OI_08-38_ Oak (2)

Lf 3-2g. unzz
WiRO #Y1W 08-38
For Oak Island Permit Number
CAMA
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission for development
in an area of environment concern pursuant to Section 113A-118 of the
General Statutes, "Coastal Area Management"
Issued to the Town of Oak Island, c/o Gene Kudgus, authorizing development in the Estuarine Shoreline (AEC) at the
end of West Oak Island Drive, in Oak Island, Brunswick County, as requested in the permittee's application, placed on
hold at the request of the Town on October 17, 2008 and subsequent request to resume processing received on June
17, 2011. This permit, issued on June 20, 2011, is subject to compliance with the application and site drawing (where
consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations and special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of
these terms may subject permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action, or may cause the permit to be null and void.
This permit authorizes: the construction of a public parking area.
(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in accordance with the permitted work plal
drawings(s) dated received on August 28, 2008.
(2) All construction must conform to the N.C. Building Code requirements and all other local, State and Federal regulations,
applicable local ordinances and FEMA Flood Regulations.
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or land use activities will require a re-evaluation and
modification of this permit.
(4) A copy of this permit shall be posted or available on site. Contact this office at [phone] for a final inspection ai
completion of work.
(Additional Permit Conditions on Page 2)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other qualified persons
within twenty (20) days of the issuing date, From the date of an appeal, any
work conducted under this permit must cease until the appeal is resolved. This
permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the
project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project
modification not covered under this permit, require further written permit
approval. All work must cease when this permit expires on:
July 13, 2015
Heather Coats
CAMA Field Representative
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
In issuing this permit it is agreed that this project is consistent with the local Land
Use Plan and all applicable ordinances. This permit may not be transferred to
_ _.i_ _ _ _ _ 1_. _.•a�_._a ate_ ..._aa__ ..._....I �L aL� Il:. .:�:.... ..L (�......{..I

Name: Town of Oak Island,c/o Gene Kudgus
Minor Permit # 08-38
Date: June 20, 2011
Page 2
(5) The amount of impervious surface shall not exceed 30% of the lot area within 75 feet of Normal High Water
(Estuarine Shoreline Area of Environmental Concern). In this case, 1,847 square feet is authorized.
(6) Unless specifically allowed in 15A NCAC 07H. 0209(d)(10), and shown on the permitted plan drawing, all
development/construction shall be located a distance of 30 feet landward of normal high water. No impervious
surface (i.e. gravel) is authorized within the 30' buffer.
(7) All unconsolidated material resulting from associated grading and landscaping shall be retained on site by effective
sedimentation and erosion control measures. Prior to any land -disturbing activities, a barrier line of filter cloth must
be installed between the land disturbing activity and the adjacent marsh or water areas, until such time as the area
has been properly stabilized with a vegetative cover. The silt fence shall be properly maintained throughout the
construction period and shall be installed such that it is properly toed -in to the soil.
(8) Any proposed grading within the 30' buffer from the Normal High Waterline must be contoured to prevent additional
stormwater runoff to the adjacent marsh and/or waterbody. All disturbed areas outside of the authorized parking
area shall be vegetatively stabilized (planted and mulched) within 14 days of construction completion.
(9) If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a party other than the permittee has legal rights to any part of the
area approved under this permit, this permit shall be null and void as to the area the court determines is not owned
by the permittee. Also, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the public has legal rights
to the property which conflict with the permitted development, this permit shall be null and void as
to the development determined to be in conflict by the court. This condition shall take effect on the date
such court judgment becomes final. In such event, the permittee shall consult DCM prior to initiating or continuing
any further development under this permit.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
PERMITTEE

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor James H. Gregson, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
June 28, 2011
Town of Oak Island
Attn: Gene Kudges, Director of Public Works
4601 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
CERTIFIED MAIL (70071490000477486718)
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Re: Suspension of Work / Appeal of CAMA Permit Decision
Dear Mr. Kudges:
The Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission, Robert Emory, has received a request for
an administrative hearing to challenge CAMA Minor Permit #08-38. The Third Party Hearing
Request was filed on behalf of petitioners Theodore and Carol Barris on June 28, 2011. Under
N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1 (the Coastal Area Management Act), your CAMA permit is
automatically suspended upon receipt of a hearing request and will remain suspended until
either: (1) Chairman Emory denies the hearing request (under standards set out in the statute); or
(2) there is a final Coastal Resources Commission decision on the permit appeal. You may not
undertake any development under the permit until further notice after Chairman Emory issues his
decision.
The Division of Coastal Management will prepare a recommendation for the Chairman on
whether to grant or deny the hearing request. The Chairman must make a decision within 15
days after receipt of the hearing request. Therefore his decision is due close of business on July
13, 2011. If you wish to submit any materials for the Chairman's consideration in ruling on the
request for contested case hearing, please send them to me as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Jim Gregson RECEIVED
Director DCM WILMINGTON, NC
cc: Ted Tyndall, Asst. Director JUN 3 0 2011
Debra Wilson, District Manager
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to:
TOW 1 j (7'r o PrtL- I sQPW�
C/o CAE K\JO(-A)S
44,()1 E. pPrc/- ISLft-jo 04
C AV- Imo, N EN65
A.
C.
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ILJ
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑
3. Service Type
❑ Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merc
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Ye
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service label) 7008 1140 0002 9559 0854
'S Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-c
CO Sent
o TDYVN _-- G�Hc _ p-
--- Kua p Street, Apt. No.;
r� or PO Box No. //rr// n i
`Il o i r i �

rES POSTAL SERVICE
• Sender: Please print your name address. and ZIR+411°l this box
, -- S 1 6 2008
Provides:
entifier for your mailpiece
delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years 7 �; q'C ," nj C,
f
l
anagement
;
minders:
ail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail® or Priority Mail®. a Extension
mail.
H
Nail is not available for any class of international
J-•3$4�J
)RANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. For 2840r
, please consider Insured or Registered Mail.
Iditibri fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof of
please complete and attach a Return
0 ob n Reium Receipt service,
PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postage to cover the
to receCertified ve a fee for
Z
o
waiver
)rse mailpiece "Return Receipt Rmark y uor
to return receipt, a USPS®p
a
f
additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or
Y
agent Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with the
i
He's authorized
"Restricted Delivery".
,rent resent the arti-
mark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired, please p
raffiz it a on the Mail
w
label htpostage and mail.
a- of nteeded, detach and la
Moog
when making an inquiry.

Locality Permit Number
Ocean Hazard Estuarine Shoreline ORW Shoreline Public Trust Shoreline Other
(For official use only)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LAND OWNE-R�
Name: / vicer
Address: 4/6 U l Oak 1S/li ✓�v� ���
City: CC % TS /ao 4 State: NL Zip: 2 Phone: '%/° - Z 7 � ' 5_61
AUTHORIZED AGENT
GCS ��1�P�r �wn dry ©dtic ��Ri�d%
Name: Ci e r� � � � a s l P461, c Gc�d
Address: -,/& 0 / &_-7a f Ga is _rSlQ'A'
City: State: AI C Zip: 2 81 q"' S Phone: WO - Z o I - 3 o `-f 3
LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Address, street name and/or directions to site. If not oceanfront, what is the name of the
adjacentwaterbody.) ubG� r� jht -�f - _I of end of IA/ u'tic Tria"d A. 4� �f", ceas%l Wu�efws
DESCRIPTION OF PROJEF T: (List all proposed construction and land disturbance.) Pull,",- -Le e,ss p2rk,n4
a.ad Svtn jar/r�i� Spaces,
SIZE OF LOT/PARCEL: 1'Osquarefeet D.33 acres (ggb3 f4�7S_AF C 1
/ pa,bl�
PROPOSED USE: Residential ❑ (Single-family ❑ Multi -family ❑) Commerical/Industrial ❑Other ® �a,.k;r,
TOTAL ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA OF A $UILDING IN THE OCEAN HAZARD AREA OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC): N A square feet (includes all floors and roof covered decks)
SIZE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS OR BUILT -UPON SURFACES IN THE
COASTAL SHORELINE AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC): I S4.7 square feet (Calculations
includes the area of the roof/drip line of all buildings, driveways, covered decks, concrete or masonry patios, etc. that are
within the applicable AEC.)(Attach your calculations with the project drawing.)
Choose the AEC area that applies to your property:
(1 thin 75 feet of Normal High Water for the Estuarine Shoreline AEC
t2)within 575 feet of Normal High Water for the Estuarine Shoreline AEC, adjacent to Outstanding Resource Waters
(3)within 30 feet of the Public Trust Shoreline AEC
(Contact your Local Permit Officer if you are not sure which AEC applies to your property.)
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT: Is the project located in an area subject to a State Stormwater
Management Permit issued by the NC Division of Water Quality? YES ❑ NON
If yes, list the total built upon area/impervious surface allowed for your lot or parcel. square feet.
+� �Dw
Au [ 8 2008
DCM 11vlr h.,, _. __ _

OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED: The activity you are planning may require permits other than the CAMA minor development pecmi
As a service we have compiled a listing of the kinds of permits that might be required. We suggest you check over the list with your LPO to
determine if any of these apply to your project. Zoning, Drinking Water Well, Septic Tank (or other sanitary waste treatment system), Building,
Electrical, Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Insulation and Energy Conservation, FIA Certification, Sand Dune, Sediment Control,
Subdivision Approval, Mobile Home Park Approval, Highway Connection, and others.
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP:
I, the undersigned, an applicant for a CAMA minor development permit, being either the owner of property in an AEC or
a person authorized to act as an agent for purposes of applying for a CAMA minor development permit, certify that the
person listed as landowner on this application has a significant interest in the real property described therein. This interest
can be described as: (check one)
Van owner or record title, Title is vested in ,, seeJ�aedu a ak
page in the County Registry of Deeds.
❑ an owner by virtue of inheritance. Applicant is an heir to the estate of ;
probate was in County.
if other interest, such as written contract or lease, explain below or use a separate sheet and attach to this application.
�Nb�IC C�Ilkf-oF- ��y, 13 VASW L)A1� T�� aP � 2-3y- Z
NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
I furthermore certify that the following persons are owners of properties adjoining this property. I affirm that I have given
ACTUAL NOTICE to each of them concerning my intent to develop this property and to apply for a CAMA permit.
(Name) (Address)
(1) �eodl�re ''/u..�( Beo-ri's 3019 W, y4ctif Dr�ve� Oa4 19lwt,rii, l�l� 2gq-5
C,#e- l/! &t4 5 l0 2 �w VacA-� Dr-ve- Oal� ?'s/ana�� �(f L 28y65
(3)
(4)
FOR DEVELOPERS IN OCEAN HAZARD AND ESTUARINE HAZARD AREAS:
I acknowledge that the land owner is aware that the proposed development is planned for an area which may be
susceptible to erosion and/or flooding. I acknowledge that the local permit officer has explained to me the particular
hazard problems associated with this lot. This explanation was accompanied by recommendations concerning stabilization
and floodproofing techniques.
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON LAND:
I furthermore certify that I am authorized to grant and do in fact grant permission to the local permit officer and his agents
to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application.
This application includes: general information (this form), a site drawing as described on the back of this application, the
ownership statement, the AEC hazard notice where necessary, a check for $100.00 made payable to the locality, and any
information as may be provided orally by the applicant. The details of the application as described by these sources are
incorporated without reference in any permit which may be issued. Deviation from these details will constitute a violation
of any permit. Any person developing in an AEC without permit is subject to civil, criminal and administrative action.
This the /571Aday of
mdown6r Or person autfiorM f6 Li hi his age
for purook of filingrvAiA�e 't applicatic

AVia
.s�r�a
NCDEN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
July 12, 2011
Town of Oak Island
Attn: Gene Kudges, Director of Public Works
4601 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
Re: Reinstatement of CAMA Minor Permit #08-38
Dear Mr. Kudges:
Dee Freem,
Secretat
You were informed by certified mail that the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission,
Robert Emory, received a request for an administrative hearing to challenge CAMA Minor Permit
#08-38. The request was filed on behalf of Petitioners Theodore and Carol Barris on June 28,
2011. Your CAMA Permit was automatically suspended upon receipt of the hearing request and
you were instructed not to undertake any development under this permit until further notice.
Please be advised that Chairman Emory has DENIED this third party hearing request. At this
time, CAMA Minor Permit #08-38 is reinstated and you may now undertake development on this
property pursuant to the permit.
Please contact me at 252-808-2808 if you have any further questions.
Sincerel , (,,
IICEIVrc'D
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
James H. Gregson JUL 1 �9f
Director
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director
Debra Wilson, District Manager
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557-3421 T�TOne
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net 1 v orthCarofina

July 18, 2011
DENR
Division of Coastal Management
ATTN: Shaun Simpson
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RE: CAMA MINOR PERMIT # 08-38
Dear Shaun:
This is to inform you that the Town of Oak Island will begin work under the referenced
permit on or about August 1, 2011.
Sincerely,
Gene Kudgus
Town of Oak Island
Public Scrvices Director
CC: Jerry Walters, Town Manager
John Michaux
JUL 2 0 2011
a0i,sMINGTON, NC

WiRO 08.38
For Oak Island Permit Number
CAMA
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission for development
in an area of environment concern pursuant to Section 113A-118 of the
General Statutes, "Coastal Area Management"
Issued to the Town of Oak Island, c/o Gene Kudgus, authorizing development in the Estuarine Shoreline (AUL,') at trig
end of West Oak Island Drive, in Oak Island, Brunswick County, as requested in the permittee's application, placed or
hold at the request of the Town on October 17, 2008 and subsequent request to resume processing received on JunE
17, 2011. This permit, issued on June 20, 2011, is subject to compliance with the application and site drawing (wherE
consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations and special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation o
these terms may subject permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action, or may cause the permit to be null and void.
This permit authorizes: the construction of a public parking area.
(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in accordance with the permitted work pla
drawings(s) dated received on August 28, 2008.
(2) All construction must conform to the N.C. Building Code requirements and all other local, State and Federal regulations
applicable local ordinances and FEMA Flood Regulations.
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or land use activities will require a re-evaluation an(
modification of this permit.
(4) A copy of this permit shall be posted or available on site. Contact this office at [phone] for a final inspection a
completion of work.
(Additional Permit Conditions on Page 2)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other qualified persons
within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. From the date of an appeal, any
work conducted under this permit must cease until the appeal is resolved. This
permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the
project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project
modification not covered under this permit, require further written p,,,
approval. All work must cease when this permit expires on:
July 13, 2015
In issuing this permit it is agreed that this project is consistent with the local Land
Use Plan and all applicable ordinances. This permit may not be transferred to
.,r,n+hnr r, rh, ,.A+h—.+ +ho-,i++on onnrnvnl of tho nivicinn of r'nactal
� c
JUN 2 T 20
Heather Coats
WILMINGTON CAMA Field Representative
1:9�Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmin to , NC 28405
r)C�AI CC

Name: Town of Oak Island,c/o Gene Kudgus
Minor Permit # 08-38
Date: June 20, 2011
Page 2
(5) The amount of impervious surface shall not exceed 30% of the lot area within 75 feet of Normal High Water
(Estuarine Shoreline Area of Environmental Concern). In this case, 1,847 square feet is authorized.
(6) Unless specifically allowed in 15A NCAC 07H. 0209(d)(10), and shown on the permitted plan drawing, all
development/construction shall be located a distance of 30 feet landward of normal high water. No impervious
surface (i.e. gravel) is authorized within the 30' buffer.
(7) All unconsolidated material resulting from associated grading and landscaping shall be retained on site by effective
sedimentation and erosion control measures. Prior to any land -disturbing activities, a barrier line of filter cloth must
be installed between the land disturbing activity and the adjacent marsh or water areas, until such time as the area
has been properly stabilized with a vegetative cover. The silt fence shall be properly maintained throughout the
construction period and shall be installed such that it is properly toed -in to the soil.
(8) Any proposed grading within the 30' buffer from the Normal High Water line must be contoured to prevent additional
stormwater runoff to the adjacent marsh and/or waterbody. All disturbed areas outside of the authorized parking
area shall be vegetatively stabilized (planted and mulched) within 14 days of construction completion.
(9) If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a party other than the permittee has legal rights to any part of the
area approved under this permit, this permit shall be null and void as to the area the court determines is not owned
by the permittee. Also, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the public has legal rights
to the property which conflict with the permitted development, this permit shall be null and void as
to the development determined to be in conflict by the court. This condition shall take effect on the date
such court judgment becomes final. In such event, the permittee shall consult DCM prior to initiating or continuing
any further development under this permit.
SIGNATURE: DATE: j`a''`_ 2 31 2 a<
PERMITTEE 0

'A Ag=
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Town of Oak Island
c/o Mr. Gene Kudgus
4601 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Mr. Kudgus:
James H. Gregson
Director
June 20, 2011
Natural Resources
Dee Freema
Secretar
Attached is CAMA Minor Development Permit # 08-38, issued for work to be done at the end of W. Oa'
Island Drive, in Oak Island, Brunswick County.
In order to validate this permit, please sign both copies of the permit as indicated. Please retain the
gold copy for your files and sign front and back pages of the white copy then return to us within 20 days o
receipt, in the enclosed, self-addressed envelope.
This is not a valid permit until it is signed and returned to our office.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Shaun K. Sim on
Permit Support Technician
Enclosures
cc: WiRO files
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net NorthCarolina
A'f — j. //.

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Grady Richardson
1213 Culbreth Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Mr. Richardson:
A
�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
June 20, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your correspondence on behalf of Theodore and Carol Barris, which was received by the Division
of Coastal Management on September 8, 2008, regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Oak Island,
at the street end of West Oak Island Drive, adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), in Brunswick County. The proposed
project consisted of the construction of a public parking access. The proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of
the Coastal Resources Commission (7H.0209) and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed
a copy of the permit, as well as the relevant statutes.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman of the Coastal
Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for a Contested Case Hearing.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be received within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at [phone] if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and
instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found
on our website.
Respectfully yours,
'0-C -_—
Debra Wilson
District Manager
Cc: Wilmington Files
Christy Goebel, AG's Office
Ted Tyndall, DCM
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www,nccoastaimanagement.net NorthCarolina

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Betty Hupp
7916 E. Yacht Dr
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Ms. Hupp:
����
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
June 20, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on September
26, 2008, regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Oak Island, at the street end of West Oak Island
Drivel adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), in Brunswick County. The proposed project consisted of the construction
of a public parking access. The proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
(71-1.0209) and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a copy of the permit, as well as the
relevant statutes.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman of the Coastal
Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for a Contested Case Hearing.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be received within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at [phone] if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and
instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found
on our website.
Respectfully yours,
Debra Wilson
District Manager
Cc: Wilmington Files
Christy Goebel, AG's Office
Ted Tyndall, DCM
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net NorthCarolina
Al _1_-___//--

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Daniel Ruth
102 SW Yacht Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Mr. Ruth:
f�A
,a=
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
June 20, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on September
8, 2008, regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Oak Island, at the street end of West Oak Island
Drive, adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), in Brunswick County. The proposed project consisted of the construction
of a public parking access. The proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
(7H.0209) and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a copy of the permit, as well as the
relevant statutes.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman of the Coastal
Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for a Contested Case Hearing.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be received within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at [phone] if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and
instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found
on our website.
Respectfully yours,
Debra Wilson
District Manager
Cc: Wilmington Files
Christy Goebel, AG's Office
Ted Tyndall, DCM
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 One
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www,nccoastalmanagement.net NorthCarolina

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Jimmy & Anna Key
2908 NC 770 Hwy
Sandy Ridge, NC 27026
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Key:
f�A
A&=
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
June 20, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on September
8, 2008, regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Oak Island, at the street end of West Oak Island
Drivel adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), in Brunswick County. The proposed project consisted of the construction
of a public parking access. The proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
(71-1.0209) and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a copy of the permit, as well as the
relevant statutes.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman of the Coastal
Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for a Contested Case Hearing.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be received within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at [phone] if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and
instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found
on our website.
Respectfully yours,
0 , �
C- L____—
Debra Wilson
District Manager
Cc: Wilmington Files
Christy Goebel, AG's Office
Ted Tyndall, DCM
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 011e
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net NorthCarolina
i��nt�rs+n��fr

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Tim Dobbs
250 NE 64th St
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Mr. Dobbs:
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
June 20, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on September
26, 2008, regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Oak Island, at the street end of West Oak Island
Drivel adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), in Brunswick County. The proposed project consisted of the construction
of a public parking access. The proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
(71-1.0209) and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a copy of the permit, as well as the
relevant statutes.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman of the Coastal
Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for a Contested Case Hearing.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be received within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at [phone] if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and
instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found
on our website.
Respectfully yours,
Debra Wilson
District Manager
Cc: Wilmington Files
Christy Goebel, AG's Office
Ted Tyndall, DCM
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net NoArthCarolina
A
A /—c.—U.,

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Kirt Cottrell
102 SW Yacht Dr
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Mr. Cottrell:
A�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
June 20, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on September
8, 2008, regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Oak Island, at the street end of West Oak Island
Drivel adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), in Brunswick County. The proposed project consisted of the construction
of a public parking access. The proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
(71-1.0209) and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a copy of the permit, as well as the
relevant statutes.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman of the Coastal
Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for a Contested Case Hearing.
The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in writing and must be received within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at [phone] if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and
instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found
on our website.
Respectfully yours,
Debra Wilson
District Manager
Cc: Wilmington Files
Christy Goebel, AG's Office
Ted Tyndall, DCM
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement,net NorthCarolina

..
(B) Development Standards. Development of wind energy facilities shall meet the following
standards in addition to adhering to the requirements outlined in Part (a)(13)(A) of this Rule:
(i) Natural reefs, coral outcrops, artificial reefs, seaweed communities, and significant
benthic communities identified by the Division of Marine Fisheries W Fisheries -or the RC shall
be avoided;
(ii) Development shall not be sited on or within 500 meters of significant biological
communities identified by the Division of Marine Fisheries or the WRC such ashigh
relief hard bottom areas. High relief is defined for this standard as relief greater than
or equal to one-half meter per five meters of horizontal distance;
(iii) Development shall not cause irreversible damage to documented archeological
resources including shipwrecks identified by the Department of Cultural —Resources
and unique geological features that require protection from_ uncontrolled or
incompatible development as identified by the Division of Land -Resources pursuant
to G.S. 113A-113(bx4)(g);
(iv) Development activities shall be timed to avoid significant adverse impacts on the life
cycles of estuarine or ocean resources, or wildlife;
(v) Development or operation of a wind energy facility shall not jeopardize the use -of
the surrounding waters for navigation or for other public trust rights in public trust
areas or estuarine waters; and
(vi) Development or operation of a wind energy facility shall not interfere with air
navigation routes, air traffic control areas, military training routes or special use
airspace and shall comply with standards adopted by the Federal Aviation
Administration and codified under 14 CFR Part 77.13.
(C) Permit Conditions. Permits for wind energy facilities may be conditioned on the_applicant
amending the proposal to include measures necessary to insure compliance with the standards
for development set out in this Rule. Permit conditions may include -monitoring to ensure
compliance with all applicable development standards; and
(D) Public Benefits Exception. Projects that conflict with these standards, but provide a public
benefit, may be approved pursuant to the standards set out in Subparagraph (a)(3) of this Rule.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A-107(b); 113A-108; 113A-113(b); 113A-124;
Eff. September 9, 1977;
Amended Eff. February 1, 1996; April 1, 1993; February 1, 1993; November 30, 1992;
RRC Objection due to ambiguity Eff. March 21, 1996;
Amended Eff. February 1, 2011; August 1, 2010; June 1, 2010; August 1, 1998; May 1, 1996.
15A NCAC 07H .0209 COASTAL SHORELINES
(a) Description. The Coastal Shorelines category includes estuarine shorelines and public trust shorelines. Estuarine
shorelines AEC are those non -ocean shorelines extending from the normal high water level or normal water level along
the estuarine waters, estuaries, sounds, bays, fresh and brackish waters, and public trust areas as set forth in an agreement
adopted by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources [described in
Rule .0206(a) of this Section] for a distance of 75 feet landward. For those estuarine shorelines immediately contiguous
to waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters by the Environmental Management Commission, the estuarine
shoreline AEC shall extend to 575 feet landward from the normal high water level or normal water level, unless the
Coastal Resources Commission establishes the boundary at a greater or lesser extent following required public hearing(s)
within the affected county or counties. Public trust shorelines AEC are those non -ocean shorelines immediately
contiguous to public trust areas, as defined in Rule 07H .0207(a) of this Section, located inland of the dividing line
between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters as set forth in that agreement and extending 30 feet landward of
the normal high water level or normal water level.
(b) Significance. Development within coastal shorelines influences the quality of estuarine and ocean life and is subject
to the damaging processes of shore front erosion and flooding. The coastal shorelines and wetlands contained within
them serve as barriers against flood damage and control erosion between the estuary and the uplands. Coastal shorelines
are the intersection of the upland and aquatic elements of the estuarine and ocean system, often integrating influences
from both the land and the sea in wetland areas. Some of these wetlands are among the most productive natural
environments of North Carolina and they support the functions of and habitat for many valuable commercial and sport
fisheries of the coastal area. Many land -based activities influence the quality and productivity of estuarine waters. Some
important features of the coastal shoreline include wetlands, flood plains, bluff shorelines, mud and sand flats, forested
shorelines and other important habitat areas for fish and wildlife.
(c) Management Objective. The management objective is to ensure that shoreline development is compatible with the
dynamic nature of coastal shorelines as well as the values and the management objectives of the estuarine and ocean
.... +.— n,1,o, pro +. ,.,,,, '. anti manaaP the imnnrtant natural features of the estuarine and ocean system so

management system capable of conserving and utilizing these shorelines so as to maximize their benefits to the estuarine •
and ocean system and the people of North Carolina.
(d) Use Standards. Acceptable uses shall be those consistent with the management objectives in Paragraph (c) of this
Rule. These uses shall be limited to those types of development activities that will not be detrimental to the public trust
rights and the biological and physical functions of the estuarine and ocean system. Every effort shall be made by the
permit applicant to avoid, mitigate or reduce adverse impacts of development to estuarine and coastal systems through
the planning and design of the development project. In every instance, the particular location, use, and design
characteristics shall comply with the general use and specific use standards for coastal shorelines, and where applicable,
the general use and specific use standards for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas described in Rule
.0208 of this Section. Development shall be compatible with the following standards:
(1) All development projects, proposals, and designs shall preserve and not weaken or eliminate natural
barriers to erosion including peat marshland, resistant clay shorelines, and cypress -gum protective
fringe areas adjacent to vulnerable shorelines.
(2) All development projects, proposals, and designs shall limit the construction of impervious surfaces
and areas not allowing natural drainage to only so much as is necessary to adequately service the major
purpose or use for which the lot is to be developed. Impervious surfaces shall not exceed 30 percent of
the AEC area of the lot, unless the applicant can effectively demonstrate, through innovative design,
that the protection provided by the design would be equal to or exceed the protection by the 30 percent
limitation. Redevelopment of areas exceeding the 30 percent impervious surface limitation may be
permitted if impervious areas are not increased and the applicant designs the project to comply with the
intent of the rule to the maximum extent feasible.
(3) All development projects, proposals, and designs shall comply with the following mandatory standards
of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973:
(A) All development projects, proposals, and designs shall provide for a buffer zone along the
margin of the estuarine water which is sufficient to confine visible siltation within 25 percent
of the buffer zone nearest the land disturbing development.
(B) No development project proposal or design shall permit an angle for graded slopes or fill
which is greater than an angle which can be retained by vegetative cover or other
erosion -control devices or structures.
(C) All development projects, proposals, and designs which involve uncovering more than one
acre of land shall plant a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion within 30 working days of
completion of the grading; provided that this shall not apply to clearing land for the purpose
of forming a reservoir later to be inundated.
(4) Development shall not have a significant adverse impact on estuarine and ocean resources. Significant
adverse impacts include development that would directly or indirectly impair water quality standards,
increase shoreline erosion, alter coastal wetlands or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), deposit
spoils waterward of normal water level or normal high water, or cause degradation of shellfish beds.
(5) Development shall not interfere with existing public rights of access to, or use of, navigable waters or
public resources.
(6) No public facility shall be permitted if such a facility is likely to require public expenditures for
maintenance and continued use, unless it can be shown that the public purpose served by the facility
outweighs the required public expenditures for construction, maintenance, and continued use. For the
purpose of this standard, "public facility" means a project that is paid for in any part by public funds.
(7) Development shall not cause irreversible damage to valuable, historic architectural or archaeological
resources as documented by the local historic commission or the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources.
(8) Established common-law and statutory public rights of access to the public trust lands and waters in
estuarine areas shall not be eliminated or restricted. Development shall not encroach upon public
accessways nor shall it limit the intended use of the accessways.
(9) Within the AECs for shorelines contiguous to waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters by the
EMC, no CAMA permit shall be approved for any project which would be inconsistent with applicable
use standards adopted by the CRC, EMC or MFC for estuarine waters, public trust areas, or coastal
wetlands. For development activities not covered by specific use standards, no permit shall be issued
if the activity would, based on site -specific information, degrade the water quality or outstanding
resource values.
(10) Within the Coastal Shorelines category (estuarine and public trust shoreline AECs), new development
shall be located a distance of 30 feet landward of the normal water level or normal high water level,
with the exception of the following:
(A) Water -dependent uses as described in Rule 07H .0208(a)(1) of this Section;
(B) Pile -supported signs (in accordance with local regulations);
(C) Post- or pile -supported fences;

(E) Crab Shedders, if uncovered with elevated trays and no associated impervious surfaces except
those necessary to protect the pump;
(F) Decks/Observation Decks limited to slatted, wooden, elevated and unroofed decks that shall
not singularly or collectively exceed 200 square feet;
(G) Grading, excavation and landscaping with no wetland fill except when required by a
permitted shoreline stabilization project. Projects shall not increase stormwater runoff to
adjacent estuarine and public trust waters;
(H) Development over existing impervious surfaces, provided that the existing impervious surface
is not increased and the applicant designs the project to comply with the intent of the rules to
the maximum extent feasible;
(I) Where application of the buffer requirement would preclude placement of a residential
structure with a footprint of 1,200 square feet or less on lots, parcels and tracts platted prior to
June 1, 1999, development may be permitted within the buffer as required in Subparagraph
(d)(10) of this Rule, providing the following criteria are met:
(i) Development shall minimize the impacts to the buffer and reduce runoff by limiting
land disturbance to only so much as is necessary to construct and provide access to
the residence and to allow installation or connection of utilities such as water and
sewer; and
(ii) The residential structure development shall be located a distance landward of the
normal high water or normal water level equal to 20 percent of the greatest depth of
the lot. Existing structures that encroach into the applicable buffer area may be
replaced or repaired consistent with the criteria set out in Rules .0201 and .0211 in
Subchapter 07J of this Chapter; and
(J) Where application of the buffer requirement set out in 15A NCAC 07H .0209(d)(10) would
preclude placement of a residential structure on an undeveloped lot platted prior to June 1,
1999 that are 5,000 square feet or less that does not require an on -site septic system, or on an
undeveloped lot that is 7,500 square feet or less that requires an on -site septic system,
development may be permitted within the buffer if all the following criteria are met:
(i) The lot on which the proposed residential structure is to be located, is located
between:
(1) Two existing waterfront residential structures, both of which are within 100
feet of the center of the lot and at least one of which encroaches into the
buffer; or
(11) An existing waterfront residential structure that encroaches into the buffer
and a road, canal, or other open body of water, both of which are within 100
feet of the center of the lot;
(ii) Development of the lot shall minimize the impacts to the buffer and reduce runoff by
limiting land disturbance to only so much as is necessary to construct and provide
access to the residence and to allow installation or connection of utilities;
(iii) Placement of the residential structure and pervious decking may be aligned no
further into the buffer than the existing residential structures and existing pervious
decking on adjoining lots;
(iv) The first one and one-half inches of rainfall from all impervious surfaces on the lot
shall be collected and contained on -site in accordance with the design standards for
stormwater management for coastal counties as specified in 15A NCAC 02H .1005.
The stormwater management system shall be designed by an individual who meets
applicable State occupational licensing requirements for the type of system proposed
and approved during the permit application process. If the residential structure
encroaches into the buffer, then no other impervious surfaces will be allowed within
the buffer; and
(v) The lots must not be adjacent to waters designated as approved or conditionally
approved shellfish waters by the Shellfish Sanitation Section of the Division of
Environmental Health of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
(e) The buffer requirements in Paragraph (d) of this Rule shall not apply to Coastal Shorelines where the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) has adopted rules that contain buffer standards, or to Coastal Shorelines where the
EMC adopts such rules, upon the effective date of those rules.
(f) Specific Use Standards for Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) Coastal Shorelines.
(1) Within the AEC for estuarine and public trust shorelines contiguous to waters classified as ORW by
the EMC, all development projects, proposals, and designs shall limit the built upon area in the AEC to
no more than 25 percent or any lower site specific percentage as adopted by the EMC as necessary to
. . ----' --- ----vim.. -_a..e­­ <. b—-iF+I,n nVW and chall-

(C) otherwise be consistent with the use standards set out in Paragraph (d) of this Rule.
(2) Development (other than single-family residential lots) more than 75 feet from the normal high water
line or normal water line but within the AEC as of June 1, 1989 shall be permitted in accordance with
rules and standards in effect as of June 1, 1989 if:
(A) the development has a CAMA permit application in process, or
(B) the development has received preliminary subdivision plat approval or preliminary site plan
approval under applicable local ordinances, and in which financial resources have been
invested in design or improvement.
(3) Single-family residential lots that would not be buildable under the low -density standards defined in
Paragraph (f)(1) of this Rule may be developed for single-family residential purposes so long as the
development complies with those standards to the maximum extent possible.
(4) For an ORW nominated subsequent to June 1, 1989, the effective date in Paragraph (f)(2) of this Rule
shall be the dates of nomination by the EMC.
(g) Urban Waterfronts.
(1) Description. Urban Waterfronts are waterfront areas, not adjacent to Outstanding Resource Waters, in
the Coastal Shorelines category that lie within the corporate limits of any municipality duly chartered
within the 20 coastal counties of the state. In determining whether an area is an urban waterfront, the
following criteria shall be met as of the effective date of this Rule:
(A) The area lies wholly within the corporate limits of a municipality; and
(B) the area has a central business district or similar commercial zoning classification where there
is minimal undeveloped land, mixed land uses, and urban level services such as water, sewer,
streets, solid waste management, roads, police and fire protection, or in an area with an
industrial or similar zoning classification adjacent to a central business district.
(2) Significance. Urban waterfronts are recognized as having cultural, historical and economic
significance for many coastal municipalities. Maritime traditions and longstanding development
patterns make these areas suitable for maintaining or promoting dense development along the shore.
With proper planning and stormwater management, these areas may continue to preserve local
historical and aesthetic values while enhancing the economy.
(3) Management Objectives. To provide for the continued cultural, historical, aesthetic and economic
benefits of urban waterfronts. Activities such as in -fill development, reuse and redevelopment
facilitate efficient use of already urbanized areas and reduce development pressure on surrounding
areas, in an effort to minimize the adverse cumulative environmental effects on estuarine and ocean
systems. While recognizing that opportunities to preserve buffers are limited in highly developed urban
areas, they are encouraged where practical.
(4) Use Standards:
(A) The buffer requirement pursuant to Subparagraph (d)(10) of this Rule is not required for
development within Urban Waterfronts that meets the following standards:
(i) The development must be consistent with the locally adopted land use plan;
(ii) Impervious surfaces shall not exceed 30 percent of the AEC area of the lot.
Impervious surfaces may exceed 30 percent if the applicant can effectively
demonstrate, through a stormwater management system design, that the protection
provided by the design would be equal to or exceed the protection by the 30 percent
limitation. The stormwater management system shall be designed by an individual
who meets any North Carolina occupational licensing requirements for the type of
system proposed and approved during the permit application process.
Redevelopment of areas exceeding the 30 percent impervious surface limitation may
be permitted if impervious areas are not increased and the applicant designs the
project to comply with the intent of the rule to the maximum extent feasible; and
(iii) The development shall meet all state stormwater management requirements as
required by the NC Environmental Management Commission;
(B) Non -water dependent uses over estuarine waters, public trust waters and coastal wetlands
may be allowed only within Urban Waterfronts as set out below.
(i) Existing structures over coastal wetlands, estuarine waters or public trust areas may
be used for commercial non -water dependent purposes provided that the structure
promotes, fosters, enhances or accommodates public benefit. Commercial, non -
water dependent uses shall be limited to restaurants and retail services. Residential
uses, lodging and new parking areas shall be prohibited.
(ii) For the purposes of this Rule, existing enclosed structures may be replaced and or
expanded vertically provided that vertical expansion does not exceed the original
footprint of the structure, is limited to one additional story over the life of the
structure and is consistent with local requirements or limitations.

(I) The proposed development shall provide for enhanced public access to the
shoreline;
(II) Structures may be roofed but shall not be enclosed by partitions, plastic
sheeting, screening, netting, lattice or solid walls of any kind and shall be
limited to a single story;
(III) Structures shall be pile supported and require no filling of coastal wetlands,
estuarine waters or public trust areas;
(IV) Structures shall not extend more than 20 feet waterward of the normal high
water level or normal water level;
(V) Structures shall be elevated at least three feet over the wetland substrate as
measured from the bottom of the decking;
(VI) Structures shall have no more than six feet of any dimension extending over
coastal wetlands;
(VII) Structures shall not interfere with access to any riparian property and shall
have a minimum setback of 15 feet between any part of the structure and the
adjacent property owners' areas of riparian access. The line of division of
areas of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line along the
channel or deep water in front of the properties, then drawing a line
perpendicular to the line of the channel so that it intersects with the shore at
the point the upland property line meets the water's edge. The minimum
setback 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. Should the adjacent property be sold before construction of
the structure commences, the applicant shall obtain a written agreement
with the new owner waiving the minimum setback and submit it to the
permitting agency prior to initiating any development;
(VIII) Structures shall be consistent with the US Army Corps of Engineers
setbacks along federally authorized waterways;
(IX) Structures shall have no significant adverse impacts on fishery resources,
water quality or adjacent wetlands and there must be no reasonable
alternative that would avoid wetlands. Significant adverse impacts include
the development that would directly or indirectly impair water quality
standards, increase shoreline erosion, alter coastal wetlands or Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), deposit spoils waterward of normal water level
or normal high water level, or cause degradation of shellfish beds;
(X) Structures shall not degrade waters classified as SA or High Quality Waters
or Outstanding Resource Waters as defined by the NC Environmental
Management Commission;
(XI) Structures shall not degrade Critical Habitat Areas or Primary Nursery
Areas as defined by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission; and
(XII) Structures shall not pose a threat to navigation.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A-107(b); 113A-108; 113A-113(b); 113A-124;
Eff. September 1, 1977,
Amended Eff. April 1, 2001; August 1, 2000; August 3, 1992; December 1, 1991; May 1, 1990;
October 1, 1989;
Temporary Amendment Eff. October 15, 2001 (exempt from 270 day requirement-S.L. 2000-142);
Temporary Amendment Eff. February 15, 2002 (exempt from 270 day requirement-S.L. 2001-494);
Amended Eff. March 1, 2010; April 1, 2008; August 1, 2002.

September 5, 2008
Dept. of Environment & National Resource
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
Ref: Town of Oak Island Application for CAMA Minor Permit for Town property
At NW 2"d Street/Street End in Brunswick County
Attention: Heather Coats
Dear Sirs:
We would like to file written objection to above project as proposed by the Town of Oak Island. We
would have limited access to our property if parking area, deck and stairway are constructed as outlined
in proposal . I have discussed this matter with Gene Kudgus, Public Works Director for the Town of Oak
Island this date. He assures me that they will not block our established access; however, even if parking
spaces do not block entrance we can only image congestion, noise disruptions and devaluation of our
property . Therefore, we ask that you review our objection and withhold approval of subject project.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully, we remain,
�,-Z�4 Q� '� 7�
Jimmy D. Key & Anna J. Key
Mailing Address:
2908 NC 770 Hwy, Sandy Ridge, N.C. 27026 (Tel: [phone])
CC:
Gene Kudgus
Public Works Director
Town of Oak Island
4601 E.Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, N. C. 28465
REr ��
r �� Lo
b Ll � ��f cy /,
SEP t� d 20-98
DCM V ILMINGTL)Ni. NC

Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to:
11164 M'FW- coo A 7 5
01 Z*-yyxO1VM'-W %,
�•� r% �/iRA�iyRI �!J/i• LXT
A. Signature
X ❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
B. Received by ( Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
RECEIVED
3. Se�ice Type
La Certified Mail
❑ press Mail
❑ Rn�itW
Insu
F�CeiRtgr Merchandise
R ,�❑
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
!. Article Number 7007 2560 0000 0976 0786
(transfer from service label)
LQ Fnrm RRi 1 Fchmna 9nnd rY--tic AM—. P—iM 1»sos-n9.u_1rer

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees -Paid
USPS
111111 Permit No. G-10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
g� 8 �N C 770
�W y .
�pncl � ��cl�E JYC
`� 1? 170 yG

OPPOSITION TO CAMA PROJECT: PARKING FACILITY IN WEST OAK ISLAND
DRIVE STREET -END; TOWN OF OAK ISLAND MINOR PERMIT APPLICATION
Dear Coastal Management (CAMA):
My Name is Daniel Ruth.
I reside and own property located at 102 SW Yacht Drive, Oak Island, NC, 28465.1 am
responding to a mailing from the Town of Oak Island which indicates a plan to construct
a large public parking facility in the middle of the street adjacent to my property.
I am opposed to this plan. I am guessing that the Town's reason for trying to do this is
the fishing pier that is used by the public which is not in this street but which extends
into the Intracoastal waterway from this street. I cannot approve this construction be-
cause it will exacerbate the public nuisance which this fishing pier has already brought
to our neighborhood. This facility will not fit, as drawn, in the limited space available.
Town has repeatedly tried to cram inappropriate and illegal structures and facilities into
this limited area with disastrous results. Additionally, Town has been unable to super-
vise properly any of the activities in this area. We think this is just another example of
Town's intent to ignore the several different Orders from Superior Court which specifi-
cally prevent Town from developing recreational obstructions in the streets. I certainly
cannot condone, and I think CAMA cannot condone this irresponsible activity. Town
does not have control over the vandalism, the trespass, the nighttime use and abuse of
the area, the alcohol and public drunkenness, drug use, late hours intrusions , etc., etc.
There is absolutely no evidence that would indicate their ability or willingness to super-
vise and enforce a parking facility. This is a peaceful, totally residential neighborhood.
Their is no commerce anywhere within miles of here to justify a parking facility of this
magnitude. It's unbelievable; it's unprecedented; It's unacceptable.
Let me give you an example of the Town's total ineptness regarding their responsibilities
here: Earlier this year, I and other concerned neighbors erected some posts and ropes
which blocked nobody's access to either the street or the pier. They merely created a
marker so pier patrons could tell where the CAMA 30 foot vegetated zone was. Cars
and trucks were driving right up on top of the bulkhead and were crushing it down. We
had to pay for expensive repairs. The Town took no responsibility. In fact, they ordered
the removal of the posts and ropes and vehicles continue to abuse the vegetated zone
and the bulkhead. The Town will not prevent that even with designated parking.
Fortunately, you ( CAMA) don't have to allow this. You can and must deny this permit
based on the rules you are already bound by and have already adhered to.
incerely,
I Ruth
R E C E I V it- ,
SEP 0 8 2008

GAA�W,l Y-Ac T Y Aki,i YT
iO
Y-i W, �'#WUY' OVIAMU�4ACI! 10 AVVOT
Sol* l� ohwa�i
k: 1w bilslei ow &il mo-i".
tx
w oiYNO jot rx F" I
Poll, A
J
.Jp
;FaO )jtjk%l L I
P13
i?irff hO06'10d� C'l
n One s m -b
oa �Al ow"ji
1 wt!Waasift Of-. zsis b--.Airrl aint
Z, .."ilt 6v"! "40 li 10 G vilaGOW L4�,
J, ;�lobv .1 5�-nrlvi 0! fnelni Z,'rlw:,)T
C-4dla:!Ofl&�N w,501 AMA,',, X101t t :sor)bnoalonnao
SrrtOtigic la.ii :-vll wv,�,t 4-o-Ino3 .,-..vsi-li ton esob
rv- -,iv hni biu .).4 -3 vi 9 iri
oni4*q P. 1;,) i I -19-v� eq 4 4i :?jOT
1;
r
j 1worla sole il o-) oil 6 liell I
zo
.)r9 lol� bjjL-,.l Zo( lfr;
w bnE,
�,,so :w," ."I 1 hAn
"t-6:-701c vjrt, :_-or yd `s:fll- -?(J ybecillE, ijty f-;Il
rill 1q.

September 1, 2008
From: Kirt Cottrell, 102 SW Yacht Drive, Oak Island NC 28465
Re: Town of Oak island, LAMA Minor Permit Application OPPOSITION
Dear LAMA Permitting Office. -
As referenced herein, I am a propertf owner and f ll time resident of property adja-
cent to the. the project proposed for constniction by the Town of Oak Island at the
end Of Vilest Oak Island Drive_
I believe that a Judge has already ruled against the Town putting a parking facility in
this street, and other restrictions, too_ But frankly, the problem with the Town mak-
ing use of tl tis street i� � an way they see Ift is that they don't supervise or take care
o$ anvihing. Th€y have removed every shred of information from this street and Uie
fishing pier which would give .vier patrons a clue about what the rules are. Where
are no hours posted any longer, the locking gate was removed, so there is no secu-
rity. There is traffic, noise, debris, vandalism, drug and alcohol use, and sexual per-
versions 24 hours a day; 365 days a year at this pier. There is ngl even one
sign-
y kind o tell anyone anything about expected conduct or behavior_ And now the
Town wants to provide parking for all that??? This is a totally residential neighbor-
hood. It just isn't working... and a Parking Plaza will just invite more mayhem.
I am totally opposed to this project.
Sincerely,
RECF.IVF
Kirt Cottrell
SEP U 6 2003
. 4� 6Z�Z�
DCM WILMING Ott, �p4C

Grady
LAW OFFICES OF G. GRADY RICHARDSON, JR., P.C.
Attorney and Counselor at Law
N.C.S.B.25508
1213 Culbreth Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 910.509.7167
Mobile: [phone]
Email: grady(a)ggrlawoffice.com

124 SW Yacht Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
September 5, 2008
Ms. Heather Coats
CAMA
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Ms. Coats:
We have recently learned about the parking plan the Town of Oak Island wants to install in the area at the
end of W. Oak Island Drive, the area formerly known as Robin Schuster Park, and for which the Town is seeking a
permit from CAMA. As property owners just down the street from that area, we strongly object to that plan.
The Town's current plan is too extensive for such a small area, and the plan appears to be the same plan for
which the Town previously sought a permit from CAMA, which CAMA previously denied after consultation with
the State Attorney General. The area in question for this parking plan is still under a court order and it appears an
installation of this magnitude would again be a violation of the court order and just shows that the Town considers it
can do what it wants to do regardless of court orders or other higher level regulations.
Please, again, deny this parking plan for the area at the end of W. Oak Island Drive.
Thank you for your consideration and your effort to uphold the law.
Sincerely,
Kathryn M. Scanlon Harold J. Schutt
R�
SO 18 2008
DCf VJSL1Vti.- ��-®1

-Yip'... .r ,,t, ,,r

Sept. 7, 2008
To: CAMA Permitting Department and Ms. Heather Coats
We the undersigned are residents of Oak Island, NC. We are opposed to
the Town's Plans To Build A Recreational Parking Lot At The West End
of West Oak Island Drive. This specific area has been subject to more
than a dozen serious crashes. and many injuries.
It is a totally residential neighborhood where a parking lot would be an eye-
sore, a breach of Covenant, and a magnet for abuses at all hours of the
day and night. The Town has removed every vestige of signage, hours of
use, safe driving directions, protection for private access to adjacent prop-
erties, nighttime security, patrol or enforcement and even protections for
the areas of environmental concern here.
There is no reason nor precedent for this type or size of parking facility on
Oak Island.
This street is under Court Order preventing exactly this sort of street diver-
sion.
Sincerely,
1,2
X3
C
E I '� E
�g& �Y sc q yrt�� 9
SEP Z 6 2008

r, W h f t r Ill A PIO, to alpr.. i . ~t �.' � 9'"4 �i�� i't � i'; Y i !..%1 u
�`��;�s� �x� j'"'��'�.t;.'� ;���4t� ".:�l:rl� �s�Y�.:�li��rM"�Ei�tl� �..,'iL�d;,.,�'t�,.&€�-�&,.-i.,�ca..�e?S!' .okf�`.8P•".1i�4,
-� ,r=. , P:,� �i a -. � �� iR r .�..y t"?f 3 �:r ;=jX6.✓r�i � �a�1.�� i ..���, i�i.�.i.'� f.[ �i�♦4�1 �n�`i �j' �i��.d.�.�� ... �i 1
5i1C1"ft' is jnsas5vc'iiw3se 'e'io
y�r :' }i3 ` e" } xwy ;.r� i"iv`voT�g�,�''�!^lT fi-I 2 '{ (ki ' ij
e L :5E `v J4' J _�fG/'.( is `i ti t t ;�s dC 3q, ..ririci�;i� jai± tt�r' `f 4.}
-r''v?t e101:1 � fgvs bhp, t'r9m,7inici.ry v Iml6i
t,•, t,. ,j ni; i c to tii sgyf` aiti:j lost Inebsoaq.v`i nc.issi on i
;t,`' ri-y-Li Pa4 f :'"i%':i. T
e,
t

Sept. 7, 2008
To: CAMA Permitting Department and Ms. Heather Coats
We the undersigned are residents of Oak Island, NC. We are opposed to
the Town's Plans To Build A Recreational Parking Lot At The West End
of West Oak Island Drive. This specific area has been subject to more
than a dozen serious crashes. and many injuries.
It is a totally residential neighborhood where a parking lot would be an eye-
sore, a breach of Covenant, and a magnet for abuses at all hours of the
day and night. The Town has removed every vestige of signage, hours of
use, safe driving directions, protection for private access to adjacent prop-
erties, nighttime security, patrol or enforcement and even protections for
the areas of environmental concern here.
There is no reason nor precedent for this type or size of parking facility on
Oak Island.
This street is under Court Order preventing exactly this sort of street diver-
sion.
Sincerely,
', E;, I
SEP Z 6 2008

A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretar
October 17, 2008
Sent via Email
Town of Oak Island
C/o Gene Kudgus
4601 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
Email: [e-mail]
RE: Application Hold— Street End of W. Oak Island Drive
Dear Mr. Kudgus:
On October 17, 2008, we received correspondence from Brian Edes, Town Attorney for Oak Island,
regarding the Town's application for authorization to construct a public parking area, located at the street end c
W. Oak Island Drive, in the Town of Oak Island, Brunswick County. Mr. Edes has requested, on behalf of the
Town of Oak Island, that the above referenced permit application be placed on hold. Therefore, by way of this
letter, we are informing you that your current proposal has hereby been placed on hold. Should you wish to
resume processing of this application, please notify this office in writing of your request.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at my Wilmington office [phone].
Sincerely,
Heather Coats
Field Representative
Attachments
cc: Christy Goebel, Office of the Attorney General
Brian Edes, Crossley, McIntosh, Collier, Hanley & Edes, PLLC
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Pm ml nnnnrfi jnity � Affirmative Action Emolover — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

FW: Any word on Barris v. Oak Is?
imap://cros.ncmail.net:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E 124
Subject: FW: Any word on Barris v. Oak Is?
From: "Goebel, Christine" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:42:30 -0400
To: "Heather Coats" <[e-mail]>, "Steve Everhart" <[e-mail]>
Heather -
See below. Please send the Town (whoever applied for the permit- Mr. Kudges I think) a letter confirming this
applicant -requested hold on the CAMA permit application as of today's date for the proposed development at
the end of W. Oak Is Dr. and asking them to send any request to remove the hold in writing to you. Copy me on
the letter, copy Mr. Edes, and I'll also send a copy to Mr. Richardson.
Let me know if you have any questions -
Thanks and have a great weekend!
Christy
From: Brian Edes [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Goebel, Christine
Subject: RE: Any word on Barris v. Oak Is?
Christine,
This will confirm I am the Town Attorney for the Town of Oak Island. As I have previously
indicated, the Town respectfully requests DCM stay the Town's CAMA application process
with respect to Oak Island Drive. As you know, Judge Ola Lewis has granted the Barris'
Motion however the Town intends to appeal that ruling. As such, I am requesting DCM to
stay this application until such time as the North Carolina Court of Appeals and / or North
Carolina Supreme Court finally adjudicates this matter.
I appreciate your assistance and guidance. If you need anything further from me or the
Town please let me know.
With kindest regards, I remain,
Brian E. Edes
Crossley McIntosh Collier Hanley & Edes, PLLC
Attorneys -at -Law
1430 Common Wealth Drive, Suite 202
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[phone] phone
[phone] facsimile
Notice
This electronic message is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named as
recipient above. It contains confidential attorney -client privileged information and/or
attorney work product. If the reader is not the intended recipient, be hereby notified than
any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this or any part of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it

r 1OW'N pF
Q�!;�llli
k41 CAROM
MEMO
Date: 9/19/2008
To: Donna Coleman
From Ronnie Shannon
RE: Memo for Record Ref: End of West Oak Island Dr.
Donna,
On Thur. September 18, 2008 while working on the manhole cover at the end of
West Oak Island Dr. I was engaged in conversation with Mr. Ted Barris as to the
work we were doing to the manhole cover. While conversing I noticed a woman
tear the CAMA Notification Sign off the wooden stake it was adhered to at the end of
West Oak Island Dr. I was later introduced to her by her husband Mr. Barris as his wife.
Sincere ,
Ronnie Shannon
RECEIVED
OCT 0 2 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, N�

Coats, Heather
From:
Brian Edes [[e-mail]]
Sent:
Friday, June 17, 2011 2:10 PM
To:
Goebel, Christine; Grady Richardson
Cc:
Coats, Heather; Tyndall, Ted; Everhart, Steve; Justin Humphries
Subject:
RE: Barris v. Town of Oak Island
Attachments:
Barris Opinion. pdf
Christy,
Pursuant to your prior email to Grady, please allow this email to serve as a formal request from the
Town of Oak Island to lift the application hold placed on the Town's permit application. You will recal
the application was placed on hold pending the Town's appeal of Judge Lewis' Order which, in part,
enjoined the Town from pursuing the permit. The Court of Appeals handed down its decision in
December of 2010.and the same reversed the Trial Court's Order.
I have attached a copy of the Opinion for your file. Please let me know if I, on behalf of the Town,
need to do anything further to lift the hold. In the meantime, I hope you have a great weekend.
Best Regards,
Brian E. Edes
Crossley McIntosh Collier Hanley & Edes, PLLC
Attorneys -at -Law
1430 Common Wealth Drive, Suite 202
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[phone] phone
[phone] facsimile
Notice
This electronic message is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named as
recipient above. It contains confidential attorney -client privileged information and/or attorney
work product. If the reader is not the intended recipient, be hereby notified than any
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this or any part of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it immediately and notify us
by return e-mail or by telephone.
From: Grady Richardson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:11 PM
To: 'Goebel, Christine'
Cc: 'Heather Coats'; 'Ted.Tyndall'; 'Steve Everhart'; Brian Edes; Justin Humphries
Subject: RE: Barris v. Town of Oak Island
Dear Christy:

Good afternoon. I hope you are doing well
My clients and I have not heard from you or the Department since your 2 February 2011 email below and its
corresponding email thread of communications. Please provide me with an update.
Thank you,
Grady Richardson
LAW OFFICES OF G. GRADY RICHARDSON, JR., P.C.
Attorney and Counselor at Law
N.C.S.B. 25508
1213 Culbreth Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 910.509.7167
Mobile: [phone]
Email: grady(d_)ggrlawoffice.com
From: Goebel, Christine [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:51 AM
To: Brian Edes; Grady Richardson; Justin Humphries
Cc: Heather Coats; Ted.Tyndall; Steve Everhart
Subject: RE: Barris v. Town of Oak Island
I didn't know the COA had ruled in this case until you sent me the opinion today. I plan to review the ruling, discuss it
with my client, consider Mr. Richardson's request to be involved in DCM's discussions with the Town, and get back to
you.
Thanks -
Christy
From: Brian Edes [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:26 AM
To: Grady Richardson; Goebel, Christine; Justin Humphries
Cc: Heather Coats; Ted.Tyndall; Steve Everhart
Subject: RE: Barris v. Town of Oak Island
Christy:
I am in Charlotte today and will not be back in my office until tomorrow. I would like to speak with you regarding the state
of the Town's application as well as respond to Mr. Richardson's email below. Please let me know what number I can ca
and what time would be good for you. Again, my aim is to clarify where the application stands and what is the process fc
the Town to submit arguments in light of the Court of Appeals decision. I am coping Mr. Richardson with this request.
Thanks,
Brian Edes
From: Grady Richardson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:20 AM
To: 'Goebel, Christine'
Cc: Brian Edes; 'Heather Coats'; 'Ted.Tyndall'; 'Steve Everhart'

Subject: RE: Barris v. Town of Oak Island
Importance: High
Dear Christy:
Good morning
Attached, please find the Court of Appeals decision issued 21 December 2010, reversing, in part, Judge Lewis' Order on
the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Below is our last email thread in connection with this matter fror
October of 2008 when the subject application by the Town of Oak Island was placed on "an applicant -requested hold"
pending the outcome of the appeal. Given the date of the attached opinion and the mandate of the Court, the time within
which the parties could have sought a rehearing, and/or discretionary review, and/or other appellate effort has expired. I
am unaware of any further appellate efforts by the Town. The Barrises are not pursuing any further appellate review of
the attached appellate opinion.
Given the attached opinion of the Court of Appeals, I am requesting the agency's decision on the Town's application. In
doing so, I remind the agency of the Barrises' previous objection materials submitted in September of 2008 (in connectior
with this second application by the Town) and your agency's previous decision from 6 April 2005 rejecting the Town's first
application (said first denial is attached hereto). In its previous April 2005 denial, the agency cited to and relied upon
Judge Gregory A. Weeks' Order on Summary Judgment that is specific to the subject street adjacent to the Barrises'
property. The Barrises' objection materials submitted in September of 2008 cited to their previous 2005 objection
materials (including Judge Weeks' Order), as well as the subsequent, numerous Orders entered against the Town by
Judges Weeks, Lewis and Smith. If you wish for me to resubmit the Barrises' Objection materials to you, please let me
know and I will do so.
In addition to the foregoing, I remind the agency of its decision dated 24 September 2009 in connection with objections
asserted by my clients, Galen W. Seidner and Kim A. Seidner, in opposition to the Town's application to erect certain
structures within the street -end adjacent to their property. A copy of this decision is attached for your ready reference. In
its decision involving the Seidners and the Town, the agency specifically noted that unlike the Barris case where Judge
Weeks' Order (and the other orders) specifically governed the specific street area that was the subject of the Town's
application to which the Barrises objected, such an Order was not present at the time of the agency's determination as to
whether the Town's application in Seidner should be issued or denied. Accordingly, citing to this difference and the
express limitations of the agency's jurisdiction and authority, the agency then issued the application and denied the
Seidners' contested case hearing request. Importantly, the agency's decision in the Seidner situation was not appealed
by either the Town or the Seidners. Following the expiration of the time for appealing the agency's Final Decision, I then
moved for summary judgment and a permanent injunction against the Town and I succeeded. I previously provided you
with the Order in the Seidner case from which the Town is now appealing.
Based on the matters contained herein and on behalf of the Barrises, I respectfully request the following.-
1 : The Town's applicant -requested hold on its subject application be lifted; and,
2: The agency deny the Town's subject application consistent with Judge Weeks' Order on Summary Judgment, the
agency's previous denial from April 6, 2005 citing to, inter alia, Judge Weeks' Order on Summary Judgment, and the
agency's decision in the Seidner matter.
Please let me know of the agency's intended course of action, including when a decision will be rendered, and whether
the Town has taken any effort since the attached opinion by the Court of Appeals. If anything further is needed from the
Barrises and/or me, please notify me immediately.
With best regards, I remain
Very truly yours,
Grady Richardson
LAW OFFICES OF G. GRADY RICHARDSON, JR., P.C.
Attorney and Counselor at Law
N.C.S.B.25508
1213 Culbreth Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405

Telephone:
910.509.7166
Facsimile:
910.509.7167
Mobile:
910.471.3377
Email:
grady(a)ggrlawoffice.com
From: Goebel, Christine [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Grady Richardson; Heather Coats; Ted.Tyndall; Steve Everhart
Cc: Brian Edes
Subject: RE: Barris v. Town of Oak Island
Grady -
Right now, the town's permit application for the property next to the Barris property is on an applicant -requested hold, anc
so no permitting decision has yet been made. Thanks for sending me a copy of the Order.
Christy
From: Grady Richardson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 3:48 PM
To: Goebel, Christine; 'Heather Coats'; 'Ted.Tyndall'; 'Steve Everhart'
Subject: FW: Barris v. Town of Oak Island
Importance: High
Dear Christy:
Below, please find my email to Mr. Edes, Town attorney for Oak Island. Attached, please find the Order entered by Judgi
Lewis on 23 October 2008 completely prohibiting and enjoining the Town's pending application adjacent to the Barrises'
property and severely sanctioning the Town's for its latest unlawful efforts.
Based on the attached, and on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Barris, I trust the Town's application will be denied and/or
dismissed, with prejudice.
Sincerely,
Grady Richardson
From: Grady Richardson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 3:38 PM
To: 'Brian Edes'
Subject: Barris v. Town of Oak Island
Importance: High
Brian:
Good afternoon.
Attached, please find a copy of Judge Lewis' Order that was entered on 23 October 2008. 1 have not received my copy b
mail as of yet; the attached was provided to me by Ms. Lisa Stites of the State Port Pilot after she contacted me to discus
the Order and I told her I did not have a copy of it.
A hard copy of the attached will follow by regular mail
Sincerely,

/G
C9 Vv
ro
r N
Ilk
valrt 1✓ �.: L, .� Z.:J �j =" .S� 1f •rpo Alo F
L�rcSs
-
lz
s ,
dr+vc, � PP
,j
(�privo�c
W- Yacf Dr.
B - t3ys
15,1c a RECEIVED Fri.w
2 AUG
D C M W I L M I N G T C '. �;
C9 Vv
ro
r N
Ilk
valrt 1✓ �.: L, .� Z.:J �j =" .S� 1f •rpo Alo F
L�rcSs
-
lz
s ,
dr+vc, � PP
,j
(�privo�c
W- Yacf Dr.
B - t3ys
15,1c a RECEIVED Fri.w
2 AUG
D C M W I L M I N G T C '. �;

(�jrvnS4b
�. 2-Ill
`Y-
r 32 1 IS D RI
✓8O i02 J .
7 I
2 ^, 0 3011 3007
4
�0 4 — 3 2 i
1! p
E 220r 30p O A ' -
i
4 106
l�� `c
23 �Oa 29 � 89 �' 3,5 �. 60
3
g I
e
7 0
So -4 � � 120
�
/0
\� 1 I0 - 5 F '
O
3009
I rz 27 3�'1
S m 00;,
/ 3
114 �Q
8 2 6< <o ✓O� i�
330
65
F 3 t ,
2 �. /09 � 0p �
\, 6 °
.F / O 22 t
F �to 44 E
-V; A NI�F ,24 �O 4
1'7'7
m F /Is to 45
? .r 13 - 4

go, r►ris SGhuslc-r
�j�7/per�<vUS �/'ca C4�CUl4T'/gin S
I. C / /-c,u Cw
c(,-• e - rj a Ali u s`
de)
3, ki,ny s/vtGC$-
2 . fi .3'a + 3 A. I .L) =
z
14r-ee, - 7s.v ( I z' ) -
8 - /,Y-a8
To s Tf I
394 4i
2 S 7
g 46 3
D�.
RECrIVED
I)CIVi WILMil`JGTUN, NC

September 18, 2008
To:
Ms. Heather Coats
MINOR PERMITTING OFICER
CAMA
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
From:
P .s A,D
SEP 1 �2 6
Ted and Carol Barris, Adjacent Property Owners
3018 West Yacht Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
Re:
OPPOSITION to Parking PLAN and
Comments Filed With CAMA regarding Proposed Parking Lot at
End of West Oak Island Dr. (An Oven Letter)
Dear Neighbors,
I have had the opportunity to read the letters written to CAMA by
you and several other of your neighbors regarding a Town of Oak
Island generated Parking Plan proposed for the middle of the
right-of-way in the last block of West Oak Island Drive. Several of
the letters express support for the Parking Plan based on a great
deal of dismay and frustration at the appearance and abusive ne-
glect of the street -end that has gone on since 2005 While those
folks who express disapproval of the Parking Plan have a large
body of law on their side which prevents the public streets from
being diverted in such a way, it is the other faction, those who
approve of the Town's Plan that I feel needs addressing.
Chief among the reasons for supporting the Town -generated Plan
seem to be improving the appearance of the street, protecting the
fragile estuarine environment, and improving public access.
These are worthy goals, and I believe that there is even some ur-
gency in attending to them. The Town's Parking plan,however, is
not the answer to these issues, and, In fact, has the real potential
to multiply and exacerbate problems which have been allowed to
persist far too long already.

19OW
d
kits*
AMA,
Fie I
ac
F16P C' ALc4 Y'. C, "A W, 7_014
A:, C" rn...
-41
gra A)'!-~;
'y(I qjv P, CIO
L f4 ye ue ni . he
fie WTMS�'�J� s�'
Aa.
4
#(I o
e- r
9ed fi I q
V)S011i W10 !wPIAn

Page 2
For example, some of the residents near -by object to the DOT
approved barricade at the intersection of West Yacht and West
Oak Island Drive. They think it is unsightly and even ugly. It is.
But most of us remember that it was put there to try to prevent
the violent crashes of vehicles that come speeding down West
Oak Island Dr. There have been at least 13 such crashes since
the late 1980's, Cars and trucks smashing into the playground
equipment, sandbox, pier -head, and even plunging into the wa-
terway on two occasions. This happened despite every sort of
obstructing device that the Town could dream up to prevent these
crashes: fences, hedges, planters, berms, even 16" diameter pil-
ings erected across the roadway. But only one minor accident
has occurred since the barricade was erected. It's ugly, but it
works. The Town's Parking Plan calls for the removal of the bar-
ricade and using a rain garden to stop the speeding cars. The
parked cars and their occupants will be stopping the speeding
cars! Does anyone wonder why we are so intent on encouraging
people to play in the street? And why has the Town persisted so
energetically and for so many years in their failure to recognize
the safety nightmare they've created. What's uglier than a red
and white barricade? Sifting through wreckage looking for victims
is uglier.
But, what about the aesthetics? We can all agree that the addi-
tion of a rain garden, which is a storm water device, a swale, so
to speak, might have some aesthetic value, if accompanied by a
selection of other shrubbery. It was a tough fight, though, to pre-
vent the Town from tearing out ALL the shrubs including the Red
Bud Hedge , Ligustrum, and Elaeagnus, Crepe Myrtle and Holly
that buffer the nearby properties. The rain garden will drain noth-
ing at the high end of the street; it needs to be closer to the wa-
terway; somewhere in the 30 foot CAMA zone might work. The
information from the County agronomist is that the rain garden
would have to be much larger to do any good in this area. Per-
haps Mr. Kudgus needs to do more research.. Significant other
plantings could be added to in the CAMA zone That would beau-
tify and protect against erosion and PROTECT the bulkhead
from being trafficked by the vehicles which do expensive and ir-
reparable harm, as some of you have wisely pointed out. The
street margins are already well vegetated by the adjacent prop-
erty owners and the sewer crews will seed to grass they rest of

M
;���+ {` F'.;i'`, f '� x�y° :,• /+,7.:' .ir t'. e; i�Ri; ;tj »%�. {;.,l,`� �.'`J`b'+.i:i�rf:
,'i .. i „� i~e:,'v,. .. + �h'.� � ,. }r�r. 1 � irf 9•..t i_:� a�'�i ��{.+
iRt..}t,�. '.,�':.+���� .+�,F .. ..*: ,��' 'a{w'. �'.'f�, Y ,•}a• � « .,. 7 1Q�i� #��ti►y`it�f �^i,
we uc-
.�.Jr%1.r ¢ q':.v .. .. `'td$,�Cr"$G>.'�i`�j�i� .�.p'+.,: ...� ?Trz��J' %+`T! r•i3
-env . 6
-, 1 f+!�'�t�',fl .��' C,�,, if:i�..,`:;� t���.-�r:. ,'`�"::'; ."•'f" .i<•a.K1 �i^.►Zi�'r�'�i.�3,`'�1�::�l:�aw.. •:Z
.v!( +;:'.. .>,.',.� .i` 1 ?,.-�"vft ►:,;.�.,? 1.�Uw ,�{� ....TVA-''
.:i"iiG . ,.'stl,�.i:.J,,. •=:£:�'
to �t ,1�� 1 ., dl.^.. r: � .�} rZ A`.�..�s ��t�:� i >i�J` ��+�i �k?�� � '.Il.►.1{ . �7o i^�
t. .b i��l{, �:.�.� �, 1+,13c CA 1F'1 i` �•`� �.I �.`i��i r W is ViJR'Si Jf�,.
sc ? wo lja t o
�^F�l:�,#.i�i;lt��{t'; � t :r'� i�r�;�t .. ;� • .. -_ •�,r'vy ';�#` �':,� . ,.f";�rfih :'�7t;'i s'�2;�.^
Jt� `t�i K •'r, i8 fl it .� { a 1; �' :r ��t 1' lr:�t. l
.3Y+ . i +' `i l{ i 9�( Q9i#
y
•�i:�i Fi #'i$;•, .:r''Y •:� �{"�iii:'' a::..'+- �1�`��c'f:f .�•' ''?�}t'ti �f34+S�� �".
is
. :�l1 ��;�• �. ...:'i�`T;
' , _'t" ' �. ..... •�' ! ... 6•;r. - '� ��t. 'ail'' � a �+t;? �1 ��3d8 "' '',t� `'.. ,
..�a,.�,(/�:[1�iw�i
. �'Tri { e;,,��): •`�? .:Jd'1 { s "w J �, d T }^ t: l �Y it3=a.
.��i�14'� bt °L� 1. �.. .�,�
i i1 �#" ` r' i :'' :� ¢.:�► ; C, offs "tts,.►Ei�t�)1._� gr,d�,tyrt �^tf?F
b tc,- Y'il'p t-, PIE; i' le t4c, t'; IL"{1h .'e19i` a rlt �4t �` v:i . 'i"'
-sw .i a d :.,2`;) and 0l J1�t is p;—, Zk:
Get# �)jr'•a �i7S.`��. �,i14.�.) `'.t �,.«� �L .` ::�r•la %s t3'le�ii6?����t�r,.' 'f.: ..i
r Erf: ', .'.. �'i+ i,+t i', : 5{�?i r)'.4�} •� :iii? f.`�jwy t..�i.'•f }Y_
.rl f5CIY�
91 rii6
y3vpp #r`•
.�tZ t*.�-J�:i ny �:•... °7 .S t4 '�.. .; R~.'Y't�w�.'r��; lS�, i>ib ) '. .: iK .�•lt�i �:i; Sa /�J r .
��e1+� +: 't ,ti. I';j6'V8J .. �r? `e.` �L�31•L`:�'',.a. L��

Page 3
the edge -areas cared for by the adjacent property owners. And if
the Town would ever pull all the yards and yards and multiple lay-
ers of vinyl sheeting out of he ground, the sand pit, some of you
mentioned, would go away and grass could prosper.
As for the parking, In 2005, when the Park was ordered re-
moved, the Court also determined that a Parking Plan nearly
identical to the one the Town has just shown us, was also denied
because it was an illegal diversion of the dedicated street for rec-
reational purposes. It violated the permanent injunction against
the Town which forbade such structures in the street; and it vio-
lated the "ownership of easement over the entire length and
breadth of the street" owned by the prevailing property owner.
There is nothing about the present proposal which can change
any of the Court's Orders.
Does this all mean that there can never be parking in this area for
pier patrons? Absolutely not. The Judge has always made it
very clear to the Town that it can legally close this street via the
state laws for that purpose, acquire the property via negotiated
purchase or condemnation and then build upon it whatever the
Covenants, zoning regulations, and other pertinent laws allow.
But, the Town would rather waste our money in court than invest
in recreational properties in a law-abiding way. They know how
to do this. In fact, they are doing this as we speak, closing a sec-
tion of street behind Town Hall/ Police Department for guess
what? .... A PARKING LOT.
Also, the Town can do what the rest of us have to do when we
want to build something. They can buy a piece of property to
build on.
The Parking Plan some of you have applauded HAS NO PRO-
TECTION FROM CRASHES, DOES NOT ADDRESS ACCESS
FOR RESIDENTS ABUTTING THE STREET, PROVIDES NO
HOURS OF OPERATION, PROVIDES NO NIGHT- TIME SECU-
RITY, NOR LOCKING OF THE PIER, NOR POLICE PATROL,
NOR FINES FOR INFRACTIONS; DOES NOT ADDRESS OPEN
ALCOHOL, DRUG TRAFFICKING, NOR DRUG USE. NOR
DOES IT PROVIDE FOR ANNUAL REVIEW. It is a blank check,
yd,
era 1 : nnno

vj
41
+v f3l
q
4

Page 4
signed by a few of us, and for which all of us will be paying for
the rest of our lives. Picture this parking lot in your own street, in
your own side yard, outside your own bedroom, your own kitchen
window, along with the sign reading: "Intracoastal Waterway
Homes for sale. Parking Lot Views from Every Window."
Sincerely yours,
a
THEODORE and CAROL BARRIS
RECEIVED

These photos depict typical results from over a dozen vehicular crashes since about
1985 at the very site where the Town of Oak Island has sought a CAMA permit to build a
parking lot for seven vehicles. The site is the Western Terminus of West Oak Island Dr.,
a public, platted, residential street.
Vie
West Oak Island Dr
WE
ip
Accidents like this have occurred in broad daylight, under ideal
T .
4
Typical piling sheared off by vehicles in this and many other crashes at this site;
'CEI
crm ^ -

ee.!
fie," ►Allt.
a
t
Y
All
n
,r

SITE DRAWING/APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Please make sure your site drawing includes the following information required for a CAMA minor development permit.
The drawing may be simple and not necessarily to scale. The Local Permit Officer will help you, if requested.
PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS
❑ Label roads
❑ Label highways right-of-ways
❑ Label local setback lines
❑ Label any and all structures and driveways currently existing on property
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
❑ Draw and label mean high water mark
❑ Draw location of on -site wastewater system
If you will be working in the ocean hazard area:
❑ Draw and label dune ridges (note height)
❑ Draw and label toe of dune
❑ Identify and locate first line of stable vegetation
❑ Draw and label setback line under CAMA
❑ Draw and label topographical features (optional)
If you will be working in an estuarine shoreline area:
❑ Draw and label landward limit of AEC
❑ Describe terrain (slope)
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
❑ Draw and label areas that will be disturbed
❑ If a house is to be placed on lot, describe location of house
❑ Note size of piling and depth to be placed in ground
❑ Draw and label all areas to be paved or graveled
❑ Describe composition of surface
❑ Note and list fully all trees and vegetation to be removed or relocated
❑ Show landscaping
NOTE TO APPLICANT
Have you:
• completed all blanks and / or indicated if not applicable?
• notified and listed adjacent property owners?
• included your site drawing?
• signed both application and statement of ownership?
• enclosed the $100.00 fee?
• completed an AEC Hazard Notice, if necessary?
FOR STAFF USE
Site Notice Posted Final Inspection Fee Received
Site Inspections
Date of Action: Issued Exempted Denied Appeal Deadline (20 days) AUG 1 6 2008

124 SW Yacht Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
September 5, 2008
Ms. Heather Coats
CAMA
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Ms. Coats:
We have recently learned about the parking plan the Town of Oak Island wants to install in the area at the
end of W. Oak Island Drive, the area formerly known as Robin Schuster Park, and for which the Town is seeking a
permit from LAMA. As property owners just down the street from that area, we strongly object to that plan.
The Town's current plan is too extensive for such a small area, and the plan appears to be the same plan for
which the Town previously sought a permit from CAMA, which CAMA previously denied after consultation with
the State Attorney General. The area in question for this parking plan is still under a court order and it appears an
installation of this magnitude would again be a violation of the court order and just shows that the Town considers it
can do what it wants to do regardless of court orders or other higher level regulations.
Please, again, deny this parking plan for the area at the end of W. Oak Island Drive.
Thank you for your consideration and your effort to uphold the law.
Sincerely,
XIa
J
Kathryn M. Scanlon Harold J. Sch
PFC:F"'V %[".D
SLY U 9 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

— -� .
ic.a l .t'> ? E .
..� ,
r".;. . . 'i ..

tiaRTN
�*4*ro JULV I', -
August 15, 2008
Theodore & Carol Barris
3018 West Yacht Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Adjacent Property.
This letter is to inform you that the Town of Oak Island has applied for a CAMA Minor Permit
for Town property at the W. Oak Island Dr. street end, in Brunswick County. As required by
CAMA regulations, I have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project drawing(s) as
notification of my proposed project. No action is required from you or you may sign and return
the enclosed no objection form. If you have any questions or comments about the proposed
project, please contact me at 910-201-8043, or by mail at the address listed below. If you wish to
file written comments or objections with the LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAMA Minor Permit
Program, you may submit them to:
Heather Coats
Dept. of Environment & National Resource
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Sincerely,
y4"� t
1--�
Gene Kudgus
Public Works Director
Town of Oak Island
4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465

UtH I IrItU
MAIL,M Ht(;tlF
I
•
(Domestic Mail Only;
No Insurance
Coverage Provider
For delivery information
visit our website
at www.usps.com,,
•
Postage
■
Certified Fee
9K
IF Return Receipt Fee
I ;
7
a
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Y 2v
cC
U
Total Postage & Fees
$
r
SS.Q5
nt To
�
Sheet Apt No.; - -
or PO Box No.
��ps
----- --
C* State, /Pr4
.L�1� N
C . ����►,

;ertified Mail Provides: A mailing receipt (es-aa)aooaeunr ooesW,o=ls,
A unique identifier for your mailpiece
A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years
mportant Reminders:
Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail® or Priority Mail
Certified Mail is not available for any class of international mail.
i NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. Fc
valuables, please consider Insured or Registered Mail.
For an additional fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof a
delivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete and attach a Returi
Receipt (PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postage to cover th
fee. Endorse mailpiece "Return Receipt Requested". To receive a fee waiver fo
a duplicate return receipt, a USPS® postmark on your Certified Mail receipt i
required.
For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee c
addressee's authorized agent. Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with th
endorsement "Restricted Delivery".
If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired, please present the arti
cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Me
receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail.
MPORTANT: Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry.
nternet access to delivery information is not available on mail
addressed to AM and FPOs.

jOWN OF
Or-
LORTN�r
August 15, 2008
Naomi Cottrill, etal
102 SW Yacht Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Adjacent Property.
This letter is to inform you that the Town of Oak Island has applied for a CAMA Minor Permit
for Town property at the W. Oak Island Dr. street end, in Brunswick County. As required by
CAMA regulations, I have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project drawing(s) as
notification of my proposed project. No action is required from you or you may sign and return
the enclosed no objection form. If you have any questions or comments about the proposed
project, please contact me at 910-201-8043, or by mail at the address listed below. If you wish to
file written comments or objections with the LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAMA Minor Permit
Program, you may submit them to:
Heather Coats
Dept. of Environment & National Resource
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Sincerely,
C1 �
Gene Kudgus
Public Works Director
Town of Oak Island
4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465 V E D

r
n
n
a
3
nI
OFFICIAL
USE
0
a-•.
Postage
$
,,
" N C 2,9
Certified Fee
)� a�
�O
Post s
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
n
7 Restricted Delivery Fee
� (Endorsement Required)
`\t+
n
U Total Postage & Fees
$
r
� Sent To
or PO Box Nc.

I
ertified Mail Provides: (asi-ea)ZOozaunr'ooecwjo-As
A mailing receipt
A unique identifier for your mailpiece
A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years
mportant Reminders:
i Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail(D or Priority Mail
a Certified Mail is not available for any class of international mail.
s NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. F<
valuables, please consider Insured or Registered Mail.
■ For an additional fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof c
delivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete and attach a Retur
Receipt (PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postage to cover th
fee. Endorse mailpiece "Return Receipt Requested". To receive a fee waiver fe
a duplicate return receipt, a USPS® postmark on your Certified Mail receipt i
required.
■ For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee c
addressee's authorized agent. Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with th
endorsement "Restricted Delivery".
■ If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired, please present the art
cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Me
receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail.
'IMPORTANT: Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry.
Internet access to delivery information is not available on mail
addressed to APOs and FPOs.

124 SW Yacht Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
September 5, 2008
Ms. Heather Coats
CAMA
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Ms. Coats:
We have recently learned about the parking plan the Town of Oak Island wants to install in the area at the
end of W. Oak Island Drive, the area formerly known as Robin Schuster Park, and for which the Town is seeking a
permit from CAMA. As property owners just down the street from that area, we strongly object to that plan.
The Town's current plan is too extensive for such a small area, and the plan appears to be the same plan for
which the Town previously sought a permit from CAMA, which CAMA previously denied after consultation with
the State Attorney General. The area in question for this parking plan is still under a court order and it appears an
installation of this magnitude would again be a violation of the court order and just shows that the Town considers it
can do what it wants to do regardless of court orders or other higher level regulations.
Please, again, deny this parking plan for the area at the end of W. Oak Island Drive.
Thank you for your consideration and your effort to uphold the law.
Sincerely, j
Kathryn M. Scanlon Harold 1. Schutt
RECEIVED
SEP 16 2008

AGWA
HCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 16, 2008
SENT CERTIFIED MAIL # 70081140 0002 9559 0854
Town of Oak Island
C/o Gene Kudgus
4601 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
RE:NOTICE TO EXTEND TIME TO GRANT OR DENY CAMA MINOR PERMIT
APPLICATION NUMBER — 01-08-38
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION — W. End of Oak Island Drive
Dear Mr. Kudgus:
Pursuant to NCGS 113A-121(b), the undersigned hereby gives notice to the applicant that for good cause,
and in order to properly consider all information necessary to making a decision on this permit application, the time
period within which a final decision shall be made has been extended an additional twenty-five (25) days.
If you have any questions concerning this action, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
are;?�d
e Coats
Field Representative
Cc: WiRO Files
Christy Goebel, NCDOJ
Donna Coleman, Town of Oak Island
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
PhnnP• tgim 7QF_791n,1 FAX• Q1n_3Q5.3QRA 1 Intarnat• www nrrnactalmananPmPnt nat

�aPit S 3�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
eIL-M. , Regional Office
FILE ACCESS RECORD
SECTION
IC4 A DATE/TIME 4
NAME _42s REPRESENTI G
,10hc1)e_ 23- 4
Guidelines for Access: The staff of the Regional Office is dedicated to making public
records in our custody readily available to the public for review and copying. We also have
the responsibility to the public to safeguard these records and to carry out our day-to-day
program obligations. Please read carefully the following before signing the form.
1. Due to the large public demand for file access, we request that yod call at least a
day in advance to schedule an appointment for file review so you can be
accommodated. Appointments are scheduled between 9:00 a.m. and 100 p.m.
Viewing time ends at 4A5 p.m. Anyone arriving without an appointment may
view the files to the extent that time and staff supervision are available.
2. You must specify files you want to review by facility name or incident number, as
appropriate. The number of files that you may review at one appointment will be
limited to five.
3. You may make copies of a file when the copier is not in use by the staff and if
time permits. Cost per copy is 2.5 cents for ALL copies if you make more than
25 copies — there is no charge for 25 or less copies. Payment is to be made by
check, money order, or cash in the administrative offices.
4. Files must be kept in the order you received them. Files may not be taken from
the office. No briefcases large totes etc. are permitted in the file review area.
To remove, alter, deface, mutilate, or destroy material in public files is a
misdemeanor for which you can be fined up to $500.00.
5. In accordance with GS 25-3-512, a $25.00 processing fee will be charged and
collected for checks on which payment has been refused.
6. The customer must present a photo ID, sign -in, and receive a visitor sticker prior
to reviewing files.
FACILITY NAME COUNTY
1.2. �i n1 Q &A-- 6, ,�i....rl AJ- O&A -I s.- 1�,e..)
3.
4.

�ry IN CARS ,q
August 15, 2008
Naomi Cottrill, etal
102 SW Yacht Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Adjacent Property.
I
ED
r-1
Certified Fee
M
CJ
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
C
esoieed DellveryiFee
a
dtmentREnred)
Ln
Post
Sent To
o �V (`
r` 1- `-•=fir s �_�_.`......
or PO Box No. `�.•---_ `�:.�_� _.
Clry, State, Z/Rr4
�k �.SLP.n►�� NI
This letter is to inform you that the Town of Oak Island has applied for a CAMA Minor Permit
for Town property at the W. Oak Island Dr. street end, in Brunswick County. As required by
CAMA regulations, I have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project drawing(s) as
notification of my proposed project. No action is required from you or you may sign and return
the enclosed no objection form. If you have any questions or comments about the proposed
project, please contact me at 910-201-8043, or by mail at the address listed below. If you wish to
file written comments or objections with the LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAMA Minor Permit
Program, you may submit them to:
Heather Coats
Dept. of Environment & National Resource
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Sincerely,
C1 t-nt
Gene Kudgus
Public Works Director
Town of Oak Island
4601 E. Oak.Island Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
RECEIVr=
AUG Z 9 2008
DCM WILMINGI-om &

Regulation of Parking, Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic for Street -end of West Oak Island Drive
(a) Oak Island Drive is a public street that ends immediately east of the eastern boundary of the mean high
water mark of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Presently, the end of West Oak Island Drive is being
used by the public to access the fishing "T" located on the Intracoastal Waterway. The end of West Oak
Island Drive is presently unpaved and has no demarcated parking spaces. Regulating on -street parking,
vehicular and pedestrian traffic in this area will promote the general health, safety and welfare of the
public.
(b) In accordance with the authority granted under NCGS § 160A-300, NCGS § 16OA-301 and Section 22-6
Of the Town's Code of Ordinances, the Town hereby adopts this Ordinance to implement the installation
of the improvements depicted on the attached exhibit "A" to regulate on -street parking, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic in this area. Said installation shall be conducted Ell such a manner as not to interfere
with the public's right of ingress and egress from Oak Island Drive.
(c) Any vehicle parking in a marked on -street parking space shall be entirely within the lines or markings of
the marked parking space.
(d) It shall be the responsibility of the Police Department and Public Works Department to enforce this
Ordinance.
R F e 7,
.r%
U5 u
n('AA 1A/11 h At $_ t .

r1iI(;l 4
\T()
CAMA PERMIT
APPLIED FOR
PROJECT:
_ - - G - i - - - - - -
SAW
wail • • �� • 1 • roll . . /1 11
Oak Island, Brunswick County
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH September 16, 2008
APPLICANT:
Town of Oak Island
Gene Kudgus
4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:
�1 NC iv. of CoastalManagement
127 Cardinal r. Ext.
Wilmington, NC ZB405
Heather Coats

CAMA MINOR PERMIT NOTICE
Pursuant to NCGS 113A-119(b), the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, an agenc
authorized to issue CAMA permits in areas of environmental concern, hereby gives NOTICE that o
August 28, 2008 the Town of Oak Island applied fora CAMA permit to construct a public acces
parking area at the end of W. Oak Island Dr., adjacent to the AIWW, in Oak Island, Brunswick Count)
The application maybe inspected at the address below. Public comments received by September 1 E
2008 will be considered. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of perm
decision. Project modifications may occur based on further review and comments. Notice of the perm
decision in this matter will be provided upon written request.
Heather Coats
Field Representative
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us

' S en
-- 'i'A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Wilmington. [e-mail]
2 Pages
Star News
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Kyle
August 28, 2008
Re: Town of Oak Island MINOR Public Notice for W. Oak Is Dr. parking
Please publish the attached Notice in the Monday, September 1, 2008 issue.
The State Office of Budget and Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to paymer
for newspaper advertising. Please send the original affidavit of the published notice to Melissa Sabastian, 40,
Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, N.C. 28557 [phone].
Please send the original invoice and a copy of the affidavit for payment to Shaun Simpson at Division c
Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-7226.
Paying by Credit Card (number on file with Elsa Lawrence, Ref acct # 796-7215). Please send a fax of the credi
card receipt to me.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me at oL
Wilmington office.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: File Copy
Shaun Simpson
Permit Support Technician
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us

Re: W. Oak Is. parking MINOR Public Notice
Subject: Re: W. Oak Is. parking MINOR Public Notice
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:55.26 -0400
To: Shaun Simpson <Shaun.Simpson [e-mail]>
Good afternoon again ... (you're probably already gone for the day)
This legal also set to run Sept. 1. Pub cost comes to $95.15.
thanks!
Star -News Classified Department/LEGALS
Tel.: [phone] or [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Shaun Simpson
<Shaun.Simpson@nc
mail.net> To
Kyle Star -News
08/28/2008 02:04 <wilmington.classified @starnewsonli
PM ne.com>
cc
Subject
W. Oak Is. parking MINOR Public
Notice
Hi-- ONE more for Monday publication... I'm outta here!
Shaun Simpson
Environmental Technician
NC Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office
Phone [phone]

August 29, 2008
Heather Coats
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Ms. Coats,
I have lived on SW Yacht Drive for over 25 years and have enjoyed this beautiful and
quiet end of Oak Island. The street end of Oak Island Drive is within two blocks of my
home, and I am interested in seeing some improvement in this area. The barricade there
now needs to be removed. I recently saw the Town's plan for improving this area and am
very excited about it. It will provide an orderly access to the waterway and safe parking
spaces for visitors to the area. I understand that the town has applied for a CAMA
permit for this plan, and I want you to know that I am in total support of it as are many of
my neighbors. I hope that you will consider the plan carefully and see the benefit of
approving it.
Thank you.
RECEIVED
SEP 0 2 2008

August 29, 2008
Heather Coats
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Ms. Coats,
I am writing this letter in support of the Town of Oak Island's current improvement plan
for the street end at the end of Oak Island Drive. My husband Bob and I have lived at
107 SW Yacht Drive, within a block of the street end, for over 20 years. In that time we
have seen a lot of changes here on the west end of the Island, some good and some not so
good. The barricade currently at the head of this street end is an eyesore. In addition, the
visitors who park in the area are dealing with soft sand. The neighbors here take pride in
their yards and would love to have the street end look the same and we believe the
Town's plan would do just that. Most of us enjoy seeing our pier being used by tourists
and residents who do not have the benefit of water access as we do. The proposed plan
will provide and inviting atmosphere to the pier and allow safe parking in the area.
Please consider permitting this plan to be carried out as soon as possible.
Thanks for allowing me to voice our opinion to you. If you would like to contact us,
please do so at [phone].
Sincerely,
JUane Jenkins
RECEIVED
SEP 0 2 2008

115 SW Yacht Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
September 4, 2008
Ms. Heather Coats
Department of Environment & National Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Dear Ms. Coats:
As a resident of Oak Island, North Carolina, I write to urge you to approve the request of the Town of Oak
Island for a CAMA Minor Permit for the West Oak Island Drive street end in Brunswick County.
There are two main reasons I recommend this action.
First, the plan will benefit the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway adjacent to it by limiting the amount of rain
water that runs directly into the ICW and, through the driveway and plantings, will prevent visitors from
parking within thirty (30) feet of the bulkhead. I live beside the street end on SW Yacht Drive at the Big
Davis Canal. On numerous occasions, visitors to this street end pull their cars right up to the bulkhead,
adding pressure to it and compacting even more the soil behind it. The plan presented by the Town of Oak
Island will help in these two ways and thus benefit the ICW.
Second, the plan improves the appearance of the street end. This, too, can have a positive impact upon the
ICW. Before moving to Oak Island I lived in Jackson, Mississippi, and was active with the Jackson Police
Department in their Community Oriented Policing program. The "broken window" syndrome was one of
the cornerstones of that program. Community leaders have known for years that when a building or space
is allowed to deteriorate and look sloppy it encourages more degradation. On the street end where I live, I
have noticed a dramatic improvement in the behavior of visitors because one neighbor arranged for a
garbage can at the street end, another neighbor mows the grass each week, and the Town provided
attractive gravel to cover the mud/dust. Visitors place their trash in the trashcan instead of on the ground or
in the water. They do not engage in obnoxious behavior. And more families and residents use the public
access because of its beauty. Thus the attractiveness of the street end has a positive impact on the area and
the water it faces.
Again, I urge you to approve the request of the Town of Oak Island for the CAMA Minor Permit for the
West Oak Island Drive street end. The plan should have a very positive benefit for the ICW.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
4 , ems/
James W. White, Jr.
RECEIVE®
SEP 0 8 2008

y
•�
a
.. y
<

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER
STATEMENT FOR LAMA MINOR PERMITS
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to �l o r�: r� iz� LI;AL
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at
Address, Lot, ock, BlRandk etc.)
on , in f`gyk rl.s , Z , N.C.
(Watertwdy) (Town andlor County)
He has described to me as shown in the attached application and project drawing(s), the development
he is proposing at that location, and, I have no objections to his proposal_
Signature
r Print or Type Name
j Telephone Number RECEIVED
Date
DCM WILMINGTON, N
Q AUG 2 i Z008
Ck-
13
-t�.-� t

108 SW Yacht Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
August 25, 2008
Ms. Heather Coats
Department of Environment
and Natural Resource
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Ms. Coates:
My husband, Bernard and I have lived at 108 SW Yacht Drive for over thirteen years and
have owned the property since 1985.
When we purchased the property, it was for the natural beauty of the area and felt it
would be a wonderful place to retire. A part of that natural beauty was the small park
area and ultimately a fishing pier located at the street end of West Oak Island Drive.
Along with others on SW Yacht Drive and in the immediate area we built homes,
landscaped our properties and created a very nice residential area.
Then came problems which I will not go into, but the result was, we lost our beautiful
park area and in it's place is a hideous large construction barrier with a field of mud when
it rains and a dirty and dusty area that the wind blows all over when it is dry.
Many of the people who fish from the pier often park their vehicles too close to the
bulkhead which could cause erosion.
The Town of Oak Island has come up with a very good solution to solve all the above
problems and has submitted it to your Department for a CAMA Minor Permit for Town
Property at the W. Oak Island Drive street end.
We totally support the Town Plan and respectfully request approval of it by your
department and issue of the necessary CAMA permit.
With kindest regards, I remain
Yours trul
Mary Ann Van Meter
cc: Mayor Vereen & Council Members
RECEIVE I
DCM WILMINr*—
AUG 2 6 , 0,

Jack and Dot Moore
113 SW Yacht Drive
Oak Island, N.C. 28465
August 26, 2008
Ms. Heather Coats
Dept. of Environmental & Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
Dear Ms. Coats:
We are writing you in order to express our strong support for the Town of Oak
Island's CAMA Minor Permit application for the Town Property at the Oak Island
Drive street end. We are residents within two blocks of the site and have had the
opportunity to see the plan that the Town has made for this property. It would
provide public access parking to the existing Fishing Tee and at the same time
provide greater protection against runoff and unwanted discharge into the
Intracoastal Waterway. In addition, it would change an unattractive misused
street end into a very appealing and environmentally friendly public access with
controlled parking. We urge you to act favorably on this permit application so all
of these benefits can be derived not only for residents of Oak Island but also the
visiting public.
'ncer ly/`�'
Jack Moore
Dot Moore
RECEIV'
OCM WiL11NiNGTop,_

PVPT- 4,f-A)111&7Vfije-A)7-
RECEIVED
DGM WILMINGTON, NG
AUG 2 6 2008 _
IIe-HTl,-1e-
A /C 4TJ o nJ A/z- vV
M i No&- C A nlA I / f'o Az- 775wn1 P'eop l-ej/ `�,49 1:5
Fo ie / n-) p " v i m e ruTs 70 T kp-, -eK,+ (L
Jam' Lv e--.5 7- /s /4 "/al e � v e_ r OAt:f is l.4wd, A), C,
I L- ve- Ac-J.2-05S 7-i%e- - f -eo n, A t S
5-rp e4--T- (C2/L.1 AV4 /T /5 pk& Se- !I/T/Lj / yV pe cA7
0-0 iv C�- , o ►,/. l h v e. s �,v ii,� P" pose�C
llYlp l2t>Ue h,eivT P//T,b/, / i N/C /T- /S H ve �
goo cl 4 /i%J [-,Uc.42- /<,.G /,P-- / /3 /U,
/-e-T e-,/STri2 /h� 4fAEOv,9-�
o-11115 �Filli. l nF}l>2r �i vP_aL f1T �arvc,,1'1�/
A) hvsLcvo©�� �lve)rc7 ale-e�gS���/
s n1oL I r4/w °�`� L o G pal ms )n A t y u b1J c_
11� 11 i k y D L) �0 /L /S 7�1 N J /v
� .
7(x,�474a—,Z-u&oge
Mm Elwood wall
3011 W oak Island Dr
Oaklda4 NC 23M
AA0 �m s
p h o;v 7�p

August 27, 2008
Marvin Hamer and Elizabeth Hamer
116 SW Yacht Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
Heather Coats
Department of Environment & National Resource
127 Cardinal Drive. Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
CAMA minor permit for Oak Island
Town Property @W. Oak Island Dr.
Oak Island, N.C. 28465
Dear Ms. Coats;
The town of Oak Island, NC has recently applied for a permit to perform the
work necessary to provide a parking area at the end of West Oak island
Drive. Public Works Director Gene Kudgus is the person who has filed for
the town through CAMA and I am attaching copies of relevant items which
might assist to identify the property.
My wife and I are residents of S.W. Yacht Drive and pass this location
numerous times each day as we enter and exit our dead end street. The
parking situation at the end of W. Oak Island Drive as it presently exists
needs to he improved if for no other reason than to alleviate the chaotic and
unsightly situation which presently exists. The town elected officials and
staff have worked diligently for quite sometime now to arrive at a compliant
and efficient design to provide fora very functional and attractive solution
and have succeeded with the plan now being put forth which includes a
water collection rain garden to address water concerns.
We respectfully urge your department to support this plan through approval
of the application.
Very truly yours;
RECEIVED
AUG 2 9 2008

�
r
w
�.
-�
� ,. ,
�.
.:.
>�
,,
�
i
,
�_
_.
_ .�_i
� • � .
., ,
r
.. ..
.,, .. � ;.
..
s:. +
� ,,
�•,w,.
t,. ,.

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
CAMA MINOR
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Said County and State,
PERMIT NOTICE
Pursuant to NCGS 113A-
119(b), the North Caro-
lina Division of Coastal
Terrie Millard
Management, an agency
authorized to issue CAMA
permits in areas of envi-
Who, being duly sworn or affirmed, according to the law, says that he/she is
ronmental concern,
hereby gives NOTICE that
on August 28, 2008 the
Town of Oak Island ap-
Financial Services Manager
plied for a CAMA permit
to construct a public ac-
cess parking area at the
end of W. Oak Island Dr.,,
, a corporation of THE STAR-NEWSorationorganizedand doing business under the Laws of the State of
p
adjacent to the AIWW, in
North Carolina, and publishing a kSTAR-NEWS in the City of Wilmington
p g a newspaper per known as y g
Oak Island, Brunswick I
County. The application
may be inspected at the
Public
CAMA MINOR PERMIT NOTICE Pursuant to NCGS II3A-119b, the North Carolina Division
address below.
comments received by
l
of Coastal Management, an agency authorized to issue CAMA permits in areas of
September 16, zoos wi
be considered. Later
environmental concern hereby Ives NOTICE that on August 28 2008 the Town of Oak Island
Y g g ,
comments will be ac-
applie
cepted and considered up
to the time of permit de-
cision. Project modifica-
I
tions may occur based on
further review and corn-
,
ments. Notice of the
permit decision in this
i
matter will be provided
upon written request.
was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper in space, and on dates as follows:
Heather Coati
Feld Representative
Division of Coastal
Management
911Ix
127 Cardinal Drive
Extension
Wilmington, NC
28405-3845
Phone: [phone]
And at the time of such publication Star -News was a newspaper meeting all the requirements and
qualifications prescribed by Sec. No. 1-597 G.S. of N.C.
J�Kwovva�
Title: Financial Services Manager
Sworn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me this .3 AOL day of
A.D., 9 ,©Og `0%1111l11/11)
IF
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official se`p t�iA F,4
year aforesaid.
N
O�
—�� O NotalCyDPubhc
My commission expires Z day of 2011 �',,;�'9 co NG
�T— °rtrrftittt��`
Upon reading the aforegoing affidavit with the advertisement thereto annexed it is adjudged by the Court that the said
publication was duly and properly made and that the summons has been duly and legally served on the defendant(s).
This day of
R E Clerk oV Ee'.ior Court
MAIL TO: D
SEP 0 9 2008

LAW OFFICES OF G. GRADY RICHARDSON, JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
1213 CULBRETH DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28405
G. GRADY RICHARDSON, JR. TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
September 8, 2008
VIA -HAND DELIVERY
OBJECTION TO PERMIT APPLICATION
Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: Objection by Adjacent Riparian Property Owners
To Application for Permit by Town of Oak Island
Firm Clients: Theodore "Ted" Barris and wife, Carol Barris
Dear Honorable Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Ms. Coats:
Please be advised this office represents Mr. Theodore "Ted" Barris and his wife, Carol Barris
("Barrises"). Please, importantly, be further advised that I have continuously represented Barrises
since early 2002 — over 6'/z years ago. The Barrises reside at 3018 West Yacht Drive, Oak Island,
North Carolina 28465 ("Property"), and have resided continuously at their said property during all of
the years I have represented them.
At some point towards the end of August 2008, the Barrises received correspondence from the
Town of Oak Island ("Town") regarding a supposed, purported minor CAMA permit application
("Town's Second Application") for the area immediately adjacent to their Property. The Town's
Application and the property the subject of said application are identical to the Town's prior
application with your office in the early part of 2005 ("Town's First Application"). In response to the
Town's First Application, the Barrises and I on their behalf, issued written objections to the Town's
proposal to the attention of Mr. Gale Steinberg (12 March 2005, approximately) and Ms. Christine
Goebel, Esquire, with the North Carolina Attorney General's Office (30 December 2005,
approximately).
For the foregoing reasons, the reasons set out in the Barrises' written objections of 25 August
2008, and for all of the additional, material reasons listed below and enclosed herewith, please accept
this letter as the Barrises' formal objections — again - to the Town's Second Application:
REc
SEP 0 6 2008

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
8 September 2008
Page - 2 —
REFERENCED AND ENCLOSED EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS
1: 12 November 2003 Order on Summary Judgment entered by The Honorable Gregory
A. Weeks in the matter of Barris v. Town of Oak Island, et al., Brunswick County File
No. 02-CVS-1095 (hereinafter, "Barris Action");
2: 18 November 2004 Order entered by The Honorable Ola M. Lewis in the Barris Action
dismissing the Town's appeal, with prejudice, of Judge Weeks' Order on Summary
Judgment;
3.a.: 12 March 2005 Objection to Permit Application filed by the undersigned on behalf of
the Barrises in response to Town's First Application;
3.b.: 6 April 2005 Denial Letter by Mr. Gale Stenberg of the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management issued to the Town in response to its First Application at that time;
4: 4 May 2005 Motion to Modify filed by the Town in the Barris Action for Judge Weeks
to reconsider and modify his above -referenced Order on Summary Judgment in view of
Mr. Stenberg's above -referenced Denial Letter;
5: 21 September 2005 Order entered by The Honorable Gregory A. Weeks denying in all
respects the Town's above -referenced Motion to Modify filed in the Barris Action;
6: 10 November 2005 Verdict Sheet returned by the jury in the Barris Action in favor of
the Barrises against the Town for the Town's violations of the Barrises' appurtenant
easement rights;
7: 5 December 2005 Judgment entered by The Honorable John W. Smith against the Town
in the Barris Action consistent with the above -referenced Verdict Sheet returned by the
jury;
8: 5 December 2005 Order Denying [Town's Post -Trial] Motions Pursuant to Rule 50
entered by The Honorable John W. Smith against the Town in the Barri ,¢W
SEA' 0 2008

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
8 September 2008
Page -3-
9: 5 December 2005 Order for Taxing of Costs and Attorney entered by The
Honorable John W. Smith against the Town in the Barris Action;
10: 30 December 2005 letter sent by this office on behalf of the Barrises to Ms. Christine
Goebel, Esquire, attorney for the North Carolina Attorney General's Office and your
department in opposition to the Town's then -pending appeal of the above -referenced
Denial Letter by Mr. Stenberg to its First Application;
11: 31 July 2006 Order entered by The Honorable Ola M. Lewis against the Town in the
Barris Action dismissing the Town's then -pending, yet another, appeal, with prejudice,
and which imposed monetary sanctions against the Town t; and,
12: 6 February 2007 Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal, with prejudice, filed by the Town in
the Barris Action.
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION TO TOWN'S SECOND APPLICATION
First, the Town's current, subject Second Application is virtually identical to that which was
the subject of its rejected and denied First Application. Therefore, all of the reasons that existed at the
time of Mr. Stenberg's denial letter in April of 2005 still exist to prohibit and preclude the Town's
Second Application.
Second, all of the rulings of Judge Weeks (two substantive orders); Judge Lewis (two
substantive orders); and, Judge Smith (three substantive rulings), all expressly prohibit and preclude
the Town's Second Application, just as in the case of the Town's First Application. The only
difference this time is that since Mr. Stenberg's Denial Letter in April of 2005 the Barrises' position
has been further enhanced by five (5) additional Court orders (including Judge Weeks' Order denying
the Town's Motion to Modify) and/or the voluntary actions of the Town, to wit: voluntarily
dismissing its then -pending appeal filed in 05-EHR-0654 in May of 2006, and voluntarily dismissing,
with prejudice all of its rights to appeal and challenge all of the prior decisions in the Barris Action.
Third, the Town's voluntary dismissal of its appeal in 05-EHR-0654 regarding its First
Application expressly precludes it from submitting its Second Application. The Town's voluntary
' Importantly, please be advised that the Town's previous administrative appeal of Mr. Stenberg's Denial
case file number 05-EHR-0654 in the Office of Administrative Hearings. On 23 May 2006, the Town filed a dismissa o t t e
pending First Application and appeal of Mr. Stenberg's Denial Letter. SEP O
2008

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
8 September 2008
Page - 4 —
dismissal effected and rendered Mr. Stenberg's Denial a binding decision that cannot be revisited.
Even assuming arguendo that the Town can continue to submit new applications for the subject area,
any plans submitted by the Town must be dramatically and significantly different than that which was
contained in its First Application. In the instant case, however, there is little, if any, differences in
substance between the First and Second Application. Certainly, there are no material differences
whatsoever.
Fourth, the Town's proposed project that is the subject of its Second Application is still all
located within the roadway that is expressly the subject of all of the foregoing, numerous Court orders
in the Barris Action.
Fifth, the following specific language in the several Court Orders prohibits and precludes the
Town's Second Application:
Judge Weeks' Order on Summaa Judgment: Among other things, Judge Weeks' Order
against the Town specifically prohibits the Town from building, erecting or placing any obstructions
within the subject area that resemble or operate as a recreational or park facility. The Town's proposed
project, if permitted, will do precisely what Judge Weeks' Order prohibits it from doing to the
detriment of the Barrises' vested and appurtenant property rights. As a result of Judge Weeks' Order,
the Town was permanently and mandatorily ordered to remove all of then -existing Schuster Park.
Furthermore, and most importantly, Judge Weeks declared the Barrises to be the owners of a non-
exclusive easement for purposes of ingress, egress and regress over and across all of the subject area,
which is the named "West Oak Island Drive" street end.
Judge Weeks' Order in September of 2005: Specifically denied and rejected the
Town's attempted and requested desire to modify and/or circumvent Judge Weeks' original order in
light of Mr. Stenberg's Denial Letter. The Town's First Application then was no different than the
Town's Second Application now pending.
Judge Lewis' Order in November of 2004: Rendered Judge Weeks' Order a "final
judgment" in the Barris Action from which no further appeals by the Town could be taken. As such,
Judge Weeks' Order on Summary Judgment became the "law of the case", which expressly prohibited
the Town's First Application, and it expressly prohibits the Town's Second Application.
Judge Smith's Order for Taxing f the Town] of Costs and Attorney Fees: Judge Smith,
in taxing the Town with $32,000.00 of the Barrises' attorney fees incurred by the undersigned and an
additional $5,333.90 specifically stated the following:
F,
SEP U 6 2008
DCKA wiI AtAIa.——.

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
8 September 2008
Page - 5 —
"At least from the time that Judge Weeks determined the issues of the statute of
limitations and the order [by Judge Lewis] dismissing [the Town's] appeal,
Defendant Town was without basis in law or fact in asserting a defense to
unlawfully obstructing and interfering with Plaintiffs' dedicated, appurtenant
easement right of access onto West Oak Island Drive (formerly, West Ocean
Highway) and liability for damages arising therefrom. Furthermore, the denial of
liability for obstructing the [Plaintiffs'] incorporeal hereditament from Oak Island
Drive was without any justification in law or fact, and defendant's persistent
denial of even nominal damages evidences a lack of justification for the
persistence in the litigation. Even during the trial, the defendants have persisted
in readdressing issues finally resolved against them in the case, and have
continued to do so even in the motions to set aside the jury verdict allowing
substantial damages for the obstruction. In the post trial briefs filed by the
defendants continue [sic] to resist any liability at all and continue to try to raise
anew issues resolved against them in November of 2003, almost two years ago."
(emphasis added).
Judge Lewis' Order from July of 2006: Judge Lewis in dismissing the Town's second
purported appeal, with prejudice, and in sanctioning the Town a total additional amount of
$11,785.12, specifically stated the following:
Finding No. 27: "The Court further specifically finds that the Town's
Second Appeal, and its notice and efforts regarding the same with respect to
continuing to seek appellate review of (i) Judge Weeks' November 12, 2003 Order
on Summary Judgment; (ii) the undersigned's November 18, 2004 First Dismissal
Order; and, (iii) Judge Week's September 16, 2005 Order denying Defendant Town's
Motion to Modify, are patently frivolous, not well-grounded in fact or existing law,
not made in good faith, and were and have been done for improper purposes such as
to harass, annoy, and/or cause unnecessary delay and/or needless increase in the cost
of litigation, particularly with respect to the Plaintiffs and their interests, which is
supported by the facts that, inter alia, the Town accepted and implemented Judge
Weeks' November 12, 2003 Order, and did not pursue any appellate review of the
undersigned's First Dismissal Order entered November 18, 2004."
Finding No. 34: "The conduct of the Town and its counsel in
connection with the Town's Second Appeal was not well-grounded in fact�-oQ
existing law, not made with any good faith arguments, and were interposed iN 6C E I V E C)
improper purposes of, inter alia, harassing and annoying Plaintiffs and their counsel,
SEP U 6 2008
n.-i. ....0 .

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
8 September 2008
Page-7—
which cannot be misused, diverted or obstructed absent the Town's compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 160A-299.
Tenth, the Town's Second Application and proposed project, as in the case of its First
Application, does not contain a professional survey of all property boundaries and "to -scale" drawings,
which should be required, at minimum, prior to the granting of any permit.
Eleventh, on information and belief, the Town's proposed drawing in addition to only
containing "approximations" does not contain adequate set -backs from the Barrises and other adjacent
riparian property owners for its project. Accordingly, if the Town is required to comply with the set-
back requirements of the Division of Coastal Management and/or other applicable regulations, the
balance of the project, as proposed, will have to be substantially altered and resubmitted for
consideration.
Twelfth, Ms. Goebel's position on behalf of your department and the State's Attorney
General's Office regarding the Town's First Application (see my letter to Ms. Goebel attached hereto
as Exhibit 10) was that the Town's proposal was prohibited by Judge Weeks' Order on Summary
Judgment. Nothing has changed with Judge Weeks' Order between the Town's First Application and
Second Application, except that there are now multiple, additional, and harsher orders that have been
entered in the Barris Action (including Judge Weeks' Order refusing to modify his original ruling)
against the Town, and all of said rulings have become final and binding and not subject to any
appellate review. Furthermore, there is nothing of any material difference between the Town's current
Second Application with that of the denied and rejected First Application.
Thirteenth, no form for the Barrises was included with the Town's Second Application and
correspondence that the Barrises could simply check and return as being objectionable. In light of this
omission and such other omissions as may not have been in the Town's Second Application, the
Town's Second Application must be denied. This office reserves the right to supplement and amend
the Barrises' formal objections contained herein.
RECEIVE
SEP 0 6 2008
DCM WILMINGTGN, NC

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
8 September 2008
Page - 8 —
For all of the foregoing reasons and the exhibits enclosed herein, the Town's Second
Application must be and should be denied. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
matters contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With best regards and thanking you in advance, I remain
Enclosure
GGR/
For and On Behalf of
Theodore "Ted" Barris and wife, Carol Barris
REC
SEP U 2008
ACM Wli

/�-l2- 03
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK PM 1�' , `SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
Cc;UP1TY. C.'..,.
THEODORE D. BARRIS and wife, )
CAROL P. BARRIS, EXHIBIT
Plaintiffs, ) �
_1-
vs. )
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North )
Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, ) ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
now known and referred to as, TOWN OF OAK }
ISLAND, a North Carolina Municipal )
Corporation and Body Politic, and Successor in )
Interest to the Former Town of Long Beach; )
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North Carolina )
Municipal Corporation And Body Politic; and, )
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
Defendants. )
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard and being heard before the Honorable Superior Court
Judge Gregory A. Weeks presiding on September 22, 2003, in and for Brunswick County, upon
Defendants' Motion for Summary Jud ment against Plaintiffs; and, on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summaa Judgment on their claims against Defendants, both pursuant to Rule 56 of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules").
Present were the Plaintiffs' Barris and Plaintiffs' counsel, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., and
the Defendants by and through its Mayor, Horace Collier, and former Manager/Special Projects
Director, Jerry Walters and counsel for Defendant Town of Oak Island (formerly, Town of Long
Beach), Clay A. Collier, Roger L. Edwards, and Brian E. Edes.
And, after a careful and thorough review of all the parties' pleadings, discovery, tendered
Dc
exhibits, and documents and materials attached thereto, as well as respective arRA 9 W V E
SEP 0 8 2008

a
counsel, it appears to the Court that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact insofar as
addressed herein, and Plaintiffs are entitled to a partial judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1 • That the placement and construction of improvements by Defendant former Town
of Long Beach and Defendant Town of Oak Island within that area shown on Plat Book 11 at
Page 98 of the Brunswick County Registry collectively known and referred to as "Robin
Schuster Park" ("Park"), which is situated immediately west of the intersection of the western
right of way line of Yacht Drive, immediately east of the eastern boundary of the mean high
water mark of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway ("Waterway"), and being located within the
platted dead end of portion of West Oak Island Drive (formerly known as West Ocean
Highway), and lying immediately adjacent to the southern boundary line of Plaintiffs' real
Property known as Lot 23, Section 18, Pinner's Point Subdivision ("Plaintiffs' Property")
constitutes an unlawful misuse, diversion and obstruction of West Oak Island Drive as a
dedicated street and as such the street cannot be diverted from that purpose via the Park except
under the power of eminent domain after following the mandates of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-299.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to this part of their claim
against Defendant Town of Oak Island (formerly, Town of Long Beach) is hereby granted.
2. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent mandatory
injunction against Defendant Town of Oak Island (former Town of Long Beach), and said
Defendants are hereby ordered to remove the Park in its entirety, saving and excepting therefrom
the fishing "T" pier located at the westernmost boundary of the Park extending westwardly into
the Waterway, and which is attached to the westernmost edge of that portion of the platted West
Oak Island Drive lying east of the mean high water mark of the Waterway. RECEIVE
SEP 0 8 2008
nf-....... - -• -. -

M
3. Plaintiffs are hereby declared the owners of a non-exclusive easement for
purposes of ingress, egress and regress over and across all of West Oak Island Drive to their
property, including all of that which lies immediately west of its intersection with West Yacht
Drive, and Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants for injury to their easement are not time -barred
under the applicable six (6) year statute of limitation period in N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-50(a)(3).
4. Plaintiffs' claims for damages against Defendant Town of Oak Island (formerly,
in part, Town of Long Beach) as set forth in their amended Complaint are allowed, the specific
amounts to be determined at a trial of this matter; provided, however, Plaintiffs' claims for
damages solely in the event the Park constituted a statutory street closure are dismissed on the
grounds that there has never been a street closure pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-299.
5. Plaintiffs' motion for an order removing the Park's fishing "T" pier is hereby
denied on the grounds that Plaintiffs' are time -barred from contesting former Defendant Town of
Long Beach's permit application and grant to construct the fishing "T" pier.
6. Except as set forth above, the motion for summary judgment by Defendants Town
of Long Beach and Town of Oak Island is denied.
7. The Court's Order herein affects substantial rights of the parties and the
undersigned hereby certifies this case for immediate appeal by either party.
8. The provisions of this Order are stayed pending the outcome of any appeal
properly noticed by either party.
Signed this the v da of�
Y , 2003 out of session, term, county
and district by consent of the parties.
1
h / i
GREGORY A. WEEKS
Superior Court Judge Presiding RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

(f- r"--oq
10 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
THEODORE D. BARRIS and wife
CAROL P. BARRIS,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
)
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North )
Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, )
now known and referred to as, TOWN OF OAK )
ISLAND, a North Carolina Municipal )
Corporation and Body Politic, and Successor in )
Interest to the Former Town of Long Beach; )
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North Carolina )
Municipal Corporation And Body Politic; and, )
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
Defendants.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
r:ll
EXHIBIT
r
m
Z
a
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard and was heard before the Honorable Superior Court
Judge Ola M. Lewis presiding for the County of Brunswick, upon Plaintiffs' Motions to Strike
the "Withdrawals of Notice of Appeal" dated October 14, 2004 and October 20, 2004 filed by
Defendants -Appellants Town of Long Beach and Town of Oak Island (collectively, "Defendant
Town") and, Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss (Defendant Town's] Appeal; and, Motion for
Sanctions, Attorneys Fees and Costs pursuant to, inter alia, Rule 25(a) of the North Carolina
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appearing before the undersigned at the hearing were G. Grady Richardson, Jr., attorney
for Plaintiffs; and, Clay A. Collier and Roger L. Edwards, attorneys for Defendant Town.
After considering the Plaintiffs' aforementioned Motions, and the matters referenced
therein and which were attached in the form of incorporated exhibits; the Supplemental Materials
RECEIVED
SEP 0 6 2008
R 0333

provided in support of Plaintiffs' Motions, which included the Affidavits of Carol P. Barris,
Theodore D. Barris, and non-party witness, Harold J. Schutt, all dated October 21, 2004 (as well
as Mr. Schutt's Amended Affidavit of October 25, 2004); Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Plaintiffs' Appellate Rules Violations and Timeline, dated October 22, 2004; and, arguments of
the parties' respective counsel, the Court enters the following Order based upon the Procedural
History, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth below:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY and FINDINGS OF FACT
The Procedural History and Findings of Fact to support this Order are intertwined and are
therefore stated together, as follows:
1. This case was originally filed on May 28, 2002, when Theodore D. Barris and
Carol P. Barris commenced the action against Defendant Town by filing a verified complaint.
After extensive discovery, a verified amended complaint and several depositions, both parties
brought on for hearing their respective cross -motions for summary judgment before the
Honorable Gregory A. Weeks, presiding on September 22, 2003 in the Superior Court for
Brunswick County. At the conclusion of the oral arguments on the opposing motions for
summary judgment, Judge Weeks took the matter under advisement and thereafter received
further written submissions from counsel;
2. On November 10, 2003, Judge Weeks signed his Order on Summary Judgment
deciding some but not all of the issues in the case sub judice and same was entered by the Clerk
of Court for Brunswick County on November 12, 2003. Among other things, Judge Weeks'
Order concluded that his ruling affected substantial rights of both parties and certified his
decision for immediate appeal. In doing so, Judge Weeks entered an additional provision that
RECEIVED
-2 SEP 0 8 2008

recited the provisions of his Order were "stayed pending the outcome of any appeal properly
noticed by either party."
3. On December 11, 2003, Defendant Town's counsel, Roger Lee Edwards, sent a
letter to Deborah G. Simmons that recited he was requesting a copy of the transcript from the
parties' hearing of September 22, 2003. Plaintiffs' counsel, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., was never
served a copy of said letter; nor was a copy of said letter ever filed with the Clerk of Superior
Court for Brunswick County, pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 7(a)(1).
3. On December 12, 2003, Defendant Town filed its Notice of Appeal in the office
of the Clerk of Superior Court, Brunswick County.
4. On December 30, 2003, Ms. Simmons sent a letter to Mr. Edwards enclosing a
contract for him to sign to order the requested transcript. Plaintiffs' counsel, G. Grady
Richardson, Jr., was never served a copy of said letter, pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 7(a)(1).
5. After Ms. Simmons mailed attorney Edwards her contract under cover of letter
dated December 30, 2003, she received the contract back from Mr. Edwards bearing a date of
December 24, 2003. Plaintiffs' counsel, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., was never served a copy of
said contract; nor was a copy of said contract ever filed with the Clerk of Superior Court for
Brunswick County, pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 7(a)(1).
6. On January 5, 2004, Defendant Town's attorneys reported to the Honorable
William Gore, Jr. during the Administrative Calendar session that they had appealed the decision
of Judge Weeks to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and were pursuing same.
7. On February 16, 2004, Ms. Simmons delivered the requested transcript of the
parties' hearing to Defendant Town's attorney, Roger Lee Edwards. By this date, 60 days for
preparing the transcript from December 11, 2003 (date when requested) expired on February 9,
_3_ RECEIVED
SEP R-j� �008

2004. Sixty (60) days from the filing date of Defendant Town's Notice of Appeal expired the
next day on February 10, 2004,
8. On March 17, 2004, Defendant Town made its Motion for Extension of Time in
which to file and serve its proposed record on appeal. By Order dated March 22, 2004 and filed
March 24, 2004, The Honorable William Gore, Jr. granted Defendant Town's requested
extension.
9. On April 21, 2004, Defendant Town served its Proposed Record on Appeal on
Plaintiffs' counsel, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., by hand -delivery.
10. On May 10, 2004, Plaintiffs' counsel served their Notice of Objections to
Defendants -Appellants' Proposed Record on Appeal, pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 11(c).
11. On or about May 20, 2004, Defendant Town's attorney, Clay A. Collier,
conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., and at the close of said conference
the parties mutually agreed to a final, settled Record on Appeal, in accordance with
N.C.R.App.P. 11(b) and 12(a).
12. Fifteen (15) days in which Defendant Town had to file the settled record on
appeal in this cause with the Honorable Clerk of Court for the North Carolina Court of Appeals
expired on June 6, 2004 pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 12(a).
13. On or about June 8, 2004, at the request of Defendant Town's counsel, Clay A.
Collier, Plaintiffs' counsel provided, by hand -delivery, courtesy copies of certain documents
identified in the parties' settled record on appeal as the parties' designated exhibits pursuant to
N.C.R.App.P. 9.
-4- SEP 0 6 2008
R 0336

14. On July 6, 2004 Defendant Town's attorney Edwards informed Judge Gore in
open court that Defendant Town was still pursuing its appeal to the North Carolina Court of
Appeals.
15. By letters dated July 21, 2004, August 3, 2004, August 16, 2004, August 18,
2004, and September 2, 2004, Plaintiffs' counsel, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., sent letters to
Defendant Town's attorneys, Clay Collier and Roger Edwards, inquiring about the status of
Defendant Town's appeal. The only time Plaintiffs' counsel received any response from
Defendant Town's attorneys from said letters wss from attorney Collier after the letter of July
21, 2004, but before the letter of August 3, 2004. At this time, attorney Collier telephoned
Plaintiffs' counsel and informed him the Record and appeal by the Town was still being pursued
and would be filed with the Court of Appeals "next week."
16. Up unto and including October 14, 2004, Defendant Town never filed a Record
on Appeal with the North Carolina Court of Appeals. From June 6, 2004 until October 14, 2004,
approximately 130 days elapsed. This time period is more than eight (8) fold the time allowed
under the mandatory provisions of Rule 12(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
17. On October 14, 2004, Defendant Town ultimately prepared a pleading entitled,
"Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal" purportedly without prejudice to the North Carolina Court of
Appeals, which was served on Plaintiffs' counsel but not filed.
18. On October 20, 2004, Defendant Town then filed a "Withdrawal of Notice of
Appeal" purportedly without prejudice with the Clerk of Superior Court in Brunswick County.
19. To allow Defendant Town to simply withdrawal its appeal as it has done
purportedly "without prejudice" would result in Defendant Town being able to violate numerous
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008
R 0337

mandatory provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, without consequence,
and to decide on its own enterprise its next step in the appellate process in violation of said
appellate rules. Further, Defendant Town's actions would enable it to "take two bites at the
apple" and give two notices of appeal, which is not permitted under the North Carolina Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
errer verc
Based on the "Procedural History" and "Findings of Fact" recited above, set forth in
"timeline" fashion, Defendant-Town's two (2) purported "Withdrawals of Notice of Appeal"
without prejudice should be stricken from the Court's record and Defendant Town's appeal
should be dismissed with prejudice for its failure to comply with numerous mandatory
provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, including N.C.R.App.P. 7, 11, 12
and, 25.
N.C.R.App.P. 7 provides that "within 14 days after filing the notice of appeal the
appellant shall arrange for the transcription of the proceedings." N.C.R.App.P. 7 also states that
"(t)he appellant shall file a written documentation of this transcript arrangement with the clerk of
the trial tribunal, and serve a copy of it upon all other parties of record, and upon the person
designated to prepare the transcript." N.C.R.App.P. 7(b)(1) provides that "from the date the
requesting party serves the written documentation of the transcript arrangement on the person
designated to prepare the transcript, that person shall have 60 days to prepare and deliver the
transcript." N.C.R.App.P. 11(a) provides that settling the Record on Appeal by Agreement
should occur "(w)ithin 35 days after the reporter's or transcriptionist's certification of delivery of
the transcript... or 35 days after filing of the Notice of Appeal if no transcript was ordered." The
transcript was never properly ordered by Defendant Town pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 7(a)(1).
RECEIVED
-6-
SEP 0 8 2008

Finally, N.C.R.App.P. 12(a) provides that "[w]ithin 15 days after the record on appeal has been
settled ... the appellant shall file the record on appeal with the clerk of the court to which appeal
is taken" (emphasis added).
Here, the Defendant Town filed its Notice of Appeal on December 12, 2003, exactly 30
days after the Judgment was filed as required by N.C.R.App.P. 3. One day prior to filing its
notice, on December 11, 2003, Defendant Town sent a written request to Deborah G. Simmons,
the court reporter, requesting a transcript of the parties' hearing. Said letter was not served on
Plaintiffs' counsel, nor tiled with the Clerk of Court for Brunswick County, in violation of
N.C.R.App.P. 7(a)(1). Ms. Simmons sent a contract for preparation of the transcript to
Defendant Town under cover of a letter dated December 30, 2003. However, Defendant Town
returned the executed contract for preparation of the transcript under cover of a letter dated
December 24, 2003. Based on the dates provided by each letter, and pursuant to the affidavit of
Deborah Simmons, Defendant Town returned the contract for preparation of the transcript six
days before Defendant Town received it. The December 24, 2003 date is significant because it
was within the 14-day deadline for arranging the transcript as required by the N.C.R.App.P. 7.
Defendant Town's contract for preparation of the transcript was not made until after December
30, 2003, as noted in the Ms. Simmons' letter and was, therefore, untimely.
The transcript of the parties' hearing was delivered on February 16, 2004. If timely
request for the transcript is deemed to have minimally occurred by Defendant Town's letter of
December 11, 2003, N.C.R.App.P. 7(b)(1) provides only 60 days for preparation of the
transcript. Pursuant to Defendant Town's December 11, 2003 letter requesting a copy of the
transcript, the 60 day preparation deadline expired on February 9, 2003. Thereby, receipt of the
transcript on February 16, 2004 was untimely in violation of N.C.R.App.7(b)(1). RECEIVED
CEIVE®
-7- SEP 0 8 2008
R 0339

On or about May 20, 2004, Plaintiffs' counsel conferred with Town's attorney and
mutually settled the parties' record on appeal pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 11(b). Therefore,
pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 12(a), Defendant Town had until June 6, 2004 in which to file the
settled record on appeal with the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Defendant Town never filed
the settled record on appeal by said date, nor has it ever filed the settled record on appeal,
allowing approximately 130 days to run until its purported "Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal"
dated October 14, 2004.
Based upon the foregoing, this Court makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Under N.C.R.App.P. 7, Defendant Town failed to arrange for the transcription of
the proceedings within 14 days after filing its notice of appeal.
2. Under N.C.R.App.P. 7(b)(1), Defendant Town failed to arrange for preparation
and delivery of the transcript within 60 days of the date it purportedly served any indication it
needed the hearing transcript produced.
3. Under N.C.R.App.P. 11, Defendant Town failed to settle the record on appeal in
an appropriate manner and within a reasonable time based on its violations of N.C.R.App.P. 7.
4. Under N.C.R.App.P. 12(a), Defendant Town failed to file the settled record on
appeal with the North Carolina Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days of May 20, 2004 — the
date the parties' mutually settled the record on appeal.
5. The mandatory provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure do
not afford Defendant Town the ability to have two chances to appeal the same judgment, to
circumvent the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, and to decide on its own enterprise
its next step in the appellate process in violation of said appellate rules.
RECEIVED
-$ SEP 0 8
2008

6. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Town's Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal,
dated October 14, 2004 and October 20, 2004, are both stricken and the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Dismiss Defendant Town's appeal pursuant to, inter alia, N.C.R.App.P. 25(a) should be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons herein stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs' Motions to Strike Defendant Town's withdrawals
of notice of appeal are hereby GRANTED; and, Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendant Town's
appeal with prejudice is hereby GRANTED AND SO ORDERED. Plaintiffs' Motion for
Sanctions, Attorneys' Fees and Costs ' e eby DENIED.
Signed this the l day of 2004, out of session, term, county
and district by the consent of the r,a 6—
HONORABLE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE PRESIDING
REgf),VED
-9-
SEP 0 8 2008

100E 16:47 From: `vYV VV Vr To 3-75427 12-,0s
I
il, sco7T ucia c1c"
D, DANToWnt MORTON
C. CRADY R1CIlAH010N..15t,
SrEI'IJUN I:. collLe
BEDRICK & MORTON, L.L.P.
A Partmenhip urProfuurlarinl CarparutJans
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
3108 OLEANDER DRIVE, SU:ITF,100
wrLMING TON, NC 28403
March 12, 2005
DMSION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
C/o, Mr. Qde'Smnberb
Field Specialist
127 Cardinal Arivc'E=nsion
Wilmington NC 28405
EHIBIT
'M6M1'NONr« 1910343•1412
HACSIMiL4i 191(0762J132
is -mall: btrfcbanlxorlrrrMatlalwdan
•Cardllel Mellulor and Ardtlrulur
' NC. Coil nail Wurkcrw' Ca+n1►anwalkm Slwinllal
OBJECTION TO PERMIT APPLTCATtON
,
VIVJ
Re; Objection by Adjacent Riparian Property Ow11ers E C E IV
To Application for Pwnit by Town of Oak Island
Our Clients: 'Theodore "Tcd" Barris and wi:l'c, Carol Barris MAR 14 2005
4
DIVISION OF
Dcur'Honomble Division of Coastal Maoagerncat and .Mr. StcribcrS: COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Please be advised this office represents Mr. Theodore "Ted" Barris and his wife, Carot
Barris (" Darrisl. The Barrises reside at 301.8 West Yacht Drive, Oak Island, North Carolina
28465. On. March 2, 2005, the ..Sarriscs received the "Division of Coaml Management Adjacent
Riparian Property Owner Notification/Waiver form" (`Notice Form' regarding a ,proposed
recreational M.1act by the Town of Oak Island ("Town"),
As .permitted pursuant to the tlforelnentioned Notice Form, please accept this letter as the
Barrises' formal objection to the Town's application for the reasons that follow:
1. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A.," please find
a true and correct copy of the Order on Summary Judgincnt issued by the Honorable Superior
Court Judge, Gregory A. Weeks, on or about November 10, 2003. The Town's prclposW project
is Located within the roadway that is expressly the subject of*fudge Weeks' Order. Judge Weeks
is :from a lawsuit filed by the Barris agcninst the Town and indexed under 'Brunswick County
Case File No. 02-CVS-1095.
Among other things, Judge weeks' Order against the Town specifically prohibits
Lhe Town from building, erecting or placing any obstructions within the subject area that
resemble: tier opmte as a recreational or park facility. The Town's proposed project, if permitted,
will do preciWy what .fudge Weeks' Order prohibits it -from doing to the detriment of the
Barrises' vested and appurtraant property rights. As a result of Judge Weeks' Ord eztj�CTn1n, V
SEP 0 6 2008

m

a0E5 16:48 From: To .679427 PA
f
71
Division of Coastal Management
Mr. Gale Stenberg
March 12, 2005
Page-2--
9011111TEr
MAR 14 2005
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
was permanently and mandatorily ordered to remove all of then -existing Schuster Park.
Recently, -the 'Town completed the demolition of Schuster Paric. Furthermore, Fudge Weeks
declared the Barrises to be the owners of a non-exclusive easement for purposes of ingress,
egress and regrass over and ncross all nr the subject strew, which is the named "West Oak Island
Drive" street end.
'For the above reason alonc, the 'Gown's application should be denied by the
Division. Uper►mitted, the Town's pmjectwill violate .fudge Weeps' Order.
2. Additionally, the 'Gown's project, if permitted, would violate G.S. §113A-128
("Protection of .Landowners' Rights") as it would consdtute a whole or partial taking of the
Barriscs' casement property rights previously upheld and protected by Judge Weeks' Order.
3. .As specified in .fudge Weeks' Order, the only way that the Town is lawfully
pennitmd to build a park or similar recreational facility, such as the one being proposed, within
the subject area, is by following the mandatory stxect closure requirements of G.S. § 1.60A-2199, et
scg. ,sec, Exhibit "A" hereto). Pursuant to a street closure under G.S. §160A-299, the fee
simple title ownership of the property in question would vest, at least partially, as a matter of law
immediatcly into the Barrises. Sec, General Greene lnv. Co. v. Q=ne, 48 N.C. App. 29, 268
S.B.2d $70 (1980). Then, the Town would have to acquire the property via its power of eminent
domain or by private purchase, either' of which afford the Sarrises' fair and just compensation for
their property rights that have been mken. Unless and until the Town comphcs with the
mmidatory provisions of the G.S. §160A-299 statute, -then its pernsit should not be granted
because it would be contrary to a statute or axle as is prohibited under G.S. §l 13A-121.1(b)(t)-
(1).
4. On information and belief, the Town's application is inconsistent with its Land
Use Plan, and should be denied pursuant to G.S. § 113A-120(a)(8).
5. On information and belief, the Town's application proposes "gravel" or "marl" to
be the surface of its project. Such substa.necs constitute impervious surfaces, which will cause
pollutants and other harmful elements to not adequately drain and filter and runoff into the
immediate waterway. On information and belief. the Town's impervious surface that is
proposdd with its project will exceed the acceptable amount of impervious covcrnge in the
subject area.
6. The Town is not the lawful fee simple tale owner to the !•object property, which is
required before a person or entity may apply for a per.mit. 13ven assuming arguenc/o that the
Town bokls a valid deed or other instrument of titic to the subject property, the area in question --
RECEIVEL
SEP 0 8 2008

)v.

I A
,2005 16:4e Fram:
To P9427 P.5
Division of Coastal. Management
Mi. Cole Stenba.rg
March 12, 2005
Page - 3 —
]ECEIVE
MAR 1 4 2005
01VISION 01=
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
as per Judge Weoks' ;6brementioned Order, has been irrevocably dedicated as a street, which
cannot be misused, diverted or obstructed absent the Town's compliance with G.S. §160A-299.
7. Tic Town's application and proposed project does not contain a professionni
survey of nil property boundaries and "to -scale" dMv inl s, which should be required, ar
minimum, prior to the granting of any permit.
S. On information and belief, tic 'Gown's proposed drawing in addition, to only
containing "approximations" does not Contain adequate set -backs from the ,Barrises and other
adjacent riparian property owners for its project. Accordingly, if the Town is reciuired to comply
with the sct-back requirements of the Division of Coastal Management and/or other applienble
regulations, the balance of the project, as proposed, will have to be substantially altered and
resubmitted for consideration,
Please be further advised, that the materials served on the Sarrises appear to only be
partial pad seemingly incomplete. The materials served by the Town do not appear to include
the enure application materials of the Division, no permit application reference number, or
otherwise. To the extent that the materials served on the Barrises are incomplete or otherwise
d4cient, this office reserves the right to supplement and Amend this formal Objection on behalf
of the Sarrises. should you have any questions or concerns regarding the matters contained
lurein, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With best regards and thanking you in advance, t remain
Enclosure
Very
G. GracTY . ichardson, - -r.
For and On Behalf of
Theodore "Ted" Barris
Carol 'Sarris
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

C-W3

k
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Chates S. Jones, Director 1Mlliam G. Ross Jr., Secr
:�pril 6. 3005
CERTIFIED MAIL #7004 2890 0002 342 2361
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Town of Oak Island
Attn: Gene Kudges, Director of Public \Yorks
4601 E. Oak Island Dr,
Oak Island, NC 28465
RE: DENL4L OF CAVA AHNOR DE1•ELOP1IEN T PERMIT
APPLICATIONNUMBER: APP. ;V0. 05-13
Dear Mr. Gene Kudges:
EXHIBIT
0
3� b,
z
Z
0
After reviewing your application in conjunction with the development standards required by the Coastal Area Managemc
(CAMA), for the development of a public access gravel parking area including handicap parking, safety barrier, light, trash receptac
stormwater infiltration trench at the end of W. Oak Island Drive. Oak Island in Brunswick County, it is my determination that no penr
be_Qranted for the g�pject you have nropo5ed.
This decision is based on my finding that your regLest violates NCGS 113A-120(8) which requires that all applications be
which are inconsistent with CA..MA guideline::. and 15A NCAC 07H.0601 which states, "No development shall be allowed in an,
which would result in a contravention or violatio❑ of any ntles, regulations, or laws of the State of North Carolina or of local govenu-
which the development takes place". Specific,tll_,-, this permit application for which you have applied for is in conflict with Superior
Judge Gregory A. Weeks' November 10, 2u03. (')rder On Sun -unary Judgment.
Should you wish to appeal my decision to the Coastal Rcsotu-ces, please contact me so I can provide you with the proper forr
any other information you may require. Appeal notices must be received by the Division of Coastal Management in Raleigh within t
(20) days of the date of this letter in order to be considered.
Sincerely,
Gale Stenberg
Field Representative
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director .
Jim Gregson, DCM
Christine Goebel, AG's Office
127 Card;ji.:1 f irr.•,_ E:•:t . W:I:r.ineton. \nrth (':rnlina 28405-3845
Phone: 910-395- '�L o i Itntemrl: Nv%v mccoastalmanagement,net
An EqualOpprrtunir t:............:: ! .�r 1_.,T!� •2, o.
. c�.�c �d ' ] 0 %o Post Cotaumer P;tper
RECEIVED
cpp 0 & 728-

NORTH CAROLINA
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
THEODORE D. BARRIS and wife
CAROL P. BARRIS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North
Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body
Politic, now known and referred to as
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North Carolina
Municipal Corporation and Body Politic,
and Successor in Interest to the Former
Town of Long Beach; TOWN OF OAK
ISLAND, a North Carolina Municipal
Corporation and Body Politic; and
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
Z EXHIBIT
o
m
MOTION TO MODIFY
NOW COMES the Defendant Town of Oak Island (formerly Town of Long Beach)
in the above -entitled action and moves the Court for an Order modifying the Summary
Judgment previously entered herein and does respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
1. On November 10, 2003, the Honorable Gregory A. Weeks entered an Order on
Summary Judgment in the above -entitled action, a copy of which is attached hereto and
designated as Exhibit A, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.
2. The Town of Oak Isiand has complied with the Court's Order and removed
Schuster Park in its entirety and returned that portion of West Oak Island Drive formerly
occupied by that facility to street status.
3. In accordance v ith tl,,e Court's Order, the fishing "T" pier attached to the western
end of Oak Island Drive and extending west into the Intracoastal Waterway remained in
its location.
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008
R 0342

t
4. At a regularly scheduled meeting of its Town Council, the Town of Oak Island
voted to install parking spaces and a security light in this area for the purpose of allowing
parking by the general public for use of the fishing "T'.
5. The Town of Oak Island applied to the NCDENR Division of Coastal
Management for a CAMA Minor Development Permit and the same was denied on April
6, 2005 as shown by the letter attached hereto and designated as Exhibit B.
6. The Plaintiffs in this action, both individually and through their attorney, filed
objections to the permit application, citing the Order entered on November 10, 2003 as a
primary basis for their objection to the permit. A copy of the objections filed by the
Plaintiffs, individually and through their attorney, are attached hereto and designated
Exhibit C.
7. The undersigned submits to the Court and alleges on information and belief that
it was never the intention of the Court to deny the Defendant Town of Oak Island the
legitimate use of this area after it was returned to street status in that parking in areas such
as this is allowed by the Town's ordinances and authorized by the North Carolina General
Statutes.
8. The objections filed by the Plaintiffs in this action are frivolous and were made
with what they knew or should have known was in violation of the clear intention of the
Court and as such, the Plaintiffs should be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees
incurred by the Defendant Town of Oak Island in pursuit of the amendment of this
Judgment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Defendant Town of Oak Island prays the Court for an Order
modifying the Judgment entered on November 10, 2003, as follows:
1. That paragraph 3 of that Order be amended or replaced by declaring that the
Plaintiffs are owners of a nen-exclusive easement for access to West Oak Island Drive
RECEIVE
SEP 0 8 200E
DC Wl[LM1NGr0

L
from their property, and that otherwise, the Town of Oak Island may make full use of this
area for all public purposes allowed under its ordinances and the North General Statutes
for streets and that the Defendant have and recover reasonable attorneys fees incurred
in the preparation, filing, and hearing of this Motion.
2. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
This the day of "q , 2005.
ROGER LEE EDWARDS, P.A.
BY: Roger Lee Edwards
Attorney for Defendants, Town of Long Beach and Town of Oak Island
7201 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island. NC 28465
Telephone [phone]
State Bar # 8744
CROSSLEY, MCINTOSH, PRIOR & COLLIER
By: Clay�Collier
Attor`rfey for Defendants. Town of Long Beach and Town of Oak Island
2451 South College Road
Wilmington NC 28412
Telephone: [phone]
State Bar # 13260
' RE E r
SEP U is 200E
_._ .� kir

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that he has this day served upon the party
named below a copy of the foregoing Motion to Modify in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid and addressed as follows.
G Grady Richardson, Jr.
Hedrick & Morton, L.L.P.
3208 Oleander Drive, Suite 100
Wilmington, NC 28403
This the Ay of A 2005
ROGER LEE EDWARDS, P.A.
n %
By: Roger Lee Edwards
Attorney for Defendants, Town of Long Beach and Town of Oak Island
7201 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
Telephone [phone]
State Bar # 8744
CROSSLEY, MCINTOSH, PRIOR & COLLIER
By: Clay A, ollier
Attorney for Defendants. Town of Long Beach and Town of Oak Island
2451 South College Road
Wilmington, NC 28412
Telephone: [phone]
State Bar # 13260
llai:v -:
RECEIVE
SEP 0 8 2008

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - .
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK-
THEODORE D. BARRIS apd
CAROL P. BARRIS, - -- -- )
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North )
Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, )
now known and referred to as, TOWN OF OAK )
ISLAND, a North Carolina Municipal )
Corporation and Body Politic, and Successor in )
Interest to the Former Town of Long Beach; )
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North Carolina )
Municipal Corporation And Body Politic; and, )
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
Defendants.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
ORDER
'_. EXHIBIT
m
0
Z
a
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard and was heard on May 31, 2005 before the Honorable
Superior Court Judge Gregory A. Weeks presiding for the County of Brunswick, upon Defendant
Town of Oak Island's Motion to Modify the undersigned's prior Order on Summary Judgment in
this cause.
Appearing before the undersigned at the hearing were G. Grady Richardson, Jr., attorney
for Plaintiffs; Clay A. Collier and Roger L. Edwards, attorneys for Defendant Town; and, Peter
Bine, Town Manager for Defendant Town.
After considering the Defendant Town's aforementioned Motion, and arguments of the
parties' respective counsel and materials submitted by each side during and subsequent to the
hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant Town's
-I-
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

Motion to Modify the undersigned's Order on Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby
DENIED. �,/�
Signed this they day of September, 2005, out of session, term, county and district by
the consent of the parties.
GREGORVA. WE9KS
HONORABLE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE PRESIDING
RECEIVES
-2-
SEP 0 8 2008

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
THEODORE D. BARRIS
CAROL P. BARRIS
PLAINTIFF
Vs
TOWN OF LONG BEACH
TOWN OF O
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO: 02 CVS 1095
rIL�
!AT y ' 0O
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
AK ISLAND
DEFENDANTS
VERDICT SHEET
'_. EXHIBIT
a
Z
w
a
We, the jury, return as our unanimous verdict the following answers to the issues
submitted:
ISSUE ONE:
What amount is the plaintiff entitled to recover for the wrongful obstruction and
interference with the plaintiff's right of access onto West Oak Island Drive?
ANSWER: > J (D t„
This the I Oth day of November 2005. _
FORE RSON OF THE JURY
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008
U Al r'A

4 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNT Y OF BRUNSWICK
THEODORE D. BARRIS and wife,
CAROL P. BARRIS,
Plaintiffs,
N
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North )
Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, )
now known and referred to as, TOWN OF OAK )
ISLAND, a North Carolina Municipal )
Corporation and Body Politic, and Successor in )
Interest to the Former Town of Long Beach; )
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North Carolina )
Municipal Corporation And Body Politic; and, )
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
Defendants. )
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
'FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
JUDGMENT
Z EXHIBIT
o-7
o
z
a
THIS CAUSE was heard before the undersigned Superior Court Judge John W. Smith
and a jury duly impaneled at the November 7, 2005 civil superior session for Brunswick County.
Appearing as counsel for the Plaintiffs was G. Grady Richardson, Jr., and for the
Defendant Town of Oak Island, formerly in part, Town of Long Beach ("Defendant Town"), was
Clay A. Collier and, Roger L. Edwards.
The issue presented to the jury and the jury's answer were as follows:
ISSUE: "What amount is the plaintiff entitled to recover for the wrongful obstruction
and interference with the plaintiff's right of access onto West Oak Island Drive?"
ANSWER: "$36,501.00."
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs have and
recover of the Defendant Town the sum of THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ONE
RECEIVED
SEP 0 d 2008

DOLLARS ($36,501.00), together with interest at eight (8%) percent per annum from 1 October
1996 until paid.
Costs and an award of Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees are taxed against Defendant
Town by separate Order.
All issues not resolved by the Order on Summary Judgment entered by the Honorable
Gregory A. Weeks, this Judgment and the undersigned's separate Order taxing costs and
attorneys' fees, are dismissed and denied with prejudice, and this Judgment resolves all issues
and disputes between the parties.
Signed this the day of November 2005 out of session, county and district
by consent of the parties.
HONORABLE HN W. SMITH
Superior Co Judge Presiding
Brunswick ounty, North Carolina
RECEIVEC
SEP 0 8 2008

(2_5'05
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK - f FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
THEODORE D. BARRIS and wife;
CAROL P. BARRIS,
Plaintiffs,
vs. )
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North )
Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, )
now known and referred to as, TOWN OF OAK )
ISLAND, a North Carolina Municipal )
Corporation and Body Politic, and Successor in )
Interest to the Former Town of Long Beach; )
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North Carolina )
Municipal Corporation And Body Politic-, and, )
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
Defendants. )
EXHIBIT
0
w
d
Order Denying Defendants Motions
Pursuant To Rule 50
THIS CAUSE coming on before the undersigned Superior Court Judge John W. Smith
upon the post -trial motions filed by the Defendants pursuant to Rule 50;
And the court having read and reviewed the motion and each ground alleged for the relief
prayed finds that substantially the same issues were presented either during the trial or at the
conclusion of the trial, and no further hearing is required to dispose of the motions;
As to the ground raised by Defendants that the evidence shows as a matter of law that the
statute of limitations has run: Defendants seek to collaterally attack the order of Judge Weeks
which according the order of Judge Lewis is final and as to which Defendant's appeal was
dismissed with prejudice and from which no further review was sought. The slender thread upon
which Defendants rely was testimony at best ambiguous and does not contradict the findings of
Judge Weeks; and further other testimony as to the dates of the various actions by Defendants
supports Judge Week's order. Defendant's have failed to show any reason this court should
exercise that discretion which it has to revisit the Order of Judge Weeks made final by Judge
Lewis.
As to the contention that the court should have admitted the purported agreement
whereby the town may have plans to extend sewer services to the Plaintiff's lot, the discussion of
the admissibility which wa occurred at the time of the tender continues to reflect the court's
opinion: The contract involves possible sewer service to the Plaintiffs which may be available on
some future date. The Plaintifrs are not parties to the contract and therefore can not prevent a
modification of the contract by the parties to the contract after the resolution of this lawsuit and
before services are provided. Whether benefits will ever inure to Plaintiffs is speculative; the
date the service might be provided is unknown the contract raises a time-consuming collateral
issue which risks a confusion of issues before the jury; a signed copy of the contract was not
RECEIVED
SFp n R )Ann

,J
produced by the attorney for Defendant who helped negotiate it until he tried to introduce it on
the second day of the trial in a case which had been pending for years; and its relevance to any
substantial issue was weak . The court in the exercise of its sound discretion finds that even if the
contract were relevant at this late date, that it should be excluded pursuant to the Rules of
Evidence due to each of these factors and unfair prejudice to the Plaintiff.
The court has carefully considered each basis for the relief prayed and finds that previous
rulings of the court resolve the factual issues addressed and further finds that the motions to set
aside the verdict of the jury, for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for a new trial on all
issues, and for a new trial on the issue of damages, should be and hereby are Denied.
Signed this the :3! day of November 2005 out of session, county and district
by consent of the parties.
Superior Cou Presiding
Brunswick,County, North Carolina
RECEIVE[
SEP 0 6 2008
ry

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA w' . IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK x „ : FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
EXHIBIT
THEODORE D. BARRIS and wife, ) m
CAROL P. BARR.IS,
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
)
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North )
Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, )
now known and referred to as, TOWN OF OAK )
ISLAND, a North Carolina Municipal )
Corporation and Body Politic, and Successor in )
Interest to the Former Town of Long Beach; )
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North Carolina )
Municipal Corporation And Body Politic; and, )
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
Defendants. )
ORDER FOR TAXING
OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Following the jury's verdict of 10 November 2005, Plaintiffs moved the Court for an
order taxing to Defendant Town of Oak Island and awarding attorney's fees and expenses
incurred in this action against Defendant Town. Having reviewed the Affidavit by Plaintiffs'
counsel, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., the record proper in this case, and the parties' respective
memoranda of law in support of their positions and having heard oral arguments, the Court
makes and enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The jury trial conducted before the undersigned the week of November 7, 2005
was a trial on damages alone pursuant to the previous Order on Summary Judgment entered by
the Honorable Gregory A. Weeks on 12 November 2003.
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

s
2. Judge Weeks' Order on Summary Judgment ruled as a matter of law that, inter
alia, the Town's actions obstructed and interfered with Plaintiffs' dedicated easement right of
access onto West Oak Island Drive adjacent to their subject property and that Plaintiffs'
dedicated easement right be restored. Defendant Town appealed.
3. After entry of an Order by the Honorable Ola M. Lewis on 18 November 2004
dismissing the Town's appeal of Judge Weeks' ruling, with prejudice, Defendant Town complied
with Judge Weeks' ruling by removing "the Park in its entirety" and restoring Plaintiffs'
dedicated easement right of access onto West Oak island Drive from their subject property.
4. At least from the time that Judge Weeks determined the issues of the statute of
limitations and the order dismissing Defendant's appeal, Defendant Town was without basis in
law or in fact in asserting a defense to unlawfully obstructing and interfering with Plaintiffs'
dedicated, appurtenant easement right of access onto West Oak Island Drive (formerly, West
Ocean Highway) and liability for damages arising therefrom. Furthermore, the denial of liability
for obstructing the incorporeal hereditament from Oak Island Drive was without any justification
in law or in fact, and defendant's persistent denial of even nominal damages evidences a lack of
justification for the persistence in the litigation. Even during the trial, the defendants have
persisted in readdressing issues finally resolved against them in the case, and have continued to
do so even in the motions to set aside the jury verdict allowing substantial damages for the
obstruction. In the post trial briefs filed by the defendants continue to resist any liability at all
and continue to try to raise anew issues resolved against them in November of 2003, almost two
years ago. Furthermore, while the post -verdict affidavits of the Defendant's aver inadmissible
Proposals for settlement during arbitration, Defendants did not at any time submit a binding offer
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

of judgment or written concession of liability until after an adverse verdict was returned by the
r
jury.
5. The lawsuit has been terminated in favor of Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs have
incurred substantial costs, including attorneys' fees, in prosecuting this action against Defendant
Town. The Court finds from the Affidavit of G. Grady Richardson, Jr., and from a review of the
voluminous record proper in this case, that the time incurred by Plaintiffs' counsel for preparing
the various pleadings and performing the research necessary to prosecute and defend the
Plaintiffs' positions against Defendant Town, fully justify the attorney's fees, paralegal fees, costs
and expenses incurred up through and including August 1, 2005 paid by Plaintiffs in the sum of
$46,351.09, and the additional attorney time, fees and expenses of over 85 hours incurred by
Plaintiffs up through the jury's verdict of 10 November 2005 in the approximate additional amount
of $12,750.00, and the qualifications and experience of Plaintiffs' counsel, support the hourly
rate of $150.00 per hour charged to Plaintiffs by their attorney and the $65.00 per hour paralegal
rate charged by their attorney, which the Court finds to be reasonable and proper_ After adjusting
as hereinabove set out to be appropriate, the Court further finds that $32,000 for Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiffs are reasonable sums incurred in prosecuting this action
against the Defendant Town for which Plaintiff's are entitled to reimbursement by law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following Conclusions
of Law:
l . Plaintiffs were the owners of dedicated and appurtenant easement rights in and to
West Oak Island Drive (formerly, West Ocean Highway) from their subject real property. It is
well -established that Plaintiffs' dedicated and appurtenant easement rights cannot be
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

extinguished, obstructed, injured, altered or diminished except by agreement or estoppel. Real
Co_ V. Hobbs, 261 N.C. 414, 421, 135 S.E.2d 30, 35-36 (1964); see also, Wooten v. Town of
Topsail Beach, 127 N.C. App. 739, 741, 493 S.E.2d 285, 287 (1997); General Greene Inv. Co. v.
Greene, 48 N.C. App. 29, 268 S.E.2d $10 (1980), Williamson v Town of Surf Cii , 143 N.C.
App. 539, 545 S.E.2d 798 (2001); and, N.C.G.S. 160A-299.
2. The legal position of the Defendant Town in obstructing and interfering with
Plaintiffs' dedicated and appurtenant easement rights in and to West Oak Island Drive (formerly,
West Ocean Highway) from their subject real property on 1 October 1996 was not well founded
in fact or in law and, accordingly, did not present a justiciable controversy to the Court.
N.C.G.S. 6-21.5; and, Bryant v. Short, 84 N.C.App. 285, 352 S.E.2d 245, cerl. denied, 319 N.C.
458, 356 S.E.2d 2 (1987).
3- Plaintiffs' costs are allowed as a matter of course and in the discretion of the court
to the Plaintiffs based upon their real property interest of a dedicated and appurtenant easement
right to West Oak Island Drive (formerly, West Ocean Highway) from their subject property.
N.C.G.S. 6-18(l ); 6-20; and 7A-305; see also Lord v Customized Consulting Speci&y, Inc.,
164 N.C.App. 730, 596 S_E.2d 891 (2004); Dixon. Odom & Co. v. Sledge, 59 N.C.App. 280,296
S.E.2d 512 (1982); and, Coffman v. Roberson, 153 N.C.App, 618, 571 S.E.2d 255 (2002). As
applied to this action, Plaintiff has submitted a bill of costs which the court has examined and
finds to be accurate, reasonable, and appropriately compensable save and except those costs
asserted for legal research by an outside law firm which the court finds should not be allocated to
the Defendants. The court has considered the contention by Defendants that the subpoenaed
expert witness, Raymond Real, did not give testimony in the field which he was qualified; but
the court rejectsthis contention and specifically finds his testimony to have been within area
'OECEIVEE
SEP 0 8 2008

of expertise. The testimony affirmatively showed he was subpoenaed to testify in the case. The
fee submitted of $1,333.10 for his appearance in court is fair and reasonable and necessary and is
compensable as a cost of the action. The total costs, excluding any attorney fees, which should
be allocated are $5,333..90.
4. Applications for Attorney Fees are in derogation of the common law, and GS 6-
21.5 must be strictly construed. The court has considered that there may have been some
colorable defenses raised in the original answer of the Defendants, but those issues were finally
resolved at least as of the time of the entry of the previous orders on November 12, 2003, and
November 18, 2004. The court in its discretion has reduced the request by the Plaintiff for
attorney's fees to exclude entirely those issues which could under any interpretation of the facts
have arguably been meritorious, despite the determination by Judge Weeks that those issues
lacked merit. The fees allowed hereafter are based solely upon the persistence in the litigation
after Defendants were fully aware that the actions taken in obstructing the incorporeal
hereditament of the Plaintiffs was without legal justification and entitled Plaintiffs to at least
nominal as well as actual damages, a persistence which Defendants should have known and
knew was without a legal and reasonable basis either in law or in fact from and after the
dismissal of the appeal from the order of Judge Weeks on November 18, 2004.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court makes and
enters the following Judgment:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. Defendant Town shall be taxed with Plaintiffs' costs in the amount of 5,333.90
pursuant to N.C.G.S. 6-18(l); 6-20; and, 7A-305.
RECEIVE[
SEP 0 8 2008
Is

2. Plaintiffs are awarded the sum of $32,000 as their reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred in connection with this action pursuant to N.C.G.S. 6-21.5, and taxed as
additional costs against Defendant Town.
Signed this the day of November 2005 out of session, county and district by
consent of the parties.
HONORLE HN W. SMITH
Superior Co
Judge Presiding
Brunswick ounty, North Carolina
RECEIVE[
i
SEP 0 S 2008

/i - so--o5
LAW OFFICES OF G. GRADY RICHARDSON, JR., P.C.
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
1213 CULBRETH DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28405
G. GRADY RICHARDSON, JR.
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
December 30, 2005
DIA FACSIMILE ONLY [phone] FL*
HARD COPY WILL NOT FOLLOW
Ms. Christine Goebel, Esq.
North Carolina Attorney General's Office TOTAL PAGES: 14
For North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Re: Town of Oak Island, Petitioner v.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Administrative Hearings, File No. 05-EHR-0654
Dear Ms. Goebel:
Please allow this letter to follow up on a voice mail I left for you moments ago.
L EXHIBIT
m
Z
W
a
I represent Theodore "Ted" Barris and wife, Carol Barris ("Barris"), who are property owners
immediately adjacent to one side of the dedicated street right-of-way and property upon which the
Town of Oak Island ("Town") originally applied for a CAMA permit to erect objectionable
improvements. On or about March 12, 2005, 1 filed an Objection to Permit Application on behalf of
the Barrises with Mr. Gale Stenberg with the Division of Coastal Management regarding the Town's
application.
The Town's application was ultimately denied, from which the Town has pursued an appeal in
the above -referenced action. It is my understanding you are representing the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources in opposition to the Town's appeal. It is my
further understanding, confirmed with Ms. Anne Keith this morning, that the Town's appeal is still
classified as being "stayed" until further notice.
During the week of November 7, 2005, the Barrises' civil action was tried before a jury in
Brunswick County Civil Superior Court with the Honorable John W. Smith, presiding. At the end of
the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Barrises in the amount of $36,501.00, with
prejudgment interest dating back to October 1, 1996. Subsequent to the trial, Judge Smith ultimately
entered an Order for Taxing of Costs and Attorney's Fees against the Town in an amount of
$32,000.00 for the Barrises' attorney's fees and the sum of $5,333.90 for the Barrises' court costs.
Finally, Judge Smith also entered an Order denying Town's post -trial motions u
p�®
50. Attached hereto, lease find true and correct copies of the Jud ent, Order for
SEP 0 8 2008

Ms. Christine Goebel, Esq.
December 30, 2005
Page - 2 —
and Attorney's Fees, and Order Denying Defendant [Town's] Motions Pursuant to Rule 50 for your
ready reference and review. There should already be a copy of the Order on Summary Judgment
entered against the Town long ago in this case, as it was referenced and included with my original
Objection to Permit Application submitted on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Barris.
In addition to all of the above, during the pendency of its administrative appeal referenced
herein, the Town requested a special set hearing before Judge Gregory Weeks. Judge Weeks was the
judge that ruled against the Town previously in his Order on Summary Judgment referenced above.
The Town's purpose for requesting this hearing was to get Judge Weeks to modify his ruling in order
to increase its chances in this administrative appeal and in ultimately receiving its requested CAMA
permit. At the hearing, the Town's attorneys informed Judge Weeks that the Town's CAMA
application had been denied, in large part, due to his Order on Summary Judgment. By Order filed
September 21, 2005, Judge Weeks denied the Town's request and left his Order on Summary
Judgment in tact. I have also attached hereto a true and correct copy of Judge Weeks' Order denying
the Town's Motion to Modify for your ready reference.
Once you have had an opportunity to review the matters contained herein, please contact me to
discuss the Town's pending administrative appeal.
With best regards and thanking you in advance for your attention to,this matter, I remain
ZGZ!
�`/
\ k
ydson, Jr. ,
Attachments
Cc: Mr. and Mrs. Theodore D. Barris (w/o attmts.)
File (w/o attmts.)
RECEIVED
SEP 0 6 2008

-7_ 3l-6 �
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
-SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK =. FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
THEODORE D. BARRIS and wife, �^
CAROL P. BARRIS, )
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North )
Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, )
now known and referred to as, TOWN OF OAK )
ISLAND, a North Carolina Municipal )
Corporation and Body Politic, and Successor in )
Interest to the Former Town of Long Beach; )
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North Carolina )
Municipal Corporation And Body Politic; and, )
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
Defendants. )
1'1
EXHIBIT
m !I
Z
n
THIS CAUSE COMING ON TO BE HEARD and being heard before the undersigned
resident judge presiding at the June 26, 2006, Civil Session of Superior Court, Brunswick
County, upon Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss [Defendant Town's] Appeal pursuant to Rules 7, 11,
25 and 34 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appearing before the
undersigned at the hearing were G. Grady Richardson, Jr., attorney for Plaintiffs; and, Clay A.
Collier and Roger L. Edwards, attorneys for Defendant Town of Oak Island ("Town").
After considering the Plaintiffs' aforementioned Motion, the matters referenced therein,
oral arguments of counsel, and having reviewed the record proper, including various exhibits
referenced and submitted, makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and enters
the following Orders:
RECEIVED
-1-
SEP 0 6 2008

FINDINGS OF FACT
The Court makes the following Findings of Fact:
1. This case was originally filed on May 28, 2002, when Theodore D. Barris and
Carol P. Barris commenced the action against Defendant Town by filing a verified complaint.
After extensive discovery, a verified amended complaint and several depositions, both parties
brought on for hearing their respective cross -motions for summary judgment before the
Honorable Gregory A. Weeks, presiding on September 22, 2003 in the Superior Court for
Brunswick County. At the conclusion of the oral arguments on the opposing motions for
summary judgment, Judge Weeks took the matter under advisement and thereafter received
further written submissions from counsel;
2. On November 10, 2003, Judge Weeks signed his Order on Summary Judgment
deciding some but not all of the issues in the case sub judice and the same was entered by the
Clerk of Court for Brunswick County on November 12, 2003, the contents of which are fully
incorporated herein by reference. Among other things, Judge Weeks' Order concluded that his
ruling affected substantial rights of both parties and certified his decision for immediate appeal.
In doing so, Judge Weeks entered an additional provision that recited the provisions of his Order
were "stayed pending the outcome of any appeal properly noticed by either party.
3. On December 12, 2003, Defendant Town filed its Notice of Appeal in the office
of the Clerk of Superior Court, Brunswick County of Judge Weeks' November 12, 2003 Order
("Town's First Appeal")
4• By Order entered November 18, 2004 by the undersigned Superior Court Judge,
dismissed, with prejudice, the Town's First Appeal for numerous violations of the North
-2-
SEP 0 8 2008

Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the findings, conclusions and orders of which are fully
incorporated herein by reference ("First Dismissal").
5. The Town did not give notice of any appeal to the North Carolina Court of
Appeals or other appellate division of the undersigned's First Dismissal. Rather, after the
Town's time period in which to appeal the undersigned's First Dismissal had expired, the Town,
in or around January and February of 2005, implemented the terms and provisions of Judge
Weeks' November 12, 2003 by removing the obstructions and injury to Plaintiffs' dedicated and
appurtenant easement rights onto West Oak Island Drive from their subject property.
6. The undersigned's First Dismissal, from which no further appellate review was
sought by the Town, became final and binding as to the Town in this action.
7. The Town is comprised of approximately 200 streets. From and after
implementing Judge Weeks' November 12, 2003 Order, Town nevertheless commenced efforts
to apply for approval from applicable administrative agencies by which to construct
improvements within the street and street -end coincidentally adjacent to Plaintiffs' subject
property.
8. Plaintiffs opposed the Town's efforts to attempt to construct new improvements
within the street and street -end adjacent to Plaintiffs' subject property. Upon learning this, the
Town sought a hearing on its ex parte Motion to Modify Judge Weeks' November 12, 2003, to
Judge Weeks directly, which was ultimately scheduled for hearing May 31, 2005.
9. During the May 31, 2005 hearing, Judge Weeks learned for the first time that the
Town's motion to modify had been made on an ex parte basis and that the undersigned had
entered her First Dismissal against the Town from his ruling of November 12, 2003.
RECEIVED
-3- SEP 0 8 2008

10. By Order entered September 16, 2005, Judge Weeks denied the Town's Motion to
Modify his November 12, 2003 Order, the terms of which are fully incorporated herein by
reference.
11. During the week of November 7, 2005, a jury trial was conducted on damages
alone pursuant to Judge Weeks' final November 12, 2003 Order in the case sub judice before the
Honorable John W. Smith in Brunswick County, North Carolina ("Trial"). At the end of the
trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $36,501.00 for the Town's
injury to Plaintiffs' incorporeal hereditament and appurtenant, dedicated easement rights, with
prejudgment interest from October 1, 1996.
12. On December 5, 2006, Judge Smith entered Judgment against Town for the sum
of $36,501.00, together with interest thereon at eight (8%) percent per annum from October 1,
1996 until paid, the terms of which are fully incorporated herein by reference.
13. On December 5, 2006, Judge Smith also entered his Order for Taxing of Costs
and Attorney Fees against Town in the amounts of $5,333.90 and $32,000.00, respectively, the
terms and contents of which are fully incorporated herein by reference. The undersigned
specifically notes the following language from Judge Smith's Order:
"At least from the time that Judge Weeks determined the issues of the statute of
limitations and the order [by the undersigned] dimissing [the Towns] appeal, Defendant Town
was without basis in law or fact in asserting a defense to unlawfully obstructing and interfering
with Plaintiffs' dedicated, appurtenant easement right of access onto West Oak Island Drive
(formerly, West Ocean Highway) and liability for damages arising therefrom. Furthermore, the
denial of liability for obstructing the [Plaintiffs'] incorporeal hereditament from Oak Island
Drive was without any justification in law or fact, and defendant's persistent denial of even
nominal damages evidences a lack of justification for the persistence in the litigation. Even
during the trial, the defendants have persisted in readdressing issues finally resolved against them
in the case, and have continued to do so even in the motions to set aside the jury verdict allowing
substantial damages for the obstruction. In the post trial briefs filed by the defendants continue
/sicl to resist any liability at all and continue to try to raise anew issues resolved agiECEIVED
nst them in
November of 2003, almost two years ago."
-4- SEP 0 8 2008

14. On December 5, 2006, Judge Smith also entered his Order Denying Defendants
Motions Pursuant to Rule 50, the terms and contents of which are fully incorporated herein by
reference. The undersigned specifically notes the following language from this additional Order
by Judge Smith:
Defendants seek to collaterally attack the [November 12, 2003] order of Judge
Weeks which according the Isic] order of Judge Lewis is final and as to which Defendant's
appeal was dismissed with prejudice and from which no further review was sought."
15. On December 30, 2005, the Town filed its Notice of Appeal to the North Carolina
Court of Appeals, the terms of which are fully incorporated herein by reference ("Second
Appeal"). In addition to seeking to appeal from the jury trial, verdict, and Judgment, Order for
Taxing of Costs and Attorney Fees , and Order Denying Defendants Motions Pursuant to Rule 50
entered by Judge Smith, the Town also noticed its intent to appeal (i) Judge Weeks' November
12, 2003 Order; (ii) the undersigned's November 18, 2004 First Dismissal Order; and, (iii) Judge
Weeks' September 15, 2005 Order denying the Town's Motion to Modify.
16. Also, on December 30, 2005, the Town filed its Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the terms of which are fully incorporated herein by
reference, and to which Plaintiffs and their counsel were compelled to draft and prepare
responses to, the terms and contents of which are fully incorporated herein by reference.
17. On January 3, 2006, the Town ordered the transcripts from court reporter,
Suzanne Rawson Phillips, for (i) the jury trial proceedings the week of November 7, 2005; and,
(ii) the hearing proceeding before Judge Weeks on May 31, 2005.
18. The sixty (60) day time period mandated under N.C.R.App.P. 7 expired after
March 4, 2006. The Court finds that Defendant Town did not make any motion fo e ion of
WECEIVED
-s-
SEP 0 8 2008

time, nor obtain any order from the Court granting an extension of time. The Court further
specifically finds that the Town virtually failed to do anything to perfect and preserve its appeal
during this time period. Neither Defendant Town nor its counsel of record have provided any
lawful excuse, nor demonstrated any cause whatsoever, much less good cause, for its failure to
properly supervise and oversee its Second Appeal after January 3, 2006 through March 4, 2006.
19. The Court finds that finally on April 20, 2006, approximately 107 days after it had
ordered the aforementioned transcripts for its Second Appeal, the Town's counsel sent a letter to
Ms. Phillips inquiring as to the status of the transcripts it had ordered. The Court finds that
Defendant Town did not make any motion for extension of time, nor obtain any order from the
Court granting an extension of time for this additional forty-seven (47) day delay in the appellate
process. The Court further specifically finds that the Town virtually failed to do anything to
perfect and preserve its appeal during this additional time period. Neither Defendant Town or its
counsel have provided any lawful excuse, nor demonstrated any cause whatsoever, much less
good cause, for its failure to properly supervise and oversee its Second Appeal from March 4,
2006 through April 20, 2006.
20. On or about April 29, 2006, Ms. Phillips, the court reporter, certified her delivery
of the transcript of the November 7, 2005 jury trial proceedings to the Town and its counsel, the
terms and contents of Ms. Phillips' certificate of delivery being fully incorporated herein by
reference.
21. The Town and its attorneys admit that they received the November 7, 2005 jury
trial transcript by no later than May 1, 2006 from Ms. Phillips. The thirty-five (35) day time
period mandated under N.C.R.App.P. 11, if calculated from April 29, 2006, expired after June 3,
2006. The Court finds that during this thirty-five (35) day time period, Defendant REJOEW E D
-6- SEP 0 8 2008

make any motion for extension of time, nor obtain any order from the Court granting an
extension of time to perform under N.C.R.App.P. 11. The Court further specifically finds that
the Town virtually failed to do anything to perfect and preserve its appeal during this time
period. Neither Defendant Town nor its counsel of record have provided any lawful excuse, nor
demonstrated any cause whatsoever, much less good cause, for its failure to properly supervise
and oversee its Second Appeal during this thirty-five (35) day time period.
22. By letter dated May 1, 2006, the Town's counsel sent a letter to Ms. Phillips
notifying her that the Town still needed the transcript from the May 31, 2005 hearing before
Judge Weeks.
23. The Court specifically finds that on or about May 6, 2006, Ms. Phillips, the court
reporter, certified her delivery of the transcript of the May 31, 2005 hearing proceeding before
Judge Weeks to the Town and its counsel, the terms and contents of Ms. Phillips' certificate of
delivery being fully incorporated herein by reference.
24. Ms. Phillips' certificates of delivery of transcripts dated April 29, 2006 and May
6, 2006 were not filed with the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court for Brunswick County until
June 26, 2006 by Plaintiffs' counsel during the hearing before the undersigned on June 26, 2006.
25. From the date of the Town's Second Appeal notice of December 30. 2005 through
and including the first overt action pursued by the Town and its counsel dated June 19, 2006 (the
Town's ex parse Motion for Extension of Time to serve a proposed Record on Appeal), a total
period of time of approximately 171 days had elapsed.
26. The Court specifically finds that the Town's and its attorneys' contentions that
it/they did not receive the May 31, 2005 hearing transcript until May 16 or May 17, 2006 to be
without merit and not credible. Notwithstanding this, even assuming arguendo the yy'�
OE D
-7- SEP 0 8 2008

counsel did not receive said May 31, 2005 hearing transcript until May 16 or May 17, 2006, the
Town and its counsel had virtually failed under N.C.R.App.P. 25 to take any action whatsoever
to properly perfect, preserve and supervise its appeal, much less take timely action within the
generous times allowed by the provisions of Rules 7 and 11 of the North Carolina Rules of
Appellate Procedure and/or take an appeal that was not frivolous, or well-grounded in fact or in
existing law, or in good faith under the provisions of N.C.R.App.P. 34 and/or Rule 11 of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Neither Defendant Town nor its counsel of record
have provided any lawful excuse, nor demonstrated any cause whatsoever, much less good
cause, for its failure to properly supervise and oversee its Second Appeal with respect to
N.C.R.App.P. 11.
27. The Court further specifically finds that the Town's Second Appeal, and its notice
and efforts regarding the same with respect to continuing to seek appellate review of (1) Judge
Weeks' November 12, 2003 Order on Summary Judgment; (ii) the undersigned's November 18,
2004 First Dismissal Order; and, (iii) Judge Week's September 16, 2005 Order denying
Defendant Town's Motion to Modify, are patently frivolous, not well-grounded in fact or
existing law, not made in good faith, and were and have been done for improper purposes such
as to harass, annoy, and/or cause unnecessary delay and/or needless increase in the cost of
litigation, particularly with respect to the Plaintiffs and their interests, which is supported by the
facts that, inter alia, the Town accepted and implemented Judge Weeks' November 12, 2003
Order, and did not pursue any appellate review of the undersigned's First Dismissal Order
entered November 18, 2004.
RECEIVED
-8- SEP 0 8 2008

28. The Court specifically finds that the provisions of the North Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure, particularly including without limitation N.C.R.C.P. 11, were not and have not
been complied with by the Town and its counsel in its pursuit of its Second Appeal.
29. The Court specifically finds that the Town's Second Appeal, and notice and
pursuit thereof including its Petition for Writ of Certiorari, should not have included any of the
following: (i) Judge Weeks' November 12, 2003 Order; (ii) the undersigned November 18, 2004
First Dismissal Order; and, (iii) Judge Weeks' September 16, 2005 Order.
30. By Order entered April 26, 2006, the Honorable Gary L. Locklear ordered and
decreed that Defendant Town pay into the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court for Brunswick
County the sum of $73,834.90, the terms and contents of which are fully incorporated herein by
reference. This sum did not and does not include the prejudgment interest that has accrued from
October 1, 1996.
31. The Court specifically finds that the Town and its counsel have violated the
provisions of N.C.R.C.P. 11 and N.C.R.App.P. 7, 1 l , 25 and 34, and that the Town's Second
Appeal should be dismissed for said violations, with prejudice.
32. The Court finds upon its own motion and initiative, together with Plaintiffs'
counsel's request, that Plaintiffs should be entitled to an award of their attorney's fees, costs and
expenses and to an appropriate sanction under the provisions of the Rules cited in the preceding
paragraph.
33. The Court has requested and received the Affidavit of Plaintiffs' counsel, G.
Grady Richardson. Jr., and from the review of Plaintiffs' Motion, that the time in defending
against the Town's Second Appeal efforts or lack thereof, the research in support of Plaintiffs'
Motion, the preparation for the hearing before the undersigned, and the prepaR - jc li or
-9- SEP 0 h 2008

and said Affidavit by Plaintiffs' counsel, fully justify the time spent by Plaintiffs' counsel and
the qualifications and experience of Plaintiffs' counsel support his hourly rate, which the Court
finds to be reasonable and proper. The Court further finds that the sum of $6,570.00 for
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees for the period of November 19, 2005 through July 17, 2006 and the
sum of $215.12 in costs and expenses for the same aforementioned time period are reasonable
sums for the efforts of G. Grady Richardson, Jr. in connection with the matters addressed herein.
34. The conduct of the Town and its counsel in connection with the Town's Second
Appeal was not well-grounded in fact or in existing law, not made with any good faith
arguments, and were interposed for the improper purposes of, inter alia, harassing and annoying
Plaintiffs and their counsel, causing the unnecessary delay of the litigation in the case sub judice,
causing the unnecessary increase in the costs of litigation for Plaintiffs and their counsel.
Further, the conduct of the Town and its counsel in connection with the Town's Second Appeal
was and has been grossly lacking in the requirements of propriety and has grossly violated the
appellate court rules of procedure. Accordingly, the imposition of a monetary sanction against
the Town in the amount of $5,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiffs, is reasonable and appropriate
under the circumstances of this case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following Conclusions
of Law:
1. Defendant Town and its counsel failed to take any timely action in connection
with its Second Appeal in obtaining its requested transcripts that had been ordered January 3,
2006, including without limitation making any motions for extensions of time to acquire the
same, without good cause or lawful excuse whatsoever, in violation of N.C.R. }0 SI E D
-10-
SEP 0 8 2008
Mf-LA \A11h AAIMd-IrI1ai

2. Defendant Town and its counsel failed to take any timely action in connection
with its Second Appeal in serving a proposed Record on Appeal in an appropriate manner and
within a reasonable time, without good cause or lawful excuse whatsoever, in violation of
N.C.R.App.P. I I and 25.
3. The time schedules set out in the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are
designed to keep the process of perfecting an appeal to the appellate division flowing in an
orderly manner. The Town and its counsel are not permitted to decide upon their own enterprise
how long they will wait to take their next step in the appellate process. State of North Carolina
v. Gillespie, 31 N.C. App. 520, 230 S.E.2d 154 (1976); Ledwell v. County of Randolph, 31 N.C.
App. 522, 229 S.E.2d 836 (1976); In re Allen, 31 N.C. App. 597, 230 S.E.2d 423 (1976).
4. There are generous provisions contained in the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure for extensions of time by the trial court if counsel can show good cause for the
requested extension; however, neither Defendant Town nor its counsel ever moved for any
extensions of time in compliance with the appellate rules nor did Defendant Town and its
counsel demonstrate any good cause or lawful excuse for the granting of any extension had it
been properly requested. Id.; see also, Richardson v. Bingham, 101 N.C. App. 687, 400 S.E.2d
757 (1990); Harvey v. Stokes, 137 N.C. App. 119, 527 S.E.2d 336 (2000); Anuforo v. Dennie,
119 N.C. App. 359, 458 S.E.2d 523 (1995).
5. The provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory
and failure to comply with the same works a loss of right of appeal. Craver v. Craver, 298 N.C.
231, 258 S.E.2d 357 (1979); See also, Gillespie; Ledwell; In re Allen; and, Richardson v.
Binjzham, supra.
RECEIVED
-11- SEP 0 6 2008

6. Violations of the mandatory provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure specifically including without limitation N.C.R.App.P. 7 and/or I I may appropriately
provide the basis for dismissal of an appeal in the sound discretion and authority of the trial
court. See, Anuforo v. Dennie, and, Harvey v. Stokes, supra.
7. The legal position of Defendant Town in connection with its Second Appeal is not
well-grounded in fact or existing law, nor based upon any good faith arguments. N.C.R.C.P. 11
and/or N.C.R.App.P. 25 and 34.
8. The Town's Second Appeal should be dismissed. with prejudice, for violations of
the mandatory provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure without good
cause, substantial compliance or any lawful excuse provided by the Town or its counsel.
N.C.R.App.P. 7, 11, 25, 34, and, State of North Carolina v Gillespie; Ledwell v. County of
Randolph; In re Allen; Richardson v Bin ham; Harvey v. Stokes; Anuforo v. Dennie, supra.
9. The conduct of Defendant Town and its counsel in connection with its Second
Appeal was pursued and interposed for the improper purposes of, inter alia, harassing and
annoying Plaintiffs and their counsel, causing the unnecessary delay of the litigation in the case
sub judice, causing the unnecessary increase in the costs of litigation for the Plaintiffs and their
counsel. N.C.R.C.P. I I and/or N.C.R.App.P. 34.
10. The conduct of Defendant Town and its counsel in connection with its Second
Appeal was and has been grossly lacking in the requirements of propriety and has grossly
violated the appellate court rules of procedure. Id.
H . Given the conduct of Defendant Town and its counsel, sanctions against
Defendant Town is appropriate. Id.
RECEIVE
-12-
SEP 0 6 2008

12. The money posted by Defendant Town in the amount of $73,834.90 pursuant to
Judge Locklear's Order entered April 26, 2006 should be immediately released and paid to
Plaintiffs upon entry of this Order.
ORDERS
FOR THE REASONS HEREIN STATED, THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. Defendant Town's Second Appeal, as referred to herein, be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. The money posted by Defendant Town with the Office of the Clerk of Superior
Court for Brunswick County in the amount of $73,834.90, be and the same is hereby ORDERED
to be immediately released and disbursed to Plaintiffs in a Clerk's check made payable as
follows: "Theodore D. Barris and wife, Carol P. Barris, c/o: Law Offices of G. Grady
Richardson, Jr., P.C., Attorney at Law."
3. Defendant Town is liable to Plaintiffs for all accrued prejudgment interest from
October 1, 1996 until paid and Plaintiffs, if not voluntarily paid by Defendant Town within ten
(10) days from the entry of this Order, shall be entitled to have writs of execution issued against
the Town and the Brunswick County Sheriff's Department is hereby directed and ordered to
execute against Defendant Town for all amounts of prejudgment interest that have accrued until
fully paid by Defendant Town. Said payment by the Town of the accrued prejudgment interest
from October 1, 1996 through the date of the Town's payment, shall be made to "Theodore D.
Barris and wife, Carol P. Barris, c/o: Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr., P.C." and mailed
to Mr. Richardson's office at 1213 Culbreth Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405.
RECEIVED
-13- SEP 0 8 2008

4. Defendant Town shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $6,570.00 for their reasonable
attorney's fees and the sum of $215.12 for their costs and expenses within ten (10) days from the
entry of this Order. Said payment by the Town shall be made to "Theodore D. Barris and wife,
Carol P. Barris, c/o: Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr., P.C." and mailed to Mr.
Richardson's office at 1213 Culbreth Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405.
5. As an appropriate sanction by the undersigned and this Court, Defendant Town
shall pay to Plaintiffs the additional sum of $5,000.00 within ten (10) days from the entry of this
Order. Said payment by the Town shall be made to "Theodore D. Barris and wife, Carol P.
Barris, c/o: Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr., P.C." and mailed to Mr. Richardson's
office at 1213 Culbreth Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405.
SO ORDERED and signed this the IL day of July 2006, out of session, term and
district by the consent of the parti
RECEIVED
-14-
SEP 0 8 2008

a1UZ010440 UKUSSLEY WIN IUSH
�r
f
a
NO. COA
it 18 10 UZ-YU-YOUI
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
THEODORE D. BARRIS and wife,
CAROL P. BARRIS, ,
Plaintiffs,
VS.,
TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a former
North Carolina Municipal
Corporation and Body Politic,
now known and referred to as
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North
Carolina Municipal Corporation:
and Body Politic, and
Successor in Interest to the
former Town of Long Beach;
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, a North
Carolina Municipal Corporation:
and Body Politic; and THE
STATE 0= NORTH CAROL:NA,
Defendants.
42 DISTRICT
L ; 4
EXHIBIT
z
w
n
f�J
FROM BRUNSWICK CgJNTY'- --►
FILE NO. 02 CVS 1095
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VOTUNTARY DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
NOW COMES the
Town of Oak
Island,
a North Carolina Municipal
Corporation and Body Politic, by and through the undersigned
counsel of record, and rerecy DISA!TSSES its' Notice ct Appeal
previously fired ,erein, w-th prejudice.
Respectfully submitted this day of February, 2007.
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

9102510445 CROSSLEY McINTOSH 15.18 19 02-20-2001 3 14
CROSSLEY McINTOSH & COLLIER
Brian E. Edes
State Bar No. 25415
2451 South College Road
Wilnington, NC 28412
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile 910 251-0446
RECEIVE
SEP 0 8 2008

91U151044b UKUSSLLY WINTUSH 1b.16.13 uY-10-Zuuf 4 r4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF APPEAL was this day served upon the below
named counsel by mailing a copy of such instrument, postage prepaid,
first class mail, to the office address of:
Grady Richardson
Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr.
1213 Culbreth Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Charles J. Murray, Esq.
Special Deputy Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
This _ day of February, 2007 .
�`
Brian E. Edes
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

a-N Q,
01,; .4 0 TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
4601 E. ISLAND DRIVE
OAK ISLAND, N.C. 28465
[phone]
PAY ****100 DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS ****
BB&T 66-112
SOUTHPORT, NC 28461 531
DATE CHECK NO.
08/20/2008 35488
035488
CHECK AMOUNT
$100.00
VOID AFTER 60 DAYS
THIS DISBURSEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY
THE LOCA� GOVERNMENT BUDGET AN FISCAL CONTR ACT.
PAY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
TO THE & NATURAL RESOURCES
ORDER uR
127 CARDINAL LANE AurH sIGNAr
OF f
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
AUTH RIZED SIGNATURE
Of
11' 3 S48811' I:0 S 3 LO L L 2 LI:000 S 2 L680 L8 7 S11'