46290D - B&D

AMA/ '_ .'I DREDGE & FILL
EN ERAL PERMIT Previous permit#
Jew ❑Modification ❑Complete Reissue ❑Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued
:ed by the State of North Carolina,Department of Environment and Natural Resources
astal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to I 5A NCAC --q# ,Newe C C-VIZ 06
Ca Rules attached.
Name 1 I) fn vtStetie n tS /L L C Project Location: County /VGyi y`'"0Gylr
(00 I C Ole ale C f. P• '• QDx tad Street Address/State,!Road/Lot#(s)
4-,.. glrr State PVC zip 2g6 I 5o2- Al. (Aan e/ n".
Z.$i) 1 Z„.S`fPYJ Fax#((2cL.)692 , Cy9 9Subdivision
d Agent Yt.?)rt k .5he1 tYlfl� 61/011,1419Q City Wr 47t54//�r /3CQ<4 ZIP 2 s445
[VCW f 'EW [ TA ❑ES Li PTS / '� Phone# ( ) -S44 ! /River Basin ea/de
❑OEA ❑HHF ❑IH ❑UBA `l N/A Adj.Wtr. Bodyi�S �h00-ftlr (nat /
❑ PWS: ❑FC: Ne
//-
es / p(a) PNA yes / ? Crit.Hab. yes / no Closest Maj.Wtr. Body #f',/ini4�/Y s
project/Activity �'0'YJS Gl7/Oh z-f7 Q0/:2r'//1-s+f /.'t=/�/i7 f0/' 6::—?: r3'
'n' /7',e/rC r (&' /r/H� l .rd4✓' e -1//2 D6-2Z #" 9 0(Scale: /,'
:)length l y1 "r6 '
/ L r�
r(s) ///7t, ' Jl . 7t4.4, 0 h't, ' 6 h ,,,__ c '' '
;th i. . , ----,- ---t- --,- , , l
ber }+� x�,,onn
Riprap length
istance offshore_ i
distance offshore `i
i
nnel t ��
yards - I ' r0 /Ql t#r
P
T2.XL. ` 4
e/Roadie 1
- ,
(,q'1 , i
Ildozing — - r ' ' �/
� ( err 1?
3? rG '
, N 0i
I
Lengt :7 7 / r
not sure yes g i .A-,.. y ,._V_ 4
not sure yes !!" /J/9 !I l iii t � pr i " v ! I...T __ --
im: n/a yes
V
nopprti f 50 N IfefP - —
:tached: yes I

amm
t
` WARD AND SMITH, P.A. FIRST CITIZENS 359
I' ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW r FlrstCklxms Benk 6 Trust Company I
BANK W,m�D�.NC zB.� 11274 1
UNIVERSITY CORPORATE CENTER www.firstcitizens.com
WILMINGTON,NC 28406 7 68 6�3D�359 531 I.
It DATE October 5, 2006
{I
DOLLARS $ 200.00
YII PAY Two Hundred and No/100— ----- �----
it r—
tll NC Department of Environment and .E
.c Natural Resources '
TO THE 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
{I ORDER Wilmington, NC 28405 1
! OF
.ii
B&D Investments CAMA Permit �'
'' Application Fee 3pY4f9 S 6 J �'-. . ------------—— - 7
II'0 L L 27Ile 1:053 L003 01:00353 L9 7 6 5 2 3112

Ateri"r„„A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
hael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr . Secr
October 24, 2006
RTIFIED MAIL # 7005 0390 0001 3200 3300
TURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
John Richard Newton
Princess Street •
mington,N.C. 28401
Ir Mr. Newton:
This letter is in response to your correspondence received by the Division of Coastal Management of
-ch 31, 2006, regarding your concerns about the proposal by B & D Investments. LLC to construct a new
'ate pier, platform and floating dock, adjacent to Banks Channel, at 502 N. Channel Dr., Wrightsville Be
few Hanover County. B&D Investments, LLC request fora CAMA General Permit was denied by the
ision of Coastal Management on May 18, 2006 due to the inability to meet the required 15• setback Cron
scent property owner's area of riparian access. Subsequently, B&D Investments, LLC requested a variai
a the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission(CRC) on September 7, 2006. The variance reque
heard by the CRC on September 21, 2006. The CRC granted the variance request and issued a Final 0
.C-CR-06-22) on September 27, 2006. B&D Investments, LLC was issued CAMA General Permit No.
85 on October 13, 2006 and signed on October 24, 2006 to authorize the development. I have enclosed
y of the permit, as well as, a copy of the CRC Final Order.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Hear
request for a hearing will be considered by the Chairman of the CRC. The hearing request must he tile(
r the Director, Division of Coastal Manacs rn n+ », -�=- - eceived within twenty (20) day
'ostal Service,,, SECTION ON DELIVERY• ir111S and instructions that must
I any questions, or if I can provii
TIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT
tic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) CI Agent
❑Addressee
ery information visit our website at www.usps.come
Printed Name) C. Date of D livery
Postage $ / // (_ if f 1^^? ❑Yes
L. ❑No tiv
;edified Fee .4-f-O C�T'pk (,- WILMINGTON, NC
PostmaFcrninf Fm _ i a

D•
p+,TATE N. 4ti�
311,110
'twww+
Morehead City DCM
State of North Carolina Reply to:
Department of Justice Jill B.Hickey
ROY COOPER Environmental Division
rTORNEY GENERAL 9001 Mail Service Center 9001 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA Raleigh,NC 27699-9001
27699-9001 Tel:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
•
[e-mail]
September 27, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
B &D Investments, LLC
Mr. Frank Sheffield
Ward and Smith •
P.O. Box 867
New Bern,North Carolina 28563-0867
Re: Variance Request to Coastal Resources Commission
By B & D Investments, LLC
CRC-VR-06-22
Dear Mr. Sheffield:
At its September 21, 2006 meeting,the Coastal Resources Commission voted to grant the
above referenced variance request. Attached is a copy of the Final Order, signed by the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission. Prior to undertaking the development for
which you sought a variance, you must first obtain a CAMA permit from your local permitting
authority or the Division of Coastal Management. •
Sincerely,
.'
ill B. Hickey
Special Deputy Attorney General
Counsel to the Commission

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER CRC-VR-06-22
IN THE MATTER OF: )
PETITION FOR VARIANCE ) FINAL ORDER
BY B & D INVESTMENTS, LLC )
This matter was heard on oral arguments and stipulated facts at the regularly scheduled
meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission(hereinafter CRC)on September 21,
2006,in Wilmington,North Carolina pursuant to N.C.G.S.§ 113A-120.1 and T15ANCAC 7J.0700,
et seq. Assistant Attorney General Meredith Jo Alcoke appeared for the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management; Frank Sheffield appeared
on behalf of Petitioners B &D Investments, LLC.
Upon consideration of the record documents and the arguments of the parties, the CRC
adopts the following:
STIPULATED FACTS
•
1. Petitioner is B &D Investments, LLC. Petitioner owns a lot at 502 North Channel Drive
• in Wrightsville Beach,North Carolina.
2. The property has approximately 37 linear feet of shoreline. The street side property line
is approximately 70 feet long.
3. One of Petitioner's side property lines is not perpendicular to the shoreline, resulting in a
trapezoidal shaped lot with the shortest side on the shoreline.
n int;e c;tnaterM nn henrt in the shoreline of Banks Channel.

NCAC §§ 7H .0208(b)(6)(L) and 7H .1205(o).
6. The shoreline along Petitioner's property is not parallel to the town pier head line. As a
result, the riparian area appurtenant to Petitioner's property does not extend
perpendicularly from the shoreline.
7. Because of the location of the mean high water line, the property's trapezoidal shape, and
the fact that the area of riparian access does not extend perpendicularly from the
shoreline, the width of Petitioner's riparian access area is only 31.78 feet.
8. Petitioner's lot was one of very few remaining undeveloped lots on this stretch of
shoreline. Petitioner has recently constructed a residence on the lot.
9. In 2004, Petitioner requested that the Division of Coastal Management issue a Coastal
Area Management Act("CAMA") General Permit for construction of a boat pier and
docking facility to provide riparian access to deep water.
10. In accordance with CAMA permitting rules, Petitioner sent notice concerning the
requested permit to the adjoining property owners. Ms. Deborah Walker owns the
property immediately to the north of Petitioner's property and has constructed a pier in
front of her property. The Town of Wrightsville Beach(the"Town") owns the property
(identified as 5th Avenue) immediately to the south of Petitioner's property. Dr. Sabra L.
McNeil owns the property immediately to the south of the Town property and has
constructed a pier in front of her property.
11. The property owned by the Town to the south of Petitioner's property is an unpaved and

•
as a practical matter, hinder public access to Banks Channel. The end of the right-of-way
is shown on the two photographs in the Stipulated Exhibits, Attachment F. The proposal
pending before the CRC will not affect the public use of the right-of-way, which could be
used for activities such as fishing, swimming, and launching canoes.
12. Pursuant to § 150.12(A)(2) of the Ordinances of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, no pier,
dock, or other structure shall be constructed which is closer than 15 feet to the owner's
extended property lines. This requirement, together with related §§150.12(A)(1) and (4),
are referred to herein collectively as the"Town pier construction setbacks."
13. It is uncommon for a local government to have setbacks for docks and piers.
14. Pursuant to an Encroachment Agreement dated August 6, 2004, the Town agreed to
waive its setback requirement and allow construction of Petitioner's pier within both the
Town's pier construction setbacks and the CRC's 15-foot setback from areas of riparian
access. At its April 8, 2005 meeting, the CRC granted a variance from its 15-foot
riparian setback requirements and approved a pier that extended across the Town's
riparian area and also extended approximately 10 feet into the setback from Dr. McNeill's
riparian area.. This proposal did not involve any encroachment into Ms. Walker's
riparian area.. (CRC-VR-04-27)
15. Ms. Walker and other local residents objected to the permit that was issued pursuant to
variance. On or about May 12, 2005, the Town purported to rescind the Encroachment
Agreement.

into the CRC's 15-foot setback from the Town's riparian area. This design ran the pier
along the north side of the Town's riparian area and out to the Town's pier head line, in
order to minimize interference with Ms. Walker's existing pier. The Town has no
structures in its riparian area and, at the time of these stipulations, the parties are not
aware of any plans to place a structure in that area.
17. At its closest point, the proposed pier would be within approximately 9 feet of Ms.
Walker's pier, which encroaches into Petitioner's riparian corridor, as discussed below.
18. After objection by Ms. Walker and other local residents at a public hearing, the Town
rejected the April 27, 2006 proposal and refused to waive its CAMA setback.
19. Ms. Walker's pier encroaches into Petitioner's riparian corridor as defined under the
CRC's rules. In 1990,Ms. Walker purported to build her pier under an exemption from
permitting, pursuant to 15 NCAC § 7K .0203(c)(1) (effective June 1, 1986). However,
Ms. Walker's pier did not qualify for the exemption because it comes within the 15-foot
setback of a neighbor's riparian line and it encroaches into a neighbor's riparian corridor.
This was the case regardless whether the riparian lines as established by the Division of
Coastal Management or by the Town of Wrightsville Beach were applied. Moreover,
under the regulation, the exemption did not apply when any setback waiver was
necessary. 15 NCAC § 7K .0203(c)(1). As built, the Walker pier does not comply with
either the CRC's rules or the Town's pier construction setbacks.
20. The Town's pier construction setbacks and the CRC's rules for riparian setbacks create

otherwise meet the CRC's riparian setback rules if one of its two neighbors waived the
15-foot setback required by the CRC. The Town and Ms. Walker have declined to waive
the setbacks.
22. On May 15, 2006, Counsel for Petitioner requested that the Division of Coastal
Management issue a Coastal Area Management Act ("CAMA") General Permit for
construction of a boat pier and docking facility to provide riparian access to deep water.
23. In accordance with CAMA permitting rules, Petitioner sent notice concerning the
requested permit to the adjoining property owners.
24. Through counsel, Ms. Walker did not waive her setback and objected to the proposed
design. The proposed pier, dock and deck are not within Ms. Walker's CAMA setback.
The Town did not waive its setback.
25. The proposed dock and pier is very similar to that proposed to the Town on April 27,
2006. The proposed pier and dock is to be approximately 184 feet in total length,
extending from Petitioner's property to the town pier head line. The proposal includes a
142' x 6' pier, a 32' x 6' floating dock, a connecting ramp, and a 14' x 10' deck.
26. The proposed pier, dock and deck would be constructed immediately north of the Town's
riparian area, encroaching into nearly all of the Town's 15-foot setback. The proposal is
entirely within Petitioner's riparian corridor as defined by the CRC.
27: The proposed pier will be.approximately 9 feet from Ms. Walker's closest pier structure.
The Wrightsville Beach Planning Department has determined that the proposal violates

that Petitioner could not meet the riparian setback requirements for a general permit as
described in 15A NCAC 7H .1205.
29. Petitioner filed this variance request on or about May 19, 2006. Petitioner seeks a
variance from the CRC's riparian setback rules in 15A NCAC 7H .1205(o) in order to
construct a pier as proposed in Exhibit A to its petition.
30. Petitioner also seeks a variance from 1SA NCAC 7H .0601, a CRC rule that prohibits
the agency from approving development in any AEC which would result in a
contravention or violation of any rules, regulations, or laws of the State of North Carolina
or of local government in which the development takes place.
31. If the CRC will not grant the requested variances, Petitioner has stipulated that it is
willing to modify the proposal to shorten the pier significantly and/or to move it to the
north to reduce the intrusion to approximately 5 feet (rather than 15) into the Town's
riparian setback. Shortening the pier will place the end of the pier in shallower water,
requiring Petitioner to apply for a dredging permit for excavation so that a vessel could be
moored. Application for such a dredging permit will include notice to adjacent owners
and potential review by other agencies. Petitioner will also have to obtain the necessary
building permit from the Town.
32. Without any variance from the CRC, Petitioner could not, as a practical matter, construct
a pier because the area available within all setbacks is only 1.78 feet wide and extends
only to the point that the Town's pier construction setbacks converge, a maximum of

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The CRC has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
2. All notices for the proceeding were adequate and proper.
3. The Petitioner has demonstrated that strict application of 15A NCAC 7H .1205(o)
and 15A NCAC 7H .0601 to its permit application will result in unnecessary hardship. It is not
common for a local government to have its own requirements regarding the placement of docks
and piers in the water. The Town's requirements exceed the CRC's rules, which do not include a
"structural" setback. The combination of the Town's pier construction setbacks together with the
CRC's required setbacks from the adjacent property owners' areas of riparian access causes
Petitioner to be unable to construct a pier. In addition to having to meet two setbacks, Petitioner
is also affected by the fact that the Walker pier encroaches into Petitioner's area of riparian
access. Although Petitioner has reasonable use of the property through the construction of a
home, Petitioner does not have the ability to construct a pier due the lot size, the bend in the
shoreline, the conflicting requirements set by the Town and the CRC, and the fact that the
Walker pier encroaches into Petitioner's area of riparian access.
4. The Petitioner has demonstrated that its hardship results from conditions peculiar
to Petitioner's property such as the location, size, or topography of the property. Petitioner has
only 37 linear feet of shoreline. The hardship of not being able to construct a pier on this lot is
caused in part by the size and trapezoidal shape of Petitioner's lot, combined with its location on
- • =

has taken. Instead, Petitioner's hardship is caused by the lot size, the bend in the shoreline, the
conflicting requirements set by the Town and the CRC, and the fact that the Walker pier
encroaches into Petitioner's area of riparian access.
6. The Petitioner has demonstrated that its proposed development is within the
spirit,purpose and intent of the Commission's rules; that it will secure public safety and welfare;
and that it will preserve substantial justice. Granting a variance allows Petitioner to exercise its
riparian rights,while not unduly interfering with navigation on what is an already crowded
shoreline. Petitioner's proposed pier is designed to minimize impacts to navigation in several
ways. It is aligned so that it is adjacent to the Town's riparian area to the south. This
configuration encroaches entirely within the Town's 15-foot setback, which the Town has
declined to waive. Yet, this alignment it is still a better option than aligning the pier to the north
toward Ms. Walker's pier because the Town has no pier in its riparian area. Because the Town
property has only 15 feet of shoreline, it is unlikely that there will ever be a pier structure there.
The floating dock at the end of the pier is designed so that its support pilings are on Ms. Walker's
side (north), leaving the Town side as the most likely or convenient side on which to moor a
boat. Although the pier would be located within approximately 9 feet of the outermost portion of
Ms. Walker's pier and she has objected to the proposal, this potential navigation problem is
caused in part by Ms. Walker's encroachment into Petitioner's riparian corridor.
ORDER
THEREFORE, the variance from 15A NCAC 7H .1205(o) and 15A NCAC 7H .0601 is

•
a CAMA permit from the proper permitting authority.
This variance is based upon the Stipulated Facts set forth above. The Commission
reserves the right to reconsider the granting of this variance and to take any appropriate action
should it be shown that any of the above Stipulated Facts is not true.
This the „q, day of September, 2006.
�e
Z‘1147
Courtney T. Hac ey, Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have caused the foregoing Final Order to be served upon the
Petitioner by depositing a copy thereof in the U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED with sufficient postage for delivery and addressed to:
B & D INVESTMENTS, LLC CERTIFIED MAIL
Frank Sheffield
Ward and Smith
PO Box 867
New Bern,NC 28563-0867
Jason Thomas • CERTIFIED MAIL
Hunton & Williams
P.O. Box 109
Raleigh,NC 27602
Meredith Jo Alcoke
Assistant Attorney General
400 Commerce Way
Morehead City, NC 28557
This the 7 day of September, 2006.
` •
► /
Oir
B. Hi key
. -14 -.-(- --------------
pecial Deputy Attorney Ge eral
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-9001
Counsel to the Commission

OF RIPRAP FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION IN ESTUARINE AND PUBLIC TRUST WATERS AND
OCEAN HAZARD AREAS
15A NCAC 07H.1101 PURPOSE
A permit under this Section shall allow the construction of bulkheads and the placement of riprap for shoreline protection in
the public trust waters and estuarine waters AECs according to authority provided in Subchapter 07J.1100 and according.to
the Rules in this Section. This permit shall not apply to shoreline protection along the oceanfront or to waters and shorelines
adjacent to the Ocean Hazard AEC with the exception of those shorelines that feature characteristics of the Estuarine
Shoreline AEC. Such features include the presence of wetland vegetation,lower wave energy and lower erosion rates than
the adjoining Ocean Erodible Area.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A-107(a); 113A-107(b); 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1, 113.-1-12-1.
Eff. March 1, 1984;
Amended Eff.April 1, 2003.
07H.1102 APPROVAL PROCEDURES
(a) The applicant shall contact the Division of Coastal Management and complete an application form requesting approval for
development. The applicant shall provide information on site location,dimensions of the project area. and his name and
address.
(b) The applicant shall provide:
(1) confirmation that a written statement has been obtained signed by the adjacent riparian property owners
indicating that they have no objections to the proposed work;or
(2) confirmation that the adjacent riparian property owners have been notified by certified mail of the proposed
work. Such notice shall instruct adjacent property owners to provide written comments on the proposed
development to the Division of Coastal Management within ten days of receipt of the notice,and.indicate
that no response shall be interpreted as no objection. DCM staff shall review all comments and determine.
based on their relevance to the potential impacts of the proposed project, if the proposed project can be
approved by a General Permit.•If DCM staff determines that the project exceeds the guidelines established
by the General Permit Process,the applicant shall be notified that he must submit an application for a major
development permit.
(c) No work shall begin until an on-site meeting is held with the applicant and appropriate Division of Coastal Management
representative so that the proposed bulkhead alignment can be appropriately marked. Written authorization to proceed with
the proposed development may be issued during this visit. Construction of the bulkhead or riprap structure shall be completed
within 90 days of this visit or the general authorization shall expire and it shall be necessary to re-examine the alignment to
determine if the general authorization can be reissued.
History Note: .4uthority G.S. 113.4-107(a); 113A-107(b); 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1; 113.1-124.
Eff. March 1, 1984;
Amended Eff. September 1. 2006;January 1. 1990; December 1, 1987.
07H.1103 PERMIT FEE
The applicant shall pay a permit fee of two hundred dollars(S200.00)for riprap and bulkhead structures sited at or above
normal high water or normal water level,or a permit fee of four hundred dollars($400.00)for bulkhead and riprap structures
sited below normal high water or normal water level. Permit fees shall be paid by check or money order payable to the
Department.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A-107; 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1; 113A-119; 113-119.1; 113A-124;
Eff. March 1, 1984;
Amended Eff.September 1.2006:Aueust 1.2000:March I. 1991.

(b) Individuals shall allow authorized representatives of the Department of Environment,Health,and Natural Resources to
make periodic inspections at any time deemed necessary in order to be sure that the activity being performed under authority
of this general permit is in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed herein.
(c) There shall be no significant interference with navigation or use of the waters by the public by the existence of the
bulkhead or the riprap authorized herein.
(d) This permit will not be applicable to proposed construction where the Department has determined, based on an initial
review of the application, that notice and review pursuant to G.S. 113A-119 is necessary because there are unresolved
questions concerning the proposed activity's impact on adjoining properties or on water quality;air quality;coastal wetlands;
cultural or historic sites;wildlife;fisheries resources;or public trust rights.
(e) This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any other required state,focal,or federal authorization.
(f) Development carried out under this permit must be consistent with all local requirements,AEC rules,and local land use
plans current at the time of authorization.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A-107(a); 113A-107(b); 113A-113(b);.113A-118.1;.113A-124;
Eff. March 1, 1984;
Amended Eff May 1, 1990;December I, 1987;
RRC Objection due to ambiguity Eff. May 19, 1994;
Amended Eff`.'August 1, 1998;July 1,.1994.
15A NCAC 07H.1105 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
(a) This general permit is applicable only along shorelines void of wetland vegetation including marsh grass and wooded
swamp,or where all construction is to be accomplished landward of such vegetation.
(b) Bulkheads and riprap material shall be positioned as follows:
(1) Bulkheads shall be positioned so as not to exceed more than an average distance of 2 feet waterward ofthe
normal high water mark,or the normal water level contour,whichever is applicable. In no case shall the
bulkhead be positioned more than 5 feet waterward of the normal high water or normal water level contour
at any point along its alignment.
(2) Riprap shall be positioned so as not to exceed a maximum of 5 feet waterward of the mean high water mark
or normal water level contour at any point along its alignment. Where there is an existing_ bulkhead
structure,riprap shall be allowed to extend a maximum of 10 feet offshore. This location standard shall
take into consideration the height of the area to be protected(i.e.bulkhead height.water depth)and the
alignment shall allow for a slope no flatter than 2 feet horizontal per 1 foot vertical and no steeper than I'/_
feet horizontal per I foot vertical.
(c) Along shorelines within upland basins,canals,and ditches,bulkheads or riprap material must be positioned so as not to
• exceed more than an average distance of 5 feet waterward of the normal high water mark or the normal water level contour.
whichever is applicable. In no case shall the bulkhead or riprap be positioned more than 10 feet waterward of the normal high
water or normal water level contour at any point along its alignment. For the purpose of these Rules,the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway(AIWW)is considered a natural shoreline and development shall occur as described in 7H.1 105(b).
(d) Construction authorized by this general permit shall be limited to a maximum shoreline length of 500 feet.
(e) All backfill material shall be obtained from an upland source.
(t) The bulkhead shall be constructed,or the riprap shall be in place prior to any backfilling activities.
(g) The bulkhead or riprap shall be structurally tight so as to prevent seepage of backfill materials through the structure.
(h) Riprap material shall be free from loose dirt or any other pollutant. It shall be of a size sufficient to prevent its movement
from the site by wave or current action.
(i) Riprap material shall consist of clean rock or masonry materials such as but not limited to granite or broken concrete.
Materials such as tires,car bodies,scrap metal,paper products,tree limbs,wood debris,organic material or similar material.
• are not considered riprap.
(j) The bulkhead shall be solid and constructed of treated wood,concrete slabs,metal sheet piles or other suitable materials
approved by department personnel. No excavation is permitted except for that which may be required for the construction of
the bulkhead wall,riprap,deadmen cables,etc. This permit does not authorize any excavation waterward of the inn m'i

•
•
•
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A-107(a); 113A-I07(b); 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1; 113A-124;
Eff. March I, 1984;
Amended Eff April 1,2005; December 1, 1991;January I, 1989;December 1, 1987.

?4-2006 10:16am From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 54TT T-688 P.001/002 F-384
WARD AND SMITH, P A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1001 College Court
Past Office Box 867
New Bean,NC 28563-0867
[phone] TELEPHONE
[phone] FACSIMILE
Date: October 24,2006
): Mr. Robb Mairs
)MPANY: NCDENR,Division of Coastal Management
DICE NUMBER: 910-796-7215
k.X NUMBER: 910-395-3964
[.OM: Robin L. Carberry
lient File Number: 040386-00001-001
ages including cover sheet:
'ime and Date transmitted: ID'. a M., October 24,2006
)perator:
:OMMENTS:
car Mr. Mairs:
ttached please find a signed copy of the CAMA General Permit issued to B &D Investments,LI C. I
)ologize for the delay in forwarding the permit to you.
.ind regards.
:obin

24-2006 10:16an From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 5477 T-683 P.002/002 F-334
-I3-21306 18:35 From: To:Fox Server '.2
ACAMA/ i l DREDGE& FILL, N 462
GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit#-
w nModificatian ❑Complete Reissue UPartI I Rod ue Date previous permit issued.
authorized by the State of North Carourm,Department of anvfronmenc and ral Riasourtes
d the Coastal Redourees Commission In an area of environment]concern pu t to 15A NCAG- r G 'W, '+4-712 2.
?id Ulmamc 2
pilcant Name_B. _l_rkaiiete1•te'1 1i.i..1` Pro{o4t Lacidan: County.. .1V ^tf '!+ Kr-
dress I.P.Or. ..`CQit. .Ct. ...i''p- iiD i'. go Street Address/St=Road/Lot/#(s)
w_.V44 L p CFI State w. ziPzt _... "' h J.�. -.—.. . .
hone#( ) r...iqYP41 Fax#( ).622.K-47/f Subdivision_._... . , .,-__.
uthasrfsad Agent i 41 7 4*.61 , / cicy.Wy 17..1#...6 eh_ ZIP 2 ..Sa_
aYbw few r •rA Liu IlPTS r'n' Phone# ( ___). 't,�le"....„, River Basin t...1 i
lieCt): nCRA ¶i HHP tJ IM U LAW U t11A ✓/ p s
(s?: MI.WV.9adrifrrrN 1
U PM/9: n Closest M 4.Wfr.BodyiraeI' k- •
5RW: Yes l 6 PNA yes /6 Crit.Haiti. yes / no
sty row ,y drr'�'►ut ' fri 74,101, f
' - G 1/7 .. to p�7z-- 2__,, -e0(sc /Flnser '
per40)_—_,.....,, ..: -4 i t .)! dr, 1 :--1 r. r. . .ili- b44,17 . ii.T. "4 "i#Itd
9friyi, ' -1 • , I H , t .
pir.
I. 1:
Bulthaadf cup length • . / } l i
a I f
avgrlstaraenetrahoro _ 1 i • � j
_, 'ala charx�al -f , ; i
r• --ttt ,� r
cubic yardsi I i i I 1 i ` •I re,. t "d71/rcl`
Aest ramp t _-i- ,�l : ..f 4�1 4 Tr=i!1'
Bedtliouso/a�tUft,_. __ — _—[ 1.- I .-{ _ • .—., ' .1 /!
•
Roach Isalldcain&, F F 1 '!•
i '4 . • I. i+ ' 1 - 04/
; II ! t ^frill
sl,are{In.Land , 1 ! .J t
SRA notnue. r� f� - _J _--�•�-`' t_ T. ,..T. T} i
Sandbags: eat sure Yet 0 hill • 4 r I I n • _ i # - 1,
lit . I' ll
Moratorium Ns yes � j -' �' .. _ • -I
i*d°1/ It LJ, 7 1 ii
A building permre may be required by: r �4���_. e 9 �_ - n See note on back regarding Ri:cr Basin rules.
Notes/Spatial Conditions r fed �. r17.pp rn /1 !'fa e/ZC'-'/+e.4-0 -L-'-
p / ' 4- � e� 44 i/ \ PAP / ,

4-2006 04:52pn From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 5477 7-227 P.001/011 F-939
WARD AND SMITH, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1001 College Court
Post Office Box 867
New Bern,NC 28563-0867
[phone] TELEPHONE
[phone] FACSIMILE
Date: October 4, 2006
): Mr. Rob Mairs
DMPANY: Division of Coastal Management
DICE NUMBER: 9 I 0-796-72 15
kX NUMBER: 910-395-6984
ROM: Frank H. Sheffield,Jr.
Kent File Number: 060860-00001
ages including cover sheet: 1 I
ime and Date transmitted: 412-3 M., October 4,2006
perator: S 1
OMMENTS:
;ase find herewith a copy of the Final Order dated September 27, 2006_

4-2006 04:52pn From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 6T2 54TT T-227 P.002/011 F-939
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLIN-
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSI DN
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER CRC-VR-06-22
IN THE MATTER OF: )
PETITION FOR VARIANCE ) FINAL ORDER
BY B & D INVESTMENTS, LLC )
This matter was heard on oral arguments and stipulated facts at the regularly scl eduled
meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission(hereinafter CRC)on Septerr ber 21,
2006,in Wilmington,North Carolina pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-1 20.1 and T 1 SA NCAC 7 f.0700,
et seq. Assistant Attorney General Meredith Jo Alcoke appeared for the Departr lent of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management; Frank Sheffield al speared
on behalf of Petitioners B &D Investments, LLC.
Upon consideration of the record documents and the arguments of the parties, tl e CRC
adopts the following:
STIPULATED FACTS
I. Petitioner is B &D Investments,LLC. Petitioner owns a lot at 502 North Channel Drive
in Wrightsville Beach,North Carolina.
2. The property has approximately 37 linear feet of shoreline. The street side proper y line
is approximately 70 feet long.
3. One of Petitioner's side property lines is not perpendicular to the shoreline,results ig in a
trapezoidal shaped lot with the shortest side on the shoreline.

4-2006 04:52pe From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 6T2 547T T-227 P.003/011 F-939
NCAC §§ 7H .O2O8(b)(6)(L) and 7I3 .1205(o).
6. The shoreline along Petitioner's property is not parallel to the town pier head line. As a
res'alt, the riparian area appurtenant to Petitioner's property does not extend
perpendicularly from the shoreline.
7. Because of the location of the mean high water line, the property's trapezoidal sha ie, and
the fact that the area of riparian access does not extend perpendicularly from the
shoreline, the width of Petitioner's riparian access area is only 31.78 feet.
8. Petitioner's lot was one of very few remaining undeveloped lots on this stretch of
shoreline. Petitioner has recently constructed a residence on the lot.
9_ In 2004, Petitioner requested that the Division of Coastal Management issue a Co;stal
Area Management Act ("CAMA")General Permit for construction of a boat pier nd
docking facility to provide riparian access to deep water.
10. In accordance with CAMA permitting rules, Petitioner sent notice concerning the
requested permit to the adjoining property owners. Ms. Deborah Walker owns thf
property immediately to the north of Petitioner's property and has constructed a pi er in
front of her property. The Town of Wrightsville Beach(the"Town") owns the pry Iperty
(identified as 5th Avenue) immediately to the south of Petitioner's property. Dr. abra L.
McNeil owns the property immediately to the south of the Town property and has
constructed a pier in front of her property.
11. The property owned by the Town to the south of Petitioner's property is an unpav.td and

4-2006 04:52pm From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 5477 T-227 P.004/011 F-939
as a practical matter, hinder public access to Banks Channel. The end of the right-of-way
is shown on the two photographs in the Stipulated Exhibits,Attachment F, The p:oposal
pending before the CRC will not affect the public use of the right-of-way,which c auld be
used for activities such as fishing, swimming, and launching canoes.
12. Pursuant to § 150.12(A)(2) of the Ordinances of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, no pier,
dock, or other structure shall be constructed which is closer than 15 feet to the ow ter's
extended property lines_ This requirement, together with related §§150.12(A)(1) :aid (4),
are referred to herein collectively as the"Town pier construction setbacks."
13. It is uncommon for a local government to have setbacks for docks and piers.
14. Pursuant to an Encroachment Agreement dated August 6, 2004, the Town agreed :o
waive its setback requirement and allow construction of Petitioner's pier within b)th the
Town's pier construction setbacks and the CRC's 15-foot setback from areas of parian
access. At its April 8, 2005 meeting, the CRC granted a variance from its 15-foe t
riparian setback requirements and approved a pier that extended across the Town's
riparian area and also extended approximately 10 feet into the setback from Dr. l4:cNeill's
riparian area.. This proposal did not involve any encroachment into Ms. Walker's
riparian area.. (CRC-VR-04-27)
15. Ms. Walker and other local residents objected to the permit that was issued pursu ini to
variance. On or about May 12,2005, the Town purported to rescind the Encroae anent
Agreement.

4-2006 04:52pm From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 5477 T-227 P.005/011 F-939
•
into the CRC's 15-foot setback from the Town's riparian area. This design ran the pier
along the north side of the Town's riparian area and out to the Town's pier head li1.e, in
order to minimize interference with Ms. Walker's existing pier. The Town has no-
structures in its riparian area and,at the time of these stipulations,the parties are n)t
aware of any plans to place a structure in that area.
17. At its closest point, the proposed pier would be within approximately 9 feet of Ms
Walker's pier,which encroaches into Petitioner's riparian corridor,as discussed b.;low.
18. After objection by Ms. Walker and other local residents at a public hearing,the Tc wn
rejected the April 27, 2006 proposal and refused to waive its CAMA setback.
19. Ms. Walker's pier encroaches into Petitioner's riparian corridor as defined under t ae
CRC's rules. In 1990,Ms. Walker purported to build her pier under an exemptiol from
permitting, pursuant to 15 NCAC § 7K.0203(c)(1) (effective June 1, 1986). Flow ever,
Ms. Walker's pier did not qualify for the exemption because it comes within the 15-foot
setback of a neighbor's riparian line and it encroaches into a neighbor's riparian c rridor.
This was the case regardless whether the riparian lines as established by the Divis on of
Coastal Management or by the Town of Wrightsville Beach were applied. Morec ver,
under the regulation,the exemption did not apply when any setback waiver was
necessary. 15 NCAC § 7K .0203(c)(1). As built,the Walker pier does not compl /with
either the CRC's rules or the Town's pier construction setbacks.
20. The Town's pier constriction setbacks and the CRC's rules for riparian setbacks create

4-2006 04:53pm From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 5477 T-227 P.006/011 F-939
otherwise meet the CRC's riparian setback rules if one of its two neighbors waives the
15-foot setback required by the CRC. The Town and Ms. Walker have declined to waive
the setbacks.
22. On May 15, 2006, Counsel for Petitioner requested that the Division of Coastal
Management issue a Coastal Area Management Act("CAMA") General Permit fe
construction of a boat pier and docking facility to provide riparian access to deep \iater.
23. In accordance with CAMA permitting rules, Petitioner sent notice concerning the
requested permit to the adjoining property owners.
24. Through counsel,Ms. Walker did not waive her setback and objected to the propo ed
design. The proposed pier, dock and deck are not within Ms. Walker's CAMA se back.
The Town did not waive its setback.
25. The proposed dock and pier is very similar to that proposed to the Town on April ?7,
2006. The proposed pier and dock is to be approximately 184 feet in total length,
extending from Petitioner's property to the town pier head line. The proposal inci tides a
142' x 6' pier, a 32' x 6' floating dock, a connecting ramp, and a 14' x 10' deck.
26. The proposed pier, dock and deck would be constructed immediately north of the town's
riparian area, encroaching into nearly ail of the Town's 15-foot setback. The pro/ osaI is
entirely within Petitioner's riparian corridor as defined by the CRC.
27: The proposed pier will be approximately 9 feet from Ms. Walker's closest pier st ucture.
The Wrightsville Beach Planning Department has determined that the proposal v olates

14-2006 04:53pm From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 5477 7-227 P.007/011 F-939
that Petitioner could not meet the riparian setback requirements for a general perni t as
described in 15A NCAC 7H .1205.
29. Petitioner filed this variance request on or about May 19,2006. Petitioner seeks a
variance from the CRC's riparian setback rules in 15A NCAC Ill 1205(o) in orde-to
construct a pier as proposed in Exhibit A to its petition.
30. Petitioner also seeks a variance from 15A NCAC 7H .0601, a CRC rule that prohil,its
the agency from approving development in any AEC which would result in a
contravention or violation of any rules, regulations,or laws of the State of North C arolina
or of local government in which the development takes place.
31. If the CRC will not grant the requested variances, Petitioner has stipulated that it i :
willing to modify the proposal to shorten the pier significantly and/or to move it tc the
north to reduce the intrusion to approximately 5 feet(rather than 15) into the Tow is
riparian setback. Shortening the pier will place the end of the pier in shallower w;ter,
requiring Petitioner to apply for a dredging permit for excavation so that a vessel c ould be
moored. Application for such a dredging permit will include notice to adjacent o /tiers
and potential review by other agencies. Petitioner will also have to obtain the nec;ssary
building permit from the Town.
32. Without any variance from the CRC,Petitioner could not, as a practical matter, c nstruct
a pier because the area available within all setbacks is only 1.78 feet wide and ext ends
only to the point that the Town's pier construction setbacks converge, a maximun of

-04-2006 04:53pm From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 5477 T-227 P.008/011 F-930
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The CRC has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
2. All notices for the proceeding were adequate and proper.
3. The Petitioner has demonstrated that strict application of ISA NCAC 7H .1205(0)
and 15A NCAC 7H _0601 to its permit application will result in unnecessary hardship. It s nor
common for a local government to have its own requirements regarding the placement of locks
and piers in the water. The Town's requirements exceed the CRC's rules,which do not it elude a
"structural" setback. The combination of the Town's pier construction setbacks together•vith the
CRC's required setbacks from the adjacent property owners' areas of riparian access caus�s
Petitioner to be unable to construct a pier_ In addition to having to meet two setbacks,Pe.itioner
is also affected by the fact that the Walker pier encroaches into Petitioner's area of nparia a
access. Although Petitioner has reasonable use of the property through the construction c f a
home, Petitioner does not have the ability to construct a pier due the lot size, the bend in the
shoreline, the conflicting requirements set by the Town and the CRC, and the fact that the
Walker pier encroaches into Petitioner's area of riparian access.
4_ The Petitioner has demonstrated that its hardship results from conditions )eculiar
to Petitioner's property such as the location, size, or topography of the property. Petitioner has
only 37 linear feet of shoreline. The hardship of not being able to construct a pier on this lot is
caused in part by the size and trapezoidal shape of Petitioner's lot, combined with its loc.Ltion on

14-2006 04:53pm From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 547T T-22T P.000/011 F-939
has taken. Instead, Petitioner's hardship is caused by the lot size,the bend in the shoreline the
conflicting requirements set by the Town and the CRC, and the fact that the Walker pier
encroaches into Petitioner's area of riparian access.
6. The Petitioner has demonstrated that its proposed development is within tie
spirit,purpose and intent of the Commission's rules;that it will secure public safety and w!]Care;
and that it will preserve substantial justice. Granting a variance allows Petitioner to cxerc se its
riparian rights, while not unduly interfering with navigation on what is an already crowdec
shoreline. Petitioner's proposed pier is designed to minimize impacts to navigation in se\2ral
ways. It is aligned so that it is adjacent to the Town's riparian area to the south. This
configuration encroaches entirely within the Town's 15-foot setback,which the Town has
declined to waive_ Yet, this alignment it is still a better option than aligning the pier to th:north
toward Ms. Walker's pier because the Town has no pier in its riparian area. Because the'['own
property has only 15 feet of shoreline, it is unlikely that there will ever be a pier structure there.
The floating dock at the end of the pier is designed so that its support pilings are on Ms. Valker's
side(north), leaving the Town side as the most likely or convenient side on which to moc r a
boat. Although the pier would be located within approximately 9 feet of the outermost p iriion of
Ms. Walker's pier and she has objected to the proposal,this potential navigation problerr is
caused in part by Ms. Walker's encroachment into Petitioner's riparian corridor.
ORDER
THEREFORE, the variance from 15A NCAC 7H .1205(o)and 15 A NCAC 71-1 .)601 is

14-2006 04:53pm From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 672 5477 T-227 P.010/011 F-039
a CAMA permit from the proper permitting authority.
This variance is based upon the Stipulated Facts set forth above. The Commission
reserves the right to reconsider the granting of this variance and to take any appropriate ac ion
should it be shown that any of the above Stipulated Facts is not true.
This the 47_day of September. 2006.
Courtney T. Hac ey, Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission

J4-2006 04:53pm From-WARD AND SMITH, PA-3000, NB 252 6T2 5477 T-227 P.011/011 F-939
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
• This is to certify that I have caused the foregoing Final Order to be served upon thc:
Petitioner by depositing a copy thereof in the U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RI.TURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED with sufficient postage for delivery and addressed to:
B & D INVESTMENTS,LLC CERTIFIED MAIL
Frank Sheffield
Ward and Smith
PO Box 867
New Bern,NC 28563-0867
Jason Thomas CERTIFIED MAIL
Hunton&Williams
P.O. Box 109
Raleigh,NC 27602
Meredith Jo Alcoke
Assistant Attorney General
400 Commerce Way
Morehead City, NC 28557
This the 7 day of September, 2006.
•
3i B.Hi key
pecial Deputy Attorney G eral
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-9001
Counsel to the Commission

}.•STAT(oH.
7 .Qn
•
•:•; :• CRC-VR-06-22
State of North Carolina
OY COOPER Department of Justice
)RNEt'GENERAL 9001 Mail Service Center
R SLEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
•
2 7699-900 I
•
TO: Coastal Resources Commission
FROM: Meredith Jo Alcoke
Assistant Attorney General
DATE: September 7, 2006 (for the September 21-22, 2006 CRC Meeting)
RE: Variance Request by B&D Investments, LLC
Petitioner owns property at 502 North Channel Drive in Wrightsville Beach, New
Hanover County. The lot is 36.92 feet wide and is located in a slight bend in the shoreline of
Banks Channel. Petitioner wishes to construct a pier but cannot meet the 15-foot setback
required from the adjacent property owner's area of riparian access. Therefore, Petitioner seeks a
variance from the general permit conditions in 15A NCAC 7H .1205(o) in order to construct a
pier. This is the second variance request filed by Petitioner after re-designing the proposed
structure.
The following additional information is attached to this memorandum:
Attachment A: Relevant Rules, including Wrightsville Beach Ordinance re: Piers
Attachment B: Stipulated Facts
Attachment C: Petitioner's Position and Staff's Responses to Criteria
' Attachment D: Petitioner's Variance Request Materials
Attachment E: Adjacent Riparian Property Owner Objection
Attachment F: Stipulated Exhibits

CRC-VR-06-22
ATTACHMENT B
STIPULATED FACTS
1. Petitioner is B & D Investments, LLC. Petitioner owns a lot at 502 North Channel Drive in
Wrightsville Beach,North Carolina.
2. The property has approximately 37 linear feet of shoreline. The street side property line is
approximately 70 feet long.
3. One of Petitioner's side property lines is not perpendicular to the shoreline, resulting in a
trapezoidal shaped lot with the shortest side on the shoreline.
4. Petitioner's lot is situated on a slight bend in the shoreline of Banks Channel.
5. Regarding the Petitioner's property and other properties in the area, the established town pier
head line is the "line along the channel or deep water," within the meaning of 15A NCAC §S 7H
.0208(b)(6)(L) and 7H .1205(o).
6. The shoreline along Petitioner's property is not parallel to the town pier head line. As a
result, the riparian area appurtenant to Petitioner's property does not extend perpendicularly from
the shoreline.
7. Because of the location of the mean high water line, the property's trapezoidal shape, and the
fact that the area of riparian access does not extend perpendicularly from the shoreline, the width
of Petitioner's riparian access area is only 31.78 feet.
8. Petitioner's lot was one of very few remaining undeveloped lots on this stretch of shoreline.
Petitioner has recently constructed a residence on the lot.
9. In 2004, Petitioner requested that the Division of Coastal Management issue a Coastal Area
Management Act ("CAMA") General Permit for construction of a boat pier and docking facility
to provide riparian access to deep water.
10. In accordance with CAMA permitting rules, Petitioner sent notice concerning the requested
permit to the adjoining property owners. Ms. Deborah Walker owns the property immediately to

CRC-VR-06-22
did not qualify for the exemption because it comes within the 15-foot setback of a neighbor's
riparian line and it encroaches into a neighbor's riparian corridor. This was the case regardless
whether the riparian lines as established by the Division of Coastal Management or by the Town
of Wrightsville Beach were applied. Moreover, under the regulation, the exemption did not
apply when any setback waiver was necessary. 15 NCAC § 7K .0203(c)(l). As built, the Walker
pier does not comply with either the CRC's rules or the Town's pier construction setbacks.
20. The Town's pier construction setbacks and the CRC's rules for riparian setbacks create
conflicting lines in this case.
21. If Petitioner did not have to comply with the Town's pier construction setbacks, it could
otherwise meet the CRC's riparian setback rules if one of its two neighbors waived the 15-foot
setback required by the CRC. The Town and Ms. Walker have declined to waive the setbacks.
22. On May 15, 2006, Counsel for Petitioner requested that the Division of Coastal Management
issue a Coastal Area Management Act ("CAMA") General Permit for construction of a boat pier
and docking facility to provide riparian access to deep water.
23. In accordance with CAMA permitting rules, Petitioner sent notice concerning the requested
permit to the adjoining property owners.
24. Through counsel, Ms. Walker did not waive her setback and objected to the proposed
design. The proposed pier, dock and deck are not within Ms. Walker's CAMA setback. See
objection letter attached hereto as Attachment E and incorporated by reference. The Town did
not waive its setback.
25. The proposed dock and pier is very similar to that proposed to the Town on April 27, 2006.
The proposed pier and dock is to be approximately 184 feet in total length, extending from
Petitioner's property to the town pier head line. The proposal includes a 142' x 6' pier, a 32' x 6'
floating dock, a connecting ramp, and a 14' x 10' deck.
26. The proposed pier, dock and deck would be constructed immediately north of the Town's
riparian area, encroaching into nearly all of the Town's 15-foot setback. The proposal is entirely
within Petitioner's riparian corridor as defined by the CRC.
27. The proposed pier will be approximately 9 feet from Ms. Walker's closest pier structure. The

CRC-VR-06-22
ATTACHMENT C
Petitioner and Staff Positions
I. Will strict application of the applicable development rules, standards, or orders
issued by the Commission cause the petitioner unnecessary hardships? If so, the
petitioner must identify the hardships.
Petitioner's Position: Yes.
Due to the encroachment by Walker's pier into Petitioner's riparian area, as defined by
CAMA Rules, Petitioner does not have adequate space within which to construct a pier in
compliance with both Town requirements and CAMA Rules. Petitioner seeks authorization to
construct a pier as shown on Exhibit A, which would be situated immediately to the north of the
Town's riparian area. Without such authorization, Petitioner will experience practical difficulties
and hardships by not being able to enjoy the benefits of a pier in front of its property. Virtually
every other lot along Channel Drive has the benefit of a pier.
Staff s'Position: Yes.
The combination of the Town's pier construction setbacks together with the CRC's
required setbacks from the adjacent property owners' areas of riparian access causes Petitioner a
hardship in this case. It is not common for a local government to have its own requirements
regarding the placement of docks and piers in the water. The Town's requirements exceed the
CRC's rules, which do not include a"structural" setback. hl addition to having to meet two
setbacks, Petitioner is also affected by the fact that the Walker pier encroaches into Petitioner's
area of riparian access. Although Petitioner has reasonable use of the property through the
construction of a home, Petitioner does not have the ability to construct a pier due the lot size, the
bend in the shoreline, and to some degree, the conflicting requirements set by the Town and the
CRC. DCM agrees that Petitioner has an unnecessary hardship in this case for the
aforementioned reasons.
II. Do such hardships result from conditions peculiar to the petitioner's property,
such as location, size, or topography of the property? Explain.

CRC-VR-06-22
support pilings are on Ms. Walker's side (north), leaving the Town side as the most likely or
convenient side on which to moor a boat.
Nonetheless, the pier would still be located within approximately 9 feet of the outermost
portion of Ms. Walker's pier and she has objected to the proposal. This proximity could
adversely impact Ms. Walker or her successor's ability to access the existing boat slip on that
dock. Although this potential navigation problem is caused in part by Ms. Walker's
encroachment into Petitioner's riparian corridor, it is also caused by Petitioner's very narrow
riparian corridor which presents limitations despite the Walker pier or the Town's additional
setbacks. On the whole, DCM cannot support the alignment proposed due to Ms. Walker's and
the Town's objections to it and in light of the potential interference with navigation.
The variance will not secure public safety and welfare due to the navigation issues
discussed above. The public has the right to navigate among and between these piers just as the
adjacent owners do, and a mere nine foot separation between those waterward structures is
insufficient for the navigating public. Finally, the variance will not preserve substantial justice
because construction of the pier, as proposed, will not create a just and equitable result for all
parties.

DCM FORM 11
PETITIONER'S NAME B&D Investments. LLC CAMA VARIANCE
REQUEST
COUNTY Counts' of New Hanover
FILE NUMBER
(Petitioner leave blank)
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 1 13A-120.1 and 15A North Carolina Administrative
Code 7J Section .0700. the petitioner in this matter applies to the Coastal Resources Commission
for a variance.
The undersigned states that (check one):
He or she has received a final decision on an Application for CAMA
Major Development Permit: or
•
He or she has received a final decision on an Application for a CAMA
Minor Development Permit
For this variance request to he complete, the petitioner must provide the information listed
helm. The undersigned petitioner verifies that this variance request is complete and
includes:
the case name and location of the development as identified on the permit application:
an explanation of the reasons why the petitioner believes that the Commission should
grant a variance (petitioner must provide complete responses to the four questions
presented on this form, and should be able to answer (a) and (b) in the affirmative, (c) in
the negative, and (d) in the affirmative;
a copy of the permit application and denial for the development in question:
the date of the petition, and the name, address, and phone number of the petitioner: and
a complete description of the proposed development, including a site drawing with

J
(c) Do the hardships result from actions taken by the petitioner? Explain.
NO. See attached Petition for Variance.
(d) Will the variance requested by the petitioner (1) be consistent with the spirit,
purpose. and intent of the rules, standards or orders issued by the Commission; (2)
secure the public safety and welfare; and (3) preserve substantial justice?
Explain.
YES. See attached Petition for Variance.
Due to the above information and pursuant to statute, the undersigned hereby requests a
arianee•.
Thi. the `' day of May. 2006.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
Bv: �`-
Charles D. Case
N.C. State Bar No. 7652
Jason S. Thomas
N.C. State Bar No. 16527
P.O. Box 109
Raleigh. North Carolina 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
Thi\ variance iance request must he .served on the Director, Division of Coastal ManaRernent, and the

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
B&D INVESTMENTS, LLC, )
Petitioner, )
vs. )
PETITION FOR VARIANCE •
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT )
AND NATURAL RESOURCES. )
DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT. )
Respondent. )
B&D Investments, LLC ("Petitioner"), by and through counsel, submits this Petition for
Variance seeking a variance determination by the Commission regarding the 15-foot riparian
setback rule set forth as I SA N.C. Admin. Code fi 7H .0208(b)(6)(L) and 15A N.C. Admin. Code
711 .1205w ("Rules"). In support of this Petition for Variance, Petitioner says as follows:
I. On March 22. 2006. Petitioners consultant, Mr. Jeff Terry, submitted plans
concerning a private docking facility proposed for 502 North Channel Drive in Wrightsville
Beach. New Hanover County. A true and correct copy of the plans is attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
2. In a letter dated March 31. 2006, Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Representative for the
Division of Coastal Management ("DCM") responded, saying "[t]he proposal appears to be
rnns.iot'nt ..•irh thr f;PnPrtl Permit r.Itirip ;nP. CPt fnnh 1 c A N'r'A r n-7L1 1')M ;f,. 1 G

8. Due to the encroachment by Walker's pier into Petitioners riparian area, as
defined by CAMA Rules, Petitioner does not have adequate space within which to construct a
pier in compliance with both Town requirements and CAMA Rules.
9. Petitioner seeks authorization to construct a pier as shown on Exhibit A. which
would he situated immediately to the north of the Town's riparian area.
10. Without such authorization, Petitioner will experience practical difficulties and
hardships by not being able to enjoy the benefits of a pier in front of its property. Virtually every
other lot along Channel Drive has the benefit of a pier.
I I. The inability of Petitioner to receive a permit without a variance is peculiar to
Petitioner's property because of the conflict between Town and CAMA Rules concerning how' a
waterfront property's riparian area is defined. The conflict in rules, together with the bend in the
shoreline at this point, precludes Petitioner from having sufficient space within which to
construct a dock in front of his property. Without such conflict in rules and the presence of an
encroaching pier. Petitioner would he able to construct a pier in compliance with CAMA Rules.
12. The hardship created by not being able to construct a pier did not result from any
actions taken by Petitioner.
13. Petitioner was previously granted a variance by the Commission (Final Order
CRC-CR-04-27). However, that variance was based, in part, on an Encroachment Agreement
ith the Town. The Town subsequently purported to rescind the Encroachment Agreement. As
a result. Petitioner has surrendered to DCM the permit that was issued pursuant to Final Order

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this Variance Request has been served on the State agencies named
below by depositing the original with an overnight mail service for delivery tomorrow and by
depositing a copy of it with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage for delivery
by first class mail to the following:
Charles S. Jones, Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
• Morehead City, NC 28557
and by depositing a copy of it with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage for
delivery by first class mail to the following:
Meredith Jo Alcoke, Esq.
Attorney General's Office
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
This the 0 day of May. 2006.

EXHIBI
. s
Al;
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William C. Ross Jr.,Secretary
March 31, 2006
B D Investments
CO% Jason S. Thomas, Esq.
One Hanover Square, #1400
Raieirr NC. 27602
RE: B K: D Investments, LLC Y~
502 N. Channel Dr•
Wrir•rhtsville Beach, New Hanover County
De Mr. Thomas,s:
This Office has reviewed the request and plans submitted by Mr. Jeff Terry, of Above Par
Mai-Me Consnuction, dated March 22, 2006, concernine the proposed private docking facility at
502 N. Channel Dr. in Wrightsville Beach,New Hanover County. The proposal appears to be
consistent with the General Permit Guidelines set fora in 15A NCAC 07H .1200 if a 15 foot
riparian setback waive: is obtained from the Town of Wrightsville Beach.
I_::o.: have any questions concerning this letter or if I can be of any other assistance, please
adv se.
Sin v L
riobb Nlairs .
Field Representative
cc• Doug Huggett, DCM
Henry Wicker, COE
Tony Wilson, Inspections Dept., Town of Wrightsville Beach
Jeff Terry, Marine Contractor
Wilmington Files

ianagement issue a Coastal Area Management Act("C.• MA")Major Development General Permit
tr cens:n:ction of 2 boat pier and docking facility to provide riparian (deep water) access.
i.-: accordance with CAMA permitting rules;Petitioner sent notice concerning the requested
!.:.,1: 1‘ ce:;;f ed m ail to the adjoining. property owners. Ms. Deborah Walker owns the property
...n-.:-.':.'tate.tv tc the north of Petitioner's prcperry and has constructed a pier in front ofherproperry.
:- TJ.wr. :: W. _ .avilie Beach (the "Town")
owns the property (identified as 5th Avenue)
..._,.:_._ . the south of Petitioner's property. Dr. Sabra L. McNeil owns the
property
.'- ..••- •: of:he.i c; rr. errs• and has constructed a pier in front of her properry.
. .:.. __.: to :50.;2(A.1(2) of the Ordinances of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, no pier,
.. . .....:.,.re shall be constructed which is closer than 15 feet to the owner's extended
•::: ... ..':drna-tce also recutres in c 150.12(A)(4) that no pier, dock, or other structure
%%t::ar :5 fee: or any other pier unless tt is a part of the same mooting system.
• ' . . .._--gists are referred to herein as the "Town pier construction setbacks."
:_-:.-nor. for a local government to have setbacks for docks and piers.
--=•: :: ar. Encroac:risen: Agrce-ncnt dated August 6, 2004, the Town agreed to waive
• - •- . •.....en: and allow construction of Petitioner's pier within both the Town's pier
•'.. -. se:;'acks and the CRC's 15-foot setback from areas of riparian access.
Ms 'Walker's pier was constructed in accordance with the Town's pier construction setback
er::ents`lt encroaches into Petitioner's riparian area as defined under the CRC's rulcs.)
The Tov•-•s pier construction setbacks and the CRC's rules for nparian setbacks create

3. All notices for the proceeding were adequate and proper.
4. The Petitioner has demonstrated that strict application of Rule 15A NCAC 7H .1205
tc :s permit application will result in unnecessary hardship. The Petitioner's variance request
•••c• .is =no the staff recommmendation are incorporated by reference as support for this conclusion.
Petitioner has demonstrated that its hardship results from conditions that are unique
7 ro err\ The Pe:.:loner's var'.ance request materials and the staff recommendation
1,y.refercnce as support for this conclusion.
• ••- -• has demcnsrrated :'r.at its hardship does not result from actions it has
-.._ . .....�.._r s 'a.-a.-tce ,ecues: •;,ate ;als and the staff recommendation arc incorporated
.:_•.. .. _. :-'crt for :his conclusion.
= Pet,ttciie: demonstrated that its proposed development is within the spirit,
_- . _.. _..: c f:he Ce :ss:on's riles, that it will secure public safety and welfare; and that
• _: s ^s:a- :tai usttce The Petitioner's variance request materials and the staff
-- • are incorporated by reference as support for thus conclusion.
ORDER
. .-i-7\EoRi. the 'anance from 15A NCAC 7H .0208(b)(6)(L) and 7H .1205(o) is
:trig of this vanance does not relieve Petitioner of the responsibility for obtaining
permit from the proper permitting authonty.
s the 2 6-day of April, 2005.
/ 7Z._L•.ar

-18-2006 16:08 From: To:Fax Server 8 p 3,`
XCAMA/ ❑DREDGE & FILL N9 41,,
GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit#
New ❑Modification GComplote Reissue `Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued
,chorizod by the State of North Carolina,Department of Environment and Natural Resources. �'I2.0
he Coastal Resources Commission In an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC i/�v p'
? ,�/i7 Rules accachod
[cant Name__o 4.. J'>i Z .e.7/ .s Project Location: County /Uli// /1j,C.rie
ess 2?2 `1�/ �/f�G,_ • Street Address/State Road/Lot#(s)
L�`�'1To:P/1/e J State ZIP ;5-2g/ 0.2___4 C 4>r/ne // .br_._..`
Ic # )_gy,'!�' Fax #( ) r-- Subdivision !/ 7
orized Agent 4 /..�___ City Vr 7SL'/'//e• ,eli'4'4 Zip
Z
/ b
.0 vow A 11 ES ',A PTS Phone# ( ) CDs 7_e. River Basin de4y41.0',6;tedC OEA HHF IH C UBA ❑N/As Adj.Wtr. Body . � 1 ` � �(ecLman
6
PWS `FC.
f yes / PNA yes / Q Crlt. Hab, yes / no Closest Maj. Wtr. Body_ '/5 ',p�L�-_ CsGr
/Art /o f ProjoctJ Activity t� s /// /2/C/-, f /�� ���/ 7 H�
, 7" C72 Q r C2 — / / g 7 �% (Scale: ii 1k,
pit _/ n ' _ 154 ��� ' . ��, s CG>ra.,�e
,-
;in le-gh
numaar—
aneac"R;Dr^o Icrgtn .n,, n In t.lt.]nce offshore � 7/4
5�'� /.�/Ilr-
mu Cntarco o(fsrwre11 /,n.means, _- ---1 Tt�/
CUD.c yurCs /C .
it'ouousa•Boy;lift I
:n B,i;oos nq \
fl \`/ _ O
ro,,re_er .n r \C \y,
I
e net ture yes d57 ..1 10 \
—-- - -- — - — .
Cnis act sure yes el, /%
raCcrium- Na yet cifif
ices . yy an
no•As..c.>.d 4i+�/,�
wldi-.8 Derma maybe required by: ram` Ie6 • T _ See note on Dace rezardln;Rorer Basin rules.

•
FP:GEN./El)
ITIUNTON AA), 2 4 ZOOG
WHIMSHUNTON&WILLIAMS LLP
POST OFFICE BOX 109
Moreriead City DC RALEIGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TEL [phone]
FAX 919.833•6352
• VALERIE G.CHAFFIN.CP.REM.NCCP
CERTIFIED PARALEGAL
DIRECT DIAL:919-899-30-4 •
EMAIL: [e-mail]
May 19, 2006
FILE NO:67120.000002
Charles S. Jones, Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: B&D Investments. LLC v. DENR and Division of Coastal Management
Dear Mr. Jones:
Enclosed please find an original and two copies of an Addendum to Petition for Variance to be
filed with the Petition we sent to you yesterday. Please file and return at least one of the copies
to our office for our files.
Upon receipt and review, do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Valerie G. Chaffin, CP, REM, NCCP
Certified Paralegal
cc: Meredith Jo Alcoke, Esq.
Attorney General's Office
Environmental Division

Based upon the matters stated in this Addendum to Petition for Variance, Petitioner
respectfully requests that Exhibit A of this Addendum be included in the Petition for Variance.
This the (?1X day of May,2006.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
By:__& 1,'
Ch rle . Case
N.C. State Bar No. 7652
Jason S. Thomas
N.C. State Bar No. 16527
P.O. Box 109
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

-19-2006 08:33 From: To:Fax SerL
EXHIBIT
AitA 5
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Aichael F. Easley, Governor Chases S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secret
May 18, 2006
:ertified Mail 7004 2510 0001 8280 0291
teturn Receipt Requested
I & D Investments, LLC
;/o Richard E. Dworsky
'.0. Box 3476
;hapel Hill, N.0 27515
)ear Mr. Dworsky:
The Division of Coastal Management has reviewed your proposal for the construction of a pier,
larform and floating dock, located at 502 North Channel Drive, in Wrightsville Beach, N.C. Unfortunately
to Division of Coastal Management is not able to process your request for a pier and docking facility under
:AMA General Permit due to specific site conditions (i.e. unable to meet adjacent riparian setback
equirements as described in 15A NCAC 07H .1205).
Based upon these findings, the Division of Coastal Management is denying your request for a CAM./
;eueral Permit. However, you may petition for a variance from the Coastal Resource Commission (CRC) h
-leans of the procedures described in 15A NCAC 07J .0700. 1 have enclosed a copy of the subject ruling as
yell as the CAMA Variance Request Form (DCM Form 11).
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincer
Robb Mairs
Field Representative
'r• Trri Tunrinll rl(`AA

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NO fil.ICATION/WAIVER FORM
Name of Individual Applying For Permit: B & D INVESTMENTS, L
LC
Address of Property: orth Channel Drive
(Lot or Street#, Street or Road) R EC E�V
GCM WILr✓11NGTpN,
Wrightsville Beach, NC - New Hanover County MAR 3 1 200E
(Ciry and County) •
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above-referenced property.
e ind
applying for this permit has described to me as shown on the attached drawing the dev to men i
are proposing. A description or drawing; with dimensions, should be provided with this e to
I have no objections to this proposal. • .
. If you have objections to What•is. being proposed, please write_ the Division Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 2 of Co3
0
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the call objectic910
you have been notified by Certified Mail. 7htA_ oi,a,A, 6,4-- I
same as no
WAD- S . 1 • .
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boat house or boat lift must be
bck a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access - unless waived by me wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate biank below.) �f
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
x I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
•C . —
"March 2006
_
S ame Date
Tn n

CRC-VR-06-22
ATTACHMENT F
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE
STIPULATED EXHIBITS AND PHOTOS
THAT MAY BE, PRESENTED TO THE CRC
AS OVERHEAD SLIDES
AT THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER
SEP I 2 2C

tvkt
Y5 Gr P ro UNE�P/ \ \
�pN to�"'P\ca"i \ \
,�IP W— \or\ \ \
5Y5g6 , \'�\ \ \
3\I ` \�i� \ \ \
oI A \ \ \
/ I O I �65 y;••o �\ \ \ \\ \
n I \
2� � \ \ \ \Ng \
n a 2 \
_t• �� ► o�lt \ \ \ \v IT ^ \ P \
J Zia 1.VC h \ \ \ sQ CC \ 04
PIER 2 i-� - \N'\ \ �,c \Z
a�r 20 \,\\ \ \\ \y
�C 'o A
S. p y2
1 RIPARIAN > \ \ \ '° \98 \ Q• \ T."
LOTS 66 a 67 ` o \ \rp �a \
5,652 S.F. °' f 72 \
N w 0.13 AC.t ` .p \ \ \ < 1 f'
A'O �l"�(L�1w \ J 9
z X Z ` 9C'' l \ \ \J \ �J
z Z l `'Yk-•t p \ \ \
z s �, , \
a A•
la
v \¢ D t^O , J v
o i- i a ` i \ \
`Z \ \ 1IHWl LINE AS LOCA7O \ \
A• 1 $ \ '!;CN JANUARY 23,2005
•_ • Z O ELEVATION 2.68'NO '29
y0 30 `�2 \ \
\ \
2i1
-...�... N39:544 S.E TO' •• ,�9
1111.
CONC. S35'48'15"W 36.93' „ CONC. 1�" 5,2500 f\ \
BULKHEAD WOOD BULKHEAD _ AD
8U •• a\ ` \
• 15.99'Q 535.48'15"W 19•
\ �\
_� k - 25.00' o! it 18.19 /\
IIr/ _
I \ \\
r I J \ )\
A
I
I� \ \ ;.
o (651 \ /\
1 V \69 I \68 L^, .71 1. ---\- --

_. �.,
:" %'.. •
• 1
`` 1S ■
-- •-. :,. _I.", .... ...."-. 13-er... ''.:' --,-- •-,-.-... ,1„....., 11111111.11,44/.4, . . • . . Si..1 i01104,^4,, ,NI( 7,,, .,,,
\4.
. y 4,...,yi sZ ..
COMA .,it "" r '• /r a eN 41 t •i
^--) 'w _
. tz \"1c`,o / �7 j „,
/ ° \�
. 9 P / < r
y ;17
. - , ' /-'' : ' . , l' a "7-.... 49497. :. ; i _.'" Iti'
l Sits �.
ry

•*.' 'i.4.'.''' *1..:\...194rdorei, ,..448."0.,,,..,,od.eti.,-4., ,•• ,,...., ..•„: ........ .,, ,
•
.� �Ft;!
•-..,,,,i: Ir ..,•. I t“,4 tii ,ir ,p •
*Sltill „ . .*... #
/1) . 1•« O._ �, 7�'. at F .i•„ �, .�/ r H I rLt ry ��_
'��.� IS• ; •, 5r': `�.. t ` s f,i1� . r.�r, •�c',,�5,,-.K F13
y , ;.. , r,[ fit . 4.y�`
t rr .q j ,. 'f `f r a .1; r.
1 i ■ F.3 .1 i.• -" ,t y 11, r tA ; /�1 y,, r`rilyM1,.,,L f, .. S.§+...
r`� -'[, 1ii.:9M77.4~'� .. -1i..t' .r 5 r , vp 4r/A l,X,yi 1;fa 1M�^!�e.t':. L��y�'o.(`r:'
`' t /tee. y _ -:,♦+.�v:.w+.•a�.,l ° , -.:: Y, F• ;. ,. ��,i J i,.. of t �rt., ' tf y� d,
ypy�,�1�t' t't %
rt
it), wr.. ., r@,s,„,.. ♦ ' r„ ';r } A y ? ` ,VK � ' ;. _ 1 `it, l 1Fr � �>r'♦;� t �� t `
•: � llIR/� / l •` ,1 , i • F t .rt ti.• l • 4
•
i
. � � , � .i t i , F'• �' A3 yr' 3'� �Y7SV
t r� .- - -� B & D Investments property ':tft �`
. ♦ • a Ya
01A ./ u I r J { 1.

.1 , ' ''.— . ;',.'—"Ijyt , '5 ,4'•*: ! .-1'., ' , . ... . _ „...•. ,. . ..•,, . •••
.i.....'• *).- • ...• • .•:-;,',.; -,,,,, :. ...,i ,...,,,:,..4 • - , ( : .„ • ..1 ,,..
•.., .„,,'- - . ,...4,Ii:, . ,. t'..,,‘4.6,•':_, , r 4ersk. '--'-. ' -•-r ,I . .P•i,:, ..,. , . ?,F,i.6." ' **, . . IL .f-' " ;
. '. , t ' ' .:, -';,.. •
1 ririi :.r. • ... .....1'1.4...!
''-'•tti • ••' • „...' • '...''• ' 1 ''.::'_ ..-, •:
•: 4 191t!..•''' ., ' 5
, ., 1 ,,,,,,,s,.: . .':!:..i ,....,,% r. Ili• ; ? . ,.,
--,',--,.,,'''j' . - ' '.4*;:- . . ' '-. ''''::..-'‘Iii '; ..- :. ' '-'-'' '''i'''•• k -,. . ,----, . , .... . -,.,:- ,
...,....,„
. ...
_ ..,,..t.„,„- ,,,,_,. ...,.e • : ' , , ! .
'1 :. Noir '''''l • , le ' .' • "• ' • ''.1.,..'0 ."—. c -...*:-
w."' .. . ... '., . ..'-,. ., .•- ' ,..., .. • =.
l'''..' L.'... . .;:.-.".:.. 44,:liAi....'''''-'1e.;!t-.,LN4...' '',:., :Jg'' ' :.. • ' ' Ine i., ,., .•11'. I/ ' .• .... • 2 •' • • ' . I,V . '.*
..
PO. ''', • . . '. '12, "4'.V..,•'., ; • 1:.. •,,.. ,r'..,...,, ' e•-., ,,,„„ p. .,
,41.4ki..-,..,i, .- -..,:-.0,-.:,...I...„. - •' "If ', ... - ,iit • .-. . f""..
..„. 11.'il ,,,,,. . •.
•"I * . %'?,'.. ' •1
.. . .
1.. .,
•" ' /'•1 .1 t.'• -ti. • '
Z.
'
:t fl•er•,'•'.'17,...4,* ';',.;.a.P. . •, ,_ • . . ')el '.. -- .--". ' •., T4 —
.4':•••I.V.;;;""..;"'••'!'l'•:•;Ici.40.,•••. '''''''..' • ' ' , ,,., .. , .'- . -
ia
• ... ••'' . '
".••• ' , , 47,-.:3't.
,'4- .•j',#.,..f'.••• •.,,.. .Etzie.,-•.•,. ". , .. ., ,,
•••••--;:".f,". ,..,k•,. *!' ...7...,••''.. 4•Z' . • y j
--,:,... ;-'-..r: , - - " • ,:'•:' '- ' • . • . • , .- 4._
. •:•.! ,,411,0 _.
4, iy411.5.1ft.
,,,,,,,....... .., ....,......,.,_:..„
.,.. . „.. . ...
. .
• i, . .
.,.. •. f.... ,
• .,
' .
... .,
F. ' ,. t,. . •. . .
-..... :---- • „.
....... . • Si
..v. .1
. ,
..' .. . „
r
. ,..,nents . .••••
.,:.. . . • .C: ,
. .;.3:--:• __---4-101.!C:, . . ';',1•...,.,1: . i•
.. ,fr 4$ 4--,.te -.- ....`•
• ., • ,.-
. ..•.•
, ,' ... • -, r • . .• .
•
•, V*K.41*.g.i S. ' '.ftr1.4-.1.4 t''''' '''''. I ' .' . I ir. ' . •elniel‘r
ki
0411, ,, .:,47..,J..''3•,, .'.' . ... rk •r ,...'„,1". sit,..'"4" ...• ialiiiii• . ..1
- . ..
. .:
ti,40.. 0„il ileir.•.''...,:z
•
..,. . ,• . ... ...,-
,..,.,
5 '' •1 •• ON .. .,:2" ”' '•• '•• ;. • - . . •
1 • •,. ,.. ,
Li: ,,,. . . : i.!'.,' ;.'sin, ...71 " • Ot ,.e ..r,' .:''• -,:i...
, .'" 'A..1'-,14 n • i'l ' : ' -,
. . .
-.,..,
. -'",:.1'.::t.',..:71..y, -'`... .1''' .-• - - - .
. . . . i
.
.
•
., • ,
,'<t' •' ;i. • • ' .• . ,0.. .. •'..
. . .

��3cC • aF ' 4�7! � <► , �a :�*, � `„"`per' `.e ,c'..°r•'+t+"+- 'ct' /,:` • 9-rrz R J F: :-. F _ kcq .: « ' a •
•
s 6. 4�i--; n�"`-+- ...04. y•4 "'[,w `"-•m. ref'
44
,� 'c tfix•_ 'A�k'{�r�, .
. •
ql;v •
Syr
ri..
,IF
-.-",4 -
.„.
..-.4%,'... R ' r '' .7,. s.{.: .. +�,,-"� 4 r.� +~ .„I,
. ' _ . ,,. . _
'*' r• 7fc'* ice►- v d ,4, 4 ..
..,'" . *.' :‘,... '• ' . -: . ER I ftiri
•
r.-I iii :,...-r‘ ' I.:—. li. . 0-.
ri... fotti---1 i ,-..N.---0-- . :_ --,;. ;::_,z.i.') .
jii ,,-.4:_i;J.t.i. 1
ire; r•;,...1.1:-.. ;.. ._4,
- it
oinlitill
ii + ,�' 4. : + •< ' LjIU1ii
f
i
ea
r+^ tz...� `' _..... a=. t

I I '7—.:,-•i'•r,f---...,..:A.
, .'..4-• 1 ....___..- . 1
174,-
i
•
— • ' .
. f
t-17 • . .t.:Li_ 1 ,_. :, .
• . it.
., .t,.t 1., tit:14,044t ;t' '- 1 ir C 1 tfr f- -7 , --'.i ----
,
I
: 43 r Ai, , . /0
i 4..,
..i ,4 4 ' ' _,t i.4*All it-ii. .` _ . , 1 ;•;. ",14,:: it ;...sir.,..-4:v- . -,.. f--01, !: ,-. 11 .. • .., 4,:tick,s:..!-:9..., ,V 1 '4'. t..•
1 e . ,l,I,41 - .1 .',‘• 4 ., .,.. 't• 4_ •, It; Jr, i., 1$..,- P"' -
t
••'i ' .,..r. t%.4 X4411..1:44‘7 ki 41, f 4.13' '
0' '4 *lit '•.7,6!•, - • ,,,;;...% '4 il 7C41".IC:*: '1'` 3: ..b.''':1 "4
:., ilt.;;.1 i-'114411",
i 1 , ,_ .,,-..r• t ---
/
V
- lk . -4 ,X1.-:,1 rift
' -ri-• ' 4.1-' . ' ::r j --7'Pri...‘:* ,...:41' ' .. , ;4 . t• 1'. er, ..1'-44 k -...J. .' .7!
----.1,.‘,.-..v...:-,, ..t.-..,,..s1...t _ :....,5 . , ........s..,..:-"*".-; ,".....;-•-...._
i4 ,,e. - ,; ; , . „ 5 ..,;',4$r. •-..--,;...*: _.z Ak 7 :i'll,R5Fir 'D4''' -'kili', •' ii.:. .-
1 .. k i....k.11,41::Y , , ir 4.:
• • lidif . C 1 .4". ;:it',.C.
- • ..r.1- ., .'1';'.-rt-.."--4.- ii...i. ire.Z..1.: 4,--0 fti =,•,,,•4.. -, • •At4.1' . ,.."'" :!f:- .- 1.c•- ,,-.,".... ;I_;. 4.- .
rt 7 1 e, i %(21 '*"... ''t_,... 1._1_,.:-.,..:4,k, ' •• "1... .. f r.A. . .5.. J4._L* -.., 4.,,,i,, .... ,.ft . z -,.., . ..-1
1 - 1--‘-- . '.` -1.. ail.2,v,ed •"--`1 -if_
*11.k ,e;i . • :4, - "-, . -, '-•, w.:ro: ..... -•'..... , /:-.•1._, : ,*t.... -'.,.,- ;:, .:,.._,,,,, .. , „...-:
.T.ft ..i ' '.- :4:;.. , - .. ; - .-2,.** . ,.. „_„„i ,_ - ,4. ,--.-!-,,Lia,,s;a•-. ; T;
4 vs,'"ipi ,-.-,t.,-,i-,-s-A.-.--;---. — . - ,i •
..- i -f.;.? e ,,- ,, . , , 4 . .._._ =, .. .,-. , :---r,... ...7..., _ - 1.-,..,e7.!; ,....-I .
44
,.... .- -.4 - I . i....-. ,--.- ' .---- A '' Z;7`'( - -.. --' ---..,-.1.-' ...C.. `- ' -' ' I':
-,. ..,&'-• -'-,_ Air It,..L.i
i , 'iiiirs-,„--..- - -I,•aro ii re. . • -,.._ . ' _ ...eif. ...,..kiti.,,n 4-4,..1„j•",, •""-,-4 p 1 ,A,,3?'.. eq.r j.: ,----. 'i)--...i. ... - , ;_-1.-itc-7-t_k.-_----7-. ;-' 4'••.' r (‘4"' t)418'5'11 ' $f"*. ;'''' _
...7". 4-; •e. '- 1
4Y 4 r-i-ofw . ' .1' - ' - '•_:. ''-r. ., ....2.,-e,i, ,-.I.
4,..- • - t i ' -
„ 1
:a. j..t-- ..,4 - .:5-; ''''"'• ..:''"'- '. - ''4— --kr : -1-eA:,-Iry-1,•N tftli
---.-- *it, .,_
'''. -1 fat*: ii-,.;-- .4::, -5±'; ? h..,.).4. -. .3--.*:",,te :, •-
ir .-.Lis• _ difi4----......,.. .. , „.,-,.._. ,,,, _ 4,.11,..4,., .1,0(.-.. . i t.,_ .1..• ,i...... -..,
-Al 1 t -.--4 ' ... .,
_ ...• w.,-.- _ ., ,•7- 4 t-i-1,../Ar-...r.11.
.1 , . .* ' * • ‘ (, ic.; 'y -7...:: - = ---_._• - 2 ---- ,..,-, _.,--::- -,eg-4.zi-:43, • ., _. -.. , k(i 1 -.... 40, . i....J •w
• 1 d - ...' -.--,..1,,, -4 i*...,A...11. . .',. .•‘-' A Lla '---../.1*_.'-'‘;-•'''/1 4.*1..6-12:.1 '
/._,,,Y -4.1.4. '.' PAy1.•-•.-APt‘e-...i7;2:1".7:11),.. • , 1. ' p • -.. - sk T ? '' V
' e ' '--sr
' 1-5,:!,.-C't;'-,- .7.. .r-•':,-;4' --. '''
.T':..t.VIt li ' 7 . .. .,::.-4.--%. :::-:24-• -.-1'.::-. ..`-.:."-. i _- - ,,.,-- - ,
, -4 . .._ •:,, .p,_.,.. ,,,...-.4, . 7.1 1$ .. : '-''',"-r.ic.:.:',. I .1' ... -t; ,..:;4*:.:::::AWN,,.\ '.
14, _ r 4 ,-IX--‘.• , ;.-.- .-Ar..•7. -',„' 5,,4
:...-• .. 1 .••a. 411 I•-• tor-_,,,- -A.; . .,
i-p-t.,,;,-;P-•:,, , =t .1,C,.1„:_:.-; ‘i • ,— , .- ;,..‘`... ,47.1:- t-_;,...‘ , ,- .....,, __ ,,c.,*...,:-,....4E.t,%, __-,_
-,' -.; 2s. ,:';'=-'1.:. -,'-',,'-'''- ' 1 , .
11, a.\,', ,,P..V 61 Ot.,,,Irr•pa*, ; if le.7:4‘.-)..,' "; I,.„...-.1 :, -4., F...:- Z.."rt. .°S.2.." ' --14:' . 4-,( , :,i; ' I N.. -
; .t , , % . , ,,,,...-, . .....- -I.--4 Iii.v.-: ,..iik:4. ,I ii A.A'S ,..:14,t !...: -"..'-'al;'..''• ..••••,"• ..••'. . ;
i
•-•..1„.„ 4
-.. . -,....., ,,, .$4. - :-.7...cll.'' a, %-r,ir..""'"4••••+- •:. !`i'l .., ..,, ,';" ;, , "-'''- .4,-*4 * *--
‘74"a'... 'lift+7. r' '''•• L'il.,,.4 ' - ..' * .* 1 .f' ' - 71' ..- '' ' :',-..•• --* 1.`--.' •;,..-.4 ..:.-
44/,* "' ,- a. 'AA lik, • ''' .- --.• . .,;••e.-.4- = '...1 .:.•-f.i h,-I 2: -t-rl"*"... ;r -I, ,....,rile If f• , .,t-
ant.-..". ,--- -- V2.-"- ..4 i-lr....-7.1:13,.,_ -.1.71-.--.11• '- 6;••
- • ,i. itc.... -lc •••_,i,,,,-........4 - -v-#.,"f..., -. - --1 -,..rrn.,;,,1 lo..-1 11-l'•••••'•'' :.
--- '''' 1.6.,. .. 'et - A 4".•r.,., „It '•. •••. Lit'-''':•- - °
is :*1!.• . ' '- k"KM A ?* t‘,.'•,..el V— :-. : .4,-' •.. :li :- .._ - JA,..4-'• ••-4 .-.....11 Aft... .1.•