20438D - Brooks

f
(----- , CAMA AND DREDGE AND FILL
GENERAL IN 020438- t)
PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission
in a�n area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC ) 1-4 •1
y
Applicant Name H"�` ,/�`>Ro`'K ���` Phone Number /U , 7 �j—/ JJo
Address 411/0 —) (C„ti ; Piki
City kJ.1v‘A.;ii i' State NC- Zip . c<ii/..)-
Project Location (County, State Road, Water Body,etc.) 3‘\ 3‘\4'"Nti )" 7$,0€ , A`>S At .fti2 ./f I--e C /2
`:-)J u N V) k)&kJ F n-c)J e r C-o
Type of Project Activity A k.)�..4i)r Ut= —2,0 Ar{ l i 'i" A -iU F k, C-hA-� R JAAct Q , , p, fC
e r A • RA 1i af'f -tv ,p-J ;J "
P ' Lfcr, nc) S 1A-t w
1 R , /1.1 oFi-e T1A.4n.-
-7-1,,, p i , r cut( S.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SKETCH L(SCALE: I ' 30 1 )
Pier(dock) length I E-X/j'/,^i r/U4-1 (113 lle. o Sp,--( t! sin. ," {J)id:
Groin length
00.,,,,,
number L�� .
Bulkhead length ilk' la , t A/' l``)
max. distance offshore /� ,_-
I , ,.
7 /
Basin,channel dimensions E yi t�1
cubic yards
1C )(}3
poi ea ( �
Boat ramp dimensions �� Q(P RI? (�V
Other /-
C ,,. - p, JQ i Y�'
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site yidrawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any ` /���.,7 4_
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine,
imprisonment or civil action; and may cause the permit to be- applicant's signature
(1,01,(2___Qcome null and void.This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the ! i permit officer's signature
permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance. `J
The applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) this pro- - 2)_1 - `) cl
ject is consistent with the local land use plan and all local issuing date expiration date
ordinances, and 2) a written statement has been obtained from
adjacent riparian landowners certifying that they have no j�{ p u
objections to the proposed work.
attachments
. . . . . . _ _ .. . _ .. ._. , ,. ---7

GENERAL PERMIT COMPUTER FORM T
APPLICANT NAME: wi(t 3
ADDITIONAL NAMES:
AEC DESIG: f t --" .0 se DEVELOP AREA,.
(Will only take 6) - i PROD DESC: P -
(Will only take 1)
WORK: L- a r
(Will only take 4)
• MAINT:- O
(Will onlyy lake 4)
IMP: O 1^/ �(
(will only take 6)
ACTION EXPIRATION
DREDGE&FILL REQUIRED: •
CAMA MAJOR DEVEL•REQUIRED: 3j- 3 o" 5 6- 3"- 5

• •
• G Zit'
SWAM
p\u'�'-Co�Vt1
i
1G
‘4 azeu
a
f
i f
'i
TZIiI1 _ . _ ......_ ____ .._-----
04.-
0----Y--�` ...._—.. w
'41%,...„,.,,,. .....).
tom ► =--' . ..","
• p
/
Lc:
1 propo set : si►lie p.%is
e)ec4p ( 'c-} t
Sftai 1 t b w f, 0,4}o.c41 et(
ectt4iNQ Pitiwq
JJ JJ i

Philip W. Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, N.C. 28412
ph# 910-799-1258
Mr . Wesley Bryan
1005 Stone Ave .
Waldorf , MD. 20602
Dear Mr . Bryan,
Hope this correspondence finds you well . Things are nice in
Wilmington and we eagerly anticipate Spring and Summer .
Enclosed you will find a proposal of an addition to my pier .
I am hoping to add a small boat lift to my existing lift. This
would enable me to keep my small boat out of the marsh grass where
it is presently tied to our pier .
As per CAMA, Coastal Area Management Association, I am sending
this proposal to my adjacent property owners . This requires no
action on your behalf but you must be notified.
Looking forward to meeting you sometime . I would like to
speak with you to see if you have interest in selling your lot .
Respectfully,
Philip W. Brooks

Philip W. Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, N.C. 28412
ph# 910-799-1258
Mr . James Bobbs Jr .
PO Box 3991
Wilmington, N.C. 28406
Dear Mr. Hobbs ,
Hope this correspondence finds you well .
Enclosed you will find a proposal of an addition to my pier .
I am hoping to add a small boat lift to my existing lift . This
would enable me to keep my small boat out of the marsh grass where
it is presently tied to our pier .
As per CAMA, Coastal Area Management Association, I am sending
this proposal to my adjacent property owners . This requires no
action on your behalf but you must be notified.
Respectfully,
Philip W. Brooks

�L` �Y
PHYSICAL SURVEY
CERTIFICATE Or SURVEYOR N N wk 'veDy R
1, Brim N. Hobbs_ do certify IN RD
1 that under my direction and supervision, the COpt
, dttcched physical survey was drawn from an R A v
ii,:_tual survey made under my supervision. That
the ratio of departures is 1:10,000+. Witness my Sh
ho d seal is 7th da of September 199g. w SyAN
Nam' DR A<<f
BRIAN N. HOBBS P.L.S. L-3122 h HO
1 O y hI<<S DR
N
Flagged Mean High Water Line EIP 29533 ti . VICINITY MAP N.T.S.
99 g � .�' s � F,0,._ . VICINITY
_l ?13 0 IQ'
w�� mouse E ,control gccess
3 corn
o < .a �� q//eye
n/f O to �� 88 157
Mildred Hobbs O cri h 8—
D.B. 1315 In ca ss.7• \ \/
Pg. 376 Concrete ad 310' to Julie F. Piner 1
ir South Line /
O) See Deed Book 1197 /
O Page 0620
Note: f ce
Where Mean High Water M .— /
Line intersects Property co n/f
Line, the Existing Wood Wesley Bryan /
Pier is on 311 Shannon Cil
• Drive with no n/f D.B. 332
encroachments. Philip Brooks Pg. 86 /
D.B. 2296
Pg. 593
10,437 S.F.
29.
EIR S3�'pr,
•64•
EIR
Myr , c
a.) ro
Q e so
4ha
a
0
`O
D.B.2296,PC.693
`,`%t1111I11II,,,'
`.�`\ -\., �AR0/i'%, Flood Note:
`.moo_ (),c o 9'; This property is located
9' +ho inn acnr finnrl hnr rndnry

......'''''.s.„.........,, s',
S./
,...i ..e.
...., ,,,...,(s...,
1 \ \
...,,z .. \ --..,... .
. -........,.. \
NOV 1 3 2003 ..,,
'5...1
i
) •._ ....
DIVISION OF / -.... ., \
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ...,.* .,.
\ .....
if
• i . . "P.\lik,_- .
y-,
.......A9V4K: `°'
..
//// , .._ v'l ki 1 *'' .4.1
., ,.....,
‘44.,..
/7 i ..N., 4
V 0
\ ff......../N/f \•eS
.... '1 57 —I • /
. • get
J.44........ . \
''',.,,.... // cb. if?
1
, INN // )'-'- / - .e4\ // ' ., .
\. .. .
•a. ..—k- - 6.-i
i •57, V •Z /
/.4e4 / . Af
.
\t' t.)( NI / .
1 , , '1,-, // ,. , .
\ / \
.
, , aI :—1... .,..,
..,
/ //'ititA1/4\.'
/ O'N4.1.4.0\1r7
ii •-• ko.1`z 13,--occ i ,f4; , •, 4,...
/ il ;
i 1.tx.Ns.,:t,
ra L e,A''
0 •..,
--- N.. %.*
‘, :44/'
..r X) i ------er.7, ..7.r.
,I .
I//' if if ..4- ..... 4/
, Nr ,c, ...- I ----„,,—__
-,_,-----,.
1 v.;2.0,
i sc . ' if ,N _..,` :// 4..-- ,_
-i. 1 4 • ,...
/ ; 3 I
I
— \
k s!'
..„ ---N7*-------_-_____•-• .....1
A , sr
Z. r,i1 ----„.
i I/ \\f/ 4423- 0.,
4
1 ,,...
• ,,e. .----
.9
I. ,
., I.Nol,
rn,%*
,
„N/
.
ril ee411 -. ',7 I --. . ciG.a.c.4. _I
u...,, / ,--i
N, -• . 1 _,' 1 LI '''
_. ,, I '4?
.0•:',A I-4 . (3,, . 7P1 4
.,..--:.
--, Ny •-
I
14 • . t14
e, • i— . 9.‘:5.
0. 7. ,4 --,- ' -'' i •1"1,1..;4=04;
in.° -`'4'9141/844,0604,1‘(/
i .4 11 2 )1641 I\ 17' .1'_ ,.. --,„ ,...,_ • ,,,-, .., ,_. ,..,,. :„._ .: c ,

rr—
Width pf dock 6 feet
Length of dock and walkway 372 feet
ooating pier dimensions 8' wide 18' long
Dock setbacks '
1 5 feet from the southern line of the Sept. 24,
2003 "Hobbs" survey for Brooks.
15 feet from the southern line of the August 7,
2003 "Stocks" survey for Costa
z'",:f4c,
i - ,._ ../
. d ot.s NOT S ko uJ Y p a,n eV& a rv;der- -1 1 I \
fel Pctr is Not Col rlc�et // a -
d<r,k44,Vb u -r Af >reel excers;ve.
w14-11-w S6w i4 GI1wr4 rues
s/C:
�/ r - '. pa �.`/ , yG
' SItp+t ter GYosSi'1+ rw p6`�1e i t /,4/ /
/
`•v� ` `
Nowtg' (� �. ,; t / ,1, Y •LeNels below ,rdra.k i►.e.- // i b- V ki„,4/`�� ,...
I -f ;
•� ).. ! .
• // ,,--- , -,-4\ y
1 // • �t p �,`�`/fir;
'Lliii) "sek tel \.5 i ! 'T f .
T t V I 61 ; 7/
r---- ,\/
% J.
,
•
!/, . %.•/if/ \ ,.. 1/4 i NC v.* i i .—I
f$ / -�� _
, ,if
; . y ' f \'' kY.,;),;4.1/.1
3 ; �� / \ / �
F '« 411
�� 4 4 +
F �
f 4
I I
�/, et."
... N a
. \ . 1i r ~:J a J� ' { ems
♦ n1 `-�Z�i.'��'Wit.

-Width pf dock 6 feet
Length of dock and walkway 372 feet
hooting pier dimensions 8' wide 18' long
Dock setbacks
t 5 feet from the southern line of the Sept. 24,
2003 "Hobbs" survey for Brooks.
15 feet from the southern line of the August 7,
2003 "Stocks" survey for Costa
sees NOT .163 uJ Sr ")awk, tllrvi,(O.. `. 1: ` \ \
+") P c e.,r Is Nat C.OV i erer • '1
1 •
dc.ne1.141bWS of T 1%.1 a ctssw!„
w& ei.y ? 5 6w i r+ c"1/.4 r+.lt,
° ..ii.r, o Se440.ks i , /4: ? :I. :/'
rof' `• i'4r/i0:,
ft'gv+.1. 1 iwt
t.ttto.tik1e„, Icovh,A) // ,;,,f.i i ...?„.,S.,,,W
,., // cle' /11 /i:, ,,, .'
// .‘'f" ••••!.' C`r. / ..
r \ \ti^ t J ! J� � N+ter \\ // \ 8 , ,ir .N417,. kV
'\ / r "%
�� W ,1' /
, ; /, 4eir‘ il 1 N
r / �/ t; 1 `; r
j � / S J`..3! 1% ' •tom-, -- '-/
eil/
v\i
, r , y i \ t'
r �� I, t, v4 4 .•
f \ ^I �4
Ii
. ,-11 kr' I .'''. ,:, „.:468"44%*--. '''' ,..._ . ..r,' '
4N1 ti 4 s

ENVIRONMENTAL Fax:[phone] Dec 8 '04 14:25 P. 01
ON
of North ( iiroln i
( ()( )1.11 l)eporirlicnt It(Stk.('
(J
It.,\LI,J(it l
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: CI.
FROM: e [Ca
DATE: 2- ?LI) 171
RE:
NUMBER OF PAGES (Including transmittal sheet):
CONFIRM RECEIPT OF DOCUMENT(S)IF MARKER HERE:
COMMENTS:
if
A( mdt_ erE. ia*trx,

ENVIRONMENTAL Fax:[phone] Dec 8 '04 14:25 P.02
RECEIV D
DEC 7 7V4
N.C.ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFIErNgflental Division
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 04 EHR 0605
Philip Brooks )
Stephanie Brooks )
Petitioner )
)
vs. )
NCDENR )
)
N. C.Division of Coastal Management g ) NOTICE OF MLDIA,TED
CAMAS ) SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Respondent )
and )
Jonathan Costa )
)
Respondent Intervenor
)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fred G. Morrison Jr., Senior Administrative Law Judge,
is assigned to conduct a mediated settlement conference in this contested case that is scheduled
as follows:
DATE: December 20, 2004
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: Town Hall
Council Chambers
214 N.New River Drive
Surf City,NC
This the 3rd day of December,2004.
( 1/2/_.=2'1A-V_*-7-7
anf of Administrative Law Judge

UNV1KUN1 NIHL FaX:d1Y—(1b—brb( Dec 8 '04 14:26 P.03
A copy of the foregoing was mailed to:
Philip Brooks
Stephanie Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington,NC 28412
PETITIONER
Meredith Jo Alcoke
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-9001
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
C. Wes Hodges,II
Attorney at Law
3138 Wrightsville Ave
Wilmington,NC 28403
ATTORNEY FOR.RESPONDENT INTERVENOR
This the 6th day of December,2004.
Aw.1.162:44L,
Office of inistrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-6714
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

= EXHIBIT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE CHAIRM:
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER CMT 2003-26
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
THIRD PARTY HEARING )
REQUEST BY PHILIP and ) FINAL DECISION
STEPHANIE BROOKS )
I. PERMIT & REQUEST
Petitioners Philip and Stephanie Brooks request permission to file a petition for contested
case hearing as a third party pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). Petitioners seek to challenge
CAMA General Permit No. 35156-D issued to Jonathan Costa authorizing construction of a 6'by
372'pier and 8'by 18' floating dock adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Grove
Sound,New Hanover County. Petitioners contend that the permitted location of Mr. Costa's
proposed pier violates numerous rules of the Commission.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the CAMA, a third party may file a contested case hearing petition to challenge the
issuance or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only if the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is appropriate. Section 113A-121.1(b) of
the North Carolina General Statutes provides that the determination as to whether a hearing is
appropriate should be based upon a consideration of whether the petitioner:
1. Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;
2. Is directly affected by the decision; and
1

1
3. .,Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the
hearing request is not frivolous.
The CRC has delegated the authority to its Chairman to determine whether a third party
request for a hearing should be granted or denied. Rule 15A NCAC 7J .0301(b). A third party
whose hearing request is granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b). A third party whose hearing request
is denied may seek judicial review. Id.
II. FACTS
A. Jonathan Costa owns two lots. One lot is on the west side of Shannon Dr. in New
Hanover County. He plans to build a house on this lot.
B. The second lot is on the eastern side of Shannon Dr. on the shoreline of Myrtle
Grove Sound. It consists primarily of coastal wetlands.
C. Mr. Costa wants to build a pier out from this shoreline lot into the Sound to serve
the intended residence on the lot across Shannon Dr.
D. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway traverses Myrtle Grove Sound, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has established a 60' structure setback which parallels both sides of the
Waterway.
E. Phillip and Stephanie Brooks own the adjacent riparian lot to the north of the
Costa lot.
F. On October 31, 2003, Debra Wilson, New Hanover County CAMA Local Permit
Officer, sent Mr. Costa a Notice of Violation informing him that he had violated the CAMA by
2

clearing the lot on the.western side of Shannon Dr. and placing fill at the end of Shannon Dr.
[This Notice of Violation is attached to the Brooks' hearing request.]
G. Mr. Costa was given until November 14, 2003, to agree to restore the violation.
H. On October 31, 2003, Debra Wilson, Local Permit Officer, also sent Mr. Costa a
letter informing him that his application for a CAMA minor development permit for his lot
across the road would not be processed, one reason being the need to clear the outstanding Notice
of Violation. [This letter is attached to the Brooks' hearing request as Exhibit E.]
I. Subsequently, the Local Permit Officer and a representative of the Division of
Coastal Management determined that Mr. Costa had satisfactorily restored the outstanding
violation.
J. On December 8, 2003, the Division of Coastal Management issued CAMA
General Permit No. 35156-D to Mr. Costa authorizing the construction of a 6' x 372' pier and 8' x
18' floating dock.
K. The pier begins at the right-of-way to Shannon Dr., runs along the common
property line between the Brooks and Costa properties until it reaches the water line, and then
turns towards the southeast over the waters of Myrtle Grove Sound. [Permit No. 35156-D is
attached to the Petitioners' hearing request as Exhibit C.]
L. Part of the pier extends along the fringe of coastal wetlands along the shoreline.
M. The pier is authorized within Mr. Costa's riparian corridor as determined by a
September 24, 2003, Survey for Philip Brooks. [This Survey is Exhibit B of the Brooks' hearing
request.]
3

N. The Costa pier is located 15' to the south of the boundary between the
Brooks/Costa riparian corridors and runs parallel to this boundary. The pier is located on the
northern side of Mr. Costa's riparian corridor because his floating dock juts towards the south.
O. The pier and dock were authorized out to the edge of the 60' structural setback
established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
P. The pier and/or dock were required to be elevated a minimum of 36" above the
wetlands.
Q. The pier and dock are also required to be elevated so as not to interfere with
navigation in or out of the adjacent channel.
R. The waters of the Myrtle Grove Sound are within the Estuarine Waters and Public
Trust Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) designated by the CRC in Rules 15A N.C.A.C.
7H .0206 and .0207.
S. The waters of Myrtle Grove Sound have been designated an Outstanding
Resource Water by the Division of Water Quality and a Primary Nursery Area by the Division of
Marine Fisheries.
T. Mr. and Mrs. Brooks have a pier that extends out from their lot into Myrtle Grove
Sound. It crosses a wide expanse of coastal wetlands.
U. New Hanover County does not require any setback between the inland part of the
Costa pier and the Brooks' property line.
4

I
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Petitioners have alleged that the permit decision does not comply with 15A
NCAC 7H .1205 , .0205, and .1204. Petitioners have met the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A-121.1(b)(1).
B. Petitioners are adjacent riparian property owners and, as such, are directly affected
by the permit decision. Petitioners meets the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-
121.1(b)(2).
C. The question of whether or not the permitted location of Mr. Costa's proposed
pier violates the Commission's rules raises a valid question for adjudication in a contested case
proceeding. Petitioners have thus shown that their appeal would not be frivolous and meet the
requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Petitioners'Third Party Hearing Request is GRANTED.
This the 7th day of January, 2004.
&tre44,-
if e. ,ap,,,,,,,..i....4‘,., tls. ..
, ,
Eugene Tomlinson
Chairman
N.C. Coastal Resources Commission
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Final Decision on the parties by
causing a copy thereof to be placed in the United States Postal Service, Certified Mail Return
Receipt Requested, addressed as follows:
Philip and Stephanie Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington,NC 28412
David G. Heeter (Hand Delivery)
N.C. Attorney General - Environmental Division
PO Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
This the 7th day of January, 2004.
1 . Hickey
ecial Deputy Attom eneral
•

RECEI IED
DCM FORM 5 MAR 8 . 2004
PETITIONERS NAME ��, �;� 4- 5 � n,'e. r� KSN.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL
THIRD PARi1ib6litigAnKlion
REUE
COUNTY CW 1'ke UeY Q ST ON
CAMA PERMIT DECISION
FILE NUMBER ; EXHIBIT
(Petitioner leave this line blank)
3
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the undersig
ned,a person affected by the decision of(chec: .a e ;
• a Local Pernut Officer acting on a CAMA Minor Development Permit
application;or
V the Division of Coastal Management,
Natural Resources,acting on CAMA Major Development of �Permient t
application or CAMA General Permit application
hereby requests permission from the Coastal Resources Commission to file an appeal pursuant to
N.C.Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b)and N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A,r. 7J.0300 (Please attach a
copy of the permit application decision. Ifyou cannot obtain a copy of the permit application
decision,please provide the name of the permittee, the project location and the permit number.)
Requests are reviewed by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission to determine
whether a hearing should be granted. The determination of whether to
sole discretion of the Chairman. N.C.Admin_Code tit. I5 grant a hearing is in the
For this application to be complete,the Petitioner must address each factor listed below on a
separate sheet of paper. You must address these factors before your request will be reviewed.
The Chairman's decision to grant a hearing will be based on whether the Petitioner:
4
(1) Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule [N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A-121.1(b)(1)];
(Please cite the statute or regulation allegedly violated by the permit decision.)
(2) Is directly affected by the decision [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b)(2)]; and
(Please-describe how you are directly affected by the permit decision.
Persons directly affected by a decision include, but are not limited to:
(a) any owner of real property in the vicinity of the property to
be developed who can show that the proposed development
is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the value
and enjoyment of his property;and
(b) any person who can demonstrate a history of substantial
use of public resources in the area directly affected by the

development when the development is within or touches
upon an area subject to the public n-usr.)
(3) Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the request for
the hearing is not frivolous[N.C.Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 3 .
(Please summarize the evidence or argumentsyou will ro)( a
$�►i present at a
hearing in support of your appeal.)
Based on the attached responses to the above facto the and igned by requests a third
party hearing.
3 03
•7?. 1-6)
Da c Signature of Petit or Attorney
t 71/ip w, fSrooks
Sfepk Al e +t3� izoo
Name of Petitioner or Attorney
4407 Re w o PG4f
Address
4{Alin;A5/C4i C /5- g 12-
City State Zip
( I ) 9 JZ5g#
Telephone Number
•
NOTES: This request must be served on the Director,Division of Coastal Management,at
the address shown on the attached Certificate of Service Form, within twenty(20)
days of the disputed permit decision. N.C. Gem Stat. § 113A-121.1(b). Failure to
do so constitutes waiver of the right to request a hearing. A copy should also be
sent to the Attorney General's Office,Environmental Division, at the addresses
shown on the attached Certfficate of Service Form.
Approval of a Third Party Hearing Request allows a petitioner to file a contested
case petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within twenty(20) days
of receipt of the Chairman's Order. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b).
Denial of a Third Party Hearing Request is a final agency decision which may be
appealed to the Superior Court in the county where the property is located under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § I13A-121.1(b)and Chapter 150B,Article 4.

•
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this Third Party Hearing Request has been served on the State
agencies named below by depositing copies of it with the United States Postal Service with
sgencien t postage for delivery by first class mail or by personally delivering copies to the named
Original served on: Director
Division of Coastal Management
163R Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1638
and a copy served on: Attorney General's Office
Environmental Division
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh,NC 27602-0629
This the day of �}�C vC2
/79
1�+��<�r-.v
! ��7 7 l�
Signature-of Petitioner or Attorney
EP/30540/wp
Updated:July 14, 1999
•

From:
Mr. and Mrs. Philip W. Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, NC 28412
Ph# 910-799-1258
March 3, 2004
To:
Director Charles Jones
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
We are requesting a third party hearing regarding CAMA permit #36844-D which
appears to be only a mild modification of CAMA permit #35156-D for which we were
previously granted a third party hearing by Commissioner Eugene Tomlinson, Coastal
Resources Commission. For the hearing on permit #35156-D, we had submitted all the
proper documentation in a timely fashion to Director Moffitt and the Attorney General's
Office. We had an assigned court date of May 10, 2004, and had already submitted the
requested Prehearing Statements to Administrative Law Judge Beryl Wade. For your
review, we are submitting our previous letter requesting a third party appeal for permit
#35156-D in case you do not have it on file(Exhibit 1)because it relates directly to this
request for a hearing.
Unfortunately, the hearing on permit #35156-D never transpired and we must
now repeat this request process for permit #36844-D for the following reasons. On
February 23, 2004, Mr. Jon Costa came into the local CAMA office and surrendered his
own permit (# 35156-D). Enclosed you will find a letter to that effect (Exhibit 2). On
February 24, 2004, Mr. Costa was reissued a"new" permit (#36844-D)by Jason Dail,
CAMA Field Representative, when, in fact, it was only a minor modification of permit
# 35156-D -the permit for which we had already received permission for a third party
hearing. There had been no resolution to the issues about which we were concerned and
were related to permit #35156-D before permit #36844-D was issued. It is unbelievable
that CAMA would allow issuance of this"new" permit before our granted third party
hearing had taken place. We question the legality of allowing Mr. Costa to apply for a
"new" permit while simultaneously holding a permit for the same property and essentially
the same proposed project. Proof that this application process had begun prior to the time
of his rescinding his old permit is offered from a February 12, 2004, certified mail
signature card submitted to Charleston Landing, the other adjacent property owner.
Remembering the February 12th date, it should be noted that he did not rescind permit
#35156-D until February 23th, which indicates CAMA officials had prior knowledge of
his intent. Even though Mr. Costa has a right to surrender his permit (#35156-D), in our
opinion, CAMA should have informed him this"new" permit could not be written until the
issues related to his previous permit (#35156-D) had been resolved, especially since every
item listed in our initial appeal still applies. Now, there are additional issues because of

what has transpired since our initial request for a third party hearing dated December 20,
2003. This appears to be a maneuver to deny us the third party hearing as previously
granted by Mr. Tomlinson and accepted by Judge Wade in the Office of Administrative
Hearings. Because of the recent action taken by CAMA, we are alleging non-compliance
with North Carolina General Statute 150B-23 which allows us the right as citizens to
challenge actions taken by governing bodies which we find injurious to us.
In addition, we are alleging that NC General Statute 132, 15A NCAC 07H.1202
has been violated because, to date, we have received no proper notification from Mr.
Costa, entitled to us as adjacent property owners, regarding Mr. Costa's"new" proposal
to build a pier. Interestingly, we were contacted by phone by Mr. Dail on February 24,
2004, and informed that Mr. Costa had surrendered his previous permit (#35156-D) on
February 23, 2004, and that a"new" permit (#36844-D) had been issued to him on
February 24, 2004. Upon hearing this, we were quite upset since we had received ng
notification of Mr. Costa's intent to pursue a"new" permit; yet, it had already been
granted. We were still under the impression that we were awaiting our third party hearing
until we spoke with Mr. Dail. CAMA officials knew of our previous concerns and that we
had received approval for and were awaiting our third party hearing; yet, they did not find
it unusual that we had not objected to this"new" permit. Our"no response" was simply a
result of never having known about the permit being considered and should not be
interpreted as no objection. At that time(February 24, 2004), we went into the local
CAMA office to discuss the matter with Mr. Dail. He was surprised at the evidence we
presented to him that we had not been notified. Evidently, Mr. Costa had submitted a
signature card from a certified letter sent to us advertising We of his property(not for the
purpose of notifying us as adjacent property owners) as proof that we had been notified of
his proposed work. The certified correspondence we received from Mr. Costa on
February 10, 2004, requiring our signature, only contained a letter advertising his property
for sale and informing us that this offer would expire March 15, 2004 (Exhibit 3). In
addition, according to CAMA, Mr. Costa led Mr. Gregson, CAMA Regional Director, to
believe that we were"working things out" when, in fact, we have had no contact with
him, with the exception of the above mentioned certified letter and our written response,
also sent certified mail, regarding his offer to sale his property(Exhibit 4). The evidence
we presented, addressing the fact that we had not been properly notified, was significant
enough for Mr. Gregson to write Mr. Costa a letter, dated February 25, 2004, to inform
him that his"new" permit was suspended. Mr. Gregson wrote, "Based upon information
brought to the attention of the Division of Coastal Management, it appears that the
adjoining property owners, Philip and Stephanie Brooks, did not receive a copy of the
work plat for the proposed pier and dock configuration for the property awned by you at
315 Windy Hills Drive,prior to you obtaining a permit. Under these circumstances, the
Division of Coastal Management is suspending CAMA General Permit No. 36844-D.
The permit will remain suspended until the Division determines that the issues regarding
the proper notification have been resolved as per 13A NCAC 7H.1202(b)(2). At that
time, the Division will re-evaluate the permit decision, and determine whether or not the
permit could have been authorized under the provisions of the General Permit. The
Division requests that you notify Philip and Stephanie Brooks, via certified mail, and

provide them with a work plat drawing that illustrates the approximate location of the
proposed pier and dock, at the property located at 315 Windy Hills Drive. You must also
notify them that any objections or comments should be provided in writing to the Division
of Coastal Management... " (Exhibit 5) It is interesting that Mr. Gregson used the word
"could" which indicates doubt as to whether this permit should have ever been authorized
as a General Permit. Because of the complexities surrounding this permit, as voiced by
previous CAMA Director Moffitt herself, in the presence of Mr. Gregson, Mr. Dail and
us, we submit that this permit should be considered Major since it is certainly worthy of
more in-depth review. This brings us to the next allegation that there has been violation of
NC General Statute 132,15A NCAC 07H.1102. This statute clearly states, "If DCM
staff finds that the comments are worthy of more in-depth review, the applicant will be
notified that he must submit an application for a major development permit. " The DCM
and the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission found our comments worthy of
more in-depth review; otherwise, we would not have been granted our initial third party
hearing. Therefore, it appears that Mr. Costa has been unlawfully granted another General
permit when, at best, it should have been classified as Major- if indeed, any permit at all
should have been granted due to the unresolved issues.
We allege that there has been violation of NC General Statute 132, 15A NCAC
07H.1104 because this"new" permit (#36844-D) should not have even been considered
since there were unresolved questions concerning"the proposed activity's impact on
adjoining properties, coastal wetlands, wildlife,fisheries resources and public trust
rights."
To reiterate, we have not received any notification from Mr. Costa regarding his
"new" permit and it is now March 3, 2004. The information we have obtained is a result
of telephone conversations and a direct visit with Mr. Dail in the local CAMA office,
whereupon we discussed the documents that had been filed regarding the issuance of this
"new" permit. Today, March 3, 2004, we received a letter from Mr. Dail stating that if we
wished to contest this"new" permit, we must file for a contested case hearing within 20
days of the date the"new" permit was issued. Mr. Dail's letter was received by us almost
10 days into the 20 day time period (Exhibit 6). Alarmingly, we have to request a third
party hearing on a permit which is presently under suspension due to non-compliance of
General Statute 132, 15A NCAC 07H.1202, for which we have not yet received
adjacent property owner notification from Mr. Costa, and, as stated by Mr. Gregson,
which will have to be reevaluated after Mr. Costa conforms to the previously mentioned
requests (Exhibit 5). As adjacent property owners, it is unsettling that we have not been
given notification and the right to object or comment in writing to CAMA over this
proposal before the permit was issued. Even though procedural protocol has been
violated, we have complied and responded within the 20 day parameter to further protect
and insure our right to be heard on this issue. Our response in no way negates the fact
that we had no prior notification or opportunity to object to Mr. Costa's"new" permit
application before the permit was issued.
We are inserting a section of the Prehearing Statement sent to

Administrative Judge Wade, February 26, 2004, which may give a better
understanding of this situation:
We are most concerned that since the assignment of this contested case hearing
beginning the week of May 10`h, the permit holder has himself rescinded the contested
permit, essentially rendering this hearing null and void However, he immediately
applied for and received a new permit for the same location. The new permit is merely a
slight modification of the first permit #35156-D and does not resolve any of the issues
herein listed Furthermore, the permit holder did not inform us as adjacent property
owners of his new application, thereby denying us the chance to object to this new permit.
Interestingly, he indicated to Mr. Gregson, Regional Director of CAMA, that "we were
working things out, "when, indeed, we have not been in communication with him with the
exception of a letter sent to us by him offering sale of his property. This letter was sent to
us by certified mail, requiring our signature upon receipt. It was this signature card that
he used to satisfy CAMA 's requirement for adjacent property owner's notification when it
had, in fact, been obtained for a completely different reason. To date, we have not
received the proper notification as an adjacent property owner regarding his new permit,
a CAMA requirement which has not been satisfied Yet, he has already been granted a
new permit. We were able to demonstrate to CAMA that the signature card the permit
holder submitted to them was indeed related to the offer to sale his property and not in
any way related to an attempt to notify us as adjacent property owners of his new permit
application. This was most concerning because of the apparent deceptive nature in which
this person has attempted to secure his new permit. CAMA officials were quite surprised
when we brought this to their attention and they decided to suspend this new permit until
proper notification of adjacent property owners could be accomplished Finally, the
rescindment by the permit holder of the initial permit, the permit for which this hearing
has been granted, and the attempt to obtain a new permit appear to be a maneuver to
deny or, at best,postpone a resolution to these matters. . .We have spent countless hours
and expense in defending ourselves against the accusations this permit holder has made
to individuals, as well as local and state agencies, because we trusted in CAMA 's initial
decision, believing them to be the "experts. " Finally, we have devoted excessive time to
prepare and submit proper documentation for this hearing It does not seem fair that
CAMA would issue a new permit before the issues regarding this initial permit have been
resolved especially since the very same issues apply in entirety to the new permit.
We strongly believe there is only a minor modification between permit #35156-D
and permit #36844-D and that if Mr. Costa decided himself to surrender this permit, he
should not have been given a"new" permit. In addition to the previous allegations, we
continue to allege the following:
(1) We are alleging that the N.C. General Statute 132, 15A NCAC 07H.1205 has been
wrongly applied in regards to setbacks for the proposed pier in issued permit#36844-D.
To substantiate this allegation, we are enclosing a copy of a document (Exhibit A) given
to us by Mr. Jim Gregson, CAMA Regional Director, explaining the proper setbacks for
pier placement in regards to adjacent property. This information clearly states that

no part of a proposed pier may be located within 15 feet of property line or riparian
access corridor line without a written waiver by the adjacent property owner. We have
signed no such waiver; therefore, the current proposed pier violates the 15 foot setback
from our property line. In addition, we have spoken with several coastal builders in the
Wilmington area to investigate the consistency of CAMA's requirement for the 15 foot
setback. They stated they have always had to maintain 15 foot setbacks from riparian
corridors and property lines. They were amazed that this permit had been allowed since it
did not meet the 15 foot setback from property lines.
In addition, we are alleging that N.C. General Statute 132, 15A NCAC
07H.0205 has been violated with regards to"Section C, Management Objective." This
permit allows Mr. Costa to begin his pier in an area that is designated as"high water" and,
as such, is under the protection and jurisdiction of CAMA: It should also be noted that
the entire tract of land in this proposal is below the marsh line. Such placement of this pier
would endanger many of the species of vegetation which CAMA protects and such
destruction is contrary to the purpose of CAMA. The mean high water line on this
property was initially established by Mr. Gregson and further verified by Ms. Debra
Wilson, CAMA Local Permit Officer. The enclosed survey(Exhibit B) will verify
placement of this mean high water line. The mean high water line(determined by a
different method, that of elevation) on Mr. Costa's issued permit (Exhibit C-#35156-D, as
well as his"new" permit)was established privately by Mr. Costa and is inconsistent with
CAMA's initial determination of mean high water by vegetative means. CAMA's first
determination of mean high water is, by law, overriding and cannot be randomly replaced
by Mr. Costa's recent determination. If this pier is allowed to be built as permitted, it uses
the incorrect mean high water determination and, therefore, allows a structure to be built
in a"high water" area which has no dry land origination, further endangering the coastal
wetlands. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the legal precedent from the
N.C. Attorney General's Office (Exhibit D)which substantiates CAMA's initial
determination. These legal decisions assert that CAMA's initial method of determining
mean high water by vegetative means overrides other methods. Allowing this permit to
stand will violate CAMA's charge to protect the wetlands.
We are also alleging that parts of N.C. General Statute 132, 15A NCAC
07H.1204 appear to be violated. Under"General Conditions", Part A states that "such
permit shall be for the exclusive use of the land owner." Although this permit was applied
for by Mr. Jon Costa, he has clearly advertised, with intent to sell, the property upon
which this proposed pier is to be built, along with a nearby tract of land (not adjacent to
pier property). It also appears that he intends to subdivide this nearby tract of land. As a
result, the proposed pier does not appear to be for the exclusive use of the current land
owner since he intends to sell such property with the previously mentioned tract. Also,
such a transaction appears to be contingent upon his ability to secure a pier permit. A
further substantiation of this allegation is addressed in Part (3) of this letter. Furthermore,
this would again indicate the need to move this permit out of a General into a Major
permit category as previously mentioned.

Part C of this section states"there shall be no unreasonable interference with
navigation or use of the waters by the public by the existence of piers, docks..." In the
adjacent Windy Hills Subdivision, property owners have deeded water access through a
channel over which this pier is proposed. Even though a note on the existing permit states
this"pier/dock shall be elevated as to not interfere with navigation in or out of the
adjacent channel", elevation alone does not guarantee that the pier will not interfere with
navigation and use by the many property owners who have deeded access through this
channel. The existence and placement of fixed pilings upon which this pier will have to be
built constitute a navigational impediment. It appears CAMA is deferring the concerns of
numerous land owners in the adjacent subdivision when considering this individual's single
permit.
Part D of this section relates to"unnecessary endangerment of conservation." The
entire tract of land where this pier is proposed is designated as a salt marsh conservation
area. It is without dry land access and includes an estuarine environment where various
species of fish and birds breed, develop, and live. It is our opinion that placement of such
a pier would endanger the quality of this salt marsh in its current state and also relates to
the previously mentioned Statute 132, 15A NCAC 07H.0205. A violation has already
been issued to Mr. Costa by CAMA in regards to"land disturbing activities" and will be
subsequently addressed in this letter(Part 3).
(2)In addition to the previously listed violations, as owners of the adjacent
property, we feel that allowance of the current proposal would adversely affect the value
and enjoyment of our property. Since proper setbacks have not been required and we plan
to build a permanent dwelling on our property, the proximity of the two structures (our
house and the proposed pier)would be unduly close. In addition, there is no parking
access for the proposed pier. The placement of even one car/truck on the 10 ft. access
road (which ends at our property) often restricts access to our property. Vehicular traffic
has already destroyed marsh grass where access has been attempted because there is not a
parking or turn around area.
(3)Finally, there are other significant factors that we wish to be considered in
regards to this hearing. Initially, upon learning that Mr. Costa intended to build a pier on
the property beside us, we requested and received an on site meeting with Mr. Gregson,
CAMA Regional Director, regarding the possibility of pier construction on such property.
We had been previously informed that such construction would not be allowed because
this was a designated wetland area. Mr. Dail accompanied Mr. Gregson to this on site
property inspection. Both officials, as well as Ms. Wilson, CAMA Local Permit Officer,
concurred after on site visits that a pier would never be allowed on said property unless
we waived the 15 foot setback from our property line. They were adamant and resolute in
their decisions. There appeared to be no question regarding their decisions and none
verbalized the necessity for further investigation. Trusting in the decisions of local and
state experts, we simply restated what CAMA officials had told us in regards to the
impossibility of pier construction on this property. As a result, Mr. Costa proceeded with
legal action against us, alleging we were trying to interfere with his efforts to sell the

previously mentioned properties by"discouraging prospective purchasers from buying the
property by making false representations regarding the property, such that obtaining the
permit for the construction of a dock into Myrtle Grove Sound would be impossible."
Again, we only repeated what CAMA officials had decidedly told us. It is ironic that in an
attempt to circumvent a potential property dispute (the very reason we requested an on
site visit in the first place) and to procure truth, we were accused of"false representation"
when CAMA reversed its decision and allowed the issuance of a permit. In addition, Mr.
Costa charged that we had "attempted to assert undue influence over local CAMA
officials" when, in fact, all we have done is try to abide by CAMA's rules and regulations
and honor its overall objective. We were falsely accused of unlawful encroachment into
his riparian corridor-an allegation which we were quickly able to dismiss with proper maps
and surveys. Mr. Gregson was the CAMA official who established the origination point of
our riparian corridor based on his determination of mean high water by vegetative means.
To satisfy Mr. Gregson's request following this accusation of encroachment, we secured
an additional survey to further document that our riparian corridor was indeed properly
established by Mr. Gregson. This requested survey was an additional expense which we
have had to incur because of the difficulties brought about by CAMA's reversed decision.
Because we trusted in what we had been told by local and state CAMA officials, we have
spent countless hours defending and substantiating our property against Mr. Costa's
attacks and potential lawsuit in excess of$317,000. Interestingly, some of Mr. Costa's
attorney's suggested resolutions were for us to "cease communicating with CAMA, not
to object to Mr. Costa's attempts to obtain a CAMA permit, and to waive the 15
foot CAMA setback from our property line"- all of which are lawful entitlements to us
as North Carolina citizens.
It is important to note, Wallowed, the proposed pier also violates local county
regulations requiring a 10 foot setback for structures from property lines.
Previously, Mr. Costa received a CAMA violation(Exhibit E) related to the
properties referred to in this letter.
As you have probably observed, the above allegations are simply a reiteration of
those we sent in our initial letter to Ms. Moffitt dated December 20, 2003 (which I have
included as Exhibit 1), with additional ones listed in the initial text of this letter. It is
disconcerting that we were not given the opportunity for our third party hearing on now
rescinded permit #35156-D, since nothing has been resolved and the issues have gotten
even more complex.
This whole process continues to take a tremendous physical, financial, and
emotional toll on our family and has involved an inordinate amount of time to prepare for
the initial hearing, only to have it dismissed, and now to reinitiate the entire process again.
This matter could have been avoided if CAMA had adhered to its initial determination and
had not issued a minor modification of permit #35156-D as a"new" permit. To date, we
still do not understand the rational for and validity of CAMA's reversed position or how
CAMA could justify issuance of a"new" permit under the General Permit category

because of the complexity of issues herein addressed. Indeed, the more this matter is
investigated, there seems to be a multiplicity of evidence against reversal and the granting
of this "new" permit. Not only has the granting of this"new" permit raised other issues,
but it has also resulted in frustration and additional time consuming effort by all the parties
involved. It remains our position that the initial permit (#35156-D), as well as the"new"
permit (#38644-D), should not have been issued. We are hoping for the opportunity to
challenge permit #38644-D in an attempt to put the matter to rest, especially since the first
third party appeal never transpired. We are thankful for the opportunity afforded to us as
citizens of North Carolina to participate in the process of appeal.
Sincerely,
Philip and Stephanie Brooks

From: December 20, 2003
Mr. and Mrs. Philip W. Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, NC 28412
Ph# 910-799-1258
To:
Director Moffitt
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
•
We are requesting a third party hearing regarding CAMA permit 35156-D. This
permit was issued on December 8, 2004 to Mr. Jon Costa.
(1) We are alleging that the N.C. General Statute 132, 15A NCAC 07H.1205 has
been wrongly applied in regards to setbacks for the proposed pier in issued permit 35156.
To substantiate this allegation we are enclosing a copy of a document (Exhibit A) given to
us by Mr. Jim Gregson, CAMA Regional Director, explaining the proper setbacks for pier
placement in regards to adjacent property. This information clearly states that no part of a
proposed pier may be located within 15 feet of property line or riparian access corridor
line without a written waiver by the adjacent property owner. We have signed no such
waiver; therefore, the current proposed pier violates the 15 foot setback from our property
line. In addition, we have spoken with several coastal builders in the Wilmington area to
investigate the consistency of CAMA's requirement for the 15 foot setback. They stated
they have always had to maintain 15 foot setbacks from riparian corridors and property
lines. They were amazed that this permit had been allowed since it did not meet the 15
foot setback from property lines.
In addition, we are alleging that N.C. General Statute 132, 15A NCAC 07H.0205
has been violated with regards to "Section C, Management Objective." This permit allows
Mr. Costa to begin his pier in an area that is designated as"high water" and, as such, is
under the protection and jurisdiction of CAMA. It should also be noted that the entire
tract of land in this proposal is below the marsh line. Such placement of this pier would
endanger many of the species of vegetation which CAMA protects and such destruction is
contrary to the purpose of CAMA. The mean high water line on this property was initially
established by Mr. Gregson and further verified by Ms. Debra Wilson, CAMA Local
Permit Officer. The enclosed survey (Exhibit B) will verify placement of this mean high
water line. The mean high water line (determined by a different method, that of elevation)
on Mr. Costa's issued permit (Exhibit C) was established privately by Mr. Costa and is
inconsistent with CAMA's initial determination of mean high water by vegetative means.
CAMA's first determination of mean high water is, by law, overriding; and cannot be
randomly replaced by Mr. Costa's recent determination. If this pier is allowed to be built
as permitted, it uses the incorrect mean high water determination and, therefore, allows a

structure to be built in a "high water" area which has no dry land origination, further
endangering the coastal wetlands. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the
legal precedent from the N.C. Attorney General's Office (Exhibit D) which substantiates
CAMA's initial determination. These legal decisions assert that CAMA's initial method of
determining mean high water by vegetative means overrides other methods. Allowing this
permit to stand will violate CAMA's charge to protect the wetlands.
We are also alleging that parts of N.C. General Statute 132, 15A NCAC
07H.1204 appear to be violated. Under"General Conditions", Part A states that "such
permit shall be for the exclusive use of the land owner." Although this permit was applied
for by Mr. Jon Costa, he has clearly advertised, with intent to sell, the property upon
which this proposed pier is to be built, along with a nearby tract of land (not adjacent to
pier property). It also appears that he intends to subdivide-this nearby tract of land. As a
result, the proposed pier does not appear to be for the exclusive use of the current land
owner since he intends to sell such property with the previously mentioned tract. Also,
such a transaction appears to be contingent upon his ability to secure a pier permit. A
further substantiation of this allegation is addressed in Part (3) of this letter.
Part C of this section states "there shall be no unreasonable interference with
navigation or use of the waters by the public by the existence of piers, docks..." In the
adjacent Windy Hills Subdivision, property owners have deeded water access through a
channel over which this pier is proposed. Even though a note on the existing permit states
this"pier/dock shall be elevated as to not interfere with navigation in or out of the
adjacent channel", elevation alone does not guarantee that the pier will not interfere with
navigation and use by the many property owners who have deeded access through this
channel. The existence and placement of fixed pilings upon which this pier will have to be
built constitute a navigational impediment. It appears CAMA is deferring the concerns of
numerous land owners in the adjacent subdivision when considering this individual's single
permit.
Part D of this section relates to "unnecessary endangerment of conservation." The
entire tract of land where this pier is proposed is designated as a salt marsh conservation
area. It is without dry land access and includes an estuarine environment where various
species of fish and birds breed, develop, and live. It is our opinion that placement of such
pier would endanger the quality of this salt marsh in its current state and also relates to the
previously mentioned Statute 132, 15A NCAC 07H.0205. A violation has already been
issued to Mr. Costa by CAMA in regards to "land disturbing activities" and will be
subsequently addressed in this letter(Part 3).
(2)In addition to the previously listed violations, as owners of the adjacent
property, we feel that allowance of the current proposal would adversely affect the value
and enjoyment of our property. Since proper setbacks have not been required and we plan
to build a permanent dwelling on our property, the proximity of the two structures (our
house and the proposed pier) would be unduly close. In addition, there is no parking
access for the proposed pier. The placement of even one car/truck on the 10 ft access

road (which ends at our property) often restricts access to our property. Vehicular traffic
has already destroyed marsh grass where access has been attempted because there is not a
parking or turn around area.
(3)Finally, there are other significant factors that we wish to be considered in
regards to this hearing. Initially, upon learning that Mr. Costa intended to build a pier on
the property beside us, we requested and received an on site meeting with Mr. Gregson,
CAMA Regional Director, regarding the possibility of pier construction on such property.
We had been previously informed that such construction would not be allowed because
this was a designated wetland area. Mr. Jason Dail, CAMA Field Representative,
accompanied Mr. Gregson to this on site property inspection. Both officials, as well as
Ms. Wilson, CAMA Local Permit Officer, concurred that a pier would never be allowed
on said property unless we waived the 15 foot setback from our property line. They were
adamant and resolute in their decision. There appeared to be no question regarding their
decisions and none verbalized the necessity for further investigation. Trusting in the
decisions of local and state experts, when asked, we simply restated what CAMA officials
had told us in regards to the impossibility of pier construction on this property. As a
result, Mr. Costa proceeded with legal action against us, alleging we were trying to
interfere with his efforts to sell the previously mentioned properties by"discouraging
prospective purchasers from buying the property by making false representations
regarding the property, such that obtaining the permit for the construction of a dock into
Myrtle Grove Sound would be impossible." Again, we only repeated what CAMA
officials had decidedly told us. It is ironic that in an attempt to circumvent a potential
property dispute (the very reason we requested an on site visit in the first place) and to
procure truth, we were accused of"false representation" when CAMA reversed its
decision and allowed the issuance of this permit. In addition, he charged that we had
"attempted to assert undue influence over local CAMA officials" when, in fact, all we have
done is try to abide by CAMA's rules and regulations and honor its overall objective. We
were falsely accused of unlawful encroachment into his riparian corridor-an allegation
which we were quickly able to dismiss with proper maps and surveys. Mr. Gregson was
the CAMA official who established the origination point of our riparian corridor based on
his determination of mean high water by vegetative means. To satisfy Mr. Gregson's
request following this accusation of encroachment, we secured an additional survey to
further document that our riparian corridor was indeed properly established by Mr.
Gregson. This requested survey was an additional expense which we have had to incur
because of the difficulties brought about by CAMA's reversed decision. Because we
trusted in what we had been told by local and state CAMA officials, we have spent
countless hours defending and substantiating our property against Mr. Costa's attacks and
potential lawsuit in excess of$317,000. Interestingly, some of Mr. Costa's attorney's
suggested resolutions were for us to "cease communicating with CAMA, not to object to
Mr. Costa's attempts to obtain a CAMA permit, and to waive the 15 foot CAMA setback
from our property line"-all of which are lawful entitlements to us as North Carolina
citizens.
It is important to note, if allowed, the proposed pier violates local county

t
regulations requiring a 10 foot setback for structures from property lines.
Currently, Mr. Costa has received a CAMA violation (Exhibit E) related to the
previously mentioned properties.
This whole process has taken a tremendous physical, financial, and emotional toll
on our family and could have been avoided if CAMA's initial determination had not been
changed. To date, we still do not understand the rational for CAMA's reversed position.
Indeed, the more this matter is investigated, there seems to be a multiplicity of evidence
against reversal. We are hoping this hearing will allow us the opportunity to demonstrate
and explain many of the concerns we have regarding the issuance of this permit.
Sincerely,
Philip and Stephanie Brooks

ill /.J
DIRECTIONS FOR OBTAINING A CAMA GENERAL
PERMIT for a PIER, DOCK, BOATHOUSE/LIFT
To obtain authorization to construct a pier, you must submit the following items to your CAMA Permit Officer:
I. Signatures of no objection to the pier, from both adjacent riparian
property owners.
sr Fill out the attached forms, complete with drawing of the
proposed pier, and have your neighbors sign and date in
the appropriate place.
"r If your neighbor will not sign the form, or lives out of
town, you may send the form to him, certified rna7/return
receipt, and 10 days after their date of receipt (which is
listed on the green cards returned to you by the Post
Office) the permit can be issued, even if no response has
been received.
ar If any part of the proposed pier is located within 15 feet of
the property line or the Riparian Access Corridor line, the
applicable neighbor must check the box to waiver the 15
feet setback requirement_ A signed form, without this box
checked, does not constitute a waiver_
ar The Riparian Access Corridor is not the extension of
property lines out into the water. It is established by two
imaginary lines that extend at a 90°angle from the channel
of the waterbody Iq the highgtound property corners. Your
Local Permit Officer can help you in determining your
Riparian Access Corridor. In some cases, a survey may be
required.
2. Scale drawing of the proposed pier. Your drawing mast include the
following information (see attached example drawings):
- Your name and project address
aa' Names of adjacent property owners
air Width of property and name of the waterbodv

I 11 1 ) l Vt11J Li ..J 1%, V ,(J 1
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR
I, David B. Floyd do certify L x)i =>i 7L E -04.54t44,
;''4�• y
that under my direction and supervision, the '
attached physical survey was drawn from an oft Ai,
actual survey made under my supervision. That
the ra of departures is 1:10,000+. Witness my
hand 4th day of September. 2003. ur....---....'---:-.-----......s .f.i .....................7or
z
Do B. Flo L 36 Flp y
Control 'kCS a4
Corner Sh
Flagged Mean High Water Line
by New Hanover County Zoning ti VICINITY MAP N.T.S.
as of September 7, 1999 as field verified s ;0' ���
by Hobbs Land Surveying, Inc. ?r3 h NIP IIrk -gf
Cruse
A% •
eea At/ 1 ve
eefbert) e
n/f V F
Mildred Hobbs ' +c •
DB 1315, Pg. 376 EIR l Pa° `b
1
Legend a a J1o' to .lure F Ptner
Corps of Engineers (C.O.E.) PClI. o
ere , South Line
See Deed Book 1187 /
Existing Iron Pipe (ElP) kJ Page 0620
Of
Existing Iron Rod (Of?) -
Line perpendicular - d NIP/F't7L /
Mean High Water (MHW) to C.O.E. Setback ai g W n/f /
Line per request of O1 ;,, Wesley Bryan
Point on Line (POL) CAMA. 3 n/f h DB 332, Pg. 86
Intrac o Philip t3raoks r
.� lac, asitof p, o DB 2296 ad
General Noted f"' an Dat�roii, r Pe. 54R 01
-Where Mean High Water Line tas;
rkt CoAS' 2 ln 10,4371 sf S -Property Lines to Mean High
Water (MHW) = 57061 sf
intersects Property Line, the Existing I \ t -25X calculation = 1426t sf
Wood Pier is on 311 Shannon Drive with _.4
no encroachments per September 7,
1999 map of Hobbs Surveying, Inc. s 3 Calculated
""g3)s1' , 'oint
-All distances are horizontal. �Yr• of. ` tnfroc
-Area figured by coordinate method.Q, tye Cir-o1'e Per �''�Stoo D°s 'ay
`or, \ tact C t
-Property is subject to any & all hry
easements and right-of-ways whether
written or implied.
-Setbacks are as follows: !3 DB 2296• Pg- 593
20' Front Q
10' Side Design and Developmental Compliance:
0 All information regarding setbacks lines,
30' off Mean High Water 0 impervious surfaces, and wetlands shown hereon
must be verified by the local, state and federal
-Coordinates and C.O.E. Setback agencies responsible for enforcing those
Information furnished by the encumbrances at the time of design and
Wilmington Corps of Engineers. development. Any and all developmental
````` ittIrtrtrerrrr7 restrictions must be verified w)th the parties
���,•%a CAi 0 ",,� responsible for enforcing those restrictions.
% moo. SS/O 4:�4a Flood Note*
SEAL r _ This property is located in the 100 year
flood boundary by Community Panel Number
l L-3640 _ *...„._ f2anP 370168 0093 E Map Revised September 3,
1992 as Referenced with the Bose Flood
It., O� 'M iisetbac Elevation of 11.0 feet of Zone A 10.
'�. SURN in• k Lin• e
''''O��r��1 B11�`0`O`� Floating Dock i Per , **Revised 9/24/03 to show Corp.
Setback Line and C.O.E. Line of
Channel.
September 24, 2003 I
Ref.: DB 2296, Pa. 593 - _ - .. •.

' CAIVIA / DREDGE & FILL
GENERAL PERMIT
New Modification Modification ::Complete Reissue Partial Reissue Previous permit#
Date previous permit issued
As authorized by the State of North Carolina.Department of Environment arid Natural Resources
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to I SA NCAC
Rules attached.
. ,
Applicant Name - '' ' '.,----‘ '`..L.' L '' Project Location: County _
r tH. r•I Address ! • I ' -, 1.-•'...--•A. ' •• .'-•• Street Address/State Road/Lot#(s)
, • ,
City .../' • '. f- State ' : ZIP -
' .
— ------ --- -.- - _ -
-...,
Phone#(_ ) ' • -.: --__. -.v....,..Fax#( _)__ Subdivision . ,
Authorized Agent --------"---- '' City ZIP :.
-
A ,_':ON .177.EW e:',PTA 'TES PTS Phone# ( River Basin
ffected
LI OEA ,HHF I I IH 71.URA F-N/A
AEC(s): E PWS [-,FC: Adj.Wtr. Body . ,_ __ (net /rnan hinkn)
:
Closest Maj.Wtr. Body : ..... ' ' - _:_' - ''
ORW: yes / no PNA yes / no Crit.Nab. yes / no
. .
-
Type of Project/Activity , • • .
"(Scale: . ; '"" )
Pier(dock)length :
.Platform(s) _
A •
Finger pier(s) __ ___ -.7l: C r.- . , 4 ,:-.., •1 t t -•- 4.1.14,•
.4'
•.. ,
ae.,.!
Groin length
.: _.:;---- !' .. ,.....;-.:. C-. - , ,
__.
number
Bulkhead/Riprap length ,__ . . . •-ff. _, ;;;, er.
avg distance offshore
• - __ .
,max distance offshore . , .
-- . - - -.- . ----.-- .. --. _ __. ._._ _.._.. _ .. _._ _...Basin,channel .
. • . •cubic yards
.
,. ,,-• --
." e
Boat ramp
•,we' -.4* ,.
Boathouse/Boatlift
' - t-• , '..e'
' ..- .•
,. . • . .i. T.; i. . ,
Beach Bulldozing___
"4'. .
. 4 ii,
Other:• •:- - • ....
• ,... " .. .e.•
.- ..-
..._ ..._ • •
,.. . — .
_ .,
4// r ,j - • •. '''
Shoreline Length • I .
SAV: not sure yes ' r.K?..• -/-7-1.----.---4--
— ,
Sandbags: not sure yes -....6;;;./.. '' - • - - -
Moratorium a/a yes ..7-ei, ,'". •
. -
..,_
Photos: -yes' nd . ;''- . f" f' r L - " -
Waiver Attached: Yes eiiiii:= ' - _
- ••
. .
A building permit may be required by: / . , . . L;See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
Notes/Special Conditions _ ,, ) - .
.. .
. _.
,_ -, . • , ,.. ; : • - • •..
, I -•< -t ' •
1 b t‘i •,. / ': I-/ft:- .-'''' /".-..-..'..„-'
Agent or Applicant Printed Name ,Permit Officer's Signature
:i / ' .. :
., i
.s,-, 1 , Ce•-• 1 1 -;? -'‘..l_t
Signature s'-.1.'11-Please reid compliance statement on back of permit** Issuing Date Expiration Date
•, t : 1.4 it,
_ f .. • I , -,.•-
_4.,--)--- ,t2.1 • . L' : :
Application Fee(s) Check* Local Planning Jurisdiction Rover File Name

. 19
State of,Nortth Carolina
( s. 1I III.vivo ;I.
•I •4(1/ It U 1 .() ItO\(l_‘1
1.1(;II
'?7(t4)J(1(t ''1
--MEMORANDUM--
TO: David G. Heet
FROM: Robin W. Smit •
DATE: November 9 , 1989
SUBJECT: Application of the Term "Mean High Water" As Used
in Coastal Management Development Standards
Your memorandum concerning the appropriate definition
of the term "mean high water" essentially raised the
following question:
Can the Division of Coastal Management, in applying
coastal management development standards that use "mean
high water" or "approximate mean high water" as a
parameter elect to determine the approximate location
of MHW based on natural indicators on the site rather
than by use of a survey?
Response to your question requires a brief review of both
survey methodology and the law.
Survey Methodology
To survey a mean high water line, the surveyor needs
the mean high water elevation for the property. The National
Ocean Survey (NOS) sets up 19-year tide stations in areas
where long-term control tides are to be located (there are
approximately 130 NOS tide stations on the mainland United
States) . According to NOS, additional stations are
necessary in bays and estuaries; 12-monthreadings from
those stations are then corrected through the 19-year
stations. Mean high water elevations for areas between
long-term tide stations can be obtained by using a 30-day
tide gauge on the property and referring that data back
through the 12-month and 19-year tide stations to correct
the valuer or by interpolating the data at two adjacent tide
stations.
An Equal oppor)unity/Affirmative Action Employer 41

David G. fleeter
November 9, 1989
Page
The result is an elevation above the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) which serves as the zero point
for measuring elevations on the continental United States.
NGVD is based on a 1929 average of mean sea level at 26 tide
stations in the United States and Canada; mean sea level at
those stations reflected hourly observations of sea level
over the 19-year tidal cycle.
Once the mean high water elevation has been obtained
for the site, surveyors generally locate the mean high water
line on the shore by leveling from a benchmark elevation.
If MHW is located at 1 .9 feet above NGVD, the surveyor finds
the 1 .9 elevation on the property by leveling from a
landmark with a known elevation. According to NOS, however,
the preferred method is to observe the actual intersection
of the water with the land at mean high tide or to level
from local tide stations to points of land in the immediate
area (that is, levelling from the water to the shore) . Once
a number of points are located on shore, NOS recommends
connecting those points using aerial photography, botanical
data or both; NOS indicates that because of natural
undulations in mean3sea level, levelling over long distances
is not appropriate.
The result is a mean high water elevation based on
19-year tidal data expressed as an elevation above the 1929
baseline for mean sea level. Because the surveyed MHW line
represents an average of long-term data, it does not fully
reflect the influence of non-tidal factors, such as sea
level rise, on the current mean high water elevation. As a
result, a surveyed MHW line does not necessarily represent
the actual mean high water level at any given time. A
surveyed MHW line based on levelling from benchmarks on land
also will differ significantly from the line actually
reached by the water when the sea is at the mean high tide
elevation for another reason: "it is the difference between
a line established at high tide by the plane surface of a
waveless ocean, which does not exist in nature, and the line
established4 by the waves which wash the shore at that
elevation."
Legal Definitions
The Coastal Resources Commission's standards generally
use the term "approximate mean high water"; that term is not
defined in the rules. The North Carolina Supreme Court has
defined "mean high water" in the context of property
ownership (where MHW is the boundary between privately-owned
upland and state-owned submerged lands) as a "mean or
average high tide and not as the extreme height of the
42

David G. Fleeter
November 9, 1989
Page 3
water" , Carolina Beach Fishing Pier v. Town of Carolina
Eeach, 277 NC 297 (1970) , citing the definition of MHW
adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Borax
Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 US 10 (1935) . But the
North Carolina decision, unlike Borax, does not directly
refer to a surveyed MHW line based on the nineteen-year
tidal cycle.
The Borax decision (also concerning title to property
bounded by the ocean) construed "ordinary high water mark"
as "mean high tide" and then defined "mean high tide" by
reference to the survey methodology based on "periodic
variation in the rise5 of water above sea level having a
period of 18.6 years" described in Coast Survey publica-
tions_ Ironically, the Borax decision later served to point
up one of the limitations of Coast Survey methodology. As
mentioned above, the Coast and Geodetic Survey assumed a
constant mean sea level and also assumed that no variable
other than astronomical tides influenced water level. But
in attempting to implement the Borax decision, the Coast and
Geodetic Survey found that the actual water level -in Los
Angeles Harbor at mean high tide was .4 feet higher than the
level projected by the Coast Survey based on mean sea level
and tidal range data. The difference was attributed to
seiche - "a phenomenon produced by barometric or other
influences, rather than by the gravitat.6ional attraction of
the sun and moon which produces tides. "
The Borax decision is not directly binding on the
states even in coastal boundary cases; state property law
generally applies in title determinations. Oregon ex rel.
State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand and Gravel Company, 429
US 363 (19?7) . As a result, several states that have
adopted MHW as the boundary between public trust lands and
private property do not use a survey based on tidal datum to
locate the MHW line.
An earlier United States Supreme Court decision, Howard
v. Ingersoll, 54 US 381 , 427 (1851) , zecognized use of
vegetation and other natural indicators to determine the
"ordinary high water line" on non-tidal waters:
This line is to be found by examining the bed and banks
and ascertaining where the presence and action of
waters are so common and usual and so long continued in
all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil of the bed
a character distinct from that of the banks, in respect
to vegetation, as well as in respect to the nature of
the soil itself.
43

David G. Heeter
November 9, 1989
Page 4
The Ingersoll rule has been applied in a number of modern
state and federal court decisions concerning boundaries on
non-tidal waters.
There are a number of advantages to using vegetation
and other natural indicators to determine the boundaries of
tidelands as well: the immediate visibility of the bounda-
ry, historical reliance on vegetation and the "line which
the water impressed on the soil" as the tidelands boundary
and the established practice of relying on the vegetation
line as the boundary on inland waters. Even after the Borax
decision, a number of United States Government Publications
continued to describe the high water mark as "the line which
the water impresses on the soil by coveri9g it for
sufficient periods to deprive it of vegetation. "
In O'Neill v. State Highway Dept. , 50 NJ 307, 235 A2d 1
(1967) , the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Borax
definition of mean high water as the average of all high
tides over a period of 18.6 years. But the State of New
Jersey has elected to apply a variation of the Ingersoll
rule in tidal wetlands; in those wetlands, the state uses
vegetation as the primary indicator of mean high water, both
because of the limitations of a surveyed MHW line and the
physical difficulty of using tide gauges in marsh areas. In
City of Newark v. Natural Resources Council, et al, 414 A2d
1304 , 82 NJ 530 (1980) , the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld
the State's reliance on biological delineation of MHW,
rather than tidal datum, in mapping the boundaries of
state-owned tidelands. (The method used by the State
involved analysis of color infrared photographs based on the
theory that spectral reflectance patterns of a plant species
common to New Jersey wetlands correlated with the extent of
tidal inundation.) In short, adoption of the Borax rule that
MHW marks the boundary between State tidelands and private
property does not lock the State into use of surveys based
on tidal datum to locate MHW.
In any case, the legal boundary for title purposes need
not be the line of reference for regulatory decisions. Even
while holding that MHW is the legal boundary between public
trust lands and private property, North Carolina courts have
recognized that public trust rights extend to the ordinary
reach of the waters. In Ward v. Willis, 51 NC 189, 191
(1858) , the Court held:
It seems thus to be clear that whatever soil is at any
time covered by navigable water in its natural state is
deemed to be in the same state as if it were in the b71
of the water; in other words, that it aiinpy
3%)
MAR 1 S 2001i
DIV I M0NAa'EMENT 4 4
_.. ,,cTAL

• David G. Fleeter
November 9, 1989
Page 5
whether it be under the channel or be the margin
Letween the high and low water lines.
That principle was restated in Swan Island Hunt Club v.
White, 114 F. Supp 95 (E.D.N.C. 1953) : "a navigable body of
water is navigable to the farthest reaches of the water
under normal conditions. " In those cases, the courts reached
the only conclusion consistent with protection of public
trust rights. It is simply not possible to maintain a
current surveyed boundary between public and private
property on the coast where so many factors - including
tides, sea level rise and shoreline changes - cause the
boundary to shift. The courts recognized that , for purposes
of protecting public trust rights, artificial lines are not
adequate.
For regulatory purposes, the question is whether a
given method of determining approximate MHW is adequate to
give meaning to the development standards. The bulkhead
rules, in restricting bulkhead construction below MHW, seek
to prevent undue encroachment on public trust waters and to
protect shallow water habitat. For those purposes, an
approximate MHW line based on actual site conditions appears
to be better suited to the intent of the rule than would a
surveyed MHW line which, for the reasons discussed above, is
likely to be considerably waterward of the ordinary high
water line (and in fact is likely to be well out in the
water) .
Other factors to be considered are cost, time and
consistency. A surveyed MHW line depicts something
different from an approximate MHW line based on natural
conditions (it is the difference between an abstract plane
representing the long-term average MHW elevation and the
apparent ordinary high tide line) _ Since the variation
between the two may be significant, use of both methods
(basically at the property owner' s option) will lead to
results that are difficult to reconcile from one property to
the next. A survey, aside from being less well suited to
effectuating the intent of the rules, also involves greater
cost and may delay the permitting process.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Coastal Resources
Commission can define "approximate mean high water" for
purposes of its development standards as the ordinary extent
of high tide based on site conditions such as presence and
location of vegetation and location of the apparent high
45

David G. Heeter
November 9, 1989
Page 6
tide line. It would be advisable for the CRC to define the
term by rule and to atetc in the rule the reaaone for
relying on natural indicators rather than a survey based on
tidal datum. Otherwise, use of the term "approximate mean
high water" will continue to cause confusion among members
of the public who understand "mean high water" to be the
surveyed MHW line.
Please call me if I can answer any questions or be of
further assistance in refining the Coastal Resources
Commission' s policy.
• cc: George T. Everett
Preston P. Pate
1
MAR 15 2Q0w
•
DN\s1ONAGEMENT
GOASTA1- M
46

xh './,;-t NEW HANOVER COUNTY
°YERc INSPECTIONS SERV1C VS
• ��/, Fes('_,; s\ 230 MARKET'PLACE DRIVE-SUITE 110
* WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403
FEI,EPIIONE : [phone]
�. FAX: [phone]
October 31, 2003
ANN S.HINES
Chief Zoning
Enforoeumt Official 'I 1 i •
��� •4__ : . _ `' r � .
Ii
Mr. Jonathan B. Costa H. ;r Cli
1118 Audubon Blvd. `'" f, _
F
Wilmington,NC 28403 `'
C[''`O �`
RE: CAMA Minor Permit Application •
Extreme south end of Shannon Drive
Dear Mr. Costa:
We are in receipt of the above referenced application for a CAMA Minor Permit. Before this
application can be accepted,additional information must be provided.Accordingly, we request you
complete the application package and resubmit it to us.
The reason(s)for adjudging the application to be incomplete are as follows. Your site plan must be
revised to reflect the following:
1. Need to provide the proper and correct addressing of the property.
Contact Beth Picardi in the New Hanover County Planning
Department to provide you with that information.
2. The application cannot be accepted for processing until the Notice
Of Violation has been cleared.
In accordance with DENR regulations,upon resubmission of a complete application, a local decision
will be made in 25 days,provided this period is not extended as provided by law.
Sincerely,
9.fi 9 ,-._-�—
Debra D. Wilson
CAMA Local Permit Officer
DD W/hm
cc: Jason Dail,NC Division of Coastal Management
Joanne Steenhuis, NC Division of Coastal Management
Ann S. Hines,Chief Zoning Official

s
+` NEW HANOVER COU
• 1.
NT‘
a , INSPECTIONS SERVICES
w ;. 230 MARKET PLACE DRIVE - SUITF, 110
WILMINGTON,NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ANN S.HINES I I LEPHONE : (910) 798-711 S
Chief Zcating
Enforcement ! FAX: [phone]
October 3 I, 2003
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED •
Mr.Jonathan B. Costa
1118 Audubon Blvd. ? '' i •
Wilmington,NC 28403 ft ! j '_ 'v s -s --
I
RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION \i h� `d G `! i1�3
Dear Mr. Costa: _ _ S-- •• •. ;
This letter confirms that on October 29,2003, 1 was at the extreme south end of Shannon Drive,
in New Hanover County, adjacent to the AICWW to investigate the possibility of development activity
within an Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) without proper authorization. My visit verified that
land disturbing activities including the substantial placement of fill on this lot has recently taken place.
No Minor Development Permit has been issued for this development activity.
No person may undertake activity constituting minor development within a designated AEC without
first obtaining a Minor Development Permit from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources or a Local Government with an approved Coastal Area Management
Implementation and Enforcement program. This requirement is imposed by North Carolina General
Statutes (NCGS) 113A-118. It is my judgement as a CAMA Local Permit Officer, with permitting
authority over this project area,that this project is effectively completed.
Since after-the-fact permits may not be issued, I am initiating enforcement action by issuing this
Notice of Violation.
I request that you IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST any further unauthorized development
activities within designated AECs on this property. If the development completed to date is not
consistent with the applicable standards,you may be required to restore the land to its former condition
and/or bring all aspects of the project into compliance_ A civil assessment of up to Two Hundred and
fifty Dollars ($250.00) may be assessed against any violator. Each day that the development activity
described in this Notice is continued or repeated may constitute a separate violation which is subject to
an additional assessment of up to $250.00 An injunction or criminal penalty may also. , t,
enforce any violation(NCGS 113A-126). \ ;'
1-)11 --46 k2)' -j . '
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to lcvy a mi t'et 1!,I civil assessme• t Fifty
Dollars($50.00)against all violators of CAMA Minor DevelopmentP• f t`.,=•uit ��
to recoup some of the costs of investigating violations and/or ' 1,/ r don
to comp•• .1%• public for . I doge
to its natural resources. Whether a higher amount will be assessed •-pends OVA_+. AVENEI`►T
including the nature and amount of resources affected, the extent of da
ttol
whether full cooperation is forthcoming in bringing the project into compliance. gStk-r"•urces, and

Mr. Jonathan ft Costa
tictober 31. 2003
The enclosed Restoration Plan describes the action necessary to bring this project into compliance with
the Act. Please sign the Restoration Agreement and return it to me by November 14,2003.
Pending the satisfactory resolution of this violation, and my submission of an Enforcement Report to
the District Manager of the Division of Coastal Management, you will be notified of the amount of
your civil assessment
•
Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, •
2A_a
Debra D. Wilson t' C 42333
CAMA Local Permit Officer
rti,-
DDW/hm Cam:`, =! i �. :.'.�.r.
cc: Jason Dail,NC Division of Coastal Management
Joanne Steenhuis,NC Division of Coastal Management.
Ann. S. Hines, Chief Zoning Enforcement Official

RESTORATION PLAN
FOR
Extreme south end of Shannon Drive, Wilmington, in New Hanover County, North Carolina
Complete removal of all fill material and installation of a silt fence
and complete removal of any sediment in the coastal wetlands (marsh), by hand.
No equipment is allowed in the coastal wetlands.
1, Jonathan B. Costa, agree to complete the required restoration outlined in the above Restoration Plan
to the satisfaction of New Hanover County's CAMA Local Permit Officer by November 14, 2003
or provide an explanation for non-compliance and a reasonable request for a time extension.
Signature
DATE: ,20
173
i•
C 1 t`
CO

A7A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones,Acting Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
February 23, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL # 7003 1010 0000 0032 1792
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. John Costa
1118 Audobon Boulevard
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Re: CAMA General Permit No. 35156-D
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Costa:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of General Permit No. 35156-D which you surrendered to this
Office on February 23, 2004. The surrender of this permit is accepted. As a result, the permit is null and
void and no further work may take place under this permit.
If you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information, please advise.
S'scereIy,
•
Jim regson
D. + 'ct Manager
•
cc: Charles Jones, DCM
Merrie Jo Alcoke, DOJ
+Jason Dail, DCM
Debra Wilson, LPO
127 Cardinal Drive Extension,Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]\Internet nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affrmattve Action Employer-50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

To: Philip and Stephanie Brooks
In mid March I will be listing my properties on Shannon
Drive for sale. If you wish to purchase parcel ROT 9[l8-
003-073-000 aka 5989 Myrtle grove Rd. and parcel
R07908-003-018-000 aka 315 Windy Hills Dr. before I list
the property the price for the combined parcels will be
$200,000.
Any offer may be made through my attorney, Wes
Hodges.
This offer will become null and void after March 15,
2004.

!I IS A,,.l. 4.� t:(4,•e _T r
, . r titc._ 'L$`66J , u ..n Lrd - -
14 1i iIi1 .I Gc.. ' •} '-I-
il ii`ItI r e'!- — r.A.
ifii 1133 11
0000 �j/J `28412 UUU1SOD-I USA ►�_
OFTH �STICKER � o�MOST .
iD ADDRESS, TO
AZ//, ct--5 't/44t6%#1 X Pi,C; A,5 CERTIFIED MAIL
"i tikiiJ! wi ( % tLL .
1.,' r71i_.J 2 $ 412-
7002 2410 0003 1725 8693
1
i
1
2E452.f2Ci i„1,11„1,,1„1,„its,iJ„1,lil,,,,,li,,,lf,11,,,i„d1ili,1

4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, NC 28412
February 13, 2004
Jonathan Costa
l l 1 ti Audubon Blvd
Wilmington,NC 28403
Mr. Costa:
We received your letter notit}ing us that you will be listing you] taupe,ties un 9iiw'nue,
Drive. We are unable to consider paying$200,000 for the parcels you mentioned;
however, we would consider one of the following options:
1. Parcel R07908-003-018-000 aloe 315 Windy Mils Dr. $10,000
2. Parcel,R07908-003-018-000 aka 315 Windy Hills Dr.
Parcel R07908-043-0'73-000 aka 5989 Myrtle Grove Rd.
$100,000
3. Parcel R07908-003-018-000 aka 315 Windy Hills Dr.
Parcel R07909 003 073 000 aka$9,130 Myrtle Grove Rci.
Parcel.R07908-003-019-000 aka 5977 Myrtle Grove Rd.
$200,000
If you are interested in any of these possibilities, please call me at 352-3134, or you may
contact me by aril if you prefer. Vou rnentionecl a ri 4Iine of Merrh I S; hnweve.r, we
would have to complete negotiations by the first of March due to previously scheduled
commitments which will make us unavailable.
Thank you_
•
SENL ER i=OA.rP!EIZ 1 H;:;SECTION L I Nro r«,rr pr1 fir,AT ,
• Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complota A. one •
(tern 4 if Reetrlated Delivery is deelrvd, x _
■ Nor your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you. g DaAa Y
1
• Attach this card to the hack of the mallp ace, 4•� T ,
or on the front if space permits_ l
P. .day addreee dlfererd from tear 17 0 - �T�s
1_ Article Addreeeedto: If YES,enter delivery eddreee be ow: U No
( •ar thMrS --To nath on
it t
b)l (6_4 I 3. hp•
Certrrled Mar ❑&proeo Mai
'"} g' o Reglrrtered Q Return Receipt for Merchandise
(� 0 Inwred Mull In C.O.D.
nnetrefert rirrnvarya Feel n Mae
z, Article Number 7003 226a 0004 2235 2039
(Transfer horn service let
PS Form 3811,August 2D01• : ••Cdowetb'Rettirfr Receipt testo rne+s-isio

E �- A +
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Acting Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Notice of Suspension of CAMA General Permit No.36844-D
Certified Mail- 7003 1010 0000 0032 1501
Return Receipt Requested
February 25, 2004
Mr. Jonathan Costa
1118 Audubon Blvd.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Mr. Costa:
This letter is in reference to CAMA General Permit No. 36844-D, issued to you on February 24, 2004, for the
construction of a private pier(6' x 372') and floating dock(6' x 18'), at your property, located at 315 Windy Hills Dr_
(as per New Hanover County Tax Office), in Wilmington, New Hanover County.
Based upon information brought to the attention of the Division of Coastal Management, it appears that the
adjoining property owners, Philip and Stephanie Brooks, did not receive a copy of the workplat for the proposed pier
and dock configuration for the property owned by you and located at 315 Windy Hills Drive, prior to you obtaining a
permit.
Under these circumstances, the Division of Coastal Management is suspending CAMA General Permit No.
36844-D. The permit will remain suspended until the Division determines that the issues regarding the proper
notification have been resolved, as per 15A NCAC 7H .1202(b)(2). At that time, the Division will re-evaluate the
permit decision, and determine whether or not the permit could have been authorized under the provisions of the
General Permit.
The Division requests that you notify Philip and Stephanie Brooks, via certified mail, and provide them with a
workplat drawing that illustrates the approximate location of the proposed pier and dock, at the property located at 315
Windy Hills Drive. You must also notify them that any objections or comments should be provided in writing to the
Division of Coastal Management. To facilitate this, Thave enclosed the Division of Coastal Management Adjacent
Riparian Property Owner Notification/Waiver Form.
•
S cerely,
frtGregso
rict Manager
cc: C.Jones,DCM
Merrie Jo Alcoke,AG's Office
•
127 Cardinal Drive Extension,Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]Fax:[phone] Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer-50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

� , ,, \-- Co
AwPril
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley. Governor Charles S. Jones.Acting Director William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
February 24, 2004
Certified Mail-7003 1010 0000 0032 1495
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Philip Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, NC 28412
Dear Mr. Brooks:
This letter is in response to your February 24, 2004, correspondence regarding yours concerns about
the proposal by Mr. Jonathan Costa to construct a pier and floating dock on his lot, adjacent to your property,
at 315 Windy Hills Drive, located off of Shannon Drive, in Wilmington, New Hanover County. Based on the
revised drawing provided by the applicant, the proposed pier and dock will not extend into the 15 foot
riparian corridor setback. The proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal
Resources Commission (7H.1200), and as such, the Division has issued a CAMA General Permit for the
proposed action. I have enclosed a copy of the rules which govern the issuance of permits for piers, docks
and boat houses.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you must file for a contested case hearing
within twenty (20)days from the date the permit was issued. I have enclosed the applicable forms and
instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline. Please contact me at [phone], if you have any
questions, or if I can provide any additional information.
Sincerely., A y
/ ,
, -
ason Dail
Field Representative
cc James H. Gregson, District Manager, DCM
Charles Jones, DCM
Merrie Jo Alcoke
e•1CAMA\lacnn\Cthjertinn1Rrnnlre flee(fl
127 Cardinal Drive Extension,Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone:[phone]\Fax s:\CAMAVason\Objection\Brooks.Dec 910-350-20041 Internet:
http:I/dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer-50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper

131,44A
o
State of North Carolina Reply to:
Meredith Jo Alcoke
ItOYCOOI'Ut Department of Justice Environmental Division
1701kNIiY (]ENERAl. P. O. BOX 629 9001 Mail Service Center
RALLIGF I Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
Tcl:919-716-6600
27602-0629 Fax:[phone]
nulcoke(linuil.jus.state.nc.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Tomlinson
CC: Charles Jones, Director
Jim Gregson, District Manager
Jason Dail, Field Representative (Brooks only)
Justin Whiteside, LPO, Town of Ocean Isle Beach ( o lc!',� 1 ) JI V
Jill Hickey, CRC Counsel
1' MAR 1 5 2004
FROM: Meredith Jo Alcoke JY
Assistant Attorney General DIVISION
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
•
DATE: March 12, 2004
RE: Two Staff Recommendations: Cooley& Brooks
Please find enclosed two Staff Recommendations on third party hearing requests. The
hearing requests are attached to each recommendation. These cases are unrelated but were filed
near the same time. You may notice that both of these petitioners have filed third party hearing
requests previously.
The first hearing request is filed by David and Carolyn Cooley. They previously filed a
third party hearing request challenging a permit issued to Carter Pate for a single family
residence in Ocean Isle Beach. That request was denied because the Cooleys were not directly
affected by the permit decision due to the fact their lot was located too far away from the Pate lot.
This third party hearing request challenges another permit issued to Bryan and Susan McCall for
development on a lot oceanward of the Cooley's lot on the diagonal. This hearing request was
filed several weeks late. The decision on the Cooleys' request is due by March 22,2004.
The second hearing request is filed by Philip and Stephanie Brooks, challenging a pier
permit issued to Jon Costa. They were granted a third party hearing and filed a contested case in
OAH. Thereafter, Mr. Costa surrendered his permit and applied for a new permit for the same
development but with the pier in a different alignment. That act rendered the first permit moot.
This third party hearing request challenges the new permit, which the Brooks still contend is
unlawful. The decision on the Brooks' request is due by March 23, 2004.

�i •
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER CMT 2004-04
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
THIRD PARTY HEARING ) RECOMMENDATION OF THE
REQUEST BY PHILIP AND ) DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
STEPHANIE BROOKS )
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioners, Philip and Stephanie Brooks, have filed a'third party hearing request seeking
a hearing on Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) General Permit No. 36844-D issued by the
Division of Coastal Management(DCM) to Jonathan Costa. Permit No. 36844-D was issued
after Mr. Costa surrendered a previous permit, No. 35156-D, and sought a new permit for a pier
and floating dock adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Grove Sound, New
Hanover County.
Under the Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA), a third party may file a contested case
hearing petition to challenge the issuance or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only if
the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is
appropriate. Section 113A-121.1(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that the
determination as to whether a hearing is appropriate should be based • . , is•\i :11113
whether the petitioner: MAR 1 3 V411
1. Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or ru e; DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
2. Is directly affected by the decision; and
3. Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the hearing
request is not frivolous.
The CRC has delegated the authority to its Chairman to determine whether a third party

request for a hearing should be granted or denied. Rule 15A NCAC 7J .0301(b). A third party
whose hearing request is granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH) within 20 days after the Commission makes its determination.
N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). A third party whose hearing request is denied may seek judicial
review. Id.
II. FACTS
A. DCM issued General Permit No. 35156-D to Jonathan Costa on December 8, 2004. The
permit authorized him to construct a pier and floating dock on property he owns at 315
Windy Hills Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina.
B. Petitioners are adjacent riparian property owners. Petitioners timely filed a third party
hearing request with the Chairman of the CRC to challenge Mr. Costa's permit pursuant
to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). The Chairman granted the request to address the single
issue of whether the proposed pier violates the Commission's rules for such structures.
The Chairman's Final Decision in that case is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated by reference.
C. Petitioner filed a petition for contested case hearing in the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) on January 23, 2004.
D. On February 23, 2004, Mr. Costa surrendered General Permit No. 35156-D to DCM. It is
now null and void, no longer in effect, and no work may take place under it.
E. Mr. Costa surrendered his permit so that he could obtain a new pier permit in a different
alignment, farther away from the Brooks'property. Typicall riveliticAiipie
"minor modification"to an existing permit. In this case, Mr. ta's MHR nel}ended
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
2

by operation of law due to the Brooks' appeal. Therefore, DCM issued a new permit
because it cannot modify a permit that is suspended.
F. There is no basis in CAMA or the CRC's rules for DCM to refuse to allow a permittee to
surrender and abandon a CAMA permit.
G. DCM issued a new permit, No. 36844-D, to Mr. Costa based on his revised drawings.
DCM advised the Brooks of their right to appeal this new permit by letter dated February
24, 2004.
H. There is no basis in CAMA or the CRC's rules for DCM to refuse to issue a new permit
to Mr. Costa due to the pending litigation because his proposed development meets all of
the applicable guidelines. CAMA specifically requires that when a project meets the
development standards, a permit shall be issued. N.C.G.S. § 113A-120(b)(emphasis
added).
I. The Brooks informed DCM that they had not properly been notified of Mr. Costa's plans
to construct a new pier based on revised drawings. DCM therefore suspended the newly
issued permit until such time that Mr. Costa complied with 15A NCAC 7H .12 )2(b)(2),
which requires that proper notice be given.
J. On March 3, 2004, DCM filed a Motion to Dismiss the Brooks' contested case petition in
OAH. Because the original permit is null and void, it cannot now be litigated.
K. On March 8, 2004, the Brooks filed this third party hearing request challenging the new
permit issued to Mr. Costa. The third party hearing request is attached hereto as Exhibit
B and incorporated by reference. Although the permit is presently in suspension due to
Mr. Costa's alleged failure to properly notify the Brooks of the proposed pier, it is
3

I
expected that the permit will become effective again as soon as proper notice is given and
the 10-day comment period has passed. The permit will still remain suspended, however,
due to the second third party hearing request. N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(c).
III. DCM'S RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Has the Petitioner Alleged that the Decision is Contrary to a Statute or Rule?
Yes. In order to prevail in a third party hearing request, a petitioner must first allege
that the agency made a decision that is contrary to statute or rule. N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(1).
In this case, Petitioners allege that the decision is contrary to the CRC rules governing pier
alignment.
B. Is the Petitioner Directly Affected by the Decision?
Yes. Petitioners are adjacent riparian property owners and are therefore directly
affected by the permit decision. N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(2).
C. Has the Petitioner Demonstrated that the Hearing Request is not Frivolous?
Yes. DCM maintains that the hearing request is frivolous because the proposed
development plainly meets the CRC's pier guidelines. The agency's confidence in this position
is demonstrated by the issuance of the second permit to Mr. Costa. However, the Chairman has
already found that the Brooks request on the first permit was not frivolous. Because the
underlying facts are still the same, DCM must defer to the Chairman's previous ruling on this
matter. N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Division of Coastal Management recommends that the third
party hearing request by Philip and Stephanie Brooks be GRANTED.
4

4 • 14 1
This the Id' day of March, 2004.
FOR THE DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
•
dith J/t -Itodst'o>ft(J-
Mer ke
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
919/716-6600
919/716-6767 (fax)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Recommendation of the
Division of Coastal Management upon the Petitioners by causing a copy thereof to be placed in
the U.S. Postal Service bearing sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and addressed as
follows:
Philip and Stephanie Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington,NC 28412
This the I� day of March, 2004.
/LJt9 -
Meredith
Joke
Assistant Attorney General
5

t
Philip and Stephanie Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, NC 28412
March 06, 2004
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Mr. Gregson:
We strongly object to the proposal that we received from Mr. Costa's attorney for him to
build a pier and dock at 315 Windy Hills Drive. We were told by Mr. Jason Dail that Mr.
Costa had already received his permit for this proposal and that we had to commence the
request for a third party appeal if we objected. Since the permit has already been issued to
Mr. Costa, this seems to be a futile correspondence. Let it be noted that we received this
adjacent riparian property owner notification on March 5, 2004, but the permit had been
issued on February 24, 2004.
We should have received Mr. Costa's preliminary work plat drawing of his proposal with
this notification; instead, we received a copy of Mr. Dail's drawing from the permit after it
had already been issued.
We have objected twice before to applications by Mr. Costa for proposals to build on this
property and our concerns have never changed the decision to issue a permit.
You may contact Mr. Charles Jones for details of our objections, since we had to submit
them to him in our request for a third party hearing on this"new" permit. You will find
many General Statutes which we allege have been violated by the issuance of this"new"
permit. ( # 3(,S 41i- - o).
Sincerely,
4
,,._____ ,a--",, _
_._ r
t (3„/
Philip W. Brooks
Stephanie B. Brooks

•
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER FORM
Name of Individual Applying For Permit: C 5
Address of Property: 3 ( (s):(7
(Lot or Street#, Street or Road
V i tt ►- ," 0<c.c ,
(City and Coun#y)
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above-referenced--property. The individual
applying for this permit has described to me as shown on the attached drawing the development they
are proposing. A description or drawing, with dimensions, should be provided with this letter.
I have no objections to this proposal.
PA X- sf vr.)&y OAa jeci
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 or call 910-395-3900
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no objection if
you have been notified by Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boat house or boat lift must be
set bck a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access-unless waived by me. (If
you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
?C ' X I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
3/410
Sign N Date
pkia Emok,f-
Print Name
0 - - 2 �� NCDENR
/ NOIrni CAROUNA DErwrrMeNr or
ENVIRONMENT AND NRLRAL RESOURCES
Telephone Number with Area Code
S:\cams\shells\riparianproper y.fiini

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
((� Q[3� ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVE4'" - 04 EHR 0605
•
PHILIP BROOKS, )
STEPHANIE BROOKS, )
)
Petitioners, )
) MEDIATION AND
v. ) SCHEDULING ORDER
)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RECEIVED
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF COASTAL ) OCT 5 2004
MANAGEMENT, CAMA, )
N C.ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent. ) Environmental Div►sion
This contested case came before the undersigned pursuant to a telephone conference on
September 23, 2004 between the undersigned and all parties or their counsel. The undersigned
heard evidence in this case for two days as originally scheduled, on September 14 and 15, but the
parties were unable to complete presentation of the case in that time. Based upon the evidence
presented, the demeanor of the parties, and the representations of counsel and pro se Petitioners,
the undersigned finds as follows:
1. The parties all express interest in settling the controversy between them.
2. The controversies and legal disputes between Petitioners and Respondent-
Intervenor are unlikely to end with a decision in this contested case. Additional litigation and
disputes are quite likely unless all the issues between the parties are settled.
3. Counsel for Respondent and Respondent-Intervenor requested that this case be
ordered to mediation. Having observed the interactions of the parties and counsel, the
undersigned is of the firm opinion that the case is unlikely to settle without professional
assistance, but that settlement with the help of a trained mediator is quite likely, and would be to
the great benefit of all the parties.
4. Should the case not settle, two more days of hearing should be adequate.
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that:
1. The parties shall select a mediator, arrange a mediated settlement conference, and
participate in good faith in that conference. The mediated settlement conference shall be
completed by December 31, 2004.

A copy of the foregoing was mailed to:
Philip Brooks
Stephanie Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, NC 28412
PETITIONER
Meredith Jo Alcoke
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
C. Wes Hodges, II
Attorney at Law
3138 Wrightsville Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT INTERVENOR
This the 4th day of October, 2004.
) A/
► r
Offif of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

. R-3,,, c -74:„-v3p __
,Niiii.°Fria OF
/ S SEP 0 3 2004 A17MtNISTRATIVBKLABINaa
6714 MAIL SERVICE CIsNTka
DIVISION OF 'ALEice,No "61)46+1 000."
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PawlsNo.
.��. : -
� � w o aapaar palesT<,product drr.umn,or oti,ac'
Prirtyliqueettlagsobro+ea
) 'NonTI PART1D NOT PT f A111 11D BYCOG'T LL:
u't. .i- L..-Q„ __ swbPome tea,)bap iced A I;ow;but mu de
must t+e■ ad and
Respondent. t iate the ofnce of Actmtatw& i{aarirteL.
TO:
70.c0N tOt..-%\__-
Name qf persom bt.;rg paved
Street Warm/post ethics bra Mamie at4sre,a
___ _
it�.'."StatriZip � C?ty,loaratpTticok me
or'ARE COM _ANDILf Tn: (check AL t mt apply.
Appc.skt loaf natty IA the abon-caeltkd cocietted Leer at tba;iltaC,fine,aad tax fadti67tad below.
,pprttrr Jeri tt fy,in der abate-retitled(leafletted:Axe,at 4 dapre:oar,*tile place.rialle and time Iadicamsd ylow
Y-«do,:e.,.-. tutassoe#an mod evirylag of Ow fotlo w:ab teeny r the peace,date..ad woe intlamsed baloww.
NA,'','Ch.v-'n'tar i-t t.n atonal at.44.WC, Roquoaltc *owe
1 -071.,k14.- 4- A.-tt-024.L:&....1;ro 04'
A t•,._- ---ti,�_v�..T s lime Title
4 :.. "0,.' ad r.,Juu, s.xvmot°e ft.).is.,x.
� ,�z `i, iQY' r
00't 0 91;"0 sxto 01-14&A.Mit40 , OC- Vf.i 2-
. ` citv'sakZm
,...,,X. r )� r� '11.is (.r )'\_.1 'k0 ' - 39'1' `' e
-; J 1$44 xyJR CICpI+4ft Number_
A43.gl ii 11 )0t r"ltYt _ Arl.`,AL- �.,.+.r ., -rota.r�R
DiILLIVBR "ItE1"URtaQr f.E.RYtct 7f)

✓, STA((vH
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice Reply to:
ROY COOPER Meredith Jo Alcoke
ATTORNEY GENERAL 9001 Mail Service Center Environmental Division
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 9001 Mail Service Center
27699-900 1 Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
[e-mail]
BY HAND-DELIVERY
1�1
September 3, 2004
_
Ms. Kim Hausen `
Chief Hearings Clerk .2
Office of Administrative Hearings v `�
6714 Mail Service Center
r.)
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Re: Brooks v. DCM, 04 EHR 0605
Dear Ms. Hausen:
Please find enclosed for filing the original and one copy of a Prehearing Order in the
above-referenced case. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Petitioners' complete
execution of the signature page of this document and forward that to OAH with a copy to the
parties.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, •
Atutloifrildice,
Meredith Jo Al
Assistant Attorney General
cc: Philip and Stephanie Brooks
C. Wes Hodges, II

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 04 EHR 0605
Philip Brooks, )
Stephanie Brooks )
)
Petitioners, )
) PREHEARING ORDER
v. )
)
N.C. Department of Environment and )
Natural Resources, Division of ) \.\EARiv
Coastal Management, ) Gs
Respondent, ) 01
) Cr o- T
Cr)�
and ) �
"Qv d0.3
Jonathan Costa, )
. )
Intervenor-Respondent. )
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and
N.C.G.S. § 150B-31, and upon order of the Honorable Julian Mann, III, Chief Administrative
Law Judge, dated August 6, 2004, Petitioners, Respondent, and Intervenor-Respondent
("Intervenor")jointly file this Prehearing Order in the above-captioned case.
I. JURISDICTION
It is stipulated that all parties are properly before the court and that the court has
jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
II. BURDEN OF PROOF
It is stipulated that Petitioners bear the burden of proof on all issues. Specifically,
Petitioners must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent substantially

prejudiced Petitioners' rights and that the agency committed one of the errors set forth in
N.C.G.S. § 150B-23(a), i.e., exceeded its authority or jurisdiction, acted erroneously, failed to
use proper procedure, acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or failed to act as required by law or rule.
III. EXHIBITS
The parties stipulate only that the following exhibits will be served on all other parties
prior to the hearing on the matter and no later than September 7, 2004. The parties make no
stipulations regarding whether the documents are genuine, competent, relevant, or material. A
list and description of all known exhibits the parties may offer at hearing are:
Petitioners
1. Hodges's letter 9-19-03 to Philip Brooks
2. Business card from Costa(mid Sept. 03)
3. CAMA permit#34246-D
4. Stocks survey 8-07-03
5. Letter from Mr. Gregson to Philip Brooks 9-26-03
6. Hobbs Riparian Survey for Philip Brooks 9-24-03
7. Letter from Ms. Moffitt to Mr. Costa 11-03-03
8. Letter from Mr. Dail to Philip Brooks 11-03-03
9. Advertisement by Costa selling his property
10. Letter from Brooks' to Hodges 9-26-03
11. NC GS 132.15ANCACO7H.0201-6
12. NC GS 132.15ANCACO7H.1201-5
13. Directions for obtaining a CAMA general permit for a pier, dock...
14. "Blueprints" UNC-SG-BP-91-2
15. CAMA permit#35156-D
16. 3rd party appeal request for CAMA permit#35156-D
17. CAMA permit#36844-D
18. Letter from Mr. Gregson to Mr. Costa 02-25-04
19. Certified letter from Mr. Costa to Mr. Brooks offering his properties for sale
20. Certified letter from Brooks to Costa responding to his offer
21. CAMA General Permit form
22. New Hanover County Zoning Excerpts
23. The Major Development Permit Process from CAMA Rules
24. Letter from Brooks to Gregson 11-18-04
25. Violations from CAMA to Costa
2

•
26. Windy Hills Subdivision property owner's deed
27. Letter from Hodges to Brooks 03-02-04
28. Request for Third Party Appeal on Permit#36844-D
29. Letter from Dail to Brooks 02-24-04
30. Letter from Gregson to Costa 02-23-04
31. Letter from Brooks to Dail 03-17-04
32. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 03-03-04
33. Hobbs Riparian Survey for Philip Brooks 08-23-04
34. Various pictures of Costa's property and surrounding areas
35. DVD video of Costa's property and surrounding areas
36. New Hanover County Tax Listing for 315 Windy Hills Drive
All Pleadings and attachments, including Third-Party Hearing Requests
All exhibits identified by Intervenor
All exhibits identified by Respondent
Respondent
1. CAMA General Permit Nos. 36844-D (February 24, 2004)
2. CAMA General Permit No. 35156-D (December 8, 2003)
3. CAMA General Permit No. 34246-D (October 28, 2003)
4. Handwritten note by Jonathan Costa(February 23, 2004)
5. Letter from Jim Gregson to Jonathan Costa(February 23, 2004)
6. Letter from Jason Dail to Philip Brooks (October 29, 2003)
7. Letter from Jason Dail to Philip Brooks (December 8, 2003)
8. Letter from Donna Moffitt to Jonathan Costa(November 3, 2003)
9. Letter from Jason Dail to Philip Brooks (February 24, 2004)
10. Letter from Wes Hodges to Jim Gregson (March 2, 2004)
11. Letter from Jason Dail to Philip Brooks (March 9, 2004)
12. Letter from Wes Hodges to Jim Gregson (March 12, 2004)
13. Stocks Survey dated August 7, 2003
14. Hobbs Survey dated September 24, 2003
15, Aerial photographs dated May 2003 and February 2000
16. Ground photos of area
17. CRC rules and diagram showing"Examples of Riparian Access Areas" available at
nccoastalmanagement.net
All Pleadings and attachments, including Third-Party Hearing Requests
All exhibits identified by Petitioners
All exhibits identified by Respondent
Intervenor
3

1. CAMA General Permit No. 36844-D (February 24, 2004)
2. Physical Survey for Philip Brooks by Hobbs Surveying Co. (September 24, 2003)
3. CAMA General Permit No. 35156-D (December 8, 2003)
4. CAMA General Permit No. 34246-D (October 28, 2003)
5. CAMA General Permit No. 17560-D (February 3, 1998)
6. Letter from Ann Hines to Dave Heeter-dated January 2, 2004
7. Excerpts from CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina
8. Aerial Photograph of AIWW dated October 4, 2002
9. Building Permit for 311 Shannon Drive dated February 10, 1998
10. Building Permit Application for Accessory Structure for 311 Shannon Drive (#98-1397)
11. Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property(July 30, 2003)
12. Riparian Survey for Jonathan Costa by Stocks Land Surveying (August 7, 2003)
13. Photographs of Costa property
14. Photographs of Brooks property
All Pleadings and attachments, including Third-Party Hearing Requests
All exhibits identified by Petitioners
All exhibits identified by Respondent
IV. WITNESSES
Following are the names of all known witnesses the parties may call at hearing:
Petitioners
All witnesses listed or called by the Respondent and Intervenor
Jason Dail
Jim Gregson
Philip Brooks
Stephanie Brooks
David Arnold
Debra Wilson
Davey Bruton
C. Wes Hodges, II
Respondent
All witnesses listed by the Petitioners and Intervenor
Jim Gregson, DCM District Manager •
Jason Dail, DCM Field Representative
Intervenor
4

All witnesses listed by the Petitioners and Respondent
Petitioners Philip and Stephanie Brooks
Intervenor Jonathan Costa
Ann Hines, Chief Zoning Enforcement Official,New Hanover County
Patrick Bristow, Stocks Land Surveying, P.C., Wilmington, NC
David B. Floyd, Hobbs Surveying Company, Inc., Wilmington, NC
Peter Vinal, Wilmington,NC
V. STIPULATIONS
In addition to the other stipulations contained herein, the parties stipulate and agree with
respect to the following undisputed facts:
1. Petitioners Philip and Stephanie Brooks own a lot at 311 Shannon Drive in Wilmington,
New Hanover County, North Carolina. Petitioners constructed a pier on their property in
1998 pursuant to a general permit under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA),
N.C.G.S. § 113A-100 et seq. There is presently no residence on the lot.
2. Respondent is the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management ("agency" or"DCM").
3. Intervenor Jonathan Costa owns a lot adjacent to Petitioners' lot at 315 Windy Hills
Drive, in Wilmington,New Hanover County,North Carolina.
4. Intervenor also owns a lot on the landward/west side of Shannon Drive where he is
constructing a residence.
5. On October 28, 2003, DCM issued CAMA General Permit No. 34246-D to Intervenor
Jonathan Costa. The permit authorized construction of a pier measuring 6 feet wide by
372 feet in length, with a floating dock that measures 6 feet by 20 feet.
6. The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) has established a general permit for docks,
piers, and boat houses. One of the specific conditions applicable to all such structures is
5

the requirement of a riparian setback, defined as follows: Piers, docks and boat houses
shall not interfere with the access to any riparian property, and shall have a minimum
setback of 15 feet between any part of the pier and the adjacent property lines extended
into the water at the points that they intersect the shoreline. The minimum setbacks
provided in the rule may be waived by the written agreement of the adjacent riparian
owner(s), or when two adjoining riparian owners are co-applicants. 15A NCAC 7H
.1205(n).
7. Petitioner and adjacent property owner Philip Brooks objected to the Costa permit and
informed DCM that the Costa pier location was based on an erroneous survey. Petitioner
stated that a riparian corridor had already been established for that area of the shoreline
and that the Costa pier did not comply with that riparian setback.
8. Based on this information, DCM suspended LAMA General Permit No. 34246-D so that
DCM could issue a new or revised permit in conformity with the pre-existing riparian
corridor established on this shoreline. DCM requested Mr. Costa to submit a revised
drawing of the proposed structures.
9. On December 8, 2003, DCM issued General Permit No. 35156-D to Intervenor Jonathan
Costa. That permit replaced the original permit. It authorized construction of a pier
measuring 6 feet wide by 372 feet in length,with a floating dock that measures 8 feet by
18 feet.
10. Petitioners timely filed a third party hearing request with the Chairman of the CRC to
challenge Mr. Costa's permit pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b).
11. On January 23, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for contested case hearing in the Office of
6

Administrative Hearings (OAH).
12. On February 23, 2004, Mr. Costa surrendered General Permit No. 35156-D to DCM. It is
now null and void, no longer in effect, and no work may take place under it.
13. On February 24, 2004, DCM issued a new permit, No. 36844-D, to Mr. Costa.
14. The approval procedures for general permits for docks and piers provide, in pertinent
part, that an applicant for a general permit must 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 any comments on the proposed
development in writing for consideration by permitting officials to the Division of
Coastal Management within 10 days of receipt of the notice, and, indicate that no
response will be interpreted as no objection. 15A NCAC 7H .1202(b)(2).
15. The Brooks informed DCM that they had not properly been notified of Mr. Costa's plans
to construct a new pier based on revised drawings. The Brooks contended that Mr. Costa
sent them a certified letter about the possibility of purchasing the property, but that the
correspondence did not notify them of the plans to construct a new pier at a different •
alignment.
16. Mr. Costa provided DCM with a certified mail receipt "green card," signed by Stephanie
Brooks. Costa represented that he did provide notice of the new pier.
17. Based on conflicting information provided by Mr. Brooks and Mr. Costa, DCM
suspended the newly issued permit until such time that Mr. Costa complied with the
7

notification procedures in 15A NCAC 7H .1202(b)(2).
18. Through his attorney, Mr. Costa notified the Brooks by certified mail dated March 2,
2004, of the proposed pier at its new location.
19. DCM also notified the Brooks by letter dated March 9, 2004, of the new proposed pier.
20. On March 8, 2004, the Brooks timely filed a third party hearing request challenging the
new permit issued to Mr. Costa pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b).
21. On March 19, 2004, the Chairman granted the hearing request.
22. The effect of this third party appeal is that the Intervenor's permit is suspended until the
CRC makes a final agency decision in this matter. N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(c).
23. On March 31, 2004, Petitioners filed a second petition for contested case.
24. On April 26, 2004, Jonathan Costa, through his counsel of record, filed a Motion to
Intervene in the contested case.
25. Petitioner filed a response opposing intervention. Respondent filed a response stating
that it had no objection to Mr. Costa's intervention.
26. On June 7, 2004, OAH entered an Order Allowing Intervention and stating that Jonathan
Costa has all rights of a party to participate fully in this contested case.
27. On May 12, 2004, OAH entered a"Final Decision Order of Dismissal"dismissing the
Petitioners' first appeal as moot on the basis that the permit was null and void.
28. This case was first set for hearing on August 11, 2004, in Carolina Beach,North Carolina.
29. On August 5, 2004, Judge Fred Morrison granted Petitioners' request for a continuance
and re-set the hearing for thweek beginning September 13, 2004.
Respectfully submitted, this the day of September, 2004.
8

tN-0,J-Z004(I-1-?1) 1b:38 C. VIES HODGES, II ATTY. (FAX)910 7721723 P. 002/002
For: Philip Brooks and Stephanie Brooks
PETITIONERS
— i • .I/
Meredith Jo Ales Or
Atto ey for RESPONDENT
C ' -s_
C. Wes Hodges, li
Attorney for RESP ENT-INTERVENOR
APPROVED AND ORDERED FILED:
James L. Conner, IT
Administrative Law Judge Presiding
Date:
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing PREHEARING ORDER
on the Petitioner and on the Intervenor, Jonathan Costa, by depositing a copy in the United States
Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Philip and Stephanie Brooks
4407 Rondo Place
Wilmington, NC 28412
C. Wes Hodges, II
Attorney at Law
3138 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
to%‘.
This the Zj day ofe4ergrrsT2004.
ROY COOPER
Attorney General
ACLU-
By:
eredith Jo Al',�-
Assistant Attorney General
10

w SENDER: I also wish to receive the
'a •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. • following services(for an
N ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b.
tv ■Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee):
card to you. . ,-
> •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.El Addressee's Address
ypermit. *«---
•Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. 2.❑ Restricted Delivery I
Y •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. '
0 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number
✓ ,tMr. Wesley J ry tt*1 ZLII �t�Igo3�
£
I o D 5 SI-e N e_ 14, 4b.Service Type
o ❑ i
Registered �`.00N ettified
0 / ��ed^ I
rn �\CiJY p 1-06 0� ❑ Express alr /
w t ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD :
O 7. Date of©elivr4K
Q
0L 199
m 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's dress(Only if r tl t=.
7A,/
r �>�n � and feeisP /�v Vgc ict d ess`ee o
2 Ps orm 3811,December 1994 102595-98-B-022• uomestic Return Receipt

'a; SENDER: I also wish to receive the
73 •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. • followingservices(for an
N •Complete items 3,4a.and 4b.
a) •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form se that we can return this extra fee):
F2 card to you. +
d •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.❑ Addressee's Address
ci
d ■Write permit."Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. 2.❑ Restricted Delivery +
•The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
• delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. +
0 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number
.-1 .),S S a r. z y l •,) ► $D E S
d +
a 4b. Service Type
r� UI �
o O lw� 3 (� 1 ❑ Registered t� Certified c
' �I 1 I fM( Ne340(J� I C CE Fb�s, it ❑ Insured `
s
w ❑ ,RMerchandise
❑ COD
cc
�4 7. DfDely�
V R
t i
5. eceived By: (Print Name) 8.Adr�H9see,,'aa1;4ddress (Only if requested
��+ • • d fee isrpai ) '
6.Signat re: (Addressee Agent)
o 2 X
a ►` �1e , Av...
PS Form 3811, I cember 1994 102595-98-B-0229 Domestic Return Receipt

X.
.F .. .. - _
N. cn
0 co 1 Jlr'D CI
Il Q
0
o 1 ,
'i I `�
li
ill
\I i .
0
y ; li
s W rrl ,i
rrl I,
vOI
•
•
❑ s i• . ( D 1 : �1-, y ra - ,iTii4 i."X, Mgt,,et ,..a r w.�l5y ,r-,'
i .,
w +z,�f,y irk¢ # ,: y �� .
('n tR t 5 Y _ k 'y -i 741E
Y4a'7, h . tiaE � . .
F ua `' 'ys 1,•
.J ' , b $ �.. A'trT D c � dmrrtY i rr { f 3 C # Iu �} tfi41 v rC ill y S. a r $W� ' + ', t g �z $ fixZ ' #� 14, til " g',— ❑ - ¢� t "4'`xi' 'xxtr a z r F--, t-,.: h 71# avim", �r y . , f - ixT { ;
'� Z .:., t yf � a ;'i cIlilf 7Aa�; ww. , ' 7 xy_ „
-� 4� , g3 �I, 0 Z o C N I rf` ` t Rp$r •yi . `.a i .n'. , .df v.5 fi ' 4 P Yyig r. > y -' _ _C�r� 4}"tfg. h t ''' ".' 'QI= N 14, ZCS ❑1' U) V
mF-D u-, NCo
ti. 0 9z 1 s ;� 0
J~ x 8 \V , -E 0
i Q Z m Z LL -
OOox
ITIL
•
IE TC '` y�� w ^l xc r , k . , i `ltiby
Q tir 7 4 f'.Y;t 'a�,kk ry 4 ��khW A t + � � ¢ � ,"gy A n } � i z "fi4' aj h.. iz.e y p .e„' r., d •
� I--O� . a00 u. . 0
J=—--- ei3 ays n vv nev,,
q?

-
'
- .
�
-
'
°
Cv
tL
--Withdv MOO
NO 28402
----
..`~ - - 10 ^