45112_EDWARDS, JANE HARRISON_20060504

❑ CAMA / O DREDGE & FILL
GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit# Zn
❑New ❑Modification ❑Complete Reissue ❑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
(],Rules attached.
Applicant Name t' _(-', Project Location: County
Address Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)-'
City State ZIP
Phone # O Fax # (_a Subdivision - ^--
Authorized Agent _-— City ZIP
Affected El CW El EW EJ PTA [IES Ll PTS Phone # River Basin
AEC(s): El oEa ❑ HHF ❑ IH ElU8A EJ N/A Adj. Wtr. Body( )
t, nat /man /unkn
❑ PWS: El FC:
ORW: yes / no PNA yes / no Crit. Hab. yes / no Closest Maj. Wtr. Body �' „�-��:'•'
Type of Project/ Activity 4"
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
i
no
Sandbags: not sure yes
no —
Moratorium: n/a yes
no
Photos: yes
no
Waiver Attached: yes
no
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions
(Scale:-C!"`.� )
I
- — - - .Liz
'
1. I
i
L
i
See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
. MAY�oU � r
Agent orApplicant Printed Name —zPermit Officer's Signature
Signature "Please read compliance statemeneVbY&WpWMW kd1LYiDfjlfiogDate Expiration Date
ApplicationFee(s) Check# Local Planning Jurisdiction Rover File Name

V
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, certifythatthis project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
River Basin Rules Applicable To Your Project:
Tar - Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules 'j 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 (252-946-648 I) or the Wilmington
Regional Office (910-796-7215) for more information on how to comply with these buffer rules.
Division of Coastal Management Offices
Central Office
Mailing Address:
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Location:
Parker -Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-2293
Fax: [phone]
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)
Morehead City District
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
202-808-2808/ 1-888-4RCOAST
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Carteret, Craven, Onslow -above
New River Inlet- and Pamlico 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 06/29/05

ic

r
�� —� Lomas

NOV 2 d 2005
Morehead City DCM
0
N

JANE W EDWARDS
NANCY S. BARBOUR
90 SLEEPY HOLLOW
ASHEVILLE, NC 28805 ' (�—
/i A . n A
3324
66-19/530 NC
Date ,C �j �^( (1lJ 01,2
509
ray v $ 1� �
to the order of % l
Dollars
BankofAmerica�
ACH R/T 053000196 ''• V
►�1c10>� _, M M
Memo �
I:O 5 3000 L 9 61: 0000 5 3 7 i8 6 n' 332t,

0 IAA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F, Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Ms. Jane Edwards
818 Pigott Road
Gloucester, NC 28528
Dear Ms. Edwards:
January 13, 2006
I am writing this letter in regards to your application for a General Permit for a dock on Sleepy
Creek in Gloucester, Carteret County. It is my understanding that you have a 10' easement
across the properties of Mielle and Meadows, for water access adjacent to Sleepy Creek, that
specifies the construction of a pier or boat ramp. For a 10' wide shoreline, the process
necessitates a survey of the riparian corridor (as defined in 07H.0208 (b)(6)(L). Specifically,
the construction of a pier or dock on a 10' shoreline will require the waiver of both riparian
corridor setbacks, and approval of the property owners on whose property the project will be
located.
The rules that govern piers and docks are found in 15A NCAC 07H .1200, and in 15A NCAC
07H.0208 (b) (6). In both areas, divided by procedure only, the 15' setback from the riparian
corridor is.a requirement, unless waived by the adjacent riparian owner or owners that
encroachment would affect. We have received statements from both adjoining property owners,
each declining to waive the setback requirement. This Division cannot waive the setback, nor
can we grant a variance from the rules we are charged with enforcing. A variance must come
from our governing body, the Coastal Resources Commission.
Therefore, the Division of Coastal Management must deny your application for a General
Permit, as proposed on 11/28/05. Should you wish to pursue a variance from the Coastal
Resource Commission, please notify us and we will provide you with the appropriate forms and
information.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 252-808-2808.
Sincerely,
Mark Hardeman, DCM Field Rep.
Cc: Tere Barrett, District Manager
Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director
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

w
p1Wu F- �4cw�

, i
N DENK
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Ms. Jane Edwards
November 2, 2005
818 Pigott Road
Gloucester, NC 28528
Dear Ms. Edwards:
I am writing with regard to the letter you sent to me on October 18, 2005, asking for a variance from the General
Permit .1200 pier requirements. I telephoned as you requested, on October 25, 2005, and left a message, but have
received no return call.
My understanding is that you have a 10' easement for water access adjacent to Sleepy Creek that specifies the
construction of a pier or boat ramp. You have met with the DCM Field Representative that handles eastern Carteret
County, Mark Hardeman, and he has determined that you have submitted insufficient information to obtain a
General Permit to build a pier. Specifically, the construction of a pier or dock on a 10' shoreline will require the
waiver of riparian corridor setbacks, which you are unable to obtain. You have written to me requesting that the
Division grant a variance from this requirement.
The rules that govern piers and docks are found in 15A NCAC .07H .1200, and in 15A NCAC 07H .0208(b)(6). In
both areas, divided by procedure only, the 15' setback from the riparian corridor is a requirement, unless waived by
the adjacent riparian owner that encroachment would affect. This Division cannot waive the setback, nor can we
grant a variance from the rules we are charged with enforcing. A variance must come from our governing body, the
Coastal Resources Commission.
If you submit to Mr. Hardeman all of the necessary information to make a permit decision (based on all of the rules
in effect, not only the setback requirement), he can then either permit or deny the project. Presently, he has simply
apprised you of the fact that the setback is one of the many requirements that must be met, and you have told him
that you cannot meet that requirement. In order to request a variance you must first be denied a permit. To get to
that point, you must submit a drawing showing the proposal with all site-specific indicators. For piers these include,
but are not limited to, the normal high water line, the coastal marsh the proposed crosses, the width of the water
body, soundings at normal low water, and any channel in the area. For a 10' wide shoreline, the process also
necessitates a survey of the riparian corridor (as defined in 07H .0208(b)(6)(L)). Additionally, if the easement
crosses the property of another, that property owner's permission will be required. With this information, and any
signatures or waivers that you can obtain from the adjacent riparian property owners, a decision can be made with a
site visit and the aid of our aerial photography. If the permit decision is negative, you will receive notification in
writing as to what section or sections of the rules your proposal does not meet. At that point, and with the
information in hand, you may request from the Coastal Resources Commission a variance from the applicable rules.
This request must meet certain criteria that I will be glad to provide for you when and if we reach that point. If you
decide to proceed with the request, please compile the information defined above for you application package, and
call Mr. Hardeman to meet with you onsite.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at 252.808.2808.
Sincerely,
9
Tere Barrett
District Manager, MHC DCM
Cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Mark Hardeman, Field Representative, DCM
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

JANE HARRISON EDWARDS
818 PIGOTT ROAD
GLOUCESTER, NORTH CAROLINA 28528
[phone] EMAIL:[e-mail]
21 November 2005
Mr. Mark Hardeman
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
Dear Mr. Hardeman,
BFuE, � w..It ff
4�_�B
NOV 2 8 2005
Morehead City DCM
I am writing to request a permit to build a pier which would serve my property at 818
Piggot Road, Gloucester, NC.
I propose to construct a 40' X 4' pier with an 8' X 8' "T" on a 10' easement. At this
time, there are two existing piers belonging to my neighbors. The existing pier to the
northeast is 219' from my proposed pier. The existing pier to the southwest is 85' from
my proposed pier.
Attachment 1 depicts Sleepy Creek (found north of a line beginning on the west shore at
point 34 -degrees 43.3925' N — 76 -degrees 31.492' W; running easterly to the east shore
to a point 34 -degrees 43.3651' N — 76 -degrees 31.3250' W) and shows the soundings at
normal low water. At its widest, Sleepy Creek in its general east -west direction is nearly
I Onm. In its general northwest to southeast direction, it is 16.1 nm, and opens into the
Straits channel.
Attachment 2 depicts a "bird's eye" view of the area in which I propose to build a pier,
and is insert "A" of Attachment 1.
Attachment 3 depicts the project description of my proposed pier. The normal high water
line for Sleepy Creek is shown in this drawing. My proposed pier will cross no
marshland, but will extend over the 20' wide wetland appurtenant to the shoreline.
I propose that the pier structure be no longer than what is necessary to bridge wetlands
and to provide access to navigable waters, and no larger than what is required to launch
kayaks or small sail craft.
Concerning the issue of easement across another's property, please see Attachment 4a,
which is an agreement that legally establishes my right to cross the property separating
my lot from the shoreline and to build a pier. Attachment 4b is the survey of the
agreement.

I have petitioned both neighbors for waivers to the 15' riparian setback using tb
local" form provided me by LAMA. Attachment 5 provides a copy of both the
mail receipt, and proof of delivery of these requests.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
ane H. Edwards

1808 CHANNEL DEPTHS
S OF ENGINEERS - SURVEYS TO MAR 2000
LOWER LOW WATER (MLLW)
III
PROJECT DIMENSIONS
►HT RIGHT
LENGTH
DEPTH
)DE OUTSIDE
DATE OF SURVEY
DTH
(NAUT.
MLLW
Ft7ER (?DARTER
(E�ET)
M)LES)
(FEE'S)
4.5.0
2.3.00
454.800
2.26
47
41.1
3-00
600
0.38
42
44.2
3-00
400
1.10
40
3
Qbsms 4
�. 4
sa 2 4 5
0 on
fr,•.y jj
■irnr....r 2 '
. .
• t 1
41.2 10-199400-1200 0.70 40 . �a Fi
39.8 10-99 800-1000 0.39 35 . ; .. • •,
3EQUENT TO THE ABOVE INFORMATION e
Bells
1 f
Subm
f� 1 PA
'Sol
a # Bells Pt
Gloucester 1 Marshall erg
3 SA
♦ f
Cable e Rar-rp 9
Area a 3
-- 1 4
U y
Fl 2-58i R '4�
o Subm 3 r4At 3M ft°' 2 4
c�
2 pike a •• so 3
18 22 4� 3
4 "46" 1 16 6 1 1 o G 5
2 /�' 2 Subm piie � 8 3 2 2 8 7
_� 16 2 so 4 FI R 4s 842A8 PA 3 h 8 •
19 14 2 1 S 2 4 13�, a2 14 � �
1 rt 1 2 : Sty 2 16 PA 10
2 2� 3 5�
"� . °Piling PA ° 5 Z 7
1 *�, • • F
jj
• 3 4 N O V l 8 2005 j R 3
.•.
• t• a , �•
Marsh `' Moretviad G+� 4 C , I� 1
~ " ala '%

TT i A C H M,9 Ni
Proposed Pier Construction
8�
'vets' -�_� �•^�_ _ _� -` -��- —`,�
NOV 2 8 2005
MOrehead Cif..

.rrr
3
t�
Nov z 8 2005
Morehead City DCM
NL

Y9 i T ,r4C H M �N l 14 0�
. r.
Norm CAROLINA ACRES
caRTaRgT covrzTz
mmado an9 entered into thio daof
!IHIB ACRE and between Elbridge 8oardrsn, are y ft -%r
August, 1983, by
GDrald M. Riley and wif®, 1Cin g. Riley'
calls4 "Grantor" and .
;�, hereinafter coilmatively called aGrantea-"
rte'.'{?:i�• HITNESSSTHI '
` GRANTOR has -this data comrayed to Gerald M. Riley and
?:= a certain tract or parcel o! land, the ease
c Mira, Ku F. Riley Grantor, all of which
bsing a portion of a larger tract oeme4 by C. pittaanr
or Surva reparad by Larry
is depicted on a Map —! _ car -tarot County
`� •••" �• R. L.6. and recorded in Map Rook � ^. Hae® ,
Registry, which is incorporated orcin by reference, end
,
T + FOR AND IN CON3IDMTIO9 of the mutual covenants heroin
contained, the partiam do hsreby covariant each with the other as
F,u follmrs t
_w
1. All reforencee to oaaR�antm, rondo, perosis,
boundaries, eta. shall ba an shoam on the Kap or
Larry C. Piths_ , R.L.a., as recorded in Kap
yt r BBook , page Castc+rat County geegiatry.
The 10 loot easaz"ant running fr s tho Southeastern
corner of the tract comnyad to Orantes and Sleepy
Crack shall be a perpetual eascsaant for (a) purposes of
raccoon to Sleepy crceX and (b) for Grantees conatrUo-
i:".•.", tion and raintenen^a of a pier or boat ranp. This
r
eaaaaant shall be rspput^nant to Grenton'o residence
rr " and its attendant curt and shall not inure to the
benefit of other owners of property within the treat
t
conveyed to Gra-ntom should Orantoo aubeequan y
subdivide raid propertyl providod, hovovnr, ant of
transfer said easeront to any cuboequ-rat purchaser
`;,:: : _• Grantee's residence and, to that e:.t!lntr said ad'aeaant
shall run with the lend.
'•' .viS c
3. Grantor agrees that hs will not construct any
:.�.
the
building, hone, rea'ned o or other at (aj the on
portion of land reta'ne+d by Dire excepts (aJ
rs;Fa; structures located n the property retained by Grr'n or
"y be replacod or rmconestructed in the event of
the
W. ��i destruction by fire or other caaunity, and bJ
., ra for
s k present st:ucturo�s ¢aY be enlarge -d. The artia■
rocognizo that a portlon of the :onn]Ld of -Y --to
o this ro•Y.F
a .yt vlav acrozo the pra7;^r =u
- - - _...6EOT.. bz to a 81*"py Crr
TM
Nov 2 9 2005
Morehead City D
C
�f+ra+y` `jar flie ✓24�
u

Flpr 25 05 08:19a Jane Edwards
T;ft�
rr2 -7
Z
e7wa44 Er W
f�
• ��6197c`P,F�•9
/
•
t
{O BUR•'�7
QRY 0 .p
.� 2.7p •
o
M1
li
v
1
+
r
a
1,
n In
\
N
1,
VENICE M. Al V£R
11
1
N&0=28 33E
3o -g t'
347.
p.2
4.05
( 39
�z 4 4. 4 3 fc. -ra L
q � \
� m
� m
CC
i to
µ HOUSE
1 Ne W 4OU.te%
++uuu
CARo
• ��6197c`P,F�•9
\�
•
{O BUR•'�7
QRY 0 .p
238.0•
$60'4d
FR_A N _-S-BAR-B-6V- ..
TR Al TS, TWP• C ARTEREr Go•/�' C• E.11• BoARDM AN
P)TrmAN 5L)AV4y BE-A UFoR7 N•�•
728- 31 9 2
BY: L AK R / C. P1 riMAV R, z.5. L - '1 5 pi0.� aandr
/2- 3-9/ SCA L E
5
NOV 2 9 2095
A
.• P j�
.ID�CA56.
Morehead City DCM

CERTIFIED MAIL - R i TURN RECEIPT REQI,1ESTED
DIVISION OF COAST.XL :1IA-iAGEl/IENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATIONAVAIVER
FORM
Dame of individual applying for permit: �1 A 0 e
Address of property: g 1 P l G O,-vT CKK-D
(:ot or street 9, street or road)
RTI R ) C -N i �� t^Uil Ck-57efZ
(City & County) .
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above referenced ptoperty. The
individual applying for this permit has described tome (as shown on the d TIE- �►[
drawing) the development they are proposing. A description or drawing, with
dimensions, should be provided with this letter.
I have no objections to this proposal
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 or call [phone]
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no
objection if you have been notified by Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift 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.
� A t 41- I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
Signature Dat
Ar- UA Z"F- kW,5 �'i��'67Y
Print Name
Telephone Number With area Code

71-0
?���
4'---�
a

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DB-ISION OF COASTAL NIAN-kGE-NE NT
iOJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OytitiER NOTIFICATIONAVAINTSR.
FORM
Name of individual applying for permit:��
Address of property: l 8 1 CTo —%-T R p
(:ot or street #, street or road)
(City & County)
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above referenced ptoperty. The
individual applying for this permit has described to me (as shown on the 9*"*ed 5 a �'� C
drawing) the development they are proposing. A description or drawing, with
dimensions, should be provided with this letter.
I have no objections to this proposal
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 or call [phone]
within I0 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no
objection if you have been notified by Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift 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.
�do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
i
Sig ttfre Date
Print Name
(-2- Z c 21- '7 is 8 (.o
Telephone Number With Area Code
p -
7 2005
Morehead City DCM

)? t 'E. R -

ti'�d�, STATE y^,Of .= � �jpq{ /f�'. [) `t•
APR 1.2 2V""
State of North Carol inMorehead City DCM
ROY COOPER Department of Justice Reel to: ey
ATTORNEY GENERAL- 9001 Mail Service Center Jill Environmental Oivisiun
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 9001 Moil Set -vice Center
27690-9001 Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
-rel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
jhickeycenccl0j.cont
April 11;2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Jane Edwards
818 Pigott Rd.
Gloucester, N.C. 28528
Re: Variance Request to Coastal Resources Commission
CRC -VR -06-01
Dear Ms. Edwards:
At its March 23, 2006 meeting, the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) voted to grant
the above referenced variance request. Attached is a copy of the Final Order, signed by the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission. Prior to undertaking the development for
which you sought a variance, you must first obtain a CAMA permit from your local permitting
authority or the Division of Coastal Management.
Ms. Giesey and Mr. Miele, who declined to waive the 15' setback requirement, are being
sent a copy of the Final Order, and they could seek judicial review of the CRC's decision in the
Carteret County Superior Court.
Sincerely,
1.11 B. Hickey
Special Deputy Attorney General
Counsel to the Commission

April 10, 2006
Page 2
c: Meredith Alcoke
Stephanie Bodine, DCM Morehead City
Courtney Hackney, Chairman

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
IN THE MATTER OF: )
PETITION FOR VARIANCE )
BY JANE EDWARDS )
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CRC -VR -06-01
FINAL ORDER
This matter was heard on oral arguments and stipulated facts atethe regularly scheduled
meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (hereinafter CRC) on March 23,
2006, in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-120.1 and TI 5A NCAC
7J.0700, et seq. Assistant Attorney General Meredith Jo Alcoke appeared for the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management. Jane Edwards appeared on
her own behalf.
Upon consideration of the record documents and the arguments of the parties, the CRC
adopts the following:
STIPULATED FACTS
1. Petitioner owns property and resides at 818 Piggott Road in Gloucester, in eastern Carteret
County.
2. The property is located near the upper reaches of Sleepy Creek, but is not adjacent to the
water. Petitioner has a perpetual deeded 10 -foot easement across another owner's waterfront
property. Petitioner's easement states that it is "for purposes of access to Sleepy Creek" and
for "construction and maintenance of a pier or boat ramp."
3. Petitioner has owned the property in question and the benefits of this access easement since
January 24, 1992.
4. Sleepy Creek runs in a north/south direction between the communities of Gloucester and

Marshallberg and connects at its southern point to the Straits. The waters of Sleepy Creek
are classified as SA Waters by the Environmental Management Commission and are open
to the harvest of shellfish. The waters are further classified as a Primary Nurscry Arca
(PNA) by the Marine Fisheries Commission.
5. Sleepy Creek is a tidal creek that is generally very shallow in depth. It is approximately
2,000 feet wide at the location of Petitioner's property.
6. A strip of marsh measuring between twenty and thirty feet in width borders the creek at the
location of the easement. Submerged aquatic vegetation exists within Sleepy Creek, but
there is none at the location of the proposed pier.
7. The two property owners adjacent to Petitioner's easement each have piers. The Meadows
pier is approximately 50 feet long and is located approximately 219 feet from the proposed
location of Petitioner's pier. The Miele pier is approximately 100 feet long and is located
approximately 84 feet from the proposed location of Petitioner's pier.
8. In addition, Mr. Miele has constructed a bulkhead that partially impedes Petitioner's
easement, thereby affecting Petitioner's ability to construct a boat ramp. The bulkhead has
been there since at least 2000, but the Division has been unable to locate any CAMA permit
for the structure.
9. On or about November 28, 2005, Petitioner applied for a CAMA General Permit to
construct a pier on or extending from her easement. The pier would be 4 feet wide by 40 feet
long, with an 8' by TT -head at the end.
10. Rule 15A NCAC 7H .1205(0) governs the placement of docks and piers in public trust
waters and provides in pertinent part that piers "shall not interfere with the access to any
4

riparian property, and shall have a minimum setback of 15 feet between any part of the pier
and the adjacent property lines extended into the water at the points that they intersect the
shoreline." The 15 -foot riparian setback requirement was in place when Pet 1tioiler Purchased
the property.
11. Thus, in order to construct a pier on an easement measuring only 10 feet in width, Petitioner
would have to obtain a waiver of the riparian corridor from both adjacent riparian property
owners. ha accordance with LAMA pennitting rules, Petitioner sent notice concerning the
requested pen -nit by certified mail to the adjoining property owners. Both owners refused to
waive the 15 -foot setback requirement.
12. Because Petitioner's application violates the CRC's riparian corridor setback rule in 15A
NCAC 7H. 1205(0), DCM denied the pennit application by letter dated January 13, 2006.
13. Petitioner filed this variance request on February 2, 2.06, seeking a variance from the above-
cited riparian access rule.
14. The parties stipulate that due to the minimal length of the Petitioner's proposed pier and the
setting in which is it located, the pier as proposed would not cause an unreasonable
interference with navigation or riparian access.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The CRC has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
2. All notices for the proceeding were adequate and proper.
3. The Petitioner has demonstrated that strict application of Rule 15A NCAC 7H
1205(0) to her pennit application will result in unnecessary hardship. The Petitioner's variance
3

request materials and the staff recommendation are incorporated by reference as support for this
conclusion.
4. The Petitionerhas demonstrated that her hardship is peculiar to Petitioner's property.
The Petitioner's variance request materials and the staff recommendation are incorporated by
reference as support for this conclusion.
5. The Petitioner has demonstrated that her hardship does not result from actions she
has taken. The Petitioner's variance , request materials and the staff recommendation are
incorporated by reference as support for this conclusion.
6. The Petitioner has demonstrated that her proposed development is within the spirit,
purpose and intent of the Commission's rules; that it will secure public safety and welfare; and that
it will preserve substantial justice. The Petitioner's variance request materials and the staff
recommendation are incorporated by reference as support for this conclusion.
ORDER
THEREFORE, the variance from TI 5A NCAC 7H. 1205(o) is GRANTED on the condition
that the T -head size be reduced to 40 square feet in order to be consistent with the general permit for
docks and piers and the other conditions of 15A NCAC 7H .1205.
The granting of this variance does not relieve Petitioner of the responsibility for obtaining
a CAMA permit from the proper permitting authority.
This variance is based upon the Stipulated Facts set forth above. The Commission reserves
the right to reconsider the granting of this variance and to take any appropriate action should it be
shown that any of the above Stipulated Facts is not true.
19

This the 11 "' day of April, 2006.
Courtney Hackne , Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have caused the foregoing Final Order to be served upon the Petitioner
by depositing a copy thereof in the U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED with sufficient postage for delivery and addressed to:
Jane Edwards
818 Piggot Rd.
Gloucester, NC 28528
Meredith Jo Alcoke (Inter -Office Mail)
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
400 Commerce Way
Morehead City, NC 28557
This the 11 `h day of April, 2006.
Oecial
Hickey
Deputy Attorney Gene al
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
Counsel to the Commission
E

ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
•
•
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27699" l
TO: Coastal Resources Comr*nFROM: Meredith Jo Alcoke
Assistant Attorney Gene
DATE: March 9, 2006 (for the March 23-24, 2006 CRC Meeting)
RE: Variance Request by Jane Edwards
CRC -VR -06-01
Petitioner owns property at 818 Piggott Road in Gloucester, Carteret County. Petitioner
has a 10 -foot wide easement across an adjacent riparian owner's property and wishes to construct
a pier from that easement. Petitioner cannot meet the 15 -foot setback required from the adjacent
property owners' areas of riparian access, and those owners have declined to waive the setback.
Therefore, Petitioner seeks a variance from the general permit conditions in 15A NCAC 7H
1205(o) in order to construct a pier.
The following additional information is attached to this memorandum:
Attachment A: Relevant Rules
Attachment B: Stipulated Facts
Attachment C: Staff Summary of Petitioner's Position and Staff's Responses to Criteria
Attachment D: Petitioner's Variance Request Materials
cc: Jane Edwards, Petitioner
Charles S. Jones, DCM Director
Ted Tyndall, DCM Assistant Director
Tere Barrett, Morehead City District Manager
Stephanie Bodine, Secretary to the Director
Jill B. Hickey, Special Deputy Attorney General

• CRC -VR -06-01
ATTACHMENT A
RELEVANT STATUTES OR RULES
15A NCAC 7H.0208
(L) 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 line of division of areas of riparian access shall be established 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. The minimum setback provided in the rule may be waived by the written
agreement of the adjacent riparian owner(s) or when two adjoining riparian owners are co -
applicants. Should the adjacent property be sold before construction of the pier commences, the
applicant shall obtain a written agreement with the new owner waiving the minimum setback and
submit it to the permitting agency prior to initiating any development of the pier. Application of
this rule may be aided by reference to the approved diagram in 15A NCAC 711 .1205(q)
illustrating the rule as applied to various shoreline configurations. Copies of the diagram may be
obtained from the Division of Coastal Management. When shoreline configuration is such that a
perpendicular alignment cannot be achieved, the pier shall be aligned to meet the intent of this
• Rule to the maximum extent practicable.
•
15A NCAC 7H.1205
(o) Piers, docks and boat houses 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
lines extended into the water at the points that they intersect the shoreline. The minimum
setbacks provided in the rule may be waived by the written agreement of the adjacent riparian
owner(s), or when two adjoining riparian owners are co -applicants. Should the adjacent property
be sold before construction of the pier commences, the applicant shall obtain a written agreement
with the new owner waiving the minimum setback and submit it to the Division of Coastal
Management prior to initiating any development of the pier, dock, or boat house. The line of
division of areas of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line along the channel or
deep water in front of the property, 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.
Application of this Rule may be aided by reference to the approved diagram in Paragraph (r) of
this Rule illustrating the rule as applied to various shoreline configurations. Copies of the
diagram may be obtained from the Division of Coastal Management. When shoreline
configuration is such that a perpendicular alignment cannot be achieved, the pier shall be aligned
to meet the intent of this Rule to the maximum extent practicable.
2

•
•
•
CRC -VR -06-01
ATTACHMENT B
STIPULATED FACTS
1. Petitioner owns property and resides at 818 Piggott Road in Gloucester, in eastern
Carteret County.
2. The property is located near the upper reaches of Sleepy Creek, but is not adjacent to the
water. Petitioner has a perpetual deeded 10 -foot easement across another owner's
waterfront property. Petitioner's easement states that it is "for purposes of access to
Sleepy Creek" and for "construction and maintenance of a pier or boat ramp."
3. Petitioner has owned the property in question and the benefits of this access easement
since January 24, 1992.
4. Sleepy Creek runs in a north/south direction between the communities of Gloucester and
Marshallberg and connects at its southern point to the Straits. The waters of Sleepy
Creek are classified as SA Waters by the Environmental Management Commission and
are open to the harvest of shellfish. The waters are further classified as a Primary Nursery
Area (PNA) by the Marine Fisheries Commission.
5. Sleepy Creek is a�tidal creek that is generally very shallow in depth. It is approximately
2,000 feet wide at the location of Petitioner's property.
6. A strip of marsh measuring between twenty and thirty feet in width borders the creek at
the location of the easement. Submerged aquatic vegetation exists within Sleepy Creek,
but there is none at the location of the proposed pier.
7. The two property, owners adjacent to Petitioner's easement each have piers. The
Meadows pier is approximately 50 feet long and is located approximately 219 feet from
the proposed location of Petitioner's pier. The Miele pier is approximately 100 feet long
and is located approximately 84 feet from the proposed location of Petitioner's pier.
8. In addition, Mr. Miele has constructed a bulkhead that partially impedes Petitioner's
easement, thereby affecting Petitioner's ability to construct a boat ramp. The bulkhead
has been there since at least 2000, but the Division has been unable to locate any CAMA
permit for the structure.
9. On or about November 28, 2005, Petitioner applied for a CAMA General Permit to
construct a pier on or extending from her easement. The pier would be 4 feet wide by 40
feet long, with an 8' by 8'T -head at the end.
10. Rule 15A NCAC 7H .1205(0) governs the placement of docks and piers in public trust

CRC -VR -06-01
• waters and provides in pertinent part 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 lines extended into the water at the points that they
intersect the shoreline." The 15 -foot riparian setback requirement was in place when
Petitioner purchased the property.
11. Thus, in order to construct a pier on an easement measuring only 10 feet in width,
Petitioner would have to obtain a waiver of the riparian corridor from both adjacent
riparian property owners. In accordance with CAMA permitting rules, Petitioner sent.
notice concerning the requested permit by certified mail to the adjoining property owners.
Both owners refused to waive the 15 -foot setback requirement.
12. Because Petitioner's application violates the CRC's riparian corridor setback rule in 15A
NCAC 7H. 1205(o), DCM denied the permit application by letter dated January 13, 2006.
13. Petitioner filed this variance request on February 2, 2006, seeking a variance from the
above-cited riparian access rule. Petitioner's variance request materials are attached
hereto as Attachment D. The two color photos submitted by Petitioner will be available
at the CRC meeting for the Commission's review.
• 14. The parties stipulate that due to the minimal length of the Petitioner's proposed pier and
the setting in which is it located, the pier as proposed would not cause an unreasonable
interference with navigation or riparian access.
°(V,,�C4
•
n

• CRC -VR -06-01
ATTACHMENT C
Summary of Petitioner and Staff Positions
I. Will strict application of the applicable development rules, standards, or orders
issued by the Commission cause the petitioner unnecessary hardships? If so, the
petitioner must identify the hardships.
Petitioner's Position: Yes
In order to put a boat into the water, I now must either travel 10 miles to the nearest
public boat ramp or drop the boat from the shore across 100 feet of shallows into navigable
water. I purchased the property with the reasonable expectation of being able to build a pier on
the expressed easement granted me. Without the ability to do so, my property is significantly
reduced in value, and I lose an economically beneficial use of my property.
Staffs Position: No
Petitioner does not have an unnecessary hardship. Petitioner is not a riparian property
owner. She acquired an easement in 1992 that included a right of access to Sleepy Creek.
• Although the easement also stated that it was for the purpose of constructing a pier or boat ramp,
the right to construct a pier or boat ramp is still subject to the permitting requirements of LAMA.
The riparian setbacks for docks and piers were in place when Petitioner purchased the property.
Although the Commission's minimum standards for riparian setbacks prevent construction of a
pier in this case, Petitioner still has reasonable access to the water commensurate with
Petitioner's rights as an easement holder, and there is no unnecessary hardship.
II. Do such hardships result from conditions peculiar to the petitioner's property, such
as location, size, or topography of the property? Explain.
Petitioner's Position: Yes
The need for the variance is caused by a problem unique to my lot: My lot is behind the
lot owned by Michael Miele. I have a deeded perpetual easement across Mr. Miele's lot. This
easement was granted for the specific purpose of "building and maintaining a pier or boat ramp."
Mr. Miele ruled out my ability to build a boat ramp, which would not have required the riparian
setback waiver, by building a 3 -foot high bulkhead across the easement granted to me (See
enclosed photograph) and planting foliage atop the bulkhead.
Even if I were able to build a boat ramp, the Sleepy Creek is only 1 -foot in depth for
approximately 90 -feet from the shore (see Attachment). This requires that I physically drag my
40 boat over the 90 -feet of shallows until I can reach navigable waters, and then flip my body from
5

•the water into the boat. CRC -VR -06-01
Because the easement abuts Meadow's property on its east boundary, I must secure a
waiver of the Meadow's 15 foot riparian setback. The Meadow's refusal to waive that setback
coupled with Mr. Miele's bulkhead constructed across my easement, effectively prohibits my
access to navigable waters and unreasonably restricts my utilization of the easement.
Staffs Position: No
Staff maintains that there is no "unnecessary hardship." If the Commission finds that
Petitioner's inability to construct a pier presents an unnecessary hardship, the hardship does not
result from a condition peculiar to the property, such as location, size or topography of the
property. Most easements provide some sort of access or right to ingress or egress, and it is quite
common for an easement to be configured as a narrow strip of land such as the one in this case.
Any alleged hardship results from the fact that Petitioner is not a riparian property owner, and a
10 -foot wide easement is simply insufficient to allow for the required setbacks. This is not a
"condition" peculiar to the property itself.
III. Do the hardships result from the actions taken by the Petitioner? Explain.
Petitio-ner's Position: No
•
No.
Staffs Position: No
Staff agrees that the hardships do not result from actions taken by the Petitioner.
Petitioner has designed a pier structure that is only 40 feet in length with minimal platform at the
end.
IV. Will the variance requested by the petitioner
(1) be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the rules, standards or orders
issued by the Commission; (2) secure the public safety and welfare; and (3) preserve
substantial justice? Explain.
Petitioner's Position: Yes
(1) 1. The variance I request in no way compromises the overall mission of
CAMA, which is to protect maritime access to the waterways, protect and
preserve the littoral vegetation of the waterways, protect water quality, and
the conservation of native marine life. Dragging my vessels repeatedly
• 6

CRC -VR -06-01
IPback and forth over the wetland is destructive — not protective. My
proposed pier will in effect support CAMA's mission.
2. Denial of variance works to the detriment of the littoral environment.
Without a pier, I am unable to access navigable waters from my land
access to Sleepy Creek without destroying fragile wetland. Dragging my
boat across the appurtenant littoral wetland, which stretches 20 feet
beyond the shoreline, endangers fragile vegetation that CAMA is charged
to protect.
(2) 1. The public's welfare is always served when coastal wetlands are protected.
2. Sleepy Creek has a depth of only one foot until one goes out from the
shoreline approximately 80 feet. Navigable waters are reached at
approximately 90 feet from the shoreline in front of my property.
Although there are depth markers in Sleepy Creek, piers provide an
unmistakable visual notice for boaters that they are approaching dangerous
shallows. Like the two other piers already existing, my proposed pier will
serve to prevent public boaters from straying into the shallows, thereby
enhancing the public safety and welfare of boaters.
• (3) 1. The purpose of CRC variance is to protect the landowner's rights from the
unconstitutional application of zoning law. The spirit and intention of
CAMA was never to provide shoreline landowners with an arbitrary and
punitive tool to deny riparian access to persons with expressed easements
of less than 34 feet, nor to compromise the landowner's ability to make
reasonable use of deeded expressed easements.
•
2. Further, the regulations enforced by CAMA do not address the rights of
non -littoral landowners who have denied access or narrow corridors to the
water. CAMA's regulation that adjacent property owners have a right to
deny a person with deeded access to the water to build a pier (by means of
invoking the right to refuse waiver of the 15' riparian setback) effectively
prohibits my use (as a non -littoral landowner) of the deeded easement, and
is so stringent as to amount to prohibition; this is not justice, in that it
deprives me of my riparian access.
3. In law, riparian rights are not ownership rights, but access rights to the
water. There is no way I can affect or compromise either of my neighbors'
riparian access:
Both the Meadows and the Miele's enjoy abundant riparian access.
7

•ON
CRC -VR -06-01
The Meadow's property contains over 600 feet of shoreline. The
Meadows have built for themselves four separate means to access Sleepy
Creek: near their first vacation home on the far eastern end of their
property, there is 1) a private boating dock and 2) a private boat ramp next
to the holding dock. Some feet southwest of these structures, 3) a stairway
leads from the Meadow's bulkhead down to the wetland. Finally, 4) a
private pier is located in front of their second vacation home, nearer the
southwestern boundary of their property. The pier I propose to build
would be located about 218 -feet from the Meadow's pier. Given the fact
the Meadows live elsewhere and visit that property only sporadically
during the year, I do not believe my proposed pier can conceivably
adversely impact their access, use, or view of Sleepy Creek.
The pier built on Mr. Miele's 180 -foot shoreline is approximately 80 -feet
from the southwestern edge of my easement, and situated directly in front
of his home. Given the fact Mr. Miele lives in New York and visits his
property only on some weekends, again, I do not believe my proposed pier
can negatively impact Mr. Miele's use, access, or view of Sleepy Creek.
3. Neither the Meadows nor Mr. Miele offers any reason or rationale as to why they
will not waive their 15' riparian setback, beyond saying to me that they simply do
not want me to build a pier. This is arbitrary and capricious and unjust. It appears
the "I've got mine, too bad for you" syndrome is in play here.
Staffs Position: No
The primary purpose of the CRC's riparian setback rules is to protect navigation for both
the general public and the adjacent riparian property owners. Petitioner's proposed pier will be
substantially shorter than the neighboring piers and will be located along a relatively
undeveloped shoreline, with the next closest pier located 80 feet away. Accordingly, Staff has
stipulated that it will not cause an unreasonable interference with navigation. Yet, the riparian
setback rules are also intended to balance riparian rights -with the usurpation of public trust
resources. If Petitioner were allowed to construct a pier from this 10 -foot easement, it would be
contrary to this additional purpose of the riparian setback rules because of the additional impact.
Finally, it is important to note that the setbacks are in part for the benefit of the adjacent riparian
property owners, and both owners in this case have declined to waive their setback. Weighing
each of the forgoing considerations, Staff does not believe that on the whole, the variance would
be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the pier rules, secure the public safety and
welfare, and preserve substantial justice.
cls
got w 8
J`�

DCM FORM 11
PETITIONER'S NAME: Jane H. Edwards
COUNTY: Carteret
FILE NUMBER 0Ln — 0 I __
(Petitioner leave blank)
Attachment D
CANIA VAKIAl`V -L
REQUEST
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute I I3A-120.1 and 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 7J
Section .0700, the petitioner in this matter applies to the Coastal Resources Commission for a variance.
• I have received a final decision on my Application for a CAMA
Minor Development Permit.
VARIANCE CRITERIA (ref. N.C.G.S. § 113A-120.1)
(a) Will strict application of the applicable development rules, standards, or orders issued by the
Commission cause the petitioner unnecessary hardships? If so, the petitioner must identify the hardships.
Yes.
In order to put a boat into the water, I now must either travel 10 miles to the nearest public
boat ramp or drag the boat from the shore across 100 feet of shallows into navigable water.
. • I purchased the property with the reasonable expectation of being able to build a pier on the
expressed easement granted me. Without the ability, to do so, my property is significantly
reduced in value, and I lose an economically beneficial use of my property.
(b) Do such hardships result from conditions peculiar to the petitioner's property such as the
location, size, or topography of the property? Explain. Yes.
The need for the variance is caused by a problem unique to my lot: My lot is behind the lot
owned by Michael Miele. I have a deeded perpetual easement across Mr. Miele's lot. This
easement was granted for the specific purpose of "building and maintaining a pier or boat
ramp." Mr. Miele ruled out my ability to build a boat ramp, which would not have required
the riparian setback waiver, by building a 3 foot high bulkhead across the easement granted to
me (See attached photograph) and planting foliage atop the bulkhead.
Even if I were able to build a boat ramp, the Sleepy creek is only 1 -foot in depth for
approximately 90 -feet from the shore (see Attachment). This requires that I physically drag
my boat over the 90 -feet of shallows until I can reach navigable waters, and then flip my
body from the water into the boat.
Because the easement abuts Meadow's property on its east boundary, I must secure a waiver
of the Meadow's 15 foot riparian setback. The Meadow's refusal to waive that setback,
coupled with Mr. Miele's bulkhead constructed across my easement, effectively prohibits my
access to navigable waters and unreasonably restricts my utilization of the easement.
0 (c) Do the hardships result from actions taken by the petitioner? Explain. No.

(d) Will the variance requested by the petitioner
(1) Be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the rules, standards or orders issued by the •
Commission. Yes.
1. The variance 1 request in no way conipronnises the overall mission of LAMA, which is to
protect maritime access to the waterways, protect and preserve the littoral vegetations of
the waterways, protect water quality, and the conservation of native marine life.
Dragging my vessels repeatedly back and forth over the wetland is destructive - not
protective. My proposed pier will in effect support CAMA's mission.
2. Denial of variance works to the detriment of the littoral environment. Without a pier, I
am unable to access navigable waters from my land access to Sleepy Creek without
destroying fragile wetland. Dragging my boat across the appurtenant littoral wetland,
which stretches 20 feet beyond the shoreline, endangers fragile vegetations that CAMA is
charged to protect.
(2) Secure the public safety and welfare. Yes.
1. The public's welfare is always served when coastal wetlands are protected.
2. Sleepy Creek has a depth of only one foot until one goes out fi-om the shoreline
approximately 80 feet. Navigable waters are reached at approximately 90 feet from the
shoreline in front of my property. Although there are depth markers in Sleepy Creek,
piers provide an unmistakable visual notice for boaters that they are approaching
dangerous shallows. Like the two other piers already existing, my proposed pier will •
serve to prevent public boaters from straying into the shallows, thereby enhancing the
public safety and welfare of boaters.
(3) Preserve substantial justice? Yes.
1. The purpose of a CRC variance is to protect the landowner's rights from the
unconstitutional application of zoning law. The spirit and intention of CAMA was never
to provide shoreline landowners with an arbitrary and punitive tool to deny riparian
access to persons with expressed easements of less than 34 feet, nor to compromise the
landowner's ability to make reasonable use of deeded expressed easements.
2. Further, the regulations enforced by CAMA do not address the rights of non -littoral
landowners who have deeded access or narrow corridors to the water. CAMA's
regulation that adjacent property owners have a right to deny a person with deeded access
to the water to build a pier (by means of invoking the right to refuse waiver of the 15'
riparian setback) effectively prohibits my use (as a non -littoral landowner) of the deeded
easement, and is so stringent as to amount to prohibition; this is not justice, in that it
deprives me of my riparian access.
3. In law, riparian rights are not ownership rights, but access rights to the water. There is no
way I can affect or compromise either of my neighbors' riparian access:
Both the Meadows and the Mieles enjoy abundant riparian access.
0

• The Meadow's property contains over 600 -feet of shoreline. The Meadows
• have built for themselves four separate means to access Sleepy Creek: near
their first vacation home on the far eastern end of their property, there is 1) a
private holding dock and 2) a private boat ramp next to the holding dock.
Some feet southwest of these structures; 3) a stairway leads from the
Meadow's bulkhead down to the wetland. Finally, 4) a private pier is located
in front of their second vacation home, nearer the southwestern boundary of
their property. The pier I propose to build would be located about 218 -feet
from the Meadow's pier. Given the fact the Meadow's live elsewhere and
visit this property only sporadically during the year, I do not believe my
proposed pier can conceivably adversely impact their access, use, or view of
Sleepy Creek.
• The pier built on Mr. Miele's 180 -foot shoreline is approximately 80 -feet
from the southwestern edge of my easement, and situated directly in front .of
his home. Given the fact Mr. Miele lives in New York and visits his property
only on some weekends, again, I do not believe my proposed pier can
negatively impact Mr. Miele's use, access, or view of Sleepy Creek.
3. Neither the Meadows nor Mr. Miele offers any reason or rational as to why they will not
waive their 15'riparian setback, beyond saying to me that they simply do not want me to
build a pier. This is arbitrary and capricious and unjust. It appears the "I've got mine, too
bad for you" syndrome is in play here.
Due to the above information and pursuant to statute, I, the undersigned hereby respectfully request -a
is
variance.
f{ 6 6 -
Date j Signature
Name of Petitioner or Attorney
� t
S( � t G � �4 1 0 24
Address
City State Zip
2.
cl -a7-41
Telephone Number �� {
� Vk lam_. C G r .4 7 `{ -Z caJ CC,_ � i i ,U Y� {J Q. 1
Fax Number and/or E-mail Address
0

CERTIFICA'T'E OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this Variance Request has been served on the State agencies named
below by depositing copies of it with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage for delivery •
by first class mail or by personally delivering copies to the named agencies.
Original served on: Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
And a copy served on: Attorney GeneraI's Office
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-9001
This the day of , 20
Signature of Petitioner or Attorney
Revised: June 2005
•

818 PIGGOT ROAD
0LOU'CESTER,NORI-PeAROLIN A28528
(2 5 2) -129-88741 Frb1AIL JIIEDH!4RDS242@ERRTHLnIK NET
•
February 7, 2006
Ms Tere Barrett
District Manager, MHC
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce DR.
Morehead City 28557
Dear Ms Barrett,
Attached is the DCM Form 1 I I have sent to the Attorney Generals office. You have all
the inserts and attachments except the photo I am also enclosing showing the bulkhead Mr.
Micelle built. This is the structure that prevents me from building a boat ramp.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you again for all your help.
• Sincerely,
Jane Edwards
v�
0

NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management •
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Ms. Jane Edwards January 13, 2006
818 Pigott Road
Gloucester, NC 28528
Dear Ms. Edwards:
I am writing this letter in regards to your application for a General Permit for a dock on Sleepy
Creek in Gloucester, Carteret County. It is my understanding that you have a 10' easement
across the properties of Mielle and Meadows, for water access adjacent to Sleepy Creek, that
specifies the construction of a pier or boat ramp. For a 10' wideshoreline, the process
necessitates a survey of the riparian corridor (as defined in 07H.0208 (b)(6)(L). Specifically,
the construction of a pier or dock on a 10' shoreline will require the waiver of both riparian
corridor setbacks, and approval of the property owners on whose property the project will be
located.
The rules that govern piers and docks are found in 15A NCAC 07H .1200, and in 15A NCAC
07H .0208 (b) (6). In both areas, divided by procedure only, the 15' setback from the riparian
corridor is.a requirement, unless waived by, the adjacent riparian owner or owners that
encroachment would affect. We have received statements from both adjoining property owners, •
each declining to waive the setback requirement. This Division cannot waive the setback, nor
can we grant a variance from the rules we are charged with enforcing. A variance must come
from our governing body, the Coastal Resources Commission.
Therefore, the Division of Coastal Management must deny your application for a General
Permit, as proposed on 11/28/05. Should you wish to pursue a variance from the Coastal
Resource Commission, please notify us and we will provide you with the appropriate forms and
information.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 252-808-2808.
Sincerely, /
G�
Mark Hardeman, DCM Field Rep.
Cc: Tere Barrett, District Manager
Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director
•
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

0
•
•
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F, Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director VViliiam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Ms. Jane Edwards
818 Pigott Road
Gloucester, NC 28528
Dear Ms. Edwards:
November 2, 2005
I am writing with regard to the letter you sent to me on October 18, 2005, asking for a variance from the General
Permit .1200 pier requirements. I telephoned as you requested, on October 25, 2005, and left a message, but have
received no return call.
My understanding is that you have a. 10' easement for water access adjacent to Sleepy Creek that specifies the
construction of a pier or boat ramp. You Have met with the DCM Field Representative that handles eastern Carteret
County, Mark Hardeman, and he has determined that you have submitted insufficient information to obtain a
General Permit to build a pier. Specifically, the construction of a pier or dock on a 10' shoreline will require the
waiver of riparian corridor setbacks, which you are unable to obtain. You have written to me requesting that the
Division grant a variance from this requirement.
The rules that govern piers and docks are found in 15A NCAC .07H .1200, and in 15A NCAC 07H .0208(b)(6). In
both areas, divided by procedure only, the 15' setback fi-om the riparian corridor is a requirement,. unless waived by
the adjacent riparian owner that encroachment would affect. This Division cannot waive the setback, nor can we
grant a variance from the rules we are charged with enforcing. A variance must come from our governing body, the
Coastal Resources Commission.
If you submit to Mr. Hardeman all of the necessary information to make a permit decision (based on all of the rules
in effect, not only the setback requirement), he can then either permit or deny the project. Presently, he has simply
apprised you of the fact that the setback is one of the many requirements that must be met, and you have told him
that you cannot meet that requirement. In order to request a variance you must first be denied a permit. To get to
that point, you must submit a drawing showing the proposal with all site-specific indicators. For piers these include,
but are not limited to, the normal high water line, the coastal marsh the proposed crosses, the width of the water
body, soundings at normal low water, and any channel in the area. For a 10' wide shoreline, the process also
necessitates a survey of the riparian corridor (as defined in 07H .0208(b)(6)(L)). Additionally, if the easement
crosses the property of another, that property owner's permission will be required. With this information, and any
signatures or waivers that you can obtain from the adjacent riparian property owners, a decision can be made with a
site visit and the aid of our aerial photography. if the permit decision is negative, you will receive notification in
writing as to what section or sections of the rules your proposal does not meet. At that point, and with the
information in hand, you may request from the Coastal Resources Commission a variance from the applicable rules.
This request must meet certain criteria that I will be glad to provide for you when and if we reach that point. If you
decide to proceed with the request, please compile the information defined above for you application package, and
call Mr. Hardeman to meet with you onsite.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at 252.808.2808.
Sincerely
Tere Barrett
District Manager, MHC DCM
Cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Mark Hardeman, Field Representative, DCM
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 `,10°b Post Consumer Paper

JAAIE HARP,ISON ED'! ARE)
8'18 PIGOTT P,OAC
GLOUCESTER. NORTH-CAROLm\ 28528
252) 7-29-8 : 1 c•k' ._ J cG7TA D�2 {�C_ =
21 November 2005
Mr. Mark Hardeman
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
Dear Mr. Hardeman,
D r
3c r.= �
2 8 lr,
Mgrehead City DCM
I am writing to request a permit to build a pier which would serve my property at 818
Piggot Road, Gloucester, NC.
I propose to construct a 40' X 4' pier with an 8' X 8' "T" on a 10' easement. At this
time, there are two existing piers belonging to my neighbors. The existing pier to the
northeast is 219' from my proposed pier. The existing pier to the southwest is 85' from
my proposed pier.
Attachment 1 depicts Sleepy Creek (found north of a line beginning on the west shore at
point 34 -degrees 43.3925' N — 76 -degrees 31.492' W; running easterly to the east shore
to a point 34 -degrees 43.3651' N — 76 -degrees 31.3250' W) and shows the soundings at
normal low water. At its widest, Sleepy Creek in its general east -west direction is nearly
IOnm. In its general northwest to southeast direction, it is 16.Inm, and opens into the
Straits channel.
Attachment 2 depicts a "bird's eye" view of the area in which I propose to build a pier,
and is insert "A" of Attachment 1.
Attachment 3 depicts the project description of my proposed pier. The normal high water
line for Sleepy Creek is shown in this drawing. My proposed pier will cross no
marshland, but will extend over the 20' wide wetland appurtenant to the shoreline.
I propose that the pier structure be no longer than what is necessary to bridge wetlands
and to provide access to navigable waters, and no larger than what is required to launch
kayaks or small sail craft.
Concerning the issue of easement across another's property, please see Attachment 4a,
which is an agreement that legally establishes my right to cross the property separating
my lot from the shoreline and to build a pier. Attachment 4b is the survey of the
agreement.
•
•
0

•
I have petitioned both neighbors for waivers to the 15' riparian setback using the "non-,
local" form provided me by CAMA. Attachment 5 provides a copy of both the cifie�
mail receipt, and proof of delivery of these requests.12A
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
ane H. Edwards-
•
0

IBOR CHANNEL DEPTHS
S Of ENGINEERS - SURVEYS TO MAR 2000
LO',,'/-tR LOW WATER (MLLM PROJECT CWENSIONS
MT RIGHT I LENGTH DEPTH
!DE OUTSIDE DATE OF SURVEY wJAs. MLLVi
rF�Er;
RTER QUARTER MILES' (FEET;
45.0
2,3-00
454.8c0
2.26
47
41.1
3-00
600
0.38
42
44.2
3-00
400
1.10
40
41.2
10-89
404-1200
0.70
40
39.8
10 94
8r0 1000
0.39
3S
DEQUENT TO iNE
ABOVE iNFORNATION
vIOL1CGS;?'
,
rNow�
l`,Jars:Mai."era.
geiis
Subm
PA
Bells
o
°°10/z 2
'9
'ID 3 9
*� —p3 Q l 4
P1 R 2 s y ,� g R ,.4.,
E ' subrr�3 4r� 3�t� ,...
2 Pile -- .^'+ so
923
H460 2 I 10 c' 2 2
16 2 Sp 4 R R 4S "42A' PA r� �•
' h
14 2 2 13 2 R2 /1 ,�• ,
to T'
3 22 16 ' 5
2 � r � S ° ! . /
1 •_
°p;IPA. ��ep 5 G �
%
N' 2005 /
t 4
�- ►a....t ,�.-� AA.-,ri,L,...,.J �I�u rtirnA/

H
71
��IO U r1 � X005
MorPhp;;ri r..ifet nr AA
--"r

A7-1 A c vA tv i
Proposed Pier Construction
1
10 -,east
all
•
Cm

0
l '
Ito= CAROLINA - AGTLIM�MtT
COM ` I
THIS AGRZEY— Us 31a'10 and cntirod into thio day of
Auguet,• 1983, by and between Elbridge $OardPM1n, Oro ft''°r
lle./i r collmctivsly celled .� palmy Qand vif©, P� g. Riley?
lut
• yiITNESSE"f'ds '
GRANTOR has -this date convayed to Gerald M. Riley p�
wife, (in F, Riley a oertain tract or parcel 'Of land,
b®ing a portion of a larger tract c^nod by Crantor, all of schich
im depictmd on a Hi or Survoy_ p-�parod �L"-IxY C. t count
a cartorot County
R.L.S. y, uhlohrindin Map incorporatad orminpbynroforonc�, and
Itogiatry,
FOR MID ItT CottSIDE"irAvt
TION or tha actual cconanto hn)in
contained, tha p3rtiao do hor'aby covenant ,a3ch with rho o2ttar as
follovra t
1,
All raforancon to oane-anta, rondo, parcalo,
baundarinn, oto. ohall b3 nn
5bo{n on the dap or
*ry C Pitt ---7.n, R.L.0., n� rocoid0d in flap
$UrY3y by Ld_ y R,r'13try.
Dooh ��, pagn C.
Car,
CounCf
T
3. Thea 10 fo-ot _-Int running irro^t rho SouchoaeNarn
13
cornu of t-hc tract torr:cycd to Grant" and o afaoL
. Cro3tc shall ba a Porpotual en'r^nt for (� )^P co
Qcc^oo to 31 + )pY Crn':%
an �1 (b) tor'�ran.-�_, conatruo-
tion and r_ain
ntaanca or n Hier or beat r^^p. anca
€ai—ent ✓shall ba appurtontannd co Grant't'inuru3tootho
r-
and its attondant curtilag.. xStttin rho stoat
banofit of other oxnor-3 of proporty
oonvoyod to Grantan moor d �d G ant! s cubantcuiant ly
aubdivida paid preg3rtys u,�ta9nr of
tran3fer acid on7c :ant to any cub-,')?,.icnt }�
Granto•a'o xAnidsncn nn], to that Orct^nt, n•aid n-in^rant
✓shall run with the 1^--nd.
1. Grantor agrann t h^. Will natconn r ct any
tha
building, hc-:-j, r^iidnnco o= o h__ F
portion of land rot;•nod by hIM ext -pis (n) t-hn proaont
otructurz locatod ,r. tha -)r000rty
rat_ainnd by Grentor
^.
,say bo rnpincnd or r•oconntructcd in the nvant of .
doatruction by tiro or otthhr ci. tjtL, and fU) thea
pra^ont attucturnz *May bo �^nlarg^tt. Tho pa_r'tiaa
rncegni"� the` a portion of th", coRnidirati-61" or thv
�C11 —v b
h_v: c .-,c
ancrc-n t`�s�err? iin yZ.*— Y
4 Vel
TUU �
1

Apr 25 05 08:19a Jane Edwards
r
4
1 r'SP�rC b
e.l.plrllrT
I 4 of � 589 03j � — Z 7(,• 13 �
6 IO o 'x'89
0
Z
298 0 12 8 p.2
V EN1LE M. PI'VER
CARD�fpf�l,,
�0
. 4�G197c`P J•9
1`
31.7p•
� w
1� n
.......... ,
�
r
o
1,
�
`1r
N
11
�
l
N
It
298 0 12 8 p.2
V EN1LE M. PI'VER
CARD�fpf�l,,
�0
. 4�G197c`P J•9
1`
.......... ,
N8o18 33E
347.37'
4.05
3�
�( ¢ �/C• 7p TA L
•
O
0
hiO VS E- f �
3
P14:,J fou c o
E
�r.
E.I. P• ` 23R.o' �•4�
$Bu'4oW t'
A A�L�.
H 6
STRAtTs,TL-if. CART --RET Co.N C. gogROMaN
p) ;7-r vrnArN SURVEY Ce. L3 EAU FORT, N•C,
L ; 728- 31 9 2 _
BY:LHKRyC.P177h?A.V ,2.L.5. L -9G5 as u.=
4
/-2- 3-9?
,
r.�.
(7Q
,j U L!'Cia
Morehead City DOM

•
•
CERTIFIED MAIL - RI-i'MR-N, RECEIPTREQI,� , STED -
D VISION OF COASTAL NMA AGEMEI NT
ADJACEtiT RIPARLkN PROPERTY Otiti�ER �MTIFICATI
FORM
?dame of individual applying for permit:_ -J r ;v
Address of property: 1 `�� F t C C) T >>
(lot or street 9, scree; or road)
C.� R �� �: i �'"� ., �'� t~v L Cis T t
(city & County)
I hereby certify that I own prop erty.adj acent 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 proposing. A description or drawing, with
dimensions, should be provided with this letter.
I have no objections to this proposal.
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 or call [phone]
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. 11-'o response is considered the same as no
objection if you -have been notified by Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift 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 13' setback requirement.
y:'t? I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
Signature Dated
ELLA r!r_"t4J?zw5 �:'i�-12:E-
Print 'Name
icePrint'Name
Telephone Number With :a rea Code

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETLRN RECEIPT RE UEST
DIVISION OF COASTA-L tiiA'iAGEI/LE�T
ADJACENT RIPARIA.ti PROPERTY R NOTIFICATIO-NA-VAI-VFR
FOICNI •
`name of individual applying for permit: Z �—Di,J;1 u �_
Address of property;__ i k -F
Got or street #, street or road)
L. f -t 11 Ic�— 4 N T QT i, U JC- z 3 T -i -K
(city & county)
I hereby certify that F own property adjacent to the above referenced property. The
individual applying for this permit has described to me (as shown on the attached �� C'
drawing) the development they are proposing, A description or drawing, with
dimensions, should be provided with this letter.
I have no objections to this proposal
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 or call [phone]
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no
objection if you have been notified by Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift 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.
do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
Signature `� Date
,1
� V 1 L 1—
Print Name
z yA:z 7
Telephone Nwnber With i.rea Code
•
•

(.3f'5 f-IAiii OH GHANNEL f.)EPf,W-" Win 4
ON -1 SURVEYS BY THFr CORPS OF ENGINEERS SURVPfS TO NIAIR 2000
�1
2 EM'MIRL, IN FEET AT Mf.-'�AN L.OwER LOW WATU-41 (MLLW) P14ADISJONIS
4—
13IGI (T AIGHT H UNGTH DUPD.1
;fiiTrtOF SUR' �F iPIAJ'f. MLI.Vi
DATE
14' ilDf-
(FEEII)
QUARFER QUARTER QUARTER IFEEI t
" - , 0 4
4 7.2 5, 0•- 8 W 2. 26
.17,11 4�),3 45.9 41J 3-(X' 640 0.38 �12
44.6 4SA 4-5.6. 44.2 1100 1,
13.3 44.9 43.9 41.2 1G-99 400-1200 0-"10 'J'3
34.1 35.0 38.3 39,8 1 x 99 800-1 ro 0.39 35 0
c
-JGINEERS FOR 'CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE INFOPMA-rio1i
ITS eSubm
o 0 plies
PA
2
• Gloucester so 1 Marshall erg
Crab P!
lvsf 3
Ca b T Ramp
Area 3
"3
3 3R -4h
141,
Subm'A 3A4 2 4
Ors '44-
,Dile e so
2 22
-R 4S 1 Oft 3M "46"2 1 2 2 5 2
16 G
12'- :3 Subm pile I "
4 Ff R 4s `42A' PA 16 2 so J 3
2 --132 R 2
4 14 2
I rA'42'
2 S T R f -A T' S-1 2 0 22 16
...
2011*". i 3 5 ON
2 0 Z.
33 �V PA Markor 5 h
4
3 PA
PA5
Grs2 3
X� 4 4
testmouth•
3 Marsh 4
Al -
ay R O'll S I
2
"1
4 4
IN
4 Marsh 2 Shl (2,ft rep 1997)
Nes 4 2
4
2 el Z

ets
aids ��s� S r t s
is
.v
'!ad
?icy F iP' -y, e.- ,-;;. a . � o • y— R,r,�Amwcy� rr �e,�,,,-r;�s - -
3 y s
�. • ;� •r Iv.'�.� S} it ✓•' + ,,��'j�'j��,, .r�!k. �
J i �'�1:`., ai .a:yr'7.�� J'sC di ✓i-l2l" 'M�
•K
44.
s,
!' _J��-;.fit... _-. _ •, -- - �'��"1"
y�,,� ,tea• �rti.� �' , �r� 'c a r 4.---W.,c4E^.
"' "'3 it •F tt �.
J Yip R

•
•
(Proposed pier to be located 80 -feet northeast
of Miele pier and 218 -feet southwest of
Meadow's pier.)
0
FA
Drawings of
Structures
Not To Scale
Meadow's Private
holding dock
~Meadow's private
boat ramp
Stairway to Creek
Proposed
Pier
Existing
Homes