59189D - Trenkle

CAMA / DREDGE & FILL
€k" It 4L
.. ! ?II(
GENERAL PERMIT
Previous permit #
New Modification Complete Reissue Partial Reissue
Date previous permit issued
orized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7 `-i
Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant
to 15A NCAC
/ T1 1 �-
nt Name PA7-,el(: - (-/(/frP -'
Project Location:
❑ Rules attached.
County ,-ev /)C s,---
s E. :' d{/ •
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
i State ZIP { `
% " /
�V 1 i vL rt r? u
# ( ) ►'� �T- -
Subdivision
66 / t%.
ized Agent DAAJ otz' COV71A-)F
City
C,1774 ZIP
,d ` CW EW ,,L4PTA ❑ES PTS
Phone # FAD )
`
❑ OEA HHF ❑ IH ❑ UBA _ N/A
I:
Adj. Wtr. Body
!
5 TL,,m v uA/ p dffaT
❑ PWS: ❑ FC:
yes / nod PNA yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no
Closest Maj. Wtr.
Body c"/N
of Project/ Activity ; .V',i"; J, S- i-! L0 JLJ/ :p
wa ! 4F NR0 (Scale:
lock) length S X y' % ,1 ► 'i 4 NLb✓
pier(s)
length
lumber
aad/ Riprap length
wg distance offshore
nax distance offshore
channel
:ubic yards_
amp
ruse/ Boatlift
odal E■■■NO lFi%i3V
- --- �mmmm�NN7■1�■ ■■■i:►lam■■■■11f■■■■►�
MEN ME ■■■III■■ ■Imm'JEWM�!*/!�f■A■■/i■■
■i :r'r��:� I��i.41'li::�■tiM■
■■■��VW31EoMIR& WOMEN EL Iff"I'A
��T�T.EI!1r■■■ ►■L3iaI P In
�■r�J■L'Tl■
i?"
A MAE
.0 MENU,
.. ....

il, Jason
m: Dail, Jason
t: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:43 PM
'[e-mail]'
Wilson, Debra
bject: RE: pier at 208A Boca Bay
Trenkle,
your request, I revisited the property on September 13, 2012, to look at the placement of pilings associated wit
istruction of the pier/platform located at 208A Boca Bay Lane, in Surf City, Pender County. During a telephone
iversation between you and I on September 12, 2012, you asked if I would look at the pilings to see if their curr
;nment, position and/or orientation were in conflict with the Division of Coastal Management's (DCM) Rules re
piers and/or docks.
>ed on my observations, it appears that the location of the pilings (as witnessed by me on September 13, 2012)
Rules established by the Coastal Resources Commission, concerning piers and/or docks. However, their placer
;htly inconsistent with the proposed work plan drawing and CAMA General Permit (GP No. 59189) that was issu
iy 17, 2012, for construction of a pier and platform. Again, the placement of the pilings, as they are installed to(
ald have been permitted and are not in conflict with DCM's Rules, but they were not installed in the location thf
re proposed and/or permitted.
another note, please be aware that CAMA General Permit No. 59189 expired on September 17, 2012, and you
ger authorized to continue working without having first obtained a new, valid permit. What you'll need to do, is
pare another site drawing (preferably showing the existing location of the pilings/pier placement that way you
re to move them, as well as show the location and dimension of the platform) and provide that to the neighbor.
t of the notification process. Once you have received the signed certified mail receipts, please give me a call an
i meet on -site to discuss the next step. Unfortunately, the CAMA permit will have to be re -issued as a modificat
:ause the existing piling location differs from what was permitted. As part of the modification process, you are
uired to re -notify the neighbors.
ase call me if you have any questions. Otherwise, I'll look to hear from you in the future regarding our meeting.
e care,
)n
Jason Dail
Field Represetttative
N.C.Dicision Ofc.oastal matiageillent
127 Cardinal Drip a Extension
t4'ihtiittgtott, liC �
� `s t91011'7 -!

Ise note that e-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Pu
-ds Law and may be disclosed to third parties.*
I: [e-mail] [mailto:PT61260Caiaol.com]
: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:46 PM
)ail, Jason
ect: pier at 208A Boca Bay
Jason
opefully your day is going well. Just checking to see if you have had the opportunity to do the site review we had
ssed last week. I know your plate is probably full so I hope you don't mind me just checking to see where we are
Abject.
s as always for your patience
:k Trenkle
llete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
if Restricted Delivery is desired.
,our name and address on the reverse
t we can return the card to you.
i this card to the back of the mailpiece,
the front if space permits.
Addressed to:
V� �erz.,l� Pia
A. Signature
X _� ❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
f� n
D. Is delivery address different from ite Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: o
i
3. Service Type
Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
iumuer
'from service label) 7007 0220 0000 8224 7205
3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt
102595-02-M-1540
l
r
r
r
r1
0

I
A*.A
`
WDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
!rly Eaves Perdue Braxton C. Davis
�rnor Director
May 17, 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL — 7007 0220 0000 8224 7205
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Dean
9 Waverly Place
Albany, NY 12203
Dear Mr. Dean:
Dee Freen
Secret
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the N.C.
Division of Coastal Management on March 30, 2012, regarding your concerns about the
proposed development by Mr. Patrick Trenkle, at 208-A N. Boca Bay Drive, adjacent to an
unnamed canal off Stump Sound, in Surf City, Pender County, North Carolina. The project
consists of the construction of a private docking facility that includes an access pier and
platform. The construction of the private docking facility has been determined to comply with
the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission (711.1200) - General Permit for construction of
piers, docks, and docking facilities in Estuarine and Public Trust Waters and Ocean Hazard
Areas, and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a
copy of the permit, as well as, the relevant statutes.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third
Party Appeal. The Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission will consider each case and
determine whether to grant your request to file for a Contested Case Hearing. The hearing
request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be
received within twenty (20) days of the disputed permit decision. I have enclosed the applicable
forms and instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline. Please contact me at 910-796-
7215, if you have any questions, or if I can provide any additional information.
Respectfully yours,
J(-le �.�
Mehra Wi 1 cnn

_! CAMA / ` DRE
3 E N E RAL
Previous permit #
JNew _'Modification ! mplete R sue - rtial Reissue
Date previous permit issued
rued by the State of North C li Departme't of Envir / ment and Natural Resources
�oastal Resources Commissio/in area of envi nmen oncern pursuant to 15A NCAC
it Name __., '
Project Location:
_ O Rules attached.
County ' / l;;%% x
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
State_
-- ------ -- -�-- �
j
e (---) -- -- - Fax # ( ) _
-
Subdivision
1 f 3 -41
f 7 r
ced Agent _ —
City j %=-
�":-/ 1i
❑ CW DEW NPTA ❑ ES [IPTS
Phone # ? 1
c{I - " � 1. g* gT g I
ElOEA [ HHF 1-1IH ❑ UBA ❑ N/A
Adj. Wtr. Body
�
' i L, P14 5 f� l✓ Ai .r_' ' iiat�,�
❑ PWS: ❑ FC:
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body its G'
yes /, _�io � PNA yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no
F Project/ Activity �'' -�f �C
(Scale: /-
ck) length
I
i.
-
-—
ier(s)
j
��
-
--
--r-----I—
_...
ngthZXIL
mber
d/ Riprap length1
TIT
distance offshore'
-
-�
!
I
Lc distance offshoreIf
cannel
Lit
f
tic yards
n P
I
i
se/ Boatlift
ulldozing
--,
-
-
--�
'
i
75
e Lengthy
i
not sure yes-
s: not sure yes-
ium: n/a yesWb
yes n0AAA1
L_-
d=
\ttached: yeses} n
--
ig permit may be required by: ' - ' ^' (.
❑ See note on back regarding River Basin
r
Special Conditions j'
,. _
f` ,;

5
h
Ee
0
I
q� l� 46 l i
L-

K-j
/I
4.

Dan Valentine VALENTINE CONSTRUCTION 910 471 5849
Dependable, Affordable, Insured
Contractor Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT made the � S day of December 2011, by and between Daniel Valentine dba
Valentine Construction, hereafter called the CONTACTOR and , Patrick & Linda Trenkle, hereinafter called the
OWNER.
WITNESSETH that the Contractor and the Owner for the considerations named agree as follows:
Scope of Work
The Contractor shall furnish all materials and perform all of the work on the property at said property, 208A
Boca Bay Lane, Surf City, NC
Work to be Performed:
Build 180' pier with "T" and lower deck at end of pier.
Contract Price
The Owner shall pay the contractor for material and labor to be performed under total sum of $16,000.00.
Progress Payments:
Payments of Contract Price shall be made as follows: Received down ($12,000.00) with balance due (S4,000) upon
completion of the work outlined above. Please make checks payable to Daniel Valentine. Thank you.
Signed this 21 i,< day of December, 2011.
OC r. Contractor

���
WDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date:
Name of Property Owner Applying for Permit:
Owner's Mailing Address:
qep
Phone Number !i1In, A 7 z 4 7 I.0_
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Name of Authorized Agent for this project:
Agent's Mailing Address:
Phone Number C/ 7y /
I certify that I have authorized the agent listed above to act on my behalf, for the purpose of applying
for and obtaining all CAMA Permits necessary to install or construct the following (activity):
1 u r'f—/'(v rJor --
(my property located) at
thru (date)
Property Owner Signature
�Z i 3 42pt(
Date
SIq

L1 r 1JLV1V tll %_kJt'HJ 1tiL 1
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER FORM
dame of Individual Applying For Permit:
Address of Property:.
(Lot or Street R, Street or
(City and County)" ----
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above -referenced property. The indivi
applvin2 for this permit has described to. me as shown on the attached drawing the development
are proposing. A description or drawing. with dimensions, should be provided with this letu
I have no objections to this proposal.
If you have objections to what is being, proposed, please write the Division of Co
Management. 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 or call 910-796-
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no object
you have been notified by Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier; dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boat house or boat lift must
bck a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access - unless waived by me. (.
wish to «-give the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 1 5' setback requirement.
=�. C--V-) I do not wish to waive the 1 5' setback requirement_
Sign Name `_ U Date
Print Name
e��

4245.55-3901-0000 4245-55-6998-0000
,
4245-55-4739-0000
_. C
4245-55.4635-0000 4245-55 7378-0000
4745-5;-2806-0000
4245-55-351;, 00(10
Scale: 1:50
:�Pr/der t'oun-,�
PIN: 4245-55-4739-0000 DEED:3986/142
NAME: TRENKLE PATRICK A et al PLAT: 00480140
ADDR: 400 ARROWHEAD TRAIL.d ACCOUNT: 941969
CITY: SINKING SPRING TOWNSHIP: 102
STATE: PA TNSH DESC: TOPSAIL
ZIP: 19608 ACRES: 0
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 203A N BOCA BAY LN LAND VALUE: $174,930.00
PROPERTY DESCRIPTON: L 5A PB 48/140 BUILDING VALUE: $234,540.00
PALMS AT BOCA BAY PB 45/146 PB48/137 TOTAL VALUE: $409,470.00
DATE: 11/3/2011 DEFERRED VALUE: $0.00
SUBDMSION: PALMS AT BOCA BAY

LLLvIQyai•vl'JYJX-Llvnjl:lYj=jetj
-��-� ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNIERNQTIFICATIONf AIVER FORM
—771�e of Individual AMlyina For Permit: _ '. r t'
Address of Property:__ aO &Z
(Lot or Street �, Street or Roa�`
(City and Couii--' �`'
I hereby certify that I own propem; adjacent to the above -referenced property. The individual
applyina for this permit has described tome as shown on the attached drawing the development they
are proposing. A description or drawing, with dimensions; should be provided with this letter.
have no objections to this proposal.
If you have objections to what is being proposed. please write the Division of Coastal
Manaaement, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension,'Y'ilminaton, NC 28105 or call 910-796-7215
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no objection it'
you have been notified by Certified'Ylail.
`VAIVER SECTION(
1 understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, break7vater, boat house or boat lift must be se
bek a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access - unless waived by me. (Ifvoi
wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
t do wish to waive the 1 5' setback requirement.
I do not wish to waive the 13' setback requirnme:ii.
Sta—ii Name Date
Print Name � ' •/�
NCDENR
Telephone Number with Area Code
L..v.wO.�KI+� ix0 N4tw,� r7a0Uwc!3

tJt r yl L VHJ 11
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/W,&J ER FORM
—7-7- me of individual AppI yina For Permit: �a,`f`r a�
Address of Property: ,,C_ _ _rt
(Lot or Street ;r, Street or Road `
(Ci tY and County
.)
I hereby ce,—Lify that I own property adjacent to the above -referenced property. The individual
applying for this permit has described tome as shown on the attached drawing the development they
are proposing. A description or drawing, with dimensions, should be provided with this leer.
�I have no objections to this proposal -
If
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breal.�vater, boat house or boat lift must be set
bck a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access - unless waived by me. (If you
Nvish to `naive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 1 5' setback requirement.
I do not wish to waive the 1 5' setback reauiremeZ_.
A-��
Sign Name Date
Pnnt N ame ' • J
NCDEN
Telephone Number with Area Code Mo,
F�.nwOwr.t u•O Nmyti rZ�C4wC3

/12 USPS.corrt© - Track & Confirm
English Custnewr Servtee USPS Mobile
ausps.coff
Track & Confirm
CETEMAILUPDATES PRINT OETAi L'.
Reg
Search USPS.com or Trac
S-:cp 3-Sinasl
FOUR LABEL NUMBER SERVICE STATUS OF YOUR ITEM DATE & TIME LOCATION FEATURE:
Frst-(ass MaP Delivered Nbrch 26, 2012, 10:54 am ALBANY, M' 12203 Expecte
March 2(
Certified
Notice Left March 22, 2012, 2:32 pm ALBANY, NY 12203
Notice Left March 21, 2012, 124 pm ALBANY, NY 12203
LYspatched to Sort March 17, 2012, 11:28 am CHAPIN, SC 29036
Facility
Acceptance March 17, 2012, 10:31 am CHAPIN SC29036
Check on Another Item
What's your label (or receipt) number?
LEGAL
ON USPS.COM
ON ABOUT.USPS.COM
OTHER USPS SITES
Privacy Policy >
Government Services,
About USPS Hama ,
Business Custorr Gatew
Tem-s Off Use.
Buy Stamps & Shoo,
New sroom .
Postal Inspectors >
FOIA , t
Print a Label w th Postage,
Will Service Updates >
his pector iienerai >
No FEAR Act EEO Data,
Customer Service :
Forms & Publications >
Postal Explorer,
Site kidex >
Careers,
Postal
(DomesticI CERTIFIED MAILV., RECEIPT
Only;
j Jco __ _
Ir
a
Postage�..
tiv
.�
Certified Fee
a; j
(Tl
0
Retum Receipt Fee
,., wk
r-1 (Endorsement
Reauirecn

JSPS.com® - Track & Confirm
Page 1 of
English Customer Service USPS Mobile
aUSPSkom*
Quick Tools
Track & Confirm
GET EMAIL UPDATES PRINT DETAILS
YOUR LABEL NUMBER
70070220000082247205
Check on Another Item
What's your label (or receipt) number?
Register I Sign In
Search USPS.com or Track Packages
Ship a Package Send Mail
Manage Your Mail
Shop Business Solutions
SERVICE STATUS OF YOUR ITEM
DATE & TIME
LOCATION FEATURES
Delivered
May 25, 2012, 4:54 pm
ALBANY, NY 12203 Certified Mail -
Arrival at Unit
May 21, 2012, 7:07 am
ALBANY, NY 12205
Find
LEGAL
ON USPS.COM
Privacy Policy >
Government Services >
Terms of Use >
Buy Stamps & Shop,
FOIA ,
Print a Label with Postage ,
No FEAR Act EEO Data,
Customer Service ,
Site Index >
CopyrightW 2012 USPS. All Rights Reserved
ON ABOUT.USPS.COM
About USPS Home >
Newsroom,
Mail Service Updates >
Forms & Publications ,
Careers
OTHER USPS SITES
Business Customer Gateway
Postal Inspectors ,
Inspector General>
Postal Explorer,

3/29/2012
To The Division of Coastal Management,
Having received by mail an Adjacent Riparian Property Owner Notification/Waiver form we are
responding.
We object to the proposal of Patrick Trenkle to build a dock at 208A Boca Bay Ln adjacent to our
property at this time.
We also do NOT waive the 15' setback requirement.
We have also expressed this opinion by phone to the voicemail of Jason Lane.
Sincerely,
Douglas Dean
Connie Dean
208E Boca Bay
Surf City, N.C.
Our Mailing address is
9 Waverly PI
Albany N.Y 12203
RECEIVrn

Bailey & Busby, PLLC
Attorneys at Law
www.baileybusb.�com
Offices in Wilmington and Hampstead, NC
Charles T. Busby
Charles ,baileybusby.com
Mr. Patrick A. Trenkle
400 Arrowhead Trail
Reading, PA 19608
14865 US Highway 17 (PO Box 818)
Hampstead, NC 28443
910.270.8830
910.270.8831 (fax)
April 20, 2012
Re: Proposed dock construction at Lot 5-A, Palms at Boca Bay
Dear Pat:
This letter will summarize the steps we have taken to gain the necessary
approvals for your construction of a dock at your lot at Boca Bay. It is my opinion
that all of the requirements have been met, based on the following:
1. I have reviewed the letter to you from the HOA Architectural Review Board
[ARB] dated February 27, 2012 [the denial letter]. The letter states that your
request for an Architectural Modification has been disapproved. Before dealing
with what the letter says, I will first address what it does not say.
The denial letter acknowledges receipt of your Request. There is no
mention of any failure to include required items with the Request, and no mention
that the Request was in any way deficient. I conclude from this that the ARB
treated your Request as valid.
Further, the denial letter does not address either the language or the
criteria set out in Article VIII, Section 1, of the recorded Restrictions for Boca Bay,
which states in pertinent part that no structure may be built or maintained without
approval of the Board of Directors of the Association or its appointed
Architectural Review Committee. The approval process involves the submitting

criteria of `harmony of design and location', not in general terms of other criteria.
The denial letter, based entirely on the purported moratorium and not on the
stated criteria, is not an approval or disapproval of your proposal. It is a refusal
to consider your proposal. The effect is that the ARB/HOA has not properly
approved or disapproved the design or location proposed in your plans and
specifications within 30 days of your submitting them as required by Article Vill,
Section 1. The result, as is stated in the restrictions, is that approval is not
required and you are deemed to have complied fully with the review requirement.
What the denial letter does state is that the Board has, in effect, declared
a moratorium on the approval of construction and/or renovation of docks.
Strictly speaking, this means that the ARB will no longer be considering
applications for construction of piers or docks. Ironically, as stated above, the
result is that, by refusing to consider the applications as required by the
restrictive covenants, the ARB is, in effect, approving all such applications by
failing to properly respond to them. Though this surely was not their intent, it
gives some indication that the effect of the purported moratorium was not given a
lot of forethought in terms of how it relates to the restrictive covenants.
That technicality aside, the more important point regarding the
moratorium, regardless of its intended or unintended effects, is that neither the
restrictive covenants nor the applicable law allow the ARB to declare a
moratorium on building. The restrictions contain no such authority. North
Carolina General Statutes § 47F-3-102, which sets out the powers of owner's
associations, provides that those powers include the right to operate the HOA,
tend to the common areas, and enforce the rules. Imposing a moratorium on
certain types of construction is not one of the stated powers.
Therefore, with respect to the HOA, you have complied with the
requirements, and the purported moratorium is not lawful or binding.
I summary, based on the information referenced above, my opinion is that
you have complied with the applicable approval requirements imposed by the
Restrictive Covenants at Boca Bay.
Please call if you have questions.
Fi k :
Sincerely, aCM W// bim,- VED

Dplicant:C(
+.. .
5--(7-/zv
Permit #: S- 7 ID
ascribe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement
and in your Habitat code sheet.
ibitat Name
TOTAL Sq. Ft.
(Applied for.
DISTURB TYPE Disturbance total
Choose One includes any
anticipated
restoration or
temp impacts)
FINAL Sq. Ft. TOTAL Feet
(Anticipated final (Applied for.
disturbance. Disturbance
Excludes any total includes
restoration any anticipated
and/or temp restoration or
impact amount) temp impacts)
FINAL Feet
(Anticipated fina
disturbance.
Excludes any
restoration and/c
temp impact
amount)
W
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑

il, Jason
m: Dail, Jason
it: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:35 AM
'Karen Valentine'
)ject: RE: Docs Requested for Carter Pier Permit
f Dan, thanks for the info. A couple of things that need to be revised with respect to the paperwork you sent ME
ude:
- Mr. Carter checked the box indicating that he wished to waive the setback, but he did not initial next to thi
as required on the form (in "parenthesis" under the waiver section).
- Please show on the drawing that the proposed pier structure will be located a minimum of 15' off the corr
riparian line shared between Mr. Trenkle and Mr. Doug Dean.
- Please provide the "signed certified mail receipt" or hand delivery receipt for the notification provided to P
Dean.
- Also, please provide water depth measurements from the area surrounding the terminal end of the pier/d
!I free to contact me with any questions.
e Care,
)n
_ lason bail
Field Representative
X.C. Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Betensiou
Wilmington. SC 28 J„ o
�- Pfic(914)796.72
Fat: [phone]
FmAl: lasonA;kil(Pncdenr.gov
t,,c•a�croastalnyanagetuer►t.r�et
Borth G.u-olina Depitoneut,of
'trnent and \atin al Res
'ease note that e-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina 1
-ords Law and may be disclosed to third parties.*

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environmi
Division of Coastal Man
rerly Eaves Perdue Braxton C. Davis
vernor Director
May 17, 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL — 7007 0220 0000 8224 7205
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Dean
9 Waverly Place
Albany, NY 12203
Dear Mr. Dean:
00
mD
mm
m
`no
ZQ LL
a c
m
�m atl
�¢m
¢ ur
U
Om 0
E0
gE
�E o
mm
om a
¢g
"Ng m
w
mw
502Z fi229 0000 0220
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the N.C.
Division of Coastal Management on March 30, 2012, regarding your concerns about the
proposed development by Mr. Patrick Trenkle, at 208-A N. Boca Bay Drive, adjacent to an
unnamed canal off Stump Sound, in Surf City, Pender County, North ,Carolina. The project
consists of the construction of a private docking facility that includes an access pier and
platform. The construction of the private docking facility has been determined to comply with
the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission (711.1200) - General Permit for construction of
piers, docks, and docking facilities in Estuarine and Public Trust Waters and Ocean Hazard
Areas, and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a
copy of the permit, as well as, the relevant statutes.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third
Party Appeal. The Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission will consider each case and
determine whether to grant your request to file for a Contested Case Hearing. The hearing
request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be
received within twenty (20) days of the disputed permit decision. I have enclosed the applicable
forms and instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline. Please contact me at 910-796-
7215, if you have any questions, or if I can provide any additional information.
Respectfully yours,

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
. ticle Addressed to:
9 Ica
A. Signature
X 5� -
B. Received by (Printed Name) C. C
D. Is delivery address different Edar6rfe�i r
If YES, enter delivery addfeess below:
<�
3. Service Type
Certified Mail
❑ Express Mail -
❑ Registered
❑ Return Receipt fo
❑ Insured Mail
❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
2. Article Number
(Tiansferfrom service labeo 7007 0220 0000 8224 7205 '

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF PENDER CMT 12-05
IN THE MATTER OF THE THIRD PARTY )
HEARING REQUEST BY ) FINAL DECISION
DOUGLASDEAN )
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner Douglas submitted a request for a Third Party Hearing to the Division of
Coastal Management on 4 June 2012 seeking permission to file a petition in the Office of
Administrative Hearings for a contested case hearing pursuant to N.C.G.S. § I I3A-121.1(b) and
15A N,C.A.C. 07J .0301(b). Petitioner seeks to challenge the General Permit No. 59189D issued
on 17 May 2012 to Patrick Trenkle for the construction of a pier and platform on the property he
owns jointly with Connie Dean at The Palms at Boca Bay Lane, Surf City, Pender County, North
Carolina adjacent to an unnamed canal off Stump Sound.
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. Moreover, the statute provides that
A determination of the appropriateness of a contested case ... shall be based on
whether the person seeking to commence a contested case:
(1) Has alleued that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;

F. The Penr ittee's property is riparian property adjacent to Stump Sound. At this
site, Stump Sound is classified as SA waters by the Environmental Management Commission
and is open to shellfish harvesting.
G. The waters of Stump Sound are within the Public Trust Area and Estuarine
Waters Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). The Permittee's proposed pier and platform
are "development" and so pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § I I3A-118, a CAMA permit is required
before the proposed development can take place.
H. In November and December of 2011, the Permittee's authorized agent and
contractor, Dan Valentine, met with DCM Field Representative Jason Dail regarding a proposed
pier and platform.
I. On March 26, 2012, Petitioner and Connie Dean received notification by certified
mail that the adjacent riparian property owner, Patrick Trenkle, had applied for a CAMA permit
to construct a dock at his lot at Boca Bay.
J. The materials provided to the Commission did not include a copy of the exact
materials provided to Petitioner at this time. However among the materials provided to the
Commission was a drawing showing a crossed out and redrawn location for the pier and dock.
The design appears to show that Permittee first planned to build the pier parallel to the property
line and at the high water line the proposed upper and lower deck were to be constructed eight
feet from the riparian line (within the 15 foot riparian setback). However, this location is crossed
out and the pier is angled away from the riparian setback adjacent to the Dean property.
K. On March 29, 2012, in response to the notification, Petitioner forwarded a letter to

in permit is consistent with the redesigned plans. The permitted location is not parallel to the
property line but angles away from the Dean property and is outside the 15' riparian setback. A
copy of this permit was attached to the Recommendation of the DCM.
P. Also on May 17, 2012, Debra Wilson, DCM's Wilmington District Manager, sent
a letter to Petitioner informing him of the permit issuance, the process of appeal, and enclosing
the required forms. A copy of this letter was attached to the Recommendation of the DCM.
Q. On May 24, 2012, Mr. Dail emailed Petitioner providing him with a copy of the
permit issued to Mr. Trenkle and the related documentation related to the permit. Mr. Dail also
attached a copy of the May 17, 2012 letter sent by Ms. Wilson. A copy of this email was attached
to the Recommendation of the DCM.
R. On June 1, 2012, Petitioner timely filed a third -party hearing request which was
received by the Division of Coastal Management. The request seeks a hearing to challenge
DCM's issuance of CAMA General Permit #59189D.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Coastal Area Management Act was adopted, in significant part, to address
"development," as defined in N.C.G.S. § 113A-103(5a) in any area that the CRC may designate
as an "Area of Environmental Concern," pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-113.
2. The CRC has by rule designated public trust waters and estuarine waters as Areas
of Environmental Concern (AECs). The waters of Stump Sound are within the Public Trust
Areas and Estuarine Waters AECs, 15A NCAC 07H .0201, .0206, and .0207. Therefore, the
proposed development requires a CAMA permit pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-118.

hat the next door neighbor's pier, because of its enormous size and location, will violate his
)rivacy and will create noise. Thus, Petitioner's assert that issuance of the Permit will directly
Hect their view and ability to enjoy their property.
Furthermore, Petitioner claims that the HOA has plans for a community dock and does
iot encourage individual docks. Petitioner appears to claim that if Permittee builds the proposed
'.ock, it may directly impact the communities' ability to construct a community dock.
Nuisance claims and disagreements over the enforcement of covenants and/or other real
state issues are outside the jurisdiction of CAMA and/or the CRC. Nevertheless, for the sole
urpose of assessing this third party hearing request, the Commission agrees that based on the
roximity of the proposed dock to Petitioner's property and the possible impact the construction
f a dock may have on Petitioner's use of his property, Petitioner has shown that he is "directly
ffected" by the permitting decision and has met the burden imposed by N.C.G.S. § 113A-
21.1(b)(2)
C. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the hearing request is not frivolous.
In his request for a third party hearing, Petitioner makes four arguments based on the
'ommission's rules. Moreover, in the initial March 29, 2012 objection letter and attached
lotification and Waiver Form which are part of the record submitted to the Commission
etitioner asserts he does not wish to waive the 15-foot riparian setback. By this assertion,
etitioner raises an implicit argument, even if no rule is cited, that the proposed pier construction
iolates the 15-foot riparian setback. For the reasons addressed specifically below, Petitioner's
rguments are without merit. Thus, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the hearing request is

-ontested case hearing based on mere speculation about Permittee's intended future use of the
pier development. Permit violations, if they occur, will be addressed through enforcement
proceedings.
2. Petitioner's claim under 5A NCAC 7H .1205(b) is without merit.
15A NCAC 7H .1205(b) provides that "Piers and docking facilities shall not extend
)eyond the established pier length along the same shoreline for similar use." In his request,
3etitioner notes that the community has one new dock which he estimates is less than 30 feet
ong. Petitioner compares the estimated length of the existing dock to the 147 feet pier allowed
)y the permit. Here too, Petitioner's misunderstands the actual requirement of the rule and his
Lgument fails. The limitation on pier length under this rule does not apply to piers under 100' in
ength. In calculating the length, the portion of the pier over the marsh is not included as part of
he "pier" based on the language of 15A NCAC 7H .1205(b) which measures piers from the
waterward edge of any wetlands that border the water body." In this case, as noted on the
iermit, the permitted pier and platform, as measured from the waterward edge of the marsh
xtend out less than thirty feet. Therefore, since the relevant portion of the permitted pier and
,latform is less than thirty feet, the rule does not apply. Accordingly, it would be frivolous to
lave a contested case about this rule which does not apply to the permitted development.
3. The General Permit issued complies with 15A NCAC 7H .1205(d).
Petitioner's argument as to 15A NCAC 7H .1205(d) is frivolous as well. As noted in the
une 1, 2012 email from Mr. Dail to Petitioner, this rule addresses the minimum height of the
ier. The purpose of the rule is to balance the need for light to reach the coastal wetlands

frguably from the HOA), Permittee has provided assurance to DCM through a letter dated April
A, 2012 that the HOA, by failing to act to approve or disapprove the design within 30 days of its
,ubmission waived it's right to do so. Thus, HOA approval is not required and Permittee fully
;omplied with the HOA's architectural review requirement.
Furthermore, the Commission and OAH are not the proper venues to resolve internal
IOA disagreements over whether the restrictive covenants of the HOA limit Permittee's right to
onstruct an individual dock and whether the proposed pier design is consistent with the design
riteria established by the HOA's restrictive covenants. Matters involving property rights and
lisputes over enforcement of the HOA's restrictive covenants must be litigated in the general
ourts of justice between the proper parties to the claims. The Commission is not the proper
arty to defend the HOA's decisions or restrictive covenants. Thus, it would be frivolous to have
contested case in OAH to do so.
5. The permitted pier does not violate the 15-foot riparian setback
In this case, Petitioner does not cite to the rule providing for 15-foot setback from the
iparian line. However, the materials provided in support of the Petition include Petitioner's
March 29, 2012 letter state, "We also do NOT waive the 15' setback requirement" and the
adjacent Riparian Property Owner Notification/Waiver Form is checked showing that
[Petitioner does] not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement." From the materials provided
the Commission it appears that Permittee addressed Petitioner's refusal to waive the 15'
parian setback by revising the design and relocating the pier and dock. In the original design,
e location of the proposed upper and lower deck of the pier was eight feet from the riparian line

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Final Decision by the means
specified below:
Douglas Dean
9 Waverly Place
Albany, NY 12203
Patrick Trenkle
400 Arrowhead Trail
Reading, PA 19608
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
NC DOJ - Environmental Division
114 W. Edenton
Raleigh, NC 27603
Braxton Davis
Director of DCM
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Angela Willis
Assistant to Director of DCM
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Method by which Service was made:
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
electronically: [e-mail]
electronic,ally:[e-mail]
electronically [e-mail]
This the IS41`day of June, 2012.
Mary L. Lucasse
Special Deputy Attorney General

STATE OF NORTH CAR.OUNA
DEPAK oF)LIS nu
ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENFR-►L
P.O. Box 629 RI•: LY T : MARY 1,. LI •CV,. E
RAI.1•UM, NC27602 ENVIR0NM1-X1•ALI)IV1S1ON
I'I•:1 (919) 71( 6)62
FkX: (919) 71(;-(;7(;7
mlucassc n+L ncdc�i.l;oV
June 14, 2012
Douglas and Connie Dean
CERTIFIED MAIL
9 Waverly Place
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Albany, NY 12203
Re: Final
Decision DENYING Third Party Hearing Request
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dean:
The Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission has denied your request for a third party
hearing to contest CAMA General Permit No. 59189D issued on May 17, 2012 to Patrick Trenkle
for the pier and platform located at The Palms at Boca Bay Lane, Surf City, Pender County, North
Carolina. Attached is a copy of the Final Decision. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §113A-121.1(c), the permit is no
longer suspended and the permittee is allowed to proceed insofar as it concerns CAMA.
You may appeal the Chairman's decision by filing a petition for judicial review in the Superior
Court of Pender County within thirty days after receiving the Final Decision enclosed herein. A copy of
the judicial review petition must also be served on the Coastal Resources Commission's agent for service
of process at the following address:
William P. Cary, General Counsel
Dept. Of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1601
If you chose to file a petition for judicial review, I request that you serve a copy on me as well at
the address included in the letterhead.
Very truly yours,
4 ca,,�
/�
Mary L. Lucasse
Special Deputy Attorney General
cc: Patrick Trenkle, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
Robert R. Emorv_ .Ir__ Chairman Apel,nirally

r�
Nor,['! t'aroN.n.3 Department of Resour,as
' Dvi5.cii of (�oasta!
?r�nav�i
of Director
Patrick Trenkle
400 Arrowhead Trail
Reading, PA 19608
Se��rkar��
June 5, 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL (70071490 0004 7748 6794)
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Re: Suspension of Work / Appeal of CAMA Permit Decision
Dear Mr. Trenkle,
The Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission, Robert Emory, has received a request for
an administrative hearing to challenge CAMA General Permit 59189-D. The Third Party
Hearing Request was filed on behalf of petitioner Douglas Dean on June 4, 2012. Under
N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1 (the Coastal Area Management Act), your permit is suspended upon
receipt of a hearing request and will remain suspended until either: (1) Chairman Emory 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 Emory 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 June
19, 2012. 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,
Braxton C. Davis
Director
JUN 0 7 2012

from the riparian property line and outside the 15' riparian setback. Thus, it would be frivolous
to hold a contested case hearing when CAMA General Permit No 59189-D was issued in
compliance with the relevant statutes and rules.
Based on a detailed review of Petitioner's arguments set forth above, it is apparent that
Petitioner is unable to show that he has any basis under the CAMA rules and regulations to
contest the issuance of the permit and an appeal of the permitting decision would be frivolous.
Thus, Petitioner have not demonstrated they can meet the third factor set forth in N.C.G.S. §
113A-121.1(b)(3).
V. DECISION
Accordingly, since Petitioner has failed to meet his burden establishing each of the
required factors upon which a third -party hearing determination must be granted, Petitioner is not
entitled to a third party hearing under the criteria of the statute creating this administrative
procedural safeguard for issuance of CAMA permits. For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner's
third party hearing request is DENIED.
This the (S-V`day of June, 2012.
Robert R. Emory, Jr., C airman
N.C. Coastal Resources Commission

impacts to coastal wetlands have been deemed acceptable by the CRC and other resource
agencies through. the general permit authorization process.
Here Petitioner specifically objects to the length and location of the dock because it will
require cutting trees and shrubs in its path. Petitioner suggests that a "shorter dock could be
build in a different location that has less tall vegetation and is much closer access to the
waterfront." Although Petitioner's claim may be true, CAMA does not require that development
have the absolutely least invasive impact on the vegetation. The CAMA statute and associated
rules are designed to balance environmental goals with riparian property owner's rights. The
permit as issued is consistent with the CAMA rule requirements. As the permit meets the general
permit limits, including the minimum height requirement above the coastal wetlands substrate
and otherwise minimizes impacts by its location and design while still honoring the Permittee's
riparian rights to pier out, it would be frivolous to have a contested case on this issue.
4. 15A NCAC 7H .1205(u) does not support Petitioner's request for a hearing.
Rule 15A NCAC 7H .1205(u) is a permissive rule — not a mandatory requirement. The
language of the rule simply states "Shared piers or docking facilities shall be allowed or
encouraged." This rule allows for and encourages shared piers-- provided the permit applicants
meet requirements laid out in the rule.
In this case, Permittee argues that since the HOA is planning to move forward with plans
for installation of a community dock, DCM should have denied Permittee's request for an
individual pier. However, nothing in the language of the rule requires that Permittee forego a
private pier simply because the HOA has future plans to discuss the possibility of a community

1. 15A NCAC 7H .1204 does not support Petitioner's claim.
Rule 15A NCAC 7H .1204 provides that development constructed under a general permit
"shall be for the exclusive use of the land owner, or occupant and shall not be leased or rented or
used for any commercial purpose." From this language Petitioner argues that the rule prohibits
persons renting the property from using the proposed pier and platform on the grounds that
renting the property is a "commercial purpose" and contrary to the rule. Petitioner is mistaken. If
Permittee rents out the property (and under the rental contract allows use of the pier) the renters
are authorized occupants and their use of the pier is specifically allowed. Moreover, the rule's
prohibition against leasing, renting, or using the permitted development for "any commercial
purpose" is designed to distinguish private piers from those with more general commercial use
unrelated to the rental of the residence and associated private pier. Petitioner misreads the
prohibition against commercial use: This rule does not apply to authorized occupants of the
property. Thus, Petitioner's argument on this issue does not support his request for a contested
case hearing.
In addition, Petitioner claims that the Permittee intends to violate the terms of the permit
by allowing future commercial activity on the pier. However, such a speculative claim does not
negate the validity of the permit itself. The terms of the general permit limit the permitted
development to a pier and platform and note specifically that, "This permit does not authorize
any formalized boat slips." Any possible future violations of the permit conditions would be
handled through enforcement proceedings — not by denying the initial permit request. Moreover,
if, as Petitioner's claim, Mr. Trenkle "intends to violate the use of the permit" by allowing jet

disputed permit decision is made." N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). In the present case, DCM issued
its decision to grant Patrick Trenkle's permit on May 17, 2012. Petitioner's request for a third
party hearing was filed June 1, 2012, and is therefore timely.
4. Thus, the Chairman addresses the factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 113A-
121.1(b)(1)-(3) as follows:
A. Petitioner alleges that the decision is contrary to a rule or statute.
In considering whether Petitioner is entitled to a contested case hearing, the first factor to
consider is whether Petitioner has alleged that the decision made by the DCM is contrary to a
rule or statute. In this case, Petitioner claims that the permitting decision is contrary to the
provisions of 15A NCAC 07H.1204; 15A NCAC 7H .1205(b); 15A NCAC 7H .I205(d) and 15A
NCAC 7H .1205(u). Regardless of whether the rules cited are relevant to this case or applicable
to the permitting decision, for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner has met the
burden of identifying sections of the Commission's rules which he alleges are contrary to the
permitting decision, the Commission finds that Petitioner's request meets the first requirement
set forth in N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(1).
B. Petitioner has demonstrated that he will be directly affected by the issuance
of the Permit.
The community known as The Palms at Boca Bay consists of fourteen individual parcels
and units. The units are contained in seven duplex dwellings — two units per building.
Petitioner's home is located in the same duplex building as Permittee's home. Petitioner's lot at
208A North Boca Bay Lane is northwest and adjacent to Permitttee's property at 208B North
rl --- ,,,..:�:, -,-1—:— A at flip .,P,-.. it rlp.nkinn will adverselv affect his enioyment of the

requirement. Petitioner also returned the Adjacent Riparian Property Owner Notification/Waiver,
Form indicating that he did not waive the 15-foot riparian setback.
L. The owner of the property on the other side of Permittee's property, Mr. Carter,
also received the Adjacent Riparian Property Owner Notification/Waiver Form from the
Permittee. He signed the statement of no objection and waived the fifteen -foot setback
requirement. A copy of this waiver form was attached to the Recommendation of the DCM.
M. Permittee also sought approval for construction of the dock from the Palms at
Boca Bay Home Owners Association ("HOA") Architectural Review Board ("ARB") as required
by the recorded Restrictions of the HOA. The ARB issued a "denial letter" based solely on its
purported moratorium on construction. The ARB did not review or assess the external design and
location of the proposed structure in relation to surrounding structures and topography as
required by the HOA covenants.
N. In a letter dated April 20, 2012, Permittee was advised by his attorney, Charles
Busby that because the ARB did not approve or disapprove the design or location for the dock
proposed in Permittee's plans within 30 days of submission, the "denial letter" was not an
effective denial. Permittee's attorney further opined that the ARB had effectively waived its
opportunity to review the plans when it had failed to do so within 30 days of submission.
Permittee's attorney determined that Permittee had fully complied with the requirements of the
HOA and the ARB and concluded that the HOA's purported moratorium on building piers was
not lawful or binding. A copy of this letter was attached to the Recommendation of the DCM.
O. Following an additional site visit on May 8, 2012, Mr. Dail issued CAMA

Section 113A-121.1(b) (emphasis added). The CRC has delegated to its Chairman authority to
determine whether a third party request for a hearing should be granted or denied. 15A NCAC 7J
.0301(b). A third party 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 party whose hearing request is denied may seek
judicial review. Id. If the third parry's hearing request is denied, the permit is reinstated by
operation of law pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(c).
IIl. FACTS
A. The Permittee is Patrick Trenkle, who owns the duplex unit and property located
at 208A North Boca Bay Lane. He purchased this property on October 26, 2011 according to
county records.
B. The Petitioner is Douglas Dean, who together with his wife, Connie Dean, owns
the duplex unit and property located at 208B North Boca Bay Lane, northwest and adjacent to
the Permittee's unit and property. Petitioner purchased this property on June 11, 2009 according
to county records. Petitioner's property is adjacent to that owned by Permittee.
C. Donald Carter owns 206B North Boca Bay Lane, which is adjacent to the
Permittee's property to the southeast.
D. All three properties are part of The Palms at Boca Bay (The Palms) community,
which consists of seven duplex dwellings, providing fourteen individual parcels and units.
E. The Palms was originally permitted through the express permitting program on