General Permits (4809)

CERTIFICATION OF EXEMPTION'
�- 7* � u
FROM REQUIRING A CAMA PERMIT /,�' `'�'
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, C) c of
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development end tes he Coastal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15 NCAC Subchapter 7K .0203.
Vr `1 /-- d /J �
Applicant Name Phone Number
Address
City State Zip
Project Location (County, State Road, Water Body, etc.)
Type and Dimensions of Project
The proposed project to be located and constructed as described
above is hereby certified as exempt from the CAMA permit re-
quirement pursuant to 15 NCAC 7K .0203. This exemption to
CAMA permit requirements does not alleviate the necessity of
your obtaining any other State, Federal, or Local authorization.
sent of a CAMA official under the mistaken assumption that the
development is exempted, will be in violation of the CAMA if there
is a subsequent determination that a permit was required for the
development.
The applicant certifies by signing this exemption that (1) the ap-
plicant has read and will abide by the conditions of this exemp-
tion, and (2) a written statement has been obtained from adjacent
landowners certifying that they have no objections to the
proposed work.
This certification of exemption from requiring a CAMA permit is
valid for 60 days from the date of issuance. Following expiration,
a re-examination of the project and project site may be necessary
to continue this certification.
Applicant's signature
w
CAMA Official's signature
Issuingdate
Expiration date
Attachment: 15 North Carolina Administrative Code 7K .0203

W. H. LEE (1887-1979)
C. E. HANCOCK, JR.
MOSES D. LASITTER
JOHN W. KING, JR.
LEE, HANCOCK, LASITTER AND KING
}
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MAY �91
POST OFFICE BOX 356
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 28563
K_
5 TRENT LANDING
BICENTENNIAL PARK
[phone]
FAX [phone]
May 7, 1991
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
PO Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
RE: Objections to proposed dock Don Lee Road
Gentlemen:
We enclose the reply of Lucy M. Smith to a registered letter
she received from C. Robbie Webb of S. E. Turner Marine dated
May 6, 1991. If you have any further questions, we shall be
pleased to hear from you.
Yours very truly, n
C. E. Hancock, Jr.
CEH,Jr:cfr
Enclosure

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dear �lL —J
This letter is to notify you as an adjacent riparian landowner of
Mr./M S.
� x�' plans to construct O,
t n A n, n t_
on their property located at
in NC. The sketch on the reverse
side accura ely depicts the proposed construction.
Should you have no objections to this proposal, please check the
statement below, sign and date the blanks beloyw� the statement,
and return this letter to: 1 ► C- ,
. `7 (69 1 1)Q4&jA C'1.J1 C- a g S S^
as soon as poss!ble.
Should you have objections to this proposal, please send your
written comments to the NC Division of Coastal Management, P. O.
Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557. Written comments must be
received within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice.
Failure to respond in either method within ten (10) days will be
interpreted as no (o�bj..ecti1�on.
Sincerely, C -rf XaA a O&V%
I have no objection to the project as presently
proposed and hereby waive that right of objection as
provided in General Statute 113-229.
I� I have objections to the project as presently proposed
and have enclosed comments.
*Sigatur . 1
DATE:

a

(Q mcu�—
D l q9
CU),
-(�0�4 SA&C
I�vv�at )
6", Lz�

15 NCAC 7H .2102 has been proposed to be amended as follows:
.1102 APPROVAL PROCEDURES
(b) The applicant must provide:
(1) confirmation that a written statement has been obtained
signed by the adjacent riparian property owners
indicating that they have no objections to the proposed
work, or,
(2) confirmation that the adjacent riparian property owners
have been notified by certified mail of the proposed
work Such notice should instruct adjacent property
owners to provide any comments on the proposed
development in writing for consideration by permitting
officials to the Division of Coastal Management within
10 days of receipt of the notice, and, indicate that no
response will be interpreted as no objection. DCM
staff will review all comments and determine, based on
their relevance to the potential impacts of the
proposed project, if the proposed project can be
approved by a General Permit. If DCM staff finds that
the comments are worthy of more in-depth review, the
applicant will be notified that he must submit an
application for a major development permit.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107(a);
113A-107(b); 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1; 113A-124;
Eff. March 1, 1984;
Amended Eff. January 1, 1990; December 1, 1987.

Comments
1. There is presently pending in the General Court of Justice of
Pamlico County an action to determine the true location of the
boundary line between the lands of the applicant and the adjacent
Smith lands. I do not think it would be wise to allow a permit
until a true location of the line has been determined.
2. I feel that a dock and boat lift in such close proximity to my
line would be detrimental to my best interests and would diminish
the value of my property.
3. I am not at all sure what effect the dock and lift would have
on the shore line of Neuse River and the crude sketch which has
been furnished me in lieu of a plan gives me little help in
reaching a determination on that score.

t
JUN 1 2 1991
f '
i
June 11, 1991
Mr. Charles Pigott
NC Marine Fisheries
P. O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: Pier application of J. W. Stancill
Dear Mr. Pigott:
MAILING ADDRESS:
POST OFFICE BOX 2110
BAYBORO, NC 28515
TELEPHONE:
919-745-5115
FACSIMILE:
919-745-5917
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I am enclosing
exhibits which I believe clearly establishes the maximum amount
of land in controversy between Mr. Stancill and Mrs. Lucy
Smith. Mr. Stancill and Mrs. Smith own adjoining lots on Neuse
River and we are currently involved in litigation over the
correct location of their common line. The dispute arose when
Mr. Stancill destroyed an old boatramp which our survey and
previous surveys indicated was on his property and Mrs. Smith
indicated was half on her property. Throughout the litigation,
Mrs. Smith has never claimed more than 8 feet and based on that,
I feel that as long as Mr. Stancill constructs his pier a
sufficient distance away from the disputed line then a permit is
justified. To support the statement that she is only claiming 8
feet, I am enclosing the following exhibits:
(1) Copy of the court ordered survey. The court ordered
survey was to show on a map the contentions of the parties and
this map indicates that from E to C (which is the disputed line)
is 8 feet plus or minus.
(2) Page 10 of Mrs. Smith's deposition in which she
indicates that the boatramp was a maximum of 16 feet wide, 8
feet of which was on Mr. Stancill's property.
(3) Mrs. Smith's survey which shows that the disputed area
has a diagonal line is only 9.6 feet.

Mr. Pigott
Page 2
June 11, 1991
(4) Mr. Stancill's survey prepared in June of 1987 showing
the entire boatramp on his property. I might point out that
that surveyor found "existing iron pipes" at all four corners.
(5) Copy of Mr. Stancill's predecessor in title's survey
showing the boatramp entirely on his property.
I hope that once you have reviewed the enclosures you will
agree with me that a pier permit is certainly justified under
these circumstances.
If you have any questions at all in connection with this,
please do not hesitate to call me.
L
BBHjr:jmf
Enclosures.
cc: Mr. J. W. Stancill
Jr.

"v y J V
4U
-T
_iY C N
al
1
�iA►���L_L_ CLAIMS
G� MITH CLA1MS- LINE A F
►— NEG IIA., �E1, _ '.F'. ►�_TT"� � F���.� /���� C �;�K Iqy
C To JHv \i F-' �c)
�.I r/t�-;NvrE6 X15TItJci IrvrJ rIFG
�pcsrah� �q�
L`•1173„CIE
;q 1
3'
LL
M L
I
_Q FLOYD SU/TT_9 ASSOC/ATES
(MOIN((RNIO - IRNO IL-HOO - RURV(YINO
(MY.RONM[NIRI �l •RMMC - COMNf(R ORS►NIC!
3to9 HWY. a south
00 BOX 2034 BUS. 633- 2999
NEWBERN,NC, 2066t• RES. 633-3243

E��C U I 9�7 1--r ;L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,/
1A
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MISTER SCHOTT ORIGINALLY OWNED — MISTER SCHOTT ORIGINALLY
OWNED THAT LOT. WAS IT BOTH EFFORTS ON BOTH OF YOUR PARTS,
OR WAS IT JUST YOUR HUSBAND AND YOURS?
A. THEY DID IT TOGETHER. I MEAN, WE FURNISHED THE
MATERIAL AND THEY BARGAINED TO PUT IT HALF ON HIS LOT AND
HALF ON OUR LOT. THE BOAT RAMP WAS . . .
Q. HALF AND HALF?
A. YES, HALF AND HALF.
Q. HOW WIDE WAS THE BOAT RAMP APPROXIMATELY?
A. 10 FEET. I NEVER MEASURED, BUT I GUESS IT'S
ABOUT 12 FEET.
Q. SO ABOUT 6 FEET ON YOUR PROPERTY AND 6 FEET ON
MISTER SCHOTT'S PROPERTY?
A. WELL, SEE, ON EACH SIDE OF IT THERE'S — THERE
WAS KIND OF A SHOULDER THING, SO IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 8 FEET
ON EACH SIDE.
Q. SO THAT WOULD MAKE IT 16 FEET WIDE?
A. ALL TOGETHER, WITH THE SIDES TO IT. I WAS
SPEAKING JUST ABOUT THE OPENING.
Q. SO WITH THE SHOULDERS, THE ENTIP.E WIDTH OF THE
BOAT RAMP WAS 16 FEET WIDE?
A. I GUESS IT WAS; YES, I THINK SO.
Q. WHEN WAS THE BOAT RAMP BUILT?
A. I'M ASSUMING ABOUT 1965. IT WAS AFTER WE BOUGHT
THE LOT, AND WE BOUGHT THAT IN '64.
10
Coastal Court -Reporting Agency, Inc.
P.O. Box 788, Newport, North Carolina, 28570
r
JUN 12 %91

XLA I *v IT
LEE ROAI
KCIN T _
off
IE
-�K 01-414 ; :. 5K ►44-4�0- __- �1g1-Inl (s-1w)
�raOTT TO JOLL I Lxy k(l l5k t =I-uCc f Ri. sM
.JOLLY --lP. J. sINbiL, _
� I
0
i
LJU, J�
'-�-)
1991
wrwrNw��r w � r rrr�r�r..rr r a/t

SURVEY FOR
LUCY
SM
ITH
EASTERN EAetgEERING 8 ASSOCIA TES
NEW BffW, N.C.
No. 5 TowH fi '
201
2

0
—r2Kw 10!71-r- 4
�o
TT MW� aw
VIC MTY MAP
;10)
STONE
BULKHEAD
1
i I
M
'l
N
1
1 - rbx—
Fis"sd
y"'
i
l �
iWM
t
w
EUSE
M
AREA
4 6" ! &F.
OA A W.
RIVER
I
I _
9)
® 8t
' STONE MLONAD
I
I
i ATTAC!!'0
1- slam
f' CIA I� OARD
,q,
MOBLR How
94
LEE ROAD
30' R/W 27' GRAVEL RD.
..EESL
FI , rHomis Wy 1'�� L ;CER FY THAT UNDER
j '�IL•a"5 V1424m THAT THIS
MAP N F M AL SURVEY. THAT
rtl> CALCUL TED
LATI' ai,P IS
PUTT P S CDLATED BY 1 6(ZC`M-
ER) AN '!liA,>;,Ri1T$ HAP WAS PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH C _ C 4. e•e �uo►le_,�n
WITNESS MY HANK AND SEAL THIS DAY
OF , Y A.D.
NORTH CAROLIIt�`�
I, NOTARY 1 t D STATE
AFORESAID C TIIA'�" �, WNHARWELL,
A RECIST D �&I,J1 N V' 0 PMONALLY AP-
PEARED lip'ORt P(S�tl U 4KNOWLEDGED
THE EXECn'PIUlOF•..THE fsA3kE , NG 2NSTRUMEMI.
WITNE!S h 0 imp O
D RS L
THIS ,y B 19
A.U.
MY COMMISSION 110 Qn
W
CRAWFORD
DO 04 P9 346
M
O
y S 85'48-290 E
EJr FROM LEE LNE Er
It
R/W
UZEREMM
Dd. IAA M 414
MJL 4 M 45
PAMLI00 CO. REWTRY
ALSO SURVEYED BY WLLWM H. UTLEY 6
ASSOQ DATED 20 MARCH 077.
0 KY w 40r w
GRAPHIC WALE r • w
'� A PA
SURVEY FOR (?
r;
J. W. STANCILL iu-'
EASTERN PORTION OF LOTS A WESTERN PORTION Of LOT K)
LEE'S RIVER VIEW SUBDIVIsIoN
NO.6 TWSP PAMLK%o CO. N.C.

JQ�
it
S�4'39•E
�. 081 L E I`iot� E
LL.
' ULKHEq
i
I
tie�e�Q ;v I i
C �
u
co
�
O
r
�
�
S
Q
3
Q
�
Q
Q
4
SURVEY FOR
KA i"HRYN REED JOLL Y
BEING A HART OF
LOT NO.'S 9 a IO
LEE `S R/ VERVIEW SUBDIVISION
NO. 5 TOWNSHIP, PAMLI CO COUNTY
SCALE I"= 20'
Ell �1-11' A -
-------------------------

LEE, HANCOCK, LASITTER AND KING
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 356
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 28563
W. H. LEE 11887.19791 5 TRENT LANDING
C. E. HANCOCK, JR. BICENTENNIAL PARK
MOSES D. LASITTER
JOHN W. KING, JR.
June 21, 1991
Mr. Bernard B. Hollowell, Jr.
P. O. Box 218
Bayboro, North Carolina 28515
Re: Smith v. Stancill
Dear Ben:
V-1- 7� - -,--
[SL�ULfo
TELEPHONE
[phone]
FAX [phone]
This will confirm our telephone conversation to the effect
that Charles Smith and his mother have no objections to the
placement of a dock or pier abutting their land on Neuse River
which is located 15 feet from the line of the Smith's as they
contend it to be located.
If you have any questions about the foregoing, including the
location of the Smith's contention, of course, I will be glad to
hear from you.
I have the Smith's authority for you to send this letter to
the proper authority in order that your clients may proceed with
their dock.
Yours very truly,
C. E. Hancock, Jr.
CEH,Jr:cfr

� ����
G�.�-

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT (FOR A PIER)
* r�,,- r L-1 T-T'
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to r 559f^iCs
property located at
(lot, block, road, etc.)
on L i�,S �� l°� ��` %� in 49&/'7tz C0 N.C.
(water body) (town and/or county)
He has described to me as shown below the development he is proposing
that at that location and I have no objections to his proposal. I
understand that a pier must be set back a minimum distance of 15 feet
from my area of riparian access unless waived by me.
I do / do not wish to waive that setback requirement.
(circle one)
Description and/or drawing of proposed development:
by individual proposing development) ?D pSL-
p
'7j!5u4-
2
( to be filled in
Signature
Name
/jP
b — � e — lr
Phone Number

MAILING ADDRESS:
POST OFFICE PDX 218
BAYBORO. NC 28515
2 7
ELL.4Jr-U-
1991,�
jjj !919745
TELEPHONE:
5115
������])j��
FACSIMILE:
--------------------
919.745-5917
June 25, 1991
Mr. Charles Pigott
N.C. Marine Fisheries
P. O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Mr. Pigott:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mrs. Lucy Smith's
attorney indicating that they now consent to the construction of
the pier. Mr. Stancill's permit will be forthcoming.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
me.
Sincerely,
BBHjr:jmf
Enclosure.
Jr.

LEE, HANCOCK, LASITTER AND KING
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 356
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 28563
W. H. LEE (1887-1979) 5 TRENT LANDING TELEPHONE
C. E. HANCOCK, JR. BICENTENNIAL PARK [phone]
HOSES D. LASITTER FAX [phone]
JOHN W. KING, JR.
October 16, 1990
Mr. Bernard B. Hollowell, Jr.
P. O. Box 218
Bayboro, North Carolina 28515
Re: Smith v. Stancill
Dear Ben:
This will confirm our telephone conversation to the effect
that Charles Smith and his mother have no objections to the
placement of a dock or pier abutting their land on Neuse River
which is located 15 feet from the line of the Smith's as they
contend it to be located.
If you have any questions about the foregoing, including the
location of the Smith's contention, of course, I will be glad to
hear from you.
I have the Smith's authority for you to send this letter to
the proper authority in order that your clients may proceed with
their dock.
Yours very truly,
C. E. Hanco'r
CEH,Jr:cfr

�_ a_g �
%,-�,t�a
03a��

ohm
1, ki

M�,,Am

t -r
/"
1 �
J r'
�
r
I
! {
v.
/���,
.�� �.;
R,
�
� �'�.
-
I j
r `
i
„��'
TT
_
i
�1>
c1 %�
`,
!IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II''"""'"'
y ..,
;; � �' �
;i

R�!

!! Sir
Aar
,
r*IVA
A