77-20 (CRC Variance) Walters, Charles

Permit Class
NEW
(BY CRC VARIANCE)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Permit
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS I I3A-118
Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Charles E. Walters Jr., PO Box 7838, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Permit Number
77-20
Authorizing development in Brunswick County adjacent to the AIWW at 9269 Peakwood Dr. SW, in
Sunset Beach
, as requested in the permittee's application dated 10/29/19 (MP-1)
and 11/11/19 (MP-2), including attached drawings (2). dated revised 11/12/19.
This permit, issued on .Tune 30, 2020 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
Docking Facility
1) This permit authorizes only the docks, piers, covered platforms, boathouse, and other structures and
uses located in or over the water that are expressly and specifically set forth in the permit application.
No other structure, whether floating or stationary, shall become a permanent part of this docking
facility without permit modification. No non -water dependent uses of structures shall be conducted
on, in or over Public Trust waters without permit modification.
2) In keeping with the Variance (CRC-VR-20-04) granted by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC)
on June 10, 2020, and the Order signed by the CRC Chairman on June 15, 2020, the permittee shall
construct a pier and docking facility that does not exceed the dimensions as referenced on the
approved workplan drawings.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2023
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the Chair
of the Coastal Resources Commission.
For Braxton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.

Charles E. Walters Jr.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 77-20
Page 2 of 3
3) The permittee shall install and maintain at his expense any signal lights or signals prescribed by the U.S
Coast Guard, through regulation or otherwise, on the authorized facilities. At minimum, permanent
reflectors shall be attached to the structure in order to make it more visible during hours of darkness or
inclement weather.
4) This permit does not authorize the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project, and the
permittee shall not be entitled to compensation for damage to the authorized structure or work, or injury
which maybe caused from existing or future operations undertaken by the United States in the public
interest.
5) No portion of the permitted structure shall be located within 80 feet of the near bottom edge of the
federally maintained AIWW channel.
6) The authorized structures and associated activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with
navigation.
7) No attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable
waters at or adjacent to the authorized work.
8) The boathouse portion shall not be completely enclosed or have side coverage more than one half the
height of the side, from the roof waterward. The footprint of the boathouse shall not exceed the
dimensions on the authorized workplans.
9) The authorized boathouse portion shall be single story, and shall not be designed to allow for second
story use.
10) The authorized gazebo portion shall not be enclosed. Any material used on the sides shall not obstruct
view and shall be permeable to air and water. Screen or wire on the sides along with benches are
permitted. Lattice is specifically excluded from being used under this authorization.
1 1) The roof of the gazebo portion shall not be designed for second story use.
12) No sewage, whether treated or untreated, shall be discharged at any time from any boats using the
docking facility. Any sewage discharge at the docking facility shall be considered a violation of this
permit for which the permittee is responsible. This prohibition shall be applied and enforced throughout
the entire existence of the permitted structure.
13) This permit authorizes a maximum of 3 formalized boat slips.
14) The pier and associated structures shall have a minimum setback distance of 15 feet between any parts
of the structure and the adjacent property owner's area of riparian access.
15) Any portion of the permitted access pier and docking facilities built above Coastal Wetlands shall not
exceed six feet in width and shall be elevated a minimum of three feet above the wetland substrate as
measured from the bottom of the decking.

e )
Charles E. Walters Jr.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
USACE / FEDERAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 77-20
Page 3 of 3
16) In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the applicant must
implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein.
The guidelines can be found at htto://www.fws.gov/ne-es/mammal/manatee guidelines.odf.
General
17) This permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the
written approval of the Division of Coastal Management.
18) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he or she abandons the
permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
19) All debris associated with the removal or construction of the permitted facility shall be contained within
the authorized project area and removed to an appropriate upland location.
20) The permittee and/or his or her contractor shall meet with a representative of the Division prior to
project initiation.
21) Prior to the initiation of any development activities authorized by this Permit, the permittee shall obtain
all required permits or authorizations from the N.C. Division of Water Resources and copies of all such
authorizations shall be provided to the Division of Coastal Management.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required, to include any authorization required by the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and The N.C. Division of Water Resources.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the project by way of Action ID SAW-2019-2282.
NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources authorized the proposed project by way of General Water
Quality Certification 4175 and assigned the project DWR Project No. 2019-1755.
NOTE: An application processing fee of $250 was received by DCM for this project.

Permit Class
NEW
(BY CRC VARIANCE)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Vermft
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS I I3A-118
Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Permit Number
77-20
Issued to Charles E. Walters Jr., PO Boa 7838, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Authorizing development in Brunswick County adiacent to the AI W W at 9269 Peakwood Dr. SW. in
Sunset Beach as requested in the permittee's application dated 10/29/19 (MP-1)
and I I/I1/19 (MP-2). including attached drawings (2). dated revised I1/12/19.
This permit, issued on June 30, 2020 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Docking Facility
1) This permit authorizes only the docks, piers, covered platforms, boathouse, and other structures and
uses located in or over the water that are expressly and specifically set forth in the permit application.
No other structure, whether floating or stationary, shall become a permanent part of this docking
facility without permit modification. No non -water dependent uses of structures shall be conducted
on, in or over Public Trust waters without permit modification.
2) In keeping with the Variance (CRC-VR-20-04) granted by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC)
on June 10, 2020, and the Order signed by the CRC Chairman on June 15, 2020, the permittee shall
construct a pier and docking facility that does not exceed the dimensions as referenced on the
approved workplan drawings.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
Decent her 31,2023
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the Chair
of the Coastal Resources Commission.
9
For Braxton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program. Signature of Permittee

J
Charles E. Walters Jr.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 77-20
Page 2 of 3
3) The permittee shall install and maintain at his expense any signal lights or signals prescribed by the U.S.
Coast Guard, through regulation or otherwise, on the authorized facilities. At minimum, permanent
reflectors shall be attached to the structure in order to make it more visible during hours of darkness or
inclement weather.
4) This permit does not authorize the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project, and the
permittee shall not be entitled to compensation for damage to the authorized structure or work, or injury
which may be caused from existing or future operations undertaken by the United States in the public
interest.
5) No portion of the permitted structure shall be located within 80 feet of the near bottom edge of the
federally maintained AIWW channel.
6) The authorized structures and associated activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with
navigation.
7) No attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable
waters at or adjacent to the authorized work.
8) The boathouse portion shall not be completely enclosed or have side coverage more than one half the
height of the side, from the roof waterward. The footprint of the boathouse shall not exceed the
dimensions on the authorized workplans.
9) The authorized boathouse portion shall be single story, and shall not be designed to allow for second
story use.
10) The authorized gazebo portion shall not be enclosed. Any material used on the sides shall not obstruct
view and shall be permeable to air and water. Screen or wire on the sides along with benches are
permitted. Lattice is specifically excluded from being used under this authorization.
11) The roof of the gazebo portion shall not be designed for second story use.
12) No sewage, whether treated or untreated, shall be discharged at any time from any boats using the
docking facility. Any sewage discharge at the docking facility shall be considered a violation of this
permit for which the permittee is responsible. This prohibition shall be applied and enforced throughout
the entire existence of the permitted structure.
13) This permit authorizes a maximum of 3 formalized boat slips.
14) The pier and associated structures shall have a minimum setback distance of 15 feet between any parts
of the structure and the adjacent property owner's area of riparian access.
15) Any portion of the permitted access pier and docking facilities built above Coastal Wetlands shall not
exceed six feet in width and shall be elevated a minimum of three feet above the wetland substrate as
measured from the bottom of the decking.

Charles E. Walters Jr.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
USACE / FEDERAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 77-20
Page 3 of 3
16) In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, 7'richechus manatus, the applicant must
implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein.
The guidelines can be found at http://www.fws.rov/nc-es/mammal/manatee Fuidelines.pdf.
General
17) This permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the
written approval of the Division of Coastal Management.
18) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he or she abandons the
permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
19) All debris associated with the removal or construction of the permitted facility shall be contained within
the authorized project area and removed to an appropriate upland location.
20) The permittee and/or his or her contractor shall meet with a representative of the Division prior to
project initiation.
21) Prior to the initiation of any development activities authorized by this Permit, the permittee shall obtain
all required permits or authorizations from the N.C. Division of Water Resources and copies of all such
authorizations shall be provided to the Division of Coastal Management.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required, to include any authorization required by the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and The N.C. Division of Water Resources.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the project by way of Action ID SAW-2019-2282.
NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources authorized the proposed project by way of General Water
Quality Certification 4175 and assigned the project DWR Project No. 2019-1755.
NOTE: An application processing fee of $250 was received by DCM for this project.

REPLY TO:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MARY L. LUCASSE
JOSH STEIN
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
[phone]
[e-mail]
June 15, 2020
E/ectronica/t eddienasunsetproperties.trave/
Charles E. Walters, Jr.
PO Box 7838
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Re: Variance Request CRC-VR-20-04
Dear Mr. Walters:
At its June 10th, 2020 meeting, the Coastal Resources Commission granted your
variance request to construct a 194 foot pier which extends approximately 32 percent
across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at your property located at 9269 Peakwood
Drive. Attached is a copy of the Final Agency Decision signed by the Chairman of the
Coastal Resources Commission. Prior to undertaking the development for which a
variance was sought, you must first obtain a CAMA permit from the local permitting
authority. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mary L. Lucasse
Special Deputy Attorney General and
Counsel for the Coastal Resources Commission
cc: M. Renee Cahoon, Chair, electronically aHW NOIl�SS c4JRJ
Christine A Goebel, Esq. Counsel for DCM, electronically
Braxton C. Davis, DCM Director, electronically
Angela Willis, Assistant to DCM Director, electronically OZE S � Nnr
Stanley Dills, Town of Sunset Beach CAMAA LPO, electronically
a3A1303U
WVJW.NCDOJ.GOV 114 W, EDENTON STREET, RALEIGH, NC 27603 919.716.6600
P. O. Box 629, RALEIGH, NC 27602-0629

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
) BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
) COMMISSION
CRC-VR-20-04
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION FOR VARIANCE BY
) FINAL AGENCY DECISION
CHARLES E. WALTERS, JR.
)
On April 26, 2020, Petitioner Charles E. Walters, Jr. submitted a request for a variance
from the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission's ("Commission") rules set forth at 15A
N.C. Admin. Code 7H .0208(G)(i) and 15A NCAC 7H .0208(G)(iii) to construct a 194 foot pier
which extends approximately 32 percent across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway ("AIWW").
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § I I3A-120.1 and 15A NCAC 7.1 .0700, et seq., this matter was heard
on oral arguments and facts stipulated to by Petitioner and Respondent Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management ("DCM") at the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Commission on June 10, 2020.. The Commission met remotely by video conference
as a result of the corona virus pandemic and Governor Roy Cooper's emergency executive orders
limiting public gatherings, closing public schools, restricting the operation of nonessential
businesses, and encouraging the use of social distancing in keeping with current public health
guidelines. Assistant General Counsel Christine A. Goebel, Esq. appeared for Respondent DCM.
Charles E. Walters, Jr. appeared on his own behalf.
When reviewing a petition for a variance, the Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Riggings Homeowners, Inc. v. Coastal Resources Com'n, 228 N.C. App. 630, 652, 747 S.E.2d
301, 314 (2013) (Commission has "judicial authority to rule on variance requests [] `reasonably
necessary' to accomplish the Commission's statutory purpose."); see also Application of Rea
Const. Co., 272 N.C. 715, 718, 158 S.E.2d 887, 890 (1968) (discussing the BgpCe"WD
JUN 1 5 2020
MP SECTION MHO

2
quasi-judicial role in allowing variances for permits not otherwise allowed by ordinance). In its
role as judge, the Commission "balance[es] competing policy concerns under CAMA's statutory
framework." Riggings, 228 N.C. App. at 649 n.6, 747 S.E.2d at 312.
Petitioner and Respondent DCM are the parties appearing before the Commission. The
parties stipulated to facts and presented relevant documents to the Commission for its
consideration. See, N.C. Admin. Code 15A 07J .0702(a). If the parties had been unable to reach
agreement on the facts considered necessary to address the variance request, the matter would have
been forwarded to the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") for a full
evidentiary hearing to determine the relevant facts before coming to the Commission. Id. 07J
.0702(d). As in any court, the parties before the decision -maker are responsible for developing and
presenting evidence on which a decision is made. If DCM and Petitioner had entered into other
stipulated facts, it is possible that the Commission would have reached a different decision. In this
case, the record on which the Commission's final agency decision was made includes the parties'
stipulations of facts, the documents provided to the Commission, and the arguments of the parties.
FACTS STIPULATED TO BY PETITIONER AND DCM
1. Petitioner, Charles E. Walters, Jr., with his spouse Carol D. Walters, owns a 1.80
acre lot located at 9269 Peakwood Drive SW in Calabash (Sunset Beach), Brunswick County,
North Carolina. The acreage figure is derived from the Brunswick County Charles E. Walters Jr.
2020 tax card provided to the Commission as an Exhibit. This following image of the property
was provided to the Commission as part of the PowerPoint shown during the hearing.
RECEIVED
J U N 1 5 2020
1UP SECTION !►l.H D

3
2. Petitioner, with his spouse, purchased the property on March 21, 2019, as evidenced
by a deed recorded at Book 4169, Pages 0021-0023 of the Brunswick County Registry. A copy of
the deed was provided to the Commission as an Exhibit.
3. The closest major road leading to the property is Peakwood Drive SW. The property
can be seen in the PowerPoint presentation of photographs of the property and surrounding area.
A copy of the PowerPoint presentation was shown to the Commission during the hearing and
attached as an Exhibit.
4. The Petitioner's property is located adjacent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) 80-foot setback, approximately 1.45 miles east of the intersection of Little River Inlet
Channel with an approximate shoreline length of 167 feet along the AIW W.
5. On Petitioner's property, there is an area of coastal wetlands with shoreline frontage
of approximately 167 feet, extending outward approximately 275 feet in width, part of which the
Project would pass over. Generally, over the range of the site, depths varied from 0.5 feet to 5.6
feet at mean low water.
6. The AIW W is approximately 600 feet wide from the waterward edges of the coastal
wetlands bordering each side of the waterbody at the location of the Project. 15A NCAC 7H
RECEIVa®
J U N 1 5 2020
WIP SECTION MHD

El
.0208(b)(6)(H) of the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) provides, in part, that
"measurements to determine lengths shall be made from the waterward edge of any coastal wetland
vegetation that borders the water body ..."
7. The surrounding waters are classified as SA, HQW by North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission rule, and a Primary Nursery Area ("PNA") by North
Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission rule. These waters are closed to shellfish harvesting.
8. 15A NCAC 07H .0208(a)(4) of the rules of the CRC further define PNAs as
"Primary nursery areas are those areas in the estuarine and ocean system where initial post larval
development of finfish and crustaceans takes place. They are usually located in the uppermost
sections of a system where populations are uniformly early juvenile stages. They are designated
and described by the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission and by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC)."
9. The proposed Project would involve development within the Estuarine Waters, the
Coastal Wetlands, and the Estuarine Shoreline sub -category of the Coastal Shorelines Areas of
Environmental Concern ("AECs").
10. The Petitioner submitted a Coastal Area Management Act ("CAMA") Major Permit
application to construct a pier, gazebo, covered boatlift and floating dock within the riparian
corridor of his property on November 13, 2019. A copy of the CAMA Major Permit Application
was provided to the Commission as an Exhibit.
11. The Petitioner proposed construction of a contiguous elevated wooden walkway
and pier 6 feet wide and approximately 495 feet long (as measured from the high ground). The
elevated walkway is that portion of the Project located upland of and in the coastal wetland
RECEIVE®
JUN 1 5 2020
MP SECTION MHD

61
adjacent to Petitioner's property. The pier portion of the Project is that part of the Project that
extends from the waterward edge of the coastal wetland adjacent to Petitioner's property.
12. A proposed T-head platform would measure 12 feet by 24 feet of which 12 feet by
12 feet will be covered and a hinged ramp extending to the east will connect the floating dock to
the platform.
13. A proposed floating dock would be 8 feet by 16 feet and provide two (2) wet slips.
A proposed 15 feet by 26 feet covered boatlift would be connected to the platform to the west and
would provide one slip for a total of three (3) boat slips.
14. Depths at the one -quarter width were noted in the application as approximately 1.3
feet to 1.5 feet at mean low water.
15. Depths located at the 80-foot USACE setback were noted in the application at 2.6
feet to 5.6 feet at mean low water.
water.
16. The proposed Project would involve the incorporation of 806 square feet of open
17. The opposite shoreline is owned by the State of North Carolina and is part of a vast
salt marsh complex that extends to Little River Inlet, known as the Bird Island Nature Preserve,
which precludes construction of piers extending from the shoreline opposite the project.
18. There are existing private piers located to the southwest and northeast of the
property. Immediately adjacent to Petitioners' property to the southwest is a pier owned by Locke
and Mary Newlin (9271 Peakwood Drive SW). The Newlin pier was permitted in 1997 and
measures 135 feet in length from the waterward edge of the adjacent coastal wetland. A copy of
the 1997 Major CAMA permit (# 135-97) was provided to the Commission as an Exhibit. Two
RECEIVE®
JUN 1 5 2020
MP SECTION II HD .

P
properties to the northeast of Petitioner's property is a pier owned by Chris and Melody Bryant
(9263 Peakwood Drive SW). The Bryant pier was permitted in 2010 and measures approximately
100 feet in length from the waterward edge of the adjacent coastal wetland (of a total 340 feet pier
length). A copy of the 2010 Major CAMA permit (# 55890) was provided to the Commission as
an Exhibit. Staff review of the DCM database indicates this is the only Major CAMA permit on
record for the Bryant property.
19. The Petitioner's proposed docking facility would extend 194 feet (170 feet of length
and 24 feet of T-head platform) beyond the waterward edge of the adjacent coastal wetland into
the AIW W and 44 feet beyond the one -quarter width of the AIW W, to approximately 32% of the
width of the waterbody.
20. One -quarter the width of the water body at this location is 150 feet.
21. CRC rule 15A NCAC 07H .0208 (G)(iii) ("Specific Use Standards") provides, in
part, that a pier and docking facility length shall be limited by, "not extending more than one-
fourth the width of a natural water body."
22. The proposed Project would also exceed the existing pier -head line and extend to
the edge of the USACE 80-foot channel setback.
23. CRC rule 15A NCAC 07H .0208 (G)(i) ("Specific Use Standards") provides, in
part, that a pier and docking facility length shall be limited by "not extending beyond the
established pier or docking facility length along the same shoreline for similar use."
24. As part of the CAMA Major Permit review process, DCM Staff wrote a Field
Investigation Report concerning the Project. A copy that report was provided to the Commission
as an Exhibit. R E C E VE ®
JUN 1 5 2020
1' IP SECTION VhHD

7
25. During the course of the joint State and Federal review, the Division of Marine
Fisheries' ("DMF") noted that as proposed, DMF did not per se object to the project. However, the
DMF Habitat Assessment Manager commented: "The current proposal to extend past the %4 width
and to the USACE setback line would aid in achieving sufficient water depths for the proposed
floating structures and formalized slips, thus being the preferred location of the terminus.
However, CRC rule language limits development to the %4 width of the waterbody. If DCM rule
language or other methods allow this project to move forward even though the proposed project is
exceeding the '/4 width of the waterbody and extending beyond the pier headline of adjacent
properties, DMF would not object to the proposed project. However, if the project is required to
conform to the '/4 width or pier headline, DMF has determined based on the drawings that the
applicant cannot achieve the necessary depths for floating structure in order to avoid bottom
damages to soft bottom PNA habitat." A copy of two comment letters from DMF were provided
to the Commission as an Exhibit.
26. The N.C. Division of Water Resources approved the Project as proposed under a
401 Water Quality Certification and General Certification 4175.
27. During the CAMA Major Permit review process, no other state or federal agency
objected to the proposed Project.
28. As part of the CAMA Major Permit review process, notice was given to the public
through on -site posting and notice in the local newspaper. Notice was also sent to the adjacent
riparian property owners (Shell and Newlin). A signed certified mail receipt (Newlin) and USPS
tracking intranet delivery signature and address (Shell) were provided to the Commission as an
Exhibit. No other public comments were received in connection with the permit application.
RECEIVE®
J U N 1 5 2020
PIP SECTION WD

8
29. DCM field staff recommended denial of the permit based upon the inconsistency
with rules of the CRC regarding exceeding the one -quarter width requirement and established pier
or docking facility length along the same shoreline for similar use.
30. The DCM Director denied Petitioner's CAMA Major Permit application on March
16, 2020. A copy of the denial letter was provided to the Commission as an Exhibit.
31. As required by the variance rules of the Commission, Petitioner stipulates that his
request as submitted to DCM does not comply with strict application of the pier head line rule in
15A NCAC 07H .0208(b)(6)(G)(i) and the quarter width rule in 15A NCAC 07H
.0208(b)(6)(G)(iii).
32. CAMA provides that "[a]ny person may petition the Commission for a variance
granting permission to use the person's land in a manner otherwise prohibited by rules or standards
prescribed by the Commission, or orders issued by the Commission, pursuant to this Article. " N.C.
Gen Stat. § 120.1(a).
EXHIBITS PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION BY PETITIONER AND DCM
1. Charles E. Walters Jr. 2020 tax card
2. Petitioners' General Warranty Deed Book 4169, Pages 0021-0023
3. PowerPoint presentation
4. CAMA Major Permit Application
5. Newlin pier permit
6. Bryant pier permit
7. DCM Field Investigation Report
8. DMF comment letters
9. Certified Mail Receipt/USPS intranet tracking
10. DCM denial letter
JUN 1 5 2020
iwP SAC-r1ON WH,)

0
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
2. All notices for the proceeding were adequate and proper.
3. Petitioner has met the requirements in N.C.G.S. § 113A-120.1(a) and 15 NCAC
07J .0703(f) which must be found before a variance can be granted as set forth -below.
a. Strict application of the Quarter -Width Rule and the Established Pier Length
Rule will cause unnecessary hardships.
The Commission affirmatively finds that strict application of the Quarter -Width Rule and
the Established Pier Length Rule would cause Petitioner unnecessary hardship. The Quarter -Width
Rule and the Established Pier Length Rule are designed to ensure that development within the
coastal shorelines is compatible with and does not harm the biological and physical functions of
the shoreline system. In addition, these rules balance the riparian owner's right to pier out with the
public's right to navigation. Without the variance, Petitioner would not be able to build the
proposed pier at the Site. Therefore, the strict application of this rule would cause Petitioner
hardship.
The Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has shown that the hardship caused by
denying a permit for the proposed development is unnecessary insofar as the Commission is able
to protect the shoreline system even if the variance is granted. Specifically, if the variance is
granted, the deeper water depth at the waterward end of the proposed floating dock would prevent
damage to the PNA without significantly impacting navigation. If the variance were to be denied,
the water ward end of the floating dock would be located at a shallower depth. This could restrict
access of the dock to flat -bottom boats or risk bottom damage from the use ofr�i-kreLdcs�adrboats�
during extreme tides. BB��6��s� ��N9 e�Il��
JUN 1 5 2020
MP SECTION MHD

10
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the shoreline opposite the Site is owned by the
State of North Carolina and is part of a vast salt marsh complex. Therefore, it is unlikely that piers
will be constructed on the opposite shoreline. As a result, even if the variance is granted, the
extended length of the pier will not significantly impact the area of the AIWW available for
navigation. The area available for public navigation will be greater than two-thirds of the width of
the AIWW since docks will only be located on one shoreline at this section of the AIWW.
For these reasons, the Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has met the first
factor without which a variance cannot be granted.
b. Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship results from conditions peculiar
to Petitioner's property.
The Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship
results from conditions peculiar to the property. Specifically, Petitioner's property is located on the
AIWW across from state-owned land which is unlikely to be developed and the property is
adjacent to a shallow PNA habitat. Since the land across the AIWW is unlikely to be developed,
there is less need to adhere to strict application of the quarter -width rule to protect public
navigation.
Additionally, strict application of the rule to the proposed development at this specific
property would limit the use of the pier by not allowing for use of a floating dock based on the
likelihood of damage to the shallow PNA habitat. In its comments to the permit application, the
Division of Marine Fisheries noted that if the project is required to conform to the quarter -width
rule, the depth of the floating structure at a quarter width of the water body would not be adequate
to achieve the necessary depths to prevent the floating structure from causing bottom damage to
PNA habitat. In addition, use of the pier b;RrLjElFtf EaD flat bottom boat could also cause
J U N 1 5 2020

11
bottom damage at low tide. Following is a diagram showing the mean high water ("MHW") and
mean low water ("MLW") depth at the quarter width location and the location of the end of the
pier at the extended length. As can be seen from this diagram, the water drops off quickly, and the
extended length makes a significant difference in the water depth at MLW.
nn4WWa0
a 1
-
_.�
.
MLWLINE
PPP
I
L•
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has
demonstrated that this hardship results from conditions peculiar to the property and has met the
second factor required for the grant of its request for a variance.
C. Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship does not result from actions
taken by Petitioner.
The Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship does
not result from actions taken by the Petitioner. Specifically, the location of the property adjacent
to the shallow PNA habitat and its relationship to the navigable area of the AIWW is not caused
by Petitioner. The Commission noted that the proposed length of the pier is not an action taken by
Petitioner, but merely the chosen design requested.
RECEIVED
JUN 1 5 2020
MP SECTION!! MHD

12
Additionally, the Commission agrees with the Petitioner's argument that any pier length
less than that proposed would cause hardships by limiting the type of boat that could use the
floating pier without causing bottom damage to the PNA habitat and risking bottom damage from
the floating dock itself during tidal events. The Commission notes that Petitioner is not required
to propose a design that has the minimum possible water depth required for a floating dock.
For these reasons, the Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that
they have met the third factor required for a variance.
d. Petitioner has demonstrated that the requested variance is consistent with the
spirit, purpose and intent of the Commission's rules, will secure public safety
and welfare, and will preserve substantial justice.
The Petitioner has demonstrated (a) that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit,
purpose and intent of the Commission's rules, (b) that it will secure public safety and welfare, and
(c) that it will preserve substantial justice. The principal purpose of the Quarter -Width Rule and
the Established Pier Length Rule is to protect public navigation. See 15A NCAC 7H .0208(G)(i)
and 15A NCAC 7H .0208(G)(iii). The Commission finds that Petitioner has shown that the Site is
across from a state-owned area which is unlikely to be developed. Therefore, even if the variance
is granted, approximately two thirds of the AIW W remains open for navigation. This is a greater
navigable area than if the property across the water were to be developed and the properties across
from each other each extended a pier a one quarter of the width of the AIWW. Accordingly, the
Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner's proposed development is consistent with the
spirit, purpose, and intent of the Commission's Quarter -Width Rule
The second assessment to be made is whether the variance proposed by the Petitioner will
impact public safety and welfare. Petitipge es fan tee Commission agrees, that the proposed
JUN 1 5 2020
MP SECTION El HD

13
development, if granted a variance, will have no adverse effect on public safety and welfare.
Finally, the Commission agrees that a variance will preserve substantial justice by allowing
reasonable use of the Lot by allowing for use of a floating dock. There are several piers of similar
length in the surrounding area as shown in the following aerial photograph which was provided to
the Commission as a stipulated exhibit.
For these reasons, the Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has met the fourth
factor required by N.C.G.S. § 113A-120.1(a).
THEREFORE, the requested variance from 15A NCAC 7H .0208(G)(i) and 15A NCAC
7H .0208(G)(iii) is GRANTED.
The granting of this variance does not relieve Petitioner of the responsibility for obtaining
any other required permits from the proper permitting authority. This variance is based upon the
RECEI V A—®
J U N 1 5 2020
KIP SECTION MIX®

14
Stipulated Facts set forth above. The Commission reserves the right to reconsider the granting of
this variance and to take any appropriate action should it be shown that any of the above Stipulated
Facts is not true.
This the 15"' day of June 2020.
M. Renee Cahoon Chair
Coastal Resources Commission
JUN 1 5 2020

15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day served the foregoing FINAL AGENCY DECISION
upon the parties by the methods indicated below:
Method of Service
Petitioner: Electronically:
Charles E. Walters, Jr. [e-mail]
PO Box 7838
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
NC Division of CoastalManaQement Electronically:
Christine A. Goebel [e-mail]
Assistant General Counsel
NC Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Braxton C. Davis, Executive Director Electronically:
Angela Willis, Administrative Assistant [e-mail]
Division of Coastal Management Angela,[e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Town of Sunset Beach Electronically:
Stanley Dills, CAMA LPO [e-mail]
700 Sunset Blvd. N.
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
This the 15`h day of June, 2020.
Mary L. Lucasse
Special Deputy Attorney General and Commission Counsel
EECEI ED
JUN 1 5 2020
WiP SECTION MHD