05-03D Hampstead Marina Inc

13-May-05 NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT RECORD
jCASE STATUS!
CASE NUMBER LAST NAME FIRST NAME BUSINESS NAME:
0 -I 05-03D WOOTEN JALLEN HAMPSTEAD MARINA, INC.
CASE IS CLOSED f
AFFLILIATION SECTOR
Previous Violations in Same AEC
NOV DATE CLOSURE DATE
PROPERTY OWNE COMMERCIAL ❑ for Similar ACtIVItIES
1/21 00005
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE PHONE NUMBER
8155 MALPASS CORNER RD CURRIE NC 28435- [phone]
PROPERTY ADDRESS COMMUNITY WATERBODY NEAREST ROAD
122 BROADVIEW LN HAMPSTEAD AIWW SR 7606
DISTRICT OFFICE COUNTY DCM REPRESENTATIVE LPO CONTACT
WIRO FENDER IBROWNLOW
VIOLATION TYPE
AFFECTED AEC(S) CW �. EW PTA J ES -1 PTS
MAJOR CAMA OEA ❑ HHFA IHA PWS I NCRA
NATURE OF VIOLATION AEC DESCRIPTION JEW. PTA, CS
Unauthorized major development by installation of 21 additional feet of breakwater wall; installing 21 additional feet of
boat ramp; installation of a channel marker pile; installation of two cluster pilings within Hampstead Marina Basin
adjacent to the AIWW within EW and PTA AECs and filling and grading with rock and gravel within the 30' ES buffer
to create parking facilities.
d❑
❑RESTORATION NOT REQUIRED - CONTRACTOR
1 RESTORATION NOT REQUIRED - PERMITTABLE DEVELOPMENT
RESTORATION NOT REQUIRED -FURTHER IMPACTS
RESTORATION PENDING
RESTORATION REQUEST DATE
COMPLETION DATE
2/21/2005
2/17/2005
RESTORATION EXTENDED RESTORE DATE
'DEADLINE
EXTENDED
J REFERRED TO AG'S OFFICE - COLLECTION
REFERRED TO AG'S OFFICE - INJUNCTION
ASSESSMENT DATE PENALTY AMOUNT COLLECTION DATE AMOUNT COLLECTED
PENALTY STA
- --- -- 5/2/2005 $500 �r
j v, PENALTY ISSUED
❑ PENALTY NOT ISSUED WILLFUL INTENTIONAL PENALTY (MIN. OR DOUBLED) CNOV ISSUED
❑ CONRACTOR'S FIRST OFFENSE { 1 SETTLED, AGREED UPON, OR STIPULATED PENALTY ❑ PENALTY APPEALED
_.__..i UNCOLLECTIBLE PENALTY TT FORMAL CPA ISSUED
Violations Involving Adversely Impacted Resources
AMOUNT OF ADVERSELY DISTURBED AREA (SO. FT.) r
AMOUNT OF RESTORED AREA (SO. FT) �+
NOTES
see Duncan - case no. 05-04D (contractor). Major Permit No. 50-02 was issued for marina project
eded scope of permitted activities.

Re: Alan Wooten (Hampstead Marina)
Subject: Re: Alan Wooten (Hampstead Manna)
From: Roy Brownlow <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 200613:58:22 -0500
To: Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
CC: Jim Gregson <[e-mail]>, Ted Tyndall <[e-mail]>
Linda:
Hope this message finds you doing well.
Please allow me to share some information/evidence that was introduced during our investigation of Coastal
Management Case no. 05-30D, involving Allen Wooten and the Hampstead Marina project.
Insofar as the plans submitted with the application, let's just say that we had to utilize discretion and field
judgment during the enforcement investigation in lieu of sole reliance on the development plans. Likewise, the only
photograph I saw from the permit file was the single photo from Jerry Parker (picture IDR 9571. If there are other
photos, then they were not shown to me during the investigation.
During the investigation, Mr. Wooten provided me several historic photos, two (2) of which in my opinion, provided
significant evidence of the prior existence of existing compacted surface (parking and driveway area). I am
attaching those photos (Wooten - Hampstead Marina) to this message for your review. Based on that evidence and our
site visit investigation, we requested the restoration accordingly. Please note in photo %MVC-6125 that Jim is
standing in the approximate landward extent of the 30' buffer area. According to our restoration request, Mr. Wooten
had to re -vegetate the area shown in the photo (Wooten Hampstead Marina - restoration) because the landward extent
of the existing impervious area is outside of DCM's 30' buffer area and the other area was the existing driveway.
The restoration requested him to re -vegetate what we believed to be previously vegetated area based on the best
available information and belief.
Hope this helps. Please feel free to give me a call to discuss further if necessary
Best regards,
Roy Brownlow
Linda Lewis wrote:
Mr. Alan Wooten came by to see me today regarding my request for a stormwater permit at this site. He still doesn'
` understand why I am requesting that he make application for a stormwater permit, and frankly, after speaking with
! him, I'm not sure I do either.
If This all started when Mr. Wooten placed gravel within the 30' AEC all the way up to the new bulkhead, without a
CAMA permit. I got a copy of the January, 2005, Cease and Desist letter which indicated that a total of 6,060 sq.
ft. of gravel had been placed within the 30' AEC, and that it needed to be removed. My understanding is that some
of this gravel was removed, but not all of it. I need to know if the entire 6,060 sq. ft. was removed.
This is where my problem comes in. The original 2001 CAMA Permit application clearly outlines the existing graveled
areas as dashed lines. From the plans submitted with the application it appears that not all of the site was shown
as gravelled. Mr Wooten does not know why the plans that accompanied the 2001 CAMA application does not indicate
complete gravel coverage. He maintains that the entire site has been gravelled and used for parking for many years.
The photographs that Jerry Parker took in 2001 to document the existing condition show some vegetated areas
adjacent the gravel drives. Mr. Wooten maintains that after the 1996 and 1997 hurricanes, use of the host ramp
declined because the channel filled in and only small skiff type boats could use the channel, so, in the absence of
continual traf Eic, the vegetation started growing through the gravel.
I just need verification from somebody that knows, if the entire marina area now covered by the new gravel was
completely gravelled or used for traffic and parking for many years in the recent past. I have to call it new
development or redevelopment and decide if a SW permit is necessary. It was my understanding from Jim Gregson that
he thought additional area that was not previously graveled is now graveled, and that was the basis for my request
for a permit. If this is not a correct statement, I need to know as soon as possible. If anyone can vouch for the
previous condition at this marina in regards to the extent of gravel, I need to hear from you ASAP.
Thanks,
Linda
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management <htt ://www.nccoastalmana ement.net/>
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone]
Toll Free: 888.932.CAMA
1 of 4 1/18/2006 2:41 PM

Re: Alan Wooten (Hampstead Marina)
J
2 of 4 1/18/2006 2AI PM

Re: Alan Wooten (Hampstead Marina)
V
Content -Type: imagefjpeg
Wooten -Hampstead Marina.jpg Content -Encoding: base64
MVC-612S.JPG Content -Type: imagelpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
3 of 4 1/18/2006 2:41 PM

Re: Alan Wooten (Hampstead Marina)
Wooten Hampstead Marina - restoration.J PG;: Content -Type: imageljpeg
i Content -Encoding: base64
4 of 4 1/18/2006 2:41 PM

WgTF Michael F. Easley, Governor
� William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
W
.�, Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
��► Division of Water Quality
January 10, 2006
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
8155 Malpass Corner Road
Currie, NC 28435
Subject: Request for State Stormwater Management Permit Application j
Hampstead Marina
Stormwater Project No. SW8 010429
Ponder County
Dear Mr. Wooten:
On December 14, 2005, the Division sent you a Notice of Recommendation for Enforcement regarding
your lack of response to the Division's requests for a Stormwater Management Permit application for
the subject project. As we discussed on the phone on December 19, 2005, Mr. Roy Brownlow's
restoration acceptance letter dated February 22, 2005 is a determination that you have satisfied
CAMA's requirements for restoration of the site. This in no way should be construed as a determination
that a State Stormwater Management Permit is not required.
I have photos of the site taken by CAMA on May 7, 2001, which show that a large portion of the site
was grassed. Photographs of the same areas of the site taken by CAMA on February 5, 2005, show
that those grassed areas have now been graveled. While CAMA has determined that removal of the
new gravel within the 30' AEC has been accomplished, the photographs clearly show that new gravel
has been added outside of the AEC. On the phone with me, you claimed that this area had been
graveled for the past 20 years. The photographic evidence tends to dispute this claim. Unless you can
provide other evidence to support your claim, a stormwater management permit application to deal with
the new gravel areas will be required.
The second issue involves the extension of the existing boat ramp by 21'. Your explanation that the
boat ramp has not been extended has been accepted because the 2001 CAMA photos show an
existing gravel access road leading down to the boat ramp. The 21' extension of the concrete for the
boat ramp over the existing gravel can be considered under redevelopment, as long as the width of the
concrete ramp area is the same as the width of the previous gravel road.
Please consider this the Division's formal request to submit the required stormwater permit application.
To avoid potential enforcement action, the application should be received in this Office prior to February
10, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Linda Lewis
Environmental Engineer II
ENB\art: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\LETTERS\2005\010429.jan06
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Jim Gregson, District Manager, DCM
Tom Reeder, DWQ Stormwater Unit
Linda Lewis
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Phone [phone] Customer Servicel-M-623-6748
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405-3845 FAX [phone] Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us _ An® C.,�arolina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirma8ve Action Employer-50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper 1 vatura!!y

X
A
1*0 1 A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
22 February 2005
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
8155 Malpass Corner Road
Currie, NC 28435
RE: RESTORATION ACCEPTANCE — CAMA VIOLATION #05-03D
Dear Mr. Wooten:
This letter is in reference to the Notice of Violation # 05-03D sent to you dated 21 January 2005 for the
unauthorized development within the Coastal Shoreline, Estuarine, and Public Trust Waters Areas of Environmental
Concern adjacent to the AIWW. The violation took place on your property located at Hampstead Marina off of SR
1606 in or near the community of Hampstead in Pander County, North Carolina. This unauthorized activity
constituted development and you were requested to remove all loose rock and gravel material from within the 30'
buffer area with the exception of the existing impervious driveway. In addition, you were requested to install reflectors
or other signaling devices attached to the cluster piles and navigation marker pile. In accordance with the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 7J.0410, any violation involving development which is
inconsistent with guidelines for development within Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) must be corrected by
restoring the project site to pre -development conditions to recover lost resources or to prevent further resource
damage.
I conducted a site visit at the aforementioned property on 17 February 2005 to inspect the restoration of the
unauthorized activity addressed in the Notice of Violation 05-03D. Based on this inspection, it appears the
restoration is accomplished to the satisfaction of this Division. Upon my submission of an enforcement report, you
will be notified as to the amount of the civil penalty for undertaking this unauthorized activity within an Area of
Environmental concern.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions pertaining to this matter,
please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely, (� Q
Roy Brownlow
Compliance Coordinator
Cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Jim Gregson, District Manager, DCM
Henry Wicker, USACE
Noelle Luther, DWQ
Linda Lewis, DWQ
Ren Holt, Chief Inspector, Pender Co.
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
Al Cn, 1 n1 A­ih, I Aff; . i AM;n C­[lm CA. Dnn..nlnA 1 1h0/ n__-� I -

NCDENR ®A
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resourcaeeo
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
21 January 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
8155 Malpass Comer Road
Currie, NC 28435
RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND REQUEST TO CEASE UNAUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT
CAMA VIOLATION #05-03D
Dear Mr. Wooten
This letter confirms that on 23 December 2004, you, District Manager Jim Gregson, Coastal Management
Representative Jon Giles, and I were onsite your property located at the Hampstead Marina, off SR 1606, 122
Broadview Lane, adjacent to the AIWW (Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway) located in or near Hampstead, Pender
County, North Carolina. The purpose of the visit was to investigate development not authorized by State Permit
number 50-02. The unauthorized development involves the installation of additional linear footage of the southwest
wall adjacent to the boat ramp; adding linear footage to the boat ramp; installation of a basin channel marker piling;
installation of two cluster piles; and the grading and filling with loose rock and gravel within the 30' Coastal Shoreline
buffer on or near property adjacent to the AIWW. This letter also confines a prior site visit to this subject property by
Jim Gregson and me on 23 November 2004. This letter further confirms a brief meeting on 23 December 2004 with
you, your father-in-law Mr. Honeycutt, and me prior to the meeting with Mr. Gregson.
Information gathered by me for the Division of Coastal Management indicates that you have undertaken major
development in violation of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). No person may undertake Major
Development in a designated Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) without first obtaining a permit from the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. This requirement is imposed by North Carolina General
Statute (N.C.G.S.) 113A-118.
1 have information that indicates you have undertaken or are legally responsible for the following unauthorized
development on the aforementioned property:
1. Installation of an additional 21 linear feet of wooden wall parallel to the boat ramp on the southwest side of
the boat ramp. 50 linear feet was permitted, however, field measurements indicate the wall is at least 71
linear feet. It appears the waterward termination is in alignment with existing pilings on adjacent property to
the southwest, however the additional 21' extends landward due to the re -sloping and re -surfacing of the
boat ramp and is not authorized or described by State Permit No. 05-02.
2. Installation of an additional 21 linear feet of concrete boat ramp. The existing boat ramp (26' wide by 60'
long) was permitted to be resurfaced and repaired, however the additional 21' extends landward due to the
re -sloping and re -surfacing of the boat ramp and is not described or authorized by State Permit No. 05-02.
3. Installation of a wooden piling on the southwestern tip of a sand shoal within the Hampstead Marina basin.
This piling was not described or authorized by State Permit No. 05-02.
151-13 Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
21 January 2005
Page 2 of 4
4. Installation of at least two (2) wooden piling clusters within the Hampstead Marina basin. These pilings are
not described or authorized by State Permit No. 05-02.
5. Grading and filling with loose rock and gravel within 30' of the normal high water level in area at least ±30'
feet wide north to south by approximately ±202' feet in length east to west encompassing approximately
6,060 square feet in area. The rock and gravel is packed to serve as a parking and driveway area. Coastal
Shorelines category includes Estuarine Shoreline. The Estuarine Shoreline AEC, in part, extends from the
normal high water level for a distance of 75 feet landward. Within the Coastal Shoreline AEC buffer, new
development shall be located a distance of 30 feet landward of the normal high water level. The grading
and filling with this rock and gravel within the Coastal Shoreline AEC is not described or authorized by State
Permit No. 05-02.
This activity took place in Estuarine Waters, Public Trust Area, and Coastal Shoreline areas that are contiguous with
the AIWW near Topsail Sound. Estuarine Waters, Public Trust Area, and Coastal Shoreline areas are designated as
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). No permit was issued to you for work in this area. Based on these findings, I
am initiating an enforcement action by issuing this Notice of Violation for violation of the Coastal Area Management
Act.
I request that you immediately CEASE AND DESIST any further unauthorized activities within designated Areas of
Environmental Concern. A civil assessment of up to $2,500 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 up to $2,500. An injunction or criminal penalty may also be sought to enforce any violation
(N.C.G.S. 113A-126).
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to levy a minimum civil assessment of $500.00 not to exceed
$2,500 against all violations. This is done to recoup some of the costs of investigating violations and/or to
compensate the public for any damage to its natural resources. Whether a higher amount will be assessed depends
on several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected and the extent of the damage to
them.
Based upon the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 07H. State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern, part of the activity you have undertaken, filling and grading with rock and gravel in the
Coastal Shoreline AEC 30' buffer zone, is not consistent with Section 07H .0209(d), which does not allow non -water
dependent development within 30' landward of the normal high water level. Therefore, I am requesting that all loose
rock and gravel material be removed within 30' landward of the normal high water level. It is acknowledged that a
driveway existed prior to the unauthorized development and in this case, may be allowed to remain. The Coastal
Resources Commission rules allow development over existing. impervious surfaces provided that it is not enlarged
and complies with the rules to the maximum extent feasible. Please refer to the enclosed Restoration Agreement for
specific restoration guidelines.
Likewise, upon review of the Coastal Area Management Act, Coastal Resource Commission's rules, and the local
jurisdiction's Land Use Plan, the other activity you have undertaken: the landward extension of the southwest wall
adjacent to the boat ramp, the landward extension of the boat ramp, the installation of the navigation pile, and the
installation of the cluster pilings, appear consistent with the guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern.
Therefore, restoration of the impacted area is not requested at this time with the exception of providing permanent
reflectors on the freestanding cluster piles and navigation marker pile to make them more visible. However, please
be advised that upon request, you must be able to provide us proof that you have given your adjacent riparian
property owner(s) notice of this unauthorized development and provided them the opportunity to comment to the
Division of Coastal Management.
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

VD
WOOTEN FARMING &SEED
8155 MALPASS CORNER ROAD
CURRIE, N.C. 28435 to JAN 0 7 2005
Morehead City DCM
i V. D C0a s Ta I /' 1 a Na y- C2 J4—
D -� s e p
BrowPJ ) a w e-
is�I- � Hwy
4ifS T,-oN /P14Z//0—
'Mo kv head C1-4y
'? 8ss 7

Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
21 January 2005
Page 3 of 4
Should you be requested to provide this documentation, you must provide confirmation that a written statement has
been obtained, signed by the adjacent riparian property owners, indicating that they have no objection to the
completed work; or you must provide confirmation that the adjacent riparian property owners have been notified by
certified mail of the completed work. This notice shall instruct adjacent property owners to provide any comments on
the completed development in writing to this Division within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice and shall indicate
that no response from them will be interpreted as not having any objection
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
REQUEST TO CEASE AND DESIST has been complied with. I request that you contact me immediately.
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/or development that
is inconsistent with Coastal Resources Commission rules.
Sincerely,
Roy Brownlow
Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Jim Gregson, District Manager, DCM
Henry Wicker, USACE
Noelle Lutheran, DWQ
Ren Holt, Chief Inspector, Pender Co.
ENCLOSURE
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
21 January 2005
Page 4 of 4
RESTORATION PLAN
For
Hampstead Marina, Inc. Property
Mr. Allen Wooten
CASE NUMBER: 05-03D
Property located at 122 Broadview Lane, Pander County
North
I, Allen Wooten, agree to remove all loose rock and gravel material from the normal or high water level to within 30'
landward of the normal or high water level, except for the existing driveway which may be allowed to remain.
Furthermore, I agree to install and maintain permanent reflectors, or other signaling devices, attached to the
freestanding cluster piles and navigation marker pile in order to make them more visible during hours of darkness or
inclement weather.
I agree to complete this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by 21 February
2005, 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 levy minimum civil assessment $500 and higher against all violations of this type depending upon the
damage to the resources. If restoration is not undertaken orsatisfactohlycompleted, a substantially higher civil assessment will be levied and an injunction
sought to require restoration.
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
,.

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
A. Sign; ur
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
X
❑ Agent
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
0
❑ Addresaa'
B. i by Printed Name) C. Date of Deliver
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
T 4"" An
" U.S
or on the front if space permits.
D. Nqy address different %o n "m 1?
as
Article Addressed to:
`
enter delivery address b6bri V
No
11.
�/Ai7rA& F1ataNA
i
"�. RLCEN ,voo7�nl
JAN 2 E 2005
PISS Hf► PASS LAIDAN t MACIL
A
�WZGE, NG T_8f�is
3. rvice ype r✓Fir
JCS Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered OWetum Receipt for MerchandiE
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
❑ yes
2. Article Number
(frarrs?er from service label) 7 0 0 4
13 5 0 L 0 0 01 1206 8985

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE' Firsl-Class Mail
�` Ptastage &Fees Paid
c l tl LISPS
111 � �mitNp.:G-70
• Sender: Please print f'� i'address,•a d ZI +4}in Is Dx
NC DIVISIO0 OF
PLAZA COASTAL MANAGEMENTI
MOREHEEADSSCI$ . NC S 28557
_ = 7_ i I11I111 ll��i,Ir,ili,ill,llllli,ili,,,,llllllr ill �llllrl

15b
AAA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director
May 9, 2005
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
8155 Malpass Comer Road
Currie, NC 28435
RE: Closure Letter
Resources S
William G. Ross Jr.*cretary
S
C
C
C
Payment of Proposed Penalty for Violations of the Coastal Area Management Act, Committed
in Pender County
CAMA Violation k05-03D
Dear Mr. Wooten:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your Check #1239, in the amount of 500.00, dated May 4, 2005.
Once the amount of the check is credited to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' account,
this matter will be fully and completely closed.
If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me at my Wilmington office, (910)
395-3900.
Sincerely,
es H. Gregson
D' ct Manager
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator
WIRO File Copy
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity \Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \10% Post Consumer Paper

19-May-05 NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT RECORD
CASE STATUSI
— --- CASE NUMBER LAST NAME FIRST NAME BUSINESS NAME:
—II 05-03D WOOTEN ALLEN 1HAMPSTEAD MARINA. INC.
• CASE IS CLOSED
NOV DATE CLOSURE DATE AFFLILIATION SECTOR Previous Violations in Same AEC
PROPERTYOWNE ICOMMERCIAL for Similar Activities
1 /2112 005
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE
8155 MALPASS CORNER RD CURRIE NC
PROPERTY ADDRESS COMMUNITY
122 BROADVIEW LN HAMPSTEAD
ZIP CODE PHONE NUMBER
28435- [phone]
WATERBODY NEAREST ROAD
AIWW ISR 1606
DISTRICT OFFICE COUNTY DCM REPRESENTATIVE LPO CONTACT
WIRO FENDER BROWNLOW I
J
VIOLATION TYPE AFFECTED AEC(S) CW '� EW PTA n ES PTS
MAJOR CAMA OEA I_ HHFA IHA PWS I NCRA
NATURE OF VIOLATION AEC DESCRIPTION EW, PTA, CS
Unauthorized major development by installation of 21 additional feet of breakwater wall; installing 21 additional feet of
boat ramp; installation of a channel marker pile; installation of two cluster pilings within Hampstead Marina Basin
adjacent to the AIWW within EW and PTA AECs and filling and grading with rock and gravel within the 30' ES buffer
to create parking facilities.
RESTORATION STATUS - RESTORATION REQUEST DATE COMPLETION DATE
2/21/2005
2/17/2005
RESTORATION NOT REQUIRED - CONTRACTOR
RESTORATION EXTENDED RESTORE DATE
RESTORATION NOT REQUIRED - PERMITTABLE DEVELOPMENT ❑ DEADLINE
RESTORATION NOT REQUIRED - FURTHER IMPACTS ; EXTENDED
RESTORATION PENDING _ J REFERRED TO AG'S OFFICE - COLLECTION
REFERRED TO AG'S OFFICE - INJUNCTION
ASSESSMENT DATE PENALTY AMOUNT COLLECTION DATE AMOUNT COLLECTED
PENALTY STATUS,, 5/2/2005 $500 5/9/2005 $500
N PENALTY ISSUED
PENALTY NOT ISSUED ❑ WILLFUL INTENTIONAL PENALTY (MIN. OR DOUBLED) ❑ CNOV ISSUED
CONRACTOR'S FIRST OFFENSE ❑ SETTLED, AGREED UPON, OR STIPULATED PENALTY r_1 PENALTY APPEALED
_ ..... _. _._. .. ❑ UNCOLLECTIBLE PENALTY
---'' - J FORMAL CPA ISSUED
Violations Involving Adversely Impacted Resources
AMOUNT OF ADVERSELY DISTURBED AREA (SQ. FT.) J --
AMOUNT OF RESTORED AREA (SO. FT)
NOTES
see Duncan - case no. 05-04D (contractor). Major Permit No. 50-02 was issued for marina project but
eded scope of permitted activities.

©� W ti
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
May 2, 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL # 7004 2890 0002 3425 2583
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Manna, Inc.
8155 Malpass Comer Road
Currie, NC 28435
RE: CAMA VIOLATION #05-03D
Dear Mr. Wooten:
pscze
Mq y 0
4 2005
Morehead City OC
M
This letter is in reference to the Notice of Violation dated 21 January 2005 that Roy Brownlow, Compliance
Coordinator, for the Division of Coastal Management, issued to you for development activity not authorized
under State Permit number 50-02 at the Hampstead Marina site, Pender County. The violation involved
Estuarine Waters, Public Trust Area, and Coastal Shoreline areas, which are Areas of Environmental Concern
designated by the Coastal Resources Commission. Based upon the site visit conducted on 17 February 2005
by Roy Brownlow, the restoration requested appears to be complete to the satisfaction of the Division of
Coastal Management.
The Coastal Area Management Act provides that a civil assessment of up to $2,500 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 Resource Commission, a proposed civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 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 $500.00 made payable to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR); and, (3) return the signed agreement and payment to this office in the enclosed, self-
addressed envelope 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.
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 will formally assess a civil penalty against you. You will then have the
opportunity to request a hearing on the penalty or request remission of the penalty.
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
02 May 2005
Page 2 of 3
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,
Jim egs n, DistricTMnager
Division Coastal Management
Enclosure
cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Henry Wicker, USACE
Noelle Lutheran, DWQ
Ran Holt, Chief Inspector, Pander Co.
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
02 May 2005
Page 3 of 3
CAMA VIOLATION #05.03D
AGREEMENT TO PAY PROPOSED CIVIL ASSESSMENT
I understand that the staff of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources will propose the
assessment of a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 against me for violation of the Coastal Area
Management Act, NCGS 113A-100 et seg, committed on or near my property being the Hampstead Marina in
Pender 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 21 January 2005, and
agree to pay the proposed civil assessment of $500.00.
DATE
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

NOV 05-03D
Subject: NOV 05-03D
From: Beverly Rivenbark <Beverly. Rivenbark @ ncmail.net>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:47:27 -0400
To: Roy Brownlow <[e-mail]>
Hello Roy,
Just received the signed Agreement to Pay Proposed Civil Assessment for H. Allen
Wooten...
along with a $500.00 check, number 1239.
Thought you would like to know.
Thank you and have a great afternoon.... it is raining here in the Port City.
1 of 1 5/6/2005 8:46 AM

NC DCM Permit Activities Database Digital Pictures Archive Page 1 of 2
ID: 5 Login Name: TereB User Name: Tere Barrett Access: 4 PWD Exp.: 240 days.
NC DCM Permit Activities Database
Digital Pictures Archive:
Picture Id # : 957
Upload Date & Time: 11/6/2001 10:48:56 AM
Permit Number: NA
Violation No: NA
Photographer: Jerry Parker
Image Date: 05/07/2001
Reason for Visit: Major Permit
County: Pender
Title: Allen Wooten, Marina Site
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/pad/digital_pic/wrapper.asp?FileID=957 11/29/2004

RNA
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
21 January 2005
Page 4 of 4
plop 11'e
LE EWED
JAN 2 6 2005
ATI
vs RESTORForON PLAN Morehead City DCM
Hampstead Marina, Inc. Property
Mr. Allen Wooten
CASE NUMBER: 05-03D
Property located at 122 Broadview Lane, Pender County
30'
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
1
2
\ to be removed
1
-
\ from
30' buffer
1
\
1
\
r
\
\
1
t zizis
EXISTING
XT NG /
LTE
?'
ACCESS ROAD
�r W rof
2
�
_
END OF
CHAINUNK FENCE
(COMMON POINT OF DRAT!!
i
i
1 North
RMEAD
4 — LW-0-0
1 OR4�1
3
Rock & Gravel
Area to be
removed
I, Allen Wooten, agree to remove all loose rock and gravel material from the normal or high water level to within 30'
landward of the normal or high water level, except for the existing driveway which may be allowed to remain.
Furthermore, I agree to install and maintain permanent reflectors, or other signaling devices, attached to the
freestanding cluster piles and navigation marker pile in order to make them more visible during hours of darkness or
inclement weather.
I agree to complete this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by 21 February
2005, 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.ec/f
d.
SIGNATURE: X/ L.(!'t"1 A4a
DATE: II/x— 2y� Z �iJs
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to levy a minimum civil assessment $500 and higher against all violations of this type depending upon the
damage to the resources. It restoration is not undertaken or satisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment will be levied and an injunclwn
sought to require restoration.
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

HAM PSTEA0
MARINA, INC.
128 Broadview Lane
Post Office Box 1145
Hampstead, NC 28443
910-270-0505

MI
7ii
I�
I

N

mvuN Oso
� it
0
v

L '
r M
r _Flit.
-V i

'VIEWEW LANE
NE
AD, N.C.
15' r
If NEW RETAINING \\ \
I WALL (143LF.f)
I \ 1
I \
I \ \
\ , 1
1 II Ix
XISTING I�l
SHELTER EKISTI PIER
ACCESS ROAD TO BE EMOV
C
Kw0
END OF
CHAINUNK
ON POINT
PROPERTY OF�
MR. h MRS. C:Z M. ROSE
44 PLYMOUTH DRIVE
BERKLEY HEIGHTS, NEW JERSEY
E)OSTING
FLOATING
AND
LW-0.0
0
/
I
NEW RETAINING
WALL —
(NEW CONCRETE)
+t.v
\ LW-0.0
-2.0 \
1
1
I
?/ 4/
t.
-A0.((((1i,4cin
�
�/G� ASS
�i
SRNOIRAMP EXISTING PIER \ S/f0
I TO BE REMOVED \ •1L
5 POSTS \��� 60.---__------
—HW-+3.0
\ 5.
\`\�\_y0 ORfOCf UM/>$ p�'giDfR +o'�+vN pN'1M(F
RAMP
1
I
1
— NEW
FLOATING DOCK
5'.40' LONG
Hw LW
NEW FLOATING DOCK AND RAMP DETAIL
PLAY 3 5 20u4
COASTAL MAN .4GC;t11t N'T�
+1.0
MAINTENANCE AREA PLAN
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: 1'-50'
ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
AND BASED ON LW-0.0
c
LW-0.0 \\
/
LW-0.0
/y
w
x
b'/ n
z
P'D Q4/(,y
�b9
EXISTING CHANNEL /
MARKER PILE / /
/
EXISTING CHANNEL
MARKER PILE
MAINTENANCE OF HONEYCUTT
LAUNCHING AND DOCKING FACILITY
AT: 122 BROADVIEW LANE /
HAMPSTEAD, PENDER CO, N.C. /
BY: ALLEN WOOTEN
8155 MALPASS CORNER
CURRIE, N.C.
DRAWN BY: Wm. H. WARREN, JR. /
APRIL 2001 SHEET :3 OF Co /
REVISED JAN 2002 /
rwnuno uwn ac.,nv
WITH 9 SPACES AT 12'
9—
I1
I
1 31
I I
51 T
I
1
I
17—TT��
1 2
1 4 1
6 1 a
1 9 1
b
b b
b
b b
L15'X16' GAZEBO M
w17H ROOF OVER
NEW FLOATING DOCK DETAIL
!fie / �,/�
c �5 (FIA11142na T\ce—
� v
D IL-4
MAY
COAS 0/� r NgGR ` �✓
2/
W
4%
W�
Ate" ^'•._�...-.� / .
MAY 2 7 2004
t
Morehead City D M
/

?OPERTY OF:
S. S O ALFRESIDBURY J�
ALF S. AEW LANE
HAMPSTEAD, N.C.
LINE
1
EXISTING PI R AND
FLOATING ROCK ' l LW-O.0
/ I
1
Irv
0
� 1
I NEW RETAINING \\ \ A''9K
WALL (143LF.LW-0.0
\ { 1
{ 11 Ix
EXISTING {mil
SHELTER E)USTI PIER -
ACCESS ROAD TO BE REMOVED
i
l
-)rx ` w�
5287p 5g E��-_\ x n
END OF 82•3/_ " !
CHAINUNK FENCE
(COMMON POINT OF DRAWINGS) S35-20
48.SL
PROPERTY OF: + ,�
MR. A: MR& CARL M. ROSE
44 PLYMOUTH DRIVE +' +
BERKLEY HEIGHTS, NEW .IERSEY
+ +
a �
FEB 15
_20
DREDGE. uMITS'
/
3, 51If //
2// 4
1
/
i�
1
61
/
If
.2.0
�
/ /
I
_3
(
�!
-2
_10
GIRAkP
EXISTING
I
TO BE RE
5 POSTS
�-
HW +3.0
�.
NEW PIER
6 z16'LONG
NEW RETAINING j'-- NEW
WALL / I FLOATING DOCK
RAMP. � � 5'z40' LONG
RAMP I
TO BENREBUILT }
(NEW CONCRETE) �' {
60' I
HW LW
NEW FLOATING DOCK AND RAMP DETAIL
+1 U
D
uOVEO
\ LW-0.0
\
I
I
I+1 0
GAZEBO
\/
I+,'RASS'i
lT1
/ W 'Y W
W W N
rw
\\
SMOA_
+1 0
----------//A
+10
_2.0
MAINTENANCE AREA PLAN
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
V �vi NOTE: 1�>=50
77)
ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
zUAND BASED ON LW.O.O
�z
COAS fAL MAN AGEIv1ENT
No
I
+10 I
3.0
ONN�MNy
40 7455 48-C 0E0 S # 5-4 DePjy G4igA,�t
E /q5s.ge f
hiOf
L'M\
\ \ EXISTING
MARKER
MAINTENANCE OF HONEYCUTT
LAUNCHING AND DOCKING FACILITY
AT: 122 BROADVIEW LANE
HAMPSTEAD, PENDER CO, N.C.
BY: ALL EN WOOTEN
8155 MALPASS CORNER
CURRIE, N.C.
DRAWN BY: Wm. H. WARREN, JR.
APRIL 2001 SHEET 3 OF ,'_�o
REVISED JAN 2002
/:
z
13
AIrT
r�W
Wl=
/60
EXISTING CHANNEL
MARKER
, !
II
r wAllrv4 uU =611U1
WTN 9 SPACES AT 12'
4 4 P P �-
1 i 3 1 5 1 T 1 H
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 1 9 1 18'z18' GAZEBO H
WITH ROOF. GVER
NEW FLOATING DOCK DETAIL
11.
W
nl /I IC)t'b oi- 1
COASTAL t,�,ANArE'NIE/JT
1 /

Page 1 of 1
N
http://www.undersys.com/pndr/pendmaps/mapfiles/wv383834544574537.ipg 1/31/2005

Page 1 of I
http://www.undersys.com/pndr/pendmaps/mapfiles/wv383834517691898.jpg 1/31/2005

Page 1 of 1
http://www.undersys.comlscriptsltestadvlusiweb.dlVusi?fomiis=zoom&MouseX=327&Mo... 1 /31 /2005

MEETING:
LOCATION:
DATE:
PRESENT:
►1
MINUTES
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (CRC)
Ramada Inn
Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina
January 22, 2003
CRC Members
Courtney Hackney, Vice -Chairperson
Renee Cahoon
Jerry Old
Bob Emory
Larry Pittman
Peggy Griffin
Melvin Shepard
Mary Price Harrison
Joan Weld
Doug Langford
Lee Wynns
Coastal Resources Advisory Council tCRACI Members
Ginger Webster, Chairperson
Bob Shupe, Vice -Chairperson
Frank Alexander
Natalie Baggett
Joe Beck
Joe Dooley
John Doughty
Rick Gaardner
Ann Holton
Wanda King
Joe Lassiter
Gary Mercer
Bill Morrison
Wednesday, January 22,2003
Commission Call to Order
Jim Mulligan
Lee Padrick
Spencer Rogers
Lester Simpson
Mike Street
Ray Sturm
Wayne Teeter
Penny Tysinger
Dave Weaver
W.H. Weatherly
Calvin Wellons
Vice -Chairperson Hackney called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Vice -Chairperson Hackney advised that Chairperson
Tomlinson could not be at this meeting due [o surgery he was undergoing that could not be scheduled at another date. Vice -
Chairperson Hackney said that Executive Order One mandated that CRC members avoid conflict of interest or appearances of
conflict. He asked CRC members to state, as the roll was called, if they had any such conflict or appearances of conflict.
Roll Call
Eugene Tomlinson:
Not present.
Bob Barnes:
Not present.
Renee Cahoon:
Present. No conflict.
Bob Emory:
Present. No conflict.
Peggy Griffin:
Present. No conflict.
Courtney Hackney:
Present. No conflict.
Mary Price Harrison:
Not present. NOTE: Ms. Harrison arrived at 10:05 a.m.
Doug Langford:
Present. No conflict.
Jerry Old:
Not present. NOTE: Mr. Old arrived at 10:04 a.m.
Bill Peele:
Not present.

Mary Price Harrison moved that the CRC adopt the ALJ's decision as recommended by DCM staff and her motion was
seconded. Doug Langford advised that he would like to be excused from voting on this case since he was unavoidably out of the
room during most of the discussion. The CRC voted unanimously in favor of Ms. Harrison's motion (Renee Cahoon, Bob
Emory, Peggy Griffin, Mary Price Harrison, Jerry Old, Larry Pittman, Melvin Shepard, Joan Weld, Lee Wynns).
Helen Smith Contested Case (CRC-CC-03-02
Metric Jo Alcoke said this case was Helen Smith versus the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and
DCM. Ms. Alcoke advised that Ms. Smith was present today with her son, Frank Smith.
Ms. Alcoke reported that the ALJ in this case made a decision in favor of the petitioner after an evidentiary hearing. Ms. Alcoke
stated she had filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision on numerous basis. She said the primary basis was that the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked the subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Ms. Alcoke said on the first page of
Respondent's Brief with Exceptions to ALPs Decision she had a 1 and a 2. Ms. Alcoke advised that the first was that she
requests the CRC to reverse this decision and modify it by finding, first, that OAH lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
two rules of North Carolina civil procedure. She said that, secondly, she asked that in the alternative, that respondent did not
err in the particular ways that were outlined in this decision. Ms. Alcoke said she was going to ask that the CRC consider
reversing the ALJ's decision in the way enumerated in number 1 but also to make findings relevant to number 2 for purposes of
judicial economy. She said, for example, if the CRC was to find that OAH did not have jurisdiction and then maybe on appeal it
was found that they did, then the issue could be sent back to the CRC on the substance of the matter which was what was
covered by number 2. Ms. Alcoke stated she would ask that the CRC also make findings and reverse the ALPs decision on the
substance as outlined in number 2.
Ms. Alcoke advised that the background of this case was outlined in her Statement of Case on page 2. Ms. Alcoke said the
petition had first been filed by Ms. Smith in December of 2000 challenging the location of some pilings in the Intercoastal
Waterway near property that she owns in Hampstead, North Carolina. Ms. Alcoke said Ms. Smith alleged that the pilings were
blocking their access to the waterway. Ms. Alcoke said she filed a Motion to Dismiss in that first instance but this motion was
never ruled on because a Settlement Agreement was entered into where the owner of the pilings, Joe Honeycutt, agreed to move
the pilings. Ms. Alcoke advised that without ever having a hearing, the various parties entered into a Settlement Agreement.
Ms. Alcoke said it was this Settlement Agreement that lead to the case that was now before the CRC. Ms. Alcoke advised that
after the Settlement Agreement the pilings were realigned and moved but the petitioner was not satisfied with that realignment
and, therefore, filed this case appealing the terms of the Settlement Agreement and alleging that the terms of the settlement were
not properly implemented. Ms. Alcoke said in this appeal, filed in 2002, the petitioner alleged that she was not given notice of
the surveyor going out on site and secondly that the pilings were still not straight and not in accordance with the alignment she
was seeking. Ms. Alcoke referred the CRC to Exhibit 7 in the record which was a picture of the disputed pilings after they were
realigned by Mr. Honeycutt explaining what was depicted in the photograph.
Ms. Alcoke stated that the important thing about subject matter jurisdiction was that DCM had to have undertaken an action
that would be subject to review by the OAH and by the CRC. Ms. Alcoke said that unlike all the other things the CRC had
heard today where there was not a decision to grant or deny a permit giving someone the right or denying them the right to do
something, there was no permit application in this case and no request for a permit. Ms. Alcoke advised this was the primary
basis for her Motion to Dismiss. Ms. Alcoke said subject matter jurisdiction had to exist before the OAH could hear a case and
so she had brought a Motion to Dismiss on numerous bases of why subject matter jurisdiction did not exist in this case. Ms.
Alcoke stated that those bases were the OAH did not have jurisdiction over breech of contract. She said a settlement
agreement was a contract as established by North Carolina Law. Ms. Alcoke stated that if a party to a contract was unhappy
with the enforcement of that contract, their remedy would be to go to a superior court for interpretation of that contract and for
determination of whether or not it was properly implemented. Ms. Alcoke advised this was provided by statute in NCGS 7A-240
which says the proper forum for justiciable matters of a civil nature, such as contract disputes, are the trial divisions of the
General Court of Justice. Ms. Alcoke stated that OAH was not a trial division of the General Court of Justice. Ms. Alcoke said a
trail division of the General Court of Justice like a superior court or district court would have the power to issue injunctive relief
which was the type of relief that was sought in this case.
Ms. Alcoke said secondly she argued that OAH did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner was not a
"person aggrieved." Ms. Alcoke advised that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to go into the OAH you had to be
a "person aggrieved." Ms. Alcoke stated she had argued that the petitioner was not a "person aggrieved" because a "person
aggrieved" was defined as someone adversely affected in their legal rights or property by an administrative decision. Ms.
Alcoke stated that for two reasons the petitioner was not a "person aggrieved" . She said the petitioner did not own riparian

property and had not, therefore, been adversely affected in her property rights, and secondly there had been no administrative
decision by an agency.
Ms. Alcoke stated that the third basis for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was that the petitioner did not comport with the
requirements of the APA. She said the next basis was that CAMA provided the exclusive way to appeal a CAMA permitting
decisions and the petitioner was not one of the people who were entitled to an appeal under CAMA. She advised that two
different types of people could appeal under CAMA. Ms. Alcoke said one was a permit applicant which was provided for in
NCGS 113A-121.1. Ms. Alcoke stated that another person who could file an appeal was a third party who was aggrieved by a
permit decision but they first had to go through the chairperson of the CRC through a proceeding called a Third Party Hearing
Request. She advised that if that Third Party Hearing Request was granted by the chairperson of the CRC then that person got
to go to OAH. Ms. Alcoke stated the Secretary of DENR was afforded an automatic right to appeal and so the petitioner, not
being a permit applicant and not being a third party who had filed a Third Party Hearing Request through the chairperson and
not being the Secretary of DENR was, therefore, not entitled to an appeal under CAMA.
Ms. Alcoke reported that she had next pointed out that in order to have subject matter jurisdiction you had to timely file your
appeal. Ms. Alcoke advised that the petitioner did not allege and the ALJ's Decision did not state what the alleged date of the
agency action in this case was. Ms. Alcoke said she argued that there was no agency action from which an appeal could be
made. Yet, even if there was agency action, the date of any such action triggered the statutory appeal period under CAMA,
which the petitioner clearly did not meet when the petitioner filed for a contested case hearing on January 28, 2002.
Ms. Alcoke said finally she had argued that the petition should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Ms. Alcoke advised this was Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules for Civil Procedure which requires the petitioner
to make a claim that OAH could help them with and give them some relief. She said the petitioner sought to have the pilings
realigned and this relief exceeded the power assigned to ALJs which was specifically described in the APA in 150B-33 and 36.
Ms. Alcoke said injunctive relief was not one of them. Ms. Alcoke said the petitioner's claim, if any, was against Mr. Honeycutt,
the owner of the pilings, and not the State and therefore was in the wrong forum. Ms. Alcoke said that because the complaint
was against the riparian property owner, Mr. Honeycutt, it did not lend itself to proper review by the CRC because the CRC's job
was to review DCM decisions.
Ms. Alcoke said she was not going to go into detail about why the ALJ's Decision should be reversed regarding the substance
of it. She said she had outlined that in her brief with citations to the transcript, record and exhibits. Ms. Alcoke asked the CRC
to reverse the ALJ's Recommended Decision and find there was no subject matter jurisdiction and also to find in the alternative
that the agency did not err in the ways enumerated in the APA.
Helen Smith stated she too had some pictures of the pilings she wanted to share with the CRC. Ms. Smith advised they had
agreed, and Ms. Alcoke and Ms. Moffitt had signed the agreement and everyone signed the agreement to have the pilings
straightened up. Ms. Alcoke stated these pictures were not part of the record so it was not something that could be considered
by the CRC. Ms. Smith advised she had heard that she had been sent a kit about what was in the record but she did not receive
any kit so she did not know what Ms. Alcoke was talking about. Ms. Smith said all these things were added into evidence at the
hearing. Vice -Chairperson Hackney stated that the CRC could only discuss things that were in the hearing record that they had
been provided. Ms. Smith asked who had provided the CRC with the record. Ryke Longest stated that the OAH should have
provided both Ms. Smith and Ms. Alcoke with a copy of the hearing record. Ms. Smith stated that she did not receive anything
but Ms. Alcoke's response. Mr. Longest asked Ms. Smith if she took part in the hearing and was present during the hearing.
Ms. Smith responded that she had. Mr. Longest asked Ms. Smith if she was there when the evidence was presented and Ms.
Smith said she was. Mr. Longest asked Ms. Smith if what she wanted to present today was something that was presented at
that hearing. Ms. Smith's son, Frank Smith, responded it was in one or the other of two hearings. Ms. Smith said there had been
several hearings. Mr. Smith said this was not really a major concern. It was simply the way the pilings were installed without a
permit and that was what the whole issue was about. He said the pilings were installed in the waterway below the water line
without a permit. Mr. Longest asked Ms. Alcoke if the item that had been handed to Commissioner Shepard was not in the
record. Ms. Alcoke responded that if you referred to the ALJ's Recommended Decision on the very first page it listed the
exhibits that were part of the hearing. Ms. Alcoke advised that the petitioner entered just one exhibit and that was a survey.
She stated that the respondents entered in seven exhibits and that was not an exhibit that was a part of the hearing. Mr.
Longest reiterated that the CRC could only hear what was in the hearing record.
Ms. Smith said there were two hearings and the an agreement was made at the first hearing and all these things that Ms. Alcoke
addressed about the zoning restrictions and all that sort of stuff was addressed in that first hearing. Ms. Smith said at that time
they got the agreement and that was supposed to have settled that case. Vice -Chairperson Hackney asked if he was correct that

there was no ALJ decision in that first case. Ms. Smith responded there was an agreement made. Ms. Alcoke responded there
was no court reporter and no proceedings but they had come to a Settlement Agreement that day. Ryke Longest asked if the
Settlement Agreement was in the record and Ms. Smith responded that was correct and there were seven signatures on it. Mr.
Longest referred the CRC to the Settlement Agreement contained in the hearing record they had received. Mr. Longest said this
was the Settlement Agreement Ms. Smith was here to discuss. Mr. Longest asked Ms. Smith what itwas she wanted the CRC to
do. Ms. Smith said all she wanted was to have done what was in the Settlement Agreement and this had not been done. Mr.
Longest asked Ms. Smith how they had not done it. Ms. Smith advised that it had been agreed that the pilings would be
straightened out in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Additional discussion followed on what was
contained in the hearing record and what would be allowable for Ms. Smith to discuss and present. Ms. Smith reiterated that
she had not received a copy of the hearing record. Ms. Smith said she had also not been notified when the surveyor would be
at the site. Ms. Smith reviewed why she felt the terms of the Settlement Agreement had not been adhered to and why she felt
the pilings still needed realignment. Mr. Smith said they were asking the CRC to affirm the ALJ's Recommended Decision.
Vice -Chairperson Hackney said that in the Settlement Agreement it was agreed that the pilings would be moved and they had
been moved. He asked the Smiths if it was correct that were contending that even though the pilings were moved, the pilings
were still 3.2 feet from where they should be. Mr. Smith responded that they were still 3.2 feet from where the Settlement
Agreement stated they should be. Vice -Chairperson Hackney said this was the subject the CRC was dealing with but the
argument right now was whether the ALJ had the authority to rule in this case since there was no permit and no "aggrieved
person" and if the CRC had the authority to grant this. He said it clearly had some civil elements that they very well might have
a basis for a case but DCM had not granted a permit. Mr. Smith asked if it was not correct that a permit was required for the
sinking of pilings below the waterline. Vice -Chairperson Hackney asked Ms. Moffitt if there was a permit request and Ms.
Moffitt responded that there had been no permit application by these people. Mr. Smith said that was the complaint` about the
pilings that were installed without a permit. He said this was how this started. Vice -Chairperson Hackney asked if there was any
enforcement action in this matter. Mr. Smith responded they came down and looked at it and said they did not see anything
wrong with what he had done. Mr. Smith stated the fact that he had done anything without a permit was a violation of the rules.
Vice -Chairperson Hackney said what the CRC's charge was to affirm the ALJ's Recommended Decision or deny it or alter it as
they felt appropriate.
Melvin Shepard asked if these pilings were all in public trust waters and not on these individuals' personal property and Vice -
Chairperson Hackney said that was correct. Mr. Shepard said the next question he had was whether the CRC and DCM had any
authority in this case to even grant permits or get involved with putting pilings in a public trust area. Mr. Shepard stated that he
knew, for example, in their oyster garden they did not have to ask the CRC anything about putting pilings within inches of the
shore. He said the CRC did not become involved. Mr. Shepard questioned who was the legal authority was for granting pilings
in public trust areas. Ryke Longest responded that when it was development within an Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) it
was in DCM's permitting jurisdiction. Mr. Longest advised that the question here was not an objection to any permit. Mr.
Longest said the question was the enforcement of a requirement as cited by the ALJ and to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Longest stated the ALJ's order ordered three things and he thought the CRC should be pretty clear about this. Mr. Longest
advised that the CRC only had jurisdiction to decide should the ALJ's order be upheld or should the ALJ's order not be upheld
and the basis for that would be to consider the arguments in the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that Ms.
Alcoke had submitted. Mr. Longest said to adopt the ALJ's decision, the CRC would need to make no decision about anything
else they would just need to say they adopted the ALTs decision. " Mr. Longest said, in fact, if no action were taken by the CRC
that would happen by default. Mr. Longest said the question of whether or not a permit is required was really not the question
in this case because that was the subject of something called a Third Party Hearing Request process as set forth in CAMA if a
third party did not like some permitted activity. Mr. Longest advised there was a permit entered in the record for some dredge
and fill activity but that permit did not mention anything about pilings one way or the other. Mr. Longest said there might be
other information in the record that he was not aware of about what was required and what was not. Mr. Longest said it
certainly may have been required pursuant to that marina but he thought it would be good for the CRC to ask Ms. Alcoke and
Ms. Smith what they know, if anything, about what is in the record about how those pilings were placed and whether a permit
was required and was this pursuant to a permit as long as something about that was in the record. Mr. Longest asked if there
was anything in the record about under what authority these pilings had been placed.
Mr. Smith asked if CRC members had a transcript of the hearing and Mr. Longest responded they did. Mr. Smith said there was
testimony in the record but he did not know where it was.
Ms. Alcoke referred CRC members to page 11 of her Respondent's Brief with Exceptions to ALJ's Decision. Ms. Alcoke said it
gave background that she thought would help the CRC on how these pilings got there in the first place. Ms. Alcoke said she
did not think any of this was disputed by the parties. Ms. Alcoke said under Proposed Additional Findings of Fact it states:

Petitioner is not a riparian property owner, but owns property on the landward side of Broadview Lane, across
the road from the property where the disputed pilings are located. The tract of land over which the petitioner
claims a right to access the AIW W is privately owned by Carl and Lou Rose.
Ms. Alcoke said Exhibit 1 in the record also supported that. She stated the Roses had denied the petitioner's right to cross over
their property to land a boat there but that was not being looked at. Ms. Alcoke advised that in respondent's Exhibit 1 there was
a letter from the Roses' attorney to the petitioner saying not to cross over their property anymore. Ms. Alcoke said the
petitioner claims that in July of 1999 Mr. Honeycutt who owns the pilings and the boat landing added some pilings to the
existing ones making the landing on the Rose side where they claim to go down nearly unusable by blocking access to deep
water. Ms. Alcoke said the permit Ms. Smith held up earlier was a 1975 Army Corps of Engineers permit that authorized 11
pilings and that was before CAMA. Ms. Alcoke advised this permit was not entered into the record at the hearing but was a
part of the Settlement Agreement and that was a part of the record. Ms. Alcoke said there was a 1985 permit in the record and
the purpose for this being in the record was because when permit applications are submitted a plat is drawn that shows what
they have now and the plat showed that the pilings were there in 1985. Ms. Alcoke said the pilings were permitted in 1974 and
they were still there in 1985. Ms. Alcoke said DCM would agree that they had been modified over time. Ms. Alcoke stated that
in July of 1999 Mr. Honeycutt added some to the existing ones making the access to deep water difficult. Ms. Alcoke said that
the petitioner's son, Frank Smith, rented a backhoe and tore the pilings down. She said he was found responsible by an
arbitrator for destruction of property. Ms. Alcoke said the pilings were reinstalled by Mr. Honeycutt and no permit was ever
applied for when Mr. Honeycutt either allegedly added the pilings that blocked deep water access or when he put them back
after they were pulled out She said nobody looked at anything. Ms. Alcoke stated that after the fact when the petitioner made
the claim that they were blocking access, DCM looked at them and advised that the pilings had been there forever and a permit
was not needed to repair them. Ms. Alcoke said DCM did not have a personal stake in the pilings and did not have the ability to
exercise self- help and go move them because the pilings were not in violation of CAMA.
Doug Langford asked Ms. Alcoke if during the hearing that was the subject of the case before the CRC today did she make
argument at that time that the ALJ did not have jurisdiction in this case. Ms. Alcoke responded that she moved for a lack of
jurisdiction in both cases and none of her motions were ever ruled upon until the decision was issued and he found in their
favor and ruled that the Motion to Dismiss was denied.
Bob Emory said he did not know what could be done if the CRC decided in favor of the petitioner. Mr. Emory stated that he
could not see where the CRC had any authority in this matter.
Mary Price Harrison moved that the CRC reverse the ALJ's Decision and modify it as recommended by Ms. Alcoke and her
motion was seconded. CRC members discussed at length and questioned how this case should be resolved and what, if any,
authority the CRC and DCM had in this matter and would have if the CRC upheld the ALJ's Recommended Decision. The CRC
voted five in favor of Ms. Harrison's motion (Bob Emory, Peggy Griffin, Mary Price Harrison, Joan Weld, Lee Wynns) and five
opposed to Ms. Harrison's motion (Renee Cahoon, Doug Langford, Jerry Old, Larry Pittman, Melvin Shepard). Vice -
Chairperson Hackney broke the tie on this motion by voting in favor of the motion.
Melvin Shepard said it seemed to him that perhaps the CRC and other agencies did not have the rules in place to deal with this
kind of thing. Mr. Shepard stated that he believed the CRC was in conflict rather than in concert with what the Marine Fisheries
Commission says on certain things. Mr. Shepard advised that he thought they had a dog in the fight of the case the CRC just
heard. Mr. Shepard said dealing with 15A NCAC 7H where it talked about wooden groins and riprap offshore it was certainly
talking about getting into areas where the Division of Marine Fisheries could want to have a say in whether we did or did not do
something. Vice -Chairperson Hackney stated they did comment on permits. Mr. Shepard said in this case he could not find
where the Division of Marine Fisheries had been asked for an opinion. Mr. Shepard advised his recommendation to the Chair
was that the Chair appoint a committee consisting of a member of DCM and ask for a member from the Division of Marine
Fisheries and a member from the North Carolina Fish and Wildlife who were the designated law enforcement officers on the
water in the State of North Carolina and maybe a member of the Attorney General's Office to take a look at what had been talked
about today, things in the public trust waters. Mr. Shepard stated that those were under the Department of Administration and
the Secretary of DENR was given the job of handling those but exactly who handled them and under what conditions and under
what conditions would you want to make sure that you pulled in another agency for comment before you looked at any kind of a
case and where would law enforcement come in where two guys got in a quarrel in the water about whether you were allowed to
do something in front of your property. Mr. Shepard said what he had found out in dealing with oyster gardens was that
everybody had a right to be everywhere. Vice -Chairperson Hackney asked Mr. Shepard if it was alright if he requested that
DCM staff develop a short presentation on public trust in the coastal zone and how that was handled. Mr. Shepard agreed with
U

Vice -Chairperson Hackney's proposal
Public Tout and Comment
Don Morris of 511 Broad Creek Loop Road, Newport, North Carolina, said that the North Carolina Constitution proclaims that
the ocean beaches of North Carolina are held in public trust for all of its citizens. He said the North Carolina Constitution directs
all elected and appointed officials to protect and defend public trust rights. Mr. Morris stated that the sharp rise in development
of the oceanfront beaches in North Carolina had created severe problems with traditional beach access and use by the public.
Mr. Morris advised that developers and communities alike ignore the public trust doctrine when oceanfront property was
transferred and developed. He stated that instead the developers and locally elected officials imply that the beaches fronting
the newly developed properties were private beaches for area residents only and that locally elected officials allow further
restrictions on public access by banning sport fishing vehicle use by fishermen on beaches and implementing no parking bans
on streets in the vicinity of the beaches. Mr. Morris stated that the Whalehead lawsuit filed in Currituck County Superior Court
was a classic example of wealthy oceanfront property owners attempting to usurp traditional beach rights of citizens of the
State. He said if the State courts rule in favor of the Whalehead group, all developed beaches in the State would soon be off
limits to the public except for federal and State owned areas.
Mr. Morris said another glaring example of oceanfront property owners attempting to exclude the public from their private
beaches was taking place in Pine Knoll Shores. Mr. Morris reported the municipality was attempting to secure a federal beach
nourishment project without strictly adhering to the federal Army Corps of Engineers (COE) public access requirements. Mr.
Morris stated that Pine Knoll Shores evaded the COE requirements lastyear by claiming the nourishment project was a privately
funded project and did not have to met COE requirements. He said, however, in order to secure funding for a Federal 933 project
planned for the winter of 2004, Pine Knoll Shores is pressing the COE to approve an access scheme which provided limited
parking and access to their beach during the summer tourist season only. Mr. Morris said the Pine Knoll Shores scheme did not
provide year round parking with access for all of the beach included in the proposed taxpayer financed renourishment project.
Mr. Morris advised that, in effect, the beachfront property owners were seeking approval from the COE to continue privatizing
the beaches of the State even though federal and State funds were paying for the sand being dumped in front of their palatial
beachfront homes. Mr. Morris stated that this proposed violation of the public trust continues while elected and appointed
officials did nothing to protect the public trust rights. He said, indeed, it appeared that officials do everything they could to
gain favor among the well to do oceanfront property owners while ignoring the public trust rights of American taxpayers.
Mr. Morris said if the Whalehead subdivision and the Town of Pine Knoll Shores were allowed to privatize the oceanfront
beaches in their areas, the practice would undoubtedly spread to all the coastal areas of the state. Mr. Morris said to paraphrase
a statement recently made by Governor Easley which was analogous to beach access; "Our state is indeed fortunate to have so
many natural resources and as the heirs we have a special responsibility to take care of this bounty." Mr. Morris urged the
Governor's office, DCM and the court system to uphold the rights of the people by insuring compliance with federal and State
standards for public access to all of the beaches in our State.
Vice -Chairperson Hackney thanked Mr. Morris for his comments. Nobody else asked to address the CRC
CRC/CRAC Committee as a Whole
Vice -Chairperson Hackney advised that the two standing committees were now meeting as a committee of the whole.
Holden Beach Land Use Plan Amendment fP&SI-03-01
Kathy Vinson said what was before the CRC today was a proposed amendment to the 1997 Town of Holden Beach Land Use
Plan Update. She said this plan was certified by the CRC in November of 1998. Ms. Vinson reported that what the Town of
Holden Beach was proposing to do was to clarify that they would allow bulkhead construction consistent with State standards.
Ms. Vinson introduced Steven Wheeler, Holden Beach Town Manager.
Ms. Vinson advised that the current policy in the plan that was certified in 1998 states unequivocally that the Town intends to
prevent damage to existing coastal and freshwater marshes resulting from bulkhead construction. Ms. Vinson said DCM's
regulatory staff had determined that correct application of this policy to a CAMA major permit would require a proposed
bulkhead to be aligned landward of all vegetated wetlands at the construction site. Ms. Vinson said the Town says this is
stricter than what they intended since the CRC's minimum use standards allow that bulkheads be constructed landward of just
significant marshlands and marshgrass fringes

IL
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
January 25, 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL #70041160 0004 4620 2078
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
8155 Malpass Corner Road
Currie, NC 28435
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
!7EY
ED
2 2005
Morehead City DCM
Subject: Request for Stormwater Management Permit Application
Allen Wooten Site
Stormwater Project No. SW8 010429
Pender County
Dear Mr. Wooten:
On January 25, 2005, the Wilmington Regional Office received a copy of a Notice of Violation and
Request to Cease Unauthorized Development for the subject project. The Division previously issued an
exemption for this project, but due to the unauthorized addition of 21 linear feet of concrete boat ramp,
and the creation of approximately 6,060 ft2 of built -upon area within the 30' AEC with packed gravel, the
Division is now requiring you to submit a new Stormwater Management Permit application to address
the additional built -upon area. The North Carolina Administrative Code requires any project that must
receive either Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval and/or a CAMA Major permit, or
modifications to these permits after January 1, 1988, to apply for and receive a Stormwater
Management Permit by the Division of Water Quality. Any construction on the subject site, prior to
receipt of the required permit, will constitute a violation of 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and may result in
appropriate enforcement action by this Office.
Please submit a Stormwater Management Permit Application Package including 2 sets of plans,
completed application form, fee, and supporting documentation, no later than February 25, 2005.
Failure to respond to this request may result in the initiation of enforcement action, and construction
may experience a subsequent delay.
The NPDES 010000 Federal Stormwater Permit that accompanies the Erosion Control Plan approval
letter must NOT be considered the Coastal Stormwater Management Permit, which will be signed by
the Water Quality Supervisor. Please reference the Project Number above on all correspondence.
If you have any questions, please call me at (910)-395-3900.
Sincerely,
� /�
4Yl
Linda Lewis
Environmental Engineer
ENB/arl: S:\WQS\STORMWAT\STORMSUB\010429.jan05
cc: Pender County Building Inspections
Jim Gregson, DCM Wilmington
Roy Brownlow, DCM Compliance Coordinator
Wilmington Regional Office File
Central Files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Phone [phone] Customer Servioel-877-623-6748
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405-3845 FAX [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal OpportunilylAffnnative Action Employer— 50% Recyded110% Post Consumer Paper
one
NCarolina
AIT&W !y

�r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
21 January 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
8155 Malpass Corner Road
Currie, NC 28435
RE. NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND REQUEST TO CEASE UNAUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT
CAMA VIOLATION !105-03D
Dear Mr. Wooten:
This letter confirms that on 23 December 2004, you, District Manager Jim Gregson, Coastal Management
Representative Jon Giles, and I were onsite your property located at the Hampstead Marina, off SR 1606, 122
Broadview Lane, adjacent to the AIWW (Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway) located in or near Hampstead, Pender
County, North Carolina. The purpose of the visit was to investigate development not authorized by State Permit
number 50-02. The unauthorized development involves the installation of additional linear footage of the southwest
wall adjacent to the boat ramp; adding linear footage to the boat ramp; installation of a. basin channel marker piling;
installation of two cluster piles; and the grading and filling with loose rock and gravel within the 30' Coastal Shoreline
buffer on or near property adjacent to the AIWW. This letter also confirms a prior site visit to this subject property by
Jim Gregson and me on 23 November 2004. This letter further confirms a brief meeting on 23 December 2004 with
you, your father-in-law Mr. Honeycutt, and me prior to the meeting with Mr. Gregson.
Information gathered by me for the Division of Coastal Management indicates that you have undertaken major
development in violation of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). No person may undertake Major
Development in a designated Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) without first obtaining a permit from the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 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 the following unauthorized
development on the aforementioned property:
1. Installation of an additional 21 linear feet of wooden wall parallel to the boat ramp on the southwest side of
the boat ramp. 50 linear feet was permitted, however, field measurements indicate the wall is at least 71
linear feet. It appears the waterward termination is in alignment with existing pilings on adjacent property to
the southwest, however the additional 21' extends landward due to the re -sloping and re -surfacing of the
boat ramp and is not authorized or described by State Permit No. 05-02.
2. Installation of an additional 21 linear feet of concrete boat ramp. The existing boat ramp (26' wide by 60'
long) was permitted to be resurfaced and repaired, however the additional 21' extends landward due to the
re -sloping and re -surfacing of the boat ramp and is not described or authorized by State Permit No. 05.02.
3. Installation of a wooden piling on the southwestern tip of a sand shoal within the Hampstead Marina basin.
This piling was not described or authorized by State Permit No. 05-02.
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
21 January 2005
Page 2 of 4
4. Installation of at least two (2) wooden piling clusters within the Hampstead Marina basin. These pilings are
not described or authorized by State Permit No. 05.02.
5. Grading and filling with loose rock and gravel within 30' of the normal high water level in area at least ±30'
feet wide north to south by approximately ±202' feet in length east to west encompassing approximately
6,060 square feet in area. The rock and gravel is packed to serve as a parking and driveway area. Coastal
Shorelines category includes Estuarine Shoreline. The Estuarine Shoreline AEC, in part, extends from the
normal high water level for a distance of 75 feet landward. Within the Coastal Shoreline AEC buffer, new
development shall be located a distance of 30 feet landward of the normal high water level. The grading
and filling with this rock and gravel within the Coastal Shoreline AEC is not described or authorized by State
Permit No. 05.02.
This activity took place in Estuarine Waters, Public Trust Area, and Coastal Shoreline areas that are contiguous with
the AIWW near Topsail Sound. Estuarine Waters, Public Trust Area, and Coastal Shoreline areas are designated as
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). No permit was issued to you for work in this area. Based on these findings, I
am initiating an enforcement action by issuing this Notice of Violation for violation of the Coastal Area Management
Act.
I request that you immediately CEASE AND DESIST any further unauthorized activities within designated Areas of
Environmental Concern. A civil assessment of up to $2,500 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 up to $2,500. An injunction or criminal penalty may also be sought to enforce any violation
(N.C.G.S.113A-126).
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to levy a minimum civil assessment of $500.00 not to exceed
$2,500 against all violations. This is done to recoup some of the costs of investigating violations and/or to
compensate the public for any damage to its natural resources. Whether a higher amount will be assessed depends
on several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected and the extent of the damage to
them.
Based upon the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 07H. State Guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern, part of the activity you have undertaken, filling and grading with rock and gravel in the
Coastal Shoreline AEC 30' buffer zone, is not consistent with Section 07H .0209(d), which does not allow non -water
dependent development within 30' landward of the normal high water level. Therefore, I am requesting that all loose
rock and gravel material be removed within 30' landward of the normal high water level. It is acknowledged that a
driveway existed prior to the unauthorized development and in this case, may be allowed to remain. The Coastal
Resources Commission rules allow development over existing impervious surfaces provided that it is not enlarged
and complies with the rules to the maximum extent feasible. Please refer to the enclosed Restoration Agreement for
specific restoration guidelines.
Likewise, upon review of the Coastal Area Management Act, Coastal Resource Commission's rules, and the local
jurisdiction's Land Use Plan, the other activity you have undertaken: the landward extension of the southwest wall
adjacent to the boat ramp, the landward extension of the boat ramp, the installation of the navigation pile, and the
installation of the cluster pilings, appear consistent with the guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern.
Therefore, restoration of the impacted area is not requested at this time with the exception of providing permanent
reflectors on the freestanding cluster piles and navigation marker pile to make them more visible. However, please
be advised that upon request, you must be able to provide us proof that you have given your adjacent riparian
property owner(s) notice of this unauthorized development and provided them the opportunity to comment to the
Division of Coastal Management.
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

r
Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
21 January 2005
Page 3 of 4
Should you be requested to provide this documentation, you must provide confirmation that a written statement has
been obtained, signed by the adjacent riparian property owners, indicating that they have no objection to the
completed work; or you must provide confirmation that the adjacent riparian property owners have been notified by
certified mail of the completed work. This notice shall instruct adjacent property owners to provide any comments on
the completed development in writing to this Division within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice and shall indicate
that no response from them will be interpreted as not having any objection
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
REQUEST TO CEASE AND DESIST has been complied with. I request that you contact me immediately.
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/or development that
is inconsistent with Coastal Resources Commission rules.
Sincerely,�
Roy Brownlow
Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Cc: Ted Tyndall, Assistant Director, DCM
Jim Gregson, District Manager, DCM
Henry Wicker, USACE
Noelle Lutheran, DWQ
Ren Holt, Chief Inspector, Pender Co.
stal
Service„FIED
U
MAIL„
RECEIPT
Mail
Only; No Insurance
Coverage
Provided)
u — A 1
-4 Posage $ /00
a
CartHlad Fast 2, 3o
7 Pmh 0
Ream ReclePt Fee (Endorsement Requited) �, 7S
r=7 r:rM od Delivery Fee
(Enoorsemstnt Requlred)
Total Postage & Fees 1 $ ,AS /p,5 I yy.,
* -f/- -&Sc_ /i
7 r 7o HN�ORS7p! Mv►t! , X_ J e d
M�._ _i41L.FPS(_�fI&OZ�S(________.._.._________._.....__________. ___
;�xPcla, Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
or PO sax Ala 8/SS'0.1.e11-:1S'...__---•
ay,SWO,,ffx ---- Z8S�3S 2 247 33301 Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Mr. Allen Wooten
Hampstead Marina, Inc.
21 January 2005
Page 4 of 4
RESTORATION PLAN
For
Hampstead Marina, Inc. Property
Mr. Allen Wooten
CASE NUMBER: 05-03D
Property located at 122 Broadview Lane, Pender County
r
N 4459'15�W
ury 30' P
58 �
EXISTING DRIVEWAY ';}ti
} `}j{ti';•?j:;
t�;M1Fiock
&gravel
• ♦ • to be removed
\ from buffer
I
30'
tl
EXISTING
EXISTING
SHELTER
ACCESS ROAD r ;,, ,,�,�„
END OF
CNAINUNK
(COMMON POINT
YHNCS) S35'
4e.
KHEAD j North
ry.
LW—o.o
� ARE
r 2if / 4 1 B
Rock & Gravel
Area to be.
removed
I, Allen Wooten, agree to remove all loose rock and gravel material from the normal or high water level to within 30'
landward of the normal or high water level, except for the existing driveway which may be allowed to remain.
Furthermore, I agree to install and maintain permanent reflectors, or other signaling devices, attached to the
freestanding cluster piles and navigation marker pile in order to make them more visible during hours of darkness or
inclement weather.
I agree to complete this restoration to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by 21 February
2005, 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 levy a minimum civil assessment $500 and higheragainst all violations of this type depending upon the
damage to the resources. If restoration is not undertaken or satisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment will be levied and an injunction
sought to require restoration.
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.necoastalmanagement.net

DCM ENFORCEMENT TRACKING REPORT
Field Rep. QO c�i %� / Issue Violation Base No. -03 _ _
LPO A B C UD
�Violated Permit No. .� O
LPj ��/_ �-©�
T uuA/zy (if applicable)
Violation Description Was activity permittable? Ye 4 No A-.41-4Z
Initial Discovery Date /IIZ3/0'' Discovery Method / )0A-1(Tr92rt-6 S{gcC G�i>�F
Violation Description(/WJ,-_ .2- Y_-"_� [JQ.�ryG Lf,�eo-i z±fx_.%C2_fr.�
Dfea/u- va- r • L11Gc22sa /P ,.e/C.m/ Cx, m, gown A' / 3 r.✓��/¢V. CN__93/?c_�rle v iQrtis z Clr�s�t
Respondent Informstidn Prior Violations in same AEC: Yes / to
Case Number(�s d3�01
Respondent Nani Y&1.7�S e /Y!/Yli✓4i
/uG�LPaI_/1//O+OZO t
Landowner Agent/Contractor)
Address,�� s f �� 45 - -2 �p�- ---- City _.CN r e _.-
_- State &4L- Zip
---- Z kny337
Phone #- �Q = 27�_ - ©S0—.:—
Fax # -
--------
- - -
p
Email_.�y--
-
Violation Type: Project Type:
a
Authorizations Required: Site Visits Respondent Site Visits
Respondent
I-/NoPermit L� Private/Community
F`7 Major [✓CAMA
Present
Present
Permit Condition [_';/GovtlPublic
F� [1
U Minor L D&F--
[)
Expired Permit Commercial
General
� Inconsistent wl Rules
----
L---..-.-----_-
Violation Location and Site Description
Rover File Project Location: CountynAae�=
'/� Shoreline Length _mac-ci(fy_
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s) '
_2 _IJ_ `�l04dv,2W LA/ SAV: Not Sure Yes
Santlbags: Not Sure Yes N
Subdivision___ PNA: Yes N Adjacent
ORW; Yes Adjacent
City_.- .. - S.FI �Ll_-- --- ZIP-- --- -
'-'------' Crit. Hab. YesNo
Phone # (__-) River Basin 6_ l _L�___- Photos No
Adj. Wtr. Body M wW/ 7o_f / rL Waiver Required Yes No
Closest Ma'. Wtr. Body In DWQ Buffer Area Yes
Restoration j
NOV Date
Z --
CNOVDate
Penalty Assessment
Sent to Respondent Date _ _.
Rcvd. by Dist. Mgr. Date _
Assessment Extended Yes No
Initial Req. Comp. Date OZIZ�.�Z�S
Date Comp. Observed
Fee
Extension Granted Yes No
Restoration Letter
Acceptance Date
7J.0409 Ref. I Recomm. Assess. i DCM Assess. 1
�{DO— $ $.--------
N011"Penalty
- -►-[
"
yC> >
5
-off
$
- ---
Continuing
1$
$
Other
i$
$
Total`
S�
- -

.-w
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 _ � _'i Respondent not responsive to penalty/NOV I _ Injunction to complete restoration
Date Collection Let. Sent __ Date Demand Let. Sent
Violation Activities and Impacts
AECs Affected:
CW EW PTA ES PTS
OEA HHF IH
PWS: FC:
Other:
Restoration Required by the Respondent es / No
Wetlands Impacted? Yes / No
SA DS Cl SY A
SS SC SP 404
If yes, which types:
LS TY
Development Activities
Dimensions in excess
of permit/unau[horized activities
Dimensions to restore
Final dimensions
� allowed
j
i
Actually restored_j
Habitat Description
NOTES: -_
---------- ----
C�1L-----
.- _.----_ -0�_=P_c6j,-e-G
Closing
Payment Received $. __.. ___. ._____ _ _..__-Date.._._______-- Date Case Closed

NAME:
CASE NO.: �-�3D CASE NOTES
DATE TIME NOTES \
3
otf�'-s ploZ�r3 syvy
04 Grimm age
Nov
t✓., - !� (5ce,,a A/ol/ fie.

Re: [Fwd: Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina]
From: Roy Brownlow <Roy.Brownlow@ ncmail. net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:38:45 -0500
To: Jim Gregson <Jim.Gregson @ ncmail. net>
CC: Ted Tyndall <Ted.Tyndall @ ncmail.net>
Jim:
I've reviewed the DCM 2000 aerial photo file, specifically file #26-237, of the Wooten's
Hampstead Marina site. I used a magnifying glass and based upon my review, it appears
the waterward extent of the south wall adjacent to the boat ramp are reasonably in
alignment with the adjacent structures's waterward extent existing at that time. Actually,
the structures existing at that time on Wooten's property shown in this photo appear to
extend to some degree beyond the last (waterward) pole on the southwestern adjacent
property (now Piermeyer's property). Based on my site visits to the property and the
photos I took (attached) showing the alignment of the south boat ramp wall and the last
(waterward) pole on the adjacent property, I am satisfied it appears that the structures
are reasonably in alignment with each other's waterward extent, or replaced in close
proximity of the once existing poles/structures.
Roy
Jim Gregson wrote:
Subject:
Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina
From: "Piepmeyer, David A (GE Energy)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:00:59 -0500
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>
To: "'Jim. G regson @ ncmail.net"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Piepmeyer, Sally (GE Energy)" <Sally. Piepmeyer@ gene.ge.com>, "Kevin
Strickland (E-mail)" <stricklandkevin @ bellsouth.net>
Mr. Gregson,
My name is David Piepmeyer and my family and I reside at 122 Broadview Lane, Hampstead NC. I am
the adjoining property owner on the southwest side of Hampstead Marina. On the afternoon of
December 23rd, I noticed some activity in my landing and went down to investigate. At that time, I
introduced myself to three CAMA representatives and asked if I could help them with anything. The
CAMA representatives asked me several questions about Hampstead Marina's recently built groin's
effect on my riparian access. They also questioned me about the groin construction timing, the physical
length of the groin into the water as compared to the previously existing mooring poles and the ending
location of a residential easement on my lot. I answered all these questions to the best of my knowledge
and added that the groin in question is not displayed on Hampstead Marina's February 2002 CAMA site
plan. One of the CAMA representatives looked at the February 2002 site map and agreed with my
comment. Also I noted that at the time of the groin construction (sometime around November 2002), 1
asked Mr. Allen Wooten if he had wavier documentation for the groin construction. Mr. Wooten assured
me that everything was in order and he would provide me with all the proper paperwork. Although I have
1 of 4 1/25/2005 11:38 AM

Re: [Fwd: Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina]
asked on several occasions since that time, no paperwork or wavier has been sent to me as of this date.
One of the CAMA representatives indicated that at a minimum, I would be sent a waiver to review and
this would allow me an avenue to voice my concerns. Since I have not been contacted since December
23rd with regards to the above mentioned subjects, I felt that it was in my best interest to send you this
email. The following are my comments and concerns regarding the Hampstead Marina groin
construction.
CONCERNS:
I . The fact that I, an adjoining property owner, was not included in the process as outlined in the
North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter 7H, Coastal Management, Section 1400,
Subsection 1402.
2. That the groin construction has occurred and was not present on Hampstead Marina's February
2002 site plan, which suggests that the groin construction was not properly reviewed by CAMA and
was not part of the original permit issued by CAMA to Hampstead Marina.
3. That Hampstead Marina's newly constructed groin is not perpendicular to the shoreline and
extends more than the allowed 25 feet waterward of the normal high water level. (15A NCAC 07H
.1405 Specific Conditions, paragraph (a)). This violation in of itself affects my riparian access by
inhibiting my ability to back a boat trailer down my landing.
4. The required 15 foot set back from my property line was violated and I was never properly
contacted or given an opportunity to object prior to Mr. Wooten initiating the groin construction. No
waiver form was ever sent to me notifying me of Mr. W ooten's intentions with regards to the groin
construction. (15A NCAC 07H .1402 Specific Conditions, paragraph (c)).
5. That the newly constructed groin is catching all the sediment causing my landing to fill in and thus
affecting my riparian access. Additionally, at some point, this filling in of my landing will force me
to apply for more CAMA permits and pay for more physical dredging than would have been
required if the groin had not been built (that is assuming I can get a CAMA permit).
6. That by merely sending you this list of concerns, that Mr. Wooten, as adjoining property owner, will
retaliate and negatively impact my ability to secure any future required CAMA permits for dredging,
bulkhead maintenance or landscaping of my property.
It is not my intention to have Mr. Wooten tear down the groin, although some removal of the last 20 feet
of the groin would help my riparian access. It is my intentions that my concerns/objections be heard,
noted and hopefully acted upon and that I receive fair consideration with regards to my future CAMA
permitting needs. If any further explanation of the above mentioned concerns is required, please feel free
to contact me either by email or by phone (work: 675-6863 or home: 270-8519). Also, I would welcome a
meeting with you or your staff at any time to discuss my concerns in person and to keep me informed of
what the current status of the Hampstead Marina situation is. Thanks very much for your time and I look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
David Piepmeyer
Roy Brownlow, Compliance
Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
151-B Hwy 24, Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
2 of 4 1/25/2005 11:38 AM

Re: [Fwd: Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina]
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone]
Toll Free: 888.912.CAMA
3 of 4 1/25/2005 11:38 AM

Re: [Fwd: Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina]
MVC-615S.JPG Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
MVC-633S.JPG Content -Type: image/jpeg
Content -Encoding: base64
4 of 4 1/25/2005 11:38 AM

Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina
Subject: Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina
From: "Piepmeyer, David A (GE Energy)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:00:59 -0500
To: "' Jim. [e-mail]"' <Jim. G regson @ ncmail. net>
CC: "Piepmeyer, Sally (GE Energy)" <Sally. Piepmeyer@ gene.ge.com>,
(E-mail)" <stricklandkevin @ bellsouth. net>
Mr. Gregson,
My name is David Piepmeyer and my family and I reside at 122 Broadview Ls
adjoining property owner on the southwest side of Hampstead Marina. On th
I noticed some activity in my landing and went down to investigate. At that tin
CAMA representatives and asked if I could help them with anything. The CAI
several questions about Hampstead Marina's recently built groin's effect on n
questioned me about the groin construction timing, the physical length of the
compared to the previously existing mooring poles and the ending location of
lot. I answered all these questions to the best of my knowledge and added th
displayed on Hampstead Marina's February 2002 CAMA site plan. One of th
at the February 2002 site map and agreed with my comment. Also I noted th
construction (sometime around November 2002), 1 asked Mr. Allen Wooten it
for the groin construction. Mr. Wooten assured me that everything was in arc
with all the proper paperwork. Although I have asked on several occasions s
wavier has been sent to me as of this date.
"Kevin Strickland
ne, Hampstead NC. I am the
afternoon of December 23rd
e, I introduced myself to three
1A representatives asked me
y riparian access. They also
Iroin into the water as
a residential easement on my
it the groin in question is not
CAMA representatives looked
.t at the time of the groin
he had wavier documentation
=r and he would provide me
ice that time, no paperwork or
One of the CAMA representatives indicated that at a minimum, I would be sent a waiver to review and this
would allow me an avenue to voice my concerns. Since I have not been contacted since December 23rd
with regards to the above mentioned subjects, I felt that it was in my best interest to send you this email.
The following are my comments and concerns regarding the Hampstead Mari Ina groin construction.
CONCERNS:
1. The fact that I, an adjoining property owner, was not included in the process as outlined in the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter 7H, Coastal Management, Section 1400,
Subsection 1402.
2. That the groin construction has occurred and was not present on Hampstead Marina's February 2002
site plan, which suggests that the groin construction was not properly reviewed by CAMA and was not
part of the original permit issued by CAMA to Hampstead Marina.
3. That Hampstead Marina's newly constructed groin is not perpendicular to the shoreline and extends
more than the allowed 25 feet watenvard of the normal high water level. (15A NCAC 07H .1405
Specific Conditions, paragraph (a)). This violation in of itself affects my riparian access by inhibiting
my ability to back a boat trailer down my landing. 1
4. The required 15 foot setback from my property line was violated and I was never properly contacted
or given an opportunity to object prior to Mr. Wooten initiating the groinll construction. No waiver form
was ever sent to me.notifying me of Mr. Wooten's intentions with regards to the groin construction.
(15A NCAC 07H .1402 Specific Conditions, paragraph (c)).
5. That the newly constructed groin is catching all the sediment causing my landing to fill in and thus
affecting my riparian access. Additionally, at some point, this filling in of my landing will force me to
apply for more CAMA permits and pay for more physical dredging than would have been required if
the groin had not been built (that is assuming I can get a CAMA permit).
6. That by merely sending you this list of concerns, that Mr. Wooten, as adjoining property owner, will
retaliate and negatively impact my ability to secure any future required CAMA permits for dredging,
bulkhead maintenance or landscaping of my property.
It is not my intention to have Mr. Wooten tear down the groin, although some removal of the last 20 feet of
I of 2 1/25/2005 10:20 AM

Possibly spam: Hampstead Marina
the groin would help my riparian access. It is my intentions that my concerns/objections be heard, noted
and hopefully acted upon and that I rieceive fair consideration with regards to my future CAMA permitting
needs. If any further explanation of the above mentioned concerns is required, please feel free to contact
me either by email or by phone (work: 675-6863 or home: 270-8519). Also, I would welcome a meeting with
you or your staff at any time to discuss my concerns in person and to keep me informed of what the current
status of the Hampstead Marina situation is. Thanks very much for your time and I look forward to hearing
from you.
Sincerely
David Piepmeyer
2 of 2 1/25/2005 10:20 AM

NC DCM Permit Activities Database Digital Pictures Archive Page 1 of 2
ID: 5 Login Name: TereB User Name: Tere Barrett Access: 4 PWD Exp.: 240 days.
NC DCM Permit Activities Database
Digital Pictures Archive:
Picture Id # : 959
Upload Date & Time: 11/6/2001 10:52:54 AM
Permit Number: NA
Violation No: NA
Photographer: Jerry Parker
Image Date: 05/07/2001
Reason for Visit: Major Permit
County: Pender
Title: Allen Wooten, marina site
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/pad/digital_pic/wrapper.asp?FilelD=959 11/29/2004

Permit Class Permit Number
MODIFICATION/MINOR 50-02
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
OPYCoastal Resources Commission
Permit
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Allen Wooten, 8155 Malpass Corner, Currie, NC
Authorizing development in Pender County at adj. AIW W odd SR 1606, 122 Broadview
Lane near Hampstead , as requested in the permittee's application dated letters (2) dated 4/12/04
and attached workolat drawings (2) dated received 5/5/04
This permit, issued on Jane 14, 7004 , is subject to compliance with the application (where
consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these
terms may be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
1) This minor modification authorizes the maintenance excavation and placement of spoil material as
depicted on the approved attached workplan drawings.
2) Maintenance excavation shall not exceed —6 feet below mean low water.
3) In order to protect juvenile shrimp and finfish populations, no excavation or filling will be permitted
between April 1 and September 30 of any year without the prior approval of the Division of Coastal
Management, in consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries.
4) This minor modification must be attached to the original of Permit No. 50-02 which was issued on
4/23/02, as well as all subsequent amendments, modifications, renewals and letters of refinement, and
all documents must be readily available on site when Division personnel inspect the project for
compliance.
(See attached sheet for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2005
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
v 7
CWef S. Jones, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
Signature of Permittee

Allen Wooten
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit # 50-02
Page 2 of 2
5) All conditions and stipulations of the active permit remain in force under this minor modification unless
modified herein.

APR.-21-03(MON) 11:07 OEHNR COSTAL MGMT
TEL:[phone] P003
Permit Class Permit Number
MODIFICATION/MINOR 50-02
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
Coastal Resources Commission
�ernttt � : .
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Allen Wooten, 8155 Malnass Corner. Currie, NC 28435
Authorizing development in Pender County at adi. AIWW odd SR 1606, 122 Broadview
Lane near Hampstead , as requested in the permittee's application dated letters dated 10/21/02 & 1/s/ov
& the Revised M04 Form dated 10/21/02, including attached workplan drawings (2). dated received 10/22/02 &2/11/03.
This perntit, issued on ARM 21 1903 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
^--, ••••r••- -., .. • r, w,."vu, va may cause uto permit W oe nun anti void.
1) This minor modification authorizes the relocation of the permitted gazebo to the landward end of the
pier, the addition of six (6) 3 ft. x 16 ft. finger piers and the installation of a 50 ft. rewning wall
along the south side of the existing boat ramp. All work authorized by this modification shall be
done that is expressly and specifically set forth in the letters dated 10/21/02 and 1/8/03, and as
depicted on the attached workplan drawings dated received 10/22/02 and 2/11/03.
2) T15A:07H.0208(b)(6)(E) states, "'T's, platforms and decks shall have no more than six feet of any
dimension extending over coastal wetlands." In order to comply with this rule, no portion of the
permitted gazebo, including the roof, built over coastal wetlands may exceed six feet in width.
3) That portion of the permitted gazebo, including the roof, built over coastal wetlands must be elevated
a minimum of three feet over the wetland substrate as measured from the bottom of the decking.
(See attached sheet for Additional Conditions)
-__ ...y .... ..Vv_.r ",c pcnunwc ur
Other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the partnit expires on
December 31, 2005
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
sigrrea oy the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Donat. Moffitt, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Pwmittee

11'03�MON) 11:01
DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
TEL119 7U 1495
Arlen Wooten P. 004
�Permit #50.02
`W-l"age ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Z oP_3� W
4) In order [o ensure compliance with Condition 2 and 3 of th'
an on -site mer[i
5)
6)
7)
8)
OTE:
ng wit" a representative of the Divisionsof Co c`�on, the permitter shall schedule
initiation. Management
prior to project
As stated in the Amendment of Permit No. 50-02, which was issued on 7/10/02, the docking facility will
be designed to accommodate no more than 9 vessels. At no time shall more than 9 vessels be moored or
docked at the facility. The restriction of the number of vessels shall apply to all matins vessel typos
including but not limited to motorboats, sailing vessels and personal watercraft,
�� Any proposal to add two or more additional boat slips to the authorized 9 slip facility will re
a review under the N.C. Environmrntal Policy Act (NCEphe quire
This minor modification does not authorize any excavation of filling in association with the e
retaining wall.
This minor modification must be attached to the original of permit No. 50-02, permitted
4/23/02, and subsequently amended on 7/10/02 as well as the letter for refinement issued on 10/22/02
and all documents must be readily available on site when which was issued on
2,
for compliance, h n a Division representative inspects the project
All conditions and stipulations of the active e
altered herein. P rmit remain in force under this
minor modification unless

CHARLIE HOLLIS
Regulatory Consultant
138 Green Forest Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
Phone/FAX [phone]
October 21, 2002
Project: Request for Minor Modification
Honeycutt Launching & Docking Facility
CAMA Permit 50-02; Mr. Allen Wooten, Currie, NC
Appeal of Conditions Limiting Number of Boat Slips From 9 to 5
Mr. Tim Gregson
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
127 North Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Mr. Gregson:
Please reference your recent discussion with Mr. Charles Duncan. Marine Contractor regarding
some minor changes to the arrangement of the dock authorized for Mr. Allen Wooten by the permit cited
above. I am enclosing a sketch of the now proposed dock. The changes are that (1) the Gazebo is to be
located at the landward end of the dock, and (2) six 3' x 16' finger piers are to be included as shown. Mr.
Wooten also needs to construct a 50'-long retaining wall along the south side of the existing boat ramp to
stabilize the soil on that side. This work remains consistent with our request for an Easement submitted on
October 10, 2002.
Mr. Duncan or Mr. Wooten will deliver the $100 application fee to you.
Thank you for your assistance; please contact me if you have questions or need additional
qinformation.
in ly,
Charlie Hollis
Encl: Revised Plan
Revised Form DCM-MP4
Cy: Allen Wooten

D�m
ELEv.
- — — — L a a u
SECTION 'C' THRU RETAINING WALL
NOT TO SCALE
V'm DoTmm
SECTION 'D' THRU ACCESS CHANNEL
NOT TO SCALE
MAINTENANCE OF HONEYCUTT
LAUNCHING AND DOCKING FACILITY
AT: 122 BROADVIEW LANE
HAMPSTEAD, PENDER CO, N.C.
BY: ALLEN WOOTEN
8155 MALPASS CORNER
CURRIE, N.C.
DRAWN BY: WIWAM H. WARREN, JR.
APRIL 2001 SHEET 5 OF (p

16'x76'
GAZEBO DECK
DOF OVER
+7.03
TYPICAL GAZEBO SEC"nON
NOT TO SCALE
� II Yd"
f 5 zz
4"x4" POSTi�Ati�
,I 2'x8' DECK
DECK. EL. - +7.0f
2"x8" STRINGERS
ON 2'-0" CENTERS -
2"x10" (DOUBLE)
GALV. BOLT W/WASHERS
AND SPIKED
HIGH WATER-+3.0±- _ _ 6" DIA. TREATED PILE - -
ON 8'-0" CENTERS
BOTTOM VARIES
MAINTENANCE OF HONEYCUTT
LAUNCHING AND DOCKING FACILITY
PENETRATION AT: 122 BROADVIEW LANE
PER BUILDING CODE HAMPSTEAD, PENDER CO, N.C.
BY: ALLEN WOOTEN
8155 MALPASS CORNER
CURRIE, N.C.
DRAWN BY: WIWAM H. WARREN, JR.
TYPICAL PIER SECTION APRIL 2001 SHEET (p OF Cp
NOT TO SCALE

V2T33.BMP (BMP Image, 594396 pixels)
imap://Roy%2EBrownlow%40dcm%2Edenr%2Encmaii%2Enet @ nple...
Woo-ceN
�kO4 by
0}G%«.� d�SF, so'+&o' ice•
tF
q A 5 (l✓ c l 3 5 )c
l—
C 13/l Lf x W= 2, 31(0,0 w /t7 (- t/
- Alit,( 200 f
✓atot< Dtif Ke /�o G� �ingee,�p , exl&r Cl%efi-.b., za'9
-.Uv
1 of 1 _ sC Ma o r.li. i P¢ J 9oG < XJ Gv s"h1 haur4
12/30/2004 2:25 PM

FR:CM' CHRRL:'E HOLLIS F.E31-JLFTOR'i CONS PHONE NO.
OF:
SIDBURTLA ///------ CKISTING PIER D
fCAD, H.C.
IADNEW CW WIC J FLOAW q0MI0. 1
-
� o �
TY LINE
Na<5a'1592.f r HW.a3.0
i
`O
103526533
3�^
.I
/ \\ \ p \\ I. . I I f':TR/N/A/6 WALL SOIITy+ OF
I NCW REtA)NINO
I WALL (/aXP,!)
16' X 16' GAZEBO DRfD�-z0
UM»$
LW-o.o
% i I k DOCK
LTE
ACCESS ROAD ,
Feb. 11 2003
-T
C'
RETAINING WALL
31 X coo'
END or
CHAJWUNK
:ODUON PONT
:r
• rRWa
TO BEHREmo\R'LO
\\
'4fOA4 +1.0 �i'"•
5 POSTS
50 25 0 50 r
SCALE IN FEET
NOTEI i�-SD•
ELEYATIONS ARE APPRO)QYATE AND MAINTENANCE OF HONEYCUTT
AND BASED ON LW.o.o _ LAUNCHING AND DOCKING FACILITY
AT: 122 BROADVIEW LANE
HAMPSTEAD. PENDER CO, N.C.
BY: ALLEN WOOTEN
8155 MALPASS CORNER
CURRIE. N.C.
DRAWN BY: WM- H. WARREN, JR,
APRIL 2001 SHEET 3 OF (�
REVISED -PWPW 11i[
Oa'1'Zoa�

r 4 "✓l1 C,4N lYL4A,11vE CO1VTK4C7-ORS G✓�:
?10 763 (o178'
Alfred S. Sidbury 10-24-02
Duncan marine contractors Inc is in process of
building a marina at mr. Honeycutts place which is
ajacent to your property in hampstead n.c. Weare
proposing to buid a retaining wall on south side of
boatramp.There is a form enclosed if you will please
take a moment to fill out.Please mail form back to us
prior to filling it out.Also enclosed is a drawing of
what we propose to do.If you have any further questions
fill free to contact me Charles Duncan at 910-763-6178.
Thank you for your coperation in this matter.
Sincerly
Charles Duncan
DUNCAN MARINE CONTRACTORS, INC.
123 Chadwick Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28401
p1V1SANNUFiENT
O
COP ��Y•r t�f"`r�

cXL ER 1�)
:f1eL TER E i TO BE REMOVEDio
J Ak
I
'�ttyOSR/r-�Xu�'7 p ......
I U
(:CxiMG! P✓NT Ci
• H P-- rMUJTH+ DRIVE r
-
v
J
A IRgyTu
POSTS
+1.5
HEN RETAINING f�'� NEW
WALL �/ I FLOATING DOCK
RAVP 5'e40' LONG
EXISIING RAMF--�_ 7 �
O BE REBUILT m
(NEW CGICP.ET_)
HW LW
NEW FLOATING DOCK AND RAMP DE-1
S/q �S qB fX�NOcce
—20
O
\ IWe0.0
_ „r
W
`n5`E`LS
4
.L7 oC �.
�.1A
U)
EXISTING PIER.
TO BE REMOVED
ppkt ovf .
-QiAS3
^h09C O,.J
uaf�OE
f /?t fa/nJn f w4p o4 Sov1A 57ca-e �OF l3a-. Y_`u"AA \
-\ -1 J
`d r r�ocle
MAINTENANCE AHED?` "LAI'I
(D
I
_1.0
A ,Ilc'30,V.
, Oc'1,ro �GRIq./IqC
EXISTING C.
MARrIp! i

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Donna D. Moffitt, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Huggett
Permits Section
FROM: Joanne Steenhuis
Field Representative`' a
THROUGH: Jim H. Gregson \\
District Manager, Wilrttutgton
DATE: April 11, 2002
SUBJECT: Request for Modification of State Permit # 50-02
Allen Wooten
Pender County
State Permit # 50-02 was originally issued to Allen Wooten on April 23, 2002 and amended July 10, 2002 which authorized the
construction of a 9 slip docking facility along with a gazebo, maintenance dredging, 168 feet of bulkhead and to repair a boat ramp. The
permit will expire on December 31, 2005.
The applicant is requesting an additional modification to State Permit # 50-02 to allow the gazebo to be located at the landward
end of the dock, six (6) 3' X 6' finger piers are to be added to the previously permitted dock and to include a 50' retaining wall along the
south side of the existing boat ramp to stabilize the soil as indicated on the attached plans dated October 21, 2002, and February 11, 2003.
The applicant has submitted a check (ckc # 4653) in the amount of $100.00 for this modification request.
This Office has no objection to the proposed permit modification if the applicant limits the coverage of the gazebo to only 6' over
the coastal marsh and that the slip configuration only allow 9-slips.
Enclosures
cc: Jim Gregson
Wilmington Files
Charles Jones
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fax
910-350-2004
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

4
UCTURES
(Constructior, within Public Trust Areas)
AP-, 2 3 7.003
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major e.
Mooring buoys K04£
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application which relate to
1
() Commercial _Community _ private
' this proposed project.
(2) her
(3) Descn n of buoy
a. Dock(s) and/or Pier(s)
(Color, ins ' tion, size, anchor, etc.)
,
(1) ✓ Commercial _Community private
_
(2) Number 1 i"o
tt w(3)
Length
(4) Width ' i
tNo
(4) Width of water body
(5) Finger Piers y
(5) Distance buoy(s) to be plac eyond
(i) Number
shoreline
(iii) Length 1 � (iii) Width f.
Mooring structure (boatlift, oortn m etc.)
(6) Platform(s) yes 1/ No
erci l —Community _private
_____
() Number
(2) Number
(ii) Length
(3) Length
(iii) Width
(4) Width
(7) Number of slips proposed
g.
(8) Proximity of structure to adjacent riparian
Other (Give Icre descriptionZ
t Co.n
property lines / G'A1, a tef SIDE
q Z fi D O .S I�fi LTfi Q
' X 1/.+'
(9) Width of water body / <DO'
(10) Water depth at waterward 'end of pier at
MLW or NWL _ 4'
b. Boathouse (including covered life) I�IONE
(1) Commercial Private
(2) L
(3) Wid
c.. Groin (e.g, wood, eetpile, etc.)
- (1) Number
(2) Length(s)
d. Breakwater. (e.g. wood, sheetpue, c.)
(1) Length _
(2) Average distancefromMHW
wetlands
(3) Maximum distance beyond MHW
wetlands
or
�N6KCVi'r LQ1)NCNINC2 AND
Vo cscul 'FAs i s.ITy
^PF— Name n
p� Y^
Segnature
©crown ZI ran_
Date '
Revised (ru"

r
ARA.
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
1\fENIORANDUht
TO: Doug Huggett
Permits Section
FROM: Jim Gregson
District Manager, Wilmington
DATE: May 24, 2004
SUBJECT: Permit Modification Request
CAMA Major Permit No. 50-02
Allen Wooten / Hampstead Marina
Pender County
D
MAY 2 7 2004
Morehead City DCM
Mr. Allen Wooten, on behalf of Hampstead Marina, Inc., is requesting a modification of State Permit No. 50-02. State
Permit No. 50-02 was issued to Allen Wooten on April 23, 2002 for the construction of a 9 slip docking facility, gazebo,
maintenance dredging, 168 linear feet of bulkhead and boat ramp repair. The Permit will expire on December 31, 2005.
Mr. Wooten is requesting that the permit be modified to allow additional maintenance dredging within the basin. He is
requesting that the work be authorized using either a hydraulic dredge or by mechanical excavator operating from the bank or by
barge mounted excavator. A revised site map indicating the location of the maintenance excavation is attached. The applicant
estimates that approximately 700 cubic yards would be removed and trucked to a highground disposal site located approximately 1
miles from the property on NC Highway 210 (see attached map). This area is not located within an AEC.
The applicant has submitted a check (ck. N 1124) in the amount of S100.00 for the modification request.
This Office has no objection to the permit modification request.
Enoiosures
cc:
Wilmington Files
Ted Tyndall
Henry Wicker
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \10% Post Consumer Paper

SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: 1'-50'
ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIIATE AND MAINTENANCE OF HONEYCUTT�
AND BASED ON LW_O.D LAUNCHING AND DOCKING FAQ 'n
AT: 122 BROADVIEW LANE
HAMPSTEAD, PENDER CO, N.C.
BY: ALLEN WOOTEN
8155 MALPASS CORNER
CURRIE. N.C.
DRAWN BY: Wm. H. WARREN, JR.
APRIL 2001 SHEET B OF �O
REVISED 3RFIt"[
22�

IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FOR
DATE
M
A.M.
TIME P.M.
OF
PHONE
AREA MOE NUMBER EXTENSION
❑ FAX
❑ MOBILE
AREA MOE NUMBER TIME TO CALL
TELEPHONED
MESSA
11
SIGNED
PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU �
H
RETURNED YOUR CALL
S IAl ATTENTION
FORM 3002P
MADE IN U.B.A.

N4459'15"W 582't PROPERTY LINE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - -
-_ACCESS ROAD -------- W_---------AAJCR_UNE-W---------
I
I LE)USTING PARKINGAREA
AVAILABLE POaL AREA-,
(FORMER SPOIL AREA)
I
S46'41'17"E
PROPERTY LINE
I IT� Il,i V)(,:AS E�,l 1
f i.(1 1 'i ills'2 I
11i;'J C)F
SPOIL
EXCAI
1 ......FOR E
PROPERTY OF:
ALFRED S. SIOBURY
130 BROADVIEW LANE
HAMPSTEAD, N.C.
I
I \Fq �H
1 x G
xti I w\roF
STEPS.
/
\
1
I \j\
/
\
I I
\ Lw-o.o
I I Y
a
I\\
\
I
4.
\�
RESTROOM\ \
I
I X W
I
SEPTIC
\1 1
I ' xb
1
I I I C TANK \ _/ I "C
" I r nu: FIELD SHE TER ll
I SjjNG
STILLING BASIN -�I
ACCESS ROAD
I
�JLL H'A PIPE -
lb
I ti � try x�-�\
x �\
x — _
.9�
END OF 535.2 ).
CHMNLINK FENCE 2p'S 7"
p (COMMON POINT OF DRAWINGS) 48.5p' E
1ERTY LINE B PROPERTY 15 POSTS -
MR. k MRS. CARL M. ROSE
SPOIL AREA PLAN 44 YMOU NOTE: BERKLDRI NEW JERSEY
50 25 0 50 ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
AND BASED ON LW=0.0
SCALE IN FEET
1 "=50'
ARIES 4' 1 BAFIK LINE
STILLING BASIN SPILLWAY P`IP{IE
1_3 TO BEYOND LOW WATER "
�1
DIKE
I LiI I SILT FENCE --A , 1
ALL AROUND \ \
TYPICAL SPOIL AREA SECTION A
NOT TO SCALE
SPOIL
EXCAVATE
FOR DIKE
SILT FENCE ALL AROUND TYPICAL SPOIL AREA SECTION B
NOT TO SCALE
SILT FENCE -
ALL AROUND
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING PIER
I\ \
EXISTING PIER
EXISTING RAMP
MAINTENANCE OF HONEYCUTT
LAUNCHING AND DOCKING FACILITY
AT: 122 BROADVIEW LANE
HAMPSTEAD. PENDER CO, N.C.
BY: ALLEN WOOTEN
8155 MALPASS CORNER
CURRIE, N.C.
DRAWN BY: WILLIAM H. WARREN, JR.
APRIL 2001 SHEET 4- OF (p

%
yw
4,.e
_: DEC 23 2004

NC DCM Permit Activities Database Digital Pictures Archive Page 1 of 2
ID: 5 Login Name: TereB User Name: Tere Barrett Access: 4 PWD Exp.: 240 days.
NC DCM Permit Activities Database
Digital Pictures Archive:
Picture Id # : 958
Upload Date & Time: 11/6/2001 10:50:41 AM
Permit Number: NA
Violation No: NA
Photographer: Jerry Parker
Image Date: 05/07/2001
Reason for Visit: Major Permit
County: Pender
Title: Allen Wooten, Marina Site
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/pad/digital_pic/wrapper.asp?FilelD=958 11/29/2004

F 1
- a
i
.s
T:\Wilmington\Violations & InvestigationslWooten Marina Site - Hampstead\

TAWilmington\Violations & Investigations\Wooten Marina Site - Hampstead\

TAWilmington\Violations & Investigations\Wooten Marina Site • Hampstead\

TAWilmington\Violations & Investigations\Wooten Marina Site - Hampstead\

1
�
t
i
t
f«
« ,4
0
L=
4

�ii/liiiittigiiitiif.
4.. ,
!1""'
--., iris=. s�
.�,
. , _ _
` ... '.:yyy �`w r
� �
... e ` F .a"V'• r. Y�Sa Jf y�I. �\_r _a4��• � �r�

T:1Wilmington\Violations & Investigations\Wooten Marina Site - Hampstead\