RET Bailey & Associates

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
May 21, 2015
Mr. Chris Bailey
Bailey and Associates
7225 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Sir:
On May 27, 2011, the Division of Coastal Management placed on administrative hold the processing
of your application request under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) to carry out
development activities at 201 Summer Rest Road in Wilmington, New Hanover County. To date,
this office has received no additional correspondence on this issue. Given the time that has passed
since processing of the application was placed on administrative hold, the Division has determined
that it will be necessary to retire your permit application. Any future request to carry out major
development activities at this location will require the submission of a new CAMA permit
application. The Division remains available to provide any assistance you may require in preparing
your application. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Doug
Huggett at [phone] (ext. 212) or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely
Daniel M. Govoni
Asst. Major Permits Coordinator
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919-707-M \ Internet: www.nodenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 A(firmd" Action Employer- Made in pan by recycled paper

4CDEHR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
May 21, 2015
Mr. Chris Bailey
Bailey and Associates
7225 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Sir:
On May 27, 2011, the Division of Coastal Management placed on administrative hold the processing
of your application request under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) to carry out
development activities at 201 Summer Rest Road in Wilmington, New Hanover County. To date,
this office has received no additional correspondence on this issue. Given the time that has passed
since processing of the application was placed on administrative hold, the Division has determined
that it will be necessary to "retire your permit application. Any future request to carry out major
development activities at this location will require the submission of a new CAMA permit
application. The Division remains available to provide any assistance you may require in preparing
your application. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Doug
Huggett at [phone] (ext. 212) or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely
Daniel M. Govoni
Asst. Major Permits Coordinator
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone]Internet: www,ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made In part by recycled paper

_ijivz.szon. of Coastal Management
Application _Processing Not&.-q
Applicant: 2(�{;�/� F_cV � t 1��) �'_
Type: (FF�eck all that apply)
IM . r MAJOP, MOD
Permit Coordinator:
Field Representative:
1I1\OR YIOD R) NEWAL TRANSFER
n
Daite/Timc Message
G/I/. (( C (� r, S rA-7.1,0 cc,? l<e�
ANT we- f.4- 0/7 h4cp
SUP (ssve_
r( aSc0,n5 w.7� h ,m . he
/t/OT h (i
er?a ' nr (CavlVi I rw�
sea ; c,,, hes
c0,11) t Ge,
n e�14) S Ova
r ✓/
Pd��
T� • s
�� sot ael . o�--
cr o,1(1
1 °t
��llV7ti✓ Gv h f n /'1 i3 �y,,.n�f G� 5
Dv�

FWA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves. Perdue
Governor
Mr. Chris Bailey
Bailey and Associates
7225 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Sir:
James H. Gregson
Director
May 27, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your application request under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA) to carry out development activities at 201 Summer Rest Road in Wilmington, New Hanover
County. Processing of the permit application, which was received by the Division of Coastal
Management's Morehead City office on 4/12/11, is ongoing. However, it has been determined that
additional information will be required prior to the Division taking final action on your application. This
item is summarized below:
1) It is the policy of this Division that, prior to taking final action on a project of this nature, a Special
Use Permit for the proposed. development must be obtained from New Hanover County. It is our
understanding, by way of the attached letter, that this approval has not yet been received for this
project. Therefore, it is necessary that processing of your permit application be placed in abeyance
until such time as a Special Use Permit for the proposed project is issued by New Hanover County,
and a copy of the approval supplied to this office.
You will be given five working days from date of mailing. If you can provide to this office a copy of a
proper access permit within the required time, DCM staff will continue processing of the application and
the processing clock will not be suspended. If the required information is not provided to this office within
the specified timeframe, processing of the application will be suspended until such time as the requested
information is provided. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please feel free to contact me
by telephone at [phone], or by email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Govoni
Asst. Major Permits Coordinator
CC: Jim Hundley
PO Box 1646
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
DCM-WiRO-Rob Mairs
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
Norie hCarolina
An Equal Opportunity Wri m itve Action Employer

Ad - f xscstvsD
NCDENR MAY 16 2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management DCM•MHDCrrY
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 21, 2011
----M€MORANDUM: -
TO: John Fulle
Zonin min.
of Wilmington We) � [���%�
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: .201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [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
400 Commerce Avy1., Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Phone: 252� 081 FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoestalmanaaement.net One
An Equal Opppnunity\Mfirm fw Action Employer NorthCarolina

Chris O'Keefe, AICP
Director
Jane Daughtridge, AICP
Current Planning & Zoning
Manager
May 13, 2011
NEW HANOVER COUNTY *`
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE *4,t,t
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 l6,
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone] `{r
Dennis Bordeaux
Inspections Manager
Doug Huggett
NC-DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Shawn Ralston
Long Range Planning
Manager
RE: CAMA/Derdge & Fill Permit Application Review
201 Summer Rest Rd., Wilmington, NC
Expand existing commercial docking facility to 8 slips and excavate boat basin
Bailey & Associates
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced permit application. As
a result of prior annexations, landward jurisdiction in this area is under zoning authority of the
City of Wilmington while the water area falls under the zoning authority of New Hanover
County.
The county must object to the project at this time because the area is zoned 13-1 Business
District on the official zoning map of New Hanover County, and according to our table of
permitted uses, a commercial marina in a B-1 district requires a special use permit. To date, no
application has been made for a special use permit for this proposal.
The applicant incorrectly indicated on your form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4) that the tract is
unzoned. I'm sure this response arose from a situation at the end of 2009 when a zoning map error
was discovered on our official zoning map. The official map failed to identify the zoning
designation for this area, even though our archival records indicated it had been zoned B-1 for
many years. Because our ordinance directs us to the "official" map for permitting purposes, there
existed a temporary loophole while the map was being corrected. The correction was made and
the map was signed in early January, 2010, therefore, the zoning is now official for permitting
purposes. Expansion of the development requires a special use permit from the county, and we
respectfully request that a CAMA permit not be issued for this proposal without local
review and approval of a special use permit.
1IPage

P�P'
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMEN7V *4y1 ,
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
TELEPHONE[phone]
FAX [phone]
Chris O'Keefe
AICP Director
Jane Daughtridge, AICP Dennis Bordeaux Shawn Ralston
Current Planning & Zoning Inspections Manager Long Range Planning
Manager Manager
ADDRESS VERIFICATION FORM
NAME (PROPERTY OWNER. BUILDER AGENT): BAILEY AND ASSOCIATES INC
PARCEL -ID #: R05714-004-012-000
MAP-11) #: 315716.83.6100.000
SUBDIVISION/LOT/LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (0.88 ACRES) PROP SOUND TO BRIDGE
WRI
202 Summer Rest Rd — Official address for PID R05714-004-012-000
Eliza Baldwin 05/11/2011
PLANNING STAFF DATE

.-
� ALIT
*;
NCDENR JUN 13 2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality DCM-MHD C1TY
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
June 8, 2011
DWQ Project # 11 -04 10
New Hanover County
Bailey and Associates
Mr. Chris Bailey
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403
Subject Property: 201 Summer Rest Road Pier Modification
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Bailey:
On April 26, 2011, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your CAMA application to expand an existing
docking facility that includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of additional access piers, gazebos, floating
docks, and mooring pilings adjacent to Motts Creek and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW W) in order to
accommodate eight larger vessels. The DWQ has determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided
inaccurate information as discussed below. The DWQ will require additional information in order to process your
application to impact protected wetlands and/or streams on the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive the
additional information requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your application as required by 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information.
Please provide the following information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
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 two 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.
The project as proposed includes several areas of expansion located directly adjacent to or directly over the
easement and over the NEI sewer line itself. This proposed expansion also includes dredging of approximately
5,640 square feet of shallow bottom area by bucket -to -barge method. The proposed dredging location lies
directly adjacent to the NEI sewer line easement. In some areas, according to the CAMA Major Permit
application, the sewer line lies only two feet below the shallow bottom surface area of the easement. The
dredging includes areas with proposed finished depths that will be significantly lower than the depth of the NEI
itself. This creates the potential for exposure of the line within the project area. Should anything occur to
damage the NEI or render it inoperable, the implications to the environment, to public health, and to the costs
incurred by the Town and the CFPUA could be disastrous. To this point, the Town of Wrightsville Beach and
the CFPUA have both objected to the project as proposed (see attached). Please address their comments and
concerns. Include a contingency plan describing what measures will be taken should anything happen to the
integrity or operation of the NEI during dredging or the proposed expansion of the existing facility. Also
include what measures will be taken should the need arise for periodic maintenance of the NEI since it appears
from the application that there will be fixed structures (pilings and a gazebo) located within the easement.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 ne
Phone: [phone] FAX: 910-350-M0 Customer Service: 1-877 623-6748 NocfthCarolina
Internet www.nLvaterqualo.org ` 1��` H� //11I
An Equal OpWunity l AKrmalNe Action Empbyer

2
201 Summer Rest Road Expansion
New Hanover County
2011.0410
2. A Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) public boat ramp lies directly across the AIWW from the proposed
project. This public access produces a significant amount of boat traffic in the area. The boat traffic
traditionally associated with the AIWW itself, combined with the public access and the newly proposed
expansion of the existing facility could potentially interfere with and reduce access to and from Motts Channel.
The WRC and the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) have both expressed concerns (see attached) regarding
this project and its potential to adversely impact the fish and wildlife species in the area and to potentially limit
public access to the AIWW. Please address these concerns.
3. As proposed, a portion of the docking facility lies within the Department of Transportation (DOT) right-of-way
for the Wrightsville Beach Bridge. According to the application, dredging is proposed within the DOT right-of-
way. Please address the concerns of the DOT (see attached).
As proposed within the CAMA Major Permit application, the Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO) of the Division
of Water Quality feels that this project is headed towards recommendation of denial. Please respond within 30 days
of the date of this letter by sending the additional information requested in writing to Ian McMillan c/o Wetlands,
Buffers, and Stormwater Compliance and Permitting Unit, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617. In
addition, please send the information requested in writing to myself and to the parties in question. If we do not hear
from you within 30 days, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the
project as withdrawn.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands or waters of the
State. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not authorized (at this time) by
the DWQ. Please call Chad Coburn at 910-796-7215 or Ian McMillan at 919-807-6300 if you have any questions
regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Rick Shiver
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Supervisor
cc: Ian McMillan - Wetlands, Buffers, and Stormwater Compliance and Permitting Unit, Raleigh
Dave Timpy - USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Jessi Baker — DMF Wilmington
Molly Ellwood — WRC Wilmington
Robb Mairs — DCM Wilmington Office
Doug Huggett — DCM Morehead Office
W iRO

� G
HCDENR
North Carolina'Department of Environment and Natural Resou 1 Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
APR 21 2011
".HABITAT PROTECTIONi "
Dee Freeman
Secretary "
April 21, 2011 ED
Jessi O'Neal Baker2011Division of Marine FisheriesOTE(
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordin
400 Commerce. Ave.; Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application' Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201'Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, .in Wilmington, NC., New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: ,Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form bv'INav:17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [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.
Af CJ�N�fW DATE
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557;3421
Phoney 252-808.26081 FAX: [phone] Internet www.nccoastalmanaaement.nel One
An Equal OppWinityl AXrme6v0 Acllon Ernoopr NorthCarolitla
NallhM17.11G/

a
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Beverly Eaves Perdue Dr. Louis B. Daniel III Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Doug Hugggtt, DCM Major Permits Coordinator
THROUGH: Anne Deaton, DMF Habitat Section Chief }6
FROM: Jessi Baker, DMF Marine Biologist
SUBJECT: 201 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
DATE: May 16, 2011
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) submits the following'comments
pursuant to General Statute 113-131. DMF has reviewed ,the CAMA Major permit application
from Chris Bailey, of Bailey & Associates; regarding the expansion of an existing docking facility
and excavation of a boat basin. The project proposes to excavate 5,640 square feet of shallow
bottom using bucket to barge.
All excavation activities should be completed outside of the in -water work moratorium from
April ist to September 30t". DMF has concerns about this project impeding navigation and
contributing to congestion in this area, thereby limiting public access via the public boat ramp
immediately across- tge waterway? .. s : � .'' • .: ". , ... w :..: �� r
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. Please feel
free to contact Jess! Baker at [phone] if you have any further questions or concerns-
5285 Hwy70 West, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]Internet: www.nrdmfnet
Ar. Equal Cppatnity 1AffmaatireAd'an Employer
N°nihCaroIiria
Niaturally

Cape Fear
P011C 911111Y Authority
') Stowardthip. Sotafnahirdy. Service.7.
`
March 31; 2011
Mr. Mike Vukelich, Public Works Director
Town of Wrightsville Beach
200 Parmele Boulevard
:Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480
Ref: 201 Summer Rest Road CAMA Major Permit
Dear Mike,
The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority is aware of the proposed construction
modifications to the pier facility owned by Bailey and Associates at 201'Summer Rest
Road. This proposed construction activity is in the vicinity of the force main crossing
.. ' .from the Town of Wrightsville Beach to our sewer pump station #35 at Bradley Creek.
Although this force main belongs to the Town of Wrightsville Beach, we understand the
potential for damage to this pressure force main during construction and resulting
negative environmental impacts. Repairsto correct any damage could be difficult and
�- = -- time.consuming due to its location.
We fully understand and support yourolijections to, this proposed CAMA Major Permit
modification.
Please call me if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
Frank C: Styers, P.E. APR 0 6 2011
Director of Engineering
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
..Cc: ..Matt Jordan, P.E., CEO
235 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403
t:910-799-6064 f: 910-799-6066 www.cfoua.org

DISTRICT 3
APR 25 2011' .
NCDENR RECEIVED
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
RECEIVP
April 21, 2011
MEMORANDUM: APR 2 8 Z011
TO: Anthony Law ` DCM-M»cmr
NC DOT
NH/BR Co..
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 . Summer -Rest -Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AI.WW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that .
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [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.
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557.3421
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net
An Equal Oppommily 1Alfirmafive Action Employer
NorthCarolina

Huggett, Dou
From: Leonard, David
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:23 PM
To: Huggett, Doug
Cc: Everhart, Steve; Mathis, Stonewall D; Edgerton, Alton R; Law, Anthony W; Lovell, Michael C
Subject: CAMA Permit Review, 201 Summer Rest Rd, Wilmington, NC
Attachments: CAMA Permit Eastwood at Summer Rest.pdf, FW: Request to Waive 15' Riparian Access'
Mr. Huggett,
Attached is our response to the CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review for 201 Summer Rest Rd, in
Wilmington, NC. A hard copy will follow by mail. The reasons for objection are listed below:
1. Vessels are showed moored within the NCDOT right-of-way. ,
2. Dredging is shown within the NCDOT right-of-way.
Also, attached is an email chain with further questions from other staff members that we need to look into prior to any
approval.
Sincerely,
David B. Leonard, PE.
Assistant District Engineer
NCDOT I Division 3, District 3
300 Division Drive
Wilmington, NC 28401
910.251.2655
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

® North `Carolina Wildlife°Resources Commission ®
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Huggett
NC DENR/DCM MajorPenmts Coordinator
From: Molly Ellwood
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Date: May 17, 2011
RE: Bailey and Associates, New Hanover County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject .
application for impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128), as amended, and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et scq.).
Bailey and Associates are proposing to expand an existing boat basin, including the excavation of a boat basin,
construction of addition access piers, gazebos, floating docks and mooring pilings adjacent to Mott's Creek
and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in New Hanover County. The expanded docking facility will have a
total of eight slips providing docking for vessels 40-60' in length. Dredging associated with the project would
result in the removal of approximately 845 cubic yards to achieve a final project depth of -2' to -6 . A
wastewater fine easement, the northeast interceptor (NEI), is located within the project boundaries and requires
a minimum of 4' of cover per Permit Condition No. 9 of State Permit No. 13-86. The Wrightsville Beach
Bridge is located just south of the property, which maintained by the North Carolina Division of
Transportation (DOT). Part of the docking facility lies within the 150' right-of-way established by the
NCDOT for the Wrightsville Beach Bridge. The waters in the project area are classified as "SB" by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), are not designated as primary nursery area and are closed to shellfishing. :
The NCWRC have the following concerns and recommendations for the currently proposed project:
• We recommend that the applicant reconsider the current floating docks and number of slips. It
appears that slips 7 and 8, as shown on sheet 2 of the drawings submitted with the permit application,
could potentially impede ingress and egress from Mott's Channel. Omitting these slips could rectify
this concern and avoid limiting access to the docks and piers located to the north of this project.
• The NCWRC is concerned about the location of the NEI easement within the area where there is
proposed dredging. Potential impacts to the NEI could result in significant water quality issues that
could greatly impact fish and wildlife species in the area. We recommend that to avoid these potential
impacts that the project be modified to remove the dredging aspects, eliminate areas of the dredge
footprint that include the NEI easement, and / or provide an appropriate buffer from the NEI.
Malling Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Town of Wrightsville Beach
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
200 Parmele Boulevard
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480
[phone] . FAX [phone]
NC — DENR December 30, 2009,
Attn; Mr. Steve Everhart
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Everhart,
The Town of Wrightsville Beach objects to Bailey and Associates, CAMA permit No. 84-01,
modification application to.expand a pier located at 201 Summer rest Road, Wilmington, NC.
CAMA permit modification application dated December 22, 2009, requests an expansion of a
pier located directly above the Town's AIWW crossing forcemain, off Summer Rest Rd. The
Town possesses a state legislature approved easement through this area for the construction and
maintenance of our wastewater transmission pipeline to CFPUA PS-35 and it is our belief that
the original CAMA permit should not have been approved based on its proximity to the
forcemain and other utilities.
The approval of this project may create major environmental impacts if the line were to be
damaged due to construction, future dredging and boating activity in the area and would delay
any required repairs.
Please reference the attached letters from letters from Town Attomey's, Wessell & Raney L.L.P.
to CAMA and the applicant, Bailey & Associates. Construction upon lands conveyed to tfie -`
Town through an agreement with the State of NC will make it virtually impossible for the Town
to take full financial, legal or ecological responsibility for consequences of any subsequent
damage to the line. Copies of the land transference and CAMA permit documents are also
attached.
Respectfully yours,
VV
Michael F. Vukelich, Director
Bob Simpson
Wessell & Raney L.L.P.
Encl.
oG'.

J01W C. WESSEr c, III
WESSELEAgOEIx OUTII.NET
Wrmum.A. RANEY. JR.
WARANEY(PRELLSOUVI.NET
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 1049
WIIAIINGTON, NORTIi CAROLINA 28402-1049
June 7, 2011
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-B NORTR 2" STREET
WD.hIINOTON, NC 28401
TECErRoNE:910-702-7475
FAcsiw.E: 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

Mr. Steve Everhart
June 7, 2011
Page 3
MP-4 Form
2. - Section 2 of MP-4 relating to docking facility and
marina operations is marked "this section riot 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 tof 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.
1.1. 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

Mr. Steve Everhart
June 7, 2011
Page 4
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 impossible to dredge to -6' MLW in this area
without damaging or affecting the integrity of the line. Even if
the 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 sewageentering 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 v`3e`.`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

Mr. Steve Everhart
June 7, 2011
Page 5
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, 5eh Edition, Hedrick & McLaughlin. 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.
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-12 0 (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

Mr. Steve Everhart'
June 7, 2011
Page 6
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 linefor 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.
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."

Mr. St eve Everhart
June 7, 2011
Page 7
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)
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 noimal 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

Mr. St eve Everhart
June 7, 2011
Page 8
sewer ,line which is located, where the pier and docking facilities
are proposed_
3.3.6 - 7H.0208(b)(5)(H), (_)
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 3,30.4 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. St eve Everhart
June 7, 2011'
Page 9
3.3.9 - 7H.0208 (b) (6) (J) (iii)
The .proposed docking facility extends more than 1/4th 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.1/4th 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 1/4th rule should use the .
equidistant method of establishing a center line for the body of
water so that a 1/4th width can.be established as the.smaller channel
enters the larger body of water. This assures that the center 'i 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 'i� of Motts
Creek,Channel,as it connects to the .Intracoastal Waterway,' thereby
violating the 1/4t. 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

Mr. Steve Everhart
June 7, 2011
Page LO
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, maintaining and repairing the sewer line in accordance
with this policy.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein the Town of Wrightsville Beach
respectfullyrequeststhat the permit modification requested` by
Bailey &.Associates be denied.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
Attorneys for Town of
Wrightsville Beach
William A. Raney, Jr
WAR:dc
cc: Mr. Bob Simpson
Mr. John C. Wessell, III
Mr. Mike Vukelich
JCW\wrbch\WOB-097-0O3

D6:1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DR STE 195
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1732
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
October 21, 2011
Mr. Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
BRUCE T. SHELL, CPA
County Manager
ANDRE' R. MALLETTE
Assistant County Manager
CHRIS COUDRIET
Assistant County Manager
RECEIVED
OCT 2 5 2011
DCA4411fD CITY
RE: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Permit Application Review
201 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, North Carolina
Expand Existing Commercial Docking Facility to Eight Slips and Excavate Boat
Basin
Bailey & Associates
Dear Mr. Huggett:
On May 13, 2011, New Hanover County submitted a letter of objection to the above
referenced permit. We have recently discovered that at the time building permit
applications were submitted for this project, the official zoning map for New Hanover
County indicated that the parcel on which the project would be built was un-zoned.
Therefore, we must lift our prior objection to the permit request.
I am happy to discuss this matter with you further. Please feel free to contact me at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Bruce T. Shell
County Manager
BTS/sjj

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Huggett
NC DENR/DCM Major Permits Coordinator
From: Molly Ellwood i{t
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Date: May 17, 2011
RE: Bailey and Associates, New Hanover County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
application for impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128), as amended, and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Bailey and Associates are proposing to expand an existing boat basin, including the excavation of a boat basin,
construction of addition access piers, gazebos, floating docks and mooring pilings adjacent to Mott's Creek
and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in New Hanover County. The expanded docking facility will have a
total of eight slips providing docking for vessels 40-60' in length. Dredging associated with the project would
result in the removal of approximately 845 cubic yards to achieve a final project depth of -2' to -6'. A
wastewater line easement, the northeast interceptor (NEI), is located within the project boundaries and requires
a minimum of 4' of cover per Permit Condition No. 9 of State Permit No. 13-86. The Wrightsville Beach
Bridge is located just south of the property, which maintained by the North Carolina Division of
Transportation (DOT). Part of the docking facility lies within the 150' right-of-way established by the
NCDOT for the Wrightsville Beach Bridge. The waters in the project area are classified as "SB" by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), are not designated as primary nursery area and are closed to shellftshing.
The NCWRC have the following concerns and recommendations for the currently proposed project:
• We recommend that the applicant reconsider the current floating docks and number of slips. If
appears that slips 7 and 8, as shown on sheet 2 of the drawings submitted with the permit application,
could potentially impede ingress and egress from Mott's Channel. Omitting these slips could rectify
this concern and avoid limiting access to the docks and piers located to the north of this project.
• The NC WRC is concerned about the location of the NEI easement within the area where there is
proposed dredging. Potential impacts to the NEI could result in significant water quality issues that
could greatly impact fish and wildlife species in the area. We recommend that to avoid these potential
impacts that the project be modified to remove the dredging aspects, eliminate areas of the dredge
footprint that include the NEI easement, and / or provide an appropriate buffer from the NEI.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Bailey and Associates Page 2 May 17, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. The NCWRC recommends that the
applicant consider the recommendations provided to improve the project so as to avoid any unintended impacts
to the recreational uses in the area as well as to the wildlife and fisheries species that occur there. Please feel
free to contact me at [phone] if there are any questions or concerns relating to this project.
cc: Iessi Baker NCDMF
Chad Coburn, NCDWQ
Robb Mairs, NCDCM
Dave Timpy, USACE

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
4�'/�a
..�.��
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson Dee Freeman
Director Secretary
April 21, 2011
RECEIVED
TO: John Fullerton MAY 17 2011
Zoning Admin.
City of Wilmington
DCM-MHD CrrY
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, INC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
\ SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Locati n: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
und, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed F roposes to expand an existing docking facility that
f a boat basin, construction of add] access
�GPI- s & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
4n `'��N a eight (8) larger vessels
Please ASSo9dt �a naison pay, OP47
return o0J Chesgo41/810 'Ces
supporting on.- nlmr y4��?18 f
91034f 71gf0
a4g, /a 3 48 f 810
REPLY: This ay�""w%y°��rm;,,�a2��x
-on the proposed project and
ms regarding the proposed
)priate, in-depth comments with
the project as proposed.
\ 9ov o9ov
\V This agency has no c, on the proposed project. "(hjs/ pr, W f
IS noi- t l7 eGi� 1 h V v �l lvf t SC I �n i 15h o f G
This agency approves of the project only if the recommen
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the
tached comments.
SIGNED / DATE S
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557--3421
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanaoement.net VoCarohna
One
An Equal Opportunity l Afirmative Action Employer
ura!!tl

0
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
CLEM
NCDENP APR 21 2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resou Df F-HABITAT Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson Dee Freeman
Director Secretary
MEMORANDUM: April 21, 2011 @ L5 ON I
TO: Jessi O'Neal Baker (WJ MAY 16 2011
Division of Marine Fisheries
DMF-HABITAT PROTE
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordina
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/GreenviIle
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [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
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557z-3421
Phone. [phone]\FAX:[phone]Internet:w ww.ncooaslalmanaaarr .net One.
An Equel Opportonity%Ailionalive Action Employer NorthCarolitia.
Naturally

®�®
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Beverly Eaves Perdue Dr, Louis B. Daniel III
Governor Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Doug Huggett, DCM Major Permits Coordinator
THROUGH: Anne Deaton, DMF Habitat Section Chief %
FROM: Jessi Baker, DMF Marine Biologist r
SUBJECT: 201 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, INC
DATE: May 16, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) submits the following comments
pursuant to General Statute 113-131. DMF has reviewed the CAMA Major permit application
from Chris Bailey, of Bailey & Associates, regarding the expansion of an existing docking facility
and excavation of a boat basin. The project proposes to excavate 5,640 square feet of shallow
bottom using bucket to barge.
All excavation activities should be completed outside of the in -water work moratorium from
April 1st to September 30d'. DMF has concerns about this project impeding navigation and
contributing to congestion in this area, thereby limiting public access via the public boat ramp
immediately across the waterway.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. Please feel
free to contact Jessi Baker at [phone] if you have any further questions or concerns.
5285 Hwy 70 West, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]A Internet: www ricdmf riet
An Equal OpraWu ity 1AIP.rtnative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
)Vaturallil

i ft
bvA e � V RECMVW
NCDENR MAY 19 2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson ncM We eeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 21, 2011
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Molly Ellwood
WiRO
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [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 J, dA A) JA DATE jl
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557--3421
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanaaement.net One
An Equal Opportunity\ Affirmative Action Employer N rthCarohna
aturallry

r
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Huggett
NC DENR/DCM Major Permits Coordinator
From: Molly Ellwood A(41V -J
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Date: May 17, 2011
RE: Bailey and Associates, New Hanover County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
application for impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128), as amended, and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Bailey and Associates are proposing to expand an existing boat basin, including the excavation of a boat basin,
construction of addition access piers, gazebos, floating docks and mooring pilings adjacent to Mott's Creek
and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in New Hanover County. The expanded docking facility will have a
total of eight slips providing docking for vessels 40-60' in length. Dredging associated with the project would
result in the removal of approximately 845 cubic yards to achieve a final project depth of-2' to -6'. A
wastewater line easement, the northeast interceptor (NEI), is located within the project boundaries and requires
a minimum of 4' of cover per Permit Condition No. 9 of State Permit No. 13-86. The Wrightsville Beach
Bridge is located just south of the property, which maintained by the North Carolina Division of
Transportation (DOT). Part of the docking facility lies within the 150' right-of-way established by the
NCDOT for the Wrightsville Beach Bridge. The waters in the project area are classified as "SB" by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), are not designated as primary nursery area and are closed to shellfishing.
The NCWRC have the following concerns and recommendations for the currently proposed project:
• We recommend that the applicant reconsider the current floating docks and number of slips. It
appears that slips 7 and 8, as shown on sheet 2 of the drawings submitted with the permit application,
could potentially impede ingress and egress from Mott's Channel. Omitting these slips could rectify
this concern and avoid limiting access to the docks and piers located to the north of this project.
The NCWRC is concerned about the location of the NEI easement within the area where there is
proposed dredging. Potential impacts to the NEI could result in significant water quality issues that
could greatly impact fish and wildlife species in the area. We recommend that to avoid these potential
impacts that the dredging aspects be removed from the proposed project, eliminate areas of proposed
dredging that include the NEI easement, and/or provide an appropriate buffer to offset the probability
of any unintended impacts to the NEI.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Bailey and Associates Page 2 May 17, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. The NCWRC recommends that the
applicant consider the recommendations provided to improve the project to avoid any unintended impacts to
the recreational use of the area as well as to the wildlife and fisheries species that occur there. Please feel free
to contact me at [phone] if there are any questions or concerns relating to this project.
cc: Jessi Baker NCDMF
Chad Coburn, NCDWQ
Robb Mairs, NCDCM
Dave Timpy, USACE

North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Chris Bailey
Bailey and Associates
7225 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Sir:
�r
MC®ENR
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management —
James H. Gregson
Director
May 27, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter is in response to your application request under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA) to carry out development activities at 201 Summer Rest Road in Wilmington, New Hanover
County. Processing of the permit application, which was received by the Division of Coastal
Management's Morehead City office on 4/12/11, is ongoing. However, it has been determined that
additional information will be required prior to the Division taking final action on your application. This
item is summarized below:
1) It is the policy of this Division that, prior to taking final action on a project of this nature, a Special
Use Permit for the proposed development must be obtained from New Hanover County. It is our
understanding, by way of the attached letter, that this approval has not yet been received for this
project. Therefore, it is necessary that processing of your permit application be placed in abeyance
until such time as a Special Use Permit for the proposed project is issued by New Hanover County,
and a copy of the approval supplied to this office.
You will be given five working days from date of mailing. If you can provide to this office a copy of a
proper access permit within the required time, DCM staff will continue processing of the application and
the processing clock will not be suspended. If the required information is not provided to this office within
the specified timeframe, processing of the application will be suspended until such time as the requested
information is provided. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please feel free to contact me
by telephone at [phone], or by email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
�
Daniel M. Govoni
Asst. Major Permits Coordinator
CC: Jim Hundley
PO Box 1646
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
DCM-WiRO-Rob Mairs
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nocoastalmanagement.net N�o�/tr/t]h/1Cfa/rJoliina
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer (� ,�"'�"°'mallff

AAMA
I�C®EWR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
April 21, 2011
MEMORANDUM:
Natural Resources
MAY 16 2011
DCnzaum Carr
Dee Freeman
Secretary
TO: John Fulle
Zonin min.
of WilmingtonEaJ
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: .201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Molts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing .docking facility that
includes. excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Molts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Rabb Mairs [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
400 Commerc Av ., Morehead City, NC 28557- 3421
Phone: 252-80 - 081 FAX: [phone] Internet: vnvv.nccoastalmanaaement.net One
An Equal Opporlunay\M maliveAction Employer NorthCarolina

Chris O'Keefe, AICP
Director
Jane Daughtridge, AICP
Current Planning & Zoning
Manager
May 13, 2011
NEW HANOVER COUNTY /-
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403�y
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone] &//
Dennis Bordeaux
Inspections Manager
Doug Huggett
NC-DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Shawn Ralston
Long Range Planning
Manager
RE: CAMA/Derdge & Fill Permit Application Review
201 Summer Rest Rd., Wilmington, NC
Expand existing commercial docking facility to 8 slips and excavate boat basin
Bailey & Associates
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced permit application. As
a result of prior annexations, landward jurisdiction in this area is under zoning authority of the
City of Wilmington while the water area falls under the zoning authority of New Hanover
County.
The county must object to the project at this time because the area is zoned 13-1 Business
District on the official zoning map of New Hanover County, and according to our table of
permitted uses, a commercial manna in a B-1 district requires a special use permit. To date, no
application has been made for a special use permit for this proposal.
The applicant incorrectly indicated on your form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4) that the tract is
unzoned. I'm sure this response arose from a situation at the end of 2009 when a zoning map error
was discovered on our official zoning map. The official map failed to identify the zoning
designation for this area, even though our archival records indicated it had been zoned B-1 for
many years. Because our ordinance directs us to the "official" map for permitting purposes, there
existed a temporary loophole while the map was being corrected. The correction was made and
the map was signed in early January, 2010, therefore, the zoning is now official for permitting
purposes. Expansion of the development requires a special use permit from the county, and we
respectfully request that a CAMA permit not be issued for this proposal without local
review and approval of a special use permit.
11Page

Also, please note that an address correction should be made. The correct address for tk#1
parcel number is 202 Summer Rest Road. I have included an address verification form to. that
effect. / _,
If I can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 910-798-744�As
always, we appreciate the information and cooperation afforded us from the Division of Coa%
Management. e?ya,
Sincerely,
e Daughtridge, AICP
Current Planning & Zoning Manager
New Hanover County
Cc: Rob Mairs, DCM-Wilmington Regional District
Angela Faison, City of Wilmington
Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Jim Hundley, Waterline Marine Construction & Consulting (via email)
2 1 P a g e

NEW HANOVER COUNTY lt4l
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMEN r,
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 `��ty
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
Chris O'Keefe
AICP Director
Jane Daughtridge, AICP Dennis Bordeaux Shawn Ralston
Current Planning & Zoning Inspections Manager Long Range Planning
Manager Manager
ADDRESS VERIFICATION FORM
NAME (PROPERTY OWNER, BUILDER, AGENT): BAILEY AND ASSOCIATES INC
PARCEL -ID #: R05714-004-012-000
MAP -ID #: 315716.83.6100.000
SUBDIVISION/LOT/LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (0.88 ACRES) PROP SOUND TO BRIDGE
WRI
ADDRESS/COMMENTS:
202 Summer Rest Rd — Official address for PID R05714-004-012-000
Eliza Baldwin 05/11/2011
PLANNING STAFF DATE

SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
214 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1 347
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1347
TELEPHONE (91 O) 762-9400 P TELEFA% (91 O) 251.1773
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
KENNETH A. SHANKLIN• *BOARD CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN
MATTHEW A. NICHOLS" REAL PROPERTY LAW - RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS.
COMMIT CIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRANSACTIONS
CYNTHIA W. BALDWIN **ALSO ADMRTEo IN NEW YORK
May 20, 2011
VIA E-MAIL: [e-mail]
AND FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: Modification, CAMA Major Permit No. 84-01
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Our File No. 05018.001
Dear Mr. Huggett:
We represent Bailey and Associates, Inc. —the property owner and applicant in the
above -referenced matter. This letter is in response to a May 13, 2011 letter sent to you by Ms.
Jane Daughtridge, New Hanover County Current Planning & Zoning Manager, stating the
County's objection to the subject CAMA Major Permit modification (copy attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" for your reference). For the following reasons, we respectfully disagree with the
facts and conclusions stated in Ms. Daughtridge's May 13, 2011 letter and contend that the
County's objection in this matter is without merit.
First, we disagree with the statement that "[tithe applicant incorrectly indicated on your
form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4) that the tract is unzoned." (J. Daughtridge 5/13/11 ltr., 13). It is
undisputed that the subject property was unzoned at the time that the original CAMA Major
Permit application was filed in this matter. Attached hereto as Exhibit'B" is a November 18,
2009 e-mail from then -Chief Zoning Enforcement Official for New Hanover County Ann S.
Hines to Ms. Holley Snider at NCDENR-DCM clearly indicating that the subject property, as
shown on the Official Zoning Map of New Hanover County, is "unzoned." In short, we
respectfully contend that the County has not zoned or rezoned the subject property since
Ms. Hines' determination, and that the subject property remains unzoned, notwithstanding the
purported `BA" designation apparently placed on the Official Zoning Map in January 2010—
after Ms. Hines' determination in 2009 and the issuance of CAMA Major Permit No. 84-01.

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -2-
The Official Zoning Map of New Hanover County can only be changed pursuant to the
procedures set forth in Chapter 153A of the North Carolina General Statutes and the provisions
of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. The General Statutes require, at a minimum,
that the owner of the subject property, as well as owners of adjacent properties, be notified of a
proposed zoning map change and be afforded an opportunity to be heard at a Public Hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners voting on the proposed zoning or rezoning.
Moreover, there must be at least one Public Hearing before the County Commissioners, and due
public notice and advertising of the same, including prominent posting of a notice of the Public
Hearing on the site or on an adjacent public street or highway right-of-way. Only the elected
Board of County Commissioners can zone or rezone property as legislative action by a majority
vote after proper notice and a Public Hearing. Section 153A-343 of the General Statutes
provides:
§ 153A-343. Method of procedure
(a) The board of commissioners shall, in accordance with the provisions
of this Article, provide for the manner in which zoning regulations and
restrictions and the boundaries of zoning districts shall be determined,
established, and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented,
or changed. The procedures adopted pursuant to this section shall
provide that whenever there is a zoning map amendment, the owner
of that parcel of land as shown on the county tax listing, and the
owners of all parcels of land abutting that parcel of land as shown on
the county tax listing, shall be mailed a notice of a public hearing on
the proposed amendment by first class mail at the last addresses listed
for such owners on the county tax abstracts. This notice must be
deposited in the mail at least 10 but not more than 25 days prior to the date
of the public hearing. Except for a county -initiated zoning map
amendment, when an application is filed to request a zoning map
amendment and that application is not made by the owner of the parcel of
land to which the amendment would apply, the applicant shall certify to
the board of commissioners that the owner of the parcel of land as shown
on the county tax listing has received actual notice of the proposed
amendment and a copy of the notice of public hearing. The person or
persons required to provide notice shall certify to the board of
commissioners that proper notice has been provided in fact, and such
certificate shall be deemed conclusive in the absence of fraud.
(b) The first class mail notice required under subsection (a) of this section
shall not be required if the zoning map amendment directly affects more
than 50 properties, owned by a total of at least 50 different property
owners, and the county elects to use the expanded published notice

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -3-
provided for in this subsection. In this instance, a county may elect to
either make the mailed notice provided for in subsection (a) of this section
or may as an alternative elect to publish notice of the hearings required by
G.S. 153A-323, but provided that each of the advertisements shall not be
less than one-half of a newspaper page in size. The advertisement, shall
only be effective for property owners who reside in the area of general
circulation of the newspaper which publishes the notice. Property owners
who reside outside of the newspaper circulation area, according to the
address listed on the most recent property tax listing for the affected
property, shall be notified according to the provisions of subsection (a) of
this section.
(bl) Actual notice of the proposed amendment and a copy of the notice of
public hearing required under subsection (a) of this section shall be by any
manner permitted under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 40). If notice cannot with due
diligence be achieved by personal delivery, registered or certified mail, or
by a designated delivery service authorized pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §
7502(f)(2), notice may be given by publication consistent with G.S. IA-1,
Rule 4JI). This subsection applies only to an application to request a
zoning map amendment where the application is not made by the owner of
the parcel of land to which the amendment would apply. This subsection
does not apply to a county -initiated zoning map amendment.
(c) Repealed by Session Laws 2005-418, s. 4, effective January 1, 2006.
(d) When a zoning map amendment is proposed, the county shall
prominently post a notice of the public hearing on the site proposed
for rezoning or on an adjacent public street or highway right-of-way.
When multiple parcels are included within a proposed zoning map
amendment, a posting on each individual parcel is not required, but the
county shall post sufficient notices to provide reasonable notice to
interested persons.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 153A-343 (emphasis added); see also N.C. GEN. STAT. § 153A-344(a)
("Subsequent to initial adoption of a zoning ordinance, all proposed amendments to the zoning
ordinance or zoning map shall be submitted to the planning board for review and comment.").
Zoning Ordinance and Map changes in New Hanover County are also governed by
Article XI of the County's Zoning Ordinance (copy attached hereto as Exhibit "C"). Under the
County's Ordinances: "Whenever a zoning classification change or Special Use Permit is
proposed, the Planning Department shall notify all owners of the subject tract and all owners of
all adjoining parcels of the proposed classification change or Special Use Permit by first class

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -4-
mail at the last address listed for such owner on the County tax abstracts." NHC Zoning Ord.
§ 112.1(1). Prior to the Public Hearings before the Planning Board and the County
Commissioners, "the Planning department shall post a clearly legible sign or signs on the
property and/or its approaches to indicate the time, date, and place of the hearing and how
additional information may be obtained. Sign location or locations shall be selected to insure
visibility to neighboring residents and passersby." NHC Zoning Ord. § 112.1(3). The
Ordinances further provide that "[i]n each of the two (2) calendar weeks preceding the County
Commissioners' public hearing, the Planning Department shall publish in the local newspapers a
Notice of Public Hearing indicating the time, date, and place of the hearing and giving a brief
description of the rezoning and Special Use Permit proposals on the agenda." NHC Zoning Ord.
§ 112.1(4). The Ordinance states: "No amendment shall be adopted by the County
Commissioners until after public notice and-hearing."—NHC-Zoning Ord.-§-I12.5-1-(also
requiring that the County Commissioners "adopt a statement describing whether its action is
consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development and explaining why the
Commissioners consider the action taken as reasonable and in the public interest.").
Since the Chief Zoning Enforcement Official's determination in 2009 that the subject
property is_unzoned, there has been no such notice to my client of the purported zoning of this
property, and there have been no Public Hearings before the County Planning Board or County
Commissioners, to our knowledge, regarding the same. While the County may have, as a matter
of fact and as stated in Ms. Daughtridge's May 13, 2011 letter, physically changed the Official
Zoning Map in January 2010 so that the subject property is now identified as a `B-1" zoning
district, we respectfully contend that such administrative action —without proper notice, public
hearings, and a majority vote of the County Commissioners —does not comport with the
requirements of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes or the New Hanover County Ordinances
and, furthermore, does not result in the legal placement of the subject property into a B-1 Zoning
District. Such an administrative action, without notice and a hearing, does not comply with the
constitutional protections of due process afforded to our client by the Constitutions of the United
States and the State of North Carolina.
The County Zoning Ordinance clearly states: "The official zoning map shall be the final
authority as to the current zoning status of land and water areas, buildings, and other structures in
the County." NHC Zoning Ord. § 30-1 ("Official Zoning Map") (emphasis added) (copy of
Article III of NHC Zoning Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "D"). In the context of this
very matter, the County's Chief Zoning Enforcement Official confirmed in writing to NCDENR-
DCM in November 2009 that the subject property is unzoned, and the subject property was in
fact shown as unzoned on the Official Zoning Map in November 2009. To our knowledge, these
facts are undisputed. As very recently held by the Court of Appeals last month, where a "prior
determination was lawful and not in violation of the ordinance, the Town should not now be
allowed to enforce a new interpretation of the same ordinance by injunction or otherwise." S.T.
Wooten Corp. v. Board of Adjustment, --- N.C. App. ---, --- S.E.2d ---, 2011 N.C. App. LEXIS
632, at *23 (April 5, 2011) (released for publication on May 11, 2011) (reversing Town of

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -5-
Zebulon's determination that the petitioners needed a special use permit to operate an asphalt
plant).
While there is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance for correcting drafting or other errors
or omissions on the Official Zoning Map, this is not the case in this instance. In confirming that
the subject property is unzoned, Chief Zoning Enforcement Official Hines did not in any way
indicate in her e-mail to Ms. Snider at NCDENR-DCM that the Official Zoning Map was
somehow erroneous, or that the Official Zoning Map contained a typographical or scrivener's
error or omission that needed correcting. To the contrary, Ms. Hines clearly stated that
Condition #5 of the subject permit (requiring recordation of a Declaration of Easement to satisfy
New Hanover County Zoning requirements) "is not needed for compliance with the County's
zoning ordinance" (A. Hines 11/18/09 e-mail), because the property is not zoned. Presumably,
such assurances by the County's Chief Zoning Enforcement Official would not have been made
if this matter involved a simple typographical error on the Official Zoning Map. In fact, in her e-
mail to NCDENR-DCM, Chief Zoning Enforcement Official Hines expressly cleared up this
issue regarding the zoning status of the property under the County Ordinances and the Official
Zoning Map (i.e., the property is not zoned) in order to "free up Mr. Bailey's application to
modify the Major CAMA Permit for additional boat slips." (A. Hines.11/18/09 e-mail).
The County's current position, as stated in Ms. Daughtridge's May 13, 2011 letter, is
inconsistent with and contradictory to the County's Chief Zoning Enforcement Official's prior
zoning determination. It is significant to note that Ms. Hines' November 18, 2009 e-mail was
also sent to the New Hanover County Director of Planning & Inspections, Mr. Chris O'Keefe, as
well as Ms. Daughtridge and Mr. Steven Still in the New Hanover County Planning Department.
To our knowledge, there was no subsequent objection, correction or clarification made by
anyone to Ms. Hines' November 18, 2009 e-mail to Ms. Snider. The subject property was
unequivocally unzoned in 2009, and the County has done nothing to zone the property since that
time.
Contemporaneous with this letter to you, we are requesting from New Hanover County
copies of the minutes from the Planning Board and County Commissioners' Public Hearings (if
any), regarding the purported zoning of the subject property from unzoned to the B-1 District.
We will ask that copies of any such materials also be sent directly to you. Again, our client
received no notice of any such Hearings. It should also be noted that the County did not even
notify our client after it had apparently changed the Official Zoning Map purportedly affecting
our client's property rights. The first time that our client learned of this purported B-I zoning of
the subject property was indirectly through Ms. Daughtridge's May 13, 2011 letter to you —more
than a year after the apparent change to the Official Zoning Map by the County. To date, the
County has never sent a notice to Bailey and Associates, Inc. —the affected property owner and
taxpayer —regarding the purported change in zoning status of the subject property on the Official
Zoning Map from unzoned to the B-1 Zoning District designation.

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -6-
Additionally, contemporaneous with this letter to you, we are formally requesting that the
County change the Official Zoning Map to show that the property is unzoned and withdraw its
objection to the subject CAMA permit modification request.
The County's purported designation of the subject property as B-1 is not somehow just a
minor or administrative correction to a "temporary loophole" in the Official Zoning Map. (See 1.
Daughtridge 5/13/11 ltr., 1 3). The County's Chief Zoning Enforcement Official gave no
indication in her 2009 e-mail to NCDENR-DCM that the Official Zoning Map was in error.
There was no error or "loophole" to correct.
Also attached hereto for your reference as Exhibit "E" is a copy of the New Hanover
County Superior Court's Order Reversing Wilmington Board of Adjustment in Bailey and
Associates, Inc. vs. Wibnington Board of Adjustment et al., New Hanover County Superior Court
File No. 08 CVS 817. Although this case involved a different issue —the City of Wilmington
erroneously determined that Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s property was somehow in a COD
Zoning District —there is a similarity of issues and a very relevant analysis by the Court
regarding the significance of the Official Zoning Map and amendments to the same. In
particular, the Court noted:
[T]he City's Official Zoning Map has not been amended to show that the
Subject Property is located wholly or partially within a COD
[Conservation Overlay District]. Such an action to amend the City's
Official Zoning Map would require proper notice to the Petitioner [i.e., the
property owner, Bailey and Associates, Inc.], Public Hearings before the
Wilmington Planning Commission and the Wilmington City Council and
approval by the City Council under Chapter 160A of the General Statutes,
none of which has occurred.
(7/26/08 Order at p.8, 9[ 25) (emphasis added). The North Carolina Court of Appeals
unanimously affirmed the Decision of the Superior Court in this case. See Bailey and
Associates, Inc. v. Wilmington. Bd. of Adjustment, --- N.C. App. ---, 689 S.E.2d 576 (2010) (copy
attached hereto as Exhibit IT").
The subject property was unzoned in 2009, and there is no indication from the County's
Chief Zoning Enforcement Official to,NCDENR-DCM in 2009 that this was an error. The
County has not zoned the property since that time, and the County cannot simply place unzoned
property in a Zoning District without proper notice, Public Hearings before the Planning Board
and the County Commissioners, and a majority vote of the County Commissioners at a Public

Mr. Doug HuMett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -7-
Hearing. Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully contend that the County's objection in this
matter is without merit and that no special use permit is required from the County in this matter. t
Second, even if the property was somehow zoned to B-1 in January 2010—again, which
we dispute —the subject CAMA Major Permit modification application being considered by
NCDENR-DCM was submitted Rdor to the purported January 2010 change to the Zoning Map.
In response to ongoing suggestions and comments throughout this extensive review process, our
client and his contractor, Mr. Jim Hundley with Waterline Marine and Construction Consulting,
have been continuously providing NCDENR with updated information and plan revisions to the
pending application.
This pending application to add boat slips, which has been supplemented and modified, is
the same application that New Hanover County Chief Zoning Enforcement Official Hines
referenced in her aforementioned November 18, 2009 e-mail to Ms. Snider, in which Ms. Hines
noted her understanding that the clarification to NCDENR-DCM that the property is unzoned
"will free up Mr. Bailey's application to modify the Major CAMA Permit for additional boat
slips." (A. Hines 11/18/09 e-mail). The law in North Carolina is quite clear that a subsequently
enacted zoning ordinance provision or amendment does not affect a pending permit application.
Once an application is filed with the county or municipality, the application "must also
proceed under standards, rules, and regulations, uniformly applicable to all who apply for
permits." In re Application of Ellis, 277 N.C. 419, 425, 178 S.E.2d 77, 81 (1970) (emphasis
added). A county or municipal board "may not create new requirements not outlined in the
ordinance to deny the permit." Triple E Associates v. Town of Matthews, 105 N.C. App. 354,
359, 413 S.E.2d 305 (1992) (citing Woodhouse v. Board of Commissioners, 299 N.C. 211, 218-
19, 261 S.E.2d 882, 887 (1980)).
An applicant, moreover, is entitled to rely upon the language of the ordinance in effect at
the time that he or she applies for the permit. See Lambeth v. Town of Kure Beach, 157 N.C.
App. 349, 352, 578 S.E.2d 688, 690 (2003) (holding that the Town of Kure Beach wrongfully
denied a permit for proposed driveway expansion to provide easier wheelchair access for the
applicant's handicapped daughter). The Court of Appeals in Lambeth stated: "The amendment
to the ordinance further restricts petitioner's use of his property. Petitioner was entitled to rely
' In her May 13, 2011 letter, Ms. Daughtridge characterizes the proposed facility as a "commercial
marina" under the County's Ordinances. We contend that even if the subject property was properly
zoned B-1 (which we dispute), this characterization would be incorrect, as Bailey and Associates,
Inc. is not proposing to "provid[e] marine services, included but not limited to retail sales for fuel,
repair, convenient food stuffs, boats, engines, and accessory equipment." See NHC Zoning Ord. § 23
(Definitions) ("Commercial Marina").

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -8-
upon the language of the ordinance in effect at the time he applied for the permit." Id. at
352, 578 S.E.2d at 690 (emphasis added) (citing Northwestern Financial Group v. County of
Gaston, 329 N.C. 180, 405 S.E.2d 138 (1991); see Lambeth, 157 N.C. App. at 355, 578 S.E.2d at
692 ("We hold that petitioner is entitled to a permit to extend his driveway under the prior
ordinance.").
Similarly, in Northwestern Financial Group, supra, the Supreme Court considered
whether the plaintiff -developer which applied for a construction permit
under a county ordinance that prescribed the procedures for obtaining a
construction and operating permit of a mobile home park has a right to
have its application reviewed under the terms of the ordinance in effect at
the time the application for the permit was made.... [and] whether the
plaintiff -developer's subsequent submission of revised plans for such
mobile home park waived or abandoned any rights which might have
vested pursuant to the filing of the original application and the
consequences that result from such a determination.
329 N.C. at 181-82, 405 S.E.2d at 139. Recognizing that the applicant should not be prejudiced
for its.good faith efforts to comply with the recommendations and requests of the reviewing
agency by providing additional or supplemental information or revisions to the pending
application, the Supreme Court in Northwestern Financial Group stated:
The 1986 ordinance contemplates that the County through the Planning
Board and the reviewing agencies will tell the applicant what is needed to
correct its application. Good faith efforts to comply with the
recommendations of the reviewing agencies should not prejudice the
applicant. There was no evidence of bad faith on the part of
Northwestern in submitting revised plans or of an excessive delay in
attempting to comply with the 1986 ordinance. We therefore hold that
Northwestern did not waive or abandon its right to have its mobile home
park plan reviewed under the ordinance in effect at the time the plan was
submitted.
Id. at 190, 405 S.E.2d at 144; see also id at 189, 405 S.E.2d at 143 ("The revised plans were
essentially a part of the normal give and take between the applicant and the regulatory
authorities.").
Similarly, the Court of Appeals has more ' recently explained that the design and
construction of a land development project is specifically tailored to comply with the regulations
in effect at the time that the application for permits is submitted. See Woodlief v. Mecklenburg

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -9-
County, 176 N.C. App. 205, 212, 625 S.E.2d 904, 909 (2006) review dismissed, 360 N.C. 492,
632 S.E.2d 775 (2006). Specifically, the Court of Appeals in Woodlief stated:
Land development is somewhat analogous to litigation. Neither is a
snapshot, a freeze in time, but rather a process that occurs over time,
sometimes months and years. Once a claimant timely files a lawsuit, the
claimant tolls the statute of limitations for those claims. The claimant may
amend his pleadings, dismiss without prejudice and refile, or add parties
or claims to the original action. N.C. GEN. STAT. § IA -I, Rule 15(a)
(2003); N.C. GEN. STAT. § IA -I, Rule 41(a) (2003); N.C. GEN. STAT. §
IA-1, Rule 14(a) (2003); N.C. GEN. STAT. § IA -I, Rule 18(a) (2003).
Both land development and litigation hold the potential for multiple
sequences and paths. The outcome depends upon numerous dependent
and independent, but correlated, variables. The design and construction of
a project is specifically tailored to comply with the regulations in effect at
the time of application for permits. A request for further information
or clarification of an existing application by a reviewing agency or
board does not require the entire application and permitting process
to begin anew. To hold otherwise would allow compliance with
regulations and permitting to become a moving target to ever
changing revisions or amendments.
Woodlief, 176 N.C. App. at 212-13, 625 S.E.2d at 908-09 (emphasis added).
Also in 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling in Robins v. Town of
Hillsborough, 176 N.C. App. 1, 10, 625 S.E.2d 813, 819 (2006), modified by, affirmed in part
and vacated in part by, remanded by Robins v. Town of Hillsborough, 361 N.C. 193, 639 S.E.2d
421 (2007). Citing Lambeth, Northwest Financial Group and Woodlief, the Court of Appeals
held that "[t]he trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant because
plaintiff was entitled to rely upon the language of, and have his application considered under, the
zoning ordinance in effect at the time he applied for his permit." 176 N.C. App. at 7, 625 S.E.2d
at 817.
The Decision of the Supreme Court in Robins affirmed the holding in the Court of
Appeals that applications are to be reviewed upon the ordinances, rules or determinations in
effect when the application is filed. The Supreme Court stated in Robins:
We hold that when the applicable rules and ordinances are not followed by
a town board, the applicant is entitled to have his application reviewed
under the ordinances and procedural rules in effect as of the time he
filed his application. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to receive a
final determination from defendant regarding his application and to

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -10-
have it assessed under the ordinance in effect when the application
was Fled. We express no opinion as to whether the application should be
approved or denied on the merits, but merely that plaintiff is entitled to a
decision by defendant pursuant to the ordinance as it existed before
passage of the moratorium and the amendment.
Robins v. Town of Hillsborough, 361 N.C. 193, 199-200, 639 S.E.2d 421, 425 (2007) (emphasis
added) ("In this case we determine whether plaintiff, who applied to defendant for approval of
his site specific development plan, has a right to have his application reviewed under the zoning
ordinance in effect at that time. We conclude that he does ...."). Copies of the Woodlief and
Robins cases are attached hereto as Exhibits "G" and "H" for your reference.
In conclusion, it remains our position that the subject property is unzoned. However,
even if the subject property was somehow zoned to B-1 in January 2010 (which we dispute), this
later -enacted zoning amendment/map change cannot affect Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s pending
application. Providing supplemental revisions and information to NCDENR-DCM throughout
this review process should not be used to penalize Bailey and Associates, Inc., and such
cooperation and plan revisions by an applicant should in fact be welcomed and encouraged.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons and authority, the County's objection to
Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s CAMA Major Permit modification request is without merit.
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns or if you require any additional
information at this time. We would be glad to meet with you and any officials from New
Hanover County at your convenience to discuss this matter further.
With best regards, I remain
Very truly yours,
Matthew A. Nichols
MAN/cp
Enclosures
cc: Wanda J. Copley, Esq., New Hanover County Attorney
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Chris O'Keefe, AICP, Director, New Hanover County Planning & Inspections
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Jane Daughtridge, AICP, New Hanover County Current Planning & Zoning Manager
(via e-mail: [e-mail])

Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
May 20, 2011
Page -11-
Robb Mairs, NCDENR-DCM, Wilmington Regional District .
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Angela Faison, Associate Planner, City of Wilmington
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Jim Hundley, Waterline Marine Construction & Consulting
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Christopher W. Bailey, President, Bailey and Associates, Inc.
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Christine A. Goebel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice (via e-mail: [e-mail])

NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
E
TELEPHONE [phone]'
r
FAX [phone]
Chris O Keefe, AICP —
Director
Jane Daughtridge, AICP
Current Planning & Zoning
Manager
May 13, 2011
Dennis Bordeaux
Inspections Manager
Doug Huggett
NC-DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Shawn Ralston
Long Range Planning
Manager
RE: CAMA/Derdge & Fill Permit Application Review
201 Summer Rest Rd., Wilmington, NC
Expand existing commercial docking facility to 8 slips and excavate boat basin
Bailey & Associates
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced permit application. As
a result of prior annexations, landward jurisdiction in this area is under zoning authority of the
City of Wilmington while the water area falls under the zoning authority of New Hanover
County.
The county must object to the project at this time because the area is zoned B-1 Business
District on the official zoning map of New Hanover County, and according to our table of
permitted uses, a commercial marina in a B-1 district requires a special use permit. To date, no
application has been made for a special use permit for this proposal.
The applicant incorrectly indicated on your form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4) that the tract is
unzoned. I'm sure this response arose from a situation at the end of 2009 when a zoning map error
was discovered on our official zoning map. The official map failed to identify the zoning
designation for this area, even though our archival records indicated it had been zoned B-1 for
many years. Because our ordinance directs us to the `official' map for permitting purposes, there
existed a temporary loophole while the map was being corrected. The correction was made and
the map was signed in early January, 2010, therefore, the zoning is now official for permitting
purposes. Expansion of the development requires a special use permit from the county, and we
respectfully request that a CAMA permit not be issued for this proposal without local
review and approval of a special use permit.
If I can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 910-798-7440.

As always, we appreciate the information and cooperation afforded us from the Division
of Coastal Management.
Sincerely,
Jane Daughtridge, ATCP
Current Planning & Zoning Manager
New Hanover County
Cc: Rob Mairs, DCM-Wilmington Regional District
Angela Faison, City of Wilmington
Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Jim Hundley, Waterline Marine Construction & Consulting (via email)

From: Hines, Ann
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Snider, Holley
Cc: O'Keefe, Chris; Daughtridge, Jane; Still, Steve
Subject: Bailey and Associates, Inc.; 7225 Wrightsville Ave., Wilmington, NC Major CAMA Permit No. 84-
01
Holley:
At Mr. Bailey's request, I am writing to advise you that as of this date, Condition #5 of the
aforementioned permit (requiring recordation of a Declaration of Easement to satisfy New Hanover
County zoning requirements) is not needed for compliance with the County's zoning ordinance. At this
time, the official zoning map of the County signed and dated October 19, 2009, and displayed in the
offices of the Planning Department and Clerk to the County Commissioners shows the Bailey property
where this pier is located to be unzoned. It is my understanding that clearing up this question of County
zoning compliance will free up Mr. Bailey's application to modify the Major CAMA Permit for additional
boat slips.
Should you need further clarification, please let me know. You are also invited to call Chris O'Keefe,
Director of Planning & Inspections, and designated Zoning Administrator for the County. Mr. O'Keefe
can be reached at [phone].
Ann S. Hines, CZO, CFM
Chief Zoning Enforcement Official
New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Department
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

ARTICLE XI: AMENDMENTS
Section 110: Amending the Ordinance
(1/2/90)
110-1: For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare, the
County Commissioners may amend the text regulations and zoning map
according to the procedures in this article for certain types of zoning map
changes. Additional provisions in other Sections of the zoning Ordinance listed
below also apply:
(1) Planned Development District - See Section 53.5.
(2) Shopping Center District - See Section 58.
(3) Conditional Use District - See Section 59.7.
(4) Riverfront Mixed Use District — See Section 59.9
(5) Exceptional Design Zoning District — See Section 53.6
Section 111: Petition
(1/2/90)
111-1: Initiation of Amendments
Proposed amendments may be initiated by the County Commissioners, Planning
Board, Board of Adjustment, or by one (1) or more interested parties, except
that petitions to create a Planned Development, Shopping Center or Conditional
Use District shall be submitted only in the names of all the. owners of all the
included real property.
111-2: Petition Content
A petition for any amendment shall contain a description of the proposed zoning
regulation or district boundary to be applied.
111-2.1: Required community Information meeting before consideration
Before an application will be accepted as complete for a zoning amendment for
proposals involving Planned Development, Riverfront Mixed Use District, or
Conditional Use Zoning District, the petitioner must include a written report of at
least one (1) community information meeting held by the petitioner. The
community meeting shall be held prior to submission of the application for map
amendment. The primary purpose of the meeting is to explain the upcoming
proposal and field questions from people in the surrounding area.
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 222

At a minimum, written notice of such a meeting shall be given to the adjacent or
immediately affected property owners (usually considered to be property
owners or leaseholders within 100 feet of the subject property) and any
organizations entitled to notice based on a standing written request on file with
the Clerk to the Planning Board ("Sunshine Law"). The meeting should focus on
information exchange between an applicant and the specific invitees but should
be open to the general public as well.
The report shall include, among other things
(1) a listing of those persons and organizations contacted about the meeting
and the manner and date of contact;
(2) the date, time and location of the meeting;
(3) a roster of the persons in attendance at the meeting;
(4) a summary of issues discussed at the meeting; and
(S) a description of any changes or adjustments to the rezoning petition
made by the petitioner as a result of the community meeting.
In the event the petitioner has not held at least one (1) meeting pursuant to this
subsection, the petitioner shall file a report documenting efforts that were made
to arrange such a meeting and stating the reasons such a meeting was not held.
The adequacy of a meeting held or report filed pursuant to this section shall be
considered by the Planning Board in its decision and by the County
Commissioners, as appropriate but shall not be subject to judicial review. (9/07)
111-3: Submittal Procedure
(1) All necessary forms are available from the Planning Department. The
Department will upon request provide instructions, interpret applicable
requirements and discuss the compatibility of the proposed change with
such requirements. Such assistance shall not be construed as support for
the proposal.
(2) Since major factors in considering a petition for a zoning map change are
the impact of the proposed change on the value of adjoining parcels and
its compatibility with its surroundings, petitioners for such changes are
encouraged to consult with owners of adjoining parcels and other
potentially affected parties before submittal.
(3) Petitions must be received by the Planning Department not later than
twenty (20) working days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which
the application is to be considered.
(4) No petition shall be accepted within twelve (12) months from the date of
final action on the last previous rezoning petition for any portion of the
tract included in the present petition. If the last previous petition was
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 223

withdrawn after the public notice for its scheduled public hearing has
been delivered to the newspaper under the provisions of Section 112-
1(4), the twelve (12) month period shall be measured from the date of
such scheduled hearing.
(5) A rezoning petition withdrawn before the public notice of scheduled
public hearing before the Planning Board has been delivered to the
newspaper does not restrict the timing of later petitions in any way.
(6) All requests for continuances of proposals and petitions involving a
change of zoning shall be subject to the following policies:
(A) If an applicant requests that an item be delayed for consideration
on the Planning Board agenda, the request must be in writing to
the Planning Director and must include the reason(s) for the
requested delay. If the request is received
1. prior to notice being sent to the newspaper for
advertising, the Planning Director may remove it from
the agenda and calendar it for the next meeting. No
additional fee will be required. Only one administrative
continuance is allowed per permit application.
2. after notice has been sent to the newspaper, the item
will remain on the agenda and the planning board will
act on the request for continuance of the item at the
meeting. The board is under no obligation to grant a
continuance. If continued, a fee in accordance with the
adopted fee schedule will be charged and the item will
be rescheduled for the next upcoming meeting of the
board or some other date certain. If the applicant fails
to appear at the meeting or fails to pay the additional
fee by the publication deadline, the proposal will be
deemed withdrawn, and a new application process will
be required.
(B) If an applicant requests delay of consideration from the Board of
County Commissioners agenda, the request must be in writing to
the County Manager, copied to the Planning Director, and must
include the reason(s) for the request. If the request is received:
1. Prior to notice being sent to the newspaper for
publication, the Planning Director will remove the item
from the list of planning items being sent for the
Manager's agenda and calendar it for the next regular
night meeting. The Planning Director will immediately
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 224

cause correction of the signage posted noticing the
public hearing. A fee in accordance with the adopted
fee schedule will be paid to the NHC Planning
Department to offset the cost of fuel and staff time,to
correct the signage.
2. After notice has been sent to the newspaper, the item
will remain on the agenda and the Commissioners will
act on the request for continuance of the item at the
advertised meeting. The Commissioners are under no
obligation to grant a continuance and may choose to
hear the item and act on it. If continued, a fee in
accordance with the adopted fee schedule will be paid
and the item will be rescheduled for the next regular
hearing meeting or some other date certain. If the
applicant fails to appear at the meeting or fails to pay
the additional fee by the publication deadline, the
proposal will be deemed withdrawn, and a new
application process will be required. (9/07)
111-4: Fees
A fee to be established by the County Commissioners shall be paid to the County
of New Hanover, North Carolina, to cover necessary administrative and
advertising costs.
Section 112: Approval Process
(1/2/90)
112.1:
(1) Whenever a zoning classification change or Special Use Permit is proposed,
the Planning Department shall notify all owners of the subject tract and all
owners of all adjoining parcels of the proposed classification change or
Special Use Permit by first class mail at the last address listed for such owner
on the County tax abstracts. The person mailing such notices shall certify to
the County Commissioners of that fact. Notices shall be mailed no later than
ten (10) days prior to the first scheduled public hearing for the petition or
application and shall contain adequate information to notify such owners of
the specific request of the petitioner/applicants as well as the time, date,
and location of the public hearing.
(2) Failure of any addressee to receive notification shall not in any way
invalidate or affect subsequent action on the petition or application unless
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 225

due to failure to follow the above notification requirements, in which case
the County Commissioners shall determine the appropriate remedy.
_(3) No later than ten (10) days prior to each. scheduled public hearing, the.
Planning department shall post a clearly legible sign or signs on the property
and/or its approaches to indicate the time, date, and place of the hearing
and how additional information may be obtained. Sign location or locations
shall be selected to insure visibility to neighboring residents and passersby.
(4) In each of the two (2) calendar weeks preceding the County Commissioners'
public hearing, the Planning Department shall publish in the local
newspapers a Notice of Public Hearing indicating the time, date, and place
of the hearing and giving a brief description of the rezoning and Special Use
Permit proposals on the agenda.
112-2: Planning Department Review
(1) The Planning Department shall review each proposed zoning amendment
and advise the petitioners on modifications needed to satisfy applicable
requirements. Such advice shall not be construed as support for the
proposal. Where appropriate, the petitioners may be encouraged to consult
the owners of adjoining parcels and other affected parties.
(2) The Planning Department shall make recommendations to the Planning
Board as to the adequacy of each petition. These recommendations shall
include any further modifications which, in the opinion of the Department,
are needed to satisfy applicable requirements.
112-3: Planning Board Consideration
(1) The Planning Board shall consider each proposed zoning amendment at a
regularly scheduled public hearing advertised as described in Section 112-
1 above and held in accordance with its Rules of Procedure then in effect,
and make recommendations to the County Commissioners.
(2) In lieu of separate consideration, the Planning Board may review a
proposed amendment in a joint meeting with the County Commissioners
at a public hearing held in conformity with the requirements of this
Section.
(3) A recommendation for denial ends consideration of the proposed zoning
amendment unless the recommendation is appealed. A recommendation
for approval is automatically forwarded to the County Commissioners for
action. If there is no recommendation within 30 days of the public
hearing, the petitioners may elect to have their petition or application
forwarded to the County Commissioners for action without a Planning
Board recommendation.
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 226

(4) If a Conditional Use District proposal is being considered, special
procedural provisions listed in Section 59.7 apply.
(5) The Planning Board shall advise and comment on whether the proposed
amendment is consistent with the County's Policies for. Growth and
Development and any other adopted plans that may be applicable.
(2/6/06)
112-4: Appeal of Planning Board Recommendations
Petitions that receive an unfavorable or adverse recommendation may be
appealed to the County Commissioners by filing a signed letter identifying the
petition they wish to appeal with the Clerk to the Board not later than the tenth
day following the public hearing at which the adverse decision was made. All
such appeals shall be heard at a public hearing scheduled by the County
Commissioners.
112-5: Action by the County Commissioners
(1) The County Commissioners shall consider the Planning Board's
recommendation for each proposed zoning amendment, unless the
Planning Board recommends denial and the petition is not appealed at a
regularly scheduled public hearing, advertised as described in Section
112-1 above and held in accordance with its rules of procedure then in
effect. No amendment shall be adopted by the County Commissioners
until after public notice and hearing. Prior to adopting or rejecting any
zoning amendment, the Commissioners shall adopt a statement
describing whether its action is consistent with the County's Policies for
Growth and Development and explaining why the Commissioners
consider the action taken as reasonable and in the public interest.
(2/6/06)
(2) The Planning Department shall provide the Commissioners with copies of
the petition as voted upon by the Planning Board and the Planning
Board's specific factual findings and analysis leading to its
recommendation prior to the public hearing.
(3) The Planning Board Chairman, or his designee, shall review the proposed
zoning amendment, the Board's recommendation and the factual
findings, and analysis leading to the recommendation at the hearing.
(4) If a Conditional Use District proposal is being considered, special
procedural provisions listed in Section 59.7 apply.
(5) A cause of action as to the validity of this Zoning Ordinance, or
amendment thereto, adopted by the County Commissioners shall accrue
upon adoption of the Ordinance or amendment thereto, and shall be
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 227

brought within two months as provided in General Statutes 1-54.1 as
amended. (9/02/97)
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 228

Section 30: Provision for Official Zoning Map
30-1: Official Zoning Map
The planning jurisdiction of the unincorporated County of New Hanover is
hereby divided into zones, or districts as shown on the official zoning map which,
together with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference
and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The official zoning map, as approved
in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article XI of this ordinance, shall
be identified by the signature of the Chairman of the County Commissioners
attested by the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, and bearing the
seal of the County. The most current official map shall be located in the Planning
Department, and an exact copy shall be available in the office of the County
Commissioners (5/4/09). The official zoning map shall be the final authority as to
the current zoning status of land and water areas, buildings, and other structures
in the County.
30-2: Maintenance and Replacement of official Zoning Mop
The official zoning map shall be maintained and periodically updated by the
Planning Commission. Updates will be produced in conjunction with
amendments to the zoning districts when approved in accordance with
procedures set forth in Article XIof this ordinance, or to correct documented
errors or omissions. All available records pertaining to its adoption or
amendment shall be preserved in the county's archives. The Planning Director
shall assure protection and preservation of the records necessary to replace the
official zoning map in the event of disasters (5/4/09).
Section 31: Rules for Interpretation of District Boundaries
31-1: Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of districts as shown on
the official zoning map, the following rules shall apply:
(1) Boundaries indicated as approximately following the center lines of
streets or highways, shall be construed to follow such center lines;
(2) Boundaries indicated as approximately following the right-of-way of
streets or highways, shall be construed to follow such rights -of -way.
(3) Boundaries indicated as approximately following the platted lot lines shall
be construed as following such lot lines;
(4) Boundaries indicated as approximately following County boundary shall
be construed as following such County boundary.
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 25

(5) Boundaries indicated as approximately following town limits shall be
construed as following such town limits;
(6) Boundaries indicated as following railroad lines shall be construed to be
midway between the main tracks;
(7) Boundaries indicated as following shorelines shall be construed to follow such
shorelines, and in the event of change in the shoreline shall be construed as
moving with the actual shoreline; boundaries indicated as approximately
following the center lines of streams, rivers, canals, lakes, or other bodies of
water shall be construed to follow such center lines;
(8) Where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance
with those shown on the official zoning map, or in other circumstances
not covered by sub -sections one (1) through seven (7) above, the Board
of Adjustment shall interpret the district boundaries.
Section 32: Application of District Regulations
32-1: The regulations set by this ordinance within each district shall be minimum
regulations and shall apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure or land,
except as hereinafter provided.
(1) No building, structure, or land shall hereafter be used or occupied, and
no building or structure or part thereof shall hereafter be erected,
constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except in
conformity with all of the regulations herein specified for the district in
which it is located.
(2) No building or other structure shall hereafter be erected or altered:
(3) to exceed height or bulk;
(4) to accommodate or house a greater number of families;
(5) to occupy a greater percentage of lot area;
(6) to have narrower or smaller rear yards, front yards, side yards, or other
open spaces than herein required, or in any other manner be contrary to
the provisions of this ordinance.
(7) No part of a yard, or other open space required about or in connection
with any building for purpose of complying with this ordinance, shall be
included as part of a yard, or open space similarly required for any other
building.
(8) No yard or lot existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be
reduced in dimension or area below the minimum requirements set forth
herein. Yards or lots created after the effective date of this ordinance
shall meet at least the minimum requirements established by this
ordinance.
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Page 26

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
�"x"EXHIBIT
G
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE -,
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 08 CVS 817
BAILEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC., a
)
North Carolina Corporation,
Petitioner,
)
-vs-
)
THE WILMINGTON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
)
and THE CITY OF WILMINGTON
)
Respondents.
)
JOHN BLACKWELL and wife, ELIZA
)
BLACKWELL; VICTOR BYRD and wife,
)
CAROLYN BYRD; VISHAK DAS and wife,
)
TRACY DAS; BILL DOBO and wife, BARBIE
)
DOBO; BOB DOBO and wife, JEAN DOBO;
)
BARBIE DOBO; BUTCH DOBO and wife,
)
SHELLY DOBO; PATRICK EDWARDS and
)
wife, KIM EDWARDS; MATT EPSTEIN and
)
NINA BROWN; EARL GALLEHER and wife,
)
LAUREN GALLEHER; BARBARA GUARD
)
and husband, RON GUARD; GLENDA FLYNN;
)
JANE HARDWICK; L.T. HINES and wife,
)
JOY HINES; WRIGHT HOLMAN and SUSAN
)
KEYES; JIM LONG and wife, BESS LONG;
)
ANN McCRARY; KENYATA McCRARY and
)
wife, GRACE McCRARY; PEM NASH and
)
wife, GRETCHEN NASH; DONNA NOLAND;
)
PAT PATTERSON and wife, MARY PATTERSON;
)
DREW PIERSON and wife, KNOX PIERSON;
)
DAVID POWELL and wife, JANICE POWELL;
)
ALLEN RIGGAN and wife, PAM RIGGAN;
)
NANCY ROSE; ROLF SASS and wife, JANIS
)
SASS; BEN SPRADLEY and wife, SANDEE
)
SPRADLEY; CHARLES S WEENY and wife,
)
JUNE SWEENY; SUSAN SWINSON; GEORGE
)
TURNER and wife, SUE TURNER; JOYCE
)
ZIMMERMAN; NOAH ZIMMERMAN and wife,
)
KATHRYN ZIMMERMAN; ROBERT SMITH
)
and wife, MARY SMITH.
)
Intervenor -Respondents.
)
al< G7�.d
tiLti^I i ,- �--`:• `ma's'% �..;�!;t l
ORDER REVERSING
WILMINGTON BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard and being heard before the undersigned Judge
presiding at the May 5, 2008 Non -Jury Civil Session of New Hanover County Superior Court
upon (1) Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s (the "Petitioner") Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed
February 22, 2008 (the "Petition") appealing a January 29, 2008 Order of the Wilmington Board
of Adjustment (City File No. BACEO-03-0907), and (2) Proposed Intervenor -Respondents'
Motion to Intervene filed by Intervenor -Respondents on April 24, 2008; and the Petitioner being
represented by its attorneys, Kenneth A. Shanklin and Matthew A. Nichols of the New Hanover
County Bar; and Respondents being represented by Assistant City Attorney R. Lynn Coleman; and
the Intervenor -Respondents being represented by their attorney, G. Grady Richardson, Jr. of the
New Hanover County Bar;
AND THE COURT having reviewed the file in this matter, including the pleadings, the
( administrative record on appeal filed with the Court by the Respondents pursuant to the Writ of
Certiorari, and the briefs and memoranda of law submitted by counsel; and having heard oral
arguments from counsel determines that:
Analysis of the Administrative Record and
Conclusions of Law
1. This is an appeal by Petitioner in the nature of certiorari, pursuant to the
provisions of N.C. GEN. STA'r. § 160A-388(e2) and Section 18-30 of the City's Land
Development Code ("LDC"), to review the January 29, 2008 Order of the Respondent
Wilmington Board of Adjustment ("BOA" or "Board") regarding whether Petitioner's property
located at 201 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, North Carolina, is located in the City's
Conservation Overlay District ("COD") and subject to the COD setback.
2. The Board found that "[t]he Subject Property is 4.5 acres zoned 0&I-1 with a
property address of 201 Summer Rest Road." (1/29/08 BOA Order, Finding of Fact No. 4)
-2-

3. The Board found that "[t]he applicant [i.e., the Petitioner] and various planning
r
staff members, including Kaye Graybeal, who was at that time Planning Manager and had been
the Project Manager for the site when a prior site plan had been submitted, met on February 8,
2005 in an informal concept meeting to review several matters related to the site and
development thereof" (1/29/08 BOA Order, Finding of Fact No. 5.)
4. The Board found that "[w]hilc Senior Environmental Planner Philip Prete was not
in the concept meeting, he was consulted separately by Kaye Graybeal and together they viewed
the property on what the City was using as the Conservation Overlay map identified as Map
#3157." (1/29/08 BOA Order, Finding of Fact No. 6.)
5. A portion of the Subject Property was labeled on Map #3157 as WTW which is
the coding for tidal waters, as found by the Board. (1/29/08 BOA Order, Finding of Fact No. 8.)
6. The Board found that "[t]idal waters are not regulated as conservation resources
within the Conservation Overlay District by Section 18-215 of the Wilmington City Code."
(1/29/08 BOA Order, Finding of Fact No. 9.)
7. As found by the Board, "Kaye Graybeal authored an email on February 8, 2005
advising the applicant [Petitioner] `[tjo confirm our findings during preliminary review today of
the site located at 7225 Wrightsville Ave. (former Babies Hospital site) [the Subject Property],
staff concludes the following: [n]o portion of the site is located within a conservation overlay
district and is therefore not subject to the COD setback' and further observing when the same
email was forwarded to Frank Smith, architect for the applicant on February 10, 2005 that `the
COD maps on file in the Planning Division indicate the adjacent water body designated as WTW
which is not listed as a protected resource in the ordinance". (1/29/08 BOA Order, Finding of
Fact No. 10).
-3-

8. The specific site plan under review was filed with the planning staff on
October 18, 2006 and reviewed at the Technical Review Committee meeting on October 23,
2006. (1/29/08 BOA Order, Finding of Fact No. 11.)
9. As a consequence of the TRC meeting on October 23, 2006, Petitioner requested a
written determination of the position taken by the City that the Subject Property is within the
COD and subject to COD setbacks, and such a determination was provided via a letter written by
-- City of Wilmington Senior Environmental Planner Philip Prete transmitted via email to
Petitioner's attorney on August 7, 2007.
10. Petitioner timely appealed Senior Environmental Planner Prete's August 7, 2007
determination letter to the BOA the next day —August 8, 2007.
11. The BOA held a public hearing on Petitioner's appeal on October 18, 2007. The
BOA issued its Order in this matter on January 29, 2008 (Admin. Record, Ex. 14), which Order
Petitioner timely appealed to the New Hanover County Superior Court in the instant certiorari
proceeding.
12. Intervenor -Respondents filed their Proposed Intervenor -Respondents' Motion to
Intervene on April 24, 2008.
13. The Proposed Intervenor -Respondents' Motion to Intervene is granted. The
proposed intervenor -respondents were properly made parties to this proceeding at the time of
Hearing before this Court and are properly shown as Intervenor -Respondents in the above case
caption to this Order. Further, the Court allowed Intervenor -Respondents' counsel to submit
memoranda to the Court and participate in oral arguments before the Court, and the Court
considered such memoranda and arguments in ruling upon this matter.
14. The Court, sitting as an appellate court, reviewed issues of law raised by the
l
Petitioner de nova and determined that the Board of Adjustment committed an error of law when
61

it concluded that the Subject Property, at 201 Summer Rest Road, was located within the COD
and subject to Conservation Overlay District setbacks as determined by Senior Environmental
Planner Phillip Prete.
15. The City's COD ordinance is set forth in Section 18-215 of the City's LDC. The
applicability of the COD is set forth in subsection (b) of that ordinance, which provides in
relevant part as follows:
(b) Applicability. The development and improvement of property,
including the subdivision of land, shall be subject to these performance
controls if the parcel of record is located wholly or partially within a COD
and if conservation resources are associated with the parcel on record as of
February 2, 1999, the effective date of this section.... [applicability
exemptions omitted].
16. The applicability of the COD ordinance is a two -prong test, and both prongs must
be met. First, the parcel of record must be "located wholly or partially within a COD[.]" LDC
§ 18-215(b). Second, there must be "conservation resources ... associated with the parcel on
record as of February 2, 1999[.]" LDC § 18-215(b).
17. Section 18-81 l(f) of Article 15 (entitled "Definitions") of the City's LDC states:
The word "map" or "zoning map" shall mean the official zoning map of
the City of Wilmington, North Carolina.
18. Section 18-Section 18-8110)(1)-(3) of Article 15 (entitled "Definitions") of the
City's LDC states:
Where a regulation involves two (2) or more items, conditions, provisions
or events connected by the conjunction "and", "or" or, "and/or", the
conjunction shall be interpreted as follows:
(1) And indicates that all the connected items, conditions,
provisions or events shall apply.
(2) Or indicates that the connected items, conditions,
provisions or events shall apply.
-5-

(3) And/or indicates that the connected items, conditions,
provisions or events may apply singly or in combination as is appropriate.
19. The Board's applicability of the COD ordinance provisions to the Subject
Property must fail as a matter of law under the first prong of the test set forth in LDC § 18-
215(b), as there are no official maps of the City of Wilmington showing that the Subject Property
"is located wholly or partially within a COD."
20. The COD ordinance provision (Section 18-215) appears in Division III ("Overlay
Districts") of Article 5 ("Zoning District Regulations") in Chapter 18 ("Land Development
Code" or "LDC") of the City's Code of Ordinances.
21. Part 3 ("Zoning") of Article 19 ("Planning and Regulation of Development") of
Chapter 160A ("Cities and Towns") of the North Carolina General Statutes authorizes cities to
adopt zoning ordinances to "regulate and restrict the height, number of stories and size of
( buildings and other structures, the percentage of lots that may be occupied, the size of yards,
courts and other open spaces, the density of population, the location and use of buildings,
structures and land." N.C. GEN. STAT. § 160A-381(a). Section 160A-382 of the General Statutes
provides that a city may divide its territorial jurisdiction into any number of zoning districts,
including overlay districts:
(a) For any or all these purposes, the city may divide its territorial
jurisdiction into districts of any number, shape, and area that may be
deemed best suited to carry out the purposes of this Part; and within those
districts it may regulate and restrict, the erection, construction,
reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings, structures, or land.
Such districts may include, but shall not be limited to, general use districts,
in which a variety of uses are permissible in accordance with general
standards; overlay districts, in which additional requirements are imposed
on certain properties within one or more underlying general or special use
districts; and special use districts or conditional use districts, in which uses
are permitted only upon the issuance of a special use permit or a
( conditional use permit and conditional zoning districts, in which site plans
and individualized development conditions are imposed.
El

! N.C. GEN. STAT. § 160A-382(a).
22. Section 160A-384(a) of the General Statutes provides in relevant part that "[tjhe
city council shall provide for the manner in which zoning regulations and restrictions and the "
boundaries of zoning districts shall be determined, established and enforced, and from time to
time amended, supplemented or changed, in accordance with the provisions of this Article."
23. The City of Wilmington has adopted LDC § 18-165, which provides that the
boundaries of the zoning districts established in the LDC are shown on the series of official City
zoning maps:
Section 18-165. Official zoning map.
(a) The boundaries of the zoning districts established herein are shown
on the series of maps entitled "Official Zoning Map, City of Wilmington,
North Carolina," dated November,. 1983, which are hereby adopted by
reference, together with all explanatory notations thereon, and made a part
( of this chapter.
(b) The official zoning maps and ordinance shall be properly attested
and copies shall be on file in the offices of the city clerk, the secretary to
the planning commission, and the city engineer. Regardless of the
existence of any purported copy of the official zoning maps, the zoning
maps located in the office of the secretary to the planning commission
shall be the final authority.
(c) If, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, changes are
made in district boundaries or other references on the official zoning maps,
such changes shall be entered on the official zoning maps within seven (7)
working days after the amendment has been approved by the City Council.
No changes of any nature shall be made on an official zoning map except
in conformity with the procedures set forth in Article 3, Division VI of this
chapter. Any unauthorized change of whatever kind by any person shall
be considered a violation of this chapter.
24. In February 2005, when Planning Manager Graybeal sent the above -referenced
email communications to Petitioner's architect, there was no official zoning map in the City of
Wilmington showing the Subject Property being "located wholly or partially within a COD."
-7-

This was Planning Director (formerly Planning Manager) Graybeal's testimony at the BOA
Hearing. (See 10/18/07 BOA Transcript at 73-76). Furthermore, as of the date of the October
18, 2007 BOA Hearing, there was no official zoning map in the City of Wilmington showing the
Subject Property being "located wholly or partially within a COD." (See 10/18/07 BOA
Transcript at 75-76).
25. There is no finding or conclusion by the BOA, nor any evidence in the Record to
support such a finding or conclusion, that the Subject Property "is located wholly or partially
within a COD." The City introduced no maps, official or otherwise, showing that the Subject
Property "is located wholly or partially within a COD." The City's Official Zoning Map does not
show that the Subject Property is located wholly or partially within a COD. Furthermore, the
City's Official Zoning Map has not been amended to show that the Subject Property is located
wholly .or partially within a COD. Such an action to amend the City's Official Zoning Map
would require proper notice to the Petitioner, Public Hearings before the Wilmington Planning
Commission and the Wilmington City Council and approval by City Council under Chapter
160A of the General Statutes, none of which has occurred.
26. The first prong of LDC § 18-215(b) has not been met, and therefore the Subject
Property is not subject to the COD ordinance.
27. Map #3157, which was relied upon by Planning Manager Graybeal and Senior
Environmental Planner Prete, goes to the second prong of LDC § 18-215(b)—i.e., whether there
are conservation resources associated with the parcel.
28. Map #3157 is not the Official Zoning Map of the City of Wilmington and does
not determine whether a parcel is located wholly or partially within a COD (first prong of LDC
§ 18-215(b)) , which designation can only be made on the City's Official Zoning Map.
l
5.1

29. - The Board's decision to uphold Senior Environmental Planner Phillip Prete's
determination that the COD ordinance applies to the Subject Property is contrary to the City's
Ordinances, Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Official City Zoning Map
and Map 43157. The Board's decision and Senior Environmental Planner Phillip Prete's
determination in this matter should be reversed.
30. By reason of the foregoing, Conclusions of Law No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 in the Board's
Order are erroneous as a matter of law.
31. By reason of the foregoing, Conclusions of Law Nos. 7 and 8 in the Board's Order
are moot as the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable for the reasons that the Subject Property is
not located in the City's Conservation Overlay District.
32. Intervenor -Respondents' motion for relief and/or motion to remand this matter to
the -Board of Adjustment based upon Rule 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure
and/or judicial estoppel are denied.
denied.
33. Intervenor -Respondents' motion to dismiss Petitioner's appeal as untimely is
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
WHEREFORE based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed as
follows:
1. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and this certiorari appeal;
2. The Proposed Intervenor -Respondents' Motion to Intervene filed on April 24,
2008, is ALLOWED, and the proposed Intervenor -Respondents are properly made Intervenor -
Respondents in this matter as reflected in the above case caption;
0

i`
3. Intervenor -Respondents' motion for relief and/or motion to remand this matter to
the Board of Adjustment based upon Rule 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure
and/or judicial estoppel are DENIED;
4. Intervenor -Respondents' motion to dismiss Petitioner's appeal as untimely is
DENIED;
5. The January 29, 2008 Decision of the Board denying Petitioner's appeal of the
Decision of Senior Environmental Planner Phillip Prete that the Subject Property is subject to the
City's COD ordinance (City File No. BACEO-03-0907) is REVERSED;
6. This matter (City File No. BACEO-03-0907) is hereby REMANDED to the Board
for entry of an Order reversing Senior Environmental Planner Prete's August 7, 2007
determination letter consistent with this Court's Order; and
7. The costs of this matter are hereby taxed against the Respondents.
SO ORDERED.
This the 2Z day of 2008.
VHONORABLE,JOHN E. LES, JR.
IOR COURJUDGE P_ IDING
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
-10-

r
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing and attached ORDER
REVERSING WILNUNGTON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT was this date served by First
Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following persons at the following addresses:
Marilyn Canterella, Chairperson
Wilmington Board of Adjustment
C/o City Development Services
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
Ron Satterfield, Planning Manager
City of Wilmington
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
R. Lynn Coleman, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
City of Wilmington
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Esq.
Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr.
1213 Culbreth Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Robert A. O'Quinn, Esq.
530 Causeway Drive
Wrightsle Bea , NC 28n °^
This the' r! day of
SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner
214 Market Street
P. 0. Box 1347
Wilmington, NC 28402-1347
Telephone: [phone]
Telefax: [phone]
-11-

LexisNexis�
BAILEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Petitioner, v. WILMINGTON
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and CITY OF WILMINGTON, Respon-
dents, and JOHN BLACKWELL and wife, ELIZA BLACKWELL;
VICTOR BYRD and wife, CAROLYN BYRD; VISHAK DAS and
wife, TRACY DAS; BILL DODO and wife, BARBIE DODO; BOB
DOBO and wife, JEAN DODO; BARBIE DOBO; BUTCH DOBO and
wife, SHELLY DOBO; PATRICI{ EDWARDS and wife, KIM ED-
WARDS; MATT EPSTEIN and NINA BROWN; EARL GALLEHER
and wife, LAUREN GALLEHE,R; BARBARA GUARD and husband,
RON GUARD; GLENDA FLYNN; JANE HARDWICK; L.T. HINES
and wife, JOY HINES; WRIGHT HOLMAN and SUSAN KEYES;
JIM LONG and wife, BE SS LONG; ANN McCRARY; KENYATA
McCRARY and wife, GRACE McCRARY; PEM NASH and wife,
GRETCHEN NASH; DONNA NOLAND; PAT PATTERSON and
wife, MARY PATTERSON; DREW PIERSON and wife, KNOX
PIERS.ON; DAVID POWELL and wife, JANICE POWELL; ALLEN
RIGGAN and wife, PAM RIGGAN; NANCY ROSE; ROLF SASS. and
wife, JANIS SASS; BEN SPRADLEY and wife, SANDEE SPRAD-
LEY; CHARLES SWEENY and wife, JUNE SWEENY; SUSAN
SWINSON; GEORGE TURNER and wife, SUE TURNER; JOYCE
ZIMMERMAN; NOAH ZIMMERMAN and wife, KATHRYN ZIM-
MERMAN; ROBERT SMITH and wife, MARY SMITH, Intervenor -
Respondents.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
689 S.E.2d 576; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191
June 10, 2009, Heard in the Court of Appeals
February 2, 2010, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [**11
New Hanover County. No. 08 CVS 817
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
Page 1
COUNSEL: Shanklin & Nichols, LLP, by
Matthew A. Nichols and Kenneth A. Shanklin,
for Petitioner -Appellant and Appellee.
Law Office of G: Grady Richardson, Jr., P.C.,
by G. Grady Richardson, Jr., for Intervenor -
Appellants and Appellees.

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS191, **
JUDGES: ERVIN, Judge. Judges MCGEE and
JACKSON concur.
OPINION BY: ERVIN
OPINION
[*579] Appeals by Intervenor -
Respondents and Petitioner from order entered
26 July 2008 by Judge John E. Nobles, Jr., in
New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 10 June 2009.
ERVIN, Judge.
Bailey and Associates, Inc., (Petitioner)
owns a 4.5 acre tract of property located at 201
Summer Rest Road in Wilmington, North
Carolina, which is locally know as the "old Ba-
bies Hospital" (the Property). Intervenor -
Respondents (Intervenors) own property that is
located contiguous to or near the Property. In-
tervenors appeal from an order entered 26 July
2008 (1) allowing their motion to intervene, (2)
denying their motion pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat. § IA-1, Rule 60, to remand this matter to
the Board of Adjustment of the City of Wil-
mington (Board of Adjustment) and declining
to hold that Petitioner was judicially estopped
from challenging the Board of Adjustment's
decision, [**2] (3) denying their motion to
dismiss Petitioner's appeal as untimely, (4) re-
versing the 29 January 2008 decision of the
Board of Adjustment denying Petitioner's ap-
peal from the 7 August 2007 determination of
Senior Environmental Planner Phillip Prete
(Planner Prete) specifying that the Property was
subject [*580] to the City of Wilmington's
(City) Conservation Overlay District "perform-
ance controls," and (5) remanding the matter to
the Board of Adjustment for the entry of an or-
der reversing Planner Prete's 7 August 2007
determination that the Property was subject to
the City's Conservation Overlay District "per-
formance controls." Petitioner cross -appealed
on the sole issue of whether the trial court erred
by allowing Intervenors' motion to intervene on
Page 2
the grounds that Intervenors lack standing to
intervene because they are not "aggrieved" per-
sons pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-
388(e2). After careful consideration of the re-
cord in light of the applicable law, we affirm
the trial court's order.
I. Factual Background
Motts Creek, a saltwater marsh and stream,
is located immediately before the bridge that
crosses the Intracoastal Waterway and provides
access to the Town of Wrightsville Beach.
[*'%3] The Property adjoins Motts Creek. Prior
to 24 March 2009, Section § 18-215 of the
City's Land Development Code ' designated
certain areas as Conservation Overlay Districts
in order "to protect important environmental
and cultural resources within the City[.]" The
City deemed such protection necessary "to
maintain the City's diverse and ecologically
important natural systems; .to preserve the
City's estuarine systems important for fin fish-
ing and shell fishing; to provide open space;
and to retain the City's archaeological and his-
torical heritages." The development rules appli-
cable to property located in or "associated
with" Conservation Overlay Districts as of 2
February 1999 included stringent building set-
backs, buffers, stormwater runoff controls, and
other limitations on land use within protected
areas. Intervenors argued before the Board of
Adjustment that Motts Creek was located in a
Conservation Overlay District, making the
Property subject to these "performance con-
trols." Petitioner, on the other hand, denied that
Motts Creek was in a Conservation Overlay
District.
1 As will be discussed in more detail
below, the City repealed Conservation
Overlay District § 18-215 and amended
[**41 the Land Development Code by
adding "Division III Conservation Re-
source Regulations" on 24 March 2009.

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
In 2005, Petitioner began working on "The
Sidbury," a development to be located on the
Property. On 8 February 2005, Petitioner and
various City planning staff members, including
Kaye Graybeal (Graybeal), who then served as
the Planning Manager, convened a "concept
meeting" to review matters related to the pro-
posed development. Although Planner Prete did
not attend the 8 February 2005 "concept meet-
ing," Ms. Graybeal consulted him after the
meeting.
At that time, Ms. Graybeal and Planner
Prete reviewed the Property using a Conserva-
tion Overlay Map and determined that Molts
Creek was classified as "tidal waters," which
,.are not regulated as conservation resources by
Section 18-215 of the Wilmington City Code,"
on that map. Ms. Graybeal e-mailed Petitioner
on 8 February 2005, with a copy to Planner
Prete, stating that "[n]o portion of the site is
located within a conservation overlay district
and is therefore not subject to the COD set-
back." Ms. Graybeal forwarded the email to
Frank Smith (Smith), Petitioner's architect,
with the additional indication that "the COD
maps on file in the [**5] Planning Division
indicate the adjacent water body designated as
WTW 2 which is not listed as a protected re-
source in the ordinance."
2 WTW represented the Conservation
Overlay District code for tidal waters.
After receiving this information, Petitioner
continued to plan for the development of the
Property. The City's Technical Review Com-
mittee (TRC) reviewed Petitioner's plans on 23
October 2006. After Petitioner requested con-
firmation of this determination in writing,
Planner Prete e-mailed Petitioner on 7 August
2007 stating that the TRC had determined that
the Property "is within the COD and subject to
COD setbacks." In essence, the TRC deter-
mined that Molts Creek "is brackish tidal
marsh" and "subject to the City COD con-
trols[,]" which meant that all structures on the
Page 3
Property were "required to be setback 100 feet
from the edge of the resource for non-
residential development [*581] or 75 feet for
residential development" and that "[a] vege-
tated buffer zone of 35 feet from the edge of
the resource" would be necessary. Petitioner
appealed this determination to the Board of Ad-
justment on 8 August 2007.
The Board of Adjustment heard Petitioner's
appeal at a public hearing held on 18 October
[**6] 2007. On 29 January 2008, the Board of
Adjustment issued an order affirming the de-
termination made by Planner Prete and the
TRC. Petitioner sought review of the Board of
Adjustment's order in the New Hanover County
Superior Court by filing a petition for writ of
certiorari on 17 April 2008. Judge Allen W.
Cobb issued the requested writ of certiorari on
17 April 2008 in order to allow consideration
of Petitioner's contentions on the merits.
On 24 April 2008, Intervenors filed their
proposed motion to intervene and a response to
Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari,
which contended, among other things, that Peti-
tioner's "appeal is time -barred." On 26 July
2008, the trial court entered an order allowing
Intervenors' motion to intervene; denying In-
tervenors' motion for relief pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § ]A-1, Rule 60, or the doctrine of
judicial estoppel; denying Intervenors' motion
to dismiss Petitioner's appeal as untimely; re-
versing the 29 January 2008 order of the Board
of Adjustment affirming the determination of
Planner Prete and the TRC; and remanding the
Board of Adjustment's 29 January 2008 order
"for entry of an Order reversing ... Planner
Prete's ... determination [**7] letter." From
this order, both Petitioner and Intervenors ap-
peal.
II. Motion to Dismiss
Before we address Intervenors' and Peti-
tioner's substantive arguments on appeal, we
must address Petitioner's motion to dismiss In-

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
tervenors' appeal on mootness grounds. We
conclude that Intervenors' appeal is not moot.
On 24 March 2009, the City of Wilmington
repealed foritier Section 18-215 and enacted a
new ordinances entitled "Division III Conserva-
tion Resource Regulations" (Conservation Re-
source Regulations). The new ordinance in-
cludes the following "Savings provision:"
(f) Savings provision. The Con-
servation Resource Regulations in
this Division shall not affect any
pending litigation or appeals in-
volving the City's former Conser-
vation Overlay District regulations
(prior LDC Section 18-215 et
seq.). The Conservation Resource
Regulations shall not apply to any
site plan application accepted by
the City at the time of the adoption
of this Division; provided, how-
ever, the applicant submits all
documentation required for ap-
proval within two (2) years of the
date of the completion of any
pending litigation or the date of the
site plan acceptance, whichever is
the later date.
Wilmington, NC, Division III [**8] Conserva-
tion Resource Regulations (24 March 2009).
Petitioner contends in its dismissal motion that
the repeal of former Section 18-215 and its re-
placement with Section 18-341 moots Interve-
nors' appeal.
"Jurisdiction in North Carolina depends on
the existence of a justiciable case or contro-
versy." Creek Pointe Homeowner's Assn v.
Happ, 146 N.C. App. 159, 164, 552 S.E.2d 220,
225 (2001), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 161,
568 S.E.2d 191 (2002) (quoting Town of Ayden
v. Town of Winterville, 143 N.C. App. 136, 544
S.E.2d 821 (2001); Town of Pine Knoll Shores
v. Carolina Water Serv., 128 N.C. App. 321,
Page 4
494 S.E.2d 618 (1998)). "'To satisfy the juris-
dictional requirement of an actual controversy,
it must be shown in the complaint that litigation
appears unavoidable[;] [m]ere apprehension or
the mere threat of an action or suit is not
enough."' Property Rights Advocacy Group v.
Town of Long Beach, 173 N.C. App. 180, 182,
617 S.E.2d 715, 717 (2005) (quoting State ex
rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Water Serv.,
Inc., 149 N.C. App. 656, 658, 562 S.E.2d 60,
62-63 (2002) (internal quotation omitted)).
"Whenever, during the course of litigation it
develops that the relief sought has been granted
[**9] or that the questions originally in contro-
versy between the parties are no longer at issue,
the case should be dismissed, for courts will not
entertain or proceed with a cause merely to de-
termine abstract propositions of law." In re
Peoples, 296 N C. 109, 147-48, 250 S.E.2d 890,
912 (1978), cent. denied, [*582] 442 U.S. 929,
99 S. Ct. 2859, 61 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979).
As a general proposition, the "[r]epeal of a
challenged law generally renders moot the is-
sue of the law's interpretation or constitutional-
ity." See Property Rights Advocacy, 173 N.C.
App. at 183, 617 S.E.2d at 718 (citing State v.
McCluney, 280 N.C. 404, 407, 185 S.E.2d 870,
872 (1972) (holding that the "repeal of [a stat-
ute] renders moot the question of its constitu-
tionality" and that the "constitutionality of the
[new] Act does not arise on this appeal [and] . .
. will be decided if and when it is presented").
However, the repeal of a challenged statute
does not have the effect of mooting a claim
arising under that statute in the event that there
is a reasonable possibility that the law will be
reenacted following the dismissal of the legal
challenge, see City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's
Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 102 S. Ct. 1070, 71
L. Ed. 2d 152 (1982), followed [**10] by Tho-
mas v. North Carolina Dep't of Human Re-
sources, 124 N.C. App. 698, 478 S.E.2d 816
(1996), or if the repeal of the challenged statute
does not provide the injured party with ade-
quate relief or the injured party's claim remains
viable. Lambeth v. Town of Kure Beach, 157

689 S.E.2d 576, "; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
N.C. App. 349, 352, 578 S.E.2d 688, 690
(2003) (holding that an appeal was not moot
because the "amendment to the ordinance at bar
. . . , did not give [the petitioner] the relief
sought" so that the "[p]etitioner's claim and in-
jury remain viable"). In this instance, the City's
repeal of former Section 18-215 included a
"Savings provision" which expressly provided
that "[t]he Conservation Resource Regulations
in this Division shall not affect any pending
litigation or appeals involving the City's former
Conservation Overlay District regulations
(prior LDC Section 18-215 et seq.)" and would
not "apply to any site plan application accepted
by the City at the time of the adoption of this
Division" so long as the "applicant submits all
documentation required for approval within
two (2) years of the date of the completion of
any pending litigation or the date of the site
plan acceptance, whichever is the later date."
The [**11] "Savings provision" makes the new
ordinance applicable on a prospective basis,
expressly preserves Intervenors' appeal from
the trial court's order, and preserves Petitioner's
right to proceed to develop the Property on the
basis of its prior application without having to
comply with the new ordinance in the event
that its site plan application had been accepted
"at the time of the adoption of this Division."
As a result, in the event that Intervenors suc-
cessfully challenge the trial court's order, they
will be entitled to have Petitioner required to
comply with the "performance controls" speci-
fied in former Section 18-215 despite its repeal.
Thus, given that Intervenors' claim remains vi-
able, its appeal from the trial court's order is not
moot and Petitioner's motion to dismiss Inter-
venors' appeal is denied. See Lambeth, 157
N. C. App. at 352, 578 S.E.2d at 690.
III. Legal Analysis
On cross -appeal, Petitioner argues that the
trial court erred by granting Intervenors' motion
to intervene because (1) the Intervenors are not
aggrieved parties pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
160A-388(e2) and (2) the Intervenors did not
Page 5
meet the standards required for intervention
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-1, Rule 24.
[**12] On appeal, Intervenors argue that (1)
Petitioners appeal to the Board of Adjustment
should have been dismissed as untimely pursu-
ant to Section § 18-27 of the City Code; (2) the
trial court erred by entering an order denying
Intervenors' motion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ IA-1, Rule 60; and (3) the trial court erred by
failing to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel
to preclude Petitioner from denying that the
Property was subject to the rules applicable to
Conservation Overlay Districts. After careful
consideration of the record in light of the appli-
cable law, we conclude that the trial court did
not err in making any of these determinations.
A. Petitioner's Appeal
"The 'gist of the question of standing' is
whether the party seeking relief has 'alleged
such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverse-
ness which sharpens the presentations of issues
upon which the court so largely depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional ques-
tions."' Stanley v. Dept of Conservation &
Dev., 284 N.C. 15, 28, [*583] 199 S.E.2d 641,
650 (1973) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S.
83, 99,88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947, 961
(1968)). "It is not necessary that a party dem-
onstrate [**13] that injury has already oc-
curred, but a showing of 'immediate or threat-
ened injury' will suffice for purposes of stand-
ing." Mangum v. Raleigh Bd. of Adjust., 362
N.C. 640, 642-43, 669 S.E.2d 279, 282 (2008)
(quoting River Birch Assocs. v. City of Raleigh,
326 N.C. 100, 129, 388 S.E.2d 538, 555 (1990)
(internal citation omitted)).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-388(e2) authorizes
an "aggrieved party" to seek review of deci-
sions made by boards of adjustment under zon-
ing ordinances. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-
388(e2); see also Heery v. Highlands Zoning
Bd. of Adjust., 61 N.C. App. 612, 613, 300
S.E.2d 869, 870 (1983). "An aggrieved party is

Page 6
689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
one who can either show an interest in the
property affected, or if the party is a nearby
property owner, some special damage, distinct
from the rest of the community[,j" Allen v. Bur-
lington'Bd. of Adjust., 100 N.C. App. 615, 618,
397 S.E.2d 657, 659 (1990). Specifically, in the
zoning context, this Court has stated:
The mere fact that one's pro-
posed lawful use of his own land
will diminish the value of adjoin-
ing or nearby lands of another does
not give to such other person a
standing to maintain an action, or
other legal proceeding, to prevent
such use. If, however, [**14] the
proposed use is unlawful, as where
it is prohibited by a valid zoning
ordinance, the owner of adjoining
or nearby lands, who will sustain
special damage from the proposed
use through 'a reduction in the
value of his own property, does
have a standing to maintain such
proceeding.
Jackson v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Adjust., 275
N.C. 155, 161, 166 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1969) (cita-
tions omitted).
In addition, "(N.C. Gen. Stat. § lA-1,1 Rule
24 governs intervention in all civil actions, in-
cluding appeals pursuant to [N.C. Gen. Stat.] §
160A-388(e)." Councill v. Town of Boone Bd.
of Adjust., 146 N.C. App. 103, 107, 551 S.E.2d
907, 910, disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 360,
560 S.E.2d 130 (2001) (citing Procter v. City of
Raleigh Bd. of Adjust., 133 N. C. App. 181, 183,
514 S.E.2d 745, 746 (1999)). According to N. C.
Gen. Stat. § M-1, Rule 24(a):
Upon timely application anyone
shall be permitted to intervene in
an action:.. .
(2) When the appli-
cant claims an interest
relating to the property
or transaction which is
the subject of the ac-
tion and he is so situ-
ated that the disposi-
tion of the action may
as a practical matter
impair or impede his
ability to protect that
interest, unless the ap-
plicant's interest
[**15] is adequately
represented by exist-
ing parties.
As a result, a party is entitled to intervene pur-
suant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-1, Rule 24(a)(2)
in the event that he or she. can demonstrate (1)
an interest relating to the property or transac-
tion, (2) practical impairment of the protection
of that interest, and (3) inadequate representa-
tion of the interest by existing parties. See Har-
vey Fertilizer & Gas Co. v. Pitt County, 153
N.C. App. 81, 85, 568 S.E.2d 923, 926 (2002)
(citing Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services
Corp., 350 N.C. 449, 459, 515 S.E.2d 675, 683
(1999) (citations omitted)). This Court reviews
a trial court's decision granting or denying a
motion to intervene pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 1A-1, Rule 24(a)(2), on a de novo basis. See
Harvey, 153 N.C. App. at 89, 568 S.E.2d at
929.
In this case, Intervenors contended that they
were entitled to participate in this proceeding as
a matter of right because they owned property
that was "contiguous" to the "subject property"
or in the "immediate vicinity" to the "subject
property." According to Intervenors, the tracts
of property owned by Petitioner and Interve-
nors were "located immediately and directly
next to ... Motts Creek," [**16] the body of

Pnge 7
689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
water that Intervenors claim to be in a Conser-
vation Overlay District under former Section
18-215.Intervenors described Motts Creek as a
"brackish, saltwater tidal marsh." Intervenors
used Motts Creek for canoeing, crabbing, kay-
aking, fishing, hiking trails, catching baitfrsh,
and feeding ducks. Intervenors also claimed
that Summer Rest Road was their "sole means
of ingress and egress" to their properties.
[*584] Intervenors stated in their intervention
motion that:
If Petitioner is successful in set-
ting aside enforcement of the COD
zoning ordinance that applies to its
property, the Intervenor -
Respondents, especially the Con-
tiguous Owners, will suffer spe-
cific, direct loss and damage to
their properties and the use and en-
joyment of the properties in the
following ways:
(i) the density of any building
on the Petitioner's property will
necessarily be significantly in-
creased if Petitioner does not have
to satisfy the more restrictive set-
back lines required by the COD;
(ii) the COD regulations of
protecting "important environ-
mental and cultural resources
within the City" such as Motts
Creek and Motts Creek's "diverse
and ecologically important natural
systems" that are "important for
[**17] fin fishing and shell fish-
ing" as well as open space will be
set aside allowing for more pollu-
tion and destruction of Motts
Creek - the very creek in which the
Intervenor -Respondents and their
families recreate in;
(iii) with the heightened den-
sity afforded to Petitioner if the
COD is not enforced, will come
significantly increased traffic, light
pollution, noise and other related
pollution that will all lead to a pe-
cuniary loss in the value of the In-
tervenor -Respondents' properties;
and,
(iv) it will establish adverse
precedent to the citizens and prop-
erty owners in the City of Wil-
mington that one informal, mis-
taken email by one employee for
the City can divest and strip the
City of Wilmington of its legisla-
tive, zoning and police powers in
enforcing its zoning ordinances
such that rather than the Petitioner
being purportedly harmed by such
a mistake all of the remaining citi-
zens and property owners in the
City will be harmed - which is not
allowed under the controlling law
of North Carolina. City of Raleigh
v. Fisher, 232 N.C. 629, 61 S.E.2d
897 (1950); Hayes v. Town of
Fainnont, 130 N.C. App. 125, 502
S.E.2d 380 (1998).
Several of the individual Intervenors also testi-
fied before the [**18] Board of Adjustment
about how they and their property would be
injured in the event that Petitioner's develop-
ment was not made subject to the "performance
controls" mandated by the former ordinance.
John Blackwell testified that "I live on the first
house on the left on Summer Rest Road.... I
have about 400 feet of property that borders
Motts Creek and my living room[,] dining
room, kitchen look out over the creek right to-
wards where the project is being proposed."
According to Mr. Blackwell, "I have three
small children ... and we were just out there
on the creek last night feeding the ducks and
enjoying the serenity and the beautiful area....
I think it would be a shame to see a piece of
property in such a prominent location be com-

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, *"
pletely ignored as far as the [Conservation
Overlay District] is concerned[.]" Jane Hard-
wick testified that "I am especially concerned
about some of the wildlife that could be af-
fected, and just feel like it is, you know, one of
the few special places left in this county that we
have counted on being protected by this con-
servation overlay." Robert Smith stated, "I
think the City recognized the need to ensure
that environmentally sensitive areas [**19] are
regulated and protected. And, that's exactly
what the code says, and it's for the benefit of
the community." Smith opined that "[w]e have
a kayak; we have a canoe; I walk my dog every
morning around the creek overlooking it. It's a
wonderful community resource, and there are
reasons why we have a conservation overlay
district and look to the City to uphold and sup-
port these limited resources." Earl Galleher tes-
tified that "[e]very single day when I drive by
Motts Creek there's fishermen ... catching bait,
there's people out feeding the ducks, it is a con-
stantly used resource, and that was our under-
standing of why the conservation overlay dis-
trict line is there in the first place." Mr. Galle-
her stated that "[the Conservation Overlay Dis-
trict line] was placed there and we would
highly object to that line not being upheld in
this circumstance, and we would ask that you
very carefully consider a circumstance of re-
lieving the developer from having to comply
with this. My wife and I were particularly
alarmed when the developer told us, a group of
us meeting out there, that if we didn't agree
with his project, [*585] he would rip down
every tree on that property, and that was most
alarming [**20] to us."
In Mangum, a group of neighboring land-
owners alleged in response to a property
owner's request for writ of certiorari "that they
either owned property immediately adjacent to
or in close proximity to the subject property."
Mangum, 362 N.C. at 644, 669 S.E.2d at 283.
The Mangum Court reasoned that "[w]hile this
assertion, in and of itself, is insufficient to grant
standing, it does bear some weight on the issue
Page 8
of whether the complaining party has suffered
or will suffer special damages distinct from
those damages to the public at large." Id.
Moreover, the neighboring landowners "testi-
fied during the Board hearing ... [as to the]
adverse effects on their property[.]" Id. The
Supreme Court held that "the allegations and
evidence presented by petitioners in regards to
the 'increased traffic, increased water runoff,
parking, and safety concerns,' as well as the
secondary adverse effects on petitioners' busi-
nesses, were sufficient special damages to give
standing to petitioners[.]" Id.
We are unable to distinguish the special
damages found sufficient to support interven-
tion by the Supreme Court in Mangum and the
special damages alleged by Intervenors here. In
fact, Intervenors' [**21] allegation that devel-
opment of the Property without the "perform-
ance controls" required of property associated
with a Conservation Overlay District will "sig-
nificantly increase[] traffic, light pollution,
noise and other related pollution that will all
lead to a pecuniary loss in the value of the In-
tervenor -Respondents' properties" is remarka-
bly similar to the special damage allegations
deemed sufficient in Mangum. As a result, we
conclude that the trial court did not err by al-
lowing Intervenors' motion to intervene pursu-
ant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-388(e2).
In addition, we also believe that the trial
court did not err by concluding that Intervenors
satisfied the standards for intervention pursuant
to N.C. Gen. Stat. § M-1, Rule 24(a)(2). In ad-
dition to the factors discussed above, Interve-
nors rely on the decision of this Court in
Northwestern Bank v. Robertson, 25 N.C. App.
424, 213 S.E.2d 363 (1975), to support their
allegation that the City could not adequately
represent Intervenors' interests before the trial
court since their interest is "of such direct and
immediate character that [Intervenors] will gain
or lose by direct operation of the judgment[.]"
Northwestern Bank v. Robertson, 25 N.C. App.
424, 426, 213 S.E.2d 363, 365 (1975) [**22]

Page 9
689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
(quoting Griffin & Vase, Inc. v. Minerals
Corp., 225 N.C. 434, 35 S.E.2d 247 (1945)).
This contention, in addition to Intervenors'
claims that (1) Intervenors are the owners of
property that is "contiguous" or near the Prop-
erty, and that (2) the development of the Prop-
erty in the absence of the "performance con-
trols" that would be required in the event that
the Property was found to be in or associated
with a Conservation Overlay District will "sig-
nificantly increase[] traffic, light pollution,
noise and other related pollution that will all
lead to a pecuniary loss in the value" of Inter-
venors' properties, satisfies the requirements of
N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-1, Rule 24(a)(2). As a re-
sult, we conclude that the trial court did not err
by granting Intervenors' motion to intervene
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule
24(a)(2). See Councill, 146 N.C. App. at 107,
551 S.E.2d at 910 (holding that a motion to in-
tervene was improperly denied when interve-
nors alleged "that approval of Councill's appli-
cation for a conditional use permit would: (1)
result in an increase of traffic volume[;] ... (2)
cause significant risks to the health and safety
of [the intervenors] and their families; and
[**23] (3) cause a reduction in the fair market
value of their property").
B. Intervenors' Appeal
In reviewing the decision of a board of ad-
justment, "the superior court sits as an appellate -
court, and not as a trier of facts." Overton v.
Camden County, 155 N.C. App. 391, 393, 574
S.E.2d 157, 160 (2002) (quoting Sun Suites
Holdings, LLC v. Board of Aldermen of Town
of Garner, 139 N.C. App. 269, 271, 533 S.E.2d
525, 527, disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 280,
546 S.E.2d 397 (2000) (internal quotation omit-
ted). The superior court's review of a board of
adjustment's decision is limited to determining
whether:
1). the [b]oard committed any er-
rors in law; 2) the [b]oard followed
lawful procedure; [*586] 3) the
petitioner was afforded appropriate
due process; 4) the [b]oard's deci-
sion was supported by competent
evidence in the whole record; and
5) [whether] the [b]oard's decision
was arbitrary and capricious.
Capital Outdoor, Inc. v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of
Adjust., 152 N.C. App. 474, 475, 567 S.E.2d
440, 441, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 611,
574 S.E.2d 676 (2002) (quoting Capital Out-
door, Inc. v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Adjust., 146
N.C. App. 388, 390, 552 S.E.2d 265, 267
(2001), rev'd per curiani on other grounds,
[**24] 355 N.C. 269, 559 S.E.2d 547 (2002)).
"If the superior court is reviewing either the
sufficiency of the evidence or whether the
board's decision was arbitrary and capricious,
the superior court applies the 'whole record
test."' Overton, 155 N.C. App. at 393, 574
S.E.2d at 159-60 (quoting Westminster Homes,
Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 140
N.C. App. 99, 102, 535 S.E.2d 415, 417 (2000),
affd, 354 N.C. 298, 554 S.E.2d 634 (2001)).
The findings of the board of adjustment "are
binding if supported by substantial competent
evidence presented at the hearing[,]" Tate Ter-
race Realty Investors, Inc. v. Currituck County,
127 N.C. App. 212, 218, 488 S.E.2d 845, 849
(1997), disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 409, 496
S.E.2d 394 (1997) (citing Capricorn Equity
Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill, 334 N.C. 132,
135-36, 431 S.E.2d 183, 186 (1993)), and "[t]he
reviewing court may not substitute its own
judgment for that of the body when the record
contains competent and substantial evidence
supporting the findings[,] ... even though con-
flicting evidence in the record would have al-
lowed the court to reach a contrary finding if
proceeding de novo." Tate Terrace, 127 N.C.
App. at 218, 488 S.E.2d at 849 [**25] (citing
CG&T Corp. v. Bd. of Adjust. of Wilmington,
105 N.C. App. 32, 40, 411 S.E.2d 655, 660
(1992)). If the board's decision is challenged as
resting on an error of law, de novo review is

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, *"
proper. See Westminster Homes, 140 N.C. App.
at 102, 535 S.E.2d at 417; see also Capital
Outdoor, 152 N.C. App. 474, 567 S.E.2d 440.
"An appellate court's review of the trial court's
zoning board determination is limited to deter-
mining whether the superior court applied the
correct standard of review, and to determin[ing]
whether the superior court correctly applied
that standard." Overton, 155 N.C. App. at 393-
94, 574 S.E.2d at 160 (citing Westminster
Homes, 140 N.C. App. at 102-03, 535 S.E.2d at
417).
1. Timeliness
Intervenors initially contend that the trial
court erred by ruling that Petitioner's appeal to
the Board of Adjustment was not time -barred
pursuant to City Code Section 18-27. We dis-
agree.
Section 18-28 provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
Appeals to the board concerning
interpretation or administration of
this chapter by the City Manager
may be taken by any person ag-
grieved or by any officer, depart-
ment, commission or board of the
city. Such appeal may be taken by
filing a notice of [**26] appeal
specifying the grounds thereof
with the secretary ; to the board
within ten (10) consecutive calen-
dar days after the issuance of the
City Manager's order. Upon proper
filing of an appeal, the City Man-
ager shall forthwith transmit to the
board all papers then constituting
the record upon which the action
appealed from was taken as pro-
vided in the rules of procedure.
The board shall fix a reasonable
time for the hearing of appeal, give
public notice thereof, as well as
due notice to the parties in interest,
and decide the same within 'a rea-
Page 10
sonable time. At the hearing, any
party may appear in person or by
agent or attorney.
As we have already noted, the applicable stan-
dard of review requires that we first determine
whether the trial court utilized the appropriate
standard of review in evaluating Intervenors'
contention. Overton, 155 N.C. App. at 393-94,
574 S.E.2d at 160. In order to properly resolve
this issue on the merits, we must determine the
meaning of "issuance" and "order." Properly
defining "issuance" and "order" involves a
question of law. However, identifying the ac-
tual dates upon which the City Manager made
his determination or upon which Petitioner
filed its notice of [**27] appeal involves a
question of fact. Thus, the extent to which Peti-
tioner lodged a [*587] timely appeal to the
Board of Adjustment presents a mixed question
of law and fact.
We next must determine whether the supe-
rior court correctly applied the appropriate
standard of review. In this case, the record
tends to show that Petitioner received a letter,
which was transmitted in the form of an e-mail
attachment, from Planner Prete on 7 August
2007 stating, "[a]s requested in our meeting on
August 6, 2007, I am providing the following
agency determination of the regulation of Con-
servation Resources on the Sidbury site... .
[T]he wetland area delineated on the site in
question is subject to the City COD controls."
On the following day, Petitioner filed an "AP-
PEAL FROM DETERMINATION OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER." The re-
cord does not reflect that any party objected to
the timeliness of Petitioner's appeal from the
TRC's determination to the Board of Adjust-
ment pursuant to Section 18-28 of the City
Code. Although Intervenors contended before
the trial court and contend on appeal that Plan-
ner Prete's 7 August 2007 letter was preceded
by several other letters to the same effect, that
one or more of [**28] these earlier letters

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, "
should have precipitated an appeal to the Board
of Adjustment, and that Petitioner's failure to
appeal within ten days after one of these earlier
letters rendered its appeal untimely, this argu-
ment does not seem to have been advanced be-
fore the Board of Adjustment by any party, in-
cluding the City staff from whose determina-
tion the appeal was taken. On the contrary, the
findings of fact made by the Board of Adjust-
ment tend to show that Petitioner's appeal was,
in fact, timely.
[O]ne of the functions of a Board
of Adjustment is to interpret local
zoning ordinances, and ... [such
interpretation] is given deference.
Therefore, our task on appeal is not
to decide whether another interpre-
tation of the ordinance might rea-
sonably have been reached by the
board, but to decide if the board
acted arbitrarily, oppressively,
manifestly abused its authority, or
committed an error of law in inter-
preting the ordinance.
Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zon-
ing Bd. of Adjust., 140 N.C. App. 99, 103, 535
S.E.2d 415, 417-18 (2000). The superior court's
scope of review on certiorari is limited to er-
rors alleged to have occurred before the local
board. See Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjust.,
317N.C. 51, 62-63, 344 S.E.2d 272, 279 (1986)
[**29] (holding that, because the board of al-
dermen only decided whether to grant a vari-
ance under the zoning ordinance, the superior
court erred by determining the question of the
constitutionality of the zoning ordinance, which
was never raised or considered by the board of
aldermen). "[T]he superior court, and hence
this Court through our derivative appellate ju-
risdiction, [only has] the statutory power to re-
view" those issues presented to the board of
adjustment. Godfrey, 317 N.C. at 63, 344
S.E.2d at 279. As a result, because the Board of
Page 11
Adjustment did not make any legal conclusions
regarding whether an "agency determination"
communicated by a "Senior Planner" consti-
tuted an "order" by the "City Manager," in
compliance with Section 18-28 of the Wilming-
ton City Code, and because the Board of Ad-
justment made no findings of fact with regard
to the dates upon which an "order" as envi-
sioned by Section 18-28 of the City Code was
filed and appealed therefrom, it was impossible
for the trial court to determine whether, after
applying the "whole record test," there was suf-
ficient evidence of record to support the Board
of Adjustments's findings, "[whether] the
board's decision was arbitrary [**30] and ca-
pricious," Overton, 155 N.C. App. at 393, 574
S.E.2d at 159-60, or whether the Board of Ad-
justment's decision rested upon an error of law.
See Westminster Homes, 140 N.C. App. at 102,
535 S.E.2d at 417. As a result, we conclude that
the trial court did not err by denying Interve-
nors' motion to dismiss Petitioner's appeal to
the Board of Adjustment as untimely.
2. N.C. Gen. Stat. § ]A4, Rule 60
Secondly, Intervenors contend that the trial
court erred by denying their motion pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-1, Rule 60. We disagree.
As we have already noted, the first question
we must address in reviewing an appeal stem-
ming from a proceeding before a board of ad-
justment is whether the trial court utilized the
appropriate standard of review. [*588] See
Overton, 155 N.C. App. at 393, 574 S.E.2d at
159-60; Westminster Homes, 140 N.C. App. at
102, 535 S.E.2d at 417. In view of the fact that
the specific issue that Intervenors raised before
the trial court in seeking relief pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § IA-1, Rule 60, involved a purely
legal .question, we believe that the trial court
was required to exercise a de novo standard of
review.
Intervenors claim that, subsequent to the
entry of the Board ['a%31] of Adjustment's or-
der, they discovered new evidence "that would

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
justify [the trial court] remanding Petitioner's
appeal to the [Board of Adjustment] for a new
hearing and determination." In essence, Inter-
venors claim to have discovered evidence tend-
ing to show that Petitioner had previously sub-
mitted another application for the development
of the property in question to the TRC in 2001;
that the same individual signed the 2001 appli-
cation and the present application; that Peti-
tioner's 2001 application indicated, contrary to
Petitioner's assertions in this proceeding, that
the Conservation Overlay District restrictions
applied to the Property; and that the applicabil-
ity of the Conservation Overlay District restric-
tions to the Property was discussed among
members of the City staff prior to and on the
date of a TRC meeting at which Petitioner's
materials were reviewed. According to Interve-
nors, the 2001 site development application
was named "Bridgeview Offices and Condo-
miniums" rather than "The Sidbury.".
N.C. Gen. Star. § 1A-1, Rule 60, provides,
in pertinent part, as follows:
On motion and upon such terms
as are just, the court may relieve a
party or his legal representative
from a final [**32] judgment, or-
der, or proceeding [if there exists] .
. . [n]ewly discovered evidence
which by due diligence could not
have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule
59(b)[.]
N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-1, Rule 60(b)(2). As we
have already noted, however, the trial court had
jurisdiction over this proceeding on the basis of
a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review
of an order of the Board of Adjustment. "In re-
viewing the errors raised [by petitioner's] peti-
tion for writ of certiorari, the superior court
was sitting as a court of appellate review[.]"
Batch v. Town of Chapel Hill, 326 N.C. 1, 11,
387 S.E.2d 655, 662 (1990). The Supreme
Page 12
Court has reasoned that, since the superior
court is acting in such proceedings as an appel-
late court rather than a trial court, motions
brought pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure, such as motions for summary
judgment, cannot be properly granted since
they are "properly heard in the trial courts."
Batch, 326 N.C. at 11, 387 S.E.2d at 662 (citing
Britt v. Allen, 12 N.C. App. 399, 183 S.E.2d 303
(1971)). Instead, "[r]eview pursuant to writ of
certiorari of an [**33] administrative decision
is based solely upon the record as certified."
Id.; See also Godfrey, 317 N.C. at 63, 344
S.E.2d at 279 (holding that an issue not raised
before a board of aldermen could not be con-
sidered on certiorari). Since Intervenors did not
seek relief from the Board of Adjustment based
upon the information upon which they have
predicated their motion pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat. § M4, Rule 60, and since, for that reason,
the Board of Adjustment never addressed the
extent to which the information in question jus-
tified granting any sort of relief, the record does
not contain any ruling by the Board of Adjust-
ment which the trial court could have reviewed
in accordance with the applicable standard of
review. As a result, we conclude that the trial
court did not err by denying Intervenors' mo-
tion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-1, Rule
60.
C. Judicial Estoppel
Finally, Intervenors contend that the trial
court erred by failing to hold that Petitioner
was judicially estopped from denying that it
was subject to the Conservation Overlay Dis-
trict restrictions by virtue of the fact that, at the
time that it submitted its application for ap-
proval of the Bridgeview project in 2001,
[**34] it admitted that the Property was subject
to those restrictions. We disagree.
"Broadly speaking, 'estoppel is a bar which
precludes a person from denying or asserting
anything to the contrary of that which has, in
contemplation of law, been established as the

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
truth."' Whitacre P'ship v. BioSignia, Inc., 358
N.C. 1, 13, 591 S.E.2d [*589] 870, 879 (2004)
(quoting 28 Ana. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver §
1 (2000)). "[J]udicial estoppel seeks to protect
courts, not litigants, from individuals who
would play 'fast and loose' with the judicial sys-
tem," Whitacre P'ship, 358 N.C. at 26, 591
S.E.2d at 887, by "prohibiting parties from de-
liberately changing positions [on factual asser-
tions] according to the exigencies of the mo-
ment." Id., 358 N.C. at 28, 591 S.E.2d at 888
(citations and internal quotation marks omit-
ted). The Supreme Court described the follow-
ing three factors as useful in determining
whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel should
be invoked, with only the first being essential
for the doctrine's invocation:
First, a party's subsequent posi-
tion must be clearly inconsistent
with its earlier position. Second,
courts regularly inquire whether
the party has succeeded in persuad—
ing a court [**35] to accept that
party's earlier position, so that ju-
dicial acceptance of aninconsistent
position in a later proceeding
might pose a threat to judicial in-
tegrity by leading to inconsistent
court determinations or the percep-
tion that either the first or the sec-
ond court was misled. Third, courts
consider whether the party seeking
to assert an inconsistent position
would derive an unfair advantage
or impose an unfair detriment on
the opposing party if not estopped.
Id., 358 N. C. at 29, 591 S.E.2d at 889 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted); see also
Harvey v. McLaughlin, 172 N.C. App. 582,
584, 616 S.E.2d 660, 662-63 (2005). Judicial
estoppel is an "equitable doctrine invoked by a
court at its discretion." Wiley v. UPS, Inc., 164
N.C. App. 183, 188, 594 S.E.2d 809, 812
Page 13
(2004) (quotation omitted). Ordinarily, "[t]he
invocation of the doctrine of judicial estoppel is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court, and our review of a trial court's applica-
tion of the doctrine is limited to determining
whether the trial court abused its discretion."
McLaughlin, 172 N.C. App. 582, 584, 616
S.E.2d 660, 663 (2005) (citation omitted).
However, as we have repeatedly stated, the
[**36] superior court's scope of review in pro-
ceedings, such as this one, which originate
from boards of adjustment is limited to deter-
mining whether:
1) the [b]oard committed any er-
rors in law; 2) the [b]oard followed
lawful procedure; 3) the petitioner
was afforded appropriate due proc-
ess; 4) the [b]oard's decision was
supported by competent evidence
in the whole record; and 5)
[whether] the [b]oard's decision
was arbitrary and capricious.
Capital Outdoor, 152 N.C. App. at 475, 567
S.E.2d at 441. In other words, the superior
court's scope of review on certiorari is limited
to errors alleged to have occurred before the
local board, Godfrey, 317 N.C. at 63, 344
S.E.2d at 279, with our review from the supe-
rior court's decision further limited to ascertain-
ing "whether the superior court applied the cor-
rect standard of review, and ... whether the
superior court correctly applied that standard."
Overton, 155 N.C. App. at 394, 574 S.E.2d at
160.
Intervenors argue that, having previously
submitted an application to the TRC in Sep-
tember 2001 that depicted the Property as ly-
ing, at least in part, within the Conservation
Overlay District, it is clear that Petitioner knew
that the Property lay in a [**37] Conservation
Overlay District in 2001 and that Petitioners
should have been judicially estopped from ar-
guing before the superior court in this case that
the Property did not lie in a Conservation Over-

689 S.E.2d 576, *; 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 191, **
lay District However, no evidence pertaining
to the Bridgeview project was ever presented to
the Board of Adjustment, so that the certified
record did not contain any evidence pertaining
to Bridgeview for the superior court to exam-
ine. The evidence upon which Intervenors rely
materialized for the first time in the superior
court, which is required to act in the capacity of
an appellate court; such evidence was incompe-
tent, since Petitioner had no chance to refute it
before the Board of Adjustment, and its consid-
eration would have exceeded the scope of the
superior court's review, which is limited to er-
rors alleged to have occurred before the local
board. See Godfrey, 317 N.C. at 63, 344 S.E.2d
at 279. Intervenor's failure to raise the issue of
estoppel before the Board of Adjustment effec-
tively precluded the trial court and precludes
this Court from considering Intervenors' estop-
pel claim. Therefore, [*590] we conclude that
the trial court did not err in failing to apply the
doctrine of judicial [**38] estoppel.
Conclusion
Page 14
As a result, for the reasons stated above, we
conclude that Intervenors' appeal is not moot
and that the trial court did not err by granting
Intervenors' motion to intervene. In addition,
we further conclude that the trial court did not
err by failing to conclude that Petitioner's ap-
peal to the Board of Adjustment should have
been dismissed as untimely; by denying Inter-
venors' motion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
IA-1, Rule 60; and by declining to hold that
Petitioner was judicially estopped from con-
tending the Conservation Overlay District re-
strictions did not apply to the Property. J As a
result, the trial court's order is affirmed.
3 Intervenors did not argue the issue of
whether the trial court erred by reversing
the Board of Adjustment's determination
that the restrictions set out in former Sec-
tion 18-215 did not apply to the Property.
As a result, any such argument is deemed
abandoned pursuant to N.C.R. App. P.
28(b)(6).
AFFIRMED.
Judges MCGEE and JACKSON concur.

LexisNexis�
JOHN B. WOODLIEF and wife, CYNTHIA M. WOODLIEF, Plain-
tiffs, v. MECKLENBURG COUNTY, a body politic and corporate of
the State of North Carolina, CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a municipal
corporation of the State of North Carolina, CHARLOTTE ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, INSITE ENGINEERING AND SUR-
VEYING, PLLC, E.C. GRIFFITH COMPANY, DORSETT
HITCHENS PROPERTIES, LLC, and JOE,L MADDEN, Defendants
NO. COA05-564
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
176 N.C. App. 205; 625 S.E.2d 904; 2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424
December 8, 2005, Heard in the Court of Appeals
February 21, 2006, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Review dis-
missed by Woodlief v. Mecklenburg County,
360 N.C. 492, 632 S.E.2d 775, 2006 N.C.
LEXIS 356 (N.C., May 4, 2006)
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Mecklenburg
County. No. 03 CVS 20635.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
HEADNOTES
1. Zoning -revision of application for
floodlands development permit -considered
under original ordinance
The trial court did not err by granting sum-
mary judgment for defendants in a declaratory
judgment action arising from an application to
develop property next to that of plaintiffs in an
area that frequently flooded. Plaintiffs con-
tended that the court erred by allowing defen-
dants to revise their application under the ordi-
Page I
nance in effect when the original application
was filed (the 2000 ordinance), rather than a
new ordinance (the 2003 ordinance). Both or-
dinances were silent about grandfathering, and
the practice of the Planning Commission was to
evaluate subdivision ordinances under the regu-
latory rules existing at the time of the applica-
tion. Land development is a process that occurs
over time, and a request for further information
by a reviewing agency does not require that the
process begin anew.
2. Zoning -development within floodway-
permit not improperly allowed
Plaintiffs did not show that the Board of
Adjustment acted arbitrarily, oppressively,
manifestly abused its authority, or committed
an error of law by concluding that defendant's
street and utility development within a FEMA
floodway did not constitute an impermissible
encroachment. Summary judgment was cor-
rectly granted for defendants.

176 N.C. App. 205, *; 625 S.E.2d 904, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424, ***
3. Zoning-floodway development -
application to proper entity
Defendants applied to the proper entity to
obtain a development permit in an area subject
to flooding when it applied to the Floodplain
Administrator for Storm Water rather than di-
rectly to the Board of Adjustment. The Board
of Adjustment did in fact conclude that the de-
velopment was in accord with the applicable
ordinance and approved the issuance of the
permit.
COUNSEL: Smith Moore LLC, by Thomas E.
Terrell, Jr. and Laurie D. Clark, for plaintiffs -
appellants.
Charlotte City Attorney, by Senior Assistant
City Attorney Robert E. Hagemann, for peti-
tioner -appellees Mecklenburg County, City of
Charlotte and Charlotte Zoning Board of Ad-
justment.
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, by William
H. Sturges, for petitioners -appellees Insite En-
gineering and Surveying, PLLC, E.C. Griffith
Company, Dorsett Hitchens Properties, LLC,
and Joel Madden.
JUDGES: TYSON, Judge. Judge LEVINSON
concurs. Judge HUDSON concurs in result
with a separate opinion.
OPINION BY: TYSON
OPINION
[*207] [**905] Appeal by plaintiffs from
order entered 5 May 2004 by Judge James W.
Morgan and order entered 17 December 2004
by Judge Richard D. Boner in Mecklenburg
County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of
Appeals 8 December 2005.
TYSON, Judge.
John B. Woodlief and Cynthia M. Woodlief
("plaintiffs") appeal from the trial court's 17
Page 2
December 2004 order granting summary judg-
ment in favor of Mecklenburg [***2] County,
the City of Charlotte, the Charlotte Zoning
Board of Adjustment, Insite Engineering and
Surveying, PLLC, E.C. Griffith Company,
Dorsett Hitchens Properties, LLC, and Joel
Madden (collectively, "defendants"). We af-
firm.
I. Background
Plaintiffs are the owners of a parcel of land
used for residential purposes located in Char-
lotte. Defendant, E.C. Griffith Company ("Grif-
fith"), owns approximately 6.4 acres of unde-
veloped woodland property abutting plaintiffs
parcel. Both properties adjoin the Briar Creek
floodway, an area regulated by the federal and
local governments to control flooding. This
area has experienced significant flooding in
past years.
The Federal Emergency Management
Agency ("FEMA") regulates uses of land that
are subject to flooding. FEMA requires states
and local communities to adopt standards equal
to or more restrictive than the federal criteria in
order to qualify for federal disaster relief and
insurance.
Prior to 2000, the City of Charlotte regu-
lated the 1.0 foot surcharge FEMA floodway,
as required by FEMA's flood insurance pro-
gram. In the late 1990s, the City of [**906]
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County began to
develop and adopt more restrictive flood [***3]
protection regulations. On 28 February 2000,
the Charlotte City Council established a more
restrictive floodway using a 0.5 foot surcharge
instead of the 1.0 foot FEMA surcharge to lo-
cate the floodway encroachment line. The City
Council also established a 0.1 foot surcharge
local floodway known as the FLUM (Flood -
plain Land Use Map) floodway. The FLUM
floodway further limits uses and development
than what is permitted within the FEMA
floodway.

176 N.C. App. 205, *; 625 S.E.2d 904, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424, ***
Griffith and defendant, Dorsett Hitchens
Properties, LLC. ("Dorsett"), decided to jointly
develop the 6.4 acre parcel into a residential
[*208] subdivision. Griffith and Dorsett em-
ployed defendant, Insite Engineering and Sur-
veying, PLLC ("hisite"), to apply for a flood -
lands development permit. Insite's employee,
defendant Joel Madden ("Madden"), filed an
application for a permit with the Mecklenburg
County Storm Water Services Department
("Storm Water") on Griffith's and Dorsett's be-
half on 3 March 2003. Storm Water issued
Permit Number 917 on 27 March 2003.
In May 2004, Storm Water determined it
had mistakenly issued the permit. The Charlotte
City Council adopted new floodway regulations
on 12 May 2003, after Permit Number 917 was
issued. Storm Water [***4] sent Griffith and
Madden a letter stating Permit Number 917 had
been "revoked." The letter also advised the ap-
plicant could revise its application to comply
with the 2000 ordinance in effect at the time the
original application was filed.
Griffith, through Insite, submitted a revised
flood study in June 2004. Storm Water found
the revised flood study complied with the City
of Charlotte's floodplain regulations in effect at
the time of the application. Storm Water "reis-
sued" Permit Number 917. This permitting de-
cision was affirmed and adopted by the Char-
lotte Zoning Board of Adjustment on 4 No-
vember 2003.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory\
judgment in Mecklenburg County Superior
Court challenging the validity of Permit Num-
ber 917. On 5 May 2004, the trial court granted
defendant's motion for partial judgment on the
pleadings. On, 17 December 2004, the trial
court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
II. Issues
Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment for defendants and
Page 3
argue: (1) the flood permit was issued under a
repealed ordinance; (2) the flood permit was
issued in violation of the 2000 ordinance; and
(3) [***5] the flood permit was issued by an
entity that lacked the legal authority to issue it.
Plaintiffs also assigned error to the trial court's
5 May 2004 order. Plaintiffs failed to argue
their assignment of error to the order entered 5
May 2004 on appeal. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6)
(2005) ("Assignments of error not set out in the
appellant's brief, or in support of which no rea-
son or argument is stated or authority cited, will
be taken as abandoned."). This assignment of
error is dismissed.
[*209] I11. Standard of Review
A. Summary Judgment
In a motion for summary judgment, the movant
has the burden of establishing that there are no
genuine issues of material fact. The movant can
meet the burden by either: "1) Proving that an
essential element of the opposing party's claim
is nonexistent; or 2) Showing through discov-
ery that the opposing party cannot produce evi-
dence sufficient to support an essential element
of his claim nor [evidence] sufficient to sur-
mount an affirmative defense to his claim."
Price v. Davis, 132 N.C. App. 556, 559, 512
S.E.2d 783, 786 (1999) (citing Messick v. Ca-
tawba County, 110 N.C. App. 707, 712, 431
S.E.2d 489, 492-93, [***61 disc. rev. denied,
334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993)).
When a motion for summary
judgment is made and supported as
provided in this rule, an adverse
party may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of his plead-
ing, but his response, by affidavits
or as otherwise provided in this
rule, must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine is-
sue for trial. If he does not so re-
spond, summary judgment, if ap-
propriate, [**907] shall be en-

176 N.C. App. 205, *; 625 S.E.2d 904,
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424, ***
tered against him. N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 1A-1, Rule 56(e) (2003).
Hines v. Yates, 171 N.C. App. 150, 614 S.E.2d
385, 389 (2005).
B. Statutory Construction
We review an issue of statutory construc-
tion de novo. A&F Trademark, Inc. v. Tolson,
167 N.C. App. 150, 153-54, 605 S.E.2d 187,
190 (2004). The primary goal of statutory con-
struction is to effectuate the legislature's pur-
pose and intention. MacPherson v. City of
Asheville, 283 N.C. 299, 30Z 196 S.E.2d 200,
206 (1973). "'The toles applicable to the con-
struction of statutes are equally applicable to
the construction of municipal ordinances."' Id.
(quoting [***7] Cogdell v. Taylor, 264 N.C.
424, 142 S.E.2d 36 (1965)).
When reviewing a board of adjustment's in-
terpretation of an ordinance, "'our task on ap-
pealis not to decide whether another interpreta-
tion of the ordinance might reasonably have
been reached by the board,' but to decide if the
board 'acted arbitrarily, oppressively, mani-
festly abused its authority, or committed an er-
ror of law' in interpreting the ordinance."
Whiteco Outdoor Adver. v. Johnston County
Bd. of Adjust., 132 N.C. App. 465, 470, 513
S.E.2d 70, 74 (1999) (quoting Taylor Home v.
City of Charlotte, 116 N.C. App. 188, 193, 447
S.E.2d 438, 442, disc. rev. denied, 338 N.C.
524, 453 S.E.2d 170 (1994)).
[*210] IV. Issuance of the Flood Permit
A. Evaluation Under the 2000 Ordinance
[1] Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in
CT summary judgment to defendants be-
cause Storm Water evaluated the June 2004
revised flood study under the 2000 floodplain
ordinance instead of the 2003 ordinance. We
disagree.
Page 4
The original application was submitted on 3
March 2003 when the 2000 ordinance con-
trolled the conditions of the permit. The City
amended the flood way [***8] regulations in
May 2003. Insight's revised flood study was
submitted in June 2004. The 2003 ordinance is
silent on allowing filed flood lands develop-
ment permit applications to be evaluated under
standards in effect when filed. Plaintiffs argue
the trial court erred in applying a "grandfather
provision" when the 2003 ordinance contains
no such provision.
The letter from Storm Water to Griffith and
Madden stated:
If you wish to submit a revised
model or models still showing the
fill within the FEMA floodway
line or a revised application with
different fill parameters and re-
vised models for our review using
the ordinance that was in effect at
the time of your original submittal
(March 3, 2003), please do so no
later than July 12, 2004. Failure to
submit by that date will result in
your original application being
deemed to have been abandoned.
(Emphasis supplied). An inter -office memoran-
dum within the Planning Commission stated:
We have been informed that
Mecklenburg County Storm Water
Services has revoked the Flood -
lands Development Permit neces-
sary for the development of East-
over Woods after determining that
it was mistakenly issued: However,
Mecklenburg [***9] County
Storm Water Services has given
the developer until July 12, 2004 to
re -submit information in support of
their original Floodland Develop-
ment Permit application.

176 N.C. App. 205, *; 625 S.E.2d 904, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424, ***
(Emphasis supplied).
Storm Water considered the following fac-
tors in determining whether the revised flood
study would be evaluated under the 2000 ordi-
nance: (1) both the 2000 and 2003 ordinances
are silent on the issue of evaluating permit ap-
plications submitted and filed prior to the adop-
tion of the 2003 ordinance; and (2) the Char-
lotte ['1211] Mecklenburg Planning Commis-
sion had a prior pattern and practice of evaluat-
ing subdivision applications under the regula-
tory rules existing at the time of the application
for preliminary subdivision approval, where the
subsequently adopted regulations are silent on
the issue of grandfathering.
In Northwestern Financial Group v. County
of Gaston, our Supreme Court addressed an
explicit grandfathering provision. 329 N.C.
180, 405 S.E.2d 138 (1991). Gaston County
adopted a mobile home park ordinance [**908]
on 1 July 1986. Id. at 182, 405 S.E.2d at 139.
Gaston County amended the ordinance in Sep-
tember 1987. Id. The amended ordinance con-
tained [***10] the following language: "[t]he
provisions of the Gaston County Mobile Home
Park Ordinance Dated July 1, 1986, shall apply
to those ... plans ... submitted to the Gaston
County Division of Planning after July 1, 1986
and prior to the effective date of this ordi-
nance." Id. The plaintiff submitted a plan for a
mobile home park in June 1987 prior to the ef-
fective date of the ordinance's amendment. Id.
The plaintiff submitted a revised plan shortly
before the ordinance was amended. Id. at 183,
405 S.E.2d at 140. In response to requests from
Gaston County, the plaintiff further revised and
resubmitted the plans three times after the 1987
ordinance became effective. Gaston County
refused to accept the fifth set of revised plans
under the 1986 ordinance. 329 N.C. at 185, 405
S.E.2d at 141.
In Northwestern Financial Group, our Su-
preme Court determined whether the plaintiff
waived its right to have the plan reviewed un-
Page 5
der the 1986 ordinance by either an affirmative
act or a failure to act. Id. at 188, 405 S.E.2d at
143. The Court stated:
The Court of Appeals held that
the revised plans submitted after
the enactment of the [***11] new
ordinance did not "relate back" to
plans submitted prior to the enact-
ment of that ordinance. We do not
agree. We conceive the issue to be
not so much whether the plans re-
late back, as it is whether the sub-
nussion of the subsequent revised
plans in response to the require-
ments or recommendations of
regulatory bodies resulted in a
waiver or abandonment of North -
western's right to review under the
1986 ordinance. ,The more perti-
nent inquiry as to whether .such
right is waived or abandoned is
through examination of the ques-
tion of whether the subsequent
plans were made in a good faith ef-
fort to bring its application into
compliance with the 1986 ordi-
nance. We hold, based on the find-
ings by the trial court, which are
amply supported by the evidence,
that Northwestern submitted
[*212] the revised plans in re-
sponse to the modifications rec-
ommended by a regulatory agency,
proceeded in good faith to comply
with the requirements of the 1986
ordinance, and did not waive or
abandon its right to review under
that ordinance. The revised plans
were essentially a part of the nor-
mal give and take between the ap-
plicant and the regulatory authori-
ties.

176 N.C. App. 205, *; 625 S.E.2d 904, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424, ***
Id. at 188-89, 405 S.E.2d at 143 [***12] (em-
phasis supplied). "Good faith efforts to comply
with the recommendations of the reviewing
agencies should not prejudice the applicant."
Id. at 190, 405 S.E.2d at 144.
Here, the Griffith application was submitted
and filed when the 2000 ordinance controlled
the development. Griffith submitted additional
information in connection with the original ap-
plication after the ordinance was amended.
Storm Water considered the revised flood study
to be part of the original application process
and not a new and separate permit application.
The submission of the revised flood study was
"part of the normal give and take between the
applicant and the regulatory authorities." Id. at
189, 405 S.E.2d at 143. In submitting the re-
vised flood study, Griffith was making a "good
faith [effort] to comply with requirements of
the ... ordinance" in effect at the time the ap-
plication was filed. Id. at 190, 405 S.E.2d at
144. Defendants "[were] entitled to rely upon
the language of the ordinance in effect at the
time [Griffith] applied for the permit." Lambeth
v. Town of Kure Beach, 157 N.C. App. 349,
351, 578 S.E.2d 688, 690 (2003) [***13] (cit-
ing Northwestern Financial Group, 329 N.C.
180, 405 S.E.2d 138).
Land development is somewhat analogous
to litigation. Neither is a snapshot, a freeze in
time, but rather a process that occurs over time,
sometimes months and years. Once a claimant
timely files a lawsuit, the claimant tolls the
statute of limitations for those claims. The
claimant may amend his pleadings, dismiss
without prejudice and refile, or add parties or
claims to the original action. N.C. Gen. Stat. §
IA-1, Rule 15(a) (2003); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-
1, Rule 41(a) (2003); N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-1,
Rule 14(a) (2003); N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-1,
Rule 18(a) (2003). Both land development and
litigation hold the potential for multiple se-
quences and [**909] paths. The outcome de-
pends upon numerous dependent and independ-
ent, but correlated, variables. The design and
Page 6
construction of a project is specifically tailored
to comply with the regulations in effect at the
time of application for permits. A request for
further information. or clarification of an exist
ing application by a reviewing [***14] agency
or board does not [*213] require the entire
application and permitting process to begin
anew. To hold otherwise would allow compli-
ance with regulations and permitting to become
a moving target to ever changing revisions or
amendments. Although our review is de novo,
we give deference to the agency's interpretation
of the ordinance in issue. County of Durham v.
N.C. Dept. of Env't and Natural Resources, 131
N.C. App. 395, 396-97, 507 S.E.2d 310, 311
(1998) ("[E]ven when reviewing a case de
novo, courts recognize the long-standing tradi-
tion of according deference to the agency's in-
terpretation." The agency's past pattern and
practice in similar applications also supports
upholding the agency's decision in the absence
of other controlling authority. This assignment
of error is overruled.
B. Issuance in Accordance with the 2000 Ordi-
nance
[2] Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of defen-
dants because Permit Number 917 was issued
in violation of Section 9-21(4)(a) of the 2000
ordinance. We disagree.
The 2000 ordinance restricts development
within both the FEMA and FLUM floodways.
Section 9-21(4)(a) of the 2000 ordinance
[***15] addresses the FEMA floodway and
provides:
With the exception of stream
crossings which shall not raise the
base flood elevation more than one
foot, no encroachments, including
fill, new construction, substantial
improvements and other develop-
ments shall be permitted within the
FEMA floodway, unless it has

Page 7
176 N.C. App. 205, *; 625 S.E.2d 904, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424, ***
been demonstrated through hydro-
logic and hydraulic analysis per-
formed in accordance with stan-
dard engineering practice that such
encroachment would not result in
any increase in flood level during
occurrence of a FLUM base flood
discharge, changes in FEMA
floodway elevations, or FEMA
floodway width.
(Emphasis supplied).
The revised floodplain study shows devel-
opment occurring inside the FEMA floodway.
The proposed subdivision plan shows construc-
tion of a cul-de-sac, driveway connections to
the road, utility installations, and land clearing
activities located within the FEMA floodway.
Plaintiffs assert Griffith failed to demonstrate
the encroachment will cause no rise in the flood
level to occur during a FLUM base flood dis-
charge as required by Section 9-21(4)(a).
[*214] The term "encroachment" is not de-
fined in the 2000 ordinance. Section 9-21(4)(c)
provides:
The [***16] following uses shall
be permitted by right within the
floodway district to the extent that
they are otherwise permitted by the
zoning ordinance, and provided
they do not employ structures, fill
or storage of materials or equip-
ment except as provided herein:
2. Loading areas, parking ar-
eas, rotary aircraft ports and other
similar uses, provided they are no
closer than twenty-five (25) feet to
the stream bank;
5. Streets, bridges, overhead
utility lines, creek and storm drain-
age facilities . '.. and other similar
public community or utility uses[.]
(Emphasis supplied).
The Board of Adjustment concluded the re-
vised flood study "did not propose any en-
croachment or activity that would trigger the
application of Former Regulations Sec. 9-
21(4)a." The Board also concluded the pro-
posed activities that will occur in conjunction
with the development "are not encroachments
under Sec. 9-21(4)a and are uses permitted by
right pursuant to Sec. 9-21(4)c of the Former
Regulations." Plaintiffs have failed to show the
Board of Adjustment "'acted arbitrarily, oppres-
sively, manifestly abused its authority, or
committed an error of law"' by concluding
[***17] the street and utility [**910] devel-.
opment within the FEMA floodway is "permit-
ted by right", does not constitute an impermis-
sible encroachment, and is exempt. Whiteco
Outdoor Adver., 132 N.C. App. at 470, 513
S.E.2d at 74. This assignment of error is over-
ruled.
C. Authority of Storm Water
[3] Plaintiffs argue Griffith did not apply to
the proper entity for purposes of obtaining the
permit. We disagree.
Permit Number 917 was sought and ob-
tained from the Floodplain Administrator for
Storm Water. Section 9-19(a) of the 2000 ordi-
nance, entitled, "Variance Procedures," states,
"The zoning board of adjustment ... shall hear
and decide .. . any proposed encroachment
[*215] requests that would result in an increase
in the floodway elevations or floodway widths
during the occurrence of a base flood."
Plaintiffs assert Griffith should have ap-
plied directly to the Board of Adjustment be-
cause it sought permission to place encroach-

176 N.C. App. 205, *; 625 S.E.2d 904, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424, ***
ments in restricted areas and evidence shows
the encroachments would raise the base flood
elevation. The Zoning Board of Adjustment
concluded the proposed development was in
accordance with the 2000 ordinance and the
proposed construction in the floodway was
[***18] exempt from the ordinance. The ordi-
nance expressly provides for exemptions for
development such as utilities, public roads, and
parking areas in the restricted areas.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment also ex-
pressly stated in its decision: "To the extent .. .
that approval of the Charlotte Zoning Board of
Adjustment is necessary, this decision on ap-
peal shall constitute such approval and issuance
of permit # 917." This assignment of error is
overruled.
V. Conclusion
The trial court did not err in granting sum-
mary judgment in favor of defendants. No error
of law was committed by the superior court in
ruling the proposed development inside the
FEMA floodway did not constitute an imper-
missible encroachment under Section 9-
21(4)(a) of the 2000 City of Charlotte Flood -
way Regulations and defendant's development
is "permitted by right" under Section 9-21(4)(c)
of the City of Charlotte Floodway Regulations.
The trial court's order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judge LEVINSON concurs.
Judge HUDSON concurs in result with a
separate opinion.
CONCUR BY: HUDSON
CONCUR
HUDSON, Judge, concurring in result.
While I concur in the result reached by the
majority, I believe that its discussion of grand -
fathering [***19] provisions, particularly the
analogy to litigation, is misplaced. The primary
Page 8
case cited by the majority, Northwestern Fin.
Group, Inc. v. County of Gaston, concerns a
change to an ordinance which explicitly pro-
vided that the old version applied to plans sub-
mitted before the effective date of the change.
[*216] 329 N.C. 180, 405 S.E.2d 138 (1991).
The Court in Northwestern notes that the Board
found that this explicit provision applied, then
focuses on whether Northwestern had waived
its application. Id. at 188, 405 S.E.2d at 143.
The language quoted in the majority opinion
immediately follows this statement:
Having decided that Northwest-
ern is entitled to have its applica-
tion reviewed under the 1986 ordi-
nance, we must next determine
whether Northwestern waived that
right by affirmative acts, that is, by
abandonment of the first plans
through the submission of the other
revised plans, or by a failure to act,
that is, the passage of time.
Id. Thus, the language discussed by the major-
ity is focused on waiver by affirmative acts,
which is not the issue before this Court. In ad-
dition, neither party cites a case in which our
Courts have [***20] approved grandfathering
in the absence of an explicit authorization, nor
have we found one. I do not believe that creat-
ing a process of implicit grandfathering is ap-
propriate here.
The law regarding vesting of a right to pro-
ceed under the prior version of an amended or-
dinance is well -established:
[**911] A party's common law
right to develop and/or construct
vests when: (1) the party has made,
prior to the amendment of a zoning
ordinance, expenditures or in-
curred contractual obligations sub-
stantial in amount, incidental to or
as part of the acquisition of the

176 N.C. App. 205, *; 625 S.E.2d 904, **;
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 424, ***
building site or the construction or
equipment of the proposed build-
ing; (2) the obligations and/or ex-
penditures are incurred in good
faith; (3) the obligations and/or ex-
penditures were made in reason-
able reliance on and after the issu-
ance of a valid building permit, if
such permit is required, authoriz-
ing the use requested by the party;
and (4) the amended ordinance is a
detriment to the party. The burden
is on the landowner to prove each
of the above four elements.
Browning -Ferris Industries v. Guilford County
Bd. of Adj., 126 N.C. App. 168, 171-72, 484
S.E.2d 411, 414 (1997) (internal quotation
marks [***21] and citations omitted).
Here; plaintiffs made expenditures in reli-
ance on the original permit and the May 2003
letter from Storm Water, and thus acted in good
faith, satisfying the third of the Browning -
Ferris Industries elements. The amended ordi-
nance tightened the floodplain development
restrictions to the detriment of plaintiffs, thus
Page 9
satisfying the fourth. [*217] However,
"[p]ermits unlawfully or mistakenly issued do
not create a vested right." Clark Stone Co. v.
N.C. Dept of Env't & Natural Res., 164 N.C.
App, 24, 40, 594 S.E.2d 832, 842, disc. appeal
dismissed, 358 N.C. 731, 603 S.E.2d 878
(2004). Accordingly, defendants cannot prevail
under a theory of vested rights.
Nevertheless, Storm Water first issued a
permit to plaintiffs on 27 March 2003. In May
2003, Storm Water determined they had issued
the permit in error, and sent plaintiffs a letter
revoking the permit, but advising that the ap-
plication could be revised and resubmitted un-
der the 2000 ordinance. Storm Water did not
notify defendants about the error issuing the
original permit until early May; the amendment
was adopted 12 May 2003. Because Storm Wa-
ter erred in issuing the original [*k*22] permit
and did not catch its mistake in time for defen-
dants to make the necessary revisions, Storm
Water treated this process as a revision and re-
issue, rather than as a new submission. Given
our deference to an agency's interpretation of
its own ordinance, I conclude that this process
was proper, and would affirm on that basis.

47
LexisNexis�
DOUGLAS M. ROBINS v. TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
No.154A06
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
361 N.C. 193; 639 S.E.2d 421; 2007N.C. LEXIS 37
October 16, 2006, Heard in the Supreme Court
January 26, 2007, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Robins v. Town of Hills-
borough, 176 N.C. App. 1, 625 S.E.2d 813,
2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 415 (N.C. Ct. App.,
2006)
DISPOSITION: MODIFIED AND [***1]
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART;
REMANDED.
HEADNOTES
1. Zoning --site specific development
plan -applicable ordinance
Plaintiff had a right to have defendant
town's board of adjustment consider and render
a decision on his application for approval of a
site specific development plan for an asphalt
plant under the zoning ordinance in effect at the
time the application was made where, after the
board of adjustment had held hearings on plain-
tiffs application, the town's board of commis-
sioners adopted a moratorium on consideration
of applications for the construction of manufac-
turing and processing facilities involving pet-
releum products, including asphalt plants, and
the board of commissioners thereafter amended
the zoning ordinance to prohibit manufacturing
and processing facilities involving the use of
Page 1
petroleum products within the town's zoning
jurisdiction.
2. Zoning --amended ordinance --
constitutionality
The portion of the Court of Appeals opinion
concerning the constitutionality of the amended
zoning ordinance is vacated because the Court
of Appeals unnecessarily addressed the issue.
COUNSEL: Smith, James, Rowlett & Cohen,
LLP, by Seth R. Cohen, for plaintiff -appellee.
Cranfrll, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Susan
K. Burkhart, for defendant -appellant.
Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis,
P.A., by Craig D. Justus, and Richard A.
Zechini, Counsel for North Carolina Associa-
tion of Realtors, for the North Carolina Home
Builders Association, North Carolina Associa-
tion of Realtors, and North Carolina Outdoor
Advertising Association, amici curiae.
JUDGES: BRADY, Justice. Justice HUDSON
did not participate in the consideration or deci-
sion of this case.
OPINION BY: BRADY

361 N.C. 193, *; 639 S.E.2d 421, **;
2007 N.C. LEXIS 37, ***
OPINION
[*193] ['1'*421] Appeal pursuant to
NC.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a di-
vided panel of the Court of Appeals, 176 N.C.
App. 1, 625 S.E.2d 813, (2006), reversing and
remanding an order granting summary judg-
ment entered 29 October 2004 by Judge James
C. Spencer, Jr. in Superior Court, Orange
County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 Octo-
ber 2006.
[*194] [*1'422] BRADY, Justice.
In this case we determine whether plaintiff,
who applied to defendant for approval of his
site specific development plan, has a right to
have his application reviewed under [***2] the
zoning ordinance in effect at that time. We
conclude that he does and therefore modify and
affirm in part, and vacate. in part, the opinion of
the Court of Appeals. We also remand this case
for entry of judgment in plaintiffs favor.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Prior to 21 January 2003, plaintiff Douglas
M. Robins contracted to purchase.a parcel of
land zoned general industrial and containing
approximately 4.96 acres within defendant
Town of. Hillsborough's extraterritorial zoning
jurisdiction. ' On 21 January 2003, plaintiff
submitted an application to defendant seeking
approval of his site specific development plan,
in which he proposed to construct a bituminous
concrete (asphalt) plant on this property, which
was situated directly across from an existing
cement plant. Plaintiff also submitted an ero-
sion control plan to the Orange County Soil and
Erosion Control Officer on 11 March 2003 and
received approval of his erosion control plan on
14 April 2003. 3 Plaintiff spent approximately $
100,000 in pursuit of this project in addition to
the expenditure of time required to prepare his
application and attend the various public hear-
ings on his proposal.
Page 2
1 Plaintiff closed on this property in
December 2003.
[***3]
2 There is a dispute as to whether this
and other state and local permit applica-
tions were necessary steps for plaintiffs
application to be complete. However,
these facts ultimately are not determina-
tive of our analysis of the critical issue in
this case.
Defendant's Board of Adjustment held three
separate hearings to consider plaintiffs devel-
opment plan on 12 February 2003, 12 March
[*195] 2003, and finally on 9 April 2003. At
the third hearing, the Board of Adjustment once
again continued proceedings until 30 April
2003. Earlier that same day, however, defen-
dant had published, in a newspaper of record,
notice of a hearing to be held on 22 April 2003
to consider a moratorium on the construction of
processing and. manufacturing facilities involv-
ing petroleum products, including asphalt
plants, within its zoning jurisdiction. Nothing
in the record indicates plaintiff was aware of
the pending moratorium hearing at the time he
acquiesced to the 9 April 2003 continuance of
his hearing before the Board of Adjustment.
At the moratorium hearing, defendant's
Board of Commissioners (Town Board)
adopted "An [***4] Ordinance Amending the
Town of Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance to
Temporarily Suspend the Review, Considera-
tion and Issuance of Permits and Applications
for Manufacturing and Processing Operations
Involving Petroleum Products" (the morato-
rium), which reads:
Notwithstanding any provision in
this Zoning Ordinance to the con-
trary, no manufacturing and proc-
essing facility involving petroleum
products as one of the materials
being manufactured and/or proc-
essed (including, but not limited to,
refineries for gasoline and other

361 N.C. 193, *; 639 S.E.2d 421, **;
2007 N.C. LEXIS 37, ***
fuels, liquefied gas refineries, as-
phalt plants, finished petroleum
products plants, plants which
manufacture asphalt paving mix-
tures and blocks, asphalt shingles
and/or coating materials, and
plants manufacturing or processing
petroleum lubricating oils and
greases) shall be permitted, and no
application for any permit or ap-
proval to operate such a facility
shall be accepted, processed, re-
viewed or considered by the Town.
This section shall apply to all ap-
plications for a permit or ap-
proval, including any application
which is pending as of the effective
date hereof.
(Emphasis added.) This moratorium was to be-
gin immediately and remain in effect until 31
December 2003, unless [***5] terminated ear-
lier [**423] or extended by the Town Board
for a period of up to six months. At the time the
moratorium took effect, plaintiffs asphalt plant
was the only development plan under consid-
eration by the Board of Adjustment that was
affected.
Defendant issued a notice that the hearing
scheduled for 30 April 2003 was cancelled as a
result of the moratorium, causing an indefinite
delay in plaintiffs development plan. Then, on
24 November 2003, the Town Board adopted
an amendment to Section .3.3 of its [*196]
zoning ordinance (the amendment) which
states: "[M]anufacturing and processing facili-
ties involving the use of petroleum products,
such as ... asphalt plants ... are expressly
prohibited in the Town of Hillsborough and
it[s] extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction." The
amendment was to take effect 1 March 2004.
On 1 December 2003, the Town Board ex-
tended the moratorium to coincide with the ef-
fective date of the amendment. This action ef-
Page 3
fectively terminated the development plan of
plaintiff, who then initiated litigation.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On 22 January 2004, plaintiff filed a com-
plaint and petition for judicial review and writ
of certiorari in Orange County [***6] Superior
Court concerning his application. In September
2004 defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. After hearing defendant's motion,
the trial court allowed summary judgment for
defendant on 29 October 2004. The trial court's
order determined, as a matter of law, that plain-
tiff is not entitled to a review of his application
under the pre -moratorium and pre -amendment
ordinance; that defendant complied with all due
process and statutory requirements in adopting
the moratorium, the moratorium extension, and
the amendment; that plaintiffs challenge to the
extension of the moratorium was mooted by
enactment of the amendment; that plaintiff is
not entitled to any further review or decision
concerning his application; and that plaintiff is
not entitled to any damages.
Plaintiff appealed the trial court's order to
the Court of Appeals, which, in a divided deci-
sion, found that "plaintiff was entitled to rely
upon the language of, and have his application
considered under, the zoning ordinance in ef-
fect at the time he applied for his permit." Rob-
ins v. Town of Hillsborough, 176 N.C. App. I,
, 625 S.E.2d 813, 817 (2006). The majority also
held that the trial [***7] court erred in granting
summary judgment to defendant on plaintiffs
constitutional claims because there was a genu-
ine issue of material fact. Id. at , 625 S.E.2d
at 819. Defendant appeals on the basis of a dis-
sent in the Court of Appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a trial court's order for summary
judgment de novo to determine whether there is
a "genuine issue of material fact" and whether
either party is "entitled to judgment as a matter
of law." Summey v. Barker, 357 N.C. 492, 496,

361 N.C. 193, *; 639 S.E.2d 421, **;
2007 N.C. LEXIS 37, ***
586 S.E.2d 247, 249 (2003) (citing N.C.G.S. §
IA-1, Rule 56(c)).
[*197] ANALYSIS
[1] The issue before us is whether plaintiff
has a right to have defendant consider and ren-
der a decision on his application under the or-
dinance in effect at the time the application was
made. Although the parties have presented ar-
guments as to whether plaintiff may assert a
vested right, either by operation of statute or
common law principles, these arguments are
inapposite because our vested rights decisions
have considered whether a plaintiff has a right
to complete his project despite changes in the
applicable zoning ordinances, see, e.g. [***81 ,
Finch v. City of Durham, 325 N.C. 352, 373,
384 S.E.2d 8, 20 (1989), an issue distinct from
the one before us today. However, we deter-
mine, consistent with prior decisions of this
.Court, that plaintiff was entitled.to have defen-
dant render a decision on his application, com-
plete with competent findings of fact which
support such decision. Additionally, defen-
dant's application merits review under the zon-
ing ordinance as it existed before the morato-
dutn and the amendment were passed. '
Under Section 21.3.2 of the Town of Hills-
borough Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Ad-
justment's "powers" "shall" include the author-
ity to "[p]ass upon, decide, or determine
[**424] such other matters as may be required
by this Ordinance." Hillsborough, N.C., Zoning
Ordinance 21.3.2 .(2003) [hereinafter Zoning
Ordinance]. Similarly, the Rules of Procedure
of the Board of Adjustment state that the Board
"shall ... hear and decide all matters ... upon
which it is required [to] pass by the Zoning Or-
dinance of Hillsborough." Hillsborough, N.C.,
Bd. of Adjust. R.P. VI(A) [hereinafter Adjust.
R.P.] (emphasis added). Section 5.27 of the
Zoning Ordinance lists the land uses for which
site plan [***91 approval by the Board of Ad-
justment is "require[d]." Zoning Ordinance
5.27.2 (2003). These uses include "[a]ll pro -
Page 4
jects involving the construction of new build-
ings ... on lots within" various districts includ-
ing the "GI" district, in which plaintiffs pro-
posed project is located. Id. 5.27.2(b).
Under the Board of Adjustment's Rules of
Procedure, board decisions "shall be supported
by competent, material, and substantial evi-
dence in the whole record." Adjust. R.P.
VI(D)(1). Appeals from Board of Adjustment
decisions are to the Superior Court. Zoning Or-
dinance 21.3.10. The Board's procedural rules
state that "a hearing" shall be held before a de-
cision is rendered. Adjust. R.P. VI(C). Al-
though nothing in the rules allows or prohibits
a series of hearings or an indefinite suspension
of consideration of an application, the rules re-
quire the Board's decision to be rendered in a
timely fashion, [*198] that is, "not more than
thirty (30) days from the date of the last hearing
of the . matter under consideration." Id.
VI(D)(2).
This Court has stated that the task of a court
reviewing a town board's decision when the
town board has acted as a quasi-judicial body
includes:
(1) [***10] Reviewing the re-
cord for errors in law,
(2) Insuring that procedures speci-
fied by law in both statute and or-
dinance are followed,
(3) Insuring that appropriate due
process rights of a petitioner are
protected including the right to of-
fer evidence, cross-examine wit-
nesses, and inspect documents,
(4) Insuring that decisions of town
boards are supported by compe-
tent, material and substantial evi-
dence in the whole record, and

361 N.C. 193, *; 639 S.E.2d 421, **;
2007 N.C. LEXIS 37, ***
(5) Insuring that decisions are not
arbitrary and capricious.
Coastal Ready -Mix Concrete Co. v. Bd. of
Comm'rs., 299 N.C. 620, 626, 265 S.E.2d 379,
383 (1980). Because town boards "are gener-
ally composed of laymen who do not always
have the benefit of legal advice, they cannot
reasonably be held to the standards required of
judicial bodies." Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bd.
of Aldermen, 284 N.C. 458, 470, 202 S.E.2d
129, 137 (1974). However, such a body con-
ducting a quasi-judicial hearing "can dispense
with no essential element of a fair trial." Id.
One of those essential elements is that "[a]ny
decision of the town board has to be based on
competent, material, and substantial evidence
that is introduced [* K*11] at a public hearing."
Coastal Ready -Mix Concrete -Co., 299 N.C. at
626, 265 S.E.2d at 383 (emphasis added). Ac-
cordingly, it is impossible for a court reviewing
a town board's decision to do so unless the
town board actually renders that decision.
Previously, this Court has bound town
boards to their own rules of procedure. In
Humble Oil, this Court noted that "[t]he proce-
dural rules of an administrative agency 'are
binding upon the agency which enacts them as
well as upon the public.... To be valid the ac-
tion of the agency must conform to its rules
which are in effect at the time the action is
taken...."' 284 N.C. at 467, 202 S.E.2d at 135
(citations omitted). Consistent with this Court's
duty to ensure "that decisions are not arbitrary
and capricious," Coastal Ready -Mix Concrete
Co., 299 N.C. at 626, 265 S.E.2d at 383, we
must determine whether [*199] defendant fol-
lowed its own procedures. "In no other way can
an applicant be accorded due process and equal
protection, or the [board] refute a charge that
[its actions] constituted an arbitrary and unwar-
ranted discrimination against a property
owner." Humble Oil, 284 N.C. at 468, 202
S.E.2d at 135 [***12] (citing Keiger v.
Page 5
Winston-Salem Bd. of Adjust., 281 N.C. 715,
720, 190 S.E.2d 175, 179 (1972)).
In many ways this case is analogous to
Humble Oil: In Humble Oil, this Court required
a Board of Aldermen to consider an applicant's
application de novo because the [**425] pro-
cedural rules of the ordinance had not been fol-
lowed. 284 N. C. at 467, 471, 202 S.E.2d at 135,
138. Specifically, the applicable ordinance re-
quired the Board of Aldermen, before a deci-
sion on an application was made, to receive a
recommendation from the Planning Board after
the Planning Board conducted an investigation
into the subject matter of the application. Id. at
467, 202 S.E.2d at 135. In Humble Oil, the
Board of Aldermen failed to follow this rule by
denying the application before referring it to
the Planning Board. Id. at 468, 202 S.E.2d at
135-36. In the case sub judice, the applicable
ordinance provides that the Board of Adjust-
ment "shall [p]ass upon, decide, or determine
such ... matters as may be required by this Or-
dinance," including site plans. Zoning Ordi-
nance 21.3.2(d). The Zoning Ordinance speci-
fies the grounds upon which [***13] a site
plan may be approved or denied. Id. 5.27. In-
stead of following the proper procedures by
which the Board of Adjustment would have
rendered an up or down decision on plaintiffs
application, defendant, acting through its Board
of Commissioners, passed the moratorium and
eventually amended the ordinance, effectively
usurping the Board of Adjustment's responsi-
bility in the matter. In essentially dictating by
legislative fiat the outcome of a matter which
should be resolved through quasi-judicial pro-
ceedings, defendant did not follow its own or-
dinance pertaining to the disposition of site
specific development plans, thus leaving the
Town Board no defense to the charge that its
actions were arbitrary and capricious. See
Humble Oil, 284 N.C. at 468, 202 S.E.2d at 135
(citing Keiger, 281 N.C. at 720, 190 S.E.2d at
179 (1972)).

361 N.C.,193, *; 639.S.F.2d 421, *'Y;
2007 N.C. LEXIS'37, ***
We hold that when the applicable rules and
ordinances are not followed by a town board,
the applicant is entitled to have his application
reviewed under the ordinances and procedural
rules in effect as of the time he filed his appli-
cation. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to
receive a final determination from defendant
[***14] regarding his application and to have
it assessed under the ordinance in effect when
the application was filed. We express no opin=
ion as to whether [*200] the application
should be approved or denied on the merits, but
merely that plaintiff is entitled to a decision by
defendant pursuant to the ordinance as it ex-
isted before passage of the moratorium and the
amendment.
[2] Because of our holding, we need not
address the portion of the Court of Appeals
opinion concerning the constitutionality of the
amended zoning ordinance except to note that
the Court of Appeals unnecessarily addressed
the issue. Because plaintiff is entitled to have
Page 6
his application decided under the ordinance in
effect at the time he filed his application, the
amended ordinance does not apply to his pro-
posed activity. Accordingly, we vacate that
portion of the Court of Appeals opinion.
Thus, we modify and affirm the portion of
the Court of Appeals opinion concerning plain-
tiffs right to have his application reviewed and
a decision made under the zoning ordinance in
effect on 21 January 2003. We remand to that
court for further remand to the trial court with
instructions to enter judgment for plaintiff de-
claring his right [***15] to have his applica-
tion reviewed in accordance with this opinion.
We also vacate the portion of the opinion of the
Court of Appeals concerning the constitutional-
ity of the amended zoning ordinance.
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
Justice HUDSON did not' participate in the
consideration or decision of this case.

Govoni, Daniel
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please print out for file.
Huggett, Doug
Friday, May 27, 2011 10:56 AM
Govoni, Daniel
FW: CAMA Permit 84-01
Bailey. Letter.05.20.1 1.PDF
From: Matthew Nichols [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:55 AM
To: ][e-mail]
Cc: Huggett, Doug; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; CO'[e-mail]; Mairs, Robb L;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kenneth Shanklin
Subject: CAMA Permit 84-01
Jane
As I mentioned in my May 20, 2011 e-mail letters to Mr. Huggett and County Attorney Wanda Copley, we would be glad to
meet with representatives of the County and/or DCM representatives at your convenience. Please let me know when it is
convenient for you to meet.
I think that the meeting would be more productive, however, if the County would first provide us with the public records
that we requested in my May.20, 2011 e-mail letter to the County Attorney (copy attached hereto). I have not heard a
response yet to this public records request. Please let me know how the County wishes to proceed in this matter.
With kind regards,
Matthew A. Nichols
Shanklin & Nichols, LLP
Ph. 910.762.9400; Fax [phone]
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual designated above. It may contain confidential
or proprietary information and may be subject to attorney -client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are not authorized to read, copy, retain or distribute this message. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and
delete this message. The sender does not waive any privilege or right of privacy or confidentiality that may attach to this communication. Thank you.
IRS Circular 230 Notice: To Insure compliance with requirements Imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any US tax advice contained in this
communication (or any attachment) is not Intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (I) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (11) promoting or marketing to another party any transaction or matter addressed In this communication (or any attachment).
-- -- Original Message ----
'From: Daughtridge. Jane
To: shanklaw(a)earthlink .net;Doug Huggett m
Cc: Copley, Wanda; Chris O'Keefe; Robb Mairs; Angela Faison; Jim Hundley; ChrisBailev; Christine Goebel
Sent: 5/23/2011 11:56:10 AM
Subject: RE: CAMA Permit 84-01 (1 of 2)
Doug, et al,
We will be happy to talk with Mr. Nichols about his client's need for a special use permit from New Hanover
County for the marina project in question.
Jame Daughtridge, AICP
CuiTeut Pluniigg & Zoning Mau:lrer
New 11Mtover County Plauluug & Iuspectious Department
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 150

Wihningion, N C 28,103
910-798-7440
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:43 AM
To: Doug Huggett
Cc: Copley, Wanda; Chris O'Keefe; Daughtridge, Jane; Robb Mairs; Angela Faison; Jim Hundley; Chris Bailey;
Christine Goebel
Subject: CAMA Permit 84-01 (1 of 2)
Please see attached, which because of its size is being sent in two parts (first with letter and exhibits a-e; second
with exhibits f-h).
If you have any problems with this email, please let me know.
Jackie P. Shanklin
Office Manager
SHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
shanklawaearthlink. net
Telephone [phone]; Telefax [phone]
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual
designated above. It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to attorney -client
privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read,
copy, retain or distribute this message. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-
mail and delete this message. The sender does not waive any privilege or right of privacy or confidentiality that
may attach to this communication. Thank you.
IRS Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any
US tax advice contained in this communication (or any attachment) is not intended to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting or marketing to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or any attachment).

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
APPLICANT'S NAME: Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: 201 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_ ROVER FILE # - 0-120614B
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit —12/06/10, 12/07/10 and 04/14/11
Applicant Present — No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received — 04/12/2011 (complete)
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
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Commercial
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — Sewer Force Main (NEI)
Planned — N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing — Wooden bulkhead, irrigation well, access pier and floating dock
Planned —Additional access piers, gazebos, floating docks, mooring pilings
and excavation of boat basin.
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
[AREA]
DREDGED FIL D OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands (Low Marsh)
1,434 sq. ft.
(Shaded)
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands
5,640 sq. ft.
incorporated
O en.water
3,048 sq. ft.
(C) Other (Highground) Disposal Site
—56,628 sq. ft.
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 66,750 sq. ft. (1.5 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 that includes
excavation of a boat basin, construction of additional access piers, gazebos, floating docks and mooring
pilings, adjacent to Motts Creek and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) to accommodate eight (8)
larger vessels.

Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey
Page 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located at 201 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. The property is approximately 150 feet north of the US Highway 74/76
drawbridge to Wrightsville Beach and is directly across the AIWW from the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) public boat ramp at Wrightsville Beach, approximately 650 feet east. To locate the
property from Military Cut -Off Road (NC Highwayl7), turn onto Eastwood Road towards Wrightsville Beach.
Travel east approximately 1 mile and the property of interest would be located on the left, just before the
drawbridge to Wrightsville Beach. The project site is bordered to the north by a 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", which an existing box culvert bridges this connection for the street. The applicant
currently maintains the old "Babies Hospital" property and is currently in the permitting process through the
NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) for upland re -development.
The application states that project site is approximately 6,000 sq. ft. (0.137) acres with approximately 558
feet of shoreline frontage and averages 5 feet above normal high water (NHW). The majority of the
shoreline of the property borders Motts Creek. There are existing community and private docking facilities
with associated boat basins to the north of the property (State permits No. 174-00, No.165-90 & No. 241-
89). These facilities connect directly to the AIWW via an access channel at the mouth of Motts Creek. The
boat basins to these docking facilities along with the access channel have been excavated periodically
through the years to maintain adequate water depths.
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 alterniflora), ranging from 40 to 120 feet in
width. At the transition to highground, there is high coastal marsh vegetation, intermixed with spike grass
(Distichlis spicata), sea oxeye (Borrichia frutescens), sea lavender (Limonium, spp.), saltwort iSalicornia,
spp.), and salt meadow grass (Spartina patens). Shrubs including; marsh -elder (Iva frutescens), grounsel-
bush (Baccharus halimifolia), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) complete the transition to the highground.
There is an existing wooden bulkhead along the western portion of the property that stabilizes the
highground area adjacent to Summer Rest Road that was authorized under CAMA General Permit No.
51962. Waterward of the wooden bulkhead is an access pier that extends towards the AIWW, which runs
parallel to Motts Creek towards the AIWW. The access pier terminates onto a floating dock via an access
ramp that runs parallel to the AIWW. 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 is the
western side timber fender system for the AIWW under the Wrightsville Beach drawbridge. This facility was
authorized through State Permit No. 84-01. There is an existing wastewater line easement, which is known
as the Northeast Interceptor (NEI) that crosses property. The Town of Wrightsville Beach obtained State
Permit No. 106-78 forthe approximately 800 linear foot 14" subaqueous line on July 10,1978 that is located
on the north side of the drawbridge to Wrightsville Beach. Wastewater is collected and pumped under the
AIWW through segment #1 of the NEI to the City of Wilmington's pump station and ultimately to the City's
Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is also 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.

Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey
Page 3
Further, the referenced drawings to State Permit No. 84-01 indicate that the northern riparian line corridor
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 located in the field
on 12/10/2007 by the acting agent at the time of the modification request. The 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 expired on 12/31/2008, however, State
Permit No. 84-01 was subject to extension by the Session Law 2009-406, as amended by Session Law
2010-177, the Permit Extension Act.
State Permit No. 13-86 was issued to Consolidated Ventures Corporation on 11/19/1986 for a docking
facility at this property that accommodated up to ten (10) slips, which included excavation for a boat basin.
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 AIWW 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 atthis location appearto be
present in the review of historical NCDOT1989 aerial photography.
The New Hanover and the City of Wilmington County Land Use Plan 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 Middle Sound are classified SB (Wrightsville Recreational Area) by the Division of
Water Quality. 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 that includes excavation of a boat basin,
construction of additional access piers, gazebos, floating docks and mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek and the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels. The application states that the existing
floating dock and a section of the existing fixed access pierwould be removed priorto construction to allow
for the conversion from a fixed walkway to a floating walkway. The application also proposes excavation to
maintain the depth necessary to provide safe dockage for these larger vessels. As stated, the application
indicates that the NEI was located and surveyed by the applicant. In addition, the application states that the
dredging limits would maintain a 10' separation from the location of the NEI and sloughing has been
considered. An area approximately 1 10'in length by 40' in width and an area of 65' in length by 25' in width
would be mechanically excavated by bucket -to -barge method to a final project depth from -2.0' to -6.0' at
normal low water (NLW). This would result in the removal of approximately 845 cubic yards of material,
which would be hauled to a privately owned spoil island located approximately 2 miles south of the project
site at the confluence of the AIWW and Masonboro Inlet (US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Disposal
Site No. 0251). 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.

Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey
Page 4
A new access pier, measuring 168' in length by 6' in width would be constructed that would extend towards
the AIWW, just waterward of the waterward edge of coastal wetlands. An access ramp would lead onto a
new floating dock, measuring 105' in length by 6' in width that would extend towards the AIWW, essentially
in the same alignment as the new access pier. Three (3) floating finger piers, measuring 60' in length by 6'
in width would extend from this main floating dock towards the northeast. The floating docks would be
oriented towards the northeast creating "U-shaped" configurations. Two (2) tie pilings would be located
between the outer finger piers to accommodate slips #4 and #5. An additional floating dock, measuring 72'
in length by 6' in width would extend from the most landward of these floating finger docks, which would run
parallel to Motts Creek. The application states this area of the creek is 117' in length across to the edge of
an existing oyster bar. The application states the proposed docking facility would provide dockage for eight
(8) larger vessels 40'-60' in length. A covered platform would be located on the north side of the access
pier and on the south side of the NEI. Dimensions of the covered platform would measures 24' in length by
26' in width, and entirely over open water. An additional access pier, measuring 84' in length by 6' in width
would extend over the coastal marsh from the northern side of the existing access pier to Motts Creek. The
pier would terminate onto a covered platform, measuring 10' in length by 20' in width, which would be
located over open water (See Sheets 1 of 5 through 5 of 5 and Disposal Site sheet dated 11/24/2010).
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The proposed docking facility construction would incorporate 3,850 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 new pier section would continue to shade approximately 930 sq. ft. of coastal wetlands,
vegetated primarily with Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and the proposed access pier towards
Molts Creek would shade an additional 504 sq. ft. of coastal wetlands, vegetated primarily with Smooth
Cordgrass (Spartina altemit/ora). The proposed excavation would impact approximately 5,640 sq. ft. of
shallow bottom area through the use of mechanical dredging, resulting in the removal of approximately 845
cubic yards of material. The application states that the dredging limits would maintain a 10' separation from
the location of the NEI and sloughing has been considered. Based on the size of the vessels that would be
moored at this proposed docking facility, the vessels could potentially cause additional erosion of this 10'
proposed separation from the NEI due to propeller wash, and could expose the NEI to potential damage.
The disposal of the material would impact approximately 56,628 sq. ft. of highground, which would be
located onto an existing spoil island at the confluence of the AIWW and Mason Inlet (USACE Disposal Site
No. 0251). The proposed pier and platforms would extend approximately 128' into a waterbody, which
measures approximately 512' across (AIWW), the floating dock along Motts Creek would extend
approximately 40' into a waterbody measuring approximately 170' across and the platform into Motts Creek
would extend approximately 10' into a waterbody measuring 43' across, which all structures would conform
with the 1 /4 width. The application states that the proposed docking facility would accommodate eight (8)
larger vessels (60'); however, the facility could potentially provide docking space for up to 16 smaller
vessels (25'). Minor increases in turbidity should be expected during construction.
Based on the close proximity of this proposed docking to the existing community and private docking
facilities to the north of the property along Summer Rest Road, which connect directly to the AIWW via an
access channel at the mouth of Motts Creek, and the NCWRC public boat ramp at Wrightsville Beach, the
proposed docking facility could potentially impede and congest the traditional navigation in an area of the
AIWW. Further, the project is located adjacent to the drawbridge to Wrightsville Beach that has a limited
height restriction for larger vessels trying to navigate south under while the bridge in down. During the busy
summer months, this area of the AIWW can be very congested due to larger vessels at idle waiting for the
drawbridge to open and the boaters trying to launch and retrieve smaller vessels at the NCWRC public boat
ramp located at Wrightsville Beach.

Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey
Page 5
It should be noted that the drawings to State Permit No. 13-86 that was issued to Consolidated Ventures
Corporation on the same property for a 10 (ten) slip docking facility, State Permit No.13-86 permit condition
No. 2 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 orits
lateruse. A fairway of reasonable width in water depths of 4'ML W or greater must be maintained to comply
with the terms of this condition".
The proposed structures to the proposed docking facility would not encroach into the adjacent riparian
property corridor 15' requirement to the south of the project. As stated, the referenced drawings to State
Permit No. 84-01 for the existing facility on the property indicated that the northern riparian line corridor
references from the centerline of Motts Creek channel. The proposed facility would be located outside of
the footprint of the authorized docking facility under State Permit No. 84-01. The drawings to State Permit
No. 13-86 that was issued to Consolidated Ventures Corporation on the same property for a 10 (ten) slip
docking facility, did not locate a northern riparian line. Further, the submitted drawings to State Permit No.
174-00 that was issued on November 14, 2000, and was renewed and modified on January 19, 2006 to the
adjacent riparian property owner to the north at the time (Smith), for the existing private docking facility did
not locate a southern riparian line in this area along Motts Creek as well. Rules 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)
Specific Use Standards (6)(1) 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".. Due to the peculiar shoreline
configuration in this area of Motts Creek and the AIWW was such that a perpendicular alignment cannot be
achieved for a riparian corridor and associated setback, it appears that the intent of these authorized
projects were to prevent structures within the established access channel to the existing docking facilities
and the AIWW
Submitted by: Robb L. Mairs Date: 04/21/2011 Office: Wilmington

Recommendations for State Permit — Bailey and Associates c/o Christopher Bailey 04/21/2011
The total area of "T head" and platforms were calculated as follows:
Shoreline length = —558 linear ft. x 8 sq. ft = 4,464 sq. ft., which 2,000 is allowable.
Gazebos = 824 sq. ft
Floating docks (due to alignment) = 1,512 sq. ft.
Total = 2,336 sq. ft.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed 8-slip docking facility is INCONSISTENT with the Rules in 15A NCAC 71-1.0208
(b)(6)(B) which states "The total square footage of shaded impact for docks and mooring facilities (excluding the
pier) allowed shall be 8 square feet per linear foot of shoreline with a maximum of 2,000 square feet. In calculating
the shaded impact, uncovered open water slips shall not be counted in the total. Projects requiring dimensions
greater than those stated in this Rule shall be permitted only if the greater dimensions are necessary for safe use,
to improve public access, or to support a water dependent use that cannot otherwise occur. Size restrictions do not
apply to marinas." The combined square footage of the 8-slip docking facilitywould result in 2,336 sq. ft. shading
impacts; which exceeds the 2006 square foot limitation. No justification has been given as to why the proposed
structures could not be reduced to meet the 2000 square foot limit. This office recommends that the applicant be
requested to submit modified plans reducing the combined square footage of both docks to 2000 square
feet or less, demonstrating compliance with this rule.
The proposed eight (8)-slip docking facility appears to be CONSISTENT with 15A NCAC 71-1.0208 (b)(6)(G) which
limits the length of piers to%width of the water body, to the edge of the channel or to the established pier line,
whichever is most restrictive. The approximate width of the waterbody is 512', and as proposed, the docks would
extend approximately 128' from the edge of marsh into the waterbody, the floating dock along Motts Creek would
extend approximately 40' into a waterbody measuring approximately 170' across and the platform into Motts Creek
would extend approximately 10' into a waterbody measuring 43' across. As such, the proposed docks would not
exceed '% width of the waterbody, nor would they extend into the USACE channel setback.
The proposed fixed platforms and floating docks would not encroach into the 15' riparian setback requirement to the
south. It is staff's opinion that based on the previous permits authorized at the project site and the adjacent riparian
property to the north, due to the peculiar shoreline configuration in this area of Motts Creek and the AIWW was
such that a perpendicular alignment cannot be achieved for a riparian corridor and associated setback, the intent of
these authorized projects were to prevent structures within the established access channel to the existing docking
facilities and the AIWW, and as such, is CONSISTENT with 15A NCAC 71-1.0208 (b)(6)(I).
This office has concerns that the proposed project could have the potential to indirectly block or impair an area of
established navigation along the AIWW and Motts Creek. As stated, during the busy summer months, this area of
the AIWW can be very congested due to larger vessels at idle, waiting for the drawbridge to open and the boaters
trying to launch and retrieve smaller vessels at the NCWRC public boat ramp located at Wrightsville Beach.
In addition to the recommendations listed above, if there are no other objections from the other resource agencies,
it is staffs opinion that any permit issued should include the following permit conditions:
1. This permit authorizes only the docks, piers, and other structures and uses located in or overthe waterthat
are expressly and specifically set forth in the permit application. No other structures, whether floating or
stationary, may become a permanent part of the structure without permit modification. No non -water
dependent uses of structures may be conducted on, in, or over public trust waters without permit
modification.

2. Based on the size of the vessels that would be located at this proposed docking facility, the sewer forced
main that crosses the project site must be specifically located and the pier and T-head structures built and
maintenance excavation to avoid damage to the forced main during construction. In accordance with
commitments made by the permittee and depicted on the attached workplan drawing dated revised
04/11/11, the proposed dredging limits shall maintain a 10' setback from each side of the sewerforced main
for the life of the permit.
3. Upon notice from the owner of the sewerforce main, the permittee shall immediately remove any portions of
the docking facility to enable any required maintenance to be performed. The permittee shall not hold the
owner of the sewer force main liable for any damage or hardship that may arise during the required
maintenance of the utility lines. Failure to comply with this condition, which shall be effective for the life of
this permit, will be considered a violation of this CAMA permit.
4. Based on the close proximity of this proposed docking to the existing community and private docking facility
and boat basins to the north of the property along Summer Rest Road, which connects directly to the AIWW
via an access channel at the mouth of Motts Creek and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission public boat
ramp at Wrightsville Beach, no attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the
public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized work.
5. The authorized structure and associated activity must not cause an unacceptable interference with
navigation and shall not exceed the established pier line and 1/4 width of the waterbody.
6. Any portion of the permitted access pier and docking facilities built over coastal wetlands must not exceed
six feet in width, with the exception of the forklift pier, and all structures must be elevated a minimum of
three feet over the wetland substrate as measured from the bottom of the decking.
7. The pier/boathouse and associated structures shall have a minimum setback distance of 15 feet between
any parts of the structure and the adjacent property owners riparian access corridor, which is determined by
drawing a line parallel to the channel, then drawing a line perpendicular to the channel line that intersects
with the shore at the point where the upland property line meets the water's edge.
8. The permittee must install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals prescribed by the U.S.
Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilities.
9. In order to protect water quality, runoff from the construction must not visibly increase the amount of
suspended sediments in adjacent waters.
10. This permit does not authorize the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project, and, the
permittee will not be entitled to compensation for damage to the authorized structure orwork, or injurywhich
may be caused from existing or future operations undertaken by the United States in the public interest.
11. The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms and
conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the projectwithout
having the permit transferred to a third -party.
12. This permit authorizes eight (8) formalized boat slips on the docking facility and no permanent/long-term
boat slips at the staging dock. The restriction of the number of vessels shall apply to all marine vessel
types, including but not limited to motorboats, sailing vessels and personal watercraft.
13. No sewage, whether treated or untreated, shall be discharged at any time from any boats using the
marina/docking facility. Any sewage discharge at the marina/docking facility shall be considered a violation
of this permit for which the permittee is responsible. This prohibition shall be applied and enforced
throughout the entire existence of the permitted structure.

14. All portions of the wooden walkway and piers (including the forklift pier) located over coastal wetlands shall
be constructed with a minimum elevation of three feet above the coastal wetland substrate, as measured to
the bottom of the decking.
NOTE: Permanent reflectors should be attached to the structure in order to make it more visible during
hours of darkness or inclement weather.
NOTE: It is strongly recommended that the permittee exercise all available precautions in the day-to-day
operation of the facility to prevent facility waste from entering the adjacent waters. Such discharge, either directly or
indirectly, to adjacent waters could contravene state water quality standards, thereby violating state law.
NOTE: Due to the proximity of the AIWW, boats utilizing the docking facility will be subject to frequentwave
wash from passing vessels. The issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps
to ensure the integrity of the structure and the safety of moored boats. The permittee shall not hold the State of
North Carolina or the United States liable for any damage to the structure or moored boats.
15. The temporary placement or double -handling of excavated or fill materials within waters or vegetated
wetland is not authorized.
16. No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time, in any marsh or surrounding waters, outside of the
alignment of the fill area indicated on the work plat(s).
17. Excavation will not exceed -6 feet below the mean low/normal water level. In no case shall the depth of
excavation exceed the depth of connecting waters.
18. In order to protect water quality, runoff from the construction must not visibly increase the amount of
suspended sediments in adjacent waters.
19. The permitted activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in turbidity
outside of the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the
waterbody is 25 NTU's or less in all saltwater classes are not considered significant.
20. The Division of Coastal Management shall be notified in writing at least two (2) weeks in advance of any
maintenance work authorized by this permit, and such notification shall include:
A. The number of the original permit.
B. A statement that no dimensional changes are proposed.
C. A copy of the original permit plans with cross -hatching indicating the area to be maintained, the area
to be used for spoil disposal, and the estimated amount of material to be removed. The location, design
and holding capacity of the spoil disposal site must be approved by a representative of the Division priorto
the initiation of any maintenance dredging activities.
D. The date of map revision and the permittee's signature shown anew on the original plan

lu i�u ���7J►1Z�1►�
To: Doug Huggett
From: Michael Christenbury, Wilmington District Planner
Subject: Consistency Determination, Major Permit Application, Bailey and
Associates/Christopher Bailey, Wilmington, New Hanover County
Date: May 10, 2011
Consistency Determination:
This project appears to be, consistent with the 2006 Wilmington -New Hanover County
joint Land Use Plan.
The applicant proposes to expand an existing docking facility that includes excavation of
a boat basin, construction of additional access piers, gazebos, floating docks and mooring
pilings, adjacent to Motts Creek and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to accommodate
eight (8) larger vessels. The project is located at 201 Summer Rest Road in Wilmington.
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) impacted by the proposal are CW, EW, and
PT. Waters at the project site are classified as SB (Wrightsville Recreational Area) and
are not open to the harvesting of shellfish. The area is not a Primary Nursery Area.
I have reviewed this proposal for consistency with the 2006 Wilmington -New Hanover
County CAMA Land Use Plan and offer the following comments.
The general area of the project is classified as Resource Protection while the AECs
impacted by the work are classified as Conservation.
In general, Wilmington -New Hanover County allows development in conservation
classified AECs, which is consistent with the State's minimum use standards. The 2006
Wilmington -New Hanover County Joint Land Use Plan contains some policies, which
exceed the State's minimum use standards. However, none of these standards appear to
be applicable to this proposal.
This project appears to be consistent with the 200 Wilmington -New Hanover County
Joint Land Use Plan
Cc: File
`�

m1i
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission KN
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Haggett
NC DENR/DCM Major Permits Coordinator
From: Molly Ellwood
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Date: May 17, 2011
RE: Bailey and Associates, New Hanover County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
application for impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128), as amended, and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Bailey and Associates are proposing to expand an existing boat basin, including the excavation of a boat basin,
construction of addition access piers, gazebos, floating docks and mooring pilings adjacent to Mott's Creek
and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in New Hanover County. The expanded docking facility will have a
total of eight slips providing docking for vessels 40-60' in length. Dredging associated with the project would
result in the removal of approximately 845 cubic yards to achieve a final project depth of -2' to -6'. A
wastewater line easement, the northeast interceptor (NEI), is located within the project boundaries and requires
a minimum of 4' of cover per Permit Condition No. 9 of State Permit No. 13-86. The Wrightsville Beach
Bridge is located just south of the property, which maintained by the North Carolina Division of
Transportation (DOT). Part of the docking facility lies within the 150' right-of-way established by the
NCDOT for the Wrightsville Beach Bridge. The waters in the project area are classified as "SB" by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), are not designated as primary nursery area and are closed to shelifishing.
The NCWRC have the following concerns and recommendations for the currently proposed project:
• We recommend that the applicant reconsider the current floating docks and number of slips. It
appears that slips 7 and 8, as shown on sheet 2 of the drawings submitted with the permit application,
could potentially impede ingress and egress from Mott's Channel. Omitting these slips could rectify
this concern and avoid limiting access to the docks and piers located to the north of this project.
• The NCWRC is concerned about the location of the NEI easement within die area where there is
proposed dredging. Potential impacts to the NEI could result in significant water quality issues that
could greatly impact fish and wildlife species in the area. We recommend that to avoid these potential
impacts that the project be modified to remove the dredging aspects, eliminate areas of the dredge
footprint that include the NEI easement, and / or provide an appropriate buffer from the NEI.
Mailing Address: Division of hiland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Bailey and Associates Page 2 May 17, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. The NCWRC recommends that the
applicant consider the recommendations provided to improve the project so as to avoid any unintended impacts
to the recreational uses in the area as well as to the wildlife and fisheries species that occur there. Please feel
free to contact me at [phone] if there are any questions or concerns relating to this project.
cc: Jessi Baker NCDMF
Chad Coburn, NCDWQ
Robb Mairs, NCDCM
Dave Timpy, USACE

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
1p
®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
APR 21 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
April 21, 2011
MEMORANDUM: ,-, [Paz@ ME QM C
TO: Jessi O'Neal Baker �`jD`)j MAY 16 2200.11
Division of Marine Fisheries
DMF HABITAT PROTEI
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordina
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'[ access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb. Mairs [phone], when appropriate, in-depth comments with
supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
SIGNED
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.
5 /�
� /,6 1/
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 2855T-3421
Phone. [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: mm.nccoastalmanagement.net One
An Equal Oppciudryl Allirmnlive Action Ernooyar NorthCarolina
A6ltdIN146l1

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Beverly Eaves Perdue Dr. Louis B. Daniel III
Governor Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Doug Huggett, DCM Major Permits Coordinator
THROUGH: Anne Deaton, DMF Habitat Section Chief }�
FROM: Jessi Baker, DMF Marine Biologist r
SUBJECT: 201 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
DATE: May 16, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) submits the following comments
pursuant to General Statute 113-131. DMF has reviewed the CAMA Major permit application
from Chris Bailey, of Bailey & Associates, regarding the expansion of an existing docking facility
and excavation of a boat basin. The project proposes to excavate 5,640 square feet of shallow
bottom using bucket to barge.
All excavation activities should be completed outside of the in -water work moratorium from
April 1st to September 30th. DMF has concerns about this project impeding navigation and
contributing to congestion in this area, thereby limiting public access via the public boat ramp
immediately across the waterway.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. Please feel
free to contact Jessi Baker at [phone] if you have any further questions or concerns.
5285 Hwy 70 West, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone]W FAX:[phone]k Internet: wmv.ncdnnf.net
An Equal Opporuldly i A(flrtna0ve Aclian Employer
NorihCarohna
Naturally

Huggett, Doug
From: Leonard, David
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:23 PM
To: Huggett, Doug
Cc: Everhart, Steve; Mathis, Stonewall D; Edgerton, Alton R; Law, Anthony W; Lovell, Michael C
Subject: CAMA Permit Review, 201 Summer Rest Rd, Wilmington, NC
Attachments: CAMA Permit Eastwood at Summer Rest.pdf; FW: Request to Waive 15' Riparian Access
Mr. Huggett,
Attached is our response to the CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review for 201 Summer Rest Rd. in
Wilmington, NC. A hard copy will follow by mail. The reasons for objection are listed below:
1. Vessels are showed moored within the NCDOT right-of-way.
2. Dredging is shown within the NCDOT right-of-way.
Also, attached is an email chain with further questions from other staff members that we need to look into prior to any
approval.
Sincerely,
David B. Leonard, PE
Assistant District Engineer
NCDOT I Division 3, District 3
300 Division Drive
Wilmington, NC 28401
910.251.2655
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

DISTRICT 3
AKi'* APR 2 5 2011
_r�... NCDENR RECEIVED
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson Dee Freeman
Governor Director RECEIVED Secretary
MEMORANDUM: April 21, 2011 APR 2 8 2011
r
TO: Anthony Law DCM-MHD CITY
NC DOT
NH/BR Co.
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [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 -418
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557-,3421
Phone. [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net One
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer NorthCarofina
Xturully

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
Applicant:
April 21, 2011
Mark Zeigler
WiRO
Division of Community Assistance
APR 2 7 2011 ,
DChr•1y1[DCnV
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [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 " " " �' " Y �- DATE
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557--3421
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] Intemet: www.nccDastalmanaaement.net One
An Equal oppoMnily l Afamra&e Acfion Employer N Carolina
la tour

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director r �_
MEMORANDUM:
April 21, 2011 '1
TO: Linda Lewis
Express Permitting
Division of Water Quality -WiRO
MAY 5 2011
DCM-MHO CITY
Dee Freeman
Secretary
APR 2I 2011
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [phone], when appropriate, in-depth comments with
supporting data is requested.
REPLY: K 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 /1�� G� DATE 6-0- 2 08
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557--3421
Phone [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet. www.nccoastalmanagement.net One
An Equal Oppommily 1AtlirmaMe Action Employer N orthCafohna

AA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
APR �. 6 2011
'o
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Dee Freeman
Secretary
ttEcetven
April 21, 2011 � I I , ()A91
MEMORANDUM: MAY 10 2011 ,,����
TO: Renee Gledhill -Early yg 'I
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources Dcm-mHDcrTv
Archives & History
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey) i S� to II
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, INC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [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 S
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557--3421 tAPR 2 7 2011
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net One
An Equal Opportunity \ Af innative Action Employer NoaCarolina
Naturally

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
Applicant:
April 21, 2011
Debra Benoy
Public Water Supply District Manager
Dee Freeman
Secretary
RECENIZ
MAY 2 2011
I
DCM.MHD Cr►y
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [phone], when appropriate, in-depth comments with
supportinq data is f6quested.
REPLY: J 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.
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, INC 28557--3421
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanaciement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
/APR 2 1 2011
None
rthCai
Nato R,

kv
�r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
April 21, 2011
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Dan Sams
For James Simons
Division of Land Resources
Z, 210�' J
Dee &MW
Secretary
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb 111(910)796-7423, 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. Ti.... alr,d�e.
aPAroJs� i tlai �y2�
l This agency objec s to the ,project for reasons describe in the
attached comments.
SIGNED DATE Apt,/ 21 2 t
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557--3421
".-
Phone [phone] \FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanaceOnementnec Oae
An Equal opportunity\ AfiinnetNe Adon Empbyer N rthCarolina
Xturally

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
!jL*A
CCURR
North Carolina Depaentoof EnEnvironment and
Natural Resources
D s
James H. Gregson FDD
_ CaI�IDirector C
MEMOM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Proposed Project:
April 21, 2011
NC DEH
Shellfish Sanitation Section
APR 2 8 2011
Snellfish Sanitation E Recreational
Water Quality Section
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-097Brven
CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
MAY 2 2011
Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey) DCM-MHD CITY
201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction
adjacent addtlto cess
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings,
vessels
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger
sed project
Please indicate below your agency's positionue any questions regarding othe proposed
return this form by May Y
project contact Robb Mairs [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.
only if the recommended
This agency approves of the project
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
40o Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557•-3421
phone. [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www ncooastalmanacement.net
An Equal Opponunlly \ Affinnallve Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
AVA
WNW
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson _01%"30-,1
Director „�q 20\
April 21, 2011
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Tim Walton
NC Dept. of Administration
State Property Office
•r��QOQG�
�. 4�
LIN
o+
J
w
RECEIVED
MAY 3 2011
DCM-
Dee Frees n
Secretary
CM
Permits Coordinator
FROM: Doug 00 Commertce Avt, NCe , MoreENR-head d Cty,rNC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Bailey & Associates - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Project Location: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville
Sound, in Wilmington, NC, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: Applicant is proposes to expand an existing docking facility that
includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of add'I access
piers, gazebos, floating docks & mooring pilings, adjacent to Motts
Creek & the AIWW to accommodate eight (8) larger vessels
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by May 17, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project contact Robb Mairs [phone], when appropriate, in-depth comments with
supporting data is requested.
REPLY: 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.
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead giq�v'�nyor--svz
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Intemet:
An Equal Opportunity \ AH mfive Acton Employer
NorthCarolina
X Rust%

March 28, 2011
CAMA
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: 201 Summer Rest Rd. Pier Modification
To whom it may concern:
As an adjacent property owner I was notified by Waterline Marine Construction about a
proposed pier modification by the owners at 201 Summer Rest Road. This comes after a
similar sized proposal was submitted back in 2008. After a careful study of the plans we see no
improvement as to the amount of area that will be affected by this project. Enclosed are some
original comments from my attorney that certainly still apply.
This project has deservingly raised much attention. Its size, location and potential hazards are a
true peril to the surrounding community.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
k� L9
John Blackwell
203 Summer Rest Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28405
I V E D
MAR 3 0 20n
7 '+i LfV INGTON, NC

1w
t

JoR C. WEssELL. III
W&Ssinx D ra0i .N
WII. JAM A. RANEY, JR.
[e-mail]
WEssELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNETs AT LAW
POST OpncE Box 1049
Wu2AwGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
October 23, 2008
Mr. Steve Everhart
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Modification Application
Dear Mr. Everhart:
@PREHYl ADDRESS:
307-11 NORTH 21O BxRaEm
WRA@rOToN, NC 28401
TmseRONE: 910-782-7475
FAcsiwLLE: 910-782-7557
I represent John and Liza Blackwell, LLC and Summer Rest Yacht
Owners Association, Inc. (SRYOA) in connection with a CAMA major
modification application by Bailey and Associates for a proposed 10
boat docking facility at 202 Summer: Rest Road, Wilmington, NC. The
Blackwell LLC is the owner"of the property adjacent to the project site
and is the permanent residence of John and Liza'Blackwell. SRYOA is
the owner of the next riparian property to the north of the Blackwells
and is the owner of a docking facility at that property. The
Blackwells and SRYOA utilize the channel into which the proposed docks
will extend. Mr. Blackwell has previously sent in a letter of
objection to the project and the form indicating that he does not waive
riparian setbacks. The Blackwells and SRYOA object to the issuance of
a permit for the reasons stated below:
Blackwell and SRYOA agree with and adopt.by reference the comments
I made by letter dated October 1, 2008 on behalf of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach on the above -referenced application.
In addition to those comments they offer the following comments on
the navigation issue:
The plans for the Bailey Marina show the 70' slips for the typical
65' boats having their entrance opening towards the north. The slips
are built over the deepest water. The water depth 60' north of the
slips is only 2' to 3' deep at low tide.
line up to exit or enter the slip the
remaining width of the open water and may
side of Motts Creek. Clearly there is hot
to safely navigatewithin this constricted
In order for a 65' boat to
boat will cover the entire
even be aground on the north
enough water for a 65' boat
area. LD ty
MAR 3 0 2011
"M WMAINGTON, WC

1
J-
r-
I
5

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 23, 2008
Page 2
The channel of Motts Creek runs to a small dam at Summer Rest Road
which impounds the creek above Summer Rest Road. This small creek is
only about 30' to 45' wide upstream of the point where it narrows at
the location of the applicant's proposed 10' x 20' gazebo. Although
there is no dockage specified for the 10' x 20' gazebo it will be
suitable for dockage of a small vessel in the 20'-30' range. This
gazebo and potential dock will further close the mouth of Motts Creek
where the narrow channel begins. This location is also the location of
the Blackwell docking facility.
This narrow portion of the creek is frequently used by sport
fishing boats as a platform for using cast nets to catch bait for
fishing. These boats range in size from small shallow draft boats to
boats in the 251+ range. These boats navigate up the narrow creek all
the way to the bridge to catch fishing bait by the use of cast nets.
Sometimes these boats have to back out of the creek as they are too
large to turn around in the narrow creek. The 10' x 20' gazebo would
unreasonably interfere with navigation and would extend into the
channel of Motts Creek which, in this location, runs the fill width of
the creek.
Based on the foregoing, Blackwell and SRYOA respectfully request
that the permit be denied because the proposal violates the standards
in G.S. 113A-120(a)(5), 15A NCAC 7H. 0207 (c) and (d),
7H.0208(b)(6)(J)(ii) and (iii).
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. John Blackwell
Mr. Jim Long ✓
WAR\envi=n\R0e-049-0O2
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.
RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2011
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

I.
I

Jo3 C. W)iSSM.3., In
tVItB B38r�n. nm s.aoDmR.xmr
WII.c cAM A. RANRY, JR.
wARANEYQaB=AA0 TR.raM
WEssipm & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATl'oRNIDYB AT LAw
POST Osalcs Box 1049
WnWINGWON, NORTHCAROLINA 28402-1049
October.23, 2008
Mr. Steve Everhart
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Modification Application
Dear Mr. Everhart:
BTR)®r ADDRZOO:
107-B NOR4a 2" BTRREwr
WUAONGTON, NO 28401
TXc HONK: 910-762-7475
FACBIMII.&: 910-762-7557
As a supplement to earlier comments I made on behalf of John and
Liza Blackwell, LLC and Summer Rest Yacht Owners Association, Inc. in
opposition to a modification request by Bailey and Associates, Inc., I
would like to offer the following information regarding compliance of
the proposed development with the ordinances of the City of Wilmington.
Under the City of Wilmington's 'zoning ordinance this proposed
facility appears to be a "community boating facility". I have attached
a copy of the definition of community boating facility hereto. The
standards for a community boating facility are set forth in Section 18-
250 of the City's zoning ordinance. I have also attached a copy of
these provisions. As you can see from the provisions this facility
would not be permitted under subsections (a), (d) and (j)(3).
Accordingly, the permit modification should be denied because the
proposed development is a violation of the rules, regulations or laws
of the City of Wilmington and is therefore contrary to the standard in
15A NCAC 7H.0601.
Thank you for considering these additional comments.
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. John Blackwell
Mr. Jim Long
MAR\..i.\R08-048-0O3
Sincerely,
WE//SS''ELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. ,A. Raney, Jr.
MAR 302011
PO NAPLWNC TON, NC

29
®Cape Fear
Public Utility Authority
Stewardship. Sustainability. Service.
March 31, 2011
Mr. Mike Vukelich, Public Works Director
Town of Wrightsville Beach
200 Parmele Boulevard
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480
Ref: 201 Summer Rest Road CAMA Major Permit
Dear Mike,
The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority is aware of the proposed construction
modifications to the pier facility owned by Bailey and Associates at 201 Summer Rest
Road. This proposed construction activity is in the vicinity of the force main crossing
from the Town of Wrightsville Beach to our sewer pump station #35 at Bradley Creek.
Although this force main belongs to the Town of Wrightsville Beach, we understand the
potential for damage to this pressure force main during construction and resulting
negative environmental impacts. Repairs to correct any damage could be difficult and
time consuming due to its location.
We fully understand and support your objections to this proposed CAMA Major Permit
modification.
Please call me if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Frank C. Styers, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Cc: Matt Jordan, P.E., CEO
RECEIVE®
APR 0 6 2011
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
235 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403
t: 910-799-6064 f: 910-799-6066 www.cfgua.org

r
I
WEssELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 1049
WiLMINOTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
JORN C. WESSELL, III
wESSELL®BBLLS0O LNmn
WD.LIAR A. RANEY. JR.
WARAN SBELLSOUTR.NET
March 28, 2011
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-B NoRTR 2" STREET
WxLwwGTON, NO 28401
TELEVRONE: 910-788-7478
FAcandux: 910-762-7557
Our firm represents the Town of Wrightsville Beach. The Town has
asked that we comment on the above -referenced proposal by Bailey &
Associates.
The Town of Wrightsville Beach received a letter from Waterline
Marine which enclosed an unsigned permit application along with plans for
a modification to an existing pier facility. The letter was received by
the Town on March 21, 2011. It is unknown whether a formal application
has been made to DCM or whether these are preliminary plans.
Similar proposals have been submitted in the past and comments have
been submitted by the Town. I have enclosed a copy of comments dated
October 1, 2008 for your information. Most of the previous comments are
also applicable to the current plans. Specifically I direct your
attention to prior comments in the October 1, 2008 letter. The following
are presented again to you for your consideration.
APPLICATION ISSUES
MP-1 Form
4.a. fR E0,E-1�' ED
4.b.
MAR 2 9 2011
DC.-M Ml. INOiON, NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
March 28, 2011
Page 2
MP-4 Form
2.
7.a.
OBJECTIONS AND GROUNDS FOR PERMIT DENIAL
1. Unreasonable danger to Town of Wrightsville Beach sewer
line.
1.1. Construction.
1.3. Maintenance.
1.4. Emergency Repairs
2. Violation of Town's easement rights.
3. Violation of CANA and CRC Rules
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.3.1.
3.3.3.
3.3.4. (The referenced rule is now designated 7H.0208(b)(5)(D)).
3.3.5.
3.3.6.
3.3.10.
3.3.11.
We offer the following comments in addition to the prior comments:
1. The prior comments regarding paragraph 4.a. and 4.b. of the MP-1
Form stated that the shoreline length for the applicant's property are
misrepresented. These comments are still relevant. Additional support
for the contention that the shoreline and area are overstated is found in
the State's rejection of a submerged land claim submitted by a prior owner
of the Bailey & Associates property. The Declaration of Final Resolution
of Claim to Submerged Lands (Declaration) rejects the claim to the portion
of the property below the high water mark. This results in a much shorter
shoreline length and a much smaller area of ownership than is claimed on
the Form MP-1. A copy of the Declaration is enclosed.
2. The Coastal Resources Commission has now revised its rules
regarding the area of shading allowed for docking facilities. 15A NCAC

Mr. Steve Everhart
March 28, 2011
Page 3
7H. 0208 (b) (6) (B) limits the "total square footage of shaded impact for
docks and mooring facilities (excluding the pier) [to] 8 square feet per
linear foot of shoreline with a maximum of 2,000 square feet." This rule
applies to piers and docking facilities that are not considered a marina.
The total square footage of the floating docks proposed by Bailey is 2,202
square feet. The gazebo, the fixed platform and the pier leading to the
fixed platform add an additional 1,215 square feet. Regardless of which
features are included in the calculation, it is clear that the 2,000
square foot maximum is exceeded.
The Town is committed to protecting its interest in the sewer line
that serves all of Wrightsville Beach. Any compromise to the integrity of
this line cannot be condoned. We ask that we be allowed to meet with
appropriate officials of DCM before you take any action to approve this
modification.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
Attorneys for Town of
Wrightsville Beach
JAJ ,
William A. Raney, r.
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. Bob Simpson
Mr. John C. Wessell, 222
Mr. Mike Vukelich
JCW\"rbch\N08-097-COS

WEssELL & PANEY, L.L.P.
ATmRNzys AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WILMINOToN. NORTB CARouxA 284002-1049
8TREtPP ADDRESS:
JoR C. Wa Hm'., III
107-B NORTH 9"O RmR
W "KIa4PXIAAOUTH- m
WR.nmv N, NC 28401
WDa.IAe1 A. RA , JR.
TELEPHONE: [phone]
WARANEY®BII.I6O .N
FACSID : 910-792-7557
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:
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.
RIFUIVED
MAR 2 9 2011
" R+1 WILMINGTON, NC

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.
1.1. 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 impossible to 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 LAMA 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`" 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 CANA 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.

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
residential development are allowed no more than 2'
public trust area for every linear foot of the
accurate measure of the applicant's shoreline along
water mark is only about 4001. This allows the use
feet of public trust area. The public trust area
proposed docks, not including the access pier, is
square feet.
3.3.5 - 7H.0208(b)(5)(F)
associated with
square feet of
shoreline. An
the normal high
of 10,800 square
occupied by the
roughly 16,000
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 1/4`h 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 1/4t6 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 % 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 % 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
William A. Raney, Jr.
WAR:dc
cc: Mr. Bob Simpson
Mr. John C. Wessell, III
Mr. Mike Vukelich
JC \wrb h\W08-097-09

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) . APPLICANT: Bailey & Associates (c%: C Bailey) COUNTY: New Hanover
PROJECT NAME: Summer Rest Road Pier Modification
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville Sound, in Wilmington, NC
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 04-12-11
FIELD RECON04ENDATION: Attached: YES To Be Forwarded: N/A
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: NO /
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Mairs /�"'G IZrI
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW:
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:_
PUBLIC NOTICE RECD: 04/26/11
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES RECD:
APPLICATION ASSIGNE T
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE:
MAIL OUT DATE; 4-2 -1
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY
To Be Forwarded: YES
DISTRICT OFFICE; WILMINGTON
FEE RECD: $400.00 (60-40%)
END OF NOTICE DATE: 05/17/11
DEED REC'D: .
ON:
150 DAY DEADLINE:
STATE DUE DATE: 05/17/11
FED COMMENTS RECD:
DRAFT ON
AGENCY
DATE
COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTIONS:
YES/NO
NOTES
Coastal Management - Regional Representative
Coastal Management - LUP Consistency
45 1 V
Division of Community Assistance
-Z 1
Land Quality Section
S^Z
5� r
Division of Water Quality
Stone Water Management (DWQ)
- S
State Property Office
Ste/
Division of Archives & History
L(—W
Division of Environmental Health
Division of Highways
'Zq2
1jP
Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Permit Office
Division of Marine Fisheries
Corps of Engineers
V

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) APPLICANT: Bailey & Associates (clo: C. Bailey)
COUNTY: New Hanover
PROJECT NAME: Summer Rest Road Pier Modification ftCBryt
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 201 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Creek/AIWW/Greenville SouR� in WilmingtoNC
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 04-12-11 i rr 272011 JJ,
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: YES To Be Forwarded: N/A DCM1411,0CPfY
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: NO To Be Forwarded: YES
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Mairs ') V DISTRICT OFFICE: WILMINGTON
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:
FEE REC'D: $400.00 (60-40%)
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: 04/26/11
END OF NOTICE DATE: 05/17/11
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D:
DEED REC'D:
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO:
ON:
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE:
150 DAY DEADLINE:
MAIL OUT DATE: 04-21-11
STATE DUE DATE: 05/17/11
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
FED COMMENTS REC'D:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY
DRAFT ON
AGENCY
DATE
COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTIONS:
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management - Regional Representative
Coastal Management - LUP Consistency
Division of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section
Division of Water Quality
Storm Water Management (DWQ)
State Property Office
Division of Archives & History
Division of Environmental Health
Division of Highways
Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Permit Office
Division of Marine Fisheries
Corps of Engineers

MAJOR PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
Name of Applicant: BAILEY &r ASSOCIATES - (c/o: C. Bailey)
Agent/Contractor: WATERLINE MARINE CONSTR. - U. HUNDLEY, AGENT)
Court : NEW HANOVER
Project Name: Summer Rest Road Pier Modification
Address: 201 Summer Rest Rd., Wilmington, NC
Field Rep: Mairs
Electronic: N/A
DCM %
DWQ %
Development Ta
Fee
14300160143510009316256253
2430016024351000952341
I. Private, non-wmmercial
development that does not
involve the filling or excavation o
any wetlands or open water
$250
100% $250
0% $0
areas:
II. Public or commercial
development that does not
involve the filling or excavation o
any wetlands or open water
$400
100% $400
0% $0
areas:
III. For development that
involves the filling and/or
xcavation of up to 1 acre of
etlands and/or open water
areas, determine if A,B, C, or D
elow applies:
III(A). Private, non-commercial
evelopment, if General Water
Quality Certification No. 3490
See attached can be applied:
$250
100% $250
0% ($0)
II I(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
ertification No. 3490 (see
attached) could be applied, but
DCM staff determined that
additional review and written
DWQ concurrence is needed
ecause of concerns related to
ater qualityoraquatic life:
$400
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
he filling and/or excavation of
ore than one acre of wetlands
and/or open water areas:
$475
60% ($285)
40% ($190)

WATERLINE MARINE CONSTRUCTION
F I
P.O. BO 1646 1 C WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC 28480
DATE 2-
PAY ORDER
Al O,t/E/j%�
G
ORDER OF __..
m
66-19/530 NC
1858
lea •Ov
_DOLLARS 8 ...
Bank ofAmerica �„
ACH PR 063000195
((a FOR
u'00 1864u1 1:0 5 3000 1961: 00 2 3 7 i 3 586 12118
WATERLINE MARINE CONSTRUCTION 1872
P.O. BOX 1646
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC 28480 69-19/530 NC
�/ p DATE ��3��._ — 1858
IuII
PAY • D Fn! IC— I
TO THE
.ORDER OF_
��yU Zlc w .dc p or f oo /
DOLLARS
BankofAmericaFOR
on0018720 :DS30001964. 0 23713 8612�I'

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Jim Handley
c/o Waterline Marine Construction and Consulting
P.O. Box 1646
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480
Dear Mr. Hundley:
James H. Gregson
Director
April 21, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, acting as agent for Bailey and Associates, for
State approval for the proposed development at property located at 201 Summer Rest Road that consists of expanding an existing
docking facility that includes excavation of a boat basin, construction of additional access piers, gazebos, floating docks and mooring
pilings, adjacent to Motts Creek and the AIWW, Wilmington, in New Hanover County. It was received as complete on April 12,
2011, and appears to be adequate for processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a decision is June 27, 2011. 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 April 12, 2011, 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 he 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.
Sincer
/ Robb L. Mairs
Field Representative
cc: Doug HuggeM DCM
Jim Gregson, DCM
Dave Timpy, USACE
Steven Still, NH Co.
John Fullerton, City of Wilmington
Christopher Bailey, Applicant
127 Cardinal Drive Fxt., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nocoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opporluruly ; Afimiative Action Emp"r
No e hCarolina
Natura!!.y

LAMA PERMIT
APPLIED F®�
BAILEY & ASSOCIATES - (c/o: J. Hundley, Agent)
)Roj►nniicant is nronoses to expand an existina docking facility thi
• -P. W.M..... .. ..
lwp�►,
a -- - -
largeriL I i r 1 6 C4,- qv�
• •n, NC, New Hanover Co.
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH May 17, 2011
APPLICANT:
Waterline Marine Construction
Attn: Jim Hundley, Agent
PO Box 1646
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:
NC Div. of Coastal Management
127-Cardi-nal Dr. Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Robb L Marrs 910.796.7423;

IN MP-1
APPLICATION for -..�
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Bailey And Associates
Project Name (if applicable)
Summer Rest Road Pier Modification
Applicant 1: First Name
Chris
MI
Last Name
Bailey
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please atfach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
PO Box
City
Wilmington
State
NC
ZIP
28403
Country
USA
Phone No.
910-256-8443 aid.
FAX No.
910-256-6331
Sheet Address (d different from above)
city
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Waterline Marine Construction And Consulting
Agentl Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Jim
D
Hundley
Agentl Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
state
1646
Wrightsville Beach
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
26460
910 - 264 - 9977 ext.
ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
666 850 0982
62058
Street Address (if different from above)
city
State
ZIP
Email
\ / E D
[e-mail]
Y 8�
<Form continues on back>
4PR 12 2011
I)CM WILlVlNGTON, Ne
252.806-2808 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: www.ncceastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
New Hanover
201 Summer Rest Road
Subdivision Name
City
State
Zip
Summer Rest
Wilmington
NC
28405-
Phone No.
Lot No. (a) (if many, attach additional page with list)
- - ext.
I,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
GAP E t
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
a. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
®Yes []No
work falls within.
City of Wilmington
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
+/- 558'
6,000
c. Size of individual lolls)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
5' ®NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Natural coastal marshes and landscaping
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
New pier & bulkhead
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiacent to the proposed project site.
Residential, US HWY 74/76
h. How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Unzoned
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
[]Yes []No ®NA
j. Is the proposed activity pan of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does @ involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
Kt:l.tl VLD
<Form continues on next page>
APR 12 2011
C
252.808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoasta lmanagement. net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) 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 (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ®Yes []No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treabnent facilities.
N/A
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
City
p. Describe existing stone water management or treatment systems.
Surface Runoff
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ®Commercial ❑PublictGovemment
®Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
This project will serve as an a boat facility to access the adjacent coastal waters and provide safe harbor for vessels. Daily
operations will be consistent with an area to secure larger vessels.
a 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.
Standard marine construction practices will be used. Barges, boats and other related equipment will be water-bome. The
material will be stored out of wetlands.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Development shall include the removal of a section of the existing walkway. Anew 6' x 115' floating dock, gazebo, finger
piers, and observation platform will be included. The observation platform will extend off of the northern side of the walkway
and will have a 6' x 84' walkway and 19 x 20' covered platform at the end.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 3,060 ®Sq.Ft or ❑Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway 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.
Surface Runoff
I. Will wastewater or stonnwater be discharged into a wetland? []Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes []No ❑NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
KCVC1 V CU
<Form continues on back>
APR 12 2011
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOA .: www.ncc,

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
& Additional Information
In addition to this completed application than, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) — M are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to propedy 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 Blackwell Phone No.
Address 203 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC 28405
Name NC DOT Phone No.
Address 124 Division Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
Name Town of Wrightsville Beach Phone No.
Address PO Box 626, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
CAMA 84-01 NH Co. 06-8286
CAMA 51962 NH Co. 07-15414
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization forth, 9 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.
to Enter on Land
1 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.
I further certify that the informa/fj'on provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date aggliigi9 `�/'r / r Print Name Jim Hundley
Signature
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 MP-4 Structures Information
APR 12 2011
(-M W1LMINGT
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.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
-110,-65
Width
-40,-25
Avg. Existing
_2
NA
NA
Depth
Final Project
$
NA
NA
Depth
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or
cubic yards.
845
(i) Does the area to be excavated indude coastal wettandslmarsh
(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:
Excavation intended to provide safe access to proposed boating
facility.
to
silty sand
[]This section not applicable
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ❑This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area.
Shore Acres Masonboro Inlet Disposal Site -250 x 300 (irregular shape)
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
e. @ Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlandsimarsh
(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 disposal in these areas:
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
Same
I. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
RECEIVED
APR 12 2011
WIUAINGTON. NC
252-808-2808 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 2)
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ®This section not applicable
(if development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length:
[]Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other: Width:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 35' d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL
e. Type of stabilization material:
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap _
Breakwater/Sill Other
i. Source of fill material.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brouahl to the site? ❑Yes ❑No
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
h. Type of fill material.
®This section not applicable
If yes,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water ,
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
(III) Dimensions of fill area
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
(iv) 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
b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
controlled?
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Material will be stored in a historical dredge disposal site with silt
Bucket/barge method will be employed for the excavation
fencing/berms in place
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
❑Yes SNo ❑NA
she? ❑Yes SNo ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what Type and how they will be implemented.
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
r r ! t 1
Jim Hundley
Date
Appli Na RECEIVED
Summer Rest Modification
/
vI
Appli nt Signature
Project Name
APR 12 2011
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagemer"et revised: 12126106

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. (i) Is the docking facility/marina:
®Commercial ❑PubliNGovemment ®Private/Community
El This section not applicable
b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes ®No
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
d. (i) Are Finger Piers included? ®Yes []No
(h) Number 1
If yes:
(ill) Length 10 115' floatina. 1 A 84' fixed
(ii) Number 4
(iv) Width 6 66
(ill) Length 1 A 132'. 2 A 60'
(v) Floating ®Yes ®No
(iv) Width 6'
(v) Floating ®Yes []No
e. (1) Are Platforms included? ®Yes ❑No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts included? []Yes ®No
If yes:
If yes:
(ii) Number 2
(ii) Number
(iii) Length 24'. 10'
(ill) Length
(iv) width gEW
(iv) Width
(v) Floating []Yes ®No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
8
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
Ill) Number of slips existing
maintenance service
2
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
® Dockage ("wet slips") only, number of slips: 8
❑ 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: 60'
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings?
®Yes ❑No
(ii) If yes number of tie pilings?
3
I. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
Mixed types but typically large sportfishina boats
I. (1) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes ®No
RECEIVED
APR 12 2011
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4NCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanavement.net e r M INi7/06

Form DCM MF-4 (Structures, Page 2 of 4)
2. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA OPERATIONS ❑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
❑ Boathokting tank pumpout; Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
Sanitary wastewater will not be treated on site.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
All solid waste, fish offal and trash will be taken off site.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
The facility will be a "dosed head" facility.
e. (i) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge' signs proposed.
A sign at the entrance to the facility on the east and west side will be installed.
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
None proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
None allowed on site.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
Any residue will be contained and taken off site for disposal.
h. Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake" signs proposed. 0
i. Give the location of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
No fuel -handling facilities are proposed.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage?
There will be no live -aboard dockage.
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
The basin is dose enough to the AIW W to allow natural flushing to occur.
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided?
No services are currently provided with the exception of the two existing wet slips.
m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area? APR 12
❑Yea ®No 2011
DCM Wll MINcz-1041
252-808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 1212TI06

Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 3 of 4)
n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
❑Yes ®No
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 Present but not affected by proposed development. ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL _ ❑None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yes ®No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
3. BOATHOUSE (including covered lifts) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑PubliclGovemment ❑Private/Community
(ii) Number
(III) Length
(iv) Width
Alote: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
4. GROIN (e.g., wood, sheet pile, etc. If a rock groin, use MP-Z Excavation and Fill.) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Number
(ii) Length
(iii) width
5. BREAKWATER (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc.) ®This section not applicable
a. Length b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
6. MOORING PILINGS and BUOYS ®This section not applicable
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑PublidGovemment ❑Private/Community
c. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline
Note: This should be measured Aom marsh edge, if present.
e. Am of the swing
7. GENERAL
b. Number
d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
RECEIVED
APR 12 2011
,, W; v(lILMINGIOu, �C
;;.coastalmanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 4 of 4)
a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines
15' south, northern riparian line is centerline of creek which
is approximately 35' from structure
Note: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
of vessel.
c. Width of water body
—512' from arassline to bulkhead at boat ramp
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(11) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
40' from the pier to the north of proposed project
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
-12.7 to -13.1 NLW
8. OTHER [I This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
Installation of a 6' x 115' floafing dock to access the (2) proposed 6 x 60' finger docks and the 6' x 132' finger dock. A covered
platform measuring 24' x 26' has been included. Anew 6' x 84' walkway with a 19 x 20' platform have been added to serve
as an observation deck from the main walkway.
aftenw q/rllif
Date
Summer Rest Road Pier Modification
Project Name
Jim Hundley
Applicant �7e
Applicant nature
RECEIVED
APR 12 2011
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
252-8U8-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

=r
MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
[e-mail]
FAX: [phone]
2 Pages
Star News
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
James H. Gregson
Director
April 21, 2011
Re: Major Public Notice%r:_
Re: --,
L Y Bailey & Assocrates (c� Bailey) — NH Co.
Kyle:
Natural Resources
Please publish the attached Notice in the Tuesday, Api C12V2011 tssue?
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The State Office of Budget and Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to
payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the original affidavit of the published notice to Melissa
Sabastian, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, N.C. 28557, [phone].
Please send the original invoice and a copy of the affidavit for payment to Shaun Simpson at Div. of Coastal
Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-7226. Paying by Credit Card
(number on file with Elsa Lawrence, Ref acct # 796-7215). Please send a fax of the 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. 1
Sincerely, � /1
Thekla M. Spencer, Administrative Assistant
Division of Coastal Management
Enclosure
cc: File Copy & Doug Huggett
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer
Nne
oftbCarolina
Natlllally

NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS
113A-119(b) that an application for development permit in an Area of Environmental Concern as designated
under the CAMA was recexyed or%Apri Mx 2 2011
According ,to, said applicatton,.;Bailey. &;Assoctates,(cIo n C Baileyh). proposcd to expand an exi"sting
A copy of
may be
examined or copied at the office of kObb Hard N.C. Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405, (910 796 7423 during
normal business hours.
Comments mailed to James H. Gregson, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce
Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421,
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 this matter will be provided upon written request.
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, INC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Al irmativo kfion Employer
One
NorthCarolina
Naturally

December 29, 2008
Jim Hundley
Waterline Marine Construction
P.O. Box 1646
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Jim,
I hereby authorize you to act as my agent to obtain the necessary CAMA and building
permits for my project located at 201 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Regards,l
Chris Bailey
RECEIVE®
DEC 3 12008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

SHORE ACRES COMPANY
407 EAST PERRY STREET
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31401
February 15, 2008
Adam C. Knierim. M.S.
Maritech, LLC
108 Circle Drive
Hampstead, NC 28443
�3'.a i• lRi il:�'i E'S I�1P�l�a [i1.�
Re: Spoil Deposit - Baby's HospitalSite
Dear Adam:
Permission is granted for the proposed dredging work at The Baby's Hospital site. As
you know our fees are $1.50 per cubic yard with a minimum fee of $500. Please keep
Sam Clary advised of your progress.
Good luck with your project and if you have any questions please don't hesitate to
contact Sam or us.
Sin y,
�a
L rence B. Lee
cc: Sam Clary by Fax
RECEIVED
APR 12 2011
i CM WILMiNG]GN. NC

waterline
MARINE C:ONSTR LAC T I UN + (. UNSILI ING
March 29, 2011
Mr. Robb Mairs
CAMA
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Major Permit 84-01 Major Modification (Additional Information)
Robb,
Please accept this application to modify CAMA Major Permit #84-01. It is the intent of
the applicant to increase the size and number of boat slips at the permitted facility. The
original structure had been limited to (2) slips due to parking constraints. The applicant
owns the property across the street from the proposed structure and ample parking is
available. This facility will serve as a docking facility providing safe access to the
adjoining waters as well as safe harbor.
Once completed, the facility will be a private boating facility and will be secured from
the public. There will be no adverse impacts to the surrounding wetlands and proper care
will be taken to avoid any potential problems during construction. The sole intent of this
facility is to provide a safe boating facility for larger vessels. Currently, there are
relatively few choices in or around Wrightsville Beach for larger vessels.
A section of the existing fixed walkway will be removed prior to construction. This
removal will allow a conversion from a fixed walkway to a floating walkway. The
floating dock configuration will accommoda the desired slinps�.�
��2��'�
The proposed construction includes the installation of a 6' x p5' floating leading to I i
6' x 60' floating finger docks, (1) 6' x.#�� 'ng finger dock. Tie pilings will be
installed in between the finger piers. A�v platform that measures 24' x 26' will
also be installed. An observation deck that adjoins the north side of the fixed walkway
and measures 6' x 84' of walkway and a 10' x 20' covered platform will also be
constructed. This modification will accommodate larger vessels than previously
permitted. The applicant proposes excavation to maintain the depth necessary to prow de ,
safe dockage for the larger vessels. RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2011
waterline PO Box 1646 Wrightsville Beach, NC 28400 (c) 910.264.9977 (f),910.792.094
INC License # 62058 ""t.�ING(ON, NC

AQk
waterline
MARINE CONSTRUCTION + CONSULTING
The Northeast Interceptor was located and surveyed by the applicant. It is referenced on
the drawings. Excavation limits will maintain a 10' separation from the line and
sloughing has been considered. The pier construction will be completed to allow access
to the line.
The southern riparian corridor has been included but the northern riparian corridor is
referenced in the original permit as the centerline of Motts Creek. Navigation in and
around Motts Creek should not be adversely affected due to the maintenance of the
existing access channel. This area will be expanded to accommodate the vessels in the
area as well as the vessels for the proposed facility.
The'/4 width and 1/3 width lines have been included for your review. This project will
keep the alignment of the dock virtually the same. By doing so, this dock will not alter
the navigation of transient vessels that may use the pier alignment as a reference.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
Regards,
Jim Hundley
RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2011
waterline PO Box 1646 Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 (c) 910.264.9977 (f) 910.792.0942
INC License # 62058

BAILEY & ASSOCIATES (c/o: C. Bailey, Agent)- (NH)
Summer Rest Road Pier Modification
201 Summer Rest Rd., Wilmington, NC
—M airs
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
v" w
i IV
1. Article Addressed to:
N L D o T- MAR 3 0 2
12'1 0z✓rs2o� OR . , C:
Wy't- r r+T Al U f A7 t n! `-
joo I
C. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? Eye`-
If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No
S501 $&rbades 161&A
CASf1,, H4V(^g Nc aBYa-1
3. Service Type
®"Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mall ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fas) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number 7008 1140 0002 3400 9614
(transfer from service IAW
PS Form 3811, February 2004
Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1 _ M � n ,� , ,
■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to
A.
by (Printed Name)
D. Is delivery address dIt
If YES, enter -delivery
m
>a > n
o'y
E'�@om o
U t>.m E
O � O O.t..
o
❑ Agent ;
❑ Addressee
Date of Delivery
1�� S
❑ No j `o
`o
AEC EC RVID
Al60)c �Z �' MAR 3 0 20
3. ci
_ �rtlfl l ❑ Express M&I x
€CW�LMINGTO stered ❑ Return Recelpi rMerchandise
AA f 'Can f tiles o C.O.D.
4. Restrict a (Extra Fee) ❑Yes
2. Article Number 7008 1140 0002 3400 9461
(transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt W2595-02-WI540
I
0
g0
0
R
171
ul
,a
Ln
m
0
..D
r'i
C3
C3
r3 n
O
m
Iti c
O
m
O Y
C3 E
o
r o°
O
2
a
11
Z OD
my _€ c O
t �
Q.
RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2011
vk0-', 4 Wi�MINGTON, NC

127 Cardinal Drive Ext, Wilmington, NC 28405 to 201 Summer Rest Rd, Wilmington, N... Page I of 1
Start 127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Q !) e Wilmington, NC 28405
End 201 Summer Rest Rd
Wilmington, NC 28405
Travel 3.4 mi — about 8 mins
127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
Drive: 3.4 mi — about 8 mins
1. Head southeast on Cardinal Extension Dr toward
Chester St
2. Continue on N Cardinal Dr
♦ 3. Turn left at Eastwood Rd/US-74
Continue to follow US-74
♦ 4. Turn left at Summer Rest Rd
201 Summer Rest Rd
Wilmington, NC 28405
Get Google Maps on your phone
Text tle word %MAVS"to 46645 3
Overview
A.
W� tt Y
0.2 mi
*i1mmgton
0.4 mi
1 min
2.8 mi
6 mins
75 ft Start
These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction
projects, traffic, or other events may cause road conditions to differ from the map
results.
Map data ©2008 NAVTEQM
0-0-0`
End
Map data ©2008 NAVTEQTM
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 7 2008
http:Hmaps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&saddt=127+,,. 1 /24/2008

111111111111111111
2SM32382
FOR REGISTRATION REGITH
STER OF DEEDS
REBENEW HANOVEACOUNTY R, NC
2N6 JUN 02 01:31:05 PM
BK:5031 P6:1350-1353 FEE120.00
NI; REV STAMP:$N.00
lNSiR@ENi OEM
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
Summers Rest Road Tract
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED, made this 30t' 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
RECEIVE==D
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 7 2008

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 600 06' 10" E
23.10 feet; N 85" 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 43° 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 9" 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 D. 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.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 7 2008

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: � � (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 and in the capacity indicated: Charles N. Garrett, Jr..
Date: TjpI oto_ _ au C!!
(Official Seal) Print Name: I �VXiLelk Notary Public
My commission expires: I I in - 20I 0
'a"'3i18n .
�� 4WOw
a{yr! 0$
ti._ �
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 7 2008

REBECCA P. SMITH
REGISTER OF DEEDS, NEW HANOVER
216 NORTH SECOND STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
Filed For Registration: 06/02/2006 01:31:05 PM
Book: RE 5031 Page: 1350-1353
Document No.: 2006031392
DEED 4 POS $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.
* 20060313 82 * DCM WI M NGTON, NC
FEB 2 7 2008
2006031382

�� 0
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
April 6, 2011
SENT VIA EMAIL
Mr. Jim Hundley
C/o Waterline Marine Construction and Consulting
P.O. Box 1646
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480
Natural Resources
RE: Major Modification Request to CAMA Major Development Permit #84-01
Bailey and Associates
Wilmington, New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Hundley:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On April 28, 2010, the NC Division of Coastal Management acknowledged receipt of the Major Modification
request for Sate Permit #84-01, submitted by Waterline Marine Construction, on behalf of Bailey and
Associates, for the Summer Rest Road docking facility pier located in the City of Wilmington, New Hanover
County.
On March 29, 2011, our office received additional information for the Major Modification request for the
Summer Rest Road pier State Permit #84-01 in reference. to our letter dated December 20, 2010. Our letter
referenced our Monday December 13, 2010 and our December 15, 2010 meetings with you, concerning the
submitted application. Our subsequent review has revealed that the Major Modification request for State Permit
#84-01 is still incomplete. Our office must receive the following information before the Major Modification
request can be accepted as complete:
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me at my Wilmington Office at [phone].
Sinc ly,
obb Mairs
Field Representative
cc: Steven H. Everhart, Ph. D.
Doug Huggett
Jim Gregson
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www,nocoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmabve Action Employer
on On
e
Naturally

1
Bailey-CAMA Major Development Permit #84-01 Major Modification
April 6, 2011
Page 2
CHECKLIST OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCESSING
APPLICATION
WORKPLAN DRAWINGS
CAMA Major Permit Plat dated June 26, 2001 (Revised) is referenced on State Permit #84-01,
which notes "northern riparian corridor referenced from the centerline of Motts Creek Channel".
This line was located on the plat provided in the original application and permit issued on July 3,
2001. Please resubmit the required drawings depicting this line only and remove the line which
appears to be a different riparian line that runs 90° to the AIWW. This riparian line was not
included in the original application or the minor modification of State Permit #84-01, issued on
May 27, 2008.
Sheet 1 of 5 is not legible due to the font size and line types. Please increase font size or the
scale of the drawing to clarify these areas. Drawings shall include all existing structures at
project site (i.e. tie pilings located waterward of existing docking facility located on CAMA Major
Permit Plat dated June 26, 2001 (Revised) that is referenced on State Permit #84-01). Further,
provided Sheet 2 of 6 and Sheet 5 of 5 notes "as built location of existing pier survey dated
8.25.08 by Bailey & Associates" that does not clearly locate existing structures and an unknown
line type (bold dashed line) on the existing Northeast Interceptor (NEI). Please clarify this
location with a different line type or precise indicator lines and description.
As requested in our December 20, 2010 letter, drawings for existing and proposed structures
shall include the entire dimensions of the existing adjacent facility to the north along with
associated access channel and basin authorized under State Permit # 174-00 (i.e. three (3)
existing tie pilings approximately 24' south of the existing floating dock, etc.).
Please provide a cross section drawing for the proposed access pier and gazebo that is
proposed to be located on the northern portion of the main dock towards Motts Creek depicted
on Sheet 1 of 5 and 2 of 6, which I believe was meant to be Sheet 2 of 5. Please correct sheet
numbering and titles, which do not match what is listed under "Proposed Project" on Sheet 1 of
5. Please correct the margins of the title blocks in the provided drawings. Pertinent information
within the title blocks are partially missing (i.e. dates).
• Please note, drawings must be neat, clear, and of standard size to permit photographic
reproduction. If color prints or sheets larger than 11" x 17" are used, 27 copies must be
submitted (it may be advisable to request that a CAMA field representative inspect a final copy
of the workplan drawing(s) prior to making the required 27 copies).
PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS
As requested in our December 20, 2010 letter, please clarify the normal high water (NHW)
and/or mean high water (MHW) boundary and reference datum or methodology used to
establish this boundary. Our review of the boundary scales off to approximately 425 linear feet
along the "normal high water' line along the property boundary depicted on provided Sheet 1 of
5. MP-1 Section 4a and b (Site Description) indicates that there is 850'+/- of shoreline and
43,877 sq. ft. of are on the project site. Please note the size of the tract should be the area
above this water level boundary.

Bailey-CAMA Major Development Permit #84-01 Major Modification
April 6, 2011
Page 3
• MP-2 Section 2a. (Location of Spoil Location), please clarify the proposed location. Site listed
does not. reflect what the provided drawings for proposed spoil location. Please correct the
application date on this form.
• MP-4 Section 1c(iii), please clarify the fixed pier dimensions indicated in relation to workplan
drawings.

Ir
i .-Pr,mrrclass
r.ener•a1
., Modification
Issued to Town of Wr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
and
Coastal Resources Commission
hermit
for
Major Development in an Area of Environmental
Concern pursuant to'NCGS 113A-118
Excavation and/or Filling pursuant to NCGS 113.229
authorizing development in NeFHanover
Kennans Creek
attached plats, sheets
0. Box
P::mn M1urhe;
100-7E
Page 1 o _
ity at Bradley Cr. , Banks Channel, AI14V and
rmittee'sapplicationdated 4/13/78; including
neo pp
.14/78 and a
aLLacl. dated12/8/81 Incl. '?
pints Ja 6 3b ate
This permit, issued on March 19 1982 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Site A - Banks Channel
(1) That no excavated material be placed at any time in any marsh or waters
of'.:the state outside of the alignment of the pipeline area indicated on the
plat-:
(2) That in order to protect juvenile shrimp populations, no excavation or filling
will be permitted between the dates of April 1 through September 30 of any
year without the prior approval of the Office of Coastal Management.
Site C - AIW6'
(1) That the marsh border crossed must be returned to the previous elevation upon
completion of the pipeline installation.
(2) Same as Condition //1, Site A. RLL L v LD _ (See attached sheet for additional conditions) APR 2 G 1982
This Permit action may be appealed by the permittee
of other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
March 31, 1983
In Issuing this permit, the State of North Carolini
agrees that your project is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
ntivttY VON OrSEN L ASSCC �
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the
Coastal Resources Commission.
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This Permit and Its conditions are hereby accepted.
ECEIVEW�:� _
MAR 2 9 2011
of Pem(ittee
N,

ci 1'rightsvilie beach
,t
(3) Same as Condition #2, Site A.
ADDITI0NAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 100-78
Page 2 of 2
Site D - Bradley Creek
(1) That the work be carried out during the period from December 1 to March 31 of
any year. Further that it should be timed to coincide with predicted low tide
cycles during this period.
(2) That all wort; be accomplished during the period from slack high to slack low•
water (ebbing tide). This would apply to both excavation and re -filling activirv.
(3) That the spoil disposal areas be sized to accommodate all materials resulting
from excavation. These areas must also be designed so as to eliminate excessive
turbidity and siltation.
(4) That all disturbed marsh be returned to existing grade of adjacent vegetation
following completion of pipeline installation and that no permanent or temporary
Spoiling may take place in these vegetated. wetlands.
(5) That all live oyster, both along trench alignment and under spoil areas, be
relocated Cinder the guidance of the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Office
Of Coastal Management) to areas outside of project influence.'
(b) That the existing bottom elevations be re-estsblisbed upon completion of backfill
1 operation. .All excess material must be,removed to a high ground disposal area.
f (7) That the depths of the three low tide'chann
navigational use of these channeels must be restored so that existing
1 ls is not,i#paried.
y
�. (8) That mats be used. when crossing marsh vegetation.
! (9) That the 'Project be completed within two (2) weeks of start date.
Site A, H C d D
(1} That the work be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant increases
in turbidity outside of the area of construction (increases of 25 JTU's or less
.are not considered significant).
NOTE: Work under this permit is covered by General Certification No. 1179 issued
No. 1552 issued on February 5, 1482.
by the Division of Environmental Management on January 25, 1978 and Certification
NOTE: An Easement is required from the State Property Office, Department of
Administration for the pipeline crossings.
NOTE: A Highway Encroachment Easement is required from the Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways for work on the highway right-of-way.

APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL
' State of North Carolina Department of the Army
Department of Natural and Economic Resources Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(Re: GS 113.229) (Re: River and Harbor Act of 1899)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If the information requested is not applicable, so
y" indicate by placing N/A in the blank.
I. Applicant Information:
A. Name Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
as trs e
B. Address . P. 0. Box 626
Tr�et�6 oTs—xo�koute Hugh H. Perry, Administrator
Wrightsville Beach, N. C. _ 28480 919/256-2245
Ctty or own State Ip ode Phone
II. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County New Hanover
B. 7. City, town, community or landmark --Wrightsville gearh
2.isproposed work within city limits? Yes No Partially (see sketch plans)
IC. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
Banks Channel, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bradley Creek „�._
III. Description of Operation: Yr� it j
A. I. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work X
�Z
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Access channel length width__�Ppth •�
2. Boat. basin length width deptHA4,��r/_/y�r
3. Fill area len th width depthF
—
4. Other. wastew ate r force malnle, separate sectl(N see sketch ply )th
C. 1. Bulkhead dimensions
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material)
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 2000 ey (max. 'iota 1) 2. Type of material sand, shel ly_Sand and q i It
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards 2000 ey (max. Iota I ) 2. Type of material same
IV. Land Type, Excavated Material, and Construction Equipment:
A:.Poes thp area,Eabe. exe apatedinclude any marshland? Yes _-X—No_(tempoCary<,- see,atansm;(tta.l,
;jtr
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland? .Yes —No _ X_
C. Disposal area 1. Location In excavated pipeline ditch (barkf i I I material)
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? no
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in N/A
E. How will excavated material be entrapped or encased? N/A
F. Type of equipment to be used CI amshe I I bucket, crane mounted
G. iyill marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? (If yes, explain) Yes I i m 1 ted ama mt
at west end of AIWW pipeline crossing (see accomoanyina letter)
V. Describe Intended Use of Project Area:
A: 1. Private
2. Commercial _
3. Housing Development or Industrial
4.Other. Reglonal munigIpAl, wastewater__orolert
DSFBI'

B. 1. Lut ;iieie)
2. Elevation of lot(S) above mean high water
3. Soil type or texture__
4. Type of building facilities or structures
S. Method of sewage disposal or treatment
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes—
No-B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned. use of the
area following project completion? Yes —No X
2. Type of discharge NSA
3. Location of discharge
VI 1. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): minimal In work areas
VI I I. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable:
IX. Length of time required for project activity: 18 months
X. in addition to the completed application form, the following Items must be provided:
A. Attached a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other. instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land. (Note: Federal law requires the
applicant to be the owner or his designated agent).
8. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8%" X i l" white paper (see instruction, booklet. for
details)... Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted., '
'C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G. S. 113.229 (g) (9) and (10)). Enter date served
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
D. List the names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's
tract.
All construction In public highway rights of way and across estuarine
waters owned by the State ,of;.:North, Caro,Llna .
DA'
' Applicant's Signature
Robert W. Sawyer, Mayor
Send one completed copy each to:
Permit Section
Division of Marine Fisheries
Department of Natural & Economic Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Ph. 919-829-3767
D& F-B2
Rev. 3/74
District Engineer
Department of the Army .
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
(Note: attach Corps cover letter)
Ph.919-763-9971 Ext.565

SITE -A W k fr(
BANKS CHANNEL SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING - PROJECT
TECHNICAL DATA SITES
LENGTH OF SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING: 75O LINEAR FEET
PIPE SIZES CLASS: 14"C.I.P.1 BALL JOINT r �'
EXCAVATION: J'V
TYPE MATERIALS:-PRIMAIIILY SAND 8 SHELL
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: C. AMSHELL SNADL
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION: 3' S (MAIN CHANNEL) 5'-t �•� .i •�'.�' o
AVERAGE FOR REMAINDER PUMPIN
G
"'�/` ' � � i�-4
OF CROSSING. �k
VOLUME OF MATERIAL:' B00 CU. YDS.
SPOIL DISPOSAL: STOCK PILE UNDERWATER
ADJACENT TO TRENCH
EXCAVATION - USE AS BACKFILL CINITY AID
AFTER PIPELINE IS INSTALLED. FLOOD fJ
\j\1r\fir\ B A N K C H A N N E L y� TO WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH—
• C�
PTO WILMINGTON =
U.S. HWY. No. 74
ANCHOR BLOCK 14° FORCE MAIN ANCHOR BLOCK
STA. 140+74 p PLAN STA. 147+73
+
a
•t70P BULKHEAD 7.56
Y�
iNk LBO °M.H.W. 2.0 . 1p�-E%tST. BULKHEAD
t
M. ANCHOR SLACK
`,�--E%IST. BOTTOM
ANCHOR BLOCK ` (APPRTe
IL
14" FORCE MAW
PROFILE
r�
9 u II _INK-IB.2,0,
A 'h99iyF 6
EXCAVATED MATERIAL - WIND �—
UON SE O0 H SIDE LLPEXC CNTION.OW Lp
EXIST. BOTTOM-.ELEV. VARIABLE '
DATUM: SEA LEVEL
El.i5.0Y SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
- FORCE MAIN
E.P.A.' PROJECT No. C-370565-01
14"FORCE MAIN TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
y-INV -I^ 2 NORTH CAROLINA
NOTE: SECTION IIAI IA1
TRENCHING METHOO ALSO APPLICABLE TO SITE 'C'+A.I.W.W.
HENRY VON OESEN 0 ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS
° PLANNERS , WILMINGTON. N.C.
T I OF 3

I I
i
I -
+ P
126' 1^
r A
WICRiAC K E NNANS I —1 MNW TO AINW" 93'
_U. S. 74
CREEK To RIOHTSVIUE
BEACH
5
14 FORCE MAIN
14 "FM. ON T
AIR RELEASE N_\ a PILE BENT9
S T4 I35412 `_
DOT. R/W �M H•W EL. 2.0 0
P.IRRELEAS MANHOLE M.L.W. EL.-I.B
--..-
SEE SITE '13'
SITE 1-B I SPACISENT 8� C-C. PILE BENT DETAIL.
PLAN 'PROFILE
KENNANS CREEK CROSSING
f7.6'y
-TECHNICAL DATA SITE 'C' N
UrLETH OF SUBAQUEOUS CRQSSINO .SOO: '
N OF EXCAVATION - 8 AVERAGE. VOLUME ---
OF MATERIAL . 1480 OU. YDS.
ALL OTHER FACTORS 8 CQNDITION9
ARE THE SAME AS SITE A' CROSSING. SUBAQUEOUSc
-41,- STA 4v+15 14" FORCE MAIN N.C. WILDLIFE 'BOAT RAMP
..,.�`.'.. STA.82+ 5C .nE/ !� - E. —E DO.T. RAV
O E
`AN6HOR BLOCK
U.S.-74-76 , HEIDE— RASKIMEM. BRIDGE -.
-�. PLAN.AIw, CROSSiN,G.:,.. .
5 f'.Ieo'
8
D M.H.W. EL. 2.0 APPROX. EXIST BOTTOM /
�...._ 0
803'
... ANCHOR �- 5
-----'--- ANCHOR
-15 1
... .._..... . . --"-- J
_EL._ 19.2 —'---- -._ -20
IOU PROFILE A.1.W.W CROSSING
it,I"•I60' , 1"• 16. V DATUM: MEAN
COASTAL AL MGT• SITE
'T' E I C I SEA LEVEL = 0.0.0
OFFICE F
W1 Y�IGHO SVILLE BEACH INTERCEPTOR —HENRY VON OESEN e ASSOCIATES- WILMIMTON, N.C.
1. Sheet 2 of 3
oneKO+Vnwar�-�.-,
' CII C Aln '. i1F J

STA. No. 6 E
U. S. 76__—
ANCHOR BLOCK
STA. Z +39
VIA
Li
Marine Gr ee R� m S It
E ' ^I
lNorintl .
RAD LEY CREEK ' CROSSI
u
EXCAVATED MATERIAL- PLACE
IN SILT RETENTION AREA:140'
FILTER FABRIC
USE TO BACKFILL TRENCTOC OMPOSE LETESILY
RETENTION AREA.
EXIST. BOTTOM 4'¢xlf
ELEV. VARIABLE POST
15� A. 'O. C
I—
14" FORCE MAIN
INV. EL. - 9.0
EL. -2.0+m
ALV.•FENOE n
3WIRE IOGa.'R
n
-ANCHOR BLOCK
.STA. 10+55
•SILT RETENTION
AREA S
ELEV. SECTION
SECTIQ 'A- A' KENNAN CK. PILE BENT
I-•6'
9RADLEY CREEK TECHNICAL_ DATA:
LENGTH OF SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING- 800 L.F. SPOIL DISPOSAL:
i PIPE SIZE a CLASS- 14"D.I.P, BALL JT. OR SILT RETENTION AREAS
16" 0. D. POLYETHYLENE SOR-11 LOCATED AS SHOWN,
EXCAVATION:
TYPE OF MATERIALS: PRIMARILY ORGANIC SILT.
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CLAMSHELL/JETTING
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION: 9 ' +
VOLUME -.OF MATERIAL: 1,800 C. Y. ±
}

ow
PUMV. 57A, NO.C. --------
U.S. 7G 6RAoLE% CREEK BI?IDCgF
ar. •+o ¢' CREL MAIN oN plpr. -rRre-rLC
xOW.eCcycgecx .SLZE_D"
MAIj1/1/Y• .
�•.xoo'
If•'�U qCC MAW 7
�i'i'JJJiJi�J'i'i'1'j'i'1'JiJ'J'iJ'iiJ'Ji'iJ'i'J'�iJJ'J'J1`J'JJ'i'JJiil'l�
�Illlllillilli�.
l�11_I�I$illlliil�lllllllllllll
�1...!�
PILPL DG.NT apACl 4 U5 C.C.
:PROF ILE 13RAVLEY CREEK CROSSNQ
�y
Et.E� S�GTIOIJ
Ti�ICA, L pl LF- f)ENT

* a o.o 0 0 0 0 0 o..�.a r o. o.o.o v�.� o v •.yro.o w o+ao ro� o o a ono 0 0 CaoNr
Permit Class
Permit Number
Modification/Minor STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 100-78
Department of Natural Resources and Community Developmeni Page 1 of 2
• and
Coastal Resources Commission
r r m I
JUL 9', 1982 for
Major Development in an Area of Environmental
OFFICE OF COASTAL MGT. Concern pursuant to NCGS I13A-I18
d WILMINGTON, N. C. 0 Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113.229
Issued to Town of Wrightsville Beach P. 0 Box 626 Wrightsville Beach NC 28480
authorizing development in New Hanover _ County at Bradley Cr. Banks Channel AIWW and
Kernans' Creek` as requested in the permittee's a lirnion dated 4/13/78: includine
attached plats, sheet 1 of 3 dated rec. 4/14/78 sheet 2 o 3-'dated rec /82 and
appl. dated 12 8 81 incl. attached plats Ja
This permit, issued on T..r �?�r 982 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
pennittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
A -
i) rnac no excavated material be placed at any time in any marsh or waters of the
state outside of the alignment of the pipeline area indicated on the plat.
2)That ip order to protect juvenile shrimp populations, no excavatibn or filling
will be, permitted between the dates of April 1 through September M of any year
t;Ithout the prior approval of the Office of Coastal Management.
C - AIWW
Tltat the marsh horsier crossed must be
completion of the pipeline installation.
2) Same as Condition //1, Site A.
returned to the previous elevation upon
(See attached sheet for additional conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the pemmittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible un-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
March 31, 1983
In tssumg Wrs pennit, the State of North Carolina
agrees that your project is consistent with the !worth
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
RCCEI V C®
MAR 2 9 2011 Signature OfPemmittte
- - p� WILMINGTON, NC _

u
Town of Wrightsville beach
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
(3) Same as Condition tr2, Site A.
Permit No. 100-78
Page 2 of 2
Site D - Bradley Creek
(1 That the work be carried out during the period from December 1 to March 31 of any
year. Further that it should be timed to coincide with predicted low tide cycles
during this period.
(2) That all work be. accomplished during the period from slack high to slack low.
water (eb'bing tide). This would apply to both excavation and refilling activity.
(3) That the spoil disposal areas be sized to accommodate all materials resulting
from excavation. These areas must also he.designed so as to eliminate excessive
turbidity and siltation.
(4) That all disturbed marsh be returned to existing grade of adjacent 'vegetation
following Completion' of pipeline installation and that no permanent or temporary
spoiling may take place in these vegetated wetlands.
(5) That all live oyster, both along trench alignment and under spoil areas, be
relocated (under the guidance of the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Office
of Coastal Managemlent) to areas outside, of..project influence.
(6) That the existing bottom elevations be reestablished upon completion of backfill
operation. All excess material must be removed,to a high ground disposal area.
(7) That the depths of the three low tide channels must he restored so that existing
navigational use of these channels is not impaired.
(8) That mats he used when .crossing marsh vegetation.
(9) That the project be completed within two (2) weeks of start date.
Site A, B, C, & D
(1) That the work Ue conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant increases
in turbidity outside of the area of construction (increases of 25 NTU's or less
are not considered significant).
NOTE: Work under this permit is covered by General Certification No. 1179 issued
by the Division of Environmental Management on January 25, 1978 and
Certification No. 1552 issued on February 5, 1982.
NOTE: An Easement from the State Property Office, Department of Administration was
executed May 27, 1982 for the pipeline crossings.
NOTE: A Highway Encroachment Easement is required from the Department of
Transporta'ti.on, Division of Highways for work on the highway right-of-way.

' I
I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA j
E_ A_ S_ E_ M_ E N_ T
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
THIS EASEMENT, made and entered into this the a2 -
day of ✓,n1982, by and between the STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, party of the first part, and the TOWN OF WRIGHTS-
VILLE BEACH, party of the second part;
W I T N E S S E T H t
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of
Administration has authorized and approved execution of this
instrument for the purposes herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, the execution of this instrument for and on
behalf of the State of North Carolina has been duly approved
by the Governor and Council of State by resolution adopted
at a meeting held .in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, on
the 4th day of May, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have mutually agreed to
the terms of this easement as hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of ONE
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, the 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 I
and maintain a sanitary sewer pipeline as follows:
MAR 2 9 2011
U) WUd9 NGICd,

A. Banks Channel subaqueously for approximately
750 feet along the south side of U. S. Highway 74 causeway
and bridge.
B. Kennans Creek on bent piles along the south side
of the U. S. Highway 74 causeway and bridge for a distance
of approximately 126 feet.
C. AIWW subaqueously north of the U. S. 74-76 High-
way causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately 800
feet.
D. Bradley Creek subaqueously near the U. S. 74-76
Bighway causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately
800 feet.
The purpose of the easement is to provide the Town
i
of Wrightsville Beach with a connection to the Northeast j
! Interceptor Greater. Wilmington Area 201 Facilities Plan. See
att:arhed drawings .:ntitled "Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Force Main, Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina".
It is understood and agreed that this conveyance
i
is made subject to the condition that the 3 party of the second
part shall properly obtain all necessary permits required by I, state and Federal law. Failure to obtain such. permits in
a timely manner shall be deemed an abandonment of said easement
i� TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid rights, privileges,
. and easementuntothe said parl-y.of the second part,. its �
successors and assigns, for as long as said pipeline is
t utilized by the party of the second part, its successors and
assigns, for the purposes set forth herein,'and no Longer.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the State of North Carolina
I'
has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by JAMES i
I B. HUNT, JR., Governor, attested by THAD EURE, Secretary of j
State, and the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina hereto)
affixed, by virtue of thepower and authority aforesaid, as of I
the day and year first above Written. I

STATE OF NORT11 CAROLINA
i! ATTEST:
t �Ir A
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
Attorney General
Y.S(.)n , Kelley
Assistant Attorney Conoral
i
i

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
I, DEBORAH ANN CANDLER, a Notary Public in and for the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that JAMBS B. HUNT, JR., Governor of the
State of North Carolina, and THAD SURE, 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 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 JAMBS B. HUNT, JR., Governor of said State, and THAD EURE, 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 WHEREOF, I have hereunto act my hand and Notarial Seal,
this the N257 day of
My Commission Expires;

SITE -A
BANKS CHANNEL SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING -
TECHNICAL DATA,
LENGTH OF SUBAOU60US CRO!.SiNG. "'SO LINEAR FEET
PIPE SIZE 8 CLASS: 14"C.I.P, BALL JOINT
EXCAVATION:
TYPE MATERIALS: PRIMARILY SAND 8 SHELL
LPROJE
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CLAMSHELI.DEPTH
OF EXCAVATION: 3S (MAIN CHANNEL) 5±AVERAGE
FOR REMAINDER
OF CROSSING.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: 800 CO. YDS. ASPOIL
DISVOSSL: STOCK PILE UNDER WATERADJACENT
TO TRENCH
EXCAVATION -USE 45 O4CKFILL
AFTER PIPELINE IS INSTALLED,
84 NN CHANNEL
FLOOD
we
.—TO WILMINGTON
_
No. Tq
14" FORCE MAIN
ANCHOR BLOCK
sra.l4oit4 p
0
PLAN
� �
INV 1.00—
ANCHOR
PROFILE
.eoi 00 Noi
f.10' VLNT.
2
Q
W
,U
0
G
L
ANCHOR BLOCK
STA. 147+ 73
MH W 2 0 EXIST. BULKHEAD
ANCHOR BLOCK
M1
INV. -2.70
E g�
PRO
i 14"FORCE MAW
` rA
•, I I - INV.-IB.z.O,T14
41,
A
9
f
f�yF,p��
//�
ON NORTH SIDE TION.OWW
USE TO BACKFILL TRENCH
/
`` [•-EXISr. BOTTOM -ELEV. VARIABLE
VA
DATUMS SEA LEVEL
�ELr15.DY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FORCE MAIN
E.P.A. PROJECT No. C-370568-0I
14"FORCE MAIN TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
_fir INV.-16.2 NORTH CAROLINA
NENRT VON OESM N ASeomarts, COYSULTIM CNGINE M
NOTE' SECTION A PLANNERS. WILMINGTON. N.C.
'REACHING NCTNOO ALSO APPLICABLE To SITE 'C�•A.I.W.W. SHEET IOF:
w

F'Lmll IL •KENNANSI
1
CREEK i 481LfY.�+E
eeicx
i�iF M1� _\ a'I PILC BCMTS
CA
N
SITE
IBN
PLAN
RE CRE
.f-Ar�iS
I ••e0'H, I"•0'V
'� - N.NW EL. 2.0
M.LYL_ EL_I a
TILE BEEN7, SEE SI7E 'D' FOR
SPACWO IB C-C. PILE BENT DETAIL.
PROFILE
:PTI1 OF EYOAVATION a OwAVCRAO(W
ILUNE OF RATERIAL •1480 CU. VON.
i. O£NCR FACTONB 0 CgAjOITIONe
I£ TIC JAY£ AB 317( A CROee1He. SUBAQUEOUS Q
ISV FORCE MJUM MC- WILDLIFE BOAT RAMP
!w -�.••�
ANCNOq BLOCK uu O E
'•1.NA 1 J I• J ANCHOR BLACK
SL7. Bbf OB !
/ II
4-76 HFiDE TRASK.MEM. BRIDGE
_..... L........^ ....._.. _.. ._ !_
ll1 f )-,1-....I:�
PLAN CROSSING
F•Ie0' .. ' -�
- IA HITV•EL�h����M���AFFnO1L (71C7. eoTTar -]ice
MLA/. EL. -LB
Ala,
�" �!n1r.IFi•'-: 5
1-ANCIiJq
ANCHOR - 10
—15
PROFILE A.I.WW CROSSING
I •LBO' x, I". IB'v DATUM: MEAN
S I T E nl SEA LEVEL -0.00
ITSVILLF. REACH INTERCEPTOR--IIENRYWNOESEN B ASSOCIATES • A'IL41Mitx, N.C. Sheet 2 of a
FILE No. 2157

... .......
'i;, [;I
c f, BRID
14* FCCCE. MAIN—CANCHOR
BLOCK
55
TGLT RETENTION
Q AREAS
-SITE
L)'RADLEY
CREEK CROSSING
A
PROFILE BRADLEY CREEK CROSSING
I 4CAVAl LD MATERIAL- N.ACL
IN S14T RETENTION ARCAl.;ANI) ILTER FABRIC
TO BACKFILL TRENC!;. 10 COMPLCTELY
ENCLOSE SILT
RETENTION AREA.
r. X I NOT TOM
ELL%% VARIAaL.F-4'Ox I
-,,
PST
brACE —41
TIE [+)-',TAN ... ...
ti 0
CA IN E C r IN E";:
14' 4FF'OR(.'C MAIII
NV. EL. -- 9,0
ELEV. SECTION
S L C-1 ION 'A - A'
KENNAN CK. PILE BENT
HiRAF)LA'Y CRErK TECHNICAL DATA'
LOC i 11 OF SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING • 900 L.F.
NPI: a CLASS-- 14" RLP, IIALL J r . OR
0. 0. POLAUrHYLIFNE SOR-II
.ACC AVA '❑
T ' 10 ' N
TYPE OF MATERIAL!;: PRI1,40HIN ORGANIC $(LT.
to,Erilpt) or ENC.eVA11014; VLAJ4SHF.LL/,lElTrfl0
(11;PV8 OF EXCAVATION: !I' -
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: 1,06c. C. Y.
!.' REACH IN -1I.K0'rOFl -- ltr.';RV %CItj CTSEN a t.FnOr.IATES-
4
SPOIL DISPOSAL:
SILT RETENTION AREAS
LOCATED AS SHOWN,
heat '.ifiof 7.

, q4
14y.
L' Q 4;r3l L. V C R E E K, FM? I D r-
....... ...... .......
..I., Cl-i ,c C MAJ!J 4,K rl rr- Tr4r:rt r
t
C-IR LEP, CI=CD S51 NQ-
1.6
PROFILE NPADLEY CREEI� CROSSWQ
r2ce", Vwl v
51
Lc-,/ :5EC-71nM
TYPICAL Pi LE tDEM-r
.. ,11111v Jnw cl41.111J P 'SHEET 3—
a

�, / BOOR PACE
*� 2317 0396
Return: Div. Marine Fisheries, Submerged L'd% PO Box 769, h4m06e1d City, NC 22557
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TAX I.D. NO_ 5714-004-012-OW
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
TAKE NOTIC&
1. Pursuant to GS. 113-205, 113-206 and the rules promolgaW thneauder, the Secretary of the NorthCarolina Departmentof Favimament said Natural Resources, through his designee, the Direraer of fha
Divisionof Marini Fisheries, has inusol ued a final rutim qusuaot to G.S. 113-2% and I SA NCAC
01G.0103 concerning the submerged land claim originally filed by Timis Winer power Company.
2. The lends subject to this foul res luo o we li unxd to those wdmeagad lands which were claimed by Tide
Water Power Company Pursuant to G.S. 113-205 and are described more fully in the following:
Deed Book 1933 Page 761, New Hanover County Register of Deeds
3. As the successor in interest to the original claimant, Tide Water Power Company, the current claimant,
CGRS Enterprises, L.L.C., asserted title to the submerged lands covered by the claim.
4. The interest now claimed by CGRS Enerprises, L.L.C. in the lards described her been denied. This fuel
resolution does not affect or impair the common law riparian or littoral rigW running with lands located
above the high water mart
5. Notice of this fund resolution has been duly served on CGRS Enterprises, L.L.C. by certified mail.
6. The Secretary directs that this declaration be recorded Linder CGRS Eoegprites, l..LC. in the gcmaw index
and crunwiodeaed under the State of North Carolina in the grantee lodes in the NEW HANOVER County
Register of Deeds ' r—
Thu the W9 daY or 'd /�W 19 ig.
�y 0OW25 WAYNEMcDEVITT
�T n Scretary
By: 2
hvV.,iTR Preston P. FWe, Jr., Direct
r" North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
'96 FEB 26 fln 9 39 Pursuant to 15A NCAC 01 G.0103(3)
RECORDED 6 VERIFIED
MARY 5U€ OOTS
{a P.ECISTER OF DEc3S�
a{ R.'r% HANOVER CO. I!C

BOOK PACE
2317 0391
IMS INSTRUMENPAPPROVFD AS TO FORM BY THE ATTORNW GENERAL'S OFFICE
MX7um IF. EASIEY
AttormyGmfsal
B4-
Gmwal
NORTHCAROLRdA
CARTERETCOUMY
1. Jame L Hardy, a Notary Public, in and forthe said County and Suite, do hereby catity that Pratm
P. Pam Jr. pemmmelly kmwo to mq personally appeared befma me this day in said County soul State aid duly
acknowledged the dm execution of the f �,gp- eet of writing for the purpoaa therein capresw&
Witness my hand and official seal this Iheo_t't Z of —a fk 19L,
d•
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
11-27-99
(SEAL) NOTAW
PUBLIC
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ear a Hanover Cosoly hrrnkael4 r e aejfrNffens
trtoti,;n) Netb t ,R �;� a Notary Public of
r k mn� mlim{ is oariEed to be comet. Ibis iminniu nt was p csemed
(`e' Jcd br the o6as ordw RegistaofDcc& of
Thb as dn/ t94
seo.a. .ftr.er .
h
UepwsUrn..an ,19�at o'clock_M.
RegisterofDee&

I
JORN C. WssexuL, III
WssexLT40 J.0=-NW
WD.I.xwm A. RA Y, JH.
WARA Y®BEIMSOUTH.NW
WEssELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WiLmINOTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28492-1049
October 23, 2008
Mr. Steve Everhart
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Modification Application
Dear Mr. Everhart:
9TRE ADDRx88:
107-B NORTH 2^ STRxxT
WILWX TON, NC 28401
Tl. ox :910-762-7475
FAcsm : 910-788-7557
Opp -� o_s
I represent John and Liza Blackwell, LLC and Summer Rest Yacht
Owners Association, Inc. (SRYOA) in connection with a CAMA major
modification application by Bailey and Associates for a proposed 10
boat docking facility at 202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC. The
Blackwell LLC is the owner of the property adjacent to the project site
and is the permanent residence of John and Liza Blackwell. SRYOA is
the owner of the next riparian property to the north of the Blackwells
and is the owner of a docking facility at that property. The
Blackwells and SRYOA utilize the channel into which the proposed docks
will extend. Mr. Blackwell has previously sent in a letter of
objection to the project and the form indicating that he does not waive
riparian setbacks. The Blackwells and SRYOA object to the issuance of
a permit for the reasons stated below:
Blackwell and SRYOA agree with and adopt by reference the comments
I made by letter dated October 1, 2008 on behalf of the Toi4n of
Wrightsville Beach on the above -referenced application.
In addition to those comments they offer the following comments on
the navigation issue:
The plans for the Bailey Marina show the 70' slips for the typical
65' boats having their entrance opening towards the north. The slips
are built over the deepest water. The water depth 60' north of the
slips is only 2' to 3' deep at low tide. In order for a 65, boat to
line up to exit or enter the slip the boat will cover the entire
remaining width of the open water and may even be aground on the north
side of Motts Creek. Clearly there is not enough water for a 65' boat
to safely navigate within this constricted area.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

I

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 23, 2008
Page 2
The channel of Motts Creek runs to a small dam at Summer Rest Road
which impounds the creek above Summer Rest Road. This small creek is
only about 30' to 45' wide upstream of the point where it narrows at
the location of the applicant's proposed 10' x 20' gazebo. Although
there is no dockage specified for the 10, x 20' gazebo it will be
suitable for dockage of a small vessel in the 20'-30' range. This
gazebo and potential dock will further close the mouth of Motts Creek
where the narrow channel begins. This location is also the location of
the Blackwell docking facility.
This narrow portion of the creek is frequently used by sport
fishing boats as a platform for using cast nets to catch bait for
fishing. These boats range in size from small shallow draft boats to
boats in the 251+ range. These boats navigate up the narrow creek all
the way to the bridge to catch fishing bait by the use of cast nets.
Sometimes these boats have to back out of the creek as they are too
large to turn around in the narrow creek. The 10' x 20' gazebo would
unreasonably interfere with navigation and would extend into the
channel of Motts Creek which, in this location, runs the fill width of
the creek.
Based on the foregoing, Blackwell and SRYOA respectfully request
that the permit be denied because the proposal violates the standards
in G.S. 113A- 12 0 (a) (5) , 15A NCAC 7H.0207(c)and (d),
7H.0208(b)(6)(J)(ii) and (iii).
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. John Blackwell
Mr. Jim Long
WAR\envir=\RO8-018-CO2
Sincerely,
WE/SSELL& RANEY, L.L.P.
hj.a,
W. A. Ra- Y, Jr.
r /�
REE`ED
OCT 2 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

February 5, 2008
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extention
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn: Robb Mairs or to whom it may concern.
I am filing a formal opposition to the proposed project referenced in the attached letter.
Quite simply the plan totally blocks our exit to the Intracoastal Waterway. The proposed
project is also right on top of where folks circle while waiting to pull their boat out at the
public ramp!
Where does the madness stop? 850 ft of boat slips in that small of an area is absolutely
absurd.
Please ride down to the property and take a close look.
Thank you for your help.
John and Eliza Blackwell
203 Summer Rest Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28405
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 7 2008

CERTIFIED MAIL —RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER
FORM
Name of individual applying for the permit: Bailey and Associates
Address of property: 202 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, NC 284W
I hereby certify that I own the property adjacent to the above referenced property. The individual
applying for this permit has described to me (as shown on the attached drawing) the development
they are proposing. A description or drawing, with dimensions, should be provided with this
letter.
_I have no objections to this proposal.
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 or call [phone]
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no objection if } (111
you have been notified by Certified Mail. 0
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift or sandbags must be
set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me. (If
you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
_I do wi o waive the 15' setback requirement
_I do not wish waive the 15' setback requirement
Date PWOg,
Priih Name '
qua- 21p2� s �� s
Telephone number with area code
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 7 2008

CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER
FORM
Name of individual applying for the permit: Bailey and Associates
Address of property: 201 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
I hereby certify that I own the property adjacent to the above referenced property. The individual
applying for this permit has described to me (as shown on the attached drawing) the development
they are proposing. A description or drawing, with dimensions, should be provided with this
letter.
_I have no objections to this proposal.
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 or call [phone]
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no objection if
you have been notified by Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift or sandbags must be
set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me. (If
you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
_1�do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement
_V I do not wish to v*ve the 15' setback requirement
1 910 e
Print Name / I n I O -'Zh- sit /; � i
Telephone n l er with j area code 0 a 6
RECEIVE®
OCT 2 2 2008
DCG1li WiEswING10w, i-4C

October 18th, 2008
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
To whom it may concern,
My wife and I recently received the proposed modification to the Bailey and Assoc CAMA permit 84-01 as we are
listed as adjacent property owners. The following is a quote from the general use standards applicable to coastal
wetlands.
"Development shall not impede navigation or create undo interference with access to, or the use of, public trust
"areas or estuarine waters"
The sheer size and scope of this project is preposterous beyond any measure. Not only do the huge slips block
access to the creeks for public recreation but they block our access to the ICW during low tide. The gazebo or
"observation deck" proposed half -way down the walkway shows to within feet of the tie pylons off our dock.
The amount of dredging required for this project is going to change the landscape and impact of that area for years
to come. The current permit states absolutely no dredging. Warning signs about cables and pipes are posted all
along the bank area. Dredging here could be costly for taxpayers.
Parking and congestion on the corner of Summer Rest Rd. and Wrightsville Ave. are already a problem. Adding a
huge "commercial' dock that could potentially host up to 30 boats may result in a horrible accident on that street
corner.
The proposed changes clearly do not take into consideration the community usage and is a slap in the face to the
adjacent residents. The value and enjoyment our area currently gets out of these waters would be tainted forever.
Thank you for your help,
John Blackwell
203 Summer Rest Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28405
THERE ARE HIDDEN AGENDAS IN THIS PROJECT RECEIVED
OCT 2 2 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

waterline
MARINE CONSTRUCTION + CONSULTING
January 29, 2008
Mr. John Blackwell
203 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
John,
As required by CAMA as an adjacent property owner, you are being notified of the
proposed construction for the property located at 202 Summer Rest Road and owned by
Bailey and Associates. The construction will involve a modification to the existing
CAMA Major Permit to increase the number of slips from two (2) to ten (10). The slips
will allow the boats to face to the north. Dredging is proposed to maintain the necessary
channel depth and allow better access.
The proposed construction is outlined on the included drawings. In addition, an adjacent
property owner notification form is included. Please review the attached information and
complete the form. You may fax the form to me at 792-0942 or contact CAMA directly.
Thank you for you consideration and cooperation. I am happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Regards,
(f Jim Hundley
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 7 2008
waterhne PO Box 1646 Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 (c) 910.264,9977 (t) 910,792.0942
NC License # 62058

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 19, 2008
SENT VIA FAX
Mr. Jim Hundley
C/o Waterline Marine Construction and Consulting
P.O. Box 1646
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480
RE: CAMA Major Permit Application
Bailey and Associates
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Hundley:
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, acting as agent for Chris Bailey
with Bailey and Associates, for the proposed modification to existing CAMA Major permit No. 84-01to allow for a
community docking facility located at 201 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, adjacent to Motts Creek and the AIWW, in
New Hanover County. However, your application lacks information necessary for complete processing. The attached
checklist indicates the deficiencies of your application. If you respond within three working days from the date of this fax
or E-mail, or within five days from the receipt of this letter with the required additional information, processing of your
application will promptly continue and will not be placed on hold. If you are not able to respond within three or five days,
your application will not be accepted as complete for processing. Additional information may be required pending further
review by the fifteen (15) review agencies. The attached checklist indicates the deficiencies of your application.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me at my Wilmington Office at [phone].
Since ly,
bb Mairs
Field Representative
cc: Doug Huggett
Wilmington Files
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: tiff0www.nccoastalmanaaement ri
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \10% Post Consumer Paper

CHECKLIST OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCESSING
'APPLICATION
PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS
Application Forms (updated forms available on website below)
All applicants must completely fill out all three pages of form DCM MP-1. Depending on the scope of
your proposed development, you will also need to fill out some or all of the additional forms listed
below:
DCM MP-1
Project Location 3(a): River basin
Site Description 4(a): Total Shoreline length does not reflect work plan and survey.
(i): Zoning consistency
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
- Proposed preliminary or approved upland development plan that the docking facility would serve needs
to be provided.
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
- Update form to reflect changes made to updated drawings dated March 4, 2008, received March 5,
2008. * Form shall also reflect any changes made to plan based on this letter. *
WORKPLAN DRAWINGS
Top or Plan View Drawing
Your application must included a drawing(s) showing the following:
-All existing and proposed features: proposed bulkhead shall be indicated as existing bulkhead.
- Names of adjacent property owner(s) shall be included.
- Distance of waterbody shall be indicated.
Cross -Sectional (Side -View) Drawing
Your application must include a cross -sectional or side -view diagram(s) showing the following:
-Depth of all existing sewer force main in relation to proposed structures and excavation.
OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Narrative
An updated narrative description of the proposed project should also be provided based on the revised
drawings and forms. This narrative should discuss the character and purpose of the proposed
development, construction methodologies and any other special or relevant considerations.
Continued requested additional information on next page
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: htto:/www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \10% Post Consumer Paper

Adjacent Property Owner Re -notification
Certified letters (Return Receipt Requested) with the copies of the permit application package (permit
application forms and appropriate workplan drawings) must be sent to all adjacent property owners. The
signed return receipt(s) must be provided with the permit application. This notification must also include
instructions to the adjacent property owner that any objections or concerns they have about your
proposed development should be provided in writing to the Division`of Coastal Management.
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]Tax: 910-395-3964 \ Internet: http:lwww.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \10% Post Consumer Paper

,�,•��
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 19, 2008
SENT VIA FAX
Mr. Jim Hundley
C/o Waterline Marine Construction and Consulting
P.O. Box 1646
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480
RE: CAMA Major Permit Application
Bailey and Associates
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Hundley:
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, acting as agent for Chris Bailey
with Bailey and Associates, for the proposed modification to existing CAMA Major permit No. 84-0Ito allow for a
community docking facility located at 201 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, adjacent to Motts Creek and the AIW W, in
New Hanover County. However, your application lacks information necessary for complete processing. The attached
checklist indicates the deficiencies of your application. If you respond within three working days from the date of this fax
or E-mail, or within five days from the receipt of this letter with the required additional information, processing of your
application will promptly continue and will not be placed on hold. If you are not able to respond within three or five days,
:your application will not be accepted as complete for processing. Additional information may be required pending further
review by the fifteen (15) review agencies. The attached checklist indicates the deficiencies of your application.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me at my Wilmington Office at [phone].
Since ly, C
Robb Mairs
Field Representative
cc: Doug Huggett
Wilmington Files
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: http:/www.nccoastalmanaoement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \10% Post Consumer Paper

CHECKLIST OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCESSING
- APPLICATION
OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Consultant or Authorized Agent
If an authorized agent has been retained to obtain your CAMA permit, you must provide a letter granting
your agent the right to apply on your behalf.
Project Narrative
Include a narrative description for the proposed excavation and spoil deposition methodologies, and any
other special or relevant considerations.
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] \ Internet: http:/www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \10% Post Consumer Paper

Sieve Everhart
From: Thomas Ames [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 8:51 AM
To: Tom Tharrington
Cc: Mike Vukelich; Bill Wins
Subject: FW: Emailing: Summer Rest Road Pier Response 02082008
u
Summer Rest Road
Pier Response...
Tom
Along Summer Rest Rd a proposed pier is planned to be built over our existing sewer
forcemain. The forcemain is HOPE. In addition, there may be other issues. I have
attached a copy of the information for your review and comments. The original permit was
issued by DCM in the mid 1980's and the Town was not aware of it. The permit sat idle
until last year. When I checked the records, I could not find any record of notification
to the Town at that time. When we saw construction work in the area of our forcemain, we
raised a red flag to DCM, NHCo and City of Wilmington and asked for a stop work order.
The original plans have been revised to increase the size of the pier and we have
continued our objections until a solution can be found.
Please call me at 910-540-9754 and I will be glad to go over the material with you
Thanks again
Thomas R Ames
Asst to the Public Works Director
Town of Wrightsville Beach
910-256-7935 (v)
910-256-7939 (f)
NOTICE: E-Mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law.
-----Original Message -----
From: Thomas Ames [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:44 PM
To: Robb Mairs
Cc: Jim Hundley; '[e-mail]'; Mike Vukelich
Subject: Emailing: Summer Rest Road Pier Response 02082008
Robb
Attached is a copy of the Town's comments to the Proposed Summer Rest Pier project. A
copy is being hand -delivered to your office. Additionally, certified copies are being
sent to you and Jim Hundley.
If there are any questions, please contact me
Thomas R Ames
Asst to the Public Works Director
Town of Wrightsville Beach
910-256-7935 (v)
910-256-7939 (f)
NOTICE: E-Mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
1

Steve Everhart
From: Dean Hunkele ([e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:26 AM
To: Ed Beck; Steve Everhart
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: Emailing: Summer Rest Road Pier Response 020820081]
u
FW_ Emailing_
summer Rest Road..
I think the 2 of you need to be involved in this as primary contacts
rather than supporting staff. This force main takes all or at least 80%
of the sewage flow from WB to the mainland.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: FW: Emailing: Summer Rest Road Pier Response 020820081
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:20:07 -0500
From: Tom Tharrington <[e-mail]>
To: Dean Hunkele <[e-mail]>
Dean Hunkele
Environmental Senior Specialist
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/
Direct Phone: [phone] (NEW)
Main Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Address: 127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
GO CANES!
http://hurricanes.nhl.com/
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 14 2008
r

Jomv C. WESE ' III
WHfiSEL14tnm 80U .Nw
WD.LIAx A. RANEY, JR.
WAEANEYpBWJSO ma.N
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WnmiNOToN, 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:
@PRE®l ADDREB9:
107-B Noxmx 9" 6rxEEm
WII.Mwv N, NC 28401
TE HONE: 910-762-7475
FACBDdII.E: 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.
RECEVEED
OCT 0 2 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC:

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.
1.1. 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 impossible to dredge to -6' MLW in LlUs areagp
without damaging or affecting the integrity of the line. Ev 1Z
OCT U 2 ZINS
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

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 LAMA 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. Th,gq
OCT U 2 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

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 SuRlt�e
Road to the channel of the AIWW. " I*-p V D
OCT U 2 Z008
DCiA WILMINGTON, NCI

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)
OCT 0 21008
DCM WILMING7'ON, NC

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. 0208 (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.
R'FE�,
OCT U z 60
DCM w)«)N,�_f,.

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 7
3.3.9 - 7H.0208(b)(6)(J)(iii)
The proposed docking facility extends more than 1/4C° 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" 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 3� 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 M of Motts
Creek Channel as it connects to the Intracoastal Waterway, thereby
violating the 1/4`" 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 servir�
Wrightsville Beach will provide a significant obstacle to i ,
OCT 0 2 2008

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
William A. Raney, J .r
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. Bob Simpson
Mr. John C. Wessell, III
Mr. Mike Vukelich
Jo \.rt h\wae-097-co3
OCT U 2 ZO08
DCM WILMINGi''UN, PvC

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
E_ A_ S E_ M_ E N_ T_
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
THIS EASEMENT, made and entered into this the „2 ."
day of .Z 1982, by and between the STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, party of the first part, and the TOWN OF WRIGHTS-
VILLE BEACH, party of the second part;
W I T N E S S E T H t
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of
Administration has authorized and approved execution of this
instrument for the purposes herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, the execution of this instrument for and on
behalf of the State of North Carolina has been duly approved
by the Covernor and Council of State by resolution adopted
at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, on
the 4th day of May, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have mutually agreed to
the terms of this easement as hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of ONE
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, the 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:
RE EIVE®
Of 0 2 Z008
DCM WILMINGT ON, NC

A. Banks Channel subaqueously for approximately
750 feet along the south side of U. S. Highway 74 causeway
i
and bridge.
B. Rennans Creek on bent piles along the south side
of the U. S. Highway 74 causeway and bridge for a dis L..nce
of approximately 126 feet.
C. AIWW subaqueously north of the U. S. 74-76 High-
way causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately 800
7
feet. I
D. Bradlev Creek subaqueously near the U. S. 74-76
Highway 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
Interceptor Greater Wilmington Area 201 Facilities Plan. See
attached drawings entitled "Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Force Main, 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
part shall properly obtain all necessary permits required by
State and Federal law. Failure to obtain such permits in
h
a timely manner shall be deemed an abandonment of said easement
4 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
L
assigns, for the purposes set forth herein,and no longer.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the State of North Carolina
has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by JAMES
i
B. HUNT, JR., Governor, attested by THAD EURE, Secretary of
State, and the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina hereto
i
affixed, by virtue of the power and authority aforesaid, as of I
the day and year first above written.
.CEI M ED
OCT 0 2 Z008
DC" WILMINGTO N N(`

ATTEST:
�Iltll 'Atitre
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUFUS L. EDHISTEN
Attorney General
AYS6 14- Kelley
Assistant Attorney Cencral
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
BY �J/
, 6' Governor I
RECEIVED
0 C� 0 2 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
j COUNTY OF WAKE
I, DEBORAH ANN CANDLER, a Notary Public in and for the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that JAMESS B. HUNT, JR., Governor of the
State of North Carolina, and THAD EURE, 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 Great Seal of the State of North Carolina and that
the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the Great Seal of the Stace;
that JAMES B. HUNT, JR., Governor of said State, and THAD SURE, Secretary of
State, subscribed their names thereto, all by virtue of a resolution of the
j Council of State; and that said instrument is the act and deed of the State
of North Carolina.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto aat my hand and Notarial Seal,
this the az_ day of T , 19812e
My Commission Expires:
RECEIVED
OCT 0 2 2008
DCM WILh41NGrnN kit

SITE -A
BANKS CHANNEL SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING -
PROJECT
TECHNICAL DATA,
SITES —
LENETH OF SUBAOUEOUS CRO:.SING. 750 LINEAR FEET
PIPE SIZE B CLASS: 14"CIP, SALL JOINT
EXCAVATION:
TYPE MATERIALS: PRIMARILY SAND 6 SHELL
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CLAMSHELL
•�,}7
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION: 3 S (MAIN CHANNELI S'3
AVERAGE FOR REMAINDER
PUMPIN4
5ur�oM�^-
OF CROSSING.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: 800 CU. YOS. A
♦L
SPOIL DISPOS %L: STOCK PILE UNDER WATER
45
ADJACENT TO TRENCH
EXCAVATION - USE AS BACKFILL
V I
Sv AFTER PIPELINE IS INSTALLED,
FLOOD
- \ 84NM CHANNEL
ebe
.—TO WILMINGTON
-- U.S. HWY. NA. 74
ANCHOR SLOCI
STA. 140+74 1
t
INV 1.80—
ANCHOR
.g
14" FORCE MAIN
p9 s � PLAN
9 +
PROFILE
r. w' van.
M.H.W. 2.0
M S. L
M. LL I.8
EXPST. BOTTOM\
1\�4 1i"FORCE MAN
at;IN" FORCE MAIN
NOTE' SECTION "A�'-"p'
TNIROHINO NETNOO ALSO APPLICARI TOOITE
BN
x
ANCHOR BLOCK
STA. 147+ 73
EXIST. BULKHEAD
ANCHOR BLOCK
INV -270
N
' ( I ^.
ry ��yF
EXCAVATED MATERIAL -WIND ROW .lr
ON NORTH SIDE OF EXCAVATION.
USE TO BACKFILL TRENCH.
EXIST. BOTTOM -ELEV. VARIABLE
DATU/Il SEA LEVEL
EL-15.OY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FORCE MAIN
E.P.A. PROJECT No. C-370065-01
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
NORTH CAROLINA
HENRY YON oe3W R ASEAGATEI; CONOULTIN, ENBWECM
E PLANNERS, WILNIROTON, M.C.
RECEIVED
OCT 0 2 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

ffi.N `d'IItL LK�E.NNNANNS' -74
1 S. CREEK '-
eL+cH
_—• 14'P.M. Pk t
.LEAS! UK. `` - PILE
eexn
PLAN
aLgnmko .eoo'.
11 AVE Iaeo U.VD
• (TIONS.
I egknoftsSI
'JTL A' CA00aIHe.
SITE IBI
" 1.1-
ALLAY! EI.. 2.o
.11A EL.-I.8
yyLLE B¢¢NT, SEE SITE V FOR
tPACU10 K. C-C. PILE BENT DETAIL.
PROFILE
j 14' FORCE MAIN, NC. WILDLIFE BOAT RAMP
ANCHOR &aCK <aI `--a'— E
'1S° BENO O O I I ANCHOR BWCK
5TA. BI+Utl � +`� /I I
U.S. 74-76 IWME TRASK:MEM. BRIDGE
Fi_AN A.I.W.W CROSSING
y M H W. EL 2.0 AP/ROR. EYbT, 00"m - -�
_ IO (-ANCHOR PNGNUR - 10
-15
_ib 1
PROFILE AANW. CROSSING
1 .Iso'k.I.In'v MEAN
SEAL
SITE CI SEA LEVEL =O.OD
WRIOHT5VILLF. REACH INTERCEPTOR ---HENRY NON OESEN 8 ASSOCIATES- rtILYlkaleH, H.c. Sheet 2 of i
FILE No. 2157
RECEIVED
OCT 0 2 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

W C - t—
E��G Y
I BRADI.LY CHEFK BRIDGE q\��
t,!r•'.i, -S4 FORCE MAIN �• ANCHOR BLOCKv
_ STA. gi55
ay _ ---�^ SK.I' RETENTION
�'rnd: Aj 1.--7r :: I 1 AREA S
SITE D
I € BRADLC•. Y CREEK CROSSING
t � ,.JA•
PROFILE BRADLEY CREEK CROSSING
1•••iAe'N. 1••^.e•V
1IACAVATED MATIMAL- T:.ACL
If SILT RETENTION AREAS, AND / ILTER
COMPIABRI I.v
(.SE )b OACKPILLTRENCY,.-� / ENCLOSE SIU'
RRT¢HTION AREA,
F IS1. R.TTTON A'Dxp
EL EV. VARIAOI.E-\ ,i ! POST
uRACE QUt—
TIE fU;T AS
'•'i l''!1 :� T-4 a1 .. :,. G;LV fEN6F e.I
.14" FORCE LIMN uOr, tVIRF. IOOeH
"�- ELEV. SECTION
P1:_ -- .SIIIRRETE NTION_
NECTIO 'A -A' KENNAN CK. PILE BENT
ORAI)L_EY CREEK_ TECHNICAL OA'i'A'
,E1I@TU OF SUOAOUEOUS CROSSING „BOO L.F. SPOIL DISPOSAL:
MPC 51_:C R CLASS - W RI.P, GALL J"[. UR SILT RETENTION AREAS
IC" O.O. POLYETHYLENE SUR-II LOCATED AS SHOWN,
TYPO OF MATF.HIAI.f;: MMAHILY ORGANIC SILT,
METHOD Of E::CAVAI'ION; CLAMSHELL/JETTING
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION: 9•
VOLUME OF MATERIAL_: I,(UO I:. T. S
,T::jA REACH INTCRCEFTOR--HU;RY XXM OESEN 9A:.11CIAl'ES-WILNIhorp,NG. Shoo[ Aof
RECEIVED
OCT O 2 2W8
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

.,Jk
----- ------
.... .... ..
.1.1OC.f:CL MAIM oKl Pirly, TRm£rt.c:
C_ R E__ E I C, RO -S 51 fJ Ca
PROFILE ),,)ArjLP_Y CREEK CROSSNQ
77= — ---
Bd
T,,/rjlCAL pill-F- BENT
... I'
,4a a"I '. .. uvlJ nv J,w G,,,v,j A 'SHEF-T�
a

6
C! ass
i:eneVal
Modification
S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
and
Coastal Resources Commission
VPrm. t
for _
Major Development in an Area of Environmental
Concern pursuant to'NCGS 113A-1 IS
IDExcavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113.2229
Permit Number
100-78 _
Page 1 o
Issued to Town of Wrightsville Beach P. 0. Box 626 Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
authorizing development in New Hanover County at Bradley Cr., Banks Channel, AIWid and
Kennans Creek ;as requested- in,thepermittee'sapplication dated 4/13/78; including.
attached plays,sheets 1&2 o£�'Ydated rec. 4/14/78 and appl. dated 12/8/81 incl.
This permit, issued on March 19, 1982 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
pennittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void
Site A = Banks Channel
:(1) That no excavated material be placed at any time in any marah.or waters
of`,the state outside of the alignment of the pipeline area.sated on the
plat : .
(2) That :in orrlt,r .to protect juvenile shrimp populations, no excavation or'filling
will be permitted between the dates of April 1 through September 30 of any
year without the prior approval of the Office of Coastal Management.
Site C - AIWW
(1) That the marsh border crossed must be returned
completion of the pipeline installation.
(2) Same as Condition U1, Site A.
to the previous elevation upon
Rtt,t_ vtD
(See attached sheet for additional conditions)
l tits permit action may be appealed by the permittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to -work.
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
March 31, 1983
to issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina
-agrees that your project is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
EXHII
D
a
APR 2 G 1982
HENRY
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman.
of the Coastal ,Resources Co�m/mission.
r
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
DCM WILMINGTON NG

. - . - . . — ——v 11wwvew
of Wrightsville beach
Per -nit No. 100-78
Page 2 of 2
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
(3) Same as Condition #2, Site A.
Site D -.Bradley Creek
(1) That the work be carried out during the period from December 1 to March 31 of
any year. Further that it should be timed to coincide with, predicted low tide
cycles during this period.
(2) That all work be accomplished during the period from slack high to slack low
water (ebbing tide). This would apply to both excavation and re -filling activity.
(3) That the spoil disposal areas be sized to accommodate all materials resulting
from excavation. These areas must also be designed so as to eliminate excessive
turbidity and siltation.
(4) That all disturbed marsh be returned to existing grade of adjacent vegetation
following completion of pipeline installation and that no permanent or temporary
spoiling may take place in these vegetated wetlands.
(5) That all live oyster, both along trench alignment and under spoil areas, be
relocated binder the guidance of the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Office
of Coastal Management) to areas outside of project influence.
(6) That the existing bottom elevations be re-established upon completion of backfill
operation. .All excess material must be,removed to a high ground disposal area.
(7) That the depths of the three low tide chai...els must be restored so that existing
navigational use of these channels is not,imp. aried.
(8) That mats be used, when crossing marsh vegetation.
(9) That the project be completed within two (2) weeks of start date.
Site A, B, C 6 D
(1) That the work be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant increases
in turbidity outside of the area of construction (increases of 25 JTU's or less
.are not considered significant).
NOTE: Work under this perm itMis covered by General Certification No. 1179 issued `
by the Division of Environmental Management on January 25, 1978 and Certification
No. 1552 issued on February 5, 1982.
NOTE: An Easement is required from the State Property Office, Department of
Administration for the pipeline crossings.
NOTE: A Highway Encroachment Easement is required from the Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways for work on the highway right-of-way.
REGEI�`ED
DCM M"' A NIGTnq,

APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL
State of North Carolina Department of the Army
Department of Natural and Economic Resources Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(Re: GS 113.229) (Re: River and Harbor Act of 1899)
*` Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If the information requested is not applicable, so
indicate by placing N/A in the blank.
1. Applicant Information:
A. Name Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
asT -r{rs Middle
B. Address . P. 0. Box 626
f reeir.D'Box or Route Hugh H. Perry, Administrator
Wrightsville Beach, N. C. 28480 919/256-2245
City or Town State Phone
Ii. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County New Hanover
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Wrightsville each
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No Partially (see sketch plans)
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
Banks Channel, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bradley Creek
Ill. Description of Operation: t� '
A. I. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work X
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Access channel length width ypth
c
2. Boat basin length wldth dep M--i.rf
3. Fill area
4.
wastewater force main
C. 1. Bulkhead dimensions
sectlog,,- see sketch
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material)
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 2000 ek (max, 'iota I ) 2. Type of material sand she) 11L sand and s t It
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards 2000 cy (max, total) 2. Type of material same --
IV. Land Type, Excavated Material, and Construction Equipment:
A:.:Does.the area Aa.be, excavated include any marshland? Yes --(-No_(temporarysee.,,t,.r sm,fata I I ttt
B. Dos the disposal area include any marshland? .Yes —No X
C. Disposal area 1. Location In excavated pipeline ditch (backfi I I material)
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? no
D. Fill material source if rill is to be trucked in N/A
E. How will excavated material be entrapped or encased? N/A
F. Type of equipment to be used_ Clamshell bucket crane mounted
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? (If yes, explain) Yes 1 I mi ted amotmt
at west and of -AIWW oioaline crossina (see accomoanvinq_letter)
V. Describe intended Use of Project Area:
A. 1. Private
2. Commercial _
3. Housing Development or Industrial
4- Other Reg i ona I mun i c-i per(
Dd F-Bl
OCT 0 2 2008
nr-1,A alithAlmr-TON, NC.:...

B. 1. Lot :Iteis)
2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water
3. Soil type or texture
4. Type of building facilities or structures
5. Method of sewage disposal or
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes—No—
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes _ No X
2. Type of discharge N/A
3. Location of discharge
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): minimal In WOrk areas
Vill. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable:
IX. Length of time required for project activity: 18 months
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items mtnt be provided:
A. Attached a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land. (Note: Federal law requires the
applicant to be the owner or his designated agent).
B. Attach an accurate work lac drawn to scale on 8'h" X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet,for
details).., Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G. S. 113.229 (g) (9) and (10)). Enter date served
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
D. List the names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's
tract.
All construction In public highway rights of way and across estuarine
• waters owned by the _State gf:,.North,:Catod.ina.,.
DATE y - / -5
I Applicant's Signatu
Robert W. Sawyer, Mayor
Send one completed copy each to:
Permit Section
Division of Marine fisheries
Department of Natural & Economic Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Ph. 919-629.3767
D& F-B2
Rev. 3/74
District Engineer
Department of the Army
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
(Note: attach Corps cover letter)
Ph. 919-763-9RE C945VE D
OCT 0 2 2008
DCne to/tr n�iNCrnn� nib _.�

SITE _A
BANKS CHANNEL SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING -
TECHNICAL DATA
LENGTH OF SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING: 750 LINEAR FEET
PIPE SIZES CLASS: 14"C.I.P., BALL JOINT
EXCAVATION:
TYPE MATERIALS:. PRIMAH'.LY SAND S SHELL
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: C. AMSHELL
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION: 3'i (MAIN CHANNEL) 5'2
AVERAGE FOR REMAINDER
OF CROSSING.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: 800 CU. YDS. t
SPOIL DISPOSAL: STOCK PILE UNDERWATER
ADJACENT TO TRENCH
EXCAVATION - USE AS BACKFILI
AFTER PIPELINE IS INSTALLED. ILOOD
C H A N N E L
Ego
I ►_
SANK
AING70N _
U.S. HWY. No. 74
ANCHOR BLOCK—� ry 14 FORCE MAIN--
STA. 140+74 u
ri o PLAN
0
Y tt
1NV 1.80 `M. H. W. 2.0
LM.M. L. I.
`rEXIST. BOTTOM
ANCHOR BLOCK ` (APPROX.) L
14"' FORCE MAIN
PROJECT
SITES —
0 \—ANCHOR BLOCK
STA. 147+73
+
TOP BULKHEAD 7.56
—EXIST. BULKHEAD
t1 ANCHOR JLOCK
I'NV -2.70
PROFILE
�INV. -I8.2.6F
3 HAN �jq�/hF 6,.
r—EXCAVATED MATERIAL WIND
OW
ON
ENORTH FILBA SIDOITRENCH.
EXIST. BOTTOM -ELEV. VARIABLE
DATUM: SEA LEVEL
EL.-15.02 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
"' -- FORCE MAID!
' E.P.A. PROJECT No. C-370565-01
14" FORCE MAIN TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
_Lr INV, -I'.2 NORTH CAROLINA
w
HENRY VON OESER 6 ASlOCI S+yWx,,.YN�tT1 pgN�
NOTE_ SECTION "A�"A' 6 PLANNERS,
TRENCNINO METHOD ALSO APPLICABLE TO SITE C +A,LW. W. HEET I OF 3
-DCM Nl1911.AIAIr.►i�.^I ki y,

_ r
126_ n
/ - 10
r
MHW TO MHW" 93,
i. °_uG KENNANS' ^
CREEK TO RIGHTSVILl _
BEACH 5
FORCE MAIN
14"F, M. ON 7 .. • u . §--fir,=c.--r' _._,_.. .-
AIR RELEASE H. _\ PILE BENTS - _ - "
STA 135412 M.yH.W EL. 2.0 0
2 OOT. WW
A.IR ELEA M.L.W. EL.-I.8
MANHOLE
I' 1 PILE BENT, SEE SITE 'D' FOR
SITE 13 SPACING 18 C-C. PILE BENT DETAIL.
P L A N PROFILE
KENNANS CREEK CROSSING
ALDATASITE 'C' N
LENGTH OF SUBAOUEDUS CRQS91N6 "800.
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION s 6 AVERAGE.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL • 1450 CU.YDS. --
ALL OTHER FACTORS 8 CQNDITIONS C ARE THE SAME AS SITE A' CROSSING. SUBAQUEOUS
U'ya 14" FORCE MAIN N.C. WILDLSFE *BOAT RAMP
STA
^^^�
_ DOT.
' STA. 82+ 5C. .� E E -R,tY ' - E
`0o ° /I I - ANCHOR BLOCK
STA; 82+84,:N a11F a -v N
U.S: 74-76 , HEIDE-TRASK!MEM. BRIDGE -
I
I�
_ . �.. PLAN, A.c W.N .OR0SSlN-G
5
\ M.H.W. EL. 2.0 APPROX. EXIST. BOTTOM
0 �n
....._. _ w,116Z'"= M.L.W.'El:=LB
DISTAN s''M':H.W"'T0�4-
-IO ANCHOR ` "� /
.... .. _ . � ANCHOR -10
IS
EL.-19.2 -20
PROFILE A.I.WW. CROSSING
M (1 V. ISO' H , 1"" IB' V DATUM: MEAN
SITE 1 C I SEA LEVEL 0.00
OFFICE F COASTAL MGT. RECEIVED
wl VRIG10 S�VILLE BEACH INTERCEPTOR —HENRY VON OESEN 8 ASSOCIATES- WILMIwT c A,C� D�,1WU8 2 of s
DCM WILMINGTON�

rPUMP STA. No. 6 / E
U. S. 76 BRADLEY CREEK BRIDGg
ANCHOR BLOCK — — 14 FORCE MAIN
STA. 2 +39 —,. L
Bradley Creek 0 S C I ^I
Marina G li
BRADLEY GREED CRC
t�
E'?3Ta
- 5.2
PROF
I"� P00'H. 1'•
as
A.
EXCAVATED MATERIAL - PLACE
IN SILT RETENTION AREAS, AND. FILTER FABRIC
USE TO BACY.FILL TRENCH. TO COMPLETELY
ENCLOSE SILT
RETENTION AREA.
EXIST. BOTTOM 4•OxI
ELEV. VARIABLE •..w POST
I It I'VST AS
,REQ 0. --- EL.
I�5 GALV.-FENCE °p
14• FORCE MAIN HOGWIRE IOGa.r
M
INV. EL. - 9.0
1�
L
■
0.0
o C�
ANCHOR BLOCK
STA. 10 + 55
AT RETENTION
REA S
ELEV. SECTION
SECTION 'A- A' KENNAN CK. PILE BENT
I•.e'
BRADLEY CREEK TECHNICAL DATA:
LENGTH OF SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING - 800 L.F. SPOIL DISPOSAL: _
PIPE SIZE B CLASS- 14"D.I.P, BALL JT. OR SILT RETENTION AREAS
160 0. 0. POLYETHYLENE SOR-11 LOCATED AS SHOWN,
EXCAVATION:TYPE OF MATER-
MARILY
METHOD OFEXCIAVAT,ION: CLAM.SHERLGL/JETTING RECEIVE
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION: 9' + V
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: 1,800 C. Y. g
UL I o 2 2009
V7.;/II

Z
PV k P.. STA• No. G li
U.S. 7G
37s 1. AC
J •rn.rl. � _
MAoLF-y CREEK 6t?Ioc;r-
a` oRca MAIM oµN. Pl'rkr S*rLM
Z'+ ao
oRAnL¢y eRet S tZE �t3^
MARINA
�RAnL�`7_-CI�E!✓K-Gf�OsSINCa
IL 'YL71QL'C M61V �I
iii'i'i`'i'ii'i'iliii`i�
Hill
in
' I 6• D6NT apACl Q t8 CMG -
PRO ICE eRADLEY CREEK CROSSNQ
Sl
Eteti! sEc-rioh!
p1pIcAL pi Lr buNi�ECEIVED
OCT 0 2 2008 R

-S7A'a (i•ct.
Permit Class
Modification/Minor STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Natural Resources and Community Developmeni
and
Coastal Resources Commission
jig ra Vrrmlt
JUL Po 1982 for
Major Development in an Area of Environmental
OFFICE OF COASTAL MGT. Concern pursuant to NCGS 113A-1IS
WILMINGTON, N. C. a Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Permit Numbe[
100-78
Page 1 of 2
Issued to.__Town of Wrightsville Beach P. 0. Box 626, Wrightsville Beach. NC 28480
authorizing development in New Hanover County at Bradlev Cr. , Banks Channel, AIWW and
fi.
Kernans"Creek-
as requested in the permittee's alirnion dated "4/13/7$; 1ncludine
attached plats, sheet 1 of 3 dated rec. 4/14/78 sheet 2 of 3 dated-rec /82 and
appl. dated 12 8 81 incl. attached plats 3a &9b-ftted--32/1Qj.
This permit, issued on 7„13X 91, 1982 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
pe.rnittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
A -
J -lnat no excavated material be placed at any time in any' marsh or waters of the
state outside of the alignment of the pipeline area indicated on, the. plat.
144t.:in.order to protect juvenile shrimp populations, no excavation or filling
will'be:.permitted between the dates of April 1 through SeptemberO of any year
without the prior approval of the Office of Coastal Management.
C - AIWW
That the marsh border crossed must be
completion of the pipeline installation.
2) Same as Condition (/1, Site A.
returned to the previous elevation upon
(See attached sheet for additional conditions)
I his permit action may be appealed by the pemtittee.
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This pemit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modiftcatioli
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work roust cease when the Permit expires on
March 31 1983
to Issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina
agrees that your project is consistent with the Nofth
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This permit and its condition epud.
i
Siena u Pemtittee

3
Town of Wrightsville Beach
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
(3) Same as Conditio.ii2, Site A.
Permit No. 100-78
Page 2 of 2
Site D - Bradley Creek
That the work be carried out during the period from December 1 to March 31 of any
year. Further that it should be timed to coincide with predicted low tide cycles
during this period.
(2) That all work be accomplished during the period from slack high to slack low.
water (ebbing tide). This would apply to both excavation and refilling activity.
(3) That the spoil disposal areas be sized to accommodate all materials resulting
from excavation. These areas must also be.designed so as to eliminate excessive
turbidity and siltation.
(4) That all disturbed marsh be returned to existing grade of adjacent 'vegetation
following completion of pipeline installation and that no permanent or temporary
spoiling may take place in these vegetated wetlands.
(5) That all live oyster, both along trench alignment and under spoil areas, be
relocated (under the guidance of the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Office
of Coastal Management) to areas outside -of ..project influence.
(6) That the existing bottom elevations be reestablished upon completion of backfill
operation. All excess material must be removed .to a high ground disposal area.
(7) That the depths of the three low tide.channels must be restored so that existing
navigational use of these channels is not impaired.
(8) That mats he used when .crossing marsh vegetation.
(9) That the project be completed within two (2) weeks of start date.
Site A, B. C. & D
(1) That the work be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant increases
in turbidity outside of the area of construction (increases of 25 Idru's or less
are not considered significant).
NOTE: Work under this permit is covered by General Certification No. 1179 issued
by the Division of Environmental Management on January 25, 1978 and
Certification No. 1552 issued on February 5, 1982.
NOTE: An Easement from the State Property Office, Department of Administration was
executed May 27, 1982 for the pipeline crossings.
NOTE: A Highway Encroachment Easement is required from the Department of
Transporta'ti.oi, Division of Highways for work on the highway right-of-way.
RECEIVED
OCT 011008
Tr) ►VC

WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEY8 AT LAW
POST OFFIOIc Box 1049
WILDIINOTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
JOHN C. WESSEI.I., III
STREET
wuSSEl.I($BEI.I.SODTH.NET
28401
WnLI MA. RANEY, JR.
762-7475
WARANEYOBBIJ ODTH.NET
762-7557
March 6, 2008
Mr. Doug Huggett
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. David Timpy
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Re: Bailey and Associates Major Permit
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Major Modification, Permit 84-01
Dear Messrs. Huggett and Timpy:
STREET ADDRESS:
107-13 NORTH 2"O
WH.MnvOToN, NC
TxI HONE:910-
FACeiMH.E: 910-
I represent John and Liza Blackwell, LLC and Summer
Rest Yacht Owners Association, Inc. (SRYOA) in connection with a
CAMA major modification application by Bailey and Associates for
a proposed 10 boat docking facility at 202 Summer Rest Road,
Wilmington, NC. The Blackwell LLC is the owner of the property
adjacent to the project site and is the permanent residence of
John and Liza Blackwell. SRYOA is the owner of the next
riparian property to the north of the Blackwells and is the
owner of a docking facility at that property. The Blackwells
and SRYOA utilize the channel into which the proposed docks will
extend. Mr. Blackwell has previously sent in a letter of
objection to the project and the form indicating that he does
not waive riparian setbacks. The Blackwells and SRYOA object to
the issuance of a permit for the reasons stated below:
RECEIVED
MAR 0 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

APPLICATION ISSUES
• Item 3. e. and f. of Form MP-1 should reflect that the
upland property from which the pier originates is located
in the City of Wilmington but that portion of the project
below the high water mark is in the unincorporated area of
New Hanover County.
• Item 4. a. b. and d. of Form MP-1 indicates at the
shoreline is 8501, the tract size is 43,877 square feet and
the elevation is 51. The shoreline length should be
measured along the mean high water line and is considerably
less than 850' in length. The area calculation apparently
includes a significant area below the mean high water line
which should not be included. If the submerged land is
included, the elevation for most of the area is a negative
figure rather than the 5' specified in the application.
• Item 5. g. of Form MP-1 indicates no encroachment on any
public easement or other area the public has established
use of. In fact, the proposed docks will be located within
a heavily used public navigation area. There is extensive
neighborhood use of the Motts Creek Channel. In addition
the area of the proposed docks is heavily used by boat
traffic waiting to use the public boat ramp on the opposite
side of the Intracoastal Waterway and by boat traffic
awaiting opening of the adjacent draw bridge. In addition,
there are several public utility lines that are located
where the applicant proposes to locate structures. (See
later comments).
• Item 1. h. and J. of the Form MP-4 indicates 10 slips for
mixed boats. The size and configuration of the docking
facility is such that 18 moderately sized boats in the 20-
30 foot range could be docked at the facility. The width
of the docking area would accommodate a layout with room
for boats to pass between moderately sized boats moored to
opposite finger piers. Accordingly, the facility should be
classified as a marina in accordance with 15A NCAC
7H.0208(b)(5) and should be required to complete Form MP-4
item 2.
RECEIVED
2
MAR 0 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

• Item 7. c., Form MP-4 inaccurately states the width of the
water body. (See later comments).
• Item 1. Form MP-2 cites a figure for the amount of material
to be excavated that is inconsistent with the amount shown
on the site plan.
• Site Plans/Project Plan. The description of the vertical
datum is described in different and conflicting ways. The
notes indicate that the mean low water is the -1.54'
contour yet the wording located under the scale indicates
that soundings are based on MLW = 0.0. This should be
clarified.
GROUNDS FOR PERMIT DENIAL
1. G.S. 113A-120(a)(2) - Estuarine Waters.
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 facility/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
the 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 issues is compounded by the applicants
indication that the typical size of the boats using the facility
will be 651. 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 from tidal flows in the entire area of the
docks.
RECEIVED
3
MAR 0 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

The pubic health, safety and welfare will also be
significantly adversely effected by the construction of the
fixed pier, gazebo and all of the floating docks and mooring
pilings over a sewer force main that serves all of Wrightsville
Beach. Any maintenance of the force main would require removal
of virtually all of the structures and floating dock in the last
240 feet of the facility in order to accommodate barges and
other work boats. The construction of the docking facility
would also pose a great threat because pilings will be driven or
otherwise placed exactly in the location of the sewer main.
Emergency work to repair a break or leak in the sewer line would
be delayed for days in order to remove the necessary parts of
the facility and the vessels docked there. Experience has shown
that millions of gallons of raw sewerage can escape in a
relatively short time, thus any delay would have a significant
effect on public health, safety and welfare. The positions of
the Town of Wrightsville Beach, the City of Wilmington, New
Hanover County and the newly created water and sewer authority
should be solicited.
2. G.S. 113A-120(A)(5) - Public Trust Waters
The proposed development is in the public trust water
AEC which requires that development be denied if it will
jeopardize the public rights or interests specified in G.S.
113A-113(b)(5). Among public trust rights are the rights of
navigation. The extended proposed docking facility is located
an area heavily used for public navigation. Most of the
facility is located in water that is currently over 6 feet deep.
The depth in some portions of the project area is over 17 feet
deep. The slips extend across the deepest water leading to the
docking facility located along Summer Rest Road, including docks
of the Blackwells and SRYOA. The water depth under the 8 large
slips is mostly deeper than 11 feet and ranges up to 18 feet.
The water depth a short distance beyond the end of the slips
quickly become much shallower. The docks occupy the channel
leading from the private boating facilities along Summer Rest
Road to the channel of the AIWW.
3. G.S. 113A-120 (a) (8) - State Guidelines and Local Land
Use Plans.
3.1 The proposed project is inconsistent with State
Guidelines founds in 15A-NCAC, Subchapter 7H.
4 RECEIVE®
MAR 0 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

3.1.1 - 7H.0207(c) and (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." .0207(d)
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."
3.1.2 - 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 undo interference with access to, or use
of, public trust areas or estuarine waters."
3.1.3 - 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.
3.1.3.1 - 7H.0208(b)(5)(B)
This rule provides that for marinas associated with
residential development the marina is allowed no more than 27
5 RECEIVED
MAR 0 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

square feet of public trust area for every linear foot of
shoreline. An accurate measure of the applicant's shoreline
along the normal high water mark is only about 360 feet. This
allows use of 9,720 square feet of public trust area. The
public trust area occupied by the facility not including the
access pier is roughly 14,800 square feet. Thus, the
applicant's proposal violates this rule.
3.1.3.2 - 7H.0208(b)(5)(F)
This rule requires approval of controlling parties in
areas which have been deeded by the State. Public utility lines
for sewer and telephone occur within the area of the fixed pier,
gazebo and floating docks. The right of way for these utilities
has been granted either directly or indirectly by the State and
the facility should not be allowed without authorization from
the entities owning these utility lines.
3.1.3.3 - 7H.0208(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
readily 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 into navigation areas
simply to make more money at the expense of public uses.
3.1.4.1 - 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 360 feet rather than the 850 feet claimed by the
applicant. The applicant is allowed 4 square feet per linear
foot of shoreline or 1,440 feet for the combined area of "T"s,
finger piers, platforms and decks. The combined area for these
facilities proposed by the applicant is 3,510 square feet if all
of the floating docks are considered finger piers, or 2,640
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.
RECEIVE®
6
MAR 0 7 2008
DCM WILMINGT©N, NC

3.1.4.2 - 7H.0208(b)(6)(J)(ii)
The applicant's proposal extends the pier, including
the finger piers, into the channel of Motts Creek which is the
route used by the slip owners of the private and community piers
located along Summer Rest Road. The above -referenced rule
prohibits structures which extend into the channel portion of a
water body.
3.1.4.3 - 7H.0208(b) (6) (J) (iii)
The proposed docking facility extends more than ;J the
distance across the body of water. The application indicates
the width of the water body as 485 feet which allows a facility
to extend 121.25 feet from the high water mark or the edge of
the marsh. The floating dock structures extend about 175 feet
from the edge of the marsh thus exceeding the ;i 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,( rule should
use the equidistant method of establishing a centerline for the
body of water so that a 14 width can be established to assure
that the center M of the channel 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 % of the Motts Creek Channel as it connects
to the Intracoastal Waterway.
3.2 - Local Land Use Plans
The proposed project is inconsistent with the local
land use plans for the City of Wilmington and New Hanover
County.
3.2.1 - 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 shellfishing
waters (SA). . .".
There are exceptions in this policy for certain
activities and for areas previously dredged, none of which are
7 RECEIVED
MAR 0 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

applicable. This prohibition is similar to, but much broader
than, the CRC rule that prohibits new dredging in PNAs. The
City/County policy also applies to ORWs and SA waters. The
prohibition extends to all SA waters whether open to
shellfishing or not. When I questioned the City and County
staff during the development of the plan concerning the breadth
of the SA prohibition, they responded that they intended the
policy to apply both to open and closed shellfishing waters.
Accordingly the dredging portion of the project is inconsistent
with the City/County plan.
3.2.2 - Wilmington/New Hanover County CAMA 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, maintaining and repairing the sewer line in
accordance with this policy.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the permit requested by
Bailey and Associates should be denied.
WAR: jn
WAR\Environ\RO8-048-COI
CC: Mr. Rob Mairs
Mr. John Blackwell
Mr. Jim Long
Sincerely,
WE/SSE1LL& RANEY, L.L.P.
v V (/T nw
W. A. Raney, Jr.
RECEIVED
8
MAR 0 7 2008
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

RECEIVED
DCM 01-MINGTON, NC
Town of Wrightsville Beach JUL 2 5 200�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
200 Parmele Boulevard
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480
[phone] • FAX [phone]
July 22, 2007
Robb Mairs, Field Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Dear Mr. Mairs;
I am writing out of grave concern relating to the work being performed under a
CAMA permit issued for the construction of a pier along Summer Rest Road, extending
from the property of Bailey & Associates. The Town has recently learned of this permit
that appears to have been issued in 2000. This permit authorizes construction of a pier
over an existing, and permitted, major sewer transmission line from the Town of
Wrightsville Beach (Northeast Interceptor Segment 1) to the Bradley Creek pumping
station of the Northeast Interceptor Segment 2. This sewer transmission main is the
Town's only connection to treatment facilities and damage to this line would result in
severe, and prolonged, sewer spill and damage to the environment.
This permit appears to have been issued without any notification to the Town
even though its construction places a major portion of the Town's infrastructure at risk.
Additionally, the permit and the construction plans appear to fail to take into
consideration the impact of this project upon this sewer transmission line. The plans
appear to have incorrect surveying information. Pilings are to be installed without any
guidance on avoiding conflict with the line. Dredging is permitted without any
consideration of its irrlpact upon the reduction of cover over, and protection of, the sewer
transmission line. Boats will be placed in slips without any regard to the possible damage
from propellers. Maintenance dredging is permitted without any consideration to the
actual horizontal and vertical placement of the sewer transmission line. There is no
mention of financial repair/replacement responsibility should the line be damaged.
Damage to this line would not be a minor project; it could not be repaired in place, it
would require engineering, mobilization of specialized equipment and materials and
significant amounts of time. It is also possible, because of the infrastructure of the bridge
and approach dolphins, placement of fiber optic and communication lines, there may not
be an alternate route available for use. The replacement of a damaged line under limited
time circumstances could easily exceed several hundred thousand dollars.
For the reasons listed above, the Town of Wrightsville Beach is requesting a
"STOP WORK" order be issued for the pier to allow the Town the opportunity to review
and comment on the plans, details and permit. Once the Town has had the opportunity
for a responsible review of the proposed project, we will be able to make a comment
upon the appropriateness of a major project located directly above a major sewer
transmission line carrying an average of 0.65 MGD of raw, or untreated, sewage.

RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
If you have any questions, please contact me at by phone or at [e-mail]. JUL 2 5 2007
Thank you r your consideration of this matter
Thomas Ame
Asst to the Public Works Director
Town of Wrightsville Beach
CC (email)
Bob Simpson; Town Manager; Wrightsville Beach
Mike Vukelich; Public Works Director; Wrightsville Beach
Ed Beck; NC DWQ
Dean Hunkele; NC DWQ
Ann Hines; NHCo Planning
Jim Craig, NHCo Engineering

Town of Wrightsville Beach
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
200 Parmele Boulevard
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480
[phone] • FAX [phone]
February 8, 2008
Robb Mairs
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext. 7BY:
CE' IVF':D
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845 0 q �nn2
RE: Summer Rest Road Pier
Dear Mr. Mairs
In July, 2007, the Town of Wrightsville Beach notified CAMA, the City of Wilmington Planning
Department and the New Hanover County Planning Department of its concerns about the permitted
Summer Rest Road Pier project and its potential impacts on the previously permitted Northeast
Interceptor sewer force main. At that time, the Town requested a "Stop Work" order be issued upon
the project until all issues relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed pier
and subsequent impacts on a primary sewer force main routed to the City of Wilmington Southside
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Since that time, there have been productive contacts with the Contractor/Developer; however,
the issues of the protection of the sewer force main and the responsibility for damage to the sewer
force main have not been brought to a final conclusion that would be acceptable to the Town, or, in our
opinion, the requirements of NC DWQ relating to the operation of wastewater collection systems. The
proposed project is to be built over the existing line thereby exposing the line to potential damage from
construction, dredging and operations by individual boat owners within their slips.
Pursuant to approval by NC DWQ possible solutions include:
1. Review of the plans by the Town and DWQ,
2. Legally binding assumption of risk for damage by the Contractor/Developer and subsequent
owners,
The plans we have received show two (2) fifteen (15) foot riparian corridors. The first corridor, nearest
the drawbridge, is partially occupied by telecommunications cables from BellSouth/AT&T. The next
fifteen (15) foot riparian corridor is partially occupied by dolphins that protect the Drawbridge fender
system and are subject to routine maintenance by NC DOT. Part of the discussion must include
alternatives for the Town to relocate its sewer forcemain should damage occur; the most likely
alternative being the area to the north of the last riparian corridor to the north and below the dredged
area to the south of the proposed pier.
The Town considers this matter very serious and restates its request that the previously
requested "Stop Work" order remain in effect until the outstanding issues are resolved. The potential
for significant environmental consequences is severe. According to the information we have on file, the
line depth in the area of construction varies from less than -6' MSL to -8' MSL. The adjacent dredging
allowed will remove cover from over the sewer forcemain to the point that in some areas less than 2'
appear to remain. The pilings, installed to a depth of 8' below sea floor, have the potential to damage a
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB Il g 2008

major sewer artery as they pass through the depth where the sewer forcemain is located. The pilings
will pose a hindrance in the maintenance and repair of the line. We feel this project presents a clear
and imminent danger for disruption of the sewer forcemain and has the potential for serious sewer
spill(s) that, because of surrounding construction, could not be resolved quickly or easily. This project
directly interferes with the State's DWQ requirement that sewer forcemains remain accessible.
At this point in time, the Town has serious concerns about the project and loss of DWQ mandated
control of sewer line access and control.
Thank you for your assistance
Sincerely,
7429�
Thomas Ames
Asst to the Public Works Director
Town of Wrightsville Beach
910-256-7935
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 8 2008

{Y
r "^FrE F
MARINE CONSTRUCTION + CONSULTING
January 29, 2008
Town of Wrightsville Beach
P.O. Box 626
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
To Whom It May Concern:
As required by CAMA as an adjacent property owner, you are being notified of the
proposed construction for the property located at 202 Summer Rest Road and owned by
Bailey and Associates. The construction will involve a modification to the existing
CAMA Major Permit to increase the number of slips from two (2) to ten (10). The slips
will allow the boats to face to the north. Dredging is proposed to maintain the necessary
channel depth and allow better access.
The proposed construction is outlined on the included drawings. In addition, an adjacent
property owner notification form is included. Please review the attached information and
complete the form. You may fax the form to me at 792-0942 or contact CAMA directly.
Thank you for you consideration and cooperation. I am happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Regards,
Jim Hundley
�.�eterhne PO Box 1646 Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 (r) 910.264.9977 (0 910:79241942
-----NC tilcen§e _# 62058 RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 8 2008

DCM MP-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12J27106)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. PrimaryApplicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Bailey And Associates
Project Name (if applicable) — — —_
Summer Rest Road Pier Modification
Applicant 1: First Name
Chris
MI
Last Name
Bailey
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Meiling Address
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Po Box
City
Wilmington
state
NC
ZIP
28403
Country
USA
Phone No.
910-256-8443 eat.
FAX No.
910 .256-6331
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent/Contractorinformatton
Business Name
Waterline Marine Construction And Consulting
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Jim
D
Hundley
Agentl Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
1646
Wrightsville Beach
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
28480
910 - 264 - 9977 ext.
ext
FAX No.
Contractor 0
910 792 0942
62058
Street Address (Aditmnt from above)
city
state
zip
Email
jimhundleyjr@learr.00m
<Form continues on back>
252-$0E-2 ftR8 s: 1-SE8.4 FLLCF [Ls'f :: www.neeaastalmana game ram. rfT�Cr v �v
DCM WILMINGTON. NC
FEB 0 8 2008

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. S
New Hanover
201 Summer Rest Road
Subdivision Name
City
State
ZIP
Summer Rest
Wilmington
NC
28405-
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (r?many, attach additionel page with fist)
ext.
I I ,
a. in which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Moths 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
ANVW
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
I. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
®Yes ONO
work fails within.
City of Wilmington
A Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire trail (sq.fL)
+/- 85U
43,877
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
5' ®NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Natural coastal marshes and landscaping
f. Man-made features and uses now on trail
Pier under construction, bulkhead -
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiaeeM to the proposed project site.
Residential, US HWY74176
In. How does local government zone the trod?
1. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
R-2
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, B applicable)
❑Yea ONO ❑NA
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 ®No ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page> RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
0 8 2008
232.808.2803 ., 11-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoasfia 6;n an agnmacs 2.met

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (Q Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes ONO
(10 Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
(nr If yes to either () or (IQ above, has a delineation been conducted? []Yes ®No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
WA
o. Describe existing drinking water supply scurce.
City
p. Describe existing stone water management or treatment systems.
Surface Runoff
5. Activities and Impacts
e. Will the project be for commercial, publlo, or private use? []Commercial ❑Public/Govemment
SPrtvatelCommunity
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
This project will serve as an amenity to the proposed development on the western side of Summer Rest Road.
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.
Standard marine construction practices will be used. Barges, boats and other related equipment will be water -borne. The
material will be stored out of wetlands.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Development shall include the completion of the 54V pier under construction to include a 24' x 30' gazebo, access ramp, 6' x
146' walkway, (1) 6 x 40' finger pier and (4) 6' x 70' finger piers.
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? 3,240 SSq.Ft or ❑Acres
g. Will the proposed project
encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area []Yes SNo NA
that the public has established
use of?
In. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Surface Runoff
1. Will wastewater or stomnvater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes SNo []MA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? []Yes ❑No ❑NA
J. Is there any mitigation proposed? []Yes SNo ❑NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on backs RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Fig n a 7008
252.868.23r38 .. 1-888-411COA84 .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in orderfor the application
package to bo complete. hems (a) — (t) are abveys applicable to arty m*rdeveiopment application. Please consult the application
lnsh ichon booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to stele. 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 tills to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
I. 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 an the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name John Blackwell Phone No.
Address 203 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC 28405
Name NC DDT Phone No.
Address 124 DMsion Drive, Wilmington, NC 28401
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permttee, and issuing dates.
CAMA 84-01 NH Co. 06-8286
CAMA 51962 NH Co. 07-15414
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization forth, 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.
7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application win 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.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date 1t25t06 Print Name Jim Hundley
Signature
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 MP4 Structures Information DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 S 2008
252-808••2808 r: 5.888.4RCOAST r: www.nccoastafmanagement.net

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 ❑PubliciGovemment ®Private/Community
❑ibis section not applicable
b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
Dyes ONO
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
d. (1) Are Finger Piers included? ®Yes ❑No
(11) Number I
If yes:
Oil) Length 540 fixed 145' floating
(11) Number 5
(iv) width 6
(III) Length 1 (rid. 40, 5 n 70
(v) Floating ®Yes ENO
(iv) Width 8
(v) Floating RYes ❑No
e. (1) Are Platforms included? ®Yes ONO
f. (i) Are Boadifts included? ❑Yes ®No
If yes:
If yes:
(ii) Number 1
(i) Number
(iii) Length 30
(ill) Length
(Iv) Width 24
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes ONO
Note: Roofed areas are calarlated from ddplins dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
10
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
Ili) Number of slips existing
maintenance service
2 Permitted and under construction
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
R Dockage ('Wet silpsl only, number of slips: 10
❑ 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 Twat length: 65'
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings?
RYes ❑No
(11) If yes number of tie pilings?
20
J. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
Mixed types
I. (I) Will the facnNy be open to the generai publk?
Dyes ®No
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 8 2008
252-803-2608 s 1-888.4P.COAST :: rawve_,nccoaataEesas,ca e�nen`..net revised: 12./27106

Fount DCM MP-4 (structmres, Page 2 of A)
Z DOCKING FACIUMMARINA OPERATIONS ' ®This secftn not appf cable
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be Included in the proposed project
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number: _; Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boathokting tank pumpout; Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
d. Flow will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
e. (I) Give the location and number of 'No Sewage Discharge' signs proposed.
(IQ Give the location and number of'Pumpout Available' signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
h. Give the number of channel markers and 'No Wake" signs proposed.
i. Give the location of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage?
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided?
RECEIVED
m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area? DCM W I LM I NGTON, NC
oyes ❑No
FEB 0 8 2008
252-808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOASY :: www_wck:ossta§owaroaoement.ttuQ revised; 12I271OG

Ft'r m DVIR MP-4 (Stnvctur•es, Page S of 6)
n. Is the marinaldocking facility proposed within or ad)acerdto any shellfish harvesting area?
❑Yes ONO
o. Is the marinaldocking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CWW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SS), 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 marinaldocking facility heated within orwhhin close proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
3. BOATHOUSE (including coveted lit) ®This section not applicable
a. (t) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑PrivatelCommunity
(11) Number _
(III) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from ddphria dimensions.
4. GROIN (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc. If a rock groin, use MP-2, Excavation and Fill.) ®This section not applicable
a. m Number
(I) Length
(Ill) Width _
5. BREAKWATER (e.g., wood, sheetp)le, etc.) 0This section not applicable
a. Length _ b. Average distance from NNW, PAM , or wetlands
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands.
16. MOORING PILINGS and BUOYS ❑This sectiwr not applicable
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑PublldGovernmenl ®Private/Community,
G Distance to be placed beyond shoreline Varies
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present
e. Arc of the swing
7. GENERAL
b. Number 20
d. Description of buoy (color, Inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
Tie pilings for vessels
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON. NC
r
252.808-2808:: %.888.4RCOASY :: www.nccoastalnanaaement.no revised: 52127100

Form DCAA iWIP-4 (Structures, Page 4 of 4)
a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
15' south 130' north
Note: For buoy ormooring piling, use arc of swing including length
of vessel.
c. Width of water body
—485'
e. (0 Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
E]Yes ®No DNA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
d. Water depth at waterward and of structure at NLW or NWL
_17.9 NLW
& OTHER ❑This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
Completion of the pier under construction. The finished project will include a 6 x 540' fixed walkway leading to a 24' x 30'
platform with a 20' x 24' roof. An aluminum ramp will lead to a 6' x'lal'boating walkway to access the finger piers. There will
be a 6 x 40' finger pier and (4) 6' x 70' finger piers. I`LC
1 /25/08
Date
Summer Rest Road Pier Modification
Project Name
Jim Hundley
Applicant Name
Applicant Signature
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 S 2008
252408.2805 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: wwve,necoastatntartae,gement,��e� revised; 12/27106

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
g0,50
Width
80,50
Avg. Existing
NA
NA
Depth
Final Pro)ect
$
NA
NA
Depth
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL In
cubic yards.
1,000 cubic yards
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal webands/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
(li) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
Increase depth to accommodate larger vessels.
❑This section not applicable
b. Type of material to be
Sand and silty mud
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
0
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ❑This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dknensions of disposal area.
Molts Channel
rrr -rrr
c. (1) Do you claim title to disposal area? d. (1) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
[]Yes ®No ❑NA ®Yes ❑No ❑NA
pp If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner. (g) H yes, where?
e. (i) Does the disposal area Include any coastal wetlandslmarsh f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom ($B), []Yes ®No ❑NA
or other wetlands (WL)7 If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected. (II) If yes, how much water area Is affected?
❑m ❑SAV ❑SB _
❑WL ®None
(9) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 0 8 2008
252-808-2808 :: 1.888.41RCOAST :: www_gccooastatmanaaement-net - revised: 12126106

FCWM DCNI € -P-2 (Excavation and Fill; Page 2 of 2)
3. SHOREUNE STABIUZATION 0This section not applicable
(if development is a wooed gran, use MP-4 - Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length:
❑Bu&head ❑Ripmp ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other.
c. Average distance waterwand of NHW or NWL:
e. Type of stabilization material:
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap
Breakwater/Sill Other _
I. Source of fill material.
4.
a.
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
If yes,
(i) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(ill Dimensions of fill area
(Iv) Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
Material will be deposited directly to barge for transport to spoil
Island
c. (I) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(i) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
Width: _
d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(1) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
h. Type of fill material.
®This section not applicable
() Will fill material be placed in 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 ❑Nona
(i) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe,or
Backhoe
d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(i) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
1/25108 Jim Hundiey
Date Applicant Name
Summer Rest Pier Modification RECEIVED
Project Name
Applicant Signature DCM WILMINGTON� .NC
-
FEB 0 8 2008
262-S08-2608 :: 9.686 CRl:OrAST :: ww�m.neeoeatalenanatre+meryk_net revised: 12126106

January 4, 2010
Ms. Holley Snider
LAMA
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Holley,
Although I am respectful of Mr. Bailey's desires to add space to his current pier there is quite simply not
enough room for anymore in that tight space. This entire project blocks our access to the ICW and the
public's access to the already extremely busy waters around the Wrightsville Beach draw bridge.
""I am attaching some previous letters that our attorney drafted outlining other applicable technical
matters.
Thank you for your attention.
�,q.(0,UA
John Blackwell
203 Summer Rest RD
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
M WILMINGTON, NC

North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Chris Bailey
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
AIVII)
�_
NCDENR
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James H. Gregson
Director
February 13, 2009
Re: Bailey and Associates Major Modification Request to CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Dear Mr. Bailey:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On October 17, 2008, the NC Division of Coastal Management acknowledged receipt of the Major
Modification request for Sate Permit #84-01, submitted by Waterline Marine Construction, on behalf of Bailey
and Associates, for the Summer Rest Road pier located in Wilmington, in New Hanover County. An initial
screening of the submittal package was conducted, which revealed certain deficiencies that required your
attention. An office copy of the Major Modification request was retained for our review pending receipt of the
additional information.
On December 31, 2008, our office received additional information for the Major Modification request for the
Summer Rest Road pier State Permit #84-01. This letter also references my Friday January 9, 2009, phone
conversation with your agent, Jim Hundley, concerning the submitted drawings. Our subsequent review has
revealed that the Major Modification request for State Permit #84-01 is still incomplete. Our office must
receive the following data before the Major Modification request can be accepted as complete:
As previously requested, in my January 9, 2009 phone call with Jim Hundley, the submitted workplan
drawings must include a detailed plan for work proposed in the vicinity of the force main pipe. These
drawings should include location of the force main pipe and details of the proposed dredge limits, cuts,
and projected sloughing. Attention should also be given to the piling depths and construction
methodologies in the areas of the proposed gazebo and fixed platforms adjacent to the pipe.
2. Please resubmit drawings with appropriate sheet numbers and title block information. Please include a
legend.
3. Please provide the width of the waterbody on plat in areas where new construction is proposed, i.e. the
access stairs, the 10 feet by 20 feet gazebo, the 50 feet long fixed gazebo and the waterward end of the
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX:[phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Aafian Employer
Nne
orthCarolina
Naturally

Bailey and Associates
Fe6ary 12, 2009
Page 2
floating dock. All cross section drawings must include the fixed and floating structures and the location
of the force main pipe
4. Please clarify the edge of marsh and Mean Low Water.
5. Please clarify the dredge limits. Water depth contours within the dredge area show depths below -6 feet
an Normal Water Level.
6. State Permit #84-01 was transferred to Bailey and Associates, Inc., on May 4, 2006, all conditions and
stipulations of the active permit remain in force under this renewal. State Permit #84-01, issued to
CGRS Enterprises, LLC, includes conditions regarding the construction of the docking facility.
Condition #5 states that "the permittee shall properly record a Declaration of Easement as required by
New Hanover County, and the New Hanover County Chief Zoning Enforcement official shall approve
the Declaration of Easement. This easement shall be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of a
building permit and the commencement of construction authorized by this permit." Please provide
documentation that the required easement was recorded.
7. State Permit #84-01 Minor Modification issued on May 27, 2008, to Bailey and Associates, Condition
#7 states "... an as -built survey showing the location and dimensions of the constructed structure, and
the distance to the neighboring riparian corridors, shall be performed on the facility, and copies of the
survey shall be provided to the Division of Coastal Management, within 60 days of completion of
construction." Please provide an as -built survey of the constructed docking facility.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or the permit process, please don't hesitate to contact
me.
Lincerely,
r,
Holley Sn er
Coastal Management Representative
cc: Steve Everhart, PhD., District Manager, DCM, Wilmington
Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator, DCM, Morehead City
Jim Hundley, Waterline Marine Construction PO Box 1646 WB, NC 28480
WiRO File- pending Bailey and Assoc.

WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 1049
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
JOHN C. WESSELL, III
STREET
WESSELLiDELLSOUTH.NET
28401
WILLIAM A. RANEY, JR.
762-7475
WARANEYBBELLSOUTH.NET
762-7557
March 6, 2008
Mr. Doug Huggett
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. David Timpy
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Re: Bailey and Associates Major Permit
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Major Modification, Permit 84-01
Dear Messrs. Huggett and Timpy:
STREET ADDRESS:
107-B NORTH 2N°
WILMINGTON, NC
TELEPHONE: 910-
FACSIMILE: 910-
I represent John and Liza Blackwell, LLC and Summer
Rest Yacht Owners Association, Inc. (SRYOA) in connection with a
CAMA major modification application by Bailey and Associates for
a proposed 10 boat docking facility at 202 Summer Rest Road,
Wilmington, NC. The Blackwell LLC is the owner of the property
adjacent to the project site and is the permanent residence of
John and Liza Blackwell. SRYOA is the owner of the next riparian
property to the north of the Blackwells and is the owner of a
docking facility at that property. The Blackwells and SRYOA
utilize the channel into which the proposed docks will extend.
Mr. Blackwell has previously sent in a letter of objection to the
project and the form indicating that he does not waive riparian
setbacks. The Blackwells and SRYOA object to the issuance of a
permit for the reasons stated below: RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
01 t'M WILMINGTON, NC

APPLICATION ISSUES
• Item 3. e. and f. of Form MP-1 should reflect that the
upland property from which the pier originates is located in
the City of Wilmington but that portion of the project below
the high water mark is in the unincorporated area of New
Hanover County.
• Item 4. a. b. and d. of Form MP-1 indicates at the shoreline
is 8501, the tract size is 43,877 square feet and the
elevation is 51. The shoreline length should be measured
along the mean high water line and is considerably less than
850' in length. The area calculation apparently includes a
significant area below the mean high water line which should
not be included. If the submerged land is included, the
elevation for most of the area is a negative figure rather
than the 5' specified in the application.
• Item 5. g. of Form MP-1 indicates no encroachment on any
public easement or other area the public has established use
of. In fact, the proposed docks will be located within a
heavily used public navigation area. There is extensive
neighborhood use of the Motts Creek Channel. In addition
the area of the proposed docks is heavily used by boat
traffic waiting to use the public boat ramp on the opposite
side of the Intracoastal Waterway and by boat traffic
awaiting opening of the adjacent draw bridge. In addition,
there are several public utility lines that are located
where the applicant proposes to locate structures. (See
later comments).
• Item 1. h. and j . of the Form MP-4 indicates 10 slips for
mixed boats. The size and configuration of the docking
facility is such that 18 moderately sized boats in the 20-30
foot range could be docked at the facility. The width of
the docking area would accommodate a layout with room for
boats to pass between moderately sized boats moored to
opposite finger piers. Accordingly, the facility should be
classified as a marina in accordance with 15A NCAC
7H.0208(b)(5) and should be required to complete Form MP-4
item 2.
• Item 7. c., Form MP-4 inaccurately states the width of the
water body. (See later comments).
RECEIVED
2 JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

• Item 1. Form MP-2 cites a figure for the amount of material
to be excavated that is inconsistent with the amount shown
on the site plan.
• Site Plans/Project Plan. The description of the vertical
datum is described in different and conflicting ways. The
notes indicate that the mean low water is the -1.54' contour
yet the wording located under the scale indicates that
soundings are based on MLW = 0.0. This should be clarified.
GROUNDS FOR PERMIT DENIAL
1. G.S. 113A-120(a)(2) - Estuarine Waters.
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 facility/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
the 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 issues is compounded by the applicants
indication that the typical size of the boats using the facility
will be 651. 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 from tidal flows in the entire area of the
docks.
The pubic health, safety and welfare will also be
significantly adversely effected by the construction of the fixed
pier, gazebo and all of the floating docks and mooring pilings
over a sewer force main that serves all of Wrightsville Beach.
Any maintenance of the force main would require removal of
virtually all of the structures and floating dock in the last 240
feet of the facility in order to accommodate barges and other
work boats. The construction of the docking facilitR LE111CY-ArED
3
JAN 0 6 2010
r"M WILMINGTON, NC

pose a great threat because pilings will be driven or otherwise
placed exactly in the location of the sewer main. Emergency work
to repair a break or leak in the sewer line would be delayed for
days in order to remove the necessary parts of the facility and
the vessels docked there. Experience has shown that millions of
gallons of raw sewerage can escape in a relatively short time,
thus any delay would have a significant effect on public health,
safety and welfare. The positions of the Town of Wrightsville
Beach, the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County and the newly
created water and sewer authority should be solicited.
2. G.S. 113A-120(A)(5) - Public Trust Waters
The proposed development is in the public trust water
AEC which requires that development be denied if it will
jeopardize the public rights or interests specified in G.S. 113A-
113(b)(5). Among public trust rights are the rights of
navigation. The extended proposed docking facility is located an
area heavily used for public navigation. Most of the facility is
located in water that is currently over 6 feet deep. The depth
in some portions of the project area is over 17 feet deep. The
slips extend across the deepest water leading to the docking
facility located along Summer Rest Road, including docks of the
Blackwells and SRYOA. The water depth under the 8 large slips is
mostly deeper than 11 feet and ranges up to 18 feet. The water
depth a short distance beyond the end of the slips quickly become
much shallower. The docks occupy the channel leading from the
private boating facilities along Summer Rest Road to the channel
of the AIWW.
3. G.S. 113A-120 (a) (8) - State Guidelines and Local Land
Use Plans.
3.1 The proposed project is inconsistent with State
Guidelines founds in 15A-NCAC, Subchapter 7H.
3.1.1 - 7H.0207(c) and (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." R E C E N E D
4
JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

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." .0207(d)
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."
3.1.2 - 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 undo interference with access to, or use
of, public trust areas or estuarine waters."
3.1.3 - 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.
3.1.3.1 - 7H.0208(b)(5)(B)
This rule provides that for marinas associated with
residential development the marina is allowed no more than 27
square feet of public trust area for every linear foot of
shoreline. An accurate measure of the applicant's shoreline
along the normal high water mark is only about 360 feet. This
allows use of 9,720 square feet of public trust area. The
public trust area occupied by the facility not including the
access pier is roughly 14,800 square feet. Thus, the
applicant's proposal violates this rule.
3.1.3.2 - 7H.0208(b)(5)(F)
This rule requires approval of
areas which have been deeded by the State
for sewer and telephone occur within the
5
controlling parties in
Public utility lines
.rea of the fixed pier,
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

gazebo and floating docks. The right of way for these utilities
has been granted either directly or indirectly by the State and
the facility should not be allowed without authorization from
the entities owning these utility lines.
3.1.3.3 - 7H.0208(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
readily 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 into navigation areas
simply to make more money at the expense of public uses.
3.1.4.1 - 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 360 feet rather than the 850 feet claimed by the
applicant. The applicant is allowed 4 square feet per linear
foot of shoreline or 1,440 feet for the combined area of "T"s,
finger piers, platforms and decks. The combined area for these
facilities proposed by the applicant is 3,510 square feet if all
of the floating docks are considered finger piers, or 2,640
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.
RECEIVED
6 JAN 0 6 2010
LLCM WILMINGTON, NC

3.1.4.2 - 7H.0208(b)(6)(J)(ii)
The applicant's proposal extends the pier, including
the finger piers, into the channel of Motts Creek which is the
route used by the slip owners of the private and community piers
located along Summer Rest Road. The above -referenced rule
prohibits structures which extend into the channel portion of a
water body.
3.1.4.3 - 7H.0208(b)(6)(J)(iii)
The proposed docking facility extends more than % the
distance across the body of water. The application indicates
the width of the water body as 485 feet which allows a facility
to extend 121.25 feet from the high water mark or the edge of
the marsh. The floating dock structures extend about 175 feet
from the edge of the marsh thus exceeding the V4 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 % rule should
use the equidistant method of establishing a centerline for the
body of water so that a V4 width can be established to assure
that the center % of the channel 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 % of the Motts Creek Channel as it connects
to the Intracoastal Waterway.
3.2 - Local Land Use Plans
The proposed project is inconsistent with the local
land use plans for the City of Wilmington and New Hanover
County.
3.2.1 - 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 shellfishing
waters (SA). . .".
There are exceptions in this policy for certain
activities and for areas previously dredged, none of which are
applicable. This prohibition is similar to, but much broader
than, the CRC rule that prohibits new dredging in FAC CIT e
7 E G V GD
JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

City/County policy also applies to ORWs and SA waters. The
prohibition extends to all SA waters whether open to
shellfishing or not. When I questioned the City and County
staff during the development of the plan concerning the breadth
of the SA prohibition, they responded that they intended the
policy to apply both to open and closed shellfishing waters.
Accordingly the dredging portion of the project is inconsistent
with the City/County plan.
3.2.2 - Wilmington/New Hanover County LAMA 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, maintaining and repairing the sewer line in
accordance with this policy.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the permit requested by
Bailey and Associates should be denied.
WAR: jn
WAR\snviron\R08-048-001
CC: Mr. Rob Mairs
Mr. John Blackwell
Mr. Jim Long
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.
RECEIVED
8 JAN 0 6 2010
r.rM WILMINGTON, NC

Mr. Rob Miars
125 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Mr. John Blackwell
203 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
Mr. Jim Long
207 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
U
RECEIVED
JAN 0 61010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

JOHN C. WESSELL, III
WESSELLaBELLSOUTH. NET
WILLIAM A. RANEY, JR.
WARANEYBBELLSOUTH.NET
7557
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 1049
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
October 23, 2008
Mr. Steve Everhart
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Modification Application
Dear Mr. Everhart:
STREET ADDRESS:
107-B NORTH 2"' STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 910-762-
I represent John and Liza Blackwell, LLC and Summer Rest Yacht
Owners Association, Inc. (SRYOA) in connection with a CAMA major
modification application by Bailey and Associates for a proposed 10
boat docking facility at 202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC. The
Blackwell LLC is the owner of the property adjacent to the project
site and is the permanent residence of John and Liza Blackwell. SRYOA
is the owner of the next riparian property to the north of the
Blackwells and is the owner of a docking facility at that property.
The Blackwells and SRYOA utilize the channel into which the proposed
docks will extend. Mr. Blackwell has previously sent in a letter of
objection to the project and the form indicating that he does not
waive riparian setbacks. The Blackwells and SRYOA object to the
issuance of a permit for the reasons stated below:
Blackwell and SRYOA agree with and adopt by reference the
comments I made by letter dated October 1, 2008 on behalf of the Town
of Wrightsville Beach on the above -referenced application.
In addition to those comments they offer the following comments
on the navigation issue: v �s
!AN 0 6 2010
DCM 4,*VAINGTON, NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 2
The plans for the Bailey Marina show the 70, slips for the
typical 65, boats having their entrance opening towards the north.
The slips are built over the deepest water. The water depth 60' north
of the slips is only 2' to 3' deep at low tide. In order for a 65'
boat to line up to exit or enter the slip the boat will cover the
entire remaining width of the open water and may even be aground on
the north side of Motts Creek. Clearly there is not enough water for
a 65' boat to safely navigate within this constricted area.
The channel of Motts Creek runs to a small dam at Summer Rest
Road which impounds the creek above Summer Rest Road. This small
creek is only about 30' to 45' wide upstream of the point where it
narrows at the location of the applicant's proposed 10' x 20' gazebo.
Although there is no dockage specified for the 10' x 20, gazebo it
will be suitable for dockage of a small vessel in the 20' -30' range.
This gazebo and potential dock will further close the mouth of Motts
Creek where the narrow channel begins. This location is also the
location of the Blackwell docking facility.
This narrow portion of the creek is frequently used by sport
fishing boats as a platform for using cast nets to catch bait for
fishing. These boats range in size from small shallow draft boats to
boats in the 251+ range. These boats navigate up the narrow creek all
the way to the bridge to catch fishing bait by the use of cast nets.
Sometimes these boats have to back out of the creek as they are too
large to turn around in the narrow creek. The 10' x 20' gazebo would
unreasonably interfere with navigation and would extend into the
channel of Motts Creek which, in this location, runs the fill width of
the creek.
Based on the foregoing, Blackwell and SRYOA respectfully request
that the permit be denied because the proposal violates the standards
in G.S. 113A-120(a)(5), 15A NCAC 7H.0207(c)and (d),
7H.0208(b)(6)(J)(ii) and (iii).
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
7r- 'Y'LIMINGTON, NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 3
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.
1.1. 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 �opos
ev,.
i^4 06 2010
DCI'w NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 4
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 impossible to dredge to -6' MLW in this area
without damaging or affecting the integrity of the line. Even if
the 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 fater.fin��l�
r .v .m v//
Et
JAI 1 0 6 ?010
^rM WILMINGTON NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 5
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, 5th Edition, Hedrick & McLaughlin. 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.
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 b(L j murrtl%er
6 9010
DCM MLLA,'id . `: ), NIC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 6
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.
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 E. -0"
JAN 0 6 2010
OCM WILMINGTON, NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 7
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)
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
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 8
sewer line which is located where the pier and docking facilities
are proposed.
3.3.6 - 7H.0208(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.
RECEIVE®
JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 9
3.3.9 - 7H.0208(b)(6)(J)(iii)
The proposed docking facility extends more than 1/4th 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 1/4th 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 1/4th rule should use the
equidistant method of establishing a center line for the body of
water so that a 1/4th width can be established as the smaller channel
enters the larger body of water. This assures that the center % 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 % of Motts
Creek Channel as it connects to the Intracoastal Waterway, thereby
violating the 1/4th 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
JAN 0 6 2010
r)CM WILMINGTON NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 10
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, maintaining and repairing the sewer line in accordance
with this policy.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated
respectfully requests that
Bailey & Associates be denied.
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. Bob Simpson
Mr. John C. Wessell,
Mr. Mike Vukelich
JCW\wrbch\WO8-097-0O3
III
herein the Town of Wrightsville Beach
the permit modification requested by
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
Attorneys for Town of
Wrightsville Beach
William A. Raney, Jr.
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

IM Cape Fear
PUNK Utility Authority
Stewardship. Sustainability. Service.
January 4, 2010
Mr. Mike Vukelich, Public Works Director
Town of Wrightsville Beach
200 Parmele Boulevard
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480
Ref: Proposed modification to CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Dear Mike,
The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority is aware of the proposed construction
modifications to the pier facility owned by Bailey and Associates at 201 Summer Rest
Road. This proposed construction activity is in the vicinity of the force main crossing
from the Town of Wrightsville Beach to our sewer pump station #35 at Bradley Creek.
Although this force main belongs to the Town of Wrightsville Beach, we are very
concerned about possible damage to this pressure force main during construction and
the negative environmental impacts to the existing waterway. Repairs to correct any
damage could be very difficult and time consuming due to its location in the waterway.
We fully understand and support your objections to this proposed CAMA Major Permit
modification.
Please call me if I can be of any further assistance.
Very Truly Yours,
Frank C. Styers, P.E.
Director of Engineering
RECEivE..
OCMtp ILMAIGTIODNI, NIC
JAN 0 5 2010
235 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403
t: 910-332-6560 f: 910-332-6353 www.cfpua.orq

CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER
FORM
Name of individual applying for the permit: Bailey and Associates
Address of property: 201 Summer Rest Road
Wilmington, NC 29405
I hereby certify that I own the property adjacent to the above referenced property. The individual
applying for this permit has described to me (as shown on the attached drawing) the development
they are proposing. A description or drawing, with dimensions, should be provided with this
letter.
_I have no objections to this proposal.
If you have objections to what is being proposed, please write the Division of Coastal
Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 or call [phone]
within 10 days of receipt of this notice. No response is considered the same as no objection if
you have been notified by Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift or sandbags must be
set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me. (If
you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
_I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement
— -I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement
i
Signature Date
Mtc,VLAEt_ V. VL&KE'LICt4- /a-13o/UQ
Print Name
910-as6-
area
V ED
REGE,TON, NC
OWL' L' , 02Q
DEc 3

Town of Wrightsville Beach
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
200 Parmele Boulevard
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480
[phone] • FAX [phone]
NC — DENR
Attn; Mr. Steve Everhart
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Everhart,
December 30, 2009
The Town of Wrightsville Beach objects to Bailey and Associates, CAMA permit No. 84-01,
modification application to expand a pier located at 201 Summer rest Road, Wilmington, NC.
CAMA permit modification application dated December 22, 2009, requests an expansion of a
pier located directly above the Town's AIWW crossing forcemain, off Summer Rest Rd. The
Town possesses a state legislature approved easement through this area for the construction and
maintenance of our wastewater transmission pipeline to CFPUA PS-35 and it is our belief that
the original CAMA permit should not have been approved based on its proximity to the
forcemain and other utilities.
The approval of this project may create major environmental impacts if the line were to be
damaged due to construction, future dredging and boating activity in the area and would delay
any required repairs.
Please reference the attached letters from letters from Town Attomey's, Wessell & Raney L.L.P.
to CAMA and the applicant, Bailey & Associates. Construction upon lands conveyed to the
Town through an agreement with the State of NC will make it virtually impossible for the Town
to take full financial, legal or ecological responsibility for consequences of any subsequent
damage to the line. Copies of the land transference and CAMA permit documents are also
attached.
Respectfully yours,
Michael F. Vukelich, Director
Bob Simpson
Wessell & Raney L.L.P.
Encl.
D
DCM WGM t4r NG

WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNIDYs AT LAw
Posen OFFien Box 1049
WnAIINOTON, NORTH CAROLINA 29402-1049
Jor C. W�Err., III
wassarr�usrasoomH.Nior
WD. AMA. RANEY, JR.
WARANEY@BBL UTrr.NET
July 24, 2008
Mr. James H. Gregson, Director
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: Permit Issued to Bailey and Associates, Inc.
for Pier Construction at 202 Summer Rest Road
Dear Mr. Gregson:
STRL®r ADDRESS:
107-B NORTH W- 9TREW1
WR.n Gv N, NO 29Q01
TzLEmONE: 910-762-7475
FAOB mme: 910-762-7557
We represent the Town of Wrightsville Beach. We have been advised that the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources has issued a permit to Bailey and
Associates, Inc. for construction of a pier adjacent to property located at 202 Summer Rest
Road, Wilmington, North Carolina. The information available to us also indicates that this pier
is constructed across the only sewer line transporting sewer from Wrightsville Beach to the
Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant.
In a letter dated May 9, 2008 to Rob Mairs, our office expressed concerns
regarding the proposed location of this pier. We requested that the Division of Coastal
Management defer any action on the permit until the Town could further assess the impacts of
the project on its sewer line. Notwithstanding those concerns,. your office apparently has
chosen to issue this permit.
We are writing to express our concerns and reservations regarding the location of
this pier. Locating a pier in this proximity to a major sewer line could result in damage to the
sewer line which could cause sewage to spill into the adjacent waters. Should that occur, we
will look to the State of North Carolina as a responsible party for any clean up or remediation
costs incurred in view of its decision to permit the construction of the pier it thin
EETV
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DEC 3 0 20A 69 Wr

Mr. James H. Gregson
July 24, 2008
Page Two
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me at the number shown above.
Yours very truly,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
John C. Wessell, III
JCW:ktw
JC W \WRBCMW 08-097-0O2
cc: Mr. Robert F. Simpson
Mr. Mike Vukelich
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DEC 3 0 209 "k 4�'

WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATrORNEY9 AT LAW
Pow omnuE Box 1049
WrIaGNOTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
JOHN C. WESs -I,, III
W SSELI'@BmusoBTH.NAP
WD iAm A. RA , JH.
WAl2ANE 08Z L80U .N
July 24, 2008
Mr. Chris Bailey
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 400
Jacksonville, NC 28540
Re: Batley Marina, 202 Summer Rest Road
Dear Mr. Bailey:
B�ADDR :
107-B NORTH 91D 6TRE
WH OTON, NC 98401
Tc[.ePHoN : 910-789-7475
FAC�: 910-769-7557
We represent the Town of Wrightsville Beach. We have learned that the State of
North Carolina, acting through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, has
issued a permit allowing you or your company to construct a pier at 202 Summer Rest Road.
The information available to the Town indicates that your proposed pier is being constructed
across the only sewer line that carries sewer from Wrightsville Beach to the Southside
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
My purpose in writing is to advise you that your pier appears to cross the sewer
line described in the preceding paragraph. I am writing to put you and your successors in
interest on notice that any damage to this sewer line could result in a spill of sewer into the
adjacent waters. Should that occur, the Town will look to you, your company or your
successors in interest to pay for all costs associated with any required clean up.
The Town has previously expressed its concerns regarding the location of this
pier to representatives of the Division of Coastal Management. Notwithstanding that, the State
has agreed to issue a permit to you. However, in our view, that will not relieve you or your
successors in interest 'of full responsibility for any damage to the Town's sewer line that results
in a spill. or other environmental problem:

Mr. Chris Bailey
July 24, 2008
Page Two
Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number
shown above.
Yours very truly,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
John C. Wessell, HI
JCW:ktw
JC W \ W RB CMW 08-097-CO I
cc: Mr. Robert F. Simpson
Mr. Mike Vukelich
seco\' po NC
DCMp lC 3 0 20� 61 �

JOHN C. WESSELL, III
[e-mail]
WILLIAM A. RANEY, JR.
WARANEYAIBELLSOHTH.NET
7557
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
October 23. 2008
Mr. Steve Everhart
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Modification Application
Dear Mr. Everhart:
STREET ADDRESS:
107-8 NORTH 2•1 STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 910-76a—
As a supplement to earlier comments I made on behalf of John and
Liza Blackwell, LLC and Summer Rest Yacht Owners Association, Inc. in
opposition to a modification request by Bailey and Associates, Inc., I
would like to offer the following information regarding compliance of
the proposed development with the ordinances of the City of
Wilmington.
Under the City of Wilmington's zoning ordinance this proposed
facility appears to be a "community boating facility". I have
attached a copy of the definition of community boating facility
hereto. The standards for a community boating facility are set forth
in Section 18-250 of the City's zoning ordinance. I have also attached
a copy of these provisions. As you can see from the provisions this
facility would not be permitted under subsections (a), (d) and (j)(3).
Accordingly, the permit modification should be denied because the
proposed development is a violation of the rules, regulations or laws
of the City of Wilmington and is therefore contrary to the standard in
15A NCAC 7H.0601.
Thank you for considering these additional comments.
Sincerely, RECEIVED
AN,16
Deft Wl AM141 m, W

t
Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 2
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. John Blackwell
Mr. Jim Long
WAR\environ\R08-048-0O3
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 3
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. John Blackwell
Mr. Jim Long
WAR\environ\R08-048-0O2
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

A
JOHN C. WESSELL, III
WESSELLBBELLSOUTH.NET
WILLIAM A. RANEY, JR.
7475
WARANEYBBELLSOUTH.NET
7557
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 1049
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
January 4, 2010
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-B NORTH 2NN STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
TELEPHONE: 910-762-
FACSIMILE: 410-762-
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 arbitrar 1ne '
through the marsh. RE C a' v E�
JAN 0 6 7110

Mr. Steve Everhart
January 4, 2010
Page 2
4.b. - The size of the tract should be calculated as
area above mean high water. This area appears to be in
neighborhood of 8,000 square feet rather than the 43,877 square
claimed by the applicant. Most of the square footage claimed by
applicant is submerged land.
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2010
the
the
feet
the
O%CO VOLMINGTON, NC

5- 9-08; 2:27PM;WESSELL AND RANE`/ WS PUPlic Works ;9107627557 9 1/ 2
JORN C. WFB9£LL. III
WESSELiQ8£LL90OTR.N£T
Wu.Lum A. RANRY, JR.
[e-mail]
VVESSELL dL RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POEM OFFICE BOX 1049
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
May 9, 2008
VIA FAX [phone]) AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Rob Mairs
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: Bailey Marina, 2002 Summer Rest Road
Dear Mr. Mairs:
SIRE£T ADDRBss:
107-B NORTH 2PD STURM
WIId oT*N, NO 28401
T£L£PHoN£: 910-762.7475
FAC19 &: 910-702-7557
We represent the Town of Wrightsville Beach. They have
provided us with a notice they received from Waterline Marine
Construction concerning a pier and dock project proposed by Chris
Bailey at 2002 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, North Carolina. We
understand that the proposal supercedes another proposal filed in
January 2008 for a larger facility. We further understand that both
the January proposal and the current proposal were submitted as
requests to modify a pier and dock project that was permitted by LAMA
permit 484-01.
The Town is vitally interested in the proposed project
because it will be built over the sewer line that serves all of
Wrightsville Beach. The Town is responsible for the maintenance,
repair and replacement of this sewer line which is known as the
northeast interceptor. The Town had no direct notice and no
knowledge of CAMA permit #84-01.
We request that DCM defer any action on this permit
modification until the Town can further assess the impacts of the
project on its sewer line and can determine its property rights with
regard to this matter as well as any other concerns that it may wish
to address.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DEC 3 0 ZOI 6`I W%

1 5- 9-08; 2:29PM;WESSELL AND RANEY WB PUDIIC Works ;9107827559 O 2/ 2
ti
The Town will try to quickly provide you with a further
position statement on this matter.
Sincerely,
WE/'SSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
(/ra.
William A. Raney, r�
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. Michael Vulkevick
Mr. Robert Simpson
NAR\W[bch\Moe-097-COI
RECEIV Eo
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DEC 3 0 20}� s� l-1�

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
E A S E M E N T
COUNTY ON NEW HANOVER
THIS EASEMENT, made and entered into this the .2 9'
day of. I , 1982, by and between the STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, party of the first part, and the TOWN OF WRIGHTS-
VILLE BEACH, party of the second part;
W I T N E S S E T H
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of
Administration has authorized and approved execution of this
instrument for the purposes herein set forth; and
WHEREAS, the execution of this instrument for and on
behalf of the State of North Carolina has been duly approved
by the Governor and Council of State by resolution adopted
at a meeting held .in the City of 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, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of ONE
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, the 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:
aE�Ew
�CMWIuJ11NG
DEC 3 0

A. Banks Channel subaqueously for approximately
750 feet along the south side of U. S. Highway 74 causeway
and bridge.
B. Rennans Creek on bent piles along the south side
of the U. S. Highway 74 causeway and bridge for a distance
of approximately 126 feet.
C. AIWW subaqueously north of the U. S. 74-76 High-
way causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately 800
feet.
D. Bradley Creek subaqueously near the U. S. 74-76
Highway causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately
800 feet.
The purpose of the easement is to provide the Town
a of Wrightsville Beach with a connection to the Northeast
Interceptor Greater Wilmington Area 201 Facilities Plan. See
attached drawings entitled "Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Force Main, 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
part shall properly obtain 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,
1; and easement unto the said party of the second part, its
:i
successors and assigns, for as long as said pipeline is
ii
utilized by the party of the second part, its successors and
assigns, for the purposes set forth herein, and no longer.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the State of North Carolina
has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by JAMES
B. HUNT, JR., 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 aforesairW CpE1t,
pcM
P;c the day and year first above written.
pE� 3
(ON, NC
1Ok del - 0

ATTEST:
-orptar't of6swim
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
Attorney General
yso,
Kelley
Assistant Attorney Central
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
y
7l Governor
h
C
VG
tAGN VAM NN

j STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
I, DEBORAH MN CANDLER, a Notary Public in and for the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that JAMES B. HUNT, JR., Governor of the
State of North Carolina, and THAD EU%E, 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 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 .1AMES B. HUNT, JR., Governor of said State, and THAD EURE, 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 WHEREOF, I have hereunto get my hand and Notarial Seal,
this the �27__ day of I,4 gc� , 198
My Commission Expires:
Ftecelveo
IDOA NN .MINO zQ
ME- 3

SITE -A
BANKS CHANNEL SUBAOUEOUS CROSSING -
TECHNICAL DATA,
LENGTH OF SUDAOUEOUS CROSSING. 750 LINEAR FEET
PIPE SIZE B CLASS: 14"C.I.P, BALL JOINT
EXCAVATION:
TYPE MATERIALS: PRIMARILY SAND B SHELL
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CLAMSHELL
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION' 3 S (MAIN CHANNEL) 5'3
AVERAGE FOR REMAINDER
OF CROSSING.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: $00 CU. YDS. 2
SPOIL OIS'POS%L: STOCK PILE UNDER WATER
ADJACENT TO TRENCH
EXCAVATION - USE AS DACKFILL
AFTER PIPELINE IS INSTALLED. FLOOD
B 4NO CHANNEL +U-'
�e
R IV WILMIRV I Vim- - - - r
— U.S. NWT No. 74
PROJECT
SITES —
x
v
W
O
O
O
L
ANCHOR BLOCK_/-N 14"FORCE MAIN---f �gNCNOR BLOCK
STA. 140iT4 � 11 � PLAN 1 � I � STA. 147i 73
o v
TOP BULKHEAD 7.56
INV. 1.80 M H. W. 2.0 EXIST. BULKHEAD
` M. S,L. ANCHOR BLOCK
\ EE g g� M�IB INV -2.70
ANCHOR BLOCK IAVSR �TTOM
14"FORCE MAW I
PROFILE
".IavERY.
EXCAVATED MATERIAL - WIND ROW Ff✓fy
ON NORTH S10E OF EXCAVATION.
USE TO BACKFILL TRENCH. �<T
EXIST. BOTTOM -BEEN. VARIABLE
DATUMS SEA LEVEL
EL-15.02 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FORCE MAIN
E.P.A. PROJECT No. C-370565-01
14"FORCE MAIN TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
INV. -18.2 NORTH CAROLINA
HENRY VON OLSEN G ASGOCMATES, COMSULTIM ENGINEERS
NOTE: SECTION A=A' A PLaMNERS, WILMINGTON. R.C.
TR[NCHINSMETHOO AUAO APPLICABLE TO SITE W-A.I.WW SHEET IOF I
IF
AEGE`v SDI N�
p�MNI1�M�NG . Np

r -
R>srU KENNANS' 74
U. S. CRE"
EK :31"tS4��L
_
14 FORCE IAAIN
AW Be LT �'.e nh� - rlLa eaNnAIRRELE
`p
0
.
1QL31 EL.-I.B
MANHOL --,
MANHOLE
-s
'
r-kp
SEE SITE V FOR
SITE B'
sPac No 18l C-C. PILE BENT DETAIL.
P LA N
PROFILE
KENNANS CREEK
CROSSING
TECHNI AL DATA SITE ,C,
"EMT" Of RUS000ECUS 01193e1Ne . SCX;.
F Ei C
LEPTH OAVATION . 6 AVERAGE.
VOLUME 0! xATERIAL . 1460 CO.YOS.
AL, OTHER FACTORS O C9NGITIONa SUDAQUEOUS
AMCTNC SAME AS SITE A' CROSaING.
. `:fA-`-�� 14' FORCE MAIN
7 N.C. WILDLIFE BOAT RAMP
`ANCHOR BIDCK -'A -
480BEND \ 6 0 /I I ANCHOR BLACK
STA. 81+08
U.5. 74-76 HEME TRASK'MEM. BRIDGE
-- -- — t_.
PLAN A.I.W.W. CROSSING
EL 'l_.O PPPROX. EY14Y. SOr>p1 -7
- 10 r-AIJCfSOR J \ / ANCHOR - 10
70 EL.-19.2 .. _._.. Z-a
PROFILE A.I.W.W. GROSSING
r.leo• n , r la SITE 1 C' gp ��VEL !O.OD
YRICHTSVILLF. PEACH INTERCEPTOR --HENRY WNOESEN d ASSOCIATES- WILYI1470x,X.C. ,Qher/ 9 ..f -4
EGA` G�sO NG
oC
OEC 3

K Y CREEK 8R
Z_R 14 FORCE MAIN t`ANC.011 BLOCK
OCK
7z. 1
SrA. 10+55
N...... -- -, -*�-
SILI RETENTION
AREA S
S I T E V
BRADLE"i' CREEK CROSSING
---------------
IAHW CL. 1.6
PROFILE BRADLEY CREEK CROSSING
IACAVAII10 MATERIAL- PLACL
t SILT RETENTION AREAg AND iLTER FABRIC
USE IX) BACKFILL TRCNC 11. lU COMPI.FTELY
UCLOSE SII I
MENTIONAREA.
1),)T-OM 4*0xi
ELEV. VARIABLE
POST
.. .... .....
fjF-%CE Off
TIE fN)$r AS
41-AIN. FENCE
14 FORCE MAIN 11 )(;WlnF. 10 Go.v,
NV. EL -- 9 0
ELEV. SECTION
,L,C-i ION A- A KENNAN CK. PILE BENT
H R A r) L. I: Y_MEEK TECHNICAL DATA'
i C.00III OF SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING - $00 L.F.
PIPE !-I.J. a CLASS-14"IlLP,IIALL J7. OR
IC" 0. 0. POLYETHYLENE SOR-II
TYPE OF MATERIALS: I'lliPARILY ORGA141C SILT,
METHOD Or EXCAVATION; CLARSHELL/JETTING
E,r P I'li OF EXCAVATION: 1) * -
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: IJIU0 U.Y.
m
16
SPOIL DISPOSAL:
SILT RETENTION AREAS
LOCATED AS SHOWN,
7.
,AS 104
co"Jst) �Ac
lDCj0\'N, .10
Lo\�� 4� ot�, Rz>
V
V-�,

L
t
1
CREEK IJWIM.f.
--•- .oa0 ` i^] Id' PGFYF MAIM oN ^in6 T
' NAh,,4A � •
P, 2o4'
1.N
"liY.i' 'C ENY Lt pAC1AG 19•G�G
PRcj ►L.L _.oRArk[EY CREEK CROSS Q
1". 1pD'H, 1'•2L1 •1
S
-rir)ICAL Pi LF- fDENT"
1 r.' u .:dJrJKC:TOV .. ,P. rJv Vr]AI hRdTPM1 kASSCCrgTRF. vALMswaTou, NC SHEET 36"
a
CEIVED
RE
ACM WILM�NGTON, NC
DEC 3 0 Zp�Q Q0
06

-*e Mine 0as$ - PrTmit Nur..her
Rene�Fal STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 100-7E _
`lodifitation Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Page 1 of
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Vern it '
for
Major Development in an Area of Environmental
Concern pursuant to'NCGS 113A-118
ElExcavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 1 I3-229
lssuedto Town of Wrightsville Beach P. 0. Box 626 Wrightsville Beach NC 28480
authorizing development in New Hanover County at Bradley Cr. , flanks Channel, AI14W and
Kennans Creek asre.quested,in.the.permittee'sapplicationdated 4/13/78; including
attacbed`plat's, sheets 1&2 of'3 dated rec. 4/14/78 and appl. dated 12/8/81 incl.
attached pats 3a & 3b dated
This permit, issued on March 19, 1982 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void. I
.
Site A - Banks Channel
(1) That no excavated material be placed at any time in any marsh or waters
of'.ahe.state outside of the alignment of the pipeline area aiidi.cated on the
plat..:
(2) That. xit, oxdto protect juvenile shrimp populations, no excavation or filling
will be permitted between the dates of April 1 through September 30 of any
year without the prior approval of the Office of Coastal Management.
Site C - AIWId
(1) That the marsh border crossed must be returned to the_previous elevation upon
completion of the pipeline installation. RECEJV�v
(2) Same as Condition ill Site A. DCM \NWM NGTON, NC ' RLLL v LD
PEC 3 0 20}�69'0 APR 2 G 1982
(See attached sheet for additions conditions)
HENRY VON nrSEN G ASSOC
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work.
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel wben the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
Ali work must cease when the permit expires on
March 31, 1983
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina
agrees that your project is consistent with the Korth
Carolina Ca2stal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
r
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
of Penn i t tee

n u1 Wrigntsviile Beach Permit No. 100-78
Page 2 of 2
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
(3) Same as Condition P-2, Site A.
Site D - Bradley Creek
(1) That the work be carried out during the period from December I to March 31 of
any year. Further that it should be timed to coincide with predicted low tide
cycles during this period.
(2) That all wort: be accomplished during the period from slack high to slack low
water (ebbing tide). This would apply to both excavation and re -filling activity.
(3) That the spoil disposal areas be sized to accommodate all materials resulting
from excavation. These areas must also be designed so as to eliminate excessive
turbidity and siltation.
(4) That all disturbed marsh be returned to existing grade of adjacent vegetation
following completion of pipeline installation and that no permanent or temporary
spoiling may take place in these vegetated wetlands.
(5) That all live oyster, both along trench alignment and under spoil areas, be
relocated (inder the guidance of the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Office
of Coastal Management) to areas outside of project influence.
(6) That the existing bottom elevations be re-established upon completion of backfill
operation. All excess material must be,removed to a high ground disposal area.
(7) That the depths of the three low Ei4 e:channels must be restored so that existing
navigational use of these channels is not,* arced.
(8) That mats be used, when crossing marsh vegetation.
(9) That the project be completed within two (2) weeks of start date.
Site A, B, C, 6 D
(1) That the work be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant increases
in turbidity outside of the area of construction (increases of 25 JTU's or less
.are not considered significant).
NOTE: Work under this permit is covered by General Certification No. 1179 issued
by the Division of Environmental Management on January 25, 1978 and Certification I
No. 1552 issued on February 5, 1982. i
NOTE: An Easement is required from the State Property Office, Department of 4
Administration for the pipeline crossings. 4
NOTE: A Highway Encroachment Easement is required from the Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways. for work on the highway right-of-way.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DEC 3 0 20, 6qd IkS

APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL
t
' State of North Carolina Department of the Army
Department of Natural and Economic Resources Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Distri
(Re: GS 113.229) (Re: River and Harbor Act of 1899)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If the information requested is notbpplicable, so
indicate by placing N/A in the blank.
Applicant Information:
A. Name Town of Wrightsville Beachr North Carolina
asF-- F IrstMiddle -
B. Address. P. 0. Box 626
--'—greet, ox or Route Hugh H. Perry, Administratol
Wrightsville Beach, N. C. 28480 919/256-2245
City or Town State P 0 e Phone
II. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County Now Hanover
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Wrightsville Bearh
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No Partially (see sketch plans)
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
Banks Channel, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bradley Creek
111. Description of Operation -
A.].
•- ` I
A.I. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work -
(„TI .1
B. Purpose of excavation or fill d •?
1. Access channel length width /tienth ^n
2. Boat
3. Fill a
:i
C. 1. Bulkhead dimensions
sects
t depth---r� F
- see sketch p 1p,%kh "c
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material)
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 2000 cy (max. 'iota I ) 2. Type of material sand she i I y 5and and G i it
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards 2000 cY (max, tote I ) 2. Type of material same —
IV. Land Type, Excavated Material, and Construction Equipment:
A;:Doos.the area to be_excayated include any marshland? Yes —X-No_(tempo ry, - see transm(tta.l. ,11
B. Doe the disposal area include any marshland? .Yes —No _X
C. Disposal area 1. Location In excavated pipeline ditch (hackf) 11 material)
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? no
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in NSA
E. How will excavated material be entrapped or encased? N/A
F. Type of equipment to be used C I amshe I I bucket, crane mounted
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? (If
at west and of AlWW nineline crossino (see mccomnt
V. Describe Intended Use of Project Area:
A. 1. Private
2. Commercial
DEN NltMINGT0N-,NU--
3. Housing Development or Industrial
4.Other Reglonal munic_pal wastewater prolact 0Er R 0 7W6
DSF-BI

2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water--
3. Soil type or texture
4. Type of building facilities or structures
5. Method of sewage disposal or treatment.
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes—
No-B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes —No X
2. Type of discharge NSA
3. Location of discharge
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): minimal In work areas
Vill. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable:
IX. Length of time required for project activity: 18 months
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following Items must be provided:
A. Attached a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land. (Note: Federal law requires the
applicant to be the owner or his designated agent).
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8'h" X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details)., Note: Original drawings preferred • only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G. 5. 113.229 (g) (9) and (10)). Enter date served
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
D&F-B2
Rev. 3,'74
D. List the names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's
tract.
All construction In oubilc highway rights of way and across estuarine
waters owned by the State of.North Caro,lina..
e
DATE
' Applicant's Signature
Robert W. Sawyer, Mayor
Send one completed copy each to:
Permit Section
Division of Marine Fisheries
Department of Natural & Economic Resources
P. O. Box 27687 RE(.tt v ".
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 DCM WILMINGTON, NG
Ph. 919-829-3167
DEC 3 0 ZQX6��
District Engineer
Department of the Army
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
(Note: attach Corps cover letter)
Ph.919-763-9971 Ext.565
Im

SITE -A
BANKS CHANNEL SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING -
TECHNICAL DATA:
LENGTH OF SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING: 750 LINEAR FEET
PIPE SIZES CLASS: 14"C.I.P., FALL JOINT
EXCAVATION: '
TYPE MATERIALS: PRIiAA1:'.LY SAND S SHELL
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: C. AMSHELL
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION: 3�1 (MAIN CHANNEL) 5'2
AVERAGE FOR REMAINDER
OF CROSSING.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL 800 CU. YDS. t
SPOIL DISPOSAL: STOCK PILE UNDERWATER
ADJACENT TO TRENCH
EXCAVATION - USE AS BACKFILL
AFTER PIPELINE IS INSTALLED. FLOOD
II
BANK CHANNEL ate
—TO WILMINGTON _
U.S. HWY. No. 74
PROJECT
SITES —
ANCHOR BLOCK) 14" FORCE MAIN----r
STA. 140+74
0
PLAN
II + I
i
v a
INV. 1.80
M. H.W. 2.0
\ M. S3-
- EE gg pper-
�' ` (APPROXI�OM��
ANCHOR BLOCK \
,<14FORCE MAN /
PROFILE
I . Io...VERT. •`^�
r
' FREC rmlvtz )
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DEC 3-0 2016 69-05
im
EXCAVATED MATERIAL- WIND ROW
ON NORTH SIDE OF EXCAVATION.
USE TO BACKFILL TRENCH.
EXIST. BOTTOM -ELEV. VARIABLE
EL-15.OS
`7 - —
14" FORCE MAIN
INV. --I'.2
NOTE! SECTION
TRENCHING METHOD ALSO APPLICABLE TO SITE
TO WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH—
' ­ANCHOR BLOCK
STA. 147+73
a
TOP BULKHEAD 7.56 _
EXIST. BULKHEAD
ANCHOR BLOCK
> INV. -2.70
`� m"C•jL''�
�f
1 k
441
=' c
B,2.Oc.
�g9iyF d.
DATUM: SEA LEVEL
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FORCE MAIN
E.P.A. PROJECT No. C-370565-01
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
NORTH CAROLINA
NCNRY VON OESEN B ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS
PLANNERS, WILM1140TON, H.L.

Lt 126'
I. M"w TO mmw- 93
•
9 -�TOX n 7�T�w,,KENNAN 1 74
TO WRIGHTSVI
-u. S. C 1"S _—;, CREEK jaBEACH
�1-
14 FORCEMAIN
:LEASE MH? POLE BENTS
STA. 135412
A M.KW EL. 2.0
DOT. W_
MANHOLE
MILE BENT -)I ' �P`SEEFOR
SITE B SPACING Id C-C. PILE I BENT DETAIL.
P L A N -PROFILE
KENNANS CREEK CROSSING
TECHNICAL DATA SITE 'C'
LENGTH OF SUSAMOUS CROSSING . SOO*.
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION - 6 AVERAGE.
VOLUME OF MATERIAL - 1450 CU.YD3.
,ALL OTHER FACTORS 8 CONDITIONS
ARE THE SAME AS SITE 'A• CROSSING. SUBAQUEOUS
-8k -AWA 14" FORCE MAIN NC. WILDLIFE RAMP
-STA .84+154+15
DOT RN
ll� ?&TOP . : 11 - -
_0 0 0 ANCHOR BLOCK 'o
-114, -U. STA; 62+6 0
a /� PI
U.S—.74-76HEIDE—TRASKIMEM. BRIDGE
PLAN -.•'-,A.I.W..,W.-:.,iGROSSIN-G:t--
M.H.W. EL. 2.0 APPROX. EXIST. BOTTOM
ANCHOR ANCHOR
. ..... ......
RECEIVIE-1)
...... 'MM IMILUNGTORM
k PROFILE AAMW CROSSI G
W1 mi
10 1w
1"- 160' 8 , I"- 16'V
DATUM: MEAN
SEA LEVEL 0.00
Go piSIAL
SITE C
OFFICE
H.
Wit
011310g,
IGHTSVILLE BEACH
INTERCEPTOR HENRY VON OESFN 8
. W,
ASSOCIATES- W 1LM 1 ToN N C Sheet 2 of 3 Q+

STA. No. 6 / E
U. S. 76___[
ANCHOR BLOCK --��
STA. 2 +39
.6
BRDLEY CREEK BRID
W . 14 FORCE MAIN%
Brad/ey Cr es R� m S (-' E I L+I
bfnrino
. too'H, I"•go' v
CREED CROS
A
EXCAVATED MATERIAL- PLACE
IN SILT RETENTION AREAS, AND FILTER FABRIC
USE TO BACKFILL TRENCH. ENCLTO OSE SILTLY
RETENTION AREA,
EXIST. BOTTOM 4"Ox1
ELEV. VARIABLE POST
1 4 O.0
BRACE DR
TIE-QOST AS _..........
REQ D. EL.-
n III\
1 t l I 5�GALV.•FENCE i
14" FORCE MAIk HOGWIRE IOGo.
H
/ INV, EL. - 9.0
Or— — —
ANCHOR BLOCK
STA. 10 + 55
ILT RETENTION
REA S
ELEV. SECTION
SECTION 'A— A' aN CK. P1LE BENT
B_R_ADLEY CREEK TECHNICAL DATA:
LENGTH OF SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING - 800 L.F.
PIPE SIZE 6 CLASS - 14" D.I.P, 84LL JT. OR
16" 0.0. POLYETHYLENE SDR-11
ExcAVATIoro:
TYPE OF MATERIALS: PRIMARILY ORGANIC SILT.
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CLAMSHELL /JETTING
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION: 9' ±
VOLUME OF MATERIAL: 1,800 C. Y. ±
SPOIL DISPOSAL:
S
SIL�T���NN
R L IN TON, NC
DEC S 0 2(?efq-lam

PV M P. 57A. No.G ( ..
U.s.7G eRAl)LEY CREFK e-RII3GE
srs..rs� q-' OFjC4 MAI0 oµ pIp6. - E
$'.IIo
\" T
!V
0 VLF'y enter S [Z�,= l2"
nAP,I"
IbRADLeY -CREAK Gf�OS51I�i
M.xoo•
�i mnrc annul f
e
�tllllilllllliilllllllllill�llll�llllllll���
l F t'11 @.NT mpACl Gi 10 GEC.
pE�O f LF- BRAoLEY CREEK CROSSNQ
I" • 200M, i•> 2fl v
SI
lqreE1VED
CM WILMINGTON, NO
DEC 3 © zoiKA- l
1.
t✓LEf SEcT1o1J
-r\/Pic,A,L piLF, bENJl-
I. • 6.

Permit Class Permit Number
Modification/Minor STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 100-78
Department of Natural Resources and Community Developmeni Page 1 of 2
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Vrr
lt
JUL 9^ 1932 for
Major Development in an Area of Environmental
OFFICE OF COASTAL MGT. Concern pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
WILMINGTON, N. C. a Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Town of Wrightsville Beach, P. 0. Box 626, Wrightsville Beach. NC 28480
authorizing development in New Hanover County at Bradley Cr. , Banks Channel, AIWW and
Kennans Creek
as requested in the permiuee's applic ition dated 4 /13/ 78: including
attached plats, sheet 1 of 3 dated rec. 4/14/78 sheet 2 of 3 dated rec. 5/10/82, and
appl. dated 12 81 incl. attached plats 3a & 3b dated 12/10/81.
This permit, issued on T.,ly9l, 1982 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, Imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
to A - Ba'nks Channel
That no excavated material be placed at any time in any marsh or waters of the
state outside of the alignment of the pipeline area indicated on. the. plat.
.That :in.order to protect juvenile shrimp populations, no excavaCior or filling
wiil be:.permitted between the dates of April 1 through September 30 of any year
without the prior approval of the Office of Coastal Management.
ite C - AIWW
l ?llat the marsh border crossed must be returned to the previogg of t�}t on ;yp
completion of the pipeline installation.
DCM WILMIIt4u on
NC
2) Same as Condition #1, Site A. DEC 3 0 20 q, tx5
(See attached sheet for additional conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the pemtittee,
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible un-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
March 31, 1983
in issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina
agrees thJt your project is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
signature of Permittee

Town of Wrightsville Beach
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
(3) Same as Conditioa #2, Site A.
Permit No. 100-78
Page 2 of 2
Site D - Bradlev Creek
1 That the work be carried out during the period from December 1 to March 31 of any
year. Further that it should be timed to coincide with predicted low tide cycles
during this period.
(2) That all work be accomplished during the period from slack high to slack low.
water (ebbing tide). This would apply to both excavation and refilling activity.
(3) That the spoil disposal areas be sized to accommodate all materials resulting
from excavation. These areas must also be .designed so as to eliminate excessive
turbidity and siltation.
(4) That all disturbed marsh be returned to existing grade of adjacent*vegetation
following completion of pipeline installation and that no permanent or temporary
spoiling may take place in these vegetated wetlands.
(5) That all live oyster, both along trench alignment and under spoil areas, be
relocated (under the guidance of the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Office
of Coastal Management) to areas outside'of...project influence.
(6) That the existing bottom elevations be reestablished upon completion of backfill
operation. All excess material must be removed to a high ground disposal area.
(7) That the depths of the three low tidechannels must be restored so tha
navigational use of these channels is not impaired. IRS G ON
��N , NC
DCM W�
(8) That mats he used when .crossing marsh vegetation. Q
DEC 8
(9) That the project be completed within two (2) weeks of start date.
Site A, B. C, & D
(1) That the work be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant increases
in turbidity outside of the area of construction (increases of 25 NTU's or less
are not considered significant).
NOTE: Work under this permit is covered by General Certification No. 1179 issued
by the Division of Environmental Management on January 25, 1978 and
Certification No. 1552 issued on February 5, 1982.
NOTE: An Easement from the State Property Office, Department of Administration was
executed May 27, 1982 for the pipeline crossings.
NOTE: A Highway Encroachment Easement is required from the Department of
Transportation. Division of Highways for work on the highway right-of-way.

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
IN Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
06
Ida• ���
2. Article Number
mansfer horn service /aw
ps Form 3811. February 2004
A. Sig t
X d Agent
.(�ZPrJ (1II OWLS Addressee
B. _qe0elved by (Printed Nerve) C. D of Delivery
t
lu,
D. Is ckkwy addrms ditmnt from Rem 1? ❑ Yes
R YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Service Type
—f�CertiRed Mail ❑ Express Mall
❑ Registered 1121" m Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mall ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (EX" Fee) ❑ Yes
7005 3110 0001 5624 3420
Domestic Return Receipt

UNITED STATES e0VARWIT First -Class Mail
"C' 2a2
Postage 8 Fees Paid "
USPS
22 At;.c' <.1.!; 111111
Permit No. G-10
• Sender Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box
RECEIVED
AU6 14 2015

t^
AA++e—
Pat McCrory
Governor
June 25, 2015
MEMORANDUM:
TO
FROM:
SUBJECT
Applicant:
Project Location
RUM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource
GtS•o�.ol.�j '�
Maria Dunn
NCWRC
for WiRO
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
JUL 2015
RECEIVED
ConMrwd'°n
Prosr�m
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Coordinator
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557 Fax: [phone]
(Courier 11-12-09)
CAMA / Dredge & Fill Permit Application Review
Bailey & Associates, Inc. c% Chris Bailey
202 Summer Rest Rd., adjacent to Motts Channel and the AIWW, in Wilmington,
New Hanover County
Proposed Project: to expand the existing docking facility for the Grand View Community Marina
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by July 18, 2015. 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 1, DATE q
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 RECEIVED
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net DCM WILMINGTON, NC
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action EmMw SEP 0 8 2015

HHuupett,' Doug
From: Mairs, Robb L
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 9:10 AM
To: Huggett, Doug
Subject: FW: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
Fyi, I meant to copy on the reply.
Thanks
From: Mairs, Robb L
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:06 AM
To: 'John Blackwell'
Cc: James Long [e-mail])
Subject: RE: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
John,
The application was deemed complete on June 9, 2015 and is still under review with the interested agencies. The
projected deadline for making a permit decision is August 24, 2015; however, an additional 75-day review period is
provided by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. Our Major Permits Section in the Morehead City
will be receiving the comments from the review agencies. Feel free to let me know if you need any further assistance.
Thanks,
Robb Mairs, Field Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
robb. mairsOncdenr.gov
Please visit www.nccoastalmanaaement.net to subscribe to
Coastal Management's quarterly newsletter, the CAMAgram.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: John Blackwell[mailto:jblackwell(cbhwwells.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:27 PM
To: Mairs, Robb L
Cc: James Long (timlong207(dgmail.com)
Subject: RE: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
Do you mind giving us an update on the Bailey application?
THX!

pop John Blackwell (Account Representative
Harold W. Wells & Son, Inc. "Best
tvu
Tradition with Visilon Practices
WELLS www.hwwells.com [e-mail] Pr ,
INSURANCE P: 910.251.5465 1 F 910.254.93981 C 910-262.5395
IhRifli):YIGnI1rY[YYY(Mq
Unless specifically stated in this electronic communication, no policy or coverage is considered bound, changed or in -fierce
until you have received specific written or verbal confirmation front one of Harold W. Wells K Son, Ines licensed agents.
'Ihc communication above including any attachments is for the designated individual(s) or entity/cmitics only and may
contain privileged or confidential information. If the reader has received this message in error please notify the sender
immcdialely and delete the correspondence. An}use or distribution of (his information is prohibited.
From: Mairs, Robb L fmailto:robb.mairs(abncdenr.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 1:07 PM
To: John Blackwell
Cc: James Long (iimlonQ207(&gmai1.com); Chuck Sweeny (csweeny]r(alec.mcom)
Subject: RE: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
John,
Tues. at 1 works with us.
Thanks,
Robb Mairs, Field Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
robb.mairs(a ncdenr.aov
Please visit www.nccoastalmanagement.net to subscribe to
Coastal Management's quarterly newsletter, the CAMAgram.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: John Blackwell[mailto:iblackwell(alhwwells.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Mairs, Robb L
Cc: James Long (jimlong207(@Qmall.com); Chuck Sweeny (csweenyir(alec.rr.com)
Subject: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
Robb,
Can we stop by your office on Monday at 4:00 to discuss the above? Tuesday at 1:00 would work as well.
Thanks,

John Blackwell (Account Representative
OPP" Harold W. Wells & Son, Inc. �--Best
Wt Tradition with Visijon taut C
y y EL WS www.hwwells.com [e-mail] �C`�L�s
INSURANCE p; 910.251.5465 1 F 910-254-9398 1 C 910.262-5395
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Unless specifically stated in this electronic communication, no policv or coverage is considered bound.. changed or in -force
until you have received specific written orverbal contirmation front one of Harald W. Wells K Son, inc's licensed agents.
'Ihe communication above including any attachments is for the designated individual(s) or entity/entities only and may
contain privilcgcd or confidcntiui information. If the reader has received this message in error please notify the sender
immediately and delete the couespondence. Any use or distribution of This information is prohibited.

Huggett, Doug
From: Mairs, Robb L
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 9:10 AM
To: Huggett, Doug
Subject: FW: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
Fyi, I meant to copy on the reply.
Thanks
From: Mairs, Robb L
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:06 AM
To: 'John Blackwell'
Cc: James Long [e-mail])
Subject: RE: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
John,
The application was deemed complete on June 9, 2015 and is still under review with the interested agencies. The
projected deadline for making a permit decision is August 24, 2015; however, an additional 75-day review period is
provided by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. Our Major Permits Section in the Morehead City
will be receiving the comments from the review agencies. Feel free to let me know if you need any further assistance.
Thanks,
Robb Mairs, Field Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
robb. mairs(ftcdenr.aov
Please visit www. nccoastalmanagement.net to subscribe to
Coastal Management's quarterly newsletter, the CAMAgram.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: John Blackwell[mailto:jblackwell(ahwwells.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:27 PM
To: Mairs, Robb L
Cc: James Long (iimlong207(&gmail.com)
Subject: RE: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
Robb,
Do you mind giving us an update on the Bailey application?
THX!

John Blackwell (Account Representative
Harold W. Wells & Son, Inc. runBest
Tradition with Visilon _rAcUc2S
WELLS www.hwwells.com [e-mail] a rrx a+hm
INSURANCE P: 910-251-5465 1 F 910.254.93981 C 910-262.5395
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Unless specifically stated in this electronic communication, no policy or coverage is considered bound. changed or in -force
until you have received specific written or verbal confirmation front one of Harold W. Wells K Son, Ines licensed agents.
'I he communication above including any attachments is for the designated individual(s) or entity/entities only and nray
contain privileged or confidential information. If the reader has received this message in error please notify the sender
immediately and delete the correspondence. Any use or distribution of this information is prohibited.
From: Mairs, Robb L rmailto:robb.mairs(@ncdenr.00v]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 1:07 PM
To: John Blackwell
Cc: James Long (iimlong207(5iQmail.com); Chuck Sweeny (csween)jr(&ec.rr.com)
Subject: RE: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
John,
Tues. at 1 works with us.
Thanks,
Robb Mairs, Field Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
robb. m airsaa-ncdenr.gov
Please visit www.nccoastalmanagement.net to subscribe to
Coastal Management's quarterly newsletter, the CAMAgram.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: John Blackwell rmailto:iblackwell(abhwwells.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Mairs, Robb L
Cc: James Long (Vmlono207ftmail.com); Chuck Sweeny (csweenyjr(a ec.mcom)
Subject: Bailey Proposal on Summer Rest Rd.
'err
Can we stop by your office on Monday at 4:00 to discuss the above? Tuesday at 1:00 would work as well.
Thanks,

..''� John Blackwell (Account Representative
Harold W. Wells & Son, Inc. �r�mBest
(r eha
WELLS Tradition ell Vision Practices
www.hwwells.com [e-mail] Practices
INSURANCE p; 910-251-5465 1 F 910.254.9396 1 C 910.262-5395
INIPORTAN'I' NOTICE
Unless specifically stated in this electronic communication, no policy or coverage is considered bound, changed or in -force
until you have received specific written or verbal confirmation from one of Harald W. Wells & Son, Inc's licensed agents.
I lie communication above including any attachments is for the designated individual(s) or entity/entities only and may
contain privileged or confidential information. If the reader has received this message in error please notify the sender
imrnediatciv and delete the correspondence. Any use or distribution ofthis information is prohibited.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
26313th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov
August 14, 2015
(Sent via Electronic Mail)
Colonel Kevin P. Landers, Sr., Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398
Attention: Tyler Crumbley
Dear Colonel Landers:
F/SER47:FR/pw
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the public notice for Action ID
No. SAW-2011-00775 dated July 7, 2015. Bailey and Associates propose to expand upon an
existing docking facility by constructing a 17-slip marina with associated dredging within Motts
Creek adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) in Wilmington, New Hanover
County. The project area is not designated a Primary Nursery Area. Submerged aquatic
vegetation is not expected to be present. The project requires dredging 6,732 square feet of
bottom, shading 678 square feet of wetlands, and incorporating 2,934 square feet of open water.
The Wilmington District's initial determination is the proposed project may adversely affect
essential fish habitat (EFH) or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC), the Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council, or the NMFS.
As the nation's federal trustee for the conservation and management of marine, estuarine, and
diadromous fishery resources, the following comments and recommendations are provided
pursuant to the authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Magnuson -Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act).
Description of the Proposed Project
The applicant proposes to expand an existing docking facility (two slips) adjacent to Motts Creek
and the AIWW to accommodate 17 vessels ranging in size from 16 to 30 feet in length. An area
approximately 160 feet in length and 90 feet in width (6,732 square feet of shallow bottom
habitat) would be mechanically excavated by bucket -to -barge to a final depth of -4.0 feet at mean
low water (MLW). Depths in the proposed excavation area currently range from approximately
-1.0 foot MLW to deeper than -4.0 feet MLW. This would remove approximately 810 cubic
yards of material, which would be hauled to a privately -owned spoil island. The proposed new
pier and uncovered platforms would shade approximately 678 square feet of coastal wetlands.
During the scoping meeting, the applicant presented a proposal that included dredging into Motts
Creek to accommodate additional slips. Based on comments by the NMFS about the impacts to
EFH, the applicant has avoided these impacts to EFH by eliminating this part of the project.

Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat
The excavation of the boat basin would disturb approximately 6,732 square feet of shallow
bottom habitat and shade a minimum of 678 square feet of coastal marsh. The SAFMC
identifies salt marsh and shallow sub -tidal bottom in estuarine waters as EFH for Brown Shrimp,
Pink Shrimp, and White Shrimp. The SAFMC identifies these areas as EFH because fish and
shrimp concentrate in these habitats for feeding and refuge and experience high growth and
survival rates when located in these habitats. Detailed information on the EFH requirements of
species managed by the SAFMC is provided in a comprehensive amendment to the fishery
management plans and Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic Region. Other species of
commercial or recreational importance found in the project area include Red Drum, Atlantic
Croaker, Spot, Atlantic Menhaden, Bay Anchovy, Striped Mullet, Weakfish, and Blue Crab. A
number of these species serve as prey for fish that are managed by the SAFMC (e.g., King
Mackerel, Spanish Mackerel, and Cobia) or for highly migratory fish managed by the NMFS
(e.g., billfishes and sharks).
The NMFS finds the project, as proposed, does not reflect all practicable avoidance and
minimization of impacts to EFH. Depths on the northern side of the docking facility (slips 9 to
14 and 17) are sufficient for boating such that no excavation is necessary. Slips 3 to 8 either
have sufficient depths without excavation (-3.4 feet MLW or deeper) or could accommodate
vessels with the use of boatlifts. No mitigation is proposed by the applicant for impacts to
shallow bottom habitat.
EFH Conservation Recommendations
Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson -Stevens Act requires the NMFS to provide EFH
conservation recommendations when an activity is expected to adversely impact EFH. Based on
this requirement, the NMFS provides the following:
• The applicant should eliminate the excavation portion of the project.
• The applicant should eliminate slips 1 and 2 since depths are too shallow to even
allow the use of boatlifts.
Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson -Stevens Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
600.920(k), requires the Wilmington District to provide a written response to the EFH
recommendations within 30 days of receipt. If it is not possible to provide a substantive
response within 30 days, in accordance with the "findings" between NMFS and the Wilmington
District, an interim response should be provided to NMFS. A detail response must then be
provided prior to final approval of the action. The detailed response must include a description
of measures proposed by the Wilmington District to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse
impacts of the activity. If the Wilmington District's response is inconsistent with the EFH
conservation recommendations, the District must provide a substantive discussion justifying the
reasons for not following the recommendation. The detail response should be received by the
NMFS at least ten days prior to final approval of the action.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please direst related questions or
comments to the attention of Mr. Fritz Rohde at our Beaufort Field Office, 101 Pivers Island
Road, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722, or at [phone].
/ for
Sincerely,
>ace vjzl�
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: COE, [e-mail]
USFWS, [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail], [e-mail]
EPA, [e-mail]
SAFMC, [e-mail]
F/SER4, [e-mail]
F/SER47, [e-mail]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
A11E ON OF:
August 7, 2015
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2011-00775
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Reference the application of Mr. Chris Bailey to expand upon an existing dock by
constructing a 17-slip marina with associated dredging within Motts Creek adjacent to the
AIW W in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. Coordinates in Decimal Degrees
are: 34.218812 N,-77.812594 W.
The proposed marina configuration consists of removal of the existing dock and
construction of a 116' x 6' floating dock with four 23' x 3.5' floating dock fingers; three 30' x 3.5'
fingers; a 60' x 6' floating "T"; a 73' x 6' fixed pier (Molts Creek); as well as a 16' x 16' fixed
dock and a 20' x 14' gazebo on Motts Creek. The proposal also includes dredging of an area 160'
x 90' to -4' MLW (810 cy) with disposal at the USACE Disposal Site #248. Total impacts to
waters of the U.S. are 2,934 sq. ft of dock and 0.33 acre of new dredging.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as presented by the
application and your field investigation report.
We recommend that the following conditions be included in the State authorization:
1. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus,
the applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Manatee Guidelines, and
strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/manatee guidelines.Ddf.
2. Prior to the commencement of cdnstruction of the authorized dredging or other work
within the right-of-way of, or in proximity to, a Federally maintained navigation channel, the
RECEIVED
AU6 12 10b
WQu+eH V Qu-4

Permittee shall obtain all necessary Consents to cross Government Easement from our Real Estate
Division. The Real Estate Division may be contacted at: CESAS-RE-MC, 69 Darlington Avenue,
Wilmington North Carolina 28403-1343, tel. [phone].
3. Any crossing activity of the Corps Easement for Disposal Area-0248 requires
approval of the Corps of Engineers prior to construction. The permittee shall contact the Corps
of Engineers, Real Estate Division for any approvals needed to cross the Corps easement. The
Real Estate Division may be contacted at: CESAS-RE-MC, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington
North Carolina 28403-1343, tel. [phone]
4. All excavated materials will be confined landward of the mean high water level
elevation contour within adequate dikes or other retaining structures to prevent spillover of
dredged materials into any vegetated wetlands or surrounding waters.
5. To establish a fixed structure or buoy (including channel markers, the permitte must
submit a Private Aids to Navigation Application to the USCG in accordance with 33CFR66.
This application is available for review at the following web link:
http:Hecfr. gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=cd4bde4e70078c87196a8ea11161711a&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title33/33cfr66 main
02.to1
The Permitee must submit the attached Private Aids to Navigation Application to the
address listed below for review and approval by the U.S. Coast Guard. The point of contact at
Fifth Coast Guard District is Mr. Chris O'Neal and can be reached at [phone].
Commander (dpw)
Fifth Coast Guard District
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23704
6. In order to protect juvenile finfish resources, no excavation or filling activities will be
permitted between the dates of April 1 and September 30 of any year without the prior approval
of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
7. The permittee must install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals
prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilities.
For further information, the permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
at [phone].
RECEIVED
AUG 12 2M
wo-UH9 c"

8. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
submitted plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be
approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
9. The docks and piers extending over wetlands will be elevated sufficiently (a
minimum of 3 feet) above the wetland substrate to prevent total shading of vegetation, substrate,
or other elements of the aquatic environment.
10. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States
require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or
if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or
work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the
permittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove,
relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the
United States.
11. Approval of the structure is based on determinations that there would be no
obstruction to navigation. The structure may be damaged by wave wash from passing vessels.
Issuance of this permit should not be construed, as relieving the permittee of taking proper steps
to insure the structure and moored boats will not be damaged by wave wash.
12. The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public's
right to free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by
the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent
to the authorized work for reason other than safety.
13. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or
mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns
within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.
14. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this
permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in
the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not
authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or
wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities
connected with this project.
15. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at [phone],
RECEIVED
AUG 12 2015

Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act will be followed.
16. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or
wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants
except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing
activities), or unsightly debris will not be used.
17. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains
while accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District
Engineer who will initiate the required coordination procedures.
18. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms
and conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall
provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of
this project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be
available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this project.
19. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures
necessary to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside
the permit area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing
or similar appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of
earthen fill, and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must
remain in full compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
(North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4).
20. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase
in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that
the turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or less in all
saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not
considered significant.
21. The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its
expiration before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such
time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore
the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
RECEIVED
AUG 12 10b

22. Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Tyler Crumbley, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Division, telephone [phone].
Sincerel
, &k6—�
Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished
Ms. Karen Higgins
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Fritz Rohde
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Pace Wilber
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Mr. Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Life Scientist
Water Protection Division
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georigia 30303-8960
Mr. Chad Coburn
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RFCFIVEC
AUG 12 2015

EXISTING PIER
6'X268' EXISTING PLATFORM
i\ 16'X16'
W
W W
W W w Y
W Y W W W
W W W W W
YPJJO�RryOiPGRLLTpY OF: W `•�
N ING10t1, NC W W \
W W W W Y W W W
W W W Y
W..y.yyyy� W Y j
Jam.•, IS
i0 MY;
W W W
• � Y Y Y Y Y Y W
Y Y �, Elie Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 'o Y Y FWE �Y Y
WW
Y
W
N NMI
noun m
Ne eor
�INtl1fIl rtL
NOTE:
THIS SHEET IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES PLEASE SEE
ADDITIONAL SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL.
EXISTING FLOATING DOCK
4'X43'
W W
W W
W W W
NORTHERN RIPARIAN COORIDOR W Y W Y
CENTERLINE OF MOTTS CREEK HANNEL. Y
UNDER STATE PERMIT #84-01 W W W Y
W W W
W W W W
W W W W
W W W Y
W W W W V
I
< W W Y W J
I I I
I i I C
I I I C
6 4r
W W W`, • I �I � I
_zY.N rwrE NMI -wMINN I I I
NfIC�L �; w t I I
I till
PROPOSED PROJECT
SHEET 2 OF 5 - PIER DETAIL
SHEET 3 OF 5 - DREDGING DETAIL
SHEET 4 OF 5 - CROSS SECTIONS
SHEET 5 OF 5 - CROSS SECTIONS
EN41N0 PUBIlC
B TRI
Lu
Z
Q z
� O
w V
z
w cn
Q Z
� O
R
DATE: 04I21I201(
REV. 06.21.10
- - - - REV. 04.11.11
DRAWN BY:
J. W. GILES
SCALE:
RECEIVED ill =100'
APR 12 2011
II SHEET:
T�<<M %';MAINIGT014. 1 OF5

i
�;
'
.:�
..
i
t �
._�.
� _
�
d
i.
�
t
.'�
—�
`,
'�
i
'_
� �;
—v
.. ;
i
.. ..
„
,
�'
. ..
_ ...
__ .
. ._.
_
e...
_.
� , , ,.
_
Y,
;'
+'
-
I
� ��

L W ILI 41 W
41
1
W W r 1
W W W
-4PROP-FpRTY OF: q, I
JOHN BLACKWELL `\
W WILyMING11bN, N't W W
h
W �84
42r7S CREEK
ttrr /
w aw w /
NORMAL FLOW
TO AIWW
7JJ7 W W W W
4` -30
/ W W W PIER
ko WE PIER(EXISTING) W S'X84'
W 6'X398' W v
e
W W
u =�33
oa
NORMAL HIGH WATER
it
i
n
PROPERTY OR
N.C. DOT
WLMINGTON, N.C.
N
11
LL WATER DEPTHS REFERENCE NORMAL LOW WATEI
�\ W
1
\ I
\�`il
- \ - - -- FLOA�NG DOCK
AS- IULT LOC TI 0 EXISTING
- _-- a ------- --PIER SURVEY DATED 8.25.08 BY
-�--"__- AILEY gc AS CIl�TE� iI
aeocA`-------- ----- - I
----____ -
1 -- - _ _--- 3) FLOATING DOCK I
IV
EDGE OF WETLANgS JY p`, ' r .- ,�— I i--_•I=-��� ---- v7---r
W w w GAZEBO'--- a - f
4q' PIKR 24• 8• :: a . i A TE� I
6'X16$ G
/
/ ♦ W SLIP 7 P
1
SEWER FORCE MAIN I RIPTANI CORRID
,V LOCATION 11..
i x 10' BUFFER A AG DOCK' '%'-- --I'"
Tom OFF THE NO I
],NORM. UL LOW WAIR C/
w
W 128' fARTER WIDTH 512• TOTAL WATER WIDTH I
GAZEBO
1 O'X20'
------------� - - - - - - - - - - _APRjU21111 ---US 74/76 ----- N pp 70582 W
tCM W I L NI I N Gi. E-2357263.57
00000000o
.00000000
Tn
Lu
LLI
Z
z
J
U
=
O
I—
Z
o
U c-
O
Q Li
z
¢
C
u
J c-
m
w
1r z
O �
J
DATE 04/21 /201 C
REV. 03.08.11
REV. 04.11.11
DRAWN BY:
J. W. GILES
SCALE:
1x=60'
000G00 SHEET:
mn
000000
000000 OF Q
000000 O
000000

\\ // o H
Z Z U C
O
cn
117
w
I Z = ¢ c
C
_ w ccn w
C) JQ
\ I U m G
I w
EXCAVATION TO —6' MLW
/— (240 CYt) (1,500_SFf)
80 SETBACK
_ ' � ;%� � ` �"'�•.�, DEPTH BELOW
.� Z
MUD = 6.0' I J
EDGE OF WETLAN�S - ` (29
\J, DEPTH BELOW z
10�BUFFE�R ♦•. MUD = 2.0' I CD
cl
Lu
.X I 0
— — — — — ! EDGE OF NCDOT R-O-W
DATE: 04/21/2010
SEWER MAIN — REV.06121110
FORCELOCATON , RIPA C0 RIDO-- REV.04.11.11
R FORCE
• • I DRAWN BY:
o•39'37 ss 10' BUFFER
o EIS No. z1 OFF THE NEI i EXCAVATION 0 —6' MLW J.W.GILES
�A I (605 CYt) ( ,140 SFf) co I
NORMAL LOW WATER \ SCALE:
1 — 30
SHEET:
ol
N 3 OF 5
ALL ATER DEPTHS REFERENCE NORMAL LOW ATER I � I

AREA TO BE EXCAVATED ---\
AVERAGE SLOPE AFTER SLUGHING
IS 4:1
g 68'
o<
m
0
0
z
w
aeu n II II
CROSS SECTION B'-B'
(ALL FLOATS ON NORTH SIDE)
24' 47' 6•
0 0
`—DREDGING TO =8 MLw
i(ALL PILES NOT SHOWN FOR CLA
128 —�i
— 238' _
CROSS SECTION A' -A'
2' SEWER FORCEMAIN
SFVRICINQ WRIGHTSVII I F RFACH
SEWER FORCEMAIN
4 BELOW SUBSTRATE
IJ
Iw
z
a
lb
U
I
13
a
0
w
to
I-W -- 00 MLWW
-16.0
AREA TO BE EXCAVATED
AVERAGE SLOPE AFTER SLUGHING
IS 4:1
NHW
0.0 @ NLW
-5' @ NLW
MUD LINE -8' @ NLW
-12' @ NLW
APR 12 2011
Lu
w
Lu
p
U C
O 2
¢ u
C
v
W
O
Z
�
I
U
Lu
v)
U)
C)
)
Of
U
DATE: 04121 /2010
REV 06.21.10
REV 03.08.11
DRAWN BY:
J. W. GILES
SCALE:
AS SHOWN
SHEET:
40F5

w
0
0
LLJ
CROSS SECTION Cl-C'
+3.0 NHW
0.0 MLW
RECElV
APR 12 2011
rr WILP✓tINGTOki Pd;
v
LL
F-
a
w L
z_ c
cr
C) Q
H
z Z a
F- >
W Cn LL
Q Z —
cc
O
6W
H
U
W
cn
cn
cn
0
U
DATE: 06.21.1(
REV. 04.11.
DRAWN BY:
J. W. GILES
SCALE:
1 "=20'
SHEET:
5OF5

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
w
USACE DISPOSAL SITE 0251
z
0
USACE EASEMENT BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE)
0
m
z
0
a
PROPO D SPOIL AREA (1.3 ACRES)
POINT OF ACCES
IOC'- 200' 400'
immili
SC4LE : I" = 200'
MARITECH, LLC
1 08 CIRCLE DRIVE
HAMPSTEAD, NC 28443
HA CH
mnrlwrnrrrreew.�l
OFFICE: 91 0.270.4058
FIELD: 91 0.279.771 O
FAX: 91 ❑.27O.4058
BAILEY PROJECT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SHORE ACRES MASONBORO INLET DISPOS
SURVEY DATE: DRAWING DATE: DRAWING NAME: HORIZRITAL DAYUM: VERT
2010 II Z 010 SHORE ACRES. DWG NAD 83 ML
APR 12 2
SITE
.DAT : SCALE:
- BFT I I' = 2C
NOTES:
DEPTHS ARE REFERENCED TO LOCAL MEAN LOW WATER (MLW) AS DEFINED BY USACE
BEAUFORT DATUM.
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NC STATE PLANE NAD83 B VERTICAL DATUM: MLW - BFT DATUM
N. NC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY (2002)

C4 V E Y FO 2 PE(C1"q 6
IM] YM' ww ��wFl]1Q1h M ICNKw9w'.[ m MN T M
414YfA YC. Srwl iCMZ YXN IM M4 FEn 40 MAT ILL OMP NP AR
lMl HNCPI YC T. wRV y}TFS AS ..
.g d XW '. . L-]IA
(OATE)
c. n
MOTTS CREEK ^ `.
w _ EgsmG woX Tl
W91 _ ENSiwG I]Wi-6-ur INMIXCNi
MIS _ YIL XK 4l
Rs - wa XPE MT
m - wa srMe st.T
� _ omlcr se¢ 2i
.w _ is Aamc WawP ss4E
RS /1 NdfK -/.r
m _ Iro ma lAl sXwAa
_ � CphVXE
S _ wlR9iiY lYlF
r
I) Tle rvo{xrr alowl Noes rs LouTm wnw
SEO41W 1GR f1AA M1INp .NeA RCW(ML
OAlEO AwiL A; 9CR RAII YM XY ])All])D]I
S) Ik Amyl Mw/R om xaK awK
wwr, wc. oAim IP1X' 112 M m1Ci
NA4 WT ®I 9MHlID Br pSwY 3 Y114151AIO
IPKHIG.
])'ERYRIS IP1E AMI lin lCGnpl 91QX Igepl MS
qN111 {ptll yl ACN4 w0➢ LCGTOI m J]IMIY d
]I.WS Luo slXwroM a aMN+. xMn FaRavE uux
�vn+wµ Arn,� Lorna ax I,n9rn.
IgeOl B iM21 fPPI 4wlEM] AS No1C0 w noR 2
♦) 91S¢ wwMw LOUnmS iv.ETI vRul 9.MiEY m
NAWs 9m1e1w0
FENDER
CEIVED
JUL 19 2010
.��ttirf. YY �I..lyt:'4iT.Y ee R:
PIER AS —BUILT SURVEY FOR:
g.AI1SY & ASSOCIATE'S, INC.
INDIVIDUAL TRACT AT THE INTERSECTION OF N.C.S.R. 1417
(SUMMER REST ROAD) AND U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 74
CITY OF WILMINGTON
✓ORRRY.I /!L"A" LINO 3IZRVJW%V PC!
IP.O. BOX ]]B, BEIILAMUE. N.C. 28518
�Y , PHONE: [phone] FAX, 910-298-2310
EMAIL JWLLIAMS O JMSIIRWT.CCM