25259D - Cowgill

CAMA and DREDGE AND FILL ev✓rk fbi <1�} r. ,
'� N E R A L r,�e - SC) . . ., 29259- 1
PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina
• Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15 NCAC ,, c-,%
Applicant Name k ob KO COt�G t 1 , Phone Number 021 U 1 3)--9 .0307
Address ,.) .- 1 0411 11 I6R I V e"
City c,1ei h4 r-P R Pki State eve Zip ae"Y6' )
Project Location (County, State Road, Water Body, etc.) ;;'a S PP 1 1 ib /Qt V to r S ,Ne.4 1) (
i=--(9I I. V O ti 5/0 v.) C. Aci j 4 ,o/..%, r4-; )vt,‘r 1c I 2_,O, V
Type of Project Activity f Rr Via to p; e;2 tE lirA- Oi (t- 6, A /rid- ,t"//Yf H✓1 a t
., : r L ri)6-e o ,c Alit /3S ./ G S 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SKETCH (SCALE: / '- 3,O r )
+�� ,. inimi ri:::
ngth '` � � 1111111111k
,Lrx
_ II
number i
Bulkhead Length p
..
ME
max.distance offshore j
t ii iiii it_ •
Basin,channel dimensions )a _ is am 1----ii , .�!
IN al
1
cubic yards IL riii -
WIN�r 1 ria ..E asswlAl�iRll�tt OAhra mmora€ m am OM ... r
f i Ryas
.�r...�.+.....�
Boat ramp dimensions a 1--
II I Mil .
Other �� 1� .X��'• r �• � , .._ ., .....; ___.�..
it
4 _ r _ _. II _ III
ill 1
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site drawing '�'` r
and attached general and specific conditions.Any violation of these terms i'�i�'�'� / (/ ;�_��
applicant's signature
may subject the permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; and
may cause the permit to become null and void. �p
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit of-
ficery
when the project is inspected for compliance. The applicant certi- 0 &_ i C) _ o / / '' C: r
fies by signing this permit that 1) this project is consistent with the local issuing date expirati
land use plan and all local ordinances, and 2) a written statement has
been obtained from adjacent riparian landowners certifying that they "7 Li. I.) 06
have no objections to the proposed work. `
In issuing this permit the State of North Carolina certifies that this project /,�1//o0, (7(zt /
is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
1

•
r CODES FOR AEC DESIGNATIONS
"OH' - Ocean Hazard "PT" - Public Trust
"EW" - Estuarine Waters "CW"- Coastal Wetlands
"ES" - Estuarine Shoreline "FC" - Fragile Coastal Natural/Cultural
"PW"- Public Water Supply "OR" - Outstanding Resource Water -
CODES FOR PROJECT
"P" - Private-usually an individual "F" - Federal
"C" - Commercial "L" - Local Government
"U" - Utility "H" - Housing Development
"S" - State "0" - Other
# CODES FOR PROJ DESCRIPTION
"11" - Bulkheads, Riprap "16" - Utility Lines
"12" - Piers, Docks Boathouses "17" - Emergency Repairs
"13" - Boat Ramps "18" - Beach Bulldozing
"14" - Wooden Groins "19" - Temporary Structures
"15" - Maintenance of Basins, Channels, Ditches _____
GENERAL PERMIT COMPUTER FORM
APPLICANT NAME: r. U\roerk COw t\ \
ADDITIONAL NAMES:
AEC DESIG: PT C -' DEVELOP AREA:_O. D ( PROJ DESC:
(trill only take 6) (Will only sake 1)
WORK: ()CZ Lt , a or- F P t af-
(Will only take 4)
e I D , !(., P �1 (c)- to �--
MAINT:
(Will only take 4)
IMP: o ' `?,- (-(
(will only take 6)
ACTION EXPIRATION
DREDGE&FILL REQUIRED:
CAMA MAJOR DEVFT REQUIRED: D 8 -i O o ( I ( - I U—0 (

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management NCDENRMichael F. Easley, Governor
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
August 10, 2001
Ms Elfleda G. Shepard
194 Charles Creek Road
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 28460
Dear Ms. Shepard:
Thank you for your comments concerning the proposed development by Mr. Robert Cowgill at
222 Shell Drive, in Onslow County.
The project consists of the construction of a private pier and boat dock extending 100' past the
outer edge of marsh into Chadwick Bay. The project is consistent with our regulations (T15A:07H .1200)
which govern the construction of piers, docks and boat houses in Estuarine and Public Trust Waters Areas
of Environmental Concern. As such, a permit has been issued to authorize the project. A copy of the
permit is attached.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you must file for a contested case hearing
within twenty (20)days. Please contact me at(910) 395-3900, and I can provide you with the applicable
forms and instructions. If you have any questions, or if I can provide any additional information, please
advise.
Sincerely,
•
in1.G son
‘C.yastal Field Representative
cc: Bob Stroud, DCM
Charles Jones, DCM
Merrie Jo Alcoke, Assistant Attorney General
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
1

r
1 i
L
.GU
ky.
,+.fit•.
•
State Of North Carolina
It( ►\ ( :( )( )I'I•11t • I )c'I)ilrllllc'Iit of -Itltili('c`
-\i 1()I(NN1' (�I.NI:I(:\I. I'. (). Nux (i:!!)
It,\IJ I(itI
:'71 iO2-06:2 )
MEMORANDUM ECEIVE
TO: Coastal Resources Commission JUL 1 1 2001
FROM: Merrie Jo Alcoke DIVISION OF
Assistant Attorney General COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Variance Request by Robert Cowgill
Onslow County
DATE: July I0, 2001 (for the July 25-26, 2001 CRC Meeting)
Petitioner applied for a CAMA General Permit to construct a 150-foot long pier from his property
located at 222 Shell Drive in Sneads Ferry on the south shore of Chadwick Bay in Onslow County. The
permit was denied because of its inconsistency with Rules 15A NCAC 7H .0208(b)(6)(J)(i) and I5A
NCAC 7H .1205(b)which state that: "Piers docks and boathouses shall not extend beyond the established
pier length along the same shoreline for similar use. This restriction shall not apply to piers 100 feet or less
in length unless necessary to avoid unreasonable interference with navigation or other uses of the waters by
the public. The length of piers shall be measured from the waterward edge of any wetlands that border the
water body." At 150 feet, Petitioner's proposed pier will exceed the established pier length along that
section of the Chadwick Bay shoreline.
Petitioner seeks a variance from the pier length rule on the basis that he needs the additional
footage to navigate his boat because the water depth at normal low tide at 100 feet offshore is only 12
inches, whereas he could get up to 18 inches of depth at 150 feet.
The following additional information concerning Petitioner's variance request is attached to this
memorandum:
Attachment A: Rules Involved
Attachment B: Stipulated Facts
Attachment C: Staff Summary of Petitioner's and Staff's Responses to Variance Criteria
Attachment D: Petitioner's Variance Request Materials
cc: Robert Cowgill, Petitioner
Donna D. Moffitt, DCM Director
Charles S. Jones, DCM Assistant Director, Permits and Enforcement
C. Robert Stroud,Jr., DCM Wilmington District Manager
Jim Gregson, Field Representative
Ryke Longest, Special Deputy Attorney General
Jessica Gill, APA Coordinator •

lo
ATTACHMENT A
Rules Involved
15A NCAC 7H .0200 THE ESTUARINE AND OCEAN SYSTEMS
.0208 Use Standards
(6) Docks and Piers.
(J) Pier length shall be limited by:
(i) not extending beyond the established pier length along the same
shoreline for similar use; (This restriction shall not apply to piers
100 feet or less in length unless necessary to avoid unreasonable
interference with navigation or other uses of the waters by the public);
(ii) not extending into the channel portion of the water body; and
(iii) not extending more than one-fourth the width of a natural water body,
or human-made canal or basin. Measurements to determine widths of the
water body,canals or basins shall be made from the waterward edge of
any coastal wetland vegetation which borders the water body. The one-
fourth length limitation shall not apply in areas where the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, or a local government in consultation with the Corps
of Engineers, has established an official pier-head line. The one-fourth
length limitation shall not apply when the proposed pier is located between
longer piers within 200 feet of the applicant's property. However, the
proposed pier cannot be longer than the pier head line established by the
adjacent piers, nor longer than 1/3 the width of the water body.
15A NCAC 7H .1200 GENERAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PIERS:
DOCKS: AND BOAT HOUSES IN ESTUARINE AND
PUBLIC TRUST WATERS
.1205 Specific Conditions
(b) Piers,docks, and boat houses shall not extend beyond the established pier length
along the same shoreline for similar use. This restriction shall not apply to piers
100 feet or less in length unless necessary to avoid unreasonable interference with
navigation or other uses of the waters by the public. The length of piers shall be
measured from the waterward edge of any wetlands that border the water body.

•
ATTACHMENT B
Stipulated Facts
I. Petitioner, Robert Cowgill, owns riparian property at 222 Shell Drive, adjacent to Chadwick Bay, in
Sneads Ferry, Onslow County.
2. Petitioner originally applied for CAMA General Permit to construct a 200-loot pier on his
property at 222 Shell Drive.
3. The permit was denied because of its inconsistency with Rules l5A NCAC 7H .0208(b)(6)(J)(i)and
15A NCAC 7H .1205(b) which states that: "Piers docks and boathouses shall not extend beyond the
established pier length along the same shoreline for similar use. This restriction shall not apply to piers 100
feet or less in length unless necessary to avoid unreasonable interference with navigation or other uses of
the water by the public. The length of piers shall be measured from the waterward edge of any wetlands
that border the water body."
4. Five of the six piers along the Chadwick Bay shoreline in the vicinity of Petitioner's property are all
less than 100 feet long.
5. Further away from Petitioner's property towards the east, there is one pier that is approximately 150
feet long. CAMA Major Permit No. 43-95 was issued to Pelican Point for that pier which serves several
lot owners.
6. After Petitioner's original application for a 200 foot pier was denied and he reviewed his needs and the
practical elements of safety, maintenance, and cost, as well as the shoreline standard of 100, Petitioner
applied fora 150-foot pier.
7. Even at 150 feet, Petitioner's proposed pier will exceed the established pier length (i.e., less than 100
feet) along that section of Chadwick Bay shoreline.
8. By letter dated June 20, 2001, DCM denied Petitioner's application for a CAMA General Permit to
construct a 150-foot pier.
9. The water depth at normal low tide at 100 feet offshore in the vicinity of Petitioner's property is
approximately 12 inches, whereas at 150 feet offshore, the depth is 18 inches.
10. There are several shellfish franchises in Chadwick Bay within the project vicinity. Petitioner's
proposed pier will encroach into one of them.
11. The farther that Petitioner can pier out, the less impact there will be to the bottom of the Bay caused
by prop wash. •
12. Petitioner applied for a variance June 22, 2001, seeking a variance from the pier length rules in 15A
NCAC 7H .0208 and .1205 on the basis that Petitioner needs the additional footage to navigate his boat for
recreational purposes. See Petitioner's Variance Request Materials, Attachment D, included herein by
reference.

•
•
•
ATTACHMENT C
Summary of Petitioner and Staff Positions
I. Will practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict application of the
guidelines, rules, standards or other restrictions applicable to the property?
Petitioner's Position: Yes.
Petitioner states that the existing restrictions on pier length, resulting in a 100 foot limit here, will
not allow a reasonable size boat to navigate during low tide from the dock area to deeper water on the
north shore of Chadwick Bay, which leads to the intracoastal waterway. Petitioner's boat is a 17 foot Key
West that draws 8 inches of water dry. Petitioner claims that the boat requires a total depth of about 16
inches considering the motor, fuel, people and other variables. According to Petitioner's calculations, a
pier length of 100 feet provides 12 inches of water at normal low tide and only 6 inches at extreme low
tides, such.as south wind, certain lunar tides, and seasonal changes.
Petitioner argues that the problem can be solved by permitting a pier of 150 feet, providing a
minimum of 18 inches of water at low tide and a minimum of 12 inches at extreme low tide. Although the
differences in depth is not substantial, Petitioner argues that it is enough to allow for access from the
deeper side of Chadwick Bay to the proposed dock on the south shore of the Bay at times other than high
tide. Petitioner states that a I25-foot pier would still have problems with water depth and would only allow
access from the dock to deeper water at high tide.
Petitioner provided the following measurements to illustrate the need for a longer pier:
Measured Water Level at the Proposed Pier Site(Water level varies slightly day to day)
4/24/01
Depth measured during extreme low tide with following conditions:
New Moon cycle, Wind from South, Time: 3:00PM
DISTANCE FROM SHORE DEPTH •
100' 6"
125' 8"
150' 12"
175' 12"
200' 12"

3 ,
- � ✓
ars-3 - •
5/01/01
Depth measured at normal low tide
DISTANCE FROM SHORE DEPTH
100' 12"
125' 15"
150' 18"
175' 18"
200' 21"
Staff's Position: No.
The limit on pier lengths prescribed by Rules 15A NCAC 7H .0208(6)(J) and 15A NCAC 7H
.1205 requires that Petitioner's pier not exceed 100 feet in length. Petitioner argues that if he could be
allowed 50 more feet, he would be able to gain 6 more inches in water depth that would aid in navigation.
Because the waters of Chadwick Bay are very shallow, it appears that any hardship suffered by Petitioner
is due more to the physical characteristics of the water body and Petitioner's choice of water vessel rather
than due to strict application of the pier length rule. This is evidenced by the fact that according to his own
calculations, even if Petitioner were not limited by the 100-foot limitation, he would not gain much more
water depth. Thus, Staff does not believe in this case that practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
result from strict application of the pier length rules.
II. Do such difficulties or hardships result from conditions which are peculiar to the property
involved?
Petitioner's Position: Yes.
Petitioner claims that his situation is unique moreso because of Chadwick Bay than because of the
property itself since the Bay is quite shallow, though still navigable if done with care.
Petitioner characterizes Chadwick Bay in the following way: The north side shoreline of Chadwick
Bay has sufficient water with a small marked channel part way. The southern shoreline is quite shallow
where the property is and some erosion has occurred in recent years, especially due to the recent series of
violent hurricanes. Fast speeds and direct routes are impossible due to several spoil bars which exist in the
center of the Bay. There is no consistent boat traffic or navigable channels on the southern shore of the ,
Bay, but the water is sufficient to support a boat traveling to the intracoastal waterway, once away from the
shore. There is no thru boat traffic and little local traffic due to the size and depth of the water in the bay.
Petitioner also argues:
Water at 100 feet: Not navigable to barely navigable •
Water at 125 feet: Barely sufficient

6
'
•
Water at 150 feet: Good enough to allow passage from the dock to
deeper water on the north side of the Bay
Water past 150 feet: Does not improve significantly
Staffs Position: No.
As discussed above, any alleged hardship does not necessarily result from strict application of the
pier rules, but is more attributable to the nature of Chadwick Bay and Petitioner's recreational boat. The
location of'Petitioner's lot on this shallow water body is not peculiar. There are a number.of water bodies
along the North Carolina coast that are equally as shallow as Chadwick Bay.
Ill. Could such conditions reasonably have been anticipated when the applicable guidelines,
rules, standards, or restrictions were adopted?
Petitioner's Position: No.
•
Petitioner first states that water levels have probably changed over the years due to storms and
shallow water. A more realistic.pier length needs to be allowed so that boats, such as his 17-foot boat with
little draft, may be used safely. Petitioner claims that a 150-foot pier would accomplish this.
Petitioner states that the granting of existing pier permits that established the standard for pier
length along the shore line was probably set for the following reasons:
I) Petitioner estimates that the pier closest to him, 225 feet east, was constructed to provide
additional value to the property for future sale, as evidenced by the sale to the present owner. Petitioner
claims that the reason the pier could not be properly expressed to CAMA because the property owner gave
little thought to its use. Petitioner states that currently the 100-foot pier has never been used for any
purpose, so its value as a boat dock is not known.
2) Petitioner states the other 100 foot pier, 300 feet east of Petitioner's property, has never been
used for boating and its sole use has been to sit and enjoy the view.
3) Petitioner states that the next dock, 450 feet east, is shorter because it is located at the beginning
of a bend in the land towards the water which restricts the length to allow adjoining properties room for
docks.
Staffs Position: Yes.
In adopting the pier length limitations, the CRC anticipated that there would be instances in which
the established pier length along a shoreline would not afford an applicant access to deep water. Such
shallow conditions are not peculiar, and the CRC could reasonably have anticipated property conditions
such as Petitioner's when it adopted the relevant pier length rules. The rule on pier length for docks and
piers includes at least three ways that a pier could be limited in length: by not extending beyond the
established pier length along the same shoreline for similar use, by not extending into the channel portion
of a waterbody, and by not extending more than one-fourth the width of a natural water body. 15A NCAC
7H .0208(6)(J). By considering the potential for navigational impacts and listing several ways in which a

ti
a
pier must be limited in length, the Commission must have anticipated that these standards would cause
some applicants to have limited to access deeper water.
IV. Is the proposed development consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
Commission's regulations?
Petitioner's Position: Yes.
Petitioner claims that his proposed pier is completely consistent with the intent of the regulations
and will permit safe boating and environmental protection. Petitioner believes that his proposed pier is a
positive enhancement to the regulations, that it would not infringe on anyone else's use of the water, and
that it is not a safety hazard since there are no waterway channels or marked routes.
Petitioner states that his riparian rights would be protected by permitting the proposed pier.
Permitting a pier of 150 feet would allow a boat in the water without damage to the boat or without the
boat striking the bottom of the bay. Petitioner argues that a pier with the dock further from the shallow
water, close to the shore, would be a positive environmental measure by preventing the boat from
bottoming out on the bay floor.
Petitioner contends that safety is the most important factor. Petitioner states that his proposed pier
is located where there are no channels or marked waterways. He states that the bay is enclosed, which
limits entrance to and from the bay. Petitioner states that bay is not desirable to "race around in"because
the water depth, sand bars, and size limits the speed and number of boats in the bay. Petitioner claims that
the only boat traffic is shellfish boats, crab boats and the occasional boats setting nets. Flounder gigging is
seldom seen at night, but the lights on the boats are brilliant. Petitioner claims the total number of boats is
low and they are slow in speed. He also promises to install a security light near the end of the pier to
illuminate the pier end and boat dock.
Petitioner argues that the pier will not be completely out of line with other piers in the area since
the shoreline on either side are held to different standards, with one pier significantly more than 100 feet
from where the bay starts to bend east of his property.
Staffs Position: Yes.
Petitioner's proposed pier is generally consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the CRC's
pier rules and regulations. The limitation requiring that piers be in line with other piers along the same
shoreline is primarily intended to avoid unreasonable interference with navigation or other uses of the
waters by the public, as illustrated by the fact that the relevant pier rules allow DCM to restrict piers to less
than 100 feet if necessary to avoid such adverse results. Staff agrees with Petitioner's assertion that a 150-
foot pier would not cause significant adverse impacts to navigation in this water body. If Petitioner had
applied for a pier permit prior to all of his neighbors, Petitioner may have been able to obtain a permit for a
150-foot pier since Staff is unaware of any inconsistencies with the pier length rule that would have
required a denial.
•
ep/49189

ATTACHMENT D
Robert and Regina Cowgill
221 Shell Drive
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 28460-8564
[phone]
E-MAIL [e-mail]
June 21. 200 1
Ms. Donna Moffitt
Director
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North carolina 27602-0629
Dear Ms. Moffit, •
My application to Mr Gregson at the Division of Coastal Management in Wilmington was denied.
I originally asked for a pier to be constructed from the property at 222 Shell Drive in Sneads
Ferry into Chadwick Bay for a total length of 200 feet. After having reviewed my needs and the
practical elements of safety, maintenance and cost, as well as the shoreline standard of 100 feet
for a pier, I am requesting a pier length of 150feet. This length, although exceeding the
established standard appears to be a realistic length given the water conditions at the site. With
this request I have considered both safety and the environment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
7
fi. ��� ��
Robert Cowgill
CC: NC'Attorney General Office
Att:Merrie Jo Alcoke
f
•
•
RECEIV
JUN 2 5 2001
N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL •
Environmental Division

.ti C
DCM FORM 11
PETITIONER'S N. E I Cow ,L L CAM.A VARDLNCE
COUNTY O/(/5G O 14/ REQUEST
FV..E'NUMBER
(Petition=leave blank)
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 113A_120.1 and 15A North Carolina A
Code 7J Section .0700,the Petitioner in this matter applies to the Co e d Commission
for a variance. ' Coastal Resources Commission
NOTE: For this application to be complete,the Petitioner must provide c 4
each statement below. If necessary, ..te responses to
please attach additional sheets to fully complete
each response. For this request to be considered, the Petitioner must be able to
answer(a), (b) and (d) in the affirmative and (c)in the negative.
(a) Will enforcement of the applicable development guidelines or standards causing
the Petitioner practical difficulties or imnecessa-v hardships? If so, the petitioner
must identify the difficulties or'hardships.
.SLR
(b) Do such difficulties or:nardships result from conditions peculiar to the.Petitioner's
property? Explain.
50e. J3 /1 Chr 0
(c) Could the Coastal Resources Commission have reasonably 'anticipated these
conditions when the applicable guidelines or standards were adopted?:xPlain.
SIG= "51-74 C/ j,
• (d) Is the proposed development cothe
nsistent with spirit, purpose and intent of the
Commission's r�aulations? Explain

Due to the'above Formation and pursuant to statute, the 'undersigned hereby requests a variance.
Tne undersiaied states that (check one):
He or she has received a anal decision on an a_
Major Development Permit; or pplication for a CAM a
X He or she has received a final decision on an Application
Permit. The undersi�Ied hasp aeon for a C_�M
Minor Development Per
attached:
(a) A copy of the Permit Application and the decision; and
Co) A complete description of the
proposed development,site drawing I including a
with adequate topoz•apiucal and survey Formation.
• erem>,—
Date
Sinature
Name of Petitioner or Artorney
•
Address
•
.S✓ eODS Legit Y r+�.' j
City State Zip
7-
Telephone Number
This variance request must be served on the Dire;tor. i
and -the AttorneyC-�.�al's 0?sice, r vision of Coastal IyanaQement,
Environmental Division, at the -addresses .shown on the
attached Certificate of Service _Form.
If a contested case he -ing will be 2equired TO resolve
disputed facts or you want to appeal the
based, a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing t decision upon which your Vance Request is
Hearings, 6714 should be fled with the°,aacn
Mail Center,RaleiQa,NC 27699-671? of above
e parties.
Service as well as with the above panics.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 ills Certificate of Service should be attached to any Variance- Request which is
with the Office of Administrative Hearings. You don't have filed
any 'Variance Request you file with the Director or any to attach a Certificate of Se
��ct M nice to
Coastal Management under the Coastal.Resources Co expedited V of the rote Division of
mm:ssion�s variance�rocedures.)
I hereby certify that this Variance Request has been served on the State
below by depositing copies of it with the United States Postal Serviceagencies postage forr
delivery by first class mail byor with sufficient
personally delivering copies to the named agencies.
Original served on: Director
• Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1638
op: Attorney General's Office .
Environmental Division
P.O. Box 629
•
Raleigh,NC 27602-0629
•
•
thf; .r day of G /
•
Signamre.of Petitioner ttorney
Revised:ivovember2, 1999

•
Robert and Regina Cowgill
221 Shell Drive
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 28460-8564
[phone]
E-MAIL [e-mail]
•
a) Yes
Application of the existing standards and the resulting restriction of the pier length to 100 feet
does not allow sufficient water for a reasonable size boat to move from the dock area to deeper
water located on the north shore of Chadwick Bay which leads to the intracoastal waterway
during low tide. My boat is a 17 foot Key West that draws 8 inches of water dry. With motor,
fuel, and people, all variables, additional depth that is about a total of 16 inches.
Pier length at 100 feet provides 12 inches of water at normal low tide, with just 6 inches during
extreme low tides(such as south wind, certain lunar time and seasonal changes).
The entire problem can be solved by permitting a pier of 150 feet which will provide a'minium of
18 inches of water at low tide and a minium of 12 inches at extreme low tide. Although the
differences in depth is not great, it is enough to allow access from the deeper side of Chadwick
Bay to the proposed dock on the South shore of the Bay at times other than high tide.
A pier of 125 feet in length still has problems with water depth allowing access from the dock to
deeper water at low tide.
Measured Water Level At The Proposed Pier Site (The water level varies slightly from day to
day)
4/24/01 5/01/01
Depth measured during extreme low tide Depth measured at normal Low Tide
with following conditions:
New Moon cycle, Wind from the South,
Time: 3:00 P.M.
Distance from shore Depth Distance from shore Depth
100' 6" 100' 12"
125' 8" 125' 15"
150' 12" 150' 18"
175' 12" 175' 18"
200' 12" 200' 21" •

Robert and Regina Cowgill
221 Shell Drive
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 28460-8564
[phone]
E-MAIL [e-mail]
b) Yes
The property from which the propose pier would extend is located at 222 Shell Drive in Sneads
Ferry. The adjacent Chadwick bay is quite shallow, but navigable if done with care. The shoreline
on the north side of Chadwick Bay has sufficient water with a small marked channel part way.
The southern shoreline is quite shallow where my property is located with some erosion having
taken place in recent years. Several spoils bars exist in the center of the Bay making fast speeds
and direct routes impossible. The uniqueness of my situation lies more within Chadwick Bay than
on the property itself
Certainly the recent series of violent hurricanes has not helped by washing additional mud into the
south shoreline of the bay and also caused shore erosion.
There is no consistent boat traffic or navigable channels on the south shore of the bay, although
the water is sufficient to support a boat wishing to travel to the intracoastal waterway, once away
from the shore.
Due to the size and depth of water in the bay, there is no thru boat traffic and little local traffic.
Water at 100 feet is not navigable to barely navigable.
Water at 125 feet is barely sufficient.
Water at 150 feet is good enough to allow passage from the dock to deeper water on the north
side of the bay.
Water past 150 feet does not improve significantly.

i
Robert and Regina Cowgill
221 Shell Drive •
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 28460-8564
[phone]
E-MAIL [e-mail]
c) No
Water levels have probably changed over the years due to storms and shallow water to start with.
The granting of existing pier permits that established the standard for pier length along the shore
line was probably set for the following reasons:
1. The pier closest to me, 225 feet east, was most likely constructed to provide additional value
to the property for future sale as witnessed by it's sale to the present owner. Little thought was
given by the property owner as to it's use, so the reason for the pier could not be properly
expressed to CAMIA. At present the 100 foot pier has never been used for any purpose, so it's
value as a boat dock is not known.
2. The other 100 foot pier, located 300 feet to the east of my site has never been used for boating
either. It's sole use has been to sit and enjoy the view.
3. The next dock located 450 feet East is shorter because it is located at the start of a bend in the
land towards the water which restricts length to allow adjoining properties room for docks.
I believe a more realistic pier length needs to be allowed so that boats such as my 17 foot with
little draft may be used safely.. A 150 foot pier length would accomplish this.

Robert and Regina Cowgill
221 Shell Drive
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 28460-8564
[phone]
E-MAIL [e-mail]
d) Yes
The proposed pier is completely consistent with the intent of the regulations. I believe my request
is a positive enhancement to the regulations and does not infringe on anyone else's use of the
water and is not a safety hazzard since there is no waterway channels or marked routes. By
granting my variance to permit a pier of 150 feet in length, both safe boating and protection of the
environment will be accomplished.
My Riparian rights will be protected by allowing a useable pier.
. Permitting a pier of 150 feet will allow a boat in the water without damage to the boat or
striking the bottom of the bay.
. A pier with the platform/dock further from the shallow water close to shore would be a positive
• environmental step by preventing the boat from bottoming out on the bay floor.
. Safety of everyone is of utmost importance. The proposed pier is located where there are no
channels or marked waterway. The bay is enclosed, such that entrance to and from is limited. The
speed and number of boats in the bay is limited by the water depth, sand bars and size. It is not
desirable to "race around in". The only boating traffic is shellfish boats, crab boats and occasional
boats setting nets. Flounder gigging at night is seldom seen, but the lights on the boats are
brilliant. The total number of these boats are low in number and slow in speed. I will also install a
security light near the end of the pier to illuminate the pier end and boat dock.
. The pier will not be completely out of line with other piers in the area since the shoreline on
either side are held to different standards, with one pier significantly more than 100 feet where the
bay starts to bend East of my property.
•
7

State of North Carolina
•A
Department of Environment 4 �
and Natural Resources p
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management
CD E R
Michael F. Easley, Governor NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT of
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
June 20, 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL #7000 1670 0005 7378 6133
RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
Mr. Robert Cowgill
221 Shell Drive
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina 28460-8564
RE: Denial of CAMA General Permit Request
Dear Mr. Cowgill:
After reviewing your proposed project. in conjunction with the development standards required
by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). it is my determination that no permit may be granted for
the development you have proposed.
•
This decision is based on my finding that your request violates N.C.G.S. 113A-120(8) which
requires that all applications be denied which are inconsistent with CAMA guidelines. You have requested
to construct a pier at your property located at 222 Shell Drive, adjacent to Chadwick Bay, in Sneads Ferry,
Onslow County. We have determined that your proposed pier will exceed the established pier length along
that section of Chadwick Bay shoreline. Your request is inconsistent with 15A NCAC 7H .0208(b' 6►(J)(i)
and 15A NCAC 7H .1205 (b) which state that:
Piers docks and boat houses shall not extend beyond the established pier length along the same
shoreline for similar use. This restriction shall not apply to piers 100 feet or less in length unless
necessary to avoid unreasonable interference with navigation or other uses of the waters by the
public. The length of piers shall be measured from the waterward edge of any wetlands that
border the water body.
Should you wish to appeal my decision to the Coastal Resources Commission or request a variance
from that group, I have enclosed the proper forms. If you, have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at [phone]. Appeal notices must be received by the Division of
Coastal Management in Raleigh, within 20 days of your receipt of this letter, in order to be considered.
Si•cere ,
..
Ji i c, :_:on
Di ision of Coastal Management
W'+mington Regional Office
cc: Bob Stroud, DCM
Charles Jones, DCM
Merrie Jo Alcoke, Attorney General's Office
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext.,Wilmington,North Carolina 28405 Telephone [phone] FAX-910-350-2004
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10%post-consumer paper

• • . _ _ =
.,
•
•
•• - /1'
•
;•.o,vel 1.1 'LI Ian° . j
Jeci /174/5
."1 -ffb itcy *07714/
I Ai (t/1/ -e7
iczlIzI 1 1,4
7 -7./ /AI 4. 42 •
4V:.-771V
(/ I ` Wdld. 1
•Crc--75-O,,a(y,
, 9/ 6 /2.*.9/ 1/4/ •
, • -) 7P(4/ bIY6-2
-
• r
477,-

t - ' " • ' ��/
. i 2
on
i ,
,.
r ,
4r
pie-w/o-cif- /G
Rol gP t- IPA-em-A-
CO w6,'L L- ; biy ii
i 5, ,v/-
. ,vi---s'Ate6G DAP.
C/1.'�0OS i e.e.e7i
A•6 AS it‘es
,
' . 13 $
i
CMAP4.% ck 64y
L
-
( , , _-7__ _t.i.._....... ri pi-2
. ) . --- --- - --- -
. .
, . -Aga, 5/IAWL.L. .D401fr e , .
1 f i i 1 i . 1 i • . i i 1 i i :

_r/ .) I7 W 0 1'L ei/t
S"`eno5 '-4 40.490
I
O
1 .
N°I?Tw
N
,I\
e.
.4
/ / (17/ off
4.
I "I— £
Ado�' elbow!ck �,� _I.
QA Y %` 1
l 4
)
fideapos„)
NaT %a SG.9 L E- ���'r
t ie i /Cr)9i5-A-e ice o.v L y

---_ - ----_. ,,... — . _ _ ., _ ...-.
c
} q Z+tr NV y< ''` 1`Cw ,z
1. I I.p.. _ eirilrwei IRea►J Pipe �11•`rd
0•1.4. 4 Exl4r1/4A IKnw 0.14,KErIt
• 1iS. N.I.P, a NEW 1000 FI p E )HALL 2,
N.I.4. = µEw I Rbu �.rAKE o N'� I.
d
R R/vI a Intc0r °I• IJAr at.Ost it
rS) • • •gri
ittur .. 1.4<v)e \\\,.
ot•
Igo Vic.i N f ri tdlAp
J� �Lr!)
PAR62L App 4 to Or W1rNi THE A-B zoNE
WNILH HAf A B ! Floor FLEYA ryou OF 7.b. 3
AREA of 41.IA I6k BAY LIES WNW A-4 Zouri S
WUI I.1 HA4 A P fU FLoop eLtJ,.r101J of g.d
3 LMFeKMAtIO1J ail
Aioep FROM F.B•N.A N1AI 4 ��.
370340-b4t.4-p f J1 f7b340-04- -I PArEd IJe✓.4114gt
./fir �_ --�� ..-,--- /L
-- - cf4Adw I C-K p?AY
�._ -'.._ �___ ''- -,._ -L
�.. _ — —
•
4 "16° 41: ZZ" f% I*O. PO'
E.1 P _ E.I, o
C7�i.00; — -I rj AO� .r. LF�. I
AI
PPtzsx &DtiE of cIli1p
w<<K
/ BAr
L �1
o � GiRAGig /( REA .t
0 n` DTP Ofi.LP •
r
NiSe
N
\ a •
i -
(,yLot/�t (' )
°r �qs 1' '`14 CD E.I. to
..)„._,
RrrE'n 4.0Z elk
CT 0•
2 t3.1. • Q
it -o
moll
I"" p a �lL merits L ' . 4 _
o
r ;d'
1 tO MO 44 Mill ` .
0,114t ACRP4 .
• dew.
a
- liw*R dole oN Owe . --- OL
• Rj 1•9 ie.ao' to • 19.44e•W N.1.4. Mo.*. F �T,z,N 7'i'4 z. a 14 1 S o.00' �' ICI.%
rl.e, -71.0.zs•
4 L—L— poi </ ( o' %w) +F_
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP WASPREPARED
:
UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM'�AN ACTUM.tiJRVEY I
'MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION'AND IHATTHERE ��
2E�NO V.iSI9LE•ENCRO CHMENTS;(EXCEPT.AS ; `
;SHOWN)AND.ISTRUE AND..CORRECT TO:THEI.BEST • ' •- .
0E-MY KNOWLEDGE,AND-BEL,IEF
1 P MA Fntt:

1-0fa13 ;
4 \
.n r • •" •; It:4v, 1\ .
Otd
,to •,. - 6- u'-,;_e_,--..k r'''o,''' ''' 2;J-
.i, ill • ,,,4., -7_14 ,:.•; ,,,20, ,.i?,t.".„4
O • \ Y
is ID � , :•
s. -'-.
Ss `", .. �I� Y V-r r 1.
1 K r'
ft1"P• Grid f. c?,..0 i
Or
1'k i
a -Ippt
% n'r j a.' .I' _�
iti,
•
! ' .
\ r
-.t
•
r
i
f