417-07_Lo'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC_20070405

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CRAVEN
CHARLES WILLIAM KAFER
Petitioner,
V.
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL
RESOURCES COMMISSION,
Respondent,
LO'R DECKS AT CALICO JACKS, LLC,
Intervenor -Respondent)
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FILE NO. 07-EHR-1581
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS MATTER was mediated before John A. J. Ward, Certified Mediator, on the 5`h day
of December, 2007, at the law firm of John A. J. Ward, PLLC, located at 219 Pollock Street,
New Bern, NC 28560. Charles William Kafer, Esq. appeared as Petitioner; Christine A. Goebel,
Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Coastal Resources Commission and the N.C. Division of
Coastal Management; I. Clark Wright, Jr., Esq. and M. Douglas Goines, Esq. appeared on behalf
of Intervenor -Respondent, Lo'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC.
After mediation of the matters at issue in this contested case, the parties have resolved
fully the matters at issue, and have contracted and agreed to the following terms of settlement,
which all parties agree are binding on all concerned as follows:
1. Within seven days, the parties will file a joint motion for stay of all further
proceedings (including -but -not -limited -to discovery and all pending motions), seeking a stay for
a period of 90 days, after which the parties will file a joint status report with the Administrative
Law Judge, and during which the parties will use their best efforts to implement the terms of this
agreement as set forth below. Counsel for Respondent has agreed to draft and file this joint
motion for stay. � pg
2. If it desires to continue with its existing boat si'a acility project as described
in Carteret County Minor Development CAMA Permit No. -07, Intervenor -Respondent Lo'r
Decks agrees to relinquish or modify its existing Minor Development CAMA Permit and re-
apply for an appropriate (new or modified) CAMA permit authorizing construction of its boat
storage facility, with no portion of such facility to be located � c"" user to the adjacent real
property owned by Petitioner (and other members of his family) than the easternmost line of th
"Existing Motel" structure as shown on the CAMA permit application drawing attached to this
settlement agreement as Exhibit "A," and which permit application must show the proposed boat
storage facility as being located in compliance with all applicable shoreline and road setback

requirements, but there are no limitations in this agreement with regard to the lateral width of
such structure in the westward direction.
3. In the event that Intervenor -Respondent applies for such permit or permits to
authorize construction of the boat storage facility as relocated, Petitioner, on his own behalf, and
as agent for the other members of his family with ownership interests in the adjacent real
properties located east of the property owned by Intervenor -Respondent agrees not to oppose
issuance of appropriate permits for such facility, as long as said facility complies with the current
height and shoreline/road setbacks, and not to encourage any other person or entity to oppose
such project.
4. In further consideration of the terms of this settlement agreement, Petitioner
agrees, on his own behalf and on behalf of the other members of his family who have interests in
the adjacent real properties, not to oppose efforts by Intervenor -Respondent to obtain any needed
permits for construction and development of the boat slip and related marina facilities as
generally described on the plans and drawings attached as Exhibit `B." With regard to said plans '
and drawings for the boat slips and marina facilities, Intervenor -Respondent agrees to not
propose, construct or otherwise build any sheds or other roof structures or other pe ont ro mac.
coverings associated with such slips or other marina facilities.
5. The terms of this settlement agreement are not intended to apply to or otherwise
Iimit in any respect Intervenor -Respondent's plans, permit applications or development
proposals for the portions of its property located north of "Harkers Island Road" as shown on
Exhibit "A."
6. With regard to the portion of Intervenor -Respondent's property located eastward
of the Existing Motel and southward of Harkers Island Road (see Exhibit "A"), Intervenor -
Respondent agrees to limit any proposed development as follows: (a) any proposed single family
residences shall be located no closer to the property line in common with Petitioner and other
members of his family than ten (10) feet; (b) any proposed multi -family, motel, condominium,
town homes or other similar structures shall be located no closer to the property line in common
with Petitioner and other members of his family than 20 feet, and shall be no higher above
ground level than the current height of the "Existing Motel" as shown on Exhibit "A" plus the
minimum base flood elevation, but not to exceed 2.5 feet. Intervenor -Respondent agrees not to
propose or construct any buildings in this area other than those described immediately above,
and specifically agrees not to propose or construct any boat storage facilities in this area. The
limitations in this paragraph shall apply for a term of 99 years.
7. With regard to the development activities described in Paragraph 2 above,
Respondent N.C. Division of Coastal Management does not anticipate any regulatory
prohibitions to permit issuance (or modification of the existing Minor Development CAMA
Permit, as appropriate), but cannot guarantee same.
8. With regard to the development activities described in Paragraph 4 above,
Respondent N.C. Division of Coastal Management will receive and process any appropriate
permit applications in accordance with then -applicable statutes, rules and regulations.
9. The parties recognize that approval from existing lenders is a condition precedent
to the proposed development activities described .in this settlement agreement.
10. This agreement is without prejudice to the rights of all of the parties in the event
that the contested case proceeds for any reason.
11. All parties represent that they have authority to execute this agreement.
Read, reviewed and agreed to this the 514day of December, 2007.

Charles W' tam Kafer ; etEritioner
[Individually and o ehalf of all other
Family members holding title to his„property]
Christine A. Goebel, Esq.
[On behalf of Respondent]
Lo'R. Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC
BY:
. Edward Swicegood, Me ber-Manager /yt
Joh .J. Ward, Esq.
[Mediator]

a..sutEr�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DF.PAMNT OF 1PANSPORTA HON
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
October 12, 2007
Subject. Possibility of crossing SR 1335 in Carteret County from a boat storage to
water access.
To Whom It May Concern:
The Department of Transportation has been asked to respond to question concerning the
possibility of crossing SR 1335 (Harkers Island Road) in Carteret County with equipment
carrying boats from a dry stack storage to a water access. The crossing would be located
at Calico Jacks Marina, which is approximately 0.35 miles west of the dead end of SR
1335.
The concerns that the Department would have concerning this crossing would include but
not be limited to, traffic volumes, posted speed limits, drainage, site distance, possible
pavement damage, maintenance and potential negative traffic impacts. If it is determined
that any negative impacts are created, a plan to mitig
prior to approval. ate these impacts would be required
Should any additional information be required, please advise.
Sincerely,
e4zC—
Jason R. Peterson, P.E.
District Engineer
JRP/jrp
Cc: Mr. C.E. Lassiter, Jr., PE, Division Engineer
Mr. David Livingston, Craven County Maintenance Engineer
Mr. Ronald D. Cullipher, P.E., Stroud Engineering, P.A.
DIVISION Two. DISTRICT Two * 209 S. GLENBURNIE ROAD • NEW $ERN, N.C. 28560
PI IONI: [phone] • FAx [phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
THIRD PARTY HEARING )
REQUEST BY CHARLES )
WILLIAM KAFER )
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CMT-07-20
FINAL DECISION
I. PERMIT & REQUEST
Petitioner Charles William Kafer requests permission to file a petition for contested case
hearing as a third party pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). Petitioner seeks to challenge
CAMA Minor Permit 4017-07 issued to Lo'r Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC authorizing
construction of parking and dry stack boat storage at 1698 Island Drive, Harkers Island, in
Carteret County, North Carolina.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), a third party may file a contested case
hearing petition to challenge the issuance or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only if
the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is
appropriate. Section 113A-121.1(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that the
determination as to whether a hearing is appropriate should be based upon a consideration of
whether the petitioner:
1. Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;
2. Is directly affected by the decision; and
1

3. Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the
hearing request is not frivolous.
The CRC has delegated the authority to its Chairman to determine whether a third party
request for a hearing should be granted or denied. Rule 15A NCAC 7J .0301(b). A third parry
whose hearing request is granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, and the permit remains suspended pursuant to N.C.G.S.§113A-121.1
(b) and (c). A third parry whose hearing request is denied may seek judicial review. Id. If the
third parry's hearing request is denied, the permittee's permit is reinstated by operation of law
pursuant to N.C.G.S. §113A-121.1(c).
III. FACTS
1. The Permittee, Lo'r Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC, owns property located at 1698 Island
Drive, Harker's Island. The project site consists of two areas, one south of Harker's
Island Road and one north of Harker's Island Road. The entire project site (areas on both
sides of the road) is 75,322 square feet (or 1.73 acres) and is located on the southeast end
of the island. The Permittee has owned this property since March 5, 2007, per the
Carteret County Tax Office.
2. Petitioner owns property at 1712 Harker's Island Road, immediately east of the
Permittee. Petitioner has owned this property since January 6, 1977, per the Carteret
County Tax Office.
3. Both Petitioner's and the Permittee's property are located adjacent to Back Sound.
0

4. .The waters of Back Sound adjacent to the Permittee's property are classified as SA-ORW
by the Environmental Management Commission, and are closed to the harvest of
shellfish.
5. The entire project site is located in the 575' ORW Coastal Shoreline Area of
Environmental Concern.
6. Current site conditions include a motel, a paved parking lot to the west of the motel, a
ship's store, a boat ramp, a break water, a gazebo, a paved parking lot and gravel parking
lot in the area on the north side of the road, and the gravel parking lot and RV park on the
east side of the site where the proposed boat storage shed will be.
7. On March 15, 2007, the County LPO received the Permittee's application for a CAMA
Minor Permit for development of parking and a dry stack boat storage shed, which would
be located to the east of the existing motel. A copy of the site plan is attached to the Staff
Recommendation and incorporated.
8. The Permittee proposes to add a 24' x 170' three story boat storage shed on the east side
of the property; to pave the gravel parking lot that is just west of the proposed boat
storage shed; to convert some built upon packed gravel area into pervious grass areas; to
remove the existing RVs which are sitting where the shed is proposed to be; and to add
two travel boat lift pads.
9. The current built upon area on the property is approximately 70%. This built upon
calculation includes the current building, paved parking, and packed gravel parking lots.
3

All of this development appears to have been pre-CAMA, based on staff s review of 1978
aerial photography.
10. The proposed built upon coverage for the property is approximately 69%.
11. The Permittee submitted an inventory of the existing built upon surfaces and an
inventory of the proposed built upon surfaces, a copy of which is attached to the Staff
Recommendation.
12. The CRC's rules for ORW Coastal Shorelines limit built upon area to 25%. However,
the built upon area (pre-CAMA) in this case is already 70%.
13. 15A NCAC 7H.0209(f)(1) sets out the requirements for ORW Coastal Shorelines AECs.
Section .0209(f)(1)(A), requiring that the proposed development have no stormwater
collection system, is met by this development. Section .0209(f)(1)(B) is also met by this
development and is addressed in the next fact, and section .0209(f)(1)(C) requires that the
provisions of .0209(d), .the Use Standards for Coastal Shorelines be met. The last
sentence of .0209(d)(2) applies to the situation on this site, and provides:
[r]edevelopment of areas exceeding the 30 percent impervious surface
limitation may be permitted if impervious areas are not increased and the
applicant designs the project to comply with the intent of the rule to the
maximum extent practicable.
14. Section .0209(f)(1)(B) requires a 30 foot buffer from normal high water. In the areas
within the 30' buffer on this site, the only new development being proposed are the boat
travel lifts in the southeast corner of the site. As an exception to the buffer rule, 15A
NCAC 7H.0209(d)(10)(H) allows "[d]evelopment over existing impervious surfaces,
provided that the existing impervious surface is not increased and the applicant designed
4

the project to comply with the intent of the rules to the maximum extent feasible." In
this case, the area for the proposed lifts is currently built upon area. Additionally, the
only proposed development in the buffer, the boat travel lifts, is a water dependant use,
allowed under 15A NCAC 7H.0209(d)(10)(a).
15. As a part of the permit process, notice was given to riparian owners through certified
mail, and to the public through notice in the newspaper and posting on site.
16. Petitioner is an adjacent riparian property owner who submitted an objection letter to the
Carteret County CAMA LPO, dated April 2, 2007. Petitioner's primary objections were
that the proposed development was that the shed would diminish the value of his
property, would block the sun and air, and that the setbacks from the water were
incorrectly calculated from the site's "artificially" enhanced MHW protected by the
existing breakwater. (Attached to the Staff Recommendation)
17. The Carteret County LPO issued the CAMA Minor Permit # 4017-07 on April 5, 2007
over Petitioner's objections.
18. On April 10, 2007, DCM received Petitioner's third party hearing request to challenge the
issuance of the permit. (Attached to the Staff Recommendation)
19. The Permittee's counsel commented on this petition through a letter dated May 3, 2007.
(Attached to the Staff Recommendation)
20. The attached to the Staff Recommendation DOT aerial photos are of the site and taken in
1978, 1989, and 2006.
FI

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Petitioner also alleges that the permit was issued contrary to N.C.G.S. 113A _
120(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10). Petitioner has met the requirements of N.C.G.S. §
113A-121.1(b)(1) with respect to (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10).
B. Petitioner owns property adjacent to the proposed residence approved by the
minor permit at issue. Thus, for purposes of this third party hearing request, petitioner is directly
affected by the permit decision and has met the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(2).
C. Petitioner alleges that the permit was issued contrary to N.C.G.S. 113A _
120(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10). These sections of the CAMA are within N.C.G.S.
113A _ 120, "Grant or denial of permits." Section (a) requires that "The responsible official or
body (the CAMA LPO in this case) shall deny an application for a permit upon finding:" and
goes on to list ten situations where permit denial is required. Petitioner cited five of these bases
for denial, addressed separately below.
1. N.C.G.S. 113A _ 120(a)(1) requires permit denial "in the case of coastal wetlands, that
the development would contravene an order that has been or could be issued pursuant to G.S.
113-230 (protection of coastal wetlands)." There are no coastal wetlands on the site, and
Petitioner does not allege facts to support the conclusion that there are coastal wetlands on the
site. Thus, a hearing on this point would be frivolous, and Petitioner fails to meet the burden of
N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
2. N.C.G.S. 113A _ 120(a)(2) requires permit denial "in the case of estuarine waters, that a
permit for the development would be denied pursuant to G.S. 113-229(e) (Dredge and Fill law)."
0

There is no proposed dredging or filling on the site, and Petitioner does not allege facts to
support the conclusion that there is dredging or filling proposed. Thus, a hearing on this point
would be frivolous, and Petitioner fails to meet the burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
3. N.C.G.S. 113A _ 120(a)(8) requires permit denial "in any case, that the development is
inconsistent with the State guidelines or the local land use plan." In section III of his third party
petition (pp. 2-3, _ _ 2-4), Petitioner argues that the calculations of the existing built upon area
were incorrect.
Staff applied the rules applicable to this site and this proposed development, which
include the last sentence of 15A NCAC 07H.0209(d)(2), .0209(d)(10)(H), and .0209(f)(1)(c).
These rules allow the redevelopment of an area if there is no increase in the amount of built upon
area (aka impervious surfaces), and if the redevelopment in the buffer area is not increased. In
this case, the built upon area is approximately 70%, and the proposed built upon area is slightly
less at approximately 69%. Petitioner has presented no evidence to support his contentions that
DCM and the Permittee erred in calculating the area of impervious surfaces existing on the site
or that the property to be developed into a large paved parking lot and a proposed boat storage
shed is "basically an open and undeveloped area." Thus, a hearing on this point would be
frivolous, and Petitioner fails to meet the burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
4. N.C.G.S. 113A _ 120(a)(9) requires permit denial,
"in any case, that considering engineering requirements and all economic costs
there is a practicable alternative that would accomplish the overall project
purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources."
7

In section III of his third party petition (p. 4, _ 7), Petitioner alleges that the Permittee
could locate the boat storage shed to its property on the north side of Harker's Island Road,
which would "not impede the view, would not block the air, and would not create substantial
water flow problems." This allegation does not state a claim of impact to "public resources." In
addition, siting the boat storage facility across the road from the water is not a practicable
alternative. Thus, a hearing on this point would be frivolous, and Petitioner fails to meet the
burden ofN.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
5. N.C.G.S. 113A _ 120(a)(10) requires permit denial,
"in any case, that the proposed development would contribute to cumulative
effects that would be inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in subdivisions (1)
through (9) of this subsection. Cumulative effects are impacts attributable to the
collective effects of a number of projects and include the effects of additional
projects similar to the requested permit in areas available for development in the
vicinity."
Petitioner has not alleged any facts to support this argument about cumulative impacts.
Petitioner has thus failed to show that this issue is not frivolous and fails to meet the
requirements ofN.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
Major v. Minor Permit
In the third section of his Petition (p. 2, _ 1), Petitioner argues that this permit should
have been processed as a major permit instead of a minor permit, and appears to argue that
because the "new paved parking lot will be over 10,000 square feet" this project should have also
required some other state or federal authorization, thus possibly making it eligible for a major
permit.
8

N.C.G.S. § 113A-118 defines those projects which require a major permit, and those
which require a minor permit. The CAMA major permit is triggered when the site is more than
20 acres, when a structure is more than 60,000 square feet in area, or when other state or federal
authorization is required. In this case, the building is 4,080 square feet. The project site isl.73
acres. Based upon the size of this project, neither DLR's Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Plan, nor DWQ's Stormwater permit program are required. Thus, a CAMA major permit is not
required in this case. Under N.C.G.S. § 113A-118(d)(2), since this project is not "major
development," it is suitable for a CAMA minor permit instead. Therefore, this issue is frivolous,
and Petitioner does not meet the burden of N.C.G.S. § 11 3A- 12 1 1. 1 (b)(3).
Use and Enioyment of Property
In the third section of his Petition (p. 4, _ _ 6-7), Petitioner alleges that the permit should
have been denied because it will cause "significant adverse effect on the value and enjoyment of
the property of any riparian owners." This is one of the bases for denial of a Dredge and Fill
Permit. N.C.G.S. § 113A-120(a)(2) provides that a CAMA permit shall be denied if a Dredge
and Fill Permit is also required to be denied. No dredging or filling has been authorized by
CAMA minor permit # 4017-07; thus, the section cited by the Petitioner does not- apply in this
case. This issue is frivolous, and Petitioner fails to meet the burden of N.C.G.S. §
I I 3A- 12 1. 1 (b)(3) on this issue.
Takings Claim
In the third section of his Petition (pp. 4-5, _ _ 6-9), Petitioner alleges that the issuance of
this permit "basically takes our property," cites N.C.G.S. 113A- _128, and provides property
9

value information to argue that the permitting of the proposed development will reduce the value
of Petitioner's property, impede his view, and block the air.
N.C.G.S. § 113A-123(b) provides that the exclusive remedy for determining takings
questions is in the superior court after the CRC issues its final decision._ Therefore, the OAH
and the CRC lack jurisdiction to hear takings claims, and a hearing on this issue would be
frivolous. Petitioner fails to meet the burden ofN.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3)on this issue.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request is DENIED.
This the 9th day of May, 2007.
Courtney T. Hackney, Chairman
N.C. Coastal Resources Commission
10

�A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Final Decision on
Petitioner by causing a copy thereof to be placed in the United States Postal Service
bearing sufficient postage for delivery by certified mail return receipt requested and
addressed as follows:
CHARLES WILLIAM KAFER
PO Box 947
New Bern, NC 28563
This the 9th day of May, 2007.
Jill B. Hickey
Special Deputy Attorney General
11

Alm, -rVVA
Pi ,
NCDENR
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
Mr. Charles William Kafer
PO Box 947
New Bern, NC 28563
Dear Mr. Kafer:
April 5, 2007
This correspondence is in reference to your April 02, 2007 letter of objection to the dry stack
boat storage proposal made by LO'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC, located at 1698 Island Drive,
Harker's Island, adjacent to Back Sound.
The DCM and Carteret County Inspections reviewed the application along with the pertinent
rules of the Coastal Resources Commission and Carteret County Government, in conjunction
with your objections, and determined that the project is consistent with the Commission's and
County rules. Therefore, the Carteret County Local Permit Officer issued CAMA Minor Permit
#417-07 to LO'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC on 4/05/07, authorizing redevelopment of the
property to include parking and dry stack boat storage.
If you wish to appeal this permit decision, you must file a Third Party Hearing; Request with the
Director of the Division of Coastal Management, Mr. Charles S. Jones, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources within 20 days of the permit decision. A copy must also be
sent to the Attorney General's Office, Environmental Division. If You wish to appeal, please
contact me and I can forward you the pertinent forms. And if you have any questions about this
matter, please don't hesitate to contact me at (252-808-2808).
Sincerely,
,> l
Tere Barrett
District Manager, MHC
Enclosure
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Janice Heyland, LPO
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

.1-1. f. LVV( IV. LV1I'll v1M I1 I - I VV I 11111111 t1V VLI I I". J'YLI I. L
*.
CELARLES WILI.IAM KAFER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST O>ricE Bog 947
209 POLIX)Cx STREET
NF:w BERM, N.C.
28563
BOARD CERT=D .g, PZCXA► JST
MPAIEMYLAW
p3pFOodED
Morehead City DCM
TELEPHONE [phone]
F1ACSr MT 1c [phone]
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO 252-728-6643 AND VIA MAIL
2 April 2007
ATTN: JANICE (�
Carteret Planning & Development
Courthouse Square
Beaufort, NC 28516 -
Dear Janice:
I received from Stroud Engineering, P.A., notice of the proposed construction of a boat
storage shed by LO'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC, adjacent to my property on Harkers
Island.
I object to this proposed construction. Enclosed, is the "ADJACENT RIPARIAN
PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT." This form was enclosed with the notice.
After receiving the notice of the proposed construction, I called the Carteret Planning and
Development Office and spoke with you. You advised that I had until 4 April 2007 to
object to the proposed boat storage shed. Therefore, this past weekend, I went to Harkers
Island with the diagram of the proposed plan to review it while on the site.
The proposed structure has dimensions of 24' by 170' by an average height of 45'. The
cubic footage of the "'shed" is 183,600 (24x170x45). The shed is to be located only 50'
from the water, 20' from the road right of way, and 10' from my property. This massive
structure will block out the sun and the air. In its present proposed size and location, it
will substantially diminish the value of our property. (My brother and our wives own the
adjacent property. This letter is written on behalf of all of us.)
If the "shed" is to be built, it should be no closer than 50' from the high water line of our
property. It should not be allowed to be built 50' from the end of the marina's existing
bulkhead, but instead 50' from the end of our bulkhead. Therefore, the "shed" would
have to be located a distance of approximately 12 additional feet toward the road from
the present proposed location. The "shed" would then have to shrink in length by these
12 feet. I have enclosed a portion of the proposed plan uhth my notes.
The concrete breakwater extending into Back Sound from Calico Jack's Marina has
caused extensive erosion on its east side and created substantial deposits of sand on its

IYIS Y• !. LVVI IV.L IMIVI Lh 1%1 Ll_I WV rLM111111VU ULrI
Ivu. 3L+L I r. )
At
west side. As a result, the shoreline of all of the property east of the concrete breakwater
has been substantially eroded. I believe that the area immediately adjacent to the eastern
side of Calico Jack's bulkhead was "backfilled." The marina has added land while land
to the east, including our property, has shrunk. The receding nature of the shoreline was
caused by the concrete bulkhead extending so far into Back Sound. The 50' setback line
should begin where the high-water mark is on our property and not at the artificially
created water line of Calico Jack's bulkhead.
The huge "shed" and large concrete parking lot will also create substantial water runoff
into the sound.
We respectfully request that the permit to construct the "shed" in its present size and
location be denied.
Sincerely,
Charles Wiili er CEO FED
CVVx:V MAY 7 2007
Enclosures Morehead Cjf
Y DC114

^�al� I - LV V I Iv1_1 vv i u1ni1iiru Uri i irv. JYG I I Y
•
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to 1-01 Q A-r &ueo SockSF LLC 's
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at S�ati� �oe�c�
(Lot,
Block, Road, etc.)
on nClk Soub s , in ISmAtid , N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County)
He/She has described to me, as shown below, the development he/she is proposing at
that location and 1Wmaw objectim to his!her proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(To be filled in by individual proposing development)
See attached plan,
Signature
R9F SIVED
MAY 7 2007
Morehead City DCM
Print or Type Name
aY� 6 37 3,5 s.� ll�A �
Telephone Number,.? j'' �,,3 (p 3 �-f-p
/o , . OAXICt
Date:
Re:Adjamnuxt

y
0
a
mw
M 0
0 W
z=
(A m
� o
i �+.. YI•'7�wi �� •\�. .,�:. .` • :•i'r.�:.'� ��•i!.: {!.:tip..'::'.: �.
',;r�r •.,:f°y'•:'i:: �;�::t?. ti%t;r.'!'� : "•'�r •":.:';;;• � • :fir'.:'; '.\y....• �:
.:i�•.t:.i�',��;���.J•r _ .•i�.JL..•\!. •t ::.t ii�..•1y.:•��::i�/!.t �.
�f.•. •i!.: i.'. : i!. ' 4.fi!..•i!r •�;'•.� �..••�. .;•. i.•. •ti!. •i!.: �i Wit:..,.:'. '.'.��/.�.�
WN
be
r
N'r low
m zt••• c�
,wJ-=
noNg—L
Z:g z
O
w
\`fie
zz_a
vaW-cs
Al
W°'u.
CO0.
'1+00
.O,e•0ZS
_;fZJC��•
4, • S, is g f �• Tf ,. i i/
;may uYi�i,S� z � "C'1 *:S° •. '} ., * -�i'J� �•���:
�Lam�
0na
.JAI—tn
0
y
O
J
6�
z �..

CHARLES WrLraAM KAFER
ArWRNEYATLAW MAY 7 U07
POST OrricE Bog 947
209 P07XQCK STREET
NVwBFRN,N.C. Morehead City DCM
28563
HOARD CzRTnrrED SPUCIAUST TELEPHONE [phone]
mFAwm rLAw FACSTatir.Tc (252) 63&6220
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO 252-728-6643 AND VIA MAIL
2 April 2007
U'
ATTN: JANICE
Carteret Planning & Development
Courthouse Square
Beaufort, NC 28516
Dear Janice:
I received from Stroud Engineering, P.A., notice of the proposed construction of a boat
storage shed by LO'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC, adjacent to my property on Harkers
Island.
I object to this proposed construction. Enclosed, is the "ADJACENT RIPARIAN
PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT." This form was enclosed with the notice.
After receiving the notice of the proposed construction, I called the Carteret Planning and
Development Office and spoke with you. You advised that I had until 4 April 2007 to
object to the proposed boat storage shed. Therefore, this past weekend, I went to Harkers
Island with the diagram of the proposed plan to review it while on the site.
The proposed structure has dimensions of 24' by 170' by an average height of 45'. The
cubic footage of the "shed" is 183,600 (24xl70x45). The shed is to be located only 50'
from the water, 20' from the road right of way, and 10' from my property. This massive
structure will block out the sun and the air. In its present proposed size and location, it
will substantially diminish the value of our property. (My brother and our wives own the
adjacent property. This letter is written on behalf of all of us.)
If the "shed" is to be built, it should be no closer than 50' from the high water line of our
property. It should not be allowed to be built 50' from the end of the marina's existing
bulkhead, but instead 50' from the end of our bulkhead. Therefore, the "shed" would
have to be located a distance of approximately 12 additional feet toward the road from
the present proposed location. The "shed" would then have to shrink in length by these
12 feet. I have enclosed a portion of the proposed plan Arith my notes.
The concrete breakwater extending into Back Sound from Calico Jack's Marina has
caused extensive erosion on its east side and created substantial deposits of sand on its

west side. As a result, the shoreline of all of the property east of the concrete breakwater
has been substantially eroded. I believe that the area immediately adjacent to the eastern
side of Calico Jack's bulkhead was "backfilled." The marina has added land while land
to the east, including our property, has shrunk. The receding nature of the shoreline was
caused by the concrete bulkhead extending so far into Back Sound. The 50' setback line
should begin where the high-water mark is on our property and not at the artificially
created water line of Calico Jack's bulkhead.
The huge "shed" and large concrete parking lot will also create substantial water runoff
into the sound.
We respectfully request that the permit to construct the "shed" in its present size and
location be denied.
Sincerely,
Charles Willi er
v
CWK:V
Enclosures
MAY 7 2007
Morehead City pCM

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to 4 o R 6C V, AT &Lir-o TockS, L LC 's
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at
(Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on _ 4 S t , in HA ld E�'s �SLANd . N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County)
Be/She has describdd to me, as shown below, the development he/she is proposing at
that location and 1 iswav objectim to his/her proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(To be fiQed in by individual proposing development)
See attached plan. RIF RIVED
MAY 7 2007
Morehead City DCM
Signature j
Print or Type Name
Telephone Number aS'.2 6,3
J` .Z/Q 7 p�x'/c�
Date: 7'
Re:Adjacent.txt

m
aw �, ~
�ZE• O / cO .
� / C
t~A m
Wo 7
ry! �'+!. •C•��!:.� iDl. .`.J,i:�+.•�ti�..�i:r"itr",�:•sP:._i�.: ..�i .�iS �i'!; Via,.,
�tiS �'�'Sr ��•�
4rfir?+S -41 •. S •.
h='����•:y��� �:�.,..- -�� i3'�." yap•
rr
5
zza
O�J .....
�► V)O:cs
uj
rWca
O
LLIM
zw
1—W
UIm
�i
2 6-s

SHEET #_ODF1_
PROJECT #: PM1579
DESIGN FILE #: Calico 'acKs.d
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Z
,
O
,
1
/
BACK SOUND
ORW WATERS
T CRIESEDIECK
PERRY RD
LON. NC 27597
5- 734405198950000
S�0•
9�
40ti
1.
FX i.srrMc::�iv
'. P�C'R HIV O.T .
N68,
O
w/
-
4
0' EXISTING IMPERVIOUS
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS
TO BE REMOVED
— LIMITS OF EXISTING
IMPERVIOUS PARKING
TO BE MODIFIED AS
SHOWN
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS
TO BE REMOVED
6
SHED ELEVATION
END VIEW
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING PAVED. CONCRETE. & GRAVEL IMPERVIOUS AREAS
PROPOSED CONCRETE PARKING
EXISTING GRAVEL IMPERVIOUS AREA TO BE REMOVED
SITE DATA
PROJECT AREA NORTH 2O,197 SF
PROJECT AREA SOUTH 55,125 SF
PROJECT AREA TOTAL 75,322 SF
ZONING— UNZONED
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA— 52455.2 SF
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA— 51889.60 SF
TOTAL LAND DISTURBANCE = 20,454.15 SF (0.47 AC)
NOTE: ENTIRE PARCEL WITHIN 575' AEC OF ORW WATERS
ESsjO �4
REVISIONS:
I
SCALE: 1 "=30'

New Third Party (07-20)
Subject: New Third Party (07-20)
From: "Goebel, Christine" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:40:04 -0400
To: "Charles.S.Jones" <[e-mail]>, "Ted.Tyndall" <[e-mail]>, "Tere Barrett"
<Tere. B arrett@ncmai 1. net>
CC: "Angela Willis" <[e-mail]>, "Alcoke, Merrie Jo" <[e-mail]>
Please take notice:
I've been assigned to a new third party filed by Mr. Kafer against a CAMA minor permit (4017-07) issued to the
Lo'r Decks at Calico Jack's in Harker's Island for a parking lot and dry storage.
Tere, please have a copy of the file sent to me via courier to Christy Goebel -Environmental, Dept. of Justice (our
courier # is 514122, or Charles is coming to Raleigh tomorrow if you can catch him!)
The Chairman's decision is due Wed 5/9. 1 know 1 won't be able to deal with it until after mailout, so please plan
time in your schedules to be in the office to discuss and finalize it on Monday 5/7 so I can get it to the Chairman
by Tuesday am at the latest.
Thanks for your help!
Christy
1 of 1 4/25/2007 11:02 AM

ANT;�W1 FA
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
Stroud Engineering, P.A.
151 A Highway 24
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attn: Ronald Cullipher
Lo'r Decks at Calico Jacks
31 1 West Second Street
Lexington, NC 27292
April 24, 2007
CERTIFIED MAIL (7005 3110 0001 5624 4700)
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Re: Suspension of Work / Appeal of CAMA Permit Decision
Dear Mr. Cullipher:
The Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission, Courtney Hackney, has received a request for an
administrative hearing to challenge CAMA Minor Permit #417-07, issued to Lo'r Decks at Calico Jacks
located at 1698 Island Road, Harker's Island. North Carolina. The Third Party Hearing Request was tiled
on behall'of petitioner Charles Kafer on April 24, 2007. UnderN.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1 (the Coastal Area
Management Act). your CAMA permit is automatically suspended upon receipt of a hearing request and
will remain suspended until either: (1) Chairman hackney denies the hearing request (under standards set
out in the statute); or (2) there is a final Coastal Resources Commission decision on the permit appeal.
You may not undertake any development under the permit until further notice after Chairman Hackney
issues his decision.
The Division of Coastal Management will prepare a recommendation for the Chairman on whether to
grant or deny the hearing request. The Chairman must make a decision within 15 days after receipt of the
hearing request. Therefore his decision is due close of business on May 9, 2007. If you wish to submit
any materials for the Chairman's consideration in ruling on the request for contested case hearing, please
send them to me as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Jone�
Director
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director
Tere Barrett, District Manager
Janice Heyland, LPO
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity1 Affirmative Acticr Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Ccrs.,Ter eager

IV]
NO NR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr Secrets
Mr. Charles William Kafer
PO Box 947
New Bern, NC 28563
Dear Mr. Kafer:
April 5, 2007
This correspondence is in reference to your April 02, 2007 letter of objection to the dry stack
boat storage proposal made by LO'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC, located at 1698 Island Drive,
Harker's Island, adjacent to Back Sound.
The DCM-andCarteret County Inspections reviewed the application along with the pertinent
rules of the Coastal Resources Commission and Carteret County Government, in conjunction
with your objections, and determined that the project is consistent with the Commission's and
County rules. Therefore, the Carteret County Local Permit Officer issued CAMA Minor Permit
#417-07 to LO'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC on 4/05/07, authorizing redevelopment of the
property to include parking and dry stack boat storage.
If you wish to appeal this permit decision, you must file a Third Party Hearing Request with the
Director of the Division of Coastal Management, Mr. Charles S. Jones, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources within 20 days of the permit decision. A copy must also be
sent to the Attorney General's Office, Environmental Division. If you wish to appeal, please
contact me and I can forward you the pertinent forms. And if you have any questions about this
matter, please don't hesitate to contact me at (252-808-2808).
Sincerely,
i
V v�
Tere Barrett
District Manager, MHC
Enclosure
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Janice Heyland, LPO
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

Map Identification Proppertyy �Description
734405291739000 LOT BACK TOSM HARKERS ISLAND
Use Value
1/ )at 07 Township
HARKERS ISLAND
Fire
Deferred Value
City
Rescue
Assessed Value
$287,860
CARTERET COUNTY INFORMAL APPEAL FORM
. APPEAL MUST BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS NOTICE
If you have questions about completing this form call 252-728-8485. If you disagree with your assessed value, this form MUST be completed in its entirety
and returned with supporting documentation to the address shown below. An appeal of property value may result in the assessment being: unchanged,
reduced or increased in value.
YOU CANNOT APPEAL YOUR PROPERTY VALUE BASED ON:
(1) IT'S PERCENT OF INCREASE OR (2) YOUR ABILITY TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED TAX
(1) Do you feel the assessed value above is correct? Yes No
If Yes, no appeal is necessary- Do not return this form. If NO, complete this form in its entirety.
(2) What is your opinion of fair market value as of January 1, 2007?
(3) What is the basis of your opinion? (Check as appropriate)
R t
ecen apprasal (attach copy) Recent purchase (attach copy of closing statement)
Recent asking price (attach copy of listing form) Recent comparable sales (attach detailed Information)
(4) If property was purchased within the last 3 years, complete the following:
Date purchased: Purchase Price:
Cost of improvements since purchase, if any. (if work was done by a contractor, include a copy of contract)
(5) If this is a residential property, complete the following:
Year Built # of Bedrooms # of Baths # of Half Baths Heated Sq. Ft.
Additional Comments:
(6) if this is a commercial property, complete the following:
Rent Amount per year $ Expenses per year $
Term of Lease
Utilities Included: Heat Air_, Water__, Electric_ . Other
'If this is income producing property, Include the three most current years income & expense information.•"'
(7) Daytime Phone Home Phone
Email Address
If you are appealing the new assessed value, this form must be completed in its entirety and returned within 30 days of the date of this notice to. Carteret County
Revaluation, 302 Courthouse Square, Beaufort NC 28516 or fax the form to [phone]. Make sure to attach copies of any appraisals, closing statements, real
estate listings, income and expense statements, etc. Appellants who do not hold an ownership interest in the subject property must file an executed power of attorney
from the owner with this office.
Owners Signature Date:
--------------------------------OFFICE USE ONLY ------------ ---------------------------
STATUS: Date Received Date of 1st Contact
Withdrew
No Change
Adjustment Made
Review: Appraiser
Was on -site inspection done? Person Contacted
Reviewer's Comments:

Carteret County 417.07
Local Government Permit Number
CAMA
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission for development
in an area of environment concern pursuant to Section 113A-118 of the
General Statutes, "Coastal Area Management"
Issued to Lo'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC, authorizing development in the Estuarine Shoreline - ORW (AEC) at 1698
Island Road, in Harkers Island, NC, as requested in the permittee's application, dated March 15, 2007. This permit,
issued on April 5, 2007, is subject to compliance with the application and site drawing (where consistent with the permit),
all applicable regulations and special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action, or may cause the permit to be null and void.
This permit authorizes: Remove existing RV's, construct three sided boat storage shelter and apron for boat storage access to
water and storage shelter
(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in accordance with the permitted work plat
drawings(s) dated received on March 15, 2007.
(2) All construction must conform to the N.C. Building Code requirements and all other local, State and Federal regulations,
applicable local ordinances and FEMA Flood Regulations.
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or land use activities will require a re-evaluation and
modification of this permit.
(4) A copy of this permit shall be posted or available on site. Contact this office at 252-728-8497 for a final inspection at
completion of work.
(Additional Permit Conditions on Page 2)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other qualified persons
within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. From the date of an appeal, any
work conducted under this permit must cease until the appeal is resolved. This
permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the
project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project
modification not covered under this permit, require further written permit
approval. All work must cease when this permit expires on:
DECEMBER 31, 2010
In issuing this permit it is agreed that this project is consistent with the local Land
Use Plan and all applicable ordinances. This permit may not be transferred to
another party without the written approval of the Division of Coastal
Management.
J.D. O'Neal
CAMA LOCAL PERMIT OFFICIAL
402 Broad Street
Beaufort, NC 28516
PERMITTEE
(Signature required if conditions above apply to permit)

Name: Lo'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC
Minor Permit # 417.07
Date: April 5, 2007
Page 2
(5) Per 15A NCAC 07H .0209(d)(2), which addresses redevelopment of areas exceeding impervious limitations, the
applicant is authorized for this development reducing the amount of impervious from 52,455.2 to 51,889.60. Note:
Any impervious surface proposed within the buffer must be within the existing footprint of the impervious surface.
(6) Unless specifically allowed in 15A NCAC 07H. 0209(d)(10), and shown on the permitted plan drawing, all
development/construction shall be located a distance of 30 feet landward of normal high water. No portion of the
roof overhang shall encroach into the 30 ft. buffer.
(7) All unconsolidated material resulting from associated grading and landscaping shall be retained on site by effective
sedimentation and erosion control measures. Prior to any land -disturbing activities, a barrier line of filter cloth must
be installed between the land disturbing activity and the adjacent marsh or water areas, until such time as the area
has been properly stabilized with a vegetative cover.
(8) Any proposed for grading within the 30' buffer from the normal high water must be contoured to prevent additional
stormwater runoff to the adjacent marsh. This area shall be immediately vegetatively stabilized, and must remain in
a vegetated state.
(9) All other disturbed areas shall be vegetatively stabilized (planted and mulched) within 14 days of construction
completion.
(10) Pursuant to 15A NCAC, Subchapter 7J.0406(b), this permit may not be assigned, transferred, sold or otherwise
disposed of to a third -party.
(11)A building permit must be obtained.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
PERMITTEE

Mar. 19. 2407 7:56AM
Katrina F. Marshal, AICP
Director
CARTES=T CO PLANNING DEPT
No.2733 P. 1
CARTERET COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Main Office:
Courthouse Square
Beaufort, NC 28516-1898
Tel: [phone]
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
NOTICE OF FILING
OF APPLICATION FOR
Western office:
701 Cedar Point Blvd.
Cedar Point, NC 285844013
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
MAR 1 9 2007
CAMA MINOR DEVELOPMENT PERK-ehead City M,M
Pursuant to NCGS 113A-119(b), Carteret County, a locality authorized to issue CAMA
permits in Areas of Environmental Concern, hereby gives NOTICE that on March 15, 2007, Lo'R
Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC applied for a CAMA permit to remove existing RV's, construct a boat
storage shelter and apron at 1698 Island Road, Harkers Island, NC.
The application may be inspected at the address below. Public comments received by April 4,
2007 will be considered. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit
decision. Project modifications may occur based on further review and comments. Notice of the
permit decision in this matter will be provided upon written request.
J.D. O'Neal
CAMA Local Permit Officer for
Carteret County Planning & Development
402 Broad Street, Beaufort, NC 28516
252-728-8497
PLEASE PUBLISH ON: March 21, 2007

Apr. 3. 2007 1C:13AM CARTER=T CO PLANNING DEPT No.2950 P. 2
Carteret Court 417-07
Local Government Permit Number
CAMA
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT i -
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission for development
In an area of environment concern pursuant to Section 113A-118 of the
General Statutes, "Coastal Area Management"
Issued to Lo'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC, authorizing development in the Estuarine Shoreline - ORW (AEC) at 1698
Island Road, in Harkers Island, NC, as requested in the permittee's application, dated March 15, 2007. This permit,
issued on April 5, 2007, is subject to compliance with the application and site drawing (where consistent with the permit),
all applicable regulations and special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action, or may cause the permit to be null and void.
This permit authorizes: Remove existing RV's, construct three sided boat storage shelter and apron for boat storage access to
water and storage shelter.
(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in accordance with the permitted work plat
drawings(s) dated received on March 15, 2007.
(2) All construction must conform to the N.C. Building Code requirements and all other local, State and Federal regulations,
applicable local ordinances and FEMA Flood Regulations.
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or land use activities will require a re-evaluation and
modification of this permit.
(4) A copy of this permit shall be posted or available on site. Contact this office at 252-728-8497 for a final inspection at
completion of work.
(Additional Permit Conditions on Page 2)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other quaiifled persons
within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. From the date of an appeal, any
work conducted under this permit must cease until the appeal is resolved. This
permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the
project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project
modification not covered under this permit, require further written permit
approval. All work must cease when this permit expires on:
DECEMBER 31, 2010
In issuing this permit it is agreed that this project is consistent with the local land
Use Plan and all applicable ordinances. This permit may not be transferred to
another party without the written approval of the Division of Coastal
Management.
,,Q - k
J.D. O'Neal
CAMA LOCAL PERMIT OFFICIAL
402 Broad Street
Beaufort, NC 28516
PERMITTEE
(Signature required if conditions above apply to permit)

Apr. 3. 2007 1C:14AM CARTER=T CO PLANNING DEPT
No.2950 P. 3
Name: Lo'R Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC
Minor Permit # 417.07
Date: April 5, 2007
Page 2
(5) Per 15A NCAC 07H .0209(d)(2), which addresses redevelopment of areas exceeding impervious limitations, the
applicant is authorized for this development reducing the amount of impervious from 52,455.2 to 51,889.60. Note:
Any impervious surface proposed within the buffer must be within the existing footprint of the impervious surface.
(6) Unless specifically allowed in 15A NCAC 07H. 0209(d)(10), and shown on the permitted plan drawing, all
development/construction shall be located a distance of 30 feet landward of normal high water. No portion of the
roof overhang shall encroach into the 30 ft buffer.
(7) All unconsolidated material resulting from associated grading and landscaping shall be retained on site by effective
sedimentation and erosion control measures. Prior to any land -disturbing activities, a barrier line of filter cloth must
be installed between the land disturbing activity and the adjacent marsh or water areas, until such time as the area
has been property stabilized with a vegetative cover.
(8) Any proposed for grading within the 30' buffer from the normal high water must be contoured to prevent additional
stormwater runoff to the adjacent marsh. This area shall be immediately vegetatively stabilized, and must remain in
a vegetated state.
(9) All other disturbed areas shall be vegetatively stabilized (planted and mulched) within 14 days of construction
completion.
(10) Pursuant to 15A NCAC, Subchapter 7J.0406(b), this permit may not be assigned, transferred, sold or otherwise
disposed of to a third -party.
(11)A building permit must be obtained.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
PERMITTEE

Msr.19. 2007 2:59PM CARTER=T CO PLANNING DEPT
No.2766 P. 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
LAND OWNER
Name: LO'R DECKS AT CALICO JACKS, LLC
Address: 311 WEST SECOND ST.
City: LEXINGTON State: NC Zip: 27292 Phone: N/A
AUTHORIZED AGENT
Name: STROUD ENGINEERING, P.A.
Address: 151A HWY 24
City: MOREHEAD CITY State: NC Zip: 28557 Phone: [phone]
LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Address, street name and/or directions to site. If not oceanfront, what is the name of the
adjacent waterbody.) CALICO JACKS MOTEL & MARINA, ISLAND ROAD HARKERS ISLAND CARTERET
COUNTY IAA iskcn ��a�veas Spa _ NC,
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (List all proposed construction and land disturbance.) REMOVE EXISTING
CAMPERS, CONSTRUCT THREE SIDED BOAT STORAGE SHELTER AND APRON FOR BOAT STORAGE
ACCESS TO WATER AND STORAGE SHELTER
SIZE OF LOT/PARCEL: 75322 square feet acres
PROPOSED USE: Residential ❑ (Single-family ❑ Multi -family ❑) Commerical/Industrial ® Other
TOTAL ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA OF A BUILDING IN THE OCEAN HAZARD AREA OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC): N/A square feet (includes all floors and roof covered decks)
SIZE OF BUIDLDING FOOTPRINT AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS OR BUILT -UPON SURFACES IN THE
COASTAL SHORELINE AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC): 52455.2 square feet (Calculations
includes the area of the roof/drip line of all buildings, driveways, covered decks, concrete or masonry patios, etc. that are
within the applicable AEC.)(Attach your calculations with the project drawing .}
Choose the AEC area that applies to your property:
(I)within 75 feet of Normal High Water for the Estuarine Shoreline AEC
within 575 feet of Normal High Water for the Estuarine Shoreline AEC, adjacent to Outstanding Resource Waters
(3)within 30 feet of the Public Trust Shoreline AEC
(Contact your Local Permit Officer if you are not sure which AEC applies to your property.)
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT: Is the project located in an area subject to a State Stormwater
Management Permit issued by the NC Division of Water Quality? YES ❑ NO
If yes, list the total built upon area/impmious surface allowed for your lot or parcel. square feet.

Msr.19. 2007 3 : 0 0 P M CARTERET CO PLANNING DEPT No.2766 P. 3
OTHER PERMITS MAYBE REQUIRED: The activity you are planning may require permits other than the CAMA minor development permit.
Asa service we have compiled a listing of the kinds of permits that migbt be required. We suggest you check over the list with your LPO to '
determine if any of these apply to your project. Zoning, Drinking Water Well, Septic Tank (or other sanitary waste treatment system), Building,
Electrical, Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Insulation and Energy Conservation, FIA Certification, Sand Dune, Sediment Control,
Subdivision Approval, Mobile Home Park Approval, Highway Connection, and others.
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP:
I, the undersigned, an applicant for a CAMA minor development permit, being either the owner of property in an AEC or
a person authorized to act as an agent for purposes of applying for a CAMA minor development permit, certify that the
person listed as landowner on this application has a significant interest in the real property described therein. This interest
can be described as: (check one)
® an owner or record title, Title is vested in LO'R DECK AT CALICO JACKS. LLC, see Deed Book 2 t 3
pa6Z2fl in the CARTERET County Registry of Deeds.
❑ an owner by virtue of inheritance. Applicant is an heir to the estate of ;
probate was in County.
❑ if other interest, such as written contract or lease, explain below or use a separate sheet and attach to this application.
NOTIFICATION OJ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
I furthermore certify that the following persons are owners of properties adjoining this property. I affirm. that I have given
ACTUAL NOTICE to each of them concerning my intent to develop this property and to apply for a CAMA permit.
(Name) (Address)
(1) Charles W. Kafer PO Box 947, New Bern, NC. 28560
(2) Janet Criesedieck 943 Perry Rd., Zebulon, NC. 27597
(3)
(4)
FOR DEVELOPERS IN OCEAN HAZARD AND ESTUARINE HAZARD AREAS:
I acknowledge that the land owner is aware that the proposed development is planned for an area which may be
susceptible to erosion and/or flooding. I acknowledge that the local permit officer has explained to me the particular
hazard problems associated with this lot. This explanation was accompanied by recommendations concerning stabilization
and floodproofrng techniques. N/A
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON LAND:
I furthermore certify that I am authorized to grant and do in fact grant permission to the local permit officer and his agents
to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application.
This application includes: general information (this form), a site drawing as described on the back of this application, the
ownership statement, the AEC hazard notice where necessary, a check for $100.00 made payable to the locality, and any
information as may be provided orally by the applicant. The details of the application as described by these sources are
incorporated without reference in any permit which may be issued. Deviation from these details will constitute a violation
of any permit. Any person developing in an AEC without permit is subject to civil, criminal and administrative action.
This the 12 day of March, 2007
_ -C.
Lando or person authorized to act as his agent
for purpose of filing a CAMA permit application

Mar.14. 2007 S : 0 0 P M CARTERET CO PLANNING DEPT No.2766 P. 4

Mar.19. 2007 3:00PM CARTER=T CO PLANNING DEPT
No.2766 P. 5
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS - CALICO JACKS
AREA
1 NORTH PARKING LOT- ASPHALT
8280.0
2 NORTH PARKING LOT- GRAVEL
6207.3
3 SMALL STORAGE BUILDING
322.2
4 MOTEL PAVED PARKING
13509.7
5 BATHHOUSEITRASH STORAGE
260.1
6 CONCRETE AROUND SHIPS STORE
1314.2
7 SHIPS STORE,EXCLUDING OH
1022.7
8 GAZEBO W1 OH
172.9
9 FUEL STORAGE
154.9
10 GRAVEL EAST SIDE MOTEL
14820.2
11 GRAVEL
410.2
12 GRAVEL
30.3
13 GRAVEL
622.8
14 GRAVEL
44.5
15 GRAVEL
637.6
16 GRAVEL
31.6
17 GRAVEL
185.8
18 MOTEL, EXCLUDING OH
4428.2
TOTAL
52455.2 SF
EXCLUDES BOAT RAMP
PROPOSED BOAT STORAGE WI APPROACH APRON AND
ASSOCIATED DRIVES
TOTAL 15515.0 SF
RECONFIGURE ITEM 10 ABOVE 14820.2 SF
EXCESS BALANCE 694.8 SF
REMOVE GRAVEL IN ITEM 13 AND 15
ITEM 13 622.8 SF
ITEM 15 637.6 SF
NET REDUCTION -565.6 SF

Mar.19. 2007 3:00PM CARTER=T CO PLANNING DEPT No.2766 P. 6
sircvuu wo civu�ncEr,w. ILIA UTMN W � ° H@WQVVnI
eron Plaza Two `
151A Hwy. 24
Morehead City, NC 28557
[phone]
TO t�i4,27�R ET L l�ui✓TL/
WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans
D Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
on A, S O
JOBNO,
ATTENTION
J •/ �
CAL
RE:
/arc'w /
Vair //cc xo.✓
Atiedo
.�
:1 Samples
the following items:
❑ Specifications
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
I
�J
A it/i.e
- 3
%/e-4✓
/J
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For approval
/❑ For your use
As requested
❑ For review and comment
C FOR SIDS DUE
❑ Approved as submitted
❑ Approved as noted
❑ Returned for corrections
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
• Submit copies for distribution
❑ Return corrected prints
❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS I
1/(iu d'gVE` inn/✓ c1E317.��/S �L�77sr` Ave ME" alz
_ TZv.J C�uc c �drl�n A ('AL L
COPY TO
rr
SIGNED: � �
M Anr_lnRiir" nrn not AR nntAd. k/ndh' M)MV uR At nnr_R_

Mar,19. 2007 1:00PM CARTR H CO PLANNING DEPT
No.2766 P. 7
STROUD ENGINEERING, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HESTRON PLAZA TWO
151-A HWY. 24
MOREHEAD CITY, NORTH CAROLINA 28557
[phone]
March 9, 2007
Mr. Charles W. Kafer
PO Box 947
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
Ms. Janet Criesedieck
943 Perry Rd.
Zebulon, North Carolina 27597
Re: CAMA Minor Permit Application _ Calico Jacks- Harkers Island, Carteret County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Kafer and Ms. Criesedieck,
Please allow me to introduce myself, I am Ronald Cullipher, a professional engineer and branch
manager of Stroud Engineering P.A. in the Morehead City office and I am also part of the development
team that recently purchased Calico Jacks on Harkers Island. The new owner is LO'R Decks at Calico
Jacks, LLC.
Part of our current plan is to submit a minor cama permit application for the erection of a three
sided boat storage shed. The two of you have been identified as the riparian (adjacent waterfront owners)
owners to this parcel based on the geographical information system that is provided by Carteret County.
We are required to notify the two of you of our plans and as such have included a copy of our
proposed application for your review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about our
application and i will do my best to answer your questions. My phone number is 252-247-7479. You may
also contact the County of Carteret, who will be processing this request. I would expect the Mr. J.D.
O'Neal of the Carteret County Building Inspections Department (ph252-728-8497) will be the individual
work this permit application.
I have also included the riparian notification form in which you can mail your concerns or indicate
no objection to this proposal. We appreciate your time and would hope that if you have any questions that
you contact myself or the County.
ely,
o D l�li eh r P..
P
107 COMMERCE ST. HESTRON PLAZA TWO
SUITE B 102-D CINEMA DRIVE 151.A HWY. 24
GREENVILLE, NC 27858 WILMINGTON, NC 28403 MOREHEAD CITY. NC 28557
[phone] [phone] [phone]

-`X
m
rn
try
-fit
Ir
�E.t" b
07
A L
a
_
$1.11
0557
m
C3
C"fim Fee
$2. 40
06
G
Retam Receipt Fee
(rcndorseroent Requtred)
$1.95
wk
P stare
C]
rp
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
90.00
rq
ra
TOW Postage & Fees
$
$5.36
03/15/2007
Ln
0
Sent ro
or PO Box No.
cs\1 NC drs7, D
PS Porm :,, June 2002
Postal
- •
RECEIPT
rU
(Domestic
Provided)
.
6AL �!
to
$1.11
0557
rZI
Postage $
m
Certified Fee
$2. 40
06
M
Postmark
CO
(Ehdo esemerRiter eyutrr�)
$i.FiS
Hero
p
..Q
Restricted DeBvery Fee
(Endorsernent Regrsred)
$0.00
'�
r-1
lbial Postage & Fees $
$5.3b
43/15/2407
�
C]
r o
J a P
.----_----------------
�
.....��
'`
or PO qU3_
t-o ,i�. QQS�►--------------
- -
�
.--
a
PS Form :r, June 2002

Mar. 19. 2007 3:01PM CARTER=T CO PLANNING DEPT No.2766 P. 9
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to LO R bE06AT CA LJW IAQ( ,s
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at 1(P5 a Is 1CL416 Road , 00N 1+-rs Sslar)d
(Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on Bm-ly- SO 0 rid , in �� c,n► ke rs � s! cy%4 , N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County)
He has described to me as shown below, the development he is proposing at that location,
and, I have no objections to his proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(To be filled in by individual proposing development)
A4 x 110 — 3 sibfM EDAT STVKAC-st s 4SO
( APPLICATIbn) CCU PKDOlbsx)
Signature
Print or Type Name
Telephone Number
Date:

Mar.19. 2007 ::01PM CARTERET CO PLANNING DEPT No.2766 P. 10

Mar.19. 2007 2:59PM CARTERET CO PLANNING DEPT No.2766 P. 1
CAMA PROJECT TRACKING SHEET- CARTERET COUNTY
Applicants Name: �(` .1< .� �1 . Piz
C_Date submitted: 3 �5
_ f�(`�,�
Property Address: C.
PIN #:
Phone #: j'�+�1..i `7 C`l r DIY is
Area of parcel in AEC: 1 ':2 square feet
acres -
Impervious area: square feet Total impervious area allowed: (! 5 square feet
,Proposed
M575' ORW G 75' AEC El EXEMPTION
L�'PERMIT #_
Riparian Rights Statements / Certified Letters in fil(n) / NO
Date of Site Visits:
E 0
Application considered accurate and complete for processing Date: i ' C 7 LPO(initial):
❑ Application returned for the following reasons:
i
Date Returned:
❑ The following site -specific observations have been made:
❑ The following conditions are to be included on the permit (in
addition to standard conditions):
(Circle condition number jn 6 j� @�
J� ® 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 32 33 Other Notes
LPO• < Date: 3— ( 0 - O `7
Follow-up date visits:
❑ Project determined to be in compliance with permit
Final Inspection Date:
C Project determined to be out of compliance with permit
Action taken to bring project in compliance with CAMA:
LPO:
Date:

CiErARLEs WTT.T.TAM KAFFR
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE Bog 947
209 PoLLocx STxEET
NEW BFJZN. N.C.
28563
BOARD CERTna= SPECIAMST
DA FAMMx LAW
24 April 2007
VIA HAND -DELIVERY AND U.S. MAIL
Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
91APR
tD
Morehead Cfty DCM
TELEPHONE[phone]
FACSIMILE [phone]
RE: THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST ON CAMA PERMIT DECISION
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed please find a copy of my Third Party Hearing Request in regard to the above -
referenced matter. .
I appreciate your consideration.
Sincer.dy,.
` ~- — "I✓ it iam er
CWK:sp
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Oscar Kafer

t PR-10-200 7 10: 53 F r om: NC D IU CDN6Tr-L N.Y11T 2522 #7=0 To : 25263-6622C
DCM FORM 5
FETITIONEY.'S NAME Charles William K e land aty DCM
r D PA TY HEARING
COUNTY Carteret REQUEST ON
CAMA ^^ CAMA PERMIT DECISIOx
PILE i\fiJbIBER l.J C7ku
(Peritiorter leave this laic blank)
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the undersigned, a person affected i:y the decision of -*check one;:
% a Local Fermis Officer aering on a (:AMA Mitior Dereiopment Permit
app�ieation; or
the Division of Coastal 11tlt nagotlt-.nt. Department of Environntenc anti
Natural l�esottrces, acting on a CAMA Major Deve:iopment Permit
application or CAMA General Permit applicaii�'in
herebv renuc.% permission from the C(r stil Resources Cnmmiaion to file an appoal pursuant to
N.C. Ceti Stat. s 113A-121.1(b) ttnd N.C. Adinin. Code tit. 15A, r. 71.0300 tPhase attach a
c'rJp1' of the permit apE:lictuto7t cic��isinte. JI'vO« rannot obh',ill a Tarr ul'the ptrmil applicatiot,
der•isinrt. please prof-ide the 11411;lE cf the peanitice. the prv/ert 1(%c e7liept ttp.,d the perrrdi number. i
Reclucsts are reviewed b, the C'hnirman Of the Coustal Resources Cotninis:,ion to determine
whcahc'r a heal inr sh�nil 1 lie ;;ranted. The (Iciormin.itl(:r: of wheihar !tip grains a lwarrng is in the.
so1v disctetrun of the t'Ilau'nlart. N.C. Adurin. (.'od. tit_ 15A. r. 71.0301(ht.
l=or this application tobc conlpletC. tint Petlttoner must address cacti factor li.-acd below on a
separate sheet of paper. You must address theses factors before your regaest will be mviewed.
The C'hnitul:ut's decision to grant a hearing will be based on whether the Raittoner:
(1) Has alleged that tht c1 eisicm is contrary to a statute or rule I N.C. Gen. Slat.
113A-121.1(b)(1)),
(Please rite the stattere or regtdruiull alleged!}l violnit-1 by the permit deeisioll. )
(2) Is direct!: -affected by the decision [N.C. Qen. S►.at. § ! 13A•121.1(b)(2ant.
(Please de.,cribe host: Yatt area directly ciffer•ted by the I)emrdt d"t-ision.
Perwn.► direvd.i glfecfed it a der•isinrl it:c•lltcle. hilt an, not iiin:Jecl to.
(el) (tit owner of reed propar,;' ir± the :icinin of the nro er{ it.,
he der-elopud who earl show that the propu.,ed derelopjjlellt
is l kei:' W h.,7ve a si€;filticant adverse E',(]`Ci'i oil tilt �'(ilr(e'
andeivor1leilt gf'hiS ltropvr..Y; OPW.
f h) an Perst'ni who can demo, isrrate a his.rary ct;'.i«!%:.(717t1t1,
«cr 1;,t'pub.1rc resources in the aren7 directly etffer•^etl b} the

APF-1E1-c0�7 10:53 f=rom:M-' DIV 00ASTfIL 1`13411T 2522473330 T o: 252636GE-20 P.3,4
development 11viter. the develop pert is within or touches
upon an area subrect to the prtbiic trtt.st. )
(3) Ilas alleged facts or made legal arguments that d.rnuns�rate that the request fo.
the he;:ring is rot frivolotLs [N.C.
I please stunt+rtrrite the evidence e or argioYieltt.v you will i+rcsc�nt ' at a
hearin i; in support dl _your appeal.)
Based on the attached resporses to the above factors, t r uadersiGtiecl hereby reque.rs a third parry hearing.
24 April 2007
Sate —� Signature o? r .titLoncr r 1l.orney
Charles William Rafer iue�.
NamC Of Petitioner oI Attorney
693412 Camelot Drive W 3,9,Q A-t AJC'
,Wdre;s
New 13erTi, NC 28560
City State Zip
(H) ( 252 .) 637-3992 (W) 252-636_-3788
I'clephorlc Nurnhcr
NOI ES. ThIS eoqu: s; must hc. �ervcd ;m Ile I:>:rcc test, Division cal Cu.r.tal ivlana c�nrcnt. at
the: address shown on the attached Certificate of Service Fo,cn, within twenty (20)
HUS of the di. prated permit decision. ,N,C. Gen. Stat. a 113A• 121.1(b). failure W
do so constitutes waiver of the right to request a hearing. A copy ahould also he
Meru to the AucrrneI General'; office, Unvironnienurl Div is toll. aL the addres:;r.%
Shown on the attached C:co i5cate of 5ervtLe Form.
.Approval of a Third Party Heating lltquest allows a.peutionrr to file a contested
case petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within twenty (_>0) days
of receipt ot" �t;e Chairman's order. N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A-121.1(b).
Denial of a Third Party 1-le:u•inRrgUest is a Final agency. —decision which may he
appealed to the Superior Court in the County w•rere the property is located under
ti.0 Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b) and Chanter 1508. Article 4.

AFR-10-2007 10:53 From:hJ-- DIU COASTAL NGMIT 2522473330 To:25-263EG22e
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this Third party Hearing Request has iitxn served on rile State
a9crlcies named below by depositing copies of it witl; the United States Postal .Service with
sufficient postage for delivery by first clan mail or by personally delivering copies to the named
n o crrc ies.
Original served oil. Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ayerlue
Morehead My, NC 28557
and a copy served oil' Attorney General'& Offr_e
Er±vironmental Division
9001 Nlail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
This the a day of
ure ur Perin .ner or, t rnev
Ur dated: June 1. 2005

ATTACHMENT 2 TO THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST ON CAMA PERMIT
DECISION (PETITIONER'S NAME CHARLES WILLIAM KAFER)
I. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 113A-121.1 (b), the petitioner states
that the 5 April 2007 decision to issue a CAMA Minor Permit No. 4017-07 to Lo'r Decks
at Calico Jacks, LLC, to include parking and dry stack boat storage contravenes the
legislative purposes and goals established pursuant to North Carolina General Statute
I I3A-102(b) and, in particular, 113A-IO2(b)(1) and (4)a and e.
The permit should also have been denied pursuant to North Carolina General
Statute I I 3A- I 20(a)(1), (2), (8), (9), and (10).
II. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute I I3A-121.1(2), the undersigned states
that he is the co-owner of the property located on the east side of the proposed project
and immediately adjacent to the proposed project. The construction of the proposed boat
storage shed and the large area to be paved will have a significant adverse effect on the
value and enjoyment of our property.
III. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 113A-121.1(3), the undersigned has
alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the request for the hearing is
not frivolous.
Some, but not necessarily all, of the facts and legal arguments which require
hearing in regard to this case are as follows:
1. The property to be developed into a large paved parking lot and a huge
proposed boat storage shed is presently basically an open and undeveloped area. A small
gazebo exists near the water and several campers or trailers are parked along the eastern
line. The project is represented by the permit applicants as being done on land that has
1

been graveled. The truth is that the property is only partially graveled and consists of as
much grass as gravel. In fact, whether the project is a minor or major development within
the contemplation of North Carolina General Statute 113A-118(d)(1) is debatable. A
large paved parking lot already exists on the west side of the land in question. An
existing motel approximately 17.9' wide by 180.5' long occupies the center point of the
property. That motel has two stories and sits on a concrete pad which is approximately
25' wide by 180.5' long. The proposed construction adds a paved parking lot which will
be 254.88' long with an average width of 54'. The area of that new paved parking lot
will be over 10,000 square feet. The proposed boat storage shed will have a base square
footage of 4,080 (24 x 170) but will have a total size of 183,600 cubic feet (24 x 170 x
45).
2. The map which accompanies the permit application contends that the
existing "impervious" area is 52,455.2 square feet .and that the proposed "impervious"
area is 51,889.6 square feet. The term "impervious" is apparently used to describe the
partially graveled area of the east side of the existing motel. By taking the position that
this area is currently "impervious," the applicant is apparently allowed to pave it and put
a boat storage shed and thereby be considered to be not adding to the impervious area.
3.: The term "impervious" is defined by Webster's New. Collegiate Dictionary
to mean."not allowing entrance or passage" and as "impenetrable." Presumably, the term
is being applied to have something to do with water absorption. If so, CAMA should
take a pail of water and go to the west side of the existing motel where the area has been
paved. CAMA should then determine the time that elapses before this water penetrates
the paved service, evaporates, or runs off. CAMA should then go to the grass/gravel area
tj

on the east side of the existing motel where the applicants plan to put down over 10,000
square feet of pavement. CAMA should then pour another pail of water. CAMA should
then determine the length of time that elapses for the water poured on the gravel/grass to
be absorbed, evaporated, or run off. Then CAMA should compare that length of time to
the water that was poured on the pavement. Usage of the term "impervious" to apply to a
grass and gravel area, and usage of that same term to apply to a paved area or the top of
the proposed boat shed is absurd. CAMA may take the position that the result is the same
but that position would be contrary to fact and reason. If someone were to take the
position that a solid roof structure on a shed 24 x 170 is not going to have a different
effect on water runoff than the present gravel/grassy area, then that position - is also not
supported by fact or reason.
4. At the present time, heavy rains create large puddles of water on the Island
Road in front of Calico Jack's Marina. Those large puddles of water also exist in front of
our property on the east side of Calico Jack's. If the water is puddling up in large
portions now with the grass and gravel area at Calico Jack's, what is going to happen to
that water when over 10,000 square feet of pavement and a structure of over 183,000
cubic feet are added?
5. The proposed boat storage shed appears to have an average height of 45'
with the upper limit of 46' facing the existing motel and the lower elevation of 44' being
directed at the property owned by my brother and me. Common sense indicates that
water on that roof is going to flow east down the 46' slope to the 44' slope, fall then 44'
to the ground, and flow on our property. Reason exists to believe that this water and the
water that does not penetrate the paved parking lot will then run onto our property. (To
3

date, the undersigned has never observed paved parking lots which absorb water.) If the
use and value of our property makes no difference to CAVIA, then perhaps the fact that
this water will eventually make its way to Back Sound may make a difference.
6. Pursuant to the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 113-229(e),
consideration is to be given to the determination "that there will be significant adverse
effect on the value and enjoyment of the property of any riparian owners." Although that
statute relates to dredging, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 113A-102 and
113A-120(a)(2), the "adverse effect on the value and enjoyment of the property of any
riparian owner" appears to be a legitimate concern to the State of North Carolina. The
construction of such a large facility immediately adjacent to our property will
undoubtedly significantly devalue that property. Further, that 183,600 cubic feet
structure will blot out the sun and the wind.
7. The applicant for the permit has sufficient existing property located on the
north side of Harkers Island Road to allow the building of a boat storage shed. A boat
storage shed located there would not impede the view, would not block the air, and would
not create substantial water flow problems. The construction of a building there would
not appear to diminish substantially any person's property value and would appear to
create a "practical alternative that would accomplish the overall project purposes with
less adverse impact on the public resources" as contemplated by North Carolina General
statute 113A-120(a)(9).
8. Allowing the permit basically takes our property and does not protect our
landowner rights as required by North Carolina General Statute 113A-128.
4

9. The undersigned received a notice of real estate assessed value from
Carteret County dated 5 January 2001 advising that the assessed value for our property
was $149,503. Subsequently, in a similar notice dated 8 January 2007, the undersigned
was advised that the property had. an assessed value of $287,860. Of course, these
assessments came to the undersigned without. any knowledge of the proposed
construction next door at Calico Jack's. Therefore, the undersigned did not appeal from
the assessment of value by Carteret County. If the boat storage shed is constructed
immediately adjacent to our property, no way exists for this property to have a tax value
of $287,860. In fact, the property will basically be rendered worthless. However, our
time to appeal the assessment dated 8 January 2007 has expired. Included with this
petition is a copy of the 8 January 2007 assessment with a statement that the appeal "must
be made within 30 days of this notice." The undersigned submits that a reasonable
person could not go upon the property as it now exists, envision the proposed project next
door, and not believe that the enjoyment and value of our property will not be
substantially diminished.
5

M. As apart of the permit process, notice was given to riparian owners through certified
mail, and to the public through notice in the newspaper and posting on site.
N. Petitioner is an adjacent riparian property owner who submitted an objection letter to the
Carteret County CAMA LPO, dated April 2, 2007. Petitioner's primary objections were
that the proposed development (See attached letter I NEED IT)
O. The Carteret County LPO issued the CAMA Minor Permit # 417-07 on April 5, 2007
over Petitioner's objections,
P. On April 10, 2007, DCM received Petitioner's third party hearing request to challenge the
issuance of the permit. (Attached)
Q. The Pennittec's counsel commented on this petition through a letter dated. May 3, 2007.
(Attached)
SO
R. The attached aerial photos .IG-M� Cr coot"
C-0 . &TS
a
S

111. DCM'S RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Has the. Petitioner Alleged that the Decision is Contrary to a Statute or Rule?
No/Yes. In order to prevail in a third party hearing request, a petitioner must first allege
that the agency made a decision that is contrary to statute or rule. In his petition, Petitioner
alleges that the permit was issued contrary to several sections of the CAMA, which will be
addressed individually below.
N.C.G.S.113A § 102(b)
Petitioner first alleges that the permit was issued contrary to N.C.G.S. 113A § 102(b),
specifically (b)(1) , (b)(4a), and (b)(4e). This section of the CAMA contains the legislative
findings and goals of the General Assembly that support the enactment of the CAMA and arc the
basis for the CRC's specific rules for the different AECs. Staff finds that Petitioner has Dfiledo
ineet the burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.l(b)(1) because he has merely cited parts of the CAMA.
that are general goals for the CRC to consider when it snakes rules, but in this case, no actual
rules or statute sections are cited which could be violated by this permit issuance.
N.C.G.S. 113A § 12U(h)
Petitioner next alleges that the permit was issued contrary to N.C.G.S. 113A § 1.20(a),
specifically (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(S), (a)(9), and (a)(10). These sections of the CAMA are within
N.C.G.S. 113A § 120, "Grain or'denial of permits." Section (a) requires that "The responsible
official or body (the CAMA LPO in this case) shall deny an application for a permit upon
finding:" and goes on to list ten situations Nvherc permit denial is required. Petitioner cites five of

these situations and argues they are present in this case. These will be addressed individually
below.
1. N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a)(1) requires permit denial "in the case of coastal wetlands, that
the development would contravene an order that has been or could be issued pursuant to
G.S. 1.13-230 (protection of coastal wetlands)." (tire there even CW's on this site???) 14) While staff notes that there are not even coastal wetlands on this site, Petitioner has
alleged that the decision was contrary to a Statute or Rule, and has met the burden of
N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(1).
2. N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a)(2) requires permit denial "in the case of estuarine waters, that a
permit for the development would be denied pursuant to G.S. 113-229(e) (Dredge or Fill
law)." While staff notes that there is no dredging or filling proposed for this project,
Petitioner has alleged that the decision was contrary to a Statute or Rule, and has met the
burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(1).
3. N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a)(8) requires permit denial "in any case, that the development is
inconsistent with the State guidelines or the local land use plan.." In section III of his
third party petition, Petitioner does cite facts that tend to indicate his concern about how
existing impervious limits were calculated. As such, the pervious surfaces issues will be
discussed below, as Staff agrees that on this point, Petitioner has met the burden of
N.C.G.S. § 11.3A-121.1(b)(1).
4. N.C.G.S.113A § 120(a)(9) requires permitdenial,
"in any case, that considering enginecring requirements and all economi coats
there is a practicable alternative that would accomplish the overall proje
purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources."
In section III of his third party petition, Petitioner alleges facts that tend to indicate his
belief that the alternate plan of building the boat shed on the north side of Harker's Island
Road would have less adverse impact on the public resources. While staff disagrees that
this would be a_practicable alternative_ that would accomplish the overall project ,
purposes, Petitioner has alleged that the decision was contrary to a Statute or Rule, and
has met the burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(1).
6

5. N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a)(10) requires permit denial,
"in any case, that the proposed development would contribute to cumulative
effects that would be inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in subdivisions (1)
through (9) of this subsection. Cumulative effects are impacts attributable to the
collective effects of a number of projects and include the effects of additional
projects similar to the requested permit in areas available for development in the
vicinity."
While staff disagrees that replacing one type of impervious surface with another would
contribute to cumulative effects, Petitioner has alleged that the decision was contrary to a
Statute or Rule, and has met the burden ofN.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(1).
B. Is the Petitioner Directly Affected by the Decision?
Yes. Staff agrees that because Petitioner asserts that he is "a co-owner of the property
located on the east side of the proposed project and immediately adjacent to the proposed
project," for purposes of tliis third party hearing request Petitioner will be directly affected by the
permit decision. Staff believes Petitioner meets the burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121. I (b)(2).
C. Has the Petitioner Demonstrated that the Hearing Request is not Frivolous?
No. Petitioner alleged that the permit was issued contrary to N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a),
specifically (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(S), (a)(9), and (a)(10), in Section A of the Staffs Recommendation
above. "These sections of the LAMA are within N.C.G.S. 113A § 120, "Grant or denial of
permits" Section (a) requires that "The responsible official or body (the CAMA LPO in this
case) shall deny an application for a permit upon finding:" and goes on to list ten situations
where permit denial is required. Petitioner cited five of these bases for denial, addressed
separately below.
7

l . N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a)(1) requires permit denial "in the case of coastal wetlands, that
the development would contravene an order that has been or could be issued pursuant to
G.S. 113-230 (protection of coastal wetlands)." (Are there even CW's on this site???)
As there are no coastal wetlands in the project area, this statute section is not violated by
the permit issuance, and as such, a hearing on this issue would be frivolous. Staff
contend that Petitioner has failed to filet the burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
2. N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a)(2) requires permit denial "in the case of estuarine waters, that a
permit for the development would be denied pursuant to G.S. 113-229(e) (Dredge or Dill
law)." Staff notes that there is no dredging or filling proposed for this project, and so the VAO
\
permcould issued ld not have been id contrary to this statute. As such, a hearing on this +y�+�J�}`♦ i
issue would be frivolous, and staff contend that Petitioner has not met the burden of
0
N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a)(8) requires permit denial "in any case, that the development is
inconsistent with the State guidelines or the local land use plan." In section III of his
third party petition (pp. 2-3, 112-4), Petitioner argues that the calculations of the existing
impervious surfaces were incorrect.
(Also address issue of water from roof to Petitioner's property v. what it's doing now
paragraphs) (—:7,' t I C 146U C;IY'1
�j C C. 1��
��. S 'A' low

Petitioner has not met the burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
4. N.C.G.S. 113A § 120(a)(9) requires permit denial,
"in any case, that considering engineering requirements and all econonuc costs
there is a practicable alternative that would accomplish the overall project
purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources."
In section III of his third party petition (p. 4,117), Petitioner alleges that the Permittee
could locate the boat storage shed to its property on the north side of Harker's Island Road,
which would "not impede the view, would not block the air, and would not create substantial
water flow problems." Staff disagrees that this would be a practicable alternative that would
accomplish the overall project purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources.
However, the "resources" cited by Petitioner are not public resources, as much as they are
impacts to Petitioner's property specifically. Additionally, the CRC has no rules that specifically
protect an adjacent riparian owner's "view" or "wind". If Petitioner is attempting to raise a
nuisance claim, the CRC and OAH don't have jurisdiction over such claims which are heard in
the general courts ofjustice.
Addition+a�lly, tiffmote that locating the boat storage shed would necessitate moving
boats with a across Harker's Island Road, a 60' wide public road (right? DO�This
would cause traffic and safety concerns, could increase insurance costs to the Pcrrnittce... (What
else?) Petitioner has failed to met the burden of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
S. N.C.G.S. 11:3A § 120(a)(10) requires permit denial,

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF CARTERET CMT-07-20
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) STAFF RECOiNIMENDATION OF THE
THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST ) DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
BY CHARLES WILLIAM Kf'1FER )
1. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Charles William Kafer ("Petitioner") requests pennission to file a petition for a
contested case hearing as a third partypursuant toN.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). Petitioner seeks to
challenge CAMA Minor Permit No. 4017-07 issued on April 5, 2007 to Lo'r Decks at Calico
Jacks, LLC ("11ennittee") authorizing the construction of parking and dry stack boat storage on
property located at 1698 Island Drive, Harker's Island, Carteret County. Under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), a third party may file a contested case hearing petition to challenge
the issuance or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only if the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is appropriate. Section
113A-121.1(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that the determination as to
whether a hearing is appropriate should be based upon a consideration of whether the petitioner:
I . Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;
2. Is directly affected by the decision; and
3. Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate diat the
hearing request is not frivolous.
I

The CRC has delegated the authority to its Chairman to determine whether a third party
request for a hearing should be granted or denied. Rule 15A NCAC W .0301(b). A third party
whose hearing request is -granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings. N.C.G.S, § 113A-121.1(b). A third party whose hearing request is
denied may seek judicial review. Id.
11. FACTS
A. The Permittee, Lo'r Decks at Calico Jacks, LLC, owns property located at 1698 Island
Drive, Harker's Island. The project site consists of two areas, one south of Harker's
Island Road and one north of Harker's Island Road. The entire project site (areas on both
sides of the road) is 75,322 square feet (or t1lacres) and is located on the
end of the island. The I'crmittee has owned this property since 'rik 4-
per the Carteret County Tax Office. (Deed 1213/229)
B. Petitioner owns property at Harker's Island Road, immediately cast of the
Perini ttee. Petitioner has owned this property since r t k ao per the Carteret County Tax
Office. (See aerial photos attached.)
C. Both Petitioner's and the Permittee's property are located adjacent to Back Sound.
D. The waters of Back Sound adjacent to the Pennittees property are classified3SORW by
the Environmental Management Commission, as by the Marine Fisheries
Commission, and ar

E. The entire project site is located in the 575' ORW Shoreline Area of Environmental
Concern. (Any others?)
P. Current site conditions for the Permittec include a motel, a paved parking lot to the west
of the motel, a ship's store, a boat ramp, a gazebo, and a paved parking lot and gavel �L
parking lot "n the grea,4 the port side of the road. nytIling else?)�,n \
G. On the Pe itte applied fora AMA Minor Permit with the LPO for development of ©�
parking and dry stack boat storage which will be located to the east of the existing motel.
H. The Permittee proposes to add a24' x 170' 3-story boat storage shed on the east side of
the property, to pave the gravel parking lot that is just west of the proposed boat storage 1 a
shed, and to conve some currently gravel area into pervious grass are . (Anything (� '
else?)
L The current impervious coverage on the property is 70% (52,455.2175,322). This
impervious calculation includes the current building, paved parking, and gravel parking
lots. (Vas all of this pre -CANNA T imagine?) f�21 1
J. The proposed impervious coverage for the propertP691%Xo(51,889.6/75,322).
The Permittee submitted an inventory of the existing impervious surfaces and an
inventory of the proposed impervious surfaces, a copy of which is attached. .
j-�d
K. While the CRCs rules limit impervious coverage to in ORW Shorelines AECs,
O� a
(cite to rule for not adding more)
i
L. What definition of impervious are we using? DWQ's? I'd like to quote something
here.
3

"in any case, that the proposed development would contribute to cumulative
effects that would be inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in subdivisions (1)
through (9) of this subsection. Cumulative effects are impacts attributable to the
collective effects of a number of projects and include the effects of additional
projects similar to the requested permit in areas available for development in the
vicinity."
While Petitioner raised this in Section I of his Petition, he has not alleged any facts to
support this argument about cumulative impacts. Petitioner has not indicated what other
projects similar to the one requested are built or proposed in the vicinity of this project.
As Petitioner has not demonstrated that the hearing request is not Frivolous because he
has not alleged any facts to support his assertion, he has not met the burden of N.C.G.S. §
113A-121.1(b)(3).
Other arguments raised by Petitioner
While not initially raised in section I of his petition, Petitioner raises several other issues
in section III of his petition, addressed below.
Major v. Minor Permit
In the third section of his Petition (p. 2,11), Petitioner argues that this permit should
have been processed as a major permit instead of a minor permit, and appears to argue that
because the "new paved parking lot will be over 10,000 square feet' this project should have also
required (what permit is he getting at? Se cis EC plan? Or DWQ SW permit?) N.C.G.S. §
113A-118 sets out those permit which are major permit, and then all others are considered 1 or
� 1
to
L

permit. Petitioner appears to argue that the area of the parking lot should trigger (what) and
would fall into the definition of a "major development" because it
.&requires permission, licensing, approval, certification or authorization. in any form from
the Environmental Management Commission, the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the Department of Administration, the North Carolina Mining
Commission, the North Carolina Pesticides Board, the North. Carolina Sedimentation
Control Board, or any federal agency or authority;"(which one of these is he pointing
to?) /
Need facts about why this doesn't trigger ... did we talk to someone at applicable division?
Therefore, for all the reasons stated above for this issue, Petitioner does not meet the burden of
MC.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(2).
Use and Enjoyment of Property
(dredging statute 112-229e reference and 120a2 value and enjoyment, sun &wind paragraph G)
Takings Claim
In the third section of his Petition (pp. 4-5,11118-9), Petitioner alleges that the issuance of
this permit `basically takes our property," cites N.C.G.S. 113A- § 128, and provides property
value information to argue that the permitting of the proposed development will reduce the value
of Petitioner's property. CAMA provides that the exclusive remedy for determining takings
11.

questions is in the superior court alier the CRC issues its final decision. N.C.G.S. § 113A-
123(b). Specifically, N.C.G.S. § 113A-123(b) provides that any person directly affected by a
final decision or order of the Coastal Resources Commission may petition the superior court to
determine whether the petitioner has been so restricted of the practical use of his property, being
not otherwise authorized by the law, as to constitute an unreasonable exercise of the police power .
because; it amounts to a taking without compensation. "Either party shall be entitled to a jury
trial on all issues of fact...." Id. The statute further provides that "The method provided in this
subsection for the determination of the issue of whether such order constitutes a taking without
compensation shall be exclusive and shall not be determined in an other proceeding." N.C.G.S.
§ 113A-123(b)(cniphasis added). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-128 of the CAMA protects
landowner's rights by not authorizing any governmental agency to adopt a rule or issue an order
that constitutes an unconstitutional taking. However, in Shell.hsland Homeowners Association v.
Tonilinsvn,134 N.C. App. 217, 224, 517 S.E.2d 406, 412 (1999), the Court of Appeals held'that
whether a statute violates a claimant's rights under the North Carolina and United States
Constitutions is a question to be determined by the judiciary, not an administrative board. The
Petitioners can only bring a taking claim in superior court under the exclusive remedy provided
in N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A-123(b). The Petitioners cannot raise a taking claim in an administrative
proceeding based upon an alleged violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-123. This would
frustrate the clear intent of the General Assembly when it provided an exclusive remedy for
resolving taking claims under the CAMA in superior court. Therefore, as the CRC and OAH
lack jurisdiction over Petitioner's Taking Claim raised in his third party petition, it would be
12

frivolous for either of those bodies to hear the takings argument, and so staff contend that on this
issue, Petitioner has not met the burden ofN.C.G.S. § 113A-121.l(b)(1).
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Petitioners have not met the criteria justifying a contested case hearing.
For the reasons stated herein, the. Division of Coastal Management, through its undersigned
attorney, recommends that the Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request be DENIED by the
Chainnan.
This the day of May, 2007.
13

FOR THE DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
(919) 71.6-6600 phone
[phone] fax
CqoebeI@,ncdqLgov
CER,T1F1CXrE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Recommendation of the
Division of Coastal Management on the Petitioner by causing a copy thereof to be placed in the
United States Postal Service bearing sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and
addressed as follows:
Charles William Kafer
PO, Box 947
New Bern, NC 28563
And I have also served a copy of the attached Recommendation of the Division of Coastal
Management on the Pen-nittee's counsel by causing a copy thereof to be placed in the United
14

States Postal Service bearing sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and addressed as
follows:
M. Douglas Gohics
Bestwick & Goines, PLLC
911 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
This the day of May, 2007.
Christine A. Goebel V
Assistant Attorney General
15