17-01C Waters

mt
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
January20, 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL 7002 3150 0003 9918 3065
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Malcolm Waters
314 Holly Street
Cape Carteret, NC 28584
ROY COOPER
G.V mar
WILLIAM G. ROSS, JR.
Interim sccreraiy
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND REQUEST TO CEASE UNAUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT
CAMA VIOLATION #17-01C
Dear Mr. Waters:
This letter confirms that on 01/13/2017, 1 was on -site at property located at 172 Shore Drive adjacent to
Bogue Sound located in Salter Path, Carteret County, North Carolina. The purpose of the visit was to
investigate unauthorized development of enlarging an existing non -conforming wood framed structure
located in areas of environmental concern. The letter also confirms your on -site meeting with District Manager
Roy Brownlow and Carteret County Building Inspector/Local Permit Officer Chris Jones on 01/18/2017.
Information gathered by me for the Division of Coastal Management indicates that you have undertaken
major CAMA development in violation of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). No person may
undertake Major CAMA Development in a designated Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) without first
obtaining a permitfrom the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. This requirement is imposed
by North Carolina General Statute (N.C.G.S.) 113A-118.
I have information that indicates you have undertaken or are legally responsible for replacing an existing,
single -story, non -conforming wood framed structure on the aforementioned property with a new wood framed
two-story structure. This activity took place in the Coastal Shoreline, Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters,
and Public Trust Area that are contiguous with Bogue Sound. The aforementioned areas are designated as
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). No CAMA permit was issued to you for work in these areas. Based
on these findings, I am initiating an enforcement action by issuing this Notice of Violation for violation of the
Coastal Area Management Act and the State's Dredge and Fill Law.
I request that you immediately CEASE AND DESIST any further unauthorized development. A civil
assessment of up to $10,000 plus investigative costs may be assessed against any violator. Each day that
the development described in this Notice is continued or repeated may constitute a separate violation that is
subject to an additional assessment of $10,000. An injunction or criminal penalty may also be sought to
enforce any violation in accordance with N.C.G.S.113A-126.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082808 T

Mr. Malcolm Waters
January20, 2017
Page 2 of 4
.ram
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil penalty plus investigative costs against
all violations. This is done to recoup some of the costs of investigating the violation and/or to compensate
the public for any damage to its natural resources. The amount assessed will depend upon several factors,
including the nature and area of the resources that were affected and the extent of the damage to them.
You are also in violation of the State's Dredge and Fill Law which requires a permit from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality before undertaking any excavating or filling in any estuarine waters,
tidelands, marshlands, or state-owned lakes pursuant to N.C.G.S. 113-229. Therefore, I also request that
you immediately CEASE AND DESIST such unauthorized activity. Violations of the State's Dredge and Fill
Act may be enforced by a criminal penalty or a civil action for damages or an injunction in accordance with
N.C.G.S.113-229.
Based upon the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 07H. State Guidelines for Areas
of Environmental Concern, the activity you have undertaken, replacing and enlarging the existing non-
conforming structure beyond its original dimensions by adding a new second story in the AECs, is not
consistent with Section NCAC 7J .0211(1), which states that when replacing existing non -conforming
structures, the structure shall not be enlarged beyond its original dimensions. Therefore, I am requesting that
the second story be removed and the structure be returned to its original dimensions.
The enclosed Restoration Plan describes the action necessary to bring this project into compliance with the
Act. If you intend to cooperate with my request, please sign one of the attached Restoration Agreements and
return it to me in the enclosed, self-addressed envelope within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter. Failure
to comply with this request or respond back to this office prior to the requested deadline with an acceptable
schedule for compliance will be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate and will result in a Notice of Continuing
Violation, as well as a court injunction"being sought ordering compliance.
The relevant statutes and regulations are available from this office, and I am willing to assist you in complying
with the requirements of these laws. A site inspection will be made in the near future to determine whether
this structure has been returned to its original dimensions and the work in theAECs is brought into compliance
with the CRC rules.
State of North Carolina I Eavironmental Quality I Cowal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082908 T

.4r. Malcolm Waters
January 20,2017
Page 3 of 4
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions about
this or related matters, please call me at [phone]. Upon completion of the restoration as requested in
the Restoration Plan Agreement to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management, you will be notified
as to the amount of the civil assessment for undertaking development without first obtaining the proper
permit(s) and for engaging in development that is inconsistent with Coastal Resources Commission rules.
Sincerely, n
>� "' `mot
Brad Connell
Coastal Management Representative
Cc: Roy Brownlow, District Manager, DCM
Chris Jones, Carteret County Planning and Inspections
ENCLOSURE
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ 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 mailplece,
or on the front if space narmits_
�1� F�o►I `,r1�
IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII II (IIII III II II III III
9590 9402 2060 6132 6965 66
302 3150 0003 9918 3065
Ps Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000.9053
w oig a--� �
X " 17 Agent
❑ Addre
B.calved by (Primed Name) C. Dale of D II
7V f s+� vdc tws i I X T
D. Is delivery address different from Item 17 ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Service Type
❑ Adun Signature
❑ dun Signature Restricted Delivery
0 CCertifled Mail®
❑ collet Meg Restdctetl Delivery
❑ Called on Delivery
❑ Priority Mall FKPMWS
❑ Registered Mall^
❑ Reee�999latered Mail Restricted
vary
t for
m Merchandise,
Menature
❑ Coiled on Delivery Reshictetl Delivery
❑ Signature ConfdnaeonTM
on
❑ Insured Mail
❑ Signature Co n
❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
livery
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal MaWedtent
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2809 T

Mr. Malcolm Waters
January 20, 2017
Page 4 of 4
RESTORATION PLAN
For
Mr. MALCOLM WATERS
CAMA Violation No.17-01 C
Property located at 172 SHORE DRIVE, SALTER PATH, CARTERET COUNTY
Remove the second story and return the existing non -conforming structure to its original single story
dimensions.
I, Malcolm Waters, agree to remove the second story and return the existing non -conforming structure to its
original dimensions.
I agree to complete this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by February 28,
2017, or provide an explanation for non-compliance and a reasonable request for time extension. When corrective
actions are complete, I will notify the DCM so the work can be inspected.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil penalty plus investigative costs against all violations. The
amount assessed will depend upon several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected and the
extent of the damage to them. If restoration is not undertaken or satisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment
will be levied and an injunction sought to require restoration.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082808 T

U.S. Postal Service,. 61�
CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
PS Form 3800, June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions

Certified Mail Provides: mwed/zooze �r does �aod sa
■ A mailing receipt
■ A unique identifier for your mailpiece
■ A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years
Important Reminders:
■ Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail® or Priority Maila.
■ Certified Mall Is notavallable for any class of International mail.
■ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mall. For
valuables, please consider Insured or Registered Mail.
■ For an additional fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof of
delivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete and attach a Return
Receipt (PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postage to fiver the
fee. Endorse mailpiece "Return Receipt Requested". To receive a fee waiver for
a duplicate return receipt, a USPSa postmark on your Certified Mail receipt Is
required.
■ For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or
addressee's authorized agent. Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with the
endorsement 'Restricted Delivery".
■ If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt Is desired, please present the arti-
cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail
receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail.
IMPORTANT: Save this receipt and present it when making an Inquiry.
Internet access to delivery information is not available on mail
addressed to APOs and FPOs.

Mr. Malcolm Waters
A , May 3, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Revised RESTORATION PLAN
For
Mr. MALCOLM WATERS
CAMA Violation No.17-01C
Property located at 172 SHORE DRIVE, SALTER PATH, CARTERET COUNTY
• Remove the second story and return the existing non -conforming structure to its original single story
dimensions; or
Remove the remnant portion of the existing structure that encroaches waterward of the NHW line
into Public Trust and Estuarine Waters so that the remaining existing structure (the existing
impervious built upon area) is entirely landward of NHW and within the Coastal Shoreline Area of
Environmental Concern.
Note: A CAMA Minor Permit from Carteret County will be required to complete the remainder of the
work within the existing built upon impervious area.
I, Malcolm Waters, agree to remove the second story and return the existing non -conforming structure to its
original dimensions. m A&-w e 4,e k li+6wt (,vuc-4) ~ +q-e &^e . �
I agree to complete this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by June 9, 2017,
or provide an explanation for non-compliance and a reasonable request for time extension. When corrective actions
are complete, I will notify the DCM so the work can be inspected.
SIGNATURE:
DATE: 5-/ -' v e
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil penalty plus investigative costs against all violations. The
amount assessed will depend upon several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected and the
extent of the damage to them. If restoration is not undertaken or satisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment
will be levied and an injunction sought to require restoration.
Stale of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

Coasta! Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
May 3, 2017
Mr. Malcolm Waters
314 Holly Street
Cape Carteret, NC 28584
HAND DELIVERY
RE: CAMA VIOLATION #17-01C
REVISED RESTORATION ORDER
Dear Mr. Waters:
ROY COOPER
Cxnanmr
MICHAEL S. REGAN
[nWrinl lave(nrJ
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dircanr
This letter is in addition to the Notice of Violation 17-01C dated January 19, 2017, issued by DCM Field
Representative Brad Connell about property located at 172 Shore Drive adjacent to Bogue Sound located in
Salter Path, Carteret County, North Carolina. The reason for the Notice of Violation was for unauthorized
development by enlarging an existing non -conforming wood framed structure located in areas of
environmental concern by adding a second story.
After subsequent discussion between us about this matter, you had Professional Land Surveyor Glenn
Corbett conduct a survey of the property to delineate the Normal High Water (NHW) line (based on NAVD
88) in relation to the existing structure. Mr. Corbett submitted a signed and sealed plat dated 04/24/2017 to
the Division on 04/24/2017 via email which depicts the Normal High Water line.
The survey plat indicates that the Normal High Water mark encroaches approximately six (6') feet under the
north end of the elevated structure. This information indicates that the remnant existing structure on the north
end of the building is over Public Trust and Estuarine Waters.
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Title 15A, Subchapter 07H. State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern, the activity you have undertaken, replacing and enlarging' the existing non-
conforming structure beyond its original dimensions by adding a new second story in the AECs, is not
consistent with Section NCAC 7J .0211(1), which states that when replacing existing non -conforming
structures, the structure shall not be enlarged beyond its original dimensions. In this case, it is vertical
expansion and there are no horizontal expansions or increase of built upon area. Therefore, I am requesting
that the second story be removed and the structure be returned to its original dimensions.
However, NCAC, Title 15A, Subchapter 07H .0209(d)(H) provides that existing impervious surfaces may be
located within 30' landward of NHW and developed if the existing impervious surface is not increased and
the applicant designs the project to comply with the intent of the rules to the maximum extent feasible. In this
case, the existing structure creates the existing impervious surface. Therefore, as an alternative means to
bring the structure into compliance with the Coastal Resources Commission's rules, and based upon the
State of North Carolina I Fnvirawoeotel Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

Mr. Malcolm Waters
May 3, 2017
Page 2 of 3
04/24/2017 survey plat, you may remove the remnant portion of the existing structure that encroaches
waterward of the NHW line into Public Trust and Estuarine Waters so that the remaining existing structure
(the existing impervious built upon area) is entirely landward of NHW and within the Coastal Shoreline Area
of Environmental Concern. Please be advised that to complete the remainder of the work within the AEC and
the existing built upon impervious area, a CAMA Minor Development Permit will be required. You may apply
for this permit from the Carteret County CAMA Local Permit Officer.
The enclosed revised Restoration Plan describes the action necessary to bring this project into compliance
with the Act. If you intend to cooperate with the Division's request, please sign one of the attached Restoration
Agreements and return it to this office in the enclosed, self-addressed envelope within ten (10) days of receipt
of this letter. Failure to comply with this request or respond back to this office prior to the requested deadline
with an acceptable schedule for compliance will be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate and will result in a
Notice of Continuing Violation, as well as a court injunction being sought ordering compliance.
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions about
this or related matters, please call me at [phone]. Upon completion of the restoration as requested in
the revised Restoration Plan Agreement to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management, you will
be notified as to the amount of the civil assessment for undertaking development without first obtaining the
proper permit(s) and for engaging in development that is inconsistent with Coastal Resources Commission
rules.
Sincerely,
Roy Brownlow
District Manager
Cc: Brad Connell, DCM Field Representative
Chris Jones, LPO Carteret County Planning and Inspections
ENCLOSURE
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commeroe Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

Mr. Malcolm Waters
May 3, 2017
Page 3 of 3
For
Mr. MALCOLM WATERS
CAMA Violation No.17-01 C
Property located at 172 SHORE DRIVE, SALTER PATH, CARTERET COUNTY
• Remove the second story and return the existing non -conforming structure to its original single story
dimensions; or
• Remove the remnant portion of the existing structure that encroaches waterward of the NHW line
into Public Trust and Estuarine Waters so that the remaining existing structure (the existing
impervious built upon area) is entirely landward of NHW and within the Coastal Shoreline Area of
Environmental Concern.
Note: A CAMA Minor Permit from Carteret County will be required to complete the remainder of the
work within the existing built upon impervious area.
I, Malcolm Waters, agree to remove the second story and return the existing non -conforming structure to its
original dimensions.
I agree to complete this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by June 9, 2017,
or provide an explanation for non-compliance and a reasonable request for time extension. When corrective actions
are complete, I will notify the DCM so the work can be inspected.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
If is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil penalty plus investigative costs against all violations. The
amount assessed will depend upon several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected and the
extent of the damage to them. If restoration is not undertaken or satisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment
will be levied and an injunction sought to require restoration.
State or North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082809 T

BOWE SOUND
n
wn nin
E
,
Lei l7•ii��ii ;i5:}i
F
x u.K.o
LEUW
'r
r
SALTER PATH
••
v
al4n� g1i.M1 m....L.i. �
P.
..mL
-'b0.....•'.
_---------
r �' �
SHORE DRIVE
.a w
-_.^_._.__._._._ Nawn. p<,"psi%
.v� .sEyxon
rtEtono ta.
.sYq ao u. ux i Ls�.ss�.r

ROY COOPER.
Covan6r
MICHAEL 5. REGAN
secretary
BRAXTQN C. DAVIS
' .-D7reCEor
August 29, 2017
Mr. Malcolm Waters
314 Holly Street
Cape Carteret, N.C. 28584
RE: Payment of Proposed Penalty for Violations of the Coastal Area Management.Act, Committed
in Carteret County
CAMA Violation # 17-01 C
Dear Mr. Waters:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your Check # 100373364, in the amount of $200.00, and dated
received on 8/29/17. Once the amount of the check is credited to the Department of Environmental
Quality's account, this matter will be fully and completely closed.
If you have any,further questions concerning this matter, please contact me at my Morehead City
office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Roy Brownlow
District Manager
RB//rcb
Cc Mike Lopazanski, Asst. Director
Brad Connell, Coastal Management Rep.
Liz Hair, COE
<�-N'oihing Compares
sta"Morthcamtna I E]i*onmemal'Quality l CoastalManagement
Morehead Cltyofflce 1400CommermAvenue I Moreheadaty.NC 2M
2R 808280'8

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
August 29, 2017
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Malcolm Waters
314 Holly Street
Cape Carteret, NC 28584
RE: CAMA VIOLATION 07--01 C
Dear Mr. Waters:
pn
ROY COOPER
Go.mor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is in reference to the Notice of Violation dated January 20, 2017 that Brad Connell, representative
for the Division of Coastal Management, issued to you for unauthorized construction of a wood -framed
structure at 172 Shore Drive, Salter Path, Carteret County. The violation involved Estuarine Waters, Public
Trust Area and the Coastal Shoreline, which are Areas of Environmental Concern designated by the Coastal
Resources Commission.
The Coastal Area Management Act provides that a civil assessment of up to $10,000 plus investigative costs
may be assessed for any violation. It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil
penalty for all violations in order to recover some of the costs of investigating violations and/or to compensate
the public for any damage to its natural resources.
Under the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission, a proposed civil penalty in the amount of $200 is
appropriate for this violation. You may expeditiously resolve this matter prior to the assessment of a formal
civil penalty by accepting responsibility for the violation and paying the amount proposed above. In order to
do this, you must: (1) sign one of the attached copies of an "Agreement to Pay Civil Assessment;" (2) attach
a check or money order for $200 made payable to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ); and, (3) return the signed agreement and payment to this office by hand delivery or you may return
the signed agreement within ten (10) days of your receipt of this letter. Upon deposit of your check in the
Department's account, you will receive a Notice of Compliance officially closing this enforcement action.
State of North Carolum, I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

Mr. Malcolm Waters
Page 2 of 3
August 29, 2017
If you do not send a signed agreement and payment to this office within ten (10) days, the Director of the
Division of Coastal Management may formally assess a civil penalty against you. You will then have the
opportunity to request a hearing on the penalty or request settlement of the penalty.
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Roy Brownlow
District Manager
Division of Coastal Management
Enclosures
cc: Brad Connell, Coastal Management Representative, DCM
Chris Jones, Carteret County Planning and Inspections
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

Mr. Malcolm Waters
Page 3 of 3
August 29, 2017
CAMA VIOLATION #17-01 C
Mr. MALCOM WATERS
AGREEMENT TO PAY PROPOSED CIVIL ASSESSMENT
I understand that the staff of the Department of Environmental Quality will propose the assessment of a civil
penalty in the amount of $200 against me for violation of the Coastal Area Management Act, NCGS 113A-
100 et seq, committed on or near property located at 172 Shore Dr, Salter Path, in Carteret County, North
Carolina. In order to resolve this matter with no further action or expense on my part, I accept responsibility
for the violation as described in the Notice of Violation letter dated January 20, 2017, and agree to pay the
proposed civil assessment of $200.
DATE SIGNATURE
2 . 2 - Les q- pS q- (
TELEPHONE NUMBER
ADDRESS
&Y-e, 6aY-fev- AIG
Slate of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

IUR-3
ROY COOPER
Gavemor
August 29, 2017
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Malcolm Waters
314 Holly Street
Cape Carteret, NC 2t35t34
RE., CAMAVIOLATION07-01C
Dear Mr. Waters:
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is in reference to the Notice of Violation dated January 20, 2017 that Brad Connell, representative
for the Division of Coastal Management, issued to you for unauthorized construction of a wood -framed
structure at 172 Shore Drive, Salter Path, Carteret County. The violation involved Estuarine Waters, Public
Trust Area and the Coastal Shoreline, which are Areas of Environmental Concern designated by the Coastal
Resources Commission.
The Coastal Area Management Act provides that a civil assessment of up to $10,000 plus investigative costs
may be assessed for any violation. It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil
penalty for all violations in order to recover some of the costs of investigating violations and/or to compensate
the public for any damage to its natural resources.
Under the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission, a proposed civil penalty in the amount of $200 is
appropriate for this violation. You may expeditiously resolve this matter prior to the assessment of a formal
civil penalty by accepting responsibility for the violation and paying the amount proposed above. In order to
do this, you must: (1) sign one of the attached copies of an "Agreement to Pay Civil Assessment;" (2) attach
a check or money order for $200 made payable to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ); and, (3) return the signed agreement and payment to this office by hand delivery or you may return
the signed agreement within ten (10) days of your receipt of this letter. Upon deposit of your check in the
Department's account, you will receive a Notice of Compliance officially closing this enforcement action.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality j Coaaw Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

Mr. Malcolm Waters
Page 2 of 3
August 29, 2017
If you do not send a signed agreement and payment to this office within ten (10) days, the Director of the
Division of Coastal Management may formally assess a civil penalty against you. You will then have the
opportunity to request a hearing on the penalty or request settlement of the penalty.
Thank you for your time and cooperation in resolving this important matter. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
2°`t
Roy Brownlow
District Manager
Division of Coastal Management
Enclosures
cc: Brad Connell, Coastal Management Representative, DCM
Chris Jones, Carteret County Planning and Inspections
State of North Carolina I Enwonmmtal Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

Mr. Malcolm Waters
Page 3 of 3
August 29, 2017
CAMA VIOLATION #17.01C
Mr. MALCOM WATERS
AGREEMENT TO PAY PROPOSED CIVIL ASSESSMENT
I understand that the staff of the Department of Environmental Quality will propose the assessment of a civil
penalty in the amount of $200 against me for violation of the Coastal Area Management Act, NCGS 113A-
100 et seq, committed on or near property located at 172 Shore Dr, Salter Path, in Carteret County, North
Carolina. In order to resolve this matter with no further action or expense on my part, I accept responsibility
for the violation as described in the Notice of Violation letter dated January 20, 2017, and agree to pay the
proposed. civil assessment of $200.
DATE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
s
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
State of North Carolina I Environmental Qaality 1 Coastal Managemmt
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808 T

lIli*it�l�tl�l��Nle��IM�r��M�++l�r dl�l,
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Tel.[phone]
Chris Jones
Carteret County
4028
Beaul
U TF
Z3357i356
NEOPOST uzsr �.�nss Mar.
08129/2017
rmigmum$000.462
ZIP 2855
0411-10254164
NIXIE Z76 FE 1 0009%03/17
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVER48LE AS €tDOR-c SSED
UNABLE TO FORWARD
SC: Z8557356099 *2780-01053-03-39
it rn'lii..yl"nv"ul....f ur'nl i'nn l'rrrli l_�

----.Mr. Malcolm Waters
January20, 2017
Page 4 of 4
RESTORATION PLAN
For
Mr. MALCOLM WATERS
CAMA Violation No.17-01 C
Property located at 172 SHORE DRIVE, SALTER PATH, CARTERET COUNTY
Remove the second story and return the existing non -conforming structure to its original single story
dimensions.
I, Malcolm Waters, agree to remove the second story and return the existing non -conforming structure to its
original dimensions.
I agree to complete this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by February 28,
2017, or provide an explanation for non-compliance and a reasonable request for time extension. When corrective
actions are complete, I will notify the DCM so the work can be inspected.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil penalty plus investigative costs against all violations. The
amount assessed will depend upon several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected and the
extent of the damage to them. If restoration is not undertaken or satisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment
will be levied and an injunction sought to require restoration.
t1
State of North Carolina 1 Eavironmental Quality I Coutal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28551
252 808 2808 T

DCM ENFORCEMENT TRACKING REPORT
}ram' D
Field Rep. J)E Issuer Violation Case No.I��
Compliance Rep. � Permit No. �
LPo i�1i` f S � Of1PS ❑ (if
LPJ
ble)
Violation Description Was activity permittable? Yes No
Initial Discovery Date ?J' Discovery Method , I O-
ry ( n �)figmCe fOsft � nl
Q
r'�(S4 tlbdj
Violation Description 17
r,C t � e4 �Ot�P t�P ��
�[+
Respondent Information
Prior CAMA or D/F Violations: Yes 09ZQ Prior Case No:
Respondent Name(s)
! �- (Landowner/AgentfContractor)
Address ���7 Pe I� St
City Car— j
State - Zip
Phone #
Fax #/Email
cw :d
----.
�. _ ! ... ._i..... - r. . .....7 _ / _ •
_ _
Violation Type:
Project Type: Authorizations Required:
�No Permit
Private/Community
a'or CAMA
❑ Permit Condition
Govt./PublicL<7�eneral
&F.
❑ Expired Permit
❑ Commer ial
(tiSp+p��
Inconsistent w/ Rules
Tier Level:
lu
VwV
rti4 5r,
Violation Location and Site Descri tion
Project Location: County
CA6 `1�
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(a)
17
Subdivision
City J/h ITL�C rf.��h ZIP
Phone # ( _) River Basin
Site Visits Respondent Site Visits Respondent ,
Present Present
El ❑
2 ❑
❑ ❑
LaULong _
Shoreline Length
SAV: Not Sure Yes l"o
Sandbags: Not Sure Yes i to
PNA: Yes rI'1gf�j Adjacent
ORW: � No Adjacent
Crlt. Hab, Yes No
Photos Yes No
Adj. Wtr. Body KA22 (� � Owy (natilinan/unxn) Waiver Required Yes No
�- In DWQ Buffer Area Yes �N
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body �'-
Specify DW Q Buffer if applicable:
Restoration /
Extension Granted /Yes No
NOV Date ,r.,�((L.// / Initial Rea. Comp. Date aaa«<!!! l / L.
CNOV Date Date Comp. Observed 3 1"(i> I 1 / Acceptance Date
Penalty Assessment qq
Sent to Respondent Date �i 1✓'t�
Rcvd. by Dist. Mgr. Date
Assessment Extended Yes
7J.0409 Ref.
I;ecomm. Assess.
DCM Assess.
$
App./Permit Fee
c
Penalty
(JZl rAw
1100—
$
$
Willful/Intent.
e
$
$
Continuing
$
Investigative
ti
$
$h� r
Total

t
Formal Assessments, Appeals and Reductions
Date Long Form Submitted Assessment Appealed: Yes No
Date Formal CPA Submitted
Penalty modified
Final Assessment $ Date
Attorney General's Office for Injunction or Formal Collection
Date sent to AG ❑ Respondent not responsive to penalty/NOV ❑ Injunction to complete restoration
Date Collection Letter Sent Date Demand Letter Sent
Violation
e�Activities
�and Impacts
AECs
. _ _ E AJ(RPEVA— ( E F PT ES
JNIA
�Y`�,� tPPWS: AFI FC:
other:
Restoration Required by the Respondent �No
Wetlands Impacted / No If yes, which types:
® DS CJ SY JR LS TY
SS sC SP IF BF 404
Dimensions in excess
of permit/ unauthorized activities
Dimensions to restore
Final dimensions
allowed
Actually restored
Development Activities
Habitat Description
"Kt.rA.MAO
. i
ors.
i,losing
Payment Received $
D I Zq I z,Q (� Date Vo
Date Case Closed

�'S�a-w�G /y,�riSryQ

►�d�n
LINE TABLE
L }A!,!-
R��M�y}jjff ff i
(MpryI��4W
LEBEBD ���
..
o Ix
iis:ML,iS rw �i:;viw'rwxL w LAMA.
1'¢+i
w
T VW4 '- •Lz "oiiiunt.
w[LSLr
L
�yi
P rmsr"imr$k
mvill—
N}AMA U
i.
m nm wr
owa�:z�Azu .iLL is
mew
n LSALTER
PATH
N zvsti w1sY
LOT at N N e
'�
'S
vrtRr LAM
n
azvamr�
SiOR6 DR[ Vw
.
eEnouo eNanaewmgP.L
1018NN P i �

F
i
k 5
L.:

Brownlow, Roy
From: Brownlow, Roy
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 9:05 AM
To: Lopazanski, Mike (mike. [e-mail]), Frank Jennings
([e-mail]); Howell, Jonathan; Wilson, Debra. 'roy.brownlow@gmail. com';
Doug Huggett (Doug,[e-mail]); Christy Goebel
(Christine. [e-mail]), Davis, Braxton C (Braxton. Davis@NC DEN R.Gov);
Connell, Brad
Subject: Development Question
Attachments: scan0001.pdf
Please open this email or print these out for the Regulatory Section Chiefs meeting this morning. I'll provide the
background at the meeting but the subject is redevelopment of the existing blue fish house in Salter Path.
This person has added a second story without a CAMA permit or building permit and we need to determine if the second
story can remain. Please reference 7H 209(10)(H); and/or 7.1211.
Thanks,
Roy
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

, .� \ .
. , / </
?� � ,� /
» /\\` %�
. �� /
fit.:� } }/
f»� ; °\
X � }>\ �
:ƒ }\\f
; c&
2\� �
.
G w:: \ \ �
.
2
�)��
� � /:�
�
. �
\�
� x�
� \
.
</�
©:{»y7�
�I
.
«`§�
��
. �
. , .
: � .
�
�
« >«
� \
.�� \ ���
�
. .
22� a.
�
2:\:..
.
�\/\�
ay`�.
�\�
© �
� \\� >
,<

1 1
J
Y
1
,
\F 1
1
re

I
r7l
02
q% #

Submitted to the Carteret County Board of Adjustment
August 9, 2017
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Board for your service and allowing me to
comment. I hope you have had a chance to read my email in response to the scheduling of the
meeting and the letter I sent Mr. Burns after I met with him and Mr. Foxworth. I ask that both be
made a part of the record of this meeting. I also request that my remarks now be part of the
record. I'll provide a written copy.
When I met with Mr. Burns and Mr. Foxworth I was told that you considered only facts not
opinions. I'd like to review the facts I put in my letter to Mr. Burns but do it in a very truncated
manner. I am aware of the family connections and issues involved here.
My review of the records shows that an original permit to start construction at 172 Shore Drive
was issued on December 4, 2015. The email contact on the permit shows David Thompson of
Primus Contracting. The permit calls for "Repairs to existing structure - repair pilings, girders
and wall bracing - Permit does not authorize expansion of structure." The permit further states,
"CAMA exempt per 07K.0103 - Repair and Maintenance statutory exclusion."
In late 2016, Primus Contracting proceeded to build a two story, replacement structure on the
approximate footprint of the collapsed Scallop House The two story structure appears to any
casual observer to be a residential structure. There was no repair, as evidenced by two facts.
First the pile of rubble called the Scallop house was totally removed except for some very small
part which has been determined to be "waterward" of the normal high water line. Nothing was
left to repair. Second CAMA made the determination that what had occurred was replacement
not repair.
On December 28, 2016, a second permit to construct a second story was applied for by
Malcolm Waters of Primus Contracting. That was of course after the second story was already
in place.
On January 11, 2017, according to CAMA, Mr. Walters called them. Why, I don't know. As a
result CAMA called the County and a few days later CAMA and the County made a site visit.
CAMA at that time determined the structure was a replacement and issued a cease and desist
order until the normal high water line could be established. In conversation with Mr. Brownlow of
CAMA some months later he stated he asked if the owner had information on the normal high
water. Mr. Brownlow stated that the owner said he had but that he had lost it. At some time later
a survey was done to establish the normal high water and "gizzam" the normal high water line
goes right between the area that separates the old pile of debris left and the new two story
residential structure. An amazing stroke of luck?
Based on the survey, CAMA determined that the new structure was landward of the normal high
water and turned the whole issue back to the County. Mr. Foxworth determined that a variance
was needed to continue construction.
When I met with Mr. Burns and Mr. Foxworth, Mr. Foxworth stated he was working for me just as
much as the people that built the structure. Where was this concern when the original permit
was issued? Why were not adjoining land owners involved at that time? As an aside, Mr.
Foxworth told me he was OK with the one story structure but had problems with a two story
1 of 2

building. Does that mean that anyone can get a permit to "repair" something on any lot of any
size and location and then do whatever they want and the County is OK with it as long as it
stays one story? Can anyone get such a permit, tear down a non -conforming building and put
up something new? What does that say for the entire permitting process?
Sometime in April of this year after nothing was done on the structure I began asking questions
and the more questions I asked the more questions came up. Then folk didn't want to talk to
me. CAMA after suggesting I visit wth them one day, informed me the following day that I had to
correspond with them through their attorney in the future. I did on several occasions. I also
talked to Mr. Foxworth on a couple of occasions and once with Mr. Burns about the issues.
Recently my emails to Mr. Foxworth asking for assistance on other issues have not been
answered, so perhaps I have to correspond with the County attorney now.
I also emailed Mr. Walters and asked a number of questions about why the two story structure
was built. I understandably did not get a response.
I understand the original permit was issued based on the desire of the owners to preserve some
of the history of Salter Path by "repairing" the old scallop house. As it turned out nothing was
repaired or preserved. The pile of debris called the scallop house was totally replaced. A non-
conforming building was completely removed and a new building replaced it, and just looking at
it it doesn't seem to be where the old structure was. What preservation took place? Was historic
preservation just a ploy?
And now we come to today where you as a Board are being asked to put your stamp of
approval on something that has been accomplished under what as a minimum are dubious
circumstances. You are being asked to forgive, after the fact, what was never going to be
allowed through the County's normal permitting process. The lot doesn't meet any of the
minimum standards on which construction of anything can be permitted. As I told Mr. Burns, it's
all about integrity, integrity of individuals and the integrity of the system.
I worked in government for 40 years in positions having to decide similar issues that you are
dealing with tonight. I learned to know when I was being played. Do you think you are being
played? I think the permitting process was played. I think this is a classic example of, "It's easier
to get forgiveness that permission."
Getting to this point of asking you for a variance and/or to reverse Mr. Foxworth's decision is
insulting to you as a Board. What you should be deciding is who will pay for the demolition of
the structure that never should have been built in the first place.
Again its all about integrity. Thank you for your time and service
Respectfully,
Roger Montague
2of2

Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511
919-999-6663
[e-mail]
Mr. Tommy Burns
County Manager
Carteret County
302 Court House Square
Suite 200
Beaufort, NC 28516
Mr. Burns:
fi.rtg�r
Revised July 20, 2017
On June 30th I sent you an email briefly summarizing my thoughts on our meeting
regarding the construction at 172 Shore Drive, Salter Path. This is to expand on those
thoughts and provide some information regarding this issue that hopefully will impact
your decision making.
It is interesting that in our meeting you mentioned you had just returned from leadership
training in Gettysburg, PA. As National Sales Training Manager for Bayer CropScience I
participated in several of those sessions with the senior sales leadership at BCS. Our
sessions were taught by http://www.battlefieldleadership.com/about/staff/. As part of
that, I walked Pickett's Charge more than once with Colonel Kingseed.
I trust your training covered the critical leadership trait of integrity. Without it little real
leadership occurs. As things play out at 172 Shore Drive your integrity may be tested.
With all the issues you deal with as County Manager I understand the subject issue is
minuscule and you have many bigger pressing issues. But as Mr. Foxworth said in our
meeting you (collectively) are working for all the tax payers of Carteret County.
I have no reason to and don't doubt your personal integrity at all. I do however question
the integrity of the process that has allowed the building at 172 Shore Drive. Why would
one not conclude the system is being gamed given the number of odd seeming
coincidences and convenient decisions regarding the structure?
The rest of this letter deals with my understanding of some crucial facts and some
thoughts on what I consider to be common sense. Please let me know if my
understandings appear to be "alternative facts" and we can talk about it. I'm not claiming
nor implying wrong doing on any individual's part. I'm just asking questions about the
system and how it worked in this case.
My position is that the new structure should never have been allowed
and should be removed in its entirety.
Pagel of 13

Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511t
919-999-6663
'Y mont gueraidoud.com
9•R'qr fl.mpr
Brief History
The old scallop house had been on the subject property for at least 40 years according
to locals. I don't know when it was built. The building had been used only for processing
and selling scallops. Its condition on July 15, 2015 is shown in the photo below.
If
We bought our house at 177 Shore Drive about 9 years ago. The scallop house had
been slowly collapsing since we first saw it. While an eyesore it did have some nostalgic
value, and we accepted its presence. I never saw anyone go in the building's remains in
the 9 years we've had our property.
Page 2 of 13

Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
i Cary, NC 27511
•?'� 919-999-6663 I'
's.... montaguerdidoud.com
fl.m'Au: fl.rcpr
The old scallop house was not in repairable condition and had not been for some time,
as evidenced by the simple fact that it was replaced and not repaired. It was a pile of
rubble. I understand that complaints about the collapsing structure had been registered
with the County, but Mr Foxworth seemed to contradict that.
First Building Permit
Based on information provided me by the Cedar Point office, a construction permit was
issued on December 4, 2015 for the subject property. The applicant was Primus
Contracting, Inc. An email address of davidt romuscontractingcom is included on the
permit. I assume this email address belongs to David Thompson, the president of
Primus Contracting. The permit calls for "Repairs to existing structure - repair pilings,
girders and wall bracing - Permit does not authorize expansion of structure." The permit
further states, "CAMA exempt per 07K.0103 - Repair and Maintenance statutory
exclusion."
The Word Repair
I asked Ms. Barnes what the word repair meant. The following are not strict quotes but
are my remembrance of what she said. I did ask if I could quote her. Ms. Barnes
explained that repair meant to just fix it up. She explained that it did not mean replace.
She volunteered that, when the permit was applied for. they said they were just going to
fix it up so it would be safe for children. What I find interesting about our discussion that
day is that Ms. Barnes could respond without hesitation and with great clarity to what
happened with an application that was issued 18 months prior to my asking about it.
And as Mr. Foxworth mentioned in our meeting; if Ms. Barnes said it, it is the truth.
Wonder why there was an immediate and detailed answer from Ms. Barnes?
The Significance of the Word Repair (common sense significance)
You folk are the experts here and I am at a disadvantage. For whatever definition you
place on repair, repair at 172 Shore Drive doesn't appear to have occurred. The
attorney for CAMA, to which I now have to direct all questions regarding this issue,
states, "As it relates to CAMA, repair and replacement are specific terms with specific
meanings. Repair is doing work that is less than 50% of the pre-storm/wear condition
while replacement is work that is 51 % or more. Repair does not require that an owner
first get a CAMA permit (it is exempt from needing one) while replacement requires a
CAMA permit, and therefore, requires that the "development" proposed meets the
current CAMA rules applicable to the site/development." If I remember correctly, Mr.
Foxworth in our meeting also explained repair as the attorney did above.
Is not having to get a CAMA permit a clue as to why "repair" rather than "replacement"
was used in the permit?
Page 3 of 13

Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511.°
919-999-6663 F i
montaguer@icloud corn
i1IC.q,i f14t0,C
The estimated cost of "repairs" on the permit is $7,500. One contractor that I asked to
look at the building stated that at a minimum a one story building would have cost
$10,000 and wondered if it might be more, based on the new pilings. I'm not going to
carry this "cost" issue any further because I know how this can be explained away.
The commercial building code in NC defines repair as the reconstruction or renewal of
any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage.
What actually occurred was replacement that expanded the structure to double its size
in direct contravention to what the permit allowed. What "repair" occurred? Why would a
licensed contractor build such a structure based on the permit that the contractor
himself applied for?
As an aside, Mr. Foxworth stated he was fine with the one story. A permit was issued for
repair, but replacement occurred. The understanding in the Cedar Point office seems to
be that it was to "fix up" a one story building, not replace it. What does Mr. Foxworth's
statement say for the meaning of any permit that is issued? Does securing a building
permit mean; get the most simple one you can, get started doing what you want to do,
and then ask for forgiveness if anyone asks any questions? Is the permitting system as
it is administered viewed as one of being easier to get forgiveness after construction
begins than permission before construction begins?
Contractor's view
It appears that both the president and vice president of Primus Contracting applied for
permits associated with the construction at 172 Shore Drive. I emailed Mr. Malcolm
Walters, VP of Primus Contracting, and asked several questions about the original
permit and the structure. I have not received a response.
What was Built on a Permit to Repair
Based on locals's stories, the remains of the scallop house was torn down and hauled
off and construction on the new two story building began in the late Fall of 2016. 1 don't
know the exact date.
What was built, based on the permit of December 4, 2015, is shown in the photo on
page 5. The photo was taken on December 28, 2016, coincidentally the same date of
the application for the permit to build the second story. The document linked below sets
the Dimensional Requirements for Zoned and Unzoned Areas in the county.
Looking at the GIS data on the lot and considering the high water level agreed to by
CAMA it doesn't appear that the lot meets minimum size requirements for anything,
Page 4 of 13

Roger W. Montague ,
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511
919-999-6663
r [e-mail]
fl.m.A,A fl.rt'Am
anywhere. I wonder if this is applicable, and if it was considered in issuing the original
permit?
Comparing what was done on the property with the wording on the original permit and
the supporting unsolicited, anecdotal information provided by the Cedar Point staff begs
the question, "Was there misrepresentation in the application?" I'm not claiming or
implying there was, just wondering. What would be the status of a permit where
misrepresentation occurred in the application?
Second Building Permit
On December 28, 2016 a permit was applied for by Malcolm Walters of Primus
Contracting to add the second story. Total commercial fees for the permit in the
amount of $296.00 were paid. The use classification states "residential" but fees paid
and charged by the county states "commercial" permit fees. It does state in this
application no water, no septic and no bedrooms. Plus the application states no
Page 5 of 13

y Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511.°
919-999-6663 `/����Yf"`��►j
'1 montaguerdicloud.com
El.c'9r 9.R'qr
appliances. As I said in an email after our meeting I was mixing up zoning and building
code questions. Perhaps I'm not the only one mixing up terms?
Permit Denial?
When I talked to Ms. Barnes I think she also stated that a permit for two stories had
been applied for, but it had been denied. Staff in the Beaufort office verified that the
permit had been denied in a phone call by another individual. Mr. Foxworth, if I
remember correctly, emphatically stated that no permit had been denied. I don't know
what the significance of this discrepancy is, if any.
CAMA's Involvement
In an email from Mr. Brownlow on June 28, 2017 he said, "I would encourage you to
make an appointment and come by my office to discuss this matter." When I attempted
to make the appointment I received an email on June 29, 2017 from Mr. Brownlow
stating, "I have been advised by the Division Director that any further communication
about this issue in Salter Path is to be through the Division's legal counsel." One has to
wonder why I need to talk to a lawyer?
When I didn't have to go through CAMA's attorney, I contacted Mr. Brownlow of CAMA
several times. In one email he stated, "In accordance with the CRC's rules, specifically
NCAC 15A 07J .0210(1), the Division determined that the unauthorized work done
without a CAMA permit was considered replacement of an existing structure."
The CAMA attorney also stated, "My understanding from Mr. Brownlow is that he
believes the work undertaken rose to the level of "replacement" and so a CAMA permit
should have been sought before work was undertaken."
Do you think the prospect of having to secure a CAMA permit might be the reason a
permit for "repair" was acquired?
In a more detailed email, Mr. Brownlow stated, "After the County staff asked DCM for
assistance in investigating the redevelopment of this property, DCM issued a cease and
desist order and a Notice of Violation for unauthorized development in an Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC) by engaging in development prior to obtaining a CAMA
Permit. Additional information was requested of the Respondent by DCM. The
information request was to ascertain if the work done could be permitted in accordance
with the CAMA and Coastal Resources Commission's (CRC) rules. In reply, the
Respondent submitted a sealed and signed survey from a professional land surveyor
indicating the normal high water in accordance with NGVD 88. The red flags inquired
were likely placed and used by the land surveyor. According to the professional land
Page 6 of 13

Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511
919-999-6663 iFY' c
montaguerdicloud.com
flncipu flncpw
surveyor's information, the structure is landward of the normal high water with the
exception of the 'blue shed' portion of the building.
In accordance with the CRC's rules, specifically NCAC 15A 07J .0210(1), the Division
determined that the unauthorized work done without a CAMA permit was considered
replacement of an existing structure. Replacement may be permitted if the replacement
is consistent with current CRC rules. Based on the professional land surveyor's
information which shows the structure landward of the normal high water (with the
exception of the 'blue shed' portion of the building) and NCAC 15A 07H .0209(d)(10)(H),
a determination was made by the Division that the structure may be developed in its
original footprint provided it does not increase the impervious surface. However, the
remnant "blue shed" portion of the structure may not remain and must be removed prior
to commencing any further new work in the AEC. It would require a CAMA Minor Permit
for work to continue on the structure."
Is the same LPO that approved the original building permit now going to rule on the
CAMA Minor Permit? Is there a conflict here?
Is there something to the timing of CAMA's involvement that is questionable?
Coincidence?
Here is one of the "coincidences' I mentioned earlier in this letter. What are the odds of
the normal high water just happening to be where the survey says - right between the
old and new parts? As I said before, I can't imagine a professional surveyor risking his/
her license on this project.
As an aside one local told me he had to go under the structure as a kid and move the
scallop shells so water would run under the entire building.
Take a look photo 1 on page 8. CAMA says the survey conducted after the building was
constructed shows that the water line separates the two portions. Do you think this is
just by coincidence? I guess stranger things have happened.
Look at the structure from the opposite side which is photo 2 on page 8. Funny looking
water line, irrespective of "king tides' as Mr. Brownlow suggested.
Page 7 of 13

Roger W. Montague
S ` '
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511
' —
919-999-6663
montaquarOcloud.com
Photo 1
li 0 w
Photo 2
Page 8 of 13
r
st.mw�.

Roger W. Montague
�, f s 316 Kettlebridge Dr.
y Cary, NC 27511`
919-999-6663
z. [e-mail] ` s.
T111 L'/I1:
fl.mipu
Mr. Brownlow's statements
I also asked three questions of Mr. Brownlow in an attempt to understand why and when
CAMA became involved. The three questions below are from his email to me.
"When were you called in on the project?
January 11, 2017: 1 received a phone call from the Respondent, Mr. Malcolm Waters
regarding the subject structure. On January 17, 2017, 1 had a phone conversation about
this structure with Carteret County Building Inspector and CAMA Local Permit Officer,
Chris Jones. On January 18, 1 met with Mr. Jones and Mr. Waters at the property.
Why were you called in on the project?
The purpose of my involvement was to investigate and to assist Mr. Jones in
determining if there was a CAMA violation, if the work done was consistent with CAMA
and the CRC rules, and what action, if any, would be necessary to bring the project into
compliance with the CAMA and CRC rules.
If the old portion of the blue shed been on the front of the new construction and
the new construction had extended to where the blue portion had been what
would have been your conclusions?
It is the determination of the Division, based upon the survey which determined the
NHW, that the portion of the building waterward of the NHW would have to be removed
to comply with CRC rules. This determination was made after consultation with Division
of Coastal Management staff and management, as well as discussion with Carteret
County staff. This determination was also based upon factual evidence. I cannot
speculate a hypothetical determination without factual evidence or a complete
application for a CAMA permit for such a proposal."
Common sense question for you - Coincidence or design in the placement of the new
construction?
Also, why would the contractor himself call CAMA at this point in the project?
Cease and Desist Order
This is where things stopped, on or about January 18, 2017. CAMA issued its cease
and desist order which was lifted after the high water level was established. It was then,
as I understand it, up to the County to do what it saw fit. As Mr. Foxworth stated in our
meeting his decision then was, that to continue with construction a variance approved
by the Board of Adjustment was necessary. Mr. Foxworth stated that no stop work order
had been issued by the County and the application for the permit for a second story had
not been denied. He further stated that construction has ceased simply on the good
faith of the contractor/owner. All the discussion around the second permit being denied
or not denied is a little fuzzy to me, but at least no construction is ongoing.
Page 9 of 13

Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr. t ''
Cary, NC 27511
919-999-6663 JS �cj
montaguerd loud com
fl.mq,A fl.mpu
I have too many questions about coincidences and conveniences to be included in this
letter. Most are probably irrelevant. Many could probably be explained away by folk
steeped in the system, but I'm not going to frustrate myself by asking them and waste
the time of many people.
Common Sense
Common sense yells out that the subject structure, even a one story structure, does not
belong at 172 Shore Drive. No one has ever argued with me on that. Many involved
have declined to offer a response, but not one person that I have corresponded with has
offered any rebuttal to what common sense is yelling.
Look at the Carteret County GIS. Let common sense rule. Look at the lot dimensions
and do the math on the lot size. Consider where CAMA says the normal high water line
is. Look at the approximate property lines for 172 Shore Drive in red below. Look at the
old building's approximate outline in green.
Page 10 of 13

1 , Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511iC
` {�J 919-999-6663
s: montaguerdicloud.com ` s'
fl.1L'qu il.a'qc
Look at where the water is in the photo below. Let common sense rule. "king tides."
Really?
Summary
Is this what you want Carteret County looking like in the future? Locals say this is a test
case, and if this structure stays anyone will be able to do anything they want to on a
permit that reads "Repairs to existing structure - repair pilings, girders and wall bracing -
Permit does not authorize expansion of structure. CAMA exempt per 07K.0103 - Repair
and Maintenance statutory exclusion."
Is what happened at 172 Shore Drive an example of the permitting process you want to
administer?
Integrity Mr. Burns, Integrity. I believe you have it.
Page 11 of 13

' Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511'
f + 919-999-6663 J' +
mon yuer0alond.00m
Nwiy.0 fl..cipir
To me the the ultimate common sense question is - Would Carteret County have
allowed the structure that is pictured below to be built on that lot, had the lot been
vacant?
Page 12 of 13

Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr. i
a
Cary, NC 27511
919-999-6663
montaguerOldoud.com Y'
flb6'qu) flncp�
It is my understanding from our meeting that:
1. A CAMA Minor Permit is required for construction to continue.
2. Based on Mr. Foxworth's decision, the Board of Adjustment will rule on a variance if
it is requested by the owner,
3. The owner of the property can contest the decision by Mr. Foxworth to require a
variance.
4. If construction resumes without one of the two decision above being made in favor
of the owner, the County will issue a cease and desist order,
5. 1 will receive notice of the Board of Adjustment meeting that will consider any
request for a variance at 172 Shore Drive.
I don't know if 1 and 2 above are one in the same or if they are connected in some
manner.
If Mr. Foxworth's decision regarding the need for a variance is successfully contested
guess we'll know soon enough.
If the Board of Adjustment does consider a variance I plan on attending the meeting and
offering facts. You've been given a preview above. I also plan on attending the August
meeting of the Board of Adjustment just to observe.
In the event Mr. Foxwort's decision is reversed and construction proceeds or the
variance is approved, I'll be asking many more questions about the applicable building
codes and by that time I'll be a little more versed on what is required.
Thank you for your time and service to Carteret County.
Roger W. Montague
Page 13 of 13

Ms. Goebel:
Thanks for the message. I apologize if I wasted everyones time. I felt guilty for continuing to
send emails to Mr. Brownlow. He has always been very thorough. I have complemented him on
that. Since you have read the emails I'm sure you have seen it.
My last request was just to get some definitional clarification of terms. Some of it is confusing,
for instance the word replacement vs. repair in the context of the permitting process. Perhaps I
should have studied the statute a little more.
I thought that since I am in Salter Path this week that I could meet him in person and thank him
as well as get the clarifications. Perhaps that was a little too much.
I'll study your email and perhaps contact you again.
Again, thanks for such a thorough and prompt message.
And one more thing. I fully trust the DCM and have no quarrel with Mr. Brownlow or his
decision!
Roger Montague
On Jun 29, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Goebel, Christine A <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Montague -
I'm DCM's legal counsel and I wanted to clarify Mr. Brownlow's response a bit more. Mr.
Brownlow has tried to answer all of your questions regarding the Salter Path site, and in
reviewing your email exchanges, I think has done a good job explaining CAMA's jurisdiction
and the Town's jurisdiction and role regarding the site. We hope those answers have
satisfactorily answered your questions and have shown that DCM is working to correct any
enforcement issues on the site.
However, we also wanted to make sure you were aware that if you wish to formally contest the
decision to exempt that structure allowed (which is separate from the portion being addressed
through enforcement procedures now) from needing a CAMA permit, there is a quasi-judicial
process available to you. It's called the Third -Party Hearing process and is explained on DCM's
website here: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/coastal-management-
permits/variances-appeals (scroll down about half -way too Third Party Hearing Requests).
Toward the bottom are the links to the Third -party hearing request form that you'd need to fill
out and deliver as described. Also, since more than 20 days have passed since the permit
exemption decision was made, you'd need to explain why the Chair of the Coastal Resources
Commission should consider your filing timely.
Again- we hope that you feel your questions have been answered, but if you decide you want to
more formally appeal the decision in this case, you now have information about that process.
Finally, while I'm counsel to DCM staff, I can't give you legal advice, but can answer general
questions about the Third -Party process if you have any.
Thanks!

Christy
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant General Counsel
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: [phone]
Mailing Address:
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
<image001.png>
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Brownlow, Roy
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:31 PM
To: Roger Montague <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goebel, Christine A <[e-mail]>; Davis, Braxton C
<[e-mail]>; Lopazanski, Mike <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Salter Path Structure: Reply to Questions
Mr. Montague,
Hope this finds you doing well.
I have been advised by the Division Director that any further communication about this issue in
Salter Path is to be through the Division's legal counsel.
Please direct any further questions and discussion about this matter to:
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant General Counsel
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: [phone]
Mailing Address:
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Thank you,
Roy Brownlow
District Manager
& Compliance Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management

Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 office
Extension 217
[e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Roger Montague [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:16 PM
To: Brownlow, Roy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Salter Path Structure: Reply to Questions
lUroi 6 . o r*"
I met with Mr. Burns and Mr. Foxworth this morning. It was an amicable meeting and they
provided some very interesting information. I appreciate their input.
I am still a little puzzled by your role in the process and would like to speak with you in person
tomorrow morning if that is possible. I don't think it will take 15 minutes but I would just like to
see you in person. I'm available at most any hour. I understand if this is too short notice.
Thanks
Roger Montague
919-999-6663
On Jun 28, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Roger Montague <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Brownlow:
I appreciate your comments.
I have an appointment tomorrow with the County Manager and the Assistant County Manager. I
feel free to visit with you, but I do not question the actions of CAMA. I may take you up on the
offer to visit.
What you provided me is exactly what I was after.
I again appreciate your efforts and am in no way critical of or question your involvement.
I however do question the actions of others. Perhaps I'll get the answers tomorrow. Perhaps not.
Timing of actions and the "coincidence" of some things I have questions about.

Roger Montague
On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Brownlow, Roy <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Montague,
Your concerns about this structure in Salter Path are highly considered and of importance. I
would encourage you to make an appointment and come by my office to discuss this matter.
Perhaps we could arrange a meeting with everyone involved so all your questions and concerns
can be addressed at once. Otherwise, I'll address your questions below as they appear:
o When were you called in on the project?
January 11, 2017: I received a phone call from the Respondent, Mr. Malcolm Waters regarding
the subject structure. On January 17, 2017, I had a phone conversation about this structure with
Carteret County Building Inspector and CAMA Local Permit Officer, Chris Jones. On January
18, I met with Mr. Jones and Mr. Waters at the property.
o Why were you called in on the project?
The purpose of my involvement was to investigate and to assist Mr. Jones in determining if there
was a CAMA violation, if the work done was consistent with CAMA and the CRC rules, and
what action, if any, would be necessary to bring the project into compliance with the CAMA and
CRC rules.
o If the old portion of the blue shed been on the from of the new construction and the new
construction had extended to where the blue portion had been what would have been your
conclusions?
It is the determination of the Division, based upon the survey which determined the NHW, that
the portion of the building waterward of the NHW would have to be removed to comply with
CRC rules. This determination was made after consultation with Division of Coastal
Management staff and management, as well as discussion with Carteret County staff. This
determination was also based upon factual evidence. I cannot speculate a hypothetical
determination without factual evidence or a complete application for a CAMA permit for such a
proposal.
I hope this information is helpful. I also encourage a meeting or a phone call to discuss any other
questions you have pertaining to this matter as that would be more efficient.
Regards,
Roy Brownlow
District Manager
& Compliance Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 office
Extension 217
[e-mail]

400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
<image001.png>
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Roger Montague [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 5:43 PM
To: Brownlow, Roy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Salter Path Structure: Reply to Questions
Mr. Brownlow:
Sorry to bother you again.
Something about CAMA's involvement still bothers me and I can't figure out what it is. I
consider your efforts to above board so I'm not suspicious of your efforts or conclusions.
Just a couple of questions.
When were you called in on the project?
Why were you called in on the project?
If the old portion of the blue shed been on the from of the new construction and the new
construction had extended to where the blue portion had been what would have been your
conclusions?
Thanks!
Roger Montague
On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:02 PM, Roger Montague <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Brownlow,
I have absolutely no quarrel with you or your decision. I'm sure you acted appropriately.
Thanks for you time and efforts.
Roger Montague

On Jun 26, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Brownlow, Roy <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Montague,
Thank you for your photos in your previous email messages.
The CRC rules use the `normal high water.' Tidal waters do reach beyond the `normal high' in
certain events such as tropical cyclones, North Easters, and astronomical events such as the
recent king tide. The date you report that you took these photos are during such a king tide event.
I am providing a link for your convenience: http://nckingtides.web.unc.edu/king-tide/.
Visual indicators can provide a quick and approximate location of normal high water, however
their accuracy can be varied by complications due to the temporal variations, such as but not
limited to storms, winds, and astronomical events. Therefore, reliance on a professional land
surveyor's maps using the scientifically established vertical datum has been and continues to be
acceptable and reliable information to base a permit decision. This is true especially in cases
where a few feet in accuracy can make a significant difference in protecting a riparian property
owner's riparian rights as well as managing the State's coastal resources. The Division of
Coastal Management is charged with the protection of riparian property owners' rights,
protecting the State's economy, and managing the State's coastal resources. At times, it is
challenging and difficult when there is a fine line in balancing all.
In this case, where the existing built upon area and development, is literally at the threshold of
the convergence of Estuarine Waters and the Coastal Shoreline, the Division acted appropriately
and diligently in requiring and acting upon a professional land surveyor's signed and sealed map
to render a decision that is fair, justifiable and without prejudice.
I hope this reply helps you understand the considerations, historical practices, and tools used in
making difficult land use decisions that involve protection of the State's resources as well as
protecting riparian property owner's rights.
Regards,
Roy Brownlow
District Manager
& Compliance Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 office
Extension 217
[e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
<image001.png>
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Roger Montague [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Brownlow, Roy <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Braxton C <[e-mail]>; Lopazanski, Mike
<mike.lopazanski @ ncdenr. gov>
Subject: Re: Salter Path Structure: Reply to Questions
Another view. Again I understand how eyes can play tricks and surveying instruments aren't
fooled, but I question the decision.
<image002.jpg>
On Jun 24, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Roger Montague <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Brownlow:
Again I appreciate your response. I think I understand what you are saying. I took a surveying
course many years ago in college and did differential leveling while an employee of USDA-
NRCS. I understand how one's eyes can play tricks on them when it comes to elevations. I
however can't visually ascertain any difference here. I doubt a surveyor would risk his/her
license on such a thing, but the findings seem beyond coincidental. I went down this weekend
and took this photo.
I also went to Carteret County offices and secured a copy of the original permit which states
"Repairs to existing structure - repair pilings, girders, and wall bracing - Permit does not
authorize expansion of structure." Te staff member stated that repair did not mean a new building
could be erected. While this is not your concern I don't see any repair. I see a new structure that
replaces a pile of rubble that was once a building.
I'm calling Chris Jones, the building inspector, tomorrow to ask some questions about the
permit.
Again, thanks for you work. I don't anticipate contacting you any more.
Roger Montague
On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Brownlow, Roy <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Montague,
Hope this finds you doing well.
I am in receipt of your email correspondence. The purpose of this message is to address the
questions posed in your email correspondence. Your questions [excerpted] are as follows:
• Does anyone, looking at the first photo below, think the blue shed left will be incorporated
into the new building[?]

• ' The red flags I guess are survey flags to try to establish some water level. If so why, if
needed, was that not part of any original approval process? I'd like an answer to that one. To
whoever is responsible please provide that answer?
• Don't know whether it's [pier and free-standing mooring] associated with the structure in
question or not. Is that allowed?
• I'm requesting responses from the others receiving this email as to your responsibility in
approving this construction and the relevant codes/laws governing such construction. And
especially if any water level studies were required before the initial approval for the renovation.
In summary, the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has been working with Carteret
County (County) staff to resolve this matter. After the County staff asked DCM for assistance in
investigating the redevelopment of this property, DCM issued a cease and desist order and a
Notice of Violation for unauthorized development in an Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
by engaging in development prior to obtaining a CAMA Permit. Additional information was
requested of the Respondent by DCM. The information request was to ascertain if the work done
could be permitted in accordance with the CAMA and Coastal Resources Commission's (CRC)
rules. In reply, the Respondent submitted a sealed and signed survey from a professional land
surveyor indicating the normal high water in accordance with NGVD 88. The red flags inquired
were likely placed and used by the land surveyor. According to the professional land surveyor's
information, the structure is landward of the normal high water with the exception of the `blue
shed' portion of the building.
In accordance with the CRC's rules, specifically NCAC 15A 07J .0210(1), the Division
determined that the unauthorized work done without a CAMA permit was considered
replacement of an existing structure. Replacement may be permitted if the replacement is
consistent with current CRC rules. Based on the professional land surveyor's information which
shows the structure landward of the normal high water (with the exception of the `blue shed'
portion of the building) and NCAC 15A 07H .0209(d)(10)(H), a determination was made by the
Division that the structure may be developed in its original footprint provided it does not
increase the impervious surface. However, the remnant "blue shed" portion of the structure may
not remain and must be removed prior to commencing any further new work in the AEC. It
would require a CAMA Minor Permit for work to continue on the structure. This information has
been shared with the Carteret County officials who are handling this matter. Carteret County is
the authority having jurisdiction for CAMA Minor Development permits, as in this case, in
addition to any other local government permits or authorizations
The Division conducted an investigation into the pier -like structure and buoy float, possibly a
free standing mooring, shown in your email photographs. Division staff made contact with the
responsible party and will be following up. It is my understanding the structures have been
removed.
I hope this information is of assistance to you. Consultation with the Carteret County CAMA
Local Permit Officer and/or Zoning Administrator may determine if there are any local
ordinances applicable to your question. The CRC rules and NC General Statutes are available on
the internet at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/coastal-management-rules.
If you have any other questions about this matter, please contact me at the Morehead City
District Office at [phone] ext 217.

Roy Brownlow
District Manager
& Compliance Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 office
Extension 217
Roy.Brov [e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
<image003.png>
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Roger Montague [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:14 PM
To: Brownlow, Roy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Salter Path
Mr. Brownlow:
I understand you were involved in a site visit on the subject property prior to the permit being
issued. If that is correct, please respond to my questions regarding the environmental issues as
you saw them and especially as regards to whether the structure is IN or out of the Sound. I'm
trying to learn what can and can't be done.
I appreciate your response.
Thanks
Roger Montague
On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Roger Montague <[e-mail]> wrote:
Folks:
This my last message harassing you as a group. I said in the message below that I didn't think I
was asking too much for a response from those involved in granting the permit. Evidentially I
was wrong. I got a response from Mr. Foxworth only. Perhaps he is the sole "grantor" of the
permit. I thank him for his prompt phone call.
Anyway I'm OK. No need to respond now. I'm headed in another direction.

One good note is that the "dock" mentioned in the message below has been removed.
At first I was sort of ambivalent about the whole thing. I understand not to get the locals riled
and that the locals have been there much longer than I have. I thought, "Live and let live."
Then I began to wonder why I should let what I consider a questionable application/permitting
process and a poor environmental decision stand without questioning what is going on with it. I
have a responsibility to see my tax dollars used wisely and a moral obligation to see units of
government act in an environmentally sound way. I will limit my preaching to this - the law
governing general contracting states that it is "... designed for the purpose of safeguarding life,
health and property and to promote public welfare." Has that been accomplished in this case? I
applaud the County in issuing a stop work order, but I now wonder how anything could even be
permitted to happen on that property other than removal for the debris pile.
I still contend that if it meets code then finish it and if not tear it down! But the more I think
about it the more I wonder how in the world the structure that is now in question could ever have
been approved in the first place? I'm no permitting expert but I did work with the Federal
government for 40 years all over the State and the US and have worked with hundreds of local
units of government on environmental issues. These questions come to mind.
The structure as seen in the July, 2015 photo below had'essentially collapsed in on itself. It was
essentially a pile of rubble. Yellow warning tape had been placed around it I guess to keep
people out. I had never seen anyone go it the shed. You can see in the photo that a board had
been nailed across the doors so they could not open. How could a permit be issued to refurbish,
renovate it, or whatever the word is? It was no longer a building. It was a pile of debris. Why did
the County not require that the pile of debris be removed? How do you renovate a pile of debris?
That fact to me is borne out by the fact that all new pilings were installed and a residence type
structure was put in the place of the debris pile. What was renovated?
On a more esoteric but I think important issue, which no one has ever responded to me on, is
this. The building in my view is IN the Sound not adjacent to it. Is that allowed? No one has ever
explained any of the rational for the permit being issued from this perspective. Am I out in left
field on this? Regardless of "grandfathering" how could that be permitted? How can that be a
sound environmental decision? Who is looking out for environmental issues? The permit in
essence says that a building can be erected IN the Sound. I think the second photo bears that out.
I personally would be embarrassed to have been involved in approving such actions, even if it
were for a one story renovation.
And the contention that what was erected on the property is the renovation of the shed shown in
the first photo below is laughable on it's face. Does anyone believe that? If so I have a mansion
to sell you right across from a "renovated" shed.
Again this is my last contact with you as a group. Thanks for at least reading the email if you got
this far.
I still have confidence that units of government and governmental agencies will do the right
thing!
Roger Montague

<F7E82639-A43D-4749-B4B2-48EB78501817.jpeg>
<IMG_1787.jpeg>
<IMG_1785.jpeg>
On Jun 14, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Roger Montague <[e-mail]> wrote:
Folks:
This is a follow up to my email regarding the questions I had regarding the structure in Salter
Path. I reiterate, if the structure meets all the local/state requirements then let him get on with it.
If it doesn't meet the necessary codes then it should be removed.
Regardless of the codes, common sense to me, just looking at the structure, makes all of it very
questionable.
I can not imagine anyone coming to any conclusion viewing the structure that it is intended to be
a renovation of a collapsed shed. That is ridiculous on the face of it. Does anyone, looking at the
first photo below, think the blue shed left will be incorporated into the new building.
I consider the new structure to be IN the sound not adjacent to the sound. In the past couple of
days I've seen an egret under the structure wading in the water looking for a meal. I don't
remember seeing that under any houses around here. I don't believe that regardless of the codes
should be allowed.
The photo below shows how the water exists under the house. Don't know if it is at to or high
tide or in between. The red flags I guess are survey flags to try to establish some water level. If
so why, if needed, was that not part of any original approval process? I'd like an answer to that
one. To whoever is responsible please provide that answer?
<20170604_184246_resized.jpg>
I don't detect that any more work has been done on the house, however a dock (if that can be
called a dock) has been built (first photo) and a mooring established near it (second photo).
Don't know whether it's associated with the structure in question or not. Is that allowed?
<20170612_164323_resized.jpeg>
<IMG_1990.JPG>
While the Assistant County Manager Mr. Foxworth has been very prompt in responding to me,
I'm requesting responses from the others receiving this email as to your responsibility in
approving this construction and the relevant codes/laws governing such construction. And

especially if any water level studies were required before the initial approval for the renovation. I
don't think I'm asking too much.
Thanks in advance for your response.
Roger Montague
919-999-6663
On Apr 23, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Roger Montague <[e-mail]> wrote:
Dear Public Servants and Staff:
My wife and I have owned the property at 177 Shore Drive in Salter Path for over 8 years. While
it is a weekend home,. we have attempted to be a part of the community and improve the
surroundings. We count many of the people of Salter Path as our friends. We are not
"Dingbatters" nor "Ditdotters."
I am a 40+ year veteran of USDA where I worked with an agency that dealt with competing land
use issues and environmental considerations. I have worked with local units of government on
these issues in the mountains, piedmont, and coastal plain of NC and in other states. While I am
not an expert on the building codes and land use regulations in Carteret County, I am fully
supportive of why they exist.
For the 8 years we have owned the property in Salter Path, the view off our front deck has been
an old "scollop house" in various stages of collapse. The photo below of the view was taken in
July of 2015. The subject building is blue. While we did not like the view of the collapsing
building and the accompanying piles of debris around it (that came and went) we understood the
"scallop house's" nostalgic value to many people. We also understood and accepted without
complaint the condition in which the property was kept.
<fullsizeoutput_b73 Jpeg>
Late last summer or early fall we noticed that the scallop house was gradually being torn down.
The talk in the neighborhood was that the "scallop house" was going to be reconditioned for
storage, or words to that effect. To my surprise one day when I arrived the photo below is what I
saw. The photo was taken December 28, 2016.
<IMG_1473.jpeg>
After having given the situation considerable thought, my position is that if the structure is
allowable by the Carteret County building codes and applicable environmental laws and a permit

application was truthfully submitted by the owner then let him finish it. If not then require that
the structure be removed in its entirety and immediately. I don't know the owner of the property.
I think I spoke to him once while he was on the property some years back. If the subject structure
is allowed to stand then it seems to me the system would allow anyone to build anything they
want, anywhere in Carteret County (or the Sound for that matter).
Also after considerable thought, I offer these observations. They are simply
observations/questions from a common sense standpoint. As I said I have not studied the
applicable laws/codes governing the permitting of the structure. Nor have I studied the applicable
environmental laws. Photos I took this weekend accompany some of the observations/questions.
It seems it could be argued that the structure was built with either a total disregard for applicable
laws and building codes and a flaunting of the permitting process or either an abject ignorance of
the applicable laws and permitting process. Hope neither is the case. Hope neither is accpetable.
Specific observations/questions:
1. Does anyone believe the subject structure's planned use is storage? Really
2. Who is going to haul nets, etc. up a flight of stairs?
3. Is the structure actually intended for a residence or vacation rental property?
4. Why does a "storage" structure call for so many windows, including picture windows?
<IMG_1785.jpeg>
5. Are the pilings to keep the structure above flood waters or out of the Sound itself? Seems there
is a difference.
Can a structure be built out in the Sound? By virtue of the use of the use of the old scallop
house it was essentially "in" the Sound.

6. The pilings under the new structure were put in last fall? Why not new pilings under the old
part if it is to be retained?
7. Does anyone believe the old part is intended to be a part of the new structure? Really?
8. The old part is about to collapse!
9. If the purpose was to renovate the old structure, why was so little of it retained to renovate?
<IMG_1787.jpeg>
10. The structure is literally within inches of an adjacent property line. Is that allowed by the
building codes?
11. How can such a structure be built on such a small piece of property? Is water, electricity, and
sewer available?
<IMG_1789.jpeg>
Again, my position is that if the structure is allowable by the Carteret County building codes and
applicable environmental laws and a permit application was truthfully submitted by the owner
then let him finish it. If not then require that the structure be removed in its entirety and
immediately.
I'm confident Carteret County will do what is right.
Respectfully submitted.

Roger W. Montague
316 Kettlebridge Dr.
Cary, NC 27511
919-999-6663

BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATOR
Mailing: 302 Courthouse Square
Beaufort, NC 28516
OfBoe: 402 Broad Street
Beaufort, NC 28516
Bus: (252) 728$545
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

2986 HWY 24 Suite H
Newport NC 28570
252 764 2438
PRIMUS
Fax [phone]
CONTRACTING, INC.
August 24, 2017
Tracy Barnes
Carteret County Planning and Development
Western Office- 701 Cedar Point Boulevard
Cedar Point, NC 28584
RE: Revision to Minor CAMA Application
Dear Mrs. Barnes,
Please make noted revision to the Minor CAMA permit application for June Willis's scallop house located at
172 Shore Drive.
Revision to the statement in "Description of the project"
Remove portion of statement that reads "to renovate and repair existing structure" and change to "
development of a two story structure over an existing impervious surface"
Sincerely,
MnLooLm waters
Malcolm Waters
Primus Contracting, Inc.
cARM?ET COUNT y
Al �71-
L�
IIPagc

' In
City, State, Zip Code
Dear Adjacent Property: ` Jib"
' 1' l
This letter is to inform you that I, Jib I ^p K� L'� i�I I � _c) � have applied for a CAMA Minor
�J1 Property Owner
Permit on my property at I t / Y k 0 1 in Carteret
Property Address
County. As required by CAMA regulations, I have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project
drawing(s) as notification of my proposed project. No action is required from you or you may sign and return
the enclosed no objection for 1m.IIf you
' have any questions or comments about my proposed project, please
- 7I contact me at 2� 64' LM ,or by mail at the address listed below. If you wish to
Applicant's Telephone
file written comments or objections with the Carteret County CAMA Minor Permit Program, you may submit
them to:
Local Permit Officer for:
Sincerely,
Property Owner
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip Code
Chris Jones, LPO
Carteret County
701 Cedar Point Blvd.
Cedar Point, NC 28584
t I W oc" � <
ac�,en
Pr I try) es (041()
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

■ Pn °ure �n return 0
o1—' mailPlece,
is card t0 y
so fiat l is card 10 the ba rmitst1e
or On me frond space Pe
IIIIIII
IIUIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111116142ll
9590 94 f
7015
152u
PS Form
3811. JuN 2015 PS
7630-02-0OD'005
peme9t�c n Recad
RMFIINEU
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

9/8/2017
USPS.come - USF
USPS Tracking Results
Tracking Number: 70151520000254885733
Product & Tracking Information
m
In
M1
In
AT I5A TIC E'ACNr K 28512
go
s0
Track Another P• �
Ced8led Mali Fee 'b J. SJ
Ln
s c
SmWes 8. Fees(cFacx6w,ea�lepprppp'laec)
ii JJ ''1l
�
❑Hetum HecNpi lTedcapy) . ll
p
❑Return Re Pt leiecuonkl f 4171-11I11
p
1:1C leeaMel"ReanciwDali f 4
p
MA Sig---H"-iW i $0.08
[:]Mum Slgwum ReeNcb Ww"f
tiPostage
$0.98
to
ra
To al Poftege and Fepe Q$
f I
ri
Sent To
L
1557
09
PosMark
Hue
09/01/2017
Postal Product:
Features:
First -Class Male
Certified Mail'"
See tracking for related item: 9590940215205362735142 (/go/TrecleConeRnAction?
tLabels=9590940215295362736142)
DATE dTIME
STATUS OF REM
LOCATION
(•
September 8, 2017, 10:11 am
Delivered
ATLANTIC BEACH, NO 28512
AL
\tl
Your item was delivered at 10:11
am on September 8, 2017 In ATLANTIC BEACH, NO 28512.
September 5, 2017, 3:02 pm
Notice Left (No Authorized Recipiam Available)
ATLANTIC BEACH, NO 28512
September 5, 2017, 2:58 pm
Notice Left
ATLANTIC BEACH, NO 28512
September 5, 2017, 9:55 am
Out for Delivery
ATLANTIC BEACH, NO 28612
See More V
Available Actions
Text Updates V
Email Updates V
See Less /\
Can't find what you're looking for? RE
®
Go to our FAQs section to find answers to your tracking questions. ' Y C
FAQs (http://faq.usps.com/?articleld=220900) SEP 15 2017
https://tools.usPs.mm/gofrrackConfirmAction?tLabels=70151520000254885733 - DCM- MHD CITY 119

I1ln-VuAr.uc7301SgI1In
r
City, State, Zip Code
Dear Adjacent Property:
This letter is to inform you that I, have applied for a CAMA Minor
�I Property Owner
Permit on my property at I �5bY 1)� \U � in Carteret
Property Address
County. As required by CAMA regulations, I have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project
drawing(s) as notification of my proposed project. No action is required from you or you may sign and return
the enclosed no objection form. If you
'have any questions or comments about my proposed project, please
contact me at 2W--] 1 ZLrn or by mail at the address listed below. If you wish to
Applicant's Telephone
file written comments or objections with the Carteret County CAMA Minor Permit Program, you may submit
them to:
Local Permit Officer for:
Sincerely,
Property Owner
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip Code
Chris Jones, LPO
Carteret County
701 Cedar Point Blvd.
Cedar Point, NC 28584
an n
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

It I n- VA UU-50)s q, I) n
I
City, State, Zip Code
Dear Adjacent Property: A
This letter is to inform you that I, AA v` I I �� have applied for a CAMA Minor
i Property Owner
Permit on my property at I -] � � � l tV , in Carteret
Property Address
County. As required by CAMA regulations, I have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project
drawing(s) as notification of my proposed project. No action is required from you or you may sign and return
the enclosed no objection form. If you have any questions or comments about my proposed project, please
I/'I�
contact me at Z�1lnQ 2LF or by mail at the address listed below. If you wish to
Applicants Telephone
file written comments or objections with the Carteret County CAMA Minor Permit Program, you may submit
them to:
Local Permit Officer for.
.1,
., Owner
1.2 `a 5ik rr}f LSE
Mailing Address
5A4-1:eJe- P� a t, n)C'
City, State, Zip Code
Chris Jones, LPO
Carteret County
701 Cedar Point Blvd.
Cedar Point, NC 28584
aye-�
P�►1m�� C�roCi���
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

2986 HWY 24 Suite H
Newport NC 28570
38
P R I M U S Fax ( 764-24
ax252)764-2449
CONTRACTING, INC.
August 24, 2017
Tracy Barnes
Carteret County Planning and Development
Western Office- 701 Cedar Point Boulevard
Cedar Point, INC 28584
RE: Revision to Minor CAMA Application
Dear Mrs. Barnes,
Please make noted revision to the Minor CAMA permit application for June Willis's scallop house located at
172 Shore Drive.
Revision to the statement in "Description of the project"
Remove portion of statement that reads "to renovate and repair existing structure" and change to "
development of a two story structure over an existing impervious surface"
Sincerely,
MGltcotM waters
Malcolm Waters
Primus Contracting, Inc.
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017 11Page
DCM-- MHD CITY

RO.Y COOPER
eexrnor
MICHAEL S. ROAN
sewucrr
dRsAXTQN C. DAVIS
Phle for
August29, 2017
Mr. Malcolm Waters
314 Holly Street
Cape Carteret, N.C. 28584
RE: Payment of Proposed Penalty for Violations of the Coastal Area Managemcnt.Act, Committed
in Carteret County
CAMA Violation # 17-01C
Dear Mr. Waters:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your Check # 100373364, in the amount of $200.00, and dated
received on 8/29/17. Once the amount of the check is credited to the Department of Environmental
Quality's account, this matter will be fully and completely closed.
If you have any,further questions concerning this matter, please contact me at my Morehead City
office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Roy Brownlow
District Manager
RB//rcb
Cc Mike Lopazanski, Asst. Director
Brad Connell, Coastal Management Rep.
Liz Hair, COE
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017
-.�--NQthing Compares^..
DCM- MHD CITY
f State ONorth0wroBna I W onmemeNua@g I Coa"Managawlt
Moteheed Cayoake I QoCeWnffoAv I MweheadCR)%NC 285V '
298W 2809

CARTEREf COUNTY OTHER PERMIT
MUST BE PLACED IN PERMIT BOX OT 17-0747
BeeuforWC2851f7 OR PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED
A naoaa�a Issued Date: 08/1 ]/2017
A. fL'21� I252I2Ti5aA
Address: 172 SHORE DR SALTER PATH, NC 28575 (633406489810000)
Owner: June Smith Willis Phone: [phone] Email:
Applicant: Primus Contracting Inc. Phone: [phone] Email:
Estimated Cost: $0.00
Total Fees: $75.00 Total Paid: 75.00
Notes: Demolition of rear portion of building which is water ward of high water mark in accordance with
Division of Coastal Management (DCM) restoration agreement issued 05/03/17 for CAMA NOV 1701-C issued
01/19/17
Flood Zone: N/A Date of Firm: N/A Final Flood Shot:
t` Front Setback: N/A Side Setback: N/A Rear Setback: N/A
kn
NSide on Corner Setback: N/A
V Acc. Side Corner Setback: N/A Ace. Side Setback: N/A Acc. Rear Setback: N/A
z CAMA #: N/A CAMA: N/A DECO: No
x
F
d
Name: Primus Contracting Inc. State License No.: 72610-U
WType: Building Phone: [phone]
Permission is hereby granted for construction installation on property, as noted below. All work will comply with the North
Carolina State Building Code and all other applicable State and Local Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations.
ay I hereby certify that I have read and examined this document and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws
A and ordinance governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. Granting of a permit does
not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the
performance of construction. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within
6 months or, if work or construction is suspended or abandoned for a period of 12 months after commencing.
r
Sighaturq6`Contrabt6r Signature of Issuer
Printed Name of Contractor Printed Name of Issuer
RECEIVED
SEP 15 Z017
MHD CITY

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Eugene Foxworth
Director
08/30/2017
June Willis
119 Seashell Lane
Salter Path, NC 28575
RE: NOTICE TO EXTEND TIME TO GRANT OR DENY CAMA MINOR PERMIT
APPLICATION NUMBER— WO-39-17
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION —172 Shore Drive Salter Path, NC
Dear Ms. Willis:
Western Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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 252-728-8545.
Sincerely, /l
C
Chris Jones, LPO u
Carteret County Planning &
CC: Malcolm Waters, Agent, Primus Contracting
Brad Connell, DCM
Roy Brownlow, DCM
RECEIVED
701 Cedar Point Blvd, Cedar Point, NC 28584 SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Eugene Foxworth
Director
08/23/17
June Willis
119 Seashell Lane
Salter Path, NC 28575
Beaufort Office
Phone:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
RE: INCOMPLETE APPLICATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED
APPLICATION NUMBER- WO-39-17
PROJECT ADDRESS-172 Shore Drive, Salter Path, NC
Dear Ms. Willis:
Western Office
252-222-5833
252-222-5825
We originally accepted your application under the impression that it was 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. A more accurate and detailed description of the project, as repair and renovate are not
applicable in this case
2. Copies of the notifications to the adjacent property owners reflecting the accurate and detailed
description of the project
In accordance with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources regulations, we note that a
certain time has passed while the application has remained in our office. Upon resubmission of a complete
application, a local decision will be made in twelve (12) days, provided this period is not extended as
provided by law.
Please contact me at 252-728-8545 if you have any questions.
Respectfully
Chris Jones, LP0
Carteret County Plan g and Development
701 Cedar Point Blvd.
Cedar Point, NC 28584
cc: Brad Connell, DCM
Roy Brownlow, DCM
Malcolm Waters, Primus Contracting
Mailing: 302 Courthouse Square, Beaufort, NC 28516
Location: 402 Broad Street, Beaufort, NC 28516
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

NORTH CF ROLIIVA CARTERET COWNTtf
ittls InstTU'nGn and this oartificata ate duly See at
the tlate MUM and fn the BGotK arlcf'Page shown
on the Pst,pag[oe h�e,�mor.. `n
-G7 A; r r [fN�RiaaAe
CARTERET COUNTY
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FOR REGISTRATION REGISTER OF DEEDS
Karen S. Hardesty
Carteret County NC
August 15, 2017 03:38:22 PM
BNO ORDER 4 P
FEE: $26.00
FILE # 1584286
Please record the attached "Order Granting a Variance" to David W. Willis Jr., Applicant and
June Smith Willis UT, Owner, for property located at 172 Shore Drive, Salter Path, NC.

Eugene Foxworth
Director
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Beaufort Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
COUNTY OF CARTERET
ORDER GRANTING A VARIANCE
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 172 Shore Drive, Salter Path, NC
In order to meet the requirements of the Carteret County Zoning Ordinance and the NC Statutes
for granting a variance, the Board must find that the following statements are true as applied to
the variance request. Board members should not decide how they will vote on the variance
request, until after they have considered each statement on its own merits. According to the NC
Institute of Government, if any of the required statements are found not true, then the variance
should be denied.
1. That unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall
not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use
can be made of the property.
The Board's CONCLUSION: True or Not True? Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size,
or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships
resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may
not be the basis for granting a variance.
3.
The Board's CONCLUSION: True or Not True? Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: THE FACT THERE IS A
The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The
act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the
granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.
The Board's CONCLUSION: True or Not True? Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: THE STRUCTURE AND
PROPERTY LINES EXISTED PRIOR TO COUNTY ZONING.
BOOKdS�pAGE,�
Mailing: 302 Courthouse Square, Beaufort, NC 28516 UV E D
Location: 402 Broad Street, Beaufort, NC 28516
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Eugene Foxworth
Director
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Beaufort Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance,
such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.
The Board's CONCLUSION: True or Not True? Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: THERE
THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a
VARIANCE be GRANTED subject to the following conditions (if any):
BE INCREASED ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR IN THE FUTURE.
ORDERED this 9 m day of AUGUST 2017 .
NOTE: If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Board, an appeal may be taken to the
Superior Court of Carteret County within 30 days after the date of this order is served on
you.
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017
BOOK CM- MHD CITY
.IILLPAGE ,,
Mailing: 302 Courthouse Square, Beaufort, NC 28516
Location: 402 Broad Street, Beaufort, NC 28516

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Eugene Foxworth
Director
Carteret County, North Carolina
Beaufort Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
I certify that the following person (s) personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging to me
that he or she signed the foregoing document: Eugene Foxworth, Assistant County Manager, Planning and General
Services Director and Robert Bittner, Chairman, Zoning Board of Adjustment of Carteret County.
Date:
%I�- /
C U 9, 2017 e�a.�' .
Notary Pu is
a My Commission expires:
j:;
ch
$ Ct. ety
8oq Oyj *—Q
Mailing: 302 Courthouse Square, Beaufort, NC 28516
Location: 402 Broad Street, Beaufort, NC 28516

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
C�,RET CpG
Eugene Foxworth �� Beaufort Office Western Office
Director y < Phone:[phone]
Fax: 252-728-W3 252-222-5825
S' CAR
NOTICE OF FILING
OF APPLICATION FOR
CAMA MINOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Pursuant to NCGS 113A-119(b), Carteret County Planning & Development, a locality
authorized to issue CAMA permits in Areas of Environmental Concern, hereby gives NOTICE
that on August 11, 2017, Primus Contracting, agent for June Willis, applied for a CAMA permit
to repair and renovate existing scallop house to include addition of second story at 172 Shore
Drive Salter Path, NC.
The application may be inspected at the address below. Public comments received by
September 01, 2017 will be considered. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to
the time of permit decision. Project modifications may occur based on further review and
comments. Notice of the permit decision in this matter will be provided upon written request.
Chris Jones
CAMA Local Permit Officer for
Carteret County Planning & Development
402 Broad Street
Beaufort, NC 28516
252-728-8545
PLEASE PUBLISH ON: Sunday, August 20, 2017
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017

NoTl(o*'$J14j
AMA PERMIT
APPLI
FOR
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH �QDI,MI)
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LOCAL FlERMIT OFFICER BE
Y
C
0
YC

WILLIAM W. WALKER
184 Shore Drive
Salter Path, NC 28512
252-241-9224
Chris Jones, LPO
701 Cedar Point Blvd.
Cedar Point, NC 28584
Dear Mr. Jones,
I live at 184 Shore Drive, Salter Path, NC 28512. 1 have been given a copy of a application request for the
scallop house next door. It states the application is for the "repair and renovation of the original scallop
house.
This permit cannot be true, the original scallop house has been 100% removed. They are now building
another, brand new structure that is 2 stories high. I do not see how this building can be allowed, I do
not know why I was not notified before this building even began. Being that I am the next door property
owner.
I personally do not have a problem with repairing the original structure as it was. I am very concerned
with this new construction being 2 stories high. If anything happens to it is will certainly effect my
property negatively and my eastern PVC privacy fence.
Sincerely,
William W. Walker
184 Shore Drive
Salter Path, NC 28512
RECEIVE[
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Il�l�
Adjac t Ppgpe w r (�7
Maiyp d i /� JJ I t( L� �
City, State, Zip Code
0
Dear Adjacent Property:
This letter is to inform you that I, �-+ VU '� ry` I I l� have applied for a CAMA Minor
Property Owner
Permit on my property at ' T2 V in Carteret
Property Address
County. As required by CAMA regulations, I have enclosed a copy of my permit application and project
drawing(s) as notification of my proposed project. No action is required from you or you may sign and return
the enclosed no objection form. iiIf you
'have any questions or comments about my proposed project, please
contact me at 2�—IGy 2�k� 0 or by mail at the address listed below. If you wish to
Applicant's Telephone
file written comments or objections with the Carteret County CAMA Minor Permit Program, you may submit
them to:
Local Permit Officer for:
Sincerely,
Property Owner
I top :3 DD(Lbc -
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip Code
Chris Jones, LPO
Carteret County
701 Cedar Point Blvd.
Cedar Point, NC 28584
\4- rna, ICPI-n vAk6�
o,ncn
KI IMm 6 coff 4r�
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CM

Carteret County WO-39.17
Local Government Permit Number
CAMA
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission for development
In an area of environment concern pursuant to Section 113A-118 of the
General Statutes, "Coastal Area Management"
Issued to June Willis, authorizing development in the Estuarine Shoreline (AEC) at 172 Shore Drive, in Salter Path, NC,
as requested in the permittee's application, dated 08/11/17. This permit, issued on 09/15/17, 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: Development of a two story structure over an existing impervious surface
(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in accordance with the permitted work plat
drawings(s) dated received on 08/11/17.
(2) All construction must conform to the N.C. Building Code requirements and all other local, State and Federal regulations,
applicable local ordinances and FEMA Flood Regulations.
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or land use activities will require a re-evaluation and
modification of this permit.
(4) A copy of this permit shall be posted or available on site. Contact this office at 252-222-5833 for a final inspection at
completion of work.
RECEIVED (Additional Permit Conditions on Page 2)
SEP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other qualified persons
within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. This permit must be 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, 2020
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
Management.
701 Cedar Point Blvd
Cedar Point, NC 28584
PERMITTEE
(Signature required if conditions above apply to permit)

Name: June Willis
Minor Permit # WO-39-17
Date: 09115/17
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, 480 square feet is authorized within the existing
structure footprint.
(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. In this case a
footprint of 480 square feet is allowed for development over an existing impervious surface area per 15A NCAC
07H.209 (10) (h). There shall be no other increase in impervious surface within 30' landward of Normal High Water
(7) All unconsolidated material resulting from associated grading and landscaping shall be retained on site by effective
sedimentation and erosion control measures. Prior to any land -disturbing activities, a barrier line of filter cloth or
staked hay bales 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.
(8) All other disturbed areas shall be vegetatively stabilized (vegetated, planted and mulched) within 14 days of
construction completion.
(9) All proposed development and associated construction shall conform to the Carteret County Zoning Board of
Adjustment variance issued 08/09/17. The work must be done in accordance with the application and work plat
drawings dated 08/11/17 and subject to the stipulations of the Carteret County variance order.
(10) Carteret County Variance condition requires the property owner must use the existing footprint of the structure for
the second floor addition and the height of the structure cannot be increased above the second floor in the future.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
PERMITTEE
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2011
c..
CC"- MH® CITY

Carteret County
Local Government
WO.39.17
Permit Number
CAMA
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Envlran�rnent,
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 ManaganI
Issued to June Willis, authorizing development in the Estuarine Shoreline (AEC) al 172 Share Drive, in Salter Path, NC,
as requested In the parmittee's application, dated 08/11/17. This permit, issued on 09115/17. 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: Development of a two story structure over an existing impervious surface
(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in accordance with the permitted work plat
drawings(s) dated received on 08/1 t117.
(2) All construction must conform to the N.C. Building Code requirements and all other local, State and Federal regulations,
applicable local ordinances and FFJMA Flood Regulations.
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or land use activities will require a re-evaluallon and
modification of this permit.
(4) A copy of this peril shall be posted or available on site. Contact this office at 252-222-5833 for a final inspection at
completion of work.
(Additional Permit Conditions on Page 2)
This "I action may be appealed by the permlllee or other qualified persons
will twenty (20) days of the Issuing date. This permit must be on the project
site and accessible to the permit officer when the projecl is Inspected for
cemI'llarxe. Any maintenance work or project modification not covered under
this pemA revile further written permit approval. All work must cease when this
perkex om
DECEMBER 31, 2020
In Iss"this pemdl 11 Is agreed that this project Is consistent with the local Land
Use Plan and an applicable ordinances. This peril may not be transferred to
another party wllhout the written approval of the Division of Coastal
Management.
Chris Jorfes
CAMA LOCAL PER FFICIAL
701 Cedar Point Blvd
Cedar of , NC 285rB
r�
PERMITTEE
(Signature required if conditions above apply to permit)

Name: June Willis
Minor Permit # WO.39.17
Date: 09/15117
Page 2
(5) The amount of impervious surface shall not exceed 300% of the lot area within 75 feet of Normal High Water
(Estuarine Shoreline Area of Environmental Concern), In this case, 480 square feet is authorized within the existing
structure footprint.
(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. In this case a
footprint of 480 square feet is allowed for development over an existing impervious surface area per 15A NCAC
07H.209 (10) (h). There shall be no other increase in impervious surface within 30' landward of Normal High Water
(7) All unconsolidated material reiuiling from associated grading and landscaping shall be retained on site by effective
sedimentation and erosion control measures. Prior to any land -disturbing activities, a banter line of fltercloth or
staked hay bales 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.
(8) All other disturbed areas shall be vegetatively stabilized (vegetated, planted and mulched) within 14 days of
construction completion,
(9) All proposed development and associated construction shall conform to the Carteret County Zoning Board of
Adjustment variance issued 08109/17. The work must be done in accordance with the application and work plat
drawings dated 08/11/17 and subject to the stipulations of the Carteret County variance order.
(10) Carteret County Variance condition requires the property owner must use the existing footprint of the structure for
the second floor addition and the height of the structure cannot be increased above the second floor in the future,
SIGNATURE: DATE:
PERMITTEE

Eugene Foxworth
Director
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Beaufort Office
Phone: 252-72HS45
Fax: [phone]
4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance,
such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.
The Board's CONCLUSION: True or Not True? Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: THERE
THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a
VARIANCE be GRANTED subject to the following conditions (if any):
ORDERED this 8 m day of AUGUST 2017
Cnairman
Secretary
NOTE: If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Board, an appeal may be taken to the
Superior Court of Carteret County within 30 days after the date of this order is served on
you.
BOOK 5 L- PAGE ��(,
Mailing: 302 Courthouse Square, Beaufort, NC 28516
Location: 402 Broad Street, Beaufort, NC 28516

il
D00
NOTES:
1) THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORD!
2) THIS SURVEY IS OF AN EXISTI
3) AREA BY COORDINATES.
4) AREA = 4.529.57 SOUARE FEE'
5) NO IRONS SET ALONG NORMAL
6) ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONT
7) NO UTILITIES LOCATED OR SN
8) BENCHMARK NCGS "JANET" 2•(
RENCES:
R: N/F JUNE WILLIS
878 PG. 462
16 PGS. 45-50
N 633406489810000
,ESS: 172 SHORE DRIVE
TIAL LOCATION SURVEY
SAIC TELdulk I
LOT 56 SECTIOI
IEHEAD TOWNSHIP. CARTERET COUNTY
-ENT: PRIMUS CONTRACTING
MALCOLM WATERS
TRESS: 2896 NC NEWPORT.HNCH28570WAY 4
1NE: 252-659-0571
--------------
STROUD ENGINEERING, F
151-A NC HIGHWAY 24
MOREHEAD CITY. N.C. 28557L10EM
[phone]
GII
L -INE TABLE
L2
NOIe53'47-E
1.18
L3
S86°27'S0"E
11.48
6.76
L5
S03o15,09 W
S00 34 04
17.76
L6
L7
W
S87°54'01"E
N28056'12"E
12.28
4.94
L8
N33°44'54"E
5.10
L9
L10
N02014'37"E
N40°22'14"W
13.15
15.87
L11
S86053'09"W
13.90
L12
N7002649"W
9.38
7.27
L14
N02035'19"W
L15
13.09
N73011'16"E 13.03
LEGEND
EIR EXISTING IRON R00
EIP EXISTING IRON PIPE
Ecm
EPK EXISTING PK NAIL
ERRS EXISTING CONC. MON.
EXISTING R/R SPIKE
CPR CALCULATEDSET IRON OPOINT
MHW MEAN HIGH WATER
MNBF MAP
NOW OR FORMERLY
DB DEEDBOOK BOOK
FP
PAGE
LP POWER POLE
DE LIGHT POLE
ELEC OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
ELECTRICAL PEDESTAL
TRANS ELEC. TRANSFORMER
TEL TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
TV CABLE TV PEDESTAL
WM WATER METER
CO CLEAN OUT
Lka
PRCSIONAL �------'--------
NJD
-----------
L.3407 ----
LICENSE NUMBER
\A\A CAR,
;-No, •oFessic
= SEAL
L-3401
sUR
Z G•....•
'"'iiinFNN C

cy
y

Ocean Hazard Estuarine Shoreline-\/— ORW Shoreline _
(For official use only)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LAND OWNER - MAILING ADDRESS
PermitNumberwo:m— n
Public Trust Shoreline Other
Name Tv•+e� UJ; WL5
Address 1 1 tt 5 cu 5 L-4-A 1 LA4 E
City 5.r'kkC P..A-� State �— Zip?&S-IiPhone ZSZ 3%2, tPrOS
AUTHORIZED AGENT
Name f1Z\MuS GCN~tAC-T19 G . rAlC,
Address_2 $4 14 w L( -Z q So t r L R
City d'tW f6f - State Al C-- t Zip Z85 O Phone 2 S Z Z `4 Z� 4iB
Email yYI& I Co ( w. Lo 0. Vy �rY6jS L on'iYbs.\ t w... [ nw.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Address, street name and/or directions to site; name of the adjacent waterbody.)
CIZ Sttoex pekUE F.4+ , 14C,
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. (List all proposed construction and land disturbance.)
SIZE OF
PROPOSED USE: Residential [g" (Single-family
Multi -family ❑ ) Commercial/Industrial ❑
COMPLETE EITHER (1) OR (2) BELOW (Contact your Local Permit Officer if you are not sure which AEC applies
to yourproperty):
(1) OCEAN HAZARD AECs: TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE: I square feet (includes
air conditioned living space, parking elevated above ground level, non -conditioned space elevated above ground level but
excluding non -load -bearing attic space)
(2) COASTAL SHORELINE AECs: SIZE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS OR BUILT
UPON SURFACES: _q%oquare feet (includes the area of the foundation of all buildings, driveways, covered decks,
concrete or masonry patios, etc. that are within the applicable AEC. Attach your calculations with the project drawing.)
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT: Is the project located in an area subject to a State
Stormwater Management Permit issued by the NC Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR)?
YES_ NO_� u v
OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED: The activity you are planning may require permits other than the CAMA
minor development permit, including, but not limited to: 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. Check with your Local Permit Officer for more information.
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)
V an owner or record title, Title is vested in name of TI-YIL W < <
see Deed Book 1� l i8 page Kte2 in the CAr$e e
an owner by virtue of inheritance. Applicant is an heir to the estate of
; probate was in
County Registry of Deeds.
County.
if other interest, such as written contract or lease, explain below or use a separate sheet & attach to this -application.
NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT RIPARIAN 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)
(1) William A
(2) !n«t;--
(3) —
(4)
(Address)
I °r( 5c ors p�� ire Ifcr lG� r�%
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I, the undersigned, 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 particu-
lar hazard problems associated with this lot. This explanation was accompanied by recommendations concerning stabiliza-
tion and floodproofing techniques.
I furthermore certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant, permission to Division of Coastal Management staff,
the Local Permit Officer and their agents to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information
related to this permit application.
WA
A n 9 / This the �� day of Zr Zoo , 20
t-1
Landowner Jr pl rson'authorbed to act as his/her agent for purpose of filing a CAMA permit application
This application includes: general information (this form), a site drawing as described on the back of this application, the
ownership statement, the Ocean Hazard AEC 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.
RECEIVED
If yes, list the total built upon area/impervious surface allowed for your lot or parcel: square feet.
SEP 16 2017

IORMAL HIGH WATER —
AVD 88 ELEV. = 0.83
TAKED IN FIELD
ITH PINK WIRE FLAGS
a
cn M
m 0
umun_
,R04� v
3toti9`9°`
r+
Qn m
N C
C'
SR
SR in
AL
4G7
�o� g
10 20
C
L11
EXISTING
ONE STORY
r EXISTING
TWO STORY
�Z �� FRAME BUILDING
� N
Na EIR
'J' a
�' ' ul
O� � J
rf
EMAG L6
IN BULKHEAD •3
w
lw
CENTERLINE OF
SHORE DRIVE
N/F HOMERS POINT
BOATING CLUB. INC.
41.21
S88039'07"W
SHONE DRIVE
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH UNKNOWN
a00'28
NORMAL HIGH WATER
NAVD 88 ELEV. = 0.83
STAKED IN FIELD
cn WITH PINK WIRE FLAGS
0
0
a
w
N
m
N/F MARIE SMITH
D.B. 678 PG. 392
NCPIN 63340758082'
EMAG
BM 4.77'
P
NCGS MON.
"METHODIST"
REF(
OWNF
D.B.
M. B.
NCP',
ADDF
PAF
MOF
CLI
PHA

A110 aHW -Waa
110i 9 I d3S
(13ni333a
N/F MARIE SMITH
D.B. 678 PG. 392
NCPIN 633407580821000
NCGS MON.
"MFTHnnIST"
NOTES:
1) THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDING.
2) THIS SURVEY IS OF AN EXISTING PARCEL OF LAND.
3) AREA BY COORDINATES.
4) AREA = 4.529.57 SOUARE FEET
5) NO IRONS SET ALONG NORMAL HIGH WATER LINE.
6) ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES.
7) NO UTILITIES LOCATED OR SHOWN.
8) BENCHMARK NCGS "JANET" 2.67 FEET.
REVISIONS: 1
No. I BY I DATE I DESCRiProN
REFERENCES:
OWNER: N/F JUNE WILLIS
D.B. 878 PG. 462
M.B. 16 PGS. 45-50
NCPIN 633406489810000
ADDRESS: 172 SHORE DRIVE
PARTIAL LOCATION SURVEY
SALTER PATH[
LOT 56 SECTION 4
MOREHEAD TOWNSHIP, CARTERET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
CLIENT: PRIMUS CONTRACTING
MALCOLM WATERS
ADDRESS: 2896 NC HIGHWAY 24
NEWPORT, NC 28570
PHONE: [phone]
STROUD ENGINEERING, P.A.
151-A NC HIGHWAY 24
MOREHEAD CITY, N.C. 28557
[phone] LICENSE NO. C-0847
GLENN
P.L.S.
SUHVLYLU:
JH 03/01/17
DRAWN:
EGC
APPROVED:
EGC
DATE:
04/24/17
SCALE:
1" = 10'

APPROXIMATE COASTAL
WETLANDS LINE
APPROXIMATE NHW
w �
4-
ILI
v v v .4, 14. v IL. i ao
ILI
i 14,
XISTI 0�
UILDI
'I DAVID WILLIS 0 (
� oQ�
IRONMENTAL CONCERN 1 p�
GINEERS 0 b
ON ROD I
AKE
LDING LINE
ERLY EX ROAD
GINNING
CONCRETE PIPE
Y_—_--- _—L—
EDESTAL
ADE
ADE
LD 1
S
°
63 64 °
65
0
i
old
'202" ffl"�dwwve-* offiw.
102.48
N85N85?2-
T
0
ORE DRIB