BH_09-12_Kuey

ATTACI- NMNT E
Village of Bald Head 2009.12y-
Islan4 ftmit Number
Local Government
b o A _4
ANOR DEVELOPMENT
RMIT__
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Envlronmentr
and Natural Resources and the coastal Resources Commission for devield0 mt
in an area of environment concem pursuant to Section 113A-118 ofttle-
General'Statutes,'Coastal Area Management" ..
Issued to Natafe Kuey, authorizing development in the Ocean Hazard (AEC) at 230 Station House Way, Lot 4030, to
Bald Head Island, as requested in the permittee's application, dated September 28, 2 09, This permit, issued on
October 9. 2009, is subject to compliance with the application and site drawing (where�corsistent with the permit), all
applicable regulations and special conditions and notes set forth ,below. Any violation of these .terms may subject
permlttee to afine, imprisonment or civil action, or may cause the permit to be null and void.
This permit authorizes: construction of a rev; single family residence.
(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in accordance with the permitted work plat
drawings(s) dated„ received on September 28, 2009.
(2) All construction must conform to the N.C. Bulld)ng. Code -requirements _and all other local, State and Federal; regulations,
applicable local ordinances and FEMA Flood Regulations.
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or land use activities will Milne a re-evaluation and
modification of this permit,
(4) A copy of this permit shall be posted or available on site. Contact this office at 910-467-970D'tiar a final inspection at
completion of work.
(Additlonai Permit Conditions on Page 21
This permit action may be appealed by the per lllee or other qualifled persons
within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. From the date of an appeal, any
work conducted under this permit must cease unt1 the appeal Is resolved: This
permit must be on tba4wi6v.. site and accessible to the permit officer when the
project is lisp ed for complianca Any maintenance work or project
modiflcanor not covered under this penNt, require further Written peant
approval. All work must ce"eii this pemit expires on:
DECE,7SR 31 2012
In Issuing this permit It is agreed thatIhi; project Is cans'slent with the local Land
Use Plan and all applicable ordinances. This permll may not be Iransferred to
another pant vviihotit the written approval of Iha Division of Coastal
Manaciellenl.
OCT-28-2009 10:47AM From:
Daralyi�bauj
CAMA LOCAL PERMIT OFFICIAL
PO Box 3009
Bald Head Island, NC 28461
�0 VIAEE
ISIrnah ve. rprutlmd If mAdifinris above anoty in nermitl
IO:PREVATTE PREvATTE Paee:003 R=100:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK CMT-09-13
IN THE MATTER OF THE THIRD PARTY RECOMMENDATION OF THE
HEARING REQUEST BY DIVISION OF COASTAL
KEVAN BUSIK MANAGEMENT
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Kevan Busik (Petitioner) requests permission to file a petition for a contested
case hearing as a third party pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). Petitioner seeks to challenge
the October 9, 2009 issuance of Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Minor Permit No.
2009-12, issued by Daralyn Spivey, the CAMA Local Permit Official (LPO) for the Village of
Bald Head Island (Village) to Natale Kuey (Permittee), the representative for the landowner,
1118 Longwood Avenue Realty Corporation (Longwood).
Under the CAMA, a third party may file a contested case hearing petition to challenge the
granting or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only if the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is appropriate_ N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)
provides that along with being timely filed, the determination as to whether a hearing is
appropriate should be based upon a consideration of whether the petitioner:.
1. Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;
2. Is directly affected by the decision; and
3. Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the hearing
request is not frivolous.
The CRC has delegated the authority to. its Chairman to determine whether a third party
request for a hearing should be granted or denied. Rule 15A NCAC 7J .0301(b). A third party
Page 1 of 11

whose hearing request is granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings. N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1 (b) A third party whose hearing request is
denied may seek judicial review. Id.
II. FACTS
A. The Permittee is Ms. Natale Kuey (Permittee), acting as the representative for the
property owner of record, 1118 Longwood Avenue Realty Corporation (Longwood), a New
York corporation. This entity was incorporated in New York on July 11, 1995 and is an active
corporation according to the state's corporation website. Longwood owns property known as
Lot 4030 of Cape Fear Station Single Family 14 Subdivision (Map 23/538) on Bald Head Island
(the site). Longwood has owned this property since March 24, 2003, as evidenced by a deed
recorded at Book 1720, Page 60 of the Brunswick County Registry. Currently this site is
undeveloped.
B. Petitioner owns Lot 4032 of Cape Fear Station Single Family 14 Subdivision
(Map 23/538), also on Bald Head Island. This lot is located adjacent to, and to the north of the
site at issue in this case. Petitioner has owned this lot since May 11, 2009, as evidenced by a
deed recorded at Book 12924, Page 904 of the Brunswick County Registry. Currently,
Petitioners' property has a 4,797 square foot home located on it, which was built in 2005.
C. The site is located adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, and the proposed residence is
within the High Hazard Flood and Ocean Erodible Area sub -categories of the Ocean Hazard
Area of Environmental Concern (AEC). Accordingly, any development on this site requires a
CAMA permit perN.C.G.S. § 113A-1.18.
D. At this site, the applicable long-term annual erosion rate per 15A NCAC 7H.0304
is 2.0 feet per year.
Page 2 of 11

E. In this case, the Perlmttee's agent incorrectly listed the total enclosed floor area of
the building within the AEC as 6,500 square feet. He based his calculation on the old setback
8 F A -+s+Ar —
rules which included roof -covered deck areas. The Commission's "new" setback rules, which
went into effect on August 11, 2009, no longer include roof -covered deck areas as total enclosed
floor area. Based on the construction drawings and the application submitted for a building
permit, the LPO calculated the total of the heated or air-conditioned living space, including the
two stories of the house and the crofter over the garage, as 4,878 square feet. Per the definition
in 15A NCAC 7H.0306(a)(1), this is the figure to use to determine the setback. A copy of the
�q D1 building permit application is attached.
F. Since the applicable long-term erosion rate is 2 feet per year, and because the
¢aq1
proposed house has a total of 4,878 total floor area based on the definition found at 15A NCAC
7H.0306(a)(1), the resulting applicable setback for the proposed development is 60 feet, per 15A
NCAC 7H.0306(a)(2)(A).
G. On or about September 28, 2009, the Village's received an application for a
CAMA minor permit from Mr. Wayne Lambert, Agent for the Permittee. The Permittee was
f acl-a.
proposing to develop a 4,878 square foot single family residence and associated landscaping. A
copy of the CAMA permit application and plat drawing is attached.
H. As part of the CAMA minor permit review process, the Permittee sent notice of
the proposed project to the adjacent riparian owners, which includes the Petitioner. USPS
tracking shows that Petitioner received the notice on September 30, 2009. No objection letters
were received before the permit was issued. The required notice to the public through a
newspaper ad and posting on -site was also completed.
Page 3 of 11

I. On October 9, 2009 T&e Village's LPO issued CAMA Minor Permit No. 2009-
12 to the Permittee.
I On October 21, 2009, the Village received an objection letter from Attorneys
Prevatte & Prevatte, PPLC representing Petitioner. A copy of this objection letter is attached.
K. On or about October !�, 2009 (Heather is getting this), as part of the LPO
permit program review process, staff from the DCM Wilmington Regional Office reviewed the
permit, and after spotting the incorrect figure of a 6,500 square foot enclosed floor area structure
only using a 60-foot setback, contacted the LPO and resolved the issue. It was found that the
correct figure for the heated or air conditioned living space under the "new" rule and definition
ya9I-
was actually 4,878 square feet.
L. On October 28, 2009 the Village faxed a letter to Petitioner's counsel notifying
them of the permit issuance on October 9, 2009 and the appeal rights for third -parties under the
CAMA which had to be received by DCM within 20 days of the permit issuance date. A copy of
this letter is attached.
M. On October 31, 2009, DCM received this third parry hearing request from
Petitioner, seeking to challenge the issuance by DCM of CAMA Minor Permit No. 2009-12.
Page 4 of 11

ATTACHMENT A: Copy of
INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS
2
ATTACHMENT B: Copy of CAMA minor permit application
ATTACHMENT C: Copies of objection letter
ATTACHMENT D: Copy of
ATTACHMENT E: Copy of
ATTACHMENT F: Copy of CAMA Minor Permit No.
ATTACHMENT G: Copy of Petitioners' Third Parry Hearing Request
Page 11 of 11

III. DCM'S RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Was the appeal of the permit timely filed?
No. As an initial matter of jurisdiction, the CAMA specifically requires that third
parties
... may file a petition for a contested case hearing only if the Commission determines
that a hearing is appropriate. A request for a determination of the appropriateness of a
contested case hearing shall be made in writing and received by the Commission within
20 days after the disputed permit decision is made.
N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b) (emphasis added). Petitioners take issue with CAMA Minor Permit
No. 2009-12, which was issued by the Village CAMA LPO on October 9, 2009. The 20-day
appeal period to file a hearing request petition expired on October 29, 2009. Petitioner's counsel
was made aware of this fact on October 28, 2009, through a faxed letter from the Village, but
still failed to submit its appeal to DCM in time. Therefore, the CRC and the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH) lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of this untimely Petition.
North Carolina case law is clear that an untimely filing cannot be considered by OAH or
other courts as they lack jurisdiction over the matter. "North Carolina cases interpreting
administrative laws have consistently held that a contested case petition to challenge an agency's
decision must be filed within the statutory deadline." Gaskill v. State, 109 N.C. App. 656, 658,
428 S.E.2d 474, 475, disc. rev. denied, 334 N.C. 163 (citing Gummels v. N.C. Dept. of Human
Resources, 98 N.C. App. 675, 392 S.E.2d 113 (1990)). If a petition is not filed before the
statutory deadline, the court does not obtain subject matter jurisdiction. Gaskill, 109 N.C. App.
at 660, 428 S.E.2d at 476; see also Gummels, 98 N.C. App. at 678, 392 S.E.2d at 115 (holding
the trial court properly affirmed the ALTs dismissal of the petition for a contested case hearing
that was filed in OAH one day late); Lewis v. N. C. Dept. of Human Resources, 92 N.C. App.
Page 5 of 11

737, 741, 375 S.E.2d 712, 715 (1989) (upholding the dismissal of an employee grievance appeal
because it was filed one day late). Subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable by the court or
either party. See Dale v. Lattimore, 12 N.C. App. 348, 183 S.E.2d 417 (1971). Under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § IA-1, Rule 12(h)(3), when a court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall
dismiss the action.
As Petitioner's hearing request, received by DCM on October 30, 2009, was after the
statutory 20-day deadline to file, the appeal period had elapsed and the Petition was one -day late.
Petitioner's untimely filing results in the CRC and OAH lacking jurisdiction to consider the
merits of Petitioner's hearing request.
Notwithstanding the argument for lack of jurisdiction, if the Commission finds that
Petitioners' petition was timely filed and that it has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the
petition, Staff offer the following responses to the statutory criteria which Petitioners must prove
in order to have the right to file a contested case petition in the OAH
B. Has the Petitioner Alleged that the Decision is Contrary to a Statute or Rule?
Yes. In order to prevail in a third party hearing request, a petitioner must first allege
that the agency has made a decision that is contrary to a statute or rule. N.C.G.S. § 113A-
121.1(b)(1). Petitioner states that "Petitioner alleges that the decision is contrary to a Coastal
Area Management Act Rule" and then attached a copy of the text of Rule 15A NCAC 7H.03061
.
Staff agrees that the Petitioner has "alleged that the agency has made a decision that is contrary
to a statute or rule" insofar as Petitioner has alleged the CAMA permit is contrary to 15A NCAC
711.0306. For this reason, Staff agrees Petitioners have met the requirements of N.C.G.S. §
113A-121.1(b)(1).
'Petitioner attached a copy of the "new" version of 7H.0306 which became effective in August 2009 and which was
used for this permit review.
Page 6 of 11

C. Is the Petitioner Directly Affected by the Decision?
No. Staff does not agree that Petitioners meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 113A-
121.1(b) (2). Petitioner first states that "Petitioner owns a home located adjacent to the subject
property." (Petitioner's Petition, Exhibit item 2) Adjacent ownership alone fails to qualify a
person as directly affected, without further information about possible harm. Petitioner also
notes that,
Location of house on proposed site interferes with the use and enjoyment of
Petitioner's property in that it obstructs Petitioner's view, is substantially closer to
the ocean and could possibly damage Petitioner's property in the event of a storm.
(Petitioner's Petition, Exhibit item 3) Staff contends that Petitioners' stated concerns about view
are not the focus of the Commission's rules for development within the Ocean Hazard AEC.
According to 15A NCAC 7H.0303 and 7H.0306(a), the purpose of the rules is to protect life and
property. Also, Petitioner's allegation that the permitted development "could possibly damage
Petitioner's property in the event of a storm" is much too speculative to base a whole contested
case on, and could also be made by any oceanfront owner against any other oceanfront owner on
the coast. The Commission's rules at 15A NCAC 7H.0303 recognize that "absolute safety from
the destructive forces indigenous to the Atlantic shoreline is an impossibility for development
located adjacent to the coast." To have a contested case on this issue would be futile. For all
these reasons, Staff contend that Petitioner fails to meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 113A-
121.1(b)(2).
Page 7 of 11

D. Has the Petitioner Demonstrated that the Hearing Request is not Frivolous?
No. Staff contend that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the hearing request is
not frivolous as required by N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1 (b)(3). Petitioner alleges that the "new"
oceanfront setback rules at 15A NCAC 71-1.0306 were not met. While the incorrect figure on the
CAMA permit application is misleading, further examination of the facts by the LPO and by
DCM staff last week as part of the LPO permit program review process and again through this
4,;I-9j--
staff recommendation, show that the 4,878 square foot total floor area structure must only meet
the 60-foot setback from the vegetation line. As that setback is met by the proposed and
permitted development, there is no reason to have a contested case on this issue. For this reason,
Staff contends that Petitioners have not met the burden of showing that the hearing request is not
frivolous as required by N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1 (b)(3).
Page 8 of 11

IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Staff maintains that Petitioner has not met the criteria justifying a
contested case hearing. For the reasons stated herein, the Division of Coastal Management,
through its undersigned attorney, recommends that Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request be
DENIED by the Chairman.
This the _ day of November, 2009.
FOR THE DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)
[e-mail]
Page 9 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Recommendation of the
Division of Coastal Management on Petitioners' counsel by causing a copy thereof to be placed
in the United States Postal Service bearing sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and
addressed as follows:
James R. Prevatte, Jr., Counsel for Petitioner
PO Box 10969
Southport, NC 28461
And emailed to: [e-mail]
And to the Permittee:
Natale Kuey
2 Cabin Ridge Road- C
Chappaqua, NY 10514
and to the Permittee's Agent:
Wayne Lambert
Custom Built Homes
PO Box 3180
Bald Head Island, NC 28461
This the _ day of November, 2009.
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
Page 10 of 11

L I � •
Correspondence Tracking System
00312200903532
suety
Civil Summons: Kevan Busik v. Robert R. Emory of CRC and DCM
Received 12/17/2009 via Letter
Legal issue for Mary Penny Thompson
Issued 12/15/2009 by Cynthia W. Baldwin of Shanklin & Nichols, LLP
** For Recipient Use Only **
Po:
)ate:
tespond By:
4ease' Prepare a reply for my signature and return to me.
Reply, noting the letter was referred to you by me. '
Prepare a reply for the Governor's signature and return to me.
Reply, noting the letter was referred to you by the Governor. '
For your information,
Take appropriate action
Note and file.
Note and return to me.
Note and see me about this.
Your comments and/or recommendations.
Copy to Secretary's Office
Remarks
tp://ibeam.enr.state.nc.us/os/dts/print.do?dispatch=crsdProfile&id=3532 12/18/2009

KENNETH A. SHANKLIN"
MATTHEW A. NICHOLS"
COLIN J. TARRANT
CYNTHIA W. BALDWIN
SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
214 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1 347
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1347
TELEPHONE (91 O) 762-9400 • TELEFAX (91 O) 251-1773
E-MAIL: SHANKLAWOEARTHUNK.NET
December 15, 2009
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED #7114 8008 6004 2388 7623
North Carolina CRC
c% Mary Penny Thompson, General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
JEC
.. .J�. ;.E-s.O _.
Tl+.-SF4•L,II(u�4'Wy�e.."
BOARDCERTIFIEDSPECIAU] IN
REAL PROPERTY LAW -RESIDENTIAL SUSINE55,
COMMEROALAND INDUS IALTRANSARCNS
"ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK
Re: Kevan Busik vs. Robert R. Emory, in his capacity as Chairman of the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, et al.
Brunswick County File No. 09 CVS 3421
Our File No. 09074.001
Dear Ms. Thompson:
Please find enclosed Civil Summons and Petition for Judicial Review, in the above
referenced matter.
With best regards, I remain
Very truly yours,
Cynthia W. Baldwin
CWB/js
Enclosures

ROY COOPER
ATTORNLN GENGRAL
Kevan Busik
6603 Route 202
New Hope, PA 18938
James R. Prevatte, Jr.
P.O. Box 10969
319 n. Howe Street
South Port, NC 28461
Natale Kuey
2 Cabin Ridge Road — C
Chappaqua, NY 10514
Wayne Lambert
Custom Built Homes
P.O. Box 3180
Bald Head Island, NC 28461
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
PO Box 629
Raleigh. North Carolina
27602
November 13, 2009
REPLY TO:
Jennie Wilhelm Hauser
Environmental Division
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: 919nl6-6767
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
and electronically
[e-mail]
U.S. Mail
RVIeurml
Re: Third Party Hearing Request CMT09-13 for CAMA Minor Permit 2009-12
Dear Messrs. Busik, Prevatte, Kuey, and Lambert:
The Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission has decided to deny the request for
a third party hearing. Attached is a copy of the order denying the request. Pursuant to N.C.G.S.
§113A-121.1(c), the permit is no longer suspended and the permitiee is allowed to proceed
insofar as it concerns CAMA.
You may appeal the Chairman's decision by filing a petition for judicial review in the
Superior Court of Brunswick County within thirty days after receiving this order. A copy of the
judicial review petition must also be served on the Coastal Resources Commission's agent for
service of process at the following address:
Mary Penny Thompson, General Counsel,
Dept. Of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1601

If you chose to file a petition for judicial review, I request that you serve a copy on me at the
above address.
Very truly yours,
Jennie Wilhelm Hauser
Special Deputy Attorney General
cc: Christine A. Goebel, electronically
Jim Gregson, electronically
Angela Willis, electronically
Robert R. Emory, Jr., Chairman, electronically

r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
THIRD PARTY HEARING )
REQUEST BY )
KEVAN BUSIK )
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CMT 09-13
FINAL DECISION
I. PERMIT & REQUEST
Petitioner requests permission to file a petition for contested case hearing as a third party
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). Petitioner seeks to challenge a CAMA Minor Permit No.
2009-12, issued to Natale Kuey (Permittee), the representative for the landowner, 1118
Longwood Avenue Realty Corporation, on October 9, 2009.
U. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA), a third party may file a contested
case hearing petition to challenge the issuance or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only
if the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is
appropriate. Section 113A-121.1(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that the
determination as to whether a hearing is appropriate should be based upon a consideration of
whether the petitioner:
1. Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;
2. Is directly affected by the decision; and
3. Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the
hearing request is not frivolous.
1

The CRC has delegated to its Chairman the authority to determine whether a third party
request for a hearing should be granted or denied. 15A NCAC W .0301(b). A third party whose
hearing request is granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, and the permit remains suspended pursuant to N.C.G.S. §113A-121.1
(b) and (c). A third party whose hearing request is denied may seek judicial review. Id. If the
third party's hearing.request is denied, the permittee's permit is reinstated by operation of law
pursuant to N.C.G.S. §113A-121.1(6).
III. FACTS
A. The Permittee is Natale Kuey (Pemrittee), acting as the representative for the
property owner of record, 1118 Longwood Avenue Realty Corporation (Longwood), a New
York corporation. Longwood owns property known as Lot 4030 of Cape Fear Station Single
Family 14 Subdivision (Map 23/538) on Bald Head Island (the site). Longwood has owned this
property since March 24, 2003, as evidenced by a deed recorded at Book 1720, Page 60 of the
Brunswick County Registry. Currently this site is undeveloped.
B. Petitioner owns Lot 4032 of Cape Fear Station Single Family 14 Subdivision
(Map 23/538), also on Bald Head Island. This lot is located adjacent to, and to the north of, the
site at issue in this case. Petitioner has owned this lot since May 11, 2009, as evidenced by a
deed recorded at Book 12924, Page 904 of the Brunswick County Registry. Currently,
Petitioners' property has a 4,797 square foot home located on it, which was built in 2005, based
on county records.
K

C. The site is located adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, and the proposed residence is
within the High Hazard Flood and Ocean Erodible Area sub -categories of the Ocean Hazard
Area of Environmental Concern (AEC). Accordingly, any development on this site requires a
CAMA permit per N.C.G.S. § 113A-118.
D. At this site, the applicable long-term annual erosion rate per 15A NCAC 7H .0304
is 2.0 feet per year.
E. On or about September 28, 2009, the Village's Local Permit Official (LPO)
received an application for a CAMA minor permit from Mr. Wayne Lambert, Agent for the
Permittee. The Permittee was proposing to develop a single-family residence and associated
landscaping.
F. In the application for a CAMA minor permit the Permittee's agent incorrectly
listed the total enclosed floor area of the single-family residence located in the AEC as 6,500
square feet. As suggested by the information on the application form completed, the Permittee's
agent based this calculation on the "old" CRC rules which included roof -covered porches in the
total enclosed floor area total. The Commission's "new" rules, which went into effect on August
11, 2009, no longer include roof -covered porches in the total enclosed floor area.
G. Based on the architectural drawings submitted to the Village of Bald Head Island
(the Village), along with the information provided to the Village in the application for a building
permit, the LPO calculated the total of the heated or air-conditioned living space for the two-
story house, as 4,292 square feet. Therefore, per the definition in 15A NCAC 7H .0306(a)(1),
the proposed structure is less than 5,000 square feet for purposes of determining the correct
setback.
3

H. Based on the total floor area of the structure as defined above and given the
applicable long-term erosion rate of 2.0 feet per year, the resulting applicable setback for the
proposed development is 60 feet, per 15A NCAC 7H .0306(a)(2)(A).
I. As part of the CAMA minor permit review process, the Permittee sent notice of
the proposed project to the adjacent riparian owners, which includes the Petitioner. The required
notice to the public through a newspaper ad and posting on -site was also completed. United
States Postal Service tracking shows that Petitioner received the notice on September 30, 2009.
On October 9, 2009, the Village's LPO issued CAMA Minor Permit No. 2009-12
to the Permittee. No objection letters were received before the permit was issued.
K. On October 21, 2009, the Village received an objection letter from Attorneys
Prevatte & Prevatte, PLLC representing Petitioner.
L. On or about October 26; 2009, as part of the LPO permit program review process,
staff from the DCM Wilmington Regional Office reviewed the permit, and after spotting what
appeared to be an error allowing a 6,500 square foot enclosed floor area structure to use only a
60-foot setback, DCM contacted the LPO to resolve the issue. It was determined, as indicated in
the application for building permit and attached plans, that the correct figure for the heated or
air-conditioned living space under the "new" rule and definition was 4,292 square feet.
M. On October 28, 2009, the LPO faxed a letter to Petitioner's counsel notifying
them of the perrnit issuance on October 9, 2009 and the appeal rights for third -parties under
CAMA, including the need for such document to be received by DCM within 20 days of the
permit issuance date.

M. On October 30, 2009, DCM received this third party hearing request from
Petitioner seeking to challenge the issuance by DCM of CAMA Minor Permit No. 2009-12.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Coastal Area Management Act was adopted, in significant part, to address
"development," as defined in N.C.G.S. § 113A-103(5a) in any area that the CRC may designate
as an "Area of Environmental Concern," pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-113.
2. The CRC has by rule designated the High Hazard Flood Area and Ocean Erodible Area
of the Ocean Hazard Area as areas of Environmental Concern. 15A NCAC 07H .0301 and 15A
NCAC 07H .0304.
3. CAMA requires that third parties who wish to challenge a decision to deny or grant a
minor or major development permit file their hearing request "within 20 days after the disputed
permit decision is made." N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b). The statutory right to request a third party
hearing is not given for any other actions taken: e.g., civil penalties assessed against the permitee
for violations of CAMA or the CRC's rules that occur during development pursuant to a permit
granted by DCM.
In the present case, DCM issued its decision to grant Natale Kuey's CAMA minor permit
for construction of a single-family dwelling on October 9, 2009. The deadline for any petitions
challenging the decision expired on October 29, 2009, before Petitioner's request for third party
hearing was received on October 30, 2009. For this reason alone the third party hearing request
is DENIED.
5

4. In the event that a court determines that the twenty -day deadline of N.C.G.S. § 113A-
121.1(b) does not bar Petitioner's hearing request, the Chairman addresses the factors set forth in
N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(1)-(3) as follows:
A. Petitioner has alleged the issuance of CAMA Minor Permit No. 2009-12
to Natale Kuey, as the representative for 1118 Longwood Avenue Realty Corporation,
has violated the provisions of 15A NCAC 7H .0306; therefore, Petitioner's request meets
requirements of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(1).
B. Petitioner alleges that he owns the property adjacent to the property in
question. He further alleges that he is harmed by the approved development because it is
substantially closer to the ocean than Petitioner's property and may obstruct Petitioner's
view and could possibly damage Petitioner's property in the event of a storm. The CRC
rules do not address view as a criteria for development within the Ocean Hazard AEC
and the allegation concerning potential harm is not supported by any facts to distinguish
why this property is any different than any other property built adjacent to the coast;
therefore, Petitioner's request does not meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 113A-
121.1(b)(2).
C. Admitting that there is an error in the CAMA Minor permit application
form stating the size of the structure to be 6,500 square feet total enclosed floor area,
including roof -covered porches, instead of 4,292 square feet total heated or air-
conditioned living spaces, excluding covered porches (per CRC rule 15A NCAC 07H
.0306, effective August 11, 2009), as shown on the building permit application and
attached architectural drawings, Petitioner has not demonstrated that issuance of the
3

■
permit allowing construction with a 60-foot setback violates CAMA or the CRC's rules.
Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that his appeal would not be frivolous and
would meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 113A-121.1(b)(3).
V. DECISION
For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner's third party hearing request is DENTED.
This the 13th day of November 2009.
Robert R. Emory, Jr., Chairman
N.C. Coastal Resources Commission
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Final Decision on Petitioner,
Respondent, and the Permittee by the means specified below:
Kevan Busik
6603 Route 202
New Hope, PA 18938
James R. Prevatte, Jr.
P.O. Box 10969
319 N. Howe Street
Southport, NC 28461
Natale Kuey
2 Cabin Ridge Road- C
Chappaqua, NY 10514
Wayne Lambert
Custom Built Homes
PO Box 3180
Bald Head Island, NC 28461
Christine A. Goebel
Assistant Attorney General
James H. Gregson
Director of DCM
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
and electronically
jimpCa,urevatte-orevatte.com
Regular Mail
Regular Mail
electronically [e-mail]
electronically [e-mail]
Angela Willis electronically [e-mail]
Assistant to Director of DCM
This the 131h day of November 2009.
ennie Wilhelm Hauser,
Special Deputy Attorney General

North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Mr. and Mrs. Natale Kuey
#2 Cabin Ridge Road — C
Chappagua, NY 10514
NCDENR
Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson, Director
October 30, 2009
Resources
Dee Freeman, Secretary
CERTIFIED MAIL (70071490 0004 7748 6619)
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Re: Suspension of Work / Appeal of CAMA Permit Decision
Dear Mr. and Mrs, Kuey:
The Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission, Robert Emory, has received a request for
an administrative hearing to challenge CAMA Minor Permit #2009-12. The Third Party Hearing
Request was filed on behalf of petitioner Kevan Busik on October 30, 2009. Under N.C.G.S.
§ 113A-121.1 (the Coastal Area Management Act), your CAMA permit is automatically
suspended upon receipt of a hearing request and will remain suspended until either: (1)
Chairman Emory denies the hearing request (under standards set out in the statute); or (2) there is
a final Coastal Resources Commission decision on the permit appeal. You may not undertake
any development under the permit until further notice after Chairman Emory issues his decision.
The Division of Coastal Management will prepare a recommendation for the Chairman on
whether to grant or deny the hearing request. The Chairman must make a decision within 15
days after receipt of the hearing request. Therefore his decision is due close of business on
November 16, 2009. If you wish to submit any materials for the Chairman's consideration in
ruling on the request for contested case hearing, please send them to me as soon as possible.
cc: Ted Tyndall
Steve Everhart
Sincerely,
Jim Gregsdn RECEIVED
� p�
Director R E C E I V E D
NOV 0 4 2009
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
400 Commerce Avenue, 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

KENNETH A. SHANKLIN*
MATTHEW A. NICHOLS*"
COLIN J. TARRANT
CYNTHIA W. BALOWIN
SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
214 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1347
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1347
TELEPHONE (91 O) 762-9400 . TELEFAX (91 O) 251-1773
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
December 15, 2009
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED 47114 8008 6004 2386 0220
North Carolina CRC
c/o Mary Penny Thompson, General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
OEC t009
IT
P::,TUnf� EiSOUr'�I.: S
*'BOARD CE"RED$PECIAUJ IN
REAL PROPERTY LAW-RESIDENUAL BUSINESS,
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIALTRANSAC ONS
*AALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORtt
Re: Kevan Busik vs. Robert R. Emory, in his capacity as Chairman of the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, et al.
Brunswick County File No. 09 CVS 3421
Our File No. 09074.001
Dear Ms. Thompson:
Please find enclosed Civil Summons and Petition for Judicial Review, in the above
referenced matter.
With best regards, I remain
Very truly yours,
e67jh-:- w- A�
Cynthia W. Baldwin
CWB/js
Enclosures

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
vRcvs a�
BRUNSWICK County In The General Court Of Justice
- ❑ District ® Superior Court Division
Name O/Plein6'9 ,.. .,
KB VAN BUSIK
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
City. State. Zp ❑ ALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS
�v
VERSUS VIA CERTIFIED BAIL G.S. 1A-1, Rules 3,4
IName Of De/endantts) Date Odgtrrar Summons Issued
ROBERT R. EMORY in his capacity as Chairman of the
North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission• NORTH 12-14-2009
CAROLINA COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION; NORTH CAROLINA Dates) suss quest smm�rons(ea) rsaued
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES; NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT, NATALE KUEY;
1118 LONGWOOD AVENUE REALTY CORP.; and §AYNE LAMBERT
To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:
Name And Address W Defendanr l Name AndAddmcs Ol Dekndant 2
North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission
By serving it's agent. Mary Penny Thompson,13eneral Counsel
Dept, of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1601
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against Yout
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney within thirty (30) days after
you have been served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to. the plaintiffs
last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name And Address Q. Plainetrs Ammey prNorte, Address ofP/ain#M Date Issued 77me
Kenneth A. Shanklin and Cynthia W. Baldwin 12-14-2009 4; ,2 j ❑ AM ® PM
SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP Signature
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington NC 28402 Deputy CSC ❑ Assistant CSC ❑ CMofsup.,k C.,t
LI ENDORSEMENT
This Summons was originally issued on the date
indicated above and returned not served. At the request
of the plaintiff, the time within which this Summons must
be served is extended sixty (60) days.
❑ AM ❑ PM
U Deputy CSC ❑ Asdl rtCSC ❑ Clerk OfSupedor Court
NOTE TO PARTIES: Many counties have AtANDATORYARBITRATION pnxgrams in which most cases where the amount in controvenlyis s15, 000 or
less are heard by an arb&atorbefore a tdal. fie parties will be notirred it this case is assigned tormandatory arbitration, and, if
so, what procedure is to be followed.
AOC-CV-100. Rev. 10/01 (Over)
0 2001 Administrative Office of the Courts

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FeNo.
cvs �a�
BRUNSWICK Countyµ In The General Court Of Justice
❑ District ® Superior Court Division
Name OfPlaindff
KEVAN BUSIK
Address
CIVIL SUMMONS
City stare, zp
ALIAS AND PLURIES SUMMONS
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL G.S.1A-1,Rules 3,4
VERSUS
Name of
RT R.n EMs/
ROBER. MORY in his capacity as Chairman of the
North Carolina l;oastal Resources Commission- NORTH
Date Original Summons Issued
12-14-2009
DEPARTMENTOOFTAF�IRONMENTSA COMMISSION; ATLRESOURCES, ONORTH
Data(s)SulutyventSummons(es)Issued
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT; NATALE KUEY;
1118 LONGWOOD AVENUE REALTY CORP.; and WAYNE LAMBERT
To Each Of The Defendant(s) Named Below:
Name ArdAdd,.Ot Defendant! Name A,dAddress O/Defendant 2
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
By Serving: Mary Penny Thompson, General Counsel
I601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1601
A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against Youi
You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Serve_ a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the
by
plaintiff or mailing it to the plaintiifft.
last known address, and
2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above.
If you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Name AndAddess OlPainglrs Anomey fir None, Address OfPlaintill) Date Issued Tj
Kenneth A. Shanklin and Cynthia W. Baldwin 12-1472009 ❑ AM R PM
SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP Signa(ure
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington NC 28402 Depu(y CSC ❑ Assistant CSC ❑ Cleric of superior court
LJ ENDORSEMENT
This Summons was originally issued on the date
indicated above and returned not served. At the request
of the plaintiff, the time within which this Summons must
be served is extended sixty (60) days.
❑ Deputy csc
❑ AM ❑ PM
U Assistant CSC ❑ Clerk0FSupedorcaun
NOTE TO PARTIES: Many heard have
less eraa heard MANDA TORYARBM" TION programs In which most cases where the amount In controversy is $15,000 or
by an albibalarbeforea trial. The parties will be n0bfied if this case is assigned formandatoly arbitration, and, if
so, what procedure Is to be followed.
AOC-CV-100, Rev.10/01 (Over)
0 2001 Administrative Office of the Courts

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA .
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
KEVAN BUSIK,
Petitioner,
)
vs.
)
ROBERT R. EMORY, in his capacity
)
as Chairman of the North Carolina
)
Coastal Resources Commission;
)
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL
)
RESOURCES COMMISSION;
)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
)
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
)
RESOURCES, NORTH CAROLINA
)
DIVISION OF COASTAL
)
MANAGEMENT; NATALE KUEY;
)
1118 LONGWOOD AVENUE
)
REALTY CORP.; and WAYNE
)
LAMBERT,
)
Respondents.
)
coPY
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO.: 09 CVS oZ1
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Petitioner Kevan Busik ("Petitioner"), by and through his undersigned counsel,
respectfully petitions the Court pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 15013-43, 45 and N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 113A-123(a) for judicial review of a Final Decision of the North Carolina Coastal Resources
Commission, which denied the Petitioner's request for a third party hearing. Petitioner requested
permission to file a petition for a contested case hearing as a third party pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 113A-121.I(b) to challenge CAMA Minor Permit No. 2009-12 issued to Natale Kuey ("Kuey" or
"Permittee") dated October 9, 2009 ("Permit"). Kuey was issued the Permit in anticipation of
Wayne Lambert's construction of a residence on property owned by 1118 Longwood Avenue

Realty Corp., described as Lot 4030 of Cape Fear Station Single Family 14 Subdivision in
Brunswick County, North Carolina ("Lot 4030"),
Petitioner says and alleges:
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES TO JUDICIAL APPEAL
1. Petitioner holds legal title to Lot 4032 of Cape Fear Station Single Family 14
Subdivision on Bald Head Island, as recorded in Map Book 23 at Page 538 of the Brunswick
County Registry, pursuant to a deed recorded in Book 2924 at Page 904 of the Brunswick County
Registry ("Lot 4032' ), which lot directly adjoins Lot 4030.
2. Respondent Robert R. Emory ("Emory') is Chairman of the North Carolina
Coastal Resources Commission, an agency of the State of North Carolina, charged with the.
administration of the Coastal Area Management Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-100, et seq, and:
signed the Final Decision issued on November 13, 2009 ("Final Decision") as hereinafter
described.
3. Respondent North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission ("CRC") is an agency
of the State of North Carolina charged with the administration of the Coastal Area Management
Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-100, et seq.
4. Respondent North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
("Department's, Division of Coastal Management ("DCM) regulates the coastal areas of the
State pursuant to authority conferred upon it by the 1974 Coastal Area Management Act
("CAMA'� which is found in Chapter 113A, Article 7 of the North Carolina General Statutes
and various regulations, promulgated thereunder by the CRC and codified at Title 15A, Chapter 7
of the North Carolina Administrative Code (collectively, the "CRC Rules").
2

5. Upon information and belief, Respondent Permittee Natale Kuey is a citizen and
resident of Westchester County, New York.
6. Respondent 1118 Longwood Avenue Realty Corp. C'Longwood") is a corporation
organized and existing pursuant to the laws of New York, and owns fee simple title to Lot 4030 of
Cape Fear Station Single Family 14 Subdivision, as recorded in Map Book 23 at Page 538 on Bald
Head Island, Brunswick County, North Carolina, pursuant to a deed recorded at Book 1720 at Page
60 of the Brunswick County Registry. According to the New York State Department of State,
Division of Corporations, Longwood has no Registered Agent, but Service of Process will be
accepted on Longwood's behalf by AGULNICK & GOGEL, ESQS., of New York, New York.
This entity is not domesticated in North Carolina pursuant to the Office of the Secretary of State of
North Carolina.
7. Respondent Wayne Lambert, upon information and belief, operates the business of
Custom Built Homes in Brunswick County, North Carolina Custom Built Homes is not listed with
the North Carolina Secretary of State's corporation's database. Wayne Lambert's North Carolina
Unlimited Contractor's License is # 31391.
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
8. The Petitioner Kevan Busik's Deed recorded May 11, 2009, describes Lot 4032 as
follows:
BEING ALL of Lot 4032 Single Family 14, Cape Fear Station. Bald Head
Island State Two, as the same is shown on a map thereof duly recorded in
Map Cabinet 23, Instrument 538, of the Brunswick County Registry, and
is described and included in Amendment and Annexation to Protective
Covenants by Bald Head Island Limited file in said Registry in Book 1435
at Page 657, and re -recorded in Book 1436 at Page 366. It is the intent of
the Grantor to convey title to the high water mark of the Atlantic Ocean,
such that the eastern property line of the land herein conveyed shall be co-
existent with said high water mark as of the date of this conveyance.

The conveyance is made SUBJECT TO the reservations, conditions and
restrictions contained in Protective Covenants, Bald Head Island Stage
Two, filed in the Office of Register of Deeds for Brunswick County, in the
aforesaid Amendment and Annexation to Protective Covenants, and to any
and all addendum and amendments thereto. The Grantee, by acceptance
of this Deed, agrees to abide by the covenants, conditions and restrictions
set forth in said Protective Covenants, including the payment of
assessments as provided for therein.
Being the same property conveyed to Homesales, Inc. d/b/a/ Homesales,
Inc., of Delaware, by Substitute Trustee's Deed dated July 21, 2008 and
recorded in Book 2820, Page 953, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-
121.1, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-123, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 150B-43 and N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15013-
45. Petitioner is an aggrieved party directly affected by the Final Decision of the CRC, as signed
by Robert R. Emory, who denied Petitioner's request for a third -party hearing regarding the
construction of a,residence on the Permittee's property located in Brunswick County, North
Carolina. No other adequate procedure for judicial review is provided by another statute.
10. The Superior Court of Brunswick County is the appropriate venue to hear this
matter pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-123 and Article 4 of Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, because the land in question is Iocated in Brunswick County and the
CAMA Permit was issued in Brunswick County. Additionally, Petitioner has a residence
constructed on Lot 4032.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
11. The Subject Property is a part of Bald Head Island Stage Two located on Bald Head
Island, and was acquired by Bald Head Island Limited, a Texas limited partnership, in June, 1983.
Bald Head Island Limited began development of Bald Head Island Stage Two in 1995, as stated in"
the Protective Covenants, Bald Head Island Stage Two, recorded in Book 1045 at Page 676 in the
ld

Brunswick County Registry. The Cape Fear Station Single Family 14 Map was recorded in Map
Book 23 at Page 538 in the Brunswick County Registry on February 14, 2001. This Cape Feaz
Station Single Family 14 Map ("Single Family 14 Map") shows Lot 4030 and Lot 4032, which are
adjacent to each other. Lot 4020, Lot 4022, Lot 4024, Lot 4026, Lot 4028, Lot 4030, Lot 4032, and
Lot 4034 are shown on the Single Family 14 Map as bordering the Atlantic Ocean. A conservation
easement is indicated on the eight lots by a shaded area that is located between the Atlantic Ocean
and the buildable area of the eight tots.
12. Petitioner's Lot 4032 is located directly adjacent to and to the north of Lot 4030.
Based on Brunswick County public records, Lot 4032 has a 4,797 square foot residence on it,
built in 2005.
13. On April 8, 2009, Homesales, Inc. d/b/a/ Homesales, Inc. of Delaware conveyed Lot
4032 Single Family 14, Cape Fear Station, Bald Head Island as shown on the recorded plat for Cape
Fear Station Single Family 14 to Kevin [sic] Busik, 6603 Route 202, New Hope, PA, which deed is
recorded in Book 2924 at Page 904 of the Brunswick County Registry ("Lot 4032"). The legal
description was by reference to the recorded plat of Cape Fear Station Single Family 14 and
incorporated by reference the legal description of the property conveyed via the Substitute Trustee's
Deed dated July 21, 2008 and recorded in Book 2820 at Page 953 of the Brunswick County
Registry, which conveyed Lot 4032 to Homesales, Inc. d/b/a/ Homesales, Inc., of Delaware.
14. On March 24, 2003, Howard M. Long and wife, Diane T. Long, conveyed Lot
4030 Single Family 14, Cape Fear Station, Bald Head Island as shown on the recorded plat for
Cape Fear.Station Single Family 14 to 1118 Longwood Avenue Realty Corporation, 810 East
170th Street, Bronx, NY, which deed is recorded in Book 1720 at Page 60 of the Brunswick
5

County Registry. The legal description was by reference to the recorded plat of Cape Fear Station
Single Family 14, recorded in Map Book 23, Page 538 of the Brunswick County Registry.
15. Lot 4030 and Lot 4032 lie adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. Both lots are within the
High Hazard Flood and Ocean Erodible Area sub -categories of the Ocean Hazard Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC). Pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-118, any development on
these properties requires a CAMA permit.
16. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 7H.0304, the long-term annual erosion rate for this area is
2.0 feet per year.
17. On August 11, 2009, new setback rules went into effect regarding the total
enclosed floor area total. The new rules no longer required inclusion of roof -covered porches in
the total enclosed floor area.
18. In the September 28, 2009 Natale Kuey CAMA Permit Application ("Permit
Application"), Natale Kuey was listed as the "Land Owner," and Wayne Lambert was listed as
the "Authorized Agent." However, no DCM authorized agent form was signed by the owner of
the property, Respondent Longwood. The size of the lot was listed as 40,000 square feet, and the
total enclosed floor area of a building in the Ocean Hazard Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC) was listed as 6,500 square feet, which number included all floors and roof covered decks.
The size of the building footprint and other impervious or built -upon surfaces in the Coastal
Shoreline. AEC was listed as 8,000 square feet. This calculation included the area of the
roof/drip line of all buildings, driveways, covered decks, concrete or masonry patios, etc., that
within the applicable AEC. Applicants were directed to attach these calculations with their
project drawings. The total built upon area/impervious surface allowed for Lot 4030 was listed
as 5,500 square feet.
2

19. In the Permit Application, the directive for the Statement of Ownership section of
the application stated:
The undersigned, an applicant for a CAMA minor development permit,
being either the owner of property in an AEC or a person authorized to act
as an agent for purposes of applying for a CAMA minor development
permit, certify that the person listed as landowner on this application has a
significant interest in the real property described therein. This interest can
be described as: (check one)
4 an owner or record title, Title is vested in 1118 Longwood Av. Realty
Corp Natale Kuev, see Deed Book 1720 Page 60 in the Brunswick County
Registry of Deeds.
(handwritten sections are indicated by underlining). The Permit Application was signed by
Wayne Lambert.
20. According to United States Postal Service tracking confirmation dated
September 30, 2009, Petitioner received a letter dated September 28, 2009 from Wayne Lambert of
Custom Built Homes, which stated: "Mr. and Mrs. Natale Kuey are applying for a CAMA permit
to build a new residence on Lot #4030 Station House Way, Bald Head Island, NC. The plans of the
new residence are at my office for review."
21. No objection letters were received before the CAMA permit was issued for the
development on Lot 4030. Notice to the public via newspaper ad and on -site posting, as required,
was completed.
22. Daralyn Spivey, CAMA Local Permit Official of Bald Head Island, NC ("LPO"),
issued CAMA Minor Development Permit No. 2009-12 ("Permit") to Natale Kuey on October 9,
M
authorizing development in the Ocean Hazard (AEC) at 230 Station House
Way, Lot 4030, in Bald Head Island, as requested in the pemuttee's
application, dated September 28, 2009. . . . This permit authorizes:
construction of a new single family residence.
7

(1) All proposed development and associated construction must be done in
accordance with the permitted work plat drawings(s) dated received on
September 28, 2009....
(3) Any change or changes in the plans for development, construction, or
land use activities will require a re-evaluation and modification of this
permit.
23. In a letter dated October 20, 2009, James R. Prevatte, Jr., attorney for Petitioner,
alerted Ms. Corey Boyette, Bald Head Island Architectural Review, and Mr. Chris Mitchell,
Assistant Village Manager & Development Services Director, that the plans for Lot 4030's
proposed residence called for the home to be built much closer to the ocean than the other houses
in that area. The Village of Bald Head Island received this objection letter on October 21, 2009.
Mr. Prevatte stated in this letter: "The location of the house appears to be in violation of the
restrictions for `Single Family 14 Cape Fear Station' and most likely, in violation of the
regulations of Coastal Area Management Act. The residence should be in line with that of Mr.
Busik at lot 4032.11
24. On or about October 26, 2009, staff from the DCM Wilmington Regional Office
reviewed the permit as part of the LPO permit program review process. Staff spotted the error of
a 6,500 square foot enclosed floor area structure only using a 60-foot setback, contacted the
LPO, and revised the Application to show the correct heated square footage of the proposed
residence for Lot 4030 under the "new" setback rules and definitions, which were made effective
August 11, 2009.
25. Based on the construction drawings and the application submitted for a building
permit, the LPO changed the calculated total enclosed floor area from the applicant's response of
6,500 square feet 4,292 square feet, pursuant to the "new" setback rules and definitions, made
effective August 11, 2009, in 15A NCAC 7H.0306(a)(1).
3

26. Because the applicable long-term erosion rate is 2 feet per year, and because the
proposed residence for Lot 4030 has a total of 4,292 total floor area based on the definition found
in 15A NCAC 7H.0306(a)(1), the resulting setback applicable to the proposed development on
Lot 4030 is 60 feet, pursuant to 15A NCAC 7H.0306(a)(2)(A).
27. On October 28, 2009, the LPO telefaxed a letter to Petitioner's counsel, Mr.
Prevatte, notifying them of the issuance of the permit on October 9, 2009, and listing the rights
of appeal for third -parties under LAMA. This appeal had to be received by DCM within 20 days
of the permit issuance date, which was October 9, 2009.
28. , In the letter to Mr. Prevatte dated October 28, 2009, Chris McCall, Assistant
Village Manager & Development Services Director/CAMA LPO, stated: "The proposed project
has been determined to comply with local regulations and the Rules of the Coastal Resources
Commission (15A NCAC 07H.0306), and as such, a permit has been issued to authorize the
development." A copy of the permit and the applicable rules were enclosed with this
correspondence.
29. Mr. Prevatte, on behalf of Petitioner, sent a Third Parry Hearing Request on
CAMA Permit No. 2009-12 Decision ("Hearing Request") to the Director of DCM, via
UPS/Overnight delivery, on October 28, 2009. UPS tracking shows delivery of copies of this
Request to the Environmental Division of the Attorney General's Office in Raleigh, to the
Director of the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, and to the Petitioner in
Pennsylvania on October 28, 2009. This Hearing Request was stamped as filed on October 30,
2009 by DCM staff. I -
30. In a Memorandum dated November 6, 2009, Assistant Attorney General Christine
A. Goebel ("Goebel") explained the Staff Recommendation regarding Petitioner's Third Parry
6

Hearing Request. This Memorandum is attached as Exhibit "A." In this Memorandum, Goebel
stated: "On October 30, 2009, DCM received this third parry hearing request from Petitioner,
seeking to challenge the issuance by DCM of CAMA Minor Permit No. 2009.12." Goebel stated in
DCM's Recommendations that the Request was not timely filed, pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 113A-121.1(b). CAMA Permit No. 2009-12 was automatically suspended upon receipt of the
hearing request by DCM on October 30, 2009, and no development under this permit would be
allowed to take place until further notice by the CRC.
31. Goebel, in her November 6, 2009 Memorandum, stated: "The 20-day appeal period
to file a hearing request petition expired on October 29, 2009. Petitioner's counsel was made aware
of this fact on October 28, 2009, through a faxed letter from the Village, but still failed to submit its
appeal to DCM in time. Therefore, the CRC and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lack
jurisdiction to consider the merits of this untimely Petition." In her conclusion, Goebel
recommended that Petitioner's Hearing Request be denied by the Chairman.
32. On November 13, 2009, the Final Decision of the CRC ("Final Decision") was
signed by Emory, in his capacity as Chairman of the CRC, denying Petitioner's Hearing Request
because "[t]he deadline for any petitions challenging the decision expired on October 29, 2009,
before Petitioner's request for third party hearing was received on October 30, 2009. For this
reason along the third party hearing request is DENIED." The Final Decision is attached as
Exhibit 'B." In the cover letter for the Final Decision, it is stated: "Pursuant to N.C. GEN.
STAT. § 113A-121.1(c), the permit is no longer suspended and the permittee is allowed to
proceed insofar as it concerns CAMA."
10

33. Petitioner is entitled to appeal the decision of the Commission denying his
Hearing Request on the Final Decision, and this Court has jurisdiction of this matter, pursuant to
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-121.1.
CRC RULES AND GENERAL STATUES AT ISSUE
34. According to 15A N.C.A.C. 710201 (2009), entitled "Permit Required," "[a]fter
March 1, 1978, every person wishing to undertake any development in an area of environmental
concern shall obtain a permit ... from the local permit officer, in the case of a minor development
permit, unless such development is exempted by the Commission."
35. In 15A N.C.A.C. 710202, it is stated in provision (b) that "[a]ny person seeking to
obtain a permit for a minor development project is required to file with the local permit officer a
completed application form as adopted and approved by the Coastal Resources Commission and in
accordance with the minor permit provisions in 15A NCAC 7J .0204. Provision (c) of that same
rule states: "Regardless of whether any advice or information was provided by other persons,
including department officials, the applicant is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the
information provided in the application."
36. According to 15A N.C.A.C. 710208 (2009)(b), the LPO "may condition a minor
development permit upon amendment of the proposed project to take whatever measures may be
reasonably necessary to protect the public interest with respect to the factors enumerated in G.S.
113A-120."
37. N.C. Gen. STAT. § 55-15-01 (2009) states that authority from the Secretary of State
for foreign corporations to transact business in this State is required. Subsection (a) states: "A
foreign corporation may not transact business in this State until it obtains a certificate of authority
from the Secretary of State."
11

Commission's Final Decision Was Based upon Numerous Errors of Fact and Law
38. Petitioner incorporates and realleges the foregoing Paragraphs 1-39.
39. The Commission's November 13, 2009, decision denying Petitioner's Request for a
Third -Parry Hearing was in violation of constitutional provisions, was in excess of the statutory
authority or jurisdiction of the CRC, was based on unlawfiil procedure, is in error as a matter of law,
in unsupported by substantial evidence, and is arbitrary and capricious. Among other things,
Respondents Emory, CRC, and Department:
a. Erred by allowing the submission of a CAMA Permit Application from a
foreign corporation that did not have the requisite authority to transact business in this State.
Longwood has not domesticated itself in North Carolina. There are no records for
Longwood on the North Carolina Secretary of State's corporation's website. As stated in
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 55-15-01 (2009) (a), "A foreign corporation may not transact business in
this State until it obtains a certificate of authority from the Secretary of State." Longwood
has not met any of the exclusions to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 55-15-01, which are listed as
follows:
(b) Without excluding other activities which may not constitute
transacting business in this State, a foreign corporation shall not be
considered to be transacting business in this State solely for the purposes of
this Chapter, by reason of carrying on in this State any one or more of the
following activities:
(1) Maintaining or defending any action or suit or any administrative
or arbitration proceeding, or effecting the settlement thereof or the
settlement of claims or disputes;
(2) Holding meetings of its directors or shareholders or carrying on
other activities concerning its internal affairs;
(3) Maintaining bank accounts or borrowing money in this State, with
or without security, even if such borrowings are repeated and
continuous transactions;
12

(4) Maintaining offices or agencies for the transfer, exchange, and
registration of its securities, or appointing and maintaining trustees
or depositories with relation to its securities;
(5) Soliciting or procuring orders, whether by mail or through
employees or agents or otherwise, where such orders require
acceptance without this State before becoming binding contracts;
(6) Making or investing in loans with or without security including
servicing of mortgages or deeds of trust through independent
agencies within the State, the conducting of foreclosure
proceedings and sale, the acquiring of property at foreclosure sale
and the management and rental of such property for a reasonable
time while liquidating its investment, provided no office or agency
therefor is maintained in this State;
(7) Taking security for or collecting debts due to it or enforcing any
rights in property securing the same;
(8) Transacting business in interstate commerce;
(9) Conducting an isolated transaction completed within a period of
six months and not in the course of a number of repeated
transactions of like nature;
(10) Selling through independent contractors;
(11) Owning, without more, real or personal property.
By initiating and following through with the construction of.a residence in this Ocean
Hazard Area, Longwood excludes itself from two of the above -listed exclusions that are
applicable to this situation:
(9) Conducting an isolated transaction completed within a period of six
months and not in the course of a number of repeated transactions of
like nature;
(11) Owning, without more, real or personal property.
Construction of the proposed residence involves the rendering of drawings of the proposed
residence and its ancillary buildings, the submission of these plans to various local and state
agencies, the application of various permits, and the approval of those permits after
considerable review. This process, by itself, is more than just owning real property, and this
process takes longer than six months to complete; therefore, Longwood cannot avail itself of
the above -listed exceptions to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 55-15.01(a). Because Longwood is
13

required to have a certificate of authority from the North Carolina Secretary of State, and it
does not have this certificate, Longwood is not permitted to complete this type of transaction
in this State. Longwood was not a permitted entity to fill out or sign a CAMA Permit
Application and was the only entity or person to be allowed as a permittee of the subject
CAMA Permit.
b. Erred by failing to require DCM's appropriate agency authorization form
from Longwood, which authorizes an agent to act on behalf of a corporation. Kuey is not
listed as the registered agent of the owner, Longwood, on the State of New York's Secretary
of State's Corporations website, and Kuey is not the owner of the fee simple to Lot 4030.
There is no evidence, other than the bare -bones Application, that Kuey is the authorized
agent of Longwood. Without including the form that authorizes Kuey to act on behalf of
Longwood in the Application, the Application is incomplete and erroneous. Issuance of a
CAMA Minor Permit on the basis of an incomplete and erroneous application is an
unlawful procedure. The burden is on the applicant to submit a complete application. This
Application was deficient, and it should not have been processed.
C. Erred by accepting a CAMA Permit Application from one who is neither the
landowner nor the authorized agent of the landowner. Longwood, or its authorized agent,
did not sign the CAMA Permit Application. The applicant, Kuey, in the CAMA
Application at hand is not the landowner, nor has Kuey met the requirements as an
authorized agent. "In the general information section, the applicant and future permittee
is always the Land Owner, although an agent, such as a contractor or realtor, may obtain
the permit for the property owner." North Carolina Division of Coastal Management,
Directions For Filling Out A CAMA Minor Permit, http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/permits/
14

Minor%20Peimit%2OApplication%2Odirections.pdf (last visited Dec. 14, 2009). To
issue a CAMA Minor Permit to one who is not the landowner and who is not an
authorized agent for the landowner is in excess of the statutory authority of the CRC.
d. Erred by awarding a CAMA Minor Permit to Kuey and by denying
Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request because the CAMA Minor Permit was
improperly issued, incomplete, and deficient as a matter of law.
e. Erred by awarding a CAMA Minor Permit to Kuey and by denying
Petitioner's Hearing Request because the Permit was altered or amended after its initial
October 9, 2009, issuance. An amended or altered permit changes the timeline for when
objections to the issuance of the permit are due. On or about October 26, 2009, the
Application was revised to show the correct applicable square footage to consider when
calculating the setback for the proposed residence. This should have reset the
Application timeline. Petitioner mailed his Hearing Request, via UPS/Overnight
delivery, on October 28, 2009. UPS tracking shows delivery of copies of this Request to
the Environmental Division of the Attorney General's Office in Raleigh, to the Director
of the DCM in Morehead City, and to the Petitioner in Pennsylvania on October 28,
2009. Even though tracking confirmed the receipt of this Hearing Request to the
applicable agencies on October 28, 2009, the Hearing Request was not file -stamped until
October 30, 2009. This should not cut off Petitioner's right to a Hearing Request because
the revisions to the Application were made on or about October 26, 2009. Petitioner
should have had.an additional, proportional amount of time to submit his Hearing
Request. In any event, the filing of the Hearing Request was timely if received on
15

October 28, 2009, as the. filing stamp has nothing to do with jurisdiction of this Court or
the Office of Administrative Hearings.
f. Erred by stating that Petitioner's Hearing Request is frivolous and that
Petitioner lacks sufficient standing to contest the issuance of the Permit. Contrary to the
findings and conclusions of Emory as the Chairman of the CRC, Petitioner is directly
affected by the issuance of the Permit to Kuey within the meaning of N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 113A-121(b)(1-3) in that Petitioner is an adjoining property owner. Petitioner's status
as an adjoining property owner is significant, contrary to the arguments of the DCM and
its counsel and findings in Chairman's Final Decision.
i. Recently, the Supreme Court clarified the special status that an
adjoining property owner has to oppose or contest zoning and other regulatory
decisions, such as the Permit issued to Kuey. See, Mangum v. Raleigh Bd. of
Adjustment, 362 N.C. 640, 644, 669 S.E.2d 279, 283 (2008). In Mangum, the
Supreme Court noted in that case that, " [i]t is undisputed that defendants'
proposed use of the land is unlawful unless they are issued a Special Use Permit"
Mangum, 362 N.C. at 643, 669 S.E.2d at 282 362 N.C. at 643, 669 S.E.2d at 282.
The Court held that the petitioners' allegations in their petition for writ of
certiorari as well as the evidence presented "in regards to the `increased traffic,
increased water runoff, parking, and safety concerns,' as well as the secondary
adverse effects on petitioners' businesses, were sufficient special damages to give
standing to petitioners to challenge the issuance of the permit" Mangum, 362
N.C. at 644, 669 S.E.2d at 282-83 362 N.C. at 644, 669 S.E.2d at 282-83. The
Mangum Court explained that the "petitioners alleged that they either owned
16

property immediately adjacent to or in close proximity to the subject property"
and that, while such allegations standing alone are insufficient, proximity to the
property that is the subject of a variance "bears some weight" on determining
whether the petitioner has suffered or will suffer special damages necessary for
standing. Mangum, 362 N.C. at 644, 669 S.E.2d at 283 362 N.C. at 644, 669
S.E.2d at 283.
I Furthermore, a determination of standing is jurisdictional and is
always de novo upon judicial review. Id The legal right to appear in any action,
commonly referred to as having "standing," is jurisdictional and depends in part
upon the existence of a justiciable case or controversy. Town of Ayden v. Town of
Winterville, 143 N.C. App. 136, 141, 544 S.E.2d 821, 824 (2001); Town of Pine
Knoll Shores v. Carolina Water Serv., 128 N.C. App. 321, 321, 494 S.E.2d 618,
618 (1998). The standing of a party to pursue any case or cause of action is a
necessary prerequisite to the Court's proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Peacock v. Shinn, 139 N.C. App. 487, 491, 533 S.E.2d 842, 845, disc. review
denied, 353 N.C. 267, 546 S.E.2d 110 (2000); Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corp. v. Calco Enter., 132 N.C. App. 237, 241, 511 S.E.2d 671, 675, disc. review
denied, 351 N.C. 121, 540 S.E.2d 751 (1999). Accordingly, standing is a necessary
threshold inquiry for the Court. "Standing" refers to the critical issue of whether a
party or proposed intervenor has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable
controversy that it may properly seek adjudication of the matter. Sierra Club v.
Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 730, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636, 641 (1972). The
relationship between standing and the requirement of a justiciable controversy has
17

been expressed as follows: "[Jjudicial intervention in a dispute is normally
contingent upon the presence of a `justiciable' controversy." See Texfz Indus. v.
City of Fayetteville, 44 N.C. App. 268, 269-70, 261 S.E.2d 21, 23 (1979) ("The gist
of standing is whether there is a justiciable controversy being litigated among
adverse parties with substantial interest affected so as to bring forth a clear
articulation of the issues before the court."), affd, 301 N.C. 1, 269 S.E.2d 142
(1980). In most cases, the issue of standing depends on whether the party has
suffered an "injury in fact." Neuse River Found v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C.
App. 100, 114, 574 S.E.2d 48, 52 (2002), disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C. 675; 577
S.E.2d 628 (2003); see also Strates Shows, Inc. v Amusements ofAmerica, Inc., 184
N.C. App. 455, 460, 646 S.E.2d 418, 423 (2007); Coker v. DaimlerChzysler Corp.,
172 N.C. App. 386, 391, 617 S.E.2d 306, 310 (2005), 'aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C.
398, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006); Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 119-20,.431 S.E.2d 178,
180-81 (1993). .
iii. The allegations of Petitioner in his Hearing Request on the CAMA
Permit Decision was sufficient as a matter of law to met this threshold inquiry and
the technical requirements of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-121(b)(1-3). The
placement of any structure as "development" under CAMA is absolutely
controlled and governed by the intricate structure of the Rules adopted by the
CRC and as enumerated in CAMA. An example of this is the hardened structure
, rules applicable to the areas of environmental concern applicable to oceans. See,
e.g., Shell Island Homeowners Assn v. Tomlinson, 134 N.C. App. 217, 224, 517
S.E.2d 406, 412 (1999) (hardened structure rules) and Robert Don Foster,
18

Petitioner vs. N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Management, Respondent and William F. Candy, Respondent
Intervenor, 06 EHR 1833 (applying the Coastal Shoreline Buffer Rule which
requires development to be located 30 feet from the normal high water level and
the exception known as the small house exception set forth in 15A NCAC
7H.0209(d)(10)(I))•
iv. Based upon Petitioner's Hearing Request on the CAMA Permit
Decision, there was sufficient information alleged to demonstrate that Petitioner
was entitled to proceed to a contested case hearing on the merits of his objections
to an Administrative Law Judge. The third parties in Robert Don Foster,
Petitioner vs. N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Management, Respondent and William F. Candy, Respondent
Intervenor, 06 EHR 1833 bore the same relationship to the permitted property as
Petitioner Busik does in the instant case. Thus, to be consistent with other CAMA
cases and contested case hearings, Petitioner Busik should have been allowed to
have a Third Party Contested Case Hearing before the Office of Administrative
Hearings.
40. For the foregoing reasons, the CRC erred in denying Petitioner's Hearing Request
on the Permit, and the CRC's decision is contrary to N.C. GEN. SrAT. § 113A-121.1 and other
applicable Iaw, in the following respects:
a.. The proposed location of the residence presents an unacceptable safety risk-.,:
to the property and persons, including Petitioner, proximate thereto. Because of the
residence's improper location further seaward of Petitioner's residence, during a large
19

storm, as frequently experienced on Bald Head Island, great debris from the residence will
impact Petitioner's property and the property of others.
b. The proposed location of the residence would unlawfully diminish
Petitioner's use and enjoyment of his property and property value. Petitioner's home on his
property is located and designed to take advantage of the expansive view the property
affords of the Atlantic Ocean. Such view and Petitioner's property value would be
decimated by the proposed location of the Longwood residence.
c. The grant of the Permit and the denial of Petitioner's Hearing Request has
deprived Petitioner of his property rights, jeopardized the safety of his property and persons
thereon, and has otherwise substantially prejudiced Petitioner's rights as follows:
i. Respondents Emory, Department, and CRC acted wrongfully by
basing their decisions on findings of fact that were erroneous or that were
unsupported by any competent underlying evidence or factual information.
ii. Upon information and belief, Respondents Emory, Department, and
CRC failed to use proper procedures and acted wrongfully in evaluating Pennittee's
permit application and Petitioner's Hearing Request in violation of applicable law.
iii. Respondents Emory, Department, and CRC acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in basing their decisions on erroneous information or factually
unsupported presumptions.
iv. Respondents Emory, Department, and CRC failed to act as required
by N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 113A-120(a) and -121.1 in that the purported findings, upon
which the Department based the grant of the Permit, are unsupported by any facts
and are based on erroneous presumptions.
20

V. The grant of the permit is unconstitutional and the rules upon which
the Permit grant was based are unconstitutional and/or are unconstitutional as
applied In particular, the Permit's grant and the rules upon which the grant were
based are:
1. in excess of the police power;
2. deny Petitioner substantive and procedural due process; and,
3. deny Petitioner equal protection of law and discriminate
against Petitioner without a lawful basis.
vi. The denial of Petitioner's Hearing Request by the CRC is
unconstitutional. In particular, the denial of the hearing request is:
1. in excess of the police power;
2. denies Petitioner's substantive and procedural due process;
3. denies Petitioner equal protection of law and discriminates
against Petitioner without a lawful basis; and,
4. is otherwise unlawful.
vii. Petitioner is directly affected by the Department's decision to grant
the permit and the CRC's denial of Petitioner's Hearing Request.
1. The decisions of Respondents Emory, Department, and CRC,
complained of herein, are:
a. In violation of constitutional provisions of N.C.
Const. Art. I, § 18 which.. provides that "All courts shall be open;
[and] every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person,
or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law ...: ;
21

b. In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of
the agencies;
C. Made upon unlawful procedures;
d. Affected by other error of law;
e. Unsupported by substantial evidence; and/or
f. Arbitrary or capricious.
viii. Petitioner's Hearing Request on the Permit is not frivolous for the
reasons and legal arguments herein stated.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing citations of authority and arguments, Petitioner requests this Court
to review the administrative record in this case and the Final Decision of Chairman Emory, and
reverse the Final Decision, finding and concluding that Petitioner is entitled to a Third Parry
Contested Case Hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings to oppose and reverse the
subject CAMA Permit No. 2009-12 wrongfully and illegally issued to Respondent Pennittee Kuey.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays the Court:
1. Grant this Petition for Judicial Review;
2. Enter an Order pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § ISOB-48 staying the operation of the
CRC's Final Decision and the issuance of CAMA Permit No. 2009-12 pending the outcome of the
review;
3. Declare and find that the CRC erred in denying Petitioner's request for a contested
case hearing;
22

4. Remand this matter to the CRC for a contested case hearing under N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 150B-22 before the Office of Administrative Hearings, and final CRC decision on the permit,
pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 113A-122;
5. Award Petitioner his reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pursuant to N.C. GEN.
STAT. § 6-19.1;
6. Award Petitioner his costs; and
7. For such other and further relief as to the Court seems proper.
Respectfully submitted,
This the 10 day of December, 2009.
SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
By: %Al %- L j. /a^(6i�
Ke eth A. Shanklin, NCSB #05826
Cynthia W. Baldwin, NCSB #38011
Attorneys for Petitioner
214 Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, NC 28402
Telephone: [phone]
Telefax: [phone]
23

N
TA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
November 13, 2009
Mr. and Mrs. Natale Kuey
#2 Cabin Ridge Road — C
Chappagua, NY 10514
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
Re: Reinstatement of CAMA Minor Permit #2009-12
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuey:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
You were informed, by certified mail, that the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission,
Robert Emory, received a request for an administrative hearing to challenge CAMA Minor Permit
#2009-12. The request was filed on behalf of Petitioner Kevan Busik on October 30, 2009. Your
CAMA Permit was automatically suspended upon receipt of this hearing request and you were
instructed not to undertake any development under this permit until further notice.
Please be advised that Chairman Emory has DENIED this third party hearing request. At this
time, CAMA Minor Permit #2009-12 is reinstated and you may now undertake development on
this property pursuant to the permit.
Please contact me at 252-808-2808 if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
.- Ga�r w,
James H. Gregson
Director
cc: Ted Tyndall
Steve Everhart
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Intemet: www nccoaStalmanagement.net
An Equal Opponunity \ Afiimafive Action Employer
RED"EVV E D
NOY 19 2009
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
NorthCarolina
Mundy

Page 1 of
Wayne Lambert
From: George Gallop [[e-mail])
sent: Thursday,November 12, 20091:08 PM
To: wayne lambert@bellsouth•het - ,
Cc: John Farabow
Subject:, Kuey jouse A1.1 Survey Site.Plan
Attachments: A1_1 Survey &Site Plan-11x17:pdf
Afternoon Wayne
Attached you'll find an I U17'PDF of the revised A1.1 Site plan showing the revised imperious area of
�5,437�sq ft:K.
Should you have any questions or need any other drawings please contact Me at this email or at the phone
number listed below.
Have a good day.
George "G'' Gallop
Architectural Designer
H R Associates
2202 Wrightsville Ave.
Suite 212
Wilmington; N.C.28403
T. [phone] Ext. 24
F. [phone]
gallop@hrassociates:com
11/12/2009

IC OCEALN
,r
9
w o-�.. \ll
RRW
Ro .tar w2a
r .,.
•�:� __.cL'w 1116 lONW000 a AM RMW CORPMTM
I'll
aYY.• - wuav oxYv -loom wlY\
\ Y[\Ra A4A.Y.IAVT
=a�
i S(aSan Ho.
r...+'ram
2A -141TAjnllsjz&
%IV - b • Y .fWRn MRARAAlY1QY.W.�R"• � '.�
..-B-YRRR1..41.1.l�Ip.[WiVt � � t00\ IDq.NRCNY.YRYYR.®\Ilp'1
.1�RY.R'p......YI. M..,R ADDI«Rb[ YNVRRa'.YatRt.
aw..wR.r�a[su
•�B1 mmuwaYme.mmR aa4a4.v
+.e eaaom YRn.uRRma.
[\a'0tmmmruj1tli.ae�iuro.�eu EEiP1EN
nm
H RASSOCNB PA
ARMRECM
RAMM
�r
[
3673
/1�
I
.r
I �Ylr...lW
I-.Rwwwroa
I Yne10y\i
CMIMIM
YG.I. pSYT
O�ana[Y.
I`__l Y' 1R001�6tYR
O
I 0
I
1 �
I � v1AWp
'a I
.a
I a
I a
I a
I
181809.00
Al,l

4
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Govemor Director
October 28, 2009
Natale Kuey
#2 Cabin Ridge Road-C
Chappagua, NY 10514
Dear Ms. Kuey:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Part of North Carolina's Coastal Management Program includes the delegation of permit authority for minor development
permits from the State to local governments that adopt a local Implementation and Enforcement Ordinance to administer a
Minor Permit Program. This cooperative effort reduces permit review times and provides a convenient service to the
citizens of those participating local governments. The NC Division of Coastal Management trains local government
employees to administer the program and consults on and reviews permits issued by those local programs to ensure
consistency with NC Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and the Coastal Resources Commission's (CRC)
administrative rules and regulations.
This letter is in reference to CAMA Minor Permit BM 2009-12, which was recently issued to you by the Village of Bald
Head Island on October 9, 2009. Your property at 230 Station House Way (Lot 4030, Cape Fear Station, Tract 14) is
subject to a built -upon -area (BUA) limitation of 5500 square feet in the subdivision's State Stormwater Permit (No. SW8
980920 MOD), which was issued to the island developer Bald Head Island Limited, LLC. Your agent, Wayne Lambert,
submitted a project drawing with your minor permit application (drawn by H. R. Associates) that indicated a built -upon -
area of 5318 square feet, however during our review of the issued permit we have calculated a built -upon -area of
approximately 6000 square feet. This figure is based upon the sum of the square footage of the roofline footprint of the
main house, the crofter and the section of concrete driveway. To resolve this inconsistency it is recommended that you
modify your permitted development to comply with the State Stormwater Permit or obtain additional built -upon -area
allocation for Lot 4030, Cape Fear Station, Tract 14 from Bald Head Island Limited, LLC. Failure to do so would result in
noncompliance with Condition #2 of your CAMA Minor Permit and could result in an enforcement action. Condition #2
of your CAMA Minor Permit states:
"All construction must conform to the N.C. Building Code requirements and all other local, State and
Federal regulations, applicable local ordinances and FEMA Flood Regulations."
By copy of this letter we are notifying the NC Division of Water Quality — Stormwater Section and the Stormwater Permit
holder, Bald Head Island Limited., LLC, of the potential noncompliance with State Stormwater Permit No.SW8 980920
MOD. Any resulting modifications to your permitted design or reallocation of additional BUA allowance should be
submitted to Chris McCall, Local Permit Officer for the Village of Bald Head Island at P. O. Box 3009, Bald Head Island,
NC 28461, or at [phone]. If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely, �
Lyt I dT d�
Ed Brooks
Minor Permit Program Coordinator
Cc: Steve Everhart DCM Georgette Scott, DWQ — WiRO Stormwater Section Supervisor
Chris McCall, LPO Village of Bald Head Island Jim Henry, Bald Head Island Limited, LLC
One
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 NO Carolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nocoastalmanagement.net Nawa//y

PREVATTE S PREVATTE, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ELIA9 J. PRE�ATTE 1191,-aCC41
JAMES R..REVATTE. JR.
E-MAIL: jiMPGPrCV&"*-PN`Vttte.COT
Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
1:n
Dear Sir or Madam:
319 NORTH HOWE STREET
SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 2B461
MAILING AOORE55:
POST OFFICE BOX 10969
SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 2134SI
Permit No. 2009-12
October 28, 2009
ATTACHMENI '
TELEPHONE: (910).
FAX: (910) 4
FIRM
PPcoP,evatte-ptM
VIA: UPS I OVERNIGHT
Enclosed please find Third Party Hearing Request on CAMA Permit Decision filed on behalf of
Petiboner, Kevan Busik.
JRPjr:md
Enclosure
copy: Attorney General's Office
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
Mr. Kevan Busik
6603 Route 202
New Hope, PA 18938
P REV ATTE 11911.20Oa1
.LIPS �REV PTT E, JR Vatt¢ GOT
JE MnEA F �rtnV@1Prevatte-p(e
PRtv— , ORNET".
319 NONo [AR
THPOROL NA 26161
OUT,
5 MPI LING A°oR E55.
POST OFFICE BOX RO6p1A 26461
SOUTHPORT, NORTH CA
oaskat Management
pirector
prp0 rComm rce A C 28557
October 26, 2009
1910145]-SOB6
TELEPHONE [phone]].023]
F PX: FIRM E-MP1 L:
PPc 09 I¢vatte-Pl ev atte. c°I^
VIA. UPS I OVERNIGHT
4 d City , N
Morehea permit No. 2009-12
Re. ecision fled on behalf of
rd Party Hear ng Request on CAMA Permit D
Deaf Sir or Madam:
Enctosed Please find 1hr
peU6onerl
Kevan gunk Yours
Attorney Gene4's—Oon e
Environmental.I Center
9001 Mail SeNice
Rale�9hNC 27699-900t
Mr. Kevan Busik
6603 Route 202
PA 18936
P.
Ano

^vPonien ofa burldin � V"' toe shorcliae erosi
knee braced or Otherwise�aductttrq Intl on Arc to place at t
laadward-mostad' extended beyond
pf°verhan he
!scent building Yond the Ppon ofp gigs or f oho porti at
buildinga g or.structure.
ors that y
i structure in line w �t he con fi Q+ "tends t
0 dotercpon shall be de tic landward_most gyration Of. lotg'a"tends Preclude, cet
to dctezrr ino an ocean tetrdred adjacent building
the
lusts the ,Y the bilasion of
(E) shorcliae hazard setback that is lan Coastal Alcoa or With the erosion strucutre, arena
exception of rate or60feet,which�rr1eoftl an enton
(� eccanward su"unming pools gelation a c C by tun b!
Dcvclo of the static the developmedt def! * line, a drstanee o 1t
(b) 7n order to avoid w pment is no[ e1i °egetation line; and red
ffect the i at Inv eakening the rel grti a for the exce�'n beaches
e C�Cl SA NCAC 07H rope th .into °Ives theWC, n� ortelocatien nature ofo fined in ISq Al 0309(a) i
Propenl' is o
rtvise�hedunc, Otherd[y tionofPnmaryar&, tala�sandptitnyy d.0309(b)-
NCAC 07H ,p308(Ise impracticable, and within the ocean h and or v
(c) Devcl any disturbance hazard area shay egetabon th frontal dunes no deldloF
Div ciao optnontshall notcause i of any othcy d notbCdisturbed er�t Which woo
o Archives and HisI rrev Nahondma a hitec ones rs allowed only to the xterdeVelopmenr
(ad
) Mb 0 OP'nent shall cotap� W9th e g to historic arc
Historical Re and is turatorarchaeplo all°Wed b,
off unc1,19�9esshallnotbeplacedwi teto los g try, the local land �Calresou cot
(t) Devcl hazard Roodek requ;reu cots --S se plan or resources d°crrm ed b,
(g) Dev °Proem shall corn ar tabli other ur
ces
risk eloprnOnt shall not p1Y with erferegeneral mans ca unless Urey arc W [h{n d by local regal,
(h
Devclo age to public tnynt to With legal access to, or Ul tse of for ocean ha�ary areas Mobile horror Parkexisting
shall be idrpte ented 3�tho shall incorpora1c me Public resources no All sot in l sA lvCACp
(1) minirdi 8PPHcants asurestoavoidorrnini eveloprne .03D; (Z) Mom re the affected environment, e Impacts lim hoay include actions hoadverse impacts of nt Increase t -
(i) PNor to [hpenSale for the adverse • or g the magnitude order the Project 7•hes
m the a Issuance �°tPacrs of the a meysures
degree action,
lirmWd ta6.1. n[ to D ofany Permit for develo replacing or pravidin
suirabili Cmtbatthea Pmeotiathe gsubstitute
guatant °f this Pplicant is aware of ocean ha resources cethe.cafe arcaforpe
() All rolocnti ty of the developnuentnOut structure B
cricks ascociath
applicable and assumes Y granting d with, tlhde
I ore
sotbacic linostn °ttrres requires o liability gPetmits, the Costa
shall be a K,r;tten ac
Y With non_ as otheraPPhcablo Pproval' Structuresda ge to th Trent rn this ca �rdpusa eaand tbet
relocated entire! as Well Permit a tY for future ma Recourecs
Shall be septic met.may not be localled oceIc funds shall be relocated odes. Structure includin relocated with d �n meat' mission does
ocated the Public not
fir pe Ward of the g. shah CO
threat shall inc the prtnrayatn Cture' 1 these cases,
cter�a�andotherCssen'nply with the
by changes in shoreline uon that a y st u all other a and of PresentCC`�s cs
relocated
calla or dismantled configuration cturc shall be relocated PPlicable to al aloes ;
collapse or subsidence is td two years of . as de5ncd in 1$A or dis a
dme the s and
W nd star 'rules
Wcdrre be e. However if na the time When it NCAC 071:1.030 h be a
relocated or diamanComes imminently threatened, mey Of beach
nemineUy threaten �� s boo
it11M. U
coed, me rec
temporary protective meant that tilde. This conditioSO n theshucrurcc�lA°1odu ahrnent tak Pl , and in an uctij-0(s) Shall be
ores allowed under on shall not af1lb the rmnn enUYtbrcat tv thin wo Yea upon its
TTirtory'vote: AulhoritYG.S.II.iA-I B . 07• iSA NCAC 07H.0308(a)(Z) pemrt holder's right t edee fhenitneed of the
1Tnefea, berg, 1I3A-Il3(b)�b�, 113A_
Amended 1977, 124, eek au[ho 1��h of
All DeCemb
?C oh , �al Ae ; 1,119 W� P EST jam l4, 1 ePl ember 1' J98(S• Deperyher J,
lectror
S,
Feb !nary J, 1 93,• ' May 21, 19921
endesmully
dEff,grtg,ust l� due to p 91�p�M 0i18, ��y�Jvne 191.(9921
b
15A VCAC 0714 ,0307
OCT-2B_ 3.f
— 2009 10:49AM From:
nr �1� Z004,� ✓une27 l99S.
USE STANDA RDS POR OCEAY HAZARD AREAS.. EXCF.,p
T►ONS
ID: PREURTTE
PREUgTTE
a. Pase:007 R_100,
.
a
DCM FORM S
PETITIONER'S NAME
COUNTY
-`-
JAMES R. PREVATTEr JR.r ATTORNEY
FOR KEVAN BUSIK THIRD PARTY HEAR.LNG
BRUNSWICK
C)CI - 13
(Petitioner leave this line black)
REQUEST ON
CAMA PERMIT DECISION
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the tmdmigtled, a person affected by the decision of (check one):
---2L_ a Local Permit Officer acting on a CAMA Minor Development Permit
application; or 4
the Division of Coastal Management, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, acting on a CAMA Major Development Permit
application or CAMA General Permit application
hereby requests permission from the Coastal Resources Commission to file an appeal pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b) and N.C- Admin. Code fit. 15A, r. 7J.0300 (Please attach a
copy of the permit application decision. If you cannot obtain a copy of the permit application
decision, please provide the name of the permittee, the project location and the permit number.)
Requests are reviewed by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission to determine
whether a hearing should be granted. The determination of whether to grant a hearing is in the
sole discretion of the Chairman. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, t. 7J.0301(b).
For this application to be complete, the Petitioner must address each factor listed below on a
separate sheet of paper. You must address these factors before your request will be reviewed.
The Chairman's decision to grant a heating will be based on whether the Petitioner:
(1) Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule (N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A-121.1(b)(1));
(Please cite the statute or regulation allegedly violated by the permit decision.)
(2) Is directly affected by the decision (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b)(2)]; and
(Please describe how you are directly affected by the permit decision.
Persons directly affected by a decision include, but are not limited to:
(a) any owner of real property in the vicinity of the property to
be developed who can show that the proposed development
is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the value
and enjoyment of his property; and
32
ID:PREUATTE PF&IATTE Paae:008 R=100s

' Jl,M •'
(b) anyperson who can demonstrate a history ofsubsiantiat
use ofpuhlic resources in the area directly affected by the
development when she development is within or touches
upon an area subject to the public trust.)
(3) Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the request for the
hearing is not frivolous [N.C'. Gen. Stat § 113A-121.1(b)(3)).
(Please summarize the evidence or arguments you will present at a
hearing in support of your appeal.)
Based on the attached responses to the abbve factors, the undersiguesMeifbyrequests a third
party hearing.
October 28, 2009 112A
Date Signature of RAW"_ AttOMeyFOR Petitioner
Name of Petitioner or Attorney FOR Petitioner
P. O. BOX 10969
.Address
SOUTHPORT, NC 28461
City State Zip
( 910 ) 457_1,na6
Telephone Number
NOTES: This request must be served on the Director, Division of Coastal Management, at
the addressshown on the attached Certificate of Servico Farm, within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b). Failure to
do so constitutes waiver of the right to request a hearing. A. copy should also be
sentto the Attorney General's Office, Environmental Division, at the addresses
shown on the attached Certificate of Service Form.
Approval of a Third Party Hearing Request allows a petitioner to file a`contested
case petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within twenty (20) days
of receipt of the. Chairman's Order. N.C. (}en. Stat..§ 1-13A-121,1(b).
Denial of a Third Party Hearing Request is a final agency decision which may be appealed to the
Superior Court in the county where the property is located under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-
121.1(b) and Chapter 15013, Article 4.
33
OCT-28-2009 10:50RM From: ID:PREURTTE PREURTTE Paee:009 R=100%

(9) Meainrcment Line. The line from which the ocean hazard setback as descmbod in Rute,,0306(a),of this
Section is measued in thounvegetated beach area ofenvirotuuental concern as described in Rule .0304(4)
of this section: Procedures tar determining the measurement lime in areas designated pursuant to Rule
,0304(4xa) of this section shallbe adopted by the Comrdssion for each area where such a line is
designated pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 150B. Tbose procedures shall be available from any local
permit officer or the Division of Coastal Management- Tn arm designated pursuant to Rule.0304(4)(b) of
this Section, the Division of Coastal Management shall establish ameasmement line that approximates the
location at which the vegetation line is expected to rcestabbsh,by:
(A) determining the distance the vegetation line receded at the closest vegetated site to the
proposed development site; and
(B) locating the line of stable natural vegetation on the most current pro-starmaerialphotography
of the proposed development site. and moving this Eno landward the distance determined in
'Subparagraph (g)(1) of this Rule.
The meavtranent line established pursuant to this process shallin every tasc be located landward of the
average width of the beach as determined from the mat current pre -storm aerial photography.
(b) For the purposeofpublicandadmmistmitiwnotice and ceovcnience, each designatedmioordevelopmenipermitdoaing
agency with ocean hazard areas may designate, subject to CRC approval to accordance with the Tool implementation and
enforeemwtplan asdefined 15ANCAC 071.0500, a readily identifiable laud areawithin which the ocean hazard areas occur..
This designated notice area must include all of the land maens derfittod in Role .0304 of this Section. Natural or man-made
landmarks may be considered in delineating this area
History Note- Avrhori fy G.S. I MA-107; 113A-113(b)(6); 11 3A.124;
E,(j: September AIM:,
Amended v f., December 1, 1992; September 1, 1986, December 1,1985; rf ebruary 2, 19A1:
TempoinryAmendibmiLQ. October10, 1996;'
AmendedL ' Janvary 1, 1997;
Temporary Amendment October 10. 1996 Expired on July
W, 27 /997;
Temporary Amendment r.D: October 22..1997,
Amended EB: April 1, 2008: August 1, 2002; August 1,1998-
35A NCAC 07H A306 'GENERAL USE STANDARDS FOR OCEAN HAZARD AREAS
(a) Tn orderto protect life and property, all development not otherwise specifically'ezempted or allowed by law or elsewhere
in the CRCs Rulos'shall be located according to whichever of the following is applicable:
(1) The ocean hazard setback for davbiopmont is measured in a landward direction from the vegetation line, the static
vegetation line'or the measurement line, whichever is applicable. The setback distanco Is determined by both the
sim of developmentandthc shoreline crosiontate asdeiinedinl5ANCAC 0711.0304: Development size is defined
by total floor area for stmctrires and buildings octotal arm of footprint for development other than structures and
buildings. Total floor area includes the following:
(A) The total square footage of heated or air-conditioned living space;'
(3). The total sgaarc footage,of parking elevated above ground level; and
(C) She total pquasofootageofnoh-heotedorrcn-nit-umididonedrueaselevated abovegmundlevel,excluding
attic space that is not designed to be load bearing,;
Docks, mof<ovomd porches, and walkways are not included in the total floor Brea unless
they are enclosed with material other than screen mesh or are being converted into an enclosed
space with material other than screen mesh.
(2), With the exception of those types of development defined in15ANCAC07H.0309,nodevelopment ,including any
portion of a building or structure, shall oxtendoccamrardoftheocean hazard setback distance. This includes roof
overhangs mtdelcvotod structural components that are ciu tilwoted, Jmee braced, or otherwise extended beyond the
support of pilings or footings. The ocean hazard setback is established based on following criteria:
(A) A building or otherstructurni less than 5,000 -via= feet requires it minirrium setback of 60 feet or 30 times
the shoreline erosion We, whichever is greater;
-(B) A building at other structure greater than or equal to.5,000 square feet but less than 10,000.square feet
requires a minimum setback of 120 &et or 60 times the shoreline erosion rate, whichever is greater
(C) A building or other structure greater than or cqual,to 10,000 square feet butlers than 20,000 square feet
requires a minimum setback of 130 feet or 65 times the shoreline erosion rate, whichever is greater,
(D) A building or other structure greater than or equal to20,000 square fact but less than 40,000 square feet
requires a minimum setback of J 40 feet or 70 times the aboteline erosion raft, whichever is greater;
(E) A building or other stmcturc-greater than or equal to 40,000 square feet but less than 60,000 square feet
acquires a minimum setback of 150 feet or 75 times the shoreline erosion rate, whichever is greater,
(F) A building or other structure greater than or equal to 60,000 square feet but less that 80,000 square feet
23
OCT-28-2099 10:48AM Frain:
ID:PREVRTTE PREVRTTE Paoe:005 R=100z

requires a riduimum setback of 16D feet or 80 times the shoreline erosion rate, whichever is greater,
(G) A building or other structure greater than or equal to 80,000 square feet but less than 100,000 square feet
,requires a minimum setback of 170 foot or 85 titres the shoreline erosion rate, whichever is greater;
(Ft) Abuilding or other structure greater thaw or equal to 100,000 square feet requires a minimun setback of
7180 feet or 90 times the shoreline erosion rate, whichever is greater,
(n Infrastructure that is linear in nature such as roads, bridges, pedestrian access such as boardwalks and
sidewalks„and utilities providing for'the trsnamissitm of electricity, water, telephone, cable television,
data,
stormwater and sewer requires a minimum setback of 60 feet or 30 times the shoreline erosion rate,
whichever is greater;
(J) Parking lob greater than tar equal to; 5,000 square fact requires a setback of 120 feet or 60 times the
shoreline erosion rate, whichever is greater; and
(iq Notwithstanding env other setback requirrament of this Subparagraph, a building or other structure greater
Ann or equal to 5,000 square feet in a community with a static line exception in accordance with l'SA
NCAC 071.120D requires a minimum setback of 120 feet or 60 times the shoreline erosion rate in place at
the tithe ofpctmitissuance, whicheverisgreater. Tbesetbackabailbemeasured landward fromeither the
static_vegcation line, the vegetation line or measurement line, whichever is farthest landward.
(3) If a,primary dune exists in the AEC on or landward of the lot on which die development is proposed, the
development sball, be landwarclof the crest of the primarydime of the ocean bazurd_setback, whicbever is farthest from
vegetation line, static
vegatationTmeofmeasurement line, whichever is,applicable 17oreXistinglots,however,Where
setting the doveloptnent landward of the crest of the primary dune wouldpreclude any practical use of the lot,
davelopmentttmy be i_acated oceanward'of the primary dune. In such cases, the development may be located landwardof
the ocean hazard setback but shall not be located on or accarrwaul of a frontal dune. Ile words °existing lots" in this
Rule shall ,mearra lot or tact of land which, as of Juno 1, 1979, is specifically described in a recorded plat and which
'cannot be enlarged by combining the lot or tract of land with a contiguous lot(s) ortract(s) of land tinder the same
Ownership.
(4) If no primary dune exists, but a frontal done does exist in the AEC on or landward of the lot on which the
development is proposed, the development shall be landward of the frontal dune or landward of the ocean bawd
setback' whichever is farthest from the vegetation line, static vegetation line of measurement_ line,whichever is
applicable. _
(5) If neither a primary not frontal time exist in the AEC on or landward of the lot on which development is proposed,
tbo stiacturc shall lie landward of the accea bazard setback.
(6) Structural additions or increases in the footprint or atal floor area of it building or structure represent expansions to
the total floor tort and shall meet the setback requirements established in this Rule and ISA NCAC 07H .0309(a). New
development landward of the applicable sethr ckmay be cosmetically, but shall not be structurally, attached to an existing
stru6arc thatdoesconform with current setback requirements,
(7) _=Established common-law and staatorypublictights of access to and use of public trust lands and waters: in ocean
hazard auras shall not be eliminated orrestrimed. Development shall not encroach upon public accesswaysnorshall it
limit the intended use of the accessways:
0) Beach fill a_sdefnedinthis Section represents atemporary response tocoostalerosion, and compatible bench fill as
defined in5A NC1AC 07H .0312 can be expected to emdo of least as fast as, if not faster than, the pre-project:beach.
Partbermore, there is no assurance of future f uadiogor bcacb-compatible sediment for continued beach fill projects and
projeetmeintcoana. Avegaationline that becomes established oceanwardofthe pre=prcjecivegcatiodline inanarea
that bag received beach fill may be more wlnemble.to natural bazards along the oceanfront A development setback
measured from the vegetation line provides less protection from ocean hazards. 'Therefore, development setbacks in
areas that have received large-scale beach fill as defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0305 shall be measured landward from the
statievegetation line as defined in this Section. However, in order to allow for development landward ofthc large-scale
beach fill project that is less than 2,500 square fact and cannot meet the setbackrequirementsfrom the static vegetation
fine, but can or has the potential to meet the setbackrcquirements from the vegetation lime set forth in Subparagraph (1)
and (2)(A) of this Paragraph a local government or community may petition the Coastal Resources Commission for a
"satin line exception" in accordance with ISANCAC 07J .1200 to allow developmentofpmp" that lies both within
theitaisdictional boundary of the petitionar as well as the boundaries of the large-scale beach Bit project Thisstaticline
exception shall also allow development greater than 5,000 square feet to use the setback provisions defined in Part
(a)(2)(K) of this Rule in areas that lie within thc,jurisdictional boundary of the petitioner as well as the boundaries of the
large-scale beach fill project The procedures for a static line exception request are defined in 15A NCAC 07J.1200.. If
the request is approved, the Coastal Resources Commission shah allow development setbacks to be measured from a
vegotatou line that is oeoanward of the static vegetation line ender die following conditions:
(A) Development meets all setback requirements firm the vegetation line defined in Subparagrapbs (a)(1) and
(a)(2)(A) of this Rule;
(B) Total floor itros. of a building is no greater than 2,500 square feet;
za
OCT-28-2009 10:4BRM From: IMPREVRTTE PREVRTTE Pase:006 R=100x

(C) Davelopiacat setbacks. are calculated froth the shoreline erosion rate in place at the time of permit
issuance
(D) No portion of a building orsttncturc,includingreefoverhangsendelevatedportion$thatarecantilevered,
knee braced or otherwise extended beyond the support,of piimgs or footings, extends ocea»ward of the
landward -most adjacent building or structure. When the configuration of a lot precludes the placement of
a
building or structure in line with the landward -most adjacent building or structure, an average line of
construction shall be determined by the Division of Coastal Management on a caso-by-case basis in order
to dckamine an ocean hazard setback that, is landward of the vegetation line, a distance no less than 30
times the shoreline erosion rate or 60 feet whichever is greater:
(E) With the exception of satimming pools, the development defined in 15A NCAC '07H .0309(a) is allowed
occamward of the static vegetation line; and
{1) , Development is not eligible for -the exception defined in 15A,NCAC 07H .0309(b).
(b) In order to avoid weakening the protective net= of ocean beaches and primary and frontal dunes, no development is
pennitod that involves the femoval or relocation oflidmaty orfrontal dune sand orvegetation thereat which would adversely
affectthe integrityofthedunc. Other dunes within tho ocean hazard area shall not be distwbedunless the development ofthe
property is otherwise Impracticable, and any disturbance of any other climes. is allowed only to the extent allowed by 15A
NCAC 07H .0308(b).
(c)Development shall not cause irreversible damage to historic architectural or archaeological resources documented by the
Division of Arebivesand History,.tho National Historical Registry, the local land -rue plan, or otbar sources.
(d) Development shall comply with mintmarn lot size and set back TLquirtmems established by local regulations.
(e)_Mobile homes shall not he placed within thehigh hazard flood area unless they sic within mobile home parks oxistingas
if). Devolapmcrit shall'complywith general managementobiccyve for. ooeanbn7ard areas set forth in 15ANCAC 07H.0303.
(g) Dcvclapment shall not interfere with legal access to, or use of: public resources norshall such development increase the
risk of damage to public trust areas:
(h) Devoteptnout proposals shalt incorporate wimsnres to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of the project. These'measuras
shall be Impilemented at the applicartes exponse and may include aetions,tbat:
(I) • minimize or avoid adverse impacts by limiting the inagnitudo or degree of the action,
(2) restore the affaKed environment, or
(3)' compensate for the adverse impacrs.by replacing of providing substioite resources.
() Prior to the issuance ofany pemdt for development in the ocean hazard AECs, there shall be a written acknowledgment
from the applicant to DC41 tbatthc applicant is aware of the risks associsicd wUh development in this hazardous area Mdtbe
limited suitability of this area for permanent structures. By granting permits, the Coastal Resources Commission does not
guarantco;the safety of the development and assumci no liability for future damage to the development.
(i) All relocation of structures requires permit approval. Structures relocated with public funds shall comply rwith the
applicable setback line as well as otherapplieableAFCndes. Structures includingseptictankaand other essential aeeessorip
`relocated entirelyvrith non-publWfunds shall be relocated the maximum fcastblo distance landward of the proscnt location;
septic tanks may notbelocated oceanwaidoftbeprimarystructure. To these cases, all other applicable local and state rules
shallbe met.
(k) Permits shall include the condition that any structure shall be relocated or dismantled when it becomes imminently
threatened by changes in shoreline configuration as defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2)(B). The stttcture(s)'shall be.
relocated or dismantled within two years of the time when it boeomrs imminently threatened, and in any case upon its
collapse or subsidence. However, if natural shoreline recovery or beach zenourish scat takes place within twoyews of the
time the structure become%imndnentLvthreatened, so that thestructtro isno longerimminently threatened, then Itneed notbe
relocated or dismantled at that time. This condition shall not affect the permit holder's right to seek authorization of
temporary protective measures allowed under ISA NCAC_07H .0308(a)(2).
History Note, ArdhorilyG.S.113A-107, 113A-1130)(6), 113A-114:
Ej] Scptember9,1977,•
AmendedEjj. December 1, 1991; March 1, 1988; September 1, 1986, December 1,1985;
RRC Objection due to amblguiry.Ejj.' January 24,1992;
Amended Elf.' March 1,1992,
RRCObjection due to amh(3uktyEff. May 21,1992;
Amended Ef.. Fcbrz ary 1, J993; October 1,1992; June 19.1992:
RRC Objection tine to ambiguity Ejf. May I8.1995,,
Amended gff.. August 11, 2009; April 1, 2007 November 7, 2004; June 27, 1995.
15A NCAC 07H .0307 USE STANDARDS FOR OCEAN HAZARD AREAS: EXCEi?TIONS
13
OCT-28-2009 10:49AM From: ID:PREVATTE PREVATTE Paee:007 R=100%Ir
t

ATTACHMENT B
Loco ity-G ,M\G 4 t Q{-�_ IPermn Nuinber
Ocean Hazard f Estuarine Slioreline -ORlir Shoreline I nbhc,Tivat Shoreline Other
(lror official use on/Y f
GENERALINFORM ATIOhi
LAND OWNER
Name
Address
IC AIie e
City C ti p t7 A a to A State' --A � Zip'�51 4. Phone G} i 1 tO �9 q I
AUTHORIZED AGENT /
Name
Address n1' 19,3( fSG
City (� 14T� State /VKL Zip . ?� tf,.i Phone SJ% �tS�i3
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
adjacent waterbody:) 4=0
,ss, street name and/or directions to site. If not oceanfront, what is the name of the
).30 S.TA-fi oiv L.A._
DESCRIPTION OF MOM CT. (List all proposed construction and land disturbance.)
AILW bacrfiPAi/v �fGI, I,.�,..:L_ . A 7-;?i7-&Y t�o--t-
SIZE OF LOT/PARCEL: �OF 000 square feet acres
PROPOSED USE: Residential =j-Z (Single-family Mplli-family_) Commercial/hAustrial
Other '
1 TOTAL ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA OFABUILDING INTHE OCEAN HAZARD AREA OFTNV7RON-
MENTAL CONCERN (AEC): 6.57DO square feet (includes all`floors and roof covered decks)
SIZE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTAND OTHER IMPERVIOUS OR BUILT UPON'SURrACES IN'THE
COASTAL SHORE LINE ARE, AOFENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC): $0100 square feel
(Calculations includes the area of the roof/drip line of all buildings, driveways, covered decks, concrete or masonry patios,.
etc., that are within the applicable AEC. Attach your calculations with the project drawing.)
Choose the AEC.arca that applies to your property,
(I ithin 75 feet of Normal .High Water/Normal Water Level for the Estuarine Shoreline ACC
(2) within 575 feet of Normal High Water/ Normal Water Level for the Estuarine Shorcline_A C, ac 'ace f 4A
Outstending Resource Waters
(3) within 30 feet of Normal Iligh Water/ Normal Water Level for the Public Trust Shoreline jI 3'2009
(Contact your Local Permit Officer if you are not sure which AEC applies to your property.)
NC
4.
STATE STORMFVATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT. is the project located in an area subject to a Mate Stortmvater
' Management Permit issued by the NC Divisiotl of Water Quality?
z 5
?=. YIiS_ NO
If yes, list the total built upon area/impervious surface allowed for your lot or parcel: 5560 square feet.

)TH'ER PERMITS MAl BE REQU [RED: ]'he activity you are planning may rcquire'perma+ otlur than, the CAMA minor develop-,
nent pemiit. As a service we have compiled a listing of the kinds of permits thr i might be require.we suggc"styou check over the list
vith your LPO to determine if any erihese apply to yourin-oject. 7mning, Drinking Witter Well, Sepf ic7ank (or.other sanitary waste
reatment system);. Building, Flectrical,.Plumbing, Ileating and. Air Conditioning, Insulation and Bnergy Canservadai, F1A CeniFiciition,..
;and Dune, Sediment Control, Subdivision Approval, Mobile Home Park Approval, Highway'Connection, and others.
iTAfEMENT OF OWNERS1112;
file undesigned, an applicant fora CAMA minor development permit being either the owner of property in an AFC or a
rerson authorized to act as an agent for purposes of applying for a CAMA minor development permit,. certify Lbat the person
fisted as landowner on this application has a significant interest in the real property described therein. This interest can be
lescribed as: (check one) -C ,p
/ii er3 LDN,J Lrl06d /gY. YZCA�f*7 `
.-"an owner or record title, Title is vested in NA%/a• 16 k0e see Deed Book ! 2D
rage_&a in the 1QRL4AySac�Lc _ County Registry of Beds.
an owner by virtue of inheritance. Applicant is.an heir to the estate of
)robate was in County.
if other interest, such as written contract or lease, explain below or use a separate sheet & attach to this application.
VOTIFICATION or-ADJACFNT PROPERTYOWNERS:
furthermore certify thatthe followingpersons are owners of properties adjoining this property. I affirm that I have given
kCTUAL NOTICE to each of them concerning my intent to develop this property and to apply fora CAMA permit.
(Address)
�) �GY4 N rtr 110 Bex'7 7 /Ve—it./ / �s� / zs'7 -8.
4CL4/ $ ao
:3)`
q)
FOR DEVELOPERS IN OCEAN HAZARD AND ESTUARINE HAZARD AREAS:
acknowledge that the land owner is aware that the proposed development is planned for an area which may be sosccptible
o erosion and/or flooding. I acknowledge that the local permit officer has explained tome the particular hazard, problems
associated with ,this lot. This explanation was accompanied by recommendations concerning stabilization and floodproofing
ecliniques.'
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON LAND:
furthermore certify that l am authorized to grant and do in fact grant permission to the local perrait_olircer and his agents to
snter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application.
this application includes: general information (this form), a site drawing as described on the back of this application, the
)wnership statement, the AFC hazard notice where necessary, a, check for $1 MOD made payable to the locality, and any
nformation as may he provided orally by the applicant: The details of the application as described by these sources are
ncorporated without reference in any permit which may be issued. Devta'tioi from these details will constitute a violation
)f any permit. Any person developing in an AFC without permit is subject to civil, criminal and administrative action
This the_�A_day of _ 5= 120
n e r SEA 3 0 2ff109
0
b
O
Landowner or person authorized* to act as his agent for purpose of filing a CAMA erniit-a )hctntinn t t _! i iN,
p g P P g� p p]
7
0
n
v

AEC HAZARD NOTICE
Project Is in An: ✓ Ocean Erodible Area High Hazard Flood Area Inlet Hazard Area
Property --Owner: 111A25 e .wpm , t
Property Address: Z 3 0 .57 `,rLi- t o � . p cz� SE AJAJc
Date Lot Was,Platted: l ro/! t /?�od 81
This notice is intended to make you, the applicant, aware of the
,special risks and conditions associated with development in this
area, which is subject to natural hazards such as stones; erosion
.and currents. The rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
:require thatyou receive anAEC Hazard Notice and acknowledge
-that -notice in writing before'a permit for development can be
issued.
The rCommission's rules on building standards, oceanfront.
setbacks and dune alterations are designed to minimize, butnof
eliminate, property loss from hazards. By granting permits, the
Coastal Resources Commission does not guarantee the safety of
the development and assumes no liability for future damage to
the development Permits issued in the Ocean klazard Area of
Environmental Concern include the condition that structures be
relocated or dismantled if they become imminently threatened by
changes in shoreline configuration. The structure(s) must be
relocated or dismantled within two (2) years'of becoming
imminently threatened, and in any case upon its collapse or
'subsidence.
The best available information, as accepted by the Coastal
Resources Commission, indicates that the annual Tong -term
average ocean erosion rate for the area where your prpperry is
located is_ A _ feet per year.
The rate was established by careful analysis of aerial photographs
of the coastline taken over the past50 years.
Studies also indicate that the shoreline could move as much as
a3� feet landward in a major storm.
The flood waters in a major storm are predicted to be about
_feet deep in this area.
Preferred oceanfront protection measures are beach nourishment
and relocation of threatened structures. }lard erosion control
stntctures such as bulkheads, seawalls, reveumcnts, groins, jetties
and breakwaters are prohibited. Temporary sand bags may be
authorized under certain conditions.
The applicant must acknowledge this infomtationand requirements
by signing this notice in the space below. Without the proper
signature, the application will not be complete.
SPECIAL NOTE: This hazard notice is required fordevelopment
in areas subject to sudden and massive stones and erosion. Permits
issued for development in this area expire on December 3l ofthe
third year following the year in which the permit was issued.
Shortly before work begins on the project site, the Local Permit
Officer must be contacted to-detenninedhevegetation line and
setback distance at your site. If the propertyhas seen little change
since the time ofpernlitissuance, and theproposed development
can still meet the setback requirement:the LPO will inform you
ihaf you may begin work. Substantial progress on the project
must be made within 60 days of this setback determination, or
the setback must be remeasured. Also, the occurrence of a major`
shoreline change as the result ofa storm within the 60-day period
will necessitate remeasurement of the setback.lt is important
that you check with the LPO before the permit expires for official
approval to continue the work after the permit has expired.
Generally, if foundation pilings have been placed and substantial,
progress is continuing, permit renewal can be d"uth6fi ed. It is"
unlawful to continue work after permit expiration.
For inom inforination, contact:
3)NgN tiI (CQ 'J
Local Per it Officer
Q•D:/3ox3oyq
Address
Locality
Phone Number
,FG ? 31D79
i'd£: tti tr/1f_(t,�l?s�I'G1°i it-�
pplirant'`S
Revised 2107

A

ATTACHMENT C ,
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT
A. Property Owner`s Name: NATACP
B. Coutractor's Name: 'WA4".O-
C. Lot#: nn�� �fD30
D. StreetAddress:p�7(%S/'A7fO.✓
E. CAMA Permit #: "ai't IZ
F. Locationofall structures on lot with setbacks MUST be
on Survey Plat
G. Square Footage:
Heated Area Covered Area Open Area
I" Floor: -2 /SDI .Z N to
2" Floor: 2 N 2 -. �i
_
3" � Floor:
T
Garage: ! Z
g 2
Crofter:
TOTALS: t/ .2721 �
2,
H. Number of Bedrooms:
I. Number of Bathrooms:. S
'
J. Type of construction:
New Construction Demolition_Repair_ Removal _ Addition —
Alteration Relocation _
K. .Plumbing: #of fixtures
Water closets: Urinals:.
-
-Lavatories:. Floor Drains:
'Bathtubs: Electric WaterHtrs:
%
Exterior' showers: Fired Coil Water Htrs:
L
Catch Basins: Fired Storage WaterHtrs:
Sinks: Washing Machine:
Shower baths: Storm Drains:
%
Laundry tubs: Water Service:
Dishwashers: Sewer Service:
L
-' Garage. Sprinklers:
L. Number of HVAC units:
M. -Contractors:
Building: ex License #:
3/ 39/
Address: PD_ (ff� Phone #:
41S 7 95/ 9
G! Nx .eve L-Kaw
_
Electrical:. e A70- 5.4-A-- - License #:
Address: b A kS/Asvcf Phone
Plumbing: b MAt✓ License#:
Address: S d� Phone #:
3 ZK/L
HVAC: /VAA.CP /t-PA# .k'License#:
Address: S 4,6& Ate- Phone #:
Fire Alarm: N rd as License#:
Address: Phone #:
7_I, 2 urr4 tt'
Other:. f / p V .Q-%sal License #:
Address: R.44 X f P v A +4e. Phone #:
SCU, 2 _2/G YR2 ?�
ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST MEET THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BUILDING
CODES, THE ENERGY CODE, AND THE VILLLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND ZONING
ORDINANCES. VARIATION FROM THE APPLICATION NEEDS PRIOR APPROVAL
FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
Date: Signature of Applicant: , 44.4,

GENERAL
NOTES:
LEGEND:
a
�o�
l�Ilmillyifflifflffl9ffillffillullimll!!
aura5�uns!u■u*ea!aea-
rsn.s��..:��euaa^�
R
6
MINE
0
I
����.nemtn>ummmweu��emfamm��®
>. � 3
Egg
t
�� �•
ppp
Fk
AR
tthh k
5 RQL / HWSEYYYY - tt C, OND FLOOR PLAN
IMIR
r)m
H R ASSOC ALES PA
ARCKMOURE
PIANNWS
wYvxnenam
� wwae
r.vioawivi
?yy v.nvaaua
J
r «nwm
3873
0
a
a,
<,
a
a
=m-
181
12..2
voom®

ATTACHMENT D
W_ AYNE LAMBERT
Custom Built'14omes
PO Box 3180
Bald Head Island, NC 28461
wayne lambeitfbellsotith.net - -
Off ce (910) 457-95 13Fax [phone]
NC Unlimited License #31391 SC Unlimited License#4234
9/28109
Kevin Busik
PO Box 778
New Hope, PA 18938
To Whom It May Concern:
Mc.& Mrs. Natale Kuey are applying for a CAMA permit to build a new residence on Lot
#4030 Station House Way,,Bald Head.Island, NC. The.plans of the new residence areat
my,offce for review. 'Please feel free to„call_me with any questions concerning the
construction.
Thank -you,
Wayne Lambert
k G Lra } ki "E
[t o

C'
1�1;14j
L i.-f3 S
G d7;J
a
m
�{
N:
RA
rl
17
O.
O'
r4:
S
Q'
C3
0
1
0 ,tea
p7x
•-.
'Cerltfted Feo
Aettim Rccalptiea
(EldoraernalA flaquimd}
rPosMa�#:
c Hole ,_
�`
/
;. ResvatedDAtrj Fe
iEWOMMeat R0400d)
�
$••
a
�
TotalPasl@ga&F9es
�� � .
aIFOBoxNo.(y fL1
P1isLY�%l�,:e
G141 $fafa, G7Pi
.c .A-.
GAS FI:9yv; __
a
-
O
Return RecelAt
:O.
lEaQaeemom,RaRY
�:
:.Resllklatl ReGvery
,. .�
' (EnJorseapN Roga
a
ToW Pmiagp_ A F
Er
J o
t7
O
arF,99 Aw No. fI
C1y 9Ette

USPS - Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1
UNITED5TAM
POSTA SERVICE
tip:.. Track ;�:Confirrn
Track & Confirm
Search Results
LabeUReceipt Number. 70091410 0001 1255 3623
Service(s): Certified Mail v Track & Confirm -
Ststus:.Detivered Enter Label/Receipt'Number,,.
Your, item was delivered at 11:08 AM on September30, 2009'inNEW
HOPE, PA 18938.
Detailed Results: -
• Delivered, September 30, 2009, 1108 am, NEW HOPE, PA 18938,
• Nobce Left, September 30,2009, 8:50 am, NEW HOPE, PA 18938
-At"Hit at at Unit, September 30, 2009, 8p18 am, NEW HOPE, PA 18938 -
i.
fdutiPsatirirr Options : , .
t ,
Track:& Confirm by email
Get current event information or updates for your item sent to,you or others by email. CED
sm,man
�u.�i4nr�i�erv� -" •F_aaas -.
Rights Reserved:
_Ca9Y'�S§�£k`5. iF.3CY
i'.4Xa�Y L'�4'!.
� IC@'A9 GLUS@'
Business Cusiam§LGa1'
No FEAR Act EEO�Data
FO1A..
http:/ltrkcnfrml_smi.usps.com/PTSIntemetWeb/InterLabelInquiry.do 117312009