18376_SMITH, GREG & OVERBECK, CHARLES_19980714

CAMA AND DREDGE ANU FILL
GENERAL t t 8376
PERMIT AUG 12 1999
as authorized by the State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC
Applicant Name 4 �' rtr %,e Phone Number
Address `'C e ( A''�
City in en'l'" State IVC Zip
Project Location (County, State Road, Water Body, etc.) SXr,�q eo+,�7�r'2a f1,rr _ ij�diz,
r
Type of Project Activity
PROJECT DESCRIPTION I SKETCH
(SCALE:
Pier(dock)length 1PA6 up?,I, S err -fY
i
Groin length
number
Bulkhead length
max. distance offshore
Basin, channel dimensions
cubic yards
Boat ramp dimensions
Other ref
i.
ir
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 be-
come 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) this pro-
ject 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.
attachments
applicant's signature
permit officer's signature
issuing date expiration date
In issuing this permit the State of North Carolina certifies that
this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal application fee
Management Program.

Iri_,"
I
NORTH CAROLIN)�IIDEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
NCDENR
Mr. E. Lawrence Davis, III
JAMES B. HUNTJR. �„J
GOVERNOR;-'4T?,¢': Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice
r Post Office Box 831
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
WAYNE MCDEVITT Subject
SECRETARY -
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
CAMA General Permit No. 01376-D
Greg Smith
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Davis:
June 11, 1999
JUN 1 7 1999
I have reviewed your letter of May 19, 1999, and offer the following
clarification to the issues concerning the required setbacks.
Rules adopted by the Coastal Resources Commission require that piers 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 the adjacent property owner's
areas of riparian access. The rule also outlines the manner in which these areas of
riparian access shall be established. In most cases this is done by drawing a line
along the channel or deep water in front of the properties, then drawing a line
perpendicular to the line of the channel so that it intersects with the shore at the point
the upland property line meets the water's edge. In some cases when the
perpendicular alignment of the areas of riparian access with the channel cannot be
achieved, the rule allows the pier to be aligned to meet the intent of the rule to the
maximum extent practicable. Staff often refers to these areas of riparian access as
"riparian corridors".
CAMA General Permit No. 018333-D, issued to Mr. Greg Smith on May 13,
1998, indicated approximately 24 feet between the floating dock and your and Mr.
Smith's common "riparian corridor" line. The Use Standards for piers, as well as the
specific conditions outlined in the CAMA General Permit for Construction of Piers,
Docks and Boat Houses at 15A NCAC 7H .1205, require only a minimum setback of
15 feet from these "riparian corridor" lines, not the extended property lines. Mr.
Overbeck's drawing submitted during the application process for General Permit No.
018333-D indicated that the pier would have a setback of 24 feet from the "CAMA
Corridor." As I stated in my May 10, 1999 letter, minor modifications to Mr. Smith's
proposal were authorized under CAMA General Permit No. 018376-D. A new
permit was issued to Mr. Smith for these minor changes and for the purpose of
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1 -7687 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Mr. E. Lawrence Davis, III
June 11, 1999
Page Two
extending the permit time period. Because the original permit was still active, it could also have
been modified to include these minor changes, however, without the extension, the permit
probably would have expired before the pier was completed.
Prior to the issuance of General Permit No. 018376-D, the applicant provided staff with a survey
of the area of riparian access for Mr. Smith's pier project. That survey was referenced in the
General Permit. Staffs comparison of Mr. Smith's survey (dated Rev. April 23, 1998) and your
survey (dated October 19, 1998), which shows the existing location of Mr. Smith's pier, indicate
that the pier, as constructed, has a setback of approximately 24 feet from the "riparian corridor"
line. Although a setback of only 15 feet is required by our rules, the pier as constructed also
appears to be consistent with the original drawing submitted with General Permit No. 018333-D
with respect to your and Mr. Smith's areas of riparian access.
I hope this letter will help clarify the Division's position on this matter and once again I
conclude that no useful purpose would be served by further action on our part.
cc
David Heeter
Charles Jones
Bob Stroud
Jim Gregson
Gregory Smith
Sincerely,
f
Donna D. Moffitt
119Y�111�

,
WOMBLE
CARLYLE Pr
SANDRIDGE
& RICE
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY
150 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 2100
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mailing Address
Post Office Box 831
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
May 19, 1999
Ms. Donna D. Moffitt
Director
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
E. Lawrence Davis, III
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Re: CAMA General Permit No. 018376-D Issued to Mr. G. Gregory Smith
Dear Ms. Moffit:
Thank you for your letter of May 10, 1999, and thank you for the time and attention you
have given to this matter.
Before asking the administrative law judge to consider the matter and the pending
proceeding 98EHR1295, I am writing to make sure that in the course of your review, you noticed
that the notification of the proposed work under the original permit (GPD01833) showed the
proposed structure as extending no closer than 24 feet from the extended property line. The
permit as issued does not include this 24-foot setback. The dock, as built, extends almost to the
extended property line without allowing the 24-foot setback shown in the notification or even the
15-foot setback required by law. Surely it is not lawful to permit or build a structure so different
from what was proposed in the notification to the adjoining property owners.
The purpose of this letter is to seek your reconsideration of the matter and if for any
reason you are not in a position to do so, to request the Department to join in our forthcoming
motion to have the administrative law judge rule on the matter.
R#298588.1
ATLANTA / CHARLOTTE / RALEIGH / RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK / WINSTON-SALEM

WOMBLE
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& RicE
P L L C
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the notification we received.
Thanking you for your consideration, I am
cc. David Heeter
Jim Gregson
G. Gregory Smith
John Cooke
Bill Holman
R#298588.1
Yours sincerely,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
A Professional Limited Liabil' Company
E. Lawrence Davis, III

4, SENDER:
'2
■+
■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
■Complete items 2. 4a, and 4b.
I also wish to receive the
%
■Print your name antl address on the reverse of this form so that
card to you.
we can return this following services (for an'
�
extra fee):
■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece. or on the back if space does not
permit.
a)
d
c
■ Write'Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 1 Addressee's Add:. ess
■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered. 2• ❑Restricted Delivery'
U
'
N
°
-a
3. Article Addressed to:
Consult postmaster for foe,
a
d
4a. Article Number
26 G 6'14' �— 7/ �'
v
�
� c
4, Service Type
E
ni
❑ Registered —❑—Certified
v✓ t `\ 11S \ v'\
ress El Insur r d
�!
r Z �4o S�
❑Rpm Receipt for Merchandise
p ❑ COC,
V
7. Date
V
R
'
—
Z 068 16; r1,7
U''S Posta! Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No insurance Coverage Provide;'.
DO not use for International Mail ,'See reverse)
SVnt to _
btreel d Numoer
p Oftrce. State. & Zil
i tia�E;
I
°ostaae
Certified Fee
Speaal Delivery Fee
•f o. ecelved By: (,pnnt Name0 � Restricted Deiivs f Fes
)P 8. Addressee's Address (Oniyif requested Y
and fee is paid) cc I Return Receipt Showing to
s 6..SiQna r f (AF,0ressee or Agent) I Wnom &Date Delivered - -I
!-' . l// if L n - l 1,i j nedJm ttece:^t Snowing to
Dete z M.=e;ssee's Adore
PS Fo(Tn B811, December 1
mestic Return Receipt
,n
C-
i
TOTAL Postage &'Fees
Fosan or Date
cr
L
cn _
ti
/G
Z 081,60 r1,6
- - - US ' osta; Service
S_NDErt:-`�=ceipt for Certi;ie� F�ai[
Vo Insurance Coverage Provided.
■ C. molete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the Do not use for international Mail (See reverse;
■ Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b, following services (for an ,- to i
■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this
card to vou. extra fee):
■ Attach this forth to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not 1, ❑Addressee's Address 2 S ` •u.^c
permit. �?eG�> i
■ W riie'Retum Receipt Requested' on the maiioiece below the article number.
■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery rn FOS,'0"ITI ;e. State. n ZIP Cooe
delivered. Consult postmaster for Tee.O \
3. Article Addressed to:
vCL,��
5. Received By:
6
or AgenFi
PS Form 3al 1, December y ,94-' '
4a. Article Number
0
Pes age S
t -7
_
-
�
�
Certnied wee
ervice Type '
tered ❑ Certified
Speaal Deiiven• Fee I
I
s Mail ❑Insured
L ` tlkt
=
�,
Restn�ec Deiivey Fee
t
Q' Ret. ;5$eceipt for Merchandise ❑ COD
`
7. DalibVIDetive n' .---
Fietum ne:emt Snowing to 1
� - i
.1nom a gate Delivered
(1
`. y,
O
a
Return nece= Snow:'U t•J
3. A essee's Address (Only if requested
'r
Ddte.%:,C�PSSees Adaress
I
-'End fee is paid)
ti
i=
TOTAL Postage ii Fees ' .1S
.:i 7 11
Posts"
Domestic Return Receipt

'�_" i V I i � M+�i1tb5 W CsQfi55 , — � i ✓'� � II
:
. .-- -•-i- I I t t. S�-1`,hs� . ��3ri,2 . I j � ' I ,'
1 :
, I I
_
!
I
60
tic
• , i , 1 ♦ i l �."�t : F1OAT40
J
?i
ZVI
I
I 1
Ell !�.•. �,��s ! ; ' 4,17
I is k1,�iK I I i 3�es

DAMES S. HUNT
GOVERNOR
ryyavuFM��J EYI'
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
V1av 10, 1999
Mr. E. Lawrence Davis, III
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice
Post Office Box 831
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
Dear Mr. Davis:
Subject: C NLA, General Permit -No. 018376-D Issued to VIr. G. Grezory Smith
I have determined that no further action needs to be taken by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) regarding the above referenced permit. I have -eac ed this
decision after reviewing the tiles, interviewing the DCM employee -'.vho issued the
permit. and discussing the matter with our attorney; Dave Heuer. I aiso visited the
site.
The re -issuance of this permit without notice to you met the require:-ents of 15 A
NCAC 7H.1202(b)(2). You received notification of the proposed work: under the
original permit (GPD 018333) and did not object at the time. No suestantial change to
the proposed work occurred when the minor modifications were mace.
Under 7H.1202(e), DCM has the authority to approve minor modifications which do
not substantially change the project as proposed under the original -nit. In addition.
DCM could have considered the original pe nit still active and modi ed : �e existing
permit on that independent ground. On this basis, notice to you also %Vouid not have
been required under 7H.1202(e).
I am certain that with this explanation you will understand why this _=-=:T was re-
issued as it was. Given these circumstances. I concluded that no use=,l Cu--pose would
be served by fur -Lher action.
Sincerely
Donna D. Mo-f= -
cc: David Heeter
Charles Jones
Bob Stroud
Jim Ore_son
Gregory Smith
P.O. BOX 27607. RALEIGH, NC Z7611--587 -729 CAP17. AL=_':=..-.-.--E:GY...NC 27604
-"ONE 91 9-732__93 = AX 919-733-1395
RECYCLEC PCST-C•ONSUMER P4PER
AN ECU...L pPAO RTUNITY ! AFcI P.MATIVE ACTION =M PLOYER - _C _ -

JAMES B.
GOVERNOF
Mr. E. Lawrence Davis, III
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice
Post Office Box 831
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
Dear Mr. Davis:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
MAY 14 1999
May 10, 1999
Subject: CAMA General Permit No. 018376-D Issued to Mr. G. Gregory Smith
I have determined that no further action needs to be taken by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) regarding the above referenced permit. I have reached this
decision after reviewing the files, interviewing the DCM employee who issued the
permit, and discussing the matter with our attorney, Dave Fleeter. I also visited the
site.
The re -issuance of this permit without notice to you met the requirements of 15A
NCAC 7H.1202(b)(2). You received notification of the proposed work under the
original permit (GPD 018333) and did not object at the time. No substantial change to
the proposed work occurred when the minor modifications were made.
Under 7H.1202(e), DCM has the authority to approve minor modifications which do
not substantially change the project as proposed under the original permit. In addition,
DCM could have considered the original permit still active and modified the existing
permit on that independent ground. On this basis, notice to you also would not have
been required under 7H.1202(e).
I am certain that with this explanation you will understand why this permit was re-
issued as it was. Given these circumstances, I concluded that no useful purpose would
be served by further action.
Sincerely
%Zed
Donna D. Moffitt
cc: David Heeter
Charles Jones
Bob Stroud
Jim Gregson
Gregory Smith
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1-7687 / 2726 CAPITAL BLVD., RAL.EIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY FACSIMILE AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. G. Gregory Smith
Parkdale 100 L.L.C.
5201 Hedrick Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
State of North Carolina
Department of justice
P. O. BOX 629
RALEiGH
27602-0629
January 15, 1999
Reply to: David G. Heeter
Environmental Division
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
dheeter@rnaiI jus. state. nc.us
JAN 2 0 1999
Re: Mediated Settlement Conference, E. Lawrence Davis, et al., v. N.C. Division of
Coastal Management; Recommendation Regarding Revocation of CAMA General
Permit No. 018376-D.
Dear Mr. Smith:
On Wednesday, January 27, 1999, the parties will hold the mediated settlement
conference previously ordered in this matter. The conference will be at 10:00 a.m. at the office of
Poyner & Spruill, 3600 Glenwood Ave., Raleigh, NC. Thomas R. West will act as the mediator.
You should plan on attending this conference since my client's motion to make you a
party will likely be granted by then. If you decide to surrender CAMA General Permit 018383-D
so as to obviate the need for the conference, you need to do so immediately. Otherwise the parties
will be jointly responsible for the mediator's preparation fee.
My client is in the process of deciding what to do regarding the notice issues raised by
Mr. Davis about CAMA General Permit 018376-D. I have recommended that the Division notify
you of its intent to revoke this permit because of the failure to give your adjacent riparian
neighbors adequate notice prior to its issuance. You will be required to notify them of the
location and dimensions of the pier, docks, and boat lift as constructed and the location of the
riparian lines as shown on your Survey so they can provide comments or objections. If the permit
is revoked, you will be entitled to a hearing. If the permit is allowed to remain in effect, your
neighbors may request a hearing.
As soon as my client makes a decision regarding Permit 018376-1), you will be notified.
Please call me if you have any questions about these matters.

.lanuary 15, 1999
Page
Yours truly,
David G. Heeter
Assistant Attorney General
cc: Charles Jones
Jim Gregson
E. Lawrence Davis, III
ep/29870

. d u
State of North Carolina
MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice
ATTORNEY GENERAL 1'. 0. BOX 629
RALEIGH
2 7602-0629
January 14. 1999
BY FACSIMILE AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. G. Gregory Smith
Parkdale 100 L.L.C.
5201 Hedrick Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
Re: Surrender of CAMA General Permit No. 018383-D
Dear Mr. Smith:
JAN 2 0 1999
/0.0 /)
Reply to: David G. Heeter
Environmental Division V
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
It is my understanding that you have completed the construction of the floating dock and
boat lift at 41 Pipers Neck, Figure Eight Island, in reliance upon CAMA General Permit No.
018376-D. It is also my understanding that you do not intend to pursue any development under
CAMA General Permit No. 018383-1) which is the one being appealed by Lawrence Davis, et al.
If so, you should surrender Permit No. 018383-D by returning the original to Jim Gregson,
Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405-3845.
Include a note or letter signed by you indicating that you are surrendering the permit.
In the meantime, I will determine the best way to resolve the various issues which have
been raised about Permit No. 018376-1). I will inform you as soon as this decision is made.
Very truly yours,
^ 7
David G. Heeter
Assistant Attorney General
cc: Charles Jones
Jim Gregson
E. Lawrence Davis, III
ep/298O6
IW

JAN 1 1 1999
R ply, to: David G. Heeter
Environmental Division
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
January 7, 1999
BY FACSIMILE AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. G. Gregory Smith
Parkdale 100 L.L.C.
5201 Hedrick Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
Re: Construction of floating dock and boat lift under CAMA Permit No. 018376-D.
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am writing you on behalf of my client, the Division of Coastal Management. On
Tuesday, you left a message on my answering machine indicating your intention to construct the
6' x 24' floating dock and 12' x 14' boat lift authorized under CAMA General Permit No. 018376-
D. This permit was not suspended by the third party appeal of CAMA General Permit No.
018383-1) instituted by Lawrence Davis. I would nevertheless caution you against proceeding
under Permit No. 018376-1). This is because of recent conversations with Mr. Davis, particularly
one this afternoon, which raise doubts about the validity of Permit No. 018376-1).
In his Third Party Hearing Request, Mr. Davis agreed that Permit No. 018376-1)
"allowing a 40-foot floating dock ... would not create a safety or navigational hazard and would
not violate the 15-foot setback requirement." This seemed to indicate that he did not object to
you adding the floating dock and boat lift as authorized under Permit No. 018376-D to the pier
you had already constructed.
It is now clear he was only indicating that he does not object to the pier/dock complex as
shown on the drawing provided to him before Permit No. 018376-D was issued. He does have
objections to the pier/dock complex as authorized by Permit No. 018376-D and to the pier as it
was actually built because of inconsistencies with the drawing provided to him. Because of these
inconsistencies, he contends he was deprived of due process during the permit application
process and of the opportunity to challenge Permit No. 018376-D after it was issued.
In addition, he is contending that your riparian access area was improperly determined
prior to the issuance of both Permits No. 018376-D and 018383-D. As a result, he is alleging that

.January 7. 1999
Page 2
the floating dock cannot be added to the improperly located existing pier under Permit No.
018376-D without violating the 15 foot riparian setback requirement. He is also alleging that the
pier and floating dock as authorized by Permit No. 018383-D violate the 15 foot riparian setback
requirement.
I understand that Jim Gregson, Division of Coastal Management, authorized Charles
Overbeck, your contractor, to proceed with the construction of the floating dock and boat lift
under Permit No. 018376-D earlier this week. I did not disagree with his decision at that time.
However, the situation has changed since then given my discussions with Mr. Davis. Therefore,
on behalf of the Division of Coastal Management, I am cautioning you against proceeding with
any further construction under Permit No. 018376-D until this situation can be clarified.
Please call me if you have any questions. I will be out of the office on January 8 but will
be back January 11. At that point, I will review this matter with the Division of Coastal
Management to determine whether further action is needed.
Very truly yours,
David G. Heeter
Assistant Attorney General
cc: Charles Jones
Jim Gregson
Charles Overbeck
E. Lawrence Davis, III
\vp/ 29683