33127_STATELY PINES OWNERS ASSOC INC_20030116

E?" AMA / ❑ DREDGE & FILL NO 3 312'7C
GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit#
❑1 w ❑Modification ❑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 714 //cc
R
Applicant Name S�rLk rIu
�,n�% 10,0,E ;,- ASsm i,3
Project Location: County
❑ ules attached.
Address C>- CDt,y CO,
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s) �' U
r� n
City �I Li 13�,,�
State_ ZIPS
�� L ('ctK7,r)ei
Phone #e-/
Fax # (_)
Subdivision S�r���•/f-�
Authorized Agent 2rcr-
n roc ,
City Nl e' J &x'rr'1
ZIP a 5S -'c
EW
ElCW [IPhone
Affected
❑ PTA ©ES ❑ PTS
# O
River Basin 61LcuVer
AEC s : ❑ OEA ElHHF
()
ElIH ❑ UBA ❑ N/A
Adj. Wtr. Body Lip
�� Ye r �% /man /unk�
❑ PWS:
❑ FC:
-�\��
�—
ORW: yes / o, PNA
yes / Crit. Hab. yes / no
o�;
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
Type of Project/ Activity pa
�r3 40 1
t2SL', ZV L5,2
h aelel r Q o n Orcz�
Iti�Cs �"
� l�cn Y1r~ C
(Scale:
Pier (dock) length
Platform(s)
Finger pier(s)
Groin length
-
-4--
number
'
---J-
c^
P P length
R
dtanceoffshore
av�
g
_
I
max distance offshore
Basin, channel _
1
cubic yards
.i.__
-
Boat ram
L
Boathouse/ Boatlift
_- . _
----�--- --- - �--
- --- - ---- ---- -- --
Beach Bulldozing
i
f -` _.
-I
I I
-
►� 8SF'FC rc� .
P P
i
r
Other
�
I _
—
. - -
�1
Shoreline Length .S.?
r
F
Cej'rr
, n cleica
I
SAM not sure yes
Sandbags: not sure )
- ,-
� �
1
{
(� .i� �I ryL-, �` �S Sr�'
(� - - - -
I i __ _t_ --- -
yes
Moratorium: OP- yes no
L
Photos: yesoi
Waiver Attached: yes
--
-- -- - - - --- - ---- -.... _. -
- - -` --
A building permit may be required
by: �f CZdC�9 ��
-Se
[� e note on back
regarding River Basin rules.
Notes/ Special Conditions
��x r�r;r t Oravr-'
Z''*,
n (1 f<n
S Qi7d i'C4r rem L77%eel' C, in C`, r`j„6�1ur4 0-
�/>rt
L: [t1�Ci i rym ct
✓t
wCcr'c -r
c iry&xe
Agent or Wplicant Printed.-
(,`lame
Signa ure* Please read compliance statement on back of permit **
Application ee(s) Check #
PermltOfficer'sSig ature
Issuing Date pirationDate
/+
Local Plan ningJurisdiction Rover File Name

GIF,imagc 795x987 pixels
Subject: Hello from Stately Pines
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:38:58 -0400
From: "lilbep u" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
To Mr Stephen Lane - CAMA
The past and present conduct of the person applying for this permit concerns me. The f(
For the reasons stated above and below, I'm calling for CAMA to deny the present applic
In answer to the form, the setback requirement is not waived. For your perusal, shoulc
Please do a brief 'Reply' on this email, so I'll know I used the proper address, thank:
Sincerely, G V Bepi Cordioli 923 Stately Pines Rd New Bern, NC 28560 Te:
Additional Background
Although Sara Peragoy may not admit this, in reality she does all this work on Parcel
My concern at this point is that if CAMA were to approve this permit, then that would <
I believe that you, Mr Lane, were contacted by a concerned E177 resident on this matte:
My wife and I purchased our lot in mid 80s. Later the land that is now E177 was acquir(
A year -plus ago, although with no mandate whatsoever from E177 owners, Sara Peragoy, w:
go counter to the rules in her own E177 Declarations, and counter to my best interest
But fortunately later in May, Sara Peragoy was confronted by an E177 constituent, and
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
htt2://promo.mail.com/adsfree'ump.htm
From: "lilbep u" <[e-mail]>
Cc:
Subject. Re: Eawment
Date. Mon, 17 May 2004 12:12:07 -If W
Yes, I handed over exactly these same three pages a year ago that you
have now, thanks for replying, Sepi C
---- Origin 1 Massage
From: "" 1- r
Date: Man, 17 May 2004 08:00:30 -0400
To: "lilbep u« <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re. Easement
> Ri Sepi,
> 1 received the legal info that you sent to me. I was able to
rPAr3 thw Anr-„mwnt-sz
1 of 7 6/17/04 1 1:23 A

GIF image,795087 pixels
Slide 177)_" Article I, paragralph 5 defines "subdivision" as " the numbered lots as shown on tha
certain maps or plats recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Craven County in Plat C
E, at Slide 176 and Plat Cabinet E, at Slide 177—. .
Accordingly, only the owners of lots in Sections IV and V are entitled to the rights and privileges
owners belonging to the Homeowners' Association. Technically, the Homeowners' Associatici
individual lot owners, have had the right to utilize the easement across Parcel A as of .January e
On that date, the Homeowners' Association was deeded Parcel A by the Partnership, However
Declaration does not extend that right to those lot owners in Sections 1, 11, or III_ In short, only t1
owners in Sections IV and V are allowed to be members of that Homeowners' Association deli
as Stately Pines Owners' Association, Inc. Lot owners in Sections I, II and i II cannot become rr
of the Homeowners' Association under the July 20, 1988 Declaration_ In addition, those lot owr
outside the Partnership Subdivisions referenced in Document 13 likewise cannot become meml
Second, individual members of the Homeowners' Association have only had the right to enfora
easement recently, after the easement was deeded from the Partnership to the Homeowners'
Association. As you know, the development was begun by S.P. Partnership. Although the
Homeowners' Association has been deeded Parcel A, it is still bound by the Declarations, Docu
In summary, it is my opinion that the lot owners in Sections I, 11 and Ili cannot be members of th
Pines Owners' Association, Inc. pursuant to Article VII of the July 1988 Declaration, and therefc
not entitled to utilize any easement rights of the Homeowners' Association of Parcel A. In addi.
individual members of the Homeowners' Association are entitled to use such easement rights f
time Parcel A was deeded to the Homeowners' Association by the Partnership, Any owners of
which reference easement rights over Parcel A, have access over Parcel A by deed as indicate
Document 11,
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. If you have any questions or comments, pleas
hesitate to give me a call, I remain
Wtrul y r ,
H, Clemmons
G HCls Is
6 of 7 6/ 17/04 1 1:23 A

Print View Page 1 of 2
From: "lilbep u" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc:
Subject: Hello from Stately Pines
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:38:58 -0400
To Mr Stephen Lane - CAMA Jn 14, 2004
The past and present conduct of the person applying for this permit concerns me. The form I was sent is misleading as filled -out, right
where it cites Section (4 and]5, Map CE176 and E]177, simply because Sara Peragoy is not being truthful, in that she has in fact no
mandate from E177 owners to date.
For the reasons stated above and below, I'm calling for CAMA to deny the present application as submitted by Sara Peragoy for
refurbishment of seawall in front of Parcel A, which is adjacent to my property, unless she shows proof that the E177 lot owners FIRST
get to indeed approve such plan, in accordance with E177 Declarations.
In answer to the form, the setback requirement is not waived. For your perusal, should you have the time, I'm adding more
information below, and also attaching several pages as background information .
Please do a brief'Reply' on this email, so I'll know I used the proper address, thanks! Also, please let m2 know your decision when
rendered on the permit application.
Sincerely, G V Bepi Cordioli 923 Stately Pines Rd New Bern, NC 28560 Tel [phone]
Additional Background
Although Sara Peragoy may not admit this, in reality she does all this work on Parcel A secretly from her constituent E177 lot owners,
and acts arbitrarily AS IF SHE ALONE OWNED Parcel A, when in fact she does not. I and most E177 lot owners disapprove of her going
outside E177 for help, because we all have paid extra for our proximity to the river, and value our privacy. The E177 subdivision,
abutting my property, includes some 18 homesites in all. Of these, only one remaining lot still belongs to the SPPartnership. Section 4
consists of only one of these lots.
My concern at this point is that if CAMA were to approve this permit, then that would allow Sara Peragoy to continue in her
mischievious conduct, which in turn represents a sure recipe for trouble in the neighborhood, because understandably, her outside
helpers expect access entitlement in return for their work and expense.
I believe that you, Mr Lane, were contacted by a concerned E177 resident on this matter. He knew nothing about this application until
I informed him. And I came to know only because Sara Peragoy had to notify me, as adjacent owner, as required by law. I expect the
rest of E177 owners though don't know as well.
My wife and I purchased our lot in mid 80s. Later the land that is now E177 was acquired by the SPPartnership and developed. In '92 I
had my home built. Soon later the first few houses went up on E177. In later 90s, the Peragoy's was the 4th E177 home, and it went
in across the street. The Partnership made an exception because it is modular. Presently, there are 8 homes in E177 and another 2
are started. As I recall, Sara Peragoy right away had her eyes on Parcel A and said she wanted to get rid of the privacy fence.
However, I was totally agaist the change. That upset her so that one time she told me she wished 1'd die. (Making my property less
private could be her revenge?)
A year -plus ago, although with no mandate whatsoever from E177 owners, Sara Peragoy, with the help of an accomplice who resides
on Section 2, did in fact remove covertly the fence. This was part of the original construction by the developer, at Parcel A's street -
end. While at it, they took away also a length of the abutting fence, that was set on my property and belonged to me! Her actions
went counter to the assurances as to Parcel A secludedness, which the developer had given us neighbors in the beginning. I feel the
fence should be restored. Then a year ago, I gave her a letter plus a legal opinion on Parcel A access, but she has ignored them
completely since. According to the opinion, only owners in Sections 4 and 5 have legal access to Parcel A. Yet this past May 14th she
disseminated around Sections 1, 2 and 3 a request for help, figuring, I suppose, that with more plentiful would -be -helpers outside
E177, her plans just might be realized. These plans are arbitrary, and
go counter to the rules in her own E177 Declarations, and counter to my best interest, and of E177 owners. This 'within-E177' best
interest I feel should be of foremost importance to the E177 HOA rep, and NOT the outside interests.
But fortunately later in May, Sara Peragoy was confronted by an E177 constituent, and asked to remove a sign encouraging public
access which she had posted, again arbitrarily, in front of Parcel A. She complied right away. So, with the sign finally gone, and
presently, with E177 folks asking that this permit application be denied, the tide may have turned. I feel Sara Peragoy's tenure as
interim HOA rep is shaky right now.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
9 Ib.gif (18.4 KB)
0 cement.gif (30.3 KB)

• ! I
Print View
Page 2 of 2
0 sp.9if (33.9 KB)
0 Il.gif (29.6 KB)
9 12.9if (25.2 KB)

GIF imare 795x987 pixels
P1 �,s-C'
WE NEED YOUR HELP C1Yovn4
The beach access area belongs to all Stately Pines residents
need of HELPERS.
I order to plant sea grass the beach area needs to be clean
storm and hard rain erodes the beach a little more. Planting sea
2 of 7 6/ 17/04 1 1:23 A

GIF image 795x987 pixels
Sara Peragov
HOA Pa
rtnershW sec. 4 S
920 Stately Pines Rd
New Bern. NC
3 of 7 6/ 17/04 1 1:23 A

GIF irnage,795087 pixels
%RCLIS V
IF.�\J[ ITT Pi - Ar-r)�—,v ri.&
4 of 7 6/17/04 11:23 A

Stately Pines Owner's Association, Inc
920 Stately Pines Road
New Bern, NC 28560
Re: Stately Pines Owner's Association,
Inc

GIF image 795x987 pixels
7 of 7 6/17/04 11:23 A

G1F image 295x987 pixels
5 of 7
6/ 17/04 11:23 A