11747_CASPER, IRENE_19930610

CAMA AND DREDGE ANCI�;`
GENERAL `'
JUL 2 3.1993�
PERMIT u
as authorized by the State of North Caroli..«.......................
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15 NCAC
Applicant Name "' ' Phone Number ?Z 2
Address
1
City / State Zip
Project Location (County, State Road, Ler Body, etc.).
Type of Project Activity
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SKETCH
A „" %
Pier (dock) length
Groin length
number
Bulkhead length
max. distance offshore
Basin, channel dimensions
cubic yards
Boat ramp dimensions
Other
I
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,
imprisonment or civil action; and may cause the permit to be-
come 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) this pro-
ject is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2-}.a-_wr+tera-serr}errt-fias-been obtair►ed-from
adjace-r+t--ripar-ian---far+dewp,e ---c�rxif-y4ng--that—t-hey_-haue. -no
o-b,je,r,4en-s--to the proposed wor-k. 11 t. _
In issuing this permit the State of North Carolina certifies that
this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
(SCALE:
It
applicant's signature
permit officer's signature
X, /'If I _0 // . " - 1,
issuing date expiration date
attachments
application fee
/ t'

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources &14 •
Division of Coastal Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C) F H N
Roger N, Schecter, Director
�iffSEP 0 7 19%
September 6, 1994
William C. Young
Rt. 3, Box 584
Hertford, North Carolina 27944
Dear Mr. Young:
On August 31, 1994, I contacted you and offered to meet with
you and other concerned residents of Longbeach Estates to discuss
Coastal Management Regulations and the current request of Robert
and Mary Casper. The Casper's current request includes the
installation of a boat lift, the construction of a set of stairs
and the construction of a platform beneath the existing platform
on the waterward end of their existing pier in Longbeach Estates.
The Division's offer still stands. Should you feel there is
value in meeting to discuss this matter, I will be available to
meet with you and other property owners in Longbeach Estates.
Please contact me if you would desire to get together so we can
set a time and date.
sincerely,
David R. Griffin
District Manager
cc: R. Schecter
P. Pate
file
1367 U.S. 17 South, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of coastal Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
William C. Young
Rt. 3, Box 584
Hertford, North
Dear Mr. Young:
LTI.K;TA
IT
A&4
July 15, 1994
Carolina 27944
3,r
-.. r
14
18 . �QQ4
HOMING-4 v&- - %4 %.— __
Please find enclosed your video cassette containing the
recording of the Casper pier. I have been able to copy it and have
made it a part of the official findings. We are continuing to
discuss the concerns and issues you raised regarding the Casper
pier. A conclusion and decision should be reached regarding the
issues you raised in the near future.
Thanks for allowing us to copy your video recording and thanks
also for your patience as we try to work through this difficult
issue.
sincerely,
David R. Griffin
District Manager
cc: R. Schecter
P. Pate
file
1367 U.S. 17 South, Elizabeth City, North Corolina 27909 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
Longbeach Estates Property Owners
c/o William C. Young
Rt. 3, Box 584
Hertford, North Carolina 27944
�,/ • :�cttQ,d2G •4N4
IDEHNFi
July 20, 1994
Dear Mr. Young and Other Concerned Property Owners of Longbeach Estates:
Thank you for taking time to make a presentation at the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) meeting in Edenton on May 26, 1994 during which you expressed your concerns about
a pier constructed by the Caspers in the Longbeach Estates Subdivision on the Perquimans
River, Perquimans County. As a result, the CRC asked Division staff to inspect the site to
determine compliance with the permit and the need for any enforcement action.
Considerable time was spent researching the issues you raised. DCM staff have
thoroughly investigated the Casper pier, measuring the pier dimensions, taking photographs and
recording the angle of the pier. They met with a number of you on June 17, 1994 and recorded
your concerns. They have closely examined the Coastal Resources Commission's Final Order
on the permit appeal and the CAMA permit which authorized the Casper pier. They have
examined CAMA regulations regarding piers and platforms, and have spent several hours
discussing their findings. The following represents a summary of those findings:
1) The pier was found to be 5 feet wide by 177 feet long which is less than the
permitted length of 200 feet. The platform at the waterward end of the pier is
21' by 21' which is slightly larger than the permitted dimensions of 20' by 20',
but within the size allowed by CRC rule. The pier was constructed 51/2 feet
above the normal water level (NWL) of Perquimans River and the platform was
constructed 11 feet above NWL. The wooden stake and flag which established
the authorized angle of the pier was found just waterward of the platform. Three
unpermitted pilings were found on the west side of the pier near the platform and
two unpermitted mooring pilings were found approximately 20 feet east of the
pier toward the mouth of Perquimans River.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

/1,

Page Two
July 20, 1994
2) The riparian corridors that were established by DCM staff and later approved by
the Coastal Resources Commission offer reasonable and fair access to the waters
of Perquimans River from the properties located in and near the cove area in
3) Drawings submitted by the Caspers with the application for their pier, as well as
pre -construction discussions with them about the pier, provided no information
about the planned height of either the pier or platform.
4) Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) regulations do not prescribe or restrict
the height of either piers or platforms.
5) The CAMA permit issued to the Caspers authorizing the pier and platform did not
restrict or condition the height of the pier or platform.
The responsibility that we have in investigating unpermitted development requires that
we determine if the work could have been permitted according to the same standards that would
have applied if the proper application had been made. Such assessment is particularly difficult
in this situation due to the emotion that surrounds this project and the absence of any rules
addressing the height of structures over water.
Based on our findings, we have concluded that the Caspers have violated CAMA permit
#11747A by constructing additional pilings and mooring pilings and by constructing a slightly
larger platform area than allowed. Enforcement action will be taken to have the unpermitted
pilings removed since they have the potential of unnecessarily restricting navigation around the
pier. The slightly larger platform (21' by 21') is still less than the 500 square feet allowed by
rule and will be allowed to remain.
It is our opinion that the potential impacts of the pier would be the same if it had been
built at a uniform height of 51/2 feet above the water level. Since there are neither CAMA
regulations nor conditions on CAMA permit #l1747A that regulate or restrict the height of the
Caspers' pier and platform, we will be unable to reduce the height of the platform. The
regulation you cited during your presentation restricts the width of piers and platforms over
coastal wetlands to prevent damage to them from excessive shading. It does not apply to the
height of the structure.
I fully understand your objections to the Caspers' pier and platform. However, based
on the existing regulations, there is nothing more that I can reasonably do to address your
concerns. I would add, however, that your concerns and suggestions about the regulations for
piers along irregular shorelines will be forwarded to the appropriate committee of the Coastal
Resources Commission for discussion regarding rule changes and additions. The exposure this
project has given them to the difficulty in resolving access disputes may help improve current
regulations.

Page Three
July 20, 1994
I thank you for participating in our permit process and hope that you understand the
position we have taken in this case. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Rogge checter, Director
cc: Gene Tomlinson, CRC Chair
Erie Haste, CRC Vice -Chair
Pres Pate
File

Z
MEMORANDUM
TO: ROGER SCHECTER
FROM: DAVID R. GRIFFIN iv
SUBJECT: LONG BEACH ESTATES' OBJECTIONS
TO THE CASPER PIER
DATE: JUNE 24, 1994
0006"S.0w........... ft•4.wFdQ0
At the May CRC meeting in Edenton, Bill Young and several other
property owners of Long Beach Estates expressed concerns about a
pier constructed into the Perquimans River by Mary Casper. A
general permit was issued for the pier but was appealed by a
neighbor (Jean Szwed). A hearing was held with the Law Judge
recommending the permit be revoked. The CRC heard the case and
recommended the general permit be issued.
As you may recall the shoreline from which the Casper pier
originates is a cove shoreline with the Casper property being
located in the center of the cove. The residences around the cove
all face toward the center of the cove. Because of the absence of
a defined channel and because of the coved -nature of the shoreline,
riparian dividing lines were established to an "Equal access line"
drawn 250 feet offshore (See attached copy of subdivision plat with
riparian dividing lines drawn). This methodology and the actual
dividing lines themselves were reviewed and accepted by the CRC
during the hearing before them.
Because of the concern expressed by adjacent residents of Long
Beach Estates, Richard Watts and I inspected the Casper pier on
June 7, 1994. We measured the dimensions of the pier, its height
from the NWL of Perquimans River and examined its angle into
Perquimans River. The CAMA stake that was originally set for the
pier alignment was still in the River just beyond the pier
platform. From this and prior photographs we had of the set pier
alignment, we concluded that the pier was constructed on the
approved alignment and within the Casper's riparian access area as
approved by the CRC. Several accessory structures were found in
association with the pier which were not authorized. These
included 2 free-standing mooring pilings located approximately 20
feet east of the pier, and 3 pilings on the west side of the pier
near the platform which were planned to serve for a jet ski ramp.
The pier was found to be 177 feet long with a 21' x 21' platform on
its waterward end. Authorization was provided for a 180 foot -long
pier with a 20' x 20' platform. No mooring pilings, ramps or lifts
were authorized. The attached drawing shows the pier and its
dimensions as we found them on June 7, 1994.
On June 17, 1994, Richard Watts and I met with approximately 10
property owners in the Long Beach Estates to hear their concerns

about the Casper pier. We met with the property owners from 10:00
a.m. to 11:15 a.m. The following concerns were expressed about the
Casper pier:
1) The riparian dividing lines are not accurate and do not
allow all properties equal and adequate access to the
waters of Perquimans River.
2) Pier lengths should be restricted to lengths much shorter
than 200, along coved shorelines where riparian access
areas taper away from shore.
3) Rule T15A: 07H.0208(b) (6) (B) regarding the six foot
coverage of coastal marsh could be interpretted to
restrict piers to six feet in height.
4) The Caspers are interested in extending water and
electricity out onto the pier.
5) The Casper pier should be shortened to allow other
property owners equal access to the waters of Perquimans
River.
6) Rules/regulations should be revised to include height
limitations for piers and/or platforms.
7) When riparian dividing lines are established along a
shoreline, they should be made known to all property
owners along the affected shoreline.
8) Public notices should be posted within a subdivision for
any and all CAMA permit applications and decisions.
9) The Casper pier should be brought into compliance and
liability should rest with the Division of Coastal
Management.
10) The Casper pier provides only at best a 6 inch increase
in water depth for the Caspers from the water depth at
the bulkhead.
The concerned property owners within Long Beach Estates are
expecting the CRC to review these findings and render a decision.
I informed them that I did not know whether the CRC would render a
decision or whether you as Director of the Division would render a
decision. The owners did request a written response to the
concerns they have raised about the Casper pier.
I would recommend that you, Pres, and I (and maybe Richard
Watts) have a conference call to discuss this matter and decide
upon what course of action is appropriate. I plan on sending the
Caspers a Notice of Violation and require that the extra mooring
pilings and the pilings for the ski jet ramp be removed. We need
to discuss the pier height and the riparian line questions.

N �AooPIN`r
\E:t?C�tl1.lMMJS
No PIING
to
/ C Ar IA R S't h K E
Fr}Q �LtC�N►'^ter fT
i t rr
OK
• 3 VAnho,l-3G L�1V-3
1 9
itt tZ Ot`cy"oc, = 5 !D A-taovF- "Lo -
r
QI LINirS ON �u-r 51 D� p>r t)ft OC rN�
SC1�L�-
n
I =30'

I pi- u
ch-c— -E—
I = 3o
0Lk) I
t3o-D M

xx
f,� a Co
S
12 13 -- ov-9 zt Ar. 9
15
* 16 17 ;8 t�.} 15 14 13
' 16
/ ••
+ •- 1 q
16
Ft#Avtl Am
AACES S ��� j �r `�' �'// \• r
�1VlO1A1Cr � �" �• i/-1� (q� � /.t T f� �?-i rA
f / \ y n ` Z3.. M.CASt
z
2 2 .
-f. Ao
i � a
40
7. • (�':i
r Jam.
2
ISO" VIER,
` 4 �
w% zo'x z.o' PARK ' ��' `+ � 3 ' ` tz
PLAr�oR+-A �xtsr (oAl
Bost-T-
h
j
�.1 ST111 Cr f •
Moos��G- 1
S •
r
�o

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
4;
Longbeach Estates Property Owners
c/o William C. Young
Rt. 3, Box 584
Hertford, North Carolina 27944
ova
IDEHNR
July 20, 1994 J U L 2 5 1994
Dear Mr. Young and Other Concerned Property Owners of Longbeach Estates:
Thank you for taking time to make a presentation at the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) meeting in Edenton on May 26, 1994 during which you expressed your concerns about
a pier constructed by the Caspers in the Longbeach Estates Subdivision on the Perquimans
River, Perquimans County. As a result, the CRC asked Division staff to inspect the site to
determine compliance with the permit and the need for any enforcement action.
Considerable time was spent researching the issues you raised. DCM staff have
thoroughly investigated the Casper pier, measuring the pier dimensions, taking photographs and
recording the angle of the pier. They met with a number of you on June 17, 1994 and recorded
your concerns. They have closely examined the Coastal Resources Commission's Final Order
on the permit appeal and the CAMA permit which authorized the Casper pier. They have
examined CAMA regulations regarding piers and platforms, and have spent several hours
discussing their findings. The following represents a summary of those findings:
1) The pier was found to be 5 feet wide by 177 feet long which is less than the
permitted length of 200 feet. The platform at the waterward end of the pier is
21' by 21' which is slightly larger than the permitted dimensions of 20' by 20',
but within the size allowed by CRC rule. The pier was constructed 51h feet
above the normal water level (NWL) of Perquimans River and the platform was
constructed 11 feet above NWL. The wooden stake and flag which established
the authorized angle of the pier was found just waterward of the platform. Three
unpermitted pilings were found on the west side of the pier near the platform and
two unpermitted mooring pilings were found approximately 20 feet east of the
pier toward the mouth of Perquimans River.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Page Two
July 20, 1994
2) The riparian corridors that were established by DCM staff and later approved by
the Coastal Resources Commission offer reasonable and fair access to the waters
of Perquimans River from the properties located in and near the cove area in
3) Drawings submitted by the Caspers with the application for their pier, as well as
pre -construction discussions with them about the pier, provided no information
about the planned height of either the pier or platform.
4) Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) regulations do not prescribe or restrict
the height of either piers or platforms.
5) The CAMA permit issued to the Caspers authorizing the pier and platform did not
restrict or condition the height of the pier or platform.
The responsibility that we have in investigating unpermitted development requires that
we determine if the work could have been permitted according to the same standards that would
have applied if the proper application had been made. Such assessment is particularly difficult
in this situation due to the emotion that surrounds this project and the absence of any rules
addressing the height of structures over water.
Based on our findings, we have concluded that the Caspers have violated CAMA permit
#11747A by constructing additional pilings and mooring pilings and by constructing a slightly
larger platform area than allowed. Enforcement action will be taken to have the unpermitted
pilings removed since they have the potential of unnecessarily restricting navigation around the
pier. The slightly larger platform (21' by 21') is still less than the 500 square feet allowed by
rule and will be allowed to remain.
It is our opinion that the potential impacts of the pier would be the same if it had been
built at a uniform height of 5'/2 feet above the water level. Since there are neither CAMA
regulations nor conditions on CAMA permit #11747A that regulate or restrict the height of the
Caspers' pier and platform, we will be unable to reduce the height of the platform. The
regulation you cited during your presentation restricts the width of piers and platforms over
coastal wetlands to prevent damage to them from excessive shading. It does not apply to the
height of the structure.
I fully understand your objections to the Caspers' pier and platform. However, based
on the existing regulations, there is nothing more that I can reasonably do to address your
concerns. I would add, however, that your concerns and suggestions about the regulations for
piers along irregular shorelines will be forwarded to the appropriate committee of the Coastal
Resources Commission for discussion regarding rule changes and additions. The exposure this
project has given them to the difficulty in resolving access disputes may help improve current
regulations.

Page Three
July 20, 1994
I thank you for participating in our permit process and hope that you understand the
position we have taken in this case. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Roge checter, Director
cc: Gene Tomlinson, CRC Chair
Erie Haste, CRC Vice -Chair
✓Pres Pate
File