OI_08-40_ Oak (2)

WiRO
For Oak Island
LF .3282DZZ
AMW
CAMA
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT
08-40
Permit Number
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 NW 2nd Street, in Oak Island, Brunswick County, as requested in the permittee's application, dated 914/08. This
permit, issued on 8/21/09, 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 gravel parking area, a 10' in length by 20' in width elevated, wooden, slatted, unroofed
platform and access steps.
(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in accordance with the permitted work plal
drawings(s) dated revised on 9/5/08 and received on 9/9/08.
(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. Construction shall be consistent with US Army Corps of
Engineers Consent No. DACW21-0-09-5009, issued August 11, 2009.
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or land use activities will require a re-evaluation anc
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) R C E W E D
AUG 2 7 2009
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:
DECEMBER 31, 2012
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
another party without the written approval of the Division of Coastal
AAnnnnomonf
D 'Ml WIiLMIh1 TOM Nf`
Heather Coats
CAMA Field Representative
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmingt n NC 28405
PERMI EE

Name: Town of Oak Island,c/o Gene Kudgus
Minor Permit # 09.40
Date: August 21, 2009
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, 952 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. The stairs located
landward of the bulkhead shall be elevated above the existing grade, so as to not cut into the existing slope
of the bank.
(7) All unconsolidated material resulting from associated grading and landscaping shall be retained on site by effective
sedimentation and erosion control measures. No grading within the 30' buffer, as measured from the normal
high water line, is authorized under this permit. 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) All disturbed areas outside of the authorized parking area shall be vegetatively stabilized (planted and mulched)
within 14 days of construction completion.
(9) The access stairs shown waterward of the bulkhead in the plans is not authorized under this permit, and are
not exempt, as construction would result in adverse impacts to existing coastal wetland vegetation adjacent
to the bulkhead. Please note this permit does not authorize development within any wetlands or open water
areas.
(10) 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. 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: 6-6&u- DATE: �+`� Zhu Zo01
PERMITTE

Localitri
Permit Number
Ocean Hazard Estuarine Shoreline
GENERAL INFORMATION
LAND OWNER
Name: Town of Oak Island
Address: 4601 East Oak Island Drive
City: Oak Island
AUTHORIZED AGENT
ORW Shoreline Public Trust Shoreline Other.
(For official use only-)
State: NC Zip: 28465
Name: Gene KudQus, Public Works Director, Town of Oak Island
Address: 4601 East Oak Island Drive
City: Oak Island
State: NC Zip: 28465
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Address, street name and/or directions to site. If not oceanfront, what is the name of the
adjacent waterbody.) A111V =d fS-'�rPef 5`"reetGHw o� of W. Yacht Drl ✓e-
a f T;1 bra Cc 'S1L4 / vva 7 'r" V/u,�f
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (List all proposed construction and land disturbance.) Public access, parking,
deck area, stairs to Intracoastal Waterway. p u 6l. z acze_Y_S I �Ilve p a rk,kJ '5?&Ce_S' 'TC w u�'
A P1 d eie-c k, 4 d4e,s, rvu h b�, g e n r e 4� all o►� j dw H . D, W.
SIZE OF LOT/PARCEL: ! Z,2` 4quare feet d • *28 acres
PROPOSED USE: Residential ❑ (Single-family ❑ Multi -family ❑) Commerical/Industnal ❑ X
Other Public accessEK
TOTAL ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA OF A I ILDING IN THE OCEAN HAZARD AREA OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC): & 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): 9S 2- 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 .)
Choom the AEC area that applies to your property:
within 75 feet of Normal High Water for the Estuarine Shoreline AEC
(2)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 ❑ NO XK
If yes, list the total built upon area/impervious surface allowed for your lot or parcel. sq'RVC e I V E h
SEP 0 6 2008
­. ­# .. k l /

1V rill ';)-'-' .''tr"
.4THER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED: The activity you are planning may require permits other than the CAMA minor development permit
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)
an owner or record title, Title is vested in ,
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.
tO if other interest, such as written contract or lease, explain below or use a separate sheet and attach to this application.
Pu6llt� Q'Skf - off'. W-a-, � gru ns w+GGt C�v� �Ti- x M-aQ # 23 y L
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). , _ n . r , 4 (Address) , -
t 21 Id1
(2) -� rl�, rr� 4u a „n lC e 5 i 9 ° S r^/ c: ? 7 o Nwj
(3) & K.,r. Se►dnPr L$40 PJef'3 PaIAf LaAe— rJ Dt4% ^r, Sa; I
(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.
Z
C This the day of Sepf , 200 8
� t Elv Publ�t Wv't'5 �rec�w
0 3 2008V-I- , ( C� k -T, IR A Of
N0� Landowner or person authorized to act as his agent
for purpose of filing a CAMA permit application
;. :^,� W1lYvll�•; �-?4N, NC 11(' A 0 nl s^ C 2

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Town of Oak Island
Gene Kudgus, Public Works Director
4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Mr. Kudgus:
James H. Gregson
Director
August 24, 2009
Natural Resources
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Attached is CAMA Minor Permit No. 08-40 for work to be done at the end of NW 2nd St .,Oak Island,
Brunswick County.
In order to validate this permit, please sign both copies of the permit as indicated. Retain the yellow
original for your files and return the signed white copy to us within 20 days of receipt, in the enclosed, self-
addressed envelope.
This is not a valid permit until it is signed and returned to our office.
Your early attention to this matter would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Heather Coats
Field Representative
Enclosures
cc: WiRO files
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net NorthCarolina

A
;A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
August 21, 2009
Mr. & Mrs. Hupp
7916 E. Yacht Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hupp:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on October 1 & 2, 2008,
regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Oak Island, at the end of NW 211d Street, adjacent to the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), in Brunswick County. The project consists of a parking area, steps and an elevated platform
over high ground. 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
applicable rules.
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. I have enclosed the applicable forms and instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline.
Please contact me at [phone], if you have any questions, or if I can provide any additional information.
Respectfully yours,
Heather Coats
Field Representative
cc: Wilmington Files
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 One
NTnrth (' n rnl i n n

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
August 21, 2009
Mr. G. Grady Richardson, Jr.
Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr., P.C.
1213 Culbreth Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your correspondence, acting on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Seidner, which was received by the Division of Coastal
Management on September 12, 2008, regarding Mr. & Mrs. Seidner's concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Oak
Island, at the end of NW 2nd Street, adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), in Brunswick County. The project consists
of a parking area, steps and an elevated platform over high ground. 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 applicable rules.
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. I have enclosed the applicable forms and instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline.
Please contact me at [phone], if you have any questions, or if I can provide any additional information.
Respectfully yours,
'��71604he,-1 COA;o
Heather Coats
Field Representative
cc: Wilmington Files
127 Cardinal Drive Ext,, Wilmington, NC 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net NorthCarollna

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
fL . Regional Office
FILE ACCESS RECORD 4
S ION lb&4 DATEfTIME lu S
ECT
NAME V-in&g REPRESENTING dzrdz)
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 you 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 3:00 p.m.
Viewing time ends at 4:45 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
C)aL I e l . ass®N� o�rd 1Bb
2.
3.
4.

VYWA
ri
WDENR
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 29, 2008
SENT CERTIFIED MAIL # 70081140 0002 9559 0861
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— 08-39 & 08-40
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION —Accesses at NW 2nd Street & NE 2^d Street
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,
e7 ( LG' IN0 (i/�0a,cZ
Heather Coats
Field Representative
Cc: WiRO Files
Donna Coleman, Town of Oak Island
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www,nccoastaimanagement.net
n.. C­ I n.,.,—f if„ \ Affir fl— erlinn Gmnlnvor — rno/ Rorvrlari 1 10 Pn zt CnnsumPr PADP.r

341
14

-P,aVi7 r oW ri
/ 7? ryas y o
Z'T-Y o� _ 7v/
SVIOP -P27 vk
Qr
vim° 77

M
r d
r-yo
SlJ
4cl
.-,,, Cam_ �-�e-2�� •,.-.�..� r�7 �-e-,-yy�� �--�-,�..� �-�� --rn�-�
/
y-.7�
r 0
C�/jz

14,&� &J &_,�.
YL' 6. ef.OT an% �C�QGGicI i ✓�.
o �2 5AaCd f3,o,-s
fl, Z/O,e.-s ,jGbJCG/ !a $S?

4
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
October 23, 2008
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL # 70081140 0002 9559 0885
Town of Oak Island
C/o Gene Kudgus
4601 E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
RE: INCOMPLETE APPLICATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED
APPLICATION NUMBER- 01-08-39 & 01-08-40
PROJECT ADDRESS- end of NE 2°d St. & NW 2°d St.
Dear Mr. Kudgus:
We originally accepted your applications under the impression that they were complete. On subsequent review, I
have discovered that additional information is needed to complete the review process. Accordingly, I am requesting
that you submit the following additional information to this office:
1. Your projects fall within the US Army Corps of Engineers right-of-way. Please submit documentation from
the USACE stating they have no objections to the proposed projects.
In accordance with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources regulations, we note that a certain time
has passed while the applications have remained in our office. Upon resubmission of complete applications, a local
decision will be made in 5 days, provided this period is not extended as provided by law.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Respectf/u/lllyJ yours,
Heather Coats, Field Representative
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
cc: Wilmington Files
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phnna- (g1n) 7qR-79151 FAY- q1n-�qR-.NPU 1 lntarnPt• www nrcna-,talmananement.net

■ 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:
T(V4J OF c)&e-- [ st y
c ja C'-10"-L,
r
A.
❑ Agent
of Deliver
D. Is delivery address different from item 11 ❑ Yes
If YSS anter aliIV4 E& below: ❑ No
)CM WILMINGTON, NC
C.
O C T 2 7 2008
3. SyOice Type
Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandis4
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number 7008 1140 0002 9559 0885
(transfer from service label)
DS Form 3811. February 2004 Domestic F,,tum Receipt 102595-02-M-184

UNITED f.,r.
:)s
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and Z
V
CD M
Q-4 0 NC Div. of Coastal Management
M 127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
M
1111111fill fill 111IM111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111
box *"

Postage $ Z
Certified Fee 1 ii ryn.
Return Receipt Fee ` ere ai e
(Endorsement Required) m J
Restated Delivery Fee �a1 0
(Endorsement Required) t�oOMdp
C
Total Postage & Fees $ r 3Z
Sent To
----b-G"-------(----........
Street, Apt No.,
or PO Box No. �!4: = ` 7.!_!�._..1�. `j"�►l� J =
Cify, Stete, ZIP+ (�.rJTF'J

'ertified Mail Provides:
A mailing receipt
i A unique identifier for your mailpiece
r A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years
77portant Reminders:
Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mailo or Priority Mail,
i Certified M A not available for any class of international mail.
i NO INSURE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. Fc
valuables, pAse consider Insured or Registered Mail.
t For an additional fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof o
delivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete and attach a Retun
Receipt (PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postage to cover thi
fee. Endorse mailpiece"Return Receipt Requested". To receive a fee waiver to
a duplicate return receipt, a USPS® postmark on your Certified Mail receipt i;
required.
r 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".
I 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 Ma
receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail.
MPORTANT: Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry.
IS Form 3800, August 2006 (Reverse) PSN 7530-02-000.9047

OF- -IOVVN OF
o �`�o
RTH CAROV"
August 14, 2009
Heather Coats, Field Representative
NCDENR
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: Application Numbers 0I-08-39 & 0I-08-40
Project Address - end of NE 2°d St. & NW 2nd St.
Dear Heather:
Enclosed please find a fully executed copy of Corps of Engineers Consent No. DACW21-
9-09-5009, which grants approval for construction of the facilities in the referenced permit
applications. Accordingly, I respectfully request your office resume your review of our permit
applications.
Sincerely,
Gene Kudgus
Public Works Director
Town of Oak Island, NC
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
enc.
AUG 1 8 2009

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAVANNAH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
100 W. OGLETHORPE AVENUE "
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31401-3640 j
August 11, 2009 $ I q/
Real Estate Division
SUBJECT: Consent No. DACW21-9-09-5009, to Town of Oak Island, for Construction of
Observation Deck, a portion of Parking Lot and Wooden Stairs, on Tract No. 2E, AIWW Cape
Fear River to Little River Section, NC
Town of Oak Island
ATTN: Gene Kudgus, Director of Public Works
4601 Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, North Carolina 28465
Dear Mr. Kudgus:
Please find enclosed a fully executed copy of Consent No. DACW21-9-09-5009, which
grants approval for construction of observation deck, portion of a parking lot & wooden stairs on
Tract No. 2E.
If you need further assistance regarding this instrument, please do not hesitate to contact me
at [phone].
Sincerely,
j I � �
Surita Campbell
Realty Specialist
Management & Disposal Branch
Enclosure
BCF:
CESAS-RE-MCNA-NC
CESAW-PM-C
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, N(

DISTRIBUTION: DATE S ; CESAS-RE- _; CESAW-PM-C_;
CESAS-RE-MC-NCNA_; Town of Oak Island
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SAVANNAH DISTRICT
CONSENT NO. DACW21-9-09-5009
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CAPE FEAR RIVER, NC TO LITTLE RIVER, SC SECTION
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter called the
"GRANTOR" has acquired an easement for the lands hereinafter described for the operation and
maintenance of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), including that particular property
designated as a portion of Tract 2E of the Cape Fear River, NC to Little River, SC Section of
the AIWW, said Easement for Tract 2E being recorded in Deed Book 54, Page 488, and re -filed
in Deed Book 699, Page 329 in the records of Brunswick County, North Carolina.
WHEREAS, the Town of Oak Island, hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee", desires to
construct an observation deck, a portion of a parking lot and connecting wooden stairs for the
Town of , Brunswick County, (hereinafter, the "Facilities") within said Tract No.
2E; and a A"- 17A
WHEREAS, the Grantee will receive authorization to construct the Facilities from the
State of North Carolina, the fee simple owner of said Tracts, over and upon Consent Areas 1
and 2 as described and shown on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part
hereof; and
NOW THEREFORE, the GRANTOR does hereby consent to the Grantee constructing,
operating and maintaining proposed Facilities within Consent Areas 1 &2. It is understood that
said consent by the GRANTOR shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Consideration:
a. The Grantee shall remit a check in advance made payable to the Finance and
Accounting Officer, Savannah District in the amount of one thousand ($1,000) dollars ($500
administrative fee associated with the preparation of this consent and $500 monitoring fee). Said
check shall have the Consent number (DACW21-9-09-5009) printed in the lower left-hand
corner of the check. The check shall be forwarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah District, North Carolina/Virginia Area Real Estate Office, 1930 Mays Chapel Road,
Boydton, Virginia 23917.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

CONSENT NO. DACW21-9-09-5009
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NORTH CAROLINA
b. If this instrument is supplemented, renewed, or changed, the Grantee will be assessed
an administrative fee for the processing of the instrument.
2. Notices:
All correspondence and notices to be given pursuant to this consent shall be addressed, if
to the GRANTEE, to the Town of Oak Island, Attn: Mr. Gene Kudgus, Director of Public
Works, 4601 Oak Island Drive, Oak Island, North Carolina 28465, and, if to the United States, to
the District Commander, US Army Engineer District, Savannah, Attention: Real Estate Division,
P.O. Box 889, Savannah Georgia 31402-0889.
3. Special Conditions:
a. The Grantee shall provide a "Schedule for Work" for the construction of the stairs and
observation deck to the Wilmington District's Navigation Branch POC; Mr. Jimmy Hargrove at
[phone]. This schedule shall be provided at least thirty (30) days prior to the
commencement of this segment of the work to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403.
b. The Grantee shall schedule an onsite pre -construction meeting between its
representatives and the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Grantee shall notify the Wilmington
District's Navigation Branch POC; Mr. Jimmy Hargrove at [phone] a minimum of ten
(10) days in advance of the meeting.
c. That, the Grantee, shall comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations and
with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations of the state, county, and municipality
wherein the said Facilities are located.
d. That the consent shall become void if the Town of Oak Island is unsuccessful in
obtaining all applicable permits required for construction.
e. That this consent does not relinquish any right the GRANTOR has for use of its
easement or for the maintenance and future widening or deepening of said Intracoastal
Waterway, unless stipulated as a condition of this consent agreement. The Grantee understands
and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other
alteration of the facilities within the AIWW right-of-way herein authorized, or if, in the opinion
of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause
unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the Grantee will be
required, upon due notice from the US Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the
structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, N

CONSENT NO. DACW21-9-09-5009
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NORTH CAROLINA
f. Except as otherwise specifically provided, any reference herein to "Secretary", "District
Commander", "GRANTOR", or "said officer" shall include their duly authorized representatives,
contractors or employees.
g. That no debris resulting from the construction of the proposed Facilities or other
activities of the Grantee will be left on said consent areas, and further that said areas will be
constructed by the Grantee as shown on the plans, and at no expense to the GRANTOR.
Following construction of the proposed Facilities and prior to the Grantee's contract
demobilization from the consent areas, a field review of the premises will be conducted with the
Wilmington District Engineer or his authorized representative, the Grantee and his agents, if he
so desires, to ensure that construction has been satisfactorily completed.
h. The GRANTEE shall provide the Wilmington District Commander an "AS -Built"
plans of the parking area, stairs and observation deck. The As -Built plans shall be submitted in
one of the following digital formats: ".dwg" or "Agn". The "As -Built" plans must be submitted
within thirty (30) days of completion of the construction activities to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403.
i. That it is understood that this Consent shall not abrogate or interfere with any
agreement or commitments made or entered into between the Grantee and any other agency of
the GRANTOR with regard to financial aid to the Grantee in connection with the construction,
maintenance, or repair for the proposed Facilities.
4. Property Rights
It is understood that this consent is effective only insofar as the property rights of the
GRANTOR in said disposal area. That the proposed use authorized herein shall not be
commenced until appropriate rights shall have been obtained by the GRANTEE from the
appropriate owner of the property. By execution of this consent, GRANTEE is assuring the
GRANTOR that prior commencement of proposed use authorized herein that GRANTEE has
secured the necessary permission in writing from.the appropriate owner of the property. The
District Commander may require the GRANTEE to provide a fully executed copy of the
permission(s) secured from the property owner to assure the GRANTOR that the necessary
permissions have been secured.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, f�

CONSENT NO. DACW21-9-09-5009
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NORTH CAROLINA
5. No Cost To Grantor
That the exercise of the privileges hereby agreed to shall be without cost or expense to the
GRANTOR, under the general supervision and subject to the approval of the officer having
immediate jurisdiction over the property, hereinafter referred to as "said officer", and subject to
such regulations as may be prescribed by the Wilmington District, from time to time, including,
but not limited to, the special conditions, requirements and specifications set forth in Condition
3.
6. Grantee Responsibilites
That any property of the GRANTOR damaged or destroyed by the GRANTEE or his
agents incident to the exercise of the privileges herein granted shall be promptly repaired or
replaced by the GRANTEE to the satisfaction of the said officer, or in lieu of such repair or
replacement, the GRANTEE shall, if so required by the said officer and at his option, pay to the
GRANTOR money in an amount sufficient to compensate for the loss sustained by the
GRANTOR by reason of damage to or destruction of GRANTOR property.
7. Grantor Responsibilites
a. That the GRANTOR shall not be responsible for damages to property or injuries to
persons which may arise from or be incident to the exercise of the privileges herein granted, or
for damages to the property of the GRANTEE, or for damages to the property or injuries to the
person of the GRANTEE, or the persons of GRANTEE's officers, agents, servants, or employees
or others who may be on said premises at their invitation or the invitation of one of them arising
from GRANTOR's activities on or in the vicinity of the said premises, and the GRANTEE shall
hold the GRANTOR harmless from any and all such claims, not including damages due to the
negligent or willful misconduct of the GRANTOR's officers, employees or its contractors.
b. That the GRANTOR shall in no case be liable for any damages or injury to the
activities authorized which may be caused by any action of the GRANTOR, under the rights
obtained in its easement, either hidden or known, or that may result from future operations
undertaken by the GRANTOR, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from such
damage or injury, and if further operations of the GRANTOR require the use of the area herein
authorized, the GRANTEE shall, upon due notice from the Wilmington District Commander,
cease all operations without expense to the GRANTOR and no claim for damages shall be made
against the GRANTOR.
8. Grantor's Rights
The exercise of the privileges hereby agreed to shall be conducted in such a manner as not
to conflict with the rights of the GRANTOR, nor to endanger lives and safety of the public.
RECEIVES
DCM WILMINGTON

CONSENT NO. DACW21-9-09-5009
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NORTH CAROLINA
9. Termination
a. This consent may be terminated by the Secretary of the Army upon reasonable notice to
the GRANTEE if the Secretary of the Army determines that disposal operations to which this
consent is hereby granted interferes with the use of said land or any part hereof by the
GRANTOR. This consent may be annulled and forfeited by declaration of the Secretary of the
Army for failure to comply with any and all of the provisions and conditions of this instrument.
b. That upon the relinquishment, termination, revocation, forfeiture or annulment of the
consent, the GRANTEE shall vacate the premises, and remove all property of the GRANTEE
there from. If the GRANTEE shall fail or neglect to remove said property and so restore the
premises, then at the option of the Secretary of the Army, the said property shall either become
the property of the GRANTOR without compensation therefore, or the Secretary of the Army
may cause it to be removed and the premises to be restored at the expense of the GRANTEE, and
no claim for damages against the GRANTOR, or its officers or agents, shall be created by or
made on account of such removal and restoration.
10. Transfer or Assignment
Without prior written approval of said District Commander the GRANTEE shall neither
transfer or assign any of the privileges herein agreed to, nor grant any consent or interest
whatsoever in, under, or upon any of the lands included under this consent.
11. That the GRANTEE within the limits of his/her respective legal powers shall comply with all
Federal, interstate, state, and/or local GRANTOR regulations, conditions or instructions for the
protection of the environment and all other matters as they relate to real property interests granted
herein.
12. Except as otherwise specifically provided, and reference herein to "Secretary", "District
Commander", "Installation Commander", or "said officer" shall include their duly authorized
representatives. Any reference to "GRANTEE" shall include assignees, transferees and their
duly authorized representatives.
This consent is not subject to Title 10, U.S.C., Section 2662.
{Signature Pages to Follow}
RECEIVE[
r)( A4 1A/II AAIKI(`_TnK1

CONSENT NO. DACW21-9-09-5009
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NORTH CAROLINA
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, by authority of the Secretary
of the Army this �` day of , 20Of
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
By
RALPH J. ER HMANN
Chief, ReaKstat6 Division
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Savannah District
THIS CONSENT is also executed by the Grantee this I q" day of J 4 1 , 20 O 9
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
State of North Carolina County of fRunSwl Ck ,
I, the undersigned Notary Public oft e County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that
on this the Q40 day of , 20 ,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that the si nature on the
document was voluntarily affixed by them for the purposes therein stated and that he/she
had due authority to sign the document in the capacity therein stated.
CYNjAary Put;/
Notary Registration No. -Z° o S Z4 6 o o Z 1
My commission expires the M day of , 20�.
RECEIVED

Yyx
r �o.
fX1STfNG;,, � I r' 3ULKH AQ-
Ir�rl, urn �
�1 2,
3.
�14'.
�14"
15
17
127.9'1f 4 18
1 12M,
i A
2J 2• //
p / L21' 22
T 23.
1 I ... i221'1 123.2-1 (23�.dj
m�
22' 1 '- t2181
N I^ J I SPAN £qll va 1
i I / I. /:'I I C A
12411
1451
<NV t Y�y 121.71
qt.Q fit4.
.= 1
e / I
1
. •r
"THIS MAP IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN REVEIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
"G.S. 47-30 (n)"
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OFFICE OF THE SAVANNAH DISTRICT ENGINEER
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CONSENT NO. DACW21-9-09-5009
GRANTEE: TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
Consent for Construction of Observation Deck & Stairs
SUBJECT AREA:
Portion of Tract Nos. 2E, part of Cape Fear River to
Little River, SC Section
SCALE: NTS
DATE: 1 /5/2009
EXHIBIT "A"
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, N

t'!
t
o.
I
t t p
I
�}
t-
tV n
t
1
r `I
izl.rt
_
i 1
{
I
"THIS MAP IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN REVEIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
"G.S. 47-30 (n)"
�r
a
t!
Ews
OULK
7' a.
t
\\tt�
t 4'
,V
15
v,
\1T
18
i
75
�z2.2'J souTriFnn
ATLANTIC WTRA
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OFFICE OF THE SAVANNAH DISTRICT ENGINEER
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CONSENT NO. DACW21-9-09-5009
GRANTEE: TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
Consent for Construction of Observation Deck & Stairs
SUBJECT AREA:
Portion of Tract Nos. 2E, part of Cape Fear River to
Little River, SC Section
SCALE: NTS DATE: 1/5/2009
EXHIBIT "B"
RECEIVED

VVN
OF-�K ISLA,
'LO�TNCAVtO��P
` ^RTERED .11 11,9j
oC�v��f UZ c-,U Z
�Le 1\� Lo
oql< Tsf�✓ �'�
Of
Poems
e tip. V14 T S .
$?CEIVF
Nov 0 3 2008

Ir 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.
September 12, 2008
VIA -HAND DELIVERY
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
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: Galen W. and wife, Kim A. Seidner
Finn File No. 447.0239
Dear Honorable Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Ms. Coats:
Please be advised this office has been retained to represent Mr. Galen W. Seidner and his wife,
Kim A. Seidner ("Seidner"). The Seidners own the property known and referred to as being all of 108
West Yacht Drive, Lot 4, Block 199, Section 14, Tranquil Harbour as shown on recorded plat map in
Map Book 6 at Page 34 of the Brunswick County Registry ("Property"). The Seidners' Property is
located on the corner of West Yacht Drive and N.W. 2"d Street and is located immediately adjacent to
the street -end that is the subject of the application for a CAMA Minor Permit filed by the Town of Oak
Island ("Town") on or about 4 September 2008 ("Town Application").
Important: The Seidners' Property, their legal property rights in and extending to said
Property and N.W. 2nd Street, and easement interests in and extending to said Property and N.W. 2"d
Street, are identical in all material respects to the same legal property rights and easement interests of
Mr. and Mrs. Theodore "Ted" Barris ("Barris") who reside at 3018 West Yacht Drive on Oak Island.
As you know, I represent Mr. and Mrs. Barris, and have continuously represented them since 2002.
Specifically, as in the case of the Barrises, the Seidners' possess dedicated, appurtenant
easement riots arising by restrictive covenants and recorded plat maps for their Tranquil Harbour
subdivision. Enclosed, please find your true and correct copies of the Seidners' warranty deed for
their Property, and reduced copy of the recorded Tranquil Harbour subdivision map reflecting the
Seidners' Property, as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.
The only difference, which is immaterial, is that the Barrises live in Pinners Point subdivision rather than TrannReot.I VF D
SEP 12 2nnR

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
12 September 2008
Page - 2 —
You will surely recall all of the objections, court orders and rulings and other matters set forth
in my Objection to Permit Application filed on 8 September 2008 on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Barris
("Barris Objection"). All of the Exhibits to the Barris Objection are hereby fully incorporated herein
by reference and made a part of the Seidners' subject objection. If you and/or your department should
require that I provide additional, duplicative copies of the Barris Objection exhibits, please let me
know and I will be happy to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, the exhibits set out in the Barris Objection, and for all of the
additional, material reasons listed below and enclosed herewith, please accept this letter as the
Seidners' formal objections to the Town's Application:
REFERENCED AND ENCLOSED EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS
1: Warranty Deed to the Seidners;
2: Reduced copy of the recorded plat map for Section 14 of the Tranquil Harbour
subdivision;
3: The published, controlling case law authority and opinion for dedicated, appurtenant
easement rights as those that the Seidners and the Barrises possess of Wooten v. Town of
Topsail Beach, 127 N.C. App. 739, 493 S.E.2d 285 (1997);
4: The published, controlling case law authority and opinion for dedicated, appurtenant
easement rights as those that the Seidners and the Barrises possess of Emick v. Town of
Sunset Beach, 180 N.C. App. 582, 638 S.E.2d 490 (2006); and,
5: The unpublished — but controlling as to the Town of Oak Island — North Carolina Court
of Appeals opinion of Scronce v. Town of Long Beach, COA98-756 (1999)
And, all of the exhibits enclosed in the Barris Objection.
REC VET
SEP 12 2a08

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
12 September 2008
Page - 3 —
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION TO TOWN'S APPLICATION
First, the Town's current, subject Application is in violation of the state law found in the
opinions of Scronce, Wooten, and, Emick, supra. Specifically, the Town's application seeks to misuse
and divert the dedicated easement of a N.W. 2"d Street as a street to a park, park -like facility and/or
public square in direct violation of all of the court orders referenced and enclosed in the Barris
Objection as well as the foregoing and enclosed case law. The split rail fence impedes and obstructs
vehicular access, as does the depicted deck and walk -way.
Second, the parking depicted on the Town's application will block, obstruct and impede the
Seidners' accessibility, use and enjoyment of their appurtenant easement rights of access to and from
their Property from N.W.2"d Street. There is simply not enough room for so many parking spaces and
for the vehicles in them to properly turn and maneuver without trespassing upon and/or obstructing my
clients' easement rights.
Third, your department's previous denial (under cover of letter from Mr. Gale Stenberg from
April of 2005, enclosed as an exhibit in the Barris Objection) of the Town's application in the Barris
street -end necessarily precludes this application, given its similarity in design and features to that
which had been proposed in the Barris street -end
Fourth, the Town's proposed project that is the subject of its Application is still all located
within the same type of roadway that is expressly the subject of all of the numerous, controlling Court
orders in the Barris Objection.
Fifth, the Town's Application and project contained therein, if permitted, would violate G.S.
§113A-128 ("Protection of Landowners' Rights") as it would constitute a whole or partial taking of the
Seidners' dedicated and appurtenant easement property rights protected under the enclosed appellate
opinions and all of the other numerous orders enclosed in the Barris Objection. The only way that the
Town is lawfully permitted to build a park or similar recreational facility, such as the one proposed in its
Application, within the subject area, is by following the mandatory street closure requirements of N.C.
Gen. Stat. §160A-299, et seq. Pursuant to a street closure under N.C. Gen. Stat. §160A-299, the fee simple
title ownership of the property in question would vest, at least partially, as a matter of law immediately into
the Seidners. See, General Greene Inv. Co. v. Greene, 48 N.C. App. 29, 268 S.E.2d 870 (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 Seidners fair and just compensation for their property rights that havd Unless
and until the Town complies with the mandatory provisions of the N.C. Gen. Stat. §1(%TI=JV
SEP 12 2008

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
12 September 2008
Page-4—
its permit should not be granted because it would be contrary to a statute or rule as is prohibited under N.C.
Gen. Stat. §113A-121.1(b)(1)-(3).
Sixth, on information and belief, the Town's Application is inconsistent with its Land Use Plan,
and should be denied pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §113A-120(a)(8).
Seventh, on information and belief, the Town's Application proposes "gravel" or "marl" to be
the surface of its project. Such substances 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 proposed with its project will exceed
the acceptable amount of impervious coverage in the subject area.
Eighth, on information and belief, the Town is not the lawful fee simple title owner to the
subject property, which is required before a person or entity may apply for a permit. Even assuming
arguendo that the Town holds a valid deed or other instrument of title to the subject property, the area
in question — as per the enclosed case law and the numerous Orders enclosed in the Barris Objection --
has been irrevocably dedicated as a street, which cannot be misused, diverted or obstructed absent the
Town's compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. §160A-299.
Ninth, the Town's Application and proposed project, 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.
Tenth, on information and belief, the Town's proposed drawing in addition to only containing
"approximations" does not contain adequate set -backs from the Seidners 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.
Eleventh, no form for the Seidners was included with the Town's Application and
correspondence that the Seidners 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 Application, the Town's
Application must be denied. This office reserves the right to supplement and amend the Seidners'
formal objections contained herein.
RECEIVED
SEP 12 2008

Ms. Heather Coats
North Carolina Division of
Environment & Natural Resources
12 September 2008
Page - 5 —
For all of the foregoing reasons and the exhibits enclosed herein, the Town's 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
Very
G. Grady Richar s n, Jr.
For and On Behalf of
Galen W. and Kim A. Seidner
Enclosures
GGR/
RECEIVED
SEP 12 2CO8

anuavwick County --mist., of Ceedl, '= EXHIBIT
&**rt J. Robinson
04/01/2002 Inst #1R8817 Rook 19page g78
$568.00 1 O'1Jo1/20pz 09:58s49,am R,.Cj ice' y
..•,:.
�;� yy Kral Sssate a
b Excise?ax
^EC0 _GK Air i- "' CK TG d
CASH
Prepared by: Robert K. Serra, Attorney
Serra Law Firm, PLLC
File # 8705
Revenue Stamps $ 568.00 Parcel # 234EA018
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK WARRANTY DEED
This Deed made this day of 2002, by and between
TIMOTHY L. JONES AND WIFE, GAYLE A. JONES, Grantor and GALEN W.
SEIDNER, JR., AND WIFE, KIM A. SEIDNER, Grantee; of
1W Hagers Point Lane, Denver, NC 28037
WITNESSETH:
That the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant,
bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel
of land situated in the County of Brunswick, State of North Carolina and more
particularly described as follows:
BEING Lot 4, Block 199, Section 14, Tranquil Harbour, a section of Oak Island
(formerly Long Beach), NC as shown on map recorded in Map Book 6, Page 34,
Brunswick County Registry, said lot having the metes, bounds and location as shown
on said map.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all
privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple.
Grantor acquired title to this property by Deed recorded in Book 841, Page
113, Brunswick County Registry.
MPSUF at v 1 +�i stt� tip r
c;VF—D
SEA 12 2008

7Mt f 108817 Book 1569Page: 579
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that the Grantor is seized of the
premises in fee simple, has the right to convey the same in fee simple, that title is
marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the
following exceptions hereinafter stated. Title to the property hereinabove described is
subject to the following exceptions:
1. Easements for utilities and rights of way in the chain of title, including
utility/drainage easement reserved in Book 227, Page 213.
2. Restrictive covenants recorded in Book 227, Page 213.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set their hand and seal,
the day and year first above written.
✓ .� (SEAL)
/.
TIMOTH L. NES
(SEAL)
G13 YL A,43N�&�
STATE OF COUNTY OF / .
f of lift
I,r� , a Notary Public in and for the
State and County aforesaid certify fbit TIMOTHY L. JONES AND WIFE, GAYLE
A. JONES personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution
of
the
foregoing instru20 mment. Witness my hand and seal this � day of
>>}} yy s
My Commission expires:,;ci`t
NOTANY =NOTARY
cs PUBIJC s a
(NOTARY SEAL)
'N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ***** COUNTY OF
-m- !nr anns+vorrl f r+rrifjratP(cl of
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
The Foregoing(orannexed)Certificate(s)of CATHERINE S SKIPPER
Notary(ies) Public is (are) Certified to be Correct.
This Instrument was filed for Registration on this st Da of r'r-j s
in the Book and page shown on the First Page hereof. y A , s �Ol
RO E J. RO i 1 N, Rrgister nr eda
SEP I L 2,008

o
N P. 'r 1 0 N AL D E '4 F. LO V MLN T C OIL POSLA61TION
AAo0onlAAAnAAnAaAn���nAddAdAn�AAA���
.a
PAM&
—mw-B-N-Klx
U,
t -11
. �$��ommmdomoo�eeo��oes��eeee�nm�m����
N
tqf,
t*l

Page 1
127 N.C. App. 739, *; 493 S.E.2d 285, **;
1997 N.C. App. LEXIS 1190, ***
LEXSEE 127 NC APP 739
DAL FLOYD WOOTEN, III, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF TOPSAIL BEACH, Defendant
NO. COA97-150
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
127 N.C. App. 739; 493 S.E.2d 285;1997 N.C. App. LEXIS 1190
September 17,1997, Heard in the Court of Appeals
November 18,1997, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal by defendant
from: (1) grant of summary judgment in favor of plain-
tiff-, (2) denial of defendant's summary judgment motion;
and (3) grant of a permanent injunction against defen-
dant, all entered 10 January 1997 by Judge Elton G.
Tucker in Pender County District Court.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part,
and remanded for correction of judgment.
HEADNOTES
1. Highways, Streets, and Roads § 12 (NCI4th)--
dedicated street -- park to be built at one end -- properly
enjoined
The trial court properly granted summary judgment
for plaintiff in an action arising from the Town's attempt
to construct a park at the end of a dedicated unpaved
portion of a street which ran to Banks Channel. This land
was dedicated as a street and cannot be used as a park; if
a property is dedicated for a particular purpose, it cannot
be diverted from that purpose by the state or municipality
except by eminent domain. Additionally, defendant in-
tends to block vehicular traffic, so that construction of a
park is inconsistent with the dedication as a street.
2. Highways, Streets, and Roads § 12 (NCI4th)--
park on one end of dedicated street -- reversion of prop-
erty to adjacent landowners
The trial court erred by enjoining defendant from
constructing a park on the unused portion of a dedicated
street until defendant complies with applicable statutes
for closing a dedicated street. Closing the street pursuant
to statute would not allow defendant to utilize the street
for park purposes in that N.C.G.S. § 160A-299(c) speci-
fies that the land would go to property owners on the
sides of the dedicated street.
COUNSEL: Clare Lynn Brock for plaintiff appellee.
Wessell & Raney, by John C. Wessell III, for defendant
appellant.
JUDGES: SMITH, Judge. Judges WYNN and
MARTIN, John C., concur.
OPINION BY: SMITH
OPINION
[**286] [*739] SMITH, Judge.
Prior to March 1950, a map was recorded in the
Pender County Register of Deeds showing a sixty -foot
right of way designated as Scott Avenue running east to
west from the Atlantic Ocean to the [*740] waters of
Banks Channel, which dedication was accepted by the
Town of Topsail Beach ("Town"). The majority of this
public street is paved. However, the westernmost portion
of Scott Avenue, approximately one hundred twenty feet
in length and sixty feet wide, has never been paved.
[***2] In the past, people have parked cars, boats, boat
trailers, and other vehicles along the unpaved portion of
the street. The street has also been used as access to the
Banks Channel waterway. In addition, plaintiff uses
Scott Avenue as a principal means of vehicular access to
the western portion of a duplex facing Banks Channel.
On 9 April 1996, plaintiff Dal F. Wooten III, sought
a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the
Town from constructing proposed improvements at the
western end of the dedicated unpaved portion of Scott
Avenue. Prior to 26 March 1996, the Board of Commis-
sioners of the Town directed the town manager to con-
struct a park on the westernmost unpaved portion of
Scott Avenue. Plaintiff's family has owned Lot 23 of the
subdivision, shown on the recorded map, for approxi-
mately thirty-four years. This lot lies immediately north
of the right of way of Scott Avenu��4 tj�e
proposed improvements are to be ma V E
SEP 12 2008

Page 2
127 N.C. App. 739, *; 493 S.E.2d 285, **;
1997 N.C. App. LEXIS 1190, * * *
On 2 January 1997, District Court Judge Elton G.
Tucker heard motions for summary judgment from both
parties. Thereafter, Judge Tucker granted plaintiffs mo-
tion for summary judgment, while denying defendant's
motion. Further, the judge permanently [***3] enjoined
defendant from constructing a park unless and until the
Town complies with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-299 (1987)
and other applicable statutes for the closing of a dedi-
cated street. Defendant appeals from this judgment.
The first assignment of error involves whether the
trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor
of plaintiff on the grounds that the Town lacked the au-
thority to make the proposed improvements. Appellate
review of the grant of summary judgment is limited to
two questions, including: (1) whether there is a genuine
question of material fact, and (2) whether the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Gregorino v. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Hosp. Authority,
121 N.C. App. 593, 595, 468 S.E.2d 432, 433 (1996). A
motion for summary [**287] judgment should be
granted if, and only if, "the pleadings, depositions, an-
swers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact ...." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1,
Rule 56(c) (1990). Evidence is viewed in the light most
favorable to the [*741] non-moving party with all rea-
sonable inferences drawn in favor of the nonmovant.
[***4] Whitley v. Cubberly, 24 N.C. App. 204, 206-07,
210 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1974).
Defendant argues the Town has the authority to con-
struct a park on the dedicated street, Scott Avenue. How-
ever, "if property is dedicated for a particular purpose, it
cannot be diverted from that purpose by the state or mu-
nicipality, except under the power of eminent domain."
McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, Third
Edition, Volume 11A § 33.74. This principle means that
where the owner of land has dedi-
cated [the land] for a street or alley, the
municipality cannot appropriate it to
other uses or purposes. However, the
land may be appropriated to any use, such
as the construction of sewers, to which a
street acquired in any other manner may
be put. Permissible uses of a street may
include the use of the street by a railroad,
for the placing of telephone poles by a
telephone company, and for part of a sea
wall system. Land dedicated as a street
may also be modernized to conform to
modern plans for traffic flow and control.
Land dedicated for a street cannot be
used, however, as a park or as a public
square.
Id. (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). Since [***5]
the land in this case was dedicated as a street, it cannot
be used as a park.
In addition, the use made of dedicated property may
constitute misuse or diversion if the use is inconsistent
with the purposes of the dedication or substantially inter-
fere with it. March v. Town of Kill Devil Hills, 125 N.C.
App. 151, 154, 479 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1997). N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 20-4.01(13) (Cum. Supp. 1996) defines a street
as: "the entire width between property or right-of-way
lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any
part thereof is open to the use of the public as a matter of
right for the purposes of vehicular traffic." (Emphasis
added.) Defendant intends to block vehicular traffic and,
thus, the construction of a park is inconsistent with the
dedication of land as a street. This proposed use of the
dedicated street as a park constitutes misuse or diversion.
Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact and
plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The second assignment of error is whether the trial
court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary
judgment. However, appellate review is confined to
those exceptions which pertain to the argument [ * * *6]
[*742] presented. Crockett v. First Fed. Say. & Loan
Assoc. of Charlotte, 289 N.C. 620, 632, 224 S.E.2d 580,
588 (1976). To obtain appellate review, a question raised
by an assignment of error must be presented and argued
in the brief. In re Appeal from Environmental Manage-
ment Comm., 80 N.C. App. 1, 18, 341 S.E.2d 588, 598,
disc. review denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139
(1986). Questions raised by assignments of error which
are not presented in a party's brief are deemed aban-
doned. State v. Wilson, 289 N.C. 531, 535, 223 S.E.2d
311, 313 (1976). Defendant failed to address the denial
of his summary judgment motion. Therefore, this issue is
deemed abandoned.
Finally, defendant argues the trial court erred in
permanently enjoining the Town from constructing a
park until the Town complies with N.C. Gen. Stat. §
160A-299 and other applicable statutes for the closing of
a dedicated street. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-299(a) gives
cities and towns the authority to close "any street or pub-
lic alley." In re Easement of Right of Way in Fairfield
Park, 90 N.C. App. 303, 309, 368 S.E.2d 639, 642
(1988). Furthermore, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-299(d)
states that this section shall apply to "any street [***7]
or public alley within a city or its extraterritorial jurisdic-
tion that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public,
without regard to whether it has actually been opened."
Id. In this case, defendant wants to close the dedicated
street to vehicular traffic in orde�yact
[**288] The Town has the authori� s e
t-D
corn 4 n ____

Page 3
127 N.C. App. 739, *; 493 S.E.2d 285, **;
1997 N.C. App. LEXIS 1190, * * *
this manner, but they must follow the dictates of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 16OA-299 in order to effectuate the closing
of the street. Defendant has not followed the procedures
set out in this section and, therefore, this assignment of
error is overruled.
Finally, we note that the trial judge enjoined the
Town from constructing a park until they closed the
dedicated street in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. §
160A-299. However, closing the street pursuant to the
statute would not allow the Town to utilize the street for
park purposes in that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-299(c)
specifies if a portion of the street is closed, the land
would go one-half each to property owners on the north
and south sides of the dedicated street. Thus, the trial
court erred in issuing an injunction "until the Town com-
plies with North Carolina General Statute 160A-299 and
any [***8] other applicable statute for the closing of a
dedicated street."
In conclusion, there is no genuine issue of material
fact and plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of
summary judgment for plaintiff, reverse the [*743] trial
court's error in issuing its injunction until the street is
closed, and remand for correction of the judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for
correction of judgment.
Judges WYNN and MARTIN, John C., concur.
RECEIVE®
SEP 12 2CO8

Page 1
180 N.C. App. 582, *; 638 S.E.2d 490, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 2516, * * *
DUDLEY J. EMICK & MARTHA EMICK, Plaintiffs, v. SUNSET BEACH &
TWIN LAKES, INC., EDWARD M. GORE, DINAH E. GORE, & TOWN OF
SUNSET BEACH, Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, v. RONALD ERNEST
COHN, ET AL., Third Party Defendants.
'= EXHIBIT
0
m
0
w
a
NO. COA06-53
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
180 N.C. App. 582; 638 S.E.2d 490; 2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 2516
August 23, 2006, Heard in the Court of Appeals
December 19, 2006, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [***l] Brunswick County. No.
03 CVS 2008.
DISPOSITION: Vacated in part; Reversed and re-
manded in part; and Affirmed in part.
COUNSEL: Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell, Hickman,
L.L.P., by Beverly A. Carroll and Andrew M. Habenicht,
for plaintiff -appellants.
Trest & Twigg, by Roy D. Trest, for defendant and third -
party plaintiff -appellees Edward M. Gore and Dinah E.
Gore.
Fairley, Jess, Isenberg & Thompson, by Michael R.
Isenberg, for defendant and third -party plaintiff -
appellees The Town of Sunset. No brief filed for third -
party defendants.
JUDGES: BRYANT, Judge. Judges MCGEE and
ELMORE concur.
OPINION BY: BRYANT
OPINION
[**492] [*583] Appeal by plaintiffs from orders
entered 28 June 2005 by Judge William C. Gore and 24
August and 31 August 2005 by Judge E. Lynn Johnson
in Brunswick County Superior Court. Heard in the Court
of Appeals 23 August 2006.
BRYANT, Judge.
Dudley J. Emick and Martha Emick (plaintiffs) ap-
peal from orders entered 28 June 2005, 24 August 2005
and 31 August 2005 granting Rosewood Investments,
L.L.P.'s (third -party defendants) motion to dismiss the
amended [***2] lis pendens action on Rosewood's lots
located at Sunset Beach, North Carolina; granting Rose-
12681X
wood's motion for summary judgment; and dismissing
plaintiffs complaint against Sunset Beach & Twin
Lakes, Inc., Edward M. Gore, Dinah E. Gore, & Town of
Sunset Beach, Inc. (collectively defendants and third -
party plaintiffs) for lack of standing.
The Sunset Beach plan of development began in
1955. In 1965, Sunset Beach conveyed three tracts of
land to James Bowen which conveyance showed North
Shore Drive as a sixty -foot right of way. Bowen subdi-
vided those lots and a map was filed in 1977 in Map
Book I, page 379 (Bowen Subdivision). Several maps
prepared from 1955 until 1976 indicated that roads run-
ning east to west on the island, which included North
Shore Drive, were to be sixty -feet wide. In [*584] 1976,
Sunset Beach prepared a map which shows North Shore
Drive to be a thirty-foot right of way.
On 3 December 2001, plaintiffs purchased a home
on lot 25, Tract 19 at the corner of North Shore Drive
and 19th Street on the eastern end of Sunset Beach in
Brunswick County, North Carolina, Deed Book 1527, at
page 1190. The map referenced in plaintiffs' deed shows
North Shore Drive to be sixty -feet wide. [***3] Before
plaintiffs purchased their Sunset Beach home, they in-
quired about the development of the strip of land that
runs between North Shore Drive and the canal, bordering
the northern end of their property and a tract of land on
the eastern side of their home, referred to as "the Point"
(Tract 20 on Map 8, Page 7, Brunswick County Regis-
try). Plaintiffs were told houses could not be built on the
strip of land on the canal because it was not wide
enough; North Shore Drive had been developed as a
sixty -foot right of way such that this strip of land did not
contain enough square footage between the right of way
and the canal on which to build houses. In 2003, plain-
tiffs observed some land clearing on the strip of land
between North Shore Drive and the tend rpg
this action, seeking a declaratory judg rft that plan t
SEP 1 1 2008

Page 2
180 N.C. App. 582, *; 638 S.E.2d 490, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 2516, * * *
development existed for Sunset Beach, in particular the
eastern part of the island.
On 26 July 2004, the trial court granted the motion
filed by defendant Sunset Beach to join as necessary
parties all lot owners [**493] with property in the Bo-
wen Subdivision adjacent to or abutting North Shore
Drive tracts 17, 18 and 19. Rosewood Investments, LLC
' was also served to be [***4] joined as a necessary
party in the litigation since it purchased lots on the Point
and Tract 20. A third -party complaint, incorporating the
necessary parties, was filed 2 August 2004.
1 Rosewood Investments, LLC is the owner of
lot numbers fifty, forty-eight and forty six of
Block 14R as shown in Map Book 30, Page 274,
Brunswick County Registry and has a binding
contract to purchase lots twenty-nine, thirty,
thirty-one, thirty-four, thirty-five and thirty-six of
Block 14R as shown on plat recorded in Map
Book 30, Page 274, Brunswick County Registry.
On 14 October 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended no-
tice of lis pendens to exclude certain real property across
the canal from the strip of land bordering North Shore
Drive that fell outside the scope of this litigation. On 24
November 2004, the motion for entry of default filed by
Sunset Beach was granted as to a number of third -party
defendants, including Rosewood Investments. On 10
June 2005, Rosewood Investments filed a motion to dis-
miss plaintiff's amended lis [***5] pendens. On that
date, Judge Gary E. Trawick entered a consent order to
set aside entry of default against Rosewood Investments.
[*585] On 28 June 2005, Rosewood Investments'
motion to dismiss the amended lis pendens was granted
by Judge William C. Gore. Further, Judge Gore indicated
plaintiffs did not have standing as they "failed to allege
that they have a particular interest in the outcome of this
suit involving public matters that surpasses the common
interest of all citizens of the Town of Sunset Beach."
Rosewood Investments filed an answer to the Sunset
Beach third -party complaint and moved for summary
judgment, citing plaintiffs' lack of standing as the legal
basis for their motion. On 12 August 2005, plaintiffs also
moved for summary judgment. On 24 August 2005,
Judge E. Lynn Johnson entered an order granting Rose-
wood Investments' motion for summary judgment and
dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing. On
31 August 2005, Judge Johnson entered another order,
granting Rosewood Investments' motion for summary
judgment. From these orders, plaintiffs appeal.
On appeal plaintiffs argue whether the trial court
erred: (I) in dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for lack of
standing [***6] and granting Rosewood Investments'
motion for summary judgment; and (II) in setting aside
the entry of default and permitting Rosewood Invest-
ments to participate in this action.
Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in dismissing
plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing and granting
Rosewood Investments' motion for summary judgment.
We agree.
Standing
Plaintiffs derive standing to bring this action for de-
claratory judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-254
(2005). 'To establish standing, plaintiffs must present an
actual controversy between the parties; however
[p]laintiff[s] [are] not required to allege
or prove that a traditional "cause of ac-
tion" exists against defendant in order to
establish an actual controversy. However,
it is a necessary requirement of an [*586]
actual controversy that the litigation ap-
pear to be unavoidable. The essential dis-
tinction between an action for Declaratory
Judgment and the usual action is that no
actual wrong need have been committed
or loss have occurred in order to sustain
the declaratory judgment action, but there
must be no uncertainty that the loss will
occur or that the asserted right will be in-
vaded. [***7]
Emerald Isle v. State, 320 N.C. 640, 646, 360 S.E.2d 756,
760 (1987) (citations omitted). In this case, we determine
that plaintiffs have [**494] standing to seek a declara-
tion that a plan of development exists with North Shore
Drive as a sixty -foot right of way, according to the plat
referenced in their deed. See March v. Town of Kill Devil
Hills, 125 N.C. App. 151, 479 S.E.2d 252 (1997) (hold-
ing subdivision property owners had standing to seek
injunction prohibiting the town from improving unpaved
road in violation of plan of development). Further, plain-
tiffs are entitled to take action to prevent the owner of the
larger tract of land from departing from a plan of devel-
opment evidenced by a map made at the time the prop-
erty was conveyed. See Wooten v. Town of Topsail
Beach, 127N.C. App. 739, 493 S.E.2d 285 (1997) (abut-
ting landowners on a dedicated street had inherent stand-
ing to seek injunction prohibiting town from building
parking spaces on street in violation of plan of develop-
ment shown on recorded map). Plaintiffs are property
owners whose land abuts North Shore Drive. Plaintiffs
have identified the actual controve their [**`F
complaint and challenge defendant e'lopmcnt on
portion of North Shore Drive. Specifically, plaintiffs
SEP 12 2008

Page 3
180 N.C. App. 582, *; 638 S.E.2d 490, * *;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 2516, ***
allege in their complaint "the correct, legal and valid
width of the right of way of North Shore Drive east of
Cobia Street to the eastern end of North Shore Drive is
sixty feet in width; that []none of the defendants ever
properly withdrew dedication of North Shore Drive in
accordance with N.C.G.S. 136-96 or 160A-299; and that
any document which declares the width of North Shore
Drive east of Cobia Street to the eastern end of North
Shore Drive to be any distance other than sixty feet
should be declared null and void." The plat and the plan
of development of property owners such as plaintiffs,
whose land abuts North Shore Drive, indicate the right of
way is sixty -feet wide.
2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-254 states "[a]ny person
interested under a deed, will, written contract or
other writings constituting a contract, or whose
rights, status or other legal relations are affected
by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or
franchise, may have determined any question of
construction or validity arising under the instru-
ment, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise,
and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other
legal relations thereunder. A contract may be
construed either before or after there has been a
breach thereof" N.C.G.S. § 1-254 (2005).
[***9] Linda Fluegel, Town Administrator, gave
deposition testimony stating that Sunset Beach was in-
corporated in 1964 and roads in existence at that time
were dedicated to the town at that time. Fluegel also tes-
tified that a valid plat, in compliance with the town's
ordinances, must have a deed reference number, certifi-
cate of ownership and dedication and must be signed off
by the Planning Board indicating [*587] approval of the
plat. The plat filed by defendants on 7 June 2004 (Map
30, Page 274, Brunswick County Registry) indicating
North Shore Drive was thirty feet wide, failed to meet
the requirements for a valid plat pursuant to the Sunset
Beach Town Ordinance. Based on plaintiff's property
rights evidenced in their deed, the sworn affidavit of
plaintiff 3, and the deposition testimony of the Town
Administrator, Linda Fluegel, we reverse the trial court's
findings and conclusion that plaintiffs lacked standing to
seek this declaratory action.
3 Plaintiff Dudley J. Emick submitted an affida-
vit on 15 July 2004 stating "[b]efore our purchase
of the house, we inquired about the development
plan for this area. We were told that houses could
not be built on the strip of land between North
Shore Drive and the canal because it was not
wide enough ...Our deed specifically refers to
Map Cabinet I at Page 379, as the basis for our
[2001] conveyance. That map ...shows North
Shore Drive to be sixty feet wide ...[and was] a
part of a development plan for the eastern end of
Sunset Beach dating back to 1955. It is my intent
in this lawsuit to require these Defendants to fol-
low this [1955] development plan."
[***10] Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is proper if the "pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2005). The evidence
must be considered in a light most favorable to the non-
moving party. Summey v. Barker, 357N.C. 492, 496, 586
S.E.2d 247, 249 (2003). When reviewing the trial court's
grant of summary judgment, this Court's standard of re-
view is de novo. Id.
Plaintiffs' evidence showed a chain of title going
back to the Bowen Subdivision' which references a plan
of development with a sixty -foot -wide North Shore
Drive. This plan of development is memorialized in three
[**495] places in the Brunswick County Registry: (a)
the 1965 map at Book 8, page 7; (b) the 1976 map at
Book H, page 356; and (c) the 1977 map in Book I, at
page 379. The 1977 map was specifically referenced in
plaintiffs' deed.
4 In 1965, Sunset Beach conveyed three tracts
of land to James Bowen which showed North
Shore Drive as a sixty -foot right of way. Bowen
subdivided those lots and a map was filed in 1977
in Map Book I, page 379 (Bowen Subdivision).
Several maps prepared from 1955 until 1976 in-
dicated that roads running east to west on the is-
land, which included North Shore Drive, were to
be sixty -feet wide.
[***11] Ward v. Sunset Beach and Twin Lakes,
Inc., 53 N.C. App. 59, 279 S.E.2d 889 (1981), is a case
which also involved the development of Sunset Beach. In
Ward, the plaintiff had purchased two lots in 1955 from
Sunset Beach "pursuant to a recorded 1955 map, specifi-
cally [*588] Lots 3 and 4 of Block 25." This is the same
plat that began the plan of development of Sunset Beach
(Map Book 4, at pages 64-65, Brunswick County Regis-
try). From 1955 to 1967, Tubbs Inlet engulfed a portion
of the beach on the eastern end of the island including
the plaintiff's lots. Sunset Beach dredged the waterway
and later opened a smaller inlet, which changed the con-
figuration of the beach, including Block 25. Ward, 53
N.C. App. at 63, 279 S.E.2d 889 at 892. In 1976, Sunset
Beach had a new map ' prepared on wbLch Lots 3 andF4
on Block 25 (Map Book 4, pages ' iE C County Registry), were redrawn as lots 2 , , a
25 of Block 15R. Sunset Beach also r&LQcatei Main
JJCEP 2 2008

Page 4
180 N.C. App. 582, *; 638 S.E.2d 490, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 2516, ***
Street by which the plaintiffs had access to their prop-
erty. The Court determined in Ward that even though the
property had been engulfed by water and reclaimed by
Sunset Beach, the "plaintiff once again [ * * * 12] became
fee simple owner of those lots and was entitled to the
easement as it existed at the time the plaintiff first ac-
quired the two lots." Id., 53 N.C. App. at 63, 279 S.E.2d
at 892. The Ward decision explained:
That the grantor, by making such a con-
veyance of his property, induces the pur-
chasers to believe that the streets and al-
leys, squares, courts, and parks will be
kept open for their use and benefit, and
having acted upon the faith of his implied
representations, based upon his conduct in
platting the land and selling it accord-
ingly, he is equitably estopped, as well in
reference to the public as to his grantees,
from denying the existence of the ease-
ment this created.
Id., 53 N.C. App. at 66, 279 S.E.2d at 893-94. The Court
further stated:
This principle and its rationale are
equally applicable in the case before us. It
seems clear in this case, as in most cases,
that plaintiff was induced, in part, to pur-
chase lots 3 and 4 because the lots were
accessible by some means other than the
ocean. Once defendant reclaimed plain-
tiff's land, plaintiff once again became fee
simple owner with rights to her land, in-
cluding [***13] access by way of the
easement, as it existed at the time of the
purchase. Defendant could not revoke the
easement as shown on the 1955 Map by
having a new map platted.
Id.
5 It is the same map that defendants assert
should control in this case, at Book H, page 358,
although it follows no chain of title.
In the instant case, plaintiffs have provided their
deed as record evidence. Such deed falls in the chain of
title that follows maps and [*589] plats evidencing a
plan of development. Plaintiffs have also supplied maps
showing the plan of development and provided expert
testimony to establish the location of North Shore on the
ground. Based on the record evidence, we reject defen-
dants' assertions that no genuine issues of fact exist as set
out in their arguments which include: (a) the Town with-
drew North Shore Drive by resolution; (b) Sunset Beach,
Inc. withdrew North Shore Drive from dedication in
1999; (c) defendant Town has recognized North Shore
Drive as thirty -feet wide; (d) flooding by Tubbs Inlet
[***14] since 1960 changed the island insofar as plain-
tiffs' chain of title is concerned; and (e) later maps show
North Shore Drive as thirty -feet wide. See Singleton v.
Sunset Beach & Twin Lakes, Inc., 147 N.C. App. 736,
556 S.E.2d 657 (2001) (summary judgment reversed and
remanded for additional findings where the Court was
unable to come to any real legal conclusions since (a)
plaintiff produced no deed showing a chain of title to the
Bowen Subdivision; (b) the parties produced no maps
indicating how North Shore Drive was in fact repre-
sented in a chain of title; and, (c) nothing was presented
showing whether alleged flooding of Sunset [**496]
Beach had affected Tracts 17-19 abutting North Shore
Drive).
It is clear that the map at Book 8, page 7, shows
North Shore Drive as a dedicated street, sixty feet in
width, running the length of the eastern end of the island
to Tubbs Inlet, past plaintiffs' lot on Tract 19, as early as
1963. North Shore Drive is the only avenue to Tracts 17-
20 and has never been abandoned. Defendants argue they
withdrew North Shore Drive in 1999 by filing a "With-
drawal" pursuant to N.C.G.S. 136-96 and 160A-299
[***15] . We reject this theory. North Carolina case law
supports plaintiffs' right to enforce the plan of develop-
ment within their chain of title. Based on the evidence
viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the trial
court erred in granting Rosewood Investments' motion
for summary judgment. We therefore reverse the grant of
Rosewood Investments' motion for summary judgment
because of the existence of genuine issues of material
fact, and we remand this matter for trial.
II
Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred by setting aside
the entry of default and permitting Rosewood Invest-
ments to participate in this action. We disagree.
Pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1,
Rule 55(d), the trial court may set aside an entry of de-
fault for good cause shown. A motion to set aside an
entry of default is addressed to the sound [*590] discre-
tion of the trial judge and the order of the trial court rul-
ing on such a motion will not be disturbed on appeal
absent a showing of abuse of that discretion. Britt v.
Georgia-Pacific Corp., 46 N.C. App. 107, 108, 264
S.E.2d 395, 397 (1980); Privette v. Privette, 30 N.C. App.
41, 44, 226 S.E.2d 188,190 (1976); [ * * * 16] Acceptance
Corp. v. Samuels, 11 N.C. App. 504, 510-11, 181 S.E.2d
794, 798 (1971). In our appellate revie s et the
following factors: "(1) was defendant i,jny C
of this matter; (2) did plaintiff suffer any harm by virtue
SEP 12 2008

Page 5
180 N.C. App. 582, *; 638 S.E.2d 490, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 2516, ***
of the delay; and (3) would defendant suffer a grave in-
justice by being unable to defend the action." Automotive
Equipment Distributors, Inc. v. Petroleum Equipment &
Service, Inc., 87 N.C. App. 606, 608, 361 S.E.2d 895,
896-97 (1987). However, "inasmuch as the law generally
disfavors default judgments, any doubt should be re-
solved in favor of setting aside an entry of default so that
the case may be decided on its merits." Peebles v. Moore,
48 N.C. App. 497, 504-05, 269 S.E.2d 694, 698 (1980)
(citation omitted), modified and affd, 302 N.C. 351, 275
S.E.2d 833 (1981).
On 24 November 2004, the Clerk of Superior Court
signed an entry of default against Rosewood Invest-
ments. This entry was made at the request of defendants
and third -party plaintiffs, Sunset Beach & Twin Lakes
and Edward M. and Dinah E. Gore. On 9 June 2005, an
order setting aside this entry of default was entered
[***17] by the Court.
In this case, for good cause shown, the trial court set
aside the entry of default. The third -party plaintiffs who
obtained the entry of default stipulated to the existence of
good cause for setting aside the entry. Therefore, the
Court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause.
Appellants in this case have presented no evidence to
show that the Court has abused its discretion in making
this determination:
Appellant has not favored us with the
evidence heard by the trial judge upon de-
fendant's motion to vacate the entry of de-
fault. Where appellant fails to bring the
evidence up for review, we presume the
trial judge acted within his discretion on
evidence showing good cause to vacate
the entry of default. In this case Appel-
lants have likewise failed to show the
Court what evidence the trial judge heard
to set aside the Entry of Default and it is
therefore presumed that he acted within
his discretion.
Crotts v. Camel Pawn Shop, Inc., 16 N.C. App. 392, 394,
192 S.E.2d 55 (1972). In this case, the trial court's order
setting aside the entry [*591] of default did not create
any additional issues or create prejudice to plaintiffs.
The [ * * * 18] failure of a defendant who
has been duly served to appear and an-
swer a complaint seeking a declaratory
judgment constitutes an admission of
every material fact pleaded which is es-
sential to the judgment sought, but the
court must, nevertheless, [**497] pro-
ceed to construe such facts or instruments
set out in the complaint and enter judg-
ment thereon; the default caused by the
defendant's failure to appear and answer
does not entitle the plaintiff to a judgment
based on the pleader's conclusions. The
default admits only the allegations of the
complaint and does not extend either ex-
pressly or by implication the scope of the
determination sought by the plaintiff, or
which could be granted by the court.
Baxter v. Jones, 14 N.C. App. 296, 311, 188 S.E.2d 622,
631 (1972). We hold the trial court did not abuse its dis-
cretion in setting aside Rosewood Investments' entry of
default judgment in order for the case to proceed on the
merits. This assignment of error is overruled.
In conclusion, we vacate the 28 June 2005 order
concluding plaintiffs lacked standing; reverse the 24 and
31 August 2005 orders granting Rosewood Investments'
summary judgment and remand for a trial on [ * * * 19]
the merits; and affirm the setting aside of Rosewood In-
vestments' entry of default judgment.
Vacated in part; Reversed and remanded in part; and
Affirmed in part.
Judges MCGEE and ELMORE concur.
RECEIVED
5EP 12 2008

EXHIBIT
A 5_
m
0
Z
w
n
NO. COA98-756
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed. 4 May 1999
NICHOLAS E. SCRONCB, _a
and wife, SANDRA B . S CRONCE , �; = r,
r-
Plaintiffs, Cn
V. -Brunswick County
No. 96-CVS-1203
THE TOWN OF LONG BEACH,
NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 9 March 1998 by Judge
D. Jack Hooks, Jr. in Brunswick County Superior Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 29 March 1999.
Fri.nk, Foy & Yount, P.A. , by Henry G. Foy, for plaintiff -
appellees.
McCotter, McAfee & Ashton, PLLC, by .Rudolph A. Ashton, III,
for defendant -appellant.
EDMUL3DS , Judge.
In the 1960's, National Development Corporation undertook a
pro]ect in Long Beach, North Carolina. The project included
numerous Darallel streets running across Long Beach, connecting
Davis Canal in the south with the Intracoastal Waterway in the

L,
-2-
north. These streets were cleared, graded., and, for most of their
length, paved. However, many of the "street ends," which are the
end portions of each north/south street. running from the last
intersection with an east/west street down to the waterfront, were
left unpaved. Plaintiffs purchased in this development two
adjoining waterfront lots overlooking the Intracoastal Waterway.
Lot 1 was on the corner of Yacht Drive and. 21st Street N.W.; lot 2
was adjacent to lot 1 and faced Yacht Drive. The portion of 21st
Street that ran along the side of plaintiffs' lot 1 from Yacht
Drive to the Intracoastal Waterway was an unpaved street end.
Plaintiffs have not built on either lot.
During the summer of 1992, defendimt designated the 21st
Street S.W. street end adjacent to plaintiffs' lot 1 as a mini -
park. The Town erected. a split -rail fence across the road and
placed a picnic table, charcoal grill, and trash can on the site.
The fence was placed approximately twenty feet from the
intersection of Yacht Drive, effectively closing the street end to
automobiles. In May 1996, the Town applied for a permit to
construct a shelter over the picnic table. Plaintiffs objected
and, although the shelter was approved, its construction has been
postponed pending resolution of this case. At some time after 18
-i . A;, '
August 1997, the fence was moved further back from the intersection
12 2Cos

-3-
and is now approximately 229 feet from the intersection and 85 feet
from the Intracoastal Waterway.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant on 18 October
1996 seeking injunctive relief or, alternatively, damages in excess
of $10,000.00. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on 14
February 1997. on 14 April 1997, defendant filed its answer and
12 (b) (6) motion to dismiss. On 29 December 1997, the parties filed
their respective summary judgment motions. The trial court granted
plaintiffs' motion and denied defendant's on 9 March 1998.
Defendant appeals. We affirm.
The single issue presented for review is whether the trial
court erred in granting plaintiffs' motion. for summary judgment and
denying def endant's. Defendant argues that "it was entitled to
close a small portion of the street end to vehicular traffic for
use as a mini -park [which] served a legitimate public purpose
R reviouSl resolved this precise
. However, this Court has Y
issue. In the case at bar, it is undisputed that 21st Street S.W.
is a dedicated street. In Wooten v. Town of Topsail Beach, 127
N.C. App. 739, 493 S.B.2d 285, disc. review denied, 348 N.C. 78,
505 S.8.2d 888 (1997), this Court held that where land is dedicated
to the town as a street, it cannot be used as a park., Citing
McQuillan; The Law of Municipal Corporations, we stated:
JtP 12 2C�R

-4-
" £wJhere the owner of land has dedicated [the
land] for a street or alley, the municipality
cannot appropriate - it to other uses or
Purposes. However, the land may be
appropriated to any use, such as the
construction of sewers, to which a street
acquired in any other manner may be put.
Permissible uses of a street may include the
use of the street by a railroad, for the
placing of telephone poles by a telephone
company, and for part of a sea wall system.
Land dedicated as a street may also be
modernized to conform to modern plans for
traf€ic flow and control. Land dedicated .for
a street cannot be used, however, as a park or
as a public square."
Wooten, 127 N.C. App. at 741, 493 S.E.2d at 287 (quoting McQuillan,
The Law of Municipal Corporations, Volume 11A § 33.74, at 514 (3d
ed. 1991)) (alterations in original) 00,
�
Mel vu'`a4+'r4'x.Ytrk�s°%�.7X'Y't:x(5s'�"''
���/7 v�. � --J .. ,tr `z. > ,I��•',z 1'� � c �'��L+r•"�-t+Y" 'Fc y� 3.�" v,s'f�--�1 v�,�'�+�fr .r ,�+�.'''_„ r + � 1 h ��.-.�r Qr '1 GaJuak�:reY
.. ..,�� ~�,���iLi�rrirc���P=�u�... .Gha?a7�h .h:•.,1 .�i....�a.,=-4'fq:.yiy'yi5i, ., 'il6n..�.. r1Li�.tc i'.. .. .. �:
u�}yj�•j�Zt C 'fit}yr.y�n 3k,6s�y�+ WHO
tr:•k j�,�, �„�,. . � �,.'� }�.�,.�wS
Mir; �•, �'•' -,� s ..�,y,7 -,+. �'1A!��l'(�5 4dk�':Lw�� f�1L�'tL.J.�Sir,
4 Slt� ks�t �`�rd'4� ;] SY"nfl.,"�Y 11tir
i sc
srr t�zJ%y�L.�
"�y' .rn r 4° �'+.44�hti
.•=Y.�.x�5-C�s-AA. dv
�• x � �J`n,�'�..d 353 : ,{� A`kr �6� �v+wr�d �r,,.�I`.�i�L°P r"+t�'�..'Fi �v "'��sY YW' .�-�..1 ,�.����f ed �
�a"''�� p�e� '�°.wt� �rR�'��r,� .c�«��it��,�rtt�� vt�:a ate, �.•�,,,�;...rK.
�e �q'f3F}='� '9 �..14'�T,�' �C. +�,�.bt�,�,�.�'' '�i� �i��I4,r'k�i-'�r¢�`tiSt�d �.�tu:"t+&e•..' �sa�s�'� �Ci.rrw' x�R �r n v �� . £ � �,
n a
dea%CC*'41 We see , no distinction in the precise
placement of the physical barrier that halts vehicular traffic.
Moreover, Wooten contains no limiting language to suggest such a
distinction, holding instead that:
a
��, ° 12008

Id.
249
the use made of dedicated property may
constitute misuse or diversion if the use is
inconsistent with the purposes of the
dedication or substantially interfere [sic]
with it. March v. Town of Kill Devil HillS,
IbA rf L 7 I)C I
Def12 endant intends to block vehicular traffic
and, thus, the construction of a park is
inconsistent with the dedication of land as- a
, ated
street' ass
� RR, +or
A91
c`ron " OR
Therefore, there is no genuine
issue of material fact and plaintiff is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Defendant also contends that plaintiffs` action was time -
barred. Although the fence, picnic table, and grill were placed on
the street end during the summer of 1992, plaintiffs did not file
their complaint until October 1996, fouir years following the
construction of the mini -park. Defendant contends that the
applicable statute of limitations is three years, pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 1-52 (1996) (amended 1 October 1997). We disagree,
noting that plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged injury to
easement, and find that the
applicable
limitation
period
is six 1�,�,
years. See N.C. Gen. Stat .
1-50 (1996)
(amended 1
October
1 i') r 20O8

aM.
With regard to highways, ° [i]t is generally recognized that
the owner of land abutting a highway has a right beyond that which
is enjoyed by the general public, a special right of easement in
the public road for access purposes, and this is a property right
which cannot be damaged or taken from him without due
compensation.'" Highway Comm. v. Realty Corp., 4 N.C. App. 215,
220, 166 S.E.2d 469, 472 (1969) (citation omitted) , quoted in Dept.
of Transportation v. Craine, 89 N.C. App. 2:23, 227, 365 S.S.2d 694,
697 (1988). Likewise, in a 1940 case in which the width of a
dedicated street was subsequently reduced from ninety-nine feet to
eighty feet, our Supreme Court held:
(T]he New Hanover Transit Company, having made
a map of its land, platting it into lots and
streets, showing Lake Park Boulevard as a
street ninety-nine feet wide, and having sold
lots with reference to such map, thereby
irrevocably dedicated the streets, including
Lake Park Boulevard, to the use of the
purchasers of lots so sold, and those claiming
under them, and is estopped to deny the right
of such purchasers, and those claiming under
them, to an easement in all the streets
represented and as represented ion the map at
the time of the purchase and conveyance with
reference to it --irrespective of whether the
town, when it was incorporated, accepted and
opened the streets to their full width- The
right of prior purchasers, and those claiming
under them, to this easement was unaffected by
the change of the map in 1916, even if it be
conceded that the change was made pursuant to
corporate action.
RECEIVE.
Sr
Loo 12 2008

-7-
Insurance Co. v. Carolina Beach, 216 N.C. 778, 787, 7 S.B.2d 13, 19
(1940). The principle behind this holding is that if the owner of
land has it subdivided and platted into lots and streets, and
sells and conveys the lots with reference to the plat,
nothing else appearing, he thereby dedicates the streets, and all
of them, to the use of the purchasers, .
and of the public."
Id. at 785, 7 S.B.2d at 18. This is so because
the grantor, by making such a conveyance
. . . , induces the purchasers to believe that
the streets and alleys, squares, courts, and
parks will be kept open for their use and
benefit, and having acted upon the faith of
his implied representations, based upon his
conduct in platting the land and selling
accordingly, he is equitably esto_pped, as well
in reference to the public as to his grantees,
from denying the existence of the easement
thus created.
Green v. Miller, 161 N.C_ 24, 30, 76 S.B. 505, 507 (1912) .
plaintiffs paid an eleven percent premium on lot 1 because it was
a corner lot abutting both 21st Street and Yacht Drive. When they
purchased lot 1, plaintiffs acquired an easement to access 21st
Street S.W. An easement is encompassed within the broader
definition of "incorporeal hereditament." See Hawthorne v. Realty
Syndicate, Inc., 43 N.C. App. 436, 259• S.B.2d 591 (1979) ; see, also
Allen v. Sea Gate Assn., 119 N.C. App. 761, 460 S.B.2d 19 (1995)-
Because actions for "injury to any incoy-prreal hereditament" must

be brought " [w] ithin six years,." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50 (a) (3) ,
plaintiffs' action is not barred.
Because there is no genuine issue of material fact and
plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial
court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
while denying defendant's motion. The order of the trial court is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge RAGLBS and Judge JOHN concur.
Report per Rule 30 (e) .
A TRUIE COPY
CLERK OF THE COURT T OF APPEALS
OF CfiRQ' N ig�
A
er
i' VTY CUM
--r A1,44a I9
RECEIVE
SEP Z 108
ni*^wA IA— - --

/_V
MIN&
M-:-L
92
K,
Ilk
J
LOCKWOOD'S FOLLY T. S. tic
G
SItiIITHV I L L E T S,-
0
J
-* 23q- E
20 21 ?2 2233
1108 los 4 / ►.
60.16 06 16' 60.16 60.16 60.16'
so
w �Idm �MMMMMML-
40

00- -IOWN Of
FORTH CARO'
N
E
5
1-1\
�I{

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) mno

U.S.0Postal Service'rN,
' S Postal S
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only, No Insurance Coverage Provided)
m_t
For delivery infornudion visit our website at www.usps.como
■
ru
Certified Fee
E3
M
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
C3
Restricted Delivery Fee
r3
(Endorsement Required)
r71-1
Total Postage & Fees 1 $
CO Sent To
A 10 If—
E3 C
C3 fID-t ,Tpt. No e-c� Q.611L.aft"Ll ...........................
- ., , rz. or PO Box ;0 CV14
. City,& �I --- --- ��: --------------- vc��k�
te, ZIP --------------
100, August 200E

1�M wlpfq'tj�ffs
p Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
C3 Restricted Delivery Fee
Lr) (Endorsement Required)
«'1
ru _
September 3, 2008
�1
C /
n r�
- --- %--1
.f-----►�-
Ebn�� nip _ .....
Donald Neal & Darlene Pritchard
2285 Country Lane
Asheboro, NC 27203
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 NW 2°d Street, in Brunswick County. As required by CAMA regulations, I
have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project drawing(s) as notification of our
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,
44-- I
Gene Kudgus
Public Works Director
Town of Oak Island
4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER
STATEMENT FOR CAMA MINOR PERMITS
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to C.c.J/1 4T Oak 1Sla ✓I W -s
(Name of Properttyy Owner)
property located at /V W z n d �1rPeT S#ee� �f E4
Address, Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on 7'm Ooali o) a �Ac! in Zow n o� 0,�Jk -Z N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or 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.
(APPLICATION AND DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ATTACHED)
Signature
Print or Type Name
Telephone Number
Date
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

RTN CAR011"1`,
`C q
,4FFRED IUIV �• �'
U.S. Postal Service----
CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only, No Insurance Coverage Provide
i3
to
ro
C3
C3 Certified Fee
a�. q �et�� R�Ipt ,�y
l+�ib►seW6dt1E� rg
O Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement RAZAred)
Ln
ru
i]
September 3, 2008 C3
rti
Jimmy & Anna Key
2908 NC 770 Hwy
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
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 NW 2"d Street, in Brunswick County. As required by CAMA regulations, I
have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project drawing(s) as notification of our
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,
GC-T%-AK_1�
-
Gene Kudgus
Public Works Director
Town of Oak Island
4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER
STATEMENT FOR CAMA MINOR PERMITS
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to W /1 44' Oak -TS(a ✓I a -s
/ (Name of Property Owner)
property located at A/W z » d Y71 reel �TTPe14- eh W ,
/1 � I,,/ Address, Lot, Block, Road, etc.) /
on /116 `aaS&j,% a{- W14OLI in 'low r► e� aG(6C -7-s1ahG N.C.
(Waterbody) i (Town and/or 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.
(APPLICATION AND DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ATTACHED)
Signature
Print or Type Name
Telephone Number
Date
RECEIVED
S'P 0 6 2008
DC1M WILMINGTON. 14,

��K
F'N ISL,4,,V
C'N CA
ROB /
R�fR'Diu
S,v - -5- -zoo 9
45 Cejy�
ill a
/V 6k,) ;2 " S a cc-- s 3 -
R E c E 1, v E ["I'll
SEP U 9 2008

00— SOWN OP—q%
,V. ISLA A.
TAN CARO%"
`h1RifRED IUL� �',9�
r
September X, 2008
Galen & Kim Seidner
1840 Hagers Point Lane
Denver, NC 28037
Dear Adjacent Property.
Er
(1_I
ml F
-n
Pospg� I i
�n
Certified Fee T1
C3 Return Receipt Fee V
O (Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Iti Total Postage & Fees $ Tr
0
,NJ G
r` Sent To /^ 4 c 1
t3 b;treet, Apt. No.; a L`
or PO Box No. ` O � () 4A- ---- FRS_. �(Z' N}
Ciry, State, ZIP
.._
9-
PS Form :II August 2006 See Reverse for in
This letter is to inform you that the Town of Oak Island has applied for a CAMA Minor Permit
for Town property at NW 2°d Street, in Brunswick County. As required by CAMA regulations, I
have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project drawing(s) as notification of our
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,
6 -'-, K
Gene Kudgus
Public Works Director
Town of Oak Island
4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465
9 2008
I..'CIV! t' YIL9YIi11WGTO N,

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
Before the undersigned. a Notary Public of Said County and State.
CAMA MINOR
y
PERMIT NOTICE
Pursuant to NCGS 113A-
119(b), the North Caro-
Terrie Millard
lina Division of Coastal
Management, an agency
authorized to issue CAMA
Who, being duly sworn or affirmed. according to the law, says that he/she is
permronmits i areas o envi-
hereby gives NOTICE that
8, 2008,
Manager
on September
Financial Services
the Town of Oak Island
applied for a CAMA per-
mit to construct public
access, observation deck,
of THE STAR -NEWS, a corporation organized and doing business under the Laws of the State of
and parking &picnic ar-
North Carolina, and publishing a newspaper er known as STAR -NEWS in the City of Wilmington
P p` p
eas; on town right-of-way
�
at NW 2nd St., off of W.
Yacht Dr., adjacent to the
CAMA MINOR PERMIT NOTICE Pursuant to NCGS 113A-119b, the North Carolina Division:
AIWW, in Oak Island,
Brunswick County. The
of Coastal Management, an agency authorized to issue CAMA permits in areas of
application may be in-
environmental concern, hereby gives NOTICE that on September 8, 2008, the Town of Oak
spected at the address
below. Public comments
received by October 4,
Island app
2008 will be considered.
Later comments will be
accepted and considered
up to the time of permit
decision. Project modifi-
may occur based
cations
on further review and
Nonce of the
was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper in space, and on dates as follows:
comments.
permit decision in this
will be provided
matter
upon written Heather Coats
91191x
Field Representative
DivislMn of Coastal
anagement
127 Cardinal Drive
And at the time of such publication Star -News was a newspaper meeting all the requirements an
Extension
_.Wilminggton, NC
28405-3845
of N
Phone: [phone]
`
Title: Financial_ Services Manager
Sworn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me this `� / day of
A.D., �\\ _\:tAER d t-t�t,���i
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed r> �f,D al seal, ifSi! k°ry�Lind
year aforesaid. �p y
O�
Q, v
Y � V
My commission expires clay of �0 `
+� Z °°J� NEW `Z`P
��t itttto���
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
Clerk of Superior Cou
MAIL TO:
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
..nun

AL
-
'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
[e-mail]
2 Pages
Star News
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Kyle:
September 16, 2008
Re: Town of Oak Island MINOR Public Notice for NW 2nd St. Access
Please publish the attached Notice in the Friday, September 19, 2008 issue.
The State Office of Budget and Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to paymc
for newspaper advertising. Please send the original affidavit of the published notice to Melissa Sabastian, 4
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
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 ere
card receipt to me.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me at c
Wilmington office.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: File Copy
*Shaunm son
Permit Support Technician
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us

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
September 8, 2008, the Town of Oak Island applied for a CAMA permit to construct public access
observation deck, and parking & picnic areas on town right-of-way at NW 2nd St., off of W. Yacht Dr
adjacent to the AIWW, in Oak Island, Brunswick County. The application may be inspected at thl
address below. Public comments received by October 4, 2008 will be considered. Later comments wi
be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project modifications may occur based o
further review and comments. Notice of the permit decision in this matter will be provided upon writte
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

Ii ll 4 Is
1 (000 ],A
CAMA PERMIT
APPLIED FOR
P ROJ ECT:
o serva ion decK, and par inq picnic areas on
..
1 i e m '1'A'1' a 111�1:1:� l►-'i C 11 [! m �l r! 11 E•'i`�11 L"Mw
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH October 4, 2008
APPLICANT:
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:
SIC Div_ of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dc. Ext.
ww1minaton, NC 2R4ns
Heather Cnats 910,796,7424

'�--
OPK IS(q0 TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
r,
4601 E. ISLAND DRIVE
OAK ISLAND, N.C. 28465
CARD
[phone]
PAY ****100 DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS ****
PAY
TO THE
ORDER
OF
NCDENR
SOUTH o� C 28461 6 531 2 035627
DATE CHECK NO. CHECK AMOUNT
08/29/2008 35627 $100.00
VOID AFTER 60 DAYS
THIS DISBURSEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY
E LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET AND FISCAL CONTROL ACT.
AUTHO ED IGNATURE
AU-6RIZED SIGNATURE
llo03SG2711' ':05310LL2L':00052L680LEI 7511'
OPK ISL;q,',O TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
4601 E. ISLAND DRIVE
+" OAK ISLAND, N.C. 28465
tio,rH A0.o N [phone]
PAY ****100 DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS ****
PAY NCDENR
TO THE
ORDER
OF
lgeze'Ss ov f/ w
C
BBU 66-112
SOUTHPORT, NC 28461 531
DATE CHECK NO.
08/29/2008 35626
035626
CHECK AMOUNT
$100.00
VOID AFTER 60 DAYS
THIS DISBURSEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET AND FISCAL CONTROL ACT.
_ .µ.-me• G (-,�!
AU ED SIGNATURE \
G2e�lyp
AU H06RIZED SIGNATURE
111103562C."' l:053LOLL2L1:00052L680LEI 75i1'

19.6 1
€22.3'1 .� 16'
° €22.7'
3'� y x y 17'
° ,
/0xzo' IV ,2' O 18
+ Deck 1 1
€21.3'J to'
O ! _ 19,
'
€21.5'1 22
Z O r + ,
O €21.9, � 2� �� f
S LET 4 r,�p�
O f cJ/I Ao
21
122-21
A MAN 1
3
Or
f �• ,f: ,. ,. •i •,, ••• ,v
20.9
. --, �. •' • }''•, ' %' ,••'' .ice ,, ••v •••1

20`
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
EXISTING
BULKHEAD
10,
11'
12'
13'
14'
15'
16'
/� CC re-
1774 X `
18'
19,
\ 21
' 75'AEC
f2221 SOUTHERN R/W LINE OF
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATEF