?)
2. 15A NCAC 711.1204 (d)- The proposed activities will endanger adjoining property
and eliminate or affect recreational value (as all activities will occur adjacent to
Potter side)
Petitioner's second argument is that the proposed activities will endanger Petitioner's
adjoining property and eliminate or affect its recreational value contrary to 7H. 1204(d).
Petitioner notes that all the activities will occur on his side, as the platform, Iift and finger pier
are all facing his riparian area. However, the provision cited by Petitioner requires a GP not be
issued for "proposed construction where the Department determines that the proposed activity
will endanger adjoining properties. .."(emphasis added) In this case, DCM determined, as the
delegate for the Department, that the adjoining properties would not be endangered. This
determination was based primarily because the proposed pier structure meets the 15' riparian
setbacks required by the Commission's rules, and otherwise meets the size and location limits
outlined within the GP rules at 7H.1200. In making its rules, the Commission determined that a
15' riparian setback (or a total of 30' between piers) i ficient to allow for safe navigation and
�,y a t l 1p%, kK .
use of riparian corridors, Also, the size and 1 ation limits out ' es in the GP rules were
reviewed by many resource agencies in t e development of the GP rules, i^gzhe-A
Co , and were agreed to as standards for permitting piers without worry for
significant impacts. As DCM determined that the permitted development would not endanger
Page 7 of 12

adjoining properties, and the permitted development meets the standards set out in the GP's
7H.1200 rules, having a hearing on this issue would be frivolous.
3. 15A NCAC 711.1205 (p)- the pier head length in comparison to adjacent property
owners. h"/
Petitioner's fourth argument is that the permitted pier extends past Petitioner's i r.
Corbett's pier. Staff notes that the relevant language of 7H. 1205('b) is "Piers and docking
facilities shall not extend beyond the established pier length along the same shoreline for similar
use." (emphasis added) This rule does not require DCM to permit piers at the same length or a
shorter length than the two immediately adjacent piers, but instead, looks along a particular
shoreline to determine the established pier length. Aerial photographs show that-
�J O
to point to from Ted/Brad). As the permitted pier does not extend past the established pier
length along the same shoreline for similar use, having a hearing on this issue would be
frivolous.
4. 15A NCAC 7H.1205(q) — Shall not interfere with access to adjacent riparian
property. � � ; r-- °J 0
Petitioner's final argument is that peraa!
rfere with ac ess to Petitioner's
i
adjacent riparian property. However, thedesigned x t" wide
riparian corridor the 15' riparian setbacks are met. This
GQ'���, still room for the permitted 5' wide pier and, ' n, a 12' wide
a lZ' Al-06�- .lGr/-
platform attached to the pier totaling 17' wide. Additionally, as noted in Issue 2 above, the
permitted pier meets the other size and location limitations prescribed by th5,ofrules at
a�7�
711.1200. In ��s rules, the Commission determined that a 15' ripa
rian setback (or a total
of 30' between ) is sufficient to allow for safe navigation and.use ocorridors.
c`�upS Page 8 of 12
�I

Also, the size and location limits outlin �in the GP rules were reviewed by many resource
7
agencies in the development of the GP rules,Ing a rs, and were
agreed to as standards for permitting piers without worry for significant impacts. Based on these
measurements and the referenced survey, the Permittee has sufficient riparian area for the
permitted development, and otherwise meets the GP rules limiting size and location. As such, to
have a hearing on Petitioner's concerns would be frivolous.
For all these reasons, Staff contends that Petitioners have not met the burden of showing
that the hearing request is not frivolous as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b) (3).
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Staff maintains that Petitioner has not met the criteria justifying a
contested case hearing. For the reasons stated herein, the Division of Coastal Management,
through its undersigned attorney, recommends that Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request be
DENIED by the Chairman.
This the day of October, 2010.
FOR THE DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)
c og ebelna,ncdoj. ov
Page 9 of 12

INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Copy of Petitioners' Petition with color photographs
ATTACHMENT B: Other referenced Attachments
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Recommendation of the
Division of Coastal Management on the Petitioner by causing a copy thereof to be placed in the
United States Postal Service bearing sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and
addressed as follows:
Benjamin G. Potter
127 Hunterfield Lane
New Bern, NC 28560
and to the Permittee:
Kurtis Schoen
132 Walden Road
New Bern, NC 28562
And to the Permittee's Marine Contractor:
TR Prescott Marine Construction, LLC
545 Alligator Loop Road
Merritt, NC 28556
This the day of October, 2010.
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
Page 10 of 12

ATTACHMENT A
Petitioner's Petition with attachments
Page 11 of 12

ATTACHMENT B
Other referenced Attachments, including:
-CAMA General Permit #55230C
-2009 GIS picture with parcel lines
-Petitioner's 2/10/10 objection letter from his counsel
-6/14/10 Letter from DCM to Association
-6/14/10 Letter from DCM to Petitioner
Page 12 of 12

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF PAMLICO CMT -2010-10
IN THE MATTER OF THE THIRD PARTY RECOMMENDATION OF THE
HEARING REQUEST BY DIVISION OF COASTAL
ALBERT A. CORBETT, JR. MANAGEMENT
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Albert A. Corbett, Jr. (Petitioner) requests permission to file a petition for a
contested case hearing as a third party pursuant to N.C.G.S. § I I3A-121.1 (b). Petitioner seeks
to challenge the September 17, 2010 issuance of Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
General Permit #56825C to Kurtis Schoen (Permittee), for the replacement and expansion of an
existing docking facility at the Permittee's property, adjacent to the Neuse River, near Arapahoe
in Pamlico County, North Carolina.
Under the CAMA, a third party may file a contested case hearing petition to challenge the
granting or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only if the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is appropriate. Section I I3A-121.1 (b) of
the North Carolina General Statutes provides that along with being timely filed, the
determination as to whether a hearing is appropriate should be based upon a consideration of
whether the petitioner:
Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;
2. Is directly affected by the decision; and
3. Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the hearing
request is not frivolous.
Page 1 of 14

The CRC has delegated the authority to its Chairman to determine whether a third party
request for a hearing should be granted or denied. Rule 15A NCAC 7J .0301 (b). A third party
whose hearing request is granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings. N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1 (b). A third party whose hearing request is
denied may seek judicial review. Id.
II. FACTS
A. The Perinittee is Kurtis Schoen (Permittee). The Permittee owns property located
at 481 River Road in Arapahoe, Pamlico County, North Carolina. This property is bisected by
River Road, and the waterward portion of the property is adjacent to the Neuse River, and has
47.77 feet of river frontage based on the Permittee's survey. The property had(still has?) an
existing pier with a boat -lift at the end, (vinyl jetty? Bulkhead?deck?- what else existing on site?)
The Permittee has owned this property since , based on county records.
B. The Petitioner is Albert A. Corbett, Jr. (Petitioner). Petitioner owns property at
463 River Road, also in Arapahoe and adjacent to the Neuse River and to the Permittee's
property. The Petitioner has owned this property since 1999, based on county tax records.
C. Petitioner's hearing request, attached, was received by DCM on October 4, 2010,
and seeks to challenge the issuance of CAMA General Permit #56825C issued to the Permittee
on September 17, 2010.
D. Both Petitioner's property and the Permittee's property are riparian properties
adjacent to the Neuse River. The Neuse River is classified as waters by the
Environmental Management Commission, and is to shellfishing at this location.
Palge 2 of 14

E. The waters of the Neuse River are public trust waters, and so the permitted pier is
within the Public Trust Areas and Estuarine Waters Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs),
and require a CAMA permit per N.C.G.S. § 113A-118.
F. An aerial photograph from the Pamlico County GIS overlain with property lines is
attached. The County's website indicates these are images.
G. In the spring of 2010, the Permittee, through his contractor TR Prescott Marine
Construction, LLC, contacted DCM staff about obtaining a permit to replace and expand their
existing dock and boat -lift.
H. As there were several redesigns of the proposed pier between the spring of 2010,
and the September 17, 2010 permit issue date, there were at least two rounds of sending the
Adjacent Riparian Property Owner Statements to the two adjacent riparian owners, Mr. Corbett
(our Petitioner in this case) and Mr. Potter (the Petitioner in the companion 3rd Party request
pending). Both riparian owners refused to waive the 15 -foot riparian setback and had several
objections to the different versions of the project.
I. Petitioner sent letters, dated July 16, 2010, August 31, 2010, and September 15,
2010, to DCM staff objecting to the proposed pier replacement and expansion. Copies of these
letters are attached.
J. Mr. Potter sent letters, dated July 3, 2010 and August 12, 2010, to DCM staff
objecting to the proposed pier replacement and expansion. Copies of these letters are attached.
K. The final, permitted design of the pier replacement and expansion included the
development of a 5' by 130' pier, a 12' by 20' platform, a 5' by 20' finger pier, and a 12' by 12'
boatlift. A copy of the Permit is attached showing the locations of these different elements of the
pier structure. Also, a copy of the survey showing the final design is attached. The primary
Page 3 of 14

changes between the initial proposal to the final permitted design include a 130' pier instead of
the initial 150' pier, a 12' by 12' boat lift instead of the initially proposed 30' by 30' boathouse,
and the waterward relocation of the platform from the landward end of the pier to about one-
quarter down the pier.
L. DCM issued CAMA General Permit #55230C on September 17, 2010 to the
Permittee, after considering the stated objections of Petitioner and Mr. Potter.
M. On September 22, 2010, DCM Assistant Director Ted Tyndall sent letters to both
Mr. Corbett (Petitioner) and Mr. Potter explaining that the permit to Mr. Schoen had been issued,
and notifying them of their appeal rights. Copies of these letters are attached.
N. The Permittee's site plan shown on the Lee Survey shows that the proposed pier
is setback at least 15' from the riparian lines which delineate the Permittee's riparian corridor. As
such, no riparian setback waiver from Petitioner was needed.
III. DCM'S RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Has the Petitioner Alleged that the Decision is Contrary to a Statute or Rule?
Yes. In order to prevail in a third party hearing request, a petitioner must first allege
that the agency has made a decision that is contrary to a statute or rule. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -
121.1(b) (1). Petitioner, in his written response to the first factor, alleges that the permit
decision was contrary to the following rules:
1. 15A NCAC 7H.1205 (b)
2. 15A NCAC 7H.1205 (e)
3. 15A NCAC 7H.1205 (1)
4. 15A NCAC 7H.1205 (p)
5. 15A NCAC 7H. 1205(q)
Petitioner does not describe which provisions of these lengthy rules are at issue. However, in
Petitioner's response to the third factor, Petitioner makes the following arguments:
Page 4 of 14

1. The permit shows no setback line
2. The permit references the 7H.1200 rules, but does not attach a copy to the permit
3. The permit does not show that the 15' setback is met
4. The pier extends past the two immediately adjacent piers
5. The permit does not calculate total square footage
6. There is no guarantee the pier will be built as permitted
7. There is a recommendation, but no requirement, that the Permittee hire a surveyor to
mark boundaries
8. The permit references the 8/4/10 Mark Lee survey, which Petitioner has objected to
as it does not show the 15' riparian setback lines
9. Petitioner is concerned that the property has 47.77 linear feet of shoreline, which
leaves little room once the 15' riparian setbacks are counted out
Based on these specific allegations, Staff agrees that the Petitioner has "alleged that the
agency has made a decision that is contrary to a statute or rule" (emphasis added). As such,
Staff believes these cited concerns meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) (1).
B. Is the Petitioner Directly Affected by the Decision?
Staff does not agree that Petitioner meets the requirement of N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A -121.1(b)(2) as Petitioner simply owns adjacent riparian property to the project site.
Petitioner's statement on this factor is simply that he has owned the adjacent property for over 10
years, and "feels that the proposed pier is likely to have an adverse affect on the value and
enjoyment of Petitioner's property." Petitioner makes no allegations detailing how the
replacement pier, which is just (how long?) longer than the existing pier (and what other
differences) will adversely affect his use and enjoyment of his own property. Therefore,
Petitioner has not met the burden of demonstrating that the permit decision directly affects him.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) (2).
Page 5 of 14

C. Has the Petitioner Demonstrated that the Hearing Request is not Frivolous?
No. As noted in Item A above, Petitioner lists nine arguments about why the permit was
improperly issued. However, Staff contends that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the
hearing request is not frivolous as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b)(3). Each of
Petitioner's nine arguments will be addressed separately below.
1. The permit shows no setback line
Petitioner's first argument is that there is not setback line shown on the permit, and that should
have been present. While there is no 15' riparian setback line shown on the face of the permit,
the permit clearly states that "All conditions of 15A NCAC 07H.1200 apply" to this permit, rules
which are noted twice on the face of the permit. These rules include the provisions of
7H. 1205(q) which requires that a Permittee abide by the 15' riparian setbacks when they are not
waived by the adjacent owners, as they were not in this case. Not showi he 1' s on the
permit sketch does not negate the requirements of 7H 00. Ad itionally, the permit references
the 8-4-10 Mark R. Lee survey as showing th approved riparian corridor (which is bounded by
the simple extension of the property lines in this case where there is a wide, straight waterbody).
Having the location of the riparian corridor lines determined results in the ability of all parties to
easily locate the 15' riparian setback lines. As there is no requirement these lines be shown on
the fact of the Permit, to have a contested case on this issue would be frivolous.
2. The permit references the 7H.1200 rules, but does not attach a copy to the permit
Petitioner's second argument is that the upper -right corner of the permit notes that the permit is
issued pursuant to 7H.1200 (The GP for piers and docks), and while the box was marked that
these rules are attached, the copy of the permit sent to the Petitioner did not include a copy of
these rules. The purpose of this section on the permit is to provide the Permittee a copy of the
Page 6 of 14

Tj� �-VY4
rules w 'ch his proposed development is subject to. However, failure to attach-a-opy of the
rule does not relieve the Permittee ollowing the 7 -2-00 les, and-' simpl
accommodatio the Permittee. As the 7H.1200 rules still clearly apply to the permit at issue,
having a contested case on this issue would be frivolous.
3. The permit does not show that the 15' setback is met
5�
OU
Petitioner's next argument is that the permit, on its face, does not show that the 15' riparian
setback is met. As discussed in 1 & 2 above, the 15' riparian setback applies to the permitted
development in this case, and the Mark R. Lee survey is referenced by the permit as showing the
�( Iocation of the riparian corridor on this site. The site has 47.77 feet of linear shoreline according
A
to that survey, and so when the 15' riparian setbacks are applied, the Permittee has a 1 linear
foot buildable corridor for his pier and associated permitted development. As the pier has not yet
been constructed, it is impossible to show that the 15' riparian setback has been met, but the
permit, the applicable rules, and the survey show that it is possible that the 15' riparian setbacks
can be met. Since it is possible to place the permitted development on site while still meeting the
' riparian setbacks, it would be frivolous to have a contested case hearing on this issue.
15 ipana s tb g �
4. The pier extends past the two immediately adjacent piers
Petitioner's fourth argument is that the permitted pier xte a4etitio er's pier and Mr.
Potter's pier. Staff notes that the relevant languag7H.1205(b) is "Piers and docking facilities
shall not extend beyond the established pier length long the same shoreline for similar use."
(emphasis added) This rule does not require DCM to permit piers at the same length or a shorter
length than the two immediately adjacent piers, but instead, looks along a particular shoreline to J
W"
determine the established pier length. Aerial photographs show that some piers along this
shoreline are longer than those of Mr. Corbett and Mr. Potter. (Get some specific ones to point
Page 7 of 14

to from Ted/Brad). As the permitted pier does not extend past the established pier length along
the same shoreline for similar use, having a hearing on this issue would be frivolous.
5. The permit does not calculate total square footage
Petitioner's fifth argument is that the permit does not calculate the total square footage
(presumable of the pier structure). Petitioner appears to be referring to the requirement of
7H.1205(3) which requires that the total square footage of the docks (excluding the pier and L �p
uncovered open -water slips) be no more than 8 square feet per linear foot of shoreline, with a C�
maximum total of 800 square feet. While there is no total square foot figure on the face of the „ Ael
L
permit, the information needed for this calculation is indeed on the face of the permit allowing
SiS
people to "do the math", and includes:
Platform 12' by 20' = 240 sq ft
Finger Pier 12' by 5' = 60 sq ft
Total shaded area = 300 sq ft
Shoreline length = 47.77 feet
x 8 sq ft per foot
Total Allowed = 382.16 sq ft
As the permitted shaded area of 300 square feet is less than the 382.16 square feet allowed by
rule, it would be frivolous to have a contested case on this issue.
6. There is no guarantee the pier will be built as permitted
Petitioner's next argument is that there is no guarantee the pier will be built as permitted.
However, this is an issue for a future enforcement action by DCM staff if, as Petitioner worries,
the pier is not built as permitted. To have a hearing on something that has not happened yet
would be speculative, and quite possibly not even necessary, and so would be frivolous at this
time.
Page 8 of 14

7. There is a recommendation, but no requirement, that the Permittee hire a surveyor
to mark boundaries
Petitioner's seventh issue is that the permit does not require, but does encourage, the Permittee to
hire a surveyor to mark boundaries before pier construction. Staff notes that there is no such
requirement provided by the rules, and is a decision left up to the Permittee. While it would
certainly be helpful, the Permittee may be able to still construct a pier within the permitted
tveyor.
�; r�
dimensions and within the approved riparian corridor without the use ofs This may be
especially the case here, where the riparian lines are simple extensions of the property lines.
However, to have a hearing over the failure of requiring a survey where such a condition is not
required by the rules would be frivolous. (TED- DO WE EVER REQUIRE SURVEYS FOR
GPs? Or would we just kick it to a Major if we truly had concerns?)
8. The permit references the 8/4/10 Mark Lee survey, which Petitioner has objected to
as it does not show the 15' riparian setback lines
Petitioner's eighth issue is that he objects to the 8/4/10 Mark Lee survey that is referenced by the
permit as showing the location of the riparian corridor, because it does not shoNy the 15' riparian
v
setback lines on it. However, Staff notes that this survey does indeed show e 15' riparian
setback lines. The setback from the Potter property (to the east of the site) shows a dashed line
labeled "15' setback", that is to the west of the dashed line extending the property line into the
water and marked "Riparian Line." The setback from Petitioner's property (to the west of the
site) shows a dashed line labeled "15' setback" which is overlain by the west -edge of the
proposed dock, but then extends waterward of the dock toward the bottom of the survey. This
line is to the east of the dashed line extending the property line into the water and marked
"Riparian Line." As Petitioner's argument is factually wrong, it would be frivolous to have a
hearing on this issue.
Page 9 of 14

9. Petitioner is concerned that the property has 47.77 linear feet of shoreline, which
leaves little room once the 15' riparian setbacks are counted out
Petitioner's final argument is that property with just 47.77 linear feet of shoreline is too small for
a pier, once the 15' riparian setbacks are accounted for. However, as noted in Issue 3 above, the
Permittee still has a riparian corridor 17.77 feet wide, which is enough for the permitted 5' wide
pier and, in the widest portion, a 12' wide platform attached to the pier, totaling 17' wide.
Additionally, as noted in Issues 4 & 5 above, the permitted pier is less than the total allowed
shaded area based on the shoreline length, and does not exceed the established pier length along
this shoreline for private pier use. Based on these measurements and the referenced survey, the
Permittee has sufficient riparian area for the permitted development. As such, to have a hearing
on Petitioner's concerns
For all these reasons, Staff contends that Petitioners have not met the burden of showing
that the hearing request is not frivolous as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b) (3).
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Staff maintains that Petitioner has not met the criteria justifying a
contested case hearing. For the reasons stated herein, the Division of Coastal Management,
through its undersigned attorney, recommends that Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request be
DENIED by the Chairman.
This the day of October, 2010.
Page 10 of 14

FOR THE DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)
[e-mail]
INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Copy of Petitioners' Petition with color photographs
ATTACHMENT B: Other referenced Attachments
Page 11 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Recommendation of the
Division of Coastal Management on the Petitioner by causing a copy thereof to be placed in the
United States Postal Service bearing sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and
addressed as follows:
Albert A. Corbett, Jr.
1119 Chestnut Drive
Smithfield, NC 27577
and to the Permittee:
Kurtis Schoen
132 Walden Road
New Bern, NC 28562
And to the Permittee's Marine Contractor:
TR Prescott Marine Construction, LLC
545 Alligator Loop Road
Merritt, NC 28556
This the day of September, 2010.
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
Page 12 of 14

ATTACHMENT A
Petitioner's Petition with attachments
Page 13 of 14

ATTACHMENT B
Other referenced Attachments, including:
-CAMA General Permit #55230C
-2009 GIS picture with parcel lines
-Petitioner's 2/10/10 objection letter from his counsel
-6/14/10 Letter from DCM to Association
-6/14/10 Letter from DCM to Petitioner
Page 14 of 14