23598_PINE KNOLL SHORES III_19991020

FLA 1)
CAMA and DREDGE AND FILL
G E N E R A L�P
E R M
I T
e
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 15 NCAC
!��// •/ k�&
�. 2,tC-
Applicant Name irrrf` .4�.t%/r� ���r�' = > Phone Number :P Y Z— 02.
Address'�'•57.
City State
Zip n
Project Location (County, State Road, Water Body, etc.)
Type of Project Activity f-14 d . �-a
/SAC`: 0 N
.tea -,P A 6/1j'4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SKETCH
Pier (dock) Length
£
(SCALE:
i
T
C
Groin Length
number
Bulkhead Length
max, distance offshore
/4171.
� {
�JJ
Basin, channel dimensions
{
{-
i
cubic yards
u
...
`
r
F,
'
r -
G
.........£
r
..............
.,�
Boat ramp dimensions
,'_
OtherTV-
=r
t
€
at
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site drawing
and attached general and specific conditions. Any violation of these terms
may subject the permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; and
may cause the permit to become null and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit of-
ficer when the project is inspected for compliance. The applicant certi-
fies by signing this permit that 1) this project is consistent with the local
land use plan and all local ordinances, and 2) a written statement has
been obtained from adjacent riparian landowners certifying that they
have no objections to the proposed work.
applicant's signature
permit officer's signature
issuing date expiration date
attachments
In issuing this permitthe State of North Carolina certifies thatthis project ,� of C
is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. application fee

To Whom It May Concern:
I Id/ //� /"/ //- // give percussion to — -7-7-*'4 /51k to
act as agent in my behalf in obtaining a CAMA General Permit to place sandbags as
a to porary erosion control�cture in front of my property_located
in the town of
I have read the specific conditions in 15A NCAC 7H.1700 and understand that by
receiving such a permit, I will be responsible for the removal of remnants of all or
portions of any damaged sandbags, and that the sandbags may remain in place for
up to two ve —years after the date of permit approval. Once the temporary erosion
control structure (sandbags) is determined to be unnecessary due to the relocation or
removal of the house, the bags must be removed within 30 days.
I also understand that the removal of the sandbags shall not be required if they are
covered by dunes with vegetation sufficient to be considered stable and natural two
years from permit approval date.
Authorized Signature - Date

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
TA7r
s
aawvd'
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
June 21, 1999
Mr. William H. McClain `,
115 Pine Knoll Shores JvAoil
Pine Knoll Shores, N.C. 28512
Re:CAMA Variance Petition
Dear Mr. McClain:
Reply to: Robin W. Smith
Environmental Division
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
JUN 2 3 1999
Enclosed please find a copy of the order, signed by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources
Commission, reflecting the action that the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) took on the Pine
Knoll Townes Phase III variance petition in May. Please note that the variance order is not a
CAMA permit and development should not begin until you have received a permit from the
Division of Coastal Management (DCM). The CRC also imposed a specific condition with respect
to the time for removal of the sandbags authorized under the variance; that condition will be
reflected on the permit.
By copy of this letter, I am also sending the order to Ted Tyndall in DCM's Morehead City
office. If you have any questions about the order, please call.
Very truly yours,
Robin W. Smith
Special Deputy Attorney General
Enclosure
cc: Mary Penny Thompson
Ted Tyndall
Donna Moffitt
i i

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
IN THE MATTER OF: )
PETITION FOR VARIANCE )
BY PINE KNOLL TOWNES )
PHASE III )
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER
This matter was heard on oral arguments and stipulated facts at the regularly scheduled
meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (hereinafter CRC) on May 28, 1999,
in Sunset Beach, North Carolina pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-120.1 and T15A NCAC 7J.0700, et
seq. Associate Attorney General Mary Penny Thompson appeared for the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management; Petitioner chose not to
appear.
Upon consideration of the record documents and the arguments of the parties, the CRC
adopts the following:
STIPULATED FACTS
1. Pine Knoll Townes, Phase III ("Phase III") owns a 46-unit condominium complex located
in Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County, North Carolina. It consists of oceanfront property
accessed by Highway 58 commonly known as Salter Path Road.
2. Pine Knoll Townes, Phase II ("Phase II") is a separate entity which owns a similar 46-unit
condominium complex east of Phase III's complex.
3. Pine Knoll Townes, Phase I ("Phase I") is another separate entity which owns a
condominium complex east of Phase II's complex
4. On October 9, 1996, the Division of Coastal Management ("DCM") issued Permit No.
016917-C to Phase II authorizing installation of approximately 220 feet of sandbags and beach

2
bulldozing to protect Phase II's imminently threatened complex. Permit No. 016917-C
anticipated these sandbags joining with sandbags obtained for Phase I. The permit apparently
lapsed without placement of the sandbags. On December 9, 1996, DCM issued Permit No.
016971 referencing Permit No. 016917-C and reauthorizing the placement of a 220-foot sandbag
structure and beach bulldozing.
5. On January 16, 1997, DCM issued Permit No. 016955 to Phase I authorizing installation
of approximately 195 feet of sandbags and beach bulldozing to protect Phase I's imminently
threatened complex. The sandbags for Phase I joined the sandbags for Phase II.
6. On September 28, 1998, DCM issued Permit No. 019681-C to Phase III. The permit
authorized placement of approximately 180 feet of sandbags and beach bulldozing to protect
Phase III's imminently threatened complex.
7. Phase III's complex is separated from Phase II's complex by 80 feet. A gap in sandbag
protection of approximately 40 feet exists between the two structures.
8. The sandbags authorized by Permit No. 019681-C issued to Phase III have been installed
and are in compliance with all permit conditions.
9. Petitioner proposes to place sandbags between the two existing sandbag structures to
create a unified line of protection. The proposed sandbag structure would extend from twenty to
forty feet beyond the foundations of imminently threatened structures.
10. On February 12, 1999, DCM denied Petitioner's proposal as inconsistent with rules
requiring sandbags to be placed i-io more than twenty feet from the foundation of imminently
threatened structures.
11. DCM received Petitioner's CAMA Variance Request on March 22, 1999 requesting a

variance from such rules.
12. Petitioner's proposal will be accomplished as a joint project between Phase II and Phase
Based on the foregoing Stipulated Facts, the Commission makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The CRC has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
2. The parties have been correctly designated and there is no question of misjoinder or
nonjoinder of parties.
3. All notices for the proceeding were adequate and proper.
4. Application of 15A NCAC 7H.1705(a)(2)(3) and (5) will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardship in that the resulting forty -foot gap between existing sandbag
erosion control structures waterward of Pine Knoll Townes Phase II and Pine Knoll Townes Phase
III will allow scouring that may undermine the sandbag structures.
5. Petitioner's hardship results from conditions peculiar to Petitioner's property in that
the spacing of the buildings in Phase II and Phase III, which were constructed prior to the CAMA
permitting requirements, results in a gap between the sandbag erosion control structures built
consistent with the rules.
6. The Coastal Resources Commission could not reasonably have anticipated this
combination of conditions at the time that it adopted 15A NCAC.1705.
7. So long as the additional sandbags are removed when the sandbags waterward of
Pine Knoll Townes Phase II are removed, the proposed development will be within the spirit,
purpose and intent of the Commission's rules in that it will allow Petitioners to make effective use

4
of the temporary erosion control measures authorized under the rules without having an adverse
impact on adjoining properties.
ORDER
THEREFORE, the petition for variance from T15A NCAC .1705 is GRANTED subject to
the condition that the sandbags authorized by this variance must be removed no later than December
9, 2001.
This the /7 `day of June, 1999.
Eug6ne B. Tomlinson, Jr., Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission

CRC-839
State of North Carolina
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DCf)arirY ent of Justice
ATPORNEY GENERAL Y. 0. BOX 629
RALEIGH
2 7 602-0629
MEMORANDUM
TO: Coastal Resources Commission
FROM: Mary Penny Thompson e
Associate Attorney General
SUBJECT: Variance Request by Pine Knoll Townes, Phase III
DATE: May 24, 1999
Pine Knoll Townes, Phase III ("Phase III") owns a 46-unit condominium complex adjacent to the
Atlantic Ocean in Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County, North Carolina. Pine Knoll Townes, Phase II
("Phase II") is a separate entity which owns a building separated from Phase III's building by
approximately eighty feet.
On September 28, 1998, Phase III obtained Permit No. 019681-C to install approximately 180 feet
of sandbags and to conduct beach bulldozing activities to protect its imminently threatened structures.
Phase II has installed sandbags and conducted beach bulldozing activities in accordance with Permits Nos.
016917-C and 016971 in 1996. Phase II's sandbags join sandbags which protect a building owned by
another separate entity, namely Pine Knoll Townes, Phase I. A forty -foot gap exists between the sandbags
installed by Phase III and Phase II at this time exposing both sets of sandbags to scour which may
undermine the temporary protection offered by the sandbag structures.
In September 19W'and in February 1999, Phase III explored the possibility of placing sandbags
between the existing sandbag installments. On February 12, 1999, the Division of Coastal Management
("DCM") denied the request due to its inconsistency with Rule 7H.1705 which prohibits sandbags from
extending more than twenty feet from the foundation of the structure to be protected. DCM received Pine
Knoll Townes' CAMA Variance Request on March 22, 1999. DCM supports the variance request.
The following additional information concerning the petitioner's variance request is attached to
this memorandum:
Attachment A: Applicable Rules: 15A NCAC 7H .1705(a)
Attachment B: Stipulated Facts
Attachment C: Staff Summary of Petitioner's and Staff's Responses to Variance Criteria
Attachment D: Petitioner's Variance Request Materials and 5/5/99 Supplement
Attachment E: Permit Nos. 019681-C, 016917-C, 016971, 016955
cc: Pine Knoll Townes, Phase II1, via its agent, Richard Leinthall
Donna Moffitt, Director, DCM
Ted Tyndall, Morehead City District Manager, DCM
Robin Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General

CRC-839
ATTACHMENT A
Rules Involved
15A NCAC 7H .1700 GENERAL PERMIT FOR EMERGENCY WORK
REQUIRING A CAMA AND/OR A DREDGE AND FILL
PERMIT
.1705 Specific Conditions
(a) Temporary Erosion Control Structures in the Ocean Hazard AEC
(1) Permittable temporary erosion control structures shall be limited to sandbags placed
above mean high water and parallel to the shore.
(2) Temporary erosion control structures as defined in Subparagraph(h 1) of this Paragraph
may be used only to protect imminently threatened roads and associated right of ways
and buildings and associated septic systems. A structure will be considered to be
imminently threatened if its foundation, septic system, or, right-of-way in the case of
roads, is less than 20 feet away from the erosion scarp. Buildings and roads located more
than 20 feet from the erosion scarp or in areas where there is not obvious erosion scam
may also be found to be imminently threatened when site conditions, such as a flat beach
profile or accelerated erosion, tend to increase the risk of imminent damage to the
structure.
(3) Temporary erosion control structures may be used to protect only the principal structure
and its associated septic system, but not such appurtenances as gazebos, decks or any
amenity that is allowed as an exception to the erosion setback requirement.
(4) Temporary erosion control structures may be placed seaward of a septic system when
there is no alternative to relocate it on the same or adjoining lot so that it is landward of
or in line with toe structure being protected.
(5) Temporary erosion control structures must not extend more than 20 feet past the sides of
the structure to be protected. The landward side of such temporary erosion control
structures shall not be located more than 20 feet seaward of the structure to be protected
or the right-of-way in the case of roads.
(6) The permittee shall be responsible for the removal of remnants of all or portions of any
damaged temporary erosion control structure.
(7) A temporary erosion control structure may remain in place for up to two years after the
date of approval if it is protecting a building with a total floor area of 5000 sq. ft. A
temporary erosion control structure may remain in place for up to five years if it is
protecting a bridge or a road. The property owner shall be responsible for removal of the
temporary structure within 30 days of the end of the allowable time period. A temporary
erosion control structure may remain in place for up to five years regardless of the size of
the structure if the community in which it is located is actively pursuing a beach
nourishment project. For purposes of this Rule, a community is considered to be actively
pursuing a beach nourishment project if it has:

CRC-839
(i) been issued a CAMA permit approving such project, or
(ii) been deemed worthy of further consideration by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Beach Nourishment Reconnaissance Study, or
(iii) received a favorable economic evaluation report on a federal project approved
prior to 1986.
(8) Once the temporary erosion control structure is determined to be unnecessary due to
relocation or removal of the threatened structure, it must be removed by the permittee
within 30 days.
(9) Removal of temporary erosion control structures shall not be required if they are covered
by dunes with vegetation sufficient to be considered stable and natural.
(10) Sandbags used to construct temporary erosion control structures shall be tan in color and
three to five feet wide and seven to 15 feet long when measured flat. Base width of the
structure shall not exceed 20 feet, and the height shall not exceed six feet.
(11) Soldier pilings and other types of devices to anchor sandbags shall not be allowed.
(12) Excavation below mean high water in the Ocean Hazard AEC may be allowed to obtain
material to fill sandbags used for emergency protection.
(13) Construction of temporary erosion control structure shall be approved only once on any
property regardless of ownership.
(14) Existing sandbag structures may be maintained provided that the permitted dimensions
are not exceeded.
(15) Existing sandbag structures that have been properly installed prior to May 1, 1995 shall
be allowed to remain in place according to the provisions of Subparagraphs (7), (8) and
(9) of this Paragraph with the pertinent time periods beginning on May 1, 1995.

CRC-839
ATTACHMENT B
Stipulated Facts
Pine Knoll Townes, Phase III ("Phase III") owns a 46-unit condominium complex located
in Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County, North Carolina. It consists of oceanfront property
accessed by Highway 58 commonly known as Salter Path Road.
2. Pine Knoll Townes, Phase II ("Phase II") is a separate entity which owns a similar 46-unit
condominium complex east of Phase III's complex.
Pine Knoll Townes, Phase I ("Phase I") is another separate entity which owns a
condominium complex east of Phase II's complex.
4. On October 9, 1996, the Division of Coastal Management ("DCM") issued Permit No.
016917-C to Phase II authorizing installation of approximately 220 feet of sandbags and
beach bulldozing to protect Phase II's imminently threatened complex. Permit No.
016917-C anticipated these sandbags joining with sandbags obtained for Phase I. The
permit apparently lapsed without placement of the sandbags. On December 9, 1996,
DCM issued Permit No. 016971 referencing Permit No. 016917-C and reauthorizing the
placement of a 220-foot sandbag structure and beach bulldozing.
5. On January 16, 1997, DCM issued Permit No. 016955 to Phase I authorizing installation
of approximately 195 feet of sandbags and beach bulldozing to protect Phase I's
imminently threatened complex. The sandbags for Phase I joined the sandbags for Phase
II.
6. On September 2$, 1998, DCM issued Permit No. 019681-C to Phase III. The permit
authorized placement of approximately 180 feet of sandbags and beach bulldozing to
protect Phase III's imminently threatened complex.
7. Phase III's complex is separated from Phase II's complex by 80 feet. A gap in sandbag
protection of approximately 40 feet exists between the two structures.
8. The sandbags authorized by Permit No. 019681-C issued to Phase III have been installed
and are in compliance with all permit conditions.
9. Petitioner proposes to place sandbags between the two existing sandbag structures to
create a unified line of protection. The proposed sandbag structure would extend from
twenty to forty feet beyond the foundations of imminently threatened structures.

CRC-839
10. On February 12, 1999, DCM denied Petitioner's proposal as inconsistent with rules
requiring sandbags to be placed no more than twenty feet from the foundation of
imminently threatened structures.
11. DCM received Petitioner's CAMA Variance Request on March 22, 1999 requesting a
variance from such rules.
12. Petitioner's proposal will be accomplished as a joint project between Phase I1 and Phase
III.

CRC-839
ATTACHMENT C
SUMMARY OF PETITIONER AND STAFF POSITIONS
Will practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict application of
the guidelines, rules, standards or other restrictions applicable to the property?
Petitioner's Position: Yes.
The Petitioner contends the unprotected frontage area between the two existing sandbag
placements will allow high surf to wash out, undermine or damage the existing sandbags.
Petitioner argues this damage would jeopardize the protection for the building and may impact
the foundations of the front units for both Phase II and Phase III.
Staff Position: Yes.
Staff agrees that practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from the strict
application of N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 7H.1705 ("Rule 7H.1705") to Petitioner's proposed
project. Although over 500 feet of sandbags are authorized under three permits to protect
threatened structures, the strict application of Rule 7H.1705 prohibits protection for a gap of
forty feet in this line. The gap results in a weakened area which jeopardizes the existing
sandbags by allowing high surf to scour around the sandbags and reduce or destroy the protection
the sandbags are intended to offer.
II. Do such difficulties or hardships result from conditions which are peculiar to the
property involved?
Petitioner's Position: Yes.
Petitioner contends the void of protection between the current sandbag placment creates a
peculiarity in the property.
Staff s Position: Yes.
Staff agrees that the difficulties or hardships experienced by the strict application of the
rule result from conditions which are peculiar to the property involved. The buildings owned by
Phase I, II, and III were built prior to the CAMA permitting requirement. Each building
experienced rapid erosion within a short period of time. Phase I and Phase II were able to join
their sandbag structures providing a united front of protection against erosion. Phase III received
sandbag protection in 1998, but a forty -foot gap between its bags and Phase II's bags leaves them
vulnerable to erosion. This peculiar gap in coverage results in continued scour between and
behind the sandbag structures of Phase II and Phase III.

CRC-839
III. Could such conditions reasonably have been anticipated when the applicable
guidelines, rules, standards, or restrictions were adopted?
Petitioner's Position: No.
Petitioner points out that a request was made at the time Phase III's sandbags were
installed to connect them to Phase II's existing sandbags in order to make a solid front. The
request was denied in accordance with regulations existing at that time.
Staff s Position: No.
Staff agrees that conditions peculiar to Petitioner's property could not reasonably have
been anticipated when the rules were adopted. Staff argues that the sandbag rules were designed
to offer temporary protection against threatening erosion. In this case, the valley between the two
sandbag structures defeats that purpose as high tides can funnel between the bags and continue to
erode property behind them. This continuing erosion despite the presence of sandbags could
undermine at least two threatened buildings. Staff argues this particular condition was not
contemplated by the Commission when they sef out to offer temporary protection by sandbags.
IV. Is the proposed development consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
Commission's regulations?
Petitioner's Position: Yes.
Petitioner believes a solid front of sandbags will better assure the protection of the
properties as well as restore the dunes along the oceanfront.
Staffs Position: Yes.
Staff agrees that the proposed development is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and
intent of the Commission's regulations. The Commission's rules allow for temporary protection
of imminently threatened structures. Petitioner's proposal would further that goal by bridging a
gap in existing protection. The proposed sandbag placement will not protect any appurtenances
such as gazebos or swimming pools which are ineligible for protection. By connecting the
sandbags between Phase II and Phase III, Petitioner's proposal only seeks to remove a weakness
which is undermining the protection offered by the rules and which is already in place for Phase I
and Phase II.
EP/32278/wp

'LaR. -'_991TUE1 18:�4
DC\4 FORM 11
DEHNR COSTAL �1GHT
PETITIONER'S NAME
COUNTY
FILE NUMBER
TEL:[phone] P.002
iJ1 7�j J ill, TO J " " `;' 11 "WR EC EIVED
CARTER.E,T
Ctn�i
(Petitioner leave blank)
MAR 2 2 1999
CWTAL MANAGE MENT
CAMA VARIANCE
REQUEST
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute I I3A.120.1 and 15A North Carolina Administrative
Code 7J Section _0700, Ghe Petitioner in this matter applies to the Coastal Resources Commission
for a variance. _ _
For this application to be complete, the Petitioner must provide;Wj2112J= re$ponses to each
statement below:
(a) Will enforcement of the applicable development guidelines or standards causing
the Petitioner practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships? If so, the petitioner
must identify the difficulties or hardships.
(b) Do such difficulties or hardships result from conditions peculiar the petitioner's
property? Explain.
(c) Could the Coastal Resources Commission have reasonably anticipated these
conditions when the applicable guidelines or standards were adopted? Explain.
(d) Is the proposed development consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the
Commissign's regulations? Explain.
— NOTE; For this request to be considered, the Petitioner must be able to answer (a), (b) and
(d) in the affirmarive and (c) in the negative. --
Due to the above information and pursuant to statute, the undersigned hereby requests a variance,
The undersigned states that (check one):
He or she has received a final decision on an Application for a CAMA
Major Development Pernut; or
Iie or she has received a final decision on an Application for a LAMA
Minor Development Permit. The undersigned has attached:
(a) A copy of the Permit Application and the decision; and

MAR. -2j-' 99ITUE) 18;34 DEHNR COSTAL P+1GMT TEL:919 7-- 149- P. 00-0
(b) A complete description of the proposed development, including a
site drawing with adequate topographical and survey information.
Date Signature
Name of Petitioner or Attorney
//.(,
Address _
City State Zip
Telephone Number
This variance request must be served on the Director, Division of Coastal Management,
arid the Attorney GeneraI's Office, Environmental Division, at the addresses shown on the
attached Certificate of Service Form. If a contested case hearing will be required to resolve
disputed facts or you Kant to appeal the permit decision upon which your Variance Request ;g
based, a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing should be filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447 as well as with the above parties.
REVISED AUGUST 7, 1997

MAR. -'_-' 99 ITUD 18:35 DEHNR COSTAL NICNIT TEL; 919 7-0S 1495 P. 004
SQBJEUT: Request for variance
REF: permit No. 019681
A. MM At this t-IM sandbags are in place along the beach frontage of
Pine Knob.? Townes Phases Ir and III, in accordance with c= ent
CAMA regulations. This installation leaves an unprotected front_
age area of approximately forty (40) feet. The unprotected area
will allow for any high surf to gash out and go behind the exist-
ing sandbags, causing damage to the ones presently in place. This
would cause a definite impact on the foundations of front units
for both Phase II and III.
H. YES This unprotected area creates a void and high surf will wash out
the sandbags and then the foundations of the omits on the ocean
front,
C. NO It was requested at the time the sandbags were installed (Permit
No• as stated) to connect the two phases' sandbags in order to
make a solid front. This would reduce or, hopefully, stop the
funnel effect that Would occur in a high tide or hurricane sftua-
tion. This request was disapproved in acm dance with regulations
at that time.
A. YES It is felt that a solid front of sandbags will better assure the
protection of the properties as well as build up and restore the
dunes.

DEHNR COSTAL h-IGNIT
TEL:[phone]
o nn:
PHASE III
PINE KNOLL TOWNES
Q 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000
40'
PHASE II
PINE KNOLL TOWNES
0 00 0 0
-0-0,0 o -o O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
It Would take approximately thirty (30) sandbagS to fill the above space
IAW CAMA Regulations.

MAR. - 2 Y 99 (TCFI 18:
UEHNR COSTAL h.V;11rr
TEL:[phone]- P.006
hit
February 12, 1999
Mr. Richard t.einthall
Pine Knoll Towne III
139 Pine Knoll Towne, Phase III
Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512
Dear Mr. Leinrhall-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL- RESOURCES
DIvisfON OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
This letter is in response to your verbal request to install additional sandbags along the erosion
escarpment at Pine Knoll Towne - Phase III property, in pine_Knnit rhnf%_ 1wrW_C=W,. As
i recall and from a search of our files, the Norttt Carolina Division of Coastal Management issued
CAMA General Permit #019681 m Pine Knoll Towne - phase Ill back in September of 1998. That
permit was for approximately 180, of sandbags. The sandbags were permitted in front of both
buildings at the site as well as in front of the existing septic system serving the two structures. The
lateral extension of the sandbags was a distance of 20' to the east and west of the two buildings. The
sandbags have been installed and are in compliance with all permit conditions,
From my understanding, you wish to extend the bags even farther to the east to tic into the bags that
had previously been installed by Pine Knoll Towne, Phase H. This would extend the distance from
the foundation of the easternmost building another 20' to 25' and cause the temporary erosion
control structure to be located a total of 40' to 45' from the aforementioned foundation. As I
discussed with you at the site back in September as well on the telephone more recently, the rules
for temporary erosion control structures (sandbags) do not allow for the sandbags to "extend more
than 20 feet past the sides of the structure to be protected." Consequently, your request to extend
the sandbags beyond the original permitted location must be denied.
If you wish to request a variance to this rule, you must file a CAMA Variance Request form
pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 113A-120.1 and 15A North Carolina Administrative
Code 73 Section .0700. 1 have enclosed the appropriate form if you choose to pursue that avenue.
Such a variance request must be served on the Director, Division of Coastal Management, and the
Atto=y General's Office, Environmental Division. The appropriate addressu are on the enclosed
form.
If I can be of further assistance in this or other related matters, please don't hesitate to contact me
at my Morehead City office (252-808-2808).
Sincerely,
/�y1 it
M. Ted Tyndall
District Manager
cc; Charles Jones - Assistant Director
Charles Pigott - Coastal Management Representative
Roy nrowrilow - Pine Knoll Shores I -PC
MOMKHEAD CITY OFRiza
HKETRON PLAZA II 151-B WJt%HWAY 2d LMM(HEAP C-ITY NC Z91457
PMOME 2E2-BOB-2a0a FAX zr2-2d7-Ss30
AN EQNAL OppaA TUIYI7T /AD/IR/IATIVL ACTION EMPLOYER - BoX RPGY=:3o/1 Qwj pp-T.CO N3u 4iL;Z pAP!p

A l" I'M NEY GENERAL
William H. McClain
115 Pine Knoll Shores
Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512
(-;tiit(, of North C arolinit
I' r ). lit )x (i:-, r
li.\1-1;1GH
2 i G02.062(1
April 26, 1999
Re: CAMA Variance Request by Pine Knoll Townes Phase III
CMV 99-05
Dear Mr. McClain:
Reply to:
Mary Penny Thompson
Environmental Division
ret' [phone]
Far: [phone]
E-Mait: mthompn.mail.jus.state.nc.us
I have reviewed your CAMA Variance Request received by the Division of Coastal Management
on March 22, 1999 and found that we will need better site drawings with adequate topographical and survey
information in order for the variance request to be heard at the Coastal Resources Commission Meeting on
May 27 and 28. In particular, I noticed that you have attached a drawing showing the sandbags for Phase
II and the sandbags for Phase III with a distance of 40 feet between the two. However, I request that you
submit more adequate drawings providing better topographical, survey, and site location information in
accordance with 15A NCAC 7J.070 I (c)(5).
In addition, I will need to work with you on developing stipulated facts before the variance can be
heard by the Commission. Once we have settled the stipulated facts, I will draft a staff recommendation
which you will need to review and which should be sent out at least two weeks prior to the meeting (by May
14). Please note that I will be out of the office from Tuesday, April 27 through Monday, May 3. Please
contact me on Tuesday, May 4, so that we may discuss the drawings and stipulated facts as well as the staff
recommendation prior to pur Mav 14 deadline. With best wishes I am
MPT:mmp
cc: Donna Moffitt
Charles Jones
Ted TvndalI
EP/32091
Very truly yours,
Mar 7ennympson
Associate Attorney General
\Ir I:r}u,(I r III}���(nuu1� \nu(tt,lu��r• _\�'hr�t1 I�ait}�Ir,�'r'f ,�,,.',

REDS I V F D
MAY 8 19990
N.C. AT ORM-- GENERAL
Environmental Division
May 5, 1999
Mary Penny Thompson
Associate Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Re: CAMA Variance Request by Pine Knoll Townes Phase III
CMV 99-05
Dear Ms. Thompson:
As per our phone conversation of this date, the drawing that was
requested in your letter of April 26, 1999 is enclosed.
Sincerely
Richard Leinthall
Manager
Pine Knoll Townes Phase III
RL:jwa
Enc.

r
ejK r�
lot
U u C) L) Uc. �Z'} r.::, C' �' �.11a
v �� �� C•l (,,j c") . C"? ('y l� 11. �.,� ' � ; �".�r_7 rf"� ..'� �,1�.,.��i;..,7 ,..,i �,.-, ;-, .:"* � j�l
t7 C� (.-I C1 C:� f') c' a C) a j i i �: '� � U. (a t - �.) •} �;'� �:' � ! �
r ( �