48423_BETTS, THOMAS H_20070402

OCAMA / ❑ DREDGE & FILL
GENERAL PERMIT
El New ❑Modification ❑Complete Reissue ❑Partial R Issue
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
Previous permit #
Date previous permit ssued
il'Rules ' /ched.
Applicant Name i I ' �! i " -/" I0 ` Project Location: County %f-` / r,
Address f' % Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
City F State "' f ZIP
Phone # ( )
Fax # ( )
Authorized Agent
❑ CW
❑ EW
❑ PTA ;ar�S ❑ PTS
Affected
AEC(s): ElOEA
ElHHF
❑ IH ElUBA ❑ N/A
❑ PWS:
❑ FC:
ORW: yes / no,'
PNA
yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no
Type of Project/ Activity
Pier (dock) length
Platform(s)
Finger pier(s)
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length
avg distance offshore
max distance offshore
Basin, channel
cubic yards_
Boat ramp
Boathouse/ Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing-- — {—;
Other
Shoreline Length
SAV: not sure
yes
no
Sandbags: not sure
yes
Moratorium: n/a
yes
I
ryo
Photos:
yes
,no
Waiver Attached:
yes
(fio
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions
Agent or Applicant Printed
Subdivision
484k 3c
7
City ZIP < ::
1
Phone # ( ) River Basin t�
Adj. Wtr. Body" /(nat /man /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
(Scale: r r f )
>I
J _ Y
( ❑ See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
Signature 1 Please read compliance statement onL{black of permit
Application Fee(s) Check #
Permit Officer's, Signature
Issuing Date I Expi do Date
Local PlanningJurisdiction 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/ 1-888ARCOAST
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

03/19/2007 20:22 FAX
[a002
5t
North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Govemor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., secretary
Date /,-,' ale- -?
Applicant Name 41
Mailing Address %' S`' " s '
I certify that I have authorized (agent) to act on my
behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMAA Permits necessary to
install or construct (activity)
at (location)
c' e f y7` v r
This certification is valid. thru (date)
Signature
d
Tom s �,�tS ,��r��LA)0.�-.��.
1
019
I?io^OOVI i s5 iOy
O
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www rl=astalmanagement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Aifirmdvs kOn Employer - So% Recyded 110% Post Consumer Paper

FROM :WRYCO HRM CO. FRX NO. :9197344OeO Mar. 21 2007 01:16PM P1
MqR-21-2007 WED 01:08 PM COMMERCIAL LOANS; FAX NO. 2524544040 -- - _ � P. 02
03/10/2007 20:22 FAa
ADJAIMN T RIPARIAN P40FM "Y OWriE+ R STA TENOWr 41 ova
(oututzas land Riprap) -
d�1 0t4+
i hereby oatify that I own property 4sce t to
(Name c(Property Owner or Applicant)
photo number yda can be reached st,..
h�liag address it different foin iocaac� Z T /� !�d y G ''" /r ��� �/'y�l5 w c
property loc" at �'� "� r�'" s �" ''., • , .'� _ 3
(Lot, dock,1opd, etc.)
(Watwbodi) (Town sod* Comply)
He has descttbed to me as abawubalaw, the mmd he is MP09M at thet Iodation.
send, I have w objbdd = to his propasil.
VESO YPTION AND/OR D"WING Off' p%toposEv OR LOPMENT
(To beftwin Jy iadiv ualpmpos+btg dm&Fvaet1
Y r1 !414 hcAop ct c,,-ces
min
• ��N� � oRQ��i
G►.> e*t rlCi k bor Pft ox TM* Nam
Si�r+'S li�c q/q 73�5- 2.
Duc: 3 -a )- 7
a�npa>�me.o�wAWA �

SENT BY: COASTAL PLAINS REALTY; 2527526100; MAR-23-07 9:37AM; PAGE 2/2
03/10/2007 4v;23 FAX toes
ADJA,tTNT RXPAMAN PROPERTY OW ER STATEM ENT
(ft#lctieado and R")
I hereby certify than I own pwpmy adjeceeu to 4140�Ire— "�'- r Z _ t
(Niwne of Property Owner or A PPUtAnt)
Phone iwmbar you eft be M*4C Cd at
Mail ice, ;cidresa iF dif%trcrsL fivm 4ocatiou: �'�'� 7' �.d✓� C: • �. ✓y ,G•- �T < err ,�r�, � •� • ��.
PLOpCrt'y iflCatcd at [ . , r y, /Ci • � ' ,
(Lee► SU06 ko-d� ccr4
-' ..D N.C.
(1JD,�SeQ� - - ('I'etos �ddpe Cweb)
Ho bes dca='bed to sue as shownbekw, Um drrclopmeot be is proposing at that lacatiM
aad, I have no objbcd= to his A" omL
DWRMIO j.AMIOR DRAAV"NG OFPROPMED DEVELOFbO YT
(To b'e,1 UW he by MdirlAW"osiV dsudrpnmt)
zrjl5-1101I

correite-' alk & bulkhead
Subject: corrected.... Re: boardwalk & bulkhead
From: "Charlotte Farris" <farris. charlotte@ gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:31:21 -0500
To: [e-mail],'[e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
On 1/26/07, Charlotte Farris <farris.charl6tte@gmail,com> wrote:
January 26, 2007
TO MOREHEAD CITY PLANNERS and PERMIT OFFICERS and CAMA PLANNERS and ALL
OTHERS involved in decision making for the Sunset Drive public access off of Evans Street and
32nd.
In the January 12, 2007 edition of The Carteret County News -Times, a legal notice announcing a
request fora "boardwalk & bulkhead" in the name of Mary Betts was listed.
It is my understanding that the Morehead City Permit Office makes the decision on the boardwalk
and that the LAMA office makes the decision on the bulkhead. Because the boardwalk and bulkhead
go hand -in -hand, I am making comments about both issues to all departments.
I also understand that the deadline for the request from the Town of Morehead City is due January 29,
but as of Monday, January 22, no request for the bulkhead had been given to CAMA and the mention
of the bulkhead in the request to Morehead City did not include a drawing or description of the
bulkhead.
My concerns are mainly related to FREE and CONVENIENT ACCESS, and EROSION, as indicated
in the following questions.
BOARDWALK
1. Exactly where will the boardwalk be? The drawing shown to me at the planning office showed
the walkway to be off the curve from the street on toward the beach. Does that mean the walkway
will be on the access path? Rick Schulz, inspector, said the walkway appeared to be to the east of the
access. If so, that appears awkward to me if the Betts home is to the west of the access and the
walkway is to the east, with a gap of access property between the two.
2. Can any structure such as a boardwalk or bulkhead be built on the access property? Isn't the
access property public property? Were we not promised by the Town Council that we would have
full access?
3. Will steps be built from the boardwalk? If so, how will kayaks or other small boats or wagon of
toys get down the steps? How can a provate owner build on the public access?
4. Can the plans for the boardwalk be approved before the plans for the bulkhead are shown because
1 of 2 1/26/2007 I :40 PM

corrected~7e: boardwalk & bulkhead
r
of possible alterations that would influence erosion and access?
BULKHEAD
1. What are the specific plans for the bulkhead ....... location, substance and materials, structure, shape
and design, function ?
2. Can a bulhead be built on the 31 feet of public access property? The Town of Morehead City
Council promised that the access would remain open to the public when they decided to auction the
land and deeded it.
3. Are the wetlands involved in that area?
4. What erosion problems can be anticipated? Environmental scientists have said that when water
hits a solid surface; such as a bulkhead, the water swirls and makes holes and erodes the sand.
Evidence of this fact can be seen with the drain pipe at the site that often has a large hole on the sides
where the water has swirled and removed sand, which also makes access tricky, but at least is a
smaller area than a bulkhead around three properties. Often, the wake pf boats, tides from the moon
and the prevailing winds drive water high and cause waves up to the grassy area.
5. Will steps be involved that will wash away, hamper access for small boats, and add to the
erosion?
6. Where exacty is, officially, the high tide mark and mean high tide? The wooden stakes that were
put up when the land was surveyed were underwater at high tide (I have pictures) and are now washed
away.
7. Where would the 70 feet setback from the water be for the two properties that were sold at
auction? Should we not build in that low wetland area?
Please respond to this note and please send any decision you make to me. If you are looking at the
property, I would appreciate going with you to the access area so I can fully understand and comment.
Thank you.
Charlotte Farris (resident - 3110 Evans Street)
P. O. Box 1866
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
email: [e-mail]
phone: [phone]
cell: 252-240-9841
2 of 2 1/26/2007 1:40 PM

26-.an-2007 03:13pm From -TOWN OF MOREHEAD T-180 P.002/002 F-679
i
CORINNE WERB GEER
1'. O_ BOX 236
MOREBEAD CITY, N. C. 28557
Ms. Sandi Watkins
CAM& Officer
Torun of Morehead City
710 Arendell Street
Morehead City, N. C, 28557
Dear Madam.
In response to the legal notice published in Carteret County News Times as rcgards application for a
minor CAMA permit for Sunset Shores to bulkhead or seawall the lots in question and build a walkway by
notice of this letter lodge my opposition to the installation of a balkhead_ None of the other lots along this
part of the shore are bulkheaded and do not show excessive danger from threat of erosion, rather there is
currently a build up of area as evidenced by the grand shoat building up.. Science tells us that such
unnatural stractm will cause erosion of our lots -
Sincerely,
Corinne Webb Geer

bulkheadh•etdining wall and boardwalk
,l'• 4
Subject: bulkhead/retaining wall and boardwalk
From: "PHILIP STEWART" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:30,18 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>
January 26, 2007
To CAMA Morehead City and to Morehead City Planning Dept.
I wish to express my opinion concerning the property at Sunset Drive and 32nd Street now owned
by Mr. and Mrs. Tom Betts. I understand that an application has been made on behalf of the
Betts's for a boardwalk and bulkhead to be built on their property and on the 31' wide public
access on that property.
I most strenuously object to any bulkhead being built on that property, and especially on the
public access part of it. A bulkhead will severely limit access and useable beach area for the
public. At high tide a bulkhead could even eliminate use. A bulkhead is likely to cause beach
erosion, or at best, contribute to beach erosion, which will further diminish access. There has been
study after study by coastal scientists testifying to the detrimental and damaging effects of
bulkheads.
I also object to a retaining wall, for the same reason as for a bulkhead. Depending on the location
of a "retaining wall", it could serve the same function as a bulkhead, being different in name only.
I expect that it would likely be located in the sensitive environmental area at the natural dune line
where native and beneficial plants are located. Are there not set back rules that should come into
play?
I object to any boardwalk at this point. Until we can be sure that public access will not be
inhibited or discouraged, it should not be allowed. A boardwalk in and of itself is not a problem.
The questions to ask are where will it be? How does it lead to the shore, to the beach? Will it in
any way prevent or diminish access?
This property currently has a nice, lovely, healthy sandy beach, except for the immediate area at
the outfall of the storm water sewer pipe. (The pipe and the water from that pipe has gouged a
deep and wide hole in the sandy bottom that could be dangerous and have unhealthy chemical
and biological problems.) I expect CAMA and other city and state officials to do what is necessary
and right to maintain this beach and shoreline. Further, I expect the city and state to protect our
public access.
Mr. and Mrs. Betts purchased this property from the town of Morehead City with full knowledge of
the public easement on it. The citizens of the neighborhood and the town were assured that their
right to use this access would be maintained. It would not be right to give this new owner special
consideration. Do what is in the best long term interest of our natural resource, Bogue Sound,
and our town.
Thank you,
Anna Stewart
3006 Evans Street
PS. You can reach me by telephone at 757-496-2388 or by mail at 2724 Spigel Drive, Virginia
Beach, VA 23454
1 of 1 1/26/2007 1:40 PM

Fw: CAMA Bulkhead permit by Mary Betz for 3119 &3201 Sunset D...
r
Subject: Fw: CAMA Bulkhead permit by Mary Betz for 3119 &3201 Sunset Drive,
Morehead City, NC 28557
From: "Sandi Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:06:29 -0500 .
To: <[e-mail]>
----- Original Message -----
From: PHILIP STEWART
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail] ; [e-mail]:
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 7:46 PM
Subject: CAMA Bulkhead permit by Mary Betz for.3119 &3201 Sunset Drive, Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Ms Watkins:
I would strongly object to the subject permit request.
There should be a legitimate need to protect property to justify the building of a bulkhead. The
subject property is a healthy beach with no signs of erosion.
The owner of the subject property has in the past cut down vegetation within the dune line and
has back filled land within the 30 foot setback zone.
You should examine the real reason for this request. Mr.Tom Betz, husband of the requestor, told
me that "CAMA allowed bulkheads to be built along the high water mark" and that his intention for
building the bulkhead was to prohibit access to the water across the 31 foot easement that the
city created. During this conversation with Mr. Betz it was stated that his proposal would restrict
access. Mr. Betz's response was that "he would be glad to provide a tide chart" as access would be
limited except for low tide.
I would also request that you also reestablish the point of the mean high water mark.
Thank you for your consideration.
Philip M. Stewart
3006 Evans Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
and
2724 Spigel Dr.
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
Cell Phone # [phone]
1 of 1 1/29/2007 9:21 AM

Need information about a permit request
Subject: Need information about a permit request
From: "Peter Kumpel" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:27:58 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: <pkumpel (�_b ec.rr.com>
To Sandi Watkins and Ryan Davenport,
Sorry about the late response about this subject but it was just brought to my attention.
A permit has been requested to bulkhead a section on Sunset Dr. directly south of 32nd St.
and Evens St. The request was put in by agents of Mary M. Betts. If I read the request correctly
this bulkhead and boardwalk would either be on or over public property. The request' states that
Mary M. Betts is the owner of this property. She owns lots on either side of the public property.
My thoughts on this subject have already be brought to your attention by an e-mail that was sent
on January 26,2007. 1 agree with this letter completely ( see attachment ).
The only thing that I would like to add to the attachment is the following. Any construction on or over
this 31 foot easement would impede full and complete access to the sound.
Thank you very much for your time spent on this matter.
Peter Kumpel
3106 Evans St
[e-mail]
252-247-3114 Home
252-504-0570 Cell
Charlotte Farris's email.doc Content -Type: application/msword
Content -Encoding: quoted -printable
I of 1 1/29/2007 11:38 AM

CORINNE WEBB GEER
P. O. BOX 236
MOREHEAD CITY, N. C. 28557
3207 EVANS STREET
Mr. Ryan Davenport
CAMA OFFICER
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, N. C. 28557
Dear Sir:
RX Rowizo
JAN 2 9 tnp;
Morehead City QGM
In response to the legal notice published Carteret County News Times 1//12/07 as regards application for
minor CAMA permit for Sunset Shores to bulkhead the lots in question and build a walkway by notice
of this letter lodge my opposition to the installation of a bulkhead. None of the other lots along this part
of the shore are bulkheaded and do not show excessive danger from threat of erosion. Science tells us
that such unnatural structure will cause erosion of our lots.
Sincerely
ez-
Corinne Geer

Mary Betts application for bulkhead for 3119 and 3201 Sunset Drive...
Subject: Mary Betts application for bulkhead for 3119 and 3201 Sunset Drive, Morehead City
From: "PHILIP STEWART" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:34:19 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
Dear Mr. Davenport:
The subject waterfront in front of the subject property is a health beach with a dune and dune
vegetation. These These does not appear to be any erosion and in fact the beach appears to be be
building up.
What is -the purpose of the requested bulkhead? If it is to provide a structure to back fill and raise the
level of the current lot I would support a retaining wall as it is my understanding that retaining wall
have to be built at least 30 feet to the land side of the mean high water mark. I would also ask that
CAMA re-establish the mean high water mark. Before the city sold this property to the Betts two
surveys were done. The second placed the high water mark about 25' south of the drainage culvert. ( 25'
in the water )
I ask CAMA to protect this beach environment by making sure that the application and the purpose for
this requested permit balance environmental stewardship and the need of the homeowner. Please
examine the the need and purpose of the subject request and do the right thing to protect this beach
environment.
I would like to examine the plans and purpose for this permit. Please send to me the permit request and
any plans that you have or let me know how I can examine the request and plans.
Sincerely,
Philip M. Stewart
3006 Evans Street, Morehead City, NC
Ewe
2724 Spigel Dr. VA Beach, VA 23454
757 496-2388
1 of 1 2/l/2007 2:48 PM