WDN Bailey/Bailey & Associates

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 22, 2016
Mr. Steve Morrison
Land Management Group, Inc.
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15
Wilmington, NC 28403
PAT MCCRORY
Gommor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Sanatory
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
Re: Request for CAMA Application Withdrawal- Grand View Community Marina
Dear Mr. Morrison:
This letter is in reference to the CAMA Major Permit application request that you submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management on February 29, 2016, on behalf of Bailey & Associates, Inc.,
for a proposed community docking facility at 202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, New Hanover
County. A request for additional information was sent on June 1, 2016, and the application has
been on hold since that date.
On November 17, 2016, the Division of Coastal Management received your request to withdraw
the permit application referenced above. As such, this file will be retired and considered closed in
status.
Please contact me at [phone], or by email at: heather.coatsna.ncdenr.Rov if you have any
question of if I can be of additional assistance.
Sincerely,
-Cou,�
eea ther Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Cc: MHC Files/WiRO Files RECEIVED
Tyler Crumbley, USACE DFr n
Robb Mairs, DWR
DCtu1 t;ITY
State of North Carolina I Fnviloumeotel Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive En., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

0
c
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Application Processing Notes
-?ik ItLe
Type: (check all that apply) �� r
New Major Mod_ Permit#_ Minor Mod Rene% v�ZG/(e)
hq" f pt�e
Permit Coordinator:- Y' 'f i w i `•�°G n'
Field
Date Time Message
4/Iq LmAi Leo SPo Foie "a Gwm.d4S
5/q/fro Safi �xk �S�o�n ltw

Coats, Heather
From:
Steve Morrison <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:11 PM
To:
Huggett, Doug; Coats, Heather
Cc:
Higgins, Karen; Gregson, Jim; Christopher W. Bailey ([e-mail]);
'Matt. [e-mail]'
Subject:
CAMAapplication retirement
On behalf of Bailey & Associates, I am requesting the retirement of their LAMA Major Permit application currently on
administrative hold. Please contact me with any questions that you may have regarding this request. Thank you for your
assistance.
Steve Morrison I Environmental Consultant
Direct 452-0001 x 1903 1 Fax'. 910.452.0060 1 Mobile: 910A71.0502
Email . smorrisori i regroup. net I Website: www.Imgroup.net
Land Management Group, Inc I Environmental Consultants
3805 Wrightsville Avenue I Suite 15 1 Wilmington, N.C. 28403
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP 1xc,
Environmental Consultants
RECEIVED
DEC 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Nt' . r�a.
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 18, 2016
Mr. Chris Bailey —President
Bailey and Associates
P.O. Box 400
Jacksonville NC 28541
Subject: WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION
Application for 401 Water Quality Certification
Grand View Community Marina
Dear Mr. Bailey:
PAT MCCRORY
Gommor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
D W R # 2011-0410 v3
New Hanover County
On, March 16, 2016, you requested a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of
Water Resources (Division). On November 17, 2016, the Division received a request from your
Authorized Agent (Land Management Group, Inc.) to withdraw the current application.
Therefore, your application for a 401 Water Quality Certification is hereby considered
withdrawn.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for
this activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North Carolina
General Statutes and Administrative Code. Contact me at [phone] or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
4XKM, .� I
Karen Higgins, Supervis�
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
cc: Steve Morrison — Land Management Group, Inc (3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403)
Matthew Nichols —Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP (101 N. Third Street #400, Wilmington, NC 28401)
Tim Owens —Town of Wrightsville Beach (321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480)
Heather Coats — DCM Wilmington
TylerCrumbley —USACE Wilmington
WiRO file
File Copy (Laserfiche)
Filename: 110410v3GrandviewMaripWhdra% al
DCM WILMINVED
GTON, NC
State or North Carohna I Environmental Quality I Water Resources NOV 2 O Q 2016
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
September 7, 2016
Mr. Chris Bailey— President
Bailey and Associates
P.O. Box 400
Jacksonville NC 28541
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Application for 401 Water Quality Certification
Grand View'Community Marina
Dear Mr. Bailey,
PAT MCCRORY
Gorervor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
S""I.
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Dnzcmr-
DWR # 2011-0410 v3
New Hanover County
I write in response to the enclosed letter from SEPI Engineering & Construction (SEPI) on August
25, 2016 on behalf of the Town of Wrightsville Beach (the Town) and in response to your
attorney's August 17, 2016 letter, regarding the subject application for a 401 Certification.
The Division's primary concern has been and continues to be whether the proposed project has
reasonably addressed impacts that may result in or contribute to a violation of water quality
standards. The Town is required to properly operate and maintain the Northeast Interceptor
(NEI or sewer line) force main in accordance with its wastewater collection system permit. At
the very core of this requirement is the Town's ability to perform routine inspection and
maintenance and to promptly respond to sanitary sewer overflows. The Town has reiterated it
concern that the proposed project "represents an increased exposure to damage for the force
main as well as an encumbrance to the ability of the Town of Wrightsville Beach to properly
operate, maintain, and respond to an emergency associated with the force main crossing of the
AIWW."
On May 10, 2016 the Division requested, among other things, an "engineering analysis which
demonstrates that the construction and future operation/usage of the proposed facility (based
upon the size and types of vessels predicted to be utilizing the marina) will not negatively
impact or damage the NEI." On July 28, 2016, the Division received a one paragraph response
and "Marina Plan Overview" from Mr. Cazier. In that response, Mr. Cazier stated that the pier
and dredging project will be a "minimum of approximately 15ft away from the NEI" and that
"[t]his should be an acceptable distance with the use of normal jetting of piles and bucket to
barge dredging." (emphasis added). Based on the information received from both parties, the
proposed pier installation and dredging would take place in close proximity to"tyCp NO
State ofNonh Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources ,)EP 14 2016
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919 807 6300

Bailey & Associates
Request for Additional Information
D W R # 2011-0410 v3
of the Town's existing sewer line and utility lines. While the applicant and the Town may
disagree as to how much risk the pier construction and dredging poses to the sewer line, there
is some level of increased risk to the sewer line posed by the proposed construction and
dredging.
With respect to post -construction use of the pier, Mr. Cazier stated that the area next to the
existing pier is "open for vessel operation at the current time with no limitations." Similarly, in a
letter dated August 11, 2016, Mr. Cazier stated that "[the forcemain area is already subject to
boat traffic and was prior to the existing dock facility." While those statements may be true, it
is unlikely that, as the pier and water depths exist today, boats routinely navigate away from
the existing dredged channel (to the north of the sewer line) to cross the sewer line to reach
shallower water. In contrast, the proposed boat slips would result in some degree of increased
boat traffic, as boats must travel over the sewer line every time they depart from and return to
the new boat slips. Thus, the addition of the new slips in this particular area increases the risk
of impacts to the sewer line.
Most importantly, a NEI pipe failure, regardless of the cause, would likely result in significant
environmental harm (including violations of water quality standards) and potentially serious
risks to public health. An expanded pier with additional unattended boats would make it more
difficult for the Town to access the area in an emergency response situation.
Based on these concerns, the Division requests that the applicant provide an operation,
maintenance, and access agreement signed by both the applicant and the Town to ensure that
proper procedures are in place to mitigate the maintenance and emergency response concerns
summarized in the SEPI letter. This document should be developed with the intention that it
would serve as a contract between the land owner and Town, to be incorporated into the 401
Certification. It may contain additional measures such as monitoring and reporting of sediment
depth above the NEI force main within the project area, plans for corrective measures if
necessary, contact personnel and notification procedures, and any other agreements that may
be required to address concerns related to protection of water quality standards.
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e) the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for proper consideration of the application. If all of the requested information is
not received in writing by September 30, 2016, the Division will be unable to approve the
application and it will be returned or denied. All of the above requested information shall be
sent in triplicate to the 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1617.
RECEIVED
QCM WILMINGTON, IN
SEP 14 2016

Bailey & Associates
Request for Additional Information
D W R # 2011-0410 v3
Please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail] if you have any questions
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisoor'�
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
encl: August 25, 2016 Letter from SEPI Engineering to Town of Wrightsville Beach, Re:
CAMA Major Permit Application, Grand View Community Boating Facility
cc: Steve Morrison — Land Management Group, Inc (3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15,
Wilmington, NC 28403)
Matthew Nichols —Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP (101 N. Third Street #400,
Wilmington, NC 28401)
Tim Owens —Town of Wrightsville Beach (321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, NC
28480)
DWR 401 and Buffer Permitting Branch file
Heather Coats —DCM Wilmington
Tyler Crumbley — USACE Wilmington
WiRO file
Filename: ll0410v3GrandviewMarina 401 Holdl6O9O7.docx
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SEP 14 2016

Celebruring 15 Y"n
SEPI
August 25, 2016
[N OIN[LOINO1
CON OT NYCTIOM
Tim Owens, Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NCI 27605
321 CausewayDrive
919.789.9977
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
11020 David Taylor
Subject: CAMA Major Permit Application
Drive I Suite 115
Charlotte, NC 128262
Bailey & Associates, Inc., Applicant
704.714.4880
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
5030 New Centre
Drive I Suite B
Dear Mr. Owens,
Wilmington, NC
284031910.523.5715
As requested, SEPI Engineering &Construction (SEPI) has reviewed the comments
10800 Midlothian
which were written in regard to the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter of opinion concerning
7umpike I Suite 100
the CAMA Permit Application submitted for Bailey and Associates, Inc. The set of
Rlchnnond, VA
23235 1 804.594.0181
letters contains a letter from Smith Moore Leatherwood (SML) dated August 17, 2016
with seven (7) exhibits attached as support. The exhibits include letters commenting
on SEPI's letter along with a copy of the Town's Easement Document and a letter
from the Corps of Engineers.
In general, the SML letter focuses on two primary topics. First, the letter attempts to
Illustrate that the size and material of the force main under the AIWW is 14 Inch
HOPE pipe as opposed to Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) as stated in the July 28 SEPI letter.
Second, the letter seems to question the easement documentation for the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) where the force main is located.
Prior to addressing the SML letter and attached opinions it is important to reiterate
the primary concern identified in the SEPI letter of July 28, 2016. One intent of the
letter was to describe some of the operational and management challenges which the
Town faces with regard to the sewer system and in particular, the AIWW force main
crossing. The Information listed some of real world difficulties that the Town faces in
operating the sewer system in order to highlight the importance of unencumbered
access to the system.
The primary concern stated in the conclusion of the SEPI letter is that the existing
pier and dock, as well as the proposed project, represents an Increased exposure to
damage for the force main as well as an encumbrance to the ability of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach to properly operate, maintain, and respond to an emergency
Received
associated with the force main crossing of the AIWW.
The review and analysis of the existing and proposed project's Impact to the Town's
AUG 2 5 1016
sewer system was done, in part, utilizing my years of experience in the management
and operation of a public sanitary sewer system. This experience includes the
DCM
operation and emergency response needs for a system which was located in a variety
of environmental conditions such as coastal regions and included areas of the County
directly associated with the NEI Including the area near and around the site of the
force main crossing for the Town of Wrightsville Beach.
The SML letter and the supporting opinions written by others did not address the
sepiengineering.com
conclusion offered in the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter concerning the primary issue of
gSEPlengineers

SEPI
unencumbered access. The SEPI letter was written from an operational perspective
with the Intent to give readers who perhaps have little or no experience with
operations, maintenance, and emergency response, some insight into what
challenges the Town faces, why some of these challenges exist and what steps or
protections are needed to allow the Town to appropriately operate the system.
Without some general knowledge or experience in the operations of a sewer system It
would be difficult for someone to fully understand what difficulties exist in responding
to an emergency, such as a sanitary sewer spill in a coastal environment, as well as
the logistics, dangers, and realities that must be addressed while responding. With
the exception of Wrightsville Beach, none of the parties Involved have provided
comment regarding the sewer system's operational Integrity, the Town's need for
unencumbered access for maintenance and emergency response, the protection of
the environment and more importantly the health, safety, and welfare of the general
public.
The SML letter dated August 17, 2016 focuses on the size and material of the force
main crossing the AIWW and the Town's Easement documentation. The letter
provides as an exhibit, Exhibit "A", discussing the size and material Issue. This letter
from the Division of Water Resources of the NCDEQ, dated August 5, 2016, states
that a review of the Divisions files and communicating with the original contractor
who Installed this portion of the NEI, has created what appears to be an inconsistency
In the material the NEI is made of in the area crossing the AIWW. It Is stated that
the SEPI letter identifies the pipe as 14 inch ductile Iron pipe (DIP) whereas other
Information NCDEQ has indicates the material to be 14 Inch HDPE.
Additionally, the SML letter provides two other exhibits, Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C", to
further Illustrate that the size and material listed in the SEPI letter is inconsistent with
other Information. Exhibit "B" is a copy of an email from Zulu Marine Services which
clearly states "The pipe we inspected was HP plastic pipe," and Exhibit "C" Is a copy
of an email from Johnny J. Williams Land Surveying which also clearly states "My best
recollection on pipe material is It's PVC." Note that "HP pipe", "PVC" and "HDPE"
pipe are not the same material.
The documentation reviewed for the development of the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter
was Information from the time the force main was constructed. This includes survey
data from 1977, drawings dated from 1981, Easement documents from 1982 and
Corps of Engineers documents dated 1978. This represents Information that is
approximately 33 to 39 years old. Perhaps due to the long period of time that has
passed since construction, or perhaps due to reasons unknown, the available
documentation that was reviewed is incomplete and, in some cases, inconsistent.
The inconsistencies in the information utilized for the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter comes
from a number of sources. The easement documentation which indicates that the
force main crossing the AIWW is to be constructed of 14 Inch DIP. The drawings
reviewed Identify two routes for the force main and identify the material to be either
14 inch DIP or 16 Inch Polyethylene. Additionally, I have personal experience actually
working with this system and with the sewer system in New Hanover County since
early 2000. During that time, I have had several conversations with numerous
individuals and the general understanding is that the AIWW crossing was constructed
with DIP.
The SML letter describes the inconsistencies and utilizes the NCDEQ letter of August
5, 2016 and two letters used as exhibits to further clarify the point. However, even
these letters are inconsistent with regard to each other and with the historic
2

SEPI
information referenced above. The force main has been described as 14 inch or 16
inch. The force main material has been described as DIP, HDPE, HP Pipe, PVC, and
Polyethylene. There seems to be no disagreement that an actual force main exists
under and around the existing pier and dock as well as the proposed project. There
does appear to be much Inconsistency in the documentation and Identification of the
size and material of the force main.
For the purpose of establishing the need for the Town to have unencumbered access
for operation and maintenance, the type of material and size of the force main
crossing the AIWW is less significant than the fact that a force main exists crossing
the AIWW. Whether or not the force main in this area is constructed of HDPE, DIP, or
PVC is not as significant as the Town's ability to appropriately operate and maintain
their system and more specifically, respond to an emergency situation such as a
sanitary sewer spill.
The second item discussed in the SML letter focuses on the Town's easement
document. The letter describes a missing page and identifies the document as
unrecorded. As a Professional Land Surveyor, it has been my experience that the
recorded status of a document does not diminish the integrity or validity of the
agreement within that document.
The copy of the Corps of Engineers application dated 1978 that SEPI reviewed has
three (3) attached Illustrations. Two of these illustrations, sheet 2 of 3 and sheet 3 of
3, seem to contain the same Information as the attachments in the easement
document but they are not Identical to the Illustrations of the easement document.
The Corps illustration identifies Site A to be the force main crossing of Banks Channel.
The SML letter also identifies this page as Important as it may identify the material
type as there is a reference on illustration sheet 2 of 3 for the AIWW crossing that
states "All other factors and conditions are the same as Site A crossing." It is not
known if the missing page of the easement document contains the same Information
as the sheet 1 of 3 page included in the Corps document. The material reference for
Site "A" Identified on Sheet 1 of 3 in the Corps document is for the force main
crossing the AIWW which is identified to be 14 Inch "CIP" which represents another
Inconsistency in material as discussed above.
The remaining Exhibit letters supporting the SML letter includes letters from
Intracoastal Engineering, Exhibit "E", and from Land Management Group, Exhibit "F".
The letter from Intracoastal Engineering focuses on several items including the
material of the force main crossing which were discussed in items 1, 2 and 3 of the
July 28, 2016 SEPI letter.
As discussed above, the type of material is not the significant issue. The July 281h
SEPI letter identified issues with DIP from an operational perspective. There are other
sections of the force main that are known to be DIP upstream and downstream of the
area where there is confusion associated with the material type crossing the AIWW.
Even if the force main crossing the AIWW is of a material other than DIP, the crossing
would transition from DIP to this alternate material. The areas where this transition
occurs is still located In coastal environment and is susceptible to the same Issues as
stated in the July 28s' SEPI letter. Additionally, as with DIP, any alternate material
would have operational concerns specific to that material that the Town would need
to address and as a result would still need unencumbered access to provide proper
operational management or emergency response.
3

SEPI
Another Item discussed in the Intracoastal Engineering letter is exposure of the force
main to potential damage. The topic is briefly addressed by indicating that the
"Closest Dredging is proposed at 15 feet from the force main." Also, it is mentioned
that the existing force main was exposed to boat traffic prior to the existing pier and
dock.
The comment with regard to the distance between the target dredge area and the
force main location identified on the LMG drawing does not seem to address the point
made in the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter with regard to equalization through sluffing and
settlement. The target dredge area Identified on the LMG drawing represents the
area where dredging is intended to occur however it does not Identify the impacted
area around the target dredge area. With an anticipated side profile of 5 to 1 after
equalization, the removal of 2 - 4 feet of material vertically will result in a 10 -20 foot
wide side slope profile. This would be well outside the target dredge area identified
on the LMG drawing and would make the distance from the existing force main to the
area impacted from dredging approximately 7 - 15 feet.
The comment regarding previous boat traffic is a misleading comparison. Any boat
traffic crossing the force main utilizing the AIWW would be crossing in an area where
the force main Is located approximately 18 feet below the waters surface or more.
Boat traffic crossing the force main around the existing and proposed pier and dock is
doing so with the force main located approximately 6-9 feet below the water's surface
depending on activity and tide.
The Intracoastal Engineering letter provides a statement that "This proposal should
provide some organization to that traffic and will provide some markers to keep boats
from traveling into areas where the forcemain is shallowest." This statement is
confusing as the area where the force main is shallowest Is in the specific location
where the boat dock is proposed and any markers prohibiting boat travel would
prohibit use of the dock.
The Intracoastal Engineering letter offers no discussion as to the Town's ability to
respond to an emergency.
The letter from Land Management Group, Exhibit "F" provides two comments. First
the letter disputes the distance Identified in the July 28th SEPI letter of the target
dredge area and the existing force main. Second, Land Management Group's
Environmental Consultant offers his legal opinion as to the establishment of Riparian
Corridor boundaries.
The comment with regard to the distance was addressed above. SEPI has no
comment concerning the legal opinion of the Environmental Consultant of Land
Management Group. As stated in the July 28th SEPI letter, this delineation was
addressed by the Town's attorney and as a legal matter, it would be best to leave
legal opinions to those professionals who have experience in those matters.
The final letter included as an exhibit, Exhibit "G", is a letter from the Corps of
Engineers concerning processing of the Corps permit application. There are no
references to the July 28th SEPI Letter.
To summarize, there are specific legal liabilities and obligations with regard to the
operation of a public sanitary sewer system. Failure to meet these requirements
could be considered a violation of the Town's Operations Permit. One such

SEPI
requirement is that right-of-ways and easements are to be maintained in the full
easement width for personnel and equipment accessibility.
It Is common practice within the industry to allow for temporary use of these areas
for things like traffic as any obstruction or encumbrance to access of this type can be
removed with little time and effort and as such meets the requirement for full
easement accessibility. Therefore the transient traffic of the AIWW is not considered
an obstruction to access. Permanent structures, such as the existing pier and dock
as well as the proposed structure cannot be easily removed.
With a flow rate of approximately 54,000 gallons per hour, any delay needed to gain
access, such as the removal of a permanent structure, presents a significant and
unnecessary risk to the environment and more importantly to the health, safety and
welfare of the general public.
For reference, the July 1, 2005 sewer spill Into Hewletts Creek which occurred from a
break in a 24 inch force main resulted in an environmental impact due to the
discharge of sewage into a coastal wetland. This was a significant event and involved
numerous regulatory agencies. Investigations by NCDENR as well as the State and
Federal EPA ultimately identified the responsibility and consequences for that event.
It would seem that the intentional construction of a permanent structure obstructing
the Town's access for operation and maintenance in this situation would result in an
increase in liability. However, without an official ruling from the regulatory agency
responsible for enforcement of the operations permit, NCDEQ, as well as the State
and Federal EPA, it is difficult to know if the Town would be protected or what party
would be responsible for that liability.
The opinion of SEPI with regard to the existing and proposed structure remains as
stated in the July 28"' letter. The existing structure, as well as the proposed project,
represents an increased exposure to damage for the force main as well as an
encumbrance to the ability of the Town of Wrightsville Beach to properly operate,
maintain, and respond to an emergency associated with the force main crossing of
the AIWW. The Town's need for unencumbered access for maintenance and
emergency response, the protection of the environment and more importantly the
health, safety, and welfare of the general public is a fundamental responsibility and
requirement of the Town's Operations Permit.
Respectfully Submitted,
SEPI Engineering & Construction, Inc.
Gregory R Thompson, PE, PLS
Site/Civil Department Manager
CA96r .

SM1THMOORE
LEATHERWOOD
ATTOKNt YT At LAW
September 16, 2016
VIA E-MAIL: [e-mail]
John C. Wessell, III
Town Attorney, Wrightsville Beach
107N2ndSt#13
Wilmington, NC 28401
Re: CAMA Permit Application Submittal for Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Grand View Community Marina
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Client -Matter No. 05019651.000001
Dear John:
101 N. Third Street
Suite 400
Wilmington, NC 28401
As we discussed this morning, my client —Bailey and Associates, Inc. (Bailey) —would
like to schedule a meeting with representatives of the Town of Wrightsville Beach (Town) to
discuss the requested agreement between Bailey and the Town as set forth in the September 7,
2016 correspondence from Karen A. Higgins, Supervisor, 401 & Buffering Permitting, NCDEQ-
DWR, to Chris Bailey. I understand that a meeting sometime during the week of September 26-
30 would be better for your schedule. After you have an opportunity to check with the Town,
please advise regarding convenient times to meet during that week. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
Y V
Matthew A. Nichols
MAN/nc
Enclosures
cc: Karen A. Higgins, Supervisor of 401 & Buffering Permitting, NCDEQ-Water Quality
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Braxton Davis, Director, NCDEQ-DCM Received
(via e-mail: [e-mail]) SEP 16 1016
Matthew A. Nichols I Direct: 910.815.7132 1 [e-mail] I wwwD.s,M.orelaw.com
ATLANTA I CHARLESTON I CHARLOTTE I GREENSBORO I GREENVILLE I RALEIGH I WILMINGTON

Karen A. Higgins, Supervisor
N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality- Water Quality
September 16, 2016
Page 2
Doug Huggett, Manager, Major Permits, NCDEQ-DCM
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Robb Mairs, Field Officer, NCDEQ-DCM
(via e-mail: robb,[e-mail])
Heather Coats, Assist. Major Permits Coordinator, NCDEQ-DCM
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Jim Gregson, Regional Supervisor
NCDEQ - Division of Water Resources
(via e-mail: jim.gregson@ ncdenr.gov)
Steve Morrison
Land Management Group, Inc.
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Charles D. Cazier, P.E.
Intracoastal Engineering, PLLC
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Christopher W. Bailey
President, Bailey and Associates, Inc.
(via e-mail: [e-mail])

Coats, Heather
From: Coburn, Chad
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject: RE: Minor Mod Request: MIRP 151-01
No comments
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 11:24 AM
To: [e-mail]; Coburn, Chad <[e-mail]>; Dunn, Maria T.
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Minor Mod Request: MIRP 151-01
Hi all,
I'm just checking in on the status of any comments you have on this minor mod request.
Please let me know when possible if you have any questions, concerns, or comments.
Thanks in advance!
Heather
Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heath a r. coats(a)ncde nr. g ov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Nothing Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Simpson, Shaun
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:32 PM
To: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]: Coburn, Chad
<[e-mail]>; Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>; Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>; Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minor Mod Request: MIRP 151-01

Hello All,
Robb asked that I forward the attached minor modification request from Layton Bedsole for your review and
comments. As indicated in the Memorandum, please send your comments to Heather Coats by August 25, 2016.
Regards,
Shaun
Shaun Simpson
Permit Support & Customer Service
NC Department of Environmental Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC28405
Phone: [phone]
Shoun.SimosonPncdenr.00v
othing Compares
E-mail correspondence to and from this address
may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Coats, Heather
From: Dahl, Kyle J SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 10:20 AM
To: Coats, Heather; Coburn, Chad; Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: RE: Minor Mod Request: MIRP 151-01
Hi Heather,
I just wanted to give you an update. Looks like Corps regulatory never authorized the AIWW maintenance dredging or
disposal in the adjacent Corps disposal facility. We will need to issue a GP 2878 to cover the work. I've reached out to
FWS and they have no issue with the work, so I am able to go ahead and authorize the project, please let me know if you
have any questions.
Kyle Dahl, PWS, GISP
Special Projects Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Coats, Heather [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 11:24 AM
To: Dahl, Kyle J SAW <Kyle.J. Dahl@ usace.army.mil>; Coburn, Chad <[e-mail]>; Dunn, Maria T.
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Minor Mod Request: MIRP 151-01
Hi all,
I'm just checking in on the status of any comments you have on this minor mod request.
Please let me know when possible if you have any questions, concerns, or comments.
Thanks in advance!
Heather

Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heather. [e-mail]<mailto:heather. [e-mail]>
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Simpson, Shaun
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:32 PM
To: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Coburn, Chad
<[e-mail]>; Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>; Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>; Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minor Mod Request: MIRP 151-01
Hello All,
Robb asked that I forward the attached minor modification request from Layton Bedsole for your review and comments.
As indicated in the Memorandum, please send your comments to Heather Coats by August 25, 2016.

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
August 5, 2016
Town of Wrightsville Beach
Mr. Tim Owens, Town Manager
321 Causeway Drive
Wrightsville Beach NC 28480
Subject: Northeast Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Line
Dear Mr. Owens,
td?—
PAT MCCRORY
,mt nrnr
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
S'v'.A1")
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Dbrnm'
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) received a letter dated July 28, 2016, from SEPI Engineering &
Construction (at the behest of the Town) regarding the 401 Water Quality Certification/LAMA Major
Permit application for Bailey & Associates (Grandview Marina) at 202 Summer Rest Road in Wilmington.
The letter provided an engineering review of the proposed marina project relating to what impact the
project could potentially pose to the Town's Northeast Interceptor (NEI) sanitary sewer force main that
lies beneath the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). After reviewing the letter above, all other
information within our files, and communicating with the original contractor who installed this portion
of the NEI, there appears to be an inconsistency pertaining to the type of material the NEI is made of in
the area of the AIWW crossing. The letter above states that the pipe in this area is 14-inch ductile iron
pipe (DIP) whereas other correspondence from past staff of the Town indicates that the pipe is 14-inch
HDPE. Knowing the type of pipe the NEI is made of in this location will aid us in finishing our review
under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you could furnish this information to us as soon as
possible, we would greatly appreciate your assistance. Please contact Chad Coburn at [phone] or
at [e-mail] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
A egson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Cc: Chris Bailey - Bailey and Associates, P.O. Box 400, Jacksonville, NC 28541
Steve Morrison — Land Management Group, Inc., 3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15,
Wilmington, NC 28403
Greg Thompson —SEPI, 5030 New Centre Drive, Suite B, Wilmington, NC 28403
RECEIVED
Jennifer Burdette-DWR 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit DCM WILMINLMINGTON, NC
Heather Coats —DCM Wilmington
TylerCrumbley— USACEWilmington �liG (f $ 201fi
WiRO
State of North Carolina I Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 29405
919 796 7215

WEBSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PosT OFFIcE Box 1040
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
Jow C. wM8RLL, III
M' SSHL[QBELL80U .N&
WD.LI A. RANRY, JR.
WARANRYSB6I.I.SOU H.NID
August 12, 2016
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Braxton Davis
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Doug Huggett
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Robb Mairs
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ms. Karen A. Higgins
N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality
512 N. Salisbury St., 9`s Floor, Suite 942d
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: CAMA Major Permit Application
Bailey & Associates, Inc., Applicant
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Dear Ms. Higgins and Messrs. Davis, Huggett and Mairs:
STR= ADDRRSR:
107-B NORTH 2NO STRRBT
WD wGToN, NC 28401
TRLRruoNR: 910-762-7475
FACSMa : 910-762-7557
I am the Town Attorney for the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town"). The Town has obtained a
copy of correspondence from Matthew Nichols to you dated July 28, 2016 in which he responded to
comments made by the Town regarding the above -referenced CAMA permit application. Please consider
the following responses to the comments of Matt Nichols when considering the application by Bailey &
Associates, Inc. ("Bailey") to enlarge its docks near the Wrightsville Beach drawbridge.
1. The easement from the State to the Town need not be recorded to be valid as between
the State and the Town. "As between a grantor and grantee, a deed of conveyance is valid and is of no
consequence whether it is registered at all." Vol. 2, Patrick K. Hedrick and James B. McLaughlin, Jr.,
Webster's Real Estate Law in North Carolina, § 17.02[3].
RECEIVED
AUG 15 2016
DCM- MHL CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, et al
August 12, 2016
Page Two
2. The easement from the State to the Town is superior to the easement from the State
to Bailey. A grantee in a deed given without consideration, a donee, does not come under the protection
of the recordation statute because the grantee is not a purchaser for value. [bid., § 17.02[3]; § 17.03[1].
The easement obtained by Bailey for its existing pier was granted without valuable consideration being
paid by Bailey.
3. The easement granted by the State to Bailey is subject to the easement granted by the
State to the Town. Both N.C.G.S. § 146-12(g)(4) and paragraph 4 of the easement from the State to
Bailey make the easement to Bailey subject to rights conferred by previous conveyances by the State for
the same property. When a grantor accepts a conveyance subject to an outstanding claim or interest
evidenced by an unrecorded instrument executed by the grantor, the grantee takes the property subject to
the claim or interest. Ibid., § 17.02[1]. Paragraph 4 of the Bailey easement states: "This Easement is
subject to all rights conferred in previous conveyances by Grantor in and to the Easement Area."
4. The Town's easement is adequately described. "The majority of North Carolina cases
seem to allow the parties to locate the easement by 'practical location'." Ibid. , § 15.07(B). In this case,
the actual location of the sewer force main identifies the location of the easement. See Builder's Supply v.
Gainey, 282 N.C. 261, 192 S.E.2d 449 (1972). The width of the Town's easement is that which can be
inferred from its use and from extrinsic evidence such as the engineering drawings attached to the
easement. The drawing showing the dimensions and location of the "silt retention" shows an area 70 feet
wide for the initial construction area. A similar width or greater would likely be needed for maintenance
and repair. Please refer to the easement from the State to the Town, attachment, Sheet 3A of 3.
5. The easement granted to Bailey is inconsistent with the prior easement granted to the
Town. The Town's responsibility for maintenance and repair of its sewer force main is inconsistent with
the presence of a marina. The opinion of Greg Thompson, P.E., submitted by the Town to DCM
describes the inconsistency. The letter from Charles Crazier, P.E., the applicant's engineer, to Karen
Higgins dated July 28, 2016 opines that the construction of the proposed docks and the dredging will not
damage the sewer force main. However, Crazier does not address the issue of the delay in emergency
response in the event of a failure of the line in the vicinity of the marina. The provisions of G.S. § 146-
12(g)(4) and the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Bailey easement make the Bailey easement void or
inapplicable to the area within the Town's easement.
6. The easement granted by the State to Bailey does not include most of the area where
Bailey is seeking to construct new structures. The Bailey easement is described as a 10' wide strip
"located 5 feet on each side of and parallel to the center of the existing pier and to extend 5 feet beyond
the end of the pier." Virtually all of the modifications requested in the Bailey application are outs of
the 10'strip. RECEIVE
AUG 15 W6
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, et al
August 12, 2016
Page Three
7. The Town reiterates its position that the existing Bailey pier and the proposed
modifications to create the Grand View Marina are not within the riparian corridor of the
applicant. The applicant has used the channel of Motts Creek near the Summer Rest bridge as the point
from which to draw a perpendicular line to the west end of the applicant's waterfront property. Yet, on
the east end of the applicant's tract where the channel of Motts Creek is deeper and more navigable, the
applicant inexplicably uses the Intracoastal Waterway rather than Motts Creek as the channel from which
it draws a perpendicular line as a boundary of its riparian area. The State should recognize its mistake in
the issuance of the 2001 permit to CGRS Enterprises, and should, at a minimum, deny Bailey's
application for further development within an area that is not within Bailey's riparian corridor.
There is one additional point for your consideration. In the correspondence from Gregory R.
Thompson, P.E. with SEPI Engineering & Construction, Inc. to Tim Owens, the Town Manager of
Wrightsville Beach, dated July 28, 2016 (a copy of which has previously been provided to you), Mr.
Thompson outlined the difficulties that the existing pier as well as any extensions to the existing pier
would create in the event a new force main is installed to serve the Town of Wrightsville Beach. The
Board of Aldermen of the Town of Wrightsville Beach at their meeting on August 11, 2016 authorized
the Town Manage to begin the process of installation of a second force main at this location. The obvious
reason for this second force main is to create redundancy in the event of a problem with the existing force
main. As Mr. Thompson noted in his letter, any expansion of the existing pier will only make the
installation of the second force main more difficult than it already will be in view of the fact that a pier
currently blocks the only likely route for location of the new force main.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please contact me if I may be of further
assistance in helping you to understand the Town's position.
1CW:ktw
JCW\W RBCH\W08-097-C102
Yours very truly,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P. /J
John N Wessell, III
RECEIVED
AUG 15 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

WEBsTLL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
Joa C. Wwsgm, III
WBSBEL[.®Be OUTR.Ne
WDL A. RAN , JR.
WARANKYQB—AOUTH.NBT
August 12, 2016
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Braxton Davis
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Doug Huggett
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Robb Mairs
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ms. Karen A. Higgins
N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality
512 N. Salisbury St., 9d' Floor, Suite 942d
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: CAMA Major Permit Application
Bailey & Associates, Inc., Applicant
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Dear Ms. Higgins and Messrs. Davis, Huggett and Mairs:
STRSbT ADDRESS:
107-B NOR= 214m STRs
WumwGToN, NC 28401
TE EPRONB: 910-762-7475
FACSM": 910-762-7557
I am the Town Attorney for the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town"). The Town has obtained a
copy of correspondence from Matthew Nichols to you dated July 28, 2016 in which he responded to
comments made by the Town regarding the above -referenced CAMA permit application. Please consider
the following responses to the comments of Matt Nichols when considering the application by Bailey &
Associates, Inc. ("Bailey") to enlarge its docks near the Wrightsville Beach drawbridge.
1. The easement from the State to the Town need not be recorded to be valid as between
the State and the Town. "As between a grantor and grantee, a deed of conveyance is valid and is of no
consequence whether it is registered at all." Vol. 2, Patrick K. Hedrick and James B. McLaughlin, Jr.,
Webster's Real Estate Law in North Carolina, § 17.02[31.
RECEIVED
AUG 15 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, et al
August 12, 2016
Page Two
2. The easement from the State to the Town is superior to the easement from the State
to Bailey. A grantee in a deed given without consideration, a donee, does not come under the protection
of the recordation statute because the grantee is not a purchaser for value. Ibid., § 17.02[3]; § 17.03[1].
The easement obtained by Bailey for its existing pier was granted without valuable consideration being
paid by Bailey.
3. The easement granted by the State to Bailey is subject to the easement granted by the
State to the Town. Both N.C.G.S. § 146-12(g)(4) and paragraph 4 of the easement from the State to
Bailey make the easement to Bailey subject to rights conferred by previous conveyances by the State for
the same property. When a grantor accepts a conveyance subject to an outstanding claim or interest
evidenced by an unrecorded instrument executed by the grantor, the grantee takes the property subject to
the claim or interest. Ibid., § 17.02[l]. Paragraph 4 of the Bailey easement states: "This Easement is
subject to all rights conferred in previous conveyances by Grantor in and to the Easement Area."
4. The Town's easement is adequately described. "The majority of North Carolina cases
seem to allow the parties to locate the easement by 'practical location'." Ibid. , § 15.07(B). In this case,
the actual location of the sewer force main identifies the location of the easement. See Builder's Supply v.
Gainey, 282 N.C. 261, 192 S.E.2d 449 (1972). The width of the Town's easement is that which can be
inferred from its use and from extrinsic evidence such as the engineering drawings attached to the
easement. The drawing showing the dimensions and location of the "silt retention" shows an area 70 feet
wide for the initial construction area. A similar width or greater would likely be needed for maintenance
and repair. Please refer to the easement from the State to the Town, attachment, Sheet 3A of 3.
5. The easement granted to Bailey is inconsistent with the prior easement granted to the
Town. The Town's responsibility for maintenance and repair of its sewer force main is inconsistent with
the presence of a marina. The opinion of Greg Thompson, P.E., submitted by the Town to DCM
describes the inconsistency. The letter from Charles Crazier, P.E., the applicant's engineer, to Karen
Higgins dated July 28, 2016 opines that the construction of the proposed docks and the dredging will not
damage the sewer force main. However, Crazier does not address the issue of the delay in emergency
response in the event of a failure of the line in the vicinity of the marina. The provisions of G.S. § 146-
12(g)(4) and the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Bailey easement make the Bailey easement void or
inapplicable to the area within the Town's easement.
6. The easement granted by the State to Bailey does not include most of the area where
Bailey is seeking to construct new structures. The Bailey easement is described as a 10' wide strip
"located 5 feet on each side of and parallel to the center of the existing pier and to extend 5 feet beyond
the end of the pier." Virtually all of the modifications requested in the Bailey application are outside of
the 10' strip.
RECEIVED
AUG 15 2016
DCM- MW- CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, et al
August 12, 2016
Page Three
7. The Town reiterates its position that the existing Bailey pier and the proposed
modifications to create the Grand View Marina are not within the riparian corridor of the
applicant. The applicant has used the channel of Motts Creek near the Summer Rest bridge as the point
from which to draw a perpendicular line to the west end of the applicant's waterfront property. Yet, on
the east end of the applicant's tract where the channel of Motts Creek is deeper and more navigable, the
applicant inexplicably uses the Intracoastal Waterway rather than Motts Creek as the channel from which
it draws a perpendicular line as a boundary of its riparian area. The State should recognize its mistake in
the issuance of the 2001 permit to CGRS Enterprises, and should, at a minimum, deny Bailey's
application for further development within an area that is not within Bailey's riparian corridor.
There is one additional point for your consideration. In the correspondence from Gregory R.
Thompson, P.E. with SEPI Engineering & Construction, Inc. to Tim Owens, the Town Manager of
Wrightsville Beach, dated July 28, 2016 (a copy of which has previously been provided to you), Mr.
Thompson outlined the difficulties that the existing pier as well as any extensions to the existing pier
would create in the event a new force main is installed to serve the Town of Wrightsville Beach. The
Board of Aldermen of the Town of Wrightsville Beach at their meeting on August 11, 2016 authorized
the Town Manage to begin the process of installation of a second force main at this location. The obvious
reason for this second force main is to create redundancy in the event of a problem with the existing force
main. As Mr. Thompson noted in his letter, any expansion of the existing pier will only make the
installation of the second force main more difficult than it already will be in view of the fact that a pier
currently blocks the only likely route for location of the new force main.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please contact me if I may be of further
assistance in helping you to understand the Town's position.
Yours very truly,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
QL C
John C. essell, III
JCW:ktw
JC W \ W RBC H\ W 0"97-C 102
RECEIVED
AUG 15 Z016

r
RE
LEATHERWOOD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
July 28, 2016
VIA FEDEX and E-MAIL: [e-mail]
Karen A. Higgins, Supervisor
N.C. Dept of Environmental Quality - Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury St.
9th Floor, Suite 942d
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: CAMA Permit Application Submittal for Bailey & Associates, Inc.
Client -Matter No. 05019651.000001
Dear Ms. Higgins:
101 N. Third Street
Suite 400
Wilmington, NC 28401
With regard to the above -referenced matter, enclosed please find the following:
Letter to Braxton Davis, Doug Huggett and Robb Mairs of Division of Coastal
Management responding to the Town of Wrightsville Beach's 3/28/16 letter; and,
2. Report of Charles D. Cazier, P.E. with one (1) 24"x36" copy of Cross Section Profiles
for Grand View Community Marina.
If you require any additional information please let me know. Thank you for your assistance with
this matter.
Sincerely,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
Matthew A. Nichols
MAN/nc
Enclosures
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
cc: Heather Coats - DCM Wilmington (via hand -delivery)
Matthew A. Nichols 1 Direct: 910.815.7132 1 matt. nichol s@smith moorelaw.com I www.smithmoorelaw.com
ATLANTA 1 CHARLESTON 1 CHARLOTTE 1 GREENSBORO 1 GREENVILLE 1 RALEIGH I WILMINGTON

SNA I i I.__I MOORE 101 N. Third Street
LEATHERWOOD Suite 400
"' ' ° , ', ' ` ` "" Wilmington, NC 28401
July 28, 2016
VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL
Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
[e-mail]
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
[e-mail]
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
[e-mail]
Re: Response to Town of Wrightsville Beach 3/28/16 Letter RECEIVED
Applicant: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Grand View Community Marina AUG 0 1 2016
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Client -Matter No. 05019651.000001 DCM- MHD CITY
Dear Messrs. Davis, Huggett and Mairs:
We represent Bailey and Associates, Inc. the property owner and Applicant —with
regard to the above -referenced matter. Please accept this letter as a response to the comments
and objections raised by the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town") in a letter to you dated
March 28, 2016, from Town Attorney John C. Wessell, III ("Town's Objection Letter").
Matthew A. Nichols I Direct: 910.815.7132 1 matt. n lchols@smith moorelaw.com I www.smithmoorelaw.com
ATLANTA I CHARLESTON I CHARLOTTE I GREENSBORO I GREENVILLE I RALEIGH I WILMINGTON

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer RECEIVED
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016 AUG 01 2016
Page 2
DCM- MHD CITY
I. Issues Raised by Town Regarding its Claimed "Easement"
As to the Town's objections, we disagree with a number of legal assertions and
conclusions in the Town's Objection Letter regarding the purported existence and scope of the
Town's "easement."
A. Following Requests for Supporting Documentation, the "Easement" Remains
Unsupported By Fact or By Law
More than 18 months ago, my client requested that the Town provide us with some basic
information regarding the Town's claimed easement, to which the Town has never responded.
Specifically, on November 14, 2014, we sent a formal public records request to the Town of
Wrightsville Beach Town Manager with a copy to the Town Attorney. A copy of that public
records request is attached to my client's CAMA application in this matter, and we have also
attached a copy of that public records request as Exhibit "I" to this letter for ease of reference.
In that public records request, we asked the Town to provide us with a copy of the
recorded easement or the recording information from the New Hanover County Register of
Deeds Office for the Town's claimed easement (recorded Deed Book and Page Number). This
basic information has never been provided to us by the Town. 1 To our knowledge, the Town has
also not provided this information to NCDEQ-DCM ("DCM"), and no such information is
contained in the Town's Objection Letter to DCM. Our independent search of the New Hanover
County Register of Deeds records revealed that, to the best of our knowledge, the easement has
not been recorded.
We also asked the Town to provide us with any documents (memoranda, correspondence,
emails, maps, surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents) that
supplement, amend, modify or supersede the Town's claimed easement. Again, the Town did
not respond.
As to the actual easement claimed by the Town, the only document we have seen is an
unrecorded photocopy of a document from 1982 entitled "Easement" which does not bear any
original signatures. We would also note that no copy of this document was attached to the
1 In fact, the Town has never responded to Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s November 14, 2014
public records request, which is not consistent with the requirements of North Carolina's Public
Records statute, Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes.

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits RECEIVED
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016 AUG 01 2016
Page 3
DCM- MHD CITY
Town's Objection Letter to DCM. For your reference, a copy of that "Easement" document is
attached as Exhibit "A" to the public records that was sent to the Town on November 14, 2014.
We take several issues with this easement document under North Carolina real estate law
principles. First, as noted above, the easement document does not bear any original signatures or
copies of original signatures. The Town's Objection Letter states: "The easement was approved
by the Governor and the Council of State on May 4, 1982 and signed by the Governor on May
27, 1982." (Town's Objection Letter, p. 4). We have never seen such a document signed by the
Governor, and the Town has produced no such document.
Without an original signed copy of the easement, it is difficult to assure that this 30+ year
old unrecorded document with unoriginal signatures is the final approved version of the
purported easement. Accordingly, we think it is reasonable and prudent to request that the Town
produce a copy of the original signed document, as this would be expected of any other party
claiming an interest in real estate in North Carolina, and particularly where that party is objecting
to a permit application.
B. The Easement is Unrecorded and is Not a Valid Interest In Land
Second, and more importantly, to the best of our knowledge, the easement is unrecorded.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 47-27 mandates that the easement be recorded in the New Hanover County
Register of Deeds Office in order to be binding upon third -parties, such as my client.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 47-27 states:
All persons, firms, or corporations now owning or hereafter acquiring
any deed or agreement for rights -of -way and easements of any
character whatsoever shall record such deeds and agreements in the
situated. Where such deeds and agreements may have been acquired, but
no use has been made thereof, the person, firm, or corporation holding
such instrument, or any assignment thereof, shall not be required to record
them until within 90 days after the beginning of the use of the easements
granted thereby. If after 90 days from the beginning of the easement
granted by such deeds and agreements the person, firm, or corporation
holding such deeds or agreements has not recorded the same in the office
of the register of deeds of the county where the land affected is situated,

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits RECEIVED
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016 AUG 01 2016
Page 4
DCM- MHD CITY
then the grantor in the said deed or agreement may, after 10 days' notice
in writing served and returned by the sheriff or other officer of the county
upon the said person, firm, or corporation holding such lease or
agreement, file a copy of the said lease or agreement for registration in the
office of the register of deeds of the county where the original should have
been recorded, but such copy of the lease or agreement shall have attached
thereto the written notice above referred to, showing the service and return
of the sheriff or other officer. The registration of such copy shall have the
same force and effect as the original would have had if recorded:
Provided, said copy shall be duly probated before being registered.
Nothing in this section shall require the registration of the following
classes of instruments or conveyances, to wit:
(1) It shall not apply to any deed or instrument executed prior to
January 1, 1910.
(2) It shall not apply to any deed or instrument so defectively
executed or witnessed that it cannot by law be admitted to probate or
registration, provided that such deed or instrument was executed
prior to the ratification of this section.
(3) It shall not apply to decrees of a competent court awarding
condemnation or confirming reports of commissioners, when such
decrees are on record in such courts.
(4) It shall not apply to local telephone companies, operating
exclusively within the State, or to agreements about alleyways.
The failure of electric companies or power companies operating
exclusively within this State or electric membership corporations,
organized pursuant to Chapter 291 of the Public Laws of 1935 [G.S. 117-6
through 117-27], to record any deeds or agreements for rights -of -way
acquired subsequent to 1935, shall not constitute any violation of any
criminal law of the State of North Carolina.
No deed, agreement for right-of-way, or easement of any character

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 5
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
shall be valid as against any creditor or purchaser for a valuable
consideration but from the registration thereof within the county
where the land affected thereby lies.
From and after July 1, 1959, the provisions of this section shall apply to
require the Department of Transportation to record as herein provided any
deeds of easement, or any other agreements granting or conveying an
interest in land which are executed on or after July 1, 1959, in the same
manner and to the same extent that individuals, firms or corporations are
required to record such easements.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 47-27 (emphasis added). We are not aware of any provisions in the General
Statutes exempting the Town from recording its purported easement, and the Town cites none.
The burden is on the Town to establish the existence of its easement, particularly where
the Town alleges that its rights are superior to my client's rights. As stated by the North
Carolina Supreme Court more than a century ago, it is an "elementary principle of law that a
party who claims to have acquired the title to property or any easement therein or right to put any
burden thereon by presumption must establish his claim by showing the facts upon which it is
based[.]" Barker v. Southern R.R. Co., 137 N.C. 214, 222, 49 S.E. 115, 118 (1904).
In contrast, Bailey and Associates, Inc. has a 50-year nonexclusive easement from the
State of North Carolina Department of Administration, State Property Office, over the subject
riparian area for the existing dock facility, which was recorded on March 23, 2015, in Book 5875
at Page 2810 of the New Hanover County Registry, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "2".
The Town has not proven the existence and validity of its easement, nor has the Town
otherwise demonstrated that its rights are somehow superior to my client's rights. Contrary to
the assertions in the Town's Objection Letter, an unrecorded easement does not provide the basis
for the Town's assertion of rights superior to the rights of Bailey and Associates, Inc. —the actual
riparian landowner. We strongly disagree with the Town's unfounded assertion that "[t]he
applicant is proposing to work in a riparian area to which it has no rights" (Town's Objection
Letter, p. 3). The Town's assertion that Bailey and Associates, Inc. has "no rights" in this
riparian area is without merit. Furthermore, the Town bears the burden of establishing the
validity of its claimed easement under North Carolina law, which it has failed to do.

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits RECEIVED
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM AUG 01 2016
July 28, 2016
Page DCM- MHD CITY
C. The "Easement" is Undefined,_Unlocated, and Non -Exclusive
Third, even if the Town's easement was properly executed, acknowledged, recorded, and
indexed in the New Hanover County Register of Deeds Office, the Town's easement document
does not state that the Town's easement is exclusive, and it does not specify its boundaries,
width, or general dimensions.
In the public records request, we asked the Town to provide us with any documents
(memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps, surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or
refinement, or other documents) related to the location, size, scope, length, width, depth and/or
maintenance of the Town's claimed easement. The Town has not provided us with any
information responsive to this request. To our knowledge, the Town has provided no such
information to DCM, and none is contained in the Town's Objection Letter. We can only
conclude that the Town has no such evidence to support its easement.
Additionally, the Town's reliance on United States v. Seagate, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1351
(E.D.N.0 1975), is misplaced. A copy of this case is attached as Exhibit "N' for your reference.
The case involved a dispute over the construction of a residential subdivision on lands adjoining
both sides of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Carteret County. The land at issue was
subject, in whole or in part, to an easement reserved by the United States in 1957. As noted by
the Court, the United States' easement rights are very broad. The Court stated:
This easement gives the Government the right to use the burdened lands
for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Intracoastal Waterway;
the right to cut away and remove any part of the subject property in order
to widen or otherwise improve the Waterway; the right to construct and
maintain aids to navigation on these lands; the right to use these lands for
the deposit of material dredged from the Waterway; and the right to enter
upon and use the lands for other purposes needful in preserving and
maintaining the Waterway.
Id, at 353. The United States Government sought an order declaring that the construction of
residential dwellings and other permanent improvements on lands subject to the easement is
inconsistent with the terms of the easement and an order enjoining the property owners from
such construction. The Government also sought an order requiring the owners of three existing
dwellings to remove those dwellings if notified that the land they occupy was needed in
connection with operation, maintenance or enlargement of the Waterway. See id.

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 7
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Unlike the present CAMA permitting matter, the easement in favor of the United States
in Seagate "was contained in deeds which were duly recorded" when the United States sold its
fee interest in this property in 1957. Id. at 1358. Additionally, unlike the present matter, in
Seagate the Court specifically found that the terms of the easement were unambiguous. The
Court stated: "There is nothing ambiguous about the nature or terms of the easement in
question." Id. at 1360.
In contrast, the location and scope of the Town's purported unrecorded/unsigned
easement are ambiguous at best. The general dimensions in the Town's purported easement
document, and particularly the width, are unspecified. It is also unclear where the Town's
easement is located. This is also in complete contrast to the aforementioned recorded easement
granted to Bailey and Associates, Inc. from the Department of Administration, which contains a
precise description of the easement area.
It should also be noted that the Court in Seagate did not rule that all construction should
be stopped. Rather, the Court took a balancing approach, stating in part:
6. For these reasons the Court finds that the construction of
permanent residences and their attendant utilities on both banks of the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within the Sea Gate Subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by plaintiff by easement in 1957.
7. However, the Court further finds that it would not be unreasonable
at the present time to permit the construction of dwellings along the
western side of the Waterway only. Limiting construction to the west
bank only would minimize any interference with dredging operations
by the Corps of Engineers, since dredging contractors would have free
access to the large spoil disposal area located in the Sea Gate vicinity on
the east side of the canal. Moreover, the exclusion of dwellings from the
east bank would also allow reasonable provision for operations to widen
the Waterway channel or to provide passing zones, should either action
prove necessary in the future.
Seagate, 397 F. Supp. at 1359 (emphasis added).

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 8
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Based upon the foregoing, and for the additional reasons stated herein, we strongly
disagree with the Town's assertion that "[tjhe applicant is infringing on the easement rights
granted by the State of North Carolina to the Town for construction of the NEI." (Town's
Objection Letter, p. 3). An unrecorded, unsigned easement document —which on its face is not
exclusive and is missing important dimensional information --does not somehow confer rights
upon the Town that are superior to all of Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s rights as the riparian
owner and the current holder of a valid, recorded, nonexclusive easement from the N.C.
Department of Administration, State Property Office.
2. Town's Concerns with NEI.
Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s existing pier facility on this site, which was permitted by
DCM, currently crosses the NEI line in two locations. The proposed dock facility does not call
for any additional cross -points with the NEI line. There is no subaqueous construction or other
modifications planned or required below the surface of the water at the points where the existing
pier already crosses the NEI. We understand that within the past approximately two years, the
riparian owner to the immediate north of and adjacent to Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s property
applied for, was granted permission, and performed dredging in this general vicinity without
incident pursuant to a CAMA permit. Furthermore, we understand that this dredging was
permitted by DCM to a depth of -6.0 feet mlw, which is 2.0 feet more than the dredging depth
contemplated by Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s current CAMA application. Did the Town object
to that dredging near what, at that time, was an unlocated NEI?
As to maintenance of the NEI, the Town has not stated with any real specificity how the
proposed dock facility would prevent the Town from maintaining the NEI. The Town states:
"The need to periodically maintain, repair or replace the sewer line will be made impossible by
the existence of the pier and docks." (Town's Objection Letter, p.2 at 1.3) (emphasis added). It
is unclear from the Town how the existing or proposed dock facility makes or will make such
maintenance "impossible." According to statements made by Town Assistant Director of Public
Works Steve Dellies to the Board of Aldermen at a Public Meeting on November 13, 2014, we
understand that the pipe was reconditioned in 2007 all the way to Bradley Creek and that the
interior is in good shape. The Town has not provided my client with a regular maintenance
schedule for the NEI. Furthermore, the Town has not explained how the NEI line is inaccessible
or cannot be adequately accessed from the north or south of my client's riparian area for
maintenance purposes, either currently or with the addition of the proposed facility.

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits RECEIVED
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM AUG 01 2016
July 28, 2016
Page DCM- MHD CITY
With regard to construction and operation of the proposed facility, please see the attached
report from my client's engineer, Charles D. Cazier, P.E., with Intracoastal Engineering, PLLC,
dated July 28, 2016.
Also, does the State have any reports, studies or other information from the Town related
to any contingency plans maintained by the Town regarding the NEI in this vicinity?
3. Other Issues Raised by Town.
The Town also raises an issue with what it characterizes as the enlargement of structures
and "the allowance of dredging in areas that are not within the applicant's riparian corridor."
(Town's Objection Letter, p. 4). The Applicant respectfully contends that the Town's analysis is
erroneous. N.C. Administrative Code 7H.0208(b)(6)(I) states in part: "The line of division of
areas of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line along the channel or deep water in
front of the properties, then drawing a line perpendicular to the line of the channel so that it
intersects with the shore at the point the upland property line meets the water's edge." 15A
NCAC 7H.0208(b)(6)(I). The riparian line at the eastern end of the property was correctly
drawn perpendicular to the AIWW channel so that it indeed intersects with the shore at the point
the upland property line meets the water's edge (mhw). The existing permitted pier and docks
support this point. The Applicant strongly disagrees with the Town's position.
The Town also objects on the basis of N.C. Administrative Code 7H.0208(b)(5)(F). This
objection is without merit. There are no leaseholders or owners of submerged land from which
written consent must be obtained.
Last, the Town has no standing or authority to enforce or interpret the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, and likewise, the Town has no standing or authority to raise
purported objections on behalf of NCDOT, which to our knowledge the NCDOT is not raising.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully assert that the Town's legal objections are
insufficient to deny Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s CAMA permit application.
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing or if
you require any additional information at this time.

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer RECEIVED
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016 Page 10 AUG O 1 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Sincerely,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
Matthew A. Nichols
MAN/nc
Enclosures
cc: Karen A. Higgins, Supervisor
NCDEQ - Water Quality
(via FedEx and e-mail: [e-mail])
Heather Coats, NCDEQ-DCM, Wilmington
(via hand -delivery)
Jim Gregson, Regional Supervisor
NCDEQ- Division of Water Resources
(via e-mail: jim.gregson@ ncdenr.gov)
John C. Wessell, III, Esq.
Counsel for Town of Wrightsville Beach
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Steve Morrison
Land Management Group, Inc.
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Charles D. Cazier, P.E.
Intracoastal Engineering, PLLC
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Christopher W. Bailey
President, Bailey and Associates, Inc.
(via e-mail: [e-mail])

SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
214 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1347.
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1347
TELEPHONE [phone] • TELEFAX (91 O) 251-1773
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
KENNETH A. SHANKLIN'
*BOARD CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN
REAL PROPERTY LAW - RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS.
CO. MERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRANSACTIONS
November 14, 2014
VIA EMAIL TO towens(i�towb.org
AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Tim Owens
Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
P.O. Box 626
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Re: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
FIRST PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
Our File No. 2014060.2
Dear Mr. Owens:
EXHIBIT
k it
�"\
MATTHEW A. NICHOLS"
* *AL O ADMITTED IN NEW YORK
Pursuant to Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes, we request on behalf of
our client, Bailey and Associates, Inc., that the following public records and materials be
available for our inspection at a reasonable and convenient time within the next twenty (20)
calendar days at the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town") Offices:
1. A recorded copy of that document entitled "Easement" between
the State of North Carolina and the Town dated May 27, 1982, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", or in lieu thereof, the recording information from
the New Hanover County Register of Deeds Office (Deed Book and Page
Number) for that instrument (hereinafter referred to as the "Easement").
2. Any instruments, memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps,
surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents that
supplement, amend, modify or supersede the above -referenced Easement.
3. Any memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps, surveys,
drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents related to the
location, size, scope, length, width, depth and/or maintenance of the above -
referenced Easement.

Mr.'Tim Owens
Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach RECEIVED
November 14, 2014
Page-2- AUG 01 2016
Please consult with N.C. GEN. STAT. § 132-1 et. seq. regardsc#11440 O'tyf the
term "public records" We request the opportunity to copy any document or other responsive
record either in written or electronic form for compliance with this public records request.
If it is more convenient for you and the Town for us to make the copies ourselves or
make arrangements for a third -party copy service to make the copies, please let us know and we
will gladly arrange for the same. Also, we will gladly pay any reasonable administrative or
copying charges associated with this request, and we ask that you please let us know in advance
if there are any such charges associated with this public records request.
With best regards, I remain
Kenneth A. N1anklin
KAS/pcc
Enclosure
cc: John C. Wessell, III Town Attorney — via email and U.S. Mail
Mr. Christopher W. Bailey

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
E A S E M E N T
COUNTY O1•' NFW HANOVER
i
TTITS CASEMENT, made and entered into this the „7w 5
day of .i3xt�, 1992, by and between the STATE OF NORTH
CAROL'INA, party of the first part, and the TOWN OF WRIGHTS-
VILLE BEACH, party of the second part;
W 1 T N E S S E T H:
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of
Adninir:tration has euihorized and approved execution of this
ii:_trumcnt for the purposos herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, Lhe exocutiitn of this instrument for and on
b:,half of the State of North Carolina has been duly approved
by the Covernor and Counr.il of State by resolution adopted
aL a meeting held in the City -�f Raleigh, North Carolina, on
the 4th day of May, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have mutually agreed to
the terms of this casement as hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THER12FORE, in consideration of the sum of O^)E
HUNDRED ($100.00) DOLLARS paid by the party of the second part
to the party of the first part, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, t11e party of the first part does hereby give,
grant and convey to the said party of the second part, its
successors and assigns, the right, privilege and easement to
construct, install, improve, remove, replace, inspect, repair
and maintain a sanitary sewer pipeline as follows:
EXHIBIT
i
s
RECEIVEDI
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD C

A. Banks Channel subaqucously for approximately
750 feat along the south ride of U. S. Highway 74 causeway
and bridge.
B_ Hennans Creek or. bent piles along the south aide i
of the U. S. Highway 74 causeway and bridge for a disLance
of approximately 124 fret.
C. AIWW subaqueously north of the U. S. 74-76 High-
way causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately 800 '
D. Bradley Creek subaqueously rear the U. S. 74-76
Highway causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately
806 feet.
The purpose of the easement is to provide the Town
of Wrightsville Beach with a connection to the Northeast
t
lnlercoptor Greater Wilmington Area 201 Facilities Plan. See
a star. hrd drawing_ ••ntitled "Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Forcc pain, Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina".
It is understood and agreed that this conveyance
is made subject to the condition that the party of the second
Dart shall properly obtain all necessary permits required by
i
State and Federal, law. Failure to obtain such permits in
I a rrmely manner shall be deemed an abandonment of said easemant;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid rights, privileges,
and easement unto the said party of the second part, its
successor.; and assigns, for as long as said pipeline is
utilizod by the party of the :second part, its successors and i
asgigna, for the purposes set forth herein, and no longer.
IN TESTIMONY {4tIGNBOF, the State of North Carolina
has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by JAMES i
B. HUNT, JH., Governor, attested by THAD SURE, Secretary of
State, and the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina hereto•
affixed, by virtue of the power and authority aforesaid, as of
the day and year first above written.
RECEIVED i
AUG 01 2016 '
DCM- MHD CITY

STATE OF NORTH CAROLI14A
BY
Governor
ATTEST:
re- �ar} -AS
.
.. rre�tate
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PUFUS L. EDMISTEY
Attorney Cenral
<,t :]y.,r,n Jd. Kelley�
Arisistant Attorney General
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

I
j STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
I, DEBORAH ANN CANDLER, a Natery Public in and for the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify chat JAPES H. HUNT, JR., Governor of the
State of North Carolina, and THAD EURE, Secretary of State of ❑orrh Carolina,
personally came before me this day and being by me duly swore says each for
himself chat he knows the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina and chat
the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the Great Seal of the State;
that .LAMES E. HUNT, JR., Governor of said State, and MAD EORE, Secretary of
Slate, subscribed their names chereto, all by virtue of a resolution of the
Council of State; and chat said instrument is the act and deed of the State
of North Carolina.
1N WITNESS 14HERLOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal,
this the 2s29 day of , lSa
t
Hy Commission Ezpiree:
0
sty
RECEIVED
AUG 01 Z016
DCM- MHD CITY

—
�-�IL:9FN:±!tnS'!- • K ENNANS' 1 i S
CRI:L_L.-
REEK
_
ae3cN
IY'•F.N Ox >
14 FORCE MAIN
�
`: YElt tSt NfAIRRELEAM
`c` I
� •' &RW EL. 2.0 1
MANHOLE
ALLW EL-IB
P111111.BEE 517E '0• FOR
SITE t B I SPACINGI & C-C. FILE BENT DETAIL.
P LA N
PROFILE
KENNANS CREEK
CROSSING
TELNHICAl DATA SITE K
`
I rwJ OF SueeyJCJVl US1.iCIMB •BJo'
UCPt II O,t. C3v3TION • U nKAxU(
P x3T B•3L
K.Luxl O[• IIBJ CV. YOB
At J}NF'M.3
_ _
IIS WNUITION9
{Ni T:IL JYtl. ny BI. T[ n' Jme, INN UBCOU20U8
��
• J3-"-� �I4` FORCE MA;H7
NC. WILDLIFE BOAT RAMP
+s
"ANCHOR BLOCK '+ — E —
G
°•1 Y° OEND \ j % �J I I ANCHOR BLDCK
E F-U.S 7•1•-7LI NF.`GE TRASKIMEM. BRIDGE
� ' — - -. --. � -' .. • -. -If .--- i ---ram . —"- --- --
CROSSING
I.ILa' S
H 4n9ELB > U¢ nrrnoc. esmT,
f _ a"•
�'�•� ML VI EL -Id 0
ANCHOR -in
=15
t EL. -rO.2 ZQ
PROFILE A.I.WW CROSSING
�1p9yfl I •IBB n, I . w v DA7UNf MEAN
!I SITE ICI BCA LEVEL+O.W
rd ACH INTERCEPTOR --:IENAT \Oe: CEBE}I B ASSOCIATES- vlLmreroN,xc. Sheet 2 M s
FILE NJ .157
e
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

13
I
w
BRIGGIP"
Fccc MCHOR OLOCK
.. —f7sr,,,. 104 55
"47 -� -7 z
SITE
F M Ft' I'REEK CROSSING
�AL
I-W
PROFILE BRADLEY CREEK CROSSING
4C."ll 11. n MATLA: AL- -
I Slii RE TE M I ON A r, L W.'j VILTE@ F.'WMC
0.13: W OACKIl I -L I REWC!; %u compt IT T K I ' y
ENCUISe Sri - I
fili-ElITION ARM
r 4 ;..." - ;. I'nMOM 4'0x,
I.LtV. VAPIAGLE, PuST
Ol
W1
+
micF.
FJRm IAApl
W-
NV EL. - S 0 li
Y! PF, SII_i RET I. 14 T 10 N
ELEV. SECTION
I:C;-i ION 'A --A' KENNAN CK. PILE BENT
I. IIA f) i r. I CAEEK 0 4.7 A
OCTO (IF SIJ6613I1EMIS CM.,Sm6 500 1, F. SPOIL DISPOSAL:
a CLL'S W1,1P.IVILL Jr. Of, SILT RETENTION AREAS
IC' 0.0. I'CA7crIIVLFWI: SOR-11 LOCATED A" SHOWN
IVIII V MA11FA lkl.r VICIP"RILY '.ILI
4ETIIII0 Or
L,II-V!:OFE%'AVA)I0W
VLLOME Of MAMMAL. I'll'Al C
e V, I Maw 5 f.mom Al C s 0. .1 C. Shoe( 3Aoi
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

:5 1
TV E N1
1—.11 1 .. ". e—Q ", -a' IJ It tar '5HEET 2�1
a

SITE -A
SAN,tS CHANNEL SUSAOUEOUS CROSSING -
TECHNICAL DATA-
LEN6TH OF SUOAOUEOuS CRO:,SuaG. 'i]O LINEAR FEET
PIPE SCE B CLASS: IA"O.LI>� 8-ILL JOINT
EXCAVATION:
TYPE MATERIALS: PRIMARILY SAND B SHELL
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CLAMSHELI.
DEPTH OF EY.CAvATION: 3.2 (MAIN CHANNEL) S'±
AVERAGE FOR REMAINDER
OF CROSSING.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: 800 LJ, TO%. i
SPOIL OI SPOS,L: STOCK PILE UNDER WATER
ADJACENT TO IRIF NCH
F3 EXCAVATION - USE AS BACY.F ILL
,, AFTER PIPELINE 13 INSTALLED.
-PROJECT
.S4T.B —
11.0
tn�
N 4NN CHANNEL t
FAO
- US HWY No. 74--
ANCHOR BLOCK--/ ICFORCE MAIx�
p ,,,,,,��' A A. 147 BLOCK
STA.14Df74
PLAN o ' � Bin. 47v3
f
TOP BULKHEAD 7.56
VIV LBO M H. EXIST. BULKHEAD
W. 2.0
�-
\M.B.I. ANCHOR BLOCK
`.r- -Le (-INY. -2.70
ANCHOR BLOCK `C fXlST.60TTOMM
PPflO /'
W"FORCE MA
PROFILE
?/G i
) - _ENV.-IB,2.(JF
EXCAVATED MATERIAL- WINO ROWON NORTH f
USE TO SAC FEEEXCAVATION.
LLTRENCHl�H``9if9
EXIST BOTTOM -ELEV. VARIABLE
/ DATUM: SEA LEVEL
_____ / EL-15.02 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
jFORCE MAIN
E.P.A. PROJECT No. C-370S6S-01
je--"N
4"FORCE MAIN TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
V.-IB2 NORTH CAROLINA
MLNNY YAM pESW x [S......Ei' Lox. VLTINA ENAW[EM
NOTE' SECTION A-��k. A 11...C.,, xnnwArox, H C.
inencHlxa NCTRop ALSO APPUCAALE To vrE 'L'-A 1 ww
_ SHEET I CF C
11
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

FEXHIBIT
a� ,. Zkk
1
Prepared by State Property Office, NC Department of Administration
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1321
SPO File No.: 065-BX / DOJ FBe No.: PC-14-M28
Return to
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
14111111�11u111�11 Iill INI Illl Illl IIIU IIIII III III
2015007733
;FOR REGISTRATION OF DEED'
NEM NRNOVER COUNTY NC
2515 Mkt 23 04.3811 PM
8K.5875 PG 2810-2817 FEE 96 N
J$JNg 1101s91133
EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT ("Easement"), made and entered into as of the date set forth in the
notary acknowledgment below, by and between the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, a body
politic and corporate, ("Grantor") and BAILEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC, a North Carolina
corporation("Grantee"), P.O. Box 400, Jacksonville, NC 28451
WITNESSETH.
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Administration, pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute §146-12, has authorized and approved the execution of this instrument
for the purposes herein expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the public interest in promoting citizen access
to navigable waters and for good and valuable consideration, Grantor does hereby grant unto
Grantee, their heirs and assigns, an easement located in the Harnett Township, New Hanover
County, North Carolina, as more particularly described on Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Easement Area').
The terms and conditions on and for which this Easement is granted are as follows.
1. This Easement is appurtenant to and runs with the adjacent riparian or littoral property as
described in Book 5031, Page 1350, New Hanover County Registry (the "Adjacent Property").
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

2. Grantee shall not exclude or prevent the general public from exercising public trust
rights, including commercial and recreational fishing, shell fishing, seme netting, pound netting,
and other fishing rights in navigable waters within the Easement Area
3. This Easement confers upon Grantee no additional rights to interfere with the approval,
issuance, or renewal of shellfish or water column leases or to interfere with the use or cultivation
of existing shellfish leases, water column leases, or shellfish franchises
4. This Easement is subject to all rights conferred in previous conveyances by Grantor in
and to the Easement Area
5. This Easement is granted for a term of fifty (50) years beginning on the 18th day of
February, 2015, and terminating on the 17th day of February, 2065, unless earlier revoked.
6. Subject to compliance with North Carolina General Statute §146-120), this Easement is
eligible for renewal for one (1) additional fifty (50) year term.
7. This Easement covers those structures allowed by CAMA Permit Number 84-01 (the
"Permitted Structures"). The Permitted Structures shall be used for the following purposes:
providing reasonable access for all vessels traditionally used in the main watercourse area to the
Atiantice Intracoastal Waterway; mooring of vessels at or adjacent to certain areas of the
Permitted Structures and enhancing or improving the value of the Adjacent Property. All terms
and conditions of CAMA Permit Number 84-01 are hereby incorporated in this Easement and
made a part hereof
8. Subject to compliance with Article 7, Chapter 113A of the North Carolina General
Statutes, Grantee shall have the right to repair, rebuild or restore the Permitted Structures located
upon the Easement Area.
9. The exercise of the rights under this Easement shall be contingent upon Grantee
obtaining all necessary permits and authorizations and complying with all federal, state,
municipal and other laws, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the Easement
Area. Grantee shall not make or permit any unlawful use of the Easement Area
10. As set forth in the calculation below, the riparian credit exceeds the footprint of the
Permitted Structures; therefore, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(h),
no easement purchase payment is owed
The easement purchase payment, if any, has been calculated based upon the following
information
1.
3.
Footprint of Permitted Structures: 4,267 square feet.
Riparian shoreline: 420.00 linear feet
Riparian credit 22,692 square feet. RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

11. Grantee shall not exercise any rights granted herein in any areas outside the
Easement Area without first obtaining a written modification of this Easement in accordance
with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(k).
12 Upon transfer of title of the Adjacent Property during the term of this Easement or
any renewal thereof, the easement rights granted herein shall be transferred automatically to the
subsequent owner of the Adjacent Property, subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth. In the
event the subsequent owner of the Adjacent Property (1) gives written notification to the State
Property Office, pursuant to Paragraph 15 herein, within twelve (12) months of the date of
transfer of title of the Adjacent Property accompanied by a copy of the instrument of transfer,
and (2) remits the easement purchase payment as provided in North Carolina General Statute
§146-12(b, such subsequent owner shall be entitled to receive an easement document
ttansfemng to such owner the easement rights granted herein for the remainder of the unexpired
easement term. Failure to comply with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(t) shall result in
termination of this Easement.
13. It is expressly understood and agreed between the parties hereto that if Grantee
shall neglect to do and perform any matter or thing herein agreed to be done and performed by
him, and shall remain in default thereof for a period of sixty (60) days after written notice from
Grantor to Grantee calling attention to such default, Grantor, with the approval of the Governor
and Council of State, may declare this Easement revoked Said notice shall be given by certified
mail to Grantee at the address set forth in Paragraph 15(a) of this Easement Revocation of this
Easement shall entitle Grantee to seek administrative review in accordance with the provisions of
Article 3, Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes.
14 Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit Grantee from granting
other persons rights of use of portions of the Permitted Structures on the Easement Area for
periods not to exceed the term of this Easement. All rights so granted shall automatically
terminate upon expiration or revocation of this Easement.
15. a All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either
party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and deposited
in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid and addressed as follows.
Grantor- Director/Deputy Director -State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1321
Grantee Bailey and Associates, Inc.
PO Box 400
Jacksonville, North Carolina 28541
Nothing herein contained shall preclude the giving of such notice by personal service.
The address to which notices shall be mailed as aforesaid to either party may be changed by
written notice RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

b. In the event title to the Adjacent Property is transferred subsequent to the
date of tlus Easement, Grantee agrees to give written notification to Grantor by certified mail at
the above address within twelve (12) months of the date of such transfer of title. Such
notification shall include.
(1) A copy of the title transfer document
(2) The name(s) of the subsequent owner(s) of the Adjacent Property.
(3) The marling address(es) of such subsequent owner(s).
16. This Easement shall become effective only upon recordation in the Office of
Register of Deeds for New Hanover County. Grantee shall mail a copy of the recorded
Easement to Grantor at the address set forth in Paragraph 15(a).
17. Failure by Grantor to require strict compliance with any term or condition of this
Easement shall not be construed as a waiver of Grantor's right to enforce compliance with such
term or condition or any other term or condition contained herein.
18. Grantee, by acceptance of this Easement, agrees to comply with and be bound by
all terms and conditions set forth herein
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed in its
name by the undersigned as of the date set forth in the notary acknowledgement below.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
By: North Carolina Department of Administration
BY- �
Spe os Fleggas, Deputy Secretary,
North Carolina Department of Administration, acting
Director of the State Property Office
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
I, Sher= S. Rot , a Notary Public for the County of
'j&kn;T4-6n , North Carolina, do hereby certify that Speros Fleggas personally came
before me this day and acknowledged the due execution by him of the foregoing instrument as
Senior Deputy Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Administration, acting Director of
the State Property Office, for the purposes therein expressed
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal, this
the �17 day of February, 2015.
My Commission Expires: ��
Notary Public
Print Name: bher ee
L—
DCM-

EXHIBIT A
Description of Easement Area
Those certain tracts or parcels of land lying and being in the Harnett Township, New Hanover
County, North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows
Commencing at an existing mag nail at the centerline intersection of U.S. Hwy 74 with N.C.S.R.
1417 (Summer Rest Road); thence along the centerline of N.C.S.R. 1417, north 56 degrees 35
minutes 41 seconds east 260.53 feet to an existing survey spike in the centerline of N.C.S.R.
1417 and in the center of a bridge; thence leaving said intersection, south 29 degrees 55 minutes
14 seconds west 64.37 feet to a point on the southern right-of-way line of N.C.S.R. 1417, said
point being THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A 10' PIER EASEMENT; thence
from the above described point of begmnnrg and leaving said tight -of -way line, south 74 degrees
55 minutes 41 seconds east 15 36 feet to a point; south 64 degrees 29 minutes 14 seconds east
55.94 feet to a point; thence south 51 degrees 10 minutes 05 seconds east 144.59 feet to a point,
thence south 51 degrees 10 minutes 57 seconds east 181.38 feet to a point; thence south 48
degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds east 190.04 feet to a point, thence south 51 degrees 49 minutes 44
seconds east 75.70 feet to a point; thence south 47 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds east 4.89 feet
to a point, thence north 44 degrees 59 minutes 36 seconds east 62 04 feet to a point; thence south
45 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds east 10.00 feet to a point; thence south 44 degrees 59 mmutes
36 seconds west 71.55 feet to a point; thence north 47 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds west 14.06
feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds west 75.63 feet to a point; thence
north 48 degrees 39 mmutes 40 seconds west 190.09 feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 10
minutes 57 seconds west 181.18 feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 10 minutes 05 seconds
west 143.42 feet to a point; thence north 64 degrees 29 minutes 14 seconds west 53.86 feet to a
point; thence north 74 degrees 55 minutes 41 seconds west 23.18 feet to a point on the southern
right-of-way line on N C S.R. 1417; thence along said right-of-way line, north 56 degrees 12
minutes 34 seconds east 13 28 feet to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, being shown
on a survey prepared by Johnny J. Williams Land Surveying, P.0 , dated August 25, 2008 (last
revised February 5, 2015), captioned "PIER AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR: BAILEY &
ASSOCIATES, INC." attached hereto as Exhibit B and reference to which survey being hereby
made for a more particular description.
The above described 10' pier easement crosses that property recorded in Deed Book 5031 page
1350 and extends beyond this deeded property and into the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway It is
the intention of the above easement description to surround the existing pier as actually surveyed
in August 2008 and for the margins of this easement to be located 5 feet on each side of and
parallel to the center of the existing pier and to extend 5 feet beyond the end of the pier.
The above description was prepared by Johnny J. Williams Land Surveying, P.0 from an actual
pier location on August 25, 2008. The actual margins of this easement have not been surveyed
All courses are correct in their angular relationship to North per Map Book 24 page 22 of the
New Hanover County Registry.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

W U
305
J wrir
�'^ •m0[ � �e�OZ rvuFn
s i
9bCt uevuud puw Mwa
� m ��y Bt/!ll t LSSq^✓AlLS /AC
�.� '��� raven .o.e•�n n+aa ra.n.
91r_"'=
TI I' : v & 0 K NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY AND
I AS NOT W-LN R. ' a•en BY A LOCAL
GOVFRNMEN'T AGI.` ; Y FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH ANY APFU( vUl,P LAND DEVELOPAUM
RFGULATTONS

1swo
TAMMY THEUSCH BEASLEY
REGISTER OF DEEDS, NEW HANOVER
216 NORTH SECOND STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
fflfflftf}1flflf RRR1f!}1f Rf 411tffftY ff}IfAf1i}ffHffftllf,l}k1f 1f1R1R1t1ff1tfff1f t111ff1f 111f 111ffflfflfffftff1f 111ffiff•
Filed For Registration:
Book.
Document No:
Recorder:
03/23/2015 04:38:21 PM
RE 5875 Page: 2810-2817
2015007733
8 PGS $26.00
JOHNSON,CAROLYN
State of North Carolina, County of New Hanover
PLEASE RETAIN YELLOW TRAILER PAGE WITH ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.
RECEIVED
*2015007733* AUG 01 2016
2015007733 DCM- MHD CITY

EXHIBIT
U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
397 F.Supp.1351
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina,
New Bern Division.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
V.
SEA GATE, INC., et al., Defendants.
No. 74-20-CIV-4.
1
July 21,1975.
United States brought suit seeking an order declaring
that the construction of residential dwellings, their
attendant utilities, and other permanent improvements on
lands adjoining the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway was
inconsistent with the terms of the easement reserved by
the Government for the occupation and use of adjoining
lands in connection with the operation, maintenance
or enlargement of the Waterway. The District Court,
Larkins, J., held that (1) construction of permanent
residences and their attendant utilities on both banks
of the Waterway within defendants' subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by the Government,
but it would not be unreasonable at the present time to
permit the construction of dwellings along the western
side of the Waterway only, (2) the United States was not
estopped from maintaining the action by any course of
conduct followed since 1972 by officers of the Corps of
Engineers with respect to the development, (3) the failure
of the United States to prevent the construction of other
improvements on easement lands elsewhere along the
right-of-way did not estop it from attempting to prevent
the infringement of its rights in the instant case, and (4)
the Government could not be estopped by representations
made prior to the sale of the property in 1967 concerning
uses to which the property could be put.
Judgment for United States.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*1353 Thomas P. McNamara, U.S. Arty., Raleigh, N.C.
by Bruce H. Johnson, Asst. U.S. Arty., Chief, Land
& Natural Resources Section, Charles N. Estes, Arty.,
Land and Natural Resources Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Herman Wolff, Jr., Andrew S. Martin, of Wolff, Harrell
& Mann, Raleigh, N.C., William W. Staten, of Pittman,
Staten & Betts, Sanford, N.C., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
Opinion
LARKINS, District Judge.
This action was filed on April 19, 1974, by the
plaintiff, the United States of America, and jurisdiction
is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1345. The controversy centers
around the construction of a residential subdivision on
lands adjoining both sides of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway in Carteret County, North Carolina. The
defendant Sea Gate, Inc., is the developer of this
residential community, which is called 'Sea Gate
Subdivision.' The remaining defendants own lots within
the subdivision.
The lands owned by the individual defendants and upon
which Sea Gate Subdivision is being constructed are
subject, in whole or in part, to an easement reserved
by the United States in 1957. This easement gives the
Government the right to use the burdened lands for the
purpose of operating and maintaining the Intracoastal
Waterway; the right to cut away and remove any part
of the subject property in order to widen or otherwise
improve the Waterway; the right to construct and
maintain aids to navigation on these lands; the right to use
these lands for the deposit of material dredged from the
Waterway; and the right to enter upon and use the lands
for other purposes needful in preserving and maintaining
the Waterway.
Plaintiff seeks an order declaring that the construction
of residential dwellings, their attendant utilities and other
permanent improvements on lands subject to its easement
is inconsistent with the terms thereof and seeks an order
enjoining defendants from such construction. Plaintiff
seeks a further order requiring the owners of three existing
dwellings to remove same if notified that the land they
occupy is needed by plaintiff in connection with operation,
maintenance or enlargement of the Waterway.
This matter was heard before the Court without a jury on
July 1-3, 1975. The Court having considered the evidence
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
presented and the briefs filed by the parties makes the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
in controversy is a land cut connecting the Neuse
River and Pamlico Sound with Beaufort Inlet and the
harbor at Morehead City. Congress *1354 authorized
the improvement and construction of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway from Pamlico Sound to Beaufort
Inlet, North Carolina, in 1907 and further authorized the
Secretary of War to enter into such contracts as might be
necessary for the completion of the project. 34 Stat. 1083.
In 1912, Congress authorized the Secretary to contract
with the Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal Co. for the
purchase of the already existing Adams Creek Canal
(hereinafter 'Core Creek Land Cut') through this area,
along with certain appurtentant lands belonging to that
company.
2. These original lands, which amounted to approximately
583.28 acres, were held by the United States in fee.
The lands formed a strip approximately 800 feet in
width through which this segment of the Waterway was
constructed.
3. By condemnation in 1947, the United States acquired
fee simple title to several other adjacent tracts to be
used for purposes related to the construction, operation,
maintenance, improvement, and enlargement of the
Waterway. One such tract, which is approximately 1,500
feet deep and 13,800 feet in length, is located adjacent to
the eastern boundary of the original right-of-way lands in
the area in question.
4. In 1955, these lands along both sides of the Waterway
in Carteret County, North Carolina, along with lands
similarly situated along other portions of the Waterway
in North Carolina, were reported to the General Services
Administration as being excess to the needs of the United
States Government. After screening by various federal
agencies in an effort to determine whether these lands
could be used for other purposes, it was determined that
the fee interest should be sold to private purchasers subject
to the easement quoted below, with title to be given by
quitclaim deed at an auction sale. Sale of the original right-
of-way lands was held in Morehead City, North Corolina,
on August 1, 1957.
5. Richard Wright was the successful bidder and purchaser
of a portion of the 800-foot wide right-of-way lands lying
in Carteret County. The fee interest in these lands was
conveyed by the United States of America to Wright in
1957 by quitclaim deed. Contained in the deed was a
reservation in the following language, to wit:
... there is reserved to the Government and its assigns
the perpetual right and easement to maintain the said
Intracoastal Waterway and to enter upon, dig or cut away,
and remove any or all the hereinbefore described tract of
land as may be required at any time in the prosecution of
the aforesaid work of improvement, or any enlargement
thereof, and maintain the portions so cut away and
removed as a part of the navigable waters of the United
States; and the further right to maintain aids to navigation
presently established by the United States on the land
herein described with the rights of ingress and egress
thereto; and the further perpetual right and easement to
enter upon, occupy and use any portion of said tract of
land, not so cut away and converted into public navigable
waters as aforesaid, for the deposit of dredged material,
and for placement thereon of such aids to navigation
deemed necessary by the Government, and for such other
purposes as may be needful in the preservation and
maintenance of said work of improvement; provided,
however, that the party of the second part, his heirs and
assigns, shall enjoy all rights and privileges in said tract
of land as may be used and enjoyed without interfering
with or abridging the exceptions and reservations herein
contained.
The deed from the United States to Wright containing this
language was duly recorded.
*1355 6. Sale of the 800-foot wide right-of-way lands
was conducted for the General Services Administration by
J. L. Todd Auction Company. Circulars and newspaper
advertisements which were distributed prior to this
sale indicated that recreational developments such as
'commercial marinas, lodges and fishing installations'
were permissible on the subject property. However, there
was no evidence that such circulars and advertisements
were issued with the authority of the United States. The
auction sale agreement between the United States and the
Todd Company expressly provided that the property was
to be sold subject to the easement quoted above.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
7. The tracts adjacent to the right-of-way lands which had
been acquired in 1947 were subsequently sole to other
purchasers, subject to the same easement.
8. The approximate location of the property subject to the
easement quoted above insofar as relevant here is shown
with a solid line on the map attached to these findings as
Exhibit A.
9. The 800-foot wide right-of-way land was subsequently
conveyed by Wright and ultimately acquired by Charles
M. Reeves, Jr., a defendant herein, in 1972. Reeves
subsequently formed Sea Gate, Inc., the corporate
defendant herein, to retain ownership.
10. Prior to purchase of this right-of-way land, Reeves
had both actual and record notice that the property was
subject to the easement quoted above. Before purchase of
this property, neither Reeves nor any other officer or agent
of Sea Gate, Inc., had knowledge of any representations
concerning its possible development made prior to the
auction sale in 1957. At the time Reeves purchased the
property subject to the Government's easement in 1972, it
was not occupied by any substantial permanent structures.
11. In 1972, Sea Gate, Inc., began the development of
'Sea Gate Subdivision' with a plan partially to subdivide
the right-of-way lands, together with certain adjacent
properties not subject to the Government's easement, into
single family residential lots with certain amenities, such
as a small -boat marina, clubhouse and swimming facilities
and park and playground areas. With the exception of
a portion of the park and playground areas and the
access channel to the Marina, the amenities described
are not located within the Government's easement. The
boundaries of the Sea Gate Subdivision are shown on
Exhibit 'A' in a dashed line.
12. Sea Gate Subdivision consists of over 700 individual
lots, 243 of which are waterfront lots which are located
in whole or in part within the 800-foot wide right-of-
way easement retained in 1957. These waterfront lots are
subject to restrictive covenants which limit their use to
sites for permanent homes with a minimum interior floor
space of 1,000 square feet. The President of Sea Gate,
Inc. testified that a house of this size would cost at least
$22,000 to construct at prevailing prices. Use of these
waterfront lots for house trailers is expressly forbidden by
the covenants.
13, The Sea Gate waterfront lots are located along both
banks of the Waterway for a distance of approximately
three miles. The average width of these lots in 120 feet and
they range in depth from 90 feet to 265 feet.
14. At the time of trial only three houses had actually been
constructed within the waterfront lots.
15. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is operated
and maintained by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, which has its District office for eastern North
Carolina in Wilmington, North Carolina.
16. Plans for the development of the Sea Gate Subdivision
first came to *1356 the attention of the Corps of
Engineers in August of 1972. At that time representatives
from Sea Gate, Inc., made preliminary inquiries at
the Wilmington District concerning the application
procedures necessary to acquire a permit from the Corps
to connect a small -boat marina, to be located on the west
side of the Waterway behind the Government's easement
lands, with the Waterway. A formal application for such
a permit was filed with the District on October 13, 1972.
17. At a meeting held in January, 1973 representatives of
Sea Gate, Inc., were informed that the Corps of Engineers
was concerned that the development proposed the
construction of numerous dwellings along the Waterway
on lands subject to the Government's easement. The Sea
Gate representatives were informed that the Charleston
District Office of the Corps had recommended that
litigation be commenced to remove a trailer park from
easement lands in the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
area and that a uniform policy concerning the location
of structures within the Waterway easement was being
formulated at higher levels in the Corps.
18. In a latter dated April 18,1973 directed to the President
of Sea Gate, Inc., Mr. David C. Reeves, the Wilmington
District Engineer advised Mr. Reeves that he had been
advised by higher authority that'it would be incompatible
with the Government's interest to support in any way
your development plans which include encroachment
onto lands subject to our easements along the AIWW.'
Mr. Reeves was informed that because the Sea Gate
development involved the construction of permanent
improvements on easement lands, Sea Gate's request for a
marina permit could not be granted by the District Office
but would have to be referred to the Office of the Chief of
Engineers.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
19. By letter dated October 15, 1973, the District Engineer
advised Mr. David Reeves that the request for a marina
permit was denied on the grounds that granting the permit
would be inconsistent with the Corps' policy of opposing
permanent construction within the Waterway easement.
20. The Corps of Engineers is currently authorized to
maintain this portion of the Waterway to a 12-foot depth,
a 90-foot bottom width, and 1 to 3 side slopes.
21. Evidence indicates that the total width of this segment
of the Waterway when first constructed to the present
12-foot depth in 1922 varied between 150 and 250 feet.
At present the Waterway width between banks varies
between 300 and 400 feet. The difference represents
erosion of the Waterway banks which has taken place
over this period. Soils in this area are sandy and quite
susceptible to erosion.
22, Mr. William Sanderson, Chief of the Operations
Division of the Corps' District Office, testified that
dredging on nearly an annual basis has been required
to maintain the channel of the Waterway in the Core
Creek Land Cut to its authorized dimensions. On the
average,100,000 cubic yards of material has annually been
removed from the segment of the Waterway in the vicinity
of Sea Gate.
23. In the past it was the practice of the Corps
of Engineers to permit contractors performing the
maintenance dredging to discharge the material directly
onto the toe of the Waterway banks at the water's edge.
The evidence indicates that this practice had a stabilizing
effect on bank erosion. However, in 1973 the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the United States
Department of the Interior strongly recommended that
this practice be abandoned for environmental reasons
and that the spoil be pumped instead into diked areas
located on the high ground adjacent to the Waterway.
The purpose is to minimize the turbidity which is *1357
caused by sidecast dredging and which has an adverse
environmental impact on fish in the area. Starting with the
annual maintenance dredging operations in the summer
of 1974, it has been necessary to utilize diked disposal
areas located on the Government's easement lands. Th
material is pumped into dreged areas, the sand and silt ar
permitted to settle and then clear water is allowed to run
back into the Waterway. In 1974 approximately 186,00
cubic yards of material were removed from the Waterway
in the vicinity of Sea Gate and placed in two disposal areas
on easement land on the east bank of the canal.
24. Mr. Sanderson testified that in general it is more
convenient and less expensive to locate spoil disposal
areas relatively near the Waterway banks and as close as
possible to the segment of the canal to be dredged. Because
its depth permits disposal sites of adequate dimensions to
be laid out, the large rectangular easement area on the
Waterway's east bank, and adjacent portions of the right-
of-way lands, are well situated for the placement of spoil
dredged from the canal in the Sea Gate vicinity. This large
tract is not part of the Sea Gate property, as indicated
on Exhibit A. In contrast, the narrow strips of right-of-
way land on the west bank— and on both banks where
the Government has only its 800-foot right-of-way— are
less desirable for spoil placements, but could be used if
necessary. These narrow strips might be used for spoil
disposal if dredging were necessary at a point in the canal
some distance from a larger disposal tract.
25. Testimony further indicated that the large rectangular
tract on the east bank and adjoining right-of-way land
could accommodate the spoil expected to be removed
from this segment of the Waterway for many years into
the future.
26. Mr. Sanderson's testimony further indicates, however,
that the presence of numerous dwellings along the east
bank of the Waterway in the vicinity of spoil disposal
areas would greatly complicate the process of dredging
and spoil disposal and create a substantial safety hazard,
even if the lands occupied by houses were not themselves
required for spoil placement. Among the dangers cited as
associated with the dredging and disposal process were
the operation of heavy machinery, the possibility of pipes
bursting from the heavy pressures involved in pumping
spoil, the danger of retention dikes giving way, and the
danger of children getting into disposal areas themselves,
It is clear that substantially greater precautions would
have to be employed in conducting these operations in
the vicinity of dwellings and that the necessity of such
precautions would add significantly to the Government's
expense in maintaining the Waterway.
e 27. Should houses be constructed in areas actually
e required for spoil disposal, the removal of such houses
would greatly complicate the Government's dredging
0 operations. Testimony also indicated that the presence of
houses near the Waterway banks would make it more
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

'U.S. V. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
difficult to use the banks as staging areas for dredging and
for securing the anchors used to pull the dredges from side
to side across the canal.
28. Figures kept by the Corps of Engineers indicate
traffic on this segment of the Waterway has recently
increased significantly. However, it appears unlikely that
the navigation channel of the Core Creek Land Cut will
need to be widened beyond its existing bottom width
within the next 20 years. Testimony did indicate that
limited widening to provide passing zones might well
be considered at a sooner time. Since the three-mile
waterfront of the Sea Gate development is located near
the center of the seven -mile long land cut, it was suggested
that a passing zone might well be constructed within the
Sea Gate area.
*1358 29. Should numerous dwellings be constructed
along both banks of the Waterway within the three-
mile reach of Sea Gate Subdivision, problems similar
to those expected in dredging in a densely populated
area would be encountered. Where necessary, removal of
such houses would complicate any widening operation
and the presence of houses along the banks would rule
out their use as staging areas. Removal and disposal of
the spoil involved in such an operation would pose the
same hazards discussed above in connection with regular
maintenance dredging.
30. The difficulties which can be anticipated in conducting
either normal maintenance dredging or operations to
widen the Waterway channel should dwellings be
constructed on all Sea Gate waterfront lots, could be
mitigated by the following measures:
(a) permitting the construction of houses solely on lots
located on the western bank of the Waterway; and (b)
requiring any houses constructed on said western bank to
be set back from the top of the existing bank a minimum
of forty feet.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
[1( 1. The easement in favor of the United States, plaintiff
herein, is binding on all the defendants joined in this
proceeding to the extent that their property falls within its
bounds. The easement was contained in deeds which were
duly recorded when the United States sold its fee interest
in this property in 1957, and the parties have stipulated
that the principals of Sea Gate, Inc., had actual knowledge
of the existence and terms of the easement before their
purchase of the subject property and that all individual
lot owners were advised of its existence and terms in the
H.U.D. Property Report on this development.
2. The terms of the easement in question are unambiguous
and give the United States the right to maintain the
Intracoastal Waterway; to 'dig, cut away and remove'
the land if needed in order to enlarge the canal; to enter
upon and use any part of the land for the disposal of
material dredged from the Waterway; and to enter upon
and use the land for the placement of navigation aids
and for 'such other purposes as may be needful in the
preservation and maintenance' of the Waterway. In the
face of an easement giving the United States rights of such
magnitude, defendants cannot complaint should their
property be used by the Government for the purposes
enumerated at some future time. Should permanent
improvements be constructed on land subject to the
Government's easement, the owners cannot complain
should use of the easement rights require the alteration or
destruction of such improvements.
(21 (3( 3. The owner of an estate subject to an easement
cannot use the fee in a fashion that obstructs or materially
impairs the easement holder's use and enjoyment of his
right under the easement. Any activity by the fee owner
which would result in increased cost or inconvenience
to the easement holder in exercise of his rights or
which would created a safety hazard should those rights
be exercised amounts to a material impairment of the
easement interest. In Carolina Power and Light Co. v.
Bowman, 229 N.C. 682, 51 S.E.2d 191 (1949), an electric
utility was granted a mandatory injunction requiring the
removal of a theater from lands subject to a right-of-way
easement for its power lines. The building did not actually
touch the lines nor make servicing them impossible.
However, the court granted an injunction because of the
safety hazard created and because servicing the liens was
made more difficult and costly by the presence of the
building. See also, Collins v. Alabama Power Co., 214 Ala.
643, 108 So. 868 (1926); Arkansas -Louisiana Gas Co. v.
Cutrer, 30 So.2d 864 (La.App.1957).
*1359 141 4. An injunction is the proper remedy to
prevent interference of this type by the fee owner with the
easement holder's property rights. Carolina Power Co. v.
Bowman, supra; see also 25 Am.Jur.2d, Easements and
Licenses § 120.
151 5. Plaintiff reserved the rights enumerated in its
easement in AIMtlystp pgeet6tain immediate needs
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
but to provide a means to deal with future contingencies
which could not then be entirely foreseen. The easement
retained thus gives the Government both the right to
make immediate use of the subject property, as for spoil
disposal, and certain rights which plaintiff may choose
to exercise should future conditions warrant. Plaintiff
is therefore also entitled to prevent activities by the
fee owners of this property which would unreasonably
increase the cost, complexity, or difficulty of exercising
these rights at some future time, even though the necessity
for exercise of these rights may not be entirely foreseeable
at present. In Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Jarvis, 29 F.2d
539 (8th Cir., 1928), the court granted an injunction
prohibiting the use of a railroad right-of-way for the
construction of buildings and other structures, even
though the railroad had no plans to put the property
to immediate use. The court stated that `the necessity of
immediate use is not essential to preserve the rights of the
railroad .... It can never be stated with certainty at what
time any particular part of a right-of-way may become
necessary for railroad uses.' Id. at 541. See also, Seaboard
R.R. Co. v. Banks, 207 Ala. 194, 92 So. 117 (1922) and
Olive v. Sabine & E.T.R.R. Co., 11 Tex.Civ.App. 208, 33
S.W. 139 (1895).
161 6. For these reasons the Court finds that the
construction of permanent residences and their attendant
utilities on both banks of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway within the Sea Gate Subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by plaintiff by
easement in 1957. No question has been raised in this
lawsuit concerning plaintiffs legal power to require the
destruction or removal of such improvements should
use of the property for the purposes enumerated in
the easement be reasonably necessary. Nevertheless,
the Court finds that the mere existence of numerous
substantial dwellings along both banks of the Waterway
in this area would so greatly complicate and burden
plaintiffs exercise of its easement rights, whether exercised
now or at some future time, that their construction
would very materially impair plaintiffs rights under the
easement.
7. However, the Court further finds that it would
not be unreasonable at the present time to permit
the construction of dwellings along the western side
of the Waterway only. Limiting construction to the
west bank only would minimize any interference with
dredging operations by the Corps of Engineers, since
dredging contractors would have free access to the large
spoil disposal area located in the Sea Gate vicinity on
the east side of the canal. Moreover, the exclusion of
dwellings from the east bank would also allow reasonable
provision for operations to widen the Waterway channel
or to provide passing zones, should either action prove
necessary in the future.
8. The Court further finds that the construction of
residential dwellings on the west side of the Waterway
should not be permitted closer than forty feet from the top
of the existing bank. Exclusion of dwellings from such a
forty -foot wide strip would leave such land available for
use by the Corps of Engineers for staging operations in
dredging and for widening the channel and would provide
an area for the location of anchors used in maneuvering
the dredges. Moreover, a set -back restriction of this sort
would take account of existing bank erosion and prevent
the construction of houses on potentially precarious sites.
*1360 171 181 9. The United States is not estopped
from maintaining this action by any course of conduct
followed since 1972 by officers of the Corps of Engineers
with respect to the Sea Gate development. The principle
is firmly established that the Government cannot be
estopped by any unauthorized representations made by
its agents concerning uses to which Government property
can be put. Utah Power and Light Co. v. United
States, 243 U.S. 389, 409, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791
(1917); United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8, 94 S.Ct. 19, 38 L.Ed.2d
7 (1973). Moreover, the record clearly reveals that
soots after their development plans came to the Corps'
attention, representatives of Sea Gate were advised
that the construction of permanent improvements on
the Government's easement land posed serious policy
problems which the District Engineer was taking up with
higher levels of authority. Under these circumstances, Sea
Gate, Inc., had no right to assume that it plans would not
ultimately be opposed by the Government.
191 1101 10. Likewise, failure of the United States
to prevent the construction of other improvements
on easement lands elsewhere along the Intracoastal
Waterway cannot estop plaintiff from attempting to
prevent the infringement of its rights in this case. The
Supreme Court recently stated that:
As a general rule laches or neglect of duty on the part of
officers of the REeENse to a suit by it
II I xV � I .,� n. AUGO12016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
to enforce a public right or protect a public interest ..., deed, and parole evidence is inadmissible to vary or
A suit by the United States to enforce and maintain its contradict the instrument's plain meaning or to show
policy respecting lands which it holds in trust for all the that the parties intended something other than what they
people stands upon a different plane in this an some other wrote. Weyerhaeuser Company v. Carolina Power and
respects from the ordinary private suit to regain the title to Light Company, 257 N.C. 717, 127 S.E.2d 539 (1962).
real property or to remove a cloud from it. United States There is nothing ambiguous about the nature or terms
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. of the easement in question. Parole evidence that an
5, 8, 94 S.Ct. 19, 21, 38 L.Ed.2d 7 (1973). understanding' in derogation of the Government's rights
under the easement had previously been reached clearly
This principle unquestionably applies to the present case. cannot be considered by this Court to vary or contradict
[111 (121 1131 114] 1151 11. Plaintiff finally canndbe final written terms. Finally, the firm of auctioneers
be estopped by representations made prior to the sale hired by plaintiff to dispose of this property was not
of this property in 1957 concerning uses to which this authorized to make representations in contravention of
property could be put. In the first place no evidence was the easement terms. The contract between the United
adduced at trial to suggest that Sea Gate, Inc., or any States and the firm expressly stated that the property
of its officers relied upon, or indeed had any knowledge was to be sold subject to the easement in question. The
of such representations prior to its purchase of this auctioneers had no authority to offer the property on
property in 1972. Moreover, a deed creating an easement any other terms and plaintiff cannot be *1361 bound by
by express reservation is a contract, and by fundamental any actions they may have taken beyond their authority.
principles of contract law, where the language of a deed United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 61 S.Ct. 102, 85
is clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties can L.Ed. 40 (1940); Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332
be shown only by the terms of the instrument itself. U.S. 380, 384-385, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947).
All prior and contemporaneous agreements between the
parties are considered merged into the final written
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

i
U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
-- $IR Cr 16M0f
r 'e: RUM t:I0VT
- c� -
-- CANE CREEK
BRI CGE
End of Document
All Citations
397 F.Supp.1351
G 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
(RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Intracoastal Engineering Pi.,.c
July 28, 2016
NCDEQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn: Karen Higgins
Re: Grand View Community Marina
DWR# 2011-041ov3
Wilmington, NC
PN 2014-036
Dear Ms. Higgins,
We are writing in response to the request for additional information dated May
lo, 2016. Within this request, item No. 2 calls for "an engineering analysis
demonstrating the construction and future operation of the proposed facility will not
negatively impact or damage the NEI".
In review of the proposed facility we do not feel the construction or operation of
this facility will negatively impact or damage the NEI. The proposed construction of
dredging or proposed pilings is shown to be a minimum of approximately 15ft away
from the NEI. This should be an acceptable distance with the use of normal jetting of
piles and bucket to barge dredging. The operation of this facility as represented within
the attached cross section profiles shows the depth of the vessels within these areas not
in conflict with the NEI. Please note that these areas are open for vessel operation at the
current time with no limitations. The limitation of a maximum draft depth of 44"
should maintain no conflict or damage. This analysis is based on the lowest tide reading
in the last 5 years. This reading was taken from NOAA Station 8658163 Wrightsville
Beach, Johnny Mercers Pier October 4, 2015 and measured -2.46' in relation to MLW @
0.0.
Please contact us with any questions, comments or additional information needed.
Sincerely,
Intracoastal Engineering PLLC
CA4 � -F-�
Charles D. Cazier, P.E.
RECENED
AUG 01 Z�16
DCM_ MHp CITY
5725 Oleander Dr. Unit E-7 Wilmington, NC 28403 [phone]

celebrating 15 Years
SEPI
July 28, 2016
CO Nf TRUC TON
Tim Owens, Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
azs wade Avenue
Raleigh,321
NCI 2)605
Causewa y Drive
919,789.9977
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
11020 David Taylor
Subject: CAMA Major Permit Application
Drive I Suite 115
Bailey & Associates, Inc., Applicant
Charlotte, INC 128262
704.714.4880
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
5030 New Centre
Drive I Suite B
Dear Mr. Owens,
Wilmington, NC
28403 1910.523.5715
SEPI Engineering &Construction (SEPI) has been asked by the Town of Wrightsville
10800 Midlothian
Beach (Town) to provide an engineering review of the proposed marina project,
Turnpike I suite 100
Grand View Community Boating Facility at 202 Summer Rest Road, with regard to
Richmond, VA
the impact that project will have on the Town's sanitary sewer system. Of specific
23235 1804.594.0181
concern to the Town Is the location of the proposed project relative to the Town's
sanitary sewer force main.
The force main was constructed In the early 1980's as part of the Northeast
Interceptor (NEI) project and represents the sole means of conveyance for sewer
generated by the Town to reach the wastewater treatment facility operated by the
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA). The force main is 14 inch Ductile Iron
Pipe (DIP) which is utilized to pump raw sewage at a current maximum rate of 1.3
Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) to
CFPUA's Bradley Creek pump station located on Oleander Drive_
The force main crossing the AIWW is located in an easement granted by the Staly
'of North Carolina and is approximately 3 to 4 feet below the mudline along the
Basement corridor. The line is anchored with concrete counterweights which are
buried with the pipe at varying Intervals. The existing and proposed project is
located on, over and adjacent to this easement and the force main itself.
Additionally, the Town's AIWW force main crossing runs parallel to underground
power and phone to the South. The proposed project is also located over and
adjacent to these utilities.
The force main crossing an active navigable channel, running parallel to other
existing utilities, and being obstructed by an existing pier and dock, presents
several operational challenges to the Town, In our opinion, the proposed project
will Increase the difficulties in addressing these existing challenges as well as create
a situation where the operational Integrity of the system is reduced.
The following represents a listing of concerns with regard to the information
included in the construction plans and for the impacts to the Town's force main and
utility operations;
1. Existing Condition of the Force Main: The 14 inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP)
fob' Main is over 30 years old and has been in continuous service over that
timeframe. Due to the location of the force main, inspection of the line is difficult
sepiengineering.com
to perform and therefore the current structural integrity of the pipe is unknown.
@SEPfengineers
v,cIVl .v'il-rv111 aV i Lll�, NC
JUL 2 8 2016

i4a
The routing of the force main places the pipe in various coastal environmental
conditions including installation below mean low water, within the tidal zone and in
an upland environment. Ductile Iron Pipe can experience corrosion as a result of
the interior and exterior operational environment the material is exposed to.
Raw sewage can generate corrosive chemicals and gasses that can degrade pipe
Integrity. It is common to see the production of hydrogen sulfide gas within a
sewer collection system and this gas will collect In areas where a trap Is formed and
the gas cannot escape. This occurs in manholes and in high spots along pressure
lines such as a force main. In the case of a force main that may be installed with a
varying vertical elevation it is common practice to install air release valves at
identified high points to vent these gasses. The Town's force main crossing was
installed across the bottom of the AIWW through means of excavation, either
hydraulic or mechanical, to a depth of 3 - 4 feet below the mudline. Due to
localized settlement along the force main route, it is anticipated that areas do exist
within the crossing that could trap hydrogen sulfide gas. Additionally, the force
main transitions in elevation by approximately 6 feet from the east side of the
AIWW to the West side which could also generate conditions suitable for the
trapping of hydrogen sulfide gas. It Is In these areas where the traps are located
that deterioration of the DIP would be seen.
External deterioration of the underground DIP due to environmental factors is
another concern for the Town's existing force main. There are numerous factors
that contribute to this deterioration. Soil conditions that favor anaerobic or aerobic
bacteria, soil resistivity, galvanic corrosion of dissimilar metals, corrosion due to
dissimilar soils, and stray current corrosion that may be generated from buried high
voltage power lines are examples of the mechanisms of external corrosion on
ductile iron pipe.
Another source of pipe degradation is physical damage. The location of the force
main, crossing an active navigational channel, presents an opportunity for damage
from boating traffic as well as channel maintenance.
Due to the age, environmental and operational conditions for the force main
crossing, there is an expectation that the DIP has experienced some deterioration.
The extent of this cannot be determined without extensive testing and
investigation. However It is certain that the proposed project will not improve the
operational integrity and it is our opinion that the project represents a threat to the
force main and a hindrance to the ability of the operations staff to maintain the
force main or to respond to emergency situations.
The proposed project includes the installation of plies and the dredging of material
through mechanical means, The installation of plies can impact pipe Integrity
through direct or indirect means. Pile installation can result in a pipe breach
through direct contact and also by means of indirect stress being placed on the
existing pipe. Soil consolidation can create changes in the material surrounding the
force main resulting in point stresses.
2. Exposure of the existing force main:
The proposed construction plans developed by Land Management Group (LMG)
Dated ]anuary 6, 2016 and provided to SEPI by the Town, indicate the NEI to be
approximately 3 - 4 feet below the "Mud line" near the target area for
dredging. Mechanical (Clamshell) dredging has been Identified as the method of
removing material. This method is primarily successful at removing solid material
as the physical properties of silts and mud limit the amount of that material that
can be removed from a subsurface environment. The LMG drawings indicate the

Intent ls,to lower the existing subsurface elevation by 2 - 4 Feet within the target
dredge area. Add'itionally,'the horizontallocation of the existing force main tofthe
target dredge area varies by approximately 7 - 15 feet.
As defined in the LMG drawings, the intent Is to lower the bottom or mud line by
approximately 2 -'4 feet in the`target'dredge area: This can only be accomplished
by undercutting the solid material below the mud by this amount: Once the solid
material is removed, the mud and silt will fill' In, the void created through ;an
equalization process. Equalization through scuffing and'settlement will also result:in
aside profile of approximately 5 to•1'. This process could'expose the force main
near the dredge area. removing ;any protection from cover that may exist now.
Furthermore, .daily, operation, of the marina will likely subject the force main to
exposure. from boating ;traffic and to an increased danger of damage from prop
wash, vessel strikes, anchors and miscellaneous 'debris coming from a general
increase in surface activity where limited activity should exist.
3. Existing :Conditions Indicated on LMG Construction Drawings: The LMG
Drawings contain infrrmation with,regard to the ;location and depth of the 14 Inch
DTP force main as reported by Johnnie J, Williams.Land Surveying PC. Based .on
the yInformation shown, the joint deflection of the, 14 inch force main may ,have
exceeded the allowable "deflection angle for restrained joint DIP as defined by the:
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association.-
y
The cause of the joint deflection'is unknown.however the only influential factor that.
has been introduced in this area since the Installation of the ;force main
approximately 30 years ago Is, the construction of the existing pler,and dock. It is
reasonable to expect that, the construction of this strucLure'and the increased'
surface activity around the istructure could have: Impacted the. vertical location of
the force main. Prop wash from surface activity concentrated in a specific area and
changes made to current, flows as a result of the piles could have contributed to
settlement 6f the force main.
The accuracy of the survey Is not known therefore it is difficult to' know if this
situation represents .a need', for immediatel concern 'by the Town. However, given
the importance of this connection; the age of the force main, the potential ;for
continued settlement and the environment in which it Is located, further
investigatioh.to accurately, determine the condition of`the .DIP force main is strongly
recommended.
4: Maintenance and Emergency Response: Protection of public health and
safety is the primary operational requirement for the Town, of. Wrightsville Beach.
The ability of the Town's operational staff and/or contractors hired by the Town to
have cleair unobstructed access', to the sanitary sewer system is necessary for the
success of this effort. The Town's easement from the state: defines the corridor in
which all operational activities must occur. The existing and proposed projects
have presented several physical restrictions 'that obstruct access and will restrict
access further'in the future.
a.The, permit applicatiori',for the existing dock: (State Permit No. 84.61)
Indicated that a.50' section of the authorized access pier and floating
dock in the location of the NEI were designed to be bolted' for removal
for required' maintenance. Based on a visuai Inspection; there were no
bolted sections observed., Even if this: access has been provided, the
process of staging equipment and setting, up work platforms to remove
the bolted, sections presents a significant delay, in the ability of the
Town to access the force main. At a pumping rate of 1.3, MGD, this
delay represents' approximately 54,000 gallons per hour of raw sewage
that could potentially be released into the coastal environment;

b. The permit condition (State Permit No, 84.01) that removable sections
Pre needed in the ;pier and floating, dock represents a maintenance
scenario _that is very specific and unlikely. Ih ahe. event that the NEI
were to ,breach, the;.1(kel(hood that maintenance would only involve
access in this manner is very small; if,at all. A breach would require
the town to float a new temporary pipe across theAIWW and across the
marsh, likely for most of the length of`the existing floating dock and
access pier. This would require complete removal of the pier, pilings
and do'ck',as these;would hinder or obstruct access for equipment and
material', Additionally, the boats that were attached to the pier/dock
would need to be removed. If owners were not available then'Town
would have to impound or relocate the vessels. The location of the
temporary and final replacement force main Is fixed based on the
easement agreement with the State as well as the existence of the
other, utpftles in the, corridor. The need to remove the pier, piles and
dock will also (ncreasetheenvironmental impact by delaying the Town.'s..
.response to this emergency,
5i Planned improvements for a new force main crossing by Wrightsville
Beach: The Town: of Wrightsville Beach Is currently developing a scope of work
for the replacement of the.existing, force main crossing the AIWW. The existing
pier and floating dock, as well as the planned project, represents a complication
to this process. The existing and proposed structures are directly Impacting, the
Town's access :to !the easement crossing `the AiWW', Though .the easement
documents do not spedfically idenfify;a width to the easement, It does define a.
Iodation for a corridor which (s between the navigational access for Motts-Creek
to the North' and an Lnderg'round/submerged high voltage line to the South. 'In
practice, easements are defined to provide- sufficient width to allow for access;.
equipment and: manpower to perform the necessary tasks associated with the
Intended use of the easement:
The force main is orlented such that the: existing pier and floating dock, are
directly obstructing horizontal.and�vertical :access for a significant portion of the
route along the western side of the AIM. 'This obstruction will likely impact
anyproposed force main replacement both through schedule and budget: A
plan to either dismantle or remove the existing lot proposed) structure or to
avoid the structure' entirely will need to be developed. 'Further complications
and impacts should, be expected if there is a, plan to reconstruct the pier and
dock facillty.after'Installation pf,the new force main is completed
6. The boundary of che,Riparian Corridor and Setback as, shown on plans;is
incorrect: The''construction plans for the planned Improvements identifies a
riparian,boundary,. A letter'frotn Wessell`,& Raney,. L.L.P. addressed to Mr.
Braxton Davis; Mr, Doug°Huggett, and.Mr. Robb Mairs, dated March 28,.2016,
provides information :with regard to the delineation of the riparian area for the
subject, property therefore, the following' comments are intended to clarifyr the
riparian.boundaryfor the NCDOT.
The boundaryline identified on tne,South side of the, project, ;north of
the USHWY 74-76 Bridge, has been oriented to intersect the navigation at -an
angle of 90 degrees. This, orientation Is incorrect as it ignores and is in conflict
with the northern riparian boundary defined for the NCDOT. Standard practice
for the survey of riparian boundary, is, to (tlentify.or define poundaHes such. that,
the adjoining boundaries are not adversely impacted, The northern NCDOT'
riparian' boundary pr(ginates-at the intersection of the northerh right-of-way
boundary for US74=76; located 15a feet from the centerline of the roadway as
defined by NCDOT, and the Mean High'Water Line on, the western side of the

SEPi
AIWW. This riparian boundary then runs parallel to the road centerline until it
Intersects with the Mean High Waterline on the eastern side of the AIWW. The
riparian buffer along this boundary runs: parallel to the northern riparian
boundary at a distance of 15 feet from the boundary.
This boundary is in place to allow NCDOT sufficient room to conduct operation
and maintenance activitiesfor the support of their facilities crossing the AIWW..
Similar to the need for the Town of Wrightsville Beach to keep the: easement
crossing the AIWW clear from obstructions' and encumbrances that would
prevent the proper maintenanceand operation of the force main crossing, it is
necessary 'for th'e corridor defined for NCDOT to remain clean There are
processes in place that Would allow for NCDOT to -,grant permission for an
encroachment into this- corridor. However, no information has been found to
indicate that any approval has been granted for the proposed,prcject.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of SEPI .that the proposed,project will expose the force
main to potential. damage or breach due to the increased activity over and around the
force main :as well as .create an additional burden and encumbrance to the proper
operation and maintenance of'the4orce main crossing. The,Town's need to restrict
activity• directly over or adjacent to the force main and for the protection of
.operational access has a direct relationship to the operational integrity of the sanitary
sewer system and to the ability of the, Town to protect the health and safety, of the
public.
Additionally, the issues identified based on the force main existing 'condition data
provided on .the Land Management Group drawings potentially represent a significant
problem. The only known :physical changes since the installation of the 14 inch
Ductile Iron Pipe force main In the area around the existing pier and dock structure
and the proposed project is the construction and operation of the existing structure.
If the joint deflection issue was. created by the construction and ongoing surface
activity around the existing pier and'dock it is reasonable to expect the continued use
of the existing facility to exasperate this issue. The continued overstressing of'the
pipe joints will ultimately result in a failure. Consideration should be given to the
removal of the existing pier and clock; structure in, order to improve' the current
operational condition of the system.,
Respectfully Submitted,
SEPI Engineering &,Construction; Inc.
Gregory R Th"ompson, PE, PLS
Site/Civil Department Manager
Enclosures:
Exhibit A
07- aig-1 6
5'

LEGEND
-.—.—.—.--- RPMFlMQARRIDOR
EASTINGFORCE NALIGNMEN
—FM—F&!—
PER RNSBYHENWWNOES
SASSOCNTES
® FM— FM®
EASTINGFCRCEM MGNAIEN
PERLMG FlANS GATED 1IfiRO1fi
METING UNDERGROUND PoWE
— — -y9O - —
ONEPERMBALEYRER
EASEMENT.DATEOWM963
EASTING UNDERGROUND
TELEPHONELINE
FASTING NCOOi WNPEA IMG
M'I
RAN9, OAlED 152G16, AN0
NCDOT RAN
IWGPo OCNR(PANSI16 P!
®
LMGISANB,OATED 152
S,
PROPoSED ER
LM E, MTED IMOIS
I INAMADV
SHF£IiG1E DAM :
SEPI OiOGAVIOTAYLORTH CV OUH f15
O%/I4/Is EIGH. NORTH CJGIO CHARLOTTE,
NORTHGROIINA
MLEIGH. NORTH 10EWREDR
NEI SITE REVIEW EXISTING FDRCEn1AIN EXHIBIT MAP III
Gq 99"
W&E' ENGINEERING G "/'/'+��PIe^P^eeXnp.wm `GLo NEW N, NOR OR, SUTE B
CONSTRUCTION IMLMINGT910 NORTH GA201JNA
�' - 100� BIO.EZl.ET15

.'
LEGEND
. — RRURANMO XR
EASPNGFORCEMMNAL MEM
—FM—FIA— FERRANSGYRENMWNOES
&AMMAM
® FM® FM® PUSRNGFORCEMAINAL MEN
FE MRAMSGATEDIH 16
MSTMG UNDERGROUND PoW^c
-fig -- UNE RWSSA MER
EASEMEM, DAIE➢Yp/19St
_t_ _t_ _t_ _ E%ISTINGUNDERGFDUND
1 E18HONEME
EASTMG NCOOT MRER WG
RVI RANS,DATEDINAIS,ANO
NCDOT RAN
M
FRGW E SI0NR
®
RANDSRAWCNTED L50
, IM01
w
RRGPODEODREGGEAREARER
O
LMG0. GATED1HWtE
MOYOI.
NEI SrFE REVIEW
7i�fTR�
EXISTING FORCEMA4N EXNIBITMAP
07/14/18
1@$YNGEAYFNUE MDAR LFnMDRG.O E
SEPI 110ID GAVIOTA NOiORIV OUM115
R e'iWe C Gum TCe.714AM
E M O 1 N E E R I N O 6 5 O NEW CEMRE GR, EUITE9
C O M 5 T R U C T I O N W LMINGTON, NORM CAROUM
8105Il5115
'� _ �O.

RN
WEssm.T & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 88404-1049
JOHN C. WRSSRLL, III
WRSSELI.®BRT-T ODTH.NRT
WD.L A. RANEY, JR.
[e-mail]
March 28, 2016
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Braxton Davis
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Doug Huggett
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Robb Mairs
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit Application
Bailey & Associates, Inc., Applicant
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Dear Messrs. Davis, Huggett and Mairs:
STREET ADDRESS:
107-B NORTH 2NO STREET
WDasWr N,NC 2WI
TET.EPHONE: 910-792-7475
FACBDSHs: 910-762-7557
RP. - w
w IVpa
VAR 302016
4CM_ MHD C/TV'
We represent the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town"). This letter is written to express the
objection of the Town to the issuance of a CAMA Major Development Permit to Bailey & Associates,
Inc. for a proposed marina project called Grand View Community Boating Facility at 202 Summer Rest
Road, Wilmington, NC. The application is dated February 18, 2016. The notice to adjacent riparian
owners is dated February 28, 2016, but there is no indication of when it may have been received by the
adjacent riparian owners.
The Town provided comments to DCM objecting to prior applications for this site. The comment
letters were dated July 2, 2015; March 28, 2011; October 1, 2008; May 9, 2008; and July 22, 2007.
The Town is adamantly opposed to issuance of a permit for this proposed project. The Town's
opposition has been expressed several times in the past when other proposals have been made for changes
to the existing facilities at this site. The Town's opposition is based primarily on the fact that the
proposed facilities are located on, over and around the Town -owned sanitary sewer force main which
carries all of the raw sewage from the Town to a wastewater treatment plant on the mainland owned and

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Two
operated by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. The sewer line is known as the Northeast Interceptor
or NEI.
The Town commented on a prior proposal by the applicant in a letter dated October 1, 2008.
Excerpts from that letter are as follows:
111. Unreasonable danger to Town of Wrightsville Beach sewer line -
There is a main sewer line known as the Northeast Interceptor which carries all
of the sanitary sewage from the Town of Wrightsville Beach to a regional
wastewater treatment plant. If this line were to be damaged during pier
construction, pier maintenance, dredging or operation of vessels, the damage to
public health and the environment would be catastrophic. The plan discloses
many reasons why this concern is real and immediate.
1.3. Maintenance — The need to periodically maintain, repair or
replace the sewer line will be made impossible by the existence of the pier and
docks.
1.4. Emergency Repairs — The need for emergency repairs is even
more problematic as every minute that repairs are delayed could result in
hundreds of gallons of raw sewage entering the water. Removal of the vessels
and structures would surely take hours to accomplish before repairs could begin.
Recent experience with other portions of the Northeast Interceptor sewer line in
the vicinity of Hewlett's Creek shows that sewer lines of this vintage have a real
possibility offailure.
2. Violation of Town's easement rights - The Town obtained an easement
from the State of North Carolina to locate this sewer line on state owned
submerged lands. The Town also acquired a CAMA Major Permit with renewals
and modificationsfor installing the sewer line...
The permit application in paragraph X.D. indicates that all work was to
be done in DOT right-of-way and waters owned by the State of North Carolina.
The current application of Bailey & Associates shows that the sewer line crosses
the high water mark at a point on the DOT right -of way. The sewer line then
proceeds into the riparian area of the DOT right-of-way property. The DOT
(State of North Carolina) riparian area is established by extending the riparian
line from the high water markperpendicular to the channel ofMotts Creek.

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Three
The easement from the State of North Carolina to the Town of Wrightsville
Beach gives the Town property rights in the area over which the pier[is] built. It
is fundamental real estate law that the owner of the land over which an easement
is granted cannot "use his land in such a way as to obstruct or interfere with the
exercise of the easement or inconsistent with its purposes... ". Webster's Real
Estate Law in North Carolina 5`r' Edition, Hedrick & McLaughlin, §15.23. The
construction of piers and docks within the easement granted by the State of North
Carolina to the Town of Wrightsville Beach obstructs and interferes with the
Town's exercise of its easement rights and should not be allowed. "
(copy of 2008 letter is enclosed)
The Town would like to elaborate on those objections and draw attention to certain rules and legal
principles that the Town believes require denial of the application.
The principal objections relate to property rights and public safety and can be summarized as
follows:
The applicant is proposing to do work in a riparian area to which it has no rights.
2. The applicant is infringing on the easement rights granted by the State of North Carolina to
the Town for construction of the NEI.
3. The construction and use of the marina will increase the risk of damage to the sewer line
and the existence of the pier and dock and docked vessels will delay emergency response to a catastrophic
spill caused by damage or normal deterioration.
The Town would like to supplement its prior comments regarding riparian area and easement
rights as follows:
Riparian Area
The applicant's ownership extends only to the mean high water line. A Declaration of Final
Resolution of Claim to Submerged Land recorded in Book 2317 at Page 398 of the New Hanover County
Registry denies the applicant's claim to any areas below mean high water. At the eastern end of the
applicant's property where applicant's property line intersects the North Carolina DOT right of way
property line the applicant's shoreline faces Motts Creek. A line perpendicular to Motts Creek channel is
the appropriate delineation of the riparian area allocated to the applicant. The issuance of prior permits
and permit modifications allowing construction of a pier and docks in the NCDOT riparian area were

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Four
made in error. This error should not be compounded by a significant enlargement of these structures and
the allowance of dredging in areas that are not within the applicant's riparian corridor.
Encroachment on Town Easement
The Town was granted an easement by the State of North Carolina "to construct, install, improve,
replace, inspect, repair and maintain a sanitary sewer pipeline" as depicted on drawings attached to the
easement. The easement was approved by the Governor and Council of State on May 4, 1982 and signed
by the Governor on May 27, 1982.
This easement grants rights that are superior to any rights purportedly conferred by a CAMA
Permit for construction of a pier and docks in the same location. The State has no right to grant an
easement or other authorization for any person to utilize the same easement area already conveyed to the
Town if the additional use impairs the authorized use by the Town. (See US v. Seagate, Inc., 397 F Supp.
1351 (EDNC 1975). An owner can grant easements to third parties allowing third parties to use an
easement area previously granted, but only if "such additional easements do not unreasonably interfere
with the original easement holder's usage of the original easement." Webster's Real Estate Law in North
Carolina, 6 s edition, Section 15.23. The location of pier and dock structures within the Town's easement
constitutes an unreasonable interference with the Town's right to construct, maintain and repair its sewer
line.
Application Errors
1. Plan. The plans attached to the application have an inaccurate depiction of the riparian
corridor of the applicant. The plan shows a line from the easternmost point on the mean high water line
of applicant's upland property extending eastwardly and perpendicular to the channel of the Intracoastal
Waterway. The proper delineation of the applicant's riparian corridor is to extend the riparian corridor
line from this same point to the channel of Mott's Creek rather than the Intracoastal Waterway. The area
in which all of the changes to the existing dock are proposed is within the riparian corridor of the North
Carolina DOT right-of-way for Highway 74/76. As noted in the prior comments, the State of North
Carolina granted an easement to the Town for construction of the NEI within this DOT riparian corridor.
2. Narrative.
a. The applicant's property does not abut the AIWW on the east end as stated in
paragraph 1 of the narrative.

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Five
b. The Northeast Interceptor (NEI) is not "buried within the riparian corridor of this
[the applicant's] property" as stated in the third paragraph of the narrative. Rather, the NEI is located
within the riparian corridor of the NCDOT right-of-way for Highway 74/76.
C. The applicant states that "all structures would remain outside the right-of-way
identified by NCDOT" in paragraph 6 of the narrative. However, the narrative fails to disclose that the
structures would be within the DOT riparian corridor adjacent to the DOT upland property.
Form DCM MP-1 (references are to numbered paragraphs within the Form).
4.b. - The actual size of the area above mean high water is much less than .85 acres. A
submerged land claim was filed by a prior owner of applicant's property pursuant to G.S. 113-265. The
claim to any area below mean high water was denied in a Declaration filed in Book 2317 at Page 396 of
the New Hanover County Registry. The upland area above the mean high water line appears to be no
more than .2 acres.
41- The zoning by New Hanover County requires a special use permit for a community
boating facility in a B-1 zone. To the Town's knowledge, no special use permit has been issued by New
Hanover County.
4. Form DCM MP-4.
7.a. - The applicant incorrectly states that the structure is located 164' to the northern
riparian corridor limit. Conversely, the structure actually encroaches into the riparian corridor of DOT's
upland property for about 450 feet.
7.c. - The applicant measures the water body width to the east side of the AIWW. The
correct water body for applicant's upland.property is Mott's Creek, not the AIWW.
Violation of Specific CRC Rules
The applicant's proposal violates the following CRC rules:
1. 15A NCAC 7H.0208(b)(5)(F). "Marinas shall not be located without written consent from
the lease holders. or owners of submerged lands that have been leased from the State or deeded by the
State." The proposed structures are located in an area where the State has deeded an easement to the
Town of Wrightsville Beach for construction of a sewer line, and a sewer line is in fact located within the
deeded easement.

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Six
2. 15A NCAC 71-1.0208(b)(6)(I). This rule establishes the method by which riparian
corridors for waterfront properties are determined. It further requires a 15' setback of structures from the
riparian corridor boundary. The applicant in this case is proposing structures within the riparian corridor
of NCDOT. The NCDOT riparian corridor lies adjacent to the NCDOT right-of-way for Highway 74/76.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Town of Wrightsville Beach respectfully requests that the permit
application of Bailey & Associates be denied.
Yours very truly,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
John Wessell, III
JCW:ktw
Enclosure
JCW\WRBCH\W08-097-C101

I/
Ia
JOHN C. WESSELL, III
WESSELIQBELLSO=.NEW
WD.L A. RANEY, JR.
WARANEYa@BELLSOUTLI T
WESSELL &s RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFIOE Box 1049
WILMINOTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
October 1, 2008
VIA U.S. MAIL AND FAX [phone])
Mr. Steve Everhart
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Bailey & Associates, Inc.
Modification application
Dear Mr. Everhart:
STREET ADDRESS:
107-13 NORTH 2" STREET
WD•. GTON, NC 28401
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAcsn�: 910-762-7557
We represent the Town of Wrightsville Beach. The Town has
received notice of an application for an additional modification of
Permit 84-01 now held by Bailey & Associates, Inc. The modification
request was mailed to the Town by letter dated September 15, 2008
from Jim Hundley of Waterline, a marine contractor. The Town submits
the following comments on the application and objects to the permit
modification for the following reasons:
APPLICATION ISSUES
MP-1 Form
4.a. - The total length of shoreline along the high water
line is only about 4001, not the 850+/- claimed. The applicant
apparently measured the shoreline length either along the low water
line or a combination of the low water line and an arbitrary line
through the marsh.
4.b. - The size of the tract should be calculated as the
area above mean high water. This area appears to be in the
neighborhood of 8,000 square feet rather than the 43,877 square feet
claimed by the applicant. Most of the square footage claimed by the
applicant is submerged land.

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 2
MP-4 Form
2. - Section 2 of MP-4 relating to docking facility and
marina operations is marked "this section not applicable". Although
the amount of dock space appears to qualify this for a marina
designation, the applicant contends that it is limited to 10 slips.
Nonetheless, it is a docking facility that will have the capability
of docking large vessels and the form should be completed. In
particular, the Town of Wrightsville Beach has concerns about
uncontrolled discharge of waste from marine heads and the applicant
should provide information on this issue.
7.a. - The location of the riparian property line is
represented to be 15' south of the proposed structures. However, the
bulk of the structures are located within the riparian area of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation. This issue will be
addressed in subsequent parts of this letter.
OBJECTIONS AND GROUNDS FOR PERMIT DENIAL
1. Unreasonable danger to Town of Wrightsville Beach sewer
line - There is a main sewer line known as the Northeast Interceptor
which carries all of the sanitary sewage from the Town of
Wrightsville Beach to a regional wastewater treatment plant. If this
line were to be damaged during pier construction, pier maintenance,
dredging or operation of vessels, the damage to public health and the
environment would be catastrophic. The plan discloses many reasons
why this concern is real and immediate.
I.I. Construction - The location of the sewer line is not
shown on the plan beyond the first finger pier. The gazebo and all
four finger piers are proposed to be built over the line, but.it is
unclear where the pilings to which the finger piers are attached will
be located. The driving or jetting of pilings has the real potential
of damage to the sewer line during construction.
1.2. Dredging - The plan is not clear regarding the extent
of dredging but it appears that the dredging is proposed up to and
perhaps beyond the sewer line where the line goes under the
westernmost finger pier. The dredging is proposed to a depth of -6'
MLW. At least part of the line near the low water mark is only -2
below the ground surface. As the line proceeds under the proposed
gazebo into the area proposed for dredging, the notation on the plan
indicates that the sewer line is 2' below the mud line. The water
depth in this area is about -3' MLW, thereby putting the sewer line
at -5' MLW. This results in dredging to a depth below the sewer
line. Obviously it is impossibleto dredge to -6' MLW in this area
without damaging or affecting the integrity of the line. Even if the

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 3
dredging stops short of the line, the sloughing of the soil could
cause the line to become exposed or to be unsupported.
1.3. Maintenance - The need to periodically maintain,
repair or replace the sewer line will be made impossible by the
existence of the pier and docks, including the fixed structures such
as the gazebo. Bolting the floating section is not adequate
accommodation for maintenance or repair as the entirety of the finger
piers and associated pilings would have to be removed to accommodate
construction. barges.
1.4. Emergency Repairs - The need for emergency repairs is
even more problematic as every minute that repairs are delayed could
result in hundreds of gallons of raw sewage entering the water.
Removal of the vessels and structures would surely take hours to
accomplish before repairs could begin. Recent experience with other
portions of the Northeast Interceptor sewer line in the vicinity of
Hewlett's Creek shows that sewer lines of this vintage have a real
possibility of failure.
2. Violation of Town's easement rights - The proposed gazebo and
all four finger piers are constructed over the Town's sewer line.
The Town obtained an easement from the State of North Carolina
("Easement" attached as Exhibit A) to locate this sewer line on state
owned_ submerged lands. The Town also acquired a CAMA Major Permit
with renewals and modifications for installing the sewer line.
(Permit and application attached as Exhibit B). Exhibit B consists
of the renewal modification permit issued in March 1982 and a further
modification issued in July 1982. The Town records did not include
the original permit apparently issued in 1978.
The permit application in paragraph X.D. indicates that all work
was to be done in DOT right-of-way and waters owned by the State of
North Carolina. The current application of Bailey & Associates shows
that the sewer line crosses the high water mark at a point on the DOT
right -of way. The sewer line then proceeds into the riparian area of
the DOT right-of-way property. The DOT (State of North Carolina)
riparian area is established by extending the riparian line from the
high water mark perpendicular to the channel of Motts Creek.
The easement from the State of North Carolina to the Town of
Wrightsville Beach gives the Town property rights in the area over
which the pier, the gazebo and all of the finger piers are proposed
to be built. It is fundamental real estate law that the owner of the
land over which an easement is granted cannot "use his land in such a.
way as to obstruct or interfere with the exercise of the easement or
inconsistent with its purposes...".. Webster's Real Estate Law in
North Carolina, 5`h Edition, Hedrick & McLaughlin. The construction

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 4
of piers and docks within the easement granted by the State of North
Carolina to the Town of Wrightsville Beach obstructs and interferes
with the Town's exercise of its easement rights and should not be
allowed.
3. Violation of CAMA and CRC Rules
3.1 G.S. 113A-120 (a) (2) - The proposed development is in
the estuarine waters AEC and must meet the standards in G.S. 113-
229(e) which are incorporated by reference in G.S. 113A-120 (a) (2) .
G.S. 113-229(e) provides, inter alia, that a permit application can
be denied if "there will be a significant adverse, effect on the
public health, safety or welfare...". In this case the expanded
docking facilities/marina will extend into an area that is heavily
used at times as a safe navigation/waiting area for vessels waiting
to use the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission boat ramp at
Wrightsville Beach. The proposed docking facility is also located in
the navigation area for vessels waiting for periodic bridge opening
of the Wrightsville Beach drawbridge. This is an extremely congested,
area and further obstruction of navigable water constitutes a
significant adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare.
The safety issue is compounded by the applicant's indication
that the typical size of the vessels using the facility will be 65
feet. Vessels of this size will have a difficult time maneuvering
into the slips proposed even if the area were not congested by other
boats. Navigation in and out of the slips will be further
complicated by the fact that there is a significant current in the
entire area of the proposed docks.
The public health, safety and welfare will also be significantly
adversely affected by the construction of the pier and docking
facilities over the main sewer line for the Town of Wrightsville
Beach. (See previous comments).
3.2. - G.S. 113A-120(a)(5) - Public trust waters
The proposed development is in the Public Trust Water AEC.
The statutory standard for this AEC requires the development to be
denied if it will jeopardize the public rights or interests specified
in G.S. 113A-113 (b) (5) . Among public trust rights is the right of
navigation. The extended proposed docking facility is located in an
area heavily used for public navigation. The slips extend across the
deepest water leading to the docking facilities located along Summer
Rest Road. The 5 outermost slips are over the deepest water
providing navigation to and from Motts Creek. The docks occupy the
channel leading from the private boating facilities along Summer Rest
Road to the channel of the AIWW.

L
Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 5
3.3. - G.S. 113A-120(a)(8) - State Guidelines and Local
Land Use Plans - The proposed project is inconsistent with
State guidelines found in 15A NCAC, subchapter 7H and within the
Local Land Use Plan for New Hanover County and Wilmington.
3.3.1. - 7H.0207(c), (d).
The proposal is inconsistent with the management objective of
protecting public rights of navigation and recreation set forth in
.0207(d) which states:
"In the absence of overriding public benefit, any
use which significantly interferes with the public
right of navigation or other public trust rights
which the public may be found to have in these
areas, shall not be allowed."
While piers and even marinas are examples of the uses acceptable
in public trust areas, they are subject to the proviso that "such.
uses will not be detrimental to the public trust rights."
For the reasons stated above, the public has an intense and
necessary navigational use of the area which should not be preempted
by the construction of the docking facility. The above -referenced
rules specifically provide that "projects which would directly or
indirectly block or impair existing navigation channels, are
generally considered incompatible with the management policies of the
public trust areas."
3.3.2. - 7H.0208(a)(2)(H)
Among the general use standards applicable to coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters and public trust areas is the following:
"Development shall not impede navigation or
create undue interference with access to, or
use of, public trust areas or estuarine
waters."
3.3.3. - 7H.0208(b)(5)
This facility should be considered a marina because the
extent of the dockage space readily accommodates in excess of 10
boats for permanent dockage.
3.3.4. - 7H.0208(b)(5)(B)

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 6
This rule provides that for marinas associated with
residential development are allowed no more than 27 square feet of
public trust area for every linear foot of the shoreline. An
accurate measure of the applicant's shoreline along the normal high
water mark is only about 4001. This allows the use of 10,800 square
feet of public trust area. The public trust area occupied by the
proposed docks, not including the access pier, is roughly 16,000
square feet.
3.3.5 - 7H. 0208 (b) (5) (F)
This rule requires approval of controlling parties in areas
which have been deeded by the State. The State has granted a deed of
easement to the Town of Wrightsville Beach for the Town's sewer line
which is located where the pier and docking facilities are proposed.
3.3.6 - 7H. 0 2 0 8 (b) (5) (H) , (I)
The applicant's proposal does not "minimize adverse effects
on navigation and public use of public trust areas" nor does the
applicant "avoid adverse impacts on navigation in federally
maintained channels and their immediate boundaries" as required in
the above -referenced rule. The applicant has no right to expand the
size of the facility and to navigation areas 'simply to make more
money at the expense of public uses.
3.3.7 - 7H.0208(b)(6)(D)
The above -referenced rule limits the square footage of
docking facilities based on the applicant's shoreline length. As
previously set forth, the length of the applicant's shoreline is
about 400' rather than the 850' claimed by the applicant. The
applicant is allowed 4 square feet per linear foot of shoreline or
1,600 square feet for the combined area of "T"s finger piers,
platforms and decks. The combined area for these facilities proposed
by the applicant is 4,004 square feet if all of the floating docks
are considered finger piers, or 3,304 square feet if the main
floating dock is considered a part of the pier. In either case the
combined total area greatly exceeds the area allowed by the rule.
3.3.8 - 7H.0208(b) (6) (J) (ii)
The applicant's proposal extends the pier, including the
finger piers, into the channel of Motts Creek. The above -referenced
rule prohibits structures which extend into the channel portion of a
water body.

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 7
3.3.9 - 7H. 0208 (b) (6) (J) (iii)
The proposed docking facility extends more than 1/4Ch the
distance across the body of water. The applicant indicates that the
width of the water body is 485' measured from the edge of the marsh
on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway to the high water mark
on the east side. This allows a facility to extend 121.251 from the
edge of the marsh into the body of water. The floating dock
structures extend about 160' from the edge of the marsh, thus
exceeding the 1/41° rule by a significant amount.
In addition, when a creek or channel comes into a larger
body of water such as is the case here, the 1/4`h rule should use the
equidistant method of establishing a center line for the body of
water so that a 1/4`° width can be established as the smaller channel
enters the larger body of water. This assures that the center 34 of
the body of water remains open for public use. Although the Motts
Creek area in this location consists of a complicated shoreline, it
appears that the finger piers extend well into the middle 34 of Motts
Creek Channel as it connects to the Intracoastal Waterway, thereby
violating the 1/41" rule.
3.3.10. - Wilmington/New Hanover County Land Use Plan, Part
III, Section A, Policy 3.20
In relevant part the above -referenced policy states:
"Prohibit new dredging activities in shell fishing waters (SA)...".
There are exceptions to this policy for certain activities and for
areas previously dredged, none of which are applicable to this
application. This prohibition is similar to, but much broader than,
the CRC rule that prohibits new dredging in primary nursery areas
(PNAs). The City/County policy applies. to outstanding resource
waters and SA waters in addition to PNAs. The prohibition extends to
all SA waters whether open to shell fishing or not. When I
questioned the City and, County staff during the development of the
plan concerning the breadth of the SA dredging prohibition, they
responded that they intended the policy to apply to both open and
closed shell fishing waters. Accordingly, the dredging portion of
the project is inconsistent with the City/County Land Use Plan.
3.3.11. - Wilmington/New Hanover County Land Use Plan, Part
III, Section A, Policy 3.4 and Strategies 3.4.5 and 3.4.6
These policies relate to eliminating pollution from
municipal wastewater treatment systems by assuring continuing
inspection, maintenance and repair. The location of the fixed parts
of the proposed pier and the floating docks and associated pilings
directly over the City/County main sewer line serving all of
Wrightsville Beach will provide a significant obstacle to inspecting,

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 8
maintaining and repairing the sewer line in accordance with this
policy.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein the Town of Wrightsville Beach
respectfully requests that the permit modification requested by
Bailey & Associates be denied.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
Attorneys for Town of
Wrightsville Beach
0, 0, Ar.
William A. Rane
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. Bob Simpson
Mr. John C. Wessell, III
Mr. Mike Vukelich
SCW\wrbch\W00-099-0O3

1�
Coats, Heather
From: Mairs, Robb L
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:06 PM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject: FW: Grand View Boating Facility - Application for CAMA Major Permit
Attachments:. Bailey Dock16.docx
Fyi. Thanks.
-----Original Message -----
From: James Long [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 201611:56 AM
To: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>
Subject: Grand View Boating Facility -Application for CAMA Major Permit
To: Robb Mairs
CAMA
Robb, once again we are writing in opposition to Bailey and Associates "Grand View Marina." Please see attached.
The objections expressed in our earlier letter in July, W15, are basically the same with one added caveat. Since then the
Pedestrian and Bike Trail under the Wrightsville Beach Drawbridge that will link A!rile Road with Summer Rest Road/Trail
is now being built. Once completed, this additional access to the entrance of Summer Rest Road will greatly increase the
traffic congestion at the threshold to my neighborhood. While I realize many may see this as a positive, they do not live
in my neighborhood and face the "walkers, joggers, bikers, skateboarders" that use Summer Rest Trail everyday.
Thank you for considering our objections to this marina.
James and Bess Long
207 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
[e-mail]
916-264-2271

t 'i�.
To: Robb Mairs, CAMA
We are writing you to express our opposition to _Bailey and Assoc. Marina.
We are very concerned about the proposed marina at the threshold to Summer Rest
Road. Our neighborhood consists of approximately 70 homes and a city "Trail"
that uses the Summer Rest Road as part of the trail. Everyone has to enter and
exit the busy Hwy 74 /7 6 where there is no traffic light. by virtue of its close
proximity to the Wrightsville Beach Draw Bridge. This is a heavily congested
area. With Ill apartments and 15,000+ square feet of mixed use space soon to
open at the Grand View Apartment Complex,. we hesitate to even imagine the
congestion at this dangerous intersection.
For the following reasons, we object to the proposed Bailey and Associates
Marina which boarders this intersection:
More congestion at the entrance to Summer Rest Road... The proposed marina has
no parking. This intersection is already dangerous for traffic turning on to
Summer Rest Road -
The proposed marina is separately owned by Bailey and Associates and even
though the same entity owns the Grand View apartments, there is almost no way
to feasible oversee who the marina users will be. They could be guest who walk
over, others who come by car or even other slip renters not part of Grand View.
adding greatly to congestion, and all of this at the entrance to Summer Rest
Road.
Outside of the dredged Mott's Creek channel at the mouth to the AIWW, the creek
itself is barely navigable. The 73' pier that is proposed would extend to a
gazebo 201X141. At low tide this gazebo could be over what little water is left
and in effect block water access for other users.
4. Three homes and one 6 slip community dock use the riparian Mott's Creek
channel to access the AIWW. The proposed marina would narrow this small channel
that boarders with an oyster rock island to the North and the proposed marina
to the South with its 12 slips + untold numbers of wave runners, kayaks, and
paddle boards and. potentially create much congestion to the point of dangerous.
5. The busy Wrightsville Beach Boat Ramp is just across the AIWW. Boats wait to
load on their trailers by circling in front of the drawbridge. Larger boats
wait for the drawbridge to open. This body of water in front of the proposed
Marina is highly congested at present. This could be why the CAMA Permit which
Bailey and Associates now holds permits only two boat slips! The permit
specifically states that in permitting TWO Slips it included wave runners and
canoes!
We respectfully request that this proposed marina be turned down.
James S & Bess S Long
207 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
[e-mail]
910-264-2271
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAR 1 8 2016

Coats, Heather
From: Mairs, Robb L
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:12 PM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject:. FW: Bailey and Associates: Grand View Community Marina, Summer Rest Road.
Fyi.
From: John Blackwell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:09 AM
To: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Bailey and Associates: Grand View Community Marina, Summer Rest Road.
Robb,
Can you meet with Jim Long and myself briefly in early April? Our position on the Bailey project on Summer
Rest Road has not changed. Please see my revised comments below and consider this my formal submission.
THX!
Robb,
Thank you for making time to sit down with Jim Long and myself today. Please accept this email as my formal
comments on this project. I have commented on this project several times in the past as well...:.
This is not your ordinary objection to a proposed application. This application to build 17 boat slips and 2
gazebo's in this tight/ highly traveled area is absolutely absurd.
o The project is right on top of an active sewer line
o The riparian rights lines aren't even drawn correctly
o Those who use the public boat ramp are constantly circling near this project while
they wait to take their boat out of water.
o The fast Gazebo .blocks access to many who constantly bait fish on that creek
o The traffic (boat. and car) in that area is already too heavy...
o The project restricts our egress/regress to our slips at low tide when you consider
the oyster bed.
This project is clearly too big for this site and will not be received well by Wrightsville Beach, the DOT and the
people that have used these waters recreationally for years. ** *Please see that whomever is in charge of making
a final decision on this case personally visit this site. They will see immediately what'we are all concerned
about. There are no positives embedded in this project at all.... It needs to be cut in half at a minimum.

: Thank you for looking out for us all.
John Blackwell, direct neighbor to the north,.

SMITHMOORE
LEATHERWOOD
ATTORNFY5 AT LAW
July 28, 2016
VIA FEDEX and E-MAIL: [e-mail]
Karen A. Higgins, Supervisor
N.C. Dept of Environmental Quality - Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury St.
9th Floor, Suite 942d
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: CAMA Permit Application Submittal for Bailey & Associates, Inc.
Client -Matter No. 05 01965 1.000001
Dear Ms. Higgins:
101 N. Third Street
Suite 400
Wilmington, NC 28401
With regard to the above -referenced matter, enclosed please find the following:
1. Letter to Braxton Davis, Doug Huggett and Robb Mairs of Division of Coastal
Management responding to the Town of Wrightsville Beach's 3/28/16 letter; and,
2. Report of Charles D. Cazier, P.E. with one (1) 24"06" copy of Cross Section Profiles
for Grand View Community Marina.
If you require any additional information please let me know. Thank you for your assistance with
this matter.
Sincerely,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
Matthew A. Nichols RECEIVED
MAN/nc AUG 01 2016
Enclosures
cc: Heather Coats - DCM Wilmington (via hand -delivery) DC M - M H D CITY
Matthew A. Nichols I Direct: 910.815.7132 1 matt. [e-mail] I www.smithmoorelaw.com
ATLANTA I CHARLESTON I CHARLOTTE I GREENSBORO I GREENVILLE I RALEIGH I WILMINGTON

SNA ITI ] MOOR:E
LEATHERWOOD
Al To r. .I I AI lAw
July 28, 2016
VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL
Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
[e-mail]
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
[e-mail]
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
[e-mail]
Re: Response to Town of Wrightsville Beach 3/28/16 Letter
Applicant: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Grand View Community Marina
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Client -Matter No. 05019651.000001
Dear Messrs. Davis, Huggett and Mairs:
101 N. Third Street
Suite 400
Wilmington, NC 28401
We represent Bailey and Associates, Inc. —the property owner and Applicant —with
regard to the above -referenced matter. Please accept this letter as a response to the comments
and objections raised by the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town") in a letter to you dated
March 28, 2016, from Town Attorney John C. Wessell, III ("Town's Objection Letter").
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Matthew A. Nichols I Direct: 910.815.7132 1 matt. n1 chols Qsmithmoorelaw.com I www.smithmoorelaw.com
ATLANTA I CHARLESTON I CHARLOTTE I GREENSBORO I GREENVILLE I RALEIGH I WILMINGTON

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 2
1. Issues Raised by Town Regarding its Claimed "Easement"
As to the Town's objections, we disagree with a number of legal assertions and
conclusions in the Town's Objection Letter regarding the purported existence and scope of the
Town's "easement."
A. Following Requests for Supporting Documentation. the "Easement" Remains
Unsupported By Fact or By Law
More than 18 months ago, my client requested that the Town provide us with some basic
information regarding the Town's claimed easement, to which the Town has never responded.
Specifically, on November 14, 2014, we sent a formal public records request to the Town of
Wrightsville Beach Town Manager with a copy to the Town Attorney. A copy of that public
records request is attached to my client's CAMA application in this matter, and we have also
attached a copy of that public records request as Exhibit "1" to this letter for ease of reference.
In that public records request, we asked the Town to provide us with a copy of the
recorded easement or the recording information from the New Hanover County Register of
Deeds Office for the Town's claimed easement (recorded Deed Book and Page Number). This
basic information has never been provided to us by the Town. 1 To our knowledge, the Town has
also not provided this information to NCDEQ-DCM ("DCM"), and no such information is
contained in the Town's Objection Letter to DCM. Our independent search of the New Hanover
County Register of Deeds records revealed that, to the best of our knowledge, the easement has
not been recorded.
We also asked the Town to provide us with any documents (memoranda, correspondence,
emails, maps, surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents) that
supplement, amend, modify or supersede the Town's claimed easement. Again, the Town did
not respond.
As to the actual easement claimed by the Town, the only document we have seen is an
unrecorded photocopy of a document from 1982 entitled "Easement" which does not bear any
original signatures. We would also note that no copy of this document was attached to the
' In fact, the Town has never responded to Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s November 14, 2014
public records request, which is not consistent with the requirements of North Carolina's Public
Records statute, Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 3
Town's Objection Letter to DCM. For your reference, a copy of that "Easement" document is
attached as Exhibit "A" to the public records that was sent to the Town on November 14, 2014.
We take several issues with this easement document under North Carolina real estate law
principles. First, as noted above, the easement document does not bear any original signatures or
copies of original signatures. The Town's Objection Letter states: "The easement was approved
by the Governor and the Council of State on May 4, 1982 and signed by the Governor on May
27, 1982." (Town's Objection Letter, p. 4). We have never seen such a document signed by the
Governor, and the Town has produced no such document.
Without an original signed copy of the easement, it is difficult to assure that this 30+ year
old unrecorded document with unoriginal signatures is the final approved version of the
purported easement. Accordingly, we think it is reasonable and prudent to request that the Town
produce a copy of the original signed document, as this would be expected of any other party
claiming an interest in real estate in North Carolina, and particularly where that party is objecting
to a permit application.
B. The Easement is Unrecorded and is Not a Valid Interest In Land
Second, and more importantly, to the best of our knowledge, the easement is unrecorded.
N.C. GEN. SrAT. § 47-27 mandates that the easement be recorded in the New Hanover County
Register of Deeds Office in order to be binding upon third -parties, such as my client.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 47-27 states:
All persons, firms, or corporations now owning or hereafter acquiring
any deed or agreement for rights-of-wav and easements of any
situated. Where such deeds and agreements may have been acquired, but
no use has been made thereof, the person, firm, or corporation holding
such instrument, or any assignment thereof, shall not be required to record
them until within 90 days after the beginning of the use of the easements
granted thereby. If after 90 days from the beginning of the easement
granted by such deeds and agreements the person, firm, or corporation
holding such deeds or agreements has not recorded the same in the office
of the register of deeds of the county where the land affected is situated,
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- M�_.,'o C,,ry

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 4
then the grantor in the said deed or agreement may, after 10 days' notice
in writing served and returned by the sheriff or other officer of the county
upon the said person, firm, or corporation holding such lease or
agreement, file a copy of the said lease or agreement for registration in the
office of the register of deeds of the county where the original should have
been recorded, but such copy of the lease or agreement shall have attached
thereto the written notice above referred to, showing the service and return
of the sheriff or other officer. The registration of such copy shall have the
same force and effect as the original would have had if recorded:
Provided, said copy shall be duly probated before being registered.
Nothing in this section shall require the registration of the following
classes of instruments or conveyances, to wit:
(1) It shall not apply to any deed or instrument executed prior to
January 1, 1910.
(2) It shall not apply to any deed or instrument so defectively
executed or witnessed that it cannot by law be admitted to probate or
registration, provided that such deed or instrument was executed
prior to the ratification of this section.
(3) It shall not apply to decrees of a competent court awarding
condemnation or confirming reports of commissioners, when such
decrees are on record in such courts.
(4) It shall not apply to local telephone companies, operating
exclusively within the State, or to agreements about alleyways.
The failure of electric companies or power companies operating
exclusively within this State or electric membership corporations,
organized pursuant to Chapter 291 of the Public Laws of 1935 [G.S. 117-6
through 117-27], to record any deeds or agreements for rights -of -way
acquired subsequent to 1935, shall not constitute any violation of any
criminal law of the State of North Carolina.
No deed, agreement for right-of-way, or easement of any character
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 5
shall be valid as against any creditor or purchaser for a valuable
consideration but from the registration thereof within the county
where the land affected thereby lies.
From and after July 1, 1959, the provisions of this section shall apply to
require the Department of Transportation to record as herein provided any
deeds of easement, or any other agreements granting or conveying an
interest in land which are executed on or after July 1, 1959, in the same
manner and to the same extent that individuals, firms or corporations are
required to record such easements.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 47-27 (emphasis added). We are not aware of any provisions in the General
Statutes exempting the Town from recording its purported easement, and the Town cites none.
The burden is on the Town to establish the existence of its easement, particularly where
the Town alleges that its rights are superior to my client's rights. As stated by the North
Carolina Supreme Court more than a century ago, it is an "elementary principle of law that a
party who claims to have acquired the title to property or any easement therein or right to put any
burden thereon by presumption must establish his claim by showing the facts upon which it is
based[.]" Barker v. Southern R.R. Co., 137 N.C. 214, 222, 49 S.E. 115, 118 (1904).
In contrast, Bailey and Associates, Inc. has a 50-year nonexclusive easement from the
State of North Carolina Department of Administration, State Property Office, over the subject
riparian area for the existing dock facility, which was recorded on March 23, 2015, in Book 5875
at Page 2810 of the New Hanover County Registry, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "2".
The Town has not proven the existence and validity of its easement, nor has the Town
otherwise demonstrated that its rights are somehow superior to my client's rights. Contrary to
the assertions in the Town's Objection Letter, an unrecorded easement does not provide the basis
for the Town's assertion of rights superior to the rights of Bailey and Associates, Inc. the actual
riparian landowner. We strongly disagree with the Town's unfounded assertion that "[tlhe
applicant is proposing to work in a riparian area to which it has no rights" (Town's Objection
Letter, p. 3). The Town's assertion that Bailey and Associates, Inc. has "no rights" in this
riparian area is without merit. Furthermore, the Town bears the burden of establishing the
validity of its claimed easement under North Carolina law, which it has failed to do.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Haggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 6
C. The "Easement" is Undefined, Unlocated, and Non -Exclusive
Third, even if the Town's easement was properly executed, acknowledged, recorded, and
indexed in the New Hanover County Register of Deeds Office, the Town's easement document
does not state that the Town's easement is exclusive, and it does not specify its boundaries,
width, or general dimensions.
In the public records request, we asked the Town to provide us with any documents
(memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps, surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or
refinement, or other documents) related to the location, size, scope, length, width, depth and/or
maintenance of the Town's claimed easement. The Town has not provided us with any
information responsive to this request. To our knowledge, the Town has provided no such
information to DCM, and none is contained in the Town's Objection Letter. We can only
conclude that the Town has no such evidence to support its easement.
Additionally, the Town's reliance on United States v. Seagate, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1351
(E.D.N.0 1975), is misplaced. A copy of this case is attached as Exhibit 113" for your reference.
The case involved a dispute over the construction of a residential subdivision on lands adjoining
both sides of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Carteret County. The land at issue was
subject, in whole or in part, to an easement reserved by the United States in 1957. As noted by
the Court, the United States' easement rights are very broad. The Court stated:
This easement gives the Government the right to use the burdened lands
for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Intracoastal Waterway;
the right to cut away and remove any part of the subject property in order
to widen or otherwise improve the Waterway; the right to construct and
maintain aids to navigation on these lands; the right to use these lands for
the deposit of material dredged from the Waterway; and the right to enter
upon and use the lands for other purposes needful in preserving and
maintaining the Waterway.
Id at 353. The United States Government sought an order declaring that the construction of
residential dwellings and other permanent improvements on lands subject to the easement is
inconsistent with the terms of the easement and an order enjoining the property owners from
such construction. The Government also sought an order requiring the owners of three existing
dwellings to remove those dwellings if notified that the land they occupy was needed in
connection with operation, maintenance or enlargement of the Waterway. See id.

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 7
Unlike the present CAMA permitting matter, the easement in favor of the United States
in Seagate "was contained in deeds which were duly recorded" when the United States sold its
fee interest in this property in 1957. Id. at 1358. Additionally, unlike the present matter, in
Seagate the Court specifically found that the terms of the easement were unambiguous. The
Court stated: "There is nothing ambiguous about the nature or terms of the easement in
question." Id. at 1360.
In contrast, the location and scope of the Town's purported unrecorded/unsigned
easement are ambiguous at best. The general dimensions in the Town's purported easement
document, and particularly the width, are unspecified. It is also unclear where the Town's
easement is located. This is also in complete contrast to the aforementioned recorded easement
granted to Bailey and Associates, Inc. from the Department of Administration, which contains a
precise description of the easement area.
It should also be noted that the Court in Seagate did not rule that all construction should
be stopped. Rather, the Court took a balancing approach, stating in part:
6. For these reasons the Court finds that the construction of
permanent residences and their attendant utilities on both banks of the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within the Sea Gate Subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by plaintiff by easement in 1957.
7. However, the Court further finds that it would not be unreasonable
at the present time to permit the construction of dwellings along the
western side of the Waterway only. Limiting construction to the west
bank only would minimize any interference with dredging operations
by the Corps of Engineers, since dredging contractors would have free
access to the large spoil disposal area located in the Sea Gate vicinity on
the east side of the canal. Moreover, the exclusion of dwellings from the
east bank would also allow reasonable provision for operations to widen
the Waterway channel or to provide passing zones, should either action
prove necessary in the future.
Seagate, 397 F. Supp. at 1359 (emphasis added).
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Pennits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 8
Based upon the foregoing, and for the additional reasons stated herein, we strongly
disagree with the Town's assertion that "[t]he applicant is infringing on the easement rights
granted by the State of North Carolina to the Town for construction of the NEI." (Town's
Objection Letter, p. 3). An unrecorded, unsigned easement document —which on its face is not
exclusive and is missing important dimensional information --does not somehow confer rights
upon the Town that are superior to all of Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s rights as the riparian
owner and the current holder of a valid, recorded, nonexclusive easement from the N.C.
Department of Administration, State Property Office.
z Town's Concerns with NEI.
Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s existing pier facility on this site, which was permitted by
DCM, currently crosses the NEI line in two locations. The proposed dock facility does not call
for any additional cross -points with the NEI line. There is no subaqueous construction or other
modifications planned or required below the surface of the water at the points where the existing
pier already crosses the NEI. We understand that within the past approximately two years, the
riparian owner to the immediate north of and adjacent to Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s property
applied for, was granted permission, and performed dredging in this general vicinity without
incident pursuant to a CAMA permit. Furthermore, we understand that this dredging was
permitted by DCM to a depth of -6.0 feet mlw, which is 2.0 feet more than the dredging depth
contemplated by Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s current CAMA application. Did the Town object
to that dredging near what, at that time, was an unlocated NEI?
As to maintenance of the NEI, the Town has not stated with any real specificity how the
proposed dock facility would prevent the Town from maintaining the NEI. The Town states:
"The need to periodically maintain, repair or replace the sewer line will be made impossible by
the existence of the pier and docks." (Town's Objection Letter, p.2 at 1.3) (emphasis added). It
is unclear from the Town how the existing or proposed dock facility makes or will make such
maintenance "impossible." According to statements made by Town Assistant Director of Public
Works Steve Dellies to the Board of Aldermen at a Public Meeting on November 13, 2014, we
understand that the pipe was reconditioned in 2007 all the way to Bradley Creek and that the
interior is in good shape. The Town has not provided my client with a regular maintenance
schedule for the NEI. Furthermore, the Town has not explained how the NEI line is inaccessible
or cannot be adequately accessed from the north or south of my client's riparian area for
maintenance purposes, either currently or with the addition of the proposed facility.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Pennits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 9
With regard to construction and operation of the proposed facility, please see the attached
report from my client's engineer, Charles D. Cazier, P.E., with Intracoastal Engineering, PLLC,
dated July 28, 2016.
Also, does the State have any reports, studies or other information from the Town related
to any contingency plans maintained by the Town regarding the NEI in this vicinity?
3. Other Issues Raised by Town.
The Town also raises an issue with what it characterizes as the enlargement of structures
and "the allowance of dredging in areas that are not within the applicant's riparian corridor."
(Town's Objection Letter, p. 4). The Applicant respectfully contends that the Town's analysis is
erroneous. N.C. Administrative Code 7H.0208(b)(6)(I) states in part: "The line of division of
areas of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line along the channel or deep water in
front of the properties, then drawing a line perpendicular to the line of the channel so that it
intersects with the shore at the point the upland property line meets the water's edge." 15A
NCAC 71-1.0208(b)(6)(I). The riparian line at the eastern end of the property was correctly
drawn perpendicular to the AIWW channel so that it indeed intersects with the shore at the point
the upland property line meets the water's edge (mhw). The existing permitted pier and docks
support this point. The Applicant strongly disagrees with the Town's position.
The Town also objects on the basis of N.C. Administrative Code 7H.0208(b)(5)(F). This
objection is without merit. There are no leaseholders or owners of submerged land from which
written consent must be obtained.
Last, the Town has no standing or authority to enforce or interpret the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, and likewise, the Town has no standing or authority to raise
purported objections on behalf of NCDOT, which to our knowledge the NCDOT is not raising.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully assert that the Town's legal objections are
insufficient to deny Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s CAMA permit application.
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing or if
you require any additional information at this time.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 10
Sincerely,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
Matthew A. Nichols
MAN/nc
Enclosures
cc: Karen A. Higgins, Supervisor
NCDEQ - Water Quality
(via FedEx and e-mail: [e-mail])
Heather Coats, NCDEQ-DCM, Wilmington
(via hand -delivery)
Jim Gregson, Regional Supervisor
NCDEQ- Division of Water Resources
(via e-mail: jim.gregson@ ncdenr.gov)
John C. Wessell, III, Esq.
Counsel for Town of Wrightsville Beach
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Steve Morrison
Land Management Group, Inc.
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Charles D. Cazier, P.E.
Intracoastal Engineering, PLLC
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Christopher W. Bailey
President, Bailey and Associates, Inc.
(via e-mail: [e-mail])

SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
21 4 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1347,
WILMINGTOK NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1347
TELEPHONE [phone] • TELEFAX [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
KENNETH A. SHANKLIN•
*60AR1 CERTIFIED$PECIAIJS IN
REAL PROPERTY LAW -RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRANSACTIONS
November 14, 2014
VIA EMAIL TO towens(a,towb.ore
AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Tim Owens
Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
P.O. Box 626
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Re: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
FIRST PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
Our File No. 2014060.2
Dear Mr. Owens:
EXHIBIT
C4
MATTHEW A. NICHOLS"
* *ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK
Pursuant to Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes, we request on behalf of
our client, Bailey and Associates, Inc., that the following public records and materials be
available for our inspection at a reasonable and convenient time within the next twenty (20)
calendar days at the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town") Offices:
1. A recorded copy of that document entitled "Easement' between
the State of North Carolina and the Town dated May 27, 1982, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", or in lieu thereof, the recording information from
the New Hanover County Register of Deeds Office (Deed Book and Page
Number) for that instrument (hereinafter referred to as the "Easement').
2. Any instruments, memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps,
surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents that
supplement, amend, modify or supersede the above -referenced Easement.
3. Any memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps, surveys,
drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents related to the
location, size, scope, length, width, depth and/or maintenance of the above -
referenced Easement.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Mr. Tim Owens
Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
November 14, 2014
Page -2-
Please consult with N.C. GEN. STAT. § 132-1 et. seq. regarding the scope and extent of the
term "public records." We request the opportunity to copy any document or other responsive
record either in written or electronic form for compliance with this public records request.
If it is more convenient for you and the Town for us to make the copies ourselves or
make arrangements for a third -party copy service to make the copies, please let us know and we
will gladly arrange for the same. Also, we will gladly pay any reasonable administrative or
copying charges associated with this request, and we ask that you please let us know in advance
if there are any such charges associated with this public records request.
With best regards, I remain
Kennetn A. ananxun
KAS/pcc
Enclosure
cc: John C. Wessell, III Town Attorney — via email and U.S. Mail
Mr. Christopher W. Bailey
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
! E A S E M E N T
COUNTY OF NFW MA14OVER
i
TIIIS EASEMENT, made and entered into this the d y
dap of 1952, by and between the STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, party of the first part, and the TOWN OF WRIGHTS-
vrLLE BEACH, party of the second part;
W 1 T N ES S E T H;
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of
Ada ini ::tration has aul hori zed and approved execution of this
instrument for the purposes herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, Lhe exucufi.,n of this instrument for and ou
Lehalf of the State of North Carolina has been duly approved
Ly the Covernor and Counnil of state by resolution adopted
aL a meeting held in the City tf Raleigh, North Carolina, on
the 4th day of May, 1982; and
W[IEREAS, the parties hereto have mutually agreed to
the tema of this casement as hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THF.RLPORE, in consideration of the sum of OIJE
HUNDRED ($100.001 DOLLARS paid by the party of the second part
to the party of the first part, the receipt- of which is hereby
acknowledged, the party of the first part does hereby give,
grant and convey to tho said party of the second part, its
successors and assigns, the righL, privilege and easement to
construct, install, improve, remove, replace, inspect, repair
and maintain a sanitary sewer pipeline as follows.
DECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
MHD CITY

A. Lanky Channel subaqueously for approximately
750 feet along the south _:ide of U. S. Highway 74 causeway
and bridge.
B. Hennans Crook on bent piles along the south side i
of the U. S. Highway 74 causeway and bridge for a distance
of approximately 126 fcct.
C. AIWW subaqueously north of the U. S. 74-76 High-
way causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately 800
t� .t.
D. L'radlev Creek subaqueously near the U. S. 74-76
Highway causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately
H00 feet.
' The purpose of the easement is to provide the Town
of Wrightsville Beach with a connection to the Northeast
I
7nLercoptor Greater Wilmington Area 20L Facilities Plan. See
altarhr•d drawiny_:••ntitled "Sanitary Sewer Improvements
force Nain, Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina".
It is understood and agreed that this conveyance
iS made subiLct to the condition thaL the party of the second
hart shall properly obtain all necessary permits required by
i •
State and Federal. law. Failure to obtain such permits in
I a rimely manner ::hall be deemed an abandonment of said easement;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid rights, privileges,
and easement unto the said party of the second part, its
SucceSaor.. and assigns, [or as long as said pipeline is
utilized by the party of the second part, its Successors and
assigne., for the purposes set forth herein, and no longer.
I}J TESTIMONY SJ}IERLOF, the State of North Carolina
has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by JAMES i
13. HUNT, JR., Governor, attested by THAD EURE, Secretary of
State, and the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina hereto•
affixed, by virtue of the power and authority aforesaid, as of
the day and year first above written.

ATTEST:
_ rr¢-tax} of State
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
Attorney General
.'n-
AaSistant Attorney cc-..ncral
I
STATE OF NORTIJ CAROLINA
DY / mil. - f
J % Governor2
-'_`--
A
a
I
1
RIECEIVED
!AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

I
1 SIAT7. OF NORTH CAROLINA
i NIIHT V OF WAKE
i
1
I, DEBORAH ANN CANDLER, a Notary Public In and for the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify chat JAMES B. HUNT, JR., Governor of the
State of North Carolina, and THAD EVU, Secretary of State of Borth Carolina,
personally came before me this day and being by me duly sworn says each for
hl.mself that he knows the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina and that
the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the Great Seal of the State;
that SA.NES B. HUNT, JR., Governor of said State, and MAD SURE, Secretary of
State, subscribed their names [hereto, all by virtue of a resolution of the
! Council of Scale; and that said instrument is the a<t and deed of the State
1'
11 of North Carolina.
ICI 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal,
pppJ rhla the i,27 _ day of
i
II
Notary Public
I
Hy Commission Expires:
I
I
+II
I
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

L-v R ) s KENNANS' r 74 •S.CREEK
14 FORCE MAIN
PEIt }:L 11 PILE PCN.G
i ALHVL EL. 2.0
1 +1\ AA RELE _ M.LlK EL-IB
MANHOLE
SEE
SITE a B t SP CINGI Id C-C. PILE BENT DEW ENT
P LA N PROFILE
KENNANS CREEK CROSSING
I". o'v
t•[riii-oi uew.iiw:a eve"n.uew �� "�-�—
oauwL Ar wrt enuL . Iceo eu.roa I
nt . T:W ort36Yt AS I. cuxwnOwS
>NL IL SITE /.' CIg551t.tl. SN BAQLIEOUS R�
l 14` FORCE MAIN 7 RC. W!LOLIFE BOAT RAMP
E -E.—_
I _. __--ANCIIOIi BI.00It -s _• G .. _ E
L •1'1° BEND )I of /J 1 ANCHOR BLOCK
5'a BiNOtl
I I ---- —
I U.5 %•1 e, iIF. DE Tf7ASK'MEM. BRIDGE
-LAW ..i.WAK CROSSING
M M 1V. EL 0 r,Prnox. cvr. Pori
S
-••"- .�.�,r••--�YF's.'mvlm-as{.cr.--sum— _0
EL -10
In '•ANCHOR - .
- / ANCHOR -10
-IS
-20
PROFILE A.1.WW CROSSING
IP'V DATUM: MEAN
SITE c, SCA LEVEL -0.00
fC"`rCVrCVH•LF. ;!EACH OITERCEPTOR .-:L'1MT LONOESEN B ASSOCMTES. IIIW,tOIEO,n E. Sheel 2 c` 3
a
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

I
7
I li 11, FCfCE MAIN C-AJICIjOA BLOCK
RF.TCHTIO:,c
SIT E DI l AREA S
F.--t'—Q-RE-EK— CROSSING
PROF LEE BRADLEY CREEK CROSSING
f AU.1111 1:." 1.G%R!AL - I
N i`I LT REUMTJOH ', ILTF R r.Vlr.;C
W OkCKIII.L ':Q Cowl el i:l.y
ENCLOSE `ji..l
0EMMOIJ AREA.
I F,u5T
TiF mii
ITI;k 11
!if ENCK
Rrc jA.i: IS H
P—
J.;RMA r)' CRErK
rM."SM:: SOD 1. F.
i%:J. Ex CLASS if. 011,
W 0.0. I'(.'LCTIIyLrWI' SOR-II
Mll:
I yI'l 'IF tAll" FA lAA-r 11014',KIIA Otf(;.WIC '.',,Ll
MM'(1t) or
OF P VI; OF F%7AVA) WIN: r
%,LLLIME OF MATLNIAL.. j,t-.Yo ; Y, '.
ELEV. SECTION
KENNAN CK. PILE BENT
SPOIL DISPOSAL*
SILT tiETENTWN ARLAS
LOCATED A- SHOWN,
—Cf.01 INTE HCVI ri-r— 'iVf:W %'.'!I 01SLN 5 Sheet 'Aoi
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

..... .......
cRr. vi fm? i oc� t�
13
PROLFILL bk)/�OLFY CIZEEIS CROSSNQ
Si
-T",/r )iCAL pi LE P-;,ENI-
.. ....... , �—lj ,, .1, Q ;. " .a. u, SHEET -4L--
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

SITE - A
SANI(S CHANNEL SUBAOUEOUS CROSSINIT
TECHNICAL DATA,
LENNTH OF SUO40UEOuS CROSS 120. T:0 LINEPIPE
LICEB CLASS; W-C.IP, BALL. JOINTEXCAVATION:TYPE
.MATERIALS: PRIMARILY SANG 6 SHELL'METHOD
OF EXCAVATION+ CLCMSHELI.DEPTH.
OF EXCAVATION: Ye fM:lul CHANNEL)
AVEHAGEFOR REMAINOF
CROSSINGVOLUME
OF MATERIAL: 800 CU,OS2SPOIL
DISPOSAL: STOCK PILE UNDERWATERADJACENT
TO THENCH
F,AEXCAVATION USE AS OACNFI
N. AFTER PIPELINE 13 INSTALLED
S FA. 140474
u
IfIV 1.80
ANCHOR BLOCK
PROFILE
(, Ta10 V[Pi, OGFx Z.T
n000
X ANM [NANNEL t
_ EAs
- US HWY No. 74--- —
14' FORCE MAIN
vI PLAN
0
♦ �� 4
OR BLOCK
47+ 73
2
c
W
U
O
4
l
2
M H.W. 2.0 EXIST. BULKHEAD
M.S.L. ANCHOR BLOCK
M.L�.V.^1.9 rINY. -2.70
IAXIST BI /_I,
rl4"FORCE MAVI , �( ilL'Y:tl'/ :
yf
EXCAVATED MATERIALOW fl'�yf
014SIDE EXC4V4T10N.
9�ff
USE TO SACKFILL TRENCH,
/
EXIST BOTTOM -ELEV. VARIABLE
DATUM: SEA LEVEL
EL-15.03
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
____-
3
SFr'
FORCE MAIN
E.P.A. PROJECT No. C-370565-01
I4"FORCE MAIN
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
�INV.-182
NORTH CAROLINA
NOT_L, SECTION A-�:ti:
Ac"" VOx O[a4Y x Aa O "E" CA.MT,". EXY W[(M
B...xx E Ka, roLUlHciox, N C.
TR EBCHIN4 NETHOO ALSO APPLICABLE TO SITE
'C' • A I W W
SHEET 1 OF
BT
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

EXHIBIT
I, C�2— �,.
Prepared by State Property Office, NC Department of Administration
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1321
SPO File No.: 065-BX / DOJ File No.: PC-14-00228
Return to
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
14UIII IIII IUIIIIIII ICI Ulu IIIII Iilll IIUI IIIII IIII IIII
2015007733
SFOR 7pMMYY THEUON REEAKEY DF DEED'
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
2615023PS821R
8K•5875 PG 2810-2817 FEE $26 CO
INSTRUMENT # 29JJNIM
EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT ("Easement"), made and entered into as of the date set forth in the
notary acknowledgment below, by and between the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, a body
politic and corporate, ("Grantor") and BAILEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC, a North Carolina
corporation ("Grantee"), P.O. Box 400, Jacksonville, NC 28451
WITNESSETH.
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Administration, pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute §146-12, has authorized and approved the execution of this instrument
for the purposes herein expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the public interest in promoting citizen access
to navigable waters and for good and valuable consideration, Grantor does hereby grant unto
Grantee, their heirs and assigns, an easement located in the Harnett Township, New Hanover
County, North Carolina, as more particularly described on Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Easement Area").
The terms and conditions on and for which this Easement is granted are as follows.
I. This Easement is appurtenant to and runs with the adjacent riparian or littoral property as
described in Book 5031, Page 1350, New Hanover County Registry (the "Adjacent Property").
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

2. Grantee shall not exclude or prevent the general public from exercising public trust
rights, including commercial and recreational fishing, shell fishing, seine netting, pound netting,
and other fishing rights in navigable waters within the Easement Area.
3. This Easement confers upon Grantee no additional rights to interfere with the approval,
issuance, or renewal of shellfish or water column leases or to interfere with the use or cultivation
of existing shellfish leases, water column leases, or shellfish franchises
4. This Easement is subject to all rights conferred in previous conveyances by Grantor in
and to the Easement Area
5. This Easement is granted for a term of fifty (50) years beginning on the 18th day of
February, 2015, and terminating on the 17th day of February, 2065, unless earlier revoked.
6. Subject to compliance with North Carolina General Statute §146-120), this Easement is
eligible for renewal for one (1) additional fifty (50) year term.
7. This Easement covers those structures allowed by CAMA Permit Number 84-01 (the
"Permuted Structures"). The Permitted Structures shall be used for the following purposes:
providing reasonable access for all vessels traditionally used in the main watercourse area to the
Atlantice Intracoastal Waterway; mooring of vessels at or adjacent to certain areas of the
Permitted Structures and enhancing or improving the value of the Adjacent Property. All terms
and conditions of CAMA Permit Number 84-01 are hereby incorporated in this Easement and
made a part hereof
8. Subject to compliance with Article 7, Chapter 113A of the North Carolina General
Statutes, Grantee shall have the right to repair, rebuild or restore the Permitted Structures located
upon the Easement Area.
9. The exercise of the rights under this Easement shall be contingent upon Grantee
obtaining all necessary permits and authorizations and complying with all federal, state,
municipal and other laws, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the Easement
Area. Grantee shall not make or permit any unlawful use of the Easement Area
10. As set forth to the calculation below, the riparian credit exceeds the footprint of the
Permitted Structures; therefore, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(h),
no easement purchase payment is owed
The easement purchase payment, if any, has been calculated based upon the following
information
1. Footprint of Permitted Structures: 4,267 square feet.
2 Riparian shoreline: 420.00 linear feet
3. Riparian credit 22,692 square feet. RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

11. Grantee shall not exercise any rights granted herein in any areas outside the
Easement Area without first obtaining a written modification of this Easement in accordance
with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(k).
12 Upon transfer of title of the Adjacent Property during the term of this Easement or
any renewal thereof, the easement rights granted herein shall be transferred automatically to the
subsequent owner of the Adjacent Property, subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth. In the
event the subsequent owner of the Adjacent Property (1) gives written notification to the State
Property Office, pursuant to Paragraph 15 herein, within twelve (12) months of the date of
transfer of title of the Adjacent Property accompanied by a copy of the instrument of transfer,
and (2) remits the easement purchase payment as provided in North Carolina General Statute
§146-12(0, such subsequent owner shall be entitled to receive an easement document
transferring to such owner the easement rights granted herein for the remainder of the unexpired
easement term. Failure to comply with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(Q shall result in
termination of this Easement.
13. It is expressly understood and agreed between the parties hereto that if Grantee
shall neglect to do and perform any matter or thing herein agreed to be done and performed by
him, and shall remain in default thereof for a period of sixty (60) days after written notice from
Grantor to Grantee calling attention to such default, Grantor, with the approval of the Governor
and Council of State, may declare this Easement revoked Said notice shall be given by certified
mail to Grantee at the address set forth in Paragraph 15(a) of this Easement Revocation of this
Easement shall entitle Grantee to seek administrative review in accordance with the provisions of
Article 3, Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes.
14 Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit Grantee from granting
other persons rights of use of portions of the Permitted Structures on the Easement Area for
periods not to exceed the term of this Easement. All rights so granted shall automatically
terminate upon expiration or revocation of this Easement.
15. a All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either
party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and deposited
in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid and addressed as follows.
Grantor- Director/Deputy Director -State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1321
Grantee Bailey and Associates, Inc.
PO Box 400
Jacksonville, North Carolina 28541
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY',
Nothing herein contained shall preclude the giving of such notice by personal service.
The address to which notices shall be mailed as aforesaid to either party may be changed by
written notice

b. In the event title to the Adjacent Property is transferred subsequent to the
date of this Easement, Grantee agrees to give written notification to Grantor by certified mail at
the above address withm twelve (12) months of the date of such transfer of title. Such
notification shall include.
(1) A copy of the title transfer document
(2) The name(s) of the subsequent owner(s) of the Adjacent Property.
(3) The mailing address(es) of such subsequent owner(s).
16. This Easement shall become effective only upon recordation in the Office of
Register of Deeds for New Hanover County. Grantee shall mail a copy of the recorded
Easement to Grantor at the address set forth in Paragraph 15(a).
17. Failure by Grantor to require strict compliance with any term or condition of this
Easement shall not be construed as a waiver of Grantor's right to enforce compliance with such
term or condition or any other term or condition contained herein.
18, Grantee, by acceptance of this Easement, agrees to comply with and be bound by
all terms and conditions set forth herein
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RECEIVED
AUG 01 Z016
DCM- MHD CITY

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed in its
name by the undersigned as of the date set forth in the notary acknowledgement below.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
By: North Carolina Department of Administration
By L�
SpejDs Fleggas, 9ft Deputy Secretary,
North Carolina Department of Administration, acting
Director of the State Property Office
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
I, 06r rrr) 8. Pm4 , a Notary Public for the County of
.n k rn ,+e, , North Carolina, do hereby certify that Speros Fleggas personally came
before me this day and acknowledged the due execution by him of the foregoing instrument as
Senior Deputy Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Administration, acting Director of
the State Property Office, for the purposes therein expressed
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal, this
the _ day of February, 2015.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ; r
A
�GBLIG
ECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

EXHIBIT A
Description of Easement Area
Those certain tracts or parcels of land lying and being in the Harnett Township, New Hanover
County, North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows -
Commencing at an existing mag nail at the centerline intersection of U.S. Hwy 74 with N.C.S.R.
1417 (Summer Rest Road); thence along the centerline of N.C.S.R. 1417, north 56 degrees 35
minutes 41 seconds east 260.53 feet to an existing survey spike in the centerline of N.C.S.R.
1417 and in the center of a bridge; thence leaving said intersection, south 29 degrees 55 minutes
14 seconds west 64.37 feet to a point on the southern right-of-way line of N.C.S.R. 1417, said
point being THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A 10' PIER EASEMENT; thence
from the above described point of beginning and leaving said right-of-way line, south 74 degrees
55 minutes 41 seconds east 15 36 feet to a point; south 64 degrees 29 minutes 14 seconds east
55.94 feet to a point; thence south 51 degrees 10 minutes 05 seconds east 144.58 feet to a point,
thence south 51 degrees 10 minutes 57 seconds east 181.38 feet to a point; thence south 48
degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds east 190.04 feet to a point, thence south 51 degrees 49 minutes 44
seconds east 75.70 feet to a point; thence south 47 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds east 4.89 feet
to a point, thence north 44 degrees 59 minutes 36 seconds east 62 04 feet to a point; thence south
45 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds east 10.00 feet to a point; thence south 44 degrees 59 mmutes
36 seconds west 71.55 feet to a point; thence north 47 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds west 14.06
feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds west 75.63 feet to a point; thence
north 48 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds west 190.09 feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 10
minutes 57 seconds west 181.18 feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 10 minutes 05 seconds
west 143.42 feet to a point; thence north 64 degrees 29 minutes 14 seconds west 53.86 feet to a
point; thence north 74 degrees 55 minutes 41 seconds west 23.18 feet to a point on the southern
right-of-way line on N C S.R. 1417; thence along said right-of-way line, north 56 degrees 12
minutes 34 seconds east 13 28 feet to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, being shown
on a survey prepared by Johnny J. Williams Land Surveying, P.0 , dated August 25, 2008 (last
revised February 5, 2015), captioned "PIER AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR: BAILEY &
ASSOCIATES, INC.' attached hereto as Exhibit B, and reference to which survey being hereby
made for a more particular description.
The above described 10' pier easement crosses that property recorded in Deed Book 5031 page
1350 and extends beyond this deeded property and into the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 1t is
the intention of the above easement description to surround the existing pier as actually surveyed
in August 2008 and for the margins of this easement to be located 5 feet on each side of and
parallel to the center of the existing pier and to extend 5 feet beyond the end of the pier.
The above description was prepared by Johnny J. Williams Land Surveying, P.0 from an actual
pier location on August 25, 2008. The actual margins of this easement have not been surveyed
All courses are correct in their angular relationship to North per Map Book 24 page 22 of the
New Hanover County Registry.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

/1N
/•• / - - - - - _ W s v
N TQ
Lu
Lu
gym¢ mn�w1 �enu¢ rorom
BI..Q' [VfTp[d MU11 BI(OZ
VFA A4-BAIT $R�EY R
,� .m aucsr r wssror✓wr>:s: ins
■■ �: v� '�� MwAei1 Rb. K7 nYOQ CM1Y
�i �,� � r •L� r Fc �V [ F[41I1[FIFI�1 C
r
k
n 1 i v.01 c HOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY AND
I AS NOT nUN P. " T"F» BY A LOCAL
GOVFRN.IEN7 AGL` ,7Y FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH ANY APFLI( vlil k LAND DEVELOPMENT
RFGULAnONS

J
I
/'1g11cHF0�
TAMMY THEUSCH BEASLEY
REGISTER OF DEEDS, NEW HANOVER
216 NORTH SECOND STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
ttttt•r»xextttttttxxttttttrttxattxt rttttatxartrttttxtxxrtttttxtrtttatttttttttttaaata aaxaataa rtttatxt.xraa.rxrtxttxxt•as
Filed For Registration:
Book.
Document No:
Recorder:
03/23/2015 04:38:21 PM
RE 5875 Page: 2810-2817
2015007733
8 PGS $26.00
JOHNSON,CAROLYN
State of North Carolina, County of New Hanover
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
PLEASE RETAIN YELLOW TRAILER PAGE WITH ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.
*2015007733*
2015007733

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
EXHIBIT
397 F.Supp.1351
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina,
New Bern Division.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
V.
SEA GATE, INC., et al., Defendants.
No. 74-20-CIV-4.
I
July 21,1975•
United States brought suit seeking an order declaring
that the construction of residential dwellings, their
attendant utilities, and other permanent improvements on
lands adjoining the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway was
inconsistent with the terms of the easement reserved by
the Government for the occupation and use of adjoining
lands in connection with the operation, maintenance
or enlargement of the Waterway. The District Court,
Larkins, J., held that (1) construction of permanent
residences and their attendant utilities on both banks
of the Waterway within defendants' subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by the Government,
but it would not be unreasonable at the present time to
permit the construction of dwellings along the western
side of the Waterway only, (2) the United States was not
estopped from maintaining the action by any course of
conduct followed since 1972 by officers of the Corps of
Engineers with respect to the development, (3) the failure
of the United States to prevent the construction of other
improvements on easement lands elsewhere along the
right-of-way did not estop it from attempting to prevent
the infringement of its rights in the instant case, and (4)
the Government could not be estopped by representations
made prior to the sale of the property in 1967 concerning
uses to which the property could be put.
Judgment for United States.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*1353 Thomas P. McNamara, U.S. Atty., Raleigh, N.C.
by Bruce H. Johnson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Land
& Natural Resources Section, Charles N. Estes, Ally.,
Land and Natural Resources Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Herman Wolff, Jr., Andrew S. Martin, of Wolff, Harrell
& Mann, Raleigh, N.C., William W. Staton, of Pittman,
Staton & Betts, Sanford, N.C., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
Opinion
LARKINS, District Judge.
This action was filed on April 19, 1974, by the
plaintiff, the United States of America, and jurisdiction
is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1345. The controversy centers
around the construction of a residential subdivision on
lands adjoining both sides of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway in Carteret County, North Carolina. The
defendant Sea Gate, Inc., is the developer of this
residential community, which is called 'Sea Gate
Subdivision.' The remaining defendants own lots within
the subdivision.
The lands owned by the individual defendants and upon
which Sea Gate Subdivision is being constructed are
subject, in whole or in part, to an easement reserved
by the United States in 1957. This easement gives the
Government the right to use the burdened lands for the
purpose of operating and maintaining the Intracoastal
Waterway; the right to cut away and remove any part
of the subject property in order to widen or otherwise
improve the Waterway; the right to construct and
maintain aids to navigation on these lands; the right to use
these lands for the deposit of material dredged from the
Waterway; and the right to enter upon and use the lands
for other purposes needful in preserving and maintaining
the Waterway.
Plaintiff seeks an order declaring that the construction
of residential dwellings, their attendant utilities and other
permanent improvements on lands subject to its easement
is inconsistent with the terms thereof and seeks an order
enjoining defendants from such construction. Plaintiff
seeks a further order requiring the owners of three existing
dwellings to remove same if notified that the land they
occupy is needed by plaintiff in connection with operation,
maintenance or enlargement of the Waterway.
This matter was heard before the Court without a jury on
July 1-3, 1975. The Court having considered the evidence
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
presented and the briefs filed by the parties makes the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
in controversy is a land cut connecting the Neuse
River and Pamlico Sound with Beaufort Inlet and the
harbor at Morehead City. Congress *1354 authorized
the improvement and construction of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway from Pamlico Sound to Beaufort
Inlet, North Carolina, in 1907 and further authorized the
Secretary of War to enter into such contracts as might be
necessary for the completion of the project. 34 Stat. 1083.
In 1912, Congress authorized the Secretary to contract
with the Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal Co. for the
purchase of the already existing Adams Creek Canal
(hereinafter `Core Creek Land Cut') through this area,
along with certain appurtentant lands belonging to that
company.
2. These original lands, which amounted to approximately
583.28 acres, were held by the United States in fee.
The lands formed a strip approximately 800 feet in
width through which this segment of the Waterway was
constructed.
3. By condemnation in 1947, the United States acquired
fee simple title to several other adjacent tracts to be
used for purposes related to the construction, operation,
maintenance, improvement, and enlargement of the
Waterway. One such tract, which is approximately 1,500
feet deep and 13,800 feet in length, is located adjacent to
the eastern boundary of the original right-of-way lands in
the area in question.
4. In 1955, these lands along both sides of the Waterway
in Carteret County, North Carolina, along with lands
similarly situated along other portions of the Waterway
in North Carolina, were reported to the General Services
Administration as being excess to the needs of the United
States Government. After screening by various federal
agencies in an effort to determine whether these lands
could be used for other purposes, it was determined that
the fee interest should be sold to private purchasers subject
to the easement quoted below, with title to be given by
quitclaim deed at an auction sale, Sale of the original right-
of-way lands was held in Morehead City, North Corolina,
on August 1, 1957.
5. Richard Wright was the successful bidder and purchaser
of a portion of the 800-foot wide right-of-way lands lying
in Carteret County. The fee interest in these lands was
conveyed by the United States of America to Wright in
1957 by quitclaim deed. Contained in the deed was a
reservation in the following language, to wit:
... there is reserved to the Government and its assigns
the perpetual right and easement to maintain the said
Intracoastal Waterway and to enter upon, dig or cut away,
and remove any or all the hereinbefore described tract of
land as may be required at any time in the prosecution of
the aforesaid work of improvement, or any enlargement
thereof, and maintain the portions so cut away and
removed as a part of the navigable waters of the United
States; and the further right to maintain aids to navigation
presently established by the United States on the land
herein described with the rights of ingress and egress
thereto; and the further perpetual right and easement to
enter upon, occupy and use any portion of said tract of
land, not so cut away and converted into public navigable
waters as aforesaid, for the deposit of dredged material,
and for placement thereon of such aids to navigation
deemed necessary by the Government, and for such other
purposes as may be needful in the preservation and
maintenance of said work of improvement; provided,
however, that the party of the second part, his heirs and
assigns, shall enjoy all rights and privileges in said tract
of land as may be used and enjoyed without interfering
with or abridging the exceptions and reservations herein
contained.
The deed from the United States to Wright containing this
language was duly recorded.
*1355 6. Sale of the 800-foot wide right-of-way lands
was conducted for the General Services Administration by
J. L. Todd Auction Company. Circulars and newspaper
advertisements which were distributed prior to this
sale indicated that recreational developments such as
'commercial marinas, lodges and fishing installations'
were permissible on the subject property. However, there
was no evidence that such circulars and advertisements
were issued with the authority of the United States. The
auction sale agreement between the United States and the
Todd Company expressly provided that the property was
to be sold subject to the easement quoted above.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
7. The tracts adjacent to the right-of-way lands which had
been acquired in 1947, were subsequently sole to other
purchasers, subject to the same easement.
8. The approximate location of the property subject to the
easement quoted above insofar as relevant here is shown
with a solid line on the map attached to these findings as
Exhibit A.
9. The 800-foot wide right-of-way land was subsequently
conveyed by Wright and ultimately acquired by Charles
M. Reeves, Jr., a defendant herein, in 1972. Reeves
subsequently formed Sea Gate, Inc., the corporate
defendant herein, to retain ownership.
10. Prior to purchase of this right-of-way land, Reeves
had both actual and record notice that the property was
subject to the easement quoted above. Before purchase of
this property, neither Reeves nor any other officer or agent
of Sea Gate, Inc., had knowledge of any representations
concerning its possible development made prior to the
auction sale in 1957. At the time Reeves purchased the
property subject to the Government's easement in 1972, it
was not occupied by any substantial permanent structures.
11. In 1972, Sea Gate, Inc., began the development of
'Sea Gate Subdivision' with a plan partially to subdivide
the right-of-way lands, together with certain adjacent
properties not subject to the Government's easement, into
single family residential lots with certain amenities, such
as a small -boat marina, clubhouse and swimming facilities
and park and playground areas. With the exception of
a portion of the park and playground areas and the
access channel to the Marina, the amenities described
are not located within the Government's easement. The
boundaries of the Sea Gate Subdivision are shown on
Exhibit 'A' in a dashed line.
12. Sea Gate Subdivision consists of over 700 individual
lots, 243 of which are waterfront lots which are located
in whole or in part within the 800-foot wide right-of-
way easement retained in 1957. These waterfront lots are
subject to restrictive covenants which limit their use to
sites for permanent homes with a minimum interior floor
space of 1,000 square feet. The President of Sea Gate,
Inc. testified that a house of this size would cost at least
$22,000 to construct at prevailing prices. Use of these
waterfront lots for house trailers is expressly forbidden by
the covenants.
13. The Sea Gate waterfront lots are located along both
banks of the Waterway for a distance of approximately
three miles. The average width of these lots in 120 feet and
they range in depth from 90 feet to 265 feet.
14. At the time of trial only three houses had actually been
constructed within the waterfront lots.
15. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is operated
and maintained by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, which has its District office for eastern North
Carolina in Wilmington, North Carolina.
16. Plans for the development of the Sea Gate Subdivision
first came to *1356 the attention of the Corps of
Engineers in August of 1972. At that time representatives
from Sea Gate,- Inc., made preliminary inquiries at
the Wilmington District concerning the application
procedures necessary to acquire a permit from the Corps
to connect a small -boat marina, to be located on the west
side of the Waterway behind the Government's easement
lands, with the Waterway. A formal application for such
a permit was filed with the District on October 13, 1972.
17. At a meeting held in January, 1973 representatives of
Sea Gate, Inc., were informed that the Corps of Engineers
was concerned that the development proposed the
construction of numerous dwellings along the Waterway
on lands subject to the Government's easement. The Sea
Gate representatives were informed that the Charleston
District Office of the Corps had recommended that
litigation be commenced to remove a trailer park from
easement lands in the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
area and that a uniform policy concerning the location
of structures within the Waterway easement was being
formulated at higher levels in the Corps.
18. In a latter dated April 18,1973 directed to the President
of Sea Gate, Inc., Mr. David C. Reeves, the Wilmington
District Engineer advised Mr. Reeves that he had been
advised by higher authority that 'it would be incompatible
with the Government's interest to support in any way
your development plans which include encroachment
onto lands subject to our easements along the AIWW.'
Mr. Reeves was informed that because the Sea Gate
development involved the construction of permanent
improvements on easement lands, Sea Gate's request for a
marina permit could not be granted by the District Office
but would have to be referred to the Office of the Chief of
Engineers. RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
19. By letter dated October 15, 1973, the District Engineer
advised Mr. David Reeves that the request for a marina
permit was denied on the grounds that granting the permit
would be inconsistent with the Corps' policy of opposing
permanent construction within the Waterway easement.
20. The Corps of Engineers is currently authorized to
maintain this portion of the Waterway to a 12-foot depth,
a 90-foot bottom width, and 1 to 3 side slopes.
21. Evidence indicates that the total width of this segment
of the Waterway when first constructed to the present
12-foot depth in 1922 varied between 150 and 250 feet.
At present the Waterway width between banks varies
between 300 and 400 feet. The difference represents
erosion of the Waterway banks which has taken place
over this period. Soils in this area are sandy and quite
susceptible to erosion.
22. Mr. William Sanderson, Chief of the Operations
Division of the Corps' District Office, testified that
dredging on nearly an annual basis has been required
to maintain the channel of the Waterway in the Core
Creek Land Cut to its authorized dimensions. On the
average,100,000 cubic yards of material has annually been
removed from the segment of the Waterway in the vicinity
of Sea Gate.
23. In the past it was the practice of the Corps
of Engineers to permit contractors performing the
maintenance dredging to discharge the material directly
onto the toe of the Waterway banks at the water's edge.
The evidence indicates that this practice had a stabilizing
effect on bank erosion. However, in 1973 the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the United States
Department of the Interior strongly recommended that
this practice be abandoned for environmental reasons
and that the spoil be pumped instead into diked areas
located on the high ground adjacent to the Waterway.
The purpose is to minimize the turbidity which is *1357
caused by sidecast dredging and which has an adverse
environmental impact on fish in the area. Starting with the
annual maintenance dredging operations in the summer
of 1974, it has been necessary to utilize diked disposal
areas located on the Government's easement lands. The
material is pumped into dreged areas, the sand and silt are
permitted to settle and then clear water is allowed to run
back into the Waterway. In 1974 approximately 186,000
cubic yards of material were removed from the Waterway
in the vicinity of Sea Gate and placed in two disposal areas
on easement land on the east bank of the canal.
24. Mr. Sanderson testified that in general it is more
convenient and less expensive to locate spoil disposal
areas relatively near the Waterway banks and as close as
possible to the segment of the canal to be dredged. Because
its depth permits disposal sites of adequate dimensions to
be laid out, the large rectangular easement area on the
Waterway's east bank, and adjacent portions of the right-
of-way lands, are well situated for the placement of spoil
dredged from the canal in the Sea Gate vicinity. This large
tract is not part of the Sea Gate property, as indicated
on Exhibit A. In contrast, the narrow strips of right-of-
way land on the west bank— and on both banks where
the Government has only its 800-foot right-of-way— are
less desirable for spoil placements, but could be used if
necessary. These narrow strips might be used for spoil
disposal if dredging were necessary at a point in the canal
some distance from a larger disposal tract.
25. Testimony further indicated that the large rectangular
tract on the east bank and adjoining right-of-way land
could accommodate the spoil expected to be removed
from this segment of the Waterway for many years into
the future.
26. Mr. Sanderson's testimony further indicates, however,
that the presence of numerous dwellings along the east
bank of the Waterway in the vicinity of spoil disposal
areas would greatly complicate the process of dredging
and spoil disposal and create a substantial safety hazard,
even if the lands occupied by houses were not themselves
required for spoil placement. Among the dangers cited as
associated with the dredging and disposal process were
the operation of heavy machinery, the possibility of pipes
bursting from the heavy pressures involved in pumping
spoil, the danger of retention dikes giving way, and the
danger of children getting into disposal areas themselves,
It is clear that substantially greater precautions would
have to be employed in conducting these operations in
the vicinity of dwellings and that the necessity of such
precautions would add significantly to the Government's
expense in maintaining the Waterway.
27. Should houses be constructed in areas actually
required for spoil disposal, the removal of such houses
would greatly complicate the Government's dredging
operations. Testimony also indicated that the r eppeAf'��D
houses near the Waterway banks would
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
difficult to use the banks as staging areas for dredging and
for securing the anchors used to pull the dredges from side
to side across the canal.
28. Figures kept by the Corps of Engineers indicate
traffic on this segment of the Waterway has recently
increased significantly. However, it appears unlikely that
the navigation channel of the Core Creek Land Cut will
need to be widened beyond its existing bottom width
within the next 20 years. Testimony did indicate that
limited widening to provide passing zones might well
be considered at a sooner time. Since the three-mile
waterfront of the Sea Gate development is located near
the center of the seven -mile long land cut, it was suggested
that a passing zone might well be constructed within the
Sea Gate area.
*1358 29. Should numerous dwellings be constructed
along both banks of the Waterway within the three-
mile reach of Sea Gate Subdivision, problems similar
to those expected in dredging in a densely populated
area would be encountered. Where necessary, removal of
such houses would complicate any widening operation
and the presence of houses along the banks would rule
out their use as staging areas. Removal and disposal of
the spoil involved in such an operation would pose the
same hazards discussed above in connection with regular
maintenance dredging.
30. The difficulties which can be anticipated in conducting
either normal maintenance dredging or operations to
widen the Waterway channel should dwellings be
constructed on all Sea Gate waterfront lots, could be
mitigated by the following measures:
(a) permitting the construction of houses solely on lots
located on the western bank of the Waterway; and (b)
requiring any houses constructed on said western bank to
be set back from the top of the existing bank a minimum
of forty feet.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
111 1. The easement in favor of the United States, plaintiff
herein, is binding on all the defendants joined in this
proceeding to the extent that their property falls within its
bounds. The easement was contained in deeds which were
duly recorded when the United States sold its fee interest
in this property in 1957, and the parties have stipulated
that the principals of Sea Gate, Inc., had actual knowledge
of the existence and terms of the easement before their
purchase of the subject property and that all individual
lot owners were advised of its existence and terms in the
H.U.D. Property Report on this development.
2. The terms of the easement in question are unambiguous
and give the United States the right to maintain the
Intracoastal Waterway; to 'dig, cut away and remove'
the land if needed in order to enlarge the canal; to enter
upon and use any part of the land for the disposal of
material dredged from the Waterway; and to enter upon
and use the land for the placement of navigation aids
and for 'such other purposes as may be needful in the
preservation and maintenance' of the Waterway. In the
face of an easement giving the United States rights of such
magnitude, defendants cannot complaint should their
property be used by the Government for the purposes
enumerated at some future time. Should permanent
improvements be constructed on land subject to the
Government's easement, the owners cannot complain
should use of the easement rights require the alteration or
destruction of such improvements.
121 131 3. The owner of an estate subject to an easement
cannot use the fee in a fashion that obstructs or materially
impairs the easement holder's use and enjoyment of his
right under the easement. Any activity by the fee owner
which would result in increased cost or inconvenience
to the easement holder in exercise of his rights or
which would created a safety hazard should those rights
be exercised amounts to a material impairment of the
easement interest. In Carolina Power and Light Co. v.
Bowman, 229 N.C. 682, 51 S.E.2d 191 (1949), an electric
utility was granted a mandatory injunction requiring the
removal of a theater from lands subject to a right-of-way
easement for its power lines. The building did not actually
touch the lines nor make servicing them impossible.
However, the court granted an injunction because of the
safety hazard created and because servicing the liens was
made more difficult and costly by the presence of the
building. See also, Collins v. Alabama Power Co., 214 Ala.
643, 108 So. 868 (1926); Arkansas -Louisiana Gas Co. v.
Cutrer, 30 So.2d 864 (La.App.1957).
*1359 141 4. An injunction is the proper remedy to
prevent interference of this type by the fee owner with the
easement holders property rights. Carolina Power Co. v.
Bowman, supra; see also 25 Am.Jur.2d, Easements and
Licenses § 120.
151 5. Plaintiff reserved the rights enumerated in its
easement in 1957 not only to meet certain immediate needs
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
but to provide a means to deal with future contingencies
which could not then be entirely foreseen. The easement
retained thus gives the Government both the right to
make immediate use of the subject property, as for spoil
disposal, and certain rights which plaintiff may choose
to exercise should future conditions warrant. Plaintiff
is therefore also entitled to prevent activities by the
fee owners of this property which would unreasonably
increase the cost, complexity, or difficulty of exercising
these rights at some future time, even though the necessity
for exercise of these rights may not be entirely foreseeable
at present. In Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Jarvis, 29 F.2d
539 (8th Cir., 1928), the court granted an injunction
prohibiting the use of a railroad right-of-way for the
construction of buildings and other structures, even
though the railroad had no plans to put the property
to immediate use. The court stated that `the necessity of
immediate use is not essential to preserve the rights of the
railroad .... It can never be stated with certainty at what
time any particular part of a right-of-way may become
necessary for railroad uses.' Id. at 541. See also, Seaboard
R.R. Co. v. Banks, 207 Ala. 194, 92 So. 117 (1922) and
Olive v. Sabine & E.T.R.R. Co., 11 Tex.Civ.App. 208, 33
S.W. 139 (1895).
161 6. For these reasons the Court finds that the
construction of permanent residences and their attendant
utilities on both banks of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway within the Sea Gate Subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by plaintiff by
easement in 1957. No question has been raised in this
lawsuit concerning plaintiffs legal power to require the
destruction or removal of such improvements should
use of the property for the purposes enumerated in
the easement be reasonably necessary. Nevertheless,
the Court finds that the mere existence of numerous
substantial dwellings along both banks of the Waterway
in this area would so greatly complicate and burden
plaintiffs exercise of its easement rights, whether exercised
now or at some future time, that their construction
would very materially impair plaintiffs rights under the
easement.
7. However, the Court further finds that it would
not be unreasonable at the present time to permit
the construction of dwellings along the western side
of the Waterway only. Limiting construction to the
west bank only would minimize any interference with
dredging operations by the Corps of Engineers, since
dredging contractors would have free access to the large
spoil disposal area located in the Sea Gate vicinity on
the east side of the canal. Moreover, the exclusion of
dwellings from the east bank would also allow reasonable
provision for operations to widen the Waterway channel
or to provide passing zones, should either action prove
necessary in the future.
8. The Court further finds that the construction of
residential dwellings on the west side of the Waterway
should not be permitted closer than forty feet from the top
of the existing bank. Exclusion of dwellings from such a
forty -foot wide strip would leave such land available for
use by the Corps of Engineers for staging operations in
dredging and for widening the channel and would provide
an area for the location of anchors used in maneuvering
the dredges. Moreover, a set -back restriction of this sort
would take account of existing bank erosion and prevent
the construction of houses on potentially precarious sites.
*1360 171 181 9. The United States is not estopped
from maintaining this action by any course of conduct
followed since 1972 by officers of the Corps of Engineers
with respect to the Sea Gate development. The principle
is firmly established that the Government cannot be
estopped by any unauthorized representations made by
its agents concerning uses to which Government property
can be put. Utah Power and Light Co. v. United
States, 243 U.S. 389, 409, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791
(1917); United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8, 94 S.Ct. 19, 38 L.Ed.2d
7 (1973). Moreover, the record clearly reveals that
soon after their development plans came to the Corps'
attention, representatives of Sea Gate were advised
that the construction of permanent improvements on
the Government's easement land posed serious policy
problems which the District Engineer was taking up with
higher levels of authority. Under these circumstances, Sea
Gate, Inc., had no right to assume that it plans would not
ultimately be opposed by the Government.
[91 1101 10. Likewise, failure of the United States
to prevent the construction of other improvements
on easement lands elsewhere along the Intracoastal
Waterway cannot estop plaintiff from attempting to
prevent the infringement of its rights in this case. The
Supreme Court recently stated that:
As a general rule Inches or neglect of duty on the part of
officers of the Government is no defense RECEIVED
1 AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.SUpp. 1351 (1975)
to enforce a public right or protect a public interest .... deed, and parole evidence is inadmissible to vary or
A suit by the United States to enforce and maintain its contradict the instrument's plain meaning or to show
policy respecting lands which it holds in trust for all the that the parties intended something other than what they
people stands upon a different plane in this an some other wrote. Weyerhaeuser Company v. Carolina Power and
respects from the ordinary private suit to regain the title to Light Company, 257 N.C. 717, about
e nature
539 (1 terms
real property or to remove a cloud from it. United States There is nothing ambiguous about the nature or terms
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. of the easement in question. Parole evidence that an
5, 8, 94 S.Ct. 19, 21, 38 L.Ed.2d 7 (1973). `understanding' in derogation of the Government's rights
under the easement had previously been reached clearly
This principle unquestionably applies to the present case. cannot be considered by this Court to vary or contradict
ill] 1121 1131 [141 1151 11. Plaintiff finally canndbe final written terms. Finally, the firm of auctioneers
be estopped by representations made prior to the sale hired by plaintiff to dispose of this property was not
of this property in 1957 concerning uses to which this authorized to make representations in contravention of
property could be put. In the first place no evidence was the easement terms. The contract between the United
adduced at trial to suggest that Sea Gate, Inc., or any States and the firm expressly stated that the property
of its officers relied upon, or indeed had any knowledge was to be sold subject to the easement in question. The
of such representations prior to its purchase of this auctioneers had no authority to offer the property on
property in 1972. Moreover, a deed creating an easement any other terms and plaintiff cannot be *1361 bound by
by express reservation is a contract, and by fundamental any actions they may have taken beyond their authority.
principles of contract law, where the language of a deed United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 61 S.Ct. 102, 85
is clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties can L.Ed. 40 (1940); Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332
be shown only by the terms of the instrument itself. U.S. 380, 384-385, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947).
All prior and contemporaneous agreements between the
parties are considered merged into the final written
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
tn,l.
�I T
l've a.Mi h i t$ V T
1 ;
r- - - -- CURL CREEK
.. BRIDGE
?:RtlT a13 A`
All Citations
397 F.Supp.1351
End of Document V 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

LPIntracoastal Engineering PLLc
July 28, 2016
NCDEQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn: Karen Higgins
Re: Grand View Community Marina
DWR# 2011-041ov3
Wilmington, NC
PN 2014-036
Dear Ms. Higgins,
We are writing in response to the request for additional information dated May
10, 2016. Within this request, item No. 2 calls for "an engineering analysis
demonstrating the construction and future operation of the proposed facility will not
negatively impact or damage the NEI".
In review of the proposed facility we do not feel the construction or operation of
this facility will negatively impact or damage the NEI. The proposed construction of
dredging or proposed pilings is shown to be a minimum of approximately 15ft away
from the NEI. This should be an acceptable distance with the use of normal jetting of
piles and bucket to barge dredging. The operation of this facility as represented within
the attached cross section profiles shows the depth of the vessels within these areas not
in conflict with the NEI. Please note that these areas are open for vessel operation at the
current time with no limitations. The limitation of a maximum draft depth of 44"
should maintain no conflict or damage. This analysis is based on the lowest tide reading
in the last 5 years. This reading was taken from NOAA Station 8658163 Wrightsville
Beach, Johnny Mercers Pier October 4, 2015 and measured -2.46' in relation to MLW @
0.0.
Please contact us with any questions, comments or additional information needed.
Sincerely,
Intracoastal Engineering PLLC
CAA
Charles D. Cazier, P.E.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
5725 Oleander Dr. Unit E-7 Wilmington, NC 28403 [phone]

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
May 10, 2016
CERTIFIED MAIL: 7013 3020 0000 7632 0437
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Bailey and Associates
Mr. Chris Bailey
P.O. Box 400
Jacksonville NC 28541
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Grand View Community Marina
Dear Mr. Bailey,
P(t> ,%Av
PAT MCCRORY
Gow"'o,
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretory
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR # 2011-0410 v3
New Hanover County
On March 16, 2016, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application
requesting a 401 certification to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate up to 12
vessels, mechanically dredge an approximate area of 5,334 square feet, and construct additional
access piers, floating docks, finger piers, and mooring pilings. The Division has determined that
your application is incomplete and cannot be processed. The application is on -hold until all of the
following information is received:
1. The Northeast Interceptor (NEI) force main carries the full amount of sanitary sewage flow
from the Town of Wrightsville Beach to a sewer pump station owned by the Cape Fear Public
Utility Authority (CFPUA). The pump station transmits the sewage to the Southside
Wastewater Treatment Plant. In the area of the proposed project, the NEI is owned by the
Town of Wrightsville Beach and is the sole means by which sanitary sewage leaves the Town
of Wrightsville Beach. For much'of the previous four decades, the condition and flow
capacity of the NEI has been a concern to all entities which contribute to it, own it, and
maintain it and only recently have these issues begun to be resolved.
According to plan sheet 6 of 9 (Proposed Dredging) provided with the previous CAMA Major
Permit application in 2015, in some areas the sewer line existed six feet below the shallow
bottom. However, plan sheet 6 of 9 (Proposed Dredging) provided with the current CAMA
Major Permit application, indicates that the sewer line is only four feet below the shallow
bottom in the same exact location. Given this and other discrepancies between plan sheets,
please provide a survey of the NEI as is exists within the project boundaries. This suryyCEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Sum of North Carolina I Envimnmental Quality J Water Resources MAY 1 • 2016
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Bailey & Associates
Request for Additional Information
DWR # 2011-0410 v3
must be signed and stamped by a licensed Professional Land Surveyor and should include the
location, depth, and depth below the shallow bottom. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(b)]
2. Please provide an engineering analysis which demonstrates that the construction and future
operation/usage of the proposed facility (based upon the size and types of vessels predicted
to be utilizing the marina) will not negatively impact or damage the NEI. [15A NCAC 02H
.0502(c)]
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e) the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for the proper consideration of the application. If all of the requested information is
not received in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter, the Division will be unable
to approve the application and it will be returned. The return of this project will necessitate
reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete application package and the
appropriate fee.
Please respond in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter by sending three (3)
copies of all of the above requested information to the 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1617
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
The Division believes that construction and operation of the proposed project may negatively
impact or damage the NEI thus causing a violation of water quality standards. Staff are
contemplating denial of this 401 water quality certification. However, the items requested
above will be considered in any final decision.
Please contact Karen Higgins at [phone] or Karen. [e-mail] if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jon Ri Bard, Section Chief
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
cc: Steve Morrison — Land Management Group, Inc., 3805 Wrightsville Avenue Sui
Wilmington, NC 28403 RECEftD
DWR 401 and Buffer Permitting Branch file
Heather Coats —DCM Wilmington
Tyler Crumbley— USACE Wilmington
WiRO file
MAY 31 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Filename: l l0410v3Gra ndviewMarina_401_Hold.docx
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAY 16 2016

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
May 9, 2016
Laura Stasavich
Land Management Group, Inc.
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15,
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Ms. Stasavich:
ob
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Direaar
This letter is with reference to your application, acting as agent for Bailey & Associates, Inc., for
a Coastal Area Management Act Major Development permit to undertake development
activities at property adjacent to the AIWW, at 202 Summer Rest Rd., in Wilmington, New
Hanover County.
Although processing of the application is nearing completion, additional time is needed for this
office to complete the review and make a decision on your request. Therefore, it is necessary
that the standard reviewtime be extended. An additional 75 days is provided by G.S.113A-122(c)
which would make July 28, 2016, the new deadline for reaching a decision on your request.
However, we expect to take action prior to that time and will do so as soon as possible. In the
interim, if you have any question on the status of your application, do not hesitate to contact me
by phone [phone] or e-mail at: [e-mail].
cc: Wilmington/MHC Files
Sincerely,
Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
RECEIVED
MAY 13 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
nothing Compares
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Eat., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

M
Coats, Heather
From: + Higgins, Karen
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:39 AM
To: Steve Morrison
Cc: Coats, Heather; Coburn, Chad; Gregson, Jim
Subject: RE: Grandview Community Marina CAMA application
My apologies, the email sent before it was finalized. Please see below.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Higgins, Karen
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:37 AM
To:'Steve Morrison' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>; Coburn, Chad <[e-mail]>; Gregson, Jim
<j i m.gregson @ ncden r.gov>
Subject: RE: Grandview Community Marina CAMA application
Steve -
That sounds fine, we will extend the deadline until Friday, July 29". Please note this is the final extension. If
all of the requested information is not received in writing by July 29, 2016, the Division will be unable to
approve the application and it will be returned. The return of this project will necessitate reapplication to the
Division for approval, including a complete application package and the appropriate fee.
Thanks -
Karen
Karen Higgins
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Supervisor
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807-6360 office
karen.higgins(o.ncdenr.gov
512 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 942-E, Raleigh, NC 27604
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
-5>-Nothing ComparesM
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

l- `n
En v�rq nin en tql;; Con s u/#anfs;

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 29, 2016
TO: Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
DCM, Morehead City,
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
&—fary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dimaor
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a)_ncdenr.gov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-104M
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Carl Spears
Project Location: 285 Grandview Dr., adjacent to the AIWW, in Sneads Feny, Onslow County
Proposed Project: To install a culvert, bulkhead, and docking facility, and to place fill material
throughout the site, and partially within Coastal and §404 wetlands
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this loan to Heather Coats at the address above by July 23, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Jason Dail at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
:• This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
Y-
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED / �. DATED/zs�I
RECEIVED ������/�,
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
JUL 2 5 2016 JUL 0 pD CITY
2016y
Stle o£Nod6 Carolina I Enmronmenml Quality I Coasml Masagamw DCM- W E 1 tl Y
127 Cardinal Drive EIrt, Wln-gtM NC 28405
910-796-7215

K.
En vironmental
Quality
MEMORANDUM:
PAT M.C(RORY
. Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
TO: Heather Coats, DCM Assistant Major Permit Coordinator
FROM: Gregg Bodnar, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist
SUBJECT: Carl Spears
DATE: 7/25/2016
A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed the
subject permit applicationfor proposed actions that impact fish and fish habitats. The applicant proposes
to construct a bulkhead, culvert and docking facility. The surrounding waters are classified as primary
nursery area (PNA), able to support shellfish (SA), and are open to shellfish harvest. Coastal wetlands and
connected §40.4 wetlands are also. present.
There was some discrepancy in the PNA designation for this location. Information requested by the field
rep to determine PNA*statds for the narrative did not indicate the location was designated. PNA. Data
used by staff does indicate a PNA designation. Inquiries are being made, and an updated data does
indicate the location is designated PNA. PNAs are estuarine waters where initial post -larval development
occurs. Species I within this area are early post -larval to juvenile and include firifil sh, . crabs, . and
nd shrimp.
Species inhabit PNAs because they allford food, 'protection and proper environmental conditions during
vulnerable periods of their life history; thus protection of these areas are imperative.
Coastal Wetlands are considered among the most productive ecosystems in the world (NCDEQ 2015)..
Coastal ro aare wetlands productive detritus based system that trap nutrients, toxins and sediment, aid in.
shoreline erosion control, dissipate wave and storm action, provides abarrier to flood damage, and
provide nursery functions and support fish production. Recent research indicates that even . narrow
fringes of wetlands are essential factors forfish . utilization and erosion control,(Whaleyan.d.Min.ello 2002;.
MacRae and, Cowan 2.0.10;. Minello et al. 2011; Gewant and Bollens 2012). An estimated 9.5% of,
commercial finfish and shellfish species in the US are wetland dependent (Felerabend and. Zelany 1987).
Species common to coastal wetlands include sheepshead; red drum, flounder, spot, Atlantic croaker,
menhaden, oysters and penaeid shrimp; with a myriad of prey species as well. Wetlands can enhance
foraging functions of adjacent habitats,.which is why primary (PNA).and secondary (SN.A) nursery habitats
are closely linked, with coastal wetlands.. In addition, these wetlands are important to waterfowl feeding
.and nesting activities.
A 20OLF bulkhead is proposed to traverse the property located above the normal high water line, with
resulting.fill.: Though the bulkhead would tie into existing bulkheads, . lkheads, the location would result
It in fill of
439ft2 of coastal wetlands and 1,408ftz.of connected §404 wetlands. §404 wetlands physically connected
to coastal wetlands provide the same ecological function for coastal fisheries resources. The applica I nt
State of North Carolina [Environmental Quality
400 Commerce Avenue/Morehead City. N.C. 28557
252408L28081252-247-3330 &A
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer

t
PAT MCCRORY
. Govenfor
" DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Environmental secretory
Quality ..
does not identify any justification for the proposed wetland fill. Additional information within the
application.indicates that there is no evidence oferosionwithin the past 12 months. Without additional
justification as to the need of the wetland fill, the combined 1,847ft' of wetland impact seems excessive
and unnecessary. To reduce impacts to both wetland types, it is recommended that the bulkhead be
moved landward toa location that avoids wetland impacts:
The applicant proposes to construct a 24in z 132ft culvert within an existing drainage. ditch that runs the
length of the property.frorn the.road through the proposed bulkhead and into the coastal wetlands. No
information in provided to the justification for the need of this culvert over.the existing ditch. Replacing
an existing vegetated ditch with culvert will remove the natural filtration provided by the vegetation and
the open ditch; and allow untreated.storm wateirto enter, the PNAsystem at highervelocitiesthan
existing:. This could. result in. reduced water quality within the.SA and PNA designations, and potentially
cause loss of coastal wetlands and productive PNA. bottom through concentrated runoff. High ground
storm water BIVIPs should be investigated to provide a better solution.
Finally, the,applicant proposes to construct a docking facility,.boatlift and tie pilings; resulting in 2 slips.
.The waters within the boatlift footprint.range.from approximately 1ft to4ft at normal low water (NLW).
It is recommended that permanent stops be installed on the boatlift to reduce the potential for direct
vessel impacts to PNAbottom. Depths within the tie piling footprint range from 0ft to -8ft at NLW. The
use of tie pilings indicates that the slip can be used for more permanent dockage than just loading and
unloading. Formalized slips in shallow water can allow vessels to repeatedly contact the bottom, resulting
in; aquatic vegetation or shellfish. bed. loss, anoxia in the sediment which can kill benthic invertebrates and
reduction of shallow bottom habitat and direct vessel impact during low tide. Inaddition, vessels moving
to and from these shallow water docks can cause "prop kicking' or propeller disturbance impacts to the
PNA. Itis recommended that the tie pilings be removed to reduce the potential fora vessel to be docked
for long periods of time over low tides with exposed PNA bottom.
Contact Gregg Bodnar at [phone] ext. 213 orgregiz.bodnar@ncderingov with further questions or
concerns.
. State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
400 Commerce Avenue/Morehead City. N.C. 2a557
- 252-808-2808 1252-2473330 [fax] - - -
AnEqualOpportunitylAtfirmativeActionEmployer - _

PAT MCCRORY
Governor
" DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Environmental - _ secretory.
Quality .
Boswell, K:M., Wilson, M.P., MacRae, P.S., Wilson, c.A. and Cowan Jr, J.H., 2010. Seasonal estimates of fish
biomass and. length distributions using acoustics and traditional nets to identify estuarine habitat
preferences in Barataria Bay,_Lou]siana.'Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 2(1), pp.83-97.
Feierabend, J.S. and Zelazny, J.M.,1987. Status report on our nation's wetlands. National Wildlife
Federation.
Gewant, D. and Bollens; S.M., 2012. Fish assemblages of interior tidal marsh channels in relation to
environmental variables in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Environmental biology of f ites, 94(2), .
pp.483-499:
Minello, TJ., Rozas, L.P. and Baker, R., 2012. Geographic.variability in salt marsh flooding. patterns may
affect nursery value for fishery species: Estuaries and Coasts, 35(2), 00.501-514.
NCDEQ (North Carolina Department.of Environmental Quality) 2016..North Carolina Coastal.Habitat
Protection Plan Source. Document. Morehead City, NC. Division of Marine Fisheries: 477 p.
Whaley, S.D. and Minello, T.J., 2002. The distribution of benthic infauna of a Texas salt marsh in relation to
the marsh edge. Wetlands, 22(4), pp:753-766.
State of North Carolina I.Environmental Quality
400 Commerce AvenuelMore.head City. N.C. 28557
252-808&2808 1 252-247-3330 [fax] .
An Equal OppodunilylAf rmaliveAdonEmployer-

Energy, Mineral &
Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL OVAL"
July 13, 2016
Mr. Chris Bailey
Bailey & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 400
Jacksonville, NC 28541
Subject: EXEMPTION
Stormwater Project No. SW8150617 MODIFICATION
Grand View Community Marina
New Hanover -County
Dear Mr. Bailey:
PAT McCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
TRACY DAVIS
Director
On March 16, 2016, the Wilminggton Regional Office of the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land
Resources received a copy of tfie CAMA Major Permit Application for the subject project. Staff review of
the plans and specifications on March 17, 2016has determined that the development activities proposed at
this time will not pose a threat to surface water quality from stormwater runoff. The Director has
determined that projects that are reviewed and approved by the Division as not posing a water quality
threat from stormwater runoff should not be subject to the stormwater management permitting requirements
of 15A NCAC 2H.1000, the stormwater rules. By copy of this letter, we are informing you that this project
will not require a stormwater management permit.
If the subject pro disturbs one acre or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater runoff, then
it is also subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge
requirements. You are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge from projects meeting
these criteria. All temporary built -upon area associated with the construction of the pro ect must be
removed within 30 days of completion of the project, or when it is no longer needed, whichever occurs first.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter please contact Christine
Hall at [phone], or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Since ly,
For Tracy E. Davis, P.E., Director
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
GDS/canh: 111StormwateAPermits & Projects12015 \150617 Exemption12016 07 permit 150617
cc: Steve Morrison- Land Management Group, Inc. RECEIVED
New Hanover dounty Building Inspections
Robb Mairs/Shaun Simpson-DCM WIRO
DCM Morehead City JUL 2 0 2016
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
DCM- MHD CITY
State of Not Carolina .1 Environmental Quality 1 Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Wilmington Regional office 1 127 Cardirmt Drive Extension I Wilmington, NC 28405
910 796 7215

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) APPLICANT: Bailey & Associates, Inc. do Chris Bailey COUNTY: New Hanover
PROJECT NAME: Grand View Community Marina
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 202 Summer Rest Rd, adjacent to Motu Creek, AIWIGreenvilZe Sound, in Wilmington
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 2-29-16 /
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: No
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: n1a
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Robb Mairs
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW: 9 A,
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: 3-18-16 /
�� 2/ZNrtp
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D: j!&ky,(,U L -uy1.
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO::I 5
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE: I I `tl I
MAIL OUT DATE: 3-15-16
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
To Be Forwarded: n/a
To Be Forwarded: n/a
DISTRICT OFFICE: TVILMIIVGTON
FEE REC'D: $400 #46556 ( Ob
END OF NOTICE DATE: 4-7-16 i
DEED RECD:
ON:
150 DAY DEADLINE:
STATE DUE DATE: 4-7-16
FED COMMENTS REC'D:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY DRAFT
y.AGENCY
DcT�r �tiwtk5 la��
JDrrN
DATE
COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTIONS:
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management - Regional Representative
Coastal Management - LUP Consistency
Division of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section (DEMLR)
Division of Water Resources (401)
Storm Water Management (DEMLR)
State Property Office`yi1
Division of Archives & History
3 Zp/l `
r
Division of Environmental Health
Division of Highways
Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Permit Office
MAR 2 1 2016
Division of Marine Fisheries / DCM
4/7//!.
to^dzr
imam AN-
Corps of Engineers
IL---JHI
- C:Ty
Jos 'l/I/Il, r Y14S noH

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
T7
Mark Zeigler
WiRO
Division of Community Assistance
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Direclor
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a)-ncdenrpov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c% Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW / Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
X This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
S,C.e �EQ GonG�rnS•
SIGNED W DATE /
l O l i 6
Nothing Compares7 -
Received
MAR 3 0 2016
DC
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215

�i
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Dan Sams
District Manager
DEMLR - WiRO
L�
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
015
MAR i 6 201E
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsa).ncdenroov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c% Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW / Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE 3/11b I t L
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAR 2 2 2016
Nothing Compares'
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

�i
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM: �J!
i
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Proposed Project:
qV
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
rCEIV9
MAR 16 20%
BY:_---,
Georgette Scott
Stormwater Section
DEMLR - WiRO
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
DIre,lar
Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsa( .ncdenrgov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Bailey & Associates, c/o Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW/Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: _„Z This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE —311 �l i.P
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Nothing Compares .` MAR 2 8 2016
State of Norlb Carolina I Eviromnental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Tim Waltonkistration
Dept of Ad
State Property Office
RECEIVED
MA." 2 1 2016
DOA
STATE PROPERTY
OFFICE
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(c)-ncdenr.pov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c% Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW / Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY:
n�1 f�
�j'n
SIGNED
Is agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
DATE
Nothing Compares�-
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
MAR 2 4 2016

Coats, Heather
From: Walton, Tim
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:05 PM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject: RE: Bailey & Associates project
Heather
The AG's office has reviewed our Bailey & Associates easement file. I also shared the letters from Wessell & Raney,
L.L.P., written on behalf of the Town of Wrightsville Beach.
Subsequent to discussions with the AG's office, we do not believe we have unreasonably interfered with the Town's
rights granted under their 1982 easement.
Please let me know if you need additional information or have any questions.
Tim Walton
Director
State Property Office
Department of Administration
919-807-4660 Direct
[e-mail]
116 West Jones Street
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
Nothing Compares..,..
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 4:42 PM
To: Walton, Tim <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bailey & Associates project
Thank you!
Hope you have a great weekend.
Heather
Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

910 796 7302 office
heather.coats(a) ncdenr.gov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
<`Nothing Compares.,.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Walton, Tim
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Coats, Heather<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bailey & Associates project
Heather,
The AG's office is reviewing our files. I should have a response for you by 5-24.
Tim Walton
Director
State Property Office
Department of Administration
919-807-4660 Direct
tim.walton(@doa. nc.gov
116 West Jones Street
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
MM Nothing Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:47 PM
To: Walton, Tim <[e-mail]>
Subject: FIN: Bailey & Associates project
Hello Tim,
I hadn't heard from back you after sending the email below, and I just wanted to check in one more time to make sure
you received it and ask if the SPO had any additional comments you wanted to provide.
Thanks again,

Heather
Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heather. coats(o)ncdenr.00v
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington. NC 28405
!/ Nothing Compares,,...`
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:07 AM
To: Walton, Tim <tim.waltonCadoa.nc.aov>
Subject: Bailey & Associates project
Hello Tim,
We've received an objection.on behalf of the Town of Wrightsville Beach regarding the Bailey & Associates project. It
asserts that the applicant is infringing on the easement rights granted by the State to the Town of Wrightsville Beach
and that the State does not have the right to grant authorization to do so since the additional use impairs the authorized
use by the Town. Please see the attached letter.
We received your comments on this project, but want to ask if you have any additional comments to provide in light of
this objection.
Thanks in advance for your review and consideration. If you do have any additional comments, please notify us within 2
weeks, if possible.
Respectfully,
Heather
Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

910 796 7302 office
heather. coats cDncdenr.00v
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 26405
F CI&
-:5>-Nothing Compares--.:
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.
4.

PAT MCCRORY
ow
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
�r
BRAXTON DAVIS
>+�' fhmw
March 15, 2016
{jt t 6
MEMORANDUM
A'. I, g. t to
TO
NUN
Renee Gledhill -Early 3
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Archives & History
FROM
Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator � 41i. (i6
1-
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm_ NC 2W5 heather coats6ncdenc.nov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT
CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant:
Bailey & Associates, c% Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek / AIWW / Greenville Sound
Project Location:
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project:
to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to
Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate. in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED
C"_,)%&4tA—&,�&JDATE
Nothing Compares.--.
SWIG of Naafi CNO"M FAWanmt" lNAWY I C, l mm"C"K l
L'7 Ca�dmaf tRnw Fa . Wilmcnplm. NC 21405
Y10.796�`I5
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAR 2 9 2016
MAR 2 2 M6

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Shannon Jenkins
NC DMF
Shellfish Sanitation Section
Tk,.
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secremry
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dwecmr
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatscD-ncdenroov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c/o Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW/ Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. oi' 4xetw�
This agency has no comment on the proposed project. ` /C, °6° "'
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE I (C
n J;zV1
Received
MAR T i 1016
Nothing Compares.`
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management DCM
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
s,,_r,,<,1,
March 31. 2016
MEMORANDOM
TO: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 (Courier 04-16-33)
From: Andrew Haines,
Environmental Program Supervisor
Through: Shannon Jenkins,
Section Chief, Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c/o Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW/
Greenville Sound in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand the existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
It is requested that Shellfish Sanitation be notified by the contractor or the applicant's agent prior
to commencement of dock construction and/or any dredging or other bottom disturbing
activities. Initial notification should occur at least one week prior to the projected start date, and
again 24 hours prior to the actual start date.
If at any time during the construction phase it is suspected that the nearby force sewer mainline
has been disturbed, Shellfish Sanitation should be notified immediately. Timely response is
important in the event that a temporary shellfish closure and/or swimming advisory are
necessary. Additionally, a post construction survey of the sewer line is recommended to assess
sewer line integrity.
Due to the relative shallow depth of the sewer line within the substrate there are concerns of
potential future damage incurred from boat activities at the proposed dock. Shellfish Sanitation
should be notified immediately in any instance of damage to the sewer line.
Received
!—'Nothing Compares
MAR 1016
j!
State of North Carolina I Environmental Qualdy
1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919-707-8600
pCM

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Ben Hughes
NC DOT
New Hanover County
PAT MCCRORY
RBCPM')
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
I jAi $1 2016
Secretary
NC DOT
BRAXTON DAVIS
DISTRICT 3
Dimctor
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heathercoats(a)ncdenroov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c% Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW / Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: X This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED a'�+ 2� DATE 3
Nothing Compares_
Slate of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext, Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
RECEIVED
DCM WILM NG ON, NC
MAR 312016

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Maria Dunn
NCWRC
WiRO
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Lirmctor
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a)ncdenrpov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c% Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW/Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
VThis agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED 1 DATE 3 31 �a14
Nothing Compares
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ea, Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
APR 0 4 2016

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heather Coats
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
�Ia
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Coastal Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: March 31, 2016
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/Fill Permit Application for Bailey and Associates, Grand View
Marina, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the permit
application with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The project site is located at 202
Summer Rest Road, adjacent to Motts Creek / AIW W / Greenville Sound in Wilmington, NC. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G. S. 113A-
100 through 113A-128), as amended, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels sized 16' to 30'
in length. The current facility can moor two vessels. Approximately 5,334 W of shallow bottom is
proposed to be excavated to a depth of -4' NLW with the material being placed in an upland disposal
area. Near the proposed facility, but outside the footprint of the dredge area, is the Northeast Interceptor
(NEI) sewer force main for the Town of Wrightsville Beach. This line was surveyed and located on
August 2015. Motts Creek and the AIW W in this area are classified SB by the Environmental
Management Commission.
The NCWRC has reviewed the permit application and does not object to permit issuance. However,
caution should be exercised in further adding slips to an already congested area. Existing structures, the
convergence of water bodies, general traffic in the AIW W, and a public access area across the AIW W
must all be considered In addition to this caution, we request the following be included as permit
conditions:
ovED
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 22f@R}1 2IVIINGTGN, NC
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
APR 0 4 2016

I or. , ,
CMDF_Gand View Marina Page 2 Mamh 31, 2016
• A marina management plan should be developed that addresses overnight docking, spills, what
spill control and clean-up equipment will be available, and minimally identifies whether a
trained dock master will monitor the area. This plan should also include the posting of
information for boaters including emergency numbers and facility contacts.
• The NEI sewer force main is located in close proximity to the dredge area and traverses under
the dock It is recommended that signage is installed informing boaters no anchoring should
occur within that area.
• The docking structure should be adequately marked with reflectors to aid in navigation.
• Spoil placement on the USACE spoil island should adhere to all conditions of the existing
permit and or management plan for placing spoil on the island.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application. If you need further
assistance or additional information, please contact me at [phone] or at
maria.dunn(e�,ncwildlife. ore,
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 0 4 2016

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
b�
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secrelnry
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
TO: Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
DCM, Morehead City
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats()-ncdenraov
Fax:[phone] fCourier04 &M)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c/o Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /AIWW/Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE
GTON, NC 1 � II` YE,
DCM WWI
APR 01 g0 MAR 21 2016
Nothing Compares ;,� m C: s t ^ > u
State of North Camlma I Envimnmemal Quality I Coaabl Managemmt
127 Cardinal Dove Eat, Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215

IC
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Heather Coats, DCM Assistant Major Permit Coordinator
FROM: Gregg Bodnar, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist cT
SUBJECT: Bailey and Associates (Grandview Marina)
DATE: 4/7/2016
PAT MCCRORY
Gm n)or
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
se—faq•
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dr,aaa,
A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed the
subject permit application for proposed actions that impact fish and fish habitats. The applicant
proposes to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels. The surrounding waters are
classified as SB and are closed to shellfish harvest.
There is concern that vessel use of the proposed facility would increase the potential for erosion of the
sediment above the existing force main, known as the Northeast Interceptor (NEI), increasing the
potential for damage. If authorized, it is strongly suggested that precautions be developed to minimize
any potential damage and address concerns.
Marina users should be notified of the location of the NEI, its function, and the potential ecological
impacts if breached. "No Anchorage" signage should be displayed and enforced, identifying the location
of the NEI and the risk of effluent discharge if breached. It is encouraged that the applicant and the
town of Wrightsville Beach develop a plan in case of a breach, the need for maintenance of the NEI, etc.
It may also be beneficial for the applicant to coordinate with DCM staff and the Town of Wrightsville.
Beach to identify and resolve any concerns with the force main before dredging operations, including
the value of sediment depth monitoring over the NEI.
The application identifies a 10ft buffer around coastal wetlands for the proposed dredge footprint. This
buffer should be conditioned to reduce the potential for sloughing and loss of coastal wetland habitat.
In addition, a moratorium on in water work, to include dredging, from 1 April to 30 September is
recommended.to reduce the negative effects on critical fish life history activities, to include spawning
migrations and nursery functions.
Finally, there are private and high volume facilities adjacent to the proposed marina including the
docking facilities further up Mott's Creek, a NCWRC boat ramp, the draw bridge, and additional dockage
associated with Wrightsville Beach. There is concern that additional slips within this already congested
area have the potential to amplify congestion during peak times, impede the safe use of the NCWRC
boat ramp, impede access to the private facilities, create congestion related accidents and limit safe and
traditional navigation of the area.
Contact Gregg Bodnar at (252) k8-2808 ext. 213 or grees.bodnaKancderingov with further questions
or concern.
Nothing Compares
Stato of North Carolina I imho mental Quality I Coastal Management,
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, North Cm mina 28557
252-W&2808

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PAT MCCRORY
Gomm,
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretory
BRAXTON DAVIS
D,,,,mr
March 15, 2016 R @ R O ll 0
MEMORANDUM: 5' Q R 16
2016
TO: Heidi Cox "vlslonotvaatere
Environmental Engineer NIRC�Pub"cWaerg�r�
Public Water Supply pply
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a)-ncdenr.vov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates, c% Chris Bailey (Grand View Marina)
Project Location: 202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek /A/WW/Greenville Sound
in Wilmington, New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand an existing docking facility to accommodate 12 vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by April 7, 2016. If you
have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone]
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.(/see C0WVkJ #s 1 OU0)
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
4- 14
SIGNED DATE v
4- wett serves waaAJO +Q 0t0ck4/WuS maq he
(,a �porida (,y A walifLM ' WJ f1d 796-7. a6 c
t" Il kia&t,
ref;-pm�, ts.
Nothing Compares.`
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Et., W ihningtou, NC 28405
910-796-7215
DCINWILMINIGTON, NC
APR 01 2016

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
APPLICANT'S NAME: Bailey and Associates, Inc. c/o Chris Bailey
PROJECT NAME: Grand View Community Marina
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: 202 Summer Rest Road, adjacent to Motts Creek, and the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, Greenville Sound, in Wilmington, New Hanover County.
Photo Index - 2006: 22-7424, I-J, 10 2000: 22-273, I-J, 10 1995: 22-255, J, 8
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2358428 Y: 173148
Latitude:34°13'11.47562"N Longitude:77°48'51.900003"W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA and D & F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit — 2/25/2016
Applicant Present — No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received — 2/29/2016 (completed)
Office — Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Wilmington/New Hanover County
Land Classification From LUP - Resource Protection (Upland), Conservation (Open Water)
(B) AEC(s) Involved: CW, PT, EW, ES
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Private Community
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — Sewer Force Main (NEI)
Planned — N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing — Timber bulkhead, irrigation well, access pier, floating dock, remnant piling
Planned — Additional access pier, gazebos, floating docks, mooring pilings and
excavation of boat basin for up to 12 vessels.
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A RECEIVED
Source - N/A
MAR 21 2016
HABITAT DESCRIPTION: 1AREA1
DREDGED FILLED
(A) Vegetated Wetlands (Coastal Wetlands)
635 sq. ft.
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands
(Open water
5,334 sq. ft.
incorporated
2,106 sq. ft.
(C) Other (Highground) Disposal Site
13,068 sq. ft.
(D) Total Area Disturbed: —21,143 sq. ft. (-0.48 acres)
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: "SB" Wrightsville Recreational Area Open: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to expand an existing docking facility adjacent to Mons Creek and
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) to accommodate 12 vessels.

M
Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey -Grand View Community Marina
Page 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located at 202 Summer Rest Road (NCSR 1417), across from the old "Babies Hospital" location,
adjacent to Motts Creek, and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), Greenville Sound, Wilmington, in New
Hanover County. To locate the site from the Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO) take US Hwy 74/76 towards
Wrightsville Beach just before crossing the drawbridge to Wrightsville Beach. The property is approximately 150 feet
north of the US Hwy 74/76 drawbridge to Wrightsville Beach and is directly across the AIW W from the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) public boat ramp at Wrightsville Beach, approximately 650'east.
The project site is bordered to the north by Motts Creek which functions as the connection to a tidal pond/embayment
on the west side of Summer Rest Road adjacent to the old "Babies Hospital" site, which an existing box culvert bridges
this connection for the street. The applicant currently maintains the old "Babies Hospital" property located at 7205
Wrightsville Ave. and is currently in the process of constructing the new Grand View mixed use development to
include 111 residential units through State Permit No. 87-07.
The application states that project site is approximately 6,000 sq. ft. (0.137) acres with approximately 558 linear feet
(LF) of shoreline frontage and averages 5' above normal high water (NHW). The property is peculiar with the majority
of the shoreline of the property bordering Motts Creek, which is approximately 130' in width at the narrowest point at
the mouth. A large oyster -rock on the north side of the creek creates this restriction. There are existing community and
private docking facilities with associated boat basins to the north of the property along Summer Rest Road (State
Permits No. 174-00, No.165-90 & No. 241-89). These facilities connect directly to the AIW W via an access channel at
the mouth of Motts Creek. The boat basins for these docking facilities along with the access channel have been
excavated periodically through the years to maintain adequate water depths. The adjacent docking facility to the north
was authorized an associated boat basin and access channel to the AI W W through State Permit No. 174-00, which was
issued to the previous property owner (B. Smith). The final project depth of the authorized access channel is -6.0' at
mean low water (MLW).
The marsh area, between the highground along Summer Rest Road, Motts Creek to the north, and the boat basins to
the north, consists of Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniJlora), ranging from 40' to 120' in width. At the transition to
highground, there is coastal marsh vegetation, intermixed with Spike Grass (Distichlis spicata), Sea Oxeye (Borrichia
frutescens), Sea Lavender (Limonium, spp.), Saltwort (Salicornia, spp. ), and Salt Meadow Grass (Spartina patens).
Shrubs including; Marsh -Elder (Iva frutescens), Grounsel-Bush (Baccharus halimifolia), and Wax Myrtle (Wica
cerifera) complete the transition to the highground.
There is an existing timber bulkhead along the western portion of the property that stabilizes the highground area
adjacent to Summer Rest Road, which was authorized under CAMA General Permit No. 51962-D. Waterward of the
timber bulkhead is an access pier that extends towards the AIWW, which runs parallel to Motts Creek towards the
AIW W. The access pier terminates onto a floating dock via an access ramp that runs parallel to the AIW W. Waterward
of the existing floating dock, approximately 40' south are remnant pilings from an abandoned pier and approximately
85' waterward of the existing floating dock on the western side is the timber fender system for the ARVW under the
Wrightsville Beach drawbridge. This facility was authorized through State Permit No. 84-01.
There is an existing sewer force main, which is known as the Northeast Interceptor (NEI), which crosses property. The
Town of Wrightsville Beach obtained State Permit No. 100-78 and 106-78 for the approximately 800 LF 14"
subaqueous line on July 10, 1978, which is located on the north side of the drawbridge to the Town of Wrightsville
Beach. It appears through the file review, the Town of Wrightsville Beach obtained an easement from the State on May
27,1982 for the NEI within four (4) waterbodies, which includes this section of the AIW W north of the US Hwy 74/76.
Wastewater is collected and pumped under the AIW W through segment #1 of the NEI t�irtnt , , ' Utility
Authority (CFPUA) pump station and ultimately to the CFPUA's Southside Wastewat at1C
MAR 21 2016
DCM- ^",HJ Cli Y

E3
Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey- Grand View Community Marina
Page 3
The application states that the location of the NEI was surveyed on 12/10/2007 and resurveyed in 8/2015 by Johnnie
Williams Land Surveying PC. There also appears to be telephone lines that were located on the referenced revised
drawings dated 06/26/2001 in State Permit No. 84-01 application.
The existing docking facility was authorized for up to two (2) vessels through State Permit No. 84-01, which was
originally issued to CGRS Enterprises, LLC on 07/3/2001. The application for State Permit No. 84-01 depicted that an
approximate 50' section of the authorized access pier and the floating dock in the location of the NEI were designed to
be bolted for removal for required maintenance. The location of the access pier in relation to the NEI was addressed
under condition No. 7 of State Permit No. 84-01 and referenced revised drawings dated 06/26/2001. The existing
docking facility appears to meet the 80' setback from the USACE AIW W federal channel and the N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) 150' right-of-way from the bridge. Further, the referenced drawings for State Permit No.
84-01 indicate that the northern riparian corridor line was referenced from the centerline of Motts Creek channel.
State Permit No. 84-01 was transferred to Bailey and Associates, Inc. on 05/04/2006 and last modified on 05/27/2008
for relocation of the authorized access pier to the south to accommodate the authorized two vessels, and the
construction of a 30' in length by 20' in width partially covered platform to be constructed on the northern side of the
relocated access pier. The platform location under this modification was authorized just on the waterward side of the
coastal wetlands boundary and on the southern side of the existing NEI sewer line. The NEI was partially located in the
field on 12/10/2007 by the acting agent at the time of the modification request. The portion of the located alignment of
the NEI was depicted on the attached drawings for the modification request and was taken from the survey, and
construction of the existing access pier currently spans over the NEI. To date the authorized partially covered platform
has not been constructed. State Permit No. 84-01 was due to expire on 12/31 /2008, however, State Permit No. 84-01
was subject to extension by the Session Law 2009406, as amended by Session Law 2010-177, the Permit Extension
Act. State Permit No. 84-01 expired on 12/31/2012 (See Sheets 1 and 2 of 9 and Project Narrative). .
State Permit No. 13-86 was issued to a previous property owner (Consolidated Ventures Corporation c/o David
Winner) on 11/19/1986 for a ten (10) slip docking facility at this property, which included excavation for a boat basin.
Based on a file review, it appears the applicant received a Special Use Permit (No. S-22 7/84) from New Hanover
County. The field investigation report stated that the anchor pilings would be set 20' to either side of the force main in
order to meet conditions of the special use permit. Also the pier would be bolted together in such a manner that it can
be removed in the event the force main needs repair. Permit Condition No. 9 of State Permit No. 13-86 addressed the
existing sewer line and reads: "The area over the 14"force main shall not be excavated unless the applicants can
verify that the line will have 4' cover remaining." The proposed docking facility ran parallel to Motts Creek and the
traditional navigation to the AIW W from the private docking facilities to the northwest along Summer Rest Road and to
the 80' setback requirement from the AIWW channel. State Permit No. 13-86 expired on 12/31/1989 and the
construction of this docking facility was abandoned. The only evidence of the docking facility is the remnant pilings
from an abandoned pier, aforementioned. Further, these existing pilings at this location appear to be present in the
review of historical NCDOT 1989 aerial photography.
There have been other CAMA Major Permit applications by the current applicant submitted for expansion of the
existing docking facility over the last five years or so, which have been withdrawn. The most recent permit application
submitted in 6/2015 was recently withdrawn dated received by this office on 2/29/2016 at the same time this permit
application was submitted. The last scoping meeting for this project was held on 11 /5/2014 at the Wilmington Regional
Office (WiRO) with the applicant and his agents along with various interested review agencies, which was followed by
a pre -application meeting with NCDCM on 3/26/2015 for the previous application submittal.
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

ra
Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey- Grand View Community Marina
Page 4
The New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington 2006 Land Use Plan Update classifies adjacent waters as
Conservation, and the adjacent high ground portion of the project area as Resource Protection. The waters of the Motts
Creek and the AIW W in the project area are classified SB (Wrightsville Recreational Area) by the Division of Water
Resources. They are NOT designated as a Primary Nursery Area by the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and they are
CLOSED to the harvest of shellfish.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
The applicant proposes to expand an existing docking facility adjacent to Motts Creek and the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIW W) to accommodate 12 vessels. The application states that approximately 11 P ofthe existing access
pier would be removed and that the existing floating, measuring approximately 60' in length by 6' in width would be
re -used or replaced and relocated/rotated. The applicant proposes excavation to maintain the depth necessary to provide
safe dockage for additional vessels. As stated, the application indicates that the NEI was located and last surveyed by
the applicant in 8/2015. In addition, the application states that the dredging limits would maintain an approximately
10' separation from existing coastal wetlands. An area approximately 115' in length and ranging from 30' to 60' in
width would be mechanically excavated by bucket -to -barge method to a final project depth from -4.0' at MLW. This
would result in the removal of approximately 593 cubic yards of material, which would be hauled to a privately owned
spoil island located approximately 0.4 miles south of the project site at the confluence of the AIW W and Motts Channel
(US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Disposal Site No. 0248), which is privately owned by Shore Acres Co. The
application states the owner has authorized the use of the spoil site. The application states that the material would be
off loaded and placed outside the USACE Easement Boundary on the eastern portion of the island. The proposed spoil
site is commonly used as disposal site by local marine contractors (See Sheets 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 9).
A new angled section of access pier is proposed from the existing access pier and would extend towards the AIW W,
measuring approximately 12' in length by 6' in width and would extend towards the AIWW, which would terminate to
an uncovered deck, measuring approximately 6' in length by 15' in widthjust landward of the edge of coastal wetlands.
The uncovered deck would then lead onto an irregular shaped covered platform, ranging from approximately 12' to 20'
in length by 18'to 24' in width, which would be located over open water. An access ramp would lead onto a new main
floating dock, measuring approximately 108' in length by 6' in width that would extend towards the AIW W, essentially
in the same alignment as the access pier. The main floating dock would terminate onto the existing slightly rotated
floating dock, measuring approximately 60' in length by 6' in width creating an "L-shaped" configuration towards the
north at the existing northern piling to intersect the property's southern riparian corridor setback at a right angle. Based
on the application, the existing force main is directly below this floating dock. Further, the application drawings
depicts this existing floating dock is currently and would be continue to be located partially within the extension ofthe
access channel to the private docking facility to the north, aforementioned.
Three (3) floating finger piers, two (2) measuring approximately 35' in length by 3.5' in width and one (1), measuring
approximately 25' in length by 3.5' in width, and approximately 34' between each ofthem would extend from the main
floating dock towards Motts Creek. Two (2) tie pilings would be located between each of the finger piers to
accommodate slips # 1 through #6. The application states that the remaining floating dock system would accommodate
side -to dockage for slips #7 through # 12. A "floating deck", measuring approximately 15' in length by 6' in width
would be located on the most landward end of these floating finger piers within slip # 1. The application states this area
of Motts Creek is approximately 117' across to the edge of an existing oyster bar. The application states that the new
marina would accommodate up to 12 permanent slips (See Sheet 5 of 9).
Located approximately 150' from Summer Rest Road an additional access pier, measuring approximately 73' in length
by 6' in width would extend over the coastal marsh from the northern side of the existing access pier into Motts Creek.
The pier would terminate onto a partially covered platform, measuring approximately 20' in length by 14' in width,
which the covered portion (20' x 9') would be located over open water (See Sheets 1 t1 1-16-0 et'plAnr Praiect
CC lC CC �1 VV CC
Narrative). 1 LUJ
MAR 21 20'5

Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey- Grand View Community Marina
Page 5
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The proposed marina docking facility construction would incorporate 2,106 sq. ft. of Estuarine Waters and Pubic Trust
Area, which includes an area currently usurped by a section of the existing access pier and floating dock. The proposed
new piers and uncovered platforms would shade approximately 635 sq. ft. of coastal wetlands, vegetated primarily with
Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alternfora). The application states that the proposed docking facility would accommodate
up toll slips for mixed type vessels ranging from 16' to 30' in length. The proposed excavation would impact
approximately 5,334 sq. ft. of shallow bottom area through the use of mechanical dredging, resulting in the removal of
approximately 593 cubic yards (CY) of material. It appears the proposed excavation and structures were designed to
avoid the NEI. The application states the NEI ranges from 3.1' to 4.2' below the substrate/mud within the project area.
Water depth in the location of the NEI ranges from approximately-5' to -11' @ MLW. The vessel use of the proposed
marina could potentially cause additional erosion within the NEI due to propeller wash, and could expose the NEI to
potential damage. The application states that prior to the construction, a field marking of the NEI would be performed
by a professional utilities location company to assure this separation. Based on the submitted drawings, the proposed
pilings for the associated structures would range in distance from 10' to 15' to the existing force main. It also appears
that a portion of the new marina docking facility would be located within an easement from the State to the Town of
Wrightsville Beach for the existing sewer force main.
The disposal of the material would impact approximately 13,068 sq. ft. of highground, which would be located onto an
existing spoil island approximately 0.4 miles south of the project site at the confluence of the AIWW and Motts
Channel (USACE Disposal Site No. 0248). The proposed marina structures would extend approximately 125' into a
waterbody, which measures approximately 512' across (AIWW). The proposed platform into Motts Creek would
extend approximately 10' into a waterbody measuring 50' across, which all structures would conform with the 1/4
width of the waterbody. The proposed marina docking facility appears to meet the required 80' setback from the
USACE AIWW federal channel. Based on the provided drawings, the southern portion of the proposed marina
docking facility would not encroach into the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT)150' right-of-way from US
Hwy 74/76.
The proposed marina docking facility would not encroach into the adjacent 15' riparian corridor setback requirement to
the south of the project, which was established in the application under State Permit No. 84-01. As stated, the
referenced drawings to State Permit No. 84-01 for the existing facility on the property indicated that the northern
riparian corridor line was measured from the centerline of the Motts Creek channel. The proposed marina docking
facility would be located outside the footprint of the previously authorized docking facility under State Permit No. 84-
01. The drawings for State Permit No. 13-86, which was issued to Consolidated Ventures Corporation on the same
property for a 10 (ten) slip docking facility, did not locate a northern riparian line. Due to the peculiar shoreline
configurations in this area of Motts Creek and the AIWW a traditional perpendicular alignment could not be achieved
for a riparian corridor and associated setback. It appears that the intent of the previously authorized docking facilities
for this property was to prevent structures within the established access channel for the existing docking facilities along
Summer Rest Road and the AIWW. Rules 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b) Specific Use Standards (6)(I) states: "When
shoreline configuration is such that a perpendicular alignment cannot be achieved, the pier shall be aligned to meet
the intent of this Rule to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the Division of Coastal Management".
The application package for State Permit No. 174-00, which was issued on November 14, 2000, and was then renewed
and modified on January 19, 2006 to the adjacent property owner to the north at the time (Smith), for the existing
private docking facility and associated boat basin and access channel, contained a notarized authorization from the
Summer Rest Landing Yacht Club Owners Association, Inc., which was the adjacent riparian property owner to the
north, which allowed Smith's facility to extend the into the adjacent riparian corridor.
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- 1vHD o^'-a Y

Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey- Grand View Community Marina
Page 6
Based on the proximity of this proposed marina docking facility to the existing private docking facilities to the north
along Summer Rest Road, which connect directly to the AIW W via an access channel at the mouth of Motts Creek, and
the NC WRC public boat ramp at Wrightsville Beach, the proposed marina docking facility could potentially impede
and congest the traditional navigation in the area of the AIW W. During the busy summer months, this area of the
AIW W can be very congested due to larger vessels sitting idle waiting for the drawbridge to open and boaters trying to
launch and retrieve smaller vessels at the NCWRC public boat ramp located at Wrightsville Beach.
It should be noted that condition 2 to State Permit No. 13-86 which was issued to Consolidated Ventures Corporation
on the same property for a 10 (ten) slip docking facility, addresses the traditional navigation of this area, which states:
"Traditional navigation to the AIWW from private dockage to the northwest along Summer Rest Road shall not be
impeded by this project or its later use. A fairway of reasonable width in water depths of 4' MLW or greater must be
maintained to comply with the terms of this condition". As stated, the adjacent docking facility to the north was
authorized a boat basin and access channel to the AIW W through State Permit No. 174-00, which was issued to the
previous property owner (B. Smith) authorized a final project depth of -6.0' at MLW. Minor increases in turbidity
should be expected during the construction; however no long term adverse impacts are anticipated.
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Submitted by: Robb L. Mairs Date: 3/15/2016 Office: Wilmington

CAMA Major Permit Application
Project Narrative
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
February 18, 2016
Bailey and Associates, Inc., Applicant
Land Management Group (LMG) Inc., Agent
Existing Conditions
Bailey and Associates Inc., is the owner of New Hanover County parcel R05714-004-012-000. The property
is located at 202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, just north of the Wrightsville Beach Bridge. The property
abuts Motts Creek and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) with riparian access to Motts Creek on
the northern side of the property and to the AIWW at the eastern end of the property. There are 476-Ift of
shoreline along normal high water, as flagged by LMG, within the deeded property boundaries. Upland
portions of the property are located within the City of Wilmington. Riparian areas below mean high water
are within the jurisdiction of New Hanover County.
The property currently contains a 652-ft long fixed pier which accesses a 60-ft long floating dock (inside
dimension) with 2 boat slips parallel to the AIWW (CAMA Permit 84-01). The existing floating dock is located
approximately 12' landward of the quarter waterbody setback, which is more restrictive than the AIWW's 80'
structure setback in this location. Deeded property boundaries for the parcel include a mean low water and
a mean high water line surveyed at the time of recordation in 1984. Since the low water line was shown on
the 1984 survey, a search for any submerged land claims was conducted to determine whether the
applicant or any adjacent parcel had a legal submerged land claim. The NCDEQ, Division of Marine
Fisheries, database for "Submerged Land Claims Recognized under NCGS 113-205" was reviewed.
Neither the subject property nor the directly adjacent northern property were shown to have any recognized
submerged land claims. More recent mean high water, normal high water, and mean low water contours
are provided in the application materials in addition to the deeded boundaries (which are provided for
reference only).
The AIWW along the property is designated by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) as
SB waters (Index # 18-87-24). The property is located across the AIWW from the public boat ramp at
Wrightsville Beach. No waters adjacent to the property are mapped as Primary Nursery Area (PNlRand the
adjacent waters are closed to shellfishing for human consumption. ' ` E C E I v E D
MAR 2 1 2016
Grand View Community Boating Facility, Bailey and Associates, Inc.
CAMA Major Permit Application, Project Narrative, February 18, 2016 DCM-MIdfAEQJfY
1 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 z%

A portion of the Northeast Interceptor (NEI) sewer line (from the Town of Wrightsville Beach) is buried within
the riparian corridor of this property. The existing fixed pier and the floating dock cross over the buried line,
with existing pilings avoiding the line. The location of the NEI was surveyed on 12/10/2007 by Johnnie
Williams Land Surveying PC. Since no surveyed location or easement was available from the Town of
Wrightsville Beach, a professional utility location service was used to locate and resurvey the line in 8/2015
to ensure planned pilings and dredging will avoid the line.
Previous CAMA Permits and Applications
CAMA Permit 13-86 was issued to Consolidated Ventures for this parcel in November 1986 and authorized
a ten -slip dock with dredging. Those structures were not fully constructed, and CAMA Permit 84-01 was
issued to CGRS Enterprises, LLC on 7/3/2001 for construction of a fixed access pier and floating dock.
CAMA Permit 84-01 was renewed until 12/31/2006 and transferred to Bailey and Associates, Inc. on
5/4/2006. Upon purchase of the property, Bailey and Associates initiated plans for expansion of the existing
dock with a proposed layout similar to that approved by CAMA Permit 13-86. A minor modification of the
permit for a slight southern realignment of the pier was approved on 5/27/2008 while plans for expansion of
the dock system were developed. A Major Modification request for the expansion was submitted in 2010
and placed on hold. The CAMA Major Permit application submitted in 6/2015 resumed permitting efforts, as
does this current permit application.
Proposed Project
Bailey and Associates, Inc. is proposing to expand the existing docking facility to provide a total of 12 slips,
ranging between 25' and 30' in size. Six of the slips, those on the outside of the "t" head and floating dock
spine, would provide side -to dockage. All slips would serve residential units within the Grand View mixed -
use development located at 7205 Wrightsville Avenue (the former "Babies Hospital", New Hanover County
parcel R05714-002-003-000). The residential component of the mixed -use redevelopment will provide 111
residential units. The proposed boat slips are within walking distance of the residential units, and no parking
at the waterfront parcel will be necessary. No upland work is proposed in this application.
The existing floating dock will be re -used or replaced in its current dimensions. The floating dock will be
rotated at the existing northern piling to intersect the property's southern riparian corridor setback at a right
angle. One hundred eleven (111) feet of the existing fixed pier will be removed to allow for expansion of the
floating dock system. A 108.8-Ift floating dock will be placed perpendicular to the AIWW and will connect to
the rotated "t" dock. Three new finger piers will be constructed: one 25-ft in length and two 35-ft in length.
The resulting floating dock system will provide: one 25' slip; five 35' slips; and six side -to slips approximately
Grand View Community Boating Facility, Bailey and Asst�s, I V E D
CAMA Major Permit Application, Project Narrative, Febru 115��
2
MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, Nd
FEB 18 20161
DC�l-MHDCTY
ERM

25' in size. Floating docks will be accessed by a ramp from the existing fixed pier, and pilings will be
installed to secure the floating docks and for boat mooring purposes. All structures would remain outside of
the right-of-way identified by NCDOT.
A fixed platform is also proposed at the end of the fixed pier. The platform would be 456.5 sq.ft. in size, with
360 sq.ft. roofed and 96.5 sq.ft. open deck over coastal marsh. A 9' x 14' fixed gazebo with a 5' x 20' deck is
proposed on Molts Creek and would be accessed by a new fixed pier extending 73' from the existing fixed
pier.
A hydrographic survey was completed by TI Coastal in September 2014. Depths from a February 2007
Gahagan & Bryant survey (as shown on a February 2009 Maritech Dredging, LLC plan used in a previous
CAMA application) are included for the southem-most portion of the riparian corridor. Water depths within
the project area near the AIWW currently range between -0.75' MLW to -9' MLW. Dredging to 4' MLW is
proposed only along the western half of the proposed floating dock system where current depths are 4'
MLW or less. The dredging area is designed to remain 10' from the surveyed outer edge of the coastal
wetlands. The dredge area would total 5,334 sq.ft., and the dredge volume is anticipated to be
approximately 593 cy. The applicant proposes to use a bucket -to -barge operation and dispose of the
material on an existing spoil disposal site owned by Shore Acres, Inc. and located on the AIWW
approximately 0.5 mile south of the project area. Permission for the use of this disposal site has been
requested and a copy of that approval is enclosed.
No fuel or maintenance services would be provided, and no overnight or live-aboards would be allowed by
the rental agreement and/or community rules and restrictions. Seapath Yacht Club provides a pump -out
and is located on Harbor Island (Wrightsville Beach) less than 1 mile by water from the project site.
The piling and dredging plans have been designed to avoid the surveyed position of the buried force main
by a minimum of 15 feet. In addition, prior to construction, a field marking of the force main will be pEr1(.®C E I V E D
by a professional utilities location company to assure this separation.
MAR 21 2016
On 11/14/14, a request (copy enclosed) was made to the Town of Wrightsville Beach for a reccfXo& fA H d CITY
the "Easement" between the State of North Carolina and the Town or, in lieu of such, the recording
information from the New Hanover County Register of Deeds Office along with other maps, surveys and
other information relating to the "Easement" for the NEI sewer line. As of today, there has been no response
to this public records request.
Grand View Community Boating Facility, Bailey and Associates, Inc.
CAMA Major Permit Application, Project Narrative, February 18, 2016
3
DCM WECEIVED
ILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 20I6

TO WILMINGTON
�S
titer
�Q
F'9S
TjyO
,00
O
US HWY 76 WRIGNTSVILE AVE
� LMG
p LAND MANAGCMENTGAODPwc
Environmental Consultants
3805 Wnghteville Ave., Suite 15
Wilmington, North Caroline 28403
Telephone. 91 G452-0001
P�
�0
0;
S I T E
5
/0
��jcyTS�l
�F
FF�cy
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- RVJD CriY
CAMA Major Permit Application
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Site Location
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON,
FEB 18 2016
1/6/2016
NTS 02-14-045
twn By: Figure:
McKim and Creed 1 Of 9

DCM MP-7
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12127/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant Landowner Information
Business Name
Bailey And Associates, Inc.
Project Name (if applicable)
Grand View Community Boating Facility
Applicant 1: First Name
clo Mr. Chris
MI
Last Name
Bailey
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
if additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
P.O. Box
PO Box
400
City
Jacksonville
State
NC
ZIP
28541
Country
USA
Phone No.
910-346-8443 ext.
FAX No.
910-346-8637
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2. AgentContractor Information
Business Name
Land Management Group, Inc.
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Steve
Morrison
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Laura
Stasavich
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15
Wilmington
INC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
28403
910 - 452 -
0001 ext.
ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
910 452 0060
Street Address (d different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail] [e-mail]
f r—
<Form continues on back> MAR 2 1 2016 RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON,
pCM- ^4"Hr) r -"! FEB 18 2011
252.808.2808 :: 1.888.4RCUAST :: www. nccoastal management. net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
New Hanover
202 Summer Rest Road
S.R. 1417
Subdivision Name
City
Slate
Zip
N/A- will serve Grand View residential units
Wilmington
NC
28403 -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
ext.
N/A, I I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
C z �*&v
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Motts Creek
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural []Manmade ❑Unknown
AIWW
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
SYes ❑No
work falls within.
City of Wilmington (above MHW) and New Hanover County
(below MHW)
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
476 feet along NHW
0.85 acres per NHC GIS data
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
N/A
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
Upland area — 2' [@NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Area below NHW includes coastal marsh species such as Spartina alterniflora, Distichlis spicata, Limonium carolinianum,
Spartina patens, and Salicornia depressa. Upland on the property is largely vegetated by Morelia cerifera.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Approximately 1271ft of bulkhead; 6' x 652' fixed access pier; ramp; 6' x 66' floating dock providing two boat slips.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adfacent to the proposed project site.
Adjacent uses to the north are residential. Adjacent uses to the west, along Wrightsville Ave, are largely commercial.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
City of Wilmington zones upland as 0&1-1 (Office and
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
Institutional 1). New Hanover County zones area below
SYes []No ❑NA
MHW as B-1 Business (GIS data).
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes [@No
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes SNo ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does if involve a ❑Yes SNo ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DCM- MHD CITY FFR 19 2016,
252-808-2808 :: 9.888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement. net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
<Form continues on next page>
m. (1) Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes []No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes [:]No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (u) above, has a delineation been conducted? ®Yea []No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Work requested in this application does not require treatment of wastewater, but the property is served by the Cape Fear
Public Utility Authority.
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Work requested in this application does not require drinking water, but the property is served by the Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority.
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
There are no existing stormwater management or treatment systems on site. Existing development is pervious decking.
S. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ❑PubliclGovernment
®Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
Purpose is to expand the existing docking facilities to provide six boat slips 25' and 35' in size, and 168 Ift of side -to dockage
for approximately six 25' slips. All boat slips would serve the residential component of the Grand View project currently
under construction at 7205 Wrightsville Avenue. Slips would be available for use by residents and would be used for
recreational boating.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
Installation of new floating docks and mooring pilings would be done with standard wash -in piling rig. Proposed dredging
would be "bucket to barge" with material dewatered on the barge before placement in an approved spoil disposal area.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Along the ANVW -- construction of new floating dock and 3 finger piers to provide 6 boat slips 25' to 3' in size, and 168 Ift of
side -to dockage for 6 slips 25' in size. Construction of one fixed platform, partially roofed. Dredging within 5,334 sq.ft. of
public trust bottom to final depth of 4 MLW. Majority of existing fixed pier to remain. Along Motts Creek- new fixed pier and
partially roofed fixed platform. No upland development is proposed.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? Both
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? No upland disturbance, Dredging
below NHW — 5,334
Sq.Ft or []Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public acoessway or other area ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
No direct discharges to waters of the state are proposed.
I. Will wastewater or stormwaler be discharged into a wetland? .❑,Yes ®No ❑NA
RM )
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? MAR 21 2016❑Yea ®No DNA RECEIVED
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. DCM WILMINGTO
I, NC
252.808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
<Form continues on back>
6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) — (0 are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to property prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name John and Eliza Blackwell, LLC (206 Summer Rest Rd. to the north) Phone No.
Address 203 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC 28405
Name NC DOT clo Mr. Stoney Mathis, PE (US 74/76 to the south) Phone No.
Address 5501 Barbados Blvd., Castle Hayne, NC 28429
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
CAMA Permit No. 13-06, Consolidated Ventures Corp.,
11/19/86.
CAMA Permit No. 84-01, CGRS Enterprises, LLC, 7/3101.
Modification on 5/27/08.
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
I. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
1 7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land I
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project. RECEIVED
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date _February 18, 2016 Print Name Land Management Group, Inc., agent MAR 21 2016
Signature , e�ycrrtL+rt�/4r. DCM- MHd CITY
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
2015
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagament.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
®DCM MP-4 Structures Information
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
252.808.2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www. nccoasta l management. net

Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Length
N/A
N/A
Irregular.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total Area =
Width
N/A
N/A
5,334 sq.ft.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Avg. Existing
N/A
N/A
-1.0' MLW
N/A
NA
NA
N/A
Depth
Final Project
N/A
N/A
-4' MLW
N/A
NA
NA
N/A
Depth
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
cubic yards.
Approximately 593 cy (using 2007 and 2014 survey depths)
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
N/A
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area.
Spoil disposal island on AIWW approx. 0.4-mile south of
site. Shores Acres Co. property (R06300-002-003-000)
behind Corps' AIWW_DA_0248.
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
Dyes ENo ❑NA
(it) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW []SAV ❑SB
OWL ENone
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
❑This section not applicable
Bottom sediments of AIWW; grain size anticipated to be
primarily sand.
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
None.
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- MHD CiTy
[]This section not applicable
b. Dimensions of disposal area.
Area within Shore Acres Co. parcel R06300-002-003-000
of approx. 0.3-acres.
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(it) If yes, where?
Anticipate future requests for use of same disposal
area.
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
[]Yes ENo ❑NA
(ii) if yes, how much water area is affected?
N/A
RECEIvEu
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
252.808.2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.necoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/26/ W

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
N/A
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other Width: _
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
e. Type of stabilization material: f. (1) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
❑Yes ❑No DNA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level. h. Type of fill material.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap _ p ��-` Efv
Breakwater/Sill _ Other _ R
ED
i. Source of fill material. MAR 2 1 2016
ncM- MHD CITY
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (1) Will fill material be brought to the site? ❑Yes ❑No DNA b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
If yes, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water _ number of square feet affected.
(iii) Dimensions of fill area ❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
IN) Purpose of fill OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
No excavation or fill is proposed above MHW or NHW.
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
❑Yes ®No DNA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
N/A
February 18, 2016
Date
Grand View Community Boating Facility
b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Bucket to barge excavation, small excavator, piling rig.
d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? [-]Yes ®No DNA
III) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
No fringing wetlands will be impacted at spoil disposal site -
existing access path available.
Project Name
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 7016
252.808.2808 :: 1-868-4RCOAST :: w_ww.nccoastalmanagement. net revised: 12126/06

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Applliicaannt Name
d
a;art f LMCr/N!.
Applicant Signature
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM- MHD C, DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FED 16 2016
252-808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP-4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
1. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA CHARACTERISTICS
a. (1) Is the docking facility/marina:
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ®Private/Community
❑This section not applicable
b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes ONO
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
d. (i) Are Finger Piers included? ®Yes []No
(ii) Number Please see attached MP-4 supplement
If yes:
(iii) Length Please see attached MP-4 supplement
III) Number Please see attached MP-4 supplement
IN) Width Please see attached MP-4 supplement
(iii) Length Please see attached MP-4 supplement
(v) Floating ®Yes ❑No
(iv) Width Please see attached MP-4 supplement
(v) Floating ®Yes ❑No
e. (i) Are Platforms included? ®Yes ❑No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts included? ❑Yes ONO
If yes:
If yes:
III) Number Please see attached MP-4 supplement
(ii) Number N/A
(iii) Length Please see attached MP-4 supplement
(iii) Length N/A
(iv) Width Please see attached MP-4 supplement
(iv) Width N/A
(v) Floating []Yes ONO
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
6 with 168 Ift of side -to dockage (approx 12 total)
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
(ii) Number of slips existing
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
2
® Dockage ("wet slips") only, number of slips: 12
❑ Dry storage; number of boats:
❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps:
❑ Other, please describe:
i. Check the proposed type of siting:
❑ Land cut and access channel
®Open water; dredging for basin and/or channel
❑Open water; no dredging required
❑Other; please describe:
k. Typical boat length: 16' to 30'
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings?
®Yes ❑No
(ii) If yes number of tie pilings?
9
j. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
mixed vessel types
I. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
[]Yes ONO
RECENED
MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 W15
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.necoastaimanagement.net kD C
r a revised: 12/27/06

Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 2 of 4)
2. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA OPERATIONS [I This section not applicable
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project.
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number: ; Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boatholding tank pumpout: Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
No treatment for sanitary wastewater will be needed. Bathrooms are available within walking distance at associated residential
units, and facility will have a no overboard discharge policy. Pumpout is available at Seapath Yacht Club located on Harbor
Island, Wrightsville Beach, approximately 0.9 miles via boat from the site.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
Trash cans will be located on the upland portion of the property near Summer Rest Road.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
A no overboard discharge policy will be enforced through the slip rental agreement and/or community rules and restrictions.
e. (i) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed.
1- on proposed floating dock.
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
One sign indicating nearest public pumpout (Seapath Yacht Club) will be posted on the fixed access pier.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
No maintenance or fueling services will be offered.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
No maintenance services will be offered or allowed.
h. Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake" signs proposed. None
i. Give the location of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
No fuel services are proposed.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage?
No overnight or live-aboards will be allowed and will be enforced through rental agreement and/or community rules and
restrictions.
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
Proposed dredging will be in open water to a depth of -4' MLW which will not exceed depths within the ooWing AIWW. '
MAR 21 2016
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided?
Expansion of existing two slip dock with no services.
nrnn_ nnNn G1TY
RECEIVED
DCMC WILMINGTON, NC
252.808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.necoastaimanagement.net ❑ 1 &A06

Form DCM MP-4 (structures, Page 3 of 4)
m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
❑Yes ONO
n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
❑Yes ONO
o. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ®None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? []Yes ONO
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
N/A
13. BOATHOUSE (including covered lifts) ®This section not applicable
a. (1) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Governmenl ❑Private/Community
(ii) Number
(Ili) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are caiculated from dripfine dimensions.
14. GROIN (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc. If a rock groin, use MP-Z Excavation and Fill.) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Number
(III Length
(III) Width
15. BREAKWATER (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc.) ®This section not applicable I
a. Length
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
B. MOORING PILINGS and BUOYS []This section not applicable
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑PublictGovernment ®Private/Community
C. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline Tie piles range from
approximately 35' to 138' from waterward edge of
marsh.
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present.
e. Arc of the swing N/A
7. GENERAL
b. Number 9 mooring pilings
d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
No buoys- tie pilings within slips #1 through ill
RECC.. 1 fV,:
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DGM lei
r 1n n1T1
1i FED .L('3 901U
252-808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 4 of 4)
a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines
17' to the southern riparian corridor limit
164' to northern riparian corrdior limit
Note: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
ofvesseL
c. Width of water body
508' along existing Pier to bulkhead on eastern side AIWW
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
[]Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
N/A
b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
—158' to Blackwell dock to the north
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
Existing depths range from -1.0' MLW to -11' MLW within
proposed slips.
18. OTHER ❑This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
February 18, 2016
Dale
Grand View Community Boating Facility
Project Name
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Applicant Name
prcant Signature
R E C E I V LL:'.)
MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 2016
252-808-2808::1.888.4RCOAST:: www.nccoastaimanagement.net Dli M- MHOC'(TY revised: 12/27/06

CAMA Major Permit Application
Grand View Community Boating Facility, Wilmington, NC
MP-4 Supplement
1. Docking Facility/Marina Characteristics
c. Dock(s) and/or Pier(s)
Existing Fixed Access Pier 540' x 6' to remain with 8' x 6'
angled pier extension to be added.
All other existing docks to be removed, except existing "t" dock will be reused.
Proposed docks and fingers as listed in tables below.
Structure
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Floating Dock
108
6
Floating Dock
60
6
Fixed Pier
73
6
d. Are Finger Piers Included?
Quantity
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
1
25
3.5
3
35
3.5
e. Are Platforms Included?
Quantity
Length ft
Width ft
Platform
irregular
shape
Platform
20
14
floating dock spine
floating "t'
fixed pier (Motts Creek)
floating
floating
456.5 sqft (360 sq.ft. covered, 96.5 sq.ft. open deck)
Motts Creek- 20' x9' gazebo and 20' x 5' open deck
RECEIVE® RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAR 21 2016
FEB 18 2016

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 15, 2016
Mr. Steve Morrison
c/o Land Management Group, Inc.
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Morrison:
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secremry
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dtrt r
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, acting as agent
for Mr. Chris Bailey with Bailey and Associates, Inc. for the proposed development located at 202
Summer Rest Road, adjacent to Motts Creek and the AIWW, in Wilmington, New Hanover County. It
was received as complete on February 29, 2016 and appears to be adequate for processing at this time.
The projected deadline for making a decision is May 15, 2016. An additional 75-day review period is
provided by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. If you have not been notified of a
final action by the initial deadline stated above, you should consider the review period extended. Under
those circumstances, this letter will serve as your notice of an extended review. However, an additional
letter will be provided on or about the 75th day.
If this agency does not render a permit decision within 70 days from February 29, 2016 you may request a
meeting with the Director of the Division of Coastal Management and permit staff to discuss the status of
your project. Such a meeting will be held within five working days from the receipt of your written
request and shall include the property owner, developer, and project designer/consultant.
NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the proposed
development. Enclosed you will find a 'Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must be posted at the
property of your proposed development. You should post this notice at a conspicuous point along your
property where it can be observed from a public road. Some examples would be: Nailing the notice card
to a telephone pole or tree along the road right -of --way fronting your property; or at a point along the road
right-of-way where a private road would lead one into your property. Failure to post this notice could
result in an incomplete application.
A field report has been prepared and is in the process of being circulated to the various state and federal
review agencies for their comments. If additional information is required based on this review, the
agencies may contact you directly.
A
airs
Field Representative
Wilmington District Office
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
cc: Doug Huggett, DCM-MHC, Heather Coats, DCM-WiRO
Tyler Cmmbley, USACE
Chris O'Keefe, NH Co. RECEIVED
Kathryn Thurston, City of Wilmington
Chris Bailey, Applicant
�i NothingCompares-7-- MAR 21 2016
State of North Carolina I EaYiroomental Quality I Coastal Management A
127 cmduaJ Drive Fad., Wllmini;M NC 28405 DC�'f— 1AND CITY
910-796-7215

NOTI(01$1704
r!AMA PERMIT
APPLIED FOR
PROJECT:
dod
to M
.. .
,Chris Bailey
PO Box 400
Jacksonville, NC28541
Agent: Steve Morrison,
ff
ent
11
THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:
NC Div. of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Robb Mairs, Field epresen a ive
910-796-7423
191M ass-nnni

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION
Name of Property Owner Requesting Permit: Bailey and Associates. Inc.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 400
Jacksonville, NC 28541
Phone Number: 910-346-8443
Email Address: [e-mail]
I certify that I have authorized Land Management Group, Inc.
Agent / Contractor
to act on my behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMA permits
necessary for the following proposed development:
Grand View Community Boating Facility
at my property located at 202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC ,
in New Hanover County.
I furthermore certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to
Division of Coastal Management staff, the Local Permit Officer and their agents to enter
on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application.
Information:
11 `S p
Print br Type
Title
7- ZZ /
Date
This certification is valid through _Z__ l ZZ I I'
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 9 2016
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- P PE" C.' +'Y

M
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP nw-
Environmental Consultants
February 18, 2016
John and Eliza Blackwell
230 N Elm Street Suite 2000
Greensboro, NC 27401
RE: Application for CAMA Major Permit
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Blackwell,
This letter serves to notify you of proposed modifications to the existing dock located at 202 Summer
Rest Road, Wilmington, NC. You previously received notification of a CAMA Major Permit application submitted
to the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) in June 2015. The enclosed application package is being
resubmitted due to revisions to the proposed dock expansion. Bailey and Associates, Inc. is currently requesting
fewer slips, all to be located outside the right-of-way identified by NCDOT, and a reduced dredging footprint to a
depth of 4' mean low water. Modifications to the existing structure would expand the docking facilities from two
boat slips to twelve (12) boat slips, 25' to 35' in length.
As an adjacent riparian property owner to the property, you are required by the permit application
process to be notified. A copy of the CAMA permit application (narrative, application forms and figures) as it has
been accepted by the NC DCM is enclosed. If you have any comments on the project, they can be directed to
Mr. Robb Mairs, NC DCM,127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC, 28405 or 910-796-7423. No comment
within 30-days of receipt of this package indicates no objection. I am happy to answer any questions you may
have regarding the enclosed materials and can be reached at 910-452-0001.
Sincerely,
Steve Morrison
Environmental Consultant
cc: Mr. Robb Mairs, NC DCM
RECEIVE
MAR 2 1 2016
DCM- MHD CV T Y
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] - Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 - P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington,
NC 28402

to
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP nw-
Environmental Consultants
February 18, 2016
NC Department of Transportation
c/o Mr. Stoney Mathis, P.E.
5501 Barbados Blvd.
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
RE: Application for CAMA Major Permit
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Dear Mr, Mathis,
This letter serves to notify you of proposed modifications to the existing dock located at 202 Summer
Rest Road, Wilmington, NC. You previously received notification of a CAMA Major Permit application submitted
to the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) in June 2015. The enclosed application package is being
resubmitted due to revisions to the proposed dock expansion. Bailey and Associates, Inc. is currently requesting
fewer slips, all to be located outside the right-of-way identified by NCDOT, and a reduced dredging footprint to a
depth of 4' mean low water. Modifications to the existing structure would expand the docking facilities from two
boat slips to twelve (12) boat slips, 25' to 35' in length.
As an adjacent riparian property owner to the property, you are required by the permit application
process to be notified. A copy of the CAMA permit application (narrative, application forms and figures) as it has
been accepted by the NC DCM is enclosed. If you have any comments on the project, they can be directed to
Mr. Robb Mairs, NC DCM,127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC, 28405 or 910-796-7423. No comment
within 30-days of receipt of this package indicates no objection. I am happy to answer any questions you may
have regarding the enclosed materials and can be reached at 910-452-0001.
Sincerely,
G!�a "^'
Steve Momson
Environmental Consultant
cc: Mr. Robb Mairs, NC DCM
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
www.lmgroup.net - [e-mail] - Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone] FEB 18 2016
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 - P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington,
NC 28402

Z II0138I11II IM 11IN I 1
FOR REGISTRATION REGISTER OF DEEDS
REBECCA P, SMITH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY NC
20K JUN 02 01:31:65 PM
BK:5031 9:1350-1353 FEE:S20.00
K REV STAMP 3 0.00
193ff HOME
E
WE PREPARED THE DEED IN THIS TRANSACTION, BUT WE MADE NO
EXAMINATION OF TITLE AND WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON TITLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
Prepared by: NANCY M. GUYTON, Attorney at Law
321 North Front Street, Wilmington, NC 28401
Excise Tax: $950.00 TAX PARCEL No: R05714-004-012-000
R05714-004-019-000
Brief descri tion for the index:
Summers Rest Road Tract
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED, made this 301h day of May, 2006 by and between, CGRS
Enterprises, LLC herein, whether one or more, called GRANTORS, and Bailey and
Associates, Inc., whose mailing address is P.O. Box 400, Jacksonville, NC 28540
herein, whether one or more, called GRANTEES.
WITNESSETH THAT:
THE GRANTORS, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00)
and other valuable considerations to them in hand paid by the GRANTEES, the receipt
whereof is hereby acknowledged, have bargained and sold, and by these presents do
hereby bargain, sell and convey unto GRANTEES and their heirs, successors, and
assigns forever, all that certain real property located in New Hanover County, North
Carolina, described as follows:
BEGINNING at an old iron rod which is located S 110 28' 88" E
29.04 feet from the centerline of SR #1417 Summer Rest Road
and being North 150 feet from U.S. Hwy. 74 & 76 as shown on the
plat of survey hereinafter referred to and running thence along and
with the eastern line of Summer Rest Road, N 560 29' 18" E 82.10
MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
-DQ%1- �,ZHD CITY
FEB 18 2016

A� L
feet to a point in the eastern line of Summer Rest Road; thence
along and with the low water line of Mott's Creek the following
courses and distances; S 16° 56' 50" E 41.00 feet; S 60° 06' 10" E
23.10 feet; N 850 27' 07" E 42,63 feet; N 760 02' 55" E 33.79 feet;
thence S 770 45' 03" E 29.25 feet; thence S 64° 50' 20" E 39.22
feet; thence S 430 40' 13" E 76.49 feet; thence S 530 43' 57" E
67.01 feet; thence S 42' 02' 25" E 98,92 feet; thence S 90 40' 26"
E 59.23 feet; thence S 85' 34' 52" W 78.97 feet to a point; thence
N 54" 02' 13" W 35.77 feet to an old iron pipe; thence N 540 02'
13" W 16.80 feet to an old right-of-way monument (disturbed);
thence N 54° 02' 13" W 372.56 feet to an old iron rod, the point
and place of BEGINNING as per map of survey for Summer Rest
Associates prepared by Sherwin 0. Cribb, N.C. Registered Land
Surveyor, #L-1099 dated October, 1984 to which reference is
hereby made for a more particular description thereof.
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument
recorded in Deed Book 1938 Page 0761, of the New Hanover County Registry.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above granted and described property, together
with all and singular, the rights, privileges, easements, tenements and appurtenances
thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining unto the said GRANTEES, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, in fee simple, forever.
AND THE GRANTORS, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, do
covenant to and with the said GRANTEES, their heirs, successors, and assigns, that
GRANTORS are seized in fee of the above granted and described property, that
GRANTORS have good right to sell and convey the same in fee simple, that the same
is free and clear from any and all restrictions, easements or encumbrances, and that
GRANTORS will and their heirs, successors, and assigns will warrant and defend the
title to the same against the lawful claims and demands of any and all persons
whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions:
1. All easements, rights of way and restrictions of record.
2. All governmental land use statutes, ordinances or regulations, including,
zoning, building and subdivision regulations.
3. Ad valorem taxes for current and subsequent years.
4. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING HEREIN TO THE CONTRARY, NO
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND ARE MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY
PORTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN WHICH LIES
BELOW THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE.
R`CEiV L--J
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
D UM-' i'. Y X D`Z'4 1-17Y.. - FEB 18 wis

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said GRANTORS have hereunto set
their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written.
CGRS Enterprises, LLC
By: t�.7!��'G^ (SEAL)
Charles N. Garrett, Member
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day,
and I have personal knowledge of the identity of the principal(s); each acknowledging
to me that her or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose
stated therein/a, /nd in the capacity indicated: Charles N. Garrett, Jr..
Date:. �-
(Official Seal) Print Name: i Notary Public
My commission expires: - 2010
RECEIVED
RECDVED
MAR 21 2016 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
�[":�. aG CITY .FEBy82016

REBECCA P. SMITH
REGISTER OF DEEDS, NEW HANOVER
216 NORTH SECOND STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
iiii'fiiiisHiifl}iiiMNliii Yi4lti.?}illMfiV.YMM41Rwf wiifwwwiwl'Iff MYf Miiili Mi}iwFlil4liRif MMf}IiiMf NlitiiitliiN
Filed For Registration: 06/02/2006 01:31:05 PM
Book: RE 5031 Page: 1350-1353
Document No.: 2006031382
DEED 4 PGS $20.00
NC REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX: $950.00
Recorder: PHELPS, MICAH
State of North Carolina, County of New Hanover
YELLOW PROBATE SHEET iS A VITAL PART OF YOUR RECORDED DOCUMENT.
PLEASE RETAIN WITH ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND SUBMIT FOR RE-RECORDING.
*2006031382* RECE
MED
2006031382 MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 2016�
DCM- �,'HD CITY

SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
214 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1 347
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1347
TELEPHONE (91 O) 762.9400-TELEFA%(91 0) 251-1773
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
KENNETH A. SHANKLIN•
BOARD CER TIMED SPECIAIJ fIN
REAL PROPERTY LAW- RMIDEN9AL. BUSINESS.
COMMERCIALAND INDUSTRIALTRANSACTONS
November 14, 2014
_VIA EMAIL TO towens(i ,towb.ore
AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Tim Owens
Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
P.O. Box 626
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Re: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
FIRST PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
Our File No. 2014060.2
Dear Mr. Owens:
MATTHEW A. NICHOLS**
*-ALSO ADMRTED IN NEW YORK
Pursuant to Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes, we request on behalf of
our client, Bailey and Associates, Inc., that the following public records and materials be
available for our inspection at a reasonable and convenient time within the next twenty (20)
calendar days at the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town") Offices:
1. A recorded copy of that document entitled "Easement" between
the State of North Carolina and the Town dated May 27, 1982, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", or in lieu thereof, the recording information from
the New Hanover County Register of Deeds Office (Deed Book and Page
Number) for that instrument (hereinafter referred to as the "Easement").
2. Any instruments, memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps,
surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents that
supplement, amend, modify or supersede the above -referenced Easement.
3. Any memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps, surveys,
drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents related to the
location, size, scope, length, width, depth and/or maintenance of the above -
referenced Easement.
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DCM- VMD CITY
FEB 18 2016

Mr. Tim Owens
Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
November 14, 2014
Page -2-
Please consult with N.C. GEN. STAT. § 132-1 el. seq. regarding the scope and extent of the
term "public records." We request the opportunity to copy any document or other responsive
record either in written or electronic form for compliance with this public records request.
If it is more convenient for you and the Town for us to make the copies ourselves or
make arrangements for a third -party copy service to make the copies, please let us know and we
will gladly arrange for the same. Also, we will gladly pay any reasonable administrative or
copying charges associated with this request, and we ask that you please let us know in advance
if there are any such charges associated with this public records request.
With best regards, I remain
Kenneth A. 5hankltn
KAS/pcc
Enclosure
cc: John C. Wessell, III Town Attorney — via email and U.S. Mail
Mr. Christopher W. Bailey
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 2016
DC !V41^.'HD CITY

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
E A S E M E N T
COUNTY OF NRW HANOVER
I
THIS EASCMENT, made and entered into this the „2 ir
day of-,eZa,� --
1992, by and between the STATE OF NORTH
CAROLiNA, party of the first part, and the TOWN OF WRIGHTS-
VILLE REACH, party of the second part;
W 1 T N E S S E T H t
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of
Adainiutration has Awi,orizcd and approved execution of this
ii.:trumcnt for the purposos hero Ln set forth; and
WHEREAS, Lhe execution of this instrument for and on
bahalc of the State of North Carolina has haen duly approved
Ly the Covornor and Council of State by resolution adopted
aL a meeting held to the City cf Raleigh, North Carolina, on
the 4th day of May, 1982; and
NDEREAS, the parties hereto have mutually agreed to
the terms of this casement as hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THENEFORE, in consideration of the sum of ONE
HUNDRED ($100.00) DOLLARS paid by the party of the second part
to the party of thu first part, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the party of the first part does hereby glve,
grant and convey to the said party of the second part, its
successors and assigns, the right, privilege and aaaeauint to
sonstruct, iastall, improve, remove, replace, inspect, repair
andmaintain a sanitary sever pipeline as follows:
R E- C E IN E .`
MAR 21 2016
K , �1�• .
DD.., - i J Y
OCM WECEIVED
ILMINGTON, NC
FtB i 8 201r�
w

A. BankE Channel subaquueusly for approximately
750 fenL alonq the south side of U. S. Highway 74 causeway
and bridgp. i
H. Hennans Crock on bent piles along the south side j
rf the U. S. Highway 74 causeway and bridge for a distance II
of approximately 124 fcct. i
-C.---AIWW subagueously north of the U. S. 74-76 High -
.way causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately 800
.tact.. i
D. Bradley Creek subaqueously near the U. S. 74-76
llighway causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately
800 feet.
The purpose of the easement is to provide the Town
of Wrightsville Beach With a connection to the Northeast
Uucrreptor Greater WilmingLou Area 201 Facilities Plan. See
a Ltar:hnd drawinys •-ntitled "Sanitary Sewer Improvements
forca Main, Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina".
It is understood and agreed that this conveyance
is made sub,,.>ct to the cnnditiun that the party of the second
part shall properly obtnin all necessary permits required by
State and Federal law. Failure to obtain such permits in '
i
a timely manner shall be deemed an abandonment of said easement,
" TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid rights, privileges,
and easement unto the said party of the second part, its
successors and assigns, for as long as said pipeline is
utilized by the party of the second part, its successors and i
assigns, for the purposes set forth herein, and no longer.
IV TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the State of North Carolina
has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by JAMES
B. HUNT, JH., Governor, attested by THAD EUBE, Secretary of
I
State, and the Great Sual of the State of North Carolina hereto'
'. affixed, by virtue of the power and authority aforesaid, as of
the day and year first above written.
Ri:C L 1 1rf L t� t RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAR 21 2016 FEB 18 2016

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
BY ,'� C ,d Governor
ATTEST:
�c�J_ i
ro Statf
l
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
Attorney General
�I `1ent a i•
t rnys�n RC ny
Assistant Attorney Central
I
I
REECENED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- 54FID CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 201&
-19

j SPATS OF 1lORTH CAROLINA
NIINTY OF WAKE
I, DEDORAH ANN GARGLES, a Notary Public in and for the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that JAM R. HUNT, JR., Governor of the
State of North Caroline, and THAD EUAE, Secretary of State of North Carolina,
personally came before me this day and being by me duly sworn says each for
himself that he knows the Crest Seal of the State of North Carolina and that
tha seal affixed to thn foregoing instrument is the Great Seal of the State;
that IMES R. HUNT, JR., Governor of said State, and THAD EORE, Secretary of
State, subscribed their names thereto, all by virtue of a resolution of the
Council of State: and that said instrument is the act and deed of the State
of North Carolina.
IN WITNESS WHERL•'OF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal,
thls the r�i day of r Cr.� , 198
e
Hy Commission Expireu:
VEJ
MAR 21 Z016 RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DDAf1- f`PHD CI e Y FEB 18 201fr

nr� r J S't KENNANS' 1 74 I_
CREEK .7.,>".�1"""' "— _ 'i
--- e.cN
N 5'
-14 FORCE WIN
19`P. M. eM Y
i n4e9cF r
11 M- We EL 2.0
{\\\ AR BELE
MA RC 4LYL EL-1a
\1 p -]
SITE 1B1 pyE gE�jB'C_0 PPIL BITE '0' FOR
0 LE BENT 0ETA0..
P LA N PROFILE
KENNANS CREEK CROSSING
UCFTN or Ei C.wr10M a .V.A4C
Mc4•+YL OF AUT[11I.L . 19e0 w.roe
4F{Cie.e O CONOlnom-
4P4 nm a.U. A. mre '.' dmauv r, SO BAOIXOUB
�+�� 19` FORS NAlll NCILDLIFE BOAT RAMP
3 E _E_
`ANGIOR BIDCx -� •__ --_ .. E .—. E —
........--•++4���.-•4� c
I. WANCHOR N=x
srA eo-4ou � .. 1
U,S. 7q•7e, 11E.DE TRASKIMEM. BRIDGE
PLAN A..IAW CROSSING
W y 11. EL - 0r •rr9ez ccn•..errou 7�
'.L i-AJ
:1R •� ANCHOR -moo
-13
19.2
PROFILE A.I WW CROSSING
M1 leo ". 1• 1' v TIW' MEAN
SITE 1 C' gp^ LtvEL .0.00
IA:CAr'.*AULF. LEACH OfTERCEPTOR •-Ile"AWYVOHOE]EN d AS]OMTE3• in.l,iroteN,N <, $heel 2 of 3
III
IJ0
R E C E °vj L.•,
MAR 21 2016
D%C1110- 1 rYv;" rAF-y
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 18 203

0
I
', i.',..•-(4 DR/t!)L CY Citi F'It BRIDGV.�—
.: nln•,.... .. - �C� I fA FMCE NAIN— yr0=
^y Y"1 �, L yNC110R OLOCi: v
Sk
arnrn,.SITE
,
BRADL.F.) CREEK CROSSING
tOMW EL
-PROF LE BRADLEY CREEK CROSSING
I'.20P'N. 1••CO'v
C&CA"11.e MATEMAt• ,," I,
,II SILT RETENTION AnLA.: AL':,
k 1•'oi' 10 OACRFILL TRCNI:11 • l
CA IUMOIA
Cl.tt. VARIAD" ,+1
?144'
LGACE Q,OCE U4111 I4
... 90
� N.TER CAORIC
`J CONPI Pl'LLY
ENCLOSE SILT
RETENTIOII AREA.
A'OY4
1110, POST
OC
ELEV. SECTION
srz lI A A' KENNAN CK. PILE BENT
_ A
•:kAUF li 1• C FyrtK-LPTIIMiC �L ,UALT A'_
. LII'tTO OF F•UEAOIIECUS MISSINri ROO L.F.
+.wc :f.^.0 0, CLASS - 14` t i I.P, IIALL JI. ot.
IC" It. Y. YCITI-'TIIYLENE SOA-11
t 1;C AOA 1 I111j�
1T1`I GP MATF.O,AI„n. PRIPIRIId' ORGANIC S,LT
NCT110N Of Er+c:,vrr1r1'1; LI AI:SNEL I. /JEiT1110
1)1 P 1':I OF E%CAVAT hIN: O • "•
VLLIIME OF MATERIAL: 1,1;40 C. T. t
C
SPOIL DISPOSAL:
SILT RETENTION AREAS
LOCATED AS SHOWN,
cI
RECEi VED
MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DCM- ,R,�Hn CITY
FEB 18 20111

t ! .
a yy.• 1,f;
"l.
J ..• ':. V �f{ &HP.t.xL E.Y %RF.Cti Ht71Ot:.t:
• s. �. �. .I.1-ICW-C N.41UI 1.0 --�n�. •.w �.
`• 4 f91%T- T[j1;LflC
Jp/_ tl
runl.0 i .
r)
C.
I..' ramcL Mn11J •s
i
Mil
101,011
Ir
PRarl l i._UADLEY CREEK CROSS Q
I' r Jo0 N1I•�7Lr •J .
tit
I'--LGY.' w
T•!r-jtr:AL pi LE ibENT
r..
"'- """ auMrrvou .. ovum• -r J IN-'m IJ kwimeurgF.VAMWrfou Nr SHEET:'
a
R --,)
��fr" t �
MAR 21 2016 RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DCNl- MH. D Ci +Y FEB 18 ZO16

SITE - A
BANKS CHANNEL SUSAOUEOUS CROSSING -
TECHNICAL DATA-
LENIRH OF AUOAOUEOUS CNC�SNG.-iSGLI1J2AN FEET
PIPE u-E U CLASS: IA' CFPI BGLL :DINT
EXCAVATION:
TYPE MATERIALS: PRIMARILY SAND B SNf LL
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CLAMSHELL
DEPTH OF EYCLVATION: 3'I WAIN CHANNEL) 5'JI
AVERAGE FOR REMAINDER
OF CROSSING.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: 000 CU, YOS. A
SPOIL OISPOSIL: STOCK PILE UNDER WATER
ADJACENT TO TRENCH
EXCAVATION- U3C A_`. OACY.FILL
MR PIPELINE 131IISTALLED, ,Aom
tn
BAN? CNANNEL
[
- US HWY No. 74__
4•ROJECT
-`SFTE6 —
TSVILLE BEACH
ANCHOR SLOCX—f E 14FORCE MAIN '—
STA. Hof74 (� ANCHOR BLOCK
(I 0 PLAN � I � srn. 147.73
TOP BULKHEAD 7.56
HPt 1.80 1
ILA �EXIST. BULKHEAD
\ —.F — ANCHOR BIDCR
Ly g�g�µLIHV -2.70
ANCHOR 6LOCX �IA09,V`_OM i P"
14'FDRCE MAIN I
PROFILE
.,'F o�wli� A `� �•
_HMV. - B,3.0P�I
AN rq�y
KXCAVATEG MATERIAL-
IOW
NORTH SIDE EXCAVATION.
OF EXCA TION.
ONFFIFyF��
USE TO BACKFBOTTOM
-T TRENCH.
EXIST. BOTTOM -FLEV. VARIABLE
DATUAN 3E4 LEVEL
FORCE MAIN
-10 2
NOTE. SECTION "A" -'A"
TR[NCNM[ Nf TNOA "Q 1N FlluM.[ TO SIT[ W-A I V r
N:
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FORCE MAIN
E.RA. PROJECT No. C-370565-01
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
NORTH CAROLINA
AE..T VON U." A AA,nnAr[%,..MATIRA o.LLrAM
A Pu.. u,. NILNINATON..L.
RECENED
RECEIVED
MAR. 21 2016 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB g 8 2016
D^"tl"• f-TD CITY

U
SHORE ACRES COMPANY
FACSIMILE
FAX 912\231-1594
TELE 912 236-5644
TO: LMG Land Management Group, Inc.
ATTEN: Laura Stasavich
YOUR
FAX NO: 910/452-0060
FROM: Lawrence B. Lee, President
DATE: January 5, 2015
RE: APPROVAL OF PROJECT — Bailey and Assoc. Inc.
USACE DA 0248
PAGES: 1
Your project is hereby approved. The rate for dumping on the proposed
Shore Acres land is $3.00 a cubic yard. We assume you will get the
required approval and permission from CAMA and the USACE. We
understand that you are proposing to work with Tommy Wafters. If that
changes please let us know. Good luck with your project and let us know
if we can be of any further assistance.
Zrence
B. Lee
President
IVEJ
MAR 21 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON,
FEB 18 2016

r
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP nm
Environmental Consultants
February 29, 2016
Mr. Robb Mairs
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845
Re: CAMA Major Permit Application
Grand View Community Boating Facility, AIWW, New Hanover County
Dear Robb,
Oh behalf of Bailey and Associates, Inc., please find enclosed requested information which includes: (1)
updated agent authorization form, (2) revised figures 2-8 and (3) a letter requesting withdrawal of the 6/2015 CAMA
Major Permit application. Please let us know if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Steve Morrison
Environmental Consultant
Cc: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 9 2016
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM-1V'IHD CITY
www.lmgroup.net - [e-mail] - Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 - P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

lc '
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP me
Environmental Consultants
February 18, 2016
Mr. Robb Mairs
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845
Re: CAMA Major Permit Application
Grand View Community Boating Facility, AIWW, New Hanover County
Dear Robb,
On behalf of Bailey and Associates, Inc., please find enclosed a CAMA Major Permit application package for
the above -referenced project. An application for this project was submitted and accepted as complete in June 2015.
Following comments received during review of that application, the docking facility has been redesigned. The current
application requests fewer slips and a reduced dredging footprint relative to previous designs and removes all
structures from the right-of-way as described by NCDOT. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
regarding the enclosed application materials. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Steve Momson
Environmental Consultant
Encl: CAMA Major Permit application package
$400 application fee check
Cc: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] �) 18 2016
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 • P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
A. g« t
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
//t�
X / ` Re 6-
so that we can return the card to you.
\ Nreaaee
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailplace,
8. IPdnted Name)
C' Dexvery
_ or on the front N space permits.
M l UC 5 D l�
„of
o� �-(
1. Article Addressed to:
D. b dellwyadAeee dMersnt from Rem 77 0 yw
we
YES, enter dellvery address oelovr. E3 No
C/o S}.� JiAeI IS
SSvr t3��,teus ���
C�rth,/ F/+uj1,4 �l�fL9
1111111111111
fill
IIIIIII
II�III'II
�II
II'II
III
3 Adult"Tp resae
dult ft Type ❑ Rrloray
^3.
od Ylak
❑ReftM MeY"'
tt SlgnM. Rests /od Delivery ❑ blared M-il Reedded
9590 8409 0119 5077 9120 %
Y❑.��
11 CwN8J Malt Reetd tod DeWeq ❑ Relem R.1pt br
_
2 Artkb Number (Ilanalar frpn aerrloa hw
❑CAllecton 0&11 r Merd Ise
❑ COMO w Dellmy PAWc Dolvery ❑ Slanalw Conam obn^
7005 2570 0000 5704 1652
7 Yiwrd Melt ❑ SlarWt m C. A., tbn
7heunfd My1 Retnr..[W Dohwy RaMe dD*my
PS Form 3811, Apr3 2o15 P5N 753a-a2-aDD&p53—
q0n!K(;.ft#t-M geCelpt
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, Nc.
MAR 14 2016
U.S. Postal Service,,,
CERTIFIED MAIL,,.. RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
S
O
M1
u'1
C3
O
O
C3
r-
ln
ru
-0
rr
-0
0
I ATLMTA GA 30305
M1 —
`n t Roe ede s 13.45
0
�
ce.unae Fes
V �
o
C3
(Edo emom ReWlree)
O
RWdgse DeYvery Fes
r
(Edornmera Reaatted)
In
N
ToW POIANG a Fees
Yn
e
E3
WitlM�
M1
or Po Bor Na 22
slL
0406
03 Poebr
Hon
03/02/2%6
Ns.'v -....
YK - VbFlaar
V'Ifi IrJ1 2 151b
r f�,
DCM-

MAJOR PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
Sweyer/New Hanover/$400 #46556
DCM %
DWQ %
Development Type
Fee
14300160143510009316256253
2430016024351000952341
1. Private, non-commercial development that does
not involve the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
$250
100%
$250
0%
$0
II. Public or commercial development that does
not involve the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
$400
100%
$400
0%
$0
III. For development that involves the filling
and/or excavation of up to 1 acre of wetlands
and/or open water areas, determine if A,B, C,
r D below applies:
III(A). Private, non-commercial development, if
General Water Quality Certification No. 3490
See attached can be applied:
$250
100%
$250
0%
$0
III(B). Public or commercial development, if
General Water Quality Certification No. 3490
See attached can be applied:
$400
100%
$400
0%
$0
III(C). If General Water Quality Certification No.
3490 (see attached) could be applied, but DCM
staff determined that additional review and written
DWQ concurrence is needed because of
concerns related to water quality or aquatic life:
$400
1 60%
$240
40%
$160
III(D). If General Water Quality Certification No.
3490 see attached cannot be applied:
$400
60%
$240
40%
$160
IV. Development that involves the filling and/or
excavation of more than one acre of wetlands
and/or open water areas:
$475
60%
$285
40%
$190
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

e
00
'm ao�ggolvi�3
p°°°ppOO
pgg pp
OIo
p,p OpOpp°pp°pDoc.!
oW�$$
°°W
WppW
2
o pp0 pOpOpp0000000 p. p�p0
nOo, 0--.
nC.-WNr$ Ny�a^ion^WBnNW r:..W
nn
� �' � esW
`
r2 E
E E E U E
y�! ! y�
}�(�.j
p;pLLLLNpifii,m
>NNS>mmmm
lnEmLL
2.2m
m
�2Wim»>m»SSSS»m>m»»>..»F
NNN
X. ppN� ppppf��i�SLLpp LL�i
»Sm FfCfKmm>i�:N
>ag>
mm
s
c>
a $
�
ss
z�
44
m
5�
Z
E
�5x%
O
E3�
E
qPg
L e
y
p z oo o o
E
d
nA
W
o
N E�-LL
y' n
goo oo
N W
�'
a
pop
W
NWp
Y
W ��II
4
..EE
0
�Wp
p O
ACC pN
{1 N W W
W +p
W pp
.m
O Wp
A W y4 N mmW W W QQ Q
oN P
�.Np$
0000 0W 0 W p p O 0
QQ t'l N - m �O' W `p{ Q yyy W WO N Q4 o W !l Y
N
A N
4 QY
�
W NnY
Bj
N
N[VYNNNNNRNRNNNN
$Y$$$$$$$$$$$$S$$$�$8g¢$$Q$$I��ol$$emE$$$$$$
�
W
j�N N��RL .E .CNN��N
N. �W Ng'O (D .0 NeN NIONZ���'1RNQn:YY
$$$ �k
a aaa8
U' O'
O E
E�
n8
O E@
aa'
0 0
as aaa
E 0 0 0
0 0
n n
0 0
m m
0 0
an
0 0
aa� m a a'm^a �._._aa'
0 0 E c7 0 0 E 0 E E
aa'a a: im o.a �.-aaaaaaa aaa8 a'ww
E 0 0 0 0 0 01E 0 0 0 z E 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 E 0
E E
g'o{oyy'op'op,'o,
'o,
'0Q,
p8p$Qs�$s0,$88$
oo'o,
'og
o 98888888889
oR
Oo
O`i
p'op,
{Q$yQ�j
NN
QY8Q8$$$8
K
�gy
N
{gy
N
S8 Gy$GyGp$Gp
NNN
�QT$Qjj
NN
N
NMgg
g{8{y {8{y
N N
�H�y
N
,48qy,88RTj�jQ8�Q
N N
$MN
OryN
N
89996
N N
{y W
N N
{y Gp
N N
�sj No0
N N
R0
N N
Q.
N YI
QG.
N l;
�Gy yG
N N
� 9
N
NNNNNNN�MN
N
N�gNA
g {O(yyOw
roy
OX
NnA
iV"�'•�i
N N
Wp
N
�mWj(py
N00
N
W
N
pypy qry
N I�
W
p
N
N$
N e'en
W N
mpmpOA
a o'
V
A
PN
ee
W �
��
N
W O
N
pO
N
yW �W�y
W
YNnONOA'{y
W
Y N
W W
N
A
N
W
N
N
W
W P
O
N
A
Yl
P P
N W
N
N
+O
$
N
W
R
R
Y
U
�
ag
pzp
yey
pz
H
c
pU
o
ryc
U
cc
G 1cp
p U
cq q c
c
c
c
m
Y
d
j
IlY
9O
0
LL C
gj Y
LL c
�18
Z_
Y$ Y
C C
Y
m CQ'
tl
Cam{
Cq
m
O
CwC
NN
2
ym
�l Y
LL C
c
i
C
P
O
LL
O Y
p
S
y
C_
$
C
U
Y
9
w $1
m EA
LL
SL
m
m
Q
Eu
IL
Q
C
IL
Y
C
m batlg�
o
m`�aNN..N
z> p
i
`Q�mW
U211
a C
N
pV
Q
Qum
a
UU�y
NNm
m
Qtivwr�
o
o
L L
m$
IL mm3UF>IL6>IL6m
p>@
m
mmw
m 1
m
mllmm
m
m
.�°
21LUM
p E
Nm
p m
mm
m
m
mLL LL�m
MEe>m@
mLLa
IL
I1m
mmLLU>mmm»m
>
> m
LL_LL_
C
I
UU
12
n
c
IAR
'aC
,E u
y
o
O
w i
E cg
Y
oS'
Y
8
0,pQ
i
0
S
LL w
�` a
€ol
E
e
E cmo
yyCC J
nc
m
o c
�j
y>>
a
c z
Q om iU
2-
E'.0
,O
m cmi
w� 3 O, ,. @�
N c' Y
c''t
o�
C CO
m1Y
q
rTia
ci
Z
y
C
sw
oyyY,
24m
E
M
E
o
o.
m
>S
3:
SSA
?.
YEN
EC
N
c
tl Q
YEZ
c
Q o m S v c
m E�U'm
t
v
v m,m ._ �'� E E E
am `m
m gg
oBE$$c
m
FF m
bm'
cZ'w
E �,0
D
�m
c
�'-�`to
c
c
E
B
w o
�`oT
W
cES'$
'c E',a
d, ola ._�y
o � w!E
3 Ki
m o
o
m muwi
tt U a, _ U
O rc
a
H a>
U
m J
SEo
W
W W
9 i���
m
O rc
'oo.r4
1
K m
m f
o O
U r
S J¢
ov
Y
m
ME
$@�opC
U�cOg
EW
c
mc
�j -co n °�'-8 oU
0°GVCtl�b3
E'Qj
LL
ppO U J
J'CN
x J N v
aap
p�p
w
CLLm0C}�m��
T
'C p
��
N g
O
w w
w
C .T+bwU mid m CW
p
[C�CCwww
v
'tlo
jJ
0 Y@ a V
O V,
Q u i N. N I C U
S .w
= N� �
tym
Y
((jj
y� c
E
d
L E' o 9; v ,� �-
�o'vm vEo
i s ff f m i$ e
o�P8i�°2',O
w
wgc
0 c
Uov$
3ZIeCW�@E
E U m m z x
C.
'9N¢m5.0
mU
3
n~ E
^
y O
c U p mYU
Y J
E g m g aK Z' J
ciU c m
c
w- `o
N
8
tl
tl 2
m
$p p0]°u
V 2
w
GyE`m
NIL
m a
U
U
K
` E N N N U
E m d a .. E L mm o
U�
m=
O O U O d
m $'a,V v m O o
> m
w w o a
O�
c
c
Pm'ca' g
w J c
i 3 f J m
Elm U
8 o
N
4
m
&
E°
o
3
E
3
a@
�m
E . c E
o it E m
d
a
c 0 E
0 m o o E' E
O
O W g E
d w O
w w
c
c 0 am
w p O L C 9
i N F N a 2 t m e
m
=
r' v
w
c
u
p
U
N
{>
'$ f7
B
T U
B n
U
2`E'
LL m N
.m W I d U o Z 2
v c
O
m
E".OE
_
Z w 2L W N m
T c �' 10 S L f
3, LL E m.-y
J
s
Smng
q$ Sm o€
n
z3 cw ac'�
ry m O m w w n °=. `o >> o
�E �t
m u
s
Yo_ppc
b
w �o
ci�cte
o m
m
ie
w 8
m`o c'.z, y,¢
E ''-'� m qq' c w@ 8 m j-
o@
d
E 3.mc m E -` m o q c
$
U m Q Y m
Q a
J LL m> LL Q Q f0 > J
J U'm'K.
i
O A
Z a
O m
m i12121
S
m 117 > F O U f m N J i
f 0
S So 2
wr
O D
.O W W W W W
N p N ry N L`1
W W f
LV iY
W_
W W W
W W N
W W W
t
U
W,W
N N N
N N N
N
N N N.N
N N
N N -I
-I
pe
--
Q2p
5
G
U
W.,1�O NCO blO
OO O O
N
�O
OO
�O.....IO
OO OOOO
WW W
OiO OOOO{py
W,W WWW
IT{ I(j m fO M1 4T Oj A
Y
= j$
WWWW
WWWW
OOO�OV
W_W
W_WWWWWWW
(O(VV �OV
1�
�OV (OV
YT
2�
WWWW
O00
WW_W_W_W_WWWWWWt0
C]
N
1f)
aaaaaaaaHN
as
aa'aaaaaa'aaaaaaaaa
o
rc-

PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secretory
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 16, 2016
[e-mail]
2 Pages
Star News
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Re: Major Public Notice for Bailey & Associates / New Hanover County
Kyle & Heather: Please publish the attached Notice in the Friday, March 18, 2016 issue.
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
The State Office of Budget & Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to
payment for newspaper advertising.
Please send the original affidavit and invoice for payment to Shaun Simpson at the NC Division of
Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-7226. Paying by
credit card to the attention of Luke Skiera, (Ref acct # 796-7215).
Please email a copy of the credit card receipt to me.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me
at our Wilmington office.
cc:
Sincerely,
Shaun K. Simpson
Permitting Support & Customer Assistance
Heather Coats - WiRO RECEIVED
Doug Huggett -MHC
Tyler Crumbley—USACE MAR 21 2016
Chris O'Keefe, NH Co.
Michele Walker- DCM
DCM- MHD CITY
Nothing Compares.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality [ Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-1215

NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as required by
NCGS 113A-119(b) that the following application was submitted for a development permit in an
Area of Environmental Concern as designated under the CAMA: On February 29, 2016, Bailey
and Associates, Inc. proposed to expand an existing docking facility at 202 Summer Rest Rd,
adjacent to Molts Channel, the AIWW and Greenville Sound, in Wilmington, New Hanover
County. A copy of the application can be examined or copied at the office of Robb Mairs, N.C.
Dept. of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext.,
Wilmington, NC 28405, (910-796-7423) during normal business hours.
Comments mailed to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400
Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to April 7, 2016 will be considered in
making the permit decision. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of
permit decision. Project modification may occur based on review and comment by the public
and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in these matters will be provided
upon written request.
Nothing Compares.._
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- NIFID CITY
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ent., Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215

III
-
/
1 �e*-
1
It
0
\`°mar
-.• A A VAV A AA� / A_
tj
99
tbb Legend
pp \ 01 2
MHW--•------ Creek Channel Line
(2008 survey)
Riparian Corridor limit
MHW and MLW
------------
(per Deed)
Riparian Corridor Setback — — —
a o
Normal High Water
—W—Nd—
RECEIVED 00
o00 000
(LMG 10/2014)
Buried Sewer Line ��
DCM WILMINGTON,
NC
Waterward Edge Marsh
NCDOT ROW
FEB 2 9 2016
o
oRgk �0000
(mapped from aerial)
(disputed)
LAND NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING, OR THEI ON
AANYMENT
`E C El V E D
UTILI ES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BYIS
UTIILIITIES. THIRD
PARTIES AND ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THE
•
A
NEEFUNRIIUILIrrOF_A PROFESSIONAL UTILITY LOCATING COMPANY.
MAR 21 2016
LMG
This drawing is a compilation of various surveys and is not a
drawing.
�AA tl-r
DC M— M H D G e 1
LAND MANAGEMENTGRO" me
Environmental consultant:
sealed survey or engineered
For CAMA permitting only. Not for construction.
P g Y
3805 e 15
Wilmington, North
limn g Month Ave., SUe840 3
---r----
Tel hone: 91 1
NOTE. INFORMATION SHONM ON THIS PLAN IS A COMPILATION OF SEVERAL SURVEYS
1. ME CONT MSNEREPROVIOEDB MCOASTALSERVICESINC.
SEPTEMBER 18, N14 SURVEY.
Honz ntal W Wm: NC Sme PMre NADI
Ventral Datum'. MLW around Dawn
O.E. Wnaaa tv II Coastal on SeONmaer 15, "4aMvn aM represent
mmn ns at mem-na.
Soua p morose wm4ons at the use Of surrey and are Indeed to donnas
2. SPOT DEPTHS ALONG SOUTHERN PROJECT EDGE BY GAHAGN A BRYANT219-M7;
TAKENFROMMARIMCHIX MINGUC2-1&2 PUN. DEPTIiSARE REIATNE TO NGVD28.
MEAN LOW WATER IS -151 FT COMWR RELATIVE TO NGVD2S.
3. NORMAL HIGH WATER FIAGGED BY LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
AND SURVEYED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER Ia. M14 SURVEY.
4. WATERWARDEDGEOFM GR WDIGITIZEDBYMC TALSERVICESINC.
AND LAND MANAGEMENT GRgIP INC.. WITH M12 AND MIS NC Orea lap PHOTOS.
5. M37ING PIER. SEINER FORCE WIN LOCATION, AND SLIMMER REST ROAD
RIGHT -OF -MY LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY JOHNNIE J WILLIAMS LAND SURVEYING PC
g WITH PIER LOCATION CN 4 DA07 AND FORCE MAI N LOCATION ON I2/1Og2 mal 52015
/ B. REMAININGPROPERTYBOUNWPoES, AD.WCEM FEATUREB ANO NWW SETBACKS
q� PROVIDED SYMCKIMAND CREED FROMA MY 1, M14 SURVEYCOMPREDFROM
PRLVIOUS SURVEYS WITH LIMITED FIELD WORK MCKIM AND CREED MAY M14 WFIVEY
'iR j FIELD4-OCATED BULKHEAD ON EASTERN SIDE OF AINW.
"4 REFERENCES PROVIDED BY MCNM AND CREED INCLUDE:
BOUNDARY ITEMS IN BLUE FROM A MAP RECORDED IN ME 24 PG
22 BY SHER AN O. CRISIS TIRED 11AP OF SURVEY FOR
SLIMMER -REST ASSOCIATES DATW OCTOBER 1904, AND DEED
BOOK 5031 PAGE 1350.
HIGH MTER UNE AND LOW WATER LINE FROM A PIER AS9ULT SURVEY
FOR BNLEY 8 ASSOCATES, INC. BY.OMNY J. WILLIAMS LAND SURVEYING, PC
DATED AUGUST 25. 2008.
ALL OTHER INFORMATION. MARSH AREA EDGE OF MARSH, PIERS,
OOCKS, FROM VARIOUS MAPS FROM MARITECH DREDGING. LLC
TITLED'BWLEY PROJECT' DATED DECEMBER 15. 2009. AND CGRS
ENTERPRIZES, LLC MAP TITLED- MAJOR PERMIT PLAT' BY
OUBLE AND ASSOCIATES P C. DATED CECEMBER 11, 21XA.
r-
� r
� Y
r �
V V a
V V r
Y
er
- EIVED
M R212016
° mJ DCM MHD Ci Y
Any
20
CAMA Major Permit Application Date: 116/2016 Revision Date:
Grand View Community Boating Facility Scale: Job Number:
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC 1" = 100' 02-14-045
Existing Conditions Drawn By: Figure: 2 Of 9

KF r a r r a a r a a a r a y Y y y L L r r a r r
ES
a • a a r 9 u. u. i. i. �. u.
n 9
NF ,O� `
-Y COOP � O
�g
/ � r C
\fir nti
1.NOTEP NFDRMPTIRSG REMONTHI DV IWA TALILPTONOFBEVERAL SURVEYS.
Apgnx LowlgN 1. DEPTIL IBM1 SURVEPRONCEO BY TICOABTPL GERJILEG INL.
Gr...1 SEPTEMBER1B, Datum
SURVEY.
P HNAI
er'nall Datum
1ANLGIAPYreum
Data
Omlm: MLW oaaumrt DSaw
<• '9%�• r a .. ,. Data .na at
d TI Coastal on 3eplamEar 15, m1l aM1own viE rGpeacll
z°c�N'�'rypS �1g1D�� a �flQ/F sominons atn.tema.
0o So �D GN G'`Z��/q}jyl.� R OO�q soamllNSlwwta wminonamma Bmv orsuN yaai ae aagaxw malNa.
' NxN L'POT MPTHS ALONG HA�7.
gC TO TAItEN FRdA MARITECH DREOGENG LLL 21&21p9 PLAN. DEPTIIBRN PROJECT EDGE BY N AfO=REIATNE ONGV@e.
MEAN LOW WATER IG-1.51 FT COMOUR RELATNE TO NDVpm.
xL <<R�y. 3. NORMAL HIGH WATER FLAGGED BY LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
ANOSU YEDBYMWMTNMWCESINC.SEPTEMBER18,m14SLANEY.
p \- 1.Ma RYMRDEDGEOFMNRSHGRASSDIGITI20BYTCWSTALSERKCESINC.
RopF \•• r r \ AND DMANAGEMENTGROUP INC., VATH2012AND2MONC pe&InPPHOTOS.
D B. EXISTING PIER, SEVER FORCE IMIN LOGITOIE AND BUMMER REST ROAD
n PRWIDED BY ���'1'F \'"• \ WITH ELOCATION LLOCAIONONB4=7 AND FORCE MNN,LOCATION O(Mad 85111&
A'1'O \a ۥ' a a r a \ B. REMNNNG PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. AOUACENT FEATURES AND APAw SETBACKS
O h�C/,V a \ PROVIOE) BY MCKIM AND CREED FROM A MAY 1, 2011 SURVEY COMPILED FROM
O 3P kqy l`.• 1 pPREVIOUS
=Cl O4 R ••.-a�r a', r ��\Ff� ;? SURVEYS
UIVITED FIELD WORK
SIDE OF uc�/WD CREED MY m14 GlAEVEY
O ''•� -1 -- ¢gyp \° 44 REFERENCES PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED INCLUDE:
BOUNDARY ITEFIS IN BLUE FROM A MAP RECORDED IN ME 24 PG
'•,, ij\ASS BY RH RD.CRTL BBTIEDTWPOF FOR
o S ST S'
\'IWK BOOK W311 PAGE 135p_MTEDATEOOCTOBERBER 1919B4. AND DEED
--
Legend vs
MHW
(2008 survey) 4
MHW and MLW --
(per Deed)
Normal High Water --�—
(LMG 10/2014)
Waterward Edge Marsh
(mapped from aerial)
Creek Channel Line
Riparian Corridor Limit — — — —
Riparian Corridor Setback — — — — — — —
NCDOT ROW
(disputed)
Proposed Dredging
(4 MLW final)
1
o
t r\ Ai�'T�
l R gRi\ a
WF azeGG \
~ \
�O\
�P\�
R 3\/r^
C E D
i
��
a1'
Paluan 0
1 �i b
lei
as b
Ex\L- stain PON�
in P.--- �P
MAR 21 2016
DCM- NIHD Cis Y
j
°•P
80"
RECEIVED
0
S
PTe9c�
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
o°`�P
FEB 2 9 [lllb
s
9 0'
pO R�O4'
0 120
LAND MANAGEMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING, OR THE LOCATION OF,
UTILITIES. ANY UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THIRD
PARTIES AND ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THE
Project
CAMA Major Permit Application
Date:
1/6/2016
Revision Date:
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNEWAPPLICANT AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT
A PROFESSIONAL UTILITY LOCATING COMPANY.
T j��(
LM
Grand View Community Boating Facility
9��:
Job Number.
This drawing is a compilation of various surveys and is not a
LAND MANAGEMENrcHUUP ac
Tn.;.nnRanm/ cPnaGuanr,
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
1" = 60'
02-14-045
sealed survey or engineered drawing.
For CAMA permitting only. Not for construction.
3805 WrigFrtsYgle Am, Suite 15
Vdlmingtw, NWI, Carama2s
Title:
Proposed Dock Expansion and Dredging
Drawn By:
LMG
Figure:
3 of 9
Tel. one: 910452-OD01

OF i 1 11
KF 19O
�-` BOO ` �� I \ 1 \ ' If I I
rzz
�••.` ; - _ FCF >r GF F>y �o �` 1 r pereerMJzt
•�\ - `
?�°o-sf9�Fo brof �i�L-a �FR _ tea?. ��9.. � �>' ✓oy✓qo `I �\ �,
Al
✓9ryUC'>iAp "• ''-��96� � `� � ��GT9G Tp ' I `I ' _ _ _ - i
all
AFRO �••`� _ _ 0
IN
26 ok R w___ �1 - vv �••\ ♦ w A v 4�:`hl _•---_- c
I '
I r Gi
y0��- ZP7y «. ••. ` v T ` II qfp -�C ', , ` v OYSTER BM
a
,
\ , O
c
*Shaded structures are proposed. --
1 _
`N�
I I j I i' ' \ J �v� � TUNNEL
i L� TENSION
S ' ---- � --- ff �z_
-------'o
� � ' �/per � � o � �
Legend �-1 �I � T v ��� �� �--____--
MHW
00 >
(2008 survey) yT I R,p�ff
Q `
S > pR\�-
MHWand MLW
(per Deed)-p•-,� .\.
� 'x
N
Normal High Water — ^—�— FJ - �\ ti 'n® &
(LMG 10/2014) I Tom. - �'ia 0 S
. 1 9
Watefward Edge Marsh y a. \'0 fir
(mapped from aerial) yApa I 0ry
Creek Channel Line \ �<GyN rotiT Tp sp ti a) y
Riparian Corridor Limit — — — — p(fSR9>` 9<� �� �1 90`
G
S(,A,p N gRO�• �` A 60 �O
Buried Sewer Line
NCDOT ROW
(disputed)
UTILITIES, ANY UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THIRD
�� PARTIES AND ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/APPLICANT AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT
A PROFESSIONAL UTILITY LOCATING COMPANY.
This drawing is a compilation of various surveys and is not a
sealed survey or engineered drawing.
For CAMA permitting only. Not for construction.
� LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP In,
' Env mental Consultants
3605 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15
Mlmirlgton, North Carolina 28403
Telephone. [phone]
VOTE. INFORMATION SHdZM ON THIS PLAN IS A COMMIAnON OF SEVERPL SURVEYS.
I. DEPTHCg MRSWEREPROVIDEDBYn COASTALS WCE51NC.
SEPTEMBER III, M14 SURVEY.
HOnmaa Datum: NC Slele Plane N IM
Vertiml Datum: MLW Baro on Daum
Date Wledetl b, n Caota on SBpemCer 15, M14 shovn eM teeneenl
,,oMitiuna re Me EIIIe.
SuuMVga iMlule wreMore a Me lame aslrvy aM are sugat to fawner,
2. NIXiM4 HI WATERFNWG SYIAFDM GWENTGRWP,IW.
AND SURVEYED BY n COASTAL SEWICES INC. SEPTEMBER 10, M14 SURVEY.
3. Y41TEMNI EDGE OF MARSH GRASS DIGITIZED BY n COASTAL SERVICES INC.
AND LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., WITH M12 AND M10 NC OpWMep PHOTOS.
4, EASTMG PIER. SEWER FORCE MAIN LOCATION, AND SUMMER REST ROAD
RIGHT-0E-YMY LOCATIONS PROMMO BY JOHNNIE J NUMMS IPND SURVEYING PC
W WPIERLOC ONW0. M7ANDFIXCEMNNLIX nWON1W= eMB2015.
5. RWnMWPROPERTYBOUNDARES,A CEWFEATURESANDMI SETBACKS
PROMDEO BY MCKIM AND CREED fROM A MAY 1, M14 SURVEY COMPILED FROM
PREVIOUS SURVEYS WTH UNITED FIELD YgRIC MCKIM AND CREED MAY M14 SURVEI
FIELD LOCATED SUIMEAD ON EASTERN SIDE OF AIYJYL
REFERENCES PROVIDED BY MCMM AND CREED INCLUDE:
BOUNDARY ITEMS IN BONE FROM A MAP RECORDED IN MIS 24 PG
M BY SHERIMN D. CRIBB TITLED l OF SURVEY FOR
SUMMER -REST ASSOCIATES DATED OCTOBER IIll AND DEED
BOOK SW 1 PAGE 1350.
HGH MTER LINE ANO LOW WATER UNE FROM A PIER A BUILT SURVEY
FOR BAILEY 8 ASSOCATES. INC. BY JOIWNY J. WILLWMS LAND SURVEYING, PC
DATED AUGUST M.=08.
ALL OT ER INFORMATION, MARSH AREA EDGE OF MARSH, PIERS,
DOCKS, FROM VARIOUS MAPS FROM MARITECH DREDGING, LLC
TITLED 'BA LEY P OJECP DATED DECEMBER 15, M , AND CGRS
ENTERPRIZES, LLC MAP TITLED 'CAMA MAJOR PERMIT PLAT' BY
OUIBLE AND ASSOCIATES P C. DATED DECEMBER 11. 21100.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB �QE1VED
MAR 21 2016
DCM- h?.HD CITY
0 170
CAMA Major Permit Application
Date: 1/6/2016
Revision Date:
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
9
Scale"
ill, = 601
Job Number
02-14-045
Proposed Project with Water Depths
Drawn By
LMG
Figure:
4 of 9

F
e�e
a4
` a4 �� as,
uu
f
av
\ / \ CHANNEL
EXTENSION
Open
Open \
Deck 4 0'
` \
au
.0 a 2.0' azetw 4.0 \ • 2
CO�`� 1 " ?o " 3.5 .h ET�"L" stain Piling
�Q in Place
3.8, A
EPTH
70B9 3xo, BNE M/I4D`.
RECEI\/�.C�h ( ))
DCM WILMINGTO C h
FEB 2 9
do✓qo � �.� 0P e°ono,
t�
�ZM/�c0T T To `` �� 1",�p
Rq tin Toqdp
LAND MANAGEMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING, OR THE LOCATION OF,
This drawing is a compliation of various surveys and is not a
UTILITIES. ANY UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THIRD
PARTIES AND ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. ITISTHE
sealed survey or engineered drawing.
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNERIAPPLICANT ANDIOR CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT
For CAMA permitting only. Not for construction.
A PROFESSIONAL UTILITY LOCATING COMPANY.
LG
MANAGEMENT GROUP x
' Environmental Consultants
3805 Vinghtsville Ave., Suite 15
Mlmington, North Caro irM 28403
TBleohone910452-0001
NOTE. INFORMATION SHOWN M MS PIAN IS A COMPIUTON OF SEVERAL SURVEYS.
1. DEPTH CONTOURS WERE PROVDED BY T1 COASTAL SERVICES INC.
SEPTEMBER 1E. 2014 SURVEY.
Horizontal Datum. NO SMa Plea, NAC83
Ventral Datum MLW Bes" Dist m
Data cosedea , TI Crustal an Swan t 15. =14 Bloom eM rea sea
mlwmora at that time
SourimngaImiute censor s at in. time of survey eta Ma sustains to outran
2. SPOT DEPTHSALONGSOUTHERN PROJECT EDGEBYGAHAGN S BNYANF2-19-2007;
TAKEN FROM MARITECH DREDGING LLC 2 16 20M PUN. DEPTHS ME REIAT1VE TO NGAEM
MEAN LOW WATER IS -1 M FT CONTOUR REUTIVE TO NGVD29.
I. NORMAL NIGH WATER FUGGED BY UND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
AND SURVEYED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER 18, M14 SURVEY.
4. NMMRWARD EDGE DF MMSH GRABB DIGITIZED BY TI COASTAL SERVCES ING.
AND LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., WITH iT12ANID 2010 NO OnNWR PHOTOS.
5. EYJSTNG PIER, SEWER FORCE MAIN LOCATOR AND SUTAMER REST R
RIGHT-0E-NMY LOCATCNS PROVIDED BY JgMNE J NUUMWIS UWO SURVEYING PC
WITH PIER LOCATION ON 420N7 AND PRIME MAIN LOGTON ON lZIMI'ad 820t5.
B. ftEMNWNGPROPERTYBOUIMMES,ADJ MWFEATURESMDNWrVSETBACKS
PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED FROM A MAY 1.2014 SURVEY COMPILED FROM
PREWWSSURVEYSWITHUMITEDFIELDWORK. MCKIMANDCREEDMAY2014SURVEY
FIELDIOCATED BUIXHEAD ON EASTERN SIDE OF MAIN,
REFERENCES PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED INCLUDE:
BOUNDARY ITEMS IN BLUE FROM A MAR RECORDED IN MB 24 PG
22 BY SHERVAN S OCIA TIT DATIAP CT BER 1 Y FOR
BOOK S0AEBT ABSOGATEB' DATED OCTCOEft 1BM, AND DEED
BOOK 50]1 PAGE 1]50.
HIGH WATER UE AND LOW WATER UNE FROM A PIER MaUILT SURVEY
FOR BAILEYS ASSOCIATES INC. BY JOI-NNY J. W I1MNS LAND SUIVEYING PC
DATED AUGUST 25, 2TI08
ALL OTHER INFORMATION, MARSXMEA EDGE OF MMSH, PIERS,
DOCKS. FROM VARIOUS MAPS FROM MMITECH DREDGING, LLC
TITLED 9NIEY PROJECT' DATED DECEMBER 15. 21M8, AND CBRS
ENIERPRIZES, LLC MAP TIM ED" MAJOR PERMIT PIAT BY
DLMSLE AND ASSOCIATES P C. DATED DECEMBER 11, 2000.
Legend
MHW — — —
(2008 survey)
MHW and MLW
(per Deed)
Normal High Water ---
(LMG 10/2014)
Waterward Edge Marsh
(mapped from aerial)
Creek Channel Line RECEIVED
— — — -MAR 2 1 2016
Riparian Corridor Limit
Riparian Corridor Setback — — — -UGM _ Kr. H D C
Buried Sewer Line
NCDOT ROW
(disputed) Shaded structures are proposed.
z o
CAMA Major Permit Application uare: 1/6/2016
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC Scale' is = 40'
Proposed Dock Details Drawn ByLMG
5 of 9

Jc
FM
N
coo 1�1G)
\\ 1,
�O
IFS
V A A \
\ To by
0
1 \
11 \ A
1 A 1 \
1 t
t I 1
1 1 1 t I
1 1 1 1
.0 e
O,(l,� mid 1"♦♦ .��
/Q
I
1
O
1
1 - - -- R 1
\, pYSTER B I
\ t
I \ I
1 t - / `♦ /
HANNEL ,
)pdn --- -
)eck; - -4.0' -�
azeb 4.0 - -----
1 ,O ♦�c______
/
I �
t
.5 1 h
q
GTO O S h
C, � �l! OOTy. � • �
LAND MANAGEMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING, OR THE LOCATION OF,
Spot Depths Relative to
P P
UTILITIES. ANY UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THIRD
NGVD29. MLW is -1.54
PARTIES AND ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THE
below NG•VD29.
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/APPLICANT AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT
Contours Relative to MLW.
A PROFESSIONAL UTILITY LOCATING COMPANY.
This drawing is a compilation of various surveys and is not a
sealed survey or engineered drawing.
For CAMA permitting only. Not for construction.
Cd
✓ 7 ENSION
----------
`` )� -Y=--
17
sitIoQ of, - _ _
.."L" ♦ ♦ �IiaY�in Piliew� --
1 Cl r4L ki TI"I I i1.
� k I
x-
t 1
I
c tijl, ` .h ova
90°
rl EIVED
UUM WILMINGTON, NC
NOTE. INFOWAPg SHONMMTWSPLANISACOMPtUMT C£SEVERALSURVEYS.
1. DEPTH CO OMS HERE PROVIDED BY n COASTAL SERVICES INC.
SEPTEMBER 48, M14 SURVEY.
HonxoMal DMUM, NC SI6 % NAW
VeM.I DMum: MLW B®Nan DMus
MW wlkclea by TI C—Kal on Bep.W 15, M14 N arxl �ePlmenl
wmlmB a1mM eme.
SouMlllOe IMIw1e cpMiOPna M Ma tlmA of nAVN eM MeaupeMtp Gage.
2. SPOT DEPTHS ALONGSOUTHERN PROJECTEDGEBY GAHACNB SRYANT2-1S-
TAKEN FROIA WRITECH DREMING LLC 245- 1'9PLAN. CfPMS ARE REIATNE TO NGVp2p.
MEANLOWWATERIS-TNFTCONTWRRELATIVETONGV .
]. NORMALHIG MMRFUWEDBYI WMANAGWEWT WP.IW
AND SURVEYED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER 18, M14 SURVEY.
l WATERWARDEWEC MMSHGMSSDGMZEDBYTOWSTALSEWMSING.
AND LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC.. WITH M12 AND M10 NC P ap PHOTOS.
5. EASTING PIER, SEWER FORCE MAIN LOCATION, AND SUMMER REST ROAD
RIGWC MY LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY JOHNNIE J wWAMRV S LAND SURVEYING PC
WTH PER LOCATION ON 4( 0? AND FORCE WIN LOCKFIW W 1N=79 bdlt 5.
B. RENAMING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, AD.IACENT FEATURES ANDAIWW SETBACKS
PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED FROIA A MAY 1, M4 SURVEY COMPILED FROIA
PREVIOUS SURVEYS WITH LIMITED FIELD WORK. MCKIM AND CREED MAY M14 SURVEY
FIEUD OCATED BULKHEAD ON EASTERN BIDE OF AIWW.
REFERENCES PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED INCLUDE:
BOUNDARY ITEMS IN BLUE FROM A MAP RECORDED IN NIB M PG
M BY SIERNAN D. CRIBB TITLED WAP OF SURVEY FOR
SUTAMER-REST ASSOOMTEV DATED OCTOBER 1984. AND DEED
BOOK W31 PACE IM.
HIGH WATER UNE AND LOW WATER UNE FROM A PIER AS -BUILT SURVEY
FOR BAILEY 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. BY UGHNNY J. WWAhIS IAND SURVEYING, PC
DATEDAUGUST25M08.
ALL OTHER IIFIXMATION, MARSH AREA EDGE OF MARSH, PIERS,
DOCKS. FROM VARIOUS ARMS FROM WRITECH DREDGING, LLC
TITLED 9WLEY PROIECr DATED DECEMBER 15. M9, MID CGI 5
EN ERPRUES, LLC IMP TITLED TAW ARMOR PERMIT PIMP BY
OUIBLE MDASSOOATES P C. DATED DECEMBER 11. S .
RECEIVED
Legend
MAR 21 2016
MHW — — —
(2008 survey)
pCIN- MtlHD CIZ
MHW and MLW---------
(per Deed)
Normal High Water —M—M
(LMG I=014)
Waterward Edge Marsh
(mapped from aerial)
Creek Channel Line —
Riparian Corridor Limit — — — —
Riparan Corridor Setback — — — — — — —
Buried Sewer Line
Proposed Dredging
(-4' MLW final)
NCDOT ROW — —
(disputed) 1

Cross Section A
Proposed Dredging
A Floating Dock Spine
6
� 2 MIiW - —
J -2 r
-6
-10 _
Excavation
Vertical Datum Is NAVD 88.
Water Depths Are Relative To MLW.
Piling
Mooring Pile Floating Finger
A'
_ 10
6
---- — --_ ----- 2�
----------- -22
_ -6
-10
Ex.
�AG��
� Fnv enrol Consultants
3805 Wrightsville Ave., $one 15
Wilmington, North Camline28403
Telephone. [phone]=1
1+00
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 9 2016
CAMA Major Permit Application
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Proposed Dredging Cross Section
R CENED
MAR 21 2016
DC%M- MHD CITY
1/6/2016
Job Number:
1" = 20' 02-14-045
3y: Figure:
LMG 7 of 9

DREDGE
0
5
-IC
-15
I v /FNNELXA
.6 XTENSION Q� /
/Deck ,QjO�
' I
Zeb� /
W IGHTSV
BEACH
`�9➢l9ce
`. >9 40' 20' o40' 8o'
�. Lq \ Scale: 1"=40'
O.
%5F01
A A
C � 3
00z
a
G�
37.8' V
PROPOSED PILINGS
EXISTING BOF
M
3.2
-0+40 -0+20 0+00 EXISTING FM 0+20
NOTE: i) CONTRACTOR TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES RECEIVE
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ENGINEERTO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CONFLICTS
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DCM WILMINGTi.
PROFILE 1-1 AT BAILEY DOCKS FEB 2 9 2016
00
0
PROPOSED
DREDGE
APPROXIMATE
FUTURE SLOPE
-5
-10
INTRACOASTAL
ENGINEERING, PLLC
5725 Oleander Dr. Unit E-7
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Phone: [phone]
License Number P-0662
z
FBI
/
p
m
o
U�
U
o
�o
w
O
a
i
4
z�
A
C
o
o
O
>
W
U�
mW
�W
N
I-LI
Z
N
U
C
ono
LL
C C
a'M M CD
E
0. p
¢
N
a�
2
�Iuuiln//
c°
.`
FSSJgI,
N O
IL E �
C
rn
n7
=
SEAL
wt0 IxO
032555
Q a3i E
o
;y.
;�\�c
a>E
a
.r
N
a
IDI'11I
_ N
CLIENT INFORMATION V C I V L- .
BAILEY & FULLER
PROPERTIES, LLC
P.O. BOX 400 MAR 21 2016
JACKSON V ILLE, NC 28541
[phone] Office -
[phone] Fax ►. -�-
DRAWN: JAE SHEET SIZE: I I X 17
-0+20 0+00 0+20 CHECKED: CDC DATE: 1/8/2016
NOTE: i) CONTRACTOR TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES APPROVED: CDC SCALE: VARIES
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ENGINEER TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CONFLICTS
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PROJECT NUMBER: 2014-036
PROFILE 2-2 AT BAILEY DOCKS SHEET NUMBER:
o�
tip
Sp
�a
c
U—Z
o
16.35
�EXIS1'ING
- -
BOTTOM
—
COVER
HORIZ. 1" = to'
VERT. 1" = 5
HORIZ. 1" = 1o'
VERT. 1" = 5'
SHEET I OF I

N
:-
.�z ,
Tax Parcels and 2010 Aerial Photography obtained from New Hanover County GIS.
_) LMGENeNrGRogPM
� Fnviionm¢nml Consultants
3805 MgMsville Ave.. Suite 15
NNmington, NoM Cavim 28403
4
th
CAMA Major Permit Application
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Proposed Spoil Disposal Site
MAR 21 2016
DCM- MHD C1T'
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON
FEB o 8 2016
11612016
Job umber:
1" = 500' 02-14-045
By: Figure:
LMG 9 Of 9