54363_DAY, TRANS_20090807

►o 0,21/s,6
❑CAMA / ❑ DREDGE & FILL °'fir
GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit # i-44
❑1 e New 1idification ❑ Complete Reissue ❑Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued /
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC
Rules attached.
Applicant Name
Address ; .',f� 1 is
City • State ZIP
.�r� t _
Phone # O # k'� /Fax # O
Authorized Agent
Affected a CW ❑ EW ❑ PTA ❑ ES ❑ PTS
AEC(s): ❑ OEA ❑ HHF ❑ IH ❑ UBA ❑ N/A
❑ PWs: ❑ FC:
ORW: yes / no PNA yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no
Project Location: County
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
Subdivision
City
ZIP
Phone # O River Basin
Adj. Wtr. Body (nat /man /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
-
'
• . • ... - :
.. .-
..
M.
•
■
Emto
E=013
tif
P.m.
■19.■■
ili!■FI�■■:i�
!Iloomm
!
■■■ili
■■
�
!l
■�/
il■■
L1■■
W■■
85ii1MINIM
�■
■■■�
■l�a.!■iP■■■■■■�Iil�l■■�
�s
i■■i11b1■R1��Y■■■�■■`11■[�Il'1
■■■
I�l�
■■�
■
■
■■
■!�I
■iI
■■®�.
■YID'7i��1�1!i��.'_',�ow
�■■
■■I�`il!■�1►'�I■
■8■■
■EEiilf�v�Mw.�
■■l
c■i
11
�liv■■■■
■■■■■■®lei■■■E■i111111MINAi■
■■■■■■w
�i■■■v
Mr-MMME
1ON
/iig.
=111
i
r■
M11emol[�■■�II�■:�li
■■■■■!■II■■
■■�-1111
1■■■CL�I�►.r"��i
■■i..■■■►■NGN"��tiiTl
■■■■■■■■■■■■�a���k
■■■®�■■�■■■ice,■�■■�■�
■�■■
0■■■�lll��i
■■■■■■■i■■■hll►Ammki"ME
■
1
■�ii"il■■■!!■■■li■■=■
■■■■■L'■■■■■f■■i■■■■■
■■Rl■�l■l�1M
i1■
■■■■/i
■■■■■■ri■■■■■■■
11111M■■i■21
■
w
]�r■u■■■■
■�■�
��iIi■��l;■9
■■�NMM0F
7®■7
!1
■■ ■ 1■■i1■■i■■■1�19■■C:
�����■lam �31■VJ■i
■■■■f i■■i■■■■illiil
■■■!7■C��iliii,+ice■liii■�7®■IGii�ir�i■■Illn�:�
- ■ ' ■■Fi�!�"irl�l/ ■■lily■■■ii'Bi■�1i■
■■ ■■■■■■■�■■■I
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■®■■[J■■■■C�■di�l�l■I■
Gf 1■■■■�■■�®■■`b'IiiiL�l'L'1■i 9
i1■■■■■�■71R�1�1■I�■
■�■■
�■�l■■
■■�R■■■■■■■■ �ilC=i►t
No ME ■�ii
Agent car Applicant Print/ewanle
Signature Plead compliance statim ent oof permit.**
Application Fee(s) Check _--
�..
PermitOfficer's Signature ;r
Iss6ing ate Expiration'Date
Local Planningjunsdiction Rover File Name
�I
dI

Statement of Compliance and Consistency
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site drawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine or criminal or civil action; and may cause the permit to become
null and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance. The
applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) prior to undertaking any activities authorized by this permit, the applicant will
confer with appropriate local authorities to confirm that this project is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement or certified mail return receipt has been obtained from the adjacent riparian
landowner(s) .
The State of North Carolina and the Division of Coastal Management, in issuing this permit under the best available
information and belief, certifythatthis project is consistentwith the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
River Basin Rules Applicable To Your Project:
❑ Tar - Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules ❑ Other:
❑ Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
If indicated on front of permit, your project is subject to the Environmental Management Commission's Buffer Rules for the
River Basin checked above due to its location within that River Basin. These buffer rules are enforced by the NC Division of
Water Quality. Contact the Division of Water Quality at the Washington Regional Office (252-946-6481) or the Wilmington
Regional Office (910-796-7215) for more information on how to comply with these buffer rules.
Division of Coastal Management Offices
Raleigh Office
Mailing Address:
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Location:
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-2293
Fax:[phone]
Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808/ 1-888-4RCOAST
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Carteret, Craven, Onslow -above
New River Inlet- and Pamlico Counties)
Elizabeth City District
1367 U.S. 17 South
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
252-264-3901
Fax:[phone]
(Serves: Camden, Chowan, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Pasquotank and Perquimans
Counties)
Washington District
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6481
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Beaufort, Bertie, Hertford, Hyde,
Tyrrell and Washington Counties)
Wilmington District
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
910-796-7215
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Brunswick, New Hanover,
Onslow -below New River Inlet- and
Pender Counties)
Revised 08/09/06

40 0 40 80 1 00
GRAPHIC SCALE — FEET 1
1
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE 'AE' ELEVA71ON
6.0' AS PER FLOOD MAP 3720638600J,PANEL lEIR
,COMIIUNUTY1370048-TONN OF MWEHEAD CfTY,DAIED
7116103.
VERIFY FREE BOARD NTH LOCAL BUILDING INSPECTOR. \ I c
AffRNOUS mallLABONS
1
FOOTPRINT OF PROPOSED DWELLING AND COVERED PORCH
I
---3993.97 Sq Ff.
J
STEPS---380.42 Sq. Ft.
ti
M CONC. DRIVEWAY --- 106752 Sq. Ff.
o
TOTAL---5441.91 Sq. Ft.
o
I
o
AREA FOR LOTS 4 AND 5--- 12000 Sq. Ft.
o
ap AREA FOR LOTS 4-5 AND 11-13--- 30000 Sq. Ft.
N
AREA INSIDE HIGH WATER LINE --- 18212.31 Sq. Ff.
� AREA FOR 10' ALLEY NOR1H SIDE OF PROPERTY --- 1000 Sq.
,a
Ft.(ALLEY WAY SQUARE FOOTAGE NOT TD BE INOLUD ))
h
m TOTAL --- 1821231-1000-1721231 Sa. Ft. INSIDE HIGH WATER
o
d LIE
2
X OF COVERAGE WITH STEPS AND CONIC --- 31.6X
X OF COVERAGE WITHOUT STEPS --- 29.4%
J 1
X OF COVERAGE WITHOUT CONCRETE --- 25.4X
I
X OF COVERAGE WITHOUT CONCRETE OR STEPS --- 23.2%
c
©
0
o
NI15.50'
`OP —lv
� 110.20'
__j
Z_ E7
TBM
48'S9"E 143.30'(nE LINE) z00'�-----
N B3' NA(L w PP
EN&CAP BAY S1REE'T
OYTENGnav OFBAYSIMUT NNDDN8tth STREET. 60' R\W
S 84'15'00"E 150.
850.000
l
IQ
0
h
50.00,
0.00,
175'0 50
�,(
y500 y00•QO�TOTALTOTAL
O O
�
PROPOSED COVERED PORCH
750'
PROPOSED
DWELLING
I
1
15' SETBACK
8473'00"W 1D0.00,
E
M
HEAD UTILITIES
I•
1
to
1•
18
N
1
�
W
0
3
0
o
o
v
2
0
1
1
I
I
1
PP
LEGEND:
OR ---EXISTING IRON ROD
EN&CAP--- EXISTING NAIL AND CAP
SP --- EXISTING IRON PIPE
PP ---POKER POLE
TBM--- TEIB'ORARY BENCH MARK
50.00'
10 ALLEY
AVERAGED MEAN HIGH WATER LINE
BASID ON APPENDED ANALYSIS
PERFORMED BY HYDROGRAPHIC
30.16 SURVEYORS CHRIS FREEMAN AND
DA VE BERNSTEIN OF GEOOYNAMICS. _ I
CA11111 ^V\
R 0
O ,T"„
3 w1�o� GIs , r
a
N
N
a
O
�
U
b
4
0
50�
ei%
�
0
a�
pO�
a6N
o N
N
a
Z
Q
0
0
Q
=
U
U
z
O
� o
N
z
m
I
a (—
Z}=
w
U
Q
<ma
N U
6
Q
4 O � p
on�a
U
yNj Y =
W ~
^
0-0
r�O
�oWc
Y =
W y
>cm3«
�
1
H BOO tU

Barrett, Tere
From: Styron, Heather M.
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:11 AM
To: Barrett, Tere
Subject: FW: Revision of Dock Permit
Attachments: Travis Shelton Day.vcf; Meeting.doc; Dock Length.doc; Variance & Appeals.doc
Hey Tere, this is info from Mr. Day on why he feels his dock should have been longer. This is the one I spoke with you
about which is located at 7ch and bay next to the Towns pier on the Newport river. I don't know if you remember so let
me know. The marina dock was 170' ( which was the longest along this shoreline). We looked at the aerials for this.
Thanks, Heather
From: Travis Day [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: Revision of Dock Permit
Heather,
As discussed last Friday, I am providing some documents for your consideration in modifying my permit # 54324.
Some apologizes
First - I need to apologize for being so late in providing these documents. I teach at UNC-Chapel Hill and have been
preparing for and giving exams all week --I just got back from Chapel Hill late last night.
Second, I also need to apologize for the "style" of these documents. My dad prepared them for me and I just got them
this morning. I haven't had time to rewrite them and remove all the formal stuffiness and "flavor." Dad is a retired
government manager who may not realize his old big hat doesn't fit any more.
I hope though, that you will find these documents acceptable and that they provide adequate justification for you to
agree to revise our permit. As stressed last week, it is my desire to resolve this issue as quickly as possible and at the
lowest level. It is also important to minimize everyone's costs (i.e. additional time & money spent trying to come to a
resolution). It has been my experience that when issues are elevated up the corporate chain and involve more
people, resolution becomes much more tedious and complex because of a multitude of not -so -good reasons.
I fully understand and appreciate the need to preserve and protect our natural resources. We are striving to make our
new home as "green" as possible. In building our house and dock, we intend to do everything possible to respect and
protect the environment, without breaking the bank or needlessly sacrificing functionality/usability. Achieving our
originally requested dock length is extremely important to us in order to be able to have enough usable water for our
boats. I realize that this hardship alone does not provide justification for our requested dock length; however, I feel
that the supporting documentation is sufficient enough to allow you to revise our permit.
The attached document titled "Meeting" summarizes the issues we discussed last Friday and is the basis for all our other
documentation. It identifies the issues and our different positions. If this does not accurately reflect our positions and
the meeting particulars, please let me know as soon as possible.
The document "Dock Length" provides my rationale and position on the subject of determining dock length. It includes
the inputs I spoke of from other DCM experts and includes photographs of existing dock systems that support my
original permit request. I hope that once you review this document, you will understand why I feel that condition (b) of
the General Permit guidelines for docks is intended to limit dock extensions to existing pier lines. This appears to be the

widely'accepted' interpretation of the CAMA rule. Also, the Morehead District DCM interpretation actually works against
the CAMA intent to limit the extension of docks into a water body — it can very easily accomplish the opposite.
The document "Variance & Appeals" provides my rationale why I feel I could, if necessary, request a variance or appeal
under the General Permit procedures without having to go through the very long and expensive process of submitting a
Major Permit before seeking recourse. However, I really think we can come to a mutual understanding and an appeal (a
variance is really not applicable) will be unnecessary.
I fully support the intent of CAMA and appreciate your difficult position. There must be credible means to achieve a
balance between preserving our resources and development.
Thanks again for agreeing to reconsider our permit... I'll look forward to your reply. Please call me as soon as you can.
Most respectfully,
Travis Day
Travis Shelton Day
Adjunct Professor of Strategy & Entrepreneurship
Kenan-Flagler Business School
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
CB #3490, McColl Building
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3490
[e-mail]
Office: [phone]
Home: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Travis Shelton Day
Adfi-q7ct Profes,sor of
Strategy &• Eneereztrsa
Kenan-Flegler Business School
Uraiver4ky of N=h C.voi"
at chape4 Hil1
travis. day @xincbusiness. net
[phone]
708 Bay Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
From: Styron, Heather M. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Travis Day
Subject: RE: Our Meeting Today
It was no problem at all. Let me know what you decide and have a great weekend! Thanks,Heather
From: Travis Day [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:35 PM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: Our Meeting Today

Heather,
Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with me and my father this morning. We really do appreciate your
explanations and listening to our concerns ... the meeting was very informative and professional. We'll try to get back
with you as soon as possible to let you know our thoughts about what, if anything, we would like to do from here.
Again, thanks for your time.
Very respectfully,
Travis Day

Meeting Summary at Morehead District DCM on July 24, 2009
1. A meeting was held on July 24, 2009, at the office of the Morehead District of the Division of Coastal
Management regarding Travis & Mary Day's General Permit # 54324. The permit was issued on
7/20/09. The meeting attendees were Travis Day, Richard Day, and Heather Styron, Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) Field Officer. The meeting was requested by the applicants in order to determine
and understand the DCM conditions imposed in the permit. The permit had a proposed dock, 368 feet
long extending out into Calico Bay from the applicant's property. The issued permit limited the total
dock length to 248 feet, with 170 feet waterward of the edge of the marsh.
2. The DCM Officer explained that for the site in question, there were 3 basic criteria that required
consideration in approving the permit:
(1) Dock cannot go beyond the established pier head length along the same shore line
(2) Dock cannot exceed 400 feet from high water line
(3) Dock cannot exceed more than 200 feet from waterward edge of marsh
3. None of the other specific conditions of 15A NCAC 07H .1205 were disputed or factors; including
paragraph (c) which had been highlighted earlier in a rules document given to the applicant's agent by a
DCM official. A DCM site survey and prior knowledge by the DCM official concluded there was adequate
water depth, the proposed dock was only a small fraction of the width of the body of water, there were
no impediments to navigation, the area was not a Prime Nursery Area, etc.
4. In discussions regarding getting additional dock length for a planned sail boat, Heather explained that
Travis could apply for a Major CAMA Permit and when approved, the dock would then become the new
established pier length. In the mean time, Travis could build according to the issued General Permit.
5. Heather explained that only the nearby docks on either side of Travis were considered because the
rule addresses only docks along the same shoreline for similar use. The docks farther up into the Calico
Creek area were considered to be on a different shoreline. Heather explained that Travis' dock was
limited to 170 feet waterward of the marsh edge because of only paragraph (b) which prevented
extension of new docks past the established pier head length along the same shoreline.
6. Heather explained that established pier length was based on the average physical lengths of other
docks along the same shoreline. The primary dock affecting Travis's dock was the third dock east of his
property. This dock had a length of 170 feet past the waterward edge of the marsh. Heather explained
that the Conchs Point Dock, (which Travis thought was important) was not much of a factor because its
waterward length past the marsh edge was only about 50 to 80 feet. Heather explained several times
that if an actual average of dock lengths had been used for Travis's proposal, the allowed dock length
would have been with less than the permitted 170 feet.

7. There was a Great deal of discussion regarding what was meant by established pier length and how it
was determined. The applicants felt it was a basically a line along the established pier ends beyond
which new docks could not extend. Travis showed how a line along the docks near his property would
have resulted in his proposed dock being inshore of the Conch Point dock which extended our farther
than all the other adjacent docks.
8. Heather explained that you couldn't draw a line along the ends of the docks because you would be
making up a pier head line and that the rules specify utilizing a pier head length as measured from the
edge of the marsh. Heather explained several times that pier length is calculated as the average
physical lengths of the adjacent docks. Heather explained numerous times that CAMA rules do not
address a pier head line; the rules do address pier head length.
9. There was lengthy discussion on the application of established pier length as it applied to coves and
eroded shore lines. Photographs were provided and Heather drew a diagram depicting that even
though proposed docks in a cove were disadvantaged, not the fault of owners, and created hardships; it
made no difference as far as the application of the rule was concerned. A proposed dock could not be
longer than adjacent docks and extend out to the length of docks next to the cove. Heather explained
that additional length could only be obtained by submitting a Major CAMA Permit.
9.1 Heather drew a diagram (similar to the one below) illustrating CAMA policy in establishing dock
lengths along ashore which included a cove. It was explained that the CAMA policy did not allow the
cove dock to be physically longer than the other docks.

10. Heather explained that if we were unhappy with the conditions of the permit, our only recourse was
to request a variance after submitting an application for a Major CAMA permit and the only way you can
get a variance submitted based on hardship is to have a permit denied. Travis' permit was issued and
not denied so his only next step option was to follow the Major Permit Process.
11. The applicants were not sure this was correct and felt a variance applied to General Permits as well
and could also be submitted without a denial, i.e. could be based on unacceptable conditions. They
provided a CAMA web page stating the policy on variances and appeals. Heather explained this page
was only a guide and not the official rules.
12. During the break, Heather left and consulted with the District Manager; Tere Barrett. She returned
and provided the official rules - a Subchapter 71 document. Heather explained that the District Manager
stated the applicant's web page document and the rules applied to only Major and Minor permits
concerning variances. Heather explained that a General Permit is an expedited form of a Major but in
our situation, we had to be denied before requesting a variance. Our only official next step was a Major
Permit. Heather discussed the Major Permit process explaining that it was more involved, took more
time, and had additional costs.
13. The applicants addressed the responses they had obtained from other DCM District officials from
Wilimgton, Washington, and Elisabeth City. They explained that all these individuals had agreed with
them relative to the interpretation and application of paragraph (b). Heather explained that while the
requirements are the same for all DCM Districts, each case is different and must be evaluated.
14. The applicants asked Heather if she could modify the permit if we provided her convincing
information supporting our position. She agreed that she could but it would have to be done with the
consent of the District Manager who had full knowledge of the details of our permit request. Heather
felt another site visit with the District Manager would probably be required.
15. In closing the meeting, we agreed to probably provide our position to Heather for her consideration.
Heather provided Travis documents on submitting a Major CAMA Permit.

Applicant's Rationale for Modifying General Permit 54324 to the Original Requested Length
(368 feet total, 290 feet waterward of marsh edge)
1. Summary:
1.1 The applicant is grateful to DCM for issuing a General Permit for his dock request. However, the applicant's
request was changed by DCM from a dock length of 368 feet to a total dock length of 248 feet. The applicant is
requesting a DCM modification of the permit to allow the original requested dock length of 368 feet. It should
be modified because the proposed dock complied with all of the General Conditions of 15A NCAC 07H .1204,
and the proposed dock complied with all of the Specific Conditions of 15A NCAC 07H .1205, especially
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (p) related to dock length.
1.2 As determined by the DCM site survey, conditions (a), (c), and (p) of the Specific Conditions were satisfied.
Only the application of paragraph (b) is being disputed. Paragraph (a) was satisfied because the proposed dock
would not have extended waterward more than 400 feet from the normal high water line. Paragraph (c) was
satisfied because the extra length of the proposed dock past 200 feet would have provided access to deeper
water at the required rate of at least 1 foot depth per 100 feet dock length. Paragraph (p) was satisfied because
the proposed dock length would not have extended more than the width of the Calico Bay water body. Even
though disputed by DCM, the proposed dock length would have satisfied the intent of paragraph (b). That is,
the proposed dock length would not have extended beyond the established pier length along the same
shoreline. In fact, the proposed dock length would have been inshore of the closest adjacent dock by about 50
feet.
1.3 The applicant's proposed dock length of 368 feet is the minimum necessary to obtain the water depth for a
planned large boat. The applicant's planned dock length does not extend out into Calico Bay beyond the pier
lengths established by a line connecting the ends of four of the five docks along the same shore line. The fifth
dock, which is closest to the applicant, is the Conch Point city dock and the pier length line intersects this fifth
dock well shoreward of its end (almost the midpoint) because this dock extends out so far into Calico Bay. If this
dock was also used in establishing a pier head line, the applicant's dock could have been proposed even longer.
As proposed however, the applicant's dock does not extend past the other docks and is shoreward of the Conch
Point dock by at least 50 feet. While the applicant's dock will have to be physically longer than adjacent docks,
this is necessary because the applicant's property is on a cove that cuts in substantially from the adjacent shore
line. Even though longer, the proposed dock still complies with all existing requirements under a General
Permit. Refer to the Photo following paragraph 7.

2. Basis of Different Interpretations
2.1 The difference in the interpretations of paragraph (b) between the applicant and the Morehead District
DCM centers on how paragraph (b) is applied; that is, whether paragraph (b) restricts extension of a dock into a
water body by:
A) setting a boundary based on an established pier length (pier head line) of existing adjacent docks along the
same shoreline - Interpretation of Applicant
or
B) setting a boundary based on the established pier length (a calculated average physicallength) of existing
adjacent docks along the same shoreline - Interpretation of Morehead District DCM
Below is a visual representation of the two interpretations:
I
14
2.2 The applicant feels that the Morehead District DCM method B of interpreting and applying paragraph (b) to
his dock proposal is incorrect and cannot be substantiated. The Morehead District DCM interpretation and
application of paragraph (b) can very easily be contrary to the intent of CAMA by extending — not limiting dock
lengths into a water body. The interpretation and application of paragraph (b) by Morehead District DCM
officials is in conflict with that of the other DCM Districts of Wilmington, Washington, and Elisabeth City. See
paragraph 4 below. The interpretations of the other DCM Districts of Wilmington, Washington, and Elisabeth
City support the position of the applicant, i.e. method A in paragraph 2.1 above. In addition, many aerial
photographs from Carteret County support the applicant's argument and do not support the current Morehead
District DCM stated position on calculating and applying paragraph (b).
2.3 The positions and statements of fact were discussed and subsequently documented in the minutes of a July
24, 2009 meeting between the applicant and the DCM Official. The need to limit pier length is acknowledged
as legitimate by the applicant. However, the DCM methodology utilized for the applicant's permit does not
follow the letter or the spirit of rule (b). While a cursory review of all the official CAMA requirements and
documents revealed a number of apparent discrepancies, these discrepancies could not account for the DCM
Morehead District policy and confusion surrounding paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) states in part:
"Piers and docking facilities shall not extend beyond the established pier length along the same shoreline for
similar use." .......... The length of piers shall be measured from the waterward edge of any wetlands....."

3. General Discussion:
3.1 The purpose of paragraph (b) is to limit dock extension out into the water body by requiring that new docks
do not extend out beyond an established pier head line as determined by adjacent docks along the same
shoreline. The phrase "established pier length" used in paragraph (b) clearly relates to a pier line, and not to
actual physical pier lengths, either singularly or as an average. Other official rules and conditions of the General
Permit are designed specifically to address physical length of a specific dock, notably paragraphs (a) and (c).
Paragraphs (a) and (c) identify specific quantitative limits expressed in feet. However, nothing in paragraph (b),
nor any other CAMA rule or guide, infer that calculations of average physical dock lengths is the correct
methodology to ensure new docks do not extend beyond an established pier length, that is pier line. Averaging
the physical lengths of adjacent docks to establish a new dock's length makes little sense, creates many
problems, and is not the intent of paragraph (b).
3.2 Morehead District DCM interprets paragraph (b) to mean that new piers cannot be physically longer than
the established pier length which the Morehead DCM Office defines and calculates as the numerical average
physical lengths of adjacent docks as measured waterward from the marsh. DCM Morehead calculation of the
permitted dock length (past the marsh edge) for the applicant's dock was stated to be based on the actual total
physical length of a single nearby dock. Fortunately, it actually wasn't a calculation of an average; because DCM
Morehead District Manager stated that if they had used an average, their permitted length of the applicant's
dock would have been even less.
3.3 The applicant does not feel the Morehead District DCM Office is correct in stating that CAMA's rules do not
address a pier head line and pier length (average physical length) is utilized instead. There are two reasons:
First: Paragraph (p) of the Specific Conditions addresses the term pier head line and states in part:
".....the proposed pier shall not be longer than the pier head line established by the adjacent piers,....."
Second: Figure 4.9 below from the CAMA Handbook for Development clearly shows a pier headline to
represent a pier length limit, beyond which new piers cannot extend.
0 nor tiers bead
1/4 distarKe o(toss w€rler body
DUSTI G PIER LENGTH
�µa.— —-.-•-"-',.+-.w ,-ww— — w - — ---—————---------

3.4 Regardless of the selection of terms, it doesn't make sense for a multitude of reasons to utilize a calculated
average dock length as the basis for preventing a new dock from extending out past existing docks. One obvious
reason is the disadvantage it creates for docks which may be in a cove situation or have eroded shore lines.
Limiting a dock length in a cove, based solely on an average dock length calculation, is really unrealistic and
creates a hardship. Below is the applicant's version of a DCM diagram drawn during the meeting on July 24,
which depicted their policy on docks originating from coves areas. This approach will encourage dock owners to
seek a longer pier through a variance or a Major CAMA Permit. Because of the obvious hardship, an approval is
more likely. Utilizing Morehead District DCMs method of establishing pier length based on a calculated average
of adjacent docks, the average has increased and this higher average could then be used for all situations, in or
out of a cove. The result overall: docks extend farther out into the water body, not less. This can't happen
utilizing the pier line method. There are several other negative consequences of the Morehead District
approach which will be discussed at a later time.
f
3.5 The applicant does appreciate Morehead District DCM recognition and statement that their rule does create
a hardship (for property owners in a cove) and is not the fault of the property owner. But he doesn't agree with
their application. He also doesn't agree that the applicant' only recourse is to submit an application for a Major
CAMA permit and then submit a variance request when that is disapproved.

4. Discussion on Interpretation and Application by Different DCM District Offices
4.1 The other DCM District Offices of Wilmington, Washington, and Elisabeth City interpret and apply the letter
and the spirit of paragraph (b) as it was really intended. Their interpretation and application clearly supports the
applicant's position. These other DCM Officials are more than sympathetic to owners who are in a cove or have
an eroded shoreline.
4.2 Ten (10) CAMA / DCM field officers from the Wilmington, Washington, and Elisabeth City Districts were
asked by e-mail for their interpretation of 15A NCAC 07H .1205 paragraph (b) as it related to establishing length
for a request to build a dock in a cove. The J h is a cut and paste from one of the requesting emails:
L- o- m o: oo » o- o- o a o 0 o m -• o 0 0 0
• � ® s� o e a- � ® .� -• e o o
ss jrr" ''"' If'" c with all other specific conditions covered by a General Permit, does sub -paragraph "b"
:: osedd'ock fs"tobe'built cuts in"frorii the adjacent properties. Please view the
mple of cutting in. This is not my property, but as you can see from this example
As a result, the docks to the right must be physically longer to et to the required
w r g p Y Y g g
MAP
`.. ep the intent and meaning of General Permit 15A NCAC 07H
4.3 Of the 6 DCM agents who responded directly to the questions, 100 percent essentially supported the
applicant's interpretation that paragraph (b) related to pier head alignment. The IM of the DCM email
responses have been copied/ pasted below. The respondent names have not been included for "courtesy"
reasons. However, as their a -mails are part of public record anyway, if necessary, the complete e-mails could be
provided. The following partial responses from each have been copy -pasted for convenience:
0 0 0 0. .s •e a a o ® oo• 0
o a o • e m • .a -o a .o

0 0 o W W o .o "o o .• s s s s m �.
5. Discussion on Aerial Photographs Supporting Applicant's Position
5.1 Numerous Arial photographs of Carteret County docks are provided below to support the applicant's
position on the intent of paragraph (b). These Arial photographs of Carteret County clearly show that docks in
coves and along eroded / cut -in shores are physically longer, sometimes significantly longer than adjacent docks
along the same shore line. The photographs also clearly show that while these docks are longer than many
adjacent docks along the same shore line, they extend only out to an approximately pier head line established
by the nearby docks. Clearly, the physically lengths of these docks in a cove are not the result of a calculation of
the average lengths of adjacent docks along the shoreline.
5.2 These photographs indicate circumstantially that paragraph (b) has been applied and that paragraph (b) is
intended to ensure that docks do not extend beyond the established pier head line along the same shore. These
photographs indicate circumstantially that paragraph (b) is NOT intended to establish and limit pier length based
on a calculation of the average actual pier lengths of adjacent piers along the same shore line.
5.3 The photographs do not prove that paragraph (b) is intended to ensure that docks do not extend beyond
the established pier head line as opposed to an average calculation of physical lengths. Absolute proof requires
more detailed information that can only be provided from the actual dock permit and from inputs from the DCM
approving officials. More data is required - such as whether a General or Major Permit was utilized, the time
period and date approved (in case requirements changed), length of approved dock, marsh areas, length
calculations and determinations, etc.
5.3 These photographs are just a few of many Carteret County docks that could have been selected to support
the applicant's position. The ones selected may have unique circumstances. Analysis of many more Carteret
County dock approvals may be required to establish proof as to how paragraph (b) was actually applied. More
importantly, a review of approved dock permits from the other DCM Districts counties must be accomplished to
establish consistency within CAMA counties in the interpretation and application of paragraph (b).

5.4 The applicant can obtain Arial photographs of other candidate docks in Carteret County and docks in all the
other CAMA counties as well. The applicant can obtain physical addresses and possible permit applicant names
associated with these photographs, and can provide this information to DCM officials. But as part of the appeal
and discovery process, the applicant will have to request that all the District DCM Offices provide copies of their
permit records for the candidate permits to be analyzed.
6. The information provided above is sufficient (even without requesting records from the other DCM Districts)
to demonstrate that General Permit 54324 should be modified to allow a total dock length of 368 feet, with 290
feet waterward of the marsh edge. The applicant feels that the rules allow this change without having to submit
as the next step a Major Permit application followed by a variance request. The differences on how the
applicant and the Morehead District DCM interpret the use of variance and appeals --General Permit or Major
Permit --are covered by separate correspondence.
7. Proposed Dock Photo and Carteret County Photographs supporting pier head line and the DCM application
relative to coves:

Applicant's Photo of His Dock Proposal

Photo 2

Photo 6
Blair Point, Morehead City
If the average current dock "length" determined new dock lengths, a person building a new dock at the
location specified by the blue arrow would be able to build a much longer dock that extends out past the
other adjacent docks, whereas a person building a dock at the location specified by the red arrow would
not be able to build near as long a dock, and would not be able to get to deep enough water. (This
photo is from Blair Point, across the creek from Travis Day's property.)

Applicants Position on Option to Submit a Variance or Appeal
For a General Permit VS Having to Submit a Major CAMA Permit
In Order to Seek Recourse on a DCM CAMA Permit Decision
1. Background and Summary
1.1 The Morehead District DCM Office issued the applicants, Travis and Mary Moran Day, a General
Permit # 54324 for a dock system on 7/20/09, with the condition that the pier could not be longer than 248
feet. The applicants had requested a length of 368 feet. In a meeting at the Morehead District Office with
a DCM Official on 7/24/09, to discuss the permit, the applicant was told that the only step he could follow
to seek recourse was to submit a Major CAMA Permit and when that Major permit was denied, he could
then submit a variance based on hardship. The minutes of the 7/24/09 meeting are provided by other
correspondence.
1.2 The applicant feels that the information provided relative to variances and appeals may be incorrect
and that CAMA policy documents do allows submission of variances and appeals to seek recourse for
decisions involving General Permits. Based on a review of numerous CAMA documents, there appears
to be numerous opportunities for improvement relative to documenting and advising the public of their
options regarding DCM decisions and the use of variances and appeals.
2. Discussion
2.1 The Morehead District DCM official stated very early and on numerous times during the 7/20/99,
meeting that the only recourse the applicant had if he was not happy with the decision on the issued
General Permit was to submit an application for a Major Permit, and then he could submit a variance
request for consideration by the Coastal Resources Commission when the Major Permit was denied.
2.2 As the DCM official had explained that a General Permit is an expedited form of a Major Permit, the
applicant did not understand why the variance and appeal provisions of a Major Permit would not also
apply to a General Permit. A General Permit is essentially a sub -category of the Major.
2.3 The applicant felt that the CAMA policy did allow the use of variance requests and appeals in the
case of General Permits. During the meeting, a copy of a CAMA web page on variances and appeals
was provided to the DCM Official. It includes the statement:
"If your application for a CAMA permit is denied, or if you find the conditions on a permit unacceptable,
you may petition the Coastal Resources Commission for a variance, or you may appeal the permit
decision."
2.4 The DCM Official explained this page was only a guide and was not the official rules and that she
would provide the official rules. There was a meeting break and the DCM official left the meeting and
apparently consulted with the DCM Morehead District Manager. The DCM official returned and provided
a document which is titled Subchapter 7J — Procedures for processing and enforcement of major and
minor development permits, variance requests, appeals from permit decisions .............
2.4.1 A review of Subchapter 7J did not reveal anything which states or implies that the only recourse
for an applicant of a denied General Permit or an approved General Permit with unacceptable conditions
is for the applicant to resubmit his plans as a Major CAMA permit.
2.4.2 A review of paragraph 15 NCAC 07J .0701 does reveal the following statement:

(a) Any person whose application for a CAMA major or minor development permit has been denied or
issued with condition(s) that the person does not agree with, may petition from the Commission by the
means of the procedures described in this section.
2.4.3 A review of the 07J rules could not find any paragraphs or distinct sections which addressed
APPEALS to a decision, even though the title of Subchapter 7J identified Appeals as part of the process.
3. A review of Section .1100 General Permit Procedures revealed no statements concerning variations or
any implications that an applicant of a General Permit had to resubmit his proposal under a Major CAMA
Permit application if he was seeking a remedy.
4. A review of Article 7 Coastal Area Management was conducted.
4.1 A review of Article 7 did not reveal anything which states or implies that the only recourse for an
applicant of a denied General Permit or an approved General Permit with unacceptable conditions is for
the applicant to resubmit his plans as a Major CAMA permit.
4.2 However Article 7 clearly supports the applicant's position relative to General Permit because
paragraph § 113A-118.1. General permits states:
"(d) The variance, appeals, and enforcement provisions of this Article shall apply to any individual
development projects undertaken under a general permit. (1983, c. 171; c. 442, s. 1; 1987, c. 827, s.
137. )"
5. A review of Section 8 of CAMA Handbook for Development was conducted.
5.1 There was nothing found in Section 8 which states or implies that the only recourse for an applicant
of a denied General Permit or an approved General Permit with unacceptable conditions is for the
applicant to resubmit his plans as a Major CAMA permit.
5.2 Instead, this document states the following:
" If your application for a CAMA permit is denied, or if you find the conditions on a permit unacceptable,
you may petition the Coastal Resources Commission for a variance, or you may appeal the permit
decision."
6. A cursory review of several other documents did reveal significant discrepancies in the CAMA
permitting process.
6.1 The Major Development Permit Process Appendix C flow chart in the CAMA Handbook for
Development included the Appeal process but was missing the Variance process.
6.2 The Minor Development Permit Process Appendix C flow chart in the CAMA Handbook for
Development included the Appeal process but was missing the Variance process.
6.3 The CAMA Variance Request Form obtained from the web site states that an individual cannot
submit a request for variance unless their permit application has been denied.
6.3.1 This appears to contradicts all CAMA policy statements concerning permits which were approved,
but had conditions considered unacceptable by the applicant. This serious flaw in the Variance Request
Form may be the basis for Morehead District DCM policy and statements that the only recourse for a

General Permit applicant is to submit their plans under a Major Permit and then submit a request for
variance once that permit is denied.